In California's GOP primary for the U.S. Senate, former congressman Tom Campbell, a supporter of gay marriage, is under attack, and his previous front-runner staus reduced to a statistical tie with gay-marriage opponent and failed CEO Carly Fiorina, reports the DC Examiner.
The demented National Organization for Marriage is spending $300,000 on television ads that falsely liken Campbell to ultra liberal tax-and-spender Barbara Boxer, best known for castigating a military officer who dared show her the respect of calling her "ma'am."
According to the Examiner, Campbell's "opposition to Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot initiative that enshrined a ban on gay marriage in the California Constitution, has made him a target of the social conservatives who dominate the ranks reform the GOP."
If the LGBT political movement was at all savvy, its leaders would recognize that supporting a major, viable candidate like Tom Campbell is the only way to reform the GOP, and that eventually having two parties in support of gay legal equality is better than having one (which, by dint of being the only player with gay support, can easily take the money and run - and do little to nothing else).
But the LGBT movement is run by Democratic operatives who, IMHO, prefer having an anti-gay GOP - it gives them a big, easy, fundraiser target. And so we cling to the one party strategy.
More. No surprise; the Human Rights Campaign is going to go all out to support Boxer over a Republican who favors marriage equality and could begin to shift the national direction of the GOP.
128 Comments for “An Opportunity Ignored”
posted by Bobby on
No, if the LGBT political movement embraced some conservative causes like the second amendment, being against partial-birth abortion and taking a stand against socialism and high taxes, then perhaps the RNC would take them more seriously. But that’s never going to happen because gays have been married to the left since they convinced the DNC to take them in.
posted by John D on
I side with Senator Boxer on this one. Senators are properly addressed as “Senator.” If members of the military aren’t following protocol, who would?
The comments on that YouTube link are utterly vile.
posted by avee on
It’s berating a military offier for referring to a questioner as "sir" or "ma’am" that’s vile. Let’s put Boxer in a foxhole (oh,you’d have to have her entire entourage of flunkies, too!).
posted by Jorge on
Barbara Boxer is known a lot more for how shrilly she opposed the Iraq War. Or was it something else about the Bush administration?
I happen to be sympathetic to Boxer on this one, too. I personally do not think “Ma’am” suggests the same level of respect that “Sir” does. It’s probable that Sen. Boxer has a strong feminist streak and thinks that, too. “Senator” is gender-neutral–that is, masculine and power-affirming. Since she’s a civilian feminist, I would not expect her to know (or believe) that the military is strictly gender-neutral. Since she’s a Senator, I am not at all surprised to see her do the power dance. McCain bristled to none less than our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff.
Oh, and yes, the GLBT community activists are all Al Sharptons with bad hair. Hmm, maybe.
posted by Bobby on
“I happen to be sympathetic to Boxer on this one, too. I personally do not think “Ma’am” suggests the same level of respect that “Sir” does.”
—How come? Ma’am is used all over America, you go to a diner, a store, a bar, and you’re likely to use that term. What Boxer did was evil, the military guy wasn’t disrespected her and she tried to put him in his place. Tell me, if her husband ever becomes President, is she supposed to be the First Person?
Should Nancy Pelosi complain that Madame Speaker sounds bad because a “madame” is also the woman who runs a whorehouse? And can anyone explain to be why do actresses call themselves actors? Or why is it that women can be “pretty” but men have to be “handsome?” Why is it bad to say “he’s a pretty boy?”
Either way, progressives love word games, notice how the second stimulus bill became “the jobs bill.” See? That sounds nicer even though the end result is wasting a lot of taxpayer dollars in enterprises that don’t create jobs.
Reminds me of 1984 where The Ministry of Love concerns itself with torture, The Ministry of Plenty with scarcity and the Ministry of Peace with war. America used to be much more politically incorrect, we used to have a Ministry of War and our TV news used to show real gory crime scenes, but now it’s all sanitized to protect regular people from facing reality.
posted by BobN on
A quick check of the Log Cabin site shows not a single mention of Tom Campbell since a dinner he went to last year.
No endorsement of him, though there are endorsements for Scozzafava (who dropped out of her race) and Bloomberg.
I suspect LCR are withholding their endorsement because it would hurt his chances. Endorsement by a national gay-rights group would doom his primary campaign.
posted by Jimmy on
Anyone looking at the GOP knows what direction it is heading in, and as hay wagons go, that one is ablaze and heading headlong into a holler, and will likely burn the whole woods down. It would be wrong of me not to suggest to people, warn them even, that they might not want to jump on board.
posted by avee on
A quick check of the Log Cabin site shows not a single mention of Tom Campbell since a dinner he went to last year.
Log Cabin is all but disolved. The national organization has no staff. None.
Silly comments like Jimmy’s will doom the fight for gay equality. Give up entirely on the GOP? They represent half of the country! Yes, let’s just talk to each other, that’s worked so well.
The GOP has two wings – social conservatives and small gov libertarians. The LGBT movement should have been working actively on behalf of the libertarian wing. But as Stephen says, they’d rather have an anti-gay GOP to fundraise against.
posted by Debrah on
Bobby–
For your perusal, I am leaving this most interesting link.
You were discussing all the hype that many feverish Leftist pols were trying to attach to some of those protesters—without any proof.
Someone who obviously thinks that I’m a Liberal and need to be convinced sent this one to me.
A guy is offering a grand cash reward if anyone can prove that the “N” word and all the other things were actually used.
Hmmm…..
posted by Bobby on
Great link, Debrah. It’s amazing how the left has to lie and make stuff up.
If the far left thinks the Tea Parties are nasty, they should look at their own protesters
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4130548/media-mum-on-far-left-protesters
posted by Throbert McGee on
Translated from gayspeak, this means that Fiorina supports legally recognizing same-sex couples with civil unions, although she believes that the government should not use the term “marriage” to describe same-sex unions.
So it seems to me that although Miller urges gay people not to “wed” ourselves (NPI) to a single political party, he prefers that we — as well as any candidates we vote for from either main party — ought to be wed to a single and uniform “Equality! Equality! Equality!” agenda. (Rather than seeing SSM and civil-unions as two viable routes towards obtaining practical legal protections for gay couples — and this is about those protections, right, and not about government-created “dignity”?)
posted by avee on
Fiorina supported Prop 8, to write into the Calif. constitution a permanent ban on same-sex marriage. It’s one thing to support civil unions as an initial and often more politically viable first step; it’s another to support a candidate who supported amending the state constitution to forever bar legal equality.
posted by Throbert McGee on
It’s neither “permanent” nor “forever”; the amendment can be undone by the simple expedient of persuading enough California voters to void it with a future referendum.
Moreover, Prop 8 merely bans “legal equality” in the sense of “identical-ness” — it does not ban nor even discourage “legal equality” in the sense of parity and fair accommodation.
Gays who identify as Republican, conservative, and/or libertarian ought to think twice, thrice, and ten times before endorsing an otherwise qualified GOP candidate who has supported an amendment banning domestic-partnership/civil-union legislation (which is the form that “marriage protection” amendments took in a number of states).
posted by Throbert McGee on
Oops, the final paragraph in my preceding post should’ve begun with a “however.”
posted by MattSmith on
So lets support Tom in the upcoming primary. I plan to switch my registration so I can support Tom. BTW LCR did endorse Tom and Mary Bono Mack last week (as reported by The Advocate). I would question why LCR would endorse a congressperson who is not an advocate of DADT repeal.
posted by Jorge on
How come? Ma’am is used all over America, you go to a diner, a store, a bar, and you’re likely to use that term.
I’ve already explained my reasoning. You haven’t rebutted it.
What Boxer did was evil, the military guy wasn’t disrespected her and she tried to put him in his place.
Welcome to Congress.
Tell me, if her husband ever becomes President, is she supposed to be the First Person?
A more relevant question is what are you supposed to call the spouse of a male president. Although you could just as easily argue that most of those choices are demeaning, since it’s so far unheard of for a US president to be a woman.
posted by TS on
You still tactically pretend not to understand gay voters’ hesitance to support anyone whose election would strengthen the party that opposes them?
posted by Bobby on
“Welcome to Congress.”
—It is one thing for congresspeople to disrespect each other, it’s something else for to insult a man of his caliber who earned his position not by giving speeches and manipulating people but by being very good at what he does. Frankly, he was too nice with her.
“A more relevant question is what are you supposed to call the spouse of a male president. Although you could just as easily argue that most of those choices are demeaning, since it’s so far unheard of for a US president to be a woman.”
—First Husband? Honestly, why do we call them anything? They didn’t ran for office, we didn’t vote for them. I don’t remember ever referring to Chelsea Clinton as “The First Daughter.” Nor was Clinton’s alcoholic brother called “The First Uncle”
posted by Lori Heine on
“You still tactically pretend not to understand gay voters’ hesitance to support anyone whose election would strengthen the party that opposes them?”
TS, this is sheer, mindless trolling. This site is chock-full of information on why LGBT libertarians and conservatives believe as we do.
You have bothered — all too obviously — to read absolutely NOTHING posted on this site. Therefore, you are revealing yourself, in your ignorant remark, as a bigoted, narrow-minded, ignoramus.
In other words, a typical “progressive” liberal.
You people disgust me. Your bigotry is worse than anything I have encountered, in day-to-day, one-to-one real life, from those on the Right.
If you aren’t going to bother reading this website, then go back to the “Lord of the Flies” world from whence you came.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You still tactically pretend not to understand gay voters’ hesitance to support anyone whose election would strengthen the party that opposes them?
Correction. As we see from the willingness of gay voters to support and endorse FMA supporters, those who say that marriage is between a man and a woman because it’s a “sacred bond”, and those who discriminate against them in employment, this has nothing to do with “opposing” gays and lesbians.
Unless, of course, you are stating that all gays and lesbians must automatically, due to their sexual orientation, support, endorse, and pledge absolute obedience to the Obama Party.
Now, tell us why Republicans would then bother with a group that will attack Republicans regardless of what Republicans do and support the Obama Party regardless of what the Obama Party does.
posted by TS on
@Lori Heine
Wowwwwww…. outburst of vitriol, anyone? I am a seasoned poster on this site, in partcular Jon Rauch, John Corvino, and David Link. I am here precisely because I’m not a mindless gay liberal. But in my opinion, Mr. Miller’s same-post-every week is tiresome. I’m not a Republican or Democrat. Not a Republican because â20% of them want me to crawl in a hole and die, â30% want to force me back into the closet and live in shame and anonymity, â30% are adamant I never get to marry a person I love, and â10%, despite not opposing my well-being politically, would want nothing to do with me… leaving â10% that are actually cool. And I’m not a Democrat because while they’re at least â50/50 on governmental LGBT equality, I dissent from most of the rest of what they want.
Miller, with his elaborate vision of the velvet mafia cozied up to the Democrats, is ignoring the fact that â90% of LGBTs vote Democrat for a darn good reason. He pretends to be puzzled by this, but the reason should be obvious.
I wish, in the future, you would not say horrible things like “You people disgust me.” Such thoughts are best kept to oneself. I’ll admit I have a pretty low opinion of you right now, not because of your political attitudes, but because you were so breathtakingly rude to me, for no good reason at all.
@ND30
“Unless, of course, you are stating that all gays and lesbians must automatically, due to their sexual orientation, support, endorse, and pledge absolute obedience to the Obama Party.”
I never said that or anything like it.
“Now, tell us why Republicans would then bother with a group that will attack Republicans regardless of what Republicans do and support the Obama Party regardless of what the Obama Party does.”
They won’t. And our crap 2-party system insures they won’t for a long, long time.
posted by Lori Heine on
TS: You’re not a typical liberal troll? Wonderful. Thank you for notifying us of that.
You do, however, indulge in the same sort of thing for which you criticize others.
How do you know we are all Republicans? (In my instance, for example, I am not).
Where do you get the percentages you use for pigeonholing those who ARE Republicans? Cite the study, please, and provide a link.
I should not have been rude to you. But when you come in and post comments indistinguishable from those of an Obama-bot concern troll, you certainly give the impression that you are one.
Some of the people who comment here think the Republican Party is wonderful. Others — including myself — are very skeptical of it. But nothing will change in our political system as long as many of us keep mindlessly voting Democrat no matter what.
As to whether a particular GOP candidate’s election would “strengthen the party that opposes gays,” that statement makes no sense. Strengthens it to do what?
Voters can strengthen different aspects of a party, depending on how they vote, for whom they work and to whom they contribute. They can either strengthen the anti-gay element of the party or the pro-gay element.
It is by refusing to ever vote Republican that they strengthen anti-gay members of that party the most.
posted by Jorge on
—It is one thing for congresspeople to disrespect each other, it’s something else for to insult a man of his caliber who earned his position not by giving speeches and manipulating people but by being very good at what he does. Frankly, he was too nice with her.
Oh, boo-hoo. I don’t remember you complaining about John McCain’s treatment of Mike Mullen and Robert Gates when he questioned them on Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell. I may admit McCain was polite if you admit Boxer was, too.
I’m a little disturbed that you think it is acceptable for any member of the military to put on airs when addressing a member of Congress. This is a democracy, in which there is civilian control over the military, and the future of our constitution depends on it. If a member of our armed forces so much as smirks the wrong way at a member of our government, he or she should be disciplined. So yes, if the guy is criticized unfairly, he has to grin and bear it. I do not think Barbara Boxer did him any injustice. If anything he was probably thankful for achieving a high enough rank to be addressing such a temperate civilian authority instead of some stiff-necked GI Joe/anne who gets their kicks belittling his manhood every five minutes.
posted by Throbert McGee on
You’re perfectly entitled to think that if you want, but “Ma’am” is the term that all military personnel are required to use when addressing a woman who is senior in rank.
posted by John D on
Throbert in part hits the nail on the head:
“senior in rank”
Okay, senators outrank generals. I think we can all agree on that. And what do you do when you inadvertently irritate a superior?
“Begging your pardon, Senator Boxer.”
posted by Tom on
Stephen Miller: “But the LGBT movement is run by Democratic operatives …”
TS: “Mr. Miller’s same-post-every week is tiresome.”
Well, Steve’s posts are certainly formulaic, like a tired mystery hack’s novellas.
He does, however, have a point: The HRC, which is his usual target, focusing as it does on the Washington bubble and the Washington power game, seldom, if ever, offers support to the smattering of Republican politicians who are halfway rational about gay and lesbian issues. Instead, it focuses on Democratic politics. I can understand why, given the inevitability of the GOP eating gay-friendly Republicans alive in the primaries, but Stephen is right when he points out that the HRC acts as just another “special interest” group within Democratic politics. Stephen doesn’t welcome that prospect, and neither do I.
But I think we not to worry too much about that.
I think Stephen is dead wrong in suggesting that “the LGBT movement is run by Democratic operatives …” The HRC may be, but the LGBT “movement”, to the extent that it can be described as a movement at all, has always been ground up and essentially ungovernable. It has never been “run” by anyone. It has an unruly, fractious and noisy history, and that hasn’t changed, and shouldn’t change.
I won’t, in deference to Debrah’s propensity toward ennui and to spare us all yet another of her formulaic if free-association posts about anal sex, recite the history. But I will give an example: same-sex marriage. The drive for same-sex marriage has been driven by individuals from the beginning, almost always by individuals who ignored the so-called “leadership”, and usually in opposition to the “leadership’s” concern for cautious political strategy and tactics. The Bois/Olson lawsuit is but the latest example — the “leadership” decried the disruption of the “state by state” strategy; the lawsuit went forward regardless, for good or ill; the “leadership” reluctantly hopped on board after the fact.
I think it will always be that way. No matter how staid and mainstream the leadership and the power-players may become, we will always have the likes of Frank Karmeny, Harvey Milk, Larry Kramer — iconoclasts who refuse to get along to go along — and groups like ACT UP who kick the boards out of the barn. That’s a good thing.
posted by Debrah on
This offering by Thomas Sowell should be read carefully and pondered.
Race and Politics
And Obama campaigned as a post-racial candidate?
Who would govern from the center?
Did anyone in this country sign up for this?
posted by Debrah on
One must be careful when criticizing contributors here who have the often-harrowing responsibility of churning out commentary every few days—or even once a week.
It’s a thankless job for the most part and the research that goes into chronicling the political world as well as the world of culture wars is only the first step to a provocative column.
One must bring all the facts together and then present them compellingly as a painter on his canvass.
It helps to take a few tips from the Diva through this venture.
Be a cunning linguist.
A master debater.
And always employ trompe l’oeil diplomacy with readers when necessary.
posted by Jimmy on
Sowell’s piece adds to the echo chamber that is The National Review. I actually yearned for William F. Buckley Jr. as I read it. It takes a great deal of energy to be that willfully oblivious. I don’t imagine that the Secret Service would report that threats against this president have increased 400% since his election for the purposes of partisanship. The Southern Poverty Law Center, et al, report a remarkable increase in activity by white supremacist militia/hate groups since President Obama became the Democratic nominee and subsequent victor.
Sowell writes, “When a few African-American Democrats walked into the Capitol the weekend of the vote, they passed through a crowd of citizens expressing their anger. According to some Democrats, these expressions of anger included racial slurs.
“This is a serious charge â and one deserving of some serious evidence. But, despite all the media recording devices on the scene, not to mention recording devices among the crowd gathered there, nobody can come up with a single recorded sound to back up that incendiary charge. Worse yet, some people have claimed that even doubting the charge suggests that you are a racist.”
So, if a tree falls in the forest, and no one hears it, etc. I assure you, the falling tree makes a sound.
To characterize Justice Sotomayor’s judicial career on the basis on one legal decision is beneath the standard that Buckley set.
Another ditty. “Political demagoguery and political favoritism have turned groups violently against each other, even in countries where they had lived peacefully side by side for generations.”
Something tells me Sowell wasn’t thinking of Palestine when he wrote that line.
posted by BobN on
You’re perfectly entitled to think that if you want, but “Ma’am” is the term that all military personnel are required to use when addressing a woman who is senior in rank.
I was a military brat until age eight. My best friend at age six, when we lived on base at Fort Bragg, NC, used to respond, “Yes, Sir, Ma’am!” when my mother would ask him a question. 🙂
posted by TS on
“Be a cunning linguist.
A master debater.
And always employ trompe l’oeil diplomacy with readers when necessary.”
snrk
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I don’t imagine that the Secret Service would report that threats against this president have increased 400% since his election for the purposes of partisanship.
Which is why they didn’t.
Since Mr Obama took office, the rate of threats against the president has increased 400 per cent from the 3,000 a year or so under President George W. Bush, according to Ronald Kessler, author of In the President’s Secret Service.
Next:
So, if a tree falls in the forest, and no one hears it, etc. I assure you, the falling tree makes a sound.
However, in this case, what we have is an example of the tree never falling in the first place, no matter how hard the Obama Party tried to push it over.
In contrast, when there is clearly recorded on tape examples of Obama supporters out in front of polling places making threatening gestures and using racial epithets such as “cracker” at white people, Barack Obama and the Obama Party adamantly insist that such a thing never happened.
In short, Barack Obama and his Obama Party supporters like John Lewis and Emanuel Cleaver see and hear racial epithets where there are none, but see and hear nothing when there are racial epithets.
Meanwhile, no one is judging Sotomayer on a single case; they are pointing out that her judgment in that single case was entirely consistent with the belief in her own racial superiority and antagonism against white people that Sotomayer has already expressed on several occasions.
posted by Debrah on
Jimmy–
The late William F. Buckley was a wordsmith unmatched by other mortals.
A beautiful mind.
He put the world into words like no other.
And even though he was too conservative for me on some things, I was always able to ignore those things…….for the stratospheric rapture of his word salads was mesmerizing.
I think if he had been born a generation or two later he might be more in line with the centrists.
He certainly was a true conservative in the purist form and the last of the patrician titans of the literary world.
Christopher Hitchens is great and could always hold his own beside WFB; however, there was only one WFB.
There’s something about the way that men like Buckley, Hitchens, and Jeremy Irons (in his role as Claus Von Bulow), talk that drives me wild!
Remember the line from Von Bulow (played by Irons) as he was leaving in his limo and the automatic window in the back seat was going up as he replied to Dershowitz—“You have no idea.”—with the most haughty and sinister flair?
It’s such a turn-on to have a true mental titan whisper dirty talk into your ear while making love.
The irony involved in such sexual delivery is titillating to-the-max.
LOL!!!
posted by Debrah on
But Jimmy……I digress.
You were discussing the Sowell column.
Listen, Thomas Sowell is an economist, first and foremost.
So you cannot really expect him, or anyone else, to mimic Buckley.
Sowell is excellent and always cuts through the layers of crapola. He knows the games played by the career race hustlers.
That particular cottage industry is one of the most lucrative…….and as Bobby has correctly stated so many times…….people are simply getting tired of it.
That old pathetic melodrama jumped the shark around 1992.
It’s now packing the magnet .
posted by Debrah on
Ok……to soften the mood—a nightcap.
I don’t know how I ever missed this song or this artist; however, I just recently discovered her music and she’s remarkable.
I’ve been weeping diva tears tonight listening to this one.
Phenomenal.
Enjoy!
posted by MattSmith on
Campbell needs our support. Running against a failed CEO who calls him liberal. Show your support and donate to Tom.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Carly Fiorina’s attack ad against incumbent Barbara Boxer is pretty swell. (tee-hee!)
posted by Debrah on
The Church’s Judas Moment
“In his book, âGoodbye! Good Men,â author Michael Rose writes that the liberalized rules set up a takeover of seminaries by homosexuals.”
“Vatican II liberalized rules but left the most outdated one: celibacy. That vow was put in place originally because the church did not want heirs making claims on money and land. But it ended up shrinking the priest pool and producing the wrong kind of candidates â drawing men confused about their sexuality who put our children in harmâs way.”
After taking lots of heat for bashing the Catholic Church, Dowd goes to her brother Kevin for this critique.
Provocative and informative for those of us who aren’t Catholic.
posted by Jimmy on
With respect to Irons, Debrah, we agree. He was a tour de force as Von Bulow.
posted by Bobby on
“That particular cottage industry (race hustlers) is one of the most lucrative…….and as Bobby has correctly stated so many times…….people are simply getting tired of it.”
—You should see the comment thread on this article.
http://www.advocate.com/Arts_and_Entertainment/Entertainment_News/Nude_Erykah_Badu_Fined_By_Dallas_Police/
Me and other people were called racist for attacking Badu’s public lewdness in Dallas. How can I be accused of racism after writing this?
“Why is it that every time you criticize a black person for something they did that has NOTHING to do with being black someone accuses you of racism? I’m sick of it! Criticize Obama? You’re a racist! Criticize Farrakhan? You’re a racist! Say you object to Jeremiah Wright saying “US of KKK,” you’re a racist. As for Madonna getting breaks, guess what, MTV removed her video “Like a Virgin,” and after one of her concerts she was arrested on obscenity charges which were later dropped. However, according to the race police, only black people suffer discrimination, right? I don’t care what color Badu happens to be, you don’t strip in a public street without permission from the city. A crime is a crime, I’m not gonna make excuses for people just because they happen to be black, latino, white, whatever. Race activists need to stop crying wolf, because the next time there’s an episode of real racism, nobody’s gonna give a damn.”
The scary thing is that once Obama loses reelection I’m sure the international and national media are going to accuse us of racism. Glenn Beck said the other day that in spite of all the boycotts against him, hate mail, threats, he’s not really the target. Who’s the target? The average Joe and Jane, the left wants to silence them, they want you to sit down, shut up and let Obama and his democrats do whatever they want. These people are not afraid of crying racism, what they are afraid is of us not being intimidated by them.
It is the government and the media that should be afraid of the people, not the other way around.
posted by Tom on
Two things strike me:
(1) Father Lawrence Murphy was ordained before Vatican Council II. This is true of the vast majority of the sexual predators exposed to date, as well as true of almost all of the bishops who covered up the scandal. It seems disingenuous, or at least uncritical, to tie the predator scandal to Vatican Council II.
(2) Notice how easily Dowd slides the slippery slope from “liberal rules” that resulted in an alleged “takeover of seminaries by homosexuals” — a fact not in evidence, I would point out — to “men confused about their sexuality who put our children in harm’s way”. The supposed linkage — another fact not in evidence — between gay men and child molesters is as disingenuous and uncritical as it is common in anti-gay rhetoric.
posted by Jimmy on
Will US policy toward Afghanistan have to include regime change since Big Chief Karzai has evidently wandered off of the reservation?
It’s hard to find good puppets these days.
posted by Debrah on
Bobby–
There’s nothing “racist” in your comment on that forum.
And yes, there’s such a bizarre climate in this country and beyond in that any criticism or push-back on legitimate issues is met with such an accusation because they know leveling it will repel detractors and make them wary of continuing any criticism.
“Race” is used like a cross over the head of a vampire.
Except in this case, the vampire is not the sinister one.
It’s a shame that even someone like Michael Steel has employed that old crutch.
However……and this is a humorous ‘however’…….
…….black liberal Democrats are saying that Steel shouldn’t use ‘race’ to cover for the problems under his leadership.
LOL!!!
Can you imagine what they’d be saying if Steel were a Liberal?
Just a rhetorical question……for everyone knows the answer well.
posted by Debrah on
Tom–
I noticed the point you made in #2 as well when I read it early this morning.
But revisit the column.
Everything under the paragraph where she mentions her brother Kevin is in quotes.
Consequently, those are the words of her brother.
Almost her entire column is made up of his opinion on the issue.
That said, it is perhaps his way of putting an emollient on his previous point by softening it in that later paragraph.
Great observation.
By the way, I’m very pi$$ed off that no one mentioned how great that tune is that I linked!
LIS!
posted by Debrah on
As has been mentioned by others, a curious set of “acceptable” and “unacceptable” terms has been constructed to which every politically-correct and sensitive person knows to adhere.
For most of us, we learned from our parents early on what was appropriate and what was not.
In my home growing up the “N” word was never uttered, nor were the words “f*ck” and “faggot” and “queer”.
They were the very “bad words” and even though my parents sometimes used certain profanities in anger, I always knew that this was a “do as I say”….not “as I do” issue.
But let’s get back to the very strange “N” word. Notice how I felt Ok writing out the “F” words and the “Q” word?
The same thing goes for the word “redneck”, which is demeaning and an epithet, depending upon how it’s being used.
But it’s used with abandon….as are so many slurs and epithets that are used as shorthand to describe other groups of people.
This “N” word mania is all about the Kafka-esque absurdity of a word that can only be represented by its first letter for fear and for the protection of delicate sensibilities.
All the more ridiculous is that it is a word the same people who supposedly would be defamed by its unabridged appearance, are themselves, using this very same word on each other millions of times a day.
Have someone who is candid and wise help us out with that concept.
posted by Jimmy on
When a governor of a state like Virginia lamely proclaims April as Confederate History Month without even a mention of the institution of slavery, one can more plainly understand how certain constituencies can blithely dismiss 300+ years of racial subjugation, and post reconstruction racial persecution, as something that happened a long time ago and has no bearing on the here and now. Lord only knows what Gov. McDonnell’s staff would be using as decorations to commemorate the month-long celebration (crepe paper recreations of “Strange Fruit” hanging from the trees, perhaps?).
At least McDonnell fell on his Gen. Lee replica sword and apologized for his lack of tact.
posted by Bobby on
“…….black liberal Democrats are saying that Steel shouldn’t use ‘race’ to cover for the problems under his leadership.”
—Well, here’s a little secret about liberals, when a minority is conservative the fangs come out. Then you’ll have white liberals referring to Condie Rice as “Aunt Jemima,” then racism is excusable.
Still, Steel did not get to where he got by playing the race card, so if he has to go, he’ll leave quietly, with dignity.
“When a governor of a state like Virginia lamely proclaims April as Confederate History Month without even a mention of the institution of slavery,”
—News flash, for most white southerners the “war between the states” or the “war of northern aggression” was NOT about slavery but states rights. And frankly, southerners have the right to feel proud of their heritage, why is it that African History Month is fine but Confederate History Month isn’t? Today, people who wear a confederate flag or who celebrate those values are doing it as an act of defiance against big government which under Obama has gotten even bigger.
Virginia is a southern state, they have different values. I’m sick of Californians and New Yorkers coming to the south and telling us how to live. At least in Virginia there is a governor who is not afraid of being politically incorrect when it comes to respect the wishes of most Virginians.
Of course, I’m sure there are some self-hating southeners who oppose the governor, after all, Bill and Hillary Clinton loved Arkansas so much that they moved to New York as soon as Bill was out of the White House. See? Bill and Hill are wannabe yankees, well, they are the exception, not the rule.
posted by Jimmy on
“Well, here’s a little secret about liberals, when a minority is conservative the fangs come out. Then you’ll have white liberals referring to Condie Rice as “Aunt Jemima,” then racism is excusable.”
It’s not, and never has been, excusable.
“News flash, for most white southerners the “war between the states” or the “war of northern aggression” was NOT about slavery but states rights.”
News Flash, Bobby, that’s not news to anyone. The fact is, “states rights” previous to 1861 meant the right to own other human beings. You cannot disassociate the two, no matter what.
“Virginia is a southern state, they have different values. I’m sick of Californians and New Yorkers coming to the south and telling us how to live. At least in Virginia there is a governor who is not afraid of being politically incorrect when it comes to respect the wishes of most Virginians.”
You may as well have said, “We’uns down here know how keep our Darkies in their place.”
posted by Tom on
Bobby: “News flash, for most white southerners the “war between the states” or the “war of northern aggression” was NOT about slavery but states rights.”
Bobby, news flash for you: Questions of states rights, to the extent the questions were involved, were prompted by and distinctly secondary to the desire to protect slavery.
Four of the states that attempted to dissolve the union issued “Declarations of Causes“. Read them. Secession was about protecting that “peculiar institution”, slavery.
Georgia:
Mississippi:
South Carolina:
Texas:
posted by Bobby on
Tom and Jimmy, most white southerners did not fight in the civil war to help plantation owners keep their slaves. They fought out of principle, they didn’t believe Abe Lincoln had the right to tell them how to run their states. And if celebrating the confederacy is controversial, the same can be said of naming a street after a racist, anti-semite and homophobe like Malcom X. Frankly, it’s the progressives that opened the door with their African History Month, Hispanic Heritage Month, and all their other minority months. White people and southerners have the right to celebrate their heritage as well. I have lived in the south and I would rather see a confederate flag than a Che Guevara T-shirt or an Obama poster.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Summary of the above: The very same Southerners who were (purportedly) passionate defenders of “state’s rights” actually didn’t give a flying fuck about the right of non-slave states to provide asylum to fugitive slaves who managed to reach the soil of New York, Pennsylvania, etc. In other words, the Confederacy’s real credo was “States’ Rights for me, but not for thee.”
Southerners have plenty of valid reasons to be proud of their heritage, and to resent the stereotyping of Southern culture by the damn Yankees. But this whole “it was about states’ rights, not the preservation of slavery” thing is a gigantic self-consoling LIE, Bobby, and Southerners who perpetuate it need to cut that shit out.
posted by Tom on
Bobby: “… most white southerners did not fight in the civil war to help plantation owners keep their slaves …”
And? Even if that is true, what follows from that? The rank and file fight for all sorts of reasons, rational and irrational. Mostly they fight because it is expected.
The reason given for secession by the states that seceded was to protect the institution of slavery. That’s what started the war, and that’s why the southern states prosecuted the war.
To ignore that fact, wrapping the motivations for secession in mantle of sanitized respectability — “states rights”, for example — in a war that came close to destroying our nation, killed over 600,000 and wounded about a million (at a time when the nation’s population was 31 million), does a disservice to reality.
I do not question that soldiers on both sides of the conflict fought with honor. My family, at the great-grandfather level, includes men who fought on both sides, and I honor all of them.
I could, if I wished, join either or both the “Sons of Confederate Veterans” and “Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War”. I don’t plan to, but I’m certainly not going to get caught up in game of historical whitewash.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Instead, they fought in hopes of expanding the slave-holding territory to the Pacific — so that less-affluent whites could head west with a few black slaves in tow, acquire farmland cheaply, and thereby make a comfortable living as farmers without actually doing any labor, since that’s what the niggers were for.
I don’t know how many working-class white Southerners were motivated to fight by the possibility of someday becoming a wealthy plantation owner way out west — but I do know that in the years leading up to the War of Northern Aggression, newspaper editorials in Dixieland incessantly pushed the theme of a golden future in which the westward expansion of slavery would create prosperity and upward mobility for poor whites. So one must assume that some Southerners bought into this vision.
posted by Debrah on
Get excited.
Another debate about the Woe-wah Between the States.
There are misrepresentations, lies, fabrications, and distortions on both sides.
But if you can keep up the “race thing” long enough, you will surely hit on a thread of this topic which will engender a Procrustean analogy for the “marriage equality” debate.
The beat goes on…….
So glad that my ancestors did their own work! LOL!
posted by Tom on
“Debrah: Get excited. Another debate about the Woe-wah Between the States.”
Poor Debrah, endangered by ennui yet again. Sleep it off, dahling.
posted by Debrah on
Tom–
I don’t know how you spend your days, but “sleeping” isn’t on my menu.
Suppose it’s a pleasant way to go through a day if you can afford it.
Perhaps more of the old Liberal playbook and misbegotten “grievance list” which is now centuries old and for which this country pays dearly every day in stratospheric financial terms……will excite the senses of those who also need to be “victims” of their own sexual expressions.
Is that really what we call “victimhood” and a “minority” group these days?
Astonishing, that.
posted by Debrah on
Given the discussion, I’d say it’s mandatory to include Sowell’s entire trilogy on this one…..maybe there will even be a fourth.
Race and Politics, Part I ….which has been linked from NRO already.
Race and Politics, Part II
Race and Politics, Part III
posted by Bobby on
Throbert, people have the right to celebrate their heritage, no matter what it is. I’m sick of minority activists demanding to be accepted while they don’t accept anyone else. In the University of Mississippi the regents voted to get rid of their mascot, Reb. In the University of Alabama there’s a group that wants to ban the “Old South” week long event because black people get offended by seeing people in confederate attire and women in plantation dresses. Southerners are being pressured to reject their heritage, lose their accents, and become yankee liberals. This is why Conservative Heritage Month is so important, it is a statement of pride against liberals that want you to feel shame.
Virginia is a southern state, anyone who doesn’t like it can get out.
posted by Jimmy on
“In the University of Mississippi the regents voted to get rid of their mascot, Reb. In the University of Alabama there’s a group that wants to ban the “Old South” week long event because black people get offended by seeing people in confederate attire and women in plantation dresses.”
“When you know better, you do better.” – Maya Angelou
“Southerners are being pressured to reject their heritage, lose their accents, and become yankee liberals.”
That is pure nonsense.
posted by Tom on
Debrah: “Is that really what we call “victimhood” and a “minority” group these days?”
If you listen to the current right-wing rewrite of the Civil War era, the Southern states were victims of oppressive Northern states who trampled “states rights” and overwhelmed the Southern states in a “war of aggression” imposed on the Southern states for economic dominance.
And that is, as Throbert put it in an earlier comment, “gigantic self-consoling LIE“.
The rewrite of history keeps coming up again and again. It found its way into the fight over segregation, and it is rearing its ugly head yet again, exploited by far-right conservatives to push for nullification of the health care bill in a number of states, and in Texas, secession, today.
And exploited by supposedly “respectable” politicians like Rick Perry, the Texas governor who will, in all likelihood, be the next Texas senator.
Debrah: “Astonishing, that.”
I agree. Nullification was settled by Andrew Jackson, and secession, at enormous cost, by the Civil War. But here we go again.
posted by BobN on
people have a right to celebrate their history
Virginia is 1/5 black, virtually all of them descendants of slaves. I would guess that at the time of the Civil War, it was even more heavily black. So, who are “they”? Whose history is the State of Virginia celebrate?
posted by Debrah on
Tom–
As a man—(professional, liberal, black, and a publisher)—said to me over lunch several weeks ago…..
“Debrah, you’re a very complex person.”
He said this because he knows a bit about my background and he also has heard me voice my views on this “race thing”.
You see, it’s rare in this country for someone to have grown up in a liberal setting, dated people from all over the racial spectrum, as well as having lived at various times inside different cultures……
…….to then wake up one day as an adult and be able to tell the truth about this “race thing”.
And voice opinions not formed by reading about something in a book or listening to people like Maya Angelou—(One of the worst poets to be labeled as such that this country has ever known. You just have to revisit the “poem” she wrote for Clinton’s inaugural and wince.)—but from actually living it.
For any adult, for whatever reason, to be shedding tears inside the culture war pity-party regarding the “condition” of black people in this country in the 21st century is not only hilarious, but absurd.
Most “minorities” hope to be “insulted” every day of their lives.
This never-ending-scab-pulled-off-the-wound scenario comprises the sole reason for living for many and if it can only be kept going…….
……..blessed assurance of a very good income.
This little victim schtick doesn’t work with me any longer and it really threatens those who walk around with a perpetual and expectant frown on their faces as if they’re preparing for their next bowel movement.
Such predictability.
But so lucrative.
posted by Tom on
Debrah: As a man—(professional, liberal, black, and a publisher)—said to me over lunch several weeks ago….. “Debrah, you’re a very complex person.” He said this because he knows a bit about my background and he also has heard me voice my views on this “race thing”.
I imagine most of us are complex. Self-assessment isn’t the question at hand, though, and while our personal quirks and peculiarities may having meaning for our friends and family, and may even be admirable in some cases, our personal quirks and peculiarities don’t make much difference in the larger scheme of things. We will pass away, and few of us will be remembered for more than a few years after our passing. What we do while we are alive, though, for good or ill, will live on.
The question under discussion — at least between Bobby and a few of us — is whether or not the root cause of secession of the Confederate States was a determination to protect the institution of slavery. It seems to me that it was, based on the clear statements of the time. I think that it is an open and shut case.
A related question, it seems to me, is whether or not the revisionists who are attempting to whitewash that stark fact, and, not coincidentally, it seems to me, talk of nullification and secession in current times, are misleading Americans who do not know or remember our nation’s history — specifically the Tea Party folks, like the folks who will be treated to a rousing speech by an Alabama secessionist next week in Wausau, Wisconsin. It seems to me that they are.
It is tempting to dismiss the Tea Party folks might as fringers who will blow away with the wind, but ideas and words have power. Ideas, including flat lies, that are repeated often enough, take hold, and can be dangerous.
It was not so long ago, for example, that the American mainstream dismissed the creationists and religious revisionists as fringe elements; today school districts all around the country are under pressure to teach creationism as science and Texas schoolbooks are being revised to downplay the role of Thomas Jefferson, a son of the Enlightenment, in forming our nation’s identity and Constitution.
As bored as you are with the discussion, I think you might want to take heed. If we aren’t honest about our history as a nation, we are going to run ourselves right into the ditch.
posted by Jimmy on
Well said, Tom.
“It was not so long ago, for example, that the American mainstream dismissed the creationists and religious revisionists as fringe elements; today school districts all around the country are under pressure to teach creationism as science and Texas schoolbooks are being revised to downplay the role of Thomas Jefferson, a son of the Enlightenment, in forming our nation’s identity and Constitution.”
W. exacerbated this phenomenon with “teach the controversy” rhetoric for eight long years. Now, these twerps show up in university, in Biology 101, righteously armed and ready to argue the scientific merits of ID, having been taught/indoctrinated, that non-science is actually science.
posted by Debrah on
“I imagine most of us are complex. Self-assessment isn’t the question at hand…..”
*********************************
Moving beyond the usual dismissive gay man also-victim attitude, I’d say that someone like you who is obviously so tethered to the “sixties” mentality actually would benefit from stepping outside your debate zone.
But alas, I will not be the one to try to persuade you……rest easy.
And no, Tom.
The average person walking around out there is a two-digit IQ follower. Not very complex at all.
Most never move beyond what they were taught and how they were told life is growing up.
The only reason I brought the issue of life experiences into the equation is because when someone is having a discussion regarding the culture wars with a Leftist, it always saves time in the long run to preface your statements with your actual experiences…….
…….for you are inevitably met with their dried-up, archaic rhetoric from the “woe-is-me-govern-MINT” playbook.
You can’t spin as easily around someone who knows the ways of an ultra-liberal like the back of their hands.
Regarding your lovely magnolia-mint-julep discussion………
For the wealthy plantation owners, the war was mainly about preserving the lucrative institution of slavery. It worked well for them and it worked well for a few of the “light-skinned, almond-eyed” house slaves and concubines.
But for the average dirty-poor farmer in the South, it was mainly about fighting for their “heritage” and their homelands. The concept of “pride” in that was all they essentially had.
I’ve often said that I actually despise those plantation owners and their enthusiastic African assistants who rounded up their brothers on the big continent and sold them to the white Europeans and Southern planters.
Just imagine how much less tumultuous life would be in this country—fewer billions spent and less political bile—if slavery had never existed here.
Future generations (us!) will forever be saddled with this grievance schtick from those who have suffered not at all, but continue to dance on the graves of their ancestors for profit.
One wonders…….would black citizens of this country enjoy living in Africa instead of the United States? You know, since this is such a “mean” place. A “bad” place with no “rewards”.
Curious, however, when you take a look at almost any humanoid from a “minority” group—especially the Hispanic population and black females—the majority are grossly overweight and seem to be very “well-tended” by the U. S. government (the taxpayers).
But let’s talk about the fact that someone might not have the latest ride or the top entertainment system…..shall we?
Heaven knows, the academy has relaxed admissions standards at universities to such a level that “minorities” will never be compelled to actually learn anything……I mean, unless they just feel like it.
It’s hard out there!
posted by Tom on
Debrah: “Heaven knows, the academy has relaxed admissions standards at universities to such a level that “minorities” will never be compelled to actually learn anything……I mean, unless they just feel like it. It’s hard out there!”
I know about hard. I came from poverty. My brother and I were the first in our family to get college degrees. I got mine through the GI Bill. My brother got his through scholarships. We competed with a lot of people who came from “advantaged” backgrounds, and we did well over the course of our lives. Both of us were successful professionally, and both of us are retired now, in relative comfort.
I don’t recall either of us — ever — whining about minorities or assuming the “victim” role, as so many of you on the right seem to do as a reflex action. Nor do I recall others like us whining.
What is with you people?
posted by Debrah on
Tom, you and your brother have inspiring stories, indeed.
“……as so many of you on the right [emphasis added] seem to do as a reflex action.”
****************************
Huh?
I’m a registered Democrat who supported Obama in 2008……although I’m beginning to have regrets.
Liberal “progressives” do love their stereotypes.
“What is with you people?”
****************************
I never quite know how to answer such a question.
I usually hear questions phrased that way from those of the Far Right who carry a roly-poly religious vibe.
posted by Tom on
Debrah: “……as so many of you on the right [emphasis added] seem to do as a reflex action.” Huh? I’m a registered Democrat who supported Obama in 2008……although I’m beginning to have regrets.”
Well, live and learn, I guess. Where did the sense of grievance about minorities, so strongly reflected in your posts, come from?
Debrah: “Liberal “progressives” do love their stereotypes.”
So do those of you who like to carry on about “liberal progressives”, “dismissive gay man also-victim attitude[s]”, “Leftist[s]” and all the other bullshit you toss around.
posted by Debrah on
Tom–
Let me add that I find it almost bizarre—a deliberate diversion I suppose—that you chose to focus on the last paragraph in my post at (6:18 PM).
If you and your brother are white men (which I assume you are), then you are certainly not a “minority”.
You responded as if you are and as if you needed to defend affirmative action.
Doesn’t exactly make sense.
I would say that those in the situation you were in as a young man are the most deserving of assistance when going to university.
posted by Tom on
Debrah: “If you and your brother are white men (which I assume you are), then you are certainly not a “minority”.”
Debrah, I’m a member of no minority that I recognize as such or that anyone else would recognize as such, unless you consider being gay a minority. I don’t. My history is simple. I come from a family of farmers and mechanics, went into the service, got a good education when I got out, used it reasonably well during my working career, and retired back on to the community in which I grew up, living on the farm.
Look at my statement again: “I don’t recall either of us — ever — whining about minorities or assuming the “victim” role, as so many of you on the right seem to do as a reflex action. Nor do I recall others like us whining.”
The phrase was “whining about minorities …”
How you could possibly read that as suggesting that I am in a minority is beyond me.
“Whining” might be an overstatement, but I do hear a huge expression of grievance in your posts about minorities. Your statement “Heaven knows, the academy has relaxed admissions standards at universities to such a level that “minorities” will never be compelled to actually learn anything……I mean, unless they just feel like it.” is an example, as is your preceding statement “Curious, however, when you take a look at almost any humanoid from a “minority” group—especially the Hispanic population and black females—the majority are grossly overweight and seem to be very “well-tended” by the U. S. government (the taxpayers).”
It goes on an on, throughout your comments in various threads. Minorities of call kinds are whiners, undeserving of equal treatment, and so on.
I don’t know your background, but you seem to be well enough paid to afford the latest fashions, if your website is any indication, and you seem to have been educated. So where does the sense of grievance come from, anyway? It seems so personal from the tenor of your posts. Do you have some sense of entitlement that you think is being betrayed, as the social conservatives and Tea Party folks seem to have? If so, what gave rise to it?
BTW, I don’t agree with your dismissive comment about “The average person walking around out there is a two-digit IQ follower. Not very complex at all.”
You sound like you think that most people are Rushies — ignorant to the bone and loving it. That isn’t the the case, at least in my experience.
I know a lot of working class men — fork lift operators, machinists, laborers, maintenance men, farmers, and so on, family, friends and acquaintances — and I think you are seriously underestimating them.
Most people I know work hard and think about our social, cultural and political issues reasonably carefully.
They might, as you point out, base their views on “what they were taught”, and might, as I would point out, have benefited from a decent liberal arts education to help them think more critically, but that’s the case for most people. Almost all of us base our views on what we have learned, learning more as we go along in life, changing our views from time to time and adding nuance.
I am just puzzled by you, I guess. You obsess about gay mens’ sexual practices, and consistently go after minorities in general, including racial minorities. It doesn’t add up for me.
I’ll freely admit, as I have in other threads, that I don’t understand what you are trying to say half the time — I’m used to plain speech, and that’s not your style — so I suppose that is part of the problem.
Anyway, it isn’t worth worrying about, I suspect.
posted by Bobby on
“Virginia is 1/5 black, virtually all of them descendants of slaves. I would guess that at the time of the Civil War, it was even more heavily black. So, who are “they”? Whose history is the State of Virginia celebrate?”
—Then why have African History Month? Why should white people be forced to celebrate that? If you want diversity, fine, but white people and conservatives should be included. Progressives are not the majority, it’s time for conservatives and independents to rise up and take back the culture from them.
“If you listen to the current right-wing rewrite of the Civil War era, the Southern states were victims of oppressive Northern states who trampled “states rights” and overwhelmed the Southern states in a “war of aggression” imposed on the Southern states for economic dominance. ”
—It’s not a rewrite of history, it’s the history Yankees aren’t taught in school. For example, the American Indian committed several atrocities against white people, yet when you go to school you only learn of the Trail of Tears. Take General Sherman, in the north he’s a big hero but in the south he’s the man who burned villages to the ground and took his anger on innocent civilians.
Did you know schools no longer make their students read Gone with the Wind? While it’s a work of fiction, the chapter on reconstruction is very accurate and anyone who reads that book will understand that the civil war wasn’t just about slavery.
And before we romanticize Abraham Lincoln, let me tell you something. Abe Lincoln wasn’t such a great guy, he did not respect the first amendment, he put people in PRISON for writing articles against the war.
Of course, since 70% of the people becoming educators are left-wing, they bring their biases to the classroom. Why do you think schools today have children singing pro-Obama songs?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Fjj6a8aBNU
posted by Jimmy on
Bobby, you have literally taken a hard right turn into Crazyville.
Where does a gay white man in his mid-thirties come up with so much aggrievement?
posted by Debrah on
“Do you have some sense of entitlement that you think is being betrayed, as the social conservatives and Tea Party folks seem to have? If so, what gave rise to it?”
**************************************
LOL!
No, I have no sense of being betrayed, personally.
Just general observations of reality.
You see the same people complaining about the same things and either wanting or demanding incessantly. Yet they are living better than the average Joe and Jane who have punched a clock at minimum wage for decades.
Some keep procreating and popping out babies like rabbits…..all the while wondering with their plaintive cries…..why they are having a difficult life.
And I do not reserve my criticism for the “progressives”; however, they do seem to be most tethered to the idea that other people—total strangers!—are somehow obligated to pay for their f*cking……and anything else inside their we are the world utopia.
“How you could possibly read that as suggesting that I am in a minority is beyond me.”
*****************************************
Fine, Tom.
You and your fellow Leftists need to discontinue believing that every time someone criticizes the parasites in our society that they are doing so for personal reasons or because they—or I—feel someone is infringing on our “entitlements”.
FYI, none of this argument is actually affecting my personal orbit.
However, as a society, no doubt, we are all ultimately affected in ways not yet known.
I supported Barack Obama because I thought he’d put some effort into alleviating this mentality and the polarization in our country; however, he seems to be going even farther to the Left than imaginable.
posted by Debrah on
It’s all a game
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It was not so long ago, for example, that the American mainstream dismissed the creationists and religious revisionists as fringe elements; today school districts all around the country are under pressure to teach creationism as science and Texas schoolbooks are being revised to downplay the role of Thomas Jefferson, a son of the Enlightenment, in forming our nation’s identity and Constitution.
Actually, as we see from the example of global warming, whether or not something qualifies as “scientific” has more to do with whether or not anti-American liberals believe it or not. You may fake data, block peer review, try to publicly destroy skeptics, delete your records, and use the babblings of interest groups as “proof” for your theorems, but if you have the endorsement of liberals, it’s “science”, regardless of whether it fits any acceptable definition thereof.
Meanwhile, whether or not it’s acceptable to “rewrite history” depends on the color of the skin of the person doing the rewriting, as we see from what Barack Obama supports and endorses as history and fact.
What the American public have figured out is that those like Tom, who hold themselves up as our intellectual and moral “betters”, are themselves holding people to different standards based solely on skin color, are using criteria for determining if something is “scientific” based primarily on whether or not it sufficiently blames and punishes the United States, and who scream about “religious crazies” in government while spending multiple decades cozying up to and supporting Reverends Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson.
posted by Tom on
ND30: “What the American public have figured out is that those like Tom, who hold themselves up as our intellectual and moral “betters”, are themselves holding people to different standards based solely on skin color, are using criteria for determining if something is “scientific” based primarily on whether or not it sufficiently blames and punishes the United States, and who scream about “religious crazies” in government while spending multiple decades cozying up to and supporting Reverends Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson.”
If you can find a single word I’ve written that supports any of your assertions — other than that I think that far-right religious conservatives are liars and hypocrites on gay and lesbian issues — I’d like to know.
The phrase “slice short of a sandwich” comes to mind when I read your posts.
posted by Debrah on
“…….who scream about ‘religious crazies’ in government while spending multiple decades cozying up to and supporting Reverends Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson.”
*********************************
Such a phenomenal point.
All of the well-known, well-worn, and well-embraced-by-progressives race hustlers are ultra-religious. To an extraordinarily creepy level, actually.
That is, they talk about “the Lord” incessantly……not that the rhetoric has any “religious” value.
Most of those black religious “leaders” loathe homosexuality, yet for public consumption they will throw out the diversity rap we’ve heard ad nauseum and tap dance around gay issues.
It’s profoundly bizarre that the gay community is so close and so accepting of such people simply because they are members of the Democratic Party.
And there are no grander roly-poly religious nuts than some of whom you find in black churches.
Hooping and hollering and shouting make up the script.
Frantic gospel moans are elements of the stew cooking inside the steaming cauldron of anti-gay sentiment.
Yet you will NEVER hear gays ridicule this group as they so love to go after the “religious right” or anyone who might mistake “bare-backing” for a rodeo term. Ha!
Such insane hypocrisy!
posted by GayinGeorgia on
If an LGBT-friendly GOP candidate runs for governor in California, smart gay people could definitely support her. In the extremely unlikely event that a gay-friendly Republican candidate is running for a seat in the US Congress against a demonstrably less supportive Democrat, we should support them as well. HOWEVER, there is a BIG difference between the 2 parties on LGBT issues. As long as the GOP-leadership in Congress is pandering to its anti-gay base, no smart person who cares about gay rights should support a Republican over a Democrat. Voting for Campbell in this situation is a vote for Mitch McConnell for Senate majority leader and a vote for Jeff Sessions as Chair of the Judiciary Committee. Do you really think gay people in the US will be better off if our national legislature is run by conservative white southern men?!! Don’t do it!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Do you really think gay people in the US will be better off if our national legislature is run by conservative white southern men?!!
So what you’re saying is that whether or not someone is “better” or “worse” for gay people is based, not on what they do, but their skin color, gender, and geographic origin.
That sounds about right for the Obama Party. No content of character, just what color your skin is, what gender you are, and from where you come determines your worth as a person and fitness for being in government.
The phrase “slice short of a sandwich” comes to mind when I read your posts.
It’s interesting; Tom challenges me to “find a single word I’ve written that supports any of your assertions”, such as the one about him considering himself my intellectual and moral “better” — right before he insinuates that I am mentally ill and/or lacking in intelligence.
That really demonstrates the point — that liberals like Tom operate in a belief system that everything they do is right and that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. This is why their first reaction when they are criticized is to claim that the person who is criticizing them is unintelligent or mentally ill. In their worldview, there is no capacity whatsoever for them to see themselves or their behavior as anything other than perfect. It is always a flaw in the other person, not in them.
posted by Tom on
Tom: “The phrase “slice short of a sandwich” comes to mind when I read your posts.”
ND30: “It’s interesting; Tom challenges me to “find a single word I’ve written that supports any of your assertions”, such as the one about him considering himself my intellectual and moral “better” — right before he insinuates that I am mentally ill and/or lacking in intelligence.”
You consistently play the “people like so-and-so think/say such-and-such” game without basis in fact. That’s loopy.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You consistently play the “people like so-and-so think/say such-and-such” game without basis in fact. That’s loopy.
Except, of course, when it’s you condemning all tea party participants.
A related question, it seems to me, is whether or not the revisionists who are attempting to whitewash that stark fact, and, not coincidentally, it seems to me, talk of nullification and secession in current times, are misleading Americans who do not know or remember our nation’s history — specifically the Tea Party folks, like the folks who will be treated to a rousing speech by an Alabama secessionist next week in Wausau, Wisconsin. It seems to me that they are.
It is tempting to dismiss the Tea Party folks might as fringers who will blow away with the wind, but ideas and words have power. Ideas, including flat lies, that are repeated often enough, take hold, and can be dangerous.
Yes, Tom; it certainly is wonderful that liberals like yourself, who are our moral and intellectual “betters”, are there to tell us how awful the tea party participants are, how they’re all racists and liars, and how their ideas are “dangerous”. After all, many of them might not have “liberal arts education”, and thus are incapable of thinking “critically”.
Better that we be like Barack Obama’s supporters, who stand out in front of polling places threatening people and hurling racial epithets. Or like Barack Obama’s spiritual mentor, who makes sure that we all know that the US government invented HIV for the sole purpose of killing off black people. THOSE are fine examples of good behavior and “critical thinking” as endorsed and supported by liberals.
posted by BobN on
“……Reverends Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson.”
…
Most of those black religious “leaders” loathe homosexuality, yet for public consumption they will throw out the diversity rap we’ve heard ad nauseum and tap dance around gay issues.
Uh… Al Sharpton supports full equality for gay people, including same-sex marriage. Jesse Jackson also supports full equality, though he prefers fully equal civil unions over marriage. Jeremiah Wright, though a member of a denomination that doesn’t support full equality for gays, also supports same-sex marriage. “Tap dancing” like that I like.
Now, I suppose it’s possible that they may, deep down, loathe us, but I’ll still take their outspoken support like that over the views of, well, any religious leader affiliated with the GOP these days.
posted by Tom on
Tom: “A related question, it seems to me, is whether or not the revisionists who are attempting to whitewash that stark fact, and, not coincidentally, it seems to me, talk of nullification and secession in current times, are misleading Americans who do not know or remember our nation’s history — specifically the Tea Party folks, like the folks who will be treated to a rousing speech by an Alabama secessionist next week in Wausau, Wisconsin. It seems to me that they are.”
“It is tempting to dismiss the Tea Party folks might as fringers who will blow away with the wind, but ideas and words have power. Ideas, including flat lies, that are repeated often enough, take hold, and can be dangerous.”
ND30: “Yes, Tom; it certainly is wonderful that liberals like yourself, who are our moral and intellectual “betters”, are there to tell us how awful the tea party participants are, how they’re all racists and liars, and how their ideas are “dangerous”. After all, many of them might not have “liberal arts education”, and thus are incapable of thinking “critically”.
I believe that nullification and secession are dangerous ideas.
We disagree, I gather. But I would expect nothing else.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Whoa, so Jesse Jackson agrees with failed CEO Carly Fiorina on the marriage issue?
(But shouldn’t someone tell Jackson that supporting civil unions is just like supporting segregated schools, and reduces gay people to second-class citizens?)
posted by Debrah on
Bobby–
Two items that will really give you a kick:
They’re blaming your beloved Fox News for this one.
LOL!!!
It’s just as ND30 has mentioned……the Far Left and their threats, intimidation, and dirty tactics—some so gutter-level they are beyond mention—are never illuminated by the media.
********************************
I knew this guy was a blooming idiot.
Check out resident MSNBC creepo magnifico David Shuster.
There has always been something very suspect about him.
Even though I like the format of MSNBC, I don’t care for the nighttime hosts.
Shuster was a daytime host.
He’s always been strange and it looks as though even MSNBC could no longer stand him.
posted by Debrah on
….continuing from the one that was snipped…..
David Shuster suspended.
LOL!
I’ve always thought he was so very strange, but didn’t know that he was previously fired from both CNN and Fox News.
Or maybe he was just “let go”, as they like to say.
posted by BobN on
Whoa, so Jesse Jackson agrees with failed CEO Carly Fiorina on the marriage issue?
No idea. Where does Carly stand on federal recognition?
posted by Throbert McGee on
I’m not sure, but I’ll bet you that most of the knee-jerkingly disparaged Fiorina because she voted in favor of Prop 8 likewise had no idea what her exact position on federal recognition is. Prop 8, after all, involved a choice between (a) “same-sex domestic partnerships” that had no standing in federal law, and (b) “same-sex marriages” that had no standing in federal law.
So anyone who disparages Fiorina because she favors civil unions or DPs over SSM ought to disparage Jesse Jackson’s stance almost as strongly, though of course you can slightly prefer Jackson because he supports federal recognition for CUs.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Aaargh. Make that “most of those who knee-jerkingly disparaged Fiorina”.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I believe that nullification and secession are dangerous ideas.
Amusing. One minute, Tom is waxing poetic about Thomas Jefferson as “a son of the Enlightenment”, and the next he’s condemning ideas that Jefferson himself championed as being “dangerous”.
Then again, that doesn’t fit the current liberal narrative that the government always knows best and that any criticism of the government is racist and dangerous.
posted by Tom on
Tom: “I believe that nullification and secession are dangerous ideas.”
ND30: “Amusing. One minute, Tom is waxing poetic about Thomas Jefferson as “a son of the Enlightenment”, and the next he’s condemning ideas that Jefferson himself championed as being “dangerous”.
Do you understand the history of nullification and secession, ND30, and the way in which those ideas played out in our national history?
Jefferson was a son of the Enlightenment, essentially a non-believer except in very loose Deist terms, which is what enrages conservative Christians and motivates them to downplay his role in our history, but he was not always right. Our nation’s history demonstrates how wrong Jefferson was on this issue.
You need to pay attention to context if you are going to try to put words into people’s mouths: “It was not so long ago, for example, that the American mainstream dismissed the creationists and religious revisionists as fringe elements; today school districts all around the country are under pressure to teach creationism as science and Texas schoolbooks are being revised to downplay the role of Thomas Jefferson, a son of the Enlightenment, in forming our nation’s identity and Constitution.” That is hardly an endorsement of all of Jefferson’s ideas.
And it would help, too, if you paid attention to who said what when you are on one of your terrors. If was your cheerleader, Debrah, who sneered ““The average person walking around out there is a two-digit IQ follower. Not very complex at all.“, not me.
posted by Bobby on
Thanks for the link, Debrah. There’s so much misinformation about Fox News and Tea Parties. Take the Stupak story, MSNBC was saying that Tea Peartiers were harassing him before the vote. Really? The only people harassing him were pro-choicers because of the anti-abortion language he put in the bill, which basically allows states to choose whether or not to pay for abortion under Obamacare.
Moving on, Jimmy wants to know: “Where does a gay white man in his mid-thirties come up with so much aggrievement?”
—My conservative and later libertarian awakening came soon after the death of Mathew Sheppard, before that I was a raving liberal and republican hater, but Sheppard’s death made me realize that the government is useless and you have to protect yourself in all areas.
Tell me, Jimmy, where does your faith in government come from?
posted by Jimmy on
“Tell me, Jimmy, where does your faith in government come from?”
History. From the moment this nation began, it set out on a course that was plotted by the founders who created a constitution that was not carved in stone, but rather, flexible and changeable. The founders, being men of reason, knew that this nation would would have to have a government that was responsive to an ever changing world. I have as much faith in government as I have faith in the citizens of which government is composed. Historically, that government has, by the nature in which it was created, been the guiding force behind the expansion of freedom and liberty for ALL of the people governed by it, rather than, as some aggrieved revisionists would suggest, a force that has diminished freedom and liberty.
I have faith that the American people, through their civil, secular government, will once again do what is right as it pertains to GLBT citizens. I do not claim that the federal government is perfect, for no temporal body of human composition could be, nor that we, as a nation, can say that we have not made mistakes in living up to our ideals. To suggest this would be wrong.
But, here we are. George Washington wondered if this experiment would survive long after his passing. It almost didn’t. But, here we are, one nation, ever striving toward actualized liberty and justice for all.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, Tom, perhaps you ought to get more of the story before you comment on it.
But of course, why would we expect you to do that? You’ve made your beliefs that all Christians are ignorant and hate Thomas Jefferson and that all Texans are stupid patently obvious. You’ve likely never reviewed the TAKS content in your life or know anything about Texas educational standards, but of course, since you are a liberal, you are an expert on all of these matters. The talking points have been generated and they line up nicely with your prejudices about Texans and Christians, so off you go.
Then, hilariously, you try to deflect onto Debrah.
And it would help, too, if you paid attention to who said what when you are on one of your terrors. If was your cheerleader, Debrah, who sneered “”The average person walking around out there is a two-digit IQ follower. Not very complex at all.”, not me.
Scientifically, Tom, if you were more familiar with IQ testing and scales, you might know that the median score on most standard IQ scales is 100 — which, given that median translates to the point at which roughly half the scores are lower, means that an average individual, given that a full 50% of the population is less than 100, DOES have a “two-digit IQ”.
Meanwhile, I was referring specifically to your statement about people needing a “liberal arts education” to “think critically”. Did you forget?
posted by Throbert McGee on
Thanks for that link with background on the Texas schoolbook revisions, ND30!
posted by Tom on
ND30: “Meanwhile, I was referring specifically to your statement about people needing a “liberal arts education” to “think critically”. Did you forget?”
I never said anyone “needed” a liberal arts education to think critically. That’s your invention, your hyperbole, not what I said.
What I said was “They might, as you point out, base their views on “what they were taught”, and might, as I would point out, have benefited from a decent liberal arts education to help them think more critically, but that’s the case for most people.”
I believe that’s true. A decent liberal arts education exposes a serious student to diverse body of knowledge across disciplines, and helps students develop tools for analysis and evaluation.
Debrah noted that many people’s thinking is confined to “what they were taught”, and I believe that a decent liberal arts education helps students develop their own opinions, value and beliefs, not limited to “what they were taught”, but upon knowledge, examination, and evaluation of argument and evidence.
You may disagree with that assessment. For me, I’m glad that my partner’s and my five children completed a liberal arts education before moving on to professional education. Each of them learned to stand on their own two feet, intellectually, and has developed well outside the “mold” of “what they were taught”.
I think that’s great.
posted by Tom on
ND30: “You’ve made your beliefs that all Christians are ignorant and hate …”
I’ve been careful to limit my negative comments to “far-right” Christians; the shift from that limited population to “all” is your invention.
I suspect that your propensity to distort what people say in their comments when you are in attack-rabbit mode is the reason why most people on this forum seem to ignore you.
posted by Debrah on
Hot diva “cheerleader” checking in!
“I suspect that your propensity to distort what people say in their comments when you are in attack-rabbit mode is the reason why most people on this forum seem to ignore you.”
****************************************
That’s not the case at all.
One of the things that makes ND30 so strong—(enough to produce untruthful cries that he is “ignored”)—is that he’s a powerful debater who comes equipped with powerful references to back up his points-of-view.
And he’s secure enough to actually tell the truth about so many aspects of the culture wars.
That’s quite often a stone in the shoes of those who operate inside an insular, self-serving shell……only surfacing with self-righteous logorrhea lifted from a greeting card.
To describe much of the Far Left as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability.
To describe many aspects—(open and defiant promiscuity…..gay porn web cam and networking sites…..as “fine and dandy”)—of gay male culture as pieces of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the level of excremental.
posted by Debrah on
BobN–
When you show up, I have a question for you.
Since you’re someone I believe to be an introspective as well as an analytical person with regard to emotional/psychological issues……
…….I want to get your analysis on something.
K?
posted by Bobby on
“History. From the moment this nation began, it set out on a course that was plotted by the founders who created a constitution that was not carved in stone, but rather, flexible and changeable.”
—I don’t think that’s the case, if it is why not change the first amendment to prohibit hate speech? The system the founding fathers created was perfect, it’s the framework that turned this country into a superpower, that attracted immigrants from all over the world. Think about it, people come to this country looking for opportunity, not free healthcare, free housing, free college education, and all the freebies progressives think everyone is entitled to have.
Progressives like Obama want to fix what isn’t broken and break what’s working fine.
posted by BobN on
Prop 8, after all, involved a choice between…
Prop 8, in fact, involved a choice between a) leaving in place 18,000 duly performed marriages and the right of same-sex couples to enter into marriage that had the support of the state legislature AND governor or b) rescinding that legal right in an unprecedented use of the referendum process.
As I recall, Jesse Jackson opposed taking away a granted civil right, just like Obama. I could be wrong. Can’t find any trace of his taking a stance. Either way, he certainly didn’t vote for prop 8, since he isn’t a California resident like Fiorina is.
posted by BobN on
…….I want to get your analysis on something.
Sure. Fire away.
And, for what’s it’s worth, I am introspective, too much so.
Not a bad characteristic and one that I find among a lot — though certainly not all — gay people, especially those above a certain age.
posted by Jimmy on
You asked me a question, Bobby, and I answered it.
I truly don’t give a shit what you think of the answer.
posted by Bobby on
“I truly don’t give a shit what you think of the answer.”
—Of course you don’t, you’re a progressive, you people are only interested in your own ideas. Obama is a great example of that. But you know what? By November you will have to listen to our ideas, just you wait until we take back the government.
posted by Debrah on
“And, for what’s it’s worth, I am introspective, too much so.”
*****************************************
Yes, you always level your bombs in a subtle way during a debate.
Perhaps more of an observer than the average person, which can be a valuable characteristic.
So, do you think that people sometimes feel compelled to “beat up” (figuratively) someone they actually love in order to be able to leave that person behind?
To create a psychological/emotional “enemy” in order to be able to deal with the pain?
A subconscious quest to essentially excise the pain through an emotional, and wholly involuntary, process?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Prop 8, in fact, involved a choice between a) leaving in place 18,000 duly performed marriages and the right of same-sex couples to enter into marriage that had the support of the state legislature AND governor or b) rescinding that legal right in an unprecedented use of the referendum process.
How utterly amusing.
California Constitution, Article 2, Section 1:
All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.
Section 8(a):
The initiative is the power of the electors to propose statutes and amendments to the Constitution and to adopt or reject them.
Section 10(c):
The Legislature may amend or repeal referendum statutes. It may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their approval.
The “unprecedented” part was the California Supreme Court and its members discovering that there was a right to marry whatever sexual partner you desired and that no one could stop you from marrying any sexual partner you liked, which is nowhere in the California Constitution.
Meanwhile, the reason for the “18,000” is that the California Supreme Court, in another “unprecedented” step, demanded that gay-sex marriages be performed even though they were aware that a pending initiative was taking place. Ordinarily, courts making such judgments would suspend them until the pending initiative was completed. Fortunately, this backfired completely and was cited as a major reason for Proposition 8 passing.
Again, it’s no surprise that BobN and Jesse Jackson would insist that California’s voters have no right to change their own constitution while demanding that marriage to whatever you’re sexually attracted was a guaranteed constitutional right, but it only shows how little both of them actually know about the constitution.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I’ve been careful to limit my negative comments
Have you, now?
Such as your negative comments about all tea party participants?
Or your mistaken assessment of the Texas curriculum revision, which set you off whining about the “religious”?
What you have is more appropriately described as a “liberal education”, Tom; you obediently repeat talking points of the left, show a complete unwillingness to actually investigate facts, whine about how anyone who disagrees with you is “one slice short of a sandwich”, and so forth.
posted by BobN on
I notice, ND30, that you failed to address the central point. There was no precedent for rescinding a civil right by referendum.
As to the claim that the California Supreme Court’s actions were precedent-setting, did you forget Perez v. Sharp?
Tsk, tsk.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
There was no precedent for rescinding a civil right by referendum.
And there we see the language manipulation employed by the gay-sex marriage movement.
It is clearly spelled out in the constitution of California that the voters have the right to amend their own constitution and that not even the Legislature can do that without voter permission.
But according to BobN, that is not a civil right, and voters may not do so.
But marrying whatever your sexual partner happens to be, even though that is nowhere mentioned in the state constitution, IS a “civil right”.
As to the claim that the California Supreme Court’s actions were precedent-setting, did you forget Perez v. Sharp?
No.
But unlike you, I’ve actually READ Perez v. Sharp.
Especially this line, so often misquoted by gay-sex marriage activists:
The right to marry is as fundamental as the right to send one’s child to a particular school or the right to have offspring. Indeed, “We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
And if you read a bit more, the main reason the California miscegenation statute was struck down was because it was so poorly written that it was impossible to apply equally.
To determine that a person is a Mongolian or Malayan within the meaning of the statute because of any trace of {Page 731} such ancestry, however slight, would be absurd. If the classification of a person of mixed ancestry depends upon a given proportion of Mongolians or Malayans among his ancestors, how can this court, without clearly invading the province of the Legislature, determine what that decisive proportion is?
No such confusion with gender, thank you.
So what the California Supreme Court did was to use a court case with a very narrow applicability to marriage based on race and with a statement that marriage was essential precisely BECAUSE of its procreative link — and generalize it into an automatic “right” to marry whatever your chosen sexual partner happened to be under every circumstance.
That’s “unprecedented”.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
End italics.
posted by Stonewaller on
I am a Stonewall vet. If the LGBT Movement were truly a grassroots movement than at least some of our organizations would have chapters. None of them do.
I was a charter member of The National Organization for Women which started out as a nonpartisan organization. Then it allied itself with the Democratic party. The Equal Rights Amendment failed.
It is not good strategy to let a party take one for granted which is exactly where we have gotten thanks to HRC which is the face of LGBT.
Judicial versus legislative are strategies. We were winning abortion state-by-state when Roe v Wade hijacked us. Roe recanted on abortion and we have been fighting a culture war ever since. Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg thinks in retropsect that it was a mistake for Roe to have been decided judicially especially before the public was more on board.
The dean of same sex marriage law is William Eskridge. Like many of us he thinks that it would be bad if same sex marriage is decided judicially.
And that presumes we win. Most sympathetic constitutional lawyers question whether we will have even one vote on the Supreme Court. A loss could be devastating not only legally but psychologically.
Boies and Olson are on weak ground for all sorts of reasons.
P.S. Harvey Milk was a conservative Republican before he moved out to California. Frank Kameny was “outed.” There is no evidence that he would have been an activist were that not to. He felt that the word “Gay” included everybody and opposed adding the GBT. He is also a sexist as well as biphobic, transphobic and heterophobic. Larry Kramer is just a loud mouth who sets a bad example for activists.
posted by Stonewaller on
DEBRAH
Radical poet and poltical activist wrote a book entitled N****** I would spell it out, but I am afraid I would get kicked off the blog.
He advocated continued use of the word. He felt that when it no longer stings, we would know that we had truly arrived.
I am opposed not only to state censorship but to political correctness. This does not mean that I am barred from responding when one utters an epithet in my presence.
Furthermore, I want to know who my adversaries are and before they come with goose steps and white hoods. People think wrongfully that if people stop using epithets that this means that there is less “ism” in the world.
The Jews of Weimar Germany made that mistake. And it wasn’t a 6 million dollar mistake, it was a six million person mistake.
posted by Stonewaller on
DEBRAH
“You see, it’s rare in this country for someone to have grown up in a liberal setting, dated people from all over the racial spectrum, as well as having lived at various times inside different cultures….”
Well, Deborah, I grew up in a radical household and not only dated people all over the racial spectrum but also of different genders.
I am an ethnologist by training, an immigration lawyer by profession, a public servant by career and a human rights activist by avocation.
TOM
“They might, as you point out, base their views on “what they were taught”, and might, as I would point out, have benefited from a decent liberal arts education to help them think more critically, but that’s the case for most people.” Most Americans are not college graduates.
“Almost all of us base our views on what we have learned, learning more as we go along in life, changing our views from time to time and adding nuance.” Studies show that while people have great potential to change in their lives, most people don’t realize that potential.
posted by Stonewaller on
BOBBY
“Of course, since 70% of the people becoming educators are left-wing, they bring their biases to the classroom.” I would like to know where you get your figures. I am left wing and could not get a professorial position on account of it.
Or are you labeling all liberals as left-wing. All liberals are not left wing any more than all consevatives are right-wing.
DEBRAH
“Parasites,” f*cking and “we are the world.” Please, I think that you are conflating a lot of things. Welfare, sexual freedom and a utopian vision of a world without war are not exactly the same thing.
Socialists were opposed to President Obama’s health plan. Contrary to what the Kennedy’s thought, Martin Luther King was no communist and Obama is to the right of Doctor King.
posted by Stonewaller on
NORTHDALLASTHIRTY
I have studied science and am a social scientist. I do not pick and choose studies though I will readily admit that many people do from both the left and the right.
Americans are practically the only people in the world who question Darwinian theory and do not believe that global warming exists.
I worked for Jesse Jackson who is a nonviolent resistant pacifist who admits his mistakes and apologizes for them. Al Sharpton is a loud mouth who likes to incite. Jeremiah Wright has probably been blinded by his experience of racism to become a racist and homophobe himself.
But each of these men is different and should not be presumed to be the same. The fact is that they do not share one another’s views.
TOM
Actually I think that it is the conservatives who are the distorters and liberals who are the hypocrites on LGBT issues.
So far as lying is concerned, I am sorry to say that my own friends and comrades ultimately admitted to using the figure that 10% of the population was Gay when they knew that 3% was closer to it.
Though homosexuality may not be a choice in the sense that one wakes up one morning and decides to be an enemy of the state, excommunicated by the church, terminated from employment, expelled from school, abandoned by friends and disowned by family, the contention that it is genetic is not backed up by scientific studies. It is partly genetic but not totally.
Rather than argue for equal rights based on fundamental right, LGBT are arguing for equality based on biology. This is dangerous, misguided, unnecessary and disingenous. It is based on ignorance on the part of some and political expediency on the part of others.
It is being done for for reasons of political expediency. The treatment of bisexuals and transexuals by Gays and Lesbians are also examples of hypocrisy due to expediency.
Moral of the story: nobody is morally pure.
posted by Stonewaller on
DEBRAH
Jesse Jackson is not ultra religious, Al Sharpton is a fraud and Jeremiah Wright is a zealot. They do not share common views.
Many in the civil rights movement were sexist, many in the feminist movement were homophobes, many is the gay rights movement are ablist.
But not all civil rights leaders have been homophobes. Martin Luther King and Coretta Scott King were not homophobes. Floyd McKissick was.
GAYINGEORGIA
One must not paint everybody with one brush. Maine Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe are supportive of LGBT. So was Arlen Spector as a Republican. Bill Lieberman has become more supportive since he left the Democratic and became an Independent who caucuses with the Republicans.
The parties at state levels may differ significantly than those at the national level. Utahn Mormons are passing pro-gay legislation. It was a Republican court which decided in favorite of same sex marriage and normally Democratic partisans who voted against it.
TOM
Calling people names is “ad hominem” argument. It doesn’t prove anything, doesn’t win allies and only debases those who do it.
BOBN
I was raised in the civil rights movement. Virtually any leader of any age you can name, I have known since I was 10 years old. Many of them rejected Bayard Rustin, the Gay Black Quaker mentor to Dr. King as well as conceiver & coordinator of the 1963 March on Washington.
When I began coming out at the age of 13 in 1965, there was little support and much opposition in the civil rights movement. I worked for Jesse Jackson in 1968 Southern Christian Leadership Conference Poor People’s Campaign. Nobody — including Coretta Scott King was speaking publicly about Gay Rights at that time though I do not believe that either Coretta Scott or Dr. King were homophobes.
posted by Stonewaller on
THROBERT
“Separate but equal” has been mostly though not exclusively used in the facilities context such as separate schools, separate drinking fountains and separate bus seating.
At the time of Little Rock, the schools were not equal and were never meant to be so. Had the Black schools been 10 times as good as the White schools, the case would probably have never been brought.
Separate but unequal is not always bad or unconstitutional. Disabled access, men’s and women’s bathroom’s and affirmative action are all examples of separate but unequal. Half the states allow 1st cousins to marry and half the states do not.
If we LGBT get the same spousal rights as Straights, but ours are called “domestic partnerships” and theirs are called “marriages,” I think it highly unlikely that the court would employ the separate but equal doctrine to undue that difference. FYI: that was not the doctrine applied in the case of Loving v Virginia.
THROBERT
Another problem is that the LGBT Movement has adopted a “marriage only” strategy which has failed us. We would be much better off getting domestic partnerships or civil unions with maximum benefits in all 50 states now and deal with the semantic differences later.
JIMMY
The US Constitution delegates few powers to the federal government and the balance to the states and the people. You and I might not like that, but that is what the constitution says. By Republican and Democrat presidents alike, there has become an imperial presidency which expands Executive authority in violation of the separation of powers in which Congress has acquiesced and the Supreme Court has not intervened. You or I might like the results but that doesn’t make those exercises of power constitutional.
Similarly, the US Government has repeatedly exceeded its authority and violated federalism. Again, you or I might like the results but that doesn’t make those violations constitutional.
posted by Stonewaller on
BOBBY
I am a leftist, a civil libertarian and was the youngest person to join the ACLU at the age of 15 in 1967. While the ACLU believes that hate speech violates the 1st Amendment, they will say so internally but not externally. They support hate crimes legislation which almost always is dependent upon hate speech to prove intent.
BOBN
What happened with Prop 8 is very much misunderstood. First a Republican Court made a judicial decision in favor of same sex marriage.
Initiatives and referenda were created at the initiative of the people to overrule the government in some circumstances. California’s initiative law may only be overruled in some few cases such as taxes. While you or I might like the initiative to be overruled in cases of minority rights that would be in conflict with the initiative law.
I am Gay and a constitutional lawyer among other things. After Prop 8 was passed and went back to the court, a Gay friend asked me if the Court could overturn the initiative. I explained to him that it could not however much he and I might wish it were otherwise.
Those LGBT who say that minority rights have never before been voted on don’t know history. Women’s suffrage was voted on and by men. Prior to that vote suffragettes used the initiative and referenda processes to advantage. Had they not done so suffrage would probably have come a lot later.
However Jesse Jackson may have felt, his reaction is that of a civil rights worker like myself who worked for him but not that of a constitutional lawyer which I am as well.
Barack Obama taught constitutional law. He knows the difference between not wanting a right to be taken away from others on a personal, emotional or political matter and what executives legislatures, courts and the people are empowered to do.
As a civil rights activist, gay rights activist and human rights activist, I would like to see same sex marriage someday something for which I worked before it was a glint in the eye of most LGBT. But I do not wish to violate the US Constitution, a state constitution or other laws in order to obtain the right. Unlike many people of all pesuasions who want they want and don’t care if they contort, distort or pervert the Constitution and laws along the way.
Thus, while I might wish it were otherwise, NORTHDALLAS30 is correct. Most courts would have suspended the right to marry until after the initiative vote and any ruling there on. The court did a stupid thing even though it may have been to the benefit of some LGBT.
BOBN
Though I might wish it were otherwise, NORTHDALLAS30 is correct in stating that Perez v Sharp is not on point. Same sex marriage has not yet been established as a civil right. In Loving v Virginia, the court could have decided the case on Full Faith and Credit. VA was not challenging the idea that the Lovings were married, it simply did not want such marriages recognized in VA. Due to the unique history of slavery, the court “reached out” and injected “fundamental right” language.
It is precisely on account of the unique history of slavery that race is given “strict scrutiny” under the Under the Equal Protection Clause, gender is given “intermediate scrutiny” and sexual orientation has been given “reasonable basis.”
Even though some may not intend to have chidren, be sterile or infertile or marry past childbearing years, that does not change the fact that marriage laws were based on procreation. The benefits attendant thereto were based on the fact that women could not work and children remained at home until they themselves got married.
You may want to read one of the leading experts on this point, Lesbian constitutional lawyer, Nancy Polikoff.
posted by Debrah on
“Same sex marriage has not yet been established as a civil right.”
*********************************************
Exactly.
The term “civil right” hasn’t been bastardized yet to that extent.
But give them time!
Let’s try to draw more weepy analogies that will disgust even more people who understand the real definition and purpose of the concept of “civil right”.
posted by Debrah on
“Larry Kramer is just a loud mouth who sets a bad example for activists.”
******************************
Kramer is a horrible example.
And so is Barney Frank.
“People think wrongfully that if people stop using epithets that this means that there is less ‘ism’ in the world.”
*******************************
Good point.
My experience has been that it’s those who try to avoid talking about a given controversial subject who hold the most rabid prejudices.
And many of them are the so-called “sensitive” Liberals.
I mentioned recently that I had a lunch with a publisher who is both liberal and black.
When discussing some elements of the culture wars, he didn’t even want to talk about gays….even though I tried to push the subject.
Odd, isn’t it?
“Jesse Jackson is not ultra religious, Al Sharpton is a fraud and Jeremiah Wright is a zealot. They do not share common views.
Many in the civil rights movement were sexist, many in the feminist movement were homophobes, many is the gay rights movement are ablist.
But not all civil rights leaders have been homophobes. Martin Luther King and Coretta Scott King were not homophobes. Floyd McKissick was.”
****************************************
Prolific overview.
MsKissick wasn’t as well-known. So, consequently, perhaps that’s why most of us would not have known that.
posted by Throbert McGee on
posted by Throbert McGee on
Oopsie! That’s what too much Merlot too late at night will do. Anyway, before I go to bed, I wanted to welcome Stonewaller to the forum — he and I clearly agree on some points with respect to gay politics, though I’m sure there are many other areas where we disagree. (F’rinstance, we could probably argue about the trans-inclusiveness issue — are transsexuals qualitatively different from these folk? I think that employers should be allowed to discriminate against transsexuals, for the same reason that they should be allowed to discriminate against people who have full-face tattoos and surgical implants to make them look vaguely like humanoid lizards or tigers.)
But I also wanted to suggest: Could we discuss this and other things upstairs, in a newer topic? Long threads are unfriendly to aging computers, since they tend to cause browser-crash.
posted by Tom on
Stonewaller: “Larry Kramer is just a loud mouth who sets a bad example for activists.”
Debrah: “Kramer is a horrible example.”
I understand why the gay establishment despises Kramer; it has been so since the beginning. Kramer was forced out of just about every mainstream gay organization by the mid-eighties because of his abrasiveness.
But we need hell raisers like Kramer just as much, if not more, than the political players like HRC and the black tie crowd that drops a grand here and a grand there before retiring to be among their own kind.
An example: Kramer’s 1983 article “1,112 and Counting”, which reviewed the incidence of HIV/AIDS, the scant coverage in mainstream gay organs like the Advocate, the failure of the government to respond, and the lack of concern in the gay community, played a critical role in waking up the community at a crucial time.
Nice isn’t always what’s needed.
We need a Kramer today, to be blunt — someone to raise hell about the complacency among gay men about HIV/AIDS. The rate of infection is climbing again, and “playing nice” is costing lives.
Straights, particularly African-American straights, need a Larry Kramer, too, even more desperately than we do. Just about half the new HIV/AIDS infections in recent years have been among African-Americans, who comprise about 10-12% of the population. The silence of the African-American establishment is killing people.
posted by BobN on
[Debrah, I am not ignoring your question. I had a perfectly wonderful answer that was eaten by the stupid “security” “feature” on Sunday.]
In the meantime, just a little drive-by on other subjects.
Any discussion of Prop 8 is apparently meaningless until there is agreement on what a “civil right” is. Some seem to think it’s a right of citizens that CANNOT be taken away. That strikes me as an odd definition, as it makes the California constitution utterly irrelevant and makes the term completely dependent on the federal constitution. No California Court has “gone there”. Yet.
It seems to me much more logical — and consistent with California jurisprudence — to acknowledge that same-sex marriage was a civil right for a brief period and that Prop 8 voided that civil right through the civil right of Californians to modify our constitution. The California Supreme Court decision which recognized SSM rights was not without precedent. And Prop 8 set a precedent, i.e. the right of the people of California to rescind a recognized civil right. It’s not rocket science, it’s just law.
posted by BobN on
Oh, and getting the thread back on track…
<>If the LGBT political movement was at all savvy, its leaders would recognize that supporting a major, viable candidate like Tom Campbell is the only way to reform the GOP
How can the author of this thread castigate Dem-supporting gay people for not supporting Campbell, when GOProud not only doesn’t support him, but ATTACKS him?
http://themoderatevoice.com/69350/the-war-against-tom-campbell/
Talk about opportunities ignored…
posted by Debrah on
“Debrah, I am not ignoring your question. I had a perfectly wonderful answer that was eaten by the stupid ‘security’ ‘feature’ on Sunday.”
**************************************************
Yes, BobN.
I’ve been wondering what pearls of wisdom you had on the matter.
Sometimes when you are writing a long comment on this forum, it’s best to copy it and paste it elsewhere……then go back and lift it when you are ready to actually publish the comment—after you have refreshed the page.
I’ve found that if you wait too long to publish the comment, the page “dies” and the comment will disappear.
posted by Jimmy on
“I’ve found that if you wait too long to publish the comment, the page “dies” and the comment will disappear.”
Which has oft lead me to wonder why a site administered and used primarily by gay men would remain so clunky and poorly designed.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
How can the author of this thread castigate Dem-supporting gay people for not supporting Campbell, when GOProud not only doesn’t support him, but ATTACKS him?
Easy. Campbell’s positions are far more in line with the Obama Party’s beliefs on economics, taxation, and several other issues than they are the GOP.