I just don't get the whole idea of having newly elected Virginia governor Bob McDonnell giving a mini-State of the Union Address in the capital of the Old Confederacy.  Who the hell were those people surrounding and applauding him.  It looked ridiculous. 

Man, I could not wait to get home from work to blog about this - not that everyone already knows about it by now.  But, that asshole who dressed up like a pimp and doctored videos for his political attacks on ACORN, has been arrested in connection with a scheme to bug the offices of Senator Mary Landrieu. 

The right has hailed this man as a hero, and some Congressman wanted to public commend this individual - and he is now an alleged felon.  Then again, the right makes heros of their felons (Libby, North, Liddy)  It really does not get any better than this.  How quickly will those on the right defend him (just read some of the comments on their blogs)?  Blame Holder?  I guess law and order only matters unless you are using it to smear Democrats, and quasi-Democrats at that. 

I can't wait the wall to wall coverage of the story on FOX. . .oh wait.

When most people make a mistake, or say something stupid or offensive, they are smart to enough to let it go.  Not, Cliff Kincaid over at Inaccuracy in Media, who continues his support of the execution of homosexuals in Uganda.  Kincaid claims that homosexual activists are lying about the bill (which is not true, that is Kincaid's job) and are not taking account the special Ugandan experience, like this tidbit:

Another critical fact that has been carefully omitted from most U.S. media coverage of the controversy is that Uganda previously suffered under a violent homosexual pedophile King who forced himself on young men. Christians in Uganda resisted the King and were tortured and killed, resulting in the annual June 3 Martyr's Day national holiday.

In Uganda they will "never forget" what happened to the Christian martyrs.

So, let's get this straight.  A Ugandan King over 120 years ago who was married and had several children also engaged in sexual relations with his pages.  When Christian missionaries (you know the people who came into Uganda and forced Christianity on the people) refused the King's advances, he had them executed.  I am sure the fact that these people were a threat to his power had nothing to do with it.  Regardless - does this make sense?  We need to execute homosexuals because a King had sex with pages 120 years ago.  WTF?!?  I guess that makes it alright to execute heterosexuals in country's where leaders had a harem and sexually assaulted women.  What about all those countries who raped individuals after conquering territory?  Kincaid is a moron. 

Kincaid is worse than a moron, his ideology and column pretty much will result in the deaths of the average Ugandan.  Despite the fact that the overwhelmingly mode of transmission of AIDS in Uganda is heterosexual conduct, Kincaid focuses on homosexual conduct as if it is the only way AIDS is transmitted:

Resisting this new and insidious form of Western imperialism, Uganda pastors representing many different denominations have been outspoken in their support of the need for new legislation to protect families and children. They say they don't want homosexuality to become part of their culture, in the same way that it has been accepted in the U.S. and other Western countries and has contributed to the spread of AIDS and other dangerous diseases.

So, AIDS, which is more prevelant in Uganda than in the United States and is spread primarily through heterosexual conduct, can be stopped by killing homosexuals.  Welcome to your Christian theocracy - where idiocy and ignorance rule.  And they want to rule in the United States.  Hell no!!!

Admit it Peter, this is your final solution for homosexuals who won't find Christ.Peter LaBarbera, over at Americans For Lies Truth About Homosexuality must be losing it.  Okay, that assumes that he has not lost it already, or even had it to begin with.  Anyway, LaBarbera makes the outrageous assertion as to whether we should lecture Uganda on its proposed treatment of homosexuals - you know, whether they should kill them.

Could you imagine the outrage if I, or someone questioned the right of the United States or its citizens to lecture Sudan on how it treats its Christians, or how about how the Chinese treats its Christians?  In LaBarbera's obsessive world of gay hating, we have no right to question the laws of other nations when it applies to gays (unless it is gay marriage, then we must judge and condemn).   Whatever happened to the universal rights of man (heck, Christianists claim it stems from God himself.)

Anyway, we should expect such vile shit from LaBarbera.  But, in his blinded rage of homophobia, he lets slip the fact that he is a moron who has not even bothered to read the Ugandan bill:

I haven’t yet studied the proposed Ugandan legislation but I agree with Bob Knight’s analysis below — and AFTAH is clearly on record opposing draconian penalties for homosexuality like those imposed by jihadist Islamic radicals.

The bill is 16 pages long (it is not health care) and is pretty well understandable for a five year old, and LaBarbera has not studied it.  I thought his whole raison d'etre is to obsess about homosexuality - and he hasn't read the bill that is the fruit of his life-long work.  Uganda is enacting the legislation that he and his fundamentalist buddies want.  Uganda was to become their Christian theocratic paradise.  Gee, I wouldn't want to read such a vile bill either because it shows the disgrace of your work.

Oh, you have to appreciate the fact (in an ironic way) that LaBarbera has not read the bill but is willing to agree with someone else's assessment of the situation.  It is like not studying the Bible but accepting someone else's interpretation of it.  Oh wait. . .

In 2004, when exit polls showed that Kerry was going to win but Bush actually won, and pretty handedly at that (relative to 2000), Republicans did not think the election was stolen and attacked Democrats who made the charge. 

However, it has never stopped "conservatives" from claiming that every time a Democrat wins an election it was somehow stolen.  They have already begun the chorus on the Massachusetts governor's race.  Now that recent polling shows the Republican candidate ahead (and apparently surging), they are already claiming that if the Democrat wins it must because the election was stolen.  Let's ignore that the polling could be suspect.  It is not uncommon for polling data to find a surge that is not really there - Obama in the New Hampshire primary and Hoffman in that New York District race.

Now, I don't know who is going to win that Massachusetts race, but if Coakley wins, I am more than positive it is not because it was stolen.  I mean, do you really think that the Democrats who are not competent to pass a health care bill in a year can somehow manage to steal an election?

A cute little sidenote, I remember learning about the election of 1960, that even though Kennedy probably stole Illinois and Texas, it was offset by Nixon who probably stole California.

Still unpopular but it does not matter.I wouldn't hold my breath.  According to a new CBS Poll (and we all know how much I hate polls), 41% of Americans have an unfavorable view of Sarah van Papen Palin and only 26% have a positive view.  Even better, 71% of Americans do not want Sarah van Papen Palin to run for President.  Funny, I remember some moron over at the L.A. Times using faulty stats to claim that Sarah van Papen Palin would run neck and neck with Barack Obama in an election.  The right ate it up.  I bet they will be silent on this poll.

And for all the tea baggers out there - 18% of Americans have a positive view of the movement, 12% negative and the rest are undecided and don't know about it.  I am sure Glenn Beck will be touting that 18% figure on his next show.  Oh wait. . .

How about the military, do we want that smaller?CNS is touting a figure from the recent Washington Post/ABC poll which found that 58% of Americans support smaller government with less services.  CNS is also upset that the article accompanying the poll results did not mention them.

Personally, it is a stupid question to begin with?  It is very American to say that you want smaller government.  We always say it, but we don't seem to govern that way.  Why?  Because people don't really want smaller government.  They like the services from the government.  And, many "conservatives" love to feel that they are being oppressed by the government (unless it is done for national security or the children, then intrusion is fine).

I am just curious, and maybe pollsters should ask this, what services people want less of?  Education, Police, Firefighters, Military, Medicare, Medicaid, Farm Subsidies.  Take your pick.  It is so much easier to preach smaller government, it is much more difficult to give specifics.  But, that is what "conservatives" are great at - talk and no action.  It is not a governing philosophy and the Republicans cannot point to any achievement or success in the last twenty years.

Homophobic bigots only care about child molestation when it is male on male.Could you imagine the outrage in the homophobic community if a male pediatrician had been charged with 30 counts of rape and child exploitation of male patients.  They would be up in arms and reporting it at every chance they can get.  Mike Adams would question what it is about the homosexual lifestyle that would lead to such horrific crimes.  Peter LaBarbera would claim that is what to be expected because of the deviant homosexual lifestyle.  And they both would be complaining about how the mainstream media is ignoring the story (and yet they are aware of it!).

But, if the male pediatrician molested and raped young girls, you will not hear a word from these people.  They would never question what it is about the heterosexual lifestyle that would lead to such a horrific crime.  The reason they will not say such things is because it runs counter to their whole raison d'etre of smearing gays by proving that they are child molesters (and that heterosexual child molesters do not exist).  In fact, I am sure they would blame the general acceptance of homosexuals in society as the reason why heterosexuals are molesting children.  That is how these people reason.

So, I ask these homophobes who turn every gay crime into a cause celebre.  Where are you with respect to Dr. Earl Bradley, the pediatrician in Delaware who is charged with 30 felony counts of rape and exploitation of young girls?  Why are they not connecting the heterosexual lifestyle with child molestation?  (When a heterosexual commits a sex crime it is a tragedy, when a homosexual does so it is part of their lifestyle.) We all know the answer.  These people are nothing more than disgusting, gay-sex obsessed homophobes who will say and do anything just to make a buck, despite the harm it causes children.

And, of course the inaccuracy of the organization is a result of its obsession with spreading lies and smears against the LGBT community.  It must be difficult for these "conservatives" to write columns when the only minority group that it is acceptable to smear are gays.  (Well occasionally they do let a racist rant here and there.)  Cliff Kincaid over at Inaccuracy In Media has been on a recent tear of homophobic diatribes.

He has spent three articles tenuously connecting Kevin Jennings, a gay appointee, to pedophilia through the logic that if you praise an individual for a singular action you are actually subscribing to everything that individual has ever said and written in their lives.  Could you imagine how stupid you would look if someone argued that you favored the enslavement of Africans or that blacks are dumber than whites (and that blacks smell different) because you praised Jefferson for writing the Declaration of Independence?   Then again, who ever accused Kincaid of being intelligent or able to reason.

Obviously, the man is a moron because he has now written two columns defending proposed legislation in Uganda that would penalize homosexuals with the death penalty.  In all due fairness to Kincaid, he did temporarily go off his homophobic columns to attack the Catholic Church, another favorite target of his (Kincaid is anti-Catholic also.  I am sure he wishes the Know Nothing Party would return.)

Why is Kincaid defending the law?  Well, according to Kincaid it is only putting child molesters to death.  Here is his defense:

Homosexual media activists in the U.S. such as Rachel Maddow of MSNBC and Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post have falsely depicted the bill in Uganda as an effort to kill homosexuals. In fact, it is designed to save lives by restricting dangerous homosexual practices, including pedophilia, child rape, and the deliberate spreading of the AIDS virus. The controversial death penalty provision, which even some pro-family activists in the U.S. find objectionable, is for crimes of "aggravated homosexuality."

And, from a previous column:

While the Uganda bill goes too far even for pro-family activists in the United States and several provisions will probably be eliminated or modified before final passage, it does not advocate the death penalty for being homosexual. Instead, the death penalty is proposed for cases of "aggravated homosexuality," mostly involving pedophilia and rape. The bill was introduced by a Ugandan parliamentarian named David Bahati, a member of the ruling National Resistance Movement and a Christian.

Kincaid is lying and mischaracterizing the bill.  You can read it here. 

Click to read more ...

Why Don't They Just Advocate the Ugandan Solution?I am a big fan of the First Amendment and all, but you would hope that someone would have more common sense than to run an anti-homophobic and pro-violence cartoon in a university newspaper with the following dialogue:

"What's the easiest way to turn a fruit into a vegetable?"

"No idea."

"A baseball bat."

Apparently, such common sense is lacking at Notre Dame.  Even worse, the original "punch line" was "AIDS."  Also, if you are going to print such garbage, you should have the testicular fortitude to name the cartoonist.  I am sure this cartoonist is a hero to people like LaBarbera, Barber, Mike Adams, and Cliff Kinkaid.  This is the result of the vile shit they spew.