April 20, 2005 by s.z.

Townhall Review

Are the Townhallers are more annoying than usual today, and am I just more annoyable?  You be the judge!

Bigmouth at Monmouth by Mike S. Adams

Clearly Dr. Mike is a major conservative pundit, just like Ann Coulter and David Horowitz, because somebody threw a pie at him while he was speaking at a university. 

Okay, Mike just got heckled during the Q&A part of his speech -- but the only reason he wasn't pied is because liberals know that he's packing heat (and will kill anyone who dares to pie him), thus proving that he's actually WAY cooler than Ann and David!

Well, I suppose it had to happen. With all the pie-throwing at conservative speakers these days, I guess I was overdue for an episode of intensely cerebral and well-thought-out liberal protest during one of my campus speeches. [...]

Unlike Kristol, Buchanan, Horowitz, and Coulter, I had no objects hurled in my direction. Maybe the liberals know I have a concealed weapons permit and a .357 magnum, which I may or may not be carrying at any given moment. I guess you could say I have two bodyguards whose names are Smith and Wesson. And maybe that’s why Professor Farhat Haq decided to shout me down from the back of the auditorium instead of hurling a key lime from the front row.

Or maybe the professor didn't feel you were worth a pastry, Mike.  Hey, key lime pies cost as much as $10 each, while talk is cheap.  And just as the workman is worthy of his hire, so is the pompous windbag.

Of equal pay, cross-dressing and the death of sex differences  by Ben Shapiro

Women want to get paid as much as men.  Princeton hosted the "All-Ivy Drag Competition," where some men dressed like ladies.  These two facts prove that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, my friend! 

Sadly, we now live in a world where differences between the sexes are the object of unrelenting attack, whether from political demagogues or campus deconstructionists. The struggle for "pay equity" is one way of blurring the lines between men and women; "pay equity" advocates state that as long as the pay outcome is unequal, we're doing something wrong. Blaming pay inequity on anything but sexism betrays "insensitivity."

Of course, pay inequity is almost entirely due to beautiful and important distinctions between the sexes.

The main beautiful, important distinction is that women choose to take the easy, fun jobs, such as nursing or preschool teaching, which pay less because, um, women do them, so they must be easy and fun.  Women take these fun, low-paying jobs because they choose to be the ones who have the babies, and want jobs where they can work only 40 hours a week outside the home, thus freeing them to work 40 hours a week in the home taking care of the babies and their husbands.  Therefore, since men don't get to have babies, it's only fair that they make more money.  

I used to think social liberals wanted to celebrate diversity. Now it's clear social liberals want to obscure all distinctions between men and women so that all choices, sexual and behavioral, are equal. Just call it the "melting pot of gender." Or the melting down of America.

Or just call it "Since Ben mistakenly asked out one of the competitors from the drag contest, it's essential that women make less money than men, so that Ben can ask to see a pay stub before things get too far along next time, and thus avoid being fooled by another Ivy League Ann Coulter impersonator."

Stand by Congressman Tom DeLay  by Gary Aldrich

Those so-called "ethical problems" that the liberals claim Tom DeLay has?  Well, they're NOTHING compared to how Bill Clinton murdered Vince Foster!  The hypocritical liberals are just using "equivilency" so they can claim that DeLay took a plane trip sponsored by foreigners, and foreigners in planes are responsible for 9/11, and therefore DeLay is a terrorist.  (Okay, that last part isn't really part of Gary's arguement, but since his makes no sense, I thought I'd try to help him out.) 

Oh, and look over there, it's Sandy Berger stuffing Super-Duper Tippity-Top Secret documents in his socks so he can sell them to Hitler!  But did the liberals they ask Berger to step down from his position as House majority leader!  Hell, no!  Hypocrites, the lot of them!

This is how it works:  If a conservative is caught breaking the speed limit, while a married Liberal man is driving drunk with his girlfriend in the car, runs off a bridge killing her – and then he runs away and hides, then lies about the entire matter - well you see, it’s the same thing.  Both violated traffic laws, so there!

There’s a feeding frenzy in Washington over some actions by friends of Congressman Tom DeLay.  The Liberals smell blood in the water, and DeLay is a big target.  Meanwhile, the Bush Administration entered into a plea bargain with Sandy Berger after he admitted he stole the nation’s most important classified documents, took them who knows where, and destroyed them.  For that, this Liberal leader in the arena of national security got to pay a measly $10,000 fine and have his security clearance yanked for a mere three years – and the Liberals and their friends in the media act as if Berger broke the speed limit.

Contrast that fact with Congressman Tom DeLay's having accepted a plane ride offered by a nonprofit organization with a hidden agenda, and DeLay is who captures the attention of an outraged national media!  [...]

You be the judge.  Speeding or vehicular homicide?  The theft and destruction of the nation's most sensitive documents or riding in an airplane to visit foreign leaders?  Liberals will always find an equivalency when it suits them. It’s up to us to point out when they are being hypocritical in the extreme.

A former official committed a security violation, was caught, and was sentenced appropriately.  Meanwhile, a jerk with a long history of being sleazy got caught, and then used his congressional position to attempt to change the rules so that there were no rules against being sleazy.  So, do we have an example of a third-tier wingnut really reaching in an attempt to distract people from DeLay's misconduct, or the stupidest argument ever, which basically boils down to "Conservatives are always being picked on, and liberals are evil"?  YOU be the judge!  I'm passing the buck to you!

Easy money in California  by Thomas Sowell

Where can you make $2,000 a day, with no real effort?

Hey, kids, make good money raising kidneys at home!

Okay, Thomas's column is actually about how it's really expensive to live in San Mateo county because the rich people who live there won't let developers build tract houses all over the place. But I think it all gets back to kidneys in the end.

People who are sufficiently affluent can afford to move into places with severe restrictions on building. Those who bought their homes years ago, before these housing restrictions were enacted, are able to stay while the value of their homes rise.

Among other things, this means that many young adults cannot afford to live near their parents, unless they actually live in their parents' home.

It's every young adult's dream to live in the same block as their parents, but sadly, they can't afford to do this in San Mateo county.  No, they they must either live 30 miles or so from their elderly parents, or kill them off and inherit the expensive house (which they easily do now, thanks to the end of the Death Tax).  And it's all the fault of misguided environmental wackos! 

This isolates the elderly from their children, which can be a growing problem as the infirmities of age set in and their contemporary friends die off.

But the growing problem of the infirmities of age does mean that there's a buyers' market for young, healthy organs -- so, young adults, sell your kidneys to your parent's ailing friends, and make enough money to buy that dream house just down the street from your folks!

College taught her not to be a heterosexual  by Dennis Prager

"The shocking story of a coed who majored in 'How to Not Be Heterosexual' at McGill University, and soon found herself having hot, wild lesbian encounters with other busty, attractive young women.  Will there ever be a white wedding for her, or just more instances of debauchery, orgies, and wild girl-on girl action?"  Buy this month's True Confessions magazine to find out!

Perhaps the most important argument against same-sex marriage is that once society honors same-sex sex as it does man-woman sex, there will inevitably be a major increase in same-sex sex. People do sexually (as in other areas) what society allows and especially what it honors.

 One excellent example illustrating this is an article recently written in the McGill University newspaper by McGill student Anna Montrose. In it, she wrote:

It's hard to go through four years of a Humanities B.A. reading Foucault and Butler and watching 'The L Word' and keep your rigid heterosexuality intact. I don't know when it happened exactly, but it seems I no longer have the easy certainty of pinning my sexual desire to one gender and never the other.

Dennis interviewed Ms. Montrose, to learn first-hand how McGill turned her bi.  They both believe that sexual orientation is largely determined by society, so Dennis tries to get her to agree that we should only approve of heterosexuality, to keep everybody from turning gay, and thus dooming the race. She never does accept Gary's thesis (that saying it's okay to be gay or bi will cause everyone to abandon heterosexuality and stop procreating), but does admit that she might get married someday -- for the insurance and tax benefits.  Dennis has thus proven his point: women should not go to college, because if gives them bad ideas, and makes them mercenary tarts. 

4:04:57 AM