Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Misguided Ardor

I have to wonder what Michael over at GayOrbit is thinking with this post.
The lengths gay couples will go to protect themselves, and how it’s not enough. Anyone that says signing contracts and entering into other agreements is all we need to do is simply wrong.

The story he links to is about the attempt being made by the heirs of a wealthy family to prevent the lesbian lover of one of them, who was legally adopted by her partner as a means of supposedly protecting the lover, from collecting on trust payouts to be made to all grandchildren -- obviously, another case of a hateful and homophobic family trying to prevent a poor helpless gay partner from receiving their legal due.

Except when you read this part.
Spado and Olive Watson aren't together anymore. They separated in 1992, and while Spado received about $500,000 from Watson, there is nothing in court records to show any arrangement beyond that.

As far as I can tell, the logic here is that, if Olive Watson and her lover would have been allowed to marry, the family wouldn't be going through the legal mess to nullify the claim of a "granddaughter" who is one year older than her "mother", hasn't been in a relationship with her "mother" for fifteen years, and about whom the "mother" apparently forgot to tell her family.

Or put differently, "Marriage will cure stupidity in gays and lesbians."

Cassie For Short

Now I know how Cassandra felt.

For those of you who had better things to read growing up, Cassandra was a princess of Troy, beloved by the god Apollo, who gave her the ability to foretell the future. However, when she chose not to shack up with him -- wise, considering Apollo practiced about as much fidelity as P. Diddy -- he cursed her in a most ironic fashion. Instead of merely taking back his gift, he let her keep it.....but made it so that no one would ever believe anything she said until it was too late.

Evidently he turned her into an iconoclastic gay conservative.

Over the past few days, each wind from the gay blogosphere has brought another clash and revelation of shocking -- SHOCKING! -- information. Chris Crain of Citizen Crain and Matt of The Malcontent have reached the conclusion that Joe Solmonese and HRC are lying to gays and are launching lavender-scented jihad against those who disagree with them. Robbie of the Malcontent has discovered that Arnold Schwarzenegger is being unfairly targeted by gay groups and that these same groups put politics first and gay rights second. Pam Spaulding of Pam's House Blend is preaching the necessity of reaching out to others of different ideologies.

On the one hand, it's great that they've figured it out.

On the other, it's not like they weren't told months, years, (what seems like) decades, and relative eons ago.

During that time, though, there was a slightly-different set of descriptions for these attitudes.
There was no one precipitating event, per se, that got you banned, even though there was indeed a "last straw" that led me to believe your antagonism against gay people and gay people's interests goes beyond anything I've seen in someone who is himself putatively gay.

Add to what I believe are your dangerous views your ever-present martyr complex, your link-whoring, your hectoring, self-righteous tone and general obnoxiousness, and it wasn't a hard call.

Or, even more precisely and clearly:
NDT has finally joined the long, proud list of (excised) bannees. Like Mike Rogers and company, he is a gay person whom ironically I believe to be dangerous to the interests of gay people.

And I assure you, those were the nicer ones.

In the grand scheme of the universe, or even in the limited corner of it that is gay issues and activism, I don't suppose these matter too terribly much; after all, I am rather a dust mote when it comes to the more titanic blogging powerhouses. One could easily argue that my lone voice, even if it had been heard, wasn't going to make much difference in terms of keeping gays from doing damaging and stupid things; after all, in our community, never has so much anti-drug and safe-sex advertising costing so much money been ignored by so many.

But it makes it very easy to understand why Cassandra went stark raving mad.

Friday, February 23, 2007

I'll Give You a Hint....

one of the guys in this picture is me. (grin)

Now I Think I See Why......

Senator Barbara "S-S-S-SENATOR Schwarzenegger?" Boxer thought it so necessary to ensure that San Francisco didn't lose any HIV/AIDS funding.

What really pains me is that I know and have worked with guys with the STOP AIDS Foundation -- wonderful, committed fellas who work hard to educate people and put the brakes on the epidemic. They do great stuff, and the workshops that NZBear mentions in his links are not (quite) as vacuous or obscene as they sound.

However, if given the choice between paying to keep babies from being born with AIDS and paying to support four-part erotic writing classes held in a sex club (yes, that is what EROS is), the babies win, hands down.

HIV/AIDS is a defining, and unfortunately enormous, aspect of the gay community. But it's time we realize that other people got sick, too; just because we were one of the first groups at the buffet doesn't mean we're entitled to hoard everything.

And The First One Bites The Dust........

Question, though....was he ever really in?

Carrying Your Own Bucket

There's an interesting discussion going on over at The Malcontent concerning Robbie's take on Arnold Schwarzenegger's actions concerning gay marriage as it pertains to California law -- namely the fact that, as I have previously reported, the existence of voter Proposition 22 blocks it. Since I am banned from commenting over there, I figured I'd talk about it over here.

Robbie's co-blogger Matt makes a provocative, albeit California-bashing, statement:
The Western states in particular — those that came into the Union later — are totally fucked up when it comes to the initiative/referendum process. Our country is based on republicanism. Why even have a legislature if you’re going to allow voters to override it willy-nilly? Legislatures aren’t perfect, but some godawful law has been made by yokel majorities across the country.

The proclivity that we Western folk have towards initiative and referendum comes primarily from one thing; we know what it's like to be ignored by politicians. Even in the United States, frontier areas, such as we once were, quite often were underrepresented and overlooked in state and Federal legislatures, due to the tendency (accidental and not quite accidental) for legislative power and representation to be concentrated in urban and metropolitan areas. Furthermore, one must remember that many of us were once part of Mexico, who was pioneering Bolivarian-style government by dictatorship and/or one-party "elected" legislatures long before Hugo Chavez ever came along.

Initiative and referendum offer a useful solution for both dilemmas. Because they draw on a cross-section of voters, not just artificial groupings by districts, referendums allow those voters who may be sympathetic with underrepresented groups on one issue, but not on others, to voice their opinion without having to throw out their current representative. Furthermore, by virtue of the fact that they bypass and supersede the elected representatives, they provide voters with a useful check and/or prod against an unresponsive or recalcitrant legislature.

Matt then makes another argument:
Further, where exactly does it say that ballot measure trumps legislature, always and everywhere? It really makes a mockery out of representative government, doesn’t it, if the people who are elected to legislate and govern have no say on matters of great import? Again, why not just disband the California legislature and turn that huge state of 30 million people into a government of Vermont-style town meetings.

I’m sorry, but just as there are idiots on the right who decry “judicial activism” (except when it suits them), I’m not going to simply abdicate the role of a legislature. If they fuck up, that’s what elections are for.

Technically, that is true; the voters always have the power to remove representatives with which they disagree in an election.

However, the supremacy of the electorate over their representatives in every respect is established in the first three words of the Federal Constitution. Not "We, the Legislature", or "We, the Judiciary", or "We, the Executive", but "We, the people". This makes it clear that the authority and power of the legislative body flows, not from the legislature itself, but from the peoples' grant of authority to it.

Second, the mere fact that the legislature can be overridden by a vote of the electorate does not mean that the legislature lacks authority; just that it lacks the authority to make decisions that bind the electorate without the electorate's consent. The fact that my boss can override decisions that I make under the authority she has delegated to me does not remove my decision-making power or mean that I have no say on the matter; it merely means that my decisions are binding if and only if my boss agrees or chooses not to contest them. The fact that Matt's decisions concerning his husband's welfare and financial affairs can be overridden by his husband does not mean that Matt does not have decision-making power or mean he has no say on matters; it simply means that Matt's power to make decisions for his husband on his behalf does not trump his husband's ability to make decisions for himself.

Most importantly, to insist that the only way voters can remove or countermand a politician is to wait for an election is to potentially tie voters' hands in the face of corrupt or patently-foolish actions. No one would suggest that voters be unable to impeach or recall elected officials with whom they disagree; thus, it is perfectly logical that voters need not wait for an election to make their will known. It then stands to reason that voters should not be constrained by the all-or-nothing proposition of removing a legislator when they can simply be given the right to countermand or override his or her orders.

All that aside, the main reason we Californians are so fond of the initiative and referendum process can be demonstrated by taking a look at our state elected officials.

Take for example, Cruz Bustamante. He started by winning a "special election" (read, "party picked him") to get into the Assembly, pingponged over to Lieutenant Governor when he was about to term-limit out of the Assembly, ran for Governor against Arnold to replace fellow Democrat Assemblyman/Senator/State Controller/Lieutenant Governor/Governor Gray Davis and lost, and then tried to run for Insurance Commissioner when he termed out of Lieutenant Governor.

Meanwhile, the reason the Insurance Commissioner position was open was because John Garamendi left it to run for Lieutenant Governor to replace Bustamante -- after having served in both the Assembly and Senate, making two unsuccessful runs for Governor, and serving two non-consecutive terms as California Insurance Commissioner, with a cushy job courtesy of the Democrat Party as Deputy Secretary of the Interior along the way.

Thus, an election in California is basically a game of shuffle-the-chairs, with the same candidates moving with relative impunity between Assembly, Senate, state officials, and dogcatchers. Once you are elected to office in California, especially if you are a Democrat, you have a job wherever you want it; the only way you can lose is to do something patently stupid, unequivocally criminal, or in defiance of Democrat special-interest groups.

As a result, we citizens of the Golden State have observed a pattern; bills that matter to miniscule-sized groups of leftist campaign contributors like standards for teaching lesbian history in school, bans on spanking, and outlawing incandescent lightbulbs are rushed through the Assembly as imperative to our survival. Little things like seismic upgrades and repairs to keep the Bay Bridge, Golden Gate Bridge, the San Francisco water supply system, and Transbay Tube from collapsing and killing/stranding millions of people....those are pushed into committee to age for another decade or so.

In short, if we want something done, we have to do it ourselves. And that's why, to an outside observer, we seem referendum-happy; it's the only way state government can be forced to do anything that benefits the state.

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Stars and Stripes Forever?

To QuakerJono of Forgotten Beatitudes, thanks......I think.

Now, if opposites attract....what does that make me?

Friday, February 16, 2007

Pre-Club Info Bites

Two interesting bits of blogosphere news for your Friday evening.

-- Matt of The Malcontent, fresh from his recent return to DC and its world of paid Democrat filth bloggers, has apparently decided that, if you can't beat 'em......join 'em.

-- Pam Spaulding of Pam's House Blend, still upset that she was not given the opportunity to remove death threats that her commentors made against anti-gay activist Peter LaBarbera, despite the three-week lag between their posting and their prior being publicized, is now complaining that supporters of LaBarbera have called her employer about the death threats, apparently in an attempt to get her sanctioned or fired -- a tactic which she has repeatedly supported when used by fellow Democrat bloggers like the aforementioned Mike Rogers.

Now, to happy hour!

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Maestro, A Little Romantic Music, If You Please....

These Words (I Love You, I Love You), Natasha Bedingfield (recommend the Lenny B Radio Mix)

Perfect song for you to play for your special other on Valentine's Day.

Britney and Me

As my husbear snidely puts it, I am a technological wizard -- as long as someone else buys it.

Seriously. From the Apple II in the corner of the first-grade classroom to the latest PeopleSoft upgrade, I've had a knack with software, hardware, middleware, and sportswear. And I AM the only person in my office not secretly terrified of Microsoft Access. But despite that, until April, I was still running Windows 98 on a seven-year-old laptop; I don't want a forty-two inch HD TV, and I think the Blackberry is a cruel joke perpetuated on humankind by some twisted soul whose outlook puts the Marquis de Sade to shame.

I call it being frugal, doing without, saving for the future. Others use the word "cheap".

At any rate, I got my first iPod at Christmas (yes, I won it, but we won't split hairs), and have been re-acquainting myself with my inner DJ and songs I used to spin and love -- melodies of life, loves, and one too many boilermakers.

There are numbers in the iTunes list where you kinda want to cover the display screen, though, and one of them is Britney Spears -- Stronger. Not exactly what you would be expecting a reasonably-butch cub to be lip-synching to, eh?

Yes, there is a back story. That song came out during the breakup of my very first long-term relationship -- which I had, naively, expected to be "the one". My friends, bless their hearts, had been subtle, nicely pointing out that we were two drastically different personalities, that our core values weren't anywhere close to each other, and that there was a very good possibility that his main interest in me had more to do with my Oaklawn apartment and my bar comps as a means of escaping his ex-wife and child in the 'burbs.

But of course, your dreams and the intoxication of first love outweigh the drab reality, the signs that get louder and louder, more and more insistent..........and before you know it, you're sitting next to a smouldering fireplace with a half-empty bag of Doritos and a box of Puffs, checking the phone for the umpteenth time to see if the ringer is still on and working......worst of all, wallowing in the overwhelming conviction that it is your fault, that you're nothing but a fat ugly geek with pimples and a peon job that no man could ever love. If you'd not been so stupid, if you'd only put out more, if you'd just given in more often, if you'd said nothing when you knew he was out catting around, he'd still be here, his arms around you........maybe if you just called, left another message, apologized again....

Britney was my lifesaver.

But now I'm stronger than yesterday
Now it's nothing but my way
Loneliness ain't killing me no more
Now I'm stronger

Here I go, on my own
I don't need nobody, better off alone
Here I go, on my own now
I don't need nobody, not anybody
Here I go.....

And with that, I learned something, a very valuable lesson that many people never do.....if you are ever to have a good relationship, you have to learn how to be happy without one.

Britney, in the off chance you're reading this...thanks.

And keep that last lesson in mind.

Sunday, February 11, 2007

Works Both Ways, You Know

As one might expect, the chattering lefties of the universe are dancing and throwing poo in joy over an alleged zinger by one of Barack Obama's spokespersons in response to criticism from Australian Prime Minister John Howard concerning Obama's anti-war stance.
(Obama spokesperson Robert) Gibbs went on to say that Howard was not in a position to be overly critical.

"If Prime Minister Howard truly believes what he says, perhaps his country should find its way to contribute more than just 1,400 troops so some American troops can come home," he said. "It's easy to talk tough when it's not your country or your troops making the sacrifices."

Really, that is a very true statement.

But one should also take Obama's anti-war stance in the same context; it was easy for him and his fellow leftists to "talk tough" about not removing Saddam and not getting after the corruption-ridden UN who was facilitating his brutality and genocide when it was Iraq and millions of Iraqis making the sacrifices for his "peace".

What makes it really amusing is that he throws public hissy fits about the US needing to militarily intervene in Darfur to stop the genocide there -- which Saddam made look like a bunch of middle-school girls spreading gossip in comparison. But then again, that's typical; the media has publicized Darfur, and covered up for Saddam Hussein.

As the Democrat adage goes, it's not the number of bodies that matter; it's the number of TV cameras.

Friday, February 09, 2007

Only In San Francisco......

can a Holocaust denier attack a Holocaust survivor -- and have it take over a week to make it into the news.

Of course, this is no surprise, given that, while no rally in The City is complete without a torching of Old Glory, desecrating the flags of terror organizations who openly state their goal is Jewish genocide brings swift and overwhelming howls of protests and demands for destruction.

I do love this town. But I quite often wish that we knew why it is so attractive to moonbats.

Hair Today, More Tomorrow

Hard to believe I missed this article.

True Courage.....

is being willing to speak out.

Especially in light of this.
Females between the ages of 16 and 24 are more vulnerable to intimate partner violence than any other age group -- at a rate almost triple the national average, according to a 2001 U.S. Department of Justice report.

About 1 in 3 teenagers reported knowing a friend or peer who had been hit, punched, kicked, slapped, choked or physically hurt by their partner, according to a February 2005 study on teen dating abuse from Teenage Research Unlimited, a national research firm specializing in youth.

Or, more troubling, this.
"No one really believed me," Sarah said. "Even though I had the bruises on my stomach, no one really cared."

Ironic Statement of the Day

as promoted (also ironically) over on Pam's House Blend:
At the meeting, LGBT finance staff and key fundraisers did sit at the Caucus table, as before, but what is different is that lately we seem to be treated solely as an ATM for the party, with our civil rights seeming an afterthought or burden.

Let's see....since the Clinton campaign in 1992 was the first to actively court gays for dollars, but then treat what gay leftists and Democrats argued were "civil rights" as an afterthought or burden, it's only taken, oh, fifteen years or so to realize the fact.

At this rate, we can expect that they might actually consider doing something about it just in time for the midterm elections -- in 2022.

But in the meantime, I offer Donald Hitchcock and his fellow Dems a bit of sage advice; if you don't want to be treated like an ATM, stop spitting out money on command.

Thursday, February 08, 2007

Self-Inflicted Inability

Money quote from today's Los Angeles Times concerning the increase of dissident views in Iran (emphasis mine):
"We are not worried about a military attack, and we are completely ready to defend our country. If they want, we can make the Persian Gulf the tomb of the United States of America," said Hamidreza Taraghi, political director of the conservative Islamic Coalition Party.

"But the United States doesn't want to do this because they cannot right now. They are weak," he said. "They don't have enough power to start another war. Lots of American politicians are against starting another war, and everybody knows this."

What a surprise; the Iranians are emboldened by the obvious fact that the party in control of Congress is absolutely opposed to using the military, regardless of the provocation.

Sort of like how brandishing a gun has no effect on a robber who knows it isn't loaded.

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Let Your Words Be Sweet As Honey

Such a pity. Really.

And if you want a good answer as to why, note the juxtaposition of a post of one of their co-bloggers defending them -- next to said blogger's attempt to explain why she left material giving someone's home address, instructions for where to situate oneself to shoot them, and a diatribe on why shooting them would be justified up on her blog for nearly an entire month.

Note in particular that she tries to mount a smear job on another blogger for not censoring his comment threads -- right after she insists that she shouldn't be held responsible for what's in hers. More entertainingly, she argues that she can't possibly read all of the comments posted to her site -- despite the fact that she never had any trouble finding mine and using them to ban me.

Of course, in her defense, apparently what made me easy to find were complaints from her frequent contributors; however, you have to wonder why not one of those commentors spoke up when someone was making death threats in her comments section.

And just in case any of you are wondering, censoring of comments is something I am disinclined to do personally; however, that will last only up until the point you start posting peoples' personal information with the clear intent of encouraging them to be harmed.

Monday, February 05, 2007

How Right, How Right They Are......

You Are The Sun
You represent the best of life - vitality, success, and and truth.You tend to have a strong, centered, balanced personality.Inspiration and discovery are your fortes. You are very mentally strong.A talented mind, you tend to excel at math, philosophy, and music.
Your fortune:
As well as you have done in the past, the future is going to be filled with more success.A new creative project is coming your way. Feed it, and it will grow into something huge.Great riches, recognition, prosperity, or happiness is coming your way.And it's possible that a fantastic vacation, or a new baby, is coming sooner than you think.

Hat tip to Jamie of I Must Be Dreaming, although I didn't dare do as did he and put in my given name. :)

All Hail the Queen

Unfortunately, I was in the South Bay yesterday with a group of bears for the "other event" and missed the main one in San Francisco.....but I was assured that it was wonderful.

And yes, it was that gorgeous of a day.

Better Humor Through Offensiveness

I can already hear the howls of outrage from the usual suspects......but you know, this was pretty damn funny.

UPDATE: Robbie of The Malcontent and GayPatriotWest of GayPatriot share their viewpoints on the commercials, the humor or lack thereof, and the attempts by the array of gay three-year-olds to make themselves relevant.

UP-UPDATE: Another good 'un from Robbie.

Sunday, February 04, 2007

Warning -- Put Down All Beverages Before Hyperlinking

Cartoonist Don Asmussen, who draws the feature Bad Reporter ("The LIES behind the TRUTH, and the TRUTH behind those LIES that are behind the TRUTH") for the San Francisco Chronicle , is, to put it mildly, inspired -- if by "inspired" you mean "deliciously sick and twisted".

When the Gavin Newsom scandal broke, I figured Don would have something good to say about it.

But this, THIS........is a masterwork.

One of these days, I must meet this man.

Friday, February 02, 2007

More of That Humongous Problem

Remember that thing I was telling you about enablement?

Here's our latest example -- from commentor "John":
Finally, the way you use your volunteering and fundraising to browbeat critics is really tiresome and calls into question your true motives for doing such work.

Yep, John, you caught me; I devote, as I pointed out previously, an enormous chunk of high-profile and behind-the-scenes time to raising money and providing vital services to the gay community for the sole purpose of being able to browbeat people in the blogosphere with the fact. Just like those vigilant leftie and Democrat gays uncovered Mary Cheney's unholy plot to cripple gaykind permanently by giving money and support to an organization fighting Virginia's state constitutional amendment.

"John" can rest assured, though, that he's in good company; despite occasional stray flashes, the illumination of what I believe and do remains, for the foreseeable future, buried under the overwhelmingly-dark, inky, and pervasive belief that gays of my philosophical, religious, and political persuasion will not be happy until we're all in slimming stripes, behind barbed wire, and merrily scattering ashes just beyond the gate that reads, "KEUSCHEIT MACHT FREI".

Evidently it satisfies something with them. And gradually, I am reaching the point of realization that it's to them what chopped liver is to my husband; something that they've enjoyed for so long, they don't realize how repulsive it is to everyone else.

Facing a Humongous Problem

In response to my post about the charming statement made about me yesterday, commentor "Eric" had this to say:
You act like a doush on those boards, and you've said much worse things. While that doesn't excuse what he said, it's really no suprise that eventually you'd build up a big backlash against you (removed links, name calling, called out on behavor, etc)

Which was followed by this, once I had pointed out that the relationship between leftist vitriol and the behavior of an individual was rather tenuous:

Unfortately, to a large degree your words ring true, but it speaks of both sides. Left and right. Intollerance can be found wherever one cares to look. All I'm saying is, try not to be an agent of it yourself, and lead by example. If it doesn't start with you, who?

Put bluntly, people who worry about me in that respect are wasting their time. Despite the nearly-constant avalanche of "Jewish Nazi" and "self-loathing" I have received ever since I began speaking publicly, never once have I threatened another person with violence or told them to commit suicide. Moreover, I have been more than willing to stand up for people whose views I loathe if I think they're being treated unfairly.

And for my trouble, I am threatened with violence, told to commit suicide, and subjected to a constant barrage of verbal abuse because of my political beliefs -- only to be told by other gays that, if I wasn't so "provocative", I wouldn't have these problems.

One of my good friends is a teacher in a very poor neighborhood in the New York City area -- dedicated, devoted to student success, and continually working to improve himself so that he can be a better educator. And he wants out in the worst possible way, for one simple reason; according to his administrators, everything bad that happens is always his fault. Students flunking, students threatening other people, students threatening him -- no, it has nothing to do with the students, it must be the fault of the teacher. Obviously he provoked them, or didn't interpret their intent correctly, or made things too hard for them, the explanations are legion; in short, even if their behavior was bad, since he obviously contributed to it, he is at fault.

Addiction therapists call it "enablement" -- when one person allows another to persist in bad behavior, even to the point of denying their own thoughts and judgments and projecting blame elsewhere, because they want to avoid short-term conflict. What is universally agreed, though, is that this rewards the bad behavior by lessening or eliminating the consequences -- and, perversely, can actually reinforce them, since the enabler allows the individual to place others at fault for the individual's actions. Hence you have public school teachers being threatened with being shot and gays exhorting other gays to commit suicide; one, because they know there will be no consequences for them, and two, because they know other people who they don't like will be yelled at or punished for "causing them to misbehave".

The annoying thing is that these schoolchildren grew up, became gay, and continued blithely on their way, convinced that there was no behavior so vile or awful that it couldn't be blamed on someone else's provocation.

And as Eric's comment shows.....they're right.

Making a Tiny Difference

As frequent readers know, I take a lot of sh*t from other gays, both metaphorically and literally, because of my viewpoints. What's sad on several levels is that being told I should commit suicide is among the kinder of them; at least if I killed myself (or the blog), I wouldn't have to put up with the constant screams of "Jewish Nazi" and "self-loathing", or the insinuations that I hate gay people and gay peoples' interests.

But there are times when it is actually worthwhile.....and this was one of them.

That's a nice way to start a weekend....and I hope it's a trend.

Thursday, February 01, 2007

Thank God That's ALL He Did

I was going to hold off on commenting about this since the rumors over the past few days have smacked of tabloidism, but it's now official; San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has admitted to an affair with a staffer's wife.

Public reaction is mixed, but generally favorable, which I attribute to two things:

1. Newsom cut to the chase, admitted what he had done, and apologized.

2. Our standards for mayoral behavior fall well below merely having an affair.

Today's Expression of Love......

for those like myself who have a regular tendency to disagree with gay dogma.
Try a .357 to your ear canal to clear that out, you'd be doing us all a favor.

The source of ironic amusement from this comes from the fact that I was de-linked from said blogsite a few weeks ago, most probably for being too controversial in my comments; the proprietors never provided an explanation.

Sometimes I fantasize about what I could get away with -- telling people to commit suicide, hoping that mothers have deformed babies and be rendered infertile in the process, for example -- all for changing my voting registration.

UPDATE: It gets better.