Thursday, January 31, 2013

Holy Homophobic

I was thinking of something to write about in this post, and thought, "maybe I could write about how it seems like homophobia is finally starting to subside..." Well, then I saw this article on Huffington Post, and thought, "holy bologna! I have never been so wrong in my life."

I'm not gay! Not that there's anything
wrong with that...
A guy in Tennessee sent his dog to be put to sleep because he thought he was gay. Let me write that again. A guy in Tennessee sent his dog to be put to sleep because he thought he was gay. First of all, the ridiculousness of a dog being gay because he humps another male dog (a classic sign of dominance,) is not lost on me. The worse part is that this guy thought that the dog should die because he wanted to hump another dude. 

There is evidence that dogs and other animals can, in fact, be gay. There is stronger evidence that this owner was a total a$$. 

Thank goodness somebody else adopted this little baby, and he wasn't put to sleep just for doing something that feels totally natural to him. (Dogs hump other dogs. It's a fact.) Feels totally natural to him. Let's go with that.

Why are we so scared of gay people in this country? Why is it so scary/threatening/icky to so many people? I am very understanding about other people's ideas and opinions, but I will never understand why there is so much hate for the gays. The Bible says it's wrong theories don't hold water, and I strongly believe it is just the "ick" factor. Well let me tell you something, straight people- I don't want to see you make out in public either, but I don't think it should be illegal. 

taken from
Legislating lifestyles and sexual choices is something that is only ever largely tried by the freedom-loving right. (I know I am like the millionth person to point this out, but it seems like people still don't get it.) If you are reading this and believe anything on the following list, please comment and tell me why. I literally cannot understand this kind of hate.

Why is it so threatening? 

1. Gay people should not be able to get married because it threatens the sanctity of marriage.
2. If gay people are around, I could "catch" gayness or some kind of sexually transmitted disease.
3. God will punish me if I go along with this gay thing.
4. Natural disasters happen because God is mad that we are so darn tolerant of those gays. 
5. Gay people do disgusting things in their... own beds...
6. I am afraid a gay person will hit on me.
7. I don't want to associate with a gay person for fear that others will think I am gay, too.
8. I am scared that maybe I am gay, too, but would never say so. 
9. Any other reason you don't think gay people deserve the same legal and human  rights  as everyone else.

For the record, I do think we are finally making some strides in changing people's minds about what it is to be gay and why every single person deserves the same rights as every other person. Of course we are still a country of scaredy cats- we are still racist, we are still afraid of people with other religions, and we are still scared of people with physical and mental disabilities. The difference? We have never created legislation to exclude these groups from participating as full citizens.

So, what's the deal, you little homophobes? Why is gay so scary that you are willing to kill your dog?

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Glenn "Bologna" Beck

Want freedom? Add a gate! Get rid of competition while
you're at it. I am soooo conzervative!!
taken from
I haven't heard much from Glenn Beck recently. He used to be the "it" guy on Fox, remember? Now he is on some weird internet channel talking his usual nonsense to nobody some people, I guess...

I have always considered Beck to be full of bologna, but since he hasn't been around lately, I thought, "hey- maybe there's a small tiny improbable possibility Glenn Beck has gotten his bologna together, after all."

He hasn't.

Did anyone else catch this segment on The Daily Show the other day? Not only does it exemplify the wackiness that is Glenn Beck, it does a great job of showing the hypocrisy that the right denies but is so, so full of.

Lazy post? Maybe. Video worth watching? Absolutely!

The Daily Show with Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
America 2: Now With More Freedom - Glenn Beck's Utopia
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogThe Daily Show on Facebook

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

God Dammit, Senator Graham.

Ten hours listening to these people? Bunch of liars
and kiss-asses. It's gonna be a long day...

taken from
What happened in Benghazi was horrible. Misjudgments were made by many, and of course there is plenty of blame to go around. The way the Senate Foreign Relations Committee treated Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last week was also horrible, and I was glad to see that they didn't get away with it in the media. Their idiotic rude, repetitive questions and outright disrespect for her did not go unnoticed by media pundits. The Benghazi thang was kind of blowing over, in large part because of Secretary Clinton's well-made point about Congress being too screwed up failing to approve the requested amount of money to adequately fund security at American embassies. (You go, Secretary Clinton! I loved the committee's faces when she said that.) 

The Senate approved John Kerry as the new Secretary of State today with the support of 94 Senators, including Senator Lindsey Graham (R) of South Carolina. Now, I have never been a fan of Senator Graham- (I mean, really, what's to like?) but I was especially horrified by his ridiculous claim to Greta Van Susteren, of Fox News, that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton "got away with murder." (Not a very nice going away present, huh, Madam Secretary?) Excuse me, got away with murder? Interesting, I thought it was crazy Islamist militants who did the murdering...

Funding, Shmunding.
She should have protected them, anyway.

taken from
"I haven't forgotten about Benghazi," Graham said. "Hillary Clinton got away with murder, in my view. She said they had a clear-eyed view of the threats. How could you have a clear-eyed view of the threats in Benghazi when you didn't know about the ambassador's cable coming back from Libya?" Yeah, Secretary Clinton, if that is your real name, and why didn't you have more security in place, huh? Inadequate funding on the part of who? Congress?       


I suppose it is politics as usual, and I should not be surprised at Senator Graham's untrue bogus ridiculous assertions. I just can't help it. Hillary Clinton was a superb Secretary of State by all accounts. She repaired relationships all over the world that were strained during the Bush years, and accomplished a whole lot in four years. So, how dare Senator Graham taint her last days as Secretary of State with this nonsense? If you do a search of Hillary Clinton's Legacy right now, it is tarnished by Graham's sentiment and talk of the attacks in Benghazi ruining the otherwise impressive job she did, as if it were all her fault. Do I have to be the one to say that it's because she has all those icky lady parts? Well, I said it. (It also doesn't help that she has a (D) after her name.)

God dammit, Senator Graham. You took a horrible situation and made it worse. I have a feeling you aren't leaving any time soon, but- you look a little tired. I hear Florida is a nice place to retire to, if it's still there...

Monday, January 28, 2013

The Southwest: The New South

What is the deal with southwestern states these days? In my short blogging career I have already written about pending legislation in New Mexico, and everyone remembers the horrendously racist iffy legislation that was passed in Arizona in 2010, "The Support Our Law Enforcement & Safe Neighborhoods Act." (Ha!) Well, Arizona legislators are up to their old tricks again, with the introduction of House Bill 2293

State Representative Steve Smith, a House Republican, says that he introduced House Bill 2293 in order to find out how much money the state spends on the treatment of immigrants, and that it in no way aims to crack down on illegal immigration. “It’s a data collection bill, that’s what it is...That’s it. We don’t deny anybody. They don’t come in and not get treated. Everything stays the same, we just want it documented,” Smith told ABC. Sounds reasonable, right? Well, there are lot of groups who say it is chock full of bologna.

Look familiar? 
The Arizona Hospital & Healthcare Association says the bill will disrupt work, and rhetorically asked what other industry has to take the time to screen their customers for citizenship verification. Absolutely a reasonable point. But here's where my main objection to the bill comes in- it is blatantly racist. 

Smith portrays the bill as a way to collect data on people who are in the country for one reason or another, just for kicks- just to see who's here and how much money Arizona spends on healthcare for non-citizens. Then why, Representative Smith, does the bill exclude Canadians from providing documentation of immigration status to receive care? All they will have to do under the new legislation is prove their Canadian citizenship. The same would apply for people who are citizens of countries that participate in the Visa Waiver Program. Twenty-nine of the thirty-seven countries who participate in the VWP are white European, and none of them are brown Latin American. To be clear, this program does not establish any kind of legal immigration status to travelers, it just allows them to stay in the country for ninety days without a visa. Ahem. 

If you are an illegal immigrant, we will be happy to 
treat your wounds/illnesses/sick children, 
but we are now required to turn you in 
to the police or ICE. What do you mean you don't want 
to come to the hospital? What do you mean you'll take 
your chances with a communicable disease? 
OH! You're from Canada! Why didn't you say so? 
Come on in! 
taken from
When asked about these discrepancies, one of the bill's sponsors replied, "There's a lot of good relationships we have with Canada, legally, there's lots of reciprocity...If you have Canadian papers, you're deemed legal in the United States." Reciprocity? With regard to trade, perhaps, but this is simply not true! It is true that Canada is part of the Visa Waiver Program, but it is not true that it is easier for Canadian citizens to become American citizens, or that having Canadian paperwork deems one "legal" in the United States. It seems that what he meant to say was, "There's a lot of good relationships we have with Canada, they're white, and we aren't scared of them." 

What's the big deal? So they know you're not a legal citizen, so what? They will still treat you and give you the medical care you need! Yes, it is true that the bill does not go into details about what will actually happen with regard to specific penalties. However, and here's where the claim that "it's just for data collection, silliez" falls apart- the bill REQUIRES hospitals to report brown people those people who are unable to provide documentation or proof of citizenship to Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE,) or to local police. (Excluding Canadians and people from countries who participate in the VWP, yah?) 

Arizona, Arizona, Arizona...why on Earth should we believe you? Your intentions have not been good in the past. We may have a difficult time remembering the past in this country, but we do remember SB1070. We know you are concerned about illegal immigration, and maybe you should be. But we feel like perhaps you have misplaced your concerns and traded them for fear. Fear of people who do not look like you. 

I hear it's warm there- maybe you should look into growing tobacco, or is it the right climate for cotton?

Sunday, January 27, 2013

Keeping it Light- A Liberal's Conundrum

I am going to make this short and sweet, because I am preoccupied this weekend. I really wanted to try to post something every day, (yes, I missed yesterday,) so I'm going to keep this post light and local. 

I love art. I love art of all kinds, and believe strongly that we don't put enough of an emphasis on its importance in schools. We tend to think of those who have chosen art as a career as lazy people who cannot commit to reality, and portray them as not driven enough/not smart enough/not normal enough to succeed. (Succeed from a financial standpoint, of course, because that's all that really matters.)

Because I have always been around art, (I have even been known to barter haircuts for ceramics, paintings, and knitted items,) I am torn about the artist Christo's plans to suspend fabric over part of the Arkansas River between Canyon City and Salida. To be clear, I am not torn about whether or not I think he should be able to do it- I am torn because I feel like a traitor to the art community. I think if the Bureau of Land Management permits this installation, named Over the River, it will be a mistake.

Christo standing in front of plans for Over the River.
taken from
Christo and his late wife Jeanne-Claude have done some amazing installations in the past. I remember when I saw some of their work for the first time in 2005 and was amazed at its impact. I loved The Gates, an installation in Central Park in New York City, very much, and think of its beauty almost every time I am in a park walking along the winding paths. The nature of their work (now his work,) is that it takes years to accomplish, and is usually only installed for a very short period of time.  Over the River, if approved, will be installed in Colorado for only two weeks.

What it might look like if it ever

taken from
Have I made the case that I appreciate art, love artists, and think Christo's work is amazing? I hope so, because the true artists out there are not going to like what I have to say. The Bureau of Land Management prepared an Environmental Impact Statement on the project. Its completion took three years, and required input from federal, state, and local agencies, as well as residents of the region. The BLM approved Christo's vision in November of 2011, citing the economic benefits to the area, (it is expected to draw $121million,) and the uniqueness of the project. The EIS also states that there will be an estimate 400,000 people who will either help with the installation (over a two year period,) or come to Colorado to view it for the two weeks it is installed. Here is where my first problem lies- 400,000 is a whole lot of people to be walking/eating/driving around this otherwise somewhat remote area. I am not the only one who objects- there are currently two law-suits and one administrative appeal pending.

Who are you people, and what is all that crap you
are draping over my river? 

In chapter 3 of the Environmental Impact Statement, there is a lot of discussion about the harm that will likely be done to animals who live near the river. 400,000 new people in the area? That's a lot of stressed out little critters.

Am I way off here? Do you think the two year commitment that will have to be made by residents in the area and the negative environmental impact is worth the $121million in economic output and overall amazingness of this  installation? Maybe my bologna-meter is off, but I just don't think it is worth it. What do you think?

Talk about a liberal conundrum- Having to choose between art and the environment? It's like having to choose which of your children you love the most!

Friday, January 25, 2013

One Institution I'm Willing to Privatize

taken from 
Can you guess what it is? If you guessed the Post Office- well, you're wrong. If you guessed Social Security- wrong. If you guessed vaginas and uteruses- you got it! Not an institution, you say? Well, women's reproductive organs sure are discussed as though they are public property, and I for one think it is high time we privatize them. 

I'm sure everyone has heard about State Representative Cathrynn Brown's bill to make abortions illegal after she has been raped because it is "tampering with evidence." Yes, I said a WOMAN introduced this bill, yes, I said RAPED, and yes, I said ILLEGAL. The victim would be charged with a third degree felony, to be exact.  

I'd like to take a sample of
your baby, please--as
evidence, of course. 
Third degree felonies in the state of New Mexico, where this legislation was introduced, can carry a sentence of up to three years in prison. I know when I think of a rape victim who has just had to make the decision of whether or not to terminate her unwanted pregnancy I think, "hey, prison seems appropriate." Of course this legislation is unlikely to pass as Democrats control both the House and Senate in the state's legislature, and of course there will be many Republicans who think it's bologna, too. I hope. I can't be too sure...

Representative Brown (the woman pictured to the left) made a public statement after receiving criticism for her bill. “New Mexico needs to strengthen its laws to deter sex offenders. By adding this law in New Mexico, we can help to protect women across our state.” Brown said that this bill aims to deter rapists from committing crimes and then aiding in the abortion process to destroy the evidence.  (The evidence, huh? I thought fetuses were "babiez with beating hearts and promising futurez." Does anyone else find it strange that a proponent of such a measure would have the balls to call babiez evidence? Sounds like a liberal fetus-hating thing to say to me.)

Calm down! If it was a legitimate rape, the baby
wouldn't even exist! The only thing this evidence
proves  is that no rape occurred at all!
Why, then, is it the victim of the rape the one who is charged with a crime? Why haven't I heard these women called victims of a crime even once while reading about this proposal? The right's tendency to categorize women who are raped as sluts is nothing new. Keeping a baby full term as "evidence" is just another way to place the onus on the victim of a crime to prove her own victimhood. We call women who have been raped "alleged victims" who "were probably wearing short skirts" and were "asking for it, anyway." Now, according to this bill in New Mexico, it should also be the victim's responsibility to carry her rapist's baby to full term as evidence of her assault. Holy bologna

Republicans are proponents of privatization, right? I say, let's start with our lady parts and see how that goes. We will talk about Social Security another time. 

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Climate Change Hasn't Been Important 'til Now & Other Bologna

President Obama finally mentioned climate change in his second inaugural speech. We, (those who believe that climate change is real, man-made, and scary as hell,) have all been waiting. And waiting. And waiting for this moment. He said he would be aggressive in his campaign to take charge, and even went so far as to say climate change is an issue worth sidestepping Congress for and throwing down some of that executive power he, in my opinion, didn't utilize enough during his first term. Congress is a mess, and we all know it. 

“We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that failure to do so would betray our children and future generations,” Obama said during his speech. “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.” Yeah. About that. I have heard Republicans politicians deny climate change as an issue since 2006 when a little film called An Inconvenient Truth came out, and lately I have noticed a change in their collective response. 

Kiribati, an island country in the Pacific, is trying to relocate
its citizenry due to rising sea levels which is making their
country uninhabitable.
photo taken from the
Of course this is completely anecdotal- it's my blog, after all- but it seems to me that politicians do not have the same confidence in their denial of climate change. Of course we all remember the shift from "global warming is a hoax and isn't happening" to "climate change is real, but not man-made. It's cyclical!" Well, recently I have heard waning in the right's voice on the matter. They do not sound as confident as they once did. That confidence has become smugness, and it sounds to me like they don't even believe what they are saying. Well, how could they? 2012 was the warmest year on record, and there are plenty of countries who are already in big trouble. 

Denying climate change is complete bologna, of course, and so is the fact that it has taken this long for President Obama to give the topic any real mention in a speech or public setting. He is a smart guy, so what took him so long? I am not getting my hopes up about any significant advancements in the realm of cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions, or changing the way people think about how their actions affect the world as a whole. (See don't take my gunz and I don't wanna pay no taxes for evidence of just how little we seem to care about the collective.) 

taken from
But in a country where even the right seems not to believe what they are saying anymore, and states are being threatened by droughts, wildfires, and super-storms of all kinds, when is it time to say enough is enough? If it isn't now, and President Obama does not follow through on working to deal with climate change, then that will be the biggest, fattest, juiciest log of bologna of all. 

*You can read about President Obama's speech and regulatory action plan to move forward on the matter of climate change here

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Abortions are more violent than guns, doncha' know?

Taken from the Facebook group "Abortion Is Murder"
Not good enough this year, people! 
In the world of calling out bologna, I realize that Sarah Palin is low-hanging fruit. I still think her comments of late deserve to be discussed, and isn't talking about Sarah Palin so much fun? This week was the anniversary of Roe v. Wade  which got many-a conservative up out of their seats to yell and scream a little. Usually around this time, conservatives call out pro-choicers in the usual ways, like posting this bologna on benches, then inevitably on Facebook,  but this year is different. 

This year is special. If there is one thing conservatives like Sarah Palin are good at, it is taking advantage of timing. They are actually great at it- lefties take note. Sarah Palin used her Facebook page to call out President Obama's "hypocritical" speeches which highlight the need for gun control measures to protect children, while simultaneously supporting abortion laws. "See, his commitment to our children is selective," Palin writes. "When children in the womb are on the chopping block, the President is silent. When he places the Second Amendment, however, on the chopping block, children are his focus." She makes a good case, yah? Our president is full of bologna, yah? Well, not really. In the next sentence, I think she highlights the true motives of her anti-abortion rant. "Never mind the fact that his latest proposals would not protect them from evildoers and would, in fact, leave responsible, law-abiding citizens less able to protect them as well..." Oh, okay. I get it now. This year, the usual Roe v. Wade rhetoric has been replaced by pro-gun rhetoric disguised as anti-abortion rhetoric! Are you keeping up? I told you those sneaky conservatives were good at taking advantage of timing. 

Doncha' be killin' those unborn babies,
This isn't really a post on abortions- whether they should be legal or not- (they should-) whether it is hypocritical to support their legality while also supporting gun control laws- (it's not-) but instead to read between the bologna-filled lines. Sarah Palin doesn't care about abortion laws. She just wants to keep her guns, guns, GUNS! We get it, Ms. Palin- you love your guns. 

It isn't just her, either. On his show from January 16th, Rush Limbaugh had a similar opinion of the President's hypocritical positions. (The transcript can be found here toward the bottom of the page.) When a caller ended his call with "You can't spend 40 years telling people and telling children that if I make a mistake -- if something comes up and this child that I don't want is in the way of my future and the way of me graduating high school, is in the way of me going to college, is the way of me being happy, is in the way of whatever I want out of life -- then it's okay for me to kill the baby. But later on when I become a disgruntled employee, when I become an unhappy student at school because children are bullying me, then I want to eliminate them to get them out of the way? It's the same concept." Rush responded with "Well, it's a good point. You know how to stop abortion? Require that each one occur with a gun." Oh, Rush. Conservative pundit Erick Erickson tweeted "The President is surrounded by children, all of whom if born alive following abortion, he'd be okay with the doctor finishing the job." People get away with saying this kind of bologna all the time because people are too scared to come off as a supporter of baby killers.

Isn't it equally hypocritical, then for conservatives to support the overturn of  Roe v. Wade, be so pro-life that they wouldn't even allow abortions in the case of rape and incest, and then cut funding for programs that would allow these children to have a chance for success? Yes, it is. But then that's not the real issue anymore, is it? Abortion is an issue that has been hijacked by politicians and media pundits to tug on your heart-strings. If they are the good guys who think that every child deserves a chance at life, and liberals the bad guys who want to murder babies by the thousands, then in order to be a good person shouldn't you be a conservative, too? I call bologna on the clever combinations of anti-abortion and pro-gun rantings of 2013. 

EDIT: I would also like to quickly add that conservatives often say that making guns illegal will not do anything to keep people safe- that making guns illegal will only keep good guys from obtaining them, and that the bad guys will continue to purchase guns. Why is it, then, that making abortions illegal will prevent them from happening? Abortions have been around since the beginning of time, after all. Safe abortions are another story. By making abortion illegal, wouldn't we just be forcing women to revert to hangers and back-alley procedures? Of course we would. Although this thought doesn't really add to my point, it does add to the hypocrisy that conservatives are so quick to call liberals out for- bologna, if I do say so myself. 

*Just in case you are interested, here is a link to an interesting piece from the January 22nd edition of Fresh Air about Roe v. Wade and what's going on with abortion rights right now. 

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

That's Bologna!

I find myself growing weary of the political Facebook arguments that I cannot seem to keep myself from engaging in. I need some other avenue to call out shenanigans bologna that I cannot sit idly by and listen to, nor can I make one more post on the infamous Book, one more comment on the overly-shared, hyperbolic photos everyone seems to be so excited about these days. A few examples from the past week that struck me as particularly full of bologna... 
Keep Calm and Love Guns? What the hell does that even mean? That's Bologna!

Obama as Hitler- real original... That's Bologna!

I am sick of it, and need a place that is not the comment threads on these photos to say so.  I look forward to calling out the usual suspects- I'm looking at you, Bill O'ReillyMitch McConnellJohn Boehner- but I think this blog will be a useful tool to think about these issues on a deeper level. It will also be useful in preventing me from pulling my own hair out in clumps. So this is my new blog. I'm sure some of you will think it is pure bologna.