Wednesday, September 30, 2015

For the Record

I wish the Pope, instead of visiting with Kim Davis (who should have done what Thomas More did when he could not stomach the Leviathan's re-definition of "marriage" and resigned; sorry, but Caesar won this round), had said in his address to Congress something along the lines of this:  "Marriage had been the only institution that reflected the social significance of sexual difference.  The de-sexing of marriage therefore is tantamount to a declaration that sexual difference no longer is important in the public sphere, that we all may be men and women privately, but as citizens we become amoebas.  This is, to put it as charitably as I can, absurd.  Being neutered should not be a requirement for citizenship.  And if you think I'm just harping on this because I am a Christian and the notion that marriage is the union of a man and a woman is a particular doctrine of supernatural Christian Revelation, then I beg you to ask yourselves if Ancient Sparta or Pagan Rome were Christian Theocracies.  Is Communist China?   How is it possible for these societies, which either had no knowledge of Christian Revelation or self-consciously reject all its tenets, to have defined marriage according to sexual difference if the sexual definition of marriage is supposed to be a uniquely Christian Doctrine?"

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

The Problem of Evil

We know that History is benevolent.  Because History marches us to an ever greater awareness of Equality and Human Dignity.  And we know that History is powerful.  Otherwise, History could not have mowed down all those bigots standing in the way of "marriage equality".

But if History is so benevolent and powerful, then why did it allow same-sex "marriage" to go unrecognized and unaffirmed for so long (millennia, in fact) and why does it still allow the grave evil of the non-recognition of same-sex "marriage" to continue in most of the inhabited world?

Monday, September 28, 2015

Political Science Classes in the Future

Decades from now—if we’ve regained our sanity, that is—the whole “marriage equality” movement will be used as a textbook example of demagoguery.

The arguments which finally convinced me to support same-sex "marriage"

His cogency just overwhelmed me.

I changed my mind

I support same-sex "marriage" because the fear of The Right Side of History is the beginning of all wisdom.

Friday, September 25, 2015

By the way

This weblog (yes, I know that everyone calls it a "blog", but "blog" is short for "weblog", and I want people to know this just because I am a pedantic asshole) has only one follower.  Reveal yourself, please, and tell me why you're following the deranged, cranky rants of a middle-aged man.

Note to E.P.

Would you like to see Everest with me some time this week?  I would prefer to see it in 3-D, just because the new 3-D is so cool.  E-mail me.  You have my e-mail.  I don't have yours.  That's basically the story of my entire social life, by the way.  I am so pathetic.


Pope Francis said something on his U.S. Tour that was unambiguous enough to piss off the lunatics!

I wish...

...I had grown up speaking Latin and only Latin.  True, no one except Ratzinger and the whackos still in the SSPX would be able to understand me.  Fine.  Very few people seem to understand me now.  I don't even think that I understand myself.  When you are a cripple in this world of atomizing liberalism, you are especially atomized.  Oh, fucking well.

Wednesday, September 23, 2015

Hey, D.W.

Read this, please, and tell me why precisely it is unenlightened bullshit.  Pretty please?

Tuesday, September 22, 2015

Immanent Critique

So, you are talking to a very P.C. Person about Caitlynn Jenner, and this P.C. Person is very, very indignant that some people intentionally misgender this brave and stunning woman.  These people have the gall to call her Bruce.  Bruce no longer exists.  Bruce never really existed.  She was always Caitlynn.  She only appeared to be Bruce because of decades and decades of misgendering that repressed, strangled, and suffocated her feminine essence, her true core identity.

Yes, you respond, misgendering is violence.

It is, it is.  You get it, P.C. Person responds.   Journalists who misgender Caitlynn Jenner and other transgender people should be fined by the F.C.C.

Misgendering should be a criminal offense for everyone, not just journalists.  It should be classified as assault.

Well, P.C. Person hedges, I agree, but that may not be politically feasible just yet, ya know?

Fundamental rights and the necessary protections of those fundamental rights should never be politicized, you say extra sternly.

Yes, yes, P.C. Person blushingly rushes to say, you are absolutely right.

People should feel safe in their various gender identities, you continue.  If they want to identify as girls...

...then they should be called girls.

And if they want to identify as mothers...

...then they should be called mothers.

And be treated as such.

Damn straight!  Er, sorry, I mean, I wholeheartedly agree!

They should not be subjected to an oppressive regime of gender terror which seeks to deprive them of their right to define and express their identity.

Amen, sibling!

And that's why we should do away with same-sex "marriage".

P.C. Person suddenly looks as if someone just urinated on zir prom dress.  What the fuck? P.C. Person blurts out.

You agree that one of the main premisses of "marriage equality" is that kids raised by same-sex couples do just as well as those raised by opposite-sex couples, don't you?

Well, of course, I do.  That's just a basic scientific fact, and I am no anti-scientific bigot.  But what the hell does this have to do with gender dignity?!

If same-sex and opposite-sex couples are identical with regard to raising children, then it is obvious that the gender of parents does not matter.

Well, duh!  Do you have a point in all this, douchebag?!

In fact, I do, O Enlightened One.  If you accept the underpinning premise of same-sex "marriage" that the gender of the parent is not important, then logically it follows that identifying oneself as a mother cannot be important.  But saying that it is unimportant does gender violence to all those who treasure and cherish their identities as mothers.  Thus, same-sex "marriage" constitutes gender terror.

You're a bigot.

I'm just being logical, you plea.

Well, if that's what logic is, then logic is bigoted, hateful, and the exact opposite of love, and the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of love and not logic.  So, bye-bye, bigot.  I hope you enjoy the company of the Westboro Baptists because they are the only ones who are gonna tolerate your sorry, atavistic ass.  So long, hater!

Yeah, fuck you, too!

Monday, September 21, 2015

Another Note to D.W.

You better hang on to that triple-weighted chess set I gave you.  Such chess sets are no longer made anymore.  I found this out yesterday from a chess geek who lamented the discontinuance of the triple-weighted sets because you just can't thwack down lighter pieces as well while playing blitz.

Friday, September 18, 2015

Note to E.P.

I love you even though you are a fan of Amy Schumer and, what's that silly woman's name, oh,  yeah, Lena Dunham.

You have my e-mail address.  Please, use it.

A friendly reminder to D.W.

The anti-miscegenation parallel is S-L-A-N-D-E-R.

Wednesday, September 16, 2015

Note to the Young Hegelians

You can't know what the "Right Side of History", even if there is a Right Side, until History is over.  Because--according to the guy who gave us this moral interpretation of History with that sententiously capital "H", Hegel--until History is over, the Historical Dialectic is still mulling things over.  Hegel thought that Napoleon had ended History with the Battle of Jena in 1806, thereby deciding that the Ideals of the French Revolution would henceforth rule the world, but the Historical Dialectic unfortunately could not decide whether those ideals pointed to Capitalism or to Socialism.  And, thus, History staggered on.  Fukuyama thought History was over when Capitalism won the Cold War in 1989, but then twenty-nine years later we had the China Syndrome of Financial Meltdowns, which prompted Greenspan to declare History resurrected.  And as far as I know, that dialectic is still going on.  True, the United States, Merkel, and the other forces of Globalized Neo-Liberal Darkness seem to be winning, but the Socialists in Spain, Italy, and even still in Greece refuse to be snuffed out, and even in this country, the home of Neo-Liberalism itself, Bernie Sanders is giving the Capitalist Class something to worry about.

To paraphrase a philosopher far wiser than Hegel, History is not over 'till it's over.  You got that?

Tuesday, September 15, 2015

Metro, come and get me.

Heute bin ich auf dem Red Line Zug von 15:24 bis 15:41 nach Downtown St. Louis schwarzgefahren.  Ich habe meine Fahrkarte nicht entwertet weil der Zug ankam just als ich den Bahnsteig atemlos erreichte.  Es gab keine Zeit, für mich, die Karte aus meiner Tasche herauszuholen und sie zu entwerten.  Ich hätte den Zug verpasst.  Also bin ich eingestiegen, ohne die Karte entwertet zu haben.  Also bin ich schwarzgefahren.  Ich bin böse.

I'm still miserable

...because I am not in any relationship that is recognized by the state and therefore am, according to Anthony Kennedy, condemned to loneliness.

Fuck you, too, Herr Kennedy.

Monday, September 14, 2015

Yet another letter the Post-Dispatch will probably not print

Dear Editor,

the controversy over which restroom and locker room the young transgender woman Lila Perry should be allowed to use obscures a larger question, namely why have sexually segregated restrooms and locker rooms at all? This newspaper suggested in an editorial back in March of this year that sex (“Party like it’s 1820”) is exactly like race. If this is truly the case, then just as all decent people would condemn the very notion of segregated restrooms and locker rooms by race, all decent and right-thinking people should be appalled that restrooms and locker rooms are still segregated by sex and work towards a more just integration instead of piddling over just who fits where in this patently unjust system of anachronistic segregation. If race is just like sex, then just as we should work towards a truly colorblind society in which race no longer matters, we should work towards a truly asexual society as well.

Moreover, it is really hard to understand how sexual segregation of restrooms and locker rooms squares with the re-definition of marriage as the union of two people. The premise of such sexual segregation is that women should not undress or do private stuff in the presence of strange men and vice versa, but that in turn makes the heterosexist assumption that women are not attracted to women and men are not attracted to men. The de-sexing of marriage changes all this. Now the notion that sexual difference is the normative determinant of physical attraction no longer holds, and if it no longer holds, then there can be no justification for sexual segregation in public restrooms and locker rooms. In other words, if we are to respect the wishes of heterosexuals not to undress in the presence of members of the opposite sex who are not their spouses or significant others, then the dictates of marriage equality demand that we do exactly the same with gays and lesbians who may have qualms about undressing in front of members of the same sex who are not their spouses or significant others. And that means that we have to get rid of sexually segregated rest rooms and locker rooms and replace them all with individual stalls and dressing cabins.

I do not see how justice demands anything less.

Thursday, September 10, 2015


I was at a friend's house yesterday and needed to avail myself of the facilities.  Because I identify myself as feline, I quite naturally asked if I could use my friend's litterbox.  My friend was appalled and immediately told me to leave.  Needless to say, he's not my friend now.  Intolerant bigot.

Tuesday, September 8, 2015


If marriage is indeed a fundamental right, and the Supreme Court says it is, then why is it licensed?  A license is permission from the state to do something.  The idea of a right, especially a fundamental one, is that you have a right to do something no matter what.  In other words, you don't need the permission of the state to exercise a fundamental right.  Thus, the notion that a fundamental right should be licensed can only be a contradiction in terms.

But, perhaps, I am wrong and a fundamental right is not the right to do something no matter what.  Okay, then if that's the wrong definition of a fundamental right, then what is the proper one?

And how can a right be fundamental if it must first be licensed by the state for it to be exercised?  Something that is fundamental is something that is foundational, something that is built upon.  Therefore, a right, if it is fundamental, must be prior to the state, but the Supreme Court has ruled that the fundamental right to marriage consists in the right to a marriage license.  How the deuce can there be a fundamental right to something that can only exist AFTER and not BEFORE the existence of the  State?  Or is my understanding of "fundamental" wrong as well?

Apparently, "marriage" was not the only word the Supreme Court re-defined beyond all recognition.

Sunday, September 6, 2015

Kim Davis and Thomas More

My first thought when I heard about the Kim Davis Affair was, "Well, she should do what Thomas More did.  Thomas More could not agree in good conscience with the state's conception of marriage and, therefore, resigned as Chancellor of England.  Kim Davis should have resigned from her official post as well."  But then I did a double-take.  Had England in 1535 given legal recognition to same-sex "marriage", Thomas More would not have merely resigned his post.  He would have thought his entire country had become a fucking loony bin and, not wanting to reside in a lunatic asylum, would have fled with his family to some place a little more sane such as, say, the Ottoman Empire.

A note to the faculty at the School of Social Work at Rutgers

Two days ago I made a remark about how nice a young woman’s new hair-do was. Hair is part of a woman’s physical appearance, and according to your school's own definition of sexual assault  a remark about someone’s physical appearance constitutes sexual assault. Therefore, I committed sexual assault when I told this young woman that her new hair-do was very pretty. And I have no remorse whatsoever. In fact, I intend to make more remarks about women’s hair  in the not so distant future. I am a psychopath. You better stop me before I compliment a woman on her hair again. After all, the only thing required for evil to succeed is for unimpeachably good people like you all to do nothing.

You are barking lunatics, by the way.