• Hey! We're on Twitter!

  • Buy The Book!

  •  

     

    Click to Buy The Mug

    Buy The Book

Archive for July 15th, 2008

Andrew Breitbart IS…”The Red States Pimpernel”

Posted by scott on July 15th, 2008

In a haunting and heartfelt cri de derrier, “Mr. Spielberg, tear down this wall,” Andrew Breitbart claims that in Hollywood, conservatives must lead secret lives, hiding their true convictions, never daring to speak out against the liberal shibboleths.  You may find this a tarnished accusation and be tempted to demand proof, which he provides — by listing a bunch of people in Hollywood who are openly conservative.

While it is true that the ratio of Obama-to-McCain bumper stickers in West L.A. is about 250-to-1, there are untold closet Republicans in the entertainment industry who dare not advertise their beliefs in movie studio parking lots. (Unfortunately, car keying is a tactic wielded liberally by the self-described “tolerant.”)

Yeah.  I’d love to see the FBI statistics on liberals keying the BMW Z4 roadsters of admitted conservatives in the Paramount lot.  (By the way, if you notice a change in tone from now on, it’s only that I’ve realized Andy and I are in the same business — making shit up — so I feel he’s entitled to a bit of professional courtesy.)  So,  in Hollywood, the car key has become a symbol of tyranny, much as the Guillotine was during the reign of Terror in Revolutionary France.  Got it.

Since the communist-sympathizing Jane Fonda aerobicized her way into the mainstream of Hollywood politics, and about the time that John Wayne died, most Republicans in Hollywood began to shut their mouths.  Other Republicans attempt to win over the bullies by referring to themselves as “moderate,” “libertarian,” “independent,” “classical liberal,” “pragmatist” or “JFK Democrat.”

Well, let’s be fair.  Given the way “Republican” has become toxic throughout the known universe, a lot of people — not just Hollywood conservatives — have adopted this dodge.  According to Wikipedia, Dennis Prager “sometimes labels himself as ‘passionate centrist’ or a ‘JFK liberal,’” and Glenn Reynolds is perhaps the world’s foremost libertarian who apes the positions of a Bush Republican except he’s more frank about his yen to ditch the missus and fuck robots.

The tandem of social and vocational ostracism usually shuts down even the strongest voices.

Except, apparently, for Robert Downey, Jr. and Clint Eastwood, and Bruce Willis, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Joel Surnow, and Mel Gibson and David Mamet, and…

The Hollywood dinner party test strongly hints that the talented actor [Downey, Jr.] has lurched rightward during his long road to recovery. Playwright David Mamet recently expressed a similar Road to Da Masses conversion…They join an elite brunch that includes Adam Sandler, Kelsey Grammer and Patricia Heaton who also brazenly wear the Scarlet “R” in the middle of the school cafeteria.

How much do you suppose these poor beleaguered people spend on automotive touch-up paint every month?

Michael Crichton – who, to the chagrin of Al Gore, exposes “environmentalism as a religion” -

He also writes about , that give people super-powers, and that can fax people to medieval France without smudging (but beware!  You must return before the toner runs out!).  Anyway, nothing against Crichton’s oeuvre, I’m just saying — “environmentalism as religion” isn’t the only goofy idea he’s ever had.

…and comic genius Dennis Miller…

I see these words less as a burst of cackling insanity, and more as a poignant cry for help.

…show that there are cracks in the wall artificially separating Hollywood from much of America.

I think you’ll find that the cracks, dear Andy, are not in our stars, but in your skull.

Queerly Beloved*

Posted by scott on July 15th, 2008

Prager.JPG

*Yes, that’s how WorldNetDaily teases it on their front page.

In today’s column, On interracial and same-sex marriage, Dennis Prager sets out to eviscerate the ethical argument for extending equal civil rights to gays.  Fair enough, I suppose, but before we begin I’d like to quickly review Dennis’ qualifications to moralize on the topic of marriage.

According to Wikipedia, “Prager started his radio career on August 8, 1982 as the moderator of “Religion on the Line”, a Sunday night program on KABC-AM, Los Angeles. The program featured discussions between representatives of various religions, typically including a priest, a Protestant minister, and a Jewish rabbi.”  Sadly, each week the ecumenical panel degenerated into a violent argument over which joke about them was the funniest: the one about the airplane, or the one about the brothel.

As for the source and validity of his insights on the moral aspects of marriage, Dennis has apparently studied the topic for many years, since he testified to Congress on behalf of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, and is now on his second divorce.  He is on record as supporting both state and Federal legislation which defines divorce solely as “the dissolution of the union between one man and one woman.  If we allow liberal judges to redefine this traditional institution, which is a bedrock of American society, then what is to stop people from divorcing multiple women at once, or filing for legal separation from a box turtle?”

The most effective of all morality-based arguments for same-sex marriage, the one that persuades more people than any other argument, is the one that equates opposition to same-sex marriage with the old opposition to interracial marriage.

The argument, repeated so often that it sounds incontestable, is this: Just as parts of American society once had immoral laws that forbade whites and blacks from marrying, so, today, society continues to have immoral laws forbidding men from marrying men and women from marrying women. And just as decent people overthrew the former, decent people must overthrow the latter.

Thanks in large part to widespread higher education – the higher the educational level, the more one is likely to hold this view – vast numbers of Americans believe in this equation of sex (gender) and race.

But the equation is false.

Remember kids, education makes you stupid.  The more facts and critical thinking skills you acquire, the more likely you are to hear nasty voices from your frontal lobe telling you that conservative opinion leaders are really just hypocritical moral scolds who can’t sustain a relationship and are often overcompensating for a rubber fetish.

First, there is no comparison between sex and race.

Except that both are something you’re born with.  And they’ve both traditionally been an excuse for discrimination.  And they both allow people you’ve never met to learn all they need to know about you from a quick glance.

There are enormous differences between men and women, but there are no differences between people of different races. Men and women are inherently different, but blacks and whites (and yellows and browns) are inherently the same. Therefore, any imposed separation by race can never be moral or even rational; on the other hand, separation by sex can be both morally desirable and rational. Separate bathrooms for men and women is moral and rational; separate bathrooms for blacks and whites is not.

No one’s agitating for the right to marry the plumbing, Dennis.

The second reason the parallel between opposing same-sex marriage and opposing interracial marriage is invalid is that opposition to marriage between races is a moral aberration while opposition to marrying a person of the same sex is the moral norm. In other words, none of the moral bases of American society, whether religious or secular, opposed interracial marriage

From a 1998 letter written by the Bob Jones University Community Relations Coordinator:  “Bob Jones University does, however, have a rule prohibiting interracial dating among its students. God has separated people for His own purpose. He has erected barriers between the nations, not only land and sea barriers, but also ethnic, cultural, and language barriers. God has made people different one from another and intends those differences to remain.. Bob Jones University is opposed to intermarriage of the races because it breaks down the barriers God has established. It mixes that which God separated and intends to keep separate.”

On the other hand, no religious or secular moral system ever advocated same-sex marriage. Whereas advocating interracial marriage was advocating something approved of by every religious and secular moral tradition of America and the West

Exactly.  For further information on America’s moral tradition of interracial marriage, see Noah’s Curse, The Biblical Justification of American Slavery.

Those who advocate redefining marriage are saying that every religious and secular tradition is immoral.

If homos marry, the Golden Rule is null and void!  We can spread Underwood Deviled Ham on the Eucharist and give the Kiss of Peace with tongue! Woo Hoo!

But as objectionable as hubris is…

…says the twice-divorced man who feels he’s best equipped to decide who should and shouldn’t be allowed to marry…

…false comparisons are worse. And there is no comparison between different races and the different genders.

Um, they’re all bipeds?

To the extent that racial groups are different, they are only because their cultures differ. But a black man’s nature is not different from that of a white man, an Asian man, an Hispanic man.

“Unless the black man wants to marry the white man, in which case I’m afraid we’re going to have to kick them both out of the human race.”

The same is not true of sex differences. Males and females are inherently different from one another.

For instance, women are kind of…bumpier up top, while men tend to, you know…wobble more below the waist.

…We now know that even their brains differ.

I just adore how, whenever differences between men and women are brought up, conservatives are suddenly all about the biological determinism; but whenever differences in brain structure and chemistry are found between gays and straights, suddenly it’s all a matter of Free Will Gone Bad.

Those who wish to redefine marriage for the first time in Jewish, Christian or secular humanist history may offer any honest arguments they wish. Comparing the prohibition of same-sex marriage to prohibiting interracial marriage is not one of them

Let me check my Wingnut-to-English phrasebook…Ah, here we are…”People who promote equality for gays are free to make any legitimate arguments they wish, except for the ones that work.  Oh, and if you want to fight about it, I’ll be bringing a gun, while you’ll be issued a cardboard wrapping paper tube.