Hello non-existent blog readers. Feel free to not click on these links and not read these stories.
Flies
Vampire Bob
Riina's Story
Memories
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Stories
Friday, October 24, 2008
No on Prop 8
Vote No on Prop 8. Obviously.
I will offer the first 80 people who donate $25 or more (between now and whenever I reach 80) to help defeat Prop 8 a signed print of this:
Here's what you need to do: forward your confirmation email to artdyke@gmail.com from No on 8 that proves you've donated $25 or more.
If you don't like that one, click for another you can have instead:
Monday, October 13, 2008
Lesbians are God's chosen people
Having considered the evidence, I am forced to the conclusion that God does not bear any ill will towards lesbians. In fact, lesbians are God's chosen people. Here's why:
1. Better sex. We have more orgasms more often than our straight sisters.
2. No unintended pregnancy. EVER.
3. If you do want to get pregnant, double the uteruses!
4. You don't have to navigate societal expectation of gender roles with your partner.
5. You don't have to filter through sexist assholes to find a decent partner.
6. Lowest rate of STD's of any group.
7. You can have "sleepovers" in high school and Mom never bats an eye.
8. It is *so* much easier for us to pick up chicks.
9. It can come in any color or size, always stays hard, and when you don't want it, it's gone.
10. Women know what women like.
11. We make slightly more money than straight women.
In conclusion, I find this to be very strong evidence that sexual orientation is not a choice, or else you straight guys would be SOL...
Monday, October 6, 2008
It's really racist, BUT...
So my dear wife and I gave ourselves an impromptu History of Cinema lesson today, which ended up exploring the racist cartoons in the 40's. One such gem was "Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs" out of the Merry Melodies collection, one of the infamous "Censored 11" that were banned from TV, primarily for racism. I won't bother with a synopsis; you can see it for yourself:
This is what it is; it's, you know, racist, and it's of its time. What really shocked me, though, was this line in the Wikipedia entry for the cartoon:
However, it is often named as one of the best cartoons ever made, in part for its African-American-inspired jazz and swing music, and is considered one of Clampett's masterpieces. (emphasis mine)"Now that can't be true," I thought to myself. The thing is hardly a paragon of animated cinema. Also, it's REALLY, REALLY racist! The only jokes that don't rely on horrible African-American stereotypes for their humor are the ones about killing Japs and midgets. So I did some research. I read critics, scholars, and bloggers alike, and of course everyone acknowledges that the racism is quite problematic, but everyone pretty much agreed that this was a fantastic animated short. I didn't find anyone who disagreed. Bob Clampett's masterpiece, they really do call it.
What. The. Fuck.
Now, I consider myself fairly educated. I come to things such as this with an open mind, willing to look for the good in something that is on the whole bad. I actually appreciate some minimalist art. I wouldn't exactly call myself knowledgeable on the subject, but I have studied the history of animation. I *am* an animator.
But WHAT. THE. FUCK.
Sure, it's got a nice score, and sure, it's got some energetic animation, but it's certainly nothing out of the ordinary. It seems to me to be pretty much standard-fare for the period. I see nothing groundbreaking, technically or artistically. There is only the race issue. People actually defend Clampett's handling of race here, and I can see where they are coming from: for it's time, it was the best there was. At least it had an all-black cast of characters, some black voice actors, was in-part scored by black musicians, and they did research in African-American nightclubs to get the slang down. And that's all very well and good. But look at the end product; it's still racist as hell. Every single bit of humor comes from white people thinking black people are inherently funny, what with their big lips and *crazy* dance moves! I also think it's strange that the characters are not just black people, they are blackface people. The only character without huge white lips is the leading lady, So White, and she is some sort of exotic, hypersexualized fantasy for every male character in the short.
So why all the worship? Why are we even trying to look past the racism to appreciate this cartoon's hidden merits? They're not that great, and I can't imagine why everyone thinks they are except out of some need to defend it from censorship. Why on Earth does this cartoon keep showing up on people's lists of top cartoons? Do I think people should be banned from seeing this piece of history? Of course not (although I agree that it shouldn't be aired on Cartoon Network anytime soon). But that doesn't mean there's much value in watching it beyond, "Hey, look. People were really racist back then." What a newsflash.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Grassfire Personifies The Ugly American
As a misguided protest against a proposed cap-and-trade emissions system (personally, I think cap-and-trade doesn't go far enough at all, but I digress), a group of dummies known as Grassfire has decided to cost themselves a bunch of extra money by wasting stuff and polluting.
Essentially, the group wants to prove that Global Warming is fake by being particularly wasteful on June 12. I think the thinking behind this stunt goes something like this "haha, I'm going to burn a lot of gas and the planet isn't going to get immediately warmer. Haha, I just disproved global warming!" Like most sciencephobic global warming/evolution/gravity/whatever deniers, Grassfire doesn't really understand any of the concepts they don't believe in. Even if there are "thousands of Americans" in the group, one day of wasting extra shit isn't going to make an immediate and noticeable difference in the planet's climate, and it isn't going to disprove anything. It's just going to cost the fools involved in this money and expose them as the dummies that they are.
Worst...Arguments...Ever
I have been spending way too much time reading anti-gay rhetoric lately. It feels as if opponents of the CA marriage decision are having a contest to see who can write the most ridiculous argument against gay marriage. You gets points for lack of originality, confusing your religion with the government, somehow getting your insanity published in a (heretofore, anyway) legitimate publication, and just plain incorrect facts. Here are some recent entries in the ongoing contest. Attack 2: I have a committed gay relationship. Attack 3: You're demeaning my dignity. Attack 4: There's nothing wrong with gay love. Bad...Information...Overload. Self destruct in 5...4...3...2...1...
Contestant #1: Melanie Scarborough with "Gay marriage not physically possible"
Summary of Argument: marriages between members of the same sex are not possible because the law requires an act of heterosexual intercourse before a marriage will be considered legal.
Lack of Originality - 7 points: well, the argument is a little bit different from the usual "gays will destroy marriage" hysterics, but Peter LaBarabera beat Melanie to it. Not to mention, I've heard a variation on this argument from at least one drunk straight guy at pretty much every party I've ever attended that included them (but...but...how do you, y'know, do it?)
Confusing Religion/Government - 3 points: The article loses points for failing to mention God, Jesus or the Bible, but Melanie has clearly confused Catholic Doctrine on marriage with "the legal standard applied to opposite-sex couples"
Heretofore Legitimate Publication - 8 points: Louisville Examiner. Pretty Good.
Incorrect Facts - 10 points: Melanie scores major points here for using just plain incorrect facts as the entire basis for her argument. Neither state nor federal marriage law requires an act of heterosexual intercourse before a marriage is considered valid. The validation of Civil marriages has to do with the signing and witnessing of a marriage license.
Total: 28/40 points
Contestant #2: Janet Folger with "How same-sex marriage points to the end of the world"
Summary of Argument: Biblical prophecy indicates that the time before the apocalypse with be like "the day of Noah". Some Torah scholars believe that the reason why God (allegedly) wiped out the world was because of gay marriage. Now we have gay marriage in California. Ergo, God is going to destroy the world (apparently, God only cares about whether California has gay marriage.)
Lack of Originality - 7 points: We've been hearing that gay marriage is going to destroy America since the 90s. Janet just takes it one step further here, suggesting that gay marriage is going to destroy the world/bring about the apocalypse.
Confusing Religion/Government - 0 points: Janet mentions her religion a bunch, but her argument doesn't hinge on the idea that the government does or should act to preserve her religion's laws. In fact, she seems to see the apocalypse with its attendant return of Jesus as a bad thing (because she "care[s] about civilization"), whereas if she were doing the religion/government thing properly, she would see it as good thing.
Heretofore Legitimate Publication - 1 point: World Net Daily gets one point for being a publication, but no points for being or having been legitimate at any point in time.
Incorrect Facts - 5 points: This article is mostly based on opinion/interpretation of biblical prophecy, so loses points for missing out on choice incorrect facts. However, a paragraph asserting that every prophecy in the Bible has come true makes up for this oversight. The assertion is dubious at best, since most of the evidence for the fulfillment of biblical prophecy is obtained from the Bible itself (the Bible said this...and then it said this...therefore it was correctly predicting this). For example, Jesus tells his disciples that he is going to die and then rise from the dead (Matthew 20:17-19). Later, according the text, he does. The problem is that all of this was written after both events (the statement about death/resurrection and the death/resurrection) supposedly took place. Plus, there is no external evidence for either event. This is like referring to foreshadowing in a novel as a fulfilled prophecy. Not to mention, there are plenty of Bible prophecies which didn't come true at all.
Total 13/40 points
Contestant #3 Lewis and Lewis with "Come on Down to the Farm"
Summary of Argument: Roosters don't form same-sex partnerships, reproduction in farm animals requires two sexes, and Mr. Lewis thinks "it just ain't normal"...therefore gay marriage is bad.
Lack of Originality - 9 points: We've all heard these arguments before. Hell, "the plumbing is all wrong" is actually part of the lyrics. The Lewises miss out on a perfect score here for making their tired arguments into an (admittedly catchy) song.
Confusing Religion/Government - 7 points: Part of the song's refrain is "when God said love your brother, I don't think he meant like that" and a verse talks about needing to "get back to the Bible". Although the song does not directly state a connection between religion and government, religious doctrine is a major pat of the song's argument against civil marriage equality.
Heretofore Legitimate Publication - 0 points: So far, this has appeared only on youtube.
Incorrect Facts - 8 points: This song is based on the incorrect fact that homosexuality does not occur in animals. Although (due primarily to their lack of arms) you are indeed unlikely to see "two roosters walking arm in arm," gay sex in some form has been observed in thousands of animals, including virtually all domestic species. No farm animals form long term sexual partnerships with animals of the same or opposite sex. The song is also incorrect in asserting that reproduction in farm animals requires a member of each sex. While most conception on modern farms involves artificial insemination, cloning (especially of cows) is also practiced. While two cows may not be able to make a bull, two cows can indeed make a cow with the help of science. The song is additionally incorrect in asserting that this is at all relevant to civil marriage equality. The song is correct that sex education in this country is flawed, but absolutely incorrect in attributing that fact to gay people instead of the social conservative movement that the Lewises are themselves allied with, which has been pushing medically inaccurate "abstinence only education".
total 24/40 points
As an honorable mention, since it was published before the CA marriage decision and so, as a matter of procedure cannot be a part of the contest, I wanted to showcase this article from the Family Research Council's website. (They also have a video up of their panel discussion on gay marriage, which I'm sure is pretty rich, but which my computer is apparently unable to play).
This is Dr. J. Budziszewski with "Advancing a Heterosexual Public Ethic With Grace, Wit, and Natural Law." It hits the lack of originality, confusing religion with government and incorrect facts buttons the way Katrina hit New Orleans. Particularly impressive is a list of the author's proposed responses to theoretical gay/sane person "attacking" his arguments (obviously written for straight readers who have never met a gay person, since any gay person could easily refute every one of his statements). A selection:Attack 1: You're intolerant--you reject me just because I'm different from you.
Reply: Let's be honest with each other. We both know you're the one who rejects what is different from yourself. You reject the challenge of the other sex.
Reply: The committed gay relationship is a myth. Research shows that homosexuals with partners don't stop cruising, they just cruise less.
Reply: I respect your dignity as a human being, but when you practice acts you'd be ashamed for heterosexuals to know about, you demean your own dignity.
Reply: Tell me what's loving about sex acts that cause bleeding, choking, disease, and pain. You might start by explaining the meaning of the medical term Gay Bowel Syndrome, or how people get herpes lesions on their tonsils.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Dear Tradition, You Suck
and other responses to the California Supreme Court's decision on marriage.
1. I am getting married. On labor day weekend. Save the date all 0 people that read this blog. I will then (or rather, starting now but continuing until November and beyond) have to fight to keep my marriage legal. You will not take this away from me.
2. Doing stuff solely because some other people did it that way is dumb. Didn't your mama ever tell you that? (Now, Jimmy, if all the other kids jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?)
Okay, sure, I like some traditions. I like the Kentucky Derby. I like this one thing my sister and I do every year where we make each other one gift for Christmas, which is always more meaningful that whatever purchased crap everyone else buys for us and each other. I like Summer Pride season.
What I don't like is Tradition. Capital T. Our past has value, sure. Connecting with your ancestors and whatever is great. Being able to learn things from other people instead of each of us having to figure out everything through personal trial and error is a monumental part of what makes us, as humans, cool. But when you want to excuse all kinds of abuses and oppression and crap because your parents did it, or your grandparents did it, or some sheep herders in the desert 3,000 years ago did it, fuck you. Fuck you, FGM fans. Fuck you, racists. Fuck you, hegemonies. Fuck you "family values" dummies who don't think my family counts. Fuck all of you.
3. Traditional marriage is polygamy. Everybody likes to bleat about how gays and "activist judges" (also known as judges who don't agree with you) are redefining marriage, pretending that marriage has been a stable institution across time or that it has always meant what it means to you.
Helloooo in there. Across time and space, polygamy - pretty much FLDS-style, child-raping, wife-beating, rigid gender roles, whatever the local answer to gingham is polygamy - wins out as the standard of "traditional" marriage. Go take an anthropological survey course. Go read your own damn Bible.
One man one woman marriage? It was a redefinition of marriage. Also, marriage being something related to love rather than property rights. Also, everything that makes marriage something that gay people actually want to "redefine" rather than run the fuck away from.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)