Archive for the Uncategorized Category

Mother nature flips the bird

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , on March 10, 2009 by la tricoteuse

Or, rather, the duck. Two endangered blue ducks, Ben and Jerry, have chosen each other over ready-to-make-duck-babies female duck, Cherry. Aw. According to Paul Stevens of the Arundel Wetland Centre in Sussex (UK), the two male ducks exhibit typical mating behavior towards each other, and spend all their time together, paying little attention to the female in their midst.

I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before the intolerant fundie nutnuts find some way of twisting this around, but Ben and Jerry are pretty clear evidence that homosexuality occurs naturally in non-humans as well as humans, and that it is not a choice.

Unless we’re expected to believe that ducks make the conscious decision to bat for the other team, or that they watch too much Queer as Folk, or are brainwashed by their little leftie liberal duck teachers in their little duck schools to think that being gay is a-ok, leading to the eventual downfall of Duckkind, as the whole of Duckdom throws morality to the wind and begins copulating furiously with every same-sex duck they can clutch in their limp-feathered, glitter-spangled wings.

Is that really the more likely explanation?

Dipshit Tea Party

Posted in Uncategorized on March 3, 2009 by la tricoteuse

Surprise surprise, conservative right-wing types are protesting Obama’s spending plan.

The main problem? OH NOES SOSHALIZM WHY I HAS TO HALP NAYBOR?

The way they’re choosing to go about protesting it? Reenacting the Boston Tea Party, which (as anyone who has ever studied American history ever in the history of their lives ever for a second should know) was a protest by colonists of the (then) new world, who were still subject to the British crown but unrepresented and uninvolved in the decision-making process concerning their own lives. They didn’t want to pay the hefty, unreasonable taxes being imposed on tea imports, and were not being legally permitted to import tea from other, less expensive sources. So they revolted and threw a buttload of tea into Boston Harbor (a somewhat childish and wasteful way to go about things, but also effective).

Are protestors suggesting they are an unrepresented minority being taken advantage of by a distant and uncaring monarchy? Because the last time I checked, we all got to vote. And we chose our president. And he’s trying to do something that actually creates instead of destroys for once.

Where were the tea parties when your precioussssss tax money was being spent on destruction? Why no protest when bloated war budgets were thrown at you?

Can it really be so simple as preferring that which helps NO ONE to that which helps someone who isn’t you? Are you really that selfish, “conservative America”?

Does anyone actually believe that (clearly scripted and staged) nonsense from Santelli about “paying for your neighbor’s extra bathroom”?

Because I didn’t see that anywhere in the proposal, did you?

Yes, Kimberlie, there is a Santa Claus

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , on February 20, 2009 by la tricoteuse

…and anyone who says different will be prosecuted!

By now, plenty has already been said/written about this. Some crazy lady in North Bumblefuck, Washington has gotten together with her equally crazy pals to draft an initiative that would effectively outlaw atheism. She wants to deny public funds to any activity, demonstration, leaflet, instruction, scientific endeavor, etc, that “denies or attempts to refute the existence of The Supreme Ruler of the Universe.”

Seriously.

This means you, public schools. This means you, science class. This means you, buses and billboards and public buildings.

Putting aside, for a moment, the obvious absurdity of this proposal, the arched-brow amusement with which we greet the mere suggestion that such a thing could pass, and the terror  at the possibility that it might,  who is this Supreme Ruler? Do we each get to pick our own, thereby receiving carte blanche to print, circulate, teach, and advertise whatever we want as long as it doesn’t disprove the existence of our chosen Ruler? Do all proposed Supreme Rulers get equal consideration here? Can I sue a colleague for denying the existence of my chosen Supreme Ruler in order to champion his own?  

Or is this (gasp!) just another thinly-veiled attempt by Christian Fundamentalists to silence opposition and dissent, to prevent any side being heard but theirs, in the fearful knowledge that it just doesn’t stand comparison. 

Isaac Asimov would probably think so. In his book of essays, The Roving Mind, published in 1983, he was already talking about attempts to get Creationism taught in schools, under the battle cry of “equal time.”   His opinion on the subject:

“And they want ‘equal time’? Don’t kid yourself.  They want all the time there is. One can see why, too. Their case is so weak, so nonexistent, in fact, that the only way they can feel sure of maintaining it is to have their victims never hear of anything else.”

He goes on to say:

“It is not merely creationism that we are fighting in this matter. Behind it are the old enemies of bigotry and darkness, and we must not complain about this endless battle.  The price of liberty, said Jefferson, is eternal vigilance.”