Customer Assistance
Mercedes Benz USA
P.O. Box 350
Montvale, New Jersey 07645
Dear Sir or Madam;
Last December I traded in my 2008 C300 for a 2012 E350 Bluetec. I’d wanted a Mercedes-Benz diesel sedan since I was a teenager, and I have been delighted to own this car ever since I drove it off my dealer’s lot.
One important reason I have wanted to own a diesel is I enjoy taking long, cross-country road trips. The longevity and fuel economy of a diesel was very attractive to me for this purpose. Already I have put nearly twenty-three thousand miles on my E350, mostly from driving up and down the east coast from Baltimore to Florida, the Keys and back. The car is a pure pleasure to drive over long distances.
I have been planning to give my car its first trip to California around Christmas to visit family. But now I have grave concerns about driving this car across the midwest. Recently I learned the corn growing states in the midwest have decided to make biodiesel in grades above that allowed in my car more widely available. I have read that in the state of Illinois for example, due to changes in their tax code that make it more economically attractive, B20 is now almost all there is for sale at diesel pumps.
This is alarming to me. I understand, and you have made it perfectly clear, that this grade of biodiesel will void my car’s warranty. Even were the car out of warranty however, my intention is to always follow Mercedes guidelines as to maintenance and service intervals. This is my dream come true car and I am going to take care of it. If B20 is all that is available to me in the mid-western USA, then that would make it nearly impossible to drive this car to California from Maryland, let alone drive around all the backroads and scenic highways of the midwest just to see what’s there. And if this situation spreads to other states, especially along the east coast, I may end up unable to drive the car anywhere, other than locally, and then only so long as regular diesel or biodiesel no greater then B5 remains available to me somewhere I know I can get it.
I am reading that biodiesel advocates say consumers should not be worried about the spread of B20 because, as they put it, all domestic makers of diesel engines have approved it for use. That may be true, but as I understand it those are all makers of trucks and truck engines. There are currently no domestic makers of diesel powered passenger cars, and as near as I can tell every company importing diesel passenger cars says that using biodiesel in percentages greater than B5 will void their warranties. So I fail to understand how they could implement these biodiesel policies not knowing they would profoundly impact drivers of diesel passenger vehicles.
Q: We recently purchased a BMW X5 diesel SUV. The manual states that that diesel fuel cannot be over five percent bio or the warranty would be voided. However, in Illinois about the only diesel fuel available is 11-20% bio. Also, we need a couple of Mercedes diesel Sprinter vans. The dealer stated that their mechanic said it was okay to use B11 to B20 bio fuel. When asked about their warranty they also said that Mercedes can void the warranty if you use over 5% bio fuel. Both the BMW and Mercedes dealers say its okay to use 11 to 20% bio. However, when we asked them if BMW or Mercedes would agree to honor the warranty they both said no. Fortunately, we didn’t by the Mercedes sprinter vans. However, we can’t understand how BMW can sell diesel cars in Illinois without disclosing the fuel is not readily available in Illinois. Do we have any recourse? — G.H., Northbrook, Ill.
A: We contacted both BMW and Mercedes-Benz with your question. Although BMW has not yet responded, a spokesman for Mercedes said that valued customers will be “…taken care of for any unforeseen technical challenges that may or may not occur in a variety of cases or scenarios.” In other words, if anything happens to your diesel engine, it will be handled. Frankly, we would be surprised if any carmaker’s service department would go through the trouble of analyzing the fuel used.
This does not sound right, so I decided to write you directly about it. Mr. Weber seems to be saying in his column that even though the owners manual on my car states that only B5 can be used, you have told him that owners of Mercedes-Benz Bluetec diesel automobiles need not worry about using it because if anything happens to the engine we will be “taken care of” and (his words) “it will be handled”. I suspect the handling of it consists of our paying the repair bill out of pocket because our warranty has been voided. I also suspect that determining whether engine or emissions control failure was caused by the use of biodiesel in concentrations greater than B5 would not take too much analyzing on the part of any trained Mercedes mechanic.
Please let me know whether Mr. Weber is giving an accurate account of Mercedes-Benz USA policy toward the use of B20 in its vehicles. Also, please let me know what Daimler is doing to address the problem that is developing here in the USA for customers of its diesel passenger vehicles. I appreciate that this is a situation is being forced on you, and your customers, by these midwestern states. But if this it spreads beyond them and nothing is done your customers may find themselves one day soon with wonderful and expensive automobiles that they cannot drive because they cannot find acceptable fuel for them, nor will they be able to trade them in for cars that they can fuel without worry because they will be worthless.
In the meantime, can I suggest Daimler, and perhaps the other diesel passenger car makers could join forces on this, make available either a web site or a directory of some sort with locations where drivers can find fuel that meets their car specifications? I realize the difficulty in maintaining one, but something that could be used while on the road would be very helpful. Currently the car’s navigation system can be set to only show diesel fueling stations, but that is all of them, including those that only sell B20.
Sincerely,
Bruce Garrett
Baltimore, Maryland 21211
The letter is more polite in its treatment of midwest corn state biodiesel advocates then I am inclined to be on this blog. The level of dishonesty in their claims that B20 is nothing for consumers to worry about is stunning. You realize after reading it a for an extended period that they can get away with it because diesel powered passenger vehicles are not widely sold or used here in the U.S. compared to elsewhere in the world. Most people hearing that all U.S. makers of diesel warrant their products for B20 won’t know that they’re just talking about truck makers. No U.S. company makes diesel powered passenger cars. And people generally don’t know trucks are held to lower emissions standards then automobiles, so their engines don’t need the sort of emissions control equipment automobiles do. Yes, B20 is fine to use in truck engines. In passenger car diesel engines not so much.
But its reading Bob Weber’s columns on this matter that is especially infuriating. His slipperiness on the issue just oozes off the screen. In October 2011, a year ago as this problem was beginning to reach crisis levels in Illinois, Weber penned this fragrant piece of deception…
Q: All the gas stations in and around Chicago have switched in the past month or so from a biodiesel B5 to biodieselB20. I understand that B20 fuel voids the engine warranties on Mercedes, Audi, BMW and VW vehicles. They all specify to use only an approved B5 diesel fuel. Some gas stations have even put up signage at the pump stating that fact. Now we find ourselves suddenly in a situation whereby there is no approved fuel available. So what are we diesel car owners supposed to do? — A.A., Chicago
A: Unless you plan to park your vehicle or drive around looking for B5 (5 percent biodiesel) or straight diesel fuel, you have no alternative but to use B20 (20 percent biodiesel). Engine manufacturers warranty the materials and workmanship of their engines. If there are problems caused by the fuel, they are the responsibility of the fuel supplier. That said, reputable fuel suppliers should stand behind their products and cover any fuel quality problems if they occur, states the National Biodiesel Board (NBB).
According to the NBB, “Most major engine companies have stated formally that the use of blends up to B20 will not void their parts and workmanship warranties.” Several statements from the engine companies are available on the NBB website biodiesel.org.
Yes, yes…if the B20 a fuel supplier sells does not meet its specifications or is contaminated it is that fuel supplier’s responsibility. But if it meets all the relevant specifications of B20 and you put it in your car when the car maker is clearly telling you anything higher then B5 will void your warranty, the responsible party is you…more than likely to the tune of thousands of dollars if your engine or emissions system needs fixing because you used a grade of biodiesel your car was not engineered for. And get that “Most major engine companies have stated formally that the use of blends up to B20 will not void their parts and workmanship warranties” crap. Those are truck engines. Every company making and selling diesel powered automobiles in the United States, Without Exception, is stating flatly that the use of B20 Will Void Their Warranties.
Q. I read Sunday’s article. I work for FedEx Express as a technician. We just went through 2012 Mercedes-Benz Sprinter (commercial truck/cargo van) training. We were told by the Mercedes-Benz boys that if you by a CDI (capacitor discharge ignition) diesel vehicle in Illinois you are required to sign an engine warranty waiver due to the fact you can’t buy B5 in Illinois. It’s worse in other states, Minnesota being one off the top of my head with B20 or higher biodiesel.
As usual the politicians in the corn states are dictating policy. No one really knows the ramifications of the ethanol additive. But apparently Mercedes-Benz is not willing to chance it.
Dig it. Daimler, the world’s biggest manufacturer of heavy trucks and buses is making its customers here in the United States sign engine warranty wavers in at least one state. How does Bob Weber, who writes for the Chicago Tribune, which last I heard was in Illinois, keep telling his readers that there is no problem, nothing to see here, move along? One thing I am really keen to see is if Mercedes USA has a different story to tell about what they told Weber. I strongly suspect there was more to that reply he got than he is saying.
And if you think this is only going to be a problem for us diesel car owners…think again…
A new blend of ethanol and gasoline may soon show up at the gas station pumps — along with mixed messages on whether it’s safe to put it in your vehicle.
Motorists driving up to pumps for the new, higher-ethanol “E15” will see government-mandated orange-and-black signs that say the new fuel blend is approved for use in all 2001 and newer cars and light trucks.
Two of the biggest carmakers offer puzzling or contrary messages, right on their gasoline caps. Toyota warns on its 2012 model gas caps not to use E15. Ford offers less-explicit advice.
“When you pull up to the pump it will say you can use this, and then you turn to your gas cap, it says you may not use this — it’s going to be very, very confusing,” said Bob Ebert, service director for Walser Automotive Group in the Twin Cities.
Toyota is now selling cars here in the U.S. with gas caps that look like this:
I appreciate that fossil fuel use is unsustainable in the long run and alternatives must be developed. I appreciate that there will be difficulties going forward with that. I’ve heard it said that the switch from fossil fuels to something else will be painful, but I think “painful” is the wrong word. It will be a chore. It will be work. Fine. All life is purposeful work. We can handle this. We will find the way forward. But apart from automobile warranties and the purely engineering aspect of converting to higher grades of biofuels, there is the issue of turning farm land once used to grow food to the production of fuel instead. Last I heard, there were still hungry impoverished people here on planet earth, and taking land out of food production doesn’t strike me as a plan to fix that.
We don’t know yet what the long term alternatives to fossil fuels are. Meanwhile corn states have used their local tax codes to make high levels of it cheaper than the motor fuels used elsewhere in the U.S. and in Europe, which is having the effect of making those fuels the only kind drivers in those states can put into their cars, whether or not their cars will actually run on them without long term damage. That doesn’t seem to be concerning anyone in the corn state statehouses. Eventually though it’s going to start alarming everyone else.
Stay tuned…the clown show is just getting started…
Adding More Bullshit To Disguise The Stench Of Bullshit
The fall out, or if you will, belly flop into the gutter for Social Science Research, just keeps getting better…
Social Science Research editor James Wright published the Regnerus study without benefit of valid peer review, for which reason many scholars are calling for the Regnerus study to be retracted and for James Wright to be removed from his position. (To read some of the calls for retraction of the Regnerus study, see here, here and here).In response to the criticism for having published Regnerus without valid peer review, editor James Wright published — in his November issue — a non-peer-reviewed defense of Regnerus by Walter Schumm, a Kansas State University sociologist who was a paid consultant on the Regnerus study…
And what credentials does Schumm bring to the table…?
Schumm has a long association with the discredited anti-gay pseudoscientist Paul Cameron. He is on the editorial board of Cameron’s fatuously-named Empirical Journal of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior.
Is Your Problem That You Don’t Get Math, Or You Don’t Get Democracy?
So Romney is complaining that president Obama won because he promised the hoi polloi a lot of gifts. But Romney was no slouch in that department either…promising even bigger tax cuts to the rich, less oversight of Wall Street and the finance industry. So Obama promised gifts to the 47% and Romney promised gifts to the 1%. So the reason Obama won is 47 is greater then 1. Or in other less cynical words, you win elections by appealing to more voters then the other guy does.
I think the complaint here is that elections are still too fair to suit republicans. Or maybe democracy.
Not going to link to them, but Politico is repeating the babble of some republican nutcase in Maine who can’t figure out where all the darkies were coming from on Election day…
The head of Maine’s Republican Party is claiming unknown groups of black people showed up in the state’s towns and cast ballots on election day.
“In some parts of rural Maine, there were dozens, dozens of black people who came in and voted on Election Day,” Charlie Webster told Portland, Me.’s NBC affiliate on Wednesday. “Everybody has a right to vote, but nobody in town knows anyone who’s black. How did that happen? I don’t know. We’re going to find out.”
Psst…hey Charlie…one of these days why not take a wee stroll outside your little all-white Maine neighborhood over to the colored side of town? Wow…didn’t know all those people were there did ya?
…We Admitted That Our Lives Had Become Unmanageable…
Put the bottle down. Please. For everyone’s sake…
The polls were not skewed. Nate Silver was not making things up. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. He did not raise taxes. The unemployment figures were not faked. Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction. Climate Change is real. Evolution is real. FEMA is not building concentration camps. Christians are not being treated like Jews were in Germany in the 1930s…
How the man who, while editor of the Dartmouth Review, penned a racist parody of African American students titled “This Sho Ain’t No Jive Bro” and later outed a gay student using stolen mail between members of the Dartmouth Gay Student Alliance can in any sense be labeled a Christian is something confederate christianists can explain I suppose. But here it is again: the righteous anti-gay moralist getting caught with his pants down around his morals.
Self-hating closeted gay people and anti-gay fundamentalists have this in common: they’re both so busy fighting the homosexual menace they never develop the skills necessary to honorably manage their own sexual desires. And every time they fail miserably at it they double down on their fight against the homosexual menace.
Just Because I Talk Like A Bigot And Think Like A Bigot That Does Not Make Me A Bigot
Here in Maryland this election year, my heterosexual neighbors will be deciding whether or not their gay neighbors can get married. Oh, gay Marylanders can vote on it too…all possibly two to ten percent of us depending on who you ask are the percentage of homosexuals in a given human population. On the one hand homosexuals are a small minority whose needs can be easily and casually erased by the heterosexual majority with a simple flick of a voting booth button. On the other hand we are a terrifying threat to civilization itself.
One of our local numbskulls…no not Don Dwyer…state delegate Emmitt Burns (note: a Democrat), threatened Baltimore Ravens players for speaking out in favor of same-sex marriage. This prompted another NFL player, Chris Kluwe, to pen a scorching hot missive back at Burns, wondering in part…
Why do you hate the fact that other people want a chance to live their lives and be happy, even though they may believe in something different from what you believe, or act differently from you? How does gay marriage affect your life in any way, shape, or form? Are you worried that if gay marriage became legal, all of a sudden you’d start thinking about penis? (“Oh shit. Gay marriage just passed. Gotta get me some of that hot dong action!”) Will all your friends suddenly turn gay and refuse to come to your Sunday Ticket grill-outs? (Unlikely. Gay people enjoy watching football, too.)
All in good fun…right? Burns backed off a tad, allowing that even football players can speak their mind from time to time. But of course the kook pews couldn’t let the matter rest there. It was starting to look like the most manly of sports was open to the idea of gay people being something other then human garbage. So out comes another Ravens player, Matt Birk just to prove that football hasn’t entirely succumbed…
I think it is important to set the record straight about what the marriage debate is and is not about, and to clarify that not all NFL players think redefining marriage is a good thing.
The union of a man and a woman is privileged and recognized by society as “marriage” for a reason, and it’s not because the government has a vested interest in celebrating the love between two people. With good reason, government recognizes marriages and gives them certain legal benefits so they can provide a stable, nurturing environment for the next generation of citizens: our kids.
Children have a right to a mom and a dad, and I realize that this doesn’t always happen. Through the work my wife and I do at pregnancy resource centers and underprivileged schools, we have witnessed firsthand the many heroic efforts of single mothers and fathers — many of whom work very hard to provide what’s best for their kids.
But recognizing the efforts of these parents and the resiliency of some (not all, unfortunately) of these kids, does not then give society the right to dismiss the potential long-term effects on a child of not knowing or being loved by his or her mother or father. Each plays a vital role in the raising of a child.
Marriage is in trouble right now — admittedly, for many reasons that have little to do with same-sex unions. In the last few years, political forces and a culture of relativism have replaced “I am my brother’s keeper” and “love your neighbor as yourself” with “live and let live” and “if it feels good, go ahead and do it.”
The effects of no-fault divorce, adultery, and the nonchalant attitude toward marriage by some have done great harm to this sacred institution. How much longer do we put the desires of adults before the needs of kids? Why are we not doing more to lift up and strengthen the institution of marriage?
Same-sex unions may not affect my marriage specifically, but it will affect my children — the next generation. Ideas have consequences, and laws shape culture. Marriage redefinition will affect the broader well-being of children and the welfare of society. As a Christian and a citizen, I am compelled to care about both.
I am speaking out on this issue because it is far too important to remain silent. People who are simply acknowledging the basic reality of marriage between one man and one woman are being labeled as “bigots” and “homophobic.” Aren’t we past that as a society?
Don’t we all have family members and friends whom we love who have same-sex attraction? Attempting to silence those who may disagree with you is always un-American, but especially when it is through name-calling, it has no place in respectful conversation.
A defense of marriage is not meant as an offense to any person or group. All people should be afforded their inalienable American freedoms. There is no opposition between providing basic human rights to everyone and preserving marriage as the sacred union of one man and one woman.
I hope that in voicing my beliefs I encourage people on both sides to use reason and charity as they enter this debate.
You can almost hear him pleading with his readers to pay attention to all that I Am Not A Bigot hand waving at the end and not the fact that an editorial against same-sex marriage ending with a call for reason and charity had absolutely none of either of those things to offer.
How much longer do we put the desires of adults before the needs of kids?
Chris Kluwe shot a response back that pretty well sums it up:
The only impact same-sex marriage will have on your children is if one of them turns out to be gay and cannot get married. What will you do (and I ask this honestly) if one or more of your kids ends up being gay? Will you love them any less? What will your actions speak to them, 15 years from now, when they ask you why they can’t enjoy the same relationship that you and your wife have now? And if your response is “We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it”, well, for a lot of people that bridge is here right now. They’re trying to cross it, but the way is barred…
But pay attention to how reliably that Save Our Children rhetoric pops out of their mouths. When you see this, it’s a red flag, because as Kluwe says, some kids are gay. What you’re seeing there isn’t about kids at all, it’s about the old slander that homosexuals are child molesters. Birk isn’t thinking about the welfare of gay kids when he argues that same-sex marriage is a threat to children because there aren’t any gay kids. Nobody is born gay, they’re recruited into it. It’s knowledge so deeply ingrained within him it colors everything he says throughout the editorial. There are no gay kids so I don’t have to worry about my kids being gay. I worry that they’ll be recruited into the lifestyle. I worry that homosexuality will be normalized.
That’s the problem he has with same-sex marriage. But don’t call him a bigot because…you know…he has Reasons. Just don’t ask him for any.
Marriage is in trouble right now — admittedly, for many reasons that have little to do with same-sex unions.
Er…Matt… In this entire editorial you don’t give Any reasons that have to do with same-sex unions. It’s marriages is about the welfare of children and if we let same-sex couples marry that will destroy marriage which would be a very bad thing for children. But don’t ask me why letting homosexuals get married will destroy marriage when we let heterosexual couples incapable of having children get married all the time because then I’ll have to say something like because….homosexuals! And then you’d call me a bigot and I’m not so stop trying to silence me!
I am not a bigot. I respect everyone. Even the folks whose ring fingers I want to cut off and whose lives I don’t have clue one about…
Children have a right to a mom and a dad, and I realize that this doesn’t always happen. Through the work my wife and I do at pregnancy resource centers and underprivileged schools, we have witnessed firsthand the many heroic efforts of single mothers and fathers — many of whom work very hard to provide what’s best for their kids.
Seems you never worked with any same-sex parents Matt. But you have an opinion about the fitness of their families. Why is that Matt? Where did that opinion come from if it wasn’t first hand experience knowing and being a part of the lives of gay couples and their families.
In a video for the Minnesota Catholic Conference, Baltimore Raven center Matt Birk doubles down on the anti-gay sentiment he expressed in an op-ed for the Star Tribune this week in support of Minnesota’s upcoming ballot measure that would constitutionally ban same-sex marriage.
First comes the editorial, then the video, and this was a spontaneous display of support for the heterosexual prerogative like all those Mormons coming together spontaneously to work for Proposition 8 was.
This is the Catholic church talking through a willing football player. But again…take notice of all that I Am Not A Bigot And Calling Me One Amounts To Censorship hand waving at the end. His critics aren’t trying to silence him, he’s trying to silence his critics. This is How Dare You Take Issue With My Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs You Bigot! It’s the only song they have left now apparently. The only reason people support the right of gay couples to marry is because they hate Jesus.
I encourage all Americans to stand up to preserve and promote a healthy, authentic promarriage culture in this upcoming election.
Same-sex marriage is not healthy. Same-sex marriages are not authentic. And charity is you treat me better then I am willing to treat my homosexual neighbor. And don’t be calling me a bigot simply because the only reasons I have for denying gay couples the right to marry are my religious beliefs and a knee jerk reflex that homosexuals somehow threaten my children.
Republicans have enjoyed a state-level resurgence even as they have lost — and lost big — their once commanding national majority. The GOP was once the landslide party, the party of Eisenhower ’52 and ’56, Nixon ’72, and Reagan ’84. Even Bush I’s 53.4 percent in 1988 was very respectable. Reagan’s 50.7 percent in 1980 wasn’t a landslide but still demonstrated that an outright popular majority supported the Republican. In the five elections before ’92, the GOP won popular majorities in four.
You should go read this article in full. It’s a take down on today’s republican party, not bitter, but clearly ticked off. He comes close to saying it outright: the republican party is now the party of southern christianists and wall street financial barons, locked in a deadly embrace of money and highly motivated southern tribalists each demanding fealty from republican politicians…one for their money, the other for their votes.
Because the world view of each is so self-centered, insular and disconnected they have made the nation nearly ungovernable. They have their own facts, their own news channel, their own pundits all telling them their deranged conceits are the highest wisdom. There was a time when I could hope the money guys would eventually come to their senses: economic disaster has a way of making you pay attention to reality. But as their world has become more and more infected with Ayn Rand’s poison that seems a lost hope too.
They’ll let it all burn down: the christianists because Armageddon means Jesus is coming…the financiers because they won’t stop believing in their own Atlas-like infallibility until they’re jumping out their wall street windows because they’ve lost everything and this time there isn’t any money left in anyone’s pockets to bail them out.
I really wish I knew what the answer was. But it seems all there is left to do now is ride it out to wherever it’s going, and maybe grab whatever small piece of America you can as the pieces all float past and hang on to it.
Hoisted From The Archives: You Were Played. You Were Conned. You Were Used. Some Of You Anyway. You Dopes.
Because Eugene Volokh enjoys watching laws meant to protect hated minorities being used against them, and to restate a point I made back in 2007, when Shrub the Junior was still our president…
…I would have been unable to resist saying that Republicans have shown no sign of believing in “the right to keep your own money” or in limited government or in a “strong defense”. Allowing rich people and corporations to make use of (and often ruin) public services without paying for them is not giving you “the right to keep your own money”; in fact, it’s making you pay for the things they get more use from. Limiting the power of government to protect your Constitutional rights is not “limited government”; neither is allowing a president the power to summarily deprive individuals of those rights “limited government”. Bankrupting the Treasury in order to give the DoD money it doesn’t need (and doesn’t spend wisely) while you go blow up other countries that posed no threat to the US is not “a strong defense”.
Conservatives have always supported intrusive government, they have always endangered Americans by aggravating other countries, and they have always been very happy to collect taxes from ordinary working people and use that tax money to fatten the Malefactors of Great Wealth while depriving the rest of us of our freedoms. Those same people conned a number of libertarian-minded young people in the ’70s and ’80s into believing that conservatism was liberalism and vice-versa because a few intolerant lefties went overboard in their objections to morally reprehensible expressions of racism and sexism. I would have thought these kids would have grown up by now and realized that they’re still paying taxes but under the Republicans they’re getting less for them – and that’s before the bill for all that “strong defense” comes due. How dumb they have to be to think it makes sense to be both Republican and gay after all this just doesn’t bear thinking about.
I was one of those who were conned…right up until Reagan gave me a clear understanding of what kind of government we were likely to end up with when market forces become the moral standard and the rule of law bows to the rule of money. But I think the final nail in my libertarian phase’s coffin was the reaction of many of my ersatz fellow libertarians to the supreme court decision in Hardwick v. Bowers, that upheld the sodomy laws. I heard a lot of applause for the court standing up for state’s rights, while at the same time paying lip service to the proposition that individuals should be free to have whatever sex they wanted to, as long as it was mutually consensual. How, I asked them, don’t sodomy laws violate the fundamental libertarian principles of individual freedom and freedom of association? To which I got the standard “state’s rights” reply.
Me: But…sodomy laws are wrong…they’re evil…
They: The federal government has no business telling the states what laws they can pass.
Me: But…you Do agree that state don’t have the right to trample on the individual’s liberty…?
They: The federal government has no business telling the states what laws they can pass.
Me: But…states don’t have any more right to abridge the freedoms of the people then the federal government does…
They: The federal government has no business telling the states what laws they can pass.
…and so on. That was when I realized that a lot of libertarians were merely right wing conservatives cloaking themselves in libertarian rhetoric about individual freedom when it suited them. I’ve watched them play that game ever since. And amazingly, as President Nice Job Brownie has proven, they can rip the rights guarantees right out of our constitution, eliminate the right to a trial by a jury of our peers, eliminate access even to the courts, spy on Americans and laugh at the need to get a warrant, lie the country into war, assert that the government has the right to determine what is, and what is not a family, declare same sex couples to be legally strangers before the law with no recourse to marriage or even civil unions, and wave our tax dollars in our faces before stuffing them into their cronies pockets…and those gen-X knuckleheads who bought into it during the Reagan years will still insist that republicans and conservatives are for individual rights and democrats and liberals hate freedom and are for big government.
Rubes…
Seriously…Plaintiff should have joined the International Association For Heterosexuals Who Can’t Stop Whining About Teh Gay Flaunting IT IN OUR FACES. I’ll bet Avis would have given Plaintiff a discount off any car in the lot. Double discount for the jacked up pickup truck model with the confederate flag bumper sticker that says Heritage Not Hate.
Citing their Christian faith, Mike and Mari Fuller, owners of the Waha Bar & Grill in Idaho, say they will no longer sell Pepsi or MillerCoors beer because of those companies’ ties to the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce.
Others have pointed out the list of products they still sell that also support gay equality. But the first thing that struck my inner Baptist boy about this story was…er…wait…this is a bar for goodness sakes.
The home I grew up in had no car, and when I was very young we took the bus downtown to go shopping and then walked my little legs off. I remember, and I am not kidding and not exaggerating, how my Baptist grandmother would point to the bars along our way and say “The devil lives there!”
Eventually I became a teenager and the instant some high school friends of mine gave me my first taste of illegal (for my age) rum and Coke I decided the devil might not be so bad after all. I’m a middle-aged gay man now with a taste for sugary cordials and fine tequilas. But I still count that distrust of the pleasures of drink as one of the pluses of the religious training I got way back when. It’s that little bird perched on my shoulder whenever I am miserable and depressed, telling me that there is no path to happiness in a bottle. I’d Like A Drink is fine. I Need A Drink is…ooooohhh…then you don’t get one Bruce Albert Garrett…
Unlike a reflexive distrust of sex and sexuality, a reflexive distrust of alcohol actually does have something to be said for it. Alcoholism, unlike homosexuality, really does cause health and social problems. And there is a pretty well known period in the history of this country of massive Christian opposition to the making and selling of alcohol on those grounds. So…listen…Mike, Mari…I appreciate your right to carry whatever products you choose, for whatever reason you want. But…seriously…I don’t think the Christian Women’s Temperance Union would approve of your line of work. Don’t you know how destructive alcohol is to the family and society?
First, denial. My country hasn’t gone crazy…it’s just going through a very bad patch. Then Anger. YOU FUCKERS KILLED THE DREAM I HATE YOU! Then bargaining. Maybe I can just ignore everything and pursue my job and my art and find peace and happiness that way…
RUSH LIMBAUGH: Have you heard, this new movie, the Batman movie — what is it, the Dark Knight Lights Up or something? Whatever the name of it is. That’s right, Dark Knight Rises, Lights Up, same thing. Do you know the name of the villain in this movie? Bane. The villain in the Dark Knight Rises is named Bane. B-A-N-E. What is the name of the venture capital firm that Romney ran, and around which there’s now this make-believe controversy? Bain. The movie has been in the works for a long time, the release date’s been known, summer 2012 for a long time. Do you think that it is accidental, that the name of the really vicious, fire-breathing, four-eyed, whatever-it-is villain in this movie is named Bane?
“Eight years was awesome, and I was famous and I was powerful. But I have no desire for fame and power anymore,” he said in a new interview with the Hoover Institute’s Peter Robinson.
Then acceptance. I live in a country that has gone completely fucking nuts and the more it drives me crazy the more I fit in.
The Sexual Degenerates Are In Your Bathroom Mirror…Looking Back At You…
Jesus’ General (an 11 on the manly scale of absolute gender) points us to a discussion about women wearing pants, which Thinking Housewife regards as a despicable feminist renunciation of feminine femininity, and quotes Thinking Housewife Contributor Jesse Powell thusly…
If there was a general societal norm that men wore pants while women wore dresses it would be very clear that there was a difference between the sexes.
To which my low key apologetic libido says…
Or a guy’s ass. Seriously…pants make it easier to tell a person’s sex. If both sexes are wearing pants it would not typically be very difficult to identify the sex of the person wearing them. I admit you can still occasionally be fooled. I once mistook a gal named Martha for a guy and no she was not big and ugly, she was lithe and handsome and very very cute. But she had small hips and butt for a gal, and she liked wearing big floppy jackets so I never got a good look at her breasts and it threw me. But that’s not the usual case. The usual case is it’s pretty obvious.
But you’d only know that if…you know…you ever looked carefully. In the A Coming Out Story episode above the joke is I was only looking at guys. Little teenage me grew up without much of an interest in girls and tons of interest in guys and it showed, to my embarrassment whenever it was pointed out to me, in my artwork. The joke here I suspect is we’re witnessing more firsthand evidence that a childhood drenched in right wing sexual mores result in grown adults with pitifully arrested sexual development. If you need gender restrictions in clothing and dress in order to tell the boys from the girls it isn’t society that’s sexually degenerate.
Oh I know…I know…it isn’t that they can’t tell the difference…it’s that clothing as a personal expression of beauty and sexuality is a symptom of evil taking of joy in life. The clothes you wear should remind you of your place and reenforce keeping you in it. More then a uniform, clothes must be a prison within which, hidden and contained, is the shameful flesh, within which is doubly imprisoned the damnable human soul. Else the person inside might escape and have a life of their own.
A woman participating in a Hooters Swimsuit Pageant notices a video camera recording her in the dressing room. That was the excuse the owner of the camera gave to the cop who arrested him. I suspect the reason he’s never had a girlfriend is he hasn’t figured out yet how to treat women like people. Hey guy…there’s this perfectly legal thing called Pornography you can buy with lotsa lovely women willing to take their clothes off for your onanistic pleasures…
I read about this on Fark, read the comment hilarity that followed, and cringed inside.
There’s a flashback scene at the end of The Detective, where the William Windom character (Colin MacIver), a closeted self hating homosexual (who turns out (naturally) to be the real killer the Frank Sinatra character was looking for all through the movie), confesses the killing to his shrink in a sickening display of the kind of acid self hatred Hollywood was only too happy to tell everyone was the natural state of homosexuals.
It begins with MacIver walking back to his car with his girlfriend. They’re assaulted by robbers who call MacIver a faggot. Somehow this causes him to go looking for sex with another guy. You have to remember this is 1960s Hollywood being all edgy and gritty now that they can take on taboo subject for mass entertainment and ticket sales. Even though he has a girlfriend, MacIver is really a sick and pathetic queer and the encounter with the thieves triggers his perversion and now he has to go get him some cock even though the very thought disgusts him. MacIver tells his shrink: “The thought of turning…of turning involuntarily into one of them frightened me…and made me sick with anger.” Nonetheless he promptly drives down to the docks for a quickie. Because queers can’t help themselves.
“I went down there. I had heard about the waterfront. People giggle and make jokes about it. I had had only two experiences before…once in college, once in the army. I thought I’d gotten it out of my life…but I hadn’t.”
Experiences. Experiences. Homosexuals don’t love, they just have sex. Anyway, it all builds up to MacIver going to the docks, then to a gay bar, walking slowly past every homosexual stereotype in the Twentieth Century Fox prop department, all leering back at him archly. Because homosexuals always look back at you archly.
“I looked at them. Was this what I was like? Oh my god…”
He stares in horror at the “twisted faces”…but he can’t help himself. He’s just gotta have some cock tonight…
“And here I was and I couldn’t do anything about it. I couldn’t stop. I thought if I could have just one night, I could get it out of my system. Just one more time…”
Just one more…experience…
Oh that poor pathetic faggot…pass the popcorn… It’s bullshit…yes, sane people these days understand that. But that was the accepted view of homosexuals back then, back when I was growing up, and what angers me about this film and that sequence in it is thinking about all my generational gay peers who accepted that this was what it was to be a homosexual; that they could either try as desperately hard as they could to overcome their “condition”, become straight or live their lives as pathetic faggots or psychotic killers, either way spending the rest of their lives loathing the person they were. Because a man having sex with another man was the most disgusting thing you could imagine, and to desire such a thing even if you never acted on it meant that you were the most loathsome thing there ever was. This is what Hollywood taught them about themselves, it’s what Hollywood taught their parents, their siblings and all their friends…and mine: to look at us with the same disgust and contempt with which MacIver looked upon himself.
This is what I grew up on. This was pretty much the constant barrage from the culture around me about homosexuality. And it’s a big reason why, when I finally came out to myself, I swore I wasn’t going to live my life in the closet. Never mind the “Twisted faces” MacIver stared at with equal parts horror and desire that sickened him. At least they knew what they were about hanging out there. I’d fallen in love…I knew what I was and what I wasn’t. The ugly stereotypes of homosexuals didn’t frighten me because I knew I wasn’t that and for the honor and dignity of the one I loved I would never become that…nor would I allow myself to become a self hating basket case, horrified by my own sexuality. The twisted face I was afraid of becoming, resolved never to become, was MacIver’s.
So I dug in my heels and lived an honest life. And for that I can take some pride. And yet…and yet… I never found my other half. And in the background of my life was another twisted face, another pathetic stereotype that I am still, deep in my heart, afraid of.
“Man to man, I did it because I’ve never had a girlfriend.”
It’s illogical, it’s irrational, I am simply not the sort of person who would ever do what this guy did. I dallied with gay pornography back when I was younger and found I didn’t even really like that all that much. Yeah, there were lots of very attractive hot bodies in it. But there was no romance. I am just not voyeur material. Sometimes I sit down to my drafting table and I draw myself a fantasy boyfriend and dream on him. That’s about my speed. I could never do what that guy did. Certainly not to someone I thought was beautiful. Desire should awaken something more noble in a person then that or it’s just empty greed.
But I have been single for so very very long and I read these things and get depressed. Is this what the rest of my life is going to look like? Is this how others see people like me? Alone. Single. Old. Creepy. How do you get to be fifty-eight years old and you’ve never had a boyfriend? There must be something wrong with you. Sometimes I wonder now, if maybe there is after all. And I read stories like this about creepy single guys and I cringe inside.
“I looked at them. Was this what I was like? Oh my god…”
In the 1950s Evelyn Hooker realized that all extant studies of homosexuals were conducted on homosexuals who had been imprisoned for sex crimes, in therapy or committed to mental institutions, and so they were concluding homosexuals were sick because they only studied sick homosexuals. Her 1957 study, The Adjustment of the Male Overt Homosexual was the first to systematically examine homosexual men who weren’t in prisons or mental institutions or undergoing therapy and, surprise, surprise, discovered that if you study gay men the same way you study straight men they look pretty much alike.
In 2012 Mark Regnerus studied broken families with gay people in them, compared them to intact families headed by heterosexuals, and concluded that gay people make lousy parents, thereby proving that the religious right wants social science and the view of gay people to stay back in the early 1950s.
The more things change, the more they stay the same…
This blog is powered by WordPress and is hosted at Winters Web Works, who also did some custom design work (Thanks!). Some embedded content was created with the help of The Gimp. I proof with Google Chrome on either Windows, Linux or MacOS depending on which machine I happen to be running at the time.
