Saturday, 5/21/16

  1. Dumb, uneducated, eager to deceive
  2. Gloom, doom, and compartments
  3. Fundamentally conservative, completely ignorant
  4. You can’t make this stuff up I
  5. You can’t make this stuff up II
  6. Fact/Truth
  7. Bread, circus, tragedy


Just as the Left used every possible locution to avoid using the term “partial-birth abortion” – the editors of the Post and others go to some considerable trouble to bury the name “Little Sisters of the Poor.”

(Mona Charen via Mollie Hemingway)

But a very special prize goes out to Adam Liptak of the New York Times. We can call it the Linda Greenhouse Award for Supreme Court Advocacy Presented As Reporting.

Liptak’s 22-paragraph, 1283-word story manages to mention the Little Sisters of the Poor not once. Not in the headline. Not in the lede. Not in any paragraph or sentence. Not in the captions, even though the captions had to work really hard to avoid mentioning them.

If any Republican president went to war against a group called Little Sisters of the Poor, that editorial gift would be unwrapped on every front page of every newspaper in the land. It would lead the nightly broadcast of every television news show. It would be joked about on Saturday Night Live. Comedians and virtue signalers across the land would “destroy” that Republican president every chance they got.

Our media, the hacks who are “dumb, uneducated and eager to deceive” on the existentially important issue of religious liberty, don’t do that in this case. Their silence and covering-up on behalf of the regime is telling.

(Hemingway, emphasis added)

In your heart, you know she’s right. The only thing I can say in Liptak’s defense is really, really, slender: the powers that be at the Gray Lady illustrated his story (in the online version at least) with one picture of nuns (the caption was “Nuns outside the Supreme Court in March before arguments in Zubik v. Burwell. On Monday, justices declined to rule in the case.” The nuns were there for no particular reason, I guess.) and another of protesters some of whose signs referred to “nuns.”


1. … I don’t deliberately hype anything on this blog for clicks. I genuinely am alarmed by the state of the culture, and want to shake up other conservatives, to make them realize what’s going on, and the urgent need to do something about it. But I can compartmentalize. It drives my wife crazy that I can lie in bed at night reading a book about doom and gloom, then turn the light off and go to sleep peacefully. That’s just how I roll.

2. That said, I am a jolly pessimist by nature ….

(Rod Dreher) I edited Dreher so it would be true of me, too. (Well, my wife has stopped talking about my gloom and doom reading tastes. We’ve been married longer then Drehers.)


I sent the article about the NYHRC by Volokh to my wife who sent it to two of her oldest friends. These women are classic Orange County Republicans: NR reading, Mercedes driving, golf playing, conservative Protestants, went to elite colleges, are in finance, have stable lives (one married the other engaged), they are even voting Trump (but are social moderates- pro civil SSM, pro 1st term Abortions, it would be gauche not to)! But their response to my wife was: “Are you sure that Mr. AnonymousDr isn’t getting trolled. This can’t be real! LOLz.” I just shook my head.

I have another friend from work (a physician), who is a married, practicing Mormon, went to BYU, did a mission, votes Republican, and he was said to me “I don’t really care if you want to dress as a woman, call yourself one, use the women’s bathroom, etc. How does this effect us?” I explained to him that some schools are allowing kids to present themselves as the other gender without telling the parents and are allowing mixed sex locker rooms. He had no idea, and said that he would probably have to reconsider his stance.

The issue is being presented in the media as being just like SSM, which was just like race, so obviously we have to “evolve” on the issue. These are fundamentally conservative people who are just completely ignorant of what is going on and who aren’t willing to see where this is leading—if your kids has gender dysphoria they will be “treated” with surgery and hormones against your will. I expect this to be made law during Clinton’s first term.

(AnonymousDr commenting via Update to a Rod Dreher blog, hyperlink added)


My great nephew was scheduled to have his first professional MMA fight last night. It was cancelled because his opponent had violated parole and was not allowed to leave his state for the fighting venue.

You can’t make up some things.


No, you really can’t make up some things, but you can try if driven by ideology:

The New York Times recently reported about A. J. Jackson’s travails in a Vermont high school. “There were practical issues,” Anemona Hartocollis writes. “When he had his period, he wondered if he should revert to the girls’ bathroom, because there was no place to throw away his used tampons.”

(Jonah Goldberg) Golberg continues:

Now, one can have sympathy for the transgendered – I certainly do – while simultaneously holding to the scientific fact that boys do not menstruate. This is a fact far more settled than the very best climate science. Perhaps it’s rude to say so, but facts do not cease to be facts simply because they offend.

Many liberals believe that “denying” climate science should be a criminal offense while also believing that denying biological science is a moral obligation.

In the law, truth is a defense against the charge of slander, but for liberals, inconvenient truth is no defense against the charge of bigotry.


One rueful recollection from my youth was my inability to separate “truth” and “fact.” That something could be true without being fact eluded me. I was suspicious of it. It sounded like relativism, liberalism. I think I encountered that especially in literature (sorry, Mark; you were right).

I don’t think I’ve lost my bearing on the law of non-contradiction, but I now “get it.” I wonder whether the estimable Seth Godin does? I wouldn’t deny that metaphor can be true any more.


Recently, whilst staying with friends in Dickson, Tennessee, I came across an article in a local newspaper, which was nothing but a vitriolic venting of the spleen against the South’s role in the Civil War …

The author, who described herself as “a Tennessee girl,” derided those who had any sympathy with the historic South, urging her readers “to move on.” “If I need a reminder that I’m Southern,” she concluded, “I’ll eat a pot of white beans for supper. And if I want to take pride in my Tennessee roots, I’ll wear my custom-made Jalen Hurd jersey and watch him slaughter a defender on the gridiron.” For this modern Tennessee girl, therefore, there is nothing worth celebrating about being from the South except food and sports, or what the Romans would have called “bread and circuses” (panem et circenses) …

The … South’s tragic flaw—its defense of slavery—led to the defeat of its just demand for states’ rights and the consequent rise of an ever-burgeoning Federal Government which, as the decades passed, increased its power over the individual states so that the original concept of the nation, as envisaged by the Founding Fathers, has been entirely lost. As the Federal Government gets bigger, imposing its will on an increasingly powerless people and passing laws that violate religious freedom and erode the right to conscientious objection, we see the growth of a new form of slavery. The old form of slavery is gone, thanks be to God, but the new form of slavery shows no sign of going away.

(Joseph Pearce) But, but, but … we have such good circuses, and abundant bread!

* * * * *

“In learning as in traveling and, of course, in lovemaking, all the charm lies in not coming too quickly to the point, but in meandering around for a while.” (Eva Brann)

Some succinct standing advice on recurring themes.