Recent Comments

1. almost 12 years ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   No facts, context or subtleties allowed, just sound bites! OMG! Calvin must have grown up to set policy in the current Republican Party!

2. about 12 years ago on Non Sequitur

   They also forgot to mention you don’t get served if you’re actually hungry.

3. over 12 years ago on Doonesbury

   fbjsr said: “You do realize that California is overwhelmingly democrat. You do realize that it was obama and the democrats who passed prop 8 banning gay marriages in California.”Actually, while Obama said his personal views of marriage were to define it as a man and woman, he vocally opposed Prop 8. Also, while the SF area is more Democratic, the even more populous southern California is heavily Republican and this was the section that really carried Prop 8 – San Diego, LA, the Inland Empire and Orange County. There is a reason that numerous SoCal governors have been Republican, including Reagan and a reason that mega-churches like Rick Warren’s and the Crystal Cathedral are in Orange County. It’s their stronghold.

4. over 13 years ago on Doonesbury

   Re sherpafree: We have met the enemy and they are… illiterate.

5. over 13 years ago on Doonesbury

   @plus4 - Speaking as a mental health worker and someone who specializes in addictions I can tell you and everyone else here there is no “sexual confusion disorder,” no “same-sex attraction disorder” and most certainly no “same-sex addiction.” In fact your use of the term “addiction” goes to show how divorced you are from the actual mental health field which long ago abandoned the fuzzy term “addiction” for a more clinical and less perjorative term of “dependence.” You can manufacture “disorder” terms until the cows come home, but that doesn’t make them real or pathological. Throughout nature, and especially among mammals, a certain percentage engage in same-sex bonding and sexual activity. It is a natural, if minority, condition and people should not be viewed as “disordered” or in any other way judged because of it. They should be judged as all of us are on the content of our character as displayed in our behaviors. To create policies that do anything else, and most especially to judge them based on unchosen and unalterable characteristics, is unfair, biased and bigoted.

6. over 13 years ago on Doonesbury

   @Nemesys - yes, I know what a psychological “phobia” is and I think the widespread use of the term homophobia is unfortunate for that very reason. I prefer the term bigot. A bigot is one who views others as inferior to themselves based upon an immutable characteristic of the other, e.g. race. (I’m not calling you or anyone else a bigot, I’m merely saying that’s what they exhibit when they view others as their inferiors.) No one gets up one day and says “What a great day to become gay and exponentially complicate my life while becoming a social pariah in some circles.” People come to realize they have a same-sex attraction and desire both romantic and sexual union with those of their sex - just like heterosexuals desire with the opposite sex. Knowing this about a person tells you nothing else about them – their skills, competence, personality, charitable or stingy nature, kind or selfish, or anything else. All the gay community is asking is to not be judged on an immutable characteristic that has no bearing on their ability to do their job – in whatever setting.

   And yes, I’m aware that staring at body parts is considered a form of harassment by the EEOC. My point is, those in the military are already showering and living with gay/lesbian people and those gay/lesbian people are already acting appropriately in those settings. This won’t change for the very reason you site - it’s inappropriate and gay people are just as capable of being socially appropriate as the next person. And when they’re not, they should be called on it.

7. over 13 years ago on Doonesbury

   @Nemesys - a final thought, you said “As has been discussed before, the introduction of any overt sexuality into military situations should be officially frowned upon.” I’m always bemused when people talk about DADT in this way. It has nothing to do with overt sexuality, but about a person not having to hide who they are. If you think this isn’t trying, I challenge you to go for one week and don’t say ANYTHING that reveals your sexual orientation to anyone else. DADT isn’t about allowing sex in the barracks (or the showers) it means people know - and don’t care - that you have a same-sex partner or dating relationship in appropriate venues. It means everyone gets treated the same, gay, straight or somewhere in-between. And if some guy is worried that some other guy is checking out his junk in the shower, that’s his problem – unless the other person is doing something that is overtly harrassing.

8. over 13 years ago on Doonesbury

   @Nemesys - Labeling someone a homophobe CAN be a knee-jerk reaction, but sometimes it is an honest assessment, just as racist, sexist, etc can be. It is perhaps more useful to point out someone has made a homophobic statement rather than labeling the person - this puts it on their behavior, not their identity. But to give an example from another sphere - Shortly after our state elected a woman as governor some years ago, I had a man tell me he wasn’t a sexist, he just thought women shouldn’t hold public office. That’s a sexist statement, and deserves to be called out.

9. over 13 years ago on Doonesbury

   Why do I get the feeling Mel may be about to come out to dear old Dad?

10. over 13 years ago on Bloom County

    re KFC breasts and thighs: ever wonder why they get called “white meat” and “dark meat”? It’s because our Victorian predecessors couldn’t bear to use the anatomical words. Some even thought table “legs” were obscene; and hence to-the-floor table cloths and the popularity of pedestal tables.