- Rohrschach Test
- Dancing with the … What?!
- Another partisan “scheduling conflict.”
- Where the sun don’t shine.
- Dangerous ideas.
- Not your Dubya’s “conservatism.”
1
Quick: What does this look like to you?
We, unlike the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto (who speaks in the “Royal We”), inexcplicably did not see the justifiably defiant uprising of the large majority of the population against the liberal elite. Neither, for that matter, did we see bloodlust as we saw (well, actually, read about the next day) at the Reagan Library Wednesday night.
It seems to us that the crowd’s enthusiasm last night was less sanguinary than defiant. The applause and the responses to it reflect a generations-old mutual contempt between the liberal elite and the large majority of the population, which supports the death penalty.
Oh. Then I guess it’s not bloodlust, just like it’s not racist to use “the N word” to show contempt for a “liberal elite.”
Our bad. Nothing to see here. Move along now. We insist.
2
Laurie Essig writes a gossipy little piece about an upcoming spectacle about which we I, mercifully, had not heard: Chaz (f/k/a Chastity, I assume) Bono, a (former?) female now presenting as male (having had surgery to remove female secondary sexual characteristics), dancing his her its their Chaz’s little heart out on ABC’s Dancing With The Stars.
Essig apparently thinks “Chaz is far less queer than the narrative at Fox News,” and particularly sneers at the “starvation level diets, Botox, boob jobs, not to mention hair dye, cosmetics, high heels and foundation garments” on the distaff side of the Fox News set.
The fact that such straight dancing isn’t enough for Chaz’s critics gets to the fear and loathing for anyone who defies the gender expectations that were put on them at birth even when they completely conform to the gender they chose as adults.
I wonder what she’d see in that inkblot? I see an 800-pound Gorilla. Chaz is no star. Chaz is on Dancing with the Stars precisely because of the transgender schtick. Fox apparently took the bait. Heck, Fox and ABC may have worked a deal for Fox to take the bait.
We now return to our irregular programming.
3
Rod Dreher, born and reared in Louisiana, (therefore?) has no patience with a Republican Louisiana Congressman who has his own private scheduling conflict with the President’s address Thursday night. But the comboxes are full of people who not only are patient with, but seem to support, the unexcused absence.
4
Carson Holloway at CatholicVote.org gives the backstory on Robert P. George’s provocative question to GOP hopefuls at the Palmetto Forum Monday.
For [Washington Post columnist Jennifer] Rubin, George, and the candidates who agreed with him, were advocating a kind of lawless defiance of the Supreme Court. In expressing this view, Rubin is safely within the bounds of the contemporary conventional wisdom about American constitutionalism. But George’s question was premised precisely on the idea — perfectly acceptable in the long sweep of American history – that it can be appropriate in some serious cases to defy the Supreme Court, as when the Supreme Court does violence to the Constitution — as George, and many others, believe it has done in inventing a “right” to abortion. Indeed, George pointed out that such notions come not from the constitutionally illiterate but from august figures such as Abraham Lincoln.
Worth a read if you think it could never be legitimate to tell the Supreme Court to put its precedent where the sun don’t shine. But I stand by my prior answer: this isn’t the time to do that.
5
Rod Dreher raises provocative issues I’m not going to try to race through to comment on today. You may see them within a few days, though.
6
Daniel McCarthy, Editor of The American Conservative, explains in 5 minutes what’s going on over there. This is not your Dubya’s “conservatism.”
Bon appetit!
Tipsy Teetotaler ن 