Jon Stewart Lands One
I shouldn't stay up for the Daily Show, but sometimes you just have to. Last night Jon Stewart interviewed the conservative icon Bill Bennett, who wanted to recite some platitudes about traditional marriage and promote his new book. You know that gay marriage is the topic of the week for the Republicans, with the Bush press conference and Republican Congressmen showing pictures of their not-gay family members and everything. They'd definitely rather talk about something like gay marriage than other things that are going on.
You have to admit that some of Stewart's interviews are excruciating ... but some aren't. Last night he took this guy to the woodshed. The crux of it, right here:
Perfect: this is what we're talking about.
You have to admit that some of Stewart's interviews are excruciating ... but some aren't. Last night he took this guy to the woodshed. The crux of it, right here:
Bennett Look, it's a debate about whether you think marriage is between a man and a women.
Stewart:I disagree, I think it's a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish.
Perfect: this is what we're talking about.
posted by JimK at 11:14 AM
22 Comments:
Bill Bennett on the Daily Show? Goodness, now there is a lapse in judgement on the part of Bennett...shame. BB would have done better to have read and reflected on this passage from the New Testament,
Do not give what is holy to dogs, or throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot, and turn and tear you to pieces. (Matthew 7:6)
Anyways...Jim writes,
You have to admit that some of Stewart's interviews are excruciating ... but some aren't.
Sorry, I could not say since I have never watched The Daily Show...sorry, I just don't have the time. Though I will have to say that if Stewart is as "funny" as he thought he was when he hosted the Academy Awards show in March then I likely would not have lasted long as a viewer. He was simply dreadful and not even marginally funny...bring back Billy Crystal!
Last night he took this guy to the woodshed. The crux of it, right here:
Bennett Look, it's a debate about whether you think marriage is between a man and a women.
Yup, that is the somewhat truncated yet essential core of the debate.
Stewart:I disagree, I think it's a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish.
Besides being a nonsensical statement it does not illuminate much about the debate. Since I affirm the civil rights of gays and lesbians, that is to be safe from discrimination in employment, housing, etc. I am not certain why I would be labeled as someone that considers homosexuals a "random fetish".
Of course, gays and lesbians are our brothers and sisters, our school teachers, our next door neighbors, our grocery store clerk, etc. On a micro level, personal (if you will), we are morally and ethically required to tolerate and accept those that find themselves in this condition. In the movie "The Family Stone" the mother, played by Diane Keaton, makes it crystal clear that while she loves all of her children, she has a special love for her gay son and will rip anyone apart that questions her son's right to be who he is. It is a beautiful scene of the unconditional love a parent ought to have esp. for their gay and lesbian children. I suspect in the private area that is the life of the Cheney family, this is the way their daughter and her partner are treated...and that is the way it ought to be.
On the other hand, the debate about same-sex marriage is necessarily a public debate as it involves a public institution. What homosexual activist/advocacy groups want to do is to change this institution without any public input, hence the use of the judiciary. This is done by re-framing the debate about marriage from one of a social institution that has always had regulations placed upon it to one of an ever growing list of "rights". Yes, there once were laws banning inter-racial marriage; their repeal AFFIRMED that marriage is between a man and a woman, no matter the race or ethnicity of each.
Same-sex "marriage" is so radical a redefinition of our societal understanding of marriage (as an aside, once again please note that I do not refer to "traditional marriage" since not all traditions are good or correct) that it requires debate and deliberation on everyone's part (as messy and unpleasant as that can be, that is what self-government is all about). This can be achieved best by use of the legislative branch of government. Homosexual advocacy groups understand the diffliculty of this approach, and hence are reluctant to use this approach.
And for the record: if it is decided via the legislative process that marriage is to be redefined then I will abide by the results (though I will reserve the right of free speech to disagree with the same).
Perfect: this is what we're talking about.
"Perfect"? More like imperfect or imprecise...if the Stewart quote is what is considered taking "this guy to the woodshed" then the standard for political discourse has been set low.
"re-framing the debate about marriage from one of a social institution that has always had regulations placed upon it"
Like no man shall take multiple wives and no man shall have concubines have ALWAYS been regulations placed on marriage...
"Yes, there once were laws banning inter-racial marriage; their repeal AFFIRMED that marriage is between a man and a woman, no matter the race or ethnicity of each."
Is that what it affirmed to you, one man and one woman? To me the Supreme Court decision in Loving case affirmed that two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together have the right to marry no matter what.
Orin, this was a "them that have eyes, let them see" kind of post. I shouldn't do that, I know, but sometimes it happens.
There are two things going on here. First, it is possible that people would have different opinions about marriage and how necessary it is to encode the society's prevailing norms into the Constitution. Second, it is possible -- no, it's true -- that there are some people trying to frame the question in order to get political capital out of the ordinary citizen's discomfort with, and ignorance about, homosexuality.
In some other place and time, you and I might have had a discussion about whether two guys should be allowed to marry, we might have made some interesting points, maybe one of us would convince the other -- I have a friend who comes over on the weekends, and we sit in my front yard and drink coffee and watch the girls go by and argue about all kinds of stuff. There's nothing wrong with having differences of opinion, in my opinion (of course, you may believe differently).
But this has become something different from that. This has become an attack on a minority of our population, based on misrepresentations of who and what they are. It gives a certain segment of society a "them" to feel superior to, and political cretins know how to exploit that group feeling to influence voters.
You may be above all that, I'm not saying everybody who thinks the definition of marriage should be restricted thinks so for the same reasons. But there is a national attempt to malign gay people by talking as if marriage were endangered or something, which is absurd. Jon Stewart makes the excellent point that the controversy is really about whether sexual orientation is a "random fetish," that is, some curious choice that a person makes, perhaps out of a sense of adventure or rebellion, or whether it's part of the human condition, just something that occurs naturally. Of course it is the latter.
Once you stop blaming people for being gay, the marriage question goes away -- is it better to live your whole life with the one you love? Of course.
JimK
Orin wrote,
"re-framing the debate about marriage from one of a social institution that has always had regulations placed upon it"
To which Daisy replied,
Like no man shall take multiple wives and no man shall have concubines have ALWAYS been regulations placed on marriage...
HUH??? Oh, I see...the bring out the Hebrew bible schtick...yawn. Ok, if I need to be specific I will; regulations placed upon marriage in American society. Is that better?
Again, I wrote,
"Yes, there once were laws banning inter-racial marriage; their repeal AFFIRMED that marriage is between a man and a woman, no matter the race or ethnicity of each."
Is that what it affirmed to you, one man and one woman? To me the Supreme Court decision in Loving case affirmed that two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together have the right to marry no matter what.
Have you read Loving v. Virgina (1967)? No, wait...don't answer that question. How about if I give you the final paragraph of the US Supreme Court decision, and then let you reconcile it with your assertion of a "right to marry no matter what"...especially since a father does not have any right to marry his adult daughter?
Loving v. Virginia
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
And Jim writes,
Once you stop blaming people for being gay, the marriage question goes away -- is it better to live your whole life with the one you love? Of course.
While some may play the blame game, I don't think it is good on a personal level or a societal level. Still, it does not mean the question goes away. Yes, it is better to live with the one you love, but marriage is not needed for that to be accomplished...and if you doubt that just ask Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon.
With all the advances gays and lesbians have made in contemporary American society to date, please don't assert that granting the "right" of marriage is all that stands between them and equality.
In fact, I suspect what must drive activists nuts is that for all the advances they have achieved to date, still they know that marriage as a right they have pulled from the clenched fist of heterosexist and sexually repressed American society will not likely change an overwhelming segment of Americans from their moral and social assessment of same-sex "marriage" as an inferior institution. Why, you ask? Simple enough...because they recognize the self-evident truth of a same-sex "marriage", i.e. it is (absent any outside assistance) sterile.
Yes, marriage can be about love, and caring, and even sharing...BUT it is at its' core about providing the next generation, or perpetuation of the species (for all you Darwinists out there). The institution of marriage is the promise that any society has that wishes to endure. Again, anyone having any doubt about that only need look to Western Europe. Say what any critic wants to about an emerging "Eurabia", religiously observant Muslims understand that for any society to endure it must self-perpetuate. So native Europeans just want to have "fun", i.e. sex without consequences (read: children)?...not to worry, Muslims will fill the void, as they are doing even now.
Jim writes,
There's nothing wrong with having differences of opinion, in my opinion (of course, you may believe differently).
If there is anything I hold in highest regard it is the right to disagree. To me this right is one of the most fundamental of all rights in any society claiming to be a liberal, democratic society. Put another way, (I think it was John Stuart Mill that coined this expression) I may vehemently disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.
If I have time later today to address your other points Jim, I will...however now I must get a little sleep.
Orin
I appreciate very much your acceptance of lgbt people in our world, espcially gay teachers. I know that lgbt teachers are constantly confronted with pressures to hide, dissimulate, or simply find another profession.
I also respect that you can be against gay marriage without being against gay people.
But understand that from a my personal point of view, when you say that straight people (you) should have marriage and gay people (me) shouldn't, it's hard not to wonder if you think that I'm just not as good as you are, all argument aside. When you have something that you don't want to share with me, it's hard even to listen to the arguments.
You seem like a really thoughtful, kind person. Let me knwo what you think.
Robert
Orin, funny you would use the Bible to refer to Bill Bennett- the man is a hypocrite and sells himself for money. His "morality" is non existent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Bennett
Radio show comment on abortion
On September 28, 2005, in a discussion on Bennett's Morning in America radio show, Bennett made remarks that have since touched off a debate about race, crime and abortion. A caller to the show proposed the idea that the Social Security system might be solvent today if abortion hadn't been permitted following the Roe v. Wade decision. The following is a transcript of the conversation:
CALLER: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about the loss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security, and I was curious, and I've read articles in recent months here, that the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fund Social Security as we know it today. And the media just doesn't—never touches this at all.
BENNETT: Assuming they're all productive citizens?
CALLER: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.
BENNETT: Maybe, maybe, but we don't know what the costs would be, too. I think as—abortion disproportionately occur among single women? No.
CALLER: I don't know the exact statistics, but quite a bit are, yeah.
BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both—you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well—
CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.
BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.
Gracie
Orin,
It's nice to hear a little sanity slipping back into your comments. Thank you. I thought you were channeling Wyatt there for a few weeks.
I think Robert put the bigger picture very well, so I'll leave it at that.
Marriage has never been solely about the next generation -- concubines and harems and polygamy managed quite nicely.
Fundamentalist Muslims don't believe in marriage for procreation's sake; they believe in it for Islam's sake, and most Muslim women in non-Western society can't begin to imagine a different life.
Quit picking on the Europeans. Everyone loved them when they tore down that Wall and formed the EU; now they're just a bunch of fun-loving, pacifistic, lazy people who aren't interested in producing the next generation, because they've bought into the readical homosexual agenda?. That's the problem of Fox News, not the Europeans.
So gay couples are infertile? Well, the women aren't, for one thing, and the men are managing nicely as well. Gay men and women are increasingly working together on this.
As for the inherent infertility of gay couples, well, these days over 10% of straight couples are infertile. But the Right has no interest in that issue, except when it comes to excess blastocysts.
I also seem to remember that in the 60's the Right was always up in arms at the liberal legislatures that were destroying western civilization. And, boy, did they hate Nixon! No judicial activism there. Their ploys and rationales are simply covers for bigotry. I agree that they needn't be, and that not all who oppose marriage equality, such as yourself, do so out of bigotry. But the Republican leadership that is out in front on this -- Brownback, Inhofe, Santorum -- is composed of nothing but bigots on this issue, hiding behind a fig-leaf of virtually non-existent religious cover. And by aligning himself with them as he has this past week, Bush qualifies as well.
Robert writes,
I appreciate very much your acceptance of lgbt people in our world, espcially gay teachers. I know that lgbt teachers are constantly confronted with pressures to hide, dissimulate, or simply find another profession.
I appreciate gay and lesbian teachers in part from direct experience in having worked with them as an involved school parent. My now 12th grade daughter had a couple of lesbians that taught together when she was in the 3rd grade. It was open secret among the parents that these two teachers that had adjoining classrooms were lesbian, and though this school was in a politically conservative area in Southern California, it was *never* an issue. Why? Because these teachers never made an issue of it, felt at ease with who they were, and were the best damn teachers around! I felt blessed then (as I do even now) to have had my daughter taught by them.
I also respect that you can be against gay marriage without being against gay people.
Thank you...I am personally pained at the thought of this issue coming to a head here in Colorado because I know it will likely be ocassioned by much nastiness on both sides of this issue.
But understand that from a my personal point of view, when you say that straight people (you) should have marriage and gay people (me) shouldn't, it's hard not to wonder if you think that I'm just not as good as you are, all argument aside.
Truth (big "T") is that you are as good as I am...though that is not what the same-sex marriage debate is about. I am of the opinion that if majority opinion in American society were to legislatively pass marriage for gays and lesbians I would disagree with that finding, but I would be bound to support it as an American.
When you have something that you don't want to share with me, it's hard even to listen to the arguments.
So eloquently put, thank you.
Please believe me when I say that I am sorry...so very sorry. The way I was raised I learned to share because I had four brothers and two sisters; as I got older I learned that sharing is an act of kindness towards the other. And that is why I continually open my home to gay and lesbian friends (both mine and my wifes'), believe it or not, I want to share because my life is enriched by the experience.
Do my gay and lesbian friends know that I oppose same-sex marriage? I believe they do. Do I know this for a fact? No, I do not. Why? Because I try not to make an issue of it in my personal relationships. My closest friend (we have been friends for over 20 years), at one time the executive director of a national LGBT group, and I have discussed this and other related issues here and there. We both have largely come to the conclusion that we will have to agree to disagree about this, as well as any number of social/political issues. We, both he and I, endure and embrace our differences (much to the chagrin of his gay friends who have wondered how I could be his friend).
So, why won't I share? Well, for starters, marriage is not mine to share *or* not to share - it is a social institution that has a purpose (though admittedly that has evolved over the course of history) and that purpose defines limits. I understand that purpose and respect the limits set forth by that purpose.
You seem like a really thoughtful, kind person. Let me knwo what you think.
Thank you...I try to be. I would like to think that if you met me in person you would agree to sit down and share a cup of coffee and good conversation. There are so many things that catch my interest, and they run the range from art, to science, to hiking, and to why I wear shorts in the dead of a Colorado winter!
Andrea R writes,
Orin, funny you would use the Bible to refer to Bill Bennett- the man is a hypocrite and sells himself for money. His "morality" is non existent.
I think Bennett made an error in judgement in going on The Daily Show and the verse from Matthew expresses that thought best. Jon Stewart is a comedian, a comedian that uses cynical sarcasm to attempt to score cheap debater's points. Stewart is, IMO, not up to the task of understanding the issues in anything other than a superficial manner.
Is Bennett a hypocrite? Anyone that preaches a high standard is bound to violate that standard themself...sooner or later.
With reference to his status as a high roller gambler...while it is an issue for some on the "religious right" it is not an issue for Catholics, of which Bennett is a member. Catholic teachings on this are clear, as set forth in the Catechism of the Catholic Church,
2413 Games of Chance (card games, etc.) or wagers are not in themselves contrary to justice. They become morally unacceptable when they deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for his needs and those of others. The passion for gambling risks becoming an enslavement. Unfair wages and cheating at games constitute grave matter, unless the damage inflicted is so slight that the one who suffers it cannot reasonably consider it significant.
Bottomline? As long as one is honest about the wagers and does not gamble the "milk money", then it is ok. And my opinion? I don't gamble.
And finally, Dana writes,
It's nice to hear a little sanity slipping back into your comments. Thank you. I thought you were channeling Wyatt there for a few weeks.
Gee...thanks...I guess...lol. Hey, where have you been of late?
I think Robert put the bigger picture very well, so I'll leave it at that.
The "bigger picture" or a more personal face on this issue? Hummm, I tend more to the later than the former, but I can understand your mileage may vary.
Marriage has never been solely about the next generation -- concubines and harems and polygamy managed quite nicely.
The presence of the above mentioned variations on marriage are touched on in the hebrew bible, and they are allowed under biblical law. Curious thing though...while allowed under law, the biblical narrative in every instance these variations are mentioned depicts them in a negative light, without exception.
Quit picking on the Europeans. Everyone loved them when they tore down that Wall and formed the EU; now they're just a bunch of fun-loving, pacifistic, lazy people who aren't interested in producing the next generation, because they've bought into the readical homosexual agenda?. That's the problem of Fox News, not the Europeans.
Since I don't watch Fox News aren't you the least bit curious how I came to the assessment I have with regards to western Europe?
I started noticing those fun-loving Europeans when the only thing that got them really agitated was when then Pres. Reagan countered the Soviet threat with matching American military power. And did they take to the streets! It was then that I noticed that they had become complacent about their own survival.
Honest, I pity them as they are de-populating the European continent on a scale not seen in hundreds of years...and worse still, they are doing it by choice. I guess it just goes to show that the human instinct for survival is not a constant in human nature.
So gay couples are infertile? Well, the women aren't, for one thing, and the men are managing nicely as well. Gay men and women are increasingly working together on this.
Clever is not the same as wise...
As for the inherent infertility of gay couples, well, these days over 10% of straight couples are infertile. But the Right has no interest in that issue, except when it comes to excess blastocysts.
Ah, the ESCR issue...ever read the Dr. Seuss book _Horton Hears a Who_? My favorite line is this, "because a person is a person, no matter how small". Please, cite one...just one...medical therapy that has been developed by ESCR. If ESCR were the "holy grail" of medical therapies, private capital would be flooding into this area. One problem...it isn't. Why nobody in the mainstream media is asking this question is odd, don't you think?
Their ploys and rationales are simply covers for bigotry. I agree that they needn't be, and that not all who oppose marriage equality, such as yourself, do so out of bigotry. But the Republican leadership that is out in front on this -- Brownback, Inhofe, Santorum -- is composed of nothing but bigots on this issue, hiding behind a fig-leaf of virtually non-existent religious cover. And by aligning himself with them as he has this past week, Bush qualifies as well.
Cynical I will grant you...but "bigoted"? Interesting thing about calling one's opposition names is that it tends to shut down rather than open up debate on highly contentious issues.
Orin said..."How about if I give you the final paragraph of the US Supreme Court decision, and then let you reconcile it with your assertion of a "right to marry no matter what"...especially since a father does not have any right to marry his adult daughter?
Loving v. Virginia
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." (emphasis mine)
I find the highlighted part most relevant to this matter, however, here's a link to an even more relevant case: Judge Murdock's decision on the Maryland same-sex marriage case:
www.baltocts.state.md.us/ civil/highlighted_trials/Memorandum.pdf
It will be interesting to see how other judges will interpret her reasoning as this case is appealed.
"Jon Stewart is a comedian, a comedian that uses cynical sarcasm to attempt to score cheap debater's points. Stewart is, IMO, not up to the task of understanding the issues in anything other than a superficial manner."
Well of course you are entitled to your opinion. I'm just curious how you formed it if the following statement is true.
"Sorry, I could not say since I have never watched The Daily Show."
Flo
Orin
I would very much enjoy having a cup of coffee (i would drink diet coke though) with you. Maybe I'll make it back to Colorado one of these days (y'all have such nice mountains there). You come across as a truly interesting and fair person (and you put up patiently with a lot of crap).
I find that I don't ask my straight friends gay or straight (many gay people oppose gay marriage, for various reasons)or family members what they think about gay marriage or other lgbt issues; I don't want a disagreement to cloud our relationship. My mother told me the other day that she wouldn't want me to date a black man, and I was mortified. She should have left that unsaid, and kept her opinion to herself. Forums like this are the places to engage in such debates.
I'm pleased that you such a good experience with your daughters teachers. I tell people that more teachers should be out, but I really only want the good lgbt teachers to be open.
I don't make an issue about being gay with my students; I don't think the classroom should be a bully pulpit, and I'm more focused on linear equations and solving quadratics than anything else. If personal issues do come up, it should be my students' and not my own.
But I am openly gay, and I'll tell you why: if, in my childhood, I had known openly gay teachers, or Boy Scout leaders, or pastors, or sunday school teachers, or football coaches, or t-ball coaches, or neighbors, or Civilian Air Patrol leaders, or choir directors, or riding instructors, or anyone, I think I would have been less likely to have gone through all those decades of thinking I was the only one, of being miserable and alone, of thinking that there was something basically wrong with me. I think lgbt teachers (well, good lgbt teachers) owe it to youth to be open.
Just to say, most gay teachers that I know, almost all of whom are closeted at work, think teachers should not be out.
What do you think?
Robert
Hi, Orin,
I've been busy running a campaign for state delegate, so I have little time for blogging. I apologize.
What is the ESCR problem, exactly? Keep in mind that we're talking about blastocysts, that 40% are naturally miscarried, and that Dr. Suess is not a scientific or moral authority. He was simply a great children's poet.
The Torah is actually quite positive about polygamy and concubinage, as well as honest about the emotional consequences of that system. In spite of those problems, there was no attempt to change it.
Robert's "bigger picture" was, as you said, his personal thoughts about your wanting to deprive him of the benefits of an institution which you can claim for yourself. I thought he was very eloquent, too. I expect to see him tomorrow morning, btw, at an "Ex-Gay" conference here in Silver Spring.
The Europeans have been complacent since the Franco-Prussian War, if not earlier. I don't find anything special about today's situation. They'll deal with their population themselves, I expect.
As for the bigotry of the Republican leadership, I agree that many who voted for this horrid amendment are simply cynical, but the leadership is not. Had you watched any of it on C-Span I expect you would agree with me.
You didn't respond to my comment about the growing rate of infertility in the Western world.
Interesting that despite the liberal wave that TTF has noticed sweeping the country, California this week replaced a Republican congressman who resigned over a scandal with another Republican. Not only that, but how about all the propositions and ballot initiatives that the Democrats pushed for and the voters laughed off? Maybe TTF means "TELL THE FALSEHOOD">>>>>
Welcome back, Wyatt. So the Republicans outspent the Democrats by over 2:1 in an unusually heavy Republican district, and won by four points. That's a great success for you guys. Just wait until November.
As for the ballot initiatives, you point out a real problem. Republicans have made "government" a dirty word, as well as depleting the treasury of funds for worthwhile goals.
So tell me, what should we spend our money on, offering pre-school programs for ALL children, or fighting an unjust and ill-conceived war in Iraq?
Orin,
I just want to send Robert's regards to you. We were both at a protest rally against the pseudocience going on in a church in our area this morning. Robert spoke eloquently.
"California this week replaced a Republican congressman who resigned over a scandal with another Republican."
Yeah Triple L, baby. You should hold your head way up high on that victory in La La Land.
How many millions of dollars did it take to convince voters in a GOP stronghold to vote for one of their own?
Orin- let me make it clear that it is not just the gambling thing(funny, how so many HTT people tend to have these little "problems" show up). Being on Jon Stewart(I do not have cable so I do not see him but I know he is not network news-) is a choice- a choice Bill Bennett made -because he is selling himself. That is what Bill Bennett does-and being on Jon Stewart is all part of salesmanship. Bennett is just another snake oil salesman- pretending to be a moral man.
Well Bennett with a new book out will be on every show he can muster. One could say he is prostituting himself for book sales.
Jon Stewart hit the nail on the head comedian or not.
Gracie
Preface: Sorry, I have been a tad late in posting any sort of reply...been busy with the family (went to the People's Republic of Boulder to take in the farmer's market and walk Pearl Street mall).
Flo writes,
Well of course you are entitled to your opinion. I'm just curious how you formed it if the following statement is true.
"Sorry, I could not say since I have never watched The Daily Show."
I have seen out takes of The Daily Show and Jon Strewart elsewhere...enough to understand that I would not get much out of watching the show. I've seen Stewart interviewed elsewhere and find that he comes off alot like Bill Maher, another so-called comedian savant.
Robert writes,
I would very much enjoy having a cup of coffee (i would drink diet coke though) with you. Maybe I'll make it back to Colorado one of these days (y'all have such nice mountains there).
I have been here long enough now that I know where all the decent places to eat, drink and even get a fairly good cup of coffee. And I have a fourteener in my backyard (well, sort of...Longs Peak is just about an hour to the trailhead; actually, it is the only one in this part of the state...most are in the south-west part of the state).
You come across as a truly interesting and fair person (and you put up patiently with a lot of crap).
It is a pleasant change to be called "interesting" as I am usually called wierd by my two teenagers.
As to putting up with alot of crap I would respectfully disagree. The reason is that I am of the opinion that when one enters the marketplace of ideas they ought to be ready and expect to do "battle" on behalf of their ideas. I have even less respect for conservatives that shrink from defending what they believe (usually because they don't know why) than I do for those on the Left). While I am annoyed at the name calling ("hatred"..."lies"..."Family blah blah"), I find the exchange of ideas...well, stimulating (sorry, I just couldn't resist).
I find that I don't ask my straight friends gay or straight (many gay people oppose gay marriage, for various reasons)or family members what they think about gay marriage or other lgbt issues; I don't want a disagreement to cloud our relationship.
Thank you Robert for confirming what I have said (and others here don't appear to believe); towit, that many gay and lesbian couples don't want anything to do with that "patriarchal, bourgeosis (sp?), homophobic" institution. Unlike the activist/advocacy groups, these folks have made a place for themselves in American and they don't think they need to "man the barricades".
I understand about not wanting disagreement to cloud a relationship...still, I think it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. I have a sib that works for the federal government and this sib has unloaded on me more than once about problems with the present admin. I listen respectfully, try to better understand where this sib is seeing things from, and remember that I love and respect this person very much. Am I conflicted? Yes...sigh...I am.
My mother told me the other day that she wouldn't want me to date a black man, and I was mortified. She should have left that unsaid, and kept her opinion to herself. Forums like this are the places to engage in such debates.
I am truly sorry that comment hurt you. A while ago my older teen daughter expressed interest in a black young man just a couple of years older than her. In the off chance that she might want to go out with him I made it clear that I thought he would be a fine date to have (I have met and talked with him before...a hard worker with a happy heart). I wanted to be crystal clear that race was not a consideration for me; goodness is my standard. When I was going thru the process of becoming Catholic, a relative said some pretty hurtful things to me that I wish had not been said.
I don't make an issue about being gay with my students; I don't think the classroom should be a bully pulpit, and I'm more focused on linear equations and solving quadratics than anything else. If personal issues do come up, it should be my students' and not my own.
If I were a teacher I would make it understood from the outset that I would not tolerate any harassment or abuse towards any other student, esp. if the think they might be homosexual. If a student were to come up to me on a personal basis and ask for help I would do so as their teacher, not as a Roman Catholic. If I were asked for my opinion on the issue, I would make it clear there is alot we still do not know. I would choose my words carefully (and not because I would want to be PC); I would not want to add to the burden of others. I still remember what being a teenager was like; it sucked at times.
But I am openly gay, and I'll tell you why: (edited)
What can I say? I agree.
Just to say, most gay teachers that I know, almost all of whom are closeted at work, think teachers should not be out.
What do you think?
Well now, that is an interesting question...I think it depends on a few factors. First off, what kind of community does one live in? If it were a community that is at least willing to "live and let live" where everyone is granted a zone of privacy, then fine. Would the "coming out" be understood, or would it be misunderstood? Having met a few of the parents, is it reasonable to expect that they would be supportive of your right to live out your life truthfully? And finally, would "coming out" be seen as political advocacy, or simply being truthful? As an involved school parent I do not want any advocacy, left or right...but if it comes up (for example, a student in class makes a disparaging comment about gays and lesbians, and the teacher corrects that student, disclosing in the process that they are homosexual) in the natural course of classroom conversation, then I would hope the teacher would feel comfortable and safe about being out. I would support a teacher in this context.
Dana writes,
I've been busy running a campaign for state delegate, so I have little time for blogging. I apologize.
Is that like the state house? No apology needed...trust me, I understand.
What is the ESCR problem, exactly? Keep in mind that we're talking about blastocysts, that 40% are naturally miscarried,
I guess it is a matter of means and ends and a slippery slope. Will humankind at its various stages of development be considered ends in themselves, or as means to someone elses ends? Should the product of human life be nurtured only long enough to be destroyed the serve the ends of another? And even if 60% were naturally miscarried I would question an ethic that approves the destruction of human embryos for the sake of medical research.
and that Dr. Suess is not a scientific or moral authority. He was simply a great children's poet.
Dr. Seuss never wrote the book with any intent that it be "pro-life" or anything like that, still the message in the text is clear and unmistakeable - a person is a person, no matter how small. One need not be even a scientific or moral authority to discover the truth of words uttered by an elephant.
The Torah is actually quite positive about polygamy and concubinage, as well as honest about the emotional consequences of that system. In spite of those problems, there was no attempt to change it.
Yes, biblical law allowed these regressive social practices, however, the narrative weighs in more heavily with every description being negative. The rabbi I have read on this subject says that polygamy is where biblical narrative trumps biblical law.
You didn't respond to my comment about the growing rate of infertility in the Western world.
When and where was this? I am sorry, but yard work has kept me busy of late...could you kindly remind me please? Thanks.
I just want to send Robert's regards to you. We were both at a protest rally against the pseudocience going on in a church in our area this morning. Robert spoke eloquently.
Well, thank you..."pseudoscience"? Well, the meeting was being held in a church...right? (wink, wink) How many were on the inside...any idea?
Sorry, but it is late here (now 11 pm) and I am tired, and I am heading off to bed.
Yes, Orin, it's the state house. I've had others ask me to get the name changed, because it's confusing to people from other states. I guess you confirm that. Of course, that's the whole point of federalism, isn't it? To generate confusion:-)?
I simply don't accept the slippery slope argument. I believe it depends on the poepleinvolved in the argument and the acting. I don't believe there are any absolutes here, as the issues of brain death and blastocyctic research have shown, at least to me. As a physician I was well aware that life is a little more complex than religious fundamentalists often hold it to be, at least for general consumption.
You mention the Torah discussing "regressive social practices." "Regressive," of course, is your adjective. If polygamy and concubinage are considered regressive, why not the prohibition on same-sex relationships? My point is that you are making a personal moral judgment based on other information besides a Biblical text, which is what we all do, which is why stating that the Bible says it's so is simply inadequate reasoning for most anything.
It's hard to know how many people there were inside. They bussed in a few busloads, and claimed 700. I seriously doubt that claim. And they even bussed in someone from Georgia. This simply confirms Dr. Spitzer's point about "ex-gays." Maybe they exist, he said, but it took me almost two years to find fewer than two hundred, and those were sent in my direction by organizations with a vested interest in my studying them. Not exactly scientific, and not overwhelming numbers by any means.
"So the Republicans outspent the Democrats by over 2:1 in an unusually heavy Republican district, and won by four points. That's a great success for you guys. Just wait until November."
What a bunch of idiots! Did you know that there was a contested Democratic government primary as part of the election? That the Republican nomination was uncontested? That a commission led by Rob Reiner spent 23 million dollars supporting one of the Democrat ballot initatives? That Democrats voting in the election out-numbered registered Republicans two to one and still lost? How sad. In the last two elections, the Dems have been blindsided because they were stupid enough to believe the media hype which always seems to detect a liberal renaissance until election reality hits. Then, they gripe about how Karl Rove outfoxed them. Actually, his job is easy. Americans are on his side to begin with.
Speaking of whom, wasn't "Teach the Falsehood" sure Karl would be in jail by now? What happened?
Triple Lutz
Post a Comment
<< Home