The Smarmy Carny

Spongebob is F. U. N.

The TV Guide folks haven't been paying very close attention. Hopefully they are just lazy at fact-checking. After all, they are just a bunch of couch potatoes.

You may or may not have read some of the articles claiming that Dr. James Dobson (of Focus on the Family) said that SpongeBob SquarePants was a gay character. Dobson never said anything of the sort, of course. As if the usual media slander wasn't enough, even TV Guide jumped in on the game and attacked Dobson. Not only was he jeered in the Cheers & Jeers section, but the listing stands out, thanks to a large picture of SpongeBob punctuating the entry.

Here's an entry in their Cheers & Jeers section:

Jeers to Focus on the Family's founder Dr. James C. Dobson for putting the squeeze on SpongeBob SquarePants. The conservative activist claims the cartoon character promotes a "pro-homosexual" agenda. We always thought sponges were asexual creatures. Maybe Dobson found out about SpongeBob's torrid fling with Tinky Winky.

I frequently feel like writing in and replying to this sort of obfuscation, but I rarely ever do. Generally, others are more than willing to express their opinions and mail them in. This one just pushed the right buttons, though, and I decided that this time I will be one of those "others" willing to express my opinion. Clearly the author and editor(s) of the Cheers & Jeers section wasn't too interested in fact checking this week. I simply had to send in a comment to their Letters department at letters@tvguide.com. I suggest you do the same.

If you're interested in what Dr. Dobson actually said, read his article at family.org about "Setting the Record Straight." Here is an excerpt:

The video, which millions of children will soon see, features nearly 100 favorite cartoon characters that kids will instantly recognize, including not only SpongeBob, but also Barney the Dinosaur, the Muppets, Dora the Explorer, Bob the Builder, Winnie the Pooh, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Jimmy Neutron and Big Bird. The video itself is innocent enough and does not mention anything overtly sexual. Rather, it features the children's cartoon characters singing and dancing along to the popular disco hit "We Are Family."

But while the video is harmless on its own, I believe the agenda behind it is sinister. My brief comments at the FRC gathering were intended to express concern not about SpongeBob or Big Bird or any of their other cartoon friends, but about the way in which those childhood symbols are apparently being hijacked to promote an agenda that involves teaching homosexual propaganda to children. Nevertheless, the media jumped on the story by claiming that I had accused SpongeBob of being "gay." Some suggested that I had confused the organization that had created the video with a similarly named gay-rights group. In both cases, the press was dead wrong, and I welcome this opportunity to help them get their facts straight.

If you're feeling sadistic, you might then want to read how the media interprets his comments about the video. Typical losers CNN and MSNBC had their say, of course. MSNBC refers to him as "A man named Dr. James Dobson," as if he had never been in the news before, or as if he was some unknown making wild comments. What fun.

SpongeBob isn't gay . . . but that Tinky Winky still freaks me out!

Note: My letter will surely not be published, but I can only imagine that someone's letter on this topic will be printed. I will post it here when that happens. As I mentioned, I suggest you write in as well and voice your opinion at letters@tvguide.com

Itty Bitty Baby

Ann Coulter put out a great article on the topic of abortion that I finally got around to reading titled "Where's that religious fanatic we elected?"

In typical Coulter fashion, the article rips the pro-choice movement and the processes that got us where we are today. Common sense will show you the thoughts and feelings of typical Americans. If put up for a vote, Coulter feels confident that the pro-life stance would win handily and at least 38 states would adopt anti-abortion laws.

Here are some snippets from the article, but I suggest you read it in its entirety.

On the 32nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade this past Monday . . . President Bush told a pro-life rally in Washington that a "culture of life cannot be sustained solely by changing laws. We need, most of all, to change hearts."

Actually, what we need least of all is to "change hearts." Maybe it's my law background, but I think it's time we changed a few judges.

Only when at least five members of the Supreme Court stop pretending to see a secret, hidden clause in the Constitution, discernible only to members of the American Civil Liberties Union, and repeal Roe can Americans finally vote on abortion. This is a right we have been denied for 32 years. In effect, a 32-year gag rule has been imposed on those of us who respect every stage of life.

The National Abortion Rights League (NARAL) claims that if Roe were overturned, 19 states would immediately outlaw abortion, and 19 more would soon follow suit. This is the one issue on which NARAL and I agree: Pro-lifers already have changed the hearts of Americans about abortion!

In a Los Angeles Times poll a few years ago, 57 percent of respondents said they believed abortion was "murder." Seventy-two percent of women and 58 percent of men said they thought abortion should be illegal after the first trimester. (Among men currently listed on NBA rosters, the figure was even lower.)

Note that men in the poll were more supportive of abortion than women, which is perfectly in keeping with the pro-abortion orthodoxy that men should have no say in this matter, unless they're saying "yes, dear." Once again, NARAL and I are in agreement! It's a "woman's issue"; could you men please just butt out?

While I was looking for a picture to place on this post, I ran across some horribly gruesome pictures that I certainly won't post right on my page for all to see. If you can stand it and/or want to be bothered by some gruesome pictures, I will post them here. If you get queasy or don't want to see, just don't click. You have been warned. Gruesome, explicit pictures.1 2 3 4

I'd rather be anti-choice than anti-life.

Hillary RodHam

Hillary Clinton collapsed today in my neck of the woods. Yes, I have an alibi.

For some odd reason, she was speaking at Canisius College, a Catholic school. There were plenty of protests from anti-abortion groups and the Catholic diocese, of course.

Apparently she was "expected to discuss health care, not her pro-choice stance on abortion." Has anyone looked into exactly how Hillarycare deals with abortion? I'm not familiar with the details, but I wouldn't be surprised if you actually earned $500 for each abortion you receive.

Clinton later said that "It wasn't as dramatic as it sounds." What else would we expect a politician (especially one running for reelection) to say?

I Gave Terror the Finger

Today, January 31, is the day to "Give Terror the Finger." (FYI, giveterrorthefinger.com now points to John Marfoe's Blog. Marfoe is the one who was behind GTTF.)

As you can see in the picture on the right, I went ahead and did it. I'm sure people at work will ask me about it, and I'm sure I'll tell them about it.

About 70 percent of registered Iraqis voted this time around, despite the terror threats and a few attacks. In America, we had very little threat and no attacks, and less than 60 percent of registered Americans voted in November 2004.

Let freedom ring! Oh, and please, give terror the finger.

Here is the text from giveterrorthefinger.com:

On January 31, 2005, in a show of solidarity with the bravery of the Iraqi people, all Americans should color their index fingers blue or purple, and give terrorism the finger.
The Iraqi elections have been a resounding success. Nearly 70% of eligible Iraqis braved threats of terrorism and voted on January 30. On January 31, we can all show our solidarity and give terrorism the finger just as nearly 10 million Iraqis did.

The Golden
Raspberry Award

The Golden Raspberry Award Foundation has been giving out Razzies for 25 years now. If you're not already familiar with the Razzies, it's basically the anti-Oscar, handing out awards for the worst-of-the-worst in film. In the first 24 years, they have "honored" such great films as Battlefield Earth, Leonard: Part 6, The Postman, Freddy Got Fingered, and most recently, Gigli. They tend to favor musicians-turned-actress like Madonna, Britney Spears, Mariah Carey, and the Spice Girls. This year, Catwoman seems to be the favorite nominee.

Year after year, I take the time to look at their website and search for the nominee list. You'd think that there would be an easily visible "View the nominee list here" link somewhere, but instead you have to spot it in a list of the eight hottest topics. No big deal, since the results are always worth the effort.

Unfortunately, the Foundation showed their true colors this year when they released their nominees for 2004. In stereotypical Hollywood fashion, someone decided to mix politics with the entertainment industry. Allow me to quote directly from their nominee press release (original emphasis used):

. . . one of several political figures garnering RAZZIE nods this year, President George W. Bush as himself in FAHRENHEIT 9/11, for which performance he is also nominating as Worst Screen Couple paired with either Condoleeza Rice and/or His Pet Goat. For their appearances in FAHRENHEIT, both Rice and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld got Supporting nominations. And California's current governor Ah-Nuld Schwarzenegger is also nominated as Worst Supporting Actor for his cameo as "Prince Hapi" in Worst Remake contender AROUND THE WORLD IN EIGHTY DAYS. "The Uber-Nator" is also one of the contenders for a Special Commemorative RAZZIE as one of five Worst RAZZIE "Losers" of The First 25 Years — eligibility for which was determined by having amassed the most nominations over the years without ever actually "winning" a statuette.

The Razzies in general are quite fun, but this is clearly a political statement from the nominators. John Wilson, the Razzies' founder, is quoted as having said that "It wasn't Mr. Moore's editing, it's the raw footage of these people just making fools of themselves." Even if you buy into the propaganda behind Fahrenheit 9/11, we have a direct admission that the awards were given for them "just making fools of themselves." If this is how you interpret this footage, then clearly this is not acting. How can you receive a "Worst Actor" award without even acting in a movie? Fahrenheit 9/11 shows archive footage, not acting. If these nominations can be made, what about all of the horrible characters interviewed in other documentaries? Why have they been left out for so long? I don't know anything about Wilson or the others responsible for the nominations, but all of these thoughts lead me to believe that these nominations are merely an attempt for a leftist retaliation for the loss in the 2000 and 2004 elections.

Additionally, I have a gripe with the other Fahrenheit 9/11 nomination, as it shows a true lack of originality. The nomination is Britney Spears. This nomination is also not for acting, but for an interview. She was in the movie for only a few seconds. I'm not sure why they decided to nominate Spears, but it boils down to this: Either she was nominated because she dared to utter a pro-Bush sentiment, or because the Razzie people needed to fit Spears in somehow and did an IMDB search to find out where she had appeared, or both.

I hate to say it, but the Razzies have lost credibility with me now. I'm afraid they've fallen below even the MTV Movie Awards in my book.

This year's Razzie goes out to the Razzies.

Federal Social
Security Calculator

If you're like me, you're human.

If you're also like me, you're not yet retired. In fact, I'm not even halfway there yet. If you're not yet retired (and American), you most likely give some attention to Social Security, as it will someday supplement your life savings. Media hype and the 2004 election campaigns also tried to make as big a deal out of SS as they possibly could. One political party wants the system to be given an overhaul, where you could take partial control of your contributions (akin to 401(k) plans) and most likely outperform whatever the government might get out of your money. The government generally doesn't have a great track record as far as finances are concerned. Another party wants SS to remain as it is, where the government forces you to toss part of your earnings into the kitty for the government to "invest."

Naturally, it would be nice to know how much you can expect to get when you retire. Find out here. Not only does The Heritage Foundation's Social Security Calculator tell you approximately what you could expect to get based on national and historic averages, but it also gives you an idea of what you might expect to get if you are given the opportunity to take hold of the reigns on your SS contributions.

Oh, and keep in mind that SS payments are indended to supplement your life savings and not sustain you completely.

Update: Also read up on President Bush's plans at preservingsocialsecurity.com! There's also a petition there to sign if you're so inclined.

4 more years!

There are less than five days until the 55th Presidential Inauguration Ceremony. It should be about as fun as any of the inauguration ceremonies, I suppose.

Mentally, it's a relief for me that the elections are long past us now. Without fail, I end up getting wrapped up into politics from the time the first candidate announces that he (or she) will be running in the primaries all the way through election night. Of course, 2000 was particularly taxing for anyone who cared, so 2004 was a bit of a relief. Whatever happened to the days of Ronald Regan, when a candidate could win it all except for Minnesota and DC? Back then, you could go to bed at 10:00 knowing who won. Nowadays, you've got to take at least a nap while you watch the pundits repeat the same pieces of information hour after hour after hour. Well, enough of this rambling. Why in the world am I writing about something that tires me to think about, let alone write about?

I noticed on the inauguration website that you could sign up for tickets. By now, I'm sure all of the tickets are more than gone, but part of me would like to go down there and be there for that. Of course, the same part of me would also like to go down to Punxsutawney, PA for Groundhog Day, too. That's only 2-and-a-half weeks away. I'm sure that by the time I'm dead, I still will not have attended either an inauguration ceremony nor the official Groundhog Day celebration.