March 09, 2004

How Can She Be THAT Ignorant?

I really shouldn't even waste my time on this, but it's just too entertaining to ignore. Thanks to Insignificant Thoughts, I found this load of pure, unadulterated idiocy from Barbara Streisand.

Things like this are part of the reason I want to be a screenwriter/director: Celebrities. Are. Dumb. But unfortunately, people listen to them, and that's why we need some balance on the Left Coast.

Anyway, let's take a look at her latest thoughts on "equal rights" and the current administration's policies:

"How can anyone legislate who you can love?..."

Wow! Strike one! And on the very first pitch of the game, too! Since when can you not love someone unless you're married, idiot?


Man marries woman. Woman marries man. Where is the inequality?

Remarks by Barbra Streisand Upon Her receipt of The Human Rights Campaign Humanitarian Award, March 6, 2004

That^ is why things like this need to be covered. People. Actually. LISTEN.

I have been fortunate to receive a few awards in my lifetime, and I always appreciate them, but I must say that this is a very special one because the gay community has supported me from the very beginning.

There's one stereotype proven true...

I know that this is a challenging moment in your history. So I am very proud to accept this award from the Human Rights Campaign at this time.

Why are they called the "Human Rights Campaign," anyway? Are homosexuals the only humans now?

You are on the frontlines in the struggle for equal rights, even as continued prejudice stands in the way.

See previous comment on equality. Laugh at stupid celebrity. If necessary, rinse and repeat. Now, let's move on:

The American Constitution is a magical document that has evolved over 200 plus years.

Wow. Let's analyze that statement: The Constitution is a "magical document," despite the fact that magic isn't real. Interesting. It's also apparently an evolving document, despite the fact that evolution=change, not addition. Wow.

While we revere it, it did not start out as a perfect document. This Republic was founded with a Constitution that counted slaves as three-fifths human. It took decades and a Civil War, the deadliest in U.S. history, to erase that stain upon our country. It took over 100 years to bring women into the political system by giving them the right to vote. Interracial marriage was illegal in some states until 1967.

Aaaaaaaand drum roll please...CUE THE MORAL EQUIVALENCY!!!!!

Now the Bush Administration wants to change the positive inclusive direction of our Constitution by calling for an amendment that authorizes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The amendment would not say "gays and lesbians cannot marry." It will say "marriage is between one man and one woman." Sorry, no sexual orientation included. Nimrod.

Well, I say, no way.

Well, if you say so, I guess the legislative process can go f**k itself (does the Constitution give it the right to do that?). Singers always know what's best!

Dr. Martin Luther King taught us that the arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice.

Of course. You liberals ALWAYS fight for justice against the eeeeeeeevil conservatives, right?

We must always go forward, towards greater liberty and greater equality, not backward.

Never mind the fact that this is leading toward personal and religious expression being considered "hate speech" like in Canada. "Bigots" don't count in the human rights equation!

You know, for me, the realization that two people should have the right to form a sacred union regardless of their gender was strengthened when I saw a performance of the play The Normal Heart in 1985.

If they want a sacred union, they can find an Episcopalian church, dang it. This is about a LEGAL union.

After feeling the love those two men had for each other, I dare anybody not to want them to get married by the end.

I'll take you up on that. What do I get if I win? Is it money? I hope it's money.

The law cannot dictate matters of the heart.

The law DOESN'T dictate matters of the heart.

When two people form a deep bond, there is usually a soul connection, and the soul has no gender.

She's a metaphysician now, too? Impressive.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are fundamental rights in this country.

What if exceeding the speed limit makes me feel free and happy? Should I be allowed to drive 100 miles an hour in a 25 zone?

Happiness can be many things - a good meal, a good friend, a warm puppy...

Punching stupid celebrities in the face...

...and How can anyone legislate who you can love?

Has anyone ever done that? I don't think so.

That is a human right, the right to love and be loved.

I can't remember where I saw this argument (UPDATE: now I can), but I'll put it here anyway: If love and marriage are fundamental human rights, shouldn't the government appoint a spouse to those who can't find one on their own?

And when you love someone, whether you're in a heterosexual or same-gender relationship, shouldn't you be able to visit them in the hospital when they're sick or dying?

I'm pretty sure there are ways of doing that.

Shouldn't everyone have the right to enter into a loving, legally binding, committed relationship that takes on special responsibilities and obligations?

Loving, yes. Legally binding, no. Does that answer your question?

Current civil union legislation doesn't go far enough in protecting equal rights. We must not deny gay families many of the benefits that help keep families security, pensions, veteran's support, inheritance, the right to take unpaid leave to care for a spouse...the list goes on and on.

"Gay families" aren't equal, because gender isn't equal. How hard is this to understand?

Instead of helping families, this president wants to spend a billion and a half dollars to bolster marriage. Turning government into a marriage counselor is a joke...a waste of time and money. It's not a policy; it's a diversion.

Why don't we get government out of marriage entirely, then? It seems you're on both sides of this one.

But this administration regularly uses the politics of diversion to their advantage. They cleverly use divisive cultural issues to avoid talking about other serious problems, such as unemployment and healthcare.

I didn't know Gavin Newsom and George W. Bush were the same person, because that's the only way you could blame Dubya for "divisive cultural issues." By the way, healthcare and unemployment have been discussed A LOT. Were you too busy signing autographs to notice?

They go after Saddam because they can't find bin Ladin...

Holy crap, she misspelled bin Laden (actually, she probably isn't literate enough to have typed this herself). AND she still thinks she can read the president's mind. I think I'm losing brain cells from reading this. Wait, what me say?

...They want to send missions to Mars instead of protecting the Earth... Tax cuts for the wealthy instead of assisting the poor...

Last time I checked, creating jobs did a lot more for assisting the poor than throwing government checks at them and leaving them in the gutter.

You have to look at what Bush does, not what he says.

"Bush lied! Rights were denied!"

Talk is cheap.

"That's why I sing!"

He expresses empathy for military families and then cuts their benefits...He names a proposal "The Clear Skies Initiative" that pollutes the planet...

On purpose, I'm sure. He is evil, right?

He says he'll be a uniter and then drives us apart...He steals the slogan "No Child Left Behind" and then breaks his promise to fund his reforms.

She's accusing him of driving us apart even as she contributes to the divide by pretending to know what she's talking about. Nice.

Truly, I stand here flabbergasted at what is going on in today's world.

"It's so big and confusing and shiny and colorful! What ever shall I do with my tiny mind? I'd better let the government spoon-feed life to me, because I can't handle myself!""

Never in my life have I witnessed a president and an administration that is so out of step with the needs of the country, so threatening to our future and so abusive in its use of power.

You probably weren't paying attention until now, or you would've "witnessed" a lot.

The Clinton administration left this country with a budget surplus, and also a surplus in the goodwill we shared with our allies.

"Here, China, have some missiles."

Now we have a deficit in both.

Oh no! People don't like us! We're not the warm and cuddly America the rest of the world felt so good about F**KIN' ATTACKING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Before the war in Iraq, I went to hear Scott Ritter speak - he had been a weapons inspector for seven years. He told us there was no imminent threat to the United States...

Interestingly, that's also what Bush told us.

...that the program to develop nuclear weapons had been dormant since 1998.

"The Saddamster said so!"

There was no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda (one is a secular society and the other fundamentalist), that chemical weapons have a short shelf life and wouldn't be usable short, everything Scott Ritter told us has turned out to be the truth.

"What do you mean they need more time? Time is irrelevant when dealing with Republicans, because you know they're lying even before the war has started!"

But this president (the only one to cut taxes during a war) made terrorism a partisan cause.

It couldn't have anything to do with the Democrats who would rather kiss the @ss of terrorism and hope they'll forgive us for existing.

He charged Democrats with being soft on terror, a lie.

Yeah, that is practically a lie with some Democrats who might as well have been frickin' sympathetic to it.

He appointed John Ashcroft to trample our civil liberties as Attorney General...

He's done a pretty crappy job, because my civil liberties are still fine. Pick up the slack, Ashcroft!

...and, from a human rights point of view, his use of Guantanamo Bay has roused international protest.

Read this. Thank you.

Now as the president gears up for his re-election campaign, the right wing propaganda machine is ready to take the skin off of John Kerry, the Democratic Party's nominee.

"He was in Vietnam! You can't criticize him! HE WAS IN VIETNAM!!!"

I've never seen anything as ruthless or as relentless as this.

You must lead a very sheltered existence then.

They can take a slur hatched at the Republican National Committee or a lie huckstered by the Heritage Foundation, repeat it on Fox, hit it on Limbaugh, print it in the Wall Street Journal, until it's coming out of every media outlet imaginable.

"The eeeeeeeevil Republicans control the free press! CAN'T YOU SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING?!"

My one acronym answer to her charge: AWOL. I guess it's fine for the media to repeat lies directed at Bush.

Repeating lies over and over...

It sounds so childish. "LIAR, LIAR, IRAQ ON FIRE!!!!"

...doesn't make them any more true.

You've demonstrated that quite effectively.

But it does make people believe the lies a little more until finally they stop demanding the truth.

"And I'm testing that theory here tonight!"

I've seen their ferocity up close, as I witnessed the astounding assault on the CBS movie about Ronald Reagan, in which my husband starred and Craig and Neil produced.

Nope, no bias here. Tell me, when did the administration attack the Reagan movie?

They attacked that movie and drove it off network television before any of them had ever seen it.

How dare consumers dictate what they want to see! Those monsters!

The Right Wing is very well-organized.

...And that's a bad thing?

They fight dirty.

Not like those squeaky-clean Democrats!

They project their own nastiness onto their opposition.

"Much like I'm doing now!"

Remember how they accused the Democrats of stealing the election in Florida, while they themselves were doing just that!

Thank you for fisking yourself there, Babs. You just saved me 30 seconds.

We're now in a period that whenever you say something that's critical of the government, you are accused of being unpatriotic.

So where are the Ashcroft Dissent Crushing Squads™? Shouldn't they be dragging you off to the gulags for giving this speech? How did you publish it on your website without having to put a disclaimer on it saying "The following speech has been declared unpatriotic by Big Brother Johnny?"

Could it be that YOU are the liar, Ms. Streisand?

Bush even lent himself to an utterly despicable campaign in Georgia that impugned the patriotism of Senator Max Cleland, who had sacrificed three limbs in the same Vietnam War that the president ducked.

Them unattended grenades is dangerous.

Talking about patriotism, let's never forget Bush's fellow Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, who in 1918 said, "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

Give me ONE example of the administration saying that criticism is no longer allowed, and I'll purchase not one, but TWO of your albums. Come on.

Indeed, this country now faces a fundamental choice. Multilateral security or pre-emptive wars.

Assuming that "multilateral security" means "painful, fiery death."

Closing or widening the gaps between the haves and the have nots.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need..."

Facing the truth or accepting the lies.

They're listening to you, aren't they?

The public taking an interest or tuning out. Extending our rights or turning them back.

Was that a complete thought?

Mr. Bush will dress himself up as a compassionate conservative once more for the election, but he has embraced a remarkably radical policy, which I pray the public finally sees.

"Their eyes must be opened to the TRUTH! They've all been tricked!"

The mishandling of national and economic security.

"I never feel safe in my limo with my millions of dollars! What if the paparazzi find me?"

The shameless politics of special interests and crony capitalists.

"Those greedy corporate profitmongers! What gives them the right to keep what they've earned?"

(And when you talk about special interests it's important to differentiate between public interests that benefit the larger good of the people, like protecting the environment or finding a cure for cancer, versus the special interests that are limited to a particular industry or corporation, like Enron or Halliburton).

Heh. She said "larger good of the people." That's classic leftism. By the way, I've said this before, but I'm willing to bet that if Bush found a cure for cancer, the left would accuse him of doing it to benefit corporate drug companies.

Bush recently pushed through a prescription drug bill that actually gives a better deal to the drug companies than to the seniors who need the drugs.

What did I JUST say, children? I have to admit that I hadn't even read that last sentence before I wrote the cancer one (I fisk on the fly). Are they predictable or what?

And what about the new energy plan that actually increases our dependence on Persian Gulf oil (even though he recently said just the opposite in his State of the Union speech).

That should make perfect sense! If we don't depend on the Middle East for oil, we'll have no excuse to go to war and build our AmeriKKKan empire!

The Republicans...

She forgot to spit.

...will try to win the election by convincing the American public that they are the father figures who can keep us safe.

"Let's support the Democrats so we can suckle at the government mother figure's teat!"

But the facts contradict the myth.

You're referring to people who think that you have talent, right?

Two and a half years after the largest attack on American soil, our borders remain easily penetrable. We have the capacity to inspect only 2% of cargo containers coming into our country. Local law enforcement has been weakened by spending cuts, and our intelligence lacks manpower and updated technology. And which party's budget provides the most for homeland security? The Democrats!

BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! I thought the Democrats wanted to spend all the money on "universal health care!"

This president is so transparent. The only way he would agree to investigations of the mishandling of intelligence leading up to the Iraqi war, is if we wait until after the election to get the reports.

I'm pretty sure that if we get the reports BEFORE the election, and they prove that Bush wasn't responsible for the failures, you'll accuse him of using it as a partisan issue and/or forging evidence that clears him. Who's transparent now?

Has this administration no shame? What job are we not doing that has allowed them to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people?

"I don't understand politics, but I DO know that I'm right! After all, I'm famous!"

But...there is hope. It's starting to turn. I can feel it.

If Barbara Streisand feels it, it MUST be true! Save us, Babs, save us!

The media is finally asking the president and his staff the tougher questions, and looking into the issues that should have been investigated years ago. The people are speaking out at all levels from the grassroots to Washington. All of the good work so many people are doing is finally making a dent. We won't be scared into submission.

Didn't you just say that people aren't allowed to do these things anymore? Crap, the guy in Memento had better memory than you.

What should scare us is that we have no checks and balances on this administration. They control the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court.

Soooo...There are still 3 branches of government, but no checks and balances? Care to explain your cognitive dissonance?

All we have is each other.

AWWWWWWW! Let's all hold hands around the campfire!

So each of us must do what we can to create positive change in November. I know the Human Rights Campaign will be at the center of the struggle for equality.

Sure. When you create the struggle, how can you not be at the center?

And let's be smart...Let's be pragmatic...Let's not allow the Republicans to use gay marriage as a political tool in this election year.

"Since they don't agree with me, they MUST only be against gay marriage because their fundamentalist base is against it! How could any sane person actually be AGAINST LOVE?"

Truth and justice eventually wins out.

That's why Republicans are in control, genius.

I am proud to stand with you tonight as the recipient of this prestigious award. Together we can and we will win the fight.

This really makes me sad, but it also inspires me to continue my quest in life. As a future member of the media, I am dedicated to beating talking sense into people like this for the good of humanity (not to be confused with "the larger good of the people").

The battle continues.

Posted by CD on March 9, 2004 05:21 PM
Semi-Intelligent Comments

Nice fisking CD. Kinda like shooting fish in a barrel, but enjoyable none-the-less. Apt reference to Collectivism as described in Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged."

Posted by: Strider at March 9, 2004 05:51 PM

I just wanted to mention that, since bin Laden is spelled in a whole other language, with a whole other alphabet, there really is no incorrect way to spell it in English, as long as it's phonetic.

Posted by: dowingba at March 10, 2004 01:42 PM

Fair enough, but this is the first time I've seen it spelled any other way. We've gotta have standards, you know.

Posted by: CD at March 10, 2004 03:39 PM

"Man marries woman. Woman marries man. Where is the inequality?"

<sarcasm>A lot of women are hot. Almost all men look like crap. Isn't it clear women are getting the short end of this one?</sarcasm>

Posted by: Xrlq at March 10, 2004 09:02 PM

Barbara Streisand is made out of people!!!!!! Oh, and I found this site curiously enough looking for a no CD crack for Conan the Barbarian... no idea...

Posted by: Vaughn at March 11, 2004 05:18 PM

"Give me ONE example of the administration saying that criticism is no longer allowed, and I'll purchase not one, but TWO of your albums. Come on. "

"Those people out there who claim that this administration is trying to surpress descent about the war in Iraq should watch what they say."
-Donald Rumsfeld

Posted by: EvolveOrDIE! at August 25, 2004 01:27 AM
< MTCloseComments old="10" >