Rationalization #22 Hall Of Fame: Ana Navarro

Normally a truly stupid statement by a punditry bottom-of-the barrel (that is, “The View”) feeder like Ana Navarro wouldn’t justify a stand-alone post on Ethics Alarms. However, Rationalization #22, The Comparative Virtue Excuse or “There are worse things,” is a blight on human thought, an excuse for the inexcusable, and the rationalization that opens the door to endless society blunders and maladies. This desperately needs to be understood by a controlling majority of American society, and getting utter fools like Navarro laughed and mocked off of television, even arid ranges like “The View”—where the dolts and the idiots play, and all of the words are discouraging—is paramount.

Oh, right, I almost forgot: her Hall of Fame-worthy statement. Here it is:

“I’ve yet to see a kid that dies from being exposed to a drag queen.”

I made that extra-large for you so the paralyzing cretinism it represents will bore into your skull  through your eyes and you will be impelled to change channels any time this mutant crawls onto your TV screen. She has a job only because of pernicious box-checking: she is female, the biological kind; she is Hispanic, and “inclusion” of Hispanic pundits in the mix is more important than making sure they are coherent, informed Hispanic pundits, and she claims to be a Republican and a conservative, so her constant attacks on Republicans and conservatives are viewed as carrying special credibility by hard-left biased networks like CNN, MSNBC, and ABC. Well, good for Ana, I say: it’s better than selling wilted flowers on street corners, which is where her erudition and reasoning skills would normally lead her.

Nonetheless, promoting #22 to the dim-bulbs who watch “The View” is like telling immuno-compromised seniors to lick monkeypox victims on the theory that they taste better than Ensure. Not that the rest of Navarro’s rant was much better. Her thesis was that Republicans are “crazy” for arguing that schools and other child-focused entities should not be actively promoting gender confusion by celebrating cross-dressing, among other practices. Ana blathered.

“I think the party’s gone crazy, frankly, to tell you the truth because, you know, and I think what they’ve decided to do is manufacture — because these are manufactured culture wars. They are not real issues. As Billy Porter said here on Friday, the issue is gone. The change has happened when it comes to LGBTQ rights.”

Now that’s a persuasive appeal to authority: Billy Porter! In case the name didn’t ring a bell, he’s a talented gay black performer whose perspective is narrow, whose influence is limited, and whose public policy and parenting expertise is, to say the most, dubious. Here’s a Billy quote: “The reason why our country is in the mess we’re in is simply because of whiteness. White supremacy. White people choke-holding power and sucking the life out of humanity.” Thanks, Billy. Got it. You’re a racist asshole. Go whisper in Ana Navarro’s ear.

LBGTQ rights are settled ( I hope) but the right to promote and demonstrate divergent sexual practices and gender convolution to vulnerable children, much less the wisdom of doing so, hasn’t “happened,” no matter what Billy says.

More from Ana:

Do I think a 5-year-old should be at a drag show? No, but you know what? If you are for parental choice when it comes to your kid wearing a mask to school, if you are for parental choice when it comes to your kid learning about slavery and learning the true history of this country, then why in the hell can’t you be about parental choice on whether you take your kid to a drag show or not?

More brain-dead analogies. Parents concerned about their children’s emotional and social development being permanently damaged by Wuhan hysteria is so like parents not wanting their children to be wooed by “chicks with dicks.” And who can argue against the CRT cant that the “true history” of America is that it was founded by evil people, based on an evil practice, and is thus evil to this day? Billy Porter has some slapdowns for those liars…

Silly Ana: she doesn’t even realize that her beloved #22 is equally capable of defeating her own persuasive arguments. After all, opposing drag shows for kids, and indoctrinating white children into hating their nation and black children into hating white children never killed anybody.

HA! Touché!

15 thoughts on “Rationalization #22 Hall Of Fame: Ana Navarro

  1. Navarro should go right into the apparently new system of using avowedly transgender ads for kids’ stuff: like Crayola Crayons! True. Let’s just confuse the 3-10 year olds about gender… Never too soon!

  2. I thought the whole mantra in vogue was that it was actually better for a kid to die than to suffer through a lifetime of emotional scarring, depression, etc. (Okay, to be fair, the actual mantra is that it would be better for the kid never to be born than enduring lifelong suffering…)

    Exposing kids to sexual themes beyond their ability to truly process and understand leads to all manner of issues that can have lifelong consequences. And yes, some of those problems can lead some troubled children to suicide. So even a “there are worse things” argument doesn’t apply here.

  3. In trying to figure out what the heck is going on in American culture, I travelled back in time to my Shakespeare classes in college (early ’70s) where our tremendous Shakespeare prof introduced us to the concept of Apollonian and Dionysian, the terms used by Friedrich Nietzsche in “The Birth of Tragedy” (1872, the other ’70s) to denote two opposing tensions in art. I’m beginning to think they’re actually useful to understand the two opposing tensions in present day American culture.

    Conservatives are for order. Liberals are for chaos. Liberals want abortion on demand because they are for chaotic, unencumbered sex. Conservatives are for maintaining the relationship between sex and childbirth and survival of the species (order). Trans rights have been piggybacked onto gay rights because gays and trans people are all supposed to be Dionysian and opposed to any imposition of order by the conservative Apollonians. Liberals oppose law and order because they’re Dionysian and in favor of chaos. Sex, drugs, rock and roll, you know. Dionysians ask, “Birds fly over the rainbow, why, oh why can’t I?” Apollonians answer, “Because you’re not a bird?” Liberals say no to incarceration because they seek chaos. Chaos is a feature, not a bug. It’s what Dionysian is. Conservatives stress law and order. You know, order. Apollonian. Dionysians want revolution, to fundamentally re-order society to their liking, not the liking of the fusty conservatives. Apollonians want order. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

    Having drag queens in kindergartens will bring chaos. It’s what Dionysians are seeking and foisting upon an ordered society, not as an unintended consequence, but as the desired result. Conservatives push back in an attempt to maintain order. If little kids get screwed up, it’s actually a benefit to liberals. More chaos will result down the road as these damaged kids grow up.

    And so forth. Of course, the end result of using the Apollonian and Dionysian as an anolgy to describe what’s happening in society is that it means where we’re headed is … tragedy.

    Thus spake O.B.

    • Nicely done.

      Your post does bring to my Rush-beholdened mind, “Hemispheres”, an epistle from the Canadian Triumvirate issued in 1978. It is a prog rock masterpiece that discusses the differences between love (Dionysian chaos) and reason (Apollonian adherence to order). It also features Rush at the height of progressive musical flight – simply sublime, but I digress – actually, I don’t because it’s Rush and there can be no digression.

      Apollo teaches ordered liberty and civilized society. Initially, people ran to build cities, read the classics, discuss lofty tomes. Yet, they grew disenchanted because something was missing. Enter Dionysus, who teaches love and passion, advising to throw off the chains of reason.

      The people abandoned the cities, rules of orderly society in favor of freedom among to trees and stars, only to be set upon by wolves and starvation when they were unprepared for the brutal winter snows.

      This resulted in endless wars between the gods which left the people adrift in confusion and conflict, until the wiser minds set a fellow off on Rocinante (yeah, I know, tilting at windmills, but hey, it was 1978 and . . . .) to confront the warring gods. The end result was Cygnus, the Bringer of Balance, with one of Lifeson’s truly mind-altering guitar solos. Oh, such a work of art.

      jvb

        • I guess it’s in the histories as well: Falstaff and Prince Hal. 1 Corinthians 13:11 King James Version “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.” And the New Testament!

    • I think the Dionysian/Apollonian dichotomy does not quite fit, though I agree we’re headed for tragedy. The dichotomy that I see stems from the conflict of IS vs OUGHT, manifesting in the notion of self-invention. I think IS vs OUGHT is a decent generalization between conservative and liberal mentalities, especially in the realms of social justice. Conservatives, from my experience, tend toward the status quo because of arguments about how the world is, whereas liberals tend toward change because they have a vision of how the world ought to be. (And yes, upheaving the current order to build what ought to be will induce chaos.)

      When we look at the idea of what we are as human beings and consider what we ought to be, there tends to be a sharp division between those who believe that human nature is fairly immutable, and those who believe that human nature is infinitely malleable. If human nature is immutable, then not only is it common to all humans, but we can reason to what is good for all humans based upon that shared nature. But if humans are malleable, then what one wants to be as a human is then up to the individual to decide. I think reality shows that human nature is fairly immutable, but that within that nature is a broad realm of possibilities that allows for a certain amount of self-discovery and even self-invention.

      Things get problematic, though, when the bedrock of human nature is eroded away, which is, I believe, exactly what has been happening in our society for several generations now, and is currently manifesting in the transsexual movement. On that front, there is a denial of human nature as fundamentally created as male and female. (Created in the divine image has been jettisoned for quite some time.) If I’m unhappy as a man, but think I would be happy as a woman, maybe I really am a woman, and furthermore, I ought to be a woman. Or something that is neither man or woman, but something of my own invention.

      I think that worldview is unsustainable, but explains the problems we’re having. Torn away from any firmness of human nature, with only one’s personal intuition to guide him, man becomes closed in. As he invents himself, he finds himself still unhappy, and is faced with one of two choices. Either he has to reject the bulk of his self-invention and discover that he is made a particular way should strive to be what he was made as, or he has to double-down. So he exists in his own world, and if anyone is to enter that world, that one has to affirm what he has built in that world. The outside world that does not affirm his self-invention is an existential threat. Thus the outside world has to be dragged down and subdued and forced to affirm his reality. Of course, that reality brushes up against other self-made realities, and for a time they can work together, but at some point the differences emerge (just as we are seeing the battles between the L and the T in the LGBTQ+) and they become irreconcilably hostile toward each other because each requires the other to submit affirmation that is inimical to their realities.

      In the case of these drag-queen story hours, these drag queens and their allies are seeking force affirmation from the people around them. Children are easy prey, because they are naive, innocent, and trusting. And because human nature is malleable, the only reason why children would be hurt by exposure to these sexual ideas well before they are ready is because of those awful entities (parents) that would impose strict ideas of sexual morality. If only children could be molded into sexual freedom early on so that the harm of sexual morality could not sink in! Think of how liberated those children would actually be!

      But in the real world, children are not ready for that level of sexual exposure. It does objective harm to them, and predicates abnormal behavior later in life. In the real world, there is no sexual freedom, not as the current liberal mind perceives it, because sex still makes babies, sex still bonds people together, and people are still hurt when their sexual partners sleep around with other people. Rampant promiscuity still spreads diseases that would largely disappear if people evinced even a hint of self-restraint.

      • Ryan, as usual, your thinking is deeper and broader than mine. But I think I’ve given up on the “is” vs. “ought” dichotomy. I think it’s the result of seeing the intense, to the point of being absolutely vicious, objection to Roe v. Wade being overruled. It’s so irrational. Apollonian vs. Dionysian seems an explanation that takes this sort of deep-seated venom into account. By their very nature, Dionysians can’t control themselves. They are compelled to create and wallow in chaos. They ARE chaos. And unfortunately, they are part of the order of things. Anyway, just one of those things that popped into my head at four this morning. Cheers.

  4. “LBGTQ rights are settled.”

    Are they? Truly settled? I find that hard to believe. Navarro’s idiotic comments are proof that there is very little settled in that area, and I am nor referring to legality. I am referring to culture and society. In my mind, the issues have been forced on society without the cultural shift of tolerance and comity. The last 30 years or so have demonstrated that the Left has shoved these rights down society’s throat and has demanded not just acceptance but adoption of the lifestyle as the preferred lifestyle, to the exclusion of all others.

    jvb

    • Agreed. There’s definitely a feeling of an imperative that homosexuality not only has to be approved of and accepted, it has to be deemed superior. Which is, of course, absurd. Why should one sort of sexual attraction be superior to the other? If anything, heterosexuality has the benefit of propagating the species. If not for heterosexuality, where would gays and lesbians come from? A laboratory in Park Slope? (I think that’s the wish, come to think of it. But then gays and lesbians wouldn’t have fathers to blame for everything.)

      • I actually read an argument that homosexuality was a truer, purer form of a relationship because it is not based on the underlying ideation of procreation. Yes, that’s right. Gay love is the purest love because there is no need to worry about offspring and that same-sex couples are engaged in a fundamental exchange of their immutable beings to each other.

        • That’s like saying the best and purest kind of love is men marrying women 20 years younger than themselves. I mean after all, once the old codger dies, the wife will still have her beauty and his money. That creates generational wealth and she will still have the energy to entertain the younger generations.

          Actually, now that I think about it, that doesn’t sound half bad.

          • No it really doesn’t Mrs. Q, especially considering that half of marriages fail even when the couples go in with wholesome intentions.

  5. I know that Jack is not a fan of this song. But here is the first stanza

    In the year 2525, if man is still alive
    If women can survive, they may find
    In the year 3535
    Ain’t gonna need to tell the truth, tell no lie
    Everything you think, do and say
    Is in the pill you took today
    In the year 4545
    You ain’t gonna need your teeth, won’t need your eyes
    You won’t find a thing to chew
    Nobody’s gonna look at you
    In the year 5555
    Your arms hangin’ limp at your sides
    Your legs got nothin’ to do
    Some machine is doin’ that for you
    In the year 6565
    You won’t need any husband, won’t need any wife
    You’ll pick your son, pick your daughter too
    From the bottom of a long glass tube

    In some respects, he was just off by 500 years. Today the existence of women is threatened by the insane gender nonsense, The pill that provides the truth is the media, our food sources are now being synthesized, robotics are on the rise, and we certainly are increasingly dependent on artificial means of conception.
    Jack may need to reassess his view of the song, or at least accept its prophetic nature

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.