Humans apparently only species to exhibit anti-gay bigotry

“Gay” penguins Six Point and Slash

Maybe there’s something to be said about that “natural law” stuff after all – just not in the way the bigots intend. In addition to displaying all sorts of homosexual tendencies, it appears that the very concept of anti-gay intolerance simply doesn’t exist amongst our animal brethren:

Homosexual behavior has been documented in hundreds of animal species, but the same does not hold for gay-bashing. For starters, few animals are exclusively gay. Two female Japanese macaques might have playful sex with each other on Tuesday, then mate with males on Wednesday. Pairs of male elephants sometimes form years-long companionships that include sexual activity, while their heterosexual couplings tend to be one-night stands. For these and many other species, sexual preferences seem to be fluid rather than binary: Gay sex doesn’t make them gay, and straight sex doesn’t make them straight. In these cases, the concept of homophobia simply doesn’t apply.

[…]

What evidence we do have suggests that no such policing of sexual behavior exists. A male dog mounted by another male dog might reject the coupling, but there’s no sign that it takes any more offense than would a female that’s not in heat. In some primate species, young females will take umbrage at advances from males of their father’s age, probably as a defense against incest. But while they may scream and run away, the rest of the group doesn’t seem to get riled up about it.

Researchers believe that gay sex is even rewarded in certain species. For bonobos, sexual activity serves as an instrument of social harmony: It reinforces bonds and keeps the peace. For instance, when a female bonobo migrates into a new group, she often ingratiates herself to the clan’s other ladies by having a lot of sex with them. Far from being shunned, this homosexual behavior is welcomed.

Keep all these cases of animalistic sexual debauchery in mind the next time anyone spouts nonsense about homosexuality being “unnatural”. By their own logic, if anything, we should all be in constant gay orgies with every newcomer we meet. And better yet, it’s the gay-bashers who would be regarded as an abomination upon nature. Now that’s a reversal.

(via Joe. My. God.)

Tags: homosexuality • homophobia • anti-gay

Will Limbaugh go the way of the Beck?

As I said, this is probably the least likely outcome of it all, but one can nonetheless always hope:

(via @mmfa)

Tags: Rush Limbaugh • Glenn Beck

Mother Piano Rhapsody

This entry has been removed from Preliator and can now be found over at Creativitas. (See here for more info.)

Daily Blend: Tuesday, March 06, 2012

A.G. Eric Holder

A.G. Eric Holder ^[pictured] in short: Having the President accuse someone of terrorism and declare them guilty counts as “due process”, which is also not the same as “judicial process”.
(via @ggreenwald)

Lawsuit: Seymour, CT police wrongfully raid grandmother’s home on suspicions of pot, brutalize family and ransack house, then have children removed because of deplorable living conditions they created.
(via The Agitator)

Radley Balko has more about the man appealing his child molestation conviction from a quacktastic “pedophile test”.

Explaining why the U.S. Government thinks it can police any .com, .net or .org domain around the world.
(via @radleybalko)

Gripping exposé by a U.S. soldier-turned-private contractor about the discrepancy between soldiers in reality and how they’re portrayed in the media: “[T]he vast majority of us are straight up sociopaths.”
(via Rob F)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Tags: Eric Holder • Obama administration • due process • judicial process • Kimberly Pignataro • Seymour, CT • drug raids • Pal Satkowski • Michael Arena • pedophile test • Abel Test • child molestation • wrongful conviction • United States • USA • U.S. Government • VeriSign • W. • soldiers • warfare

Jon Stewart on the Limbaugh-Fluke controversy

As Rush Limbaugh continues to hemorrhage sponsors despite his repeated half-assed “apologies” for his four-day-long misogynistic attacks on college student Sandra Fluke, I thought an apt way to cap it all off would be with Jon Stewart’s characteristically brilliant take on the matter:

My transcript: (click the [+/-] to open/close →)

[−]

JON STEWART: We begin with a warning. I know many of our viewers with busy lives often use the time of this program to reconnect with their significant others with laughter and, perhaps, a little bit of sexytime. I guess what I’m saying is I know a lot of you … do it while the show is on.

Tonight, you may wanna postbone those activities. Because while the show will still be employing the Spanish fly that is a comedic take on political news, we will be mixing it with the electrodes-to-your-genitals that is this cat: human cold-shower Rush Limbaugh.

See, as you probably heard, Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University law student, testified before Congress about how she supports the government mandate for health insurers to include contraception as part of women’s preventative healthcare, even in Catholic institutions, relating to her own situation utilizing birth control, and the situation of a friend, who needed it to regulate an ovarian cyst.

These efforts were rewarded with some words from the aforementioned Mr. Limbaugh, which I will now play for you while taking certain prophylactic measures, myself. [Puts on a yellow Hazmat-style suit.] If you have one of these at home, I suggest you put it on now. Go ahead.

RUSH LIMBAUGH: Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke said that it’s too expensive to have sex in law school without mandated insurance coverage.

[…]

What does it say about the college coed Susan^[sic] Fluke who goes before a Congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? Makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex.

[Stewart’s suit is now smeared with “mud” (or “feces” … you decide). He takes the suit off cautiously.]

STEWART: Is he done? Wow. [puts the suit away] Wow, that almost got on me.

What is even going through Rush Limbaugh’s fevered mind to get from “young woman trying to get a private institution to cover contraception” to “prostitution slut having constant sexy-sex on my dime”? You gotta misunderstand so many things. One, he seems to believe that anyone using contraception is automatically having a ton of sex! And that contraception is something a woman has to pay for every time she has sex! And that the woman is nevertheless benefiting financially from having all that dirty, contraceptive-fueled dirty sex!

Personally, I don’t get too worked up about the things Rush Limbaugh says, because he is, and has been for many years, a terrible person. [New graphic: “Extremely LOUD & Incredibly GROSS”]

Prior to this kerfuffle, any woman that pertain to women’s health, or work, or role in the world is, in Rush’s world, a “feminazi”. That’s what he calls – that’s his baseline for rhetoric. They’re “feminazis”. Someone who would … herd you onto a train to go to an Indigo Girls concert. So, it’s Rush Limbaugh. Is it particularly vile Rush Limbaugh? Of course. That’s like saying, “There’s a particularly pungent bucket of raw sewage mixed with rotting cow guts and typhoid” – he’s a terrible person.

[Stewart goes on to skewer Gingrich, Santorum and Romney for their mealy-mouthed approach to Rush Limbaugh, and hits on other conservative pundits who mischaracterize Fluke’s testimony and insult her, exposing their hypocrisy (such as how Megyn Kelly castigates Fluke for wanting to be paid for having sex, despite strongly defending paid maternity leave a few months earlier).]

Of course, chances are nonetheless slim that the present firestorm will result in anything more than more contrived displays of contrition before everything goes back to pretty much the way it was beforehand. But there’s always the possibility that some people may turn away as they finally realize the sort of rancid manure that lies beneath Limbaugh’s skin.

Tags: Rush Limbaugh • Jon Stewart • The Daily Show • Sandra Fluke

Fail Quote of Irony: Donald Trump disses George Will

Donald Trump

You’d think failed politician wannabe and consummate megalomaniac Donald Trump would be the last person on Earth to criticize anyone else over their alleged lack of intelligence or schlocky appearance, but that would mean failing to take into account the man’s planet-sized obliviousness. Here he is on CNBC’s Squawk Box with Joe Kernen, hitting on conservative columnist George Will for the latter’s recent Washington Post op-ed calling the current crop of Republican candidates a failed attempt against President Obama:

I think George Will is a loser. I’ve watched him for years. He actually spoke for me at Mar-A-Lago a long time ago, I was very unimpressed, and that was a long time ago. But I will say this: You take away his little round spectacles and his cute little greasy haircut, and I think he probably realizes he’s not a very smart guy.

This is richer than Trump’s bank accounts (at least until he eventually bankrupts himself again). Did the man really just insult someone else’s hair? Seriously? You truly cannot make this shit up.

Note to the media and punditry: If you wish to be taken more seriously and not constantly denounced as one of the problems plaguing the U.S., you might want to reconsider giving a speaking platform to those incapable of opening their mouths without dragging the public discourse back to junior-high levels.

(via ThinkProgress)

Tags: Donald Trump • George Will • Republicans

Indiana House passes bill allowing defense against unlawful police entry

Last May, the Indiana Supreme Court created a bit of a stir when it decided that Hoosiers no longer had the right to defend themselves from illegal entry by police into their homes, pulling out the fantastically absurd arguments that resisting unlawful entry is both “incompatible with [the] Fourth Amendment” and “unnecessarily escalates the level of violence”. (Never mind the fact that there wouldn’t be any violence to speak of if the cops didn’t barge into anyone’s home illegally to begin with, but that’s apparently beside the point.)

In the wake of the understandable firestorm the ruling created, state legislators are rallying around a bill to overturn it and reinstate the people’s right to protect their homes from all enemies both foreign and domestic:

Hoosiers could legally defend themselves against police officers who enter their home under a measure that the Indiana House approved on a 74-24 vote, moving it another step toward becoming law, on Thursday.

The measure would overturn last year’s Indiana Supreme Court decision. The court ruled that homeowners do not have the right to use force against law enforcement officials who they believe are illegally entering their homes.

[…]

The bill now returns to the Senate. That chamber could approve it in the form that passed the House, or the House and Senate could have a joint committee try to hash out the differences before sending it back to both chambers for final approval.

The article also contains a neat little poll where some poor delusional souls apparently misread the answers and voted in the wrong direction. Do rectify, if you feel so inclined.

(via The Agitator)

Tags: Indiana • Indiana Supreme Court • Indiana House of Representatives • Indiana General Assembly

Limbaugh issues non-apology for sexist attacks

Rush Limbaugh

After being roundly condemned and bleeding advertisers left and right in the wake of his three-day misogynistic crusade against Sandra Fluke, Rush Limbaugh has finally seen fit to issue a blatantly dishonest and drippingly insincere statement about the controversy:

For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.

I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.

My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.

I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a more perfect example of the textbook notpology. He didn’t mean to make any “personal attack on Ms. Fluke”! No, when he called her a “slut” and “prostitute” who “ha[s] so much sex she can’t afford birth control” and has “boyfriends lined up around the block”, he was just trying to be funny. And he’s so firm in his belief that “it is not [anyone’s] business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone’s bedroom” that he broadcast it on nationally syndicated radio to his 15 million listeners. And he’s real sorry that he “created a national stir”; he just misspoke. For three days straight.

You know, I thought the goal of an apology was to come out looking better, not even worse. And that’s not even mentioning how he still doesn’t have a clue how birth control works (hint: unlike Rush’s beloved Viagra, women don’t need to take more pills the more they have sex) and still believes Fluke’s appeal for private insurance plans to cover contraception had anything to do with taxpayer funding. The man is as pig-ignorant as he is dishonest. He should lose a few more advertisers – and his job.

Tags: Rush Limbaugh • Sandra Fluke • misogyny • contraception • birth control

Fail Tweet: Conservative blogger one-ups Limbaugh’s sexism

More and more Right-wing commentators are taking after Rush Limbaugh in hurling flaming misogyny at Sandra Fluke, the college student whose testimony about the difficulties of women without easy access to contraception has been twisted into an attack on her own sexuality, which further illustrates the Right’s disregard for facts and common decency, if nothing else. Here’s my personal favorite (if one may call it that), from conservative blogger Ace of Spades:

Please don't call Sandra Fluke a slut. Respect her for what she is, a shiftless rent-a-cooch from East Whoreville.

— Ace of Spades (@AceofSpadesHQ) March 3, 2012

Remember: All this is about a college student’s testimony about how a friend lost an ovary because she couldn’t afford oral contraceptives she needs to treat her ovarian cysts. Nothing whatsoever to do with Fluke herself, much less her libido. What’s more, Fluke was advocating for contraception to be covered by her university’s private healthcare plan, which also destroys the Rightist canard that she wants “taxpayer-funded contraception”. (Which, need I remind you, is apparently a bad thing, along with anything else intended to give women more control over their own sexual health.)

And because of this, Fluke is a “slut”, “prostitute” and “shiftless rent-a-cooch from East Whoreville” who “has so much sex she can’t afford it”. As always, stay classy, Right-wingers. Stay classy.

(via Media Matters for America)

Tags: Ace of Spades • Sandra Fluke • Rush Limbaugh • contraception • birth control

Judge strikes down Illinois eavesdropping law

It’s long been maintained that the right to record police officers on duty in public is a fundamental aspect of common law, despite cops’ continuous attempts to undermine it, usually in the form of stolen property eventually returned with “accidentally” deleted footage, or else by having dangerously broad and vague “eavesdropping” laws passed that never do as much good as harm. Illinois has one such law – or rather, had, as a judge has now seen fit to put an end to it:

A Cook County judge today ruled the state’s controversial eavesdropping law unconstitutional.

The law makes it a felony offense to make audio recordings of police officers without their consent even when they’re performing their public duties.

Judge Stanley Sacks, who is assigned to the Criminal Courts Building, found the eavesdropping law unconstitutional because it potentially criminalizes “wholly innocent conduct.”

The only real way to ensure both that officers are held accountable for their actions, and to affirmatively settle matters of dispute in court, is to allow citizens to watch the watchers while they’re on public duty. Too many places are trying (wrong-mindedly and often illegally) to curtail this evident and basic right of the common people to keep tabs on those who are supposedly keeping tabs on them. Kudos to Judge Sacks for bringing a little more fairness to the Chicago area.

(via The Agitator)

Tags: Cook County, IL • eavesdropping laws • Stanley Sacks

Daily Blend: Friday, March 02, 2012

Michael Arena

Note to Rush Limbaugh: I think I understand your thinking behind saying that college women need to take more birth control pills the more they have sex. That’s why you need your bottles of Viagra when you go visit Dominican hookers, after all.

Maryland officially becomes 8^th state do let gays do the hanky-panky with wedding bands. Opponents predictably vow to put it up to a vote.
(via @BreakingNews)

Man ^[pictured] convicted at 16 on child molestation charges based on lies and ridiculously crap “pedophile test” now appeals his 20-year sentence.
(via @radleybalko)

Holocaust-denying, Hitler-celebrating, neo-Nazi insurance salesman running for Congress in Illinois.
(via RichardDawkins.net)

How to turn anyone (especially celebrities) into atheists: Get Christians to demonstrate their “love” at them.

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Tags: Maryland • gay marriage • same-sex marriage • marriage equality • Martin O'Malley • Michael Arena • child molestation • wrongful conviction • Arthur Jones • Republicans • Republican Party • Nazis • neo-Nazis • neo-Nazi Party • Holocaust denialism • Jews • Adolf Hitler • PZ Myers • Miley Cyrus • Lawrence Krauss • Christians

Andrew Breitbart is dead [updated]

Andrew Breitbart (1969–2012)

I find myself curiously unperturbed by the news that professional conservative muckraker Andrew Breitbart has passed away:

Andrew Breitbart, the rabble-rousing conservative activist, Web publisher, husband, and father of four, died in Los Angeles shortly after midnight Thursday, his Web site Big Government reported this morning in a short, mournful announcement. It offered up, as a sort of parting sentiment, an update Breitbart wrote for his most recent book. "I love my job. I love fighting for what I believe in. I love having fun while doing it. I love reporting stories that the Complex refuses to report. I love fighting back, I love finding allies, and -- famously -- I enjoy making enemies," it states.

I think it says something rather revealing and unflattering about a person’s body of work when the first question raised by many (myself included) over the news of their demise is whether it’s just another hoax.

If the value of someone’s life can be measured by the legacy they leave behind, then Breitbart – whose name is mostly associated with lies, intolerance, and some of the most virulent ideological hackery imaginable – was measurably and objectively a negative influence in the world, at least when it came to the U.S. political scene. I hardly need to refresh anyone’s memories about the man’s ignominious track record (especially since so many others are currently doing so much more aptly – and, I suppose, impartially – than I probably could). Really, the only question left to ask about the man and his death is why it came about at such a relatively young age.

I will not celebrate his death. Biased as I may be, I am not quite at the level of dancing on anyone’s grave. But I will certainly not pretend to be saddened by the news, or frankly, that I’m anything other than relieved. Life is not sacred; as I said, its worth is determined by what one does in life, how they affect the people around them. And given that Breitbart’s primary influence has been one of serial dishonesty, endless fear- and conspiracy-mongering, repeated injustices and establishing a precedent for legendarily incompetent pseudo-journalism (James O’Keefe, anyone?) that all combine to drag the public discourse back for miles, his existence was one of a venomous reptile. I feel for his friends and family, especially his four young children, but that doesn’t change the fact that the rest of us are better off without him.

Good riddance, and farewell.