I read Townhall every day, and I just never get bored of it. It’s just so much fun. Take today, for instance. I open the page, and immediately have a near-impossible decision to make: Do I read the article entitled “The California homosexual activsts’ assault on schoolchildren,” or do I go for “What if Mexicans were crack?” Or perhaps I’ll choose “Breathing while white.”
Always a pleasure-delayer (I like to save the best for last), I decided to go for California homos first. And Ben Shapiro does not disappoint.
On May 11, the California State Senate passed Senate Bill 1437. The bill demands “no teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school district sponsor any activity that reflects adversely upon persons because of their … gender … sexual orientation.” Current California law already prohibits discrimination in teaching based on “sex, color, creed, national origin or ancestry.” The addition of “sexual orientation” means that condemnation of homosexuality by public school employees would now be punishable by law; the addition of “gender,” which substitutes for “sex,” is defined according to California law to include “perception of the victim’s identity, appearance or behavior, whether or not that identity, appearance or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the victim’s sex at birth” — in other words, if a boy decides to come to school in a dress, teachers may not even request that he change clothes.
The horror, I know. And if a girl comes to school in pants, a teacher can’t request that she change, either. Which is just wrong. Because everyone knows that if you have a vagina, it’s only natural that you should have to advertise it by wearing a dress. And if you don’t have a vagina and you wear a dress, then you’re acting like a girl — and there’s nothing worse than that.
But I thought this was about homosexuals activists assaulting schoolchildren? Sounds to me like this bill is more aimed at preventing school employees from harassing schoolchildren.
But that isn’t all: Homosexuality is to be actively forwarded as a legitimate lifestyle. According to the California Senate Judiciary Committee, “The bill also would direct the school governing boards to include only instructional material that accurately portrays the cultural, racial, gender and sexual diversity of our society, and, in instructional material for the social sciences, include the contributions of people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender to the economic, political and social development of California and the United States of America.” Grade level is not specified in the bill, so presumably, third graders may be learning about the sexual proclivities of Allen Ginsburg.
Presumably, Ben Shapiro is a complete fucking idiot. Gays and lesbians exist. So do people of color! And women! And they contribute to society just like you do (although I use the word “contribute” fairly loosely in reference to Ben here). Recognizing their existance, and reflecting that in the curriculum, isn’t an “assault” on anything. It’s reality, friend.
But the homosexual movement sees sexuality as identity. With that in mind, homosexual activists claim that pushing homosexuality in public schools will make “gay” children feel more accepted and tolerated. Their proclivities — their identities, according to the homosexual movement — will be granted legitimacy. Of course, normal anti-harassment policies already prohibit maltreatment, but that’s not enough for homosexual activists — they want the practice of homosexuality legitimized in the classroom. This is antithetical to the very concept of parental authority. Homosexuality remains a controversial practice, and our public schools should not be a breeding ground for liberal values that may very well undermine parental wishes.
See, there are some parents who want their little darlings to be able to beat up and harass the gay kids, and it’s just not right that they should be blocked from doing so.
Now, onto What if Mexicans were crack? Because in case you didn’t know, “illegal immigrant” and “Mexican” are interchangable terms. Basically, Jonah Goldberg argues that the “war on drugs” and the “war on illegal immigrants” are being fought along the same lines. And because I’m in a hurry, I’m not going to waste my time or yours picking it apart. Suffice it to say, the article is nearly as ridiculous as the title.
Finally, it’s Breathing while white, which is aparently nearly impossible to do these days, with Jesse Jackson and his hordes of feminists choking you (I have no idea how I haven’t asphyxiated yet). Kathleen Parker writes a long defense of the Duke lacrosse team, starting with a little quiz:
The group has a 100 percent college graduation rate. Sixty percent have a 3.0 grade point average or above. During the past four years, 80 percent have made a national honor roll. Members regularly volunteer at more than a dozen community agencies, building houses for the homeless and serving in soup kitchens, while raising more money than any other group for the Katrina Relief Fund.
Answer: (a) Tri-Delta sorority at the University of North Carolina; (b) women’s rowing team at Clemson University; (c) synchronized swim team at Harvard University; (d) men’s lacrosse team at Duke University.
Of course, the answer is D, and these are all fine, upstanding young men.
Fair enough. I’m sure that most of the men on the lacrosse team are decent human beings who do plenty of decent things. But Kathleen isn’t defending just those guys — she’s even standing up for the not-so-decent ones:
Most damning of the pretrial publicity that resulted in a hasty end to the lacrosse season and suspension of one of the players from school was an e-mail clearly intended as a joke, albeit a dumb one. The e-mail said that strippers would be hired, but there wouldn’t be any sex. Instead they would be skinned while he pleasured himself.
Few would disagree that the e-mail was disgusting, but it was also – in context – a reference to the cult movie “American Psycho,” in which a demented Wall Street banker kills people (men and women) after toying with them in dramatic scenarios that may be dreams. Although the film is not for everyone, apparently some Duke faculty consider it important enough to include it in at least three Duke courses. Students can check it out from the Duke library.
Right. See, when he wrote that email, he was actually attempting to start a larger discussion on the fetishization of materialism, power, sex, and other American values. It’s not his fault that people just didn’t get it!
Without knowing what happened the night of the alleged rape, Mayer’s point is nevertheless well taken. Too easily we convict alleged perps in the court of public opinion when they fit our templates of good/bad. Black strippers good (because they can’t help it); white athletes bad (because they’re white).
…really? That’s the public opinion of “good” and “bad”?
I feel like I’m in first grade and it’s opposites day.
White males – descendant as they are of the imperialistic, colonizing, native-raping patriarchy – are the new culturally approved targets of the lynch mob.
Ah, yes. Because how many of them have actually been lynched? As opposed to how many blacks in America who were lynched? But please, feel free to throw around words like “lynch mob” as if they have no real meaning. Next column: The Holocaust against white American lacrosse players. I can’t wait.
Amanda has more, and she does it way better than me.