We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Friday, January 8. 2016
More Young People Report Same-Sex Attractions
Behind a Shopping Center in New Jersey, Signs of a Mass Extinction
What Can the Rich Afford that Average Americans Can't? Consumption inequality is decreasing
Fannie Mae Rolls Out Easy Mortgage, Catering To High-Risk Immigrants
The Lawyer Who Became DuPont’s Worst Nightmare
Washington Post admits that, no: electric cars were NOT worth it.
Regdata, a new database of the regulatory state
I hate to break it to feminists, but ‘white male privilege’ is a myth
A website: The Life of Men
Chicago’s problem isn’t guns; it’s gangs.
2016 Obamacare Outlook
Hillary & Evita and their Respective Banana Republics
Hillary's Watergate Looms
13 Hours Honors the Sacrifice of the Men on the Ground in Benghazi
Deuce Four: B. General Erik Kurilla makes an Amazing Speech
Who Actually Represents American Muslims?
Austrian Police Also Covered Up Their Own Sex-Mob Attacks
As the Mideast Descends into Chaos, Israel Must Have Defensible Borders:
Tracked: Jan 10, 09:39
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
The gay rights activists have used the old hypnotist's trick - take something the subject is doing already, and give it new meaning.
In this case - long term surveys of normal development tell us that between 1/4 and 1/3 of teenagers experience strong "crushes" on admired role models of the same sex.
This is (or once was) considered a normal TRANSIENT phase of personality integration. Now the media echo chamber tells kids this is evidence of their deepest identity.
The Left really doesn't care how many lives it befouls and ruins in order to destroy the West.
I have questions about the methodology of the study. How did the shift go from "only" attracted to the opposite sex to "mostly" attracted? Was it a change in how the question was asked? Was there a change in the order or emphasis of questions? Was "mostly" defined differently?
Case in point - and I'm not younger - but I'd admit to only being attracted to women. However, as my wife loves to point out, I have my 'bromances' from time to time. I hate that term, she loves it because I hate it. There are men whose company I enjoy and prefer to spend time with. Am I attracted to them? Of course. Not sexually, but there's no question they are my "bros" as my boys call it.
It seems to me that (at least from a male perspective) this concept has become much more commonly accepted and the term "only" has shifted to "mostly" based on the idea that "Yeah, I'd only date/marry/hook up with girls, but Jake is my bro and sure I'm attracted to him."
I will hesitate to pass judgement on women, though. In my experience I've definitely seen more fluidity on preferences. It's not to say all women are likely to shift preferences, because there is no way my wife is changing (per her own statements, not my opinion). But I dated 3 women whose preferences 'shifted' back and forth over the years. To the point that one finally made the leap and plays for the other team full time now. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just what she either felt or decided (depending on how you think that goes).
I really don't think the homosexual community grows via recruitment or by using surveys. I do think they and their sympathizers use surveys to jam ideas down people's throats. I suppose it's better than using laws, but the reality is jamming the ideas down your throat is the precursor to jamming the law down your throat, because first you have to build the support.
Good points, Bulldog, but you seem to imply that the gay population is not affected by outside influences (you mentioned recruitment but I assume you were speaking more broadly). Correct me if I'm wrong.
Taking the 'gay population' to mean those who participate in gay sex and not necessarily interested in any emotional relationship (admittedly a rather expansive definition of the gay population), I disagree and think that outside influences can affect the gay population at least on the margins. I think it's generally accepted that the greatest "sex organ" is the brain. I also think there is a population of people who are only out for gratification (I think at certain times in our lives at some level, many males would fit that description). Some of them are very likely restrained by social taboos and if those taboos are weakened, they would not likely care where they get their gratification.
It could be argued that that is really an edge condition - something that could happen but isn't really likely to. I would argue that as strength of the social taboos decrease, the size of population of the margin would increase. That is certainly not to say that everybody is susceptible to 'switching sides', but I believe there is a 'social component' to the size of the 'gay population'. I also believe that is one reason for the prohibition of gay sex in the Bible - the size of the tribe was of utmost importance and gay sex certainly wouldn't help that.
No, I was referring to the hardcore population.
I recognize the 'edge' condition to which you refer, but that is really just marginalia, in my estimation.
Here's an example of why I consider it meaningless. My senior year of college, I had to produce a half hour long program. It could be about anything I wanted. My roommate and I, being good friends and in the same major, decided to do the opening scene of "Betrayal" by Harold Pinter.
It's a scene in which an opposite sex couple who had an affair meet for the first time in several years and begin dissecting their lives and what happened in their relationship.
We chose to play the roles - 2 men having the conversation. As it turned out, it was absolutely hilarious, and I have to admit as someone who had shared 3 very close years of living with a good friend the scene managed to address a few things in our own relationship, which made it even funnier.
To an outside observer, this may have 'crossed the line' (it was 1984) or been indicative of us promoting or condoning gay behavior. It was neither. It was just theater. I don't promote or condone homosexuality, I just don't happen to care one way or the other whether someone is homosexual, and sometimes a scene like that, so dramatic when played straight, is hilarious when played gay.
I wonder if our behavior caused someone 'on the edge' to go over? I doubt it, but I don't really care, either. I don't think it matters. Ultimately, if they were 'on the edge', their reasons for being there had little to do with a choice, and more to do with them suppressing other needs or desires which are (or were) intrinsically part of their character. Our scene may have finally been the final thing to convince them "I've got to find out if this is what I really want?"
I don't think there are many people out there who seek sexual gratification by any means possible. I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm just saying I think they are far fewer than the number of people who have a specific preference. Whether the catalyst which sends them over the edge is me doing my final project at school, or an article they read in a paper, or a survey run by a group - does it matter? Chances are the catalyst is going to kick in somewhere, sometime...and there's no telling what it's going to be.
Which is why I'm more concerned about the 'setting up' of attitudes for the passage of law, rather than the 'recruitment' or 'edge' issues.
Well, I wasn't suggesting that something innocuous as a play but rather a change in social norms (which some might argue can be initiated by things that seem innocuous). In the case of a 'hardcore population', I accept your point. For what it's worth, it doesn't matter to me if someone is gay either.
I don't think there can be a particular change in social norms which leads people to alter their preferences. I could be wrong, but I think most of this is genetic and there aren't really many people out there living on the fringe who are pushed into testing behaviors based on a catalyst.
That's why I questioned the methodology. I don't think there's been a change. I think what's changed is how the surveys are done.
I think that's the crux of the difference of our opinions. While I don't discount that some gays are 'born that way', without greater evidence, I'm not willing to say they all are. Besides the type of 'gay' person I described - one at least partially or occasionally driven by opportunity, I wonder if there isn't a political aspect to it for some. Of course, here I'm using a more expansive definition of 'gay' where someone who participates in gay sex is gay. I think that to be truly gay, the defining characteristic is the desire for romantic and emotional couplings. I'm willing to concede that which ever model we use, those are much more likely to be 'organic' or genetic, if you will.
Nope - there is no genetic cause. We mapped the human genome in the 90s, repeated attempts to find the "gay gene" failed. Studies of identical twins also prove the exact opposite of what the gay lobby claims.
To their credit, the genetics societies in North American have stood their ground and refused to give any credence to the "born that way" claim.
This makes discussion of "conversion" more problematic. We know that the incursion of radical feminism has led to quite a bit of "situational lesbianism". No reason why the current climate will not induce young men - most of whom no longer have strong father figures - don't experiment with homosexuality.
Because the homosexual lifestyle is so corrosive to intimacy and self-esteem, it is likely that these episodes will leave their scars, just as the prevalence of porn has coarsened an entire generation.
And even if these young people eventually make their way to heterosexuality -
(a) what will be left of intimacy and marriage?
(b) they are unlikely to voice objection to something they themselves did - kinda like boomers telling their kids not to do what they did.... thus cementing the changes of the sexual revolution, and the neo-pagan coarsening of human relationships that was its goal.
Unless there is a backlash and religious reawakening. We already see young people more opposed to abortion...
Link for Washington Post article on electric cars is broke...still love this site.
Most links in the rightosphere go here:http://www.redstate.com/2016/01/06/electric-cars/
WaPo original here:
I've apparently used up all my monthly view of WaPo content without a subscription...
The article at the end of the link was overly negative on Charles Lane saying he could have figured that he could have come to his conclusion earlier. Well... (from the "original" or referenced article):
In August 2010, I proposed this wager to a fellow journalist: President Obama’s declared goal was to get 1 million plug-in hybrid and all-electric cars on the road in the United States by 2015. I didn’t think that goal was reachable by 2018, even with the huge subsidies that Obama backed — but if I was wrong about that, I’d buy my colleague a new plug-in hybrid Chevy Volt.
I'd say he figured it at at least five and a half years ago. I think the "original" or referenced article is a good read also. I recommend it. To repeat Douglas2, here it is: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/government-has-spent-a-lot-on-electric-cars-but-was-it-worth-it/2016/01/06/359bd25c-b496-11e5-9388-466021d971de_story.html?postshare=3571452138357232&tid=ss_tw
IT is about "recruitment" ! Up until 25 years ago "doing sex with the same" was about a "challenge", a "dare" if you will. The titilation came from doing something "wrong". Then of course the gay community determined they were "victims" of DNA/genetics so all of our children must be re-trained. NOBODY has proven DNA. But history has proven it was the titilation of doing something "wrong" that was so attractive !
I believe the human eye sees "attractive things", a way with words, a swish of the tail, a big bust, a laugh. All of these elements can be "lovely", or "attractive" and stimulate a gut response of attraction. It has/can/will happen to anyone at sometime. That does not mean the entire world should be raised to bend over for someone of the same sex! Homosexuality destroys family. Now, that we no longer have a Christian religion, and shortly we will not have a Constitution or a Bill of Rights, homosexuality is just one more way to weaken the individual and community resistance to tyranny! Those were the elements that kept us free--without each of them we will loose. Eliminating male/female bonds of family is just one more weakening.
I think boys from puberty to 99 years old know if they are gay. And the boys to men who are not gay do not 'dabble' in gay sex. Many girls on the other hand find this to be no big deal and they may prefer heterosexual relationships but dabble in homosexual activity. It appears to me that the new freedom of sexual choice has indeed allowed girls/women to increase their experimentation and this may well be the reason for the statistical increased same sex attraction. I do not think that straight men have changed and decided to try gay sex and therefore that segment of the population did not contribute to the statistical increase in same sex attraction.
Facebook's double standards
On December 28, the ILC opened two inciting Facebook pages that mirrored each other in sentiment with just one difference between them. One page was against Palestinians, and the other page was against Israelis/Jews. The next day, the ILC started to simultaneously upload inciting posts, with the only difference between them being the target of the incitement.
Facebook closed the anti-Palestinian page, writing: “We reviewed the page you reported for containing credible threat of violence and found it violates our Community Standards.” The page inciting violence against Jews was not closed by Facebook, who stated that it was not in violation of their rules.
Same content. Two dramatically different results.
My Electric Earth Skimmer
Wonderful, Wonderful: My Solar panels power the car (or the Tesla superchargers which run on solar panels and are free for life of the car.) It is the safest car running, whisper quiet. NO pollution . Breath the air -- my car doesn't pollute what you breathe.
You're welcome! You must be aware that I and all other taxpayers paid for a substantial portion of your car AND your PV panels. Riddle me this: If your EV was so practical why do American taxpayers have to buy it for you? Or buy the solar panels for you?
But while your car while running doesn't pollute the environment building it did and far mor than building a Honda Accord would have. Those batteries alone used as much energy as a Honda Accord would have driving 100,000 miles. And your PV panels used more energy before they were delivered to you than they will ever produce in their lifetime. So in fact you are polluting more than a Accord ICE owner.
A little side story: China built the largest PV plant in the world a few years back and right beside it they built a coal fired electric power generation facility. Why? If PV were soooooo effective why wouldn't they have set up a large PV system to power the factory. The answer is it doesn't make sense. PV is a fad not a solution. I wish it weren't true. I wish PV was as good as the pundits claim it is but it's not. And until they have some kind of breakthrough it won't be practical. But in the meantime the taxpayer will continue to subsidize it to make it appear practical.
Enjoy our car.
Hillary's Watergate Looms ... top-secret satellite maps of North Korea appeared unauthorized on the Clinton's personal email server.
The right wing echochamber and the game of telephone. Following the provided link:
The compromised information did not include maps or images, but rather information that could have been derived only from spy satellite intelligence.
The information was not marked classified, but apparently referred to by someone else who included Clinton in an email chain. Nor is it clear that the summary contained information not otherwise available from public sources.
Zach! Zach! Zach! You are making a fool of yourself and exposing your bias and agenda. It is obvious that Hillary sent and received classified top secret data on her private server. She did it surreptitiously with intent to cover it up because she knew it was a crime. This isn't the result of some right wing cabal. This is what she really did and she did it thousands of times. This is serious, I'm talking consecutive 10 years sentences in federal prison for each act. The Clinton's have avoided jail in the past with their shuck n jive and the MSM working hard to cover it all up but this time it won't work. In fact the only thing that can save Hillary is a presidential pardon which is quite possible but Obama never really liked her so I'm just not sure. I think the crazy commie bitch is going to jail. Well deserved and long overdue but better late than never. All your rationalization, diversion and cover up isn't going to stop it. There are only two people on earth that can save her now and they are Loretta Lynch and Obama. And if Lynch does it I will bet it brings her down as well.
I predict when the charges are made public that suddenly Hillary will develop a life threatening disease requiring immediate long term care which will also make her mentally incapable of contributing to her own defense and she will play that card to avoid prosecution. Coincidently it will be her reason/excuse for ending her run for president thus gaining her immediate sympathy and public forgiveness.