June 20, 2005 by s.z.

Sleaze Sells Over at the NRO, Kathryn Jean Lopez Interviews Edward Klein, author of The Truth [sic] About Hillary. Here are a few selections from that interview: NRO: How many times do you use the word "lesbian" in your book? Why point out she had friends who were lesbians? Do we need to go there? Klein: Hillary’s politics were shaped by the culture of radical feminism and lesbianism at Wellesley College in the 1960s. This is paramount in exploring the political life of Hillary Clinton. How could someone write a comprehensive biography of Hillary Clinton without investigating the rumors that have long circulated about her? I've gone further than any other journalist in exploring the question of her sexuality, which is often the first thing people wonder about her: Is she misrepresenting herself as a doting wife to Bill Clinton? How can she stand his chronic infidelity? So, because the first thing that low-minded simps want to know about Hillary is if she is a lesbian, that's reason enough for Klein to write about it, using anonymous sources to imply that she is.  (And hey, the only reason a wife would put up with infidelity is if she is a lesbian, so it's not like Klein doesn't have reason to question her sexual orientation.) NRO: One more sex thing. You write: "Hillary Clinton only had herself to blame for the talk about her sex life." Can there ever really be a good reason for this, never mind in her case? Klein: The Clintons themselves made sex an integral part of our national political discourse at the turn of the century. There’s no way of getting around sex when it comes to the Clintons. Yes, Hillary only has herself to blame for the talk about her sex life, because if she had been a better wife, then Bill wouldn't have dallied with Monica, and the Republican Congress wouldn't have been forced to dwell on all the details of Bill's sex life, thus inviting speculation about Hillary sex life.  So, it really is her own fault that Klein had to include chapters full of salacious rumors about her. Let's skip to the end section of the interview: NRO: Why should anyone trust or believe your portrait of Hillary Clinton? Klein: Because it is written by a journalist with impeccable credentials (Newsweek, the New York Times, Vanity Fair, Parade), who has no political agenda. [...] NRO: Why should a fair-minded voter read your book before 2008? Klein: Because Hillary’s 2006 campaign for reelection to the Senate is a dry run for her 2008 campaign for the White House, and the time has come for her opponents to size her up and devise a strategy to stop her. So, we should trust Klein because he's written for various publications, including the prestigious Parade magazine, and because he has no political agenda except to help Hillary's opponents devise a strategy to stop her political career.  That's seems fair enough. And while I don't know about Klein's "impeccable credentials," I can say from personal knowledge that his claim that Hillary "used FBI files against her enemies" is false.  So, I'm going to guess that the rest of the book is as truthful as that statement, and skip it. 7:22:14 AM

Ye Shall Know the Truth, and It Won't Come From Agape Press Ah, Don Wildmon's Agape Press -- it  never lets me down when I'm on a wingnut search.  Take, for example, this article from today's edition Appeals Court Reverses Radical Judge's Gender-Bending Ruling: Staver Says Transsexual Trial's Outcome Sets Pro-Family Precedent The Florida case involved transsexual Michael Kantaras (born Margo Kantaras), who had married a woman (Linda Kantaras) with two biological children of her own. Well, Linda was four months pregant with the child of a man who had dumped her, and then she met Michael Kantaras.  He supported her through the pregnancy, and adopted the child after they were married.  Michael has been the only father the boy has ever known.  Linda conceived her and Michael's daughter through artificial insemination, using sperm from Michael's brother, when the couple wanted a child of their own.  So, yes, both children are biologically hers, but they were in every other respect Michael's too. Linda Kantaras later became a Christian and sought to annul the marriage. Linda found religion and tried to annul the marriage only after Michael fell in love with another woman, and sought a divorce and custody of the children.  Oh, and despite claiming they were never legally married, she wanted alimony. However, a child custody dispute between the estranged couple had to be resolved in court. In February 2003, Pasco County Judge Gerard O'Brien presided over the child custody dispute, at the heart of which was the question of whether or not a transsexual marriage may be recognized as legal in the state of Florida. Well, the judge thought that the heart of the matter was the best interests of the children.  At least, that's what he said. The state legislature had banned same-sex marriages back in 1997 when lawmakers passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined a marriage as being between "one man and one woman" in the state of Florida. However, Judge O'Brien ruled that the Kantarases' transsexual marriage was legal, and he granted custody of the 11-year-old daughter and 13-year-old son to Michael (Margo) Kantaras. But that decision was overturned last year by a Florida appellate court, and last week, a court-approved settlement returned the two children to the primary care of their biological mother. Let's now go the the A.P. account account of the latest ruling in this case, because it includes a lot of interesting details that Agape Press leaves out: The couple divorced in 2002 and he was awarded custody of the children. She appealed, even though both lawyers said the judge deemed the husband to be more fit parent [as did the court-appointed psychologist]. A Florida appeals court in Lakeland said there was no legal marriage for a court to dissolve, and remanded the custody challenge to a lower court for further proceedings. A long custody battle loomed. Linda's sister then wrote a letter to the producers of the "Dr. Phil" talk show, [Karen Doering, attorney for Michael Kantaras] said. "It was one of those situations where there was no downside risk," said Doering, who practices law for the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "So we gave it a shot." After appearing on the show, the couple agreed to try mediation. After two meetings, Michael and Linda agreed on May 25 to share custody of the children, Doering said. The children are now 13 and 15 years old. Liberty Counsel, which was representing Linda, took the case in an effort to protect traditional marriage from transsexuals -- which they have done, by winning that part of the case on appeal.  But it was the Dr. Phil show that actually facilitated the child custody arrangement.  So, who was really more pro-family in this case, the Christian Liberty Counsel, or the Hollywood folks?  (Apparently being "pro family" doesn't mean being pro ACTUAL families to Liberty Counsel.) Anyway, I especially liked this quote from Matt Staver, head of Libery Counsel: Staver says the outcome represents a tremendous victory for traditional marriage, and a huge setback for the transsexual and homosexual agenda. "A few hormones and plastic surgery do not change a person's sex, which is an immutable trait fixed at birth," he says. "The law cannot permit a person to change their sex like one changes clothes." I change my clothes a couple of times a day.  Is Staver claiming that he only changes his once in his life? (Because I don't know of anybody who has changed their sex more than once.) Unfortunately, Staver points out, Michael (Margo) Kantaras for the moment retains custody of the two children. Still, he notes, "The good news is, now that we won the case at the Court of Appeals with the ruling that says marriage is only between one man and one woman -- and therefore as a transsexual, you cannot marry someone of your same birth sex -- we've gone back down to the trial court to address the issue of the children." So, if you're a transsexual, you can't marry somebody from your same birth sex -- but I guess that after having sex reassignment surgery and hormones which give you the male characteristics, it would be okay with Staver if you married somebody who was born male, which would basically mean that you entered into a homosexual marriage.  (Yeah, Staver probably just thinks that transsexuals don't have the right to marry anyone at all, but I'd like to hear him spell out his policy on which American citizens get which rights.) In light of the new ruling, Linda Kantaras and her Liberty Counsel attorneys are hopeful that Judge O'Brien's ruling on the custody of the children will also be reversed. Hey, that's not what he told the Associated Press!  In reference to the child custody arrangment, this is what he said: "We're very pleased that it is resolved, Staver said. "This does it in a very quick way, more so than litigation." He said that if this case can be resolved, others can, too. "This case is enormously monumental and yet we were able to put the children first," Staver said. "Their lives are on a road to stabilization ... If it can happen here, it can happen in any case." But I guess if he told the true believers at Agape Press that the interests of the kids were more important than making case law that says that transsexuals can't ever have any kind of custody of children, then the donations from the homophobes would drop off, and they'd begin to wonder if Liberty Counsel was making deals with the Homosexual Agenda. 6:01:41 AM

Doug on Mindlessness Doug Giles is back with another lesson from his copyrighted series on how to be a loser.   This week's installment is called Follow others mindlessly©.  With habit one (Be a Slacker©), habit two (Blame Others©) and habit three (Embrace Hopelessness©) under your belt, let me further your farcical existence by establishing within your smelly psyche habit four, Follow Others Mindlessly©. Yes, apparently Doug can smell psyches -- they're everywhere! Anyway, the highlight of this week's lesson is when he wanders into Ben Shapiro territory (and even appropriates Ben's name for his generation) to give you advice about your sex life. Take your sex life for instance, young person.  Following what our current, cranially posterialized culture is doing with their genitals is a great way to jettison your future into the fryer.  I think that what Doug is saying is that if you emulate the culture and put your head up your ass and throw your genitals in the fryer, you might not have posterity. To ratchet up your potential for pain never question and only obey what our porn generation is selling you.  I mean . . . who needs morality?  Abstinence is for morons.  He so stole that from Ben.  (But then, since Ben has been stealing from TBogg, I guess what goes around, comes around -- meaning that TBogg now gets to steal something from Doug's "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Wanking©" series.) You, my friend, should slut around as much as possible [...] Additionally, think about the pain you could be missing out on (not to mention the amazing complications) by not having an unwanted child, an abortion, an STD—or even AIDS!  You are missing out on so much disaster by following your holier-than-thou moral compass, you idiot.  Cut the conviction stuff immediately, Goofy! Now . . . put on a rubber . . . take nude pictures of yourself . . . make a sex tape and then make sure it gets out in public.  That alone could bring enough disaster your way to last for decades.  Um, if I am trying for an unwanted child, abortion, or STD, won't the rubber do a pretty good job of preventing them?  And while I agree that Paris Hilton shouldn't be a role model for young people, I think almost everyone would agree that her sex tape brought her all kinds of fame, opportunity, and (further) wealth, which aren't usually seen as disasters.  Also, why don’t you try homosexuality? It doesn’t look so bad on TV, does it?  Yes, that's how people become homosexual -- by seeing homosexuality on TV, and thinking that doesn't look half bad, so they might as well give it a try.  (You know, just like how they ended up with the Ronco Pocket Fisherman or the Inside-the-Shell Egg Scrambler.) Please, get busy following what others are doing with their naughty bits, you repressed puritan, you.  Never mind what common sense, holy writ and history have taught us about unbridled sexual passions.  But Doug, if the today's Disaster Master Mind© lesson is that following mindlessly makes me a loser, then wouldn't mindlessly following the Christian fundamentalist interpretation of holy writ and/or history be a bad idea?  To enhance your chances for hell on earth one has to cease to think for one’s self.  See my above question, Doug. Teach yourself to become enslaved to other people, TV, feckless political parties and corrupt ecclesias.  [...] Habit five to follow. . . . I can hardly wait -- otherwise, I might have to think for myself! 4:52:36 AM

Life Goes On in the Unreality-Based World A couple of days ago, while pointing you to JABB's post about what Randall Terry was saying about the Terri Schiavo autopsy results on the cable news shows, I jokingly said the post was about what Dr. Hammesfahr was saying about the autopsy results.  (The joke being that nobody seemed to want to give a forum to the Noble Peace Prize in Medicine-nominated doc now that the autopsy proved that he was wrong about almost everything he had said to Hannity and Scarborough, including that Terri was "conscious and responsive"; that she could have been rehabilitated; that Dr. Ham had helped people who people were "much worse than Terri," one of whom was now talking; and that Terri wasn't actually in a PV state, her husband had  just "perpetrated a hoax on the American public.") Well, it seems that the joke's on me, because WorldNetDaily gave the doctor a forum in an article entitled "Terri was aware, says brain doc: Neurosurgeon who examined her finds autopsy confirms Schiavo was cognizant." The gist of the article is that Dr. Hammesfahr was right, and it's the conclusions of the medical examiner that are wrong. Dr. Ham says that since only half of Terri's brain had been replaced with fluid, it was the other half that contained her "awareness and cognition," as proven by those video tapes which showed her responding to people. Oh, and she really could see too. "Obviously, the pathologists comments that she could not see were not borne out by reality, and thus his assessment must represent sampling error. The videotapes clearly showed her seeing." And per Dr. Hammesfahr, Terri didn't need the feeding tube, since she could swallow liquids; really did have neck injuries (probably caused when her husband tried to strangle her); and could have been rehabilitated, if only Dr. Ham had been given the chance to work with her. Yes, despite what the quack who did the autopsy concluded, everything Dr. Ham said before was correct. And it's obvious that her husband did something to cause her condition, because the autopsy couldn't conclusively prove that he didn't try to smother her with a pillow or something. Hammesfahr concluded: "Ultimately, based on the clinical evidence and the autopsy results, an aware woman was killed." And since all the experts disagree with Dr. Ham, this proves that they are in on the gigantic hoax that Michael Schiavo has perpetrated on the world. I think Dr. Hammesfahr should be nominated for the Pulitzer Prize in Medical Fiction for his latest work. (If you don't do it, I will.) 3:33:41 AM