Also Kung Fu Lunchbox
-
Secular victory: Religious groups must offer birth control - Portland Humanist | Examiner.com
Yay! Let’s tax the bastards next.
Preaching to the choir here…. The religious types fear true freedom because they’re afraid other people will make choices that they don’t like. Cultural and moral relativism is evil incarnate in their view. They also don’t trust that they themselves will always be ‘delivered from temptation’ (because obviously they aren’t responsible for their own desires and are subject to the influence of others). Therefore it is better to remove any opportunity to choose and simultaneously chalk it up to the supposed dictates of their lord. Despite the supposed gift of free will from their god, it’s better that there be no opportunity to sin rather than there even be the slightest opportunity to choose not to sin.
A reading from the book of Kevbo.
-
Santorum “glitter-bombed” at South Carolina Republican primary
Members of Occupy Charleston “glitter-bombed” Rick Santorum at the tail end of his speech here at the Citadel tonight. - PhotoBlog
That’s not glitter, that’s Santorum.
We have a winner.
Priceless.
-
Recipe: Butter-fried sugar a la mode.
Obviously the most important matter of the day is Paula Deen’s diabetes.
I know I could go and read what other people are saying but I’m pretty sure I can anticipate the variety of opinions. This ain’t my first time round the router.
This being the interwebses, I am legally obligated to share my thoughts on the matter as though it were a discussion of nukes in Iran or how the Pope is doing in his personal battle with his predilection for scat porn.
Some claim it’s okay that she kept her disease private and we have no business knowing about it. Well, I don’t care that she kept it private so much as the fact that, obviously hypocritically, her show isn’t exactly diabetes-friendly.
It might have been good for her audience for her to admit it years ago and sprinkle some related alternative recipes etc. in the course of a season. “Hey, if you have a blood sugar problem, this works out to about 2500 bread exchanges and you might want to trim the brown sugar by a gallon or so.” Kind of a full disclosure like on financial programs.
It’s quite possible her cooking was part of her own susceptibility to the disease and thus only admitting her illness when scoring big pharma $$ is a bit obnoxious.
You see, she’s only giving ‘a percentage’ of her payoff to the American Diabetes Association. Just a percentage. If she gave 100% of the money to diabetes research, then I don’t think she’d be worthy of too much criticism since no one is technically forced to eat as she advocates and she wouldn’t be profiting off of the fact that she and so many others suffer from the sometimes preventable disease.
But she is profiting, perhaps adding to the problem, and I haven’t heard any real caution from her about the dangers of her culinary creations in the few instances I’ve watched the show.
You’re most welcome for me sharing my thoughts on this matter.
P.S. Too tired to post a meme of her riding stuff. Someone likely has put her atop a syringe. If not, get on that, Internetses.
-
Karen Gillan attends Ovation’s presentation at the Television Critics Association Winter Tour - January 14, 2012.
^This. Oh, man. Gulp. Knees weak. Perfection.
-
Hipaulcrisy and the freedom-lovin’ freedom-haters
Why are Republican prudes still desperate to control your sex life? (via Alternet.org)
My understanding of Paul’s stand on abortion and his hypocrisy therein:
He’s opposed to abortion despite being a supposed libertarian. Then he claims the states not the feds should decide abortion law despite his being opposed to abortion in the first place. So, someone going from one state to another for an abortion would be okay with him so long as the states get to decide.
He claims the federal government allowing abortion is tyrannical and tantamount to the Nazis committing holocaust against certain races, the feeble, handicapped etc. But allowing the states to decide is A-okay either way.
He claims a fetus at any stage is a viable person, which is biologically (and philosophically) incorrect which you would think he’d understand with a medical degree under his belt and having delivered so many children. His Christian fundamentalism is obviously overriding his alleged libertarianism and knowledge of science here. He’s a theocrat and it shows in his opinions on a few other hot-button matters the linked article touches upon.
He’s opposed to abortion but would allow morning-after pills and an exception to allow for abortions after rape. By his claims of personhood at the moment of conception, why would those exceptions be allowable?
Despite being a libertarian, he obviously doesn’t think women have the right to choose what happens with their bodies (regardless of whether they are pro-life or pro-choice or somewhere inbetween). In fact, he’d prefer to see women legally punished for having abortions, not just restrict their right to have one.
Sadly, on this matter (but obv. not others), Paul seems to be just another hypocritical Christian Conservative Republican who wants to regulate what goes on between people’s legs.
To further explain my perception of hypocrisy in Paul’s platform:
IMHO, the federal govt., by allowing abortion choice is securing freedom that states could/would restrict. It is left to the individual to decide whether they think it is proper to terminate a fetus, as it is their family, life, livelihood and body in question. Don’t like abortion? Don’t get one. It is the same principle by which civil rights are secured by the federal government since certain states would limit them. (Don’t like interracial marriage? Don’t get one!)
It’s not forcing a decision on people but rather securing freedoms and choice in keeping with the larger spirit of the Constitution and the supporting explanatory Federalist Papers.
Paul’s claims, like others, that there are some matters the 9th and 10th amendments wouldn’t allow the federal government to wade into, simply seems to be a way to justify allowing racism, theocracy, legislated morals and more consumer-abusive laissez-faire business practices that are seemingly antithetical to the lip service those politicians pay to liberty, freedom, justice etc.
The majority of what the federal government does isn’t specifically defined in the Constitution but when a politician wants to legislate morality and faith and there are fears profits might be curtailed, suddenly the 9th and 10th amendments conveniently come up in conversation under very narrow definitions.
-
Frothy.
So, over at HuffPo the other night, I posted my analysis of Santorum in Iowa. My scatological ruminations were appreciated by fellow subversives and apparently a moderator.
“Hmmm. I’m worried that Santorum may be spread a little thin in the days ahead and I’m not sure he can really ply himself where he needs to. He really needs to mix it up with the locals and assess his future as a candidate. If he calls matters as he really sees them it may be be a stretch for voters. Then again, he may see some new openings and push forward forcefully with nothing to ease his path but the excitement his crew can foment for him. It’s not just a silly season, it’s a savage season.”
-
Four since x-mas.
Dear (old) friends’ parents,
You can stop with the dying now, okay? Really making me nervous about my own parents of the same age (though they’re in good shape).
Thanks,
Kevbo
-
Well, this just happened… again. See http://lekevbo.tumblr.com/post/11174737669/well-this-just-happened
Likes
-
-
my mom emailed this to me and said “i miss your long hair.”
that’s cool cuz i don’t.
this is...
-
Psh, neighbors…
-
History lesson time!
Today, the GOP is losing its collective shit over President Obama...
-
The Tea Party voter guide for Iowa
First, pro-tip for the Tea Party: When you send out a voter...
