I can't remember the French, but the translation runs "The more things change, the more they stay the same."
I really had hopes that the Democrats would do something about this runaway warmonger in the White House. Damn.
John Nichols in The Nation:
When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her allies in the chamber's Democratic leadership initially accepted that spending legislation designed to outline an Iraq exit strategy should also include a provision barring the president from attacking Iran without congressional approval, they opened up a monumental discussion about presidential war powers.
As such, the decision by Pelosi and her allies to rewrite their Iraq legislation to exclude the statement regarding the need for congressional approval of any military assault on the neighboring country of Iran sends the worst possible signal to the White House.
It's called giving away the store, and I find it incredible that, out of all the possible negotiating points in the Iran/Iraq issue, Pelose gave in on this one.
One of the chief advocates for eliminating the Iran provision, Nevada Democrat Shelley Berkley, said she wanted it out of the legislation because she wants to maintain the threat of U.S. military action as a tool in seeking to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. "It would take away perhaps the most important negotiating tool that the U.S. has when it comes to Iran," explained Berkley.
You can count on the Democrats to shoot themselves in the foot. Another illustration of the fact that you don't have to be a rocket scientist to serve in Congress. Requiring the president to get congressional approval before attacking Iran doesn't take away anything from anyone, except His Majesty the Deciderer.
From Dennis Kucinich, as quoted at Hullabaloo:
This week the House Appropriations committee removed language from the Iraq war funding bill requiring the Administration, under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, to seek permission before it launched an attack against Iran.
...
This House cannot avoid its Constitutionally authorized responsibility to restrain the abuse of Executive power.
...
The Administration has been preparing for an aggressive war against Iran. There is no solid, direct evidence that Iran has the intention of attacking the United States or its allies.
Look, Bush and Cheney are going to take this and run with it. Who can possibly seriously think otherwise? Who the hell does Pelosi think is going to be satisfied with another empty bill? Not anybody out here, although I'm sure Bush and the Neocons are licking their chops. Are we all looking forward to a government that includes only the executive branch?
What do you do when the only options you have are Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dum-Dum?
A comment by Digby on the Bush foreign policy in general:
When you combined the neocon and harcore hawk track records with a mandate to reject anything that Bill Clinton might have endorsed, you ended up with the hacktacular mishmash of sophomoric chest thumping, mindless military actions and conscious rejection all mutual understanding with our allies.
Remember, this is the group that hasn't been right about anything so far.
And now Pelosi's going to let them keep on keepin' on? Sheesh!
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Apology My Foot
I have seen way too many calls for Pace to apologize for his completely out-of-line remarks about gays in the military. What is this crap? He's demonstrated that he has no respect for Marine regulations, has damaged troop morale, has endangered currently serving personnel, and has cast doubts on his fitness to command.
He should resign.
He should resign.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Sex and the Single Boi
A couple of posts by GayPatriotWest (hereinafter known as "GPW") at GayPatriot on sexual morality. The first is here. Of course I have some objections, stemming mostly, I think, from the fact that I'm not sure he and I are speaking the same language. On most social issues I can only call myself a left-libertarian (I'm not going to call myself a "libertarian" overall because I think libertarianism is a spiritually impoverished philosophy -- my approach is basically "butt out," but I do think government has to provide a safety net), and I am coming from the religious philosophy of a Pagan, which is markedly different from most of what you're going to find in America.
Sexual restraint lies at the heart of any notion of sexual morality. And even while acknowledging — and one day hoping to act upon — their own longings for same-sex physical intimacy, gay people are capable of restraining themselves sexually. It’s just that our culture, alas, does not seem to promote such restraint, indeed, encouraging us to “let go” sexually just so long as we “play safe.”
Why should it? Why exactly should sexual restraint lie at the heart of any notion of sexual morality? This falls too neatly into the kind of morality espoused by the Big Three Monotheisms, and I don't see any real validity to it as a thing in itself. So I have to ask Why? It once again reduces the idea of morality to a list of dos and don'ts without any foundation.
A real understanding of morality would help us place our sexuality in a larger context. We would see that by the very physical closeness that sex allows, we are drawn together with another human being. If we can appreciate that that closeness transcends the physical, we can allow the physical intimacy to become something more than mere pleasure.
But, alas, men being men, too many of us are too eager to turn away from our partners once we have completed the “act.” A true moral understanding of sexuality would mean looking at these encounters not from the point of view of whether they are right or wrong, but whether or not they are good for our soul. Just as Matt Sanchez learned that porn “flattens the soul,” so do many of those of us who have hooked up learn that such encounters also numb us and prevent us from realizing sexuality’s full power.
I see a couple of intertwined threads here. I can certainly agree with GPW's first sentence, and the second. (John Cameron Mitchell said that sex is a means of connecting, and I certainly can't disagree after he gave that idea such a delightful expression.) Where we start to separate, I think, is in the conclusion. I think we have to re-examine the idea of "pleasure" in this context. Let's put that aside for a moment and get back to the main issue, which seems to me to be about the "contract" rather than getting into questions of our souls right off the bat. I think that the sexual contract, like any relationship, should be based on honesty, respect, and generosity. To me, that means your soul already has to be at a particular place in its journey before we can get into the idea of sex being "good for our souls." I think approaching sex from that basis also takes care of the pleasure part -- sex as "just" pleasure (a statement I find pretty judgmental in itself) is fine. But both parties (or maybe I should say "all parties," for those encounters that involve more than two people) need to agree that's what's going on here.GPW
(A sidebar: I seem to detect in GPW's comments a distrust of sensuality and pleasure for their own sakes, as though they are not sufficient experiences. Depends on what you're looking for, I guess, but I think we have to take into consideration the idea of "expectations." Just what is it you're after? Which leads back to. . .)
"Sexuality's full power." Which, as far as I can see, is no more and no less than what you invest in it. Back to the contract. If it's an honest understanding, then sex as pleasure takes on no small measure of power itself. Sex as sharing, sex as connection, sex as an expression of love, all have their own degrees of power, and I think those are all dependent on the contract. Sexuality is not something that exists all by itself, and it has only the power we give it.
In order to realize that power, we need to develop a moral vision of sexuality, to realize its potential to be more than a mere grinding of loins. We need to become capable of sexual restraint — and to tie our sexual expression to forging a real and lasting connection with our partner. To see him, as we see ourselves, not just as an individual with a body, but also as a human being with a soul.
Here's where I may be parting ways from GPW. I'm not sure exactly what he means by "restraint." I don't think that sex has to be only reserved for forging connections with one partner, although it can be a valuable and powerful tool for doing that. If he's talking about the partner of the moment, then I think we're pretty much in agreement, but from the tone of his post, I'm not at all sure that's what he means.
Sexual morality thus would not mean labeling gay sex as per se immoral, but instead recognizing that, in the carnal act, there is a potential for spiritual intimacy. And to understand that sexual restraint does not necessarily mean denying our urges, but holding them back so that one day we might express them in a manner which both provides physical pleasure and promotes real relationship.
Here we most definitely do part company. GPW seems to be coming from some sort of moral absolutist position, which is one that I've never been able to credit. Witness William F. Buckley, Jr.'s statement that "morality is an absolute," which I still find good for a laugh. GPW obviously is not going that far, otherwise he wouldn't have written this post. "Holding back" I can understand -- sometimes sex is just not what's appropriate -- but the idea that sex has to be limited to promoting "real relationship" is, again, not clear to me. Is it the relationship of the moment, a "casual" affair (I've never been able to have one of those -- I'm not real casual about stuff like that), or the love of our life? I think sex is appropriate in all three cases, as long as everyone's coming from the same place.
Which is all very nice for theory.
In real life, sex is too often a demand, a duty, a requirement, and does as much to kill a relationship as to build it. This is where I think GPW misses the boat: morality is not about using sex to establish or maintain a relationship, but using the honesty, respect and generosity that must be the foundation of a good relationship (or for that matter, the foundation of good character) to enable sex to make that spiritual connection. I find it astonishly difficult to put my point into any sort of didactic prose. Maybe this will make it clear:
Drowsing intertwined:
afternoon slides to the horizon.
You were a tiger, stripes painted
by light through slatted blinds,
lean and hard above me as you entered,
cat-eyed with desire, lust softened
in your gentle, gentle hands.
We are still sharing our souls.
I feel your lips against my throat,
sated and thirsty for more.
There is a universe under my hand
that smells like sweat, like summer after rain.
Fit reward for our honest labor.
But hard as we try,
I remain me,
you, you:
in spite of ourselves, two people.
We will get rowdy soon,
when we rouse and play
tickling games,
release
from too much tenderness.
Update:
GPW's second post expands his ideas, but not by much.
The first part of the post is about Matt Sanchez, and I think GPW was, indeed, mistaken to use him as a starting point. Sanchez' comment that working in the porn industry "flattens the soul" is not necessarily a given, at least in theory. The reality is that it probably does, but I think that has a lot more to do with the fact that it's an industry than that it's about sex. (Brad Patton is on record as saying that he does porn because he likes it.) I found working in a corporate environment flattened my soul. It took about five years to get my head back on straight. Does that mean that corporations are intrinsically bad? Nope.
Where GPW gets interesting is here:
I proposed instead putting forward a vision of morality which is not judgmental, but instead transformational — where we see that our sexuality can transcend the physical. Instead of berating, I wanted to inspire, to draw from the lessons I learned in my various experiences and begin a conversation about the potential of our sexuality to foster spiritual intimacy.
And if I fault gay men at all, it’s for not being willing to engage in this important conversation.
I believe sexuality is a very individual thing — and each person should be free to decide how to act on his desires. But, I also believe that our sexuality can nourish us spiritually (as well as satisfy us physically) if we see it as more than a means of physical pleasure, but also as a means of human connection.
I still have the same questions, revolving mostly around some tight, explicit definitions of things like "restraint." I find myself coming down on the side of promiscuity, although I also tend to look at promiscuity with a jaundiced eye ("Been there, done that") and think that maybe it's for the young. Maybe. It may also be wasted on the young.
I think GPW is also mistaken in saying that gay men are not willing to engage in this conversation. There is a wealth of writings dealing with just this, many of which are excerpted or referenced in Mark Thompson's Gay Spirit: Myth and Meaning. For that matter, the overwhelming body of gay literature, art and film (aside from the output of the porn studios) deals with just these questions (hence my references above to John Cameron Mitchell and (ahem) myself.) Another approach is exemplified by Graham Jackson's The Secret Lore of Gardening: Patterns of Male Intimacy, which deals with these questions from the standpoint of Jungian psychology but goes far beyond the basics. I'd be very interested to hear GPW's reaction to either of these books.
A note on the value of our fiction: It is, and has been, thoroughly engaged with a lot of the issues that Blatt raises in his post, and has the power, potentially at least, to alter viewpoints. Think about the ramifications of a film like Brokeback Mountain, whether you want to call it a "gay" movie or not: when have we seen such a clear-eyed examination of love between men, in all its pain and beauty? Maybe it took a straight writer and a straight director to do it, but the message was very clear: the love itself is as valid as any other and necessarily involves our groping toward some new definitions of self, morality, spirit, and all those other imponderables that go into our attitudes toward our lives. The point for this discussion is that it doesn't separate sex and love, but recognizes that they are an inseparable whole and we only damage ourselves by trying to keep them apart. That must become part of our own discourse, else we're not talking to any purpose.
That's what art does -- it sneaks past your defenses and makes you confront ideas and points of view you might otherwise dismiss. It also demonstrates that you do not have to accept the mainstream's premises. I think any commentary on gays and morality that ignores those contributions really does miss the point.
Update II:
There is a third post that seems to address some of my concerns, but I haven't quite got my head around it yet. More later, maybe.
Sexual restraint lies at the heart of any notion of sexual morality. And even while acknowledging — and one day hoping to act upon — their own longings for same-sex physical intimacy, gay people are capable of restraining themselves sexually. It’s just that our culture, alas, does not seem to promote such restraint, indeed, encouraging us to “let go” sexually just so long as we “play safe.”
Why should it? Why exactly should sexual restraint lie at the heart of any notion of sexual morality? This falls too neatly into the kind of morality espoused by the Big Three Monotheisms, and I don't see any real validity to it as a thing in itself. So I have to ask Why? It once again reduces the idea of morality to a list of dos and don'ts without any foundation.
A real understanding of morality would help us place our sexuality in a larger context. We would see that by the very physical closeness that sex allows, we are drawn together with another human being. If we can appreciate that that closeness transcends the physical, we can allow the physical intimacy to become something more than mere pleasure.
But, alas, men being men, too many of us are too eager to turn away from our partners once we have completed the “act.” A true moral understanding of sexuality would mean looking at these encounters not from the point of view of whether they are right or wrong, but whether or not they are good for our soul. Just as Matt Sanchez learned that porn “flattens the soul,” so do many of those of us who have hooked up learn that such encounters also numb us and prevent us from realizing sexuality’s full power.
I see a couple of intertwined threads here. I can certainly agree with GPW's first sentence, and the second. (John Cameron Mitchell said that sex is a means of connecting, and I certainly can't disagree after he gave that idea such a delightful expression.) Where we start to separate, I think, is in the conclusion. I think we have to re-examine the idea of "pleasure" in this context. Let's put that aside for a moment and get back to the main issue, which seems to me to be about the "contract" rather than getting into questions of our souls right off the bat. I think that the sexual contract, like any relationship, should be based on honesty, respect, and generosity. To me, that means your soul already has to be at a particular place in its journey before we can get into the idea of sex being "good for our souls." I think approaching sex from that basis also takes care of the pleasure part -- sex as "just" pleasure (a statement I find pretty judgmental in itself) is fine. But both parties (or maybe I should say "all parties," for those encounters that involve more than two people) need to agree that's what's going on here.GPW
(A sidebar: I seem to detect in GPW's comments a distrust of sensuality and pleasure for their own sakes, as though they are not sufficient experiences. Depends on what you're looking for, I guess, but I think we have to take into consideration the idea of "expectations." Just what is it you're after? Which leads back to. . .)
"Sexuality's full power." Which, as far as I can see, is no more and no less than what you invest in it. Back to the contract. If it's an honest understanding, then sex as pleasure takes on no small measure of power itself. Sex as sharing, sex as connection, sex as an expression of love, all have their own degrees of power, and I think those are all dependent on the contract. Sexuality is not something that exists all by itself, and it has only the power we give it.
In order to realize that power, we need to develop a moral vision of sexuality, to realize its potential to be more than a mere grinding of loins. We need to become capable of sexual restraint — and to tie our sexual expression to forging a real and lasting connection with our partner. To see him, as we see ourselves, not just as an individual with a body, but also as a human being with a soul.
Here's where I may be parting ways from GPW. I'm not sure exactly what he means by "restraint." I don't think that sex has to be only reserved for forging connections with one partner, although it can be a valuable and powerful tool for doing that. If he's talking about the partner of the moment, then I think we're pretty much in agreement, but from the tone of his post, I'm not at all sure that's what he means.
Sexual morality thus would not mean labeling gay sex as per se immoral, but instead recognizing that, in the carnal act, there is a potential for spiritual intimacy. And to understand that sexual restraint does not necessarily mean denying our urges, but holding them back so that one day we might express them in a manner which both provides physical pleasure and promotes real relationship.
Here we most definitely do part company. GPW seems to be coming from some sort of moral absolutist position, which is one that I've never been able to credit. Witness William F. Buckley, Jr.'s statement that "morality is an absolute," which I still find good for a laugh. GPW obviously is not going that far, otherwise he wouldn't have written this post. "Holding back" I can understand -- sometimes sex is just not what's appropriate -- but the idea that sex has to be limited to promoting "real relationship" is, again, not clear to me. Is it the relationship of the moment, a "casual" affair (I've never been able to have one of those -- I'm not real casual about stuff like that), or the love of our life? I think sex is appropriate in all three cases, as long as everyone's coming from the same place.
Which is all very nice for theory.
In real life, sex is too often a demand, a duty, a requirement, and does as much to kill a relationship as to build it. This is where I think GPW misses the boat: morality is not about using sex to establish or maintain a relationship, but using the honesty, respect and generosity that must be the foundation of a good relationship (or for that matter, the foundation of good character) to enable sex to make that spiritual connection. I find it astonishly difficult to put my point into any sort of didactic prose. Maybe this will make it clear:
Drowsing intertwined:
afternoon slides to the horizon.
You were a tiger, stripes painted
by light through slatted blinds,
lean and hard above me as you entered,
cat-eyed with desire, lust softened
in your gentle, gentle hands.
We are still sharing our souls.
I feel your lips against my throat,
sated and thirsty for more.
There is a universe under my hand
that smells like sweat, like summer after rain.
Fit reward for our honest labor.
But hard as we try,
I remain me,
you, you:
in spite of ourselves, two people.
We will get rowdy soon,
when we rouse and play
tickling games,
release
from too much tenderness.
Update:
GPW's second post expands his ideas, but not by much.
The first part of the post is about Matt Sanchez, and I think GPW was, indeed, mistaken to use him as a starting point. Sanchez' comment that working in the porn industry "flattens the soul" is not necessarily a given, at least in theory. The reality is that it probably does, but I think that has a lot more to do with the fact that it's an industry than that it's about sex. (Brad Patton is on record as saying that he does porn because he likes it.) I found working in a corporate environment flattened my soul. It took about five years to get my head back on straight. Does that mean that corporations are intrinsically bad? Nope.
Where GPW gets interesting is here:
I proposed instead putting forward a vision of morality which is not judgmental, but instead transformational — where we see that our sexuality can transcend the physical. Instead of berating, I wanted to inspire, to draw from the lessons I learned in my various experiences and begin a conversation about the potential of our sexuality to foster spiritual intimacy.
And if I fault gay men at all, it’s for not being willing to engage in this important conversation.
I believe sexuality is a very individual thing — and each person should be free to decide how to act on his desires. But, I also believe that our sexuality can nourish us spiritually (as well as satisfy us physically) if we see it as more than a means of physical pleasure, but also as a means of human connection.
I still have the same questions, revolving mostly around some tight, explicit definitions of things like "restraint." I find myself coming down on the side of promiscuity, although I also tend to look at promiscuity with a jaundiced eye ("Been there, done that") and think that maybe it's for the young. Maybe. It may also be wasted on the young.
I think GPW is also mistaken in saying that gay men are not willing to engage in this conversation. There is a wealth of writings dealing with just this, many of which are excerpted or referenced in Mark Thompson's Gay Spirit: Myth and Meaning. For that matter, the overwhelming body of gay literature, art and film (aside from the output of the porn studios) deals with just these questions (hence my references above to John Cameron Mitchell and (ahem) myself.) Another approach is exemplified by Graham Jackson's The Secret Lore of Gardening: Patterns of Male Intimacy, which deals with these questions from the standpoint of Jungian psychology but goes far beyond the basics. I'd be very interested to hear GPW's reaction to either of these books.
A note on the value of our fiction: It is, and has been, thoroughly engaged with a lot of the issues that Blatt raises in his post, and has the power, potentially at least, to alter viewpoints. Think about the ramifications of a film like Brokeback Mountain, whether you want to call it a "gay" movie or not: when have we seen such a clear-eyed examination of love between men, in all its pain and beauty? Maybe it took a straight writer and a straight director to do it, but the message was very clear: the love itself is as valid as any other and necessarily involves our groping toward some new definitions of self, morality, spirit, and all those other imponderables that go into our attitudes toward our lives. The point for this discussion is that it doesn't separate sex and love, but recognizes that they are an inseparable whole and we only damage ourselves by trying to keep them apart. That must become part of our own discourse, else we're not talking to any purpose.
That's what art does -- it sneaks past your defenses and makes you confront ideas and points of view you might otherwise dismiss. It also demonstrates that you do not have to accept the mainstream's premises. I think any commentary on gays and morality that ignores those contributions really does miss the point.
Update II:
There is a third post that seems to address some of my concerns, but I haven't quite got my head around it yet. More later, maybe.
Update: Profiles in Courage
Well, Obama and Clinton, at least, finally figured it out:
From Barack Obama, via AmericaBlog:
Statement from Senator Obama on General Pace
"As the New York Times reported today, I do not agree with General Pace that homosexuality is immoral. Attempts to divide people like this have consumed too much of our politics over the past six years."
It's unfortunate that he had to have his nose pushed into it.
From Hillary Clinton's Senate Web page:
Excerpt of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on Bloomberg News Regarding the Comments Made By General Peter Pace
"Well I've heard from a number of my friends and I've certainly clarified with them any misunderstanding that anyone had, because I disagree with General Pace completely. I do not think homosexuality is immoral. But the point I was trying to make is that this policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is not working. I have been against it for many years because I think it does a grave injustice to patriotic Americans who want to serve their country. And so I have called for its repeal and I'd like to follow the lead of our allies like, Great Britain and Israel and let people who wish to serve their country be able to join and do so. And then let the uniform code of military justice determine if conduct is inappropriate or unbecoming. That's fine. That's what we do with everybody. But let's not be eliminating people because of who they are or who they love."
Some interesting fallout from this. It occurs to me that the right side of the aisle is so eager to bash Democrats that they find themselves taking fairly untenable positions.
Chris Crain, for example, finds himself defending Pace and Sam Brownback, who came out in favor of Pace's position (big surprise, that), based on a medieval-style Christian theologian's parsing of everyone's remarks, context be damned. Love the letter, hate the spirit, I guess.
And maybe it's just the lawyer in me, but are the Democrats parsing words here? General Pace never said "homosexuality is immoral," and it's a bit of a straw-man to suggest otherwise. He said "homosexual acts" are immoral, and in so doing he tracked the language of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which still prohibits consensual homosexual sodomy.
This is more than a little disingenuous: Pace's words were, indeed, that homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral, and likened that to adultery among heterosexuals. This whole liine of argument is specious, and fairly obviously so. Adultery is not part of anyone's fundamental identity; same-sex relations for gay people are. So we're left with the stunning realization that a gay man who has sex with a man and a straight man who does the same thing will get the same penalty.
Wow. Just what are the chances of a straight guy in the army (or the Marines) having sex with another guy? Minimal to zip? (Unless, of course, he's getting paid for it, because the Bush administration is supporting our troops sooo well.)
What Pace is really saying is that gay people, by their very make-up, are immoral. How hard it that to figure out?
Nor does Crain tackle the bigotry inherent in the UCMJ -- in fact, he uses it to justify Pace's remarks.
Crain goes on, after accusing the Democratic candidates of creating a straw man, to create his own, much larger straw man.
Were the Democrats still dodging by saying they disagree that "homosexuality is immoral" while taking no position on whether "homosexual acts" are? Maybe that's why Hillary told Bloomsburg News, all while "clarifying" her disagreement with Pace, that morality will still have a role to play in the military, even after the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell":
Whoa! Let's take a look at this: Crain has so far bought into the right-wing divorce between person and act vis-a-vis gays that he can't seem to make the jump (or doesn't want to) from "homosexuality is not immoral" to "homosexual acts are not immoral." Contrast this with the idea that only some heterosexual acts -- those that take place outside of legally recognized relationships -- are immoral. Add in that gays are not allowed any legally recognized relationships on the federal level. Sure, Brownback takes that position, but we expect that of junk morality from someone who has this kind of right-wing compartmentalized mentality. Love the sinner, hate the sin, right? No one's buying that one any more. Even the Christianists are steering clear of it. To credit Clinton and Obama with that viewpoint is pretty much false, I think. There's no reason to suspect that they share that worldview. The basis of Crain's post seems to be, indeed, parallel to the idea that homosexuality is a choice, that it's a temptation that sinners fall into (see Ted "I'm Completely Heterosexual" Haggard), and that is has nothing to do with anyone's fundamental psychological make-up.
This is coming from a gay man, who should know better.
As far as Clinton's reference to the UCMJ, it does make moral judgments, and that's where it needs to be revised. When it deals with relations among military personnel on the basis of relative power, I have no objections to it. When it starts into the idea that certain behaviors are, in and of themselves, grounds for punishment, then it's simply wrong. Clinton should have made some comment on that, and I seriously object to the implication that the UCMJ as it stands is just fine -- that's going to come back to bite her. (Crain does have the right take on that statement, although he sort of buries it. Of course, if he'd based his post on that, he would have had to trash Pace and Brownback, too.)
Still searching for evidence of higher brain activity on the right.
From Barack Obama, via AmericaBlog:
Statement from Senator Obama on General Pace
"As the New York Times reported today, I do not agree with General Pace that homosexuality is immoral. Attempts to divide people like this have consumed too much of our politics over the past six years."
It's unfortunate that he had to have his nose pushed into it.
From Hillary Clinton's Senate Web page:
Excerpt of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on Bloomberg News Regarding the Comments Made By General Peter Pace
"Well I've heard from a number of my friends and I've certainly clarified with them any misunderstanding that anyone had, because I disagree with General Pace completely. I do not think homosexuality is immoral. But the point I was trying to make is that this policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is not working. I have been against it for many years because I think it does a grave injustice to patriotic Americans who want to serve their country. And so I have called for its repeal and I'd like to follow the lead of our allies like, Great Britain and Israel and let people who wish to serve their country be able to join and do so. And then let the uniform code of military justice determine if conduct is inappropriate or unbecoming. That's fine. That's what we do with everybody. But let's not be eliminating people because of who they are or who they love."
Some interesting fallout from this. It occurs to me that the right side of the aisle is so eager to bash Democrats that they find themselves taking fairly untenable positions.
Chris Crain, for example, finds himself defending Pace and Sam Brownback, who came out in favor of Pace's position (big surprise, that), based on a medieval-style Christian theologian's parsing of everyone's remarks, context be damned. Love the letter, hate the spirit, I guess.
And maybe it's just the lawyer in me, but are the Democrats parsing words here? General Pace never said "homosexuality is immoral," and it's a bit of a straw-man to suggest otherwise. He said "homosexual acts" are immoral, and in so doing he tracked the language of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which still prohibits consensual homosexual sodomy.
This is more than a little disingenuous: Pace's words were, indeed, that homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral, and likened that to adultery among heterosexuals. This whole liine of argument is specious, and fairly obviously so. Adultery is not part of anyone's fundamental identity; same-sex relations for gay people are. So we're left with the stunning realization that a gay man who has sex with a man and a straight man who does the same thing will get the same penalty.
Wow. Just what are the chances of a straight guy in the army (or the Marines) having sex with another guy? Minimal to zip? (Unless, of course, he's getting paid for it, because the Bush administration is supporting our troops sooo well.)
What Pace is really saying is that gay people, by their very make-up, are immoral. How hard it that to figure out?
Nor does Crain tackle the bigotry inherent in the UCMJ -- in fact, he uses it to justify Pace's remarks.
Crain goes on, after accusing the Democratic candidates of creating a straw man, to create his own, much larger straw man.
Were the Democrats still dodging by saying they disagree that "homosexuality is immoral" while taking no position on whether "homosexual acts" are? Maybe that's why Hillary told Bloomsburg News, all while "clarifying" her disagreement with Pace, that morality will still have a role to play in the military, even after the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell":
Let the Uniform Code of Military Justice determine if conduct is inappropriate or unbecoming. That's fine. That's what we do with everybody. But let's not be eliminating people because of who they are or who they love., and then tries to make it all OK by saying, in essence, that Pace was wrong to begin with. Maybe if he'd leave off trying to dish Clinton and Obama for a minute, he might have time to think up an intelligent argument.
Whoa! Let's take a look at this: Crain has so far bought into the right-wing divorce between person and act vis-a-vis gays that he can't seem to make the jump (or doesn't want to) from "homosexuality is not immoral" to "homosexual acts are not immoral." Contrast this with the idea that only some heterosexual acts -- those that take place outside of legally recognized relationships -- are immoral. Add in that gays are not allowed any legally recognized relationships on the federal level. Sure, Brownback takes that position, but we expect that of junk morality from someone who has this kind of right-wing compartmentalized mentality. Love the sinner, hate the sin, right? No one's buying that one any more. Even the Christianists are steering clear of it. To credit Clinton and Obama with that viewpoint is pretty much false, I think. There's no reason to suspect that they share that worldview. The basis of Crain's post seems to be, indeed, parallel to the idea that homosexuality is a choice, that it's a temptation that sinners fall into (see Ted "I'm Completely Heterosexual" Haggard), and that is has nothing to do with anyone's fundamental psychological make-up.
This is coming from a gay man, who should know better.
As far as Clinton's reference to the UCMJ, it does make moral judgments, and that's where it needs to be revised. When it deals with relations among military personnel on the basis of relative power, I have no objections to it. When it starts into the idea that certain behaviors are, in and of themselves, grounds for punishment, then it's simply wrong. Clinton should have made some comment on that, and I seriously object to the implication that the UCMJ as it stands is just fine -- that's going to come back to bite her. (Crain does have the right take on that statement, although he sort of buries it. Of course, if he'd based his post on that, he would have had to trash Pace and Brownback, too.)
Still searching for evidence of higher brain activity on the right.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Peter Pace, Part Primo
I just couldn't resist the alliteration.
Gen. Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as you may have heard (ahem), made some completely inappropriate remarks during an interview with the Chicago Tribune:
"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace said in a wide-ranging discussion with Tribune editors and reporters in Chicago. "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.
"As an individual, I would not want [acceptance of gay behavior] to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else's wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior," Pace said.
First, before we get to the actual subtance of his remarks, let's just take the context: speaking as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Pace comes out with a condemnation of a segment of the American populations (which includes, please remember, an estimated 65,000 currently serving personnel) based on his personal religious beliefs.
As might be expected, Pace's comments are receiving some criticism, which to me seems more than justified. I'll get into that in more detail as we go along.
One will find the usual boneheaded remarks about how his "freedom of speech" is being curtailed in the comments at places like GayPatriot as well as in the comments from Frank James' follow-up, linked below. (The level of ignorance revealed in the comments at the Trib is breathtaking.) Let's set something in stark black and white, which seems to be the only colors that the right recognizes: the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech, guarantees it from interference by the government; it does not insulate anyone from criticism for inappropriate or even unpopular remarks. In case no one had noticed, Pace is a serving military officer, a Marine, in fact, which means that he does not have an untrammeled right to freedom of speech. (If he were Pete Pace from down the street, the Tribune in all likelihood would not be interviewing him to begin with.) In fact, as a serving officer, he is, as it turns out, in violation of Marine regs. (Andrew Sullivan links to the relevant section, but my brower comes up "file not found"; I'm sure it's just a coincidence.)
Then, regarding his analogy: Pace compares any gay relationship to adultery. Given the legalistic, nitpicking turn of the right, I can see where this originates, but that doesn't make it valid. Even by that standard, since gays can't marry except in Massachusetts, he has no argument there. Totally specious comparison.
Also, as Frank James notes in a follow-up at The Swamp:
Pace's comment raises questions of logical consistency. If as leader of an institution as important as the U.S. military you believe people are engaged in immoral behavior, the fact that they keep quiet about it doesn't make it any less immoral, does it?
So why would Pace be OK with don't ask, don't tell? It seems the only logically consistent attitude would be for him to oppose the current don't-ask, don't-tell policy and, instead, to support purges of suspected gays.
Former Senator Alan Simpson sums it up nicely:
Gen. Pace is entitled, like anyone, to his personal opinion, even if it is completely out of the mainstream of American thinking. But he should know better than to assert this opinion as the basis for policy of a military that represents and serves an entire nation.
There are larger questions involved when you get into the substance of Pace's remarks vis-a-vis his position as the head of the armed forces (except for, of course, the Commander-in-Chief, Psreznit Decider). I'll have to do more on this later, since I'm running out of time. However, as a parting shot, I bring you a couple of "Profiles in Courage," or "Why I May Just Not Vote in 2008":
Barack Obama, on whether gays are immoral.
Hillary Clinton, same question.
Gen. Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as you may have heard (ahem), made some completely inappropriate remarks during an interview with the Chicago Tribune:
"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace said in a wide-ranging discussion with Tribune editors and reporters in Chicago. "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.
"As an individual, I would not want [acceptance of gay behavior] to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else's wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior," Pace said.
First, before we get to the actual subtance of his remarks, let's just take the context: speaking as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Pace comes out with a condemnation of a segment of the American populations (which includes, please remember, an estimated 65,000 currently serving personnel) based on his personal religious beliefs.
As might be expected, Pace's comments are receiving some criticism, which to me seems more than justified. I'll get into that in more detail as we go along.
One will find the usual boneheaded remarks about how his "freedom of speech" is being curtailed in the comments at places like GayPatriot as well as in the comments from Frank James' follow-up, linked below. (The level of ignorance revealed in the comments at the Trib is breathtaking.) Let's set something in stark black and white, which seems to be the only colors that the right recognizes: the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech, guarantees it from interference by the government; it does not insulate anyone from criticism for inappropriate or even unpopular remarks. In case no one had noticed, Pace is a serving military officer, a Marine, in fact, which means that he does not have an untrammeled right to freedom of speech. (If he were Pete Pace from down the street, the Tribune in all likelihood would not be interviewing him to begin with.) In fact, as a serving officer, he is, as it turns out, in violation of Marine regs. (Andrew Sullivan links to the relevant section, but my brower comes up "file not found"; I'm sure it's just a coincidence.)
Then, regarding his analogy: Pace compares any gay relationship to adultery. Given the legalistic, nitpicking turn of the right, I can see where this originates, but that doesn't make it valid. Even by that standard, since gays can't marry except in Massachusetts, he has no argument there. Totally specious comparison.
Also, as Frank James notes in a follow-up at The Swamp:
Pace's comment raises questions of logical consistency. If as leader of an institution as important as the U.S. military you believe people are engaged in immoral behavior, the fact that they keep quiet about it doesn't make it any less immoral, does it?
So why would Pace be OK with don't ask, don't tell? It seems the only logically consistent attitude would be for him to oppose the current don't-ask, don't-tell policy and, instead, to support purges of suspected gays.
Former Senator Alan Simpson sums it up nicely:
Gen. Pace is entitled, like anyone, to his personal opinion, even if it is completely out of the mainstream of American thinking. But he should know better than to assert this opinion as the basis for policy of a military that represents and serves an entire nation.
There are larger questions involved when you get into the substance of Pace's remarks vis-a-vis his position as the head of the armed forces (except for, of course, the Commander-in-Chief, Psreznit Decider). I'll have to do more on this later, since I'm running out of time. However, as a parting shot, I bring you a couple of "Profiles in Courage," or "Why I May Just Not Vote in 2008":
Barack Obama, on whether gays are immoral.
Hillary Clinton, same question.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Peter Pace
I feel impelled to comment on this story, but I've got a hellish schedule for the next couple of days that won't allow me the time or space to really think about it. In the meantime, Andrew Sullivan has been keeping up with it and noted a lot of points that most people seem to be missing.
Maybe I'll be able to say something intelligent once the story has developed a bit more.
Maybe I'll be able to say something intelligent once the story has developed a bit more.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Hate and Vitriol
Just to keep things honest, see this post by David Neiwert at Orcinus about how compassionate and civilized right-wing commentators (and commenters) are. And do note that the bulk of these quotes come from the stars of the right wing propaganda machine, including our favorite faggot, Ann "It's-just-a-joke-where's-your-sense-of-humor" Coulter.
The Sad Case of Virginia
Considering the depths to which the Commonwealth of Virginia has fallen in recent years, this look back by Poputonian at Hullabaloo is a distinct nostalgia trip:
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or beliefs; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
And though we will know that this Assembly, elected by the people for the purpose of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act will be infringement of natural right.
This is a bill passed by the Virginia General Assembly in 1786, the year before the Constitutional Convention was convoked.
Susan Jacoby, in Freethinkers (link at Hullabaloo; it looks like a fascinating read), quotes Thomas Jefferson:
Expressing his pride in Virginia's leadership, Jefferson observed that "it is comfortable to see the standard of reason at length erected, after so many ages, during which the human mind has been held in vassalage by kings, priests, and nobles, and it is honorable for us, to have produced the first legislature who had the courage to declare, that the reason of man may be trusted with the formation of his own opinions."
I wonder what General Pace thinks of that idea. (See below)
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or beliefs; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
And though we will know that this Assembly, elected by the people for the purpose of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act will be infringement of natural right.
This is a bill passed by the Virginia General Assembly in 1786, the year before the Constitutional Convention was convoked.
Susan Jacoby, in Freethinkers (link at Hullabaloo; it looks like a fascinating read), quotes Thomas Jefferson:
Expressing his pride in Virginia's leadership, Jefferson observed that "it is comfortable to see the standard of reason at length erected, after so many ages, during which the human mind has been held in vassalage by kings, priests, and nobles, and it is honorable for us, to have produced the first legislature who had the courage to declare, that the reason of man may be trusted with the formation of his own opinions."
I wonder what General Pace thinks of that idea. (See below)
Military "Morality"
I wasn't going to post this morning, but I ran across this and got really, really pissed.
From my home-town paper, the Chicago Tribune:
Responding to a question about a Clinton-era policy that is coming under renewed scrutiny amid fears of future U.S. troop shortages, Pace said the Pentagon should not "condone" immoral behavior by allowing gay soldiers to serve openly. He said his views were based on his personal "upbringing," in which he was taught that certain types of conduct are immoral.
"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace said in a wide-ranging discussion with Tribune editors and reporters in Chicago. "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way."
Let me be sure I've got this right: torture is OK, doctoring intelligence is OK, lying to Congress and the American public is OK, ignoring wounded veterans' needs is OK, but being gay is not, and so, because some fucktard named Peter Pace thinks being gay is immoral, we should discharge Arabic translators, medical specialists and other valuable personnel from an army that can't meet its troop commitments as it is.
I'd really like to hear General Pace explain why his personal religious beliefs should determine who serves in the military and under what conditions.
Speaking of which, I would also love to hear what Gen. Pace thinks about the morality of torture, secret prisons, and rendition. Even the Evangelicals are coming out against it. From LA Times:
The National Association of Evangelicals has endorsed an anti-torture statement saying the United States has crossed "boundaries of what is legally and morally permissible" in its treatment of detainees and war prisoners in the fight against terror.
Human rights violations committed in the name of preventing terrorist attacks have made the country look hypocritical to the Muslim world, the document states. Christians have an obligation rooted in Scripture to help Americans "regain our moral clarity."
"Our military and intelligence forces have worked diligently to prevent further attacks. But such efforts must not include measures that violate our own core values," the document says. "The United States historically has been a leader in supporting international human rights efforts, but our moral vision has blurred since 9-11."
Of course, you will note the loud silence from the Dobson Gang. I wonder if Peter Pace is a member?
From my home-town paper, the Chicago Tribune:
Responding to a question about a Clinton-era policy that is coming under renewed scrutiny amid fears of future U.S. troop shortages, Pace said the Pentagon should not "condone" immoral behavior by allowing gay soldiers to serve openly. He said his views were based on his personal "upbringing," in which he was taught that certain types of conduct are immoral.
"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace said in a wide-ranging discussion with Tribune editors and reporters in Chicago. "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way."
Let me be sure I've got this right: torture is OK, doctoring intelligence is OK, lying to Congress and the American public is OK, ignoring wounded veterans' needs is OK, but being gay is not, and so, because some fucktard named Peter Pace thinks being gay is immoral, we should discharge Arabic translators, medical specialists and other valuable personnel from an army that can't meet its troop commitments as it is.
I'd really like to hear General Pace explain why his personal religious beliefs should determine who serves in the military and under what conditions.
Speaking of which, I would also love to hear what Gen. Pace thinks about the morality of torture, secret prisons, and rendition. Even the Evangelicals are coming out against it. From LA Times:
The National Association of Evangelicals has endorsed an anti-torture statement saying the United States has crossed "boundaries of what is legally and morally permissible" in its treatment of detainees and war prisoners in the fight against terror.
Human rights violations committed in the name of preventing terrorist attacks have made the country look hypocritical to the Muslim world, the document states. Christians have an obligation rooted in Scripture to help Americans "regain our moral clarity."
"Our military and intelligence forces have worked diligently to prevent further attacks. But such efforts must not include measures that violate our own core values," the document says. "The United States historically has been a leader in supporting international human rights efforts, but our moral vision has blurred since 9-11."
Of course, you will note the loud silence from the Dobson Gang. I wonder if Peter Pace is a member?
Speaking of . . . .
It seems the Dobson Gang has not been silent:
The public dispute began with the release of a letter signed by several men who helped transform the religious right into a political force, including Dobson, Don Wildmon of the American Family Assn. and Paul Weyrich of American Values.
The signatories — most of them activists, not theologians — expressed dismay that an evangelical emphasis on global warming was "contributing to growing confusion about the very term 'evangelical.' "
In religious terms, an evangelical is a Christian who has been born again, seeks a personal relationship with Christ, and considers the Bible the word of God, to be faithfully obeyed.
But Dobson and his fellow letter-writers suggested that evangelical should also signify "conservative views on politics, economics and biblical morality."
Note the last sentence. There's the give away -- Dobson is running the evangelical movement as a power base for his own political agenda.
The letter accused Cizik of "dividing and demoralizing" Christians by pushing this agenda and called on his employer, the National Assn. of Evangelicals, to silence him or to demand his resignation.
This is the Dobson Gang's idea of "liberty."
Digby, as always, has some cogent comments:
In fact, it seems to me that the right's campaign to conflate evangelicalism with conservatism has been wildly successful. (They are really good at this --- think what they've done to the word liberal.) But Kilgore's point is correct. This new direction is challenging to the religious right leadership as Republican power brokers, which I believe is what Dobson et al really are.
Duh.
I will believe this when I see it, however. I believe that I have a right to be extremely skeptical of this group's commitment to some of these issues. After all, I am a big believer and supporter of most of that agenda and yet I have been used as an example of Satan's handiwork for decades now. I find it a little hard to believe that most of these people will ally themselves with godless liberals like me no matter what the cause. And ally with liberals they will have to do because there is no way in hell that they will get the Republicans to sign on to human rights, social justice and environmentalism. It's unthinkable, not to mention economic heresy. The big money boys may put up with the social conservatives, but their only religion is profits and nothing will interfere with their worship.
He's right, and it's a sad thing to have to say, but the evangelical leadership has proven itself again and again to be a group of mendacious hucksters. Let's see what they actually do.
The public dispute began with the release of a letter signed by several men who helped transform the religious right into a political force, including Dobson, Don Wildmon of the American Family Assn. and Paul Weyrich of American Values.
The signatories — most of them activists, not theologians — expressed dismay that an evangelical emphasis on global warming was "contributing to growing confusion about the very term 'evangelical.' "
In religious terms, an evangelical is a Christian who has been born again, seeks a personal relationship with Christ, and considers the Bible the word of God, to be faithfully obeyed.
But Dobson and his fellow letter-writers suggested that evangelical should also signify "conservative views on politics, economics and biblical morality."
Note the last sentence. There's the give away -- Dobson is running the evangelical movement as a power base for his own political agenda.
The letter accused Cizik of "dividing and demoralizing" Christians by pushing this agenda and called on his employer, the National Assn. of Evangelicals, to silence him or to demand his resignation.
This is the Dobson Gang's idea of "liberty."
Digby, as always, has some cogent comments:
In fact, it seems to me that the right's campaign to conflate evangelicalism with conservatism has been wildly successful. (They are really good at this --- think what they've done to the word liberal.) But Kilgore's point is correct. This new direction is challenging to the religious right leadership as Republican power brokers, which I believe is what Dobson et al really are.
Duh.
I will believe this when I see it, however. I believe that I have a right to be extremely skeptical of this group's commitment to some of these issues. After all, I am a big believer and supporter of most of that agenda and yet I have been used as an example of Satan's handiwork for decades now. I find it a little hard to believe that most of these people will ally themselves with godless liberals like me no matter what the cause. And ally with liberals they will have to do because there is no way in hell that they will get the Republicans to sign on to human rights, social justice and environmentalism. It's unthinkable, not to mention economic heresy. The big money boys may put up with the social conservatives, but their only religion is profits and nothing will interfere with their worship.
He's right, and it's a sad thing to have to say, but the evangelical leadership has proven itself again and again to be a group of mendacious hucksters. Let's see what they actually do.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
On Sanchez and Vocabulary
The Matt Sanchez story is occupying more of my time than I had expected it to, but then, that's one of the joys of being editor and publisher -- I get to cover the stories I want as deeply as I want.
I think the blogosphere has uncovered a possible reason for Sanchez' soft-core denial of being gay. From Marine Corps Times:
As a member of the IRR, Sanchez falls under the authority of Marine Corps Mobilization Command in Kansas City, Mo., where the commanding general’s staff judge advocate, Lt. Col. Michael Blessing, has begun an inquiry into the revelations about his past, according to command spokesman Shane Darbonne.
“We’re looking into it and we’re going to verify facts and determine if any further action is warranted,” Darbonne said.
As of Friday afternoon, officials at Marine Forces Reserve in New Orleans were unable to confirm whether Sanchez had enlisted prior to the end of his film career or if Reserve Marines were prohibited from doing porn when not in a drilling status. Sanchez has not returned phone calls seeking comment. He joined the Corps May 14, 2003 and is a refrigeration mechanic.
On Friday Officials at Marine Corps Recruiting Command were unable to say whether past participation in gay porn disqualifies a potential enlistee because it was unclear how the current “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy might apply.
If, as was disclosed in the interview with Colmes, Sanchez was advertising his services as late as three years ago, it could have a definite impact on his military career. (There's also the little thing about "conduct unbecoming," which got several members of the 82nd Airborne kicked out with dishonorable discharges for performing in gay porn.) Of course, if you believe the folks at Exodus and NARTH, there's no such thing as a "hommoseksual":
Since the language of Love Won Out represents a distinct dialect of Evangelical Christianity, the first order of business for the day was to teach us the elements of that dialect. First up was Dr. Nicolosi. He began his talk by proclaiming that “there is no such thing as a homosexual.” Knowing this was a head-scratcher to most people there, he repeated it again: “There is no such thing as a homosexual… He is a heterosexual, but he may have a homosexual problem.”
So here’s the first lesson: the words “gay,” “lesbian,” and “homosexual” aren’t nouns; they’re adjectives. And even as an adjectives they are never used to describe a person. There are no gay teenagers, there are no homosexual men, there are no lesbian women. Instead these adjectives are always used as modifiers to something else: a problem, a struggle, an identity, or an issue that is separate from the person. This is important because it’s very different from how these terms are normally used in the broader culture. It is also very different from how these terms are used even by other anti-gay activists.
So I guess Sanchez is off the hook.
(By the way, as an excellent analysis of how the far right has developed the Orwellian concept of Newspeak, read Burroway's entire post -- it has obvious ramifications far beyond the "ex-gay" movement. If I can find some time to think about it, I may do a post on it myself, although I don't know what I can add to his.)
I think the blogosphere has uncovered a possible reason for Sanchez' soft-core denial of being gay. From Marine Corps Times:
As a member of the IRR, Sanchez falls under the authority of Marine Corps Mobilization Command in Kansas City, Mo., where the commanding general’s staff judge advocate, Lt. Col. Michael Blessing, has begun an inquiry into the revelations about his past, according to command spokesman Shane Darbonne.
“We’re looking into it and we’re going to verify facts and determine if any further action is warranted,” Darbonne said.
As of Friday afternoon, officials at Marine Forces Reserve in New Orleans were unable to confirm whether Sanchez had enlisted prior to the end of his film career or if Reserve Marines were prohibited from doing porn when not in a drilling status. Sanchez has not returned phone calls seeking comment. He joined the Corps May 14, 2003 and is a refrigeration mechanic.
On Friday Officials at Marine Corps Recruiting Command were unable to say whether past participation in gay porn disqualifies a potential enlistee because it was unclear how the current “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy might apply.
If, as was disclosed in the interview with Colmes, Sanchez was advertising his services as late as three years ago, it could have a definite impact on his military career. (There's also the little thing about "conduct unbecoming," which got several members of the 82nd Airborne kicked out with dishonorable discharges for performing in gay porn.) Of course, if you believe the folks at Exodus and NARTH, there's no such thing as a "hommoseksual":
Since the language of Love Won Out represents a distinct dialect of Evangelical Christianity, the first order of business for the day was to teach us the elements of that dialect. First up was Dr. Nicolosi. He began his talk by proclaiming that “there is no such thing as a homosexual.” Knowing this was a head-scratcher to most people there, he repeated it again: “There is no such thing as a homosexual… He is a heterosexual, but he may have a homosexual problem.”
So here’s the first lesson: the words “gay,” “lesbian,” and “homosexual” aren’t nouns; they’re adjectives. And even as an adjectives they are never used to describe a person. There are no gay teenagers, there are no homosexual men, there are no lesbian women. Instead these adjectives are always used as modifiers to something else: a problem, a struggle, an identity, or an issue that is separate from the person. This is important because it’s very different from how these terms are normally used in the broader culture. It is also very different from how these terms are used even by other anti-gay activists.
So I guess Sanchez is off the hook.
(By the way, as an excellent analysis of how the far right has developed the Orwellian concept of Newspeak, read Burroway's entire post -- it has obvious ramifications far beyond the "ex-gay" movement. If I can find some time to think about it, I may do a post on it myself, although I don't know what I can add to his.)
Saturday, March 10, 2007
So You Resent Being Called A Nazi? Tough.
I've seen a couple of mentions of this story and finally got a link to this at QueerSighted (thanks to Towleroad).
One of the nation's leading Southern Baptists has called for a policy that would support medical treatment, if it were to become available, to change the sexual orientation of a fetus inside its mother's womb from homosexual to heterosexual. This latest assault on our dignity and existence comes from no less a personage than Rev. R. Albert Mohler, the president of the prominent and influential Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.
Gee, Rev. Mohler, what if the "cure" is a benefit of stem-cell research? Wait, get this one:
The good reverend explains that "Given the consequences of the Fall and the effects of human sin, we should not be surprised that such a causation or link is found. After all, the human genetic structure, along with every other aspect of creation, shows the pernicious effects of the Fall and of God's judgment."
And I thought Lamarckism was dead. Nope, it just became a Baptist.
Mohler says , of course, the possibility of discovering a cure is all our fault:
But now the picture is quite different. Many homosexual activists recognize that the discovery of a biological marker or cause for homosexual orientation could lead to efforts to eliminate the trait, or change the orientation through genetic or hormonal treatments.
As I always say, if you want to know what a wingnut is doing, listen to what he's saying while he's pointing at someone else.
I think it's highly instructive that Mohler either cannot see or refuses to acknowledge that gays may feel a certain moral outrage at the idea of hormonally mediating a condition that is not biologically harmful. I begin to see something here that I've never quite been able to articulate before.
Considering the conservative Christian attitude toward things like stem-cell research, genetic manipulation of crops, cloning, and the like, to see the head of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary jump on the hormone-therapy-for-gay-fetuses bandwagon is -- sorry, it's an overused term lately, but "hypocrite" seems to be the closest fit.
What happened to the idea that each of God's creatures is his own particular creation, and that mere mortals should not be second-guessing a being who is, after all, all-knowing?
Note, please, the insistence that scripture, written down and interpreted by frail mortals, is inviolable in the case of homosexuality (apparently not in the case of eating shellfish, wearing clothes made of fiber blends, associating with women who are menstruating) -- even if it's a biological imperative to love someone of the same sex and to deny that impulse does serious damage to your pschological health, it's a sin.
By the way, being a nutfudge Christianist is a choice.
I forget -- we're in the age of pick-and-choose Christianity. Read his whole essay (keep a barf bag handy). This guy is really out there, espousing a theology that totally creeps me out. This is really, really scary. That he even sees a question about the moral acceptability of tampering with something that is, by his own religious beliefs, a creation in God's image, is totally screwy. Get these two paragraphs from his summary:
6. The biblical basis for establishing the dignity of all persons -- the fact that all humans are made in God's image -- reminds us that this means all persons, including those who may be marked by a predisposition toward homosexuality. For the sake of clarity, we must insist at all times that all persons -- whether identified as heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, transsexual, transgendered, bisexual, or whatever -- are equally made in the image of God. . . .
8. If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin.
To me, those two points sound mutually exclusive. I guess I didn't have the benefit of fundamentalist, literalist brainwashing. (They tried -- it just didn't take.) The idea underlying this juxtaposition is, I think, simply that gays are something less than human, so it's OK -- like changing the sexual orientation of gay rams.
I think it's also a matter of the insistence on the complete inviolability of scripture having finally undercut completely the very human-centered message of Christ. There's no Jesus left in this brand of Christianity.
Sorry, but it's just too reminiscent of every self-serving justification for all the horrors perpetrated by every totalitarian monster since the beginning of time. Don't forget that one of Hitler's strongest allies was the Church.
So, how far is it from this to outright Nazism? About a quarter of an inch?
Update:
PZ Myers is his usual scathing self when he confronts this lunacy.
One of the nation's leading Southern Baptists has called for a policy that would support medical treatment, if it were to become available, to change the sexual orientation of a fetus inside its mother's womb from homosexual to heterosexual. This latest assault on our dignity and existence comes from no less a personage than Rev. R. Albert Mohler, the president of the prominent and influential Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.
Gee, Rev. Mohler, what if the "cure" is a benefit of stem-cell research? Wait, get this one:
The good reverend explains that "Given the consequences of the Fall and the effects of human sin, we should not be surprised that such a causation or link is found. After all, the human genetic structure, along with every other aspect of creation, shows the pernicious effects of the Fall and of God's judgment."
And I thought Lamarckism was dead. Nope, it just became a Baptist.
Mohler says , of course, the possibility of discovering a cure is all our fault:
But now the picture is quite different. Many homosexual activists recognize that the discovery of a biological marker or cause for homosexual orientation could lead to efforts to eliminate the trait, or change the orientation through genetic or hormonal treatments.
As I always say, if you want to know what a wingnut is doing, listen to what he's saying while he's pointing at someone else.
I think it's highly instructive that Mohler either cannot see or refuses to acknowledge that gays may feel a certain moral outrage at the idea of hormonally mediating a condition that is not biologically harmful. I begin to see something here that I've never quite been able to articulate before.
Considering the conservative Christian attitude toward things like stem-cell research, genetic manipulation of crops, cloning, and the like, to see the head of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary jump on the hormone-therapy-for-gay-fetuses bandwagon is -- sorry, it's an overused term lately, but "hypocrite" seems to be the closest fit.
What happened to the idea that each of God's creatures is his own particular creation, and that mere mortals should not be second-guessing a being who is, after all, all-knowing?
Note, please, the insistence that scripture, written down and interpreted by frail mortals, is inviolable in the case of homosexuality (apparently not in the case of eating shellfish, wearing clothes made of fiber blends, associating with women who are menstruating) -- even if it's a biological imperative to love someone of the same sex and to deny that impulse does serious damage to your pschological health, it's a sin.
By the way, being a nutfudge Christianist is a choice.
I forget -- we're in the age of pick-and-choose Christianity. Read his whole essay (keep a barf bag handy). This guy is really out there, espousing a theology that totally creeps me out. This is really, really scary. That he even sees a question about the moral acceptability of tampering with something that is, by his own religious beliefs, a creation in God's image, is totally screwy. Get these two paragraphs from his summary:
6. The biblical basis for establishing the dignity of all persons -- the fact that all humans are made in God's image -- reminds us that this means all persons, including those who may be marked by a predisposition toward homosexuality. For the sake of clarity, we must insist at all times that all persons -- whether identified as heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, transsexual, transgendered, bisexual, or whatever -- are equally made in the image of God. . . .
8. If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin.
To me, those two points sound mutually exclusive. I guess I didn't have the benefit of fundamentalist, literalist brainwashing. (They tried -- it just didn't take.) The idea underlying this juxtaposition is, I think, simply that gays are something less than human, so it's OK -- like changing the sexual orientation of gay rams.
I think it's also a matter of the insistence on the complete inviolability of scripture having finally undercut completely the very human-centered message of Christ. There's no Jesus left in this brand of Christianity.
Sorry, but it's just too reminiscent of every self-serving justification for all the horrors perpetrated by every totalitarian monster since the beginning of time. Don't forget that one of Hitler's strongest allies was the Church.
So, how far is it from this to outright Nazism? About a quarter of an inch?
Update:
PZ Myers is his usual scathing self when he confronts this lunacy.
Real Journalism, Corporate Style
You want to know what's wrong with the MSM? Via David Sirota, here's a quote from Charles Bobrinskoy:
"[The LA Times] has got these 22 foreign bureaus...That's not what readers want. Readers care about the local entertainment industry...They care about things like fashion...Where the problem is, is that the people who are writing the L.A. Times, they want to be writing about international events. They want to be writing long-term pieces about why Bush went to war in Iraq. And we're saying, and the people at Tribune are saying, there are other people writing those stories...Do we really need the L.A. Times devoting the resources it has to that story?"
Bobrinskoy, by the way, is vice-chairman of the investment company that is part-owner of The Tribune Company, which owns, among other media outlets, the LA Times. Sirota notes that he is a major Republican donor. I checked -- he is also a major Democratic donor, although it looks as though the Republicans have gotten the bulk of his donations.
"[The LA Times] has got these 22 foreign bureaus...That's not what readers want. Readers care about the local entertainment industry...They care about things like fashion...Where the problem is, is that the people who are writing the L.A. Times, they want to be writing about international events. They want to be writing long-term pieces about why Bush went to war in Iraq. And we're saying, and the people at Tribune are saying, there are other people writing those stories...Do we really need the L.A. Times devoting the resources it has to that story?"
Bobrinskoy, by the way, is vice-chairman of the investment company that is part-owner of The Tribune Company, which owns, among other media outlets, the LA Times. Sirota notes that he is a major Republican donor. I checked -- he is also a major Democratic donor, although it looks as though the Republicans have gotten the bulk of his donations.
Sanchez Update
I'm never sure if y'all go back to previous posts, because I do sometimes update them. This one, however, got bigger than I had expected.
Finally got a clear link to the post I'd been looking for. From Max Blumenthal:
There is of course nothing inherently wrong with Sanchez being a gay porn star or a male escort. His past is only notable because he chose to join a movement that exploits anti-gay sentiment for political gain. Coulter’s now-famous “faggot” remark was not an aberration, but rather a symbol of the politics of resentment that propels the conservative movement and its elected Republican surrogates; a reflection of the bigotry conservatives have sought to write into the Constitution through the so-called Federal Marriage Amendment. The ascendant “family values” wing of the right is also responsible for sabotaging legislation allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the armed forces, a maneuver that may now spell the end of Sanchez’s career.
Blumenthal gets it pretty much right, although I tend to shy away from psychoanalyzing people I don't know, much less entire political movements. For that matter, I don't usually psychoanalyze people I do know.
It is interesting, however, to note this comment from John Aravosis:
Anyway, Alan Colmes of Hannity & Colmes was kind enough to send me a clip of his interview yesterday with Sanchez on his radio show. Sanchez claims, among other things, that he's not gay, and that his male prostitution clients weren't gay either. He also said that he hadn't done gay porn or prostitution in 15 years. Holmes corrected him, pointing out a "massage" ad for Sanchez' services placed only 3 years ago. I'd also point out that IMDB says that Sanchez' last movie was 1999, that's 8 years ago, not 15.
It really is a Ted Haggard moment. Not only is he not gay, but his clients aren't, either. Get serious. How many straight guys go out looking for the services of a male hooker? And how many male hookers with a male clientele are really into women? This, of course, ties into the whole Christianist "repentance" thing. You can do whatever you want, as long as you repent at some point -- like when you see an opportunity to make more money posing as a poster boy for the anti-gay right. This free pass is, of course, only available to conservative Republicans, and only if they're approved by James Dobson. Democrats and Rudy Giuliani are damned for eternity.
And, harking back to the hypocrisy trope, I think there's more than a whiff of it here. It's a fascinating study of the interplay of denial and projection. Let's go back to this quote from Sanchez:
There's something about the beleaguered gay psyche that wants to prove to the world that everyone is just as messed up as they are. So, they start off with the term hypocrite and work their way backwards looking for signs of deviant behavior in hopes of discovering some type of bastard kinship. That's why I've had the term self-loathing thrown at me so often. The gay community eats its own in a frenzied hope of self-serving fulfillment.
Offhand, I'd say his information about the "beleaguered gay psyche" is decades out of date. But then, most of us don't deny being gay, especially when we've been making our living from it. And considering where his support is coming from, referring to those attacking him as having beleaguered psyches is only to be expected -- after all, that's what his party wants to maintain. Let's face it, "deviant behavior" is something that the right likes to spotlight -- in other people. (I guess he really is a right-winger.) In case you haven't gotten it yet, the only reason that the left is spotlighting Sanchez' history is what many see as the hypocrisy integral to his adoption of the self-styled "conservatives" and their politics of bigotry. We've been used as the boogeyman for a couple of decades now, and Sanchez is not only buying into it, he's coming out in favor of it. Of course, the prose does veer toward the purple -- the last sentence is up there on the "dark and stormy night" scale. And looking at it again, I'm not sure what it means, if anything.
This, from his Salon piece, just puts the icing on the cake:
Instead, those who complain about wire-tapping reserve the right to pry into my private life and my past for political brownie points.
Sorry, honey, but if you're waving your dick around on the silver screen, you can hardly call it your "private life." Or, as Nitpicker puts it:
Malkin, who initially wrote that CPAC "should do more extensive background research before handing out an honor with Jeane Kirkpatrick's name on it," has now decided that liberals are "hate-filled" because someone "outed" his "gay porn past." For the record, "outing" is a term traditionally reserved for times when someone uncovers a secret life someone else has been carefully hiding. It's hard to argue that Sanchez was "outed" when you can go buy reminders of his past for $29.95 at Randy Bottom's House of Video.
Let me put it this way: Sanchez denies being gay and bitches about those who "outed" him. He calls his critics vicious, hateful, messed-up. He defends Ann Coulter, who calls a presidential candidate a "faggot," with the comment that "she was making a joke."
Do I really need to connect the dots?
(Just to keep the right-wing victims happy, here's a "vicious, vitriolic" post from Cliff Schechter at AmericaBlog. [Not really, but you'll just have to make do.])
Finally got a clear link to the post I'd been looking for. From Max Blumenthal:
There is of course nothing inherently wrong with Sanchez being a gay porn star or a male escort. His past is only notable because he chose to join a movement that exploits anti-gay sentiment for political gain. Coulter’s now-famous “faggot” remark was not an aberration, but rather a symbol of the politics of resentment that propels the conservative movement and its elected Republican surrogates; a reflection of the bigotry conservatives have sought to write into the Constitution through the so-called Federal Marriage Amendment. The ascendant “family values” wing of the right is also responsible for sabotaging legislation allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the armed forces, a maneuver that may now spell the end of Sanchez’s career.
Blumenthal gets it pretty much right, although I tend to shy away from psychoanalyzing people I don't know, much less entire political movements. For that matter, I don't usually psychoanalyze people I do know.
It is interesting, however, to note this comment from John Aravosis:
Anyway, Alan Colmes of Hannity & Colmes was kind enough to send me a clip of his interview yesterday with Sanchez on his radio show. Sanchez claims, among other things, that he's not gay, and that his male prostitution clients weren't gay either. He also said that he hadn't done gay porn or prostitution in 15 years. Holmes corrected him, pointing out a "massage" ad for Sanchez' services placed only 3 years ago. I'd also point out that IMDB says that Sanchez' last movie was 1999, that's 8 years ago, not 15.
It really is a Ted Haggard moment. Not only is he not gay, but his clients aren't, either. Get serious. How many straight guys go out looking for the services of a male hooker? And how many male hookers with a male clientele are really into women? This, of course, ties into the whole Christianist "repentance" thing. You can do whatever you want, as long as you repent at some point -- like when you see an opportunity to make more money posing as a poster boy for the anti-gay right. This free pass is, of course, only available to conservative Republicans, and only if they're approved by James Dobson. Democrats and Rudy Giuliani are damned for eternity.
And, harking back to the hypocrisy trope, I think there's more than a whiff of it here. It's a fascinating study of the interplay of denial and projection. Let's go back to this quote from Sanchez:
There's something about the beleaguered gay psyche that wants to prove to the world that everyone is just as messed up as they are. So, they start off with the term hypocrite and work their way backwards looking for signs of deviant behavior in hopes of discovering some type of bastard kinship. That's why I've had the term self-loathing thrown at me so often. The gay community eats its own in a frenzied hope of self-serving fulfillment.
Offhand, I'd say his information about the "beleaguered gay psyche" is decades out of date. But then, most of us don't deny being gay, especially when we've been making our living from it. And considering where his support is coming from, referring to those attacking him as having beleaguered psyches is only to be expected -- after all, that's what his party wants to maintain. Let's face it, "deviant behavior" is something that the right likes to spotlight -- in other people. (I guess he really is a right-winger.) In case you haven't gotten it yet, the only reason that the left is spotlighting Sanchez' history is what many see as the hypocrisy integral to his adoption of the self-styled "conservatives" and their politics of bigotry. We've been used as the boogeyman for a couple of decades now, and Sanchez is not only buying into it, he's coming out in favor of it. Of course, the prose does veer toward the purple -- the last sentence is up there on the "dark and stormy night" scale. And looking at it again, I'm not sure what it means, if anything.
This, from his Salon piece, just puts the icing on the cake:
Instead, those who complain about wire-tapping reserve the right to pry into my private life and my past for political brownie points.
Sorry, honey, but if you're waving your dick around on the silver screen, you can hardly call it your "private life." Or, as Nitpicker puts it:
Malkin, who initially wrote that CPAC "should do more extensive background research before handing out an honor with Jeane Kirkpatrick's name on it," has now decided that liberals are "hate-filled" because someone "outed" his "gay porn past." For the record, "outing" is a term traditionally reserved for times when someone uncovers a secret life someone else has been carefully hiding. It's hard to argue that Sanchez was "outed" when you can go buy reminders of his past for $29.95 at Randy Bottom's House of Video.
Let me put it this way: Sanchez denies being gay and bitches about those who "outed" him. He calls his critics vicious, hateful, messed-up. He defends Ann Coulter, who calls a presidential candidate a "faggot," with the comment that "she was making a joke."
Do I really need to connect the dots?
(Just to keep the right-wing victims happy, here's a "vicious, vitriolic" post from Cliff Schechter at AmericaBlog. [Not really, but you'll just have to make do.])
Friday, March 09, 2007
Alert
My friend Doug has started his own blog, concerned mostly with his art work that is not dance/performance. I've known Doug for (gad! that many years?) a long time, and he's one of the most consistently creative people in my universe.
Check him out at The Blog o' Doug. I love the collages.
He's actually the one who was the impetus for "Redemption," an installation I did for World AIDS Day several years ago. As last-minute curator, he called around and said "Got anything I can put up on the wall for this?" I, of course, said "Sure." And then decided I had to do a new piece in three weeks.
And "Redemption" will be the next gallery at a/k/a Hunter.
Check him out at The Blog o' Doug. I love the collages.
He's actually the one who was the impetus for "Redemption," an installation I did for World AIDS Day several years ago. As last-minute curator, he called around and said "Got anything I can put up on the wall for this?" I, of course, said "Sure." And then decided I had to do a new piece in three weeks.
And "Redemption" will be the next gallery at a/k/a Hunter.
The Obligatory Matt Sanchez Post
OK -- I promised you this one. I think one reason I love blogging is that I can spend time on non-stories if it suits me. Something like this also gives me a chance to investigate some of the major flaws in our public discourse as it involves the blogosphere.
By way of background, Matt Sanchez is the new hero of the right wing -- a Marine, a student at Columbia, and a former porn star and male escort. He claims, in a round-about way, not to be gay, but allow me some scepticism: I can see performing in gay porn if you're straight, on the assumption that men evolved as sexual creatures, pure and simple, and will fuck anything with a hole. I have a harder time accepting the idea that anyone who does not like sex with men would offer himself as an escort. Of course, this may be a Ted Haggard moment -- just acting out.
Robbie at The Malcontent is a little too predictable in his first post on Matt Sanchez:
You know, I'm finding it very difficult to disagree with this sentiment in light of how certain quarters are reacting to Matt Sanchez. (Check out this bit of over the top hysteria. Get thee some valium).
Frankly, I find Sanchez' comment self-serving. After all, the best defense is a strong offense, and it's just too pat to come back to the perceived attacks with the tired old line about how we all hate ourselves and take it out on each other. I say "perceived" attacks because I'm having trouble finding them. Here's the Towleroad post that Robbie characterizes as "over the top hysteria." Excuse me? I found this comment by John Aravosis at AmericaBlog. It's shrill, but Aravosis is always shrill, about everything, so you can't take that as an indication of much. And here is the original post at Joe.My.God, which Shanchez characterized as vicious, and the interview with Joe and Sanchez. (It seems to me that if all you're interested in is trashing someone, you're not going to give them the opportunity to be heard on your own blog.
Robbie follows up the first post with this one, in which he grudgingly agrees with Matt Foreman:
This is in direct contradiction to the queerospheric hysterics attacking Sanchez and the mass amounts of vitriol currently being piled upon him. It seems to me, rather than attacking Sanchez, certain bloggers might have been wiser in using him as strong example against Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Instead, certain bloggers saw Republican, underwent the predictable radical queerwolf transformation, and brought out the claws.
(The interesting thing is that Pam Spaulding, who is usually among the more vitriolic of the left-wing gay bloggers, largely confines herself to Foreman's statement. In fact, she doesn't editorialize as much as Robbie does, at least as of this writing.)
Robbie, unfortunately, falls immediately into an all-too-predictable gay-left bashing (and let's refer back to Sanchez' comments about "self-loathing" and "devouring our own").
I even read Sanchez' famous OpEd, which turned out to be a string of conservatives cliches about the left, and tremendously self-serving. But then, he admits he wants to be heard as much as anyone does.
Of course, I had to check out GayPatriot, hoping (in vain) for a surprise. Bruce Carroll had had this to say:
One of the greatest things about our nation (as opposed to others) is that we give our fellow citizens a second, third, and fourth, etc. chance to re-do their lives. Here’s an extreme example… just to make my point…. It was amazing how Richard Nixon morphed from Constitutional Villian to Elder Cold War Statesman.
But does this spirit of tolerance and renewal extend to those who challenge moral standards? Does a gay porn star get a second, third, or fourth chance to do something else with his life? Apparently the Post-Clinton Angry Liberals say “NO!”
It is amazing how an issue like this really challenges the political stereotypes of who is truly tolerant. Most (not all) Liberals these days talk the talk, but can’t walk the walk. And most (not all) Conservatives that I know don’t preach but instead accept all Americans as individual gifts from God. I’d prefer the latter.
Case in point….. Contrast Michelle Malkin’s awesome post this morning on the Sanchez matter versus the hate-filled, angry liberal commenters at Joe.My.God.
Notice one thing: Michelle Malkin is cited as a contrast to the commenters at Joe.My.God. I find a pattern here: Commenters at blog posts are taken as the representatives of liberal thought, while the actual posters are virtually ignored (in this case, the comments by Joe himself might as well not exist). Sorry, not equivalent, and if Carroll honestly thinks they are, I think I deserve a pass on considering him shallow. However, if we're going to be fair (not something that I'd accuse Carroll of without serious thought), we should haul in Malkin's commenters, or those wonderful folks at LGF, as the counterpart, or put up someone like David Neiwert or Digby as the counterpart to Malkin. (Y'know, the left doesn't seem to have an Ann Coulter.)
There are also his comments about the Post-Clinton Angry Liberals and political stereotypes. Here's another place where I'm convinced GayPatriot and I do not inhabit the same universe. I'm still looking for the monolithic, goose-stepping PC leftists. They're probably someplace close to where I left my copy of the Gay Agenda. Carroll's blog lives on straw-men and red herrings, and this is just another example. I mean, c'mon -- we're talking about a political group that can't even get its shit together long enough to run a decent campaign and only wins elections when the right gets so repellent the voters have no other alternative. Sorry -- speaking with one mouth is not something you're going to find on the left side of the aisle. Why don't we just admit it?
Ah, but then who could we accuse of doing what we're doing while we're pointing at them?
You see why I tend to dismiss GayPatriot: Zero Credibility.
Notice also, in Sanchez' remarks as well as Carroll's (and for Carroll it seems to be a mantra) -- they are "patriotic Americans." In fact, Sanchez is a "red-blooded, flag-waving 100% American." OK -- a fast and easy one, no thought required. Just say you're patriotic, and of course that means your opponents (or should I call them enemies?) are not. Let's talk for a bit about shallow readings of "patriotism," the kind that play right into the hands of the people who are trying to dismantle the country.
To both Sanchez and Carroll: You're patriotic Americans, as opposed to what? Equally patriotic Americans who don't agree with you? Of course not -- the implication is that those who disagree are dirty raghead-loving, terrorist-supporting, Christian-burning, morally depraved America haters. Like me. And those who are reading this, most likely. So you know first-hand how correct that implication is. Cheap shot, and morally dishonest. In case you hadn't noticed, I'm really tired of the "hate-filled vitriol" remarks coming from a group that lionizes people like Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin.
Dan Blatt at GayPatriot has this take:
First, I probably have a different opinion of porn than Michelle Malkin and others on the right. While I don’t think acting, er, performing in such videos is a noble profession nor is it something to be proud of, it’s not an evil thing. As I wrote about Tom Malin’s escorting, “As long as he’s not coercing anyone and not having sex with minors, it’s his body. What Malin used to do may not be good for his soul.”
That said, the second issue is the more important one. He has changed and is no longer doing gay porn. If a man has changed his past behavior, then we should consider the man as he is, not as he once was. Again, as I wrote about Malin, “Jewish law teaches us that if someone does Teshuvah or repentance (the word itself literally means ‘return’), by forsaking his sin and not doing it again, it cannot be held against him.” We have all done things in our past that upon reflection, we wish we hadn’t done — or were appropriate at one time in our lives, but not in our present circumstances.
The interesting thing about the posts at GayPatriot, particularly Blatt's piece, is that they're predicated on the idea that performing in gay porn (or any porn, I would assume) and having been a male escort are bad. They are "mistakes" and we should move away from them. Why? (In case anyone's wondering, I favor legalizing prostitution and I have no problems with porn. OK, there's a major ick factor to some of it -- scat is just disgusting, child porn and snuff films are disgusting in another way. Some things should be illegal -- there's simply no justifying them.) I really don't care that Sanchez was an actor in gay porn or that he's been an escort.
I see it as a shallow, mass-market "morality" that is much too popular in this country (and in others, I'm sure) that has lost sight of morality as a guiding force that comes from firmly held values and sees it as a checklist of dos and don'ts that dictate behavior, not attitude. Remember, these are among the people who would want to burn me at the stake for being a Witch, while I consider Paganism as a religion to be a very tough one, requiring constant engagement if you're going to live your life by its Rule. There are no easy outs here. Consequently, who you sleep with is irrelevant, as long as it's someone who can make an adult decision to participate. How you treat them is the most important thing.
So why all the screaming about hypocrisy? That's not so easy to figure out. In Sanchez' case, I'm not going to even try -- I have no idea as to what his thought processes are, although this post is illuminating. It's just as self-serving as his OpEd, and revealing of the mindset that I mentioned immediately above:
I don’t like porn, it reduces the mind, flattens the soul. That’s not hypocrisy talking, that’s experience. If I started off with liberal leanings, being on a gay porn set should have been heaven. In porn, everything taboo is trivialized and everything trivial is projected. How does a conservative trace his roots to such distasteful beginnings?
Fine -- he doesn't like porn. That's "experience" talking. His experience, but it does, of course, apply to everyone, because if you're a red-blooded, flag waving 100% American (especially if you're a Marine, the most American of Americans), then you get to decide what everyone thinks.
I can't honestly call that "hypocrisy," just moral blindness with a big helping of arrogance. The Greeks called it "hubris" and felt it as great a moral failing as I do.
The hypocrisy, of course, rests firmly within the movement that Sanchez seems to think is the answer to all our problems. Sanchez's comment equating porn with liberalism (and I do take it as such, considering that the contrast is with porn and "conservatism" in its current warped incarnation) is hysterically funny. See my comments about mass-market morality if you want my take on projecting the trivial. So Sanchez feels our salvation is tied up with a movement that wants to use him but not acknowledge his basic humanity. How is this not hypocritical, on their part if not on his?
I will say that I see one area where Sanchez is a hypocrite, and that's playing the victim card. For the reasons I've noted, I don't see all the hatred and vitriol that he's claiming from the left. It appears to me that there's a lot of projection here, not only on his part.
(No, I'm not going to link to his escort page or any of the photos that are more revealing than the one on his blog. They're easy enough to find if you follow the links other people have provided. Besides, I don't find him all that attractive, although it might be different if I actually met him. Probably not -- I find his politics, at least what I know of them, repellent, but you never can tell.)
Update:
Finally, a post that could, if you really, really wanted it to, be characterized as "vitriolic." From TRex at Firedoglake:
You know, people like Michelle Malkin seem to think that progressive writers like me who are reporting on the sordid gay porn past of CPAC's 2007 Hate Camp poster-boy Matt Sanchez are "gleefully" dragging this story out into the light, and you know, for me, that couldn't be further from the truth. Last night on MSNBC's "Countdown With Keith Olbermann", I got name-checked by Max Blumenthal (Thanks, Max!) as someone who has been following the stories that keep emerging about highly-placed gay Republican operatives, but I can't say that these stories make me happy at all.
I have to slam TRex on the sordid issue, as well. Sorry, guys, this is not a no-brainer. I wish I were still sexy enough to make money from it. I truly do.
Update II:
Chris Crain gets one thing right:
But if you believe that gays should be able to serve in the military, and that there's nothing wrong with adult entertainment, then it's Sanchez service in uniform, not his servicing out of uniform, that should matter.
By way of background, Matt Sanchez is the new hero of the right wing -- a Marine, a student at Columbia, and a former porn star and male escort. He claims, in a round-about way, not to be gay, but allow me some scepticism: I can see performing in gay porn if you're straight, on the assumption that men evolved as sexual creatures, pure and simple, and will fuck anything with a hole. I have a harder time accepting the idea that anyone who does not like sex with men would offer himself as an escort. Of course, this may be a Ted Haggard moment -- just acting out.
Robbie at The Malcontent is a little too predictable in his first post on Matt Sanchez:
There's something about the beleaguered gay psyche that wants to prove to the world that everyone is just as messed up as they are. So, they start off with the term hypocrite and work their way backwards looking for signs of deviant behavior in hopes of discovering some type of bastard kinship. That's why I've had the term self-loathing thrown at me so often. The gay community eats its own in a frenzied hope of self-serving fulfillment. - Matt Sanchez
You know, I'm finding it very difficult to disagree with this sentiment in light of how certain quarters are reacting to Matt Sanchez. (Check out this bit of over the top hysteria. Get thee some valium).
Frankly, I find Sanchez' comment self-serving. After all, the best defense is a strong offense, and it's just too pat to come back to the perceived attacks with the tired old line about how we all hate ourselves and take it out on each other. I say "perceived" attacks because I'm having trouble finding them. Here's the Towleroad post that Robbie characterizes as "over the top hysteria." Excuse me? I found this comment by John Aravosis at AmericaBlog. It's shrill, but Aravosis is always shrill, about everything, so you can't take that as an indication of much. And here is the original post at Joe.My.God, which Shanchez characterized as vicious, and the interview with Joe and Sanchez. (It seems to me that if all you're interested in is trashing someone, you're not going to give them the opportunity to be heard on your own blog.
Robbie follows up the first post with this one, in which he grudgingly agrees with Matt Foreman:
This is in direct contradiction to the queerospheric hysterics attacking Sanchez and the mass amounts of vitriol currently being piled upon him. It seems to me, rather than attacking Sanchez, certain bloggers might have been wiser in using him as strong example against Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Instead, certain bloggers saw Republican, underwent the predictable radical queerwolf transformation, and brought out the claws.
(The interesting thing is that Pam Spaulding, who is usually among the more vitriolic of the left-wing gay bloggers, largely confines herself to Foreman's statement. In fact, she doesn't editorialize as much as Robbie does, at least as of this writing.)
Robbie, unfortunately, falls immediately into an all-too-predictable gay-left bashing (and let's refer back to Sanchez' comments about "self-loathing" and "devouring our own").
I even read Sanchez' famous OpEd, which turned out to be a string of conservatives cliches about the left, and tremendously self-serving. But then, he admits he wants to be heard as much as anyone does.
Of course, I had to check out GayPatriot, hoping (in vain) for a surprise. Bruce Carroll had had this to say:
One of the greatest things about our nation (as opposed to others) is that we give our fellow citizens a second, third, and fourth, etc. chance to re-do their lives. Here’s an extreme example… just to make my point…. It was amazing how Richard Nixon morphed from Constitutional Villian to Elder Cold War Statesman.
But does this spirit of tolerance and renewal extend to those who challenge moral standards? Does a gay porn star get a second, third, or fourth chance to do something else with his life? Apparently the Post-Clinton Angry Liberals say “NO!”
It is amazing how an issue like this really challenges the political stereotypes of who is truly tolerant. Most (not all) Liberals these days talk the talk, but can’t walk the walk. And most (not all) Conservatives that I know don’t preach but instead accept all Americans as individual gifts from God. I’d prefer the latter.
Case in point….. Contrast Michelle Malkin’s awesome post this morning on the Sanchez matter versus the hate-filled, angry liberal commenters at Joe.My.God.
Notice one thing: Michelle Malkin is cited as a contrast to the commenters at Joe.My.God. I find a pattern here: Commenters at blog posts are taken as the representatives of liberal thought, while the actual posters are virtually ignored (in this case, the comments by Joe himself might as well not exist). Sorry, not equivalent, and if Carroll honestly thinks they are, I think I deserve a pass on considering him shallow. However, if we're going to be fair (not something that I'd accuse Carroll of without serious thought), we should haul in Malkin's commenters, or those wonderful folks at LGF, as the counterpart, or put up someone like David Neiwert or Digby as the counterpart to Malkin. (Y'know, the left doesn't seem to have an Ann Coulter.)
There are also his comments about the Post-Clinton Angry Liberals and political stereotypes. Here's another place where I'm convinced GayPatriot and I do not inhabit the same universe. I'm still looking for the monolithic, goose-stepping PC leftists. They're probably someplace close to where I left my copy of the Gay Agenda. Carroll's blog lives on straw-men and red herrings, and this is just another example. I mean, c'mon -- we're talking about a political group that can't even get its shit together long enough to run a decent campaign and only wins elections when the right gets so repellent the voters have no other alternative. Sorry -- speaking with one mouth is not something you're going to find on the left side of the aisle. Why don't we just admit it?
Ah, but then who could we accuse of doing what we're doing while we're pointing at them?
You see why I tend to dismiss GayPatriot: Zero Credibility.
Notice also, in Sanchez' remarks as well as Carroll's (and for Carroll it seems to be a mantra) -- they are "patriotic Americans." In fact, Sanchez is a "red-blooded, flag-waving 100% American." OK -- a fast and easy one, no thought required. Just say you're patriotic, and of course that means your opponents (or should I call them enemies?) are not. Let's talk for a bit about shallow readings of "patriotism," the kind that play right into the hands of the people who are trying to dismantle the country.
To both Sanchez and Carroll: You're patriotic Americans, as opposed to what? Equally patriotic Americans who don't agree with you? Of course not -- the implication is that those who disagree are dirty raghead-loving, terrorist-supporting, Christian-burning, morally depraved America haters. Like me. And those who are reading this, most likely. So you know first-hand how correct that implication is. Cheap shot, and morally dishonest. In case you hadn't noticed, I'm really tired of the "hate-filled vitriol" remarks coming from a group that lionizes people like Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin.
Dan Blatt at GayPatriot has this take:
First, I probably have a different opinion of porn than Michelle Malkin and others on the right. While I don’t think acting, er, performing in such videos is a noble profession nor is it something to be proud of, it’s not an evil thing. As I wrote about Tom Malin’s escorting, “As long as he’s not coercing anyone and not having sex with minors, it’s his body. What Malin used to do may not be good for his soul.”
That said, the second issue is the more important one. He has changed and is no longer doing gay porn. If a man has changed his past behavior, then we should consider the man as he is, not as he once was. Again, as I wrote about Malin, “Jewish law teaches us that if someone does Teshuvah or repentance (the word itself literally means ‘return’), by forsaking his sin and not doing it again, it cannot be held against him.” We have all done things in our past that upon reflection, we wish we hadn’t done — or were appropriate at one time in our lives, but not in our present circumstances.
The interesting thing about the posts at GayPatriot, particularly Blatt's piece, is that they're predicated on the idea that performing in gay porn (or any porn, I would assume) and having been a male escort are bad. They are "mistakes" and we should move away from them. Why? (In case anyone's wondering, I favor legalizing prostitution and I have no problems with porn. OK, there's a major ick factor to some of it -- scat is just disgusting, child porn and snuff films are disgusting in another way. Some things should be illegal -- there's simply no justifying them.) I really don't care that Sanchez was an actor in gay porn or that he's been an escort.
I see it as a shallow, mass-market "morality" that is much too popular in this country (and in others, I'm sure) that has lost sight of morality as a guiding force that comes from firmly held values and sees it as a checklist of dos and don'ts that dictate behavior, not attitude. Remember, these are among the people who would want to burn me at the stake for being a Witch, while I consider Paganism as a religion to be a very tough one, requiring constant engagement if you're going to live your life by its Rule. There are no easy outs here. Consequently, who you sleep with is irrelevant, as long as it's someone who can make an adult decision to participate. How you treat them is the most important thing.
So why all the screaming about hypocrisy? That's not so easy to figure out. In Sanchez' case, I'm not going to even try -- I have no idea as to what his thought processes are, although this post is illuminating. It's just as self-serving as his OpEd, and revealing of the mindset that I mentioned immediately above:
I don’t like porn, it reduces the mind, flattens the soul. That’s not hypocrisy talking, that’s experience. If I started off with liberal leanings, being on a gay porn set should have been heaven. In porn, everything taboo is trivialized and everything trivial is projected. How does a conservative trace his roots to such distasteful beginnings?
Fine -- he doesn't like porn. That's "experience" talking. His experience, but it does, of course, apply to everyone, because if you're a red-blooded, flag waving 100% American (especially if you're a Marine, the most American of Americans), then you get to decide what everyone thinks.
I can't honestly call that "hypocrisy," just moral blindness with a big helping of arrogance. The Greeks called it "hubris" and felt it as great a moral failing as I do.
The hypocrisy, of course, rests firmly within the movement that Sanchez seems to think is the answer to all our problems. Sanchez's comment equating porn with liberalism (and I do take it as such, considering that the contrast is with porn and "conservatism" in its current warped incarnation) is hysterically funny. See my comments about mass-market morality if you want my take on projecting the trivial. So Sanchez feels our salvation is tied up with a movement that wants to use him but not acknowledge his basic humanity. How is this not hypocritical, on their part if not on his?
I will say that I see one area where Sanchez is a hypocrite, and that's playing the victim card. For the reasons I've noted, I don't see all the hatred and vitriol that he's claiming from the left. It appears to me that there's a lot of projection here, not only on his part.
(No, I'm not going to link to his escort page or any of the photos that are more revealing than the one on his blog. They're easy enough to find if you follow the links other people have provided. Besides, I don't find him all that attractive, although it might be different if I actually met him. Probably not -- I find his politics, at least what I know of them, repellent, but you never can tell.)
Update:
Finally, a post that could, if you really, really wanted it to, be characterized as "vitriolic." From TRex at Firedoglake:
You know, people like Michelle Malkin seem to think that progressive writers like me who are reporting on the sordid gay porn past of CPAC's 2007 Hate Camp poster-boy Matt Sanchez are "gleefully" dragging this story out into the light, and you know, for me, that couldn't be further from the truth. Last night on MSNBC's "Countdown With Keith Olbermann", I got name-checked by Max Blumenthal (Thanks, Max!) as someone who has been following the stories that keep emerging about highly-placed gay Republican operatives, but I can't say that these stories make me happy at all.
I have to slam TRex on the sordid issue, as well. Sorry, guys, this is not a no-brainer. I wish I were still sexy enough to make money from it. I truly do.
Update II:
Chris Crain gets one thing right:
But if you believe that gays should be able to serve in the military, and that there's nothing wrong with adult entertainment, then it's Sanchez service in uniform, not his servicing out of uniform, that should matter.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
The Map
I haven't looked at The Map for a few days -- still no hits from Antarctica, but some interesting developments. My major centers seem to be the San Francisco Bay area (thanks, Piet), Kansas City (?), D.C. and up through the Northeast, Atlanta, the Midwest, London, Sydney/Melbourne, a respectable showing from Germany (you're always welcome here, Firle), but I'm also getting a fair amount of traffic from Beijing, Manila, Hong Kong, what I'm guessing is Kuala Lumpur, Rio, and somewhere in South Africa (Johannesburg? Gads, has my geography gotten rusty!).
Sobering, that.
Must be the promise of naked men.
Really, it fascinates me to realize that I've had visitors from all over the world to a blog I never expected anyone to read -- and that they can find it.
You have to understand, we didn't have a TV until I was five or six. I sometimes wonder if technology hasn't outstripped my ability to comprehend it.
Sobering, that.
Must be the promise of naked men.
Really, it fascinates me to realize that I've had visitors from all over the world to a blog I never expected anyone to read -- and that they can find it.
You have to understand, we didn't have a TV until I was five or six. I sometimes wonder if technology hasn't outstripped my ability to comprehend it.
Sporadic
It's been a topsy-turvy week -- death in the family, with all attendant ceremonials (traditional Irish/Lithuanian funeral: wake, prayers, procession, mass, tavern), upsets affecting my already minimal income (which actually seem to be working out better for me, at least in the short term), the usual. Some interesting things to catch up on. I'll try to get to the Matt Sanchez story tomorrow. I'm already seeing some nice opportunities for surgical snark.
Ann Coulter: The Right's Most Natural Voice
Glenn Greenwald has a great post on just why Ann Coulter will continue to be lionized by the extreme right-wing.
Are there any journalists at all interested in figuring out why this is the case? If Coulter is such a blight on humanity, such a monument to indecency and all that is wretched in our political culture, what does it say about the political movement that has been running our country for the last six years (at least) that they embrace her so enthusiastically?
Coulter plays a vital and irreplaceable role in this movement. The reason I linked to that Bob Somerby post on Maureen Dowd yesterday is because he makes the critical point -- one which Digby, among others, has been making for a long time, including in a great post last night -- concerning how the right-wing movement conducts itself and the rhetorical tool they use not only to keep themselves in power, but more importantly, to keep their needy, confused, and scared base feeling strong and protected.
Here's the post by Digby that Greenwald refers to:
A lot of the shrieking aversion to the dirty hippie came from all that "feminine" hair on men's heads and "masculine" hair on women's bodies, if you'll recall. My brother was constantly harrassed about "looking like a girl" in 1966 Mississippi for having hair below his collar. In those days, hair was a political statement and even though forty years have passed and most of those people can only dream about all that hair they no longer have, the right successfully parlayed that gender role anxiety into a political narrative that continues to powerfully effect politics today.
Coulter is somewhat desperate so she's articulating this stuff in a crude and obvious fashion in order to keep her stale schtick going. But this concept is so ingrained in the political culture by now that the only thing that really stands out about it is the fact that she used an obvious epithet that is out of public fashion, even at a rightwing event.
Digby's footnote:
Of course,it goes without saying that none of this is to say that actually being gay or being called gay is a bad thing. It's just another dogwhistle they use to tease the lizard brains of their bigoted and repressed base (and peel off a few old people.) It's a silly construct that is not going to work for them much longer as both gays and women take and open and equal place in the leadership of the nation. Coulter's sad, campy threadbare show has the feel of a final tour to me.
I'm not so sure. The CPAC is already refusing to acknowledge that her comments were beyond the pale -- she'll be back next year, count on it. This is a point I made repeatedly in the comments at Ann Althouse's token post on Coulter -- she belongs to the right. They adore here, and they own her. Whatever she says is going to stick to them, and they're starting to realize that the country is moving away from them. That is why some of the right wingnuts are condemning the "faggot" remarks. That's the only reason -- as long as Coulter is their voice, they can't pretend to be civilized human beings. Sara Robinson at Orcinus sees it in a similar light.
I think Greenwald is missing a beat here, however:
Coulter insisted last night that she did not intend the remark as an anti-gay slur -- that she did not intend to suggest that John Edwards, husband and father, was gay -- but instead only used the word as a "schoolyard taunt," to call him a sissy. And that is true. Her aim was not to suggest that Edwards is actually gay, but simply to feminize him like they do with all male Democratic or liberal political leaders.
I don't buy it. She did it deliberately and it was meant as an insult. That's how she works. The very fact that Greenwald can cast this as "feminizing" Edwards plays right into that trope. It's a stereotype that her knuckle-dragging audience will eat up, no matter how much it contravenes observable reality, and I fault Greenwald for not seeing the layers here. Coulter is clever -- she not only insults Edwards by demasculinizing him, but she does it in a way that her church-going, bigoted base will lap up, by further marginalizing an already marginalized group.
This comment by Michelle Malkin is more than a little illuminating:
And there is a divided opinion among grass-roots conservatives about what she did. I was one of the people who condemned the raghead comment last year . . . . If going into 2008, that is what the Republican Party is trying to do and win back the Congress and take the Congress and win the White House, having her there is not going to be a help.
That's why the right wing is distancing itself from the "faggot" remark. Not because it's reprehensible, but because it's no longer socially acceptable to refer to gays that way and it will hurt their chances to take back Congress.
And don't forget that these are the people who will continually point to all the "anger and hatred" on the left and when pressed, come up with some anonymous commenter at some liberal blog (who could just as easily be a neo-fascist troll out to stir some shit). Here's an earlier post from Greenwald on that subject:
Precisely. And along those lines, several right-wing bloggers who did not sign the petition are running around today giddy because they think they found equivalent statements made by "prominent leftist figures" -- including such towering political leaders on the left as Conan O'Brien, Chris Rock, Alec Baldwin, Alexander Cockburn, Dan Savage, and Louis Farrakhan -- many of which are from 20 or 10 years ago, with the average being 8 years old.
The fact that they found such examples proves, they all claim in unison, that I "lied" in this post -- because my argument, of course, was that no liberal of any kind has ever said anything offensive or wrong in the entire history of the world, so finding examples where that happened -- no matter how isolated, stray, inconsequential, unrepresentative, or old -- proves that I'm a "liar." The reason I ignore most attacks from right-wing bloggers is not because I don't believe in the virtues of responding -- I do -- but because most of the attacks are at this level and it is honestly difficult to generate the motivation to reply (as but one helpful hint, if you want to accuse someone of "hypocrisy," you must (a) excerpt a standard the person has advocated and then (b) show how they have violated that standard; failure to follow steps (a) or (b) means that you have not made out a case for what is called "hypocrisy").
This is the moral foundation of the movement that has brought us wars of choice, torture as a routine interrogation technique, spying on American citizens, erosion of the Bill of Rights, lies and slander as the mode of political discourse, rigged elections, an economy manipulated for the benefit of the wealthy, a runaway executive accountable to no one, and a host of other choice tidbits. You can find echoes of this everywhere on the right, from Coulter to Malkin to Dobson to those masters of the invective falsehood, Hannity, Savage and Limbaugh. Their justification? Some anonymous liberal said something nasty once. And their followers just eat it up.
That's the Republican base -- a bunch of wannabe brown shirts. Sound extreme? Condemning a particular remark is easy and expected. One can go all the way from the nelly platitudes of Mitt Romney (a Coulterism: "Mitt? What kind of name is that for a grown man?") to the ineffectual puffing of the HRC. What's going to count, and the only thing that's going to count, is if she's cut off. No more plum speaking engagements. No more best sellers. No more free passes from the MSM (yeah, right -- the forecast in Hell is for continued unseasonably warm temperatures). Know what?
Ain't gonna happen.
Y'know what else? Couldn't happen to a nicer party.
Are there any journalists at all interested in figuring out why this is the case? If Coulter is such a blight on humanity, such a monument to indecency and all that is wretched in our political culture, what does it say about the political movement that has been running our country for the last six years (at least) that they embrace her so enthusiastically?
Coulter plays a vital and irreplaceable role in this movement. The reason I linked to that Bob Somerby post on Maureen Dowd yesterday is because he makes the critical point -- one which Digby, among others, has been making for a long time, including in a great post last night -- concerning how the right-wing movement conducts itself and the rhetorical tool they use not only to keep themselves in power, but more importantly, to keep their needy, confused, and scared base feeling strong and protected.
Here's the post by Digby that Greenwald refers to:
A lot of the shrieking aversion to the dirty hippie came from all that "feminine" hair on men's heads and "masculine" hair on women's bodies, if you'll recall. My brother was constantly harrassed about "looking like a girl" in 1966 Mississippi for having hair below his collar. In those days, hair was a political statement and even though forty years have passed and most of those people can only dream about all that hair they no longer have, the right successfully parlayed that gender role anxiety into a political narrative that continues to powerfully effect politics today.
Coulter is somewhat desperate so she's articulating this stuff in a crude and obvious fashion in order to keep her stale schtick going. But this concept is so ingrained in the political culture by now that the only thing that really stands out about it is the fact that she used an obvious epithet that is out of public fashion, even at a rightwing event.
Digby's footnote:
Of course,it goes without saying that none of this is to say that actually being gay or being called gay is a bad thing. It's just another dogwhistle they use to tease the lizard brains of their bigoted and repressed base (and peel off a few old people.) It's a silly construct that is not going to work for them much longer as both gays and women take and open and equal place in the leadership of the nation. Coulter's sad, campy threadbare show has the feel of a final tour to me.
I'm not so sure. The CPAC is already refusing to acknowledge that her comments were beyond the pale -- she'll be back next year, count on it. This is a point I made repeatedly in the comments at Ann Althouse's token post on Coulter -- she belongs to the right. They adore here, and they own her. Whatever she says is going to stick to them, and they're starting to realize that the country is moving away from them. That is why some of the right wingnuts are condemning the "faggot" remarks. That's the only reason -- as long as Coulter is their voice, they can't pretend to be civilized human beings. Sara Robinson at Orcinus sees it in a similar light.
I think Greenwald is missing a beat here, however:
Coulter insisted last night that she did not intend the remark as an anti-gay slur -- that she did not intend to suggest that John Edwards, husband and father, was gay -- but instead only used the word as a "schoolyard taunt," to call him a sissy. And that is true. Her aim was not to suggest that Edwards is actually gay, but simply to feminize him like they do with all male Democratic or liberal political leaders.
I don't buy it. She did it deliberately and it was meant as an insult. That's how she works. The very fact that Greenwald can cast this as "feminizing" Edwards plays right into that trope. It's a stereotype that her knuckle-dragging audience will eat up, no matter how much it contravenes observable reality, and I fault Greenwald for not seeing the layers here. Coulter is clever -- she not only insults Edwards by demasculinizing him, but she does it in a way that her church-going, bigoted base will lap up, by further marginalizing an already marginalized group.
This comment by Michelle Malkin is more than a little illuminating:
And there is a divided opinion among grass-roots conservatives about what she did. I was one of the people who condemned the raghead comment last year . . . . If going into 2008, that is what the Republican Party is trying to do and win back the Congress and take the Congress and win the White House, having her there is not going to be a help.
That's why the right wing is distancing itself from the "faggot" remark. Not because it's reprehensible, but because it's no longer socially acceptable to refer to gays that way and it will hurt their chances to take back Congress.
And don't forget that these are the people who will continually point to all the "anger and hatred" on the left and when pressed, come up with some anonymous commenter at some liberal blog (who could just as easily be a neo-fascist troll out to stir some shit). Here's an earlier post from Greenwald on that subject:
Precisely. And along those lines, several right-wing bloggers who did not sign the petition are running around today giddy because they think they found equivalent statements made by "prominent leftist figures" -- including such towering political leaders on the left as Conan O'Brien, Chris Rock, Alec Baldwin, Alexander Cockburn, Dan Savage, and Louis Farrakhan -- many of which are from 20 or 10 years ago, with the average being 8 years old.
The fact that they found such examples proves, they all claim in unison, that I "lied" in this post -- because my argument, of course, was that no liberal of any kind has ever said anything offensive or wrong in the entire history of the world, so finding examples where that happened -- no matter how isolated, stray, inconsequential, unrepresentative, or old -- proves that I'm a "liar." The reason I ignore most attacks from right-wing bloggers is not because I don't believe in the virtues of responding -- I do -- but because most of the attacks are at this level and it is honestly difficult to generate the motivation to reply (as but one helpful hint, if you want to accuse someone of "hypocrisy," you must (a) excerpt a standard the person has advocated and then (b) show how they have violated that standard; failure to follow steps (a) or (b) means that you have not made out a case for what is called "hypocrisy").
This is the moral foundation of the movement that has brought us wars of choice, torture as a routine interrogation technique, spying on American citizens, erosion of the Bill of Rights, lies and slander as the mode of political discourse, rigged elections, an economy manipulated for the benefit of the wealthy, a runaway executive accountable to no one, and a host of other choice tidbits. You can find echoes of this everywhere on the right, from Coulter to Malkin to Dobson to those masters of the invective falsehood, Hannity, Savage and Limbaugh. Their justification? Some anonymous liberal said something nasty once. And their followers just eat it up.
That's the Republican base -- a bunch of wannabe brown shirts. Sound extreme? Condemning a particular remark is easy and expected. One can go all the way from the nelly platitudes of Mitt Romney (a Coulterism: "Mitt? What kind of name is that for a grown man?") to the ineffectual puffing of the HRC. What's going to count, and the only thing that's going to count, is if she's cut off. No more plum speaking engagements. No more best sellers. No more free passes from the MSM (yeah, right -- the forecast in Hell is for continued unseasonably warm temperatures). Know what?
Ain't gonna happen.
Y'know what else? Couldn't happen to a nicer party.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
HRC
No, the other HRC, the one that, as far as I'm concerned, has always been pretty much irrelevant. Which is why I don't normally join Chris Crain, GayPatriot, The Malcontent, Michael Petrelis, and a cast of thousands condemning them. I don't particularly trust national advocacy organizations to keep their eyes on the ball, and never did. I've scored them on the marriage issue and a few other things and let it go at that.
Nor am I a Democrat. Never have been. Registered Independent. (Although in Illinois, we're not required to register to a party.)
So, just to make it clear: as far as I'm concerned, by moving into the Democratic Party, HRC has made itself even less relevant as far as I'm concerned, if that's possible. As long as they're not dangerous, I'm not going to bother with them.
(Note: It should be clear, as well, from some of the brickbats thrown by John Aravosis and Pam Spaulding, in addition to those named above, that HRC does not have significant support in the blogosphere. It's not a partisan thing. It's a gay thing.)
Nor am I a Democrat. Never have been. Registered Independent. (Although in Illinois, we're not required to register to a party.)
So, just to make it clear: as far as I'm concerned, by moving into the Democratic Party, HRC has made itself even less relevant as far as I'm concerned, if that's possible. As long as they're not dangerous, I'm not going to bother with them.
(Note: It should be clear, as well, from some of the brickbats thrown by John Aravosis and Pam Spaulding, in addition to those named above, that HRC does not have significant support in the blogosphere. It's not a partisan thing. It's a gay thing.)
Walter Reed Update
It's in the news, but reader PietB alerted us to this WaPo editorial at Truthout on the Walter Reed mess. It seems Gen. Weightman, who has commanded the facility for only six months, has been relieved of his command and replaced by Gen Kevin C. Kiley, who commanded for the two years previous and painted a rosy picture for Congress of conditions at Walter Reed and specifically Building 18. And now he's back?
But the evidence compiled so far suggests that Gen. Kiley has been more complicit in the scandalous neglect of Walter Reed's outpatient facilities for longer than Gen. Weightman has been. It also indicates that the Army's reshuffle is really about projecting the appearance of accountability, not punishing those most responsible. As Mr. Young said yesterday of Gen. Weightman, "I don't know him. But I know he's the fall guy."
That seems to be one of the major themes for the entire administration: no one's accountable except the patsy. It gets worse. From Army Times:
The letter said the Defense Department “systemically” tried to replace federal workers at Walter Reed with private companies for facilities management, patient care and guard duty – a process that began in 2000.
“But the push to privatize support services there accelerated under President Bush’s ‘competitive sourcing’ initiative, which was launched in 2002,” the letter states.
During the year between awarding the contract to IAP and when the company started, “skilled government workers apparently began leaving Walter Reed in droves,” the letter states. “The memorandum also indicates that officials at the highest levels of Walter Reed and the U.S. Army Medical Command were informed about the dangers of privatization, but appeared to do little to prevent them.”
The memo signed by [Garrison Commander Peter] Garibaldi requests more federal employees because the hospital mission had grown “significantly” during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It states that medical command did not concur with their request for more people.
“Without favorable consideration of these requests,” Garibaldi wrote, “[Walter Reed Army Medical Center] Base Operations and patient care services are at risk of mission failure.”
Compare this description of how veterans are treated in France. By Chris at AmericaBlog.
As I listen to the Republican smear machine get started in their attacks on nationalized health care and their quietness during the years of mistreatment of US soldiers returning from Iraq, I have to wonder whose interests they are protecting. From my vantage point I just scratch my head and wonder why this crowd is so against being there for soldiers and citizens who are in need. I know France is not popular with that crowd because France was correct about Iraq, but what I see is a country that actually stands up for its vets and is there during times of need. France is a country that has found a way to implement a top ranked health care system where its people are covered and its veterans are treated with proper care and respect.
Shame on us.
But the evidence compiled so far suggests that Gen. Kiley has been more complicit in the scandalous neglect of Walter Reed's outpatient facilities for longer than Gen. Weightman has been. It also indicates that the Army's reshuffle is really about projecting the appearance of accountability, not punishing those most responsible. As Mr. Young said yesterday of Gen. Weightman, "I don't know him. But I know he's the fall guy."
That seems to be one of the major themes for the entire administration: no one's accountable except the patsy. It gets worse. From Army Times:
The letter said the Defense Department “systemically” tried to replace federal workers at Walter Reed with private companies for facilities management, patient care and guard duty – a process that began in 2000.
“But the push to privatize support services there accelerated under President Bush’s ‘competitive sourcing’ initiative, which was launched in 2002,” the letter states.
During the year between awarding the contract to IAP and when the company started, “skilled government workers apparently began leaving Walter Reed in droves,” the letter states. “The memorandum also indicates that officials at the highest levels of Walter Reed and the U.S. Army Medical Command were informed about the dangers of privatization, but appeared to do little to prevent them.”
The memo signed by [Garrison Commander Peter] Garibaldi requests more federal employees because the hospital mission had grown “significantly” during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It states that medical command did not concur with their request for more people.
“Without favorable consideration of these requests,” Garibaldi wrote, “[Walter Reed Army Medical Center] Base Operations and patient care services are at risk of mission failure.”
Compare this description of how veterans are treated in France. By Chris at AmericaBlog.
As I listen to the Republican smear machine get started in their attacks on nationalized health care and their quietness during the years of mistreatment of US soldiers returning from Iraq, I have to wonder whose interests they are protecting. From my vantage point I just scratch my head and wonder why this crowd is so against being there for soldiers and citizens who are in need. I know France is not popular with that crowd because France was correct about Iraq, but what I see is a country that actually stands up for its vets and is there during times of need. France is a country that has found a way to implement a top ranked health care system where its people are covered and its veterans are treated with proper care and respect.
Shame on us.
Ann Coulter, God's Gift to the Democrats
NYT weighs in:
Ms. Coulter, asked for a reaction to the Republican criticism, said in an e-mail message: “C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.”
Keep talking, Ann. It's music to the ears of everyone who wants to see the wingnuts lose it all.
Ann Althouse spends an entire post proving that she's not Ann Coulter.
It's been interesting reading the comments on some of these posts. Coulter has her defenders (which in itself is enough to condemn "conservatives" to eternal perdition, in my opinion), including those who allow that her delivery gets in the way of her "message" (I've read a column or two, and I have to say, there's a message?). And of course, Michael Moore and Kos get hauled into the argument, as well as the "it's a free country" crowd (to whom my response was "yes it is, which means I'm free to treat her like a foul-mouthed, hateful creep").
And then of course, there are those who think it's OK because they don't approve of the "hommaseksual lifestyle." By all gods beneficent, I find it hard to believe that anyone who gets information anyplace besides Agape Press still can say that with a straight face.
The bottom line, and this is it for Coulter (whom we should all ignore, and as soon as you can persude NYT, WaPo, Fox, CNN, and the other major outlets, I'll be happy to go along):
She did it deliberately, as an insult to Edwards. Her defense was equally insulting, not only to Edwards but to gays -- she obviously thinks it's just fine to use us as a joke, and a cheap one at that. And she got applause for it from a group of "conservatives."
Maybe this story shouldn't die. I'd recommend to HRC and any other arm of the Democratic Party that they show the video clip regularly for the next two years. "This is the Republican Party."
Update:
Digby has interesting analysis (as usual) of the ramifications of Coulter-worship on the right.
Update II:
And David Neiwert has an equally interesting post on Coulter as the bellwether of "conservative" mantras.
Udate III:
(I obviously should have done some more reading before I posted.)
Pam Spaulding notes something that I only alluded to:
Why say this:
...when you can't even spend one paragraph explaining what hate is being riled up? Certainly if she had belted out "nigger," we would have seen releases go out mentioning "racism" and black people.
I can't even begin to address the fact that the Edwards campaign used this as an e-fundraising tactic right out of the box. It cheapens the message beyond all reason. This required a separate response not tied to an ATM request.
If you're a homo, the message from Dems is that we're still invisible (see Dean's statement), the crazy granny in the attic, and only the granny's nearly feeble caretaker is allowed to say anything -- and even HRC never mentions gays or lesbians at all in its release (outside of its irrelevant boilerplate at the end). Even our advocacy organization couldn't find a paragraph to place Coulter's comments into context of the larger issue of homophobia.
It's like I said with Romney: platitudes don't get full points.
Ms. Coulter, asked for a reaction to the Republican criticism, said in an e-mail message: “C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.”
Keep talking, Ann. It's music to the ears of everyone who wants to see the wingnuts lose it all.
Ann Althouse spends an entire post proving that she's not Ann Coulter.
It's been interesting reading the comments on some of these posts. Coulter has her defenders (which in itself is enough to condemn "conservatives" to eternal perdition, in my opinion), including those who allow that her delivery gets in the way of her "message" (I've read a column or two, and I have to say, there's a message?). And of course, Michael Moore and Kos get hauled into the argument, as well as the "it's a free country" crowd (to whom my response was "yes it is, which means I'm free to treat her like a foul-mouthed, hateful creep").
And then of course, there are those who think it's OK because they don't approve of the "hommaseksual lifestyle." By all gods beneficent, I find it hard to believe that anyone who gets information anyplace besides Agape Press still can say that with a straight face.
The bottom line, and this is it for Coulter (whom we should all ignore, and as soon as you can persude NYT, WaPo, Fox, CNN, and the other major outlets, I'll be happy to go along):
She did it deliberately, as an insult to Edwards. Her defense was equally insulting, not only to Edwards but to gays -- she obviously thinks it's just fine to use us as a joke, and a cheap one at that. And she got applause for it from a group of "conservatives."
Maybe this story shouldn't die. I'd recommend to HRC and any other arm of the Democratic Party that they show the video clip regularly for the next two years. "This is the Republican Party."
Update:
Digby has interesting analysis (as usual) of the ramifications of Coulter-worship on the right.
Update II:
And David Neiwert has an equally interesting post on Coulter as the bellwether of "conservative" mantras.
Udate III:
(I obviously should have done some more reading before I posted.)
Pam Spaulding notes something that I only alluded to:
Why say this:
Coulter's resorting to the classic right-wing strategy of riling up hate to smear a progressive champion.
...when you can't even spend one paragraph explaining what hate is being riled up? Certainly if she had belted out "nigger," we would have seen releases go out mentioning "racism" and black people.
I can't even begin to address the fact that the Edwards campaign used this as an e-fundraising tactic right out of the box. It cheapens the message beyond all reason. This required a separate response not tied to an ATM request.
If you're a homo, the message from Dems is that we're still invisible (see Dean's statement), the crazy granny in the attic, and only the granny's nearly feeble caretaker is allowed to say anything -- and even HRC never mentions gays or lesbians at all in its release (outside of its irrelevant boilerplate at the end). Even our advocacy organization couldn't find a paragraph to place Coulter's comments into context of the larger issue of homophobia.
It's like I said with Romney: platitudes don't get full points.
Saturday, March 03, 2007
The Torture President
I haven't had a chance to read this story yet, ironically enough, since I work at this paper. And Andrew Sullivan beat me to the link.
Nuts.
Nuts.
Ann Coulter? Oh, Yes, Republicans Have A Real Problem
Long post. Brace yourselves.
Here's the E&P story on Ann Coulter's "faggot" reference to John Edwards, and the notable lack of MSM coverage, which John Aravosis at AmericaBlog also comments on. Like, there was almost none.
Coulter's even getting brickbats from her fellow wingnuts. From E&P:
The remarks also drew disapproval from some popular conservative commentators. Ed Morrissey on his Captain's Quarters blog wrote: "Yeah, that's just what CPAC needs -- an association with homophobia. Nice work, Ann."
Michelle Malkin expressed disapproval, and at her Hot Air site regular contributor "Bryan" wrote: "I’m no fan of John Edwards, but that’s just a stupid joke. It’s over the line. The laughter it generated across the room was more than a little annoying. Last year it was 'raghead.' This year it’s calling John Edwards a 'faggot.' Two years in a row, Coulter has finished up an otherwise sharp CPAC routine with an obnoxious slur that liberals will fling at conservatives for years to come. Thanks, Ann."
Well, one wingnut and one fairly responsible commentator. Sorry, Ed, but you're known by the company you keep.
Joe Sudbay at AmericaBlog has a good post on the Coulter story that brings up at least one very interesting observation.
During the 2004 campaign, comedian Whoopi Goldberg told a joke about George Bush at a fundraiser attended by John Kerry. The right wing erupted and the media went agog over it. The Bush White House led the charge against the comedian trying to keep the story alive. Ken Mehlman was particularly riled up. Then everyone in the right wing demanded John Kerry apologize and rebuke Whoopi, who is, again, a comedian.
The traditional media does not hold GOP candidates accountable for the hate speech of top GOP commentators. Didn't hear a peep about Coulter on the Today Show this morning. Even though Coulter is a frequent guest on that show. Besides Fox and UPI, the only outlet to cover Coulter's faggot remark was the LA Times and guess what? No response from the GOP Presidential candidates.
And you won't hear one.
Andrew Sullivan was apparently an eyewitness. He's never been a fan of Coulter, but I think he's finally waking up to some harsh realities:
When you see her in such a context, you realize that she truly represents the heart and soul of contemporary conservative activism, especially among the young. The standing ovation for Romney was nothing like the eruption of enthusiasm that greeted her. One young conservative male told her he was single and asked for her cell-phone number. Other young Republicans were almost overwhelmed in her presence. "When are you going to get your own show?" one asked, tremulously. Then there's her insistence on Christianism as the central message for Republicans: "There are more people voting on Christian moral values than on tax cuts." This from an unmarried woman who wears dresses that are close to bikinis on the morning news. Hey, it's Democrats who are Godless.
He even admits it, which is not something you're normally going to find from the right side of the aisle:
I guess I've been a bit of a smug ironist who just got mugged by conservative reality.
I have to allow, though, that's just another way Sullivan doesn't fit the conservative mold -- eventually, he'll admit he was wrong.
More compare-and-contrast from Glenn Greenwald:
There are much more important topics to discuss -- like the anonymous commenters at Huffington Post and the bad words said by the bloggers hired for low-level positions by the Edwards campaign. Those are matters of the gravest importance meriting the most solemn condemnation and righteous outrage from all decent people. Those HuffPost commenters have uttered terrible thoughts, and that shows the anger, venom and hatred on the left, among liberals. It is cause for great alarm -- and for headlines.
But the single most prestigious political event for conservatives of the year is a place where conservatives go to hear Democrats called faggots, Arabs called ragheads, and Supreme Court justices labeled as deserving of murder -- not by anonymous, unidentifiable blog commenters, but by one of their most popular featured speakers.
One error I found in Greenwald's post -- he refers to the "books she wrote." I think he really means the books she plagiarized.
My own feelings about Coulter are simply this: She's as good as admitted that she's in it for the money. If she were working the Strip at Vegas, she probably couldn't make a living, so I suppose if you're going to be a whore, be a whore with a fan club that includes Mitt Romney and Dick Cheney.
(By the way, where are the Cheneys in all this? If it's not appropriate to use the word lesbian when it happens to be the truth, why is it OK to use the word "faggot" when it's not? Mary? Any comment?)
Greenwald goes on:
This is a movement propelled by an insatiable hunger for more slaughter and more wars. It is centrally dependent upon hatred of an Enemy, foreign or domestic -- the Terrorist, the Immigrant, the Faggot, the Raghead, and most of all, the Liberal. As John Dean brilliantly documented, that is the only real feature that binds the "conservative" movement at this point, the only attribute that gives it identity and purpose. It does not have any affirmative ideas, only a sense of that which it hates and wants to destroy. So to watch as the crowd wildly cheers an unapologetic hatemonger is perfectly natural and not at all surprising. . . .
This is not about a single comment or isolated remark. The more Ann Coulter says these things, the more popular she becomes in this movement. What this is about is that she reflects exactly what sort of political movement this is. She reflects its true impulses and core beliefs. If that were not the case, why would she continue to receive top billing at their most prestigious events, and why would she continue to be lavished with rock star-adoration by the party faithful?
Which brings us back to the comments by Aravosis and Sudbay: Where is the press? You know, the one with the liberal bias?
(crickets)
"Not newsworthy." Sure.
Apparently The Malcontent doesn't think Coulter's remarks are newsworthy at all. Nope -- the big anti-gay, hateful, bigoted story of the week is a Latino comedian on an HBO special. I'm happy to say that GayPatriot comes down on the side of reason on this one -- with the caveat, of course, that Libruls are just as bad, if not worse.
But let me offer this observation: I have no doubt that Ann’s remarks will make all of the national news networks and will be endlessly repeated. Fine. They should be assailed.
But why the complete silence by the same networks on the Leftist Bloggers cheering the attempted assassination of the Vice President of the United States?
But, strangely enough, no links to all those hateful leftists. And, if you'll note the posts by the guys at AmericaBlog above, all the national news networks are ignoring the Coulter story, at least at this point.
Nice try, Bruce.
Captain Ed, I think, hits it on the head:
Also, if CPAC continues to invite Coulter to these events, then unfortunately, these little rhetorical bombs reflect on conservatives. We just spent most of the week criticizing John McCain for not meeting the conservative base at CPAC. If Coulter said this in an interview on her own, it would not have reflected on CPAC or conservatives but on herself. Yesterday, though, she used our platform for that little nugget of vileness -- and some in the audience cheered her for it. Conclusions can reasonably be drawn from that.
Yes, conclusions can be and are being drawn from that. See Glenn Greenwald's post on it.
Reading through the comments at Captain Ed's, I think I would agree with Greenwald that the Republicans have a real problem. As long as they're lionizing "spokesmen" like Coulter, they will be identified with all that nastiness. Amazingly, to me, there are still those who are chanting the "lifestyle/choice/moral degenerate" mantras that, to anyone on the front lines, have absolutely no contact with reality. They should avail themselves of some information that doesn't come from James Dobson (which source, is, let's face it, worse than having no information at all).
Update:
Before I even got it posted. OK, I was wrong about the Republican presidential candidates not responding. Well, two of them, at least. From the NYT Blog:
Democrats were not the only denouncing Ms. Coulter. “The comments were wildly inappropriate,” said Brian Jones, a spokesman for Senator John McCain, a Republican candidate for president who did not attend.
Kevin Madden, a spokesman for Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, said: “It was an offensive remark. Governor Romney believes all people should be treated with dignity and respect.
Neither one is strong enough for me, actually, but McCain at least gets a point. Romney gets half a point. If he rejects Coulter's endorsement, he gets another point and a half. (Why a half-point for Romney? I'll tell you: the minute you get into the "all people should. . . " thing, you've softened your remark. It's no longer a response, it's a platitude. No full points for platitudes.)
Be interesting to see how this develops.
Update II:
Robbie of The Malcontent wasn't fast enough to condemn Coulter to suit me, he thinks. (See the Comments). OK -- he's redeemed himself. Big time.
Naked bigotry has a way of clarifying issues and rendering certain arguments impotent. During the civil rights struggle during the 1960s, few images were more powerful than the television coverage of black citizens being attacked by dogs or assaulted with fire hoses. That, more than anything, galvanized average citizens to correct injustice. It is no doubt unfair to compare Coulter’s one remark to the severity of those times and incidents - they’re not comparable - but the sentiment is similar: when injustice and bigotry are stripped of their linguistic distance and placed in front of the average citizen, the average citizen shifts.
I think Ann Coulter has just given us one of our best weapons to combat anti-gay sentiment in the 2008 campaign. I hope we use it wisely.
I think he's right. It's an elegantly crafted and thoughtful post -- read the whole thing.
I should point out something that I think is appropriate here: I have almost never voted a straight ticket in my life. Three times, and I've been voting for a long time. Two of those times were the last two presidential elections. I will continue to vote a straight Democratic ticket in national elections until the Christianists are relegated to the fringes of the Republican party and hateful demagogues like Coulter are no longer slobbered over at major Republican political events.
Here's the E&P story on Ann Coulter's "faggot" reference to John Edwards, and the notable lack of MSM coverage, which John Aravosis at AmericaBlog also comments on. Like, there was almost none.
Coulter's even getting brickbats from her fellow wingnuts. From E&P:
The remarks also drew disapproval from some popular conservative commentators. Ed Morrissey on his Captain's Quarters blog wrote: "Yeah, that's just what CPAC needs -- an association with homophobia. Nice work, Ann."
Michelle Malkin expressed disapproval, and at her Hot Air site regular contributor "Bryan" wrote: "I’m no fan of John Edwards, but that’s just a stupid joke. It’s over the line. The laughter it generated across the room was more than a little annoying. Last year it was 'raghead.' This year it’s calling John Edwards a 'faggot.' Two years in a row, Coulter has finished up an otherwise sharp CPAC routine with an obnoxious slur that liberals will fling at conservatives for years to come. Thanks, Ann."
Well, one wingnut and one fairly responsible commentator. Sorry, Ed, but you're known by the company you keep.
Joe Sudbay at AmericaBlog has a good post on the Coulter story that brings up at least one very interesting observation.
During the 2004 campaign, comedian Whoopi Goldberg told a joke about George Bush at a fundraiser attended by John Kerry. The right wing erupted and the media went agog over it. The Bush White House led the charge against the comedian trying to keep the story alive. Ken Mehlman was particularly riled up. Then everyone in the right wing demanded John Kerry apologize and rebuke Whoopi, who is, again, a comedian.
The traditional media does not hold GOP candidates accountable for the hate speech of top GOP commentators. Didn't hear a peep about Coulter on the Today Show this morning. Even though Coulter is a frequent guest on that show. Besides Fox and UPI, the only outlet to cover Coulter's faggot remark was the LA Times and guess what? No response from the GOP Presidential candidates.
And you won't hear one.
Andrew Sullivan was apparently an eyewitness. He's never been a fan of Coulter, but I think he's finally waking up to some harsh realities:
When you see her in such a context, you realize that she truly represents the heart and soul of contemporary conservative activism, especially among the young. The standing ovation for Romney was nothing like the eruption of enthusiasm that greeted her. One young conservative male told her he was single and asked for her cell-phone number. Other young Republicans were almost overwhelmed in her presence. "When are you going to get your own show?" one asked, tremulously. Then there's her insistence on Christianism as the central message for Republicans: "There are more people voting on Christian moral values than on tax cuts." This from an unmarried woman who wears dresses that are close to bikinis on the morning news. Hey, it's Democrats who are Godless.
He even admits it, which is not something you're normally going to find from the right side of the aisle:
I guess I've been a bit of a smug ironist who just got mugged by conservative reality.
I have to allow, though, that's just another way Sullivan doesn't fit the conservative mold -- eventually, he'll admit he was wrong.
More compare-and-contrast from Glenn Greenwald:
There are much more important topics to discuss -- like the anonymous commenters at Huffington Post and the bad words said by the bloggers hired for low-level positions by the Edwards campaign. Those are matters of the gravest importance meriting the most solemn condemnation and righteous outrage from all decent people. Those HuffPost commenters have uttered terrible thoughts, and that shows the anger, venom and hatred on the left, among liberals. It is cause for great alarm -- and for headlines.
But the single most prestigious political event for conservatives of the year is a place where conservatives go to hear Democrats called faggots, Arabs called ragheads, and Supreme Court justices labeled as deserving of murder -- not by anonymous, unidentifiable blog commenters, but by one of their most popular featured speakers.
One error I found in Greenwald's post -- he refers to the "books she wrote." I think he really means the books she plagiarized.
My own feelings about Coulter are simply this: She's as good as admitted that she's in it for the money. If she were working the Strip at Vegas, she probably couldn't make a living, so I suppose if you're going to be a whore, be a whore with a fan club that includes Mitt Romney and Dick Cheney.
(By the way, where are the Cheneys in all this? If it's not appropriate to use the word lesbian when it happens to be the truth, why is it OK to use the word "faggot" when it's not? Mary? Any comment?)
Greenwald goes on:
This is a movement propelled by an insatiable hunger for more slaughter and more wars. It is centrally dependent upon hatred of an Enemy, foreign or domestic -- the Terrorist, the Immigrant, the Faggot, the Raghead, and most of all, the Liberal. As John Dean brilliantly documented, that is the only real feature that binds the "conservative" movement at this point, the only attribute that gives it identity and purpose. It does not have any affirmative ideas, only a sense of that which it hates and wants to destroy. So to watch as the crowd wildly cheers an unapologetic hatemonger is perfectly natural and not at all surprising. . . .
This is not about a single comment or isolated remark. The more Ann Coulter says these things, the more popular she becomes in this movement. What this is about is that she reflects exactly what sort of political movement this is. She reflects its true impulses and core beliefs. If that were not the case, why would she continue to receive top billing at their most prestigious events, and why would she continue to be lavished with rock star-adoration by the party faithful?
Which brings us back to the comments by Aravosis and Sudbay: Where is the press? You know, the one with the liberal bias?
(crickets)
"Not newsworthy." Sure.
Apparently The Malcontent doesn't think Coulter's remarks are newsworthy at all. Nope -- the big anti-gay, hateful, bigoted story of the week is a Latino comedian on an HBO special. I'm happy to say that GayPatriot comes down on the side of reason on this one -- with the caveat, of course, that Libruls are just as bad, if not worse.
But let me offer this observation: I have no doubt that Ann’s remarks will make all of the national news networks and will be endlessly repeated. Fine. They should be assailed.
But why the complete silence by the same networks on the Leftist Bloggers cheering the attempted assassination of the Vice President of the United States?
But, strangely enough, no links to all those hateful leftists. And, if you'll note the posts by the guys at AmericaBlog above, all the national news networks are ignoring the Coulter story, at least at this point.
Nice try, Bruce.
Captain Ed, I think, hits it on the head:
Also, if CPAC continues to invite Coulter to these events, then unfortunately, these little rhetorical bombs reflect on conservatives. We just spent most of the week criticizing John McCain for not meeting the conservative base at CPAC. If Coulter said this in an interview on her own, it would not have reflected on CPAC or conservatives but on herself. Yesterday, though, she used our platform for that little nugget of vileness -- and some in the audience cheered her for it. Conclusions can reasonably be drawn from that.
Yes, conclusions can be and are being drawn from that. See Glenn Greenwald's post on it.
Reading through the comments at Captain Ed's, I think I would agree with Greenwald that the Republicans have a real problem. As long as they're lionizing "spokesmen" like Coulter, they will be identified with all that nastiness. Amazingly, to me, there are still those who are chanting the "lifestyle/choice/moral degenerate" mantras that, to anyone on the front lines, have absolutely no contact with reality. They should avail themselves of some information that doesn't come from James Dobson (which source, is, let's face it, worse than having no information at all).
Update:
Before I even got it posted. OK, I was wrong about the Republican presidential candidates not responding. Well, two of them, at least. From the NYT Blog:
Democrats were not the only denouncing Ms. Coulter. “The comments were wildly inappropriate,” said Brian Jones, a spokesman for Senator John McCain, a Republican candidate for president who did not attend.
Kevin Madden, a spokesman for Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, said: “It was an offensive remark. Governor Romney believes all people should be treated with dignity and respect.
Neither one is strong enough for me, actually, but McCain at least gets a point. Romney gets half a point. If he rejects Coulter's endorsement, he gets another point and a half. (Why a half-point for Romney? I'll tell you: the minute you get into the "all people should. . . " thing, you've softened your remark. It's no longer a response, it's a platitude. No full points for platitudes.)
Be interesting to see how this develops.
Update II:
Robbie of The Malcontent wasn't fast enough to condemn Coulter to suit me, he thinks. (See the Comments). OK -- he's redeemed himself. Big time.
Naked bigotry has a way of clarifying issues and rendering certain arguments impotent. During the civil rights struggle during the 1960s, few images were more powerful than the television coverage of black citizens being attacked by dogs or assaulted with fire hoses. That, more than anything, galvanized average citizens to correct injustice. It is no doubt unfair to compare Coulter’s one remark to the severity of those times and incidents - they’re not comparable - but the sentiment is similar: when injustice and bigotry are stripped of their linguistic distance and placed in front of the average citizen, the average citizen shifts.
I think Ann Coulter has just given us one of our best weapons to combat anti-gay sentiment in the 2008 campaign. I hope we use it wisely.
I think he's right. It's an elegantly crafted and thoughtful post -- read the whole thing.
I should point out something that I think is appropriate here: I have almost never voted a straight ticket in my life. Three times, and I've been voting for a long time. Two of those times were the last two presidential elections. I will continue to vote a straight Democratic ticket in national elections until the Christianists are relegated to the fringes of the Republican party and hateful demagogues like Coulter are no longer slobbered over at major Republican political events.
Friday, March 02, 2007
Iran, Etc.
It would seem to me that diplomatic negotiations on the Middle East situation including Iran and Syria is a no-brainer. See Glenn Greenwald's comments on the neocon reaction to the idea.
U.S. Attorneys: The Purge
I haven't remarked much on this story, but Josh Marshall has been right on top of it. See his recent posts on the new revelations about the involvement of Pete Domenici and Heather Wilson in New Mexico in pressuring a U.S. Attorney. The House is now issuing subpoenas to get the fired attorneys to talk.
This is going to get very interesting, if all too predictable.
This is going to get very interesting, if all too predictable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)