The funnies.

If you upload a video saying that men who vote for Bernie Sanders are "not real men" be prepared for some butt hurt from his supporters.

Now, can "real men" vote for Sanders? Yes. They're just politically confused and historically igorant of socialism, but Kirchoff does have a point. Most of the males I saw at my Sanders rally experience were young, probably smoke pot besides cigarettes, and generally wet themselves when Sanders wants to take down the billionaires. There's a particular subset of Sanders supporters that I'd definitely classify as "pussy" if not arrogant towards "men stuff." Of course, it would be fair to say that there's a particular subset of Trump supporters that are indeed racist, but I don't sense that that subset is as nearly as big as the MSM and The Left makes it out to be. But Limp Wristed Sanders supporters who drives a Prius for ethical/moral reason for the environment while getting high on 420? Probably more than 40%.

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.

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.

Milk 'em for all their worth.

WARNING: Rated PG-13 for foul language.

The left lies. They ruin lives, careers, families and society.

If they can get CEOs fired, mom-and-pop stores bullied into closing, ruin private property in the name of social justice, hog the microphone to throw-up their angst and bitter all while disrupting and shutting down dissenting views then I absolutely, completely and very enthusiastically support ruining their lives and careers when it's just.

Go fuck yourself Rolling Stone and Sabrina Erdely. Oh, and that cunt who falsely accused the fraternity members of gang rape should be expelled and sued as well. Her face should plastered all over campus, in Obama colors, with a caption saying, "WARNING TO ALL LYING CUNTS: THIS COULD BE YOU."

#RapeCultureMyAss

Feminsm and its Allies, and the Allies' Allies.

Hmmm. What an interesting array of retweets and tweets. Now, I only pick on Stevens because she was one of the very first links that showed up when I wanted to read more about this story.

The thing with non-conservatives, for the many times I peruse their twitter profiles to see if they jumped off the deep end, they wear their "pride" (whatever that is, be it perverted same-sex attraction, identifying as a feminist, some "stand for your rights" oppressed minority BS) on their sleeve.  In the case of Stevens its feminism, raising your kid as a feminist and gay mirage. I notice there's no mention of "wife" in her twitter description box. Single mom, maybe? It's not that I have anything against single parents it's just in Stevens' case it's sorta not surprising.

Of course, I like the retweet covering its butt saying "Well, you're not invited anyways!" like a spoiled butt hurt kid about Santorum's gay mirage stance. Don't worry, as Stevens tweets Dana Goldberg comforting words, I bet the baby shower will be stupendous and people will be asking "So who's the dad?" if the two are women - if in vitro was the path - and "So the baby is coming from India? No, China?" if the two are guys.

Other tweets that show up on Stevens account was from CNNMoney by another woman saying she's becoming a fan of Stevens, and one by an "artist" (Kate Gilbert) originally from the U.K.

Chicago Tribune Lifestyle, CNN, Advocate.com, and an "artist."

Talk about being in an echo chamber of sadness.

As predictable as it can be, both of these women, Stevens and Goldberg, are in fields that cater to the "feelings" or just plain out relativism: journalism (Stevens is a 'lifestyle' writer) and comedy/entertainment for Goldberg. The places that they reside aren't too surprising either (like I said, predictable). The Tribune isn't exactly NYT but it's better than a smaller periodical. Living in LA as a comedian is rather a "dime a dozen" - you're probably will get more exposure if you're Jewish, a lesbian (openly, because "Da Courage!) and have a decent amount of funnies up your sleeves (I've never seen Goldberg's standup so she could be just a token for all I know).

Speaking of being obnoxious -

My kick ass new Tshirt! '#Love Conquers Hate' in #Hebrew! #HRC #loveislove #LGBT #love @HRC pic.twitter.com/a9KfDU8nmM

— Dana Goldberg (@DGComedy) April 10, 2015

I agree, pretty awesome t-shirt once we get to that little "human rights" sign aka LGBT Campaign. The typical "love is love" is added on, the cry/mantra/slogan for people who share the mindset of Goldberg (I'd be called a hater and a bigot) and the throw-up worthy "love conquers hate" in the context of "love" (same-sex attraction) vs so-called hate (bigots). It's a very simplistic slogan - in this case it's downright manipulative. This slogan speak to two different types of 'wars': Actual war with guts being spilled, bullets being zipped pass your head, going through boot camp and wearing camo. The other war is a cultural war. This cultural war can be represented by the gay "marriage" vs. traditional/natural law camps. Goldberg's t-shirt - the colors as striking as they are - speaks to this war, yet I cannot help think that its shallow and vacuous. Hopefully the t-shirt was made in the USA, if not that it was "ethically" and consciously made overseas, and that the dyes used were eco-friendly. We can't have fair trade supporters be upset. My question to Golbderg is "Are you a practicing Jew - Reform or Orthodox - or are you just a cultural Jew who really just wears it around when it's convenient - not really something you think about unless you want more 'feathers in your cap'?" Goldberg could cleverly say that her shirt supports both gay "marriage" and Israel, but I get the feeling that the main reason for wearing it is because belongs to the LGBT community of activists. Israel, you're only convenient when it looks cool and it makes the people using you feel good. Feelings. Convenience. Ah, it's like fast food - but guess who the "evil" one in that case?

Whoa. Whoa. UVA sexual assualt case: Apparently truth doesn't win out.

Like I said in a previous post, IMDb is the gift that keeps on giving. Check below for the discussion about the UVA sexual assault case.

Holy shit.

I wanted Swan Lake, but instead I got Mary McNamara.

I woke up this morning groggy as usual then I remembered that there might be a review of Joffrey Ballet's Swan Lake which premiered last night. I was suddenly alert. I flipped through my city's newspaper for the arts & entertainment section, finally getting to it and disregarding the rest of the sections like gift wrap on Christmas morning.

"Where is it?" I thought to myself since it wasn't the on the front page. Then at the bottom I saw this eye-catching headline; its content more predictable than I can imagine. It was a review, sorta, not on a ballet production, but how maternity is portrayed on television.

The two series could not be more different. "Homeland" is the once-exalted then much-criticized Showtime political thriller rebooting its fourth season to wary and conditional praise. "Jane the Virgin" is a highly anticipated CW comedy, with magical realism top-notes and a very high buzz factor.

Yet they share a troubling and unexpected theme: Socially Enforced Motherhood.

Despite their contrasting tone, form and intent, both shows insist that, deep down, every woman wants a child no matter the conditions, even when the woman in question has made it very clear that she does not feel this way at all.

So two shows all of a sudden make up a "tyranny" (of motherhood). That's an impressive conclusion to come up with.

No mention of whether or not the use of a biblical story as a plot device to make a comedy -- a virgin becoming miraculously impregnated without any sexual intercourse or in vitro -- was a "wise" decision to the audience members who may be religious since it obviously uses the story in a mocking manner (the character wants to save sex for marriage). It's parody.

No mention of whether or not the feelings of, I would bet, most women when they find they are pregnant: joy - shock - nervousness - happiness.

Nope.

McNamara, a mother of three, sees these two shows - one a comedy, the other a drama - as vehicles of "socially enforced motherhood" even though abortion- on-demand is basically the issue for modern day women -- supported like crazy in her circles, elite journalism, and in the city of L.A. This mentality of feeling threatened I mention here and the abortion issue mentioned here.

I would think that if a mother of three is critical of this "socially enforced motherhood" then she must have a good point, right? I mean, if mothers themselves support abortion and woman's "right" to be childless, for whatever reasons, then that's how society should work, right? 

 All of a sudden the L.A. Times writer feels threatened by two shows. How about all the rest of the shows out there that are getting publicity?

In the Middle portrays a family, the Midwest of course, of five as lovable fools and motherhood as unattractive and (somewhat) miserable. The same with Malcolm in the Middle. Most of the shows today, when two characters have sex, don't even mention the pregnancy. They just get all hot, proceed to make out and get naked. Or the director just shoots the sex scene and skips the make out session and build up (see: Game of Thrones).

Or how about Sex and the City, Mistresses, Scandal and Revenge? How is maternity portrayed? I can safely say maternity isn't shown in anyway positive -- little to no affection, no anything. Just "that's my daughter/wife you slept with," type of attitude.   

All of a sudden McNamara wants the characters to practice "choice."

I do wonder what her thoughts are of the shows I mentioned. I wonder if the choices the females made in the shows would be seen as "empowering." I'd guess McNamara would complain about sexism and patriarchy.  

This "not wanting a child", kinda just using the reproductive sex organs as a gateway to pleasure without the consequences (nipping the babe in the butt), outright rejects the natural purpose of it. It divorces mind & body (though, if McNamara practices yoga or is a marathon runner she'll probably resort to the "mind & body" slogan). It draws a parallel to transgenderism and homosexuality as well, but especially transgenderism.

• Transgenderism - a man/woman whose brain tells them they're a woman/man. Obviously nature gave them something else than what their brains makes them think they are.
• Homosexuality - a man/woman is attracted to a man/woman. "Consuming" the relationship is a waste.
• Feminism - choosing not to allow the natural course of reproduction to occur, therefore rejecting the natural "job" and duty of maternity of which those organs call for.

And it's all about sex (and feelings), isn't it? They are all connected.

There's another through-line involved with these three: Neither of these are romantic. At All. I'm using "romantic" in its most classic sense.

But Swan Like is. It's a classic in the cannon of ballets. It's timeless. Even with modern twists and interpretation, it's still Swan Lake (unless some choreographer totally butchers the story). The only "crazy" thing in the story is between Odette and Odile, otherwise known as the White Swan and Black Swan. No, it ain't no lesbo story (I did enjoy the movie, though).

Maybe I'll be met with a Swan Lake review tomorrow morning. Maybe. Maybe I'll be met with beauty: