Comments on: Predictable bigotry

By: Adrien

Adrien — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 04:18:21 +0000

Myriad’s partner – If it’s forced upon you, like a working with a foreign government, that’s one thing, if it’s someone you are using to “reach out” to a largely privileged segment of American society – well, that’s just not on, no mater how you slice it.
.
Yeah I agree totally.
.
Obama’s transideological position interests me but it can be a good thing or a bad thing. It can mean being less ‘religious’ about politics and more practical or it can mean dumping principle and doing whatever it takes to maintain power. We’ll see.
.
The Religious Right in America have gifted themselves a certain position of moral authority. Despite the oft repeated fact that Americans are largely tolerant of gays and lesbians and support a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy for some reason anyone advocating these things in public always appears to be apologetic for it. Obama’s religious affiliations are less than savoury. To Australians the required public spectacle of faith that seems to be a requirement for any American politician are worrisome.
.
On the plus side however Obama endorses reinvigorating scientific research and endorses the theory of evolution. So I guess we’ll see.

By: myriad

myriad — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 00:23:39 +0000

Adrien, this is myriad’s partner stealing her handle for a moment. I don’t think the issue is whether Obama agrees with Warren or not. And frankly I’m surprised at how no one seems to be talking about how Warren, in addition to demeaning gays, equates abortion with the Holocaust. An all-around good guy – who just happens to be in the minority on both issues. Americans may get hung up on the “marriage” issue, but the majority still think that homosexuality is OK and that abortion should be legal.

For me the issue is this: do minorities have the right to be protected from majority opinion? The US bill of rights and constitution specifically say “yes”. Ragging on minorities is not really done in mainstream politics. Even Bush used the “some of my friends are” line and never openly attacked gays. So, for me Obama’s real choice is: when you’re dealing with have someone in a position of power who is specifically targeting marginalized minority groups, do you call them out on it or look the other way. If it’s forced upon you, like a working with a foreign government, that’s one thing, if it’s someone you are using to “reach out” to a largely privileged segment of American society – well, that’s just not on, no mater how you slice it.

BTW, I’m sure my mother attends Warren’s church at times.

By: Nickws

Nickws — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 14:15:36 +0000

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, Nickws. Perhaps it does mean something, but people choose not to comment for several reasons. For example, I was feeling particularly inarticulate when the issue of Cuba was raised. It’s not mandatory to comment, you know…

Yep, discretion is a good way to respond to an issue one is unfamiliar with.

And going OT is not always such a bad thing.

But take a look at what the most profligate* commenter on this thread has written and you have to wonder why people respond to specific issues with prepared, stock rants.

*Correct use of the word ‘profligate’, which my dictionary tells me is “extremely extravagent or wasteful.”

By: Down and Out of Sài Gòn

Down and Out of Sài Gòn — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 06:57:50 +0000

Once again, I have to express disbelief that this means nothing to most people here, whether they be pro- or con-.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, Nickws. Perhaps it does mean something, but people choose not to comment for several reasons. For example, I was feeling particularly inarticulate when the issue of Cuba was raised. It’s not mandatory to comment, you know…

By: Adrien

Adrien — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 06:49:12 +0000

He has a very bad habit in having in particular, homosexuals accumulate as ‘collateral damage’ on each side of the aisle as he ‘reaches over’.
.
Yeah I wonder about that.
.
On the one hand it could be calculated. He could simply be disarming the religious right in advance. On the other hand he could actually be in agreement with them viz family values.
.
Which is worse?

By: myriad

myriad — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 06:26:37 +0000

Hi Sublime Cowgirl,

my partner is American, so yes, well aware of Warren & his profile. I disagree quite emphatically that giving him the gig at the inauguration will be essentially irrelevant to his status; it’s about the biggest honour a priest can get in the USA, and he’s got it for what is almost certainly going to be an inauguration that surpasses all others by several orders of magnitude.

There are other non-homophobic church leaders who are every bit as inspiring as Warren that Obama could have chosen, and in doing so sent a very powerful message. He has a very bad habit in having in particular, homosexuals accumulate as ‘collateral damage’ on each side of the aisle as he ‘reaches over’.

By: Sociological grrrl wonder

Sociological grrrl wonder — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 12:50:18 +0000

Totally agree.

By: Nickws

Nickws — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 12:47:40 +0000

That Wikipedia article is quite schizoid

I think Peter Tatchell’s mob have been at that wiki page–I was more impressed by sources that report that Fidel had actually apologised, somewhat, for official Cuba’s past homophobia ala the enforced quarantining of people with HIV, and that his daughter has organised ‘pride marches’.

They’re obviously not perfect, it’s just they no longer tyrannise homosexuals.

But even if you think Cuba is hypocritical regarding the “equality regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity” resolution, does that negate the value of the statement? I don’t think it does

What bothers me is that some of the other third world countries backing the resolution might still practice institutional homophobia.

Once again, I have to express disbelief that this means nothing to most people here, whether they be pro- or con-. I think there’s a weird insularity to a lot of debate in the West about these kinds of dilemmas.

By: Mark Elliott

Mark Elliott — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:42:29 +0000

Actually, the Vatican didn’t back the OIC’s statement. In fact, it came out in support of decriminisation of homosexuality. Its main beef is with the wording of the statement.
It’s probably still unacceptable to a fair few people here, but I want the record to be straight that the Vatican isn’t pushing a anti-decriminalisation agenda, and most certainly didn’t support the counter-measure.

By: Adrien

Adrien — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 04:10:35 +0000

I don’t think this is remotely true.
.
No? I haven’t seen that many odes to US foreign aid about. Just sayin’.
.
Nobody praises the governments of Russia or China, or Zimbabwe.
.
Well no-one praises the government of Zimbabwe, Russia and China? Not too sure about that one.
.
Being opposed to US government policies is pretty common around the world, not just alleged latte-sippers.
.
Which is what I said and then you say that’s not remotely true. Okay.
.
I’m not saying that US foreign policy shouldn’t criticized. It should. In fact it is being criticized from all over the spectrum. Even a quasi-fascist like Pat Robertson is howling about the neocon adventure.
.
I like your link:

a draft that would have the Assembly urge all States to take legislative measures to ensure that their territories and nationals were not used for the recruitment, assembly, financing, training and transit of mercenaries whose use could impede the right of people to self-determination, destabilize Governments, or dismember or impair the territorial integrity or political unity of States.

Great example of how impossible the UN’s mission is. It’s obvious that clanned militarism, for example, turns what could be a tourist haven like Somalia into a warn torn shithole. How do you stop it?
.
Takes more than a draft. Might be worth remembering why US forces (and Pakistani and Italian etc) where in Somalia in the first place.