If a lifetime can be likened to a day, then this is Happy Hour!
...or,Who saw that coming?
I did, if you're talking specifically about the vid. Coz I followed a tweet from the WSJ that told me what it was all about.
What Skip said...Hell in a hand basket. We seem to have front row seats.
I don't like bein' this close to the stage.
You may also have noted the Stealth Propaganda in the form of "Lesbian Wedding Announcements" appearing in small-town newspapers. Look for it in your area any day.http://gawker.com/5984435/whos-sending-out-fake-lesbian-wedding-announcements-to-small-papersAnd of course the hipnoscenti at the NYT lead the pack:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/fashion/weddings/24VOWS.html?_r=3&scp=1&sq=wedding%20vows%20sunday%20may%2024%202009&st=cseNever miss a chance to point out that the latest estimate via Gallup indicates that homosexuals make up at most 3% of the population. Reckon why we hear about them so often?
It'll be a cold day in Hell when the Portales News-Tribune prints a same sex engagement announcement. As for that NYT piece? Sweet Jesus. That's about all I can add.
Well, the Boy Scouts are labeled as a hate group. They rip them apart for pedophilia, yet see nothing wrong with pushing that the boys go camping with gay men. While pedophilia is not the same as being gay, there are young adult leaders, those just over 21. What is to stop them from having affairs with 16 year olds? All for at most 2% of the population. To hear these gay activists talk, you would think its over 50%. I know I've lived, if not too long, then in the wrong era.
I'll second your "wrong era" thought, OG. The BSA have been having a rough go of it lately, but there are still some parts of the country that recognize them as one of the best places a boy can be.
If you want to get into the whole "Pedophilia vs Homosexuality" debate, it shouldn't be too hard to notice that the lefties always gleefully pounce on stories concerning priestly sex predation (horrible enough) with cries of "Child Abuse!!," while conveniently ignoring the fact that it ALWAYS involves boys and never girls.Always good to bash Catholics and the Boy Scouts, but never OK to notice that it's perverted homosexuals who are the offenders. "But homosexuals aren't perverts, you bigot!!" Maybe not, but those perverts are for sure homosexual, aren't they? And by the way, isn't it adorable when they show us the way to enlightenment by having cute weddings?
I didn't realize there was a "homosexuality vs. pedophilia" debate. I think there's enough perverts on both sides of the gender-preference line to go around, actually, but you make one good point, Rob. The priest abuse/molestation scandal most definitely was a homosexual thing.
Wow, harsh much, Y'all?
Not really, Christina. At least I didn't think so.
Just one big happy family. Until it isn't.
I really don't give a fig one way or the other...until I think about numbers. Captain Obvious says: They are not chasing a market of homosexuals who want to read on a Kindle. They are chasing a market of guilty, self-loathing heteros. And there is research somewhere that says this is a market worth chasing.Same way it's just as racist to vote for a guy just because he's black as it is to vote against a guy just because he's black...reading an e-book on the beach has nothing to do with sex preference. The gay people I know aren't polarizing at all. Their community's straight "sympathizers" on the other hand...well I'll tell you what, if I could banish just one group to its own little island, it wouldn't be the gays.
I'm not sure there's that big a market of guilty, self-loathing heteros. People are pretty clear on where they stand in this debate and opinions are strong on both sides. But you might be right, there's always a certain element of wishy-washiness.Let me be perfectly clear on one thing: I don't give a big rat's ass about who sleeps with whom, as long as the bed partners are (a) human and (b) of legal age. Further: I support civil unions for gays and lesbians but if NM ever puts same sex marriage to a vote I will vote against. Call me a troglodyte if you will, but that's the way I feel about the issue.
I'm not sure there's that big a market of guilty, self-loathing heteros. You might change your tune if you got back to the cities. There's a frenetic race among the comfy hetero urbanites to be the loudest, smilingest, slogan shoutingest gay supporters on Earth. Look at the Chick-fil-a thing. That wasn't about supporting gay marriage, that was about people having a stage to present themselves as superrific and wonderful for just loving everybody so much. Whether that's guilt or just a soft-thinking fear of missing some bus or another, I don't know. Probably a lot of both. What I do know is that in Seattle, at least, you can't have an honest conversation without forking your way through a wall of that muck.
@Andy: You're prolly right about The City. It's been over ten years since I was in day-to-day contact with those about whom you speak, and one tends to forget. That, plus the fact we tend to view "reality" thru our own personal prisms. I'll stand corrected.
Morgan and me are on the exact same track here. The deal about Advertising/Marketing is that it represents Capitalism in its purest form.In other words: Does it make money? Answer Yes or No.Somewhere there is an MBA who's figured out that there is a sufficient demographic to make the cost of such ads a good investment. Since the actual total population of homosexuals is so small as to be statistically insignificant, the only possible remaining target audience are heterosexuals who believe they're (a) morally superior because they buy this crap, and (b) way too hip to be manipulated by marketing.And that is a chilling prospect, because it's (c) Brave New World in a nutshell and (d) obviously an accurate assessment.
...target audience are heterosexuals who believe they're (a) morally superior because they buy this crap, and (b) way too hip to be manipulated by marketing.Hipsters, in other words. God Save Us from 'em.
Just be polite... that's all I ask.