It’s the Clinton Rules, Jake. (I almost said "Forget it, Jake – it’s Chinatown", but you probably get that a lot already.)
Are people still freaking out over one of the two pastors to speak at the inaugural? Are they still ignoring Joseph Lowery, who is a really good guy?
6.
demimondian
@Phoenix Woman: Yes, we’re still freaking out. No, we’re not forgetting Joseph Lowery.
What’s gradually happening is that Warren’s positions on other important issues are being made public. The net effect of this may be to force him to defend his support of Christian mass murder — something that will serve to marginalize him.
Are people still freaking out over one of the two pastors to speak at the inaugural?
Yes.
There is a not insignificant portion of the blogosphere who think that saying ‘Quit being silly about Warren’ is akin to saying “YOU CAN’T QUESTION OBAMA.”
There is a larger portion of the blogosphere who can not tell the difference between appointing someone to the cabinet and having someone talk for a few minutes at the inauguration.
Both, however, know a slap in the face when they see one.
On an unrelated note, I just love Charles Osgood. There is always something so nice and sweet about him singing.
8.
Jeff
@Phoenix Woman: SadlyNo just had a huge post about it considering they are the ones aware of all internet traditions about saying things shorter.
You too can have the shoe. I’m going to see if I can get a pair small enough for me. That would be a 5 1/2 man’s shoe … And no cheesy rip-offs. Hope springs eternal!
You know, few of us general blogosphere types are going to be winning the genius prize any time soon. Neither are the journos. I want to worry about more consequential things than what tie Obama wore to the inaugural, so, excuse me if I sit out the nit pick parade.
John: A-yep. I’ve been told about one website where people have allegedly been told behind the scenes not to write anything on this that doesn’t explicitly condemn and excoriate Obama about That Preacher Guy, who by the way is considered a moderate to liberal among other Fundies — something that the folks passing along the carefully-selected website snippets either don’t know or don’t mention, but which the LAT’s editorial page does:
History shows that the views of inauguration preachers aren’t a reliable guide to the policies of the presidents on whom they invoke God’s blessing. At John F. Kennedy’s inauguration in 1961, the invocation was delivered by Cardinal Richard Cushing, the archbishop of Boston. But given Kennedy’s pledge of strict separation of church and state during the campaign, it would have been foolish to assume that Cushing’s participation signaled an endorsement by the Kennedy administration of "pro-Catholic" policies such as government aid to parochial schools.
[…]
Finally, Warren is among a group of younger evangelicals who, without renouncing traditional views about abortion and sexuality, have expanded their mission to include environmental stewardship and efforts to eradicate poverty and AIDS. It’s because of such views that Obama can credibly include him in his effort to bring Americans together despite differences about social issues.
In the meantime, poll after poll shows that most Americans have no problem with him speaking. And as gay activist Bil Browning dared to point out (and for which he has been all but blackballed), attacking Obama over this is likely actually hurting the gay community’s public image.
jeffreyw@11: Yeah. He’s been flamed hard by the righties and the AIPAC crowd for saying nice (or at least non-nasty) things about Syria (with whom we’ve been not-so-secretly negotiating even though we’re allegedly not supposed to be). This is one reason why he’s considered a near-Commie in the hardcore Fundie circles.
(Oh, and John? Is there a way you can include the rest of the LAT passage in the blockquote I attempted to make? It’s the single paragraph after the ellipsis ([…]). Everything after that is my own coinage. Thanks and sorry for being such a pain. I’ll make you all some pot stickers to compensate.)
Christine Pelosi, Attorney, author and Democratic activist:
On a national day of unity, I would have vastly preferred someone who respects women’s reproductive freedom and full equality for LBGT people.
Many of us who voted for Barack Obama knew that some of his decisions would be tough to accept – because it’s hard to work in community with people who oppose our rights. This is one of those times. But as was said about Reverend Wright, praying with someone does not mean agreeing with them.
Thus, I will await President Obama’s policies before passing judgment on whether the Rick Warren selection is an outreach or an omen.
@JGabriel: I think that one of the problems the Warren-ignorers are missing is that I don’t give a hoot what he says, or what affects he has on Obama’s policies. That’s a jackalope of the first order.
I worry about what this says about Obama’s priorities — it shows that his posturing about gay rights is just that, posturing. He clearly views the whole issue as an inconvenience which gets in the way of important things. (Remember that this isn’t the first time he’s shown a total tin ear to those issues — as a good example, Wright has the same problem with "sodomy".)
Evidently, he needs to be reminded that it’s not just an "inconvenient truth", but a group of people who intend to make it hard for him to do those other "important things" if he continues to think that their issues aren’t also important.
23.
gbear
Are people still freaking out over one of the two pastors to speak at the inaugural?
Not freaking out about it any more, but given the number of really good non-media-whore people he could have chosen from, I’m still pissed about it. The guy is a seriously intolerant blowhard and his intolerance goes way beyond homophobia:
When it came time for questions, a woman stood up, proclaimed her Judaism, and asked Warren if she was going to burn in hell. He paused before responding–and then answered her question the only way it could be answered. Yes, he said to audible gasps.
Why the fuck is he there?
Jeff, I read that Sadly,No! posting last night. It wanders all over the place but it’s an honest picture of the anger she’s built up while having to deal with discrimination and harassment she’s faced as a lesbian living in the south. A lot of pain in that alcohol-fueled posting.
I’m still pissed too. It is a seriously stupid and unthoughtful move from a guy who’s been mostly smart and thoughtful throughout his campaign. I’d still vote for him, but I don’t have to believe that he’s a friend of mine any more. This really is personal. My friends marriage and 18,000 others have been invalidated in CA. Fuck Warren.
Back on topic: Kill your television.
24.
SGEW
[disengaging lurking field]
After much thought on the Warren invite, I have come to my own personal conclusion (tentative, but I’m standing by it for now):
History may judge the Warren invocation (and, perhaps, other future disappointments from Pres. Obama, viz. LGBT rights) along the lines of "He (Obama) Was a Product Of His Times," à la Lincoln or FDR or Jefferson. Or all presidents, really.
To wit: Jefferson owned slaves. FDR detained my Japanese-American relatives without cause or legal restitution, based on racism and fear mongering. Lincoln is famously quoted as saying "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." And no U.S. president has ever been a friend to the original inhabitants of this continent. To say the least.
These are all deeply hurtful things. I understand those who repudiate these men as immoral, unethical, and/or unforgivably cynical. This country, no matter how much I love it, is based on compromise and a painfully slow whittling away at bigotry. John "Alien and Sedition Act" Adams is a beloved founding father, while Thomas "Rights Of Man" Paine died alone, in obscurity, and was later burned in effigy by Teddy Roosevelt*. In other words, untempered idealism has never been a successful political strategy in the U.S.A.
Can we fully condemn these past presidents, however? Lincoln did free the slaves, after all**. FDR saved the world from imperial fascism and ended the depression***. Jefferson wrote th’ frickin’ Declaration of Independence. These are all Good Things, imho.
So, while the Warren invite seems tremendously tone-deaf on Obama’s part, it’s starting to feel like just another politically motivated "cultural" compromise from a politician who is a product of their era. No front-running presidential candidate spoke out for marriage equality. The official stated positions on civil unions from Senators McCain, Clinton, Obama, and Biden were remarkably identical. We have to realize that the president has to be pushed to accept the future ethical consensus. Would LBJ have signed the Civil Rights Act without a popular movement? I think not.
It is only through this historical perspective that I can (kind of) accept the idea of Warren being invited to perform the invocation****. If Obama makes good on his reiterated "fierce advoca[cy] for equality for gay and lesbian Americans" through policy action (i.e., DOMA, DADT, etc. etc.) the Warren imbroligio can be (mostly) forgiven. But if it turns out to be another indicator of Obama’s less-than-responsible position on true civil equality . . . well . . . maybe I can chalk it up to just another embarrassment in a long, long list of travesties this country has inflicted on the underprivileged, the downtrodden, and the oppressed.
Does this make any sense to anyone? Anyway, sorry for the ridiculously long post.
N.B.: I am not saying that I think that Obama is against LGBT rights: his record speaks pretty strongly in his favor. However, I suggest that it doesn’t matter what he actually believes – what matters is what he believes is politically possible.
*True!
**Never mind the actual historical debate. I’m talking narratives.
***Id.
****Don’t get me started on having an official prayer in the first place. ("Unconstitutional endorsement of theism" anyone?)
[re-engaging lurking field]
25.
tavella
I think that one of the problems the Warren-ignorers are missing is that I don’t give a hoot what he says, or what affects he has on Obama’s policies. That’s a jackalope of the first order.
…
I worry about what this says about Obama’s priorities—it shows that his posturing about gay rights is just that, posturing. He clearly views the whole issue as an inconvenience which gets in the way of important things. (Remember that this isn’t the first time he’s shown a total tin ear to those issues—as a good example, Wright has the same problem with "sodomy".)
See this is how progressives risk being put in the same class as wingnuts. Warren with all of his asshatery has NOT talked extensively about excellent political and civil rights of Syrian Jews. He went to Syria and spouted out that the stated rule of the Syrian govt was to fight discrimination based on religion. He also praised the Syrians for taking in refugees, some of them christian and jewish, fleeing Iraq. Lets focus on the dumb shit he actually does instead of blowing it up to something he didn’t do and thereby allowing our concerns to be dismissed. That he spoke good things about Syria and was dead ass wrong should be good enough. We don’t have to make it seem like he was on some kind of propaganda campaign for them.
Just watch, tomorrow one of the op eds in a major rag will be taking progressives to task for lying about Warren’s past with respect to Syria and they will once again be painting us as looney left wing hippies.
No, this guy’s [Rick Warren] no "moderate". That’s the problem with him—he’s a wolf in shepherd’s clothing.
Demi, I can’t say I have much use or respect for Warren either. But the Juan Cole piece JeffreyW highlights above is worth reading.
A lot of people whose opinions I respect – Juan Cole and Barack Obama, to name two – seem to think Warren is capable of learning from experience and changing his views. And Warren himself influences the views of a lot of people. That probably makes it worth reaching out to him.
And as gay activist Bil Browning dared to point out (and for which he has been all but blackballed), attacking Obama over this is likely actually hurting the gay community’s public image.
I see that the gay community has their own equivalent of the civil right’s movement’s "Responsible Negroes."
29.
SGEW
Let’s focus on the dumb shit he actually does instead of blowing it up to something he didn’t do and thereby allowing our concerns to be dismissed.
Hear hear.
30.
gnomedad
You too can have the shoe. I’m going to see if I can get a pair small enough for me. That would be a 5 1/2 man’s shoe … And no cheesy rip-offs. Hope springs eternal!
God Goes GUI all over the World Wide Web, and you’re invited to the party. Special thanks to the Electronic Showcase of Perpetual Bandwidth for hosting the images of this sacred event.
THE TESTIMONY AND IMAGES YOU ARE ABOUT TO SEE ARE SO POWEFUL AND MOVING that even many GODLESS LIBERALS are left standing in awe!!
Don’t miss out on the opportunity to be the first to view this exciting Internet example of A GENUINE POINT AND CLICK WONDER.
Click here to experience the Sunday Morning Christmas season miracle for yourself.
Dedicated members of Tim’s Internet Temple (TIT) as well as converts to my rapidly growing new congregation are invited to do advanced bloggle study here.
33.
Just Some Fuckhead
Shorter Warren Outrage Pimps: Me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me.
34.
gbear
Shorter Warren Outrage Pimps: Me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me. Can I haz equal rights?
My objection is along the lines of what demimondian and SGEW suggest, which is not that Obama is "slapping the LGBT community in the face" so much as we are getting a hint of his priorities. He champions the rights of gays, but it is low on his list of priorities and he is not going to go to bat for tham at the risk of other issues that he considers more important. Given this pick of Rick Warren, it begins to seems that his priority of the rights of this group is very low indeed and that their hopes for equality are going to have to wait for another president. So he achieved equality for African Americans, but for other groups who are discriminated against…
I worry about what this says about Obama’s priorities—it shows that his posturing about gay rights is just that, posturing. He clearly views the whole issue as an inconvenience which gets in the way of important things. (Remember that this isn’t the first time he’s shown a total tin ear to those issues—as a good example, Wright has the same problem with “sodomy”.)
This is, to me, out and out wingnuttery. I linked Obama’s record on gay issues the other day. I linked his lifetime rating. Every time it has come to a vote, guess who Obama has voted with?
Not Rick Warren.
To call his record “posturing” and nothing more is the kind of stuff I expect from right-wing nutjobs who, when someone says they oppose abortion, but not in the case of rape and incest, scream out “BABY KILLER!”
Please remember, sir, that symbolism is all that matters to these people.
39.
Laura W
How many posts on this blog by John since end of last week on this subject? How many posts not on this subject that have been turned into threads on this subject? Like this one. What is there left to say that is original or new that has not been said in well over 1,000 comments by now? Usually falling into two clear camps, with both camps clearly laying out their feelings and beliefs? Same people saying same things for days and nights on end.
Topic fatigue headache in progress.
The real question is come April, who is going to even remember who spoke at the inauguration? There would have been like 12 other mini controversies by then and someone will jokingly say, "Hey remember when we were all up in arms over Warren?" and a few people will laugh and everyone else will try to remember what the problem was.
41.
SGEW
Topic fatigue headache in progress.
Sorry for adding to your migraine, Laura. Just needed to put my thoughts out there.
[re-engage lurking field]
. . .
[re-engage lurking field!]
. . .
Hmmm. My lurking field generator needs a tune-up.
42.
Just Some Fuckhead
How ’bout Sully going on and on about the "pain" of the Warren selection? Sully ultimately gave Obama a pass but felt compelled to share his pain over and over. (Read: me me me me me me me.)
Where was that pain when you were voting for Bush and empowering the forces of intolerance Sully? It’s not like you didn’t know what you were voting for then, since I emailed you and told you.
their hopes for equality are going to have to wait for another president.
no matter what the President’s priorities are, Congress has a say in it, too. it’s not enough to get a president who wants something, you need a majority in Congress, too. and we aren’t there yet.
44.
Comrade Jake
Since Warren’s giving the invocation, and Lowery the benediction, couldn’t one also view that as symbolic of progress? One wonders what the response would be had the gay community taken that tack: Warren represents the past, Lowery the future.
We had a foot of powder up here at the Undisclosed Location in New England and we are in the midst of getting another 12-16 inches of powder. CBS or not, THAT is what I call a Sunday morning. Off the try out the new snowshoes.
it was in the low 70s yesterday here in central NC
47.
cyntax
Since Warren’s giving the invocation, and Lowery the benediction, couldn’t one also view that as symbolic of progress? One wonders what the response would be had the gay community taken that tack: Warren represents the past, Lowery the future.
That would have been an interesting way to look at it. I have been wondering through this whole thing how, on the one hand, it’s OK to sit down with leaders of countries like Syria and Iran, but it’s not OK to have Warren give the invocation.
@Laura W: i hear you. but there is an energy that cannot be contained. evidently.
keep trying to change the subject…or continue to not engage in the debate. some people have to think they will have the last word. if there’s more than one of those types, we end up with this.
it was in the low 70s yesterday here in central NC
My reading comprehension is at an all time pre-coffee ebb; I read that as early 70s and inferred some sort of Studio 54 double entendre which, I admit, I was having trouble applying to NC…
=)
52.
tavella
I have been wondering through this whole thing how, on the one hand, it’s OK to sit down with leaders of countries like Syria and Iran, but it’s not OK to have Warren give the invocation.
Jesus fucking Christ, it’s asshattery like this that *produces* the energy and fury. I have seen yogurt-headed blather like this a thousand times now.
Obama hires Ahmajinidad to do the invocation, they you can spout shit like that. Otherwise, take your false equivalencies and go to hell.
53.
Comrade Jake
Yogurt headed blather? Does that come in Strawberry?
54.
Conservatively Liberal
Yogurt headed blather? Does that come in Strawberry?
More importantly, sprinkles? Gotta have me sum sprinkles with my yogurt.
Feh. It sounded to me like the right used all the same arguments about "legitimizing" and "elevating" in regards to Obama sitting down to talk wwith certain world leaders without preconditions. It’s not literally the same set of events but that doesn’t make it a false equivalency: it’s still a question of symbolism.
56.
Laura W
@SGEW: Oh poo. As I was dressing for my walk I had the impulse to come back and specifically exempt your post from my malaise. It was interesting and insightful and I’ve not seen anyone put all those pieces together so coherently like that. Plus, I learned something from it.
Sorry. Should’ve followed through on that impulse.
Too bad you are in lurk mode so often. The discourse could use you.
57.
Laura W
@Zzyzx: I think Donna Brazille said it nicely on This Week…once Aretha gets up there and sings, Donna will have no memory of Rick Warren even being there.
58.
Just Some Fuckhead
Laura, no giant beast snow tracks to terrorize the villagers. I vacuumed up the snow because it was getting on the railroad tracks and fucking up the train. On the way to the hardware store now to buy white paint.
The more accurate comparison is not Ahmajinidad, but Rev. Wright.
Folks who, during the election, had no problem telling people that it was silly to smear Obama with Rev. Wright, who spews shit a lot of people in the country find really offensive, are now finding it bizarre Obama would pray with a man who… spews shit half the country find offensive.
@JGabriel: Warren himself isn’t the issue for me. I view discrediting him as one of several tools for pushing the people whose views really matter — a class to which Rick Warren doesn’t belong — into the modern era.
As to "pure wingnuttery", John…well, if this be wingnuttery, make the most of it. I don’t doubt how he will act *if he acts at all*. I doubt that he will act to defend his own stated principles; I doubt his priorities.
And if you need evidence that there’s history to back my attitudes on that, think back to how your own opinion towards Obama’s behavior on the "FISA capitulation" evolved.
61.
Laura W
@Just Some Fuckhead: Now this is the kind of comment content I’m talking about!
Keep me posted.
(get it?)
We had a foot of powder up here at the Undisclosed Location in New England and we are in the midst of getting another 12-16 inches of powder. CBS or not, THAT is what I call a Sunday morning. Off the try out the new snowshoes.
Here in portland, we must having the most unusual snow weather in at least 12 years. Continous snow, we had about 6 inches in the Williamette Valley with more on the way. We are totally fucked. We have no infrastructure to deal with snow really. I expect the next week to be uh very light duty in terms of everything.
I’m going to have put on chains now to get anywhere. (and of course chains are sold out all over the city..but I got mine long ago)
cain
63.
Reverend Dennis
Because the Warren invocation seems to be The Topic That Won’t Die could we boil down "Obama’s choice of Warren for the invocation is a betrayal of the gay community and a sure sign that he’ll sell them down the river!" to say, "#25". Any poster wishing to assert the aforementioned, please just post #25.
Thank you.
64.
SGEW
@Laura W: Oh stop it. You’ll make me blush (which isn’t hard, btw).
Since the election I’ve drastically reduced the amount of time I spend on th’ internets. Turns out I get a lot more done when I’m not constantly refreshing fivethirtyeight and TPM every twenty minutes or so! But I can’t break my long-standing B-J addiction: how could I get through my day without all o’ y’all?
@demimondian: Ignoring someone’s track record and dismissing it all as “posturing” is pure wingnuttery.
As to FISA, I thought he was wrong to vote the way he did, but recognized several things:
1.) It would not have mattered how he voted, the outcome would not have changed.
2.) Steny Hoyer and Pelosi are the villains in regard to that.
3.) I don’t like the way he voted, but do know why he voted that way- to nip it in the bud.
4.) Obama has always been about compromise, some of the suck more than others.
As to how that equates with your assertion that everyone ignore Obama’s record as nothing more than posturing, well, you got me.
Finally, with a melting economy, millions out of work, the possible failure of the largest manufacturing sector in the country, the total disaster that is health care and the financial meltdown, two wars, and the out and out assault on civil liberties the last few year, I would suggest that anyone who thinks the number one priority right now is gay marriage is as crazy as… well, the religious right nuts who think the number one priority right now is gay marriage.
Prop 8 sucks, but right now, I am more concerned about everyone’s ability to feed themselves and pay for their healthcare.
I think with Obama’s emphasis on change, inclusion–and let’s be honest–centrism, I’m resigned to the fact that he’s going to do things I don’t like.
But then I had that realization with the FISA vote. The rub is, we really won’t know for a number of months, if not years, whether he’s going to make the changes we want to see. So in the meantime, it’s fair to be skeptical and vigilant and what all else, and as various factions have their FISA moments, there’s going to be enough anger and disappointment to go around.
Here’s to hoping that once Obama’s in office, the changes start coming, and that may make everyone a little more inclined towards waiting and seeing what really happens.
@John Cole: You didn’t like his vote, but you tolerated it. I didn’t like it — and didn’t like it earlier, and, as it turned out, for correct reasons — but I tolerated it, too.
I’m tolerating the Warren invocation, but I don’t see this as smart politics, or good statecraft. I see it as clear evidence that Obama has little heartfelt concern for gay rights, just as he had little heartfelt concern for publicizing the abuses of warrant-less wiretapping.
Aren’t you the one who repudiated torture by saying that "being better than Saddam wasn’t good enough"? Why should being better than Bush or Nixon good enough? Better is good and necessary, but that’s not good enough.
Prop 8 sucks, but right now, I am more concerned about everyone’s ability to feed themselves and pay for their healthcare.
I guess my priorities just suck.
To argue the other side, I could argue because the economy is in bad shape, because healthcare is becoming unaffordable due to job losses and so forth that we need these protections to the gay community now. Us straights have safety nets of legal nature but the gay community doesn’t. Move foward with gay marriage or at least provide the civil protections needed. I think the civil part can be accomplished.
Obama doesn’t need to personally involve himself, he can appoint someone to do it.
No you aren’t. You aren’t tolerating it at all. I am tolerating Rick Warren speaking- because I hate pretty much everything the man stands for, yet am saying- feh, it is three minutes of speaking.
You, on the other hand, are claiming, quite explicityly, that Obama giving the man a forum invalidates every vote he has ever made and that he can not be trusted on gay rights issues, because he is just “posturing.”
One of us is tolerating allowing that moron Warren to speak. It just isn’t you.
To argue the other side, I could argue because the economy is in bad shape, because healthcare is becoming unaffordable due to job losses and so forth that we need these protections to the gay community now. Us straights have safety nets of legal nature but the gay community doesn’t.
That’s reasonable. And I’m optimistic that Obama will make real, substantive changes that do just that. Whether we believe that the Warren pick is or isn’t indicative of Obama’s "real" priorities, we aren’t going to know for some time yet.
71.
demimondian
One of us is tolerating allowing that moron Warren to speak. It just isn’t you.
Nope. I’m complaining about it, because that’s not just my right but my responsibility. I’m speaking my mind because I have a lot of experience with people who avoid hard decisions, and I know that if nobody pushes them, they won’t make those decisions.
Not tolerating Warren’s appointment would entail forming a third party. It would entail giving money to Obama’s opponents, or withholding gifts to his election. Complaining, because he has a history of taking safe votes which cost him nothing but ducking hard issues which cost him something? Forgive me, John, but that’s recognizing an ambitious man for what he is, warts and all.
72.
SGEW
Ye gods*, I can’t believe I’m throwing more caltrops into the conversation, but here goes.
I hate pretty much everything the man stands for . . .
I gotta say it: fighting global warming, poverty, and HIV/AIDS are pretty big deals. This is not to say that this "balancing of interests" is a very strong argument for Warren’s invitation (civil rights, humanitarianism, and global crises are hopefully not a zero-sum game), but Warren’s relative "centrist" tendencies on these particular issues are, I believe, relevant to discussion of him as a public figure.
*Yes, this is meant ironically.
73.
Scott H
Setting my gay holiday chapeau aside for a moment, I have to ask myself what pop culture celebrity god-botherer would be a less obnoxious choice than this particular tent-show carnie? Can’t think of one really.
I’m not feeling the sting from the slap. Some people do, and I encourage them to express their offense. Mildly put, I don’t hold with the homo variant on the Good Boy forelock tugging.
If there is any symbolism it is that the likes of this bigot is being offered, rather generously, a seat, as a guest, at the new table – a seat which is no longer his as it would have been in the alternative McCain/Palin administration. He’ll ape piety from an index card for a couple of minutes, and that will be the end of it.
@demimondian: You and I have different definitions of tolerate then, because for me, claiming someone is a liar and a fraud and just “posturing” on an issue is not what I would consider “tolerating” their viewpoint.
I have provided his voting record. You have told me how you feel. I know which one I am going to go with for now. And, of course, that does not mean that Obama will not shit the bed in the future, but for now I am going to roll with his record.
what pop culture celebrity god-botherer would be a less obnoxious choice than this particular tent-show carnie?
Joel Osteen?
I know little about him, and surely some call him a tent-show carnie, but whenever he’s on the teevee being pressed about homosexuality he seems to present an: "Everyone is welcome, I don’t judge, I just comfort and inspire, etc.." stance.
It’s either symbolic or it’s not. It can’t be wildly symbolic and part of Obama’s master plan ONLY to those who welcome it, where it resonates positively, while at the same time we’re insisting it’s completely meaningless ONLY to those who oppose it, where (coincidentally) it resonates negatively. Take the gain, with no pain. That would be GREAT!
I don’t think Obama is uniquely afforded "selective symbolism", because that doesn’t make any sense. Obama himself doesn’t buy that. Why should you?
Interestingly, he’s not claiming that, unlike some of his defenders. He presented it as symbolic (true) and asked us to accept the negative, in service to his larger goal. That’s an honest negotiation. You can pass on that trade-off, your call, but at least he isn’t telling you it doesn’t matter.
77.
Reverend Dennis
@Laura W:
Your use of the words "homosexuality" and "stance" in the same sentence is a slap in the face to Larry Craig.
78.
Laura W
#25
(Two best LOLs of the day go to you, Rev D. Thanks.)
79.
demimondian
@John Cole: Nonsense, John. I have, in fact, posted aspects of his voting record to back my claims: his back-tracking on the FISA capitulation up-thread, for one. His refusal to stand up to Harry Reid over the Lieberman chairmanship.
What more do you want? I’m afraid that I’m not a character on Heroes, so telepathy is flat out, dude.
80.
Jennifer
Ugh. The "Warren controversy" again.
I’ve stayed out of this for the most part, for the simple reason that I am able to see both sides and don’t want to trample on the feelings of those who are rightfully sick and tired of being asked to wait some more before they achieve equality. While I don’t believe that having a preacher who opposes gay marriage is the equivalent of a statement on Obama’s part that he will do nothing to advance gay rights, you’re probably correct in assuming that it means you’re going to have to "wait some more". Because the reality is, your concerns are not going to be addressed ahead of the economic situation, health care, renewable energy initiatives, and probably several other things. And I really hate to say this, but that’s not only the best but the only real course of action open here. We’ve learned from painful past experience (Clinton and "don’t ask don’t tell") that putting this issue ahead of all others means that nothing gets done; the new president is hobbled from the beginning and it has a negative impact on every part of his agenda. Had Clinton successfully addressed other issues on his agenda first, not only might they have had a better chance, but we might have ended up with an actual revision of military policy towards gays instead of the stupid "don’t ask don’t tell" non-solution "compromise".
I realize that it’s not fair or right to ask people to wait for equal rights – but it is political reality that this is how it will finally get done. Obama will be able to go a lot further on gay rights issues if he manages to get some other things fixed first and build up some goodwill amongst voters of every stripe.
The second issue I see with the Warren sky-is-falling chorus is that it’s such a restrictive way of defining a person. Yes, Rick Warren has ass-hatted ideas about homosexuality and gay rights. Guess what? So did I at one time. I was raised by an extremely homophobic father. Though dear old dad fortunately did not try to justify his homophobia with religion, he made it quite clear that he considered homosexuality unnatural and depraved. You grow up hearing that all the time, in an era where gay culture hasn’t been mainstreamed, and you pick it up. I was never stridently anti-gay, but maintained the "tee-hee, how funny" attitude for probably a couple of years after leaving home. Then came a few years where I got to know a few actual gay people, but still maintained a position that I really didn’t want to know a lot about their personal lives, because I just "wasn’t comfortable with it". And then finally, the realization that denying people the ability to be who they really are because of my own personal "comfort level" was, let’s face it, pretty monstrously inhuman. Add to that a fairly large contigent of my fellow college graduates coming out after graduation – people about whose orientation I had been utterly clueless (architecture school; think anyone but an utter n00b would have failed to figure that one out?). They were the same people they had always been, people I had always liked. And that was that; I was on the side of whatever would make their lives better.
I never would have reached that point, however, if those poor souls who suffered through my insufferable "I don’t want to know about that because I’m not comfortable with that" phase had insulted, cursed, and rejected me. They didn’t, I believe, because they could see other things in me that they considered worthwhile, and the potential that I could overcome my ignorance.
The same may well be true of Rick Warren. From the other Cole’s account, he’s not all, and perhaps not even mostly, bad. I totally disagree with him not only on gay marriage but also on his over-arching world view (i.e. God), but even I can see that a guy who’s doing charity work with AIDS orphans in Africa, who is engaged in fighting malaria, concerned with issues of global poverty and education – that guy’s not an all, or probably not even a mostly, bad guy. He has the potential to eventually get it right.
For this kind of a guy, the uproar over his invitation to give the invocation may well be a teaching moment. I suspect it would be much less so if the invitation were rescinded. There are a lot of people out there who are not unreachable, if we treat this issue less as us vs them and more as us disagreeing with them but continuing to work with them where we can and continuing to try to educate them. I know this from personal experience.
For this kind of a guy, the uproar over his invitation to give the invocation may well be a teaching moment. I suspect it would be much less so if the invitation were rescinded. There are a lot of people out there who are not unreachable, if we treat this issue less as us vs them and more as us disagreeing with them but continuing to work with them where we can and continuing to try to educate them
@demimondian: You honestly are using his vote on FISA to state that he is just “posturing” on gay rights, despite an unwavering track record of support?
Seriously?
There really is no point even discussing this anymore if that is the case.
84.
Reverend Dennis
I call Rule 34 on #25.
That’s a Catch-22, dammit!
85.
demimondian
@John Cole: No, I use the fact that he has, on two separate occasions this year, deliberately asked a homophobic preacher to speak at a putatively inclusive event, to say that his record on gay rights is not heartfelt.
"What?" you ask, "what’s the first one?"
Remember Donnie McClurkin? And the furor that caused? Yeah, and we were all told to sit down and shut up then…so Obama goes and does the same thing a second time. Sorry, John; he’s posturing.
86.
Reverend Dennis
Remember Donnie McClurkin? And the furor that caused?
Who can forget? It’s what lost Obama the election.
87.
Mrs. Peel
Ever since the 60s, the expression "some of my best friends are…" has been a joke meant to indicate that a person is really a bigot. What’s interesting is the new thing where people get to say, "Hey, I’m not homophobic. I have gay friends. I just believe that marriage is between a man and a woman." And they’re all supposed to go, "Oh, gee, we have to allow people their differences of opinion and respect that, so it’s all good."
Bullsh*t! Do you think for one minute someone could say, "Hey, I like Black people and some of my friends are Black, but Blacks and Whites shouldn’t be allowed to marry. There should be no mixing of the races." Anyone who said that would be lambasted, as they should be. But say essentially the same thing about gays and it’s all, we have to respect people’s religion, and it’s okay that we don’t agree, and everyone is entitled to their beliefs.
And what really makes me sick, is how the media and the religious right play this as though anyone who doesn’t "tolerate" the religious rights view point is actually the bigot. That "militant" gays are actually the ones who are not being tolerant.
Personally, I am not expecting anything different from Obama than we got from Clinton. If it’s politically expedient to screw them over then that is what he’ll do. He is first and foremost a politician who has to do the bidding of the people who bought and paid for him. Sorry to be so cynical, but that’s how the system works.
88.
Mrs. Peel
Since Warren’s giving the invocation, and Lowery the benediction, couldn’t one also view that as symbolic of progress?
Since every single media outlet mainstream and otherwise won’t shut up about him and what choosing him means and how he may or may not reflect Obama’s presidency it would appear the answer is "no". Warren’s getting as much press from this as he ever did from his stints on Oprah, etc.
Do you really think Lowery and Warren are getting equal play or coverage? How could Lowery be a smokescreen for Warren when nobody seems to give a crap about anything but Warren’s invocation.
Remember Donnie McClurkin? And the furor that caused? Yeah, and we were all told to sit down and shut up then…so Obama goes and does the same thing a second time. Sorry, John; he’s posturing.
Sorry, demi; you’re being idiotic.
90.
SGEW
Mrs. Peel;
I am not expecting anything different from Obama than we got from Clinton. If it’s politically expedient to screw them over then that is what he’ll do.
Even assuming, arguendo, that your suspicions are correct, I put forth the idea that Obama will still be a better leader on LGBT rights than Clinton was. After all, Bill tried to do good at first: but, as the common wisdom goes, he capitulated when he ran out of political capital.
However, I contend that Obama is a better politician than Pres. Clinton was and has much more political capital to expend. Therefore, he may be faced with less "need" to compromise on this issue – fewer reasons to "screw" anyone over, if you will. Additionally, the country at large is more progressive on equal rights now than it was in the early nineties (the outrage over Warren itself is pretty indicative of this, imho).
This is all completely irrespective of any actual beliefs/ideals that Barack Obama personally holds, mind you. I’m only speaking to political "expediency" (read: possibility, thank you).
Also:
How could Lowery be a smokescreen for Warren when nobody seems to give a crap about anything but Warren’s invocation.
Perhaps Warren is a smokescreen for Lowery? Just a thought.
91.
Perry Como
demimondian, it’s clear that Obama’s next move, after having Warren give the invocation, is the public execution of gays.
It’s amazing. I had to take some time to decompress after the election so I’ve been ignoring politics for the most part. When I dip my toes back in I see that the most important issue for the left is Rick Warren. SRSLY? That’s the most important fucking thing right now? California is about to go bankrupt. The plutocrats are looting the treasury on their way out. We are in a global recession teetering on a global depression because of the fucked up priorities of the last 8, natch 30, years.
I guess I just wonder if this media storm would be there had the LGBT community decided to view the symbolism as I’d suggested. I don’t think there was any media storm before the outrage, but maybe it’s just me.
I should’ve said the symbolism I take away from it. I don’t know Obama’s mind. I find what small satisfaction that I may in this maladroit inaugural gesture that the Saddleback barker comes to the podium as an outsider. In the alternative reality, he would be shacked up with Palin & Co in the Executive Office Building.
I say let everyone take away from the situation as much or as little as they feel and express themselves accordingly. I am not outraged by a tasteless and insensitive choice that ultimately involves enduring a couple of minutes of pseudo-shamanistic shimmy-shake. I do respect those who are.
Nope. I’m complaining about it, because that’s not just my right but my responsibility. I’m speaking my mind because I have a lot of experience with people who avoid hard decisions, and I know that if nobody pushes them, they won’t make those decisions.
I think by far that is the most reasonable argument for complaining about the Warren decision.
cain
95.
SGEW
. . . my personal choice would be a thunderous and deeply grave rabbi. That’s your go-to department for a rocking invocation.
If I had to pick a theist to give an invocation, I’d probably go with the snake handlers. Or maybe one of those self-crucifyin’ folks from the Phillipines. Now that’s entertainment!
96.
Cain
I think if they had the invocations by a native indian shaman, that would ROCK. Especially if they bring out the ganja and sweat tents. :-)
Something else I keep forgetting to mention is that Warren is also a creationist- something that sends me into fits of apoplexy every time it is mentioned. And you know what- I still don’t care he is speaking for three minutes.
Why? Because Obama didn’t appoint him to run NASA, the FDA, or anything else that matters.
@cleek: Imagine PZ Myers up front, giving a three minute talk about the importance of the occasion, and asking us all to think about what the right thing to do for the next few years was.
But, you know, somehow, I don’t think that will happen.
the people complaining about this have turned a nothing into a giant raging hot-air-filled nothing.
Warren isn’t going to set policy or write laws here. he’s gonna give a little pro-forma prayer and that’ll be that. when it’s over 99% of us will forget about it completely. Warren speaking there isn’t going to change anybody’s opinion on gay- anything.
Why? Because Obama didn’t appoint him to run NASA, the FDA, or anything else that matters.
Yeah, but Obama is signalling to everyone everywhere that evolution is at the bottom of his priority list, despite the fact that evolutionists overwhelming supported his candidacy. And now we’re being told, sorry Darwinists go to the back of the bus, creationists are my bffs, youngearth4evar!
the right would tear their vocal cords screeching about him.
ever read his reader emails? there’s no way to read them and not come away thinking "what a fucked up world this is…"
106.
Perry Como
@Just Some Fuckhead: Obama is one step closer to his grand scheme of creating the Large Hateron Collider.
107.
Snowy Woods
John Cole (or anyone): you didn’t happen to record the show, by any chance? If so, could you please put Osgood’s performance of "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening" up on youtube? I heard it, but didn’t record it. It was wonderful!
TIA…
108.
Laura W
@Just Some Fuckhead: You’re good, Fuckhead.
Sometimes I think you’re the only one who gets me.
sniff
whimper
/snark
JOKE!
If a right-wing faux Christian is a requirement, how about the witch hunter from Sarah Palin’s church? I think that would set just the right tone.
It would be the right thing to do in the name of being inclusive. We might piss of the wiccans though, so we’ll have to bring a witch to do the benediction.
cain
110.
Comrade Jake
Obama is really posturing on evolution. I mean, I don’t think he has a single legislative accomplishment on the issue. Christ we’ve all been duped.
As far as I know, West Virginia is the only State that protects snake handling religious practice. Aside from the legal issue within the District of Columbia, slinging timber rattlers near the President and the Chief Justice could be a little problematic. Would be cool.
I still think it is fair play for everyone who feels outraged by this to blow it up as big as they want. There’s a considerable experience of severe abuse of many gay people who had to grow up inside fundamentalism, and I know a lot of these people.
113.
bago
To reach someone you need to break the Manichean cycle. Show some grace. Otherwise you don’t win majorities, and that puts you at a disadvantage in a democratic system.
114.
demimondian
@bago: Dude, you’ve been trapped inside too long, I think.
115.
The Moar You Know
@demimondian: We get it. You’re the only smart one.
Right. It’s a distinction. Incidentally, I am buying the trade-off. I’ll trade the symbol for progress on substance. I accept Barack Obama’s proposal. Reading the miles of posts here I came to support that compromise. I am glad I got a chance to read the vehement opposition. I understand the issue better.
What I’m not buying is denying that Warren symbolizes something. Good, bad or indifferent, he’s a symbol.
Yes, the Warren pick probably does signal things about Obama’s priorities. I even agree that gay rights probably isn’t near the top of his priority list. So what?
Priorities are a zero sum game. If you are going to wail that gay rights aren’t at the top of the list, tell me what you think should get moved down. Be specific. If you can’t do that, you’re just whining. It has to be something.
I would like to see gay rights. However, I’m on board with pretty much everything that Obama does seem to be ready to push hard. I want to get out of Iraq. I want a huge stimulus package to rescue the economy. I want the Justice Department cleaned up. I want action on global warming.
I can understand why some people think that gay rights should be pushed harder, but I can’t think of anything here that I want to put less effort into in order to get it done. If a compromose with Warren gets more people on board for those, count me in.
Frankly, I find commercials implying that Frank Miller created The Spirit to be more offensive.
Ugh. No thanks. Myers is just as obnoxious as the people he fights with. Being an atheist is no excuse for being an asshole. There are a couple of hundred professors here at the University of Minnesota I’d rather see get press.
I think we should through shoes at him. In fact, I am going to start wearing cheap shoes to places where I know presidential motorcades are going to be, for the express purpose of throwing my shoes at the jerks. Oh yeah, and Easter parades. Throw shoes at those blowhards, too.
I love the idea of everybody throwing their shows at leaders who can’t lead their way out of a wet paper bag.
I know I’m supposed to be all outrages about Warren, and honestly, my outrage button is all punched in and broken.
I’m gonna go with the refuse to freak out crowd about Warren. He’s a dick. He’s one of those guys I think is a false prophet. Real Christians don’t consider assassination an option, it just is not filled with the love, y’knowwhaddamean? But, to the people that it matters to, this means Obama has shown them the tiniest bit of consideration. Sitting around bitching about how someone talked bad about you is not powerful–and it doesn’t appear to be removing Warren from the slot, but rather providing a victory for him that shunning his presence would not have done.
Worst part is that THIS is not a fight that matters. Now, if we had fought long and hard against Prop 8 I don’t think it would have won. The evangelicals were out there every gawddamn day and pouring their money into it. THAT was the fight that mattered, and we failed to show up.
121.
Raenelle
If I was a right-winger, what I would do is pretend to be a lefty and stir up shit among the Dems. It’s what the FBI used to do to left-wing groups back in the 60s–infiltrate them and incite them from the left.
I’m not saying that people that scream about Obama’s betrayal because of who he got to say a prayer are infiltrating agitators. I’m just saying that, if I was a wingnut, I would act exactly like they do.
Somebody needs to inform Barack that if we switch from coal to natural gas for electricity production, and put CNG into our gas tanks, the price of natural gas will go up. As fertilizer is made out of natural gas, this will increase the cost of food.
This would effectively accelerate the starvation of vulnerable populations and the emergence of regional resource wars. Nuclear power, and lots of it, is the ethical energy plan. That, and oil shale development.
People worry far too much about distinctions between ‘civil unions’ and ‘marriage’. Ten years from now, things like this will seem petty, even to those to whom they directly affect.
Oh, and, like, we should all become gay communists. Go Che.
123.
tomjones
@Brick Oven Bill: In the future, an "OT" warning would be appreciated, so I can gloss over the interjection of your take on irrelevant topics.
The current mindset of the Republican Party: "We ain’t got no clue about no economy. We ain’t got no clue about no environment. We ain’t got no clue about no nuthin’. Wanna fight?"
127.
Conservatively Liberal
I believe the topic was ‘blah’.
I believe the topic was "CBS Sunday Morning" and the comment was "Blah.", but what do I know. I won’t argue with your position that your post is appropriate for a topic you thought was "blah".
@Comrade Jake: Trying to change the subject from football and Rick Warren to anything else:
I was hoping for the video of SS on Larry King from last night, frankly. (I looked for it. Couldn’t find it.)
Anyway, I clicked through to Juan Cole finally. Thanks for the reminder. I was thinking earlier today about the poetry thread of last night, and noticing that no one mentioned Rumi. I should have mentioned Rumi. Here are a few of my favorites that pertain to wine. I used them in a long-winded wine review long ago in another life:
"God has given us a dark wine that, drinking it, we leave the two worlds."
"Any wine will get you high. Judge like a king and choose the purest, the ones unadulterated with fear, or some urgency about ‘what’s needed.’ Drink the wine that moves you as a camel moves as it’s been untied, and is just ambling about."
"There is joy, a winelike freedom that dissolves the mind and restores the spirit, and there is manly fortitude like the king’s, a reasonableness that accepts the bewildered lostness.
But meditate now on steadfastness and clarity, and let those be the wings that lift and soar through the celestial spheres."
Good shit. Maybe we need a Poet Jam Thread, John? Just to shake shit up a bit and dust off the weekend’s dross.
132.
Laura W
@TheHatOnMyCat: You think that’s bad, did you see #24?
(Not to be confused with #25)
133.
Comrade Jake
Here’s Juan Cole, on Warren:
If Warren is the future of the American evangelical movement, then many more evangelicals might end up Democrats, since it is Democrats who care about poor people, illiteracy, and AIDS victims. And if any significant proportion of evangelicals can be turned into consistent Democrats, the party would more regularly win elections in some parts of the country and even nationally.
Moreover, Warren’s work to improve the lives of Africans probably means something to Obama.
I came away liking and looking up to Warren. In fact, I wonder whether with some work he could not be gotten to back off some of the hurtful things he has said about gays and rethink his support for Proposition 8.
I used to have an old college friend who apparently became a religious wingnut and a Dobson junkie sometime after 9/11. She apparently stopped speaking to me a couple of years ago when she visited me and realized I didn’t think like that. I guarantee, following Rick Warren would be a big improvement for her.
And Jennifer@80, thanks for your novella. You’re absolutely right. My parents weren’t really homophobic, but the society where I grew up was, and it took me a while as a young adult to outgrow those attitudes, which I’m now ashamed of ever having held. I’m glad my children grew up in a culture where they just assumed it was natural that some people are born gay. Some people can change. They’re more likely to if they don’t face total hostility from the other side. This is the tragedy of our currently polarized society.
137.
Comrade Jake
Based on Larry King’s page for his show, it seems tonight they’ll replay the Suzanne Somers interview.
If the football game is slow, might be worth checking out. I caught some of it last night and the lady is certifiably insane.
138.
DC in ME
139.
Joshua Norton
I caught some of it last night and the lady is certifiably insane.
That’s been obvious since the day she walked off "Three’s Company" because she thought she should make more money than anyone else and have %10 ownership of the show. The producers listened to her demands and said "Sorry Suzanne. Send in the next blond".
She’s never been the same.
140.
north_star
It seems to me that there are two distinct groups within the I hate Rick Warren memes being posted;
1: One is the group that says they hate Rick Warren and what he stands for, and hope this isn’t a preview of what is to come from Obama, and they will wait and see.
2: The other is a kind of hyperventilating, screeching hysteria from people who will insist this means Obama is a liar and will destroy the lives of all GLBT people everywhere, and most importantly; They Knew it All Along (Trademark Pending).
Some of this reminds me of the puma’s who insisted they were representing most people, and here I think we have the same. Going from Daily Kos, Huff Post, joemygod, pam’s house blend, bilirico etc, I see the same people posting over and over again.
I get it. I get the outrage, and I see why people don’t like Warren, but I am more than willing to wait and see what Obama does before I decide to slit my wrists.
Personally, I wish the response had been to welcome Warren, to stand up with our partners, husbands, wives, and say: "See? This is my family. Not a bunch of pedophiles. Real people who love each other, just like you love all beatiful women (queue Anne Curry horrified look)."
I feel like we have lost a chance here. A lot of people, I dare say a majority, feel some or all the way as Warren does, and I think by letting them in and seeing GLBT people as real human beings, maybe some will change.
Maybe. I know that people can change, racists, homophobes, haters of all kind, so why not Rick Warren?
Now granted, I’m a Park Service brat, so the Sec Int has actually figured large in my life, and I learned at my father’s knee to curse the name of James Watt and exult in the sunshine brought by Bruce Babbitt, but still… it’s not like in this age of global warming and "drill, baby, drill" the Sec Int isn’t a pretty big deal. Salazar is going to be in a spot to run things to benefit his friends in the mining and ranching industry – I suppose with his ranching connctions the small mercy here is that he’s up for Interior and not Agriculture – and… zomg Warren’s three minutes is a slap in the face!!!
Look, I can sympathize with feeling left out when the guy giving the prayer thinks you’re going to hell. I have to, I’m pretty sure Warren thinks my athiest ass is going to hell, too. We’re all in the same boat here with Warren, and coincidentally, we’re all in the same boat too with the economy and with the environment and with peak oil…
Look, I can sympathize with feeling left out when the guy giving the prayer thinks you’re going to hell.
Psh. In my family, you learn to shrug off having people think you are going to hell pretty early. In my case, around age 4.
People need to grow up. If you are stupid enough to believe in heaven and hell, having some guy think you are going one way as opposed to the other might not be your most important problem.
The reaction from the gay community and some of the left to Warren was roughly as predictable as the fact that if you drop an anvil on your foot it will hurt. Warren is a homophobe (for lack of a better word, I don’t think he is afraid of gays), a sexist, a would-be theocrat and is at least somewhat anti-science.
Glenn Greenwald has pointed out many times that if a politician wishes to be taken as "Serious" by the pundits and the DC "Village" he must dis teh left. Glenn supports everything he says with documented facts and almost always impeccable logic.
This is just Obama establishing himself as "Serious" to the pundits and the DC Village by dissing teh gay, teh DFHs and teh "far left". Nothing brings joy to the heart of winguts more than the lamentations of liberals and Obama has caused considerable lamentation by libs.
Now that Obama has ritually dissed teh left, he now is less likely to be thought of as a "Kookinich" by the pundits and the Village, it gives him more maneuvering room and strengthens his cred.
Never mind that on issue after issue teh left has proven correct while the right and the pragmatic centrists have proven to be utterly and disastrously wrong, what matters in the Village is that you be Serious and no one who does not dis teh left is thought to be Serious.
rick is not a televangelist. rick is not falwell. rick spoke of some "stupid" things he’s said (his word, not mine), some missquotes that were given, and lots of ammunition from the media. all excellent points. (we’re all war-minded right now, you know. it’s easy for the media to distract us by throwing us into our own verbal wars here at home.) ) what to do, what to do…. the rest of the public is given an animation of rick warren… and then my wife meets the man behind the projections, the quotes, the "OTHER SIDE". and he is warm, caring, effusive, and LOVES gays. since he nearly swallowed honey when he hugged her, i tend to believe him. he wants our gay marriages to be just as respected and embraced as the straight marriages. he just wants to wear his yamaka, and me wear my hat.
This guy really does sound like a jerk, huh?
146.
Joshua Norton
I know that people can change, racists, homophobes, haters of all kind, so why not Rick Warren?
Some of this reminds me of the puma’s who insisted they were representing most people, and here I think we have the same.
Exactly what I have been thinking. When this first erupted, the possibility didn’t even cross my mind. But as this developed I noticed that the loudest howlers had a tendency to say that this proved Obama was an abject failure, that he had "spit" on the GLBT community and that they had voted for him because they expected change (while ignoring his very public stance on marriage). One thing I read a lot of at Hillaryis44, Swampdaughter’s Cornfluence (aka PUMA Stupid Central) and similar sites was quite a few GLBT’s saying that Hillary was The One who would stand up for them and that Obama would sell them out.
Someone else here observed that infiltration and agitation was a favorite tactic of some (including our government) and that could be a possibility that some wingnuts are engaging in. It sure would fit in with the 101st Keyboarding Moran Brigade kind of ‘Special Ops’, one where you don’t actually have to put your life on the line.
I would bet that a large number of the noisemakers are due to a sudden influx of goatblowers and ratfuckers who have been waiting for an opportunity to cause some trouble. I have no problem with people expressing their anger but this was so over the top that it seemed more like a direct assault on Obama supporters with the intent being to drive down his support and make some bad press for him. Why would people attack those that support their position but disagreed that Warren speaking was the end of the world?
Because they willingly wanted to shoot themselves in the foot, possibly alienate supporters and make the fundies happy? It makes no sense unless this was deliberate.
Someone else here observed that infiltration and agitation was a favorite tactic of some (including our government) and that could be a possibility that some wingnuts are engaging in. It sure would fit in with the 101st Keyboarding Moran Brigade kind of ‘Special Ops’, one where you don’t actually have to put your life on the line.
At least on the sites I’ve been reading, the vocabulary, spelling and grammar are too good for me to readily believe that the great majority of people saying these things are freepers.
I’m seeing a great deal of outrage from long time posters with years and thousands of posts on board. If this is a false flag operation it must have been set up a long time ago, well before Obama was even a serious candidate.
In my experience freepers really aren’t that good at false flag posts, but of course YMMV.
and then my wife meets the man behind the projections, the quotes, the "OTHER SIDE". and he is warm, caring, effusive, and LOVES gays. since he nearly swallowed honey when he hugged her
Warren says he is “naturally inclined to have sex with every beautiful woman I see.”
After reading various threads, I was inclined to agree… the reaction from a couple of posters was so extreme, and no matter how many people said "Look, I am gay or if I am straight I agree you should have equal rights, we just disagree on how to get there and how important the Warren thing is", the reaction stayed the same, until it fell to the level of calling anyone who disagreed an arsehole who didn’t understand what love was. It smelled of wignut ratfucker to me….
However, I am now inclining to the view that you shouldn’t blame the hysterical conversations on here on a wingnut conspiracy when it can be better explained by an over-emotional reaction, fuelled by lack of sleep, alcohol and a (justified?) persecution complex.
155.
LiberalTarian
@Tattoosydney: Yeah, I love being fueled by alcohol. Lack of sleep and persecution complex? Not so much.
156.
TenguPhule
If we could harness 1/10th of the vitrol directed at Obama and channel it at Bush, he’d be hanging in the Hague by now.
157.
Conservatively Liberal
Tatoosydney, I do believe that some of the over-the-top outrage was from legit people and that is understandable too. It is just that some of the people seem to almost be deliberate in their attack and much of the same lines were said by some Hillary supporters prior to the election. That is what made some of this almost a deja vu thing for me.
Duke of Earl, while I agree that wingnuts usually have nothing in common with either spelling or being literate I also know that to turn our backs on the possibility that they might actually be learning something could be dangerous. Don’t be too dismissive of your enemy, especially when they are desperate. Necessity is the mother of invention, and if the monkeys play with the computer long enough then they just might discover how to use it. ;)
If anything, the more intelligent (well, the ones that can spell) wingnuts (a true rarity indeed) would try to do something like this. They are going to try and undermine Obama at every turn. Combine them with (the few, the loud) the PUMA’s then we are going to have real fun sorting out the faux Obama supporters from the real ones. One advantage with the PUMA asshats is that they all sound the same, thus my opinion that some of the latest noise is PUMA generated. Some of these Hillary supporters were gay and that would explain the legitimacy of the noise they were making (plus their spelling being better than a freeper), just that the way it went over the top was a tell for me. The way it was ‘over’ between them and Obama, that it was the end of their world. Too much.
One thought: I can think of any number of religious nuts that the fundies will follow like the Pied Piper, but I can’t think of one prominent gay rights leader (just off the top of my head). Maybe the reason the fundies have the upper hand is that the voices on the left are so disorganized that nothing of substance rises from the cacophony of voices that erupt in times like this. There is no ‘one voice’ leader that speaks for a large part of the GLBT community. Of course there will be groups within the GLBT community that disagree with the ‘leader’ and the majority of the ‘followers’ (for lack of a better word), much like the fundies have their smaller leaders in their own small splinters of their community.
Grassroots is good but there needs to be a way to focus that message and to reduce the cacophony so one clear message rings out. Intolerance breeds further intolerance, solving nothing. Noise is just that, noise. It does nothing if all that comes across is noise. Too many cooks spoil the broth, so to say.
Either way, this is shaping up to be a noisy first term for Obama (and us).
If we could harness 1/10th of the vitrol directed at Obama and channel it at Bush, he’d be hanging in the Hague by now.
If vitriol were water I’ve read enough aimed at bushie over the last eight years to refill the Med after the Miocene evaporation when the Gibraltar Straits were closed.
159.
Duke of Earl
CL,
One thought: I can think of any number of religious nuts that the fundies will follow like the Pied Piper, but I can’t think of one prominent gay rights leader (just off the top of my head). Maybe the reason the fundies have the upper hand is that the voices on the left are so disorganized that nothing of substance rises from the cacophony of voices that erupt in times like this.
Regular liberals make cats look like sardines when it comes to herding them, gays are far more diverse in some ways even than that (think Log Cabin Repubs). I agree that a unified voice would be a great help but that’s about as likely as me flapping my arms and flying to Betelgeuse.
I didn’t totally discount the idea of this being a false flag op by freepers but I find it pretty unlikely, they may know how to use a computer but I have a six year old granddaughter that can do that about as well as my wife. Spelling and grammar on the other hand are subjects that if you don’t learn them fairly early on you are unlikely ever to master to any appreciable extent. English has so many homonyms, irregular verbs, homophones and just general irrationality that a spellchecker is only a minor help.
I suspect you’re right about PUMAs though, although I never could get my head wrapped around what people saw in Hillary.
160.
north_star
OMG!!! Another scandal.
I just realized I used an apostrophe in pumas! Freepers, here I come! I hate when I do that. I need to spell check better.
161.
tavella
@Jennifer: For this kind of a guy, the uproar over his invitation to give the invocation may well be a teaching moment. I suspect it would be much less so if the invitation were rescinded. There are a lot of people out there who are not unreachable, if we treat this issue less as us vs them and more as us disagreeing with them but continuing to work with them where we can and continuing to try to educate them. I know this from personal experience.
It was a teaching moment, indeed; what Warren got taught was that he could lead the most vicious campaign, full of lies, to strip gays of their rights, and only seven weeks later he would get a big wet kiss from Obama and a prime position in his inauguration. He got taught that whatever noise Democrats make about gays, they don’t actually give a shit. He got taught that he can keep on just as he was, and not only will he get to oppress gays, he’ll get rewarded for it.
I think we should put everything on hold and get a couple thousand years of religious thinking straightened out, NOW. Right Fucking Now.
I do not care in the least what the evidence of the Prop 8 campaign had to say about leaving Religion in a position of fear and doing little effectual work to defuse that. Nope, that there damn religion is about bigotry and we’ll just kick their teeth right on down their fucking throats. Not that it matters that they’ll bring a howitzer to blow our teeth kicking feet off.
Lets not even pay attention to how the deck stacks up. Heterosexuality is a real basic drive, it’s components involve a shit load of drivers in decision making processes. Now toss on top of that little difficulty, Religion. Anyone who has engaged in a theological dispute will attest to how futile it is to expect to get to fundamental changes through arguement.
There are, really, two approaches, one is to just ram right past these considerations and the other is to defuse them. The Prop 8 campaign is a huge warning flag about the run over them approach. In fucking California in an Obama election. So you all can take your best shots at fucking up an attempt to drive a wedge between Religious fear and the State and pat yourselves on your heads for being too principled to engage in politics and keep getting the same results. If victimhood is your thing it’ll all be good. Me? I like winning.
If you want to win, then do the fucking work and that is moving your foes off their ground. I don’t care what it is that you are entitled to, you don’t have it and won’t get it without doing the work. You can either get people to go along for their reasons or you can trust the Courts to do it for you. The deck is more stacked against you than race was, you may not like that, but you’ve got to beat that consideration to win.
Fucking Fuck. Symbolism is a huge deal, no shit. That is exactly what is in play here. Try to get it, that is exactly what is being done here in your interests. For YOU. There is exactly no other reason to do it, not one. Well, abortion and like that as well, all the symbols. Mr Cautious Double Dealer Obama is taking a big political risk to do this. For the Symbolism.
Hell, for a truely Machiavellian approach, your anger and despair may be the best tool. Nah, there’s already too much unreasoning fear going on.
(so I’ve just wasted a block of time I’ll never get back on an arguement that will just get ignored in favor of anger)
If you want to win, then do the fucking work and that is moving your foes off their ground. I don’t care what it is that you are entitled to, you don’t have it and won’t get it without doing the work. You can either get people to go along for their reasons or you can trust the Courts to do it for you. The deck is more stacked against you than race was, you may not like that, but you’ve got to beat that consideration to win.
This is very true.
164.
Comrade Jake
I don’t know Chuck, that was pretty fucking awesome if you ask me.
Warren says he is “naturally inclined to have sex with every beautiful woman I see.”
And Melissa Etheridge’s partner looks like this .
Hmm..
Yeah the quote is from her wife, so she’s describing Warren giving Melissa a huge hug, not herself. Jesus Christ.
He may very well be a politician of sorts, but I think some are way too quick to dismiss the possibility that he might be a halfway decent guy.
166.
Conservatively Liberal
I don’t know Chuck, that was pretty fucking awesome if you ask me.
No shit, if that was a waste of time it was well wasted. Chuck, you said much better than I ever could have but will anyone who cares listen and act on it? I believe that Obama would not have made this move without first considering the ramifications of it. Right now, Obama is our guy holding the cards and as I see it the choice is either bet with him, bet against him or fold and stay out of it.
With his track record in bucking the system so far, I am willing to bet with Obama because for me there really is no other choice in the matter. Not at this time.
Fucking Fuck. Symbolism is a huge deal, no shit. That is exactly what is in play here. Try to get it, that is exactly what is being done here in your interests. For YOU. There is exactly no other reason to do it, not one. Well, abortion and like that as well, all the symbols. Mr Cautious Double Dealer Obama is taking a big political risk to do this. For the Symbolism.
Oh bullshit, address the points I’ve made about dissing teh left conferring Seriousness upon Obama by The Village.
Obama is doing this for himself, to boost his cred with The Village and help give him some maneuvering room to accomplish whatever it is he wishes to accomplish.
The fact I could post what I have on *this* board and basically be ignored means I’m almost certainly correct, there are a number of posters here who take great glee in telling someone when they have fucked up and I’ve not heard a peep.
If anti-homosexuality were a basic biological instinct then there would be no cultures in the history of mankind that accepted and tolerated gays, this is not the case, there are indeed cultures where homosexuals are not thought of as some sort of vermin, indeed there have been cultures where homosexual soldiers were thought of as the very finest and most fearsome warriors.
This bigotry is cultural, not biological and I frankly think Obama shares it to some extent, it’s hard to be the kind of god botherer he is and not absorb some of it via osmosis.
Yeah the quote is from her wife, so she’s describing Warren giving Melissa a huge hug, not herself. Jesus Christ.
…
He may very well be a politician of sorts, but I think some are way too quick to dismiss the possibility that he might be a halfway decent guy.
If he publicly recants his positions beforehand with regard to sexism and homophobia I would be delighted to see him give the invocation, now *that* would be some powerful symbolism. Frankly I think the chances of him doing that are extremely slim, he would lose far too much power and influence with his followers, he would be in large measure destroying himself.
Oh, and what are the odds that Etheridge’s partner also got a great big hug?
I fucking hate the hugging crap from people I don’t know, it’s the worst kind of faux friendliness.
169.
bago
If he publically dismisses the role of an invocation, I would stand behind him not delivering the invocation. In the mean time you can nod to your sky-god, and I’ll keep my head up high, and acknowledge your apology.
If he publically dismisses the role of an invocation, I would stand behind him not delivering the invocation. In the mean time you can nod to your sky-god, and I’ll keep my head up high, and acknowledge your apology.
Not all Christians are anti-homosexual bigots so it’s not a necessary part of being a Christian, but I’m sure you know that.
It’s an issue where there are two diametrically opposed sides and at least one of them is heavily involved emotionally in their argument.
Judging by the posts of those who think Warren is no big deal I suspect that a few of them are kind of emotionally involved too.
"Diametrically Opposed". Sorry, nope. One side is understandably emotionally involved. Not two. The other is just not that concerned with symbolism.
174.
Conservatively Liberal
What if Obama is extending a hand to Warren not in the interest of instant change by him but rather to ‘invest’ in a possibility of change in the future. Warren got this ‘gig’ but for him to be considered a voice that Obama will listen to, Warren might have to tone down his act if he wants to think he has Obama’s ear. People have said that Obama is a chess player, I don’t know if he is but he sure moves like one. I would almost think that he is a poker player too. He ‘reads’ things/people before he moves. No, he does not walk on water but he is one of the most competent politicians I have seen in some time.
But then I could be completely wrong though right now I don’t think I am. Only time will tell and that means we need to give him some time (that and actually being in office would probably help a bit) to get something done. I think he needs to build some ‘cred’ with people who are not so sure about him, and that is not going to happen overnight. Screaming at and shouting down everyone who is viewed as the enemy is not going to help anyone or their cause, all it is going to do is make a bad situation worse.
As I see it, the GLBT community can either work with Obama or tell him to fuck off and strike out on their own to convince the rest of the nation of the justness of their cause. Short of the courts interceding and striking down marriage definition laws as they are implemented across the country, I do not see that going anywhere fast. Plus with the courts having been reloaded with fresh wingnut judges, I wouldn’t put much money, if any, on that route being very successful.
I would like to think that if I was gay that I too would be sick and tired of the shit and would like my rights given to me yesterday, so in that way I can understand the anger being expressed. If that were the case, I would also like to think that I would be willing to find some way that has the potential to work. Yelling and screaming at allies and foes alike is not going to do anything but make people sick and tired of listening, making them tune it out.
As Obama has clearly shown us all, organization and a good ground game gets the job done even when the odds are stacked against you. Obama is making his moves and if others are smart they will move to position themselves to take advantage of the opening Obama may offer them and their cause. Nobody is going to give anything to anyone for just demanding it, you either work from within the system or you don’t. The fundies know this and that is what has made them as successful as they have been. Their religion gives them an unfair advantage in playing the game, but you have to play the hand you are dealt and not the one you wish you were dealt. No it is not fair but I did not make the rules so don’t yell at me about it.
As I see it, either you get your game on, you stay out of it or you engage in a nationwide brawl that has little hope of winning and a greater chance of doing your movement harm. IMO, turning your backs on his inauguration is very unwise way to start out because you give the fundies the ammo to say ‘see! they are intolerant and they hate us!’ Yes, I know that they hate you but you are handing them a way to deflect that right back on to you.
You don’t win battles by handing the enemy ammo, you win them by using their own ammo against them. Obama is offering everyone a seat at the ‘table’ and Warren is accepting it.
Will you?
175.
bago
@Duke of Earl: Not every Christian believes that shrimp are an abomination, but I’m sure you already knew that.
176.
bago
King Solomon loved, in addition to the daughter of Pharaoh, many foreign woman, Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian and Hittite women, from the nations concerning which the Lord had warned the Israelites. "You must not cohabit with them, nor they with you, for they will certainly turn your hearts to their gods". Solomon held fast to them in love. He had 700 official wives and 300 concubines….
The Holy Bible 1 Kings 11:1-3
Traditional marriage was pimpin.
177.
Conservatively Liberal
De mod gawd done bit me post! Hep! ;)
178.
Reverend Dennis
I’m wondering out loud, what possible thread topic could be introduced by Senor Cole that doesn’t immediately morph into a Warren/Obama one.
Depends on whether or not folks realize that nothing new has been added in the past six hundred posts on the topic.
I’m wondering out loud, what possible thread topic could be introduced by Senor Cole that doesn’t immediately morph into a Warren/Obama one.
Thus the lack of new posts, I think.
It says something about us as a people that we can’t stop arguing about this issue, though. Really stuck on anti-gay bigotry, what to do about it, how to handle reactionary opposition to expanding gay rights, and so on. I guess it is so personal and so topical at the same time. Maybe we are just edging up to the tipping point and enough of the public opinion will shift that it just won’t be an issue anymore, just like with official racism.
Meh. Even getting all meta can’t keep it from being a dull topic at this point. Either Obama will move the issue forward in the Inaugural Address, or it will drop from discussion for a couple years.
I’m trying not to laugh at this, but it is very hard.
I’ve been online since the days of 300 baud acoustic modems and I figured out fairly soon that the more powerful my post and the harder I hit my mark the fewer responses I get, particularly if I’m saying something that makes people uncomfortable but they can’t find anything wrong with it.
I’ve got the same basic comment running several places where people are quick to jump down your throat if they think you’re wrong and not a single reply telling me I’m wrong.
"Diametrically Opposed". Sorry, nope. One side is understandably emotionally involved. Not two. The other is just not that concerned with symbolism.
Diametrically opposed in that one side thinks Warren on the podium is a good thing and the other side thinks him being on the podium is anything but.
Both sides are claiming symbolism but they are diametrically opposed in the meaning of the symbolism.
183.
Duke of Earl
@bago: Not every Christian believes that shrimp are an abomination, but I’m sure you already knew that.
I’m not sure I’ve ever heard of a Christian that believes shellfish are an abomination.
People basically take away from scripture that which they bring to it. If you are a bigoted jerk you will find scripture to support that, if you are a kind, loving soul there is scripture to support that too.
Diametrically opposed in that one side thinks Warren on the podium is a good thing and the other side thinks him being on the podium is anything but.
Wrong again. Most people don’t really care that much about a guy talking 3 minutes of pro forma religious speak, and have theorized that Obama is trying to use this symboilic appearance to fulfill a campaign promise of being inclusive. That is not the same as being for it, or that’s it’s necessarily a "good" thing. Most who have said it might help Obama politically would just as soon he not done it, if for no other reason to avoid the firestorm of "concerned Progressives".
Both sides are claiming symbolism but they are diametrically opposed in the meaning of the symbolism.
No, one side is not opposed to the "meaning" of symbolism, they do believe, in light of Obama’s long standing support of the gay community, that in this case the ‘effect’ of symbolism is being exaggerated for mostly posturing reasons.
Eh, Warren giving the invocation is obviously symbolic, I’ve read quite a few posts where people are claiming that the effect of the symbolism will be positive.
Do you deny that some think the symbolism will be positive?
harlana pepper
I was right about David Gregory, btw. Everybody ignored me, as usual, but I was right, as usual.
Laura W
Angels and eggnog, oh my.
Still better than Condi on MTP.
How good does Hoffman look for 71? Geez.
John Cole
I had forgotten how many good movies Dustin Hoffman was in. Or maybe I just hadn’t thought about it.
Saw the Season 1 finale for Heroes last night. It feels like the writers went on strike about 2 episodes before the finale. What a cluster.
Comrade Jake
George Snuffaluffagus’ blog is reporting that Rahm made one call to Blagojevich, during which time they didn’t discuss the Senate seat.
Which causes the idiots to suggest in the comments that this has the potential to be Watergate II. Good times.
Phoenix Woman
It’s the Clinton Rules, Jake. (I almost said "Forget it, Jake – it’s Chinatown", but you probably get that a lot already.)
Are people still freaking out over one of the two pastors to speak at the inaugural? Are they still ignoring Joseph Lowery, who is a really good guy?
demimondian
@Phoenix Woman: Yes, we’re still freaking out. No, we’re not forgetting Joseph Lowery.
What’s gradually happening is that Warren’s positions on other important issues are being made public. The net effect of this may be to force him to defend his support of Christian mass murder — something that will serve to marginalize him.
John Cole
Yes.
There is a not insignificant portion of the blogosphere who think that saying ‘Quit being silly about Warren’ is akin to saying “YOU CAN’T QUESTION OBAMA.”
There is a larger portion of the blogosphere who can not tell the difference between appointing someone to the cabinet and having someone talk for a few minutes at the inauguration.
Both, however, know a slap in the face when they see one.
On an unrelated note, I just love Charles Osgood. There is always something so nice and sweet about him singing.
Jeff
@Phoenix Woman: SadlyNo just had a huge post about it considering they are the ones aware of all internet traditions about saying things shorter.
Comrade Jake
If you want a break from all the nonsense, go back and watch Obama’s first interview with Charlie Rose. Watch the whole thing.
The selection of Warren was remarkably predictable for all those paying any attention. It’s only a slap in the face if you’re incredibly dense.
Joey Maloney
Santa has something special in his magic sack for all the good little boys and girls.
jeffreyw
This morning the other Cole has some good things to say about Warren.
harlana pepper
Charles Osgood singing? Thanks for reminding me why I don’t watch CBS Sunday Morning.
Bob In Pacifica
I won’t be happy until Sam Harris delivers the invocation and Michael Shermer wrestles Rev. Lowry off the stage. Is that so extreme?
Comrade Jake
Ta-Nehisi Coates, showing off again. I laughed because it’s true.
LiberalTarian
You too can have the shoe. I’m going to see if I can get a pair small enough for me. That would be a 5 1/2 man’s shoe … And no cheesy rip-offs. Hope springs eternal!
You know, few of us general blogosphere types are going to be winning the genius prize any time soon. Neither are the journos. I want to worry about more consequential things than what tie Obama wore to the inaugural, so, excuse me if I sit out the nit pick parade.
Phoenix Woman
John: A-yep. I’ve been told about one website where people have allegedly been told behind the scenes not to write anything on this that doesn’t explicitly condemn and excoriate Obama about That Preacher Guy, who by the way is considered a moderate to liberal among other Fundies — something that the folks passing along the carefully-selected website snippets either don’t know or don’t mention, but which the LAT’s editorial page does:
In the meantime, poll after poll shows that most Americans have no problem with him speaking. And as gay activist Bil Browning dared to point out (and for which he has been all but blackballed), attacking Obama over this is likely actually hurting the gay community’s public image.
Phoenix Woman
jeffreyw@11: Yeah. He’s been flamed hard by the righties and the AIPAC crowd for saying nice (or at least non-nasty) things about Syria (with whom we’ve been not-so-secretly negotiating even though we’re allegedly not supposed to be). This is one reason why he’s considered a near-Commie in the hardcore Fundie circles.
(Oh, and John? Is there a way you can include the rest of the LAT passage in the blockquote I attempted to make? It’s the single paragraph after the ellipsis ([…]). Everything after that is my own coinage. Thanks and sorry for being such a pain. I’ll make you all some pot stickers to compensate.)
demimondian
@Phoenix Woman: It took me a while to figure out how to do it, but there is a way.
The trick is to (1) not use an extra blank line between paragraphs, and (2) to explicitly use a paragraph tag ⟨p /⟩ between paragraphs.
Be warned that using an explict paragraph tag will force the the blockquote into normal text.
JGabriel
Saw this from Christine Pelosi at Politico’s Arena, and it sums up perfectly my thoughts and feelings regarding the Warren selection:
harlana pepper
Shit, yeah, I want the shoe. I’ll have one bronzed. It was the only worthwhile moment in 8 looong years’ of Bush appearances.
demimondian
@Phoenix Woman: He also talked extensively about the excellent political and civil rights accorded to Syrian Jews.
No, this guy’s no "moderate". That’s the problem with him — he’s a wolf in shepherd’s clothing.
demimondian
@JGabriel: I think that one of the problems the Warren-ignorers are missing is that I don’t give a hoot what he says, or what affects he has on Obama’s policies. That’s a jackalope of the first order.
I worry about what this says about Obama’s priorities — it shows that his posturing about gay rights is just that, posturing. He clearly views the whole issue as an inconvenience which gets in the way of important things. (Remember that this isn’t the first time he’s shown a total tin ear to those issues — as a good example, Wright has the same problem with "sodomy".)
Evidently, he needs to be reminded that it’s not just an "inconvenient truth", but a group of people who intend to make it hard for him to do those other "important things" if he continues to think that their issues aren’t also important.
gbear
Not freaking out about it any more, but given the number of really good non-media-whore people he could have chosen from, I’m still pissed about it. The guy is a seriously intolerant blowhard and his intolerance goes way beyond homophobia:
Why the fuck is he there?
Jeff, I read that Sadly,No! posting last night. It wanders all over the place but it’s an honest picture of the anger she’s built up while having to deal with discrimination and harassment she’s faced as a lesbian living in the south. A lot of pain in that alcohol-fueled posting.
I’m still pissed too. It is a seriously stupid and unthoughtful move from a guy who’s been mostly smart and thoughtful throughout his campaign. I’d still vote for him, but I don’t have to believe that he’s a friend of mine any more. This really is personal. My friends marriage and 18,000 others have been invalidated in CA. Fuck Warren.
Back on topic: Kill your television.
SGEW
[disengaging lurking field]
After much thought on the Warren invite, I have come to my own personal conclusion (tentative, but I’m standing by it for now):
History may judge the Warren invocation (and, perhaps, other future disappointments from Pres. Obama, viz. LGBT rights) along the lines of "He (Obama) Was a Product Of His Times," à la Lincoln or FDR or Jefferson. Or all presidents, really.
To wit: Jefferson owned slaves. FDR detained my Japanese-American relatives without cause or legal restitution, based on racism and fear mongering. Lincoln is famously quoted as saying "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." And no U.S. president has ever been a friend to the original inhabitants of this continent. To say the least.
These are all deeply hurtful things. I understand those who repudiate these men as immoral, unethical, and/or unforgivably cynical. This country, no matter how much I love it, is based on compromise and a painfully slow whittling away at bigotry. John "Alien and Sedition Act" Adams is a beloved founding father, while Thomas "Rights Of Man" Paine died alone, in obscurity, and was later burned in effigy by Teddy Roosevelt*. In other words, untempered idealism has never been a successful political strategy in the U.S.A.
Can we fully condemn these past presidents, however? Lincoln did free the slaves, after all**. FDR saved the world from imperial fascism and ended the depression***. Jefferson wrote th’ frickin’ Declaration of Independence. These are all Good Things, imho.
So, while the Warren invite seems tremendously tone-deaf on Obama’s part, it’s starting to feel like just another politically motivated "cultural" compromise from a politician who is a product of their era. No front-running presidential candidate spoke out for marriage equality. The official stated positions on civil unions from Senators McCain, Clinton, Obama, and Biden were remarkably identical. We have to realize that the president has to be pushed to accept the future ethical consensus. Would LBJ have signed the Civil Rights Act without a popular movement? I think not.
It is only through this historical perspective that I can (kind of) accept the idea of Warren being invited to perform the invocation****. If Obama makes good on his reiterated "fierce advoca[cy] for equality for gay and lesbian Americans" through policy action (i.e., DOMA, DADT, etc. etc.) the Warren imbroligio can be (mostly) forgiven. But if it turns out to be another indicator of Obama’s less-than-responsible position on true civil equality . . . well . . . maybe I can chalk it up to just another embarrassment in a long, long list of travesties this country has inflicted on the underprivileged, the downtrodden, and the oppressed.
Does this make any sense to anyone? Anyway, sorry for the ridiculously long post.
N.B.: I am not saying that I think that Obama is against LGBT rights: his record speaks pretty strongly in his favor. However, I suggest that it doesn’t matter what he actually believes – what matters is what he believes is politically possible.
*True!
**Never mind the actual historical debate. I’m talking narratives.
***Id.
****Don’t get me started on having an official prayer in the first place. ("Unconstitutional endorsement of theism" anyone?)
[re-engaging lurking field]
tavella
What demimondian said.
sgwhiteinfla
demimondian
See this is how progressives risk being put in the same class as wingnuts. Warren with all of his asshatery has NOT talked extensively about excellent political and civil rights of Syrian Jews. He went to Syria and spouted out that the stated rule of the Syrian govt was to fight discrimination based on religion. He also praised the Syrians for taking in refugees, some of them christian and jewish, fleeing Iraq. Lets focus on the dumb shit he actually does instead of blowing it up to something he didn’t do and thereby allowing our concerns to be dismissed. That he spoke good things about Syria and was dead ass wrong should be good enough. We don’t have to make it seem like he was on some kind of propaganda campaign for them.
Just watch, tomorrow one of the op eds in a major rag will be taking progressives to task for lying about Warren’s past with respect to Syria and they will once again be painting us as looney left wing hippies.
JGabriel
@demimondian:
Demi, I can’t say I have much use or respect for Warren either. But the Juan Cole piece JeffreyW highlights above is worth reading.
A lot of people whose opinions I respect – Juan Cole and Barack Obama, to name two – seem to think Warren is capable of learning from experience and changing his views. And Warren himself influences the views of a lot of people. That probably makes it worth reaching out to him.
.
J.D. Rhoades
I see that the gay community has their own equivalent of the civil right’s movement’s "Responsible Negroes."
SGEW
Hear hear.
gnomedad
How long would it take GM to re-tool for shoes?
JGabriel
@demimondian:
Demi, I don’t think it does do that. I think Obama’s votes – largely pro-gay – tell us what Obama’s priorities are on that issue.
.
Tim Fuller
THE FIRST ONLINE INTERNET MIRACLE.
God Goes GUI all over the World Wide Web, and you’re invited to the party. Special thanks to the Electronic Showcase of Perpetual Bandwidth for hosting the images of this sacred event.
THE TESTIMONY AND IMAGES YOU ARE ABOUT TO SEE ARE SO POWEFUL AND MOVING that even many GODLESS LIBERALS are left standing in awe!!
Don’t miss out on the opportunity to be the first to view this exciting Internet example of A GENUINE POINT AND CLICK WONDER.
Click here to experience the Sunday Morning Christmas season miracle for yourself.
Dedicated members of Tim’s Internet Temple (TIT) as well as converts to my rapidly growing new congregation are invited to do advanced bloggle study here.
Just Some Fuckhead
Shorter Warren Outrage Pimps: Me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me.
gbear
Shorter Warren Outrage Pimps:
Me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me.Can I haz equal rights?James F. Elliott
Off-topic: Karl Rove’s IT guy, Mike Connell, has died in a plane crash before testifying about Ohio election shenanigans.
Bill H
My objection is along the lines of what demimondian and SGEW suggest, which is not that Obama is "slapping the LGBT community in the face" so much as we are getting a hint of his priorities. He champions the rights of gays, but it is low on his list of priorities and he is not going to go to bat for tham at the risk of other issues that he considers more important. Given this pick of Rick Warren, it begins to seems that his priority of the rights of this group is very low indeed and that their hopes for equality are going to have to wait for another president. So he achieved equality for African Americans, but for other groups who are discriminated against…
John Cole
This is, to me, out and out wingnuttery. I linked Obama’s record on gay issues the other day. I linked his lifetime rating. Every time it has come to a vote, guess who Obama has voted with?
Not Rick Warren.
To call his record “posturing” and nothing more is the kind of stuff I expect from right-wing nutjobs who, when someone says they oppose abortion, but not in the case of rape and incest, scream out “BABY KILLER!”
Ssgt. White
@John Cole:
Please remember, sir, that symbolism is all that matters to these people.
Laura W
How many posts on this blog by John since end of last week on this subject? How many posts not on this subject that have been turned into threads on this subject? Like this one. What is there left to say that is original or new that has not been said in well over 1,000 comments by now? Usually falling into two clear camps, with both camps clearly laying out their feelings and beliefs? Same people saying same things for days and nights on end.
Topic fatigue headache in progress.
Zzyzx
The real question is come April, who is going to even remember who spoke at the inauguration? There would have been like 12 other mini controversies by then and someone will jokingly say, "Hey remember when we were all up in arms over Warren?" and a few people will laugh and everyone else will try to remember what the problem was.
SGEW
Sorry for adding to your migraine, Laura. Just needed to put my thoughts out there.
[re-engage lurking field]
. . .
[re-engage lurking field!]
. . .
Hmmm. My lurking field generator needs a tune-up.
Just Some Fuckhead
How ’bout Sully going on and on about the "pain" of the Warren selection? Sully ultimately gave Obama a pass but felt compelled to share his pain over and over. (Read: me me me me me me me.)
Where was that pain when you were voting for Bush and empowering the forces of intolerance Sully? It’s not like you didn’t know what you were voting for then, since I emailed you and told you.
Fuckers. Short-sighted, self-centered completely unserious fuckers.
cleek
no matter what the President’s priorities are, Congress has a say in it, too. it’s not enough to get a president who wants something, you need a majority in Congress, too. and we aren’t there yet.
Comrade Jake
Since Warren’s giving the invocation, and Lowery the benediction, couldn’t one also view that as symbolic of progress? One wonders what the response would be had the gay community taken that tack: Warren represents the past, Lowery the future.
The Grand Panjandrum
We had a foot of powder up here at the Undisclosed Location in New England and we are in the midst of getting another 12-16 inches of powder. CBS or not, THAT is what I call a Sunday morning. Off the try out the new snowshoes.
Enjoy beating the dead horse.
cleek
it was in the low 70s yesterday here in central NC
cyntax
That would have been an interesting way to look at it. I have been wondering through this whole thing how, on the one hand, it’s OK to sit down with leaders of countries like Syria and Iran, but it’s not OK to have Warren give the invocation.
cleek
@cyntax:
zing
Hyperion
@Laura W: i hear you. but there is an energy that cannot be contained. evidently.
keep trying to change the subject…or continue to not engage in the debate. some people have to think they will have the last word. if there’s more than one of those types, we end up with this.
Just Some Fuckhead
@cyntax:
That’s totally different, cyntax. That actually matters.
cyntax
@cleek:
My reading comprehension is at an all time pre-coffee ebb; I read that as early 70s and inferred some sort of Studio 54 double entendre which, I admit, I was having trouble applying to NC…
=)
tavella
I have been wondering through this whole thing how, on the one hand, it’s OK to sit down with leaders of countries like Syria and Iran, but it’s not OK to have Warren give the invocation.
Jesus fucking Christ, it’s asshattery like this that *produces* the energy and fury. I have seen yogurt-headed blather like this a thousand times now.
Obama hires Ahmajinidad to do the invocation, they you can spout shit like that. Otherwise, take your false equivalencies and go to hell.
Comrade Jake
Yogurt headed blather? Does that come in Strawberry?
Conservatively Liberal
More importantly, sprinkles? Gotta have me sum sprinkles with my yogurt.
cyntax
@tavella:
Feh. It sounded to me like the right used all the same arguments about "legitimizing" and "elevating" in regards to Obama sitting down to talk wwith certain world leaders without preconditions. It’s not literally the same set of events but that doesn’t make it a false equivalency: it’s still a question of symbolism.
Laura W
@SGEW: Oh poo. As I was dressing for my walk I had the impulse to come back and specifically exempt your post from my malaise. It was interesting and insightful and I’ve not seen anyone put all those pieces together so coherently like that. Plus, I learned something from it.
Sorry. Should’ve followed through on that impulse.
Too bad you are in lurk mode so often. The discourse could use you.
Laura W
@Zzyzx: I think Donna Brazille said it nicely on This Week…once Aretha gets up there and sings, Donna will have no memory of Rick Warren even being there.
Just Some Fuckhead
Laura, no giant beast snow tracks to terrorize the villagers. I vacuumed up the snow because it was getting on the railroad tracks and fucking up the train. On the way to the hardware store now to buy white paint.
John Cole
The more accurate comparison is not Ahmajinidad, but Rev. Wright.
Folks who, during the election, had no problem telling people that it was silly to smear Obama with Rev. Wright, who spews shit a lot of people in the country find really offensive, are now finding it bizarre Obama would pray with a man who… spews shit half the country find offensive.
demimondian
@JGabriel: Warren himself isn’t the issue for me. I view discrediting him as one of several tools for pushing the people whose views really matter — a class to which Rick Warren doesn’t belong — into the modern era.
As to "pure wingnuttery", John…well, if this be wingnuttery, make the most of it. I don’t doubt how he will act *if he acts at all*. I doubt that he will act to defend his own stated principles; I doubt his priorities.
And if you need evidence that there’s history to back my attitudes on that, think back to how your own opinion towards Obama’s behavior on the "FISA capitulation" evolved.
Laura W
@Just Some Fuckhead: Now this is the kind of comment content I’m talking about!
Keep me posted.
(get it?)
Cain
@The Grand Panjandrum:
Here in portland, we must having the most unusual snow weather in at least 12 years. Continous snow, we had about 6 inches in the Williamette Valley with more on the way. We are totally fucked. We have no infrastructure to deal with snow really. I expect the next week to be uh very light duty in terms of everything.
I’m going to have put on chains now to get anywhere. (and of course chains are sold out all over the city..but I got mine long ago)
cain
Reverend Dennis
Because the Warren invocation seems to be The Topic That Won’t Die could we boil down "Obama’s choice of Warren for the invocation is a betrayal of the gay community and a sure sign that he’ll sell them down the river!" to say, "#25". Any poster wishing to assert the aforementioned, please just post #25.
Thank you.
SGEW
@Laura W: Oh stop it. You’ll make me blush (which isn’t hard, btw).
Since the election I’ve drastically reduced the amount of time I spend on th’ internets. Turns out I get a lot more done when I’m not constantly refreshing fivethirtyeight and TPM every twenty minutes or so! But I can’t break my long-standing B-J addiction: how could I get through my day without all o’ y’all?
John Cole
@demimondian: Ignoring someone’s track record and dismissing it all as “posturing” is pure wingnuttery.
As to FISA, I thought he was wrong to vote the way he did, but recognized several things:
1.) It would not have mattered how he voted, the outcome would not have changed.
2.) Steny Hoyer and Pelosi are the villains in regard to that.
3.) I don’t like the way he voted, but do know why he voted that way- to nip it in the bud.
4.) Obama has always been about compromise, some of the suck more than others.
As to how that equates with your assertion that everyone ignore Obama’s record as nothing more than posturing, well, you got me.
Finally, with a melting economy, millions out of work, the possible failure of the largest manufacturing sector in the country, the total disaster that is health care and the financial meltdown, two wars, and the out and out assault on civil liberties the last few year, I would suggest that anyone who thinks the number one priority right now is gay marriage is as crazy as… well, the religious right nuts who think the number one priority right now is gay marriage.
Prop 8 sucks, but right now, I am more concerned about everyone’s ability to feed themselves and pay for their healthcare.
I guess my priorities just suck.
cyntax
@John Cole:
Fair enough: make Wright the comparison.
I think with Obama’s emphasis on change, inclusion–and let’s be honest–centrism, I’m resigned to the fact that he’s going to do things I don’t like.
But then I had that realization with the FISA vote. The rub is, we really won’t know for a number of months, if not years, whether he’s going to make the changes we want to see. So in the meantime, it’s fair to be skeptical and vigilant and what all else, and as various factions have their FISA moments, there’s going to be enough anger and disappointment to go around.
Here’s to hoping that once Obama’s in office, the changes start coming, and that may make everyone a little more inclined towards waiting and seeing what really happens.
demimondian
@John Cole: You didn’t like his vote, but you tolerated it. I didn’t like it — and didn’t like it earlier, and, as it turned out, for correct reasons — but I tolerated it, too.
I’m tolerating the Warren invocation, but I don’t see this as smart politics, or good statecraft. I see it as clear evidence that Obama has little heartfelt concern for gay rights, just as he had little heartfelt concern for publicizing the abuses of warrant-less wiretapping.
Aren’t you the one who repudiated torture by saying that "being better than Saddam wasn’t good enough"? Why should being better than Bush or Nixon good enough? Better is good and necessary, but that’s not good enough.
Cain
@cyntax: @John Cole:
To argue the other side, I could argue because the economy is in bad shape, because healthcare is becoming unaffordable due to job losses and so forth that we need these protections to the gay community now. Us straights have safety nets of legal nature but the gay community doesn’t. Move foward with gay marriage or at least provide the civil protections needed. I think the civil part can be accomplished.
Obama doesn’t need to personally involve himself, he can appoint someone to do it.
cain
John Cole
No you aren’t. You aren’t tolerating it at all. I am tolerating Rick Warren speaking- because I hate pretty much everything the man stands for, yet am saying- feh, it is three minutes of speaking.
You, on the other hand, are claiming, quite explicityly, that Obama giving the man a forum invalidates every vote he has ever made and that he can not be trusted on gay rights issues, because he is just “posturing.”
One of us is tolerating allowing that moron Warren to speak. It just isn’t you.
cyntax
@Cain:
That’s reasonable. And I’m optimistic that Obama will make real, substantive changes that do just that. Whether we believe that the Warren pick is or isn’t indicative of Obama’s "real" priorities, we aren’t going to know for some time yet.
demimondian
Nope. I’m complaining about it, because that’s not just my right but my responsibility. I’m speaking my mind because I have a lot of experience with people who avoid hard decisions, and I know that if nobody pushes them, they won’t make those decisions.
Not tolerating Warren’s appointment would entail forming a third party. It would entail giving money to Obama’s opponents, or withholding gifts to his election. Complaining, because he has a history of taking safe votes which cost him nothing but ducking hard issues which cost him something? Forgive me, John, but that’s recognizing an ambitious man for what he is, warts and all.
SGEW
Ye gods*, I can’t believe I’m throwing more caltrops into the conversation, but here goes.
I gotta say it: fighting global warming, poverty, and HIV/AIDS are pretty big deals. This is not to say that this "balancing of interests" is a very strong argument for Warren’s invitation (civil rights, humanitarianism, and global crises are hopefully not a zero-sum game), but Warren’s relative "centrist" tendencies on these particular issues are, I believe, relevant to discussion of him as a public figure.
*Yes, this is meant ironically.
Scott H
Setting my gay holiday chapeau aside for a moment, I have to ask myself what pop culture celebrity god-botherer would be a less obnoxious choice than this particular tent-show carnie? Can’t think of one really.
I’m not feeling the sting from the slap. Some people do, and I encourage them to express their offense. Mildly put, I don’t hold with the homo variant on the Good Boy forelock tugging.
If there is any symbolism it is that the likes of this bigot is being offered, rather generously, a seat, as a guest, at the new table – a seat which is no longer his as it would have been in the alternative McCain/Palin administration. He’ll ape piety from an index card for a couple of minutes, and that will be the end of it.
John Cole
@demimondian: You and I have different definitions of tolerate then, because for me, claiming someone is a liar and a fraud and just “posturing” on an issue is not what I would consider “tolerating” their viewpoint.
I have provided his voting record. You have told me how you feel. I know which one I am going to go with for now. And, of course, that does not mean that Obama will not shit the bed in the future, but for now I am going to roll with his record.
Laura W
@Scott H:
Joel Osteen?
I know little about him, and surely some call him a tent-show carnie, but whenever he’s on the teevee being pressed about homosexuality he seems to present an: "Everyone is welcome, I don’t judge, I just comfort and inspire, etc.." stance.
kay
@Scott H:
It’s either symbolic or it’s not. It can’t be wildly symbolic and part of Obama’s master plan ONLY to those who welcome it, where it resonates positively, while at the same time we’re insisting it’s completely meaningless ONLY to those who oppose it, where (coincidentally) it resonates negatively. Take the gain, with no pain. That would be GREAT!
I don’t think Obama is uniquely afforded "selective symbolism", because that doesn’t make any sense. Obama himself doesn’t buy that. Why should you?
Interestingly, he’s not claiming that, unlike some of his defenders. He presented it as symbolic (true) and asked us to accept the negative, in service to his larger goal. That’s an honest negotiation. You can pass on that trade-off, your call, but at least he isn’t telling you it doesn’t matter.
Reverend Dennis
@Laura W:
Your use of the words "homosexuality" and "stance" in the same sentence is a slap in the face to Larry Craig.
Laura W
#25
(Two best LOLs of the day go to you, Rev D. Thanks.)
demimondian
@John Cole: Nonsense, John. I have, in fact, posted aspects of his voting record to back my claims: his back-tracking on the FISA capitulation up-thread, for one. His refusal to stand up to Harry Reid over the Lieberman chairmanship.
What more do you want? I’m afraid that I’m not a character on Heroes, so telepathy is flat out, dude.
Jennifer
Ugh. The "Warren controversy" again.
I’ve stayed out of this for the most part, for the simple reason that I am able to see both sides and don’t want to trample on the feelings of those who are rightfully sick and tired of being asked to wait some more before they achieve equality. While I don’t believe that having a preacher who opposes gay marriage is the equivalent of a statement on Obama’s part that he will do nothing to advance gay rights, you’re probably correct in assuming that it means you’re going to have to "wait some more". Because the reality is, your concerns are not going to be addressed ahead of the economic situation, health care, renewable energy initiatives, and probably several other things. And I really hate to say this, but that’s not only the best but the only real course of action open here. We’ve learned from painful past experience (Clinton and "don’t ask don’t tell") that putting this issue ahead of all others means that nothing gets done; the new president is hobbled from the beginning and it has a negative impact on every part of his agenda. Had Clinton successfully addressed other issues on his agenda first, not only might they have had a better chance, but we might have ended up with an actual revision of military policy towards gays instead of the stupid "don’t ask don’t tell" non-solution "compromise".
I realize that it’s not fair or right to ask people to wait for equal rights – but it is political reality that this is how it will finally get done. Obama will be able to go a lot further on gay rights issues if he manages to get some other things fixed first and build up some goodwill amongst voters of every stripe.
The second issue I see with the Warren sky-is-falling chorus is that it’s such a restrictive way of defining a person. Yes, Rick Warren has ass-hatted ideas about homosexuality and gay rights. Guess what? So did I at one time. I was raised by an extremely homophobic father. Though dear old dad fortunately did not try to justify his homophobia with religion, he made it quite clear that he considered homosexuality unnatural and depraved. You grow up hearing that all the time, in an era where gay culture hasn’t been mainstreamed, and you pick it up. I was never stridently anti-gay, but maintained the "tee-hee, how funny" attitude for probably a couple of years after leaving home. Then came a few years where I got to know a few actual gay people, but still maintained a position that I really didn’t want to know a lot about their personal lives, because I just "wasn’t comfortable with it". And then finally, the realization that denying people the ability to be who they really are because of my own personal "comfort level" was, let’s face it, pretty monstrously inhuman. Add to that a fairly large contigent of my fellow college graduates coming out after graduation – people about whose orientation I had been utterly clueless (architecture school; think anyone but an utter n00b would have failed to figure that one out?). They were the same people they had always been, people I had always liked. And that was that; I was on the side of whatever would make their lives better.
I never would have reached that point, however, if those poor souls who suffered through my insufferable "I don’t want to know about that because I’m not comfortable with that" phase had insulted, cursed, and rejected me. They didn’t, I believe, because they could see other things in me that they considered worthwhile, and the potential that I could overcome my ignorance.
The same may well be true of Rick Warren. From the other Cole’s account, he’s not all, and perhaps not even mostly, bad. I totally disagree with him not only on gay marriage but also on his over-arching world view (i.e. God), but even I can see that a guy who’s doing charity work with AIDS orphans in Africa, who is engaged in fighting malaria, concerned with issues of global poverty and education – that guy’s not an all, or probably not even a mostly, bad guy. He has the potential to eventually get it right.
For this kind of a guy, the uproar over his invitation to give the invocation may well be a teaching moment. I suspect it would be much less so if the invitation were rescinded. There are a lot of people out there who are not unreachable, if we treat this issue less as us vs them and more as us disagreeing with them but continuing to work with them where we can and continuing to try to educate them. I know this from personal experience.
Sorry for the novella. Carry on.
SGEW
I call Rule 34 on #25.
[ducks]
SGEW
Yes. This.
John Cole
@demimondian: You honestly are using his vote on FISA to state that he is just “posturing” on gay rights, despite an unwavering track record of support?
Seriously?
There really is no point even discussing this anymore if that is the case.
Reverend Dennis
That’s a Catch-22, dammit!
demimondian
@John Cole: No, I use the fact that he has, on two separate occasions this year, deliberately asked a homophobic preacher to speak at a putatively inclusive event, to say that his record on gay rights is not heartfelt.
"What?" you ask, "what’s the first one?"
Remember Donnie McClurkin? And the furor that caused? Yeah, and we were all told to sit down and shut up then…so Obama goes and does the same thing a second time. Sorry, John; he’s posturing.
Reverend Dennis
Who can forget? It’s what lost Obama the election.
Mrs. Peel
Ever since the 60s, the expression "some of my best friends are…" has been a joke meant to indicate that a person is really a bigot. What’s interesting is the new thing where people get to say, "Hey, I’m not homophobic. I have gay friends. I just believe that marriage is between a man and a woman." And they’re all supposed to go, "Oh, gee, we have to allow people their differences of opinion and respect that, so it’s all good."
Bullsh*t! Do you think for one minute someone could say, "Hey, I like Black people and some of my friends are Black, but Blacks and Whites shouldn’t be allowed to marry. There should be no mixing of the races." Anyone who said that would be lambasted, as they should be. But say essentially the same thing about gays and it’s all, we have to respect people’s religion, and it’s okay that we don’t agree, and everyone is entitled to their beliefs.
And what really makes me sick, is how the media and the religious right play this as though anyone who doesn’t "tolerate" the religious rights view point is actually the bigot. That "militant" gays are actually the ones who are not being tolerant.
Personally, I am not expecting anything different from Obama than we got from Clinton. If it’s politically expedient to screw them over then that is what he’ll do. He is first and foremost a politician who has to do the bidding of the people who bought and paid for him. Sorry to be so cynical, but that’s how the system works.
Mrs. Peel
Since every single media outlet mainstream and otherwise won’t shut up about him and what choosing him means and how he may or may not reflect Obama’s presidency it would appear the answer is "no". Warren’s getting as much press from this as he ever did from his stints on Oprah, etc.
Do you really think Lowery and Warren are getting equal play or coverage? How could Lowery be a smokescreen for Warren when nobody seems to give a crap about anything but Warren’s invocation.
Comrade Jake
@demimondian:
Sorry, demi; you’re being idiotic.
SGEW
Mrs. Peel;
Even assuming, arguendo, that your suspicions are correct, I put forth the idea that Obama will still be a better leader on LGBT rights than Clinton was. After all, Bill tried to do good at first: but, as the common wisdom goes, he capitulated when he ran out of political capital.
However, I contend that Obama is a better politician than Pres. Clinton was and has much more political capital to expend. Therefore, he may be faced with less "need" to compromise on this issue – fewer reasons to "screw" anyone over, if you will. Additionally, the country at large is more progressive on equal rights now than it was in the early nineties (the outrage over Warren itself is pretty indicative of this, imho).
This is all completely irrespective of any actual beliefs/ideals that Barack Obama personally holds, mind you. I’m only speaking to political "expediency" (read: possibility, thank you).
Also:
Perhaps Warren is a smokescreen for Lowery? Just a thought.
Perry Como
demimondian, it’s clear that Obama’s next move, after having Warren give the invocation, is the public execution of gays.
It’s amazing. I had to take some time to decompress after the election so I’ve been ignoring politics for the most part. When I dip my toes back in I see that the most important issue for the left is Rick Warren. SRSLY? That’s the most important fucking thing right now? California is about to go bankrupt. The plutocrats are looting the treasury on their way out. We are in a global recession teetering on a global depression because of the fucked up priorities of the last 8, natch 30, years.
Rick fucking Warren? Get a grip.
Comrade Jake
@Mrs. Peel:
I guess I just wonder if this media storm would be there had the LGBT community decided to view the symbolism as I’d suggested. I don’t think there was any media storm before the outrage, but maybe it’s just me.
Scott H
@kay
I should’ve said the symbolism I take away from it. I don’t know Obama’s mind. I find what small satisfaction that I may in this maladroit inaugural gesture that the Saddleback barker comes to the podium as an outsider. In the alternative reality, he would be shacked up with Palin & Co in the Executive Office Building.
I say let everyone take away from the situation as much or as little as they feel and express themselves accordingly. I am not outraged by a tasteless and insensitive choice that ultimately involves enduring a couple of minutes of pseudo-shamanistic shimmy-shake. I do respect those who are.
@Laura W
I’m not sure, but aren’t the Osteen’s a variety of the get rich through Jesus preachers? It’s all Barnum & Bailey to me.
By the way, my personal choice would be a thunderous and deeply grave rabbi. That’s your go-to department for a rocking invocation.
Cain
@demimondian:
I think by far that is the most reasonable argument for complaining about the Warren decision.
cain
SGEW
If I had to pick a theist to give an invocation, I’d probably go with the snake handlers. Or maybe one of those self-crucifyin’ folks from the Phillipines. Now that’s entertainment!
Cain
I think if they had the invocations by a native indian shaman, that would ROCK. Especially if they bring out the ganja and sweat tents. :-)
cain
cleek
what about an atheist invocation ?
no? not possible?
SLAP IN THE FACE!
Just Some Fuckhead
@Laura W:
No, I don’t. Now I know how Michilines and Smiley feel. ;)
John Cole
Something else I keep forgetting to mention is that Warren is also a creationist- something that sends me into fits of apoplexy every time it is mentioned. And you know what- I still don’t care he is speaking for three minutes.
Why? Because Obama didn’t appoint him to run NASA, the FDA, or anything else that matters.
demimondian
@Cain: Personally, I want the guy who invented the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
If a right-wing faux Christian is a requirement, how about the witch hunter from Sarah Palin’s church? I think that would set just the right tone.
cyntax
@cleek:
Word.
I could really stand a little less god in our government.
demimondian
@cleek: Imagine PZ Myers up front, giving a three minute talk about the importance of the occasion, and asking us all to think about what the right thing to do for the next few years was.
But, you know, somehow, I don’t think that will happen.
cleek
@John Cole: exactly
the people complaining about this have turned a nothing into a giant raging hot-air-filled nothing.
Warren isn’t going to set policy or write laws here. he’s gonna give a little pro-forma prayer and that’ll be that. when it’s over 99% of us will forget about it completely. Warren speaking there isn’t going to change anybody’s opinion on gay- anything.
Just Some Fuckhead
@John Cole:
Yeah, but Obama is signalling to everyone everywhere that evolution is at the bottom of his priority list, despite the fact that evolutionists overwhelming supported his candidacy. And now we’re being told, sorry Darwinists go to the back of the bus, creationists are my bffs, youngearth4evar!
Fuck Obama.
cleek
@demimondian: "Imagine PZ Myers up front"
the right would tear their vocal cords screeching about him.
ever read his reader emails? there’s no way to read them and not come away thinking "what a fucked up world this is…"
Perry Como
@Just Some Fuckhead: Obama is one step closer to his grand scheme of creating the Large Hateron Collider.
Snowy Woods
John Cole (or anyone): you didn’t happen to record the show, by any chance? If so, could you please put Osgood’s performance of "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening" up on youtube? I heard it, but didn’t record it. It was wonderful!
TIA…
Laura W
@Just Some Fuckhead: You’re good, Fuckhead.
Sometimes I think you’re the only one who gets me.
sniff
whimper
/snark
JOKE!
Cain
@demimondian:
It would be the right thing to do in the name of being inclusive. We might piss of the wiccans though, so we’ll have to bring a witch to do the benediction.
cain
Comrade Jake
Obama is really posturing on evolution. I mean, I don’t think he has a single legislative accomplishment on the issue. Christ we’ve all been duped.
demimondian
@cleek: Now *that’s* change I could believe in.
Scott H
@SGEW
As far as I know, West Virginia is the only State that protects snake handling religious practice. Aside from the legal issue within the District of Columbia, slinging timber rattlers near the President and the Chief Justice could be a little problematic. Would be cool.
@cleek
An atheist invocation would be truly hip.
I still think it is fair play for everyone who feels outraged by this to blow it up as big as they want. There’s a considerable experience of severe abuse of many gay people who had to grow up inside fundamentalism, and I know a lot of these people.
bago
To reach someone you need to break the Manichean cycle. Show some grace. Otherwise you don’t win majorities, and that puts you at a disadvantage in a democratic system.
demimondian
@bago: Dude, you’ve been trapped inside too long, I think.
The Moar You Know
@demimondian: We get it. You’re the only smart one.
kay
@Scott H:
Right. It’s a distinction. Incidentally, I am buying the trade-off. I’ll trade the symbol for progress on substance. I accept Barack Obama’s proposal. Reading the miles of posts here I came to support that compromise. I am glad I got a chance to read the vehement opposition. I understand the issue better.
What I’m not buying is denying that Warren symbolizes something. Good, bad or indifferent, he’s a symbol.
J. Michael Neal
Yes, the Warren pick probably does signal things about Obama’s priorities. I even agree that gay rights probably isn’t near the top of his priority list. So what?
Priorities are a zero sum game. If you are going to wail that gay rights aren’t at the top of the list, tell me what you think should get moved down. Be specific. If you can’t do that, you’re just whining. It has to be something.
I would like to see gay rights. However, I’m on board with pretty much everything that Obama does seem to be ready to push hard. I want to get out of Iraq. I want a huge stimulus package to rescue the economy. I want the Justice Department cleaned up. I want action on global warming.
I can understand why some people think that gay rights should be pushed harder, but I can’t think of anything here that I want to put less effort into in order to get it done. If a compromose with Warren gets more people on board for those, count me in.
Frankly, I find commercials implying that Frank Miller created The Spirit to be more offensive.
J. Michael Neal
Ugh. No thanks. Myers is just as obnoxious as the people he fights with. Being an atheist is no excuse for being an asshole. There are a couple of hundred professors here at the University of Minnesota I’d rather see get press.
demimondian
@The Moar You Know: Glad you finally figured that out.
LiberalTarian
I think we should through shoes at him. In fact, I am going to start wearing cheap shoes to places where I know presidential motorcades are going to be, for the express purpose of throwing my shoes at the jerks. Oh yeah, and Easter parades. Throw shoes at those blowhards, too.
I love the idea of everybody throwing their shows at leaders who can’t lead their way out of a wet paper bag.
I know I’m supposed to be all outrages about Warren, and honestly, my outrage button is all punched in and broken.
I’m gonna go with the refuse to freak out crowd about Warren. He’s a dick. He’s one of those guys I think is a false prophet. Real Christians don’t consider assassination an option, it just is not filled with the love, y’knowwhaddamean? But, to the people that it matters to, this means Obama has shown them the tiniest bit of consideration. Sitting around bitching about how someone talked bad about you is not powerful–and it doesn’t appear to be removing Warren from the slot, but rather providing a victory for him that shunning his presence would not have done.
Worst part is that THIS is not a fight that matters. Now, if we had fought long and hard against Prop 8 I don’t think it would have won. The evangelicals were out there every gawddamn day and pouring their money into it. THAT was the fight that mattered, and we failed to show up.
Raenelle
If I was a right-winger, what I would do is pretend to be a lefty and stir up shit among the Dems. It’s what the FBI used to do to left-wing groups back in the 60s–infiltrate them and incite them from the left.
I’m not saying that people that scream about Obama’s betrayal because of who he got to say a prayer are infiltrating agitators. I’m just saying that, if I was a wingnut, I would act exactly like they do.
Brick Oven Bill
Somebody needs to inform Barack that if we switch from coal to natural gas for electricity production, and put CNG into our gas tanks, the price of natural gas will go up. As fertilizer is made out of natural gas, this will increase the cost of food.
This would effectively accelerate the starvation of vulnerable populations and the emergence of regional resource wars. Nuclear power, and lots of it, is the ethical energy plan. That, and oil shale development.
People worry far too much about distinctions between ‘civil unions’ and ‘marriage’. Ten years from now, things like this will seem petty, even to those to whom they directly affect.
Oh, and, like, we should all become gay communists. Go Che.
tomjones
@Brick Oven Bill: In the future, an "OT" warning would be appreciated, so I can gloss over the interjection of your take on irrelevant topics.
Comrade Jake
Read Juan Cole on Rick Warren, and prepare to be surprised.
That’s all I’ve got. I’m spent on this topic.
Brick Oven Bill
I believe the topic was ‘blah’.
D-Chance.
The current mindset of the Republican Party: "We ain’t got no clue about no economy. We ain’t got no clue about no environment. We ain’t got no clue about no nuthin’. Wanna fight?"
Conservatively Liberal
I believe the topic was "CBS Sunday Morning" and the comment was "Blah.", but what do I know. I won’t argue with your position that your post is appropriate for a topic you thought was "blah".
No siree BOB, nope, no argument at all.
TheHatOnMyCat
@Comrade Jake:
Please, no more material like that. It was not divisive, not ideological, and not snarky. Instead it was interesting, informative, and encouraging.
More material like that, and this blog is toast.
What the hell were you thinking?
Cain
@Comrade Jake:
eww.. i hope you at least used a napkin.
cain
TheHatOnMyCat
So, it’s finally out. You are gay.
Laura W
@Comrade Jake: Trying to change the subject from football and Rick Warren to anything else:
I was hoping for the video of SS on Larry King from last night, frankly. (I looked for it. Couldn’t find it.)
Anyway, I clicked through to Juan Cole finally. Thanks for the reminder. I was thinking earlier today about the poetry thread of last night, and noticing that no one mentioned Rumi. I should have mentioned Rumi. Here are a few of my favorites that pertain to wine. I used them in a long-winded wine review long ago in another life:
"God has given us a dark wine that, drinking it, we leave the two worlds."
"Any wine will get you high. Judge like a king and choose the purest, the ones unadulterated with fear, or some urgency about ‘what’s needed.’ Drink the wine that moves you as a camel moves as it’s been untied, and is just ambling about."
"There is joy, a winelike freedom that dissolves the mind and restores the spirit, and there is manly fortitude like the king’s, a reasonableness that accepts the bewildered lostness.
But meditate now on steadfastness and clarity, and let those be the wings that lift and soar through the celestial spheres."
Good shit. Maybe we need a Poet Jam Thread, John? Just to shake shit up a bit and dust off the weekend’s dross.
Laura W
@TheHatOnMyCat: You think that’s bad, did you see #24?
(Not to be confused with #25)
Comrade Jake
Here’s Juan Cole, on Warren:
TheHatOnMyCat
@Laura W:
24 is a fine post. Another blog killer, too intelligent.
25? All I can say is, demi is trying a little too hard to spooffuck this issue. Some sublety on his part would go a long way.
Demi is a guy who who throw a drowning thread both ends of the same rope.
TheHatOnMyCat
Leave the gays alone! LEAVE THEM ALONE!
Delia
I used to have an old college friend who apparently became a religious wingnut and a Dobson junkie sometime after 9/11. She apparently stopped speaking to me a couple of years ago when she visited me and realized I didn’t think like that. I guarantee, following Rick Warren would be a big improvement for her.
And Jennifer@80, thanks for your novella. You’re absolutely right. My parents weren’t really homophobic, but the society where I grew up was, and it took me a while as a young adult to outgrow those attitudes, which I’m now ashamed of ever having held. I’m glad my children grew up in a culture where they just assumed it was natural that some people are born gay. Some people can change. They’re more likely to if they don’t face total hostility from the other side. This is the tragedy of our currently polarized society.
Comrade Jake
Based on Larry King’s page for his show, it seems tonight they’ll replay the Suzanne Somers interview.
If the football game is slow, might be worth checking out. I caught some of it last night and the lady is certifiably insane.
DC in ME
Joshua Norton
That’s been obvious since the day she walked off "Three’s Company" because she thought she should make more money than anyone else and have %10 ownership of the show. The producers listened to her demands and said "Sorry Suzanne. Send in the next blond".
She’s never been the same.
north_star
It seems to me that there are two distinct groups within the I hate Rick Warren memes being posted;
1: One is the group that says they hate Rick Warren and what he stands for, and hope this isn’t a preview of what is to come from Obama, and they will wait and see.
2: The other is a kind of hyperventilating, screeching hysteria from people who will insist this means Obama is a liar and will destroy the lives of all GLBT people everywhere, and most importantly; They Knew it All Along (Trademark Pending).
Some of this reminds me of the puma’s who insisted they were representing most people, and here I think we have the same. Going from Daily Kos, Huff Post, joemygod, pam’s house blend, bilirico etc, I see the same people posting over and over again.
I get it. I get the outrage, and I see why people don’t like Warren, but I am more than willing to wait and see what Obama does before I decide to slit my wrists.
Personally, I wish the response had been to welcome Warren, to stand up with our partners, husbands, wives, and say: "See? This is my family. Not a bunch of pedophiles. Real people who love each other, just like you love all beatiful women (queue Anne Curry horrified look)."
I feel like we have lost a chance here. A lot of people, I dare say a majority, feel some or all the way as Warren does, and I think by letting them in and seeing GLBT people as real human beings, maybe some will change.
Maybe. I know that people can change, racists, homophobes, haters of all kind, so why not Rick Warren?
jenniebee
@John Cole: Salazar is the pick for the interior.
Now granted, I’m a Park Service brat, so the Sec Int has actually figured large in my life, and I learned at my father’s knee to curse the name of James Watt and exult in the sunshine brought by Bruce Babbitt, but still… it’s not like in this age of global warming and "drill, baby, drill" the Sec Int isn’t a pretty big deal. Salazar is going to be in a spot to run things to benefit his friends in the mining and ranching industry – I suppose with his ranching connctions the small mercy here is that he’s up for Interior and not Agriculture – and… zomg Warren’s three minutes is a slap in the face!!!
Look, I can sympathize with feeling left out when the guy giving the prayer thinks you’re going to hell. I have to, I’m pretty sure Warren thinks my athiest ass is going to hell, too. We’re all in the same boat here with Warren, and coincidentally, we’re all in the same boat too with the economy and with the environment and with peak oil…
ThymeZoneThe Plumber
Psh. In my family, you learn to shrug off having people think you are going to hell pretty early. In my case, around age 4.
People need to grow up. If you are stupid enough to believe in heaven and hell, having some guy think you are going one way as opposed to the other might not be your most important problem.
jenniebee
In other news, this is a slap in the face.
Duke of Earl
The reaction from the gay community and some of the left to Warren was roughly as predictable as the fact that if you drop an anvil on your foot it will hurt. Warren is a homophobe (for lack of a better word, I don’t think he is afraid of gays), a sexist, a would-be theocrat and is at least somewhat anti-science.
Glenn Greenwald has pointed out many times that if a politician wishes to be taken as "Serious" by the pundits and the DC "Village" he must dis teh left. Glenn supports everything he says with documented facts and almost always impeccable logic.
This is just Obama establishing himself as "Serious" to the pundits and the DC Village by dissing teh gay, teh DFHs and teh "far left". Nothing brings joy to the heart of winguts more than the lamentations of liberals and Obama has caused considerable lamentation by libs.
Now that Obama has ritually dissed teh left, he now is less likely to be thought of as a "Kookinich" by the pundits and the Village, it gives him more maneuvering room and strengthens his cred.
Never mind that on issue after issue teh left has proven correct while the right and the pragmatic centrists have proven to be utterly and disastrously wrong, what matters in the Village is that you be Serious and no one who does not dis teh left is thought to be Serious.
Comrade Jake
OK. Now read Melissa Etheridge’s wife’s take on Warren:
This guy really does sound like a jerk, huh?
Joshua Norton
Because he’s paid not to. It’s as simple as that.
Laura W
@Comrade Jake: Had to go watch this again. Melissa comes in about 2:00, not that Joss Stone is anything to fast forward through.
Awesome.
Conservatively Liberal
Exactly what I have been thinking. When this first erupted, the possibility didn’t even cross my mind. But as this developed I noticed that the loudest howlers had a tendency to say that this proved Obama was an abject failure, that he had "spit" on the GLBT community and that they had voted for him because they expected change (while ignoring his very public stance on marriage). One thing I read a lot of at Hillaryis44, Swampdaughter’s Cornfluence (aka
PUMAStupid Central) and similar sites was quite a few GLBT’s saying that Hillary was The One who would stand up for them and that Obama would sell them out.Someone else here observed that infiltration and agitation was a favorite tactic of some (including our government) and that could be a possibility that some wingnuts are engaging in. It sure would fit in with the 101st Keyboarding Moran Brigade kind of ‘Special Ops’, one where you don’t actually have to put your life on the line.
I would bet that a large number of the noisemakers are due to a sudden influx of goatblowers and ratfuckers who have been waiting for an opportunity to cause some trouble. I have no problem with people expressing their anger but this was so over the top that it seemed more like a direct assault on Obama supporters with the intent being to drive down his support and make some bad press for him. Why would people attack those that support their position but disagreed that Warren speaking was the end of the world?
Because they willingly wanted to shoot themselves in the foot, possibly alienate supporters and make the fundies happy? It makes no sense unless this was deliberate.
Just my opinion but I am sticking to it.
Comrade Jake
@Laura W:
Yes, that was quite a performance.
Perry Como
@Comrade Jake: That’s a slap in the face.
Duke of Earl
@Conservatively Liberal:
At least on the sites I’ve been reading, the vocabulary, spelling and grammar are too good for me to readily believe that the great majority of people saying these things are freepers.
I’m seeing a great deal of outrage from long time posters with years and thousands of posts on board. If this is a false flag operation it must have been set up a long time ago, well before Obama was even a serious candidate.
In my experience freepers really aren’t that good at false flag posts, but of course YMMV.
Duke of Earl
@Comrade Jake:
Warren says he is “naturally inclined to have sex with every beautiful woman I see.”
And Melissa Etheridge’s partner looks like this .
Hmm..
Let’s also not forget that Warren is a politician of sorts and politicians are almost always warm and personable in person.
SGEW
@TheHatOnMyCat: Blog killer? Moi? Shucks.
. . .
Actually, now that I think about it, "Tha Blog Killer" is a pretty rocking D.J. name.
Tattoosydney
@Conservatively Liberal:
After reading various threads, I was inclined to agree… the reaction from a couple of posters was so extreme, and no matter how many people said "Look, I am gay or if I am straight I agree you should have equal rights, we just disagree on how to get there and how important the Warren thing is", the reaction stayed the same, until it fell to the level of calling anyone who disagreed an arsehole who didn’t understand what love was. It smelled of wignut ratfucker to me….
However, I am now inclining to the view that you shouldn’t blame the hysterical conversations on here on a wingnut conspiracy when it can be better explained by an over-emotional reaction, fuelled by lack of sleep, alcohol and a (justified?) persecution complex.
LiberalTarian
@Tattoosydney: Yeah, I love being fueled by alcohol. Lack of sleep and persecution complex? Not so much.
TenguPhule
If we could harness 1/10th of the vitrol directed at Obama and channel it at Bush, he’d be hanging in the Hague by now.
Conservatively Liberal
Tatoosydney, I do believe that some of the over-the-top outrage was from legit people and that is understandable too. It is just that some of the people seem to almost be deliberate in their attack and much of the same lines were said by some Hillary supporters prior to the election. That is what made some of this almost a deja vu thing for me.
Duke of Earl, while I agree that wingnuts usually have nothing in common with either spelling or being literate I also know that to turn our backs on the possibility that they might actually be learning something could be dangerous. Don’t be too dismissive of your enemy, especially when they are desperate. Necessity is the mother of invention, and if the monkeys play with the computer long enough then they just might discover how to use it. ;)
If anything, the more intelligent (well, the ones that can spell) wingnuts (a true rarity indeed) would try to do something like this. They are going to try and undermine Obama at every turn. Combine them with (the few, the loud) the PUMA’s then we are going to have real fun sorting out the faux Obama supporters from the real ones. One advantage with the PUMA asshats is that they all sound the same, thus my opinion that some of the latest noise is PUMA generated. Some of these Hillary supporters were gay and that would explain the legitimacy of the noise they were making (plus their spelling being better than a freeper), just that the way it went over the top was a tell for me. The way it was ‘over’ between them and Obama, that it was the end of their world. Too much.
One thought: I can think of any number of religious nuts that the fundies will follow like the Pied Piper, but I can’t think of one prominent gay rights leader (just off the top of my head). Maybe the reason the fundies have the upper hand is that the voices on the left are so disorganized that nothing of substance rises from the cacophony of voices that erupt in times like this. There is no ‘one voice’ leader that speaks for a large part of the GLBT community. Of course there will be groups within the GLBT community that disagree with the ‘leader’ and the majority of the ‘followers’ (for lack of a better word), much like the fundies have their smaller leaders in their own small splinters of their community.
Grassroots is good but there needs to be a way to focus that message and to reduce the cacophony so one clear message rings out. Intolerance breeds further intolerance, solving nothing. Noise is just that, noise. It does nothing if all that comes across is noise. Too many cooks spoil the broth, so to say.
Either way, this is shaping up to be a noisy first term for Obama (and us).
Duke of Earl
@TenguPhule:
If vitriol were water I’ve read enough aimed at bushie over the last eight years to refill the Med after the Miocene evaporation when the Gibraltar Straits were closed.
Duke of Earl
CL,
Regular liberals make cats look like sardines when it comes to herding them, gays are far more diverse in some ways even than that (think Log Cabin Repubs). I agree that a unified voice would be a great help but that’s about as likely as me flapping my arms and flying to Betelgeuse.
I didn’t totally discount the idea of this being a false flag op by freepers but I find it pretty unlikely, they may know how to use a computer but I have a six year old granddaughter that can do that about as well as my wife. Spelling and grammar on the other hand are subjects that if you don’t learn them fairly early on you are unlikely ever to master to any appreciable extent. English has so many homonyms, irregular verbs, homophones and just general irrationality that a spellchecker is only a minor help.
I suspect you’re right about PUMAs though, although I never could get my head wrapped around what people saw in Hillary.
north_star
OMG!!! Another scandal.
I just realized I used an apostrophe in pumas! Freepers, here I come! I hate when I do that. I need to spell check better.
tavella
It was a teaching moment, indeed; what Warren got taught was that he could lead the most vicious campaign, full of lies, to strip gays of their rights, and only seven weeks later he would get a big wet kiss from Obama and a prime position in his inauguration. He got taught that whatever noise Democrats make about gays, they don’t actually give a shit. He got taught that he can keep on just as he was, and not only will he get to oppress gays, he’ll get rewarded for it.
Chuck Butcher
I think we should put everything on hold and get a couple thousand years of religious thinking straightened out, NOW. Right Fucking Now.
I do not care in the least what the evidence of the Prop 8 campaign had to say about leaving Religion in a position of fear and doing little effectual work to defuse that. Nope, that there damn religion is about bigotry and we’ll just kick their teeth right on down their fucking throats. Not that it matters that they’ll bring a howitzer to blow our teeth kicking feet off.
Lets not even pay attention to how the deck stacks up. Heterosexuality is a real basic drive, it’s components involve a shit load of drivers in decision making processes. Now toss on top of that little difficulty, Religion. Anyone who has engaged in a theological dispute will attest to how futile it is to expect to get to fundamental changes through arguement.
There are, really, two approaches, one is to just ram right past these considerations and the other is to defuse them. The Prop 8 campaign is a huge warning flag about the run over them approach. In fucking California in an Obama election. So you all can take your best shots at fucking up an attempt to drive a wedge between Religious fear and the State and pat yourselves on your heads for being too principled to engage in politics and keep getting the same results. If victimhood is your thing it’ll all be good. Me? I like winning.
If you want to win, then do the fucking work and that is moving your foes off their ground. I don’t care what it is that you are entitled to, you don’t have it and won’t get it without doing the work. You can either get people to go along for their reasons or you can trust the Courts to do it for you. The deck is more stacked against you than race was, you may not like that, but you’ve got to beat that consideration to win.
Fucking Fuck. Symbolism is a huge deal, no shit. That is exactly what is in play here. Try to get it, that is exactly what is being done here in your interests. For YOU. There is exactly no other reason to do it, not one. Well, abortion and like that as well, all the symbols. Mr Cautious Double Dealer Obama is taking a big political risk to do this. For the Symbolism.
Hell, for a truely Machiavellian approach, your anger and despair may be the best tool. Nah, there’s already too much unreasoning fear going on.
(so I’ve just wasted a block of time I’ll never get back on an arguement that will just get ignored in favor of anger)
Tattoosydney
@Chuck Butcher:
Btw Chuck, Gus is adorable.
This is very true.
Comrade Jake
I don’t know Chuck, that was pretty fucking awesome if you ask me.
Comrade Jake
@Duke of Earl:
Yeah the quote is from her wife, so she’s describing Warren giving Melissa a huge hug, not herself. Jesus Christ.
He may very well be a politician of sorts, but I think some are way too quick to dismiss the possibility that he might be a halfway decent guy.
Conservatively Liberal
No shit, if that was a waste of time it was well wasted. Chuck, you said much better than I ever could have but will anyone who cares listen and act on it? I believe that Obama would not have made this move without first considering the ramifications of it. Right now, Obama is our guy holding the cards and as I see it the choice is either bet with him, bet against him or fold and stay out of it.
With his track record in bucking the system so far, I am willing to bet with Obama because for me there really is no other choice in the matter. Not at this time.
Duke of Earl
@Chuck Butcher:
Oh bullshit, address the points I’ve made about dissing teh left conferring Seriousness upon Obama by The Village.
Obama is doing this for himself, to boost his cred with The Village and help give him some maneuvering room to accomplish whatever it is he wishes to accomplish.
The fact I could post what I have on *this* board and basically be ignored means I’m almost certainly correct, there are a number of posters here who take great glee in telling someone when they have fucked up and I’ve not heard a peep.
If anti-homosexuality were a basic biological instinct then there would be no cultures in the history of mankind that accepted and tolerated gays, this is not the case, there are indeed cultures where homosexuals are not thought of as some sort of vermin, indeed there have been cultures where homosexual soldiers were thought of as the very finest and most fearsome warriors.
The Sacred Band of Thebes.
This bigotry is cultural, not biological and I frankly think Obama shares it to some extent, it’s hard to be the kind of god botherer he is and not absorb some of it via osmosis.
Duke of Earl
@Comrade Jake:
If he publicly recants his positions beforehand with regard to sexism and homophobia I would be delighted to see him give the invocation, now *that* would be some powerful symbolism. Frankly I think the chances of him doing that are extremely slim, he would lose far too much power and influence with his followers, he would be in large measure destroying himself.
Oh, and what are the odds that Etheridge’s partner also got a great big hug?
I fucking hate the hugging crap from people I don’t know, it’s the worst kind of faux friendliness.
bago
If he publically dismisses the role of an invocation, I would stand behind him not delivering the invocation. In the mean time you can nod to your sky-god, and I’ll keep my head up high, and acknowledge your apology.
Comrade Stuck
I’m wondering out loud, what possible thread topic could be introduced by Senor Cole that doesn’t immediately morph into a Warren/Obama one.
Duke of Earl
@Comrade Stuck:
It’s an issue where there are two diametrically opposed sides and at least one of them is heavily involved emotionally in their argument.
Judging by the posts of those who think Warren is no big deal I suspect that a few of them are kind of emotionally involved too.
Duke of Earl
@bago:
Not all Christians are anti-homosexual bigots so it’s not a necessary part of being a Christian, but I’m sure you know that.
Comrade Stuck
@Duke of Earl:
"Diametrically Opposed". Sorry, nope. One side is understandably emotionally involved. Not two. The other is just not that concerned with symbolism.
Conservatively Liberal
What if Obama is extending a hand to Warren not in the interest of instant change by him but rather to ‘invest’ in a possibility of change in the future. Warren got this ‘gig’ but for him to be considered a voice that Obama will listen to, Warren might have to tone down his act if he wants to think he has Obama’s ear. People have said that Obama is a chess player, I don’t know if he is but he sure moves like one. I would almost think that he is a poker player too. He ‘reads’ things/people before he moves. No, he does not walk on water but he is one of the most competent politicians I have seen in some time.
But then I could be completely wrong though right now I don’t think I am. Only time will tell and that means we need to give him some time (that and actually being in office would probably help a bit) to get something done. I think he needs to build some ‘cred’ with people who are not so sure about him, and that is not going to happen overnight. Screaming at and shouting down everyone who is viewed as the enemy is not going to help anyone or their cause, all it is going to do is make a bad situation worse.
As I see it, the GLBT community can either work with Obama or tell him to fuck off and strike out on their own to convince the rest of the nation of the justness of their cause. Short of the courts interceding and striking down marriage definition laws as they are implemented across the country, I do not see that going anywhere fast. Plus with the courts having been reloaded with fresh wingnut judges, I wouldn’t put much money, if any, on that route being very successful.
I would like to think that if I was gay that I too would be sick and tired of the shit and would like my rights given to me yesterday, so in that way I can understand the anger being expressed. If that were the case, I would also like to think that I would be willing to find some way that has the potential to work. Yelling and screaming at allies and foes alike is not going to do anything but make people sick and tired of listening, making them tune it out.
As Obama has clearly shown us all, organization and a good ground game gets the job done even when the odds are stacked against you. Obama is making his moves and if others are smart they will move to position themselves to take advantage of the opening Obama may offer them and their cause. Nobody is going to give anything to anyone for just demanding it, you either work from within the system or you don’t. The fundies know this and that is what has made them as successful as they have been. Their religion gives them an unfair advantage in playing the game, but you have to play the hand you are dealt and not the one you wish you were dealt. No it is not fair but I did not make the rules so don’t yell at me about it.
As I see it, either you get your game on, you stay out of it or you engage in a nationwide brawl that has little hope of winning and a greater chance of doing your movement harm. IMO, turning your backs on his inauguration is very unwise way to start out because you give the fundies the ammo to say ‘see! they are intolerant and they hate us!’ Yes, I know that they hate you but you are handing them a way to deflect that right back on to you.
You don’t win battles by handing the enemy ammo, you win them by using their own ammo against them. Obama is offering everyone a seat at the ‘table’ and Warren is accepting it.
Will you?
bago
@Duke of Earl: Not every Christian believes that shrimp are an abomination, but I’m sure you already knew that.
bago
Traditional marriage was pimpin.
Conservatively Liberal
De mod gawd done bit me post! Hep! ;)
Reverend Dennis
Depends on whether or not folks realize that nothing new has been added in the past six hundred posts on the topic.
Xenos
@Comrade Stuck:
Thus the lack of new posts, I think.
It says something about us as a people that we can’t stop arguing about this issue, though. Really stuck on anti-gay bigotry, what to do about it, how to handle reactionary opposition to expanding gay rights, and so on. I guess it is so personal and so topical at the same time. Maybe we are just edging up to the tipping point and enough of the public opinion will shift that it just won’t be an issue anymore, just like with official racism.
Meh. Even getting all meta can’t keep it from being a dull topic at this point. Either Obama will move the issue forward in the Inaugural Address, or it will drop from discussion for a couple years.
Comrade Jake
@Duke of Earl:
I’m trying not to laugh at this, but it is very hard.
Duke of Earl
@Comrade Jake:
I’ve been online since the days of 300 baud acoustic modems and I figured out fairly soon that the more powerful my post and the harder I hit my mark the fewer responses I get, particularly if I’m saying something that makes people uncomfortable but they can’t find anything wrong with it.
I’ve got the same basic comment running several places where people are quick to jump down your throat if they think you’re wrong and not a single reply telling me I’m wrong.
Go ahead, show me where I’m wrong.
Duke of Earl
@Comrade Stuck:
Diametrically opposed in that one side thinks Warren on the podium is a good thing and the other side thinks him being on the podium is anything but.
Both sides are claiming symbolism but they are diametrically opposed in the meaning of the symbolism.
Duke of Earl
@bago: Not every Christian believes that shrimp are an abomination, but I’m sure you already knew that.
Comrade Stuck
@Duke of Earl:
Wrong again. Most people don’t really care that much about a guy talking 3 minutes of pro forma religious speak, and have theorized that Obama is trying to use this symboilic appearance to fulfill a campaign promise of being inclusive. That is not the same as being for it, or that’s it’s necessarily a "good" thing. Most who have said it might help Obama politically would just as soon he not done it, if for no other reason to avoid the firestorm of "concerned Progressives".
No, one side is not opposed to the "meaning" of symbolism, they do believe, in light of Obama’s long standing support of the gay community, that in this case the ‘effect’ of symbolism is being exaggerated for mostly posturing reasons.
Duke of Earl
@Comrade Stuck:
Eh, Warren giving the invocation is obviously symbolic, I’ve read quite a few posts where people are claiming that the effect of the symbolism will be positive.
Do you deny that some think the symbolism will be positive?
Comrade Stuck
@Duke of Earl:
@Comrade Stuck:
I believe I said that. But not as a proactive forethought that he should have done it. More as an afterthought theory of why he did it.