January 10, 2006
He's an actor, but...
... what he really wants to do is rap. According to Allhiphop, Patrick Swayze "is finally experimenting with rap music." (Their words, my emphasis. Who was waiting for this? Oh, right, ME.) In the Swayzlestick's words, he's using “rap rhythms as an emotional undercurrent for ballads.”
I'd make some jokes about this (or his recent appearance in a Ja Rule video), but everybody knows nobody puts Baby in the corner, lest they invoke the throat-ripping wrath of Dalton.
Instead, I'll try to be constructive, and point Mr. Swayze in the direction of my good friend Alex, who has at least one hot rhyme up for grabs in his Free Unused Rap Lyric Compendium. That should help start Swayze on his undoubtedly illustrious rap career, even if it does indebt him to a private performance for Alex.
Posted by starlen at 09:34 PM | Comments (1)
November 10, 2005
Medved's Bizarro World
I was listening to Michael Medved this afternoon on the way home from work, and it was one of the more surreal right wing radio experiences I've had in a while.
It was Disagreement Day on Medved's show (or "D-Day" as they called it), and so he had on Sean Cahill of the Lesbian and Gay Political Alliance, and they were discussing gay marriage. Medved was arguing that gay marriage is not a rights issue, but an issue of public policy (and we can surmise, as long as that policy keeps gay marriage illegal, Medved's okay with it). One of his callers called with this particularly comic comment:
Okay, Sean, let's take this idea to its logical conclusion. . .And then. . .after a moment's pause, the caller presents what is clearly the logical conclusion of legalizing gay marriage:
I'm gay. My dad's gay. We're in love and we're gonna get married.
So then Medved jumps in and says, "Now, that's just nuts -"
Oh, wait, that's not what he said. No, no, rather he continues on the "how is it a rights issue for homosexuals but not for incestuous relationships?" path of the argument, as though he's really nailed Cahill on this one. Er, okay.
And then, a few calls later, somebody calls in about this same issue (though Cahill is gone by this time). Here's my rough paraphrased transcript, with my thoughts in italics:
Michael, I wanted to call in and let you know that I usually agree with you but I disagree with you making the comparison between gay marriage and polygamous marriage.
A conservative homosexual - sigh. I don't understand (though I don't automatically assume that being homosexual and being conservative means being self-hating).
Now, I am completely in agreement with the vote in Texas outlawing gay marriage.
Oops . . . I guess he is self-hating.
Then he drops it:
I think that homosexuality is bad for this country, and I think that it should be outlawed. But polygamous marriage is healthy for society and completely natural and I believe it should be sanctioned by our government.
He goes on to say he has three wives (one for twenty years, one twelve, one three) and five houses, and that he provides a house for each one. He's also got nine kids and has adopted an autistic child. Polygamy is good because then the women don't have to settle for a lesser man just because all the good men are taken, and this would force the other guys to get their acts together (not once, it should be noted, does he mention anything about wives having multiple husbands). One might ask how he can espouse family values while admittedly spending 2/3s of his time away from each of his given families (he said he divides the time equally), but, whatever.
Anyhow, Medved more or less disagrees with him, but then offers his explanation for why he makes the comparison. To paraphrase, he says that he disagrees with both gay marriage and polygamy, and that's why he compares them. Because, as is typical in right-wing-radio-thinking, there's no room for degrees or subtlety, or even differentiation - just either/or, good/bad, right/wrong. Here are two things; both are wrong, and so it's obviously perfectly okay to compare them as equals.
On a final note: Can somebody please tell Pat Robertson to stop speaking on God's behalf?
Posted by starlen at 03:09 PM | Comments (0)
August 08, 2005
Understated.
So, a man kills his wife after they have sex because he wants to watch sports and she wants to "cuddle." I won't bother asking why this is reported as news, because I have a general understanding of misguided prurient interests when it comes to sensational news stories (and then I'd have to point out that my bringing attention to it is only making it worse, and really, I'd rather stay blameless in this whole affair). But this quote from the judge caught my attention:
"The defendant struck his wife approximately 70 individual blows after spending a happy interlude with her," the judge said. "Her desire to cuddle after sex does not justify the extremely violent, brutal response of the defendant."
First problem with this: it's, well, a bit of an understatement. The second problem with this, as both myself and Siana noticed, is that the judge has phrased this in such a way as to imply that some response to her "desire to cuddle" was justified, just not this brutal. Or that something else other than wanting to cuddle would justify exactly this response.
Seems a bit careless with the language, in any case, especially considering he's a judge.
Posted by starlen at 09:48 AM | Comments (0)
