Counterculture Con HQ

June 21, 2010


Besides being one of the greatest artists of his generation, what’s not to like about Elton John?

Elton John’s “Very Happy With Civil Unions”

“I don’t want to be married. I’m very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership. The word “marriage,” I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships.” ~ Elton John


Elton John Slams Boycotting Artists at Israel Concert

Another week, another provocative concert by Elton John. Fresh off a gig as Rush Limbaugh’s wedding singer, the British icon performed Thursday in Tel Aviv, despite pressure from pro-Palestinian activists and fellow artists to boycott Israel following the flotilla debacle off the coast of Gaza.

“Shalom, we are so happy to be back here! Ain’t nothing gonna stop us from coming, baby,” John said with a fist in the air.  The piano man then took a swipe at those artists, including Elvis Costello, Santana, the Pixies and Devendra Banhart, who have bailed on concerts in recent weeks.

As for the concert, the Jerusalem Post said John “turned into a human jukebox for two-and-a-half hours,” mixing old and new favorites spanning his four decade career. Songs played included ‘Levon,’ Rocket Man’ and more obscure hits like ‘Mona Lisa and Mad Hatters’ and ‘Captain Fantastic.’

An estimated 50,000 fans crammed into Ramat Gan stadium in Tel Aviv.

“It betrays either ignorance or self-interest or both, and jeopardizes his admirable record on gay rights,” Aaron Hicklin, Editor-in-Chief of Out, told PopEater at the time.


Elton John is the wedding singer for Rush Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh got married on Saturday night to Kathryn Rogers in Palm Beach, Fla., complete with 400 guests, no media, a high-flying shout-out from the folks at Gawker and music by Elton John.  Among the folks trading the worlds of politics and political commentary for the Ponce de Leon ballroom at the Breakers hotel: Karl Rove, Sean Hannity, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, James Carville and Mary Matalin.

Elton has been slammed by some over saying yes to Rush’s offer — the civil-partnered gay man who reportedly kept the hotel staff hopping is said to have hauled in a million bucks for his night’s work at Limbaugh’s fourth such celebration of nuptials. But before you clutch your pearls in shock …

… over the whole affair, recall that John recently played in Morocco. He’s also shared a stage with and is a friend of Eminem, a rapper not exactly campaigning loudly for gay rights. Perhaps conservative and liberal streams can indeed cross without creating a rip in the space-time continuum — though further complicating the issue is the fact that the bride is a descendant of President John Adams, who was neither a Democrat nor a Republican, but a Federalist (not that that party helped one-term Adams much, what with Vice President Thomas Jefferson nipping at his heels and all).

According to Zev Chafets, author of a new book about the radio host, Limbaugh “regards homosexuality as, most probably, biologically determined, and while he opposes gay marriage as culturally subversive, he has no problem with gay civil unions — which is the stance of President Obama and Hillary Clinton.  He drinks adult beverages, smokes cigars, and is not exactly a shining example of family values.”



June 11, 2010

Madrid gay pride march bans Israelis over Gaza flotilla raids

Israel is the only place in the Middle East where 'you can be gay in public'.

It seems that all the right people hate Israel.  Here the Euro Gays hate the Jewish state more than they care for their fellow homosexuals in Israel– and in the Palestinian territories for that matter.  This is what the human brain looks like on Leftism.

A delegation of gay residents of Tel Aviv has been banned from joining a gay pride march in Madrid because authorities in the Israeli city have not condemned the recent attack on the Gaza flotilla.

“After what has happened, and as human rights campaigners, it seemed barbaric to us to have them taking part,” explained Antonio Poveda, of Spain‘s Federation of Lesbians, Gays, Transexuals and Bisexuals. “We don’t just defend out own little patch.”

The Tel Aviv group have reacted angrily to the decision, claiming that the Madrid activists were getting their priorities wrong by mixing the nine flotilla deaths with gay pride.

“I cannot recall anyone asking the Tel Aviv city hall to either support or condemn in this case. That is not their job. I also don’t recall Madrid’s gay organisations condemning any of the Palestinian terrorist attacks on cafes or buses,” Eytan Schwartz, a spokesman for the city told Spain’s El Mundo newspaper.

“Don’t they know that Islamist fundamentalists don’t just want to finish off Israel, but that they also believe homosexuals should ‘cure themselves’ or die?”  “It is shameful that they should join with pro-Palestinian and fundamentalist groups which are not exactly tolerant with homosexuality,” he said.

“Why do they mix politics with a gay pride procession? We were invited as an apolitical association and we do not represent the government,” Mike Hamel, one of the Israeli invitees, said.  Schwartz said that Tel Aviv had also extended an invitation to Madrid to send a gay delegation to the city.

Among other things, Tel Aviv had planned to take the Spanish organisers of the march to Gaza so they could witness a place “that is controlled by the fundamentalists of Hamas, who do not respect any human rights and believe that homosexuals should be killed,” Schwartz said.

“We invited the organisers of the gay pride event in Madrid to join a march this Friday in Tel Aviv, the only place in the Middle East where you can be gay in public,” he said.  “They would be able to talk to Arab gays who travel here secretly because they would be murdered at home if they revealed their sexuality.”


June 9, 2010

Anglicans cut Episcopalians from ecumenical bodies

Whatever the culture-destroying Left touches, it destroys.  That most certainly goes for our churches.   But some have had enough of their garbage.  Here, Rowan Willams finally grows a pair:

LONDON – The Anglican Communion has suspended U.S. Episcopalians from serving on ecumenical bodies because of the election of a lesbian as a bishop in California.

The U.S. church opened a rift in the global communion, and within its own ranks, seven years ago by electing a gay man, V. Gene Robinson, as bishop of New Hampshire. Conservative African Anglicans have taken a lead in opposing moves in the United States and Canada to promote gays and to bless homosexual relationships.

Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury and spiritual leader of the Anglican Communion, had called for a moratorium on appointing homosexuals to leadership positions. He asked for action against the Episcopal Church after the Rev. Canon Mary Glasspool was made an assistant bishop of Los Angeles.

The Rev. Canon Kenneth Kearon, secretary general of the Anglican Communion, announced Monday that Episcopalians had been downgraded from members to consultants in formal ecumenical dialogues, annual meetings between Anglicans and clergy in other churches intended to build friendship and better understand one another’s traditions and issues of mutual concern such as points of theology and ways of worshipping.

Kearon said he had also written to the primate of the Anglican Church of Canada to ask whether it has formally adopted a policy backing same-sex blessings.  The Canadian church’s governing General Synod is meeting this week, and is discussing whether to debate a motion on the issue.

The Episcopal News Service said the Rev. Katherine Grieb, an Episcopal priest and professor of New Testament at Virginia Theological Seminary, was downgraded from member to consultant to the Inter Anglican Standing Commission on Unity Faith and Order.

Those who were stripped of membership in ecumenical dialogues, according to ENS, were the Rev. Thomas Ferguson and Assistant Bishop William Gregg of North Carolina, both involved in the Anglican-Orthodox Theological Dialogue; Bishop C. Franklin Brookhart of Montana had been a member of the Anglican-Methodist International Commission for Unity in Mission; and the Very Rev. William H. Petersen, professor of ecclesiastical and ecumenical history of Bexley Hall in Columbus, Ohio, who was serving on the Anglican-Lutheran International Commission.


Good for you, Rowan!  CCHQ watches the slow-motion gramciist train wreck that has become the U.S. Episcopalian church for the same reason we watch Europe for signs of dhimmification, and Israel’s war with jihad.  They are the canary in the coal mine.  The fate of the Episcopalians is the fate of all churches who sacrifice Biblical truth for the Leftwing quasi morality of political correctness.  It is the fate of irrelevancy.  Have any of that church’s gay proclamations and ordinations attracted a single member to their rolls?  No!  If people want Liberalism, they’ll go to a cocktail party or a hippie drum circle.  The “world” offers all this gay-permissive junk in spades, and doesn’t give you a guilt trip for sleeping in on Sunday.

Science! Lesbian Parents raise healthier kids

Science discovers children need fathers like fish need a bicycle.

Ooh, James Dobson is going to hate this: A new study has found that the kids of lesbian parents turn out just as well-adjusted as their peers. What’s more, they have fewer behavioral problems and greater self-confidence. That is to say, lesbian parents not only do just as well as hetero households on the child-rearing front, but they actually manage to do some things better. Who’s “focusing on the family” now, huh?

You might be familiar with the past research frequently cited by marriage equality activists finding that kids raised by gay families do just as well as those reared in straight homes. But this study, published Monday in the journal Pediatrics, is the first of its kind. Over the span of 25 years, researchers Nanette Gartrell of the University of California at San Francisco and Henry Bos of the University of Amsterdam followed 84 families in which mothers identified as lesbian at the time of artificial insemination. That’s key, as it ruled out women who got pregnant while in a heterosexual relationship before transitioning into a lesbian relationship.

Using a standard behavioral checklist, the parents evaluated their kids’ emotional, social and academic behavior five times from birth until age 17, and the young’uns were interviewed at age 10 and age 17. The outcome: Kids raised by lesbians were less likely to have behavioral issues, and exhibited greater confidence and academic performance. So, this is all just wonderful. Surely “pro-family” organizations will take this as a directive to legalize gay marriage in the name of children’s well-being, right?

Of course not, silly goose. Wendy Wright, president of the Concerned Women for America, told CNN: “This study was clearly designed to come out with one outcome — to attempt to sway people that children are not detrimentally affected in a homosexual household.” It is certainly true that the study was partially funded by LGBT advocacy groups; it’s also true that this is a peer-reviewed study. I heartily encourage Concerned Women for America to fund its own study and attempt to get it into a reputable scientific journal.

The truth is, we don’t know why these kids fared better in certain behavioral respects — and it might not have to do with having lesbian parents, per se. One factor that seems awfully important here is that these pregnancies were all planned. Like, really, really planned. There were no forgotten pills, broken condoms or one too many glasses of red wine; these women had to actively seek out sperm donors and then undergo artificial insemination. It’s always possible these results have less to do with gay parenting than with planned parenting — not that ultra-conservatives would find that any less upsetting.


Not only healthier, but already pre-programmed in the Gay Agenda/ lifestyle, all without even having to pay some university to do it for you!  Sigh. And would the journal of Pediatrics have published a study commissioned by Concerned Women for America or James Dobson?  That was purely a rhetorical question.  It’s simply inconceivable that they would.  And this illustrates perfectly how the Progs maintain their dominance in the culture.  With their “peer review” process, they vet the studies, deciding which ones to review and which to reject outright, and then they invoke as “authority” their very own peer reviews.  Case in point the study above, as the journal of Pediatrics and the authors of this study give each other the big reach around.  This “peer review” circle jerk is similarly used by the global warming movement to propagate their narrative while shutting down their detractors.

First we should commend these Lesbian couples for raising happy children.  To the extent this study is accurate, that is an accomplishment unto itself.  We aren’t criticizing these Lesbian families, only what masquerades as science which is then is used to further a political agenda.  CCHQ promotes a judeo-christian standard in the macro, but never at the expense of compassion in the micro. We don’t condemn individuals just because we support a higher ideal or different standard.   This post, therefore, is not about the Lesbian couples, but about the study.

The study is bogus.  Fake.  Ersatz.  And it illustrates perfectly just how thoroughly the Left has politicized every aspect of society, even our science.  Better to have two mommies than to have a mom and dad.  How many of you really believe that?  That is absurd on its face.  Most of us need no further convincing of that, but for those of you that do, consider that the article already admits these Lesbian families are “planned.”  Every attention to detail is given to their family “project.”  That alone throws the study off, and if this were all the evidence we had the study was bogus, it would be enough.  But there’s more.

They have taken 3-4 dozen lesbian couples, presumably stable (“over the span of 25 years…”), all middle to upper middle class, educated and professional (or they couldn’t afford the artificial insemination process); while the hetero families used in the study are presumably taken from the population at large, with no such controls for affluence, planning, or stability.  In other words, they have compared a highly selective, narrow sample of Lesbians to a random and diverse group of heteros.  That too, alone, should be enough to invalidate its conclusions.

Most important of all is the bogus, results-skewing method in which the data is gathered.  The article states, the parents evaluated their own children’s behaviour. Picture this: Scientist shows up with his survey forms and says, “Ladies, we’re conducting a study to see how children raised by progressive, tolerant Lesbian couples stack up against those raised by closed-minded, hetero-centric, homophobic couples in the population at large.  There’s no agenda behind this at all (wink, wink!).  Please feel free to record your own results, we’ll be back to collect them shortly.  Oh, and remember there’s no agenda behind this at all!  Nudge! Nudge!”  Has the study factored this into its results?

The fact is, these highly politicized and incentivized Lesbian couples on an GLBT crusade are probably not entering this study with their eyes closed the way random, oblivious hetero couples probably are.  The latter group isn’t going to be all fired up about scoring points for heteros the way I suspect are GLBT couples.  So naturally the self-reporting by Lesbian couples is going to be skewed.  This too is obvious on its face, and this too alone invalidates the study.

And finally, this Gay Agenda-funded study defines the parameters of what constitutes “healthy”, and then pushes that standard as the norm. Let’s just take their first criteria– Self-esteem– as an example.  In study after study, American high school kids show far higher levels of “self-esteem” than high school kids overseas, yet they score the lowest at every academic level.  So on what precisely is this false sense of “self-esteem” based?  Certainly not on accomplishment!  The American “self-esteem” movement has completely de-linked self-esteem from accomplishment, and now even some social scientists are admitting that “self-esteem” has crossed into over-confidence. And in a godless, secular society where a man’s worth cannot be measured by the transcendental or divine, what exactly is this so-called “self-esteem” based on then?  If not on accomplishment, what’s left?  Nothing!  The sad truth about the self-esteem movement is that they have actually harmed the cause of our children, not benefitted them.  When I hear “self-esteem” from these Sec Prog do-gooders my ears ring with the word NARCISSISM.  This faux “self-esteem” is both the cause and the result of civilizational decline.  Yet, this study cites self-esteem narcissism as a sign of “health”!

What about signs of dysfunction that the study ignores in their survey?  Does a child that grows up EFFEMINATE and probably gay or bisexual himself because he had no father as a role model qualify as “healthy”?  According to this study it does!  What about other studies that suggest girls raised by single moms–  with no male presence in the home– are unable to relate to men in the real world? I’m willing to bet this isn’t counted against Lesbian parenting by our study either!  The fact is, their criteria are purely subjective and agenda-driven.  That’s why this study is bogus.  It relies on the fallacy of misplaced empiricism, which is the assumption that they– the arbiters– can design a survey form that reflects “reality”, when all it really does is capture their bias.  Social scientists with an agenda commit this fallacy all the time.

May 17, 2010

The ‘Open’ Secret About Gay Marriage

This is big. And for me, this is the lynch pin on homosexual marriage …  and even homosexual ordination.

The story goes as so: How could Homosexual marriages be an ‘assault’ on the institution of marriage and family when 1) there is still the union of two loving partners (who just happen to be of the same sex) and 2) they can adopt and raise children in loving homes just like loving heterosexual couples can?

The ‘Open’ secret is why.

For a long time I thought that the only strong argument against homosexual marriage was from the Roman Catholic church who incorporated their objection into are much larger and integrated order of things. We marry because we are designed to be in communion with a partner, we are designed to reproduce, and we are designed to enjoy sex. Any combination that excludes one of these elements begins to erode marriage.

Now, if it could be demonstrated that Homosexual marriage could fit this matrix (without being as ‘dogmatic’ as the Roman Church can be … although, as we shall see for good reason!) then it should be ordained by God.

A lot of media and capital has been spent selling this picture of Gay marriage … but there has been a dirty little secret in that community.

Homosexuals have a culture of ‘open’ marriages:

Scott James of the NY Times says —

… As the trial phase of the constitutional battle to overturn the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage concludes in federal court, gay nuptials are portrayed by opponents as an effort to rewrite the traditional rules of matrimony. Quietly, outside of the news media and courtroom spotlight, many gay couples are doing just that, according to groundbreaking new research.

A study to be released next month is offering a rare glimpse inside gay relationships and reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many. Some gay men and lesbians argue that, as a result, they have stronger, longer-lasting and more honest relationships. And while that may sound counterintuitive, some experts say boundary-challenging gay relationships represent an evolution in marriage — one that might point the way for the survival of the institution.

New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.

That consent is key. “With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”

The study also found open gay couples just as happy in their relationships as pairs in sexually exclusive unions, Dr. Hoff said. A different study, published in 1985, concluded that open gay relationships actually lasted longer.

None of this is news in the gay community, but few will speak publicly about it. Of the dozen people in open relationships contacted for this column, no one would agree to use his or her full name, citing privacy concerns. They also worried that discussing the subject could undermine the legal fight for same-sex marriage. … (read the rest here)

Now of course it should be noted that marriage in general is in a progressive state of decay. Divorce rate is up, cheating and non-traditional options are more than usual becoming the norm. But we know that this is all part of the general decay of Western civilization precipitated by New Lefty Liberalism. Consider this asinine article by Damon Linker at The New Republic (here). Listen to the twisted logic:

“Even if we assume that the study cited in the Times article is accurate and that gay community as a whole shares the outlook and attitudes of married homosexuals in Bay area, traditionalists need to explain the mechanism whereby the practices of roughly half of the members of a tiny minority who choose to marry will decisively influence the marital practices of everyone, or even anyone, else. Traditionalists dread this influence—just as some of those quoted in the article welcome it. But do those fears and hopes make sense? How is the change going to happen? Why should we assume that it will? Because sleeping around is fun, and the only thing holding traditional mores in place is ignorance among mainstream Americans that it’s possible to engage in consensual polyamory?”

1) Oh, Damon … I didn’t realize homosexuals were such a ‘tiny minority’ since the world of such a ‘tiny minority’ has been rammed down our throats in television, film, news, and print

2) Damon … maybe when such a ‘tiny minority’ has the engine of a much larger project running it (namely the project of the New Left who wish to dismantle traditional Westernism), then it would have a disproportionate amount of influence.

3) Just maybe Damon, there is good reason to ‘dread this influence’? Just maybe?

4) P.S. Damon … your strawman of what conservative and holders of traditional marriage

“the only thing holding traditional mores in place is ignorance among mainstream Americans that it’s possible to engage in consensual polyamory”

is absurd and reminiscent of a high school level reasoning. But I wouldn’t expect someone who actively dismissed the great cloud of witness that is Western tradition to understand this.

There are two attacks against the traditional view of marriage.

This is the argument that is usually pinned on conservatives:

This can be dispensed with as a wholly false analogy!

The other  is that “Marriage is human right not a heterosexual privileged”.

Okay, the question we now have to ask ourselves … what in the world do you mean by ‘Marriage’?

May 14, 2010

Vilks Univited – No Comment from GLAAD

Muhammad and Ali

Oh, the tangled webs we weave. The irony of this weeks attack on Swedish cartoonsit Lars Vilks is that he was apparently showing an queer experimental film by an Iranian born artist sooreh hera when the incident occurred. I’d hate to be a Lefty right now trying to sort this out! Who do you side with? The ‘peaceful yet outraged’ Muslims who have been ‘victimized’ by ‘hate speech’? (what do these words mean anymore?) Or do you side with the need to spread the gospel of GLAAD (and their step child bi-sexualism) to the four corners of creation? (seriously, check this out) Wait Feminist free speech? Or is it freedom of artistic expression?

I don’t remember Christians bowling over Andrew Serano or Chris Ofili when they dipped Christ in piss or smeared the Virgin Mary in dung … oh, but i forget we deserve it. (think gramsci)  The sad turn of events is that Mr. Vilks is cordually univited to visit Uppsala University. Another victory for Islamo-fascism:

Officials said they would “not likely” invite Vilks again because of the incident. In some quarters, the university’s reponse is adding to concerns that violence and threats from some members of the Muslim community are effectively muzzling free speech.

  • Last month, Comedy Central edited a “South Park” episode showing Mohammed in a bear suit in response to veiled threats by a New York-based Muslim group.
  • Earlier this year, the Metropolitan Museum of Art pulled a collection of art of Mohammed to avoid offending Muslims, who believe that the depiction of any of the prophets is a form of idolatry.
  • And Brandeis University professor Jytte Klausen says that Yale University Press prohibited her from using several 2005 Danish newspaper caricatures depicting Mohammed with a bomb on his head in her book “The Cartoons That Shook the World.” …

In Sweden, the attack on Vilks provoked empassioned debate.

“By deliberately insulting Muslims in this already-charged climate the artist placed himself in danger,” writes Robert on Stockholm News, an English-language news site in Sweden. “Insulting people’s deep-felt religious beliefs is not free speech … it’s hate speech.” (oh, so your saying he asked for it. okay, just as long as we’re clear!)

Mac Turk responded: “We either have free speech or we do not. There’s NO reason why any religion should be privileged, or given special immunity from ‘insult.

h/t jawa

May 4, 2010

Christian preacher arrested for saying homosexuality is a sin

Dale McAlpine: preacher arrested for hate speech

Why the “T” in GLBT equals totalitarian.  The Secular Progressive war on Christianity in what used to be the very heart of Christendom is at a very advanced stage.  From the Melanie Phillips column.

Terrifying as this may seem, the attempt to stamp out Christianity in Britain appears to be gathering pace.

Dale McAlpine was preaching to shoppers in Workington, Cumbria, that homosexuality is a sin when he found himself carted off by the police, locked up in a cell for seven hours and charged with using abusive or insulting words or behaviour.

It appears that two police community support officers – at least one of whom was gay – claimed he had caused distress to themselves and members of the public.  Under our anti-discrimination laws, such distress is not to be permitted.

And so we have the oppressive and sinister situation where a gentle, unaggressive Christian is arrested and charged simply for preaching Christian principles.  It would appear that Christianity, the normative faith of this country on which its morality, values and civilisation are based, is effectively being turned into a crime.

Surreally, this intolerant denial of freedom is being perpetrated under the rubric of promoting tolerance and equality – but only towards approved groups. Never has George Orwell’s famous satirical observation, that some people are more equal than others, appeared more true.

This was what caused the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, to protest in a statement to the court that judges were effectively damning Christianity itself as discriminatory and, therefore, bigoted. He was so alarmed by the apparent secular prejudice of the judiciary that he suggested the establishment of a special court to deal with cases of religious discrimination composed of judges with some understanding of religious issues.

As if to prove his point, Lord Justice Laws dismissed all his arguments out of hand with the patronising observation that Lord Carey had not understood the law.

On the contrary, it is surely Lord Justice Laws who does not understand that he and his fellow judges are mistaking secularism for neutrality – confusing the secular onslaught upon religion with the need to hold the ring between competing beliefs.


Read the rest.  Melanie Phillips is from the UK, and she’s always on point.  The picture she paints is a bleak one.  Secular Humanism/Progressivism is at war with Christianity for the heart and soul of the West.   And we are losing.  It’s not even close.

April 22, 2010

Victim vs Victim: Bisexuals sue gays

This is not from The Onion, so don’t laugh.  Bisexuals aren’t feeling the love from their Gay brethren and are suing for discrimination.  It’s just one big happy Rainbow Coalition.

Bisexual men sue gay group, claim bias

Three bisexual men are suing a national gay-athletic organization, saying they were discriminated against during the Gay Softball World Series held in the Seattle area two years ago.  The three Bay Area men say the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance in essence deemed them not gay enough to participate in the series.

The three plaintiffs — Steven Apilado, LaRon Charles and Jon Russ — played on a team called D2 that qualified for the 2008 Gay Softball World Series, which is organized by the alliance.  The alliance’s rules say that each World Series team can have no more than two heterosexual players. According to the lawsuit, a competing team accused D2 of violating that rule.

Each of the three plaintiffs was called into a conference room in front of more than 25 people, and was asked “personal and intrusive questions” about his sexual attractions and desires, purportedly to determine if the player was heterosexual or gay, the lawsuit alleges. The alliance has no category or definition for bisexual or transgender people in its rules, the plaintiff’s attorney said.

At one point during the proceedings, the lawsuit alleges, one of the plaintiffs was told: “This is the Gay World Series, not the Bisexual World Series.” The alliance ruled the three men were “nongay,” stripped D2 of its second-place finish and recommended that the three players be suspended from participating in the World Series for a year, according to the suit.

The men are asking for $75,000 each for emotional distress. They’re also seeking to invalidate the alliance’s findings on the men’s sexual orientations and to reinstate D2’s second-place World Series finish.


So much for the “B” in GLBT!

Crash the Gay Pride Parade!

This one’s funny if you enjoy the occasional train wreck.  Here anti-Israel hate groups and pro-palestinian queers hijack a Gay Pride parade, hilarity ensues.

April 21, 2010

The Definitive Paper Showing Homosexuality and its connection to Church Pedophilia Crisis

CCHQ is on record as saying that banning homosexuals from serving in the Catholic priesthood would solve the pedophilia problem overnight.  OVERNIGHT.  Am I saying that all homosexuals are pedophiles?  Of course not.  That would be absurd.  But neither are all catholic priests, and that’s not stopping anybody from tarnishing the entire priesthood, now is it.  In fact, the incidence of pedophilia among Catholic priests is 2-3 times lower than among the population at large, and infinitely lower than in the homosexual community.  I say infinitely lower because what you aren’t allowed to consider in “polite society” is that virtually every pedophile priest has turned out to be a homosexual.  Below I offer you a highly impolite narrative based on FACTS you will never hear from the Lib Media.

Homosexuality and the Church Crisis

In general, the media and liberal groups seem almost pathologically careful to avoid stereotyping an entire group of people because of the actions of just a few. For example, we are told repeatedly that we must not perceive jihadists as representing Islam. Yet, when dealing with the Catholic Church, the media and others cast even the vestiges of decency and restraint to the wind.

Due to clergy sex abuse scandals centered primarily in the Northern hemisphere, the moral authority of the Roman Catholic Church has been subjected to an opportunistic siege by prominent individuals and organizations who see the chance to advance their goals, including the ordination of women and the suspension of the requirement for priestly celibacy.

There is also a strongly defensive element to this strategy. Opponents of the Church know that there is a well-documented and strong correlation between male homosexuality and child sexual abuse, but claim that there is no evidence supporting this connection. And, of course, those who are currently attacking the Church hope that they can undermine its moral authority to preach on the sinfulness of homosexual behavior and weaken its opposition to ersatz homosexual “marriage.”

This paper demonstrates that there is indeed a very strong link between male homosexuality and child sexual abuse. It also shows that there is a similar rate of child sexual abuse among other very large groups of adult males (e.g., Protestant clergy, who are usually married), thus proving that celibacy is not the root of the problem ─ homosexuality is.

•  Homosexual Alfred Kinsey, the USA’s preeminent sexual researcher, found in 1948 that 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children under 17 years old.

• A recent study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2-4% of men attracted to adults prefer men. In contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles.”

• Another recent study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “… all but 9 of the 48 homosexual men preferred the youngest two male age categories.” These age categories were fifteen and twenty years old.

• A third study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “Pedophilia appears to have a greater than chance association with two other statistically infrequent phenomena. The first of these is homosexuality … Recent surveys estimate the prevalence of homosexuality, among men attracted to adults, in the neighborhood of 2%. In contrast, the prevalence of homosexuality among pedophiles may be as high as 30-40%.”

• A study in the Journal of Sex Research noted that “… the proportion of sex offenders against male children among homosexual men is substantially larger than the proportion of sex offenders against female children among heterosexual men … the development of pedophilia is more closely linked with homosexuality than with heterosexuality.”

• A study of 229 convicted child molesters published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “eighty-six percent of [sexual] offenders against males described themselves as homosexual
or bisexual.”

The entire paper, here

April 20, 2010

Gender, Radical Fems, and the Anti-Science Left

Tabula rasa.

What’s common sense to you and me, gentle readers, is earth-shattering paradigm shifting to the Gramscist Left and the childless Fems of the culture-destroying vanguard party.  Fisk this classic case of nature vs nurture with me, and keep in mind that these are the same people who insist being gay is genetic, but “gender” is merely socialization.  Just keep that in mind.

Even 9-Month-Olds Choose ‘Gender-Specific’ Toys

By Jenifer Goodwin (HealthDay News) — Parents may want their girls to grow up to be astronauts and their boys to one day do their fair share of child care and housework duties, but a new study suggests certain stereotypical gender preferences take root even before most kids can crawl.

When presented with seven different toys, boys as young as 9 months old went for the car, digger and soccer ball, while ignoring the teddy bears, doll and cooking set.  And the girls? You guessed it. At the same age, they were most interested in the doll, teddy bear and miniature pot, spoon and plastic vegetables. “The boys always preferred the toys that go or move, and the girls preferred toys that promote nurturing and facial features,” said study author Sara Amalie O’Toole Thommessen, an undergraduate at City University in London.

So does this mean that boys and girls have an innate preference for certain types of objects?  Or does socialization — that is, the influence of parents and the larger culture — impact children’s choice of toys very early in life?  It’s too soon to rule either out, said Walter Gilliam, director of the Edward Zigler Center in Child Development and Social Policy at Yale University.  “One of the things we’ve learned about babies over the many years we’ve been studying them is that they are amazing sponges and learn an awful lot in those nine months,” Gilliam said.

The finding raises the possibility of a biological basis for toy choices. A study from 2001 found even 1-day-old boys spent longer looking at moving, mechanical options than 1-day-old girls, who spent more time looking at faces.  Yet the impact of socialization should never be underestimated, Gilliam said.  Studies have shown parents and others interact differently with female and male babies from almost the instant they’re born, Gilliam said.


So even as gender is found at increasingly earlier ages, Dr. Gilliam believes this is merely proof of “socialization” at earlier ages.  She just keeps pushing the window further and further back.  Thus to her, the results of this study prove nothing whatsoever as she attempts to rescue radical Feminism from the bind this study puts them in.  If gender is innate, rather than learned, then radical Feminism fails because one of its pillars– that men and women are the same, and gender roles are a construct–begins to crumble.  But there’s no evidence for Dr. Gilliam’s unfounded assertions in defiance of this study.  It’s just desperately wishful thinking.

Notice also the reporter’s agenda here.  She’s less interested in informing you on the results of this study than she is in trying to debunk it.  That’s why an article that presumably was supposed to be about the latest results on gender turns into a radical Fem apologia with Dr. Gilliam as its star.  Dr. Gilliam– not this study– is who this reporter really wants you to hear from.  So the reporter begins with her own conclusion that gender differences “take root” before they learn to crawl, rather than in the womb.  With that little opening she provides Dr. Gilliam the wiggle room she needs to keep repeating–  despite this study, and with no evidence whatsoever– her radical Fem dogma that gender differences are a “construct”.  A classic case of MSM bias, however subtle.

A final observation, and perhaps the most important one.  Ideologically speaking, the Left is a herd of cats, united only by their hatred of the Mainstream and all things “the Right”.  The disparate ideologies of the Leftwing coalition are often at odds with each other, and that is certainly true of the Gay Agenda and radical Feminism.  While radical Feminism rests on the belief that all gender differences are learned “social constructs”, the Gay Agenda wants you to believe that homosexuality is the exact opposite– that it is genetic and therefore “innate.”  Gender is nurtured, but gay is natured.  Both turn reality on its head.  And both are mutually exclusive positions.  This simple fact is obvious on its face, yet it eludes the pro-science, intellectual powerhouses of the Left (heavy sarcasm there).  They will not be deterred from their never ending quest for the “gay gene”, even as they attempt to sweep male/female genetic, hormonal and physical differences under the rug.  Where science and agenda collide, a good Leftist will usually choose agenda.

April 19, 2010

Green Party Fems: “You are not born a man, you are turned into one.”

Culture-destroying, man-hating Radical feminists want to turn you into Richard Simmons.  From the Interested Participant:

(Bonn, Germany) At the Green Party National Women’s Congress this weekend in Bonn, the party leadership announced an anti-macho manifesto to achieve gender justice among all Greens. The new and stronger gender message is now proclaimed to be: “We no longer need to be macho!” along with “equality and male feminism.”

The signatories include several Green politicians from the European parliament, the German Bundestag as well as local Green leaders. “We no longer want to be macho,” it declares, “we want to be people. You are not born a man, you are turned into one.” The men’s manifesto makes two main points. First, men need to break out of their traditional gender roles. “We need a new awareness of a new masculinity,” write its co-authors Sven Lehmann and Jan Philipp Albrecht. Second, they argue that their fellow men need to realize that real equality will not happen without their participation.

“We want to live differently!” writes Lehmann, a senior member of the North Rhine-Westphalia branch of the party, and the European parliamentarian Albrecht.  They appeal for a slower pace of life, less focus on profit and more health consciousness. They want to start holding “Boys’ Days and gender-sensitive career-guidance sessions.”

Interestingly, while announcing a formal edict regarding suppression of testosterone in the male population, the German Greens also recently announced an LGBT Manifesto which formally declares that all people are to be treated equally and fairly. Maybe it’s just me, but in the fairness and equality arena, it seems that male heterosexuals lose.

Oddly, the Green Party was created to support environmental issues and now it seems to have developed a utopian agenda envisioning a world with only women, girly men and homosexuals. Lost during the transition is what, if anything, the matriarchal Shangri-La has to do with the environment.

In any event, I question the motivation for the anti-macho manifesto. Just guessing, my answer would be that some feminine-types need a formal policy and political party authorization for wide-spread demonization of men with balls.


April 16, 2010

Huckabee likens gay marriage to incest, polygamy

Sounds about right.

WASHINGTON – Mike Huckabee, a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2012, says the effort to allow gays and lesbians to marry is comparable to legalizing incest, polygamy and drug use.  Huckabee also told college journalists last week that gay couples should not be permitted to adopt. “Children are not puppies,” he said.

Huckabee visited The College of New Jersey in Ewing, N.J., last Wednesday to speak to the Student Government Association. He also was interviewed by a campus news magazine, The Perspective, which published an article on Friday.  Huckabee told the interviewer that not every group’s interests deserve to be accommodated, if their lifestyle is outside of what he called “the ideal.”

“That would be like saying, well there’s there are a lot of people who like to use drugs so let’s go ahead and accommodate those who want to use drugs. There are some people who believe in incest, so we should accommodate them. There are people who believe in polygamy, should we accommodate them?” he said, according to a transcript of the interview.

“Why do you get to choose that two men are OK but one man and three women aren’t OK?” he asked.

Huckabee added that his goal isn’t to tell others how to live, but that the burden of proving that a gay marriage can be successful rests with the activists in favor of changing the law.  “I don’t have to prove that marriage is a man and a woman in a relationship for life,” he said. “They have to prove that two men can have an equally definable relationship called marriage, and somehow that that can mean the same thing.”

“I do not believe we should change the traditional definition of marriage.” He also said he thought the college magazine was sensationalizing his “well-known and hardly unusual views of same-sex marriage.”

“I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle,” he wrote, in response to a question about gays in the military.


Irrefutable points, all of them.  As of this day, Hollywood and academia are no longer setting the moral compass of this country.  Here’s where Christians make their stand.  This far, and no further.

April 15, 2010

Vatican under fire for linking gays to pedophilia

The cultural Marxists can link Catholic priests to pedophilia all day long.  But link homosexuals to pedophilia and you’re liable to be brought up on hate speech charges.  Those are the rules.

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) – Gay groups and politicians condemned Pope Benedict’s number two on Wednesday for calling homosexuality a “pathology” and linking it directly to sexual abuse of children. The comments made by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone during a visit to Chile, and the controversy they caused, were splashed on mainstream Italian newspapers on Wednesday.

The French foreign ministry and some Catholic blogs that support the pope also condemned the cardinal’s remarks.  As the scandal over sexual abuse of children by priests has spread, some in the Catholic Church have called for a review of the Church’s rule that prohibits priests from marrying, saying marriage would allow priests to enjoy a healthy sex life.

Bertone, the Vatican secretary of state, who is sometimes called the “deputy pope,” told a news conference in Santiago on Monday:  “Many psychologists and psychiatrists have shown that there is no link between celibacy and pedophilia, but many others have shown, I have recently been told, that there is a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia.”

A front-page editorial in Rome’s left-leaning La Repubblica newspaper titled “The Confusion in the Church” said Bertone’s comments would end up causing the Church more “harm to itself, not homosexuals.”  Bertone was also criticized by Alessandra Mussolini, a right-wing parliamentarian whose grandfather, wartime Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, sent gays into internal exile.

“You can’t link sexual orientation to pedophilia … this link risks becoming dangerously misleading for the protection of children,” Mussolini said.  ArciLesbica, Italy’s main lesbian rights group, accused the Vatican of using “violent and deceptive statements” to divert attention from its abuse scandal and said Italian parents should consider removing their children from Church-run institutions.


Here’s a thought.  Remove all homosexuals from the priesthood and you’ll have solved the pedophile priest problem overnight.  OVER. NIGHT.

Of course homosexuality is a pathology.  The priest is right.  The only question is what causes the pathology, and how to respond to it as a society.  But the cultural Marxists have convinced you their rump morality of politically correct “isms” handed down to you from Hollywood and academia supercedes and negates the timeless, Bible-based judeo-christian morality that has nurtured Western civilization for 2,000 years, which you grew up with.  The Lib Media have convinced you that they are great in number, and that you are alone, so shut your pie hole, redneck.  But the exact opposite is true.  It’s their numbers which are small, despite their lock on the popular culture machine.

So make a decision, gentle readers.  You cannot serve two masters.  Choose the cultural Marxists, or choose the faith of your forefathers.  The time for dilly dallying is over.

April 7, 2010

Gay Bishop says You Ain’t seen Nothin Yet

Gene Robinson.

Via Midwest Conservative Journal, we have the homosexual Bishop, Gene Robinson, commenting on the Gay trajectory within the Church and society in general.

Perhaps the most interesting thing which happened during that question period was a short speech by Gene Robinson, Bishop of New Hampshire, who expressed dissatisfaction with both papers and stated that it was time to move beyond speaking simply of “GLBT” (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered) orientations: “there are so many other letters in the alphabet,” he said; “there are so many other sexualities to be explored.” He did not elaborate as to what those other sexualities and other letters of the alphabet might be.


To paraphrase the blogger, the Gay Agenda (just like Leftism) is a journey, not a destination.  It moves from glory to glory, with no end in sight.

April 5, 2010

Street Preacher Arrested for Declaring Homosexual Behavior a Sin

This world just isn’t big enough for Christianity and the New Tolerance.

GLASGOW, April 1, 2010 ( – An American street preacher has been arrested and fined £1000 in Glasgow for telling passersby, in answer to a direct question, that homosexual activity is a sin. Shawn Holes was kept in jail overnight on March 18, and in the morning pled guilty to charges that he had made “homophobic remarks…aggravated by religious prejudice.”

Holes, a 47 year-old former wedding photographer from Lake Placid, New York, was in Glasgow as part of a preaching tour of Britain with a group of British and American colleagues. He said, “I was talking generally about Christianity and sin.”

“I only talked about these other issues because I was specifically asked. There were homosexuals listening – around six or eight – who were kissing each other and cuddling, and asking ‘What do you think of this?’” A group of homosexuals approached police with a complaint. Holes later said that the situation seemed like a “set-up by gay campaigners.”

The charge, under the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003, has angered freedom of speech advocates in Britain and has even been criticized by homosexualist campaigner Peter Tatchell who called the £1,000 “totally disproportionate.” Local Christians supporting the preaching ministry took up a collection and paid the fine.

Holes relates that at the same time he had been asked for his views on Islam and had said he believed there is only one true Christian God and that the Prophet Mohammed is a “sinner like the rest of us.”  He said that two men who were listening spoke to police officers who approached him and said, “These people say you said homos are going to Hell.”

“I told them I would never say that, because I don’t use the term homo. But I was arrested.”  Peter Kearney, a spokesman for the Catholic Church in Glasgow told the Scotsman, “We supported [hate crime] legislation but it is very difficult to see how this man can be charged for expressing a religious conviction.

“The facts of this case show his statement was clearly his religious belief. Yes, it is strong language he has used, but it is obviously a religious conviction and not a form of discrimination.”  Gordon Macdonald, of Christian Action Research and Education for Scotland, said, “This is a concerning case. I will be writing to Chief Constable Stephen House of Strathclyde Police for clarification of the guidance given to police officers in these situations.”

Meanwhile, a new study conducted on behalf of religious think-tank Theos has shown that nearly 1/3 of British people think that Christians are being marginalized and religious freedom has been restricted. The report’s author Professor Roger Trigg, wrote, “A free society should never be in the business of muzzling religious voices, let alone in the name of democracy or feigned neutrality.”

“We also betray our heritage and make our present position precarious if we value freedom, but think that the Christian principles which have inspired the commitment of many to democratic ideals are somehow dispensable,” Professor Trigg said.


There is no room for Christianity in a multicultural, “diverse” society.  That’s the message the Sec Progs are sending us.  They’re telling us that Western society just isn’t big enough for the both of us.  If you are a Christian–I don’t care what denomination– it’s time to choose.  You cannot serve two masters.

March 18, 2010


Someone put this church out of it’s misery please.  I hear the Catholics would be happy to take in the survivors.

Episcopal Church OKs Election Of Second Gay Bishop

LOS ANGELES — The Episcopal Church has approved the election of a lesbian assistant bishop in the Diocese of Los Angeles, making her the second openly gay bishop in the Anglican global fellowship, diocese officials said Wednesday.

Episcopal conservatives were quick to criticize the approval of the Rev. Mary Glasspool of Baltimore, who was elected last December, and said the move was “grieving the heart of God.”  Still, Glasspool’s victory underscored a continued Episcopal commitment to accepting same-sex relationships despite enormous pressure from other Anglicans to change their stand.

“I am … aware that not everyone rejoices in this election and consent, and will work, pray and continue to extend my own hands and heart to bridge those gaps, and strengthen the bonds of affection among all people, in the name of Jesus Christ,” Glasspool said in a printed statement.

Both are scheduled to be consecrated on May 15.  The Episcopal Church, which is the Anglican body in the United States, caused an uproar in 2003 by consecrating the first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.

Breakaway Episcopal conservatives have formed a rival church, the Anglican Church in North America.  Several overseas Anglicans have been pressuring Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, spiritual leader of the world’s 77 million Anglicans, to officially recognize the new conservative entity.


And now for some Leftwing/Islamic convergence with your morning coffee:

Episcopal Church Evicts Congregation, Sells Building to Muslims

Remember the Episcopalians prattling on about suing people out of parishes in order to preserve the devotion and witness of Episcopalians of the past and Episcopalians of the future?  That line has just been definitively revealed for what it always was. Pure and unadulterated bullshit.

Via the Anglican Curmudgeon comes word that the Church of the Good Shepherd of Binghamton, New York, the parish Matt and Anne Kennedy and their friends were sued out of, has been sold by the Episcopal Diocese of Central New York.

To Muslims.

The Curmudgeon points out that other churches have done this sort of thing.  But there’s a major difference.  Other churches have sold empty buildings.  But to my knowledge, no allegedly-Christian church has ever gone to court to evict a thriving, Christian parish from its meeting house only to turn around and sell the building to non-Christians.

So on one level, people like Mary Glasspool are irrelevant; the Episcopalians can “consecrate” anyone they like to any of their little offices they care to.  But I guess I ought to keep on pointing out the depravities of these people so I guess I’ll keep writing about them.  When a group this evil calls itself Christian, a lot of people will be led astray.

But here’s the deal.  The Anglican Covenant is dead; so-called “two-tier Anglicanism” is dead.  I don’t want to be associated with these people at all.  Anything less than total separation from TEO and its allies by conservative Anglicans is unacceptable.

If “official” conservative Anglicans aren’t willing to demand that and cut ties with Canterbury if they don’t get it, then “official” conservative Anglicanism is completely worthless.  Because even on a theoretical level, the stench is overpowering.


March 17, 2010

Post-gender: Mixed dorm rooms gaining acceptance

Academia still at the cutting edge of cultural evolution, welcome to post-gender America.

In the 1970s, many U.S. colleges moved from having only single-sex dormitories to providing coed residence halls, with male and female students typically housed on alternating floors or wings. Then came coed hallways and bathrooms, further shocking traditionalists. Now, some colleges allow undergraduates of opposite sexes to share a room.

College officials say the movement began mainly as a way to accommodate gay, bisexual and transgender students who may feel more comfortable living with a member of the opposite sex. Most schools say they discourage couples from participating, citing emotional and logistical problems of breakups. Officials say most heterosexuals in the programs are platonic friends.

“College students are adults,” said Chang, who is gay and is now a law student at Rutgers University in New Jersey. “They have every single right to choose the person they feel most comfortable living with.”  He estimates that at schools where the option exists, only 1% to 3% of students living on campus choose a roommate of the opposite sex.

“If we are going into a post-gender world, then the regulation of private behavior is just not practical,” he said.

But at colleges, he said, “I think those old-fashioned ways of thinking are kind of dissipating. . . . Over the years, this division between men and women, which was so big, is slowly closing.” Eland’s and Pronto’s living arrangement won’t last long.  Both will be studying overseas next fall, she in Spain, he in Costa Rica, and they are not sure where — or with whom — they will live when they return to school.


March 3, 2010


Same-Sex Marriage Becomes Legal in D.C.

Washington (AP)Same-sex couples can start applying for marriage licenses Wednesday in Washington. Supporters say couples planned to line up before the city’s marriage bureau opened at 8:30 a.m., and some officials were expecting 200 or more people.

Washington will be the sixth place in the nation where gay marriages can take place. Because of a mandatory waiting period, however, couples won’t actually be able to marry in the District of Columbia until March 9. Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont currently issue licenses to same-sex couples.

The gay marriage law was introduced in the 13-member D.C. Council in October and had near-unanimous support from the beginning. The bill passed and D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty signed it in December, but because Washington is a federal district, the law had to undergo a congressional review period that expired Tuesday.

Gay Marriage’s Open Secret

When Rio and Ray married in 2008, the Bay Area women omitted two words from their wedding vows: fidelity and monogamy. “I take it as a gift that someone will be that open and honest and sharing with me,” said Rio, using the word “open” to describe their marriage.

A study to be released next month is offering a rare glimpse inside gay relationships and reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many. Some gay men and lesbians argue that, as a result, they have stronger, longer-lasting and more honest relationships. And while that may sound counterintuitive, some experts say boundary-challenging gay relationships represent an evolution in marriage — one that might point the way for the survival of the institution.

That consent is key. “With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”  “With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”

The study also found open gay couples just as happy in their relationships as pairs in sexually exclusive unions, Dr. Hoff said. A different study, published in 1985, concluded that open gay relationships actually lasted longer.  None of this is news in the gay community, but few will speak publicly about it. Of the dozen people in open relationships contacted for this column, no one would agree to use his or her full name, citing privacy concerns.

February 13, 2010

Frank Rich and the State of Liberal Commentary

Frank Rich at the NY Times

Dennis Prager always nails it.  The Left doesn’t have to debate you on the merits when they can just shut you up, or convince everybody else you’re a racist and evil.

If one had to read one columnist to appreciate the state of contemporary left-wing commentary, my nomination would be Frank Rich of the Sunday New York Times.  No well-known leftist columnist better exemplifies the worst aspects of today’s left.  Virtually every piece is filled with anger, filled with ad hominem responses to arguments, filled with insults of opponents and at the same time devoid of intellectual arguments. A Frank Rich column is essentially a weekly tantrum meant to make his readers nod in agreement and reinforce their contempt for those who differ with them.

I offer this past Sunday’s column as an example.  The subject was the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy regarding gays in the military.  Not a single serious argument of proponents of DADT was cited, nor did Rich offer a single argument on behalf of repealing it. Instead, the article was a smear of all supporters of that policy or of retaining the male-female definition of marriage. The article contains 71 sentences. Twelve sentences contained an insult. I suspect that Times readers who love his columns — this was listed as the second most e-mailed piece in the New York Times — are generally people who read Frank Rich so as to have their hatreds reinforced, not for cogent arguments.

The article’s title is, appropriately, an insult: “Smoke the Bigots Out of the Closet.”

It is commonplace for liberals and leftists to avoid refuting conservative arguments and just dismiss the conservative with one of seven epithets: “Racist,” “Bigoted,” “Sexist,” “Intolerant,” and the three phobias: “Homophobic,” Xenophobic,” “Islamaphobic.”

Such ad hominem dismissals of conservatives and their arguments testify to the shallowness of those using these terms, meaning, unfortunately, most mainstream commentators and spokesmen on the left. The fact is that epithets substitute for thought — and at the same time render it easy to write a left-wing column. It is the Frank Rich Formula: make believe the other side has no thoughtful argument, offer no argument of your own and debase your opponents.

These are the people lecturing us about “hate”, “anger” and “anti-intellectualism.”  Read the rest, here.

« Newer Posts