Bill O'Reilly is Confused

Bill O'Reilly apparently has no clue what's going on in the world. He went on and on two days ago about Miss California Carrie PreJean... but apparently doesn't understand why the ACLU and the LGBT community doesn't support her. Watch the video here, but here's some highlights (the quotes are transcribed by another blog, but I accidentally closed it down before I transposed the quotes -- SORRY!):

I also suggest – respectfully – that gay Americans should take the lead in supporting Miss California's right to voice an opinion on gay marriage. After all, gays want freedom of expression too . . . and where are the womens groups on this? Miss Carrie Prejean has been called all kinds of vile names...

I haven't seen one op-ed piece, I haven't seen anybody on television from the gay community or on the radio say, 'You know, we don't agree but the woman is entitled to her opinion and shouldn't be villified...'

Nobody in the liberal community stuck up for her, nobody. No gay people, no feminist people, nobody. Alright, if you guys are the big freedom of speech . . . ACLU. ACLU my butt! Okay? They couldn't care less about her freedom of speech...

You're saying, 'We don't want to be persecuted or denied rights in any way because of our expression of homosexuality,' and that is a legitimate debating point, it is. So this woman says, . . . 'This is what I believe,' and gets killed for it. You guys would have been so smart to say, 'No, no, we're gonna defend her because this is exactly what we want.'

I just want to clarify for my own moral superiority: the ACLU defends your legal right to speech. The woman said what she wanted to say and no one plans on suing her for it; the reason she was looked down on by the Miss California organization, I believe, is because she went on a political bender and ignored her role as Miss CA... oh, and she apparently posed topless several times before becoming Miss California (which the Donald has no problems with).

But no one said she couldn't say what she did. We just aren't real pleased with what she did say.

Just like I'm not pleased with what you have to say 99% of the time, Mr. O'Reilly.

Seriously, though, this is exactly my second full post on Miss Prejean, can we just be done with her now? SRSLY!

El Papa, "Condoms not good for AIDS."

I mean, he's not completely unreasonable, he's saying that abstinence is better and condoms promote sex. That's true, right? In much the same way eyeglasses promote poor eyesight.

From IndyStar.com:

In his four years as pope, Benedict had never directly addressed condom use, although his position is not new. His predecessor, Pope John Paul II, often said that sexual abstinence - not condoms - was the best way to prevent the spread of the disease.

Benedict also said the Roman Catholic Church was at the forefront of the battle against AIDS.

"You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms," the pope told reporters aboard the Alitalia plane heading to Yaounde. "On the contrary, it increases the problem."

The pope said a responsible and moral attitude toward sex would help fight the disease, as he answered questions submitted in advance by reporters traveling on the plane. His response was presumably also prepared in advance.

FOXNews is quick to bring up the issue that most sources are emphasizing the "no on condoms approach." Because, you know, FOXNews is the moral paragon of the country.

Meanwhile, people continue to have sex and people continue to get AIDS. You know, because years of abstinence-abstinence-abstinence worked for this country and everyone else...

...after all, just look at the Palin's.

Look: let's be honest. Abstinence is the best way to protect yourself from getting STD's and against unwanted pregnancies. It's the truth. No one is denying that. But the problem is not whether or not we go out and teach abstinence, it's whether or not we add the rejoinder "but if you choose to have sex, you should use..."

It's called comprehensive sex education, not "happy-fun-fuck-orgy-time" sex education. Responsible, complete, intelligent.

Caution: Zombies ahead!

Exhibit A:
From KXAN (Dallas) article telling how someone changed the construction road sign to be wary of zombies ahead.

Exhibit B:

From a Neatorama article explaining how to change construction road signs to warn people of Zombies.

Coincidence? I think not.

Does anyone else think, perhaps, the PD should have just taken it as the joke it was, and posted "Zombie Threat Eliminated, Road Construction Ahead." I think that would have shown a great, human side to the government.

And we wouldn't have these silly threats to go after college pranksters.

Oh, and a related post from FOXNews. Apparently UT-Austin students are really bored. And construction crews are really stupid.

GLAAD's Worst of 2008 Awards

The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation has posted the 10 worst anti-gay voices of 2008. Very few surprises, actually, but good to remember:

• Bill O'Reilly, of FOXNews' The O'Reilly Factor -- For being Bill O'Reilly, but specifically for making statements that Americans don't want to see "homosexual behavior legitimized.
  
• California's Yes on 8 Campaign -- Um, duh.
• Greg Guttfield, of FOXNews' Red Eye -- Because you couldn't turn on his show without hearing homophobic remarks, such as "turning a hole into a pole" in regards to sexual reassignment surgery.
• James Dobson, of Focus on the Family -- Surprised? Isn't he on lists like this every year?
• Jim Quinn, of Clear Channel's The War Room with Quinn and Rose -- For being the kind of enlightened and intelligent person who would state, "Gay sex produces AIDS, which the state doesn't have – or should have an interest in. They should charge homosexuals more for their health insurance than they charge the rest of us." Charming, really.
• John Gibson, of FOXNewsRadio's John Gibson Show -- Because he was sensitive enough about Heath Ledger's death by making anti-gay jokes regarding his role on Brokeback Mountain. Love you, mean it.
• Laura Ingraham, of FOXNews' Laura Ingraham Show -- There's a lot of FOX on this list. I'm sure that means nothing.
• The New York Post -- I mean, that's kind of a big target, but apparently they're sensationalistic... or something. (No, not modern American journalism... it's never sensational. HA! American Journalism - Rarely Exceptional, Always Sensational ... I should be in marketing).
• Pastor Rick Warren -- If you don't know why, you haven't been paying attention.
• Rep. Sally Kern -- Because gays are trying to take over the country, including her own son. But she'll only say it when she thinks no one is listening.
• Sean Delonas, cartoonist of the New York Post -- More specific at the Post. He drew the cartoon above.

Anyone they missed? I really can't think of anyone else. Locally, I think Bill Cunningham should top the list. He said something particularly vitriolic this year, if I remember correctly. Honestly, I don't feel like looking it up. HA! :-)

A prize to the person who finds what nasty thing Mr. Cunningham has said about gay people in 2008.

Election 2008: Oh, John Edwards, why?

So much for VP choice, or the future of his political career...

The original National Enquirer story about the John Edwards affair -- great source, I know.

The confirmation by that security guard at the hotel that night (from FOX news)

The LA Times has blocked bloggers from talking about it -- for good reasons, I know.

*SIGH* And the criminal suit being brought up that may require Edwards to give an eyewitness account.

Grrrr... Even if it's not true, his rep is tarnished. But he's SO PRETTY! (this picture makes his butt look GREAT)

ELECTION 2008: 270toWin.com

Thanks to the authors of 270toWin.com who pointed me to a more precise polling estimates as to who will be winning the EV's on their site. Here is their email to me:

Hi,

Thanks for including 270toWin in your recaps. In terms of reporting our current polling estimates, you might want to work off this map:

http://www.270towin.com/2008_polls/mccain_obama/

The home page interactive map, which will eventually align with the above map as we get closer to the election, is changed less frequently as we base it more on historical trends. For example, while North Dakota and Montana are polling close right now, we’re not yet convinced they’ll actually really be in play come Election Day.

They were so nice. This changes their estimate (at the moment) to: 229 (BO), 160 (JM)-- still not a clear winner, but the numbers are higher. Damn, I think I got those numbers wrong. I'm stupid and can't read graphs. Much love

And they're right about Montana and North Dakota. There is always, of course, the possibility of the Bradley Effect in play here.

---------

Also, random point from FOXNews this morning... is John McCain eligible to run for President? He was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 and thus, per Article, Section 1 of the Constitution, not a "natural born citizen." However, his parents were both US citizens serving a military purpose (his dad was in the Navy -- cue the Village People!!!!). The full wording of the Article is:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Here are some people that believe that: American Chaos, Real Truth Online, and the LRC Blog.

Shockingly we may have a good answer from an MSNBC article, which indicates the intent of the forefathers, who passed a law in 1790 that said anyone born to US Citizens outside of the country is a natural born citizen. The text is here:

"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." (from a great summary here, which also includes a Supreme Court case ruling in 1927 that indicates Mr. McCain is OK)

And there is a great article from the International Herald Times discussing the issue.

However, the Senate passed a non-binding resolution on April 30, 2008 stating that he is a natural-born citizen. Even if it were to come to court, I think there is enough indications that it's ok.

ELECTION 2008: "New low"

Via the Joe. My. God. blog. (his bit here)

Oh Jesus.

And the take on the Bilerico project.