maxomai: dog (Default)
Quoting the man himself:

I will name the time and the place, per your offer, as soon as possible. Looking forward to it, NOMnuts.


On the one hand, Dan Savage knows next to nothing about Christianity. On the other hand, Brian Brown is a homophobic idiot who also, IMO, knows plenty about the fascist, nationalist brand of Christianity, a bare minimum about the Bible, and nothing about much else. The whole fight is bound to be about as enlightening as a professional wrestling match.

However, I do see some potential for good here, if GWAR jumps on stage during the debate and kills both of them. How about it, guys?
maxomai: dog (Default)
Quoting the man himself:

I will name the time and the place, per your offer, as soon as possible. Looking forward to it, NOMnuts.


On the one hand, Dan Savage knows next to nothing about Christianity. On the other hand, Brian Brown is a homophobic idiot who also, IMO, knows plenty about the fascist, nationalist brand of Christianity, a bare minimum about the Bible, and nothing about much else. The whole fight is bound to be about as enlightening as a professional wrestling match.

However, I do see some potential for good here, if GWAR jumps on stage during the debate and kills both of them. How about it, guys?
maxomai: dog (Default)
Well then!

Rekers, a Baptist minister who is a leading scholar for the Christian right, left the terminal with his gay escort, looking a bit discomfited when a picture of the two was snapped with a hot-pink digital camera.


Rekers hired his escort via Rentboy.com. As Joe points out, Rekers is one of the leaders of NARTH, an organization to promote Reparative Therapy, a huge scam that purports to "cure" people of their homosexuality. He is also a co-founder of the Family Research Council.

This kinda thing is getting almost routine.
maxomai: dog (Default)
Well then!

Rekers, a Baptist minister who is a leading scholar for the Christian right, left the terminal with his gay escort, looking a bit discomfited when a picture of the two was snapped with a hot-pink digital camera.


Rekers hired his escort via Rentboy.com. As Joe points out, Rekers is one of the leaders of NARTH, an organization to promote Reparative Therapy, a huge scam that purports to "cure" people of their homosexuality. He is also a co-founder of the Family Research Council.

This kinda thing is getting almost routine.
maxomai: dog (Default)
Hunter of DailyKos points out for us that the right wing bloggosphere is increasingly adopting the tactics of the White Supremacists, going so far as to track down political opponents and issue veiled or obvious death threats. Those of us who are used to dealing with nazis and anti-choicers are used to this kind of vile behavior, but now the righties are using those same tactics on critics of the President.

A lot of people on the Left think this is an opportunity to shame the public into abandoning these thugs. History tells us it should be regarded, instead, as a warning.

Got your gun?
maxomai: dog (Default)
Hunter of DailyKos points out for us that the right wing bloggosphere is increasingly adopting the tactics of the White Supremacists, going so far as to track down political opponents and issue veiled or obvious death threats. Those of us who are used to dealing with nazis and anti-choicers are used to this kind of vile behavior, but now the righties are using those same tactics on critics of the President.

A lot of people on the Left think this is an opportunity to shame the public into abandoning these thugs. History tells us it should be regarded, instead, as a warning.

Got your gun?
maxomai: dog (Default)
One of the big realizations inside the Democratic Party is that the Left is getting creamed on so-called "values issues," because the GOP has figured out how to talk to white protestants and the Dems haven't. That's not to say that religious voters always go Rethug -- after all, African-American Christians go Democratic by anywhere between ten to one and twenty to one over the GOP. Even so, the single strongest correlation that we can find that determines how one votes is whether one attends Church regularly.

The Democrats, in a fit of framing, decided that it's time to start talking to Christians directly; and who better to do that than Barack Obama, who had his own Born Again experience in a church on Chicago's South Side? So he gave a speech at the Call for Renewal conference. (Go read it, it's important.) This speech has been lambasted by progressive bloggers who apparently have completely forgotten where the values of the progressive movement came from. (Civil rights? SANE/FREEZE? Those were powered by churches, folks, much more so than by advocacy groups like NAACP.) To my mind, this lack of understanding marks one of the significant differences, politically, between African-Americans and White Progressives. To White Progressives, the Christian Left seems odd and novel; to African-Americans, it's basic and obvious. Advantage, negroes.

The problem is, Senator Obama is still basically stuck in the secular progressive mindset, as shrieking theofascist Albert Mohler points out on his blog:

So, after encouraging believers to bring their convictions into the public square, Sen. Obama now tells them to keep such convictions to themselves, at least when it comes to any matter of public policy.

When the senator demands that any policy proposal be couched in an argument from secular principle -- "some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those of no faith at all" -- he is institutionalizing secularism. This is the same kind of argument heard from academics like Robert Audi and the late John Rawls.

But this is also demanding the impossible. Sen. Obama seems to believe in the myth of a universal reason and rationality that will be compelling to all persons of all faiths, including those of no faith at all. Such principles do not exist in any specific form usable for the making of public policy on, for example, matters of life and death like abortion and human embryo research.

This is secularism with a smile -- offered in the form of an invitation for believers to show up, but then only to be allowed to make arguments that are not based in their deepest beliefs


Sounds like Mohler has figured out Senator Obama's kryptonite, and the kryptonite of most of the embryotic Religious Left: he believes that all people hold fundamentally the same beliefs. Let me assure you folks that this is not true, and I know this from my own struggle with Thelema. When most people's highest morality is humble-self sacrifice, and your own highest morality is rising from the mud to achieve Godhood, there is a conflict that can't just be papered over. People won't stand for it. If you don't believe me, look at what my presence is doing to Street Prophets.

So Mohler has figured out Obama's kryptonite. What Mohler doesn't realize (yet) is that this same kryptonite applies to the theofascists. After all, it's okay to legislate in such a way that your values get shoved down the throats of an unaccepting public if you assume that we're all fundamentally the same, modulo some theological discipline. Once you realize that we're not fundamentally the same -- that there are differences in culture, aptitude, dedication, devotion and achivement that make us inherently unequal -- then the cookie cutter, one-size-fits-all dogma of the Christian Right just doesn't cut it anymore. And at that point, the Christian Right doesn't have the keys to anything that's universally useful, unless you count the bathroom door.

As I stated earlier, I think trying to revive the Christian Left is a lost cause; the progressive Christianity that inspired Bryant and MLK has been fractured, and the pieces that are left over are tearing themselves to shreds. (Just take a look at the Anglicans and you'll see what I mean). But I could be wrong, and if I am, then Barack Obama will probably be the person who proves me wrong. He took a clumsy first step this last week, and got egg on his face in the process. I personally hope his next step will be a little more sure -- and a little more well-founded.
maxomai: dog (Default)
One of the big realizations inside the Democratic Party is that the Left is getting creamed on so-called "values issues," because the GOP has figured out how to talk to white protestants and the Dems haven't. That's not to say that religious voters always go Rethug -- after all, African-American Christians go Democratic by anywhere between ten to one and twenty to one over the GOP. Even so, the single strongest correlation that we can find that determines how one votes is whether one attends Church regularly.

The Democrats, in a fit of framing, decided that it's time to start talking to Christians directly; and who better to do that than Barack Obama, who had his own Born Again experience in a church on Chicago's South Side? So he gave a speech at the Call for Renewal conference. (Go read it, it's important.) This speech has been lambasted by progressive bloggers who apparently have completely forgotten where the values of the progressive movement came from. (Civil rights? SANE/FREEZE? Those were powered by churches, folks, much more so than by advocacy groups like NAACP.) To my mind, this lack of understanding marks one of the significant differences, politically, between African-Americans and White Progressives. To White Progressives, the Christian Left seems odd and novel; to African-Americans, it's basic and obvious. Advantage, negroes.

The problem is, Senator Obama is still basically stuck in the secular progressive mindset, as shrieking theofascist Albert Mohler points out on his blog:

So, after encouraging believers to bring their convictions into the public square, Sen. Obama now tells them to keep such convictions to themselves, at least when it comes to any matter of public policy.

When the senator demands that any policy proposal be couched in an argument from secular principle -- "some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those of no faith at all" -- he is institutionalizing secularism. This is the same kind of argument heard from academics like Robert Audi and the late John Rawls.

But this is also demanding the impossible. Sen. Obama seems to believe in the myth of a universal reason and rationality that will be compelling to all persons of all faiths, including those of no faith at all. Such principles do not exist in any specific form usable for the making of public policy on, for example, matters of life and death like abortion and human embryo research.

This is secularism with a smile -- offered in the form of an invitation for believers to show up, but then only to be allowed to make arguments that are not based in their deepest beliefs


Sounds like Mohler has figured out Senator Obama's kryptonite, and the kryptonite of most of the embryotic Religious Left: he believes that all people hold fundamentally the same beliefs. Let me assure you folks that this is not true, and I know this from my own struggle with Thelema. When most people's highest morality is humble-self sacrifice, and your own highest morality is rising from the mud to achieve Godhood, there is a conflict that can't just be papered over. People won't stand for it. If you don't believe me, look at what my presence is doing to Street Prophets.

So Mohler has figured out Obama's kryptonite. What Mohler doesn't realize (yet) is that this same kryptonite applies to the theofascists. After all, it's okay to legislate in such a way that your values get shoved down the throats of an unaccepting public if you assume that we're all fundamentally the same, modulo some theological discipline. Once you realize that we're not fundamentally the same -- that there are differences in culture, aptitude, dedication, devotion and achivement that make us inherently unequal -- then the cookie cutter, one-size-fits-all dogma of the Christian Right just doesn't cut it anymore. And at that point, the Christian Right doesn't have the keys to anything that's universally useful, unless you count the bathroom door.

As I stated earlier, I think trying to revive the Christian Left is a lost cause; the progressive Christianity that inspired Bryant and MLK has been fractured, and the pieces that are left over are tearing themselves to shreds. (Just take a look at the Anglicans and you'll see what I mean). But I could be wrong, and if I am, then Barack Obama will probably be the person who proves me wrong. He took a clumsy first step this last week, and got egg on his face in the process. I personally hope his next step will be a little more sure -- and a little more well-founded.
maxomai: dog (Default)
Just before lunch there was a panel to discuss the war, which included two intelligence officers and Arianna Huffington. The theme of this talk was that the Dems were doing themselves a disservice by buying into the Republican "War on Terror" meme. There was some discussion about how to fight this meme in terms of the practicality of this war, but I found lacking the discussion about the ideological backing for this war -- the concept that American - style democracy, and American ideas about freedom and autonomy, can be spread at gunpoint.

So I asked the question of the panel: what can we do to fight the ideological battle against these Kantians with Cruise Missiles besides pointing to the impracticality of this mission? Unfortunately, the answers to this question were lacking -- although one panelist did point out that the "spreading democracy" mission was the fifth excuse used to justify this war, with WMDs being the first.

I took a photo of Arianna just because she's Arianna. Will be posted when available.
maxomai: dog (Default)
Just before lunch there was a panel to discuss the war, which included two intelligence officers and Arianna Huffington. The theme of this talk was that the Dems were doing themselves a disservice by buying into the Republican "War on Terror" meme. There was some discussion about how to fight this meme in terms of the practicality of this war, but I found lacking the discussion about the ideological backing for this war -- the concept that American - style democracy, and American ideas about freedom and autonomy, can be spread at gunpoint.

So I asked the question of the panel: what can we do to fight the ideological battle against these Kantians with Cruise Missiles besides pointing to the impracticality of this mission? Unfortunately, the answers to this question were lacking -- although one panelist did point out that the "spreading democracy" mission was the fifth excuse used to justify this war, with WMDs being the first.

I took a photo of Arianna just because she's Arianna. Will be posted when available.
maxomai: (angry-penguin)
(You can catch YearlyKos streaming via CSPAN 2)

One of the major events of YearlyKos is the CIA Leak discussion panel, which includes Ambassador Joe Wilson. Considering that it was his wife that was outed by the White House, you can imagine that a lot of folks want to hear what he has to say.

The emphasis is made here that the story would never have been told if the traditional media were left to do the job -- it's the bloggosphere that broke this story and the bloggosphere that will continue to report on it. The mainstream media, as with many stories, is following the blogs' lead on this.

Joseph Wilson, aka Mr. Valarie Plame, said the following (rough transcript):

Plamegage, writ large, has neve beeen about me or my wife. One of the few accurate things about Novak's article is that he quoted me on that fact. It is a campaign to change the subject from the facts as presented in my article.

Who knows the name of the person who put the 16 words in the SOTU address? Who doesn't know my wife's name? The real question, is who put those lies in his State of the Union speech, and why did they do it?

Make no mistake about it, there is not decision more important in a society than whether to send its soldiers to kill or die for thir country. We have to make that decision based on the facts, not based on lies crafted to fit the pre-decided policy. The cost has been dear: 2500 US dead, 18,000 US woundedd, tens of thousands of Iraqi dead. We deserve to know why this decision was made, how it was made, and we deserve to hold the people who made those decisions to account. (applause) This is about war and why we wage it, not about Wilson.

This is also about how we conduct debate on those key issues that we make as a great society. This is about being open to a free and vigorous exchange of ideas, even if the people who enter the debate have inconvenient facts and inconvenient ideas.

I for one refuse to be intimidated, and if there's any example for what Valaire and I went through, it's that we must stand up to the school yard bullies, and that these decisions must be made with the consent of the people.

My article in the NYT 7/6/03 entitled "What I did not find in Africa," was not an act of moral or political courage, but of civic duty. It's what democracies do every day, whether it's a letter to your elected official or a letter to the newspaper. It is what underpins a democracy -- the willingnes and ability of a population to hold their officials to account. What makes this article notworthy is the context of how this narrative has played out -- that this administration was determined to see that their narative was the only narrative, and that dissent was crushed.

What should give us concern is that we find ourselves in the situation described by George Orwell: "In a time of universal deceit, the act of telling the truth is revolutionary." It's in that context that we have this discussion today. Thank you.


Other points made:

- This is a tragedy for journalism, but not beacuse people are being subpoenaed -- it's because the journalists aren't doing their damn job. They're presenting highly spun leaks or well known public information -- the exceptions are coming not from journliasts, but fromthe bloggosphere. Consider that if it were not for the bloggosphere, Judy Miller would be considered a great journalist instead of a shill, and Scooter Libby wouldn't have been indicted in all likelihood. This isn't just the Plame case -- this is the whole way the WH operates.

- We really don't know where this story is going to go. This could go nowhere. Only when this is done -- when the story fizzles out or when Bush is implicated and Rove is indicted -- will we know what we've done.

- A lot of news organizations are so conflicted about their roles in this -- since many of them are complicit -- that many are hoping this will just go away. Want to fix this? Let's try reclaiming the media

- Part of the bloggosphere obsession with this story is a motivation not to let happen to Treasongate what happened to Iran/Contra.

- The MSM is starting to figure out that the bloggosphere isn't just a bunch of 16 year olds. (Some of the bloggers on the panel have Ph. Ds or JDs.)

- VP was not the only member of her training class to go into NOC, nor is she the only NOC agent to be married to a diplomat. The Right Wing's assertion that she never should have married a diplomat if she wanted to retain her cover is a plain lie.

- The same goes for the assertion that no damage was done. The cases she was working on to prevent Iran's ability to develop nuclear technology were destroyed with this exposure. (Consider that this might be relevant to today's screaming Drudge headline.) The damage to the CIA's intel gathering and to our national security is profound; the GOP's defense of this treason is inexcusable.

- Some of the right-wing media's legal sources might benefit from some actual time in a courtroom. They've got the facts on Fitzgerald's investigation, the grand jury, Karl Rove's status in this investigation, etc., wrong, wrong, wrong. Suggestion to the media: go to the Federal grand jury room in DC on Wednesday and Friday, and see if Fitz is coming in. This might tell you something about the investigation.

Questions:

Q: Every single top Republican at this point could be indicted for treason, etc. As they get backed up against the peril of imprisonment, what can we expect them to do?
A: There's no limit to what they could do.
A: (Wilson) I have great faith in the institution of democracy, and I've had great privalege to serve my country for 23 years. One of the things I take from this experience is that the minute that it became apparent that those who were engaged in compromising the ID of my life may have been engaged in breaking the law, a process came into effect to defend the law, my wife, and the Constitution. When Pat Fitzgerald was named, it served to reinforce the commitment of career officials to ensure that this remains a nation of laws. I remain confident that the rule of law will be successfully implemented.
maxomai: (angry-penguin)
(You can catch YearlyKos streaming via CSPAN 2)

One of the major events of YearlyKos is the CIA Leak discussion panel, which includes Ambassador Joe Wilson. Considering that it was his wife that was outed by the White House, you can imagine that a lot of folks want to hear what he has to say.

The emphasis is made here that the story would never have been told if the traditional media were left to do the job -- it's the bloggosphere that broke this story and the bloggosphere that will continue to report on it. The mainstream media, as with many stories, is following the blogs' lead on this.

Joseph Wilson, aka Mr. Valarie Plame, said the following (rough transcript):

Plamegage, writ large, has neve beeen about me or my wife. One of the few accurate things about Novak's article is that he quoted me on that fact. It is a campaign to change the subject from the facts as presented in my article.

Who knows the name of the person who put the 16 words in the SOTU address? Who doesn't know my wife's name? The real question, is who put those lies in his State of the Union speech, and why did they do it?

Make no mistake about it, there is not decision more important in a society than whether to send its soldiers to kill or die for thir country. We have to make that decision based on the facts, not based on lies crafted to fit the pre-decided policy. The cost has been dear: 2500 US dead, 18,000 US woundedd, tens of thousands of Iraqi dead. We deserve to know why this decision was made, how it was made, and we deserve to hold the people who made those decisions to account. (applause) This is about war and why we wage it, not about Wilson.

This is also about how we conduct debate on those key issues that we make as a great society. This is about being open to a free and vigorous exchange of ideas, even if the people who enter the debate have inconvenient facts and inconvenient ideas.

I for one refuse to be intimidated, and if there's any example for what Valaire and I went through, it's that we must stand up to the school yard bullies, and that these decisions must be made with the consent of the people.

My article in the NYT 7/6/03 entitled "What I did not find in Africa," was not an act of moral or political courage, but of civic duty. It's what democracies do every day, whether it's a letter to your elected official or a letter to the newspaper. It is what underpins a democracy -- the willingnes and ability of a population to hold their officials to account. What makes this article notworthy is the context of how this narrative has played out -- that this administration was determined to see that their narative was the only narrative, and that dissent was crushed.

What should give us concern is that we find ourselves in the situation described by George Orwell: "In a time of universal deceit, the act of telling the truth is revolutionary." It's in that context that we have this discussion today. Thank you.


Other points made:

- This is a tragedy for journalism, but not beacuse people are being subpoenaed -- it's because the journalists aren't doing their damn job. They're presenting highly spun leaks or well known public information -- the exceptions are coming not from journliasts, but fromthe bloggosphere. Consider that if it were not for the bloggosphere, Judy Miller would be considered a great journalist instead of a shill, and Scooter Libby wouldn't have been indicted in all likelihood. This isn't just the Plame case -- this is the whole way the WH operates.

- We really don't know where this story is going to go. This could go nowhere. Only when this is done -- when the story fizzles out or when Bush is implicated and Rove is indicted -- will we know what we've done.

- A lot of news organizations are so conflicted about their roles in this -- since many of them are complicit -- that many are hoping this will just go away. Want to fix this? Let's try reclaiming the media

- Part of the bloggosphere obsession with this story is a motivation not to let happen to Treasongate what happened to Iran/Contra.

- The MSM is starting to figure out that the bloggosphere isn't just a bunch of 16 year olds. (Some of the bloggers on the panel have Ph. Ds or JDs.)

- VP was not the only member of her training class to go into NOC, nor is she the only NOC agent to be married to a diplomat. The Right Wing's assertion that she never should have married a diplomat if she wanted to retain her cover is a plain lie.

- The same goes for the assertion that no damage was done. The cases she was working on to prevent Iran's ability to develop nuclear technology were destroyed with this exposure. (Consider that this might be relevant to today's screaming Drudge headline.) The damage to the CIA's intel gathering and to our national security is profound; the GOP's defense of this treason is inexcusable.

- Some of the right-wing media's legal sources might benefit from some actual time in a courtroom. They've got the facts on Fitzgerald's investigation, the grand jury, Karl Rove's status in this investigation, etc., wrong, wrong, wrong. Suggestion to the media: go to the Federal grand jury room in DC on Wednesday and Friday, and see if Fitz is coming in. This might tell you something about the investigation.

Questions:

Q: Every single top Republican at this point could be indicted for treason, etc. As they get backed up against the peril of imprisonment, what can we expect them to do?
A: There's no limit to what they could do.
A: (Wilson) I have great faith in the institution of democracy, and I've had great privalege to serve my country for 23 years. One of the things I take from this experience is that the minute that it became apparent that those who were engaged in compromising the ID of my life may have been engaged in breaking the law, a process came into effect to defend the law, my wife, and the Constitution. When Pat Fitzgerald was named, it served to reinforce the commitment of career officials to ensure that this remains a nation of laws. I remain confident that the rule of law will be successfully implemented.
maxomai: dog (Default)
The Senate voted 49-48 not to bother trying to end a filibuster on the falsely-so-called Defense of Marriage Amendment, bringing this whole thing to an ignoble close. Seven Republicans and all but two Democrats voted to let the filibuster continue, effectively preventing the Amendment from even coming to a vote.

I anticipate getting another email from the "Alliance for Marriage," praising lavishly the wonders of Brand W and the GOP, any moment now, simply because I see no indication that they are anything more than an astroturf campaign on behalf of the GOP.

I also expect them to do the same thing all over again -- spam campaign and all -- with flag burning in the next few weeks.
maxomai: dog (Default)
The Senate voted 49-48 not to bother trying to end a filibuster on the falsely-so-called Defense of Marriage Amendment, bringing this whole thing to an ignoble close. Seven Republicans and all but two Democrats voted to let the filibuster continue, effectively preventing the Amendment from even coming to a vote.

I anticipate getting another email from the "Alliance for Marriage," praising lavishly the wonders of Brand W and the GOP, any moment now, simply because I see no indication that they are anything more than an astroturf campaign on behalf of the GOP.

I also expect them to do the same thing all over again -- spam campaign and all -- with flag burning in the next few weeks.
maxomai: dog (Default)
...I'm getting some tall BS from the right wing noise machines at the NRA and the falsely so-called Alliance for Marriage. For the NRA's part, they, or someone who has access to their mailing list, sent me a missive which said:

Defeat the U.N.'s Doomsday Treaty Before it Destroys our Freedoms!

Dear Fellow American,

NRA Executive Vice President and New York Times bestseller, Wayne LaPierre has just released his most explosive book EVER.

In The Global War on Your Guns, LaPierre tells the shocking truth—unfiltered by the national media—about the U.N.’s conspiracy to ban ALL firearms. That means your rifles, your shotguns and your handguns!


I've explained before why this is a bunch of BS. However, this particular post presents an peculiar puzzle to ponder. Is the ultimate end to whip up the GOP's base into an excited and angry mob? Or is it to line Wayne LaPierre's pockets at the expense of those in the narrow intersection between fellow gun owners and drooling idiots? Sadly, in a nation of 300 million, even such small demographics can represent as many as a million.

Meanwhile, the Alliance for Marriage leaves no mistake as to its ultimate goal, which is to turn this whole idiotic discussion about gay marriage into a propoganda item for the President:

Today, I had the honor of joining other AFM coalition leaders for a private meeting with the President prior to his address to the nation in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment drafted by the Alliance for Marriage....

But the highlight of today's events for me was the experience we had at the White House both before and after the President's address in support of our cause on national television.

As I sat opposite the president at today's private meeting in the White House -- surrounded by leaders from all of the communities in our coalition -- I urged the President to remember that our cause is one that unifies America. I mentioned my own experience of being raised by a single mother on welfare in Spanish Harlem -- and remarked that young people who come backgrounds like mine still dream the dream of having their own children raised in a home with a mother and a father.

The President said: "You grew up in Spanish Harlem? . . . We come from very different places." I responded: "Yes, Mr. President, but the institution of marriage -- and the dream of children raised in a home with a mother and a father -- bridges the gap between where you come from and where I come from."


Awwwwwwww, isn't that just so touching and Hallmark cardy? The AFM also goes to great pains, by the way, to mention that during this event, they were "flanked by AFM coalition leaders from the Latino, African-American and Jewish communities." No mention of other communities that might favor the AFM's political ideas, such as, say, the Muslim community. That kind of thing would piss off the wrong voters.

Remember: the purpose here isn't to defend marriage, or even to bash gays. Gays are just the scapegoat here. The real purpose of this is to distract voters from Iraq, insane gas prices, the dysfunctional economy, Katrina, and everything else that this President has screwed up, in order to shore up the pathetic numbers of a pathetic President. Doing this is the only way that the GOP can make Brand W work.
maxomai: dog (Default)
...I'm getting some tall BS from the right wing noise machines at the NRA and the falsely so-called Alliance for Marriage. For the NRA's part, they, or someone who has access to their mailing list, sent me a missive which said:

Defeat the U.N.'s Doomsday Treaty Before it Destroys our Freedoms!

Dear Fellow American,

NRA Executive Vice President and New York Times bestseller, Wayne LaPierre has just released his most explosive book EVER.

In The Global War on Your Guns, LaPierre tells the shocking truth—unfiltered by the national media—about the U.N.’s conspiracy to ban ALL firearms. That means your rifles, your shotguns and your handguns!


I've explained before why this is a bunch of BS. However, this particular post presents an peculiar puzzle to ponder. Is the ultimate end to whip up the GOP's base into an excited and angry mob? Or is it to line Wayne LaPierre's pockets at the expense of those in the narrow intersection between fellow gun owners and drooling idiots? Sadly, in a nation of 300 million, even such small demographics can represent as many as a million.

Meanwhile, the Alliance for Marriage leaves no mistake as to its ultimate goal, which is to turn this whole idiotic discussion about gay marriage into a propoganda item for the President:

Today, I had the honor of joining other AFM coalition leaders for a private meeting with the President prior to his address to the nation in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment drafted by the Alliance for Marriage....

But the highlight of today's events for me was the experience we had at the White House both before and after the President's address in support of our cause on national television.

As I sat opposite the president at today's private meeting in the White House -- surrounded by leaders from all of the communities in our coalition -- I urged the President to remember that our cause is one that unifies America. I mentioned my own experience of being raised by a single mother on welfare in Spanish Harlem -- and remarked that young people who come backgrounds like mine still dream the dream of having their own children raised in a home with a mother and a father.

The President said: "You grew up in Spanish Harlem? . . . We come from very different places." I responded: "Yes, Mr. President, but the institution of marriage -- and the dream of children raised in a home with a mother and a father -- bridges the gap between where you come from and where I come from."


Awwwwwwww, isn't that just so touching and Hallmark cardy? The AFM also goes to great pains, by the way, to mention that during this event, they were "flanked by AFM coalition leaders from the Latino, African-American and Jewish communities." No mention of other communities that might favor the AFM's political ideas, such as, say, the Muslim community. That kind of thing would piss off the wrong voters.

Remember: the purpose here isn't to defend marriage, or even to bash gays. Gays are just the scapegoat here. The real purpose of this is to distract voters from Iraq, insane gas prices, the dysfunctional economy, Katrina, and everything else that this President has screwed up, in order to shore up the pathetic numbers of a pathetic President. Doing this is the only way that the GOP can make Brand W work.
maxomai: dog (Default)
That's right folks -- just in time to rescue Bush's approval ratings from the cold seas of the high 20s, the Marriage Is Under Attack! lie is back on the table. Marriages everywhere are threatened with instant disintegration and mandatory homosexuality for all unless someone, somewhere, steps in to save the day. That someone is none other than W, leader of the Free World, Defender of Democracy, and President doing a Heckofajob.

At least, that's what the GOP is trying to sell its faithful through its various proxies. Don't believe me? Take a gander at this little missive, sent to me by, I kid you not, the Alliance for Marriage:


President Bush plans to wade back into the emotional debate over same-sex marriage for the first time in his second term beginning today with a pair of speeches pressing the Senate to approve a constitutional amendment next week defining marriage as the union of a man and woman.

Bush, whose opposition to marriage between gay partners helped power him to reelection in 2004, has remained largely silent on the issue since, much to the consternation of conservatives who complain he has not exerted leadership.

The nauseating bits, let me skip to the good part: )"There are some who would prefer to have the president of the United States act like a conservative interest-group leader," Daniels said. "But he's not. He's the president of the United States. They don't want to be seen as pushing the issue."

"But when salient moments arrive," Daniels added, Bush speaks out.


That's right folks! The latest and greatest party line that the GOP is selling to the base is that Bush has been ineffectual and paralyzed because he's keeping the powder dry for the important stuff -- like denying people the right to have their life-long relationship recognized under the law. Since, you know, the really important stuff -- preventing an upcoming recession, port security, fixing New Orleans .. can wait for later, and the one big important thing -- Iraq -- is just too depressing (2) (3) (4) (5) to talk about right now.

By the way, I'd like to thank whoever put me on the Alliance For Marriage's mailing list. In all likelihood it was the NRA's Wayne LaPierre, but whoever it is -- thanks. Thanks for reminding me that the GOP is now busy trying to whip their base back into line.
maxomai: dog (Default)
That's right folks -- just in time to rescue Bush's approval ratings from the cold seas of the high 20s, the Marriage Is Under Attack! lie is back on the table. Marriages everywhere are threatened with instant disintegration and mandatory homosexuality for all unless someone, somewhere, steps in to save the day. That someone is none other than W, leader of the Free World, Defender of Democracy, and President doing a Heckofajob.

At least, that's what the GOP is trying to sell its faithful through its various proxies. Don't believe me? Take a gander at this little missive, sent to me by, I kid you not, the Alliance for Marriage:


President Bush plans to wade back into the emotional debate over same-sex marriage for the first time in his second term beginning today with a pair of speeches pressing the Senate to approve a constitutional amendment next week defining marriage as the union of a man and woman.

Bush, whose opposition to marriage between gay partners helped power him to reelection in 2004, has remained largely silent on the issue since, much to the consternation of conservatives who complain he has not exerted leadership.

The nauseating bits, let me skip to the good part: )"There are some who would prefer to have the president of the United States act like a conservative interest-group leader," Daniels said. "But he's not. He's the president of the United States. They don't want to be seen as pushing the issue."

"But when salient moments arrive," Daniels added, Bush speaks out.


That's right folks! The latest and greatest party line that the GOP is selling to the base is that Bush has been ineffectual and paralyzed because he's keeping the powder dry for the important stuff -- like denying people the right to have their life-long relationship recognized under the law. Since, you know, the really important stuff -- preventing an upcoming recession, port security, fixing New Orleans .. can wait for later, and the one big important thing -- Iraq -- is just too depressing (2) (3) (4) (5) to talk about right now.

By the way, I'd like to thank whoever put me on the Alliance For Marriage's mailing list. In all likelihood it was the NRA's Wayne LaPierre, but whoever it is -- thanks. Thanks for reminding me that the GOP is now busy trying to whip their base back into line.

Profile

maxomai: dog (Default)
maxomai

April 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
2324 2526272829
30      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 27th, 2017 08:29 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios