Terrance Heath

"We Keep Marrying Other Species"

Filed By Terrance Heath | July 11, 2009 4:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Entertainment, Marriage Equality, The Movement
Tags: Alzheimer's, brian kilmeade, dave briggs, Fox News, marriage, sweden

Some things have to be seen and head to be believed. [Via Huffington Post.]

I'm writing something longer that will incorporate this, but I was so blown away that I wanted to go ahead and post it now. I'll connect it up to some other things in a bit.

Marrying other species? Wait a minute. Other species?

How did we get here? This moment of Fox News Madness was brought
to us c/o a Swedish (thus the reference to the Swede's "pure society")
on how marriage can cut the risk of Alzheimer's.

The study by Swedish researchers is one of the first to focus on marital status and the risk of dementia.

Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia, which cause shrinkage of the brain, affect more than 700,000 people in the UK.

Previous research has suggested social isolation or lack of personal
contact carries an increased risk of dementia and mental decline.

An American study last year found significant links between feelings of loneliness and the chances of suffering Alzheimer's.

Somehow, we got from there to here:

BROWN HAIRED GUY: We keep marrying other species and other ethnics-

GRETCHEN CARLSON: Are you sure you are not suffering from some of the causes of dementia right now?

BROWN HAIRED GUY: The problem is the Swedes have pure genes. They marry other Swedes, that's the rule. Finns marry other Finns; they have a pure society. In America we marry everybody. We will marry Italians and Irish.

DAVE BRIGGS: This study does not apply?

BROWN HAIRED GUY: Does not apply to us.



Have conservatives been driven around the bend before president Obama (or, to Brian Kilmeade, "the Mulatto president") finishes even his first term?

What the hell is this guy talking about?

Is he channeling Richard Nixon?

Image Hosted by ImageShack.usOn Jan. 22, 1973, when the Supreme Court struck down laws criminalizing abortion in Roe v. Wade, President Richard M. Nixon made no public statement. But the next day, newly released tapes reveal, he privately expressed ambivalence.

Nixon worried that greater access to abortions would foster "permissiveness," and said that "it breaks the family." But he also saw a need for abortion in some cases -- like interracial pregnancies, he said.

"There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white," he told an aide, before adding, "Or a rape."

If this guy still has a job at Fox by tomorrow, someone needs to get Rupert Murdoch on the phone.

\And don't tell me he was taken out of context or misunderstood. There's no context I can think of in which he could be understood as trying to say anything other than what he said.

I'll have more to say about this kind of craziness later, with any luck...

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

Italians and Irish are "other species" and marrying them degrades our genetic purity? Damn, that's some old school racism and eugenics there.

A. J. Lopp | July 11, 2009 6:24 PM

Luckily, by January 1973 Barack Obama was eleven years old --- far too old for Richard Nixon to abort the consequence of such an embarrassing interracial coupling.

Robert Ganshorn Robert Ganshorn | July 12, 2009 1:44 AM

"I am smarter than you, I'm on television and my boss is a bigot newspaper owner from Australia telling Americans what to think."

Didn't I see him on MTV? The resemblance is uncanny. Facially, as well.

The scientific study was based on Nordic nations - which are generally less ethnically diverse in their marriages (and consequently their children). The results showing reduced dementia in married couples could actually indicate that a reduced gene pool (i.e. generations created from pairings of those of similar cultural make-up, regardless of actually genetics - remember there are greater DNA differences between two gorillas next to one another in a forest than between any two humans on the planet) might be the cause of reduced dementia incidence. The Brown Haired Guy seemed to suggest that marrying someone ethinically similar might be the root cause of reduced dementia in these studies, whereas the diverse inter-racial couplings in North America for instance may not see these results. What he should have said was that in close(d) communities, coupling with someone of very similar background (culture, ethinicity, religion, etc.) makes the next generation a product of that coupling and they (the next generation) might be less susceptible to dementia. When the 'tradition' of marrying within the community continues for the next generation, the reduced dementia incidence is attributed to marriage, whereas it has more to do with the marriage decision of a person's parents. It is heritage and culture, not genetics. The Brown Haired Guy either misspoke (and thus is not suited to live broadcast since he cannot manage accuracy in his comments), is being deliberately provocative, or is an idiot and misunderstands the potential implications of the research.

Are you saying there wasn't a control group? Because I admit I haven't read the study, only the opining of the article about it, and it said, "People who have a partner in middle age are at half the risk of developing dementia as those who live alone, says a study."

That indicates to me that the study didn't just show that married people in the studies region are at lower risk, but that folks int he region who were living alone were at more risk. If the theory of closed groups (voiced by brown haired guy as "Genetic purity"), were true, then as you say, "it has more to do with the marriage decision of a person's parents" and the study wouldn't have shown a statistically significant difference between the control group and the test group.

But of course, as you conclude, the higher reasoning that he may or may not have been inspired by was easily left behind in his own statement. Refering to people of a different race them himself as "ethnics" and "other species" betrays deep prejudices and bigotries that he holds -- not to mention, the appeal of a flawed argument that attributes health benefits to having genetic purity.

Robert Ganshorn Robert Ganshorn | July 12, 2009 7:37 AM

Dogs and Cats having sex again! It's "Ghostbusters!"

I vote for the commenter being an under qualified clown who got his "break" and then blew it.

A. J. Lopp | July 12, 2009 4:07 PM

For the sake of the record, this is utter bullshit.

Here in Kentucky and southern Indiana, the rural guys have been fucking chickens and sheep for generations.

But we never marry them.

Oh wow, reading does wonders. Halfway through that short article it reveals that the study is not about marriage. It compares and contrasts those who are "married or have a partner" with those who "live alone." It follows in the footsteps of several other studies looking for a link between Alzheimer's and isolation, lack of personal contact, and loneliness -- including a study done in america released last year.

To claim that this effect is actually due to people marrying in "closed groups" (or genetic purity) based solely on the region the study was conducted is ludicrous. Unless you're actually looking at a study where people were compared based on their parent's racial/ethnic background, you don't have any ground for that argument. As it is, the fact that there was a different result in the control group and that similar results were found in studies in regions with ethnic/racial diversity point to the opposite conclusion.

Kathy Padilla | July 12, 2009 9:01 PM

Hybrid Vigor:

Heterosis is a term used in genetics and selective breeding. The term heterosis, also known as hybrid vigor or outbreeding enhancement, describes the increased strength of different characteristics in hybrids; the possibility to obtain a genetically superior individual by combining the virtues of its parents.


Your definition here, without context, perplexes and worries me. I'm not sure your intended meaning, but I don't know how well this can be applied to humans. The only attempts I've ever seen in history to make a "genetically superior" human have led to genocide, forced sterilization, and further entrechment of bigotry. Simply seeing the references to "selective[ly] breeding" a "genetically superior" person in a discussion about racism and prejudices against interacial relationships makes my skin crawl.

I think that comment is trying to point out that hybridization (or intermarriage between organisms of different types or with different genetic make-ups) is actually a GOOD thing and makes the hybrid child stronger than one with a restricted gene pool... we can't let big scary words scare us... it's some of the contexts that they're used in (like the "genetic purity" eugenics b.s. that the "Brown Haired Guy" was going into) that should be frightening...

Kathy Padilla | July 13, 2009 3:32 PM

Toby - as KD108 points out - the intent was to highlight the good in genetic diversity. Sorry - I thought the allusion was fairly concrete.

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't think you'd be making that point, but I couldn't tell.

This is pretty strange. I posted a month or two ago about a Weekly Standard column that made the same point, and actually mentioned Irish and Italian people. What's up with that? Did this guy read that column?