Sorry it took me so long, but I did read the winners in last week’s “Pick Your Townhall Columnists” contest, and I lived to tell the tale. So, here’s the tale:
1. Townhall.com::ENG 317: “How Not To Be Gay”::By Mike S. Adams
Summary: A college course about gay culture is obviously stupid and perverse. However, a college course where the students are required to write “Dear Penthouse Forum” types confessions for titillation of their professor are what make America great.
Set-up: Out of all the universities in this country, and out of all of the hundreds of thousands of courses they offer, Dr. Mike happens to wander into one called “How to Be Gay.” This is clear proof that, um, higher education is all crap.
Selected Text:
I’ve been studying higher education for a long time, but I’ve never seen anything quite as queer as a new course being taught at the University of Michigan. Section Two of English 317 is titled “How to be Gay: Male Homosexuality and Initiation.”
[. . .]
To his credit, Halperin hopes to approach gay identity from the angle of “social practices and cultural identifications” rather than merely from the perspective of gay sexuality. He wants to explain what such an approach can tell people about the “sentimental, affective, or subjective dimensions of gay identity,” which include gay sexuality, without an exclusive focus on gay sexuality. Is this making sense yet? Good.
Halperin’s description of ENG 317 “How to be Gay” has introduced me to some new terms like “disidentification.”
See, ol’ Dr. Mike, Ph.D. is just a humble country Criminology Professor, and ain’t used to all that fancy academic lingo that those fancy Michigan professors use. Now, what was Dr. Mike’s area of expertise again?
Oh, right! As Trenchcoat reported (thanks, Trenchcoat!), Dr, Mike’s dissertation was on “Labeling and differential association: Towards a general social learning perspective of crime and deviance.”
Abstract (Summary)
The present study contends that two theories, labeling and differential association, should be incorporated into a general social learning perspective of crime and deviance. The proposed integration is justified by the theoretical assumptions of the two theories. Models were developed based upon close scrutiny of previous integrative efforts as well as separate tests of the component theories. Data from waves one and two of the National Youth Survey (n = 1725) were used to test the proposed models. The results indicate that the effects of labeling are mediated by delinquent peers bonds when looking at general, minor, and serious delinquency. When looking at general delinquency among males, females, and whites the same pattern is observed. However, among nonwhites, labeling effects are not mediated by associations with delinquent peers. Policy implications and directions for future research are discussed.
Is this making sense to you yet? Good. Oh, and Dr. Mike’s thesis has introduced me to some new terms, like “acadmic crapspeak.”
Halperin suggests that students wishing to prepare for ENG 317 “How to be Gay” should enroll in an introductory course in lesbian/gay studies. But I think they should just catch up on their shopping, trim their Shih Tzu, and rent “Brokeback Mountain.” It’s not like Michigan is a serious university.
Decoded Subtext: “Universities should not be allowed to teach any courses that I don’t approve of. Also, that neighbor who lets his Shih Tzu poop on my lawn every day is GAY!”
2. Townhall.com::The Media’s Double-Standard On Civility::By Brent Bozell III
Summary: Remember that guy who was killed by the tiger that he and his friends had been taunting? Well, that incident PROVES that there is a huge bias against conservatives in this country.
Set-Up: Some Radio America host said “Call me wacky, but hurray for the tiger that killed the kid who was taunting him.” Then, when criticized by such defenders of free speech as NewsBusters, the Radio America guy said he was only joking. And since that card is the exclusive property of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, then the media must be prejudiced against conservatives. Selected Text:
At what point, exactly, did we come to hate humans for having the arrogance to assume they are wiser than beasts?
At what point, exactly, did anybody come to consider taunting a 500-pound tiger to be a wise thing to do?
Why aren’t the media elites scandalized by hateful statements like these?
Obviously because they too are part of the Tiger Liberation Front, having fallen under the spell of its charismatic leader “Tony” (and his popular catch phrase “Drunken Teenagers are GRRRREAT!”)
When liberals get called on the carpet for saying crazy things, they are always only joking. When conservatives are joking, the media see their humor as scandalous, even dangerous.
Yeah, when Ann Coulter jokes about putting rat poison in the food of a judge, or Rush Limbaugh joshes about how being tortured and sexually abused at Abu Ghraib is not even as serious as undergoing a fraternity initiation, the media gets all huffy – which shows that they have no sense of humor, because that stuff is HILARIOUS!
But let’s look at a specific item mentioned by Brent as evidence of media bias:
When Limbaugh laughs about “feminazis,” liberals are apoplectic in their fury. When the Air America types angrily label President Bush a Nazi, they’re nowhere to be found.
Brent gets paid a 3-figure salary to analyze media, and he can’t even come up with examples from this century??? And this is his example of disparity: conservative icon Rush LImbaugh’s ongoing shtick v.s. one comment by “Air America types”???
You know, if I were a donor to the Media Research Center, I’d be asking for a refund about now.
Liberals in the Old Media who constantly decry talk radio as a haven for right-wing haters ought to have the honesty and integrity to cover both sides of the street before they present themselves as the nation’s guardians of public civility and decorum.
Yes, they should be honest, fair, and balanced, like Brent.
Hey, just joking!
3. As punishment for taking so long to get this report to you, here’s an abstract of Dr. Mike’s latest column:
Townhall.com::Feminist Causes Outbreak of Genital Irritation::By Mike S. Adams
Summary: Once again, the feminists are driving Dr. Mike crazy with all their talk about vaginas.
Set-Up: Some student sent out an email announcing auditions for this year’s production of “The Vagina Monologues.” She began her message “Greetings Vagina Lovers.” Dr. Mike thought he could get a column out of this if he could ridicule not just feminists, but also gays, the transgendered, and the attractive women who won’t go out with him.
Anyway, here are the “protected groups” that Dr. Mike says are being discriminated against by being addressed as “Vagina Lovers.”
1. Homosexual men. Obviously, gay men are part of a protected class. And, obviously, if a man is inclined to have sex with other men, he is not a “vagina lover.” He is a (offensive term deleted) lover.
I think we can read between the lines here: such a man is a “gun lover.”
2. Good-Looking and Promiscuous Heterosexual Women. These women are clearly part of a protected class. I know this because the WRC is always giving these women condoms [Skip tired reference about how feminists are always putting condoms on cucumbers in the presence of innocent children.]
Obviously, women who are attractive and easy are less inclined to go home alone and engage in self-stimulation. In other words, there is no real evidence that they are, in fact, vagina lovers. And, clearly, by failing to address these women properly, the university is engaging in look-ism. And since sleeping around is just another type of orientation to sex, the university is discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.
This problem should be remedied with a special email from the WRC to all attractive and easy women on campus. It should begin with a more inclusive greeting such as: “Greetings (offensive term deleted) Lovers.”
Or, “Greetings, Slut!”
And again, I think we can read between the lines: the 19-year-old coed whom Dr. Mike tried to “adopt” repaid him for his kindness by reporting him to the university administrators.
3. Women Contemplating Sex Changes. There can be little doubt that these soon-to-be-ex-women are part of a protected class in our society (Just look at all the bathroom doors on college campuses that are adorned with question marks).
Ha ha. What a card that Dr. Mike is! No wonder all of his fans at Townhall tactfully changed the discussion of this column to one about firearms.
4. Free Market Bonus: Buy Two Dr. Mikes, Get a Free John Stossel!
Townhall.com::Hating Free Enterprise::By John Stossel
Summary: Having already dealt with the pressing problem of cousins who arent allowed to marry, Stossel is now free to address the issue of poor people who are being prohibited from selling their kidneys.
Set-Up: Seriously, Stossel is now stealing material from Thomas “Kidneys For Sale” Sowell.
Selected Text:
Why are so many people so hostile to free markets?
Translation: Why do so many people object when the rich try to exploit everyone else?
This was clear reading The Wall Street Journal not long ago.
Because if ever there was a publication that is overtly hostile to free markets, it is clearly The Wall Street Journal.
That same day’s Journal also included a story on the “radical” idea of kidney selling.
Why is selling an organ “radical”? Banning the sale of kidneys kills thousands of people a year. That should be considered “radical.”
Yes, banning something that might possibly save thousands of wealthy people, just to try to protect tens of thousands of poor people, should be considered “radical” (and not in a good way). The Invisible Hand must be turning over in his grave!
Yet plenty of Americans would give up a kidney if they could just be paid for their trouble and risk. Ruth Sparrow of St. Petersburg, Fla., ran a newspaper ad saying: “Kidney, runs good, $30,000 or best offer.” She told “20/20″ that she got a couple of serious calls, but then the newspaper refused to run her ad again, warning her that she might be arrested.
Why isn’t someone with two healthy organs allowed to put one on the market? Because in 1984, U.S. Rep. Al Gore sponsored a law making the sale of organs punishable by five years in jail. Congress couldn’t contain its enthusiasm; the bill passed 396 to 6.
Damn that Al Gore! First, he was against Global Warming, now it’s organ sales! What is he anyway, some kind of Commie?
So giving someone a kidney is a good deed, but selling the same kidney is a felony.
So, giving up your child for adoption is a good deed, but selling the same kid is a felony??? Where is the fairness, people?
When I confronted Dr. Brian Pereira of the National Kidney Foundation about that, he said, “The current system functions extremely well.” I asked him how the system could be working “extremely well” when 17 people die every day because they can’t get kidneys. He said that the “desperate (situation) doesn’t justify an unwise policy decision.”
The Kidney Foundation fears that poor people would be “exploited.” But what gives the foundation the right to decide for poor people? The poor are as capable as others of deciding what trade-offs to make in life. No one forces them to give up an organ. To say the poor are too desperate to resist a dangerous temptation is patronizing.
Okay, I just can’t stomach any more Stossel today — I’m off to taunt a tiger.
