Ugly is as ugly does
Email This Post
- 
Print This Post
- 
There’s nothing more gratifying to watch than the sight of two of the nation’s most ignorant men fighting over the GOP leadership position. Why? Either way, it’s a lose-lose situation for the Republicans, and it could get ugly. Here’s the choice: Michael Steele, who wants to remake the GOP in a “hip-hop” way, even though there is not one elected Republican person of color on Capitol Hill. Mr. Steele spoke out of one side of his mouth prior to getting the nod as the Chairman of the GOP (oh, yes, we must expand our reach), but speaks out of the other side today. The alternative is Rush Limbaugh, the loudmouthed lout of hate radio. Oh yes, Limbaugh is a political force. There is no question about that. There’s a lot of hate in America, very quietly bubbling up to the surface these days now that Barack Obama has been elected. This lot is a dangerous faction and incorporates a lot of fringe groups, like white supremacists and neo-Nazis. However, at the end of the day, they absolutely do not represent the majority of Americans. The majority of Americans have already spoken by electing Barack Obama and not John McCain, and they want change. What is it about this mandate that the GOP doesn’t understand?
I’m sure the Republicans, and what I like to call the conservative (or ‘centrist’) Democrats, are under a lot of pressure to satisfy big business and the lobbyists that have owned Washington for many decades. I also believe that the lobbyists are out in force, given the ideological shift the budget that Barack Obama has proposed will bring. While I understand their dilemma, the fact is that they were not sent to Washington to work for the lobbyists and big business. They were sent to Washington to work for the American people. The American people do not want lobbyists controlling the government any longer. Perhaps the GOP needs some remedial Constitution:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
This is the bottom line. We do not get our rights from this government. Neither are our rights determined by any other citizens, say, like those who decided to put Prop 8 on the ballot in California with the express intent of denying one group of people its inalienable rights. We were born with those rights. All of us. Men, women, children, white, black, brown, yellow and any other people of color I might be missing. This also includes heterosexuals, gays, transgendered people and anyone in between. The only caveat is that we respect the rights of everyone else do do the same. And, by the way, one other thing that is abundantly clear is that the folks on Capitol Hill do not run the government. The president does not run the government. The people run the show. You work for us. What we did back in November 2008 was ‘alter’ the government because it was not working for us. Yes, of course, it was working for the top 2% earners and the big corporations and the way too powerful military-industrial complex. But that is not the vast majority of the American people. So, we rejected the GOP vision in favor of a new vision. Barack Obama is now carrying out the will of the people. That’s what we expect him to do. We expect him to reach out to the GOP, certainly. However, we do not want President Obama to slow down the process of change if the GOP does not want to be part of the solution.
Okay, so now, the Constitution lesson is over, so let’s talk about CPAC and how that might be playing to the American people. I’ve been on the topic before, but this time I’m not talking about Rush Limbaugh or the Man of Steele. Let’s talk about Mitch McConnell. In mocking the fact that the left’s “Take Back America,” conference (back in 2008) drew only a third of what CPAC has drawn, he said, “Who wants to hang out with guys like Paul Krugman and Robert Reich, when you can be with Rush Limbaugh?” Damned right! A guy who flunked out of state college, has been married three times, has a history of substance abuse and didn’t even register to vote until the age of thirty-seven knows how to have a good time! Maybe McConnell should rethink his government career and go into stand up. I can tell you who would rather hang out with the likes of Krugman and Reich, people with a thought process. That’s who. It would be enlightening if someone would point out to me what policy discussions are going on at CPAC. What are members of the GOP coming up with that is better than what the President plans and when will they be presenting that to us? I mean, isn’t that what they are supposed to be doing? Well, from what I can see, that isn’t what’s going on at CPAC.
What CPAC amounts to is a juvenile gathering of sour grape politicians who pout and stomp around like somebody took their collective candy away, and do not think that is going unnoticed by the American people. We have has-beens like Rick Santorum echoing Limbaugh’s sentiment that he hopes Obama fails. Then, we have intellectually-challenged individuals still questioning Barack Obama’s citizenship. We have Rush himself giving backhanded compliments to President Obama, saying that he is one of the most gifted politicians, but that he isn’t using his talents. More blah, blah, blah. Rush is - as usual - misinformed. What Barack Obama is doing is carrying out the will of the people by changing the way we do things. What he is doing is not assuming that he [Obama] knows better than the people. That’s what the GOP is doing. The GOP, by not coming up with new approaches or better plans than what the current administration is proposing, is suggesting that we just stay the course we’ve been on for the past eight years. It’s just a matter of time. You’ll see. We’ll make those Bush tax cuts to the richest Americans permanent tax cuts, and then they’ll start stimulating the economy. The rich will go out and maybe buy a Hummer or two.
We’ll keep the $30 billion in tax credits for the oil companies so that they can continue to “drill, baby, drill” for that non-existent offshore oil that’s going flow out of our ocean beds and rescue us from dependence on foreign oil, unhampered by any kind of regulation or interference. Hell, just leave big business alone and they’ll find a way out of the mess they’ve gotten us into! And, while we’re at it, let’s keep the $50 billion in tax subsidies for the big banks and student lenders. They need it for the bonuses that they give their executives as they drive the American economy into the gutter. Let’s keep the cost of education up and just out of the reach of millions of Americans. We don’t want too many thinkers here.
The problem is that these are the same ideas that were presented to the American people by the GOP during the 2008 campaign. The answer was a resounding “No!” then. Do I think Sarah Palin was the reason McCain lost? No. I believe he lost because his proposed policies were indistinguishable from those of George W. Bush, and the American people had just about had enough. These ideas have been tried over and over again, and they have failed time after time. Why would more of the same be the way out of this? A better question is why the GOP thinks the American people feel any differently now than they did in November 2008? There’s not one ounce of evidence out there that this is the case. In fact, just the opposite is true, with the vast majority showing broad support for the president’s actions.
I don’t want to help them gain too much insight, however, because I hope the GOP continues on its present path - albeit for very different reasons than what they think.
Late-Breaking News! If it’s happening in Utah, it must be serious. I am sure glad the members of the Utah state senate are on this because it’s one of those insidious, quiet threats that might otherwise go unnoticed. Utah State Senators Chris Buttars (yes, you’ve got that right), Howard Stephenson, and Dennis Stowell - after months of Vulcan Mind Melds and speaking in tongues - have discovered that the greatest threat to “America going down” is homosexuality. Yep. That’s right. It isn’t the imploding economy. It isn’t the threat of terrorism. Hell, it isn’t even Iran. It’s homosexuality.
Actually, there are times when us evil gay people wish we had that kind of power. Why? Because I can assure you that Senators Buttars, Stephenson and Stowell would have been beamed to the Isle of Lesbos by now.
Comment by Proletarian on 6 March 2009:
Deb, could you explain how this post is nothing more than liberal hypocrisy? You stated, “The majority of Americans have already spoken by electing Barack Obama and not John McCain, and they want change. What is it about this mandate that the GOP doesn’t understand?” Yet further in the blog you said, “We do not get our rights from this government. Neither are our rights determined by any other citizens, say, like those who decided to put Prop 8 on the ballot in California with the express intent of denying one group of people its inalienable rights.” Are there two sets of standards for liberals? The majority of Californians voted yes on Prop 8 because they viewed it as a moral issue. The passage was to stop same sex marriage. It’s what the majority wanted. Last time I checked the majority rules, just like you said about electing Obama. Let me repeat that, it’s a moral issue that the majority was uncomfortable with. The people “DO” get to govern their community.
I have no issue with the gay population. I do have an issue with such hypocirsy. Federal government has no relevence, or shouldn’t have, in determining moral issues in the first place. The best case senario would lie with the state. If Evangelical Christians want to govern in their domain, say Iowa or Nebraska, so be it. If the gay community wants to govern and they are the majority, fine. In case you haven’t noticed that’s exactly the way it is in the northern districts of California now, like San Francisco. However, from your blog it appears you want it both ways. Let me see, you want conservatives to shut up and go along with Mr. O’s agenda because the majority of Americans voted him in, but you side with the minority on gay marriage in California regarding Prop 8. Get over it, your hypocrisy doesn’t sell.
Comment by Deb Della Piana on 6 March 2009:
Hey, Proletarian. Stop telling me to get over it. It’s not about YOUR life, it’s about mine and that of my children. That’s right, the fed should have nothing to do with it, and neither should the public. The Supreme Court is there to interpret the Constituition. Period.
I dare say, sir, that if left to the people, neither women nor blacks would be voting today. And that’s just wrong. This country wasn’t made for just white males. Read the Constitution. There are no exceptions in there. People have taken it upon themselves to add exceptions to the rule. Really, have a problem with gay marriage? Don’t marry somebody of the same sex. As for everybody else, I could care less if the Mormons have eighty wives. That’s their call. I don’t care if they marry goats and sheep. Whatever blows their hair back. And I certainly don’t want the likes of you or anybody else determining how I should live my life.
And, as far as Evangelical Christians running the state — any state — it’s wrong. Religion out of government. Period. There’s no place for that here. You call it hypocrisy and I call it an issue of civil rights.
I’ve got a great idea! Why don’t these people all GET A LIFE so that they don’t have to meddle in others. And, by the way, don’t give me the line that you don’t have a problem with gay people. You do. That’s hypocrisy in its own right.
Comment by Rita on 6 March 2009:
Marriage is a sacrament between one man and one woman. Otherwise it is a sacrilege. No amount of hysterical bullying by homosexual militants will change that,
Comment by Deb Della Piana on 6 March 2009:
Rita, sorry, marriage is a sacrament if you ascribe to a religion. That is the way it is for you. Non-believers get married every single day. It is as much a civil ceremony as it is a religious ceremony, and it is legal either way. What is it that you do not get about what document is actually at the cornerstone of American democracy? It is not the Bible. Never has been. It is the U.S. Constitution, and only the U.S. Constitution.
Are you telling me that the only people guaranteed freedom and rights are those who believe? What part of the U.S. Constitution did you read that in because I missed it entirely? This is reality: Any attempt by anybody to stop one group of people from exercising their civil rights is called oppression. Religion is no stranger to oppression, and religions can be very adept at oppression when it suits them.
I’m not a homosexual militant, Rita, and I take great offense at your insult. Contrary to popular opinion, we are not interested in “converting” you all to homosexuality. I speak for everyone I know when I say we all just want to have the same rights as you do. I have a wife (because I am lucky enough to live in a state that has stood up to religious oppression) and two children that we planned and had together. They go to public school. They have friends. We go to PTA meetings together. We meet with their teachers together and do homework together. In short, we are just like everybody else. And, let me tell you something else so that you have a clear understanding, this has long been termed ’sexual orientation’ for a reason.
I can’t imagine anyone choosing homosexuality. It is a very difficult life to live and is not by choice any more than your heterosexuality is. You people keep telling me that God loves everyone he has made. Really? Then, what’s the matter with you people?
Comment by Rita on 6 March 2009:
You choose your course - sail it. I do not oppress anyone. Please do not try to force your opinion on me. Most people worldwide agree on the issue of marriage - it has worked for eons. Your idea raises all sorts of consequences for chilren and society. The children are your choice,
Comment by Deb Della Piana on 6 March 2009:
Actually, Rita, no most people here in America believe that the GLBT community should have equal rights. About 75% at last polling. That’s a majority. In many other countries, same-sex marriage is already legal.
No issues with my children and society. They are fine. And marriage isn’t working with more than a 50% divorce rate in America. That’s a bit high, don’t you think? And it has been that high without us providing any threat to heterosexual marriage. You folks have achieved that statistic all on your own.
What really raises a whole host of questions is the way the Christians teach THEIR children about the big wide world. Again, however, that’s your choice. I’d never teach my children to disrespect any group of people. It flies in the face of Christianity, I think.
Comment by Rita on 6 March 2009:
Quoting polling numbers is easy and also meaningless without having the questionnaire in hand. Do you have that?
Comment by Proletarian on 6 March 2009:
Deb, I believe in letting people do as they please, laissez-faire. You don’t know me, but you assume to, just like you assume the opinions of others. The only point I was even trying to make was the one you so eloquently pointed out here. The hypocrisy of your view point.
You are right, no one should tell you or govern you, you are an antonomous, sentient being just like the rest of us. However, you are not willing to let other be the same. You have a narrow viewpoint and limited in your thinking. Just like you said in your rebuttal, you are only concerned with yourself. That’s my point about get over it, it’s not only about you and yours.
I’ll repeat what you said. The majority rules. If Christians are the majority in an area and vote for whatever, so be it. If gays have the same opportunity to have pervailing views, good for them. If you have any complaint at all it would be that there aren’t enough gays to hold a majority vote. We’re not talking about someone denying you a life style, we’re talking about a community not allowing same sex marriage in a particular enclave.
I wish you the best and I’m sorry you don’t get what you yourself espouse.
Comment by Deb Della Piana on 7 March 2009:
Proletarian, quite to the contrary, I DO get it. However, I do not believe that people’s civil rights should be voted upon. It’s absurd. When will it stop? What’s to stop others from voting on yours? Civil rights are guaranteed in the Constitution.
My point is that Prop 8 should never have made it to the ballot. I will not change my mind on that. If people can vote to oppress one group of people, then the Constitution is meaningless. And where will that end? If that’s the case, then everyone’s freedoms are ultimately at risk.
Comment by Deb Della Piana on 10 March 2009:
So, Rita, one final question here. You asked me for the questions surrounding the poll numbers I presented on gay marriage. I have actually written to the source of the poll and asked for the questionnaire so that I can pass it on to you.
I just have one comment, where are you deriving YOUR facts from when you say “Most people worldwide agree on the issue of marriage…” I’d like to see your information as well.
As for forcing my opinion on you, I would not dream of it. However, I will continue to fight for gay rights, whether or not it makes you or anyone else uncomfortable. We are ALL guaranteed rights under the Constitution. Read it. There are no exceptions to the rule.
Comment by Rita on 10 March 2009:
Check Gallup and PEW websites and you’ll find various poll results. There are others but these tend to be more libera; as I wouldn’t want you to think I am using skewed polling results.
Comment by harveymudd on 10 March 2009:
Hello, Rita. I’ve decided after reading some of the comments lately that it’s time for me to come out of the closet and speak up. I have also seen some Gallup and PEW polls that suggest otherwise. I suppose it depends upon who you ask in what part of the country and at what time. That’s the essential fact about polling. However, I do know one thing: My entire family is Catholic, and very devoted Catholics at that. They are completely accepting of my life situation and my children. It isn’t even an issue. That’s the case with most people in my life. I actually have more heterosexual friends than I do gay friends at this stage of my life. Most are open-minded and do not believe that they were put here to judge others.
Like Debbie, I do not believe, nor will I ever believe, that civil rights are based on religious ideology. It’s absurd to suggest otherwise. There is a separation between church and state for a reason. This is a question of civil rights. Just remember: Once you begin supporting this type of ban on people’s rights, it opens the door for everyone to be oppressed. Who knows? It could happen to you.
Comment by Deb Della Piana on 10 March 2009:
Hey Harvey! Thanks for responding for me! I certainly could not have said it better myself. And I’m proud of you for coming out of the closet on my site so verbally! When are you coming out on Facebook? How IS the family these days? Kids ok? Other half?
Of course, I concur with your premise that once one group is oppressed, it opens the floodgates of possibility. And this whole issue of voting on people’s civil rights is just wrong. This whole question should not have made it to the ballot out there.
The one positive aspect is that some of the folks from Mass Equality will be leaving and heading out to California to take up that cause. It is a loss for us because Marc Solomon and his group really did an excellent job out here. I hope that their successors have learned well from them because, as you know, the radical religious element never quits. They will be back here in Massachusetts at some point. However, I feel better about the California battleground now that Marc is going to help out there. Are you planning an article on this subject — the California/Massachusetts connection? You might want to. Big loss for us, but big gain for them.
Comment by Rita on 10 March 2009:
Polls are reflected in the very few states that embrace homosexual marriage. As you know only Massachusetts and Connecticut do. Americans reject the idea for all sorts of reasons- certainly not just religious.
The hateful treatment of proponents of the ban in California is representative of the worst sort of oppression past the simply criminal.
Comment by Deb Della Piana on 11 March 2009:
Rita, seriously, let’s look at what America is. It’s supposed to be a free country for EVERYBODY. My point is that I don’t care what people think. That’s not even the issue. A whole host of people would be denied their rights if we left it up to the voting public. In other words, this is a right guaranteed in the Constitution and nobody has any business VOTING ON ANOTHER PERSON’S RIGHTS.
I do not believe in violence from any group, gay or not. So, that’s wrong. However, that doesn’t mean that our rights should continue to be denied. We are not militant. We pay taxes, and lots of them. No taxation without representation. That’s the way it should be. If we are continued to be denied our rights, then the GLBT community should not have to pay federal taxes. It’s patently absurd to think otherwise.
I have absolutely no problem paying my state taxes. My federal taxes? That’s another issue entirely. Whether religion or not, the denial of the right to marry is an infringement on our personal civil rights. And, Rita, get real. This whole issue was based on religious ideology from the beginning. I’m 55 years old and have been gay from the womb. I’ve been around for a long time in this battle. And I will continue to insist on my civil rights.
Comment by Rita on 11 March 2009:
For anyone to advocate violence on another because they disagree is reprehensible, and could be illegal or atn least subject to civil sanctions and dollar damages. That’s is not “freedom” that is irresposible and dangerous and muts be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
Comment by Murray on 11 March 2009:
The vast majority of America and the world have faith. To assault the religious because they disagree on homosexual marriages must be confronted in the courts and civlily punished or criminally prosecuted when appropriate. It is time for the faithful to stand tall in the face of suich activism.
Comment by ihentschel on 11 March 2009:
Sorry, Murray, but the “vast majority of the world do not have “faith”(check the statistics): lots of them have religion, many have biases and there are as many competing gods (and interpretations)as there are grains of sand on the beach. Genuinely “religious” people are frequently identified by their open minds and their acceptance of diversity. Disagreements,, especially on matters of same sex marriages, are not brought to bear so much by the “religious”, or the “faithful”, as they are by bigots, homophobes and people entrenched in ideological ruts. For the life of me, I do not know what “such activism” is, to what any of this is “appropriate”, or what the courts and criminal prosecution have to do with falling in love and caring for one another as human beings. You have (poorly and illogically)) formulated an argument with someone who is not there.
Comment by Deb Della Piana on 11 March 2009:
Rita, know what, I did not advocate violence. Buy the way, Rita, just for the record, heterosexuals have committed far more violence on us than we have on them throughout history. Let’s not forget that the pink triangle, a gay symbol, was taken from the black triangles that the Nazis used to identify homosexuals for slaughter.
I myself was subject to violence at a young age coming out of a gay bar in Boston. It was many years ago, but it happened. And it happens now. I have not now, nor have I ever, condoned violence and I guess I’m tired of your insults.
Again, sorry, but you nor anybody else has the right to vote on whether or not I get my rights. If that’s the case, I suggest to you that we should maybe have a right to vote on yours.
Comment by Rita on 12 March 2009:
Actually the NAZI oncentration camp symbols for homosexuals were pink; black sybolized criminals; yellow jews, and as I recall green, blue and purple for gypsies, Jahovah’s Witness, etc.
As far as voting - the USA is still at least a nominal democratic republican and passing laws by vote is altogether appropriate.
As I recall the majority, not minority rules albiet many fringes would have it the other way supressing voting (for instance) to get their way.