Tuesday, June 16, 2009

A Joke Taken Too Far?

So, David Letterman made some inappropriate (is anyone really surprised) jokes about Bristol Palin. Sarah Palin, of course, her fifteen minutes of fame over (thankfully) used this opportunity to jump back (hopefully very briefly) into the spotlight.

Now, the joke was in very poor taste. Still, it was a joke, and people need to get a life.

Now this from cnn.com . . .

CNN) — Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is accepting comedian David Letterman's apology over the controversial joke directed at her daughter, but says she hopes "men who 'joke' about public displays of sexual exploitation of girls will soon evolve."
"Letterman certainly has the right to 'joke' about whatever he wants to, and thankfully we have the right to express our reaction," Palin said in a statement. "And this is all thanks to our U.S. Military women and men putting their lives on the line for us to secure America's Right to Free Speech – in this case, may that right be used to promote equality and respect."
Palin's comments come hours after the late night talk show host formally apologized for the off-color joke he made last week about one of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's daughters that set off a war of words between the Letterman and the Palin family.

"It was kind of a coarse joke. There's no getting around it," Letterman said in the opening monologue of Monday night's show.

Meanwhile John Ziegler, the conservative radio talk show host who has made a film about Palin, is set to lead a protest Tuesday outside the theater where Letterman's show is taped. Ziegler is calling for the late night host’s ouster.

Now, my response . . .

First Paragraph - seriously?? Evolve?

Second Paragraph - I'm sorry, isn't it a bit hypocritical for Sarah Palin to tout free speech, when she's blasting Letterman for utilizing his right to free speech? Oh, and what does the military have to do with the whole joke incident. Nothing. As usual, Sarah Palin demonstrates her inability to carry on a coherent conversation. Yes, both parties made their point. The fact is, neither point should have gained the media attention they did.

Third/Fourth Paragraph - personally, I don't think he owed anybody an apology. I'm sorry, there are greater issues facing this country right now then whether or not somebody made an inappropriate joke. Equality is being denied to the GLBT community on a daily basis. President Obama is breaking (did anyone expect anything less) the promises he made to get elected. We're still in Iraq. The recession is still here. David Lettrerman's inappropriate joke should not be the news story of the day.

Fifth Paragraph - would John Ziegler be arranging a protest outside of Letterman's show if he hadn't made a film about Palin? NO! The protest is just his way of promoting his film. Enough Said!

So, if you want to care about something . . . care about the denial of equality, the recession, the war in Iraq, and anything except the silliness (yes, I just devoted a blog post to this - go figure) surrounding a joke. I'm just saying . . .


Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Idiocy in Idaho

Sad, but true . . . go here to read the blog post.

Recently . . .

A same-sex couple and their three foster children were denied a reduced admission price to a pool in eastern Idaho because the Lava Hot Springs State Foundation says the five don't fit the definition of a family.

Amber Koger and Jeri Underwood say they and their three children were recently denied the resort's advertised family admission price to the Olympic Swimming Complex at Lava Hot Springs.

The reason (you're gonna love this) . . . the state of Idaho doesn't recognize gay or lesbian marriage and defines a family as one male, one female and children.

So, what's wrong with the above definition? Have you figured it out yet? I bet you have. Basically, with this definition the following are excluded . . .

  • Divorced mother with two children - she's missing the man, therefore she's not considered a family by the Idaho definition.
  • Divorced father with three children - he's missing the woman, therefore . . .
  • Widowed mother/father with four children - missing the man/woman . . .
  • Married man and woman with one child - their missing the children, therefore . . . oh, yes, the definition clearly uses the plural children rather than child(ren) which would have been the proper definition.
  • Single mother/father w/children . . . again, missing the other half, therefore not a family and not eligible for the discounted rate.

This is too sad, but also - in an ironic way - kind of funny. I really think the couple involved needs to sue the State, request membership records and find out how many non-family units received the discounted rates. The State should then have to go back and collect all the back money due them since those people were paying the wrong rate. I'm just saying . . .



Below are four, blogs I found throug an article on www.advocate.com. These are basically blogs dealing with issues for the GLBT community.

The four blogs below are the ones I'm currently - probably much to my dismay, and problem great fodder for this blog - following:


Here's the full list, in no particular order:

Rod 2.0

Some of the blogs are gossip blogs, some political, and some very important news blogs for the community. So, if you're one of my people, or if you're not ignorantly inclined and care about equality and justice for all . . . check them out. They're definitely interesting and thought provoking . . . well, at least the four I follow. Some of the other ones . . .


Tuesday, June 09, 2009

At what age . . .

. . . do men, if they ever had it in the first place, lose all fashion sense? I mean, is there some line that men (well, the majority of them, mainly hetero, but some of my people as well) cross when suddenly they begin to dress in a more hideous fashion than normal?

This morning, driving to work, enjoying a pleasant day and then - BAM - the Fashion SWAT team is swarming over two men wearing shorts, and socks up to their frakkin' knees. Yes, their frakkin' knees. I think they had to call out the SWAT team because one of the men was wearing dark socks.

So, now you see the whole point of this post. Pretty soon, I'm sure those men will be wearing shorts down to their knees and socks up to their knees. Please, shoot me if you ever see me dressed like that and it's not Halloween.

Now, as someone still under 50 . . . if I'm wearing shorts and tennis shoes, I wear the little footie socks. I don't wear socks that cover my ankles. Why? Because it's WRONG people, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! Repeat after me: WRONG! Of course, I wear the footies because I have excellent calves and ankles and just like showing them off. I'm just saying . . . But, back to this snark filled post . . . why, people, why, the need to wear socks up to your knees once you reach a certain age? My father - much to the dismay of his four children who had to go out in public with him - did the same thing. I'm still in therapy over that incident, among other things from my childhood. Are men genetically predispositioned to do these things? Is there no hope for me?

Oh, and while I'm on the subject of fashion: socks with sandals is a definite no-no! Never, no matter the reason, wear socks with your sandals. Frank, if you're reading this blog: this means you! Oh, and white socks with dress shoes - NO! Again, Frank, if you're reading this blog: this means you. Picture it, Frank and I out for a night at the theater. He's dressed so nice - dress shirt, khaki, dress shoes. He's a fine looking man. We sit down, he crosses his leg, his khakis ride up to reveal . . . white socks. I was so horrified I sat in another row. Kidding. I did make him put both feet on the floor and promise me never, ever, not in a gazillion years, to do that ever, ever, ever again. Now, before we leave the house, I do a sock check. Hey, it's my duty to keep the fashion police as far away from us as possible.

Last, men in their 60s or above, overweight, covered in hair, should not, under any circumstances, wear a speedo! I think I just went blind!