No, no - they really liked the stone age.

I've been in a mild mental block lately. It happens from time to time. It's not like there hasn't been plenty of things local or otherwise to blog about:

Old news, but my homey K-Rova put his first track to wax just before being threatened a return to jail. Seriously, I'm wondering when they're going to get Karl Rove for offing Big E Smallz and Tupac. Suge Knight ain't got nothin' on K-Rova.



The Cubs 2007 season seems to be something akin to the 2006 season. Excuses from incompetent management and bizarre weenie injuries so early in the season means we're going to get to see a lot of lunacy. I'm just waiting for the Cubs to announce that Zambrano will miss a start as he sees a shrink for his 'mental wellness'. That might happen - I can only hope. But one things for certain, some fans will attempt to organize a boycott not realizing that the transplant Wrigleyvillers who show up at the games aren't actually there for baseball, rather they're there to pay a large cover and over pay for crappy beer.

Jill Stanek probably said the dumbest thing she's ever said the other day - that really means something, coming from her. She actually repeated a long standing urban legend about the Chinese eating babies, was told about it by multiple people, and then told us she believe it anyway, and then at tells us that it's a Chinese conspiracy to hack her internet and further abortion to have a fresh supply of food (12:16). Jill - I've got a friend in Nigeria who's got a request of you. He just needs you to let him deposit some money in your checking account and.......

With it's strangle hold on the blogosphere the Imus incident seems to be the big deal these days. I'm not sure why. Same old story: something is found racially offensive or insensitive, Jesse Jackson shows up to beef about it, and every NASCAR watcher in America goes in to White Guy Argument(TM) mode about how it's ok for black people to use the word "ho" and it's not ok for them to use it as they kick back and lament the good ol' days when they could call black people whatever they wanted. Yeah. Hold it up to the light. It's the Cheif Illiniwik discussion all over again.

Since most of the discussion is rinse, wash, repeat I haven't been giving it much thought, save for this article by Roland S. Martin which is probably the most insightful thing on the whole Imus incident by saying: It is not racism, it is sexism. There's an interesting thing that goes on when you add women to any 'ism'. "Rosie Odonnel is a fat obnoxious dyke"is not so much about homophobia as it is about disliking a woman who are loud and opinionated. It could be "Rosie Odonnel is a fat obnoxious b*tch" and it would have the same contextual meaning. The homophobia that's contained within the first version is a mode of attack in that case - not a motive for attack. You'll see similar occurrences of this phenomena often - but that's another post for another time. Why I really want to talk about it is because when dealing with your average wingnut you can always dig a little deeper into the rhetoric and find out that they're not just crazy on one issue, but they're really crazy on a lot of issues and if you tweak their noses even a little bit - they'll prove it to you. In other words, hateful rhetoric often has been decorated to appear complex and nuanced, but when you reduce it to the most basic levels by looking at their own language, you'll often find yourself arriving at a very simple lowest common denominator. It is what it is.

I assume, at this point, that everyone is aware of the HPV dustup mainly spearheaded by Stank and Co. Their stated fear is that kids will be engaging in premarital sex which is also the subtle reasoning behind their hate for all things interweb like chatrooms in the early 90's and Myspace in modern day. It's not really premarital sex that concerns them, as we've shown time and time again, it's the idea of sex period that bugs the hell out of them. Sex is an issue of empowerment. Always has been.

Eric Zorn managed to use his usual pointless snickery to successfully troll Illinois Family Institute into saying something stupid asking them where they stand in regards to 101.9's Is Love Blind? schtick in which the radio is running a sponsorship/ad camp/contest thingy with 2 strangers getting married without having not met each other.

The IFI Response was handled by Known Freeper IFI/AFA/Porno Pete Labarbera man friend Daniel T. Zanoza. It's important that you read it, if only because it essentially proves that Christocons don't really give a shit about marriage or the family, what they do care about is hating the homos - and for that matter anybody who has sex at a time they don't like. I've said the American Taliban types are incompatible with modern living - they're not just happy living in their own private stone age, they expect average Americans to retrofit our lives to fit their views.

The Mix's gag marriage is as much a mockery of the institution of marriage as the "who wants to marry a millionaire" early reality era TV stuff. It's really a divorce statistic waiting to happen. You've got 2 people being coached to a marriage without ever having really met or worked through challenges with each other and not having gone through anything resembling modern courtship. By all rights, this McDonalds Marriage ought be on the front page of every 'pro-marriage' site on the net decrying on how this is a threat to the ol' sacred institution.

But you won't see that from IFI. Instead you get a absolutely silly response from IFI which basically says "Eric Zorn is gay and a liberal therefor you can't trust him", "Arranged marriages, even if as a stunt are ok - as long as it's not between two people of the same sex" and "we blame the youngins' music". I'm not kidding.

Moreover, Zorn shows his hypocrisy by supporting marriage between individuals of the same sex. Now I ask you, what is more problematic to the institution of marriage ... an arranged legal union between one man and one woman or homosexual so-called "marriage"? The answer to this question is simple to any rationally thinking American. But Zorn's agenda had nothing to do with defending marriage as an institution. The Tribune columnist felt he had a "gotcha" moment and it was too tempting for the flaming liberal to pass up.

Dave Smith, IFI's Executive Director, even goes so far to suggest that some of the music the station plays every day may be more of a negative for the institution of marriage then the "Is love blind?" stunt. For example the song "Promiscuous" which includes the lyrics "Promiscuous girl -- You're teasing me -- You know what I want -- And I got what you need." Or how about Christina Aguilera's popular song titled "Genie in a bottle" in which she tells us that "If you wanna be with me, baby, there's a price you pay. I'm a genie in a bottle, you gotta rub me the right way..." These immoral messages certainly don't promote marriage.

But the real money shots are here:

The practice of arranging marriages has gone on for thousands of years. In fact, some cultures still continue the tradition. A vast majority of these unions have been successful since ancient times. I guess WTMX could be considered a modern day "Match Maker" -- as disturbing as that thought may be.

And I am still waiting for individuals like Zorn to tell us why homosexual "marriage" would not open the door to other corruptions of marriage. Under this mindset, why couldn't three individuals claim the right to marry? Or how about incestual relationships, etc., etc.? But liberals like Zorn are trapped in their flawed thinking which is steeped in moral relativism and driven by situational ethics.

What Zanoza is saying here is that since arranged marriages are, in some cultures, a tradition they must be ok. That's funny, because polygamy and polyamory which are considered the great threats of the Homosexual HomoFacist Agenda (TM) both have strong levels of cultural acceptability, normality, and historical precedent which are equal to - if not greater than in some cases - arranged marriages - which according to Zanoza is a-ok - so long as their are no queer folk involved.

On a side note, gay predates Christianity according to the bible. So if we're talking historical longevity here.....

Zanoza can't have it both ways. If one outdated tradition like arranged marriage is ok then another outdated tradition like polygamous marriage must be ok too. If that's the case, then why is polygamy always one of the grand evil results of allowing queer folk to get married? And if they really care about marriage, why aren't they out there writing press releases to each other? The answer is simple. 'Protecting Marriage' is a method of attacking the queer folk that they hate. It's not the motive. The motive has always been hate. The threat to marriage has always just been a figment of their imagination and a clever tool to get suburbanite housewives on board with their crap.

Your weekend watching assignment: Watch this video of other crazy moonbat jeebus freaks talking about dolphins getting married. I'm not going to be around for the weekend, so comment with care.