1.07.2010

Neener, neener, neener

My morning has been cray-zee, so I'm a wee bit rushed in the blogging department today. (More on my day's activities later.) But I really couldn't let an opportunity to wallow in Schadenfreude pass unexploited.

So, it looks like Connecticut has run out of Joementum. Via TPM:
[N]ow we have another sign of just how unpopular Lieberman is post-Health Care Reform antics. Joe was already really unpopular among Connecticut Democrats. His approval among state Dems is now down to 14%. And his overall approval in the state is 25% in the state overall with 67% disapproval.

HuffPo has this little gem:
"It all adds up to a 25% approval rating with 67% of his constituents giving him bad marks," the study concludes. "Barack Obama's approval rating with Connecticut Republicans is higher than Lieberman's with the state's Democrats."

Whoops-a-daisy! It looks like opposing a Medicare buy-in was a bad idea, particularly as Lieberman was on record as having supported it a few months prior. It's one thing to be "Independent," and another thing entirely to throw your lot in with the obstructionist minority party just for the sake of sticking it to the Democrats.

It's looks like Connecticut just might be willing to give Joe the heave-ho. Here's hoping.

1.05.2010

Confidential to Tila Tequila

Look, honey. I know you're all class, with the horrible television show and the nipple flashes and all. But who's to say whether or not your "engagement" to the troubled, late Johnson & Johnson heiress Casey Johnson was a complete fraud? It's sad when anyone dies before their time, no matter how decadent their lifestyle, and even fame harlots can yearn for a genuine connection with someone to love.

That being said, if celebrity wags are apt to question the sincerity of your feelings for your deceased beloved, perhaps it's best to choose an outlet for your grief other than Twitter.

Not a dumb question

During my blogging hiatus, the family and I took a trip to Massachusetts to see some friends and to breathe the air in a state where the Better Half and I could get married. (A lovely bouquet of lily of the valley and nutmeg, minus the smell of moose.) While we were there, the Paterfamilias suggested that we visit the Kennedy Library and Museum. So, on a very, very windy day we bundled up the Critter, programmed the (marginally effectual) GPS and visited our nation's shrine to all things Kennedy.

I realize that I am going to lose my "Liberal in Good Standing" card by typing this, but I totally fail to understand all the Kennedy worship. (Maybe they'll give me a probationary period if I give more money to NPR.) I've wondered for a while what JFK did to earn all the plaudits, other than being killed tragically and keeping the country from being blown to smithereens during the Cuban missile crisis. Fair enough on that last point, I suppose, but what else ya' got? The Library illuminated this not at all. (There was hardly a whiff of the Bay of Pigs, to boot.) Can someone enlighten me? What did Kennedy do that his legacy is constantly being invoked?

Anyhoodle, that's all a meandering preamble to a more pressing concern. Megan McArdle (about whom my opinion is mixed) poses the question:

Could Massachussetts Elect a Republican to Kennedy's Seat?

For those of you who don't obsessively follow politics, in a couple of weeks the good people of Massachusetts will vote on who will replace Teddy in the Senate (the Republic somehow having survived the lack of a Kennedy in that august body). Rasmussen gives the race between Martha Coakley (D) and Scott Brown (R) a 9-point spread, which is pretty narrow considering that Oh, my GOD it's KENNEDY'S SEAT!!

I was prepared to pooh-pooh those results, given that Rasmussen tends to tilt right-ward. But poll guru Nate Silver isn't so quick to dismiss them:
... Rasmussen's theory on this election, basically, is that the people in the middle won't bother to show up; there are many fewer independents and many fewer moderates in their sample than you usually get in Massachusetts. Instead, it will be a race between the bases. That could be a good theory, or it could be an artifact of their sample design -- one thing that generally seems true of Rasmussen and some of the IVR pollsters is that they capture a hyper-informed and hyper-partisan electorate. (To wit: Rasmussen shows Coakley getting just 21 percent of the "other" vote -- but 24 percent of the Republican vote.)

By the way, that's not necessarily meant to imply that Rasmussen is lowballing Coakley's number. It could be that they're low on Brown instead. Or that they have two wrongs which more or less make a right. Or that they have the race completely nailed. Or that they've completely flubbed it up.

Not exactly a rousing endorsement, but not a total repudiation either.

For what it's worth (which is to say, zilch), I don't have much concern that MA will go red, special election notwithstanding. But the Democrats had better not take this race for granted. If they lose Kennedy's seat (Oh, my GOD!!!), they're in for a rough, rough year.

As regular as the tides

*sigh*

Via the Union Leader (because the KJ has buried the story somewhere on its site):

A state representative from Windham is leading an effort to bring a constitutional amendment on gay marriage to voters this fall.

Republican Rep. David Bates, a gay marriage opponent, plans to discuss his work today in Concord to place the question before town meeting voters on March 9.

"This grassroots effort has been preparing for months to launch the 'Let NH Vote' campaign," Bates said in an e-mail announcing his media event. He declined to discuss details when reached by phone yesterday.


So much sound. So much fury. So little significance.

Town meeting votes will, of course, have exactly zero effect on state law. As some other articles have made a bit more clear, these resolutions are totally non-binding, and have no actual effect. In order for the state law to be changed or a constitutional amendment to be enacted, it would have to originate in the very legislature that passed the marriage equality bill in the first place. Its chances of doing so are not so good.

My tiny, cramped little brain is having a lot of trouble with this. Gay marriages have already occured in New Hampshire, and the state (so far as I can tell from the lack of seismic activity here in neighboring Maine) has neither burst into flames nor sunk into the earth. The Antichrist has not assumed control of the government. (He would probably start in Massachusetts, anyway.) A wave of wife-swapping and child sacrifice to Baal has not gripped its hapless heterosexuals. So why the hell does anyone care about this issue, other than the gays and lesbians whose lives would be improved?

I cannot fathom this. These town meeting farts in the wind are just a waste of everyone's time, and yet some group of schmucks feel like it's worth their time to make them happen. Why? What is wrong with me that I cannot grasp the motivation?

1.04.2010

Wait a second? Isn't pride a sin?

Oh, brother. Via Politico (though you can find this all over the Internet tubes):
Brit Hume had some advice for Tiger Woods during this week's "Fox News Sunday." Woods will recover as a golfer, Hume says, but it remains to be seen whether he will recover as a person.

"He's said to be a Buddhist," Hume said. "I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. ... Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery."

Where to begin? Perhaps by noting that being a Christian didn't seem to have helped many of the subjects of some recent sex scandals. (Or, for that matter, a few older ones, as well.)

Then one might ponder what kind of arrogant jerk one would have to be to publicly hold forth on the religious beliefs of someone one (presumably) doesn't know. I get that everyone thinks their religion is the best one (hence believing in it in the first place), but it takes a special person to make a point of telling someone else that their religion is inferior. On national television.

But a lot of other people have already made similar points. I would like to take a different angle on why I think Brit Hume is full of crap.

There are lots and lots of helpless alcoholics out there who have gotten help through Alcoholics Anonymous. [Before I proceed, I am going to stop and clarify that I am not going to tout the relative success of AA as compared to other roads to recovery, or to say that it's the only way people can get sober. If you have an axe to grind or a flag to wave, please spare us all.] Whatever your beliefs about 12-step recovery programs, their staying power and various permutations as applied to all manner of "addictive" behaviors speak to their appeal as a means of reclaiming one's life in the face of an abject loss of control. And what are two of cardinal tenets of said 12 Steps?

2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him. [italics in original]


One thing that is clear in 12-step recovery programs is that everyone gets to choose a God that they understand. And many of them do recover, in part through believing in all manner of Higher Powers, whatever they may choose to call them. Plenty of people in recovery call their Higher Power God, but plenty of people do not. (Presumably AA members in China are happy to call their Higher Power Buddha.)

The bottom line is that you don't need to be Christian to seek forgiveness and redemption. All you have to be is willing to seek it in the first place. I hope, for his sake, that Tiger Woods is.

Dept. of Lying Hatemongers

From the Times:


Last March, three American evangelical Christians, whose teachings about “curing” homosexuals have been widely discredited in the United States, arrived here in Uganda’s capital to give a series of talks.

The theme of the event, according to Stephen Langa, its Ugandan organizer, was “the gay agenda — that whole hidden and dark agenda” — and the threat homosexuals posed to Bible-based values and the traditional African family.

For three days, according to participants and audio recordings, thousands of Ugandans, including police officers, teachers and national politicians, listened raptly to the Americans, who were presented as experts on homosexuality. The visitors discussed how to make gay people straight, how gay men often sodomized teenage boys and how “the gay movement is an evil institution” whose goal is “to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity.”

My, my, my. "Hidden and dark agenda"? Silly me. I thought our agenda was perfectly open and apparent. We'd like to be treated like normal human beings, thanks.

And let us not avert our eyes from the details of what was said, no matter how vile it may have been. At this point, it no longer needs to be said that gay men are not pederasts. (Or, perhaps more precisely, gay men are no more likely to be pederasts than straight ones.) That slander has long been debunked, and it is beneath my dignity to spend any time doing so at this point. (If you require "proof" of this negative, you're probably reading the wrong blog.) The lack of truth did not stop these "Christians" from spewing forth their bile to an eager and credulous audience, however. The result?

Now the three Americans are finding themselves on the defensive, saying
they had no intention of helping stoke the kind of anger that could lead to what
came next: a bill to impose a death sentence for homosexual behavior.

Oh, spare me. Spare me your faux protestations, and take the anger you deserve like the men you claim to be. The combination of ignorance and hubris necessary to fly to a country utterly foreign to you, declaim about a class of people you clearly despise and about whom you know nothing (whatever your claim to be "experts"), hold forth that homosexuals are out to molest a country's children and destroy its families, and then recoil in baffled surprise at the whirlwind that burgeons up is beyond me.

What despicable, wretched people these three are.

The three Americans who spoke at the conference — Scott Lively, a missionary who has written several books against homosexuality, including “7 Steps to Recruit-Proof Your Child”; Caleb Lee Brundidge, a self-described former gay man who leads “healing seminars”; and Don Schmierer, a board member of Exodus International, whose mission is “mobilizing the body of Christ to minister grace and truth to a world impacted by homosexuality” — are now trying to distance themselves from the bill.

“I feel duped,” Mr. Schmierer said, arguing that he had been invited to speak on “parenting skills” for families with gay children. He acknowledged telling audiences how homosexuals could be converted into heterosexuals, but he said he had no idea some Ugandans were contemplating the death penalty for homosexuality.

“That’s horrible, absolutely horrible,” he said. “Some of the nicest people I have ever met are gay people.”

Really? How lovely that some of the nicest people you've met are gay. I can think of one particular gay man that would joyfully kick your teeth in, given half the chance. I wonder if Mr. Schmierer feels similarly duped when he tosses spray cans into bonfires and they inexplicably explode. As for the other two, anyone who says that homosexuals "recruit" deserves all the opproprium he gets, and anyone who claims to have been "cured" of homosexuality is probably so miserable from self-loathing that one almost (but not really) has to feel sorry for him.
Mr. Lively and Mr. Brundidge have made similar remarks in interviews or statements issued by their organizations. But the Ugandan organizers of the conference admit helping draft the bill, and Mr. Lively has acknowledged meeting with Ugandan lawmakers to discuss it. He even wrote on his blog in March that someone had likened their campaign to “a nuclear bomb against the gay agenda in Uganda.” Later, when confronted with criticism, Mr. Lively said he was very disappointed that the legislation was so harsh. [ed: certain links from original article disabled]

What kind of "nuclear bomb" did the odious Mr. Lively expect? How much harshness would have been to his liking?

Faugh. Let these three deny that this law is, in part, their handiwork. The truth is that they are perfectly happy to see gays and lesbians persecuted under the law, and are happy to exploit the homophobia of a foreign culture to promote their own hidden, dark agenda. Anyone who pretends that these three did not intend to make the lives of gays and lesbians materially worse, and more horrible than they already were in a country where they are castigated, targeted victims of violence is a fool.

To hell with such "Christians."

1.01.2010

Avatar: the review

Last night, in lieu of drunken debauchery, the Better Half and I went to see Avatar with my father. And then we went to bed. (I would like to tentatively congratulate the Critter for his seeming return to full-night sleeping.) To the cottony-mouthed and tender of head, I bid you Happy New Year.

First of all, if you're planning to see Avatar, you really shouldn't bother unless you're going to see it in 3D. (I imagine those viewers lucky enough to see it on Imax would probably say something similar about smaller screens, but I don't think the difference in experience would be as vast as between seeing it in 3D and otherwise.) Minus the dazzling, immersive visual effects, you're left with a rather rote sci-fi epic.

On that note, the plot is nothing special. It's equal parts Dances with Wolves and Starship Troopers, with a dash of The Matrix tossed in for good measure. Cheesy at numerous points, the entire story arc is quite predictable. [Confidential to EP -- it was worth seeing the movie just for the chance to say "That would be Chekhov's flying attack reptile."] It serves as a handy frame upon which to hang the visual effects.

Having said all that, go see this movie. (Unless you are my mother, and you hate science fiction. Then you should watch Gaslight, which I gave you for Christmas.) All the hype about how Avatar is a game-changer is, alas, true. The experience is unforgettable. I really had the sensation of being present in the scenes, and the alien vistas are dreamlike and breathtaking. When ashes fall or grass blows along the bottom of the screen, it appears as vividly as if there were actual ashes or blades of grass right in front of you. There is no way this film can be appreciated outside of the theater, and James Cameron should get a big, lavish fruit basket from his pals in Hollywood for creating an experience that requires the audience to turn off their Blu-ray players and go back to the multiplex.

The plot is thin. Some of the actors deliver their performances with a healthy slice of ham. (I'm looking at you, Ruthless Military Heavy.) The pantheistic environmentalist message is cloying and heavy-handed. And I still want to go see it again.