Way to go, Fundie Assholes!

Apparently, anti-abortion fanatics have managed to bully the Susan G. Komen Foundation into stopping funding breast cancer prevention at Planned Parenthood because sometimes women go there to terminate unwanted pregnancies.

NEW YORK – Planned Parenthood Federation of America today expressed deep disappointment in response to the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation’s decision to stop funding breast cancer prevention, screenings and education at Planned Parenthood health centers.

 Good job, fundies! Way to go. Now some women are going to die of breast cancer because the place that does the screenings offends your religious beliefs. way to sacrifice the lives of grown women to preserve embryos!
You know, if you don't want money going to fund abortions, I get that. It's really not your business if someone else wants to donate their money, but I get that you want to protect this:

 

But do you really hate grown women so much that you're willing to let them get breast cancer just to spite the place that does the abortions? Stopping PP from performing mammograms is not going to save a single embryo, you know. Just maybe kill a few women. Out of spite. Great job, you fundamentalist assholes.

Planned Parenthood has started raising money to try and replace the money they previously got from the Komen Foundation. You can go HERE to donate.

How to tell when you've hit rock-bottom of patheticness. . .

. . .When you get pwned by Miss Piggy

Star Wars is Totally Gay!

Tony Perkins has a warning for you.


Surprise, surprise, it's a warning about something that will turn your kids gay!

 

Tony Knows Gay!

So what is it this time?

Star Wars!

 

Totally gay!

Specifically, some new online Star wars video game. I'll let him explain.

(via Raw Story)

“In a new Star Wars game, the biggest threat to the empire may be homosexual activists!” Perkins announced during his daily radio commentary. “In a galaxy not so far far away, Star Wars gamers have already gone to the dark side.

 

First, do we even have to point out that the Empire is evil? That the good guys in the Star Wars movies are fighting the evil Empire? So anything which is a threat to the Empire is  a good thing?

 

I find your lack of a girlfriend disturbing!

So what is it about the new Star Wars game? Light sabres replaced by giant laser-penises? Star Wars theme replaced by show tunes? Do you have to score points by gay-sexing George Lucas? 

 

oh please, oh please oh please!

Oh, no. Nothing that innocuous. They have something much more insidious up their sleeves!

The new video game, Star Wars: The Old Republic, has added a special feature: gay relationships.”

And all the players will be forced into these gay relationships? Well, that does sound kinda wrong, if . . .I'm sorry I'm being told that no one will be forced into anything. Apparently, in these huge multi-player online games it is possible to have virtual relationships with other players, and the new Star wars game may have it possible for two players of the same gender to form one of these fake relationships if that's what they're into. That's it. 

 

Dude, I have so many on-line girlfriends.

Don't hate the playa, hate the game!

He continued: “On the game’s website, there are more than 300 pages of comments–a lot of them expressing anger that their kids will be exposed to this Star Warped way of thinking. 

Oh, I see what you did there! Star Warped! What a clever man you must be!

You can join them by logging on and speaking up. It’s time to show companies who the Force is really with!”

 

  

Heh, heh, I mean Jesus! Show them who Jesus is with! 

Of course, this is a bogus claim also, as Raw Story points out:

A quick search of Bioware’s forum shows that there are probably not “300 pages of comments” on the topic — and very few if any of the commenters were “angry” about the idea. In fact, most players were more concerned that the featured had not already been released

 

Although, to be fair, it's kind of hard to make heads or tails of comments like:

I do realize how my shooting through the ranks Jedi Sentinel would miss out on Kira regardless. I also kind of want to see Mako, if she's really a good male option (she's young-acting enough that I wonder if it can be done well), become a s/s option for everyone, but understand what that means for my friend who's a Smuggler right now.

 

 

 

 Although, some comments are written in Earth language and they tend to be along these lines:

 

Of course we want same sex romances and having romance option with Khem Val on SI.

 

I would also like to see more variability in the romance options. I mean, this isn't 1952 anymore. If it chaps someone who cares?  

If you don't want the same sex content, don't choose those chat options. It's quite simple and pretty damn selfish for people to say it shouldn't be included.

 

I gave the forum the quick once-over and I didn't see any commenters who seemed to be at all angry about the new same-sex option.

So, I guess my main question for Tony Perkins is what exactly is the threat here? Are you worried that gamers are going to discover that gayness is a thing that exists and then, what, want to try it out? And then they'll turn gay and it will all be Star Wars' fault? And then when they're all gay, they won't want to send their hard-earned money in to the Family Research Coun. . .that's it isn't it? That's the only thing that makes sense. Because it can't honestly make any difference to you whether computer game players like boobies or not, can it? That couldn't possibly affect you. But if people maybe don't want to send money in to anti-gay hate groups, well that could be a problem for someone like you. 

Well I say put gay features in all video games! Seriously, if you could turn on-line role-playing gamers gay, at least they'd have a chance to have sex sometime in their lives. 'Cause God knows they aren't getting girlfriends!

Is it Caturday?

I don't even know what day it is right now. I've been working the overnight shift the last couple weeks and my internal clock is all messed up (hence my spotty posting lately)

Just to be on the safe side, cats:

 

 

 

And non-cats:

 

 

 

 

There, I should be covered either way.

New Hampshire has Idiots in Positions of Responsibility Too.

Apparently, some lawmakers in New Hampshire think it ought to be a bit more difficult to arrest a man for domestic violence.
(via the Concord Monitor)

House Bill 1581 would turn the clock back 40 years to an age when a police officer could not make an arrest in a domestic violence case without first getting a warrant unless he or she actually witnessed the crime. 

So, a cop shows up at the house, sees the wife with a black eye and the husband with bruised knuckles, he can't just go around making arrests willy-nilly. He's got to leave the scene, leave the victim there with her abuser, go find a judge, swear out a warrant and come back to make the arrest? And that seems reasonable to whatever psycho wrote this bill?
And that psycho would be one Representative Daniel Itse, who proudly proclaims on his website that he:

	Will protect New Hampshire families even when
	it is not politically correct.

Apparently, for Mr. Itse, "families" does not include "wives." Because they would not really be protected so much under his bill.

Of course, Mr. Itse has family values. His website has a list of some of his core values:

Dan’s core beliefs by which he will represent Rockingham District 9 are as follows:

1. Self-government (self-control and personal responsibility) is the foundation of our constitutional republic.

2. My first job as a State Representative is to protect you [sic]rights from the government.

(emphasis in original)

Including your right to not be protected from domestic abuse.
Then there's also HB1608:

House Bill 1608 would also almost certainly cost lives. It removes judicial discretion by severely restricting when someone who has violated a domestic violence protective order can be arrested to three offenses: committing an act of abuse or an offense against the person named in the protective order, or engaging in prohibited contact.
The bill would also, law enforcement believes, remove a judge's ability to order a defendant in a domestic violence case to relinquish weapons or prevent him or her from purchasing a gun. It would also eliminate law enforcement's ability to arrest a defendant who threatens to use physical force against a victim or her children. All are changes that could have deadly consequences and make life more frightening for abuse victims and their families.

The psycho who introduced this bill is one Mr. Skip Reilly, about whom I couldn't really find out very much, he doesn't seem to have a website. So I'm going to go ahead and assume that this is a fair depiction:

 

Update: Bill 1608 was rejected in committee, due partly to the fact that bill sponsor Skip Reilly failed to show up for the hearing. (http://www.wmur.com/r/30295720/detail.html)

 

Me no have alarm clock!