The Washington Blade reports that "Democratic senators are blaming Republican obstructionism for the Senate's failure to advance the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, but others say a lack of strategy is preventing a vote." Moreover:
Assistant Majority Leader Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) said Democratic leadership wants to move forward with ENDA, but noted difficulties in moving any item on the legislative agenda forward. "We have a tough time moving anything on the calendar because of Republican filibusters," Durbin said. ... Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee where ENDA is pending, on Tuesday expressed similar grievances about Republican obstructionism. Asked what's keeping the legislation from coming to a Senate vote, Harkin simply replied, "Republicans."
Of course, Democrats have an overwhelming majority in the House. In the Senate, Republicans can only filibuster if all 41 vote in unison, but ENDA has two GOP co-sponsors, Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine. If Democrats were committed to it, ENDA would be passed. But they're not. ENDA is a vote they'd rather do without, and by taking no action they can (1) blame Republicans and (2) keep using the lure of ENDA to reel in more checks from gay Democrats. This isn't a new gambit; during Bill Clinton's first two years in office Democrats also had solid congressional majorities. The result: no ENDA then, either.
As the Blade also reports:
R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, dismissed the notion that Republicans were holding up ENDA in the Senate and said "only the current Senate majority leadership can truly answer" why ENDA isn't on the calendar. "Blaming the minority leadership for the majority's disorganization and lack of planning this year is simplistic and, frankly, lazy," Cooper said.
indeed, when Sen. Durbin was asked whether any discussions on a strategy to advance ENDA in the Senate have taken place, he admitted to the Blade, "We have not reached that level." Well, it is much easier to blame Republicans than for the majority to actually do anything.
As Blade editor Kevin Naff commented in an editorial: "Democratic politicians will never shake their nervous Nellie ways and stand up for LGBT constituents if they know gay donors will write checks election after election regardless of legislative advances."
It really is all a game, and we're the marks.
66 Comments for “The ENDA Blame Game”
posted by Waldo on
Another example of the GOP-lovin’ abnegation so peculiar to this site:
38 Republicans CONTRA, 2 (!) PRO
vs.
5 Democrats CONTRA (plus/minus), 54 PRO
and, mirabile dictu, the Democrats are the PROBLEM!!!!
Hey, Mr Miller, can’t you get more than 2 of your homies to do the right thing???
What’s more, can they do any wrong in your looking glass world of teabagging man-love?
posted by Jay Gould on
Hey Bobby, how much do you pull down a year that you have such a hard-on all the time for a “tax cut”. I make $150,000 a year and the Bush cuts gave me an extra $10 or something every two weeks. Hardly something to have apoplexy over one way or the other.
Maybe if some of your Republican friends were to sign on to equalizing tax and entitlement treatment for gays, you would see some real money on both your top and bottom lines.
Last time I checked, the biggest expansion of the “welfare state” was an unfunded prescription-drug bonanza that was rammed through Congress on a wee-hours vote but that paragon of, well, everything, Mr. Tom Delay, aka the Hammer.
The welfare state isn’t going away, buddy, because Republicans like it just as much as everybody else, so how about pushing for equity instead of pretending there’s a Robert Heinlein-esque libertarian utopian just ’round the bend.
posted by Debrah on
Jonathan Rauch at National Journal
The Tea Party Paradox
posted by Jorge on
Hey, Mr Miller, can’t you get more than 2 of your homies to do the right thing???
Get back to the subject. The Democrats in Congress are not fighting for our interests.
Stephen Miller does not allege that Democrats are fighting for our interests and losing, he alleges that they are not fighting for our interests. That is undeniable and unacceptable. What is your solution?
After several weeks’ discussion on DADT, even the compromise path toward repeal has not passed. I expect the Democrats in Congress, led by President Obama, to dig in their heels and fight for those interests they promised to fight for.
posted by Waldo on
Politicians promise things all the time that they 1) have no intention of “fighting for” and 2) [no surprise] ignore once they are in office. Bush spent eight years reading speeches full of wonder-working power but he didn’t do anything for the holy rollers who expected him (Jesus being his top philosopher and all) to deliver the country into their hands (talons?) lock, stock and smoking bible.
Gays are the “Christians” of the left. Sure, they’ll take your money and tell you it’s morning in gaymerica but if you’re foolish enough to keep believing it when dawn breaks, bigger fool you.
I had NO illusions that Obama would do anything for the gay community. He has no incentive to do so. But in the absence of any plausible national politicians on the right, he’s not likely to make things worse by stoking the fires of resentment, fear and ick out there amongst the huddled masses.
Question for you: Just because Republicans didn’t “promise” ENDA or whatever, doesn’t mean they can vote for it (or let it come to a vote, for that matter)? Why does the existence of a few recalcitrant Democrats absolve the ENTIRE (effectively) Republican Party for their staunch refusal to consider supporting ANY of our issues?
posted by BobN on
The GOP never promised ENDA so they don’t have to follow through.
Uh… they promised to block ENDA and they’re delivering in spades.
And Miller’s right, some are acting as though this were a game. Among them, Mr. Miller fulfilling one of the Most Valuable Player roles: partisan toady.
posted by Waldo on
Do any of you right-wing weirdos think that gays should have ANY rights or that our lives AREN’T for “the people” to give or take away?
If John Boehner tied you to the back of his car and dragged through the streets of Liberal, Kansas, to make some point about “listening to the people”, would you even protest? Would this be just “taking one for the team”?
It’s not about Republicans or Democrats for us. It’s about who hates and who hates us less.
posted by Jimmy on
Clearly, the party willing to even deal with these issues in a democratic fashion is the Democratic party. We see the extent that the GOP wants to deal with them. Now, we ain’t perfect, but I wasn’t perfect the last time I played, and won, a game of horse shoes; I just had to play the game better.
posted by Bobby on
Hey, don’t blame the republicans just because the democrats are too chickenshit to keep their promises to the gay community. The GOP never promised ENDA so they don’t have to follow through.
As far as I’m concerned, I’d rather get a tax cut than ENDA. I’d rather see economic prosperity than a bigger welfare state. I’m so sick of Obama driving the crappy Chevy Volt as if he was Stalin on a parade. The Volt is crap, it gets up to 40 electric miles until the gasoline moter kicks in and it costs $41,000. The Nissan Leaf costs $31,000 and it gets 100 electric miles.
Unlike GM, Nissan did not get a bailout, they did not have government bureaucrats telling them to develop cars Americans don’t want to drive. So to all gays who voted for Obama and trusted in the DNC, I have news for you, you’ve been [obscenity deleted].
posted by Daniel on
“Get back to the subject. The Democrats in Congress are not fighting for our interests.”
And if Republicans controlled Congress, they’d certainly fight for LGBT interests like ENDA. Right.
posted by bobby on
“Hey Bobby, how much do you pull down a year that you have such a hard-on all the time for a “tax cut”. I make $150,000 a year and the Bush cuts gave me an extra $10 or something every two weeks. Hardly something to have apoplexy over one way or the other.”
—Here’s how taxes will rise about the Bush cuts expire:
* The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%
* The 25% bracket rises to 28%
* The 28% bracket rises to 31%
* The 33% bracket rises to 36%
* The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%
http://taxes.suite101.com/article.cfm/expiration-of-bush-tax-cuts—-how-much-is-it-going-to-cost-you
But wait, there’s more:
“The capital gains rate that topped out at 15% during the Bush tax cut years will jump to 20%. The dividend rate that reached an all time low maximum rate of 15% will skyrocket to a whopping 39.6%”
So frankly, if the Bush tax cuts only gave you $10, I think you should fire your accountant.
By the way, while a 3% to 5% may not seem a big deal to a rich progressive like you, to the guy making $50,000 or even $20,000 a year it is a big deal. Inflation in America is around 4%, gasoline prices can rise at any time, employers are either not giving raises or forcing employees to take 5% or 10% paycuts. So, in that environment raising taxes will hurt the life of the average American.
And to think Obama promised not to raise taxes on the middle class. Well, that’s why you can never trust a democrat.
“Do any of you right-wing weirdos think that gays should have ANY rights or that our lives AREN’T for “the people” to give or take away?”
—Gays have all the rights under the constitution, plus life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness under the declaration of independence. Sodomy laws are gone and they’re not coming back. Service in the military is a privilege and maybe someday it will be extended to us. As for marriage, marriage isn’t a right, it’s also a privilege.
“It’s not about Republicans or Democrats for us. It’s about who hates and who hates us less.”
—Republicans don’t hate our wallets, but according to you, a gay-friendly thief is better than a homophobic cop. Well, I’d rather not get robbed.
You know what’s funny? While progressives claim not to be materialistic nor care about money, they sure have plenty of dough for $3 million dollar weddings. And what about that teacher who compared the victims of 9/11 to Little Eichmans? He was making more than $100,000. Or what about Obama? $400,000 a year for a job that includes free rent, free Air Force One travel, free food, free healthcare, etc.
Tell me, why do the progressive Obamas send their kids to a $20,000 a year private school while opposing school vouchers for Washington DC inner-city kids?
The answer is this, Obama is the new plantation owner and those of us who aren’t White House Negroes don’t get to enjoy the crumbs of the master’s table.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I make $150,000 a year and the Bush cuts gave me an extra $10 or something every two weeks. Hardly something to have apoplexy over one way or the other.
Then you need to have words with your accountant.
Assuming you are paying the single rate, the 2001 tax cuts (as accelerated by the 2003 tax cuts) moved the rate on $150k of income from 36% annually to 33% annually.
For $150k of income, that means you went from paying $54k ($150k x 36%) annually in taxes to $49,500 — a difference of $4,500, which, divided over 52 weeks, comes out to approximately $86 per week, or an additional $375 per month.
Perhaps you can explain why your statement does not match the obvious mathematics involved.
Maybe if some of your Republican friends were to sign on to equalizing tax and entitlement treatment for gays, you would see some real money on both your top and bottom lines.
Actually, the Republican-dominated Congress of 2006 passed the Pension Protection Act, which established the capability for people to roll their retirement and other qualified accounts upon their death to a non-spousal beneficiary, tax-free; previously, it would have required a distribution and tax penalty. This equalized the tax treatment for all couples, gay, straight, married, or unmarried.
Meanwhile, the Obama Party Congress of 2009, in ramming through their “health care reform” bill, stripped it of a provision that would have altered the tax code to remove imputed income taxation on employer-provided health benefits for non-spousal beneficiaries.
So let’s see; the Republicans DID move towards equalization, and the Obama Party directly opposed it. Perhaps you ought to explain that as well.
Do any of you right-wing weirdos think that gays should have ANY rights or that our lives AREN’T for “the people” to give or take away?
How hilarious. Gay-sex liberals like yourself openly endorse talk of “filthy homosexuals” and give money and overwhelming support to politicians who support bans on gay-sex marriage and discriminate against gay people.
Certainly you wouldn’t be stupid enough to be whining about “hate speech”, “marriage”, or “employment protections” as being “rights” when you’ve openly endorsed and supported Obama Party members who clearly oppose all three.
And that is why you are treated like dirt by both parties. Both parties know that you’re an unintelligent, irrational little talking points repeater who is going to do whatever the Obama Party says and oppose everything and anything the Republican Party does.
posted by Throbert McGee on
@Bobby:
I would correct this to “getting a marriage license isn’t a right, it’s a privilege,” or something like that.
Because “marriage” in the sense of long-term cohabitation, legally designating each other next-of-kin, and telling anyone in earshot “God thinks we’re married” clearly does involve the exercise of such fundamental liberties as freedom of association, speech, and religion.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Show me a guy who says “Everyone hates me because of who I am” and I’ll show you an Olympic-grade narcissist.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Getting back to the OP topic: Why exactly do we need ENDA, anyway?
(And by “we” I mean LGBT people who don’t happen to be litigators or Department of Labor bureaucrats — to name two demographics who clearly would benefit from the make-work provided by ENDA.)
Those pushing for ENDA will often say:
(1) “Right now, LGBT people can be fired just for being who they are in just about every state.”
(2) “But we already have federal laws prohibiting job discrimination on the basis of race, religion, and certain other factors; why shouldn’t sexual orientation and gender identity be added to the list?”
In answer to (1), I would observe that just because LGBT people can face job discrimination in most states (i.e., in the absence of federal-level protection) doesn’t mean that they are suffering such discrimination — since, after all, so many private employers have already taken the voluntary initiative in adding sexual orientation to their non-discrimination clauses. It may be objected by ENDA supporters that even if workplace discrimination against LGBT people occurs only rarely, “even one gay person being unjustly fired is too many.” But although that makes for stirring rhetoric, it doesn’t make much sense on closer analysis — because provided that the number of “wrongful firings” is sufficiently low, handling these rare injustices on a case-by-case basis will possibly be much less expensive than the administrative overhead that comes with ENDA.
And in answer to (2), if there’s NOT actually an ongoing crisis of anti-gay workplace discrimination that justifies a sweeping federal-level remedy, then arguing “But why shouldn’t we LGBT people get the same official protection as racial and religious minorities” sounds like little more than an embarrassing case of Suspect-Class Envy.
posted by Debrah on
“Certainly you wouldn’t be stupid enough to be whining about ‘hate speech’, ‘marriage’, or ’employment protections’ as being ‘rights’ when you’ve openly endorsed and supported Obama Party members who clearly oppose all three.”
****************************************************
OK, the big guns have arrived!
posted by BobN on
handling these rare injustices on a case-by-case basis will possibly be much less expensive than the administrative overhead that comes with ENDA
Uh…
1) How do you handle firings on a case-by-case basis if they’re not illegal?
2) What overhead costs? Publishing the law? If they can add to the Congressional Record to celebrate Pig-Belly-Appreciation-Month legislation, they can ad EDNA.
posted by Bobby on
“I would correct this to “getting a marriage license isn’t a right, it’s a privilege,” or something like that. ”
—You’re right, Throbert. Marriage is more than a license, in fact, some unlicensed marriages are more real than some of those of which are licensed.
posted by John D on
Until the Democrats put ENDA on the table and the Republicans block it, I’m blaming the Democrats. Sure the Republicans oppose my rights. When the Democrats roll over and play dead, they’re complicit.
I blame the Democrats for not standing up and pushing for ENDA and the repeal of DADT and DOMA. I’d rather the Democrats fight for me and fail then refuse to even try. If they try, they might succeed. Further, if they try, they have to explain to people why this is a good thing. I think a lot of Democrats would be happy to vote for gay rights if they didn’t have to justify it to their constituents.
Time to show some courage, guys.
posted by dc on
What a lot of gays don’t acknowledge is that the black civil rights movement is ONLY one way in which a marginalized people can advance. Most black people in the US have assimilated into American culture rather than going against it. The assimilationist wing of the black civil rights movement eventually won, just look at Barack Obama. Is the road to “gay” advancement predicated on the enshrinement of modern notions of sexual orientation into law (like what happened with race)? Or, is there something to be said about disidentification and the erosion of group identity both publicly and personally?
posted by Jimmy on
“Most black people in the US have assimilated into American culture rather than going against it.”
This sounds like American culture is something akin to The Borg. It’s not.
“Or, is there something to be said about disidentification and the erosion of group identity both publicly and personally?”
This reminds me, I need a get a new “Kiss Me, I’m Irish” button before next St. Patrick’s Day.
posted by dc on
Jimmy, I agree that American culture is not The Borg. Examples like “Kiss Me, I’m Irish” are similar to rap music that uses “nigga” as a designation, but is listened to and, lets face it, sung by people of all races in America and beyond (where it is seen as American). Pins identifying someone as Irish do not mean anything outside of a party atmosphere; it’s a sexual joke. But could gay reach that level, where it doesn’t mean anything legally or culturally except for in specific party or sexual situations? What is the best way to get there? Is it assimilation? It seems as if gays are moving quickly towards assimilation into American culture as “gay” human beings. But why should gay as a category be the one and only designation that defines all non heterosexual life? Gay, homosexual, queer, fag are all categories that reinforce the idea that you as a human being are inherently differentiated, defined, and determined by your “sexual orientation.” Is this idea really beneficial to us?
posted by Jorge on
Why does the existence of a few recalcitrant Democrats absolve the ENTIRE (effectively) Republican Party for their staunch refusal to consider supporting ANY of our issues?
Objection. Your facts are incorrect.
And I say again, you have it backwards. The near super-majority power status of the Democrats makes them the only party that is relevant.
Where Republicans are relevant is in the inevitability that they will topple the Democrats come November 2010 and 2010. But the only area one can do anything about that is in the primaries.
I tire of this old argument.
Getting back to the OP topic: Why exactly do we need ENDA, anyway?
It would have the useful effect of leading to diversity training in the workforce and letting people make successful anti-discrimination complaints. This mindset would have a small impact on society as a whole by giving people more knowledge to stand up for themselves and others.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And as for DADT, I wouldn’t worry about it, now that it’s been revealed that gay and lesbian soldiers and DADT protesters are handing over classified information to the enemy.
But it does explain why the anti-American left and Obama Party is so desperate for DADT to be repealed; apparently it will make life easier for their moles.
It blows my mind that the gay and lesbian community and its DADT protestors are deliberately trying to help the Taliban, but then again, we have to remember that gays and lesbians support the Obama “God Damn America” Party at all costs.
posted by Justin on
ND30:
I wasn’t aware that one person constituted the “gay community.”
And you are so insane you don’t believe Obama even supports his own wars. Haha!
posted by Mark F. on
If the filibuster is the problem, the Democrats could abolish it this week. But they don’t have the votes to do it.
posted by Jorge on
No, the Democrats don’t have the votes to abolish the filibuster over the Equal Rights Amendment.
You are suggesting they *should*???
posted by Debrah on
“Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the US military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the leakers ‘might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family’ because, he said, the leaked documents included the names of Afghan informants.”
********************************************
This from the link provided by ND30 above.
I’ve long kept up with Wikileaks and Julian Assange; however, had no idea that the lowlife who cared nothing about endangering so many lives is gay.
This fact does nothing to help current issues regarding gays in the military.
Why is it that every time some little soft gay man is having “relationship” troubles, he goes off like a girl who has no date to the prom?
And this is not a rhetorical question.
Instances like this one make me wonder about a lot of things.
Does the military really need such people with obvious hatred for the very institution that has embraced him?
It’s so tiresome that people are expected to look over such things because some little guy happens to be gay.
Manning’s “gayness” and is apparently what informs such deliberately destructive behavior. Didn’t anyone become suspicious when reading his threatening FaceBook entries?
Does anyone ever call for the execution of such people who are, after all, murderers indirectly?
posted by Jimmy on
“Why is it that every time some little soft gay man is having “relationship” troubles, he goes off like a girl who has no date to the prom?”
Like Bobby, you mean?
“You are suggesting they *should*???”
Yes! It is undemocratic, as is the Senate itself. Profligate use of the filibuster by Republicans since Democrats took control of the Senate shows how obstructionist they are. We know both parties have utilized it, but Americans are realizing how broken, bought, and diseased their system of government is. We need an injection of democracy to ease the infection.
posted by Debrah on
Jimmy–
Stop being silly.
Bobby isn’t in the military and isn’t whining and pining over some “boyfriend” and then taking out his personal problems on innocent people.
Bobby simply related a dating experience. FINITO!
Manning is a grown man who is supposed to be serving his country.
Yet he acts like a panty-boy in some gay bar who has just been kicked out of his dancing cage for showing his acne-pocked azz.
This is a very serious matter in which lives will be lost.
Manning is essentially a murderer.
Look at him.
And whether one wishes to acknowledge it or not, this incident casts lots of doubt on the veracity of some gays inside the military.
Hetero military guys who go beserk kill their girlfriends or spouses.
Hetero females in the military get involved with other men or plot the murder of a spouse.
But this guy has used innocent people to vent his pathetic “troubles”.
I say execute him.
posted by Jimmy on
Please, Debrah.
How many hetero soldiers went off of the deep end after getting a Dear John letter? This guy could just as well been straight and messed up over a love affair gone bad. He’ll be court martialed and will face justice if found guilty.
What is silly is to make this about his orientation. To do so merely feeds your personal prejudice.
posted by John on
ND30: I take it from your reasoning that you believe all American Indians should be barred from service or severely limited in their service because of the treason by Clayton Lonetree? If Manning is gay and committed treason because of some grudge against the military related to his sexuality, so what? That says nothing about gay servicemembers in general any more than Lonetree and American Indians, or John Walker and white heterosexuals. If Manning is guilty than he’ll pay for his crimes just like these other two traitors did, but using specious reasoning as you have here to tarr all gay servicemembers only makes you look like an ass.
posted by Bobby on
“And as for DADT, I wouldn’t worry about it, now that it’s been revealed that gay and lesbian soldiers and DADT protesters are handing over classified information to the enemy.”
ND30, just because Bradley Manning is a traitor doesn’t mean all gays in the military are potential traitors. If you read “Conduct Unbecoming” you’ll see that the people that often get discharged for violating the anti-gay laws are often heavily decorated soldiers, some who have been defended by their immediate superiors and colleagues. In fact, Bradley’s errors had nothing to do with don’t ask don’t tell, he wasn’t even being black mailed. After all, vitims of blackmail don’t post they’re gay on facebook. Bradley didn’t even betray the military to protest DADT.
I do agree with Debby that he should be executed. One question though, how do you leak 90,000 files? I can’t imagine e-mailing that, did he use an ftp?
I think Manning is an idiot frankly. When Pollard gave Israel information, it was only the information that Israel was entitled to according to the agreements between the two countries, agreements that the USA was violating. In fact, it was thanks to Pollard that Israel was able to destroy Iraq’s nuclear reactor. Since Pollard remains in prison for doing what America was supposed to be doing, and since other spies have gotten much shorter sentences, I would hope Manning gets what he deserves.
posted by Debrah on
I also think that Julian Assange and Wikileaks will have to pay a price.
In the beginning when Assange was gaining recognition and I’d see him in places like The Daily Show and Colbert, I thought he was perhaps providing a service in some renegade kind of way.
However, he’s obviously quite reckless…….in addition to being a very strange humanoid.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
ND30: I take it from your reasoning that you believe all American Indians should be barred from service or severely limited in their service because of the treason by Clayton Lonetree?
If you can point to where Clayton Lonetree justified or made excuses for his actions based on his status as an American Indian, I would certainly consider it.
But as I recall, he did nothing of the sort, nor did he apparently participate in protests over armed forces policies, etc. And I certainly don’t recall the American Indian community trying to justify his actions or claim that his problems were the result of racism against American Indians.
Therein lies the difference. Manning is justifying and rationalizing his actions based on his being a part of the gay and lesbian community. He is making it about his orientation. He is saying that DADT is an excuse for treason.
So why are you yelling at me for taking him at his word? I would think that, if he were wrong and the gay and lesbian community DOESN’T support his actions, that organizations like SLDN, HRC, and others would be the first on the airwaves condemning his actions.
Nothing from either.
Answer: Because they support what he did.
posted by Throbert McGee on
What, no mention of the Bradley Manning ”tranny” rumors? You guys are lagging — macht schnell!
The “he’s not just G, but T” speculation seems to hinge entirely on two words from a leaked IM chat between Manning and hacker Adrian Lamo:
Note that the “as a boy” comment might refer to the obvious fact that he’s 22 years old, yet still a chipmunk-cheeked doppelganger of Ralphie in A Christmas Story — in other words, he’s contrasting “boy” with “grown man,” and not with “girl.”
And “transition” is the long-established official jargon for the process of adjusting to civilian life after leaving the military.
But these two alternative explanations haven’t stopped some very high-strung commenters from declaring that the REAL VICTIMS are “alleged whistleblower Bradley Manning and LGBT people, particularly those who are transgender.”
posted by John on
Of course you would, which only goes to show that there isn’t much difference between the extreme Right or Left in this country. Both engage in identity politics, stereotyping, specious reasoning, etc. I could care less what Manning’s sexuality, ethnicity, etc. are nor are the reasons for his alleged treason important beyond this case. If he is guilty of the crimes he is accused of he will pay will the penalty for it which I will not shed a tear over, just like with Walker and Lonetree.
Yet another example where the extreme Left and Right are the same in so many ways. Generally conservatives whine and bitch about this tactic from the Left, rightfully so, of accusing them all and their respective groups of supporting some nefarious thing advocated by some whacko, which one finds on all sides in politics.
Pathetic, NDT, truly pathetic.
posted by Throbert McGee on
He apparently burned the files to CD. (By one account, he even took the trouble of “disguising” the data disc by carrying it in the plastic jewelbox from — what else? — a Lady Gaga album!)
posted by Throbert McGee on
From the NY Times (with my emphasis added):
Tee-hee…
posted by Debrah on
“Tee-hee…”
*****************************
I don’t know what’s amusing about a “military man” humming and lip synching to the music of a talented, but bizarrely cheap looking plastic b!tch while he’s preparing to cause the deaths of innocent people.
Perhaps observers assumed he was a mental case and left him alone.
Where is the loud gay community in condemning this guy?
I’m going to be very curious how all this plays out.
But I already know.
Another excuse for a pity party when the obvious is illuminated……….
………as the same people characterize Manning’s cunning as something amusing.
posted by Bobby on
“He apparently burned the files to CD. (By one account, he even took the trouble of “disguising” the data disc by carrying it in the plastic jewelbox from — what else? — a Lady Gaga album!)”
—Thanks for the explanation. I guess he assumed that everything on the computer was sensitive, I mean, there’s no way he read all those files, a responsible spy would have done that instead of going crazy and now facing 50 years in prison.
“Where is the loud gay community in condemning this guy?”
—I think we’re all hoping the media won’t focus on his sexual orientation, he is an embarrassment. What pisses me off is that 99.9% of gays in the military are great people, yet now because of this guy he’s going to be the poster child of people who don’t want to get rid of DADT. Then again, we have Mullen and Powell on our side, I hope they stay on our side.
Aside that, here’s a great article from townhall praising Elton John for being independent, playing the Limbaugh wedding, refusing to boycott Arizona and being his own man.
http://townhall.com/columnists/AustinHill/2010/08/01/rush,_elton_and_another_british_invasion/page/full
posted by Debrah on
Thank you Bobby.
For your honest assessment as well as the very logical response.
You and a few others make the exchanges on this blog worthwhile.
Even though hot debate might ensue—which I prefer!—there is ongoing dialogue on the culture wars.
Not every blog can boast such a platform.
I’ve learned one thing about debating delicate topics—religion, race, politics, gay issues, etc….—and that’s if you can’t or won’t do it full-throttle, then everyone’s time is wasted.
I don’t make excuses for women or heteros or anyone else. In fact, it can be argued that I’m harder on women than anyone else.
So I suppose it’s difficult for me to understand the “tribal effect” that inflicts so many people.
Manning’s deeds don’t rub off on anyone else; however, there is a need—in my opinion—to see gays renounce such people.
Not a mandate, but when the gay community won’t, it tends to create the very type of atmosphere that they ostensibly decry.
I think people need to see more Elton Johns out there who can be independent and successful and not marginalize themselves.
It should be clear by now that I criticize and call out those in every group and why not?
And I do think that Manning’s sexual orientation is a factor here.
A factor which he, himself, created.
This isn’t something for anyone to run from, but an issue that should be acknowledged and discussed just as you have so that it’s clear to the public that this guy’s attitudes are an aberration.
On almost any issue, for me, the silence and the non-discussion become the story eclipsing the original.
Taking on a life of its own.
posted by Jorge on
Yes! It is undemocratic, as is the Senate itself.
Intentional, that.
Profligate use of the filibuster by Republicans since Democrats took control of the Senate shows how obstructionist they are. We know both parties have utilized it, but Americans are realizing how broken, bought, and diseased their system of government is. We need an injection of democracy to ease the infection.
I don’t happen to think the 60 vote rule is the thing that is wrong with Congress. If you want Democracy, try campaign finance reform or something. As a moderate it is not at all in my best interests for the “filibuster” rule to be overturned. The Senate was created to be a slower, more deliberative body and I don’t have many problems with it.
On second thought, if they’re gonna get rid of it, why not let it be over something boring?
I would think that, if he were wrong and the gay and lesbian community DOESN’T support his actions, that organizations like SLDN, HRC, and others would be the first on the airwaves condemning his actions.
The fact that they are not leads to one of two logical conclusions: 1) The organizations you mentioned support his actions; or 2) There are some serious flaws in your thinking.
I’ve learned one thing about debating delicate topics—religion, race, politics, gay issues, etc….—and that’s if you can’t or won’t do it full-throttle, then everyone’s time is wasted.
I almost never debate these things (except politics) full throttle in person–too risky. In person, I get angry, so I tend to keep people at some distance. I also get very impatient with people being shocked that I am very comfortable with the logical ends of whatever boilerplate right-of-center idea I’m talking about.
posted by Debrah on
Perhaps Manning missed out on camp as a kid.
Thus, blaming his estranged father for the rest of his life.
Who knows?
Who cares?
Regarding the article from Slate, it must be extremely difficult negotiating the life of such a child.
I’d have to will the kid to be “normal” and would die before allowing a little boy to parade in a tutu.
IMO, many of the so-called issues result from the flimsy acquiescence of the parents.
I really hate such a eunuch parade.
posted by Debrah on
“I also get very impatient with people being shocked that I am very comfortable with the logical ends of whatever boilerplate right-of-center idea I’m talking about.”
*****************************************
I confess that upon reading this blog, I was initially surprised—in a positive way—that so much of the commentariat aren’t the usual cardboard Liberal cutouts who always seem to be out front representing the gay agenda.
posted by Jorge on
Perhaps Manning missed out on camp as a kid.
…
Sorry, but if the Amish can live without TVs, and conservative Muslim women can live without being able to get a driver’s license, then I think I will leave these parents in peace.
posted by John on
Looks like most of my post yesterday was cut off for some reason, but Debrah sums it quite nicely concerning excuses reportedly put forth by Manning for his alleged crimes: “Who cares?” If he is guilty than I have no problem throwing him into Leavenworth and losing the key. Where NDT wishes to take this is beyond asinine.
posted by Debrah on
I’ll pose a question for anyone to answer since some of you guys have to be experts on this topic.
A few months ago someone asked my opinion on something and I had to say—Who knows?
Some guy around 40 and single had no less than four entries and links to gay sites on the front of his FaceBook page.
When I was asked by someone if the guy was gay, I said that perhaps he’s just an advocate for those issues…….except that so much about him kind of screams “gay!”.
LIS!
Since I don’t know the guy, I’ll ask some of you to weigh in.
Would a hetero man, 40-ish, and never-been-married openly display so many gay sites?
Or would he most probably be gay?
After all, there are some very ultra-Left “advocates” who would use such a display as a type of Liberal street cred, no?
LOL!
So many perplexing issues!
posted by Debrah on
By the way, the guy isn’t hot at all.
posted by Jimmy on
Debrah-
Who cares?
posted by Debrah on
I’m making light of the issue by design.
The individual asked me an important question.
If there’s anything I’ve learned this past year, it is…….when you’re dealing with an ultra-Liberal and he’s given the least bit of authority or “power” or support from others, you’d better hope that he’s not also gay.
For that bullsh!t will permeate everything he does sooner or later.
All pretenses of objectivity become comical.
So, in that sense, it becomes an issue.
Likewise, if you’re dealing with someone who is rabidly pro-life……..
…….and you happen to be enthusiastically pro-choice, (as am I)………I want to know who the heck I’m dealing with when someone might have a platform for making decisions.
I’ve learned that Liberal gay men promote butt-effing issues beyond all else.
To the point of making fools of themselves and damaging their own credibility.
I don’t want them to touch a thing of any significance that requires fairness and objectivity.
OK?
If you don’t care, then so what?
posted by Jimmy on
Again with the bitter fag hag bit? You got burned. Too bad. All other gay men, liberal or otherwise, are not to blame and this particular one does not give a shit.
Choke on your bile for all I care.
posted by Debrah on
Jimmy–
Your fool is coming out.
No one got “burned”.
Except the concept of integrity and the Liberal gay bums who mulct from other people and then pop in and out of their “gayness” when it’s convenient.
Many people were let down, however……..but I wouldn’t expect a Liberal to comprehend such a concept for whom responsibility takes a back seat to the “agenda”.
“Fag hag” …..LOL!!!
Perhaps you need to better educate yourself and get the definition.
Although I realize that you’re trying to wax poop-shoot masculine with that one, I think you and Andrew Sullivan know more about the Kathy Griffins of the Liberal mecca than I.
If anything, my mission—if, indeed, I had one—would be to convince gay men to move away from the bareback world, not embrace it.
It must be difficult being a Far Lefty with all those petty-pink insults!
LOL!!!
posted by Jimmy on
It’s been four solid years since I used my azz-hole to evacuate anything, so let me assure you that you can eat me with the utmost safety.
posted by Throbert McGee on
I don’t see anything wrong with allowing a little boy to parade in a tutu. But I think it’s wrong to frame the play-habits of prepubescent children in the fashionable and politically correct theories and language of adult transsexuals and their affirming psychiatrists — not to mention the cherished assumptions of a GBLTQetc. subculture that despises The Patriarchy and Heteronormativity. (Calling it “Camp I Am” pretty much gives the game away — and if you don’t get what I mean, just insert a mental comma after the word “camp”!)
I also noticed that although the father who wrote the article mentions his wife and her (wealthy) gay brother, he never says anything directly about how the mother and uncle of the cross-dressing boy felt about the whole thing. I suppose it’s POSSIBLE that there was never a moment’s dispute between mom and dad as to whether it was in the kid’s best interest to take him to trans-camp, and that the gay uncle respectfully kept his distance from the whole conversation out of deference to the rights of parents. Thus, the author tells us nothing about what the mom and uncle said because all three adults were on exactly the same page from the very beginning.
But while this is POSSIBLE, it seems more likely to me that the father is omitting some important backstory. And little details in the narrative make me wonder whether the father has basically been strong-armed into going along with the nutty dictates of his wife and the gay uncle. (Dad’s only apparent profession is being a “science-fiction-graphics geek in the beard and Birkenstocks,” while mom is a “senior programming analyst” — who apparently couldn’t get away from her job as primary breadwinner to actually ATTEND the camp with her pink-clad son — and her gay brother is described as a “millionaire.”)
posted by Throbert McGee on
Note, also, the telling shift from singular to plural pronouns in this paragraph:
Elsewhere in the article, the author uses “I” forms sparingly to put a slight emotional distance between himself and the goings-on:
But whenever he’s being “correctly” trans-affirming, then suddenly it’s couched in “we” and “us.”
In short, my diagnosis is that whether or not the cross-dressing son is genuinely “transgendered,” the father is most genuinely pussy-whipped.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Just to expand on this, I think the author of the Slate article was perhaps accidentally correct when he wrote that the kids’ desire to sashay around in tuille, chiffon, lamé, and feather boas, teetering on go-go boots or towering heels comes from deep inside them — at the core of their identity.
I would suggest that a desire to strut around in grownup clothes is, indeed, at the very core of their identity — because they are young kids, but not necessarily because they are embryonic trannies. And I would further guess that, if you polled young children of both sexes, girls and boys alike would overwhelmingly be enticed by the fluffy feather boas, the glittery lamé, the tulle, the chiffon, the sequins, etc., because these materials are so “fancy” and exotic and (from a child’s POV) so much cooler than what kids normally get to wear.
posted by Bobby on
“I don’t see anything wrong with allowing a little boy to parade in a tutu.”
—You know, parents are supposed to set STANDARDS, you don’t give your child a cookie every time he wants one, otherwise he’ll end up obese. Just because a little boy wants to parade in a tutu doesn’t mean you have to allow it. Even when he’s a teenager doesn’t mean everything goes.
Seriously, if you’re going to let your male child parade in a tutu then send the poor boy to a military boarding school and let someone else raise him since you obviously can’t.
posted by Jorge on
Would a hetero man, 40-ish, and never-been-married openly display so many gay sites?
Or would he most probably be gay?
You need to ask straight men if they can come up with an explanation that affirms the person is straight. Ask a bunch of gay people, and you can easily get an explanation that affirms the person is gay, closeted, or gay and unaware of it.
posted by Jimmy on
Bobby –
Did you wear a tutu when you were a little boy, or did you play with GI JOEs & Tonka Trucks?
posted by Bobby on
“Did you wear a tutu when you were a little boy, or did you play with GI JOEs & Tonka Trucks?”
—I only experimented with makeup once, put lipstick on, felt totally ridiculous, and never did it again. As for GI Joe’s, I never believed in playing with dolls or “action figures” as the toy marketing world calls them. I did play lots of violent games on Nintendo and became a fan of Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street and every horror movie I could find.
posted by Jimmy on
“As for GI Joe’s, I never believed in playing with dolls or “action figures” as the toy marketing world calls them.”
Whatever. My point is, I played with “boy” toys and I also grew up around the environment of a dance studio, replete with sequined top hats, tap shoes, and yes tutus (though never wore one – they didn’t fit) and feathered boas (wore lots of ’em). I climbed trees, got dirty, cussed and spit just like all the other little boys around me. None of those things had a shitting thing to do with my sexual orientation.
This tutu discussion is one of the most asinine discussions to take place on this forum, and I’ve been confronted with a few of them.
posted by Jorge on
This tutu discussion is one of the most asinine discussions to take place on this forum, and I’ve been confronted with a few of them.
…
I think it’s disappointing such a discussion takes place without any appreciation for its seriousness.
posted by Jimmy on
“I think it’s disappointing such a discussion takes place without any appreciation for its seriousness.”
You would.
And yet, some old German in a silky dress utters something and it’s called “infallible”.
posted by BobN on
When it comes to gay rights, the only relevant Tutu is Desmond.2
posted by Debrah on
Throbert–
I think your comments on the “fashion show camp” were most accurate.
I got the same vibe from the father who wrote the article.
His wife seems to wear the pants and control the purse strings.
She and her gay brother might be steering the little boy in a direction they prefer, prematurely.
And the fact that the brother-in-law is a “millionaire” was an interesting tidbit that the writer added to the mix.
All kids experiment with toys and play “dress-up”……..but these are fleeting sets of child’s play.
For example, as a preschooler, I was fascinated with black tights, masks, and little toy pistols…..(probably a desire to be a mysterious “foreign agent”). LOL!
Oh wait! I’m still fascinated with black tights and masks!
Moving on…………