Vox Popoli

MS writes:

I’ve been meaning to ask this question for awhile, but have been hesitant to given the rather un-pc nature of the question. I’d also be interested in comments from your vox folk. This has been touched upon just a bit in the comments from your “Homologic” blog, but –

I assume that you believe that most if not all of the factors that cause a teen to think they are gay are a result of things that happen to them in their childhood as opposed being born with it. If this is the case, what suggestions do you have for parents raising kids to prevent this from

happening (them thinking they are gay) I have my own thoughts about this (Basically – Dads: Stay in the picture and don’t be a jerk with your kids) but I wonder what your thoughts are.

This is really out of my league, and there are certainly those who will have more personal experience on which to base their opinions, but from a strictly material point of view, I tend to follow Paglia in her quasi-Freudian take on it. There seem to be numerous potential factors involved, but what appears to be a dependable nurturing environment to ensure that your line is not passed on is a dominant mother and an absent or rejecting father.

As for women, Paglia – more than a bit of a lesbian herself – quotes a friend in saying “too much tit or not enough.”

Strangely, it would seem to come down to the wisdom of .38 Special, who recommended holding on loosely, but not letting go. To be honest, I don’t think there is an answer, except that love, prayer, attention and affection are never wasted.

And if you happen to lose the genetic lottery or manage to screw it up and turn your boy into a flaming fairy whose heartfelt dream is to choreograph a drag show in Vegas, then continue to love them, pray for them and give them attention and affection anyhow.

If you’re interested in listening to the Northern Alliance Radio Show tomorrow, the live web stream is here. I’ll be on with the Fraters Libertas and SCSU Scholars at 2 PM Central time, discussing WWII military history, internment and the implications for future actions by the federal government, among other things.

Saint Paul said we will take 2 or 3 callers, so if you’d like to call in you can do so at 651-289-4488. I think Rush has a good point with his time-saving “dittos”, so, in honor of the infamous battle cry, you can simply say “azaleas” to indicate a strong level of agreement, sympathy or simply an appreciation for the general bonhomie on this blog.

As El Zinko Pinko, (President, VPQF), Snowdog and Bane can all attest*, I am one of the more gay-friendly Bible-thumping intolerant Christian bigots of the right.

But here’s one thing that puzzles me about what appears to be the Official Party Line of the Lavender Brigades. Feel free to correct me if I’m mischaracterizing something here, but it seems to me that the assertions are:

1. An individual is gay because he knows he is. The assertion is the proof.

2. There are no external causes, a gay individual simply knows he has always been that way.

3. If someone decides he is not, in fact, gay, he is incorrect and is only deceiving himself.

Now, if it is possible for someone to be mistaken about their sexual orientation, how is it possible that only those who are insisting that they are not gay that can be mistaken? If it is not possible for someone to be mistaken about their sexual orientation, how is it possible to deny the testimony of someone who was gay, but now is not, that it is possible for sexual orientation to change?

I don’t have an actual point here, I was just wondering. Not that this will likely do any good, but in the comments, please do try to stick to the logical aspects and not digress into verses about sin, smiting and Sodom. We pretty much covered that yesterday following the Swaggart post.

Craig, that gushing over Sean Hannity’s hair only earned you probationary VPQF status. Until we get a ruling from Zinky, you don’t get a vote.

Iraq Guy doesn’t buy the Novak float suggesting the likelihood of withdrawal.

“One reason we might not be taking it seriously is that we’re planning to do the wise thing and withdraw.”

Not very likely. A Democrat might “un-ass the AO” if elected, but right now having a US footprint in the Middle East is priceless as far as senior DOD planners are concerned. Centrally located and able to project power to all the other trouble spots in the region – in fact, this is the hot zone now, not Europe. Word is that this is going to be the new Korea as far as 1 year short tours go.

Yes, the obvious usefulness of the new bases they’ve constructed in Iraq are too great to be ignored, but I thought perhaps they’d make do with those they’ve built in Afghanistan and Qatar. We did abandon the big one in Saudi Arabia after all. But it was just a suggestion, I have no hard or even mildly rigid information.

On the environment, anyhow. I caught a few moments of him with Naomi Wolf, and while he did a masterful job of taking her apart with regards to her accusations of “Bush lied” on WMD, he also stated that he was very liberal on the environment, and in favor of big government solutions.

This, I think, goes well beyond what Ann Coulter has accused Brave Sir William in the past, of splitting the difference to land precisely in the middle. I recommend that Mr. O’Reilly visit eastern Europe, where he can see for himself what sort of solution really big government has in store for the environment.

Eugene Volokh calls on Christians to denounce Jimmy Swaggart:

I’m not asking for anything much — I’m simply saying that Christians should be outraged at Swaggart’s essentially slandering their religion, and should denounce his views, to make clear that his views (though purportedly Christian) are not mainstream Christian views. Swaggart calls himself a Christian; was once a very prominent minister; continues apparently to have some influence; and purports to interpret the Bible. His statements are representations of what Christianity is supposed to be about. I would think that Christians would want to denounce those representations, and the closer they are in denomination to him (e.g., Protestants, evangelical Protestants, etc.), the more they would want to do that.

I agree in concept. And what did Swaggart actually say?

I’m trying to find the correct name for it . . . this utter absolute, asinine, idiotic stupidity of men marrying men. . . . I’ve never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I’m gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever looks at me like that, I’m gonna kill him and tell God he died.

Yes, I have no problem whatsoever denouncing Swaggart’s statements. They are stupid, they are contrary to both Biblical principle and evangelical Christian teaching, and are particularly outrageous being voiced by someone who is apparently still in a position of church leadership, however minor. It is good that he has apologized for his comments; it would have been much better had he never made them in the first place.

I daresay that I am looked at that way far more often than the delectable Mr. Swaggart, and I have never killed anyone nor felt any need to. I am as vocal in my criticism of the gay agenda as anyone, I am opposed to homogamy,* I believe homosexuality to be a serious spiritual disease and a serious sign of societal decline, and I reserve my right to mock them as viciously as I mock everyone else just because I feel like it. (A community can’t expect to inflict Erasure on the world, among other things, and expect to get away scot-free.) But a homosexual man has the very same rights to life, liberty and property that I do, and is possessed of the same worth in the eyes of God that I am.

God forgives all who repent, no matter what their sin. Repentance comes easily to no one, but it comes to all who ask for it. You cannot be a little bit sinful any more than you can be a little bit dead, and those who take joy in the knowledge that the world regards their sins as more acceptable than those of others would do well to keep that in mind.

*I’m opposed to state-granted heterosexual marriage too, come to think of it.

This is why I’m convinced that socialism is hopeless. I mean, yes, there’s all the historical evidence against it, and, of course, the economic theories that shred its logic all to pieces. But at the end of the day, the primary problem is that it assumes humans are somehow malleable.

The nature versus nurture debate will probably never end, but there are certain things that even the most casual observer can’t help but notice. Four years ago, I first encountered a pretty little girl who lives near us. She was the sort of little girl you’d consider to have the promise of adult prettiness, though she wasn’t a winner of the genetic lottery to the extent of the three blondies of The Couple You Want To Hate But Can’t Because They’re So Doggone Nice or the two china-perfect daughters of our friends Yes, I Used To Model and her husband I’m Very Handsome, If A Bit Cheesy, But You Have To Admit That It Works For Me.

I don’t know how old this girl was, as I don’t pay enough attention to children to be able to distinguish ages very well, but she was probably eight or nine. It was impossible to ignore her, though, as she prevented you from doing so by methodically staring at every male in the vicinity, of all ages, until they looked back at her. She also had an expression while doing this that I can only describe as feline. Now, it’s possible that she was somehow taught this behavior, but I don’t think so as it wasn’t exhibited by any of the other young girls around, most of whom were a year or two older than her and were just going about their young girl business. I distinctly remember thinking: that one’s going to be trouble.

Fast forward to last week. I was walking down the street when I noticed a girl literally sprawled forward on the hood of a motorcycle next to the sidewalk. I didn’t recognize her at first, but it turned out to be the same young girl, apparently talking to the boy on the motorcycle. However, she was looking around almost everywhere except at him; when she glanced at me as I walked by, I had to look away before I burst out laughing. The look on her face was precisely the same semi-cunning, self-satisfied expression that it had been four years before.

We are what we are. It takes a divine force, a higher power, to even allow us to change that somewhat. Socialism, in setting itself against human nature, is a hopeless impossibility. No wonder the attempts to realize it fully inevitably lead to bloodshed.

Among other things, I’ve just wrapped up work on the first comic book – er, that is to say, graphic novel – in the trilogy I mentioned some time ago. I have next to no experience with the genre, except for some creepy Weird Tales that Big Chilly used to have in his bedroom that scared me half to death when I was about eight, but it’s been a lot of fun. I particularly enjoy working with the creator, who has been kind enough to give me co-author credit. We’re going to be writing a novel based on the same series; even though we’re not done with the second and third parts of the trilogy, a ridiculous number have already been pre-sold, which had the effect of creating interest in a related novel.

In other news, it looks as if the three books of the EW series will be soon published by a Christian publishing house, separately from the same three books published by Pocket Books and intended for mainstream bookstores. This will be nice, as my association with a secular publisher has had the unfortunate effect of causing the books to go almost completely unnoticed by its core market. I don’t have a release date for “Wrath” yet, but if you want to check out the first issue of “Archangel: The Fall” you should be able to do so in about six weeks.

Joe Carter has an interesting and characteristically thoughtful post on why the coverage on Rathergate has been non-stop, while few have seen fit to pay attention to Michelle Malkin’s similar attempts to pass off fraudulent history as the truth.

A comparison of these two cases provides an excellent example of how information is disseminated through the various information channels now that the concept of “media” has become more fluid. The rise of blogs has helped open access to media outlets that were previously unavailable and has enabled the coordination between various specialists. It has, as Patrick O’Hannigan writes in The American Spectator, “leveraged the increasing popularity of all things Web to make “asymmetrical warfare” by non-journalists against inaccuracies in Big Media easier than it had been before.”

The creation of new media forms, however, has also produced a new hierarchy that, while allowing a free-flowing mobility, remains sharply distinct. I believe it can be broadly outlined as follows:

Tier 1 – Network and cable news (i.e., CBS, CNN, FOX); newsweeklies (Time, Newsweek); major daily newspapers (The New York Times, Washington Post); prominent columnists (David Brooks, Maureen Dowd)

Tier 2 – Talk radio; Political journals (National Review, The New Republic); Web magazines (Salon, Slate, NRO);

Tier 3 – Cross-over bloggers (Andrew Sullivan, Glenn Reynolds, Kos Zuniga);

Tier 4 – High traffic/high linkage bloggers (Captain Ed, Roger Simon); Internet columnist (World Net Daily, Tech Central Station)

Tier 5 — Bloggers

Tier 6 – Blog commenters, lurkers, posters to forums (Free Republic, Democratic Underground)

Most stories in the media start from T1 and move downward through the various tiers What was unique about the CBS memo story was that the discrepancy was picked up by a T6 source (Free Republic poster “Buckethead”), emailed to a T4 blog (Powerline), jumped to a T2 (Drudge), and was then picked up by the Tier 1 media. The dissemination of information downward from T1 is extremely flat, news can reach all the other tiers simultaneously. In contrast, information that moves upward from the lower tiers must be moved up by a higher tier.

Obviously, I’m a combination of T5 (here) and T4 (WND columnist). And while I think this is a solid partial explanation for the failure of the story to achieve any traction – it’s manifestly true that I don’t have the ability to see this, or any other, myth publicly exploded by myself – there’s also other factors at work too. Prof. Ann Althouse sees it this way:

I don’t think the two cases are comparable, because it isn’t possible to engage with a history book without reading it and knowing the actual material well enough to pick it apart…. I have no idea whose facts are true there though. I’m happy to assume you’re right about the scope of military operations in WWII and what is in Malkin’s book, but I’m just not going to feel ashamed of not knowing such things. It’s broadly assumed that the Japanese internment was wrong, and most people don’t feel they need to reconsider it, so we’re just not bothering to get up to speed on the info.

It’s even harder in the case of alternate history novels, I’m learning. Not to go all O’Reilly on you, but I think both Joe’s and Prof. Althouse’s points are relevant here. The inadvertant novelist would never have gotten away with it to the extent that she has if anyone in the media knew anything about military history; as I’ve said before, journalists know nothing by virtue of their fact-free training, where reading Dan Rather’s book passes for an education. The potential problem with the latter perspective, however, is that it’s not necessarily true that most people still assume the internment was wrong. I’d like to think so too, but an awful lot of people seem to be delighted to be provided with the opportunity to reconsider it. No doubt they’ll be the ones cheering on a sequel.

Iraq Guy writes from the desert:

More important (and current) is the thing with Sadr/Syria and Iran. Literally, we’ve pounded Sadr down to the point of submission several times now. You can tell when he’s out of bullets or people when he throws up the “negotiation” flag. So we pull back, the politicians pull up and he escapes and evades. Without getting up to look at something sensitive, I believe he’s in Samara right now, that’s where they secreted him off to. So of course, our reporting shows that Iran is

re-arming him and sending him non Arabic speaking troops.

We know Iran is doing this!

Even beyond that, the high Ayatola in Iran ordered Sadr to resume insurgent operations against the coalition. Sadr has also ordered a hit on Sistani….

So, yeah, I guess your assertion that we aren’t taking it seriously is somewhat correct… mainly because I think Syria and Iran have demonstrably committed acts of war against us already, but nobody seems to want to do anything about it, and nobody has the stomach to take out Sadr, crush Falujah/Najaf, etc.

What really baffles me is Rumsfeld and the rest of them saying we don’t need more troops. Obviously we do – if we want to close off the borders and cut off some of the arms and external terrorists ….and…. do a smack down on Syria and Iran…

One reason we might not be taking it seriously is that we’re planning to do the wise thing and withdraw. Though neocons like Michael Ledeen are frothing at the mouth for expanding the war into Syria and Iran, that’s pointless unless we’re also going to occupy Saudi Arabia and stay there for the next 100 years. At which point, the curtain has come down and we might as well get it out in the open and elevate George Bush to the purple.

I don’t see that being the plan, though. This information from the field makes more sense in light of a forthcoming withdrawal.