Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Chimps and the Fairness Doctrine make for a strange Wednesday

Sometimes I hate work.

I love my job but I'm at it 7.5 hours a day for five days. By the time I get home, all of the good stuff seems to have already been posted about.

It's difficult not to become obsolete. But I will try.

Anger rises over NY Post cartoon that many think depicts President Obama as monkey shot dead by police - I wonder how much attention Fox News will devote to this madness. I defy anyone to even attempt to tell me that the cartoonist Sean Delonas didn't have racist intentions when he created this monstrosity.

And here is another piece of news that ought to aggravate those who think that racism and homophobia have no connection - Delonas has been known in the past for creating comic strips comparing gay marriage to bestiality.

Just something nice to remember the next time someone (such as Harry Jackson or Ken Hutcherson) plays that "you can't compare my skin to their sin" card.

And speaking of President Obama, what's the deal with the Fairness Doctrine? I've noticed that those two words seem to make not only the religious right but conservatives in general to wet their pants. It's not a new thing. I remember when they were calling it the "Hush Rush" Act.

One News Now seems to have devoted so much time to talking about it thatI'm getting jealous. And here I thought lgbts were the biggest threats (oh well - at least we still are to Utah State Congressman Chris Buttars):

ACLJ ready to do battle against 'Fairness Doctrine'

Author predicts backlash would accompany Fairness Doctrine (the author, by the way, is Bernard Goldberg who seems to have made a career whining about the so-called liberal media)

Christian radio - target of 'Fairness Doctrine'?

'Fairness Doctrine' comeback likely

Well today, President Obama spoke about the Fairness Doctrine:

President Obama opposes any move to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a spokesman told Wednesday.

The statement is the first definitive stance the administration has taken since an aide told an industry publication last summer that Obama opposes the doctrine -- a long-abolished policy that would require broadcasters to provide opposing viewpoints on controversial issues.

"As the president stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated," White House spokesman Ben LaBolt told

You think that's going to be the end of it? Come on now. If you have read this blog or my book, then you know that a hallmark of religious right propaganda techniques is to repeat a statement, even after it's been proven to be false.

We will be hearing about the Fairness Doctrine again from the religious right.
Speaking of Utah - lgbts can get no love from the legislators there

And just a reminder that the flyer from America Forever is not an anomaly, this just came in:

Four down, one to go.

The Utah Legislature snuffed out two more gay-rights bills Tuesday.

After lengthy public hearings, House committees rejected two measures: HB288, which would have allowed same-sex couples and other unmarried pairs to adopt and foster children; and HB267, which would have protected gay and transgender Utahns from housing and employment discrimination.

The snuffing out of these bills would be bad enough. But the comments from legislators and others are beyond the pale:

In rejecting the latest measures, opponents painted being gay as a "choice" rather than an innate characteristic -- contrary to a broad consensus among psychological and medical experts.

"Adoption is not a right, it's a privilege. Those who choose alternative lifestyles suffer the consequences because they can't naturally produce between them," said Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, R-Orem, who joined a 5-1 vote to defeat HB288. "Heterosexual couples who cohabit also face consequences because they choose not to marry."

And on the anti-discrimination bill, Eagle Forum President Gayle Ruzicka made a similar case against adding sexual orientation to existing fair housing and employment laws.

"What we're talking about is choice -- someone's sexual choice," she told a House panel. "Why would we put into law someone's sexual choice? … This is not the right thing to do."

Here we go about comparing sexual orienation to sexual activity. It seems to be a stand by - it's simplistic and to the point. And it's also inaccurate. But when you can't make your points with truth, I guess sexual innuendoes are all you have left.

It's ironic to me how the religious right and those who support them accuse lgbts of being the aggressors when they are the ones passing the anti-gay marriage laws. And they are the ones in backroomss figuring out ways to work around the courts when they strike down ordinances that bar gay adoption.

Maybe I'm confused about definitions here, but just who are the aggressors and who are the ones having to deal with the onslaught?

And just who are the people with integrity?