![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Kevin McCullough...
Apr. 15th, 2008 11:44 am...was NOT a "Kid in the Hall" but goddamn if he's not every bit as skilled at absurdist humor. The ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
rude_pundit, whom I love, today pointed out Kevin's latest bit of hysterical mouse-shrieking over at Townhall.com, the gism, er, gist of which is that Barak Obama hates marriages because he loves him some faggots and dykes and such. Ye cannot serve God and mammon, Kevin might fancifully have said, had he understood that "mammon" isn't archaic speak for ( cut for untoward references to small birds ), this one, a nationally syndicated conservative columnist (if by "columnist" you mean "man-whore in deep denial waiting to be dragged screaming from his closet and fucked with a traffic cone"—sincere thanks to the RP, whose serial gag this parenthesis purloins) doesn't know the difference between grammatical subject and object: "[W]hat causes such disdain for the union that gave he and Michelle their life together...?" he asks at the top of his second paragraph. I dunno, Kevin, but I'm sure him and Michelle have them reasons.
But that's just his grammar. Let's talk about clarity: "Each of [Obama's family policy positions] focused at punishing the definition of how a family is even constructed." Ah, yes, flog those scurvy definitions! Give 'em what for! Actually, Kevin might accidentally be onto something here: maybe if "the definition of how a family is even constructed" hadn't been misbehaving so very badly in the hetero community, we wouldn't NEED to punish it. Then: "Never before has the national political stage entertained such hostility towards a family's survival yet hardly a word is spoken of it." A family's survival? Which one's? The Addams Family? The mafia? The Family of Noise (who are hear and they've come to save everybody)?
But hell, even that's just nitpicking about Kevin's writing ability, which should never be mistaken for a harbinger of intellectual ability. Look at all those brilliant people who can't spell. So let's move on to the meat (heh-heh) of Kevin's matter:
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) "is the most diabolical way ever conceived to punish every voice in America, who under present law, have every right, to speak to their houses of worship, family, and spouse as to the scientific, mental health, and diseased ridden drawbacks of engaging in homosexual behavior."
Well, I thought we'd move on to what he's actually saying, but dear Kevin makes it nigh on impossible to discern what he's saying. We're punishing voices now instead of definitions, but I think he's saying ENDA prescribes the arrest and—well, enhanced interrogation, let us say—of any American suspected of talking about faggotry to any family member, or to their church. (I picture Ronald Reagan à la Family Guy, sternly upbraiding the brick exterior of his church.)
He continues: "So stifling would ENDA be in fact that if a Youth Pastor who works with young boys in a church program got caught in an inappropriate relationship with them, ENDA would make it nearly impossible for the church involved to fire the youth pastor. ENDA would directly challenge and seek to limit religious expression, doctrine, theology, and practice." Hmmm. Even setting aside the entire Roman Catholic "No, why would we fire a perfectly good rapist" thing, this is not, methought, how ENDA is worded, but honestly I couldn't get through the whole thing, what with Anthony Lane movie reviews beckoning and all.
A mere 20 seconds of Web-searching, however, finds that THIS is the beginning of Section 6 of ENDA: "This Act shall not apply to any of the employment practices of a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society which has as its primary purpose religious ritual or worship or the teaching or spreading of religious doctrine or belief."
Which means that Kevin McCullough is either flat-out lying or hasn't taken the trouble to actually read the piece of legislation he's so quick to mischaracterize. And if the latter, why aren't their civil remedies for the spreading of such disinformation? It's a free country and all, but why should such willful charlatanry, such calculated and deleterious disparagement of a huge section of his fellow Americans and fellow humans, be countenanced in any way?
Oh, right. Townhall.com. Republicans. Makes perfect sense now.
rude_pundit, whom I love, today pointed out Kevin's latest bit of hysterical mouse-shrieking over at Townhall.com, the gism, er, gist of which is that Barak Obama hates marriages because he loves him some faggots and dykes and such. Ye cannot serve God and mammon, Kevin might fancifully have said, had he understood that "mammon" isn't archaic speak for ( cut for untoward references to small birds ), this one, a nationally syndicated conservative columnist (if by "columnist" you mean "man-whore in deep denial waiting to be dragged screaming from his closet and fucked with a traffic cone"—sincere thanks to the RP, whose serial gag this parenthesis purloins) doesn't know the difference between grammatical subject and object: "[W]hat causes such disdain for the union that gave he and Michelle their life together...?" he asks at the top of his second paragraph. I dunno, Kevin, but I'm sure him and Michelle have them reasons.But that's just his grammar. Let's talk about clarity: "Each of [Obama's family policy positions] focused at punishing the definition of how a family is even constructed." Ah, yes, flog those scurvy definitions! Give 'em what for! Actually, Kevin might accidentally be onto something here: maybe if "the definition of how a family is even constructed" hadn't been misbehaving so very badly in the hetero community, we wouldn't NEED to punish it. Then: "Never before has the national political stage entertained such hostility towards a family's survival yet hardly a word is spoken of it." A family's survival? Which one's? The Addams Family? The mafia? The Family of Noise (who are hear and they've come to save everybody)?
But hell, even that's just nitpicking about Kevin's writing ability, which should never be mistaken for a harbinger of intellectual ability. Look at all those brilliant people who can't spell. So let's move on to the meat (heh-heh) of Kevin's matter:
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) "is the most diabolical way ever conceived to punish every voice in America, who under present law, have every right, to speak to their houses of worship, family, and spouse as to the scientific, mental health, and diseased ridden drawbacks of engaging in homosexual behavior."
Well, I thought we'd move on to what he's actually saying, but dear Kevin makes it nigh on impossible to discern what he's saying. We're punishing voices now instead of definitions, but I think he's saying ENDA prescribes the arrest and—well, enhanced interrogation, let us say—of any American suspected of talking about faggotry to any family member, or to their church. (I picture Ronald Reagan à la Family Guy, sternly upbraiding the brick exterior of his church.)
He continues: "So stifling would ENDA be in fact that if a Youth Pastor who works with young boys in a church program got caught in an inappropriate relationship with them, ENDA would make it nearly impossible for the church involved to fire the youth pastor. ENDA would directly challenge and seek to limit religious expression, doctrine, theology, and practice." Hmmm. Even setting aside the entire Roman Catholic "No, why would we fire a perfectly good rapist" thing, this is not, methought, how ENDA is worded, but honestly I couldn't get through the whole thing, what with Anthony Lane movie reviews beckoning and all.
A mere 20 seconds of Web-searching, however, finds that THIS is the beginning of Section 6 of ENDA: "This Act shall not apply to any of the employment practices of a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society which has as its primary purpose religious ritual or worship or the teaching or spreading of religious doctrine or belief."
Which means that Kevin McCullough is either flat-out lying or hasn't taken the trouble to actually read the piece of legislation he's so quick to mischaracterize. And if the latter, why aren't their civil remedies for the spreading of such disinformation? It's a free country and all, but why should such willful charlatanry, such calculated and deleterious disparagement of a huge section of his fellow Americans and fellow humans, be countenanced in any way?
Oh, right. Townhall.com. Republicans. Makes perfect sense now.
