Today: The History of the Bill of Rights, Prohibition Ends, Battle of Nashville, the Holocaust in the Ukraine, Nero, Sitting Bull, Christmas Music
And More . . .
Today: The History of the Bill of Rights, Prohibition Ends, Battle of Nashville, the Holocaust in the Ukraine, Nero, Sitting Bull, Christmas Music
And More . . .
A question that no one is asking, but someone should, is whether the peculiar excesses of the gay lifestyle affect the military’s readiness to serve.
It seems, lately, as if the only news that the media sees fit to print has to do with people on the alt-sexuality spectrum. The latest outrage amongst Progressives is Trump order barring transgenders from serving in the military. This outrage, of course, is a bait-and-switch. You see, to this day, transgender troops are officially barred from the military.
Throughout the entirety of Obama’s presidency, transgender troops were officially barred. Then, in July 2016, Obama signed an order changing the policy. But he didn’t change it instantly. Instead, he ordered that the change be implemented one year from his order, so that it would happen on his successor’s watch. In other words, all the screaming and shouting and anger is because Trump has announced he’s going to retain the Obama era status quo. See? Bait-and-switch.
Obama’s transgender decision followed on the heels of his overnight conversion, once elected, to the belief that gay people ought to be able to serve openly in the military. I was opposed to allowing gays to serve openly in the military.
Despite my opposition, I don’t think I’m a homophobe. Instead, I believe that openly gay relationships, especially in frontline service, are dangerous for unit cohesion. I’m blindingly aware of the fact that the military exists to take young people who are physically and mentally fit and then to prepare them to fight. If two men in a combat unit are in an open relationship, that puts at issue the question of whether their loyalty is to each other or their unit.
Incidentally, I don’t believe women and men should be serving together when that service involves close quarters. Someone once described Navy ships as floating brothels. I know that’s an exaggeration, but the fact is that sexual relationships on ships are a huge problem:
Unintended pregnancy is a significant problem across the general population, but the Navy’s rate is higher.
In 2006, about 49 percent of all pregnancies in the United States were classified as unplanned, according to 2011 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Up to 65 percent of pregnancies in the military are self-reported as unplanned, according to a December report by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women.
Nearly three-fourths of all Navy pregnancies were unplanned, according to a recent parenthood survey conducted by the service. Of those, only 31 percent of the couples were using birth control at the time they conceived. With pregnancies involving enlisted servicewomen, 70 percent of the fathers were also in the military.
Youth, proximity, and stress = bad sexual decisions. And when life and death are at stake, the last thing you need is the volatility of sexual relationships, especially foolish ones.
My other problem is that the gay lifestyle is an unhealthy one. It’s a different kind of unhealthy from that associated with transgenderism. The latter sees extraordinarily high suicide rates, staggeringly expensive surgical procedures, and a lifetime commitment to dangerous hormonal medications. Take away the magic word “transgender,” and no person with these physical requirements would ever be a candidate for service in the military. An actively lived homosexual lifestyle has a different kind of unhealthiness, one that may also be antithetical to creating a tip-top fighting machine.
Since Obama’s executive order about openly gay service, both the military and the media have been mum about whether that policy has affected the military and, if so, what the effect is. One of the things that I’ve especially wondered is whether the excess that typically characterizes gay men’s sex has made an appearance in the military. [Read more…]
To stay ahead of the Left’s gnawing away at every underpinning of Western civilization, we need to stay updated about the culture wars. This post helps.
Modern wars are never fought on one front. They are fought on all fronts. Obama’s minions in government are trying to bring President Trump down from the inside. And Progressives’ minions on the streets are trying to destroy America through culture wars fought in the media, in schools, and even in bathrooms. This post collects updates from the myriad fronts in the culture wars phase of the Leftist attack on Western civilization.
Stop buying their line. One of the things Progressives do well is to create fact-free tropes that quickly become conventional wisdom. One of these tropes, going back to the 1980s, is that if we’re nice to gays, they won’t need to act out their pain and rage by engaging in unsafe sex. A trio of writers from the culturally conservative Family Research Institute argue that the data shows the opposite — unbridled gay sexuality increases the rate of sexually transmitted diseases. They make this argument, moreover, with data from an unexpected place: China, a country that was once too sexually conservative even to admit that homosexuality existed. I’m neither endorsing nor denouncing the data in this article (I don’t know enough to have an opinion), but I sure thought it was interesting.
Faith should be about faith. Many people who have hit rock bottom (especially, it seems former rock stars) turn their lives around with help from a return to traditional religion. True faith builds people up. Too many millennials, however, don’t understand that first you find God and then, with God’s help, you find the strength to lift yourself out of the abyss. That’s why you find a lot of these millennials wandering into churches and synagogues looking for religion to be just another branch of the Social Justice tree under which they shelter. Rachel Lu explains that faith is not one more step in the Leftist self-help, Gaia reclamation project.
Encouraging, rather than bullying, on bathrooms. Yelp has a good idea, which is to crowd-source the location of gender neutral bathrooms so that people in need can easily find them. This is how the free market should work. Rather than using government’s overwhelming power to bully companies and schools into allowing any guy dressed as a gal into a women’s bathroom, use the marketplace to enable the minute portion of people who want gender neutral bathrooms to find them easily.
College is expensive because of Leftism. Despite college costs increasing at an exponential rate much higher than the inflation rate (and this has been true for the last thirty years), the student-teacher ratio at most colleges hasn’t changed over the decades. Students in liberal arts programs also emerge less educated, although this is due to Leftist lunacy, rather than too few teachers for too many students. The reason colleges are so expensive is because of the vast social justice infrastructure that colleges have built, all of which taxpayers and parents have to fund. God, but I loath modern academia. (And if you’re wondering, academia is the sole reason America Jews and Asians are Leftists when their interests do not lie in that direction. It’s because they are the group most likely to send their children to college, something that’s been true for decades now.)
My Progressive Facebook friends’ feeds remind me that there are two Americas: mine, which is reality-based and conservative, versus theirs, which is delusional, paranoid, angry, and threatening. I thought I’d give you a look-see at what I routinely find on my real-me Facebook feed. Here’s the detritus I picked up from a stroll down my feed:
It’s not news at this point that Ben Carson said being gay is a choice, as evidenced by the men who come out of prison having switched sexual preferences from straight to gay. It was an amazingly stupid thing to say, impolitic and ill-thought out. I have enormous respect for Dr. Carson, but that comment cemented for me why this otherwise admirable man should not throw his hat into the presidential ring.
The statement was wrong-footed to begin with because enormous numbers of gay sexual encounters in prison are, in fact, gay rape. These encounters have little to do with desire and preference, and everything to do with power and, on the part of the rapist, with a momentary sexual release.
The statement also denied man’s nature — and please bear with me here, because I’m not going to embark on some weird riff saying all men are inherently gay and it’s only Western society that forces them into heterosexual sex. I’m heading off to a different point.
Last night we watched the most recent episode of John Oliver’s new HBO show, Last Week Tonight. I was interested in what Oliver’s take would be about the two top news events of the past week: Hamas’s terrorist action and Israel’s military response; and the refugee crisis on America’s own border.
Oliver, however, ignored both those stories, choosing instead to focus on “income inequality.” (Ashley Dobson fisks the segment nicely, exposing all of the factual and logical errors in his attack on American capitalism.)
The income equality stuff was the typical moronic shtick, which always sounds ridiculous coming out of the mouth of someone earning at least six figures a year. The absence of any discussion about the top stories was more interesting.
It occurred to me that Oliver could not comment on either story because he couldn’t risk saying what he and his audience really think: As far as they’re concerned, both Israel and America’s border should disappear. It’s one thing to speak these truths in a quiet room; it’s another thing entirely to put them on TV where others might be listening.
In this case, the “others listening” are the majority of Americans who support Israel and are horrified by the unfolding crisis on America’s southern border. It’s better to be thought a hardcore Leftist than to open your mouth and confirm it, right?
As for me, I’m not ignoring those stories. They are defining stories that will shape both the Middle East and America for some time to come. So, follow me into the wonderful world of actual news, rather than HBO’s fairy and unicorn land where a hard-Left, Cambridge-educated millionaire media star cries crocodile tears about “income inequality.”
By the by, the big issue shouldn’t be “income equality,” it should be “education inequality.” That’s not an issue that the DemProgs want to tackle, though, because it’s a direct result of the way in which America’s public schools have been turned into union fiefdoms. We can only hope that the California court ruling holding that tenure is unfair to students will weaken that stranglehold.
** 1 **
With all the dreadful headlines lately (border, Israel, ISIS, economy, etc.), I have to admit that the thing that strikes the most fear in my heart is the possibility that Elizabeth Warren could be a viable candidate for the White House and a possible winner thanks to her populist attacks on Wall Street. Unlike Obama who was a covert demagogue, she’s an overt demagogue and, for that reason, a very scary person. If she’s elected, it will speak to a profoundly damaging trend in American presidential politics.
** 2 **
Back in the dark, pre-gay rights era, Alfred Kinsey claimed that 10% of the American population was homosexual. Over the decades, many people challenged that number. After all, much of Kinsey’s research was done in prison populations and among gay prostitutes. More than that, many of Kinsey’s interviewers (including Kinsey himself) were gay or bisexual. To the extent they interviewed people in their own circles, this skewed the numbers. A recent poll, taken in a time of open homosexuality, probably offers a much more accurate number: less than three percent of Americans self-identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. I leave you to your own conclusions about what that number means in the context of today’s hot societal issues.
** 3 **
It takes a surprisingly small vector to tilt a healthy population into being a plague-ridden population. There’s reason to believe that the dissemination throughout the US of infected children may be that vector. It takes true cognitive dissonance to ignore this reality (and to make that point, I’ll run yesterday’s poster again today):
** 4 **
I noted already last week that the Left is accusing Christians of lacking compassion because they want to stop the flood of youthful refugees into America. Meanwhile, Glenn Beck has been oozing compassion for those refugees, which is why I’ve never liked him very much. It’s not the compassion that I dislike; it’s the ooze. He’s a smart man, but he’s ruled by his passions, not his brain. He is, in effect, the male Oprah. But back to the refugees.
I’ve long said that America’s pro-illegal immigrant cadre is inflicting cruel and profound damage on Latin America. As long as we provide a safety valve through our acceptance of illegal immigration, Latin America’s corrupt, inefficient governments and broken economic systems can thrive. They lose criminals, excess population, and non-producers (such as children), while gaining billions in American dollars their emigrants sent back home. What’s happening now on our southern border is this cruel system playing out on a massive scale.
Worse, at home, we’re losing the rule of law. The most compassionate system of all is one that’s free and based upon a reliable and just legislative and judicial system. In that system, people don’t fear the past, can work in the present, and can plan for the future. The Obama-engineered refugee crisis is destroying that too.
And it will get worse, because there’s every indication that Obama intends to grant mass amnesty to the refugees. He won’t do this by waving the presidential wand and pronouncing “I hereby grant every illegal immigrant amnesty.” He will, instead, do it by refusing, once again, to enforce any of the nation’s existing immigration laws. Doing so will satisfy several important Obama constituents, even as it destroys the US.
One would think that Obama would care that, by doing so, he’s hurting one of his core constituencies: Blacks. Blacks are horrified by the influx of people who will compete with them for low wage jobs and welfare. Obama couldn’t care less, though. What blacks need to understand is that Obama is not really black. He’s red — a hardcore Marxist whose primary goal is the destruction of America, which long stood as the bastion of freedom against Marxism. Blacks were just one more in a long list of useful idiots.
Should Obama grant de facto amnesty by refusing to enforce the law, that will be a manifestly impeachable offense, of course. Sadly, the majority of Americans still don’t want to impeach the first half-black president.
Senator Jeff Sessions is doing his best to rally Congress and Americans to this grossly unconstitutional act, but he’s not getting traction because the drive-by media supports Obama’s political goals.
** 5 **
You’ve already heard that Israel agreed to a ceasefire and Hamas refused. Yay!
That’s not a sarcastic “yay.” I’m thrilled, because that little Kabuki play allowed Israel to prove her good faith and Hamas to prove its bad faith. More than that, Israel is winning. She would be insane to engage once again in her usual practice of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by giving up the instant she makes headway against the genocidal Islamic terrorists gunning for her.
And why is Israel winning? Elliott Abrams notes that Iron Dome has heartened the Israelis, that Hamas is making no headway and that, aside from a rise in antisemitic attacks across the world, nobody of importance is rallying to Hamas’s side. Egypt hates Hamas, and the rest of the Arab world is too involved in its own immolation to care about one more branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.
** 6 **
On the subject of Israel, please, please read Daniel Greenfield’s discussion about the nature of Israel’s (and the West’s) response to terrorism. She may finally have to abandon the appeasement approach she’s used for so long.
** 7 **
The Huffington Post (of all places!) has published a fantastic opinion piece destroying the notion that Israel and Hamas are morally equivalent.
** 8 **
Rob Miller provides a first person account of the anti-Israel rally in Los Angeles, which ended with a DHS officer firing a shot when pro-Palestinian protesters got violent (as they invariably do).
If I had my way, every Jew would be required by Jewish law to (a) own a gun, know how to operate it, and carry it on his or her person at all times; and (b) have basic knowledge of hand-to-hand combat techniques.
** 9 **
Americans used to view the government as their servant; now they cringe before it as their master. Nowhere is this more apparent, funnily enough, than in the realm of local government.
I say “funnily enough” because the news is full of stories about overreaching federal, not local, government. In reality, though, the federal government doesn’t directly touch many people, while local government does. We here in Marin just had our own fight with a local government that wanted to add 900 apartment units along a two lane major artery between two highways. And anyone who has had to deal with a town inspector knows how those departments can abuse their power. Reagan knew how to deal with this problem.
** 10 **
Once upon a time, feminists opposed porn, arguing that it degraded women. Now, Planned Parenthood, an organization feminists adore because it provides abortion, also provides hardcore porn to teenagers — and the feminists don’t care because . . . abortions.
** 11 **
Ted Cruz has suggested impeaching Eric Holder. Holder’s most recent attack on free speech — having the DOJ investigate an anti-Obama Zombie parade float — makes it clear that Holder is a ripe target. If only Holder didn’t have that cafe au lait skin and his solid Marxist credentials, it would be a slam dunk.
** 12 **
Mr. Bookworm is cheap, a quality I admire because I’m cheap too. I was, and he is, a wage slave, which means our money will never grow exponentially. If we’re to have any savings in our old age, we actually have to save money to make that happen.
We still have a great lifestyle: a lovely home, electronics, vacations (Mr. Bookworm’s passion), reliable cars, etc. However, we shop sales, use coupons, and are careful to distinguish between things we want (which must be justified) and things we need (which must be bought as economically as possible).
One aspect of our cheapness is that we don’t waste gas or electricity. After all, the more you use, the more you pay. That’s why, when I met Mr. Bookworm long before anyone had thought of global warming, we conserved energy.
Nowadays, Mr. Bookworm insists that he conserves energy not to save money but because he’s “green.” He’s lying to himself. I know this because, whenever we go on vacation, when a hotel or cruise ship is paying for energy consumption, he’s incredibly profligate with natural resources, most notably when it comes to towels. He’s been know to go through 5-6 clean towels a day on vacation.
I’ve now learned that Mr. Bookworm is not alone in telling lies to himself about his energy consumption and green self-righteousness.
** 13 **
The Left loves to ridicule those on the right who, usually because of religious beliefs, have ideas that are outside of the mainstream. For example, they can’t get enough of the comedic wonders of the creationist theme park. Fine. It’s funny.
But part of the Left’s laughter, of course, is condescension. We would never be so stupid and irrational they reply.
To which Andrew Klavan says, “Really? You’d never be wacky, stupid, and irrational? Think again.” (Klavan doesn’t actually use those words, but it’s definitely the gist of this great post about Leftist lunacy.)
Growing up in San Francisco during the 1960s, I have very fragmented memories of an older time, when women still wore gloves, and both men and women wore hats. Most of my solid, coherent memories start kicking in with San Francisco’s Summer of Love, which very quickly turned into its winter of degradation. During those formative years (from about ages 6 though 16), it was common for me to see people tripping on sidewalks, lying in filth, and vomiting all over themselves. I was also routinely assaulted and insulted by the smell emanating from these Flower Children. Ick.
By the mid-1970s, hippies were passé in San Francisco. The new “in thing” was the gay scene. The libertarian part of me thought it was a wonderful thing that men and women (but mostly men) could love freely, without being afraid that they would be humiliated, beaten, ostracized, or imprisoned. Even as the gay lifestyle flowered in San Francisco, we heard stories about gays being imprisoned in Soviet Russia for no other crime than the fact that they were gay.
Nevertheless, even though I appreciated the gay liberation movement, I was revolted by the movement’s excess. The drug use, nudity, orgies, etc., were too reminiscent of the hippies. I already knew the price people paid for excess. After AIDS came along, and the stories really broke about what was going on in the bath houses, I wasn’t surprised.
When I tried to explain to people my sense of repugnance about the gay lifestyle, what I always fell back on was the fact that this type of hedonism couldn’t be good — not for society and not for the individual. In addition, I was offended by the lack of intimacy. Getting naked with a stranger and having drug-fueled sex is not intimacy. Getting to know someone, loving them, sharing the highs and lows of life together, understanding what makes them tick, wishing them well — those are the ingredients for intimacy. The gay lifestyle I saw around me was aggressively opposed to those “mundane” relationship attributes.
Growing up and working in San Francisco, I was able to see that, to too many gays, their choices have always been, first and foremost, about sex. Without exception, every person I knew from high school who came out of the closet instantly embraced a package deal. It wasn’t just that they selected their partners from their own sex. It was that they suddenly only went to gay movies, had gay porn magazines in their household, hung out only with gays, and voted gay . . . which meant an increasingly hard Left political agenda. They were no longer “Larry, a teacher and father who happens to have a male partner.” Instead, “they were a gay man named Larry who happens to teach on the side and is proud to raise his kid in a same-sex parent home.”
This obsessive focus on sex left little room for anything else. As the 70s and 80s demonstrated (and as is becoming true again today for a young generation of gay men), brief, intense, drug-heightened sexual encounters were like meth for the brain. Why have a stable, loving relationship with anyone when you could go to the bathhouse, or just walk down the street, and be a sexual endorphin junkie getting hit after hit? Even those men I knew who were in stable relationships with long-term partners weren’t monogamous. Instead, their relationships were still about having sex with as many men as possible — provided that they shared dinner with the same man every evening.
Growing up, seeing the hippies and their drugs and orgies, and then the gays and their drugs and orgies, what I figured out was that sexual pleasure, while delightful, is not the same as the pleasure of a life shared with someone else. We can decide what we want to have as the center of our relationships: the sex or the intimacy. If it’s the sex, it had better be damned good and be damned good all the time because you’ve probably got nothing else to fall back on. If it’s the intimacy and the stability, sex is important, but much less so. If the sex isn’t good, or isn’t good all the time, or isn’t even there at all, there may be many compensations that keep the relationship pleasurable.
All of the above is an introduction to a most amazing post from a couple of years ago, written by the proprietor of a humor blog called “The Weed.” (H/T: Earl.) Its proprietor, Josh Weed, came out of the closet at this site, but in a most unusual way: he is a gay man, happily married to a woman and, most unusually for one of these “out of the closet” confessions, he plans to stay that way. The reason he is able to recognize his sexual attraction to men, while maintaining a stable, loving — and, yes, sexual — relationship with his wife is because of his priorities:
The truth is, what people are really asking with the above question is “how can you be gay if your primary sex partner is a girl?” I didn’t fully understand the answer to this question until I was doing research on sexuality in grad school even though I had been happily married for almost five years at that point. I knew that I was gay, and I also knew that sex with my wife was enjoyable. But I didn’t understand how that was happening. Here is the basic reality that I actually think many people could use a lesson in: sex is about more than just visual attraction and lust and it is about more than just passion and infatuation. I won’t get into the boring details of the research here, but basically when sex is done right, at its deepest level it is about intimacy. It is about one human being connecting with another human being they love. It is a beautiful physical manifestation of two people being connected in a truly vulnerable, intimate manner because they love each other profoundly. It is bodies connecting and souls connecting. It is beautiful and rich and fulfilling and spiritual and amazing. Many people never get to this point in their sex lives because it requires incredible communication, trust, vulnerability, and connection. And Lolly and I have had that from day one, mostly because we weren’t distracted by the powerful chemicals of infatuation and obsession that usually bring a couple together (which dwindle dramatically after the first few years of marriage anyway). So, in a weird way, the circumstances of our marriage allowed us to build a sexual relationship that is based on everything partners should want in their sex-life: intimacy, communication, genuine love and affection. This has resulted in us having a better sex life than most people I personally know. Most of whom are straight. Go fig.
Josh also realized something really important, which is that nobody can ever have it all, something that’s especially true for gays:
One of the sad truths about being homosexual is that no matter what you decide for your future, you have to sacrifice something. It’s very sad, but it is true. I think this is true of life in general as well. If you decide to be a doctor, you give up any of the myriad of other things you could have chosen. But with homosexuality, the choices seem to be a little bit more mutually exclusive. If you are Mormon and you choose to live your religion, you are sacrificing the ability to have a romantic relationship with a same-sex partner. If you choose a same-sex partner, you are sacrificing the ability to have a biological family with the one you love. And so on. No matter what path you choose, if you are gay you are giving up something basic, and sometimes various things that are very basic. I chose not to “live the gay lifestyle,” as it were, because I found that what I would have to give up to do so wasn’t worth the sacrifice for me.
(You should really read the whole thing, which includes the way his Mormon parents accepted his sexuality while helping him focus on the things that matter in life.)
I am not suggesting that every gay person must replicate Josh’s decision to acknowledge his sexual attraction to men, but nevertheless commit to a relationship with a woman. I’m simply suggesting that the gay milieu too often denies men and women the choice to have a traditional heterosexual relationship. With its relentless emphasis on sexual identity and sex, the LGBTQ lobby puts enormous pressure on young men and women who self-identify as LGBTQ to abandon the notion of traditional intimacy in favor of a lifestyle focused solely on sexual preferences and, by extension, sexual pleasure.
The fact is that, as Josh shows, people’s sexuality is malleable, and our pleasure centers are surprisingly adaptable. Many people can consciously choose one lifestyle over another — or, as I think happens with many young LGBTQ people — be bullied into one lifestyle over another.
Anyway, coming as I do from a background that left me with a deep distrust of hedonism, I was very impressed with Josh’s (and his wife Lolly’s) coming out post and think it is an interesting addition to the discussion about the LGBTQ community and the lifestyle choices its members make. It’s especially interesting given that the 9th Circuit will soon be hearing arguments about the constitutionality of a California law that makes it impossible for religious people to help willing gays voluntarily transition away from the gay lifestyle.
Let’s start with that acronym — LGBTQ. It stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning. There are also adjectives that can precede LGBTQ, such as “Of color,” Black, African American, Asian, Hispanic, Disabled, etc., all of which create their own little sub groups within the LGBTQ group, which is itself composed of particulate matters.
All of you know that, being libertarian, I don’t care what relationships people form in their personal lives. Having said that, Robert Lopez makes a good argument that the obligations we have to our children transcend our personal search for happiness, including love and sexual fulfillment.
I don’t believe in gay marriage, but that’s only because I believe it will lead inevitably to the type of clash between church and state that we’re seeing in England. And no, I don’t see the First Amendment protecting religions from attacks by LGBTQ people who insist that a church must ignore its own doctrine and marry them. We’ve already seen from the ObamaCare mandate regarding contraception and abortifacients that Leftists couldn’t care less about the First when it comes to protecting actual religions (which was the Founders’ goal), rather than protecting Leftists from religion. I’m fine with civil unions, however, because I think the state can make whatever decisions it wants, even if they prove later to be stupid.
I’m also sympathetic to people whose external appearance is at odds with their self-identity. I believe that hormones and other brain chemicals play a strong part in sexual identity and desire, and we all know that nature makes mistakes. (Believe it or not, I was supposed to look like Heidi Klum. Nature really messed up there….)
Lastly, I’m fully aware that LGBTQ people have higher rates of bad things such as drug abuse, alcoholism, depression, suicide, and spousal abuse. I’m prepared to believe that some of these problems in childhood lead people to identify as LGBTQ; that some people are so terribly discriminated against because they are LGBTQ that they end up with self-destructive behaviors; and that there is something fundamentally unhealthy inthe urban LGBTQ lifestyle that leads people into self-destructive behaviors.
So we’ve established that I’m cool with people’s private desires, that I’m okay with civil unions, that I recognize that biology can treat people cruelly, and that I acknowledge a multiplicity of possible factors behind LGBTQ dysfunctions. None of those factors, however, lead me to believe that our educational institutions have some overriding duty to serve all the needs of the LGBTQ community, or all of its racial or differently-abled subsets. The LGBTQ community, though, does think that it’s owed this stuff and it believes further that our educational institutions, despite the university diversity staffs that can be bigger than the rest of school administrations put together, is failing to make the community feel good about itself:
Not only do queer youth of color deal with life-altering issues, says a new UCLA study, but schools and institutions are not adequately addressing their needs.
“GBTQ youth of color struggle with homelessness, poverty, family rejection and bullying,” says Ilan H. Meyer, the study’s principal investigator and Williams Institute Senior Scholar for Public Policy at UCLA, in a press release. “Yet, serious barriers exist to providing youth with culturally competent care.”
With a grant from Liberty Hill Foundation, Williams Institute researchers contacted L.A.-based education, medical, and social service providers, examining how the unique needs of queer youth of color are being met. What they found out wasn’t very good…
According to the study titled “Provider Perspectives on the Needs of Gay and Bisexual Male and Transgender Youth of Color,” various institutions are dropping the ball.
You can read the rest here.
I’m old-fashioned enough to have fairly limited expectations about educational institutions: They should educate in an environment that doesn’t actively discriminate against people. The facilities should be reasonably safe (no crumbling buildings, etc.), and the faculty should be good. With younger students, the faculty should be attuned to obvious signs of abuse. At the university level, it would be nice if the faculty was sensible enough to recognize troubling signs (drug use, extreme depression, anorexia, etc.), and kind enough to act on those observations, but I do not think that it should be a job requirement to have this awareness and decency, nor should the taxpayer have to fund administrations that function as social workers and psychiatrists.
Am I missing something? Am I a societal sociopath or are the special interest groups in America demanding so much bath water that they’re killing the baby? (And yes, that’s a fearsomely strained metaphor, but it takes me where I want to go.)
I will never give up — or at least I won’t give up until I’m down to the last 30 emails. Before I dive into that, though, I want to encourage any conservative woman to consider joining the National Federation of Republican Women. You can find your local chapter here, and then connect with conservative women (and their husbands or other interested family members) in your community.
Funnily enough, when you think about it, conservatives used to be joiners. They joined the Masons, and the Elks, and the Shriners, and the Kiwanis, and they were active in community politics. When did conservatives get chased away from community political organizations? Or is my view warped because I grew up in the Bay Area? Please weigh in on this one. I’m interested.
This is an old post from Doug Powers chastising Democrat media hack Joe Klein for insisting as late as the end of November that Benghazi was nothing more than a bad movie review run amok. It makes for interesting reading in light of Hillary’s prevarications before the Senate today. Here’s what Hillary knows: It doesn’t matter what she knew or what she did regarding Benghazi. If she’s still the media’s darling in 2016, the subject will be buried so deep you can’t even smell it. And if she’s not the media’s darling (as happened to her in 2008) nothing matters anyway, because they’ll work to elect her Democrat-rival. In other words, there’s no downside to lying, bobbing, and weaving.
Going through my emails reminded my that, with the gun debate raging, I was terribly remiss not to direct you to Stately McDaniel Manor. Its proprietor, Mike McDaniel, is a blogger who could readily enter any “most knowledgeable about guns” contest. Add to that knowledge a lovely writing “voice,” a sharp and informed mind, and a stinging wit, and . . . well, I need to be beaten around the head for a while for hiding him from you. However, on the principle that, when it comes to the important factual and ideological stuff, it’s never too late, I’d like to recommend his “A good day for children.”
Speaking of my smart friends, have you bought your copy of Laer Pearce’s Crazifornia: Tales from the Tarnished State – How California is Destroying Itself and Why it Matters to America yet? I know it’s about California, but with four more years of Obama to come, it’s also a good preview of coming attractions for the rest of America. Would I sound hysterical if I said “be afraid; be very afraid”?
One can always tell when a society has gotten too successful: non-procreational sexuality comes to the fore. Because we are rich, we have the luxury of onanism (isn’t that a nice, old-fashioned world) and homosexuality, two practices that have no place in a society where the next generation must be born to keep the current generation from starving. Which leaves one with a question: when America collapses financially, and our reproductive rate is too low to replace the producers, will gay rights vanish? Will gays vanish? As to that second, I’d say that “practicing” gays will vanish. There will be too much societal pressure (assuming some sort of coherent society) to allow for it.
Whew! I’m down to 110 emails and still finding plenty of good stuff. I’ve got to be a mom, though, so I’ll leave you with one picture, and continue this intellectual smorgasbord later today, or perhaps first thing tomorrow.
I got this from a friend who freely confesses that he doesn’t know where the data came from. I don’t either. But it sure looks good:
It’s hard to imagine a more politically incorrect belief system than Islam. The seriously Muslim world stands for women without legal rights or physical freedoms, wife beating, honor killings, child brides, capital punishment for female adultery, and capital punishment for homosexuality.
President Barack Obama, however, feels that Turkey’s Erdogan, a hardline Muslim, is his kindred spirit, while Bibi Netanyahu, a man who leads a country that extends full rights to women and gays, is a bad guy. Obama also believes strongly that the Muslim Brotherhood, which practices and preaches the most extreme form of Islam, is a good peace partner. Lastly, he wants to reach hands across the water to Iran, which has been in a state of declared war against America (and women and gays and Israel) since 1979. Oh, and there’s Obama’s hostility to fracking, the only energy extraction process on the horizon that can de-fund the American monies that support the Islamist regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, etc.
In other words, if you’re a Muslim, Obama and his Progressive pals are willing to forgive your sins.
It turns out that this magic sin forgiveness extends to friends of Muslims as well. Witness Chuck Hagel.
Hagel doesn’t like gays. He made that very clear during the 1990s, when he had this to say about President Clinton’s gay ambassadorial nominee, James Hormel:
Then-Sen. Chuck Hagel’s remark to the Omaha World-Herald in 1998 that Clinton ambassadorial nominee James Hormel was “openly aggressively gay” was only a part of what Hagel told the paper about his opposition to Hormel’s nomination.
In additional comments that appeared in the same Omaha World-Herald story on July 3, 1998, Hagel said that Hormel’s gay conduct in public goes “beyond common sense” and concluded that a gay performance group of men in drag as nuns was “anti-Catholic” upon seeing a video of Hormel at one of its events.
Hagel told the paper at the time that being gay shouldn’t disqualify a candidate from being an ambassador, but that Hormel’s conduct would diminish his effectiveness.
Hormel “very aggressively told the world of his gayness and the funding and all the things he’s been involved in,” Hagel was quoted as saying. “I think you do go beyond common sense there, and reason and a certain amount of decorum.”
“If you send an ambassador abroad with a cloud of controversy hanging over him,” he said, “then I think it’s unfair to our country, it’s unfair to the host country and it’s unfair to the ambassador because the effectiveness of that individual is going to be seriously curtailed. That’s just a fact of life. And I believe Hormel’s situation is one of those.”
To be fair, Hagel wasn’t arguing that Hormel should be beaten or executed. Instead, he was saying that his sexual orientation disqualified him from political office, offended decorum, and was anti-Catholic. Despite the publicity regarding Hagel’s gross political incorrectness, Obama has still selected him as his preferred Secretary of Defense. Hmmm.
Before you get excited and think that, to the extent you expressed negative opinions about gays back in the 1990s, you have a free pass, you need to pay attention to what happened to Rev. Louie Giglio, who also expressed dismay about homosexual conduct back in the 1990s:
The minister selected by President Obama to deliver the benediction at his inaugural this month has withdrawn from the program amid a storm of controversy over remarks he made about homosexuality in a sermon in the mid-1990s, according to an inaugural planner.
In it, Mr. Giglio called on fellow Christians to fight the “aggressive agenda” of the gay-rights movement, and advocated “the healing power of Jesus” as “the only way out of a homosexual lifestyle” – a comment some gay-rights advocates interpreted as an endorsement of reparative, or so-called gay-to-straight conversion, therapy, as a supposed cure for homosexuality
In other words, like Hagel, Rev. Giglio in the 1990s said that sexual orientation offended decorum. Also, much like Hagel, Giglio hasn’t said anything about gays for the past 20 years. It’s dead. It’s history. But unlike Hagel, Giglio is a Christian minister and hasn’t given any indication that he thinks Islam is groovy. Also, unlike Hagel, Giglio got the boot:
An official with Mr. Obama’s Presidential Inaugural Committee said the committee, which operates separately from the White House, vetted Mr. Giglio. People familiar with internal discussions between administration and committee officials said the White House viewed the selection as a problem for Mr. Obama, and told the panel on Wednesday night to quickly fix it. By Thursday morning, Mr. Giglio said he had withdrawn.
“We were not aware of Pastor Giglio’s past comments at the time of his selection and they don’t reflect our desire to celebrate the strength and diversity of our country at this inaugural,” said Addie Whisenant, the spokeswoman for the Presidential Inaugural Committee. “Pastor Giglio was asked to deliver the benediction in large part for his leadership in combating human trafficking around the world. As we now work to select someone to deliver the benediction, we will ensure their beliefs reflect this administration’s vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans.”
Double standard anyone?
The double standard also applies to abortion. Republicans almost certain lost their opportunity to take control of the Senate because two candidates, Todd Aikin and Richard Mourdoch, made statements about abortion that the media turned into a hysterical war against women. I know of two people who were leaning to Romney, but switched votes because he belonged to the same party as Aikin and Mourdoch. Fiscal sanity and national security couldn’t compete with abortion.
Here’s what Richard Mourdock said, which I think is a defensible position, humanely stated:
The only exception I have to have an abortion is in that case of the life of the mother. I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God, and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something God intended to happen.
You may not agree, but it is a valid stance, one that looks at life as a gift independent from the violence that created it. It is, in other words, a moral position.
Here’s what Todd Aikin said, which has the same moral position buried within it, but that starts from a position of complete and offensive idiocy:
It seems to me first of all, from what I understand from doctors — that’s [pregnancy following a rape] really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But, let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work, or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.
Aikin was cast into the wilderness by Left and Right alike for his stupidity. Mourdock got swept up in the same witch hunt.
Interestingly, Hagel (the one who gets a pass) sounds a lot more like Aikin, who’s an idiot, than Mourdock, who is someone who made a difficult and thoughtful decision about balancing two lives. Here’s Hagel:
When he announced his candidacy for Senate, Hagel said that he opposed abortion except to protect the life of the mother and in cases of rape and incest. Hagel decided he didn’t believe that exclusion for rape were necessary after studying the issue near the end of his campaign.
“I am pro-life with one exception — the life of the mother. I oppose taxpayer funded abortions. We must promote adoption and support the strengthening of American families. I will vote with and support the pro-life movement,” Hagel said in a piece of 1996 campaign literature, according to the Omaha World Herald.
Then Senate-candidate Hagel said that he “tightened” his position on abortion after he said he discovered that abortion in the case of rape and incest are “rare” according to multiple local press reports.
“As I looked at those numbers, if I want to prevent abortions, I don’t think those two exceptions are relevant,” Hagel said, according to the Omaha paper.
To her credit, Rachel Maddow has given Hagel a hard time about both Hagel’s gay and abortion stances. For once, though, the Left doesn’t seem to be paying attention to its media darling.
If you look hard, you discover that there’s only one thing that distinguishes Hagel from Giglio, Aikin, and Mourdock, all three of whom became roadkill as the Politically Correct train drove by: he supports Iran and hates Israel. He supports an ideology that enslaves and kills women, and that makes homosexuality a capital crime. And the only thing that gives this specific ideology a pass with Hagel, Obama, and the Left, is that this religion is neither Jewish nor Christian.
This is a sad, twisted state of affairs, and one that the American people created with eyes wide shut. I despair of our country and the world right now.
There is a long-running debate about whether homosexuals can “change” their basic sexual identity. I have no idea. I assume that a motivated homosexual can subordinate his identity. People fight their biological urges all the time. Whether that person is truly “changed” is another matter. Perhaps it’s just a linguistics thing: “subordinate” does or does not equal “change”.
The above are just my idle thoughts, and I really have no interest in pursuing them now. What did interest me this morning was a New York Times online squiblet:
Isn’t that perfect? “Experts” say gays can’t change, and they do so despite the actual evidence of men who claim to have changed (or maybe just subordinated their homosexual desires). There it is, in one paragraph: Thousands of men assert that they have changed — and experts claim that they’re lying because their claims run counter to theory.
You should read the whole article, which expands upon the apt summing up in that little paragraph.
In America, there was for some time a nature versus nurture debate regarding homosexuality. I think the current view is that sexuality runs along a spectrum, with some people fixed firmly at one end or the other, and others, in the middle, who may be affected by the culture around them.
Folks, we’re all wrong. As this cleric explains, the explanation involves God, the Devil, Shia Islam, Sunni Islam, anal worms, and semen treatments:
And I think that effectively puts an end to all debate. Next week’s debating topics include Earth’s role at the center of the solar system, the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, and the existence of mermaids and sea serpents.
That is all.
Hat tip: K.K.
I know that much is being said amongst both Progressives and Conservatives about Kagan’s possible lesbianism. Progressives are mad at her for being in the closet; Conservatives are worried about her orientation affecting her rulings as a Supreme Court judge. Both are completely wrong.
Regarding the Progressive’s disdain for Kagan’s decision to keep her private life private, I say get out of people’s bedrooms. This is Kagan’s private life we’re talking about. She gets to decide how she wants to handle it. It’s not for political activists to decide what is best for her, her family, and her significant others and friends.
As for Conservatives, even if Kagan is lesbian, it’s irrelevant. What matters is her unabashed Progressivism. That will control her thinking on whatever issue comes before her, whether it’s corporate taxes, the death penalty, abortion or gay marriage. Her decisions will be completely consistent with any other Progressive’s, regardless of hetero- or homosexuality. Her bedroom behavior is no one’s business because her political decisions are affected by her political orientation, not her sexual orientation.
You and I may have cause to decry the fact that gays and lesbians, as part of identity politics, gravitate almost unthinkingly to Progressive positions, but that’s not the issue with Kagan. That is, we’re not arguing whether her sexuality decided her politics. The fact is that she is now, for whatever reason, a Progressive, and it’s her politics, not her sex life, that should be under scrutiny.
In 1931, Nancy Langhorne Astor’s son Robert Gould Shaw III was arrested for committing a homosexual act (in a park, I believe). This was a continuation of a long-standing British public policy of prosecuting “sodomists.” Arguably the most famous prosecution was that against Oscar Wilde, for public indecency. The trial, scandal and imprisonment destroyed the noted Victorian wit entirely, and he died in self-imposed, poverty-stricken exile soon after his release from prison.
How times have changed. In 2010, Dale McAlpine, a Baptist preacher in England, was arrested for stating in a public place that homosexuality is a sin.
Have the English no sense of balance or proportion? Do they think that criminalizing people’s thoughts and opinions is the only way to balance the scales for the humiliations they visited on homosexuals in years past?
Anyway, rather than opining more on the subject, let me refer you to my previous post on thought crimes. I think it pretty much covers anything I want to say.
I don’t have a comment here. I just think this story is interesting:
An unclassified study from a military research unit in southern Afghanistan details how homosexual behavior is unusually common among men in the large ethnic group known as Pashtuns — though they seem to be in complete denial about it.
In one instance, a group of local male interpreters had contracted gonorrhea anally but refused to believe they could have contracted it sexually — “because they were not homosexuals.”
Apparently, according to the report, Pashtun men interpret the Islamic prohibition on homosexuality to mean they cannot “love” another man — but that doesn’t mean they can’t use men for “sexual gratification.”
The U.S. army medic also told members of the research unit that she and her colleagues had to explain to a local man how to get his wife pregnant.
The report said: “When it was explained to him what was necessary, he reacted with disgust and asked, ‘How could one feel desire to be with a woman, who God has made unclean, when one could be with a man, who is clean? Surely this must be wrong.'”
Hat tip: Neptunus Lex