Archive for ‘gay rights’

April 30, 2009

SHANNA MOAKLER: NAKED LIAR?

Earlier today, I reported Shanna Moakler’s denial of Perez Hilton’s report that she had told Access Hollywood that pageant officials paid for Carrie Prejean’s implants. Now Access Hollywood reports:

Shanna Moakler, Co-Executive Director of the Miss California Organization, has confirmed the group behind the pageant paid for Miss California Carrie Prejean’s breast implants, weeks before she competed in Miss USA.
In a new interview with Access Hollywood’s Billy Bush, Shanna confirmed the news.
“Did you guys pay for it?: Billy asked Shanna directly.
“Yes,” Shanna said. “We did.”
The organization paid for Carrie’s breast enhancement prior to her competing in the Miss USA pageant, which was held in Las Vegas, almost two weeks ago.
“It was something that we all spoke about together,” Shanna said referring to herself, Carrie and Keith Lewis, Shanna’s co-executive director. “It was an option and she wanted it. And we supported that decision.”
Shanna, a former Miss USA herself, defended the Miss California Organization’s decision to pay for the elective surgery.
“Breast implants in pageants is not a rarity. It’s definitely not taboo. It’s very common. Breast implants today among young women today is very common. I don’t personally have them, but you know — they are,” she added.

You lying bitch! You deleted your earlier Tweet, in which you denied the Perez Hilton story, then turned around and Twittered:

Just did Access Hollywood, feel very good about it and hope I cleared up things! Billy Bush was a great!

Public Relations 101: NEVER LIE TO A REPORTER. We are not stupid. You are not required to respond to any press inquiry. You can refuse to comment, “neither confirm nor deny,” etc. But never lie, because once you’re caught lying, your credibility is shot.

Obviously, however, you’re telling the truth about not having implants. I did my research, lady. They’re real enough, all right. But they’re definitely not spectacular (or safe for work). No wonder Travis dumped you. Maybe he’ll take the kids, too.

UPDATE: Via Dan Collins, prepare for the weirdness of Perez Hilton in drag as . . . Bettie Page. Go ahead and laugh while you can. If Obama gets his way, it will be a hate crime to laugh. It’s already illegal discrimination to fire a transsexual.

UPDATE II: Frank J asks: “Why are people always trying to tear down our heroes?” Feet of clay, boobs of silicone?

Also, not to fuel anyone’s paranoia, but I’m getting anonymous tips that Carrie Prejean might actually be a Trojan Horse for the gay-rights movement. Prejean is friends with pageant director Keith Lewis, who was executive producer for a pro-gay documentary, “For The Bible Tells Me So.”

According to my tipster’s theory — and this is just speculation — the whole Perez Hilton question for Prejean was a setup, a stunt conceived to catapult Prejean to celebrity as a national spokewoman against same-sex marriage. Then, a few months later, she’ll have a “Road To Damascus” conversion, claiming to have “seen the light” about how hateful those conservative homophobes are, and why same-sex marriage should be the law of the land.

Also, my tipster speculates, various people (including Shanna Moakler) are using the Prejean controversy as publicity to help them negotiate new reality-TV gigs. (Apparently, landing a reality-show contract has in recent years become the obsession of every washed-up starlet and D-lister in Hollywood.)

This is all just speculation from anonymous tipsters, and is close enough to being outright conspiracy theory that I take it with numerous grains of salt. However, it’s worth keeping in mind as we watch the continuing saga of Carrie Prejean.

UPDATE III: I’ve also explained the tin-foil hat/silicone boobs theory at the Green Room. Meanwhile, Brian Simpson disputes my assessment of Moakler’s (non-)spectacularity. I’m sorry, Brian: I’ve got very high standards in this regard, after being married 20 years to such a hottie.

UPDATE IV: Naturally, Pandagon’s Pam Spaulding is outraged that anyone could (even pretend to) be against same-sex marriage.

UPDATE V: Ace says Prejean is getting the “Joe The Plumber treatment” from the press corps, and sees a double standard at work. Please note that, although I’m a thoroughgoing right-winger, I don’t feel like it’s my job to ignore Carrie’s fakies.

News is news, facts are facts, and — most importantly — traffic is traffic. I’m a capitalist blogger, and I don’t see any reason to let Gawker and Perez Hilton monopolize the “Carrie Prejean fake boob” traffic.

April 25, 2009

Carrie Prejean bikini pics

UPDATE 5/5: CARRIE PREJEAN NUDE PIC SCANDAL.

(BUMPED 4/25; URGENT UPDATES BELOW.)

The politics of coercive approval means that to disagree with the policy of same-sex marriage is to disapprove of homosexuality, which is impermissible. As with other “progressive” causes, the object of the gay rights agenda is not merely a matter of policy. Rather, it aims ultimately at thought-control, to forbid dissent.

By speaking out against same-sex marriage, Miss California USA Carrie Prejean may have lost the Miss USA crown, and now she’s the target of “progressive” death threats, as Donald Douglas points out:

You just can’t hold an opinion contrary to the secular progressive hordes in this country: They want her DEAD! They want her family DEAD! They want her house burned to the GROUND! They wanna go there in the middle of the night and PISS ON HER ASHES!

Ah, the sweet voices of multicultural tolerance! They want to mount an inquisition because the CIA plays rough with Abu and Khalid, but let someone dare to criticize their agenda, and we see what they’re really all about: You have a right to our opinion!

Maybe they just hate her because she’s beautiful?

A closer examination of that photo causes me to wonder if Carrie’s got implants:

You notice that (a) she’s extraordinarily lean, and (b) her breasts have that unnatural globular quality that is the telltale hallmark of fakies.

At least they’re a semi-credible B-cup rather than those ginormous porn-star fakies. But I’m still anti-fakie. Whether they’re AAs or DDs, ladies, stick with what the good lord gave ya. To do otherwise is as unnatural as . . . uh, same-sex marriage.

UPDATE: Not only am I now the top Google result for “Carrie Prejean bikini,” but I’m also the No. 6 result for “Carrie+Prejean+naked.” Remember, hits is hits. And since I’m not quite making that $75K/year for 100K visits/month, I’ll gladly take the traffic.

UPDATE II: Welcome Townhall readers! Hope you share my traditional-values opposition to breast implants. “Traditional” and “natural” go together. If a girl’s naturally skinny, that’s OK. And if a girl’s got a little more to love . . . well, nothing wrong with that, either. But keep it natural.

UPDATE III: Speaking of naked, check out the naked bias of Miss USA pageant director Shanna Moakler:

But she lost the crown because she wasn’t able to convey compassion for ALL the people that as MISS USA she would be representing. and if YOU like it or not, gays and lesbians make up this country as well. THIS is why we have judges so they can find the RIGHT woman who obtains these qualities. they are crucial in my eyes when holding a honor and title as big as being Miss USA. The panel of judges was qualified and did their job, they represented all of us, men, woman, black, white, gay and straight.

OK, to start with, Ms. Moakler, you’re blogging on MySpace, OK? But I skip past that, as well as overlooking your UNUSUAL choices of ALLCAPS. What you can’t seem to comprehend, Ms. Moakler is how evil it is to make someone’s position on a controversial public policy question a measure of their “compassion.”

You are evil, Ms. Moakler. Perez Hilton is evil and so are any of the Miss USA judges who share your evil mentality that equates opposition to the politicized gay-rights agenda with a lack of “compassion.” How about you arrogant elitists read an actual book once in a while and try to understand why politics as an exercise in moral narcissism — The Vision of the Anointed, as Thomas Sowell dubbed it — is so heinously evil.

UPDATE IV: Carrie Prejean: Hateful Oppressor?

UPDATE V:

(April 25) I am not going to name the distinguished conservative academic who e-mailed me a link to a site titled, “CARRIE PREJEAN NAKED.” However, I do want to serve notice that anyone who thinks they can out-pander me has got another think coming. When it comes to random-Google keywords, nobody out-panders the Rule 5 King.

I’m No. 1 on “Carrie Prejean bikini,” and if somebody’s aced me out on “Carrie Prejean nude,” or “Carrie Prejean naked,” or “Carrie Prejean upskirt,” I’m not going to give in without a fight.

BTW, the photo above is meant to illustrate my earlier argument (I’m currently the No. 4 Google return on “Carrie Prejean fake boobs”) that Miss California USA is implant-enhanced. One of the commenters has referred to the clearly evident “refund gap” between Miss Prejean’s suspiciously globular breasts.

Having done extensive hands-on field research from 1973-1988, I’m an authority on varieties of female pectoral configuration. Miss Prejean’s chest is a phenomenon not found in nature. There is no purely biological possibility of a girl that skinny having breasts that large, perfectly spherical in shape, and separated by several inches of flat sternum. Trust an expert: Those boobs are as unnatural as “Adam and Steve.”

April 22, 2009

Carrie Prejean: Hateful Oppressor?

“The problem with the ‘homophobia’ smear is that this allegedly dangerous tendency does not correlate with any actual evil. Nearly all ‘homophobes’ are peaceful, law-abiding citizens who treat the objects of their supposed ‘phobia’ with civility and courtesy. It is the object of the Left to convince homosexuals that they suffer oppression as the result of the intolerance and prejudice of their fellow citizens, yet it is extraordinarily difficult to argue that homosexuals are oppressed — the annual income of gay households, calculated as a per-capita average, far exceeds the income of most married-with-children households — much less that their putative oppression is the result of discrimination at the hands of heterosexual bigots.”

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin:

Instead of apologizing for pageant judge Perez Hilton’s vile behavior, the pageant director of the Miss California contest, Keith Lewis, sent a note to Hilton throwing Prejean under the bus: “I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss CA USA 2009 believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman. . . . Religious beliefs have no place in politics in the Miss CA family.”

Ergo, Perez Hilton, OK; Carrie Prejean, not OK. Secular liberalism, OK; religious conservatism, not OK. The values of the media-culture mainstream are clear, and the price of publicly rejecting those values is equally clear.

Please allow me to call to your attention the continued shifting of the tectonic plates of American politics, as Michelle Malkin moves steadily into alignment with Robert Spencer and Pam Geller, while Charles Johnson drifts toward Meghan McCain. Meanwhile, Carrie Prejean comes out of the closet as a Tea Party conservative. I am once again reminded of Phyllis Chesler and The Camp of the Saints.

WOLVERINES!

UPDATE II: No Sheeples Here notes that, although Miss California didn’t win the crown, Perez Hilton is a total queen. Meanwhile, Donald Douglas is exploiting the controversy with admirable shamelessness.

Rule 5A — “Everybody Loves a Pretty Girl” — explains both the value of Miss Prejean’s courage in speaking up, and the rage of the Left against her. The Left knows very well what I learned more than two decades ago while working as a nightclub DJ: Wherever the pretty girls are, that’s where everyone wants to be.

This is why Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter drive ’em nuts. Beauty is associated with prestige, and when a beautiful woman declares herself a conservative, she effectively undermines the prestige of liberalism. If you’ve contemplated Thomas Sowell’s The Vision of the Anointed, you understand that liberals think of themselves as more sophisticated and enlightened than the benighted “masses.”

This self-congratulatory liberal self-conception is contradicted when their ideology is not embraced by prestige-conferring beauties. Liberals have no problem getting their agenda endorsed by airhead Hollywood starlets, but whenever one encounters the confluence of beauty and brains, conservative beliefs are far more prevalent.

My beautiful and intelligent conservative wife is sufficient evidence of that phenomenon, but noting the “progressive” outrage over Tom Tancredo’s appearance at the University of North Carolina, perhaps Mrs. Other McCain won’t mind my adducing other evidence of the widespread appeal of Youth For Western Civilization:

Rep. Tom Tancredo and young extremist Clever S. Logan. (Better watch your step, Big Sexy, or these right-wingers will have you deported.)

UPDATE III: Linked at Memeorandum, with this observation from Dan Riehl: “It’s getting so one can hardly express a critical thought if it isn’t acceptable to the Left.”

UPDATE IV: Allahpundit has video of an interview with Miss North Carolina, who won the Miss USA pageant because of Miss California’s political disqualification.

UPDATE V:Sometimes you read something that makes you want to stand up and applaud. This is one of those!

UPDATE VI: Donald Douglas, all-around extremist.

April 14, 2009

Meghan loves her some Log Cabin!

Via Hot Air, and as promoted yesterday via Twitter, here’s Meghan McCain’s magnum opus:

So why are gay issues so important to me? At the most basic level, sexual orientation should not be a factor in how you are treated. If the Republican Party has any hope of gaining substantial support from a wider, younger base, we need to get past our anti-gay rhetoric. . . . A dear friend of mine who’s both gay and Republican told me, “I find myself constantly being asked how I can reconcile who I am as a person with a party that lately has had such a gay-unfriendly message. Where I stand politically doesn’t begin and end with my sexuality.”

Meghan’s “sexuality,” BTW, is slut . . or so one hears. But who am I to repeat mere gossip? Of course, even if it were true that she puts out like Pez dispenser, that sort of ad hominem attack is invalid as logic and has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of Meghan’s argument for . . .

Wait a minute. What, exactly, is she arguing for? And what is her argument? Let’s see: She has a “dear friend” who is gay, and she is concerned about “anti-gay rhetoric” and a “gay-unfriendly message.”

Free markets, low taxes, limited government, traditional values and a strong defense — if you’re for that, you’re a conservative Republican same as anybody else. Nobody cares whether you’re hanging out in gay bars or, in Meghan’s case, pulling a train at the Teke house. (I don’t personally believe those rumors, but I’m just saying that this is politically irrevelant.)

So whether you’re gay or straight, married, divorced or single, monogamously chaste or promiscuously Meghanesque — well, these sorts of personal sexuality issues should be no deterrent to voting Republican. What really matters is solid conservative principles, like not pissing in the cornflakes of all those evangelicals and Catholics who make up the hard-core party base in the Red States.

Meghan’s argument is not to be taken lightly because it was ghost-written by someone else, or because she’s said to be a pushover for any guy who can afford the price of three vodka tonics. In fact, Meghan doesn’t really have an argument in any forensic sense.

Which is to say: Megan, you ignorant slut.

UPDATE: Donald Douglas at American Power:

Much of the meme on the left (alleging conservative bigotry) is in fact progressive totalitarianism and intolerance toward the traditional culture. That’s why so many regular folks get turned off by the debate: They are hesitant to wade into the culture wars for fear of being attacked and browbeaten as homophobic when they are anything but.

Stogie at Saberpoint links with an unfortunate headline: “Meghan McCain on Gay Republicans.” (Gay Republicans: “Help! Get that fat cow off us!”)

Stogie’s argument, alas, falls into the problematic tendency of, “Look, here is a gay person who is an admirable citizen.” And therefore . . .?

This does not address the issue of same-sex marriage. The question under consideration is not whether gay people are admirable citizens, either as individuals or, in comparison to heterosexuals, on average, whether gay people are better or worse citizens. There is a matter of law and policy at stake, and one’s position on that matter does not necessarily reflect a value judgment on any given person affected by the policy.

Such arguments are reminiscent of those who, when you try to debate immigration policy, will immediately say, “Oh, my grandfather came over from Ireland!” or “I know a nice Mexican man!” And therefore . . .?

Have you read Thomas Sowell’s The Vision of the Anointed or Friedrich Hayek’s The Mirage of Social Justice? I’m trying to think of some other books that argue against this kind of thinking. Reader suggestions are welcome.

April 13, 2009

Consensual teen sex-texting

First gay marriage, now this:

The Vermont Legislature is considering a bill that would legalize so-called “sexting” between teenagers.
Sexting refers to the exchange of explicit photos and videos via mobile phone. Under current laws, participants can be charged with child pornography, but lawmakers are considering a bill to legalize the consensual exchange of graphic images between two people 13 to 18 years old. Passing along such images to others would remain a crime.
Supporters told The Burlington Free Press they don’t want to condone the behavior but they don’t think teenagers should be prosecuted as sex offenders for consensual conduct.

(Via Hot Air Headlines.) You never know what you’ll encounter on your slow slide down the slippery slope, do you? From the Kinsey Report to the Pill to “no-fault” divorce to abortion to “don’t ask, don’t tell,” to pro-pedophile academia to women in combat to the 16-year-old sex-change — the general direction of the slide is clear, but the next milestone is always a surprise.

UPDATE: I linked this in my first post over at Hot Air’s Green Room, an interesting new group blog concept. BTW, while I was compiling the list of links below — recent milestones on the slippery slope — I was reminded of a preacher’s famous observation that maybe God owes Sodom and Gomorrah an apology.

UPDATE II: Linked at Creative Minority Report. Obviously, the key to the Vermont legislature’s thinking involves the magic word “consensual,” which vanquishes all opposition.

UPDATE III: Two commenters at the Green Room are dug in like bulldogs, tenaciously defending Vermont’s what’s-a-little-porn-between-teens loophole. It’s weird. They’re on their side, I’m on my side, and nobody’s going to persuade anyone. So why do they persist? I’ve ceased trying to persuade them, and now they’re just attacking me. Sigh.

PREVIOUSLY:
4/3: Iowa gay ruling: Power to the elites!
3/31: Because insane is the new normal
3/16: 11-year-old girl self-porn
3/15: Ross Douthat, porn expert?
3/13: ‘Mamas, Don’t Let Your Daughters Grow Up to Be Downloads’
2/28: Hobo teen rape menace
2/11: The Hasidic pornography defense
2/10: Pre-teen transsexuals?
2/10: Sixteen-year-old sex change
1/20: Obama’s gay agenda
1/15: The ‘culture’ defense
1/13: Diversity is our strength!
1/11: ‘Science’ and teen sex
12/26: Perversity and popular culture
12/5: Planned Parenthood exposed
11/28: Her right to jailbait
11/14: Tolerance, social justice, kiddie porn
10/30: Planned Infanticide
10/14: Obama’s ‘sex rebel’ mentor
6/19: Incredible. Just incredible.
5/15: Jodie Foster’s gay divorce
5/14: Pre-teen pole dancers?
5/1: Pomocon does Miley Cyrus
4/19: ‘Underage sex cult’
3/20: Imported perverts

April 3, 2009

Iowa gay ruling: Power to the elites!

The news:

The Iowa Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling Friday finding that the state’s same-sex marriage ban violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples, making Iowa the third state where gay marriage is legal.
In its decision, the court upheld a 2007 district court judge’s ruling that the law violates the state constitution. It strikes the language from Iowa code limiting marriage to only between a man a woman.

The court’s ruling begins, bizarrely, by praising the character of the plaintiffs:

Like most Iowans, they are responsible, caring, and productive individuals. They maintain important jobs, or are retired, and are contributing, benevolent members of their communities.

Can you say “non sequitur,” boys and girls? Whether they were drug addicts or unemployed truck drivers, this is no measure of their rights. Will update with more.

UPDATE: This goes back to something I blogged about yesterday, when Debra Dickerson wrote:

Enjoy the last few years left of discriminating against gays ‘cuz them days is almost gone. . . . Homophobia is on a short list of acceptable bigotries. But it’s fading fast.

This is the attitude of an elite that is about to impose its will on the reluctant masses. Debra Dickerson sees that her opinion — that pathological “homophobia” is the only reason why gay marriage is not legal — is shared by her fellow members of the elite, including the legal establishment. They have the power to make their opinion law, and Dickerson’s scoffing at the masses is the elite exulting in its own power: “Hahaha, you ignorant rubes can’t stop us!”

Notice how the rainbow armband accentuates their brown shirts. Splendid!

UPDATE II: More elitism from the Iowa court’s ruling:

Many leading organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, and the Child Welfare League of America, weighed the available research and supported the conclusion that gay and lesbian parents are as effective as heterosexual parents in raising children.

Argumentum ad verecundiam — the appeal to authority, in this case the authority of “many leading organizations” in the social sciences. One of the dirty little secrets of social science is that it is possible to “prove” anything, if you’re willing to accept shoddy methodology.

We need only ask what “many leading organizations” said about homosexuality circa 1920 or 1950 to see that there is no fixed and permanent truth in social science. And again this returns us to the fallacy of “progress”: Because elite opinion has changed in recent decades, this change becomes synonymous with progress, and skeptics find themselves excluded from the argument because their opposition to “progress” represents an attack on the prestige of the elite.

UPDATE III: To judge by the Memeorandum thread, as of 11:55 a.m., only liberal bloggers are commenting on the Iowa court decision.

UPDATE IV: Allow me now to put on my “top Hayekian public intellectual” hat, and explain a bit of why my Austrian-influenced views don’t send me trotting into the camp of the left-libertarians on this issue. To be as concise as possibly, the gay marriage issue is not about liberty. It’s about equality, as Andrew Sullivan makes explicit:

As always, there is a backlash against civil equality. But the process of removing basic constitutional rights by amending the constitution to strip a specified minority of such rights is, understandably, an onerous process.

“Civil equality” — what a heavy freight Sully wishes those two little words to carry! He refers to proposals by conservatives to pass a state constitutional amendment to prevent the court from imposing its will on Iowans.

No one can plausibly argue that the authors of the Iowa state constitution, or the people who ratified that constitution, intended to make sodomy — which the same people and their representatives proscribed as a crime, in accordance with venerable Anglo-American common law tradition — a “right” of the citizen. And yet, because the state constitution also speaks of “equality,” the trick of the litigious sophists is to argue that the equality clause negates the right of the people to define marriage.

“Equality” is not a libertarian maxim, and yet many people who have wandered into the libertarian camp have brought with them this smuggled cargo of egalitarianism. The principle of liberty dos not require that we treat different things as if they were equal, or to pretend that differences do not exist.

The crusade for same-sex marriage is a consequence of a prior crusade to convince us that there are no meaningful differences between men and women. As a certain Hayekian public intellectual wrote in January:

Are men and women equal in the fullest sense of the word? If so, then equality implies fungibility — the two things are interchangeable and one may be substituted for the other in any circumstance whatsoever. (La mort à la différence!) Therefore, it is of no consequence whether I marry a woman or a man. . . .
This is why so many of those who would defend traditional marriage find themselves unable to form a coherent argument, because traditional marriage is based on the assumption that men and women are fundamentally different, and hence, unequal. Traditional marriage assumes a complementarity of the sexes that becomes absurd if you deny that “man” and “woman” define intrinsic traits, functions, roles.

Andrew Sullivan is as free to marry a woman as I am, and I am prohibited (at least by the laws of my state) from marrying a man just as Sullivan is. We are, therefore, fully equal under the law, the only difference being that he desires to be married to a man and I do not. His desire for legal endorsement of his preference is thwarted, although his civil liberty is uninfringed.

Sullivan may own property, execute contracts, serve on juries, vote, drive, own firearms, etc., the same as anyone. Yet he makes a great show of his martyrdom to homophobia, so as to elicit pity, to qualify for the victim status that is so coveted in contemporary culture. And if you call bullshit on his histrionic display, you are a bigoted homophobe (since Sully arrogates to himself the power to decide who is or is not a homophobe).

This entire way of thinking is contrary to the Anglo-American tradition that Hayek praised. Hayek understood that knowledge is diffuse, scattered widely throughout society, and that the traditions of a successful society represent the collection of useful knowledge that the society has gained through experienced. The arrogance of the elite, desirous to impose their own modernist experiments upon the society, is based on the fallacy that the elite’s modernism is more “scientific” than the traditions of the society.

This is why the elite always advocate centralization of authority, so that their projects will be universal in scope, allowing no alternatives, no diversity whereby ordinary people may evaluate by comparison to the two regimes. The Soviets wanted to abolish free societies, because the prosperity of free societies stood as a rebuke to the misery of the victims of socialism. But within the sphere of their own influence, the Bolshevik commissars insisted upon a centralized regime of universal scope: Everything was subject to the rule of the commissars, and the fact that their authority was total is where we get the word “totalitarian.”

Sully speaks the language of “civil equality,” but it has a meaning quite opposite of what such terms meant to Hayek. Sully’s “equality” is one imposed with authority of an elite, a regime that is fundamentally hostile to the rights secured by the victors at Runnymede.

Excuse me if I’ve offended any of my fellow Hayekians. There is a huge chasm between Sully’s totalitarian “must” and Hayek’s libertarian “may.” We ought not encourage Christians and other traditionalists to believe that “libertarians” would require them to endorse policies that their conscience requires them to oppose. The denizens of Castro Street and Provincetown are at liberty to do as they wish, but the friend of liberty should be skeptical of the proposition that every street must be Castro Street or that every town must be Provincetown.

UPDATE V: In the comments we hear from Professor Donald Douglas — who yesterday elaborated on my examination of nihilism in the gay rights movement — and who today congratulates me on “getting over to the social conservative side of things.”

Well, Professor, I’ve never been anywhere else, really. The crisis of the moment has required me to focus on promoting opposition to the Obamanomics agenda (IT WON’T WORK), and in that cause we’ll take every ally we can get. There are plenty of gay men and lesbians (including Cynthia and Tammy) who share my respect for sturdy economic truth, however much we disagree as to their “rights.”

Without economic freedom, there is no freedom. The captives in the gulag did not spend their time arguing about gay rights, eh? (Solzhenitsyn was a devout, conservative Christian who condemned the decadence of the West with as much vehemence as he denounced Soviet tyrrany.) Let me remind my Christian conservative friends of a passage of Revelation that gets too little scrutiny:

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Rev. 13:16-17

The infamous anti-Christ, whose name is the mystery number “666,” is exercises religious, political and economic authority. Either you worship and obey the Beast, or you will be denied even the right to buy and sell. Therefore I conceive it the duty of every faithful Christian to oppose every expansion of governmental economic power.

The Book of Revelation has often been twisted into pretzels by self-appointed prophets who claim to know the identity of the Beast. I am sufficiently modest in my theology that I would not dare claim any such knowledge. However, we have seen many times in history tyrannies that resembled this final apocalyptic tyrant: The Jacobins of revolutionary France, Stalin in Russia, Hitler in Germany, Mao in China, Pol Pot in Cambodia, Mugabe in Zimbabwe.

We know how these bestial tyrannies operate, and we know that centralization of economic authority is fundamental to their power. As the passage says, the anti-Christ wields power over “small and great, rich and poor, free and bond,” and we might as well add “gay and straight,” for centralized tyranny is ironically equal in its evil. Study how Stalin sent his own henchmen to their deaths and you see that it is often more dangerous to be a supporter of evil than to be an outspoken opponent of evil. Read the Koestler quote I use as the blog motto:

“One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up.”

Now, what I believe to be the truth about gay rights may be offensive to some of those who agree with me about economics, but I would forfeit my self-respect if I didn’t write about social issues as ruthlessly as I write everything else. If you are a gay person who thinks that I “hate” or “fear” you because I disagree with you on such issues, you must ask yourself, “Who told me this? Who told me that anyone who disagrees with the gay-rights agenda is a hateful bigot? And if I see evidence to the contrary, should I trust my own experience or should I continue to trust what I have been told?”

As to Christians who endorse economic interventionism, I need merely reference the observation of Ludwig von Mises that a “Christian socialist” is . . . a socialist.

UPDATE VI: Finally, Memeorandum lists comments by NRO’s Ed Whelan (who calls the ruling “gobbledygook”) and the Weekly Standard‘s John McCormack (who calls the decision “preposterous”).

UPDATE VII: Professor Douglas now generously gives me the FMJRA. (NTTAWWT.) Isn’t it kind of ironic, BTW, that one of the most important rules of “How to Get a Million Hits on Your Blog” involves this decidely non-“family values” joke?

UPDATE VIII: Dale Carpenter at Volokh Conspiracy analyzes the Iowa decision in a lawyerly context.

UPDATE IX: Tom Maguire:

C’mon – what kind of a country are we if liberals can’t launch another grand social experiment on the backs of the black community?

Meanwhile, a clever variation on the “progress” fallacy in the comments:

As someone said, gay marriage is less a moral issue than a generational one. And you’re on the wrong end of the generational divide.

All the cool kids are for same-sex marriage! This combines the “progress” fallacy with the “bandwagon” fallacy, neither of which is persuasive to sober minds. Even if the syllogism were valid (it’s not), the premise is flawed.

“A majority of voters 18-24 favor progressive Proposition X, which is opposed by a majority of voters over 50.” Ergo, the fool believes, once the old fogeys die off, the progressive views of today’s youth will prevail. Yet youth is fickle and especially subject to trendy suasion, otherwise the death of Archie Bunker and the triumph of the Woodstock Nation would mean, in 2009, we’d all be wallowing naked in the mud to the sound of Canned Heat.

Most of the Baby Boomers sobered up, got jobs, acquired kids, mortgages, minivans and paunchy bellies, and if today’s 60-year-olds are not as staunchly traditional as their parents were in 1969, they nonetheless are more traditional than they themselves were at 20. At 35, I was still a staunch Democrat; sometimes a stubborn fool remains fooled longer than others, but even a stubborn fool need not remain a fool forever.

March 27, 2009

Gay people should stay single

Excuse me, but I saw this headline:

McCain strategist endorses
same-sex marriage

Schmidt urges GOP to be
more welcoming of gays

To which I must obviously reply:

The Other McCain doesn’t
endorse this trendy nonsense
‘But OK with teh ghey,’ says
blogger known for Speedo

Don’t hate me, gay people. I’m an old-fashioned dude. Like 1977 old-fashioned. Back In The Day, gay people had a reputation for being tolerant, open-minded and non-judgmental.

For instance, if a 17-year-old dopehead boy wanted to drink in a bar in midtown Atlanta, he could always bebop his way up to the Sweet Gum Head on Cheshire Bridge Road and if he was kind of cute — that tanned, skinny, long-haired, tight-jeans-and-an-unbuttoned-chambray-shirt-with-puka-shell-necklace kind of cute — nobody would card him at the door. Not only that, but the patrons of such an establishment would be very eager to buy the boy a drink and teach him how to dance the Latin hustle.

Or so I’m told.

What I want to know is, when did you queers — a term I use in that signifying radical postmodern transgressive sense, you understand — stop being cool like that? Because from everything I see, all the intolerence, close-mindedness and judgmentalism nowadays is coming from you.

Yeah, that’s right. It’s like when the Germans went from being famous for beer and lederhosen to being famous for gas chambers and ovens. Ordinary gay people, I get along with fine. But ever since the Reagan administration, everything is about The Movement, isn’t it?

“Gay” is no longer about disco music and sharing some butyl nitrite with a thirsty long-haired teenage dopehead while the Donna Summer thumps out of the sound system. Now, being “gay” is some kind of politicized identity (like being “Aryan”) and the leadership of The Movement — those Faggot Fuehrers and Dyke Dictators who want to tell you what to think — spend all their time teaching people to hate anybody who disagrees with The Movement.

So if The Movement says that same-sex marriage is a “right” (just like the Aryan master race had a “right” to the Danzig Corridor), then anybody who doesn’t salute and start marching is an Evil Homophobic Hate Monger.

I liked it better when you did the Latin hustle. This goosestepping stuff isn’t sexy. And ditch the brown shirts. Faded chambray brings out the blue in my eyes.

Or so I’m told.

BTW, you should think about ditching that crappy Euro/techno music and bringing some Old School.

UPDATE: Linked by Evil Homophobic Hate Monger Dan Collins. (Dan, green and orange? I mean, really.)

UPDATE II: For the sake of perspective, I should point out that I also disagree with the “right” of young hotties to get naked in nightclubs. NTTAWWT.

March 23, 2009

Gay ‘tolerance’: Transgenders violently attacked by lesbians at DC bar

No, this is not an Onion satire. It’s news so bizarrely real you couldn’t possibly make it up:

When Mitch Graffeo entered Dupont’s Fab Lounge shortly before closing on Feb. 28, he hadn’t been to a lesbian club in more than a decade. Graffeo, 40, was only stopping in to pick up a friend, 29-year-old Jamie, at the conclusion of the gay bar’s weekly lesbian night. Graffeo and Jamie, both transgender men, were two of only a handful of men in a club full of women.

(OK, just to clarify the nomenclature a bit here: Mitch and Jamie were both born women, and are at different stages of the hormones-and-surgery business of female-to-male sex change treatment.)

As the lights went up [at closing time], a group of women took a sudden interest in Jamie. Slim and boyish, Jamie had only recently begun to transition from female to male, and they wanted to know what he was.
Graffeo watched the women surround Jamie. “They were grabbing him, saying, ‘What are you, a boy or a girl?'” Graffeo says. “They were very interested and excited, grabbing his crotch and his chest,” says Graffeo. When Jamie asked the women to leave him alone, they closed in tight around him. Jamie “wiggled his way out,” and the two men funneled toward the door with the rest of the last-call crowd.
Once outside, one of the women refused to let her curiosity subside. “She jumped on his back a bit and put him in a headlock,” says Graffeo. Then, she reopened the line of questioning. “She was saying, ‘What are you, come on, tell me, what the f—,'” Graffeo says. Jamie wiggled out again. The woman persisted.
When Graffeo stepped between them, the woman “tried to punch around” him. Graffeo pulled out his cell phone and announced he was calling the police. The woman grabbed the phone from his hand and used it to pound Graffeo in the head and neck. “She said, ‘You’re not calling anybody,'” Graffeo says. Meanwhile, “a second gal was just pummeling Jamie, hitting him on his head, his neck, his arms.” Soon, a car pulled up, and the women jumped inside. Jamie was left with bruises and a concussion. A week later, “he’s still purple,” says Graffeo. “He’s not black and blue, he’s purple all over.”

Kinda rainbow, you might say. Now, if you insensitive morons ever stop laughing long enough, you might want to read the rest of the story, which includes a rather delicate and ponderous discussion of gay-on-gay violence, a problem more widespread than the Poofter PR brigades in the MSM would like to admit.

Political correctness demands that gay people can only be betrayed in the news media as either (a) heroic role models, courageously living their lives on their own terms, or (b) martyred victims, suffering hateful abuse at the hands of cretinous homophobic Christofascist Republicans.

An examination of the circumstances surrounding the murder of Matthew Shepard doesn’t support that reading. Shepard was a dweeby rich college kid rolled by a couple of petty hoodlums who almost certainly never heard of James Dobson. But if you try to argue with the MSM-approved “Martyrdom of Saint Matthew” narrative, it only proves that you’re a cretinous homophobic Christofascist Republican. So most people don’t bother to argue.

Even further unsubstantiated by evidence is the MSM-approved notion of the “gay community” as one big happy Sister Sledge “We Are Family” singalong, where the leather daddies and the flannel-shirted bulldykes and the glitter-encrusted drag queens all rejoice in celebration of their shared gayness. Complete hogwash.

When you’ve got a couple of gals so butch they’re willing to inject testosterone and undergo mastectomies to pass as men, and yet they cannot visit a lesbian bar for fear they’ll be beaten up — well, in light of such an incident, I think the absurdity of “We Are Family” solidarity is adequately demonstrated.

And if you think these two F2Ms “transmen” got it bad, just imagine the riot that would have ensued if a couple of male-to-female trannygirls should try to pass themselves off as actual women in a lesbian bar.

So, just as we can sneer at the ideological nonsense of feminism (Equality Is For Ugly Losers), we can also chortle derisively at the homosupremacist propaganda that would have us believe gay people enjoy a monopoly on enlightened tolerance.

March 20, 2009

How long until Easter?

Cynthia Yockey was the Good Sapphic Samaritan last week, helping me maintain my Lenten vow (I’m a proud Protestant, but made a promise to a friend who is a notorious Catholic hypocrite), and now as further testimony that the Lord sends “angels unawares,” Katha Pollit adds her widow’s mite:

But [William Kristol’s] presence on the [New York Times op-ed] page reminded readers that David Brooks is not really what Republicanism is all about. Frankly, though, I don’t see why there must be two conservatives on the page.

I suppose I should also acknowledge that, via Rule 3, a hat-tip is owed to Matthew Yglesias, even though he couldn’t be bothered to read Atlas Shrugged before denouncing it.
Now, I have acknowledged to Cynthia that she is owed an apology, because when I responded at length to her dispute of my views on gay marriage, I ignorantly wounded her — an unintentional offense, yet an offense nonetheless.
Thinking that Cynthia was currently in a long-term lesbian relationship, I engaged in a hypothetical speculation on the possibility that, should she by misfortune become a “lesbian widow,” there would be no guarantee that her next relationship would also be lesbian. Whatever one’s orientation or your congenital predisposition, whatever your habit and custom, life is like a box of chocolates, and sometimes a chance encounter becomes a “pivotal life movement.” Not until many years later, wondering how you arrived at your present circumstance, do you look back and ask, “When did that road fork? Where did I turn?”

My intention was kindness, but the result was cruelty, for I did not know that Cythnia’s 20-year relationship had ended with her partner’s death — after a long, painful, debilitating illness — on Dec. 7, 2004.

Ms. Yockey has chronicled her devotion to Margaret Ardussi in a page that I promised her I would link. My oppressive patriarchal heteronormativity bids me speak, but as Smitty points out, “He that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.” Therefore, Ms. Yockey, I pray only that my apology is sufficent and acceptable, as it is my continued hope ever to remain

Your most humble and obedient servant,

ROBERT STACY McCAIN
March 11, 2009

Insightful political commentary, etc.

Thanks to Smitty for the hard-hitting expose about Jesus and Elvis, plus moderating the comments, while I was out of pocket Tuesday evening. The man is owed cheeseburgers and beers for his labors, so hit the tip jar, people. (Second rarest sentence in the English language: “Thanks for picking up the tab, McCain.” Because of extremely low wages, newspapermen are cheapskate moochers, and I’ve eaten enough free food to alleviate Third World famine.)

Update blogging is in order:

Now, it’s time to address something that needs to be said: I naturally expect that, when I blog about gay rights/gay marriage in terms of God and sin and Anglo-American legal tradition, gay people are going to take umbrage. It is inevitable.

During CPAC, I met conservative lesbian Cynthia Yockey, and Miss Yockey gives me a very gentle and friendly Rule 2 rejoinder on my belief in biblical authority. (Note to self: Resist temptation presented by opportunity for brilliant double-entendre.)

As is my wont (and Miss Yockey can ask commenter Victor about this), I will avoid engaging the specifics of her critique, and instead focus strategically on holding more defensible terrain. To wit, refuting the routine slander that alleges that Bible believers:

  • Hate gay people.
  • Are ignorant of the reality of gayness.
  • Suffer from twisted sexual “repression.”
  • Lack familiarity with scientific evidence.
  • Wish to deprive gay people of their rights.

These are lies, Miss Yockey. And who is called “the father of lies”? ( Church Lady voice.) Satan!

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
John 8:44 KJV

Miss Yockey, if you will read that chapter, you will find that Jesus spoke those words prophetically. The scribes and Pharisees, jealous of Jesus’ influence, were indeed already plotting his death. They kept questioning him, trying to trip him up so he would say something that would either justify his religious condemnation as a heretic, or else that would be seen as subversive of Roman authority and justify his condemnation for sedition.

John 8 begins with one of the most famous of these incidents, “the woman caught in adultery.” As everyone knows, Christ challenged the woman’s accusers, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” (John 8:7), and all of them walked away.

This woman quite literally owed Jesus her life. What transpired next?

When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Romans 8:10-11

Jesus did not condemn the woman, but he nonetheless commanded her to “sin no more.”

Now, Miss Yockey, do not read that passage and think of yourself. Think of me. You have no idea how often I have cheated death. One night when I was 19, I consumed the better part of a half-gallon of psilocybin mushroom tea and tooted up a goodly amount of Bolivian flake cocaine.

Having started smoking pot as a 14-year-old, I’d done (and dealt) many drugs by the time I was 19. But psilocybin and cocaine I’d never tried and, as I did not realize at that time, I was under tremendous stress. My mother died when I was 16, I’d barely graduated high school, I’d goofed off so badly in college that I was on the verge of flunking out and — this was the real heavy one — my conscience was burdened with knowledge of my own sins.

By the time the psilocybin really kicked in, I had practically forgotten about that half-gallon of magic mushroom tea, whose effects I’d never before experienced. And as anyone who has ever done a lot of coke will tell you, that stuff makes you feel smarter than Einstein, a euphoria that borders on a sense of omniscience.

To say that I freaked completely out is to understate the case. I’ve always been about half-crazy, but for about 10 days there, I was 110% crazy, and when my older brother finally got me to the emergency room — oh, that was a wild ride — the doctor didn’t need to examine me much before he spoke those three fateful words: Nurse, Thorazine, please.

Recovering from that experience was a long, hard road, and I went so low that many doubted I’d ever recover, period. All that splendid talent, such once-promising genius, seemed destined to either institutionalization or else slumping along as a dim shadow of his former self.

However, people were praying for me, and people were willing to help me. I returned to college a year later, with only one last chance to make good or flunk out, and thus forfeit the full-tuition scholarship that the state of Alabama granted to the children of disabled veterans. My father had been quite nearly killed by German shrapnel while serving in France in 1944. (His Purple Heart and other medals hang on the wall beside my desk as I type this.) The merit of my father’s service had been rewarded with a scholarship for me — an opportunity I was on the verge of wasting.

I made Dean’s List that semester, my still-unstable psychological condition compelling me for the first time in my life to develop systematic study habits. It happened that one of my classes that semester was Introduction to Psychology, where I learned that long-term treatment with anti-psychotic drugs produces a debilitating side-effect known as tardic dyskinesia. So I weaned myself off the meds and, slowly, fought my way back to something like my old half-crazy self.

Now, Miss Yockey, I could elaborate at length all the miracles that God has wrought in my life over the past three decades. If you should ever see me write about angels, trust that there are angels, sent in answer to prayer, and “some have entertained angels unawares” (Hebrews 13:2).

“Go thou and sin no more,” Jesus said to the woman who owed him her life. Miss Yockey, if you think I’ve spent the past 30 years without sinning, you’re crazier than me. The apostle Paul once said, “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief” (I Timothy 1:15), but if Paul was chief of sinners, I’m definitely part of the tribe. The only one of the Seven Deadly Sins at which I have not excelled is gluttony, being skinny by nature. (On the other hand, I’ve gained 25 pounds since my Speedo glory, and can’t resist a buffet, so I guess I’m a perfect 7-for-7 in the deadly sins.)

Last fall, I got an Instalanche for a post titled, “Is babe-blogging a sin?” And in all good conscience, I contend it is not. One of the happy blessings of advancing age is that my appreciation of beauty steadily becomes more aesthetic than erotic. (My extremely beautiful wife is skeptical of such assertions, with ample reason given the fact that she is the mother of our six children. The main reason we don’t have seven is that I manage to keep myself almost constantly in the doghouse.)

Make no mistake: Lust remains a real temptation, and quite dangerous, and I would hate to think that I was leading others to perdition by such silliness as “Sarah Palin bikini pics” or “Old School upskirt.” But if you think about it for two seconds, this is the Internet. Everybody reading this is one quick Google search away from as much raw porn as they want.

So if there are recovering pornoholics out there who need a little methadone to help them get off the heroin, a little Christina Hendricks is relatively benign. (Don’t you agree, Dr. Vodka?) If by happy accident that random porn-Googler finds himself reading a right-wing blog run by a homophobic hillbilly holy roller . . .

Miss Yockey, I don’t believe in accidents. I’ve been involved in too many conspiracies, and have been the recipient of too many prayed-for blessings (e.g., Mrs. Other McCain) to think that things “just happen.” The person who is reading this is no more reading it by accident than I am writing it by accident.

BTW, did I ever tell you about the time my 1973 VW Beetle went head-on into a pickup truck, and I walked away with nothing worse than a headache? One of many potentially deadly encounters I’ve survived. If you believe in accidents, how is it that I’m even here to be writing this?

Richard Spencer recently paid me the fine compliment of noting that, in my Taki’s Magazine columns, I have shown an ability to write about sex in a funny, engaging way that is not preachy or boring, as is most conservative writing about sex. Such is the tragic dimension of human nature and the decadent situation of contemporary culture that, it seems to me, we must learn to laugh about sex or else it will drive us to despair. Ted Haggard, Jim McGreevey, Mark Foley, Eliot Spitzer, the Big Sexy — oh, wait a minute. Never mind. Failure to send a promised box of Godiva chocolate isn’t all that scandalous.

My point is that sexual sin seems nowadays so widespread that even the most respected and eminent persons might appear in the tabloid sex-scandal headlines tomorrow. And whatever your sins are, or my sins are, or the Big Sexy’s sins are, the fact that they’re not splashed in 96-point type on the front of the New York Post doesn’t mean our sins are unknown. You know your sins, and I know my sins. And if we have sinned against others (which I most certainly have), then those against whom we have sinned are also aware of our sins.

Is there a God who is aware of all our sins? I believe there is, and I believe His judgment is far more to be feared — because it is eternal and righteous — than any judgment man can make. We are sinners in the hands of an angry God.

Now, at last, the gay thing. As I look at the clock just now, it’s 3:50 a.m. ET, and a couple of guys somewhere in Atlanta are strolling out of an after-hours disco, arm in arm, on their way to an eagerly anticipated carnal satisfaction. Sinners.

Simultaneously, however, it is 12:50 a.m. in Modesto, California, where a pimply teenage boy — with the assistance of a 4-pack of wine coolers — has finally gotten to third base with his girlfriend. Sinners.

To quote the American poet Bob Seger, they’ve only got one thing in common, they’ve got the fire down below.

Will you accuse me of “ignorance” or “hate”? You haven’t the slightest idea what I’ve known or who I’ve loved. (Or what I’ve loved and who I’ve known.) As for the charge that I am unfamiliar with scientific evidence, that can be easily refuted, if necessary. Everybody knows I’m not “sexually repressed.” More like irrepressible.

Ask my friend Michael Petrelis how much I hate gay men. Ask Tammy Bruce how much I hate lesbians. Ask Lynn Conway or Dierdre McCloskey how much I hate transsexuals. Far from wishing to deprive them of their rights, I will stand up for their rights — especially their First Amendment right to tell meddling politicians to go straight to hell, or their Second Amendment right to defend themselves against assault.

Miss Yockey, you have yourself said that I am irresistible, and you may have thought you were joking. But ask anyone who’s met my wife . . . well, she’s gotten better at resisting me, but it’s a difficult feat to accomplish. My late mother said that I could accomplish anything, if I ever put my mind to it, and please don’t tell me my mother lied.

The question of resistance, however, brings me to a conundrum that long contemplation has not resolved in my mind: Are “gay” and “straight” mutually exclusive categories? Would a Venn diagram show them as non-intersecting circles? Is Andrew Sullivan utterly incapable of erotic interest in a woman? Could Camille Paglia ever feel attraction toward a man?

I answer: “No,” “no,” “maybe,” and “it would certainly be nice to think so.” I do not doubt, Miss Yockey, that you and your partner are happy together. But if somehow you were to become so unhappy as to split up, or if by misfortune you were widowed (as it were), I would not automatically rule out the possibility that your next partner could be male. More amazing things have certainly happened.

Teenage dopehead psycho becomes notorious right-wing journalist with beautiful wife and six kids? Impossible.

My dear grandmother used to say that I missed my calling, and should have been a preacher. Well, if you miss one calling, you never know what the next calling will be. And if you ignore that one, and are called again . . . But God keeps calling and calling, like the finance company wanting to have a friendly discussion about my 2004 Kia Optima. And by the time you finally answer the call, maybe you’re so messed up that the only use God has for you is as a perpetually impoverished blogger. (Hey, it’s not His fault that I didn’t answer the first call.)

Well, it’s 5 a.m. now, and Mrs. Other McCain’s alarm clock is set for 5:30 a.m., so we’ll see how irresistible I am when I bring her a fresh hot cup of coffee. But if I’m not entirely irresistible, what about God? Can I resist God, Miss Yockey? Can you?

You did not read this by accident, did you? My original career goal was to be a rock star. I been bloggin’ all night, my hands are wet on the keys . . .

UPDATE 6 a.m. ET: OK, so it turns out I am resistible. But I did bring her the coffee and thought of something: Am I privileging patriarchal heteronormativity, or whatever they call it in Women’s Studies course nowadays?

Do I appear an arrogant chauvinist, to suppose that if Cynthia Yockey and her partner woke up this morning to find Brad Pitt standing there with two fresh hot cups of coffee, that they’d decide to have a Brad sandwich for breakfast?

Excuse me while I leave you to contemplate that scenario. As an old football junkie, my bet is that Brad would put it in the end zone, even if he didn’t make the two-point conversion.

UPDATE 6:10 a.m.: Just talked to Mrs. Other McCain again. Sly humor: “I don’t know!”

Trying hard to maintain family values while talking about baseball. Which reminds me that today the Braves play the Phillies in spring training. Who’s pitching and who’s catching? No, who’s on first! I don’t know! Third base!

UPDATE 7:15 a.m.: Professor Glenn Reynolds: “It figures this would come from a lesbian.” Ah, so two can play the old double-entendre game, eh? Well, back at ya, Professor!

Nothing says “family values” like ZZ Top . . .

I’m going to have to ask blogospheric neologian William Jacobson what to call it when the Professor sends me traffic via a carom shot off a lesbian blogger. Or perhaps Gunnery Sergeant Hartman will have some suggestions.