Will Ferrell

Okay, I tried. I have heard for years what a funny guy Will Ferrell is. When I used to accidentally watch Saturday Night Live when he was on it, I never really thought he was that funny, but I never liked Adam Sandler either, so what do I know? Then I saw a imitation he did of President George W bush, and it wasn't too bad. Not real funny, but okay. So I watched Talladega Nights: the Ballad Of Ricky Bobby, and Anchorman: the Legend of Ron Burgundy. They were both horrible. They were the worst, stupidest, unfunniest movies I have ever seen in my life. I can't believe Steve Carell was in the Anchorman one and I can only assume he needed the money. They were both so bad. Unbelievable. Horrible. That's a bunch of hours I'm never going to get back.

Anyway... Humouroceros

Proposition hate

The 'stick-your-nose-where-it-don't-belong' crowd in California have won a great victory over fundamental human rights with the passage of Proposition 8 on November 4 of this year. As we all know, California's Proposition 8 was to eliminate the right of gay people to marry one another in the great state of California. It was introduced by the same old crowd who are too cowardly to admit that their real problem is that they don't like and fear gay people. It's the usual sad story where when they hide behind words like "traditional" and "sanctity" what the really mean is "we know what you people get up to and we don't like it and we will tell you what to do and how to behave." It is intellectual cowardice at best.

Who honestly believes that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice"? That is such utter and poorly thought out crap that I can't believe that anybody with an IQ in the double-digits would keep on saying it. I wonder at which age it was that these people themselves sat down and made their own choice regarding their sexual orientation? Did they write out lists, stating the pros and cons of both homo and heterosexuality, with maybe a third list close by with the bi-sexual option because who wants to go through life with one hand tied behind their back? I wonder if the deal-breaker was when under the 'con' heading for homosexual they got to "getting beaten to death for being gay"? I guess that would scare a lot of people off unless they were totally hardcore. What about "getting taunted all the time" or "being treated like a second-class citizen"? Doesn't really sound like much of a "choice" to me, but now I've gone and yanked myself off topic.

Proposition 8 was originally submitted with the name "California Marriage Protection Act" but after the Proposition qualified for the ballot it was renamed the less snappy and far wordier "Eliminates Rights of Same-sex Couples to Marry. Constitutional Amendment." For some reason this new title offended the people who had wanted the amendment in the first place. They felt that the new title with the use of the word "eliminate" would be "unflattering" and "inflammatory", and they may have had a point. Taking somebody's rights away is inflammatory enough so why add to the turmoil if you don't have to?

The campaign was tough, as they say, and at one point the group protectmarriage.com sent threatening letters to groups and organizations that opposed the proposition. In the letter they admitted that they could be bought-off with a bribe, I mean, with a donation to protectmarriage.com. The letter was signed by, among others, Ron Prentice, the campaign manager for Yes On Proposition 8. Oddly enough, when asked about it Ron-buddy denied any knowledge of any "organized attack against organizations that have given to No on 8." This suggests to me that Jim should maybe read stuff before he signs it. Or not. It does sound like implausible-deniability to me.

The final result seems to be that a majority of the good people of California have decided that gay folk no longer have the right to marry one another (and if that decision is not revolting enough, there is word that the marriages already performed may no longer be considered marriages. It would appear that someone would have to mount a legal challenge for this to happen and I can't imagine what sort of complete lowlife one would have to be to do that, although I imagine that protectmarriage.com is full to the rafters with just the right sort of lowlifes.) Bizarre as that sounds in the home of the brave and the land of the free (as long as you tow the party line.)

Once again I'm left wondering; what has to happen south of the 49th before people will be rioting in the streets (not counting trying to pass sensible gun ownership laws.) The last eight years have been a low-point in United Station history as far as loss of personal freedoms (domestic wiretapping without benefit of legal oversight? I mean, come on, comrade!) US government agencies have unprecedented access to US citizen's private information, and now, peoples fundamental rights are being taken away in the name of "tradition". As if that were not bad enough, in the most recent case US citizens themselves voted to take away that right from their fellow citizens. Now that's messed up.

Anyway... Humouroceros



PS: Shermann 4thright, a frozen-metal licker out of Eureka, California who voted for Proposition 8, says, "I don't want no homosexual guy marryin' our wimmen. That ain't right. Would you want some homosexual guy marryin' your sister? I should guess not. That ain't right." When asked about homosexual women, Shermann replied, "Those chicks are hot. They make good movies and I'd like to get me some of that!"

All aboard the Atheist Bus!

At the same time that our friends to the south (the United States) are sinking even deeper into their own uniquely bizarre form of relignicity, the Big Kahunna, Commonwealth-wise (England) may be taking another step towards secular/superstition balance. Those on the English religious-right (where ‘right’ means they have the right to ram their beliefs down your throat at every opportunity) while pretending that they are not bothered by it actually are bothered by it. The ‘it’ is to put ads on the sides of London’s articulated buses saying, “There is probably no god. Now stop worrying and get on with your life.” This is in response to years of ads claiming salvation through Jesus and other superstitious silliness.

The religious-nut web-site, the Christian Voice, printed an article on October 19 of this year entitled, “Bendy-bus to take Dawkins message off-road.” (Professor Richard Dawkins is a well-known English atheist who has written a few books on the subject.) The article states that, “an atheist blogger named Jon Worth came up with the idea, but his fellow humanists, not known for their generosity, wouldn’t stump up the cash. Now Richard Dawkins, whose anti-Christian zeal knows no bounds, is to finance the doomed venture.”

Oh, where to begin. The idea actually came from comedy writer Ariane Sherine. She came up with the idea after noticing one too many religious ads on the London buses and when she went to one of the web-sites advertised she was told all about how unbelievers will burn in everlasting torment in Hell. She began looking for five-pound donations to finance her idea and soon gained the backing of The British Humanist Association. Professor Dawkins caught wind of this deal and promised to match donations up to 5500-pounds. Well donations were brisk and soon reached 36,000-pounds on their own (you know, from “humanists not known for their generosity”), so now the plan is to extend the campaign to other English cities. Not bad for a doomed venture.

But Christian Voice had another point to make. Stephen Green, the National Director of Christian Voice, pointed out that, “people don’t like being preached at.” Brilliant. A man of faith pointing out that people don’t like being preached at because those religious folk would never do something like that, would they? Never! It’s clear thinking like that… Well, maybe not. Big Steve seems to have a spot of trouble with the whole clear thinking thing, but that’s fine. He’s got a book to do his thinking for him.

The more “mainstream” religious organizations in England were, publicly at least, a little more accepting of the ads than their nutty brethren were. Spirituality and Discipleship officer, Reverend Jenny Ellis of the Methodist Church said, “This campaign will be a good thing if it gets people to engage with the deepest questions of life. Christianity is for people who aren’t afraid to think about like and meaning.” Professor Dawkins has a different take on things, saying, “this campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think, and thinking is anathema to religion.” I have to side with the professor on this one. There is a reason that preachers (by whatever name) are called ‘shepards’ and their followers are called the ‘flock’, and I don’t think the implied sheep reference is accidental, or flattering. It fits though.

Anyway… Humouroceros

Republicans eat their own

It didn’t take long for the cowardly and the gutless to worm their way out of the woodwork following the Republican loss in the 2008 presidential race. According to some, Governor Sarah Palin is to blame for the loss and she and her family are a bunch of “Wasilla hillbillies” anyway. Anonymous aides to Republican presidential candidate, Senator John McCain, are claiming that Governor Palin spent half her time looting high-end clothing stores and the other half being dumber than a sack of hammers. Personally I think that Governor Palin was not ready for the office of the vice-president and should have respectfully turned down the offer when asked to run with Senator McCain. I believe she is a capable person and by all accounts has done well as the Governor of the great state of Alaska. But the vice-presidency is a whole other kettle of fish. The person who is a heartbeat away from the presidency of the United States cannot just look good and be a right-wing darling. Experience and level headedness count for something. I find it hard to believe that Senator McCain, Senator Obama or Senator Biden would have been taken in by that radio prankster that called pretending to be French president Nicolas Sarkozy. Governor Palin was fooled completely.

However, for these “jerks” to come out now and start telling tales about Governor Palin, and without using their names yet, is the worst sort of chickensh*tedness. It doesn’t even really matter anymore if what they are saying is true. The fact is that she was the Republican candidate and they backed her at the time. Does this mean that had Senator McCain won the election these people still would have come forward, or would they have held their peace because what the hey, they won. And if they would have held their peace then what does that say about how they feel the United States should be run? This uneducated, diva-ish person they are describing would have been a good vice-president? This person they are describing, she should have been a heartbeat away from the presidency? Why didn’t these cowards say something back when it would have mattered?

Is this the Republican Party today? Win at any cost and if you don’t then find someone to blame because goodness knows it couldn’t be the conservative agenda that could be to blame. And if nothing else, Governor Palin brought a popular social conservatism to the fore in the party that looked good at the time and she did bring more people to the rallys. It was just too hard to beat the mismanagement of the past eight years and the walking disaster known as Bush 43. Squalling about the Governor just shows me that the Republicans have learned nothing and are fully prepared, at this juncture, to stay the course, their heads jammed firmly in the sand and their butts waving proudly in the air. Too bad, but there it is.

Anyway… Humouroceros.

Patriotism

I'm trying to come to grips with the concept of the word "patriotic". It's certainly easy enough to score a traditional meaning of the word just by whipping out the nearest dictionary and checking out what it has to say, which is a good place to start, but even then the word doesn't really resonate with me. The reason I'm even thinking about it at all is because of what is going on with our friends to the south (the United States) this past while. Now maybe it's just because I'm a silly old Canadian and just am not capable of understanding such complicated matters as are being brought up south of the 49th, but there seems to be an awful amount of fretting (mainly, it would seem, by Republicans and their fellow travelers) about who is patriotic and who isn't. I mean, who is a "real American" and how do you tell when you have a fake one on your hands? It all appears to be getting weird, especially when you think about it a little bit.

What is a "real American" and what are the standards one uses to make this determination? What happens if you don't quite make it, if you are right on the edge of being a real American. Can you still get a US passport? What if you are one of these not quite real Americans and you go out and buy yourself a nice US flag lapel-pin. Would that be enough to boost you into real American status, or would you have to buy maybe two lapel-pins and keep one in your pocket because wearing two would look dumb, and how would you know? Would one of these right next to but not quite real Americans be considered patriotic? A recent Gallup poll asked the question about what was patriotic and it turns out that many of our US friends consider serving in the military to be very patriotic. I seems that since Senator John McCain, who served as a Navy pilot during Viet Nam, would be more patriotic than Senator Barrack Obama who has never served in the armed forces. I find this ridiculous because if that were the case then in 2004 Senator John Kerry, who also served in Viet Nam, would have been considered more patriotic than Governor George W Bush who spent the Viet Nam years being drunk. Yet GW is president. Weird.

As I understand it, the US Constitution protects the right to free speech (I believe it is the First Amendment, so it's pretty high up there), yet when the US press uses that right, the current vice-presidential candidate complains about it. Does this mean that Governor Sarah Palin is unpatriotic? Shouldn't she be actually defending the Constitution? Wasn't there some guy from US history who said, "I might not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? Patrick Henry or something like that and isn't he considered a patriot? If so then how is it that a Congresswoman from Minnesota can say that the US Congress is bursting at the seams with anti-Americans just because they may not agree with her on some things. Isn't that unpatriotic?

It all seems a little arbitrary to me. I probably just don't understand. Oh well. Ice cream for desert.

Anyway... Humouroceros

Minnesota Congresswoman, Michelle Bachmann giving the president a good tounge-lashing