Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Drill Baby Drill



What could possibly go wrong? How could a plan that expedites untested technology on the deepest well ever in order to speed up production have any flaws? Surely BP was completely prepared for any contingencies and thought everything through... otherwise they'd never be able to get this spill under control in only 6 months.

No, really, why should anyone be concerned with gulf coast mom and pop shrimpers, fishermen, tourist-trade folk or anyone else down there who just walks away from a multi-generational family business just because of a little oil and a few tar balls? They were just waiting for an excuse to get unemployment. They're just lazy socialists. We can make fun of them now for being dumb enough to think the government can or should save them. Let's face it, they don't contribute to national campaigns anyway. And we can always find some other beach at which to vacation... who needs the Gulf of Mexico? Or the southern part of the east coast?



Seriously, what could go wrong with a plan to burn up every last drop of fossil fuel, watch the world come to a screeching halt, and THEN start thinking about alternative fuel sources? If we came up with something better than that, then it wouldn't work to say such genius things like "the Democrats only want you to have power when the sun shines or the wind blows... their energy plan is for you to drive a smaller car."

Besides, who would ever want cheap, clean energy that doesn't melt glaciers or destroy mountain tops or drop acid rain? How else would we fade the paint on our cars and houses without acid rain?! There's simply no reason to question the sound thinking and firm logic behind Drill Baby Drill!

I'll ask it one more time, Treehuggers, why do you hate America?!

Luth,
Out

Thursday, May 06, 2010

Still Think Sexual Repression Is a Family Value?

If you're like me, and let's face, not many are... wait, where was I? Oh yeah, if you're like me, you too probably think "that dude spends more time in the closet than that snowman sweater my grandma sent me for Christmas in 1983" any time you hear some righteous Righty extolling the evils of homosexuality. I honestly can't believe anyone even says anti-gay shit in public anymore. It's practically the first alert that they'll soon be caught in or coming out of the closet. Funny thing is, if they weren't such hypocrites, no one would care these days. Most of us are beginning to understand that folks are the way they are. Those who believe in God understand we don't understand how He or She makes us. Those who don't believe know that arbitrarily created and randomly enforced "morals" don't count for much anyway.

So when the world learned this George Alan Rekers guy, who advised W, worked with James Dobson, and built an empire of anti-gay BS, hired a gay prostitute to accompany him on a European vacation, it wasn't all that surprising. What's surprising is how many people don't get the connection between the hypocrisy of his behavior and the religious guilt and repression that almost inevitably leads to it. Heard the one about the Catholic priest and the altar boy? Yeah, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

When your mission is to guilt people out of natural, instinctive behavior, you're bound to end up with some unwanted side effects like fanning the flames of AIDS in third world countries because condoms are evil ( ahem Mother Theresa ahem) or steering pedophiles into the calling because "normal" men aren't really interested and women aren't allowed.

Look, Reker's Freddy Mercury moustache means only that he likes moustaches. It was his vehement and vociferous anti-gay crap that tells us all he didn't hire his boy toy to carry his luggage. And I don't think he was trying to save the young man either... at least not in any Christian way. As funny as it is to make jokes about this guy, it's scary that he has in fact shaped American legislation. He's advised the Department of Health and Human Services, was instrumental in Florida's gay adoption ban and the Family Research Council that he co-founded with James Dobson serves as an initiation for any Republican who wants to run for national office. I really don't care if he likes boys, what scares me is that he helps make laws that tell others they shouldn't. Thank goodness the story gets funnier or I'd begin to think we were in an Orwell novel.

Even funnier: speaking of values, a recent report indicates Blue states seem to be better at family values than Red ones. Who'd a thunk? Don't believe it? I wouldn't either, so don't take my word for it. An article in National Journal Magazine notes the following strange stats:

Six of the seven states with the lowest divorce rates in 2007, and all seven with the lowest teen birthrates in 2006, voted blue in both elections. Six of the seven states with the highest divorce rates in 2007, and five of the seven with the highest teen birthrates, voted red.

What's even funnier still is how a couple of professors (and, granted, one is from the insanely liberal George Washington University and the other is from the even more insanely liberal University of Missouri's flamboyant Kansas City campus) explain the phenomena. I'll have to use their quote because it's precious, but after this, you'll have to read the rest of the article on your own cuz I'm going back to blabbing about it...

In red America, families form adults; in blue America, adults form families.

Or at least that's how it used to be. In other words, Blue folks wait until they are adults to have kids and form families, but Red folks, who cling to 50's morals and birth control technology, have babies while they're still kids and then the family responsibilities turn them into adults. Only problem is, modern society no longer forces them to stay married so instead of learning how to be adults by stepping up to the responsibilities of their unprotected fornicating, they walk away. (for further anecdotal evidence, see "Alaska" or "Palin")

Hey, don't be mad at me, these are social scientists observing the real world and saying this stuff, not me.

I actually have a number of problems with this aside from the obvious things like: a) no state, city, street, or even one-bedroom apartment is completely red or blue, b) even red folks have learned to ignore ridiculous rules about who should use birth control, c) even blue households include single moms and fatherless kids, 4) this crazy new idea of allowing women in the workplace now allows them the option of escaping dangerous or worthless husbands more than they could in the 50's (and that's a good thing) in both red and blue households, etc. and so on.

But the real problem I have with it is that someone, somewhere, will miss the point entirely and assume it means that we should look to Democrats for values.

What's wrong with that, you ask? After all, they apparently follow the "values" that Republicans pretend to, right? I'll tell you what's wrong with it: The same thing that's wrong with anyone telling me how to run my house. Values are individual, cultural, religious, historical, social, physical, you name it. What's important to you may never be important to me (BMWs for instance). What's important to me may never be important to a desert nomad who has never heard a White Stripes song. So don't tell me what I should believe, or how I should raise my kids, or how to have sex, or whether I should ever get married...(that actually sounds pretty conservative, don't it?)... whether you're a Democrat, a Republican, or Ghandi or Elvis. It's not up to you. And it sure as hell shouldn't be up to a political party. They're second only to organized religions when it comes to mass damage through values imposition. (The HUAC, The Inquisition...)

When it comes to the values of a community, it's best to keep it simple - do the most good and the least harm. Or just leave people alone. Seriously, what difference does it make in your life if your neighbor is a lesbian... or your pastor ran off to Europe with a gay prostitute... unless you're jealous!

Luth
Out