Cuttlefish had a relevant poem and song, so I thought I’d echo it here.
(Episode CCCXXIV: I’m surrounded by morons.)
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Cuttlefish had a relevant poem and song, so I thought I’d echo it here.
(Episode CCCXXIV: I’m surrounded by morons.)
Stop lying. Everyone can read what you wrote.
In my post 499, pretend the comma after “somewhat” isn’t there.
And I’m gonna go there:
For a black man to endorse the same legal theory that allowed for segregation, Jim Crow, and anti-miscegenation laws is morally obscene.
Yeah.
Josh… Yeah… wasn’t that ‘states rights’ shit part of the whole civil war thing?
(I admit I don’t know much about the civil war as a canadian)
my 2c: this just makes me too fucking sad. All the Repubs are going to hate on every word that comes out of Obama’s mouth no matter what. He COULD have pointed out the broad public support for gay marriage, and how the GOP’s determined to waste everyone’s time by crapping on it, and how a majority of Democrats support it and called on the Democratic party (which he’s kind of a big name in) to stand up and support gay rights. The GOP will go bananas regardless, be obstructionist regardless, everybody knows that. But instead, from the fucking President of the USA, we get “I personally favor it but y’all states sort it out on your own.” That was LITERALLY the absolute least he could do and still get credit for technically being supportive.
I don’t want one more random famous dude giving his personal opinion. I want some fucking help here. Why is that so damn much to ask, Mister Hopey-Changey.
Not just a black man, Josh, but a man who is the product of an interracial union at a time when such unions wer banned by a majority of states.
Just so, Pterryx and Esteleth.
So any of you straight folk or queers with Stockholm Syndrome who don’t like having this bullshit called out? Fuck y’all.
Keep in mind marriage is one of those things reserved to the States unless there is a Federal Constitutional (not a Federal Law) issue. This is what I mean about seeing the bigger picture. The California amendment banning gay marriage was declared unconstitutional because of the state constitution, not the Federal constitution. Same with Iowa.
DOMA won’t be repealed by the present congress, and everybody here knows that. That is what the President must work with as far as Federal legislation goes.
Every headline I see says “Obama says same-sex couples should be able to marry”
I think this is a good thing.
Oh, like the Full Faith and Credit clause?
How ’bout them states’ rights, Nerd?
Stop moving goalposts. That’s not what we’re criticizing him for and you know it.
It’s just as obscene no matter who it is.
Nerd:
Wrong, actually.
Once the amendment was made, it was made. The challenge was under the federal constitution – due process and equal treatment, since the amendment now created both multiple classes of citizens and existed to discriminate solely for social purposes (the fact that there’s no effective difference between unions and marriage in California was pretty much *the* point and why our ruling, even if affirmed by SCotUS, won’t affect other states).
So, yes, Prop 8 is being challenged against the federal constitution.
Josh:
Oh I agree absolutely. I’d say it’s fucking morally obscene for anyone in the presidency, given the day and age.
Of course it’s obscene for anyone to say it. But it’s just beyond the pale for a Constitutional law professor who knows better and whose own family suffered from it to dish it up for other people.
Obama made a statement which on the surface appears gay supportive. However once we look at what he actually said, it wasn’t particularly much.
Yes, ‘Tis, and here we see all the “allies” lapping it up like cream out of a cat bowl and shitting on those who point out it’s not just PR window-dressing, but damaging as all shit.
I’m learning things about people I didn’t want to know.
Josh:
You can’t school the unwilling. Oh, you can try, but you can’t make the horse drink.
I linked to the lyrics of Phil Ochs’ “Love Me, I’m A Liberal” upthread. Might as well link to a fan video of Jello Biafra’s early-’90s update. (The line about the neighborhood watch is, in light of recent events, chilling.)
Holy shit, I didn’t even think that far ahead.
Failor:
Did you even fucking read the comments analyzing Obama’s statement? Or are you obstinately refusing to acknowledge them because you can’t admit you’re wrong. And whining about “bullies” and “popular people” won’t make you any righter.
Amphiox:
No. You are not the one who has to live in a reality in which your rights are being denied. Drop the royal “we.”
Whatever gains GLBT people have made in the last three-plus years were absolutely not due to Obama.
Nerd, your telling people affected by this what they “should” do is likewise wrong.
TLC, to Sailor:
I disagree.
*cough*slavery*cough*
Exactly, and touted by the latest generation of bible thumping morons bellowing Gods Holy Law . *snort*
OH:
Obama and his family are set for life, enough to be among the minority of humans who could escape unscathed from full-out economic collapse and the ensuing cataclysm. I doubt he gives a fuck about the common victims of discrimination any more than he gives a fuck about the economic prospects of the 99%.
Fucking “Third Way” Democrats.
Certainly. He has no excuse for being ignorant about what his position entails.
Richard said it will be a ruling that doesn’t effect the rest of the country.
What part of that statement says they aren’t using the Federal Constitution?
Actually he is constained by the constitution, and he knows it. Which isn’t what you would like from him on a political basis at the moment. Reelection first, then work on gay marriage with a (hopefully) friendlier congress.
What baffles me is that he could have just said he supports it and let it stand without the states right thing. It’s not like the states rights would appease anti-gay rights people.
Sure. Go on. Keep parsing shit like the Prop 8 decision. See if you can find a way to minimize the harm to people like me (whom you claim to like and respect) and salvage some dignity for Obama. Cuz that’s what’s important.
Doesn’t hurt a bit. Nope.
How in the fuck does that have to do with our criticisms? So we can’t call him out on shit until after he’s re-elected?
We can’t say that’s fucked up he claimed to be for gay rights but instead decided to pander to those horrible assholes who would vote for him but are against gay marriage?
Nerd:
Again, fuck that noise.
We’re all clearly idiots, JAL, who don’t understand politics. Just ask the menz.
Oh, Josh =(
And you know what? Some of you have showed yourselves up to be Menz. It’s shocking and unwelcome, but true.
Nerd: You’re being a menz. I hope that pisses you right the fuck off because it should. I think you’re capable of better. But you’re being a complete douchebag menz.
So at first I was happy about the Obama thing, then of course it got screwed up cause I realize the entirety of what he said “I agree with your right to get married, but I’ll do fuck all to make sure you have that right.”
The President wants a cookie. He wants a vote, and he’ll use LGB people to get the vote.
“That’s not what we’re criticizing him for and you know it.”
Actually, I don’t. I think I have been fairly consistent.
I have yet to see a transcript, it’s not on my TV to watch, and except for quotes & headlines, I really don’t have much to go on.
I don’t think blogs are a source of info, unless I can confirm it elsewhere. I feel the same about Pfft.
I think this is a big fucking deal, and you think it is an insult.
Can we agree to disagree?
+++++++++++++++++
Check out the Google doodle.
Surprise, surprise, Greg Laden is licking Obama’s boots over this. Must be nice to get such librul boner when you don’t have to suffer any consequences from what the president actually said.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/xblog/2012/05/09/more-from-the-president-on-gay-marriage/
Breathe through your nose, Greg.
No. Because you’re a brazen liar.
The existence of the 10th amendment does not mean the federal government cannot enforce gay marriage rights, like it does for all sorts of other civil rights. Do you interpret the 10th amendment some other way?
Reelection comes November 6th. I’m not going to wait until then to raise this shit. Now is just as convenient as any other time for me.
In this situation he isn’t. The “full faith and credit clause” requires each state to respect the “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.” So Obama tells North Carolina they have to respect Massachusetts’ same-sex marriage law by granting the privileges of marriage to a same-sex couple married in Massachusetts. After all, North Carolina would get into a world of legal shit if they didn’t respect an opposite-sex marriage performed in Massachusetts.
Nerd:
… which is exactly what I said. The ruling is extremely narrow because of the conditions in Calfornia: we have “everything but marriage” and “marriage”, and all prop 8 does is take away the wording. This means there’s no legal interest in the state in doing so, and thus it’s pure discrimination. If the state could justtify calling one marriage and the other “domestic partnership” without resorting to discrimination, then it would stand.
Again, just because it’s limited to California doesn’t mean it isn’t challenged under the federal constitution. Notice how it’s a federal appeals court that handled it? They don’t deal with state constitutional issues.
If you want, I can send you Walker’s opinion and you can read it yourself. It’s actually amazingly well-crafted explicitly to be narrow, and to appeal to Kennedy.
Thank you for getting it, ‘Tis. I’m supremely irked by how many straight men I’ve had to cross off my list of decent people this evening.
OK, I think I see what the issue is for those who care.
The way it seems to me:
What Obama said was the least he could’ve done; a sop to his constituency which (structurally) achieves nothing.
That itself frustrating and insulting enough for those affected, but when it’s then lauded, it exacerbates those feelings.
—
(On an ironic, sardonic note, it’s pretty much the converse* here in Oz, but those civil rights (a subset of human rights, for mine) are still denied at the Federal level)
—
* Our (atheist) PM is personally against it.
Link to a lie Josh.
Lick my taint Sailor. Bugger off; I’m done with you.
Josh,
I’ve been angry for decades about how GLBT people are denied rights that I enjoy because they’re not straight. Equal rights are fucking equal rights and sexual orientation or other gender issues shouldn’t enter into it.
John Morales:
It’s actually worse than the least he could have done, because (assuming ABC isn’t lying, but even using the quote we have on video) he’s now given the GOP a “but even your guys says it’s a state issue!” quote they can run with and use to further this.
He’s also taken off the table any hope that his actions on DOMA and DADT might lead to some federal decision being sought by him. Which is also a hope that many had.
So, yes, you’re right about the frustration, but it goes a little further.
So ironically if this actually had a practical discrimination then it might be legally justified!?
Josh:
And an offensive asshole.
Which is just what I pointed out about 75 comments ago. And yet no one seems to get this. Not the media, not regular people.
So, am I wrong here? Can no one link to the actual transcript or video of the whole interview?
‘Tis:
QFT.
God, I hate you so fucking much.
I am disgusted by Obama’s weaseling on the matter.
He personally supports gay marriage. That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement. The states rights BS sounds like a shout-out to the libertarians.
Bleech…politics truly is like making sausage.
Just for shits and giggles I checked Andrew Sullivan’s blog for his reaction. He seems to think it’s wonderful news. *sigh*
[meta]
Josh to Nerd,
I too get the sense that Nerd is White-Knighting.
Thanks, Richard. That does clarify things.
Ing:
Well, the state would have had to prove compelling interest – some social or tax consequence that was for the betterment of society, etc. That would have been hard to prove. But if, for example, Prop 8 had removed any form of civil union or partnership for same-sex couples as well as redefining marriage to exclude them, then the state would have had a better case in defending it because then it wouldn’t be “separate but equal”.
Yeah, an inequality would have been harder for us to fight than separate-but-equal. Yeah, law can be messy. I enjoy it intellectually from the process analyst/game aspect, but peoples lives are ruined by the minutae all the time.
Andrew Sullivan gets wet at the opening of a Catholic envelope. Draw your own conclusions.
<trivia mode=levity>
… and can anyone tell I was catching up on this second page as I posted my above? ;)
</trivia>
Sailor:
I posted this already.
part of the video
Partial transcript (it’s towards the start, about 38 seconds in):
Again, not a “smoking gun”, but heavily implied. And since ABC has stated that the president said it’s a state issue, and they did the interview, he likely said it.
It’s an exclusive ABC interview, fuckwit: their little bit of property to draw in viewers so their advertisers will pay them. So they’ve decided only to release excerpts so far. That’s not unusual, but they have reported in advance what we’ve been telling you. You’d know that if you could read and weren’t a complete fucking idiot.
Thank god my sourdough loaf turned out well or it would have been a totally wasted night.
For everyone not understanding why people are so upset, try substituting atheism in for gay in all of this, or evolution. It’s the same kind of accommodation that you’re arguing for (or covering for) now that I know a lot of you argue against when it comes to those other issues. And fine, maybe you’re happy with focusing on just the happy angle of it, but as Josh said, somebody has to keep saying that baby steps are not enough, or else nobody is going to move any further. The Overton window doesn’t shift if nobody is doing the shifting. Obama has barely peeked out of the right-hand side of the window, and it still needs a huge lurch further left. If everyone just pats him on the back for peeking out the right side, the movement will stop.
Sailor, I’m honestly baffled, unless you’re just digging in. Fine, limit it to exactly the quote you have from Obama. All he said was his personal feelings. He gave no indication at all that he supports any legislative changes, or even that he thinks that people who disagree with gay rights are wrong. He very carefully couched it all as a matter of opinion on which reasonable people can disagree, and that’s worth being upset with even without bringing any of his other comments into it.
bah, my link didn’t work, did it…
here
Richard, why bother? Sailor’s into Double-Down mode.
Josh:
That’s a bit of good news. I love sourdough, I do. Yummy stuff. In other small tidbits of goodness, I have been making progress on Bender’s Duckie.
I’m still angry as all hells though.
Here’s what I think.
It is twenty-fucking-twelve.
If you are not willing to give your full support to ensuring that I get all of my rights – meaning that you are willing to support and agitate for laws and policies that fill gaps in the rights I am afforded as well as opposing laws and policies that strip me of rights, then
I have no fucking time for you.
The time for pussy-footing around this is OVER.
I want my full rights, and I want them right the fuck now.
Fuck realpolitik! These are people’s lives. These are mine, and Josh’s, and Caine’s, and all of our LGBT siblings’ lives. I WILL NOT submit quietly to slow, cautious progress.
If you are on my side FULLY, then you are my ally. If you aren’t, you are AT BEST in my way.
So, you all are going on about carefully edited videos and slight transcripts. and I’m wrong for pointing that out.
[meta]
Josh,
This. Is. Pharyngula!.
Once again, with feeling: I fucking hate you. You’re an awful person.
Testify, Esteleth. Hellz yes.
The Sailor:
Fuller transcript. If you want the rest, watch the damned clip yourself.
I bolded the important part of this quote. Again, not a smoking gun, but pretty damned close. Close enough for a reasonable mind to assume that ABC isn’t lying when they say he thinks it’s a state issue.
You finally got it. You’re not only wrong, you’re completely and absolutely wrong. Obama said something. It wasn’t hinted at, it wasn’t possibly shaded, he made a statement. This statement was reported by a reputable organization (well, as reputable as we get these days).
What do you think Obama actually said? “Well, I’m introducing a bill into Congress in ten minutes to make same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states.” Or do you think he said what he’s reported to have said? This isn’t rocket surgery.
“Rocket surgery” is my favorite mashup phrase. Thankee, ‘Tis.
‘well, I haven’t actually seen it, but I have seen clips and read blogs about it’ doesn’t work for me.
And I still think it’s a big fucking deal that every headline is some form of “Obama Endorses Same Sex Marriage”.
Apparently the full interview won’t be shown until tomorrow morning.
And now we take the argument over here, where PZ has called it like it is.
Sailor, it isn’t that him saying that he personally supports same-sex marriage isn’t a big deal.
It’s that it isn’t enough.
Sailor, go eat glass somewhere.
The Sailor:
Your argument to the headline has already been demolished; that you also ignore all the arguments so far adduced is telling.
(Kinda sad, really)
Finalizing wedding stuff. Throwing it out there: anyone have some poetry recommendations for vows?
Ing, sure: The Flea.
Ing – Sonnet 130? Kind of cliche, but still enjoyable. I’ve always had a soft spot for Whitman, myself. Actually, if you’ve got any resources you’d like to share that you’ve used getting ready, I’d appreciate it – I have to officiate my first wedding (!) in a couple of months and I’m looking for nice but not-religious but also not hippy/woo-ey stuff.
In random amusements, my child at his concert tonight had to twirl his upright bass around for one part, lost control of it and hit the music stand, which then fell over and he had to do a dive to catch it. To his credit, he bobbed back up and did jazz hands. :D And then, as he walked down from the stage to where the chorus was performing, proceeded to knock over a microphone stand for the encore.
There was a coyote attack recently near our school. I blame TLC. He’s the only one I know…
and yeah, you may think your disguise is perfect… but humans don’t have baculi. You messed up there.
Thunk: Are you in the east or the west?
Because I read somewhere that eastern coyotes aren’t exactly the same as good old red-blooded western coyotes- they have wolf and dog breeding in them and tend to be larger and more aggressive.
Apparently a pair of them hunted and killed a 22 year old woman in eastern canada a few years back.
As for myself… you can’t prove nothin!
Esteleth @ 75, yeah, I actually got that. I have 2 points:
1) we don’t actually know what he said in context. There are nothing but headlines and video bites.
2) The headlines are the most amazing thing a sitting president has ever said IRT all human rights.
+++++++++++++++
I won’t be run out of here because some people disagree with me, call me names, wish I would die; it’s not going to happen.
This community has taught me to stand up for myself, ask for facts, and be my self.
@Sailor
Well could you try being someone else for a change? Someone less annoying?
Sailor, I’m really interested in what you think about my comments, which were just about what he actually said.
Obama is such an idiot. LGBT rights is getting more accepted by the public and he goes with the state rights thing? Seriously? When full on support would have given him a lot of supporters?
Plus, let’s not forget that “states rights” puts human rights up for votes. This is stupid because HUMAN RIGHTS ARE NOT UP TO VOTES! IT’S A GIVEN!! I am starting to think all of Obama’s education went down the drain.
The fuck is this? No one wants you run out of here. We want you to realize that you’re missing the entire point.
Stop digging your heels in.
Once the implications of the ‘states rights’ bit sunk into my head, all positive feeling was completely erased.
carlie, maybe tomorrow, it’s past my bedtime.
++++++++++++
Ing, so sorry everything I’ve ever done in this community offends you. Would you try changing who you are? No? Imagine my response.
BTW, after 4 years of Obama presidency, I know all of his progressive rhetorics are just mouth farts. Let’s all face reality here, Obama is a conservative. It’s not that Obama is weak. It’s just that Obama doesn’t give a damn.
You lie about the facts given to you, so you haven’t learned. Take your tinfoil hat and fuck off.
Kat:
Yup, me too. At first I was all “Woo hoo! Awesome!” Then the reality of the statement kicked in. Now I feel like a little bit of a dumbass for jumping to the conclusion that Obama would actually do something right.
Bah. Fuck this shit and Obama’s non-support.
@Audley
Pretty much Obama’s MO for every single progressive/liberal issue ever.
Kristinc:
Eeeeeeeeee! That is just so cool to watch, isn’t it? It’s so fun watching them figure out the world.
This is a tangent from the conversation above: My best friend uses “homosexual” to refer to himself and prefers it over other terms. I’m definitely not saying “Yeahbut MY GAY FRIEND SAYS WE CAN USE HOMOSEXUAL SO WE SHOULD ALL USE IT!” It’s not a word I want to use, its associations are bad (for me, it’s associated with the idea of queerness as pathology and with moralizing religious people who really want to use “Sodomite”), so I always feel icky about using it to refer to someone I love. I know that, if he prefers it, that’s what I should use to refer to him, and I know that he has his reasons, and I respect them. The last thing I want to do is be arguing with his self-identification. Ever, but especially now. But hmpf anyway. I dunno. I mean, obviously I’ll talk this over with him at some more opportune point, but I don’t even know where I should be coming from.
TLC:
“Sailor, go eat glass somewhere.” – Josh
“an offensive asshole.” – Caine
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We have nothing but anonymous quotes and a heavily edited clip used to promote a TV show IRT what President Obama actually said.
Oh, he said “it is important for me personally to go ahead and affirm that same-sex couples should be able to get married.”
And since he is the king he just makes that a proclamation thru out the land.
If he had said anything remotely like “and all states should follow suit” or “and this should be legal in ANY state”, you can be damned sure that would have been the lead quote in the PR.
consciousness razor says I lied about facts.
Prove it. You made an allegation, now prove it.
Fuck, carlie, if he’d said that I would be cheering and not posting angry rants in my FB calling him weak.
The Sailor: I dunno, that ‘state issue’ bit is pretty cut and dry. State rights. Who else in history blathered on about ‘state’s rights’ when civil human rights were at stake?
I nearly punched myself for not catching on quicker. And the quote it’s from doesn’t look that heavily edited.
God you’re a shithead, Sailor.
@The Laughing Coyote
Same kind of argument as the idiotic argument for slavery, still used to deny what the American Civil War was fought for. I don’t know how people can’t realize the parallels between this issue and that one.
ibyea,
Yup, that’s it exactly. How many issues has he paid lip service to before completely screwing everyone over? Too many.
Honestly, the more I think about the “states rights” bullshit, the angrier I get. Just goes to show that Obama isn’t any kind of compassionate person or a liberal of any stripe.
Good job, Obama. Not only have you fucked over the LGBT community hardcore by saying that we should just let the bigots be bigots ‘cos you’re not willing to fight for human rights, but you’re well on your way to handing the election to Rmoney and the rest of the Republican slime*.
TLC:
Hey, don’t worry about it. You can come sit beside me on the dumbass couch, ‘cos I didn’t get it at first, either.
*Has anyone else linked to the screen grab from Fox “News”?
TLC:
Have you seen the interview, or only heavily edited clips?
Would you trash ACORN or Planned Parenthood based on heavily edited clips?
Why is it wrong that I withhold judgment until I see the whole interview?
I already have. You’re proving that you’re too stupid to notice or too dishonest to engage with the evidence I already gave you, but I had that much figured out a long time ago.
Fuck off.
Because, Sailor, the interpretation that we’re asserting is the case is (1) the one being made all over the fucking place and (2) fits in with other stuff Obama has said.
Stop being a moron.
Sailor: Privilege enters into it too. I’m a straight white dude. I’m sure as hell not going to tell queer folks and folks who have been involved in the civil right’s stuff longer than I’ve been alive what they should think about what Obama said.
I’d rather listen. And, I think I may have learned a lesson here.
You do realize that what you are doing is saying that bigotry by black people is SO MUCH WORSE than bigotry by white people, right? Despite white people being the majority and having much more power to enforce it?
Fuck that thread, I’m going to zooborns… at least til I stop itching… oh fuck it, back into the thread
CR, I tracked back all of your comments on this thread, and not a single one contains a link.
++++++++++
Esteleth, I’m willing to be proved wrong, but no one has anything except video bites to prove their point. Not a single full length transcript, not a full length video.
My standards are higher that Breitbart’s.
Oh, that’s nice, Sailor.
You’re willing to accept proof that maybe LGBT people have a right to be angry? I’m touched.
First, I absolutely get why queer folk here are pissed. When it’s your rights and your life on the line, anything other than right fucking now is obviously not soon enough; I would be the very last person to suggest you should feel otherwise.
That said, I think Nerd is onto something here:
Maybe time will prove me wrong, but I think there’s some political ju-jitsu going on here: Remember that Obama’s comment about it being “a matter for the states” was made in the specific context of criticizing DOMA. Nothing in Obama’s record suggests he subscribes to the right-wing states’ rights agenda… but marriage law (and most of the rest of everyday civil law, including that governing most other sorts of partnerships) has always been the purview of the states; short of a federal constitutional amendment, I’m not sure it would even be possible to “make it so” for same-sex marriage rights at the federal level.
DOMA, OTOH, is what makes it feasible for some states to ban same-sex marriages while other states perform them. Without DOMA for cover at the federal level, all states would be compelled to recognize legal same-sex marriages even if they refuse to perform them… and that (which amounts to a state denying its own citizens rights it acknowledges for outsiders) will eventually prove to be an untenable position, both politically and economically.
We know that DOMA has already been ruled unconstitutional, and that the administration has clearly said it will not defend the law any further (and I think the courts are a quicker route to elimination of DOMA than attempts at legislative repeal, unless there’s a huge wave for the Dems in November). By positioning DOMA as an example of federal overreach and an encroachment on the rights of states, Obama is using the right’s own rhetoric against it, and putting conservative judges who might be tempted to uphold DOMA as it makes its way through the courts into a bit of a political box.
At least, I hope that’s what’s going on; if it’s not, the remark seems bizarrely inconsistent with Obama’s established philosophy on fed/state division of powers.
I’m pretty sure that when Obama leaves office (in 2017, FSM willing), he will have presided over the largest expansion in LGBT rights in our history. It will still not have been good enough, of course, nor soon enough, and he’ll be liable to the charge that he was just lucky to be the person on hand at this moment in history, but… I know it’s easy for me to be the glass-half-full kinda’ guy here, because it’s not my ox being gored (not directly, that is; I believe rights denied to any are always in some sense rights denied to all), but I confess I’m disinclined to be cynical tonight.
BTW, I’m leaving tomorrow for a trip, and when I get back I’ll be submerged in my spawn’s graduation festivities, so I won’t be online much at all for the better part of the next couple weeks. I mention this only because I don’t want anyone to think I’m gratuitously ignoring replies. I almost didn’t post this for fear it would seem like a cowardly post-and-run.
Esteleth, that’s not what I said at all, and not what I’ve been saying. I’m saying that the headlines are saying “Obama voices his support for gay marriage” are the optics, and everything else is speculation.
Relying on heavily edited videos for context is wrong.
Lying again, very stupidly and obviously. Here and here.
Fuck off.
TLC: Middle here.
Everyone: Yes, that was underwhelming. I expected change and hope, and I know you deserve it. I’m sitting and wondering “Why are we even questioning people’s right to marry each other” while the aged dunderheads to this BS. Augh.
Esteleth et al.: Sorry about that. When I can vote, I’ll make sure to do something :)
Went for a walk with my Lab today, picked about fifteen pounds of asparagus. Also, did you know that it’s very hard to see ticks on Harris Tweed?
CR, mercury in fish in the last thread doesn’t count.
Next time, stop lying and show work.
You do realize that you’re covering over the very real insult of a Constitutional law professor who happens to be black and whose own family experienced anti-miscegenation laws who’s perfectly willing to use that shit on me because you want to accuse me of being unfair, right?
Sorry. It’s shit when anyone does it. But it chaps my ass even harder when someone who has all the privilege in the world and who could be expected intellectually and emotionally to empathize with me won’t.
And if that chaps your ass, I don’t give a shit.
@The Sailor
What? The source is from ABC. The place from which the interview came from. Why doesn’t it count?
For fuck’s sake—we’re talking about the president of the US making statements with huge political import and you want to me to put that on the same level of effectiveness as ordinary white people?
Fuck you.
Josh! Misterc has been using his new ecig exclusively for the past 2 days and he loves it. Also he is the buzz of his techie workplace, with all of his smoker friends wanting to know about it. (I should have realized that he would glom on to something gadgety.) Both of us are pretty blown away at how far the e-fluid goes for the cost, and it’s going to make “smoking” tons cheaper for him.
As the resident nonsmoker and cigarette-disliker I’m just over the friggin’ moon to have no more butts, smoke or smell. Both of us are happy!
ibyea, it doesn’t count because it’s a heavily edited video to get clicks, not the full interview.
Sailor, and you accuse JOSH AND ME of ignoring the good in favor of demanding the perfect?
Fuck, do you even listen to yourself?
Josh, I’m going to make you a bet.
Tomorrow or whenever, the full interview will get released, and it will back up what you and I are saying.
And Sailor will be silent.
Uh uh, Homey don’t play that, as the sketch goes.
Repeat:
Funnily enough, that isn’t focusing on a constitutional law professor who happens to be black, that is focusing on blackness.
Oh, I’m sorry, I thought it was assumed that a queer woman with plans to leave the country so she could be safe and free to marry her girlfriend would have her chops on that count safe. Apparently not. The manner in which you are opposing Obama is racist. You have numerous perfectly valid insults and objections that do not focus on his race. Fucking quit it. Heterosexism no more justifies racism than the racism of the queer community (past an dpresent) justifies heterosexism. By all means, mock the cowardly jackass. Do not use his race for it.
Dude, what you said doesn’t just apply to the president of the united states. It applies to black people, period. For that matter, the shit you’re saying now applies to everyone who isn’t Whitey McStraighterson III.
@The Sailor
Umm… It’s not in the video that says that Obama will support states rights. It is in the article itself.
Kristin:
I’m DELIGHTED to hear that. Congrats to hubby on the e-cig. They are miraculous.
Esteleth: I won’t bet, because you’re totes right. He’ll just fuckin’ ignore it.
Sorry, but no. When someone has personal and legal knowledge of the devastating consequences of such discrimination, he earns my special contempt. Just the way closeted televangelists who end up with rent boy dick in their mouth get special smack-downs for opposing gay rights.
I don’t know why you find this so outrageous, and I don’t care.
Yes. To be better.
Really. So you’re heterosexist when gay people manage to fuck up cis-sexism? You’re heterosexist or cis-sexist when the queer community fucks up sexism or race?
Because funnily enough, I’m not a huge fan of racism. You may not have noticed this.
‘Tis:
This is what I was getting at @111: Unless I misunderstand (which I very well might; IANAL, after all), DOMA at least blunts the effect of full faith and credit, if it doesn’t outright contradict it (this conflict is, AFAIK, the reason DOMA is unconstitutional and will ultimately be overturned). At a minimum, it’s politically impossible for the federal government to sue states to force them to recognize marriages that the fed itself, by law, can’t recognize.
The federal government probably can’t, under the constitution, tell states “thou shalt perform same-sex marriages” by statute. It could tell them “thou shalt grant same-sex couples equal rights under the law” by constitutional amendment… but if we haven’t passed the ERA for women after damn near 4 decades, you can imagine how practical that is as a near-term strategy. So what’s left is asserting, under FF&C, that “thou shalt respect all marriages performed by other states”… except that currently DOMA stands in the way of that strategy.
So DOMA, most urgently, must go. And I continue to believe that not defending it in federal court is the very quickest way to kill it. So I think — I hope — what Obama was doing with that comment about the states was putting conservative federal judges (including 4 1/2 of them on the Supreme Court) on notice that upholding DOMA would be an anti-conservative thing to do.
So, you don’t know Obama said that.
++++++++++++++++++++
Riiight. I go by facts, I’m happy to be proven wrong.
You’re awfully hard of thinking on this one, huh?
Let me be clear: Knowing, willful hypocrisy that deprives other people of basic human rights is evil and draws my special contempt.This isn’t hard.
Bill,
Here’s where your non-Yankness is showing.
You are wrong. The federal government can prohibit discrimination by states. It has done so in the past. For a memorable example, look up the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Ruteekatreya, you seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that I – or Josh – wouldn’t call out a gay person who was being racist or sexist, or a woman who was being racist or homophobic.
WE WOULD. AND DO.
Obama is being homophobic. He is echoing language used to discriminate against people like himself, and we are calling him on it.
Oh, and also:
Blow it out your ass. And call me up tomorrow after I’ve tallied how many shits I don’t give about your self-righteous bullshit.
@The Sailor
So, ABC is deliberately lying to… what? It makes no sense. Plus, that is totally the kind of thing Obama would say.
And it’s ‘knowing and willful’ so long as someone belongs to a marginalized group, and leads to you unleashing special vitriol when a marginalized person furthers marginalization, and you don’t see the fucking problem with marginalizing someone who is marginalizing you.
The irony is apparently lost on you. Fucking quit being racist, Josh. Obama is a shitty person in a number of ways, you don’t need, and have no right to use, his race to pretend he’s even moreso. Jesus fuck, queer people are not a magical group that is immune to all kyriarchy. Hence this discussion, I suppose >.<
Righto. Will that be before, or after, you’ve tallied up the number of times you weren’t a heterosexist to racist queers?
Rutee, did you see my @132? Like, at all? Especially the part where I addressed you?
You’re incredible. Obama is the president of the US, with a law degree from Harvard, and you want to characterize him as “marginalized” as compared to someone like me? Have you ever heard of intersectionality?
Is there any person in a position of great relative power whom you won’t excuse for stripping you of your legal rights?
Time to email again. I guess this time around I should request a response rather than just send a message. I’d be interested to see how he reacts when it’s one-on-one.
—————————————–
How do people justify asking for 40 bucks for a CD?? The album I want was only released 6 years ago, not 30!
—————————————–
Rain. Rain. More rain. At this point I’m gonna be kayaking to work.
After. I need time to digest after I’ve been exercising all my fake privilege that hard.
Whoops, wrong window. That should read “At this rate.”
He’s not just calling out someone for fucking up. HE is being racist in doing so. “Hey, you’re being a racist lackwit” is actually not equivalent to “How dare a black person fuck this up, their blackness removes their right to be evil because people were evil to them”; the direct equivalent to “Hey, you’re being a racist lackwit” is “Hey, you’re being a heterosexist lackwit.”
On the matter of race, he is.
That’s an ironic question after I specifically stated that you were enforcing an axis of kyriarchy, don’t you think?
Are you illiterate? I said don’t be racist in opposing him, not that opposing him is the wrong thing to do. What more do I need to say to spell it out? That Obama is a cowardly fuckjob who won’t stand up for rights that every liberal -nay, every ethical human- damn well should? Done. That this asshat is saying our rights as queer people don’t matter while trying to curry favor with the majority? Done! But I will not fucking place higher standards of behavior on people for being marginalized; he will earn no more of my ire than a white person, and I WILL DAMN SURE not try to use his blackness to score cheap points for queer people, just as I would not use queerness to score cheap points for black people or any other permutation of this gambit.
“dick”?
The Sailor:
Such spin!
Do you dispute this characterisation: “The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states’ deciding the issue on their own.”?
(A yes or a no will suffice)
Are you fucking addled?
I can’t believe I’m reading this. The president of the United States has said my civil rights (just some working class fag) are up to state voters, and you say he’s marginalized compared to me. No, don’t equivocate with “with regard to race.” It’s fungible.
What the hell . . I can’t even. . . .
The Sailor:
As opposed to the headlines?
Well guess what sister, I WILL. I place higher standards of behavior on closeted politicians who get their cocks sucked and vote against gay marriage. I place higher standards on clergy who scream about oppression while voting to deny a competing denomination the same rights they have.
There’s nothing odd about that. What’s inexplicable is your insistence that there’s something outrageously racist about my calling out Obama on this when he should damned well (and does) know better given his educational and personal experience.
If it helps you sleep at night to feel so fucking pure about your motivations so bet it. But I don’t give a fuck if you think I’m racist. I think you’re deluded.
FUnnily enough, this doesn’t just apply to constitutional law professors or the president of the united states. IT APPLIES TO BLACK PEOPLE AS A WHOLE.
Oh, I see. ahem. Have you ever heard of intersectionality? Because you appear not to have. Stop being a racist in pursuit of queer rights, dude.
Go fuck yourself Rutee. You have no interest in listening to my point of view anyway.
ruteekatreya:
Josh didn’t, so he needn’t.
I quote: “For a black man to endorse the same legal theory that allowed for segregation, Jim Crow, and anti-miscegenation laws is morally obscene.”
Was this the beginning of Josh’s purported racism, as you see it?
A. R
fifteen pounds???
Where do you and your Lab live?
Why is your Lab wearing Harris Tweed?
Yet you’re giving yourself a pass on racism. Why do I not believe you? I don’t think this is a special failing, just fucking quit it.
You realize if you actually stuck to this I would give no fucks, right? His education damn well means he should know better. You aren’t.
Not really, I sleep like shit. I’m just tired of people being assholes to other people. Y’all have Sailor covered, or I’d help there more, which is great, but the shit you said still does not fly. There’s a reason I focused on you, and what you said, and not on every other person in this thread for disagreeing with Obama.
Really.
It’d be the first comment of it that I saw. If there’s more on page 1, my surprise will be 0.
You’re being obtuse as hell. This has to be a racism moment for you, for some reason. You won’t even engage with what I’m saying about hypocrisy. OK, fine.
I’m done with you. This is fucking boring, not to mention extremely irritating.
Oh Christ, I keep getting dragged back in:
What the fuck is your damage Rutee? Why the hell can’t you acknowledge that it’s super shitty for a victim of unfair and racist laws to endorse them for other people?
Seriously—why the fuck DON’T YOU GET THAT?
Do you think I’m equally hateful for calling out televangelists who crusade against gay rights while keeping a boy on the side? If not, why not?
I deserve an answer damn it.
It’s almost as if there is absolutely nothing you could say to convince me to let you being racist about something go. Oh wait, it’s exactly that. This isn’t the first time with you, either.
Fuck you too, darlin’:))
Esteleth:
Rather than get offended, I’ll calmly explain that I’m not the redneck hick you seem to imagine: I’ve lived in CT longer now than in any place in my adult life, and for essentially all of my politically active life, and even when I was growing up in Texas, my town was populated almost exclusively by college educated professionals who were mostly “not from ’round there” (mostly not from the South at all). By all means, disagree with me… but the state listed on my birth certificate has nothing to do with it.
Nor am I ignorant of basic history. But the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act prohibited discrimination WRT things that were uncontroversially already rights (and in many cases, specifically enumerated as such in the Constitution); establishing that marriage is such a right (establishing it in law, I mean; there’s no philosophical question that it is) is, I believe, a horse of a different legal color. Eventually I believe there will be a body of federal case law recognizing marriage as a right, as there already is at the state level in some states, but in advance of that happening, I think a federal statute mandating that states legalize same-sex marriage would probably fail a constitutional challenge… and for some of the same reasons I think DOMA will ultimately be ruled unconstitutional.
Even if my half-baked amateur legal analysis is wrong, though, any such statutory proposal would be DOA from a political POV (and if by some miracle it passed, would put us at the greatest risk of widespread violent civil unrest since the 60s; it wasn’t too many months ago that fucking Rick Perry was talking secession). A constitutional amendment could unambiguously establish marriage as a universal right (that’s kinda’ what they’re for), but it would have a similarly steep political hill to climb.
Thus, I think the best — and by best, I mean fastest — way to advance marriage equality nationally is to hasten DOMA’s death and then use the existing full faith and credit authority to compel states to recognize other states’ marriages. Once everyone can get married somewhere and every state has to accept it, resistance will become futile (and economically self-defeating).
There may be many errors in my take on this, but if so they’re honest analytical failures, and not the residue of me being some shit-kicking stereotype of a southern bigot.
Whups, my bad, Bill.
Somehow I got it in my head that you were a Brit.
*shakes head*
Don’t let me keep you from flouncing.
No, but not for lack of trying. It’s less hateful because that is an axis on which you are oppressed, and thus affects you too. It’s more of an internal matter than a white dude saying that black people are being worse than white people when they both do X, because their blackness should give them understanding somehow.
Because I watch pretty much every marginalized group be assholes to each other on a daily basis? It’s rather hard to sustain the viewpoint that somehow we (pick a ‘we’, there’s decent odds I fall into it) should be magically understanding when people so regularly fail to live up to this in every other situation.
Addendum to me @158:
Keep in mind also that there’s a federal law currently on the books that specifically allows discrimination against same-sex couples. By comparison, if there’d been a federal statute in 1964 that specifically protected states’ right to levy poll taxes or administer literacy tests (for example), that law would’ve had to go before the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act could’ve addressed those issues.
That’s all I’m suggesting here: We need to whack DOMA to clear the field for whatever comes next.
Esteleth:
Oh, that’s not what I expected: I’ve talked often enough about growing up in TX that I thought that’s what you were referencing. Sorry for mis/overreacting!
But that isn’t what you said originally. It’s repugnant for anyone to do so, and you agreed to that. That’s all that needs to be said. There’s no need to drag his race into it.
It’s no more inconsistent or hypocritical for a white person to support civil rights for one group but not another, than it is for a black person to support them for one group but not another. Your argument implied privileged people can be reasonable about discriminating however they choose, while minorities cannot be reasonable when they do the same thing. I know you’re frustrated, but please step back and look at it. I don’t think this is how supporting minorities should work.
Of course, given his status as president and a former law professor, as well as his family history, he should (and does) know better, which makes it all the more contemptible; but that’s not at all like saying he’s especially culpable simply for being black.
Fuck, I reversed it:
Cipher:
If you do, tell him you’ll respect his wish in this matter, but explain why it makes you uncomfortable, explaining the same way you did in your post, about the association with a pathology, etc.
ruteekatreya:
No, it doesn’t. I don’t have a problem with anything Josh said, I agree with it and I’m under the queer umbrella and the mixed race umbrella. You’re being a fucking Cupcake.
Yeah, it kind of does.
“I expect a black man not to promote heterosexism because his blackness should grant him understanding of what it’s like to be legally discriminated against.”
“I expect a woman not to promote racism because her womanness should grant her understanding of what it’s like to be legally discriminated against.”
“I expect a gay man not to be cis-sexist, because his gayness should grant him understanding of what it’s like to be legally discriminated against.”
“I expect a trans woman not to be sexist, because her transness should grant her understanding of what it’s like to be legally discriminated against.”
Seriously now, this isn’t difficult.
My concern over petty insults < My concern over racism.
Folks from the South will tell you that that’s what it was all about. Of course, what they wanted their states to have the right to do was have slavery illegal.
From where I’m standing, the people who yell the loudest for states’ rights are the most provincial and insular people who want power to be closest to them and their buddies who think alike. And what blocs are like that and have the numbers and privilege to actually garner that power?
So yes, it is pretty disgusting for Obama to make this a states’ rights issue. I mean, I knew he was pretty spineless, but it does sort of beggar belief that he’d have such a tin ear on this subject.
The only explanation is that he wasn’t really talking to gay people when he pontificated on this matter. Now there’s a rather chilling realization for this particular Whitey McStraighterperson.
Uriah Heep – Circle Of Hands
I ♥ Sir Terry:
Roxy Music – Love Is The Drug
The Sailor: The Sailor says: Roxy Music – Love Is The Drug
Coward is cowardly.
(Me, I’m no muso, but Love is like oxygen)
That’s all I’m suggesting here: We need to whack DOMA to clear the field for whatever comes next.
FWIW, the DoJ actually IS well underway to undermining the constitutionality of DOMA.
not hard to google on it.
the question is…
why is Obama NOT publicly stating the reasoning behind why he has the DoJ working to prove DOMA is not constitutional?
The answer is obvious, if you consider how he has approached all the contentious issues so far in his presidency.
I posted it on the big thread, and I’ll post it here too:
Obama’s “Bad Negotiating” strategy
Not just a black man, Josh, but a man who is the product of an interracial union at a time when such unions wer banned by a majority of states.
that’s the point that strikes to the heart of this.
10 CC – I’m not in love
(Crossposted from TZT)
Terry Prachett, the master of parody and satire, addressed a version of Last Thursdayism/Omphalism in the novel he wrote before the very first Discworld novel (no, I don’t remember the title).
A terraforming expert on a spaceship runs into a synthetic world, a flat disc with pumps continually replacing the water pouring over the edge, and a tiny sun and moon orbiting it.
It eventually turns out that the universe was created not long ago, with bogus evidence of being billions of years old.
The flat disc world is a joke left behind by the creator as a clue to the truth.
So next time someone preach Omphalism, Pratchett can sue them!
— — — — — — — —
Damn. I just learned one of my aunts has died :-(
She was 80 years old so it was not unexpected, but still sad.
Josh, http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/02/its_a_daily_mail_poll_so_go_ah.php#comment-3399003
Birger,
:(
*hugs*
I’m watching last night’s Rachel Maddow show. Lizz Winstead is Rachel’s last guest, and she’s got the Scarlet A on her shirt, awesome.
It’s 9 in the morning and I want some goddamned soup. A big bowl of veggie and tomato soup.
Crap.
Dr Audley Z. Darkheart,
Oh thanks. Now *I* want some too.
;-)
Louis
Bill,
FFC blunts the effect but arguably does not contradict it. Because the clause so broadly says “the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof”, this will probably turn out to be one of the less effective arguments for DOMA’s unconstitutionality.
FFC was a pretty common argument at one time, so your (and ‘Tis’s) memory is evidently quite good on the subject, but more lately it’s fallen into disuse. I was surprised to see ‘Tis bring it up (not because it’s a bad argument — I’ve previously figured it would be an elegant hack if it worked — but because I just rarely hear of it), and surprised again to discover that it was once one of the foremost arguments. I was too ignorant to comprehend this stuff when it was current.
I’ve only really seen a lot of the suspect classification & heightened scrutiny argument, which I picked up from MAJeff circa Prop 8. It turns out this is what Obama/Holder are going with for DOMA. (And if they don’t succeed this time around, I expect this will still be the argument that eventually carries the day, because it’s gotten more traction lately; and since heightened scrutiny is a purely judicial construct that is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, unlike FFC, there is nothing to be read in the Constitution which might suggest that it shouldn’t apply.)
For reference, the public statment of the reasoning behind why Obama has the DoJ working to prove DOMA is not constitutional: http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/LETTER_-_BOEHNER.pdf
Yesterday I was curious about my first Internet appearance on this series of blogs, that being at Bad Astronomy. I was arguing for a Christian perspective on a post from one of QualiaSoup’s videos (specifically the one about Faith vs Reason.)
I was making all the same arguments that I systematically destroy now. It’s so funny, albeit a little sad. I’ve come a long way since then.
I also really like today’s xkcd.
My favorite part is the Alt Text.
I really like that sentiment, and I totally agree with it. That’s why I like science so much, cause the most of the fun comes from telling people about things they don’t know and explaining bits and pieces of the world they’re not privy to. Back when I asked about easy-to-understand biology books, when you guys told me to read Your Inner Fish and Why Evolution is True, I picked them up cause I really wanted to learn, and every single page was filled with “oh really” moments and “I didn’t know that” awesomeness.
I see Bill Dauphin in #111 and #129 articulated what I was trying do say much better than I was able to do.
“The Four-Minute Guide To Surviving a Robot Uprising” http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/05/08/robopocalypse_author_daniel_h_wilson_s_robot_uprising_survival_guide_video_.html
Audley – I often have soup for breakfast! You just need to send Mr.D out to get some. :)
Katherine – I already put that xkcd on my office door! :) I love the sentiment. When Randall hits emotional wonder at the world notes, he does it just right.
I have never heard of the band Against Me, but the lead singer of it has just come out as transgender in the latest Rolling Stone.
Or even get him to make some. Tomato and veg soup is not difficult to make. What do you need, some tinned tomatoes, some frozen veg, an onion, maybe some garlic ?
I’m going to make a gazpacho as soon as I get salt and pepper shakers that don’t suck.
I just have to figure out what to put in it… tomato, cucumber, onion… maybe a yellow pepper… celery?… what goes good in gazpacho…
@carlie:
Awesome news, though I made the mistake of scrolling to the comments.
Not caught up (hah).
The truth machine, in a surprisingly good mood, trouncing a believer in a supernatural interpretation of near-death experiences. Read and enjoy.
It has to have garlic, and stale bread is a common addition. No need to use only yellow peppers, red will be fine as well.
Some wine vinegar is pretty essential as well.
Louis,
Sorry!
Carlie and Matt,
I would ask Mr Darkheart to provide, but we’re both a work and he’d be a bit grumbly if I called him now to ask him to bring me soup.
The truly sad thing is that there’s no decent place to get veg soup around here, so I’m gonna have to wait ’til I get home.
Kat,
The best gazpacho I ever had was served as a “shooter” and it had cooled cooked shrimp garnishing each glass. OM NOM NOM.
Anyway, completely unrelated to soup, as far as I’m concerned, UPS can go fuck itself. Since when have they stopped leaving delivery slips on the door? (Never mind that I was home all day yesterday (when the delivery attempt was made) and so was my downstairs neighbor, so who the fuck did they try to deliver to?)
@Matt:
I’ll probably get the red, yellow, orange pack of peppers that they sell at my grocery store and cut those up to add. I think I have red wine vinegar, but I’ll have to check. And yes, definitely garlic.
I’m just thinking about other things to add, I don’t want too many flavors – and I do want to maybe use a sweet onion rather than a regular onion or a red onion cause those have always overwhelmed the rest of the soup.
I think he might be excused on this occasion then!
Bummer.
Well you have all the classic ingredients. Don’t forget to check you have ice cubes for when you serve it.
There already is. Marriage is mentioned as a right in Skinner v Oklahoma, Loving v Virginia, and Zablocki v Redhail.
The strongest argument against expanding this right by judicial fiat has been that gay people are already allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. No really! That argument has actually showed up in the courts.
That’s part of why it’s been important, from a legal perspective, to show that same-sex attraction is not a choice: http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-maddow-show/47198688
Anyway, so, theoretically there are federal legislative options. Just pass a law saying that sexual orientation is a suspect classification which requires strict scrutiny and legislatively strike DOMA. But I agree that such options are currently DOA. And even so I wouldn’t want to try this until one more conservative on the Supreme Court is replaced by one more liberal, because the challenge would almost be guaranteed to reach the high court.
This might work. It’s worth a shot. (If anybody’s confused, using FFC after striking down DOMA is a stronger option than using FFC to take down DOMA, precisely because DOMA apparently circumscribes FFC.)
I heard that bastion of love and acceptance Tony Perkins saying that exact thing this morning.
Made me all warm and fuzzy.
:)
And it’s somewhat heartening to think that that really is the best they’ve got.
So much more to say but I’m out of time for now. :(
carlie @187: I mentioned that way upthread, as did another poster whose nym I can’t remember, but I think both of those got lost in the rather heated discussions.
Anyway, if you want to check the band out I would suggest Reinventing Axl Rose first so you can see where the band started out- it’s an incredible folk-punk album and at that time a lot of people were considering them the saviors of punk. Actually, I’d probably recommend going through their catalog in chronological order with the warning/encouragement, depending on your point of view, that their later stuff becomes much more polished and produced.
Searching for a Former Clarity was my favorite of theirs after Axl Rose; it’s sort of a concept album that Tom wrote during a 1-2 year period where he was convinced he was dying (forgive me if I’m using the wrong pronouns here, I’m not sure what to use retroactively). As far as I remember that’s the first album that hinted at his issues with gender identity, but it’s hard to realize how personal it is unless you know that it’s meant to be from his perspective (namely, the song Total Clarity).
New Wave was where they seemed to have lost a lot of fans by “selling out” and going to a major label. I didn’t like it at first either, but I found that if you just let it be a rock album without the expectation of them making the same type of music from their early career, it’s a catchy as hell album. The song The Ocean makes a lot more sense with the context of the Rolling Stone story.
It seems that I have a competitor for the title, History’s Greatest Monster. I am greatly embarrassed.
Wow. I was looking through pictures on an old harddrive the other day and came across his famous pool party shot. Haven’t seen him here for ages.
And I see sgbm is out of hibernation as well, wb !
Longer video of the interview
The Sailor: There’s your smoking gun. Not “heavily edited”, just a few minutes of conversation.
Satisfied now? He thinks it’s a states issue, and he’s apparently fine that “states are coming to different conclusions”.
Oh, but they’re not “mean-spirited”, so it’s all okay.
Fuck that.
I am cool with being deprived of rights as long as the people in charge are nice about it.
I really should know my place in polite society.
But Janine, the mistake you are making is expecting a politician to a moral stand on an issue. At least that is what an idiot on the other thread is claiming. Apparently not only do politicians often fail to provide moral leadership, we also have no right to expect such leadership from them.
Thanks Richard.
So can we all stop pretending that Obama gives a shit about gay rights?
Janine,
As long as you don’t say “fuck” we in larger society will continue to harass you to your eventual suicide for loving someone of the same sex.
Of course if you do say “fuck”, we’ll kill you.
Hey, we’re just doing our part.
Louis
Hey, it definitely needs to be said again: Fuck you, Obama.
It’s nice to know that Obama thinks that bigots’ precious feeee-wings are more important than guaranteeing equal rights to gay couples. God, I’m really starting to hope that he loses to Rmoney– not because I want that odious toad in office but because if any Dem deserves to be a one term president, it’s Obama. In other words: I’m a spiteful jerk.
Hi there
Birger
I’m sorry to hear
(hugs)
++++
Personal recipy
Disclaimer: I hate raw onions, therefore they’re left behind
-cucumber, without seeds
-ready made tomato juice or puree, I’m lazy
-garlic, lots of. I personally like to fry it slightly before using
-some white sandwich bread without crust
-peppers, peeled
-good olive oil
-wine vinegar, preferrably sherry vinegar
-paprika
-black pepper
-salt
-whatever
Throw everything into a blender, maybe add a few ice-cubes.
Now, what is little known is that Gazpacho makes a great summer meal with friends and family.
Fried shrinp, tuna, boiled eggs, sliced veggies, diced cheese, ham, olives, etc are put into small dishes. Either just have baguette-style bread or slice it, put a bit of garlic oil on top and grill it slightly.
Now everybody throws into their Gazpacho whatever they like and everybody’s happy.
Dr Audley Z. Darkheart,
Well some of those people who fee-fees will be hurt by Obama giving out gay marriage love will be men. Real manly men who fuck women. Not pooves. And we all know that MAN FEE-FEES* are important.
Louis
* IMPORTANT!!!!!!!!!!1111111111!!!!!!!!
Dr. Audley:
I won’t go that far. I think that attitude could be dangerous, though I feel the temptation and certainly don’t think ill of you for feeling that way.
As I’ve said elsewhere: he gets my vote, honestly, because it’s irrational to focus on remodeling the house when it’s in the process of burning down. We’re in damage control mode rather than “fix the problems” mode. But it feels like we’re perpetually in “damage control mode”; just once, I’d like to be able to fix the fucking sink. This kind of shit is not helping.
Louis,
Of course! Why do I never think of the all important MAN FEE-FEES? It must be my fluffy pink lady brainz shorting out again. Of course the straight menz are more important than anyone else in America! I mean, duh! How many times do they have to keep reminding us?
PS: Hey, would you bring me some soup?
I want Obama to win. Not because I think he is good, but because he is the lesser of two evils. At least he has that going for him.
If anyone thinks that is anything but damning with faint praise, I’d like to know why.
Almost anything that slows America’s rightward lurching is to be welcomed. Incidentally that’s precisely why Obama’s comments on same sex marriage are so BAD. They don’t hinder the rightward lurch, they help it.
And threads merge into one….thread singularity…dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria.
Louis
NEW THREAD!