Wednesday Highlights

Good morning.

  1. The Onion noted at the Corner.
  2. A big day of remembering Saints/Doctors of the Church. East, West, and Evangelical.
  3. Setting the record straight.
  4. Quoth many a tyrant, if not so outspoken about it.
  5. Perhaps a group to watch.
  6. Very close.
  7. Mr Updike’s passing noted.
  8. A Roman liturgy blog looks East.
  9. A question not answered.
  10. I’m thinking … hopefully March not tomorrow.
  11. On that “right to choose” thing.
  12. Our Southern border.
  13. Well, I have to agree, I hope Mr Obama fails at much of what he hopes to accomplish. I have no yearning for a precipitous slide (slouch) down the Road to Serfdom, as it were.
  14. Discussing the bike design contest winner.
  15. Another big day noted … the ending of 900 days.
  16. Keeping the banks afloat … laundry?
  17. Axios indeed.
  18. Monasticism looked at frankly.
  19. Some statistics, if you believe that sort of thing is worth the paper it’s written on.
  20. Why big projects today aren’t “shovel ready” … that would be, uhm, obstruction from the left. Put that in your stimulus pipe and smoke it.
  21. Nero’s political trajectory, dates, and St. Paul’s Romans.
  22. When Gay bashing is mostly from the left.
  23. More on the SSPX reconciliation … more here.
  24. Moscow.
  25. Heh.
  26. Spector dissed … for doing exactly what I’d advised (and done).
  27. A Silver Star.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

27 comments

  1. When Gay bashing is mostly from the left.

    I don’t see any gay bashing. I see “hater” bashing, perhaps, and the occasional call of “self-hating.” Imagine a black who joins the KKK. If people on the left called him self-hating and railed against associating with haters, would that be “black bashing?”

    (Not that the GOP is to gays exactly the way the KKK was for blacks, but that’s a different argument anyway. Staying with the Republican party after they won the 2004 and 2006 elections by blatantly getting out the anti-gay vote is something the majority of gays probably couldn’t do even if they agreed with Republicans on other issues.)

  2. Mark says:

    JA,
    I see, when the left leaves hate comments on a Gay Conservative blog that’s defensible, because that person is “just like a black KKK member.”

    Do you really believe that to be the case?

  3. Mark,

    I didn’t say leaving hate comments was defensible. I said it wasn’t gay bashing. The bashing is not of his being gay but of his being a gay Republican. I used the black KKK member as an analogy. Someone slamming him for being a black KKK member would not be “black bashing” anymore than slamming a gay Republican is “gay bashing.”

  4. Boonton says:

    Well, I have to agree, I hope Mr Obama fails ….

    Let’s imagine this was a sports team. What would one say about a strategy based on hoping the other team fails? I’d say they were pretty bankrupt team. Well when an intellectual movement best move is praying for failure we have a bankrupt ideology. Unlike Wall Street firms, this bankruptcy can’t be bailed out with some quick monetary expansion and stimulus packages.

  5. Boonton says:

    I see, when the left leaves hate comments on …

    Hate comments means calling someone ‘self-hating’ or ‘delusional’? Let’s compare this comment to say a hypothetical KKK comment left on a black person’s blog. The KKK comment strikes at the person with no redemption. The KKKer hates a person who is black. He doesn’t want the black person to sign onto a political agenda, doesn’t want him to, say, support segregation. He hates the black person and the target of his hate is left with no options.

    But is calling someone ‘self-hating’ or ‘delusional’ equilivant to this? I don’t think so. Unlike the KKK comment, this is a plea for the person to change their mind, to see the issue from the other POV. Granted the language is strong and harsh and maybe it’s uncalled for but it isn’t, IMO, ‘hate’. Pouting over these as ‘hate comments’ would be like a left winger pouting over charges that Obama supports ‘baby killing’ is hate.

  6. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    Your remarks depend much on the part of the sentence you elided, “in much of what he hopes to accomplish.”

    I hope he fails to put us over the tipping point in our “Road to Serfdom”. I hope he fails to embolden Iran … and so on. I hope his attempts to buttress the legal and institutional defenses for the killing the unborn fail. Shall I go on.

    Mr Obama and the conservatives have a lot of differences in policy. We see much of what he “hopes to accomplish”, which have nothing to do with economic recovery and everything to do with the “progressive agenda” as dangerous, misguided and wrong. What is wrong with hoping he’ll fail to accomplish those goals? In fact, I’m going to actively work against him, with my small blogging voice in many arenas.

    You carp quite a bit about the “bankrupt ideology” and intellectual deficiencies on the right. I have no clue what you’re talking about. I have a shelf or so of material … none of which is intellectually bankrupt. Hayek, Mises, Nisbett, Jouvenel, Solzhenitsyn, Cass, and so on.

    Who are the intellectual highlights on the left? Marx? Ralls? Who? Who are you quoting and citing?

  7. Mark says:

    JA,
    That’s not right. Those authors wouldn’t get bashed if they weren’t gay. Their being gay and GOP makes them a target … therefore it is gay bashing.

  8. Boonton says:

    I hope he fails to put us over the tipping point in our “Road to Serfdom”. I hope he fails to embolden Iran

    Well I hope you fail to rape and kill a thousand children this year.

    You carp quite a bit about the “bankrupt ideology” and intellectual deficiencies on the right. I have no clue what you’re talking about. I have a shelf or so of material … none of which is intellectually bankrupt. Hayek, Mises, Nisbett, Jouvenel, Solzhenitsyn, Cass, and so on.

    What do I mean, well don’t worry about getting more shelf space. You’re side isn’t going to much more quality to it anytime soon.

    Those authors wouldn’t get bashed if they weren’t gay. Their being gay and GOP makes them a target … therefore it is gay bashing.

    Interesting, so every now and then I come accross someone complaining about Christians who support Obama (last one I think said something about seeing Obama stickers on some cars in the parking lot at church). Is this Christian bashing? If so I give you credit for being consistent. Silly and trivial and too eager to play up the victimization card, but consistent.

  9. That’s not right. Those authors wouldn’t get bashed if they weren’t gay. Their being gay and GOP makes them a target … therefore it is gay bashing.

    But the black KKK member wouldn’t get bashed if he weren’t black… therefore it is black bashing?

  10. Boonton says:

    I think the critical factor is the position that the gay person is taking, not his being gay. If tomorrow he announced he wasn’t really gay I don’t think his critics would feel any better about his positions. But if tomorrow he announced he had rejected the GOP’s anti-gay stance(s) his critics would be happy.

    To use the somewhat awkward black KKK member analogy, would civil rights supporters find it any better if they learned the ‘black KKK’ member wasn’t really black or owuld they rather learn he wasn’t really a KKK member?

  11. Mark says:

    JA,
    So, a gay person cannot be against abortion without getting hate mail because that may be why he joined the GOP and that’s an important issue for him. It’s really good of you to validate and support venom in the name of party purity like that.

    Boonton,
    I notice you failed to jump to defend the intellectually bankrupt liberal/progressive movement. No authors came to mind or what? What intellectual giants are you pushing from the left?

    Peter Kreft is still writing so is Cass … so there will be more good books to read and buy. That’s two more living authors than you could come up with. If you do decide there are some worthy living lefty thinkers besides say, unrepentant an Leninist like Zizeck … let me know.

    I’m sorry I think if the Gay Patriot renounced being gay the hate mail would stop. I don’t get his hate mail … why not? Oh, right it’s because I’m not disobeying unwritten rules like he is.

  12. Boonton says:

    So, a gay person cannot be against abortion without getting hate mail because that may be why he joined the GOP and that’s an important issue for him.

    Off the top of my head I can name Andrew Sullivan as an example of a gay man who is also against abortion. Does the anti-gay element of the GOP count him as an ally? Do leftists attack him for being gay?

    What intellectual giants are you pushing from the left?

    I’m more interested in the thought coming out of the living brains that make up the left and right today. Not the dead brains on your bookshelf (granted not all of your authors are dead).

  13. Boonton says:

    I should be more clear about intellectual bankruptcy. I’m not talking so much about you as a person or trying to amass dueling libraries of liberalism versus conservatism (which I suspect would generate a lot of discussion over who goes where). I’m talking about the current zeitgeist. As a whole, the right isn’t doing much that’s impressive. A lot of it is crap like this (pimping for victim status….in the 80s and even 90’s conservatives bashed liberals for doing that…now they try to one up them on finding more and more convoluted ways to claim victimhood).

    What makes this a tricky argument is that it is rather subjective. Yes you’re probably very well educated, very well read….much more than I am. And I’m probably above average in my reading. And yes there are people at all intellectuals levels. We can both spend all day with Google finding endless examples of idiotic left and right wingers as well as very intelligent ones. But there is a zeitgeist and it’s exhaustion on the part of the right. The ideas are played out, not relevant, tired, cliched, and so on. On the left I see a new seriousness. An effort to understand reality and get it right. On the right I see more focus on finding a punchline. This shift did NOT happen with Obama’s election but before.

  14. Mark,

    I take pains to write precisely. If I say A, I mean A, not A’ and certainly not X or Y.

    So, a gay person cannot be against abortion without getting hate mail because that may be why he joined the GOP and that’s an important issue for him. It’s really good of you to validate and support venom in the name of party purity like that.

    I did not validate or support venom in my first comment. In my second comment, I explicitly wrote that “I didn’t say leaving hate comments was defensible.”

    I’m not sure how much more plainly I can say it. How’s this? I DO NOT VALIDATE OR SUPPORT VENOM. I’m just making the point that calling someone a self-hating gay for being a gay Republican is not gay-bashing.

    It’s like we’re speaking different languages sometimes.

  15. Mark says:

    JA,
    You said all you aw were comments calling him self-hating, but that is your conclusion and I’m not sure why it’s warranted after all the Gay Patriot contributors did not supply examples of Oftentimes, I find “hate” comments, ad hominem attacks on us.

    The “hate” and “ad hominem” attacks are coming only on account of the contributors sexual preference. How is that not gay bashing?

    And furthermore being a GOP member and gay does not imply one is “self hating.” I don’t the connection. I actually personally don’t know any GOP members who “hate gays”, perhaps they are a mythical bugbear put forth by the left or a small minority?

    Boonton,
    Andrew Sullivan considers himself a conserative, btw. Whether he is or is not conservative is of course a matter of debate or precisely what you mean by “conservative.”

    I can’t really offer anything in response to your zeitgeist remarks except to say I’m not sure I buy it. One example, I’ve recently changed churches, in part because … well I became Christian. The prior church I attended was a liberal Episcopalian church and currently I attend a more conservative Orthodox one. Consider coffee hour discussions after church. Discussions in the liberal church, in a large part because of larger church politics and a fear of offending anyone was intellectually speaking, completely vapid and shallow. All people could talk about, for fear of trodding on someone’s sensibilities, was the weather or sports. In contrast we have discussions and arguments in some depth about any number of topics from the Middle East to abortion to atheism and so on. I see no drying up of the conservative zeitgeist. We aren’t hunting for more and better ways to be seen a victim.

    How are you measuring the GOP “zeitgeist” by examining the output of a few pundits or opinion experts? By talking to friends and acquaintances who are conservative? How? Why do you think that liberals are any more or less shallow than conservatives?

  16. Boonton says:

    It is interesting to hear the arguments of those who would delist Sullivan from the conservative movment. But you asked about a gay man who opposed abortion and that’s Sullivan. To date I’m unaware of any serious critic of his asserting that he shouldn’t be gay and oppose abortion.

    Perhaps I am measuring GOP zeitgeist. At some point, then, there are seeds for a serious return of conservatives to the political stage. Someday, but not for a while.

  17. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    Mr Sullivan hasn’t been a vocal gay member of the GOP. But … it is also likely that his abortion stance makes him not so welcome in the Democratic not-so-big tent. How welcome in the Democratic caucus would a vocal pro-lifer be considered? I suggest not so much. I did notice looking back at the GP piece, they noted that their venomous critics were gay liberals … for what that’s worth.

  18. Boonton says:

    I don’t know but I thought we were talking about hate? How welcome should Sullivan be? Well I guess it depends on how seriously the Democratic Party takes it’s committment to Roe.v.Wade and how much Sullivan’s opposition to abortion would take the form of demanding laws against it.

    Hate, I think, is a bad thing but I don’t expect a party to welcome you with open arms if you’re setting yourself up in opposition to them. If I showed up to a GOP meeting in an Obama t-shirt I wouldn’t consider myself a victim if I got some boos. I would say, though, that if someone throws a rock at me that would be out of line.

    Anyway, you asked about a gay who opposed abortion and I provided you with one. Now I think you should address JA’s point. A black who joined the KKK is going to get a lot of heat from other blacks. A Jew who donates to the Aryan Nation is likewise going to find a lot of puzzlement from his fellow Jews. Is this Jews bashing or black bashing?

    I’m not going to say that the GOP is to Gays what Nazis are to Jews or the KKK is to blacks….but they have been going down that path and at some point a choice must be made. The more the GOP seeks to identify itself with gay bashing the more right gays have to feel hostile towards one of their own who aligns himself with the GOP.

  19. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    I think a black person who joined the KKK (if such a thing were even possible) should get a lot of heat from other blacks. But I don’t think the GOP “hates” gays. I think the number of GOP members who hate gays is a very small minority. I think the identification as Gay haters with the GOP is a Democratic ploy supported by the press (not in a “bias” way necessarily but because that “fits their known narrative”).

    I can think of a lot of reasons for a person, gay or not, to be affiliated with the GOP. Your problem it seems is that you identify GOP with “hates gays”, I don’t.

    I didn’t think I specifically asked you to identify a gay person who was pro-life, but pointed out that a gay person who is pro-life would likely find themselves drawn more to the Democratic party than not. The problem with your black/kkk/jewish/AN analogies is that those groups have very little purpose other than confronting and demonizing that particular ethnic “other.” No so the GOP. The purpose of the GOP is not “hating gays.” I’ve made the claim, not refuted so far convincingly anyhow, that the three major ideological strata in the States, Liberal, Conservative, and Libertarian all value the same things, but we place different weights on them. The Liberal values equality the highest. The Conservative, virtue and the Libertarian freedom or liberty. That isn’t to say that each doesn’t value that thing the others values at all, just not putting it as being the most important. A gay person might value virtue ahead of equality and liberty. He might thereby find himself drawn to the GOP. Well fine. That does not validate “putting heat on him” especially via hatred and ad hominem attacks.

  20. Boonton says:

    This is why I cautioned that I don’t think you can say a gay GOPer is exactly like a Jewish Nazi Party member. But it is undeniable that the GOP has been positioning itself as the anti-gay party and that has consquences. The GOP can’t reap the benefits of that, support from Christians for whom anti-gayism has somehow become a pressing issue, without also incurring the costs and one of those costs is going to be near total loss of any support from gays at all.

    This is something that should be kept in mind when, say, Republican candidates make a show of rejecting donations from Log Cabin Republicans or seek to declare that being gay alone defines one as a liberal (I read that Forbes recently listed Sullivan as liberal basically because he’s gay and also because he turned against the Iraq War)

  21. Mark,

    You said all you aw were comments calling him self-hating

    Sigh. I did not say that. Just scroll up.

    The “hate” and “ad hominem” attacks are coming only on account of the contributors sexual preference. How is that not gay bashing?

    That’s just it. The “hate” and “ad hominem” attacks are coming on account of the contributor’s political affiliation. If the same person were not a Republican, there would be no hate or ad hominems. If the same person were not gay, there might be less intensity and a smaller response, but surely still some response. It just wouldn’t have the extra edge of the black segregationist. (“Oh my god! Can you believe how black desegregationists spew hate at the black segregationists?? How racist of them!”)

    The hate is clearly, obviously, plainly directed ultimately at the intolerance the GOP pushes (or is believed to push) and not at homosexuality. Are you really arguing in good faith here?

    And furthermore being a GOP member and gay does not imply one is “self hating.” I don’t the connection. I actually personally don’t know any GOP members who “hate gays”, perhaps they are a mythical bugbear put forth by the left or a small minority?

    I think you’re in some serious denial about the Republican base. You stick to your elitist blogs and big-brained philosophers and tune out the Rush Limbaughs and the Michael Savages and the Joe the Plumbers of the world. The people who make up and rally the real base.

  22. Boonton says:

    Mark has already given up here. He admits that if a black supported the KKK or a Jew supported a Nazi then other blacks or Jews would be right to come down especially hard on such a foolish person.

    His defense is that the GOP is not so anti-gay so as to be considered the equilivant. I agree with him on that, although I think he is soft peddling just how anti-gay the GOP is. But this isn’t the point. If those sprewing ‘hate’ at the gay GOP believe the GOP to be just as bad as the KKK or the Nazis they are acting correctly in getting so mad at one of their own who plays the role of traitor.

    Now maybe these people are wrong in their opinion of the GOP, maybe they are blowing the GOP out of proportion. But then the problem isn’t that they ‘hate gays’ or are ‘gay bashing’ but rather that they have a delusional view of the GOP. Ohhh wait, I forgot, calling someone ‘delusional’ is now hate speech per our GOP supporting friends who are not yet intellectually bankrupt. sorry about that.

  23. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    I disagree with you one one point:

    But this isn’t the point. If those sprewing ‘hate’ at the gay GOP believe the GOP to be just as bad as the KKK or the Nazis they are acting correctly in getting so mad at one of their own who plays the role of traitor.

    That’s not right. It is a crucial problem that for that viewpoint that the GOP is not primarily, essentially, or actually “anti-gay”.

    If a black person or jew spewed venom and hate at someone for joining the league of women quilters … because they sincerely believed that the LoWQ was anti-semitic or against blacks … that would not be justified, because it is not true. The contention that the GOP means one is “anti-gay” is true, which it is not, is essential to validate the reaction.

  24. Boonton says:

    Again the question falls to whether the critic is correctly evaluating the degree that the GOP is anti-gay. I don’t think it is required that the organization make being anti-some group a primary part of its mission. To see why imagine a Jewish person in the 1950’s joining a Country Club that wants to have him because he happens to be a Senator. If he learns that this Country Club has a long history of excluding Jews and he only happens to be a member not because the Club wanted to change but because they felt an association with him would bring prestige to the club then there”s a good reason to feel obligated to reject the Club’s offers. This would be though the Club’s primary essence isn’t being anti-Jew.

  25. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    Of course it does make a difference. There are only two parties.

    To take your country club example, imagine there are only two country clubs in the region, only two choices for that Senator where he lives. One has tennis, the other golf. He enjoys golf so he joins that club. Some members of that club have expressed anti-jewish sentiments. But he joins. There is good reason for him not to join the tennis club and while there are reasons not to jioin the golf club … he feels golf is more important, and perhaps as well feels he can meet and persuade his fellow golfers by meeting with these (few) anti-Semites their views may be less tenable having made his acquaintance.

    Excoriating him for his choice is not valid.

  26. Boonton says:

    Indeed but then we are on a sliding scale here. At a certain point if enough memebers of the club express anti-semitism and especially if the leadership of the club express policy after policy that seems to suggest anti-semitism his plan to join in order to change hearts and minds is going to be less and less tenable.

    And, likewise, the Jewish community is going to ask why he joins the club. If it is, as you say, to change minds they might be more tolerant. But suppose he joins simply because he wants to play golf and advance in his public life by making connections. Suppose it appears like he is doing nothing to challenge the clubs anti-semitism but instead seems to be enabling it by allowing the club’s leadership to point to his membership as ‘proof’ that their policies and statements couldn’t be antisemitic. At that point many in the Jewish community would properly start asking whether the member could be accused of being a sellout.

    Now you raise another problem. A community doesn’t speak with a single voice. It isn’t a binary machine that swings from ‘approval’ to ‘disapproval’. There are some Jews who don’t believe in buying German cars even today. There will be a few that will see joining any such club as an automatic sell out even if only a few of the club’s leaders seems to be antisemitic. Others will be willing to cut the club and member a lot more slack. Since you admit that this is a reasonable area for debate you have to allow a community to have it. The few gays who want to call GayPatriot a ‘sellout’ or ‘traitor’ have to be given their say even if the overall conclusion of the community is that the GOP is not yet so bad that simply being a member is like a black person joining the KKK.

  27. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    You make an odd remark there.

    even if the overall conclusion of the community is that the GOP is not yet so bad

    Do you think the GOP is really trending toward a less not more “anti-gay” stance (if indeed their stance is at all anti-gay, which I think is another argument).

    The problem isn’t the discussion it’s the exclusion and hate directed at these individuals by the gay community for being openly GOP members. GP is perfectly willing to have the discussion. It’s the other part that is noted as objectionable.

    JA,
    As for your denial of “self-hating”, what did you mean then when you wrote: I don’t see any gay bashing. I see “hater” bashing, perhaps, and the occasional call of “self-hating.” The actual hate speech was referenced not quoted.