Wednesday, February 04, 2009

BTB On Sexualizing Gay People

Box Turtle Bulletin is a blog that is mostly about ex-gay issues specifically, and generally about the politics of sexual orientation in our society. There are a couple of writers there and they are incisive and articulate, it is one of the blogs I check every day. Yesterday's post was, I thought, unusually good, it discussed a very general topic that is at the heart of a lot of the badmouth over sexual orientation. That is, people who oppose gays would like you to think that gay people do nothing but have sex all the time. Especially weird, gross, scary kinds of sex. The point, of course, is to marginalize, not to inform.

I'm going to let Jim Burroway make the point.
Via Andrew Sulluvan, we read this outburst from Peter Hitchens
If I never again had to read or write a word about homosexuals, I would be very happy. I really don’t want to know what other people do in their bedrooms. But these days they really, really want us all to know. And, more important, they insist that we approve. No longer are we allowed to keep our thoughts to ourselves, while being polite and kind.

Hitchens is wrong. We really, really don’t want them to know what goes on. Or, perhaps more accurately, the vast majority of us would prefer that they simply butt out of things that are none of their business. Which is why we don’t talk about what goes on in our bedrooms. In all of the political campaigns surrounding marriage, adoption rights, employment discrimination, hate crimes, safe schools, “what other people do in their bedrooms” has never been part of the discussion — unless LGBT opponents bring it up.

The fact is, we can see straight couples, married and unmarried, having dinner in restaurants, going to the movies, pushing baby strollers, showing up for work, going out for drinks afterwords, volunteering at school and in the community — and nobody thinks about what they’re doing in their bedrooms.

But people who regard public acceptance of LGBT people as evidence of a cultural pathology carry a huge burden. When they are fighting against marriage or partnership rights, adoption rights, or even against the simply dignity of hospital visitation rights, all they can think about is what they imagine we’re doing in our bedrooms. And whenever they meet with us face to face, their own personal imaginary porno flicks prevent them from seeing the real people standing before them.

If there is a pathology, that’s it. People suffering from schizophrenia sometimes see and hear things that aren’t there. Apparently, so do many who oppose LGBT equality.

In our battles over sex ed in Montgomery County, there has been nothing weirder than the way the Citizens for Responsible Whatever gravitated to the concept of anal sex. They loved to talk about this, even though it is mostly practiced by straight people. We heard their spokesperson telling the county school board how gay people eat feces, we had detailed discussions of the diseases you can catch through anal sex. ... it was bizarre.

You notice how Hitchens refers to gay people as "homosexuals." The technique there is simple, it's the same thing, try to make sure that the first thing straight people think of is gay people having sex. Use the word with "sex" right in the middle of it.

And this is a beautiful concept: No longer are we allowed to keep our thoughts to ourselves, while being polite and kind. I mean, man, that's bad when evil forces are causing polite and kind people's thoughts to be broadcast to the CIA and even to the press and all the people around them! Did somebody publish this piece? Yes, I followed the link, the Daily Mail really did run this online. Somebody who complains that we are not allowed to keep our thoughts to ourselves is somebody who needs to be reminded to take his meds in the morning.

Burroway is subtler than me, but he's right to bring up the topic of schizophrenia. The gay rights movement is not about mind control, it is not a way for bizarre aliens to seize control of your thoughts and regulate them for their evil purpose, the movement is about ... gay rights. Turns out gay people are just people who are, for whatever reason, attracted romantically, sexually, and emotionally to people of their own sex. Turns out there's nothing more to it than that. Turns out they feel like ordinary people and want to be treated like ordinary people. Turns out some of the them are pretty smart and know how to organize, know how to raise some money, know how to fight the power, and they have made amazing progress over a few short decades toward being treated like human beings.

62 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gay people hold gay pride parades, ask for special days of gay recognition in schools (Day of Silence), have a special month dedicated to gay pride, etc. Every time they say the word "gay" we think of what they do in their bedrooms because that is what they want us to think about. They say "gay" and we think "gay."

Gay refers to who someone is having having sex with. The word "gay" doesn't refer to a person's occupation or their hobbies or their interests. If you tell me that someone is "gay" that tells me ONE thing ONLY-- that the person sleeps with someone of the opposite sex. I can garner NO other information from hearing the word "gay" which they continually use.

Heterosexual people never refer to themselves as "straight" people. They don't hold Straight Pride parades. They don't ask for a "Day of Noise" for straight people.

It's ironic that the gay community has gone through all of this trouble to make us think about who they're sleeping with in working so hard to redefine the word "gay" (which used to mean "happy") -- and then they get mad when we think about it!

That's funny, actually!

February 04, 2009 10:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Straight people hold all kinds of parades on holidays, ask for special classes that teach abstinence until holy matrimony in schools, have a special right to get married they deny to gays, etc. Every time they say the word "marriage" we think of what they do in their bedrooms because that is what they want us to think about. They say "marriage" and we think "marriage."

Marriage refers to who someone is having having sex with. The word "marriage" doesn't refer to a person's occupation or their hobbies or their interests. If you tell me that someone is "married" that tells me ONE thing ONLY-- that the person sleeps with someone of the opposite sex. I can garner NO other information from hearing the word "marriage" which they continually use.

February 04, 2009 11:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Marriage is much more synonomous with the word "commitment" than it is with the word "gay." If gays wanted to hold a Commitment Parade, then that would be another thing all together. That does give us a little more information. It doesn't simply refer to who you're sleeping with, it tells us now that the two people want to spend their lives together. A picture begins to emerge then.

However, marriage between a man and a woman also tells us that there's a great possibility that they want to have children, made by the two of them. A natural outcome of their commitment.

Telling us that a person is "gay" or "straight" is simply raw and animalistic information. And it remains funny that the gay community has gone through all of this trouble to define "gay" and then gets mad when people buy into the definition!

And, finally, the "straight" community is not the group that's complaining that when people say "straight" they're thinking of who you're sleeping with. It's the gay community that's complaining. If i tell someone that I'm "straight"' I would naturally assume that they would think of who I was sleeping with -- what other information is there to garner from that?

February 04, 2009 11:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If you tell me that someone is "married" that tells me ONE thing ONLY-- that the person sleeps with someone of the opposite sex."

It's nice to hear a lunatic fringe gay advocate concede that the definition of marriage refers to partners of the opposite gender.

Now we're making progress!

February 04, 2009 11:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Black people hold black pride parades, asked for a special holiday for Martin Luther King's birthday throughout the land, have a special month dedicated to black history, etc. Every time they say the word "black" we think of what they do in their bedrooms because that is what they want us to think about. They say "black" and we think "black."

Black refers to someone's skin color. The word "black" doesn't refer to a person's occupation or their hobbies or their interests. If you tell me that someone is "black" that tells me ONE thing ONLY-- that the person is black. I can garner NO other information from hearing the word "black" which they continually use.

February 04, 2009 11:59 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I asked my (straight) friend Chad why they don't have a "straight pride" event. He said, "We do; it's called 'college'."

Only people who don't read books, don't watch television, don't see movies, and don't have conversations with humans can fail to see that every day is straight pride day.

I like having our one day a year. It's kind of fun.

rrjr

February 04, 2009 12:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding "black" people. That is true that you know nothing but a person's skin color when you say that someone is "black." That's the same with any race. I'm not understanding your point.

Gays have defined "gay" as meaning that they have sex with those of the same sex. Now, they're mad that people think of who they're sleeping with when they say they're "gay."

Blacks don't get mad when they call themselves "black" and we think: "that person is black." Whites don't get mad that, when they call themselves "white" and we think: "that person is white."

But gays are, apparently, mad when they call themselves "gay" and people think: "that person has sex with someone of the same sex."

It's rather amusing, really.

February 04, 2009 12:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I like having our one day a year. It's kind of fun."

You guys are having your kinda fun eight days a week.

Let's make a deal: we won't ask you about it, and you don't tell us about it.

Have your parades behind closed doors.

Enough with the gay exhibitionist impulse!

February 04, 2009 1:31 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

February 04, 2009 1:56 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "Gays have defined "gay" as meaning that they have sex with those of the same sex".

No, that's the way right wing haters try to define it. Gay is defined as being same sex attracted. Virtually every gay person realized they were gay when they were still a virgin. When someone tells you they're gay they haven't indicated anything about whether or not they are in a sexual relationship or whether or not they've ever had one.

February 04, 2009 2:01 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "Let's make a deal: we won't ask you about it, and you don't tell us about it.".

We'll hold to that deal when you stop telling us about your heterosexuality. To bigots like you mentioning one's partner is pushing one's sexuality in your face, but somehow its all good when you do it.

Bad anonymous said "Have your parades behind closed doors.".

We'll do that when you have Mardi Gras and Carnival behind closed doors.

February 04, 2009 2:04 PM  
Blogger Tish said...

If I put a picture of myself and my fiance in my cubicle, people ask me when the big day is going to be. If a gay man has a picture of himself and his boyfriend he is "flaunting his sexuality."

If I put one of my wedding pictures in my cubicle, people who see it talk about their own weddings and swap stories. If a gay man or lesbian woman puts a wedding picture in his or her workspace, he or she is pushing his or her "agenda" on the other people in the workspace.

If I put a picture of my children in my cubicle people ask me how old they are, what their names are, where they go to school. If a gay or lesbian person puts a picture of his or her children on the desk, people ask, "are those your nieces?" or "Who is that with you? Your brother and his kids?" Or (a favorite) "Which one of you is their 'real' parent?"

If I went to the break room and said that my in-laws were taking the kids for three days so my husband and I could get away for a romantic weekend, I would be told, "Congratulations." If a lesbian women told the same story, she'd be accused of "flaunting" her relationship. Good old "flaunting;" it is such a flexible complaint.

Straight people do all kinds of things that celebrate our commitment to the people we love, and many of those thing subtly allude to our sexuality. Society chooses to see the commitment part and ignore the sex part. When gay men and women celebrate their commitments, many people refuse to see anything but sex, even when it isn't there.

February 04, 2009 2:14 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Excellent Tish. If evil heteros like bad anonymous want gays to stop telling them about their sexuality then it behooves them to never use gender specific terms when refering to their partner - no "he", "she", "him", or "her". Also don't even think about mentioning your children - that'd be pushing your nasty heterosexuality in people's faces.

February 04, 2009 2:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Problem is, Priya, heterosexuality is normal and positive. Homosexuality is not.

February 04, 2009 2:54 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

Normal and positive???

Those are two things YOU ARE NOT, AnonBigot. Try being a contributing member of society instead of a hateful and useless one. Then FINALLY you will be normal and positive.

February 04, 2009 3:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Memba that 80% approval rating that Obama had two weeks ago?

Down to 63% today.

Can you say nosedive?

Keep in mind that George Bush had a rating over 80% after a year in office!

February 04, 2009 3:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

actually, George Bush holds the record for the highest presidential rating EVER!

nine months after he took office, he had a 92% approval rating!

February 04, 2009 3:46 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Oh, right. Now I remember -- nine months after the Bush administration turned a blind eye to al Queda, to all manners of PDBs (and this was when Bush spent much of his time on vacation), his approval rating was 92%.

Right -- I think that was 9/14/01.

February 04, 2009 4:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

actually, 10/9/2001

he didn't get as low as Obama is now until summer of 2001

Barry's got some catching up to do

February 04, 2009 4:21 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "Problem is, Priya, heterosexuality is normal and positive. Gayness is not".

False. Gayness is normal and positive. Gays have been documented througout history in every society as well as in most, if not all animal species. Gayness is normal for a minority of the population and is positive in that such attractions bring people together to care for and support each other.

Uncontrolled heterosexuality on the other hand is threatening the planet. Its been well documented in nature that species tend to go through boom/bust cycles of uncontrolled procreation until the excessive numbers deplete food and environmental resources causing a catastrophic die-off of individuals to a sustainable level. Clearly humans are not immune to this feature of species and as we can see are multiplying uncontrollably and depleting the earths resources of food, water, energy supplies, and the like. A catastrophic bust with untold suffering is comming if we don't restrain heterosexuality and balance it with a sustainable level of gayness.

February 04, 2009 5:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Gayness is normal for a minority of the population and is positive in that such attractions bring people together to care for and support each other."

Not so sure this is true. Gay culture seems to have a strong strain sado-masochisism running through it, as well as other emotional problems.

"we can see are multiplying uncontrollably and depleting the earths resources of food, water, energy supplies, and the like"

Actually, not really. It's all due to political problems not resourse shortages.

February 04, 2009 5:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hate myself.

February 04, 2009 6:14 PM  
Blogger BlackTsunami said...

"Gay culture seems to have a strong strain sado-masochisism running through it,"

Direct your attention to the following link, anonymous:

http://americansfortruth.com/news/breaking-columbus-ohio-holiday-inn-hotel-hosts-winter-wickedness-perversion-fest.html

And please note that there is nary a gay man involved.

February 04, 2009 7:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I followed the link and read it. It is not possible to ascertain, from this description, what percentage of participants will be homosexual vs. heterosexual.

February 04, 2009 10:08 PM  
Blogger BlackTsunami said...

Whatever gets you through the night, anonymous.

TRUST ME when I say that if there were gay participants, it would be in the headline and every paragraph.

February 04, 2009 10:25 PM  
Anonymous grantdale said...

Oh we never tell people we're gay. Like, at work and stuff.

We just put up pictures of us having sex. Yes Jim, especially that "weird, gross, scary kinds of sex"!

That way we both fulfil our perverse gratification from self-defeating exhibitionism, and give the 'phobes a reason to be upset that isn't simply based on their own over-indulged, base imaginations.

They're just jealous.

February 05, 2009 3:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, I think it's clear from this discussion that homosexuality is not justified because it "brings people together to care for and support each other".

Sado-masochism does not do that.

February 05, 2009 10:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sado-masochism does not do that.

Yes, it does.

February 05, 2009 11:48 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "Not so sure this is true. Gay culture seems to have a strong strain sado-masochisism running through it, as well as other emotional problems.".

False. Studies since the pioneering work of Evelyn Hooker in the 1950's have shown that gay people are indistinguishable from straights on common measures of mental health:

Psychological Testing Affirms the Mental Health of Homosexuals
This represents the evidence that homosexuality is not pathological, and comes from studies that were primarily done in the 60's, 70's and 80's. There were a flurry of studies done after the classical study by Evelyn Hooker in 1957, which produced the large body of studies from the 60's -70's. Then the studies dwindle down as the 80's progress, and very few studies can be found in the 90's. This is because all of the evidence is convergent, so no further studies were warranted, and the conclusion was that homosexuality evidenced no pathological characteristics that were significantly different from heterosexuals.
a) MMPI data:

L Braaten-1965, Genetic Psychology Monographs 71:269-310
R Dean-1964, J of Consulting Psychology 28 483-86
W Horstman-1972, Homosexuality and Psychopathology(dissertation)
Adelman-1977, Arch of Sex Beh 6(3):193-201
Oberstone-1976, Psychology of Women Quarterly 1(2):172-86

b) Other tests (Eysenck's Personality Inventory, Cattel's 16PF, California Personality Inventory, etc)

R Evans-1970, J of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 34:212-15
R Turner-1974, Br J of Psychiatry 125:447-49
M Siegelman-1972, Br J of Psychiatry 120:477-481
M Siegelman-1972, Archives of Sexual Behavior 2:9-25
M Freedman-1971, Homosexuality and Psychological Functioning, Brooks/Cole Publ.
J Hopkins-1969, Br J of Psychiatry 115:1433-1436
M Wilson-1971, Psychological Reports 28:407-412
N Thompson-1971, J of Abnormal Psychology 78:237-40
E Ohlson-1974, J of Sex Research 10:308-315
D Christie-1986, Psychological Reports 59:1279-1282
H Carlson-1984, Sex Roles 10:457-67
T Clark-1975, Am J of Psychoanalysis 35:163-68
R LaTorre-1983, J of Homosexuality 9:87-97
P Nurius-1983, J of Sex Research 19:119-36
C Rand-1982, J of Homosexuality 8(1):27-39 J Harry-1983, Archives of Sexual Behavior 12:1-19
E Hooker-1957, J of Projective Techniques 21:18-31

c) Reviews

B Harris-1977, Bulletin of the Am Acad of Psychiatry and Law 5:75-89
J Gonsiorek-1977, Psychological Adjustment and Homosexuality, Select Press.
W Paul-1982, Homosexuality: Social, Psychological and Biological Issues; Sage Publ.
M Hart-1978, J of Clinical Psychiatry 39:604-608
R Meredith-1980, Professional Psychology 11:174-93
B Reiss-1974, J of Homosexuality 1:71-85
B Reiss-1980, Homosexual Behavior a modern reappraisal, Basic Books
P Falk-1989, Am Psychologist 44(6):941-947
Kingdon-1979, Counseling Psychologist 8(1):44-45
V Armon-1960, Journal of Projective Techniques 24:292-309
N Thompson-1971, J of Abnormal Psychology 78:237-40

d) Psychiatric Interviews
R Pillard-1988, Psychiatric Annals 18:51-56
M Saghir-1970, Am J of Psychiatry 126:1079-86

February 05, 2009 11:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous"

It is both insolent and ignorant of you to assume you can define all homosexual behaviors, thinking, and culture. You are NOT a member of a minority group within our society that has been constantly maligned, demonized, physically attacked, falsely arrested, hung, dragged through the streets of heterosexual comunities, and denied the same rights that you so blithely assume are reserved for heterosexuals. In fact, you are a perpetrator of these vile injustices.

As a perpetrator,you have absolute ZERO credibility when you constantly reiterate the negative stereotypes about GLBT people that you and your kind so callously and maliciously toss around; you would do much better keeping your ignorance to yourself rather than flaunting your opinions so publicly where others can only gasp at the audacity and immensity of your bigotry. Until you have "walked the walk" I would suggest that you broaden your knowledge and understanding and compassion about that which you obviously know so little.

Unfortunately, there may not be much hope for you. You exhibit the classic symptoms of the "threatened male syndrome": fear of losing your power position in society, fear of others who are not just like you, fear of social changes that you cnnot control...symptoms that could use some professional treatment.

It is obvious that you are in the clutches of an evil spirit...a hateful, bigoted, un-Christian (even though you would claim to be a follower of that particular religion) demon, and live a piteously sad existence with an obvious obsession with sado-masoshism.

More time communicating with your God and asking forgiveness for your own sins would be a better use of your apparent unproductive time.

Diogenes

February 05, 2009 12:17 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I think owning what you say in public is normal and positive. Anonymous trolldom is not.

February 05, 2009 12:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for the long list of sources of psychobabble, Priya, but you weren't arguing for mental health of homosexuals. You were arguing for their morality by saying that type of deviance "brings people together to care for and support each other".

The problem is that homosexuality is both inherently sadomasochistic and flagrant about it. It has little to do with "care" and "support".

We all know the field of psychology is somewhat amoral, trivializing everything from bestiality to necrophilia. No one expected them to find anything mentally wrong with homosexuality.

To put it bluntly, in terms of social mores, that field is out there!

February 05, 2009 12:26 PM  
Blogger BlackTsunami said...

I get it anonymous,

when something contradicts your babble, then it's biased. Why didn't you reveal that you are trying to fix the rules?

February 05, 2009 12:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I made those comments but it's irrelevant, Alvin, because Priya was trying to argue for the moral benefits of homosexuality rather than the mental stability.

Do you find bestiality mentally healthy? Because the APA is fine with it.

In my irrelevant to the point comment I was simply saying the APA saying something is OK is from a different perspective than the layman.

Regardless of the APA opinion of S&M, there is no way that it "brings people together to care for and support each other".

February 05, 2009 12:47 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

It is great to see a president who FINALLY believes in the U.S. Constitution!!

From CNN.com


Controversy surrounds Obama's faith office



By Alexander Mooney
CNN


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama's newly revamped Office of Faith Based Initiatives is reigniting a contentious debate across the ideological spectrum over whether religious organizations that accept funds from the government should be allowed to discriminate when hiring.
On the campaign trail, President Obama's views on federal money and discrimination seemed clear.

On the campaign trail, President Obama's views on federal money and discrimination seemed clear.

In one corner is a string of religion-backed organizations that have accepted federal funds from the 8-year-old program to advance their secular charity work. President Bush issued an executive order in 2002 that allowed these groups to continue their practice of discrimination with respect to hiring. Specifically, many of the organizations carry policies against hiring outside their religion or hiring homosexuals whose lifestyles conflict with church doctorines.

In the other corner are separation-of-church-and-state advocates and human-rights organizations that say the government must constitutionally compel these organizations to follow nondiscrimination laws if they accept federal funding. Anything less, they say, would at best be a violation of church-state separation and at worst an implicit endorsement of discrimination.

"[President Obama] is under heavy pressure from those who support faith-based hiring in these enterprises to not just eliminate it," said Ira C. Lupu, a professor at The George Washington University Law School. "Others say that hiring on the basis of religion is discriminatory and that the government should never subsidize that. As a political matter, there is a lot of pressure from both sides."

Obama himself waded into the debate during the presidential campaign, delivering a widely viewed speech in Zanesville, Ohio, during which he endorsed faith-based programs, but said the beneficiaries of such government aid should be forced to cease discriminatory practices.

"If you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them -- or against the people you hire -- on the basis of their religion," Obama said in the July 1 speech at the East Side Community Ministry.
Don't Miss

* Ticker: Obama speaks about his religious transformation

But since Election Day, the president and his aides have been far less clear on whether the new faith-based initiatives office will significantly depart from the Bush administration's policy.

In an executive order to be announced on Thursday, Obama does not rescind Bush's provision to allow faith-based groups to discriminate in their hiring practices, but does provide a legal process for organizations to go through in order to that ensure hiring is legal and non-discriminatory.

Administration sources say the new legal safeguard is a "key step forward" in addressing the thorny issue of faith-based hiring.

But Dr. Joel Hunter, a senior pastor at Northland Church in Longwood, Florida, who will be part of a 25-member council of religious leaders in the faith-based office, said the issue is a particularly tricky one for religious leaders.

"We're going to have to work that out, because on the one hand, you don't want to use federal funds to discriminate. But on the other hand, we can't have religious organizations taking money on the condition that they will hire people who live a lifestyle contrary to what they teach," he said.

If the Obama administration moves slowly on resolving the issue, the new president risks alienating a large bloc of his supporters, many of whom are already wary of faith-based funding from the federal government.

"In an ideal world, there would be no faith-based office," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "But if we must have this office, certain steps must be taken to bring it into line with the commands of the Constitution."

For the faith-based groups, the issue is not so clear-cut. Under the Civil Rights act of 1964, faith-based organizations have a right to discriminate in hiring with respect to religion. Many of these organizations argue they risk losing their fundamental identity if the government forces them to hire individuals outside their faith.

"To us, it's not a matter of discrimination, it's a matter of our faith ethos," said Samuel Rodriguez, the president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference. "What they are telling us is to negate who we are in order to acquire federal grants. ... That's just unacceptable."

Rodriguez, whose organization represents more than 19,000 churches, said he and other religious leaders have directly communicated their concerns to the Obama administration and are confident the president will not seek to rescind the policy.

"President Obama understands he's at risk of alienating the vast majority of the evangelical community," Rodriguez said.

But opponents argue organizations use the right to hire within their religion as an excuse to implicitly discriminate against gays and lesbians -- many of whom may share the same faith as the organization but are deemed not good practitioners of it.

"The Bush administration's policies and initiatives that have allowed religious institutions to discriminate against [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual] Americans with public money are not consistent with the values espoused by President Obama and his Administration," Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign said. "We are hopeful that the new administration will take the necessary steps to address this critical issue of fairness expeditiously."

At Pastor Rick Warren's presidential forum in August, then-presidential candidate Obama said a distinction should be made between how federally funded groups hire within their own mission and how they hire when it comes to secular charitable work.

"The devil's in the details," he said then. "What we do want to make sure of is that as a general principle we're not using federal funding to discriminate, but that is only when it comes to the narrow program that is being funded by the federal government. That does not affect any of the other ministries that are being taken, that are taking place."

February 05, 2009 1:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It is great to see a president who FINALLY believes in the U.S. Constitution!!"

What country has a president like that?

Obama is planning to sign legislation that would give D.C. the same representation in Congress that a state has.

That's clearly unconstitutional!!

February 05, 2009 2:01 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I get the feeling that the anonymote doesn't like queers so much. I thinking he's been taking online courses from Porno Pete and Bam-bam Barber.

I will point out to him that no other blog would allow him his insulting posts. He completely takes advantage of this. I guess it makes him happy to anonymously, secretively insult people and their friends to their face.

What does the APA say about that?

rrjr

February 05, 2009 2:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Robomote Rigby

Never a comment of substance!

February 05, 2009 2:39 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anonymous, Robert does have a point. We allow you to comment here even though you're rude and play very loose with the truth. It is not hard for me to block your IP numbers at home and work, and you won't be the first if I do. If I block your IP number you will simply disappear from our web site.

Lately it has seemed to me that you have been more rude and had less to say, even, than usual. I personally think it is important to have points of view expressed here that differ from my own, and from those of most TTF members, but I do not think it is important to allow commenters to be inconsiderate and make personal comments.

I prefer to allow speech to flow freely here, but it doesn't bother me at all to block people. We won't even be able to hear you crying! Please lighten up, mind your manners, and don't force me to remove you from our community.

JimK

February 05, 2009 3:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Could you show me an example of my being rude that wasn't a response to someone being rude to me on this thread?

February 05, 2009 3:32 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

I say we use democracy and take a vote to ban AnonBigotĀ“s IP Address.

All in favor, say "Ay".

Me: "Ay".

February 05, 2009 4:33 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Ay

February 05, 2009 5:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you guys really should block me

the last thing you need, over the next couple of months, is someone reminding you how foolish it was to put so much unjustified faith in an inexperienced and untested individual whose presidency is failing

February 05, 2009 5:45 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

Ummm-- NO.

Do you remember the last eight years of Hell, AnonBigot?

Obama is doing something positive for this country everyday. He is making the USA a better place to live.

I am sure the one neuron you use to think with can fathom that idea.

Keep trying.

February 05, 2009 6:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sorry, Derrick, but his approval ratings are plummeting, his nominees have been a disaster, his stimulus plan has been exposed as a sham, he makes a new lobbying ban then makes exceptions for the people he wants, he says he's closing Guantanomo but the military won't go along, he's about to set off a trade war, and he has no new ideas

worst of all, Pelosi and Reid are loose cannons and he's showed no skill at reigning them in

it's all downhill from here, buddy

February 05, 2009 6:53 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, I'm not going to ban you for expressing an opinion that I disagree with, or even for being an obnoxious loudmouth. I will ban you, though, for making personal comments about the others here, and in fact I may decide at any time that your comments fail to meet a minimum standard. I'm watching for your sarcasm/content ratio to reach a certain level, and you're close.

If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator. Hey, just a minute, this is a dictatorship, and I am the dictator.

I can ban you for any reason, of course, lots of blogs -- most blogs -- would have banned you already just because you're so unlikeable. I'm giving you fair warning. And don't forget, if you can't comment here nobody will be able to appreciate the lovely "Mission Accomplished" banner flying behind you.

JimK

February 05, 2009 7:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

well, I've asked you for examples but gotten no response

I probably will continue to be sarcastic so, if that bothers you, go ahead and ban me

you know as well as I do that these followers of yours insult me regularly simply because they don't like my POV

I rarely complain and they only do if they think I'm scoring some points

as you say, you are definitely the one running the blog so if you don't want a counter-point, go ahead and ban me

or maybe Orin or the another anon will pick up the pace to replace

February 05, 2009 7:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh no.

Did the Democrats cheat on their taxes again?

"WASHINGTON (Feb. 5) - Labor Secretary nominee Hilda Solis became the latest Cabinet nominee to face questions about unpaid taxes Thursday as a Senate panel abruptly postponed a scheduled vote on her confirmation.

The postponement came after revelations that Solis' husband settled tax liens on his California auto repair business this week that had been outstanding for as long as 16 years.

The discovery posed another political headache for a White House already chafing after tax problems and other controversies derailed some administration appointments, including former Sen. Tom Daschle's nomination as health secretary.

President Barack Obama pledged in TV interviews this week that he would "make sure that we're not screwing up again" in the vetting process.

Asked if the Solis nomination was in trouble, White House spokesman Rogert Gibbs was glib and said, "I don't believe it is at all."

USA Today first reported Thursday that Los Angeles County records showed 15 outstanding state and county tax liens totaling $7,630 against Sam Sayyad and his business.

White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said Solis and Sayyad paid about $6,400 to Los Angeles County on Wednesday to settle the liens."

I guess that's OK.

As long as we pay our taxes before our nomination, everything is cool!

I assume those of us not being nominated for a Cabinet post don't have to pay any taxes at all!

February 05, 2009 10:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow!

That's four major nominees cheating on their taxes and his original Commerce Secretary is being investigated on bribery charges.

Of course, so far, the only one to pass is the one running the IRS.

This presidency is not just historic, it's ironic!

Now, that's change we can believe in!

February 05, 2009 11:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't believe that porn lawyer David Ogden, slated to be our next deputy attorney general, has any tax problems.

February 06, 2009 12:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

B Obama:

"I'm change we can believe in!"

Aunt Bea:

"Yes, we can"

Roger Daltrey:

"Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss."

B Obama (on Wednesday):

"A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into catastrophe"

Charles Krauthammer:

"Catastrophe, mind you. So much for the president who in his inaugural address two weeks earlier declared "we have chosen hope over fear." Until, that is, you need fear to pass a bill.

And so much for the promise to banish the money changers and influence peddlers from the temple. An ostentatious executive order banning lobbyists was immediately followed by the nomination of at least a dozen current or former lobbyists to high position. Followed by a Treasury secretary who allegedly couldn't understand the payroll tax provisions in his 1040. Followed by Tom Daschle, who had to fall on his sword according to the new Washington rule that no Cabinet can have more than one tax delinquent.

The Daschle affair was more serious because his offense involved more than taxes. As Michael Kinsley once observed, in Washington the real scandal isn't what's illegal, but what's legal. Not paying taxes is one thing. But what made this case intolerable was the perfectly legal dealings that amassed Daschle $5.2 million in just two years.

He'd been getting $1 million per year from a law firm. But he's not a lawyer, nor a registered lobbyist. You don't get paid this kind of money to instruct partners on the Senate markup process. You get it for picking up the phone and peddling influence.

At least Tim Geithner, the tax-challenged Treasury secretary, had been working for years as a humble international civil servant earning non-stratospheric wages.

Daschle, who had made another cool million a year (plus chauffeur and Caddy) for unspecified services to a pal's private equity firm, represented everything Obama said he'd come to Washington to upend.

And yet more damaging to Obama's image than all the hypocrisies in the appointment process is his signature bill: the stimulus package. He inexplicably delegated the writing to Nancy Pelosi and the barons of the House. The product, which inevitably carries Obama's name, was not just bad, not just flawed, but a legislative abomination.

It's not just pages and pages of special-interest tax breaks, giveaways and protections, one of which would set off a ruinous Smoot-Hawley trade war. It's not just the waste, such as the $88.6 million for new construction for Milwaukee Public Schools, which, reports the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, have shrinking enrollment, 15 vacant schools and, quite logically, no plans for new construction.

It's the essential fraud of rushing through a bill in which the normal rules (committee hearings, finding revenue to pay for the programs) are suspended on the grounds that a national emergency requires an immediate job-creating stimulus -- and then throwing into it hundreds of billions that have nothing to do with stimulus, that Congress's own budget office says won't be spent until 2011 and beyond, and that are little more than the back-scratching, special-interest, lobby-driven parochialism that Obama came to Washington to abolish. He said.

Not just to abolish but to create something new -- a new politics where the moneyed pork-barreling and corrupt logrolling of the past would give way to a bottom-up, grass-roots participatory democracy. That is what made Obama so dazzling and new. Turns out the "fierce urgency of now" includes $150 million for livestock (and honeybee and farm-raised fish) insurance.

The Age of Obama begins with perhaps the greatest frenzy of old-politics influence peddling ever seen in Washington. By the time the stimulus bill reached the Senate, reports the Wall Street Journal, pharmaceutical and high-tech companies were lobbying furiously for a new plan to repatriate overseas profits that would yield major tax savings. California wine growers and Florida citrus producers were fighting to change a single phrase in one provision. Substituting "planted" for "ready to market" would mean a windfall garnered from a new "bonus depreciation" incentive.

After Obama's miraculous 2008 presidential campaign, it was clear that at some point the magical mystery tour would have to end. The nation would rub its eyes and begin to emerge from its reverie. The hallucinatory Obama would give way to the mere mortal. The great ethical transformations promised would be seen as a fairy tale that all presidents tell -- and that this president told better than anyone.

I thought the awakening would take six months. It took two and a half weeks."

btw, John McCain's 445K stimulus plan yesterday received the unanimous support of Republican senators.

If we had voted better, we'd already be there, folks.

A lesson to be learned for 2010.

February 06, 2009 6:33 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

his approval ratings are plummeting...nominees/disaster...stimulus plan/sham

There you go, torturing those facts again, barryo.

Obama's approval ratings have plummeted all the way down to the 60% territory, after winning the election with 53% of the vote over McCain's 46%. Many of Obama's cabinet nominees have been widely praised. Bush got over Linda Chavez's withdrawal as Labor Secretary and Obama will get over his nominees' withdrawals too. Obama's $819 billion stimulus plan is being praised by lots of people. You are just parroting the latest line of the Grand Obstructionist Party, which incidentally is the same line they spouted last spring. At that time when many economists were warning a housing bubble was looming, a full 68 percent of Republicans opposed a government-led bailout of banks to stabilize the housing market and as usual, their spin machines had managed to convince many people not to support such a bailout either. Imagine if we had invested enough money into refinancing mortgages back then, we might not have so many scenes like this today. We have to act quickly so no more families are evicted out onto the streets.

Many Governors, even some GOP Governors around the country support the President's plan. The StarTribune reports:

Most Republican governors have broken with their GOP colleagues in Congress and are pushing for passage of President Barack Obama's economic aid plan that would send billions to states for education, public works and health care.

Their state treasuries drained by the financial crisis, governors would welcome the money from Capitol Hill, where GOP lawmakers are more skeptical of Obama's spending priorities...


barryo continued he makes a new lobbying ban then makes exceptions for the people he wants

You don't get away from FOX News much do you? President Obama said about Daschle's decision to step down, "It's something I take responsibility for." And about Daschle he said, "He made a mistake, a pretty big one, when it came to these taxes. He didn't offer excuses and I don't think there is an excuse."
CBS News reports:

"I don't want my administration to be sending a message that there are two sets of rules: one for prominent people and one for ordinary folks who have to pay their taxes everyday,'' Mr. Obama told Couric.

"I think that we're going to move forward, learn from our mistakes," he said.


What a great lesson! If we "learn from our mistakes" rather than blindly blundering on while pretending no mistakes were made, we might manage to dig ourselves out of this hole we're in. Unlike his predecessor, Obama does not just talk about being held accountable. He steps up and takes responsibility for his failures as well as his successes. The country would appreciate it if the GOP would stop wishing and working for him to fail and start wishing and working with him so that we can succeed in repairing the damage already done and in stemming the damage inaction continues to cause.

Today's front page of the Washington Post reports that Senators from both parties want to trim $100 billion off the stimulus package that has now ballooned up to $920 billion. They should trim it back down to the $819 billion the House passed and enact it immediately. There's no time to waste as the Post also reports For Economy, Another Thumping: Retail Sales, Factory Orders Fall While Jobless Claims Rise.

Retail sales fell in January for the fourth consecutive month, factory orders in December dropped for the fifth month in a row, and jobless claims last week hit a quarter-century high as the recession shows no signs of abating.

The data, released yesterday, underscored the reluctance of individuals and businesses alike to spend in the face of a gloomy economy. Depressed demand here and abroad pushed U.S. factory orders down 3.9 percent, to $362.4 billion, in December. That trend is forcing companies to slash jobs, sending new claims for unemployment benefits up to 626,000 last week.

February 06, 2009 8:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks, Bea. Your humorous piece is the cherry on the cake of a gorgeous morning for the GOP.

"The country would appreciate it if the GOP would stop wishing and working for him to fail and start wishing and working with him"

You mean like going over to the White House and meeting with him to give him advice? Yeah, maybe we should...

Hey, wait a minute here!

We've done that every day.

Susan Collins, the lovely and responsible GOP senator from Maine was just over there yesterday helping him out with some creative ideas. We're actually giving the guy a remedial course in budgeting and legislative procedure.

That's pretty generous!

Maybe Obama will switch to the GOP.

He is really is a nice fellow.

:)

February 06, 2009 8:47 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Yeah, the nation is so grateful for all the GOP has done for us, great numbers of GOP officials were swept back into the private sector last November to hunt for jobs in the economy they left for us.

February 06, 2009 8:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you believe the polls, and I know you do, the American people agree with the GOP on this horrendous piece of legislation.

It's a hopeful sign that we still recognize when we make a mistake.

Hopefully, Michelle Obama will still be proud of America when Barry's approval ratings continue to plunge.

Do you favor this, Bea?

"$88.6 million for new construction for Milwaukee Public Schools, which, reports the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, have shrinking enrollment, 15 vacant schools and, quite logically, no plans for new construction."

February 06, 2009 9:01 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports a lot more information about how that money might be spent than Krauthammer's column does.

-In addition to the construction money, the district would get $115.5 million for special education and low income students over two years, according to detailed projections developed by congressional staffers.

-Overall, the 400-plus school districts across the state would get $729.6 million for those uses, including $317.2 million for construction.

-The U.S. Senate is almost certain to change the numbers when it takes up the economic package this week.

-if the amounts come through even close to where they are now projected, they will provide substantial infusions of money to school districts that are, like so many enterprises, under sharp budget pressure.

-Perhaps the biggest question will be what falls under the title "construction" when rules for spending the money are finalized..."school modernization" might be a better label than "construction."...Improving energy efficiency, dealing with environmental hazards such as asbestos and repairing roofs might all be included.

-...an estimated 3,200 jobs across the state would be supported by the school construction funds.

-school districts would be required to sign contracts committing to spend half the construction money within a year of the signing of the economic stimulus bill and the other half in the second year.

-The special education money would likely be especially welcomed by school districts. Statewide, including MPS, districts have been required for years to pay a much larger share of special education money out of property taxes than was originally envisioned, because the federal and state governments have fallen far short of promises made years ago to support more than two-thirds of special education costs.


In another piece, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel also reports:

Unemployment in metro Milwaukee hit a record for December, and the pink slips keep piling up.

On Thursday, heavy manufacturer Rexnord and the parent of Boston Store each announced elimination of 100 jobs from their Milwaukee operations. At the same time, the state reported dismal local payroll and unemployment numbers from last month, and the federal government said the number of Americans receiving unemployment benefits has reached an all-time high.

Metro Milwaukee's unemployment rate reached 5.8% last month, the highest in 18 years of data for the month of December, according to a report Thursday by the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development.

...Of Wisconsin's 11 other metro areas, only Fond du Lac did not break its December record last month.

The highest rate was 8.1%, in the Janesville area, which is reeling from the closure of the General Motors assembly plant. And the lowest was 4.2% in the Madison area, its first time eclipsing the 4% mark for December. "The December numbers confirm the intensification of the recession across Wisconsin. No part of the state is immune," Marc Levine, founder and senior fellow of the Center for Economic Development at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, said in an e-mail.


People are hurting, losing jobs and homes. Yes, I support spending this money to create 3200 jobs in Wisconsin, to help the state meet it's requirements in special education, and to help low income students with services like free and reduced meals at school.

February 06, 2009 10:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We were talking about the construction, Bea, not a bunch of other stuff to divert focus.

If people are out of work up there, we could spend money better to help locate to sunnier climes where they'll likely find jobs and use less energy every winter. That'd be a better use than spending money on white elephant construction.

Heavily Republican areas, like South Carolina, are doing very well.

February 06, 2009 10:45 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

We were talking about the construction, Bea, not a bunch of other stuff to divert focus.

You and Charles Krauthammer both missed this paragraph published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, highlighted again just for you, barryo, since your reading comprehension is not so good.

-Perhaps the biggest question will be what falls under the title "construction" when rules for spending the money are finalized..."school modernization" might be a better label than "construction."...Improving energy efficiency, dealing with environmental hazards such as asbestos and repairing roofs might all be included.

Spending money on any of these tasks from "construction" to "school modernization" to "improving energy efficiency" to "dealing with environmental hazards" to "repairing roofs" will mean much needed JOBS for those who have been laid off.

I'm glad to hear GOP areas like South Carolina are "doing very well." Any funds in the stimulus package designated for states that are "doing very well" should be cut. Wisconsin isn't one of them.

February 06, 2009 1:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I didn't miss it. You threw everything but the kitchen sink in so I addressed that.

You may have missed the word "might".

"dealing with environmental hazards such as asbestos and repairing roofs might all be included"

Let's face it, there's no plan or consideration of need here.

This is exactly why the Democrats were out of power for so long.

This is why they'll be returned to their dark slimy place under the rocks at the next election.

February 06, 2009 3:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous, I hate to tell you this but South Carolina IS NOT doing well. And I tell you this as a resident of the state.

Amongst other things, our governor is threatening to fire the entire Unemployment Commission Board.

February 06, 2009 7:15 PM  
Blogger BlackTsunami said...

About your earlier comments on this board, anonymous - you have been rude and have intentionally diverted the conversation to other matters. Now you are trying to play the victim. It's not Jim's responsibility to show where you have committed your wrongs.

February 06, 2009 7:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous" Troll:
As usual, your hyperbole is beyond reproach (and beyond belief! Such a comedian you are! Yuk, Yuk).
"This is exactly why the Democrats were out of power for so long. This is why they'll be returned to their dark slimy place under the rocks at the next election." and "Hopefully, Michelle Obama will still be proud of America when Barry's approval ratings continue to plunge."

After all of your cajillion comments here, causing many of this blog's readers to wonder how on earth you have the luxury of spending so much time here, I have finally figured out what you really do for a living - you are a writer for Rush Limbaugh!! You are so funny...a real scream.

Substituting such puerile comments for real dialogue definitely puts you into the company of such "pundits" (sic.) as Limbaugh and Coulter and Wildmon, et al. You must be very proud (and also, unfortunately, deluded) about your "insightful" commentaries. Way to go!! Keep it up - you are a laugh a minute!!
Diogenes

February 06, 2009 8:46 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home