I don't want to make a blonde joke . . .

. . . and so I won't. But, seriously Debbie; is this your war-face?

"We've Lost"?

The US Census Bureau starts counting gay marriage as "married" on the census and we've "lost"? How does this work?

You know what, Debbie - I want to play chess with you. We can do it for money. I'm sure I could capture at least one of your pawns and, based on this evidence, you would consider the game "lost", regardless of what other victories you might have achieved!

We've lost because the US Census Bureau decides to recognise unions defined in law as marriage as marriage? How is this the complete loss your headline implies it is? Certainly, it is a disappointing (although unsurprising) setback. The fact so-called gay "marriage" is allowed and legally recognized at all is a problem and a bad thing, but it's not a "loss". At best, it is a minor kink in our plans.

So, what is my motivation in posting this? Well, it is multiple - and is partially informed by a discussion I had with a YouTuber today. So, allow me to summarize my views;

i) I am reporting this news which is (according to Debbie's article) not very widely publicised so you know about it. It is of particular interest because it is another example of the Federal Government not doing what Barack Obama said he would do; a branch of the Federal Government is now giving legal recognition to gay "marriage" while Barack Obama said he would not (he wanted "civil unions"). This is a minor issue, a minor difference between his views and Federal policy (and it is not clear if the census bureau really comes under his direct control, or if he had any input into this at all) but it might be worth watching. Now you know and, remember, knowing is half the battle.

ii) And that is a great segue to the next point; Debbie Schlussel's comments concerning words recently said by the director of G.I. Joe (remember? We were always told "knowing was half the battle" at the end of the G.I.Joe cartoons?

Okay, Debbie says that the director of G.I.Joe calls Vietnam vets "steroid users" and "disses" them. She says this in the headline, and also in the body of the article. She also quotes the director himself, which may have been a mistake.

See, I would have believed you, Debbie, were it not for the pernicious facts of the case which point out you are a liar. The director says no such thing. Here are his words;

"Right from the writing stage we said to ourselves, this can’t be about beefy guys on steroids who all met each other in the Vietnam War, but an elite organization that’s made up of the best of the best from around the world."

At no point does the director say people who served in Vietnam are steroid abusers, nor does he "dis" these loyal warriors (some of whom made the ultimate sacrifice, and all of whom suffered greatly). What he says is that his movie is not an exclusively American piece of work; it is a movie which focuses on an elite international force. He makes the statement the heroes are not steroid-using Vietnam veterans. This is a very specific denial - he could have said the movie is also not about tap-dancing elephants who form a string-quartet. However, I suppose it is an important point to make - many movies have been about warriors who met during Vietnam and who certainly look like they might have abused steroids. The director is saying this movie is not the typical, gung-ho, brainless action movie which is totally American. It is a more international brainless action movie, I guess.

In any case, at no point does the director say anything about Vietnam veterans as a group. The phrase "all Vietnam veterans are drug abusers and are not elite or the best" is missing from his statement.

It is a logical jump, Debbie, to claim he does. It is a logical jump which weakens our position.

Why am I pointing this out? I am pointing this out for many reasons - one of which is related to YouTube. We post some of our videos on YouTube and this one attracts a lot of attention. It points out that Barack Obama is anti-Catholic. Many commentators on this video have pointed out (incorrectly) that because we are opposed to Obama and say that he is anti-Catholic, we must be saying we love Republicans, agree with everything they stand for, and think they are the poster-children for Catholicism.

This is a failure in logic - just as thinking a man which points out his movie is not about drug-abusing Vietnam vets hates America.

Why am I pointing this out? Because it is a problem we can all - conservative and liberal - fall into. We must be careful we do not make logical jumps, state things which aren't true, or say things which do not necessarily follow. Republicans are very far from being perfect - they are not poster-children for Catholicism, and there are several things on the Republican platform which are anti-Catholic. This does not, however, mean the Democratic platform is not anti-Catholic.

The director of G.I.Joe has created a movie which Debbie slams before it is released - because she is the kind of person, I guess, who just wants to slam stuff. Perhaps she is right - perhaps he is violently anti-American and really does think Vietnam vets all did steroids. Perhaps he hates his country.

But, Debbie, if this is the case, we need some evidence. Can we at least do that?