THE GUTSY LESBIAN GIRL, THE CREEPY FAUX PROM, AND THE SOMEWHAT HAPPIER ENDING
A new chapter just occurred in the case of Constance McMillen, the Mississippi teenager who made national news when she was forbidden to take her lesbian girlfriend to her high school prom. (She was also forbidden to wear a tux to the prom and told she had to wear a dress—demonstrating that the school is not only mean and discriminatory, but also fashion clueless.)
Constance did not quietly go away, but challenged the school’s policy. And the ACLU backed her up. (Go, Constance!)
When faced with a possible discrimination lawsuit, Itawamba Agricultural High School got freaked and canceled the official school prom.
After a federal court ruled sorta for McMillen, saying she should have been able to bring her girlfriend, a private prom was scheduled—which then saw fit to adopt the same no-same-sex-dates-or-girls-in-tuxes rules. It too was canceled.
There was still more kerfuffle and prom three—another private prom—was scheduled. It looked like there would finally be a happy ending.
But when McMillen and friend and a couple of kids with disabilities showed up at the local country club for Prom 3, they found that they were alone. The event was a decoy prom. All the other Itawamba promsters were at Prom 4, a private, parent-organized no lesbians invited prom.
When this news broke, a number of writers found themselves thinking really mean thoughts about the kind of adults who would pull such a fantastically creepy stunt.
Finally, this Friday, the AP has reported that Constance and date are invited to a gala dinner dance in San Francisco organized by The National Center for Lesbian Rights and to be held on May 1.
The group is paying to fly Constance and date in to SF and their executive directer has said the NCLR plans to give her “a weekend she’ll never forget. It will make all these other proms and fake proms fade into distant memory.”
Good. Hope so. She’s earned it.
THE MAYOR DITCHES THE FURLOUGHS, FINDS NEW CITY BUCKS, MAKES NICE WITH THE COUNCIL…WHILE CITY HALL WATCHERS GET MOTION SICKNESS & THROW UP ON THEIR SHOES
Is it me or are the rest of you suffering from fiscal whiplash with this latest news?
It seems that—surprise—the city doesn’t have to renege on its bills, or close itself down for four out of every seven days of the week, or dress up in thigh-high bad girl boots to solicit funds on darkened, grungy street corners. (Okay, that wasn’t literally mentioned, but close.) On Thursday the mayor looked again through his figurative sock drawer and found a wad of money stuffed way at the back corner—and we were saved! Saved, I tell you!
Or something like that.
Maeve Reston at the LA Times has the details.
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has backed away from his call to shut down some city departments two days a week, using positive news about the city’s budget crisis to downplay a threat that had become increasingly difficult to sustain.
“To all of our surprise, we’ve gotten an increase in revenues of $30 million more from property tax than we expected,” Villaraigosa said Thursday, two days after announcing the move might be necessary as soon as Monday to prevent the city from running out of money.
With the unexpected revenue and the City Council’s budget-balancing moves, “We might not be out of cash after all,” the mayor said.
Uh, Mr. Mayor, we’re really glad it worked out and all that. But, given the events of the past couple of days, we also feel a little bit, you know, jacked around.
THE LA TIMES WEIGHS IN ON THE FED COURT’S NET NEUTRALITY DECISION
I’ve been meaning to post on this all week. Glad the LA Times spoke up on the matter. Here’s the opening of Friday’s editorial:
A federal appeals court reined in the Federal Communications Commission this week, ruling that it overstepped its authority when it penalized Comcast for surreptitiously disabling a popular technology that let people share files online. But the ruling did not quell the commission’s interest in regulating the way Internet service providers such as Comcast manage their networks. Instead, it set up a potential fight over whether the commission’s regulatory authority should be expanded, either by Congress or the commission itself. We think the best course is for lawmakers to give the FCC clear but limited power to preserve the openness that has made the Internet not just a hotbed for innovation but also the most important communications medium of our time.
At issue is “net neutrality,” which is the idea that companies selling high-speed Internet connections should treat all legal websites and online offerings equally.
Read on. This is a vitally important issue.
Meanwhile, the FCC strikes back after the fed court decision.
I feel badly for the lesbian, but people have the right to associate with people whom they choose and not with those whom they find offensive in any way. The high school couldn’t find a happy medium to satisfy everyone, so it essentially washed its hands of the deal and let people choose the party that each wanted to attend. The National Center for Lesbian Rights wouldn’t invite me one of their parties, and I know there would be a lot of girls there.
It’s a good thing for Celeste in the ’60s that the ACLU wasn’t taking up cases for the boys that she turned down on dates. She would have been in court for years. (Do you feel badly for them, now, Celeste?)
– – –
My biggest problem with the net neutrality issue is that it exhibits, once again, the situational ethics that guide liberals and this administration. To them, the ends justify the means, even if it goes in the face of law.
There was no statute authorizing the FCC to take the action that it did, and it knew it, but the head of the commission went forward with this federal power grab, anyway, and cost taxpayers even more money to defend something that was not Constitutional.
Obama and his socialists really don’t like the Constitution getting in the way of their “fundamentally changing the way America works.” Thankfully, the court got it right and said that they had to obey by the laws. Next time, do it the way decent, law-abiding citizens expect and our laws require.
“We’re broke. Wait, we’re not broke. We will be able to pay our bills”.
Then, you have this incredibly revealing statement made by the mayor.
Still, Villaraigosa said he and council members agreed that the city needed a backup plan “in the event that these assumptions don’t bear out and we are, in fact, out of cash.”
Assumption?
LOL. He might as well of said “Hey, any of you council members KNOW how much money we have? Anybody? Hello. Anybody? I’ve got no idea. Somebody help me out here”.
It’s Keystone Cops over there at City Hall. Amatuer Night.
No wonder the city is in so much trouble.
Proms at all public schools should be cancelled. Too much discrimination. We can’t all get along and accept one another’s social values. That’s been proven time and time again. If groups of kids want to get together and hold private parties go for it. Enough taxpayer money has been spent bringing/defending litigation over these events.
The day of public school social events needs to die a very rapid death. Enough already.
ATQ, speak for yourself. I’ve found that most people are capable of accepting other peoples’ social values. If you can’t do it, that’s fine. Move into a tin shack somewhere in rural Montana, buy a radio, and call it a life. But don’t speak for humanity in general, especially when most of humanity has proven they can accept the social values of other cultures.
I sincerely hope public schools do not take advice similar to what ATQ just gave, because it would punish the majority of students who do interact with and respect other cultures, by giving into the minority who don’t.
ATQ, I just reread your comment and realized I misread it the first time. You said “We can’t all”, meaning there will always be some people who don’t get along with other people. For some reason I thought you said “we”, period. So, I apologize for the points I directed at you personally, about moving to Montana, etc. But the rest of my comment stands. I don’t believe our public schools should cave into the bigoted minority of students and punish the majority of them.
Rob: when most of humanity has proven they can accept the social values of other cultures.
Will someone clue Rob in about Islamic terrorism and suicide bombers attacking Westerners. Before you respond, Rob, remember that homosexuality under Islam is a capital crime and is often punished by death. There’s prejudice everywhere, and you have some, too.
Also, Rob, your perspective of bigotry may be someone else’s moral authority, which doesn’t necessarily mean that they want to kill someone but that they won’t accept sin as being normal and just because a large number of other people do. I’m not sure why the lesbian couldn’t understand and accept that not everyone will agree with her adopted lifestyle and go along that one time.
“Also, Rob, your perspective of bigotry may be someone else’s moral authority, which doesn’t necessarily mean that they want to kill someone but that they won’t accept sin as being normal and just because a large number of other people do. I’m not sure why the lesbian couldn’t understand and accept that not everyone will agree with her adopted lifestyle and go along that one time.”
There’s so much wrong, and sad, and deeply hurtful and harmful about this paragraph it is difficult to know where to begin.
I’ll leave it at this: People have the right to have their own private religious beliefs. They do not have the right to limit the lives of other based on those beliefs. The fact that parents would actually participate in this awfulness of the faux prom is simply stunning.
Celeste, I’m a parent and I do what I think is best for my kids, and I don’t worry what others are going to think. That’s what these parents did. And, they had the right to do what they did. That doesn’t make them wrong.
I’m not saying that I agree with their conclusions and actions, as I really don’t know all of the facts, but I sure will take up for parents who are trying their best in the face of attacks on Christianity, moral beliefs, and families by the liberal media, many school boards, and this administration.
Also, given that kids will be kids and can be mighty mean, I’m not sure that the school didn’t spare the girl more mental mental pain and humiliation, as that girl’s parents may have missed that very real possibility. The fact that this was originally a school function doesn’t change how kids will treat others in high school.
In my view, the right thing would have been to tell the girl that her difference won’t always be accepted, so that she needs to be prepared to make compromises in life if being a lesbian is that important to her. One of the compromises would be to just go along with the program for the prom and not make a scene.
Before you know it, liberals, who must have causes, are going to attack the Catholic Church for not allowing people of other religions to become Pope.
Oooh, good baiting, Woody. I’m so angry now that you insinuated I was gay. Arrggggh! What do I say, now?
We can’t all get along. This blog is proof of that. LOL. What are cultural norms for some people will never be accepted by others of a different culture.
Before everybody jumps on the tolerance bandwagon and says we all tolerate everybody’s cultural norms you need to seriously consider what you’re asking people to do.
Is it ok to kill homosexuals? How about arranged marriages? Beating your wife? Chopping off the hand of a thief? The death penalty for drunk driving? Beat your wife? Caning for grafitti? Eating dog? Female castration?
These things (just to name a few) are all things that are accepted in other cultures.
Anybody here accept those cultural norms?
Like I said, careful when preaching to others about accepting other people’s cultural norms.
We should all be very scared, after the latest Los Angeles financial crisis which will undoubtedly bring out the right wing militias, the most dangerous armed radicals of the tea bagger movement, and the hyper patriotic, flag waving gun toting racists (Woody’s Friends?) who have all become even more frantic and violent. A few readers of blog have warned you about the crazy gun-toting mostly white old ladies of the tea bag movement sweeping our country. The rise in Fascism is the real crisis in Los Angles and the country, we should all RUN, RUN as fast as we can to the border.
WTF, yeah, regarding tolerance, I noticed that the National Organization for Women is not very tolerant of opposite views, as it never says a word when conservative women are unjustly savaged by the media.
Also, in the name of “tolerance” they remain quiet when Muslim men murder their daughters and wives in “honor killing.” “Just tolerate it…none of our business.”
But, they condemn others for not “being tolerant” of abortion and not supporting leftist women that they like.
The organization is very hypocritical to ignore the needs and freedoms of all women, yet they pretend to represent all women in their name alone.
Conservatives need toleration, too, and Muslim women need protecting, even if it offends “tolerant” liberals.
Oh, shoot, I meant to address that last comment to “Answering The Question,” with whom I’m generally agreeing. Sorry for the confusion, WTF.
Woody, try thinking of the gay and lesbian issue this way: it’s been shown to be a genetic predilection, something about an extra X or Y chromosome, a quick google check could tell me which but I admit I’m too lazy right now…So if you think of discrimination against gays as more like against someone with the “wrong” skin color or religion, you might begin to see just how much is wrong with your holier-than-thou positions. Conservative evangelicals (and conservative Catholics, Muslims, etc., even some Buddhists, probably Hassidic Jews…) refuse to accept this and insist it’s a “sinful choice,” but that’s just their intentional ignorance of genetics and biology. But then, they insist that the earth is just some 5,000 years old, don’t they?
Make that PREDISPOSITION (not predilection – !!!) determined by genes – which is some variation in the X (female- mother – inherited) chromosome. Scientists are working on isolating a “gay gene” but haven’t completed this yet, far as I know.
That will lead to other tricky ethical dilemmas, especially among those who consider it a mortal sin: prenatal testing for it so as to terminate a pregnancy, as for Down’s syndrome. But wait, the people oppose abortion under all circumstances, so that will just leave castigating the mother for having the temerity to have “bad genes” in her family line.
SBL, nicely put—both times.
Woody, with all respect with regard to NOW et al, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Women’s groups, feminist and otherwise, have for decades been on the front lines fighting against honor killings, female castration, and other culturally sanctioned types violence against women.
http://www.now.org/press/10-07/10-08b.html
http://www.stophonourkillings.com/?q=node
And, more recently, some of the most effective and impassioned groups spring out of the cultures themselves, with women taking astonishing risks to protect other woman.
Woody Says:
April 10th, 2010 at 9:01 am
Oh, shoot, I meant to address that last comment to “Answering The Question,†with whom I’m generally agreeing. Sorry for the confusion, WTF.
…………..
LOL. Now THAT’S tolerance.
Celeste, I was specifically talking about NOW and not with the et al, which could include groups up to Phyllis Schlafly’s. I find left-wing groups to be the most intolerant of all.
Hey, NOW did a heck of a job taking up for Sarah Palin when the Democrats and media were attacking her personal life from everything to laughing at her daughter’s pregnancy to news reporters wondering how she can be governor and take care of her family at the same time. Condi Rice was treated with equal disdain by NOW.
– – –
sbl, I never condoned discrimination. You’ll see that I specifically used the word “association.”
I wouldn’t discriminate against gays, but I would make a distinction between discrimination and matters such as
(1)common sense in the military, where you pretty much leave your rights at the door,
(2) not giving gays special rights that don’t exist, such as redefining marriage to include Sodomites, and
(3) not accepting their bullying and public campaigns to have boy scouts kicked out of public buildings because of the organizations religious principles and common sense denying gays the openings to take boys on overnight camping trips, over which this is really the gays being discriminatory and intolerant. I also don’t particularly like associating with gays who are flaming nuts and flaunt their weirdness and perversions.
In both cases, you and Celeste weren’t arguing against what I said but against what you assumed that I meant, which shows a built-in prejudice of your own.
White supremacist organizations don’t believe in tolerance of other cultural norms, either.
Woody, when you’re calling out liberal groups for their intolerance, I would first make certain that there intolerance of you isn’t merely based on personal reasons.
Woody, sigh.
Yes, your opinions on “sodomites” are very reasonable when it comes to “Sodomites” wanting the rights of marriage (which in our country afford special rights which are not and shouldn’t be defined religiously, but are economic and legal as well), and “nuts” who “flaunt their weirdness and perversions.” (Okay, there are a tiny handful of gays who fall into the latter category and play right into the hands of people like you – e.g. recently in the middle of the afternoon, I passed a guy on Santa Monica Blvd. in West Hollywood, wearing leather chaps cut out at the butt! But these things are noteworthy because they’re so unusual.)
I also agree that the campaign against the Boy Scouts has been overblown – e.g. denying them use of school facilities in many towns, including I think LAUSD. But NOT Beverly Hills, where the Pack signed a non-discrimination vow, NOT to discriminate against gay leaders or youths, which should suffice elsewhere as well instead of throwing out the whole program which does a lot of good for a very low cost. There the “Scout House” has always been on school grounds. Some dens include former gang members for example.
I also thought it was a tough call when the Explorer Scouts were deprived of the program they had with the LAPD after many successful years, but understand that the LAPD has been working hard to overcome its past image of male-macho-military machine…
BUT your assertion that the Scouts SHOULD ban gays to preclude them “openings to take boys on overnight camping trips” is just the kind of statement that fuels the fires of ignorance – AND the strong backlash from the “other side.” IF people like you are going to advocate banning gays to keep them from molesting boys on camping trips arranged for their own lascivious purposes – as though that’s WHY they’d become den masters and not because maybe they were scouts, or want to be POSITIVE role models for gay youths as well as others, and show that they ARE “like everyone else” – you make the Scouts look like the paranoid rightwing group their opponents allege them to be. By your “logic” you might as well ban gay teachers from going on school trips, especially those week-long camping trips many schools start the year with – or from teaching at all. And don’t forget to ban them as Little League and soccer coaches, and anything else where they come into contact with kids.
This whole thing about gays not being allowed in the Boy Scouts. I quit the Boy Scouts when I was 12 because I thought they were gay.
sbl, I would oppose a single straight man taking young girls on a camping trip as much as I would oppose a gay one taking boys camping. When it comes to kids, you don’t take chances or invite problems. That’s being a good parent — not being a paranoid right-wing group. Anyone who has played at the Y or gone to certain churches have seen the predators, who, unfortunately, cast doubts on the larger group.
I wouldn’t ban gays from being Little League coaches as long as they can actually coach and don’t pat the players’ backsides. I would have a problem with people like Mr. Garrison teaching sex education, but I have a problem with public schools doing that, anyway, seeing how they don’t have the time and ability to teach anything right.
However, I appreciate your thoughtful and rational answer and not lacing it with the ususal profanities with which I’ve become accustomed.
The only example Woody can come up with to demonstrate that gays shouldn’t teach sex ed is a cartoon character.
“This whole thing about gays not being allowed in the Boy Scouts. I quit the Boy Scouts when I was 12 because I thought they were gay.”
******************************
Rob Thomas the spokemsman for tolerance is a homophobe. lol
Celeste,
Can you tell me why NOW was silent during one of the biggest domestic violence murder cases of our time, the O.J. Simpson case? Can you tell me why we didn’t hear from them. I’ve always wondered about that.
I’ve got absolutely no problem with what two consenting adults do behind closed doors. I do however refuse to accept the concept that being gay is “normal” when it comes to human sexuality.
What is the population of gays in the world, approximately 10% or so? That would make approximately 90% of the population heterosexual.
Scientifically speaking, what the 90% do is the NORM.
I don’t believe gays should be discrimated against. Much as I believe no human being who isn’t harmful to another human’s pursuit of life, liberty and happiness should be discrimated against. Live and let live. That’s my philosophy and belief.
Simple answer ATQ, because O.J. was black and his victims were white. Many liberal groups don’t have what it takes to stand up and be heard when the obvious right side of the issue means they have to take a stand against a member of a minority group. They would rather stay silent.
N.O.W. has always been a huge critic of Promise Keepers, who they’ve called “whte male dominated” but in a google search I couldn’t see where they ever said one bad word about The Nation of Islam, as male dominated a group that’s ever been ( of course their blacvk) and whose leader described whites as “practicing to become humans but not quite there”.
I’m a supporter of gay couples having some type of ceremony and having all the rights of married couples. Just don’t call it “marriage”. I’m not willing to give up my belief in what certain words have always meant to me when the rights associated with the word can still be given to those the word was never meant to describe and so no harm’s done.
I was an Eagle Scout. My son is an Eagle Scout. I’ll take harsh umbrage with the Council who declares my grandaughter can’t be an Eagle Scout, but they will. At which point my son and I will formally relinquish our badges. Somebody has to, just like the young lesbian woman who stood up for her inalienable right to participate.
RobThomas Says:
Woody, when you’re calling out liberal groups for their intolerance, I would first make certain that there intolerance of you isn’t merely based on personal reasons.
Exactly. Sage advice. Very astute observation by Rob. Woody, it might be you that people have a problem with. It might not be your political beliefs. It might simply be that they interpret your tone or comments as rude and condescending. They might simply think you’re an asshole. It could have nothing to do with your political beliefs.
Of course, the same can be said for any one of us. EVEN ROB.
I’ll take harsh umbrage with the sports body that decides my daughter can’t play on the high school boys basketball team.
But then somebody will take harsh umbrage when their 6’6″ boy can’t play on the girls team so they can win the state championship.
Of course that will be denied by the governing sports body.
In regards to girls or women being able to compete on boys or mens teams, we have tolerance. When a boy or man tries to compete on a women’s team, no tolerance.
Here is a case where we have a double standard that we all accept “because it makes sense”. If males were allowed to do this, there would be no WNBA. Nevertheless, it is a double standard.
Equal rights? Or are females granted special priviledges that males aren’t?
There was no statute authorizing the FCC to take the action that it did, and it knew it
You might want to check the wording of the common carrier language in the Communications Act of 1934. It’s not as cut and dried as you may think.
Just for the record, btw, Kevin Martin, Bush’s appointee to the FCC favored sanctioning Comcast. In fact, you failed to note this fact in the article Celeste linked to:
In case you didn’t know George W. Bush was president in 2008 and the FCC’s five commissioners consisted of three Republicans and two Democrats, so your comment that this “exhibits, once again, the situational ethics that guide liberals and this administration” is not borne out by the facts. In fact, the truth contradicts your claim.
Randy, Obama’s head of the FCC as much as admitted that their position would not hold up in court but did it anyway, saying that it was too important (to him) not to try. He just made up a law out of thin air that suited him.
It was pretty clear cut. The ruling against the FCC was unanimous.
Aren’t you concerned that the FCC tried an end-around to control the internet with, surely, an longer-term eye towards limiting the free distribution of information (from conservatives?)
– – –
ATW, I admit to intolerance, which is different than discrimination. I don’t like certain things about a lot of groups, and I don’t care if they like me or not; and, I’m not going to associate with people whose conduct is socially unacceptable.
The FCC ruling was made in 2008 when the Republicans were the majority on the FCC and Bush was president.
Accordingly, as the current president had no authority to appoint anyone to the FCC at the time the FCC ruled on the Comcast case, it was impossible for “Obama’s head of the FCC” to have said any such thing as you claim that he said is demonstrably false. In fact, the current FCC Chairman, Julius Genachowski was not even nominated to be a commissioner until 2009, the year after the ruling was made.
Based on this, your comment is completely untrue.
Some times I lose my train of thought when confronting falsehoods. The first sentence in the second paragraph should read as follows:
What you said is empirically and indisputably false.
I don’t know why Woody, WTF and Sure Fire even bother to blog here. Their conservative opinions are obviously not embraced by Celeste or the majority of her readers. It seems to me the three of them would be better served to find conservative blogs and post there. Why go thru the constant ridicule and demeaning statements about yourselves when there’s no need for it? You guys obviously evoke responses from Celeste’s commenters that you feel are personal attacks. If you don’t like the personal attacks go to a conservative blog and voice your opinions there.
Randy, Maybe it was from Obama’s Marxist FCC diversity czar, the same guy who said that he admired Chavez’s media grab. I didn’t go back to look it up, but I remember such a quote.
But, let’s throw the blame back on Obama, since it’s his guy pushing it so that he can grab even more control, which he is trying to do another way, now. They don’t see the results in the same light as intended, but what they can turn it into.
Why did Obama advocate for the rules if the case had already been made? Why is his czar pushing something from Bush unless he wants to make it something worse than Bush?
No, it’s not what Bush did that’s the concern of Obama. It’s how they can abuse what he started. What you’re talking about, how it started, and what it became are two different things.
I honestly will be glad to pick this up after April 15th. Remind me.
In other words, Obama’s FCC had the same position as Bush’s FCC on this issue. The mind reels . . .
AtQ: Their conservative opinions are obviously not embraced by Celeste
All Celeste has to do is to tell me to go away, and I’ll do it out of respect for her. However, as frustrating as it might be at times, I suspect that Celeste appreciates something other than a mutual admiration society to stir thoughts. She actually changed her mind once.
AtQ: you feel are personal attacks
Feel, feel? Anyone with a brain can see the attacks are personal. It’s not something that one feels when it’s so obvious.
AtQ: If you don’t like the personal attacks go
How about the leftists here leave if they want to make personal attacks? Celeste has asked that to stop.
No, Randy. They picked up on Bush’s case and pushed it for over another year but with different interpretations and for different expansion purposes never intended. That is not the same position.
The court ruling was on the Comcast case and the Comcast FCC ruling was made in 2008. You’re just making shit up.
This was the appeal.
Relax Woody. I never said they WEREN’T personal attacks. What I’m speaking to is why you guys feel you need to voice your opinions on a liberal leaning blog. Aren’t you inviting personal (or otherwise) attacks? Then you seem to get upset about it. Don’t you expect to get attacked when voicing your conservative opinion at at a liberal leaning blog?
To think otherwise would be kind of silly, wouldn’t it?
So why get upset about being attacked. You’ve noted before that Rob and reg seem to get away with the personal attacks while Celeste monitors her conservative commenters more vigorously.You are voicing opinions that you HAVE to know will evoke an impassioned disagreemnet with those two.
That’s all I’m saying. I’m not attacking you. I’m not suggesting you go away…unless it bothers you to the point that when others disagree with your values that you get upset. Why deal with the frustration?
In other words, why be someplace where you know you’re not welcome or embraced?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Why try to make others accept your social values if in doing so you are going to endure hurtful comments?
Do you really believe you should be able to participate someplace where the majority of people disagree with you and not have to endure their ridicule? Not have them make demeaning comments about you or beliefs? Not tell you that your social values are incorrect?
I mean, hey, you can’t come on here and voice your born again christian values and not expect to go thru the ringer for it. You’re placing yourself (metaphorically) in the lions den. You know how most people that blog here feel. You know their values and principals. Do you REALLY think you should be able to make a statement without being at outcast and being made fun of and called names?
This was the appeal.
No kidding. If you knew what you were talking about – or bothered to do something as basic as look at the caption page of the actual lawsuit [pdf file] – you would note that it says “On Petition for Review of an Order of the Federal Communications Commission,” not the decision of a lower court.
In other words, the FCC ruling goes directly to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. This particular court hears appeals directly of rulings by independent agencies under the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946. In other words, the appeal went directly to this court.
This this was the initial appeal of the ruling made in 2008 under the Bush Republican majority FCC.
Once again, you do not know what you are talking about.
Woody,
You can’t expect Rob and the others to show you, a born again christian, the same tolerance and acceptance of your beliefs and values that they expect those rednecks in Mississippi to show Constance.
It’s different Woody. Isn’t it?
It must be. They preach tolerance. Yet they have no problem ridiculing you for your born again right wing fringe conservative beliefs. So, yeah, it’s different.
Randy, Obama is trying to control internet content, that’s the real issue, and you’re trying to put that on Bush. I really can’t spend more time on this right now with taxes due.
– – –
AtQ, I knew Celeste before she started this blog, and we even discussed briefly several years ago about having a shared site with two sides, sort of like “Jane, you ignorant slut.” And, I’ve been here from day one. She didn’t declare this a liberal site when she started, and she was hopeful enough to think that liberals, who are so tolerant, would be tolerant of conservatives. I may gripe about the personal attacks, but it’s really more about people (reg) using them rather than discussing the issues.
Randy, Obama is trying to control internet content, that’s the real issue, and you’re trying to put that on Bush. I really can’t spend more time on this right now with taxes due.
You don’t have a leg to stand on.
I really can’t spend more time on this right now with taxes due.
ATQ,
The above is typical of Woody’s comments when he’s been proven wrong and doesn’t have the strength of character to acknowledge it.
Dadgum, Randy, it’s almost 1:00 AM here and I’m trying to finish some tax returns to take to the post office tomorrow.
“However, as frustrating as it might be at times, I suspect that Celeste appreciates something other than a mutual admiration society to stir thoughts.”
ATQ, Woody’s got it exactly right. I don’t need or want an echo chamber. Honorable people can disagree.
It merely needs to be civil, with no mudballs thrown at the heads of others.
Yes, of course this is a liberal leaning blog, because….. I’m a liberal. (Duh.) And this is—as you will note by its subtitle—a social justice site. That might suggest that I consider social justice fairly important.
But we live in a big, complicated country and culture that must embrace both liberals and conservatives if we’re going preserve this little democratic experiment we’ve got going here in our fair land.
AND, this being a liberal blog doesn’t mean I don’t go against that grain.
Most recent example: my irritation with my feminist sisters for their freakouts over Obama’s reaffirmation of the Hyde amendment mandating no federal funds for non-medically necessary abortions. Or I infuriate some other of my liberal friends by occasionally taking up some cause put forth by the police union that strikes me as righteous.
Bottom line, I don’t want to argue with or exclude conservatives. I aim to convert ’em. (Resistance is futile.)
BTW, I assume that if conservative commenters come here, like me, they too don’t want only an echo chamber.
Dadgum, Randy, it’s almost 1:00 AM here and I’m trying to finish some tax returns to take to the post office tomorrow.
Who’s stopping you?
That’s all good Celeste. i agree with you completely re: not wanting an echo chamber. That wasn’t my point. Not at all. Not close.
My point was that if Rob and reg showed Woody or any other conservative who blogs here the same tolerance they expect those rednecks in Mississippi to show that lesbian young lady, this wouldn’t degenerate into a free for all.
I heard Tony Rafael’s gay.
Oh, I’m kidding. Relax. Have to be careful when talking about him. That guy would sue his mother for not letting him have dessert.
I think Celeste allowing Sure Fire and Woody to comment here is all of the tolerance that liberals need to have of conservatives, world wide. Those two are enough.
And now you have Rob using gay as a perjorative.
LOL. If one goes back and studies the comments, I think it is evident who’s not interested in mature, intelligent, civil debate. It’s there for all to see who does the name calling and labeling of those with whom they disagree.
Celeste, good luck converting anybody to a “liberal” mindset with this blog. With some members of your like minded “liberals” who continually choose to insult anybody who voices differing opinions you’re going to need all the luck you can get.
With the behaviour exhibited by some of those who CALL themselves liberals, you need to consider that while you state: “resistance is futile”….
most likely “conversion is impossible” if they alienate anybody who disagrees.
It’s easy to preach to the choir. They don’t need converting.
On the other hand, you don’t convert those who disagree with you by having members of your team continually insult them.
I’m just saying.
I’m not totally against Celeste’s social justice causes. I just like to add another perspective, outlining alternative causes and solutions for overall fairness and lower costs by shedding light on what I see as reality.
AtQ, regarding your comment at 10:26 PM in comment #56 above, I also missed your earlier intent. The crazies here call names rather than debate because they know that they could never win a debate of issues on merits (as opposed to accuracy of informattion that Randy sometimes challenges.)
By demonizing their opponents with names like racist and homophobe, with profanities thrown in for good measure, they are claiming that they are justified for running from discussions with “people like that.” It’s a loser’s response. So, the next time that you see one of us called names for our position, know that the responder has thrown in the towel.
“The crazies here call names rather than debate because they know that they could never win a debate of issues on merits”
Which is why you have called me a Stalinist, Communist and…of course…when the going really got rough for you a “child molester” and “fag.”
Anyone who posts pictures of garbage like the President shining Sarah Palin’s shoes – or who makes comments about the fact that my wife is black, such as Woody has done in recent days elsewhere is a racist. And anyone who demeans homosexuals as not “normal” is a bigot. Sorry, Woody, but you’re the most egregiously ad hominem person around here. It’s hard to come up with something worse than “child molester” – and as for my persistently calling you stupid and dishonest, that garbage spilling forth from your arsenal of unreality makes my assessments fact rather than opinon or hyperbole. That behavior is stupid, racist and bigoted.
I have no interest in your views on society or economics, because they’re not based on anything empirical. Randy proved, at the expense of his own valuable time, how easy it is to show your opinions are unreliable at best and utter falsehoods at wors. But you don’t get to accuse others of playing foul when your comments – as literal quotes from months and months – are some of the foulest imaginable. Nothing “ad hominem” here – just a factual refutation of some absolutely bizarre claims by a guy who has perfected his trolling into insistent thread hijacking. Aside from these observations, you are welcome to rave on with no intervention from me. But you’ll do it in context of your having thrown in your own towel long ago. You can’t hold up any discussion on substance without resorting to bigotry, unhinged and anti-empirical ideology or falsehoods.
I’m all for social justice, for those who truly deserve it regardless of occupation, race, religion or party preference. Sadly, I don’t see that as always being the case here.
Here’s some good Sunday reading, for anyone who has gone through Celeste’s “picks” and is tired of wading through inane crap in these comments about “Obama and his socialists”, etc ad nauseum. Surely there is intelligent life on this blog planet…you deserve better.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/magazine/11Economy-t.html?ref=magazine
ATQ, we’ve had a fairly civil discussion here, with your comments included. Now you’re singling out commenters for personal criticism—AND, now you’re telling me how to run the blog. And you’re dredging up past fights.
Stop it immediately.
Woody and reg, you rose to the bait and put out some of your own.
Don’t.
Commments, 60, 62 and 63 have no place here. They add zero to the dialogue and are only intended to provoke, or slap back. (SureFire your #64 wasn’t all that helpful either, but at least was less directly provocative. Thank you for that.)
Let’s move on here, folks. Nothing to see.
“Obama and his socialists” – Even Ron Paul has debunked that nonsense. It’s the position of radical far-right extremists (not actully conservatives) who can’t make their case or debate without resorting to name-calling.
Reg, thanks for he Krugman link.
Re 66 – Excuse me, but you’re privileging dishonesty, which wears down anyone who doesn’t have an ax to grind. Don’t worry, you’re welcome to allow a dishonest troll, who started out his comments here with name-calling that has absolutely zero connection to reality, to hijack your comments. Woody is a cancer on the blog.
I’m fairly new to the blog. If all the things reg claims are true, I find it hard to believe Celeste would tolerate that kind of bashing and bigotry.
As far as reg’s comment:
And anyone who demeans homosexuals as not “normal†is a bigot.
Don’t be so quick to jump on the bigot bandwagon and do the same thing that you accuse Woody of doing.
Go back and read the content of my post again.
If you insist that the sexual preference of 10% of the population is the norm, oh well. That’s your constitutional right. It’s my right to point out that scientifically speaking, you are incorrect.
90% heterosexual…10% gay.
You tell me, in regards to human sexuality, which is what I was speaking of, which is the norm?
Are you so eager to jump at the chance to call somebody a bigot that you ignore science?
Perhaps you’re trying to redefine the word normal. In any case, I could care less what two consenting adults do behind closed doors.
Saying that gays sexuality is not the norm doesn’t make me a bigot pal or pal(ette) lol. You won’t see me protesting on a street corner trying to keep gays from getting married.
But get out of my face with your insistence that everybody see things the way you do or they’re a bigot. That’s intolerance in the purest form.
Sorry if you have a problem with science. That’s your problem, not mine. I refuse to tiptoe around your fragile feelings or submit to your political position for fear of being called names.
Call me any name you want.
It doesn’t break the argument.
Once again, for the slow learners who like to avoid the issue by hurling personal insults.
The sexual preference of the 90 percentile IS the NORM.
Unless you would have us believe that the sexual preference of the 10 percentile is the norm.
In which case you show what an idiot you truly are.
It merely needs to be civil, with no mudballs thrown at the heads of others.
Exactly Celeste. I’m not trying to tell you how to run tyour blog. I’m merely pointing out that it’s usually those who preach for tolerance the loudest that are the ones least likely to give it.
As for calling reg an idiot in the above post, please take into consideration that my retaliation only came after reg called me a bigot.
Have your whistle ready when the first blow gets thrown Celeste. To continually warn those who are merely standing up for themselves makes you appear to be showing blatant favortism.
I KNOW that is not your intent.
I’m ready to move on. I’m just not ready to back down.
BIG DIFFERENCE.
I’m all for peace and goodwill. Live and let live.
As nearly as I can tell, Reg made no comment until #63.
We’re starting over.
Now I’m late to a very nice brunch.
I’m all for intellectual honesty and I have no patience when something that is fundamentally, indisputably true such as the current administration’s position on net neutrality, which provides for treating all internet content equally by all ISP’s gets represented as “Obama is trying to control internet content,” it’s an out and out demonstrable falsehood.
When I clearly and indisputably show that the prior FCC Commissioners – with Republicans in the majority – made the decision before Obama became president and Woody still insists on blaming this on Obama – notwithstanding the fact that net neutrality removes discrimination of all content by all ISP’s – Woody persists in maintaining a verifiably factually false position. That’s the very definition of trolling
I humbly submit that comments 17, 19 and 20 were what started us down the path to where we are currently.
Antagonistic to say the least.
Randy, I provided independent news articles that said the FCC decision was a defeat for Obama — not Bush. I also provided a view that Obama intended to use the case to control distribution of informaion over the internet, which was not the Bush policy. One can take a simple case and make it into something more, as Obama has done. Also, Celeste said to drop the name calling. And, don’t you think that you’ve overdone your celebrating in the end zone? You have to get the ball over the goal first.
I’m not going to respond to reg’s twisted and unrelated slurs about very old matters. He probably can’t help being a psycho.
I also provided a view that Obama intended to use the case to control distribution of informaion over the internet
That’s an opinion not supported by the facts of net neutrality and the entire concept of the subject.
Celeste said to drop the name calling
Truth is a perfect defense against accusations of name calling.
ATQ, 10% of gang members, if even that much (probably much less), come from middle to upper class backgrounds. Most come from impoverished backgrounds. But some right wingers have claimed that “it aint the poverty” when it comes to gang violence, using that small percentile as an example to make their case. So, I guess all ideologues are guilty of trying to pass off a small percentage as the norm.
Celeste, he “humbly submits”. What guilty person would ever “humbly” submit anything? Submit, by itself? Sure. But HUMBLY submit? I think we now know that Answering the Question is not the one starting fights in here. Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt. I mean, he had me at “humbly”.
I would humbly submit that The Mexican Mafia, by Tony Rafael, is the best book ever written! Better than the bible!
“Rob and reg seem to get away with the personal attacks while Celeste monitors her conservative commenters more vigorously.”
I just want to point out that I was called a child molester here for months. Woody was allowed. I called him “full of shit”, “a moron”, etc. etc. He is by most folks standards.
On the issue of sexual “norms”, there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals. You can call heterosexual the “norm” on a mathematical basis if that makes you feel more secure. But homosexuality, which is natural if not the “norm” for many people – you say 10% – has been criminalized, treated as a “disease” and denied equal rights in such things as affirming a life partner. So to rant about it and accuse homosexual persons of not being “normal” is of a piece with a history of disgusting bigotry that “normal” folks are trying to put behind them. Homophobia and rants against homosexuals as not “normal’ – which is the strategy of those claiming gay folks personal lives and loves don’t have the same value as the rest of us – is bigotry, i.e. intolerant, predjucial and discriminatory in effect. Embrace it, if you will. But don’t play games trying to deny it.
If you can’t stand the heat…
I don’t really give a shit what the folks arguing the other side of that one think. Just like I didn’t give a shit about what George Wallace thought of black folks. My views on this are, increasingly, becoming “normal”, i.e. majority, for what that’s worth. We’re on the brink of an era in which the younger generation is looking back on homophobia, accusations about “not normal” or “perverts” and legal discrimination against gays with the same shame most of us look back on racial discrimination.
Also, I happen to be particularly disinclined to cut Woody any slack about “ad hominems” etc today because he made a particularly nonsensical racist remark about my marriage – along with his usual “gay” and “child molester” baiting – on another blog yesterday. Sorry to bring that here, but he’s the same little troll everywhere he goes. He’s a cancer.
reg, you’re lying. What happened a long time ago, it was over at Cooper’s and maybe mentioned here over defenses of Roman Polanski, I stopped, I apologized, you refused my apology, and you keep bringing it up about yourself. No one else would remember or know questions about you if you didn’t keep bringing it up, so the claim must not bother you.
It’s clear that you aren’t offended but want to use your accusations to attack me. And just as clearly, your bringing it up is just another way to smear, which is what Celeste wants to avoid.
Still, you have never denied it, although given multiple chances, so even you don’t claim that it’s not true. Will you deny that you’re gay or not on a sex offender list?
Where are your apologies to me, seeing how you always start the name calling?
– – –
Whether global warming or homosexuality, political consensus doesn’t determine what’s normal. Science does.
“You won’t see me protesting on a street corner trying to keep gays from getting married.”
Given that, I don’t have a major beef – EXCEPT that when you talk about “science”, the only issue is whether homosexuality is a natural form of affection and sexual preference for a significant number of people. My objection isn’t to a mathematical model of “norms”, which are meaningless as “science” unless you’re talking about statistics as “social science”, but to an application of the concept of “normal” sexuality to imply or explicitly describe homosexuality as “abnormal”, i.e. not natural and deviant. That’s the rub IMHO. If you have no objection to gay rights or gay people being treated “normally”, bigotry isn’t an issue. But I would be very careful about calling people “normal” on the basis of their being the majority. Because, as I said, the notion that gay folks aren’t “natural” is quickly becoming “not normal.” I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make, unless it’s also not “normal” in the USofA to be of African – or Armenian or Samoan – extraction. Or to be a redhead. So what ?
Woody – I never defended Roman Polanski. That’s a ridiculous defense of your conjuring up something because I called out your bigotry against gays. And you never apologized. Just tried to weasel away from an obviously insane and despicable strategy.
“Will you deny that you’re gay or not on a sex offender list?”
You are obviously insane, you’re still angling the same despicable insinuations even as you claim it’s “past.” And you’re beneath contempt.
Celete, my post was truthful and it should provoke. It seems like it’s always the same groups that are the victims here. Mostly they’re gays, minorities, gang members, illegals, convicts in jail and out along with the poor. In real life that isn’t close to being true. Not my problem that the eyes of most liberals are closed to that fact.
Woody is the true authority on normality. He exudes normalness.
reg, I never said a word about your marriage. You made a snide remark about my “white woman.” Envy, maybe.
Okay, I need to get back to watching the Masters to see if Tiger Woods ends up caddying for Phil Mickelson.
gays, minorities, gang members, crooked cops who work for gang members.. (see previous thread)
I did apologize.
Woody Says:
April 11th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
You made a snide remark about my “white woman.â€
…………..
LOL!
Wasn’t a cop, can’t get anything right can you Robbie. Celeste also did the exact opposite for him that she would for the others. When you strive to be a smart ass all you end up being is the ass.
Back to The Masters.
corrections officers, cops..they’re all pigs, Sure Fire. I’m kidding! Kidding! Relax. They’re all law enforcement. Anyhow, your defense of him was incredible. I never knew you had a liberal side, Sure Fire. Serpico!
You’re a liar Woody. You said this: “Tell me, reg, what’s been the biggest disappointment in your life, not being able to marry a man or being rejected by white women?” – in response to my accusing you, as a supporter of tax-cuts-uber-alles of being complicit in the Reagan and Bush years huge increase in deficits as % of GDP, which reversed decades of decline in federal debt relative to national wealth. That was after you implied I was making some sort of economically ignorant argument – one that you couldn’t refute, except by linking to ideological dogmatists such as CATO Institute as I predicted – that I backed up with a right-of-center economics writer and Paul Samuelson, who is the dean of centrist economists. Your arguments had no empirical basis – only appeals to ideology and a false picture of where and when deficits exploded – so you reverted to racist and homophobic slander. That’s your MO. I am absolutely guilty of calling you a piece of shit and a moron. IMHO, you’ve earned those. You’ve called me a Stalinist when I’ve made liberal arguments. I’ve never called you a fascist – just an idiot. Which is what anyone who even believes Obama is a “socialist” happens to be – as Ron Paul, who doesn’t agree with Obama on much of anything, has affirmed when he rebuked that silly slur among fake “conservatives.”
Woody’s mocking people for not getting women, now. Is there anything this guy hasn’t mastered in life? He’s perfect!
Surefire made my day with his “victims” comment. I’ll leave it at that – a very hearty, healthy laugh. Thanks.
SureFire #86, your criticizing liberals for bias by lumping gays and “minorities” in with gang members, illegals “convicts in jail and out along with and the poor” just shows how absurd your arguments are. People are born “minorities” and (according to scientists who’ve identified the chromosome markers and are working on an actual “gay gene”) most likely, gay or NOT.
They CHOOSE to become, by their actions, “convicts in jail,” “illegals,” “gang members,” and depending on your interpretation and circumstances, “the poor.” (Which the likes of Woody think IS a choice resulting from poor moral character, but it can also be circumstaces like the family you’re born into, major financial setbacks AFTER being middle class or affluent, etc.)
Yes, some liberals are “poverty pimps” and liberal groups tend to be more harshly critical of white-mail-dominated groups like Promise Keepers than “minority” groups (and some liberals DO confuse “minorities” with those who choose to become “illegal immigrants” while others do the same with racial profiles of the prison population, as though it automatically is proof of discrimination, and not forces at work which make minorities more likely to commit and be caught committing, crimes – but I don’t think NOW gives a pass to Nation of Islam, they just don’t address them as a socially dominant force.
— As for the specific group Promise Keepers, I was turned off personally by the message that the man is the dominant force in the home, sets the tone and so on, in a hierarchical way, a justification for a throwback to the “good old days” of the 50’s and before, when “men were men” and woman obeyed, got their way by coy feminine wiles, and so on. This attitude is still fairly mainstream in the south – as Woody won’t deny – but also very overt in some local churches, for example, including one Presbyterian megachurch which turned out a lot of men for the Promise Keepers. (And you can substitute conservative Catholic, Orthodox Jewish, a branch of any religion, or traditional “old world” culture, etc.) In my perception, they were often fairly wimpy guys who welcomed the institutional message to keep their woman in her place. (They ARE awful “uppity” these days and just don’t mind as well as they should, after all.) If NOW criticizes this group it’s for a good reason, in my opinion.
Do the Promise Keepers have any groupies? Women who show up to their functions by the carload and flirt with them, saying things like, “hey, you, in the members only jacket…if you ever want to step out on that brood…”
Stop.
Now.
I don’t give a fuck who started it. You are each of you in this last part of the thread intent on keeping it up.
(Excepting Sure Fire and Randy Paul, you’ve been quite restrained, comparatively anyway.)
The liberal among you want me to toss Woody and think I let him get away with murder (similar accusations sometimes are made against SureFire), the conservatives think Reg and Rob never get sanctioned.
Both perspectives are skewed.
This comments section is repeatedly highjacked by fights that are grindingly boring and of no interest to anyone but the participants.
I get piles of letters from readers who tell me that they would like to comment but that the environment is simply too impossible and they don’t want to be attacked. You are each responsible for that.
Blaming the other person who has insulted you is, at this point, irrelevant and a method of avoiding having to take personal responsibility.
I have criticism leveled at me daily on this blog and yet somehow I avoid calling people names and engaging in viscous attacks back.
I really cannot believe that I’m having to say this all yet again.
When the blog’s tech upgrade is finished, I am likely going to have to institute a registration system or a comment filters system or both.
Thus far I have had a purely open comment system. That is what I prefer. But if this group right here on this thread cannot respect me and the blog more than you have to this point, I will simply have no choice but to put restraints and gates into place.
I would prefer that the comment section exist as a community, and one that includes both liberals and conservatives, and much in between. But for that to happen, the tone has to be civil.
“I’ll do it, if he does it” OR “He hit me first!” is not good enough. That is a 9-year-old’s strategy. Not that of an adult.
Did you see Father Boyle on Tavis Smiley the other night, Celeste?
I was meaning to ask you, Celeste, or anyone here who might know. Is the documentary film about Father Boyle, the one narrated by Martin Sheen, available anywhere other than Homeboy Industries website? I want to support them..but 30 bucks? Yikes.
One more thing, I have a bone to pick with those of you here who are right of center. I don’t demonize conservatives on this blog or elsewhere in my life. Conservatives are not a monolith. They are a good half of my fellow Americans, and come in lots of variations.
By the same token, I am sick to death of the wholesale criticism of liberals by some of you here. The fact that certain liberals do something, doesn’t mean that all do. To dismiss one half of the country in that way is deeply destructive to the fabric of the nation.
That’s the kind of crap that is pushed by the worst of the media demagogues and it does great, great harm.
Please don’t do it here. I see each of you as individuals with a complex set of views and priorities. Please accord me, those like me, the same latitude—even when you disagree.
Thank you.
PS: I didn’t see sbl’s comment. She has been very civil and doesn’t rise to the bait when it is tossed at her.
Rob, no I didn’t see Greg on Tavis Smiley’s show. I was out that night and could kick myself because I forgot to TiVo it. I’m hoping it will be online. (Maybe it is by now.)
Did you see it?
About the film, the $30 allows Homeboy to make money, hence the mark-up.
I wonder if Netflix has it.
I just checked. It does.
http://www.netflix.com/RoleDisplay/Martin_Sheen/84842
Scroll down. It’s about 1/4 or 1/5 of the way down the list of all Martin Sheen’s movies. (Obviously there’s probably an easier way to find it. But I did a fast Google.)
It’s good. You’ll see me nattering on in it as a talking head—but fortunately, not a lot. The profiles of the guys are stunning.
Oh, I totally understand why they charging that much. I’m just whining because I’m broke. LOL. The preview looks really interesting. I’ll probably get it anyway.
By the same token, I am sick to death of the wholesale criticism of liberals by some of you here.
I have already advised Celeste that I am done commenting here under the present circumstances, so consider this my swan song.
Every time I read someone saying, for example, that Barack Obama is instituting a socialist or Marxist agenda, these people should develop a brief checklist for review:
1.) Is the Obama administration nationalizing industries? (FYI: the TARP program and the AIG bailout happened in 2008)
2.) Is the Obama administration appropriating unused farmland and giving it to subsistence farmers?
3.) Is the Obama administration shutting down news outlets that are in opposition to their positions?
4.) Is the Obama administration setting up a series of reeducation camps in which dissidents are being held against their will without due process?
The answer to all of these questions, is of course, no. Think about how it makes you look when you ramp up the hysteria.
Goodbye and good luck.
reg,
“Given that, I don’t have a major beef”
….yet you call me a bigot
If you have no objection to gay rights or gay people being treated “normallyâ€, bigotry isn’t an issue.”
I implicitly stated I don’t give a shit what two consenting adults do behind closed doors…yet you call me bigot.
“My objection isn’t to a mathematical model of “normsâ€,”
That’s all I was speaking to….yet you call me a bigot
All the other fluff and duff in your comment #84 is you jumping to conclusions what I “could be saying”, not what I said….yet you call me a bigot.
Like I said, I’m not going to tiptoe around on eggshells because what I say “could” be interpreted the wrong way. If somebody is looking to be offended, WANTS to be offended, NEEDS to be offended, that’s their issue, not mine.
You called me a vile name because YOU jumped to conclusions about my meaning. You obviously missed my statements that would point to my being tolerant of gays, yet you jumped at the chance to state what “I could be saying”
So you jump right out and call me a bigot. Nice. Real nice.
Hope you’re proud of yourself. Hope you feel real good about insulting someone who has no bigotry towards gays or anybody else.
But like I said, I refuse to tiptoe around because of how YOU MIGHT interpret what I say. What the fuck are you, the verbage police?
You called me a bigot and I find that highly offensive and completely uncalled for. If you want clarification of my meaning, ask me. It should be obvious to you I have no problem giving my opinion. Otherwise, take your uncalled for vile insults and your hurt feelings and shove them up your ass.
Now then. It’s over as far as I’m concerned. I got called a bigot, refuted that insult with passion, explained myself thouroughly, and now it’s time to move on. Live and let live. Let’s all TRY to get along.
SBL, I mentioned the groups, or individual members of these groups, whose causes or cause for one reason or another has been supported by this blog. You’re lumping them all together as one, not me. I never said that they were all inter-twined; you made that jump on your own.
I pointed out who gets support here but if you or anyone else here think that there’s an effort going on to show others as victims that aren’t seen in any noticeable degree as victims by the left, than you’re dreaming. Simply point me to those threads and show me I’m wrong.
As for your response about the Promise Keepers and N.O.I., you made my point; liberals have a hard time being critical of like groups. You said…”I don’t think NOW gives a pass to Nation of Islam, they just don’t address them as a socially dominant force”. Are you claiming the Promise Keepers are? Who gets the attention of the press, meets with foreign heads of states and is chummy- chummy with a vast number of politicians?
The N.O.I. is a million member group of thugs and racists, I’ve dealt with them more than once and the ones I’ve had contact with were 100% asshole. Every one of them.
The Promise Keepers though get this from you, or are at least lumped into a group you describe this way…”In my perception, they were often fairly wimpy guys who welcomed the institutional message to keep their woman in her place. (They ARE awful “uppity†these days and just don’t mind as well as they should, after all.) If NOW criticizes this group it’s for a good reason, in my opinion”.
I dealt with the N.O.I. once regarding a child custody issue. It was years ago and their treatment of women is deplorable. The woman who had called for assistance had a restraining order against her spouse, an N.O.I. member. She said her treatment was common. I won’t go into detail but for you to spout off about Promise Keepers, and give these racists and thugs a pass is absurd, but common for the liberal left.
The only way liberals have to argue is by claiming an interpretation of something a conservative says, not anywhere close in meaning to their actual words or intent, and than running with it like it’s true.
For a clear look at this type of ruse see jut about any response by Rob Thomas to something I’ve posted.
Not ALL liberals. Don’t categorize Celeste because of the way Rob and reg choose to deal with people. I haven’t observed this behaviour from Celeste. Of course I’m fairly new.
By the way, I’m REAL liberal.
But I’m not hard enough LEFT or PC enough for those in the Democratic Party like Rob. My party’s tent is getting smaller and smaller, and they’re forcing me toward the door more and more every day. Every day someone with Rob’s hard left stance calls me names or insults me. Yet we’re supposed to be on the same team. Go figure.
Live and let live. If you don’t try to impose your value system on me and call me names when I don’t conform to your way of thinking we’ve got no problem. If you do, I’ll point out to you that I don’t do that bullshit to others and I won’t stand for it being done to me. I am not encumbered by guilt because I have nothing to feel guilty about. Therefore insults and labels don’t hush me into retreat. When people try to hush me by bringing out the race or bigot card, those are the people that usually get told to go fuck themselves.
“I get piles of letters from readers who tell me that they would like to comment but that the environment is simply too impossible and they don’t want to be attacked. You are each responsible for that.
“Blaming the other person who has insulted you is, at this point, irrelevant and a method of avoiding having to take personal responsibility.”
I take full responsibility for calling Woody a liar and a moron. He can take responsibility for his dishonesty, inability to make an argument on substance rather than an ideological prediliction, his crackpot lines about Obama’s “socialism” or blaming the current President for piling up debt, rather than Reagan-and-Bush-onomics, which any objective or honest observer of the actual evidence can see started this trend and led to the current critical situation in which even necessary deficit spending in a near-depression economic criss becomes difficult and dangerous.
For the record, I don’t consider people like Woody or the Teabaggers “conservative.” I consider Andrew Sullivan and Bruce Bartlett conservatives who I have disagreements with. Woody is a guy with his head in a hole, shouting insults. I don’t have any intention of commenting here regularly because it’s a goddam cesspool. Surefire also has a chip on his shoulder and brings up totally irrelevant shit (like OJ and the Nation of Islam – The NOI is a reactionary religious cult that has more in common with Jerry Falewll and Pat Robertson than it does with liberals. OJ got off because of bad police and prosecutorial work – and a legal system that privileges people who can spend millions on defense lawyers.)
ATQ – I went back and tried to make some distinctions, but your commentary about what’s “normal” and what’s not was offensive and what I initially reacted to. I don’t give a shit if you’re offended, because I’m offended by your “verbiage” that stands square in the tradition of pushing gay people into a category of “less than.” If you really want to stand apart from bigots, don’t use their frames of reference.
I’m done. This is boring shit.
“If you don’t try to impose your value system on me and call me names” … uh…like not “normal” ???? Get a clue !
Oh, one more thing. Happy “Confederate History Month” to the “conservative” GOP acolytes on this blog. The pig Haley Barbour, former RNC chair and current Governor of the Great State of Mississippi, will issue three…count them…three proclamations this year celebrating treason and violent rebellion defending slavery. Meanwhile idiots in congress spew garbage about Democratic “totalitarianism”, “socialism” and “Death panels.” Disgusting. This is your sewer. Keep swimming in it and yammering about liberal “intolerance” or “twisting” your “truths.” Conservatism has been sabotaged by right-wing radicals taking over the Republican Party. Clean your fucking house and then get back to me.
Hey fellow liberals, what do you say we grab Answering The Question and throw him out of our liberal tent, for good? I’m for it. You know what they say, if someone threatens to leave, they’ve already left.
In comment 110, Sure Fire advocates lynching black children just for wearing their pants low. Don’t let him tell you otherwise.
Let’s see now.
I’m a bigot. Woody is a cancer. Sure Fire advocates the lynching of black kids.
LOL. Thanks for making my point for me. I couldn’t have done it better myself.
Sure Fire, in that same comment, also has an agenda of banning women from dancing or showing their faces. You have to read into it a little, but it’s there.
Here’s what I said.
“Scientifically speaking, what the 90% do is the NORM.”
In the very next statement I said.
“I don’t believe gays should be discrimated against. Much as I believe no human being who isn’t harmful to another human’s pursuit of life, liberty and happiness should be discrimated against. Live and let live. That’s my philosophy and belief.”
There it is there reg. If that offends you, too fucking bad. You have to WANT to be offended in order to interpret those statements as demeaning. Also, isn’t it funny how you didn’t find this statement demeaning or bigoted:
RobThomas Says:
April 10th, 2010 at 11:36 am
This whole thing about gays not being allowed in the Boy Scouts. I quit the Boy Scouts when I was 12 because I thought they were gay.
Not a word. Yet you’re offended by what I said.
A little bit selective in the outrage category aren’t you? LOL. Now go ahead and explain how Rob’s comment isn’t meant as a put down of gays and why you didn’t find it offensive, yet my statements were.
LOL. You’re pathetic.
ATQ, I’m not a mind reader, but if I had to bet on it, I’d say it’s because he knows I’m joking. It just so happens I’ve developed quite a reputation for being a liberal and being “tolerant” (your word, not mine), so I’ve got some capital to spend as far as jokes aimed at groups that tend to be protected by liberals are concerned. I don’t know what else to tell you. Oh, I do. It’s called life, and it isn’t fair. Your parents should have taught you that.
Yeah, Rob uses “gay” in the negative context and as a perjorative. That’s not offensive at all to reg. He’s got no beef with that.
“Scientifically speaking, what the 90% do is the NORM.â€
Now that’s offensive. LOL.
Scientifically, as in mathematically. Is math not a science? Are numbers not numbers? Not subject to interpretation?
Like I said, maybe you’re trying to redefine the word normal to fit YOUR meaning. Too bad. I wasn’t trying to offend, so if you were, too fucking bad.
Dude, your whole life is a negative context. Stop whining.
Oh. I get it. You’re just joking around. No harm done then right? No need to be offended if we think a guy is just kidding.
You mean like when that idiot Don Imus called the Rutgers girls “nappy headed hoes” when he was joking around? Got it. It’s all good when YOU’RE joking around.
Like I said. Selective outrage. LOL.
I’m not whining bro. Your buddy reg is the one who got his feelings hurt and was offended. Get with him Rob. Tell him to toughen up a little bit. Coach him a little bit Rob.
Yes you are, bro. So shrill I can hear you from another website.
Selective outrage…omg. I’m not even going to ask you to define that. You’ve embarrassed yourself enough tonight.
Rob,
I can’t seem to make reg feel better. Maybe you can. I went out of my way to explain to him my belief that no human beings should be disriminated against. I went out of my way to explain that I don’t oppose gays getting married. I went out of my way to explain that I don’t care what two consenting adults do. All to no avail. He was still offended.
Rob, per your own admission he seems to know you. Comfort him and explain to him that his sensibilities might just be a little bit too delicate for a blog like this.
RobThomas Says:
April 10th, 2010 at 11:40 pm
I heard Tony Rafael’s gay.
Oh, I’m kidding. Relax. Have to be careful when talking about him. That guy would sue his mother for not letting him have dessert.
Maybe you’ve hit on something Rob. Humor about sensitive subjects just might be the way to go in order to get people to lighten up and be cheerful.
Goodnight Rob. Goodnight reg. And Goodnight Mrs. Callabash, wherever you are.
Goodnight, ATQ. You’ve probably been up since Thursday.
I was away for a while. Did I miss anything?
Reg has missed the whole point as usual. The response I made to SBL was regarding the treatment of women and the fact N.O.W. won’t attack a group like the N.O.I. as compared to Promise Keepers. If now is going to go after those who treat women as they claim Promise Keepers do but give the N.O.I. a pass, the reason for the pass is clear.
That Reg attacks any post by a conservative here shows who has the chip on his shoulder and post 114 points that out as clear as a bell.
ATQ – I was skimming through (you don’t think I would really read all of this shit, do you ?) and caught your “norm” comment. Responded – then saw further qualifications and went back and re-addressed your post. And yes, I think calling someone’s sexuality on the basis of their being homosexual “not normal” is offensive. I would never say that to a gay person, nor to anyone else because, while your point is a statistical banality, it is part and parcel of a history of discrimination. Didn’t reat RT’s comment, nor many of the others, so some of what I said might well be out-of-context of a close reading of every word here – God Forbid!
SureFire – you have invariably had an arsenal of snappy quips about “liberals” – you can shove most of them up your ass, which is where they seem to have originated. Totally tired of you. You’re a bad cliche.
NOW has announced today that they’re going to attack the Nation of Islam, just so Sure Fire will stop whining. They said it’s going to involve some kind of joke about bean pies. Stay tuned.
You don’t matter Reg, you don’t argue my point you just attack from your board and care with comments that are always the same from you. I really could care about what you’re tired of.
Rob, I heard it was going to be exploding bow ties.
Exploding bow ties. That’s fucked up. Do you feel better now, Sure Fire? Can NOW get back to doing what they normally do? Have they satisfied your strict criteria for being unbiased?
Only if they truly attack.
Ahh, forget it. They shouldn’t. It’s funner to watch you cry about their bias.