- The Washington Times - Wednesday, October 8, 2003

Under the ‘gaydar’

“Every year, Americans coin countless clever words and phrases. … A few appeal to the press’s obsessions and become almost omnipresent. … This year, it’s ‘metrosexual,’ a term coined back in 1994 to refer to a man who likes the finer things in life, yet who is (surprise!) a heterosexual. …

“In the distant past, a man who dressed stylishly and enjoyed art, theater and sophisticated music would have been praised as a ‘gentleman,’ but today his sexual orientation is automatically called into question. The average person’s ‘gaydar’ has become so sensitive that a long list of traits associated with civilized living are now assumed to be prima facie evidence of homosexuality.

“Journalists love to use the word ‘metrosexual’ in articles about the season’s other sensation, the Bravo channel’s makeover show ‘Queer Eye for the Straight Guy,’ in which five witty gay men refine (no doubt only temporarily) some straight slob’s entire look and lifestyle. …

“Will the word ‘metrosexual’ and shows like ‘Queer Eye’ just speed the process until coarseness becomes the defining characteristic of nearly every heterosexual man?”

Steve Sailer, writing on “Disoriented,” in the Oct. 20 issue of the American Conservative

‘Cultural socialism’

“Both in itself and in the example it sets, judicial activism undermines the foundations of Western democracies. … The political revolution … is the gradual but unceasing replacement of government by elected officials with government by appointed judges. … What is now unthinkable may well become thinkable in the next half century.

“The political revolution brings with it a cultural revolution. In reading the opinions of many judges, it is apparent that they view their mission as preserving civilization from a barbarian majority motivated by bigotry, racism, sexism, xenophobia, irrational sexual morality, and the like. The New Class heartily dislikes bourgeois culture. Hence, courts everywhere displace traditional moralities with cultural socialism.”

Robert H. Bork, from his new book, “Coercing Virtue: The Worldwide Rule of Judges”

‘Rat’ or genius?

“The death of the great film director Elia Kazan a week ago, at the age of 94, briefly reignited the controversy that surrounded his lifetime achievement Oscar in 1999: the questions about Kazan’s role as a former communist who ‘named names’ before the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1952. Four years ago, some people at the award ceremony refused to join the applause for Kazan. Last week, one article briefly surveying his life and work ran under the title ‘Kazan Rated R for Rat, G for Genius.’ …

“Recently published historical documents furnish ample evidence that the Communist Party USA was little more than a Soviet puppet, and that Soviet infiltration of American government institutions was a serious problem. …

“In 1952, when Kazan testified before the committee, American communists and leftists with communist sympathies were supporting Stalin’s bloody reign in the Soviet Union — a regime that had killed, tortured, and enslaved millions of innocent people. In 1999, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., a noted historian and no right-winger, had this to say on the subject: ‘If the Academy’s occasion calls for apologies, let Mr. Kazan’s denouncers apologize for the aid and comfort they gave to Stalinism.’”

Cathy Young, writing on “I’m Glad What I Done To You,” Tuesday in Reason Online at www.reason.com

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide