Multi Medium

And You Thought Obama Was Presumptuous

Well, it looks like the latest turd to be thrown against the wall in hopes that it sticks is the one that Obama is somehow being “presumptuous” by doing “presidential” things before he actually becomes president.  Things like traveling overseas, preparing a transition team, talking to reporters…

But none of that compares to the presumption of Rick Santorum.  His homophobic fundraising e-mail, as beautifully skewered by Jack Taylor, begins:

Dear Friend of Marriage,

My friend, I’ve never come to you with a more urgent message…

Yes, that’s right - Rick Santorum is speaking as the living embodiment of Marriage Incarnate!  (In case you were wondering, Marriage needs money fast, and lots of it.)

Now that’s presumptuous.

Add comment August 13th, 2008 at 07:45pm Posted by Eli

The False Metric Strikes Again

If your movement’s credibility depended on your ability to come up with a yeah-but that makes you sound somehow morally superior to your opposition despite the dishonesty and near-omnidirectional hate that drips from your every word, what would you choose?

What may be surprising, however, is to what degree profanity seems to be a feature more common to left-leaning blogs than to right-leaning ones.

Which side of the online aisle is more likely to use profanity, though? For answers, I turned to the search engine Google to see how common swearing is in the right and left blog universes by looking up the late stand-up comic George Carlin’s “seven dirty words” in the most popular blog communities.

The results showed that online liberals tend to use profanity a lot more than online conservatives.

(…)

Dividing the number of instances of profanity by the number of pages of the sites on which they appear, then multiplying the result by 100 yields what might be called a “profanity quotient.”

The top 10 liberal sites (Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Democratic Underground, Talking Points Memo, Crooks and Liars, Think Progress, Atrios, Greenwald, MyDD and Firedoglake) have a profanity quotient of 14.6.

The top 10 conservative sites (Free Republic, Hot Air, Little Green Footballs, Townhall, News Busters, Lucianne.com, Wizbang, Ace of Spades, Red State and Volokh Conspiracy) have a quotient of 1.17.

This means that 14.6 percent of all pages on the most popular liberal sites have profanity on them, compared to 1.17 percent of all pages on the conservative sites.

That’s quite a disparity.

(…)

Notable also in these stats are the liberal blogs Eschaton, Crooks and Liars, and Firedoglake, where profanity is so common you basically cannot take part in the discussion without running into it.

On the flip side, the popular conservative community Lucianne.com, run by literary agent Lucianne Goldberg, seems to have no profanity at all.

Why such a disparity between the right and left online?

Some on the right may take this as a sign of their superior intelligence. [HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!] Others may theorize that it’s simply because liberals are angry at President Bush.

More than likely, it is a reflection of how things are offline. Conservatives, especially those who are more religious, are less likely to use profanity in their daily conversation.

All well and good, I suppose.  But tell me: Have you calculated an eliminationism quotient?  Or a racism/sexism/homophobia quotient?  Or a dishonesty quotient?  Or a harassing-12-year-old-kids quotient?

I would much rather read the occasional swear word than wade through a sewer of hate and lies - not to mention personal viciousness (outing liberal bloggers, publishing people’s addresses and phone numbers to encourage harassment and threats).  Oh well, different strokes for different folks, as they say.  But please, do not mistake the right’s lack of profanity for civility or decency.  It’s quite easy to be hateful without swearing, and vice versa.

(h/t Jane)

1 comment August 7th, 2008 at 07:40am Posted by Eli

Too Good To Be True

This has to be parody.  Has to be:

[C]heck out who introduced/sponsored the latest version of the Constitutional Marriage Amendment:

110th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. J. RES. 43

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 25, 2008

Mr. WICKER (for himself, Mr. VITTER, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. THUNE, and Mr. SHELBY) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

(…)

Section 1. This article may be cited as the Marriage Protection Amendment.

Section 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

Wow.  Just wow.  I guess I can kind of see the logic, though.  As long as the gays can’t get married, straight marriages will be stronger, and thus better able to withstand the occasional indiscretion.

Like, say, cavorting with hookers while wearing a diaper, or using foot signals to pick up guys in the men’s room.  As long as the gays can’t get married, that stuff is a-okay with the missus, but if gays and lesbians start getting hitched, well… watch your back.

Add comment June 27th, 2008 at 09:23pm Posted by Eli

Today Must Be Chutzpah Day

The All-Seeing Eye Of Froomkin sets the tone:

Yesterday’s long-awaited Senate Intelligence Committee report further solidifies the argument that the Bush administration’s most blatant appeals to fear in its campaign to sell the Iraq war were flatly unsupported.

Some of what President Bush and others said about Iraq was corroborated by what later turned out to be inaccurate intelligence. But their most compelling and gut-wrenching allegations — for instance, that Saddam Hussein was ready to supply his friends in al-Qaeda with nuclear weapons — were simply made up.

(…)

The White House response? That officials in Congress and elsewhere were saying the same things about Iraq. Or in other words, that other people bought the administration line. It takes a lot of chutzpah to defend yourself against charges that you’ve engaged in a propaganda campaign by noting that it worked.

Can’t really add anything to that…

But wait, there’s more!  Remember John McCain’s crazy anti-Muslim spiritual guide, Rod Parsley?

Shortly after Sen. John McCain publicly rejected the endorsements of John Hagee and Rod Parsley, Parsley released his own statement rescinding his endorsement and then sort of disappeared from sight.  Sometime since then, Parsley apparently decided that he had a bit more to get off his chest and so he released a video on his Center for Moral Clarity website in which he reiterated many of the points he made in his initial statement but added some attacks on what he claimed were the “politically vicious and misguided” hit-squads who exposed his radical views, claiming that his views on Islam are “very much in the mainstream” and insisting that he made a “clear distinction between Muslim terrorists and the vast majority of peaceful Muslims.”

Of course, Parsley is on record having told his congregation and massive TV audience that “America was founded in part with the intention of seeing this false religion [Islam] destroyed” and “Islam is an anti-Christ religion that intends through violence to conquer the world,” as well as writing that so-called “Muslim extremists” are really “mainstream believers who are drawing from the well at the very heart of Islam.”

What a dillweed.

And then there’s the Log Cabin Republicans:

Log Cabin has had a long relationship with Sen. McCain, going back to our national office’s opening in the mid-90s.  He has had an open door to us at Log Cabin and has a record of inclusion.

We understand the general election starts today and Log Cabin will do its part to educate gay and lesbian voters about Sen. McCain in the weeks ahead.  Contrary to what many Democrats are saying, Sen. McCain is not George W. Bush.  Most gays and lesbians understand that fact.  Sen. McCain isn’t going to use gay people as a wedge issue.  He won the GOP nomination with no help (and with outright hostility) from many so-called “social conservatives.”  This is a significant achievement for all gay and lesbian Americans.

…McCain didn’t just vote (twice) against the marriage amendment.  He put himself on the line, bucked his own party leadership and President Bush, and took to the floor of the U.S. Senate to speak against the proposal.  In 2004, he gave one of the most impassioned speeches from the Senate floor on the issue.  That isn’t insignificant.

Is his record perfect?  No.  But it’s inclusive and shows positive signs.  We will hear more about his priorities and record in the months ahead.  Stay tuned…

If this sounds hard to believe, that’s because it is:

Uh, he didn’t look like he was putting anything on the line when he did this:

I believe that the institution of marriage should be reserved for the union of one man and one woman, said Sen. McCain. The Protect Marriage Arizona Amendment would allow the people of Arizona to decide on the definition of marriage in our state. I wholeheartedly support the Protect Marriage Arizona Amendment and I hope that the voters in Arizona choose to support it as well.

– John McCain in 2005.

* Or when he made this commercial for the failed 2006 Arizona Marriage Amendment, which would have effectively banned same-sex couples from legal recognition of any kind?

* What about this?:

Advisers to Sen. John McCain’s presidential bid say he will not try to “soften” the Republican party’s platform on abortion and same-sex marriage to appeal to more voters.

Sounds like the Log Cabin is more like a houseboat, floating down Denial River.  Good luck with that education program, guys.

Add comment June 6th, 2008 at 07:10pm Posted by Eli

How Not To Do Pushback

Okay, so I get that the Republicans are going to do all they can to smear Scott McClellan now that he’s accused the Bush Administration of being a bunch of lying liars - it’s what they do.  But a couple of specific lines of attack kinda mystify me.

First there was Jeff Gannon, Male Prostitute, insinuating that Scottie is Teh Gay Homosexual:

What I hear about the book does not sound like the Scott McClellan I knew for two years. I can say without fear of contradiction, that I knew Scott better than any other White House correspondent or Washington reporter.

Nudge nudge, wink wink.  Because nothing destroys your credibility more than being gay.  Unless you’re Jeff Gannon, of course, in which case you’re totally believable.

The thing about this line of attack is, if Gannon is going to Go There, then he had better be damn sure that he didn’t know anyone else of note in the White House “better than any other White House correspondent or Washington reporter,” or if he did, that Scottie didn’t know bout it.

He’d also better be damn sure that no-one else of note in the White House facilitated his entree into the White House press corps knowing that he was Scottie’s boy-toy (or vice-versa).  ‘Cuz I really don’t think the Bushies want to deal with stories along the lines of, “President Bush/Karl Rove allowed gay prostitute into White House press corps for homosexual affair with White House press secretary,” although I suppose I could be wrong.

The other pushback that seems a bit strange is the one about Dubya’s cocaine use:

A close former aide to President Bush has come forward to emphatically rebut Scott McClellan’s allegation that Bush had once said that he did not remember if he had ever used cocaine.

Logan Walters, who as Bush’s longtime personal aide would have been present for a supporter phone call like the one McClellan describes, told Politico that he never heard such a conversation and that the idea of it is completely implausible.

“I never heard him say, ‘I don’t remember whether or not I’ve used cocaine’ — never heard him say anything like that,” Walters said. “It would be so strikingly out of character and inconsistent with the way he typically responded to issues and questions, it would have stood out in my mind.”

(…)

McClellan writes: “As we arrived at the suite, the governor invited me to follow him into the back room. Logan stayed in the living room area, arranging for the governor to take a phone call from a supporter.

“Bush motioned for me to sit and relax in his room while he took the call. … ‘The media won’t let go of these ridiculous cocaine rumors,’ I heard Bush say. ‘You know, the truth is I honestly don’t remember whether I tried it or not. We had some pretty wild parties back in the day, but I just don’t remember.’ … I remember thinking to myself, how can that be?”

McClellan stood by his recollection and pointed out: “Logan was not in the room. He was in the living room area.”

Walters maintained that, at the time, he was in Bush’s presence all day, every day.

“I would have reacted the same way Scott claims he reacted in the book, which is I just wouldn’t have believed him,” Walters said. “I don’t believe it’s plausible to say, ‘I don’t remember whether I used cocaine.’

“The president always showed a lot of integrity around me. I was with him in numerous public and private situations, especially during the campaign when he was talking to Karen Hughes or Karl Rove or Dan Bartlett or other traveling campaign staff.

“I did not ever witness him trying to hide something. I didn’t ever witness him being dishonest about something — saying something publicly that he was inconsistent with privately. That’s not the guy I came to know.”

Well, first of all, that last quote proves that Walters is a ginormous liar - either about what he witnessed, or about being in Dubya’s vicinity for more than five minutes a day.  But even aside from that, is Dubya’s cocaine use really something you want to remind people of?  Or the lameness of Dubya’s denial, which suggests that he was in such a drug- or alcohol-induced fog that he couldn’t even remember if he’d tried cocaine?

Maybe the story’s true, maybe it isn’t (I’m inclined to believe it is, based on Dubya’s dishonesty and lack of character about, well, everything else), but is it really a great idea to remind people of it, or get them debating over whether Dubya was such a wreck of a party-boy that even coke didn’t make an impression on him?

(h/t Stoller)

Add comment May 31st, 2008 at 02:25pm Posted by Eli

After The Lovings

Another American hero gone:

Mildred Loving was a black woman who married a white man in Virginia, which was against the law in the state. She took her case all the way up to the Supreme Court, which struck down interracial marriage bans in the 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision. Today it was announced that she has died at the age of 68. But what her AP obituary doesn’t mention—hopefully others will correct the oversight—is that last year Mildred Loving came out foursquare for marriage equality for same-sex couples as well, and insisted you should, too. Here was her statement:

We didn’t get married in Washington because we wanted to marry there. We did it there
because the government wouldn’t allow us to marry back home in Virginia where we
grew up, where we met, where we fell in love, and where we wanted to be together and
build our family. You see, I am a woman of color and Richard was white, and at that
time people believed it was okay to keep us from marrying because of their ideas of who
should marry whom.

When Richard and I came back to our home in Virginia, happily married, we had no
intention of battling over the law. We made a commitment to each other in our love and
lives, and now had the legal commitment, called marriage, to match. Isn’t that what
marriage is?

Not long after our wedding, we were awakened in the middle of the night in our own
bedroom by deputy sheriffs and actually arrested for the “crime” of marrying the wrong
kind of person. Our marriage certificate was hanging on the wall above the bed.

The state prosecuted Richard and me, and after we were found guilty, the judge declared:
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed
them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there
would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” He sentenced us to a year in prison, but offered to suspend the sentence if we left our home in Virginia for 25 years exile.

We left, and got a lawyer. Richard and I had to fight, but still were not fighting for a
cause. We were fighting for our love.

Though it turned out we had to fight, happily Richard and I didn’t have to fight alone.
Thanks to groups like the ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, and
so many good people around the country willing to speak up, we took our case for the
freedom to marry all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And on June 12, 1967, the
Supreme Court ruled unanimously that, “The freedom to marry has long been recognized
as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free
men,” a “basic civil right.”

(…)

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that
I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to
have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the
“wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no
matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over
others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court
case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so
many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the
freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.

Two things jump out at me here:

1) Mildred Loving is awesome, and she recognizes that prohibiting same-sex marriages now is the same kind of injustice as preventing mixed-race marriages was then.

2) Since when is “God created the races separate” any kind of recognizable or acceptable legal argument?  I thought our system of law was supposed to be based on the Constitution and not the Bible.  I wish there were a way to remove judges when they demonstrate themselves to be manifestly unqualified or unfit for their positions.

2 comments May 5th, 2008 at 09:31pm Posted by Eli

That Hagee Endorsement Is Working Out Very Well For Him.

Yeah, getting that Hagee endorsement sure was a coup for John McCain:

On his radio show yesterday, right-wing talker Dennis Prager asked Hagee to respond to “the various charges made against him” in a fact sheet put out by the Democratic National Committee. Asked about his comments on Hurricane Katrina, Hagee said “the topic of that day was cursing and blessing”:

(…)

PRAGER: Now, they have you on Hurricane Katrina, quote, from NPR two double-o six: “All hurricanes are acts of God because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that.” Go ahead.

HAGEE: Yes. The topic of that day was cursing and blessing. Moses taught in the book of Deuteronomy that everything in life is either a blessing or a curse. There are days that things happen that at the time look like a curse. In the passing of time, they may become what appears to be a blessing. An illustration is Joseph, when he was sold into slavery it looked like a curse, it looked like the worse day of his life. When his brothers came into Egypt looking for food, what looked like a bad day 13 years before turned out to be a blessed day. What happened in New Orleans looked like the curse of God, in time if New Orleans recovers and becomes the pristine city it can become it may in time be called a blessing. But at this time it’s called a curse.

(…)

PRAGER: Right, but in the case, did NPR get, is this quote correct though that in the case of New Orleans you do feel it was sin?

HAGEE: In the case of New Orleans, their plan to have that homosexual rally was sin. But it never happened. The rally never happened.

PRAGER: No, I understand.

HAGEE: It was scheduled that Monday.

PRAGER: No, I’m only trying to understand that in the case of New Orleans, you do feel that God’s hand was in it because of a sinful city?

HAGEE: That it was a city that was planning a sinful conduct, yes.

Granted, I’m not exactly the foremost expert on religion, but it sure does sound like Hagee is making some kind of Great Flood analogy, where God cleanses the Earth of the wicked for a clean start.  Either that, or He was simply so outraged by the idea of a gay pride parade that he wiped out the entire city.  But if God hates gays and their horrible, sinful gay parades of gayness that much, why is San Francisco still standing?  I mean, it’s in prime earthquake country, and yeah, it got hit pretty bad in 1989, but it hasn’t been totally devastated since 1906, and I’m pretty sure that was before gayness was even invented.

So what gives?  Why wipe out New Orleans and not San Francisco?  Is it all the black people and the poor people?  Is that it? Or maybe God is waiting for all the gay people to migrate to San Francisco, until it’s like Israel for gays (Gaysrael?)… so then He can wipe them all out at once, thus conserving His divine energy and reducing collateral damage to cities like New Orleans.

Um, not that I’m actually advocating that God destroy San Francisco, I’m just trying to understand the apparent inconsistency here.  Admittedly, I can’t see the entire universe, so I’m sure there must be very good big-picture explanation that I just can’t comprehend.  Or, alternatively, Hagee could just be a hate-filled crackpot who believes God to be an omnipotent version of himself, but I’m sure a Serious Presidential Nominee Of A Major Political Party would ever seek the endorsement of a hate-filled crackpot.  No, surely not.

Boy, I sure hope McCain gets some questions about this when he’s in Louisiana tomorrow.  I hope they make him angry.  You wouldn’t like him when he’s angry.

3 comments April 23rd, 2008 at 07:34pm Posted by Eli

More Fun With Savage

So it turns out that not only is Michael Savage completely batshit insane and almost certainly a Repressed Gay Man In Denial, but he is also quite possibly the worst writer on the planet:

I just read an old article in Salon about Michael Weiner (his real name) and it’s one of the saddest things you’ll ever read.

Mocked by his dad, rejected by his liberal friends, scorned by every university he applied to (for teaching positions) and racked by homosexual desires, Savage turned himself into this racist, xenophobic and homophobic monstrosity.

(…)

Here’s an excerpt from the Salon piece (bold added):

This maniacal tendency, and the roiling emotions that fueled it, were laid bare in “Vital Signs,” Michael Weiner’s first and only book of fiction, published in 1983. A collection of confessional, stream-of-consciousness stories, it follows the exploits of Samuel Trueblood, who just happens to be a 40-ish New York Jew, an herbalist and writer with a tumultuous personal life, a substantial assortment of inner demons and a bit of a Napoleon complex. “I am physically not tall, but my eyes burn with fire,” he states. “Two black fires of Hell.” Trueblood narrates a series of misadventures, from procuring an illegal backroom abortion for his fianc�e to beating the stuffing out of an abusive cop.

Trueblood describes his life as one long search for inner peace. He blames much of his discontent on his “childhood beneath tyranny,” during which he was cowed by his bullying father. Trueblood describes how his father mocked him with “brutal jokes and chides, ‘gentle’ kidding: ‘You’re not a fag, are you Sam?’ the little man would say each time the boy dared wear a colorful shirt or flashy trousers.” Unable to shake his dead father’s disapproving influence, the adult Samuel is tortured by feelings of weakness and inadequacy. “I am filled with fears,” he admits, “nearly all the time feeling I am about to become totally insane.”

Even after moving to mellow Marin County, becoming a successful herbalist and starting a family, Trueblood remains plagued by his “underlying sadness.” Not even trusty passionfruit tea can bring him off this bummer. In one passage, he almost loses it in front of his wife and two young children:

“Inner voice screaming at me for years, first rational, then crazy, telling me to do mad things. Every form of relief tried, painting, psychotherapy, running, diet, vitamins, etc., etc. Almost uncontrollable now. Impulses to stab children, strangers, wife, self with scissors.”

Eventually, Trueblood seeks solace in chasing skirts. (Though he admits to being drawn to “masculine beauty,” he confides that “I choose to override my desires for men when they swell in me, waiting out the passions like a storm, below decks.”) While his wife stays home with the kids, he beds a young “cockswell” with a “dykish haircut” and skin “[s]ofter than that Northern Indian prostitute in Fiji whose covering was as soft as that of my own penis.” And so it goes for another 50 pages.

That last bold is mine. I mean, what the hell was that???

I thought Scooter Libby and Liz Cheney’s ventures into literature were bad, but Savage Weiner makes them sound like Jane Austen. Crikey.

Add comment December 6th, 2007 at 11:49am Posted by Eli

Michael Savage’s Special Purpose?

I think I may have finally figured out Michael Savage’s role in the world.

There’s an old joke that Keith Richards’ primary function in the Rolling Stones is to make Mick Jagger look healthy. I think Savage’s primary function in talk radio is to make Rush Limbaugh look tolerant.

1 comment December 5th, 2007 at 09:52pm Posted by Eli

I Guess It Wasn’t All Bad…

CNN at least did one thing right in last night’s debate:

In a segment that surprised many viewers, an openly gay veteran addressed the CNN/YouTube Republican presidential candidates from the audience after they responded to his question on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The two-hour televised debate was broadcast on CNN and included questions from over 5,000 submitted to the online video hosting site.

The six minute segment on gay issues began with CNN anchor and debate host Anderson Cooper introducing a video question from Brigadier Gen. Keith Kerr (Ret.):

I’m a retired brigadier general with 43 years of service. And I’m a graduate of the Special Forces Officer Course, the Commanding General Staff Course and the Army War College. And I’m an openly gay man.

I want to know why you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians.

Before Cooper turned to the candidates for their responses, he introduced General Kerr, who was sitting in the audience. Kerr is the only questioner from the debate who was introduced. “I’m glad you’re here,” Cooper said.

Congressman Duncan Hunter, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, and Former Massachusetts Governor all defended the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, with Romney saying, “it seems to have worked.”

“It seems to have worked”??? What does that even mean? How many qualified translators got discharged for being gay? How many 50-year-olds got dragged kicking and screaming back into service while gay troops were being booted out? How many criminals and sociopaths were knowingly enlisted to meet recruitment numbers? How do they affect morale and unit cohesion? What, pray tell, would Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell not working look like?

Cooper pressed Romney, reminding the candidate that in 1994 that he looked forward to the day when gays and lesbians could serve, “and I quote, ‘openly and honestly in our nation’s military.’ Do you stand by that?” asked Cooper.

Romney did not reaffirm his statement, instead saying, “I look forward to hearing from the military exactly what they believe is the right way to have the right kind of cohesion and support in our troops and I listen to what they have to say.”

In response to Romney, boos were heard from the audience.

Following the exchange, Cooper turned to General Kerr and asked him to stand and address the audience. “Did you feel you got an answer to your question?” Cooper asked.

The audience applauded when Kerr replied, “With all due respect, I did not get an answer from the candidates….American men and women in the military are professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians.

“For 42 years, I wore the army uniform on active duty, in the Reserve, and also for the state of California. I revealed I was a gay man after I retired. Today, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is destructive to our military policy. Every day, the Department of Defense discharges two people, not for misconduct, not for the unit cohesion… that Congressman Hunter is talking about, but simply because they happen to be gay…and we’re talking about doctors, nurses, pilots, and the surgeon who sews somebody up when they’re taken from the battlefield.”

It was the only time during the two-hour program that an audience member addressed the group.

Following Kerr’s statement, Cooper asked McCain to answer the question. McCain thanked the General for service to his country and then explained that he believed the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy is working.

And there it is again. What the hell? Is that the official Republican talking point on DADT? That it’s “working”?

In response to the candidates, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network Executive Director Aubrey Sarvis said “Republicans and Democrats alike should be able to agree that our national security and military readiness are not partisan political matters. Republican voters increasingly understand that Don?t Ask, Don?t Tell deprives our armed forces of the talent and skills of patriotic Americans who have important contributions to make to our national defense.”

“Voters want leaders who will reach across party lines and build consensus to repeal this law,” he added.

Damn straight. Er, so to speak.

Also at the same link: Huckabee says he strongly disagrees with the Log Cabin Republicans on gay marriage, but he’s perfectly happy to accept their support. How generous and open-minded of him.

3 comments November 29th, 2007 at 08:01am Posted by Eli

Hang-Up? What Hang-Up? I Have No Idea What You’re Talking About…

For those of you who have not heard of it, the Conservapedia is, as you might guess, the conservative answer to the Wikipedia. Via Atrios (and h/t ::matthew), it appears that their readership is very, shall we say, single-minded:

Most viewed pages

1. Main Page? [1,899,628]
2. Homosexuality? [1,519,539]
3. Homosexuality and Hepatitis? [516,394]
4. Homosexuality and Promiscuity? [417,997]
5. Homosexuality and Parasites? [387,623]
6. Homosexuality and Domestic Violence? [340,161]
7. Gay Bowel Syndrome? [330,207]
8. Homosexuality and Gonorrhea? [329,127]
9. Homosexuality and Mental Health? [264,680]
10. Homosexuality and Syphilis? [263,078]

I mean, not even Ronald Reagan or Rush Limbaugh or George W. Bush? Nope - if it’s not about homosexuality and some terrible affliction, they’re just not interested. (Oddly enough, “Homosexuality and AIDS” didn’t make the Top 10.) By my calculations, the Homosexuality page was viewed about 80% as many times as the main page, while the top 9 Homosexuality pages combined were viewed well over twice as many times as the main page. Does the Conservapedia even have any other topics?

Strange, strange people.

Add comment November 21st, 2007 at 07:28am Posted by Eli

AFL-Gayda?

Little-known fact: “Al-Qaeda” is actually Arabic for “The Teamsters”.

U.S. labor leaders have written a biting letter to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, voicing concerns that the government is collecting labor union data on airline passengers flying to the United States from Europe to determine whether they pose a terrorism risk.

As part of an agreement reached in July between the United States and European Union, airlines are required to provide personal data on millions of U.S.-bound passengers, such as names and credit card information. European negotiators won restrictions on the use of such sensitive information as religion, sexual orientation and union membership.

But the Passenger Name Record Agreement states that that data can be used in exceptional cases, “where the life of a data subject or of others could be imperiled or seriously impaired,” such as in a counterterrorism investigation.

“We agree with the department’s objective to identify those representing a genuine threat, but we categorically reject the notion that union membership has any bearing on this determination,” AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney and Edward Wytkind, president of the AFL-CIO’s Transportation Trades Department, wrote in a letter dated yesterday. “Even the suggestion that union membership is somehow indicative of a threat to security is offensive to the millions of workers we are proud to represent.”

Umm, I also have to ask: Are there a lot of gay terrorists? And what about gay union members? Should they even be allowed to travel?

1 comment October 12th, 2007 at 08:02pm Posted by Eli

Also Not Gay

Crooks & Liars is not limited to Americans - yesterday they found footage of a press conference by Larry Craig’s British cousin:

Add comment August 30th, 2007 at 07:33am Posted by Eli

More Prominent Republicans Who Are TOTALLY NOT GAY

Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough are both Teh Manly Non-Gay Men, but Tucker gets the extra bonus points for his wacky gay-bashing shenanigans.

Did I mention that Tucker is also TOTALLY NOT HOMOPHOBIC?

2 comments August 29th, 2007 at 08:30pm Posted by Eli

I’m A Bad, Bad Person

I went to Larry Craig’s “How to contact me” page, and “Just wave your hand under the men’s room stall partition” wasn’t listed anywhere.

Nothing about tapping your foot either.

2 comments August 28th, 2007 at 07:20pm Posted by Eli

Burning Questions

1) If Republicans and cultural conservatives oppose gay marriage because it somehow damages The Sacred Institution Of Marriage, then what is their objection to civil unions? Is it possible that they’re not worried about the institution of marriage at all, and simply hate gay people?

2) What’s the difference between a nook and a cranny?

2 comments August 27th, 2007 at 08:33pm Posted by Eli

Just A Spoonful Of Racism Helps The Medicine Go Down…

Krugman is full of sweetness and light today, as usual:

So now Mitt Romney is trying to Willie Hortonize Rudy Giuliani. And thereby hangs a tale — the tale, in fact, of American politics past and future, and the ultimate reason Karl Rove’s vision of a permanent Republican majority was a foolish fantasy.

(…)

[S]ome Republicans are trying to make similar use of the recent murder of three college students in Newark, a crime in which two of the suspects are Hispanic illegal immigrants. Tom Tancredo flew into Newark to accuse the city’s leaders of inviting the crime by failing to enforce immigration laws, while Newt Gingrich declared that the “war here at home” against illegal immigrants is “even more deadly than the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

And Mr. Romney, who pretends to be whatever he thinks the G.O.P. base wants him to be, is running a radio ad denouncing New York as a “sanctuary city” for illegal immigrants, an implicit attack on Mr. Giuliani.

Strangely, nobody seems to be trying to make a national political issue out of other horrifying crimes, like the Connecticut home invasion in which two paroled convicts, both white, are accused of killing a mother and her two daughters. Oh, and by the way: over all, Hispanic immigrants appear to commit relatively few crimes — in fact, their incarceration rate is actually lower than that of native-born non-Hispanic whites.

To appreciate what’s going on here you need to understand the difference between the goals of the modern Republican Party and the strategy it uses to win elections.

The people who run the G.O.P. are concerned, above all, with making America safe for the rich. Their ultimate goal, as Grover Norquist once put it, is to get America back to the way it was “up until Teddy Roosevelt, when the socialists took over,” getting rid of “the income tax, the death tax, regulation, all that.”

But right-wing economic ideology has never been a vote-winner. Instead, the party’s electoral strategy has depended largely on exploiting racial fear and animosity.

Ronald Reagan didn’t become governor of California by preaching the wonders of free enterprise; he did it by attacking the state’s fair housing law, denouncing welfare cheats and associating liberals with urban riots. Reagan didn’t begin his 1980 campaign with a speech on supply-side economics, he began it — at the urging of a young Trent Lott — with a speech supporting states’ rights delivered just outside Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964.

And if you look at the political successes of the G.O.P. since it was taken over by movement conservatives, they had very little to do with public opposition to taxes, moral values, perceived strength on national security, or any of the other explanations usually offered. To an almost embarrassing extent, they all come down to just five words: southern whites starting voting Republican.

(…)

But Republicans have a problem: demographic changes are making their race-based electoral strategy decreasingly effective. Quite simply, America is becoming less white, mainly because of immigration. Hispanic and Asian voters were only 4 percent of the electorate in 1980, but they were 11 percent of voters in 2004 — and that number will keep rising for the foreseeable future.

Those numbers are the reason Karl Rove was so eager to reach out to Hispanic voters. But the whites the G.O.P. has counted on to vote their color, not their economic interests, are having none of it. From their point of view, it’s us versus them — and everyone who looks different is one of them.

So now we have the spectacle of Republicans competing over who can be most convincingly anti-Hispanic. I know, officially they’re not hostile to Hispanics in general, only to illegal immigrants, but that’s a distinction neither the G.O.P. base nor Hispanic voters takes seriously.

Today’s G.O.P., in short, is trapped by its history of cynicism. For decades it has exploited racial animosity to win over white voters — and now, when Republican politicians need to reach out to an increasingly diverse country, the base won’t let them.

Well, there’s a happy ending, at least. But how sad is it that racism (and sexism, and homophobia) are the sugarcoating to make the Republican agenda more appealing? I’m picturing something like this:

PROSPECTIVE REPUBLICAN VOTER: I don’t see how any of these tax cuts benefit me - I don’t make that kind of money. And it looks like you’re always taking my employer’s side instead of mine.

REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: We hate blacks, Mexicans, women, and gays.

PROSPECTIVE REPUBLICAN VOTER: Okay, I’m in.

(Also, you will be relieved to know that Rudy is not taking this threat lying down. He’s hired Scott Howell & Company to do his media - they’re the folks responsible for the racist “Harold, call me” ad in Tennessee.)

6 comments August 24th, 2007 at 07:58pm Posted by Eli

Stoopit Gays

Why they always gotta be ruining everybody’s lives?

(h/t Cliff Schecter)

2 comments July 26th, 2007 at 06:53pm Posted by Eli

Nathan Lane’s Modest Proposal

From NY Daily News’ Gatecrasher column:

Nathan Lane wants to end discrimination - and give heterosexuals a pride march.

“The grand marshal of the Straight Pride Parade - don’t you think it’s gotta be George Bush, in a tank top and cutoffs?” he told me Monday.

Celebrants could “play a little touch football and then go home and have sex with a woman. I think that’s saying it loud and proud.”

Can I just skip the touch football?

Add comment June 27th, 2007 at 11:28am Posted by Eli

What More Do You Need???

From a Newsday story about the NY legislature’s gay marriage debate:

Dov Hikind (D-Brooklyn), an Orthodox Jew, [suggested] incestuous couples be recognized along with those of the same sex. “There are certain things that do not change for me unless God sends a message to me,” he said.

Lawmakers laughed minutes later when they heard thunder from a passing storm.

I guess it would have been cooler if it had been seconds later rather than minutes later, but God was probably busy - you know how it is when you’re doing a billion things at once.

Seriously, the opposition just looks to me like homophobia masquerading as piety. If marriage is such a wonderful, holy sacrament, why would God create people who are unable to partake of it? What’s so terrible about formalizing all loving, committed relationships? I think religion is just being used as an excuse here - it wouldn’t be the first time.

(h/t Juan Melli)

Add comment June 20th, 2007 at 11:51am Posted by Eli

What Niewert Says

As always, Orcinus is frustrating but excellent (Niewert himself is not frustrating, it’s the mix of cluelessness and malevolence that he reports on):

It is only when speech is specifically criminal — that is, when it urges people to commit a specific criminal act that is then committed by those addressed — that any hate-crimes bill could come into play. There is no provision in the House’s hate-crimes bill that would penalize anyone for voicing ordinary, non-criminal, constitutionally protected speech, which Rep. Cohen’s speech clearly would constitute. Indeed, even most outright hate speech is protected speech and would not come into play under this law. The last clause of the bill specifically states:

Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.

What Gohmert and his fellow conservatives want the public to think, of course, is that the hate-crimes bill in fact would criminalize speech — specifically, the right of pastors and devout religionists to spout off about homosexuality.

This is, in fact, a bald falsehood, one that should be publicly countered and repudiated. As it is, it has now been entered into the congressional record and will doubtlessly be trotted out later as evidence of hypocrisy on the part of supporters of the hate-crimes legislation, which is currently en route to approval by the Senate after its long-overdue passage in the House.

The chief goal of the opponents of the bill — chiefly the denizens of the religious right, who have enjoyed considerable success blocking passage of any federal bias-crime law for the past decade, particularly during congressional rule by Republicans — lies in selling the idea that laws against hate crimes create “thought crimes.” It’s all part of a larger project of muddying the waters so that the public is confused about what actually is at stake with these laws.

(…)

Unfortunately, the basic falsity of the “hate crimes=thought crimes” meme has not prevented its broad success. You can hear it being offered as justification for opposing bias-crime laws by sources ranging from such religious-right entities as the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family (not to mention the predictable opposition raised by various white supremacists) to such civil libertarians as Andrew Sullivan.

(…)

Steven [D at Booman Tribune] goes on to enumerate the various sound reasons for passing bias-crimes laws, including the point that, finally, they are a way for society to make clear its condemnation of such acts, recognizing them as more heinous than simple crimes because they cause greater harm. Indeed, pretending as opponents do that a cross burned on the lawn is the same as being egged and toilet-papered, or that a gay-bashing rampage by young thugs is the same thing as a bar fight, simply tries to pretend away the truly hateful and terroristic element of the former of these, as though it doesn’t exist. But it does exist, and its effects poison our society and make a joke out of our self-belief in ourselves as an “equal opportunity” society.

This, in the end, is the single clearest reason why progressives should avidly support a federal hate-crimes law: These are crimes whose primary purpose is to disenfranchise, to expel, to deny the most basic rights of association and opportunity to millions of Americans of all stripes. Civil libertarians need to come to grips with the fact that these crimes are real, their effects are real, and they represent, in the words of Yale sociologist Donald Green, a real “massive dead-weight loss of freedom” for those millions of Americans.

(…)

Yet progressives haven’t yet figured out that framing hate-crime laws as a defense of people’s civil liberties is precisely the argument that will instantly deflate the long-running “thought crime” argument. In all the debate over the legislation, I haven’t seen the point raised once.

Nor, for that matter, do they seem to have grasped that Bush’s looming veto of the legislation — which still awaits Senate passage — provides an ample strategic opportunity. One of the principal causes of the public’s fatigue with the conservative movement (beyond, of course, the Iraq debacle) is that it is being increasingly turned off by the right’s rhetorical viciousness and seeming celebration of eliminationist violence.

Bush’s veto of a bill intended to reduce violence against minorities should be seen as a prime example of this underlying ugliness — as should some of the demonizing and factually false attacks on the laws themselves.

But ultimately, the chief reason for progressives to embrace and encourage a federal bias-crimes statute is a morally and ethically simple one: It’s the right thing to do, not just for minority Americans but for all of us. That should be really be reason enough.

All I would add to this is that if progressives pursue the civil liberties angle, they might want to tie in voter suppression efforts as another example of the Republicans’ conscious desire to keep minorities in their place.

Add comment May 25th, 2007 at 10:10pm Posted by Eli

Don’t Ask, Don’t Wig

Oh. My. God.

“GO BACK TO AFRICA AND DO YOUR GAY VOODOO LIMBO TANGO AND WANGO DANCE AND JUMP AROUND AND PRANCE AND RUN ALL OVER THE PLACE HALF NAKED THERE.”
– U.S. Army recruiter Sgt. Marcia Ramode, using her military email address to respond to Jersey City resident Corey Andrew, after Ramode learned Andrew was gay.

Um. Bad enough that our tax dollars are paying this crazy to spew all-caps racism and homophobia, but apparently Ramode can’t even distinguish between black homosexuals and Ted Nugent.

Follow the link for more insanity - most of it is screen caps that I can’t reproduce here. It’s all quite spectacular, and would be kinda hilarious if it weren’t for the context.

(h/t Atrios)

Add comment March 26th, 2007 at 11:55am Posted by Eli

A Denial-Driven Life

Huzzah!

One of four ministers who oversaw three weeks of intensive counseling for the Rev. Ted Haggard said the disgraced minister emerged convinced that he is ”completely heterosexual.”

Haggard also said his sexual contact with men was limited to the former male prostitute who came forward with sexual allegations, the Rev. Tim Ralph of Larkspur told The Denver Post for a story in Tuesday’s edition.

”He is completely heterosexual,” Ralph said. ”That is something he discovered. It was the acting-out situations where things took place. It wasn’t a constant thing.”

I have absolutely no idea what that is supposed to mean.

Ralph said the board spoke with people close to Haggard while investigating his claim that his only extramarital sexual contact happened with Mike Jones. The board found no evidence to the contrary.

Interesting. Apparently as long as you limit your same-sex encounters to just one person, that doesn’t make you gay. So I guess Brokeback Mountain was just another cowboy movie.

Now that he has a clean bill of health, newly-affirmed heterosexual Haggard and wife are ready to move forward with their lives:

Haggard said… that he and his wife, Gayle, plan to pursue master’s degrees in psychology. The e-mail said the family hasn’t decided where to move but that they were considering Missouri and Iowa.

Another oversight board member, the Rev. Mike Ware of Westminster, said the group recommended the move out of town and the Haggards agreed.

”This is a good place for Ted,” Ware said. ”It’s hard to heal in Colorado Springs right now. It’s like an open wound. He needs to get somewhere he can get the wound healed.”

It was also the oversight board that strongly urged Haggard to go into secular work.

No sense taking chances, right?

Okay, so… secular work and psychology degrees - does anyone else see Father Ted and Mrs. Ted going into the gay deprogramming business?

2 comments February 6th, 2007 at 03:21pm Posted by Eli

American Crimes

1) Driving while black.

2) Flying while Muslim.

3) Working with children while gay.

4) Speaking out against the President while liberal… or moderate… or conservative. (Includes squealing whistleblowing)

Have I missed any?

3 comments December 18th, 2006 at 09:52am Posted by Eli

Token Up

This post by TRex at firedoglake a couple of nights ago, and the angry comments about stereotyping that it inspired, reminded me of something I have long suspected but have only blogged about briefly (I think).

TRex and the commenters circled around this, but I don’t think anyone said it directly: It is not a coincidence that the women and minorities who are prominent conservatives are unusually vile and unqualified - it is by design.

I believe that the conservatives actively seek out, recruit, and cultivate these people, not just to apply a thin layer of I-Can’t-Believe-It’s-Not-Diversity on top of their Wonderbread movement, but to provide endless opportunities to accuse their opposition of the very hatefulness that is their stock in trade.

Some examples:

Democrats opposing Clarence Thomas for being a sleazy sexual harasser? A lynch mob.

Liberals/Democrats pointing out, repeatedly, that Condi Rice is criminally incompetent? Racist, sexist, and possibly homophobic.

Liberals jumping all over Michelle Maglalang (or something) for her hypocrisy about Teresa Heinz Kerry’s “professional name” when she uses one herself? Racist and sexist.

Liberal outrage at Ann Coulter over… jeez, who can keep track? Yeah, definitely sexist, yeah.

Liberals making a fuss about a gay prostitute in the White House press corps (possibly sleeping over as well)? Homophobic.

Liberals bashing Israel’s increasingly sadistic Palestinian policy, neocons, or Joe Lieberman (and don’t try to tell me he hasn’t been cultivated by the Republicans)? Anti-semitic (I’m Jewish, by the way - but perhaps I’m self-hating).

Even the failed nomination of the laughably unqualified Harriet Miers to the SCOTUS (that really happened - I didn’t just dream it, right?) was used as an example of liberal sexism, even though it was Republicans who ultimately shot her down.

To some extent, we play into the Republicans’ hands every time we so much as mention their race, sex, or orientation while attacking them (although it’s kinda the whole point in Gannon’s case). However, the sad fact is that even if we scrupulously referred to, say, Ramesh Ponnuru or John Yoo as snivelling, sadistic little cockroaches without ever once mentioning their race, we would still be accused of racism, even if that is precisely what we are attacking them for. Such is the opportunistic illogic of the Republicans and their captive media.

Believe me, I am no civility advocate, even if I don’t swear much on this blog (what can I say, my Dad reads it). If you want to curse these fuckers out, feel free. But just remember that they are trying to bait you. They want to collect and display as many samples of liberal “intolerance” as they can, the higher-profile the better. Don’t make it easy for them. Besides, it’s not like there isn’t a wealth of material to work with - why waste time on cheap shots that are beside the point, which is not that Coulter and Malkin are women, but that they are evil.

One additional recommendation: Keep a bunch of minority, women’s, and gay rights issues in your back pocket to wave at the conservative flying monkeys whenever they start insincerely protesting their compassion for the oppressed. Surely they should be willing to go on record with their support of gay marriage to prove that they’re the tolerant ones, right? Or at least to condemn the Right’s shabby treatment of women like Cindy Sheehan and Valerie Plame. Or ask them how the glorious liberation of the women of Afghanistan and Iraq is coming along.

7 comments July 7th, 2006 at 12:06pm Posted by Eli

Gay Marriage Is A Threat To Bullshit

Just wanted to quickly expand on a comment I made chez Echidne regarding this “Defense Of Marriage Amendment” bullshit, which is basically that it is, in fact, as Echidne says, total bullshit.

The fundamentalist crazies don’t give two shits about the sanctity of marriage. They knew they couldn’t come out (heh) and say, “Gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry because they’re icky and gay and subhuman and we hate them,” so they had to come up with something that would sound vaguely plausible and positive. So instead of “attacking gays”, they’re “defending marriage.” Sure. Just like slaveowners were “defending freedom” by not allowing black people to cheapen it with their participation.

I guarantee you that not a single one of the Falwells, Dobsons, Robertsons, or their lackeys in Congress and the White House believes that gay marriage is in any way a threat to The Sacred Institution Of Marriage, and anyone who believes they do is a sucker.

I say again, Bullshit.

7 comments June 5th, 2006 at 11:37pm Posted by Eli

Asshole Projection

I’m seconding Atrios seconding Yglesias.

The problem with the ports deal is not the “A” in “UAE”, it’s the “OBL BFF” in “UAE”.

For those of you who don’t speak Abbrevish, this is not about “you can’t trust the Arabs,” at least not from our side of the spectrum. It’s about “you can’t trust a country whose royal family diplomatically recognized the Taliban, and hung out with Osama bin Laden, and generally seems to be a pretty cozy staging ground for terrorists.” Any attempts to paint our objections as xenophobic are disingenuous and dishonest.

But this sort of thing is one of the Republicans’ favorite tricks. Democrats are “racist” for opposing the judicial nominations of Clarence Thomas and Janice Rogers Brown, or for pointing out that Condi is an incompetent liar, or for “dishonoring” Coretta Scott King’s memorial service by being mean to our poor resolute president.

Or “sexist” for opposing Harriet Miers (who was sunk by Republicans, by the way).

Or “homophobic” for saying that a male prostitute with a fake name and no journalistic credentials has no place in the White House press corps.

For the Republicans, “projection” isn’t a psychological condition; it’s a deliberate strategy.

2 comments February 24th, 2006 at 05:44pm Posted by Eli