I watched this video posted at Joe.My.God this morning and my expression turned into the same one I always sport when I listen to a close-minded bigot speaking, but this seemed even worse because it was coming from a child…
From what I can make of her argument, young Taylor here seems to think that high school age boys are suddenly going to want to wear drag and join the Girl Scouts so they can rape her or something?
Taylor, there are far, far easier ways for teenage boys to get laid!
No surprise, the loopy contingent at WingNutDaily is all for it:
After controversy arose over the potential admission of Colorado 7-year-old Bobby Montoya last month, The Girl Scouts of Colorado released a statement explaining, “We accept all girls in kindergarten through 12th grade as members. If a child identifies as a girl and the child’s family presents her as a girl, Girl Scouts of Colorado welcomes her as a Girl Scout.”
Rachelle Trujillo, vice president for communications of the Colorado Girl Scouts, added, “If a child is living as a girl, that’s good enough for us. We don’t require any proof of gender.”
According to a report in the Baptist Press, Trujillo also affirmed transgendered children are currently serving in Girl Scout troops across the U.S., though she declined to give details.
Taylor, however, cites in the video GSUSA materials that outline the importance of the Scouts’ all-girl format and expresses concern about 12th-grade boys passing themselves off as girls.
“The real question is, why is GSUSA willing to break their own safety rules and go against its own research institute findings to accommodate transgender boys?” Taylor asks. “Unfortunately, I think it is because GSUSA cares more about promoting the desires of a small handful of people than it does for my safety and the safety of my friends and sister Girl Scouts, and they are doing it with money we earned for them from Girl Scout cookies.”
No Taylor, the real question is “What do YOU personally hope to gain from this?” That’s the question I think all intolerant people should ask themselves before the go on record with their tiny thoughts on YouTube. Taylor, did you really think this through? Do you really want to be the Rebecca Black of intolerance? For the rest of your life?
Pretty soon, Taylor’s last name is going to come out. It seems inevitable that she’s going to face an Internet backlash for this obnoxious video. The Internet has a rather long and unforgiving memory. It’s going to come up every time some one will do a Google search for her. To all future employers, college admission officers, potential boyfriends, she’s going to be this girl. No matter what her thoughts on this matter might evolve into when she’s an adult (not that I have especially high hopes that Taylor is ever going to be a tolerant or open-minded person, but who knows?) is she prepared for her new life with an Encyclopedia Dramatica entry?
And then there is the matter of how she replied to someone a few minutes ago on YouTube. It’s not her chastity that she’s worried about, is it, despite what she says in the video?
@AgentHaun Now, who’s the “hater?” I have to say, I approved this comment to reveal what the Gay-Lesbian-Transgender-Intersex-Questioning activism is full of. Intolerance for religion, intolerance for straight people, intolerance for Truth, especially when the facts are presented before them. I have deleted so many of these types of comments, but the Truth is, you all cannot disprove the facts in this video, which makes you angry and hurtful. I’ll just keep deleting.
HonestGirlScouts 4 minutes ago
“Intolerance for religion, intolerance for straight people, intolerance for Truth…” that gets to the heart of why this is so annoying: Christians who think THEY are somehow the victims of the LGBT community.
Taylor’s an idiot, but she’s also just a stupid kid. Her parents are the ones at fault here for raising such a petty, close-minded child.
“Jesus loves the little children, ALL the children of the world” or doesn’t he?
I’m directing that question to you, Taylor’s parents.
They taught her this way of looking at the world and gave her their approval and full support when she decided she was going to go ahead and do this. I blame them. They are the ones who should have told her—even if they agreed—that this was a bad idea and will have unforeseen consequences for her in future.
Yuck. Yuck. Yuck. I’m still making that face as I type this.
Carl Theodor Dreyer preferred to work with non-actors, as he believed they offered a more reactive performance. In truth, it was because non-professionals did as he said without question or interpretation, which gave Dreyer greater control over the film. Jacques Tati and Pier Paolo Pasolini similarly used non-actors. With Tati it often blighted his films (see Traffic), while for Pasolini it brought something sublime (see The Gospel According to Saint Matthew).
For Dreyer, the use of non-actors in Vampyr (1932), added to the disorienting, dream-like quality, drawing the spectator into a strange and compelling, nightmare world.
Following on from his success with Music for Silents, composer and former Banshee, Steven Severin, has written a fantastic new soundtrack for Vampyr, which he will be performing at special screenings of the film across the UK during January and February. Dates include, Edinburgh, Inverness, Aberdeen, Dundee, Bradford, York, Hackney, Brixton, Brighton, Stratford Upon Avon, Ambleside, Oswestry, Cardiff, Bristol, Exeter, Hebden Bridge, Nottingham, Birmingham, Lancaster & Salford. Details here.
Steven will also be releasing a CD of the soundtrack, which you can order directly form his website.
In this case, England. In the editorial pages of today’s Telegraph, Assistant Comment Editor Tom Chivers made this, as far as I am concerned, completely accurate assessment of the brain dead freak show that the modern Republican party has become. He writes in Republicans turn their back on the Enlightenment:
The Grand Ol’ Party (GOP), as the Republicans are known, has an uncomfortable relationship with scientific fact. Rick Santorum, a frontrunner in the nomination race, has said of a fellow candidate: “If he wants to believe he is the descendant of a monkey then he has the right to believe that, but I disagree with him on this liberal belief.” Yes: acknowledging biology’s central premise is “liberal”. His opponents Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachman and Newt Gingrich have all made noises doubting either climate change, evolution or both; only Jon Huntsman, a forlorn no-hoper, acknowledges the reality of both.
It’s not just the candidates. Fifty-two per cent of Republican voters reject the theory of evolution, saying mankind was created in present form within the last 10,000 years; just 31 per cent think man-made climate change is happening. In Congress, Republicans fought stem cell research and the HPV vaccine. Sarah Palin, ignoramus-in-chief, mocked “fruit-fly research” as a “pet project [with] little or nothing to do with the public good,” rejecting at a stroke most advances in genetics since Gregor Mendel.
Boom! Cracking good line, that…
This Nixonian strategy actually changed conservative psychology, according to [Chris Mooney, author of The Republican War on Science and Unscientific America]. “It’s been argued convincingly that when you energise people around these sort of [hot button issues like gay marriage, abortion, the war on Christmas] you get an authoritarian streak coming out, characterised by rigidity and inflexibility, thinking that you’re absolutely right and the other side is absolutely wrong; a need for certainty, a need for order.” This black-and-white thinking does not sit well with science’s error bars and uncertainties.
Worse, it’s become a vicious circle. The Republican party is trapped by its own anti-science tactics. Part of the culture war strategy included attacking intellectuals: describing them as weak and spineless and effete. Academics, always liberal-inclined, responded by becoming more so: “They’re so overwhelmingly liberal now it’s kind of ridiculous, and so is the scientific community. The Democratic party is drawing the votes of people with advanced degrees, and the Republican party is not,” says Mooney. So, in turn, the Republican party reacted by becoming ever more distrustful of intellectualism, and pushing wave after wave of scientists and academics from the Right to the Left. “The more the Republican party rejects nuance and attacks knowledge, the more the people who have knowledge go the other way. It shows in statistics about liberalism among professors and scientists, and distribution of PhDs across the parties: there’s a giant knowledge and expertise gap.”
And to appeal to this anti-intellectual base, the Republican elite now have to pretend to be stupider than they are. Gingrich, who in earlier years repeatedly acknowledged the dangers of climate change, suddenly dropped a chapter written by a climate scientist from an upcoming book after getting challenged on air by Rush Limbaugh, the hugely influential Right-wing talk radio host; Mitt Romney moved from “I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that” to “We don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet” in the space of three months.
So expertly observed. So true!
Do they mean it, or is it pandering to their anti-intellectual base? “Santorum, Bachmann and Perry are completely out of touch with reality. With Romney and Gingrich, many people get the impression that they know what’s right and what’s wrong, but can’t say it,” says Mooney.
Perhaps. But nowadays, to get far in the Republican party, you can’t be part of what George Bush might call the reality-based community. It’s a worrying state of affairs: America is becoming an intellectual two-speed nation, with a technocratic, informed elite and a scientifically illiterate rump who are falling behind economically in their increasingly knowledge-based economy. The GOP is increasingly the party of the uneducated: it’s bad enough for them, but if it means voting stupid people, or people who are pretending to be stupid, into the most powerful office in the world, it’s bad for the rest of us too.
Plus one! I mean come on, how is this not 100% accurate? Barney Frank was right with his suggestion for the Democrats: “We’re not perfect, but they’re nuts.”
Apparently this company called Provident Metals want to “celebrate peace, freedom and prosperity” with a special Ron Paul coin that you can buy from them. Maybe you can spend them in Galt’s Gulch? Who knows?
Our latest copper rounds commemorate Dr. Ron Paul, a U.S. Representative from Texas, presidential candidate and country OB doctor that’s delivered over 4000 babies. Each Ron Paul copper round contains 1-Avoirdupois (AVDP) ounce of .999 fine copper.
Besides their all-important metal content, Ron Paul copper rounds extol themes the congressman passionately argues for – namely peace, freedom and prosperity.
The front of Ron Paul copper rounds features a bust of the congressman in front of an American flag adoring his autograph. On the reverse side, the edge of the coin adorns three themes that succinctly describe the congressman’s philosophy – sound money, personal liberty and free markets. The coin’s weight along with www.ProvidentMetals.com is also pressed on the reverse side.
Nice of them to put their URL on the back of the coin! They do seem to know their target audience, though: Too paranoid to use your credit card over the Internet? You can call us!
Buy your collection of Ron Paul copper rounds today through our secure online ordering system. Or if you’d prefer to place your order by phone, call (877) 429-8790 and speak with one of our friendly representatives today.
Does Ron Paul even know about this? Something tells me the answer is “No.”
The uninsured voter, a woman who seemed desperate for some words of hope regarding her lack of healthcare insurance. Instead of any hint of compassion - or even an actual response to her need for healthcare - Romney brushed the woman off with a grin and what seemed to be a jab at Obamacare before he cast his gaze elsewhere.
“When you signed into law Romneycare, I was excited,” the woman said. “You seemed proud to do that. And then when the country copied you, it just seemed like there was hope for people like me.”
“How have you done since then?” Romney asked flippantly, talking over her.
“I don’t have health care, sir, and I’m scared,” she said.
“That tells you something doesn’t it?” Romney said. “Tells you something.”
Really? Like what, you fucking idiot?
I’m pretty dense, you need to spell it out for me better…
And what was Romney trying to prove by so rudely talking over this woman? What did this gain for his campaign (besides blog posts like this one)? I don’t think he’ll get her vote and chances are he lost many more as a result of this exchange being captured on video.
Why doesn’t Romney just give up all pretense of empathy with common Americans and start wearing ascots and silk smoking jackets to campaign in? Let America see the real Mitt Romney, lighting his Cuban cigars with $20 bills?
It’s hilarious to watch this toff implode like this, isn’t it? It’s like he’s coming apart at the seams in full view of the media as his opponents relentlessly bash him. So great to see.
There’s nothing quite like Republican schadenfreude. It’s a gift. Savor it.