A Tale Of Two (albeit gay) Penguins

There's been quite a bit of hubub going on over this little story of two penguins who see an abandoned egg and take care of it until it hatches. Of course you know the problem... they are both boy penguins. So what exactly is the controversy? We're INDOCTRINATING the children to accept an alternative lifestyle which we don't feel is appropriate.

I'm sorry guys, but that's a load of penguin bolongna!

First off... it's a true story. If you don't like how it turned out, talk to the big guy upstairs, he's the one running the show in that department. Unless you're going to tell me that these two male penguins just happened to watch too much Will and Grace and turned gay all of a sudden. Wait, I mean "chose" to be gay, because being gay HAS to be choice, right? I know I remember the day when I chose to be straight. You know, you reach a certain age and you are faced with a decision, things start moving and shaking down there and you have to decide if you are going to sexually prefer men or women... just like that whole left or right handed decision you made when you were a kid... "well... the desks are already made for right-handed people", you thought to yourself, or perhaps, everyone else is right-handed, I'm gonna pick left.

Inside joke time, sorry --- "Like we need your support" --- ok, inside joke is over. You may continue reading.

Secondly, why stop here? There must be HUNDREDS of books we can ban right along with this one. I mean as long as we're talking objectionable, let's go ahead and ban that horrible OTHELLO from our kid's libraries. I mean a MOOR (be he black, arab, both, or simply a gutter dwelling urban outdoorsman) cavorting with a pure white upper-crust woman?!? The nerve. What on earth was this Will Shakespere guy thinking? How DARE he try to make us accept cross-nationality relationships? And don't get me started with OEDIPUS. Now I know, a tale of two penguins (or perhaps three penguins in the end) is hardly up there with either of these two works, but in light of them, and the emphasis we place on them in SPITE of their "objectionable" material why should we care about a true story of love, partnership, caring, and nurturing? Because they are of the same sex?

I'm so sick and tired of people trying to say that same sex couples are the scourge of our society. I can name oodles more relationships carried on by us "heteros" which are not ideal for childrearing, nor for loving environments to use as examples for others. Where is the outrage over the dime-a-dozen marriages in Hollywood? Where are the shouts of SIN and the need to change ways when adult film stars get married and have children? Are these more acceptable homes for the upbringing of children than that of two loving peaceful people who happen to have the same sexual organs as one another? Or, (and I hesitate to even get started on this one. I will save the bulk of it for another time.) what of the total lack of fathers in modern advertising and children's books?!? Is a single parent household where mommy's trying to hold down two or more jobs while someone else is raising HER children while her sexual partner goes unnamed, unknown, or unloved.. is this more acceptable than a household with two loving people of the same sex?

Who cares if Heather has two Mommies? Where's the important line of questions concerning this household?

• Do they love one another?
• Do they love Heather?
• Do they support Heather?
• Are they raising Heather to be a responsible adult?
• Is there peace in the home?

Who cares if Tango's gay penguin daddies are limp flippered?

• Do they love Tango?
• Will they teach him to fish?
• Will they teach him to care for others?
• Will they teach him to be a good father (or mother)?

People complain about the wrong things. Go ahead gay penguin daddies. Hatch those abandoned eggs. Where are the worthless hetero penguins who abandoned it to begin with? Are we supposed to think they're the role models we are supposed to emulate?

Now... you show me a bunch of gay penguins taking advantage of young alterboy penguins and I'll be right there ready to release the sealions. But until that day comes, leave the gay penguin daddies alone.

 

I heard it was true (urban myth)

The Queen of England decides she wants a Kentucky thoroughbred in the royal stable, so she calls President Reagan, who decides to meet her in Lexington, Kentucky.

When they get there, they decide to go for a ride. They're just pulling out of the barn when the Queen's horse's tail goes up and "Lbbttt!" - out comes a monstrous fart.

The Queen says, "I'm so embarrassed!"

Reagan says, "You shouldn't be! I thought it was the horse!"

I actually heard someone on FoxNews pass this off as fact, but with Reagan visiting the Queen in England and riding the grounds instead of her coming over here looking for a horse.

After a little looking around (yeah, I thought it was humerous) it turns out that in the 1972 Patrick O'Brian novel Post Captain, there's a drunk guy named Babbington driving a lady in the back of a horse-drawn cart:

-  The horse slowed to a walk - the bean-fed horse, as it proved by a thunderous, long, long fart.

-  "I beg your pardon," said the midshipman in silence.

-  "Oh, that's all right," said Diana coldly. "I thought it was the horse."

Perpetuation of self

"Do we really think that a government-dominated education is going to produce citizens capable of dominating their government, as the education of a truly vigilant self-governing people requires?"

-Alan Keyes

 

Just found this too and thought it interesting

It would appear that more and more of our fair and balanced news sources are trying to downplay the fiasco with missed references to the controversy behind Kerry's remarks:

New York Times: "As Vote Nears, Stances on War Set Off Sparks."

Washington Post: "Bush Calls Kerry Remarks Insulting to U.S. Troops."
- (The Post wins some sort of prize for partisanship. Kerry's on A-8. On page one, the big headline is "Campaigner in Chief Has Limited Reach: An Unpopular President Avoids Many Key Races.")

USA Today: "Kerry, White House exchange words over Iraq 'bad joke'."

Chicago Tribune: "It's Kerry vs. Bush once again: Senator's remark on Iraq war sparks coast-to-coast clash."

The Boston Globe wins a point or two for actually getting a bit quote-specific: "Kerry's 'stuck in Iraq' remark ignites firefight with Bush, GOP."

And from our friendly BBC chaps: "Embattled Kerry seeks low profile"

Since last time...

 jeez... we've had a month of news since my last blog here.  Where do I begin?  Let's see, we've had:

• The whole Foley thing (not that I'm brushing it off, but what's left to say about it?  The guy's creepy and should have gone a while ago, as should anyone who hid it {to include those who knew from the other side of the aisle and hid it until it was beneficial to their party to release the tid-bit to the press.})
• Alaska turning down Chavez (Really cool {pardon the pun})
• NJ courts made their ruling on gay marriage. (yawn... I'll still be just as married to my wife either way.)
• Kerry goofed... now this one's a little newer and targeted/construed to include me
• I saw/heard/read the speech as given.  I read excerpts of the speech as written.  It was less of an attack on troops and more of an open palmed slap at the President.  It still wasn't funny.  However, the way it was delivered did leave free interpretation open as an attack on the military and who (what with Kerry's background of support for American troops {rapists, murderers... army of Genghis Khan... terrorizing children, babies, women in the dark of night.})  can blame those who took it as an insult?  He said what he said and his Pope-ish apology isn't cutting it.
• For a reference to the "Pope-ish apology" comment, (CHECK THIS OUT) 
• And, something I think is not getting enough press time, Guatemala and Venezuela have agreed to pull out of the race for UN Security council and to support Panama for the position.  Hmmm... I wonder what concessions had to be made there.

So... now that I've caught up with the times again, I'll try to stay up here with you guys in the present.  Wow, the future looks a lot nearer and brighter from here... did you guys polish it while I was back there in the past??

"I apologize to no one for my criticism of the president and of his broken policy."
- John Kerry
"Conceit is God's gift to little men."
- Bruce Barton

And away we go...

First up is this news story...  7-11 to drop CITGO gasolines 

• Good.  What more can I say?  I just liked this story and I think Hugo is a putz.  Let him find another country with the capabilities to process his oil into a useable resource.  Meanwhile, I am sorry for those who have to live under this insufferable joke/jerk in the interim.  Good thing there's another election coming up in December for these guys, maybe they'll vote him out this time (well, maybe he won't go tampering with the polls to keep himself in power.
  

Next on the parade, and last for this particular post, we have...  Chris Wallace

• So we have this interview gone awry with a certain former president, right?  We've got people out there saying how out of line Wallace was and wanting to spin the debate back to George Bush.  GEORGE BUSH WAS NOT THE TOPIC OF DISCUSSION FOR THIS INTERVIEW.  The person facing Wallace was former president Bill Clinton who was asked to answer questions concerning shortfalls made during HIS administration.  When Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice was on, he hardly held back on her (Check it out here)  asking pointed questions concerning allegations of the Bush administration concerning the current state of affairs in the Iraqi insurgency.  He was equally rough on Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld during his interview.  
  
• Here’s what Wallace asked Clinton:
  -Hindsight is 20 20 . . . but the question is why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?
• And here is what Wallace asked Donald Rumsfeld on the March 28, 2004 episode of Fox News Sunday:
  -I understand this is 20/20 hindsight, it’s more than an individual manhunt. I mean — what you ended up doing in the end was going after al Qaeda where it lived. . . . pre-9/11 should you have been thinking more about that?
  -What do you make of his [Richard Clarke’s] basic charge that pre-9/11 that this government, the Bush administration largely ignored the threat from al Qaeda?
  -Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority.
  
• Did Donald Rumsfeld go on a tirade?  Did Ms. Rice?  No.  Were they asked questions about how much more Clinton could have done to prevent this?  No.  It was not an interview about Clinton.  These were interviews about THEM and THEIR (in)actions... and rightfully so.
• So here we have the leftist demagogues and want to be pundits calling Wallace a hack (along with quite a lot of other names) for doing his job.  Now I know a lot of people (including myself mind you) who can see the bias from biased commentators as well as from the occasional reporter (yes there is a difference), but Wallace handled this as a reporter.  He asked justified questions which he would have asked of anyone else sitting in the other chair and on this particular occasion, that person simply couldn't handle it.  Too bad for him.  He should be prepared to admit to and justify his shortcomings without turning tyrant.

Not too bad for a first try, if I do say so myself (which I just did.)
Until next time,
tim

Welcome to the World According to Tim

So here I am... I can' t even keep up with one blog and now I go and start 
another.  Let me explain why.

I work in a job field where I HAVE to watch the news constantly.  I have 
to know what's going on in the international arena because it determines 
where I go and what I will be doing next.  Furthermore, I am then able to 
prep the family about why I'm going to be there.

This being the case, I'm apt to form my own opinion on a good number of things and I can't always hold my tongue about it.  Well, I can't really post these ideas on my regular blog, there are friends and family who do not really agree politically with me who only really keep up by my blog and I want them to keep up with that.

So, I have now created a blog for nothing but my geopolitical rantings where I can post without worry that I might talk a family member away from reading my regular blog because I keep putting my personal political outtakes into my postings.

And with no further introduction and much ado... here it is.  Enjoy or don't.
tim