Are you "okay" now?

Since same-sex "marriage" is now law of the land, the White House doused in the LGBT colors, as well as other cities coloring their buildings with red, orange, yellow, green, blue and purple (my eyes tell me it's purple, since violet is a lighter shade) does that relieve all the supposed shame a person with same-sex attraction feels?

So no more Pride Parades, no need to "come out" to parents -just need to show up with at your parent's house with the member of your own sex hand in hand - no biggie, no need for LGBT support groups at college campuses and businesses like E & Y. There would be no need for celebrities to come out either in a magazine interview or on a stage like The Human Rights event held annual. Right? I would guess that the ruling is the acknowledgement that such a demographic wanted; I take that the ruling is the answer that will forever heal the wounds and heartaches that is felt within the LGBT "community." It is the recognition that was so dearly wanted - the solution and the "settling" of your dignity, as a full human being.

C'mon. Someone that falls underneath any of the letters that is LGBT, please comment.

Strange.

Ryan T. Anderson's response to the same-sex ruling is unreachable. The Witherspoon Institute is fine, but once you get onto the Public Discourse section you're met with a login request, which doesn't seem to even process. There is no comment section on the articles, and I never was met with this predicament before, so  I just find it strange. Maybe the server is under maintenance.

Oklahoma Supreme Court: Gur Bye 10 Commandments

The Supreme Court of Oklahoma has voted that the a statue of the 10 Commandments residing outside the capital grounds to be removed, stating that it is a religious item violating the state's rule that no religious object be permanently put on government property benefiting any religion.

"Saint" Baronnelle Stutzman

To the stake.

As with the New Mexico photographer, Indiana's pizza parlor owners, as with the Maine ranch couple.

Of course not all LGBT people are this vindictive, but those who are show that something is extraordinarily unsound with the "equal rights" movement that attaches itself to such a demographic, and it does serve as evidence that same-sex attraction - be it homosexuals or bisexuals - once giving into and acted upon is destructive.

And the LGBT "community" cries out that they're being hunted down because of who they are? Puh-lease. The media would be all over it. I'd be hearing stories every month of these supposed lynchings.

New link added.

Fr. Z.

Even a Jewish libertarian senses bad things for traditonal Christians.

Neo-neocon states -

Traditional, or fundamentalist, or socially conservative Christianity is opposed. The recent SCOTUS decision in Obergefell on same-sex marriage pits that group against the latest trends in the law. The same is true of orthodox Jews and Muslims, of course, but somehow I don’t think the left will make them their next target—they’ll begin with legal attacks on dissenting Christians because they are seen as weakest and most numerous. And they are weakest because of the fact that their fellow-Christians have abandoned them, and because there has been a campaign for a long long time to stir up hatred against them.

I’ve seen this myself among many liberals I know. I’m not talking about leftists, who tend to hate religion in general (unless they’re members of one of the aforementioned leftist-oriented churches, or unless the religion is Islam). For decades I’ve heard casual comments about how awful fundamentalist Christians are, and this is from liberal Christians themselves, or at least liberals who were born Christian. Conservative Christians now equal hatemongers in many people’s eyes, and so whatever is done against them legally will not, I predict, ruffle many feathers.

I’m not a Christian. I’m not even especially socially conservative. But it will ruffle my feathers if it happens, and I believe it will happen.

Perilous times.

As does Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Scalia. As do I, sharing similar experiences that Neo-neocon writes about when it comes to serpent tongues talking about traditional Christians.

On the day of the ruling, the 26th of June, a Pennsylvania newspaper censored all dissenting views.

Maybe.

'Maybe we should withdraw into our own faith communities and just try to live our biblically-based belief in external reality the best we can.” - Edward Feser

KKK to plan a rally outside S.C. courthouse.

Oh boy. These people are actually planning to assemble in public. 

If this rally is approved by the governor ... I don't know what the results will be. I wouldn't be surprised if the Black Panthers show up. The Army National Guard of S.C. would most likely be called upon to help keep the peace.

As someone who has heard of the KKK I'm bizarrely looking forward to this. It is not because I support what they believe in or say, but because I never saw them live. I've seen the white hoods in pictures. I've watched Birth of A Nation; I've seen their depiction in O Brother, Where Art Thou? The closest thing that I've witnessed to the KKK were Neo-Nazis and the Dylan Roof types.

It's like hearing about an infamous legend that has been rarely seen since your birth, and it sending a note to the community saying "Heads up motherfuckers. I got a meet and greet on this date. Be there." It's as if one of Satan's minor demons was provoked thanks to the political correctness to get rid of the Confederate flag and all things that reminded people of the Civil War.

This is when smart phones come in handy to capture confrontations.

The fools keep strolling on in.

Then there's kozlosap. My memories of reading his posts makes me think, "This poster is a real piece of work." He has been in discussions where his faulty logic and condescension have been thoroughly dismantled and noted yet he still functions the way he does.

The flood gate is slowly creaking open - or least it should open.

Says Fredrik Deboer. Deboer suggests that polygamy should be next on the table, in all seriousness, since same-sex mirage was mad law of the land over at Politico.

The article was brought to my attention as I quickly skimmed topics over at CAF. Within the thread I found this comment.

 SofiaS writes:

You DO realise that the Bible is a lot more supportive of polygamy than of same sex marriage? Right?

You also DO realise that no one wants to stop you being Catholic. They just want to stop you stopping them from marrying the person they love in a legally recognised ceremony.

I've commented and documented the anger that resides in people like SofiaS here and here.

Posters like SofiaS come in two forms in terms of their posting habits. First form is the consistent poster. The consistent poster's post count lines up with his join date. He expresses his criticism in a somewhat reasonable way. The second form is "I'm only here for the food" poster. This poster just stops by to comment on topics that irate him. Out of the two forms SofiaS is the latter. Sofia's join date of CAF is dated June 2014; since then she has only posted eleven times as of June 28, 2015 at 3:06 pm. Like Mr. Fatalism, who posted at What's Wrong With the World, the second form tend to posts very confrontational if not snarky posts. Within these confrontations the second form also tell believers the history of their faith that they do not share nor believe in.

"I've studied your book."
"No, you haven't. You just read it."

What both the first and second form have in common is there appeal to scripture to play the devil's advocate. The profile of either form may fall under a liberal theist or pantheist, but most common is as a secularist (atheist/humanist); both forms are rather foreign to the philosophy present in a given site/forum, though there's at least one of them that accomplishes saying that Christians aren't allowed to eat shell fish (at least one) when it comes to topics critical of same-sex romance and acts. The second form mostly concentrates on gender & sexual identity, and the LGBT "community" or any other marriage form outside of one-man-one-woman. Rarely do each show up on topics about family or aspects of the mass. The second form is always absent on matters of immigration and usury. That stuff is way out of their bounds.

An absent, working parent is no parent at all.

Naomi Klein, leading climate change activist, will co-chair an environmental conference issued by Pope Francis.

She is one of the world’s most high-profile social activists and a ferocious critic of 21st-century capitalism. He is one of the pope’s most senior aides and a professor of climate change economics. But this week the secular radical will join forces with the Catholic cardinal in the latest move by Pope Francis to shift the debate on global warming.

Naomi Klein and Cardinal Peter Turkson are to lead a high-level conference on the environment, bringing together churchmen, scientists and activists to debate climate change action. Klein, who campaigns for an overhaul of the global financial system to tackle climate change, told the Observer she was surprised but delighted to receive the invitation from Turkson’s office.

Maybe Pope Francis will issue his thoughts on the US's legalization of same-sex mirage sometime by the end of July. Maybe not. It seems he's quite busy with the pending doom of planet earth by smog and melting ice caps.

O vicar! My vicar!

It may be legal, but I won't respect it.

The tone tells me that the side of "compassion" and "equality" are really  children that are psychologically fragile.

Gawker on the same-sex ruling:

I can’t help but be happiest, though, about the defeat of the anti-marriage equality crusaders. The defeat of people who signed up to lose, who wasted their time and ours on a platform of animus and contempt. The defeat of people who put principle over the practical, who fought to preserve their limited understanding of an already imperfect institution over the actual human lives that would benefit from it. The defeat of people who did what bigots do: discriminate, vilify, fear-monger, argue irrationally and without respect to human dignity, and then bristle when they’re called out for what they are (bigots).

The jig is up. The world has turned and left you fuming, seething, weeping. F**k you, Mike Huckabee. F**k you, Bryan Fischer. F**k you, Maggie Gallagher. F**k you, Ben Carson. F**k you, Fox News. You should all feel like assholes because you are all assholes. And now you’re also, definitively, losers. And it feels incredible.

"Mr. Fatalism"

People like Mr. Fatalism are filled with bitterness. What they are critical about comes to no surprise. They aren't really knowledgeable of what they oppose - they, for some time, have felt indignant so they gather around people are like them, that is other indignant people. These indignant people have a very particular view of the history of those that they detest, mostly seeing these characters as a caricature, applying whatever stereotypical actions to present day people who reject their way of life.

Mr. Fatalism, whom I guess is a non-straight, sounds like every other non-straight or social "progressive" I've come across.  Why guessing of this man's sexuality, what doe sit matter? Because it does. In my experience non-straights - the most hurt - always seek out articles critical of their lifestyle. It's a paranoia, really. When they seek validation they also seek out those who make them feel insecure. Hence their timely presence on obscure conservative sites, plus the date Mr. Fatalism dropped by is of no coincidence.

I suspect every change in the landscape of law is a win for some and a loss for others. A win for the kids who spent their lives being bullied and called names, sometimes beaten to death. But viewed as a loss by those religious parents who would sooner force their "effeminate" male children or "masculine" female children to attend Christian re-education camps where they can be held down and shouted at ("Do you know how you're making Jesus feel!? Or your parents!?"), or instructed to pray the gay away.

Oh to bring back the good old colonial days in the U.S. when homosexuals were executed. Though Thomas Jefferson pleaded that they only be castrated.

Oh to bring back the good old days when women could be labeled "fallen" and their children "bastards," and everyone could look down on them.

Oh to bring back the good old days when young Puritan boys and girls experimented with sex in their early teens and only agreed to marry if the girl got pregnant. Of course it was easier and made more sense to marry early back then since kids were taught the tools of their future trades while young and didn't have to spend years in college or trade schools only to graduate and have to struggle to find a job and manage a career.

Oh to bring back the good old days, the days before people started wise-ing up and taking the Catholic Church to court for continuing to play the old game of "hide the pedophile priest in a new parrish."

And let's not get started on Protestant pedophiles like the Super Christian in the Guinness Bk of World Records for the longest sermon, who almost took over Jimmy Swaggert's time slot, who was busted on more counts of taking minors across state lines for sex than anyone had ever been busted before.

Yes, we live in a permissive society with loads of food and access to more addictive substances than our ancestors ever dreamed of, from endlessly tempting sweets, salty and fatty delectables, to a wide variety of alcoholic beverages and mind altering substances, to online gambling, scores of video games (and virtual reality helmets coming soon), endless sources of entertainment, endless variety of clothes, jewelry cars, homes to choose from, and all the pornography the web can spew forth (with sales of porno movies quite brisk whenever the Southern Baptist Convention rents hotels in town). Unless we revert to becoming Amish I'm afraid that's how things will remain, bread and circuses. And even the Amish have trouble keeping drugs out of their community. So perhaps becoming a member of a tight knit fundamentalist Hassidic Jewish sect or a fundamentalist Muslim might be the alternative. Or perhaps just remain a relatively moderate Christian or secularist who is aware of all these possibly addicting things, and tries to maintain one's health in mind and body.

There may come a time when emergency rationing takes place of course, of water, maybe even food. For all we know California could dry up or a super-volcano on the east coast could blow or an asteroid explode above a major city, or a solar flare could explode transformers worldwide. Of course any technologically advanced society would be in danger of collapse then, not just permissive societies.

All in all, I like any society where people have learned to throw words around rather than bricks. Where the sexually frustrated have their outlets. Where the government has social programs for the poor and also taxes the wealthy to a greater percentage than it taxes the poor, and also keeps at least one eye on the environment and developing alternative energy resources.

As for free will I think even more important than making free will decisions is the importance of making well informed decisions. So I hope young people will be taught about sex education and the prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases early in school which seems to work well in Scandinavian countries.

I could probably, paragraph by paragraph, comment on it, but I'll say one thing: This is how the modern sexually "liberated" mind thinks.

Like I said, I don't know if Mr. Fatalism is straight, but from what he wrote I don't think he is. He very much sounds like a Stonewall type of dick sucker. There isn't much variety to them, Stonewall types that is.

Speaking of types, you get the bright, liberal university student majoring in English (or whatever humanities or social science) types. Then you have the black student who practically drools over Obama types - most likely majoring in political science. Then you have the nerdy non-American (in my experience either from the UK or Spain, I don't know why) type who's best friends with the bright, liberal university student type. They all, more or less, are in the same ecosystem. This group can be found at a liberal arts college, or any prestigious university - preferably private. Once you meet this group you've met all of them - not in numbers, but in personality. They tend to be similar despite the location the educational institution. Why? Because they all run on the same politics and run on the same wave that is modernity. Modernity calls for diversity, but that diversity is not with ideas but with skin color, "cool" locations and sexual orientation.

Mr. Fatalism is the person that such eager young people want to help. The thing is, people like Mr. Fatalism will forever be indignant.

Walk to the funeral since there is no car or public transportation available.

Marriage died yesterday. That is real marriage. The burial will take a while - probably a generation, once the millennials have kids. The millennials, according to the latest Pew Research statistics, support same-sex "marriage" at 80%. They will raise their children in their ways & beliefs. These kids will attend universities that are bastions of liberalism and will grow up like their parents. In that way same-sex attraction is the new normal.

I wonder, twenty or so years from now, what will be the new normal? Same-sex activists say they are glad to be out of a job since their goal was completed (or so they say), so I wonder who will be the "new black." My guess transgenders. Now that will be an interesting rationalization.

All in the name of equality and "rights."

A poster, Melanie, over at Thinking Housewife brings up a point that has been said a few times.

I suppose it is to be expected when God and procreation are divorced from the marital embrace.

I was in a discussion with young lady who asked, why shouldn’t homosexuals be married when people are divorcing left and right and sexually promiscuous before marriage? Indeed, why not.

I blame the leaders within the Catholic Church and their failure to do their jobs.

Though I don't see that common divorce and pre-marital sex as sound reasons to change the two distinctive parties (male & female) to "two people regardless of sex," the commonality of said actions brings about the type of thinking the young lady expressed. I heard that Pope Francis was writing about climate change as the US government decided on "equality." Yesterday a couple of bishops issued out dissent about the ruling - well too late. Where were you in the precedent years? Non-religious aren't listening, "rights" activists don't care and so-called "conservatives" that support this ruling on libertarian stances do no favors to whatever conservatism they have. The leaders of the Church have failed miserably and the Catholics who commit divorce where there is no physical or psychological abuse, or infidelity, the Catholics and fellow Christians who have pre-marital sex are also heavily to blame. You became lazy and became "of this world." 

According to Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, in his closing paragraph of the majority vote, the so-called union between two people of the same sex is marriage. Not same-sex "marriage," just "marriage." There shall be no distinction; the old and the new version will meet under one umbrella. It's also the grandest height of expression of commitment between two people expresses Kennedy That I agree with, sort of, but that all falls to pieces since it's mostly based on sentimentality. It's a shallow appeal.

As I sit typing this there is silence. Besides the sound of my keyboard and the hum of the computer tower there is silence. Outside my window there are a couple of birds chirping. According to the forecast it's partly sunny with a high of 72 degrees. I have yet to experience today's weather but within a few minutes I will; I have some outdoor tasks to do. Once I get outside, onto the lawn, there will be more noise mainly due to my yard work. I will work in silence and, unlike the birds, will not be chirping. I won't be for a while.

Liberty in a secular world

is a selfish world, and ultimately a boring one with low standards.

At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life…. people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail…. We conclude the line should be drawn at viability, so that, before that time, the woman has a right to choose to terminate her pregnancy…. there is no line other than viability which is more workable. To be sure, as we have said, there may be some medical developments that affect the precise point of viability, but this is an imprecision within tolerable limits.... A husband has no enforceable right to require a wife to advise him before she exercises her personal choices. 

- Associate Justice, Anthony Kennedy on Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

Abortion, all in the name of 'personal choice.' 

You know what type of art will be praised. Whatever "mystery of human life" will be a mundane talk about exploring one self, if not finding one self. You know what a modern person will think of issues like sex and child-rearing before they even voice their thoughts. How? Because modernists think exactly alike. Modernism brings nothing new, though it thinks it does.

 "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life ... " is an outright subjective appeal. Given in the context it's horrible. Isolating the quote reveals meaningless, only sounding better than a angsty tumblr post about identity issues.

We rule by fiat.

Juvenile, but I must, right before I bake a cake for my family (for no particular reason).

Can you tell the difference?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the odd man woman out.

Banning the Confederate Flag at the state's capital won't do any good.

It's a knee jerk reaction to the Charleston, S.C. shooting.

Banning it from sales is another knee jerk reaction. It is similar when people wanted to re-name french fries to Freedom Fries.

Of course, this is mostly due the stigma attached to the flag. Many see it as equal to the Nazi flag. When people think of the Confederate flag, at least those who are socially "progressive," they think of almost everything redneck-ish and everything that is "embarrassing" about America. This includes slavery which was present in confederate states, racism, lynching and murders in the name of white supremacy. On face value all of these things seems to form a reasonable argument to hold the flag in contempt and to ban it. I feel that the narrative, coming from social "progressives" and a modern day liberals, is incomplete. This is not to say I support slavery, lynches or white supremacy; this is to say that the black & white (the irony) picture painted by anti-Confederate flag, anti-South types, has a shallow feeling to it.

H.K. Edgerton sees things differently. 

The banning of the flag is another pathetic attempt at a "Je suis Charlie." It's a another "Hands up, Don't shoot!" attempt at solidarity. Well, Islam extremists are still causing havoc - the whole "Je suis Charlie" lasted no longer than a week and the man who agitated the terrorists was an actual bigoted atheist; turns out Brown's cry of "Hands up, Don't shoot!" mantra was born out of lies.

A ridiculous thing that has been born out of S.C. shooting is that news/culture journalists are asking Republicans and whites to take responsibility for the tragedy. I'm not white, but I find that downright insulting. Of course, journalists who say this don't like Republicans (I'm an independent voter despite by politics) and they play off the childish belief that if you're a Republican, and white, that you're probably a closeted racist and that the plight of blacks and whatever 'oppressed' group is due to the ideologies coming from the backwards, gun-toting, people who live places like the South.   

Do you know what, forget what the S.C. governor and her backers say about it. Forget the confederate flag haters. I'd rather see it be flown than the Rainbow Brigade of Non-Straights Flag. In fact, I'm going to purchase a confederate flag right now.

UPDATE: Alabama governor orders Confederate flag to be taken down from state's capital building.

If the governor of both South Carolina and Alabama feel that the Confederate flag doesn't have a place at the state's capitol what other social "progressive" issues will they back? Answer: The Supreme Court will decide on gay "marriage" this week, which absurdly is seen as the same as racial segregation and conjures up feelings of what the Confederate flag means to social "progressives."

Again, modernism - when bought into - is filled with irony. They want to erase (and only bring back the past when it's convenient) certain aspects of culture that irate them (and usually they have little to no experiences, if not understanding, with these aspects), yet they tend to replace it with something that is inferior.

Vox Clamantis.

I find it rather weird that this guy knows a lot about the LGBT in terms of communtiy's medical dicitonary. Some of the stuff he writes is frackin' odd - like he has poured over letters of the church, and learnt all there is to know about things like autogynephila, and evry shade of LGBT. I'm rather confident that I know almost every shade of liberalism becuase I was one; I was a 'practiioner' of such inane beliefs and the ideology made me think I was on the right path in order to help the world. I take that VC, his uber sensitivity towards such a group - granted they are psychologically fragile - makes me suspicious.

Is this guy straight? Bi? Is he a homosexual? Questioning? Is he married? What is his sexual past? Does it matter? Yes. I want to know who the frack is Vox Clamantis. He's the head huncho at fisheaters. That's not enough. I want info.

I don't believe his posts are apologetic to the LGBT but he sure creates a path for the "30 genders" under the sun narrative.

Ew. Marriage and kids.

Says the internet, more specifically youtube.

Yikes.

School Ties

SPOILERS 

The northeast corridor. 1950s. Jukeboxes. Greasers. Preps. Harvard. Privilege.

Welcome to Robert Mandel's School Ties.

A rising senior - smart and athletically talented - David Greene, gets the chance to attend his last year of high school at a prestigious boarding school to help the institution's football team to win against their rival, St. Mary's. This opportunity also gives him a real shot at attending Harvard. David comes from a working-class family, so this experience is a cultural shock. As he says, "It's rather hard to get into Harvard from podunk public school."

As he settles into his new school, makes new friends, finds romance and leads the team to victory, he hasn't told his new friends one thing: He's Jewish. As they lightly make Jewish jokes, he grits his teeth. Then, one of the boys, Charlie Dillon, finds out he's Jewish - the then would-be starting quarterback before David came along - and outs him. After the "outing" he is treated differently. His friends at the boarding school don't talk to him; he enters his dorm room to find a Nazi sign hanging above his bed -- he challenges whoever made it to fight him (since that's how things were settled back in his hometown), yet the perpetrator never shows up. "Cowards!" David yells. None of his supposed friends, save for his roommate, wants anything to with him because of him being a Jew.

Later, during winter finals, one of the teachers suspects someone has cheated on his history exam. He calls the class out, but no one confesses. He then lets the class decide to bring forth the cheater, if not he will fail all of them - making a horrid imprint on their college applications. As the class mauls over who did it, Charlie blames David. David denies this accusation (he saw Charlie cheat during the test, but didn't say anything). Head prefect, Rip, asks both to leave and lets the remaining class to vote by ballot. Before the vote, the anti-Semites rear their ugly heads, voicing their disdain for David founding their bases against him because he "lied" about being Jewish (David didn't lie, he just didn't tell them). David's roommates calls the anti-Semites bigots; they say "So what?" by the accusation because their hate for Jews run deep. "He's a Jew." As the next day approaches, both David and Charlie appear before the class. Rip announces the results: David was voted as the cheater. David agrees to show up before the head master and history teacher on Monday morning to confess.

On Monday, David waits outside the head master's quarters with a pensive yet sad look on his face. He knows he was framed and his voting was due to hatred on his religion. Charlie, being born into a privileged background and being relatively popular with the student body, has clout on his side that never was present on David's behalf. He, Charlie, is a Dillon. David is not - he is a Greene. Charlie's father is educated, well-traveled and worldly. David's father is a working-class man; the most traveling in the Greene clan belongs to now deceased grandpa Greene, who came to America for a better life. David enters the head master's quarters, where he stands in front of the men that decide his future. Unknowing to David, Rip is there, confessing that he saw Charlie cheat. Rip apologizes to David for his lack of courage to stand up for him. Charlie is expelled and David is clear of all charges. 

My Thoughts

I really liked this. I'm pretty much a sucker for settings like this - prep school boys facing dilemmas that call upon old, traditional virtues for guidance. Some follow these virtues while others do not. This greatly reminded me of The Emperor's Club and bit of The Dead Poet's Society. Do teachers and the values of institutions like those depicted in each movie mentioned still exist? I bet, but they'll be a rarity. Values coming from the Latin motto will empty due to failure of true self-examination and moral rigor; in its place it's a hedonistic modern day liberal soul. It's cousin, the amoral libertarian is always close by, appealing to the "as long as you don't hurt anyone" to "why do you care?" cards.

One thing that appeals to me is that the settings are completely different from my own high school days. The northeast is vastly different from the Midwest, which is vastly different from the West. A public high school is different from a prep/private; a northeastern prep school is different from a magnet and parochial. Though one country, and easy to generalize, the US of A hosts different regional cultures, virtues and mindsets depending on where one is geographically. Kids from the Midwest will be different from kids from the northeast, as well as kids from the West and South.

Quotes like these standout -

On missing Rosh Hashanah,

Dr. Bartram: Was it worth it? Breaking a tradition just to win a football game?
David Greene: Your tradition or mine, sir?

to getting caught cheating,

Mr. Gierasch: Be seated, gentlemen. It appears that someone in this class cheated on yesterday's history exam. Today is Saturday. Your next class is on Monday. Therefore, we are faced with a rather bleak situation. If the guilty party does not come forward, or is not identified by then, I shall be forced to fail the entire section.
Chris Reese: Isn't that unfair, sir? Only one of us cheated.
Mr. Gierasch: We have all been dishonored by this person and I will not tolerate it.
David Greene: How can you be sure that someone cheated, sir?
Mr. Gierasch: I would prefer to keep the evidence to myself for the time being.
Rip Van Kelt: Can't you just throw out the old test and give us a new one?
Mr. Gierasch: And pretend that no one cheated? But someone did cheat. Whoever did this has robbed you of your honor. If I ignore it, he will have robbed me of mine as well. I leave it in your hands, gentlemen.

 to the school's honor code,

Dr. Bartram: The honor code is a living thing. It cannot exist in a vacuum.

Also the movie's tagline - "Just Because You're Accepted Doesn't Mean You Belong" In some ways this is true. One has to learn how to fit into a given culture. In David's case, being Jewish in a time when Jews were looked down upon. And just because the setting is in an academic atmosphere, being a conservative on a college campus (Berkley, Swathmore, Bowdoin, Brown) is the new Jew. Yea, I said it.

My favorite scene is the lake scene, where David and Charlie share a moment that reveals the expectation put on the latter, which he knows he cannot achieve through his own right unless it's given through connections. "If you get into Harvard, you'll deserve it," says Charlie. In some way it has a tinge of John Knowle's "A Separate Peace."

Location where the majority of the movie takes places it stupidly gorgeous. Middlesex School, today a co-ed boarding school, in Massachusetts was used.

Besides Brendan Fraser's spotty acting (overall he did fine) the entire ensemble was good. Camera angles and movement weren't nothing special, really "movie standard." Costumes, from the looks of it a quick online glimpse for its time period, seemed accurate enough. I'm not sure if the way the sexual tension between the teenagers portrayed were anyway accurate, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone at a dance actually did put balloons between the two sexes to makes sure there was enough space in between the two. The script, at times was clever, and what is said is biting, especially when it comes to observing religious practices and facing true, real bigotry. The pacing was well done giving the viewer's mind no time to wander.

Truly, the don't make them like they use to.

School Ties - B -

Bruce, er, Caitlyn Jenner

is an assault on my eyeballs as with most transgenders. No amount of make up, dresses, high heels and breast implants can make you look attractive. Even the transgenders who may fool people that they are whatever sex the think they are, once the fact that they are a transgender gets out of the bag, the attractiveness plummets to disgust. It's quite repulsive.

I mean, to all the male transgenders out there, you got more hair on your legs than even the most extreme granola/"do-it-my-way" girl. Your shoulders are wider than any female who does CrossFit. Your legs looks weird in high heels and your dress just fits poorly - trying to conform to an innately different bone structure than what it's made for.  

Rachel Dolezal

Oh the predictability.

Says she identifies as black.
Says she's bisexual.

What's next, her parents sexually abused her as a kid?

Why should I care about this?

"Because we're all human and as long as you don't hurt anyone! This is universal!" they'll say.

Modernism is a sack of coal.

Becoming a "prude."

I'm

• Trying to cuss less. [This goes to my writing as well. In real life I'm quite good at not cussing, probably because I was raised in a household where cussing was practically absent and my formal education, at least up until university life, did not instill such a habit nor did it encourage it. Every now and then I do cuss out of irritation or if I'm upset enough.]
• Trying to avoid entertainment (tv, movies) where sex is is objectified, if not made trivial - for example teen sex scenes, sex scenes in general. This goes with nudity as well.  [I struggle with this. Not being "worldly" - at least not being aware of the talk in arts & entertainment - is a detriment and a handicap since I think it's vital in understanding what the secular world is tossing around. You have to know what they admire and praise in order to "figure" their mind. Besides education, arts & entertainment is one of the main arteries of modernism to express its deepest thoughts (though not really deep once you analyze them). I am not a supporter of "let-'em-have-it-who-cares" type of conservatism. That type didn't care much for higher education when it came to the social sciences & humanities, and now look at the state of education received at the elite private and public universities; that type didn't care much for creating quality, thoughtful entertainment and now look who dominates the "indie" movie market and prestigious film festivals.] 

Some people call it going "square" or being boring. I'd object to the boring accusation, if it were ever thrown at me.

 

Okay, I'm confused.

I consider myself as someone who's "update-to-date", for the most part, with whatever modern terms is used when it comes to sexuality. I just got done reading an article on a mother's acceptance of her child's sexuality - being bisexual. But the mother uses the word gender in a confusing way to me, as in "It doesn't matter what gender my daughter's lover is."

The way I interpret it is that by "gender" she means either male or female. Then what is "sex"when not talking about the sexual intercourse? I get the feeling that "gender" and "sex" are being used interchangeably (when did this change become universally accepted?), but another part of me gets the feeling that gender is slowly replacing the world "sex." From my memory I can recall almost all medical questionnaires asking my "gender." Then I get even more confused when people say "gender identity."  I'm clear on "gender roles" and its stereotypes - men be the breadwinner and women raises the children to men mow the lawn to women make dinner. But "sex" and "gender" when it comes to sexual identity (bi, homosexual, straight) in the context of the mother and her daughter? Color me confused.

And this stuff was talked about in my sociology class dealing with the family. Heck, I should be crystal clear on this ...

What I've observed.

That kids, privileged kids, from the northeast and LA seem to be rather cut-off from the world in a sense that it's them and their perceived "coolness." They really think high of themselves. Yes, their parents have connection to "cool" people that are artists, musicians, and whatnot. Yes, they vacation in places like Italy, London and Paris. Yes, they probably, if applied, attend a highly prestigious university majoring in the likes of English, photography, acting or some extraordinary soft field (English can be the exception if following a classic curriculum). Yes, they are most likely be aware of drivel by modern philosophers like Derrida and Foucault. Yes, they will probably identify as feminists, social "progressives", and activists on behalf of the marginalized and oppressed. Yet, in the most ironic fashion, their world is more insular than the small town girl or the suburban North Face wearing high school student.

The privilege kid's social circle is small -- kids from their prestigious high school onto university where they meet other kids with *similar aspirations and thoughts. They date and marry within this pool. They do not look down a social class or economic class, or widen their circles, because why would they need to?

This post was inspired in part of this article and what was said in one of my sociology classes, that the privilege usually only come into contact with the lower class (middle to low) in select social settings. For example, a privileged daughter of a movie director handing her credit card to the waitress at a restaurant. How many of her friends from childhood to adult are working in a blue-collar job?

Though partisan the article may be, it brings up a several good points. The US is a huge country; besides experiencing culture shock from traveling to other countries, there is culture shock to found within the US directly by socioeconomic division and upbringing.

*Charlie Rose just indirectly explained and outed the selection process of the country's most prestigious colleges/universities. 

The Model Minority

As someone who is Asian, I embrace it, even if I don't necessarily fulfill it. Why? Because it's a standard. Sometimes "doing it your own way" it quite juvenile, unsurprisingly uninteresting and mostly devoid of anything "truly cool."

It comes to no surprise that many are trying to debunk this myth in order to level-out the race card. We can't have blacks looking bad. We can't have a standard - hard-working, good grades, obedient, stable, respectful - that makes those who aren't those things, or hold such values, feel bad about themselves.

Actors and instagram.

1. Apparently many like to smoke, or at least like being taken a portrait with a smoke to look cool.
2. Many like to throw some hand signs when taking a picture with a fellow cast member, preferably the bird.
3. Many like to take pics in "gangster" poses.
4. As with many instragram pics taken by non-actors, there is a high fetish with filtering every other pic.
5. Many seem really into themselves and arrogant.
6. Not surprisingly at least one of their parents is in the industry, be it an actor or a director/writer.

Shits gonna get worst for the social conservatives and traditional Christians.

Just you wait. It'll happen within two decades, at least. The "we just want marriage" and "we just to be socially accepted and be left alone" types will have a national overhaul of public sex education.  They will govern the language beyond today's PC standards. The feminists and LGBT of the movie industry won't stop until there is "equal representation" of their own in tv & movies. But yet, the LGBT activists will still remain as bitter as they were twenty years from now, but twice as smug due to their success. Disapproval of same-sex relationships  and "marriage" will probably become a hate crime. The preferred parental and bonding will be same-sex, the academic studies no doubt will shape the results to the LGBT community's favor.

Straight couples? Those breeders? That's so archaic and old fashioned. Having three kids? Talk about being lowly-educated and a redneck.

Transgender sympathizer.

"And I do feel sorry for them that medicine and technology hasn't progressed enough to a point where a sex can become another sex."

Well it's all medicine and technology's fault.

Look, you got a lot of feels. I get that.

Warning: PG-13 for foul language.

Art is your way to 'express' yourself. I get that as well. Guess what, when you treat art as a venue to "equalize" things then I get annoyed. You tend to treat it like an orgasm which ends up everywhere - you're enjoying yourself. I can't stop you from enjoying yourself, I don't want to. But still. I mean, that shit got on my shirt. But look at this scenario for a moment:

"Hey, if you got a problem with me - like with my sexuality - then it's your problem!"
"Um, okay. Just to play the 'asshole' card, what if you said you got a problem with my religion, beliefs or you want to 'fight' global warming, poverty, racism, sexist etc. etc. and I say 'Well that's just your problem!' since I don't side with global warming types, think poverty will always exist and well as racism and sexism - would that be okay?"
"No, that's different."

I say this after I stumbled upon NYC photographer iO Tillet Wright's "Self-Evident Truths" - an art project consisting of more than 1, 000 portraits of people who aren't "anything other than 100% straight." She will be traveling across the nation in order to find non-straights in various US cities, to help non-straights aware that they are not alone.

As someone who is straight, I'm quite offended by this project's name. It's basically saying "Straight people, don't you feel guilty for building a bigoted, hateful society? There are many non-straight people around you that you unknowingly hate and hurt." To that I say, "Go stick your dick in your partner's anus, suck his dick and hope you don't get AIDS. For the females, you can hold hands together all you want and give each other kisses, and rub your vaginas together but that's where the penis is suppose to be during sex. You both don't have penises. Also a child won't come out of two females rubbing their vagina flaps together."

The only thing that's worth mentioning from that interview is that she doesn't like PC language - that she rejects gender neutral words. At least we have some actually sanity in that department with her. Her goal with is project is to lay down all the faces of her completed "Self-Evident Truths" at the National Mall of the Washington Monument in order to humanize homosexuals and bisexuals. I'll admit, this obsession (they'll call it passion) to humanize non-straights is plain out annoying. If non-straights are being beaten, persecuted, shunned and fired for their sexuality in droves then I'd probably treat Wright's project with more respect. But they aren't.

This project also has an insidious byproduct. It is to help re-socialize the population in not assuming that every woman a man has affection for is straight and vice versa. Instead of the "consent" card played during deviant sex and foreplay, it's the "can't assume" card when trying to ask the opposite sex for date. So guys, if you see that cute girl drinking at the bar alone don't assume she likes guys. You have to ask if she likes guys.

(If you take time to see several interviews from StyleLikeU, many of the people interviewed seem to have baggage. Not the average baggage that comes from an emotional stable person, but baggage that can only be soothed and be turned into self-righteousness in the arts & entertainment circles of NYC and LA. This is one of the many reasons why I think modern day liberal are the most fragile demographic compared to the vulnerable elderly, children and mentally/physically handicapped.)

Ms Wright's other project, a branch of "Self-Evident Truths", is "We Are You" -

No shit, Sherlock.

Her whole message is to treat others with respect, dignity and empathy (remember, this is Kris Kluwe's favorite word). I get that. Empathy is achieved through familiarity. Fair enough. Sounds like a reasonable and noble goal, right? Good intentions pave the road to hell (in my mind this is mediocrity, barely any standards and the loss of romance & distinctions); though Ms. Wright's goal is to humanize the non-straights, which sounds deeply compassionate and no doubt it successfully conjures feelings of "empowerment" to the SJW types, it just comes across, to me, as narcissistic. And annoying as heck.

As Ms. Wright writes, when Yosi Sergant, creator of Obama's "Hope" poster, asked her to be part of Manifest Equality, which I will presume the name was inspired by Manifest Destiny (bold & italics are my own emphasis),

My participation had nothing to do with the fact that I am bisexual, in a committed relationship and living with a woman. It was because the fact that equality is still something that has to be fought for in this country is an embarrassing travesty that our children will have to explain to our grandchildren. They'll say it was a dark mistake made by a grip of conservative septuagenarians with too much influence on our national body politic. Along with racial equality and the late bloom of women's rights, future generations will have to explain how, in the past, gays were misunderstood, and publicly humiliated for loving each other, and eventually, how they stood together and conquered stupidity and hypocritical hatred, and fought their way out of marginalization. They will show them pictures of ecstatic, sweet couples on the steps of city halls across the country, and of artwork made by people who wanted to give the movement a face.

I had to look up the word "septuagenarians." Wright was referring to old, wrinkly, racist, bigoted white guys who were boinking their secretaries as their wife made them sandwiches as they arrived from work. Go figure.

Anyways, I'm in no way "embarrassed" by the this so-called travesty. It's horrid that slavery happened here. If you caught me in my college years, when I proclaimed I was "very, very liberal" in a class speech, I'd probably be embarrassed with the 1960s Civil Rights Era and nod in much agreement with Wright. Now, I've matured (somewhat) and my politics have changed. I do not see the Civil Rights Era or the appeal to woman's suffrage as a national embarrassment. Given the history of the nation, embarrassment is probably the last thing on my 'feels' plate. Should there be strong feelings towards the supposed johnny-come-lately for desegregation of whites & blacks? Maybe. Wright fails to acknowledge the unique history of race in America which played into slavery and the general view on race up until the 1960s. Racial inequality is also a loaded concept so she's most definitely just practicing "1950s was just yesterday, man," mentality. Women in the US gained national suffrage in 1920. Given how young the country was compared to other established nations this isn't something to be embarrassed about. It happened in 1920, end of story. Wishing it be earlier is plain ridiculousness. Roe vs. Wade came into effect in 1973 - compared to other countries, to describe it as a "late bloom" is showing the lack of historical perspective. I guess they don't teach (accurate) history on Wright's art projects, after all she doesn't work a 9-5 and it employed by freelance so ... Tons of freakin' free time.

My kids will only be "embarrassed" if they are  taught by people like Wright, if they see people like Wright as some sort of "unicorn" bravely galloping against the status quo. To compare gay "rights" to the Civil Rights Era and woman's suffrage and access to abortion is just plain vapid and desperate. If I were a black woman I'd want to slap Wright on the side of the head.

Whoa! Violence, you bigot and homophobe!

My comments on the statements in italics: I wonder where are these stories of people who have same-sex attraction, acting upon it in public, and are humiliated by the public. (If Wright thinks not supporting same-sex 'marriage' and relationships counts humiliation then we are dealing with a piece of glass.) Where are all these stories Wright? I am not denying that homosexuals have been marginalized; I'm skeptical of this "gay is new black." Where are these lynching? These job firings if not rejection? Where are these leases being axed because the tenant is not straight? Where are these entertainment articles saying "Homo sighting in The Grove in LA!" Io Wright is a few years older than I am, and I consider myself up-to-date on the supposed "hate" crimes against homosexuals, so I'm very curious what prompts her to say this. The feels, maybe. She also admits that it's equally about gaining social acceptance as it is revenge on people - those old, wrinkly conservatives - by shoving pictures of their governmental sanctioned 'wedding.' All happy. All smiling. Good As You, right?
 
I'll say something quite arrogant, if I haven't already been arrogant before in this post: But it does, Ms. Wright. This is in response to Wright's "had nothing to do with the fact that I am bisexual." It does.You are involved, partly, because you are not "100% straight." You do not like the fact that your sexuality is on the fringes of sexuality. A good majority of the people in the USA are straight - your "anything other than 100% straight" pretty much says "I'm quite upset that straight culture dominates this (US) society."

I am not a "queer artist" -- that is to say, I don't have an identity built around my sexuality, as it pertains to my artwork, which is part of what I found so exciting about the Manifest Equality show. The show was organized by three brilliant straight people, and both the art on the walls, and the crowd on the gallery floor were a totally mixed bag; straight actors who play gay characters on television, straight movie stars who have gay family, and gay superstar activists mingled with kids like me and my sexually ambiguous friends, to look at work made by more straight artists than gay. It wasn't about being homosexual, it was about being human, and the rights that that qualification should afford everyone.

This is pathetic beyond belief.

I'm going to be more mean than I am already. This woman seriously thinks she's the new black. As you said inthe StyleLikeU interview, when describing how she looked like a boy as a kid and not being straight, "I don't fit any box ... I'm like a unicorn!" If a unicorn ever existed its own species - being studied for any particular eating, mating and sleeping patterns. This is one dumb bitch. With that paragraph she just leveled-up to whole new plain of nonsense.

It hit me, on opening night, that I was in LA. Where else would I see Darryl Hannah gazing at my photo, and Erin Daniels (of The L Word) grabbing portraits from my piles?

Yes, you're human. You also have a vagina so you identifying as a boy undermines your entire 'feels.' Such people are admiring your work regardless of your sexuality.

You were brought in by Sergant mainly because of your sexuality. I have no evidence to back this up, but what are the chances of Sergant picking Wright who so happens to be a walking parody of a modern day social activist with her type of mental fucked up logic concerning sexuality? As there are many celebrities that make people go star-struck in LA, photographers like Wright are a dime a dozen in the arts & entertainment circle in places like LA and NYC. The irony.

If there is one thing that non-straights (especially when it comes to 'artsy' non-straights) do that irritates the heck out of me, and further makes me think they truly suffer from some sort of inferiority complex (mainly due to their sexuality - they'll say it's due to society, but it's really due to their sexuality and becoming aware that they are a minority), is their need to constantly remind the world - not just their family and close friends - that they aren't straight. It's weird. Writer J.K. Rowling said "Gay people just look like people." True. And through "Self-Evident Truths" Wright builds upon this, but it's end goal, besides its surface goal, is to normalize non-straight behavior and get government's OKAY on same-sex 'marriage.' It's a middle finger to the old conservatives. It's to paint the people in the portraits as victims of hatred, and the country as a johnny-come-lately in terms of human 'equality.' This sounds like a waiter being chastised for not bringing the food on time -- because table five ordered after table one yet table five has theirs already.

This is a deeply bitter and insecure woman, all wrapped under her "the artist/activist" cloak (see: personal site).

Also, when someone, say an actress, needs a magazine or any form of art medium (or even a drunken speech - see: Jodie Foster), to "come out" that means that dealing with being comfortable with ones sexuality is more of a psychological problem than any actual bigoted societal norm. It's especially telling if that someone grew up in a city, like NYC, went to university to study acting, has friends that are artsy and most likely socially liberal, and who works in an industry that's pro-non-straight like the movie industry (entertainers will say that the movie industry is homophobic, which is a story for another day). If they still feel the need to say "I just want to be happy," due to them feeling marginalized by society for not being "anything other than 100% straight" then that calls for investigation of that person's psyche. Like I said, whatever insecurities and hurt the LGBT community is feeling it's mostly due to some perceived injustice. Then again actors are probably the most insecure people once you get personal, all the while projecting an ego that's much bigger than their own height. I will deduce that such people will never be as comfortable in their sexuality as straights are.

What a gnu.

Found on this version of Nearer, my God, to Thee.

"I have studied theology and philosophy." Sure you have. Majored? Minored? Double majored? Grad school? Who taught you? Self-learned? Ex-Christian? I've "studied" rocks when I was a kid. I totally know all about them. I'm gonna troll on rock youtube videos now.

Bullies: Bane to rabbits' existence.

Buzzfeed, what don't you complain about? This company fulfills everything on my checklist for "The Stereotypical 'Cool' Company Politics."

Is it me or does media make bullying an epidemic like SARS/ or MERS?

Here's my profile: Asian. Ethnic minority in my school. Parochial schooling for 12 years. Classmates were mostly low to middle class. Midwest location.

Now was I bullied? No. I was teased now and then in grade school for my bizarre hair texture, but that was from a couple of girls who were with me at band, and I knew it was more of joke. Did it hurt my feelings? In a way yes. I'm now sure how many hours I spent researching shampoos and conditioners to make my hair less frizzy and puffy. If you 'knew' my hair during my 6-7th grade years it was bizarre; I won't lie. I got over it.

In high school my freshmen Spanish class I was called C^3 (C-Cubed), which stood for Ching Chong Charlie, for a few days. I'll admit that was a little clever. I was a bit irritated, though, but I eventually got over it after a week.

During my sophomore year I was standing near the main entrance of my high school. Across from me was a couple of other kids, one of which was in my year and knew me through our history class. He walked over and asked to see my clarinet case; I said no. He, being much bigger than I was, slowly pried it out of my arms, opened it and eyed the parts. He then mocked me for my diminutive stature, saying I probably would get drunk after one sip of alcohol. It all ended rather anti-climatically. He gave me back my clarinet case, the contents as it were after he pried it out my arms, and walked back towards his group.

That's it. None of these has scarred me or made me bitter. My hair isn't as bizarre as it was back then. I now look back on C^3 with a chuckle. The guy who pried my clarinet case out of my arms was probably the closest to an actual bully that many seem to confess to when it comes to personal bully stories, but in the end I hope he's doing okay. I don't think his home life was as solid or as peachy as mine. In fact, I want to pick up the clarinet again and I know I need to work-out my arms, so there you have it.

I won't be holding up any "look-at-me-now" signs with a look of self-righteousness on my face anytime soon. I don't want to. I don't need to.

Sometimes you have to be active. Or you get fat and wonder "WTF happened to me?"

J.R. Dunn argues at American Thinker:

The same-sex “marriage” vote in Ireland marks the largest victory for the LGBT movement thus far.  It’s quite a feather in the gay boa – an apparent success in yanking one of the most heterosexual cultures on Earth out of the closet.

In truth, the vote was very likely a rebuke to the Catholic Church, which in Ireland, as everywhere else in the industrialized West, hired a lot of gays to act as priests, who exploited numberless teenage boys for sexual purposes, and then did nothing about it.  The Irish Church tried to coast through the crisis, and this is its reward – a fitting one.

We can add the fact the Irish Church did nothing to defend marriage from the current assault.  I know that without even researching it, because the American Church is effectively an extension of the Irish Church, and the American Church has done nothing to protect marriage during the current debate.  A serious, well-organized, and well-funded response to the gay campaign among Catholics simply has not occurred in any meaningful sense.

This is also true of the rest of this country’s institutions, conservatism prominent among them.

We’re told that when the matter came up, establishment conservatives effectively laughed the whole thing off with the line, “Does this mean I can marry my cat?”  Conservatives did not take the matter seriously, and they are now caught with little to say.  Some did worse, such as the odious Robert Gates, whose speech to the Boy Scouts reveals his historical role to be a kind of Jack Ketch who handles the dirty work that liberals don’t want to touch.

.....

The marriage argument will develop in similar fashion.  The facts stand for themselves and will not be changed.  As time passes and the actual anti-family, anti-religious, and anti-straight agenda of the gays is revealed, it will no longer be taken as a greeting-card issue.  Then the real debate will begin.
All that we need are fighters. 

The rest can go marry their cats.

These types of articles tend to bring out the anti-Catholic non-"progressives", which is an odd part of the conservative wing, but Dunn does bring up decent points throughout his article. Pope Francis is practically a fucking no show. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (what the fuck have they done in the past decade?) tend to be liberal and not orthodox -- they're like the black cloaks US justice aka The Ringwraiths. We have plenty doormat Catholics & Christians saying "Well I don't agree with your lifestyle, and you aren't hurting me so hakuna matata. Love everybody," bullshit. In other words, the Catholic Church led by Pope Francis, the fat bishops of the US and horrid layman soldiers of the faith have done a horrid job saying "Same-sex relationships and 'marriage' is fucked up." Overall the Church and its people have done a better job at standing against abortion. That's it. The Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) seem to be more active in evangelizing their faith than Catholics -- though I say this fresh off of watching youtube vidoes of missionaries talking about their experiences, and seeing a couple of them school kids at basketball.

As much as I think Mike Voris' approach to spreading the gospel as a bit brash, at least he has the guts to go out into public and put some sort of steel backbone in the Catholic faith. Heck, he's more active than smiling, waving and "Let's-be-nice" Pope Francis.

I know that the media actively tries to paint him as an LGBT and feminist apologist, but there are times where defenders of the pope's "media mistranslated his quote" excuse becomes just that - an excuse, an excuse for his lack of directness and clear cut stance on social issues. People said Pope Benedict the XVI looked like a rat; just based on aesthetics Pope Frances is seen as "more likeable" (reminds when the media was concerned a POTUS candidate's "likeability" over his policies, qualifications and personal character). It's obvious Pope Benedict isn't nearly as popular with the public as Pope Francis is yet I feel the Church had a much better leader in Pope Benedict than Pope Francis. Some will say "It's just a different type of leadership, so it's absurd to compare." I disagree. As someone who has lead various organizations I'll be completely honest and say Pope Francis' leadership is like Corey Crawford as a goalie: Lets in "soft" goals, is more mediocre than actually great and a person who looks good because of a better than average defense.

Let's not focus on entertainment, youtube.

But instead shows the company's social leanings. Since a historic decision will be made this month of June on whether same-sex "marriage" will be made law of the land by fiat by Supreme Court justices (it will - there's so much momentum on ss"m" supporters side and enough justices have expressed their support) the insidious Wells Fargo commercial was shown on the site's front page. See below.

All art is propaganda, supposedly. Many in journalism on the left see American Sniper and ads paid by the military as "right wing" propaganda. It's debatable that American Sniper is propaganda; I won't deny that military ads aren't - yet I don't mind military ads because I believe we need a strong military and there are many values that come with the military life. I suppose you can ask "Why not have both?" Why not be in support of "equal rights" (supporters will use this 'equality' card instead of gay 'rights' every now and then just to appeal to the 'universal right') and the military? You can. But there's a higher (mindful) tradition for a strong and proud US military. There is a somewhat pathetic and absolutely vapid appeal to the two women raising a deaf child story. 

What I realize about the commercial is that the deaf girl shown to be adopted is already living an unusual, if not unique, life strictly by the virtue of her handicap. Add on that handicap of being deaf with two guardians of the same sex, but not just any guardians who are of the same sex -- two people attracted and acting on their same-sex attraction. They could not produce a child by their sexual acts since their attempt at consummation is ultimately a dead end. This is a blatant attempt by the creatives at Well Fargo to push the "Love Makes A Family" slogan.

Youtube and Wells Fargo knows very well what's at stake this month. Ireland's decision by popular vote to usher in same-sex "marriage" is the momentum that LGBT activists and supporters dream of. Such a group of people only need enough of the nine in black to vote "yes." They will.

Once that happens speaking against same-sex "marriage" and relationships will be seen as a greater crime/thought crime than racism. To be against such relationships will be considered one of the greatest inhumane things to hold in ones mind in the 21st century. You will be seen in the same light as the KKK and the Nazis. Nathaniel Hawthorne's "A" has evolved into a "B" (for bigot). If you voice dissent you will be named a "bigot" and be shunned in social circles, face sudden job instability and will be pounded by online harassment like no other. There will be professors - when they aren't dealing with students - who will go after you. It's a celebrity's tweet and, if they're in a sam-sex relationship, their 'personal' life verse your. It's a Michale Sam versus you. It's academia, the entertainment world, the media and social "progressives" versus you.

These are the very same groups who snidely mock so-called conformists & uncool people - the pencil pushers, the lowly paid workers, the family with three or more kids - who will say "history is on our side" to "The times are changing, so change with it." They, when it suits them, loathe peer pressure and what society supposedly tells them to do. Now, they are society who want you, the opposer, to fall in line if not to shut up. If you don't? They'll slap on the "B" and until you repent - even then you're still looked at as a loser and asshole - you will have hatred towards you.

With that said, I have a great feeling that a majority of the LGBT activists and supporters never actually put an effort into understand the opposing side. They look at it in a secular angle so religious angles will not satisfy them. Even secular angles against same-sex "marriage" and adoption will be thrown away on a simple basis of nonsense and phobia. It happened to Mark Regerus and his study. Feelings rule, not sound arguments - not philosophy - not an appeal to a greater plain that is above "the feels."

The modernists will deny the decline of society (they see "decline" as in war, good judgment, lack of support of "progressive" ideas). They will deny responsibility and the lost of (higher) standards.

Welcome to 21st fascism. It's the same fascism as of old, but it reaches its peak on social media and in so-called journalism. I mean, how could you not support - at least don't give a hoot - about same-sex "marriage"? It's the enlightened and "right" thing to do.

Promising site. Questionable politics.

Ethika Politka (EP) can be said to be a pro-Catholic/Christian site, and I like the topics discussed. Many of the contributors are young (under 40) and bright. What's a turn-off is its politics that seem to shyly creep to the front. Look here and here. In addition to that, despite the topics being discussed and the educational pedigree that some of its writers hold, is not very deep, if not deep at all. The commentary is borderline shallow.

From the first article (italics my emphasis) -

As academic institutions become more economically driven, Eagleton argued, their emphasis shifts more and more toward STEM fields. Scientific research offers tangible and monetary goods, while research in philosophy or English offers intangible benefits, if it offers benefits at all. Eagleton lays the blame for the humanities’ decline at the feet of capitalism: Education for its own sake stands no chance in a production economy.

The writer does not combat this accusation and with that silence I will take she agrees, at least to a certain extent.

The second (On Paul Ryan's visit to a Cleveland, Ohio community church) -

 This encounter, in turn, has animated him in the project on which he has embarked: a series of visits to inner-city neighborhoods across the country, accompanied by one journalist and one young filmmaker. The journalist has published two articles based on his experiences with and observations of Ryan (do not be deterred by the fact that he works for Buzzfeed: The stories are full of striking quotes and vignettes like the one with which I started this essay), and the filmmaker’s documentary is now available in its entirety on Youtube. These visits were guided by community activist Bob Woodson, who had helped organize the initial meeting in Cleveland and whom Ryan has taken on as a personal mentor.

The links within the second article are from CNN and Buzzfeed. Both left leaning, pro-welfare, "But what about the poor people?" sites. I have read the second Buzzfeed article and I'll say it's well written and deeply interesting (as someone who majored in sociology, with research interests in the urban poor, it immediately pulled me in). But it's horrid journalism because it gives no facts and appeals to the heart without any head (no not that head).  I mean, c'mon -

Because Democrats are spending hours with the poor? I'm not a GOP flag waver, but that stuff just makes my eyes roll in annoyance. This is like saying "[Insert GOP politics] is doing something rather unprecedented for a Republican. He is spending unchoreographed time with actual LGB people," on a fictional article about a supposed "conversion" to supporting gay "marriage" or "rights."

Nonetheless, I think EP is a site that is needed on the traditional Christian side of the internet: It brings up topics that are universal, classic and therefore always relevant, in a "cool" (the good kind) way. The graphic design - its header and banner -  is simple yet telling; the site layout is a bit confusing, though (I'm not sure if "channels" is the best way to divide different 'blogs' under names without any description). The writing is okay and its content leaves much to be desired. The lack of depth in its writing maybe due to the youthfulness of its writers. I'm not entirely sure, but it's a guess. Its heart, for the most part, is trying to point true north.

Ethika Politka - C+

New link added to the list.

The Catholic Gentlemen.

Standards? What are those?

Interesting mindset on dating & sex.

Person A: "If I found out my current significant other had sex with her past boyfriend on the roof of her elementary school I'd be upset."
Person B: "Look, you don't own her. She had a life before she met you, as with literally every person who's in a relationship right now. The world doesn't revolve around you."
Person C: "Yea. Why would you be upset about this? Are you like in middle school?"

Probably my favorite so far, from what I've read on youtube -

I need a drink right now.

An actor joining the military? Get outa here!

But really.

English actor, Michael Enright, age 51, joins Kurdish People’s Protection Units to fight ISIS in Syria.

Even though Enright isn't an established actor, I wonder how that makes all the young actors feel. Probably like metrosexual man childs. How manly. The terrorists are intimidated by such people I heard.

According to the ABC article, "He has no military background and little experience with firearms, according to his biography on the Internet Movie Database, or IMDB." That's a serious handicap for him and for the unit he's attached to.

I remember reading an online article about entertainers, mostly actors, who served in the US military. No millennial was listed. All that were listed were over the age of 50.

There's always this type of comment -

 

Atheists. To be a "free thinker" and a pacifist. What an admiral thing to be, right? There's something not right about a modern atheist's mind - the more I come across these types of posts and comments I'm coming to the conclusion that modern atheism is a mental condition.

Evidence. He charged first. Face reality.

It's a tragedy, but the comments by family members are beyond ridiculous.

“Neither of them would ever attack or hurt anyone,” said cousin Anthony Fischer in an online message to The Washington Post on Sunday. “The cops are covering up evil, and they will be found out.”

to

“He would not be one to disrespect them or go after” the troopers, Fischer’s wife, Laura, said Sunday before calling on officials to release dashcam footage of the incident.

Thankfully there was video footage of the incident.

“There is no controversy about this,” Gary J. James, an attorney representing Oklahoma troopers, told The Washington Post in an e-mail. It’s “all on video and audio from both state troopers vehicles.”

The young man was an assistant pastor at an Evangelical Free Church of America (EFCA) ministry located near Tulsa, Oklahoma.