Ann Coulter is a Talking Sphincter

Unable to comment on the "Duck Dynasty" controversy last week due to my hectic Kwanzaa schedule, I am able to sweep in at the end and comment on the commentary.

Anyone who utters the mind-numbingly obvious point that A&E's suspension of "Duck Dynasty" star Phil Robertson doesn't involve the First Amendment because a TV network is not the government, should be prohibited from ever talking in public again. You can bore your few remaining friends with laborious statements of the obvious, but stop wasting everyone else's time.

We know A&E is not the government. It may shock your tiny little pea brains, but free speech existed even before we had a Constitution. Free speech is generally considered a desirable goal even apart from its inclusion in the nation's founding document.

Suppose TV networks were capitulating to angry Muslims by suspending people for saying they opposed Sharia law? Would that prompt any of you pusillanimous hacks to finally take a position on the state of free speech in America?

Or would you demand that we stop the presses so you could roll out your little cliche about a television network not being the government? That fact has very little relevance to someone whose life has just been ruined. Hey! Don't worry about it -- at least it wasn't the government!

Instead of the government censoring speech, what we have is shock troops of liberal agitators demanding people's heads for the slightest divergence from Officially Approved Liberal Opinion.

Evidently, the word of God is on the banned list. As Robertson himself has said, all he did "was quote from the Scriptures, but they just didn't know it."

His offending remarks delivered to GQ magazine were:

"Everything is blurred on what's right and what's wrong. Sin becomes fine ... Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. Don't be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers -- they won't inherit the kingdom of God. Don't deceive yourself. It's not right."

There's absolutely no question but that Robertson accurately summarized biblical strictures. But liberals can't grasp that God is not our imaginary friend, who says whatever we want Him to say, when we want Him to say it. (I promise you, except for venereal disease and eternal damnation, life would be a lot more fun if we were making it up as we went along.)

So they blamed Robertson for Holy Scripture. True, God created the universe and every living thing, but liberals think they can improve on His work.

Since Robertson's interview appeared, I haven't heard as much sophistical nonsense about the New Testament not condemning fornication since I was a teenager in the backseat of a car.

The book of Romans, called "the Cathedral of the Christian faith," provides the clearest explanation of the doctrines of sin. Here are a few catchy verses:

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven ... so that people are without excuse.

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error ...

"Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

Also, keep these citations in your back pocket for the next time some sweaty teenage boy tries to convince you Jesus didn't condemn fornication: 1 Corinthians 7:2; Galatians 5:19-20; Jude 1:7; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Romans 13:13; 1 Corinthians 6:13, 18; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5; and Matthew 5:32.

The lake of fire and burning sulfur (Revelation 21:8) may not sound like a day at the beach, but judging by their hysterical attack on Robertson, our new earthly gods are a lot less forgiving than the real God.

GLAAD instantly condemned Robertson's totally accurate rendition of Holy Scripture as "vile." With refreshing originality, CNN's Piers Morgan called Robertson a "vile bigot."

And it's not just "vile" to cite Holy Scripture. Evidently, it's also vile not to appreciate the joys of anal sex.

What seemed to set liberals off as much as Robertson's Biblical summaries was his statement that he doesn't find anal sex appealing. He said:

"It seems like, to me, a vagina -- as a man -- would be more desirable than a man's anus. That's just me. I'm just thinking: There's more there! She's got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I'm saying? But hey, sin: It's not logical, my man. It's just not logical."

So now, not only do we all have to support gay marriage, gay wedding cakes and gay soldiers -- but we also have to agree that anal sex sounds peachy! It's like being denounced for saying you prefer vanilla ice cream to chocolate.

To paraphrase an old Jewish line: This is not good for the gays.

Gays have gone from being the bullied to the bullies -- a modern American phenomenon detailed in my book "Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault on America."

Yes, we know you used to be unfairly victimized. But being beaten up for being gay is simply not the same as having to endure hearing someone opine that anal sex isn't his cup of tea.

A&E didn't dare cross the gays, never anticipating that the Robertson family wouldn't back down -- and the rest of the country wouldn't, either. Even non-Christians can have only contempt for the network's utter cravenness in suspending Robertson for stating basic Christian doctrine.

The first time someone stands up to a bully and the sky doesn't fall, the tyranny is over. The gay mafia was out of control, drunk with power. This time, they got their wings clipped.

Christians, 1; Angry gays: minus 1,000. Cliche-spouting hack TV pundits: I recommend capital punishment. 
 - Ann Coulter: The Anus Monologues

I can't write out my response without boring you people to tears, so let me just highlight the essentials, okay?

1. "Unable to comment on the "Duck Dynasty" controversy last week due to my hectic Kwanzaa schedule, I am able to sweep in at the end and comment on the commentary."  Hectic Kwanzaa schedule? Really? Somehow I find it highly unlikely that you celebrate Kwanzaa...in fact I suspect that Kwanzaa messes with your schedule as much as Rosh Hashanah messes with it. Also, you're going to sweep in and sound important by commenting on a massive cluster fuck of opinions with your 20/20 hindsight.
2. "It may shock your tiny little pea brains, but free speech existed even before we had a Constitution" Umm...no. No it did not. If I said I was an atheist before there was a Constitution, I’d be labeled a heretic and be metaphorically thrown to the wolves.
3. "Would that prompt any of you pusillanimous hacks to finally take a position on the state of free speech in America?" Oh good, you used a big word, I was afraid that you were incapable of using a thesaurus. Well this pusillanimous pea brain thinks that you're the hack in this situation, and you're abusing the power of free speech.
4. “So now, not only do we all have to support gay marriage, gay wedding cakes and gay soldiers -- but we also have to agree that anal sex sounds peachy! It's like being denounced for saying you prefer vanilla ice cream to chocolate.” OH MY GOD. NO. Support gay marriage because it's the friggen decent thing to do. Just let people be happy. You don't have to like anal sex, but you shouldn't verbally and/or physically bash someone who does. And maybe you should try having anal sex, or sex of any kind, because I'm sure you wouldn't be such a dink if you weren't sexually frustrated. Also what does a gay cake look like?

   

   is this what you mean by a gay cake?

Those are the main things I have a problem with, but if I think of more, I'll certainly add to the post

My Mom is Getting Married.....and she "forgot" to tell me....

 So I haven't been posting anything recently, for like six months, so this is relatively old news, but my mom got married and she neglected to tell me of her pending nuptials. I found out through her girlfriend's Facebook page which stated "August we will be married, it is official" Isn't that nice? Finding out through social media that your mother is getting married. So I decided to sit on it for a few days, although stew on it would probably be more appropriate. And then suddenly I got a Facebook message from my mom that said "I just wanted to chat with you about a few of the pics on FB. I understand that it is your choice not to interact or have any of us actively in your life at this point. So we all understand that and will respect your wishes. We all wish it could be differrent but understand completely. I think that you might still want to know that Penni and I will be married on August 9th of this year. I understand your need for space and we will let you continue with therapy so that maybe some where down the road we can again be a family that interacts with each other and actually enjoys the time we have. We wish you all the best for the end of the year wrap up you are trying to get done and hope you have a great summer."

 

So let me pick apart the problem I have with this message, and there is quite a bit.

1. "I understand that it is your choice not to interact or have any of us actively in your life at this point." It is not my choice. I can't tolerate the insensitive things that constantly roll of your tongue, without a seconds hesitation. Your girlfriend (and I'm fairly sure you are too) is a man hater. She complains about men like they are a scourge of the earth. When I came out, she refused to acknowledge me as Nathan, and referred to me as "a confused butch lesbian." There is a distinct difference between being butch lesbian and being transgender. Whenever I come around, I always have an immediate feeling that I am unwelcome. 
2.   "we all understand that and will respect your wishes" mmm... no you clearly don't. In fact you constantly ask why I don't come around, and when I respond with the truth you tell me that it is my fault I feel that way, that you aren't doing anything wrong.
3. "we will let you continue with therapy" Well how kind of you. I was unaware that you had any say in my life now that I no longer live with you. Oh that's right, you don't. But thank you for letting me continue with something I need because of you and your psycho babble bullshit.
4. "some where down the road we can again be a family that interacts with each other and actually enjoys the time we have"  Right, well can you refer to me as "Nathan/Nate"? Instead of calling me "Naomi Catherine" how about you call me "Nathan Connor"? And that will be a start. But I will not expect such change anytime soon.

 

A Guide to Languages

Spanish and Italian: So THESE words are feminine and THESE words are masculine, and you ALWAYS put an adjective AFTER the noun.

French :haha i don't fuckin know man just do whatever

German: LET'S ADD A NEUTRAL NOUN HAHA

English: *shooting up in the bathroom*

Gaelic :the pronunciation changes depending on the gender and what letter the word starts and ends with and hahah i don't even know good fucking luck

Polish: here have all of these consonants have fun

Japanese: subject article noun article verb. too bad there's three fucking alphabets lmao hope your first language isn't western

Welsh: sneeze, and chances are you've got it right. idfk

Chinese: here's a picture. draw it. it means something. it can be pronounced four different ways. these twenty other pictures are pronounced the same but have very different meanings. godspeed.

Arabic: so here's this one word. it actually translates to three words. also pronouns don't really exist. the gender is all in the verb. have fun!

Latin :here memorize 500 charts and then you still don't know what the fuck is happening

Sign Language:If you move this sign by a tenth of an inch, you'll be signing "penis"

Russian: idk man its pronounced like its spelled but good fucking luck spelling it

Greek: so basically we're going to add 15 syllables to every word you know and assign it one of 3 genders at random. Also good luck figuring out where to put the accents you piece of shit

Duck Travesty

You know I really try not to watch the news anymore because it's either depressing or just plain aggravating, but I unfortunately saw the Duck Dynasty/Phil Robertson crap that's going on. I had originally told myself I wasn't going to comment on it, but I can resist no longer. This is what Phil Robertson had to say:  "It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical...  Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong.  Sin becomes fine...  If somebody asks, I tell ’em what the Bible says.  All you have to do is look at any society where there is no Jesus. I’ll give you four: Nazis, no Jesus. Look at their record. Uh, Shintos? They started this thing in Pearl Harbor. Any Jesus among them? None. Communists? None. Islamists? Zero. That’s eighty years of ideologies that have popped up where no Jesus was allowed among those four groups. Just look at the records as far as murder goes among those four groups"
*Sigh* there is a part of me, the bitter and jaded part that thinks "NOT SURPRISING: the Duck Dynasty dude doesn't endorse homosexuality. SURPRISING: people actually give a shit what the Duck Dynasty dude thinks."
But of course, that part of me is very small, and the kind, caring, right's for all people, part of me is pretty pissed actually. Firstly nobody needs to comment "oh it's freedom of speech" because yes it is, however he signed a legally binding contract with A&E to uphold a certain standard of conduct, which he violated. A&E really had no other option than to suspend him, unless they fired him.
Secondly there is zero logic in attraction. None at all. Taking a cursory look around people have ended up attracted to the people they wouldn't get along with if they weren't attracted to them.
Also, stating that there is a lack of Jesus in groups of people, that aren't sects of religion is really ignorant. The Nazi's? Not a religion. Communism? Not a religion on it's face. Shinto? Also not really a religion, more of an indigenous spirit. So his statement that there was no Jesus is invalid.

“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person," Robertson is quoted in GQ. "Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.” 
Then Phil Robertson dribbles this tripe about Jim Crowism that is just as bad, if not worse than the earlier statement. For one thing the cultural climate in the Southern states was one of disenfranchisement, segregation and various forms of oppression, including race-inspired violence. It was the time of that "separate but equal" bullshit that we all know was completely false. For those of you who don't know Jim Crowism were racial segregation laws enacted between 1876 and 1965 in the United States at the state and local level. They mandated de jure (meaning according to rightful entitlement or claim; by right) racial segregation in all public facilities in Southern states of the former Confederacy, with, starting in 1890, a "separate but equal" status for African Americans. African Americans were not happy at this point in time and apparently Phil Robertson was oblivious to the lynchings and the severe racism going on. The dumbass.

Numbness or Happiness?

It's like I've emotionally flat-lined

So it has been a little over nine months since I started taking Zoloft to treat depression. For the first seven months I felt nothing, no change, no anything, it was almost as though I was taking a placebo. But for the past two (ish) months I have felt...okay. Not desperately suicidal, but not overly thrilled with anything either. Originally I thought "Great! I'm getting better!" but now I'm beginning to wonder if I'm just becoming more and more numb. It's kind of like using weed, in that over time the body gets used to it, so you have to use more and more to get the same high that was attained during the first time you got high. Maybe my mind is just getting used to being depressed all of the time, and it takes more and more to make me as sad as I was. It's almost as though I've emotionally flat-lined, I just don't know it yet. I don't really remember what it was like to be happy, I mean there's "happy" for me, my standards, and there's everybody else's. I just don't know whose standards I'm at, for my standards I'm fine, for everybody else's, not so much.
There are things that I do that I enjoy, and I smile, and laugh, but there are others that I do, that I used to enjoy so much, and now I can barely stand to participate in.
Of course I barely have a relationship with my mother anymore, we don't ever talk, and when we do it's for like a minute on the phone and then it's done. But in that one minute, all the hurt, all the pain, all the sadness, all the anger, comes flooding back. I saw a picture of my mom today and I cried for about ten minutes, and I'm not entirely sure why. I miss her. In a sick twisted way, I just want everything to go back to where it used to be. When I lived at my mom's house, when I lived in constant grief and anguish. Because I had lived there for sixteen years, and it felt normal to me, the abuse, the constant fighting. By now I'm sure you're thinking "Wow, Nate's totally fucked in the head" Well maybe I am. But why do victims of domestic abuse go back to their abusers? Because being abused was normal to them.

Kanye West + Kim Kardashian = Romeo and Juliet?

So a few days ago Kanye West went on the some radio station and was talking about his significant other, Kim Kardashian, and their baby North West. He said that the love he has with Kim was a "love for the ages" and then he likened it to the classic tragedy of Romeo and Juliet. 

First of all, no your relationship is not like Romeo and Juliet. For many, many reasons. One being the age difference. Romeo and Juliet were teens, while you are thirty six and your significant other is thirty three. Also, and this is the main reason why Kanye and Kim are not at all like Romeo and Juliet, Romeo and Juliet both DIE at the end. And yes I do know that everyone dies, but not everyone dies from foolish choices, and misinformation that lead up to their ultimate suicide.

Just thought that I'd point that out.

Empathy, Emotion and the Supramarginal Gyrus

I’m ok, you’re not ok

Egoism and narcissism appear to be on the rise in our society, while empathy is on the decline. And yet, the ability to put ourselves in other people’s shoes is extremely important for our coexistence. A research team headed by Tania Singer from the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences has discovered that our own feelings can distort our capacity for empathy. This emotionally driven egocentricity is recognized and corrected by the brain. When, however, the right supramarginal gyrus doesn’t function properly or when we have to make particularly quick decisions, our empathy is severely limited.

When assessing the world around us and our fellow humans, we use ourselves as a yardstick and tend to project our own emotional state onto others. While cognition research has already studied this phenomenon in detail, nothing is known about how it works on an emotional level. It was assumed that our own emotional state can distort our understanding of other people’s emotions, in particular if these are completely different to our own. But this emotional egocentricity had not been measured before now.

This is precisely what the Max Planck researchers have accomplished in a complex marathon of experiments and tests. They also discovered the area of the brain responsible for this function, which helps us to distinguish our own emotional state from that of other people. The area in question is the supramarginal gyrus, a convolution of the cerebral cortex which is approximately located at the junction of the parietal, temporal and frontal lobe. “This was unexpected, as we had the temporo-parietal junction in our sights. This is located more towards the front of the brain,” explains Claus Lamm, one of the publication’s authors.

On the empathy trail with toy slime and synthetic fur

Using a perception experiment, the researchers began by showing that our own feelings actually do influence our capacity for empathy, and that this egocentricity can also be measured. The participants, who worked in teams of two, were exposed to either pleasant or unpleasant simultaneous visual and tactile stimuli.

While participant 1, for example, could see a picture of maggots and feel slime with her hand, participant 2 saw a picture of a puppy and could feel soft, fleecy fur on her skin. “It was important to combine the two stimuli. Without the tactile stimulus, the participants would only have evaluated the situation ‘with their heads’ and their feelings would have been excluded,” explains Claus Lamm. The participants could also see the stimulus to which their team partners were exposed at the same time.

The two participants were then asked to evaluate either their own emotions or those of their partners. As long as both participants were exposed to the same type of positive or negative stimuli, they found it easy to assess their partner’s emotions. The participant who was confronted with a stinkbug could easily imagine how unpleasant the sight and feeling of a spider must be for her partner.

Differences only arose during the test runs in which one partner was confronted with pleasant stimuli and the other with unpleasant ones. Their capacity for empathy suddenly plummeted. The participants’ own emotions distorted their assessment of the other person’s feelings. The participants who were feeling good themselves assessed their partners’ negative experiences as less severe than they actually were. In contrast, those who had just had an unpleasant experience assessed their partners’ good experiences less positively.

Particularly quick decisions cause a decline in empathy

The researchers pinpointed the area of the brain responsible for this phenomenon with the help of functional magnetic resonance imaging, generally referred to as a brain scanning. The right supramarginal gyrus ensures that we can decouple our perception of ourselves from that of others. When the neurons in this part of the brain were disrupted in the course of this task, the participants found it difficult not to project their own feelings onto others. The participants’ assessments were also less accurate when they were forced to make particularly quick decisions.

Up to now, the social neuroscience models have assumed that we mainly draw on our own emotions as a reference for empathy. This only works, however, if we are in a neutral state or the same state as our counterpart – otherwise, the brain must counteract and correct.