Let’s imagine that we lived in an alternative universe where some of the more noxious nineteenth century pseudo-science regarding ‘inverts’ and same-sex attraction had survived into the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Let us further stipulate that the editor of a nominally liberal opinion magazine had published one purported effort to ‘prove’ via statistics that same-sex attraction was a form of communicable psychosis, which invariably resulted in national degeneracy when it was allowed to persist.
The post goes on in that vein, and the target is Andrew Sullivan and his continued trumpeting of his intellectual courage in publishing racist bullshit when he is - quite rightly - upset when nitwit Republicans use similar bullshit against anything involving TEH GAY. What interests me is Rich Puchalsky's insistence on the right way to engage:
You don’t seem to be understanding what I’m writing. I already held up two cases that serve as models for how to acknowledge someone like Sullivan. 1) Steven Jay Gould (in his engagement with Sullivan’s source), 2) the Poor Man. In short, it’s best to either be so overwhelmingly expert and well-written that anyone who looks at your reply even briefly will suspect that the person’s wrong, or so mocking and unserious that it’s clear that you’re giving no respect either to the person or the process of deliberating with him.
This blog post doesn’t match the first model because it’s not really an expert attack. It doesn’t match the second because it still treats Sullivan as someone who could conceivably change his mind or be convinced by evidence or understand an analogy that it is not in his interest to understand.
It seems to me that Henry's post demonstrates that Sullivan is plenty awful and that Rich's demand is that Sullivan be made more awfuller or that Sullivan be crushed under a big safe full of statistics. Maybe Henry should say Sullivan's a piece of shit?
I have the utmost sympathy for men and women who feel they are trapped in the wrong body. At the same time, Western society is heading in the direction of what can only be called transgender insanity, or transanity for short.
Now hang on here for a second and have a look at this:
If I was a red-faced Christian minister with a giant handlebar mousetache humping - sorry, PUMPING - a book called A Queer Thing Happened to America I might want to be careful about my word coinages, especially as regards gender issues. Transanity doesn't sound all that bad, does it? I mean, OMG THE KITTEN APOCALYPSE shouldn't be shortened to the OMG THE KITTYLYPSE, right?
Ha ha, there were several places to go with that and you should be goddamned grateful.
Anyway, back to the MEAT. Of the COLUMN. Of MEAT.
Consider these recent examples.
1) In England, two married men (and fathers) divorced their wives and began living together as a gay couple, after which they decided to identify as a transsexual “lesbian” couple (yes, male “lesbians”), after which one of the men had sex-change surgery, which makes them eligible to be married as husband and wife, even though the husband still identifies as a woman.
2) Chaz Bono recently received criticism from the transgender daughter/son of Warren Beatty and Annette Bening, born Kaitlyn but now, at age 19, known as Stephen. (Remember that Chaz, who remains female from the waist down, danced as a male on Dancing with the Stars, raising the legitimate question: What constitutes male or female?)
[...]
3) Dan Savage is a gay sex columnist and a vocal critic of traditional Judeo-Christian morals, best known today for spearheading the “It Gets Better” campaign.
Recently, he became the target of trans activists who glitter bombed him twice in November. He was branded a “transphobe” for using terms like “shemale” and referring to “freak tranny porn” (although Savage, on his part, claims that he was simply repeating words used by a questioner in his audience).
[...]
Does this qualify as transanity?
OMG three things happened - disagreements even! - and Michael L. Brown is confused and nobody got fired or ripped off or had a house reposessed or invaded a country or put their boner inside the wrong hole at the truck stop. So if it qualifies as transanity, GIVE ME SOME TRANSANITY!
Before you dismiss all this as totally fringe, remember that Chastity/Chaz Bono is a very public figure, that in 2006, New York City’s Metropolitan Transit Authority ruled that men who identified as women could use the ladies bathrooms at all subway stations, that more and more TV shows are normalizing (and even celebrating) transgenderism, and that, in one high school, a male teen was voted class queen while in another school, a female teen was voted class king.
Remember that "utmost sympathy" thing up at the top? Is being nice to people or letting them use the bathroom an especially large amount of sympathy? I feel that the "utmost" sympathy is here sliding down from ultimacy perhaps to penultimacy or perhaps penpenultimacy or penpenpenultimacy, whatever the proper amount of pen is.
And let’s not forget that Massachusetts just passed a radical transgender bill, according to which, “’Gender identity’ shall mean a person's gender-related identity, appearance or behavior, whether or not that gender-related identity, appearance or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person's physiology or assigned sex at birth.” (Yes, this is now the legal definition in Massachusetts.)
Transanity anyone?
Yes, there is more complaining about that which has apparently had zero ill effect on nearly everybody and a tiny positive effect on a small group of people who could stand a little help, but there are only so many pixels here and I do not want to go to the store for more. End column:
Should we have compassion on those who feel there is a “mismatch” between their body and their brain? Absolutely. But we should devote our energies to understanding the causes of their mental and emotional conflict with the goal of helping them from the inside out. Otherwise, if we craft laws and embrace social categories based on how people identify themselves, we had better get ready for more and more “feminist gay trans men” along with “pansexual genderqueer transdykes” – and that’s just the beginning.
Indeed, some lunatic might insist that all manner of kooky cults get preferential treatment somehow and pay no fucking taxes because Popsicle Zombie. I might call that TAXSANITY. Makes sense, right?
How about one of the biggest conservative values of all: Pro-life! Bella is completely selfless when it comes to her pregnancy in [The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part I]. She is willing to give up her human life, vampire life and even Edward for the life of her baby. Despite the fact that the baby is literally killing her, Bella wants to stick it out as much as she can in hopes that she will deliver a healthy baby. Bella says the baby is “a little miracle,” and she is ready to lose her life for her child’s. If that’s not pro-life, I don’t know what is.
It might be a good idea for parents to accompany their daughters to the film. The gruesome birthing scene may leave some teenagers a little queasy.
It all started subtly enough — so subtly that I imagine viewers of the non-political stripe missed it completely.
Not long into the episode, the Gang’s thoughtful proxy-liberal geriatric, Dale (Jeffrey DeMunn), confronts Hershel (Scott Wilson), a Colonel Sanders-type and the thoughtful proxy-conservative geriatric of the Gang’s charmingly Southern host family. As it turns out, the host family was—in true Faulknerian fashion—covering up a secret, keeping undead relatives (Attack of the In-laws!) locked in their barn. Dale wanted to know why, and the conversation that unfolded was strangely analogous to the fetal personhood debate…with zombies! It went something like this:
BUCKET HAT: With all due respect…I’ve seen people that I cared about die and come back, and they’re not people.
COLONEL SANDERS: My wife and stepson are in that barn. They’re people.
Although this exchange set off klaxon sirens in my well-conditioned, hair-trigger political mind, it wouldn’t have been particularly noteworthy had the balance of the episode not been devoted to Lori’s pained decision about whether or not to abort her pregnancy.
Since the lion’s share of the episode was about Lori’s dilemma, I feel my inference is well grounded. I find it illuminating that the writers chose zombies as a parallel to human fetuses (and not only because many proponents of abortion see the fetus primarily as a parasite, although that certainly adds another layer of interesting to the equation). Dale is, after all, the rational arguer in this case. In the zombie survival genre, zombies are distinctly the Other, not human persons. Hershel, then, is the ill-informed, emotional arguer. I think it’s clear that the writers view the abortion debate as divided along similar lines.
Validation of my ideas thus being taken care of, here is some advice to you, my late-to-the-table American friends: THIS IS THE WRONG END FOR THE TURKEY.
Also you may want to cook it in some fashion, perhaps removing the feathers and such.
And those progressive agents are at it again right now in the series of GOP presidential debates. Does anyone really believe questions coming from MSM moderators aren't ultimately asked to trip up the candidates and then elevate and orchestrate the re-election of their
If you watched closely, the questioners at the GOP debate were like a walk down memory lane of the Bush foreign policy and national security team. David Addington, Paul Wolfowitz and more.
Hey, that makes me wonder. When the catholics eat jesus on sundays, do they poop jesus on monday? And if so, shouldn't their be some detailed biblical guidelines for handling that matter (heh) in some more, er, delicate fashion than a simple, perfunctory flush? [...]
Google is getting worse. It doesn't help my search results if the stupid computer is trying to think on my behalf and return "stool" for "defecation". Can you just stop "improving" my results? The little plus sign in front of the not-quite naughty word used to mean that the word was required to be returned in a search, but evidently synonyms are okay because they could never have any other meaning, could they? Adding quotes does not help, adding a -stool seems to, in a way, but I would prefer to SEARCH FOR THE WORDS I AM SEARCHING FOR, FUCKERS.
Alas, a near-shutout for COPE candidates. Evil continues to move at a snail's pace rather than thundering along like a, like a, searching for a comparison now... Oh yeah, like a Whiz Wagon.
So now, apparently, we have to go through the cycle of the media pushing Newt Gingrich. This is going to be fantastic.
[Anti-Newt venom excised]
The mainstream media keep pushing alternatives to Mitt Romney not only because they are terrified of running against him, but also because they want to keep Republicans fighting, allowing Democrats to get a four-month jump on us.
Meanwhile, everyone knows the nominee is going to be Romney.
That is some potent and powerful bullshit that plays perfectly to nitwits right now, but as Romney is, then, required to be the front-runner at some point in the future; can the always-lying media report such an event?
Instead of the Girl Scouts’ politically correct gobbledy-gook, the American Heritage Girls sees its mission as “building women of integrity through service to God, family, community and country.” (See this comparison chart for the Girl Scouts and American Heritage Girls).
Second, principles. AHG takes a stand for the traditional values that most families embrace: its principles emphasize integrity, service, stewardship, and—are you ready for this?--purity. When was the last time you heard the Girl Scouts encourage girls to be sexually pure? They’ve been too busy holding hands with the sex educators, pill-pushers, and feminists.
I owe a debt to Mark Noonan. Although I don't think his was the first animated gif I did, his eyebrows were absolutely inspirational and they still spin or crawl into various pieces here. His were the first drag-and-drop eyebrows I am aware of* in The Whole of Christendom. Was this the last time I tried to pay attention to him? I didn't even find him and got Michael Voris and his toupée instead.
While we are feeling so charitable, let us discharge the debt and visit Mark Noonan, whose blog is positively hopping again:
Okay, precisely what nugget might a loon pull from a story about Herman Cain pursuing the worst possible jokes in the current context of his campaign?
But why am I particularly calling out Bailey’s piece as yet another media lynching of Cain?
Yeah, WHY, Mr. Two-Caterpillar-Head?
Look at the accompanying picture they decided to post to go along with the story:
You know, I find myself in agreement with Mark Noonan. It's pretty obvious that the story's image of Cain draping himself over the women is a cheap and unnecessary —
Will you take a look at that.. Herman Cain (with his wide-brimmed fedora) posing with two women, who just happen to be attractive..maybe even a little ghetto… My but if that doesn’t fit the stereotype of a black pimp, eh?
Um, okay Mark, I was not actually going in the pimp direction there...with the ghetto women bit and all...
*Thank you for the lessons Jonah Goldberg. This footnote would be longer but I have to walk the slave.
Everything that Herbert Hoover did in his life was superb until he became President. Herbert and Lou Hoover's graves are way out back and when I went to view them (I always say a few prayers) there was an educated-looking young guy trimming the grass and I ventured to say that it was sort of like the Peter Principle where you advance until you can't do it anymore and he agreed, looking back maybe I shouldn't have been discussing this at their gravesite.
Apart from this (I use Googlebar Lite which gets around that problem) my Google News page got reorganized and now it shows me less than I want, for no good reason at all. I think I'll find my news elsewhere now.
The 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged, is known in philosophical and political circles for presenting a cogent argument advocating a society driven by rational self-interest. On the back of the film's retail DVD and Blu-ray however, the movie’s synopsis contradictorily states “AYN RAND’s timeless novel of courage and self-sacrifice comes to life...”
“It’s embarrassing for sure and of course, regardless of how or why it happened, we’re all feeling responsible right now.” says Scott DeSapio, Atlas Productions’ COO and Communications Director “You can imagine how mortified we all were when we saw the DVD but, it was simply too late - the product was already on shelves all over the Country. It was certainly no surprise when the incredulous emails ensued. The irony is inescapable.”
I would buy one beer for the first person in the command chain who said "How much do you think it's worth for me to fix it?" but only if that person also buys me one beer.
