June 16, 2012

Fred Karger Vs Nanette Billings, Wicked Witch of West Utah

Fred Karger is an openly gay candidate for the Republican nomination in the 2012 US Presidential election. He is still campaigning and using his position as a candidate to affect change in the Republican position against equal rights for gay Americans.

Unlike some of the more delusional candidates who have run, Karger never thought he would become president, reports L. A. Times contributor Mark Z. Barabak. Karger said in a profile last year, I want to send the message to gay younger people and older people and everyone in between that you can do anything you want in life, and don’t feel bad about yourself and don’t feel you have to live your life the way I did. Karger was not fully out until age 56.

Karger, who founded a group called Californians Against Hate, which focused on Mormon involvement in the campaign to pass Proposition 8, recently spent four days in the Utah meeting with local Republican leaders and urging the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to stop funding efforts against gay marriage.

Among those he met with was Washington County Republican Party Chairman Willie Billings, who Karger said was welcoming. After their meeting Karger gave Billings some campaign paraphernalia, including a Frisbee and a T-Shirt. When Billings brought the souvenirs home, however, his wife, Nanette Billings, threw them in the garbage and fired off an email to Karger, calling him a radical idiot and saying thank goodness he cant procreate.


According to Yahoo! News Billings confirmed that she sent the email through Karger’s website.

My feeling is the only reason he’s running for president is to find more [sexual] partners, Nanette Billings told Yahoo News in a phone interview. To get more people on his bandwagon.

All I did was go on his site and say, You’re pathetic, she said. We’re a very conservative state in Utah, very family-oriented. So he’s picked a state just to cause ruckus. He’s not thinking of family, he’s thinking of himself. He’s not running for president to fix something in the country; he’s thinking of his own personal agenda, period. And I was just letting him know that I think he’s an idiot to think of running.

Karger said, This is what the Mormon church preaches to its members. This is not some isolated woman in Utah.

Willie, you're in Utah, for heaven's sake! Home of the Mormon Church, where men aspire to become gods and women are worthless chattel. Can't you keep your wench under control?

Nanette, you are the wife of a County Republican Party Chairman. You should try to not be such an embarrassment to your family, your party and your state. Pretend you have a brain and stop behaving like such a supercilious prat.

Conservative means disposed to preserve existing conditions or limit change. It can also mean cautious or moderate.

Let me point out a couple of things, Nanette, which might help. The founding fathers were radical REVOLUTIONARIES. They Started the REVOLUTIONARY WAR to separate from their existing government and found a new country based on a radical, untested concept. They were by no definition of the term conservatives. They did this thing in no small part to escape hyper-religious, fundamentalist blockheads like you. They went so far as to include special provisions in the founding documents to try to ensure people like you couldn't shove you mormonic religion up everyone else's backside.

God has nothing what so ever to do with conservatism. There are conservative Buddhists, conservative Muslims, conservative Mormons and conservative Atheists. There are even, despite your stupid assertions to the contrary, conservative homosexuals.

When did Republican become a religion and how do we change it back?

That's my 2 cents worth.

June 9, 2012

Legislating Sea Levels

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Sink or Swim
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogVideo Archive

It is said that a 12th century king of Denmark, King Cnut The Great, had his thrown moved to the edge of the sea and, commanded the tide to halt. He did this in an act of humility to show that no earthly king was as powerful as god. I doubt that the republican legislators of North Carolina had a lesson in humility in mind when they recently proposed legislation that makes it illegal to consider scientific evidence of accelerated sea level rise (SLR) in coastal development decisions.

The bill makes using historical data since 1900 and linear projections the only legal way to calculate future SLR. This lowers the projected SLR between now and 2100 from a scientifically projected three feet to an historically calculated eight inches.

The Charlotte Observer notes that: Maine is preparing for a rise of up to 2 meters by 2100, Delaware 1.5 meters, Louisiana 1 meter and California 1.4 meters. Southeastern Florida projects up to a 2-foot rise by 2060.

One North Carolinian writing in Scientific American said the proposed bill is exactly like saying, do not predict tomorrow’s weather based on radar images of a hurricane swirling offshore, moving west towards us with 60-mph winds and ten inches of rain. Predict the weather based on the last two weeks of fair weather with gentle breezes towards the east. Don’t use radar and barometers; use the Farmer’s Almanac and what grandpa remembers.

An excellent aritcle appears in Think Progress titled North Carolina Bill Would Require Coastal Communities To Ignore Global Warming Science and the Colobert Report clip above is a must see.

Even given that North Carolina is infested with fundamentalist, hyperchristian blockheads like Charles [Cage the Queers] Worley and his supporters at the Providence Road Baptist Church along with Jeff [Teach 'em Hate] Sangl and the people of the Apostolic Truth Tabernacle, the authors of this anti-scientific bill reach hitherto unmatched levels of stupidity.

How much of a moron do you have to be to make it illegal to even consider the overwhelming scientific evidence in favor of your own brand of head-in-the-sand planning? Apparently no more of an idiot than the authors and supporters of this bill.

In his May 25th Huffington Post Blog entry titled: Why You Shouldn't Boycott North Carolina, Mark Kleinschmidt, the first gay mayor of Chapel Hill, N.C., pleads the case for ending efforts to boycott the state. Don't sweat it Mr. Kleinschmidt, it looks like if the GOP legislators in your state get their way, North Carolina will be reduced to a floating crap game in 80 years or so. What difference will it make whether or not gays boycotted North Carolina then?

June 2, 2012

Calling Someone Gay No Longer Slander in NY

In a unanimous decision written by Justice Thomas Mercure of the Appellate Division’s Third Department, the court found that the comment [calling someone gay] is now based on a false premise that it is shameful and disgraceful to be described as lesbian, gay or bisexual. Without that premise it is no longer defamatory and therefore no longer slander to call someone gay.

According to Edge On The Net, Jonathan L. Entin, law and political science professor at Case Western Reserve University Law School in Ohio is quoted as saying, With Thursday’s decision and similar ones in several other states, calling someone gay is eliminated as defamation, just as being called black is no longer grounds for slander.

Jay Blotcher, a longtime gay rights activist from the Hudson Valley observed that It's still a thorny issue. Bottom line, just because you have gay characters on television that make everybody laugh doesn’t mean that the entire country embraces gay people as equal citizens yet.

I want desperately to agree with this decision but I can't. It doesn't play out in the real world because the protections necessary are not in place yet. It is a decision ahead of it's time.

The comparison between calling someone gay and calling them black is a good one but here's the rub. If someone says you're black and as a result a potential renter does not rent to you, you can sue. Discrimination against blacks in housing is illegal. If on the other hand someone refuses to rent to you because they were told you were gay, then tough. Just because homosexuals can marry doesn't mean they are protected against discrimination under the law.

As long as it's legal to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation is should be slander to falsely accuse them of a specific orientation.

That's my 2 cents worth