Up tonight... John Boehner, Ben Carver and Biggots in North Carolina.
(Yeah... I've got to say that that very poor George Takei impression at the end sounded a LOT better in my head!)
UPDATE: Earlier today, Dr. Carson apologized for his comments likening gay people to prison rapists. Apparently his comment were so idiotic that even Dr. Carson realized it!
Who IS this guy?!
Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, aired on RainbowRadio from 2015-2017, and has returned for 2021! Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Showing posts with label speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label speech. Show all posts
Thursday, March 5, 2015
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Good Speech
Heard the President's speech tonight, while working out at the gym.
Leaving out any of the accumulated baggage, and forgetting for the moment about the last two and half years? It was a good speech. A damned good speech. A GREAT speech, even. Diplomatic, yet pointed. Practical but passionate. Statesmanlike, but also partisan the best possible way: He called out Republicans mainly by reminding them of the truly great things that they once stood for. He made the case for eliminating the Bush tax breaks for the richest Americans, pointing out that it's not partisan, nor is it class warfare, but rather a case of simple math. He pointed out that the proposals in his Jobs Plan are (again) things that Republicans and Democrats alike believe in. And yet, this time his calls for bi-partisan action came off not as him being weak, but rather as him shaming Republicans, and managing to do so without sounding preachy! Tonight he had strength. Tonight, he had spirit! THIS was the man I voted for! (I don't know where he's been for th past two and ahlf years, but... I'll get to that.)
It came as no surprise that there were several moments where the Left Side of the chamber was brought to their feet. What DID surprise me were the numerous times that two or three on the Right side of the chamber had the courage to stand up as well. And one time (not including when he was finished (LOL)), he had the entire chamber on its feet.
Save for one man...
And that might have been the best part of the whole speech: Watching that great, bronzed cocksucker Speaker John Boehner twisting uncomfortably in his seat the entire time, looking like he had a bad case of hemorrhoids throughout the whole address, and KNOWING that Obama was winning with his audience...
...And I don't mean his audience in the chamber.
Remember that whole, stupid pissing match they got into over whether the speech was going to be last night or tonight? Well... Obama looked weak (again) and Bohener looked like a dick (again) over the whole stupid thing. But they way it worked out? Most anyone who would have thought it was to the Coppertone Man's credit that he was sitting on his ass all night, looking like a fool? WERE THEMSELVES MOST LIKELY OFF WATCHING FOOTBALL!!! The people most likely to have seen John Boehner looking like he was sitting in a chair that someone had peed in beforehand were the ones most likely to hate him for it!
So top marks...
...for the speech.
We'll see (and more likely, we won't) if this translates into action.
And once again, we are reminded of what ClassicLiberal so aptly refers to as "the tragedy of Obama."
Because, Mister Presdient, the time to put your boot-heel to the necks of the Conservative movement was just over two and a half years ago. The opportunity to suffocate the life out of the Right, turn this country around and start moving FOREWORD again was handed to you 32 months ago on a polished silver platter and you squandered it. And perhaps the greatest example of why he has failed, and why this too will also likely fail was offered by Orrin Hatch beforehand:
In other words:
...Oh wait, YES I HAVE!
And I don't think it's all about race. In fact, I don't think it's about race at all.
Their behavior over the past two years is because they recognized the threat to their party's future and to their entire philosophy that you and your popularity represented.
The tragedy here is that YOU never recognized the threat that THEY represented to you, to your presidency and to your country!
Still...
I won't have it be said that I don't give credit where I think it's due.
It was a good speech.
Leaving out any of the accumulated baggage, and forgetting for the moment about the last two and half years? It was a good speech. A damned good speech. A GREAT speech, even. Diplomatic, yet pointed. Practical but passionate. Statesmanlike, but also partisan the best possible way: He called out Republicans mainly by reminding them of the truly great things that they once stood for. He made the case for eliminating the Bush tax breaks for the richest Americans, pointing out that it's not partisan, nor is it class warfare, but rather a case of simple math. He pointed out that the proposals in his Jobs Plan are (again) things that Republicans and Democrats alike believe in. And yet, this time his calls for bi-partisan action came off not as him being weak, but rather as him shaming Republicans, and managing to do so without sounding preachy! Tonight he had strength. Tonight, he had spirit! THIS was the man I voted for! (I don't know where he's been for th past two and ahlf years, but... I'll get to that.)
It came as no surprise that there were several moments where the Left Side of the chamber was brought to their feet. What DID surprise me were the numerous times that two or three on the Right side of the chamber had the courage to stand up as well. And one time (not including when he was finished (LOL)), he had the entire chamber on its feet.
Save for one man...
And that might have been the best part of the whole speech: Watching that great, bronzed cocksucker Speaker John Boehner twisting uncomfortably in his seat the entire time, looking like he had a bad case of hemorrhoids throughout the whole address, and KNOWING that Obama was winning with his audience...
...And I don't mean his audience in the chamber.
Remember that whole, stupid pissing match they got into over whether the speech was going to be last night or tonight? Well... Obama looked weak (again) and Bohener looked like a dick (again) over the whole stupid thing. But they way it worked out? Most anyone who would have thought it was to the Coppertone Man's credit that he was sitting on his ass all night, looking like a fool? WERE THEMSELVES MOST LIKELY OFF WATCHING FOOTBALL!!! The people most likely to have seen John Boehner looking like he was sitting in a chair that someone had peed in beforehand were the ones most likely to hate him for it!
So top marks...
...for the speech.
We'll see (and more likely, we won't) if this translates into action.
And once again, we are reminded of what ClassicLiberal so aptly refers to as "the tragedy of Obama."
Because, Mister Presdient, the time to put your boot-heel to the necks of the Conservative movement was just over two and a half years ago. The opportunity to suffocate the life out of the Right, turn this country around and start moving FOREWORD again was handed to you 32 months ago on a polished silver platter and you squandered it. And perhaps the greatest example of why he has failed, and why this too will also likely fail was offered by Orrin Hatch beforehand:
“If (the payroll tax cut) is standing alone, I think that might have some success,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. “If it's lumped in with a whole bunch of big spending programs that builds Washington at the expense of the rest of the economy he’s not going to have much support from me or any other Republican.”
In other words:
"We'll take whatever you're going to give us for free, but don't expect anything in return."And that's the rub isn't it? That has been the issue fro day number one - though I've never heard any Republican say it quite this plainly...
...Oh wait, YES I HAVE!
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”And AGAIN...
Sen. Minority Leader Micth McConnell, October 25th, 2010
“Well that is true, [making Obama a one-term President is] my single most important political goal along with every active Republican in the country."
Sen. Minority Leader Micth McConnell, July 10th, 2011Mister Obama, they will NOT stop playing politics, for the simple reason that they want you to fail more than they want the COUNTRY TO SUCCEED. You will never have their support. You will never see anything from these traitorous scumbags other than their best efforts to sabotage your Presdiency, and progressive politics by extension (even though you haven't actually ever USED any). They will never be honest. They will never do right. They will never stop trying to make you fail, and no sacrifice is too great for them!
And I don't think it's all about race. In fact, I don't think it's about race at all.
Their behavior over the past two years is because they recognized the threat to their party's future and to their entire philosophy that you and your popularity represented.
The tragedy here is that YOU never recognized the threat that THEY represented to you, to your presidency and to your country!
Still...
I won't have it be said that I don't give credit where I think it's due.
It was a good speech.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
The outrage meter still works apparently...
Just when I thought that the Right Wing could sink no farther into the slime, one of pieces of shit comes along and recalibrates my outrage meter. Today this service comes compliments of editorialist venomous Right-wing hack, Ann Coulter.
Speaking on Hannity last night, Miss Coulter explained that the Kent State Massacre in May of 1970 was "justified" because...
"That's what you do with a mob."
Now... I'm going to repeat that, because it bears repeating, but before I do, here's a refresher course in case anyone forgot what happened. (And shame on you if you did.)
On May 4th of 1970, an estimated 2,000 people gather on the Kent State University Campus in Kent, Ohio in protest of the Vietnam War. Specifically they were protest President Nixon's decision to expand the war despite having won the presidency in 1968 running on a campaign promise to end it. What's more they students, mostly children (and members) of working and middle class families who were being unfairly targeted by the draft as those from wealthy families could better afford to pay the $300 commutation fee to essentially exclude themselves.
Just before 12:30, with the crowd refusing to disperse after four days of protest, and having lobbed the National Guards' own tear gas canisters back at them, the National Guard opened fire on the crowd, shooting 67 rounds in 13 seconds. When the smoke had cleared, four students lay dead:
Jeffrey Miller, age 20
Allison Krause, age 19
William Schroeder, age 19
Sandra Scheuer, age 20
I can't find which was which, but it is worth mentioning that one or two were merely watching the demonstration, and were not part of it, and one was hit by a stray bullet as she walked to class.
Three days after the event, even Vice President Agnew describe the action as murder. (Though, ever the lawyer, he did add, "but not first degree" since there was "no premeditation.") Still - that from the guy who's administration was being protested against.
But to Ann Coulter? Having the United States Military gun down American Citizens for exercising their First Amendment Rights on American Soil was justified.
"That's what you do with a mob."
We've long known that Miss Coulter talks a pretty good game, at least in Right Wing circles, when it comes to "supporting the troops." Too bad she can't ever seem to muster any "support" for the FREEDOMS those troops are risking their lives to protect.
(Deep breath...)
Now...
In the past I've made no secret of my hated of both misogyny and hypocrisy, but I've got a "get - out - of - hypocrisy - free" card in this case, since what I am about to say reflects not my own true feelings, but rather serves as an example to Miss Coulter of what it might look like if someone treated her they way she seems to treat every human being to her Left. (Which... is almost all of them.) There is no more hypocrisy inherent to giving someone a taste of their own medicine than there in inherent to basic (or poetic) justice. That being said, I'd like to see someone go up and give Ann Coutler a hard, back-handed slap to the face. Because...
"That's what you do with a mouthy bitch!"
Speaking on Hannity last night, Miss Coulter explained that the Kent State Massacre in May of 1970 was "justified" because...
"That's what you do with a mob."
Now... I'm going to repeat that, because it bears repeating, but before I do, here's a refresher course in case anyone forgot what happened. (And shame on you if you did.)
On May 4th of 1970, an estimated 2,000 people gather on the Kent State University Campus in Kent, Ohio in protest of the Vietnam War. Specifically they were protest President Nixon's decision to expand the war despite having won the presidency in 1968 running on a campaign promise to end it. What's more they students, mostly children (and members) of working and middle class families who were being unfairly targeted by the draft as those from wealthy families could better afford to pay the $300 commutation fee to essentially exclude themselves.
Just before 12:30, with the crowd refusing to disperse after four days of protest, and having lobbed the National Guards' own tear gas canisters back at them, the National Guard opened fire on the crowd, shooting 67 rounds in 13 seconds. When the smoke had cleared, four students lay dead:
Jeffrey Miller, age 20
Allison Krause, age 19
William Schroeder, age 19
Sandra Scheuer, age 20
I can't find which was which, but it is worth mentioning that one or two were merely watching the demonstration, and were not part of it, and one was hit by a stray bullet as she walked to class.
Three days after the event, even Vice President Agnew describe the action as murder. (Though, ever the lawyer, he did add, "but not first degree" since there was "no premeditation.") Still - that from the guy who's administration was being protested against.
But to Ann Coulter? Having the United States Military gun down American Citizens for exercising their First Amendment Rights on American Soil was justified.
"That's what you do with a mob."
We've long known that Miss Coulter talks a pretty good game, at least in Right Wing circles, when it comes to "supporting the troops." Too bad she can't ever seem to muster any "support" for the FREEDOMS those troops are risking their lives to protect.
(Deep breath...)
Now...
In the past I've made no secret of my hated of both misogyny and hypocrisy, but I've got a "get - out - of - hypocrisy - free" card in this case, since what I am about to say reflects not my own true feelings, but rather serves as an example to Miss Coulter of what it might look like if someone treated her they way she seems to treat every human being to her Left. (Which... is almost all of them.) There is no more hypocrisy inherent to giving someone a taste of their own medicine than there in inherent to basic (or poetic) justice. That being said, I'd like to see someone go up and give Ann Coutler a hard, back-handed slap to the face. Because...
"That's what you do with a mouthy bitch!"
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Vince Vaughn
I originally wrote this last night, still steamed over Dharmasatya's comments, and still not entirely sure why she got so far under my skin. Anyway, I'm over it now. I'm also sick as a dog. So a bit of the fight has been taken out of me anyway today. And finally, I've come to the realization, reinforced by Duta's comment in my lats post, that I been both way too angry and way too vulgar lately. For about the last two months or so, I'd say. And vulgar, angry rants, while cathartic to write, and often very fun too read as well, are just not a good a habit to get into. So I'm swearing off them (pun intended) for at least the next month or so, just to break the habit. I'm also going to try and speak in normal tone of voice - ixnay with the ALL CAPS. With that in mind, I'm re-writing this as a more considerate, thoughful piece, that should alienate fewer people, and hopefully be taken more seriously because of it.
There's been a lot of outrage recently over a joke which appeared in the trailer of Vince Vaughn's new movie, The Dilemma. Now... my support for LGBT Political and Social issues is unequivocal. In that past there have been times where I've wavered, but right now, I can safety and happily say that there is no part of the "radical gay agenda" (as the Right refers to it) that I am not behind 100%. I'll go into what that exactly means, to me, in a moment, but suffice to say, that the LGBT community has a staunch ally and supporter in this blogger.
That being said? This joke is fine. This joke in not homophobic. This joke is not even harmful In fact... I'll go so far as to say that this joke actually illustrates the very point that outrage appears to be all about in the first place! Now, I realize that I probably have a bunch of people saying, "You just don't GET it!" All I ask is that you give me a few paragraphs to explain my point, and show you that, yes, I actually do get it. In fact, I can absolutely empathize with you on the very issue of casual pejoratives.
Anyway, for those who have been living under a rock, here's the joke:
To me, the whole point of the joke, the only way it really works, the only interpretation by which it is the least bit funny, is as an acknowledgement that we use the word “gay” to mean “bad” or “stupid” when it shouldnt' be used that way! The very fact that they whole joke revolves around him having to make that awkward clarification, I took as evidence that, at best, this is a clumsy descriptor, and for the sake of clear communication, if nothing else, it really needs to go.
Do I really believe that he's trying to make some profound socio-political point here? Oh, heck no! It is Vince Vaughn, after all! But given the context as I saw it - and hey: I could be wrong! - but given that, if you can’t see beyond the mere use of the word, and find the deeper meaning here (and you don’t have to go that deep, it is Vince Vaughn after all!) then you are just being too sensitive about it!
OK. Now I'm sure I've really gotten some people angry at this. And your anger is justified. Too sensitive? How dare I?! (Right?) Who am I to tell you how too feel about something? And you have a point. So assuming I haven't put you off for good, I beg that you now allow me to put down the shovel and endeavour to climb out of this hole I'm probably in.
The first obvious problem is that, not being gay, trans, etc... myself, one might say that I have no idea how hurtful these casual pejoratives really are.
Ah... but not so.
You see... There’s a synonym for the word “gay,” when it's used in this context.
“RETARDED.”
Think about it… Almost any time someone is mis-using the word “gay,” as in, “This policy is gay!” you can almost always substitute the word, “retarded” and it will mean the same thing: “This policy is retarded!”
Well, guess what?
I have two autistic sons.
And I hate that [expletive deleted] word.
And I hate to hear someone called a “Retard.”
And I hate to hear "retarded" used to mean, "something I don't agree with or don't understand."
And I HATE anything that makes fun of the mentally handicapped.
It absolutely tears my heart out.
Now... Is it the same thing? No. No it's not. But I offer that's it's close enough for a legitimate concession that I do, in fact, have some clue what it feels like and what's going on here. I may not know your feeling, but I'm still somewhat familiar with the feeling. And if you say, "Well, that's not about you, it's about your kids." Unless you have kids, and special needs kids at that? Then it's you who doesn't know what it feels like. Because I'd give anything to make it about me instead of them.
And while it's a little off topic, I'd like to offer an example of what may have been the worst time I had, "getting over" this, only as evidence that I can, in fact practice what I preach.
At one point, Drawn Together was my favorite TV show. I found it to be positively enlightened as well as completely hilarious when it came to most social issues like racism, sexism, sexuality, gender roles, religion, etc... See... They made fun of those things, using negative stereotypes not to make fun of the groups, but rather to make fun of the bigots who believed that nonsense about them! It took every stereotype and turned it around, to make the joke be on the racist / sexist / homophobe / etc... IMHO, It was brilliant.
(Disclaimer: Serious, Evangelical Christians will NOT like ths show! They pretty much get savaged in every episode!)
But then I saw the episode, "The Other Cousin."
Half an hour of jokes at the expense of the mentally handicapped. And what's more? Just a short while after my first born son was diagnosed with Autism. To say that it "hit close to home?" Is a vast understatement. So again... I think I've earned the right to say that I do have some idea what that kind of thing feels like.
And you are still absolutely welcome to disagree with me. Hey: Maybe I shouldn't have let it go. That's certainly a legitimate point of debate. Maybe I should have written Comedy Central, boycotted the sponsors, took to the Internet... I did when Michale Savage spouted his Autism Denial nonsense! But I chose to put that aside and keep watching. And the rest of the series? Was absolute genius.
Am I "over it?" No, not really.
I do own all three seasons of the show in DVD, so they managed to get some money out of me.
But I still can't watch that one episode.
Now what was the point of telling you all that? Well , it brings me to the other half of what I hope will get me to at least the top of the hole, if not out of it. As a philosophical point, I truly believe that you can joke about anything. Carlin felt the same way, and I agree with him. It all depends on how you construct the joke.
What's the overall point? Whats the message? What the exaggeration?
For example, my problem with "The Other Cousin" was that the jokes were not about tolerance or understanding or of the challenges the handicapped face in our society, nor were they mocking society for it's stereotypes. (THAT was the "Terms of Endearment" episode.) The jokes in "The Other Cousin" were just poking fun. There simply was no context that would make them remotely acceptable.
And just as further roof that I'm not just being too sensitive myself, and thus being hypocritical, as proof that I CAN laugh a little at what life with autism throws at you, there are comics that I read - Clear Blue Water, On the Spectrum, Joey, just to name a few - that use Autism as a source of humor, but do it in an acceptable way. I'm just pointing that out as further evidence that I am capable in seeing humor even in things that "hit close to home." Again: It all depends on how the joke is constructed. What the point is.
In the case of the Vaughn joke? As I said, the only way it works, at all, is as an acknowledgement that we use this word, "gay," in ways that we shouldn't. The message could be stronger, or clearer, fine, (again, it's Vince Vaughn - he's not trying to change the world here) but that still is the only message I see in it.
So what's the point? What am I trying to say here? Why do I think it's important to let this slide, the same way I let the word "retarded" slide when someone uses it the same way?
Simple: Politics, pragmatism and priority.
When we get too hung up on trying to control people's language, and trying to go that route to change their thinking? They instinctively pull back. And it become very easy for our political opponents to simply call, "PC Police!" and, in that one instant, snag up all the moderates who we might have otherwise persuaded to join on far more important, substantive issues. That doesn't make it right, but it sure does make it easy.
For me? I let the word "retarded" slide so I will be taken that much more seriously on issues like Autism Denial, or Autism Insurance Reform. Give the choice between having people take autism seriously and having my sons' therapy covered by insurance -or- having people stop using the word "retarded" (the same way they use "gay")? Shoot... if it would help me win on the big issues? I'd start calling things "retarded!" And you know what? Because of the largely Right Wing canard of "PC POLICE" or "THOUGHT POLICE," we're really not going to get both. There is no doubt in my mind that we lose traction on the big issues when we let ourselves get hung up on the small ones
So.. . what's in for the LGBT community? What do I think are the big issues? Those important ones that I claimed to be a strong supporter of? How about:
Gay Marriage in all 50 states, and at the Federal level?
Company Benefits for Same Sex partners?
Regular Insurance Coverage for GRS?
Hate Crime Legislation?
Equal Employment Opportunities / Anti-Discrimination Policies?
Equal Rights for Adoption?
Striking Down Don't Ask, Don't Tell?
The list goes on and on. And I am totally with you, 100%, on all of these. And if I've missed one of the other heavy hitters? Try me! I'm sure you'll find that we see eye to eye on it as well. Because I just don't see the "radical gay agenda" as anything but a no-brainer. Just a group of people who want to be treated the same as everybody else. (Or course, I might point out how lousy everybody else gets treated, but that's only to say that you might want to aim a little higher, actually! LOL)
And while you can argue that we won't win on the big issues if we don't change how people think about us, I disagree. I guarantee that you will lose on every single one of these big issues if you keep sweating the small stuff. And honestly? I think that's a tragedy. I think these issue are far too important to jeopardize over a lousy Vince Vaughn joke, from a movie that no one would even see if there wasn't such a controversy around it.
Seriously. Do you know how many people will go see this movie now, for no other reason that this controversy? (Not to mention that most of them won't see what the big deal was all about?)
Don't believe me? Well, let me ask you a question.
Who is Roger Mapplethorpe?
Unless your a Photographic Art History buff, the only reason you know the answer to that is, back in 1989, some Christian Fundamentalist group got wind of some his work that was going on display in Cincinnati of all places - that great bastion of popular culture and social significance. It was a small showing, in a small city. Just par for the course in an obscure art museum, trying to make a meager income attracting a handful of tourists. But once the controversy took hold? It became a National story! It was huge! Suddenly Mappelthorpe's work is being shown in New York and Chicago! Everyone wanted to see what all the fuss was about! The Christian protesters did more to further Mappelthorpe's career that the Art Community had done!
It's true what they say: There is no such thing as bad publicity.
By getting hung up about the Vince Vaugh joke? You are only helping Vince Vaughn. And you are only hurting GLAAD's and the LGBT community's credibility with moderate people who might otherwise be inclined to support you.
So, for the sake of the "radical gay agenda?"
Let. It.Go.
There's been a lot of outrage recently over a joke which appeared in the trailer of Vince Vaughn's new movie, The Dilemma. Now... my support for LGBT Political and Social issues is unequivocal. In that past there have been times where I've wavered, but right now, I can safety and happily say that there is no part of the "radical gay agenda" (as the Right refers to it) that I am not behind 100%. I'll go into what that exactly means, to me, in a moment, but suffice to say, that the LGBT community has a staunch ally and supporter in this blogger.
That being said? This joke is fine. This joke in not homophobic. This joke is not even harmful In fact... I'll go so far as to say that this joke actually illustrates the very point that outrage appears to be all about in the first place! Now, I realize that I probably have a bunch of people saying, "You just don't GET it!" All I ask is that you give me a few paragraphs to explain my point, and show you that, yes, I actually do get it. In fact, I can absolutely empathize with you on the very issue of casual pejoratives.
Anyway, for those who have been living under a rock, here's the joke:
"Electric cars are gay. I mean, not 'homosexual' gay but 'my parents are chaperoning the dance' gay."OK... I am in complete agreement with GLAAD, etc... that the word "gay" should not be used as a casual pejorative. The thing is? The way I interpreted this joke, when I first heard it? Is that this is exactly what the joke is saying as well!
To me, the whole point of the joke, the only way it really works, the only interpretation by which it is the least bit funny, is as an acknowledgement that we use the word “gay” to mean “bad” or “stupid” when it shouldnt' be used that way! The very fact that they whole joke revolves around him having to make that awkward clarification, I took as evidence that, at best, this is a clumsy descriptor, and for the sake of clear communication, if nothing else, it really needs to go.
Do I really believe that he's trying to make some profound socio-political point here? Oh, heck no! It is Vince Vaughn, after all! But given the context as I saw it - and hey: I could be wrong! - but given that, if you can’t see beyond the mere use of the word, and find the deeper meaning here (and you don’t have to go that deep, it is Vince Vaughn after all!) then you are just being too sensitive about it!
OK. Now I'm sure I've really gotten some people angry at this. And your anger is justified. Too sensitive? How dare I?! (Right?) Who am I to tell you how too feel about something? And you have a point. So assuming I haven't put you off for good, I beg that you now allow me to put down the shovel and endeavour to climb out of this hole I'm probably in.
The first obvious problem is that, not being gay, trans, etc... myself, one might say that I have no idea how hurtful these casual pejoratives really are.
Ah... but not so.
You see... There’s a synonym for the word “gay,” when it's used in this context.
“RETARDED.”
Think about it… Almost any time someone is mis-using the word “gay,” as in, “This policy is gay!” you can almost always substitute the word, “retarded” and it will mean the same thing: “This policy is retarded!”
Well, guess what?
I have two autistic sons.
And I hate that [expletive deleted] word.
And I hate to hear someone called a “Retard.”
And I hate to hear "retarded" used to mean, "something I don't agree with or don't understand."
And I HATE anything that makes fun of the mentally handicapped.
It absolutely tears my heart out.
Now... Is it the same thing? No. No it's not. But I offer that's it's close enough for a legitimate concession that I do, in fact, have some clue what it feels like and what's going on here. I may not know your feeling, but I'm still somewhat familiar with the feeling. And if you say, "Well, that's not about you, it's about your kids." Unless you have kids, and special needs kids at that? Then it's you who doesn't know what it feels like. Because I'd give anything to make it about me instead of them.
And while it's a little off topic, I'd like to offer an example of what may have been the worst time I had, "getting over" this, only as evidence that I can, in fact practice what I preach.
At one point, Drawn Together was my favorite TV show. I found it to be positively enlightened as well as completely hilarious when it came to most social issues like racism, sexism, sexuality, gender roles, religion, etc... See... They made fun of those things, using negative stereotypes not to make fun of the groups, but rather to make fun of the bigots who believed that nonsense about them! It took every stereotype and turned it around, to make the joke be on the racist / sexist / homophobe / etc... IMHO, It was brilliant.
(Disclaimer: Serious, Evangelical Christians will NOT like ths show! They pretty much get savaged in every episode!)
But then I saw the episode, "The Other Cousin."
Half an hour of jokes at the expense of the mentally handicapped. And what's more? Just a short while after my first born son was diagnosed with Autism. To say that it "hit close to home?" Is a vast understatement. So again... I think I've earned the right to say that I do have some idea what that kind of thing feels like.
And you are still absolutely welcome to disagree with me. Hey: Maybe I shouldn't have let it go. That's certainly a legitimate point of debate. Maybe I should have written Comedy Central, boycotted the sponsors, took to the Internet... I did when Michale Savage spouted his Autism Denial nonsense! But I chose to put that aside and keep watching. And the rest of the series? Was absolute genius.
Am I "over it?" No, not really.
I do own all three seasons of the show in DVD, so they managed to get some money out of me.
But I still can't watch that one episode.
Now what was the point of telling you all that? Well , it brings me to the other half of what I hope will get me to at least the top of the hole, if not out of it. As a philosophical point, I truly believe that you can joke about anything. Carlin felt the same way, and I agree with him. It all depends on how you construct the joke.
What's the overall point? Whats the message? What the exaggeration?
For example, my problem with "The Other Cousin" was that the jokes were not about tolerance or understanding or of the challenges the handicapped face in our society, nor were they mocking society for it's stereotypes. (THAT was the "Terms of Endearment" episode.) The jokes in "The Other Cousin" were just poking fun. There simply was no context that would make them remotely acceptable.
And just as further roof that I'm not just being too sensitive myself, and thus being hypocritical, as proof that I CAN laugh a little at what life with autism throws at you, there are comics that I read - Clear Blue Water, On the Spectrum, Joey, just to name a few - that use Autism as a source of humor, but do it in an acceptable way. I'm just pointing that out as further evidence that I am capable in seeing humor even in things that "hit close to home." Again: It all depends on how the joke is constructed. What the point is.
In the case of the Vaughn joke? As I said, the only way it works, at all, is as an acknowledgement that we use this word, "gay," in ways that we shouldn't. The message could be stronger, or clearer, fine, (again, it's Vince Vaughn - he's not trying to change the world here) but that still is the only message I see in it.
So what's the point? What am I trying to say here? Why do I think it's important to let this slide, the same way I let the word "retarded" slide when someone uses it the same way?
Simple: Politics, pragmatism and priority.
When we get too hung up on trying to control people's language, and trying to go that route to change their thinking? They instinctively pull back. And it become very easy for our political opponents to simply call, "PC Police!" and, in that one instant, snag up all the moderates who we might have otherwise persuaded to join on far more important, substantive issues. That doesn't make it right, but it sure does make it easy.
For me? I let the word "retarded" slide so I will be taken that much more seriously on issues like Autism Denial, or Autism Insurance Reform. Give the choice between having people take autism seriously and having my sons' therapy covered by insurance -or- having people stop using the word "retarded" (the same way they use "gay")? Shoot... if it would help me win on the big issues? I'd start calling things "retarded!" And you know what? Because of the largely Right Wing canard of "PC POLICE" or "THOUGHT POLICE," we're really not going to get both. There is no doubt in my mind that we lose traction on the big issues when we let ourselves get hung up on the small ones
So.. . what's in for the LGBT community? What do I think are the big issues? Those important ones that I claimed to be a strong supporter of? How about:
Gay Marriage in all 50 states, and at the Federal level?
Company Benefits for Same Sex partners?
Regular Insurance Coverage for GRS?
Hate Crime Legislation?
Equal Employment Opportunities / Anti-Discrimination Policies?
Equal Rights for Adoption?
Striking Down Don't Ask, Don't Tell?
The list goes on and on. And I am totally with you, 100%, on all of these. And if I've missed one of the other heavy hitters? Try me! I'm sure you'll find that we see eye to eye on it as well. Because I just don't see the "radical gay agenda" as anything but a no-brainer. Just a group of people who want to be treated the same as everybody else. (Or course, I might point out how lousy everybody else gets treated, but that's only to say that you might want to aim a little higher, actually! LOL)
And while you can argue that we won't win on the big issues if we don't change how people think about us, I disagree. I guarantee that you will lose on every single one of these big issues if you keep sweating the small stuff. And honestly? I think that's a tragedy. I think these issue are far too important to jeopardize over a lousy Vince Vaughn joke, from a movie that no one would even see if there wasn't such a controversy around it.
Seriously. Do you know how many people will go see this movie now, for no other reason that this controversy? (Not to mention that most of them won't see what the big deal was all about?)
Don't believe me? Well, let me ask you a question.
Who is Roger Mapplethorpe?
Unless your a Photographic Art History buff, the only reason you know the answer to that is, back in 1989, some Christian Fundamentalist group got wind of some his work that was going on display in Cincinnati of all places - that great bastion of popular culture and social significance. It was a small showing, in a small city. Just par for the course in an obscure art museum, trying to make a meager income attracting a handful of tourists. But once the controversy took hold? It became a National story! It was huge! Suddenly Mappelthorpe's work is being shown in New York and Chicago! Everyone wanted to see what all the fuss was about! The Christian protesters did more to further Mappelthorpe's career that the Art Community had done!
It's true what they say: There is no such thing as bad publicity.
By getting hung up about the Vince Vaugh joke? You are only helping Vince Vaughn. And you are only hurting GLAAD's and the LGBT community's credibility with moderate people who might otherwise be inclined to support you.
So, for the sake of the "radical gay agenda?"
Let. It.Go.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
A Test of our Principles
The worst part about being an atheist might be knowing that some people will, in fact, not have hell to look forward to.
The most despised man in America is getting his day in court.
The Right
You have absolutely no idea how hard it is for me to write this, so please bear that in mind as you read this and respond, but…
I hope he wins.
My hands were almost shaking and it made me feel ill to type that just now.
Because I hate Fred Phelps. I hate him and his entire band of inbred mutants at the WBO with a venomous passion that I can taste in my balls. There is almost no way in which this disgusting little boil on the ass of humanity doesn’t inspire a nigh murderous rage in me. I’m sure by now, that I don’t need to burnish my credibility in terms of gay rights issues. To put it plainly: I fully support every single aspect of the “radical gay agenda” that has ever actually been presented to me. (Most of the RW nightmarish fantasies about the homosexual community are just that: Fantasy.) To me, there is nothing at all radical about wanting to be treated just like every other human being; nor about asking that society stay the hell out of their way as you pursue happiness on their own terms, especially as nothing but tolerance is asked of anyone else as they do so. On transgender issues, I’ll admit that I have been less certain about my position in the past, but the more I’ve read and the more I’ve come to understand, the more I’ve come to realize that they don’t ask any more than the gay community or any other persecuted group of people does: They simply want to be allowed to be who they are, and live their lives without being punished for being who they are by a society that they ask nothing of but tolerance. I fully understand that now, and am shamed for ever having doubted that. And, if it were even possible, the more I’ve come to hate Fred Phelps.
It is also self-evident that his brand of Religion - aside from being no more that a near transparent veil for his raw, naked hatred of his fellow man - embodies every one of the all of the worst aspects of Religion in general. Because he doesn’t just hate homosexuals (and anyone else he feels he can brand as a “sodomite”) but has every bit as much hatred for those who don’t SHARE his hatred for them. “Sodomite enablers,” as he calls them, are every bit as bad as the Sodomites. Worse, apparently, because the Military funerals these pieces of white trash picket are no for gay soldiers! He pickets the Military simply because, as I’ve stated previously, America stands for tolerance, not bigotry; for religious freedom, not Christian theocracy; for equality, not discrimination; and for freedom and liberty, not the Government climbing into your bedroom.
And he can’t stand that!
He can’t stand any disagreement with his radical doctrine of hatred. He is not merely intolerant, but intolerant of tolerance. Intolerant of that almost uniquely, all-American value: dissent. Basically he is intolerant of anyone who is not Fred Phelps.
Quite frankly, I can think of no more despicable American than this man. There are arguably more dangerous Americans in the public forum: Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck come to mind, not to mention Rupert Murdoch and the entire brand of merry GOP Propagandists on his payroll. But there is no more despicable American that Phelps. None. Jack Chick is so distant a second that Phelps appears to occupy the entire “bottom ten” (or twenty) all on his own. To find another HUMAN BEING more despicable, you have to leave the country, and find some member of the Taliban, or Al-Shabaab, or Al-Qaeda... IOW: the Middle-Eastern, Muslim version of Fred Phelps and the WBC. And those guys are only “worse” because, as far as I am aware, no one from the WBC has ever actually killed someone.
So… why the fuck am I ROOTING for this ass-pit?
Well, I’m not really… I’m rooting for freedom.
It may seem trite, but how many times have you said, or heard a free speech advocate say, something like, “I believe in free speech. I’ll even defend the rights of the Ku Klux Klan to march, protest, etc...” (Or some such thing.) The POINT being that we are willing to defend the right to speak, even for those with whom we disagree. Or, as Voltaire put it:
“I disagree with what you say but I will defend to death your right to say it."
And we use groups like the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazi’s, etc… as examples because:
1) They’re groups that pretty much EVERYONE disagrees with. So we reveal very little about our own personal politics and thus risk very little in using them.
2) They’re groups that don’t have much of a presence anymore, politically, and don’t pose much of a threat to our sense of well being. They’re kind of a cartoony caricature; a phantom example that we can use without any fear that our statement will ever REALLY be put to the test. They’re insignificant CLICHES that no one really takes all that seriously.
So we risk even less (nothing really) in using them as examples. And one could also argue that since most of us (in America, and in its media) are white and are likely having these discussions with other whites and these are groups that mainly hate minorities, there is a racial element as well that even further reduces our risk of using these examples. Two white people talking about the Klan? That’s hardly a test of their 1st Amendment principles, since neither is likely to ever be targeted by the Klan, even where it not basically a joke. They will never have to experience the Klan in their lives.
But Fred Phelps has managed to go beyond that safe, cartoon villain mold and become not only a significant public figure, but one that’s venomously despised by, everyone: Liberals, for his general message of hate; Conservatives for his Unpatriotic, Anti-Military rhetoric and tactics. (That… and there’s little that pisses of a Christian Conservative more than a serious allegation of being either a “fag” or a “fag enabler.”) So he hates - and pisses off - Gays and Straits, regardless of race, religion, political orientation, etc… There is no one in this country who is not a relevant target of his venom because this man, quite literally, hates America.
You may recall that George W. Bush – no great defender of free speech, IMHO – actually passed a law banning protests within a certain distance of military funerals. He may as well have called it the “Fred Phelps is an Asshole Law.” Most of my liberal and moderate friends applauded it at the time, concluding it would never effect more than the activities of Fred Phelps himself. Then I asked them: What it, many years from now, what if George W. Bush if granted a State Funeral by some future Republican President? This law could be used to prevent them from quietly standing along the route, holding a perfectly respectful sign expressing your personal regret that our nation went to war in Iraq, for example. Because that could also, very reasonably, be interpreted as “protesting at a funeral.” One can argue that it’s not a “Military Funeral,” but why exactly would an official State Funeral for the former Commander in Chief of the U.S Military, be excluded? I certainly don’t think it would. This DID get them to see the law in a different light, but I am afraid that with most of them, their hatred of Phelps continued to cloud their judgment on this most basic of freedoms.
If the protesters were protesting against the war - as opposed to against our national status as 'fag-enablers?' While many of them would still agree that this kind of protest takes things way too far, the ISSUE at hand would have been more relevant to them, and I’m pretty sure this might have changed some of their judgments about the law. But you’ll be hard pressed to find many people willing to defend Phelps that aren’t being paid to do so and in a purely legal capacity. So Phelps gave Bush an apparently reasonable way to close off a potential venue of Anti-War protests. So no one batted an eye, mainly because most Liberals are generally more decent than that by nature and wouldn’t consider picketing a funeral, as a family buries their child, anyway. But it was still a curtailing of our freedoms. A curtailing of dissent, even as that message came in the most offensive, possible form.
Certainly no man has ever wanted to express a more hateful message. Certainly no man has ever found a more despicable way of expressing that inherently hateful message. In short, no man has even gone farther to TEST THE LIMITS of his freedom of speech.
But that is exactly what makes this the perfect, if not the only really valid test of our principles. If we say that we support freedom, but not freedom for those who would abuse it, or use it irresponsibly? Then we don’t support freedom.
Pure and simple.
If we start getting into the business of deciding where people can speak, and what messages might be “too harmful…”
Then we don’t believe in free speech.
The fact that this diseased little toad have made every effort to break every single boundary of human decency makes him the perfect test case; maybe the ONLY real test case. Because if we say that “decency” can used as a limit on our speech? Then we don’t have free speech. If speech must “respect the feelings of others?” The we don’t have free speech. If certain kind of speech can be limited in certain places by our Government, or if Civil Penalties can be levied because to the (perfectly legitimate) mental duress that someone’s speech has caused?
Then we don’t have free speech.
Because concepts like “Offensive” “Decency” and “Respect” have been used, without a scrap of extremism or logical reaching whatsoever, to limit all manner of freedoms since the dawn of mankind. And American history, especially within the last Century, is replete with examples of this. As soon as you want to authorize judgment of the message, or it’s method of delivery, you allow the government to limit speech. Period. There’s simply no way around (or off) that slippery slope.
We needn’t be tolerant of intolerance in our personal lives, but we MUST stop short of allowing – and in some case encouraging – the Government to take away our freedom. Because right of someone to live their lives as a homosexual or a transgendered person is the same right that Phelps has to live his life as an asshole. And the way to protect freedom is to do just that: PROTECT FREEDOM.
I really am sick over this. I really am. And win or lose, I will likely shed a tear about it either way. Either for there being one more nail in the coffin of our personal liberty, or for the necessary victory of such a vile, hateful, thoroughly despicable little man in order to protect that liberty. But that’s what it means to have principles. You must hold true to them, even when it pains you to do so. And my support of free speech absolutely goes that far, even as it makes my sick to say it.
And for putting me in the position of have to defend something so vile that it almost makes me nauseous to do so; and for possibly having to do so to against my friends; people with whom I am otherwise allied with, socially, politically, and philosophically and for whom I hold is such high regard and with the utmost respect? In the words of John Hammond, “I really hate that man.”
All the same…
I hope he wins.
And I sincerely ask for your forgiveness for this.
(I'm going to go wash my hands now and try not to vomit.)
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Why should Corporations NOT have free speech?
There are TWO items from my last post that I felt needed some 'splainin.
First of all... that crack about applying the second amendment "six times" on those who keep forgetting about the first amendment? That was really beneath me. I'm not MUCH better than that, but I AM better than that. Now, don't get me wrong: If Anotin Scalia walked out of the courthouse and was struck by lightning I'd laugh my fucking ass off and pop open a bottle of champagne. But I would not see even a Government and Supreme Court overrun with Tea-Bagging Klansman "fixed" by violence and revolution. If someone WERE to kill a Supreme Court Justice, or any other public official, they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. I refuse to be the "Ann Coulter" of the left. Hopefully no one took that LITERALLY.
The OTHER was a clarification on why I do not apply my vehement and unconditional support of free speech to Corporations. Why would someone as zealous as I am about free speech want to put a limit on Corporate Speech?
First of all, let's be clear what we're really talking about. I don't care if a corporation wants to advertise, nor do I think it's the Government's job to make them prove their claims, etc... Outside of pharmaceuticals, which are regulated for obvious reasons, I don't care WHAT businesses say within the course of DOING BUSINESS. Nor do I really even care if they want to run ISSUE ads - if ExxonMobil wants to try and make the case that Oil and Gas are preferable to Solar? Go right ahead. That's really not much different than advertising anyway.
What I'm talking about here, is PARTISAN and ELECTORAL issues. If ExxonMobil wants to say "Vote for Palin" or pay for some Anti-Abortion ads (or any issue that DOESN'T have anything to do with their course of business) I have a problem with that. In fact, I'd go even beyond Austin. Forget regulating it, and treating it a political contribution, I'd be in favor of outright BANNING it. There are two reasons why.
The most commonly used reason is that corporations, with all their vast resources, can (and do) drown out the voice of the individual. So allow their free speech allows them to prohibit ours. I agree with that. I think it's reasonable, and it's why I support both the Fairness Doctrine and Net Neutrality.
But there's another way in which corporations act even more insidiously when they "speak." First of all, you have to realize that corporations don't really SPEAK. They SPEND MONEY to get a certain message put out there. And that money is, of course, the property of the shareholders. So who decides what the Corporation wants to "say?" Well, that's the board of directors, who are elected by the shareholders. Typically this includes several of the BIGGEST shareholders. Now, if assume for the moment that since most boards, consisting of very rich, very white, men and their proxies, the "shareholders" are "electing" people to put out Conservative, Corporatist, Republican message. And if they were polled according to their shares of the company, you might find rations reaching 90-some percent in favor. BUT, when you consider how many people own stock - usually though a 401-K - and that most of that stock is owned through MUTUAL FUNDS, and most Blue Chips are carried by pretty much every Mutual fund, you'll conclude that something like 90+% of the electorate owns SOME miniscule percentage of... ExxonMobil, for example. And if you were to poll that group BY PERSON, I submit that you would find their political demographic matches the general public pretty closely - IOW: It would cover a broad spectrum, with almost equal representation of Liberals and Conservatives, Republicans and Democrats.
Now... Why is that important?
Simple: Because corporate speech results in the ULTIMATE "winner takes all" approach to political speech! A dozen or so men decide what the Corporation will say, and end up speaking for literally Tens of Millions of Shareholders, not to mention Hundreds of Thousands of EMPLOYEES, many of which may not feel that the Corporations POLITICAL message matches what THEY want to say. So now, not only is the moneyed interest drowning them out... WORSE: They actually using assets partially OWED by that person to put out a message contrary to their beliefs! And I mention employees, because I do believe that they are stakeholders in a Corporation every bit as much as the shareholders are. One might also consider the CUSTOMERS to be stakeholders as well. After all, I give MY MONEY to that corporation. What right do they have to use it to put out a message that I don't agree with? OK, of course I can't just take my business elsewhere, but I think you're getting the idea.
When a corporation "speaks" it does on behalf of shareholders, employees, customers, and arguably other stake-holders as well. And it does so WITHOUT REGARD to those people's wishes. And THAT to me is why it's not the same thing. They don't just drown me out, the SPEAK for me, using assets that I own a piece of, to say something that I wouldn't say.
One more thing, regarding corporate boards. Those members that didn’t just BUY their way on were elected by the shareholders to RUN THE BUSINESS. If I'm a voting shareholder, then I want to vote for the guy who's going to make me the most money, all else being equal. I shouldn't feel as though I need to vote for someone I believe to be the less competent person because of political considerations. If you restrict corporate "speech" to those areas that are directly relevant to their business, then I don't HAVE this conflict.
ANYWAY, that's why I don't consider Corporate Speech to even fall under first amendment protection.
First of all... that crack about applying the second amendment "six times" on those who keep forgetting about the first amendment? That was really beneath me. I'm not MUCH better than that, but I AM better than that. Now, don't get me wrong: If Anotin Scalia walked out of the courthouse and was struck by lightning I'd laugh my fucking ass off and pop open a bottle of champagne. But I would not see even a Government and Supreme Court overrun with Tea-Bagging Klansman "fixed" by violence and revolution. If someone WERE to kill a Supreme Court Justice, or any other public official, they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. I refuse to be the "Ann Coulter" of the left. Hopefully no one took that LITERALLY.
The OTHER was a clarification on why I do not apply my vehement and unconditional support of free speech to Corporations. Why would someone as zealous as I am about free speech want to put a limit on Corporate Speech?
First of all, let's be clear what we're really talking about. I don't care if a corporation wants to advertise, nor do I think it's the Government's job to make them prove their claims, etc... Outside of pharmaceuticals, which are regulated for obvious reasons, I don't care WHAT businesses say within the course of DOING BUSINESS. Nor do I really even care if they want to run ISSUE ads - if ExxonMobil wants to try and make the case that Oil and Gas are preferable to Solar? Go right ahead. That's really not much different than advertising anyway.
What I'm talking about here, is PARTISAN and ELECTORAL issues. If ExxonMobil wants to say "Vote for Palin" or pay for some Anti-Abortion ads (or any issue that DOESN'T have anything to do with their course of business) I have a problem with that. In fact, I'd go even beyond Austin. Forget regulating it, and treating it a political contribution, I'd be in favor of outright BANNING it. There are two reasons why.
The most commonly used reason is that corporations, with all their vast resources, can (and do) drown out the voice of the individual. So allow their free speech allows them to prohibit ours. I agree with that. I think it's reasonable, and it's why I support both the Fairness Doctrine and Net Neutrality.
But there's another way in which corporations act even more insidiously when they "speak." First of all, you have to realize that corporations don't really SPEAK. They SPEND MONEY to get a certain message put out there. And that money is, of course, the property of the shareholders. So who decides what the Corporation wants to "say?" Well, that's the board of directors, who are elected by the shareholders. Typically this includes several of the BIGGEST shareholders. Now, if assume for the moment that since most boards, consisting of very rich, very white, men and their proxies, the "shareholders" are "electing" people to put out Conservative, Corporatist, Republican message. And if they were polled according to their shares of the company, you might find rations reaching 90-some percent in favor. BUT, when you consider how many people own stock - usually though a 401-K - and that most of that stock is owned through MUTUAL FUNDS, and most Blue Chips are carried by pretty much every Mutual fund, you'll conclude that something like 90+% of the electorate owns SOME miniscule percentage of... ExxonMobil, for example. And if you were to poll that group BY PERSON, I submit that you would find their political demographic matches the general public pretty closely - IOW: It would cover a broad spectrum, with almost equal representation of Liberals and Conservatives, Republicans and Democrats.
Now... Why is that important?
Simple: Because corporate speech results in the ULTIMATE "winner takes all" approach to political speech! A dozen or so men decide what the Corporation will say, and end up speaking for literally Tens of Millions of Shareholders, not to mention Hundreds of Thousands of EMPLOYEES, many of which may not feel that the Corporations POLITICAL message matches what THEY want to say. So now, not only is the moneyed interest drowning them out... WORSE: They actually using assets partially OWED by that person to put out a message contrary to their beliefs! And I mention employees, because I do believe that they are stakeholders in a Corporation every bit as much as the shareholders are. One might also consider the CUSTOMERS to be stakeholders as well. After all, I give MY MONEY to that corporation. What right do they have to use it to put out a message that I don't agree with? OK, of course I can't just take my business elsewhere, but I think you're getting the idea.
When a corporation "speaks" it does on behalf of shareholders, employees, customers, and arguably other stake-holders as well. And it does so WITHOUT REGARD to those people's wishes. And THAT to me is why it's not the same thing. They don't just drown me out, the SPEAK for me, using assets that I own a piece of, to say something that I wouldn't say.
One more thing, regarding corporate boards. Those members that didn’t just BUY their way on were elected by the shareholders to RUN THE BUSINESS. If I'm a voting shareholder, then I want to vote for the guy who's going to make me the most money, all else being equal. I shouldn't feel as though I need to vote for someone I believe to be the less competent person because of political considerations. If you restrict corporate "speech" to those areas that are directly relevant to their business, then I don't HAVE this conflict.
ANYWAY, that's why I don't consider Corporate Speech to even fall under first amendment protection.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)