The usual rhetoric thrown at those who support (real) marriage and abstinence, or even discourage pre-marital sex, is "keep your bible out of my bedroom." Mainly it's employed when people don't support same-sex "marriage" and instead support marriage being between one man and one woman in a monogamous relationship who then produce children. Now initially this accusation makes sense. I understand those who use such statements - they don't want to be held to a sexual standard of the "prudes," they support same-sex "marriage," and they definitely don't want to be reminded that they're sexual appetite is purely hedonistic where the reality of pregnancy is an inconvenience, so enter birth control in its various forms.
Here's what's empty about "keep your bible out of my bedroom": No one is forcing you to not have sex before marriage - if you're going to have sex you're going to have sex; if you're going to use birth control for pregnancy prevention you're going to use birth control; no one is turning to legislation to make pre-marital sex or adultery crimes; no one is calling for the reintroduction of sodomy laws. If we keep it on its literal level and be pedantic there's no law in the history of the USA saying there should be a bible in your nightstand (as if it were a hotel room).
So when people intrinsically say "keep your bible out of my bedroom" tell them the points I've typed up. It's an absolute pathetic mantra, that, when looked at critically, falls apart and shows the reactionary (ironic) reality that is libertine secularism.
In my reality, the only room that I know of that currently holds a bible is my parents room. The room I currently sleep in has the Catechesis, though I'm currently looking for a bible to put right next to it. During my university years I had a roommate who was a non-denominational Christian who had a bible on his bookshelf. I did not have one. I did some questionable things in our dorm room when he was out while the bible sat there. Did I say to him "keep your bible out of our dorm room?" No. Humans are fallen - we'll do things that are considered sins even if there is a bible nearby. Most don't even think "What does the bible say?" They just do whatever act. All this talk about bibles and bedrooms is just the human conscience of the indignant saying, "You perv. Those that you consider prudes are right." It's an outright cry of insecurity.
What's ironic about this is that the hotel room is usually used for affairs and to live out sexual fantasies. It's a place to go in order to be discrete. And there's a bible located in the nightstand drawer.
As one poster on CAF said about the US Navy banning all religious books in its guests rooms -
I have stayed in hotels/motels for many decades. If I choose to look for
a Gideon's Bible, I will look in the desk drawer. If I choose to not
look for one, then I don't go and look. I have never in my life felt
compelled to look or to not look. I have never felt put upon by the
existence of a Gideon's Bible or the lack of a Gideon's Bible.
The "canon" guy is supposedly a doctor and is currently pursuing a J.D. I don't seriously doubt what he says, but how many doctors obtain a J.D.? Yale does have a law program (one can pursue a joint degree in their MD/JD program), but given what he stated it tells me he's getting the J.D. after he completed his M.D. You'd think after obtaining an M.D., about five years of grueling studying then exams, then interning, you'd continue in the practice. Maybe he has a change of heart or just very ambitious/motivated.
And color me not impressed by his posts. I mean, I love that these posters talk a lot - nothing impressive or anything that would hint towards their "big" degrees - to only flash their diplomas as "Oh, yea well I'm uber smart. You're not."
Given my pastencounters with the "canon" types and those who hold degrees from prestigious universities that choose to comment on politics, or even pursue a career in it, I'm leaning that such people are telling the truth about their credentials. They may have the numbers/essays/hook to get in but who cares - they're just intellectual inclined people buying into BS theories and believing whatever their professors tell them. So when these academically inclined people obtain an advance degree - an MBA, a M.D., a J.D, a Phd - they then join the ranks of the intelligentsia. The theories and beliefs they were taught are now being practiced by them in their position of power.
Caught this on the Yahoo! interview conducted by Katie Couric hosting Ted Cruz. As another commenter pointed out, what an odd piece to pick out out of the almost one hour interview which spanned many a topics. Debate the point if you have issues with it but posting such a vacuous comment perked my interest so I clicked on Schrader's handle to see what's his deal.
He got angst. And a lot of it.
Based in Texas, Schrader runs a travel site (not really surprising) trekking the globe a few months a year. Pretty cool, honestly. But that coolness is cut short once the tone that comes across his bio and website hits you in the face.
The good news is that my intuition has (mostly) taken me down the
right road: I quit my last “real job” more than four years ago, and have
been traveling several months per year ever since. The better news is
that I’ve used all the knowledge and insight I’ve gained to create Leave
Your Daily Hell, a one-stop shop for anyone who wants to break free of
monotony, see the world and start living.
....
It surprises some readers of this blog to learn that I
am a (relatively) ordinary 30-year old, who grew up in a (relatively)
ordinary family in the (extremely) ordinary midwestern United States. My
success as a traveler and a blogger has been born of hard work,
determination and yes, a little bit of luck, but I firmly believe that
if I can do this, just about anyone can, and I hope my work inspires you
not only to travel, but to begin living the life you want. Continue
reading to learn more about how my site is organized.
His site entitled "Leave Your Daily Hell" explains a lot about his thoughts on normality and the average 9-5 job. Schrader, like many depressed young adults. exudes self-involvement. Let's count the cliches.
(1) "real job": Gotta have that in quotes. Of course a job is a job, eve if it's prostitution or playing pretend for a living, but not all jobs are made equal in numerous aspects hence the "not a real job" jab. Say, if I made money blogging compared to being a physician or being a successful accountant or engineer, I'd understand that my blogging "job" may be seen as inferior or "not a real job." I'm not sure what skills, besides writing and website development, a paid-to-write blogger would give over than of a physician or engineer. Such skills are needed and if technically sound and creatively acute the blogger can be a major asset in public relations.
(2) "break free of monotony," "start living": I presume this a response to whatever life Schrader left behind as noted in his bio. A good majority of those who aren't the travel business or entertainment work 9-5 jobs, and the last time I met with my friends who worked these 9-5 jobs they weren't the miserable sack that Schrader paints them to be. In fact, one of my grade school peers died last April in his sleep. He worked as a roofer - manual stuff. I don't believe he went to college. He was engaged. As I read his online obituary and the condolences written on his page, I learned that he was well-liked by his co-workers and the customers he interacted with approved of his personality. He was a hard worker and his work ethic was partly due to the fact he "wanted a better life for his fiancee" which he thought she deserved. I'm not sure if he ever traveled outside of the US, but that matters little given the words expressed on his obituary page. If he "broke free of monotony" and went the route of Schrader I'm not sure he'd gain the words that were left on the page.
Sure, I bet may 9-5ers want better hours, a higher pay and the "cool" factor that comes with more glamorous jobs, but they're living - their eyes did not broadcast they were dead inside - and they have dreams to travel as well with the allotted weeks they are given. I bet many would want to travel, to forget deadlines and to ditch the shirt/tie/pencil skirt for sandals, sunglasses and shorts; to ride an elephant in the jungles of Vietnam instead of being in a car on the freeway, but works need to be done and as unappealing a 9-5 job is it pays and forms communities. It's domestic, so I'm not surprised that modernity rejects it the way it does. But according to people like Schrader these people aren't "really living."
If we all were travel writers then the country would plummet because, let's face it, every other travel blog is practically the same - same vibe, same tone, same "leave your boring life behind!" rhetoric. It offers nothing truly new. Sites like Matador are downright amazing, and are a treasure chest for travel inspiration, but in the end they don't give any real insight to human nature or the world besides pretty pictures with an exotic cocktail in hand, or some HD picture with a stranger looking in the distant atop of a mountain as the sunsets. How not original. It's like people who wanted to be diplomats/translators but skipped all the technical and cultural training. Nomads aren't inspiring to me - they're very childlike in the very worse ways. How many travel channels are there on youtube? A ton. And many are interchangeable.
I feel that people like Schrader, despite his proclamation of "I crawled from the bottom to get here" talk that is ubiquitous among so-called entrepreneurs of his kind, are riding on the backs of the monotonous jobs and those that take space in those jobs. After all, he is trying to appeal to the 9-5er, at the same time make them feel animosity towards their cubicle or cash register, to hire him as a personal travel guide. (3) "(extremely) ordinary midwestern United States" : As someone who is from the Midwest it's always amusing to see self-loathing Midwesterners. I'm also not really sure what "extremely" clarifies. Is there a spectrum of ordinary I am not aware of? Like ordinary, more ordinary, very ordinary and extremely ordinary? Maybe he means the suburbs or a small town. An American suburb in the Midwest has some similarities to the suburbs of the East and West coast; A suburb located two hours form the coast in California probably has the same vibe as a Midwestern suburb axing out the palm trees and year-round shorts. Granted the Midwest, thanks to the media & entertainment, is depicted as a boring place when compared to the Coasts. There's a grain of truth to this depiction. Topography isn't nearly as appealing to that of California or even Pennsylvania; beaches don't dot the Third Coast unless you're in Michigan, and these beaches are only open just a fourth of the year; Lake Michigan isn't the Atlantic or Pacific - surfing is limited. As for small towns? I quite like small towns in the Midwest. Some small towns are doing okay economically while some are part of the Rust Belt. It could be my curiosity for history, so when I look at places like Rust Belt cities and its surrounding area I don't look at it with dismal nor does any feelings of superiority comes up through my chest. I feel appreciation if not respect; these places want to survive, but due to various circumstances achieving economical prosperity is hard to come by.
It's clear that Schrader has no fondness of where he came from; there is bitterness his tone. It is as if he disappointed that his family and the Midwest were not "cool" enough. If you ask me, viewing his travel pictures, Schrader seems like the
same miserable sack just with more passports stamps than before. As with most "left-my-job-to-live-my-life" aka travel writer/blogger their presentation, while at first intriguing, becomes questionable and their true-selves are revealed by how they describe the place/job they left in order to "live life." If they are indeed "living life" then their philosophy to "live life" is rather narrow, as ironic as that may sound.
Schrader's youtube post, his sexuality (guy's definitely a homosexual by his youtube vids) and his bio - and the way he talks about his past life - tells us a lot about him. More importantly his attitude tells us a lot about people who share similar attitudes.
So, no, Robert Schrader. You do not inspire me to live life "my way." I run on a different type of gas.
When a non-believer tells you that the divorce rate amongst Catholic Americans has increased to 50K a year since 1925 when compared to Communist Atheistic China, with China creating more stable families, when he quotes your story about your uncle telling you "not to marry an American girl" -
The non-believer somehow managed to interpret "American girls" to "American Catholics."
Ms. Orman is a smart lady and financially savvy, and for this I give her credit. I also give full marks for being another absent-minded, emotion filled idiot who froths at the moth when met with respect from the opposition. And Piers Morgan is Piers Morgan.
The condescension is reeking from Orman's pores. "I feel compassion for you." It seems someone thinks she has the moral higher moral ground; often times those that say such things are either emotional hurt by the dialogue or they're showing "And I'll tell you why, because I know that you believe very strongly about what you believe, but I also know that you are very very uneducated on how it really really works," says Orman. She goes on -
And I believe from the bottom of my heart that if you really understood why the government does need to get involved, why it does need to be legal on a federal level, if you really understood that there's no way you would sit there and say what you are saying right now.
Anderson goes to speaks about several dates about popular opinion on same-sex "marriage" to which Orman interjects "Look you got your facts down. You're a great recorder ... " The camera settles on Orman's face for a short time and her eyes tell us everything. She's hurt by what Anderson has said. She's vulnerable. The fact that he does not think that same-sex pairings' relationship should called marriage is what digs at her heart.
Let's be honest, this is about societal approval to finally be "fully
human" - to be recognized as a person with dignity just like a straight
person. Orman's eyes told us this after the "Look, you got all your
facts .... " line. To step away from Anderson's points (letting the
people vote on the issue, to clarify that the Constitution is silent on
the subject, to the connection between mother, father and child), this
isn't about facts or about the potential children. This isn't about the effects -
good or bad - of the governmental approval of same-sex "marriage." It's
all about washing away the pain of not being seen on the same plain as
straight relationships.
And we continue ...
Like a deus ex machina, there so happens to be an audience member who brings up the question about the economic positives in allowing same-sex pairings to be legally recognized. How convenient. The economic benefits of same-sex pairings being allowed to "marry" are introduced by Orman. Italicized is emphasis as depicted in video.
There's tremendous economic advantages, and I'll get to that in one second. And Piers there's also tremendous economic disadvantages to not being able to be married which is why I said I don't think this gentlemen really understands it. While it is true that every state, the nine states, can say 'You can legally get married,' it mean nothing on the federal level. That means what? That means we don't get to partake into state tax. We each have to pay a state tax no matter what. It means here I am and I'm married to Katie, and I'm covered under insurance for my corporation and I want to cover her. If it's (the same-sex relationship) not recognized Katie has to pay income tax on that health benefit - that could be $3, 000 to $5, 000 a year.
- pictures of Orman and her partner are shown -
If we were legally married, recognized on the federal level Katie would not have to pay a penny. Then we have all kinds of things such as social security. Let's just say that Katie never worked her entire life, and now we're older and I'm gonna be 62, I am able to collect social security as we get older. As a legally married couple on a federal level Katie would be able to collect half my social security. Upon my death she would get my entire social security, but not now. We don't get to participate at all.
Orman then descends on the kids' benefits.
For a child ... Let's just say you're in a relationship and you have children, and they are legally your children, and you're staying at home with your children and taking care of them and raising them just they way I'm sure this gentlemen (Anderson) would like you, or thinks children should be raised, you have the privilege to be able to stay at home because not everybody does ... And the money is being brought in by your spouse, who is a woman, and now she dies - you can't social security based on her income. You can't get the widow's benefit. Therefore there's all kinds of things ... "
Morgan steps in telling that Orman's points are "key" issues and that, directed towards Anderson, that his concerns aren't the only ones. This is clear that the argument is geared towards Orman's specialty: personal finance. As said by Morgan, "These are sound economic reasons," to federally recognize same-sex "marriage" and to not be in support would be "just unfair" according to the host.
Anderson rebuttals about the inheritance tax - that policies can be formed to effectively deal with every economic scenario that Orman brought up without changing the one-man-one-woman definition - saying that the inheritance tax is bad law, that it can be repealed. He paints a scenario where, instead of two women with same-sex attraction being in a relationship together, are two sisters. These sisters care deeply for each other, they are best friends. He goes on to question why would the romantic same-sex pairing get the inheritance tax but not the two sisters who are joined by the hip (figure of speech there). Anderson, to protect both relationships, proposes to reform the inheritance tax leaving the original definition of marriage alone. Orman then steps in.
The problem is, however, right now the state's tax for most people aren't a problem because it's a five million dollar estate tax exemption, so if that (inheritance tax reform) had happened now we wouldn't be in that situation. But how about health benefits ... How about social security ... You're dealing with an economic situation right now where 'Are they really going to re-craft tax policies?' Do you really think that's possible? Is that what you think is going to happen?
[Anderson]
Look, I don't want to obscure ... I think these are secondary issues. The primary function that marriage serves in every society is protecting the rights of children. Everything we've discussed so far is about adult relationships. (woman sitting behind Anderson furrows her brow towards him, smirks and shakes her head) What institution would be left to show -
[Orman]
I don't know, one very two people who get married in the United States of America - heterosexual marriage - gets divorced ... Why -
[Anderson]
So how do we strengthen the message that they shouldn't get divorced?
[Orman]
The number one reason is the arguments over money ... So marriage isn't keeping people together sweetheart.
[Anderson]
It's not doing a very good job at it because -
[Orman]
It's not doing the function that you say it is ...
But it should be though. That's the problem, right?
[Orman]
No. No.
[Anderson]
Because 40 years ago we redefined marriage -
[Orman]
What if you don't want a child? What if this love couple (points to unseen audience members) - they never want a child! What if you were sterile and you couldn't have a child?
[Anderson]
Not every marriage will have a child, but every child has a mother and father, and marriage is what connects the mother and the father with each other for the child. 40 years ago we redefined marriage -
- audience grumbles with whispers of "No, no ... " -
[Orman]
No. Marriage is what connects the husband and the wife together as one.
[Anderson]
For the sake of connecting the mother and father with the child. Otherwise we can have the government out of the marriage business ...
[Orman]
Really? We got a live audience here. What do you say to him?
[Audience]
No!
[Anderson]
-gestures hands towards audience-
You live in the court with this (audience members) public opinion, but in America there's a lot of people who agree with me. So we should have this conversation and not put it to a mob vote.
[Morgan]
(words I can't make out) -- Ryan, we discovered in this audience that public opinion is moving very very fast (audience members behind Morgan nod their heads) I think mainly it's a generational issue. How old are you?
[Anderson]
I'm 31.
[Morgan]
Right, it seems interesting to me someone of your age still maintains this kind of view.
[Anderson]
That's because I think mothers and fathers are important. And I think that we need to have an institution that holds up the ideal that men and women are different, and that mothering and fathering are different phenomenons.
[Orman]
All right, so here's the thing ... (Anderson tries to interject) All right wait one second ... (turns to Morgan) He can talk all about what he thinks and his beliefs, and he's seriously in the minority, especially at the age of 30. And anybody at the age of 30, if you take polls all throughout the United States right now, are waaay in the majority saying like 'What are you even talking about? What issue is this?' But Piers, more than what he's saying - 'mother', 'father' - it's about two people having the ability to say 'I love you. And I want to be with you forever.' It's about sitting at a Thanksgiving dinner, and while the kids are the table asking the other people, 'Well when did you meet? How was your wedding? How did you get married? And there's Katie and I are sitting and nobodies is asking us -
[Morgan]
Well I saw Elton John and his, uh, partner David Furnish the other day with the second baby they now got(slowly turns to Anderson and stares at him), and I never seen two more loving parents in my life (audience members behind Morgan nods). And the idea that you run, the best one in the world, the idea that you want to stop people, like Elton and Dave or Susie and Katie, from getting married -
[Anderson]
I don't want to stop anyone from living and loving.
[Morgan]
From getting married in America in the modern era, I just find it a bit offensive these days. It's not fair. It's not tolerant. It's not America.
-audience claps with few a 'Whoos!'-
Orman admitted in
frustration that it wasn't about children. It's about public recognition - because without government recognition it's not "official." Once they get the thumbs up from SCOTUS it's off the civil court! Now Orman and her partner has the blessing of the government - now the people (kids?) at Thanksgiving have to ask "When did you two meet? How was your wedding? How did you get married?" I feel compassion for Orman. She and Katie just wants to be included that day. But they are. No one excluded them from the Thanksgiving dinner. The people (kids?) asking the hetero couples how they met could've asked the same question towards Orman and Katie. But they didn't.
If you are emotionally hurt enough, feel that you've been wronged and have the Left Machine on your side you can win almost any case - you can redefine marriage from its original meaning and forever change the institution, all because you're butt hurt that people at Thanksgiving don't ask where you met your partner.
I'm an independent voter but I loath comments like the following.
I won't comment the relishing of Republicans being stigmatized to the corner of society. I will comment on Trump's illegal alien comment. Yes, Trump's statements were controversial but it doesn't erase the very real possibility that unchecked immigration and amnesty would allow rapists into the country.
Let's us turn to the black rights and same-sex "marriage comparison that is common amongst "equality" true believers.
I could tell they took AP U.S. History during high school and received a five on the test.
These are the supporters of same-sex "marriage."
Some reasonable minds were present, but that sanity quickly dissipated.
They - the LGBT "community" and their supporters - smelled an article on AT that wasn't so approving of their lifestyle. I checked in about 11:45AM and the article had a little over 650 comments. I'm not sure what time it was uploaded, but dang. The LGBT and their supporters are practicing their fee speech - and proving how empty their arguments are (this is not to say that article is Grade A beef).
I'll be posting several conversations I managed to capture later this week.
UPDATE: It's 12:49PM and the article lists 906 comments.
Take for instance this review of Brooklyn by Alex Heeney of The Seventh Row. All is fine, no political sneering involved until the very last paragraph.
Ronan’s Eilis is also not just flattered that Tony is interested in her
enough to go along with things: she sees his sweetness and timidity, his
insecurities and worries. Cohen plays him with depth, always letting
slip through what Tony tries so hard to hide, making Tony a healthy
example of masculinity: theirs is a partnership of equals. It makes this
a modern romance we can root for rather than a relic of the past, and
it makes this thoughtful film an easy crowd-pleaser. I, for one, loved
it.
I googled Alex Heeney learned that she's a Phd student at Stanford in its Management Science and Engineering track. As said in her biography -
I am a fourth year PhD Candidate in Management Science and Engineering at
Stanford University. I am specializing in Production and
Operations Management, and currently working with Professor Warren Hausman and Professor Erica Plambeck on
interdisciplinary research in environmental sustainability.
Specifically, I research how operations management approaches can be
used to reduce system-wide food waste in the US and its environmental
impact.
And her twitter explains more -
So she's not actually an engineer just by her research interests. Heeney is more of a person with social justice inclinations getting a Phd in (management) engineering in order to direct actual engineers to fulfill her go-green social justice yearnings. This is mightily similar to Mary Anne Franks. If Heeney is considered an engineer then there should be a new academic doctoral program called "Social Engineering" in engineering departments. Wait a second - that's sort of already been a reality: English Literature, Sociology, Anthropology, African Studies, Psychology. Just amp up the quantitative focus in Sociology, Anthro and Psych and you get the pillars of this "Social Engineering" program.
Academia suffers from detachment from reality. I think that's a somewhat concrete statement that can be said with confidence. We have people with law degrees and Phds, we you weren't aware that they hold such academic credentials were just plain idiots by the bile they spew. Both Heeney and Franks are self-proclaimed feminists. The professor in my last post, whom I believe concentrates on political science, would've fooled anyone with his astute understanding of the religious and the right. These aren't the only incidences where academics show their laymen understanding of the world. Sociology especially hasn't been blessed with twitter savvy professors: Saida Grundy showed how sharp her Phd made her. As written in her Boston College bio she's a "feminist sociologist." Interesting how feminist comes before sociologist. Another Phd holder by the name of Zandria Robinson tweeted that "whiteness is most certainly an inevitable terror." Robinson was fired from University of Memphis but later was hired by Rhodes College to teach in their Anthropology/Sociology department.
EDIT: This Minding the Campus article succinctly explains what has plagued and taken over academic life, most particularly the humanities & social sciences.
America’s universities are collapsing into a miasma of nihilism,
postmodernism, political correctness, multiculturalism, affirmative
action, bureaucratization, and skyrocketing costs—and no one seems able
to do anything about it. With the exception of a few “Great Books”
colleges, the overarching vision of higher education that once sustained
the West for centuries seems all but dead.
American higher education is now defined by an aimless mish-mash of
courses on trivial topics that present no clear view of what a human
being must know in order to be considered liberally educated. The
result: the liberal arts have been gutted and repackaged to serve
various ideological and political interests.
This situation is why the Clemson Institute for the Study of
Capitalism (CISC) has created the Lyceum Scholars Program, which is
America’s first (and only) academic program dedicated to studying the
moral, political, and economic foundations of a free society. Drawing
inspiration from the Lyceum school founded by Aristotle, the Lyceum
Scholars Program takes a Great Books approach to studying liberty, the
American Founding, capitalism, and moral character.
Good for Clemson and good for the people who have acknowledged modern liberal arts education as a dumping ground of intellectual sophistry. My only real question is this: How will this institute effect academia on Clemson's campus?
As I said in previous posts, modern day liberals are adventurous folks when it comes to comboxes. Never in my life, as I engaged in online discussion, have I seen a more condescending group filled with out-right contempt. Not event the threads I've read on Stormfront came close to the bitterness I've felt coming from modern day liberals. Depending on the topic, there's at least one of them spewing whatever cliches and strawmen at the opposition.
My discover today is no different. This time it's by a supposed professor at a prestigious US university. (How come I am not impressed.)
Let's get started. Enter poster "Bubba Frito" on AT article about the topic of separation of church & state.
It sounds to me that Bubba, by his tone, wants revenge for the years of religion being in the public square - where it doesn't belong in his eyes.
So Professor Frito succumbs to tired old cliches that are in the arsenal of leftists. At first I thought, "Yea, sure, you're a 'professor' at a prestigious university," due to embarrassing sophomoric name-calling and jabs. This poster possibly couldn't be a professor at a university, let alone be a holder of a doctorate (in the social sciences, I presume), but then I reflected on how people with Phds dealt with controversial issues when dealing with a conservative opposition. See the following:
Mark Savage vs Harvard professor.
Gavin Mcinnis on HuffPo Live panel talking about microaggression and feminism.
Here's the academic bio of Mary Anne Franks, a University of Miami Law professor, shown in the video.
J.D. 2007 Harvard Law School
D.Phil 2004 Oxford University
M.Phil 2001 Oxford University
B.A. 1999 Loyola University
That's an impressive academic pedigree; she attended Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar. Who else is a Rhodes Scholar that were beloved by the MSM, managing to get jobs as political pundits? Two people, actually. Rachel Maddow and Ronan Farrow. Maddow fits their LGBT quota and Farrow their quasi-celebrity quota. Both Maddow & Farrow, especially Farrow, would fit right in NYC's social elite.
I know that a casualpanel isn't really a fine way of judging the supposed brilliancy of Franks' law acumen, but would've been more interesting if they invited an established feminist blogger or English professors focusing on female literature - something like that. Everything she said has been said by your garden variety modern day feminists blogger who don't have nearly the academic credential that Franks has.Why bring on a law professor to talk about feminism? Though she does teach law, her research focusing on "cyberlaw, self-defense, bias, free speech, and privacy," that description is a bit misleading. If I were a student of hers I'd think I'd be learning how to defend clients and form arguments in defense of people whose privacy has been violated - be it stolen patents online or social security numbers stolen via cyberspace. Nope. Not even close. Many of her published articles would make you think she was a lawyer presenting mostly women clients against rape or she's a Gender Studies professor. Ms. Franks is a law professor spewing her Scripture by eager and impressionable minds at Miami.
Many of her more recent articles & talks (2013-onward) have focused on issues popular in America's mainstream news which, of course, ties-in together due to her interests.What's even more interesting are topics under "Independent Studies" listed in her CV. These include same-sex "marriage" and same-sex adoption. I would guess she in favor of Obergefell v. Hodges and wants to help push their "rights" to adopt, or least influence court decision and academia. If I'm guessing right all of this points back to one of her courses taught at Miami Law: Family Law. And, like any good naive philosophy student, she's giving a presentation at Skeptic 8. Her talk is called "Fighting Fundamentalism."
Other courses she teaches are Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure. It's no mystery that Franks is a leftist. I mean, she's a modern day feminist - given her partaking in Skeptic 8 a non-believer - so her subscribing to many leftist concepts when it comes to sexuality, family, art and the criminals (sympathetic) is practically a given. I'll sum up her overall thought that is taught in her courses in her Criminal Law and Procedure courses: The judiciary system is racist and people of color aka blacks are unfairly sentenced, profiled and given fines much greater than their white counterparts. I could be absolutely wrong on this assumption but I have a feeling I'm on the mark.
Her dissertation during her Oxford years, entitled, "Enjoying Women: Psychoanalysis, Sex, and the Political” while exploring continental philosophy (ethics), psychoanalytic theory, gender theory, political theory. I'm actually afraid to read it. Then again, as a person who is relatively good as figuring out a modern liberal's mind, I wouldn't be surprised if her dissertation was critical of how women were treated sexually and that she called for a more "equal" sexual standard for women in order for them to freely express their sexuality, letting go and finally burying the archaic and supposed oppressive standard held by many in the Western civilization.
Besides those research interests, she has a fascination online porn. As I quickly skimmed her articles and talks, I noticed she wrote a lot about porn, so I did word search. I typed in "porn" and was met with 98 entries. That's a lot of entries. You'd think she'd open a shelter for ex-female porn stars, or I don't know, maybe share her findings with them. Nope. She is a director for a civil rights group, though. I'm not sure what she does as the director, what her responsibilities and how many hours of the week she puts in, but it's a fancy title and it makes her look "legit." Let's focus on Franks employment record.
Just by the timeline of her degrees, Franks has had no break in academia. She went straight to Oxford for her masters, to later stay for a doctorate in Modern Languages and Literature. After her time in England she then entered Harvard Law School; law school takes about three years, so her 2007 graduation date seems to indicate she had no private employment between her Oxford and Harvard years. Her employment mainly consisted of being a Fellow and being a teaching assistant, later securing a tenured track at University of Miami and a position as a director for a civil rights organization.
What we have is a person with degrees from the finest institutes of higher education who dabbles in theory - theory that really question me to think, "Do you really need a Phd for that?" - teaching future lawyers about law even though most of her writings, be it academic or mainstream, and talks, have little to do with her courses being taught. Students of hers will then be practitioners of whatever they are taught in the classroom. Franks focuses her energy researching and writing on somewhat bizarre topics so I'm mightily curious on that plays into her teachings.
As a handful of posters said about the video, "Her law students are f_cked!" Yes and no. Yes, because they have a great chance of wasting their money on possible required classes taught by Franks, and no because the system is being built for students like them: Lawyers who represent the liberal side of the law who then might become judges, who then favor ridiculous laws and fines that put social conservatives and non-government lovers against the wall.
But the academic world really likes her kind: She's a leftist. Though she teaches law, she's not really a "lawyer" (she never practiced, so technically she was never one in the first place). If we take her CV into full account, she's more of a feminist/gender theorist with a Harvard law degree and an Oxford doctorate in literature, using that as cloak to disguise her as some sort of legitimate academic scholar. Unlike Mark Regenerus, you know, the embarrassment of Texas' sociology department. Gosh, what a bigot! What an academic fraud!
How much is tuition per year for a first year law student at Miami?
For the 2015-2016 year it costs $47, 774. Within that tuition you have access to
Mary Anne Franks as a professor teaching family and criminal law.
According to poster "Marc Bahn" it'll be just a matter of time before the nation embraces two people of the same-sex getting hitched together.
I'm pretty much sick of the Marc Bahns of the world. They're f_cking bullies - they have no good reason to act this way.
I don't really doubt what Bahn says, after all my generation sees nothing wrong with
such relationships - in fact I get the feeling they get giddy when they
see a same-sex pairing. That's how pathetic my generation is. If my peers ever have kids they'll send them to
schools where sodomy is taught to be perfectly fine - stepping in its rightful
place alongside heterosexual relationships as "normal," just another sexual preference - and they their Birds & the Bees talk will go something like this: "Just use birth control or a
condom. And if you get pregnant there's an abortion clinic about 30
minutes away. Your body, your choices. Have fun! Love whoever your heart desires!" They will probably
chalk this under "life experiences that made me feel liberated before I
partake in a some-what meaningless institution called marriage."
Now, if this was the KKK Roller rolling over blacks, this picture would probably be on MSM and it would be used an example to build the narrative that whites are racists and that the South is a backwards region filled with single-toothed, trucker hat wearing rednecks that makes the (white) modern day liberal cry out, "I absolutely hate this country. I am so embarrassed to be an American!" then all the black modern day liberals will say, "Try being black in America. We have suffered enough!"
Is there a word, like bigot or racist or sexist, that accurately describes a person that holds the sentiments excreting from the picture?
The APA needs to put back homosexuality as a disorder in its books. It's clearly a "love" that makes the person vengeful.
What is with modern-day liberals being so determined to not discriminate? They have this weird obsessions with "equality."
I typed in google "marry whomever" to see the grammar rules on whomever vs. whoever, and one of the first links was this. As I skimmed over the post then later the links near the top I knew I stumbled upon some paranoid blog. I then quickly read the bio and thought that this guy probably has some personality disorder - then it hit me. This blog was one of the blogs I visited when learning about the much heated issue of the Mark Regenerus study. The writer of the blog was some guy dedicated to end AIDS, and of course he lived in California near the coast. As I perused his page and his links, almost all of this entries were about marriage "equality" and how bigoted conservatives were.
I post many LGBT entries as well so I'm not innocent in that department, but I do so because I find the psychology of the LGBT "community" - the individuals like "Waking Up Now" and those featured on his blogroll, like Holy Bullies and Joe My God - to be messed up in a bitter and fanatical way. They are utterly narcissistic and outright bigoted to anything that is critical of their sexuality and so-called "equality," as ironic as that sounds. In other words, these individuals are straight-up assholes. They revel in the normalization of their sexuality, and the most horrid part is is that they don't care about what they change - just as long as it changes to their wishes.
Ever since this whole same-sex "marriage" issue has been thrust upon the national stage, I can't help but peer into the minds and the thought process of its supports, especially those in the LGBT "community" that support the redefinition of marriage. It's basically all they blog about (pot meets kettle) - and they sure as heck don't like the orthodox religious.
In other words: I'm irritated, yet fascinated, by the butt-hurt psyches that make up the LGBT "community."
And speaking of things I've come across before, I need to upload that youtube video about Broadway's campaign for same-sex "marriage," starring the Keenan-Bolger siblings that I saw years ago. It was during the time I supported same-sex "marriage" and when it came to one of the Keen-Bolger siblings to talk, a lesbian, she admitted that she doesn't really want to get married, that she just wanted same-sex "marriage" because, well, it's what she wants - it's something she didn't have and now she just wants it available.
Ah, I found it. It's of Maggie Keenan-Bolger.
It's pretty much the standard "half-citizen"/get-LGBT-normalized talk.
UPDATE: After reading about the Keenan-Bolger siblings yesterday I feel that I need to shed some light on them.
There are three siblings, Celia, Maggie and Andrew. Two of them, Celia and Andrew, went to University of Michigan to study performing arts. All siblings are involved in the performing arts to some degree. Two out of the three are homosexuals. The eldest, Celia is married and has one child. I believe she's straight; she's 37 years old. Maggie, the one in the video, is the middle child; she is 31 years old. She's a lesbian whose work in the performing arts mainly focuses on sexuality and what it likes to be an LGBT person - her work outside the theater is mainly dedicated as a "sex educator" dealing with non-traditional sexual orientations. Andrew, 30, is the youngest. He, like Celia, mainly makes his living as a stage performer. He is a homosexual. (Just a year apart, Maggie and Andrew have same-sex attraction ... Interesting.) During the 2012 POTUS election Andrew was a Barack Obama supporter, postingyoutubevideos urging people to vote for him.
Papa Keenan-Bolger and Mama Keenan-Bolger had three children together. They have one grandchild out of three children. Out of the three children two are homosexuals and the one that is not, well, her ovaries are slowly withering away as the ripe old age of 37. Now Maggie and Andrew can always adopt or Maggie can do in vitro, but that's not the same as actually have sex with the opposite sex and getting pregnant. I doubt that Maggie will ever go through the process of adoption or in vitro; from the video it doesn't seem like she's the type. Andrew also doesn't seem like he has any wishes to "have" kids." Also keep in mind that in order for Maggie and Andrew to "have" kids they would need a third party, a lawyer, every single time; even the living situation of the supposed children would be dramatically different of that of Celia's child -- which was brought into the world the natural way and is growing up in a traditional household when it comes to opposite sex parents. The situation of a child living in a same-sex household, say if Maggie and Andrew ever get "married," is truly a social experiment. One is not like the other.
So one grandchild out of three kids. And the one who does have a child is all for women's "reproductive rights." I wonder if her career was the reason she only had one child, I mean it is the performing arts where - I bet - the average mean of children, amongst performers that are married to the opposite sex, is probably less than 1.5. If I'm anywhere near right, what a barren desert. Then again it is the performing arts where people are naturally proud of their self-involvement when pressed about the topic.
When actors speak about their politics it's often times embarrassing - it's often times embarrassing when they speak about the medium of film and acting, so politics is the semi-deep end of the pool for them. This is one of those cases.
Here's the thought process when voting for pro-same-sex "marriage", or, in a very clever way to neutralize it just change pro same-sex "marriage" to "equality":
1. Marriage is a basic human right.
2. Marriage won't be changed, it'll just be expanded.
Well, if the original definition of marriage is one man and one woman, which has been the standard definition of a millennium to sane people, and to expand that to something that is between two people regardless of their sex, then yes, you are changing marriage. It's a distinct change. It goes from one man and one woman to "two people."
What's interesting is that the actress says other ridiculous things such as, "Wherever you stand on this don't be on the fence about this; don't say you don't know; don't be complacent about it. These are peoples lives we have in our hands, um, everyone should be allowed to celebrate that. Let them have that right." Ronan also says earlier in the video that there is no other option but to vote "Yes." I bet there were two options on May 22, 2015 - yes or no.
How can one deny another person, in Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy's mind "dignity," or in many minds like Ms. Ronan's "equality"? It's a bit of a low jab because almost anything can be said to be a right and if one is supposedly denied that right your against "equality." It's a very easy turn of the cards of "shame on you" but once one looks at the matter with a dispassionate eye, if not discerning and honest eye, this "equality" talk is just that, talk. It's shallow. It's emotive claptrap that many modernists point the same finger as Disney movies or other family movies that they would say are too saccharine.
Also in the video are Eamon Farrel - actor Collin Farrel's brother - and Steven Mannion, Eamon's partner. Mannion goes on to speak,
I would remind people that it is so important to come out and vote on the 22nd of May. If you do not vote, your vote will not be counted and you cannot say you voted for equality. You have to come to vote. Don't leave it up to anyone else. Think of the youth growing up today - 14, 15 16 year old LGBT children who are growing up - we need to support them. We need to tell them that it's okay to be who they are. Treat them equally. Please vote on the 22nd of May.
I don't doubt the sincerity of Mannion says. Both fellows seem like great guys to spend the night pub crawling, but what Mannion said is a common thought amongst those who are for "equality." They use the "what about the (LGBT) kids" card to appeal to hearts of the undecided, and to make the pro-side even more fervor in their quest. I think many in the LGBT "community" and many who support what Ronan and Mannion believe in, that once same-sex "marriage" is allowed and becomes law of the land that a majority of the insecurities that the LGBT face will evaporate - they are, as Mannion implies, be lifted from shame to being "okay to be who they are."
Now, I'm not for shaming LGBT - I won't chastise a person who has same-sex attraction telling them that they aren't human; I won't spit on them or anything like that. I won't file a police report when I see two people of the same sex holding hands as I walk down the street. I don't want to do any of those nasty things. I will say, if asked about my thoughts on sexuality other than being 100% straight, is that same-sex attraction is a disorder. That's not me saying, "It's not okay to be who you are," - if we're talking about ones sexuality and their heart encompassing their entire self - since I believe
that ones sexuality is just one aspect their entire being. I will
criticize the attraction - I will not condemn the person.
The only redeeming thing about Ireland's legalization of same-sex "marriage," er, equality, is that is was by referendum. They dug their own graves for themselves, and like what Mannion said they didn't leave it up to anyone else.
The question that is formed in my mind is this: Will such a legalization be the major turning point into
making the LGBT feel like "full human beings," as stated by actor George
Takei? Will same-sex "marriage" be the breaking of the Berlin Wall for
such a demographic? I'm not sure. Next up is the youth, those in
elementary and high school - to re-educate them and to make their future
kids be the generation that will completely view same-sex
attraction as "just another ice cream flavor besides vanilla and
chocolate." Will there be any use for "safe spaces" for LGBT on campuses? Would the existence of the annual Pride Parade be questioned and later retired? How about the Pride flag? Since sodomy is equal what's the use of both the Pride Parade and Pride flag?
Until a boy brings home a boy and a girl brings home a girl
to the parents, with the parents not blinking an eye to the stranger,
acting as if it's a boy introducing their new girlfriend and vice versa, there's much
work to be done by social activists. As cheers, hugs and tears were shed on June 26, 2015 in front of the Supreme Court of the US, a social activist said to a journalist, "I think we’re the happiest unemployed people in the country right now."
Nope.
They'll be picking up their signs, making new ones in fact, in order to change education. They did it with the APA in the 1970s. They did it to change the tide in order for people to support same-sex "marriage." They'll do it again to re-educate the youth.
It goes from so-called "equality" to complete normalization.
A judge ruled in favor of
opponents of the Washington NFL team's "Redskins" name Wednesday after
hearing arguments from both sides in District Court this week, according to the Washington Post. Washington filed a lawsuit in August to contest the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office decision to remove the trademark registration on the team's name.
The
case may have turned, in part, on a recent Supreme Court decision that
ruled in favor of the State of Texas' right to ban specialty license
plates bearing the Confederate flag. The Supreme Court ruled that Texas
was not violating the First Amendment rights of the group that proposed
the plate's design. The defendants argued that the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office removed the "Redskins" trademark on the same basis.
The defendants, five Native Americans led by Amanda Blackhorse, sued the team and won a decision in June of last year
that was hailed by their legal team as "a milestone victory." While the
decision did not prevent Washington from using "Redskins," it
threatened to significantly hamper the team's profitability by allowing
others to use the name for their financial gain.
Washington
owner Dan Snyder mounted a stalwart defense of the name, vowing to
never change it. He'll may have to strongly reconsider that position
now. He could face pressure from the NFL's 31 other franchises, who may
also take a financial hit due to the league's revenue sharing system.
Snyder
could still appeal to a higher court. Given his proclivity to fight,
this seems like a likely outcome. Washington may still have a chance to
win its trademark back, too. Washington lost its trademark in a 1999
decision, only to win it back in District Court.
The Blackhorse team have already move past that step, however, so there's no question that it has scored a significant victory.
The silver lining in this is that the original name for the Redskins was the Boston Braves. If the organization chooses to go back to the original name then at least it isn't an outright pathetic new name like Syracuse Orangemen. Another possible name once the the word Redskin is discontinued is Red Cloud.
After the Washing Redskins, which professional team is next? The Chicago Blackhawks?
Which brings me back to Chicago's Pride Parade. As we watched contingent
after contingent, float after float, pass by, we could not help but
notice the domination of corporate logos. But who were on those floats
and marching down the street tossing out corporate paraphernalia to the
adoring crowd? Workers, employees and their families and friends. It was
another kind of Labor Day parade. Workplace after workplace came
together to celebrate the right to be who you are and who you love. When
you see Ford workers marching and carrying the Ford banner and wearing
their Ford shirts with a UAW logo and a UAW banner in the mix, or Kraft
employees or employees of insurance giant AON or sports teams like the
Chicago Cubs, Bulls, Sky and Fire, or even Fox Chicago(!) in a jubilant
display of upholding equality, you cannot help but realize the corporate
logo is just the shell. The real living and breathing creature is these
working people, friends, family and community. I did not see any 1
percenters marching or waving the rainbow flag: even if some in that
elite group may support LGBT rights, they are inconsequential in forming
this mass movement.
It rings so hollow, that the saccharine back-patting is oozing out much faster than George Bailey's declaration of family love, of this "be who you are without shame and guilt!" mantra. As someone who's straight I say, "Okay, and?" Where does the self-involvement stop? The 4th of July and patriots celebrate "freedom" while LGBT activists celebrate not the personhood in its maturity, but the personhood in its juvenile state filled with smugness, empty values and circular logic. But I must see it in LGBT activists eyes: They see non-supporters of this parade and same-sex "marriage" as, if they had it their way, domestic terrorists one step to the side - any side - to the Dylan Roogs of the world. While the bitter anti-whites/South deal with the Confederate flag, LGBT activists see that they have triumphed over bigots -- that dust clouds have settled and the sounds of guns have ceased -- they see their side still standing as the bigots wither on the ground.
"We won ... Love Has Won!"
This is what they cry.
Where's the straight-pride float strictly saying "Straight Pride", or "Penis & Vagina: Together Makes a Family" float? Writer Teresa Albano also had to squeeze in a jab at those greedy, evil corporate 1 percenters. Wait, how would she be able to pick the 1 perceneters out? Afterall, 1 percenters look like you and me.
Paul Kengor writes in the AT article
Apart
from the general cultural decay, the primary answer lays in unions and
their longtime ideological marriage to the Democratic Party: thus their
new marriage to gay marriage.
And
really, in that sense, this shouldn’t surprise us at all. I’m from
Western Pennsylvania, steel country. My relatives and neighbors were
union guys. It never ceased to amaze me how the most conservative men
you’d ever meet, war vets who loved the Pittsburgh Steelers and their
Iron City beer, who were the epitome of masculinity, who were -- in a
word -- absolutely not liberals or secular progressives in any way,
would nonetheless reflexively pull the lever for the Democrats when
their union ordered. Time and time again, they voted against their
values.
Obviously,
I’ve known exceptions to this, but way too often, this was the norm.
One of my cousins once observed to me, jokingly, that union guys would
vote for a gay communist if their union told them. Yes, their heroes
were John Wayne, George Patton, Clint Eastwood, Mike Ditka, Mean Joe
Greene, and Jack Lambert, but they’ll vote for Hillary Clinton if Boss
Trumka issues the edict. They’d vote for Bruce Jenner for president if
their union demanded.
And
so, yes, they’ll march in Gay Pride parades. If boss-man tells them to
carry water for gay rights, in solidarity with the liberal-Democrat
agenda, they’ll do it. Don’t be surprised to someday pull behind a truck
with a UNION, YES! bumper sticker in rainbow colors.
My mother's stories of her dealings with union members at the hospital, to my general observations of union members, I've slowly concluded this: Unions have a cult-like aspect to them. It's hard to deny what Kengor wrote since I relate to a degree. The union to the members "is a like family." It was one thing to fight for reasonable pay and working conditions, it's another to behave like Igloo-lunch carrying LGBT-esque activists with hard hats. The way unions rally - its chants and its marches - is eerily similar how LGBT activists/supports gather and rally. Wait, maybe because they both need the government and are a target demographics to the Democratic National Committee. That they operate on a "swarm" like psychological bases. Ah, that might explain it.
The Memphis City Council Parks Committee on Tuesday approved an
ordinance allowing the city to move the Nathan Bedford Forrest statue
out of Health Sciences Park, and they also approved a resolution to move
the remains of Forrest and his wife, which are buried at the park.
The ordinance and resolution came on the heels of a national movement to
remove symbols of the Confederacy after a reported white supremacist,
Dylann Roof, allegedly murdered nine church members at the historically
black Emanuel AME Church in June.
I thought the South had some balls. I guess not. Baylor bends over to accommodate same-sex relationships. Memphis bends over to "rid guilt" due to a racist.
These places are giving what modernists want - approval of their self-indignation and giving into the "I knew the South was backwards, at least they're coming forth into the 21st century. We were right all along," mindset.
I have little respect for Christians who "let them have it."
Pathetic. Pathetic. Pathetic.
This is one of a handful of issues I have with non-"progressives" when it comes to worldly engagement. I've come across numerous conservatives that have express this "don't care, whatev," attitude towards higher education and entertainment as well. These types of people are one of many reasons why mediocrity exists and why Christians find their backs to the wall more often times than not.
Thanks for the help, I bet your check will come in the mail with the memo saying "For helping modernism shit on traditionalists." You might as well be invisible because in the end you don't do anything to help fight for elbow room, you are a traitor and a heretic (in my eyes).
1. Paul, Jesus and Moses maybe-sorta-possibly might've changed their views on same-sex acts if they were present in modern times. As in, "Sure, butt fuck each other and rub your vaginas together. Buy strap-on dildos in different colors, in different lengths and girth. Hold hands affectionately while looking each other in each others eyes."
2. Traditional Christian morality is so 1st century.
3. "Thank goodness this Christian radicalism was removed. We can finally move on."
As with the tendency of posters like "Garrett," they're a one-hit-wonder. He may return to respond to those that quoted him. Eh, I think that's asking too much,.
Even an atheist neo-reactionary senses that the Pope is failing the Church. You can listen here at the 1:20: 20 mark. Another podcaster notes that Pope Francis, eve if he does know that journalists will misinterpret his words, fails to immediately correct or clarify. That's telling of Pope Francis. He is the Barack Obama of the Church.
And I'm still waiting for his thoughts on Ireland and USA's legalization of same-sex "marriage."
