Tuesday, June 02, 2009

Cognitive Dissonance

This one brings up the "Does Not Compute" warning message.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday he supports gays being able to marry but believes states, not the federal government, should make the decision.

"I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone," Cheney said in a speech at the National Press Club. "I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish." Cheney on gay marriage: 'Freedom for everyone'

Yeah, really? What do you do when Dick Cheney agrees with you on something?

Heh, the real world is paradoxical sometimes.

From The Post:
As he has in the past, Cheney specifically cited his family's experience during his comments in Washington today. "As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family," Cheney said.

Cheney's youngest daughter, Mary, and her longtime partner, Heather Poe, have a son, Samuel, who was born to Mary Cheney in 2007. Both Mary and her older sister, Elizabeth, have been prominent supporters of their father and Republican causes, although Mary has said in interviews that she considered quitting the Bush re-election effort in 2004 because of the gay marriage issue. Cheney Comes Out for Gay Marriage, State-by-State

This topic came up during the election campaign. Politics Daily reminds us:
Throughout the Bush administration, the Vice President refrained from directly discussing his daughter's personal life and avoided questions on whether gay couples should be able to marry. In 2007, Cheney bristled when CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked him to respond to political criticism of his daughter's pregnancy, saying to Blitzer, "Frankly, you're out of line with that question." Cheney on Gay Marriage: 'Freedom Means Freedom for Everyone'

The secret is out of the closet now.

I remember a couple of years ago there was a blog I used to follow, John Perry Barlow's. Barlow seemed cool, he's an old hippie like me, wrote songs for the Grateful Dead, hung around with Timothy Leary back in the day. He became an Internet activist, an early adopter who founded the Electronic Frontier Foundation, fought for some things I consider important. You wouldn't know he was Dick Cheney's campaign manager in 1978, and on his blog he talked about Cheney as a nice guy, talked about fishing with him and stuff. I stopped reading Barlow. Does Not Compute.

At some level, I suppose Dick Cheney is just a guy, and here I am working around the concept of "the banality of evil." My mother used to say, "He puts his pants on one leg at a time." He's got a lesbian daughter, well, your kids grow up and have a mind of their own, don't they. When he needed the religious right to vote for him, he pretended it was offensive to mention his daughter, now that the tide has turned he can say something in support of her and her family.

He's just a guy, but he's responsible for thousands of American deaths and many more deaths of Iraqi and Afghani citizens. He is responsible for the deterioration of freedom in the US, he is responsible for the introduction of torture as an element of American policy, war as an instrument of profit. He's not just a guy, he's a horror. Satirical references to him as Satan are not really very far off the mark.

It is not decent or heartwarming for him to acknowledge that his own daughter is gay and should have the same rights to the pursuit of happiness that the rest of us have. It is obvious. I'm glad he said this, because it might make some otherwise closed minds open up a little bit, but I am not giving Dick Cheney any credit for being a warm human being. The evil he has brought into the world far outweighs the fact that this week he made a statement that is obviously true.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It is not decent or heartwarming for him to acknowledge that his own daughter is gay and should have the same rights to the pursuit of happiness that the rest of us have."

You're right. That's obvious.

Cheney said more than that, however. He went over to the lunatic side when he implied that one is not being granted the right to the pursuit of happiness unless society changes its definition of marriage for you.

I mean, what the heck?

It's always been a wonder to me how the left turned Cheney into a conservative symbol.

Cheney was Jerry Ford's Chief of Staff and had much more in common with Richard Nixon than Ronald Reagan.

He's a moderate Republican.

As for the conduct of the war, he made stupid decisions but Obama has endorsed most of his policies.

btw, that's to Obama's credit. The new story is that tide is now turning in Pakistan. The wonder whiz kid and military/diplomat extraordinairre, Gen Petraeus, has worked with the government there and the Taliban is on the run. Al quaeda is now in the difficult position of deciding whether to go help their buddies or stay hidden in their sanctuaries.

June 02, 2009 10:44 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I disagree Jim. Cheney gets some credit from my account. No one is entirely bad (except Hitler and Pol Pot, maybe). Even Lucifer was the Angel of Light before the fall.

Our Anonymous troll, on the other hand....

June 02, 2009 11:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

lunatic judge says schools can discriminate against religion:

"PHILADELPHIA (June 2) -- A U.S. court says a kindergartner's mother cannot read Scripture during show and tell, even if the Bible is the boy's favorite book.

Monday's ruling is a victory for the Marple Newtown School District in suburban Philadelphia.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals says the school's decision does not violate First Amendment rights given the nonpublic nature of the classroom and the tender age of the children.

The mother, Donna Kay Busch, argues the students heard stories related to Passover, Christmas and other religious holidays.

The appeals court says there is a "significant difference" between identifying those holidays and reading from Scripture."

June 02, 2009 11:58 AM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

I suspect that Dick Cheney's failure to publicly support equal rights for his own daughter is illustrative of a problem that some people of great wealth have. Because he believes that his family's economic situation is such that he can shelter his daughter and her partner and their child from the vicissitudes of unfair laws and a subculture which views them as "perverted," he has not, until recently, felt the need to speak out in support of their rights -- and even then, only in response to a question at the National Press Club.

He cares for his own family -- but plainly does not care very much about other people's families. If he cared beyond his own close circle, he would be using his visibility and speaking skills to persuade people who respect him (yes, I know that is only about 1/3 of the population, but those are the people who tend to be most homophobic, I suspect) that they should think anew about the issue of sexual orientation. But I do not yet even see him on the roles of the Metro DC Chapter of PFLAG.

June 02, 2009 12:45 PM  
Anonymous Merle said...

... speaking skills ???

June 02, 2009 1:14 PM  
Blogger Tish said...

Y'know Merle, maybe Cheney's "speaking skills" are just right for this issue. As far as I can tell, Cheney's skill is in saying the same thing over and over and over and over.

It bears saying over and over, etc: the marriage issue is one of basic fairness. I wouldn't mind if Cheney kept repeating that.

Cheney mentioned something else that a lot of people missed. the constitution enumerates the specific roles of the federal government and says everything else is reserved to the states. Marriage is specifically reserved to the states. I have never understood how anyone could accept the constitutionality of the federal DOMA laws.

David? Can you enlighten me?

June 02, 2009 1:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

actually, I think Tish is right about that

June 02, 2009 2:07 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

DOMA is currently being challenged in court in a lawsuit brought by GLAD out of New England.

June 02, 2009 2:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

is that the same as GLAAD?

June 02, 2009 2:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

GLAD=Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders
GLAAD=Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation


June 02, 2009 2:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


there's two of 'em

June 02, 2009 2:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea not anon
I am tired of all "anons." Identify yourselves in some way(like I do) or just go away- and that is whether you are pro-us or against us.

June 02, 2009 4:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

thatsa right

identify whether yer fer or agin!

June 02, 2009 4:56 PM  
Anonymous ha-ha said...

"I am tired of all "anons.""

I'll bet you are.

Who wants to look stupid all the time?

June 02, 2009 4:59 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

There are two parts of of DOMA.

1. One part provides that states need not recognize marriages performed in other states. There is an interesting Constitutional problem here, since the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution (Article IV, Section 1)provides that that states must respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of other states. Here is the full language:

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

Of course, the alleged "strict constructionists" on the Supreme Court likely would find a way to interpret that language to mean something other than what it says.

2. The other part provides that the federal government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states. This means that, for example, the statute bars treating married couples in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, Maine, or California as married for purposes of filing joint federal tax returns or getting Social Security benefits.

This part of DOMA is of questionable constitutionality under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause.

June 02, 2009 5:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

couldn't we just get around by saying we'll let me lunatic states do that but we'll withhold bailout funds from them

that's how the Feds usually interfere with the rights of states

June 02, 2009 6:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All 50 governors submitted certification letters to the White House claiming recovery funding.

June 03, 2009 9:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

so what?

June 03, 2009 11:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous" - Great retort!! "So what". Brilliant in its paucity of intelligence!!

June 05, 2009 9:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

it was all that was necessary, citizen, to point the irrelevance of the previous remark

some of your comrades here would do well to consider the art of brevity

June 05, 2009 10:07 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home