mypetjawa v. 2.0 (beta) "<i>Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to ev

June 22, 2005

Porn Star's Hot Lesbian Sex Fantasy With Bush Twins

When you read a story like this, the headline just sort of makes itself up! Tim at Opinion Bug was cruising the blog of the man I claim is the 14th most destructive in America (hey, somebody has to keep an eye on that gay-outing asshole) and found this little mini-interview with porn-star Mary Carey. Before you go on, remember that Marey Carey claims she is a believing Christian:

"Oh my God, his [Bush's] daughters! IÂ’d LOVE to party with his daughters. IÂ’d love to meet them. I totally want to have sex with them.

Yowza!! That's one of those kind of mental images that you know you shouldn't have, but, you know, isn't all that unpleasant either......

UPDATE: From WND:

She made no secret prior to the event of wanting to have sex with Karl Rove, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Pat Buchanan and Alan Colmes Â– in addition to at least one player from every team in the NBA.

No comment from Glenn Reynolds or Wonkette on Ms. Carey's other fantasy of a top-blogger three-way followed by group hugs and prayers to her Lord and Savior....... more...

Posted by: Rusty at 11:51 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 210 words, total size 2 kb.

June 21, 2005

Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmitted?

A recent article in the American Political Science Review (APSR) by John R. Alford, Carolyn L. Funk, and John R. Hibbing claims that political orientation is, to some extent, genetic. The New York Times reviews the APSR piece here. A number of bloggers are also commenting on the piece, however, what they respond to is not the APSR article, but the New York Times review of the article. Since I am a subscriber to the APSR (yes, I know, hard to believe) I thought it might be worth something to throw in my two cents. After all, I seem to be the only blogger who's actually read the study (although I can't say this definitively, e-mail me or send a trackback if you also have read it).

I normally avoid this kind of discussion at this blog, but the topic was just so compelling.

The purpose of the article is summed up by the authors:

"In this article, we combine relevant findings in behavioral genetics with our own analysis of data on a large sample of twins to test the hypothesis that, contrary to the assumptions embedded in political science research, political attitudes have genetic as well as environmental causes."

The literature review for the piece sums up what all political scientists already know, namely that:

"Conspicuously absent is consideration of the possibility that certain attitudes and behaviors may be at least partially attributable to genetic factors."

The worry from many quarters from this type of research would be that to say genetics has something to do with political leanings would be deterministic. This troubles our Western sensibilities which are based upon the assumption that choice is an inherent attribute of humanity. However, the authors caution against reading determinism into genetic analysis:

Still, the connection is rarely so simple that a given genetic allele can be seen as causing a certain behavior. More typically, findings in modern behavioral genetics reveal the effect of genes to be interactive rather than direct, let alone determinative.

In other words, genetic predispositions are by no means deterministic. Genetics influences the way we think about the world, but does not determine our outlooks. As the authors summarize the argument:

The issue is not nature versus nurture but the manner in which nature interacts with nurture.

Next the authors move on to methodology. Julian Sanchez, who I presume has not read the actual research study, critiques it this way:

Count me a little skeptical: For one, unless these are studies on twins raised apart, you need to account for the fact that being raised as someone's identical twin is a difference in family environment that could conceivably shape one's attitudes in various subtle ways.

Very good criticism. However, the authors anticipate this objection and respond in kind:

Other evidence against the exclusive environmental argument is that the empirical results suggest MZ twins reared together are often less likely to share behavioral traits with their twins than are MZ twins reared apart, presumably because of extra efforts to establish distinct identities when the twins live together. In addition, as adult MZ [identical] twins living apart age, they tend to become more, not less, similar (Bouchard and McGue 2003), a finding that is difficult to reconcile with the belief that only the environment matters.

Further, since most parents are not aware whether their twins are identical or fraternal (controlling for sex, of course) then if MZ twins are closer politcally than DZ [fraternal] twins, genetics might be responsible.

The authors do not argue that genetics makes one a Republican or Democrat. Indeed, people like me who are Libertarian with Republican leanings may not fit at all into the study if such were the assertion. Rather, they base the study on the notion that certain character traits are to some extent inherited. Character traits such as openness in turn are translated into social attitudes. These social attitudes are then transformed, to some extent, into political attitudes and later into political behavior. The genetic component, they predict, should be an important factor but certainly not the only one or even the most important one.

The image below is Table 1 of the study (I have the study in both .PDF and .html versions). Click on the image for a larger version. The variables are controlled for sex since obviously fraternal twins sometimes are of opposite sex.

more...

Posted by: Rusty at 01:23 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 2439 words, total size 19 kb.

1 For the most authoritative book on the genetic basis of politics, read the amazing book entitled,Â’ Chimpanzee Politics : Power and Sex among Apes", by Frans de Waal.

Posted by: greg at June 21, 2005 04:10 PM (/+dAV)

2 damn that was long.

Posted by: Carlos at June 21, 2005 04:16 PM (8e/V4)

3 The correlations seem pretty low to me. It was a worthwhile study, but the results aren't all that earth shattering.

Posted by: greg at June 21, 2005 04:53 PM (/+dAV)

4 Soooooooo, genetics is responsible for the NYT folks running Gitmo frontpages 34 straight days! http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/087185.php Well I guess they're not responsible. All criticisms of the NYT should be removed from Internet archives Immediately!

Posted by: But They're Not Wimps! at June 21, 2005 05:29 PM (bAhDw)

5 I believe a person's political views are generally influenced by which side of their brain is in charge. Right-brainers are suckers for emotional issues that lack depth, such as free health care, foreign aid, etc., and left-brainers are more concerned with harsh realities such as long-term economic stability, national security, etc. This goes a long way to explain why "progressive" movements didn't catch on until the less educated members of society won voting rights, as poorly educated people tend to be more emotional and less rational. East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 21, 2005 06:03 PM (0yYS2)

6 It's been a long time, but I still have a vague recollection of the Minnesota Twin Study. As I recall, the correlation coefficient was about .80 when comparing the 'intelligence' of monozygotic twins reared in different adoptive homes. THAT is statistically significant. Even so, I argued that the nature component was being exaggerated. This is because households that adopt children tend not to be destitute and are often Christian families. Therefore, even though the separated monozygotic twins didnÂ’t share the same roof, there was plenty of commonality in their environment. The correlation coefficients in the present study are generally much lower even before considering environmental commonalities.

Posted by: greg at June 21, 2005 07:36 PM (/+dAV)

7 Improbulus, I would never have broached this subject on my own. But those who live in Blue States tend to be better educated and have higher per capita earnings than those in Red States. I fully acknowledge this even though I reside in Texas. Furthermore, I don't recall that education has ever been a requisite to vote.

Posted by: greg at June 21, 2005 07:44 PM (/+dAV)

8 I would suggest that the higher per capita earnings are more due to higher costs of living. Everything from hambugers to rents are higher in the more congested and larger cities and so are average pay rates. I could be quite well educated and earn less in a small town for the same reason.

Posted by: Oyster at June 21, 2005 08:21 PM (YudAC)

9 Great post, Jawa. Please check out my comments at http://neuro-conservative.blogspot.com/. Overall, and in most important ways, I am in agreement with you. I think that your interpretation of the second table is somewhat inaccurate, however. If I am reading it correctly, I think the authors are saying that educational attainment is slightly more heritable than political ideology, which is in turn much more heritable than party affiliation. Also, the genetic component (heritability) to explaining variance in political ideology is stronger than *shared* environmental influences, not all environmental influences.

Posted by: Neuro-conservative at June 22, 2005 01:02 AM (PCe8f)

10 I am curious to know if the researchers touched on what seems to me to be a quasi natural evolution towards more conservative views as one gets older.

Posted by: Defense Guy at June 22, 2005 08:31 AM (lVjfM)

11 Earlier I described this study as Â‘worthwhileÂ’. After additional consideration, IÂ’ve decided the study was more than just worthwhile. Heretofore, the social sciences such as political science and sociology have been anything but sciences. There currently is no unifying theorem such as Natural Selection in biology or quantum mechanics in physics. This study drags Political Sciences into the realm of true science, all be it, kicking and screaming. This has already been attempted in Sociology. The Harvard biologist, Dr. E O Wilson published a seminal book entitled, Â“Insect SocietiesÂ”, and in so doing, he founded the discipline, Sociobiology. The baton was passed to the Sociobiologist, Dr Joseph Lopreato, who wrote, Â‘Crisis In Sociology, the Need for DarwinÂ”. IÂ’ve had the privilege of speaking to Dr. Lopreato personally. He told me about the incredible resistance he encountered from the young Turk sociologists, who tend to be liberals and want no part of any hint that biology may play a role in sociological principles. In my opinion, the authors of the current study should have focused on more basic traits underlying political thinking than whether one is a Republican or a Democrat. They should study the heritability of things like aggression, reciprocity, leadership, leader worship, religious conviction, inter alia. IÂ’m confidant that if they do so, they will find that aggression is genetically predisposed.

Posted by: greg at June 22, 2005 08:44 AM (/+dAV)

12 greg There was a study done about genetic traits causing a predisposition for religous conviction. I read it in NewsWeek a number of years ago.

Posted by: Defense Guy at June 22, 2005 08:56 AM (lVjfM)

13 DG, I'm not surprised.

Posted by: greg at June 22, 2005 09:02 AM (/+dAV)

14 If any of you guys are interesed in reading the actual study, I can send it to you. Just e-mail me.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 22, 2005 09:14 AM (JQjhA)

15 'He told me about the incredible resistance he encountered from the young Turk sociologists, who tend to be liberals and want no part of any hint that biology may play a role in sociological principles.' Curiously, these same people have no problem embracing neo-Darwinian theory when it used to support the contention that homosexuality is rooted in genetics. What hypocrisy!

Posted by: greg at June 22, 2005 09:54 AM (/+dAV)

16 Quothe greg: "Improbulus, I would never have broached this subject on my own. But those who live in Blue States tend to be better educated and have higher per capita earnings than those in Red States." Really now? So all those blacks and hispanics and idiotic poor white people who belong to unions, who voted dhimmicrat in the Northeast and California, whom the dhimmicrats trot out as being kept down by evil whitey, are all better educated and make more money than those stupid white Christian Republicans, who the dhimmis claim own everything and run the corporations? Which is it? Can't have it both ways, ya know. Oh, and John Kerry was supposed to be smarter than Bush too, wasn't he? Well, now we know that was a lie, too. George was a C student, John was a D student. Duh. Every statistic the dhimmis use is a lie or a twisted misrepresentation. It's provable, citable, and only disputable by the certifiable. I know a lot of educated people vote dhimmi, but "educated" is a relative term. I know lots of people who have degrees in art history or some such nonsense, but I wouldn't call them truly educated, because they are totally and completely useless to this world; give me someone who knows something useful to society. If all the art historians and philosophers disappeared tomorrow, nothing bad would happen, but what if all the plumbers and carpenters left? Don't bother though, because I know what you're saying; we're stupid proles and you're much, much smarter than we are, by several orders of magnitude, so we should shut up and keep digging and let you do all the thinking, right? "I fully acknowledge this even though I reside in Texas." Well, Texas has so many blacks and hispanics and poor white people, you should have cured cancer and established a Martian colony by now, with all that brainpower and disposable income. "Furthermore, I don't recall that education has ever been a requisite to vote." It wasn't about education so much as social class. Once upon a time, before women or blacks had voting rights, the electorate was all free white men, and before that, free white male Christian landowners. The right to vote has slowly trickled down to every class of society, and will soon probably be extended to felons such as murderes and child molesters, which I'm sure will boost the dhimmicrats in the polls considerably. The point I'm making here is that as voting rights are extended to more and more people, the more politics changes. Women don't vote with their brains, generally speaking, but rather their hearts, and most blacks still live on the dhimmicrat plantation for the most part, and vote how massa tells them to, because they've been scared into thinking that the Republicans are going to take away their welfare checks and hiring quotas and make them compete in the job and education market like everyone else. Well, they are right on that one. Imagine Republicans expecting someone to get by on their own merit. The bastards. Hispanics are proving harder to keep on the dhimmi reservation, because the Latino diaspora is very diverse, with most being quite conservative in their values, and many seeing the dhimmis for what they really are; mostly a bunch of effite white snobs who pity the poor little brown people, and don't think they're capable of making it in America, like everyone else did, without a handout from the government. Also, the ideas of success by merit and individual liberty appeal to most Hispanics, as they generally have a good work ethic and know real political oppression first-hand. The dhimmi house of cards, so carefully maintained by the media propaganda machine, is collapsing. Blacks and women are waking up to see that they've been lied to for a long time now. Hispanics are starting to see that it's not the dhimmis who are giving them the opportunity to get rich, but Republicans. You Marxist revolution has come to naught, and your wealth redistribution schemes are bankrupting the government. Good, the sooner the better.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 22, 2005 09:55 AM (0yYS2)

17 Improbulus, That those living in Blue States have a higher per capita income and are more 'educated' than those that live in Red States, is an undisputable fact. I wish it weren't so. The Education metric being defined as the highest grade achieved. Furthermore, Blue States, on Average, contribute more to the federal government in taxes than they receive in return. On the other hand, Red States, on Average, contribute less to the federal government in taxes than they receive in return. And yet, those from Red States are more likely to be critical of Welfare.

Posted by: greg at June 22, 2005 10:12 AM (/+dAV)

18 Improbulus, Now if you want to make the argument that the attainment of higher education doesnÂ’t translate into common sense, IÂ’m the first to agree. I lived for many years on a ranch I own in rural Texas. The closest store is 16 miles away. I served in the local VFD, which gave me a strong sense of community and made me well known to all of my neighbors. Most of the people in the area had a high school education at best. However, they had many valuable skills. Many could weld, or were good mechanics, or good carpenters, or water well servicemen, or had a good understanding of animal husbandry, or were expert hunters. When the shit hits the fan, theyÂ’re going to be the most adaptable people. ThatÂ’s why I held them close and tried to learn as much as I could from them. IÂ’ve traveled the world and my favorite people are Americans. Of them, I am most endeared by Texans who live in the Hill Country.

Posted by: greg at June 22, 2005 10:35 AM (/+dAV)

19 IM: "dhimmicrats trot out as being kept down by evil whitey, are all better educated and make more money than those stupid white Christian Republicans, who the dhimmis claim own everything and run the corporations?" Well, then. I'm sorry, you thought some politicians weren't liars? What are you putting besides mustard on that burger? I'm sure if you did poll all of the richest corporate CEO's, they'd most likely be Republican since it seems the Republicans don't want to tax the fuck out of rich people like the Democrats. That, and those pesky dems believe that farce that is "global warming" and nobody wants to be regulated. I don't trust either party. "John Kerry was supposed to be smarter than Bush too, wasn't he? Well, now we know that was a lie, too. George was a C student, John was a D student. Duh" Oh, come on. Both people have pros and cons, but you'll never convince me that Bush, inc. comes off as smarter. I know you'll probably disagree, but Bush looked like a spineless, nervous, whining chimp in the debates and got his ass whipped by Kerry repeatedly. Even if I take your word that Bush is smarter, his verbal skills and composure under pressure is pathetic. Kerry on the other hand sounds condescending. Like I've said before...they both suck donkeys. "If all the art historians and philosophers disappeared tomorrow, nothing bad would happen, but what if all the plumbers and carpenters left?" Interesting...I'm sure the historians and philosophers would have to get off their flat asses and put some elbow grease in doing a hard day's work. It wouldn't really work the other way around though, would it... "Well, they are right on that one. Imagine Republicans expecting someone to get by on their own merit. The bastards." Imagine the Republicans voting from all the former slave owning regions of the USA (red states) forgetting just how much they've fucked over American blacks in the past/present? Oh, just put 'em away in the projects so we don't have to look at them! Don't get me wrong though...I'm not for free rides or affirmative action. Actually, the biggest source of competition and racism towards blacks in NYC right now is from Africans! They come over here super motivated and work like crazy and are always messing with American born blacks. It is pretty sad because so many American blacks try to connect with pride to African roots, but every African I've met has no respect for them and doesn't like being associated with them in any way.

Posted by: osamabinhiding at June 22, 2005 10:59 AM (CYGDF)

20 "That those living in Blue States have a higher per capita income and are more 'educated' than those that live in Red States, is an undisputable fact." Blue states, primarily meaning California and the New England states, are where the largest cities are found. Like San Francisco, LA, New York, and Boston. Four of the most screwed up places you can think of, with high taxes, out of control crime, astronomical costs of living, and much higher than average poverty and homeless rates. Higher per capita income means nothing in the face of high cost of living, you know. The only reason large cities are islands of education is that cities are also where evil corporations are located. Evil, white owned, capitalist corporations. Imagine that. The very places that liberals rely on for their support are paid for by capitalist money. Where I live the income in much lower than in New York, but for some reason, people are willing to move here and take lower paying jobs because there's little crime, low taxes, low poverty and homeless rates, and low cost of living. And we mostly vote Republican, except for a few people who have little responsibility and no market competition in the workplace. The fact is that people who have to work for a living and compete to stay in business vote Republican, because the dhimmis don't understand basic economics. "I wish it weren't so. The Education metric being defined as the highest grade achieved." Education only increases ones chances of success, but does not ensure success. When I go to the local pub, my drinks are poured by a guy with a deology degree and served to me by a girl with a journalism degree. Go figure. "Furthermore, Blue States, on Average, contribute more to the federal government in taxes than they receive in return." Yes, because of the presence of said evil white capitalist corporations. If liberals ever get their way and kill the corporations, they will all starve. Not soon enough. "On the other hand, Red States, on Average, contribute less to the federal government in taxes than they receive in return." Yeah, never mind that the highways that connect the blue states, the farms that feed the blue states, and the people who primarily serve in the military and protect the blue states, are all in red states. "And yet, those from Red States are more likely to be critical of Welfare." Because welfare is nothing but theft from the working people to feed the lazy and stupid, and encourage them to breed.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 22, 2005 12:40 PM (0yYS2)

21 Red states, blue states? They should be designated as red/white/blue vs. pink.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 22, 2005 05:59 PM (ItccO)

22 osamabeenactinglikeadick said: "IM: "dhimmicrats trot out as being kept down by evil whitey, are all better educated and make more money than those stupid white Christian Republicans, who the dhimmis claim own everything and run the corporations?" "Well, then. I'm sorry, you thought some politicians weren't liars?" They all are, it's a job requirement. "What are you putting besides mustard on that burger?" WTF? "I'm sure if you did poll all of the richest corporate CEO's, they'd most likely be Republican since it seems the Republicans don't want to tax the fuck out of rich people like the Democrats." Republicans don't want to tax the fuck out of anyone, since high taxes actually cause revenues to go down. "That, and those pesky dems believe that farce that is "global warming" and nobody wants to be regulated." I'm not sure what you're saying here. Global warming is a fact, but it's also part of a natural phenomenon of climate regular shifts that's been going on for, oh, say about five billion years now. "I don't trust either party." Now you're starting to make sense. "John Kerry was supposed to be smarter than Bush too, wasn't he? Well, now we know that was a lie, too. George was a C student, John was a D student. Duh" "Oh, come on. Both people have pros and cons, but you'll never convince me that Bush, inc. comes off as smarter." He got elected and Kerry didn't. Bush made his money in business and Kerry inhereited, then married his. Twice. The evidence is damning. "I know you'll probably disagree, but Bush looked like a spineless, nervous, whining chimp in the debates and got his ass whipped by Kerry repeatedly." Dialogue isn't his strong suit, but it sure is Kerry's. Of course, this just means Kerry makes a more convincing liar. "Even if I take your word that Bush is smarter, his verbal skills and composure under pressure is pathetic." He's a people person. "Kerry on the other hand sounds condescending." Liars usually do if they're real good. " Like I've said before...they both suck donkeys." I want Condi. She's smarter than any politician alive, and better looking. "If all the art historians and philosophers disappeared tomorrow, nothing bad would happen, but what if all the plumbers and carpenters left?" "Interesting...I'm sure the historians and philosophers would have to get off their flat asses and put some elbow grease in doing a hard day's work." Well, there goes civilization. "It wouldn't really work the other way around though, would it..." No, plumbers and carptenters, by their very nature, could never be so useless to society. Tradesmen and craftsmen are by their nature useful people. Of course, I get what your're saying here, especially by using the ellipse as as written roll of the eyes. You think that simple men who work with their hands are stupid, and incapable of refined though. You think that farm boys and soldiers and carpenters should just shut up and do as they're told by you and your kind. you see yourself as part of the intelligentsia, and harbor bitterness at the injustice of a world that doesn't recognize you for the superior being that you are. Marx was a dumbass, and his idiocy has poisoned the world as nothing before, and as nothing will after. "Well, they are right on that one. Imagine Republicans expecting someone to get by on their own merit. The bastards." "Imagine the Republicans voting from all the former slave owning regions of the USA (red states) forgetting just how much they've fucked over American blacks in the past/present?" Wasn't it the dhimmicrats who were against the Civil Rights Act? Yes it was. Wasn't it a Republican who freed the slaves? Yep. Why should it be shocking that the New South is so different from the Old South? Wasn't that the whole point all along? The South has changed, but the Republicans and dhimmicrats have not, so the South changed sides. It's funny that blacks still side with the dhimmis though. "Oh, just put 'em away in the projects so we don't have to look at them!" Wasn't it the dhimmis who created the projects, and welfare? Why yes, I do believe it was. "Don't get me wrong though...I'm not for free rides or affirmative action. Actually, the biggest source of competition and racism towards blacks in NYC right now is from Africans! They come over here super motivated and work like crazy and are always messing with American born blacks. It is pretty sad because so many American blacks try to connect with pride to African roots, but every African I've met has no respect for them and doesn't like being associated with them in any way." True. I've known several Africans, fine fellows all. They make especially good soldiers.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 22, 2005 08:41 PM (0yYS2)

23 This is priceless and worth checking out, IM: http://www.livejournal.com/users/zete_tic/329.html

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 23, 2005 08:20 AM (x+5JB)

24 IM been buying ammo said: "They all are, it's a job requirement." Very true. ""What are you putting besides mustard on that burger?" WTF?" Heinz, man. "Republicans don't want to tax the fuck out of anyone, since high taxes actually cause revenues to go down." Well, the Republicans have quite the reputation for giving rich people a break when it comes to taxes, as well as other corporate benefits. I also think the Dems are Republicans in cheap suits. "I'm not sure what you're saying here. Global warming is a fact, but it's also part of a natural phenomenon of climate regular shifts that's been going on for, oh, say about five billion years now." IM, yeah the world goes through slow cycles of ice ages and tropical weather...it's usually dictated by the earth's position to the sun and plate tectonics effecting the flow of the ocean currents. The amount of changes in weather, ozone and general ratios of gasses in our atmosphere over the past 100 years is shocking. There's nothing natural about that. See, you are enlightened enough to trust science...probably because you are an atheist, no? I've met some conservatives who actually think that global warming is a lie. ""I don't trust either party." Now you're starting to make sense." Haha. I've been thinking that way since birth. "He got elected and Kerry didn't. Bush made his money in business and Kerry inhereited, then married his. Twice. The evidence is damning." Bush made his money? I thought it was more like daddy kept trying to set him up to do so, and he kept running shit into the ground. I have no idea about how Kerry has made money, but I do know he "married up". "Dialogue isn't his strong suit, but it sure is Kerry's. Of course, this just means Kerry makes a more convincing liar." Ha! True... By the way, what the hell was that think on Bush's back during the debates? I know all the moon-bats were obsessing over it, but the images were from video that wasn't still framed and photoshopped. You really can see a bulge and wire. I mean, if the guy needs some coaching for speeches, that's ok. It would be cheating to use that in a debate though... "He's a people person." Yeah, but I find that a bit insulting...because that almost implies that Americans are badly spoken or stubborn. "I want Condi. She's smarter than any politician alive, and better looking." I'm not sure I can agree with you on this, especially on the latter! It would be pretty interesting if she and Hillary ran against each other. Can you imagine them debating? Cat fight! "Well, there goes civilization." Yeah, I'm sure all the houses would look like they were built during Russia's communist days... "No, plumbers and carptenters, by their very nature, could never be so useless to society. Tradesmen and craftsmen are by their nature useful people. Of course, I get what your're saying here, especially by using the ellipse as as written roll of the eyes. You think that simple men who work with their hands are stupid, and incapable of refined though. You think that farm boys and soldiers and carpenters should just shut up and do as they're told by you and your kind. you see yourself as part of the intelligentsia, and harbor bitterness at the injustice of a world that doesn't recognize you for the superior being that you are. Marx was a dumbass, and his idiocy has poisoned the world as nothing before, and as nothing will after." Actually, I don't think that way. If you only knew the jobs I've had! Hahaha... I've been poor and know many trades and grew up working on a farm. When shit busts around my place, I repair it or build something new. I've never claimed to be some lofty lefty. "Well, they are right on that one. Imagine Republicans expecting someone to get by on their own merit. The bastards." "Wasn't it the dhimmicrats who were against the Civil Rights Act? Yes it was. Wasn't it a Republican who freed the slaves? Yep. Why should it be shocking that the New South is so different from the Old South? Wasn't that the whole point all along? The South has changed, but the Republicans and dhimmicrats have not, so the South changed sides. It's funny that blacks still side with the dhimmis though." I think it's because they think all the rich whitey's are Republican. "Wasn't it the dhimmis who created the projects, and welfare? Why yes, I do believe it was." Yes on welfare, not sure about the projects. Man, I think projects are the worst... "True. I've known several Africans, fine fellows all. They make especially good soldiers." You knew some in the army? USA soldiers?

Posted by: osamabeenthere at June 23, 2005 11:51 AM (CYGDF)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

June 16, 2005

Bob Not Smilling Any More: States Sue Enzyte Makers

enzyte _bob.jpg There goes my last chance of happiness! Not that I know what Enzyte is....er...I'm not even sure what it's for....I'm telling you, those aren't my 'natural male enhancement' pills....that's not my bag, baby....

Star Telegram:

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott joined five other states Wednesday in suing Steve Warshak, an Ohio businessman who owns a collection of dietary supplement and drug companies. Abbott's suit, filed in state District Court in Dallas, alleges fraudulent advertising and deceptive billing practices.
One of Warshak's supplements is Enzyte, advertised as "the once-a-day tablet for natural male enhancement." The ads feature a blissful Bob, smiling in gratitude to Enzyte.....
Warshak's ads resemble pharmaceutical ads, but the attorney general's office said the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not approved any of the products.
"This guy is making a lot of money off of claims that are simply untrue," said Tom Kelley, a spokesman for Abbott....

No, ya really think it's a scam?

And here should have been clue #1. You know that little Latin phrase in the commercials they run in small print and in parenthesis? It says suffragium asotas. It's just a gimmick to make it look legit, like it's a real drug. It's not. Actually suffragium asotas simply means enhanced sexuality and it's not even proper Latin.

I guess it's back to the old pump....

Posted by: Rusty at 08:43 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 238 words, total size 2 kb.

June 14, 2005

Porn Star Mary Carey's Dinner with President Bush

Maybe I'm the last blogger on earth to hear that former California gubernatorial governor and porn star Mary Cary is scheduled to have dinner with President Bush tonight, but no one is going to accuse Rusty Shackleford of not doing his utmost to get to the bottom of this story! Oh Infinite Zeuss, why do you mock me?? Why could I have not been in D.C. this week!!

Via Wonkette and the America Blog I learn that Mary Cary is set to be at National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) fundraiser tonight as the guest of pornographer and president of Kick Ass Pictures president Mark Kulkis.

As we speak Kulkis & Carey are scheduled to be having lunch with Karl Rove. At 3:00 p.m. Eastern, Carey will be at The Coyote Ugly Saloon in Washington, DC, for a pre-dinner press-conference where she will be showing off her dress for this evening's festivities with the President. Mary Cary is going to announce her candidacy for Lieutenant Governor of California at the conference.

If you are in the D.C. area, grab a digital cam and get on over there (you have all of 5 minutes to get there). If you need some press credentials I'll be happy to provide you some on condition that you bring a digital cam!

Of course, the mavens over at Wonkette are publishing this because they think it is so ironical. And the gay-outing thugs over at America Blog want to show the hypocrisy of the Republicans inviting a pornorgrapher to a fundraiser. And no doubt this will become something of a minor embarrasment for the administration among inside the beltway pundits tomorrow morning. The kind of story where no one will actually talk about what happened, but all will pause to speak of the effect of what happened on the President's poll numbers, support among Christians, and so forth.

On behalf of all South Park Republicans everywhere let me be the first to say, Mr. President, have an enjoyable dinner with that porn star!

On a serious note, there is no way that President Bush knows that Mary Cary is going to be there. It's also very unlikely that KKKarl Rove or any of the Bush people know what Kick Ass Productions is or that Mark Kulkis is an adult film producer. I was never one of those right-wingers who got all over Clinton for having drug dealers in the White House or who got all upset about Gore's campaign fundraising troubles. The reality is that modern campaigns are run like very large corporations, with the people at the top knowing very little about the day to day operations of the organization.

Further, neither she nor Kulkis is actually having dinner with the President as their press release implies. Hundreds of people will be at that dinner. If being in the same room with the President while you put food in your mouth counts as 'having dinner', then I've dined with Senators, had brunch with Kings, and even had tea with the first lady. You know, cause I was in the same room and all....

Anyway, I have no objections to a porn star going to a Republican fundraiser. Heck, I want more porn stars at Republican fundraisers! But this will be a minor embarassment tomorrow if word doesn't get out and Kulkis's invite isn't cancelled in the next few hours, so heads up on this.

UPDATE: I didn't notice this last week on WND. In it, Cary claims she is a Christian. Ok, maybe Cary doesn't understand what it means to be a Christian or maybe she's just a bad Christian, but that just seems like one of the most idiotic statements ever. Or maybe she read the part about Jesus saving the adultress from those who would stone her Taliban style, but forgot to read on to the next part where he says, "Go and sin no more."

I love this one:

When asked about Bible verses condemning adultery, she responded, "Bill Clinton committed adultery. [Doing] adult movies is acting, portraying a role. It's not Mary Ellen Cook, the real me."

Acting, right. *cough*

Anyway, from the WND article we already get a preview of the brew-ha-ha that's coming down:

"The reason these people are doing this is for publicity and to embarrass Bush," Wildmon told WND. "I think the Republicans can survive this, but they need to go public with an explanation. They need to exclude them or withdraw the invitation. Just doing nothing is the worst thing they can do."

True that. My explanation would be to point out that Jesus also like to dine with sinners. That's the excuse Carter used. After all, if Jimmy Carter can admit to having 'unclean thoughts' in a Playboy interview and still escape with a squeaky clean image, I'm sure President Bush can survive this.

And yes, I'm both a blog pimp and a link whore.....

Posted by: Rusty at 01:54 PM | Comments (58) | Add Comment
Post contains 832 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Didn't Bush say he was going to bring dignity back to the White House after the torrid Bill Clinton years? How is dining with porn stars dignified? The Libs are right, this is hypocritical.

Posted by: Carlos at June 14, 2005 01:58 PM (8e/V4)

2 Lighten up. There will be hundreds of people there. Bush isn't really 'having dinner' with her.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 14, 2005 02:10 PM (JQjhA)

3 Rusty, it's not a matter of lightening up. I'm not personally offended by porno, but porno has its place, and it's not the White House. Even if there are hundreds of people there, this sends the wrong message if indeed Bush wants to bring dignity to the White House. Would it be so hard for Bush to send the right message here?

Posted by: Carlos at June 14, 2005 02:16 PM (8e/V4)

4 What message is that Carlos? That as Republicans, or perhaps even Christians, we should be shunning people like this?

Posted by: Defense Guy at June 14, 2005 02:20 PM (jPCiN)

5 Very weird. I just wonder what they're doing there. I suppose there is a relationship of sorts between libertarians (that's libertarians, not libertines)and various "lifestyles."

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 14, 2005 02:24 PM (x+5JB)

6 Defense Guy, would you say that if it was pimps and whores instead of porno queens? I would invite the scum of the earth into my home, as Jesus did, but not to make them feel good about their sin, but to minister to them, as Jesus did. I expect fellow christians to call me on my sin too, not to give it a pass just so we can all get along.

Posted by: Carlos at June 14, 2005 02:27 PM (8e/V4)

7 If I were Bush's scriptwriter, I'd suggest he simply say, when questioned about this, "Even Christ ate with sinners."

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 14, 2005 02:27 PM (x+5JB)

8 But a) it's not at the White House b) Bush has no control over who goes to the dinner, that's the RNCC.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 14, 2005 02:29 PM (JQjhA)

9 But the bottom line is, he doesn't know about it, and those "lower level" campaign workers Rusty referes to should be more careful.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 14, 2005 02:29 PM (x+5JB)

10 Damn it, I seem to be posting one line too late evry time!

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 14, 2005 02:31 PM (x+5JB)

11 Wonder what's on the menue. Kielbasa?

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 14, 2005 02:33 PM (x+5JB)

12 Carlos That's right. I think shunning them would be the wrong message to send. Inclusion shows openness to those that have not yet 'found the way', so to speak, and affords more opportunity to have that kind of dialogue. Hate the sin, love the sinner kind of thing. In addition, to shun them would cause more political harm as the left would use it as more ammunition about the intolerance of the evil rethuglicans towards what is a very legal venture in this country.

Posted by: Defense Guy at June 14, 2005 02:35 PM (jPCiN)

13 Defense Guy, true, shunning her now will look terrible. They should have quietly withdrawn the invitation early on, but it's too late now. Libs get their little PR victory no matter what the White House does.

Posted by: Carlos at June 14, 2005 02:39 PM (8e/V4)

14 Just read the WND article. Carey claims she's a friendly. Uh, yeeeeaaahhh. She also wants political "pointers" from Bush. My favorite part: "She maintains pornographic movies don't harm anyone, and are beneficial in a way, providing safe fantasies for the "lonely" public." This despite study after study blaming the indistry to desensitization towards promiscuous sex and violence toward women. Plus, if she's such a fan of the Bible, what about the warning that anyone who looks upon a woman with lust in his heart commits adultery--listed as one of the vices sure to land someone in Gahenna.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 14, 2005 02:45 PM (x+5JB)

15 would you rather have Mary Carey or Michael Moore showing up? I know who I would take

Posted by: William Teach at June 14, 2005 02:58 PM (IRsCk)

16 Moore would no doubt eat up the profits.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 14, 2005 03:03 PM (x+5JB)

17 "Maybe I'm the last blogger on earth to hear that former California gubernatorial governor and porn star Mary Cary is scheduled to have dinner with President Bush tonight, but no one is going to accuse Rusty Shackleford of not doing his utmost to get to the bottom of this story!" Nah, you're not the last to hear about it. I posted a link for you (or anyone else) to read last week in that post you made about wanting links because you were bored: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/085936.php Anyways, this will do wonders for the "family values" angle the Republican party always throws around.

Posted by: Venom at June 14, 2005 03:15 PM (dbxVM)

18 "would you say that if it was pimps and whores instead of porno queens?" Last I checked, porn is not illegal while prostitution is. I could care less if the entire industry was there. It doesn't mean they would be filimg a scene while Bush is on the stage. There are a lot of people with shady occupations. Should we not allow telemarketers, insurance salesmen, telecom industry execs, etc. to attend? All three of those professions are as shady as being a porn star and at times are just as "non-Christian."

Posted by: Chad Evans at June 14, 2005 03:21 PM (dZcXJ)

19 Well said, let me reiterate my personal view on pornography. The ideal society is one which tolerates pornography, yet does not consume much of it. The same rule applies to drugs.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 14, 2005 03:25 PM (JQjhA)

20 >>>"Last I checked, porn is not illegal while prostitution is." Chad, I see. So if prostitution were legal, then you'd have pimps and whores dining at the White House. I small hint, there's a difference between legal and moral. Ponder that. Also, there's a difference between a telemarketer vs pimps and whores, ponder that one too.

Posted by: Carlos at June 14, 2005 03:28 PM (8e/V4)

21 and Chad, labeling something as "christian" doesn't make a lick of difference. There are plenty of non-christians who also do not like the message the porn industry sends to their sons and daughters.

Posted by: Carlos at June 14, 2005 03:30 PM (8e/V4)

22 "It doesn't mean they would be filimg a scene while Bush is on the stage." Haha, that would kick ass.

Posted by: Venom at June 14, 2005 03:35 PM (dbxVM)

23 "Ok, maybe Cary doesn't understand what it means to be a Christian or maybe she's just a bad Christian..." Funny. The above statement seems to apply especially well to the motives and content of this site! Nice Christian porn links too by the way! LOL. Is that just more of your effort to "show us the enemy we fight"??? LOL Dude!

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at June 14, 2005 03:39 PM (h9w01)

24 This is just a cheap way to get publicity and embarass the president. The banality of evil is surprising: Satan plays the same old tricks in current disguises ever since the Garden. If you take away the buzz words and packaging, Satan's old tricks are so common and banal they're really quite a bore. She is just the latest, who of course, must convince herself she is and "actress" "playing a role." God is not mocked.

Posted by: 72VIRGINS at June 14, 2005 03:49 PM (dhRpo)

25 You must excuse Prof. PVN, Like many non-Christians on the Left, they pretend to understand Christianity better than, well, Christians.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 14, 2005 03:50 PM (JQjhA)

26 And just for full disclosure to readers, Most of you would not consider me a Christian, even though I consider myself one. I'm definitely not in the main stream theologically, but I do go to church.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 14, 2005 03:53 PM (JQjhA)

27 ... Aaaaaaaand SCENE!

Posted by: Editor at June 14, 2005 04:07 PM (adpJH)

28 Ok, all I want to know is if Bush will be wearing nothing but assless leather chaps and a cowboy hat. A whip wouldn't hurt. Or maybe it would? What happened to the 'cover up that dirty statue titty' days of Ashcroft? Is Laura not enough of a naughty librarian? Anyway...it does seem rather odd. I wonder what will CUM of it...

Posted by: osamabeenhiding at June 14, 2005 04:41 PM (buka0)

29 If this comes to light in the media, and I believe it will since it can be used to make Bush look bad, he should simply state that that as an American, she had as much right as anyone else to attend. Game, set, match.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 14, 2005 04:56 PM (0yYS2)

30 Who cares? And it is only hypocritical if Bush "shares" a cigar with Cary.

Posted by: KBiel at June 14, 2005 05:11 PM (KSCkS)

31 True, IM. But once the NY Times checks the bookmarks, cache and history on his browser it'll make Clinton look like a priest!

Posted by: osamabinpostin' at June 14, 2005 05:12 PM (buka0)

32 I used to work in the telecom industry and I can tell you what was being done is in no way moral, just like I do not believe those in the porn industry are moral. I know insurance salesmen and the industry teaches immoral techniques in order to push policies upon clients. Am I to believe no member of the telecom or insurance industry has stepped foot in the White House? I still stand to the point though if we do not allow certain immoral occupations to attend a fundraiser, we should not allow any. Who will the new moral police be though to decide whether or not one profession is more moral than the next? Furthermore, why is the White House such sacred ground and who is in charge of determining who is allowed on the sacred ground? If those who want to believe Mary Carey is disturbing sacred ground because of her profession, then why did a good portion of those vote for a known adulterer to work out of the White House? And by the way, I only inserted the non-Christian comment because it is cited by Mary Carey herself. Anyone that actually knows me understands how religious I am, of lack thereof as is more appropriate.

Posted by: Chad Evans at June 14, 2005 05:25 PM (dZcXJ)

33 The Pharisees and Saducees were quite religious, too. Choose your words wisely, Chad.

Posted by: Editor at June 14, 2005 05:32 PM (adpJH)

34 >>>"I know insurance salesmen and the industry teaches immoral techniques in order to push policies upon clients." Chad, that's a very shallow analogy. There's a difference between an immoral industry (porno) vs crooks working in the telecom industry. The telecom industry isn't immoral-- those crooks are. If the guy's a crook, then he doesn't get the invite,that's all. >>>"Who will the new moral police be though to decide whether or not one profession is more moral than the next." That's easy, obviously the person in the White House decides what/who he considers worthy to dine at the White House, duh. That's what Bush said he would do.

Posted by: Carlos at June 14, 2005 05:51 PM (8e/V4)

35 hey, if they cant invite a porn starlet, who it seems some people are saying is a shady area of employment, than most def. no lawyers should be invited either since they are some of the shadiest people around....ive known mafiaso who are nicer people

Posted by: THANOS35 at June 14, 2005 06:28 PM (CagjM)

36 If all crooks and whores were banned from state events, we'd have to shut down the government.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 14, 2005 06:38 PM (0yYS2)

37 THANO, I know plenty of asshole lawyers, and that porn starlet looks like a real sweetheart. That's besides the point.

Posted by: Carlos at June 14, 2005 06:38 PM (8e/V4)

38 Maybe this is Bush's twisted revenge on Laura's standup routine a while ago?

Posted by: osamabeendownloadin'porn at June 14, 2005 06:39 PM (buka0)

39 "Cary claims she is a Christian. Ok, maybe Cary doesn't understand what it means to be a Christian or maybe she's just a bad Christian, but that just seems like one of the most idiotic statements ever. Or maybe she read the part about Jesus saving the adultress from those who would stone her Taliban style, but forgot to read on to the next part where he says, 'Go and sin no more.'" Rusty: I thought that this, despite someone's comments, was very well written, orthodox, and right on the money.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 14, 2005 06:44 PM (m6QBo)

40 Oh good grief. No, I don't agree with her "job". Do, I think she's wrong to be involved with porn, "yes". Do I think she should be made fun of, called names, shunned, "NO, NO, NO!" You can disagreed with someone and/or disapprove of their behavior and still interact with them. The LLL have their panties all twisted up saying that it just shows we're not the party of family values. And they are doing everything they can in an attempt to push Christians to criticize President Bush and distance themselves from the Republican Party. They still think that if they out gay Republicans and scream that President Bush "dines" with porn stars that Christians will be so horrified and disgusted that they will stop voting. And then of course Democrats will have the edge, or so they think. My answer to anyone who criticizes either Mary Carey, President Bush or Republicans about this is, "So what? She has just as much right to be there as anyone else. Do you think we should start refusing admittance to people based on their job or morals? Do we refuse anyone we disagree with? People who are having affairs? Models who model sexy clothes? Singers who sing racy songs? Where do we start and where do we end?" As a Christian and a decent human being I believe that we don't have to like the behavior to be nice, interact with and be gracious to another person.

Posted by: sues at June 14, 2005 08:57 PM (WMcIU)

41 osama, Your head is in the gutter and you are disgusting. Just like all your other lefty friends. It shows your low level of intelllegence that you are unable to carry out a conversation with out blatent sexual references.

Posted by: lin at June 14, 2005 09:05 PM (WMcIU)

42 linlinlin...Right you are that my head is in the gutter. I am proud to be uninhibited sexually or unfazed by sexual references. Though you are extremely wrong about a few things: I can carry on many intelligent conversations very easily and without blatant sexual references. I posted my joking words in here while having a great conversation with Young Bourbon Professional about abortion, life, religion and philosophy in another post...all at the same time! So save your moralistic rant for someone else and learn to laugh. Oh yeah, and I'm not "Left" as you might so easily have assumed me to be. You know a mere iota of what I'm about or how I live my life. Anyway, I'd be open to having any discussion with you about any topic...and without any sexual references if you like.

Posted by: osamabinpostin' at June 14, 2005 09:44 PM (buka0)

43 osama, are you greg? or Steve?

Posted by: Carlos at June 15, 2005 12:02 AM (8e/V4)

44 Carlos, I'm shocked that you ask... I have posted under "Steve" before when Collin first introduced me to this blog, and I use a million variations of osama this and that, but I'm sure as hell not Greg! Why do you ask? Did I say something similar to what he used to post?

Posted by: osamabinpostin' at June 15, 2005 01:35 AM (buka0)

45 Maybe this will get people more interested in politics. Howie says as he sheepishly returns to the forum.

Posted by: Howie at June 15, 2005 09:09 AM (D3+20)

46 osama, because greg also identified himself as neither Left nor right.

Posted by: Carlos at June 15, 2005 09:29 AM (8e/V4)

47 That's it? I thought Greg was IP blocked anyway, right? He would have to be totally split personality to post as me and him...besides what you mentioned we have very different posts and styles of writing. Just to get facts straight, I'm not Libertarian either. I don't back the GOP, the Dems, Greens or anyone, really. When I vote I tend to try and vote for the best person, not the best party...but that's a whole other conversation. I'm sure if Greg wanted to post in here, he could find a way, and surely without using my osama handles. If anyone did imitate me, I'd alert everyone right away.

Posted by: osamabinwhatever at June 15, 2005 09:44 AM (buka0)

48 Osama: Never fear--your views and Greg's on certain topics are quite different. I never thought you were the same person. What is your brother up to these days?

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 15, 2005 09:52 AM (x+5JB)

49 My "bro" Collin? I'm sure he's terrorizing another blog somewhere. I forget which one though!

Posted by: osamabinwhatever at June 15, 2005 10:17 AM (buka0)

50 Osama = not greg for sure.

Posted by: Howie at June 15, 2005 10:50 AM (D3+20)

51 Now those definitely look like some weapons of mass destruction!

Posted by: Chrees at June 15, 2005 11:06 AM (hFZJx)

52 As a Repbulican, this makes me proud of JR! The administration should use as good PR and a recruitment tool. Hey, may be she'll do a recruitment film.

Posted by: homely at June 15, 2005 11:47 AM (h9pED)

53 What is everyone uptight about. Bush does not need Mary to make him look like a immoral corrupt fool. He is perfectly cable of doing that himself.

Posted by: Butch at June 17, 2005 11:55 AM (Gqhi9)

54 Butch, because Bush=Hitler, right? He is corrupt, blah, blah, blah...liberal tripe and unsubstantiated "facts" go hand-in-hand.

Posted by: Jeremy at June 25, 2005 08:05 PM (5Ayae)

55 osamabinpostin: that presupposes that the man knows how to work a computer.

Posted by: mlevans at June 28, 2005 01:05 PM (jZV9v)

56 Maybe Bush can show her how to really F!!! someone. As for Christian's it's all a front to mask there problems, & looking for a magic cure all. And biggest phoney's I know.

Posted by: Alibaba at June 28, 2005 02:15 PM (BBI7X)

57 PS.It is not the fact that Christians should be appauled at Bush's actions, It's the fact that there not !!!!

Posted by: Alibaba at June 28, 2005 02:23 PM (BBI7X)

58 But Will Their Children Produce Porn News? (BEVERLY HILLS) -- X-rated video mogul Mark Kulkis, who escorted porn star Mary Carey to June's GOP dinner with President Bush, has found a new love interest: Washington powerdater and CNN producer Kathy Benz. The two met during an interview while Kulkis, 40, president and CEO of Kick Ass Pictures, was in DC for the National Republican Congressional Committee's annual President's Dinner. He's honorary chairman of the NRCC's Business Advisory Council, a roundtable of millionaire entrepreneurs. Benz denies she's cozying up to Kulkis to get a scoop for CNN about the private lunch he and Carey had with White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove. "Mark's a wonderful guy and I think this could be the real thing," she tells girlfriends. Benz, 35, is known in Washington power circles for dating such figures as venture capitalist Jonathan Ledecky (now trying to buy the Washington Nationals), Univ. of Maryland basketball coach Gary Williams, and spent time last August with Sirius CEO Mel Karmazin at his Hamptons home. Her regular companions include Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.), John Sununu, Sr, venture capitalist Mark Ein, Chicago Cubs VP John McDonough and Democratic lawyer Julian Epstein. She was engaged to John Daggett, AOL millionaire.

Posted by: Kelly at August 06, 2005 07:53 PM (+y0DY)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

June 10, 2005

So, Will Andrew Sullivan Change His Mind Now?

By Demosophist

As I've observed before, Andrew Sullivan's argument in support of gay marriage has been inconsistent. On one hand he argues that it's a matter of fundamental right, on par with opposition to the anti-misogenation Jim Crow laws. But on the other hand he argues that it's a matter of federalism, and that adoption of gay marriage in Massachusettes or California imposes no institutional onus on other states to honor such marriages. Objections to this soft-pedaled federalism ran along the lines that gay marriage could not be extended via the Commerce Clause, because the clause was about regulation of commerce, not regulation of everything that effects commerce. It seems to me that the implications of marriages in one state have a far more significant and certain effect on interstate commerce than six home-grown marajuana plants, so if the intervention of the federal government has already been justified on those grounds the precedent has been set. Once gay marriage is officially recognized and sanctioned in one state it automatically becomes a federal issue.

No, Andrew won't change his mind. He may have been logically inconsistent, but he always knew what he wanted.

(Cross-posted by Demosophist to Demosophia and Anticipatory Retaliation)

Posted by: Demosophist at 03:18 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Gay will make Andrew Sullivan turn on a dime on any issue. He's smart and he know his wordcraft, but take anything he says with a grain of salt. He'll make the exact opposite argument tommorow if it means he can get his gay on.

Posted by: Carlos at June 10, 2005 04:06 PM (paKD6)

2 Andrew who?

Posted by: Editor at June 10, 2005 05:44 PM (adpJH)

3 It's not so much the Commerce Clause that's the problem (see Morrison v US) because most would agree that marriage is a non-economic activity. The problem is going to be the Full Faith and Credit Clause (I've always questioned validity of DOMA on those grounds) and more so the Privileges and/or Immunities Clauses in regards to the right to travel.

Posted by: KG at June 10, 2005 08:15 PM (M1k0F)

4 KG's correct, as I've previously noted. http://nooilforpacifists.blogspot.com/2004/03/gay-marriage-debate-real-issue.html http://nooilforpacifists.blogspot.com/2004/03/liberal-professors-invent-bad-law.html

Posted by: No Oil for Pacifists at June 10, 2005 10:44 PM (L/N2x)

5 You're right that Sully always knew what he wanted, he just can't make a cognizant argument for it.

Posted by: Oyster at June 11, 2005 07:33 AM (YudAC)

6 Maybe he goes both ways on the issue. Maybe he's, confused...

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 11, 2005 10:50 AM (0yYS2)

7 But if he 'goes both ways' on the issues, doesn't that nullify the whole 'born supporting gay marriage' arguement? ;-)

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 11, 2005 11:13 AM (JQjhA)

8 Thanks KG and NOfP. Full Faith and Credit rather than Commerce seem right. I think, however, that you'd agree the core issue involved is the erosion of federalism rather than which specific mechanism is likely to be used to accomplish the deed. I'm not as certain as I once was that "gay marriage" is as detrimental to family structure as I had thought. (Charles Murray has doubts, although John Lott has emerged as the primary proponent of this view.) What makes the problem even tougher to deal with is that the so-called "compromise" (civil union) would probably be even worse news for families. And one can't really use data from Scandinavia because that region is so idiosyncratic (as Murray points out). By the way, lest one buy the argument that legitimizing the "marriage" of two gay parental figures would make much difference to children in "gay homes," only one-half-of-one-percent of all children live in homes with a gay head-of-household. Numerically that may be a large number even though it's a small proportion, but what we're really talking about is a very small effect on a very small proportion of children... balanced against a much larger compound effect on children in homes with a heterosexual head-of-household. The net effect is not, I think, positive... and not even Murray believes that it is. (He just thinks it may be "less bad" than we believe.) It isn't so much that I think there's no argument at all for gay marriage as that the argument is couched in dishonest terms, as though there's no down side. There could, in fact, be a rather catastrophic down side. That's precisely why federalism is so important. If we can't count on federalism to provide us with "laboratories" then about all we can do is block both gay marriage and civil unions.

Posted by: Demosophist at June 13, 2005 10:57 AM (FVRfJ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

June 09, 2005

Angelina Jolie's Hot Lesbian Sex Expertise

In an ongoing series of posts designed to support anti-dhimmitude as well as give concrete examples of 'good gay', The Jawa Report presents the following from 'good gay' goddess Angelina Jolie via the Imperial Minister of Pop Culture studies Ghost of a Flea. Warning: Extremely PG-13 material follows. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 11:43 AM | Comments (29) | Add Comment
Post contains 377 words, total size 3 kb.

1 And why is this subject posted in here? Rusty! Are feeling inadequate!? hehe...Just kidding. I will give my 2 cents: I've had some bisexual or self-professed "lesbian" lovers who taught me a nice thing or two which every straight girl after them has benefited from, so I can't diss them except for the latter being in denial about their silly sexual identity issues. (calling yourself lesbian and fucking a guy repeatedly) Anyway, Angelina isn't even 30, so nuggets of wisdom from her don't mean squat to me. I also can't take anyone seriously if they are keeping vials of blood around their neck and porking Billy Bob Thornton.

Posted by: osamabeenhiding at June 09, 2005 12:01 PM (B9hEP)

2 Dude, it's the THOUGHT of 'good gay' Jolie that inspired the post....not the advice.......

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 09, 2005 12:03 PM (JQjhA)

3 You know, just the thought of Jolie, and the subject matter I'm almost not caring what inspired the post!

Posted by: dave at June 09, 2005 12:05 PM (fsJ2z)

4 I'd do her.

Posted by: Oyster at June 09, 2005 12:09 PM (fl6E1)

5 I would not kick her out of my tent.

Posted by: Filthy Allah at June 09, 2005 12:19 PM (yBHNA)

6 "Good Gay" Sounds like a bullshit label to me. Oyster...you better wear 2 condoms and cover the rest of you with saran wrap: She's been around the block so many times that she's practically playing soccer with her labia.

Posted by: osamabeenhiding at June 09, 2005 12:22 PM (B9hEP)

7 Aww, don't pick on Billy Bob! He did it for the nookie!

I think he's sorta cute.

Posted by: Princess Kimberley at June 09, 2005 12:56 PM (EhIMT)

8 Princess, I gotta pick on Billy B...he bagged Angelina AND got hot and heavy with Halle. Let a man be jealous! Hehe...

Posted by: osamabeenhiding at June 09, 2005 01:36 PM (B9hEP)

9 Oh sure, you HAD to throw in that scree shot from Gia, di'n't you?! How am I supposed to finish my lunch?

Posted by: Editor at June 09, 2005 01:43 PM (adpJH)

10 so I can't diss them except for the latter being in denial about their silly sexual identity issues. (calling yourself lesbian and fucking a guy repeatedly) If it wasn't for silly sexual identity issues I would never get to have sex with lesbians. I, for one, thank our silly sexual identity overlords.

Posted by: Flea at June 09, 2005 02:19 PM (0rSfc)

11 Jolie deprived us "lesbians trapped in male bodies" from beneficial tips? Selfish bitch.

Posted by: Aaron's cc: at June 09, 2005 02:58 PM (ov6Vw)

12 Flea, I wasn't really complaining. About 5 years ago I had a whole bunch of "lesbian" lovers who were all friends. I was hooking up with all of them and each one was like, "Don't tell anyone" this and that. It was insanely funny that they were so afraid of their lesbian friends finding out we were hooking up, yet ALL the friends were doing it. It was a fun fling, but I had to move on to women that have no guilt about doin' the nasty.

Posted by: osamabeenhiding at June 09, 2005 06:26 PM (B9hEP)

13 Mental picture for you: Angelina Jolie dressed in her Lara Croft outfit, and Elizabeth Hurley in her Satanic cheerleader costumer from Bedazzled. Together. Touching. Each other. Grrrrr...

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 09, 2005 08:24 PM (0yYS2)

14 Argh...

Posted by: osamabinchimpin' at June 09, 2005 09:37 PM (B9hEP)

15 Sure, Angelina is hot. But that woman is seriously mass murdering stalker crazy. You remember Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction? Angelina would be like 1000 X crazier. Dead rabbits? Angelina would do your children dead in the pot.

Posted by: SPQR at June 10, 2005 02:37 AM (xauGB)

16 hi ilove angelina joli veuife

Posted by: mezoo at June 30, 2005 02:36 PM (8wds3)

17 I think that thinking of Angelina Jolie and another hott woman together is enough to turn any female at least bi, I mean Angelina is so fine! Who wouldn't want to be with her. Who cares who she's been with. At least you could say she'd been with you!

Posted by: melissa at June 30, 2005 08:57 PM (pO1tP)

18 aj is soooo hot cant get enough aj she can turn a straight woman gay Mmmmmmmm

Posted by: mrg at July 01, 2005 05:22 PM (d2zLn)

19 Angelina is so sexy I want to do her in the worst way. I am straight but she is the only girl I would do it with. She just is so hot she makes me hot and wet. I think she just made me bi. I would do her in a quick minute and anyone who wouldnt is hating or lying

Posted by: jasmine at July 06, 2005 10:03 PM (USugG)

20 o-ea87e36d43c360bc6bdec430a2feb8cd-o Very good work, nice webpage.

Posted by: Lewis Flanders at July 08, 2005 02:55 PM (K/gpw)

21 love 2 lickie with jolie! she has made me think of going bi too! @f she saw my fine 'culo' she would drop Brad fast n furious!

Posted by: susana at July 08, 2005 06:17 PM (DpJL0)

22 love 2 lickie with jolie! she has made me think of going bi too! if she saw my fine 'culo' she would drop Brad fast n furious!

Posted by: susana at July 08, 2005 06:17 PM (DpJL0)

23 i like to have a gift from angelina jolie.

Posted by: ali at July 10, 2005 03:05 AM (JoW9O)

24 you guys are crazy... yer, seriously, use are living inn dreams, none of use actually know angelina... use cant just judge her for what she looks like, think of all the great things she does for those kids and stuff.... dont just judge her for her looks, she has done stupid things liike thinking to commit suicide but who doesnt these days....

Posted by: Tiffany at July 17, 2005 03:38 PM (/vBSN)

25 Um ok Tiff... Let's see here. She thought like that before hand. We all go through hard times in our lives. That was her's. Besides you don't live in the past, and that was the past. She said that since adopting Maddox she has become a different person. I believe that she really has. She has become a better person and nowadays wouldn't think of commiting suicide. So, you really haven't got much to say. Besides, you can't tell me you have never judged a person on looks before, we all have. We all have had those thoughts go through our heads about someone at sometime in our lives.

Posted by: Melissa at July 24, 2005 08:21 PM (M7kiy)

26 I have Angolia, She real bitch. Steals husband of others. she's two faces woman,dangerous, has sucking lips. the more she suck the more it gets bigger. after having sucked Pitt seems like 2 times bigger now. May her got HIV.

Posted by: LittlePle at August 02, 2005 09:41 AM (Ub2HS)

27 I hate Angolia,what she's done is so didgusting. She's real bitch. Steals husband of others. she's two faces woman,dangerous, has sucking lips. the more she suck the more it gets bigger. after having sucked Pitt seems like 2 times bigger now. May her got HIV.

Posted by: LittlePle at August 02, 2005 09:42 AM (Ub2HS)

28 hi i love you. Please send your picher for me tanks for attenshen

Posted by: bahram at September 01, 2005 01:01 PM (WDyE4)

29 ei! wazzup dude?? hows u doing??? Stay cool> jolie..........

Posted by: twink at November 02, 2005 12:13 AM (qe7G2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

118kb generated in CPU 0.0293, elapsed 0.1229 seconds.
122 queries taking 0.104 seconds, 389 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 6049
Files: 17
Bytes: 77.6M
CPU Time: 4:11
Queries: 646749

Content

Posts: 5690
Comments: 76633

Feeds

June 22, 2005

June 21, 2005

June 16, 2005

June 14, 2005

June 10, 2005

June 09, 2005

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds