 | Myself on Amazon Sucks |
 | johnnypeepers on God is dead |
| Dreamcatcher on Amazon Sucks |
 | singing Bowls on Amazon Sucks |
 | David on God is dead |
Janice Kopaunik, of The Daily Utah Chronicle fame, has written a satirical opinion piece about the convoluted nature of sex in Utah. Here is an excerpt:
The only real protecting we can do is to keep our daughters asexual until the wedding night. This feasible plan is the only foolproof way of preventing STDs, or, as I like to call them, SPGs — the “sexually-impure’s punishment from God.”
The full article can be found here.
As Ron Paul’s candidacy draws to a close, eclipsed by GOP front-runner John McCain, the large, supporting crowds of yesterday have nearly faded from memory as Paul has received relatively few votes, amounting to single-digit percentage in most states, in the primary election.
Though quaint by historical standards, Ron Paul’s constitutional views are today seen as radical. But his candidacy was able to demonstrate the surviving currents of dissent in our modern-day, highly conservative society.
Ron Paul’s failure ultimately lies with the people, who are unready or unwilling for a ‘Jeffersonian’ revolution. Most people view themselves as part of the status-quo, the challenging of which would be not only unnecessary but dangerous for someone who has an economic stake in the future of the country. Ron Paul’s support came mostly from a disillusioned middle-class and, if Marx is to be believed, revolution is only viable when the disenfranchisement of lower-class class citizens leads to class conflict.
Though Paul tried to return the United States to a somewhat romanticized past, even those who feel themselves disenfranchised have backed more mainstream candidate’s bids for presidency. A candidate can only hope to revolutionize a community when stability is lost.
Based on the the emails received regarding Buttars’ insinuation that black babies are ugly and later claiming to be a victim of a hate-lynch mob, their exists a number of people, Buttars included, who believe their wasn’t anything racist or otherwise fundamentally wrong with his comments, though he apologized for them Sunday.
The Salt Lake Tribune reports that Buttars attended Calvary Baptist Church on Sunday, to “beg your [the congregation's] forgiveness. If it’s possible, forgive me.” Buttars had previously failed to meet with NAACP leaders, citing the presence of the media.
Who are these people that are backing Buttars? President Bush has denounced lynching as a symbol of “gross injustice,” a dark corner of American history. Utah Governor Hunstman said that he was personally offended by the “highly inappropriate” remarks made by Buttars. Obviously there is a disconnect between the Republican Party and Chris Buttars and his supporters, which really begs the question of who these people are and for what reason they support this man.
Is this something that the media has just blown out of the proportion? Buttars claims that he immediately recognized his mistake and tried to apologize later in the meeting, but can his later comments, calling blacks “those people” and accusing his critics of forming a “hate lynch mob” against him, be forgiven?
Refusing to resign for his comments, Chris Buttars has instead made hate speech a part of his daily lexicon. After calling a bill he didn’t like a “black, dark, ugly [baby]“, Buttars accused “those people” upset by it a “hate lynch mob.” Any other public reaction besides outrage is completely unacceptable. Buttars’ complete disregard for a race of people is appalling.
Feigning ignorance is not an acceptable excuse. On February 12th, President Bush referred to lynching as “a shameful chapter in American history.” Bush went on to say that “the noose is not a symbol of prairie justice,” as Buttars claims it to be, “but of gross injustice.” True, other races have been victims of lynching, but the image conjured in most minds is the numerous lynchings that took place during Reconstruction and the second reincarnation of the KKK in the 1920s.
Referring to something as ‘black’ is not surprising for Buttars’, whose religion, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, has a history of racism. The Book of Mormon, viewed by Mormons as holy scripture, was changed from “they shall be a white and a delightsome people” to “they shall be a pure and a delightsome people.” Mormons believe that black skin is God’s curse on a people, and it was only in 1978 that blacks were allowed to hold the priesthood, the belief that the wielder holds the power and authority of God.
The United States has a long history of institutionalized racism, against African Americans, Chinese, and Eastern Europeans, to name a few. To simply gloss over this aspect of our past, as Buttars’ camp hopes to do, is an injustice to the countless people who suffered under the legislation and frontier justice of the time.
Homosexuals are at it again, pushing their agenda which I can only assume involves indoctrinating young children, making abortions mandatory, and spreading their gayness. The homosexual’s latest act of ungodliness takes form in Salt Lake City’s domestic partner registry, which would provide insurance benefits to same-sex partners.
Not so fast, say the God-fearing neo-conservatives of the Utah Senate. Chris Buttars referred to the registry as a repugnant open-checkbook, which I can only assume refers to the time-tested ‘slippery slope’ theory. If a man can marry another consenting adult, what will stop him from marrying a dolphin? An inanimate object? Buttars eloquently states that “since America was born, marriage is [sic] the cornerstone.” He went on, literally, to say “it don’t fit,” in which I assume he is referring to the reproductive organs of a same-sex couple. You’re quite right, Buttars, they don’t.
Republicans learned from their mistake 140 years ago: you don’t enfranchise minorities. You can’t build a wall around gays, but you can deny them basic human rights. And really, isn’t that what Jesus would do?
