Just another WordPress.com weblog
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — A resolution has been introduced in the Alabama House that praises Miss USA contestant Carrie Prejean for speaking out against gay marriage during Sunday night’s televised pageant. . . .
The resolution was introduced Tuesday by Republican Rep. Jay Love of Montgomery.
Love said Prejean showed she was willing to stick to her convictions even if it meant losing the pageant.
Now that’s some right-wing extremism!
by Smitty
Interesting News Items humorously serves up an interesting point. First the joke, about how ripping peoples’ faces off for being stupid produces more ‘green’ behavior. Mothers around the country nod knowingly.
When rules are just posted, workers aren’t as careful. Often they’ll forget elementary tasks such as printing paper on both sides, or turning off computers at night.” However green compliance skyrocketed in hollering-friendly workplaces.
What’s more interesting is the tendency to rationalize despicable behavior by pointing to some purportedly higher ‘good’. Take Perez Hilton, for example. Take him somewhere.
“Imagine the trouble Stacy McCain could cause if the Media Research Center, Accuracy in Media, or some other conservative group covered his salary and expenses?”
You may remember this from Atlas Shrugged:
H/T: Young Americans for Liberty.
RELATED: ‘Going John Galt’
Rep. Tom Tancredo — right-wing hater!
Rep. Virgil Goode — right-wing hater!
Duke rape hoaxer Crystal Mangum — OK!
What I want to know is when and how did the liberal elite take over Chapel Hill, N.C.? It’s a state school best known for its championship basketball program, so how did it become as radical as Berkeley in 1968?
I had the same reaction when Orit Sklar and Ruth Malhotra started describing how they’d been threatened and intimidated by radical gay and Muslim student groups at Georgia Tech.
Georgia Tech? What Lewis Grizzard used to call “The North Avenue Trade School”? A school best known for its engineering program, its ACC basketball team and its “Ramblin’ Wreck” fight song? I was born in Atlanta and one of my cousins graduated from Tech, and of all the places I least imagined would ever be taken over by the radical elite, it was Tech.
Radical Muslims at Tech? You’re kidding me! And militant gay groups? Well, the coeds at Tech were always a bit on the homely side, so you could understand if the guys got kind of desperate, but . . .
Why is this kind of radicalism, which we had come to expect at elite schools, now trickling down into ordinary state universities? The most obvious answer is that big “CONSERVATIVES NEED NOT APPLY” sign hanging outside the personnel office at most universities for at least the past 30 years. People tend to avoid working in environments where they’re not welcome, and so conservative-leaning youth have learned to get their bachelor’s degrees and go to work in the private sector, leaving the graduate schools — where the future faculty members are trained — totally dominated by the Left.
Even if the trustees of a school like Tech or UNC wanted to hire conservative faculty members, where would they find them, given the rarity of conservatives in grad school? And you’ll find that it’s the faculty and grad students, not the undergraduates, who are the driving force of leftist radicalism on most campuses today.
Michelle Malkin has more about the UNC protests against Goode’s appearance, including this totalitarian wienie:
Plan B — the drug that allows guys to breathe a sigh of relief the morning after using some chick for selfish pleasure — will now be available to 17-year-olds without a prescription.
Who cares that she’s not even old enough to buy a pack of cigarettes legally? Get her drunk on wine coolers, get what you want, then the next morning, take her to CVS to get Plan B and make sure there’s no chance the slut will show up in a few months talking child support payments and DNA tests.
So guys, if you screw a 17-year-old and “forget” to use a condom, remember: Nothing says “thanks a lot, you cheap whore” like the gift of Plan B!
UPDATE: Linked at Mahablog and Pandagon, both of whom ascribe my comments to mental pathology. OK, let’s unpack that, shall we?
First, I am anecdotally acquainted with specific examples of how guys are using Plan B in exactly the way described: “Hey, I don’t have to use a condom! Just take her to the CVS in the morning and dose her with the ‘morning-after pill,’ and I’m off the hook!” And their partners feel demeaned by this treatment: “Wow, he really doesn’t want to risk a permanent commitment with me, does he?”
Mahablog particularly repeats the lie — and it’s not the first time — that my comments about the FLDS cult in Texas were intended as an endorsement of their polygamous practices. Rather, I was pointing out the abusive overreach of the Texas officials, who mounted a SWAT raid and put all of the FLDS children in custody, even tiny infants. And I was also pointing out the hypocritical double standard involved, since the putative object of the raid was to prevent teenage motherhood, even while Texas led the nation in teenage pregnancy: “If they’re going to stage a paramilitary raid every time a 15-year-old gets pregnant in Texas, they’re going to need to hire a lot more SWAT officers.”
Finally, and I know this will produce gasps of astonishment from you feminists: Men and women are not “equal,” in the sense of being identical and therefore fungible. The sexes are different in ways that are socially important, and only a radical egalitarian fanatic would argue otherwise.
Thus, the idiot commenter who accuses me of denying women’s “agency” in sexual activity has ludicrously missed the mark. I don’t for a moment deny that women voluntarily choose to have sex; what I deny is that their motives and reasons for doing so are, in general, the same as men’s motives and reasons.
The academic/political/legal forces that would compel us to pretend that men and women are identical are engaged in denial of truths that are obvious to any stand-up comedian. C’mon, people: How many thousands of stand-up routines have been built upon observing the differences between men and women? And we laugh because these observations are true.
Yes, men do tend to fetishize power tools and other grown-up “toys.” Yes, women are kind of crazy about shoes. Yes, men do tend to go into a store, find exactly what they want and buy it, while women tend to linger in the mall for hours “just looking.” Men and women are different, and even if you don’t exactly fit the gender-role stereotype, the general differences are observable and funny as hell when Jerry Seinfeld or Jeff Foxworthy points them out.
Gender differences even hold true among homosexuals, as Andrew Sullivan once pointed out by repeating this joke:
Q. What does a lesbian bring on her second date?
A. A U-Haul trailer.
Q. What does a gay man bring on a second date?
A. What’s a second date?
Which is to say, the female tendency toward domesticity — the preference for long-term relationships — persists even in the otherwise anti-traditional world of lesbianism, and the male tendency toward promiscuity is even more marked among gay men, who don’t have women to say “no” to them.
In general, among heterosexual singles, men and women approach the mating ritual with different objectives. The fact that more women nowadays play the role of sexual aggressors cannot be denied, but is an understandable response to decades of egalitarian dogma pumped into the culture. Despite this shift, it is nevertheless still true that women generally date in search of a long-term committed relationship, while men (especially successful, attractive men) are more generally content to “play the field.”
It is only the feminist ideologue — with her androgynous insistence that all things must be equal — who considers it “empowering” for women to imitate male behavior in the dating game. Men and women are different, and this “pro-sex feminist” strategy of empowerment through promiscuity ultimately disadvantages all women.
But don’t let me trouble you with these quibbles, you egalitarian fanatics. Stay comfortable inside your ideological bubble, viewing me as a boorish right-wing misogynist, and employing your Adorno/Hofstadter thesis that all conservatives are repressed mental cases to dismiss any evidence or argument that might contradict your worldview. And when you start reading crime stories about teenage girls being abused by men who use Plan B as part of their exploitation strategies, interpret that data through your narrow prism, ignoring the possibility that you just might be wrong about some things.
UPDATE II: Wow, my third Malkin Award nomination since February! I’d like to thank the Academy . . .
UPDATE III: After commenters are done excoriating me as a “clueless douchebag,” they might want to check out Monique Stuart’s take on this:
The beauty of a prescription being required is that it might actually involve some parental guidance. That is why this judge is against it. They want to detach children from their parents’ social mores.
The drug companies are also involved. They want to make money, and they’ll be making a lot more of it if all of this would become over the counter. . . . This is about the companies that produce these drugs opening themselves up to a wider market. It’s disgusting.
Anyway, parents just lost some more of their rights. The government, primarily through the courts, have told parents time and again that they have no business in their childrens’ lives.
Right. We’re just breeder units, producing taxpayer-drones for The State.
UPDATE IV: “Do her. Dose her. Ditch her.” Really, Jimmie, I think the Bar Kays said it best:
Hit and run,
You played your game so well,
You really made it hard to tell
That all you planned
Was a one-night stand.
How is it that being an easy pushover for a selfish user is now regarded as “liberation,” and anyone who tries to wise you up by pointing out the simple facts of the game is a misogynist oppressor?
After reading the eulogy column I wrote for Father last year — not to excess, probably only about 4,637 times — Mother realized to her chagrin that she wouldn’t be able to read the eulogy column I’d be writing for her, and started hinting that maybe I could rustle up a draft so she could take a peek.
But I couldn’t do it, until I had to.
The only thing Mother wanted to be sure my brothers and I included in her remembrances were her contributions to the Republican Party, the New Canaan Republican Town Committee and the Daughters of the American Revolution.
She was a direct descendant of at least a dozen patriots who served the cause of the American Revolution and traced her lineage on both sides of her family to Puritan nonconformists who came to America in 1633 seeking religious freedom on a ship led by Pastor Thomas Hooker. Or, as Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano would call them, “A dangerous right-wing extremist hate group.”
If the joke seems out of place, it’s not. Ann’s mother was a proud Republican. Also, it’s not a joke.
BTW, Ann Coulter’s mom was from Kentucky, so therefore Ann’s a Southern girl despite having been raised in Connecticut. Read the whole thing.
Laura from Pursuing Holiness wrote a post at the Hot Air Green Room that inspired me to respond at great length:
Christians believe that marriage is an institution ordained by God, and every marriage is thus blessed. However, in ordaining marriage, God commanded man to “be fruitful and multiply.” This commandment has never been repealed or amended, no matter what any Malthusian population-control fanatic tries to tell you. One trend that has undermined marriage has been the rise of the Contraceptive Culture, which celebrates sterility as the norm and views fertility as a pathology requiring medical prevention.
How many Christians have embraced this false — dare I say, evil — worldview? How many young Christian married couples use contraception because “we can’t afford children now”? And how many married Christian couples have unwittingly subscribed to the Zero Population Growth ideal of exactly two children per couple? Did you know that surgical sterilization (tubal ligation) is the No. 1 form of birth control for American women? It’s the “two and tie ’em” mentality: Have exactly two children, then get yourself surgically sterilized. . . .
You should read the whole thing.
UPDATE: In the comments at the Green Room, Anna writes:
My husband and I were married at 21. . . .
What galls me is the anti-child atmosphere nowadays. We have 3 kids (including a set of twins), and we’d love to have another. We aren’t really in a position to have another right this minute, but the door is not shut. However, mention this to my (devout Lutheran) in-laws, and they rant about how they’ll kill my husband if I get pregnant, and how they don’t ‘need’ any more grandchildren. We even hear from other members of their church about how we’re too young to have so many kids – how are we going to pay for college/cars/etc for not only them, but for ourselves. We’re 26/27! How is that too young? There are only so many times that I can retort with “We’re old enough/it’s our family/you can take out loans for college, but not for retirement!” before I have to run to the bathroom to cry.
Anna, once you understand that their criticisms of you are actually a defense of their own decisions, this anti-baby attitude becomes more comprehensible. People can always justify their own behavior, and people who embrace the Contraceptive Culture typically display these attitudes. Negative conceptions of others — the “trailer trash” stereotype of large families — are a defense mechanism to enhance their own self-concept.
Believing that their way is the only way, they must necessarily believe that, by marrying young and having lots of babies, you are dooming yourself (and your children) to misery and poverty. The “how will you pay for college” question is meant to be the ultimate “gotcha.” My daughter’s working her way through college. Next question?
UPDATE II: More wisdom in the comments (here) from father-of-five Larry:
I cannot count the number of times we have been unintentionally insulted by well meaning, self-identified Christians, asking if we know what causes that (pregnancy) . . .
To which I always answer, “Yes, and we’re very good at it.” That shuts ’em up quick.
by Smitty
Pure ad hominem isn’t terribly useful. Even when out hunting RINOs, Stacy manages to slip in some didactic value. Ben Shapiro’s Big Hollywood flogging of Sean Penn is the exception that proves the rule.
Here’s a sample:
His latest expression of genius bemoans criticism of President Obama – which is not particularly shocking, considering that Penn has had his nose so far up Obama’s posterior for the past few months that there’s a good argument to be made that he’s personally convincing Obama of the need to rethink his position on gay marriage.
“Once again the simple-minded media and its pundits are confused about the nature of Americanism and language,” states the ever-incisive Mr. Penn. “When President Obama today inferred consideration of holding former administration officials accountable to law, he was immediately accused of violating his belief that we should ‘look forward,’” writes Penn, frantically and mistakenly thumbing through an unused thesaurus. It’s “implied,” not “inferred,” Sean.
But back to the idiocy.
The Three Dimensional Loser Award is reserved for those who suck pondwater, no matter the vantage from which you look at them. Sure, we can make a theological case that Penn is a human being, and just as deserving of mercy as anyone else. Check. I’d happily spend some time with Penn and make an effort to make a clue stick to him. On principle, if for no other reason. But his track record goes nowhere useful, and I’ve got a pizza that says 95+% of the readers of this blog wish that Spicoli would ponder public silence for a very, very long time.
Smitty1e's Blog 