Maine Homophobes II

Is it just me, or is the so-called "Moral Majority" not even trying to look respectable or rational anymore? Just a couple of days after I posted my rant about Maine voting to revoke same-sex marriage, this prick called JarodysCampaign -- who lost an election for city councillor down there -- said to me that the definition of marriage MUST be "one man and one woman", that the gay camp was the only one that made it a rights issue, that being gay is a choice... you know, the usual horseshit. And if you think I'm going to just let this be, you clearly haven't seen the show.

Let's start with this business about the definition of marriage "clearly" being between one man and one woman... well, according to who? Depending on which religion or denomination or culture you ask, marriage can be defined as all sorts of combinations of human, not all of them simply one man and one woman. In fact, in ancient times same-sex marriage was quite common, not that the Christian Right will ever acknowledge it, because it requires them to read a book not endorsed by The 700 Club. Jarody's argument that he's helped restore the "original" form is also very dubious, when you consider that the original form not only forbade marrying outside of your race or religion, but by and large women had no choice in who they were going to marry -- AND more often than not, it was done as little more than a business deal. Not to mention it was not only common but expected, that the husband would keep a mistress -- NOT THAT KIND OF MISTRESS! Thank you... The point is, marrying out of love is a fairly new phenomenon, despite what the so-called family values clan says. If anyone out there doesn't believe me, I suggest that you go to a very special building in your town: it's called a library.

Oh and I'd be neglegent if I didn't point out there are parts of The Bible -- like Deuteronomy 21 -- that say it's totally fine for a man to force a woman to marry him, as a sort of war trophy. I'd also be sloppy if I didn't point out that it was totally normal for marriages to happen at age 12, in those days. Wow, how loving and godly.

Incidentally, this same man also claimed that by criticizing a clearly discriminatory point of view like his, I'm being a Constitutional Revisionist. Really? Does that mean he also thinks that mixed marriage, decriminalized homosexuality, women's rights, desegregation, and even the separation of church and state should all be revoked? What about the partonizingly named "Defense of Marriage Act", which only exists to discriminate against gays? By the way, I just love how a guy like him shuts down critics by saying that he won't talk to people who are intolerant -- that's like a Neo-Nazi slamming people who have issues with swastikas.

He's also one of those who dismisses gays as a whole, by saying that being gay is a choice. Um yeah, do you ever notice how you almost always hear this bullshit from people who have either never had a non-judgemental talk with a homosexual, or never willingly talked to one at all? Now I know that science isn't entirely sure what does cause homosexuality, but there are a couple of things that are certain. One is that since it's found in animals all the time, that pretty much destroys any argument that it is unnatural. The second is that there is NO evidence whatsoever, that people actually choose to be gay.

Furthermore, at the risk of ripping off David Cross, try actually thinking this attitude through a little. Even in this supposedly enlightened part of the world, if anyone even THINKS you're gay, then no matter how young or old you are, you are going to be harrassed, assaulted, singled-out, discriminated against, raped, or murdered solely because of what gender you're supposedly attracted to. Not only that, but you can't count on The Powers That Be to do anything about it -- they may ignore your troubles, or simply say you got what you deserved. This includes many of the supposedly moral and upstanding people in the church. Wow, that really sounds like a life I'd want to live.

By the way, don't even get me started on the arguments that "You support gay marriage, so you must be gay", or "What did the Christian Right take away?" Seriously, do you idiots not hear yourselves talk? Do you really not understand how stupid you sound?

The cold-bloodedness and hypocrisy of the "traditional values" people never ceases to amaze me. They call themselves devout Christians more often than not, but even I know that Jesus said to let what is the government's, belong to the government. Kind of like He also said to judge not, lest ye be judged, to live a non-capitalist life, and to live as a community -- not that the Moral Majority likes to hear any of those things either. And let's not forget, they called the same-sex laws in Maine undemocratic, even though they were voted in freely by the elected senate. It seems really convenient to me, that of all the things they could get nitpicky about in politics, it's things that give rights to people they despise for no good reason. I bet you they'd never go to this much trouble, if the same senate declared that only conservative Christians be allowed to vote. Enough said.

Sarah Palin's Delusions

So Sarah Palin's memoirs come out this week -- do your own jokes -- and among other things, she slams the media for supposedly being biased.

Are you freaking kidding me? Even if every reporter outside of Fox News is magically liberal-biased, apparently the thought has never crossed her mind that she wouldn't have been so easily painted as a complete twit if she didn't act like one in the first place. Take it from a seasoned video editor -- you can't create something that big, out of thin air.

I'll also never understand why the die-hard conservatives STILL think that Palin would be good for any public office (even though the Republicans mostly have the sense to stay away from her now). I'm sorry, I do try to be fair to "the other side" when I can, but with her it's impossible: never mind her politics, she's so stupid that she actually makes George W. Bush look like a genius. I don't buy the books claims about her being well-read, there is NOTHING going on upstairs, in any picture or footage I've seen of her.

To be fair, maybe that's not all stupidity -- people have been known to go nuts with cabin fever in remote parts of Alaska, so maybe she just snapped and no one did anything about it. Either way, I wouldn't trust her to keep an eye on an empty parking lot, never mind run a large country and its soldiers.

Tarantino Refund

For a change of pace, here's some random entertainment news: Quentin Tarantino, through the Japanese distributor for Inglorious Basterds, is offering refunds to anyone who finds the movie so boring that they walk out on it. One question: why was this only offered in Japan, for this movie? I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of audiences elsewhere might have wanted that deal too.

Now to be fair, I haven't seen the movie, partly because war movies don't really interest me, and partly because I think Eli Roth is a psycho in real life. However, I have seen Tarantino's last three movies, on the big screen, and they not only bored me plenty of times, but so many scenes overstayed their welcome that I think the only reason the studios didn't recut any of them is because they usually make money. Take the Kill Bill movies for instance -- good stories, fine action scenes, great soundtrack, but there were so many sideplots that had nothing to do with the main story. Not only that, but there were quite a few scenes that made their points, and kept on going anyway.

Death Proof is an even better example; decent acting for an exploitation send-up, good soundtrack, and the chase scene might be the best I've ever seen... but the entire first half of the movie didn't even need to be there. Even in the shorter version wedged into Grindhouse, we spent a good forty minutes hearing a group of stuck-up women babble about absolutely NOTHING, before getting wiped out and replaced with a group of slightly-more likeable stunt-women who babble about... mostly nothing. Honestly, if you search for the chase scene on YouTube, you've pretty much got the best part of the movie right there.

Now look, I agree that Tarantino is clever as a storyteller, and for movies that are usually giant homages they do feel more fresh than much of what comes out of Hollywood, but Midas he ain't. He loves to hear himself write, and his sense of focus and pace are TERRIBLE. Maybe the only thing he's done since Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction that I've liked, is that CSI episode he did a few years ago -- maybe because television is rigidly timed. Maybe he did learn some lessons since then, but I think I'll wait for the DVD before I find out -- that way I might only waste $5 instead of $12. That's it for me.

Maine Homophobes

Remember how Maine voted in the senate to legalize same-sex marriage a few months ago? Well, that didn't stick. There was a referendum on it in several states, and just like in California, the Christian Right saw to it that now, gay marriage is once again illegal. Congratulations, you bigoted fucks, you've once again demonstrated that you're not content to simply try to stop equal rights, you're fine with taking them away once they've either been democratically earned, or given by courts that actually understand what the Constitution is for. Never mind that gay marriage never had any effect on so-called traditional marriage, that churches in America were never forced to perform them, and that gay rights do no harm to families whatsoever -- the idea of sodomites having the same rights as straights is always a bad thing to you. Go fuck yourselves.

By the way, I'd be neglegent if I didn't point out two other problems with their tactics -- leaving aside that they can't possibly claim to not be homophobic when they've personally referred to homosexuals as a cancer. You guys say that legalizing same sex marriage is an assault on freedom of religion, but what about the churches that genuinely have no problem with gay marriage? You just violated THEIR freedom of religion, you hypocrites! Second thing, what would you say to other bigots who would be enabled by your movement, to do any of the following: ban interracial marriage, forbid atheists and pagans from marrying, or even make being gay a crime again? After all, there are those who say that that has to be done, to protect Christian American families, too.

I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no respect for the sort of people who proudly discriminate against total strangers, who've done no harm at all to them, and then have the nerve to say they're protecting family values. The only families that I know of, who teach hate and prejudice, are families in the KKK and Aryan Brotherhood. And conservatives wonder why the rest of the world thinks they're intolerant? Enough said.

About Fort Hood

As we all know by now, an army psychiatrist and another soldier went berserk in the Fort Hood US Army base, killing or wounding about 40 people before being taken into custody.

The disgusting thing is that even more this man was revealed to be of Arabic descent (which Fox News sure didn't hesitate to jump on), there were people commenting on blogs and forums, "This is a war on Islam!" (of course they conveniently forget that just about every other mad shooter or domestic terrorist in American history has been a white man).

Right wingers have accused me and the left of slamming them unnecessarily when it comes to attitudes towards ethnics, but honestly what more proof do you need that North America as a whole is much more racist than it wants to admit? They insist that Islam as a whole is a brutal religion, based on no more than the actions of some fanatics (though of course no one is allowed to judge Christianity on the same grounds). Whenever some kind of trouble erupts, not only do they assume it's a Muslim doing it, but if they are right, they want to just lynch the person on the spot -- no trial, no due process, no nothing. Yet if the same thing happens to any other ethnic or religious group on the other side of the world, we call it a travesty.

Furthermore, when Oklahoma City was bombed, or Columbine High School shot up, I don't recall a single person saying that all the white people and/or Christians should be kicked out or killed. Enough said.

Obama Derangement Syndrome

Peeping Tom in St. Catherines

I've let this slide for far too long. Look, I'm not one of those who insists on fire and brimstone for everyone who commits a crime, but there are a lot of days when someone does break the law in Canada, and I want to smack some of the authorities upside the head for how they react to it. My current favourite is this guy in St. Catherines named James Cedar, who was caught on a security camera peeping into someone's living room, and masturbating while watching two teenage girls. Naturally, their mother called the police, and not only was he charged with criminal harassment, but he voluntarily confessed -- kind of hard not to, mind you, but I digress. You'd think this would be an open and shut case, but for some reason the Crown attorney dropped the charges, and the excuses being given for it just get dumber and dumber all the time.

The first reason for it was -- are you ready for this? -- Cedar wasn't using night-vision equipment, or a ladder, to spy on the girls. Exactly what difference does that make? Peeping on girls is peeping on girls, isn't it? Then the Crown said that it's because this was supposedly his first offence. Now leaving aside for a minute that this is actually NOT true -- he once drilled a peephole at a KFC that he used to work at -- it's not much of a secret that sex offenders have a very high re-offending rate, and that peeping usually escalates into much worse things. A great case in point is Paul Bernardo, another St. Catherines peeper, who is now known as the worst serial rapist and murderer in Canadian history.

But the one that takes the cake is one that was just made public in the last week: the Crown felt there was no reasonable prospect for conviction. Did you catch that alright? Let's recap: James Cedar was caught on VIDEO -- VERY CLEARLY -- snooping around his neighbour's yard, peeking through windows, while he's playing with himself. He confessed to the police what he did. He left finger and face prints on the windows. What more does the Crown need, to actually be there when it happens??

The scary thing is that at the rate this fucker's going, they might get that chance. Ever since all of this started, the man has sued his victims for putting up that security camera, routinely harassed them, and has put up cameras of his own, some of them pointing right at the family's bed and bathrooms. The police have been very diligent about this, but when the local prosecutors don't know their asses from their elbows, not much is going to be done about this. The funny thing is that much of Ontario is asking these chuckleheads just what the hell they're waiting for, and no one seems willing to answer that. That's our justice system at work, folks. By the way, while I'm usually hesitant to take a page from Perverted Justice.com's rule book, if you want to have a word with the St. Catherines Crown office, their phone number is 905-685-4293. Enough said.