Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

White supremacy is terrorism.

Do not shrug your shoulders and accept the normalization of untruths.

“Jesus paying for the sins of everyone is an insult to those who paid for their own sins.”

Accountability, motherfuckers.

Republicans do not pay their debts.

Yeah, with this crowd one never knows.

Everybody saw this coming.

Motto for the House: Flip 5 and lose none.

And we’re all out of bubblegum.

JFC, are there no editors left at that goddamn rag?

… riddled with inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact

They are lying in pursuit of an agenda.

Consistently wrong since 2002

It may be funny to you motherfucker, but it’s not funny to me.

I did not have this on my fuck 2022 bingo card.

Why is it so hard for them to condemn hate?

Pessimism assures that nothing of any importance will change.

Balloon Juice has never been a refuge for the linguistically delicate.

They fucked up the fucking up of the fuckup!

Republicans don’t want a speaker to lead them; they want a hostage.

Republicans in disarray!

Not all heroes wear capes.

The poor and middle-class pay taxes, the rich pay accountants, the wealthy pay politicians.

Imperialist aggressors must be defeated, or the whole world loses.

You are here: Home / Whenever I think of the early 90’s your face comes up with a vengeance like it was yesterday

Whenever I think of the early 90’s your face comes up with a vengeance like it was yesterday

by | 172 Comments

This post is in: ,

What annoys me most about the punditocracy is not that they are wealthy sociopaths committed to keeping 99% of the country down but that they use the same shopworn rhetorical devices over and over again.

One of the 80s/90s New Republic crowd’s favorite tricks was attacking liberals as hypocrites and liars. You know the drill: “I’m a liberal and I agree that Republicans shouldn’t do X but when Democrats criticize Republicans for doing X in this language they’re being hypocritical, unserious etc”. It’s a basic, badly dated contrarian/centrist rhetorical trope that long ago lost its power to delight all but the most Snooze Hour-addled totebaggers.

Michael Kinsley dredges it up here to tell liberals they are wrong to call someone a homophobe just because that someone opposes marriage equality. His attempt to construct a straw man is weak — he claims that Johns Hopkins made Ben Carson feel “unwelcome” as commencement speaker just because Carson opposes marriage equality. In fact, he was made to feel unwelcome because he compared homosexuality to bestiality; I’m sure everyone already knew he opposed marriage equality since he was known to be a conservative Christian when he was asked to be commencement speaker. Furthermore, until a few years ago, hardly any Democratic politicians supported marriage equality and liberals (even gay liberals) voted for them anyway.

So what we have is a completely failed attempt to shoehorn this into iberals-are-the-real-hypocrites. Why is liberals-are-the-real-hypocrites so appealing, even 20 years after its hey day among TNRers? I don’t get it.

Kinsley tries desperately to be hip, telling teh kidz that he commissioned the first piece supporting marriage equality. Also too, he has that goatee now.

Even if liberals are being dishonest in some way by calling anti-gay marriagers homophobes, so what? If supporters of gay rights think they can advance their cause by calling people homophobes, then why shouldn’t they do it? This is real life, where millions of Americans want equal rights, not some airy-fairy Harvard dining hall debate.

My guess, though — and maybe I’m giving the next generation of Slatesters/TNRers too much credit here — is that even in Harvard dining halls, 90s TNR rhetorical tricks have gone out of fashion.

Reader Interactions

172Comments

  1. 1.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    If there is a single logical, rational argument against gay marriage, I’ve never heard it. All the arguments I have heard come back to “tradition”, and if that isn’t just a way of saying “I may have gay friends, but it still isn’t… normal“, and if that isn’t homophobia, somebody’s gonna have to explain the distinctions to me.

    Kinsley tries desperately to be hip, telling teh kidz that he commissioned the first piece supporting marriage equality

    My favorite example of this kind of ubertote-baggery is Joe Klein, who when people point out his obsession with teachers’ unions and gutting the social safety net retreats to “I’m not a liberal? I attended mygoodfriend Andy Sullivan’s wedding!” I almost wish Klein were more TV friendly. he has a thin-skinned, prissy self-righteousness that can be all kinds of fun.

  2. 2.

    PeakVT

    Why is liberals-are-the-real-hypocrites so appealing, even 20 years after its hey day among TNRers? I don’t get it.

    There’s a double standard being applied here. Liberals are expected to be rational, and are punished when they are not. Conservatives are not expected to be rational, and are rewarded when they are. Don’t ask me why, that’s just what I’ve observed.

  3. 3.

    MomSense

    “Why is liberals-are-the-real-hypocrites so appealing, even 20 years after its hey day among TNRers? I don’t get it.”

    Projection.

  5. 5.

    Maude

    I don’t miss the 90’s at all. All the garbage of pundits then. Now they are just fools.
    So self important.

  10. 10.

    Lurking Canadian

    I’ve read this twice and I don’t get it. In what sense could it be “hypocritical” for liberals to call homophobes “homophobes”? Is he saying that liberals let other liberals get away with opposing gay marriage, but complain when conservatives do it, or something? is it a “tolerate intolerance” thing?

    This is a charge of “hypocrisy” that is even harder for me to understand than the “hypocrisy” of rich people saying rich people should pay higher taxes.

  11. 11.

    Amir Khalid

    Being against marriage equality might not make you a monster, but I’d reckon that by 21st century American standards it certainly makes you a bigot.

  13. 13.

    Corner Stone

    There’s just something really off about MSNBC contributor Irin Carmon.

  16. 16.

    jl

    RIP Willis, first off. I still miss him. (edit: and his dachshund!)
    But, what are these Hammer pants I hear about from time to time?
    Hammer wore these funny pants on stage and they were a fad, is that right?
    I guess it’s my bad, I never paid much attention to MC Hammer.

  18. 18.

    Corner Stone

    @MikeJ: Calibre has failed on 23 out of 25 epub docs.
    iPad won’t recognize the epubs so I’m shoving them into mobi for a Kindle app.

  19. 19.

    Hunter Gathers

    I call people who are against gay marriage homophobes and bigots because I can’t use the word ‘asshole’ in polite company.

  20. 20.

    Zapruder F. Mashtots, D.D.S. (Mumphrey, et al.)

    Shit, it’s just that these oh-so reasonable, moderate, Burkean assholes don’t like hippies, and it seems hippieish to get all upset about the lack of some rights for gays. Any time some liberal gets upset, it makes them think of hippies, and they really hate hippies. It’s unseeemly; hippies are unseemly.

    I’ve beaten this dead horse into the ground, but I really think that David Broder’s soul-searing experience at the 1968 Democratic Convention really is at the root of all this. I wish some historian or sociologist or somebody would do a thorough study of, 1: How Broder’s shock at the way those filthy, ragged hippies made a mess in his dear old hometown of Chicago fucked his mind over so badly that he could never look at liberalism in any way without seeing the scaaaaaaary-ass hippies; and 2: How Broder’s outsized reputation influenced a generation of these blowhards.

    Of course another thing in this instance is just plain old priviledge. When shallow people don’t have to deal with shit that some marginalized group does, they can’t for the life of them understand why it’s anything to get so upset about, and they resent the out-groups making a fuss about shit that makes them feel awkward. I mean it’s like how 50 years ago, perfectly nice people who didn’t call anybody “nigger” just didn’t understand why those people had to be so damned pushy about all these civil rights and make all the nice white people feel bad.

  21. 21.

    Poopyman

    Call me pedantic, but phobia means a fear of something, and the great majority of these assholes aren’t especially afraid of homosexuality, they’re just mean sons of bitches.

  22. 22.

    Chris

    @efgoldman:

    “Rational” is a really low bar. I think he meant things like Chris Christie accepting Obama’s aid and giving him credit for it. Really basic stuff, but more than your basic Gooper will go for in this day and age.

  27. 27.

    Corner Stone

    Speaking of crazy asses, huge thanks to Buffalo for taking Mario Williams off our hands. For a $100M or so.
    How’z that hopey changey thing working out for ya?

  31. 31.

    MikeJ

    @Corner Stone: Epub files that your reader and calibre both choke on sounds like really bad files. I’ve had good luck with bad epubs by converting (in calibre) to straight text and then back to epub. Next to worst case scenario, I use Sigil to fix the problems and rebuild them.

    Absolute worst case, I’ve written python scripts to fix them, but that’s a huge pain in the ass. My preferred solution then would have been telling the idiot that made them to do it again, but it wasn’t an option.

  32. 32.

    El Cid

    They see themselves as the extreme limit of liberalism. Anyone lefter than they are is a threat and a violation and has to be illegitimate.

    So Michael Kinsley can tut-tut about how bloody our allies are in Guatemala, as he did during the 1980s, but still support Reagan helping his genocidal friends get down to the business of bashing babies’ heads with sledgehammers for FREEDOM because it’s better than what he imagines the alternative to be, i.e., letting “Communism” and the Soviet Union take over the Southern Hemisphere, because even thought that’s the product of a hallucinating, diseased, addled, propaganda-breathing mind, hey, he’s Michael Kinsley, and you’re not.

  34. 34.

    jl

    @Poopyman: Thank you. I liked Steve Gilliard.
    But I also like Willis, so why have I not been reading him?

    I guess because not enough time to read all the good political bloggers out there.

    All right then, glad Willis is OK! and I will remember to check in with his blog again.

    Now, which of those two owns/ed a dachshund?

    Sorry for the distraction.

  36. 36.

    jl

    @Mr Stagger Lee: Oh, those things were Hammer pants? I thought they were just stupid baggy pants he wore. I guess no one wore them around where I lived in the 90s. Damn, a whole fad went over my head and I had no clue. I am so out of it.

    thanks.

  38. 38.

    James E. Powell

    Something makes me believe that the need to write these “liberals are the real . . .” columns is connected with the need to be invited to those parties where people use summer and winter as verbs.

  39. 39.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    Kinsley has been bought and sold so many times now he doesn’t know who he works for.

  40. 40.

    Nemo_N

    I propose a new post category: “Andrew Sullivan reading Corinthians at Niall Ferguson’s wedding”, to be used every time someone tries to claim they are not bigots based on some relationship to a person or, in this case, a magazine article.

  41. 41.

    p.a.

    TNR-type liberals are like the Bourbons according to Marx (no, not Groucho): “They forget nothing, yet they learn nothing.”(apocryphal?)

  43. 43.

    Chris

    @Nemo_N:

    I wonder if any slave owners ever tried that line? I can see it now: “How can I be a racist? All my slaves are black!”

  44. 44.

    kwAwk

    I actually read the Kinsey article this time and came back with the same response. I’m kinda on Kinsey’s side on this one again.

    Nowhere in the article does he call anybody hypocrites or the like, he’s just asks for a little class and grace among the victors.

  45. 45.

    Lurking Canadian

    @Chris: If I had anything against Black people, would I let Mammy care for my precious white babies?

  49. 49.

    Goblue72

    @kwAwk: why show any magnanimity to those who’ve demonstrated so little in return over the last several decades? They fight with no honor and so deserve none in return. To the dishonorable, we feed to the crows.

  50. 50.

    Amir Khalid

    @kwAwk:

    In fact, he [Carson] was made to feel unwelcome because he compared homosexuality to bestiality;

    Is it really graceless or lacking in class to call such a person a homophobe? I would regard it as calling a spade a spade. (And no, before anyone suggests it, I’m not using a racist epithet on Dr Carson.)

  51. 51.

    Goblue72

    @Amir Khalid: I’d go further. I’d call it bearing witness to the truth.

    If homophobes don’t want to be called out as homophobes by those bearing witness, maybe they should stop, you know, being homophobes.

  52. 52.

    imonlylurking

    A little help, please-my roommate just came home with a 15-year old Husky, clearly a mix because he is HUGE. He has filmy eyes and his rear legs are shaky. I haven’t had to care for a dog in decades and my roommate has never had a dog-a little advice please? He is very calm. Doesn’t care about the cats at all. (They are not amused.) Right now he is sitting on the couch next to me looking out the window.

  53. 53.

    jl

    Now that I have become somewhat more oriented. I read Kinsley’s piece.

    What should be the (edit: correct ‘liberal’) response to to complete BS? Is it OK to pile on Kinsley?

    As at least one commenter mentioned above, simply being opposed to gay marriage is a lot different that comparing it to pederasty and bestiality. How are those comparisons not slurs? Is there any evidence at all that being gay has anything in common with those things?

    Kinsley implies that gay marraige was some new idea in that late 80s, and had something to do with an article Sullivan wrote. That is alternative history. Weren’t the Democrats worrying about whether they should take a position on that in the 70s.

    Gay rights movement hasn’t been heavily committed to broadening coverage of hate crime laws?

    Kinsley is too vague about what exactly is the problem with the over reaction to Carson’s statements.

    And even too vague about the one thing Carson had going for him in his comments: good ideas for fruit salad.

    I think this may be a case of Brooksitis, which I cynically think is common among our pundits: deadline coming plus blank page equals gibberish.

  55. 55.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    Maybe Kinsley has his tote bag around his neck instead of his shoulder and it’s cutting off oxygen to his brain.

  56. 56.

    kwAwk

    @Amir Khalid:

    A big part of Kinsey’s point is that the concept of gay marriage is a relatively new one, less than 25 years old and it is a concept that I’m not aware of every having existed in any culture before.

    Perhaps it is a little early to ostracize anyone and everyone who isn’t comfortable with the idea yet.

  57. 57.

    Roger Moore

    @Poopyman:
    I’m not so sure that the homophobes are just haters and not genuinely afraid of gays. I think many of them are genuinely afraid that gays want to rape them, or make passes at them or will somehow sap and impurify their precious bodily fluids undermine their masculinity.

  59. 59.

    Violet

    Hammer pants are back in fashion. Have you not seen a picture of the Bieber lately? The 90’s are back, baby!

  66. 66.

    Roger Moore

    @kwAwk:

    Nowhere in the article does he call anybody hypocrites or the like, he’s just asks for a little class and grace among the victors.

    We aren’t victorious while inequality is the rule anywhere in the Union. Until equality is the law everywhere, we’re still fighting, and the rules of the fight still apply. Kick the fuckers while they’re down, and keep kicking until they can’t get up.

  67. 67.

    The Very Reverend Crimson Fire of Compassion

    A little class and grace among the victors? I’m sorry, are you delusional or just fucking stupid? These are the same vicious, hypocritically pious rabid bigots who cheered while we died by the thousands, and the hundreds of thousands, who praised their God in public for every new instance of suffering and torture inflicted on us, who laughed over the corpses of those we loved, and celebrated every death from among our number as evidence that God loved them and was finally cleaning out the sub-human vermin from among them. The political consciousness of LGBT people is in large part the product, not only of prejudice and legalized oppression, but of the very concrete experience of the AIDS crisis, in which the best response middle America could manage was indifference, and which these same moral cretins lauded as proof that a drooling, psychotic hate-filled sociopath just like themselves was in charge of the universe. I was there, motherfucker. I saw these people. I spoke to them, and heard their joy in our death and suffering, which they did every conceivable thing in their power to ensure would be as brutal, humiliating, and graceless as they could possibly manage. And now, now that their “cross” consists of the growing realization that using the word “faggot” in polite conversation is becoming as significant a tell for bigotry as any of the other now-considered impolite language of American history, you want me to be gracious and demonstrate some “class”. Sorry, I used all mine up comforting the dying while those assholes crowed. Fuck off and die in a fire.

  69. 69.

    imonlylurking

    And he stinks! Apparently he was being fed the cheapest dog food the owner could find.

  70. 70.

    Ruckus

    @kwAwk:
    …he’s just asks for a little class and grace among the victors.

    We will continue to show him all the class and grace he deserves. Not one fucking bit.

  72. 72.

    jl

    @Roger Moore:

    Thanks, that’s an important point. It’s another thing that I didn’t like about the article. Exactly how is anyone who is for more humane marriage and family law, and better hate crimes legislation victorious right now? A few states have passed reforms, and in some places hate crime law covers people getting beat up and killed because they are gay. but most of the country? No way.

    But for people like Kinsley, who live in a milieu where there is general sympathy for the cause, and maybe serious difficulties are rare for people he knows, I guess that is good enough for him to declare victory.

    It’s kind of like saying that citizens of of the Soviet Union were victorious when most people didn’t believe in it anymore, and in some republics, no one gave a shit or were bothered by the old oppression, but the old repressive system lumbered on in most places.

    But, hey, why didn’t reformers declare victory in 1986 and quite complaining and causing trouble and embarrassing people? It was so graceless and impolite.

  73. 73.

    The Very Reverend Crimson Fire of Compassion

    @kwAwk: Yeah, the limits of your awareness really should be the defining parameters of acceptable social discourse. Quick history lesson, dipshit. Gay marriage has been the norm in a vast number of societies over the centuries. Don’t worry about needing to educate yourself on the topic before pontificating about it, however. Your (and others’) “discomfort” with my right to be treated on an equal footing with my fellow citizens should totally be the determining consideration of the entire topic.

  76. 76.

    Amir Khalid

    @kwAwk:
    The concept of legal marriages for gay people is relatively new, true. Gay people living as de facto married couples, and wishing they too could be de jure married, have been around as long as gay people themselves.

    You’re luckier than I, living as you do in a country where de jure gay marriage is gaining ground because it’s recognised as simple justice. If you wanted to ostracise Malaysians who reject gay marriage, you’d have to ostracise most of us, and you wouldn’t end up persuading anyone to accept it. But, as DougJ notes, Dr Carson is being ostracised not for rejecting gay marriage, but for likening gayness to bestiality — a plainly homophobic statement.

  77. 77.

    Redshift

    @kwAwk:

    Nowhere in the article does he call anybody hypocrites or the like, he’s just asks for a little class and grace among the victors.

    Twelve states and DC have full marriage equality. Twenty-nine states have any form of same-sex marriage or civil unions banned by law and twenty-four of those have constitutional amendments banning it. Declaring “victory” and calling for an end to tactics that have helped move the ball is yet another demonstration of the privilege that is the basis for so much of Kinsley’s attitude. It’s legal in the Northeast and probably will be soon in California, so what’s the big deal, right?

    We have a tremendous amount of crap in this country because it’s deemed important to be polite to people who just happened to be by their own free choice on the wrong side of history, no matter the actual harm, not hurt feelings, that their actions have caused. We are much better off making it clear sooner that “polite company” means that overt racism, bigotry, sexism, homophobia and the like are unacceptable, not that we tolerate them for another generation or two to be “polite.” I accept that there will always be people raised in a time when these things were acceptable, and it may be difficult for them to change the way they feel, but it shouldn’t be difficult for them to learn to shut up about it.

    (And honestly, I don’t have that much sympathy for how difficult it is. I was exposed to people who were openly racist growing up, though fortunately I wasn’t raised that way. However, homophobia was certainly pervasive among the people I associated with through my teen years, and I had no trouble getting over that.)

  78. 78.

    imonlylurking

    @kwAwk: No.

    I live in a state which used to have civil unions, until the Republicans used it as a get-out-the-vote wedge issue. They then crowed about it for years-until they lost the fight to enshrine their bigotry into the constitution. I will show them class and grace when they admit to using the lives and loves of people-actual living, breathing, loving people-as pawns to gin up their troops.

    An apology wouldn’t hurt, either. I suspect that would be seen as rubbing it in by the bigots (yes, I call them bigots, get over it).

  80. 80.

    Roger Moore

    @jl:

    But for people like Kinsley, who live in a milieu where there is general sympathy for the cause, and maybe serious difficulties are rare, I guess that is good enough for him to declare victory.

    For somebody like Kinsley who is mostly a bystander, and who works in milieu where it’s largely a settled issue, talking about it is boring. Can’t we start talking about something else that doesn’t make his homophobic friends feel awkward? It’s straight privilege through and through.

  81. 81.

    Bill E Pilgrim

    Michael Kinsley’s writing had a theme this week, which was the courage of Michael Kinsley, an almost unbelievably courageous courage, first in standing virtually alone in supporting the contractionary expansion of austerity during an economic slump when almost no one else is doing so, and next that he was the first person, ever, to publicly support gay marriage.

    The other theme of course is that both claims are, in the immortal words of Colonel Potter, complete horse hockey.

    there were lawsuits claiming that bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional that made it to state appellate courts in Minnesota, Kentucky, and Washington between 1971 and 1974.

  82. 82.

    jonas

    If Kinsley is upset that people like Dr. Carson get called a bigot for their opposition to gay rights, it’s because there are no arguments against gay marriage that don’t boil down — at some point — to just thinking gay people are icky and wrong, just as there are no arguments for country club or resort restrictions that have any other justification than out-and-out anti-Semitism. It’s not possible, pace Kinsley, to argue that “I believe gay people should enjoy the same dignity and rights as every other citizen in this country — I just can’t abide their getting married.” You have to concede at some point that you *don’t* in fact think gay people are equal because of the Bible or something and yes, that’s a kind of bigotry, I’m sorry.

  84. 84.

    jl

    @The Very Reverend Crimson Fire of Compassion: I was going to make the same point. Long same sex partnerships that were some kind of marriage or other are as old as the human race. Maybe we don’t see that now so clearly after Christianity and general repressive social attitudes have been over snoopy about what people did in their private lives for decades, maybe over 100 years now.

    I think many legal and financial issues are new, especially as our society continues to take equal rights more seriously, and what equal rights entail become more complicated what with insurance and retirement benefits and legalities of medical care rights become more complex. But that is a different issue.

    But if your worldview makes the 1950s, or say since the Victorian age, the arbiter of what has always been, then maybe things look different.

    Cripes, I was reading about Pres Buchanan maybe being gay, and even back in the 1850s, people were not as uptight.

    Same-Sex Unions throughout Time
    A History of Gay Marriage
    http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html

  85. 85.

    JPL

    Who cares what Kinsley thinks!
    BTW there is a horse race on TV. I’ve only been to a horse race event when I lived in LA and truthfully, I wish I had brought a book. It was pretty boring.

  86. 86.

    MattR

    @imonlylurking: I think the first step is to get him to a vet. Or maybe that is step two after having a chat with your roommate about his/her responsibilities regarding the dog.

  89. 89.

    Poopyman

    @MattR:

    I think the first step is to get him to a vet. Or maybe that is step two after having a chat with your roommate about his/her responsibilities regarding HER dog.

    Corrected for emphasis (and gender).

  90. 90.

    Redshift

    @jl:

    I think many legal and financial issues are new, especially as our society continues to take equal rights more seriously, and what equal rights entail become more complicated what with insurance and retirement benefits and legalities of medical care rights become more complex. But that is a different issue.

    It’s also a product of the big expansion of the middle class in the past century. Legal marriage is fundamentally about inheritance. (Which is also why, contrary to the arguments of many poorly-informed people all the way to the top of the religious right, it was not “a religious institution from the beginning.”) Until recently, the vast majority of people in any society owned nothing, so there was no reason for them to have a legal marriage; hence it was only for the nobility and the rich.

  91. 91.

    imonlylurking

    @MattR: She’s going to get his vet records before that. And we will be having that chat, simply because we split up the duties for the cats and I need to be sure what she is going to expect me to do before I leave for work.

    He isn’t going to be any trouble. He’s going to be expensive, though. My roommate is a rescuer-she’s already making plans on how to baby him for the few years we suspect he has left.

  92. 92.

    Poopyman

    @jl: Black-Eyed Susan is the state flower of Maryland, or at least one of them.

    Fun fact: They bloom in late summer. The flowers they drape over the winner are daisies(?) colored to look like BES.

    ETA – I have no idea about the drink, which was the original question.

  93. 93.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Xenos:

    Question: am I going to get banned for posting this here?

    Probably not. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t wrong.

  95. 95.

    Odie Hugh Manatee

    OT:

    I’m enjoying the libertarian explosion over the Feds seizing two accounts used by Mt. Gox (Bitcoin) to convert $$$ into Bitcoins and back into $$$. According to the libertarians, this PROVES! that Bitcoin is a real currency and the government is moving to stop the threat to the American dollar. It couldn’t be that it was being used to transfer money, which the account holder said that it didn’t do when they applied for the bank accounts, right?

    According to libertarians, a lie isn’t a lie unless the free markets decide that it’s a lie.

  96. 96.

    Roger Moore

    @Odie Hugh Manatee:

    According to libertarians, a lie isn’t a lie unless the free markets decide that it’s a lie.

    More like it’s OK to lie to the government about stuff that’s none of the government’s business. Of course, libertarians think that nothing is the government’s business except for keeping the poors under control, so that allows a lot of lying.

  97. 97.

    JPL

    @jl: Well I have lemon juice and sage but lack in the other ingredients. Wonder who St. Germain is and what did he do to have a liqueur named after him.

  98. 98.

    burnspbesq

    @DougJ:

    they use the same shopworn rhetorical devices over and over again.

    As Molly Ivins used to say, “Old dog. Still hunts.”

    Why change a winning game?

  99. 99.

    patroclus

    I think Kinsley, be he a member of NAMBLA or of an organization promoting bestiality, has a point here. Not all opponents of marriage equality, be they terrorist bombers or child molesters, are bigots. And not all mealy-mouthed 90’s era neo-liberal journalist hacks, be they Holocaust deniers or Rwandan genocide proponents, oppose marriage equality. And not all Johns Hopkins doctors, be they Mengele-style concentration camp experimenters or medical mal-practice practitoners, are idiots.

  100. 100.

    scav

    Can’t really think of warmer and more welcoming places to those with differing views than before the altar of most evangel churches. in the pews even. Height of respect and benevolent grace in asserting that the honored disputants are the trigger mechanism for their loving God offing innocents using poorly aimed hurricanes. Feel the love. And all this after appropriating “marriage” as under their control and of their invention, despite it having existed well prior to nailing up the poor guy in charge of the wine list at Cana.

  102. 102.

    patroclus

    @Omnes Omnibus: Oh, I’m sorry – did I just make a wildly inappropriate comparison coupled with an over-the-top hyperbolic description concerning a simple-to-understand concept of equal protection of the [email protected]! Well, Ben my frickin Carson!

  103. 103.

    kwAwk

    @Amir Khalid:

    The concept of legal marriages for gay people is relatively new, true. Gay people living as de facto married couples, and wishing they too could be de jure married, have been around as long as gay people themselves.

    You’re luckier than I, living as you do in a country where de jure gay marriage is gaining ground because it’s recognised as simple justice. If you wanted to ostracise Malaysians who reject gay marriage, you’d have to ostracise most of us, and you wouldn’t end up persuading anyone to accept it. But, as DougJ notes, Dr Carson is being ostracised not for rejecting gay marriage, but for likening gayness to bestiality — a plainly homophobic statement.

    Thank you for the civility on the issue. You do get to the heart of the matter and that is by being angry, and trying to ostracize people who aren’t enlightened enough at this point to accept gay marriage you’re not going to win people over to your side.

    What DougJ doesn’t note is that Carson walked back his statements and apologized for the bestiality references just days after the offending comments. If you punish the man equally for the offending comments whether he chooses to apologize or not, then in the future the person won’t bother to apologize.

  104. 104.

    kwAwk

    @Corner Stone:

    The response has been as I’ve expected really. There was a post that led me to the Two-Spirit article was definitely interesting, as it seems to indicate that there were exceptions to the gay-marriage norm. You could say that Nero did indeed get gay married, but gay marriages weren’t really recognized under Roman law.

  105. 105.

    Mnemosyne

    @Redshift:

    (Which is also why, contrary to the arguments of many poorly-informed people all the way to the top of the religious right, it was not “a religious institution from the beginning.”)

    Ding ding ding. In the other two Abrahamic religions (Judaism and Islam), marriage is still a civil contract, not a religious ceremony (though, obviously, as with all weddings, there are parties that surround the contract-signing ceremony).

    IIRC, marriage became a “sacrament” pretty late in the history of Christian Europe — before then, marriage was considered too secular to be celebrated inside the church building itself, so the marriage contracts would be signed outside and then a mass to bless the contracts (NOT a wedding ceremony) would happen inside.

  106. 106.

    patroclus

    @kwAwk: He didn’t really apologize for what he said – he merely apologized if anyone was offended. Nor did he walk back the comparison to pedophilia; nor did he walk back the comparison to fruits nor did he (really) walk back the comparison to bestiality. Pretending to walk back something is not really walking something back. And, of course, he wasn’t “punished” in any way – he was merely criticized (in an exercise of free speech). Gays and lesbians who are not eligible for the benefits of marriage are really punished (every single day).

    Dr. Carson’s comments were and remain indefensible and fit the classic definition of bigotry. If he really wants to apologize, he should do so fully.

  107. 107.

    Corner Stone

    @kwAwk:

    The response has been as I’ve expected really.

    I didn’t actually say that, “The posters are really negatively against you on this one.”
    I said, “You’re losing this one.”
    Big difference. Mainly because you are severely losing this attempt. Your argument makes no sense and is not backed up by facts or factual information. Throughout history.

  108. 108.

    kwAwk

    @Corner Stone:

    As I’ve expected really. There is a clique mentality that exists in the left wing blogosphere. If Atrios declares someone a heretic, or Kos or someone else with a popular blog, in general that person must be declared a heretic.

    If Nate Silver or Paul Krugman says something is true, then any deviation in a post will result in such a barrage as this of negative comments.

  109. 109.

    Cain

    It won’t work mostly because the liberalism is coming from all the young folks that our out there.. considering that over 50% of hte country supports gay marriage, it is no longer within being just a liberal thing anymore. It’s become part of the culture.

    They can go fuck themselves.

  110. 110.

    kwAwk

    @Corner Stone:

    Think of it this way. Nate Silver didn’t skillfully pick the exact result of the electoral college in the last election. He model actually said there was an 80% chance that the result would be different than it was. He just took the highest probability and got lucky. :)

    Let the flaming of kwAwk begin!

  112. 112.

    patroclus

    @kwAwk: Neither Atrios nor Kos are religious figures and they have never declared anyone to be a “heretic.” Atrios does “Wankers of the Day” and some of his criticisms are apt and others aren’t – perhaps you should read his comments sections because there is usually discussion and criticism contained there. Kos doesn’t really do anything like that, but his comments are often criticized and discussed – the GOS these days is a real free-for-all.

    Any quick perusal of Nate Silver’s site will reveal loads of discussion and criticism from all sides of his findings and blogposts. To assert the opposite merely shows that you have not read many of his posts. Krugman gets it from all sides too; Kinsley’s criticism (discussed today) is merely one case-in-point.

    Basically, you have constructed a strawman in your stereotypical depictions of of those four; none of whom, in my view, represent your stereotypical “left-wing” bogeyman. Kos is a left-libertarian, focused mostly on military matters and Latinos. Nate Silver is a middle-of-the-road statistician. Atrios is a left-winger, but he is mostly focused on economics and sociology. Krugman is a liberal capitalist economist. To lump them all in together is inaccurate and demonstrates that you really don’t read them much. Their commenters are typically all over the map.

  113. 113.

    scav

    @Mnemosyne: Didn’t even have to be solumnized by priests for a long time — their worming in was a part of a general power play by the established church and resisted by some. Fathers could manage all the patriarcial officiating required, thank you very much.

  114. 114.

    patroclus

    @kwAwk: It is interesting that you chose not to respond to my reply to you concerning Dr. Carson, who did not apologize as you said, and who was not in any way “punished” except to the extent that he was criticized for his reprehensible comments. Why do you think he was “punished?” Don’t you think gays and lesbians being denied basic societal benefits constitutes much more of a “punishment?”

    Why did you instead decide to stereotype blogs and commenters? Is the issue of marriage equality too difficult to discuss? Please explain why gays and lesbians should be denied the equal protection of the laws.

  115. 115.

    kwAwk

    @patroclus:

    You can look me up on the DailyKos and see that I haven’t posted many diaries at the DailyKos but when I’ve dared to suggest that Nate Silver or Paul Krugman may be wrong about something my comments section fills up with comments about how stupid I must be to challenge the great and powerful.

    I don’t read the comments section at Eschaton, though I have to say that Atrio’s Wanker of the Day is generally a one or two line comment and link to how such and such person is an idiot. He also has a tendency to declare that anybody who disagrees with him on economic policy is a kicker of the poor.

    I haven’t read much of the DailyKos in months, but generally it does seem to be the Daily Everyone but Kos site so perhaps it is unfair to include him in this position.

    What I mean to say is that certain memes crop up in left wing blogs where certain people are declared to be a certain thing or way, and that meme continues without challenge.

  116. 116.

    Roger Moore

    @kwAwk:
    Actually, Nate Silver was criticized for putting unjustifiably wide error bars on his estimates. His median EV prediction was very close, but he allowed enough uncertainty that he actually gave Romney a 9.1% chance of winning. People were criticizing him for excessively hedging his bets, especially when Sam Wang at Princeton Election Consortium was making essentially the same average prediction but with much tighter error bars. It’s one more piece of evidence that liberals are perfectly willing- many would say too willing- to criticize their leaders for the slightest hint of getting stuff wrong.

  117. 117.

    Cacti

    @patroclus:

    Don’t you think gays and lesbians being denied basic societal benefits constitutes much more of a “punishment?”

    Or for that matter, how is it a “victory” for gay students at Johns Hopkins to be honored by a commencement speaker that didn’t explicitly compare them to animals?

    Gay people are offended at being denied basic rights of citizenship and equal protection of the law. Homophobes are offended that gay people exist. There isn’t a middle ground to be had.

  118. 118.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @kwAwk:

    He also has a tendency to declare that anybody who disagrees with him on economic policy is a kicker of the poor.

    Like those who advocate for austerity (aka kicking the poor)?

  119. 119.

    scav

    Consider the merriment lurking under the idea of looking to RW outlets for a scarcity of memes, diversity of opinion and rigor of intellectual debate.

  120. 120.

    patroclus

    @kwAwk: Why should I bother looking up your posts elsewhere when we are both here at BJ and I am asking you direct specific questions?! Why do you think Dr. Carson was “punished?” Why do you think apologizing if anyone was offended means he apologized for comparing gays and lesbians to fruits or by lumping them in with a pedophiliac organization or bestiality proponents? What specific words did he use in supposedly “walking those comments back?” Why are gays and lesbians denied basic human rights such as those attendant to civil marriage? Why can’t we marry who we love? How is this ongoing continuing structural punishment in any way comparable to criticizing bigoted comments from Dr. Carson? Why do bigots get away with calling us “abominations” and “deviants” with no condemnation from you? Whose side are you on here? Do you favor marriage equality? Why do you defend bigoted comments from Dr. Carson? What could possibly justify his comments?

  121. 121.

    Mnemosyne

    @kwAwk:

    There is a clique mentality that exists in the left wing blogosphere.

    In other words, Why are you so intolerant of my hating gay people?

    Sorry, but bigotry and prejudice against gay people is no longer socially acceptable.

  122. 122.

    Corner Stone

    @kwAwk:

    If Nate Silver or Paul Krugman says something is true, then any deviation in a post will result in such a barrage as this of negative comments.

    Last time I’m going to post this. The commenters aren’t arguing against “you” as a commenter. Your facts and conclusions are simply wrong.
    You’re wrong.
    That’s all. No one is hating on you because they disagree that blue cheese is better than Roquefort.
    Your posts are wrong. They are factually incorrect. They do not comport with reality or recorded history.
    This is not a popularity contest. You are wrong. You’re wrong. Wrong.
    I hope that clears it up for you.

  123. 123.

    kwAwk

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    But the problem with that can be illustrated by Social Security and Medicare, which are programs the disproportionally benefit the poor and middle class. People who are rich don’t really need either. I fail to see how taking a position on Social Security and Medicare that says that the poor and middle class may need to contribute more to the programs could be considered ‘kicking the poor’.

  124. 124.

    kwAwk

    @Mnemosyne:

    Sorry, but bigotry and prejudice against gay people is no longer socially acceptable.

    Unfortunately it is actually, which is why so many more states have constitutional amendments prohibiting gay marriage than allowing it.

    But….the day is coming where you’ll be right.

  125. 125.

    dslak

    kwAwk’s behavior is akin to sex with barnyard animals. Saying that does not make me a bigot or uncivil. Saying that my behavior is bigoted or uncivil does, however, make you uncivil. And there is truly nothing worse than a lack of civility, ya’ll.

  127. 127.

    patroclus

    @Cacti: That, of course, is the essential problem underlying Kinsley’s article – there has been very little in the way of “victory” for gays and lesbians. In my state, there is no marriage equality yet, so I can’t marry who I want and even if I could, it wouldn’t be recognized all over the U.S. Nor would it be recognized for federal purposes, so all the marital beneifts implicit in Social Security and Medicare and other programs would not be available to me. How is this “victory”?!!?? Having a non-homophobic commencement speaker is not much of a “victory” either. Did MLK declare “victory” after the 1957 Civil Rights Act? Did the suffraggettes declare “victory” when one state gave them the vote? Michael Kinsley is an idiot if he thinks “victory” has been won – the struggle continues.

  128. 128.

    Mnemosyne

    @kwAwk:

    Unfortunately it is actually, which is why so many more states have constitutional amendments prohibiting gay marriage than allowing it.

    And until that day magically arrives, we need to allow homophobes to spout whatever they want because otherwise we’ll hurt their ittle fee-fees?

  129. 129.

    Corner Stone

    @kwAwk:

    I fail to see how taking a position on Social Security and Medicare that says that the poor and middle class may need to contribute more to the programs could be considered ‘kicking the poor’.

    Holy fucking shit. Did I just actually read this?
    What parody closet door did you escape from?

  130. 130.

    Corner Stone

    @kwAwk: Hey homeboy. You can yawn on me all you like. I couldn’t care less.
    But you’re still wrong. Your facts are wrong, your conclusions are wrong and your statements are factually wrong.
    So you and your “yawn” can go sleep it off in the backyard, or you can go fuck yourself. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to!

  133. 133.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @kwAwk:

    I fail to see how taking a position on Social Security and Medicare that says that the poor and middle class may need to contribute more to the programs could be considered ‘kicking the poor’.

    Wow.

  135. 135.

    Corner Stone

    @kwAwk: Well, you and I can now have drinks together because after reading that bullshit my brain turned itself off for the night. So let’s meet up in the WTF lounge for a drink or two.

  137. 137.

    kwAwk

    @Corner Stone:

    Last time I’m going to post this. The commenters aren’t arguing against “you” as a commenter. Your facts and conclusions are simply wrong.
    You’re wrong.
    That’s all. No one is hating on you because they disagree that blue cheese is better than Roquefort.
    Your posts are wrong. They are factually incorrect. They do not comport with reality or recorded history.
    This is not a popularity contest. You are wrong. You’re wrong. Wrong.
    I hope that clears it up for you.

    I get it. You think I’m wrong. That’s okay, because I think you’re wrong. We disagree and that is okay.

  138. 138.

    Roger Moore

    @kwAwk:

    Unfortunately it is actually, which is why so many more states have constitutional amendments prohibiting gay marriage than allowing it.

    Which totally undermines your claim earlier that we should be civil because we’re victorious. You can’t reasonably claim both that advocates of equality are being bad winners by calling bigots out for their bigotry and point out that the bigots are still ahead because so many more states deny any kind of equality than support it. The battle for LGBT rights won’t truly be won until bigotry genuinely is socially unacceptable, and pointing out how obnoxious the bigots are is a critical step in getting there.

  139. 139.

    soonergrunt (mobile)

    KaAwK–
    Just because Carson apologised, no one is required to accept that apology. Especially if that apology is as measly-mouthed and half-assed as the one I read.
    As for civility, one is under no obligation to be civil to persons who would see them dead or imprisoned, as is implied by the comparisons to pedophilia and bestiality.

  140. 140.

    kwAwk

    @Corner Stone:

    Well, you and I can now have drinks together because after reading that bullshit my brain turned itself off for the night. So let’s meet up in the WTF lounge for a drink or two.

    lol

  142. 142.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @kwAwk:

    Unfortunately it is actually, which is why so many more states have constitutional amendments prohibiting gay marriage than allowing it.

    Mnem is correct. The right wing bigots knew that the tide was turning on this issue and rushed to get their bigotry enshrined into law. Anti-gay bigotry is no longer acceptable in polite society or among the under-30s. The legal system will catch up. In the meantime, I reserve the right to call bigots what they are.

  143. 143.

    Corner Stone

    @kwAwk: Hey canoe boy. I am not disagreeing with you. This is not an epic clash of opinions.
    Your facts are incorrect. The facts are wrong. These pesky things that history records? Yeah, you have fucked them up.
    I am not disagreeing with you, we are not in a disagreement. I’m not saying Hungarian Paprika is better and you are saying Spanish Paprika is better. Those are opinions. And I am happy to call your stupid tastes out on opinions all week long. Tool is the best band that ever played music.
    But this is not about opinions. This is about you saying something THAT IS FACTUALLY, DISPROVABLY, FUCKING TRUE YOU FUCKING GOD DAMN ASSHOLE LICKING GOAT FUCKER.

  144. 144.

    patroclus

    @Omnes Omnibus: That’s true about what the right-wing bigots did, but I think it was actually worse than that. Virtually the entire Republican establishment (led by Karl Rove, the Hand of President Bush) aided and abetted the entire effort in a cynical effort to get votes over several election cycles. This is why virtually the entire Republican establishment – even if they don’t explicitly say horrific bigoted stuff like Dr. Carson – are virtually indistinguishable from the real bigots and why young people (and a lot of others) distrust them so much. It will take a LOOONG time for them to live this down, and Dr. Carson’s method of mealy-mouthed non-apologies is not the way to go about it. And Kinsley’s call for civility is inapt until actual victory is actually won.

  145. 145.

    kwAwk

    @soonergrunt (mobile):

    I can understand that but if you choose to humiliate your enemies when you achieve minor victories against them you make it harder for them to concede the next time.

  147. 147.

    kwAwk

    Carson may qualify as a homophobe by today’s standards. But then they don’t make homophobes like they used to. Carson denies hating gay people, while your classic homophobe revels in it. He has apologized publicly “if I offended anyone.” He supports civil unions that would include all or almost all of the legal rights of marriage. In other words, he has views on gay rights somewhat more progressive than those of the average Democratic senator ten years ago. But as a devout Seventh Day Adventist, he just won’t give up the word “marriage.” And he has some kind of weird thing going on about fruit.

    That’s from the Kinsey article for those that haven’t read it.

  148. 148.

    patroclus

    @kwAwk: Dr. Carson humiliated himself and the criticism of him for his self-humiliation will, hopefully, have the effect of there not being a “next” time (either for him or anyone similarly situated).

  149. 149.

    Ruckus

    @kwAwk:
    I fail to see how taking a position on Social Security and Medicare that says that the poor and middle class may need to contribute more to the programs could be considered ‘kicking the poor’.

    I see only two possibilities here.
    1. You are a worthless troll. The evidence is pretty overwhelming.
    2. You are a fucking idiot. The evidence is pretty overwhelming.
    As it is the same evidence, and there is a lot of it, it’s a hard call to make.
    So I’m going to go with worthless fucking idiot troll. Covers both possibilities.

  150. 150.

    kwAwk

    @Ruckus:

    Ruckus – Social Security and Medicare were both passed by Democratic Presidents with the support of Democratic Congresses.

    Neither program has ever had means testing nor contributions on 100% of income. Who here is arguing the traditional Democratic position and who is talking about something new?

  153. 153.

    dslak

    Wow, Kinsley’s even dumber than I thought. You have to be damned ignorant of how cognitive biases work to think that prejudice is only about people explicitly claiming “I hate all members of group X.”

    Hell, your average Obama-hater who thinks it’s funny to send around pictures of the President with a bone through his nose is more progressive than your 1960s civil rights opponent. They sure don’t make racists like they used to.

  154. 154.

    dslak

    When people comment while tired, it really comes through in the quality of their posts.

  155. 155.

    patroclus

    @kwAwk: Thanks for re-posting what we’ve already read – are you ever going to answer any of my specific direct questions or are you going to continue to avoid the issue? How was Dr. Carson punished (or humiliated)? How does that compare to the ongoing structural humiliation gays and lesbians face without actual marriage equality? Why do you re-post stuff or talk about yourself or something else when you have been asked specific questions? Do you support marriage equality? Why or why not? How long will it take for you to address the salient questions? Why do you continue to avoid the whole point of this thread?

  158. 158.

    patroclus

    @Omnes Omnibus: Evidently, because I’ve tried for over an hour now and have yet to receive any substantive reply. I’m giving up – I tried to be civil and follow Kinsley’s advice and look where it got me…

  160. 160.

    kwAwk

    @patroclus:

    Because it’s hard to keep track of things when everybody is yelling at you the same time.

    First Dr. Carson turned into a pariah at the school he works at including angering the population of that school to the point where they didn’t want him as a commencement speaker anymore. He was also being floated as a new leader of the Republican party, and that has gone away too. He’s been punished.

    How does the punishment he’s received relate to the punishment gays and lesbians receive? It’s somewhat similar isn’t it?

    Do I support marriage equality? Yes. Though politically I wouldn’t put it at the front of my political concerns. Why do I support it? It seems fair and with our first amendment rights to freedom of religion I don’t think the government should be allowed to discriminate between religions that recognize gay marriage and those that don’t.

    Did I miss anything?

  161. 161.

    dslak

    Losing the opportunity to be a commencement speaker or a leader of the Republican Party is just like being denied the rights and benefits of marriage. My heart bleeds for Dr. Carson, and for the lack of civility on this blog.

  162. 162.

    soonergrunt (mobile)

    @kwAwk: here you are assuming that the opposition in question, having given a half-assed apology this time will be inclined to issue a real apology next time. History does not bear this out for the most part.
    Having said that, if such a person does ever issue a real apology for some future conduct, it would still not obligate the injured party to accept our even acknowledge it.

  163. 163.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @kwAwk:

    Why do I support it? It seems fair and with our first amendment rights to freedom of religion I don’t think the government should be allowed to discriminate between religions that recognize gay marriage and those that don’t.

    The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment is where you should probably look.

  164. 164.

    kwAwk

    @dslak:

    Historically, the greatest fear of homosexuals would be greatest fear of homosexuals was that they would be exposed and become pariahs in society. They also lived in fear of homophobic violence also.

    The funny thing about the marriage issue, is that civil unions would have provided for gays and lesbians the same benefit of marriage but without the title. We probably could have had civil unions nationwide a decade ago but that isn’t really what gays and lesbians wanted. I’m not arguing about it just making the point.

  166. 166.

    kwAwk

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    It is separate but equal, but at least it would have been something for the gays that live in Alabama and Mississippi. As it stands it could be decades before gay marriage gets there.

  168. 168.

    Steeplejack

    @kwAwk:

    “[. . .] Social Security and Medicare [. . .] are programs the disproportionally benefit the poor and middle class.”

    Just as homeowner’s insurance disproportionately benefits people whose houses have burned down. Maybe we should ask them to contribute more?

    Social Security is basically an insurance program. Rich people get a payout when they retire just like poor people do. It’s true that they “don’t really need it,” just like people whose houses don’t burn down don’t really “need” homeowner’s insurance. But that’s how insurance works. You don’t need it until you need it.

    And more and more people need Social Security in this country because of eroding economic conditions. Wikipedia says, “Social Security is currently estimated to keep roughly 40 percent of all Americans age 65 or older out of poverty,” and also notes that “upward redistribution of income is responsible for about 43% of the projected Social Security shortfall over the next 75 years.” (Emphasis mine.)

  169. 169.

    RSA

    @kwAwk:

    The funny thing about the marriage issue, is that civil unions would have provided for gays and lesbians the same benefit of marriage but without the title. We probably could have had civil unions nationwide a decade ago but that isn’t really what gays and lesbians wanted.

    Right, in 2003, under Republican President George W. Bush, with the cooperation of Republican Senate Majority Leader Ted Stevens and Republican House Speaker Denny Hastert. If only gay people had gone along with the idea…

  170. 170.

    kwAwk

    @Steeplejack:

    Just as homeowner’s insurance disproportionately benefits people whose houses have burned down. Maybe we should ask them to contribute more?

    We do. The more expensive your house is the more you’ll pay for insurance. Engage in higher risk activites, such as running a home daycare, you’ll pay more.

    My point was that rich people don’t have a natural incentive to pay more for Social Security because the don’t need it. Make it that much more expensive for them and they have that much more incentive to support politicians who promise to eliminate it.

  171. 171.

    dslak

    The biggest fear of homosexuals has always been that people wouldn’t like them. Oh, and the violence. But mostly people not liking them. And violence is just like people not wanting you to speak at their commencement, or not becoming a leader of the Republican Party. This is why no one in the human race has suffered more than Newt Gingrich.

  172. 172.

    Steeplejack

    @kwAwk:

    The more expensive your house is the more you’ll pay for insurance.

    Way to dodge the original point. A person with a $1 million house that burns down doesn’t pay more than a person with a $1 million house that doesn’t burn down. That was the point of my original analogy: does the person whose house burns down benefit “disproportionately” from the insurance because his house burns down and he needs the money and the other guy’s house doesn’t burn down and he doesn’t need the money?

    All of Social Security’s problems (which are not dire, cataclysmic emergencies right now) could be easily fixed by increasing the salary cap, which certainly seems reasonable in light of the fact that the wealthy are “disproportionately” benefitting from income redistribution.

Comments are closed.