Another lazy Sunday and here’s what’s Shootin’ Thru The ‘Tubes:

Looks as though The Big G is out for the ‘08 race. No not Gore, Gingrich. Satirists, cartoonists and Democrats are saddened by the loss.

Those still left in, however, are ripe for snarkification. I mean seriously, it’s almost as if they want to make it easy for us. John McCain says that the US Constitution established a Christian nation and questions whether a Muslim is fit to be president. But I don’t think Crazy Train should be positing about whether or not a person of a certain religiosity is worthy of office given his seeming inability to pick one himself.

Then there’s Rescue Rudy, who now fancies himself a modern day Jesus because of how his personal life is scrutinized. The ironies in his allusion are so rich as to cause diabetic coma. And again with the 9/11, this time explaining his reason for taking a call from his wife at a function where he was already well over his 9/11 quotient for the day. Seems Rudy didn’t get the memo that we’re all outta 9/11 F.U.’s.

Update: Is Rudy’s pandering not playing with the pious populace?

(X-posted at The Xsociate Files)

As Atrios notes today, it’s almost amazing how everything that happened in (or to) America between Sept. 11, 2001 and March, 2003, seems to have fallen down the legacy media memory hole.

When I read the following AP story, I nearly choked:

KABUL, Afghanistan - President Hamid Karzai offered Saturday to meet personally with Taliban leader Mullah Omar for peace talks and give the militants a high position in a government ministry as a way to end the rising insurgency in Afghanistan.

Reiterating a call for negotiations he has made with increasing frequency over the last several weeks, Karzai also said he was willing to meet with factional warlord leader and former Prime Minister Gulbuddin Hekmatyar…

Now, wait a second. Isn’t Mullah Omar the guy who was harboring Osama bin-Laden prior to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan?

Why yes, yes he was.

And hasn’t the Taliban (according to press reports, anyway) been the organization behind acts such as blowing up a bus today in Kabul, killing around 30 people?

Why yes, yes it has been.

And haven’t the NATO forces [read: U.S. military] in Afghanistan been slaughtering Taliban supporters and fighters at a pretty healthy clip?

Why yes, yes they have been.

For a couple of years now, I’ve been saying that the Taliban and warlords control the country. Karzi is, in effect, little more than the mayor of Kabul. His government controls a few square blocks of Kabul, and the NATO / U.S. military forces control 50 feet to either side of any road that an armed convoy happens to be traveling. The Taliban and warlords pretty much have the run of the rest of the country. And there are no lack of recruits for Mullah Omar’s special brand of fundamentalism.

Winter is approaching quickly around the Khyber Pass, and with the change of season, any opportunity to mount an offensive on the Afghan front of the Bush regime’s endless war on whatever. Speaking of which, I’m wondering how the U.S. government is going to respond to the mayor of Kabul’s offer.

How is the mess that Bush created ever going to be cleaned up?

A surprising thing happened on day two of “Rush to Condemn Rush”. The Democrats, whose response to such incidents can usually measured at a glacial pace, moved rather quickly to scold Rush for his jab at soldiers favoring withdrawal. Word has it there will even be a House resolution introduced Monday to formally condemn his statements ala the MoveOn.org amendment. But as deserving as the Dittohead-in-chief is of condemnation, I wonder how much of this fracas is merely to get back at the GOP for forcing a response to the MoveOn Maelstrom. If that is the case, I don’t think a resolution is warranted (for the record, I didn’t think MoveOn should have been censured either). Issue a press release or hold a press conference, sure. But for the most part Congress should avoid these tit-for-tat resolutions.

And really the Dems should know better than to play this game, because the rules are always pliable when it comes to the GOP. As much as it might feel good, this is exactly the sort of thing the GOPers want. Because I’d bet good money that should a resolution come to the floor condemning Limbaugh, the GOPers will scold the Democrats for wasting the Congress’ precious time on frivolous trivialities. I know it doesn’t make much sense given the apoplexy over the importance to condemn MoveOn but when has anything the GOP done made sense?

Allowing any resolution that seeks to condemn free speech, even that which many find contemptible, only further illustrates the misplaced priorities of the Congress. And it shows how petty and sophomoric our political discourse has become. We already get enough of that from Rush, we don’t need it from Congress as well.

Update: Upon further reflection, I find myself of two minds about whether ’tis wise for the Democrats to put forth a Rush resolution. On the one hand, as I note above, the GOP will surely bemoan the meaninglessness of the whole affair. But I am also sympathetic to the argument that bringing such a resolution to vote is designed to highlight that hypocrisy. Still further, the argument could be made that not seizing on this gifted opportunity could be a sign of weakness. The GOPers may harp on the fact that despite their widespread condemnations, the Dems won’t follow through on their convictions. They have already locked themselves onto that course and were they to back off now, like a shark catching his first wisp of blood, the GOP will go into frenzy mode. Such are the tribulations of these vicious cycles of escalation and counter-escalation. All the more reason they should be avoided.

Sadly given the current partisan rancor that exists on both sides, that is unlikely to happen any time soon.

(X-posted at The Xsociate Files)

The top tier GOP candidates bailed on the debate last night at a predominately black college because of what were said to be “scheduling conflicts”. Here now are some other excuses that may have been considered:

1. Worried they might slip up and mention how “surprised” they were that a black moderated debate was just like every other debate and no one was shouting “M-Fer, I have a question.”

2. Were concerned about how they would act around all those “stocky black guys“.

3. Would rather attend the symposium by Michael Medved discussing how slavery wasn’t such a bad thing.

Feel free to add your own in the comments.

(X-posted at The Xsociate Files)

The matching legislation in the House of Representatives passed by a good margin, though the Matthew Shepard Act only passed cloture by a bit in the Senate. But it isn’t surprising here tht Bush is going to veto the bill, nor that, in his first official vote since returning to the Senate, Larry Craig, who is not gay, voted against the bill, thus evidently proving he’s either not gay or just stupid. It may not be homophobia that drives the Republicans, anymore, but fear of the religious right. You gotta believe there’s going to be divine retribution from the Radical Religious Right against those Republicans who voted for the Matthew Shepard Act. In Larry Craig’s case, his motive appears to be a fear of losing power, or access to free travel and thus opportunities to visit restrooms all over the country.

The Democratic-led Senate on Thursday voted to let federal law enforcement help states prosecute attacks on gays, attaching the provision to a massive spending bill for the Iraq war and daring President Bush to veto the whole package.

The White House wasn’t commenting on the prospects for a veto of the underlying defense authorization bill. But some Republicans warned that’s just what would happen after the Senate voted by voice to accept the hate crimes amendment.

“The president is not going to agree to this social legislation on the defense authorization bill,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. “This bill will get vetoed.”

Still, the hate crimes provision attracted significant support from the president’s party. Nine Republicans were among the 60 senators who voted to halt any filibusters and bring the matter to the final voice vote.

What’s encouraging here is that some Republicans appear to have made a different calculation than that the religious right Bloc will punish them for such a vote. And I’m wondering what they think is in their political interest in voting for legal protection for gay and lesbian citizens. Nine Republicans in the Senate crossed the aisle for this bill, and I don’t find that insignificant. Norm Coleman of Minnesota, whose opponent next year will likely be Al Franken, voted for the bill, evidently thinking his constituency would support the cause. Coleman evidently made the political calculation that citizens support legal protections for the gay and lesbian community. Others who crossed, such as Lugar, Snowe, Specter, Gregg, Voinovich and Warner, are all from states where they need not worry about the Radical Religious Right overmuch. Perhaps there’s no especial Republican discovery of moral values here. IT’s almost always a political calculation for them.

I don’t know why everyone is so worked up over Rush Limbaugh’s claim that those soldiers who support withdrawing from Iraq are “phony“. These sorts of “foot-in-mouth” episodes are par for the course when it comes to Rush. That he always seems to slink by with nary a follicle out of place (sans the ones lost to a rapidly receding hairline) is a testament to how powerful the right wing media machine has become.

But I want to examine Rush’s claim that soldiers who don’t support the war in Iraq are “phony”. If they are “phony” shouldn’t we be doing something about it? I mean, if it’s demoralizing to have gays openly serving in the armed forces, it must be equally demoralizing to have soldiers serving who don’t support the war efforts 110%. Why not institute a “Do Ask, Do Tell” policy and any soldier found to be in favor of withdrawal be jettisoned before they are able to infect the rest of their units with similar sentiment. You know, like the gays do.

I am of course being facetious. Rush on the other hand is not and should be denounced for his comments. That his Oxy-Contin addled brain doesn’t get that those soldiers who he derides as “phony” have fought and died so that he could speak his mind just shows who the real “phony” is in this debate.

More from Tim Grieve.

Update: Greg Sargent has another great catch. According to Rush, it’s “not possible intellectually to follow” those people who favor withdrawal because their basic argument thus far has been “It’s gonna bring our troops home. Save the troops. Keep the troops safe. Or whatever.”

Greg boils it down:

The point here is that for Limbaugh, Boehner and other war supporters, the lives of the troops simply aren’t part of the equation in any meaningful sense, and once in a while, this dirty secret slips out.

Defenders of the Bush administration often say that in order to really support the troops you must support the war. They are unable to differentiate the Cause (the war) from those fighting it (the soldiers). To them they are one in the same and Rush’s commentary points to that inability to separate the two. People like Limbaugh just can not fathom the idea that each soldier is an individual with his or her own opinion. So when soldiers who choose to voice that opinion speak up, they are labeled “phony” to help preserve the integrity of this believed indistinguishableness.

To guys like Rush, the soldiers are just pawns to be moved about the chessboard of war. And should they fall, the collective reaction from righties is always the same.

Whatever.

(X-posted at The Xsociate Files)

Well that didn’t take long. In the aftermath of the demand to condemn the questionable MoveOn.org advertisement singling out General Petraeus’ for his role in supporting the Bush administration policy in Iraq, it seemed likely that one of the many Bush apologists would soon step into some deep doodoo. As fortune would have it, the winner turns out to be none other than Rush Limbaugh.

From Media Matters:

During the September 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh called service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq “phony soldiers.” He made the comment while discussing with a caller a conversation he had with a previous caller, “Mike from Chicago,” who said he “used to be military,” and “believe[s] that we should pull out of Iraq.” Limbaugh told the second caller, whom he identified as “Mike, this one from Olympia, Washington,” that “[t]here’s a lot” that people who favor U.S. withdrawal “don’t understand” and that when asked why the United States should pull out, their only answer is, ” ‘Well, we just gotta bring the troops home.’ … ‘Save the — keeps the troops safe’ or whatever,” adding, “[I]t’s not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.” “Mike” from Olympia replied, “No, it’s not, and what’s really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.” Limbaugh interjected, “The phony soldiers.” The caller, who had earlier said, “I am a serving American military, in the Army,” agreed, replying, “The phony soldiers.”

As Media Matters for America has documented, Limbaugh denounced as “contemptible” and “indecent” MoveOn.org’s much-discussed advertisement — titled “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” — critical of Gen. David Petraeus, but has repeatedly attacked the patriotism of those with whom he disagrees. For instance, on the January 25 broadcast of his radio show, he told his audience that he had a new name for Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), a Vietnam veteran: “Senator Betrayus.”

Limbaugh has been pushing the envelope for years…frequently jumping up and down on the line but seemingly succeeding in not crossing the threshold of no return. With the timing of his latest remarks…so close on the heels of the MoveOn.org fiasco…Rush may have finally failed to sneak one by.

The man who fashions himself to be a skillful tactician…on the order of an Olympic diver…able to jump into an issue head first, speak his piece, and leave behind insufficient evidence of his obtuse and offensive persona…may have finally committed the proverbial belly flop; leaving behind enough proof to warrant his disqualification.

Limbaugh’s reflections have long been directed at the unwitting…and with this latest assault upon soldiers who serve their country honorably…he has once again chosen to wield his haughty hammer like a crazed carpenter in a glass house. Fortunately, the self-absorbed oxy-gen receptacle (code for pill popping windbag) may have misjudged his swing and shattered his own house of smoke and mirrors.

If it isn’t obvious, I’ll not lose any sleep while his actions are probed…in ways that he’ll hopefully find to be reminiscent of a visit to the one fingered physician. All I can say is, “Enjoy the examination, Rush!”

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

In a moment of karmic irony, Mitt Romney’s seemingly limitless desire to court the religious right, through his unabashed demonstrations of opposition to gays, may only be matched by the christian’s displeasure with his Mormonism. Call me evil, but I love when one “fundie flock” has the potential to cancel out another.

Leading the way on an issue almost certain to be resurrected during the general election, Mitt Romney issued a statement this morning condemning the Democratic candidates for their refusal at last night’s debate to rule out teaching about gay issues to second-graders.

Romney said that the answers proved “how out of touch the Democratic presidential candidates are with the American people.”

“Not one candidate was uncomfortable with young children learning about same-sex marriage in the second grade,” Romney notes. “This is a subject that should be left to parents, not public school teachers.”

This is not the first time Romney has seized on teaching about gay issues to young children. In July, he took Obama to task after the Illinois senator told a Planned Parenthood conference that “it’s the right thing to do to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools.” A rival to Romney pointed out that the former governor himself had supported “age-appropriate” sex ed in his 2002 gubernatorial bid.

While I have no particular axe to grind with Romney, I can’t help but view his sudden “do-over demagoguery” as a demonstration of his zeal for power and an important measure of his integrity quotient. I know…he wants us to believe that he has simply changed his mind on abortion and gay rights…and I’m suddenly dating women…yea, right!

The problem the Romney strategy presents for the Democrats is that his insistence on carrying the values torch for the GOP will likely force his primary opponents to jump on the values bandwagon in an effort to prove their christian credentials. The fact that he instantly seized upon remarks made at last evenings Democratic debate support my concerns.

Fortunately (for those opposed to Mitt), Romney has an obstacle which may well prevent him from being anointed as the bastion for bible beaters. You see, they believe he suffers from the ailment of Mormonism…a belief system which many christians contend is unacceptable and nullifies his presidential pedigree. A new survey suggests Romney’s religion may be a formidable obstacle.

MEDIA ADVISORY, Sept. 26 /Christian Newswire/ — ChristiaNet.com, the world’s largest Christian portal with twelve million monthly page loads, recently asked, “Would you elect a Mormon for president?” President of ChristiaNet, Bill Cooper, responds, “An overwhelming majority of Christians have spoken on the issue, they won’t vote for a Mormon.”

Out of 2,000 Christians surveyed, 59% claimed they would not vote to elect a Mormon for president. Most comments resulted from the belief that Mormonism is a cult, “The church of Mormonism is a cult and I would never vote for a cult leader.” Most in this category also felt that Mormons were not Christians, “A Mormon is not a Christian, and they don’t follow the Bible like Christians do.” In fact, almost all responses in this category suggested that a Mormon’s belief in Christ and God were contrary to a Christian’s belief. “They believe in a different Jesus and a different God,” is an example of one such comment.

I’m not certain how reliable this survey data may be, but one would be naive to think that Romney’s faith will have no bearing on the votes cast by the religious right. From a political strategy standpoint, Romney’s efforts to engage the values voters may complicate the GOP equation. If he forces the other front-runner candidates to the right, it may hurt the appeal of a Rudi Giuliani with moderate and independent voters.

Whatever happens, the GOP race is bound to be a fascinating look at a party attempting to craft a winning identity in the aftermath of the 2006 election. While I have no dog in the show, I suspect Romney may be barking up the wrong tree.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

What? WHAT??

The families of the four killed contractors filed suit against the company in January 2005, saying that Blackwater’s cost-cutting measures led to the deaths. That lawsuit is still pending as a federal judge tries to determine whether it should be heard in arbitration or in open court.

Blackwater has argued in court that it is immune to such a lawsuit because the company operates as an extension of the military and cannot be responsible for deaths in a war zone.

Yep. The neocons have set up their own private army, answerable to no one but government contract officials, apparently.

I wonder what the General Petraeus has to say about Blackwater’s assertion?

The christians are not happy campers at the moment. Their anger centers upon an advertisement for the Folsom Street Fair, a gay event held annually in San Francisco. The ad uses the format of The Last Supper as the setting for the print image; populating the table with individuals dressed in stereotypical gay regalia…and the table is “sinfully” littered with a variety of sex toys. Naturally, the bible brigade finds the image to be sickeningly sacrilegious…which of course means they have reacted with more than sufficient sanctimony.

Enough of my sarcasm…I’ll let the christians speak for themselves. The following excerpts are a sampling of the outrage found on the internet.

From CNS News:

Organizers of San Francisco’s Folsom Street Fair — sponsored by Miller Brewing Co. — have portrayed Christ and his disciples as half-naked homosexual sadomasochists in the event’s promotional advertisement, and the conservative group Concerned Women for America is complaining about the hypocrisy of it.

“The bread and wine representing Christ’s broken body and lifegiving blood are replaced with sadomasochistic sex toys in this twisted version of Da Vinci’s The Last Supper,” CWA said on its Web site.

CWA is calling on California politicians — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sens. Feinstein and Boxer among them — to “publicly condemn this unprovoked attack against Christ and His followers.

“We further challenge the media to cover this affront to Christianity with the same vigor as recent stories about cartoon depictions of Mohammed and other items offensive to the Muslim community,” CWA said.

From Moonbattery.com:

The fair describes itself as “the world’s largest leather event.” The city supports it by shutting down several city blocks and providing security. It is financed in part by the same South African–owned Miller Beer that has also supported illegal alien rallies.

Oh that disgusting city of San Francisco…how dare they grant permits and block off streets for gay events…and that naughty Miller Brewing Company…how dare they sponsor gay events and activities by those terrible illegal immigrants…and let’s not forget the evil and liberal mainstream media! Apparently, the christians are prone to persecution complexes. I’m sure the city of San Francisco wouldn’t deny them permits for events and I’d bet Miller would be happy to offer its sponsorship. Of course I suspect the christians would find San Francisco an unacceptable city and Miller an inappropriate sponsor.

Anyway, here’s what the folks at Moonbattery.com think it would take to get anyone to pay attention to their concerns:

Unfortunately, Christians would have to fly a few planes into buildings full of people before that will ever happen. The media only sides with the bad guys.

I guess this confirms that the GOP has succeeded in portraying liberals and the media as unpatriotic terrorist sympathizers to their base. It also appears that the christians have mobilized and captured Miller’s attention…enough so that the company has asked to be immediately removed from the print material…issuing the following statement on their website:

From Miller Brewing Company:

Statement Regarding Folsom Street Fair

While Miller has supported the Folsom Street Fair for several years, we take exception to the poster the organizing committee developed this year. We understand some individuals may find the imagery offensive and we have asked the organizers to remove our logo from the poster effective immediately.

Well, after a little research, it seems that the Folsom Street Fair isn’t the only group that has found The Last Supper to be an attractive theme for publicity campaigns and print materials. I’ve included a couple of the most recognizable ones in the graphic at the bottom of this posting.

Yes, as you can see, The Last Supper served as the setting for the characters in the Star Wars movies and for the cast of the HBO series, The Sopranos. No, I don’t think the Soprano family will receive an exception for being Italian Catholics…they seem to have a bit of a problem with most of the commandments. It is interesting that I’ve never heard any criticism of these depictions of The Last Supper…but then again, they aren’t tied to the gay community.

Given Miller’s decision and the lack of focus on the other depictions, I decided to take a look at the advertiser’s who have been featured on the Sopranos. Keep in mind that HBO doesn’t run advertisements; instead they place name brand products in their programs…providing exposure that has great value. The following excerpts provide the relevant details:

From USA Today:

The creators of the HBO shows do accept free use of cars and other goods. It cuts costs and adds realism. The days of TV characters drinking generic “beer” are over. Sopranos creator David Chase and his team of writers frequently write brand names into scripts to add reality to the show, which is averaging 10.8 million viewers per week, according to Nielsen Marketing Research. Jersey boy Chase is a stickler: When Carmela Soprano reaches for milk, he demands it be a brand distributed in New Jersey, says Landress.

If marketers had to pay for ads on The Sopranos, the cost would equal $287,325 for a 30-second spot and HBO would pocket $6.8 million per show, according to a study by DiMassimo.

Landress rejects “exclusive” offers that would make HBO borrow products from a single marketer in a category. She says consumers see competing brands, so The Sopranos’ writers want variety: Motorola and Nokia cell phones; Apple and Gateway computers; Mercedes (Tony’s girlfriend Gloria was a Mercedes dealer), Lexus and Range Rover autos (both driven by Christopher Moltisanti); Coke and Pepsi (the gangsters drink Coke; the feds like Pepsi); SnackWell’s and Turkey Hill foods favored by Carmela.

Strange as it may seem, I’m not aware of anyone objecting to these high profile companies supporting The Sopranos…a show which has used The Last Supper imagery and that is arguably not an ideal representation of family values.

Now that the Sopranos has ended its run on HBO, the rights to the series have been purchased by Arts & Entertainment…and they do sell advertising…and they need to given what they paid for the privilege of airing the show. In addition to the companies mentioned in the following excerpts, ad time has also been bought by Ford, Sonic, and Paramount Pictures.

From Broadcasting & Cable:

Once-stodgy A&E surprised many in the TV community when it won a January 2005 bidding war for rights to rerun the HBO show, agreeing to pay $2.55 million an episode. The searing crime drama roared out of the gate with 4.4 million total viewers, including 1.9 million in the key adults 18-49 demo.

At the same time, the show helped coax 30 new advertisers to A&E in 2006, with another 20 already set for 2007, says AETN Ad Sales Executive VP Mel Berning. The client list includes Yellow Book, Texas Instruments, Alltel, TGI Friday’s and Taco Bell.

“They’re meeting their guarantees and obligations,” says PHD Executive VP/Director of National Broadcast Harry Keeshan, who bought ads for his client Quiznos and is pitching the show to new advertisers this year.

Let’s take a look at Star Wars and the cash cow marketing monster it has become with the reworking of the original trilogy, the subsequent prequel movies, and the release of enhanced DVD’s and countless other products. Oh, and let’s not forget Fox’s connections to the Star Wars money machine.

From USA Today:

Star Wars is one of the all-time moneymaking franchises, generating nearly $3.4 billion in global box office and $9 billion in retail sales since 1977. As the buzz builds for the finale of George Lucas’ space series, consumers won’t be able to swing a light saber without seeing, hearing or reading references to Darth Vader, Yoda or Obi-Wan Kenobi over the next month.

Promotional partners Pepsi, Burger King, Cingular Wireless, America Online, M&M/Mars and Kellogg are launching a multimillion-dollar cross-promotion to push their own brands while basking in the reflected glory of Hollywood. As partners, they get the rights to use Star Wars characters in their advertising.

From Wikipedia:

In 1999, to promote Episode I: The Phantom Menace, the remaining “Special Edition” films (V and VI) aired on U.S. broadcast network Fox (they bypassed premium cable for direct broadcast airing). That same year, Fox acquired all television rights to Episode I after the premium cable networks declined due to cost. A similar situation nearly happened with Attack of the Clones, until HBO struck a last-minute deal with Fox and Lucasfilm for the exclusive pay-cable rights.

The Fox network acquired the U.S. network television rights, in April/May 2005, to promote the then-upcoming Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, with Episodes I, IV, V, and VI placed in limited syndicated television distribution, (on Fox affiliates in most markets) while the Fox network was able to air Episode II in mid-May, prior to Episode III’s initial theatrical release.

So the “fair and balanced” network has been a key player in the marketing of Star Wars…which we know means that the network made a fair share of money from the sale of advertising time to big name companies. Again, I can’t recall anyone calling on Fox and the many advertisers involved with Star Wars to cease their involvement with these movies as a result of the blasphemous Last Supper depiction.

No, the christians apparently give Star Wars and The Sopranos and Fox and countless large corporate advertisers a free pass; instead deciding to go after a gay event held in San Francisco…one which most Americans have never heard about or attended. Are we to conclude that the pursuit and condemnation of the “militant” gays and their inferred insistence upon defiling religion at an event in San Francisco is a greater threat to christianity than the likes of Star Wars, The Sopranos, and Fox Network?

The following excerpts provide the latest reactions from The Catholic League:

Catholic League president Bill Donohue announced a national boycott of Miller Beer on this morning’s “Fox and Friends.” He explains why today:

“Never have we experienced greater corporate arrogance than in this dispute with the Miller Brewing Company. Miller is sponsoring an incredibly outrageous and palpably anti-Christian event in San Francisco: the Folsom Street Fair (see its website at folsomstreetfair.com and be prepared to see the shocking photos of what goes on).

“Accordingly, Miller leaves us with no options: we are calling on more than 200 Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu organizations to join with us in a nationwide boycott of Miller beer. We feel confident that once our religious allies kick in, and once the public sees the photos of an event Miller is proudly supporting, the Milwaukee brewery will come to its senses and pull its sponsorship altogether. If it doesn’t, the only winners will be Anheuser Busch and Coors.”

Contact: Miller spokesman Julian Green at green.julian@mbco.com
Phone: 1-800-MILLER 6 or 414-931-2000

Perhaps all of these outraged groups need to take a look at the other depictions of The Last Supper before they decide to single out the gay community and one large corporate sponsor. While the christians love to accuse the gay community of hypocrisy and bigotry, it seems to be the christians who fail to grasp the meaning of hypocrisy.

Until they begin applying their outrage equitably, I see this latest assault as more of the same…an opportunity to further their hateful agenda…an agenda focused upon dispersing anti-gay propaganda whenever and wherever they find an opportunity.

I guess I’m going to have to start drinking Miller Beer and watching The Sopranos on A&E and Star Wars on my Fox Network affiliate. Oh the inhumanity of it all!

Cross-posted at Thought Theater