Who gives a flying fuck?
"Nearly three-quarters of Americans questioned last week — 74 percent — said they encounter profanity in public frequently or occasionally, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll.
Two-thirds said they think people swear more than they did 20 years ago. And as for, well, the gold standard of foul words, a healthy 64 percent said they use the F-word — ranging from several times a day (8 percent) to a few times a year (15 percent)."
what's the big fucking deal?
just kidding. In all seriousness, I think the whole thing about profanity is overblown. but I've said this all before. See below.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
10 reasons why Liberals are better in bed
From feministing.com
All true, by the way.
And pay special attention to #6. Republicans ARE bigger dicks, but we Liberals HAVE bigger dicks.
There's a difference.
All true, by the way.
And pay special attention to #6. Republicans ARE bigger dicks, but we Liberals HAVE bigger dicks.
There's a difference.
Woo-hoo! Good news in NH
Victory against the homophobes
March 21, 2006
CONCORD, N.H. --The New Hampshire House voted overwhelmingly Tuesday against a proposed amendment to the state constitution to ban gay marriage.
*****
(Here's a key passage):
But supporters of the amendment insisted it was needed to prevent the courts from forcing a decision, as happened in Vermont and Massachusetts.
*****
And Hawaii, don't forget Hawaii. And don't forget Colorado's own Amendment 2 was passed by the electorate, but killed by the Supreme Court. Not to mention Texas' anti-sodomy statute getting shot down by the SCOTUS.
It seems the homophobes know what'll happen if a court has to decide the issue of whether gays can marry. They'll lose. So they figure, don't let it get into court.
Don't let people versed in the law, the Constitution, and equal protection make that kind of judgment. Leave it up to the bigots!
March 21, 2006
CONCORD, N.H. --The New Hampshire House voted overwhelmingly Tuesday against a proposed amendment to the state constitution to ban gay marriage.
*****
(Here's a key passage):
But supporters of the amendment insisted it was needed to prevent the courts from forcing a decision, as happened in Vermont and Massachusetts.
*****
And Hawaii, don't forget Hawaii. And don't forget Colorado's own Amendment 2 was passed by the electorate, but killed by the Supreme Court. Not to mention Texas' anti-sodomy statute getting shot down by the SCOTUS.
It seems the homophobes know what'll happen if a court has to decide the issue of whether gays can marry. They'll lose. So they figure, don't let it get into court.
Don't let people versed in the law, the Constitution, and equal protection make that kind of judgment. Leave it up to the bigots!
What a gutsy 16 year old gay man...
...and what a spineless excuse for a senator.
In Virginia, yet, a 16 year old gay man confronted Sen. George Allen at a town meeting about his position against making gay-bashing a hate crime.
I've often wondered about the politicians who take anti-gay positions. Whether they truly believe they're doing the right thing by persecuting homosexuals or whether they're just whores for their homophobic base constituency.
Neither answer makes me feel very good.
In Virginia, yet, a 16 year old gay man confronted Sen. George Allen at a town meeting about his position against making gay-bashing a hate crime.
I've often wondered about the politicians who take anti-gay positions. Whether they truly believe they're doing the right thing by persecuting homosexuals or whether they're just whores for their homophobic base constituency.
Neither answer makes me feel very good.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Another Oldie But Goodie
From November 2004
ALL WORKED UP ABOUT SEX ED
By J.T. Benjamin
Copr. 2004
My oldest daughter is thirteen going on fourteen; smack in the middle of puberty.
Pray for me.
As deeply immersed in the culture of sexuality as I am, I’m also deeply concerned about my Lovely Wife’s and my responsibilities toward our daughter and her
sexual development. I leave most of the educational stuff to my Lovely Wife. It’s not that I’m a coward about discussing women’s sexual issues, it’s just that
my Lovely Wife can address our daughter’s concerns about that stuff without having to consult a book. My role is mostly to recall what’s on the minds of
twelve-and-thirteen year old boys and play Pappa Bear.
I growl a lot. I complain about the outfits girls are wearing, I give her the third degree about who she’s with and what she’s doing, and I threaten to not let her date until 1) she’s thirty, 2) I’m dead, or 3) both.
It’s mostly an act. When my kids are adults, I’d like them all to have adult sex lives as healthy and as enjoyable as the one my Lovely Wife and I share.
Maybe not as kinky as ours is, but hey. And I know that for my kids to have healthy attitudes toward sex as adults, it’s our responsibility as their parents to
cultivate those healthy sex lives while they’re growing.
Here’s the problem. I know for a fact my Lovely Wife and I, have been very careful about the exposure our daughter receives about sex, and that with that exposure comes a responsibility to educate. However, I also know for a fact that somebody’s been getting into the erotic magazines, videos, and books I keep hidden for …uh…research purposes. I’m also certain my daughter’s picked up a helluva lot more about sex than her mother and I have given her. This is because when I was my daughter’s age, I had no trouble whatsoever picking up more information about sex than what my parents chose to share with me. Since my daughter’s smarter than I am, it stands to reason she’s had even less trouble than I, thanks to her friends, the media, and the school system.
I wish it didn’t have to be that way. It’d be nice if responsible and thorough information was somehow downloaded into the brain of a young person upon
reaching adulthood. So when my daughter blows out the candles on her eighteenth birthday cake, this little lightbulb would go off over her head and she’d
say, “Ahh….the clitoral orgasm. Very interesting.”
Of course, that's wishful thinking. Instead, my Lovely Wife and I not only have to rely upon our own vigilance, but we need some kind of backup, as well.
Our school system, in its wisdom, last year launched a new sex education program. Thanks to the influence/pressure of local prominent church organizations, our school district is emphasizing "Abstinence Only" sex education. If you're not familiar with the term, "Abstinence Only" sex ed means that the main emphasis upon young people is to practice abstinence and/or preserve their virginity until marriage. In fact, abstinence is emphasized so strongly that sex ed teachers are actually discouraged from discussing ANY aspects of sexuality beyond the absolute basics. Subjects that are commonly avoided include sexually transmitted diseases, homosexual
behavior, birth control, and of course abortion.
The "Abstinence Only" movement really began in 1996, in response to the fact that the U.S. has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the developed world, more than
twice that of Canada, England, France, and Sweden. By encouraging teenagers to abstain, and by avoiding the discussion of topics which might encourage or even
acknowledge experimentation, the theory goes that the pregnancy rate would go down.
Interesting theory, and I confess that as a parent, it has a certain appeal. I'd rather not think about my little girl experimenting with sexual behavior before
she's an adult and/or I'm in my grave.
When I heard about my school district's program, I figured I'd do a little research and at least give the district the benefit of the doubt. My Lovely Wife and I would of course continue in our proper role as main educators of our daughter's sex life, and we would count on the school district to, if not fill in the gaps, make sure the gaps weren't left open to be filled by misinformation from friends and the mass
media.
So, before I signed the permission slip, I did some research into "abstinence only" sex ed.
And you know what? It doesn't work. It doesn't WORK! My daughter is being educated in a program that DOESN'T WORK!!!
Advocates For Youth at www.advocatesforyouth.org issued a report in 2004. The report, titled "Assessing The Impact," spent five years analyzing the
"abstinence only" programs in ten states across the U.S. for the programs' impact upon teen sexual behavior. And the programs don't work.
Looking at short term effects on sexual behavior, of six programs analyzed, one program showed mixed results, three showed no impact, and two programs
reported INCREASES in sexual activities among schoolkids. That's right.
In one third of these "abstinence only" programs, sexual activities actually went up. When I read that, I wondered if these kids are even being taught what the
word "abstinence" means!!
Even worse, in the long term, none of the programs reported decreases in sexual behavior. Worse still, the students in these programs tended to ignore or be
ignorant of issues such as birth control, avoiding pregnancy, and even the use of condoms.
The report concludes, "Abstinence only programs show little evidence of sustained (long-term) impact on attitudes and intentions. Worse, they show SOME NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON YOUTH'S WILLINGNESS TO USE CONTRACEPTION, INCLUDING CONDOMS, TO PREVENT NEGATIVE SEXUAL HEALTH OUTCOMES RELATED TO SEXUAL INTERCOURSE. Importantly, ...NONE of these programs demonstrated evidence of long-term success in delaying sexual
initiation among youth exposed to the programs."
Pardon my shouting, but I'm pissed off. The school district might as well use my tax dollars to have my daughter hang out in her friend's basement with some
old Playboys. I mean, if that was good enough for her father...
I'm kidding. But I am actually also pissed off. After all, it's not just my daughter who's impacted by her school's crappy sex ed program. The friends she
hangs out with and the boys she'll eventually date are also impacted, and my Lovely Wife and I can't control a damn thing about what THEY learn. Or don't learn.
All we can do is be willing to answer questions and explain, make ourselves available at all times, pray, and hope for the best. If all goes well, by the time
my daughter's eighteen, she'll know all she needs to know.
And right about at that time, puberty will be hitting my son like a mack truck.
Pray for me.
ALL WORKED UP ABOUT SEX ED
By J.T. Benjamin
Copr. 2004
My oldest daughter is thirteen going on fourteen; smack in the middle of puberty.
Pray for me.
As deeply immersed in the culture of sexuality as I am, I’m also deeply concerned about my Lovely Wife’s and my responsibilities toward our daughter and her
sexual development. I leave most of the educational stuff to my Lovely Wife. It’s not that I’m a coward about discussing women’s sexual issues, it’s just that
my Lovely Wife can address our daughter’s concerns about that stuff without having to consult a book. My role is mostly to recall what’s on the minds of
twelve-and-thirteen year old boys and play Pappa Bear.
I growl a lot. I complain about the outfits girls are wearing, I give her the third degree about who she’s with and what she’s doing, and I threaten to not let her date until 1) she’s thirty, 2) I’m dead, or 3) both.
It’s mostly an act. When my kids are adults, I’d like them all to have adult sex lives as healthy and as enjoyable as the one my Lovely Wife and I share.
Maybe not as kinky as ours is, but hey. And I know that for my kids to have healthy attitudes toward sex as adults, it’s our responsibility as their parents to
cultivate those healthy sex lives while they’re growing.
Here’s the problem. I know for a fact my Lovely Wife and I, have been very careful about the exposure our daughter receives about sex, and that with that exposure comes a responsibility to educate. However, I also know for a fact that somebody’s been getting into the erotic magazines, videos, and books I keep hidden for …uh…research purposes. I’m also certain my daughter’s picked up a helluva lot more about sex than her mother and I have given her. This is because when I was my daughter’s age, I had no trouble whatsoever picking up more information about sex than what my parents chose to share with me. Since my daughter’s smarter than I am, it stands to reason she’s had even less trouble than I, thanks to her friends, the media, and the school system.
I wish it didn’t have to be that way. It’d be nice if responsible and thorough information was somehow downloaded into the brain of a young person upon
reaching adulthood. So when my daughter blows out the candles on her eighteenth birthday cake, this little lightbulb would go off over her head and she’d
say, “Ahh….the clitoral orgasm. Very interesting.”
Of course, that's wishful thinking. Instead, my Lovely Wife and I not only have to rely upon our own vigilance, but we need some kind of backup, as well.
Our school system, in its wisdom, last year launched a new sex education program. Thanks to the influence/pressure of local prominent church organizations, our school district is emphasizing "Abstinence Only" sex education. If you're not familiar with the term, "Abstinence Only" sex ed means that the main emphasis upon young people is to practice abstinence and/or preserve their virginity until marriage. In fact, abstinence is emphasized so strongly that sex ed teachers are actually discouraged from discussing ANY aspects of sexuality beyond the absolute basics. Subjects that are commonly avoided include sexually transmitted diseases, homosexual
behavior, birth control, and of course abortion.
The "Abstinence Only" movement really began in 1996, in response to the fact that the U.S. has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the developed world, more than
twice that of Canada, England, France, and Sweden. By encouraging teenagers to abstain, and by avoiding the discussion of topics which might encourage or even
acknowledge experimentation, the theory goes that the pregnancy rate would go down.
Interesting theory, and I confess that as a parent, it has a certain appeal. I'd rather not think about my little girl experimenting with sexual behavior before
she's an adult and/or I'm in my grave.
When I heard about my school district's program, I figured I'd do a little research and at least give the district the benefit of the doubt. My Lovely Wife and I would of course continue in our proper role as main educators of our daughter's sex life, and we would count on the school district to, if not fill in the gaps, make sure the gaps weren't left open to be filled by misinformation from friends and the mass
media.
So, before I signed the permission slip, I did some research into "abstinence only" sex ed.
And you know what? It doesn't work. It doesn't WORK! My daughter is being educated in a program that DOESN'T WORK!!!
Advocates For Youth at www.advocatesforyouth.org issued a report in 2004. The report, titled "Assessing The Impact," spent five years analyzing the
"abstinence only" programs in ten states across the U.S. for the programs' impact upon teen sexual behavior. And the programs don't work.
Looking at short term effects on sexual behavior, of six programs analyzed, one program showed mixed results, three showed no impact, and two programs
reported INCREASES in sexual activities among schoolkids. That's right.
In one third of these "abstinence only" programs, sexual activities actually went up. When I read that, I wondered if these kids are even being taught what the
word "abstinence" means!!
Even worse, in the long term, none of the programs reported decreases in sexual behavior. Worse still, the students in these programs tended to ignore or be
ignorant of issues such as birth control, avoiding pregnancy, and even the use of condoms.
The report concludes, "Abstinence only programs show little evidence of sustained (long-term) impact on attitudes and intentions. Worse, they show SOME NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON YOUTH'S WILLINGNESS TO USE CONTRACEPTION, INCLUDING CONDOMS, TO PREVENT NEGATIVE SEXUAL HEALTH OUTCOMES RELATED TO SEXUAL INTERCOURSE. Importantly, ...NONE of these programs demonstrated evidence of long-term success in delaying sexual
initiation among youth exposed to the programs."
Pardon my shouting, but I'm pissed off. The school district might as well use my tax dollars to have my daughter hang out in her friend's basement with some
old Playboys. I mean, if that was good enough for her father...
I'm kidding. But I am actually also pissed off. After all, it's not just my daughter who's impacted by her school's crappy sex ed program. The friends she
hangs out with and the boys she'll eventually date are also impacted, and my Lovely Wife and I can't control a damn thing about what THEY learn. Or don't learn.
All we can do is be willing to answer questions and explain, make ourselves available at all times, pray, and hope for the best. If all goes well, by the time
my daughter's eighteen, she'll know all she needs to know.
And right about at that time, puberty will be hitting my son like a mack truck.
Pray for me.
Gay LDS Member may be excommunicated for getting married.
I applaud the guy just for having the guts to stand up for himself in that environment.
From the article:
Jeppson does not expect to prevail in any disciplinary action, nor does he expect the church to accept same-sex marriage. Given the choice, Jeppson said his preference would be for the church to ignore him.
"I'm not attending in a dress or wearing a boa or anything," Jeppson said. "I show up in my suit and white shirt and split after sacrament meeting. I just want to participate and I want to worship quietly in a safe place."
Reminds me of something I saw on "So Graham Norton" once. He was in Mexico and he translated a pamphlet he found on the street entitled, "Should the Catholic Church abandon homosexuals," and he said, "If that means leaving us alone, then the answer is, 'Yes.'"
On behalf of Mr. Jeppson, to the LDS Church: MYOB.
From the article:
Jeppson does not expect to prevail in any disciplinary action, nor does he expect the church to accept same-sex marriage. Given the choice, Jeppson said his preference would be for the church to ignore him.
"I'm not attending in a dress or wearing a boa or anything," Jeppson said. "I show up in my suit and white shirt and split after sacrament meeting. I just want to participate and I want to worship quietly in a safe place."
Reminds me of something I saw on "So Graham Norton" once. He was in Mexico and he translated a pamphlet he found on the street entitled, "Should the Catholic Church abandon homosexuals," and he said, "If that means leaving us alone, then the answer is, 'Yes.'"
On behalf of Mr. Jeppson, to the LDS Church: MYOB.
Missouri, Where Every Sperm Is Sacred
Come to Missouri and return to the 19th Century.
From the Kansas City Star
House rejects spending for birth control
DAVID A. LIEB
Associated Press
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. - An attempt to resume state spending on birth control got shot down Wednesday by House members who argued it would have amounted to an endorsement of promiscuous lifestyles.
*****
The House voted 96-59 to delete the funding for contraception and infertility treatments after Rep. Susan Phillips told lawmakers that anti-abortion groups such as Missouri Right to Life were opposed to the spending.
"If you hand out contraception to single women, we're saying promiscuity is OK as a state, and I am not in support of that," Phillips, R-Kansas City, said in an interview.
I dunno, Rep. Phillips. That's the sort of thing that could really boost tourism.
The latest salvo in the Holy Terrors' War On Whoopie. No sex toys, no porn, no sex ed (except for abstinence only), no Roe v. Wade, no contraceptives.
As I've stated previously, banning contraceptives is just the natural next step once abortion is re-outlawed. Repeal Roe v. Wade and you can likewise repeal Griswold v. Connecticut. And the right to privacy ceases to exist.
From the Kansas City Star
House rejects spending for birth control
DAVID A. LIEB
Associated Press
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. - An attempt to resume state spending on birth control got shot down Wednesday by House members who argued it would have amounted to an endorsement of promiscuous lifestyles.
*****
The House voted 96-59 to delete the funding for contraception and infertility treatments after Rep. Susan Phillips told lawmakers that anti-abortion groups such as Missouri Right to Life were opposed to the spending.
"If you hand out contraception to single women, we're saying promiscuity is OK as a state, and I am not in support of that," Phillips, R-Kansas City, said in an interview.
I dunno, Rep. Phillips. That's the sort of thing that could really boost tourism.
The latest salvo in the Holy Terrors' War On Whoopie. No sex toys, no porn, no sex ed (except for abstinence only), no Roe v. Wade, no contraceptives.
As I've stated previously, banning contraceptives is just the natural next step once abortion is re-outlawed. Repeal Roe v. Wade and you can likewise repeal Griswold v. Connecticut. And the right to privacy ceases to exist.
Monday, March 13, 2006
Sunday, March 12, 2006
More on "Big Love"
John Tierney gets on the soapbox about polygamy in the New York Times. I can't access the entire article as it's behind their "Select" barrier. (Pay for online news content? I refuse!)
Steve Gilliard's blog has an excerpt, with his own opinion. (Scroll down)
As for me, I can't deny the practice (especially in the western U.S.) is rife with abuse and subjugation of women and girls. But then, monogamous marriage as an institution can't claim to have been completely enlightened throughout history, either.
However, giving the green light to gay marriage necessarily leads one to the conclusion that an enlightened form of polygamy must likewise be allowed. If it's okay for David and Jonathan to tie the knot, if Jacob wants to marry both Leah and Rebecca, who am I to say they can't? Assuming all interested parties are consenting adults, it's none of my damn business telling them "no."
Steve Gilliard's blog has an excerpt, with his own opinion. (Scroll down)
As for me, I can't deny the practice (especially in the western U.S.) is rife with abuse and subjugation of women and girls. But then, monogamous marriage as an institution can't claim to have been completely enlightened throughout history, either.
However, giving the green light to gay marriage necessarily leads one to the conclusion that an enlightened form of polygamy must likewise be allowed. If it's okay for David and Jonathan to tie the knot, if Jacob wants to marry both Leah and Rebecca, who am I to say they can't? Assuming all interested parties are consenting adults, it's none of my damn business telling them "no."
Friday, March 10, 2006
Big Love on HBO
I'm looking forward to this Sunday night...not just because "The Sopranos" is coming back.
"Big Love" debuts, too.
I'm cautiously curious and interested in this one. The Mormon angle is interesting, of course. And, of course, the LDS church has repeatedly disavowed polygamy for more than a hundred years. However, I've known quite a few LDS members who wouldn't be at all disappointed if the anti-polygamy policy were to simply vanish.
As for polygamy as an institution, I have no problem with it. Correction: I've got big problems with the way it's currently practiced for the most part, with tight religious restrictions and disturbing reports of child abuse and women's subservience to their husbands.
However, if a woman wants more than one husband at a time, and/or a man wants more than one wife, as long as they're all consenting adults happy with the arrangement, more power to them.
In fact, the endorsement of gay marriage naturally leads to the endorsement of multiple spouses, IMHO. If it's okay to pick a spouse of the same sex, why stop at one?
As for me, I've said it before. More than one wife, more than one mother-in-law. Thank you, no. One's plenty for me.
Love ya, Mom. Remember, I said that.
Anyway, I'd love more input both on polygamy and on the show.
"Big Love" debuts, too.
I'm cautiously curious and interested in this one. The Mormon angle is interesting, of course. And, of course, the LDS church has repeatedly disavowed polygamy for more than a hundred years. However, I've known quite a few LDS members who wouldn't be at all disappointed if the anti-polygamy policy were to simply vanish.
As for polygamy as an institution, I have no problem with it. Correction: I've got big problems with the way it's currently practiced for the most part, with tight religious restrictions and disturbing reports of child abuse and women's subservience to their husbands.
However, if a woman wants more than one husband at a time, and/or a man wants more than one wife, as long as they're all consenting adults happy with the arrangement, more power to them.
In fact, the endorsement of gay marriage naturally leads to the endorsement of multiple spouses, IMHO. If it's okay to pick a spouse of the same sex, why stop at one?
As for me, I've said it before. More than one wife, more than one mother-in-law. Thank you, no. One's plenty for me.
Love ya, Mom. Remember, I said that.
Anyway, I'd love more input both on polygamy and on the show.
Rick Santorum and Birth Control
This shit-for-brains is the #3 man in the Senate, and he actually wants to be President some day.
Link to video here
Wish I had a decent transcript...this place is a mess. Here's a partial quote:
"I'm not a believer in birth control. ... I don't think it works. ... It is harmful to women. ... I don't think it is a healthy thing for our country."
In all fairness, Santorum's a Catholic so he's not just spouting the Holy Terror line, he's tapped into the Vatican's line, too.
Link to video here
Wish I had a decent transcript...this place is a mess. Here's a partial quote:
"I'm not a believer in birth control. ... I don't think it works. ... It is harmful to women. ... I don't think it is a healthy thing for our country."
In all fairness, Santorum's a Catholic so he's not just spouting the Holy Terror line, he's tapped into the Vatican's line, too.
Something else Andrew Sullivan's blog put me onto...
Here's the direct link.
I've only just begun following the arguments myself, but I think it's interesting that the anti-MYOB crowd ends up spinning itself into the ground with all their tortured logic about why gay marriage (just for one example) is bad for society.
As another example, the Holy Terrors traditionally claim that while they're vehemently opposed to abortion, they have no objection to contraception per se. As long as you don't discuss it in the schools. Right?
Not so fast there, hombre.
Here's a Salon article. Sit through a brief ad for a free daypass.
Opposition to the "morning after" pill is especially interesting. It's labeled as a form of abortion, but the pill is really a concentrated dose of your standard birth control pill. Since it takes anywhere from 8 to 24 hours for sperm to reach an egg and fertilize it, the "morning after" pill heads them little swimmers off at the pass. The pill prevents conception, it doesn't induce an abortion.
So the pill's a contraceptive. Get it? So why do the Holy Terrors oppose it?
Because they oppose contraception. Nobody will say it out loud, but essentially as far as the Holy Terrors are concerned, life begins when her bra strap is unhooked.
I've only just begun following the arguments myself, but I think it's interesting that the anti-MYOB crowd ends up spinning itself into the ground with all their tortured logic about why gay marriage (just for one example) is bad for society.
As another example, the Holy Terrors traditionally claim that while they're vehemently opposed to abortion, they have no objection to contraception per se. As long as you don't discuss it in the schools. Right?
Not so fast there, hombre.
Here's a Salon article. Sit through a brief ad for a free daypass.
Opposition to the "morning after" pill is especially interesting. It's labeled as a form of abortion, but the pill is really a concentrated dose of your standard birth control pill. Since it takes anywhere from 8 to 24 hours for sperm to reach an egg and fertilize it, the "morning after" pill heads them little swimmers off at the pass. The pill prevents conception, it doesn't induce an abortion.
So the pill's a contraceptive. Get it? So why do the Holy Terrors oppose it?
Because they oppose contraception. Nobody will say it out loud, but essentially as far as the Holy Terrors are concerned, life begins when her bra strap is unhooked.
What'd I say?
From my very first post, originally published July 2005 on ERWA.
"Imagine watching the Fox News Channel. The commentator on one of the talking head shows announces, “The Food and Drug Administration has given final approval for an AIDS vaccine that has been demonstrated to be 100% effective. With me now is a spokesman for the Family Research Council. Your thoughts?”
'It’s a dark day for humanity, Bill. Now, homosexuals will be free to fornicate without fear of consequences or God’s holy wrath. This vaccine is a tool of Satan and must be eradicated at all costs.'"
Now this from the New Yorker:
Michael Specter's article is only in the print edition.
Andrew Sullivan quotes from the article.
In the eyes of the Holy Terrors, engaging in "unacceptable sexual behavior" is a fate worse than death.
Tell me I didn't call this one!
"Imagine watching the Fox News Channel. The commentator on one of the talking head shows announces, “The Food and Drug Administration has given final approval for an AIDS vaccine that has been demonstrated to be 100% effective. With me now is a spokesman for the Family Research Council. Your thoughts?”
'It’s a dark day for humanity, Bill. Now, homosexuals will be free to fornicate without fear of consequences or God’s holy wrath. This vaccine is a tool of Satan and must be eradicated at all costs.'"
Now this from the New Yorker:
Michael Specter's article is only in the print edition.
Andrew Sullivan quotes from the article.
In the eyes of the Holy Terrors, engaging in "unacceptable sexual behavior" is a fate worse than death.
Tell me I didn't call this one!
Friday, March 03, 2006
From Feb, 2006
ALL WORKED UP ABOUT PROFANITY
by J.T. Benjamin
copr. 2006
When I was eight years old, my younger brother Scott and I walked home from school every day. Timmy, the little kid across the street, rode the schoolbus, always getting home before we did. This allowed Timmy the chance to let his dog, an enormous, mean-tempered German Shepherd, out of his house as soon as he saw us
coming up the street. For my brother and me, what had been a pleasant stroll home inevitably became a Death-defying Sprint For Life as we raced for the safety of our front door. Timmy enjoyed watching us in our primal struggle for survival and the dog always got a good cardiovascular workout, but for Scott and me, it wasn't so much fun.
One spring day, I got tired of staying just one step ahead of the Slavering Jaws of Doom. While Scott diverted the dog's attention by climbing a tree, I ran for Timmy's house to have a confrontation. I admit I wasn't usually the boldest kid on the block, but I'd finally had enough. I pounded on his front door and yelled, "Timmy, you little s**-of-a-*****! You better keep that G**-d***** dog on a leash or I'm gonna beat the s*** out of him with a f****** baseball bat!"
Now, let's be honest. When the blood's pounding and the adrenaline's coursing through your veins, you don't censor your words. You let fly with the big
guns. Even when you're eight years old. I didn't call Timmy a "son-of-a-gun." I didn't say "gosh-darned" or "flipping." You know exactly what I said.
So did Timmy's mom. She was standing on the other side of the front door, and she heard every word of my little tirade. And when my dad got home from work,
she laid into him like Patton hitting the Germans.
My dad listened to Timmy's mom for about ten minutes while I spied on them from around the corner. The words "vulgar" and "obscene" came up several times,
and she said Dad should "punish that foul-mouthed little brat" at least twice.
After Timmy's mom finally came up for air, Dad promised he'd have a word with me, but he also had one thing to add. With a voice so calm it could have delivered the "time and temperature" recordings, my dad said, "You better keep that God-damned dog on a leash or my son's going to beat the shit out of him with a fucking baseball bat!"
When comedian Richard Pryor died on December 11, the words "brilliant," "ground-breaking," and "genius" came up a lot. So did "vulgar," "obscene," and "foul-mouthed." Mr. Pryor did have a way with profanity. I watched one tribute on TV which showed a clip from one of his concert films, and so much of his dialogue was bleeped out it sounded like a test pattern.
I never saw much point to the practice of censoring out foul language. I mean, why bother trying to cover up that stuff? If your kids have ever spent any time outside with their friends, or even if you’ve got premium cable, your kids have probably picked up all they need to know to fill in the blanks. Or the bleeps, as the case may be.
Now, let’s take another trip in my own personal Way-Back Machine. I’m thirteen, now. Scott and I are huddled together in the back of the van on a family
trip. We’re listening to a portable radio with a tape deck, to a cassette of “The Greatest Hits of George Carlin.” Specifically, we’re busting our respective
guts trying not to laugh too loudly at Carlin’s legendary “Seven Words You Can Never Say On Television” routine.
You know the ones. You can get away with “screw,” “balls,” “prick,” “pussy,” and even “bitch” if you happen to be watching the Westminster Dog Show. However, there are a heavy seven that will “curve your spine, grow hair in the palms of your hands, and keep the country from winning the war,” according to Carlin.
These words are, “shit,” “fuck,” “piss,” “cunt,” “cock-sucker,” “mother-fucker” and “tits.”
Part of what makes Carlin’s monologue so legendary is that in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 736 (1978), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the
government could legally prohibit “obscene” language from being broadcast on the public airwaves. The case was a major blow against freedom of speech in the
U.S. It seems you can’t say the seven words on the radio, either. A man in New York became outraged that his son heard the monologue broadcast on the radio. The broadcast was part of an on-air discussion about, of all things, irrational
limitations on speech. Ironically, that’s part of Carlin’s original point,
and it’s another reason the monologue is so brilliant. Carlin spends a great deal of time discussing the fact that the “Heavy Seven” are banned from the public
airwaves for no apparent reason. There’s no logic to explain why “shit” is banned while “poop,” “doo-doo” and “crap” are okay.
“Tits shouldn’t even belong on the list,” says Carlin. “It sounds like a snack….I’m talking about new Nabisco Tits! Cheese Tits, Sesame Tits, Corn Tits, Tater Tits…bet you can’t eat just one!”
Of course, “Fuck” gets special attention. That’s the Big Gun. The F-Bomb. The one that gets your mouth washed out with soap. It can be used as a noun, a verb, an adjective, an expletive, and a dozen other grammatical terms I can’t begin to list.
It can even be used to describe a form of sex. When John says to Penelope, “Come, dearest, let us engage in physical intercourse,” it has a helluva lot different meaning than, “Bend over, Penny, so I can fuck your brains out!”
In past writings, I’ve discussed the Holy Terrors’ “War On Whoopie,” also known as a war on everything fun about sex. Let’s face it. “Whoopie” is the PG-13 word I use to describe the “War on Fucking.” “Having sex,” “making love,” “carnal knowledge,” “doing it,” and “boinking” are clinical. They’re terms that dance
around the issue. “Let’s fuck” says, “Woo-hoo! We’re going for a ride tonight!”
These days, the Powers That Be, at the behest of the Holy Terrors, are threatening to crack down on profanity even more so than in recent years. Even premium cable channels like HBO and Showtime are feeling the heat to “clean up their acts.”
For some reason, an important part of the Holy Terror way of thinking is, “out of sight, out of mind.” If they somehow manage to ban all “offensive” or “subversive” utterances, images, and influences, they seem to believe they can control offensive thoughts, as well. George Orwell called this concept, “Newspeak” in his legendary novel, "1984." By tightly controlling the public vocabulary, they hope to
control even the concepts behind the vocabulary. If we can’t say a naughty word, we end up losing the power to even think about it. The “War On Fucking” is
therefore about more than just protecting delicate ears and sensibilities. It’s about freedom, especially of expression.
In a way, it’s fitting that any real discussions about profanity and its meaning come from stand-up comics like Carlin, Pryor, Eddie Murphy, Mort Sahl, and of
course Lenny Bruce. To be successful, a comic has to challenge our traditional ways of thinking. He or she has to look at things from different angles and point
out their humorous aspects.
On the other hand, since comedians are on the fringe of society, the humor of their points of view prevent us from taking those points of view seriously. Since
we treat profanity as a joke, we don’t have any serious mainstream discussions about the subject. To this day, the most widely-known essay on profanity is, you guessed it, George Carlin’s “Seven Words You Can Never Say On Television.”
Call me crazy, but in my opinion the idea that we can only have discussions about profanity through comedians is….well…it’s a fucking joke.
by J.T. Benjamin
copr. 2006
When I was eight years old, my younger brother Scott and I walked home from school every day. Timmy, the little kid across the street, rode the schoolbus, always getting home before we did. This allowed Timmy the chance to let his dog, an enormous, mean-tempered German Shepherd, out of his house as soon as he saw us
coming up the street. For my brother and me, what had been a pleasant stroll home inevitably became a Death-defying Sprint For Life as we raced for the safety of our front door. Timmy enjoyed watching us in our primal struggle for survival and the dog always got a good cardiovascular workout, but for Scott and me, it wasn't so much fun.
One spring day, I got tired of staying just one step ahead of the Slavering Jaws of Doom. While Scott diverted the dog's attention by climbing a tree, I ran for Timmy's house to have a confrontation. I admit I wasn't usually the boldest kid on the block, but I'd finally had enough. I pounded on his front door and yelled, "Timmy, you little s**-of-a-*****! You better keep that G**-d***** dog on a leash or I'm gonna beat the s*** out of him with a f****** baseball bat!"
Now, let's be honest. When the blood's pounding and the adrenaline's coursing through your veins, you don't censor your words. You let fly with the big
guns. Even when you're eight years old. I didn't call Timmy a "son-of-a-gun." I didn't say "gosh-darned" or "flipping." You know exactly what I said.
So did Timmy's mom. She was standing on the other side of the front door, and she heard every word of my little tirade. And when my dad got home from work,
she laid into him like Patton hitting the Germans.
My dad listened to Timmy's mom for about ten minutes while I spied on them from around the corner. The words "vulgar" and "obscene" came up several times,
and she said Dad should "punish that foul-mouthed little brat" at least twice.
After Timmy's mom finally came up for air, Dad promised he'd have a word with me, but he also had one thing to add. With a voice so calm it could have delivered the "time and temperature" recordings, my dad said, "You better keep that God-damned dog on a leash or my son's going to beat the shit out of him with a fucking baseball bat!"
When comedian Richard Pryor died on December 11, the words "brilliant," "ground-breaking," and "genius" came up a lot. So did "vulgar," "obscene," and "foul-mouthed." Mr. Pryor did have a way with profanity. I watched one tribute on TV which showed a clip from one of his concert films, and so much of his dialogue was bleeped out it sounded like a test pattern.
I never saw much point to the practice of censoring out foul language. I mean, why bother trying to cover up that stuff? If your kids have ever spent any time outside with their friends, or even if you’ve got premium cable, your kids have probably picked up all they need to know to fill in the blanks. Or the bleeps, as the case may be.
Now, let’s take another trip in my own personal Way-Back Machine. I’m thirteen, now. Scott and I are huddled together in the back of the van on a family
trip. We’re listening to a portable radio with a tape deck, to a cassette of “The Greatest Hits of George Carlin.” Specifically, we’re busting our respective
guts trying not to laugh too loudly at Carlin’s legendary “Seven Words You Can Never Say On Television” routine.
You know the ones. You can get away with “screw,” “balls,” “prick,” “pussy,” and even “bitch” if you happen to be watching the Westminster Dog Show. However, there are a heavy seven that will “curve your spine, grow hair in the palms of your hands, and keep the country from winning the war,” according to Carlin.
These words are, “shit,” “fuck,” “piss,” “cunt,” “cock-sucker,” “mother-fucker” and “tits.”
Part of what makes Carlin’s monologue so legendary is that in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 736 (1978), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the
government could legally prohibit “obscene” language from being broadcast on the public airwaves. The case was a major blow against freedom of speech in the
U.S. It seems you can’t say the seven words on the radio, either. A man in New York became outraged that his son heard the monologue broadcast on the radio. The broadcast was part of an on-air discussion about, of all things, irrational
limitations on speech. Ironically, that’s part of Carlin’s original point,
and it’s another reason the monologue is so brilliant. Carlin spends a great deal of time discussing the fact that the “Heavy Seven” are banned from the public
airwaves for no apparent reason. There’s no logic to explain why “shit” is banned while “poop,” “doo-doo” and “crap” are okay.
“Tits shouldn’t even belong on the list,” says Carlin. “It sounds like a snack….I’m talking about new Nabisco Tits! Cheese Tits, Sesame Tits, Corn Tits, Tater Tits…bet you can’t eat just one!”
Of course, “Fuck” gets special attention. That’s the Big Gun. The F-Bomb. The one that gets your mouth washed out with soap. It can be used as a noun, a verb, an adjective, an expletive, and a dozen other grammatical terms I can’t begin to list.
It can even be used to describe a form of sex. When John says to Penelope, “Come, dearest, let us engage in physical intercourse,” it has a helluva lot different meaning than, “Bend over, Penny, so I can fuck your brains out!”
In past writings, I’ve discussed the Holy Terrors’ “War On Whoopie,” also known as a war on everything fun about sex. Let’s face it. “Whoopie” is the PG-13 word I use to describe the “War on Fucking.” “Having sex,” “making love,” “carnal knowledge,” “doing it,” and “boinking” are clinical. They’re terms that dance
around the issue. “Let’s fuck” says, “Woo-hoo! We’re going for a ride tonight!”
These days, the Powers That Be, at the behest of the Holy Terrors, are threatening to crack down on profanity even more so than in recent years. Even premium cable channels like HBO and Showtime are feeling the heat to “clean up their acts.”
For some reason, an important part of the Holy Terror way of thinking is, “out of sight, out of mind.” If they somehow manage to ban all “offensive” or “subversive” utterances, images, and influences, they seem to believe they can control offensive thoughts, as well. George Orwell called this concept, “Newspeak” in his legendary novel, "1984." By tightly controlling the public vocabulary, they hope to
control even the concepts behind the vocabulary. If we can’t say a naughty word, we end up losing the power to even think about it. The “War On Fucking” is
therefore about more than just protecting delicate ears and sensibilities. It’s about freedom, especially of expression.
In a way, it’s fitting that any real discussions about profanity and its meaning come from stand-up comics like Carlin, Pryor, Eddie Murphy, Mort Sahl, and of
course Lenny Bruce. To be successful, a comic has to challenge our traditional ways of thinking. He or she has to look at things from different angles and point
out their humorous aspects.
On the other hand, since comedians are on the fringe of society, the humor of their points of view prevent us from taking those points of view seriously. Since
we treat profanity as a joke, we don’t have any serious mainstream discussions about the subject. To this day, the most widely-known essay on profanity is, you guessed it, George Carlin’s “Seven Words You Can Never Say On Television.”
Call me crazy, but in my opinion the idea that we can only have discussions about profanity through comedians is….well…it’s a fucking joke.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
