Finally, someone with a plan for ensuring the future of the value of U.S. currency.
At last I am where I have longed to be, under Little Miss Attila
Robert Stacy McCain has, at long last, put me where I have longed to be, right under Little Miss Attila in his testimonial list at The Other McCain (click, scroll, look right).
She is like my fairy blogmother, you understand, so I would never put myself above her.
That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.
As a completely disinterested, objective observer of hot girl-on-girl Jello wrestling
Dear, dear, dear.
I was scrolling around The Other McCain today to copy some photos of me since his camera was working on Wednesday at the Andrew Breitbart party on Capitol Hill and mine was not, and what should I spy! A Jello-wrestling match is on between Monique Stuart, aka Moe, aka HotMES (pick a lane, sweetie!) and Clever S. Logan, aka Suzanne Logan. It is slated as, “The Fight for Big Sexy,” aka Jason Mattera, and appears to be a grudge match between the two buxom, budding bloggers.
I see that the affair of honor will be settled with strawberry Jello and whipped cream at a location to be determined in Washington, D.C., on a date not yet set. I also note that affairs of honor require a referee to uphold standards and yet none has been named.
I volunteer.
My motives are above reproach, you see, since, as a lesbian, I have no interest whatsoever in the affections of Big Sexy, as you can see below from our photo together at the 3/18 gathering on Capitol Hill of the Washington Conservative New Media Alliance, sponsored by Americans for Limited Government and Net Right Nation:
And, at 55, I’m pretty sure that I’m old enough to be the mother of both contestants, who look exceedingly hot young. After all, I’m on record preferring an older woman. So I will be an utterly disinterested observer sure to be unmoved by the young ladies in their wet, sticky wrestling attire as they slide around in the Jello. How could they find anyone more impartial?
Moe Lane of RedState.com? Robert Stacy McCain? Jimmy at The Sundries Shack? I don’t think so!
Plus, since I have been dubbed a generator Sapphic traffic in the right-wing blogosphere, according to Prof. William A. Jacobson, the Blogospheric Neologian at Legal Insurrection — I’m not stupid enough to call myself the queen of Sapphic traffic because Tammie Bruce precedes me and has guns — so I will be bringing offerings of Sapphic traffic as homage to the almighty SiteMeter.
Update: And now Stacy McCain is calling me the Sapphic Samaritan. What can I say? I’m a giver.
Update, 3/21/09: Ooh! ooh! ooh! Little Miss Attila has the background story here. The fun never stops!
She writes, “Just give me enough notice on that wrestling match to find a cheap red-eye to the East Coast, folks!” She gives her PayPal donation button, too, so — help make her dream come true!
You learn the most interesting things about Obama at HillBuzz
I dearly love those nice young gay men at HillBuzz and read them every day. They poured out their hearts and bank accounts and traveled to many states campaigning for McCain/Palin, so show some respect, please.
Since they live in Chicago and know Obama from WAY back, they regularly provide the most interesting details on what he is really like. They are dishing today as payback for Obama’s snotty remark on Leno comparing his bowling to Special Olympics. Go. Read. Don’t worry — it doesn’t mean you’re a Democrat if you start liking them, too.
Update: Obama’s “Special Olympics” remark also got him some free one-liners from Jim Treacher.
Update: Memeorandum is ALL OVER the Obama “Special Olympics” gaffe — it’s their top story this morning. Go here for the round-up.
Update: Now Smitty is piling on over at The Other McCain and The Anchoress has the round-up on “Obama sans teleprompter.”
You no playa da game, you no maka da rules
Charles Winecoff at Big Hollywood has lots of thoughts on the lesbian and gay community and gay marriage tonight. He asks, “When did the gay community get so mean?”
Charles, I came out in 1972 and I have a question for you: “When was the gay and lesbian community EVER nice?” Because I can’t think of a time.
The point Winecoff eventually arrives at has to do with gay marriage vs. civil unions.
On that, something Winecoff wrote needs clarification. He quotes another blogger as saying that civil unions in France, which are available to both straights and gays, provide the same rights to lesbians and gays as marriage. This is not correct. The Washington Post had a Valentine’s Day story on French civil unions, known by their acronym “PACS,” which stated:
… PACS unions are also seen as more appealing than marriage because they can be dissolved without costly divorce procedures. If one or both of the partners declares in writing to the court that he or she wants out, the PACS is ended, with neither partner having claim to the other’s property or to alimony.
… government statistics show, one-sixth of PACSed couples that end their unions do so because they want to get married.
Separate. Not equal.
Winecoff also points out that the global jihad hates gays and lesbians as much as it hates Jews and that our community is oblivious to this threat. On this point, I agree.
Anyway, he says we need allies come the jihad, so we should be nice now and drop our demands:
Instead of stirring up resentment trying to snatch a piece of a stale pie we don’t really need — and setting back our cause in the process — we need to keep moving forward, not “separate but equal,” but different and equal.
It’s time to reprioritize, show some gratitude for how far we’ve come, and try some magnanimity for a change. Let the so-called “bigots” keep their rituals. We have our own way of doing things.
Charles, Charles, Charles. Where do I start? Here: have you ever had a love of your life and stayed committed to one another for 10 years or more? I have — over 20 years, in fact. Have you had to fight for your life partner’s life? I have. Arrange for your life partner’s funeral? I have. We need the rights to do those things. A lesbian attorney wrote my life partner’s will but was unaware that a will is not the instrument that gives a surviving life partner the right to make funeral arrangements. I’m a planner, so we found out in time — but just barely.
Winecoff’s essay does not mention any profound loves or longterm relationships. That is why it sounds to me like Winecoff doesn’t know what marriage is, at all. So his assertion, “Let the so-called ‘bigots’ keep their rituals,” isn’t principle, it’s sour grapes.
On the issue of gay marriage, if you really have no idea what the spiritual, emotional and life content of a marriage are like, work on that first, because that is what is informing the efforts of those of us who do want full marriage rights for lesbians and gays.
Moving along, dear GayPatriotWest, aka Daniel Blatt, picked up on Winecoff’s post here. We have exchanged some pleasant e-mails and it pains me to disagree with him, but disagree I must. He writes:
I do know some gay people who do want marriage, but it seems the most vocal advocates see gay marriage more as, to quote my friend Dale Carpenter, a “trophy in the cultural wars” than anything else.
No, no, no, no, NO!
We need fully equal marriage for the following reasons:
- Marriage is about enlightenment and God consciousness. I will explain that in another post on enlightenment and higher states of consciousness. To deny lesbians and gays the right to marriages that are fully equal to straight ones cuts us off from God. How is that not evil?
- Marriage creates a structure for uniting two lives into a couple and provides the foundation for building one life together. Civil unions degrade that reality by defining marriage as a collection of legal rights and duties. Therefore, to create a second class marriage with civil unions will inevitably degrade the concept of marriage, even though marriage is the “more equal” option.
- Marriage gives you rights to do things for one another from managing your affairs together, to managing your spouse’s healthcare when he or she is no longer able to make decisions, to control of your spouse’s remains and funeral arrangements after death, to inheritance rights. It is not plausible that civil unions ever would be able to keep up if every equal right has to pass a legislature and be signed by a governor or president, or that they would be recognized in every other country, as legal marriages are.
I just don’t get the feeling from Winecoff and Dan that they ever have been in a longterm committed relationship with someone that was/is the love of their lives. If they haven’t — and I don’t know — that is why they are able to be so reasonable, so negotiable, so “peace in our time.” If they have not had the emotional and spiritual bond with another person that underlies true marriages, whether or not they are legal, then it’s impossible for them to understand the passion and urgency of those of us who have.
People who are ambivalent about marriage, whether straight or gay — will never, ever expend the effort and political capital to make gay marriage legal. I do not believe the Democrats will ever deliver on gay marriage for their lesbian and gay worker bees/cash cows — they’ll string us along forever.
But religious people/conservatives who love and understand marriage are EXACTLY the people who will ultimately be our best allies in legalizing gay marriage — because they understand the passion to be married and build a life together.
For new readers:
The brief story of my own marriage with my late life partner of over 20 years is here.
And my observation that we’ll never get liberals to support gay marriage because they aren’t all that solid about straight marriage so they can’t understand why we want it is here.
For my foreign readers:
There’s an old joke in the U.S. about an Italian immigrant woman who was being lectured by her priest on the subject of birth control. She replied to him, “You no playa da game, you no maka da rules.”
Update: I e-mailed Dan about this post to give him a heads-up that I linked him and that we disagree. I could not do the same for Winecoff because I could not find his e-mail address at Big Hollywood. I have an e-mail from Dan this morning saying that he is not in a committed relationship, but Winecoff is. Dan says that he does understand the passion and urgency for marriage to be legalized for lesbians and gays. I hope he will comment and explain in his own words. Winecoff also is welcome to comment here.
Correction: I should have consulted a reference before using the “peace in our time” quote. Wikipedia says that British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s actual words were “peace for our time” when he announced on September 30, 1938, that he had sold out Czechoslovakia — “a far away country of which we know little,” as my father quotes him, from being alive at the time — to Hitler’s demand for “living space” for Germany in the Munich Agreement. Chamberlain had ceded to Hitler territory over which he had no legal control, Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland, which Hitler invaded the very next day. Chamberlain’s appeasement policy, however, did not secure peace for very long and World War II began a year later when Hitler invaded Poland.
Since I am obviously giving Dan and Winecoff a dig about appeasement, I should say that the way we will obtain our right to marry is to be out in every aspect of our lives while being the best people we know how to be and making the best marriages — I feel it’s degrading to use the more correct term of “committed relationships” because it does not capture the dimensions of spirituality and devotion — we can now. I will explain in more detail in future posts. We are a quite a large minority when our families and friends and colleagues know we are lesbian or gay and give us their support. The love and respect we earn among people who know we are gay or lesbian is what will soften the hearts of those now opposed to gay marriage and will let them feel comfortable about admitting us to full membership in the club. Anyway, love, respect and openness is how I’m going about it.
Update: Protein Wisdom also has a post about Winecoff’s column.
Save the wolves! Palin for president!
Totalitarian feminists were very busy during the presidential campaign fighting for the Obama/Biden ticket and its implacable allies in the Muslim and illegal alien community who believe women are property. They were busiest writing viral poison e-mails filled with plausible lies about Gov. Palin, which, in my opinion, were motivated by her decision — her “choice,” if you will — to bring her Down syndrome fetus to term and lovingly embrace him, special needs and all, just the way he is.
Since the Down syndrome baby is the boogie fetus that pro-choice advocates use to scare fence-sitters into their camp, a mother and family of a Down syndrome child who would model how to love and raise him to his fullest potential in the public spotlight was threat-level DEFCON 1 for destruction. (Note: DEFCON 1 is the highest threat status; DEFCON 5 is the lowest where everything is safe.)
(I AM pro-choice, by the way, but not for the usual reasons, and I’ll get around to explaining another time.)
I think the deceitful viral poison anti-Palin e-mails from totalitarian feminists were responsible for the majority of the loss of support she had among women. As a lesbian, I got a LOT of those e-mails from my friends. It was one of them that launched me on the journey that led me to conservatism and this blog.
One, in particular, made me laugh. It purportedly came from playwright Eve Ensler, author of The Vagina Monologues. As it happens, Margaret and I saw her give one of her last performances of it in Washington, D.C., before she opened it up for others to perform. It was a moving and transformative experience and I feel enduring affection for Ms. Ensler as a result.
But it really was the limit that Ms. Ensler was hyperventilating that Sarah Palin was a terrible person who should not be a heartbeat away from the presidency because she hunts wolves from a helicopter.
(Isn’t the part of the story about how the wolves are eating caribou needed to keep humans from starving always left out of the story?)
My reaction was that the best thing to do to protect all those adorable wolves was to get Sarah Palin as far away from them as possible — by electing her as vice president. Also that other guy, McCain or something, as president.
Well! Dontcha know, she’s hunting wolves again, and IMAO and the Weekly Standard have the rest of the story, including a list of other helpful pest-reducing technologies at IMAO.
So — save the wolves! Sarah Palin for president in 2012 (if not sooner)!
Update, 3/20/09: H/T HillBuzz for alerting me to the following video:
Update, 3/20/09: Memeorandum has the round-up today on Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin rejection of almost half of the $913 million in stimulus money offered to her state. This action is courageous, wise and prudent, as you will see if you watch the video clip above.
The funds Gov. Palin rejected effectively would have planted time bombs and landmines in Alaska’s budget by starting programs that would only have federal money for a couple of years, gotten people addicted to the programs and then left the state in the unenviable position of either having to stop the programs or raise state taxes and fees to fund them, thus crippling the state’s economy.
Unlike the foolish governors who took the bait of Obama’s “stimulus” money and swallowed it hook, line and sinker, Gov. Palin made the best of a bad program and kept the people of Alaska off the hook for disastrous future expenses. Palin for president in 2012 (or sooner)!
Update, 3/31/09: The carefully coordinated campaign by Democrats to demolish Rush Limbaugh after his stirring speech at CPAC was an epic FAIL that resulted in increased ratings for Rush. So now Gateway Pundit reports the Democrats have targeted Sarah Palin for destruction using Saul Alinsky’s Rule 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.) So now is the time to rally to Sarah Palin and show all they can do is make her more popular than ever and ready for the presidency in 2012!
I'm in favor of eminent domain …
… and I’ve suffered losses not only in the hundreds of thousands of dollars but also almost my life due to liberal/libertarian opposition to development of any kind. But that’s a story for another day. Right now, Stephen Gordon has asked for help in spreading the word about another side of the story down Alabama way and I am willing to oblige by linking here.
I’m big that way.
However, does it strike anyone else as ironic that liberals pose as the great changers of the world, but they are the biggest enemies of change when it comes to development that will make a community thrive?
'Fuck those lying left-wing crapweasels. I'm with Kathy (Shaidle)'
How Robert Stacy McCain became irresistible to men
Thanks to the avalanche of comments rebutting my assertion that straight women’s porn is not photos of naked, hot men but rather photos of chocolate cakes, any other dessert and attractive women in stylish clothes, by which I mean Cuban Diva BFF going ballistic, today I have a delectable specimen of beefcake in the dripping wet person of Robert Stacy McCain, circa 1990:
Little Miss Attila advises that Stacy should favor solid-color Speedos over striped ones, but I have to disagree as this photo reveals to me for the first time that the rationale of the solid vs. striped Speedo may very well go along the lines of “check my biceps” vs. “check my package.” It does seem that Stacy brings the Godiva 140-piece gold ballotin, package-wise.
Yesterday was a mixed bag for dear Stacy, fame-wise. He was featured in Chris Muir’s “Day-by-Day” for his habit of speaking truth to dolts liberals socialists power:
However, Stacy holds unfortunate views on gay marriage, which is to say that he has fulminated against it recently, and thus the Google Gods of Karma, who count key phrases without remorse, drew their own conclusions and began to serve The Other McCain with ads like this on 3/15/09:
And served him again on 3/16/09:
So, in the spirit of fairness, since last week I described “How Stacy McCain became irresistible to women,” and with the above clear dripping-wet proof of the universal appeal of Robert Stacy McCain, I now also must declare him irresistible to men.
Update: Welcome, Legal Insurrection readers! My favorite article at American Thinker written by Prof. Jacobson and published on 10/19/2008 is his explanation of why he would be voting for McCain. And I am grateful to him for inventing the neologism, “Sapphic traffic,” to describe Web traffic inspired by my humble postings.
Update: Welcome, Little Miss Attila readers! And thank you, Joy, aka LMA, for your comments below!
Update: Welcome, The Other McCain readers! Stacy, thanks for the headline rotation! It takes a really big man to be so gracious! And thanks for making sure I was invited to the party! I am flabbergasted at how much better I am always treated by conservatives than I ever am in the lesbian community. But I’m still holding out for a spot under Little Miss Attila (Do. Not. Go. There!) in your testimonials. I want mine to read, ” ‘Stacy McCain … the envy of every man … irresistible to women.’ Cynthia Yockey, A Conservative Lesbian.” Come on, for the WTF value alone!
Update: Welcome, Moelane.com readers! Moe, it was a pleasure to meet you at the party! I’m glad you enjoyed this post!
Does Ross Douthat denounce porn so he can deduct his collection as a business expense?
I have just belatedly learned that our dear Stacy McCain has given up Ross Douthat-bashing for Lent! I gather the problem is that he is relinquishing something that gives him pleasure — I’ll have to ask the Anchoress — while Douthat annoys me like a big, slow-moving fly when I already have a rolled-up newspaper in my hand. I just have to smite him.
Stacy technically did not bash Douthat by quoting him today, so he’s keeping his vow, but I couldn’t tell from the quote whether Douthat was for or against porn and it included a swipe at gays, so I had to wade through his (Douthat’s) turgid prose to see whether he would continue tying us to the decline of modern civilization. It turned out he was after bigger fish.
Frankly, from reading Douthat’s essay here when he must have been a sophomore or junior at Harvard in October 2000, to an even more tedious, fuzzy-minded, yet obviously meticulously and extensively researched essay for the Atlantic published in October 2008 allegedly pondering the question of whether pornography is adultery — my one takeaway was that this kid LOVES his porn, and periodically poses as a serious-minded journalist on the subject to justify indulging his passion AND MAKE IT TAX DEDUCTIBLE!
(Douthat’s porn stash must be HUGE! I mean, seriously, he invokes images that I know about from my brother’s Playboys from the 1960’s when they were originally published, twenty-some years before Douthat was born — he’s a freakin’ porn historian.)
Oh, and before you read the following quote from Douthat, I want to point out something about it that straight people would never notice without my drawing this to their attention — namely, it shows how much straight people take marriage for granted and chafe and rail against it. You guys unthinkingly denounce and besmirch marriage so cavalierly, and then somehow gays and lesbians wanting to get married makes US what’s threatening the institution of marriage these days? How, exactly? By shaming you guys by VALUING it, is how it looks to me.
I added the boldfacing below to Douthat’s wishy-washy and decidedly tepid denunciation of porn in the Atlantic (linked above):
Go back to Philip Weiss’s pal and listen to him talk: Porn captures these women before they get smart … It’s painful to say, but that’s your boys’ night out. This is the language of a man who has accepted, not as a temporary lapse but as a permanent and necessary aspect of his married life, a paid sexual relationship with women other than his wife. And it’s the language of a man who has internalized a view of marriage as a sexual prison, rendered bearable only by frequent online furloughs with women more easily exploited than his spouse.
Calling porn a form of adultery isn’t about pretending that we can make it disappear. The temptation will always be there, and of course people will give in to it. I’ve looked at porn; if you’re male and breathing, chances are so have you. Rather, it’s about what sort of people we aspire to be: how we define our ideals, how we draw the lines in our relationships, and how we feel about ourselves if we cross them. And it’s about providing a way for everyone involved, men and women alike-whether they’re using porn or merely tolerating it-to think about what, precisely, they’re involving themselves in, and whether they should reconsider.
The extremes of anti-porn hysteria are unhelpful in this debate. If the turn toward an “everybody does it” approach to pornography and marriage is wrong, it’s because that approach is wrong in and of itself, not because porn is going to wreck society, destroy the institution of marriage, and turn thousands of rapists loose to prey on unsuspecting women. Smut isn’t going to bring down Western Civilization any more than Nero’s orgies actually led to the fall of Rome, and a society that expects near-universal online infidelity may run just as smoothly as a society that doesn’t.
Which is precisely why it’s so easy to say that the spread of pornography means that we’re just taking a turn, where sex and fidelity are concerned, toward realism, toward adulthood, toward sophistication. All we have to give up to get there is our sense of decency.
You know, if what’s standing between us and the onslaught of porn is our sense of decency, don’t you think that is the idea that should have been developed throughout the article instead of being a throwaway line as Douthat is pulling his hand out of his pants after the contemporary history of porn montage that comprised the rest of the article reached its climax?
By the way, Douthat made some remarks about women’s use of porn and that it is less than men’s, blah-blah-blah. This is a point I think most people in the field get wrong. Men’s and women’s porn are COMPLETELY different.
Women are high consumers of porn — it’s just that OUR porn — by which I mean pictures that make (straight) women excited — can be sold at grocery stores and children can look at them without experiencing any loss of decency whatsoever. This is because women’s porn is photos of chocolate cakes, followed by pretty much any other baked dessert, followed by attractive women in stylish clothes. Naked men, as a corollary to the naked women of men’s porn, are really not on the radar. Which is just as well, guys, because women resenting how judgmental men are about their endowments is nothing compared to how you would feel listening in on their judgments about, um, yours. To say nothing of how you would feel about the pointing and laughing, or worse, the pointing and sighing.
Update: Welcome, Anchoress readers, and I send my thanks to her for accepting my link’s pingback. I enjoy her posts whether or not I agree with them because, like her, I believe in the value of leading a life devoted to spiritual development. I expect we may have a conversation or two in the future — blogversation? — about the separation of religion and science, since that is at the heart of my father’s work on the origin of life.
Update: Welcome, Protein Wisdom readers — Dan was kind enough to give me a head’s up that you might be dropping by. If you are disappointed at not finding any sample porn, may I direct you to my “humor” category, so I have a shot at getting you to laugh before you go? Also, please peek at the category for “Barack Obama.” I explain why his sociopathy — his lack of a conscience — explains all his contradictions, seductions and coercions. I really want to educate as many people as I can about that. Also, it will help immunize you against his manipulations.
Update: Welcome, The Other McCain readers, sent by my dear Stacy from here and here. My favorite line today of Stacy’s immortal prose is, “Sister Cynthia is numbered among the ‘Lanche-worthy, and with porn-worthy rackage dealeth she the mighty blog-fu: WOLVERINES!” I dealteth some amusing karma, too — be sure to scroll down.
Update: Andrew Sullivan helpfully chronicled other smitings of Ross Douthat here, “A Douthat Backlash.” It was just not Ross’s day today.
Update: I just read the post at Brad DeLong’s blog, which is linked in Andrew’s post and now I see why Stacy had it, too. Oh. My. God. If you have been wondering how to say Douthat’s name, it is pronounced, “douchebag.” I hereby officially amend my theory that Douthat writes about porn to make his collection tax-deductible to stipulate that it appears his primary drive in amassing his huge collection is to find the Magic Porn that will make him straight.
Update: Cuban Diva BFF advises me this morning that I should tell my gentle readers what I told her about why the Douthat quote linked above made me conclude he is very likely a gay man trying to make himself straight. In short, it takes one to know one.
First, when I was in college and in comparable intimate situations with men, I felt the same way Douthat says he did with a willing and scantily clad woman: clueless, disgusted and bored. HOWEVER, I don’t think anyone in the history of the Earth has EVER been as turned on as I was the first time I was intimate with a woman at the age of 18 and you know what? My hormones told me EXACTLY what to do and I was WILDLY ENTHUSIASTIC about the whole endeavor.
So I am outing Ross Douthat. If he is NOT a gay man, and the very worst kind of closeted Congressman-Robert-Bauman-I-denounce-gays-to-prove-I’m-not-gay gay man, I will eat my hat. It is a chocolate hat, but very large, and therefore likely to upset my tummy, so this remains A REALLY SERIOUS VOW!
Coincidence: When I was a reporter for the Harford Democrat, I wrote the Election Night story when Roy Dyson defeated Bob Bauman after Bauman was caught soliciting sex from a teenage boy in downtown D.C. during the campaign. The next summer I was covering some Democratic crab feast that Gov. Harry Hughes attended in Havre de Grace, Maryland, and Bauman was there and flirted with me. Ick. He is about 5’2″ and has the most startling aqua-blue eyes.
Update: Michelle Malkin was really the first one out of the blocks when the New York Times announced that Douthat would replace Bill Kristol as its token conservative op-ed columnist. Michelle lists their criteria here. (Snort!) I have the utmost respect for her and pine for the day when she will accept my trackbacks.