Better Comprehension Through Comedy

The human memory is a wondrous thing, able to store, manage, and recall instantly a tremendous amount of information in a fashion far superior to hard drives. Indeed, a growing consensus is that our brains literally capture EVERY bit of information that we interact with, squirrelling it away for future reference and synthesis.

Unfortunately, as it turns out, our recall capabilities are still in beta -- sort of working, but subject to random and unexplainable breakdowns, misfires, and fits of temperament.

While waiting for a zap from God or a few million more years of evolution, those of us who regularly have reason to be teaching adults things that we want to remember have realized that learning tends to "stick" when it is associated with the humorous, the clever, or the obscene. This is why you can recite SouthPark episodes word for word and in the correct voice for each sentence, but get everything but the item you were supposed to get when you go to the grocery store.

As a result, we have realized that, we can either make things clever and humorous, or we can take off our clothes in the course of a lecture. Since I've already tried the latter, we're down to humor.

Thus, to help people understand the reasoning behind my opinions on the Larry Craig situation, I turn to my favorite of the late and much-lamented Ms. Anna Russell's noveau folk songs.

Jolly Old Sigmund Freud
(sung to the tune of "Ghostriders in the Sky")

I went to my psychiatrist
To be psychoanalyzed
To find out why I killed the cat
And blacked my husband's eyes.
He laid me on a downy couch
To see what he could find,
So this is what he dredge-ed up
From my subconscious mind:

[chorus]
Hey, libido, bats in the belfry, hey, libido, bats in the belfry,
Hey, libido, bats in the belfry, jolly Old Sigmund Freud!

When I was one, my mommy hid
My dolly in a trunk,
And so it follows naturally
That I am always drunk.
When I was two, I saw my father
Kiss the maid one day,
And that is why I suffer now
From kleptomania.

[chorus]

At three, I had the feeling of
Ambivilance towards my brothers,
And so it follows naturally
I poisoned all my lovers.
But I am happy; now I've learned
The lesson this has taught;
That everything I do that's wrong -
Is someone else's fault.

[chorus]

Blame-Shifting Without a Clutch

Fellow blogger and friend GayPatriotWest has a good piece up today covering the ongoing saga of apparent restroom frequenter Senator Larry Craig.

But I have a quibble with the thrust of several statements he makes.

The real issue here is not as much hypocrisy as it is absence of judgment. I don’t think Craig sees himself as gay. When his desires for same-sex sexual contact pass after each of his liaisons, he may just assume they’ve gone away and won’t come back. All that said, only he knows what he feels, but I would daresay he has experienced a lot of shame and emptiness and likely struggles to overcome his longings for same-sex contact.

Obviously he has not fully integrated whatever feelings he has for men into his life. Maybe when he’s not seeking sexual contact with other men, he sees himself as straight..........

Some on the left will say that his political views demand that his conduct be made public. In coming days (as is already happening), much ink will be spilled (and pixels generated) on how his conservatism forced him to remain in the closet, leaving such clandestine encounters as his only means to act on his feelings and his desires for same-sex intimacy.

It’s unfortunate that a man aware of his own such longings did not, in his public life, show much understanding for gay people.

My disagreement: the need for sex does not equal a need for intimacy.

From empirical examples like clients of the "D.C Madam", sociological studies of prostitution, police reports of George Michael, and female jewelry party conversation (long story), one thing should be obvious; even when there is an immediate and obvious source of intimate contact and an acknowledged public relationship, people are still looking for and grabbing other tasty morsels from the sexual buffet table. Indeed, for many of these men, the reason they cheat is less the absence of available intimacy than it is the fact that they're bored with what they have and are looking for something more exciting.

And that's what I think happened here. This wasn't a need for intimacy or any particular degree of relationship; Larry Craig needed to get off, and this is what did it for him. The fact that it happened with men does not make him gay, any more than the fact that several gay men I know have had experiences with the fairer sex makes them heterosexual; what one prefers sexually does not necessarily preclude other possibilities, and what one chooses at a given point in time may have no relevance to earlier or later.

However, as GPW demonstrates, the temptation here is to take that basic fact -- Larry Craig couldn't or wouldn't stop himself from soliciting public sex -- and turn it into something more useful for one's agenda, either the "Republicans are all closeted and hypocrites" meme of the gay left, or the softer, "This wouldn't have happened if Larry Craig hadn't been forced to repress his true self" that GPW uses here.

But that's not a good idea, for several reasons; it paints a picture of homosexuality involving some sort of invitation or imperative towards having public sex, it ignores the contradictory fact that openly-gay individuals have been caught doing the same (and worse) as did Craig, and -- perhaps worst of all -- it makes a full-bore assault on the intelligence of heterosexual voters by implying that, if gays had marriage and public acceptance just like heterosexuals, they would never have public sex or cheat.

Tell that to Wendy Vitter.

In short, making Craig's behavior a result of anything else other than his own arrogance and/or stupidity diverts responsibility for his actions away from Craig and onto those who happen to share the characteristics arbitrarily blamed for it.

No sale.

But Are the Sprinkles Better?

There is something more than a bit unsettling about this......

CubsTracks, Everything Old is New Again Edition

One of the many amusing and annoying things about living in San Francisco is the craze for "retro" that seems to be consuming teenagers and those who wish to dress like teenagers (older AND younger, to poor effect either way).

Amusing, because these people are wearing clothes that were nightmares when they were new. Red wine and blue cheese become better with age, but, as we see from the blue top and red pants combination of similar vintage, polyester does not.

Annoying, because they are paying $100 a pop for the very things I threw out about four years ago.

And, since music and clothes operate in a similar universal origin theory manner (big bang - expand - overdo - collapse - repeat), the newest and hottest thing is to take a song of erstwhile youth that has long since died out and give it the necessary facelifts, tummy tucks, chemical peels, and Botox to make the container fresh and new, even if the material is not.

Sort of like Joan Rivers.

At any rate, our first track of note is Something About You.

As first created by Level 42 in 1985:



Then re-imagined by DJ and producer Hatiras (Adam K & Soha Mix):

(OK, this was the only video I could find; just set it to about 9 minutes into the video, or a minute and a half from the end, and listen. Try to ignore the DJ who is either really into the music or in the middle of humping the Invisible Girl. And don't complain, or I'll just send you over to iTunes, you cheap-ass bitches.)



There. Wasn't that better?

And now, for an even clearer example, we turn to Steve Winwood's easy-listening staple from 1982, Valerie.



And now we see what happens when Valerie doesn't listen to her mother and goes to the Tuesday-night "Aerobics for Skanks" class at the Y.



Believe it or not, Steve Winwood not only gave his permission for this song; after hearing DJ Eric Prydz's initial remix, he recorded a new vocal track for Prydz to use in the final version.

On the other hand, that video is almost enough to drive one to heterosexuality. Never fear, though; thanks to the miracle that is the combination of YouTube with modern excessive creativity and leisure time, we have an antidote.



Happy Friday, all!

The Everything Test

QJ made me do it.

*** THE EVERYTHING TEST ***

There are many different types of tests on the internet today. Personality tests, purity tests, stereotype tests, political tests. But now, there is one test to rule them all.


Traditionally, online tests would ask certain questions about your musical tastes or clothing for a stereotype, your experiences for a purity test, or deep questions for a personality test.We're turning that upside down - all the questions affect all the results, and we've got some innovative results too! Enjoy :-)

PERSONALITY
You are more emotional than logical, more concerned about others than concerned about self, more religious than atheist, more dependent than loner, more workaholic than lazy, more traditional than rebel, more artistic mind than engineering mind, more idealist than cynical, more leader than follower, and more extroverted than introverted.
As for specific personality traits, you are outgoing (100%), religious (93%), intellectual (78%), slutty (74%).

STEREOTYPES
Prep (85%)
Young Professional (80%)
Old Geezer (67%)


LIFE EXPERIENCE
Sex (33%)
Substances (11%)
Travel (65%)


POLITICS
Your political views would best be described as Libertarian, whom
you agree with around 73% of the time.

SOCIOECONOMIC
Your attitude toward life best associates you with Upper Class.
You make more than 98% of those who have taken this test,
and 61% more than the U.S. average.

If your life was a movie, it would be rated R.
By the way, your hottness rank is 71%, hotter than 85% of other test takers.

TAKE THE TEST

Powered by ThatSurveySite

I'm still not sure how he got more sex life experience.

Bet he was double-dipping with those wimmen thingys. ;)

Bait and Switch

The latest Democrat up-in-arms is over the Bush administration's change to the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which has ignited the usual shrieking over "hurting kids" and the New York Times's ominous (and slanted, so as to please Hillary) headline, "White House Acts to Limit Health Plan for Children".

And they have.

By requiring states to cover lower-income children first.

In the letter sent to state health officials about 7:30 p.m. on Friday, Dennis G. Smith, the director of the federal Center for Medicaid and State Operations, set a high standard for states that want to raise eligibility for the child health program above 250 percent of the poverty level.

Before making such a change, Mr. Smith said, states must demonstrate that they have “enrolled at least 95 percent of children in the state below 200 percent of the federal poverty level” who are eligible for either Medicaid or the child health program.

The reason why is very simple; as the 2007 Congressional Budget Office(CBO) report on SCHIP showed, while SCHIP has reduced the number of uninsured children in its target demographic (for families who make between 100% - 200% of the Federal poverty level) from 22.5% to 16.9%, it has also reduced the number of families opting for private employer-sponsored coverage for which they are eligible. Estimates are that, for every 100 children enrolled in SCHIP, approximately 25 to 50 are kids who are taken out of existing private coverage and put into SCHIP because it's cheaper and/or the benefits are better.

To put this into perspective, 250% of the Federal poverty level is $51,625. The US median household income, as of 2006, is $46,236; thus, even with this change, over half of the households in the United States would be theoretically eligible for their kids to receive what amounts to free or heavily-subsidized health insurance.

What Democrats and liberals have done is to backdoor the SCHIP program; they have used an exceptions process built into the original law to extend coverage to even higher income levels and to families who already have and can afford health insurance, even as participation for those families who don't have it and can't afford it has stagnated.

In short, they've blown off expanding coverage for poor kids so that they can buy wealthier ones' parents -- and gone back to Congress to demand more money to do it.

I am four-square behind the administration on this one. SCHIP should do what it was meant to do in the first place -- provide health insurance coverage to kids in working families that didn't have access to it and couldn't afford it. To me, the fact that the Democrat Party absolutely balks at requiring a program to actually cover the poor first before subsidizing wealthier families is the height of hypocrisy -- and shows that Hillary, Spitzer, and the innumerable other Democrats who whine about covering the children are lying through their teeth.

CubsTracks: No, We Have Some Bananaramas Today Edition

Because you asked for it, gentle readers, today we are featuring the vocal stylings of Bananarama, the UK duo (previously trio) known far and wide during the 1980s, fading slightly in the 1990s, and enjoying a welcome resurgence through most unusual channels.

In my iPod, we find the following two of their songs:

1. Move In My Direction (Bobby Blanco and Miki Moto Vocal Mix)

This single, released in 2005, is a remix of their earlier "Really Saying Something". Released as a means of capitalizing on the '80's retro movement in the UK and global dance music at that time, it peaked at #14 on the UK charts; however, it was not released in the US until after a happy accident involving its sibling........

2. Look On the Floor (Angel City Extended Remix)

Also from Bananarama's 2005 album Drama, this song was the second single released, and it flopped rather badly in the UK. However, despite the fact that it wasn't even marketed in the US, club DJs got their hands on the import version, and it took off on this side of the pond; this pushed Bananarama to release Move in My Direction fully in the United States.

Hence the clause in the first version of the Declaration of Independence which included "keeping from us seriously-kickin' dance music" among the sins of George III.

THIS one, natch, comes with a video:


Also, because we are here, ultimately, to provide pleasure to our readers, I will take the risk of showing this, even though I am of the belief that the 80s is like a mummy, just waiting for someone to say the right combination of words, wear the right ugly amulet, or play just the wrong video to bring it growling and stinking from its ancient grave, out to terrorize and murder the peasants and clueless aristocrats.

God help us all.

Um.....Yeah

What Car Would You Be?
	You would be a Ferrari Enzo. You are quick, slick and ever-so-cool. Your ostentatious showiness may put some people off, but your friends know you're the real deal.
Find Your Character @ BrainFall.com

I showed my husband this first; he is still laughing, mainly because, as he put it, he didn't know that "Ferrari" was Italian for "tightwad".

(h/t Nate Nelson)

CubsTracks: In the Beginning Edition

I have known for quite a while that Father Time was not a man with which to trifle, given what I have found out over the past few years he can do to your joints, your hearing, and your ability to digest double-pepperoni-mushroom-and-extra-cheese pizza after 9 PM.

But, turns out that he's a veritable Sylvia Fowler as well; try to keep the fact that your birthday was this week a secret, for instance, and he whispers hints into waiting ears that lead to remarks about how they thought Steely Dan was "more your era".

With that said, I now launch a recurring feature, titled "CubsTracks"*, in which the deep dark secrets of my iPod shall be revealed (if they haven't been already) in an attempt to counter Clock Daddy'z malicious gossip and convince people that yes, I AM still closer to thirty than I am to forty. (Not a word, Jamie.)

Besides, all the other cool kids are doing it.

And, because I worship at the altar of Steve Jobs ("Our Father, who art in Cupertino, hallowed be thy brand"), you too may find these songs on the soul- and wallet-sucking DRM-encoded vampire monstrosity we call....iTunes.

Before we get started, the California mandatory warnings about my musical tastes and the effects of listening:

• My iPod is officially banned from the communal speaker dock at work -- not because of obscenity but because, as my boss wryly put it, "We already provide free espresso."
• (okay, maybe a bit of obscenity. Just for effect. Really. I mean......)
• This is the serious bass department. Subtlety is upstairs, next to the fitting rooms and behind tube tops.
• Playing any of these may get you drug-tested (or an invite to the next rave, depending on your coworkers)
• That repeated knocking and screaming you hear down in the pit of your stomach is normal; it's your inner drag queen trying to escape.

For our very first theme, I tried to narrow it down to two or so singles in my regular playlist that seemed most apropos of me, how I think, and how I act -- if for no other reason than to stimulate comments discussion ("WHAT? Are you CRAZY? That's nothing LIKE you!"). With that in mind, here they are:

1. Beautiful Life, Ace of Base
2. Little Bird, Annie Lennox

Listen. Discuss. Berate.

(*No, it's not clever wordplay. It's the only combination of spellings that didn't confuse me with a grade-school newspaper. I get enough weirdo searches as it is.)

Do As I Say, Not As I Did and Said I Didn't

Democrat Presidential candidate John Edwards proves many things, not the leasts of which are that shellac makes a perfectly passable coiffure control mechanism and that a candidate's wife can be fully her spouse's equal in pandering.

But the number-one thing Edwards proves, in my opinion, is just how stupid Democrats think voters really are.

Or, as he blithely states:

Asked Friday if his investments damaged his image as a poverty fighter, Edward's said: "No. Everyone knows I am completely committed to eliminating poverty in this country. I have the strongest national predatory lending proposal. These are things I will pursue."

Then again, the fact that Edwards has any supporters at all for his rhetoric, given the $400 haircut, the Versailles-size mansion, the job with the offshore-tax-sheltered hedge fund, and the $55k/hour rate for a speech on poverty.....he may be right.

Peace, Love, and Larceny

The only amazing thing about this is that Secretary of State Governor Thrice-Failed Presidential Candidate Failed US Senate Candidate California Democrat Party Chair Oakland Mayor Attorney General Moonbeam didn't try to blame it on global warming.

Your Handy Field Guide to Homo Ursus, Part I

First off, for those of you who got here through a Google misfire, the type of "bears" to which we will be referring in the next few paragraphs have nothing to do with endangered species, salmon, Knut, Gund, or anything that anyone under the age of 18 should be reading out of idle curiosity.

In other words, we're talking adult topics, and I don't mean mortgages and 401(k) plans (although those can be pretty dirty too).

Anyway, with that warning done, we now return you to your irregularly-scheduled diatribe.

With the addition of young, handsome, and virile QuakerJono of Forgotten Beatitudes to a certain....um, pleasure-oriented....portion of the Interwebs, the question has arisen in numerous forums.....what, exactly, is a bear?

I have pondered for several days on this one, having previously been working under a definition similar to that of Justice Potter Stewart's opinion on what constituted pornography: "I know it when I see it." But, given that you aren't me (a fact for which you should probably be extremely grateful), that probably needs to be fleshed out significantly (as befits a bear) for public consumption.

With that in mind, I have settled on the following -- sort of like if the Minnesota Multiphasic Behavioral Inventory and Jeff Foxworthy banged naughty bits and produced a love child.

YOU MIGHT BE A BEAR IF:

1. "Wax" has two meanings - a noun indicating the stuff candles are made of, and a verb indicating what you should do to your car twice a year.
2. You shop at Old Navy, and you don't care who knows it.
3. "All you can eat" is a challenge, not a description
4. You won't answer the phone on Saturdays because it's people asking you to help them move
5. You tried a cosmopolitan once, but that was just to find out what Carrie, Charlotte, Miranda, and Samantha were talking about.
6. In shopping for furniture, "comfort" takes precedence over "matches the wainscotting".
7. Your drag act is a tribute to Nell Carter, Ethel Merman, or Kirstie Alley pre-Jenny Craig.

YOU ARE EMPHATICALLY NOT A BEAR IF:

1. You know what color the rash is when you overdo the Nair.
2. "Mercedes" is German for "would make a good boyfriend"
3. Flannel is fit neither for wearing or sleeping upon.
4. Your coffee order includes more than "sweetened" or "room for cream".
5. You might have been able to change your own flat tire, but why take the risk of making the manicurist cry?
6. "Beer bust" describes, not an event, but what you think of the beverage in question.
7. You couldn't find your last date when you came back from the bathroom because he was standing behind a lamppost.

And here you thought this was complicated.

I Say Jehovah, You Say Je-Allah.....

Um.....right.

Personally, I'm all for making sure we're on the same page, but in this case, we're jumping books, people, and a few thousand years worth of history to get there.

Merv Griffin Should Have Died of AIDS, The Bitch

Which is the gist of Mike Signorile's The Gist.

Words frankly fail me at this point.

Especially given this rant.

First off, Griffin's closet kept him shockingly silent while he had access to the president of the United States as his own people were dying. This man was intimate with the Reagans (and Nancy Reagan in particular) during the height of the AIDS epidemic in 80s, with few treatments available and fear-mongering having gripped the media. Griffin's gay brothers -- his friends, his lovers, his people across America, around the world -- suffered and met horrific deaths. And yet, because he was closeted it is highly unlikely he ever made the connection for the Reagans (between himself and those who were suffering and dying), pointed out the government negligence, or even talked openly as a gay person.

As I have pointed out previously, blaming the Reagan administration for the spread of HIV is roughly akin to blaming them for your purchase of parachute pants; the timing is right, but the correlation is way more dependent on your individual actions than on theirs.

What makes Signorile's rant in this case sadly hilarious and ironic is how he blasts Griffin for supposedly being closeted and promiscuous -- but can't explain how Griffin lived to be 82 and died of prostate cancer. He argues that Griffin's "lovers" were all dying of AIDS, but never bothers to explain how Griffin, who he claims was f*cking everything on two legs, so magically avoided it.

In short, Signorile's argument shows that closeted gay men avoid AIDS and die of old-age diseases, wealthy, satisfied, and respected, while out men die young of AIDS, poor, unhappy, and ignored.

It would be funny if it weren't so tragically misguided.

In my opinion, this is the main reason that the AIDS epidemic is now well into its second quarter-century and entrenched to the endemic stage in the gay population -- so much that 15 to 19 new infections in San Francisco per week, all of a disease that is almost completely preventable, is considered an improvement.

In short, it's because Mike Signorile and his ilk would rather blame the behavior of dead straight people than deal with that of live gay ones.

The Power of Love

The case of Cecil Sinclair, a gay man whose funeral High Point Church in Arlington, Texas refused to host after they found out about his sexual orientation, has brought the usual howls of outrage from the usual suspects -- which, as QuakerJono succintly notes, seems inconsistent with their usual disdain for living gay people being associated with any church.

The best reaction I have seen, though, comes from the partner of the deceased himself, Paul Wagner.

Hopefully your reading this helps to make sense of what occurred. I fully understand the church’s right to deny us the use of their facilities. I also served in the military, (US Army, 1987-2002), and I have fought to defend their freedom of religion and freedom of choice.

If just one couple or family can be saved from having to suffer the same as we did, I would consider all this to have been worthwhile. I truly believe all congregations need to have more open communication between all their members, so that the person who had initially welcomed us into their church would have known that is was not acceptable in the eyes of their leaders, and the entire issue would have been avoided.

If we had known from the beginning we were not welcome, or the offer had never been made, we would have just continued making the same arrangements we finally had in the end. Nothing we did for Cecil's remembrance ceremony was changed, other than the location.

Now that is personal faith, turning the other cheek, and selflessness.

And it also drives home the wisdom of Proverbs 25:21 - 22 (and repeated in Romans 12:20):

If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat;
if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.

In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head,
and the LORD will reward you.

Thank you, Mr. Wagner. With your words, you've made the most powerful argument that one possibly can: the ability to respect and show love to those who have rejected you.

The very definition of "Christlike".

Stop Hitting Yourself

It's been a rough week in Newark, NJ.

In a city where gun violence has become an all too common part of daily life, these shootings were enough to chill even the most hardened residents: Four young friends shot execution-style in a schoolyard just days before they were to head to college.

Three were killed after being forced to kneel against a wall and then shot in the head at close range Saturday night, police said.

Talk about your effect on the community.

"Anyone who has children in the city is in panic mode," Donna Jackson, president of Take Back Our Streets, a community-based organization. "It takes something like this for people to open up their eyes and understand that not every person killed in Newark is a drug dealer."

But now, the plot thickens with the arrests of suspects.

Details about Carranza's background emerged Friday as police looked for three more suspects.

Carranza had been using a bogus Social Security number, Sheriff Armando Fontoura said. Carranza is an undocumented immigrant from Peru, his lawyer acknowledged in court.

Oh, but it gets better.

Carranza had been scheduled to appear in court Monday to answer two previous indictments. One accuses him of sexually assaulting and threatening to kill a 13-year-old, a girlfriend's child. Another charges him with an array of assault and weapons offenses.

Caveats, of course; Newark's police could be doing their roundup of usual suspects, and it seems quite obvious that they know this guy fairly well. Besides, why does it really matter?

Because Newark is a sanctuary city, in which its ordinances specifically prohibit law enforcement officers from asking about immigration status or cooperating with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Which is likely why this guy, despite having been indicted for numerous other crimes, was still walking the streets, free as a bird, versus being detained and deported, as US immigration law requires.

What I really don't get is why a police department like Newark, which is by all accounts overwhelmed in a city where crime is surging, is not using the fact that los Federales are more than willing to get these people, whose very presence is breaking the law in the first place, off the streets and out of the country. And it's not just about keeping "rich whites" safe; it would be the height of inanity to argue that people who would allegedly commit these sort of crimes outside their ethnic community are not doing the same or worse inside it.

After all, Colorado, for one, didn't waste any time passing a law explicitly blocking cities and other legal entities from passing laws or formulating policies to stop police officers from doing exactly that -- although, granted, that was after two police officers were killed by an illegal immigrant who, thanks to Denver's sanctuary policy, had been previously stopped for traffic violations multiple times without having his immigration status checked and who had worked under false documentation at a restaurant owned by the then-mayor of Denver.

But, until more people start speaking up, people will be in the amusing (or sickly ironic) situation like I am, stuck in a metropolis where the City Attorney and so-called "progressives" are trying to use all sorts of quasi-legal machinations to stop gang activities while ignoring the obvious -- that merely checking and acting upon immigration status for the ones the SFPD has already arrested would give him the means to instantly imprison and get rid of a large chunk of the worst offenders.

But then they'd lose votes, both from the community and the ones they purchase, and we can't have that now, can we?

We Demand the Right to Repeat the Mistakes of Others

The interesting paradox of the French Revolution is that it began with the toppling of the autocratic Bourbon monarchy in the name of freedom, democracy, and liberty.....and then, a mere decade later, signed away all three to the even-more autocratic Napoleon.

In a similar fashion, we now have the spectacle of gays who have agitated against workplace discrimination and sexual harassment now giving it the OK when practiced on others.

Both general state and Federal employment law are very clear: you are not allowed to require a person to take part -- or punish them for refusing to participate -- in activities that they consider offensive unless it is a business necessity and no other reasonable accomodation exists. Furthermore, California law is even more explicit that a person cannot be required to work in situations in which they will be exposed to sexual materials, gestures, or language that could be construed as offensive -- and a manager who orders them to do so is legally liable.

Perhaps what boggles the mind the most is this statement:

Solution to problem:

1. Roll up windows in fire truck
2. Turn on the A/C
3. Talk amongst yourselves and/or turn on radio
4. Ignore cat callers
5. Collect payckeck

Now, imagine that being told to a female driver who complains about men making catcalls and sexual gestures at her when she pulls into a warehouse, and you get the point.

Hopefully this lesbian fire chief is smarter than the last one.

UPDATE: And now, courtesy of Ex-Gay Watch frequent commentor Timothy Kincaid, we learn that it's the firemen's fault for being offended -- and they should be fired.

These particular firefighters found themselves unable to treat all citizens with respect and dignity and they were unable to supportive and responsive to the needs of city government. Clearly they can't do their job and should be replaced by someone who can.

One wonders if he's going to fire the first female employee who complains to him about her coworkers making sexual remarks because she doesn't work well with others.

UP-UPDATE: And yet another Towleroad commentor, "Edina Monsoon", puts up the best nominee for most clueless statement yet.

I mean, come-on! It's sad to see how insecure these guys are in their masculinity.

Read that again; for daring to exercise their legal right to a workplace free from discrimination and harassment, he insults them in a sexual fashion.

UP-UP-UPDATE: The comments section at JoeMyGod has to be seen to be believed.

Basically, an entire community of gays is defending the idea that gays have the right to sexually harass whomever they wish and that straight men should just shut up and take it.

And, by the way, for those who are trying to argue that the San Diego Fire Department can't be held accountable for the behavior of bystanders, please note: California law, specifically Assembly Bill 76, passed in 2003 as a clarification to the Fair Employment and Housing Act, specifically states that employers are liable for failure to prevent sexual harassment of their employees by customers or clients when they knew or should have known that such harassment, catcalls, or exposure to images and actions that would be considered overtly sexual and offensive was likely to take place.

And to argue that no one could expect any of that of a Pride parade is a comedy routine worthy of Jerry Seinfeld.

UP-UP-UPDATE: Now Timothy Kincaid is writing, over at Box Turtle Bulletin, that the firemen are responsible because they didn't just shut up and play along.

Had they been friendly or waved at the people who pay their salary, they might have had a different experience. Few citizens respond well to hostility and arrogance from city employees.

So remember, the next time you see that hottie down at the government desk, feel free to say whatever loud, lascivious, and perverted comment you like to him or her.

After all, the taxpayer is always right -- and they have to take it, or they'll lose their jobs.

Out For The Weekend......

and I betcha can't guess where I'm going.......