Thursday, August 16, 2007

Just Spit It Out Already

Still thinking about the Richardson meltdown and overall non-stellar performance of all the participants in the HRC sponsored debate and I have to say WTF???

This is 2007, the beginning of the 21st century and we still can barely choke out the words "gay" or "homosexuality"? The few who can spit it out without nearly swallowing their own tongue still don't dare cross the line into saying sure, I think it's fine & dandy if you get married. An election loser fer sure, fer sure. WHY?

I'm not gay, to the best of my knowledge I fall in that 55% of the population who doesn't even have a gay relative so I have no deep personal stake in the matter.....aside from the fact that as a human being it's the right thing to do for other human beings. It just is. Period.

I don't know or care if people are born with a preference, develop one early on or even if it's the same for everyone....I don't need to know because it does not matter. No one owes it to anyone else to give reasons why they love whoever they love. Maybe it was just me but I found the question itself at least stupid if not downright offensive. Lookee here gay people: don't try to justify anything, you don't owe anyone anything.

Who in the hell are these 57% who are so vested in making certain same-sex couples can't get married and why in the hell are they so damned interested? Frankly I can't think of many things I'd care to obsess about less than other peoples' sex lives, gay or straight and I have to tell you if you are really upset about this really are not normal, seek therapy, m'kay?

Naturally this started me off on a tangent about a multitude of other retarded things we say and hear everyday.

Is Obama Black enough? Are we ready for a female president? If you're voting on race or gender you have issues I can't help you with. Christ on a bicycle, are we EVER going to get to the point that race, gender, sexual preference or the size of a persons waistband don't define every other thing about them? Thousands of years of known history and this is the best we can do? Look, I can't stand Mitt Romney but it's because of his views on policy, I don't care if he's Mormon or worships the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

And yappity-yap-yap about candidates' "likeability factor". Doh. I'm not planning to hook up with any of them and I doubt any of them would give me the time of day if I tried. Nor would I expect them to, they have their things to do and I've got mine. If I voted for the person I "liked" I'd vote for fucking ELIZABETH Edwards. That might not be the best choice for leading the country though. Who the hell cares if a candidate is "likeable" or not, unless you're thinking you really have a shot at getting them to your candlight supper and your last name is happens to be something like Rockefeller or Geffen you're pissing up a rope. Barack ain't going to strip for you and Hillary ain't showin' up fer yer house party and not even Dennis Kucinich is going to be your private dancer (and for THAT I'm eternally grateful). I don't care if the person that will do the job I want done is cross-eyed, fat, smelly and bald-headed (even if female). I do care that they aren't stupid and they know what they're doing and that when they don't....they're smart enough to surround themselves with people who do know and actually listen to their advice. That would just be fucking refreshing after the last 8 years.

But here we are in the 21st century and still, STILL we can't get past trivia and bullshit. Last week Chris Matthews had some woman on, who I regard so little I'm not even going to look up her name, who was intent on making a major issue out of Clinton saying "I'm your girl". Whatever. It would have seemed a bit odd if she'd said "I'm, your boy". Supposedly, according to Miss Heffalump, this was going to enrage all the "radical feminists".

What the hell is a "radical feminist"? Someone who threatens to blow up your sewer system if you don't pay her an additional 6 weeks of maternity leave? A group of women intent on the destruction of NASCAR? Look lady, there is nothing "radical" about demanding equitable treatment, not since about 1950 anyway. When I show up on the set of Hardball, drag you around the set by your perfectly coiffed hair and proceed to kick in about $5,000 worth of fancy dental work and your new nose job...THEN you can call me radical. Until then, if you think "feminism", whatever in the hell that means anyway, is so damned radical and disagreeable to you then you should shut your big, fat piehole and get your stanky arse back in the kitchen because it was "feminism" that gave you the opportunity to have a career and go on national television and show everyone what a fucking retarded assclown you truly are.

In the year 2007 one would have hoped we'd have been laughing people like this off of the stage. No, instead we have to question candidates about their views on Jesus, the sexual preferences of other adults, and their racial identity and allow anyone, no matter how stupid, to be recognized as a credible pundit. No wonder we wind up in the sort of messes we do.

You know the rightwing may be correct about one thing (even a blind pig occasionally finds an acorn, no?). They like to flap their yaps about how "political correctness has ruined our country". I agree. We've become incapable of calling an idiot and idiot.


Woozie said...

Actually likability is important because honestly, people aren't going to vote for someone they don't like and likability could factor in to diplomatic relations quite a bit. If Dick Cheney was president he'd be a loudmouth jerkass who eats children. Nobody wants to be friends with someone who eats children.

Richardson and Edwards imploded in the debate. Bill blamed his "it's a choice" statement on jet lag. Jet lag!!!

And Dennis Kucinich actually did support full gay marriage if I remember correctly. Even if he is an elf.

Not Your Mama said...

Up to a point, but I can vote for people I don't like...I have to since I don't really like many people ;). Besides which I advocate the eating of children, it prevents the development of more adults so what's the downside?

I'm going to blame my goofiness this morning on lack of sleep too, up too early to watch the pre-market meltdown. Correction my ass, this is heading dangerously close to becoming a full scale panic.

RJ Adams said...

My impression of (most) American voters is they always go for the guy or girl (no apology to radical feminists) most like their favorite film star. Hence, politicians have become more like film stars. And we all know Hollywood's best are nothing like their persona on screen. When, for instance, was the last time Mel Gibson played the role of a drunken anti-Semite, or Paris Hilton a weak-kneed, pathetic jailbird feigning claustrophobia?
American politicians are actors in disguise, spouting lines written for them by spin doctors and plonkers like Rove. They've learned it doesn't do to tell the truth because the American public can't take it. Lying is their only way into office. In this country, "Politically correctness" is a euphemism for "a fear of the truth".

Not Your Mama said...

You may have just hit on a great idea for the next hit movie.

ryk said...

You touched on one of my pet peeves here too. What kind of insanity makes a woman, any woman, go on television and belittle feminism? It's just baffling to me.

Vigilante said...

I don't know what Woozie is referring to in Edwards "imploding" in the "debate", (if that's what it is called), because I think JRE performs in a consistently competent manner.

Secondly, when and if the luxury is afforded me to choose between two or more otherwise equally adequate candidates, I would decide my primary vote on whose voice I could best tolerate for the next 4 or 8 years.

TomCat said...

Mama, most of what you say makes perfect sense to me. Unfortunately, you are about as far as one gets from the sheeple who vote.

I did an impromptu survey of people who live in my apt. building (It may end up as a post at PP.), and asked a dozen of them, not who their candidate of choice is, but what it is about their candidate of choice the liked best. Answers ranged from race to the "clothes she wears". But only one said that the reason is agreement on the issues that effect our nation.

That scares me.

Not Your Mama said...

Vigilante: you really thought Edwards did well? Sorry, I had the same take as Woozie, he imploded on that one IMHO. All of them do really.

If one of them wanted to impress me they'd stand up and spit the truth out: I"m fine with gay marriage but I cannot agree to it at this time because the American voters are still trying to come to terms with the earth being round....they can't even begin to comprehend this one yet.

Vigilante said...

N.Y.M., The average American voter who votes in Nevada, doesn't get that nuance. Candidates have to paint in broad strokes.

Not Your Mama said...

LOL. Much truth there. Exactly why I only half-watched the "debate", it's all a sideshow for the masses.