Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Tony Phyrillas

Tony Phyrillas, aka "Doughy Pantload."

Friday, October 12, 2007


You mean Rush didn't win!?*

*my apologies to KEvron for stealing his format.

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Saturday, July 28, 2007

Monday, June 18, 2007

"Activist" Judges Run Amok

Loving for All

By Mildred Loving

Prepared for Delivery on June 12, 2007,
The 40th Anniversary of the Loving vs. Virginia Announcement

When my late husband, Richard, and I got married in Washington, DC in 1958, it wasn’t to make a political statement or start a fight. We were in love, and we wanted to be married.

We didn’t get married in Washington because we wanted to marry there. We did it there because the government wouldn’t allow us to marry back home in Virginia where we grew up, where we met, where we fell in love, and where we wanted to be together and build our family. You see, I am a woman of color and Richard was white, and at that time people believed it was okay to keep us from marrying because of their ideas of who should marry whom.

When Richard and I came back to our home in Virginia, happily married, we had no intention of battling over the law. We made a commitment to each other in our love and lives, and now had the legal commitment, called marriage, to match. Isn’t that what marriage is?

Not long after our wedding, we were awakened in the middle of the night in our own bedroom by deputy sheriffs and actually arrested for the “crime” of marrying the wrong kind of person. Our marriage certificate was hanging on the wall above the bed. The state prosecuted Richard and me, and after we were found guilty, the judge declared: “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” He sentenced us to a year in prison, but offered to suspend the sentence if we left our home in Virginia for 25 years exile.

We left, and got a lawyer. Richard and I had to fight, but still were not fighting for a cause. We were fighting for our love.

Though it turned out we had to fight, happily Richard and I didn’t have to fight alone. Thanks to groups like the ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, and so many good people around the country willing to speak up, we took our case for the freedom to marry all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And on June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that, “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” a “basic civil right.”

My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God’s plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.

Sunday, February 04, 2007

"An Atheist's Nightmare"

That's how Kirk Cameron's New Zealand gnome, Ray Comfort, describes . . . a banana. Thanks to InternetJunky, I just had to look for the relevant video. Watch it if you must, but I doubt it will be a particularly rewarding experience to anyone who isn't a member of the soft-skull club. I could only stomach about twelve minutes of the thing, during which Comfort reiterates all the most egregiously flawed arguments from the "intelligent" design canon, warning of the need for "brain liposuction" in order to believe his ridiculous strawman arguments.

Almost all of the discussion of evolution consists of Comfort and Cameron taking turns, in different settings, saying, "If there's something that's designed, then there must be a designer!" (a soda can, a building, a painting, a car, an eye — that old chestnut — and of course a banana)

Here, I'll just simplify their message even further so you don't have to watch the video at all. These are the most interesting bits:

A Great Rant

Special thanks to Elderta for pointing me to this Dan Savage opinion piece about Mary Cheney's whining about her child being used as a "prop" for political purposes.

Yes, it’s a baby, not a prop. My kid isn’t a prop either, but that never stopped right-wingers from attacking me and my boyfriend over our decision to become parents. The fitness of same-sex couples to parent is very much part of the political debate thanks to the GOP and the Christian bigots that make up its lunatic “base.” You’re a Republican, Mary, you worked on both of your father’s campaigns, and you kept your mouth clamped shut while Karl Rove and George Bush ran around the country attacking gay people, gay parents, and our children in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006. It’s a little late to declare the private choices of gays and lesbians unfit for public debate, Mary.


You and your whole fucked-up family crawled into bed with bigots like [James] Dobson when it suited you. And now you and your whole fucked-up family have some explaining to do. So welcome to the political debate, Mary, and remember…

Your side started it. It only serves you right that you’re going to have to finish it.

Wednesday, January 31, 2007


Inspired by The Many Faces of Paris Hilton, I threw together a little animation of another pouty-lipped troglodyte.

Monday, January 15, 2007

AFA Tangled in Double Entendre

Yet again. This time in an Action Alert titled "Help protect our children from the predators," subtitled,

No enforcement regulation means amount of adult material will explode

Yes. Save the children.

Monday, January 01, 2007