The Washington Post is now giving room to outright bigot Tony Perkins to publish crap like this: “Christian compassion requires the truth about harms of homosexuality.” That’s from the “On Faith discussion with Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn,” an idea in and of itself that makes we want to swallow the barrel of a shotgun.
The reason the Washington Times failed was because having it and the Post was an exercise in redundancy exercise.
And here I had respected Fred Hiatt and Jackson Diehl so much.
[By the way, don’t forget that conservatives will still hate the Washington Post and label it as evil Commonist librulism.]
Like I said in an unrelated thread: first against the wall.
With apologies to hard-working prostitutes, these newspaper whores will fuck anyone who offers them money, or clicks, or an ever-disappearing piece of market share.
This is starting to make David Gregory look smart and left-wingy.
kommrade reproductive vigor
Since they gave space to Donohue, nothing surprises me. Hell, they’d let Osama bin Laden write a column if he threw in enough homophobia.
Not true. But the reason the Post is failing is because it is imitating the Times.
Yeah, there’s a diary at the top of the Wreck List at GOS about this right now. Fucking unbelievable. Can’t wait to hear the (1) silence and/or (2) praise from the ombudsman.
Hey, does this mean they’re bidding for Moonie money?
The damned liberal media strikes again!
By the way, that Perkins column ran on National Coming Out Day.
I look forward to the Post’s Christmas Day op-ed written by an atheist. Or a radical Muslim.
Gee, why not? It’d be “provocative”! It would “go against conventional widsom”! It would “spark lively discussion”!
Yeah, for some reason I can’t put my finger on, I don’t think they would do that.
Civil Rights activitists like NAACP are making the darkies too uppity. /1960
Women’s Lib groups like NOW keep tricking women into thinking they shouldn’t be in the kitchen. /1980
Who the fuck needs a time machine anymore?
I haven’t read that cesspool for more than two years now. I could respect a full service wingnut rag like the W. Times, but these sewer trout, fuzzy liberal vichy dem types, opining on moral substance from hate mongers makes me want to go urban guerilla, with a pocket full of arthritis meds.
Wonder what the market model will be for breathing air.
I think these two excerpts are the most abhorrent of all the filth in his diatribe:
That’s right. The most important thing you can give to LGBT individuals is the hope that a savior who thinks their existence is inherently terrible and disgusting, will somehow forgive them for being terrible creatures.
That he created. For the sole purpose making terrible and then hating them, I guess?
Pretty damn low.
Clearly…if Obama had used the bully pulpit.
It would be nice if the newspapers would just go ahead and die quietly and quickly, instead of thrashing around and wrecking the place as they go ungently into that good night.
OT bu somewhat related:
Judge Orders Injunction on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’
Jack Steuf at Wonkette has some …uh… fun with this. He includes comparisons with crazy Bryan Fischer.
Meanwhile, in the annals of people who actually have power:
Obama Justice Department Weighs Appeal in ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Case
Obama’s administration is considering an appeal of this decision? Gee, I wonder why so many Democrats are not enthusiastic about their party these days.
EDIT: Damn it, Iwekam! hehe
@Mark S.: I’ve been hearing that argument a lot lately from the wingnut crowd. Apparently gay teens commit suicide not because of the evangelicals who tell them they’re freaks, but because of the liberals who tell them they’re normal.
kommrade reproductive vigor
Really, skip the article. There isn’t anything in it you haven’t heard a billion times before. You can check the comments if you want to see people telling the Post it sucks
@Rick Massimo: I can’t wait for the rousing defense of slavery on MLK Day.
@Oscar Leroy: Your link is about a month old.
I know this has been said many times, but don’t these people get that the corollary of this argument is that being hetreosexual is also a choice?
But maybe that’s what they
believefear (on some level) and why they’re so uncomfortable around homosexuality.
OT: Beyond birtherism: This article linked to at C&L has to be seen to be believed. Be sure to check out the comments.
ETA: The link no longer seems to be on the C&L post. If you’re interested, you can get to it through the link she now has posted.
@Oscar Leroy: How many times do we have to go through with this? It is the job of the Justice department to defend extant US law. It isn’t a value judgment on Obama’s part, it is just the duty of the administration to defend the law of the land.
As Nancy Pelosi reportedly said, “A woman’s place is in the House.”
Wile E. Quixote
You know, I must be doing it wrong Because the idea of an ““On Faith discussion with Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn,” doesn’t make me want to swallow the barrel of a shotgun, it makes me want to shove a shotgun into Meacham and Quinn’s mouth like a big, black cock of death and BOOOOOOM!
Sort of on topic: this is an interesting read, looking at gay/straight differences in behavior on an online dating site. For starters,
His administration doesn’t have to defend this policy at all. But it probably will, because Obama wants to be gradual and pragmatic and other garbage like that. He wants Congress to do it, because. . . well, just because. And hey, maybe winning seats in this election will make the Republicans more cooperative! That’s an intelligent thing to believe, right?
Sorry, but Greenwald is wrong on this one. Meacham can never replace Bill Moyers.
Update: That was humor, btw. Or, attempted humor. I’ve met Meacham personally, he’s a douche.
@Oscar Leroy: yeah, I’m sure letting DADT fall via courts is the panacea that will score victory for the Democrats.
Or, mor realistically, it will lead to whiners complaining courts had to do it, not him, and he still hasn’t repealed DOMA so no money or votes for Democrats.
Non sequitur department now heard from machine tools.
@Oscar Leroy: No, actually, this is kind of clear and you are just flat out wrong. Every administration has an obligation to defend the laws of the land. To not do this would lead to absolute lawlessness. We would turn the rule of law from “this applies to everyone” to “this applies when this party is in power, but now when this party is in power.”
You’re just wrong. It is kind of why they refer to the Attorney General as the chief law “ENFORCEMENT” officer of the United States. You were around during the Bush years, weren’t you?
Why, exactly, do you think many Democrats are unenthusiastic about this coming election?
kommrade reproductive vigor
@John Cole: and the DoJ did this and lost. They do not have to appeal. That is a choice. It isn’t necessarily up to Obama, although, if the Pres wants it and it isn’t illegal, most AGs do what the Pres wants
Smiley: I thought you were joking… Lord. I hope the sun is definitely over the yardarm somewhere in the world, because I really, really need a drink.
@John Cole: It is not obvious to me that the Government has an obligation to appeal every adverse decision. They certainly have discretion not to take an appeal from the Circuit Court level to the Supreme Court. I haven’t seen a definitive answer on this point.
because the party in power is always unenthusiastic about midterms.
But Gallup, for example, showed Dems are actually not much less enthused than they were in 2008, and are more enthused this year than they have been for any midterm since, I think, 1986. The enthusiasm gap comes from an unprecedented level of enthusiasm from Republicans.
@Wile E. Quixote: Next week, Billy Ray Cyrus!
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
Does Christian compassion also require the truths about the harmful effects of the bastardization of Christianity that these people are running around spouting?
Also, when Roberts decides that DADT is perfectly constitutional – and he will, because he can find a constitutional reason to not feel icky – then what?
I’m a Buddhist. Unlike many of our dear Christian friends I’ve read the Bible twice, the first time straight up and the second with the help of other books of commentary and explication. Now a recent survey found that non-Christians know more about Christianity than most of its own adherents but, it’s hard to understand how the gay bashers could miss something on the very first page of the Old Testament:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
I just looked through three different versions of the Old Testament and I didn’t find the words “Except the gays,” in Genesis 1:27 in any of them.
@Oscar Leroy #33:
Because they aren’t paying attention and have unrealistic expectations of what the government can or should do.
“U.S. Department of Justice attorneys have 60 days to appeal.” What happens if they don’t appeal in 60 days? Do they get 60 more days? Seriously, what would happen?
How did that happen? Was it the Constitution, which says the courts are an equal branch to the Executive?
“Legal experts say the Obama administration could choose to not appeal her ruling to end the ban”
That’s not my opinion, that’s what the Associated Press writes. If they are wrong, say why they are wrong.
@Oscar Leroy: Because they have not been paying attention to the GOP’s use of the filibuster and/or they dont want to concede that it matters as much as it really does.
I am unenthusiastic about a party that has blanche lincoln and ben nelson and the like, and I am modestly enthusiastic that we have made progress on some issues, and I am way enthusiastic about keeping the nuts from getting the keys to the car.
Similarly, i am not enthused about some of obama’s decisions (drone killings; rendition, etc), more enthusiastic about others, such as HCR (though not satisfied), still more enthusiastic about Ledbetter, and ecstatic that i dont hear about “President McCain.”
It is all about perspective.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Steve: Don’t some decisions like this only apply in the jurisdiction of the court? Or does this apply nationally since it’s a federal law?
So *That’s* what he was yelling! Well I’ll be.
@Belafon (formerly anonevent): The DOJ argued it should apply only in the Ninth Circuit. The court disagreed, in a lengthy opinion, and issued a nationwide injunction.
I don’t think there are words I can use even in impolite company to describe how this makes me feel. I would love the Post to give me a chance to write an Editorial on Christmas about the joys in burning down Nativity Scenes and harassing Christians till they choose to commit suicide.
@Wile E. Quixote:
God, do I miss Bill Hicks these days.
I feel sorry for Alison Stewart, the truly accomplished, versatile reporter who co-hosts a PBS show with Meacham. She must roll her eyes through that thing as she surely did during breaks in the MTV news telecasts she & Serena Altschul used to struggle to make meaningful.
Stewart would make a better White House correspondent than Chuck Todd, who always looks like he’s come from a rave…
Yeah, they don’t have to appeal, but it leads to weird results if they don’t. It would be a little odd if DADT was unconstitutional in the 9th Circuit but constitutional in, say, the 4th.
Of course, it would all be moot if the stupid Senate would just repeal the damn thing.
They paid attention in 2008. I wonder why they stopped.
I’m sure that if Democrats decide to start paying attention, and see that Obama is fighting a decision to end Don’t Ask Don’t Tell–and most Americans think it should end–they will become more enthusiastic about working to elect Democrats, right?
@Mark S.: The injunction binds the Government anywhere and everywhere.
@Oscar Leroy: Democrats actually exhibit normal levels of enthusiasm for a midterm election. The idea that Democrats are unenthusiastic is based upon a misinterpretation of the data and a fact-free MSM narrative.
In the overall mix of factors which cause people to be enthusiastic or unenthusiastic, it is hard for me to imagine that the decision whether to appeal the DADT decision swings more than a handful of voters either way.
I was unaware the US Govt had an obligation to appeal every court ruling that held an existing law was unconstitutional.
So that’s two things I’ve learned here today.
This is a transparent attempt to make people long nostalgically for the days when “On Faith” was about which of Sally Quinn’s family members got invited to which family social events and which didn’t.
Personally, I’ll take Tony Perkins.
@John Cole: They needed to defend the lawsuit. They do not need to file an appeal.
No doubt back during the first and second centuries AD, that same compassion would have required the truth about the harms of Christianity — harms like being put to death, the fear of being put to death, claustrophobia from spending all that time in those tiny little catacombs trying not to be put to death, etc., etc.
And it would absolutely not have required blaming any of this on the Roman Empire.
@Steve: Um, how can it?
Well, apparently not in this case. But in general, yes, one circuit doesn’t have to follow the other circuits’ decisions. For instance, ten or so years ago the 5th Circuit ruled that affirmative action was unconstitutional. The Supremes declined to take that case, so for a couple of years, AA was illegal in the 5th Circuit and legal everywhere else.
@gwangung: Because the Government is a named party and has been ordered not to do something.
If Judge O’Donnell enters an injunction ordering you to stop masturbating, you can’t just cross the state line and start whacking off. You are bound by the injunction, wherever you go.
@Steve: Confusing, since this is the sort of thing that CAN be averted by going across district court lines.
I am unsure about the relevance of the government being named, given the lines of court jurisdiction.
@Steve: You know what? I’m going back out of a discussion, because I apparently don’t know squat (and you may quite justifiably claim that you know more than me).
I’m not even sure what the best course of action is…let it stand and cite the need for qualified people or appeal, and using an argument broad enough to preclude any future use of DADT (because it’d be silly to think a future Republican administration wouldn’t try it).
@gwangung: Well, all I’m saying is that the issue was fully briefed and argued by the parties, and the court specifically ruled that the injunction would be nationwide, and not just in her district or circuit. The propriety of that ruling is for someone else to determine.
@Steve: Yeah, that’s the part I don’t understand…I don’t understand why that’s allowable, given the usual stuff about court jurisdiction (though it may just need an explanation from a legal scholar).
@gwangung: Some excerpts from the court’s ruling:
Because the election is over.
This has been “Simple answers to stupid questions”
@Steve: Ah. OK. So you SHOWED that you know more than me.
Unlike with radical right wingers, that works with me.
You know, Oscar, I didn’t get a chance to check back and get an answer to my question the last time I asked this. Are you an American voter, or a Canadian? Because it seems awfully odd to me that you’re obsessed enough with an obscure Canadian sitcom that airs in only a few American markets to name yourself after one of its characters if you’re actually an American.