Gay/Lesbian Issues

Trio of LGBT News Stories Shows We're Not Backsliding on Cultural Acceptance

Trump to keep Obama's anti-discrimination order.

|

Snagglepuss
Hanna Barbera

While the populist triumph of President Donald Trump represented the possibility of backsliding on freer immigration and trade policies, look at all this news that makes it abundantly clear that America, at least, won't be backtracking on gay and transgender acceptance.

To wit:

Federal executive order prohibiting anti-LGBT workplace discrimination remains intact. This morning the White House announced that Trump will be keeping President Barack Obama's 2014 anti-discrimination order in place. This order prohibited discrimination against gay and transgender employees by federal contractors. The White House put out a brief statement:

President Donald J. Trump is determined to protect the rights of all Americans, including the LGBTQ community. President Trump continues to be respectful and supportive of LGBTQ rights, just as he was throughout the election. The President is proud to have been the first ever GOP nominee to mention the LGBTQ community in his nomination acceptance speech, pledging then to protect the community from violence and oppression. The executive order signed in 2014, which protects employees from anti-LGBTQ workplace discrimination while working for federal contractors, will remain intact at the direction of President Donald J. Trump.

To be clear, the administration here is setting the terms for working with the federal government and not attempting to establish (or advance) a general federal ban on LGBT discrimination by private employers elsewhere. If you want to get government money, you have to follow their rules. The order maintains narrow exemptions for religious organizations who provide federally funded social services.

This decision (and the White House deliberately publicizing it) is an important test of whether Trump as president would be able to maintain his own generally pro-acceptance positions as policy even while bringing in social conservatives to run his administration. Now whether the executive order will actually be enforced is another question (that won't be answered for some time).

The response by the Human Rights Campaign, the top LGBT activist organization, is very "Yes, but … ," (via The Hill):

"You can't claim to be an ally when you send LGBTQ refugees back to countries where their lives are at risk. You can't claim support and then rip away life-saving services made possible through the Affordable Care Act for transgender people and those living with HIV or AIDS. You can't be a friend to this community and appoint people to run the government who compare being gay to bestiality," [Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin] added.

Exit polls showed that even though Trump has been the most vocal supporter of LGBT issues the Republican Party has seen in a presidential candidate, he did terribly with LGBT voters, even worse than previous candidates. But we'll have to wait to see how actual policies affect LGBT folks moving forward.

Betsy DeVos, friend of the gays? When Trump selected DeVos as his choice to head the Department of Education, supporters of school choice cheered. She's a massive ally and fighter for the rights of families to control where their children get educated. But many within the LGBT community were not so happy. DeVos' family has a lengthy history of opposing gay issues; and we're not just talking about speaking out or voting against gay issues. The DeVos family has helped bankroll ballot initiatives against gay marriage recognition.

But according to a story by The New York Times, DeVos does not share the positions of her elders. She has a history of personal support for gay and transgender accommodation that she doesn't make a big public deal about:

Ms. DeVos's personal experience with the debate over gender identity and bathrooms dates back decades. As chairwoman of the Michigan Republican Party, she came to the aid of a transgender woman who wanted to use the women's restroom at a call center, upsetting some of the other women there, according to two associates at the time — Mr. McNeilly, who was the party's political director, and Eric Doster, the general counsel.

"We made the accommodation, and that was Betsy's call," said Mr. Doster, who did not recall the woman's name but said this happened in an office near the Michigan State University campus in 1997 or 1998. "A lot of the co-workers weren't happy with it. But that's who Betsy is."

But, like other supportive moves she has made over the years, it was done quietly. When Ken Mehlman, a former Republican National Committee chairman, was collecting signatures from Republicans for a 2015 legal brief that argued in favor of a constitutional right for same-sex marriage, he turned to Ms. DeVos for help in recruiting people in Michigan. She agreed, friends said.

What this means now for the battle over whether public schools should be either forced or prohibited from accommodating transgender students' facility needs is unclear or whether she would leave it to the states. Her responses in her confirmation battle suggest a strong support for leaving control of education policies to the states. Looking at what went down in North Carolina, where the state put a prohibition in place for all public schools, hopefully DeVos' support for choice would include allowing parents of LGBT kids the option of attending schools that will accommodate them—even if these parents have to get together and make new programs themselves.

The Boy Scouts open up membership to transgender children. The fight to convince the Boy Scouts to allow gay teens to participate only as members took decades. It even went all the way to the Supreme Court (which affirmed the Scouts' Freedom of Association).

The ban on gay scouts ended in 2013. It took less than four years after that for the ban on transgender scouts to fall. From The Washington Post:

Boy Scouts chief executive Michael Surbaugh said in a video message that the organization will now accept boys based on the gender a parent puts on a child's scouting application, ending a policy of accepting boys based on the gender listed on a child's birth certificate.

"We realized that referring to birth certificates as the reference point is no longer sufficient," Surbaugh said in a video message. "Communities and state laws are now interpreting gender identity differently than society did in the past. And these new laws vary widely from state to state."

Surbaugh said the new policy goes into effect immediately.

"Our organization's local councils will help find units that can provide for the best interest of the child," he said in a written statement.

What has always been wonderful about the transformation of the Boy Scouts is that this slow walk toward acceptance has been a result of cultural influence and pressures and not a government mandate. It's an important reminder that government authority is not the alpha and omega of making life better for LGBT people and other minorities. It doesn't always take threats of fines or other forms of official punishment for life to get better for people.

Bonus link! "New DC Comic Reinvents Snagglepuss as 'Gay Southern Gothic Playwright.'"

NEXT: How Trump's Refugee Order Is Playing out in the World

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Libertarians for new protected status! Non-libertarian moment!

    Wait, how does this square with the articles saying we should end hate crime laws?

    And what the hell does this have to do with refugees? I need more hyperbolic refugee articles!

    1. Oh, he made sure a refugee reference was in there somewhere. Read it again. It’s like playing “where’s Waldo.”

      1. Found it!!

        You can’t claim to be an ally when you send LGBTQ refugees back to countries where their lives are at risk. You can’t claim support and then rip away life-saving services made possible through the Affordable Care Act for transgender people and those living with HIV or AIDS. You can’t be a friend to this community and appoint people to run the government who compare being gay to bestiality,” [Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin] added.

        1. yet these same people say we shouldn’t judge the behavior of those running those countries where certain lives are at risk.

          Here’s the real irony: all this fantasizing about Trump’s assassination or quitting or impeachment ignores that his replacement would be someone who very much cares about the culture warz.

    2. It’s about a federal government employment policy. Separate issue from hate crime laws and protected classes.

  2. I love you Scott Shackford. If I was a girl with a womb I would have your baby.

    1. It’s not your fault you can’t have babies – it’s not even the Romans’ fault – but you have the *right* to have babies.

      1. It’s our Creator’s fault, but I don’t judge Xim.

      2. It’s symbolic of his struggle against reality.

    2. That alt-text was so orgasmic, it made me pregnant. Scott, better start saving up for child support!

      1. Heavens to Murgatroyd!

      2. That was absolutely BRILLIANT alt-text, to be sure!

    3. If you were a girl with a womb, you would be the wrong kind of person for Scott.

      1. Love knows no boundaries.

      2. I’m the kind of person the way I am currently, but I can show appreciation for an article that is about a different subject than the gazillion fucking immigration articles. *hihn giggles

        1. *wrong
          (insert after 2nd word)

      3. If he were a girl with a womb, he’d have never seen this article…

        TIWTANFL

        1. +1 mythical beasts

        2. The good thing about being a libertarian, is you can still say TOGTO to most of the men and its applicable.

    4. Only slightly off topic: A friend of mine told me about a band he’s started listening to called PWR BTTM (Power Bottom). Apparently, they’re pretty good.

      1. Yes, they are. But so demanding. Oh, you meant the band…

        1. *drops coffee cup and begins thunderous ovation*

    5. All right bacon-magic, come clean. It’s obvious you’re ripping off Harlan Ellison. This is completely the plot to his short story “I have no womb, but I must breed!”

      1. Sure. Never read him, but they say humans have latent telepathic powers. *stares at goats

      2. I laughed. With my mouth.

  3. I can’t figure out why the left has decided to focus so much effort on derailing DeVos. Other than Niki Haley, she’s Trump’s most innocuous nominee (IMO). Sessions is a scary fucker, but I hear not one peep about him from my lefty friends.

    1. Because it is about their (your friend’s) image…not actual positions they care about. How can they use (devos) someone to show how noble and brave they (your friends) are if that makes sense

      1. Exactly. Well stated-

        GOD, IT’S FREAKING ME OUT.

        1. Don’t freak out: remember, someone else took over AmSoc’s handle after trolling the real one into abandoning it.

      2. Also, let’s face it, the lack of resistance to sessions is contained in the phrase “Sessions is a scary fucker”. The Left aren’t into doing anything HARD, or DANGEROUS.

    2. Because she is pro-choice when it comes to schools which threatens the teachers unions.

      1. Lefties pantomime their support for criminal justice reforms, but they are rabid about protecting teachers unions.

      2. ^This. Plus, funneling government money to icky religious schools.

      3. Yeah, I get why they disagree with her. My question is why are they focusing all their time and effort on derailing her, and not Sessions.

        1. Sessions isn’t threatening their biggest campaign contributors.

        2. No disrespect, but I think you underestimate how important the teachers’ unions are to the left. Without them, the Democrats would be a rump party. Maybe not on a national leve, but almost certainly on a local level. They make up a massive part of their volunteers and are a go-to for campaign donations (even more than Hollywood or industry). A pro-school choice Sec. of Education would be an existential threat.

          1. ^This. Teachers unions are the #1 source of dollars at the local level. Dunno about state or federal.

            1. Gotta break a few eggs (poor black kids) to make an omelette (lucrative racket).

        3. Sessions is just a hack they can cut deals with; DeVos is threatening their access to children for the purposes of indoctrination.

        4. Because the left, when it comes down to it, doesn’t actually give a shit about reforming law enforcement.

          1. Indeed, the law enforcement complex is a weapon. It matters not (or at least, a lot less) to them how powerful the weapon is or whether it should even exist; instead, what matters (more) is who wields the weapon. Sessions is continuing a fine tradition continued by Lynch and Holder (and Gonzales fwiw). The only problem is that the weapon is in the hands of a Republican, Trump moreover.

            I still remember how John Ashcroft was derided as a fascist but he looks like a saint compared to who has come after him.

    3. They go after DeVos because the teachers unions are the only organized part of their base that the democrats have left. Everyone else is bat-shit insane. Most lefties would be so unhinged demonstrating, that they’d forget to vote. The teachers unions never forget to vote.

      1. The DNC controls a lot of the prog narrative including social media and that includes opposing anything that threatens any public sector union.

      2. Not to mention the campaign money

      3. And the teachers union is available for protests during June, July and part of August. Truly the shock troops of the left.

        1. But they are not winter soldiers.

        2. They’ve started turning at need by letting kids out of school to join their protests too.

          1. *turning them out

            Though admittedly they can’t do it *too* often. Need to pretend you’re educating the younglings.

    4. But Sessions is just continuation of govt. policy, with maybe more or less emphasis in different areas. That they can understand. No one of importance will be affected unduly by his actions, just some poor people. Most importantly, there won’t be less government.
      DeVos not only threatens the core constituency of teacher unions. If she succeeds at reducing influence of federal government in an area of human existence, and said reduction is an improvement, it strikes at the heart of left’s philosophy.

      1. Which makes her a very important pick.

        You go girl.

      2. Yes, public schools are most people’s first personal encounter with government. The thought that children might not be properly broken indoctrinated edumucated by virtuous government employees is too scary for them.

      3. If she succeeds at reducing influence of federal government in an area of human existence, and said reduction is an improvement, it strikes at the heart of left’s philosophy.

        This. ‘No one can ever find out that they don’t need the government That. Gives. US. SO. MUCH. POWER!

        I’m assuming there’s an evil laugh after that.

    5. You need different lefty friends. Sessions has, by far, the most opposition that I see. Lawyers, Guns, and Money’s bloggers have had several posts stating that any Dem Senator who votes for Sessions should be immediately kicked out of the party. I personally wasted two phone calls to the Texas Senators asking them to vote against him.

      1. I would prefer just having better lefties in general.

    6. I have a bunch of friends who are elementary-high school teachers and they all hate her with the passion of a thousand suns.

      When I make the mistake of asking why it’s just a boilerplate of leftist talking points about guns, charter schools, transgender rights, teachers unions etc. I never hear a good reason, or at least one that makes me believe she is somehow bad for kids.

    7. The lefty types I hear from bitch about Sessions more than others because they’re convinced he’s a racist. I mean he’s from Alabama or Georgia or some racist place like that!!! Their faux racism charges drown out all the legitimate concerns about the guy’s drug warrior street cred and opposition to police reforms et cetera.

    8. DeVos is striking at the heart of their indoctrination program. Kill that off and in less than a generation the left will fade away like smoke in the wind. Sessions doesnt worry them because he is just a plain ‘ol authoritarian, and they love them some authoritarian.

    9. Because all of the left’s ire is directed from propaganda organizations. they get upset about what they are told to be upset about.

      Sessions doesn’t threaten any status quo or voter blocks.

      DeVos threatens the enormous voting blocks of NEA, parents, and blacks. Imagine what happens to the DNCs hold on the votes of teachers and inner city blacks if DeVos is actually able to….heaven forbid….make the system better.

    10. Fundraising for 2018 has begun, and the teachers unions are so loaded with money, everybody wants to get under the deluge with a bushel basket when its moneybag pops.

    11. Because school choice means they will lose the battle for the hearts and minds of the next generation. Rather than being brainwashed in public schools from an early age to love the State, the parents will have the choice to instead brainwash their kids in private schools to love the original Top Man.

    12. Thanks for the insight. I’m sure I do underestimate the influence of unions. I guess I just have been baffled by the anti-choice movement in education for a long time.

    13. Cuz free money and centers to indoctrinate and teach learned helplessness?

  4. Hate sandwich. Mmmmmm.

    http://hotair.com/archives/201…..t-boycott/

    1. Trump kills off regulations to help small businesses (I heard several on the radio this morning giddy with joy over it) and leftists try to kill off any business that publicly supports that.

      These are the people some Libertarians are thinking of throwing in with because TRUMP!!! ?

      I am not sure if this is TDS or revealed preferences.

    2. I’m going to start telling any of the real deranged ones ‘You know, Trump breathes oxygen’ and see if they boycott.

      1. “Hell, no, we won’t blow!”

        1. Pretty sure they’re already saying that.

          1. Not that kind of blowing.

  5. Poor Trump, he’s either extremely principled or extremely naive.

    “President Donald J. Trump is determined to protect the rights of all Americans, including the LGBTQ community. President Trump continues to be respectful and supportive of LGBTQ rights, just as he was throughout the election. The President is proud to have been the first ever GOP nominee to mention the LGBTQ community in his nomination acceptance speech, pledging then to protect the community from violence and oppression. The executive order signed in 2014, which protects employees from anti-LGBTQ workplace discrimination while working for federal contractors, will remain intact at the direction of President Donald J. Trump.”

    The progs think he’s a hatey hater who wants to put gays in concentration camps. They’re not going to change their mind based on something like facts.

    So unless Trump actually believes this stuff, he’d be better off not trying to appease the gay-lib crowd.

    1. I have a sinking feeling that Trump is actually a gay-libber himself, and will pursue that goal out of principle, more’s the pity.

    1. Oh the narrative is intact. You can’t SAY you support the LGTGXYZ community and then refuse their RIGHT to a living wage. See how easy it is.

      1. And let me tell you, a living wage to keep up with the latest cutting edge fashions isn’t a mere $15 an hour.

    2. Oh the narrative is intact. You can’t SAY you support the LGTGXYZ community and then refuse their RIGHT to a living wage. See how easy it is.

        1. Pay the squirrelz a living wage!

          /Campaign for 15 (acorns an hour)

  6. As chairwoman of the Michigan Republican Party, she came to the aid of a transgender woman who wanted to use the women’s restroom at a call center, upsetting some of the other women there

    She DeVos is a misogynist. Figures.

  7. The DeVos family has helped bankroll ballot initiatives against gay marriage recognition.

    Trying to protect gays from themselves is actually pro-gay.

  8. Snagglepuss is gay? I guess my sheltered midwestern upbringing was more sheltered than I thought.

    1. I think he’s gay now. It’s a rebranding.

      1. Seems legit. They made spiderman gay.

        1. Mary Jane hardest hit.

          1. Huh? I thought that meant she wasn’t getting hit anymore?

          2. Not as hard hit as Gwen Stacey.

    2. Dude, i figured out that he was gay when i was like 6. “Mom, i think that pink cat likes to kiss men.”

      1. I can’t tell if Snagglepuss is referring to the cartoon character, or if it’s another nickname for Shackford.

        1. Shacklepuss? It checks out.

      2. Your opinion will change when you turn 9.

        1. Is that how old you were when you decided that Snagglepuss was the epitome of cishet masculinity and began emulating him in every particular?

          1. Snagglepuss is something you aspire to. No one truly reaches full Snagglepuss.

            1. No one comes close, even!

              1. I love this place…

    3. I know a gay man who sounds just like snagglepuss when he talks. It can’t be a coincidence.

    4. I thought it was Huckleberry Hound that was gay.

      1. Huckleberry Hound is bisexual, but he’s married to a woman.

  9. It shows that Trump isn’t unfriendly to gays. The only surprise about that is how so many people convinced themselves he wasn’t. Trump never said a damn thing against gays.

    1. That is why Trump Derangement Syndrome will be discussed after his Presidency for years to come. The people freaking out over him don’t understand how stupid they look.

      1. It’s hard to have an objective perspective when you live in an echo chamber.

    2. Not only that, he was always kind of a vocal proponent for the most part. The bundling of the LGTBBQ stuff onto the Trump Hate Train is something that I think leftists should continue to do, so that they can grow a huge festering boil of embarrassment later.

      1. o that they can grow a huge festering boil of embarrassment later.

        Seems unlikely. The progs I know either double-down on their insanity or just move on to their next target without apologizing.

        1. Yes, you’re right. It would be more realistic to frame it as embarrassment on behalf of them. Or “completely lacking credulity.”

            1. Or credulousness, even!

              /Exits, Stage Left

        2. Best case scenario the LQGTBVREBG hysteria will be memory-holed. More likely scenario it will continue to play out as if reality has no bearing on the facts and in the coming decades historians will pile on post hoc rationalizations for this hysteria.

      2. Not only that, he was always kind of a vocal proponent for the most part.

        Really?

    3. I suspect all the ridiculous “Trump is going to round up the LGBT community and put them in Nazi-type concentration camps” talk was the only way they could deal with the cognitive dissonance that would result if they admitted to themselves that Trump isn’t pure evil on every proggie hot-button issue.

    4. Trump never said a damn thing against gays.

      Gay girl at work confided in me her terrible and certain dread that Trump will take away her ability to marry her significant other moving down from Canada.

      I could only console her with cooing noises as any talk of policy is Danger Zone. She already questioned me with no hint of sarcasm if I was a white nationalist; just because I walked past her once talking to another employee obviously about politics and I said:
      “Talking politics, ehh?”
      “Talking about how much we hate conservatives.” Says she.
      “I know that game” I say in deflection.
      *something something*
      “Are you a white nationalist? she asks.

      It hurt my feelings, but I have thin skin and put too much stock in the opinions of my neighbors and countrymen.

      1. The proper answer would have been to hold up your hand, palm out, shake your head and say “No, sorry. No thanks.”

      2. I’m a black nationalist trapped in a white nationalist’s body.

    5. Trump has never done anything racist either, as far I know. Yet that doesn’t stop them from screeching that he is a racist, possibly the most racist EVAR!!!11!!!

      1. He made some insensitive comments which collectivized certain groups. That is the extent of his racism. Of course, it was totally different from when Chocolate Nixon described flyover country as bitter clingers.

    6. Yeah, that’s been one of the more puzzling things from teh freak-out-about-Trump crowd.

      The only answer I’ve gotten is that he might not be anti-gay, but his supporters are.

      1. BUT HE PICKED PENCE, HE OF THE GAY REPROGRAMMING MAFIA!

  10. Yes, the alt-text was quite clever. I smirked.

    1. I chortled…maybe even guffawed!

  11. “””Trump Denies Freedom To Business Owners Over Who They Can Hire Or Fire”””

    Headline you won’t find at Reason Com.

    1. Libertarian. Moment.

    2. Would that be accurate in this case? Isn’t this about federal employees and contractors? I suppose you could say that they are denying the right of the contractors to hire or fire people because they are gay. But there are all kinds of rules federal contractors have to play by.

  12. Gays are like old wool clothing and should be treated as such, but definitely no better than ancient Nintendo ‘jamas and Bo.

    1. Gays are like old wool clothing and should be treated as such

      Possible translation:
      Gays are still warm when wet?
      Gays are perfect for cold weather?
      Gays are comfortable and old fashioned?
      Gays are itchy?

      1. Stored in cedar-lined boxes during the summer?

      2. Prone to being attacked by moths?

      3. Made from sheep?

        1. +1 Brokeback Mountain

      4. Something you pull out when company’s not over?

        1. +1 out of the closet

      5. Shrink a lot when washed in warm water?

      6. In some cases, contain enough lanolin to make them water-resistant?

      7. I just want to say, all of your responses were…pleasing.

    2. I would pay big money to see the contents of your childhood toybox.

      1. ^These euphemisms…

        1. Come on, ancient Nintendo jammers? I need to see this shit intact after a few decades of active use.

    3. Haha, AC is an OG…he knows the classic:

      “A: My mother made me a homosexual.
      B: If I give her the wool, will she make me one too?”

  13. Snagglepuss, eh? Nice sassy touch, Shackford.

  14. Dennis Prager: Why My Stepsons’ Father Killed Himself

    Pain management seems to be the Achilles’ Heel of modern medicine ? for philosophical reasons as well as medical reasons. Remarkably, Dr. Thomas Frieden, the head of the Centers for Disease Control, wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine last year that “whereas the benefits of opioids for chronic pain remain uncertain, the risks of addiction and overdose are clear.”

    To most of us, this is cruel. Isn’t accidental death from overdose, while in the meantime allowing patients to have some level of comfort, preferable to a life of endless severe pain?

    Though I oppose suicide on religious and moral grounds and because of the emotional toll it takes on loved ones, I make an exception for people with unremitting, terrible pain. If that pain could be alleviated by painkilling medicines, and laws or physicians deny them those medicines, it is they, not the suicide, who are morally guilty.

    1. Though I oppose suicide on religious and moral grounds and because of the emotional toll it takes on loved ones…

      Fuck off, slaver.

      1. I oppose adultery on moral grounds and because of the emotional toll it takes on loved ones.

      2. Doesn’t seem like he’s arguing for more laws or bans on suicide or whatever. I’m not even sure we could guess as to his opinion about the legality of “assisted suicide” since he carved out an exemption for severe pain. There’s nothing too slaverlike about opposing suicide on moral grounds so long as he isn’t pushing for some sort of ban.

        1. No, mildly expressing moral disapproval of something is indistinguishable from physically seizing and chaining someone, dragging them away from their home, and forcing them to work for you for the remainder of their lives.

      3. Tonio is evidently a person who can’t separate his public and private moralities, as I mention below. Here, he thinks a person cannot personally oppose suicide. Doing so makes them a slaver.

        No, he can’t make a distinction between supporting the legality of something while personally believing it’s wrong. Just like conservatives and porn, for example.

        1. I think you might be reading into this too much if you’re drawing conclusions about Tonio as a person. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he glossed over the text, read it out of context or whatever.

      4. Ban suicide!

        1. They did…

      5. …I make an exception for people with unremitting, terrible pain. If that pain could be alleviated by painkilling medicines, and laws or physicians deny them those medicines, it is they, not the suicide, who are morally guilty.

        Why the hell would you leave that off? It’s the next fucking clause–it’s not even a new sentence! You had to cut off the mitigation to make your lameass point.

    2. Isn’t accidental death from overdose, while in the meantime allowing patients to have some level of comfort, preferable to a life of endless severe pain?

      NO. A life without virtue is a life not worth living.

      1. I know when I ruminate on what it means to live a virtuous life, my mind immediately springs to the teachings of CDC head Thomas Frieden.

    3. I know three people who offed themselves over chronic pain.

  15. that he’s gay is hardly surprising

    PINK PANTHER WAS GAY?!?

    (stunned silence staring at the wall)

    …i …. i thought he was just fashionably eccentric.

    1. That’s what we’ve been saying about you.

      1. Oh, i should have said, “Snagglepuss”

        (apologies to the roaringly-hetero-Pink-Panther)

        as to you – i can only say, “this kid has class, taste, finesse, and recognizes talent

        1. I guess you’re more eccentrically fashionable than fashionably eccentric.

        2. As a big PP fan, thanks for the correction. You saved yourself from a real ass chewing. A very figurative, heterosexual ass chewing from a strong, masculine PP fan who doesn’t go for that gay shit.

    2. Dead ant, dead ant…??? dead ant de dead and de dead ant dddddeeee daaaaaaaaant ant. (the way I always heard the theme song, and no, I didn’t eat crayons)

    3. That’s Snagglepuss, yo.

      1. i know, i feel terrible

        1. *Pink Panther casually flicks ash off his cigarette (in stylish holder, of course) and turns and saunters away*

        2. Don’t feel bad, Snagglepuss and Pink had a closeted relationship; like Rock Hudson and Gomer Pyle.

  16. President Donald J. Trump is determined to protect the rights of all Americans, including the LGBTQ community.

    Well, if “protecting the rights” of the LBGetc. community involves giving them protected class status, we’ve got a couple of problems:

    (a) protected class status violates the rights of everyone else.

    (b) there is zero statutory basis. The anti-discrimination statutes protect “sex”, and sexual preference/gender is not sex.

    Yeah, I know he’s not pushing for full protected class status, but I don’t know that there’s a statutory basis for imposing LGBTetc. on contractors, either and the agencies are putting out generally applicable rules for LGBTetc. protected class status in employment and maybe other areas. But these are problems that nobody really cares about, so whatev. It would be nice to see a libertarian publication at least mention these as problems.

    If you want to get government money, you have to follow their rules.

    So now we support cutting off federal funding to sanctuary cities?

    1. “If you want to get government money, you have to follow their rules.

      “So now we support cutting off federal funding to sanctuary cities?”

      RC shoots…he scores!

      (Plus the fact that if awarding federal contracts is to be based on sociological grounds rather than getting the best service, such a result should be mandated by Congress, that part of the government which controls spending)

      1. That’s really up to Congress. If they’d do their damn jobs, there would be a lot less that is up to presidential whim.

    2. “So now we support cutting off federal funding to sanctuary cities?”

      “Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative”.

      —-Oscar Wilde

      Original LGBTQI+

      1. No, was just G. Actually H, ‘gay’ wasn’t the fashionable term then. I suspect Wilde would have found the whole TQI2+ thing a bit perplexing.

        1. Yeah, “gay” didn’t really exist until the advent of psychology (and neither did “heterosexual” either.

          Still, a flamboyant dandy given to the arts and celebrity and an appreciation for slumming on the seedy side of town and a philosophy of pleasure?

          I suspect he’d have loved the Castro in the ’70s.

    3. So now we support cutting off federal funding to sanctuary cities?

      It’s more just a statement of fact. If the Feds make a rule that sanctuary cities don’t get money, then they won’t get the money. At the moment, I don’t think that they are violating any conditions on getting federal money.

    4. Methinks it be semantics.

    5. “It would be nice to see a libertarian publication at least mention these as problems.”

      So go to a libertarian publication. This is Reason.

  17. I always try to maintain a separation of my public vs private “morality”. I’m a libertarian, so I don’t support the government forcing or supporting one kind of lifestyle over another, as long as no one’s rights are violated. But privately, I can’t get over my (now old fashioned) concepts of gender.

    And I think libertarians like Shackford are not separating their private from their public morality. In the first paragraph, he says “won’t be backtracking on gay and transgender acceptance”. I choke on the word “acceptance”. I prefer the word “tolerance”. There is stuff I don’t accept about transgender ideas and lifestyles. I don’t have to accept it. But I have to tolerate its existence and want the government protect everyone’s liberty the same.

    Then there’s this from the Times: “she came to the aid of a transgender woman who wanted to use the women’s restroom at a call center, upsetting some of the other women there”. Statements like “transgender woman” bug me because the person is a man pretending to be a woman. Using “she” and “woman” imply a point a view that is not neutral. It also shows the big “fuck you” that is at the center of the transgender community’s thinking. You don’t like a man in the restroom with you? Fuck you. The whole thing just seems so rude to me.

    I’ll probably get attacked for writing this, if anybody actually reads this wall of words. These are just things that I always think about when I read these stories.

    1. I have a daughter.

      So….

      1. I share the same thoughts and concerns.

      2. Have you check with her whether she identifies as your daughter?

        1. Just cause she looks like the mailman, doesn’t mean she isn’t Rufus’s…

    2. I think there’s a distinction that needs to be made between tolerance for what people say and what they think the government should do. There’s been way too much black and white thinking on this issue–which is a psychological disorder.

      Just because you’re a Christian doesn’t mean you’re against gay marriage.

      Just because you’re uncomfortable with your daughter sharing a public restroom with the transgendered doesn’t necessarily mean you’re a bigot, that you don’t accept gay friends and coworkers, or that you think the government should discriminate against gay people.

      You can think that your employer shouldn’t fire people for being gay and think that he should legally be allowed to do so.

      People’s attitudes on these issues are too complicated to draw a line down the middle of all of them and say that everyone on one side is tolerant and everyone on the other side is intolerant.

      I suppose there are a few people who actively want the government to discriminate against gay people and will tell you all about it if you ask them. The rest of us are more complicated than that.

    3. I don’t have to accept it.

      *lawyers prepare lawsuit*

      1. Puts on Robe of Enjustifying: “Justice Libertate rules from the bench–nobody’s got to accept nothin’.”

        1. That’s why god invented “judge shopping”

          1. I hope I am named to the SCOTUS. I’ll have more time for commenting here. What do you think clerks are for?

    4. The big difference between ‘acceptance’ and ‘tolerance’ is the connotations they have. It also doesn’t help that both words have pretty broad definitions. For example, I accept that there are LGBTFHFYHVD people and I accept that they are living the lives they want to live. However, I don’t accept that gay, for example, is better than not-gay and/or deserving of special protections. Tolerance has always had, at least to me, a slightly negative connotation. Saying you tolerate someone is like saying you can manage to be in the same room without strangling them, barely.

      I’m also on the line about calling men who dress as women women and vice versa. I understand that they have the right to choose how they’d like to be addressed, but I’m not sure that takes away my right to call a spade a spade, so to speak. It’s like calling a white woman black.

    5. I always try to maintain a separation of my public vs private “morality”.

      Yep, same here. It means that I deviate from the libertarian plantation when the discussion shifts from what government should/shouldn’t do and what culture should/shouldn’t do.

      I’m one of those icky devout Evangelical socons in my private life. I just don’t think that I have the authority to impose my morals and ethics on everybody else.

      1. *to what culture . . .

    6. The Tranny community is embraced by the proggies because they are the personification of the proggie belief that there is no such thing as objective truth. Also, if you look at the actions they take like this bathroom gibberish it is pretty clear they are simply trying to destroy common propriety.

      *Public and private morality? I don’t have that.

    7. Using “she” and “woman” imply a point a view that is not neutral.

      I wonder if that’s because there is no such thing as a neutral point of view.

    8. It troubles me that he slides straight from “social acceptance” to “government requirements”.

    9. “There is stuff I don’t accept about transgender ideas and lifestyles. I don’t have to accept it.”

      It’s precious that you think so.

      As far as the left is concerned, yes, you do have to accept it; and not only accept it, but celebrate it.

      They are literally fighting, right now, this year, with physical violence, to force complete strangers to accept and celebrate it. Your daughter will shower next to biological male headcases, your wife will share public bathrooms with men, and do so happily, or they and you will be punished, with legal action and/or violence. This is not a prediction, it’s happening, now, documented on video and everything.

      Wakey wakey eggs and bakey, pal.

      1. Remember, you’re dealing with people who will cut a pre-natal human child out of his or her mother’s womb and joke about it while standing right next to a “surgical tray” full of tiny little dismembered human legs and hands and heads. Go check out all those undercover Planned Parenthood videos that got flushed down the memory hole. Tell me that isn’t the face of evil, and no it was not an editing trick.

        Okay, end of sermon.

  18. Dr. Thomas Frieden, the head of the Centers for Disease Control, wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine last year that “whereas the benefits of opioids for chronic pain remain uncertain, the risks of addiction and overdose are clear.”

    Holy shit. Get this man a Banality of Evil Hall of Fame award.

    1. Yeah, this. This is the kind of evil shit I almost wish would contract excruciating chronic pain of some variety so he could experience what his self-righteousness has inflicted on others.

  19. Thank God, it’s Michael Surbaugh, head of the Boy Scouts…finally, someone who hasn’t succumbed to political correctness!

    “Boy Scouts chief executive Michael Surbaugh said in a video message that the organization will now accept boys based on the gender a parent puts on a child’s scouting application, ending a policy of accepting boys based on the gender listed on a child’s birth certificate.”

    NO! NO! NOOOOOO!

    1. Probably would have been simpler in the end to admit that some girls love camping. They found a way in anyway – they just had to convince the public that girls could be boys now. Fortunately, the public resists fads and emotional trends.

      Just sayin’.

      1. (considers “camp” joke, decides against it)

        Don’t Girl Scouts have camping trips? Of course, now chicks with dicks will be able to come, too.

        1. Fuck them and their cookies.

          I have no idea, Brownies were boring as hell and then baseball consumed my extracurricular interest.

        2. Even at that, you’d be hard pressed to find a boy or cub scout den that excluded it’s own male members because of female chaperones or entirely voided it’s events because of even a singular female presence. Around 30-40% of the camps in our area are run by women.

          But good job BSA, way to sell 99+% of your membership short in order to accommodate the

      2. Looking forward to boys now discovering they are transgender so they can go on camping trips with the Girl Scouts.

        1. +1 pitched tent

        2. I hope they do and will applaud them on. It seems the best chance to change the rules is to let people see how stupid their game is, and wait for the epiphany.

          1. Girl Scouts don’t even allow male chaperones. I can’t take my daughter to cookie sales.

            1. That’s bullshit. Fuck those fascists.

            2. That’s good to know, my oldest was really intrigued when we ran into the local troop selling their crack cookies last night.

      3. Probably would have been simpler in the end to admit that some girls love camping.

        I have yet to find a case of Boy Scouts forcibly evicting women and girls from any campsites. Moreover, it seems Girl Scouts as well as individual Girls are free to go camping.

        But let’s continue to pretend that boys aren’t disproportionately labeled as problematic in schools, aren’t disproportionately punished for mutual or equivalent deviancy otherwise, and aren’t generally in a less favorable legal position when it comes to family involvement/”rights”.

        1. But let’s continue to pretend that boys aren’t disproportionately labeled as problematic in schools, aren’t disproportionately punished for mutual or equivalent deviancy otherwise, and aren’t generally in a less favorable legal position when it comes to family involvement/”rights”.

          Have I been saying things without my knowledge again? I fucking hate that. I’ll get me sorted out straight-away, gonna go have a talk with me about that.

          1. Mea culpa, Poe’s Law got me again.

      4. My son’s Cub Scout pack often has little sisters, including my daughter, tagging along on camping trips. It’s never been a big deal. So much of scouting is variable dependent on who the scoutmaster is.

        In any case, since the Girl Scouts have basically become an extension of Planned Parenthood, my daughter now does Y Princesses to have her own camping trips.

  20. I’m backsliding on my acceptance… so much derp-infused-news does that to a man (or woman!).

  21. the person is a man pretending to be a woman

    That’s a big “fuck you” to the entire trans community. Your lack of self-awareness is truly stunning.

    If they had invented a whole new vocabulary to describe themselves then you’d be screeching about that. You may think you are “tolerant,” but you are not.

    1. ummm XX = Woman and XY = Man, right?

      So if you have XX and want to be a guy, well that’s TS, life doesn’t work that way. What am I missing?

      I have Cerebral Palsy, should I just identify as being able bodied and poof, I’m not disabled anymore?

      1. Only if you are suffering under the delusion that you really are able bodied. Then the world must agree with you.

    2. is the problem that he didn’t use the Seinfeld addendum to that phrase?

      “The person is a man pretending to be a woman….not that there is anything wrong with that”

      Because I thought that was implied.

      1. I don’t think it’s “pretending” so much as suffering from a delusion. Which is fine by me, as long as others aren’t forced to go along with it.

    3. You may think you are “tolerant,” but you are not.

      “Tolerant” is an extremely low bar. He’s not “accepting,” I grant that. But until and unless he’s agitating for imprisoning or otherwise aggressing against trans-folk, he’s perfectly “tolerant.”

    4. You may think you are “tolerant,” but you are not.

      He can still be tolerant, he’s just not doing the whole woke acceptance thing.

      Toleration is measured not by what you think, but what you do. If he treats trans people the same as everyone else, he is tolerant, regardless of whether he thinks they are kinda loony.

      1. “Toleration is measured not by what you think, but what you do”. Yes, that is it. But it’s only wrt advocating for the use of force by the state.

        I would posit that I don’t have to treat everyone the same. That’s what I mean by acceptance. If I find peoples’ behavior distasteful, then I, personally, don’t have to treat them the same way as I treat people whose behavior doesn’t bother me.

      2. Progs hate tolerance, they love acceptance. Forcing your acceptance. It’s not enough to put up with their delusions, you have to buy into it as well.

        We should force them to be accepting of the Suburbs, the Country, etc.

    5. If they had invented a whole new vocabulary to describe themselves then you’d be screeching about that. You may think you are “tolerant,” but you are not.

      I don’t think you need to comply with the collective demands of a group’s chosen etiquette in order to be tolerant. As long as you are not actively persecuting or attempting to oppress their non-violent behaviour, that’s tolerance. You’re asking for acceptance of their etiquette and cultural norms.

      Just because I’m tolerant of Muslims doesn’t mean I’m going to accept a mosque segregating me from my female relations when I visit or view their religion with the deference some of them expect. I’m just going to leave and see their religion as the goofy desert cult to a father figure I think it is.

    6. Hate-fact

    7. Wow Tonio, I’ve read a lot of your comments on this forum and never realized you were a malevolent moron. Is this a parody that went over my head?

  22. Welcome to the end times

    Less than two weeks into the presidency of Donald Trump, the center ground, to the extent it still existed, has collapsed. Trump’s presidency has done more than polarize the country; it has established terms of battle likely to persist indefinitely.

    The abrupt firing of acting attorney general Sally Yates, after she announced that the Justice Department would not defend the administration’s immigration ban in court, crystallized all that had occurred since Trump took the oath on Jan. 20. The coming fight over his Supreme Court nominee will be fiercer than before. The snowballing impact of his presidency continues at an unprecedented pace.

    Cancel your summer vacation. We’ll all be dead long before then.

    1. The uproar over the Yates thing is despicable. Forget the hypocrisy that others have noted. If she disagreed with what her boss wanted then the honorable thing would be to resign.

      1. “honorable”. not a word typically associated with an Obama appointee

        1. Or Jesus-y county clerks.

          1. true.

            but it would be appropriate to recognize the huge difference in accountability between a county clerk and the acting Attorney General of the United friggin States.

            1. There’s a difference between

              (a) An executive branch lawyer issuing a statement about how they cannot in conscience defend an executive branch policy in court, while giving very little in the way of actual legal reasoning for their stance

              and

              (b) an elected county clerk defending a constitutional provision approved overwhelmingly by the voters, including her constituents – an amendment setting up the kind of law which the US Supreme Court once declared so obviously constitutional as not to present a substantial federal question.

              1. They should have both resigned, although at least the clerk tried to come up with a plan where the gay marriage licenses would be issued by her deputies.

                Don’t come to me on an ethical high horse if you, as an attorney, have a client that you refuse to represent and you don’t resign.

                1. She should have resigned for taking the same legal position as William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, those noted fundamentalist zealots?

                  1. she = Kim Davis

                    Phony moral equivalence.

                2. although at least the clerk tried to come up with a plan where the gay marriage licenses would be issued by her deputies.

                  Wrong. She had to be jailed for contempt when she refused to let them sign them. Her compromise on that is what got her out.

                  Instead of resigning, she stayed in her position to try and continue to block the issue of gay marriage certificates and with the knowledge that the only people who could fire her (the KY state legislature) wouldn’t do it.

                  1. She refused to let Adam and Steve get licenses with her name on them, but once the Kentucky Legislature met, they let the licenses issue without the clerk’s name on them, and her scruples were satisfied.

                    They wanted to purge her because she wouldn’t do an immediate 180 – from her actions being so self-evidently constitutional as not to require argument (as decided by a unanimous Supreme Court) to her actions being in violation of some new right pulled out of the judges’ butts.

                    And bear in mind that Davis’ legal position was the same as that of Brennan and Marshall – I don’t think even you could call them theocrats.

                    1. Resigning in the first place would have also satisfied her scruples, but she wouldn’t be on the hee-haw martyr circuit.

                    2. Why should *she* resign? She wasn’t the one violating the Constitution.

                    3. “hee haw martyr circuit” is pretty good coming from some third-rate HP Lovecraft wannabe.

                      If only the ignorant goobers of Kentucky had your wit and sophistication, you gonzo rebel you.

                  2. So she did come up with a plan, and I’m not wrong.

                    1. No, she agreed to someone else’s plan in order to lift the contempt order. That’s basically the opposite of coming up with a plan.

            2. The most important difference being that the AG works for the president, is directed by and answerable to the president and serves at the president’s pleasure while Kim Davis was an elected official. Her boss are the voters. Only they can fire her. If she had had a boss other than that I am sure she would have been fired.

              1. She could have been fired by the state legislature. But that has no being on the idea of it being honorable to resign or not.

                I have zero problem with Trump firing Yates. But if the honorable thing to do to protest a law you disagree with is to resign, then it surely applies the same to Kim Davis.

                1. She didn’t disagree with the law. She defended the law against those who wanted to subvert the state and federal constitutions.

                  As acknowledged by the Supreme Court in 1971, not only is it constitutional for a state to define marriage as a man and a woman, it is so self-evidently constitutional as not to raise a substantial federal question. This wasn’t a theocratic court, but a court including Brennan and Marshall.

                  The modern Supreme Court wants to put all that in the memory hole. “We have always been at war with straight marriage!”

                  They’re the ones who should resign, by your logic, because they’re the ones disagreeing with the law.

                  Unless you belong to the school which holds that the most recent brain-farts of the Supreme Court constitute the law. If that’s your view, then you must agree that smoking dope affects interstate commerce, and that the government can take your home and give it to the Pfizer Corporation.

          2. Shreek, is that you?

            1. SIV, is that you?

              1. *Looks in the mirror*

                Holy shit! How did that happen?

              2. I must say, during my months away, that I’m no longer sure who is who.

                1. Don’t worry, you’re not alone. And I’ve been here the whole time.

                2. Pro Lib, you’re actually Viking Moose now.

                  1. That can’t be right. I don’t like Chicago teams.

                    1. Hey, I did my time there. Of course, I was a Braves fan watching Maddux do cruel things to the Cubs, but that’s not my fault.

    2. Illustrating my point above the Trump won’t get any credit for his culturally-liberal initiatives.

      He could divorce Melania, “marry” the poolboy, and issue an executive order that a sign saying “chicks with dicks are welcome here” be placed on the door of every women’s restroom in the country, and they’d *still* call him a homophobe, just like they call him an anti-Semite after bringing his Jewish son-in-law into the administration and moving the American embassy to Jerusalem.

    3. That’s pretty rich after lionizing the Divider in Chief for the last 8 years.

    4. gosh, Washington Post, I wonder who bears some responsibility for this state of affairs?

    5. Trump’s presidency has done more than polarize the country; it has established terms of battle likely to persist indefinitely.

      I think it was pre-polarized, and Trump has merely accepted the proggy elite’s offer to do battle rather than submit.

      1. ^This, and it’s making them even crazier than they already were.

  23. Exit- stage left.

  24. New DC Comic Reinvents Snagglepuss as ‘Gay Southern Gothic Playwright.’

    It wasn’t always? And I say “it” because I don’t believe in the anthropomorphization of animals. Or of gays.

    1. He wasn’t gay. His voice was. “Exit stage right!”

  25. Sort of OT: Who in the hell is the poster dajjal?

    He reminds me of this guy who used to post on my political status and never added anything of value to the discussion but yet hurled Ad hominems while simultaneously burning straw men.

    1. I believe that’s Shrike.

      1. Ah. I’ve never understood the point of trolling.

        1. No one else does either.

          I think he must be extremely lonely.

        1. All three are one!

          It is a Trinity of Derp.

    2. I think there was another commenter by that name at one time–maybe with an “i” instead of two “j”s.

    3. Ed, just google ‘dajjal’ and all will be clear. It doesnt matter who that is. Just don’t respond to it.

    4. The same troll as AddictionMyth. It has always been too familiar to be a completely new troll, but I’m not sure who it played as under previous handles.

      By the way, piss it off too bad and it will try to haphazardly dox you on its drivelblog; something that in the old days would actually get you banned.

    5. “AddictionMyth”, “dajjal”, “Palin’s Buttplug”, and “shrike” (in the way past) is a severely mentally disturbed member of the JournoList named Dave Weigel, who used to work here at Reason until he was fired by Matt Welch after the ’08 for being too much of an obvious Obama-loving fake libertarian even by Reason’s standards.

      Welch did him a favor as he eventually ended up at the Washington Post where he fits in much better, but he has a permanent grudge against most of the posters here, and probably against Welch and Reason itself. He is one sick motherfucker, not to mention a complete and total loser.

      1. I’ve explained repeatedly why shriek mindlessly regurgitates Wiegel’s phraseology.

        The fact that you think its not only sentient, but David Wiegel wasting endless hours of his day harassing people like you on Reason when he has much better uses for his time (eg trying to finish writing that great resume padding of a book that no-one wil ever read, attending weird music festivals etc), speaks volumes…

        1. Mikey is just that important. Mikey’s ideas are just that dangerous. Paranoia is ego run amok.

            1. OH MY GOD

      2. Jesus Christ, Mikey, you’re an idiot.

        1. Suck a dick.

          1. You already said that earlier. Has your well of comebacks run dry so soon?

  26. Hey, now! I have it on good authority that The Don wants to round up all the fags, dykes, and trannys and put them into camps!

    1. Fabulous camps! Well, less fabulous once the dykes get there. Then it’s all shirts tucked in, organic vegan cooking and indigo girls.

      1. It’s all fun and games until the lesbians show up. Then it’s only fun if you’re seriously into carpentry.

  27. What has always been wonderful about the transformation of the Boy Scouts is that this slow walk toward acceptance has been a result of cultural influence and pressures and not a government mandate.

    Which is funny because as the father of boys in cub scouts, at this point, I really have to wonder what’s the point?

    Seriously, the prolific and redundant belt loops, civics lessons, pledges, uniforms, and flag routines were pretty thin gruel to begin with and it’s not that girls or others were escorted off the property while these things were taking place. However, now that anybody can pretty much do anything and be identified, how is the Boy Scouts effectively different than the Girl Scouts and not distinctly inferior to activity or actual merit-based organizations and sports. If I learn to fish, I get to go home with a fish to eat. If I’m good at basketball, I can mop the floor with anyone on the court. If I’m good at Boy Scouts, I get the same badge as a “girl” half my age who can’t figure out which restroom to use and doesn’t like being outside.

    This is a wonderful transformation of the Boy Scouts the same way getting rid of end zones and converting goalposts to nets would be great for Football.

    1. I guess by “cultural influence and pressures” he means law suits, because that is what precipitated this. The courts allowing potentially financially ruinous lawsuits to go forward if they don’t get on board with the transgender program is hardly being free of government pressure.

  28. The true toxic nature of identity politics is captured here:

    You can’t claim to be an ally when you send LGBTQ refugees back to countries where their lives are at risk.

    People playing identity politics assume that every bad thing that happens to them is because of their identity. If a black person gets fired, its because they were black, etc. ad infinitum ad nauseum.

    Here, Trump isn’t sending LGBTQ folks back to their home countries because they are LGBTQ, but because of the countries they are from. The reflexive assumption that everything bad that happens to a gay person is because they are gay is the engine that drives toxic identity politics. Bad things won’t stop happening to people, regardless, so the pool of grievance will be ever-full.

  29. I’ve had to turn off Facebook because if I see one more acquaintance or friend freaking out about Trump, I might not be able to keep my opinions to myself. When I am done with college this summer, I will be 31 (I dropped out for a couple of years) and it’s already hard enough to hear my classmates constantly freak out about him but at least I understand it. They are between the ages of 19 and 21,so they haven’t quite learned how to put things into perspective yet. But to hear my friends who are in their late 20’s or early 30’s go off the rails about him is pretty disappointing.

    I get that he isn’t the ideal President to some people but this amount of freaking out is getting on my nerves. And what’s even more terrible is that my friends are going off on me for not freaking out. I had to tell a group of friends that I don’t have the luxury of freaking out. I’m getting married in May, my grandfather just passed away a couple weeks ago, my grandmother was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, my Mom’s health is a tad bit shaky and on top of that I’m looking for a much better job that will pay me more (so I can pay the ridiculous property taxes in Chicago).

    They can’t understand that most people don’t have the time to march every weekend or signal on social media that they are angry.

    1. The ridiculous freaking-out and falsehoods of the left has caused me to defend Trump at times. Not because I like Trump, but because I like the truth. The people that have lost their faculties cannot understand that distinction.

    2. I’ve had to turn off Facebook because if I see one more acquaintance or friend freaking out about Trump, I might not be able to keep my opinions to myself.

      I’ve slowly started my escape from Facebook because of this. The place is an intellectual wasteland, and most of my friends’ interesting posts are Instagram retreads. The only thing keeping me from completely shutting down is the handful of family members who interact with me solely through FB.

    3. Here’s what else I don’t get: the social issues around which their lives revolve are barely on Trump’s radar. But they matter quite a bit to his Veep. All those folks who wax on about Trump being impeached or quitting or stroking out or whatever else don’t realize that they have the better of the alternatives in office right now.

  30. No, it shows that we’re only accepting of some cultures and not others.

  31. They can’t understand that most people don’t have the time to march every weekend or signal on social media that they are angry.

    In real life, I have pretty much always tried to hang out with people who remain resolutely apolitical.

    I don’t have a lot of friends.

    1. I have a lot of friends who are liberal but were always reasonable enough to talk politics with but now, it’s like having a conversation with my an individual off their meds.

      1. My stepmother is from Peru. She is freaking out about Trump’s immigration policies.

        “Oh? What are the immigration policies of Peru?”

        It isnt difficult to shut that shit down.

  32. I’d like to request that the phrase: “To be clear”… be stricken from all further usage, by anyone, unless it’s being mocked.

    I’ve just reached my limit, having seen it three times today. Why weren’t you clear before now? Have you been deliberately obscuring your meaning? Stop trying to trick me!

    1. You know how people are really using it? To suggest that they are being clearer than you.

  33. What’s the name of the cat in the attached image?

    As a 1960’s kid who grew up eating Captan Crunch in front of the TV set every Saturday morning I should recognize the cat. But I don’t.

    1. In an oddly contemporaneous irony, it is Snagg-le-puss

    2. Snagglepuss. its mentioned below the fold in his post.

      1. Post? Fold? Who are you, who is wise in the ways of the internet?

        1. At last, foldable monitors!

  34. In other news, dark forces prepare coup to install Donald Trump as President.

    http://medium.com/@yonatanzung……qity77lxp

    He is firing people who serve at the pleasure of the President. Doesn’t anyone see what is going on????

    1. Isn’t. . .I mean, it’s been a while since I did any constitutional work. . . . Isn’t Trump already president?

      1. That is what I thought. But apparently not. These dark forces are making efforts to install him as such by having him do things that the President has the power to do.

        1. Just who is president, then?

          1. George W. Bush I think.

            1. Huh. Who knew? Who was that black guy, then?

              1. He was never President. America was too racist to accept him. It is all George W. Bush’s fault.

      2. DUH! When it says people serve at the pleasure of the president, it doesn’t really mean that!!!! There are customs that should be treated like they are law!

    2. That’s a shady looking link there. Always be really careful with URLs that contained the @ symbol in them.

      1. The @ symbol is in the path component of the URL which makes it innocuous. If the @ symbol appears before the hostname then it is suspect. That having been said, it is very rare to see it used in the path.

        1. Mikey started being careful about clicking on links after the eighth time he got burned on penis enlargement samples.

    3. That is to say, the administration is testing the extent to which the DHS (and other executive agencies) can act and ignore orders from the other branches of government. This is as serious as it can possibly get: all of the arguments about whether order X or Y is unconstitutional mean nothing if elements of the government are executing them and the courts are being ignored.

      That’s totally racist. I mean, it has been for the past 8 years, so why not now?

      These assholes deserve Trump. I wish I could contain my schadenfreude watching them squeal like pigs.

      1. I love the totally unsourced claim that “19% of the Russian state oil company was sold to unknown parties” part. Remember, these are the same people who laughed at the birthers for 10 years.

        1. …and totally ignored HRC’s ‘business’ transactions, which were public knowledge.

    4. i skipped over most of that raving lunatic just to read a few comments

      and what i found was GOLD, JERRY, GOLD

      I give you, the Greatest Comment-Disclaimer-Addendum Ever =

      Editorial Addendum: It still surprises me that I have to add disclaimers to a piece of writing that is merely a positive comment and a bit of gratitude directed to someone else’s interesting and well written post. Nevertheless ?

      I believe it should go without saying that this is not a scholarly piece nor, obviously, a researched piece. It is merely a reaction to and retelling of a mind shattering day from my perception and a comment on a post I found utterly fascinating.

      It is, in fact, nothing more than a personal opinion piece written off the top of my head one morning before coffee. It is not an invitation for a political debate, nor is it a place for you to denigrate me personally for my personal political views or emotional or intellectual response. I find those comments come either from trolls or people who have never bothered to visit another country, immersed themselves in different cultures (even if only from their armchair), much less lived outside the borders of their country of birth, or, very often, even their home town. …

      (MORE)

      1. I will say this. Whether you like it or not, we are a Global Society and this fear based isolationism and nationalism is dangerous. Read some world history. Fortunately, I also believe it is temporary. If you feel obsessed with getting your antithetical views across, write your own piece. Although, I would suggest (again) reading a bit of history first. The Fall of the Roman Empire would be a good place to start.

        I’m not the least bit interested in your naive views on or opinion of the Trump administration. Don’t waste your time trying to convince me they are angels sent from God (rolls eyes). In fact, I find more and more that I am beginning to look at all of this as a sociological and historical phenomenon that bears watching closely. Certainly, the world will never be the same.

        I am grateful for the kind comments and the knowledge that anyone took the time to read my little comment. You honour me.

        However, I do not feed Trolls. You will be blocked

        Its like “signalling” has been taken to Orchestral levels. HERE IS MY STATEMENT. DO NOT RESPOND TO MY STATEMENT. HERE IS MORE STATEMENT ABOUT WHY SHOULD NOT RESPOND TO MY STATEMENT. GOD YOU PEOPLE DISGUST ME.

        1. ATTEMPT NO COMMENTS HERE.

  35. “You can’t claim to be an ally when you send LGBTQ refugees back to countries where their lives are at risk. You can’t claim support and then rip away life-saving services made possible through the Affordable Care Act for transgender people and those living with HIV or AIDS.”

    You can’t claim to be an ally when you oppose laws to provide a living wage for LGBTQ workers.

    You can’t claim to be an ally when you oppose common sense gun control laws to protect LGBTQ people from gun violence.

    You can’t claim to be an ally when you oppose net neutrality laws which protect LGBTQ consumers from monopolistic media practices by internet providers.

    You can’t claim to be an ally when you oppose the communist revolution which would create a paradise for LGBTQ workers.

    You can’t claim to be an ally when you oppose soda taxes to help protect LGBTQ consumers from obesity and related diseases.

    You can’t claim to be an ally when you root for a sports franchise that competes with the one preferred by LGBTQ fans.

    You can’t claim to be an ally when you insist on referring to a drink as “pop” when LGBTQ people refer to it as “soda”.

  36. A quite liberal woman was talking politics with me, and said that Trump needed to reach out to women, etc. who he has been badmouthing.

    I agreed, as the President really does need to try to be a unificator, not a dividerator. I asked her, though, why he would do much to mend fences who aren’t willing to work with him on anything. She was pretty clear that her fellow “nasty women” would never work with him.

    How many times would he need to have them slap him away before he could legitimately write them off? She didn’t have an answer for that.

    And here we have exactly that dynamic. Trump reached out to the LGBTQers, who he has never even actually offended, and they slap his hand away with, “But, muh refugees!”. At some point, if there’s no upside to trying to mend fences, and there is a downside with his base, he’s not going to even try.

    1. What’s ironic is that Trump has hired numerous women to do significant jobs and has paid them well for their talent. Actions > words, a sane person would think. Then again, I see who you’re arguing with.

      1. Trump was putting women in executive positions and in charge of major construction projects back in the 1980s when nobody else was doing that. But hey, he once had a vulgar guy conversation.

        1. None of those women are women. Kellyanne Conway is not a woman at all.

    2. Exactly.

      Profit motives, how do they work.

    3. It’s possible Trump is a sincere believer in “gay rights” – he *was* a New York City Democrat after all – so maybe this isn’t about trying to get gay activist support.

      1. He probably is. But at some point the complete hostility of the gay community might change that.

        1. I’m just allowing for the possibility that someone I disagree with might have principled reasons for his stance – it’s better than the eye-rolling prog approach of “of course he can’t actually *believe* that, he’s just aiming at getting votes.”

    4. And people who otherwise might be supportive of gays or at least ambivalent, increasingly have a reason to be hostile towards them because gays themselves have made such an effort to make being gay necessarily mean being a form of leftist. For all the talk about how accepted gays are, I find that acceptance of gays peaked around ten years ago. Increasingly I find people who before were accepting or at least didn’t express any opinion to be overtly hostile towards them. People think progress only goes one way. it doesn’t. Things can and often do reverse and get worse.

      1. I’m no fan of Mike Pence, but the people that were/are having a perpetual gay rave outside his house are about as obnoxious as leftists can be.

        1. For most of history and in most societies, gays have been despised and persecuted. We live in a very rare place and time where they are not. And that is of course a good thing. But given human history, it is also a rare thing and unlikely a permanent thing. Gays would do well to realize that.

          1. Throughout history, squareness is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded ? here and there, now and then ? are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from being fabulous, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject unstylishness.

            This is known as “bad luck.”

      2. Backlash.

        Power keeps swinging. The pattern seems to be a dominant group establishes the norm, accretes power, abuses it by being assholes once they get enough power, people get fed up with all these assholes everywhere, the assholes lose favor, and some other group grows to dominance. Often a group treated badly by the previous dominant assholes. Other group establishes a norm, accretes power, abuses it by being assholes once they get enough power….

        1. If you are a small and vulnerable group, which gays are, backlash is a bitch. For that reason being on top isn’t as great as it is made out to be because you always have to worry about going too far.

          1. being on top isn’t as great as it is made out to be because you always have to worry about going too far

            *falls out of chair*

            1. Not quite a johno, but wonderful nonetheless.

            2. OH MY GOD WE’RE HAVING A FIRE … sale. OH! THE BURNING!!!

      3. the bathroom wars and treating gender as something subject to daily whims does not help gays, either. It seems that some on the left cannot grasp that a lot of folks really don’t give a shit what your sexual preference is.

      4. I don’t think “supportive of gays” = “agreeing with all the activists who claim to act on behalf of LGBLTs.”

        I’d be happy to be friendly with a gay leftist unless it involves them screaming at me that I’m a fascist, in which case I’d just minimize my contacts while hoping (s)he becomes more tolerant.

        1. that should be a /= not an =

          1. Wait, I was right the first time, never mind.

        2. But gays who aren’t screaming at everyone that they’re fascist are boring and don’t televise well.

          1. Casting: “Needs more fabulous.”

          2. “The quiet gay fellow writing thoughtful comments on the internet isn’t doing it for me. Can you get some more footage of screaming nancyboys in thongs and glitter? -the Editor”

    5. Trump reached out to the LGBTQers, who he has never even actually offended, and they slap his hand away with, “But, muh refugees!”

      He’s never going to get acceptance from the professional protest crowd because they’re all leftists. The “silent majority” — OK, maybe it’s not a majority but it’s far more than most people think — is welcoming his overtures.

      1. Well, if that majority doesn’t get the radicals who claim to represent them under control, they will be treated the same – as radicals who there is no point doing business with.

  37. California considers enacting sanctuary statewide

    The unstoppable force meeting the immovable object.

    This is going to be awesome.

    1. No federal funding–one year!

      1. They claim to be a “donor state”. I would love to see that play out.

        1. They are wrong. They get more in spending than they send in taxes. I’ve linked to it a couple of times.

          1. Just wait until they demand a bailout.

        2. Isnt cali all about redistribution? And they need to understand individuals pay taxes…not states. The rich are the only thing keeping them afloat but progs want to go after them. Good luck

        3. Any CA based company that tried to NOT pay taxes would end up experiencing….difficulties. It would actually be the reverse of the infamous “California Effect” we see in regulation!

    2. It IS going to be awesome. Perhaps Calexit and Texit would be slightly more likely to happen. I’m thinking more and more that it’s time to break up this sick and unwieldy “Republic”.

  38. But I have it on good authority that now that Trump is in power, he’ll sign an EO any day now making hunting LGBTQI+ whatever additional letters they’ve added to the acronym now for sport legal.

    Isn’t this a summation of Trump’s stance on gay and trannie rights?

    1. Hmm, interesting legal question. Does the nomination expire if the nominee is not confirmed before the President who made it leaves, or does the new President have to explicitly withdraw the nomination his predecessor made?

    2. Somewhere, Miguel Estrada laughs.

    3. “It just might, if we can get enough celebrities to make videos!!!”

    1. “And we need to start killing peopleFirst off, we need to start killing the White House. The White House must die. The White House, your f***ing White House, your f***ing presidents, they must go! F** the White House!”

      1. That’s from How to Win Friends and Influence People, right?

        1. “The Lively Art of Conversation”

  39. “Communities and state laws are now interpreting gender identity differently than society did in the past.”

    Bullshit. In the past, nobody “interpret(ed) gender identity” because the concept did not exist. The concept of gender identity as it’s posited by activists today has only been around for eight or ten years, and the general public has been aware of it for only the last four or five years. Gender identity is an intellectual fad that will pass in a few years, so the less we accommodate it now, the less cleaning up of laws and institutional practices we’ll have to later when it’s gone out of style.

    1. as it’s posited by activists today has only been around for eight or ten years

      There were no trans people or crossdressers or lifelong tomboys until 2006?

      1. Eh, the exact version of gender identity/fluidity currently being peddled is a rather recent invention (and continues to change, at that). The underlying concepts are a lot older, and indeed have had (some limited) recognition in Western culture outside the bubble of academia.

        1. But the idea of feeling to be or desiring to be a different sex is a far, far older idea than the current label it carries. It is spreading out and mutating, but all ideas do that in an environment where they are less unacceptable to explore.

          1. all ideas do that in an environment where they are less unacceptable to explore

            That seems to be a weaker version of the Orwell hypothesis, rephrased. There is a difference between exploration of ideas and rewriting the legal code. But I suppose only libertarians and anarchists can truly appreciate the difference.

          2. “Gender identity” is more than just a “current label”. It is a new concept.

      2. Sure there were. But there were never people before the last 50 years or so who honestly claimed to be the other gender. And even the few of those there were, were considered to have a mental problem not some condition that must be recognized. Moreover, even the Rene Richards, understood that saying they were the opposite sex did not mean they were. The idea that you become whatever gender you want by simply claiming to be so is a very recent invention. And it is an idea that as little as ten years ago would have been laughed at by everyone on all sides. Ask yourself this, if someone had told you in say the year 2000 that gender was some kind of societal construct and someone who was biologically a male could be a woman by claiming to be so and anyone who denied this was a bigot, what would you have thought? Only you can answer that question. But I can tell you this; i have known some of my most liberal friends for over twenty years and all of them buy into the transgender thing hook line and sinker. Yet, I know for a fact, none of them would have 15 years ago and if I had told them that doing so was necessary to be a Prog in good standing come 2017, they would have laughed at me and told me I was a paranoid. Yet, today they all believe exactly that.

        1. People can change their mind about things. Well, other people at least.

          But there were never people before the last 50 years or so who honestly claimed to be the other gender.

          A thoroughly unsupportable statement.

          1. Sure people change their minds. The question is why did they do it. What caused them to buy into such a preposterous idea other than being told that doing so was necessary to be tolerant?

            People can change their minds about anything. I believe Orwell talked about how people would someday change their minds and deiced 2+2=5. This is an example of that. If you will believe the transgendered stuff, there is nothing you will not believe as long as it cloaked in the language of tolerance.

          2. Francis: Why are you always on about women, Stan?
            Stan: (pause) I want to be one.

            (pregnant pause)

            Reg: What?
            Stan: I want to be a woman. From now on I want you all to call me Loretta.
            Reg: What!?
            Stan: It’s my right as a man.
            Judith: Why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
            Stan: I want to have babies.
            Reg: You want to have babies?!?!?!
            Stan: It’s every man’s right to have babies if he wants them.
            Reg: But you can’t have babies.
            Stan: Don’t you oppress me.
            Reg: I’m not oppressing you, Stan — you haven’t got a womb. Where’s the
            fetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box?
            (Stan starts crying.)
            Judith: Here! I’ve got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can’t actually
            have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody’s fault, not even the
            Romans’, but that he can have the *right* to have babies.
            Francis: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to
            have babies, brother. Sister, sorry.
            Reg: (pissed) What’s the *point*?
            Francis: What?
            Reg: What’s the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he
            can’t have babies?
            Francis: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
            Reg: It’s symbolic of his struggle against reality.

            1. 2,000 years ago, bitches.

            2. Who knew that Monty Python was so transphobic?

              I feel Reg’s frustration when Shackford argues that the government noting a child’s sex on the birth certificate is assigning the kid a gender.

        2. “But there were never people before the last 50 years or so who honestly claimed to be the other gender.”

          There were people who claimed to be the other sex, who were correctly recognized to be delusional. Only academics used the term “gender” instead of sex until rather recently.

        3. How many people are there now who claim to actually be the other gender?

          Maybe I’m not paying enough attention, but it seems to me that trans- people aren’t claiming contrary to fact that they have different genes or were born with different anatomy than they actually were.

          There is a reasonable distinction to be made between claiming to actually literally be the other gender and wanting to live and be treated as the other gender.

          I’m sure there are some people who are truly deluded in that way, but I don’t think that describes most transgender people.

          1. “…wanting to live and be treated as the other gender.”

            I don’t know what most transsexuals think, but the rhetoric of the “gender identity” activists goes beyond that. It does in fact assert that “trans women” ARE women and “trans men” ARE men. It’s not that they deny the facts of genes and anatomy; rather, they insist that genes and anatomy are of no significance?that biological sex is a technicality that should have no social notice or importance, and it is instead ones self-announced gender that solely matters. I would submit that in itself is delusional.

            1. I agree that making claims that strong is foolish. But I’m not sure it’s delusional.

              I also get the feeling that the activists go way beyond what most actual transgender people actually care about.

      3. “There were no trans people or crossdressers or lifelong tomboys until 2006?”

        There have, of course, always been people who did not fit easily and comfortably into their societies’ sex role expectations. There have always been people who suffer from the delusion that they are the opposite sex. There have always been people who found it exciting to dress as the opposite sex. There have always been women who gravitated towards traditionally male pursuits because those suited their talents and personalities better than traditionally female ones. None of these people conceived of themselves as having a “gender identity” as that term is currently used until very recently because the concept had not been invented. Some such people in the last few years have adopted a “gender identity” claim, having learned about the concept from activists influenced by academics. Some people who have no issues at all with sex dysphoria or sex role conformity have recently adopted “gender identities” because it’s a fad and they don’t want to be left out. The fad will pass.

    2. I thought it was a fad too. In fact, talking to a group of people I got a big laugh when I said I thought it would “peter out”.

    3. Maybe in mainstream culture it’s pretty new. But the ideas were pretty mature and fleshed out when I was in college 18 years ago.

      1. If you looked back at the literature of that time you would see there’s been significant change to these concepts since then.

  40. OT Rumor: Trump Will Select Gorsuch for SCOTUS

    If so, I’m pretty happy with the choice. I was worried that the nominee would’ve been someone with a lack of a solid paper trail, like Hardiman, or an overly pro-government conservative like Pryor. This guy, on face value, seems like a solid Scalia replacement IMO.

  41. I really wish that some of the hullabaloo over Trans Rights could be focused on the plight of Transsexuals. My (admittedly limited) understanding is that pst-op transsexuals seldom adjust at all well, and that they have one of the highest suicide rates of any social group. I seriously think this is because so-called ‘gender reassignment surgery’ is oversold and basically fake, and that the surgeons who offer it are at best over-enthusiastic and trend from there into outright frauds and ghouls.

    There may come a day when it is actually possible to offer somebody a change in gender. It isn’t now. People who have had the surgery have been mutilated. And, to the extent that they have been talked into it by social forces exaggerating the positive effects of the surgery and downplaying the problems, they have been talked into accepting said mutilation.

    I’m sorry if this is political incorrect ….

    Actually, no I’m not sorry. This is barbarous. the is preying on the emotionally vulnerable. It must be, at a minimum, looked at a great deal more critically than I have so far seen.

    1. I think there are a few core problems that surgeons/proponents of gender adjustment surgery simply don’t have good answers for.

      1) what broad impacts do hormonal treatments have on quality of life and mental/physical health. Medical science is still working to understand the multifaceted functions of hormones and a clear picture simply doesn’t exist yet.
      2) What is the psychological impact of physical body adjustment on the long-term. Many people have deeprooting anxiety about body loss/decay, etc. Loss of a tooth, limb, other disfiguring loss is deeply traumatic for many. It would be reasonable to think other changes could have longterm phychological harm.

      Serious open questions. Not to say people shouldn’t have the rights to explore, but the application of this to minors, or people with existing conditions is very problematic and a direct violation of the premise of ‘do no harm’

      1. I realize that this would set off hysterics in any Liberal Left group, but I would seriously be willing to consider a law to the effect that ‘gender reassignment surgery’ is assisted self-mutilation and while legal cannot be paid for with tax money. Ever. I seldom like the idea of banning anything (I favor legalizing heroin), but I see no reason why the public should be expected to pay for something with such questionable results.

        In a century or so (or less, who knows?), when it actually is possible for a male human to become a female human with working ovaries and so forth, I won’t have a problem with it. Want to be altered into a sexy Anime cat-girl for a weekend or the rest of your life? Go for it. My idea of fun probably leaves YOU cold. But until there is something that actually, you know, WORKS, this crap needs to be reined WAY back.

  42. “Trio of LGBT News Stories Shows We’re Not Backsliding on Cultural Acceptance”

    Well, duh. The most socially liberal President ever just took office. Why in the world would any rational person think this would result in a “backslide” on cultural acceptance.

    1. Shhhh… it’s more leftist virtue signaling from Reason writers. It’s much like the claim being made that he’s going to “stifle freedom of expression” when all of the indicators are that he has done and will keep doing the opposite.

      1. “Wow, he’s been in office over a week. I was sure the Trumpstapo would have hauled me off to the camps by now.”

        1. “Trumpstapo”

          Hmmm. Interesant, mein Herr.

      2. It’s a response to a widely held (and totally unsupported) belief among Trump haters. It may seem obvious to people who are trying to make an honest assessment of Trump, but there are a lot of people not doing that.

  43. So Mrs Mainer and I are in one of those sandwich shops where you give your name when they take your order. And while we sat waiting for our order I thought we could pass the time thinking up a funny name to give the next time. And she says, right out of the gate, “How about Snagglepuss ?” AAAAND we were done, conversation over, we have a winner.

    So now when when the counterman at a fast food place asks, “Name ?” she always says Snagglepuss.

    1. I have a group of friends that always reserves our table under the name “Vladmir Harkonnen”

    2. Way back when, my best friend always gave the name Griff, Al Bundy’s buddy from the shoe store.

  44. “You can’t claim to be an ally when you send LGBTQ refugees back to countries where their lives are at risk. You can’t claim support and then rip away life-saving services made possible through the Affordable Care Act for transgender people and those living with HIV or AIDS. You can’t be a friend to this community and appoint people to run the government who compare being gay to bestiality,” [Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin] added.

    You literally cannot win with these people.

      1. Of course *you* wouldn’t want to be anyone’s ally, Swiss dude.

    1. Fortunately, I don’t claim to be anyone’s ally.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.