Archive for ‘marriage’

June 18, 2009

‘Uh, honey, about that Speedo . . .’

No, that’s just a joke. Just because you swing a big bat doesn’t make you a Hall of Famer, and I was strictly an amateur. Not so with young Jason, who neglected to inform his bride-to-be about his major-league past:

“There was no way I could marry an adult film star . . . I don’t know if I will ever be able to trust a man again.”

Well, ma’am:

  • Never trust a man to begin with; and
  • If he’s got UDSA Prime beef folks will pay just to see, be happy to ride the bull for free.

(Via JammieWearing Fool.)

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.

Massachusetts……1.74
Connecticut……….1.92
Iowa…………………1.99
Vermont……………1.68
Maine……………….1.75
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:

Utah………………2.57
Arizona…………..2.39
Alaska…………….2.37
Texas…………….2.35
Idaho…………….2.32

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.

PREVIOUSLY:

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 AnnCoulter.com, 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 4, 2009

The Demographics of Dhimmitude

DEMOGRAPHIC CRASH

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.

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 28, 2009

Twenty years of happily ever after

Yes, dear reader, it was on this date in 1989 that Mrs. Other McCain and I went to the Gordon County Courthouse in Calhoun, Ga., and became man and wife. Probate Judge Johnny Parker presided at the ceremony, with our friends Jim and Dawn McFadden as witnesses. Here is a photo of my lovely bride I took a couple years later:

And here is a photo of me and my bride, taken by my good friend Matthew Vadum, just three days ago:

Can I pick ’em, or what? The reader will observe that Mrs. Other McCain is still just as sexy as ever. OK, so she doesn’t have that cool ’80s big hair anymore. But I don’t have my cool Patrick Swayze mullet anymore, either.

I’ll never forget when Judge Parker said, “forsaking all others, so long as you both shall live.” Wow. Heavy concept. Six kids and 20 years later, I’m thinking I got the best end of this bargain. Don’t you agree?

Then hit the tip jar, so maybe I can take her out to dinner.

April 27, 2009

Young marriage goes mainstream?

My pro-marriage colloquy with Laura of Pursuing Holiness, advocating a return to a more traditional idea of nuptials in the youthful prime has been echoed by Mark Regnerus in The Washington Post:

The average age of American men marrying for the first time is now 28. That’s up five full years since 1970 and the oldest average since the Census Bureau started keeping track. . . . The age gap between spouses is narrowing: Marrying men and women were separated by an average of more than four years in 1890 and about 2.5 years in 1960. Now that figure stands at less than two years. I used to think that only young men — and a minority at that — lamented marriage as the death of youth, freedom and their ability to do as they pleased. Now this idea is attracting women, too.

You should go read the whole thing. Regnerus is insightful to note the declining gap between the average age of bride and groom. My beautiful wife is four-and-a-half years my junior; I make up for it by my abysmal immaturity, and we’ve been married 20 years.

The pushback from a liberal like Matthew Yglesias is expected. Exactly what he intends to prove by citing the history of marriage in Japan, I’m not sure.

More intriguing is Peter Suderman’s evident horror of young marriage. Given that he’s currently involved with Megan McArdle, might I suspect that Peter is eager to forestall any effort to drag him into the matrimonial snare? But alas, he trips over the facts:

[C]ouples want kids when they want kids, and increasingly that’s going to be in the late 20s and early 30s.

Good luck with that plan. As Orwell said, “One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool.”

The mean age of U.S. women at first birth, which had risen steadily to 25.2 in 2005, declined to 25.0 in 2006. This was due in part to the influx of Hispanic immigrants, but also due to the stark biological reality that demographers express by the maxim, “Fertility delayed is fertility denied.”

The slow rise in mean age at first birth, from about 22 in 1964 to 25 now, was entirely a result of the decline of childbearing by women under 25, rather than an increase in childbearing by older women. The oft-heard assertion that women today are having more babies in their 30s is counterfactual. The 2006 birth rate for women ages 30-34 (97.7 births per 1,000 women) was actually lower than the rate in 1964 (the last year of the Baby Boom) when the 30-34 cohort produced 103.4 births per 1,000.

In 1957, at the very peak of the post-WWII Baby Boom, when the total fertility rate (average number of lifetime births per woman) was 3.7, the median age at first marriage for women was under 21. In 1957, the typical American mother had two children by the time she was 25, added a third before she was 30, and there was a 70% chance she’d have a fourth child sometime after she turned 30.

What has happened since then is that the typical college-educated American woman has merely subtracted the two children (those born before age 25) from that 3.7 Baby Boom-era average, leaving her with the typical upscale “microfamily” of 1.7 children. This is, of course, merely an average. The part about delayed childbearing that gets little attention is that it is necessarily accompanied by a rise in childlessness, much of it tragically involuntary, as Pundette explains:

In this scenario, after 10-15 years of contracepting, the not-so-young woman tries to turn her fertility back on. When this doesn’t work as well as the couple hopes, they consult Dr. Frankenstein, who may or may not be able to help them obtain the child they’re now so desperate to have.

The Contraceptive Culture quite often leads to a Darwinian dead end. Among other ironies of 21st-century America is that the secularist elites who most emphatically embrace Darwin are the ones being weeded out as “unfit” by their own instruments, Science and Progress. Meanwhile, the supposedly backward fundamentalists flourish.

Nature ultimately triumphs. Despite all the Science and Progress — the widespread availability of contraception and the advances in medical treatment for infertility — the birth rate for U.S. women ages 18-19 in 2006 (73.0) was still 54% higher than for women ages 35-39 (43.7). Is this not a strong argument that it is more natural to marry at 17 than at 34? Or, at least, to split the difference and say that it is better to wed at 25 than at 30?

UPDATE: Dang, almost forgot Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon, at whom I’d merely nodded earlier today. Amanda perfectly exemplifies the sour-grapes aspect of feminist rage against marriage. A grim man-hater who could only expect a proposal from a man with suicidal tendencies, Amanda fulminates:

Sometimes arguing from tradition is merely irritating. Sometimes it’s beyond fucking stupid. But I suppose the good thing is that Regnerus is coming right out and stating a value that social conservatives tend to avoid baldly stating–they desire young marriage (for women), because it’s an effective tool at clipping women’s wings.

Ri-ight. Marriage as a conspiracy against female ambition is the pet paranoia of feminists. They psychologically resemble anti-Semites who see everything as a Zionist plot.

BTW, notice that Amanda illustrates her screed with a 1950s bridal magazine cover. This is the feminist’s favorite revisionist-historical theme of The Bad Old Days, when your mother or grandmother was allegedly oppressed, repressed and suppressed by your evil patriarchal father or grandfather. But wait, there’s much, much more:

I remember the girls who wanted to marry young in college, and everyone felt like they were desperate and weird . . .

“Everyone,” in this case, being the angry, antisocial girls that Amanda hung out with. And yet more:

Being married means handing over a lot of yourself to a man, especially if you’re in your puppy years and haven’t learned to stand up for yourself yet. . . .
The problem with older women (well, not problem—I’d say solution!) is that they are set in their ways, and that means they have more bargaining power in their relationships. If you already have your career, for instance, you know what you stand to lose if you give into the pressure to give it up. But if you don’t have it yet, it makes it much easier to let your husband’s needs and desires dictate the entire relationship.

Well, thank goodness that Amanda Marcotte’s precious career as a 31-year-old feminist blogger is in no danger from a “husband’s needs and desires.” But what tremendous “bargaining power” she’ll have if she ever meets that fellow with suicidal tendencies!

Alas, even some of her fellow feminists have found such men, leaving Amanda always a bridesmaid, never a bride, a sad necessity that she narcissistically imagines as heroic virtue.

UPDATE II: Blame it on Darwin:

Evolution, in short, favors nubile females who still look like they have a great many years of fertility ahead of them.

Hey, I’m a creationist. Don’t blame me.

UPDATE III: Carolyn Tackett:

It seems to me that women these days believe that the path to power, and equality, is the path to masculinity. In other words, the only way for a woman to achieve success is to be more like a man. That belief is a head shaker for my Mom. . . .
My Mom is a real feminist. And after fifty-eight years of marriage, my Dad still looks at her like she’s the hottest woman on Earth.

Wow. Fifty-eight years! And here I was thinking I’d done a big thing to make 20!

April 25, 2009

Shhh! Don’t tell anyone!

“Large families collect comebacks to the question ‘Why do you have so many kids?’ and here’s one I once heard: ‘We’re trying to take over the world.’ . . . Let God plan your family and the world will be a vastly better place.”

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.”