Skip to main content

That was me!

I got quoted by Instapundit... I think I'm gonna faint.

UPDATE: Best line from the comments: "No one questions Bugs Bunny's masculinity, and he dresses in drag all the time."


I'd said that in the comments here. (Scroll down for the funniest photo-shop of George Bush ever.)

It wasn't quite to the point. If I were to make a comment that was less cute I'd say that when it comes to "manliness" there is a conceptual gap between many on the "left" and many on the "right." Refer back to this post of mine with a link to a professor waxing poetic about "weenie-boys."

The "left" tends to think that it is vitally important to the "right" that a candidate be manly enough. That masculinity is almost fetishized.

I thought of Bugs Bunny in relationship to Rudy Giuliani in drag and how it seems we're all *supposed* to be really upset by that.

Why do people criticize Edward's cuteness? It's because he seems to be trying to project that polished beauty. Why did Kerry get criticized? Because he seemed to be trying too hard to seem rugged.

Bugs Bunny doesn't try.

Comments

Ymarsakar said…
I don't get this issue, probably because I can't recognize anyone in drag unless they print the name right underneath.
8:41 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it.  This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action   that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice.  If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...
Post a Comment
Read more

Some times some people.

 
Post a Comment
Read more

What Cancel Culture is NOT

  Maybe we should talk about what cancel culture isn't. It's not a boycott.  It's not deciding to no longer go to a business. It's not giving a bad review for bad service. It generally involves two things. First, the offense is a matter of opinion. Second, secondary or even tertiary targets are threatened. Cancellation does not need to be successful, and often with very famous and wealthy people it is not successful. But it serves as a warning to vulnerable people who are not in a position to weather that kind of attack. The goal is terroristic in that it's about forcing social behavior in people who are not currently the subject of the attack. The message is always, this could happen to you. And the tactic invariably includes seeking out vulnerable people to threaten in order to put pressure on businesses or on the target of the attack. So it works like this: JK Rowling is invulnerable. But they can try, right? So what they do is they find out who works for the pub...
Post a Comment
Read more