Tag Archives: Robert Stacy McCain

Catering to the under 4% – Homosexuality in America

640px-Westerkerk_-_Gay_symbols_2
Lately it seems that one cannot start to read the news without one item or another talking about gay rights, marriage, adoption, or entertainment. On the latter, Slate offers a column that borders on mourning for the loss of some programs that featured gay characters. As it stands, based on actual population, television still will be offering viewers a stilted view of society, with more than 4% of the characters in a given show being gay. Yes, that may seem harsh, but reality often is.

And before latching onto that particular statistic too much, one needs to understand what the Williams Institute at UCLA did to reach that particular conclusion. Their numbers include individuals that self-identify as gay, transsexual, lesbian, or bi-sexual – the latter they admit holds a simple majority. But, even that is misleading, because their standards for having this “sexual identity” simply involves admitting to same-sex attraction at some point in adult life – apparently not necessarily acting physically on said attractions. Now, uncomfortable as it may be for some to admit, same-sex attraction is normal, as in every human being experiences it at least once in life, typically in early childhood. That attraction is how normal gender identity is developed, as in a child is attracted to an adult of the same sex, and seeks to emulate that individual’s behavior. It occasionally happens later in life (without ending in sexual behaviors) for essentially the same reasons. People occasionally end up with crises in their lives, and become attracted to other individuals they would like to emulate – people they perceive as more successful, for example. So, the Williams Institute might very well be inflating the number of non-heterosexual adults in America, by including individuals that simply have some degree of attraction for others of the same sex, but no intention of ever acting on it.

Before moving on from the “Psychology 101″ concepts here, there has been a video floating around, offering what many are calling anecdotal evidence that a lesbian couple should have the right to marry, because they were obviously such wonderful parents to their son.

Riley Roberts probably does believe every word he said. What struck me immediately was his emotional reactions. It might be tempting to rationalize that as nervousness and an extreme emotional reaction due to his personal attachment to the issue at hand. However, what if Roberts is living, breathing proof of the problem with a male child not having male role models early in life? Regardless, his situation remains anecdotal at best, and now that I’ve pointed out the oddity of his over-wrought testimony, I have no doubt that contention will spread, perhaps in the form of some comments on his being “over-feminized” as a result of having two mothers. That is not my intent here. It is my intent to point out that policy decisions should never be made purely on the basis of anecdotal evidence. Additionally, while government in theory should protect the rights of minorities, that should not mean normalizing a behavior that increasingly is showing that it will result in harm to others.

And that brings us to another headline involving gays – the Boy Scouts of America partially reversed a policy forbidding gay scouts or adult leaders. Gays are still banned from being leaders. As for the boys, it is essentially a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that permits gay members, but forbids discussion of sexuality, and as should go without saying, forbids sexual behaviors. While gays might consider this some great victory, it may very well cause severe problems for the organization – may very well spell the end of it. Or, it may force the issue of religion within the ranks. While not all units have religious affiliations, there is a religious aspect to the programming. Honestly, it is surprising that over the years, the BSA never did explicitly re-charter itself as a religious organization, since the leadership obviously had to know that this battle would have happened sooner or later. Exclusion based on religious tenets is protected by the First Amendment. Regardless, this is something that proves yet again that the liberal public and media are nothing if not schizophrenic. Turn back the clock 20 years, and they were screaming to the rafters about molestation by scout leaders. Now they’re screaming that the BSA needs to inject sexual content into their programming by allowing “out and proud” gays in the organization. Bonus points will be given to anyone that can manage a logical explanation for that shift!

And since we’re hovering near the concept of corrupting the morals of minors, I would be remiss if I neglected to mention the case of Kaitlyn Hunt. Romanticizing an 18-year-old girl going after a much younger girl, against the wishes of that girl’s parents, is barely better than turning a blind eye on arranged child marriages in Islam. That may seem a harsh assessment, but it is truthful. And as for the cries that Hunt’s life will be ruined if she is marked as a sex offender, that’s probably what really is needed, if the facts do turn out as reported – that she continued to attempt to engage in sexual behaviors with the younger girl after being told by the girl’s parents twice to stop. Let’s not forget what we’re talking about here – sexual behavior that is considered “normal” by less than 4% of the population of this country, so therefore, by definition, it is aberrant sexual behavior to at least 96% of the population (maybe more, in the cases of those who practice these activities, but still recognize that it’s not necessarily normal.)

I am not promoting the homosexual answer to racism here – this isn’t homophobia. It is a statement of facts, uncomfortable as they may be for homosexuals. There is nothing normal about feeling a compulsion to push one’s sexual preferences on the masses, proudly flouting societal conventions. In case someone got confused here, the only people that think heterosexual people wander around showing off their sexuality are homosexuals. And again, heterosexuals are the majority. Life isn’t always fair. In this case, the minority is doing more harm than good. Maybe it could be a little more tolerable if instead of attempting to normalize their lifestyle choices, they would freely admit that their real difference. Stop making children speak on their behalf. Stop suggesting that there’s nothing wrong with attempting to influence impressionable teens toward their choices. Yes, it is a choice – to force one’s lifestyle on the masses, or to some degree of modesty, self-respect, and respect for others by not trying to play this game. Take the hint – “The New Normal” was cancelled.

Singing the Pigford Blues

cwwycoff1 (CC)

cwwycoff1 (CC)


These days, it’s a rare occurrence when I write anything that’s purely my opinion. It’s “Everybody Blog About #Pigford Day”, so I figure it’s a special occasion. Besides, I was lucky enough to end up recording an interview with Lee Stranahan about Pigford, so it’s a little difficult to report on that without using the personal touch (especially since the interview didn’t broadcast yet, as of when I’m writing this.) Stranahan pointed out during that interview that I could have taken advantage of this particular little scheme. But, misuse of government benefits isn’t anything new under the sun. It’s just particularly disgusting in this case, because it literally takes livelihoods away from people that truly were discriminated against in the past, and honestly did deserve government assistance to start a farm.

Now, I have to admit that I’ve heard Stranahan several times on this topic. I admire that he’s stuck with the story after all this time, and enjoy hearing him talk about it every time. He’s a storyteller, so it’s not like listening to Obama and his teleprompter-driven campaign speeches, that must be canned by some sort of twisted flying monkeys that are kept in the bowels of the White House somewhere. No, Stranahan’s like my grandfather, who could tell the same story a thousand times, but keep folks captivated even if they’d heard it a couple hundred times. And this story is still like an onion, with new layers being revealed all the time. But, I guess you could say that’s the case with any story about government spending, since the mainstream media decided it’s not going to play watch-dog anymore.

Yes, Andrew Breitbart was a visionary. I didn’t know the man, and it’s a rare occasion when I even mention him. Sure, I’ve seen many people who seem to have placed him on a pedestal, and still others that get highly annoyed (or even hateful) with anyone that does that. I learned a long time ago that human beings in general are far too flawed to run around worshiping them (myself included), and I’m not into that sort of thing anyway. I don’t worship any deities, so why in the world would I worship people? Anyway, that doesn’t mean I don’t give credit where credit is due. And Breitbart was spot on when he encouraged people to get out there and do what the media wouldn’t do – investigate, expose, and when necessary, demand action from the powers that be. Pigford arguably should become the folktale for that, since the irony is that the government assumed Breitbart was onto this scheme before he actually was. I know Arianna Huffington likes to call herself the mother of citizen journalism, or something like that. Personally, I prefer to consider her the original power-broker that decided to take advantage of writers to get free content, but that’s a whole other story. Breitbart should be considered the Godfather of citizen journalism, because he inspired an entire generation of people to stop taking what was being fed to them by the mainstream media. He didn’t do it just to get content for his own website, either. History will truly tell this tale, but I wouldn’t be surprised if later generations end up learning about Breitbart as the man that put the investigations of hundreds of “Watergate-style” scandals in motion, just by encouraging people to dig.

After that discussion with Stranahan, I ended up talking with my co-host about how effective these “Blog about Blank” days really are. Sure, it gets a lot of attention on a specific topic for a whole day, but then what? It’s a frenetic world out there, and the masses tend to have the attention span of gnats, when it comes to news. I’ve passed over stories as “breaking”, knocking them down to just “news” if the story’s been out for just a few hours. The links I pull each day in the morning are old news by the afternoon. What keeps people on stories like Pigford?

Years ago there were two journalists that chased down the story of corruption in the Nixon administration. If anyone asked their editors what they thought about that, no doubt they would have said those two were obsessed. And that’s what keeps stories like Pigford alive today. Breitbart has been described as obsessed about the story, and at least a few others – including Stranahan – picked up that torch when he died. The thorn in Eric Holder’s side over “Fast and Furious” is Katie Pavlich, and Mary Chastain, to name two. Brett Kimberlin will not be forgotten if Robert Stacy McCain or Aaron Worthing have anything to say about it. Of course, I’m not naming all the people who keep these stories alive, and that’s another reason why they won’t disappear any time soon. Even I have one of my own little obsessions, but that one hasn’t seen the light of day – yet. So, if you can figure out what drives the folks that end up being determined to uncover every fact and secret about a certain story, you will find that special element that keeps all these stories alive long after the days we devote to them. By the way, if you do figure it out, do let me know. Bottling it would make a fortune!

Journalists as Endangered Species

For every spotted owl in danger of losing its habitat, there’s a do-good organization out to protect it. It wouldn’t be surprising if such a tree hugging group would step up to defend the hated stink bugs, if we finally managed to find an effective and inexpensive way to destroy them. So it goes with liberal humans and the animal kingdom. But what about subsets within the human species? What about the journalists that specialize in hard-hitting straight news?

RickC (CC)

There was a time when journalists did not run around writing stories like they were getting supplemental incomes from politicians for ignoring graft on the page. On the contrary, one of the quickest ways to lose one’s job as a staff member for a Congressman or Senator would be to fail in keeping the press at bay when there was a scandal. Now, the job description of a beltway worker doesn’t tend to include hiding any misdeeds from the media, because with few noted exceptions, the media is quite willing to take being spoon-fed pablum by politicians.

Yes, there is Katie Pavlich and Brandon Darby, as well as Lee Stranahan, Robert Stacy McCain, and Aaron Worthing. There are many others like them, and the common thread there is that they are not traditional media journalists. They’re also not liberals, but this isn’t just about political leanings here. Whether it is out of a misguided notion that the current President is untouchable simply because of the color of his skin, or any other reason under the sun, the fact remains that the journalists that should be acting as watch dogs have been getting fat and lazy on the bones tossed to them by politicians on both sides of the fence.

This isn’t a new concept, of course. It also isn’t going away anytime soon. However, there is one new wrinkle to this situation. While no one would argue the point that Bob Woodward is a sacred cow in the world of journalism, if for no other reason because of his work on the Watergate scandal, perhaps he will lose some of his stature among the new crop of liberal journalists now. He probably has already, thanks to his latest works. But now he has compounded his sin, by pointing out the elephant in the room – journalists aren’t doing their jobs anymore. Woodward pointed out to Mike Allen in an interview that it is not the job of journalists to act as cheerleaders for Obama. Instead, they are supposed to be an “irritant” to politicians – not as strong a term as watchdog, but at least it’s something.

When I first started playing in the world of journalism, it was as a student. I was given the “administration beat” for our school newspaper, and had to get information from our school superintendent for the high school newspaper. That was boring, so I started actually asking questions. Soon enough, the superintendent did everything he could to avoid seeing me. Yes, that was just student journalism, but I didn’t get in trouble with the teacher for doing that. On the contrary, I was told that in general, if leaders didn’t have a problem talking to me because I asked easy questions, I was doing it wrong. If someone told me then that there would be a time when journalists wouldn’t do their jobs the way my high school journalism teacher taught us, I wouldn’t have believed it. My old teacher is still running the school paper – maybe one day I’ll go back and ask her what she’s teaching her students now about interviewing leaders. If the lesson’s the same, maybe real journalism won’t become extinct. But, at this point, we have to rely on the next generation to get journalists off the “endangered species” list.