“You shouldn’t be surprised to learn that Dylan Mulvaney is an actor.
The trans celebrity studied musical theater and had a part in The Book of Mormon prior to deciding during the pandemic that he was a woman, and becoming an instant 21st-century — or at least 2023 — icon.
Praised by vice presidents, bowed down to by daytime TV hosts, embraced by some of the most recognizable brands in corporate America, Mulvaney belongs in a time capsule capturing the fatuousness of this period of American life.
For his supporters, he is something like a combination of Rosa Parks (groundbreaking, courageous) and Paris Hilton (media savvy, shrewd). Perhaps the better analogue is Greta Thunberg, a flawed messenger whom all the advocates on her side decided to make a “thing,” insisting everyone accept her as such.
Thunberg is supposed to be the desperate, agonized voice of a rising generation confronting climate change; Mulvaney is supposed to be a girl.
Never mind that he apparently knows about as much as you’d expect a 26-year-old man to know about women, a lacuna he fills with insulting stereotypes and tropes.
In the first entry in his TikTok series cataloging his transition day by day, Mulvaney spoke of crying, spending too much on dresses, and telling someone he’s fine even though he isn’t. He didn’t say “math is hard,” but he might as well have.
His characteristic move is to prance around like a teenage girl high on amphetamines.
To watch Dylan on The Price Is Right prior to his transition, capering just the same as he does now, is mildly amusing, although cringe-inducing, too.
It’s also not that interesting. A gay man acting — in both senses of the word — like a parody of a gay man isn’t transgressive, at least not anymore, and no one was going to deem this over-the-top flamboyance cutting-edge or important.
Once he’s a man becoming a woman, well, that’s a different proposition altogether. Now, he’s a pioneer. Now, he’s on a journey. Now, he’s the underdog who needs the support of all compassionate people. Now, he’s a symbol. Now, he’s doubted and disdained by all the right enemies.
Drew Barrymore wasn’t going to get on her knees for Dylan Mulvaney, random gay dude; she would get on her knees for someone who’s teaching us all necessary lessons about living our own truths.
Nor would Nike, Anheuser-Busch, or Kate Spade be interested in pre-transition Dylan Mulvaney. (The New York Post and Daily Mail have run pieces about a Human Rights Campaign index that encourages corporations to support the likes of Mulvaney so they can get better woke scorecards.)
The notion that Dylan Mulvaney has anything useful to tell us about “girlhood” is especially perverse. He’s not a minor; he’s an adult male. If we credit him as a female, he’s not a 16-year-old, but a young woman.
His association with girlhood goes together, though, with his affect, dress, and nonexistent figure. They all suggest a sexualized young teenager fully on board the project of moving beyond the binary — Lolita for the gender ideologues.
There’s a formidable array of institutional support, from his corporate backers to his top Hollywood talent agency, behind Dylan Mulvaney. That doesn’t mean most people, to the extent they become aware of Mulvaney, are going to accept him as a model of social change or womanhood.
For its purposes, the Left should want to normalize trans, and here it has settled on a campy icon who is frankly ridiculous at best, and disturbingly creepy at worst.”
It’s not like a similar dodge hasn’t been tried before, successfully by Colin Kaepernick, not so successfully by Jussie Smollett. If necessity is the mother of invention, then looming unemployment and loss of a high-end lifestyle is the father of necessity.
“In explaining her mandate as Bud Light’s VP of marketing last month, Alissa Heinerscheid made sure to hit all of the requisite buzzwords. “If we do not attract young drinkers to come and drink this brand,” Heinerscheid warned, “there will be no future for Bud Light.” “What I brought to that” endeavor, she continued, “was a belief in, okay, what does ‘evolve and elevate’ mean? It means inclusivity. It means shifting the tone. It means having a campaign that’s truly inclusive and feels lighter and brighter and different and appeals to women and to men.” “Representation,” Heinerscheid concluded, “is sort of the heart of evolution.”
As a non-native speaker of this peculiar form of English, I feel obliged to ask what all of this actually means. Evidently, Alissa Heinerscheid believes that these unusual strings of words provided a comprehensible answer to the question she was being asked. To me, they merely invite more inquiries. Heinerscheid took over in July of 2022. Are we to conclude that, before that point, Bud Light was uninclusive, heavy, and dark? That there were large numbers of Americans who suspected that Bud Light was quietly bigoted? That the country’s bars were chock full of anguished “young drinkers” worrying audibly about the presumptive social trustworthiness of Corona versus Allagash White? And if they were, are we to believe that they’ve been assuaged by the company’s mystifying decision to place the face of a performing minstrel atop its brand?
I am not a habitual drinker of Bud Light, but, from my limited experience with the product, I can tell you that “uninclusive” is among the last terms that I would have used to describe it. Bud Light is the Amazon Basics of bad beer. I have drunk it on hunting trips with friends who have Second Amendment tattoos, and on the beach with friends who are gay. I’ve drunk it with Protestants and Catholics and Jews and Hindus. I’ve drunk it at football games, at baseball games, at NASCAR, and at concerts. I’ve drunk it with black friends, with Hispanic friends, and with white friends of both sexes. When Heinerscheid says that she wants Bud Light to be more “inclusive,” I must ask what that actually means? Putting the pope on Bud Light cans would be “inclusive.” Putting homeschooling parents on the cans would be “inclusive.” Putting feminists who find Dylan Mulvaney’s act infuriating on the cans would be “inclusive.” Hell, putting Old Order Amish people on the cans would be “inclusive.”
One might wonder how it is possible for the “truly inclusive” “tone shift” that will supposedly save Bud Light from the darkness to have lined up so perfectly with the exact collection of obsessions that are held by Heinerscheid and the cadre to which she belongs. Well, I’ll tell you: Because, when Heinerscheid talks about “inclusivity,” she doesn’t actually mean “inclusivity” in the way that an average observer would assume she means it. Once again, we have an example here of America’s rapidly diverging languages. In theory, terms such as “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion” sound presumptively desirable; who, in a country such as the United States, wouldn’t want those things in abundance? In practice, however, they mean something else altogether. In practice, “diversity” means people who look different but all think the same thing; “equity” means equal outcomes achieved by government force; and “inclusion” means prioritizing and protecting groups that progressives like. So it is here. In its modern context, “inclusive” has begun to resemble those “COEXIST” bumper stickers that you see on Subarus: Nominally, the message applies to a whole host of disparate groups; practically speaking, it’s aimed at just one.
As for Heinerscheid’s claim that, absent a takeover by the woke, “there will be no future for Bud Light,” this is true only in sense that, absent acquiescence with the 1980s-era Brooklyn mafia, there was no future for Giuseppe’s Waste Disposal Corporation. Why, some have asked, would any beer brand take such an obvious risk with its reputation as to ally itself with Dylan Mulvaney? The answer, alas, is that it’s not really a risk at all. As the New York Post reported last week, in contemporary corporate America, some people are simply more equal than others. “At stake” for companies such as Anheuser-Busch, the Postnoted, “is their Corporate Equality Index — or CEI — score, which is overseen by the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ+ political lobbying group in the world.” And that score is compiled in an extremely narrow way. On the list of important attributes are “Workforce Protections,” “Inclusive Benefits,” “Supporting an Inclusive Culture,” and “Corporate Social Responsibility and Responsible Citizenship.” Not on the list are “Free Speech,” “Conscience Protections,” “Religious Liberty,” or anything else that one might expect to see in a free country.
“Inclusive”? Hardly.”
Or, as the Duke would have observed…
By the way, don’t just boycott Bud Light, rather boycott every single product Anheuser-Busch offers. That’ll make their $5 billion loss in value to date seem like a blip.
Next, our brother Rob forwarded this interesting tidbit from The Daily Wire:
“In the spring of 2022, the city of Portland, Maine, wrote that its financial budget was in a “dire situation” due to the influx of individuals arriving from the southern border, warning that social services were being strained.
Now, Portland is asking for tax-deductible donations to help provide housing to hundreds, if not thousands, of illegal aliens. Last week, city officials announced that the Portland Expo Center will be turned into overnight housing for these “asylum seekers” who have entered the U.S. beginning on Monday night…”
This brings to mind a classic line from Cool Hand Luke:
Progressive politicians like those Down Easters continue to elect have sowed the wind for decades; Your average Portlander’s just reaping the whirlwind.
Speaking of Progressive poltroonery, in today’s installment of the EnvironMental Moment, Jim Freeman records the latest bit of inanity…or, if you prefer, insanity…from the climate doomsayers, as now…
“This column’s most celebrated alumnus used to make fun of media climate obsessions by routinely blaming global warming for all manner of problems large and small. But perhaps climate coverage has moved beyond parody. Now along comes a widely reported study purporting to establish a link between climate change and increased home runs in Major League Baseball.
A study in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society reports:
Home runs in baseball—fair balls hit out of the field of play—have risen since 1980, driving strategic shifts in gameplay. Myriad factors likely account for these trends, with some speculating that global warming has contributed via a reduction in ballpark air density. Here we use observations from 100,000 Major League Baseball games and 220,000 individual batted balls to show that higher temperatures substantially increase home runs. We isolate human-caused warming with climate models, finding that >500 home runs since 2010 are attributable to historical warming.
The idea that warmer, less dense air enables more hits to clear outfield fences is reasonable enough. But whenever someone talks about home runs rising since 1980 there is the natural question of whether the study authors have adequately accounted for what is commonly known as the game’s steroid era—and when and to what extent that era truly ended. Some players may have found new ways to avoid testing positive for performance-enhancing substances. Others clearly have not.
As for the period from 2010-2019 that is a major focus of the study, University of Colorado environmental studies professor Roger Pielke Jr. tweets in response that minor leaguers didn’t produce the same increase in home runs:
There is an obvious control group, AAA baseball (completely ignored in this new paper)
And home runs are down in AAA…
Maybe climate change only has effects in the major leagues?
Silly science is still fun!
Mr. Pielke argues that data from Japanese baseball and U.S. college play also don’t show the same rise in homers as in the Major Leagues. And yet we all share the same planet…”
We may share the same planet as professional and collegiate baseball players around the globe, but we seriously wonder if the supposed “scientists” who purposefully published such a preposterous piece absent the inclusion of the statistics offered by three such closely associated control groups aren’t living in a different world, if not an alternate universe.
Is it just these scientists aren’t terribly bright, or do they believe the rest of us to be stupid?!?
This next piece, also courtesy of Doctor McKee, certainly doesn’t bring clarity to the question:
.@Riley_Gaines_ to anthropologist: “If you were to dig up… 2 humans… 100 years from now, both man and woman, could you tell the difference, strictly off of bones?”
“No.”
*CHAOS*
“I’m not sure why I’m being laughed at if I’m the expert in the room. … I have a PhD!” pic.twitter.com/YYW76ISevI
“…Leftist activists in the anthropology field have recently exhorted their colleagues to no longer classify human remains as male or female, as well as ignore evidence related to racial ancestry, over concerns that researchers may thereby render “assumptions” about the deceased individuals’ professed gender identities.
Gaines told The Daily Wire about her exchange with Yearwood that she was purposefully “setting him up” because she had learned that skeletal remains are a primary piece of evidence that anthropologists consider when determining an individual’s sex. “Every single rational person knows the answer: men have narrower hips, their skulls are different, they have an extra rib, their femurs are longer, their jaws are different,” Gaines noted. “When he said ‘No,’ it just highlighted that even someone with a PhD was willing to lie to virtue signal or to put off this perception that sex is a social construct, which we know is not the case.”
Gaines earned an undergraduate degree from the University of Kentucky last year in human health sciences and health law. “I took all of the biology courses, I took all of the chemistry courses, all of the organic chemistry courses,” she continued. “But truthfully, all you need is a fifth-grade biology education to understand that men and women are different.”…”
As brother Rob noted, how does this PhD think a forensic pathologist identifies the gender of the skeletal remains of a crime victim? Not a textbook from 2002 means anything in today’s woke culture…
…but could what was once TRULY settled science really have changed this much in 21 years?!?
Here’s the juice in cartoon form courtesy of Michael Ramirez:
Moving on, here’s another octet of items specially selected for inquiring Conservative minds:
(2). In a related item highlighting the death spiral of America’s cities, Whole Foods is closing its downtown San Francisco store after only one year of operation due to increased drug use and crime in and around the location. Of courses, Progressive politicians whose policies are directly responsible for the closing will now blame corporations for not providing residents healthy food alternatives.
Here’s a second shot of the juice: The only way we’d live in any large city is like Charlton Heston in The Omega Man:
(5). The Florida legislature reduced the state’s existing 15-week abortion ban to 6 weeks, wisely providing exceptions in cases involving rape, incest or threat to a mother’s life. Thus Sunshine State mothers intent on slaughtering their unborn child will have to put some time and effort into it.
(8). Since we’re on the subject of the embarrassing, this story about the Dalai Lama left us at a complete loss for words; You know, like the kid…er,…cat got our tongue! We knew the Lama was a big hitter…
…we just didn’t know, like Biden, it involved hitting on kids!
The Dalai Lama has apologized after a video went viral showing him kissing a young boy and asking him to “suck my tongue.”
A statement reads: “His holiness often teases people he meets in an innocent and playful way, even in public and before cameras. He regrets the incident.” pic.twitter.com/tG8MLkKuhd
Which brings us, appropriately enough, to The Lighter Side:
Then there’s these from Andy Meyers…
…and the lovely Shannon…
…along with several more direct from The Patriot Post:
Finally, we’ll call it a wrap with yet another sordid story straight from the pages of The Crime Blotter, courtesy of a Houston man who just couldn’t leave well enough alone:
“…Houston police said Lydell Grant, 46, is accused of fatally shooting a fellow motorist, identified as 33-year-old Edwin Arevalo, following a minor roadway collision on Thursday, April 6. Police reported after the vehicles collided Thursday, Grant got out of his vehicle, shot Arevalo, and then fled the scene. Grant was taken into custody on Friday after a warrant was issued for his arrest, police said. He remained jailed through the weekend and his bond is set at $1 million.
In 2012, Grant was convicted of killing 28-year-old Aaron Scheerhoorn, who was stabbed outside a Houston bar two years earlier – a crime that Grant pleaded guilty to. During the trial, six eyewitnesses to the stabbing also testified against Grant. He served seven years of his life sentence when he was released on bond in 2019 when the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals heard arguments concerning a new analysis of DNA found on the victim’s fingernails. The new evidence pointed to his innocence and he was exonerated in May 2021.
The investigation into Scheerhoorn’s murder continued and, in 2019, police arrested then-41-year-old Jermarico Carter as a murder suspect. Carter was tracked down in Atlanta, where he was in custody for unrelated charges, and he confessed to the killing. He then pleaded guilty to the murder in 2022 and was subsequently imprisoned.”
Here’s hoping the attorneys who worked so hard to free this repeat offender are asking themselves the same question as Fred Gailey in the conclusion to Miracle on 34th Street…
…but for the opposite reason. One things for certain: any sense of success they felt is not shared by the family of Edwin Arevalo.
Magoo
Video of the Day
Elon Musk absolutely destroys an obviously biased BBC reporter.
Tales of The Darkside
John Stossel highlights things you could not say during COVID, all of which turned out to be factually accurate.
On the Lighter Side
That rarest of commodities: An SNL skit less than 10 years old that’s actually funny.
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.