Obsolete Language

When you want a sense of how rapidly things change, it helps to read the New York Times. Especially the times of over 40 years ago, when titles like “Miss” were used. The Times will no longer use the title “Mrs.” to refer to women, even married ones.

More interesting is this story in the paper about the first homosexual “marriage,” undertaken in 1971. Some cherce tidbits:

In 2013, when the Minnesota Legislature authorized same-sex marriage and a state senator announced, “Today, love wins,” Mr. McConnell watched, enthralled, from the gallery. But the couple did not join the rush for an undisputed license.

“No,” Mr. Baker said, pounding an oak table in their living room. “To reapply now becomes an admission that what we did was not legal, and I will never admit that.”

Hmmm. What did they do that might not have been “legal?”

Mr. Baker, meanwhile, had devised a roundabout way to get married. First, Mr. McConnell legally adopted him, which gave them inheritance and other legal protections. At the same time, Mr. Baker changed his name to the gender-neutral Pat Lyn McConnell, though he continued as Jack Baker in public.

They went to stay with friends in Blue Earth County, to the southwest, where Mr. McConnell applied for and received a marriage license from an unsuspecting clerk, who did not know about the legal adoption. They wed on Sept. 3, 1971, in Minneapolis.

So, to get this straight. (Oh, wait, we CERTAINLY don’t want to do that…) Mr. McConnell married his own legally adopted child?

But leave that by the wayside. Peer through a lens at what people without the threat of retribution said and did over 40 years ago.

When they presented their challenge to the Minnesota Supreme Court, one of the justices turned his chair around in contempt. The court declared, “The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the Book of Genesis.”

In 1970, after the publicity about the couple’s marriage application, the University of Minnesota regents rescinded Mr. McConnell’s job offer. …

Devastated, he sued in federal court but ultimately lost; the appeals court admonished him for trying to “foist tacit approval of this socially repugnant concept upon his employer.”

In Look magazine’s Jan. 26, 1971, issue on “The American Family,” they were featured as “The Homosexual Couple.”
“Some homosexuals — a minority — live together in stable, often long-lasting relationships, like Baker’s and McConnell’s,” the article said.

Yeah, that is completely changed now. “79% of homosexual men say over half of sex partners are strangers…”

I never thought I would miss the 70s, or consider 1971 to be a time of sanity.


Posted by on May 19, 2015 in Uncategorized


Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman explains what it is like to face persecution

Will S.:

Almost every time I hear of one of these cases, as with this one, it’s someone who the business owner had known for years, and gotten along fine with until then, who suddenly backstabbed them, siccing the ‘Human Rights’ commissions, etc. on them, rather than simply taking their business elsewhere.

Such is very revealing, about the character of our opponents. They ARE bigots, filled with hatred towards us, which can be uncovered the moment our beliefs are perceived to have an impact on them. (And they only hate us; I don’t see them visiting Muslim bakeries, or Orthodox Jewish bakeries, etc., and making the same demands.)

Let us remember that, and be accordingly wary.

Originally posted on Wintery Knight:

Barronelle Stutzman vs Washington state Barronelle Stutzman vs Washington state

This article appeared in the Washington Post, and I though it might be good for us to find out what it is like when big government comes after you for taking the Bible seriously.

Barronelle writes:

I’ve been a florist in Richmond, Wash., for more than 30 years. In that time, I’ve developed close relationships with many of my clients.

One of my favorites was Rob Ingersoll. Ingersoll came in often and we’d talk. Like me, he had an artistic eye. I’d try to create really special arrangements for him. I knew he was gay, but it didn’t matter — I enjoyed his company and his creativity.

Then he asked me to create the floral arrangements for his wedding. I love Rob, and I’d always been happy to design for his special days. But there’s something different about a wedding.

Every person in the creative professions regularly…

View original 1,032 more words


Victoria Day Mini-Linkfest

Dark Brightness: Marriage is good (a rant for Mother’s Day). [Matt 13]; Notes on the British Election.

The Gods of the Copybook Headings: A Cautious Victory

Steve Sailer: “Appeal to Dwindling Core Proves Costly for Labour Party in Britain”

Andrei Navrozov: Fruitarian Logic

Free Northerner: Form, Function, and BeautyThe All-Pervading Ugliness of Modernity; Beauty, Function, and Reproduction

Blowhard, Esq.: Architecture Du Jour

Adventures In Keeping House: The Time Machine To The 1930s; The Making Of A LadySaint Crispin’s Day

Wintery Knight: Atheist gets her PhD in astronomy and astrophysics and finds evidence for God

Masculine Style: Dismantling the Dadbod

Rémi Tremblay: Putin Vs Putin: Eurasianism And Beyond

bluebird of bitterness: Updated employee handbook

Strange Herring: BB King RIP


Posted by on May 18, 2015 in Linklove


Obama administration lifts 32-year-old ban on gay / bisexual men donating blood

Will S.:

A similar ban-lifting happened up here two years ago…

This is the same sort of thing, once again: politics trumping public health considerations. It reveals progs for the monsters they are, more concerned about the feelings of some folks than the health of everyone else…

Originally posted on Wintery Knight:

Breitbart News reports.


The Obama administration, more interested in pleasing its LGBT supporters than in protecting the health of the general public, is proposing “new rules” through the FDA that would terminate the 32-year-old ban on blood donations from gay and bisexual men.

Hilariously, the FDA would still ban gay men from donating if they confess to having sex with a man within a year before donating blood.

The FDA did admit that “some individuals knowingly donate despite the deferral.”

[…]The FDA decided that the MSM group (men who have sex with men) was much less of a risk than those in the commercial sex work (CSW) and injection drug use (IDU) groups, even though the agency reported, “In 2010, male-to-male sexual contact accounted for 63% of newly diagnosed HIV infections among adults, and 78% of newly diagnosed HIV infections in men, indicating that male-to-male sexual contact remains associated with…

View original 354 more words


Nota bene









USC is ‘teaching’ a ‘selfie’ class

There’s a bird course if there ever was one… (Albeit with prog indoctrination, of course…)

In his #SelfieClass: Writing 150: Writing and Critical Reasoning: Identity and Diversity, Mark Marino is looking to engage his first-year writing students into thinking more intensely about themselves and the world around them.

“Selfies provide a fun and deceptively trivial opportunity to consider how we represent ourselves, how we are read, and how those images circulate to form online communities,” he said.

One of the students’ first writing assignments poses the question: How do your selfies produce or obscure a sense of your identity? He then asks the students to choose five selfies of themselves and examine race-ethnicity, socioeconomic status, sexuality and gender.

“Go anywhere in LA, and you’ll see rows of people tilting their heads and smiling into their phones,” Marino said. “They are communicating with their friends.  But it’s not that simple.”

The selfie, he said, carries much more significance.

To Marino, selfie takers are “constructing an image of their identity — their gender, their ethnicity, their sexuality, their socioeconomic status.”

“Except that’s only half of the process because these photos then will be read, liked and favorited, and interpreted by others — based on their own expectations and experience,” he said.  “Here we have the co-creation of identity wrapped up in a discrete act of networked communication.”

His students must maintain selfie journals and write blog posts, among other assignments. The class also teamed up with Miriam Posner, who teaches “Selfies, Snapchat, and Cyberbullies” at UCLA.

Blah, blah, blah…


Post-Millennial girlie creates new identity for herself through a Twitter selfie, as the Princess of Auschwitz! ;)



Canada’s neo-con regime equates calls to boycott Israel with anti-Semitism; threatens to use ‘hate-crime’ legislation against organizations encouraging boycotts


The Harper government is signalling its intention to use hate crime laws against Canadian advocacy groups that encourage boycotts of Israel.

Such a move could target a range of civil society organizations, from the United Church of Canada and the Canadian Quakers to campus protest groups and labour unions.

If carried out, it would be a remarkably aggressive tactic, and another measure of the Conservative government’s lockstep support for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

While the federal government certainly has the authority to assign priorities, such as pursuing certain types of hate speech, to the RCMP, any resulting prosecution would require an assent from a provincial attorney general.

And it would almost certainly be challenged under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, civil liberties groups say.

The government’s intention was made clear in a response to inquiries from CBC News about statements by federal ministers of a “zero tolerance” approach to groups participating in a loose coalition called Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS), which was begun in 2006 at the request of Palestinian non-governmental organizations.

Asked to explain what zero tolerance means, and what is being done to enforce it, a spokesperson for Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney replied, four days later, with a detailed list of Canada’s updated hate laws, noting that Canada has one of the most comprehensive sets of such laws “anywhere in the world.”

The BDS tactic has been far more successful for the Palestinians than armed struggle. And it has caught on internationally, angering Israel, which reckons boycotts could cost its economy hundreds of millions of dollars.

Just last month, 16 European foreign ministers denounced the “expansion of Israeli illegal settlements in the Occupied Territories,” demanding that any imported goods originating in the settlements be distinctly labeled.

But Canada, a country where the federal Liberal and NDP leaders also oppose BDS, appears to have lined up more strongly behind Israel than any other nation.

In January, Canada’s then foreign affairs minister, John Baird, signed a “memorandum of understanding” with Israeli authorities in Jerusalem, pledging to combat BDS.

It described the movement as “the new face of anti-Semitism.”

A few days later, at the UN, Canadian Public Security Minister Steven Blaney went much further.

He conflated boycotts of Israel with anti-Semitic hate speech and violence, including the deadly attacks that had just taken place in Paris on the Charlie Hebdo magazine and a kosher supermarket.

Blaney then said the government is taking a “zero tolerance” approach to BDS.

Coming as it did from the minister responsible for federal law enforcement, the speech alarmed groups that have, to varying degrees, supported boycotts, believing them an effective tool to bring about an end to Israel’s occupation and colonization of the West Bank, and its tight grip on Gaza.

Some of these groups had noted that the government changed the Criminal Code definition of hate speech last year, adding the criterion of “national origin” to race and religion.

This change could, they feared, effectively lump people who speak against Israel in with those who speak against Jews.

Micheal Vonn, a lawyer for the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, says the expanded definition is clearly “a tool to go after critics of Israel.”

Canadian civil liberties groups maintain that boycotts are a long-recognized form of political expression, and therefore constitutionally protected.

In March, the Canadian Quakers wrote a letter to Foreign Affairs Minister Rob Nicholson, expressing concern about Blaney’s speech and protesting the label of anti-Semitism.

Nicholson’s response merely repeated the talking points first used by Blaney at the UN, and the government’s vow not to tolerate boycotts.

But in response to specific questions about what “zero tolerance” of BDS means, and how it will be enforced, Blaney aide Josee Sirois gave CBC News a much clearer picture of the government’s intent.

“I can tell you that Canada has one of the most comprehensive sets of laws against hate crime anywhere in the world,” wrote Sirois.

She highlighted what she termed “hate propaganda” provisions in the Criminal Code criminalizing the promotion of hatred against an identifiable group, and further noted that “identifiable group” now includes any section of the public distinguished by “among other characteristics, religion or national or ethnic origin.”

She also referred to Criminal Code provisions requiring that a judge consider hate, bias or prejudice when sentencing an offender.

“We will not allow hate crimes to undermine our way of life, which is based on diversity and inclusion,” she concluded.

So our ‘Conservative’ government wants to out-do progs in championing ‘diversity’, ‘inclusiveness’, and ‘hate crime’ legislation, which they are bent on using to attack freedom of speech, conflating opposition to Israel’s actions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with anti-Semitism, wanting to show the world that they’re the Tribe’s biggest ‘Shabbos goy’.

I’m pretty much neutral on the Israel/Palestine issue, but that’s not the point; this is a breathtakingly audacious, arrogant, totalitarian attack on freedom of speech, and a smear against anyone who has legitimate issues with Israel’s policies. I’m not a big fan of leftists like Quakers or the United Church of Canada, etc., and I question the ultimate effectiveness of boycotts, but that’s besides the point; it’s a legitimate act, that people should, in a liberal democracy, be free to support and encourage. Israel doesn’t have any inherent ‘right’ to the world’s business; if countries and individuals decide to boycott them, there’s nothing wrong with that; it certainly isn’t necessarily motivated by hatred and bigotry – but so what if for some, it is? Apparently neo-cons are ready to join progs in punishing ‘thought-crimes’…

And it’s pretty stupid, too – this will not stand up in court; it’s sure to be overturned – and it will give the Liberals and NDP a big hammer to use against the government, from now till the next election.

Stupid and evil.

I’m tempted to vote Liberal or NDP next time around, rather than simply not voting as per my usual practice, just on principle, against this government, to try to hasten its demise.

*Update: They’re denying it


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 365 other followers