Oh, Randi Rhodes, your hypocrisy makes me smile

[elfs]

I listen to talk radio in real short bursts, maybe ten minutes at a time, while running errands. I rarely drive long distances in my car, and when I do I just flip through the dials looking for fun.

Rhodes seems to be sexually well-plugged in. Even if it's not her kink, she's made jokes about how "[if] you google for 'necrophilia' and 'bestiality' you get more hits on Republican speeches than you do Japanese porn." When she was temporarily relocated to a studio in New York, she said, "The engineers said they wanted me to be happy, to be comfortable. I don't know what it is with this chair. It has arms and gadgets and things. I don't think I've ever seen a chair like this outside of Xtube! All it needs is a strap-on in the middle!"

So, last night, she made me mad when she blasted Carrie Prejean for sexting to her boyfriend. She said, "You know, if you film yourself masturbating to send to your boyfriend to show how much you miss him, and you're enjoying it a little too much, you're sending the wrong message. You should send him a movie of you sitting on your couch, looking bored and eating ice cream!" She went to bemoan Prejean's sexual naivete and harped on her incompetence.

I agree that Prejean is a hypocrite in the first degree, Miss "God Loves Me Because I Hate Gays" who engages in underage sexting (which may ironically, may require her to register as a sex offender) and borrows money for breast augmentation surgery (from the Miss America pageant, no less!) only to miss her payments. But Rhodes cannot simultaneously be that deeply knowledgeable about and even sympathetic toward consenting sexual deviancy (I use that word with no malice whatsoever) and blast other people for doing what young people do.

Comments

Re: It's not hate.

[(Anonymous)]

If she had said that she didn't think black people should be allowed to marry in this country, would you be saying the same thing? Would you be claiming that it wasn't racism, but merely that her definition of marriage didn't include people of African descent?

Number 127

Re: It's not hate.

[darrelx.livejournal.com]

I really despise the application of the "Black" civil rights analogy to the Same-sex partnership scenario... Using that analogy, blacks would be lobbying to be called whites so that they get the same rights.

Same sex partners shouldn't be trying to redefine the term "Marriage". They should instead be trying to ge the same rights as married couples, as they have already succeeded in doing in California.

Take THAT fight to the federal level, and you will win -- equality would be granted.

Re: It's not hate.

[cadetstar.livejournal.com]

I would love to see the term marriage thrown out of all governmental establishment. But like that has a snowball's chance of happening.

And separate but equal has already been decided.

-Michael

Re: It's not hate.

[(Anonymous)]

True equality can't be achieved until either gays have access to the "marriage" label and all the social legitimacy it carries with it, or the government gets out of the marriage business entirely. Having the government recognize a distinction between civil unions and marriage while denying the latter to a group of its citizens based strictly on religious mania is intolerable. The middle ground of civil unions and whatnot, even if it were to be extended to the federal level, is just "separate but equal" all over again.

I'm sorry you don't like the racial analogy, but I fail to see why it doesn't apply. I also don't understand the bizarre statement about blacks wanting to be called whites; gays don't want to be called straight, they just want access to the same fundamental rights that straights have.

Number 127