As the Obama machine gins up its political blood libel accusing the anti-tax, pro-limited government Tea Party movement of being racist-despite lack of evidence-the Washington Post, to its credit, takes note of "the strong libertarian strains within the tea party movement," as evidenced by its refusal to join social conservatives in condemning same-sex marriage. In fact, the paper reports that following the Massachusetts' district court ruling finding sections of the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional:
The large tea party-affiliated organizations, including FreedomWorks and the Tea Party Nation, declined to comment on [district court judge Joseph] Tauro's ruling because of their groups' fiscal focus. "That's just not something that's on our radar," said Judson Phillips, founder of the Tea Party Nation. He acknowledged, however, that some in his group-though not a majority-are opposed to the Defense of Marriage Act.
The situation is perhaps different in South Florida, where [Everett Wilkinson, state director for the Florida Tea Party Patriots] said "several hundred" of the group's supporters are gay. "Our stance might be different than someone who's in Oklahoma," he said.
More. If you're a Facebook person, this Gay Tea Partiers Facebook page has 124 members to date. (Update: now 132 members, and counting.)
Furthermore. Some of the comments have already turned to discussing the Obama Justice Department's refusal to prosecute members of the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation (against those they call "crackers") in Philadelphia during the 2008 election, as Deroy Murdoch writes about here.
116 Comments for “It’s Not the Tea Partiers Who Are Intolerant”
posted by Jorge on
Hmmmm.
So the NAACP, as Stephen Miller references, wants “all people of good
to repudiate the racist element and activities within the tea party”. They apparently have never heard of the parable of the wooden beam.
Thank you.
Oh, and thank you for exposing the homophobia within the Tea Party, too. There are actual media reports of heterosexists in the party! This is mystifying, you can find them! Can’t find the racist posters in the papers, even with some of our posters in the mix, so the NAACP prez makes stuff up and that gets in the papers, but you can find the homophobes, you can get big tea party leaders to admit they exist. This country is mad!
posted by Jorge on
“All people of good”>> “all people of good will”
posted by Bobby on
When will the NAACP repudiate the Black Panthers? There’s video after video of black panthers saying they want to kill babies, crackers, lesbians, gays, etc. In fact, why doesn’t the NAACP repudiate the racism within it’s own organization? Or the fact that black conservatives are often referred to as “Uncle Tom?” Or why don’t they repudiate the beating a black man suffered by SEIU thugs for selling stuff at a Tea Party?
posted by Debrah on
A comic strip from 2001 linked at The Atlantic’s “Dish”.
Illustrating Discrimination
The place seems to be more interesting when Sullivan is on vacation and people like David Frum and others are subbing.
posted by Bobby on
The inconsistency of the military when it comes to gays is amazing. Did you know they have taken volunteers and draftees that were openly gay? Or that in one particular case, there was a soldier drag queen who was so popular she performed for the troops and was voted #1 when she competed with real women? Then you read the horror stories of effeminate gay soldiers that were beaten or forced to perform fellatio on a bunch of men. I mean, it’s a real mixed bag of experiences when it comes to gays in the military. And when it comes to lesbians is not that easier either, during times women where seen as either dykes or whores, basically, if you didn’t perform sexual favors for the men, you where a dyke, and if you did, a whore. Even today women are still not allowed to serve in combat, although I’m glad they have been training as pilots since 1973. If you like this topic, I really recommend the book “Conduct Unbecoming” by Randy Shilts. It’s truly brilliant.
posted by another steve on
Yes, refering to the now unimaginable budget deficit as a “black hole” is clearly racist — that is, if you’ve never heard of black holes and don’t have a clue what they are!
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
The NAACP statement quoted above by Jorge seems rather moderate. They’re not saying the Tea Party is racist, but noting that there is a racist element (we have all seen the disgusting signs) and asking for that element to be repudiated. A blood libel? Stephen, how about dialing it down a fraction? As to the New Black Panthers, there appear to be about 3 of them, and to say they are not a major political force is a big understatement. However, you might enjoy my profile of their leader, a fellow named Malik Zulu Shabazz, published by David Horowitz in 2004:
http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=14294
The Tea Party’s failure to condemn the recent ruling on the same-sex marriage cases from GLAD and MA AG Coakley is indeed a good sign pointing to the libertarian presence in that movement. Some message-policing at future rallies, in the tradition of Frank Kameny’s careful instructions to participants in the first gay picket outside the White House in 1965, couldn’t hurt.
Meanwhile, I’m celebrating today’s 5-4 ruling by the D.C. Court of Appeals in Jackson v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics, upholding the prohibition against a ballot measure on marriage in D.C. Such a measure would be discriminatory under the D.C. Human Rights Act. You can find a lot of material in GLAA’s chronological archive on the subject at:
http://www.glaa.org/projects/families.shtml
posted by Jorge on
Bill O’Reilly’s line of thinking on the subject yesterday, which you appear to be referencing, Bobby, is in my view lenient. He munched on the lowest of the low-hanging fruit. I was thinking of Julian Bond’s leadership and comments, which did much to tar the organization’s credibility and any pretense of objectivity. The NAACP simply is not a trustworthy organization on racial matters. Fortunately, we can each come to our own conclusions by looking at all the evidence.
So let’s take “we’ve all seen the signs.” Actually, we haven’t all seen them, and in fact there is strong evidence that the NAACP president made up the exact signs that he alleged existed, because no media outlet captured them. Do you suppose this is media bias? I suppose Media Matters, a site devoted to countering media bias, must surely have captured some of the racist signs everyone is talking about. Aha! Jackpot!
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201004150068
And just in case we forgot, here’s their re-sum up on the racism deal from four hours ago, look at all the racist signs they found:
http://mediamatters.org/research/201007150039
History is a b****, isn’t it? Ignore the fact that the reportage cited in the above link (N-word was allegedly thrown at the Congressman as he was leaving the Capitol) directly contradicts the argument below that there is no credible video proof that Dems lied about tea partiers hurling the N-word (“but the incident happened when he was *entering* the Capitol”). We are already holding our nose.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201004130041
In summary, a serious reading of the tea party’s biggest detractors reveals no credible evidence of racism within the tea party movement. So would you help the blind to see?
posted by Bobby on
Thanks for the links, Jorge. If calling Obama a “lying African” is racist, then so is the term African-American. I do not think the word “African” is the n-word, but then again, progressives don’t need you to shout the n-word, they have magical powers that allows them to hear what you’re really thinking.
Most of the signs were political, i.e. impeach the muslim marxist, we need a christian president, obama-bin ladin, save grandpa, pull the plug on Obama; traitor, impeach Obama… I only saw one sign with the word “niggar.” If the NAACP expects the Tea Party to condemn itself because some yahoo had the word niggar in a sign they’re crazy. Besides, the Tea Party signs are NOTHING compared to the signs they used to have against Bush.
Check out this link:
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/why-was-anti-bush-protest-and-signs-patriotic-but-now-anti-obama-protest-and-signs-are-anti-america/question-903277/?link=ibaf&imgurl=http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/imheretokillbush.jpg&q=anti-Bush%2Bsigns
They have people with signs that say kill Bush among other things. You know what I also find fascinating? Reports about Tea Party violence. Now I’ve seen leftwing violence every year at the G8 summit, I’ve seen the looting, the anarchists, the vandlism, attacks on the police, etc. Yet when you look at the Tea Parties these people have yet to commit a single act of violence, that is unless you count semi-offensive signs as act of violence.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The NAACP statement quoted above by Jorge seems rather moderate. They’re not saying the Tea Party is racist, but noting that there is a racist element (we have all seen the disgusting signs) and asking for that element to be repudiated.
Except that that was a lie, as the actual text of the resolution they were pushing makes abundantly clear:
The resolution, scheduled for a vote as early as Tuesday by delegates attending the annual NAACP convention in Kansas City, calls upon “all people of good will to repudiate the racism of the Tea Parties, and to stand in opposition to its drive to push our country back to the pre-civil rights era.”
Meanwhile, Richard, do you really want to know what racism looks like? This.
But of course, harassing black women for helping those “crackers” doesn’t qualify as racism to liberals and the NAACP. In fact, the Obama Party and the Obama administration say that it’s perfectly acceptable to stand outside a polling place and harass and threaten white voters.
Why do you support that, Richard?
posted by Jimmy on
I wonder if the libertarians within the Tea Party agree with Judge Napolitano’s stance on Bush and Cheney deserving criminal indictment for violating the US Constitution.
posted by Jorge on
Hmmmm, you know, I have to admit not noticing the signs in the second link. I thought if they had bothered they would have put the signs at the beginning. So I’ll take back some of what I said. Still, I’m disappointed I didn’t find the mythical “lynch Obama” and “lynch Holder” signs.
posted by Debrah on
As a side bar, here’s the link to the CFN Conference that will be going on today through Saturday for which Jonathan Rauch will be the keynote speaker this evening.
Just check the links and the site for further information.
Those of you—and I know there are a number—who are interested in the subject of free speech and free expression, especially on university campuses, will be interested in this conference.
If for no other reason than for a glimpse into topics discussed by scholars and students.
There’s a live stream and Rauch speaks at a gala dinner tonight.
posted by Debrah on
The Gays and the Jews from David Frum subbing for the terminally-confused Sullivan.
“From Nazi Germany to the modern Middle East, societies that persecute Jews will get to homosexuals eventually – if they haven’t been dispensed with already. This is a lesson that gays ignore at their peril.”
Someone explain this to poor Andy! He must have bumped his head when he crossed the pond all those years ago.
posted by Bobby on
“I wonder if the libertarians within the Tea Party agree with Judge Napolitano’s stance on Bush and Cheney deserving criminal indictment for violating the US Constitution.”
—The Tea Party is about stopping government spending and socialism, when it comes to the military and fighting the war on terror they are very supportive. Besides, Judge Napolitano isn’t a perfect libertarian, libertarianism says your freedom ends where my nose begins. What that means is you don’t treat terror suspects like your typical criminal. Even OJ Simpson, your typical criminal, had to spend more than a year in jail while he was being tried for the murder of his wife and her lover. So if OJ has to do time without even being convicted, I expect no less from terror suspects.
posted by Brian Miller on
There is no libertarian element in the Tea Party.
There is a significant Republican one, however. Here is an example of Republican Tea Party politics in action: http://tinyurl.com/28kk79x
posted by BobN on
This is a lesson that gays ignore at their peril.
How about the lesson that further radicalizing religion in a society ends badly for everyone. Gay people, perhaps even more so than the Jews, understand that freedom for all can only be guaranteed in a pluralistic, secular society where everyone is treated equally and with dignity.
Frum might consider that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has led to a worsening of conditions for gay people across the Arab world and the Muslim world as it has given greater voice to hardline religious conservatives. Of course, our own kowtowing to “religious concerns” has done as much damage, as well.
posted by Jimmy on
“The Tea Party is about stopping government spending and socialism..”
You mean other than the government spending and socialism that they themselves benefit from, right?
“Tell the government to keep their hands off of my Medicare.”
LOL!
posted by Debrah on
BobN–
I do hope you also made an attempt to check out the CFN Conference today whose panel was discussing the Christian Legal Society v. Martinez case at one point.
I’m assuming that Rauch’s talk will be available on that same page.
Two humorous, yet incongruent, items from Vanity Fair…….
Here’s a slide show illustrative of the pathetic garb that Muslim women have to sport nonstop. Check out the photos that Maureen Dowd took while on assignment in Riyadh.
The ridiculous so-called “swim wear”.
I’d have to strip naked and dare those sand-scratchers to bother me before I’d walk around in that. Enough is enough!
And anyone does not see that an enormous part of this is an effed-up culture?
Speaking of which…….
A Concise History of “Fuck”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Frum might consider that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has led to a worsening of conditions for gay people across the Arab world and the Muslim world as it has given greater voice to hardline religious conservatives. Of course, our own kowtowing to “religious concerns” has done as much damage, as well.
The problem here is that Hamas is Islamic, not Christian.
If Hamas were Christian, BobN and Jimmy would be shrieking about how awful, evil, and wicked they were and how they should be international pariahs, cut off from food, exiled, making up hoaxes about killing, etc. etc. etc. like they’re doing in Uganda.
But of course, since they’re Islamic, everything bad that they’re doing is the Jews’ fault. Just ask the Obama Party base of Louis Farrakhan and Barack Obama’s own “spiritual mentor”, Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You mean other than the government spending and socialism that they themselves benefit from, right?
“Tell the government to keep their hands off of my Medicare.”
LOL!
Jimmy, since you’re a welfare gay who has never done anything other than cash government checks, you probably don’t understand how Medicare works.
Those senior citizens about which you are speaking have, on every single paycheck over the course of their working lives, paid in no less than 1.45% of their income, with their companies being on the hook to pay an additional 1.45% that the employee wasn’t then able to receive in take-home pay.
If these people have earned an average of $50k per year — below the median household income, btw — they have contributed, over the course of 43 years in the workforce, about $62,350 to the government (had they been able to hold that separately, at a basic 3% annual compounding interest rate, they would have roughly $127k). This they gave under the promise that they would have coverage when they were older.
And now Barack Obama and the Obama Party are cutting that coverage for which they have worked and already paid for forty-three years so that welfare gays and other Obama Party members who don’t work and don’t pay a dime in taxes can have free health care at their expense.
Those people were forced to contribute and then had their coverage cut and denied after the fact. If Medicare were a private insurance company, you and your fellow Obama puppets would be screaming bloody murder about cutting care after people paid the premiums. But since it’s the government and it’s being used to give you free health care, you don’t give a damn. Indeed, you are mocking and attacking these people who are complaining as hypocrites.
posted by Jimmy on
“If Hamas were Christian….”
They would likely be pretty conservative and pray for the conversion of the Jews, who are in defiance of the grace offered them and are doomed to a devil’s hell along with any other lost and condemned souls.
“On Good Friday, two days before Easter, a prayer titled “Let us Pray for the Conversion of the Jews” was recited in Latin by traditionalist Catholic congregations in Italy, plus 16 sections of the Society of Saint Pius.
The ultra-conservative society, whose excommunication was lifted by Pope Benedict XVI last year, has yet to be fully reintegrated into the Catholic Church, because of its refusal to accept the reforms of the Second Vatican Council.
In 2007, in an effort to bring the traditionalist elements of the Church back into the fold, Benedict issued a “Motu Proprio” declaration allowing wider use of the 1962, pre-Vatican II Roman Missal containing this prayer, which was previously restricted to small groups. Three years ago only 30 Italian churches were affected by that decision, as opposed to the 118 that regularly use the liturgy today.”
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=172382
posted by Jimmy on
“Jimmy, since you’re a welfare gay who has never done anything other than cash government checks…”
The only government check I have ever cashed, Pony Fuc*er, was one from the US Treasury – a tax refund.
posted by Jimmy on
“If these people have earned an average of $50k per year — below the median household income, btw — they have contributed, over the course of 43 years in the workforce, about $62,350 to the government (had they been able to hold that separately, at a basic 3% annual compounding interest rate, they would have roughly $127k). This they gave under the promise that they would have coverage when they were older.”
The former employees of ENRON would like to know where you live, PF.
Remove the ridiculous SS earnings cap and we can quite easily move on.
I hear there’s a petting zoo in SF looking for part time work…wink wink.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Here we go with more posturing and point-scoring instead of anything resembling an honest exploration of an issue.
ND30 wrote: “Except that that was a lie, as the actual text of the resolution they were pushing makes abundantly clear”
That story from the KC Star came out before the resolution was passed, and quotes a draft.
Regarding the item from Tampa to which you linked: what does it have to do with either me or the NAACP? Regarding “snitching,” there is indeed a disturbing, pathological demonization of what is called snitching in part of the black community. I have repudiated this on the air while a guest of an African American radio host. But there was no reference to the NAACP in that story. Are you tarring NAACP with it just because NAACP is black?
“In fact, the Obama Party and the Obama administration say that it’s perfectly acceptable to stand outside a polling place and harass and threaten white voters.”
No, it hasn’t said that. Mind you, what it has done may be blameworthy–but then you shouldn’t have to mischaracterize it.
“Why do you support that, Richard?”
Since you’re so unscrupulous, please make up more stuff that I haven’t said and don’t believe and attribute it to me, since apparently the hundreds of thousands of words that I have actually published under my own name have not provided you with sufficient ammunition.
It’s odd that someone who wrote that profile of Malik Shabazz could be so characterized. But then, ND30, your anonymous sniping has not been marked by decency nor intellectual scruples.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
BTW, since the signal-to-noise ratio in this discussion is so low, I don’t intend to visit it again. If, however, anyone wishes to see what I have actually written about race, including several articles that were published by David Horowitz (that notorious leftist), you can find them readily enough on the Web. I will just say, though, that I have listened to Ben Jealous on several occasions, and what I have heard him actually say–as distinct from the caricatures–has seemed to me reasonable and decent. Also, outrage at the suggestion that there has been racism coming from Tea Partiers (no, not all), for which there is ample evidence that all of us have doubtless seen, is more than a bit preposterous. Enjoy your alternate reality.
posted by Debrah on
Such passion on this thread today!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Remove the ridiculous SS earnings cap and we can quite easily move on.
Thank you for once again demonstrating your ignorance, Jimmy.
One, Social Security and Medicare are two entirely-separate assessments.
Two, Medicare does not have a cap.
Three, the payroll tax rate for Social Security is over four times as much as the rate for Medicare.
The fact that both systems are broke is due to the fact that liberals like yourself want to be paid out without paying in.
The former employees of ENRON would like to know where you live, PF.
Which means what?
$50,000 is less than the median US household income.
A simple compounding interest calculator will show you that, if you invest $1,450 (aka 2.9% of $50,000) at 3% interest for 43 years, with annual compounding, you will have approximately $127k at the end of that period.
While you’re on that page, start with a principal of 0, add $6,250 annually (12.5% of $50k), put in an annual interest rate of 3%, compound the interest annually, and put the term over 48 years (start work at 22, retire at age 70).
What it boils down to is that if you were able to save the $6,250 you contribute to Social Security annually at a pitiful interest rate of 3%, by the time you retired at age 70, you would have approximately $672,000 — enough for you to live another 13 years on the same income. If you cut your expenses by 25%, as most folks manage to do in retirement, you could push that out to 18 years — and if you die before that, your heirs get the remainder.
In contrast, the Social Security monthly payment for your contribution would be $1,996 per month, or about $24k per year. To add insult to injury, you’ve contributed $300k total (12.5% of 50,000 x 48 years of employment), so you won’t even break even until you’re 12.5 years out. If you die before that, your heirs get nothing.
In short, you thought Enron was bad? The Federal government takes more and gives you even less than they did.
posted by Jimmy on
“One, Social Security and Medicare are two entirely-separate assessments.”
Right. The same solution applies to both – get those who have so richly profited from this society to pay their fair share. Fund these programs properly, stop borrowing from them, cut the fraud.
In case you haven’t noticed, PF, hardly anyone is able to save these days. The operative word in your scenario is “if”. The message people received from their leaders over the last 25 years was not to save, but to spend – and you know this. Working people who have health insurance find themselves having to cash out their 401Ks to pay for what their inadequate coverage won’t pay, and then they may still face bankruptcy.
I think you would prefer a situation where people face destitution on a day to day basis, depending on how the wise guys on Wall Street choose to play the game on any given day.
posted by Jimmy on
“I think you would prefer a situation where people face destitution on a day to day basis, depending on how the wise guys on Wall Street choose to play the game on any given day.”
Thankfully, the American people have decided that such a scenario is unacceptable, and it is the American people who determine the destiny of this nation, not markets, popes, potentates, or political parties.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
In case you haven’t noticed, PF, hardly anyone is able to save these days. The operative word in your scenario is “if”.
Of course they can. They can afford to have the government take a grand total of 12.5% for Social Security and 2.9% for Medicare out of each paycheck, can’t they?
I think you would prefer a situation where people face destitution on a day to day basis, depending on how the wise guys on Wall Street choose to play the game on any given day.
Actually, what I would prefer is a system where people have the right to make their own choices and accept the responsibilities thereof.
Right now, the liberal welfare system rewards people who refuse to get an education, refuse to work, and engage in personally-destructive behavior with checks, housing subsidies, and free medical care — all paid for by those who do work, do get an education, and do avoid self-destructive behavior.
Your response? To scream that the latter are not paying their “fair share” and in fact should be taxed and punished more to fund even more lavish benefits for the former.
And what makes it funny, Jimmy, is that, for all your shrieking about “the rich” not paying their “fair share”, you then turn a blind eye to the Obama Party luminaries like Geithner, Solis, Sebelius, and Rangel who are not paying their taxes, period.
Meanwhile, define “fair share”. What is that? Ten percent of your income? Twenty? Thirty? Where’s the cutoff? I want Obama Party members to state publicly, like you all apparently believe, that anyone making over 100,000 per year should be paying 75% income tax.
And then you will of course make certain that every Obama Party voter, member, and politician pays that “fair share”.
posted by Jimmy on
“Meanwhile, define “fair share”. What is that?”
39.6% at the top – what is was during the roaring 90’s.
“Geithner, Solis, Sebelius, and Rangel”
If they’re guilty of tax evasion, send them to jail. By the way, these folks were thumbs up on Geithner:
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
Ensign (R-NV)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Why is that?
posted by Debrah on
Jonathan Rauch now at CFN.
posted by BobN on
Jonathan Rauch
He lost me with the claim that Prof. Howell’s belief are pretty standard Catholic belief.
Nonsense.
posted by Debrah on
That chubby woman needs to move out of the way.
The camera man is obviously out to lunch.
posted by Jorge on
Here we go with more posturing and point-scoring instead of anything resembling an honest exploration of an issue.
Hey, what gives? I tried my very best. Just because I can actually manage to be, sarcastic, funny, and wrong all at the same time is no reason for you to make sour gripes.
BTW, since the signal-to-noise ratio in this discussion is so low, I don’t intend to visit it again.
Actually I don’t blame you, but I feel slighted.
posted by Bobby on
“Frum might consider that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has led to a worsening of conditions for gay people across the Arab world and the Muslim world as it has given greater voice to hardline religious conservatives.”
—Sorry, I’m not buying it. Remember that extreme homophobia also exists in countries without religion like Cuba and others.
“There is no libertarian element in the Tea Party.”
—-Actually, there are lots of elements at the Tea Party. Go to one and you’ll find blacks, hispanics, asians, democrats, independents, and people who are fed up with government. Remember, Obama ran as a centrist yet he has governed as a socialist, thus he has disappointed lots of people.
posted by Jimmy on
“Obama ran as a centrist yet he has governed as a socialist, thus he has disappointed lots of people.”
Effing nonsense. He’s spent more time coddling Republicans than using his mandate to get out front and lead on a progressive agenda, the one people actually voted for. More flotsam from Bizarro Universe.
People are rightfully mad, at congress and the White House, for myriad reasons. Why is it though that most people are pretty OK with their own congressperson, but they hate congress?
posted by BobN on
Sorry, I’m not buying it. Remember that extreme homophobia also exists in countries without religion like Cuba and others.
You don’t buy the idea that fundamentalist Islam is on the rise, at least in part due to its ability to harden people by exploiting the situation in Palestine, because Fidel Castro was a homophobic, hypocritical tyrant?
Your take on things is, uh, unique.
posted by Bobby on
“Effing nonsense. He’s spent more time coddling Republicans than using his mandate to get out front and lead on a progressive agenda, the one people actually voted for. More flotsam from Bizarro Universe.”
—Just because he’s not putting people in concentration camps and shutting down Fox News doesn’t mean he’s not a progressive, Jimmy. Obama passed TWO stimulus packages, an unpopular healthcare reform bill, he has told NASA to reach out to arabs, his homeboy Eric Holder won’t prosecute the black panthers for voter intimidation inspite of video evidence, he didn’t punish the Russian spies, he didn’t repeal the Jones Act to allow foreign ships to help us clean the oil mess, Obama is gonna let the Bush tax cuts expire which will raise everyone’s income taxes by 5%, etc, etc, etc. It’s so obvious this guy is a progressive, he even told people in a speech to get their news from The Huffington Post. You might as well be reading Pravda or The Daily Worker if you’re gonna get “informed” by Arianna Huffington.
“People are rightfully mad, at congress and the White House, for myriad reasons. Why is it though that most people are pretty OK with their own congressperson, but they hate congress?”
—You’re generalizing, people in Nevada are not ok with Harry Reid. Besides, most people vote for the lesser evil, which only shows you that it’s usually evil people who ran for office. Yet now the Tea Party is changing things, it’s no longer popular to be an incumbent, so any politician that can get Tea Party support is more likely to win.
Now, I will agree that Obama’s terrible job performance is pissing off lots of people, even people on the left. This is what you get when you elect a guy with no experience who promises the world yet fails to deliver even when he keeps some of those promises.
And let’s be honest, if he had been white he would have never been elected president. Too many Americans that usually don’t vote went to the polls just to feel good, just to feel they where electing the first African-American president. Too many self-hating white people wanted to prove the world that we’re not a racist country. Well, hopefully this will teach Americans that race is not that important and should never be used to choose candidates.
posted by Jorge on
Effing nonsense. He’s spent more time coddling Republicans than using his mandate to get out front and lead on a progressive agenda, the one people actually voted for.
Right, and Bush was a great champion of civil rights. Wait, I actually do believe that. Examples please. Thank you.
And speaking of civil rights, I am so glad that the Tea Party people fought back against the NAACP’s charges. Humph, while at the same time demonstrating enough contrition to police themselves. I’ve never seen an organization under attack do both. They really are a wacky crew.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100716/pl_yblog_upshot/the-definitive-guide-to-this-weeks-naacp-tea-party-scrap
posted by Debrah on
The Hammer and Eugene Robinson were essentially on the same page with their latest.
This explains the earthquake in Washington, DC. on Friday.
posted by Throbert McGee on
What exactly about Howell’s beliefs do you find “non-standard” for Catholicism?
posted by BobN on
What exactly about Howell’s beliefs do you find “non-standard” for Catholicism?
Grab a catechism and find for me the bit about us having to decide “who plays the woman and who plays the man”.
His insights into homosexuality based on his self-claimed “extensive” research into homosexuality reveals a caricature you don’t find in Catholic theology but DO find at NARTH and EXODUS and Focus on the Family, etc., etc.
Before you go defending him, if you’re Catholic, at least have a modicum of respect for the quality of the theological argument, as flawed as it may be.
posted by Bobby on
Obama, Not the ‘Post-‘ but the ‘Most’ Racial President
http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2010/07/16/obama,_not_the_post-_but_the_most_racial_president
This is a great article with not just opinion, but several example of Obama’s race-based actions since he became president.
posted by Jimmy on
Given the conservative tit for tat, two wrongs always make a right world view, the New Black Panthers, who have been repudiated by the Old Black Panthers, have a long way to go in moving the scale in an effort to balance the level of voter intimidation created by Jim Crow, which was institutionalized voter intimidation. No one will ever keep me from voting, but then I’m not afraid of black people so I’m not really concerned.
posted by Throbert McGee on
That certainly reveals a misunderstanding of homosexuality, but I’m not sure that it totally misrepresents the way that Catholic moral theology obsesses about “complementarity.”
posted by Bobby on
“Given the conservative tit for tat, two wrongs always make a right world view, the New Black Panthers, who have been repudiated by the Old Black Panthers,”
—You know that the Old and New Black Panthers are almost identical in their beliefs, so one condemning the other is like the neo-nazis ridiculing the Klan for wearing hoods.
“have a long way to go in moving the scale in an effort to balance the level of voter intimidation created by Jim Crow, which was institutionalized voter intimidation.”
—There’s no voting intimidation against blacks today, what you’re saying is the equivalent of justifying blacks burning white churches just because the Klan burned black churches in the 1960s.
“No one will ever keep me from voting, but then I’m not afraid of black people so I’m not really concerned.”
—You’re not afraid of some thug carrying a big stick and calling you a cracker and threatening you in other ways? Funny, I thought liberals didn’t like weapons, in fact, I don’t think you’re supposed to bring a weapon to a polling booth.
Frankly, I am afraid of the Black Panthers, there’s video of them shouting that they should kill “crackers” and their babies. These people are no different than the neo-nazis, they have the right to free speech but you should always keep an eye on them in case they commit any acts of violence.
Seriously Jimmy, there is a difference between being open minded and suicidal. Voter intimidation is a serious crime, and it should be prosecuted as such. If it had been David Duke shouting stuff against “negroes,” you bet your ass Eric Holder would not be dropping the case. Of course, if you believe in social justice versus equal justice, you’re not gonna be feel comfortable punishing a black man when he does something wrong. Unless of course he’s OJ Simpson, OJ made the mistake of making money and marrying a white woman, so “social justice” does not apply to him.
posted by Jimmy on
One of the guys, the one with no stick, was a poll watcher who was authorized to be there. The police told the stick man to leave. They didn’t arrest him or charge him. I see people coming and going; no one seems intimidated. I never heard the word “cracker”. I’ve never been called a cracker and I live in The Hood. You panty waists are so animated about ONE skinny black guy. What exactly makes him a thug? How does ONE guy, uncharged by LOCAL authorities, generate so much ink?
There is no THERE there.
posted by BobN on
I’m not sure that it totally misrepresents the way that Catholic moral theology obsesses about “complementarity.”
The standard for adequate teaching, at least at the college level, stops way short of total misrepresentation, I hope.
This guy would have chucked out on his kiester at a REAL Catholic college. He’s not competent. No reason for a public school to keep him on at all.
posted by Jorge on
His insights into homosexuality based on his self-claimed “extensive” research into homosexuality reveals a caricature you don’t find in Catholic theology but DO find at NARTH and EXODUS and Focus on the Family, etc., etc.
Ugh, not again! You were wrong the first time you said that, and you’re wrong now. Throbert has it right. Catholic theology rejects homosexual relations. In great detail, with much research, for many reasons. If you’re not familiar with Catholicism, you shouldn’t be talking about it.
posted by Jorge on
One of the guys, the one with no stick, was a poll watcher who was authorized to be there. The police told the stick man to leave. They didn’t arrest him or charge him. I see people coming and going; no one seems intimidated. I never heard the word “cracker”.
1) I’ve heard at least one account that some people were deterred from going into the polling place.
2) If don’t you have any appreciation for the word “intimidation” if you seriously think a group of Black Panthers dressed in full regala in front of a voting booth is not intimidating, stick or no stick. The Black Panthers, neo and paleo alike, radiate open hatred toward white people. The old black panthers have a history of committing terrorism and the new black panthers advocate racial murder. They both play up an image of militancy.
3) You mentioned accurately that the police were called to the scene. That mere fact creates an unacceptable suspicion of activity that threatens a free election.
4) Election laws prohibit any partisan political activity in front of a polling both. The mere presence of a self-professed militant group that advocates racial war and murder in front of a polling both is outrageous, and I don’t think any policy short of doing everything within the law to wipe them off the map is acceptable. Under John Ashcroft, the Justice Department prosecuted an anti-gay double homicide that was apparently a very difficult case, as it got dismissed. Under Eric Holder, it dropped a very easy voter intimidation civil suit on the verge of winning a heavy injunction. This is almost treasonous in my view, and I think the fact that such anti-American organizations as the Black Panther organizations are given any benefit of the doubt on the basis of race is extremely unfortunate.
posted by Jorge on
If don’t you have any appreciation for the word “intimidation” if…>> I don’t think you have any appreciation for the word “intimidation” if…
posted by Jimmy on
A bunch of drama queens having a hissy fit because a black guy with punk-rock boots on was standing around in the hood. I guarantee these guys were in their own space and any white folks living in the district know what’s what and won’t, as my sista’s say, get it twisted.
The only one creating drama here is the uptight little honkey from the Univ. of Pennsylvania.
This is the big city and people get it. Of course, this wouldn’t ever happen in Hattisburg, Mississippi – and we all know why.
Bobby, what you know about black people is equivalent to the contents of my ileostomy bag.
posted by Jorge on
I guarantee these guys were in their own space and any white folks living in the district know what’s what and won’t, as my sista’s say, get it twisted.
http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/2009/01/09/feds-sue-new-black-panthers-for-voter-intimidation/
“The complaint explains party chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz confirmed that Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were placed at the polling location in Philadelphia as part of a nationwide effort to deploy New Black Panther Party members on election day.”
Hmm.
posted by Jimmy on
“as part of a nationwide effort…”
As nationwide efforts go, this was incompetent as we’re still only talking about one dude.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Yikes! Sorry to hear that you’re dealing with that, Jimmy. How long do you have to wear it?
posted by Jimmy on
“How long do you have to wear it?”
October 2006. It is reversible, but one has to weigh age + percentages if one has Crohn’s and Colitis, which is my case. I consider myself fortunate, actually. At this point it is simply a matter of fact.
Here is my story.
http://culturedcat.blogspot.com/2008_08_05_archive.html
posted by Jorge on
As nationwide efforts go, this was incompetent as we’re still only talking about one dude.
“I guarantee these guys were in their own space and any white folks… won’t, as my sista’s say, get it twisted.
I think you got twisted in your own argument.
Jimmy, you mentioned before that this incident does not compare to the Jim Crow Laws. Personally I’ve been setting it against the actions a white terror group of the same era which shall remain nameless. The two worked hand in hand, discrimination and terror.
Now we have a situation in which lax enforcement is working hand in hand with terror. I am not reassured by your arguments that the voter intimidation incident was a very minor and a one time incident, or that it does not compare with the institutionalized and vigilante racism that was very successful at disenfranchizing and terrorizing African Americans. I don’t think it’s relevant to the present situation.
Unless I’m misrepresenting you in some way, I would like to leave it at that for now.
posted by Jimmy on
“I am not reassured by your arguments that the voter intimidation incident was a very minor and a one time incident, or that it does not compare.”
I’m not interested in reassuring anybody. You need to work that out yourself. I like to rely of verifiable evidence in cases like this, and the evidence does not rise to the hysteria. Rather, the evidence places the hysteria in full focus, allowing us to see what it actually is.
posted by Jimmy on
” setting it against the actions a white terror group of the same era which shall remain nameless.”
The Klan used to conduct their little marches in Indianapolis at the State House back in the 70’s and early 80’s. They ran this state in the 20’s. It always occurred to me that, if they really wanted to make a statement, they’d march at say, 25th and College Av, in the hood, but they never seemed to have the testicular fortitude to do that.
posted by Bobby on
“A bunch of drama queens having a hissy fit because a black guy with punk-rock boots on was standing around in the hood. I guarantee these guys were in their own space and any white folks living in the district know what’s what and won’t, as my sista’s say, get it twisted.”
—Your the typical white liberal who always makes excuses for black people when they do something wrong. Voter intimidation is legally wrong as Jorge pointed out, and if it had been a neo-nazi shouting the n-word you would not stand for it. But becasue it’s the Black Panthers, you’re afraid to condemn their racism because the greatest fear of a liberal white person is to be labelled racist himself.
“The only one creating drama here is the uptight little honkey from the Univ. of Pennsylvania.”
—By filming in a public place which doesn’t require a permit nor consent? If the Black Panthers were doing nothing wrong then why would they object to being filmed?
“Bobby, what you know about black people is equivalent to the contents of my ileostomy bag.”
—Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t know I was debating Eminem here. Sorry Eminem, I forgot you were raised in a black neighborhood. Hey, I used to live in an Korean neighborhood, I guess that makes me an expert as well… not. However, I do know plenty about black people, I have read books about black people, I have had black roommates and friends in my life, and you know why they get along with me? Because I don’t kiss their ass or treat them like their special. All white liberals have done is create a sense of entitlement among some of the people in black community. Don’t have a job? Blame the man. God Aids? Blame the man. Can’t get a loan to buy a house? Blame the man.
And then what happens when a black man or woman makes the Dean’s List or experiences other accomplishments? They accuse him of acting white (unless he becomes an athlete, rapper, or democratic politician).
But you know what really irks me about the black community? How they won’t condemn their own. People like Jeremiah Wright, Farrakkkan, Malik Zulu Shabbaz and all the other “community organizers” love saying the most awful, evil things without facing any community punishment.
It’s funny how white supremacists have to hide online or meet in the boondocks while black supremacists get to organize the Million Man March, an event which excluded gays by the way.
Jimmy, stop kissing black ass. Treat them like you’d treat anyone else, they are not special people, they don’t need special treatment.
posted by Jimmy on
“I forgot you were raised in a black neighborhood.”
I wasn’t, actually. I was raised in the ruralish ‘burbs of southwestern Marion County (which is actually Indy thanks to Sen. Lugar – a good man). I CHOOSE to live in a culturally mixed part of the city, which is about six blocks from Mitch Daniels’ house.
I refer you to my previous statement, idiot.
posted by Jimmy on
“they are not special people”
Is that your mantra, Bobby?
“It’s funny how white supremacists have to hide online…”
Yeah, it’s a real knee slapper.
posted by Bobby on
“I CHOOSE to live in a culturally mixed part of the city, which is about six blocks from Mitch Daniels’ house. ”
—I see, so you’re more open minded than me just because you’re in a “mixed” part of the city. I have news for you, the entire city of Miami is a culturally mixed city, except for Hialeah, Opa-Locka and Liberty city. However, if you go to North Miami, Aventura, midtown, downtown, Coconut Grove, Kendall and South Beach you’re gonna find people of all races and cultures. So you living in a mixed neighborhood does not impress me. Frankly, when I bought my condo in my neighborhood I only did it because it was a really beautiful building in an up and coming neighborhood, race had nothing to do with it.
“”they are not special people”
Is that your mantra, Bobby?”
—I would think that’s also the mantra of Martin Luther King, Jr. He wanted equal justice, not social justice, equal rights, not special rights. Want to eat at the same diner as a white man? Fine. Want to get hired in the name of diversity? Not fine. I’m so sick of filling employment applications that ask me for my race and gender. That’s not important!
Your race-based policies are dangerous, if people took them serious then white people like Keith Olberman, Rachael Maddow and Suze Orman would have to lose their jobs so blacks who have studied communication can take their place.
People need to stop playing the victim, there are plenty of succesful blacks like Oprah that succeeded without affirmative action or diversity policies of any kind. Thus, if Suze Orman does a great job explaining money to people, why should she lose her job so a less qualified black economist can take her place? You want Orman’s job? You got to be better than she is, and that has nothing to do with race.
posted by BobSF_94117@yahoo.com on
Ugh, not again! You were wrong the first time you said that, and you’re wrong now. Throbert has it right. Catholic theology rejects homosexual relations. In great detail, with much research, for many reasons. If you’re not familiar with Catholicism, you shouldn’t be talking about it.
Yes, again, because the prejudice-laden distortion this professor laid out is NOT Catholic theology. He uses it to support Catholic theology, which, as far as I’m concerned, is an insult to Catholic theology. As I recall, you’re quick to jump in with the oft-stated and more-oft-ignored call from the Church to treat us with “dignity” — also part of Catholic theology (though a damned recent innovation they have yet to fully implement). Where is the dignity in the stereotypes this professor was spouting? Do you recognize yourself in the “who plays the woman / who plays the man” explanation? I don’t recognize any gay men I know. Are you part of the group the good professor’s doctor “told him about”, those guys with all the anal injuries? I would think not.
And bullshit on the claim that the theology itself is based on “much research”. It’s based on rationalization, circular reasoning, and more than a thousand years of prejudice — all perfectly allowed in a religion. There are well thought out justifications for the Church’s positions on sex. I happen to think they’re wrong, but I don’t accept this guy’s explanation of them as adequate for a teacher.
posted by Jimmy on
Suze Orman is self-employed, twit.
Africans were brought here, not by choice, but by forced immigration. Their cultural identity was robbed from them, by brutal force. Their families separated as a matter of business, with zero thought to their humanity, which they also had robbed from them.
Upon emancipation from forced bondage, they became fodder for a hostile populace, only to be exploited in the most disgusting ways, in defiance to everything this nation was founded upon.
They were marginalized, relegated to the shittiest places in which to live, segregated from the full advantages that a free nation’s people have access to. Told they were not welcome. They can clean houses, but not drink from certain water fountains or sit in certain bus seats.
You use the word “special”, Bobby. I think “unique to the American experience” is the reality. You somehow imagine that centuries of cultural experience can be wiped away in the span of just one life time. Emancipation didn’t change people’s hearts and the year 1964, Loving -v- Virginia, etc. didn’t either. You are evidence of this. You are motivated by fear, fear, and more fear. You suggest the benevolence of white folks makes it all better. It doesn’t.
“Take the sheet off ya’ face, boy. It’s a brand new day!”
posted by Jorge on
You somehow imagine that centuries of cultural experience can be wiped away in the span of just one life time…. You suggest the benevolence of white folks makes it all better. It doesn’t.
Sounds fair to me. Why should actions that took place well before I was born have any bearing on me when we’ve already ended them? I’m more interested in the fact that we are not where we should be today.
One needs to look at the culpability of both whites and persons of color, and their communities to extent they claim one. Of course, we can’t say that in politics, and so what happens is blacks continue to suffer the consequences of breaking maintstream rules that are unspoken, and often never taught. The wealth redistribution promoted by some in the black intelligentia does not begin to address this problem.
posted by Jimmy on
“Sounds fair to me. Why should actions that took place well before I was born have any bearing on me when we’ve already ended them?”
If you think the stain can be so easily washed out, then you have joined ranks with the others who wish to deny reality. Do we not understand they parable about sins of the father? Willful ignorance is abundant today.
A community whose experience in this nation has been under assault form every direction, told that depravity is the best they could hope for, lied to and oppressed is supposed to somehow spontaneously adopt the value system of its master. Are you so blind that you will not see?
Minimize it all you like, in order to reconcile it with yourself, but that will not, and it never will make it go away.
posted by Bobby on
“Suze Orman is self-employed, twit.”
—You do realize that she’s a millionaire and her show enjoys great ratings for CNBC? Amazing how liberals hate successful people, even when it’s one of their own that succeeds.
“Africans were brought here, not by choice, but by forced immigration.”
—Slavery was practiced all over South and North America, the Caribbean, and even Europe. Yet somehow only in America do some blacks seem to have a chip on their shoulders. I’ve never head of the Brazilian version of the NAACP or the Venezuelan version of the Nation of Islam.
“You use the word “special”, Bobby. I think “unique to the American experience” is the reality.”
—What about the Chinese? They built the railroads, they had to put up with the Chinese Exclusion Act and other hateful policies. What about German-Americans? They suffered internment under progressive hero Woodrow Wilson and FDR. America makes mistakes but the solution isn’t treating people like they’re special, if companies are forced to hire blacks, asians, gays, hispanics, women and THEN white males if there’s any jobs left the result will be great resentment from both minorities that feel like they’re being used to the majority that feels they’re being discriminated against.
“Take the sheet off ya’ face, boy. It’s a brand new day!”
—I see you’re comparing me to a Klansman. This is another reason why people don’t accusations of racism seriously anymore.
posted by Jimmy on
“-What about the Chinese?”
They, like everyone else except the Africans brought over on ships, in iron chains, CHOSE to come. But if you want to look at colonial Britain and the opium trade, and what that did to the Chinese, feel free – not that you’d LEARN anything.
” I’ve never head of the Brazilian version of the NAACP or the Venezuelan version of the Nation of Islam.”
You’ve got it so twisted you’re an actual embarrassment.
“This is another reason why people don’t accusations of racism seriously anymore.”
And you continue to provide strong evidence why you shouldn’t be taken seriously at all.
Seriously.
posted by Bobby on
” I’ve never head of the Brazilian version of the NAACP or the Venezuelan version of the Nation of Islam.”
You’ve got it so twisted you’re an actual embarrassment.
—Typical progressive, when you can’t win the debate you reply with an insult. Venezuela and Brazil also had slaves brought from Africa, yet blacks in those countries don’t call themselves African-Venezuelans nor do will you find job applications that ask you what race you are.
“And you continue to provide strong evidence why you shouldn’t be taken seriously at all. ”
—My opinions are very similar to those of Glenn Beck, and let me tell you, millions of people do take him seriously. Of course, to you they’re probably dummies, but it doesn’t matter, it’s so-called “dummies” that decide elections.
posted by Debrah on
Bobby and Jimmy–
Here’s a post I found about the New Black Panthers incident that you guys have been discussing.
It was posted back in November 2008 when it took place.
Scroll down about halfway for some pics.
Very few people alarm me just walking around in the light of day……..however……..those guys look a bit rough, shall we say, if normal observers are supposed to believe they were there to merely exercise free speech and advocate for their political positions.
That group is comprised of maniacal thugs whose methods are more kabuki-hood than reason.
These are the very same people who scurried to Duke University’s campus the moment they heard the false accuser’s story about a “rape” by lacrosse players in the Spring of 2006.
Without any evidence of guilt, they stood around in their “uniforms” and “rallied and marched” and tried to intimidate and threaten people.
When the first two innocent lacrosse players were initially indicted and made their appearances in court, these New Black Panthers openly threatened their lives and were still allowed to remain in the courtroom.
Anyone who justifies these types of methods is venturing into a no-man’s land.
By the way, check out the history of another radical Ron Karenga and the origins of Kwanzaa.
After such crimes he’s now a “professor”.
“The naked women were then whipped with electrical cords and beaten with a karate baton. Detergent and a gushing hoses were forced into their mouths. Ms Jones had one of her toes clamped in a vise. Karenga’s goon squad forced a hot electrical soldering iron in to Ms Davis’ mouth as a form of revolutionary discipline. The torturefest went on for two long days. Karenga was convicted and served more than three years in a California State prison. The New York Times did not see any of these lurid and insightful facts as part of ‘all the news that’s fit to print’, even though it was all new news in 1971.
“When Karenga declared that he was a convert to Marxism, those who knew him took it as a sign that he had mellowed. His violent past and muddled thinking were, apparently, job enhancements in the California university system. Karenga is now a professor at California State University in Long Beach.”
posted by Jimmy on
Debrah-
In that post, interesting how in the title, “Nightsticks” is plural, when there was just one.
“openly threatened their lives and were still allowed to remain in the courtroom.”
Then local authorities should be held accountable by the local community for their inaction if a law was broken. A judge can order a bailiff to shoot to kill if the is justification for it. No one is justifying illegal activity, by anyone.
After the incident in DC where the black congressman was allegedly called a racial epithet by a tea partier, which could not have possibly happened because it wasn’t caught on tape, I pay no attention to any type of hearsay reporting. No recording, it didn’t happen.
Once again, one of the men was a poll worker, unarmed and entitled to be there. The other man didn’t look all that intimidating. Frankly, I’ve seen scarier lesbians – no offense, but I have.
(Now, let me hear about how anti-lesbian I am…lol)
posted by Jimmy on
What conditions could have possibly given rise to the Black Panther Party or Black Nationalism?
-Systemic racism
-Unequal sentencing
-Police brutality in the face of peaceful assembly.
I could go on, but the point is, all of this could have been avoided had this nation kept it’s promises during reconstruction. Lincoln was killed and reconstruction died with him. Newly freed blacks in the south were thrown to the wolves in that they were left powerless and would continue to be punished for the South’s loss and humiliation (which was brought on itself) for the next 100 years.
The black experience in much of the North was still tainted by the daily humiliations and reminders that they were considered “less-than” by their fellow Americans. I can imagine people asking themselves daily why it is they deserved this due solely to the condition of their birth. I might have a “chip on my shoulder” too if that happened to my mother or grandfather.
The thing is, I don’t need to say this. We all should know it to be true. The one single thing that is certain, no one really could ever know what it means to be a black person in the United States other than a black person. Now, opinions are not universal among blacks as to what that actually is, but it really doesn’t matter.
posted by Debrah on
Well, Jimmy.
I can’t speak for lesbians since I’m not one. Nor am I a raging feminist.
As you know, I believe in free expression…….to-the-max.
Nothing you’ve said is offensive…….except for some of the things you’ve said to Bobby.
In this case I think your threshold is a bit too high. Too many allowances and far too much largesse have already been extended to such obnoxious people.
Regarding the Duke case, the city is run in similar fashion as Detroit. If not for the university it would be a dungeon consisting of government waste.
Perhaps that’s why so many resent the university whose student body is considered “privileged”.
In any case, let’s just look at these “poll workers” another way.
Get down to the basics.
Who the heck thinks it’s a good idea to walk around in such a clown suit…….deliberately?
It’s astonishingly ridiculous.
posted by Debrah on
David Weigel is obviously trying to stay in the spotlight with the Panther story.
posted by Jimmy on
“In this case I think your threshold is a bit too high. Too many allowances and far too much largesse have already been extended to such obnoxious people.”
I’ll admit, the fellas don’t get style points with me either, but then couture can be a mystery. I remember when the Guardian Angels were newsworthy, and they looked just as stupid. Oh well.
Threshold for what? This is a free country and the constitution gives largesse to all sorts of nutty groups. All parties must obey the law and it’s up to local law enforcement to enforce the law.
Now, I understand that, for you, everything under the sun has tangential relationship to the Duke case. I don’t happen to care about Duke University, the Gang of 88, the corrupt prosecutor, or the precious lacrosse players. I can’t say that clearly enough. I don’t care. It’s old news to most everybody except those who want to make a buck on it. If the little darlings on the lacrosse team had been reading their bibles and going to bed early, we would all be the better for it. They wanted white hookers and a black one showed up, and that is just unseemly for red-blooded American white boys down in Dixie. What would their mommas think?
posted by Jimmy on
“Nothing you’ve said is offensive…….except for some of the things you’ve said to Bobby.”
Some of the things Bobby said were extremely offensive to me, and I am not easily offended.
posted by Jimmy on
I think Weigel (reminds of Det. Weigel on Reno 911- hilarious) read that situation pretty well. Though I don’t watch the freak show that is Faux News, that blond anchor chick does come off as quite the harridan.
posted by Bobby on
“Now, I understand that, for you, everything under the sun has tangential relationship to the Duke case. I don’t happen to care about Duke University, the Gang of 88, the corrupt prosecutor, or the precious lacrosse players. I can’t say that clearly enough. I don’t care. It’s old news to most everybody except those who want to make a buck on it. If the little darlings on the lacrosse team had been reading their bibles and going to bed early, we would all be the better for it. They wanted white hookers and a black one showed up, and that is just unseemly for red-blooded American white boys down in Dixie. What would their mommas think?”
—Of course you don’t care, you didn’t suffer the humiliation of your school and the media labeling a racist when you did nothing wrong. You didn’t suffer from that crazy prosecutor making threats against you, a prosecutor who would later face charges against him. And let’s face it, you don’t care because they’re white.
It is not old news, a great injustice was committed against innocent people based on allegations from a repeated liar and offender, a corrupt DA looking to make a name for himself, and jock-hating college professors.
When will Duke apologize to them? As far as I’m concerned, they should sue and get money, then maybe next time Duke will remember that innocent before proven guilty means something in this country.
posted by Debrah on
“That certainly reveals a misunderstanding of homosexuality, but I’m not sure that it totally misrepresents the way that Catholic moral theology obsesses about ‘complementarity’.”
************************************************************
Throbert, you might need to elaborate on that one for those of us who not only are not Catholic, but, moreover, whose opinions on this subject are not dictated by religious beliefs at all.
Although I’m not an atheist, I do concur with many of Christopher Hitchens’ views regarding how religion is used in some ways.
However, religious zealots will not live long enough to ever eclipse the academic Leftists’ and gay “activists’ ” methods.
Even scholars inside the academy who purport to stand for fairness no matter whose rights are being violated come across as condescending on this one…….simply because they know that there is such a tiny percentage of faculty who will ever voice their true opinions on gay male sex.
Howell’s take on this matter is shared by more people in the general population than many wish to acknowledge…….across the demographic.
Yet those who criticize what he said fail to realize that even the youth demographic is more acquiescent than they are giddy to push the idea that there are no negative results from gay male sex.
The “What about lesbians?” silliness is another gratuitous and lame retort for those who want to avoid the reality-based world.
So, what about lesbians? They are perhaps the safest of all—gay or hetero!
In the usual gay male sexual relationship, one man (the receiver) must, necessarily, take the heterosexual woman’s role. Why is that so difficult to admit, Throbert?
Although verbalizing this may be inelegant and a delicate venture……..reality is not mitigated by phony condescension and righteous indignation from gay men whose mission is to ultimately try to embarrass people like Howell and leave an aura of…..
…….”You’d better not discuss this openly again in the midst of young students—-our great hope for the future passage of SSM!”
Howell would not be my cup of tea because he seems too invested in religion; however, I get a kick reading some of those who put on an air of supporting his rights, yet make fun of him at the same time…….as if the physical realities of anal sex between gay men are not just as Howell describes.
Gay activists and gay professors on university campuses know that they will always be propped up no matter what.
There is nothing but nauseating condescension coming from such people.
Not true acknowledgment that no matter what decade or century we find ourselves, human bodies are still being churned out with the same number of orifices in the same locations…….designed for the same functions.
If gay men were so secure in their methods they wouldn’t have to work so hard to stifle free speech.
Those same people think nothing of issuing gutter-ready fare against anyone they so desire……sans retribution.
The Howell episode underscores the grand reality that the quadrumvirate of race/class/gender/sexual orientation inside the academy has metastasized.
Read this one: The Illinois Railroad on the matter.
posted by Throbert McGee on
So, the theology itself is based on prejudice, AND the prejudiced teachings of the professor are simultaneously an “insult” to the theology?
Could you make up your fucking mind, Bob?
@Debrah: Simply put, the idea of “complementarity” expands on the basic idea that “menz be different than wimmenz”, and asserts that this difference is:
(1) multi-layered — men and women do not only have different gametes (sperm and ova), but they have different physical gifts, different patterns of emotional response, different intellectual strengths, etc.
(2) This overall pattern of differences was intentionally designed by God, and…
(3) The differences are designed to harmonize with each other not only at the reproductive level — that is, by design, a woman’s gifts compensate for a man’s limitations, and vice versa.
As stated in this “letter to the faithful” from U.S. Bishops:
“The call to marriage is woven deeply into the human spirit. Man and woman are different from, yet created for, each other in all aspects of their being. This complementarity, including sexual difference and spousal configuration, draws them together in a mutually loving union that is always open to the procreation of children.”
So, while the professor’s claim that homosexuals are forever having to decide “who plays the man and who plays the woman” may be a very inaccurate description of how real homosexuals actually think, it is a not-bad summary of what Catholic theology claims to be true about human nature in general — namely, that a desire to be in one role or the other is written onto our very souls.
You can certainly argue that Catholic theology is over-simplified and Procrustean in the way it describes human sexuality — for example, one can point to examples of heterosexual marriages failing because the husband and wife have massively non-complementary personalities. And one can point, in contrast, to long and lasting same-sex platonic friendships that are successful precisely because the two friends have personalities that strongly complement each other, in the sense that each one’s strengths fit the other’s weaknesses, and thus make them a great team.
But to attack the professor in this case, as Bob wants to do, is to indulge in shooting the messenger.
posted by BobN on
So, the theology itself is based on prejudice, AND the prejudiced teachings of the professor are simultaneously an “insult” to the theology?
Could you make up your fucking mind, Bob?
Like you? You wax eloquently about the theology — unlike the the ham-fisted approach of the professor you defend — then call it over-simplified and procrustean. To use your terminology: make up your own fucking mind.
The point is quite clear, I think, by now, that either of us, Throbert, could do a better job teaching an Introduction to Catholicism than Prof. Howell. Unlike him, I could do so without injecting my beliefs. You, I suspect, could do so without revealing your opinion that it is procrustean.
I do not want to shoot the messenger of Catholic theology. I want a decent messenger and, in particular, one who doesn’t drag anti-gay prejudice into the mix because he’s an uninformed bigot. Goodness knows, an articulate, intelligent teacher is more of a “threat” to us in such circumstances. Put in a good scholar and you might even get converts. Keep a hack and all you do is embarrass the religion.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Correction, Bobby: Jimmy doesn’t care because the lacrosse players are white, AND BECAUSE Jimmy is white, too.
His hostility to the lacrosse players is the coin that buys him street cred, and proves to anyone who gives a damn that despite outward appearances, Jimmy is not to be confused with The Man.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Bob, there’s no inconsistency whatsoever in using “eloquent” language (and thank you for that!) to describe a flawed theory.
If you have any confusion about this very elementary point, you need to step away from the computer and cool your head down.
posted by BobN on
I harbor no confusion. I can hold beliefs about Catholicism that are probably quite similar to yours and still see that this teacher did a poor job of teaching the theology. Meanwhile, you defend his poor teaching. You seem confused to me.
And as for cooling heads, try that suggestion on yourself before using the word “fucking” when typing to me.
posted by Throbert McGee on
.
I’d suggest that you’d be better off simply making a case that he did a poor job of teaching, period…
…rather than muddling your own argument by piling on the feigned indignation about how he “insulted the theology.”
And if you can’t resist the show of fake outrage over an “insult” to theology, you should certainly avoid giving your own game away by wrapping up with: “[the theology is based on] more than a thousand years of prejudice [which is] perfectly allowed in a religion.”
posted by Debrah on
“And if you can’t resist the show of fake outrage over an ‘insult’ to theology, you should certainly avoid giving your own game away by wrapping up with: ‘[the theology is based on] more than a thousand years of prejudice [which is] perfectly allowed in a religion.’ “
****************************************************
Throbert, although BobN is an intelligent and worthy debater, no one quite measures up to you.
Is it because you’re a fellow sexy-to-the-max November baby like the Diva?
Or are you just naturally gifted with the ability to state reality with magnificent eloquence…..cutting through the layers of obfuscation in such a way that even the most macho hetero male might feel compelled to pause and take notice….and get excited(!) ?
If only everyone could be as viciously honest and confident as you, my dear Throbert muffin!
posted by Throbert McGee on
Here, by the way, is the full content of the email that Kenneth Howell sent to his students, along with the complaint email in response to it.
My reaction: Prof Howell’s arguments have a number of logical flaws, but not a single one of them is the original invention of Howell — rather, every flaw present is also present in the “Natural Law” moral theology that Howell’s course is supposed to cover.
One thing for which you could fault Howell: he didn’t do a good job of reminding the students that they were expected to correctly understand and summarize what the Catholic position is — but were NOT required to believe in the Church’s position, nor to agree with the Church’s tendentious claim that its positions are better “grounded in reality” than the positions of (for example) secularist “utilitarians.”
posted by Throbert McGee on
By the way, as a former Randroid, I got a kick out of Howell’s misrepresentation of utilitarianism — since Rand was also hostile to utilitarianism, but for essentially the opposite reason!
According to Howell, utilitarianism has no objection to a man who wishes to put the selfish short-term wants of himself and his adulterous lover before the needs of his wife and children:
But Rand disparaged utilitarianism because she felt that it had no principled rebuttal to Communists who said that a man must put the needs of 100 million fellow Soviets ahead of his individual needs! According to her, there was no “utilitarian argument” for constraining the size of the collective circle whose interests must be weighed along with those of the individual moral decision-maker.
Of course, an actual utilitarian might object that both Howell and Rand are knocking down a straw man — but I thought it was funny that their two straw men looked so different!
posted by Throbert McGee on
In the “complaint email” responding to Howell’s, here are the two money quotes:
(1) it should be noted that my friend [who took Howell’s class] and I were both brought up Catholic.
(2) I can only imagine how ashamed and uncomfortable a gay student would feel if he/she were to take this course. I am a heterosexual male and I found this completely appalling.
So, he’s a heterosexual generously taking offense on behalf of homosexuals, and a Catholic taking offense on behalf of Protestants, Jews, atheists, and other heathens.
In other words, please let it be noted that he is not part of The Establishment.
posted by Jorge on
If you think the stain can be so easily washed out
I do indeed think that “stain” can and should be washed out within a generation, but I am well aware that it hasn’t. Well we need to do something about that, but the way out does not involve a competition of racial grievances or a racial warfare.
What conditions could have possibly given rise to the Black Panther Party or Black Nationalism?
-Systemic racism
-Unequal sentencing
-Police brutality in the face of peaceful assembly.
I could go on, but the point is, all of this could have been avoided had this nation kept it’s promises during reconstruction.
Why do you cite Reconstruction and not the 1960s Civil Rights Movement?
After the incident in DC where the black congressman was allegedly called a racial epithet by a tea partier, which could not have possibly happened because it wasn’t caught on tape, I pay no attention to any type of hearsay reporting. No recording, it didn’t happen.
Not just no recording Jimmy. No witnesses.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Or, a different way to characterize the dispute is that the student is a heterodox Catholic who takes umbrage at being called “disobedient” or “heretical” by (small-o) orthodox Catholics like Howell. That is, the student is really offended on his own behalf (as a “dissident” Catholic), despite the pro forma reference to the feelings of gay students.
In other words, the student may feel that Howell has implicitly said “fuck you” to every Catholic who supports gay marriage or believes in the ordination of women or whatever, and the student seized upon the opportunity to say “fuck you” back.
Now, I see nothing wrong in the student being offended on his own behalf — if anything, that’s preferable to the patronizing display of concern for gay students. (I mean, for fuck’s sake — whether you’re gay or straight, if you’re a 4th-year undergrad who’s unable to sniff out the smallest logical vulnerability in Natural Law theology, maybe you DESERVE to feel uncomfortable and ashamed.)
But if this was essentially an internecine, Catholic-to-Catholic feud, the U. of Illinois should never have been lured by PC-thinking into choosing sides!
posted by Jorge on
Here, by the way, is the full content of the email that Kenneth Howell sent to his students, along with the complaint email in response to it.
Do I really need to take the blindfold off? Can’t I trust the opposition to get things right?
Yeah, anyway, I agree with you.
posted by BobN on
You may have Debrah’s unwavering devotion, Trobert, but you still make no sense to me. In post after post you acknowledge flaws in the professor’s teaching. Yet you still claim his teachings are Catholic doctrine appropriately taught. I give up. Maybe you can find a good Jesuit scholar to explain the connection between the bad teaching you see and bad teaching you deny.
But one last thing, and I’ll say this in a way you might understand since you appear to have a taste for the vulgar, fucking stop fucking trying to fucking read my fucking mind. I do not “feign indignation” at bigoted ignorance passing itself off as doctrine. It really does piss me off.
posted by Throbert McGee on
BobN: Since I’m not a mind-reader, you’ll have to tell me: Am I correct in deducing that, like the student who complained about Howell’s email, you are a “dissident Catholic” who resents that the Vatican will not concede the irresistible and irrefutable logic of your own position?
posted by Jimmy on
“His hostility to the lacrosse players is the coin that buys him street cred, and proves to anyone who gives a damn that despite outward appearances, Jimmy is not to be confused with The Man.”
I’m good with that, noting that today “The Man” is half black, and I am not. I’m Dutch and Native American. What happened to the players was an injustice and they should be compensated. The whole ordeal made Duke look ridiculous. I’m an IU man so I’m not broken hearted about that.
“Why do you cite Reconstruction and not the 1960s Civil Rights Movement?”
Because there was 100 years separating the two, and in that 100 years, this nation, especially south of the Mason Dixon line, showed African Americans how they were thought of every single day by white America. Are you actually going to deny this?
“Well we need to do something about that..”
And because true reconciliation hasn’t happened on your timetable, which you feel is so reasonable, we can all just say “get over it” with so much self-satisfied smugness. That attitude is appalling. It’s morally dishonest and indefensible.
posted by Jimmy on
I’ll watch anything that includes the adorable Ezra Klein.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=090EbpjPF5c&feature=player_embedded
posted by Debrah on
Throbert–
My comment in response to Peter Wood’s column regarding the Howell episode:
************************************************
Though not an atheist, I must concur with many of Christopher Hitchens’ views with regard to religion being used in some very negative ways.
However, religious zealotry is far eclipsed by the methods of academic leftists and gay “activists”.
Even scholars inside the academy who purport to stand for fairness no matter whose rights are being violated come across as condescending on this one…….simply because they know there’s such a tiny percentage of faculty who will ever voice their true opinions on gay male sex.
A number of Howell’s views are shared by more people in the general population whose opinions are not informed by religion than many wish to acknowledge……across the demographic spectrum.
Hence, even some of the most liberal states in the Northeast do not support same-sex marriage.
Yet procrusteanized narratives alluding to the South and the mid-20th century civil rights movement continue to be used as gross analogies when reality would suffice.
Is anyone inside the academy really capable of divining how the “tweens and millennials” will respond to gay issues when they are no longer inside the throes of a university campus whose very nature—right or wrong—provides no emollient for those who are not on the “right side” of the culture wars?
It can be argued those who criticize Howell’s email fail to comprehend that even university students might be more acquiescent than they are giddy when pushing the idea that there are no negative results from gay male sex.
Save for frottage, in the usual gay male sexual relationship, one man (the receiver) must, necessarily, take the heterosexual woman’s role. Why is that so difficult to admit?
Although verbalizing this may be inelegant and a delicate venture……..reality is not mitigated by phony condescension and righteous indignation from gay men whose ultimate mission is to embarrass people like Howell and leave an aura of…..
…….”You’d better not discuss this openly again in the midst of young students—-our great hope for the future passage of SSM!”
Howell would not be my cup of tea because he seems too invested in religion; however, there’s amusement in reading those who put on an air of supporting his rights, yet make fun of him simultaneously…….as if the physical negatives resulting from anal sex between gay men are negligible.
Gay activists and gay professors on university campuses know that they will always have ample props.
Condescension prevails.
No true acknowledgment that no matter in what decade or century we find ourselves, human bodies are still being churned out with the same number of orifices in the same locations…….designed for the same functions.
If gays were secure in their own pertinacity they wouldn’t have to work so hard to stifle free speech.
The Howell episode underscores the grand reality that the quadrumvirate of race/class/gender/sexual orientation inside the academy has metastasized beyond mention.
**********************************************
posted by BobN on
I’m always surprised when thinking women buy into the idea of woman as receptacle. Is there really nothing more to it?
This is especially odd coming from someone like Debrah, who, I think we would all agree, probably “plays the man” in her intimate relationships. And I’m not just talking about ordering her chap to take out the garbage.
posted by BobN on
BobN: Since I’m not a mind-reader, you’ll have to tell me: Am I correct in deducing that, like the student who complained about Howell’s email, you are a “dissident Catholic” who resents that the Vatican will not concede the irresistible and irrefutable logic of your own position?
If I were still Catholic, I suppose I’d be a “dissident”, if “dissident” means not thinking that Vatican II was the devil’s work.
I took religion very, very seriously as a young man, including, with the encouragement of more than a few teachers, considering the priesthood. Five years of theology classes which I enjoyed (how weird is that?!?!?!) taught me that Catholic theology is complex and deep. Very important ideas can be analyzed and taught without resorting to brutish stereotypes about sex roles, beastiality, and anal fissures. The process — even if the basis and conclusions are questionable — deserves better presentation.
posted by Debrah on
BobN–
LOL!!!
Your (4:10 PM) is truly inspired.
I love it!
posted by Debrah on
Update on Howell’s case.
The university is now backtracking because of the push-back; however, they have yet to address the violation of his constitutional rights.
It’s cases like this one that show the entire public—in bold relief—just how eff-up the modern academy really is.
And why so many gays inside the academy and beyond come off looking like ever-disgruntled “pussies” with a never-ending need to muzzle other people.
They can’t stand free speech or the presentation of anything other than their own freeze-dried rendition of reality.
Attempting to force a Stepford robotic mentality on students in which santorum froth is turned into wine…….(they think).
So sickening.
FIRE and NAS will have follow-up reports and commentary as things unfold.
posted by Throbert McGee on
I won’t dispute that there is complexity and depth in Catholic theology.
But I’m curious to know where, exactly, BobN finds complexity and depth in the Catholic Church’s specific teachings about homosexuality, based on what it calls Natural Law moral theory?
posted by Throbert McGee on
Thanks, Debrah, for linking to that update on Howell!
posted by Jimmy on
If you stand up for yourself, and they call you a pussy, what are you when you just stand there and take it.
I’ll bet you were a real joy to be around on the playground, Deb.
posted by Debrah on
Speaking of Deroy Murdock (in the updated post), this one from him really cuts to the chase.
“I’ll bet you were a real joy to be around on the playground, Deb.”
********************************************
Hi, Jimmy.
Yeah, I was a hit.
:>)
posted by Throbert McGee on
Jimmy — in this particular case, the offended student who was actually enrolled in Howell’s class pointedly did NOT “stand up” for himself.
He persuaded another student (who was not in the class) to send an email of complaint — not only to the head of the Religious Studies department, but also cc:d to the director of the “LGBT Resource Center,” and to a former editor of the campus newspaper, and to a “Queer Studies” professor, just for good measure.
In other words, he cried to nanny, and did so anonymously, which is not the same at all as standing up for oneself.
But more generally, how do you stand up for yourself without being a pussy? Answer: By picking your battles carefully, and by maintaining a sense of proportion, and most importantly by taking full responsibility for your own emotions, and being extremely reluctant to blame other people for your hurt feelings.
posted by Jimmy on
“In other words, he cried to nanny, and did so anonymously, which is not the same at all as standing up for oneself.”
Agreed. That is pusillanimous.
Sorry, Deb.
posted by Jorge on
Because there was 100 years separating the two, and in that 100 years, this nation, especially south of the Mason Dixon line, showed African Americans how they were thought of every single day by white America. Are you actually going to deny this?
Why do you ignore the Civil Rights Movement?
The reason your argument citing Reconstruction is very weak is because blacks are not enslaved and have in almost any sane person’s view attained full equality with whites in terms of being recognized as human beings. Whereas, if you were to cite the Civil Rights Movement, you would start from a lesser injury but would see less healing in comparison.
You’d also sound less like a loon. The history of slavery and reconstruction have very little political power today.
And because true reconciliation hasn’t happened on your timetable, which you feel is so reasonable,
That is not what I said, and I don’t appreciate you twisting my words around. I said equality has should have happened in my lifetime, but has not. Get it right.
But I’m curious to know where, exactly, BobN finds complexity and depth in the Catholic Church’s specific teachings about homosexuality, based on what it calls Natural Law moral theory?
Nice one, Throbert.
posted by BobN on
But I’m curious to know where, exactly, BobN finds complexity and depth in the Catholic Church’s specific teachings about homosexuality, based on what it calls Natural Law moral theory?
And
Nice one, Throbert
I really can’t fathom you guys. You defend the guy and his awful explanation of Natural Law and utilitarianism and homosexuality and informed consent (and all that in just one email!). When I criticize his competence to teach the subject of Catholic thought, you pounce on me like I need to show I believe it or something. You know, people can construct philosophies in a very erudite and sophisticated manner, without stooping to crude stereotypes and boogeymen like man-on-dog-santorum-sex, and still be wrong. And even if they’re wrong, you can still appreciate the effort and, on the part of many of those who built the philosophy, good will and sincerity.
Maybe this will help explain my problem with this guy. Take the same man, the same bigoted statements, and put him in charge of a class called Introduction to Southern Baptist Theology, and I wouldn’t have fired him, were it my job to judge him.
posted by Jimmy on
“The history of slavery and reconstruction have very little political power today.”
That’s why I’m speaking in terms of common decency, history, and human compassion.
But I realize what I’m talking to. You don’t get it.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Again, BobN — don’t tell me what could or might be of value in Catholic teaching about homosexuality; give us a specific example of where Catholic thought ON THE MATTER OF HOMOSEXUALITY actually manages to transcend “crude stereotypes and boogeymen like man-on-dog-santorum-sex.” Give us a specific example of how Catholic teaching ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY is much better than Howell’s characterization in that controversial email…
…or concede that — however much BobN personally resents Catholic teaching about homosexuality — Prof. Howell at least conveyed this teaching accurately.
If the underlying philosophy is a mess of bigotry and logical fallacies, why on earth should I credit someone because he took the time to say it politely, and in Latin?
If anything, I have more regard for the Southern Baptists, who have the honesty to express their bad arguments in plain English.
Trying to dress up total bullshit in fancy-sounding Greco-Latin polysyllables to wow the rubes is the time-honored method of traveling snake-oil salesmen — and you think that’s what makes Catholic theologians less-unrespectable than their Baptist counterparts? If anything, it adds “being a brazenly cynical fraud” to the list of complaints against the proponents of Natural Law.
posted by Jimmy on
“If anything, I have more regard for the Southern Baptists, who have the honesty to express their bad arguments in plain English.”
A-fuc*king-men!
posted by BobN on
Like I said, I don’t get you. Above, you criticized me for saying that the professor used crude and bigoted stereotypes in his description of Catholic theology, crudeness and stereotypes that DO NOT appear in the Catechism. Now you’re saying that Catholic theology, unlike SBC theology, doesn’t use crude and bigoted stereotypes in its theology (in Latin or English). Duh… that was my point.
Instead of running me through all your requirements of what it takes to prove the professor was wrong, why don’t you just prove he was right. Find “man-on-dog-sex” in the Catechism. Find “anal fissure”.
You’re making no sense.