Category: Politics

If someone used the phrase “girlie men,” what comes to mind? Physical weakness, certainly. You might think of the recurring “Saturday Night Live” skit which used that phrase.
But if you’re a California Democrat, you think this is the equivalent of calling someone gay. Governor Schwarzenegger called Democrats blocking the state budget “girlie men” because they are being used as supine tools of special interest groups. I can’t say for certain if that charge is true — I suspect it is, since the governor singled out “unions and trial lawyers” as the special interests behind the obstruction, and the Democratic Party gets most of its money from those two groups. I do know that it’s kinda funny, and that one shouldn’t go ballistic over a little joke, even if you think it’s unfair.
Unless you want to tag a political opponent as a thought criminal, that is. Does it fascinate you that when the Democrats in that article hear “girlie men,” they hear “fags”? Doesn’t this remind you of the famous “Seinfeld” episode where other people think George and Jerry are gay, and they violently deny it, but then quickly add “not that there’s anything wrong with that”?
I mean, if the Dems think “girlie men” is a code word for “homosexuals,” how can they possibly think that’s insulting, unless you think calling someone a homosexual is an insult? If the New York Times and “Queer Eye” have taught us anything, it’s that the gay lifestyle is the epitome, the apotheosis of all that is good and right in the modern world. Isn’t calling someone “gay” like saying they are cultured, well-dressed, and worthy of our utmost respect and admiration?
You may say, as State Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Neptune) said, that the governor used “an image that is associated with gay men in an insulting way, and it was supposed to be an insult.” Effeminate men are associated with homosexuality, and so if you call someone effeminate, you automatically are calling them gay. How does that follow? The CIA used to reject homosexuals because they thought gays were a national security risk; does that mean if you call someone a national security risk, you’re calling them gay?
The term “homophobic,” like “racist,” has ceased to have any meaningful content. It’s just a word like “idiot,” used as an insult rather than a descriptive term.

Stunning media bias and the presidential campaign. How about that story of lawyer Edwards “channeling” an unborn girl in arguments at a trial? And how he avoided paying $600,000 in Medicare taxes even as he was attacking tax shelters that shortchange Medicare on the campaign trail? Imagine if Cheney did that! Kerry and Edwards would rend their designer garments at every campaign stop across the USA.

What is news anymore? The dishonesty in the media and the Democratic ticket is astounding. And believe me, they have been using the same techniques and double-talk to marginalize Catholics in the debate on moral issues. I’m going to drink some decaf now.

Links to news of Bishop “You’ve got Porn” Krenn and his reflection on authentic Catholic healing in the wake of these scandals.
Regarding Bishop Krenn and the diabolic shennanigans at his seminary, I’d be ready to leave the country if I had any of his newly-ordained priests in my parish. After being formed in an environment like that it’s highly likely they would be psychologically and spiritual unwell. Perhaps some of our priest readers would care to comment on how the environment of a seminary influences candidates for the priesthood. It’s imagine the influence is tremendous and a seminary like Krenn’s could have become a freak factory in recent years.

On my local infotainment show this morning, they mentioned that President Bush devoted his Saturday radio speech to supporting the federal marriage amendment, defining marriage as one man and one woman. Instead of mentioning one of his reasons, they immediately characterized this as “playing to his base.”
No politician acts out of conviction these days, especially not conservative Republicans, if you listen to the mainstream media. While that is true in spades for the Kerry-Edwards campaign, it isn’t true of all politicians. The public is better served when moral ideas are discussed as such, not just as election tactics. Gay marriage is a moral issue, and has dimenstions that stretch far beyond the merely political. Would it be so hard for the media to acknowledge that?