Girls I wouldn't date.

I consider myself rather "open minded" when it comes to dating, as in dating to marry, not dating just because or because feelings are reciprocated type of modern shit. But there are some deal breakers.

If the girl doesn't eat meat then we may have an issue. It's not a deal breaker. If she can't eat meat because her digestive system cannot process it, okay. If she's like some person who sees her identity on what she doesn't eat, like those who make their youtube channel about veganism, and if she's a vegan cultist then friends is the best we'll ever be.

Now, if the girl supports abortion then that's a major deal breaker. I can't date let alone marry a person who supports abortion. She can be gorgeous, smart, have a cute personality, good with money, and have little to no emotional baggage and I still wouldn't even consider her as marriage material. Because let's face it, she isn't for that one simple fact she supports abortion.

I wouldn't actually date an atheist - I just don't want to waste my time with that because I want my faith to be carried onto our children. The likeliness of the atheist supporting this is most likely slim.

I wouldn't date a Muslim or a Jew simply for the fact that our faiths just don't align on many things and, like them, want my faith - the Catholic faith - to be the one our children are raised in.

Now where does this "open minded" claim come from you might ask, after all I did state specific deal breakers. Well, I don't mind if the girl isn't the cutest, or if she's a bit chubby, or if she's not rolling in dough. I don't care much if she has a sizeable chest or if she has a butt that screams "squats." I don't care if she isn't "thick" aka thick legs. Aesthetically I'm fairly reasonable which encompasses how she looks with and without clothes. In a very cliche way, it's what inside that is the goldmine. I want to know how she thinks and why. I want her to align with my values. She can have one arm and I wouldn't care (I've seen a girl with just one arm and she was cute as heck).

So ideally a Catholic (if not, then a Christian) woman who supports life from conception till death. She can even have tats even though I think tats are ultimately hideous.

I believe my standards are reasonable given the day and age I'm living in. I seek someone different for the sake of truth, beauty, goodness. Lemmings mate and produce more lemmings. I want someone who is above a lemming.

You just gave ammo to modernism.

Poster Melkite over at fisheaters just gets miffed when people are critical of same-sex pairings raising kids. Why? I remember him saying he has same-sex attraction. Must we be so damn sensitive to the homos and the bis? 

I posted a pic of a young boy showing his "adoption cake." He was all smiles. I was glad for him - anything better than being in foster care or an orphanage. But he was adopted by two guys. No they are not brothers - they're "lovers." I wrote that at least the boy now has a warm bed, food and clean water. Melkite wrote, "And, at least he didn't get adopted out to a heterosexual couple that would abuse or neglect him.  Not having both a mother and a father is not ideal, but it's also not the worst thing in the world."

Are you kidding me? How do you know that this seemingly "perfect" gay couple won't? (Not saying that they will.) 

"Well at least he's in a loving home!"
"Yea, well thank goodness he wasn't adopt by a hetero couple who tames anacondas!"

I bring in that gay couples raising a child is not ideal. Melkite brings up the very worst of the hetero couple.

This exchange reminds me of a political cartoon I (thought I saved) saw a few years back which depicted two guys hugging each each other, one crying, because their adoption papers were denied while the other half of the cartoon showed a hetero couple, the father fat wearing a wife beater staring cruelly at the new child, the mother drinking, the house filthy with a cross shown on the wall. The gay couple's house? Clean; the two were dressed in button downs and sweaters. No cross to be seen. Oh the dichotomy.

Dating preferences in Weimerica.

I've notice something strange when it comes to modern dating and the process of choosing a significant other. Here's what I've observed.

A: Love knows no boundaries* (mainly talking about same-sex coupes and interracial couples).
B: Okay, well what about when a person says he is attracted to a certain ethnicity, say Hispanics over an Asian?
A: That's their preference.
B: Okay, well how about a person who wants to keep their ethnicity/culture intact and only wants to date within their own race?
A: That's approaching racism.
B: Can't it be preference?
A: No, because what I'm talking about is sexual and romantic attraction. A utilitarianism approach is racism. The heart wants what it wants.
B: Okay, what if I say a girl won't date a guy shorter than she is, say all the guys under 5'8 are basically out of luck.
A: Another preference.
B: Wouldn't it be a very shallow preference and borderline petty? If people are encourage to date outside their own ethnicity and culture, when can't women be encouraged to re-analyze their preferences?
A: You're committing sexism. Your utilitarian approach is discrimination.
B: What ethnicity preference and height preference is also discrimination.
A: I wouldn't say that. It's a preference. It's not systemic.
B: Okay, let's move away from dating preferences. How about ACT/SAT scores? You need a certain test score and GPA to not automatically be rejected by certain schools and programs. Why isn't there a whole movement about this? This would be considered systemic discrimination.
A: In some ways that's different as well. But see here - underprivileged kids, those who are/were historically marginalized and oppressed, should not subjected to such measurements. It's unfair.

So I guess not everyone and each scenario is not created equal.

* It has come to a point where the social sciences, and even "science", has encouraged straights to dabble in bisexuality aka sodomy.

Conversation about elites running the country. And the LGBT.

ME: I think we should look at the academic inbreeding that happens in the Supreme Court nominations. There's a lot of Harvard and Yale alumni.
PERSON: Yea, but there's even more networking that happens on lower level courts.
ME: Okay, well I just looked up a couple of Court of Appeals and a vast  majority aren't from the Ivies.
PERSON: Stop denying there's networking being done.
ME: I'm sorta not since networking happens in business, academia, entertainment, family stuff etc. I'm pointing to a specific job and you're pointing to some underground New World that's happening on the lower level federal courts.

Discussion goes into "regular" people getting into politics.

PERSON: It makes it harder for regular people getting into the elites of politics. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sarah Palin (yuck).
ME: But Arnold was a celebrity before he was California's governor. What's up with Palin? Is she's the wrong type of Joe?
PERSON: Sarah Palin holds atrocious views on gay people and she's dumb as a brick wall! She is the wrong type of Joe and she's a joke!
ME: I'd be rich for every person under 35 saying X politician is horrid simply for the fact they do not support gay marriage or, even, fights back against its normalization. Rich. I'd also be rich for every person saying Palin is equally as dumb as GWB. Does it make it true? No. What's closer to the truth is that those who say such things have been listening to popular media and the MSM for far too long.
PERSON: #&@%
ME: Typical of your kind.

NOTE: When did the LGBT become the beloved dog of modernism? 

Dating and religion (or lack thereof).

Simply put: I will not date an atheist who says religion is a "fairy tale."

Reasons being:

1. At least for Christianity, it's not even a fairy tale in terms of what constitutes a fairy tale.
2. There's a certain amount of arrogance in someone who actually has the gall to to think, let alone say, such a thing.
3. It's rather childish. Ironic.
4. There's no intellectualism behind the insult.
5. There's a certain amount of insecurity as well. Again, ironic.

My heart sinks a little when I find the atheist is rather attractive as well.

Andy. The homo rights advocate who's so deep in his own anal cavity.

LGBT activists and, in general, social "progressives" tend to show up on specific articles (marijuana, LGBT "rights"). On Malcolm the Cynic's site, a poster named "Andy" appeared on an article dealing with same-sex "marriage" back in July of 2015.

In an earlier post to another,  "Andy" wrote this -

"Regarding adoption here, well, I don´t actually have to assume that children “are supposed to be getting everything out of those families that traditional families get”, and I would support adoption rights for gay couples even if there would be rock solid evidence that those children are not doing as well on average as children raised in traditional families – because the question here wrt adoption isn´t “traditional family” or “non-traditional family” but rather “some family” or “no family”."

Yea, that's right. Even if evidence, peer-reviewed academic journals, and the like showed that kids raised in same-sex households fared lesser than kids raised in opposite sex households he'd still vote for same-sex adoption "rights." He wants that "right" for the homosexuals gosh darn it!

He reappeared in November due to yours truly, GRA, posted about him. I'll just say that our dialogue was a fruitless discussion.

Andy, about a year later showed up on another article dealing with homosexuality, with the article entitled "Anal v Bestiality."  He outright knew where it was going, so he engaged. Most likely Andy either subscribes to Malcolm's site or he keeps an eye out for articles talking about anything homosexual.

On same-sex acts being compared to bestiality. 

"That is really interesting. As someone who thinks there is nothing morally wrong whatsoever with gay sex per se, I’m not outraged by your opinion at all and am similarly surprised that people who *agree* with you on the moral status of gay sex are outraged by the comparison."

Andy thinks in cliches. He was expecting social conservative people to not be outraged, despite millennials who are social conservatives are more prone to support being "non-judgmental" and "non-extremist." They want to be liked and not to be seen as "that kind of Christian."

As for not being outraged - it's the "I heard it before. What else you got?" mentality. No doubt Andy thinks it's a bogus comparison and therefore dismisses it. After all, he notes "there is nothing morally wrong whatsoever with gay sex per se." He has entrenched in his mind, soul, and heart that same-sex acts are A-OKAY. Why? Probably because Andy himself is exploring the anal cavity himself (not as a proctologist).

I don't have any evidence or peer-reviewed articles, but if I were put in charge I'd point to the LGBT being anal (no pun) about articles being critical of their "rights" as a characteristic of a mental disorder. I've seen a pattern with the Andies of the world: track down any article that's critical, though thoughtful and caring (see: Ask the Bigot), and comment and /or flood their comment section with a defensive if not condescending tone (something about not hurting anyone and love is love and other stuff).

Shut up modernism.

It's very amusing hearing/reading people saying that the Catholic Church "takes things too far" (I was reading thoughts on tube ligation) and that it "sticks its nose" in personal lives. Of course, the people that said this definitely came across as over-reacting and admitted that they came under 'extreme' judgement with people who they shared thoughts about tube tying. Well, you did ask a Catholic who's practicing and if they're practicing the right way they should be orthodox on the matter. Apparently that's 'extreme.'

There are some stupid Catholics out there.

"I think having priests being allowed to marry is good. It says nothing in the Bible that they cannot marry. Go and be fruitful and multiply!"

So if a particular act wasn't outright condemned or not allowed, then it's totally A-OKAY to approve of it. I guess that allows nuns and sisters to be married then.

But wait, let's raise the intellectual atmosphere here: how will once celibate secular church authorities finance a family of more than one child? What will become of the vow of poverty? What will become of deacons? Are they just "junior priests"?

You don't know? Well don't seriously suggest it then, you dumbass.

Modern Pathos: Personal Relationships & Economic Social Justice

So how many significant others do you go through like a pair of jeans? I'm just wondering before I (a) make-out with you and (b) have sex with you.

Wait, each past relationship "had a voice"? Interesting. What did you learn from each? Oh, you "grew" as a person and "learned" what you "wanted." What is it that you learned and wanted?

*crickets*

[mouths off some generic, cliche standard devoid of anything transcendent]

I see.

So I head you traveled to India and Ghana and Mexico. How was that? Oh, you learned a lot about yourself and now consider yourself a "global citizen." What did you learn about yourself? Ah, we're all the same and now you're a human rights advocate teaming up with Emma Watson and Angelina Jolie to save women from poverty in Africa. Well, I'm gonna go down to my city's soup kitchen and volunteer while I mentor a young black teenager in the inner city. I'm thinking of donating at least five percent of my income to the charity of my choice even though I make less than 40K a year.

Bedroom + Bible

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.

#LoveWhines

Correct.

Orman, "love" may have won, but you're the ignorant one.

Video published on May 23, 2013.

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 ...

[Anderson]

Because we redefined it forty years ago (Roe v Wade, 1973) -

 [Orman]

And this isn't about children.

[Anderson]

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.

You can smell the feminists a mile away.

And it's horrifically foul smelling.

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?  

Just swallow and deal with it. We won. It's a an over-and-done issue.

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."