Happy Thanksgiving 2009

Sarah-pocalypse Now

All the Youtube and other clips of this have been sucked up, presumably due to copyright infringement.

Perhaps I didn’t look hard enough, but I couldn’t even find this clip on the Saturday Night Live website. (Sure, if you want to go wading through the entire episode, but what if you have ADD like me?).

Countdown’s Keith Olbermann seems to have the only remaining clip.

The Nation’s coverage of the Countdown clip includes this quote which sums up SNL’s excoriating Palin/2012 montage.

Saturday Night Live recently produced a fake film trailer of a movie called Palin 2012, an obvious parody of the doomsday film 2012. SNL's version captures what the world will be like if Sarah Palin is elected President (with Glenn Beck as her VP). On Countdown, Keith Olbermann sounds off on her apocalyptic political career, and what we can really expect in the future.

--Alana Levinson

Also, from the Countdown transcript:

OLBERMANN: The man who was effectively John McCain's campaign manager served it up like the proverbial softball. Steve Schmidt said months ago, if she were the Republican nominee, 2012 would be a, quote, "catastrophic election." Our number one story, Sister Sarah is denied permission to make a speech on a US Army base, but does manage to solicit political contributions while signing books there. "Saturday Night Live" decided to illustrate the motion picture possibilities of Mr. Schmidt's remark: Sarah-pocalypse now.

The "Going Rogue" tour bus rolling into Fort Bragg in North Carolina. Army regulations banning any politician from using politicians for political platforms. But a Fort Bragg spokesman says Palin falls into a gray area because she's, quote, not a political figure per se.

So instead the military offered her a compromise, no speeches, no posing for pictures, no personalized messages in books. But as the Associated Press reports, that did not stop the Palin camp from encouraging donations to her political action committee. Allowing Palin's father, Chuck Heath (ph), to call President Obama's handling of the military, quote, "scary. People used to be afraid of us and respect us. They're not afraid of us and don't respect us anymore."

I guess he's in touch with Kim Jong-il. The scary extending beyond the fort Bragg stop to the Mayan calendar's warning of Armageddon and the Hollywood CGI spectacle chronicling of civilization end. "SNL" pitched perfect.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#34118721

Maine guidance counselor defends right to abuse GLBT students.

Citizenlink 11-24-09 Maine Counselor Called Out for Marriage Support

Don Mendell, a guidance counselor at Nokomis Regional High School in Newport, Maine, is getting flack for appearing in an ad supporting repeal of the state's same-sex marriage law.

The ad:



I have to admit, there must be nothing quite like seeing your High School guidance counselor appear on TV, to express to the world, what a piece of shit you are if you are GLB or T---AND THEN COMPLAIN ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF DOING SO!

Just catching up on my politics...

MSNBC's Countdown puts together uproarious montage of late night Palin jokes:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The Rachel Maddow show puts together a video montage (below) of Media Matters’ documentation and use of the word "rape" to describe the evil liberal agenda--equal opportunity for all:

Media Matters: Conservative commentators such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Michael Savage frequently employ rape metaphors when discussing progressives or progressive policies. For example, Beck said that New Yorkers are "being raped by [their] government," while Limbaugh, during a discussion of health care, told his listeners: "Get ready to get gang-raped again.

And now for Maddow's (and panel) take:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Troglodytes disprove evolution

CitizenLink 11-20-09
Friday Five: Dr. Stephen Meyer, Discovery Institute
by Kim Trobee, editor

With the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species fast approaching, Dr. Meyer explains the holes in the theory of evolution and the magnificent ode to intelligent design.

Dr. Stephen Meyer is director and senior fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute.

Gosh golly gee, Ms. Trobee, what is this Discovery Institute that you speak of?

Wikipedia:

The Discovery Institute is ... best known for its advocacy of intelligent design.

Its Teach the Controversy campaign aims to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses.

The Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis", through incorrectly claiming that it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community.

In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions", and the institute's manifesto, the Wedge strategy, describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".

"What will it take for the scientific community to open up to the possibility of intelligent design?"

Dearest, the burden of proof is on you to prove that Intelligent Design is something that can be proven scientifically.

Intelligent Design is a religion. Defining religion as science is a lie.

And for those of you who are interested in fully appreciating the richness of the deceit and dishonesty of the Intelligent Design movement, watch PBS’s Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial. They have plenty of resources, including a transcript of the show.


Oh, and by the way, since when is “materialistic” science required to prove the already-known "fact" of Adam and Eve?

Lily Allen - ♪ Fuck You ♪

Rick Scarborough on hate-crime legislation: "I’m not here to hurt anyone"

Re; Right Wing Watch.

Anti-Hate Crimes Legislation Rally
Washington, D.C.
November 16, 2009

Compiled Footage of Religious Right 'Rally' on Hate Crimes (Edited)



They isolate gays as being unworthy of hate-crime protection, attempt to hide that fact by pretending that they are against ALL hate-crime legislation, and then claim it’s not about hate.

Rick Scarborough highlights these points, and then some:

Rick Scarborough: But I don’t believe hate-crimes legislation is about protecting homosexuals, I think it’s about silencing alternate speech.

For the first time in American Jurisprudence, we now have laws on the books, and this adds to those laws, where lady justice has to drop the blindfold, speak out, and see who it is that’s being protected, and then mitigate justice based upon one person as being superior to another person. One of our speakers hit that hard and very clear. That’s the problem I have with it.
---
I think it’s much superior to have a life in a world, I should say, or a country, where this group [pro-gay] can have their rallies, we can have our rallies--let the superior idea win.

I’m not here to hurt anyone, or to infringe on anyone’s rights, but I’m going to die protecting my own. And that is the American way.

"justice based upon one person as being superior to another person"

That’s a load of garbage, as he is equally protected under the same hate-crime legislation, as per religion and sexual orientation.

"I think it’s much superior to … let the superior idea win"

That “superior idea” being that GLBT Americans are inferior, a "right" he is willing to “die” for, and considers to be the “American way.”

More on that “superior idea”:

Rick Scarborough: So listen, homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle. Therefore homosexuals, and this is just going to burn people that disagree. But homosexuals by definition are immoral people. They’re breaking the moral codes and standards of God.

Now, if a man will commit the act of sodomy, you can pretty well decide he will do about anything, include lying.

Nope, not hateful or hurtful at all.

Hate houses Churches in Maine threatened by evil homosexual activists FOR NO REASON AT ALL!

11-12-09 by Nima Reza, reporter

Maine Churches Threatened Over Marriage Support

Opponents of Question 1 call on activists to turn churches in to the IRS in an attempt to revoke tax-exempt status.

Ken Graves, senior pastor at Calvary Chapel in Bangor, said..."We've directly consulted the ethics commission here in the state of Maine with regard to our political involvement."

Graves said they must stand up for biblical values.

First of all, notice that this Focus on the Family "reporter," spelled Bible---THE Bible---with a small b. Apparently, Focus on the Family's Nima Reza doesn't think God's Word is worth capitalizing.

As far as "Biblical values" go, we know that by sheer logic, Adam and Eve's children (and possibly them) "committed" incest in order to "be fruitful and multiply."

Also, polygamy is God approved:

2 Samuel 12:8: I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.

And, remarriage is defined as adultery by none other than Jesus Christ Himself:

Luke 16:18: Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

So much for "Biblical values," or should I say "biblical values"

Pastor Ken Graves states that they've reported their political involvement to the "ethics commission here in the state of Maine...". Implying, of course, that his motives were "ethical."

Here's what they had to work with, as per Stand for Marriage Maine dot com:

From the "Myths and Facts about the People’s Veto of homosexual marriage Legislation (LD 1020)" page:

does not discriminate against gays
restores the meaning of marriage
marriage is between a man and a woman.
marriage is between a man and a woman
does not take away any rights from gay and lesbian
Gays and lesbians…enjoy…the legal rights and benefits of marriage
same-sex marriage…redefines marriage for all of society.
Mainers will have to accept a radical new understanding of marriage
healthy marriages will be eliminated
instruct…kindergartners about marriage
teaching our kids that gay marriage is the equivalent of traditional marriage.
marriage is between a man and a woman
gay marriage advocates want to change the definition of marriage
gays living the lifestyle they choose
redefine marriage for the rest of society.
the legal meaning of marriage
definition of marriage
definition of marriage
marriage is only between a man and a woman.

According to that page, they needed to pass this pro-hatred legislation in order to protect their thoughts on the matter.

Meanwhile, over on the "Questions & Answers About Question 1" page, we find mountains more of that same insidious crap, and...

What does a Yes Vote Mean?

It maintains the rights and benefits of Maine same-sex couples who are covered by our domestic partners law. A YES vote does not take anything away from homosexual couples, but protects traditional marriage.

What does a NO Vote Mean?

Maine law will no longer promote monogamous marriages and the interests of children. Marriage’s powerful influence on the betterment of society will be lost.

No longer will the interests of children and families even be a consideration.

would destroy marriage as we know it and cause profound harm to society

Question 1 doesn’t take away any rights or benefits from gay or lesbian partners who are covered by Maine’s domestic partners law.

parents will lose control over what their kids learn in school about marriage and sexual orientation

parents who do not want their children exposed to this homosexual marriage instruction have been denied an opportunity to opt their children out.

As is usual for these morally bankrupt "family" groups, it's a literal feast of distortion, deception and lies.

From their "Fact Sheet" page:

Voting Yes on Question 1, A People’s Veto does three simple things.

•It restores the definition of marriage to what Maine law has always been and what human history has always understood marriage to be. [protect fragile thoughts about marriage]

•It strengthens democracy and places the power to alter or overturn laws where it always should be- with the people. [tyranny of the majority]

•It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage. [protects children from thinking that gays are equal to straights]

Fraud: deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.

Pastor Graves, where in the Bible does it say that God approves of fraud?

Focus on the Family smarter than the AMA

11-11-09

Once again, from Focus on the Family's Citizenlink magazine:

AMA Opposes 'Don't Ask Don't Tell,' Says Gay Marriage Bans are Unhealthy

The country's largest professional organization for doctors takes a position on homosexual issues.

Gary Rose, a consultant with the conservative Medical Institute for Sexual Health, said the AMA should stick to medicine.

The AMA “should stick to medicine” eh? Here’s a Citizenlink quote from last July:

A third major finding of the study is that there is significantly greater medical, psychological and relational pathology in the homosexual population than the general population.

So there you have it. FOTF’s anti-gay Citizenlink knows more about medicine than the American Medical Association.

And in regard to the “study” they speak of:

In short, the study design was so flawed that no mainstream, peer-reviewed, mental-health journal would publish it. And the study’s supposed success stories were gay celibate individuals who adopted false labels to direct attention away from frequently undiminished same-sex attraction.

No cigar, Dobson.

Congress considers sodomizing religious freedom

From Citizenlink: 11-6-09 "Lawmakers Consider Special Rights for Homosexuals"

"ENDA would enshrine special rights"

Indeed, it virtually rapes the "Christian" custom of arbitrary discrimination.

Craig Parshall was the only witness to speak against the bill...Parshall heard cries for fundamental fairness and rights.

"What about the civil rights, the civil opportunities and privileges of private enterprise," he said, "to conduct its business free of these exotic new value systems?"

Exotic: not native or usual; mysterious, alien, alluring, avant garde, bizarre, colorful, curious, different, enticing, external, extraneous, extraordinary, extrinsic, far out, fascinating, foreign, glamorous, imported, introduced, kinky*, outlandish, outside, peculiar, peregrine, romantic, strange, striking, unfamiliar, unusual, way out, weird

That leaves us with quite a range of "exotic value systems" to choose from.

Bill sponsors claim there is a religious exemption in the bill, but Parshall said it won't protect for-profit Christian organizations.

Should we also then assume that Craig Parshall is a “For profit Christian?”

"They will be required to hire… [those] …that violate Scripture's mandate."

And now to use the word mandate in sentence form:

--My mandate and I decided to take a cab instead of driving.

--Me and my mandate went for a walk last week.

--I said to my mandate, yes, and then let us sup and feast from a fancy restaurant...
---
So, at least three idioms here:

1) exotic new value systems
2) for-profit Christians
3) Scripture's mandate

And now back to anti-gay hell on Earth.

Love Won Out protest in Alabama

Ala black Christian news.com:

"They're telling you to hate your child unless he lives the way you tell him to live," said Johnathan Quinn, president of Central Alabama Pride, one of the protesting organizations. "Their literature tells the parents to abandon their children unless they go this route: forcing them to be straight."

[[Melissa] Fryrear, director of gender issues for Focus on the Family and one of the speakers.] Fryrear said Focus on the Family does not want parents to shun homosexual children.

"One of our messages is helping parents stay in a relationship with their gay-identified child," Fryrear said. "Moms and dads shouldn't have to relinquish their religious convictions."

As described above, she confuses the issue by describing same-sex attraction as both an uncontrollable condition, and one that is a chosen identification.

This is the kind of doublespeak that leads me to conclude that Focus on the Family is a corrupt organization.

As I mocked on my facebook page; "Yay! I want parents who love their “religious convictions” more than they love me!"

I JUST WANNA [FUCKING] DANCE: Alison Jiear

Via Anthony Venn-Brown:

DC councilman takes Maryland's Dr. Ruth Jacobs to task on marriage equality

Please feel free to use the transcript of the video below, in full or in part. No credit requested.
--
Re Metro Weekly, Washington DC’s GLBT Newsmagazine:

Public hearing on the “Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009”

Dr. Ruth Jacobs of Rockville, MD, against Gay Marriage Bill, Public Witness at Washington, DC Hearing. DC Council, Monday, November 2, 2009:

Synopsis: Conservative activist Dr. Ruth Jacobs presenting ridiculous testimony as a public witness during the DC City Council's hearing about a pending same-sex marriage equality bill. It's not clear why Jacobs was there since she appears to have traveled down from Rockville, MD, and that she knew nothing about existing District law. In 2007, Jacobs led an effort against a transgender equality bill in Montgomery County claiming that men would expose their genitalia to women and girls, and testifying that the bill would discriminate against ''ex-transgenders.'' During a questioning period, she admitted to Council chair Phil Mendelson that she had no evidence of her claims of a connection between same-sex marriage and HIV infection. Councilman David Catania asked her what gay male sex had to do with lesbians and marriage, especially since lesbians have the lowest rate of HIV infection. Jacobs became flustered and said she wasn't there to talk about that fact. (City Council via Office of Cable Television)



Full transcript. Note, I’ve skipped the first 41 seconds provided in the Metro Weekly article (all of which is reiterated below). Again, please feel free to use this transcript, in full or in part. No credit requested.

Beginning @ 41 seconds:

Council chair Phil Mendelson: Dr. Jacobs…

Dr. Ruth Jacobs: My name is Dr. Jacobs. I’m an infectious disease specialist, and I have seen the pain and hurt of the AIDS epidemic. This has been identified as one of the most sever health problems facing the District. It’s a generalized and severe epidemic, affecting the good citizens of D.C. A shockingly high number of 6% of heterosexual black men, 3% of black women, and Hispanic men in the District are HIV positive. But this number pales when compared to 46% of black and 20% of men who have sex with men who are HIV positive. The immediate action of passing the same-sex marriage bill 18 40 82, is to normalize, predominantly, homosexual activity, such as anal sex, and require the promotion in school as a legal normal activity, and part of the sex education.

We have a man who lost his daughter in Massachusetts for simply expressing disagreement with same-sex marriage. Brookstone’s termination letter to Peter states that “In the state of Massachusetts, same-sex marriage is legal.”

The Centers for Disease Control, Federal [drug?] Administration, and Nation Institutes of Health tell us that while new HIV infections have decreased among both heterosexuals and injection drug users, the annual number of new HIV infections among men who have sex with men, has been steadily increasing since the 90’s. The Surgeon General has stated “condoms provide some protection, but anal intercourse is simply too dangerous to practice,” and this is on an updated FDA website. Anal sex has higher HIV transmission than vaginal sex. Estimates are as high as 1 life altering HIV deadly conversion for every 20 anal sex acts. The people of the District who are already suffering more than anyone who should suffer from HIV / AIDS, should be able to vote on bill 18 40 82. Who will speak truthfully about the risks of same-sexual activity in the Districts after 18 40 82 is passed, who will protect the children? There are more new HIV infections among young black men who have sex with men, age 13-29, than among any other age group, and racial group of men who have sex with men.

In a Washington Post article, “AIDS Crisis: serious times calls for serious measures,” the author exhorts “down low brothers, to don’t go so low as to become a murder too.” The people of the District who are already suffering more than anyone should suffer from HIV / AIDS, should be able to be informed about the risks, and vote on this issue, which is of life and death importance to themselves, their families and their children. Let the people vote.

Council chair Phil Mendelson: Thank you Dr. Jacobs and Reverend…

Dr Jacobs: The anus was designed for exit, not entrance.

Council chair Phil Mendelson: Dr. Jacobs, I had one question for you. Did you attach to your testimony, or do you have any research that’s been done with regard to the effect on HIV / AIDS, which is the essence of your testimony, in the 6 states that have legalized same-sex marriage?

Dr. Jacobs: I don’t have those statistics, but I know that there has been people from Massachusetts that have been saying that they feel that there are increased funds being spent. But, I think the immediate effect of any law---all of these are all 1 or 2 years---is the longer term and right now, for example, in Montgomery County, there are various classes of people may or may not accept. Once this becomes law, it is part of the health education. If you want to avoid your child being taught that anal sex is just as safe as vaginal sex, you can opt yourself out. Once this [is] law, you will not be able to opt yourself out.

Council chair Phil Mendelson: Thank you. Mr. Cantania, do you have any questions?

Councilman David Cantania: I do Mr. Chairman, I just have to respond. Miss Jacobs, are you a District resident?

Dr. Jacobs: No, I am an infectious disease in Rockville Maryland, but I do have patients that come from the District, and I have become involved in the schools because of concerns about that.

Councilman David Cantania: You’re not a District resident?

Dr. Jacobs: I am a physician who cares for people who come from the D.C.

Councilman David Cantania: Now are you aware that homosexuality has been taught as pursuant to regulation since 1979 in D.C. public schools, but marriage is not now, nor has it ever been part of the curriculum, and nothing in this legislation would require it to be part of the curriculum?

Dr. Jacobs: In terms of, once it is the law---in Massachusetts, when it became the law---anal sex became taught as part of the curriculum as normal and healthy.

Councilman David Cantania: Dr. Jacobs, we’re talking about the District of Columbia, which is about 1000 miles south. Nothing in our law that we are passing today would require anything about marriage to be taught. And isn’t it also true that in the District, pursuant to our regulations and long standing law, that all sex education materials are to be shared with parents? Parents have the authority to object and to take their children out of sex-education in the District. Which is different than in Massachusetts. Are you aware of that, Dr. Jacobs?

Dr. Jacobs: I am aware that students are terrified to be taken out of sex-ed. They get on the knees and beg to their parents to be included. Because to be outside, is to be labeled as the conservative. To go to the library, while everybody else is in class, having sex-ed, means you are then, you then become--when you refuse to go to sex-ed, you then become the group that is discriminated against.

Councilman David Cantania: Dr. Jacobs, our law is very clear, parents are given the authority to pre-approve and to withhold that certain instructions from their children, it’s been a long standing part of our municipal regulations. I somehow thing that that is, it’s a nice compromise that respects the importance and the prerogative of the parent, while also allows us to have a curriculum that is consistent with the law of the city.

I’m a little perplexed, to be honest, by your legislation. You seem to be implying that because there’s a high rate of HIV among gay men, white or black, that that in and of itself should disqualify the population from the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Is that your testimony?

Dr. Jacobs: My testimony is that there is a significant risk to anal sex. The anus was designed for exit, not entrance. And when you normalize marriage, I’m telling you…

Councilman David Cantania: Dr. Jacobs, we’re on limited rounds. I know you’re new to the District, but the way it works here is, we ask questions of the witnesses. And so, if your testimony is that you’re only eligible to marry if your population has a low HIV rate, then the first in line, because the lowest HIV incidents in the city, according to our 2008 epidemiology, are lesbians. So based on your testimony, then we should only marry lesbians.

Dr. Jacobs: This is not my argument. I am putting… You haven’t allowed me to speak, Mr. Catania.

Councilman David Cantania: Ok, well then please, enlighten me.

Dr. Jacobs: You asked me if this--what I gave is a specific piece of information---as an infectious disease specialist---which raises concerns for me. And I think that the people of the city should be allowed to be aware of this information, and to vote. They may choose to say something, such as marriage and the vagina and the penis are designed to go together, and the penis and anus is not.

Councilman David Cantania: Dr. Jacobs, thank you very much, I think the people of this city are entitled to decide whether or not they marry someone of the same sex or the opposite sex, and that’s what this is about.

Dr. Jacobs: Yes, I hope they will get to vote.

Councilman David Cantania: I wish we would have had same-sex marriage 30 years ago, to be perfectly honest. Because I think there would be thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of gay men who would be married and alive today if this society would have afforded them the same equality, and the same normalcy, and the same dignity, as is afforded opposite-sex couples. I believe, had in 1977, when the first marriage equality bill was introduced in this council, had it passed, had we exposed gay and lesbians to an appropriate dignified avenue to channel their love and affection, we would have far fewer people dead today. Than you Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Jacobs: May I respond?

Council chair Phil Mendelson: No, there’s not a question.
---
PS, on an inspirational note: