Columnist and IGF contributing author Jennifer Vanasco recently wrote in the Seattle Gay News a piece titled "A Lesbian on the Supreme Court?," stating:
Suddenly, it seems possible that the next Supreme Court pick might be a lesbian.... Solicitor General Elena Kagan is not openly gay at the moment-which, of course, may mean she's not gay at all. But persistent rumors, an absence of denial, and some assurances from people I trust make me think that, yeah, she probably is. And she's right now on the short list of potential Supreme Court nominees to replace Justice John Paul Stevens on his retirement this summer.
Fair enough. So why have the Obama administration and it's lefty-liberal blogger-henchmen, not to mention its Human Rights Campaign fundraising lapdog, gone ballistic over speculation about Kagan's personal life and relationships? Here's Sam Stein blogging at the Huffington Post:
Leading gay rights group are accusing Republicans of trying to rile up their conservative base by launching a whisper campaign against potential Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan-suggesting the current Solicitor General is a closeted lesbian even though she's not. In its first entree into the upcoming Supreme Court nomination process, the group Human Rights Campaign blasted the increasingly public discussion of Kagan's sexuality, calling it a play "straight out the right-wing playbook....
The comments come a day after CBS published a blog by Ben Domenech, a former Bush administration aide and Republican Senate staffer, in which he asserted that choosing Kagan would help Obama "please" much of his base, because she would be the "first openly gay justice."
Here's Domenech in his own words. Doesn't seem too different from what Vanasco wrote, but it got Domenech labeled "a lying scumbag" by blogger "digby." Domenech later explained that he wrongly assumed Kagan was out of the closet, triggering further lefty attacks against him.
And it's not just crazy leftwing bloggers. As the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz reported:
CBS initially refused to pull the posting, prompting Anita Dunn, a former White House communications director who is working with the administration on the high court vacancy, to say: "The fact that they've chosen to become enablers of people posting lies on their site tells us where the journalistic standards of CBS are in 2010." She said the network was giving a platform to a blogger "with a history of plagiarism" who was "applying old stereotypes to single women with successful careers." The network deleted the posting....
As William A Jacobson blogs at Legal Insurrection
"it is curious that those objecting to the Kagan rumor seem to treat an accusation of being gay as a slur.... I don't know if I would support Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court. I'll wait to learn more about her. If she's gay, so be it, but I will not treat that fact or rumor as a slur. And I'll hold her to the same level of disclosure of personal relationships that we would expect of any other nominee."
Finally, IGF contributing author David Boaz blogs at the Politico:
a White House spokesman, Ben LaBolt, said he complained to CBS because the column "made false charges." I would have hoped that in 2010, in a liberal White House, the statement that someone is gay would not be considered a "charge." The American Heritage Dictionary defines "charge" as "a claim of wrongdoing; an accusation." For many decades it was indeed a "charge," and a career-ending one, to be identified as gay. I would hope that's no longer true, and I'm disappointed in the White House's language.
Let's just add it to the list of our disappointments.
41 Comments for “Is the “Charge” of Being Gay a Slur? Ask Obama”
posted by Jimmy on
Things like this are why some of us who are center-left, and certainly those who are traditional leftists, have been saying that the Barack Obama that became POTUS is not quite the lefty that those on the right have made him out to be.
posted by Bobby on
Actually, B. Hussein Obama is a brilliant leftist who simply disguises himself as a centrist. The only reason the DNC wants to keep Kagan in the closet is to avoid controversy, remember, these are the people that promise fiscal responsibility and then end up buying GM. Besides, as I wrote on advocate.com, “Straight politicians aren’t closeted, they take pictures of themselves next to their spouses, kids, etc. If Kagan has a partner she has a duty to be out. After all, politicians are “public servants,” they have to serve an example. If you’re gonna lie to me about your sexual orientation, what else are you hiding? ”
posted by Tom on
The response on both sides of the issue was predictable and stale. Eventually enough gays and lesbians at ground level will come out and live their lives in the open to defuse the “gay/lesbian” issue.
Meanwhile, captive Republican and the spineless Democratic politicians will let groups like the FRC (“We can assure you that we recognize that homosexual behavior is a sin and does not reflect God’s created intent and desire for humanity. Further, we at Focus do affirm that character and moral rectitude should be key considerations in appointing members of the judiciary, especially in the case of the highest court in the land. Sexual behavior — be it heterosexual or homosexual — certainly lies at the heart of personal morality.“) play the tune, and all the politicians will dance.
Dance, that is, until we’ve already won the fight on the ground. Then they’ll grow a pair. You watch.
posted by Bobby on
The gay community talks a lot about gay pride, but then when it’s convenient they excuse closet case politicians. At advocate.com a woman insults me, she says only gays face discrimination for their orientation. Well, I say, so what? Mormons face discrimination for their Mormonism, Edwards faced discrimination for being a former ambulance chaser and a “phony” as Hillary Clinton calls him in Game Change. Public service is not for the weak, a public servant can’t have secrets. In fact, the are military jobs where they do a thorough background check to make sure a foreign enemy won’t find anything in your life that they can use to blackmail you. So I’m sorry, Kagan, if you’re in the closet you should either come out or reject the job. You’re supposed to be a role model so act like one.
posted by Debrah on
“So I’m sorry, Kagan, if you’re in the closet you should either come out or reject the job. You’re supposed to be a role model so act like one.”
***************************************
Beautiful.
I’m so bored by some gays in positions of responsibility or those who have voluntarily put themselves in the spotlight in one way or another adopting the attitude that they should not be compelled to be honest about their lives.
Everyone in a significant position of authority is put through intense scrutiny.
If Kagan or anyone else cannot handle the public arena and believes that she can play hide-and-seek for personal comfort and convenience, then she should be bounced.
This is silly.
And the “progressive” White House doesn’t appear, in essence, to be very “progressive” after all.
Amusing, that.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Why are we having this conversation?
Because regardless, a gay person advancing WHILE honest about their orientation, is nearly impossible.
Public scrutiny, true, isn’t for the weak.
But this puts a spotlight on the effect of bigotry and the public’s expectations and assumptions about whoever belongs to the traditionally discriminated against group.
One reveals a lot about themselves in the opinions they have about such individuals.
Public office has been the luxury of heterosexual Christian white males, with STILL little competition from anyone else who isn’t in that mold.
They DON’T receive the same scrutiny, nor are they challenged on every decision they do or don’t make.
Look at the response to Judge Walker who presided over the Prop. 8 trial.
When no one knew he was gay, his decisions weren’t the subject of suspicion.
But now that HIS orientation is revealed, the ANTI gay all of a sudden want him recused, don’t trust his ability to make a fair decision (despite the fact they lacked evidence to support their case).
Gay people have to submit to hetero judges all the time. And even in the case of Walker, his record speaks for itself, he doesn’t always favor gay people either.
Gay people are NOT trusted in general. Not even to get married and be near children, or serve in the military.
Being open and honest isn’t a luxury most gay people have for the most basic need of making a living. It’s all too easy to criticize those simply SUSPECTED of being gay.
But the point is why is that a matter of suspicion? Why is it a question, unless someone is waiting to take that woman down at the nearest opportunity.
Kevin Jennings didn’t just go through scrutiny, but outright character assassination and libel.
Same for any OTHER gay or transperson who has recently been promoted to White House appointed jobs.
One can’t blame a person being tentative about timing with regard to coming out.
The point isn’t that they are dishonest if they don’t or don’t when people think they should.
The point is treating it as if they are confessing to a crime, and most gay people are treated as if they committed a crime if or when they do.
It shouldn’t matter WHAT orientation Kagan is. Unless there are people just waiting to tear down her career as we’ve seen happen to other gay public figures.
It’s a matter of interest for gay people for another, more obvious reason, the necessity to have gay people represented in such positions.
Because of my close associations, friends and political activity, I’m mistaken for a lesbian all the time.
When arguing with anti gay individuals, they ask me about my orientation in such a manner for a few reasons:
1. To put me on the defensive as if I’d be eager to deny it.
2. As if that’s a bad thing and only another gay person would defend gay people.
Sometimes I answer, sometimes I don’t. Depends.
The decision is up to me, either way.
But someone who is anti gay, likes to make the decision FOR me.
Part and parcel of anti gay sentiment.
Wanting to be in control of gay lives, by any means necessary. Even destroying this woman’s career, whether she’s gay or not.
But most likely, if she is.
posted by Debrah on
Oh, G/d.
posted by Bobby on
“I’m so bored by some gays in positions of responsibility or those who have voluntarily put themselves in the spotlight in one way or another adopting the attitude that they should not be compelled to be honest about their lives.”
—I totally agree. Neither celebrities nor politicians control the spotlight, they can’t turn it on or off at their will. Besides, gay people are not always rejected when they come out, Andrew Sullivan used to be very popular among republicans until he started shifting left, Tammy Bruce has a popular radio show and is beloved as a pro-choice libertarian/conservative. Both of those people are gay, both are out of the closet, and both succeed because of ideology and talent, their sexuality is secondary to most people other than crazy fanatics.
“Kevin Jennings didn’t just go through scrutiny, but outright character assassination and libel.”
—Kevin Jennings is a leftwing radical, he’s the kind of teacher that didn’t report underage sex to the authorities. Think about it, you’re the teacher, your student says “I’m having sex with an older man” and your reaction is “ok, but remember to wear a condom.” Hello? Even Jennings admits he made a mistake.
Honestly, why are we defending Jennings? Are there not enough honorable gays that we need to defend dishonorable gays?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The problem here, Bobby, is that you’re dealing with Regan DuCasse.
Despite her babbling about “tolerance”, what we can easily see is that she supports and endorses gay and lesbian people who openly encourage attacks of this nature on gay people who they disagree with politically.
For all her whining about attacks on gay and lesbian people, she openly supports and encourages such attacks. She supports and praises organizations who practice this sort of attack on gay and lesbian people whose only crimes are having different political beliefs than what she deems gay and lesbian people “should” have.
In short, it has nothing to do with “fairness and justice” or “outright character assassination and libel”. It has everything to do with politics. She supports character assassination and libel when practiced against gay and lesbian people who don’t comply with her demands for their political views.
posted by Bobby on
I’ll let Regan speak for herself, since I don’t know her that well. But thanks for your comments, I don’t know how you’re so organized that you can keep the statements others make available to use in discussions like this.
posted by Debrah on
I’m glad you made that point, Bobby.
It’s always astounding.
ND30 is like clockwork and has a reference for every point being made.
Like there’s a “Google nexus” inside his brain!
posted by Jorge on
Please tell me this story is a late April Fool.
Well, I don’t want to feed into one size fits all stereotyping, but I suspect that if this potential candidate is either a closeted or “none of your business” gay person, she would be, at the most extreme, a middle of the road liberal, and quite possibly a conservative on gay issues. By the way, *is* she the one considered the most middle of the road among the short list? Why yes she is! Huffington Post says she’s more conservative than Stevens. (Well, on some levels, just about everyone is.)
There, I’ve just wasted 10 minutes of my life on something I don’t care about. Yet.
posted by another steve on
The Obama administration and Human Rights Campaign have nailed Elena Kagan into her closet. But don’t dare criticize them, they’re progressives.
posted by Bobby on
Jorge, the American media no longer tolerates hypocrisy from their politicians. It is unforgivable that JFK was allowed to portray an image of morality while diddling Marilyn Monroe and other starlets. I’m glad John Edwards adulterous affair got exposed, although now that I’m reading Game Change I’m realizing that Elizabeth Edwards is a real bitch, the kind of woman that belittles the husband, makes fun of him in public, and then wonders why that southern pervert ends up seeking the company of that whore Hunter. People need to be held accountable to the image they present, if Charlie Crist is gay then I want to know. After all, do you remember how Dick Morris had to resign from the Clinton campaign over a toe sucking picture of him and a hooker? A picture that was taken only because he decided to do that in a balcony and some photographer was lucky to capture that. Morris wasn’t even running for office, yet if he’s held to a higher standard, why not politicians?
posted by Throbert McGee on
Mostly agreed, with a couple of provisos.
First, I don’t have a problem with Jodie Foster preferring to be a closeted lesbian (as I assume she is), because so far as I know, she’s always been extremely low-key about ALL aspects of her off-camera life. In other words, she’s not one of those famous people who throws herself into being a “celebrity” and tries to keep the spotlight on herself at all times, yet insists that the press treat her sexual orientation as taboo.
Second, when it comes to gay people holding public office, I can somewhat sympathize with those in “rank-and-file” positions who prefer not to disclose their homosexuality.
After all, admitting that you’re gay will invite “litmus testing” from others in the gay community, while at the same time inviting suspicion of favoritism and cronyism from non-gays.
(Debrah, here’s another case where the circumstance of a gay person can be similar to that of a Jew!)
But the days when Jewish public figures could try to avoid the litmus-testing and the accusations of favoritism (“Senator Goldsteinbergowitz, what’s your position on aid to Israel?”) and get away with it are long past.
And even if gays in the lower echelons of public service should get a pass on being closeted, because their desire to avoid the litmus-testing/favoritism issue is “legitimate,” by the time they get to the point of being considered for the Supreme Court, they really need to have Gotten It Over With. That is, a homosexual who isn’t fully prepared to deal with the tsuris of being called an Uncle Tom by other homosexuals, or a Fifth Columnist by homophobic conservatives, just isn’t ready for the higher levels of public office.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Oopsie! Just to be more clear, I should’ve written: “But the days when Jewish public figures could try to pass as Gentiles in order to avoid the litmus-testing…etc.”
posted by Debrah on
Throbert–
I agree with you about Jodie Foster and people like her who have never craved the spotlight.
She’s a formidable actress and she’s not asking for anything from the public outside her craft, so no one should really care about her private life.
I admire the kind of person she is. She also, apparently, had a very rough childhood and was virtually the only breadwinner for the whole family at that time.
I just don’t like the fact that some wish to put themselves in positions of authority or in the public arena…….gladly bask in the glow…….as they mulct every benefit…..
…….and then proceed to take the attitude that unlike others in the same positions, they will not be scrutinized.
IMO, people like that have had too much “Mama” and not enough “Papa” in their lives.
You just imagine a gay guy whose mother has always treated “her boy” like the golden egg she laid.
Over-praising and coddling and assuring him that he’s her “special one”.
The father in such a circumstance remains distant and secretly yearns for a “boy” who likes “girls” the way he did…..so there is always a self-conscious and uneasy relationship between father and son.
But “Mama” was and will always be the prop and the apologist for “her boy” in all things.
“Papa” grows old as the ignored and emasculated one……as “boy” goes out into the world expecting everyone to yield and bow to his views and his desires.
Those are the “boys” who will always have a difficult time when confronted with any degree of push-back from the outside world.
And when he might find himself in a position of authority…..(outside the confines of “Mama”)……he doesn’t play nice when questioned about his tendencies.
Although, one has to admit that a “Mama’s boy” is a tedious character with whom to contend—gay or straight.
But a gay “Mama’s boy” is hell on wheels in the navel-gazing department because “Mama” has always told him how extremely special he is with a vengeance……..and he’s never forgotten.
:>)
“……..by the time they get to the point of being considered for the Supreme Court, they really need to have Gotten It Over With.”
*******************************************
I vehemently agree, Throbert.
It’s simply an archaic approach to try to use race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation as an excuse to play a “hands-off” game in today’s world.
Especially in light of the fact that those very characteristics are often key elements used to propel so many into higher positions.
Ooops! We’re not suppose to tell the truth about such things!
The fact is that people in those categories often do take positions on issues for personal reasons.
That should not be a deal-breaker, but it should be highlighted in bold relief.
There’s nothing worse than someone in a prominent position destroying the integrity of an atmosphere by conducting themselves through personal persuasion…….
……..all the while refusing to openly acknowledge it.
posted by Jorge on
I’m glad John Edwards adulterous affair got exposed, although now that I’m reading Game Change I’m realizing that Elizabeth Edwards is a real bitch, the kind of woman that belittles the husband, makes fun of him in public, and then wonders why that southern pervert ends up seeking the company of that whore Hunter.
Everything you ever needed to know about Elizabeth Edwards was exposed in the 2004 race. It’s a shame that her husband is of such low character, because I think they make a good couple.
Bobby, I see absolutely nothing wrong with a person taking the identity of a closeted gay person or a person who’s out but does not want to be pigeonholed as a flag waving poster child. Certainly most gay conservatives fall into one category or another. If you’re consistent about either, it’s not hypocrisy.
posted by Throbert McGee on
On a related note, I’m a huge fan of South Park (it’s the only TV show I watch these days!), and for most of the show’s run, the identity of Eric Cartman’s father has been something of a mystery. Last week’s episode triggered renewed speculation about the paternity issue, and the leading contenders seem to be either the deeply neurotic gay 4th-grade teacher Herbert Garrison, OR Gerald Broflovski, the show’s only recurring adult male Jewish character, and the father of Eric’s arch-enemy Kyle.
Anyway, although there would be a huge amount of comic irony in Cartman being half-Jewish (since he’s always been frothingly antisemitic), I’m leaning towards Mr. Garrison, because Cartman’s latent homosexual tendencies have been the subject of jokes since Season 1. So it would be an example of the apple falling not too far from the tree if Garrison turns out to be the dad. Plus, Mrs. Cartman is exactly the sort of doting, smother-mother type Debrah describes — if Cartman comes out of the closet someday, she’d instantly be one of those over-supportive PFLAG moms marching in every single Pride Parade with a sign that says “I ⥠MY SPECIAL PRECIOUS ANGEL POOPYKINS GAY SON!â¥!â¥!⥔
posted by Debrah on
Throbert–
Thanks for the brief summary of the South Park script.
Can you believe that I’ve never watched a single episode in my life?
I might be the only person on earth!
I’ve watched snippets occasionally when channel-surfing, but that’s it.
From your recap it seems that the writers use comedy to highlight aspects of the culture wars…..and quite effectively.
I don’t know if you remember “Pee Wee’s Playhouse” which was a Saturday staple long ago.
I LOVED that show. It was so goofy, but in a good way.
Too bad Pee Wee ruined his career by spending too much time in dark theatres. Reubens is very talented.
People like the late Phil Hartman (SNL) and Laurence Fishburne had recurring roles.
Fishburne was “Cowboy Curtis”.
Hilarious.
posted by Debrah on
Our Black, Tan, and Lavender White House from The New Yorker
posted by Jimmy on
That was a fun read, Debrah. Hertzberg adds yet another dimension, albeit tongue-and-cheek, to the unendingly fascinating persona of that most epicurean of founders, Thomas Jefferson.
posted by Debrah on
Hi Jimmy–
Yes, wasn’t that a good one?
Everyone should read it.
posted by Bobby on
“Everything you ever needed to know about Elizabeth Edwards was exposed in the 2004 race. It’s a shame that her husband is of such low character, because I think they make a good couple.”
—I don’t know about that, Edward’s staffers say that these two fight a lot. One time John Edwards was asked if he had read certain books and Elizabeth replied that he doesn’t read books, that she’s the one who reads books. True or not, a good woman stands by her man, she does not humiliate him in public, refer to his parents as rednecks, calls him a hick and leaves nasty messages on the voicemail of Mr. Young when in reality it’s her husband she should be angry about. Honestly, some people are better off getting a divorce. Maybe Edwards should marry Rielle, then again, “the man who hungers for a mistress grows cold for a wife.” That’s my favorite line from She-Devil.
“Bobby, I see absolutely nothing wrong with a person taking the identity of a closeted gay person or a person who’s out but does not want to be pigeonholed as a flag waving poster child. Certainly most gay conservatives fall into one category or another. If you’re consistent about either, it’s not hypocrisy.”
—I support outing across the board. If you see a politician in a gay bar, it’s your duty to take a picture and send it to all your friends.
posted by FrGrnDrgns@aol.com on
I don’t know about that, Edward’s staffers say that these two fight a lot. One time John Edwards was asked if he had read certain books and Elizabeth replied that he doesn’t read books, that she’s the one who reads books…
Like I said, I think they make a good couple 🙂 But only one of them cheated on their spouse who had cancer. It’s a shame John Edwards is such a creep.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Hi Bobby, I’ll respond to your post about Kevin Jennings.
Yes, Kevin Jennings admitted he’d made a mistake back then.
But he also did this during a time he himself was closeted, and didn’t have the resources or other advisors to help him respond properly.
In fact, it turns out, the kid WASN’T doing what he’d said to Jennings.
Since then, Jennings has been the strongest advocate of just the education and services he AND this teenager needed.
His mistake didn’t have tragic consequences in fact, and he learned from that experience and is working towards lessening such possibilities.
As for your question, more honorable gay people to be put in his position?
Well, considering the climate out there, your question is interesting.
Because according to the most virulent and noisiest factions out there, undercutting every suggestion, there aren’t any.
Regardless of being exemplary in many areas, gay folks are still not being placed or respected where they most need to be.
And THAT’S the point.
We shouldn’t be having this conversation in the first place.
A gay person appointed anywhere (or ‘suspected’ of being gay) is cause for distrust, no matter what they do, their record or commitment to their job.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
It’s not funny when someone jumps the shark, and even their links have nothing to do with what they accuse. ND30 is taking up another libel and slander thread and running with it.
There obviously is no profit in my support of equality and justice.
And my pedigree in that regard shouldn’t have to be reiterated.
It looks defensive and immodest.
I’m not someone who supports bad behavior by ANYONE gay or not. I’m not so condescending to or ignorant of certain types of socio/political expedience by members of the gay community.
I just may not respond so cynically to everything that happens around gay people, whether public figures or not.
Which may or may not be the differences between me and others here. It’s most likely that’s all it is.
But I belong to another minority. I tend to see the similarities in the way the character of both minorities is defamed and stereotypes exaggerated.
There is also a great deal of similarity in how each tries to own their identity and the consequences when they can’t.
I empathize.
And considering how useful this is in law enforcement AND social advocate institutions like the Simon Weisenthal Center, a few of you might not think much of that here on this thread, but it’s important in OTHER ways that is quite effective where it counts.
If cynicism, or misunderstanding is the difference between a meeting of the minds, and outright nasty hostility, then it really is a shame isn’t it?
And that will only make honesty, seriousness and civility the first casualties of discussions here, where we need it most.
And well done, Bobby. You’re right. No one here knows me that well, if at all.
Especially not enough to accuse me of anything.
posted by Throbert McGee on
posted by Throbert McGee on
The thing is, Regan, it doesn’t take resources or advisors to say to a kid in that situation:
“You know what? At your age, you’re much better off staying in your bedroom with a Playgirl, some Vaseline, and a little help from Han’ Solo and his five Wookies! Get it? Yeah, I jack off to Harrison Ford fantasies, too. Now get to class and stay out of the bus station toilets, you little scamp! And, by the way, if you’re gonna ignore my advice and try to pick up another guy even though you’re underage, REMEMBER that two dudes can have a really good time just jacking each other off and kissing!”
No money or resources necessary — just wisdom and common sense, which Jennings was evidently lacking.
posted by Debrah on
“….. and a little help from Han’ Solo and his five Wookies!”
***********************************************
LOL!
I’m dying with that one.
posted by Bobby on
“Yes, Kevin Jennings admitted he’d made a mistake back then.”
—The problem is he hasn’t admitted that to the right people. He needs to talk to Bill O’Reilly, he needs to face direct questioning. If he’s innocent he will be come out looking good, if he’s not then I can see why he’s hiding. As for me, I don’t like people who hide, my respect for Hillary Clinton grew 100% after she faced Bill O. I was also happy that Obama faced that Baier guy, and I’m glad he got interrupted because Obama tends to bloviate instead of getting into specifics.
I also think teachers should send the kid to the guidance counselor, school psychologist or call the parents to deal with stuff like that. Schools have become to radicalized, in Seattle they even drove a girl to have an abortion and paid for it, without parental consent.
Glenn Beck tells the story of how he asked his daughters teacher about the curriculum and how the teacher replied “it’s my job to educate her” and Beck said “no, I’m the parent, it’s my job to take care of her education and it’s your job to assist me.” Teachers and government workers need to remember that, they work for us, they are accountable to us, we don’t work for them.
posted by Throbert McGee on
By the way, I suppose it’s well past time that I admitted something: My username on Xtube is “FrotDawg.”
Just in case anyone is curious.
posted by Bobby on
Well Throbert, I saw you perform in one of your videos. Question, why not just do amateur porn and get paid for it? All those gays at xtube are basically giving it away for free, seems pointless to me.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Throbert: yes, it does, for a situation like that which can be a lot more delicate and risky.
As it turns out though, the young man has defended Jennings, and the boy WASN’T at risk at the time.
The kid himself was looking for some kind of support and help. And if that’s the answer YOU’D give and Debrah thinks this is all a big joke, I see right now, you have no better ideas or certainly aren’t anyone in a position to DO better.
Bobby, I would think you’d understand that this is exactly the point. BACK THEN, teachers AND parents have been hard pressed to know what to do for a gay teenager.
But for the expansion of OTHER supportive groups (over time met with much opposition along the way), such as GLSEN, PFLAG, GSA’s and so on, other teenagers wouldn’t have had any help whatsoever.
Jennings, is in the position he’s in to advise on the safest and most effective approach to gay teenagers.
And, I have no doubts, this issue IS over something that occurred because of a gay teen. And as anyone here knows, gay people and teenagers will ALWAYS be the subject of suspicion, no matter how exemplary their record with them as educators.
But this isn’t just about Jennings, this is about OTHERS placed in jobs (or any job, like the military) by the White House who instantly become suspect over speculation about their orientation.
Why are we having this conversation to begin with?
The point is, we shouldn’t be.
posted by Bobby on
Regan, the victim of Roman Polansky has defended the man who molested her, so while I’m not comparing Jennings to a child molester, he did screw up with his advice.
We are having this conversation because Obama feels the need to appoint the most radical people he can find. Honestly, I wish Glenn Beck wasn’t making this up, I wish there wasn’t a video of Obama expressing his deep connection to ACORN, I wish there wasn’t a video of Van Jones calling himself a communist, I wish there wasn’t a website called Democratic Socialists in which they admit being “a party within a party.” Or that magazines like Newsweek didn’t do one cover saying “we’re all socialist now” and another cover attacking those who call Obama a socialist.
I find it hateful how the mainstream media didn’t cover SEIU thugs calling a black man the n-word and beating him up, yet worry about Tea Partiers bringing guns to the protests. So perhaps Jennings is small potatoes compared to all this, in fact, I haven’t heard Beck rail against Jennings, but it certainly does fit a patter. Remember, Obama promised to fundamentally transform America, the question is, into what?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And considering how useful this is in law enforcement AND social advocate institutions like the Simon Weisenthal Center, a few of you might not think much of that here on this thread, but it’s important in OTHER ways that is quite effective where it counts.
Then I’m glad to know that the Simon Wiesenthal Center and “law enforcement” endorse and support these sort of statements about gay and lesbian people as perfectly fine and tolerant.
Dan Blatt is a loathsome piece of shit who will sell out other gay people in order to curry the favor of straight Republicans who pat him on the head every now but then call him a cock-sucking heels-in-the-air fudge-packed girlie-boy behind his back (even though only the girlie-boy part is actually true). Dan says all this stuff because the probability that any gay man would ever give enough of a shit about Dan to visit him in a hospital, much less to have a relationship with him, is remote â as remote as the possibility that Dan will ever have sex with anyone other than a blind leper in a darkened truck stop in rural Alabama, and even then the leper will have to down a fifth of Jack Danielâs before he can bring himself to do it. Fuck you, Dan, you wretched, illiterate prick.
Fully endorsed and supported by Truth Wins Out and Ex-Gay Watch.
Look, yâall. We all know that the writers at GayPatriot are self-loathing, awful people, indeed, embarrassments to LGBT people everywhere. In the past 24 hours, the âDaniel Blattâ one was one of the only wingnuts on the entire internet to have a problem with Obama granting visitation rights to same-sex couples. Indeed, his post on the subject was so grotesque that Tintin at Sadly, No!, usually one of the greatest snark blogs EVER, dispensed with all silliness to throw down one of the most memorable, spot-on smackdowns Iâve seen in recent months. I wonât quote it here because this is a family blog, but suffice it to say that everything he said is true, and then some.
Along with additional encouragement to attack other gay and lesbian people.
Now do the other ones, the âColorado Patriotâ one and the âBruceâ one, and weâll be done with that site forever.
Again, this is what the Southern Poverty Law Center and its donor Regan DuCasse support and endorse and see nothing wrong with doing. This is what the Simon Wiesenthal Center and its volunteer Regan DuCasse support and endorse and see nothing wrong with doing.
Everyone should remember when talking to Regan that she endorses, supports, and sees nothing wrong with these statements that were just made by her fellow racist, leftist, lgbt supporters.
posted by Debrah on
“Well Throbert, I saw you perform in one of your videos. Question, why not just do amateur porn and get paid for it? All those gays at xtube are basically giving it away for free, seems pointless to me.”
******************************************
Bobby, I am constantly entertained by your indefatigable pragmatism.
That said, I was impressed by how well-endowed Throbert is.
LOL!!!
posted by Throbert McGee on
Actually, I have done professional porn (as an amateur performer), once, and got paid for it — it was called Closed Set: Oral Report. Mainly I did it because of my immense admiration for director Joe Gage.
posted by Bobby on
“Bobby, I am constantly entertained by your indefatigable pragmatism.”
—Thanks Debrah, you’re very sweet. My “indefatigable pragmatism” Anyway, here’s a story I think you’ll find interesting.
Frat inspired by Robert E. Lee bans Rebel uniforms
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100422/ap_on_re_us/us_old_south_fraternity_3
See why I worry so much about progressives?
“That said, I was impressed by how well-endowed Throbert is.”
—Hmmm, I couldn’t tell? What was that, Throbert? 7 inches? 8 inches? It’s not like he had a ruler next to his piece de resistance.
“Actually, I have done professional porn (as an amateur performer), once, and got paid for it — it was called Closed Set: Oral Report. Mainly I did it because of my immense admiration for director Joe Gage.”
—Good for you, Throbert, my admiration for you has now increased. See? That’s what I like to see progressives doing. I want them to have sex, I want them to smoke pot, drink alcohol, party a lot and stay away from politics. In a perfect world the two major parties would be Republican and Libertarian, then we can fight each other regarding social issues but at least we wouldn’t have the DNC bankrupting America. And yes, I know republicans waste money, but in one year Obama has managed to quadruple the deficit he inherited from Bush.
posted by mls on
A very smart and diplomatic answer. Itâs really appreciable and
general.
[url=http://mls.fastrealestate.net]mls[/url]
posted by Lori Heine on
“In a perfect world the two major parties would be Republican and Libertarian.”
I like your world, Bobby. Can I move there?