From the latest update on the Texas branch of the FLDS child-fucking church:
"We are aware that this group is capable of" sexually abusing girls, Sheriff David Doran said. "But there again, this is the United States. We are going to respect them. We're not going to violate their civil rights until we get an outcry."
No, no, I know that's not what he meant, and while it infuriates me that it took four whole years worth of child rape for law enforcement to get their ducks unimpeachably in order on this one, I'm gratified that it appears to be an ironclad bust that leaves zero wiggle room for these fucktards to slither out on a technicality. And it's reassuring to hear a Texas sheriff put it out there that his department isn't going after a particular group of people simply because he thinks they're capable of sexual abuse. I just wish he had chosen words that didn't have the slight ring of conflating "respect for religious beliefs" with "required to ignore the abuse of children until other people notice and raise a ruckus."
Let's check the Boltgirl scorecard on religion this morning. Religious beliefs require you to feed the hungry and clothe the poor? Awesome. Religious beliefs require you to fast and flagellate yourself? Totally not my scene, but if it does it for you and no one else suffers in the process, well, go for it. Religious beliefs require you to enslave women and impregnate as many freshly pubescent girls as possible? While your fellow geezers stand around and watch? Drop dead, asshole.
Meanwhile, what is the already overtaxed Texas CPS going to do with 400+ kids who have never set foot outside the compound and have had the belief drilled into them that the outside world is a hostile one-way express elevator to hell? Maybe some nice non-polygamous Mormon families would like to adopt them. Uh-huh. Nobody wins in this one.
From Barack Obama's interview with The Advocate:
Somebody else who influenced me, I actually had a professor at Occidental -- now, this is embarrassing because I might screw up his last name -- Lawrence Golden, I think it was. He was a wonderful guy. He was the first openly gay professor that I had ever come in contact with, or openly gay person of authority that I had come in contact with. And he was just a terrific guy. He wasn’t proselytizing all the time, but just his comfort in his own skin and the friendship we developed helped to educate me on a number of these issues.
Oh, no, girlfriend. No. You. Di'n't.
Wow. Just wow. He wasn't proselytizing all the time, you know, like gay people normally do. Wait. Seriously? You seriously give an interview to The Advocate and then you let that fall out of your mouth? Barack Obama. Just a terrific guy. Not blasting Fiddy on a boombox all the time. See how that works? Obama praising a gay man for his lack of "proselytizing" in an interview with a gay magazine is not far off from Bill O'Reilly being amazed that black people at a soul food restaurant in Harlem used forks and knives and didn't sit there screaming "more iced tea, motherfucker!" It's Huckleberry Finn being amazed to see that the escaped slave Jim bleeds blood that is red, just like his own. It's Joe Biden praising Obama for being "articulate and bright and clean." Come on, Barack. Are you fucking kidding me?
Yes, I voted for him in the primary, and I've already foamed at the mouth about Clinton's gee, aren't we lucky that the states are addressing gay marriage on their own statements, and I recognize that Obama was the first politician to call out black churches on their homophobia, but I'm sick of having to wade through puddles of crap from both candidates so I can get to the other side and say, well, at least the shit isn't quite as high up above my knees as it would be with McCain. Step it up, people!
1 comment:
Yeah, I was not pleased with that proselytizing comment. The interview overall is great which makes the proselytizing gaffe even more jarring. There's no excuse for it, though, none.
Post a Comment