Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Why There Is No Hope: Pride cometh before a fall

"They make us feel indebted
For saving us from Hell
And then they put us through it
It's time the bastards fell!"

Stiff Little Fingers, "Suspect Device" (1978)

The Religious Right (which as you may know is neither) has been having some problems of late, so much so that people on the other side of the political spectrum are thinking that they've finally slain the dragon which Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, et. al. unleashed upon this nation beginning in the mid-1970's. Even the New York Times published a somewhat convincing eulogy.

I'm not sure that the hurricane of theocracy-or-worse has passed. I think we might only be in the eye of the storm. And so does free-speech fighter and sex columnist Susie Bright. She's written several articles on the tribulations which now plague the movement which ran roughshod over science, sex education, and ultimately turned America into a Soviet-style one-party state, if only briefly. Some excerpts from the latest one:

This is the movement that could be relied upon to do anything at the flick of an abortion-shaming or homo-hating switch. Get them on their high horse, with a sexy leather crop in their hands, and you had them sweating and frothing their way to the finish line...."

"... Successful missionary work encourages conceit, and aggression. It always does. When it was 'fun' to be a Bush Family supporter, when W. was a 'winner,' then being a fag-bashing bully and killing a few more abortion doctors was righteous. Bomb Iraq! Your credit card is limitless! Gas is cheap! National Guard duty is a cakewalk! Jesus did a lot of kicking ass and taking names. ..."

Read the whole thing here (and remember that articles which deal with politics vis a vis sexual issues may not be work-safe).

I've heard of auto-eroticism, but...

According to the The Telegraph, a man in Scotland was arrested, and placed on a sex-offender registry for having sex with – a bicycle. (I can never look at a bike shop the same way again!)

While this man's sexual proclivities are somewhat unorthodox to say the least, did they warrant ruining his life by plastering his name and image onto the web and lumping him in with sex offenders (real or imagined)? Is getting off in a highly-unusual but essentially harmless manner really as bad as forcible rape? How does the English judicial system justify this kind of penalty for this kind of activity?