HumidCity

Alrighty then…

It has been a bit since I have been able to post much due to a massive over inflation of my schedule (read: work, lots of it!). I do want to take a few moments and thank reader Barnzey who has left me several comments recently.

It seems that in my prior posting about David Vitter I spread some misinformation, which I would now like to put right. I did go to De La Salle High School with one of the Vitters, and I could swear the first name was David, but it was actually Paul. I would ike to herewith retract comments made in my posts about the character of David Vitter as based on personal experience, I was remembering a sibling of his.

That said, my comments and posts about his public behaviour and his political posturing remain unaltered. Recent news has borne out my assertions of hypocracy and idiocy on his part better than anything I have written. He is, quite simply, still an utter ass and has no place in public office.

I would also like to encourage fact checking readers out there to continue to assist me by leaving comments and sources whenever they see me accidentally dispense misinformation. I will never take such comments at face value, for anyone can make an assertion with or without factual basis, but I will follow up and recent if that is required to maintain the standard of honesty I require.

Thanks Barnzey!

“I am deathly afraid that this vital emergency post-Katrina work is now
being treated like typical Corps projects that take decades to
complete,” Vitter wrote. “We will not recover if this happens.”

-David Vitter

powered by performancing firefox

Here is the latest installment in the ongoing stupidity with David Vitter. I am forced to say that my opinion of him is the same it has been since 1981, he is a buffoon. Par for the course with La. politicians. So now, weeks after congratulating me for agreeing with his assinine stance that Gay Marriage is the Uber Issue despite outr devastation, I finally got an email saying this:

Dear Mr. Williams,

I have recently learned that you received a letter from me that incorrectly identified your position on the Federal Marriage Amendment. I am deeply sorry for this mistake and wish to assure you that this is not a common occurrence, but it i s one that I strive to correct as soon as possible.

Thank you for contacting me in opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment. As you may know, the Marriage Protection Amendment, states, “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State … shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than a man and a women.” This legislation amending the U.S. Constitution would require passage by two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and Senate, and also ratification by three-quarters of the states.

I believe marriage to be a union between one man and one woman. The Marriage Protection Amendment removes the debate regarding the definition of marriage from the hands of the courts and judges and returns this decision to the American people, where I feel it belongs.

Once again, thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts on this issue. Please continue to contact me in the future about other issues important to you.

Sincerely,

Senator David Vitter
United States Senator

Aren’t form letters just precious?

Dear Mr. Williams,

Thank you for contacting me in support of a Federal Marriage Amendment. I share your concern on this issue, and I agree with you 100 percent.

You may be pleased to know that I am an original cosponsor of a Senate resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. The amendment prohibits the Constitution or any state constitution from being construed to require that marital status or its legal incidents be conferred upon any union other than that of a man and a woman.

During my tenure in the U.S. House of Representatives I cosponsored and voted for a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and woman. Sadly the bill did not get the two-thirds votes needed for passage. I am now working in the Senate to protect the institution of marriage. Like you I feel this is essential to the future of our country, and I recognize the importance marriage plays in the lives of our children.

I believe marriage to be a union between a man and a woman. This definition should be held not to enforce discriminatory acts, but to uphold the sanctity of marriage. The Federal Marriage Amendment removes the debate regarding the definition of marriage from the hands of the courts and returns this decision to the American people, where it belongs. In fact, no state legislature and no popular referendum has passed in any state allowing any other definition of marriage except as between a man and a woman. In addition over 38 states have passed legislation protecting traditional marriage. In Louisiana , our statewide referendum passed with nearly 80 percent of the vote.

Thank you again for contacting me in support of traditional families and in defense of marriage. Rest assured I will continue to fight to protect our shared Louisiana values. Once again, thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts on this issue. Please feel free to contact me in the future about issues important to you and your family.

Sincerely,
Senator David Vitter
United States Senator

Okay David, you obviously do not read the mail nor does your staff. Really makes you wonder what the real public opinion is (on anything). You sorry piece of detritus. (Sorry that word may be a bit obscure for you, try piece of sh*t it sorts better with the vocabulary you had when we knew each other).

I am going to lay another gem on Mr. Vitter, I have just agreed to do a regular column for Powers and Morrison and he is going to get a spotlight thrown on his homophobic, primitive, and ignorant behind. I am fed up to the teeth with the neocon disregard for the will of the people. The fact that I know this one makes it almost too much to bear.

Please add a comment with any documented dirt you have on my dear former classmate as I am getting my keyboard warmed up to begin serving him up a hearty helping of toxic gumbo.

For shame David, do you think the Christian Brothers at De La Salle would be proud of your disregard for your constituents and their opinions?

EDIT: My comments on Vitter seem to have unearthd a vast amount of ill will towards him on the  New Orleans LiveJournal Community (Here’s the thread)

CNN.com - Senate set to reject gay marriage ban - Jun 6, 2006 “I don’t believe there’s any issue that’s more important than this one,” said Sen. David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican.

Okay, now you have gone too far. ( Thanks to Peter Dubuque for pointing this out in his comment on my Vitter’s Vitriol post) As we sit amidst the rubble hoping not to get blown to kingdom come by this years hurricane season our most pressing worry is certainly gay marriage!

I’m sorry but this is beyond the pale. The fact that I find him to be a jackass notwithstanding, that comment alone is cause for a recall. Are we really going to tolerate this sanctimonious and self impressed fool to continue to hold office? Category Five Levee Protection! Now! To hell with the homophobia, there won’t be anyone (straight or gay) around to argue it if we all get washed away!

Contact him, tell him what you think is important.

EDIT: Here is the text I just sent him through his website’s form:

Dear David,

your comments to CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/06/same.sex.marriage/index.html) “I don’t believe there’s any issue that’s more important than this one,” were absolutely out of bounds. When New Orleans and it’s environs are devastated you cannot think of anything more important than your own homophobia? You should either step down or seriously reconsider your priorities.

You shouldn’t have to be told this, you grew up here. I know, we graduated togetehr at De La Salle back in ‘85. To show the mammoth disdain for your home required in making that statement is indicative of a disdain for your constituency that is unconscionable.

You were under intelligent in High School, but you have become a fool of the greatest caliber as an adult.

Resign,
George “Loki” Williams

Some nice commentary on the Gay Marriage Issue (federal level, not state this time) on The Washington Monthly including more pithy comments from Davey boy.

Gay marriage amendment carries new support - Yahoo! News “We’re building votes,” said Sen. David Vitter, R-La., another new supporter. “That’s often what’s required over several years to get there, particularly to a two-thirds vote.”

You know David Vitter was in my class at De La Salle back in the 80’s. We did not share many classes (I was in Advanced Placement,) but I knew him. Back then he struck me as a dumb jock with a sophomoric sense of humor and I see he has not progressed much. I guess it is not surpirsing that he is insecure enough in his masculinity to jump on the bandwagon for this divisive foolishness.
Why we are wasting time on attempting to push discriminatory BS like this when we have more pressing things, like rebuilding New Orleans and Violet and De LA Croix and Mereaux, on the docket is quite simply beyond me. Then again why Vitter is in office is beyond me as well.

Haven’t we as a nation had enough of the distraction tactics? Gay marriage, scary! Ooh look, a birdie! New Orleans needs to be rebuilt? Ooh look, a colorful birdie! Mississippi is blasted into the stoneage by Katrina? Ooh look, the colorful birdie is having gay sex! Americans have been abandoned on their own soil while the Feds consolidate their corrupt power grabs? Ooh look at the birdie *POW*, oh thanks Mr. Cheney…..

Absolutely disgusting.

EDIT: I think the following sums it up for me:

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

(Thanks to Prince of Fishes for finding this on Folafex’s LiveJournal)