Saturday, October 25, 2014

To blog or not to blog

Some days I don't blog. At times, this is because I'm writing fiction and don't have the time or energy to blog. But most often, it's because I'm beaten down by the idiocy I see in the news. As Brendan said at Daily KOS yesterday:
"If you want to know why I don't blog, it's because the stupid bested me. I simply couldn't take the stupid." 
That explains the occasional scarcity of posts here, too. The stupid is overwhelming. And the greed. Humanity is dying because of stupidity and greed. That's the whole story in one sentence.

Friday, October 24, 2014

Oh, eek! Ebola!!!

So let's see...we're nearly hysterical over Ebola after four infected people were seen in the United States. Um, okay.

But we don't give a hoot about the nearly 10,000 children that are killed or injured by gun violence every year in the United States, even though that's something we could fix if we wanted to.

Ebola: eek! Gun violence: meh.

What's wrong with this picture?

NYT disses baseball but misses the main issue

Today's NY Times has an article that says baseball is no longer the nation's pastime. Apparently no one cares about the game and most everyone watches football instead of the World Series. Fine, that's true. But in the entire article they never mention the gorilla in the room: the World Series is on Fox and features Joe Buck. That's why no one wants to watch it.

I've asked friends who are baseball fans if they're watching the World Series this year. Everyone says no because they can't stand Joe Buck. With Buck, it's unwatchable. I feel the same way. Yes, I'm watching the World Series but I do it without sound. I play music instead. Anything is preferable to hearing Joe Buck say uninteresting things in a loud voice.

Fox has a contract to show the games through 2021. So much for baseball. It would've been nice if the Times bothered to mention Buck, the man who single-handedly killed baseball.

PS: Go Royals!

Monday, October 20, 2014

It's the same illogical argument

I've been reading articles about the aftermath of the Catholic bishops giving gays the finger last week. I mean, really. Raising gay Catholics' hopes and then stomping them into the ground is not, I'm quite sure, what Jesus would have done. But then, there never was a Jesus. So there's that.

Today I noticed that the hateful bishops who put the kibosh on the welcoming language used in the first synod draft document last week are relying on the exact same argument that nitwits use against gay marriage.

For instance, consider this article:
After an initial draft of the synod's final document was released on Monday, conservative bishops vowed to row back on the upbeat tone adopted regarding gays, cohabitation and re-marriage, saying it would create confusion among the faithful and threatened to undermine the traditional family.
There it is: the Great Anti-Gay Non Sequitur. How, precisely, does a church's welcoming language to gays undermine the traditional family? The two are utterly unrelated. If the church welcomes gays, traditional families will break up like ice floes in a warm ocean? That makes no sense.

And it's the same idiotic argument that homophobes make against gay marriage: it threatens traditional families. How, exactly? Can they offer even one example of this happening in the real world? Gay marriage has been around for quite some time. So where are the traditional families that were threatened and broken apart by the mere existence of gay marriage? They don't exist.

There is no argument against gay people that is anything but idiotic and hateful. But see, we're here, we've always been here and we're never going away -- so you'd better get used to us. And our existence and our relationships have precisely nothing to do with what goes on in "traditional families". (And btw, it's those traditional families that give birth to gays. I'm just saying. We didn't come from Mars.)

Hate is hate. And that's exactly what the Catholic bishops showed when they jumped on the synod's welcoming language and killed it. It's what Catholic bishops do, especially American Catholic bishops: they attack gay people. And you really, really have to ask yourself why. What is wrong with these bishops? Could it be their unnatural way of life, eschewing sex? Ya think?

Sunday, October 19, 2014

CDC head Tom Frieden

The dolt who heads the CDC, Tom Frieden, used to be NYC's health commissioner. Basically, he's Mr. Rogers in a lab coat. Frieden enacted every single item on Bloomburg's nanny-state list -- and did so with enthusiasm. He is a complete nitwit so I'm not surprised that he screwed up the early Ebola response. He's that kind of a fella.

Just to give you an idea of what his NYC "health" policies were like, let's talk cigarettes for a moment. At the time, I smoked four packs a day and was quite happy doing so.

Frieden, in a half-assed effort to stop fires caused by unwatched, lit cigarettes, removed the chemical that makes cigarettes burn in a steady fashion. In its place, he added a new thickness to the paper. So how did this play out on the ground (i.e., in smokers' lungs)? The cigarettes were much stronger after the change. They really whomped your lungs, in a way that cigarettes never did before. As a militant smoker, I was thrilled.

And then he arranged for the price of cigarettes to soar. This had a predictable effect: we now smoked our cigarettes down to the barest nub, which...uh, causes cancer. We had to because we couldn't afford to smoke casually anymore; it was too expensive. So we smoked with a new sense of determination, instilled in us by dear Dr. Frieden. In fact, many of us, myself included for a time, switched to non-filter cigarettes so we could smoke more of the cigarette. We didn't want those damned filters to get in the way. You should have seen us, smoking our unfiltered cigarettes until they were hardly there anymore. At times the tiny lit stub actually flew into my lungs as I tried to snatch that last puff.

That's what Tom Frieden did for cigarette smokers. So just imagine what he'll do for people with Ebola.

Don't get your hamshtring in an uproar

Shtrickly speaking, we'll have to reshtrain our emotions until we can shtrand those shtruggling with Ebola in the Ashtrodome. This is no shtraw man. This is shtrickly on the up and up.

Chrishtians may be eckshtra helpful in dealing with this dishtressing problem. When people are too ill to shtride in by themselves, perhaps a willing Chrishtian will roll them into the Ashtrodome in a shtroller, using a long piece of shtring to avoid contact. Once inside, the Ebola-shtricken masses will essentially have to shtraddle two worlds. Will it be shtressful for them? Absolutely. Some victims might even have a shtroke -- but it's better than being out on the shtreet.

In the meantime, don't get your hamshtring in an uproar. Watch our shtreaming video to learn more about these shtrange times. We recommend you shtrap on your big-boy shoes, maybe eat a bit of shtrudel or some pashtrami at a reshtrant, listen to a little Shtrauss -- you know: de-shtress. Just forget about Ebola. (And forget about shtray bullets too, for that matter.)

But whatever you do, make sure you put eckshtra letters in your words.

(I swear I hear this pronunciation tchwelve times a day. Oy.)

Saturday, October 18, 2014

Catholic church to remain hateful toward gays

Don't worry, conservatives. The hate is back!
Catholic bishops scrapped their landmark welcome to gays Saturday, showing deep divisions at the end of a two-week meeting sought by Pope Francis to chart a more merciful approach to ministering to Catholic families.

The bishops failed to approve even a watered-down section on ministering to homosexuals that stripped away the welcoming tone of acceptance contained in a draft document earlier in the week.
I hope Catholics learned a lesson from all this. If you don't hate gays with proper venom, you won't get into heaven. That's the rule and it's really that simple. 

Oh, and the Christian god, as understood by Roman Catholic conservatives, is a pig. That's also included in the lesson. I love stories with morals, don't you?