Watching Kitty's "marriage" inspired me to post some of my favorite satirical videos from the past few years parodying the complete lack of logic and total injustice in banning gay marriage. (see also my earlier blog posts on my thoughts on the issue HERE)
1. The Onion covers a new law would nullify marriages of an est 2.4 mil couples currently living in silent resentment or seething hatred:
2. The 2010 California Marriage Protection Act: Safeguarding Marriage from the Evils of Divorce
Taking hypocrisy to task
Creator John Marcotte jokingly describes himself as "a firm believer in traditional family values. He currently opposes government-funded death panels, Obama talking to children and MSNBC's entire prime-time line-up."
In reality, John is a devout Christian, and happily married father of two who created this site to lampoon California's gay marriage ban out of his concern as a Christian, not in spite of it. Making these videos for his site ( http://rescuemarriage.org/ ) he says, "It is truly a blessing from God when your wife can walk in on you watching an Internet video and it actually moves you further from divorce, rather than closer to it." (more on his story HERE, as NPR's original post is no longer available).
3. Stephen Colbert creates his own Anti-Gay Marriage Ad (and it's fabulous)
My Personal Favorite: Louis CK on Gay Marriage ("watch my cereal")
"I find this physically repulsive but I just want to win the argument."
[NOTE: Before watching you should be aware that in the mythical state of Canada (where Santa & Celine live) gay marriage is currently legal. *Oh and don't watch with kids in the room.]
“America's war on terror has indeed tested our resolve. We've pushed the limits of our own principles. From warrantless wiretapping, to building a prison outside of our own legal jurisdiction, to not releasing photos depicting our treatment of detainees, to the treatment of detainees itself. ‘Every asset we have must be used all in the service of keeping American safe.’ Is there any line we still will not cross? ....Awww, that's the line! ---- So it was ok to waterboard a guy over 80 times but God forbid the guy who could understand what that prick was saying has a boyfriend.”
- Glenn Beck is feeling so disenfranchised by Obama that he feels the President is shooting in the head or setting on fire the "average American" so he demonstrates while lecturing the President on "sanity." What follows is the most insane thing I have ever seen on Fox News and that's saying a lot.
“I’m a rodeo clown. It takes great skill." - Glenn Beck
Mr. Beck’s success “is a product of the collapse of conservatism as an organized political force, and the rise of conservatism as an alienated cultural sensibility.”
“It’s a show for people who feel they belong to an embattled minority that is disenfranchised and cut off." - David Frum
To suggest as Beck does that white Republicans are "alienated," "embattled" and "disenfranchised" is so laughably delusional and disgusting that you have to chuckle to keep from crying. The very idea that someone like Beck is being disenfranchised or persecuted and is some how a voice for the voiceless is so ostensibly offensive that it would be hard to even deal with if not for the fact that the "rodeo clowns" playing these roles do so willingly and without remorse fueling the fire from those that would fall prey to and identify with such ideas.
"It’s the most ruthlessly honest, sobering conversation — from both sides — you’re likely to see on any show. Good. And note the lack of shouting." - Jim Newell
"I couldn't help but wonder why it takes a comedian on Comedy Central to do the kind of interview the non-fake news shows ought to be doing. When the media establishment marvels at Jon Stewart's popularity, they tend to think it's his humor. It's not. It's because he calls "bullsh*t" when most major media players won't. He did so last night, and it made for important viewing." - Steven Benen
"Cramer seemed anxious to avoid getting skewered. Before the interview, he was lowering the temperature, making self-deprecating jokes, and talking about how he patterned his own show after Stewart's. On the "Daily Show," Cramer continued to try being nice, telling Stewart what a "fan" he is. He even agreed with Stewart on the whole Santelli rant.
But that didn't stop Stewart from saying what needed to be said. It was like watching a trained prosecutor destroy a fumbling defendant on the stand.
Jon Stewart hammered Jim Cramer and his network, CNBC, in their anticipated face-off on "The Daily Show," repeatedly chastising the "Mad Money" host for putting entertainment above journalism.
"I understand that you want to make finance entertaining, but it's not a f@#king game," Stewart told Cramer.
Cramer apparently went on the show to make nice and end the "feud." Stewart apparently had him on the show to expose how ridiculous and irresponsible CNBC is as a network. The result wasn't pretty, but as Alex Koppelman noted, it was "a riveting half-hour, something almost completely unlike anything else ever seen on television."
Not leaving out Colbert:
The Word - Rand Illusion - Stephen wants to live on an island with the CEOs, hedge fund managers, House Republicans and TV pundits where the poor can't selfishly tax them. Conservatism is just so Biblical. I can't see how I've missed it all this time.
Who will the Republicans turn to in their search for a qualified leader to guide them with fresh vision and ideas? Who possesses the sober-mindedness and wisdom that will help the country wade through the complex financial milieu most Americans currently face? Who will have the experience, insight and courage to take their tattered party forward? What representative tour de force will display that they understand the gravity of the situation while also offering helpful hints on how to stop the toilet from running or how to increase the water pressure through your shower head all the while being unlicensed and unqualified for any of the above?
Neither the job losses nor the president’s prodding was enough to prompt much of a response from the Republicans. But by Friday evening, it appeared that a small number of G.O.P. senators, enough to assure Senate passage of a revised (and watered-down) stimulus package by a very slim margin, had come aboard.
But only a small number. Even as the report of an agreement was being circulated, Senator Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, was bad-mouthing the package on CNN. “This bill is a disaster,” he said.
It’s been clear for years that the G.O.P. is a party without a heart. But its pointless obstructionism, its overall lack of any serious response to what is a clear national economic emergency, seems to indicate it’s also a party without a brain. [full article]
The Fear Imbalance: A Montage (time to get back on the meds)
With Obama in office, you'd think our wingnut friends would have found a nice hole in the sand in which to bury their heads by now, but nah, they've turned to their trusty standby...WILLFUL IGNORANCE.Enjoy this salute:
Well, with the the latest fear-mongering campaign in the U.S.; one devoted to scaring Americans into believing that they will be slaughtered if Guantanamo is closed and terrorism suspects are brought into the U.S. for real trials of course. (Glenn Greenwald)
"Both before and after 9/11, the U.S. has repeatedly and successfully tried alleged high-level Al Qaeda operatives and other accused Islamic Terrorists in our normal federal courts -- in fact, the record is far more successful than the series of debacles that has taken place in the military commissions system at Guantanamo. Moreover, those convicted Terrorists have been housed in U.S. prisons, inside the U.S., for years without a hint of a problem. Here is but a partial list of the accused Muslim Terrorists who have been successfully tried and convicted in U.S. civilians courts and who remain imprisoned inside the U.S." (Click to Read)
And yet the United States, under George W. Bush, actually sought to have these dangerous people extradited to the United States, exposing our citizens to danger! Not only that, we succeeded! OMG!! Americans are at risk!!! What shall we do???
With Gitmo on the loose and Obama preaching a consistent set of ethics what shall we do? What shall we do?! Well, what any good-natured, god-fearing conservative would do: encourage people to knock-off Democratic senators....oh yes.
"Conservapedia, the home of conservative pedophiles “The Trustworthy Encyclopedia.” For example, say your home-schooled-in-Christ kid needs to do a report on which states would benefit from Dem senators who, tragically, “were unable to complete their terms and were replaced by qualified Republicans by their Republican governors.” Where to go? That homosexual devil box “Wikipedia” surely would be of no assistance, to Patriots!" (Wonkette)
As Comedy Central's "Daily Show" descends on Denver for four days of coverage, Jon Stewart took after the "established" media for getting too cozy with candidates and regurgitating campaign spin when it comes to political coverage.
In a breakfast with reporters, Stewart directed most of his ire at the 24-hour cable news networks, which he called "gerbil wheels," and said the media at-large had "abdicated" to what he called the "slow-witted beast."
He said the never-ending television news cycle creates a "false sense of urgency" and forces reporters to "follow the veins that have been mined," instead of pursuing serious and in-depth reporting.
Stewart said politicians in recent campaigns are "animatronic" because all of the "humanity has been managed out of campaigns." He referenced the back-and-forth during the Pennsylvania Democratic primary over Obama's lack of bowling skills.
"It's stunning what this election is going to be decided on," he said. "Or what we allow it to be decided on."
Jon Stewart ripped the cable news networks Monday as a "brutish, slow-witted beast" and castigated Fox News in particular as "an appendage of the Republican Party."
The "Daily Show" host told reporters at a University of Denver breakfast that Fox's "fair and balanced" slogan is an insult "to people with brains" and that only "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace "saves that network from slapping on a bumper sticker. . . . Barack Obama could cure cancer and they'd figure out a way to frame it as an economic disaster." "I'm stunned to see Karl Rove on a news network as an analyst," he said of the Bush White House aide turned Fox commentator.
Stewart included CNN and MSNBC in a far-ranging indictment of what he called "that false sense of urgency they create, the sense that everything is breaking news. . . . The 24-hour networks are now driving the narratives and everyone else is playing catch-up."
The Comedy Central funnyman touched a nerve when he criticized journalists for having off-the-record dinners with politicians, such as a barbecue in March at John McCain's Arizona ranch. "That colors your vision of them so clearly and so profoundly," he said.
When New York Times columnist David Brooks and others protested that there was value in getting to know candidates privately, Stewart stood his ground: "I don't say access is useless. But the more you get sucked into it, the more you become part of that machinery." And when another reporter accused him of courting the press at the breakfast as skillfully as any officeholder, Stewart called the comparison "crazy."
--------------------------------------------------------------- a good example of the "gerbil wheels" at work:
Hillary Clinton speaks at convention. The press concocts a story
Writing at his Atlantic blog, Marc Ambinder, who seems to enjoy regular access to Obama sources, noted that "reports of strife between negotiators for Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama are exaggerated" and that "multiple sources in both campaigns have described the negotiations as relatively free of acrimony."
The next day, Ambinder returned to the topic perplexed, wondering why so many members of the press were pushing the clearly inaccurate story line that the Obama and Clinton camps were practically at war over the convention schedule.
Ambinder was either being naïve or playing nice with his Beltway colleagues. (My guess is the latter.) Because it was obvious the press didn't care whether the rift about Clinton's speech was real or imagined. The story helped journalists advance their beloved narrative that Clinton is a political-party wrecking ball and that Obama is too weak to control her. So even if the evidence ran counter to that, the press was sticking with its story line.
This newly manufactured media attack on Clinton is just the latest in a long line of press grenades thrown her way this year. But this time, she's not the only victim, because the media's concocted story line is being used to unfairly skewer Barack Obama, too.
Consider New York magazine: "Obama Agrees to Roll-Call Vote for Clinton. Does That Make Him a Sissy?"
What's so startling in watching the coverage of the Clinton convention-speech story has been the complete ignorance displayed about how previous Democratic conventions have dealt with runners-up like Clinton. It's either complete ignorance or the media's strong desire to painstakingly avoid any historical context, which, in turn, allows the press to mislead news consumers into thinking Clinton's appearance (as well as the gracious invitation extended by Obama) represents something unique and unusual. Something newsworthy.
Based on previous conventions, if a candidate had accumulated as many delegates and votes as Clinton did during the primaries and then did not have her name placed into nomination, that would represent a radical departure from the convention norm.
But, boy, in 2008, an awful lot of media outlets have played dumb. When covering the August 14 announcement about Clinton's role in Denver, they miraculously forgot to make any historical reference to similar names-placed-in-nomination at previous conventions.
Instead, readers and viewers were left with the obvious impression that what was scheduled to happen in Denver was remarkable, an anomaly. And I suppose if you look at the events through a soda straw, it does look unusual. But if you include the slightest bit of context, the story changes into something normal and routine.
But that's not the story the press wants to tell (the Clintons are not normal!), so the press simply erased the context and stuck to its preferred story line that Clinton's appearance in Denver and the placing of her name in nomination are one for the record books.
"He spoke to Americans as though they were adults."
FYI...The following post will be unapologetically elitist and should be taken with a grain of salt:
"He spoke to Americans as though they were adults" quipped Jon Stewart on The Daily Show following Obama's "More Perfect Union" speech Tuesday.
Sadly, they're not. This is why I salute our forefathers for establishing our representative democracy and not a "pure" democracy. This is why the "superdelegate" structure is not offensive to me. To be completely honest, I don't give a damn what the "Budweiser class" thinks if they're unwilling to invest in learning about the issues that they are so quickly to espouse an opinion on. The polls say that the president people would "most like to have a beer with" are the ones that usually win. Their ignorant ADD "insights" are the reason for eight years of Dubya in the first place. Hell, I'll grab a beer with whomever is voting for the leader of the free world based on this genius logic as long as it keeps them away from the polls that day.
You can disagree with Obama on any of his policies. You can certainly not vote for him and you don't even have to like him. However, the bottom line for me is that Obama's speech is not one that you can objectively disagree with and come out on the right side. It's just not. You can't be an intelligent person with half a brain, or heart for that matter, and not find it honest, compelling and most of all, truthful. The problem is the audience, not the speaker. This is a test for America, not Obama, and it appears it's a test we won't pass.
The article below says it best,
“So here the problem is, Jeremiah Wright is conducive to a 10-second sound bite and the speech is not,” he said. “This is the problem. The Wright thing is perfect for our short attention spans, and this requires a little bit of attention. [The speech] takes some sitting down and settling in and not a lot of folks are willing to do that.”
"More than a dozen interviews [in PA] found voters unmoved by Obama’s plea to move beyond racial divisions of the past. Despite baring himself with extraordinarily personal reflections on one of the most toxic issues of the day."
Here's an open letter from me to not just the uneducated among the people of Pennsylvania, but to blue-collar workers, rednecks, and Larry the Cable Guy fan club gold members everywhere: Turn off Dr. Phil, put down the Bud or bud, read a book that isn't "My Pet Goat", go back and get your high school diploma, actually read the damn speech and then come back to the political table. Until you spend more time studying American history and the candidates policies than you do assembling your NCAA tourney bracket, shut the hell up and for all our sakes, DON'T VOTE. Jim Wallis's take from the Sojourners blog:
"It has simmered throughout this campaign, and now race has exploded into the center of the media debate about the presidential race. Just when a black political leader is calling us all to a new level of responsibility, hope, and unity, the old and divisive rhetoric of race from both blacks and whites is rearing its ugly head to bring down the best chance we have had for years of finally moving forward.
And that is indeed the real issue here. A black man is closer to possibly becoming president than ever before in U.S. history. And this black man is not even running as "a black man," but as a new kind of political leader who believes the country is ready for a new kind of politics. But a new kind of politics and a new face for political leadership is deeply threatening to all the forces that represent the old kind of politics in the U.S. And all the rising focus on race in this election campaign has one purpose and one purpose alone—to stop Barack Obama from becoming president of the United States.
Barack Obama should win or lose his party's nomination or the presidency based on the positions he takes regarding the great issues of our time and his capacity to lead the country and the U.S.'s role in the world. He must not win or lose because of the old politics of race in the U.S. That would be a tragedy for all of us."
here's the original article that inspired this rant:
Obama racial issues may extend to Pa. By: Carrie Budoff Brown March 20, 2008 12:00 PM EST
PHILADELPHIA — Stephanie Gill, a bartender in a white working-class neighborhood, noticed the shift immediately.
A week ago, her customers at Rauchut’s Tavern in Tacony didn’t have much to say about Barack Obama. But when she returned to work Wednesday, a day after the Illinois senator attempted to quell the furor over his pastor’s racially incendiary remarks, the reaction inside the corner bar was raw and unapologetic.
“People are not happy with Obama,” Gill said. “It’s the race stuff.”
Obama has always been a tough sell in largely white Northeast Philadelphia and in the city's blue-collar river wards, a collection of white ethnic enclaves where customers at the local watering hole are often born and raised in the neighborhood that supports it.
And his speech Tuesday, although widely praised by the pundit caste and Obama supporters, has only seemed to widen the gulf with the Budweiser class here.
More than a dozen interviews Wednesday found voters unmoved by Obama’s plea to move beyond racial divisions of the past. Despite baring himself with extraordinarily personal reflections on one of the most toxic issues of the day, a highly unusual move for a politician running for national office, the debate inside taverns and beauty shops here had barely moved beyond outrage aimed at the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Obama’s refusal to “disown” his longtime pastor.
