Apr
17

In Every Sty, At Least One Pig Will Eat The Baloney




Posted at 15:02 by Tintin
gay_patriot_blatt_watermelon
ABOVE: Dan Blatt and his partner

I’ve been sashaying around the right-wing Internutz looking for one of its loonier denizens to get all riled up about how the Negro-in-Chief had the gall to force hospitals to let dykes and fags visit their so-called families. I mean certainly there would be someone out there who couldn’t resist saying, à la John Cornyn, that the order meant that people could have box turtles visit them on their deathbeds and make critical choices for them about their end-of-life care.

But I wasn’t coming up with much. Even at Ace O’Play-Doh and Bacon’s place, one of his substitute blogging minions had to admit that he was “glad” that the President was ending a “bad thing.” I was about to abandon the whole enterprise, head home and curl up with a nice tumbler of 60-year-old MacCutcheon whisky when, lo and behold, B. Daniel Blatt, The World’s Dumbest Homosexual™ (aka The Only Gay Man in Los Angeles Who Hasn’t Had Sex Since He Blew His Best Friend In the Basement In Sixth Grade™ aka The Gay Neville Chamberlain™) brings it home with a post in which he laments Obama’s order as a violation of the right of private hospitals to make their own policies (and, apparently, take gobs of federal funding at the same time.)

First, I believe any individual should be able to designate people who can visit him when he’s been hospitalized. I also believe private hospitals should be free to set their own policies. And I question whether the president has the authority to do so. And if he does, wonder what kind of precedent would this set. [Does anyone proofread Dan's shit? - Ed.] Will a future president impose other such mandates on hospitals?

Like, you know, forcing them to treat gay people or requiring their care-givers to wash their hands before treating patients. I mean, next thing you know, the nanny state will be telling hospitals that they can’t permit surgeons to operate while drunk, thereby destroying the very basis of our free market economy and leading to the end of the United States as we know it.

Permit me to stop joking around for a moment and to say something directly for a change. Dan Blatt is a loathsome piece of shit who will sell out other gay people in order to curry the favor of straight Republicans who pat him on the head every now but then call him a cock-sucking heels-in-the-air fudge-packed girlie-boy behind his back (even though only the girlie-boy part is actually true). Dan says all this stuff because the probability that any gay man would ever give enough of a shit about Dan to visit him in a hospital, much less to have a relationship with him, is remote — as remote as the possibility that Dan will ever have sex with anyone other than a blind leper in a darkened truck stop in rural Alabama, and even then the leper will have to down a fifth of Jack Daniel’s before he can bring himself to do it. Fuck you, Dan, you wretched, illiterate prick.

There. I said it. I feel better. We now return to our originally scheduled snark.

117 Comments »

  1. St. Trotsky, Pope-in-Avignon said,

    April 17, 2010 at 15:06

    Where’s his other hand?

  2. Tyrone Shoelaces said,

    April 17, 2010 at 15:06

    Good morning!
    Good morning everybody!

  3. Major Kong said,

    April 17, 2010 at 15:09

    Where’s his other hand?

    Those aren’t pillows!!!!

  4. g said,

    April 17, 2010 at 15:31

    I also believe private hospitals should be free to set their own policies. And I question whether the president has the authority to do so. And if he does, wonder what kind of precedent would this set.

    Might as well rail about HIPAA while he’s at it.

  5. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    April 17, 2010 at 15:32

    60-year-old MacCutcheon whisky

    Veiled hot Scottish sailor reference.

    Y’know, I can’t hate on this guy. I really can’t. The amount of self-loathing it must take to pen this shit is practically infinite. I could probably sum up quite a bit of disgust if he actually had any influence, but he doesn’t, so it’s just saaaaaaaaaaad.

  6. Boney Baloney said,

    April 17, 2010 at 15:37

    If I go into detail about the protocol hospitals require of nurses entering the room of an AIDS patient, will my dick drop off? Maybe I can pretend about the gown-and-gloves and the face shields, that they don’t exist, that’ll save somebody’s tender feelings. Or the insane evolution of bodily-fluid extraction and examination that follows any sterile breach, never mind an actual needle stick. If you’re pathologically terrified of AIDS, my advice is to fuck a nurse. They get tested like German beer, only more so.

    First they blew smoke up my ass about marijuana turning people into Negroes, and I shined it on. Then they confused “crack babies” with fetal alcohol syndrome, and I slept through it. Then they pretended HTLV-3 was some kind of Semmelweis germ-theory disease only more so, and I said “Fuck you, I’m keeping my dick in my pants on general principles anyway,” and then they said it was everyone’s problem, and I said “Fuck you” again and meant it. This is somebody’s problem, probably a health-care professional’s, or a junkie’s, or a stranger-fucker’s, but it isn’t mine.

    Crack babies, bitches. Suck it.

  7. Snorghagen said,

    April 17, 2010 at 15:37

    Dan has the right to find comfort and happiness wherever he can, but I do hope that after he has his way with that watermelon he doesn’t plug up the hole and put it back in the produce section.

  8. jon said,

    April 17, 2010 at 15:37

    Fisting a watermelon? Is this some sort of crux of anti-liberalism? A gay conservative fisting a red-on-the-inside/green-on-the-outside fruit? Does this cause Al Gore to flinch?

    As to his larger point, I’ll put a rebuttal in words he understands: if the government sucks your dick, you best have other options before complaining about technique.

  9. D Johnston said,

    April 17, 2010 at 15:53

    Was Blatt the one who whined that he can’t get a date because of his opinions? If I’m thinking about the right guy, then you’re not far off with the watermelon cracks (double entendre).

  10. Chris said,

    April 17, 2010 at 16:06

    Dan Blatt is a loathsome piece of shit who will sell out other gay people in order to curry the favor of straight Republicans who pat him on the head every now but then call him a cock-sucking heels-in-the-air fudge-packed girlie-boy behind his back (even though only the girlie-boy part is actually true).

    Yeah, there is something ludicrous about it anytime a gay man (or woman) hopes onto the conservative bandwagon and starts bleating about the evil liberals. But he’s not the first to have done so.

  11. El Cid said,

    April 17, 2010 at 16:11

    How is it that hospitals are MANDATED to let them blackies in to visit their relatives? In fact, why do hospitals HAVE to treat the gays and the darkies anyway?

  12. Looch said,

    April 17, 2010 at 16:18

    Will a future president impose other such mandates on hospitals?

    Dan is very lonely. He really longs for a personal mandate.

    Magic 8-ball says: “The answer is NO. When the answer is not NO it will be NEVER.”

  13. tigris said,

    April 17, 2010 at 16:21

    And I question whether the president has the authority to do so.

    They are of course free to discriminate and no longer receive federal money; it’s what Libertarian Jesus would want.

    Actually, “In accordance with the order, hospitals will no longer be able to deny advanced directives and other legal documents, such as powers of attorney to allow people outside of immediate family visitation privileges, based on factors such as sexual orientation.” These hospitals were refusing to recognize 100% legal documents clearly showing the actual will of the patient, I don’t see how anyone could support that.

  14. Michael G. said,

    April 17, 2010 at 16:24

    Yeah, Dan. So you have an accident and the ambulance delivers your unconscious self to the nearest hospital. But then, your significant other can’t visit you or sign off on medical procedures because of hospital policy against the ghey. So now what? It’s not like you made a choice to go there.

  15. Butch Pansy said,

    April 17, 2010 at 16:40

    Here’s a current horror story from a county with a large gay population just a few miles North of San Francisco. The case is heart-braking in its perversion of all human decency. I am stunned.

    http://www.nclrights.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issue_caseDocket_Greene_v_County_of_Sonoma_et_al

  16. Butch Pansy said,

    April 17, 2010 at 16:40

    braking=breaking.

  17. Mr. Wonderful said,

    April 17, 2010 at 16:51

    Your wish is my request, Tintin. Go to Balloon Juice and scroll
    down to (the admittedly all-purpose headline) “Just Lying About Everything.” I’d summarize it here, but why spoil the fun?

  18. El Cid said,

    April 17, 2010 at 16:51

    Hospitals are not in the Constitution, so any law related to them is UNCONSTUSHULL.

  19. tigris said,

    April 17, 2010 at 16:53

    Damn, BP, that is disgusting. It also puts the lie to people who say legally recognized gay marriage isn’t needed. The legal documents that attempt to piece together rights a spouse has as a matter of course are worthless if one’s only recourse when they are violated is to sue, after it’s too late.

  20. TruculentandUnreliable said,

    April 17, 2010 at 16:53

    Here’s a current horror story from a county with a large gay population just a few miles North of San Francisco.

    Oh my God, that is just inhuman. I can hardly think of anything more terrible to go through in your old age.

  21. St. Trotsky, Pope-in-Avignon said,

    April 17, 2010 at 16:54

    Similarly, cars are not in the Constitution, so requiring us to wear seatbelts, have insurance, and drive on only one side of the road is unconstitutional and anti-freedom.

    Click it or ticket is an oppressive tool of the police-state and must be fought at all costs!

  22. Ezzthetic said,

    April 17, 2010 at 16:54

    the nanny state will be telling hospitals that they can’t permit surgeons to operate while drunk

    Well, I’ve never seen the attraction of the nanny state.

    Mind you , there was a time when I used to be quite keen on the strict governess state.

    But lately, I’ve gone more for the kooky librarian state.

  23. St. Trotsky, Pope-in-Avignon said,

    April 17, 2010 at 16:58

    Also, the FAA is unconstitutional. As is the FCC. And the FBI, CIA, NSA, DEA, ATF, and so forth. And the Department of Energy. And Transportation. And NASA. And certainly the Department of Education. And I’m pretty sure the Electoral College. And the ESRB.

    And Aretha Franklin’s RESPECT.

    All unconstitutional.

  24. St. Trotsky, Pope-in-Avignon said,

    April 17, 2010 at 16:59

    Well, I’ve never seen the attraction of the nanny state.

    Clearly the problem is we’re insufficiently French. If we had an au pair state, the Republicans would be all over it.

  25. Chris said,

    April 17, 2010 at 17:02

    That is truly sickening, BP.

    It also puts the lie to the right’s claim to fear “big government,” by the way. Sure, they’ll freak the fuck out at the prospect of taxes going up and health care being given to the “undeserving” – but when a government assumes complete control of a person’s life in blatant violation of the law and every decision that person had made for himself, suddenly they’re nowhere to be heard from.

    What a fucking crock of an ideology.

  26. Pere Ubu said,

    April 17, 2010 at 17:11

    Will a future president impose other such mandates on hospitals?

    HIPAA is theft.

    (and it goddamn well IS, if it keeps me from leaning over the pharmacy counter and yelling in a loud voice carrying to all parts of the store “MR. BLARTT YOUR CIALIS PRESCRIPTION IS READY AND ALSO THAT VALTREX FOR YOUR LITTLE PROBLEM”)

  27. Pere Ubu said,

    April 17, 2010 at 17:12

    Will a future president impose other such mandates on hospitals?

    HIPAA is theft.

  28. Pere Ubu said,

    April 17, 2010 at 17:19

    BTW, FYWP for eating my previous version of the above in which I objected to HIPAA on the grounds that I should be damn well allowed to announce over the P.A. “MR. BLARTT YOUR CIALIS IS READY THE THE PHARMACY”.

    The hell if they’re embarrassed. I ain’t the one spending $20 a pill.

  29. Pere Ubu said,

    April 17, 2010 at 17:20

    THE THE = AT THE

    it’s going to be one of those days…

  30. El Cid said,

    April 17, 2010 at 17:30

    The Constitution is theft.

  31. tigris said,

    April 17, 2010 at 17:48

    Eating: not mentioned, therefore unconstitutional! And don’t even start me on PENIS and POOP!

  32. Evan Hurst said,

    April 17, 2010 at 17:48

    Bravo, Tintin.

    Somebody needed to say it.

    Now do the other ones, the “Colorado Patriot” one and the “Bruce” one, and we’ll be done with that site forever.

  33. jim said,

    April 17, 2010 at 17:53

    Blatt truly is living onomatopoeia – the human embodiment of the Sad Trombone … & yes, every bit as worthy of one’s sincere loathing as a Yiddish neonazi.

    Sure, they’ll freak the fuck out at the prospect of taxes going up and health care being given to the “undeserving” – but when a government assumes complete control of a person’s life in blatant violation of the law and every decision that person had made for himself, suddenly they’re nowhere to be heard from.

    Yeah, it’s been about a year now, & I just keep looking & looking for all the Teabagger protest signs screaming “REPEAL THE PATRIOT ACT – TYRANNY SUX!” or “BLACKWATER IS AMERICA’S NEW PRETOREAN GAURD – & WE’RE PAYING THEIR BILLS!” or maybe “THE MILITERY COMISSION ACT = THE 4TH RIECH!” … or even “WHO WOULD JESUS WIERTAP?!?”

    Not one fucking peep from these baaaaaaawaholic drama-llama dipshits – for eight long ugly years on end.

    Their latent-fascism radar is the absolute shits, if you ask me.

  34. tsam said,

    April 17, 2010 at 18:02

    Y’know, I can’t hate on this guy. I really can’t. The amount of self-loathing it must take to pen this shit is practically infinite. I could probably sum up quite a bit of disgust if he actually had any influence, but he doesn’t, so it’s just saaaaaaaaaaad.

    Sad, yes. But if he chooses to drag other GLBT people down into the gutter with him, thus becoming a spoke in the wheel of oppression, then he deserves all the same hate that Fred Phelps deserves. A straight man is no man unless he is principled enough to defend the rights of all. A gay man who would aid and abet his own oppressors is an empty, soulless shell of a person. Self loathing aside, to actually dislike the idea that a person has the right to choose with whom he/she spends his final hours in this world is just a shit of a person.

  35. tsam said,

    April 17, 2010 at 18:04

    Hospitals are not in the Constitution, so any law related to them is UNCONSTUSHULL.

    Neither is the interwebz. Thier4 the gaypatroit is unconstitushull!

  36. tsam said,

    April 17, 2010 at 18:05

    Yeah, it’s been about a year now, & I just keep looking & looking for all the Teabagger protest signs screaming “REPEAL THE PATRIOT ACT – TYRANNY SUX!” or “BLACKWATER IS AMERICA’S NEW PRETOREAN GAURD – & WE’RE PAYING THEIR BILLS!” or maybe “THE MILITERY COMISSION ACT = THE 4TH RIECH!” … or even “WHO WOULD JESUS WIERTAP?!?”

    Aaaaannnyyyy day now.

  37. tsam said,

    April 17, 2010 at 18:07

    BTW, FYWP for eating my previous version of the above in which I objected to HIPAA on the grounds that I should be damn well allowed to announce over the P.A. “MR. BLARTT YOUR CIALIS IS READY THE THE PHARMACY”.

    Bonerpills are theft. I can’t be having impotent old codgers cock blocking and muscling in on my action. It’s hard out here for a pimp.

  38. Chris said,

    April 17, 2010 at 18:12

    Couple of today’s news stories merit attention;

    http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/93586/?fp=1

    Apparently, Sarah Palin’s contract involved first-class airfare and high-end hotel reservations, which is just what any unelitist Alaskan soccer mommy concerned about people spending too much would do doncha know. It also involves pre-screened questions, which is just what you’d expect from an intelligent self-made person who can totally hold her own in the political arena, doncha know!!!

    Also this from Belgium;

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100416/ap_on_re_eu/eu_europe_burqa_ban

    Threats against cartoonists and artists over depictions of the prophet Muhammad have also raised fears that Islam is not compatible with Western values of freedom of speech.

    Right. I remember when the Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (they called themselves Christians, so they must have been and furthermore they must be representative of every Christian on Earth) were burning crosses in everyone’s backyard and people were like “Right on! We should totally abolish public demonstrations of Christianity, or at least conservative public demonstrations of Christianity!”

    French President Nicolas Sarkozy favors a burqa ban, saying the veils compromise women’s dignity.

    Right. Because telling a woman what she can and can’t wear doesn’t compromise a woman’s dignity AT ALL.

    Unlike the Belgians or the Dutch — who see a clear and straightforward public security issue — the French are struggling with the constitutionality of outlawing a religious dress code.

    Vive la France!

    They say that liberal Europe can no longer afford to tolerate the illiberalism of newcomers.

    One of the things I do like about the United States and do not want to see changed is that freedom of speech is pretty much absolute, or as close to it as practically possible – no matter how heinous a person’s message is, he can still express it in public – which isn’t true everywhere in Europe. Banning Nazism, Holocaust denial and anti-semitism as some countries have done is the main example – I understand why they do it, but I still don’t agree with it, and I think it sets precedents for moments like this, when free exercise of speech/religion/whatever can be banned simply because it’s unpopular.

    Numbers put growing fears of Europe becoming “Eurabia” into perspective.

    It goes on to mention that Muslim populations in Europe are still quite small and, therefore, yes, the “Eurabia” red herring really is a red herring primarily perpetrated by neo-fascist psychos. Here’s another number that puts it in perspective, though; in France, mosque attendance within the Muslim community is listed at 10%, same as church attendance within the overall population. Apparently, French Muslims are no more devout than their Christian counterparts.

    But damn it, they’re brown. And that’s just downright uncool.

  39. tsam said,

    April 17, 2010 at 18:26

    French President Nicolas Sarkozy favors a burqa ban, saying the veils compromise women’s dignity.

    This addresses the much larger social problem, that being the appearance of muslim women in pure French society. If we exterminate hide all the muslims, we won’t have terror attacks. We all know that burkas are directly responsible for terrorism.

  40. Chris said,

    April 17, 2010 at 18:39

    This addresses the much larger social problem, that being the appearance of muslim women in pure French society. If we exterminate hide all the muslims, we won’t have terror attacks. We all know that burkas are directly responsible for terrorism.

    Central to their point, if you will.

    And if I may add to my above pontifications, it’s yet another case of Islamophobia targeting the same people who are most likely to be the victims of Islamic theocracy. As if a woman who’s been made to wear the veil doesn’t already have enough problems to deal with.

    To date, French satirist Plantu is the one who’s made the best commentary; it was a cartoon (sorry, I couldn’t find a link) of a young woman getting dressed in the morning when her father walks in with three people and says “Sweetie, it’s the principal, the mayor and the ayatollah who all want to know what you’re wearing today.”

  41. Prospero said,

    April 17, 2010 at 19:19

    Yeah, those women just love wearing a rag on their faces. They totally don’t do it cause their family and people who immediately surround them are insane misogynistic pricks.

  42. bay of arizona said,

    April 17, 2010 at 20:00

    But lately, I’ve gone more for the kooky librarian state.

    So, are you declaring your love for a sadlynaut?

    France is known to be very secular, so its not like they are being entirely hypocritical when they bash Islam, unlike American conservatives. And unless people are confusing the burka with the hijab – the burka is a veil, the hijab is like a scarf on your head – just look at the countries that don’t require women to wear them, like in India – they don’t wear it, especially young women.

    They have an excuse now – blame the state for not following a tradition that they do not want to follow. Just because there are people who are racist towards their culture does not give them license to subjugate people’s rights.

  43. Snorghagen said,

    April 17, 2010 at 20:10

    Eating: not mentioned, therefore unconstitutional! And don’t even start me on PENIS and POOP!

    POOP is mentioned in the Constitution.

    Article 1, Section 9 includes this statement:
    The Congress shall enact no law limiting or hindering the passage of POOP.

    And Article 1, Section 10, Clause 4 states:
    No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, impede any sphincter from producing POOP, in whatever form is deemed gastrointestinally necessary.

    These provisions were included at the insistence of the Freesoil Party.

  44. Chris said,

    April 17, 2010 at 20:17

    France is known to be very secular, so its not like they are being entirely hypocritical when they bash Islam, unlike American conservatives.

    Very true – secularism is a strong tradition in France (after having long been considered “the elder child of the Church”). It’s been observed that the people leading the backlash against Islamic culture in France are an unlikely coalition of strong secularists on the left, and good old racists on the right; politics always makes strange bedfellows.

    And unless people are confusing the burka with the hijab – the burka is a veil, the hijab is like a scarf on your head – just look at the countries that don’t require women to wear them, like in India – they don’t wear it, especially young women.

    Except for those that do.

    Egypt is one of those countries that don’t require women to wear the burka (hell most Muslim-majority countries are) – when I lived there, I noticed that the vast majority of women wore the hijab, but there were minorities of women who either dressed completely Western, or went completely conservative (burka).

    And often, it is by choice. There are conservative Christian women right here in America who knowingly, willingly and often enthusiastically enter into marriages that proclaim them to be inferior right from the beginning. I think that’s wrong too, but as with wearing the burka, it’s their choice and I don’t see what business the state has to tell them not to do it.

  45. bay of arizona said,

    April 17, 2010 at 20:34


    I think that’s wrong too, but as with wearing the burka, it’s their choice and I don’t see what business the state has to tell them not to do it.

    You are again arguing it is their choice. I haven’t noticed misogynists who use religion as a weapon to be all that respectful of women’s choices, especially their women. That is the point, most women don’t, and a large portion of those that do wear the burka or niqab do so out of fear- its a form of abuse, which makes it the state’s business.

    Just so we don’t get too off track: POOP!

  46. Chris said,

    April 17, 2010 at 20:52

    You are again arguing it is their choice. I haven’t noticed misogynists who use religion as a weapon to be all that respectful of women’s choices, especially their women.

    Hence the living in a country where these women can choose to leave that kind of community behind them at any time. And a lot of them do. The problem with your argument is making the assumption that wearing a burka (or entering into a marriage that values you less than the man) is by definition something people only do out of fear or coercion. Which a lot of the time, simply isn’t true.

  47. Judas Peckerwood said,

    April 17, 2010 at 21:50

    That photo is racist.

  48. Big Bad Bald Bastard said,

    April 17, 2010 at 22:01

    It’s as if Mr Ed wrote a column for a glue manufacturer’s trade journal…

  49. smut clyde said,

    April 17, 2010 at 22:39

    In Every Sty, At Least One Pig Will Eat The Baloney

    I find myself singing this to the tune of “In Every Dream Home a Heartache”.

  50. Green Eagle said,

    April 18, 2010 at 0:21

    Hey, don’t you get free enterprise, you commie? That person in the hospital is perfectly free to get out of his bed right after his operation and go patronize a gay hospital, if that’s what he wants. Competition, that’s what made our country great- competition in how badly we can treat minorities.

    Yay, Sarah Palin! If only she were in charge! Then nobody would have to worry about a gay person coming to visit the patient in the next room.

  51. Jack Elam said,

    April 18, 2010 at 0:33

    The Gay Neville Chamberlain

    This is terribly unfair. Mr. Chamberlain was hopelessly naive, but at least had good intentions, ie to stop horror. Blatt’s just a cunt.

  52. Sheesh said,

    April 18, 2010 at 0:50

    Hey Chris,

    Hence the living in a country where these women can choose to leave that kind of community behind them at any time. And a lot of them do. The problem with your argument is making the assumption that wearing a burka (or entering into a marriage that values you less than the man) is by definition something people only do out of fear or coercion. Which a lot of the time, simply isn’t true.

    I guess the argument you’re making here is the same reason that children are born and grow up miraculously as Christians. Right? That their ‘choice’ at birth to be a Christian is divine, and their ‘choice’ to remain a Christian as children is either inspired or rational (i.e., evidence-based)?

    Brainwashing is coercion. This is why ‘French secularists’ and humanists in general call your argument so much bullshit. Religious indoctrination is a form of abuse that we’ve all decided is off-limits; we’ve decided culturally, here in the U.S. at least, that we don’t really want to be free, and that some coercive regimes are OK and should continue in perpetuity (even after we’re dead!). After all, it’s good and proper and right that I can lie to my kids for 18 years and ensconce them in that lie so that they’ll do the same when it’s their own turn. (Just like hiding child rape for years is good and proper and right should it protect the institution of the Church.)

    This standard is that tradition is more important than actual people, real women, men and children. I reject this standard.

  53. Larkspur said,

    April 18, 2010 at 1:05

    Child rape=burqa wearin’? Oh, please.

    I think Mormon Magic Underwear, or mandatory yarmulke wearin’ is weird, too. And yet the republic still stands.

    And for women or girls who decide to opt out of the burqa tradition, don’t you think it would be easier to do it in a country that neither makes you wear it, nor forbids you from wearing it?

    Why do I bother. I should fix me a drink instead.

  54. wiley said,

    April 18, 2010 at 2:09

    Hospitals used to forbid children from visiting patients in the hospital. It’s harsh when mommy is in the hospital and you can’t see her for weeks because the hospital has a rule about children. There is no reason to forbid a person’s life partner from visiting them in the hospital. If it takes the president sticking his foot up the collective ass of hospitals for them to stop being dicks, then so be it.

  55. Chris said,

    April 18, 2010 at 2:31

    I guess the argument you’re making here is the same reason that children are born and grow up miraculously as Christians. Right? That their ‘choice’ at birth to be a Christian is divine, and their ‘choice’ to remain a Christian as children is either inspired or rational (i.e., evidence-based)?

    Brainwashing is coercion.

    I guess I was brainwashed, cause my goddamn liberal parents raised a goddamn liberal kid.

    It’s not religious indoctrination that’s been declared off-limits, it’s parental indoctrination – i.e. the notion that children under a certain age are not capable of making their own decisions, and that their parents are generally the best situated to do it for them. Once they reach adulthood, they can stick with it or not stick with it, and indeed, a lot of them do stick with it (good or bad, sometimes after a lot of though and sometimes without any at all). So, what’s your alternative? That if kids are raised to believe in religion, it’s the state’s job to step in and stop it? Should the state also prevent kids from being raised Republican? After all, that’s even more strongly correlated to harming society than anything religious.

    By the way, what happens to converts? Adults who convert to conservative Islam or Christianity (oh yes, they exist, including people who were previously very liberal) and then decide they want to wear a burqa, or a “Wives, submit to your husbands” wedding? Or should religious institutions be shut down altogether so they’re not allowed to preach?

  56. Sheesh said,

    April 18, 2010 at 2:43

    Hey, ‘child rape = burqa wearin’ is obviously not the argument I’m making. Good straw man though! I’d beat it! I made my argument in a super stark 5th grade sentences so everyone could read for comprehension: “Brainwashing is coercion.” Religious indoctrination is culturally accepted brainwashing. Burqa wearers are thus not wearing them free from coercion in most cases as stated unless children are born Muslim, Christian, Jewish, etc.

    Now, I’ll grant that in swell secular societies that some women who were born atheist and aunicornist, etc. will sometimes grow up and decide that Muhammad, peace be upon him, was in fact the greatest prophet of the One True God, Allah. And that his Law, the revealed Quran does in fact require said women to wear burqas, and they may indeed choose to, and even demand the right to wear these burqas to protect their born-athiest-now-Muslim men from the temptation of their hot, hot female bodies.

    So, in agreement with my above exception, is that your argument, Larkspur? Are children born Christian? Brainwashing not coercion? Is the burqa worn today in France an expression of free thought and free will?

  57. Sheesh said,

    April 18, 2010 at 2:48

    Hey Chris,

    Since you’re back. Is religious indoctrination brainwashing? Is brainwashing coercion?

    You make a rebuttal that doesn’t address my argument, but I’m not sure I’ll grant you that “[you were] brainwashed, cause [your] goddamn liberal parents raised a goddamn liberal kid.”

    The difference here I guess is the coercion involved, the social momentum and/or pain of abandoning that indoctrination, and even the qualities of the indoctrinated ideology.

    Let’s face it, some ideologies are better than others, as you outright state.

  58. St. Trotsky, Pope-in-Avignon said,

    April 18, 2010 at 2:55

    Nuance is theft.

  59. Sheesh said,

    April 18, 2010 at 3:02

    I hear that, I can see that I sound kinda trolly here. But as a sort of ‘first amendment fundamentalist’ I see free thought as a requisite to free speech, free association, freedom of and from religion, etc.

  60. Arky said,

    April 18, 2010 at 3:09

    But I wasn’t coming up with much.

    Apparently you did not visit Red State.

    Not that I blame you.

    Dan Blatt is a loathsome piece of shit who will sell out other gay people in order to curry the favor of straight Republicans who pat him on the head every now but then call him a cock-sucking heels-in-the-air fudge-packed girlie-boy behind his back (even though only the girlie-boy part is actually true). to his face and then say “Haw! Haw! I’m only joking, thank God you’re not one of those P.C. liberal f^ggots!” and they slap him on the back, loudly announce they’re going to the toilet and give him a big old wink.

    Fxd.

  61. wiley said,

    April 18, 2010 at 3:12

    Are they trying to make it illegal to wear yarmulkes in France?

  62. Butch Pansy said,

    April 18, 2010 at 3:12

    I like Gramsci”s definition of hegemony: cultural force plus consent.

    Sometimes that cultural force comes complete with a bag of stones to throw at the blasphemous, and sometimes it’s just a matter of the “right” people saying that certain things “just aren’t done.” Either way, there is an element of choice in whether or not to but the matched set of baggage one’s culture is selling. Sometimes that choice is one of life or death; sometimes the choice is acceptance or shunning.

    I’m one of the cool kids, with my piercings and tattoos, exclusive label denims and leather goods, but I’m well aware that I’ve let my culture (gay, leftist, atheist, in recovery from addiction…yeah, a select group) determine quite a few of my choices. I like to be in with the in crowd while pretending to be an iconoclast. Self-aware much? Yeah; not self-loathing, however.

  63. Butch Pansy said,

    April 18, 2010 at 3:14

    But, buy: what’s the dif?

  64. Sheesh said,

    April 18, 2010 at 3:18

    Is the yarmulke an expression of male supremacy the French find antithetical to the equality their republic was founded on?

    See that’s the thing, the French aren’t really into free expression like us, huh? They outlaw shit they don’t think is becoming of French people, like Nazi memorabilia.

  65. Sheesh said,

    April 18, 2010 at 3:25

    And Butch,

    Sometimes that cultural force comes complete with a bag of stones to throw at the blasphemous, and sometimes it’s just a matter of the “right” people saying that certain things “just aren’t done.” Either way, there is an element of choice in whether or not to but the matched set of baggage one’s culture is selling. Sometimes that choice is one of life or death; sometimes the choice is acceptance or shunning.

    You’re absolutely right. The French here are trying to do some social engineering. They have ministers there that worry about the Frenchness of their language; they engineer all sorts of cultural stuff like that. They are very committed to being French. In fact, they may be more committed to tradition than actual people. If they are, as I’ve already stated, it is not acceptable.

  66. Chris said,

    April 18, 2010 at 3:29

    Obviously some ideologies are better than others. The point is that the government’s never stopped people from following these ideologies. To take the most extreme and obvious example, we allow Nazism. We don’t prevent the white hate crowd from speaking its mind, we don’t prevent them from passing on their hate to their kids, and we don’t prevent them from, say, tattooing swastikas on their arms. These are all people who’ve been “brainwashed,” at least according to your definition; we allow it, because we estimate it’s the parents’ place to make their decisions for them.

    Is religious indoctrination brainwashing? To the extent that people passing on their beliefs to their kids is brainwashing, then yes, I suppose.

    I wasn’t brainwashed? Well, what do you call brainwashing? I actually leaned conservative for a while when exploring politics early on, and after looking long enough decided that liberalism was by far the more moral of the two options. But then, to a very great extent, my morality was determined, or at least influenced, by my parents, so did they at the very least stack the deck in their favor?

    As far as “the level of coercion involved,” the worst they can legally do is ostracize the person, which sucks but frankly, isn’t really the state’s business. If they go beyond that into honor killing territory, then it becomes like any other crime and is prosecuted as such.

  67. wiley said,

    April 18, 2010 at 3:29

    For many Muslim women, whatever head dress they wear is a religious symbol for them. That it varies for sex, does not mean that it is always repressive or oppressive. Female Jews don’t wear yarmulkes, right?

  68. Hysterical Woman said,

    April 18, 2010 at 3:29

    How does religious indoctrination differ from simply raising a kid in a religion? Is there even a difference? Cause if there isn’t I’m not sure how the government can protect children from that without taking them from every religious household.

  69. Sheesh said,

    April 18, 2010 at 3:36

    Female Jews don’t wear yarmulkes, right?

    Some of the orthodox or similarly kooky ones do.

  70. Sheesh said,

    April 18, 2010 at 3:40

    Does “raising a kid in a religion” mean that when they say “mommy, why isn’t there a God” that you tell them their wrong; when they say, “mommy, Mr. Sheesh said at school the Earth isn’t 6,000 years old. Is Mr. Sundayshool wrong?” do you insist reality is the lie and ferry them off to religious schools or wall them in to home school?

    That’s my concern. That’s my understanding of brainwashing — the lying, the coercion.

  71. Sheesh said,

    April 18, 2010 at 3:43

    To lighten the mood, Patrick Stewart! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_eSwq1ewsU

  72. Sheesh said,

    April 18, 2010 at 3:44

    Oh shit, I see I made a “they’re” typo. :-\ Typos are theft.

  73. Chris said,

    April 18, 2010 at 3:57

    That’s my concern. That’s my understanding of brainwashing — the lying, the coercion.

    Fair enough, but I’m still not sure exactly what you’re advocating. If hypothetical mother # 1 does wall him in in home school, is it then the government’s role to take the kid away from his parents? That’s a hell of a step to take.

    For many Muslim women, whatever head dress they wear is a religious symbol for them.

    Sometimes not even a religious one – I had at least one friend in college who wore a hijab even though she wasn’t particularly religious, simply for cultural reasons, same as these guys who wear rosaries as necklaces even though they’re not especially Catholic – and her sisters didn’t wear the scarf, so it definitely wasn’t peer pressure in her case.

    The point is, people dress, worship and follow all kinds of rules for all kinds of reasons. We don’t ask that they make sense, we simply provide an environment where if they want to live a certain way, they can do it. I don’t see how actively banning the forms of clothing you disagree with is supposed to do that.

  74. Sheesh said,

    April 18, 2010 at 4:17

    I’m not strongly advocating anything, per se. I was commenting on your refutation of Bay of Arizona, “You are again arguing it is their choice. I haven’t noticed misogynists who use religion as a weapon to be all that respectful of women’s choices, especially their women. That is the point, most women don’t, and a large portion of those that do wear the burka or niqab do so out of fear- its a form of abuse, which makes it the state’s business.”

    I’m trying to defend that position, that the State can be involved in cases of coercion. The slippery-slope, the gray area we’re talking about here in France’s case is, is the BURQA an meaningful expression of the woman’s free will (other forms of religious dress are not at issue), or is it an expression (or symptom) of male supremacy, misogyny, domination (i.e., abuse) on the part of conservative French muslim men?

    This is related tangentially to my belief that lying to your kids for 18 years and sending them to religious schools or worse homeschooling them to exclusion of reality is indoctrination, is brainwashing, is coercive, is abuse. At such a point as they are ‘lawfully independent’ at 18 are any of their choices wrt religious garb really free from coercion? Or does cultural momentum continue to make those choices for them, as touched on by Butch? Yeah. I don’t think see. I think that sort of brainwashing/momentum severely limits your free will in these matters. If it wasn’t people wouldn’t ever be in the closet, gay, atheist, etc.

  75. Pinko Punko said,

    April 18, 2010 at 4:17

    I want to nutpunch Dan Blatt

  76. Sheesh said,

    April 18, 2010 at 4:24

    Also Chris,

    I bet my tone is pretty adversarial, and I don’t want to come across that way. I like your posts and look forward to your insight every time I come into the comments. Kiss kiss hug hug.

  77. Hysterical Woman said,

    April 18, 2010 at 5:02

    Is it really lying if you truly believe that God exists and the world is only 6,000 years old?

  78. Sheesh said,

    April 18, 2010 at 5:11

    Following orders defense? Does it really make you innocent if you think murder is right?

  79. Sheesh said,

    April 18, 2010 at 5:21

    But really, I should have directly answered the question, since that’s what I expect from my other parties.

    I guess if you truly believe that the world is only 6000 years old, i.e., you are simply ignorant of the evidence, then repeating the falsehood is not a lie and you are not a liar. (Then you’re just like everyone on the internet, repeating shit you don’t know anything about. Wink wink.) You aren’t being honest though, the honest answer is, “I really believe, [based on 'no evidence' or 'what the Bible said'] the Earth is 6000 years old,” rather than the simple assertion.

  80. wiley said,

    April 18, 2010 at 6:07

    I found a childhood of Southern Baptist upbringing to be oppressive because of the general assumption that people are basically evil—born in sin. That’s a lot of baggage. I remember leaving one sermon when I was eight, with the feeling that God might populate the earth with replicants whose only purpose was to tempt you. God seemed like a supreme asshole.

    Was it child abuse to be dragged to all those dreadful services to hear a man scream about how evil we all were and to be pressured to make a claim that God or Jesus had spoken to me? Maybe. But rejecting it was liberating. Unless a family is blatantly abusive for any perceived heresy, there isn’t much the state can do to prevent indoctrination.

  81. Hysterical Woman said,

    April 18, 2010 at 6:15

    As someone who was “raised in a religion” (liberal Lutheranism) I find it hard to consider it abuse. I went to church and attended Sunday school. As it was a liberal church, there wasn’t any talk of hellfire, and the ethics taught weren’t much different from secular ethics. Sure, since my parents held power over me you could call it coercion, but then you could call anything your parents tell you to do coercion.

    Saying that anytime somebody says something that is a falsehood is lying is really strict. Is saying “Ronald Reagan was considered for Casablanca” the same as saying “No baby, I’d never cheat on you”? Also, as an agnostic I don’t see the nonexistence of god as an obvious and irrefutable fact.

  82. Sheesh said,

    April 18, 2010 at 7:17

    Yes, Wiley. I agreed with this explicitly, “Unless a family is blatantly abusive for any perceived heresy, there isn’t much the state can do to prevent indoctrination.”: [...] we’ve decided culturally, here in the U.S. at least, that we don’t really want to be free, and that some coercive regimes are OK and should continue in perpetuity (even after we’re dead!) And we all say, “Hey, I turned out alright, so what’s the harm? Rejecting it was liberating!” But you know, liberated from what, right? We wouldn’t feel liberated if we weren’t being oppressed from the get go.

    Hysterical Woman I guess paints the ‘other side.’ In fact, it even sounds like you weren’t indoctrinated at all. In fact, it sounds like your parents might not have spent your childhood hiding the explicit nature of reality from you. Can’t be that bad if you don’t think you were indoctrinated at all and weren’t oppressed in any meaningful sense.

    Further, you misread me, I said just the opposite: I guess if you truly believe that the world is only 6000 years old, i.e., you are simply ignorant of the evidence, then repeating the falsehood is not a lie and you are not a liar.

    I specifically elided the God lie above for this reason; it’s a huge debate that won’t get anywhere most times. In this particular case though if mommy is honest and has to preface, “I truly believe based on no evidence but what is in the Bible…” before responding to the differences between actual school and Sunday School, you’d learn pretty quick that she was full of shit, and tada, indoctrination averted. The same goes for both questions “Is God real?” and “Is the Earth 6000 years old?”. I didn’t want to derail it there with fact-free arguments for gods. But if you’re up to it, as an agnostic what is the utility of believing there could be one or more gods given that there isn’t any evidence, and evidence may be unknowable. Wouldn’t the more rational, skeptical stance be atheism until such evidence is produced and considered? What do you get out of having no position either way?

    Don’t you get infuriated when someone says, “Meh, McCain or Obama; there’s no difference. I don’t need to vote.” I used to say to myself I was agnostic, but decided to just get off the fence.

  83. Sheesh said,

    April 18, 2010 at 7:31

    I guess I wasn’t clear though, when I said ‘some coercive regimes’ I mean that’s too general, meaningless. I should have specifically stated that I meant Super-natural coercive regimes above and beyond society, rule of law, etc. (even Shania law)

  84. wiley said,

    April 18, 2010 at 8:47

    Yeah, it is abusive to tell a child that they’re going to hell if they don’t “find” Jesus and profess to it. It’s also abusive to tell a girl that the highest thing she can reasonably aspire to is marrying up. But when it’s not intended as abuse, it’s not intended as abuse. Even though weird and untrue things you are taught with your best interest at heart may be harder to purge than things taught in mean-spirited spite for a child, I think intent matters.

    Is it any comfort that the human race is so good at creating destructive problems, that most of the bullshit that deserves to be deconstructed and disposed of is low priority?

  85. Sheesh said,

    April 18, 2010 at 9:13

    Is it any comfort that the human race is so good at creating destructive problems, that most of the bullshit that deserves to be deconstructed and disposed of is low priority?

    Yeah. I just guess I just got kinda worked up about it all. I can’t really talk about this stuff afk in Jacksonville, Florida. So you know pseudonymous ranting is kind of a release. I agree with your important distinction here about intent and destructive problems.

    I was recently watching a program on the Athenians and their wars with the Spartans and it gave me a little wave of depression. In some sense we haven’t made a ton of progress in 2500 years. That’s a long, long time. The societal struggles of the Athenians of that era loosely parallel our own.

  86. suecris said,

    April 18, 2010 at 9:31

    Extremely oddly and irrelevantly, I once smuggled a box turtle into a hospital to visit a dying neighbor. It was her box turtle. She had had a stroke and couldn’t speak, but her eyes lit up and she petted its nasty little head. She was happy. One can’t tell about the turtle, but making a 90+ dying lady happy made my day.

  87. wiley said,

    April 18, 2010 at 9:32

    We are cavemen with advanced weaponry and primitive beliefs. Sometimes it’s kinda cute. Sometimes it’s terrifying. It would be nice if we spent more time picking nits out of each others’ fur, hanging from trees, and sleeping.

  88. Sheesh said,

    April 18, 2010 at 9:57

    Hey Suecris,

    She was happy. One can’t tell about the turtle, but making a 90+ dying lady happy made my day.

    Keep doing this! This is what we all need.

  89. Evan Hurst said,

    April 18, 2010 at 9:59

    Hey Tintin, you should know that the Colorado Gaytriot, Nick, decided to outdo Blatt by taking a shit on Constance McMillen, the girl whose school cancelled her prom because she was a lesbian. Possibly the most amazing, most self-loathing moment in the history of that festering boil on the ass of gay-dom, and to come on the heels of Blatt’s post, wow. Just wow.

    I smacked it down at Truth Wins Out already but I wanted y’all to know about it too.

  90. actor212 said,

    April 18, 2010 at 12:37

    It would be nice if we spent more time picking nits out of each others’ fur, hanging from trees, and sleeping.

    Every Thursday, round my place. BYON.

  91. actor212 said,

    April 18, 2010 at 12:45

    How does religious indoctrination differ from simply raising a kid in a religion? Is there even a difference?

    Barring the kidnapping of a child by a non-custodial adult, no. One reason we have freedom of religion is to avoid situations where a parent is penalized for choosing a different-yet-lawful way of forming a child’s world view.

    There’s the recent case of that polygamist cult down in Texas, where child services stepped in and took the kids away for protective custody. There’s a fairly clear example of religious indoctrination but had it not involved pedophilia and pederasty, the cult and its leaders would have been free to do what they wanted to, since the adults in charge will all willing and voluntarily participants.

    And in the US, the parent has authority over the children.

  92. St. Trotsky, Pope-in-Avignon said,

    April 18, 2010 at 14:49

    That’s my concern.

    Which is why I went “nuance is theft”. Your concern, as with all fundamentalist depictions, is ultimately treated as some Manichean duo, either right or wrong, black or white, missing that for the vast majority of the populace everywhere, things are in that weird grey area.

  93. Larkspur said,

    April 18, 2010 at 17:00

    “Hey, ‘child rape = burqa wearin’ is obviously not the argument I’m making. Good straw man though! I’d beat it! I made my argument in a super stark 5th grade sentences so everyone could read for comprehension: “Brainwashing is coercion.” Religious indoctrination is culturally accepted brainwashing. Burqa wearers are thus not wearing them free from coercion in most cases as stated unless children are born Muslim, Christian, Jewish, etc. ….”

    Possibly I’m not smarter than a fifth grader. “Religious indoctrination is culturally accepted brainwashing.” Okay. First of all, “brainwashing” is hardly a neutral term. I can’t argue under the pretense that it is.

    Second, you say elsewhere: “…. Religious indoctrination is a form of abuse that we’ve all decided is off-limits; we’ve decided culturally, here in the U.S. at least, that we don’t really want to be free, and that some coercive regimes are OK and should continue in perpetuity (even after we’re dead!)….” I can’t accept this premise, either. I can’t take as a given that religious indoctrination is always “indoctrination”, or that it is a form of abuse. And the “we don’t really want to be free” comment comes out of nowhere, and is not an observation, but a criticism.

    I guess this fifth-grader doesn’t get your ultimate point. Clearly, your children will be raised (or are being raised) outside the confines of religious indoctrination. Sounds good to me. I don’t have a real high opinion of organized religion. But that’s me, and I wouldn’t presume to decide for others. I guess our beliefs in what constitutes free will have, like, different set points.

    By the way, I just want to mention a young friend of mine. I’ve known her since before she was born. The family moved away when she was three, but we’ve kept in touch and get together at least once a year. As a toddler, her parents decided to re-commit themselves to Mormonism, and the LDS church began to figure more and more in their lives.

    She’s in college now. Two years ago at our get-together, I asked her straight out if she felt it was important to believe in those golden plates, and Jesus having visited the New World post-mortem as a literal fact, or if one could view it as an allegory or a story. Two years ago, she told me it was a literal fact.

    This past winter at our get-together, she’s majoring in a physical science (I don’t want to get too specific), arguing against “intelligent design”, arguing against people who trivialize climate change, and enjoying the heck out of Jon Stewart. Her parents are proud of her, though uncomfortable with her outspokenness. They referred to her “crisis of faith” and her decision to relate to the Bible mostly in a Gospel kind of way. (She made a face and laughed, so I’m assuming the angel Moroni and the golden plates aren’t literal to her any more.)

    In other words, she figured it out, because despite her indoctrination, she lives in a secular country that gives its citizens room to figure it out. Women can put on the burqa. Women can take off the burqa. I don’t want legislation herding her in any particular direction. I believe she can figure it out.

  94. Chris said,

    April 18, 2010 at 18:38

    Just came back to the page -

    Hysterical Woman’s last comment and Larkspur’s comment just above pretty much summarize my opinion on the matter. We, both in America and in France, live in a secular society. Parents will always inculcate their own values to their children, but once they’re past a certain age, the children can make their own choice – and sure, there can be all kinds of weeping and gnashing of teeth on the part of the parents, but at the end of the day, if you want to take off the burqa, you can.

    The other problem with your comment is that I don’t see where to draw the line at which the state should intervene in family life (other than “when the children are in immediate danger,” which is where the line is now as we saw in the Texas case). I know the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy, but I just don’t see any other way to “objectively” draw the line without setting a precedent for a government that intervenes far, far too much in the family home for my liking.

    Kisses and hugs were unnecessary but always appreciated. I enjoy the argument too and was not offended by it.

  95. Larkspur said,

    April 19, 2010 at 0:04

    Chris, I think we have to draw the line knowing full well that oftentimes we’ll have to re-visit that line, depending on the situation. Behaving ethically is hard work. Like, we’ve decided that there needs to be an age of consent to sex, before which we’ve decided that people are too young to be able to make that decision. But we all know that different situations call for different remedies. It depends on the situation. An 18 year-old and a 15 year-old are not deemed to be a responsible sexual pairing. But in a specific circumstance, it might not require any intervention by the judicial system. And an 18 year-old with a 35 year-old might be a perfectly legal pairing, with a catastrophic emotional impact on that particular 18 year-old.

    So the line-drawing is arbitrary, but it has to be. The point is that we can’t ever just draw the line and henceforth everything falls into place. That would be all logical and straightforward, and life isn’t.

    This feels rambly and unfinished. Oh.

    Also.

  96. Sheesh said,

    April 19, 2010 at 2:52

    I’ll accept that brainwashing is a loaded term, and I’ll even admit that’s why I use it. I don’t think there’s a friendly word for the end of the spectrum I’m talking about. Growing up in the Bible belt sucks ass and it could be a lot better for a lot of kids, imho, without all the fire and brimstone. Which in turn would make it a lot better for all of us if it wasn’t a special anecdote about how, “hey I turned out ok!” or “I know a girl that’s a scientist now!”

    I want ‘I know a girl scientist’ to be the norm, and Xenu stories and the Native American Israelites to be the weird, special anecdotes — but look those aren’t any weirder than burning bushes or one dude building a boat for 100 years. Rambling too. I want to not be afraid to teach science.

    So coming back around to what I was saying when I originally piped up: France isn’t a prison, you don’t have to go there and you don’t have to stay there. If France’s republic isn’t free enough and representative enough for a burqa choosing woman (again, assuming it’s an actual choice and not a conditioned response to fear and oppression) they can come to America where that law won’t ever get made or upheld. It’s really up to the French to choose their society and to shape their culture; if she’s really a part of it she can bend the thing of the people to that end. We can tut-tut from the sidelines, but it’s not even an issue here (clearly unconstitutional). In fact, it’s so low on the Human Rights Abuses totem-pole that it doesn’t drive me nuts (e.g., there’s a really good chance we’re still torturing dudes or mailing them to where they will be for us). You know, plus the wars and genocides and racial and gender equality.

    We’re lucky we can have this debate, I know. America is still secular enough that we can treat it like a thought experiment. Permitting the burqa seems like freedom to oppress — to me — because I haven’t seen many or convincing arguments from the other side (is religious expression more important than equality). The same arbitrary lines Larkspur is talking about are the slippery steps we’ve made on slippery slopes in the past, so I don’t see this one as significantly different. I’d be less ambivalent if Muslim men also wore the burqa and/or niqab. I think scaredy white-America — read Tea partiers — could really get behind that: all conservative Muslim dudes looking like ninjas or Inky, Blinky, or Clyde (obviously not Pinky, too gay).

    http://www.google.com/search?q=burqa+empowers+women

  97. St. Trotsky, Pope-in-Avignon said,

    April 19, 2010 at 15:27

    France isn’t a prison, you don’t have to go there and you don’t have to stay there.

    So, what you’re saying here, if I’m not off in my 5th grade interpretation is, if they don’t like it, they can go back to where they came from?

  98. The Joker Told The Goddamn Batman This One: What Did The Leper Say To The Prostitute? Keep The Tip. Thanks, He'll Be Here All Week said,

    April 19, 2010 at 18:56

    as remote as the possibility that Dan will ever have sex with anyone other than a blind leper in a darkened truck stop in rural Alabama, and even then the leper will have to down a fifth of Jack Daniel’s before he can bring himself to do it.

    On behalf of all sufferers of Hansen’s Disease (except for Thomas Covenant, one of science fiction & fantasy’s most notorious rapists), I am officially outraged.

    By the way, am I the only non-Muslim that finds burqas sort of sexy? Well, really more the burqini.

  99. actor212 said,

    April 19, 2010 at 20:04

    Well, really more the burqini.

    If a woman wears one without a shawl or undergarments….mmmmmmmmmmm…

  100. The Goddamn Batman Started Wearing The Armor-Type Costumes After A Dunk In Gotham Bay While He Was Wearing The Old-Fashioned Leotard Revealed Things That Were Sort Of Embarrassing, And He's Not Talking About The Kevlar Vest said,

    April 19, 2010 at 21:28

    The only thing surprising about googling “wet burqini contest” is that there are relatively few hits, although there are quite a few more for “wet burqa contest”; in either case, it’s really not at all surprising that links to comments on wingnut blogs are overrepresented.

  101. Unt Lick said,

    April 20, 2010 at 0:57

    “So, what you’re saying here, if I’m not off in my 5th grade interpretation is, if they don’t like it, they can go back to where they came from?”

    Yes, or somewhere they like better. Majority rules is a bitch.

  102. Classical Liberal Dave said,

    May 4, 2010 at 2:20

    tintin,

    The loathsome piece of shit you smell is yourself.

    And it’s Evan Hurst who is the illiterate prick.

  103. Substance McGravitas said,

    May 4, 2010 at 3:01

    Welcome to two weeks ago.

  104. Cinesnatch said,

    March 22, 2012 at 23:40

    Dan blatt is a friend of mine and I find this photoshopped picture of him to be grossly inappropriate. Say what you will about him and his Political beliefs (which i more often than not disagree with), He is isnt a celebrity in the public eye and hasn’t warranted this kind of visual personal attack. Especially published by someone who doesn’t readily publish a photo of themselves. .

    Please take it down.

  105. Substance McGravitas said,

    March 22, 2012 at 23:43

    Welcome to two years ago.

  106. Cinesnatch said,

    March 23, 2012 at 1:44

    Whether it was yesterday, two weeks ago, or two years ago, will the site moderator please consider taking the picture down and replacing it with something less insulting. Like I said, Dan’s a friend of mine and the picture is inappropriate.

    S McG >> House of Substance has some good stuff on it, by the way.

  107. Gary Ruppert said,

    March 23, 2012 at 2:35

    The fact is, the site moderator should consider taking down this whole site, it is unAmerica, and also a picture of a Gay Republican with a Watermelon is insulting to freedom.

  108. Cinesnatch said,

    March 23, 2012 at 3:25

    I disagree with Gary about the site being Unamerican. It actually makes a lot of good points. And the 400+ post threads that unfold in a stream-of-conscious fashion are something else.

    But, the picture is demeaning, regardless if the person is a straight Democrat. Please take it down.

  109. Pupienus Maximus said,

    March 23, 2012 at 3:56

    What the actual fuck?

  110. Gary Ruppert said,

    March 23, 2012 at 4:30

    The fact is, I agree with Cinesnatch that photos of people holding a watermelon are insulting. These should never be published, and anyone who does is worse than Hitler. I think Obama published photos like this in the New York Times.

  111. Cinesnatch said,

    March 23, 2012 at 5:03

    Gary, the picture is suggestive and demeaning. And the article itself gleefully supports the insinuating nature of the photo. This isn’t *just* a picture of a person holding a watermelon. The photoshop user took a sweet picture of a man and his nephew and distorted it and made it into something ugly and degrading. What world are we living in?

    As I have already said, if Dan Blatt was a celebrity, then, he’d be fair game. But, he’s not. He runs his own blog and doesn’t grandstand outside of it, nor use his physical image to promote himself. He doesn’t make his living off of his physical persona and call attention to himself, as celebrities do. This site went out of its way to personally attack him for whatever reason. I don’t know its history with Dan.

    For the record, I agree with S,N!’s stance on the issue. I read the GP article and disagree with it on most every account (except the one where he acquises that he liked the result.). My disagreements with Dan and many other posters at GP can be very infuriating most times. And, I empathize with finding fault with his thinking, but S,N! crossed a line.

    “who will sell out … to curry the favor of straight Republicans … but then call him a cock-sucking heels-in-the-air fudge-packed girlie-boy behind his back (even though only the girlie-boy part is actually true).” Wow, what era was this? It sounds very dated.

    “the probability that any gay man would ever give enough of a shit about Dan to visit him in a hospital, much less to have a relationship with him, is remote — ” Well, you worded this poorly, as I think you meant “partner” when you said “gay man.” But, since you said “gay man,” and I qualify, if something were to happen to Dan, God forbid, I would visit him in the hospital, as well as a host of others, a healthy percentage of which are gay men–some liberal, like myself.

    ” — as remote as the possibility that Dan will ever have sex with anyone other than a blind leper in a darkened truck stop in rural Alabama, and even then the leper will have to down a fifth of Jack Daniel’s before he can bring himself to do it. Fuck you, Dan, you wretched, illiterate prick.” He’s had some pretty attractive boyfriends over the years.

    “Fuck you, Dan.” That’s harsh.

    “Loathsome piece of shit”?” “you wretched, illiterate prick.” He actually has read thousands of books. So, at least, on the illiterate part, you are wrong. Personally, I don’t find him loathsome, a piece of shit or a prick. Have you even met him?

    I’m sure if he had the forethought to share a personal photo of himself with his readers and what it would lead to, he may have reconsidered posting the photo.

    Please have a little more class. Or, if you can’t offer that, then have some balls and post your mug for all to see. Like I said, I disagree with him most of the time. But, he’s human, like anyone. And he’s a swell guy. While you think very little of him, there are plenty more vile people on this planet worth your disdain. Trust.

  112. M. Bouffant said,

    March 23, 2012 at 11:48

    For cryin’ out loud, everything Dan Blatt types on his completely public web log is “ugly & degrading.” And stupid.

    Too bad he didn’t learn anything about writing from all those books.

  113. Cinesnatch said,

    March 23, 2012 at 17:34

    All I can do is ask. I was hoping S,N! could do the classy thing and take the picture down.

  114. Lawnguylander (AKA the real Cinetwat) said,

    March 23, 2012 at 18:12

    Please remove all the posts by this fake Cinecunt who is impersonating me for his partisan ends. Then, please take the picture of Dan Splatt down and replace it with a picture of Josh Trevino slicing Dafydd Ab Hugh’s giant sandwich in half with a light saber. Or maybe he could be castrating Anne Coulter with it.

  115. Cinesnatch said,

    March 23, 2012 at 20:52

    You give liberals a bad name.

  116. Gary Ruppert said,

    March 24, 2012 at 5:03

    The fact is, liberals are stupid.

  117. Cinesnatch said,

    March 24, 2012 at 14:52

    That we can agree on. But, on a site that consistently points out the follies of conservatives, S,N! gives the liberal brand a bad name. Or perhaps that’s the point?

Leave a Comment

  • Things of Interest

  • Meta Goodness

  • Clunkers

  • httpbl_stats()