First, the disclaimers: when I say "10 things I hate about you," I don't mean you specifically. For one thing, I don't know any single person who could be characterized by all ten of these. Personally, anyway. (And were someone like that to exist, I would go to considerable trouble to avoid making acquaintance.) And "hate" is too strong a word, really; it's as far to the left side of the scale as "love" is to the right, and historically, I've sought to remain somewhere in the middle. That said, though, here are 10 things I hate about you:
- You have some weird notion that by making state and local laws sufficiently exclusionary, you will somehow discourage gay couples from, well, forming couples.
Oklahoma's State Question 711, passed in 2004 by an inexplicable 3-1 margin, blocks same-sex marriage, which is one thing; however, it also blocks approval of any kind of domestic-partnership benefits, which is quite another. If you're really concerned about Threats to Sacred Matrimony, you might start by giving some thoughts to why half of all Sooner State marriages, each and every one of them consisting of one man and one woman, end up on the divorce-court floor. Now that's a threat.
- You insist on operating in secret, in an age where transparency is soon to become the rule.
Yes, I'm looking at you, Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority. The City makes available information, agendas and transcripts for almost every regulatory body in town except you guys. What makes you so special? Or is it just that the good ol' boys can't stand the light?
- You use the guilt trip as a weapon.
This is standard "progressive" fare these days, but the most blatant offenders are the race pimps: the Al Sharptons, the CAIRs, the MEChAnoids, and all their friends. Let me make this perfectly clear: until you can demonstrate that I personally have benefited from keeping your "people" down vague references to "white privilege" and other popular myths won't do the job I owe you nothing, and the day you're exiled to the dustbin of history is a day which will be worth celebrating for centuries to come.
- You can't read; alternatively, you can read, but won't.
I had a lot of traffic last week from one of the lefty blogs (no link for him, you can look it up at Technorati if you care) based upon my offhand observation that demoted Star Tribune columnist James Lileks might have fared better had he been a "transsexual sportswriter," a reference to the Los Angeles Times' Christine Daniels, whose coming out I discussed in last week's Vent. The dimbulb in question boiled the whole thing down to "MSM is for fags," indicating quite clearly that either he didn't read the Daniels material, or that he did and chose to misrepresent it. Either way, this is just another example of intellectual dishonesty, a trademark of the American left and the Europeans up whose keisters they gladly insert their heads.
- You really think you can round up eleven million people and ship them back across the Rio Grande, or keep the next few million from coming in.
Not a chance. In 1972, my Army basic-training company, on the spur of the moment, worked up a scheme on the Survival, Evasion and Escape course that managed to catch just about everyone in a rival company that night. Said scheme was effective, yes, but it was extremely personnel-intensive; if you wanted to duplicate this feat at the Mexican border, you'd have to draft everyone in [fill in state with more people than, say, New Hampshire] and put them to work as crossing guards. This is not going to happen, either under the Bush administration, which bows to its corporate sponsors' desire to have cheap labor, or under a presumabl