 | |||||||||||||||
|
 |
|
2:28 am EDT 43°F (6°C) in Ottawa, IL
Calendar of Updates | On that note, the East Coast will be seeing some of the strangest autumn weather it has had in 15 years. The Unnamed Hurricane of 1991 (a.k.a. the “Perfect Storm”), which inspired a book and later a feature film starring George Clooney, formed under atmospheric conditions eerily similar to those seen in the past few days: a sharp cold front driving cold Canadian air deep into the Carolina Piedmont and southern Appalachians, colliding with the extra-tropical remnants of a late- season tropical storm coming up the coast from Florida. In 1991, that collision occurred just off the New England coast, and after it drifted eastward toward the southern Newfoundland coast, the system reached hurricane strength and caused the infamous Andrea Gail shipwreck featured so prominently in the aforementioned book and film. The storm turned to the south and then the west, making a beeline for New York (and passing within 70 miles of Nantucket Island, MA) before taking a southward turn about 100 miles off Montauk Point, NY. After skirting the coast as far down as Virginia Beach, VA, it would turn back out to sea, heading almost due east to a point about 400 miles northwest of Bermuda, and eventually make another turn to the north, crossing its earlier path and finally making landfall in Nova Scotia on November 2. People who live in coastal areas of central and southern New England insist to this day that they have never seen weather so horrible as what they experienced on October 29-30, 1991. Could we see a repeat? The weather conditions are right, and we’re at basically the same time of the year, so anything is possible — although I doubt any future storm will follow the extremely strange path taken by the 1991 storm. That path, which roughly resembles a figure-eight, had to be some kind of freak meteorological occurrence — I mean, under normal conditions, the prevailing winds in the North Atlantic should push storms toward Europe and not take them on such a circuitous path off the North American coast. I read something a couple days ago that I think really gave me a lot of insight into the mind-set of so-called “fundamentalist ‘Christians’” and the anti-Christian bullshit they spew about gay people and homosexuality. Richard Wilkins, a law professor at Brigham Young University in Provo, UT, put out this article on his web site back in June 2003, as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court was carrying on deliberations in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the landmark case that legalized same-sex marriage in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. (Not surprising — he’s a Mor_on, or a member of the Church Against Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Satanists.) Toward the end of that essay, Wilkins argues that only procreative sexual activity — i.e., a man fucking a woman on the day she ovulates — can be considered to be anything more than “a purely sensory experience” (and by extension that, for that reason, government needs to put a giant “NO HOMOS” sign up on the door of the marriage “club”). OK, let’s cut through the rhetoric and examine that statement. Wilkins is saying (by implication) that he believes gay people are nothing more than six-foot-tall walking and talking penises. In his empty skull, gay people are apparently some bizarre combination of the Scarecrow and Tin Man characters from The Wizard of Oz: no brains and no hearts, only priapic penises and pairs of testicles struggling to keep up with the demand for more HIV-infected sperm. I mean, that next load has to be ready to be ejaculated in an hour, right? Such dehumanization of gay people proves how wrong these idiotic child-fuckers are. (Yes, that’s right, there is still polygamy and rape of underage girls occurring in a non-mainstream offshoot of the Mor_ons.) Let me pose this question to my heterosexual, married male readers: do you honestly think of your wife as being nothing more than a vagina? Are you seriously telling me that your wife doesn’t give a rat’s ass about her job, gardening, politics, news, interior decorating, your kids, or anything at all besides her own sexual pleasure? Absolutely not. You know that your wife has hundreds of hobbies, interests, and priorities that come way before sex — so what the fuck makes you think I, or any other gay person for that matter, would be any different? How about little Johnny and little Susie from the local middle school fooling around? You mean to tell me that pre-teen sex like that is anything more than “a purely sensory experience,” particularly for the boy? What about Gramps and post- menopausal Granny down the street, assuming prostate cancer or erectile dysfunction hasn’t robbed him of his, uhm, “abilities” after 40 years of marriage? That definitely isn’t procreative, so according to you, that can’t be anything more than “a purely sensory experience,” right? Even better yet, how about married hetero couples using birth control, or just avoiding sex during the woman’s fertile time each month? That sure doesn’t seem procreative to me. All the bullshit and double-talk in the world can’t get you out of this one, so shut up and get a fucking clue about reality. (Aside: Another essay on Wilkins’ site includes the suggestion that amending the Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage would actually “strike a blow in favor of equality.” I know I’m piling on, but that is yet more evidence that these brainless twits are living in Fantasy-Land.) I am going to be taking my current load up to Tomah, WI, where Interstates 90 and 94 split to follow different paths westward toward Minnesota and the Dakotas. At some point, this truck is due for its regularly scheduled service, so I’ll have to stay all over dispatch like flies on shit until they work out a solution. |
