The Final Word On Carrie Prejean

Wondering what to make of fired, disgraced and all-around tragic beauty queen and right-wing, Christian faux-martyr Carrie Prejean after sex pics and vids showed her to be a double-talking hypocrite who opposes same-sex marriage and showing off one's body but took pics of herself masturbating and sent them to the boyfriend she wasn't married to? I don't think you'll find a better summary than this one by Seattle editor, pundit and sex columnist Dan Savage. A quote:

And now we have proof that the person Prejean pretended to be after that pageant—the good Christian girl with a strong moral code who was chosen by God to stick it to the homos—doesn't jibe with the person she was before the pageant, i.e. a highly sexual and sexually active young woman with breast implants and a string of ex-boyfriends to her name. Carrie Prejean was not the very model of modern right-wing Christian conservatism that she pretended to be to ingratiate herself with the likes of Maggie Gallagher. She was an average young American woman, a little prettier and dimmer than most, with sexual urges and desires and agency. She was just another young woman aware of her own erotic power, a young woman with a digital camera, another young woman sexting her boyfriend because it turned her on to turn him on.

Worth 10 minutes of your time if this is a topic you're even slightly interested in.

In The Event My Little Bit Of Snark In An Earlier Post Wasn't Noticed...

Re: point six in this list...

I'm still flabbergasted that a Saskatchewan MP has a freaking petition against Planned Parenthood on his website (and apparently has had for awhile, but I only found out this week because I'm out of touch, I guess). Wasn't it enough for Brad Trost to condemn funding for pride events (StarPhoenix) and just be a general all-around anti-government Conservative politician (Brad Trost's website)?

What else can I do? I must judge those who voted for this nincompoop--who make my province look like a nest of nincompoops!--harshly.

Therefore and henceforth and forsooth, I shall refer to Brad Trost's riding as "Saskatoon-Dumbolt" in anything I say or write.

And I shall continue to do this until the citizens of Saskatoon-Dumbolt turf Trost.

So let it be written, so let it be dumb.

SUNDAY AFTERNOON EDIT: Added a few links and tweaked the writing.

Meet Stephen Harper's New Brain

Nigel Hannaford, former Calgary Herald columnist and editorial board member has just been appointed as Stephen Harper's new speechwriter. He sure don't like them faggots. Ooooo, goody. (Xtra.ca)

California Vs. Gay Marriage: What, We Need Facts Now?

I'm pretty big into 'live and let live' until someone's actions hurt people. (Real harm, not hurting someone's feelings or offending their sensibilities). This is one reason why I, a lame straight dude, squawk incessantly about gay rights and gay marriage even though in my country these issues are, hopefully, pretty much settled (no thanks to Conservative politicians like Tom Lukiwski and Maurice Vellacot, who argued, vehemently, against these rights back before his Conservatives formed government).

Gay marriage clearly is not substantially different from straight marriage--as author, editor and pundit Dan Savage has said, it can be loving and committed, horrible and abusive, with children, childless, non-monogamous, not permanent, whatever.

Anyway in America last year, as you may recall, California voters voted to outlaw gay marriage because they're pushy religious jerks/scaredy-cat bigots, er, I mean it harmed families or some such bullshit. The law to ban gay marriage was called Proposition 8. And, not surprisingly, it's constitutionality is being challenged.

It actually should be a fun case. In this Associated Press story, a judge was asked to throw out the challenge. But he turned the table on Prop 8 supporters and basically said, "gay marriage is harmful? Prove it!"

And the pro- Prop 8 lawyer couldn't. At. All.

Facts and evidence. Who'd have thought you'd need those things when you decide to ban gay marriage? Should be a good show when this thing goes to court next January.

Sunday Sermon

Values, values, values, values. In the United States those invoking the term often (if not usually) use it to justify their own gruesomely immoral attempts to deny others freedoms and resources. Welfare for the poor, health care for everyone, the right to marry whoever one wants, the freedom to choose to end a pregnancy. Can't do it folks, goes against American values.

Whatever. It's cartoonishly predictable. When I hear an American say "values" I think theirs are probably deformed.

There are probably exceptions, but if the word hasn't been ruined it's damn close to it.

Getting to my point: last night, Nobel prizewinner-designate Barack Obama addressed gay and lesbian activists at a Human Rights campaign dinner in Washington, DC--and he talked a good game (New York Times). He said it was time to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT), the Clinton-era (or should I say Newt Gingrich-era?) policy that says homosexuals must be discharged from the military if they're honest about their sexual orientation. He also "called on Congress to repeal the Defence Of Marriage Act [DOMA]," which lets states ban gay marriage and says the federal government position is that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Well, those are values I think most prairie dog readerswould agree with.

The problem, according to activists, is that the president could effectively end DADT by using executive powers to suspend its enforcement. And he hasn't.

As for DOMA, Obama shat the bed last spring when his administration defended the act by comparing homosexuality to incest (New York Times again).

Unlike Canadians, who can marry who they like regardless what their crotches look like (no thanks to Stephen Harper's conservatives, who fought against gay rights tooth and nail--please don't ever, ever vote for them), American gays and lesbians have to put up with unbelievable amounts of bullshit, mostly coming out the mouths of "value voter" bible-thumpers.

In fact in the United States, support for gay marriage is well below 50 per cent. Although I note that non-churchgoing catholics, Hispanics and people under 30 buck the trend. Who's the worst? Southerners (not by as much as you might think though), protestants who go to church every week and Conservative Republicans. (There's a difference between the last two?)

The link is to the Pew Research Centre, and it's recommended reading--very interesting stuff in a pleasing, easy to understand chart.

Given all this, it's probably not a big surprise there's a rally in Washington today to remind the president and Democrats it's time to stop talking and start doing. (Washington Post)

Will they? Who knows. Obama's actually said he's against gay marriage, so either he's a bigot or he's lying for political insurance.

I guess gay and lesbian Americans should hope he's a liar?

Ayatollah Endorses Election Loser; Tel Aviv Mourns Murdered Gays

Mahmoud Amadinejad is officially approved as president of Iran and they're shooting gay people in Israel. Good golly, I sure wish I lived in a country run by religion.

FIRST, IRAN. Today, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei endorsed Amadinejad as the country's president (Globe And Mail). This of course follows an election widely viewed as a sham, which led to massive protests, and arrests and lethal crackdowns by the regime. Obviously, this all kind of sucks.

On the bright side, much of Iran's "establishment" boycotted the endorsement ceremony. Two former presidents and two presidential candidates were no-shows, once again demonstrating the country's political elite is badly, badly divided. And that's a good sign for everyone who likes ordinary Iranians and is rooting for them to throw off the shackles of superstition, hatred, fear and repression you always get with theocracies.

The way I see it: the reason Iran's power elite is split because the illegitimate election has undermined the legitimacy of Iran's entire ruling class. It's not just Khamenei and Amadinejad whose political careers/influence is at risk--their idiot shenanigans have undermined the whole system and that's no good for the (naturally, all-male) fancy-pantses who benefit from that system.

By over-reaching their power, which they did when they (probably) faked the results of the June 12 election, Iran's rulers pissed off a country full of people well-known for their tyrant-tossing skills. Maybe nothing will happen this month or this year, but Iran's religious regime has revealed itself to be phony and hypocritical--and Iran is one country where people won't put up with that shit.

Amadinejad will be sworn in as president on Wednesday. Iranians aren't gonna like it. If you're in Iran that day, wear a helmet.

(By the way, I love the photo with the Globe And Mail article I linked to--Amadinejad has that same smug yet slightly puzzled expression George Bush always had when he was having some poor country bombed. What a fucker.)

ISRAELI GAY SHAME I don't know what to say about the masked and/or helmeted lunatic/sissy who's afraid of gay people who walked into a youth centre and shot 15 people, killing two, this weekend. But Israeli's gay community is, quite reasonably, blaming religious bigotry and smears for inciting violence. You can read the basic story here and a commentary here (Aljazeera, Guardian). Religion and righteousness inspiring violent behaviour in Israel? Wouldn't be the first time.

Seattle Slogs Sask

Slog, the blog of Seattle's crazy-excellent alternative mag The Stranger, has a post on the recent human rights ruling on a Sask marriage commissioner fined for refusing to marry a gay couple. The post, by The Stranger's editorial director Dan Savage, is here. Check it out.

Trost For The Mill

Here's a couple more pieces in the Globe And Mail on the Toronto Pride funding fallout fiasco. First, we've got a Canadian Press article by Jennifer Ditchburn with the director of Montreal's annual pride festival, who says they've actually been funded more reasonably since the Tories took office. The story suggests that Brad Trost's troglodytic ilk are much more isolated in caucus than angry people (like me) think.

Next up, we have this piece that Paul Dechene told me to read, by the Globe's Adam Radwanski. Radwanski's blog lays out how the Conservatives have probably annoyed both social conservative supporters and normal people who aren't crazy (Radwanski calls these "social liberals") and might have been supporters. it's a good read too, and it links to yet more reads.

There you go, that's enough from me for a while.

Sunday Afternoon Talking Points: Gay Marriage

The California Supreme Court's recent ruling that it's somehow okay to let Cali voters veto same-sex marriage doesn't affect my life in any significant way. After all, Canada already allows gay marriage. Also, I'm not gay. (Now)

But I'm still pissed off about it. The United States is our influential neighbour to the south and their foolish, old-fashioned, emotional/hysterical ideas on social policy inspire and motivate Canada's troglodytes, jerks and nutjobs. (New York Times). And then I have to read about their stupid ideas. (National Post)

But this video makes me feel better because it reminds me that my side of the fight for truth, reason and civilization has all the cool, smart people.





You can find more from Robert Tisinai at his blog, here. And in case you care, I originally found this link on the Stranger's blog, Slog, here.

Mob Rule 1, Civil Rights 0

California's Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 8, the controversial, democracy-endorsed constitutional amendment barring gay marriage. And by "democracy-endorsed" I mean a whopping 52 per cent! Of people who voted! Which is like 40 per cent of the population! So that's at least a couple thousand people in a state of 30 million!

(UPDATE: Actual research has determined that 6,322,732 Californians voted in a way that is consistent with being a homophobic coward and snivelling bigot, while 5,796,637 voted for tolerance and, by extension, sunshine, rainbows, love and goodness. Also, the state has over 38 million residents and, um, actually, had a record-breaking near-80 per cent voter turn-out in November 2008. Not 40 per cent. Cough.)

So anyway, this sucks if you're gay and Californian. Or if you don't think the masses should get a vote on the very personal choice of who is allowed to marry whom.

Full story in the LA Times, here.

Divorce and adultery remain legal, of course, so the married "family values" bigots pushing this discrimination are free to bang their congregations/secretaries/interns. And hey, since we're all angry anyway, here's a link to a news story on one random hypocrite homophobe's messy personal life. (The Stranger) I'm going to go out on a limb here and say a lot of the most agitated opponents to same-sex marriage have serious personal issues that they're dealing with by parading their prejudices around in public. Psychiatry, people! It can help!

Meanwhile, gay marriage is legal in Saskatchewan. And, since 2005, in all of Canada. No thanks to the well-documented opposition of one odious political /minority government (New York Times). So if you're gay and in California, move here! Our booming economy needs workers and we even provide free universal health care to Canadian citizens (and we love recovering Americans!). As for winter, well, uh, maybe it's better you not ask about that.

Not Cool

Where's Harvey Milk when you need him (or, at least, the Russian equivalent)? (MSN)

Joe The Plumber: Genius, Or Super Genius?

You know the opponents of gay marriage are fighting for a lost cause when even a bigoted doofus like America's Favourite Plumber tells a Christian publication it's all right if some states legalize gay marriage (not that he'd let homos near his kids). Of course, the best thing about the story I'm linking to are the quotables, like this one for example: "Queer means strange and unusual. It's not like a slur, like you would call a white person a "honky" or something like that."

Full piece here. (AP/Columbus Dispatch)

UPDATE: Helpful Dog Blog reader Observer says I should've posted the link to Sam "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher's actual interview in Christianity Today magazine. Sure, sounds good to me. Observer helpfully posted the link in the comments, but I'll put it right here where it's convenient.

Talking To Journalists

It should not surprise anyone who's met me or has ever read my editorials that I don't know what I'm doing. Partly I'm just a born dumbass, but this is also a quality of the modern condition. Lots of us work in jobs we don't feel qualified for, struggle with situations we're not prepared for and generally bumble our way through life the best we can. As long as we don't knock too many expensive vases off shelves along the way, we need to cut ourselves some slack.

Aaaaaanyway, one of the things I do to be less-incompetent is read and learn from other newspapers and magazines, with special attention to pubs that are similar to (but better than) prairie dog. For this reason, we have subscriptions to several alt-weeklies, including Toronto's NOW, Edmonton's See and Halifax's The Coast. I keep an eye on more online.

My favourite alternative weekly newspaper is Seattle's The Stranger. Launched in 1991 by Tim Keck, a co-founder of The Onion, and a great cartoonist named James Sturm, it's loaded with personality, humour and at times genuine insight--and at times ferocious stupidity, like when then-editor (now editorial director) (and one of my favourite newspaper writers) Dan Savage advocated for the invasion of Iraq. But that's another blog post for another day).

The Stranger also has an excellent blog, called Slog. I read Slog a couple times a week, sometimes a lot more if there's something important I'm procrastinating on.

All that to get to my point--this post which I found interesting and maybe you will too. The university of Washington student newspaper contacted Savage, who's also gay and a well-known sex-advice columnist for an interview about anal sex in their sex issue. Savage (click for a video of Dan pummelling a right-wing Christian jerk on Anderson Cooper), is leaning toward not giving them an interview because the newspaper previously published a dumbass, bigoted opinion column equating gay marriage with bestiality.

I'm interested in all this partly because I fouled campus newspapers with my crap for 10 years and still have an emotional attachment to the student press.

But more importantly, there is an issue here. An issue, I say! When media outlets print/broadcast something vile, does that mean people they've enraged should refuse to give interviews to them thereafter? Yes, no or "it depends"?

Well obviously the correct answer is "it depends" but it's fun to talk about.

Something similar but more important happened in Sask last year when the SFL declared a boycott of CJME because of allegedly biased and hostile coverage. I don't listen to CJME so I don't know if this is still in effect. We covered it last year though. You can read Paul Dechene's article here.

[Edited by author because post had some cutsey, coy writing. Coy must die.]