Showing posts with label rending of garments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rending of garments. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Ian Welsh on Cuomo and the NY Gay Marriage Thing



This is so true and it cannot be made any clearer:

  • 1) The left sells each other out for either small tactical gains, or nothing at all (hello national NARAL) all the time, so why shouldn’t the gays promise to help Cuomo in his next election for giving them gay marriage, even if it screws unions and helps an austerity governor?

  • 2) The reason gays get anything is that unlike the rest of the left, they did two things: they cut off the donations, and they got ugly in people’s faces. They stopped playing nice. They stopped playing by the rules. They stopped worrying about whether people in power “liked” them (hello National NARAL) and started playing rough.

  • 3) Given that the left doesn’t hang together, which means that the choice is “gay marriage + austerity”, or “no gay marriage + austerity”, well, why not gay marriage plus a shitty economy?


Of course it is impolite to say so. It is always impolite to point out that on the "left" there is no solidarity, only a competing series of discreet interests, vying for the Royal Nod, and in the case of gay marriage, it's been obvious for years.

(I've never been a fan of gay marriage as an issue at law. Marriage, in my humble opinion, is fundamentally a religious sacrament -- banging that Old Tyme Catholic gong, don't you know -- that has no place in Law. If religious/faith practitioners want to sanction same sex marriage, I say hurrah. Some have been doing just that for decades. No, these marriages have no legal standing in most jurisdictions, and that's a problem. But the way to deal with that, in my opinion, is to get the Law and the State out of the marriage business altogether. To the extent the Law and the State need to recognize and/or sanction marriage unions, it is solely as a civil matter, without regard to religious interests or issues. Therefore, the only legal and state interest should be in gender neutral "civil unions". That's it, period, nothing else at law. That way, religious freedom and custom is preserved and protected, and so is the interest of the people, community and the state. The whole push for gay marriage has in my view been off base -- and intentionally offensive to traditionalists. But that's not actually what Ian is pointing out...)

No, what's he's getting at, which I essentially agree with, is that the New York Gay Marriage measure is effectively a trade for votes, votes for policies that will cause great harm to millions of New Yorkers by advancing 'Austerity' and Bankster Protection. But, hey! Gay folk can get married now! Yay!

Ian's view about it may be too sour by half, but at the same time he's right.

Monday, June 6, 2011

Oh the Sturm! Oh the Drang!



Weiner is GUILTY!!!!!
He admits it!!! The World has come to an End!!!! The Man in the Chair was Right!!!! JUDGEMENT DAY HAS COME!!! He apologized to.... Breitbart!!!! Rend my garments, cover me with ashes! The World has Ended!!!

Jeebus Christmas dancing on a tasty Ritz cracker.

The caterwauling over Mister Weiner's weiner is now beyond the epic proportions once reserved for the Arch Cad Bill Clinton. Of course, it is widely pointed out in the sex-obsessed media (do they ever get laid?) that Weiner is a Clintonista, and so is his long-suffering wife!!!!

Which obviously proves everything. No progressive can ever trust Weiner again. HE. LIED. TO. ME!!!! About his wang!!! AAAAAAAhhhhhhh!

Of course, more importantly, Jon Stewart must have lied to his far more immense audience abut the... ahem... size (not that it matters) of the wang in question. Given that Jon Stewart has a bigger audience than all of Fox News, his lies obviously must mean something.

Look, penne pics are not at all rare in our modern world, certainly not rare on the Intertubez. They -- and cats -- are sort of what the Intertubez were made for. If anyone has a real problem with either Weiner's wang or the fact that he wasn't fully and completely honest about it and the picture of it (nor was his friend Mr. Stewart) and the women he's dated or had online "relationships" with, and whatever else of a personal and/or private nature about his current and past life they want to delve into, I think they really need to figure out how to get a life of their own.

Living vicariously through images of celebrities -- even political celebrities like Anthony Weiner -- is one of the worst habits Americans have had for a very long time. Whatever image of Weiner's sexual purity that "progressives" must have been carrying for them now to keen so loudly and incessantly over his betrayal is just insane.

As Stephen Colbert would say: "Nation. Get over it."