1 Year From Now

If you look forward to the 2005 Oscar season, what do you see? I see a bunch of fanatics bitching and moaning as to why Mel Gibson film did not either get nominated or win an Oscar for every category. I think they will be really pissed if they don't get the Oscar for best adapted screenplay.

Also, as soon as the Passion comes out on DVD I will be looking for news reports of some fool pissed off because public schools will not let him show the movie in the school. I expect that locally too.

Marriage Amendment Dead

Calpundit is pointing to a tally that indicates that 40 senators are against the anti-gay marriage amendment. Bush got his day in the theocratic sun, but nothing to show for it. Will this piss off the right wing? Will he still lose the centrist votes that one would guess such a swing right would eliminate?

Preaching to the Choir

Based on this article, the Gibson Movie seemed to just bring out the religious people, this really did nothing but reshuffle the deck. A few Catholics or Protestants might swap sects, but no one new is really taking up the mantle of Christianity. Now, I am sure evangelicals will tout some stats about who is joining their flock, but what I think they miss is that most people they gain, someone else's church is losing.

Gift Horse?

When it is Peter Bronson who writes a column about you and your book, do you take the media attention and smile, or do you distance yourself from his conservative stench? Well, if you are Kathy Y. Wilson, what do you do? Since Kathy writes for a paper with much smaller circulation I would just take it, and hopefully smile at the increase in book sales.

Pot - Kettle

Howard Stern Show Taken Off Clear Channel Stations

'Liberal Media'

Wow! This person is a copy editor. Amazing how the religious hate speech can just roll of the keyboard like that. I wonder if Peter Bronson is taking notes.

[Via Atrios]

Gibson's Film: Crucifixation

"Crucifixation" was from the Daily Show, which tonight hit the film's marketing machine hard. I do not think I will go see Mel Gibson's Passion. I don't like going to movies that get this kind of Hype. I have never seen Titanic, nor the Matrix movies.

What I have read about the film though, I really am taken aback by. I, as most readers should know, am an atheistic agnostic, so I don't share the religious beliefs of Mel Gibson or other various types of Christians. I was raised as a middle of the road Christian, Methodist to be specific, so I very familiar with the religious doctrine. I am repulsed by the violence and the worship of the violence the Jesus character is put through in the movie. To me the value of Christianity was to act like Jesus, the old golden rule element of the religion. Believing Jesus was the "son of God" seems so trivial. The point of the religion always seemed to be about how you treated other people, not about stroking the ego of a deity. This film to me glorifies that image, not of the caring person. It seems more about worshiping "Jesus" because he did this for you, instead of worshiping Jesus through your actions by helping people. This is an underlying difference in Christian sects, so I am sure many Christians would disagree, but hopefully they can see the differences.

Enquirer's review of the Film, and the Post's local PR piece on it.

Gay Marriage, Again

One thing that has been bothering me are the claims that Bush's statement yesterday should be construed to mean that he does not want to ban state's rights to create civil unions. There are two problems with that contention. One is that he did not put forth any language to suggest that he would not support the most popular amendment up for consideration, the Musgrave Amendment. That amendment clearly has language, as I previously posted, indicates that civil unions would illegal if the amendment was adopted. If Bush was against such a thing, why did he not make it clear that he does not support the Musgrave Amendment as written?

Secondly, it is clear that Bush is against Civil Unions.

MR. McCLELLAN: [...] The President has made it very clear that he would not have supported it for the state of Texas.

Q Civil union?

MR. McCLELLAN: Right.

So, Bush is all about state's rights, I guess, except when it comes to marriage. States can relegate homosexuals to second class citizens, but they can't allow them to be full citizens with equal rights. Hmmm, sounds like a bigot to me.

I will give a shout out to Rob Bernard for getting a traffic surge from the 800-pound gorilla, but a commenter on Rob’s site referred to me as an "unknown blogger." Now, I am a nobody in the Blogosphere, but what kind of ego trip does it take to slam me for having an opinion, voicing it, but not having a reputation big enough to fit that commenter’s sense of self importance?

Just so we are clear, Bush is a bigot. Bush opposes allowing homosexuals the rights given to married couples. If he even wanted to help homosexual with some rights, like hospital visitation, I have not heard him once voice support for it either at the federal or state level. Now, to say that he is merely doing this for political reasons begs the question, if he is willing to work against gays, why would he not also wage a war for political reasons?

Cheney

Are the vultures starting to circle?

Broken Record: Bush is a Bigot Without a Doubt

I couldn't disappoint anyone by not once again pointing out that Bush is a bigot, so there ya go. I guess his fence sitting State of the Union quasi-support for the Gay Marriage Ban Amendment was not playing well in the bible belt, so he had to go full tilt.

Well, I have said why I think Bush is a bigot enough, so I will instead deal with why Bush is flat out wrong on what the proposed FMA will do. He seems to think that states will be able to create "Civil Unions." Claims otherwise are being refuted by many legal scholars. Eugene Volokh gives a conservo-libertarian view on why the FMA does ban civil unions as currently written.

Kevin Drum has excellent Analysis and Atrios has comments as well.

The most surprising posts and comments are coming from Andrew Sullivan. Sullivan is a conservo-libertarian Bush supporter who is also a firm Gay Marriage supporter. A large portion of his readers seem to be pissed at Bush?s stance on Gay Marriage, which appears to be the last straw holding up their support of Bush. I can't see how there can be any homosexual Bush supporters after today. I mean, the man came out and gave no rationale why any can't marry a person of the same sex. I mean, Bush did not even have the guts to say why Gay Marriage is bad. How will it affect Heterosexual Marriage? It is freaky how Bush sounds like he is defending an anti-miscegenation laws:

Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife.

That makes me want to vomit. WHY can't marriage be severed from the past as it was when anti-miscegenation laws were repealed? HOW do two men or two women getting married weakening society? HOW does making homosexuals serve "us all?" Bigoty does not serve me. I guess oppressing homosexuals serves Bush's political aims buy getting the bible thumpers all good and frothy.

Locally Covington Jim comments, as does Wes Flinn.

Lynch Steps Down as CBUF President

Damon Lynch has stepped down as the President of the Cincinnati Black United Front. His reason appears to be to focus on a 2005 Council Run. Politically this is a great move for Lynch. Stepping away from the boycott was the one thing he needed to make council. He has done that and should walk easily onto council.

What is troublesome, yet inevitable, is that Dwight Patton would take over as President. Dwight's reputation has a racial reconciler is laughable. Dwight is a confrontationalist who pushed CBUF into racist positions and stances. It is with those type actions that make it odd that Dwight's biggest enemy is Nate Livingston.

Why I Give a Damn

Have some of you folks out there, my few yet brilliant readers, wondered why I tend to throw around terms like "theocratic fascist around? Well look no further than the scary congressmen behind the movement to strip power from the Supreme Court, and in the name of religion. It appears that Sen. Zell Miller (D) of Georgia seems to have joined Congressmen ADERHOLT and PENCE in pushing for a theocratic state, where freedom of religion is only for the 'majority', not the individual.

Read the Christian Coalition's list of issues and you wonder why I oppose them and those who work with them.

[Via Atrios and Wes Flinn]

Portman for Vice President?

Well, WCPO reported the rumor, which they call "speculation" and had this teaser in their article "Rob Portman will speak with 9News this morning and we'll have an update as soon as it is available." WLWT seemed to have the same story.

WCPO's website has nothing new reported on Portman, in fact the story was buried. This kind of speculation is very interesting, but highly dubious. Someone from Portman's camp is floating the idea out there to see if any remnants of a ground swell can be built for ousting Dick Cheney from the GOP Ticket. Cheney is nothing but a drag on Bush. Now, I of course have no problem if President Bush sees fit to stick to loyalty. I see no problem with that at all.

In all seriousness, Bush will keep Cheney on unless he needs new blood to pull in more votes in a race he could be losing. Think of dumping Cheney as a reserve. When Bush's polls are running low, he will tap into a new VP to inject a new heart to GOP ticket. That would at least be the pragmatist’s play. Is Bush really a pragmatist?

Ohio the Heart of it All

Will Ohio be the battle ground state for 2004? Edwards was here. Bush's Approval rating here in Ohio (pdf) is below 50%. That should be scaring the crap out of Republicans. Bush must win Ohio. If Bush loses Ohio, the Democrat will win.

Edwards has to at least win Ohio, New York, or California if he really plans on winning the Democratic nomination.

Dumb Headline

"Most at festival avoid arrest." What did the Enquirer expect, a majority of festival goers to be arrested? Stupid headline writer.

Holy Shit!

I just watched Dowlin's anti-DeWine commercial on WKRC where he says DeWine left his wife and kids for a "Convergys lobbyist." Wow, I had not seen it live, and that is one of the most low brow political commercials I have ever seen. This year is going to be the bloodiest political season in 36 years.

Bush Still a Bigot

Rob Bernard is on me for calling Bush and using "bigot" a lot. Sorry, that I have to use the word so often, but there are no synonyms that capture the meaning I am after.

Now Rob's attempting to play the game that not everyone against Gay Marriage is a bigot, and then points to Kerry and Edwards. Well, I don't like their positions, but they come out for equal rights for Gays. Bush and his horde are against gay rights. Rob even tried to float the idea from radio talk show host, a real "authority," that heterosexual men have no more rights to marry men they gay men do. I hope he is just trying to be funny, because that is laughable as a reason. I guess he would say that if a black man could not marry a white woman, that is not discrimination as long as a white man could not marry a black woman.

The really issue in his post is that Bush is not a bigot. I say why? Bush wants to both ban homosexual marriage and civil unions. Greg Mann comments on why the Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment does both.

If civil unions was something Bush supported he would be doing the logically thing, including an establishment of civil unions in the Marriage ‘Defense’ Amendment. Why will that not happen? Those pushing the Amendment do not want to provide equal rights or any level of rights to gays or lesbians on issues they can't claim otherwise. That is bigotry, and Bush is supporting it.

I have still not heard any conservative against gay marriage state why it would be a bad thing for homosexuals to get marriage licenses. Now, I mean details reason why, not rhetorical generalities like “it will harm the institution.” I want to know how they think that will happen and more specifically how heterosexual marriages would be affected by homosexual marriages.

How To Come Across as a Right Wing Crusader

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger gave a speech with in the last couple of days were he called for the Mayor of San Francisco to comply with the law and stop issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples. I have no problem with Arnold doing this. It is after all the law and it is his duty to enforce the laws of the State of California. The problem is with how he is doing it. He could have given a solemn speech where he either pushed for civil unions, something he supports, or just made it a dry enforcement of the law. Instead, Arnold made it a political speech where a crowd cheered him for saying he was going to come down hard on San Francisco for what it is doing:

Schwarzenegger told a cheering crowd at the state GOP convention that "in San Francisco, the courts are dropping the ball."

"It's time for the city to stop traveling down this dangerous path of ignoring the rule of law. That's my message to San Francisco," he said Friday night.

Arnold chose the GOP State Convention to rally the troops against Gay Marriage like it was his new crusade against those horrible gays that he would prefer to do his hair, but not try and get married or anything. He can't have "them" be like everyone else, now can he?

Arnold should have given a speech from the State Capital and made it as the Governor enforcing the law. Instead he gave to a bunch of Republicans who CHEERED him for doing this. Now, I am sure some will now say, "but they should cheer him for doing his duty!" Sorry, no, they should not, unless of course they like keeping homosexuals as second class citizens, which those who cheered I think like. When a police officer arrests a man for murdering the person who caused the death of the man's child, no one cheers the officer. The officer is doing his duty. The only ones who might cheer are the family of the person who caused the child's death. Why would they feel the need to cheer? Why would they cheer a cop doing something most would wish he did not have to do, but the law is the law.

Arnold could have used a little less glee in his enforcement of shutting out gays from marriage. The cheers make those Republicans sound like bigots, which I would bet they are. Yep, I called someone else a bigot! Better start complaining that I called a duck a duck.

Flowers from the Midwest

There are simple things that people can do to make people feel human. One such thing is happening in San Francisco, where gay and lesbian couples getting married are being given anonymous bouquets of flowers from total strangers in the Midwest and other places not normally thought of as gay friendly.

There are notes with each bouquet saying things like ?To The Happy Couple,? which is a small gesture, but make the couples feel like people care. People want to wish them happiness just like any other newlyweds. That is all they want, to be like everyone else. Homosexual couples want to share their lives and form a loving home and stable life. Random gifts and messages wishing these couples good luck is a totally simple thing to do, but something I think that can give warmth to two people that will last the rest of their lives.

If you are feeling good and want to do something great for people, send some flowers tomorrow to the newlyweds.

UPDATE: Flowers for Al and Don has a way to donate money for flowers fairly easily.

Nader's Windmills

Nader's announcement to run for President as an Independent is getting plenty of coverage. What I want to know is why he is not running on the Green Party Ticket? Did he drop them, or did they drop him? The press is not answering that question. One report I found indicates that the Greens said no to him. The reasons for why are not specific.