Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters
I've almost finished reading Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters, by Alvin McEwen. The subtitle is Exposing the Lies of the Anti-Gay Industry. This book is an eye-opener.
Here in our little county a couple of years ago we had a flare-up of ugliness that called itself the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum. I'm afraid I went into this a little innocent, I didn't realize how organized and crazy these people are, I thought it was just some ignorant people, and didn't realize the extent of the machinery that's in place to keep them ignorant and make them think they're right. But man, these people really seriously believe that everybody else's private life is their business. And as McEwen shows, it is, literally, a "business" -- an industry.
Can somebody tell me, why is there an "anti-gay industry" in the first place? What is it about gay people, of all the things in the world, that ties these people up in knots? I've heard the Family Blah Blah stuff, the destruction-of-the-institution-of-marriage, breakdown-of-morals, criminalizing-Christianity -- I mean, really. They can't believe that. What in the world drives these people?
I think a hint toward answering this question comes from a quote in Holy Bullies from anti-gay fake-researcher Paul Cameron, a guy who is really at the center of the anti-gay industry. Cameron told Rolling Stone magazine:
I have the feeling that you won't find a lot of actually-straight guys who think that orgasms with other men are "too powerful to resist." Some people though have to fight against the irresistible appeal of this must-be-better-than-anything sex, because ... well, I don't know why. If you're going to like it that much, why don't you ... I just don't get it. I mean, you don't have to think of sex as something for your "own personal amusement" to appreciate a mind-blowing orgasm, do you? It looks like there are some really twisted psychodynamic forces at work there.
In Holy Bullies, McEwen patiently lays out the characters, the fake-research they cite, the kinds of lies and rhetorical devices they use to convince people that there is a real conspiracy they call the "homosexual agenda," which is a plot to destroy civilization as we know it. I think this agenda is supposed to start with gay people recruiting children, and somehow results in everybody abandoning their families, maybe because of the irresistible pleasure of same-sex orgasms, I don't know, they're never very clear about how that works, but the next thing you know, Western civilization has collapsed. McEwen has done a ton of reading, and I'm glad he has spent the energy to put together a resource like this, so we don't have to dig through it all ourselves, barf-bag in hand.
In the past three years of working with the school district and the county, we've seen a lot of this anti-gay talk, from "love the sinner, hate the sin," to fake statistics and quotes taken out of context from the forgotten past, to petitions based on false pretenses, to messages twisted and distorted beyond the point of recognition ... We've seen real tears over supposed lost souls, lectures on the danger of ingesting feces, and an impassioned crusade to prevent unisex bathrooms in the public schools. We have been told that tolerance leads inevitably to AIDS, and have been warned about a lurid "lifestyle" that has actual gay people scratching their heads and wondering why they were left out of it.
And that's just Montgomery County.
Holy Bullies recounts the origins of the hateful movement that lies behind groups like the Citizens for a Responsible <insert_target_here>, going back to the original sources of some of the statements that get morphed and exaggerated over time. Sometimes it'll go like this: one twisted guy publishes some amateurishly-assembled numbers in a pay-to-publish journal; someone else cites the numbers as "research" and draws some wild conclusion from them; and then the others cite the conclusion as fact based on scientific evidence. Spurious allegations propagate through the rightwing media, retractions never do.
I was especially enjoying a section in Chapter Seven called "job discrimination and the anti-gay industry." If you've been following the local plot, you know that the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum are now starting to call themselves the Citizens for a Responsible Government, since it turned out their interest was not actually a curriculum, but just anything against sexual minorities at all. The latest outrage for them is a new county law that prevents discrimination in jobs, among other things, against transgender people. So I'm reading this book and I am seeing the same names and the exact same arguments here that the CR-whatever is making. They want a referendum -- it turns out these groups always want a referendum. They can't live with the American system of government, where we elect representatives and let them and the judiciary work out what the laws will be and how they will be interpreted and enforced. No, a referendum is the best thing for these guys, because you can whip the populace up with falsehoods in a way that would never work with professional lawmakers. You can tell the public that a law is about, say, perverted men exposing themselves in women's locker rooms, and of course people will be upset when they hear that, and they'll sign a petition or vote to repeal the bill. A real elected policy-maker will have read the actual bill, will probably talk to some lawyers about what it means, and has skills and abilities that make them especially qualified for those kinds of decisions. So when you wave a red herring at them, they see it for what it is. The system works, which is why these groups have to try to go outside it.
I bought the book from Amazon.com, but you can get it from a lot of places linked from McEwen's website, called not surprisingly, HolyBullies.com.
I should mention proudly that Alvin has been a member of our Yahoo group for two years, and has been a frequent and articulate commenter on this blog. He has an encyclopedic knowledge of the dark world of gay-haters, and is often able to tie together things in a way that makes sense out of apparent random statements by raving lunatics.
Here in our little county a couple of years ago we had a flare-up of ugliness that called itself the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum. I'm afraid I went into this a little innocent, I didn't realize how organized and crazy these people are, I thought it was just some ignorant people, and didn't realize the extent of the machinery that's in place to keep them ignorant and make them think they're right. But man, these people really seriously believe that everybody else's private life is their business. And as McEwen shows, it is, literally, a "business" -- an industry.
Can somebody tell me, why is there an "anti-gay industry" in the first place? What is it about gay people, of all the things in the world, that ties these people up in knots? I've heard the Family Blah Blah stuff, the destruction-of-the-institution-of-marriage, breakdown-of-morals, criminalizing-Christianity -- I mean, really. They can't believe that. What in the world drives these people?
I think a hint toward answering this question comes from a quote in Holy Bullies from anti-gay fake-researcher Paul Cameron, a guy who is really at the center of the anti-gay industry. Cameron told Rolling Stone magazine:
If you isolate sexuality as something solely for one's own personal amusement, and all you want is the most satisfying orgasm you can get -- and that is what homosexuality seems to be -- then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist. The evidence is that men do a better job on men, and women on women if all you are looking for is an orgasm.
I have the feeling that you won't find a lot of actually-straight guys who think that orgasms with other men are "too powerful to resist." Some people though have to fight against the irresistible appeal of this must-be-better-than-anything sex, because ... well, I don't know why. If you're going to like it that much, why don't you ... I just don't get it. I mean, you don't have to think of sex as something for your "own personal amusement" to appreciate a mind-blowing orgasm, do you? It looks like there are some really twisted psychodynamic forces at work there.
In Holy Bullies, McEwen patiently lays out the characters, the fake-research they cite, the kinds of lies and rhetorical devices they use to convince people that there is a real conspiracy they call the "homosexual agenda," which is a plot to destroy civilization as we know it. I think this agenda is supposed to start with gay people recruiting children, and somehow results in everybody abandoning their families, maybe because of the irresistible pleasure of same-sex orgasms, I don't know, they're never very clear about how that works, but the next thing you know, Western civilization has collapsed. McEwen has done a ton of reading, and I'm glad he has spent the energy to put together a resource like this, so we don't have to dig through it all ourselves, barf-bag in hand.
In the past three years of working with the school district and the county, we've seen a lot of this anti-gay talk, from "love the sinner, hate the sin," to fake statistics and quotes taken out of context from the forgotten past, to petitions based on false pretenses, to messages twisted and distorted beyond the point of recognition ... We've seen real tears over supposed lost souls, lectures on the danger of ingesting feces, and an impassioned crusade to prevent unisex bathrooms in the public schools. We have been told that tolerance leads inevitably to AIDS, and have been warned about a lurid "lifestyle" that has actual gay people scratching their heads and wondering why they were left out of it.
And that's just Montgomery County.
Holy Bullies recounts the origins of the hateful movement that lies behind groups like the Citizens for a Responsible <insert_target_here>, going back to the original sources of some of the statements that get morphed and exaggerated over time. Sometimes it'll go like this: one twisted guy publishes some amateurishly-assembled numbers in a pay-to-publish journal; someone else cites the numbers as "research" and draws some wild conclusion from them; and then the others cite the conclusion as fact based on scientific evidence. Spurious allegations propagate through the rightwing media, retractions never do.
I was especially enjoying a section in Chapter Seven called "job discrimination and the anti-gay industry." If you've been following the local plot, you know that the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum are now starting to call themselves the Citizens for a Responsible Government, since it turned out their interest was not actually a curriculum, but just anything against sexual minorities at all. The latest outrage for them is a new county law that prevents discrimination in jobs, among other things, against transgender people. So I'm reading this book and I am seeing the same names and the exact same arguments here that the CR-whatever is making. They want a referendum -- it turns out these groups always want a referendum. They can't live with the American system of government, where we elect representatives and let them and the judiciary work out what the laws will be and how they will be interpreted and enforced. No, a referendum is the best thing for these guys, because you can whip the populace up with falsehoods in a way that would never work with professional lawmakers. You can tell the public that a law is about, say, perverted men exposing themselves in women's locker rooms, and of course people will be upset when they hear that, and they'll sign a petition or vote to repeal the bill. A real elected policy-maker will have read the actual bill, will probably talk to some lawyers about what it means, and has skills and abilities that make them especially qualified for those kinds of decisions. So when you wave a red herring at them, they see it for what it is. The system works, which is why these groups have to try to go outside it.
I bought the book from Amazon.com, but you can get it from a lot of places linked from McEwen's website, called not surprisingly, HolyBullies.com.
I should mention proudly that Alvin has been a member of our Yahoo group for two years, and has been a frequent and articulate commenter on this blog. He has an encyclopedic knowledge of the dark world of gay-haters, and is often able to tie together things in a way that makes sense out of apparent random statements by raving lunatics.
60 Comments:
Jim asked "Can somebody tell me, why is there an "anti-gay industry" in the first place?".
I often puzzle over that myself. Its easy to see why the people affected by anti-gay attitudes find the issue important enough to invest a lot of time in, but its
VERY strange that people who are not affected by being gay should do the same.
I think a couple of things are at work here. For one people love to have a scapegoat and someone they can point to and say "I'm better than that." - it makes them feel good about themselves to put someone else down and blame someone else for their problems.
Secondly, I think Kinsey was right, there's a lot of bisexuality out there and many typical males are scared to death of their own tightly suppressed feelings. The way they deal with it is to hate all things gay so they have an easier time suppressing the very feelings that nag at their sub-concious. One famous study after all did show that 80% of self-described homophobes are turned on by gay sex. If you want to reject part of yourself its effective in the short run to develop an anger at it and a hatred of it so you can justify rejecting it - that naturally spills over into a hatred and rejection of all who resemble that bit of yourself you're rejecting.
There's been a steady stream of hypocrites condemning gays who've turned out to be having gay sex themselves. Or take the example of Eugene Austin Evans, the Sea Scout leader who sued the city of Berkely for the right to be subsidized in scouts discrimination against gays - he claimed he wanted to stop child molestation and how he's been arrested for molesting four sea scouts himself.
It seems to me that a lot of men (and statistics back this up) have a latent sexual attraction to men and have been raised to find men sexually disgusting. This creates a lot of cognitive dissonance and chronic anxiety which we see expressed as the repressive sexual attitudes that so many conservatives have. Its a terrible opportunity cost for society, so many many, perhaps 1/3 the population being conflicted over their sexuality and living on edge over it when the anxiety and effort spent at suppression could be put to living fuller better lives if only they'd learn to accept their latent bisexuality and get on with life. Clearly that's the case with people like Paul Cameron - he admits that deep down inside he finds the thought of an orgasm with a man the most appealing and because society's taught him that thats bad, evil and unacceptable he's chronically at war with himself and all the gay people who remind him of what he's trying so desperately to suppress. Been there, done that, myself.
thanks jim for the shout out
i worked on this project for over three years so it is gratifying when someone gets what i am trying to say.
And just for the record, I sent the galleys to a "prominent" conservative and he has refused to answer my charges. not surprising. also i noticed that the "anonymous" contingent here have been silent about my book.
Silence sometimes tells so much.
Lawmakers have had enough of the "holidays," and they are reminding America the "holiday" that is coming is called Christmas.
In Wisconsin, the Assembly will vote today to call the balsam fir in the Capitol rotunda a Christmas tree. And in Washington, the U.S. House will vote today on a resolution by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, seeking the official recognition of Christmas.
"Earlier this year, the House of Representatives passed bills proclaiming Hinduism and Islam great religions of the world at the time of their major celebrations," King told Fox News. "My resolution offers the same honor to the Christian faith."
Why aren't they calling it by its real name - the Yule Tree? They might as well call it the "Adopted-by-the-Christians Tree."
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) is right that we should be recognizing the great religions. Honoring Yggdrasil is such an important part of our Northern European heritage that we continue to do it (in disguise.) Let's bring the true meaning of our so-called "Christmas" traditions out of the closet.
Remember, a big party in the middle of winter is the reason for the season. Christians just stole traditions from pagan rituals like the decorated Yule tree.
Its about time the Christian faith got the same honour as other religions. As its been its been overwhelmingly favoured above and beyond other religions and this is wrong. Its time to stop honouring Christianity at the expense of other religions.
You know, I hate to gloat, but the Huckabee surge is something I predicted last Spring and was met with a chorus of hee-haws from the TTF crowd. I remember you guys saying he hasn't got a chance because he hasn't raised enough money.
Well, he's still way behind in fundraising but, according to a poll in this morning's Post, he's now a close second to Guiliani nationally and way ahead in both Iowa and South Carolina, two of the earliest states, voting in just a few weeks.
His appeal? Restoring a sense of morality to our national dialogue. The turning point? When the horrible, craven Mitt Romney attacked him for not being hard enough on immigrants. When Huckabee retorted that "we're a better country than that", he captured the desire of Americans to return to a time when we were the moral beacons of the world. He also is the only candidate beside McCain to oppose waterboarding consistently. He talks about helping the poor and fighting corporate greed. He opposes gay marriage, supports ab-only education, believes in intelligent design. Heck, he even fixed a ticket for Keith Richards in Arkansas and, rumor has it, will get his endorsement. Sorry, TTF, you backed the wrong horse. America is concerned with moral issues.
Who's going to stop this slow train comin' round the bend? Fortunately, Hillary, who knew about water-boarding from the beginning, seems to be cruising to nomination. Does anyone really think Americans are going to get jazzed about continuing the Clinton-Bush yo-yo dynasty?
Just to show how a true leader is changing the national conversation, witness the CIA employee who in the Post on Monday said although he was involved with the waterboarding interrogation of al-quaeda suspects, he now sees it was wrong. Why? Says he, "we're a better country than that."
He probably didn't even know who he was quoting.
Get out of the way if you can't lend a hand. The times they are a-changing!
Yeah, Huckabee would be a great president. He's the governor that Rick Mercer convinced to congradulate Canada on protecting its national igloo by putting a dome over it. He may be even dumber than Bush - does wonders for the image of the U.S. around the world.
Doesn't matter anyway, Huckabee is still a long way from being the Republican front-runner and polls consistently show that the top Democrats are going to beat the top republicans anyway. Hold on to your dream while it lasts though, you may as well feel good about yourself for a few months before it all comes crashing down on you.
"Doesn't matter anyway, Huckabee is still a long way from being the Republican front-runner and polls consistently show that the top Democrats are going to beat the top republicans anyway."
If you believe that, Randi, you haven't paid much attention to the elections in your greater neighbor to the South.
I remember being in the library about 5 in the afternoon on the the last election day and some upper middle aged woman, after eavesdropping on a conversation I was having, walked up and asked who I thought was going win the election. I said, "well, the exit polls from the most reliable sources I've seen show Bush carrying Ohio so I think that should give him the election." Her reply was: "You want to bet, smart guy?" I said "no, because that would require further communication with you."
Going home, we see George Stepanopolous smirking on TV about those polls that he can't divulge the results of yet. Then when polls closed, the commentators started opining about the new era we were embarking on.
Wake up, Randi. We are still the same country. We're disturbed about certain aspects of the Bush administration but we're not about to return the Clintons to the White House. We've got a year to think about it but our principles have been demonstrated by history.
Maybe some of our TTFers will be moving to Canada in 2009 though. That could be a win-win, eh?
Take off! To the great white north!
oyster time/jimi/tm said "your greater neighbor to the South.".
Now that's a good one - 3 million comedians out of work and look who's trying to be funny - don't quit your day job.
In Canada all people are created equal - we live that, we don't just pay lip service to it here like you do.
"Doesn't matter anyway, Huckabee is still a long way from being the Republican front-runner and polls consistently show that the top Democrats are going to beat the top republicans anyway."
What are you talking about, Randi?
The primaries are being held in a few weeks. Huckabee leads in two of the first three states. He is in second place and within six points of the front runner nationally and he has mostly campaigned in the early states. He doesn't sound "a long way off" at all.
As far as the general election, a CNN poll last week put McCain ahead of Clinton. Several other Republicans trail by single digits. And this is before the general election discussion even begins when the discussion will turn to the Democrats hi-jinks in the current Congress that they control and reminiscing about the sleaze of the Clinton administration.
When will the Democrats ever learn? Until they return to a responsible position on family and life issues, they will never go anywhere.
I would just like to clarify that mr. tambourine man nor mr t m is not me, Mr. Teacher Man. Just a FYI...
ooops... double-negatives... I think I caught the "Dumb W Disease" in my last post.
Andrea- not anon
Yes, Moron anon is right- we saw how the Democrats were trounced here in Maryland in the last election. Oh, wait, quite the opposite happened. Still why should facts get in the way of Moron and his Nutty Buddies at the CRC/G/XYZ?
Dear Dazed and confused - you picked the right name this time.
Mr. Teacher Man I wasn't confused by that myself.
"we saw how the Democrats were trounced here in Maryland in the last election"
Yeah, Maryland does seem a little akilter.
Let's hope they don't try to secede. Huckabee not putting up with it anymore than Lincoln did.
"I think I caught the "Dumb W Disease" in my last post"
Did you ever consider that it might be innate? You may have no choice.
Nine Democrats refused to support a U.S. House resolution Tuesday seeking the official recognition of Christmas — even though eight of them supported a similar resolution on Ramadan earlier this year.
Dazed and confused said "Huckabee not putting up with it anymore than Lincoln did.".
Huckabee isn't going to have any say in it.
And you don't need to take my word for it Dazed and confused. Check out the latest polls - Huckabee didn't even make the Republican list.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/13/AR2006121301593.html
Randi, I live in the Washington area. This morning's headline was "Huckabee Closes on Guiliani Nationwide."
BTW, polls are now coming in showing Huckabee won this afternoon's last Republican before the Iowa caucus.
Also, BTW, I thought you guys thought it was incivil to refer to anyone in any matter than what they choose to call themselves.
This is not another in a series of liberal hypocrisies, is it?
Oh, and Randi, when you google and post the links, make sure the stories aren't a year old.
In America, that makes you a laughingstock.
This just in:
Hillary, trying to stir up some excitement, announced her selection for VP:
Dennis Kucinich!
Shiver me timbers, the Republicans are in trouble now!
if i write a sequel to Holy Bullies, I am definitely including a section on CRC. I have been keeping up with their exploits from the "Surgeon General statement" to "the locker room/changing room lie"
Should interesting.
Hope I didnt' interrupt anyone's Huckabee lovefest
It's deja vu all over again SybilAnon. Check out this December 2003 poll.
"It's deja vu all over again"
I think the differences between Huckabee and Dean are myriad but we shall see.
Soon.
Hey Black ..
What is a lie about the locker room, I thought Dana was pretty clear about that on the last post.. and the HRC was pretty darn clear about it on their memos to the county council..
so exactly what is a lie ?
Just curious.
Ginger
This morning's headline was "Huckabee Closes on Guiliani Nationwide."
And the facts reported inside that article include:
...Although many of the candidates have been campaigning for nearly a year, the Republican electorate appears more fragmented now than at any previous point in the race. Asked which candidate best reflects the core values of the Republican Party, 18 percent said McCain, Giuliani and Huckabee were each cited by 16 percent, 14 percent picked Romney, and 13 percent named Thompson. As if to punctuate the confusion, 16 percent said they had no opinion.
There was a similar lack of consensus about who is the GOP's most honest and trustworthy candidate, or who is tops on pivotal social issues, such as abortion and same-sex civil unions. But Giuliani, long the national front-runner, continues to have wide advantages in being perceived as the strongest leader and most electable of the GOP candidates. He also holds narrow advantages on who is best able to handle terrorism and the economy.
Despite his overall rise in the poll, Huckabee was competitive only on social issues, where 17 percent trust him most, compared with 16 percent for Romney, 15 percent for Giuliani, and 11 percent each for McCain and Thompson.
...Last December, 39 percent of Republican evangelicals said they would be less likely to support a Mormon candidate. That has declined to 27 percent. But 17 percent of white evangelical Protestants in the new poll said there is "no chance" they would vote for a Mormon, not significantly different from the percentage saying so in February.
White evangelical Protestants back Huckabee by an 11-point margin over Giuliani. Evangelical support for Huckabee has tripled since late September, to 29 percent. Thirteen percent of white evangelicals said they would vote for Romney.
Huckabee's challenge is to pick up support more broadly. While 20 percent of conservatives back his candidacy, he draws only 8 percent from moderate and liberal Republicans.
Fascinating.
Huckabee is clearly ascendant and his strong suit is social issues.
The tide has turned but not the TTF way.
Not long until the Iowa caucuses now. Before the twelve days of Christmas are over.
Thanks for the facts though.
Hey Ginger,
i am talkng about this lie - if a law is passed that would protect transgender men and women from discrimination, then young girls would be exposed to naked men in the locker rooms.
kind of a stretch, don't you think?
You know, nothing ever goes right for gay agenda supporters.
Remember Grasnick, head of the MD Education, who approved the new MCPS curriculum? The governor wants to replace her and the Washington Post denounced her yesterday in an editorial.
The County Council that approved the transgender endorsement? County fired a firm to do a report card on the county and released its findings yesterday. 60% of residents said the Council is unresponsive to the public. They are now dealing with the biggest deficit in county history.
How about MCPS? In the latest challenge index released yesterday, MCPS is ranked seventh in the DC area.
The Democratic Congress? Post reports today that Senate and House Democrats are now openly arguing about who blew their mandate from the last election as they prepare to pass full funding for the Iraq war without middle class tax cuts or a withdrawal timetable.
Meanwhile, Huckabee stands above it all, poised to become the leader of a country that is better than that.
Before this law a security guard could arrest a man who attempted to enter a female changing area at the pool.
Now they can't.
The man who felt like a women could expose themselves all they wanted too... with no fear of recrimination.
All the man would have to do is claim they "felt" like a women. Cross dressers are okay too, as Dana admitted in an earlier post.
So no, not a stretch. Just the text of the law when it adds "non discrimination" to "public accomodations and their factilities" and given the very broad definitin of gender identity in the bill.
Ginger
Nice try, "Ginger." You're wrong. The CRC would like to scare people with this lie. Anybody who believes it is an idiot.
JimK
and i would like point out that what ginger is doing is anti-gay industry tactic number 5 as outlined in my book (Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters) - Dire Consequences
The dire consequences tactic is claiming that laws created to protect lgbts from discrimination will lead to all sorts of nasty consequences without proof that these nasty consequences will become a reality. The nasty consequences are pure speculation designed to appeal to ignorance and fear.
As has been explained repeatedly Ginger, pre-op transexuals must be under the care of a psychiatrist who can vouch for them and who provides them with a letter stating they are a pre-op transexual living in the female role. Its not a matter of just declaring that one feels like a female and then being able to go into the ladies changing room.
Sorry, Ginger, dear, but there is no law in this state or anywhere else that would allow a security guard to arrest a man who enters the women's room or vice versa. we do not have laws that regulate bathroom use, only scoial convention.
And stop lying about what I write. I know what I write. You just don't know how to read.
Dana, you don't think a man going into the ladies room would be arrested under another charge, something like disturbing the peace or some such thing? This is my impression as to what would happen.
Phew! Final exams are (for now) a thing of the past...
Interesting book...checked it out on Amazon...Xlibris? Huh, I've never heard of this publisher before...but, wait, they aren't a publisher, they are a print on demand publishing service where just about anyone with at least $299 (their "advantage" package), or as much as $12,999 for the "platinum" package can get published. Heck, even I could get published! Priceless! LOL...
Well, the author's book has attracted one, yes, one review at Amazon. A Kevin W. Kaatz...any relation Alvin?
Other than an ax to grind, there is little that I can read that would suggest I should take this author seriously...sorry, I know that sounds a tad harsh, but some of us readers are critical and discerning.
Might I suggest another book? Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers, by Brooke Allen (and published by a real publisher, Ivan R. Dee, Chicago, Illinois). I finished the chapters on Franklin and Washington; I am almost finished with the chapter on Adams. While the tone is a little bit sneering, perhaps the myth-makers deserve such...
And get this...it is LESS money than "Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters"!
Now now Orin,
no need to attack the messengers just because you don't like or can't refute the message.
as it is, i chose to self-publish because i wanted to get the message of my book out as soon as i could. in self-publishing, i am following a tradition made by such authors as Virginia Woolf, James Joyce, Walt Whitman, and E. Lynn Harris.
And you mentioned "real publishers." do you mean conservative publishing houses that publishing any anti-liberal trash coming down the pike and then buy a bunch of copies to give away free, thereby cheating the authors? Surely you don't mean them.
Also, on xlibris's site is an excerpt from my book. Apparently if you are talking in detail about xlibris, you saw the excerpt. Rather than attack me or xlibris, why not talk about any fallacies you saw in the excerpt. or did you see any?
While such "discerning" folks like yourself claim not to take my book seriously, please note that it is doing rather well on amazon.com.
One more thing - Kevin Kaatz is not a relative but someone who actually read my book and liked what he saw.
Why not give others the opportunity to do the same? ;p
Anonymous was earlier talking about how lawmakers proposed a resolution seeking recognition of Christmas and 9 Democrats abstained. This is the reason why:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/12/subway.attack/index.html
Seems the Christian war for christmas lead 10 Christians to attack a Jew for saying Happy Hannukah, we see where this sort of resolution leads.
Christians make up 80% of the U.S. population, hold virtually every seat in political power, you can't even get elected without professing your Christian faith, the president claims he was selected by Jesus and somehow we're supposed to believe Christians are being persecuted in the U.S.
Orin, we know you hate gays, but Black Tsunami's right - you're talking out of your rear. You've got no more criticisms of this book than you've got reasons to think gays marrying keeps straights apart. How about you explain step by step, cause and effect how that's supposed to happen for once?
Randi,
There are public indecency laws and indecent exposure laws that could be used to prosecute such cases. If a guy entered the women's room, entered a stall, did his thing and left, it would be hard to make a charge stand in this community. If he exposed himself in the common area, then, well, sure.
But we're not talking about men, we're talking about women. Women who are too masculine, women who are butch, women who are transitioning -- they all use the women's facilities, I would imagine hundreds of thousands times a day, and there are no problems. And no one knows what their genitals are, and no one outside of the CRC cares.
CRC is creating a problem from their fevered imaginations.
Alvin writes,
no need to attack the messengers just because you don't like or can't refute the message.
Did I write that I did, or did not like your book? Goodness, I read what I just wrote and I can't read anything other than the reference here,
Other than an ax to grind, there is little that I can read that would suggest I should take this author seriously...sorry, I know that sounds a tad harsh, but some of us readers are critical and discerning.
And in that assessment I include many an author published on both sides of the political spectrum...whether they be a Regnery or a New Press (what? as opposed to Old Press?). All I need to do in order to be reminded of the high noise/low signal phenomenon in our political culture is to walk down the aisle at the local Barnes & Noble bookstore here in Fort Collins...
i am following a tradition made by such authors as Virginia Woolf, James Joyce, Walt Whitman, and E. Lynn Harris.
Yes, you are...and do you suppose that you too will be read as many year hence? Please, don't be shy...
While such "discerning" folks like yourself claim not to take my book seriously, please note that it is doing rather well on amazon.com.
Doing rather well is overstating it, don't you think? After all,
"Amazon.com Sales Rank: #330,587 in Books" falls a tad short of The Complete Shorter Fiction of Virginia Woolf: Second Edition (Paperback), which is ranked #161,268 in Books on Amazon.
One more thing - Kevin Kaatz is not a relative but someone who actually read my book and liked what he saw.
Why not give others the opportunity to do the same? ;p
Yes, he did...but is that the measure of what makes a book good, or as Kevin put it, "excellent"?
To be perfectly honest, I do not like the tone of the book I am reading now...the author has made a few snide comments and only thinly veils her contempt for Christianity of the evangelical flavor. Yes, I am compelled to accept her argument on the basis of what is true.
These days there appears to be an over abundance (not that there is ever a lack of) partisans; what will differentiate the good book from the better book is the one that will cause the reader to question their own opinions/prejudices in an effort to better understand their world. Will your book do that? Perhaps...but I would not bet on that. Time, energy, and money are limited...this requires one to prioritize. Sorry, your book just doesn't make the cut (besides I have a book that Dana Byer recommended to me and that I need to start plowing thru).
Randi scribbles,
Orin, we know you hate gays, but Black Tsunami's right - you're talking out of your rear.
While I have improved on being able to time the output of my flatulence for my own amusement (though that is only really derived by the visible disgust of my two teenage daughters), I have yet to master the ability of a ventriloquism via my anus. My 14 year old's car pool buddy though can belch out the alphabet...I've heard it driving the afternoon pick up from school routine.
And Randi, when you use the word know you abuse that word...what I think you really mean is that YOU believe I hate gays. My best friend KNOWS that is not true...and how does he KNOW that? Over 20 years of personal friendship (now, I must add that such friendship does NOT include agreeing with every last one of my opinions - we make good company for each other, and over the years have learned alot from each other).
You've got no more criticisms of this book than you've got reasons to think gays marrying keeps straights apart. How about you explain step by step, cause and effect how that's supposed to happen for once?
You could read the book...The Future of Marriage, by David Blankenhorn (and ranked #245,246 on Amazon; you can pick it up for less than Holy Bullies and I suspect it has a tad more heft to it as there is some anthropology material in Blankenhorn's book that makes for slower than usual reading...well, at least it did for me).
Interestingly enough I found another book via a link to Blankenhorn's book on Amazon. The book, New Family Values: Liberty, Equality, Diversity, by Karen Struening, looks like it might too be an interesting read, as well as a challenge.
step by step, cause and effect?
Must I? I've tried...sigh...still, try giving a read to Blankenhorn and Streuning as a exercise of the intellect and reason. I use to be 100% supporter of the death penalty; I now oppose it...what changed my mind in a decisive way? A column written by conservative columnist George F. Will. He wrote, "conservatives, especially, should remember that capital punishment is a government program, so skepticism is warranted".
And all of this reminds me of one of my most favorite liberal bumper stickers of all time:
Minds are like Parachutes - They only Work when they are Open
Orin,
you are being seriously dishonest. your original post was a snide attack on my book not because of its arguments but because of where it came from.
but since i don't want to play semantic games with you, i will just say "have it your way, Orin."
Orin, the flatulence coming out of your anus has produced words and grammer, but no meaning.
As far as Blankenhorn his nebulous ideas have been dealt with here:
http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/31230.html
"Blankenhorn notes that there is a correlation between non-traditional beliefs about marriage and support for gay marriage. He claims this allows us to “infer” a “likely causal relation” between gay marriage and anti-marriage views.
But by itself a correlation doesn’t prove that one thing caused another. People who buy ashtrays are more likely to get lung cancer -- but this doesn’t prove that buying ashtrays causes lung cancer. If we relied on correlation alone, we’d think all sorts of crazy things were causally related.
Consider what can be done with a correlation used to “infer” a “likely causal relation.” People in countries without same-sex marriage are more likely to believe women should stay at home and not work, that men should be masters of their households, that there should be no separation of church and state, that people should not use contraception when they have sex, and that divorce should never be permitted. If these correlations exist, have I demonstrated the existence of a “cluster of beliefs” that reinforce one another, undermining the argument against gay marriage?
Or consider the more sympathetic correlations to gay marriage that Blankenhorn ignores. Countries with SSM are richer, healthier, more democratic, more educated, and more respectful of individual rights. Have I shown that the absence of gay marriage is likely causing harm in those benighted countries that refuse to recognize it?
Here’s another correlation helpful to the case for gay marriage: countries with gay marriage are enjoying higher marriage rates since they recognized it. Have I shown that gay marriage likely caused this?
Even Blankenhorn’s correlation is suspect. Non-traditional attitudes about marriage preceded the recognition of gay marriage in the countries that have it. How could gay marriage have caused a decline in traditional marital attitudes before it even existed?
Of course, Blankenhorn is still free to argue that non-traditional attitudes greased the way for gay marriage, but this doesn’t show that it caused or even reinforced non-traditional attitudes. What Blankenhorn needs, even as a starting point, is some evidence that non-traditionalist views increased after gay marriage began. He doesn’t have that."
In the end neither you nor he have any plausible story as to how it follows step by step from the gay couple down the street getting married to men and women being kept apart - the idea is preposterous, no heterosexual couple is going to forgo being together just because a gay couple gets married.
Dana -
"There are public indecency laws and indecent exposure laws that could be used to prosecute such cases. If a guy entered the women's room, entered a stall, did his thing and left, it would be hard to make a charge stand in this community. If he exposed himself in the common area, then, well, sure."
Okay, so we have a "women" who is still "biologically male" that enter a locker room and exposes his/her still male equipement. Bioglical females don't get arrested for indecent exposure for this because it is expected in an "area of shared nudity". Don't tell me that they WOULDN'T do this, because there will be some that do. What does your new law say about a transgender of the opposite biological sex exposing themselves in an area of shared nudity ?
Ginger
Ginger said "Don't tell me that they WOULDN'T do this, because there will be some that do.".
Ginger, its NEVER happened yet. Not one single complaint and there's no doubt if it had happened some bigot like Theresa or you would have been screaming to high heaven.
Randi is correct, Ginger. There are no reports of such events occurring, either in states and localities with protections on the books and those without.
I've seen some women parade naked around the locker room, but most don't. I know of no pre-op trans woman that would ever expose herself in such a manner. To imply that it is so is factually wrong and simply buying into the fear-mongering of the CRC, because you are implying that exhibitionism is integral to our nature. It is a lost less so to us than to plain vanilla straight, non-trans men and women who are the ones who are arrested for indecent exposure.
And, again, as far as the law is concerned, it allows the owners to make their own accommodations, as most have been doing anyway. If they refuse to do so, they are within their rights, and I, for one, would not choose to join or remain at such an establishment.
From Randi's link:
"Now, in a new book entitled The Future of Marriage, family and marriage scholar David Blankenhorn tries a new argument. He argues that support for gay marriage is part of a destructive "cluster" of "mutually reinforcing" beliefs about family life. He cites international surveys of attitudes about families and marriage showing that the presence of gay marriage in a country correlates with a series of beliefs that he describes as, roughly speaking, anti-marriage."
50% of couples in the US choose to divorce, all on there own, and Blankenhorn is going out of country to show that gay marriage is the real threat to marriage?
Brilliant. While we’re at it, let’s outlaw cigarettes in order to reduce the threat of arson.
"And, again, as far as the law is concerned, it allows the owners to make their own accommodations, as most have been doing anyway. If they refuse to do so, they are within their rights, and I, for one, would not choose to join or remain at such an establishment."
Dana, where exactly in the law does it say that ? I have been looking and I can't find it.
Not in the bill, not in the existing code, nada.
The county attorney said that was his interpretation, but can't find anything in the law to back that up.
You also did not answer the question. What happens if a pre-op transgender exposes themselves in the bathroom of the gender they feel they belong in but don't biologically match ? Is this a crime ?
Ginger.
The question was answered by both Randi Ginger, its NEVER happened yet. Not one single complaint and there's no doubt if it had happened some bigot like Theresa or you would have been screaming to high heaven.
and Dr. Beyer Randi is correct, Ginger. There are no reports of such events occurring, either in states and localities with protections on the books and those without.
So your paranoid delusion "Don't tell me that they WOULDN'T do this, because there will be some that do." is just that, a paranoid delusion; you are unable to provide **one** example from anywhere in the USA of a preoperative trans woman doing any such thing in any women's lockerroom or bathroom. The fact that you make this false claim repeatedly demonstrates that you have no sound argument. It's more of the CRC's fifth tactic to "INFLAME" found here:
"This board is NOT going to recant anything because of "supplicant" appeals to listen to our position. The only thing that is going to get their complete attention is:
1. Continuing outrage streaming in to their castle headquarters
2. John Garza proceeding immediatley with his lawsuit. (Lawsuits tend to get peoples attention - merit or no merit because it forces them to deal with their legal team on a continuing basis)
3. 50,000 plus signatures between the paper petition and the on-line petition.
4. Tabulation of all the outrageous things said about us and this issue, and posted on both web sites.
5. Massive email campaign to inform and INFLAME.
In other words, aggressive tactics.
[Date=01-13-2005] Name:ADMINISTRATOR support@recallmontgomeryschoolboard.com, [Msgid=763681]"
Take your aggressive tactics designed to INFLAME and go away. Holy bullies and headless monsters are not welcome here.
What happens if any woman decides to perch on a bench in the ladies' locker room and display her genitals to the other ladies and little girls? Just because it's never happened doesn't mean it couldn't happen, does it? Does it? It COULD happen, couldn't it? Huh? Huh? I don't see anything in the Maryland code that would make it a crime, do you?
Asked and answered, Ginger.
Alvin writes,
Orin,
you are being seriously dishonest. your original post was a snide attack on my book not because of its arguments but because of where it came from.
Why is it that reading the above reminds me of one of my most favorite movie lines of all time,
Surely you can't be serious...yes, I am and stop calling me Shirly.??? I don't know...really strikes me as the sort of whimpering and whinning that those "dark, wicked" folks from the CRC would engage in.
When a legitimate author is published they generally have to go through a process that involves any number of checks so that the finished and published product is ready for the reading public. Now, I will readily admit that this process has been seriously compromised of late for any number of reasons, though most of them can be trailed back to money (you know, as in the root of all evil).
I did read the excerpt at your website, and I will admit that I was not impressed by your hyperbolic prose ("He looked as if he was about to face a firing squad." "with thick clouds of foul-smelling sulfurous smoke trailing him into the ballroom." "They are neither religious nor right, nor are they "pro-family." - need I provide more examples?...really now). This is something any good editor would have deleted from a submitted manuscript if they wanted to make the author look good...at least an author that wants to be taken seriously (and to be perfectly fair, I also include Ann Coulter in the same company with you...).
I did checked the all of these for a copy of your book, and none had a copy,
Arapahoe Library District http://www.arapahoelibraries.org/
Auraria Library http://carbon.cudenver.edu/public/library/
Aurora Public Library http://www.auroralibrary.org
Boulder Public Library http://www.boulder.lib.co.us/
Broomfield Public Library http://www.ci.broomfield.co.us/library/
Colorado College http://www.coloradocollege.edu/Library/
Colorado School of Mines http://www.mines.edu/academic/library/
Colorado State Publications Library http://www.cde.state.co.us/stateinfo/
Colorado State University http://lib.colostate.edu/
Denver Public Library http://denverlibrary.org/
Fort Collins Public Library http://dalva.fcgov.com/
Fort Lewis College http://library.fortlewis.edu/
Jefferson County Public Library http://www.jefferson.lib.co.us/
Louisville Public Library http://www.ci.louisville.co.us/library/
Mesa State College http://www.mesastate.edu/msclibrary/index.htm
Regis University http://www.regis.edu/lib
University of Colorado at Boulder http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/
University of Colorado - Colorado Springs http://web.uccs.edu/library/
University of Colorado - Health Sciences Center http://denison.uchsc.edu/index.html
University of Colorado - Law Library http://www.colorado.edu/Law/lawlib/
University of Denver http://www.penlib.du.edu/
University of Denver Law Library http://www.law.du.edu/library/
University of Northern Colorado http://www.unco.edu/library/
University of Wyoming http://www-lib.uwyo.edu/
Now please don't tell me that none of these libraries stocked your book because of some vast right-wing conspiracy because I don't think you want to look that silly. I know two librarians very well...one as a former professor and the other as a friend (one of them makes sure that records of past check-outs are destroyed so that if the FBI comes knocking and asking, this person will be able to say that they do not have any records - I am very proud of this person).
So, here is what I will do: if you will loan me a copy, I will pay media mail rate (both ways) and read it over the Winter Break; school for me does not start again until the 22nd of January. I should be able to read a 168 page book in that time. So, mail me a copy, and when I mail it back by the end of January 2008, I will include a check for the amount that was paid to mail it to me, along with with some really good coffee *or* a pound of homemade granola - very good stuff). Let me know if you are interested...
Good grief...I better get started on the book Dana recommended so that I can finish both books...
but since i don't want to play semantic games with you, i will just say "have it your way, Orin."
Goodness, that does remind me of a discussion I had 10 years ago with someone online about abortion. I was arguing the pro-life position (any surprise?) and this person was arguing the pro-abort side. I had this person backed into a corner, and rather than admit the weakness of the position he had staked out, he indicated he was tired of "playing word games".
Come now...someone like yourself, that would take the time and the trouble to write and make available a book for others to read and evaluate would pass on an opportunity to defend their arguments? That seems quite odd.
Randi whines, pastes and copies,
Orin, the flatulence coming out of your anus has produced words and grammer, but no meaning.
As far as Blankenhorn his nebulous ideas have been dealt with here:
http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/31230.html
Randi, my 5 year old neighbor can use the cut & paste function on a PC...can you do anything else?
"So, here is what I will do: if you will loan me a copy, I will pay media mail rate (both ways) and read it over the Winter Break; school for me does not start again until the 22nd of January. I should be able to read a 168 page book in that time. So, mail me a copy, and when I mail it back by the end of January 2008, I will include a check for the amount that was paid to mail it to me, along with with some really good coffee *or* a pound of homemade granola - very good stuff)."
Just for the record, let me say that I won't do this.
Orin
I am going to pass on your offer. Dont't get me wrong. I am backed into no corner. I just don't feel like you would give my book a fair shake.
As you have responded, you may think that you are being witty and charming, but really you are being rude in the comments you have said to me and randi.
I know the tactic - make snide comments to get a reaction, and when and if you get the desired reaction, feign innocence as to why folks are responding angrily at you. No thanks. I won't play that game.
Now if libraries choose to buy my book, then good. But I won't lose sleep over it. My book is designed as a guide to the lgbt community and our supporters. If those who oppose us choose to buy my book, then more power to them.
Lastly, I will console myself in the face of your "comments" with the fact that my book is selling very well and I also had a successful book signing last night.
I read the portion you alluded to, hyperbolic comments and all. It went over well and I sold many books.
Ginger, I don't know who you are, though you're probably Theresa.
Whatever.
In this country, when you own property, you can generally do what you want with it. I think they teach that in Sunday school, too, as well as second grade. So unless there is a law that precludes you from doing something with it, such as barring African-Americans from dining at your lunch counter, then you can do as you please. The default is the use as the operator sees fit.
Since there is nothing in the new law which interferes with that, voila, nothing has changed. I figured that out, and I'm not even a lawyer.
As for the bathroom, again -- my, are you fixated on bathrooms -- women's bathrooms have what are called stalls. One can expose oneself how she pleases in the stall. Any woman who exposes herself outside the stall could be guilty of indecent exposure. Even you, dear, if I chose to file charges.
Dana.
"distinctly private and personal" refers to privately owned, as you have just acknowledged. Like the boy scouts.
How about the restrooms at the Smithsonians ? What does our new law say about that ? As far as I can tell, the new law adds "gender identity" to public accomodations and their factilities. Which I interpret to mean as anyone who identifies as being a sex different than their biological one is free to use the restroom of the sex they identify with.
I am not a lawyer, but I interpret a "facility at a public accomodation" as a bathroom...
What do the Boy Scouts have to do with this?
As far as I'm aware, the Smithsonian Institutions are in DC, not Montgomery County. I haven't heard of any problems there since DC passed its own trans-inclusive anti-discrimination law.
I still don't know what your problem is. I have used the women's rooms for five years now without being bothered or bothering anyone. Why are you so obsessed?
Sorry, trying to think of a clearly public institution and it was the first one that came to mind.
Do you agree, then, that "distinctly personally and private" refers to privately owned ?
Dana Beyer, M.D. said...
"Ginger, I don't know who you are, though you're probably Theresa.
Why are you so obsessed?"
I’m going to make the leap and say that yes, it’s Theresa. Who else is so obsessed with the bathroom / locker-room “issue,” and uses terms like "male equipment?"
Now, let’s take a look at something.
Since this gender identity measure was proposed, in all the time up until now, what has been Theresa’s #1 concern? The so called “threat” of indecent exposure—but ONLY by persons who are transgendered, and always intentionally.
Some notable quotables from this thread alone:
“The man who felt like a women could expose themselves all they wanted too... with no fear of recrimination.
Okay, so we have a "women" who is still "biologically male" that enter a locker room and exposes his/her still male equipement.[...] Don't tell me that they WOULDN'T do this, because there will be some that do. What does your new law say about a transgender of the opposite biological sex exposing themselves in an area of shared nudity ?
You also did not answer the question. What happens if a pre-op transgender exposes themselves in the bathroom”
So,in three posts we have,
-expose themselves all they WANTED to
-exposes his/her still male equipment
-exposing themselves
-exposes themselves
She has offered NO evidence of this threat, despite repeated requests, yet states emphatically: "Don't tell me that they WOULDN'T do this, because there will be some that do." Yet the ONLY transgender people she knows, or is even familiar with are from this website and you have ALL refuted this claim. In other words, the only information that she has about transgendered people refutes her own claim.
Notice how often she says the word "expose." It’s use here is specifically intended to imply intention. As you mentioned once before Dana, she could just as easily say “became accidentally exposed,” but she never does.
Notice also that she demands you answer the question, she’s done the same with me, but does she ever answer any of our very valid questions? Extremely rarely. And I think I know why now. Because it would waste valuable, valuable time. Time taken away from saying the words “exposing themselves.”
Think about it. First of all, she’s an engineer. She thinks structurally, for a living. And by now she knows she’s not going to convince anyone here of anything. And by virtue of the number of times she continues to make the EXACT same claims, and voice the EXACT same concerns, it’s clear that she has NO intention of being convinced otherwise.
So the question is, why is she still here? She’s been away for awhile, I suspect because she knows we’re sick of her BS. But if she come’s back as “Ginger,” we can’t treat her like the ignorant bigot that Theresa is, and we have to explain the bathroom / locker-room “issue” ALL OVER AGAIN. And in turn, she get’s to say the words: bathroom, locker-room, exposes themselves, shared nudity, male equipment, etc., etc., etc., over and over again. Never answering our questions, but always demanding that we answer hers—in order to keep the focus of the conversation on the CRWhatever public trigger words and terms that convey "menacing threat."
I am convinced that she’s doing this consciously and willfully. It’s not about the indecent exposure “argument” for her, it’s about getting us to legitimize the argument simply by answering it. As long as we’re refuting the claim, we’re playing right into their hands.
BlackTsunami said...
“and i would like point out that what ginger is doing is anti-gay industry tactic number 5 as outlined in my book (Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters) - Dire Consequences
The dire consequences tactic is claiming that laws created to protect lgbts from discrimination will lead to all sorts of nasty consequences without proof that these nasty consequences will become a reality. The nasty consequences are pure speculation designed to appeal to ignorance and fear.”
Without proof, based on pure speculation, dire consequences will occur. This is NOT a legitimate arguing point for or against ANYTHING, and must not be treated as such. A preliminary concern is one thing, to use this as an argument however, is to use murphy’s law as one’s argument—if something can go wrong it will. Therefore, since something unintended might happen, somewhere, at some point, ever, no attempt to organize anything or pass any law of any kind should ever be attempted. This is the BASIS of the CRW’s “argument.”
The “proof” of the possibility of the abuse of a law, already exists for every law on the books, EVERYWHERE. A cogent argument of this vein requires evidence that an INCREASED possibility for abuse will occur. No such evidence has been offered, and we need to start demanding it before arguing further, otherwise we’re just arguing with paranoia.
Remember, even evidence of a transgendered person intentionally exposing themselves is not evidence of an increased threat. It has no bearing on transgendered persons, only on a single person who chose to expose themselves.
Furthermore, this same “argument” could be used against these religious supremacists. The non-discrimination code already covers religious creed. We could argue (though we wouldn’t) that the chosen behavior of religious creeds should not be protected because before you know it, Christians will be proselytizing everywhere they go. They’ll be going into mosques and synagogues trying to convert their members, and the Jewish and Muslim communities won’t be able to do anything about it for fear of being sued. They’ll be able to pass out literature and witness to people in restaurants, grocery stores and hotel lobbies. And if anyone ever complains, they’ll be sued. If you’re an atheist or agnostic parent, they’ll be able to go into you children’s school and try to convert them, against their will and without your knowledge.
See how that works?
As far as I’m concerned, Theresa’s only goal here is to fill a quota of words, terms and phrases in her posts that will most effectively alarm and “INFLAME.” They have admitted as much as one of their tactics.
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
-Joseph Goebbels
At least we know where they get their inspiration from.
Post a Comment
<< Home