Archive for ‘gay rights’

July 16, 2009

Gay Motors and the Beefcake Bailout

Now that Obama has taken over GM, henceforth Chevrolet will be known as the Gaymobile:

For a local movie promotion a week ago aimed at gay buyers, General Motors’ Chevrolet sponsored an online video on YouTube featuring the “Bumble Bee Boys in Briefs” — a couple of buff “go-go boys” wearing only Speedo-type swimsuits with the letters CAMARO stitched across the behind. In the video, they are washing a Camaro. . . .
The video was produced to promote Chevrolet Gay Days at the Movies in Los Angeles, part of an ongoing outreach program to minority groups and the gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgender community. The movie was a screening of the new Transformers movie, chock full of GM vehicles including Bumblebee, a Camaro.

If you see a guy driving a Chevy . . . well, NTTAWWT.

UPDATE: I’m thinking Chevrolet needs a new slogan: “We’re here! We’re queer! We’re driving Chevy!”

UPDATE II: In keeping with their LBGT/Obama agenda, General Motors today unveiled a new logo:

June 17, 2009

Dear Angry Gay Democrats

I used to be like you — which is to say, I was once an angry Democrat, too.

“Born that way,” you might say. Well, I wasn’t born angry, but I was born a Democrat. Hard-core yellow-dog Democrat, too. I voted for Mondale, for crying out loud.

The Democrats paid me back the same way they always pay back their most loyal constituents: Those two-faced weasels stabbed me in the back. (I mean, really, what part of “From My Cold Dead Hands” is so hard to understand?)

OK, so now you’ve been ripped off, sold out, and stabbed in the back by the Democrats. Join the club.

Did you know Ronald Reagan started out as a Democrat? By his own admission, the Gipper was once such a “bleeding heart” liberal that he unwittingly joined two Communist Party front groups in the 1940s.

So if this latest knife in the back from your Democratic “friends” is one betrayal too many, maybe you should consider becoming an ex-Democrat, too. I mean, if you want to raise millions of dollars for untrustworthy politicians who oppose gay marriage, the Republican Party would certainly welcome your support.

I’m just sayin’ . . .

UPDATE: Some of you angry gay Democrats are probably asking, “But what’s in it for me?” Just because Republicans are never going to support your identity-politics agenda doesn’t mean they don’t have anything to offer you.

For example, think of the delicious fun of payback politics, evening the score with those Democrat bastards who sold you out. How do you think Cynthia Yockey became Ann Coulter’s favorite lesbian?

UPDATE II: Welcome once more, Instapundit readers! Just to clarify: I’m a married father of six with 20 years of monogamy to my credit, so the only person feeling my pain for the past two decades is Mrs. Other McCain. And despite the Speedo-filling studliness, don’t believe those porn-star rumors . . . LIES! ALL LIES!

On the other hand, some traits are hereditary and who knows what Other McCain Jr. has been up to . . .

UPDATE III: Little Miss Attila’s right: The GOP’s “incompetent half the time, but not truly evil.” Hmmm. Exactly what Mrs. Other McCain says about me . . .

May 23, 2009

New frontiers in political correctness

As Dave Barry says, I’m not making this up:

Mayor quits job for gay
illegal immigrant he loves
. . . Only two weeks after being elected to serve his fourth term, Mayor J.W. Lown of San Angelo submitted his resignation letter Tuesday from an undisclosed location in Mexico. . . .
What made it stunning wasn’t the status of Lown’s office, which pays $600 a year, but the status of his lover.
Lown fell for an illegal Mexican immigrant.
A man.
Lown told the San Angelo Standard-Times he had fallen for the man in March, after he had already filed for re-election. The man came to the U.S. five years ago to study at Angelo State University.
It was unclear whether he had a student visa, but if he did it apparently had expired.

Go read the whole thing, if only to prove to yourself this isn’t from Iowahawk. A couple of thoughts:

  1. To quote our hero Gunnery Sgt. Hartman, “Only two things come from Texas,” and Mayor Lown is definitely not a steer.
  2. If this doesn’t get Mayor Lown a Profile in Courage award and a “genius” grant from the McArthur Foundation, it will at least get him a six-figure book deal, appearances on “The View” and “Oprah,” and either a HBO movie deal or a reality series on VH-1.

Via Memeorandum.

UPDATE: Linked by Moe Lane at Red State and Jimmie Bise at Sundries Shack, both of whom are trying to beat the low-traffic Memorial Day weekend blues.

May 22, 2009

How Dare These Men Honor Tradition!

by Smitty

  Two congressmen today announced that they will seek to prevent the District from recognizing or performing same-sex marriages.
  Introducing the bill are Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio, pictured top) and Rep. Dan Boren (D-Okla., bottom). It’s important to note that the legislation would define marriage in the District as between a man and a woman. It is not a resolution specifically disapproving the city’s action this month to recognize gay marriages performed out of state.

  If only my local piece of work, Jim Moran, would join with his Democrat colleague on this bill.

May 18, 2009

Girl Scouts promote lesbianismand sell delicious Thin Mints . . .

. . . but mainly promote lesbianism:

When many parents think of Girl Scouts, they imagine young girls in uniform selling Thin Mints and Tagalong cookies – not learning about stone labyrinths, world peace, global warming, yoga, avatars, smudging incense, Zen gardens and feminist, communist and lesbian role models.
But that’s exactly what many of 2.7 million Girl Scouts will learn about with a new curriculum called “Journeys” released last year. . . .

Conservatives saw this one coming down the pike a few years ago, when the Boy Scouts got raked over the coals for prohibiting gay scoutmasters and the Girl Scouts were so quiet you could hear the crickets chirping.

Back in the day, Bill Buckley* postulated a law of organizational dynamics:

All institutions that are not explicitly conservative will eventually become liberal.

Fast-forward to 2009, and all institutions that do not explicitly prohibit homosexuality will eventually become pro-gay. So next time the Girl Scouts come knocking at your door selling cookies, try not to notice they’re now wearing flannel shirts, butch haircuts and sensible shoes.

And if you’re foolish enough to let your own child join the Girl Scouts, don’t complain when they come back from their annual camporee spouting quotations from Mary Daley and Shulamith Firestone.

“Really, mom, what kind of self-hating homophobic collaborationist are you?”
“Homophobic? Why, I don’t . . .”
“We’re being oppressed by the patriarchy!”
“Oppressed? What are you . . .”
“It’s dad! Don’t you see? He’s exploiting us!”

Future Femi-Nazis of America!

*A commenter suggests Robert Conquest as the originator of the maxim I’ve attributed to Buckley.

UPDATE II: Linked at the Creative Minority Report. When dealing with feminist dogma, it is important always to be as harsh as possible.

Feminist ideology is so self-evidently counterfactual that only a fool could believe it. Ergo, you should never address a feminist as if you were speaking to a person deserving solicitude, respect and deference, but rather comport yourself as if confronted by an unruly brat throwing a tantrum.

National Offend a Feminist Week was a rousing success. Some of us celebrate all year long.

UPDATE II: Linked at Stop the ACLU and Pirate’s Cove. I’m hoping we get some more linkage so this shows up at Memeorandum. Then Amanda Marcotte and Jessica Valenti will denounce the patriarchal homophobia, and I’ll ride the tsunami of hate to 10,000+ visits tomorrow. So link me now, you misogynistic right-wing bloggers, and we’ll all catch a wave.

May 12, 2009

Can we talk about stereotypes?

“It’s time for you to find someplace new to recruit your henchmen. We’re getting back to our business of beauty,” says Miss California USA pageant direct Keith Lewis, setting the gay rights cause back at least 20 years with his portrayal of the vicious, catty drama queen stereotype.

Via Townhall, where Greg Hengler says that Lewis is “openly gay,” which is a term of art in such a case. I mean, some guys are gay and you’d never know unless they told you. But Lewis? It’s like he’s emitting a gaydar homing beacon or something.

Gay Patriot notes Lewis’s over-the-top bitch act:

Why must he so attack Maggie Gallagher? And why do so many gay lefties use the word “shame” to describe the actions of their ideological adversaries? . . . Why can’t these people show some class, some grace, in confronting their adversaries? Why must they adopt so harsh a tone and so vitriolic a vocabulary?”

It’s who they are: Angry at the world, externalizing their own unhappiness by projecting it on scapegoats. Lewis’s attack on Maggie Gallagher grates because it is a non sequitur. In fact, the whole press conference was a non sequitur, as far as any official business of the Miss Calfornia USA pageant was concerned.

This was Lewis, the preening narcissist, venting his personal rage against someone (Gallagher) he’s identified as The Enemy, inflated in his mind as the dehumanized embodiment of his every disappointment and of everyone who has ever disapproved of him.

However, such is the Movement mentality — if you’ve ever read Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer, you understand — that all of Lewis’s comrades will congratulate him: “Yeah! You sure showed her!” The viciousness is reinforced by this echo-chamber effect.

Meanwhile, well-meaning people will watch the video and say to themselves, “What was that about?”

UPDATE: BTW, if you actually know Maggie Gallagher, you know she’s hardly the Evil Hate Monster of left-wing imagination. If it is true — as Keith Lewis says — that a large share of the contributions to the National Organization for Marriage goes for Gallagher’s salary, benefits and expenses, then that is surely with the knowledge, and perhap by design, of her supporters.

Her organization is a small one, and if she had a larger budget, then a smaller share of the contributions would be required for her salary. (Question: What is David Brock’s salary at Media Matters? What is the budget of Media Matters?) John Hawkins of Right Wing News recently interviewed Gallagher:

[L]ook at what they’re doing to Carrie. Okay, I mean look at what they’re doing to a nice girl. She’s a beauty pageant contestant. All she did was say when asked, “Hey I think marriage should be between a man and woman,” and they’re reacting and dumping on her and trying to destroy her as if she had said something shameful and controversial.
So what we need to learn from Carrie is that they’re dumping on people who believe that marriage means a man and a woman because they don’t want to debate the consequences of gay marriage. They don’t want you to think about what it means when your government adopts a law that says you’re like a bigot if you disagree with the government’s definition of marriage.

Bingo. The gay left’s eruptions of screaming intolerance are not accidental. As I keep trying to explain, the gay-rights movement is egalitarian, not libertarian, and that is an important distinction. Egalitarianism, which aims to re-arrange society so as to produce “social justice,” inherently involves coercion, and therefore inevitably requires that the government assume vast power over the lives of the ordinary citizen.

It is this egalitarian appetite for power that produces the “Gay Rights, Gay Rage” reaction that we see in the reaction to Carrie Prejean. Those who don’t understand the power dynamic of politics believe that it is possible to reach some compromise with egalitarianism. This belief is a fundmental error.

George Orwell, a socialist, wrote his two great novels, Animal Farm and 1984, after his experiences in the Spanish Civil War awakened him to the dishonesty and viciousness of Soviet communism. (Soviet-trained commissars played a key role in organizing the anti-Falangist resistance in Spain.) But Orwell died at age 46, and never made the next step beyond recognizing the evil of totalitarian tactics to understanding that such tactics are implicit in the egalitarian ideology of socialism.

This is why Friedrich Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom is so important. Hayek understood that the egalitarian Left’s promise of “social justice” is a lie, and that the Left’s militant demands on the so-called “issues of the day” are mere ploys, tactical means to the strategic end: Destruction of the free society. If you don’t understand this, if you think that the same-sex marriage argument is merely about being nice to gay people, then you have been deceived.

PREVIOUSLY: Latest ‘Carrie Prejean Nude’ News Update.

May 9, 2009

Massachusetts: The Gay State

Associated Press celebrates the five-year anniversary of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts:

According to the latest state figures, [from May 2004] through September 2008, there had been 12,167 same-sex marriages in Massachusetts — 64 percent of them between women — out of 170,209 marriages in all

.No figures are cited on gay divorce, of course. If you read the 2,700-word story, you will see that AP reporter David Crary tells a sunshine-on-a-cloudless-day tale, elaborated with picturesque anecdotes about wonderful couples.

Crary won second place in the 2006 National Lesbian & Gay Journalist Association competition. This year, he’s going for No. 1, baby!

I would very much like to be able to compare state-by-state marriage data to demonstrate that Massachusetts has one of the lowest marriage rates, and one of the lowest birth rates, in the United States. Unfortunately, as the NCHS bluntly admits, the federal government stopped providing even a semblance of comprensive data on marriage and divorce more than a decade ago.

However, birth data continue to be collected, so let’s look at the 2003 total fertility rate for Massachusetts, as well as four other states — Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and Maine — that have legalized same-sex marriage, as well as New Hampshire, where legislation is currently awaiting the governor’s signature.

New Hampshire…1.77

You see that in none of these states is the total fertility rate at or above the 2.1 average lifetime births per woman necessary to prevent demographic decline. Now, let’s look at the states with the highest fertility rates:


The fertility rate in Utah is 53% higher than the rate in Vermont, and the rate in Idaho is 33% higher than the rate in Massachusetts.

My point is that the popularity of same-sex marriage is strongly associated with low fertility rates. If adequate state-by-state data were available, I’m sure you’d see a similar association with low marriage rates.

Don’t mistake the direction of causality, however: The decline of the traditional family caused the rise of same-sex marriage, and not vice-versa. It was America’s embrace of the Contraceptive Culture — detroying the natural connection between love, sex, marriage and parenthood — that has made possible the radical triumph.

Gays did not do this. It was the God-haters, with the help of self-righteous fools who claimed to be religious even while they disobeyed one of God’s original commandments: “Be fruitful and multiply.” They thought they could embrace the Planned Parenthood lifestyle without consequence.

“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools . . .”
Romans 1:22 KJV

Mother’s Day, the Planned Parenthood way! Declining birth rates mean an aging population. One of these days, we’ll all be as gay — and gray — as Massachusetts, and they’ll call that “progress.”

UPDATE: Pundette says, “Move over, Mark Steyn.” No, no, Pundette. It’s more like, “Please link me, Mark Steyn!” BTW, Pundette is a mother of seven, and has an excellent Mother’s Day linkfest round-up.

UPDATE II: Linked at Creative Minority Report and by Dad 29, who notes that my pro-natalist traditionalism is unusual for a Protestant. I get this all the time, as does Mark Steyn, who is Jewish and, indeed, one will find that nearly all Muslims share a similar attitude. (Dinesh D’Souza caught holy hell a couple years ago for a book in which he suggested that the Muslim world’s anti-American rage is a reaction to the decadence of Western pop culture.)

The feminist-infested progressive Left would doubtless characterize this ecumenical pro-natalism as a function of the patriarchal phallocratic desire to oppress The Sisterhood. Rather, I think what accounts for the similarity of perspective is a skepticism toward the truth-claims of modernism. Confronted by the arrogant assertions of the elite consensus, from which dissent is forbidden, we skeptics detect the unmistakable aroma of bovine excrement.

The disciples of Progress look at tradition — including the traditional belief that a large family is a blessing — and see everything they despise as obsolete and unjust. The traditionalist agrees with G.K. Chesterton:

My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.

Once an intelligent person begins to question Progress in this way, once he starts wondering whether everything old is bad and everything new is better, he will soon discover evidence that contradicts the modernist truth-claims. At that point, he is likely to become a full-blown reactionary and, unless counseled by men of reason whom he respects, will soon be arguing for the divine right of kings or some other embarrassing anachronism. (The informed reader will smile in recognition of the hint of autobiography here.)

Extremism of one form or another — and Osama bin Laden will suffice as an example — is too often the result of the traditionalist’s resentment of modernist arrogance. Being a Bible-thumping hillbilly myself, I have sometimes thought the Islamic radicals have the better of the argument with their “moderate” antagonists within the Muslim world. If the Koran is true, if Muhammad was a divine Prophet who spoke on behalf of the Almighty, then jihad against the infidels is the True Faith.

But please note the hypothetical; I certainly do not accept that Mohammed was an agent of divinity, except in the sense that the Babylonian conquest was an act of God. The Israelites were God’s chosen people, but disobeyed him, and the Babylonian armies were thus the temporal means of chastisement. In the same way, one might say that the errors and unfaithfulness of the 6th-century church inspired Muhammad’s ignorant anti-Christian theology, which from its beginnings in a rebellion of Arab tribesmen, advanced thence by conquest until at last Christendom rallied.

Students of history will find that the Christian world did not defeat the Ottoman Empire (in the 1683 Battle of Vienna) until after Martin Luther had struck the spark of Christian reform. Make of this what you will. The relevant point here, however, is that any crisis or tribulation suffered by Christendom must be seen as the chastisement of human failing, a call to greater faith and greater obedience to God’s commandments.

God will not abandon us, if we are faithful and obedient, but if He desires to call us to repentance, He will work through means at hand, and we must pay attention to understand wherein we have failed.


May 7, 2009

Let’s talk ‘homophobia’

One of my friends used to be a lesbian. I mean total, militant, out-and-proud lesbian. And then she met a guy and fell in love and now she’s just a suburban mom. Almost nobody knows that she was ever gay.

You’ve seen these “ex-gay” crusaders? My friend isn’t one of those. However, she knows what she knows, and she knows it from direct personal experience. And if there is anything she hates worse than the accusation of being “ignorant” about homosexuality, it’s being accused of “homophobia,” a word whose very meaning she disputes as an ontological error.

So I thought of my ex-lesbian friend today when I saw the headline, “CARRIE PREJEAN — ORIGINS OF HOMOPHOBIA,” citing court documents from her parents’ divorce.

This “diagnosis” from the psychiatric experts at demanded an appropriate response, and since “Fuck You,!” probably wouldn’t go over too well with the Boss at Hot Air, I tried to make it a little more subtle at the Green Room:

Let me say something very clearly: Stipulating as a hypothetical that there exists a mental disorder we might fairly call “homophobia” — an irrational fear or hatred of homosexuals — I am 100% certain that I do not suffer from it. And I’m willing to bet good money that Carrie Prejean doesn’t suffer from it, either. . . .

You should read the whole thing. And watch out for those double-entendres, especially if you’re bilingual. NTTAWWT.

UPDATE: Jules Crittenden is craving some naked Carrie Prejean linky-love. And since he caught a typo on my blog, he deserves at least as much linky-love as Marie Osmond’s lesbian daughter. Je suis un capitaliste! (Chicks dig it when I talk French.)

UPDATE II: Thanks to the commenters who corrected my French. Hey, what kind of un-Americans are you, anyway, with all that parlais-vouz stuff? I’ll bet you’re the kind of commies who would put dijon mustard on a cheeseburger. I’m thinking of an Anglo-Saxon compound word for you guys . . .

UPDATE III: William Teach at Pirate’s Cove tells us the “new” Carrie Prejean nude pic is a Photoshop.

Also: Welcome Conservative Grapevine readers! Let me warn you that if you don’t really hate Meghan McCain, don’t click this link. And my rule has always been, when in doubt, double down.

May 6, 2009

Carrie Prejean Sideboob Jailbait?

An anonymous commenter on an earlier post just directed me to a blog asserting that Carrie Prejean was a precocious 17 when she posed for the now notorious Cheesecake Photo That Shook The World.

Words cannot sufficiently express my indifference to this “controversy.” If Carrie Prejean were stripped of her Miss California USA title tomorrow — and dibs on the “Carrie Prejean stripped” Google-bomb, just in case Pirate’s Cove thinks they can beat me at that game — so what?

She’s young, she’s beautiful, she’s famous and, one way or another, she’ll soon be very rich. Her future’s so bright, she’s got to wear shades. She’ll get a book contract for at least a million dollars, and the publisher will pay a ghost-writer $75,000 to actually write the book. There will be speaking engagements, magazine interviews and TV appearances. She’ll fly around the country first-class, stay in five-star hotels and eat at the finest restaurants, all of it at someone else’s expense.

And good for her, right? OK, so a bunch of grouchy gay militants are calling her ugly names, but they call me ugly names, too, for which I have not the consolation of either beauty or wealth. (You can help remedy the latter by hitting the tip jar, by the way.)

While I congratulate myself on having the keen capitalistic foresight to include the phrase “Carrie Prejean nude” in my first blog post about Miss California USA, and while I glory in the reward of surging traffic, would you mind if I ask a favor?

Could everybody please stop taking this so seriously? There are children dying in Sudan, OK?

So I’m finding it kind of hard to get all worked up over the “Martyrdom of St. Carrie” meme. To wit:

MEDIA ADVISORY, May 6 /Christian Newswire/ — The “tolerant” proponents of homosexual marriage, following the hateful lead of homosexual, Perez Hilton and the likes of anti-Christian bigot Keith Olbermann of MSNBC, have had their fun bashing Miss California, Carrie Prejean. For simply stating the obvious truth that marriage ought to be between a man and a woman, Carrie has been unjustly slandered, insulted and ridiculed.
“By courageously shining the light of God’s truth on the marriage issue, now homosexuals and their allies irrationally seek to defame and destroy Carrie Prejean,” said Dr. Gary Cass, Chairman and CEO of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission. “Perez Hilton, ‘queen of all media,’ and your sycophant Keith Olbermann, take some advice from Jesus Christ; ‘Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.'”

Dr. Cass, I agree with you wholeheartedly, just as I agree wholeheartedly with you about marriage. (See, “Marriage: A Hill to Die On.”) Yet I hope you will excuse me for saying that, as someone who’s been in the news business since 1986, I think Christian conservatives need to think a little harder about their communications strategy.

Yesterday, in my role as a Joe Friday “just the facts ma’am” reporter, I made a few inquiries trying to get to the bottom of this Carrie Prejean topless photo story. Simple questions: Who took these photos? When? Where? Why?

People associated in various capacities with Miss Prejean either (a) did not have the answers to these questions, (b) were not authorized to address these questions, or (c) didn’t think I was sufficiently important to deserve so much as a “no comment” in reply.

Fine. You are paid to know what you’re doing. But the folks who were managing Sen. George Allen’s 2006 re-election campaign thought they knew what they were doing, too. And one of the things they made sure to do was to ignore my repeated attempts to contact the campaign. “For want of a nail . . .”

As I explained in an e-mail to one of Miss Prejean’s associates yesterday, the fundamental principle of crisis communication is that you can tell your own story to a sympathetic source, or you can allow your enemies to tell their story to an unsympathetic source. To be silent is to surrender the battle to your enemy, who will be only too happy to portray your silence as fearful defensiveness.

And now I exhort you to be of good cheer . . . for there stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve, Saying, Fear not. . . . Wherefore, sirs, be of good cheer: for I believe God, that it shall be even as it was told me.
Acts 27:22-25, KJV

“Be of good cheer . . . Fear not” — we don’t hear that enough from Christian leaders nowadays. If you have faith and hope, you should also have the courage that God can deliver you. And if you have courage, you can laugh at the folly of those who think themselves greater than God.

Trust me, I know how easy it is to doubt, to become frustrated and impatient, to demand deliverance right now, when it suits God’s purpose to let you be chastised a while longer. We are fearful because we are weak, but we should learn to laugh at our weakness just as we learn to laugh at our persecutors.

So I’ll laugh at the irony of being the Christian conservative blog king of “Carrie Prejean nude,” just as I’ll laugh at the idiots who tell me that believing in marriage as ordained by God is a function of a psychological disorder, “homophobia.” Hey, I’m about nine kinds of crazy, but that’s one kind of crazy I’ve never been.

Lighten up, people. Be of good cheer. Fear not. And don’t fight that urge to hit my tip jar. I’ve got a sexy wife and six beautiful kids to feed.

UPDATE: I noticed I was getting traffic from, and you can go over there to see what she quoted. She’s apparently decided to help us celebrate National Offend A Feminist Week.

The first time I was introduced to Miss Coulter, she shook my hand and said, “A most unfortunate name.” And I said, “Ah! Crazy Cousin John!”

She and my buddy Pete Parisi of The Washington Times were in the same class at the National Journalism Center, and I’ve told the story of the night we all got together at Shelly’s Backroom Tavern. Like many another famous conservative — and some of us not so famous — Miss Coulter’s fearsome reputation is a distortion manufactured by liberals who would rather demonize her than to engage her arguments.

At any rate, Carrie Prejean should say a prayer of thanksgiving that Perez Hilton didn’t ask for her opinion about Reverend Jeremiah Wright. If you think it’s hard being denounced as a “homophobe,” you should try being denounced as a “racist.

UPDATE II: Somebody in the comments just linked a site which actually seems to be trying to drag Miss Prejean’s relatives into this mess. This kind of unlimited personal attack, involving people’s family members, is vile beyond words. Nevertheless, I did not delete the comment, because whatever the facts are, the facts are.

These sleaze merchants are really exposing their own viciousness, and you can evaluate that along with whatever truth there may be in their accusations. It’s out there, and I’m not going to pretend it’s not out there. Please pay attention:

To Carrie Prejean, whoever is “representing” Carrie Prejean, and everyone who knows and cares about Carrie Prejean:
You can’t cover-up or stonewall in the New Media environment. You can’t sit around trying to calculate and worrying about, “Gee, what do they actually know? How much is going to come out?” Assume the answers to those questions are “everything” and “all of it.”
Not only have I spent 23 years in the news business, but I am personally acquainted with some of the top P.R. professionals in the country, including the kind of people that a Fortune 500 company calls when they’ve just been sued for a gazillion dollars and they’re guilty as hell.
It is becoming clear from the way this story has spun out of control that whoever is giving Carrie Prejean media/P.R. advice, their advice isn’t working.
Let me make a suggestion to Carrie Prejean’s team: Call the Clare Boothe Luce Public Policy Center and ask to speak to their director of marketing. I guarantee you she can recommend somebody who knows all about crisis media management.

I hope somebody makes that call soon. Trust me.

May 2, 2009

Video: Gay gynephobia

Look, I’ve made clear my disapproval of breast implants. So now, watch as Keith Olbermann and Michael Musto make clear their disapproval of . . . vagina:

Please remind me of this video, next time a feminist calls me a misogynist.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers! Meanwhile, Allahpundit has this video of Laura Ingraham and the viciously intolerant Gloria Feldt:

Notice how Feldt says that Prejean “has a right to her opinion.” Leftists don’t actually mean this. The whole point of the gay-rights movement is to abolish your right to disagree with them.

Linked by Hedgehog Blog and Daley Gator.

UPDATE II: BTW, the Ingraham/Feldt interview is the kind of TV I hate. Feldt filibusters and interrupts; Ingraham becomes derisive. As a journalist, it has always been my thought that, when interviewing someone who is transparently wrong, the best policy is to give them enough rope to hang themselves. I wish Ingraham had let Feldt finish her prefab talking points and then hit her with a hard question.

As to Feldt’s talking points: She began with the assertion that “feminism is about justice and equality,” which ideology Prejean is accused of betraying and therefore (to complete the syllogism) Prejean is not a feminist.

Which is correct. I have argued explicitly (a) that feminism is wrong precisely because it is a radical egalitarian ideology and (b) that the same-sex marriage argument is based on the same fallacious doctrine. Please see my American Spectator column, “Marriage: A Hill to Die On,” as well as “Whither Marriage?” and “Gay Rights, Gay Rage.”

The argument against same-sex marriage can only prevail if we begin by rejecting the assertion that men and women are “equal” in the sense that feminists mean it — identical and therefore interchangeable.

In fact, men and women are different, and it is their differences that create the necessary complementarity of marriage. Insofar as we accept the counterfactual feminist ideology of legally-mandated androgyny — that men and women are the same, and thus fungible — then it becomes impossible to argue coherently that it makes any difference whether you marry a man or a woman.

UPDATE: Dan Collins reminds Musto and Olby that “despite what your girlfriends may tell you, catty, stupid, vicious, jealous, ugly and self-righteous is no way to go through life, son.” I’ve got some related stuff here.