TV continuing to weird me out

Catching up on my reading and I see Brent Bozell's column over at Townhall.com has a particularly horrifying subject with his usual spot on commentary. It seems that the show America's Next Top Model has as a contestant a transgender which is a person who diverges from the normal gender role (i.e. a man dressing up and acting like a woman). The contestant "Isis" can be seen on the show's website here - http://www.cwtv.com/shows/americas-next-top-model11/cast/isis

Bozell writes:

Us magazine is treating "Isis" like some sort of courageous pioneer for civil rights, as if she was the Martin Luther King of cross-dressing, or perhaps the new Rosa Parks of castration. (The "girl" still has male genitalia.) They asked, "Will she be a role model?" The contestant would only promise: "I like to help people, but I'm here to follow my dreams."

Bozell is spot on but there is more to this story. What happens when (my prediction) she/he (?) doesn't win? I am sure there will be charges of bias and some sort of phobia and how America is so backward that it can't accept a transgendered person as its (supposedly) next top model. I have no experience with transgendered folks but it seems to me that we are continuing to shave off any specific differences between the genders and between roles and forget about asking if we have gone too far..I am worried about what is the next cultural violation TV will foist upon an unexpecting public - who watches this crap anyway?

Just like Obama will lose because of his policies (not because of his race) "Isis" will lose not because of transphobia but because deep down he looks wierd. Men were not made to be women and vice versa. If this show really looks for the potential models to "...demonstrate both inner and outer beauty as they learn to master complicated catwalks, intense physical fitness, fashion photo shoots and perfect publicity skills..." I just can't believe that a man can compete on the same level as "real" women who I would guess have no small amount of (at least) physical beauty - which after all is what sells the product these models are shilling for in the first place right?

Sadly (not really) I will not be following "Isis's" journey but unfortunately too many other people will. And they say there is nothing good on TV anymore...

OS

Duke case - again

Fox News is reporting that the woman who accused (falsely) three Duke Lacrosse players of raping her is writing a memoir.

The story quotes from the official release:

The press release for the memoir says that Crystal Gail Mangum has been "called an exotic dancer and a prostitute, and the public was led to believe she wanted to frame some 'good college students' from Duke and put them in jail. ...

Uhh - didn't she accuse three innocent students of rape? What was her intention? Wasn't she an exotic dancer (the reason she was at the Duke Lacrosse party to begin with)? This really takes gall to come out now and tell this story.

The press release (that you can see up at Free Republic) states that 'she never spoke publicly, that is until now. ' and why is that? Why would someone stand on the sidelines and let three innocent students get pilloried in the press, get attacked by professors at Duke and forced to defend themselves against bogus charges?

The press release notes that "Crystal Magnum is donating one dollar from the purchase of each book to help battered women. " How about donating the money she makes to the three students who suffered because of her? Too harsh? How about donating the money she makes to the police who had to handle her bogus claims rather than pursue real crime? Again, too harsh? How about donating the money to Duke University so it could run a seminar on how not to "pre-judge" just because the accuser is black and the defendants are white. I suppose I am beating a dead horse here.

The real crime of this issue is that it is off the front page but we have learned nothing from it.

OS

Swiftboating Obama?

Jerome Corsi has a new book that is doing quite well in book sales called "The Obama Nation". Corsi was the author of Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry for which our culture got the term "swiftboating".

Well the Obama campaign has issued a 40-page rebuttal to Corsi's book "arguing the author is a fringe bigot peddling rehashed lies." Ok, that is fair. But in reading the AP story I saw this quote:

The book is a compilation of all the innuendo and false rumors against Obama — that he was raised a Muslim, attended a radical, black church and secretly has a "black rage" hidden beneath the surface.

So, why does Obama need to release a rebuttal? The Associated Press has already pronounced the book false. Isn't that good enough? I like the unbiased reporting (i.e. commentary) in a news story. Note the sarcasm there. The AP story also takes a swipe at WorldNetDaily.com that publishes Corsi's column noting :

Corsi writes for World Net Daily, a conservative Web site whose lead headline Thursday was "Astonishing photo claims: Dead Bigfoot stored on ice."

So a indirect (or direct) link to Corsi's "false rumors" and a report of Bigfoot on ice. Hmm - no bias there either. For the record, Worldnetdaily is a great site that offers a range of diverse opinions and impactful and at times "off beat" news. What site doesn't - Yahoo offers an Odd News section that has these nifty stories:

King penguin receives Norwegian knighthood
Man banned from girlfriend's home after noisy sex
Winnie-the-Pooh held for robbery?

Also there is a link to ABC News story entitled "Legend of Bigfoot: Discovery? Try Hoax." I guess the AP needs to ensure that anyone who writes for ABC News gets the same type of derision that Corsi has gotten.

Final question for the AP - why is "The Obama Nation" a best seller? Maybe the AP should try reporting the news rather than telling us their opinion of it. Obama is lucky to have such willing accomplices in the media to do hit pieces like this one on authors and commentators who are not in line with Obama's ascension. Next time you hear someone on the left talk about how great diversity is, take a right-wing position (even for "kicks") to see a reaction that is not in line with their supposed appreciation for diversity. AP should be ashamed of this "report".

OS

What is the standard in religion these days?

Although I am not an Anglican I can sympathize somewhat with the current Arch Bishop of Canterbury. The AP reports Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, struggling to hold together the troubled world Anglican family, urged church leaders gathered Sunday in England not to consecrate another gay bishop, saying the fellowship will be in "grave peril" without a moratorium." He has got that right. Not only is this denomination in "peril" but so many of the other religions are facing the exact same challenge and usually choosing the "wrong" one in my opinion.

The story also states that "The 77 million-member Anglican Communion has been splintering since 2003, when the U.S. Episcopal Church consecrated the first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire." That is worth noting - a 77 million member community is breaking up due a gay man was consecrated as a Episcopalian Bishop. So this community is being fractured due to the dictates and desires of one man. Can we get any more selfish? This new bishop by forcing his defining characteristic (his sexual orientation) to the forefront of the church community has actually threatened the faith that he has been sworn in to serve.

What is more telling is that what is the standard now? I have always maintained that for religious folks, the church and the teachings of God is the standard which they measure themselves and their religion against. The Church is the standard that society meets (again for religious folks) not the other way around (Society is the standard (cultural mores) and the Church changes with the winds of society). So a religion has a certain belief about homosexuality and instead of the congregation and potential bishop abiding by the teachings of the church a change is forced to 'adjust the church' the personal opinions. I have a problem with this not because I feel one way or the other about sexual orientation but because I believe in some guardrails and standards that are a little bit bigger than someone's personal proclivities.

My feeling is that a person joins a religion because he or she wants to answer some of the questions that we all deal with - questions larger than ourselves. I am sure Catholics find specific affinities for Church teachings and dictates of the Pope. If a person is out of step with the religion, why should the religion conform to that person instead of the person conforming to the Church teachings? Did Moses distill the Word of God to conform to his personal beliefs or did it begin and end (Alpha and Omega) with God?

To expect a church to dilute or change their teachings on specific instances of cultural issues due to a small minority is at a minimum suspect (so the church appears more "in tune" with society) and in grander scale, actually a potential death knell of the religion. Which is not far off from what I would suspect, many cultural elites who sound off about the anachronistic teachings of one religion or the other would desire (the end of religion in general that dare "judges" someone's personal behavior). Religion is changing and trying to be more culturally hip and with that move, becoming something different than what drew so many people to its pews to begin with?

I wonder if Radical Islam is having these discussions within its congregations?

OS