Challenging the Narrative

Two tweets:

(Compare the above with the hyperbolic Washington Blade headline ‘Scalia on Steroids’, quoting NYC Rep. Jerry Nadler’s characterization of the judge.)

30 Comments for “Challenging the Narrative”

  1. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    LGBT progressives’ attempts to portray Judge Gorsuch as a homophobe

    The question is not whether Judge Gorsuch is a homophobe, but whether his originalist judicial philosophy result in opinions that will limit/abrogate equal treatment under the law for gays and lesbians.

    The two are distinct.

    Chief Justice Roberts has given us little or no grounds to suspect that he is a homophobe (the contrary, in fact, in his family life), but he dissented in Obergefell. Justice Alito shows no signs of being homophobic, but he dissented in Obergefell. Justices Scalia seems to have been personally antagonistic toward gays and lesbians, but his vote was no different than that of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. As to Justice Thomas, we so little public record that it is impossible to judge.

    The point of judicial impartiality is that personal attitudes do not enter into judicial decisions. Justice Kennedy is, by all accounts, a devout practicing Catholic. We have no idea what his personal views might be toward same-sex marriage. We do know what his legal/constitutional view is, and that is what counts.

    A competent judge will rule according to the law, not his/her personal attitudes toward gays and lesbians. And whatever his personal attitudes toward gays and lesbians may be, Judge Gorsuch is, and has been throughout his judicial career, competent, a competent judge.

    If Judge Gorsuch is “gay-affirming” in his personal life, he has a duty, as a Justice, to set that aside and rule on the basis of fact, law and the constitution. So look to his judicial philosophy, not his personal life, if you want to get an indication of how he will decide cases involving gays and lesbians.

    A quiet note: It seems to me that Stephen is stirring the pot with “LGBT progressives’ attempts to portray Judge Gorsuch as a homophobe …” I have seen little or no
    evidence that “LGBT progressives” (or anyone else, for that matter) is accusing Judge Gorsuch of being a homophobe. Admittedly, I focus on reading the sane mainstream LGBT media, with an emphasis on legal commentary, but the commentary I’ve seen concerns his judicial record and his judicial philosophy.

    Just to check, I did a Bing search on “Gorsuch homophobe”. Out of the first several pages of search results, all of the articles (with one exception) use the term “homophobe” in locutions like “not homophobic”, “whether or not he’s a homophobe, Judge Gorsuch is an originalist …”, “never sensed Gorsuch is homophobic”, and so on. The outlier is an out-to-lunch assertion by “democraticunderground.com” that “Neil Gorsuch Wikipedia page declares he is a homophobe…”

    I imagine that this quiet note will result in a flurry of “Mores”, “Furthermores”, “More Furthermores” and “Further More Furthermores” as Stephen uncovers similar wacko comments on obscure blogs and in the Twitterverse, but let me repeat: “I have seen little or no evidence that “LGBT progressives” (or anyone else, for that matter) is accusing Judge Gorsuch of being a homophobe.”

    Reply
  2. posted by Jim Michaud on

    You know what narrative really fries my butt? It’s this whole thing about how the LGBT community is supposed to be shaking, quaking nervous nellies now that the GOP is in power. The Bangor Daily News had this article about how Maine’s LGBT community is apprehensive about what’s in store. One person claimed that some people are going back in the closet. No proof was given. A church member where I attend services wondered if it was still safe to be out of the closet. I reassured him that Mainers haven’t changed. We’re the same people that gave a thumbs up to both civil rights (2005) and marriage equality (2012). Public opinion is on our side folks. We seem to forget that. Tony Perkins, Peter LaBarbera, etc. know that any aggressive move on their part will be met with a backlash. Keep coming out, speaking out, and set an example. Quit crying and clutching your pearls. We’re not going back (and the phobes know it).

    Reply
  3. posted by Jorge on

    Yes, I just had that NY Post article pointed out to me.

    This guy Moore seems to find having a sense of social belonging to be important to his political identity. It’s easy to see the “driven from the left, welcomed by the right” narrative. He’s light on details about why he no longer considers himself a liberal and why he considers himself a conservative. I find Ann Coulter funny and abhor what the left does, too, but I still consider myself a moderate. I listen/read to those so-called RINOs go on and on about AlexThomas Washington and how sad Al Gore’s separation was for the country and my eyes begin to droop.

    I am getting sick and tired of this right wing ‘Savage getting all this good publicity.

    You know it’s this guy Moore’s piece that made me stop hating on Shawn King? He sez he wrote a neutral piece. Neutral? Neutral??? What Milo Yiannapoulos did to King (who I have few nice things to say about) was nasty, and that Out piece exposed him for it. People were so afraid of Milo that they refused to even be interviewed. That’s neutral?

    That whole paragraph about Milo’s yuppie harem and the other about his black side pieces is neutral? All the whitewashing in the world can’t remove that story from my mind. This guy is a modern-day slavemaster. What, just because you took care to show he has a brain and makes sense?

    Fine, FINE. In an age of Trump, we have to live with Milo. Heaven knows I learned to tolerate Dan Savage’s existence eventually. It’s not like whether he was right or wrong to give Rick Santorum a wedgie in 2003 is earth-shattering anymore. Maybe 14 years from now we’ll see another “It gets better project” for Milo when he’s bankrupt and looking for his next high.

    I have a small social circle. When I thought that I was at risk of losing one of my best friends, I turned to an internet search engine, and up came Dr. Laura’s website. (Now that was some nice mischief.) “The best way to ruin a wonderful friendship is to make negative assumptions.” “Every day on my show, people call to ask me how to deal with issues they’re having with spouses, parents, and other family members. When I ask them if they have asked that person about it, the response I typically get is, ‘Well, no.’ It’s like people don’t really want to know the answer.”

    Figuring out how to get from there to the conversation was difficult.

    Reply
  4. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    (Compare the above with the hyperbolic Washington Blade headline ‘Scalia on Steroids’, quoting NYC Rep. Jerry Nadler’s characterization of the judge.)

    The article, which I read in its entirety, offers a variety of opinions about Judge Gorsuch’s record, including aspects of his record that are relevant to future opinions affecting gays and lesbians. The article doesn’t discuss Judge Gorsuch’s personal views on matters gay and lesbian at all.

    BTW, this is the quote from Congressman Nadler:

    Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), an LGBT rights supporter, expressed frustration the Republican-controlled Senate never allowed a vote on Obama’s choice of Merrick Garland and declared his opposition to Gorsuch “until it is clear that he will protect the constitutional rights of women, of the LGBT community, and the rights of every American.”

    “Judge Gorsuch is Justice Scalia on steroids,” Nadler said. “His record demonstrates that, if confirmed, he would rely on his conservative, originalist philosophy to overturn critical precedents and to disregard the rights of everyday Americans while bolstering protections for corporations and special interests.”

    Congressman Nadler’s views are more strident than my own, but I don’t think that there is any doubt, based on Judge Gorsuch’s record, that he would have been a dissenter in Obergefell, just as Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas were, had Judge Gorsuch been on the Court when Obergefell was decided.

    I have yet to read any suggestion otherwise from a reliable, reputable observer of the Court. Are you suggesting otherwise, Stephen, and if so, why? What is in Judge Gorsuch’s decisions and extrajudicial writings that support your view?

    The legal scholars I’ve read put Judge Gorsuch to the right of Chief Justice Roberts, the late Justice Scalia, and Justice Alito, and to the left of Justice Thomas. Based on what I know of Judge Gorsuch’s record, that seems to be correct.

    The question that needs to be explored, in my view, is how Judge Gorsuch views precedent that runs contrary to his originalist judicial philosophy. How does he view Griswold? How does he view Lawrence? How does he view Obergefell? I hope that question is explored in depth during the hearings.

    Reply
    • posted by Jorge on

      One good thing to come of this obsession over Obergefell is that it may begin to displace the obsession over Roe. Everyone will presume he would support overturning Roe v. Wade, and he will never, ever admit to it. Another court case might be more revealing.

      But I doubt it. The last two conservative nominees proved adept at dodging the setup questions.

      Reply
    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      The last two conservative nominees proved adept at dodging the setup questions.

      The questions, like the responses, are likely to be quite indirect, phrased in terms of respect for precedent, the role of precedent in shaping future decisions, and so on.

      Justice Scalia was a judicial wrecking ball, and I have little doubt that he would overturn Griswold and all of the cases that developed in that line in a heartbeat. The questions will be looking to get an indication of whether Judge Gorsuch is a wrecking ball, or more nuanced like Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia.

      I’m not sure that it makes much difference to the confirmation process, because Judge Gorsuch will be confirmed unless something incendiary shows up in his record. Judge Gorsuch isn’t Robert Bork, and I don’t think that it will happen. There is certainly nothing known so far that fits that category.

      Reply
      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        … more nuanced like Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia …

        … more nuanced like Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito

        Reply
      • posted by TJ on

        Yes, Justice Scalia didn’t believe that a right to privacy existed. He also took the view that the 14th Amendment equal protection clause only applied to race discrimination. He never liked the fact that the court (eventually) applied it to sex discrimination. His notion that “the people” should decide these things democratically was especially hallow, given how little respect he had for the political rights of said people. Id be almost willing to buy the sincerity of his argument, if his record on voting rights wasn’t both partisan and philosophicaly terrible.

        Reply
  5. posted by Houndentenor on

    The good news is that Gorsuch may not be as bad as we feared. That’s not exactly reassuring. I guess in the Trump era we have to be happy with shit like this as if it’s good news?

    As for this friend of Milo’s…. Anyone who admires Milo and Ann Coulter is sick and not fit for serious consideration. It’s one thing to hold conservative views on certain issues. But they are trolls whose only purpose is to troll liberals for fun and profit. Yes, it’s easy to get under the skin of people who are bothered by things like racism, sexism and homophobia. But is that actually something that should be admired? He sounds like a creep. I never heard of him before today and I suspect that after today I’ll never hear of him again. It appears I wasn’t missing anything. It’s not like he claimed to admire David Frum or some thoughtful conservative. No, he admires sociopathic miscreants. What has this country come to that such people are celebrities. Oh right…a country in which 81% of Evangelicals would vote for a reprobate reality show star. Is this really happening or am I in a mental hospital suffering from delusions? smh

    Reply
    • posted by Jorge on

      As for this friend of Milo’s….

      Huh? What are you talking about?

      Chadwick Moore is not Milo Yiannapoulos’s friend. He did an interview using an objective methodological standard, in which he took stock of his own feelings and put them aside in order to grant what any interview subject merits.

      There is something seriously off with your judgment here. Just because I say “good morning” and “good night” to a client who beats his girlfriend, and present information that is favorable to him to my bosses does not mean I am his friend. How do you get off trying to deceive other people into believing that professional objectivity is a tell of friendliness?

      Anyone who admires Milo and Ann Coulter is sick and not fit for serious consideration.

      I fail to see the relevance of that observation.

      In my case, though, don’t worry, the sentiment is mutual.

      Reply
  6. posted by JohnInCA on

    Another gay conservative living in a place where he’ll never have to suffer the consequences of his claimed ideology.

    How convenient.

    Reply
    • posted by Jorge on

      Not suffering the consequences?

      He was harassed and threatened over the internet, shunned at his favorite hangout, and abandoned by his peer mentorship group, and all for merely being perceived as not holding to an ideological line when performing a job in a non-ideological way.

      You’re right, it’s nice to be a gay person and not have to live life in fear of those kind of consequences. But the dirty little secret is that there are only two ways to live life that way: as a conservative or as a hermit.

      Reply
      • posted by JohnInCA on

        Nah. Even if all that stuff happened exactly as he described†, that’s not the consequence of conservative policies/ideologies, that’s a consequence of of your old friends not liking your new friends.

        Blaming that on conservatism would be like blaming Catholicism for your Mormon family shunning you after you convert. While there’s a related cause/effect, it’s not really Catholicism’s fault.
        ________
        †If he got death threats, he should report them to the police.

        Reply
        • posted by Jorge on

          You’re right, that’s not the result of conservative ideology. It’s the result of liberal ideology gone amok.

          There’s a special place in Hell for people like that. It’s called the United States, 2017, under President Donald J. Trump.

          Reply
  7. posted by TJ on

    Some Homocons insist that if you disagre with them, ever, you are are oppressing them. That politically correctness is bad, except when it involves the redstate narrative.

    Abortion politics are generally divorced from reality. Only a minority of voters actually want abortion to be always illegal or legal.

    The U.S. Supreme Court case law is actually about where the public is, and I doubt that lawmakers really want to be put in the full frontal, middle of the abortion debate

    Reply
    • posted by JohnInCA on

      “[…] and I doubt that lawmakers really want to be put in the full frontal, middle of the abortion debate.”
      … 19 states passed 60 new abortion restrictions in 2016. Your doubts seem unfounded.

      Reply
      • posted by TJ on

        The U.S. Supreme Court has said that privacy rights protect early trimester abortions the most. That is what was said in 1973, and it has not changed.

        Yes, legislators will make noise and abortion law, but the noise is based on having limited say over abortion law. Enough to make noise and raise money.

        If abortion law wasn’t shared between the courts and the legislature, you can pretty much kiss the two party system goodbye. Most lawmakers and justices don’t want that.

        Where the U.S. Supreme Court has actually upheld significant restrictions on abortion it has done so in dealing with “late term” abortions and “mid term abortions”.

        This is because both major parties have to be able to appeal to some voters with different views on abortion law.

        This becomes possible, because of understanding that early trimester abortion will be legal and that the big restrictions will apply to mid/late term abortions.

        Personally, I think that most restrictions on abortion are stupid. But, the Constitutional case law that has developed around the issue is largely about maintaining a certain amount of political stability and political cover.

        If abortion can be made always illegal or always legal, then activists will expect it to happen. Their would – in this scenario – be no Supreme Court to provide a modicum of political cover.

        Reply
  8. posted by Throbert McGee on

    Was the Washington Blade piece “hyperbolic,” as Stephen suggests? Well, I dunno about the Blade itself, but THIS is hyperbole:

    Rachel Tiven, CEO of Lambda Legal, [said] “The Hobby Lobby decision set a terrible and destructive standard for bosses being allowed to meddle in our sex lives.”

    Got that? Asking people to pay out-of-pocket for contraceptives is “meddling with sex lives.”
    That strikes me as hyperbolic — at least as bad as saying that same-sex civil unions (as opposed to same-sex marriage) mean sentencing gay people to second-class citizenship and disenfranchisement. (No, it depends on how the “civil union” law is worded.)

    Elsewhere in the article, there’s a reference to Gorsuch’s opinion in Druley v. Patton, a case about a transgender inmate (MtF) who alleged that the Oklahoma Dept. of Corrections “violated her Constitutional rights by denying her hormone treatment and her request to wear feminine clothing.”

    This sounds very sad, but perhaps not AS sad as the story of Mary Ellen Rodgers, a woman who was murdered by housemate “Jeanne Marie Druley.” Nice of the Blade to leave out this little detail.

    Reply
    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      … at least as bad as saying that same-sex civil unions (as opposed to same-sex marriage) mean sentencing gay people to second-class citizenship and disenfranchisement …

      Snort. The point of civil unions was that civil unions weren’t marriage, but instead a separate legal status intended to reserve marriage for straights.

      If, instead of proposing to create a separate legal institution for gays and lesbians while reserving marriage for straights, the proponents of civil unions had proposed that the government eliminate civil marriage altogether, substituting civil unions instead for all and sundry, it would be different. But it was not.

      Reply
    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      This sounds very sad, but perhaps not AS sad as the story of Mary Ellen Rodgers, a woman who was murdered by housemate “Jeanne Marie Druley.” Nice of the Blade to leave out this little detail.

      And why is that relevant?

      Are you suggesting that Judge Gorsuch was swayed by emotional reactions to her crime when he made a decision about her constitutional rights? Or that he should have been swayed? Or that if readers knew that she was a murderer, they would/should decide that she wasn’t entitled to the same constitutional protections as non-murderers? Or that the nature of her crime was relevant to her constitutional rights as a prisoner? Or that we should ignore the constitutional reasoning underlying Judge Gorsuch’s decision and focus instead on her crime?

      I don’t see the relevance. Nobody is in prison for sprinkling Holy Water on the cat, after all. You want to fill us in on what you are thinking?

      Reply
      • posted by Throbert McGee on

        The nature of the crime is irrelevant to Druley v. Patton — it was not, in fact, mentioned in the court’s decision, which you can find online.

        I think it is relevant to the SPIN that the Blade is putting on the story. The biggest grievances cited against Gorsuch were his rulings in the “Hobby Lobby” and “Little Sisters” cases — cases dealing with contraceptives, which is overwhelmingly a women’s health issue. If “Gorsuch is bad for women” is your primary line of attack, it seems odd to bring up the plight of a trans convict and not even mention that this person murdered a woman. In other words, if you want a poster-child/mascot for trans issues, Druley is scraping the bottom of the barrel, and the Blade knew this perfectly well.

        Regarding the merits of Druley’s case:

        Druley began estrogen treatments and had an orchidectomy in 1980; had breast augmentation in 1984; killed Mary Rodgers in 1986; and attempted to get the trial delayed in hopes of getting a vaginoplasty before incarceration (but was unsuccessful — and Druley apparently still pees through a penis).

        Since Druley was *already* on hormone supplements at the time of becoming a guest of the state, I would support the argument that the state is obliged to continue providing hormone therapy, for objective medical reasons. However, the actual Druley v. Patton case wasn’t about WHETHER Druley would get the hormones; it was about dosage levels. (Druley claimed that the dose being received was below current standard-of-care recommendations, but the court responded that the “optimal hormone levels” for an MtF trans person were a matter of controversy, and Druley failed to provide evidence that the lower dosage given was leading to medical harm.)

        Finally, I would assert that the constitutional rights of a prisoner to receive biochemically and physiologically essential hormones must be balanced against the state’s interests in NOT paying for purely cosmetic surgeries on the genitals, no matter how much the prisoner insists on “needing” the procedure.

        Reply
      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        I think it is relevant to the SPIN that the Blade is putting on the story.

        In what way? And I’m serious about this. Anyone who reads the decision knows full well that the crime was not relevant to the decision. So why should it be raised?

        In other words, if you want a poster-child/mascot for trans issues, Druley is scraping the bottom of the barrel, and the Blade knew this perfectly well.

        So? Cases involving prisoners and prisoners’ right usually involve people who are “scraping the bottom of the barrel”.

        Finally, I would assert that the constitutional rights of a prisoner to receive biochemically and physiologically essential hormones must be balanced against the state’s interests in NOT paying for purely cosmetic surgeries on the genitals, no matter how much the prisoner insists on “needing” the procedure.

        That’s the constitutional question, isn’t it? And that balancing — weighing the constitutional rights of the prisoner against the interests of the state — is all that is relevant to the constitutional issue. The case would have been decided the same way if Druley had been incarcerated for sprinkling Holy Water on the cat.

        So, again, why is the nature of Druley’s crime be reported when the article is reporting on the decision?

        Reply
  9. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    We have some good news from the Trump administration this morning.

    The State Department confirmed that the office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor will continue in the new administration.

    A step in the right direction. If the office of the Special Assistant continues existing policies concerning advocacy for human rights for gays and lesbians abroad, it looks like one of the items on my watch list gets a positive checkmark:

    (1) COURTS/CASES — Judicial nominations and positions taken by the DOJ in federal cases involving LGBT issues.
    (2) LEGISLATION — The administration’s position on federal legislation affecting gays and lesbians.
    (3) EXECUTIVE ORDERS — Issuance of future Executive Orders affecting gays and lesbians.
    (4) REGULATIONS — The administration’s actions with respect to departmental regulations implementing Windsor and Obergefell, and regulations protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination in employment, medical care and hospital visitation, housing and other areas.
    (5) LAW ENFORCEMENT — DOJ enforcement/nonenforcement of federal laws protecting gays and lesbians from violence and discrimination.
    (6) HIV/AIDS — Administration action on HIV/AIDS funding and programs, and actions with respect to the National HIV/AIDS Strategy.
    (7) INTERNATIONAL — The administration’s actions with respect to existing policies encouraging countries, particularly close allies like Russia and our allies in the Middle East, to end repression of basic human rights for gays and lesbians.
    (8) SOCIAL SECURITY — The administration’s actions with respect to recognition of same-sex marriages contracted prior to Obergefell.

    Reply
  10. posted by Throbert McGee on

    The point of civil unions was that civil unions weren’t marriage, but instead a separate legal status intended to reserve marriage for straights.

    So what if it’s separate? We’re not talking about drinking fountains or buses or school textbooks or public restrooms or other tangible, concrete, finite, zero-sum pies. We’re talking about some intangible “sense of dignity.”

    Reply
    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      So what if it’s separate?

      It is relevant because the intent of the civil unions thrust was to defuse intense opposition to equal treatment under the law for gays and lesbians by creating a separate form of legal status that (in theory) granted equivalent legal rights while preserving the discrimination.

      Do you think that the “civil unions compromise” would have been taken seriously for one second if the proposal had been to limit non-Christians to civil unions while preserving civil marriage for Christians? Or if the proposal was civil unions for the Irish and civil marriage for everyone else? Of if the proposal was for civil unions for Ohioans and civil marriage for the rest of the country?

      Reply
      • posted by wilberforce on

        Your hypotheticals are not relevant. Civil unions could have gotten the right to get used to the idea of gay marriage, while we concentrated on more important issues, like enda and stopping hiv. But even this argument is over. We’ve already wasted time and resources on bringing the symbolic victory to the percentage of us who will enjoy the marriage tax break.

        Reply
      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        Civil unions could have gotten the right to get used to the idea of gay marriage …

        But for one thing — opposition to civil unions was a fierce as it was to marriage, as evidenced by the fact that most of the anti-marriage amendments also banned civil unions or any other status “substantially similar” to marriage.

        Civil unions were a dead loser from the beginning, with no significant support. In states without anti-marriage amendments, gays and lesbians won marriage through the legislatures in many cases. In states with anti-marriage amendments, gays and lesbians had no recourse other than in federal courts, and if the constitutional issue was equal treatment under the law, it was marriage or nothing.

        But, as you say, the fight is over, and marriage equality is the law of the land.

        You may not like that result, but there it is.

        Reply
  11. posted by Jorge on

    Got that? Asking people to pay out-of-pocket for contraceptives is “meddling with sex lives.”

    mmph. It seems to me that door was opened when Rosie the Riveter decided to work for a nun. What did you expect? Just because your friends Freida and 15 others decided to join you and form a union you think you shouldn’t be singled out for having a sex life that’s private and personal? Impossible. You still work for a nun.

    This is where Tom may challenge us to identify the difference between a nun and a prude who is motivated by religion. If there is no difference, all of a sudden one’s boss can “find” religion after you’re hired, and then you will be singled out for having a sex life that’s private and personal. This can allow bosses to meddle in Rosie the Riveter’s sex life.

    To which I say, no it doesn’t. You still work for a nun. When you signed your contract to work for the prude, you did not sign a prude contract. Your boss cannot change his or her mind later. You will prove it.

    And why is that relevant?

    Personally I think it’s relevant if she’s serving a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. I think there’s less of a constitutional right to be free of discrimination with respect to factors impacting recidivism and ex-con adjustment to society if you have no chance of being released to the community. To counter this argument, one must appeal to the example of Chelsea Manning, whose transgender status was successfully used as a sympathy card to win clemency. Since there is always a chance this person will be pardoned or given clemency for the sole reason that she is transgender, we should not discriminate against her with respect to factors affecting recidivism and ex-con adjustment to society.

    In other words, if you want a poster-child/mascot for trans issues, Druley is scraping the bottom of the barrel, and the Blade knew this perfectly well.

    Sorry, but I don’t agree.

    This is not about who the victim is or how horrible he or she is. Miranda did it. Gideon did it. Their rights were still violated, and they stood as representatives of a whole class of people who stood to be mistreated by the government despite a high probability that they were of more decent character. How many years must we wait for the “perfect” defendant to come along? One of the useful things about irredeemable criminals is that they’ll be around long enough to actually win their cases. Someone who gets sprung early can be bribed or blackmailed to keep their trap shut. Or they pass away of suicide because they’re released into the community so damaged.

    Reply
    • posted by Jorge on

      Correction. Gideon was acquitted afterward. I’m overgeneralizing a particularly delicious twist of the knife one of my old history teachers gave in his lesson.

      Reply
  12. posted by Jorge on

    There’s further/Moore!

    A follow up story by NPR raises questions about whether he identifies as a conservative or a moderate

    http://www.npr.org/2017/02/16/515411688/gay-journalist-leaves-left-behind-and-embraces-a-brand-new-conservative

    “To come out as a moderate is to be more aligned with the conservative. I said in the story, which was an “as told to” piece, so I was interviewed by Michael Kaplan at the New York Post, and he wrote a story in my words. [Conservative] was in the headline.

    What I say in it is that I’m more aligned with the right than the left and I sympathize with the right more. And I feel more welcomed on the right now that it’s happened.

    To be moderate — to come out as a moderate today, being in the left as I was, is to be more aligned with the right and conservative. If you value things like free speech, if you value free thought, if you value individualism over collectivism, then you’re on the right now.”

    😐 lots of people online think I’m “a” conservative, too, but the people who observe my actions don’t make that mistake.

    “I don’t support Pence’s views because I don’t think that religion has any place in government”

    Well that’s straight to the point.

    Now, Milo is also being interviewed by Bill Maher. Like I care! (Well, I kinda do.) Maher got fired for saying the wrong thing right after the September 11th attacks happened–ooooooo! Milo’s only bad enough to cause one guest to drop out. Maher believes he is partially responsible for the alt-right’s creation. I predict he will not be able to contribute to its destruction until the third interview.

    Reply

Leave a Comment