Three Way News

Your Source. For everything. Really.


Current Poll

Best comic strip?

  • Bloom County
  • Boondocks
  • Calvin and Hobbes
  • Dilbert
  • Doonesbury
  • Far Side
  • Foxtrot
  • Get Fuzzy
  • Life in Hell
  • Peanuts
  • Pearls Before Swine
  • Pogo
  • Zippy the Pinhead
Free polls from

Recurring features

Hammer's Favorites

Jambo's Favories

Monday, May 09, 2005

Rapture Monday: Shaky peace

Posted by: Hammer / 4:08 PM

The Rapture Index stands at 150, up 1 over last week. Apparently, "A new round of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians has brought a shaky peace to the region." Who knew thata little shaky peace gets us that much closer to the kingdom? Well, not us closer, but they get a step closer to a blissful eternity sitting at the right hand of some guy from West Virginia.

Oh, the humanity?

Jane Jimenez, certainly my favorite sexual scold is probably not directly responsible for the headline above her latest column: SIECUS redefines humanity. I don't see anything in her column about humanity. She's just upset about the notion of "outercourse". Not that it's a dumb word, but that teens might engage in pre-sexual activity:
A passage from Debra Haffner's article "Safe Sex and Teens" in the September-October 1989 SIECUS Report is quite open about what it wants for our children. "Colleagues and I have fantasized about a national 'petting project' for teenagers .... A partial list of safe sex practices for teens could include: Talking, Flirting, Dancing, Hugging, Kissing, Necking, Massaging, Caressing, Undressing each other, Masturbation alone, Masturbation in front of a partner, Mutual masturbation. Teens could surely come up with their own list of activities."

Based on magazine ads, movies and television ... Yes ... teens "could surely come up with" quite a list of sexual activities. But is that what we want our children to do? Indulge in sexual promiscuity?

Even more amazing than the list of extracurricular sex suggestions from Haffner's article is the general premise of SIECUS that these activities are a form of abstinence from sex. In fact, some creative educators actually coined a special word for this brand of abstinence ... "outercourse" ... as opposed to intercourse.

Yeah, were it not for television and the movies, kids would never think to have sex. There are no natural urges to contend with, just a few pesky magazine articles and a lot of prayer. I'm a little disappointed that frottage didn't make the cut. Expect that disappointment to end in no more than 6 years. For once, I want to give Jane the last word: "Sex is a magical gift of bonding and procreation between a husband and wife. Until then? For our teens? Abstinence is a choice that protects and empowers."

Punch line

Finally, a major politician has stood up and said that the first lady shouldn't work blue:
...A former U.S. presidential candidate says comments made by First Lady Laura Bush to a Washington Press gathering last week were an embarrassment and sent the wrong message to the country. The now infamous comments from Mrs. Bush came as she attempted to make comical remarks to the White House Correspondents Association dinner in D.C. Michael Peroutka, a presidential candidate for the Constitution Party and head of that group, says he was shocked that the First Lady would lower herself to telling the audience she watches Desperate Housewives and that she and the Vice President's wife have visited a male strip club. Peroutka doubts Mrs. Bush and Chaney have actually done these things, but he says that is not the point. Apart from suggesting that watching shows like Desperate Housewives and going to strip clubs like Chippendales are acceptable pastimes, the Constitution Party leader asserts that what Mrs. Bush -- and the current administration -- are saying by this is, "Look, we're going to speak like this. We're going to bring everything down to a lower level, and you just deal with it." But Peroutka does not find any of it acceptable, and he says even some liberal journalists at the gathering were shocked, feeling that jokes laced with sexual innuendo somehow seemed out of place for the wife of the President of the United States.

Microsoft dangles in the wind

This slowly evolving political torture couldn't happen to a nicer predatory monopoly. Microsoft now seems to be weighing back in on gay rights. Steve Ballmer says "After looking at the question from all sides, I've concluded that diversity in the workplace is such an important issue for our business that it should be included in our legislative agenda." It could be a forward-thinking human rights stance, but my guess is that the accounting department concluded that homosexuals update their software more often than evangelicals.

Worst admission ever

While Bill Frist is bending over backward to cater to the religious right, some still think Rudy Giuliani has a shot at the Republican nomination in 2008. No way, says Matt Friedeman, PhD:
Last weekend on ABC News' This Week with George Stephanopoulos, broadcaster Pat Robertson tried to defend those who are suspected to bolt the GOP if someone like former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani were nominated.

Said Robertson: "I don't think so. Rudy is a very good friend of mine, and he did a super job running the city of New York. And I think he'd make a good president. I like him a lot. Although he doesn't share all of my particular points of view on social issues, he's a very dedicated Catholic. And he's a great guy."

Now I am not nearly so bright, and intelligent, and wealthy or powerful a man as Robertson. But "a good president"?

Define "good" without the naming of pro-lifers and strict constructionists to the federal bench. Define "good" without pro-family policies that lean right and thrill religious conservatives. Define "good" without taking a strong stand for traditional marriage and the discouragement of same-sex unions.

"I'm pro-choice. I'm pro-gay rights," Giuliani once said on CNN's Inside Politics. Asked whether he supported a ban on partial-birth abortions he replied, "No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing." Define good with blood on your hands, AIDS rampaging homosexual America, while driving unrepentantly down the wrong side of the moral interstate.

Good? I don't think so -- and neither does Robertson. Change the name from Republican to Democrat and from Giuliani to Clinton, and we would have an all-out CBN war were this guy to get close to the nomination.

Tough, that. Not being nearly so bright and intelligent as Pat Robertson. That's like being shorter and smaller than Mickey Rooney.

I'm not sure what the second bolded sentence means. I get the gist, but the syntax is flawed. Is Giuliani responsible for AIDS? And if AIDS is only rampaging homosexual America, why would Robertson or Friedeman give a damn?


The enemy of my enemy is probably Judicial Watch:
...While several Republicans in the U.S. legislature claim Democrat filibusters of judicial nominees are unconstitutional, many of those same Republicans are fighting an effort to have the courts declare that fact. Tom Fitton of the legal watchdog group Judicial Watch has tried to address the judicial filibuster problem his way -- with litigation. He says, "Judicial Watch is in court trying to stop the [use of the] judicial filibusters. We've said that it's unconstitutional, and we're now at the appeals court stage there." However, Fitton notes that the group's legal effort has hit a snag: the GOP. "The Senate's defense is being coordinated by both Republican leaders and Democrat leaders," he says. "So while Republicans in the Senate are complaining that the filibusters are unconstitutional, and they're right, they're in court trying to prevent that issue from being adjudicated." Confused by the Republican actions, the Judicial Watch spokesman has come to adopt a rule of thumb. "Don't watch what they say, but watch what they do," Fitton says, "and they're doing the wrong thing here."
So now I've got to take a side either with Republicans or with Judicial Watch? Dammit, I guess I'll go Republicans on this one. The filibuster is one small check against the tyranny of the majority. It's an important tool for measured government. Of course, no one wants measured government when they hold power. I'm only surprised that the Republicans forgot the taste of minority so quickly.


Post a Comment

<< Home


Special Feeds

Fun with Google

Search Tools




Prior posts

  • Just like us, but with slightly bigger names
  • If she weighs the same as a duck
  • Opposed to the opposition
  • Border battle boring?
  • There's that woman again
  • National Day of Prayer -- Lakeville style
  • The meme continues
  • Rescuing kitties from ticket surcharges
  • Tracking a right wing fact
  • Archives

    • Gone for now

    This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours? Site Meter Get Firefox!