The blogging will continue until morale improves...
Login | Register
Irrespective of what you think of the Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner story, that’s a remarkable picture from Annie Leibovitz.
Shocking. She’s still a Republican!
Vanity Unfair… Don’t call me!
I thought it was verboten to put a guy on cover of Vanity Fair? Then to put a weird guy on cover?
I’m starting to think Bruce is giving up his man card….
Is there anything the Kardashian Klan won’t do for shock-value publicity?!
She looks happy .
He had started the transition before he married Ms Kardaschian
Good for her
Correction: Good for HIM. Except it’s not.
Yes, this does raise several flags, (can I say “flags”? I meant “issues where we discuss our feelings in an open, non-judgemental way”…just kidding, really meant “judgemental flags”.)
Can I still call him “Mr. Jenner” out respect for his God-given gender? Or is that insensitive? In other words, am I required, in the atheist liberal lexicon to respect, his disrespect for the Creator?
If I’m suppossed to call him “Mrs. Jenner”, when does that occur, exactly? When Mr. Jenner says? Even if he still has man parts? When he has all his lady parts?
If we accept his claim to be a woman, even with man parts, if he claims he was a woman at the Olympics, would that require his man medals be stripped? (I would surmise he should have competed on the woman’s side carrying the logic through.)
How do I use the phrase “man up and take responsibility” in relation to social issues now? (since there now seems to be an option now to shed the “man” part of that phrase). I should probably refrain from using that phrase with Mr. Jenner now? Does that now absolve him of his fatherhood duties from his 3 broken marriages? Or am I being insensitive by saying he has “fatherhood” duties anymore? The kids are without a “father”? How does that work?
Can other men use this techniques to escape child support and their formal fatherhood duties? Would it be insensitive for court, or legal authority, to still list someone as a “father” on a birth certificate after this kind of Bruce Jenner like change?
…but, of course, these questionas are all irrelevant because Mr. Jenner is “happy”…that’s all that matters.
I’m concerned. You put way to much thought into Mr/Mrs. Jenner. Anything you want to tell us?
Just concerned about social implications.
Just be happy he/she is still a republican. Think of all the LGBT votes he/she will bring to the party.
Clearly, you might want to consider help from political correctness police since you cannot decide on “he”, or “she”.
I’ll bite. What are the social implications that are going to directly affect you?
See big post above at 7:48.
Political correctness went out the window with he/she’s… well you know, manhood!
That’s got to be the most painful political correctness ever!
As a libertarian, what’s your view of LGBT?
Kevin said, “See big post above at 7:48.”
I doubt you will be affected personally because I doubt you will ever have to meet Jenner face to face.
I’ve heard of a nip and tuck…
In all fairness I really don’t care what crazy people do as long as they don’t do it to me. Caitlyn/Bruce has every right to disfigure his/her body any way he/she sees fit. I have a psychiatrist friend that always says it doesn’t matter what really happened or if it happened, what matters is THEY believed it happened. If Bruce believes he’s a woman that all that matters. If I had a transgender family member my love and support would not waver. Never to soon for some bad jokes. Good luck Caitlyn.
Bruce is free to resign his man card all he wants. He can do whatver crazy thing he wants. I’m not going to stop him.
Where I have a problem is: When those of us in normal society “trip” over these tangled trip wires of the never ending political correctness. Just look at comments here. Mark uses term “her” to describe Bruce. I use term “him”. Jade is not sure which term to use, so Jade uses both. I’m certain some lefty out there will tell me that neither “him” or “her” is appropriate because I should be completely anti-gender. (Can’t wait for that radical leftist lecture.)
Can we call his “fatherhood” into question? Does he even believe he is a “father” anymore? Has he resigned that role? Is he a new “mommy” then? A 2nd “mommy” to his children?
If he marries a man, is that considered a gay marriage yet? or would that be a less trendy hetrosexual marriage?
All curious things that stem from this simple, selfish, decision about his “happiness”.
I also don’t buy the ” just becaue he believes he’s a woman, that’s all that matters” line. Do we then let men use a women’s rest room because he thinks he’s a woman? A local school district has this problem and the administration is too scared of the liberal political correctness intimidation machine to do anything about it, much to the discomfort of many students. “If Bruce can do it, why can’t we do it”, can be the teenager mantra to embrace when caught in wrong bathroom.
So I am personally, affected. I’d like to know what “appropriate” words to use when I talk about how I disapprove of this kind decision making and the consequences for others it leaves behind. In other words, how Bruce is not exactly the best role model for good life decisions.
“If Bruce can do it, why can’t we do it”, can be the teenager mantra to embrace when caught in wrong bathroom.”
I guess that proves you are affected.
But as a libertarian what’s your position?
The exact quote was “if Bruce believes he’s a woman that’s all that matters” and it means it really doesn’t matter what you or I think or say. Caitlyn is going to seek happiness no matter what anyone says. Freedom and liberty sure are great. There are psychological tests and other mental health evaluations that must be signed off on (by doctors) before doctors are allowed to perform the final cut. I will once again say good luck Caitlyn. When I said that last time it was meant to show the confusion for me is over and I will now refer to Jenner as Caitlyn… The woman. Not because I agree with these types of decisions but because others have the right to choose for themselves. Who am I to judge it would go agsinst Psalm 14:3, Ecclesiates 7:20, Matthew 7:1-5, Luke 6:37, John 8:3-7, 1:8-10, Romans 3:9-12, 3:22-23, 11:32.
Caitlyn/Bruce has every right to disfigure his/her body any way he/she sees fit.
Actually, self-mutilation is a serious moral error.
what matters is THEY believed it happened. If Bruce believes he’s a woman that all that matters.
Wrong. What IS is what matters. No surprise that a shrink opines otherwise; they make big bucks on people with mental illnesses such as that demonstrated by Bruce.
Oh, by the way:
Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, said that transgenderism is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment, that sex change is “biologically impossible,” and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder.
If you note my previous statement about crazy people you would realize that I think Caitlyn has some mental health issues. However, the evaluations they go through aren’t to determine “normal” mental health. They are to determine the seriousness of commitment. Also, it’s not SELF-mutilation if it’s done by a doctor. The treatment of mental illness is only successful if the person providing treatment accepts the person being treated believes it to be real. Sexual predators have mental disorders and have been treated unsuccessfully with castration (not by choice) How do you or Dr. McHugh suggest one be treat for “transgender disorder”? Individuals have the right to live anyway they want regardless of opinions, professional or layman. Good luck Caitlyn. Oh and by the way, I don’t believe Caitlyn has actually been through sexual reassignment surgery but I will leave that up to you to find out.
There is a difference between the issue that everyone falls short of righteousness vs. delighting in and extolling unrighteousness as acceptable and just dandy behavior.
It’s one thing to allow and tolerate the behavior legally, it’s another to say what Bruce is doing is morally acceptable and encourage it, rather than discourage it.
Freedom allows us to say that Bruce’s rejection of God’ design for his physical being is wrong.
For guys who love freedom, you sure are stuck in the conventional box when it comes to the freedom of others .
I’m sure she cares less what the righteous think and tut tut from above and is super duper concerned about what makes her happy .
As they say in Fiddler on the roof , even a poor tailor in entitled to Some happiness .
Guns make some of you dudes ecstatic and Kev has a slingshot to heaven with religion.
Both those 2 make far less sense to me that what is happening with the person above . But if it floats your boat and you don’t hurt others with it, yah for you .
I heard a great line the other day about when we speak of others.
Ask yourself 2 questions
Is it true ?
Is it kind ?
Or in Kevin’s case is it kinda true.
It doesn’t matter what Bruce’s opinion of my opinion is. It’s about influencing others about this.
I want to know the catch phrases and words that will drive liberals into a foam and maybe avoid those…or maybe, purposely use them.
Freedom does not mean you have to like someone’s moral choices. It also means one does not have to be silent about those choices. Liberals do it to Christians all the time. I find it interesting that liberalism had this moral superiority around immoral choices.
Abortion is legal, but that does not make it morally correct, or less reprehensible.
So I find this notion that I have to like, or not criticize, something I tolerate an interesting one. This is where the gay lobby had jumped the shark as well. Its not enough to tolerate, or extend freedom for weird choices, the anti freedom lefties want people to embrace the immoral, as moral, as well.
Kevin, as a libertarian do you support the libertarian platform on personal liberty, and on rights and discrimination?
I support personal liberty and rights and mostly support the Libertarian platform in that area. When it comes to the “discrimination” part, that depends what we are talking about. I don’t view that term like modern day liberals view it.
Personal liberty and rights does not protect one from criticism for making bad choices, even though they may be legal. Its acceptable to demonize abortion in public, since I view it as murder. Also, there is personal liberty to change one’s gender, but that does not shield the weird life choice from open and free criticism and how that choice has social consequences for others.
I also support legalized Mary Jane, (along with a healthy tax on it) but at the same time discourage people from recreational use. I consider it a dumb decision to smoke pot outside of health need.
I support keeping cigs legal, but think you should quit and discourage others from smoking them. (But still thank you for paying all those voluntary taxes on cigs.)
The political landscape is littered with stuff that is legal from a personal liberty standpoint, but we should have the freedom and libety to say, “Hey, that’s just dumb.”
In the liberal lexicon, I get the sense its verboten to do that with Bruce Jenner.
Kevin, thanks for the reply. I suspected you were a LINO. Thanks for confirming you’re a practicing member of the conservative religion.
The term “conservative” is probably alright to describe Christianity where scripture is inerrant under God’s Law and Gospel and not polluted by what man thinks God’s Law and gospel should be. While others perceive the church body I belong to as a “conservative religion”, I prefer the phrase, “Christianity taught in its truth and purity”. Of course, that does not mean I’m perfect, just forgiven through my daily and active relationship with Jesus.
Please don’t pass yourself off as a Libertarian. It’s clear that your political philosophy/membership belongs to the WELS party.
Do I scream “Libetarian” somehow? I have not used that term to describe myself in a long time. I was not aware that I was actively “passing” myself off as a Libertarian. Source?
One can advocate a “hands off” government policy while discouraging bad social choices. What I don’t understand is: the Libertarians (who are really statist liberals in disgiuse) who don’t allow the personal freedom to say to others, “Hey, that’s dumb.” or that maybe one should consider making a better life choices…suggesting that one would feed their kids vs. smoking that joint, for instance. Politics of persuasion vs. force. It’s liberals that want to curtail freedom of persuasion, not Libertarians. Libertarians who say persuasion cannot be used to socially influence, even influence toward a Chrsitian world view, as long as its on a voluntary basis, would disturb me greatly.
I do agree with a lot of “hands off” government philosophy. I like Rand Paul. Would probably vote for him if Walker was not in race. The most major disagreement I have with Rand Paul is his weak foreign policy, but even he seems to be seeing the naive Libertarian idealism of isolationism to be a mistake on the world stage. Paul talks more hawkish than the Libertarian platform.
Kevin said, “Do I scream “Libetarian” somehow?”
I can find stuff all over the internet. How about the quote below?
…I’m a life member, you will have to get the executive committee to kick me out of the WI party.
You are really digging deep on internet. Wow.
That particular conversation is 8 years old.
I was threatened by several LP members to be kicked out because I was unwilling to say the Iraq war was a bad thing.
In other words, I was attacked for not passing Libertarian purity of surrender to Muslim thugs. I do not like surrendering to Islamic thugs.
If you read the conversation you linked, the “pure” party members convicted me of not being Libertarian!
You use the conversation to prove what the pure LP members want to disprove, from a decade ago conversation …..
So your example makes me chuckle for this conversation.
Not sure if they kicked me out. Not that I care. I have not got anything from LP in quite some time. WI LP is dysfunctional.
So when you say I scream Libertarian, can you provide a more recent example where I am not being attacked by Libertarians for impurity?
Ok, so you’re a Republican now. Thanks for clarifying.
Not really. Prefer the term “conservative” with many libertarian leanings.
The term Republican includes Mary Panzer, Bob Dole, Dale Schultz…I have little to nothing in common with those “Republicans”.
I’ve been supporting a lot of Republicans lately because Glenn Grothman took out Mary Panzer to get a real conservative around here. That primary, earlier last decade, was the event that sparked some real conservative backbone in WI Republicans vs. just being liberal destruction “lite” during the Tommy Thompson era. (Glenn still keeps on doing it by taking out our most notorious RINO Congreesman as well!)
I helped elect, in my small way, a new, good, principled, conservative Assemblyman and our principled, conservative, State Senator.
So I am still pleased with the solid conservative backbone we have around here in the Republican Party.
Up until last 3-4 months, Scott walker has been doing a good/excellent conservative job. I’m not thrilled about his ethanol position now, and the bucks arena position, and having to drag him along on Right to work (but he did right thing in end) and his lack of leaership on prevailing wage lately.
Once legislature gets prevailing wage through, Scott will sign it. Ethanol position I can get over. I just hope the Bucks deal, as is, falls apart. Scott should not be taking that liberal billionaire subsidy bullet. It frustrates me that he even considers it.
If Scott signs Bucks deal as proposed, he is dead to me as a conservative and he will be dead to many other conservatives nationwide.
I will than have to support Ron Paul in the primary, unfortunately, he has no shot of winning, mainly because he is weak on foreign policy.
So I’ll use “liberatrian” descriptively for my positions on many issues, but I certainly do not “scream” it. I do admit, I like using the term, because if its one group liberals hate worse than conservatives, its libertarians. Nanny state liberals tend to have foaming convulsions at the mere mention of freedom of choice libertarians embrace.
The only individual choice liberals support is systematic extermination of pre-born babies.
You give conservatives a bad name. I am embarrassed you associate with any party. You are a hypocrite, a lier and a Christian in name only. Backbone is the one thing you completely lack. Take a hard look at your wandering positions over the years. You are a follower looking for a comfortable place to fit in. You point fingers yet offer no solutions. You and I do mean you and all others like you are the problem. Conservative my ass.
Those “wandering positions over ther years”….I’ll play….name a few for me.
Thanks in advance for all your PI work.
Apparently you can’t read…Fuck off!
I’ll bite again,
1.). You accused me of “wandering positions over the years.”
2.). I asked what those positions were. I thought I asked rather polite given the tone of your post.
3.). You accused me of not reading even though I quoted you direct , and then you used unsavory profanity.
What did I miss in reading these last 4 posts?
I did chuckle when you accused me of not having solutions, when your solution seems to name call, sometimes in a vile manner, and also use profanity whenever someone dares to disagree with you.
Wish you the best anyway.