Appointments Open Thread


So far this morning, I’ve been running around in the house.  Now, I have to leave to run around outside of the house.  I hope to blog at around mid-day, but until then, three articles to give you food for thought and then an invitation to use this Open Thread for whatever you find interesting.

On the subject of gay identity, a woman is listed as a “father” on a birth certificate, even though, in our Brave New World, that’s still biologically impossible, and a gay man exposes the scientific fraud behind “gay biology,” since the thinking is that straights can become gay, but gays cannot become straights.  I believe absolutely that there are people who are effeminate but straight, macho but gay, butch but straight, and feminine but lesbian.  Some people are more hard wired than others.  Many live in a fluid realm.  And some people elevate certain values above their sexual orientation and identity.  It’s therefore ridiculous — and wrong — to claim that the journey between gay and straight is a one way street, that only lands in gay territory.

Also, would it surprise you that John Kerry’s State Department and Obama’s White House engaged in a concerted, deliberate, long-term plan to scapegoat Israel for the failure of John Kerry’s peace talks?  Not surprised?  I wasn’t either.  A nice companion piece is Norman Podhoretz’s refusal to feel pity for the Palestinians, a wonderful essay that rips aside the “Emperor’s New Clothes” mentality that has everyone, Jews included, paying lip service to the Palestinians’ plight.

And now I must run.  (Apologies for typos.  I’m really rushed now, so no effort at proofreading.)

Be Sociable, Share!


  1. Charles Martel says

    I read the item about the lesbian partner who has been entered as the father on the birth certificate of the child whose mother she’s “married” to. The delusional aspect of the thinking behind the act doesn’t faze me—I’m so used to the solipsism and antinomianism of most leftists that I pay it little mind. It’s like the background smog in LA or the human feces on the sidewalks in San Francisco—all just a routine part of the landscape.
    But I’m wondering if the story of the Tower of Babel in Genesis might not provide a perspective here. The tale goes that God decided to undercut the arrogance of men who would dare approach Heaven itself by destroying their ability to understand one another, and thus undertake a common cause. It was a reminder that ultimate authority over the power to name things is divine. 
    However, the wrinkle in this instance may be that the rendering of mutual incoherence is not coming from the hand of God. As with Islam, the vocabulary of the left is veined with a deep malevolence. As a result, some of the fundamental words in our language are now being rendered unintelligible to rational people.

  2. expat says

    Can’t they just put unknown or unidentified sperm donor in the father slot? I knew that mother and father would be the next areas of attack. None of these people should be parents because they obviously care more about themselves than they do about children.

  3. says

    It’s like these zombies don’t care what the meaning of words is. They merely do and think as they are told to by the social authority, and the Leftist Regime. If the Leftist Regime says you need a father and mother to claim ownership of A, B, and C, then why we’ll merely use those as labels to claim the “right”.

  4. Spartacus says

    Tell Johnny that he can play with any toy in the box except for the red firetruck (in which he’s never taken much interest), and don’t be surprised when that is the only toy he wants to play with.
    Tell scientists that they can do all manner of research, and receive funding as well, but that they will not receive 1) federal  2) funding if they choose to do research on 3) embryonic stem cells 4) from new lines, and don’t be surprised if they howl as though the government had proclaimed the Bible solo scriptura, all believers and non-believers had been assigned a specific church to attend, and the only people not in church on Sunday mornings were the Truancy Patrol.
    Tell a couple of gay activists that they can have a wedding cake made at any bakery in the city, and don’t be surprised if they choose the one that happens to be run by evangelicals.
    Tell a couple of lesbian activists that they are free to conceive and raise children, but that there is some paperwork, and don’t be surprised if the paperwork seems not to be filled out in a way that makes sense.
    Tell that nice (but sartorially challenged) young couple that they are free to eat any of the fruit in the garden except from that one tree, and…
    They will never stop.  The values of Western Civ and Traditional America which we have regarded as the air in which we breathe free, The Left regards as air which fuels the flames which rage inside of them, and will not be extinguished until that air is consumed.  And any notion that “just one or two more little concessions” will satisfy their hunger, and we will have arrived at a happy state of peaceful coexistence and equilibrium through compromise is sadly naive.

  5. Kevin_B says

    I don’t really have anything to say about the articles Bookworm posted, at least not anything people much smarter and more verbally apt than me can say, will say or have said about these things.
    I, however, have a question (yes, I know…) about a totally unrelated subject. I have a diet/nutrition-related question. Lately, I’ve been reading a number of internet new articles and media reports  about and references to studies claiming links between diet and disease, mainly the most publicly prominent disease or our times, cancer. It seems that especially meat and dairy as well as (saturated/animal) fats are being found to associated with (much) higher risks for cancer and other diseases. In my own country, Belgium, a governmenth health agency a while ago advocated and recommended drastically lowering the intake or red meat and avoiding processed meat products altogether. I’ve also come across articles of physicians (or people posing as such) who oppose meat and dairy consumption and argue against it.  It seems to me groups might be out there who would support government action.
    The articles and warnings all sound pretty bad, and it does start to sound to me like there might actually be something wrong with meat and dairy consumption, and that an omnivorous diet might actually not be very good for you. It all seems pretty dire, and while I really dislike these groups of neo-puritans and food fascists, but I’m wondering.
    Can anyone enlighten me a little bit?

    • shirleyelizabeth says

      Last time I mentioned this on the internet I got a lot of backlash, but my Senior year of high school my mom told us she had malignant breast cancer, and had spread pretty far already. She also said she did not want to go through the treatments every doctor was saying she would need for a chance at life. Instead, she had read up on some things and wanted to try a drastic change in diet. One doctor’s response was Pilate’s hand washing.
      For a year and a half my mom ate only raw fruits and vegetables, with an occasional whole wheat roll (our recipe had no fat), and juiced all day long. I hated cleaning that thing. And her skin turned orange from all the carrots. At first scans showed slower rate of  growth, then no growth, then couldn’t find the cancer at all. Ten years later she remains cancer free. Take from this what you will.

      • says

        Some people can’t deal well with unexplained events, so they deny it. Others prefer a scientific authority and priesthood to tell them what is true.
        While I might not have made the same decision, since my experience with disease is different, what people choose to risk their life for or with is really their soul’s business. The amount of concentration for vitamins and other stuff to help the body can easily exceed toxicity levels, since the organs and tissues must be bathed in them via the blood, and without mechanical techniques, that means increasing the concentration of stuff A in the blood to extremely high levels.

  6. Tara S says

    William L. Petersen once wrote in an article that, whereas people today tend to pigeonhole themselves and others as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc., “within both pagan and Christian antiquity, no categories of ‘homosexuals’ and ‘heterosexuals’ existed; indeed such categories would not have made sense. Instead, <i>acts</i> were the crucial matter[...].”
    In other words, this idea of inherent, fixed sexualities seems to be a relatively new thing. Back then, a person was “straight”–not that they had that word–if, by coincidence or preference, they chose only to commit sexual acts with persons of the opposite sex. That didn’t necessarily mean they were never attracted to people of the same sex, or that they wouldn’t be interested in committing same-sex acts under the right circumstances (e.g. in a moment of high emotion); it just meant that, for whatever reason, they DIDN’T do those things.
    (I think I read somewhere else that, if anything, the default model of sexuality back then was bisexuality, with it being assumed that under the right circumstances ANY person could be attracted to any other person; but I don’t know a citation for that. Either way, it’s an interesting thought.)
    Bottom line: Our modern perceptions of sexuality are not necessarily the correct ones. I’m not saying we should discard the idea of fixed sexualities, but I do think we should give the human brain some credit and recognize that our choices and circumstances can have more of an effect on our sexualities than modern-day psychologists would like (us) to believe.

    • says

      The Japanese sure as heck don’t have fixed perceptions of sexuality. Que the culture shock. What they have are social conceptions, such as pure love, impure love, impure relationships, etc.

    • says

      Interesting point, Tara, about the opportunistic aspects of sexuality.  My mother always told me that the men’s concentration camps in Indonesia during WWII were rife with homosexuality, with the men then returning to their wives at war’s end emotionally destroyed by their infidelity.  Since my mother, though, has an unhealthy obsession with sexuality, I’ve always discounted her stories.  Now, rather than discounting them, I just wonder if it was her own spin that they were so emotionally devastated by their acts.

  7. Tara S says

    Oh, and one more thing. I’m sure a lot of people must have seen this article before, seeing as how it was written three years ago, but I didn’t, and I was a bit surprised by the statistics:

    According to their polls, the top most important attribute millennials value in a potential spouse is good parenting skills, with “caring and compassionate” and “puts his/her family above everything else” being close runners-up.

  8. says

    “It all seems pretty dire, and while I really dislike these groups of neo-puritans and food fascists, but I’m wondering.”
    It doesn’t really mean anything. It’s like the people who put ethanol mixed into diesel and gasoline. There are always third order effects they are too intellectually retarded to figure out. It’s not like they are real scientists. They can always rely on the Bloombergs to tell people what to eat or else.
    Full spectrum health is a combination of spiritual power, mental health, and physical health. As such the body’s maintenance level is akin to an engine. Even a well maintained engine can break if there’s sugar or salt in the tank. Most of the body’s organs are designed to filter out toxins, so the question then becomes how does one regulate and improve the body’s self healing and self cleaning abilities. Most people sitting at their desks on the job all the time, aren’t really contributing to their body’s ability, so even if they eat well, their engine is already corrupt.

    • Spartacus says

      Excellent idea, but are we paying for duplicate research?  I’m not enough of a chemist to judge, but the DoD had a contract with Sandia Labs several years back to come up with a way to produce gasoline using nothing but fresh water, air sucked out of the sky, and a nuke plant.  (Oh, in a carbon-neutral way, of course.  The DoD angle was to power the military in the event of a strategic cutoff of petroleum imports, but we wouldn’t want to produce CO2 during a national emergency, would we?)  Anyway, they came up with a proof of concept — search on “Green Freedom”, Sandia, methanol, gasoline for a bunch of hits.  They sucked CO2 out of the air with giant scrubbers, broke water into H2 and O2 with nuke power, mixed it all together into methanol [insert "and then something complex happened" hand gestures], and then noted that Exxon has a process for converting methanol to gasoline.  QED.  Gasoline isn’t JP5, but the principles can’t be that different.  They said gas would need to hit $4.35 a gallon for it to make sense, and this was back when it was more like $2.50 or something, but what if you didn’t worry about the expense of cleaning the entire sky in the process, and just used seawater?  Between new nuke reactor technology and all the new ways they’re coming up with to find, extract, or make gas to fill a tank, the only problems we have with energy are the problems we choose to have.

      • JKB says

        My understanding is that the news is they’ve found new catalysts to extract the CO2 and H with fewer nasty chemicals, chemicals if discharged would be a trail to track the ships.  Not to mention, polluting.  
        A nuke carrier making its own jet fuel would really extend its unrep cycle.

  9. says

    The common concept behind peak oil is that oil only comes from dinosaurs compacted over aeons. Or was it eons.
    Anyways, the idea that oil cannot be reproduced mostly comes from the idea of non renewable energy sources. However, those with a basic chemistry background can tell that organic compounds are merely carbon chains. And carbon chain scan be engineered. Science and humanity is still too immature to engineer carbon chains for biological life, including “evolving new species” like the Neo Dolphin or the Smart Chimp (animals as smart as John Kerry), but oil is perhaps within our reach now.

    • JKB says

      Oil (and coal) are just very old, very concentrated solar energy.   All our energy sources, (excluding nuclear and geothermal) are just solar energy in various concentrations.  
      I think oil is older than coal, then you have slow growth hardwoods, then softwoods, then annual vegetative growth, then wind, then “solar” (heating and PV).  I’m sure there are some variants in there as well.  But all come from solar energy.  Not sure where you’d stick hydro probably between the hard and soft woods in concentration of solar energy.

      • says

        Remember that high school and college girl that thought GLobal Warming could be combated by having air conditioners on the high ways?
        The Left actually thinks they are smarter than people like that. Can you imagine that.

  10. SADIE says

    Home, home on the range, where the deer and the antelope play ♫°•♪.
    I’ve been following the story of Cliven Bundy, the “evil” rancher in Nevada and his “evil” cattle that are destroying the desert tortoise. How do I know this … because the environmentalists say it’s time for Bundy to get his cattle off federal land because they are endangering the habitat of creatures who have been there for eons. Shockingly (not), the mediocre media buried this tidbit in the financial section.

    “Back at the conservation center, a large refrigerator labeled “carcass freezer” hummed in the desert sun as scientists examined the facility’s 1,400 inhabitants to find those hearty enough to release into the wild. Officials expect to euthanize more than half the animals in the coming months in preparation for closure at the end of 2014.”

    • Kevin_B says

      As I have stated on this site before, and as many of you probably already know, I am quite the lover of nature and wildlife, and, though some of you may lament or criticize this, I would call myself an advocate of conservation.
      However, what is happening here is totally appalling and it is crystal clear to me the government is going way too far in this case. I’m disgusted by the actions of the government in this case.
      I repeat, I’m all for wildlife conservation and the protection of wildlife habitats, and some measures may have to be taken to achieve this, but we also have to allow for humanuse,  development and exploitation (not necessarily to the same degree everywhere). Some reason has to be infused, I think, and a balance needs to be searched and found. I still believe, and perhaps I’m wrong, in care, balance, coexistence and even cooperation between humans and a vibrant environment. I do not believe in a model of eternal and inevitable conflict.
      I am not familiar with the particular case of the desert tortoise, but just how much of a danger are ranchers like Mr. Bundy? And what could be a reasonable approach that tries to achieve balance in this case?

      • says

        Ymarsakar is right — Reid wants the land.  One writer posits that it’s to get water for Las Vegas.  Whatever the reason, it’s not the tortoise, which is being euthanized elsewhere under BLM aegis.  

        I subscribe to the idea that we, as humans stand at the top of nature’s hierarchy — but if we destroy nature, we’ve got nothing less to stand upon.  It is our responsibility to ourselves and our defendants to take good care of nature, whether animate or inanimate.  That does not impose upon us, however, an obligation to destroy ourselves in place of nature.

Leave a Reply