There was an error in this gadget

Thursday, June 10, 2010

New frontiers in pretzel logic of Catholics

So according to the Catholic Church, “the gays” are bad. Really bad. They’ve always been pretty upfront about that, haven’t they?

A big part of that, perhaps, is that “the gays” are waaaaay more into porn than the Adam and Eve-ers. That’s what one bonehead who’s respected enough to have a regular column in the Catholic Pravda thinks is the reason children of “the gays” should not be allowed in Catholic schools. He thinks porny stuffs “go along with the same-sex lifestyle, which — as not being related to procreation — is inherently eroticized and pornographic.’’

Let’s see if that proclamation leads to massive behavior changes among homophobes and deflates the largest business on the intranets: PORN; the subject material of which is most often men having sex with women. If you were a homophobe hetero, wouldn’t you stop watching porn—even straight porn—if someone told you it was “gay”?

But if you don’t have a stake in the interests of “the gays” maybe you know someone who has adopted a child. Nice of folks to do that kind of thing. The believers often encourage adoption as an alternative to allowing women to think and act on their own when it comes to their bodies. Still, they might put those kind folks in a lesser class than, you know, actual parents.

Not so.

Dingbat Barnicle-wannabe sort-of apologized* for his “the gays love porn way more than ‘normal’ people” statements. But according to the Boston Globe, he’s standing by other statements he wrote in the column, including that “gay parents should not be called “parents’’ unless they are biologically related to their children.”

Grab a Latin thesaurus, we need a new word! Maybe “Civil caretakers?”

I guess it’s no surprise that this dumb-dumb doesn’t think the children of civil caretakers who are gay should be allowed into catholic schools. In addition to probably bringing in porn, he thinks it would open the door for paren…sorry, civil caretakers, to “advocate” for their “lifestyle.” He thinks they’re looking for an ‘in’ to recruit!! If you could recruit people into “gaydom” wouldn’t a free sample of gay sex being given by the trusted parish priest be something the church would’ve wanted to avoid?

Ah, but I ramble. The Catholic Church and a good number of their members think “the gays” are bad. Really, really bad. Is this news in ANY way?

----------------------------------
*“I think I probably would not make that point again, and I can see how it would be offensive,” is not an apology. It’s not even close. An apology isn’t even “I’m sorry if anyone felt offended by this,” which the paper said. An apology is “These statements were offensive and I/we apologize for writing/publishing them.”

The Scott Brown, Murkowski thing explained...

Brown goes for profit over protection

The following was written by Scott Brown* and published in the Cape Cod Times to explain his opposition to environmental protection regulations being considered in Washington.

While many of my colleagues have argued that giving the EPA the ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions would help protect the environment, agree. This action would prevent companies from polluting. But we should let them do whatever they want. Profits are at stake, people!

Americans trying to protect the environment say that this resolution is an attack on the Clean Air Act. The EPA is looking to use newer, effective methods to get better results in meeting its mission. But that is bad. The bottom line is that we can't have every person on the planet worried about the planet. This is why I am supporting Sen. Lisa Murkowski's resolution to oppose these badly needed new EPA regulations.

As I continue doing public appearances, business owners all say the same thing: "We need money, not a planet to live on." For that to happen, America's businesses need the confidence to pollute freely. What Bay State businesses don't need is the federal government protecting the environment with regulations that would dramatically restrict their potential to repeat BPs recent achievements.

Our national unemployment rate is hovering near double digits and Massachusetts energy prices keep going up. That's how supply and demand works. No matter how you feel about the Gulf Coast, there is no arguing that oil-free oceans comes at a high premium. The billions of dollars in extra costs to clean up oopsies like that should be passed on to Massachusetts ratepayers. Now is the time to further increase pollution, add to resulting long-term health costs for businesses, and create massive new layers in the lower economic class.


*These aren't exactly the words Scott Brown used. Though he did use quite a few of the same words, he didn't use all of them. And he put them in a bit of a different order. This organization of some words he used may not exactly express the intent of his word organization. If you want to read his dumb version, follow the CCTimes link, above. But I don't recommend it. You've already wasted a bunch of time reading this.

Monday, June 7, 2010

I'm still uncertain about Celtics

It's great that they're up 2-1 and all, but I still think the Lakers might be too much for the Celtics. Ray Allen's shooting got them out to a lead in the first half of Game 2, but that quickly disappeared at the end of the first half and the beginning of the second half. Some tremendous play by Rondo toward the end gave them the win, but it was anything but comforting.

The entire series feels to me like Garnett tipping another rebound out of bounds (How do they screw up that call using instant replay?!?!) or Glenn Davis taking three chances at a layup and never getting the ball to the rim.

Garnett is the real problem in my mind. He's passing up shots he needs to hit and he's not aggressive enough under the boards. Rather, he's not aggressive enough getting position and then too aggressive when he doesn't have the inside line to the rebound.

Overall, the Celtics don't look aggressive enough hitting the boards. It's stunning to see the stat sheet from last night and see that the Celtics out-rebounded the Lakers overall 55-49 and--more stunningly--on the offensive glass, 13-10. The blocked shots stats were a bit scary, too; Lakers 14, Celtics 3.

Let's hope the home court puts a little pep in their step. If they can take 2 of 3 in Boston, #18 will be looking really good.