Friday, October 30, 2009

In Weed We Trust

Republican Gil Kerlikowske, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, gave a statement this week about how both liberal and conservative interpretations of the White House's new weed policy are "wrong". Kerlikowske claims that neither side has it right, but then he goes on to argue against legalizing marijuana for almost the entirety of his statement.

 "Legalization is being sold as being a cure to ending violence in Mexico, as a cure to state budget problems, as a cure to health problems. The American public should be skeptical of anyone selling one solution as a cure for every single problem."

Uh. You mean like the bible? Or an all-powerful god? Or Obama? (if you're asking yourself, "is byrd really comparing Weed to god?" The answer is a definite Yes)

"To test the idea of legalizing and taxing marijuana, we only need to look at already legal drugs -- alcohol and tobacco.  We know that the taxes collected on these substances pale in comparison to the social and health care costs related to their widespread use."

...because as every Director of National Drug Control Policy knows, there's no reason to separately evaluate the safety of different drugs. They all have the same effects anyway, right?

"In a little over three months, my office will deliver to President Obama a National Drug Control Strategy that will strike a balance between public health and public safety, recognizing that reducing demand through a community-wide approach is critical to our success."

Dude. You need to go smoke a fuckin joint -- or get laid. Pick one.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Scientology vs. The World

Can someone tell me why people think Scientology is any different then any other made up religion? This article from columnist David Gibson details director Paul Haggis's departure from the religion, but it also does a fantastic job of coming off seemingly-unbiased while at the same time completely throwing Scientology under the rug.

My favorite part is when Gibson goes on about "real" religions:

"One mark of a 'real' religion is its ability to reform or adapt."

Hahahahah. Tell that to the Catholics.

Or the part where he goes on about how outlandish Scientology is:

"The disclosure of the belief that an alien ruler named Xenu brought people to earth 75 million years ago in jet planes and planted them around volcanoes is one of the more unusual tenets that have come to light."

How about the idea that a flood wiped out all the living creatures on earth except for one male and one female of each kind -- or the idea that a burning bush spoke to a man (to top that off, it was really god speaking!) -- or the concept that a dead man is actually his own father, a holy ghost and himself all at the same time. Please. I can go on.

A Call for REALITY Television

This years "Dancing With the Stars" saw a deliciously abundant amount of inter-racial partnering. From Macy Gray/Jonathan Roberts to Michael Irvin/Anna Demidova or singer Mya with Dmitry Chaplin, the show was a mixed race fiesta. Its about time America's interracial couples get the representation they deserve! Even if it has to be on a reality show with fake partnerings.

So the question becomes, where are the same gender partners?? Think about it. Homophobes are afraid that federally recognizing same sex unions will lead to a larger gay rights agenda or 'social acceptance of homosexuality.'  If they are trying to prevent the government from passing laws because they are afraid that it might lead to civilians endorsing gays, then lets get Americans to endorse gays first! Then they'll have no arguments against it.

Here's the plan: If ABC were to put a same-gender couple on "Dancing With the Stars" (I suggest two girls for several reasons), the controversy alone would generate millions of viewers! Americans would endorse homosexuality by watching the show, even if they disagree with the morality of it. We've already done it with Queer Eye, now let's go mainstream on ABC! And the stars would be HOT. They would be the first openly sexualized gay partners on TV (think of the sexy dancing...). ABC would make boatloads of money and no doubt continue with a same gender couple on the next season. By the end of the show's run, "Dancing with the Stars" will have proven that Americans embrace homosexuals. The homophobes would lose any argument about homosexuality being a "sexual perversion only present in societal outcasts" or whatever hateful words they are using at the time.


Vicki Dummer
SVP Alternative Series
ABC Network
500 S. Buena Vista St.
Burbank, CA 91521-4551

John Saade
SVP Alternative Series
ABC Network
500 S. Buena Vista St.
Burbank, CA 91521-4551

Friday, October 23, 2009

A Slippery Slope Argument for the Fools

The close-minded folks had something very interesting to say after they voted against the important hate-crimes legislation that was passed yesterday.

"Social conservatives said the hate crimes bill would violate the First Amendment, and would be a step toward a larger gay rights agenda they oppose."

Fools, here's a slippery slope argument for you:

Or this one:

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Freedom of Relgion: Swedish Lutherans to Officiate Gay Marraiges

In the name of protecting the constitutional right to practice whatever cracked up religion you choose, gay marriage should be made legal in the United States - unless all those anti-equality religious folks believe that freedom of religion does not apply to Lutherans (not to mention countless other less popular religions that believe in preserving the sanctity of all families).

A Gleeful Reference to Niel Diamond

Watched Glee last night. One of the characters said something that really set me off, which is upsetting because they've done a surprisingly good job at not doing that so far in a show that tackles many sensitive issues. The token Jew kid referred to Neil Diamond as a "Musical Jewish Icon." Now -- I can be sensitive to religion sometimes, but everyone's been asked the question by someone, "Are you a Christian American or an American Christian?" In other words, which is more important to you, nationality or religion. The second word (in this case the noun) is the more important word, the one that you are, while the first word describes how you are who you are (i.e. a Christian American is an American person who happens to practice Christianity).

In a similar vein, to think of Neil Diamond as a "Musical Jewish Icon" is to think of him as a Jewish person who happens to write music. Neil Diamond may very well have valued himself as a Jew before musician, but what is more important here is that when the world thinks of Neil Diamond they don't sit around and talk about how he made great latkes last Chanuka, they remember Sweet Caroline and the many other contributions he has made to music. He's a Musical Icon, not a Jewish Icon. Its really that simple. In a television program that is intended to mimic your average [musical!] high school, to refer to Neil Diamond's identity as a Jew before referring to him as a worldly musician shows a lack of respect for his talents/image and an eyebrow-raisingly high amount of attention on his religion. It's downright bigoted. And don't kid yourself, we all know it's these small acts of bigotry that people pick up on and dupilicate.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Catholicism! Its the new religion-to-go!

If you're Anglican and you don't agree with the morals that your church promotes (such as ordaining those women things as priests), try switching over to a religion that does a better job of cherry-picking the biblical laws you deem worthy of abiding. The Catholic Church is now making it easy as a flood for  Anglicans who have decided they don't want to follow their church's teachings to convert to Catholicism.

Henry VIII must be turning over in his grave...oh wait no that's just the hell fire he's suffering from now that his many "marriages" were actually adultery/sin..