You are on an individual archive page

Click here to return to the main page

Wikipedia does good things. Reward them.

The Daily Links Page
Got a link to submit?
  • New Evidence Proves First Flag Made By Betsy Ross Actually Shirt For Gay Friend
  • Colbert Leads Huntsman in S.C.
  • Polish prosecutor 'shoots self after news conference'
  • Jim Rome leaving ESPN. Bonus: Footage of Jim Rome getting attacked by Jim Everett & crying like a baby
  • Broncos, Tim Tebow stun Steelers in OT, win 29-23 in NFL playoffs
  • Video: Remember 2008
       [ 1 comment ]
  • Beezow Doo-Doo Zopittybop-Bop-Bop faces weapon and drug charges
  • Video: Green Bay anchorman loves lamp
  • Video: Rodgers & Raji in the new Discount Double Check ad
  • Jim Rome: out of The Jungle and onto the (horse) farm
  • New IL Law Requires Photo ID To Buy DrainCleaner
  • Fawn Cuddles Kitten, Hearts Explode
  • The priest who changed the course of history for the worse... by rescuing four-year-old Hitler from drowning in icy river
  • Get Fit or Get Fined: Web Service Offers to Charge You for Skipping the Gym
  • Fine proposed for botching US national anthem
  • Why Best Buy is Going out of Business...Gradually
       [ 1 comment ]
  • Edina boutique takes heat for trashing $4,000-plus gowns
  • Law Student Goes 'Homeless by Choice' Touts Value of Gym Club Membership
  • VIDEO: Snoop Dogg on 'The Price Is Right'
  • Flynn and Out
  • Don't put Bielema on the firing line
       [ 1 comment ]
  • Your end of the season Vikings comment thread
  • Mass. budget motel fights forfeiture by feds
  • Vikings scrutinize downtown Mpls. stadium site near basilica
  • Kelly Clarkson criticized on Twitter after singer endorses Ron Paul for President
  • Political Predictions for 2012
  • We're All Doing The Best We Can
  • Video Of Little Girl Getting Pissed Off About Pink Toys Will Make Your Heart Swell
  • The 10 best sports-related Hitler Reactions of 2011
  • Happy Endings on the housing crisis
  • Why You Just Got New York Times Spam
  • There Will Be No Friday This Week In Samoa
  • The Most Hipster State In TheUS
  • Online Merchants Home in on Imbibing Consumers
       [ 1 comment ]
  • On islamic fashion
       [ 1 comment ]
  • Sears as Lampert's 'Mismanaged Asset' Loses Customers to Macy's
       [ 1 comment ]
  • 5 social network predictions for 2012
  • Cheetah, chimp star of classic Tarzan movies, dies at 80
  • The Hottest Things on TV in 2011
  • Beer in cans: It's not just for Bud anymore
  • Seven Packers earn Pro Bowl selections
  • The Worst Angry Christmas Tweets In the World
  • Minnesota cities try to hold back on rented housing
  • Why Iowa Shouldn't Vote First Anymore
  • Some Falcons Players Upset Drew Brees Went For The Record LastNight
  • We've Identified Jilted Packergirl
  • With its 'W' initiative, ESPN tries to solve the equation of serving women sports fans
  • Owner surprised to find cat regularly catches bus
  • Charles Barkley: Skip Bayless Has Surpassed Peter Vecsey As The Biggest Jackass In The History Of Journalism
  • Handicapping the 2011 NFL MVP Race, 2.0


  • It gets better, but hopefully not for you, Obama

       October 22, 2010

    So President Obama just made his own "It gets better" video. It's such a blatantly hypocritical act that I honestly have no idea how the President can look at himself in the mirror. If the Obama administration had one iota of the courage of an openly gay or lesbian teenager, they might be able to create actual change instead of a phony video.

    What gives me hope is that people aren't willing to accept crumbs and rhetoric anymore. Maybe instead of reflexively voting for Democrats, gays and lesbians will vote for candidates who have the guts to fight for them (note - not that the GOP will either - but if the gay vote is up for grabs that could certainly help future social liberals/fiscal conservatives, right?).

    I love some of the Facebook reactions to the Obama video.

    YOU can set an example, Obama! follow through with your promise to end DADT, and stand up for equal marriage!
    "It gets better" ... UNTIL ... you join the military with a Commander-in-Chief who will sit back and let you get booted, rather than COMMAND and end discrimination, because it is not yet politically expedient for him to do the right thing.
    He used his words to get us to vote for him. We supported him and it's time he did something tangible! Actions speak louder than words. Tired of lip service. I'm terribly disappointed in the President.
    That's good President about giving the word to the Justice Department NOT to defend DADT. Jared defending you is simply wrong. No, your administration does NOT have to defend DADT. Mr. Choi is absolutely correct. This is you...r administration's attempt to delay this until after the midterm elections. He is not the only one that sees your administration's veiled cowardness. Your administration has repeatedly discounted gay Americans while you SAY one thing, you do another. The same people you here report to care for, are being discriminated against. You have the opportunity to Make Things Better, and you're not. That's called hypocricy.
    ‎...yeah... I totally believe your words when I can watch your eyes shift back and forth READING some speech your PR person probably wrote for you. Just shut up and stay out of it. We all know you don't really give a shit.
    Really? Obama saying it gets better?!? You've done nothing to make it better?

    DOMA? DADT? What a joke.

    Put your money where your mouth is and MAKE it better. You were elected because America was ready for a change. What a disappointment. Tr...uly, a disappointment.

    As a young GLBT person that voted for Obama I feel betrayed by him. This is just the same lip service that the Democrats have been feeding us for almost the last 20 years. They want are votes but they don't actually want to make things better fore us.

    As disappointed as I am that Obama can't accomplish one of the few things I'd support him accomplishing, I'm somewhat pleased to see people opening their eyes to the ways they're getting screwed by a party who simply counts their votes as a given.

    It does suck that the GOP is so controlled by the God crowd. I'm convinced that where you stand on gay rights has more to do with age than with party affiliation. An enterprising political strategist would understand that the future belongs to the party that advocates for gay rights - both for the gay and lesbian voters as well as for the rest of us who care about them.

    Posted by kris at October 22, 2010 09:03 AM

        The trackback entry for this page is :


    Trackback Entries



    #  October 22nd, 2010 9:52 AM      BVBigBro
    I don't think it does have to do with age.

    The advocacy of gay rights is the problem. There shouldn't be gay rights any more than there should be brunette rights. The people paying the bills have become sick of the endless series of special groups, special priveleges and set asides for various interested parties and the advocacy of gay rights is interpreted in part as the creation of yet another special interest group. With our current finacial situation the animosity towards special interest groups is going to go up, not down.

    Perhaps the solution here is to stop advocating gay rights and instead advocate for the end of government recognition of special rights for others. The position of gay marriage would instead become a position of marriage as an institution not involving the state. DADT would become a policy of conditions that could cause dismissal from the army for anyone, including overt sexual activities.  
    #  October 22nd, 2010 1:03 PM      kris

    I don't know what you're talking about. No one is equating gay rights with special interests groups that are taking money and getting special privileges. People may feel that way towards unions and govt workers, etc., but not about gays.

    People who are against gay rights are against rights simply because they don't like the gays - there's no higher purpose  
    #  October 22nd, 2010 2:16 PM      BVBigBro
    You are wrong. Lots of people are equating gay rights with special priveleges that they will pay for one way or another. If gay rights can be made to not effect them, they won't give a damn. Who do you suppose will pay insurance premiums for same sex partners? Was not the original purpose of insurance for spouses predicated on the idea of the spouse taking care of a family? How does this apply to gay partners?

    The bandwagon of big government has been driven off the cliff. Gay rights advocates need to take care not to jump on it. If they recognize that and take care to align their interests with the interest of smaller government (i.e. government should not be spending money looking into my bedroom) they can make some hay. If not they will be lumped in with all the other people who are really just looking for a handout.  
    #  October 22nd, 2010 2:22 PM      kris
    Who do you suppose will pay insurance premiums for same sex partners? Was not the original purpose of insurance for spouses predicated on the idea of the spouse taking care of a family? How does this apply to gay partners?

    A. Do you have any idea how many gay couples have families?

    B. How is this any different from covering insurance for any other partner - gay or straight - if they also work. Why then, should insurance cover anyone's partner given how many double income households there are.

    I just think you're completely wrong here.  
    #  October 22nd, 2010 2:30 PM      BVBigBro
    A. Few. And exactly none conceived by both partners.

    B. You either just made the same argument I made in comment 1 about special priveleges, in this case married folks, or your acknowledging there will be a cost to gay rights which contradicts your comment 2. Pick one. I suggest gay rights advocates pick number 1, if for no other reason than the money's gone and no one's going to get more money.  
    #  October 22nd, 2010 2:32 PM      kris
    What is the cost of the Obama administration doing nothing to fight the end of DADT?

    What is the cost of the Obama administration fighting the end of DADT in court?

    I think you're just making arguments up and trying to frame gay rights as part of the overall BV vision of the world. That's fine and dandy, but it's too lofty and it doesn't do anything to help people right now. And what government has to do to help people right now is NOTHING. Just get the f out of the way and don't fight court decisions. Done. Cost=nothing  
    #  October 22nd, 2010 2:33 PM      kris
    A. Few. And exactly none conceived by both partners.

    So by that logic insurance shouldn't cover stay-at-home parents of adopted children? Whatever - that's just being silly.  
    #  October 22nd, 2010 3:01 PM      BVBigBro
    You just made the argument I was making, Kris. The correct argument is to argue that the cost is nothing.

    The Obama administration will argue DADT because the democrats have been a party dedicated exclusively to subdividing the populace into racial, ethnic and in this case sexual categories and awarding or not awarding special privleges (money) to favored elements of the populace. The problem for gays and lesbians is that the democrats have expended so much physical capital appeasing an ultra left wing constituency that they have alienated the middle of the country, who would otherwise be sufficiently indifferent to gay rights. The democrats have calculated that the votes lost by angering a few gays are less than the votes lost by appearing to emasculate national defense; a problem caused by the inability of the Democrats to ever state they would definitely defend the damn country which is in turn a result of appeasing the peace and unicorn wing of the party in 2004, 2006 and 2008.

    In a world broken into special interests gays and lesbians are not numerous enough. They will lose every time if their votes must be purchased with money or will cost voters money. They must now align their purpose with small government because that's the way the wind is blowing.  
    #  October 22nd, 2010 3:03 PM      kris
    let's talk in two years when your mythical small government people that are going to slide into govt this fall have turned into a bunch of big-govt, god-fearing republicans  
    #  October 22nd, 2010 3:48 PM      kris
    this comment from Althouse is typical and utterly ridiculous:

    Gay people can serve now. They could serve 30 years ago when I served. However, people gay or straight may not act out sexually in the military. It simply isn't done. It isn't how the military works.

    Personally I think people that haven't served just don't understand military service. You don't just give up your right to have gay sex in the shower or something. You give up virtually ALL your rights as a citizen and become property of the state.

    That basic lack of understanding of military service is what drives a lot of the energy in this argument, or at least so I think. On it's face it's perfectly reasonable. Of course gay people should be able to serve.

    But if you watch carefully that's not what is being asked for. What's being asked for is that "openly gay" people be allowed to serve. That's a very important distinction that otherwise smart people are overlooking. And overlooking that distinction is missing something important that's going on here.

    This isn't about gays in the military wanting the right to have sex in the shower. I think the military probably has a pretty solid anti-sex-in-the-shower policy for everyone, not just gays. This is about gays being able to have a picture of their boyfriend on their wall or just being able to be open with WHO they are - their sexual orientation being an important part of that.

    This is all about straight guys afraid some gay guy is going to hit on him, isn't it?

    Maybe instead of universal health care we can try a universal "all straight men go to a gay bar" credit and just let them all get over themselves.  
    #  October 22nd, 2010 4:21 PM      BVBigBro
    The commenter is exactly correct. The importance of their sexual orientation to them is worth nothing for military service. Exactly nothing. It's worth what someone's else's hairstyle is worth.

    The entire point of the military's basic training is to eliminate the differences in everyone to form ONE cohesive unit. You're not allowed to have your own identity and everyone gives up something.  
    #  October 22nd, 2010 4:44 PM      kris
    Recruit A tells someone in the middle of the night in their one cohesive unit - I miss my girlfriend

    Recruit B tells someone in the middle of the night in their one cohesive unit - I miss my boyfriend

    Recruit B is subject to dismissal from the military. That's what we're talking about.

    Actually, that's a dumb example. A better example is to actually think about what happens in a group bonding experience. People share stories about themselves, talk about their loved ones, etc. But gay soldiers don't get to do that - they are forced, by this dumbass policy, to hide it and therefore not fully bond with their unit.  
    #  October 22nd, 2010 5:25 PM      kris
    There are far too many straight men who seem to think that gay men are basically like sexual predators just waiting to ply them fancy cocktails and talk them into having the sex.

    When people talk of the horrors of showering with gay men (note - you already do!) they're not talking about unit cohesion. They're talking about homophobia.  
    #  October 22nd, 2010 6:00 PM      kris
    some quotes from a CNN article on polls on DADT:

    All of the webb sites that i have been on are far not repealing don't ask don't tell. I am a veteran and to repeal that policy would be devastating to the military. Let the military make their on decisions. I know that i would not want to shower around perverts.

    So gays are "perverts". Okay.

    Polls and results are skewed by the way questions are asked. I can't imagine that of Americans would like to see a military member in uniform walking arm-in-arm (as is the tradition on a date) with somebody of the same sex. I can't imagine of Americans want to see somebody acting like Richard Simmons in a military uniform. No way.

    Yes, I can see how two men in the military going on a date would be horrifying.

    I think it should be Ask, Tell, Don't Lie, and Don't bother if you are gay. I would not want to ever serve in a mandatory situation/close quarters with any type of deviant. Not a drug addict, not a homosexual, not a child molester, not a sheep humper. Each of those is a CHOICE and if you make that choice, it is your right, but it is my right to have have to live with you in the military. Anyone ever think that it is funny that we can outlaw smoking cause it might offend or sicken a nonsmoker, we can limit religious freedoms so that we do not offend other religions, but we all have to tolerate public acceptance of homosexuals? What the heck is wrong with us?

    Do what you want, with whoever you want in your own house. That is your right, but in the military, you are in the government's house. So you should be held to a different set of rules.

    Gays are "deviants", and in the government's house we have to live by the government's rules - as long as the government panders to my prejudices. Nice.

    What happens in the bedroom stays in the bedroom for heaven's sake and other than that they shouldn't be talking about it. As a heterosexual male I don't go around blabbing about the relations that my wife and I have and neither do I go around kissing and groping my wife in public. Gay's should follow suit and keep their private lives private and leave well enough alone. I shouldn't have to condone their behavior just because they want me to. The fact that they're pushing their ways on the rest of the country just goes to show how wrong it is. Someone who's doing something "right" does so with the selfless knowledge that no reward is required. But those that do something "wrong" seek acceptance from others so they do not have to feel bad and can go about their activities with a "clear" conscience.

    Ah, so gays are just doing it wrong. Maybe someone should tell them.

    As a veteran of the U.S. Navy, i can say without a doubt, if you haven't served in the military, then what gives you the right to choose laws that govern the military?

    Because, you dumb f*ck veteran, we, the people, rule your ass, that's why.

    Seriously - these comments are by a bunch of homophobes. Why pander to their viewpoints anymore than we pander to racists.

    #  October 22nd, 2010 6:10 PM      themandownthehall
    "note - not that the GOP will either - but if the gay vote is up for grabs that could certainly help future social liberals/fiscal conservatives"

    Well, my son is gay and hates democrats. He hates the way they pander and then go back on everything they tell them. His statement on Bush was "at least I know where I stand with him".

    Of course he also hates the "pride" gays too. He goes to their parades and makes fun of them.  
    #  October 22nd, 2010 9:00 PM      BVBigBro
    Your recruit A and B scenario just described the problem, Kris. Other people give up something else. Are you saying that gays and lesbians are incapable of comprehending people who define themselves differently than by their sexuality? Should the highly individualistic opinionated recruits be able to serve openly?

    Recruit A: Yes sir.

    Recruit B: That's a bad idea, sir.

    One recruit is subject to dismissal.  
    #  October 23rd, 2010 8:34 AM      kris
    I don't understand what you think gays & lebsians should "give up"? How can you "give up" the fact that you're gay? No one is arguing that gays in the military should be having sex in the shower (why is it always the shower, by the way? do people in the military take extra showers or something?), they're arguing that you should simply be able to state that you're gay, to have a picture of your boyfriend up, etc.

    I don't understand why you think gays should have to give that up or why wanting that seems like some excessive self-definition to you.

    You've never been in the military and lord knows we've watched the same military history programs over the years, so I don't know where you get this idea that the military's goal is to produce one homogenous group of soldiers. It's not. I remember reading some of Ambrose's books and he talks about how the US Army was great in that it could take the talents of country boys and city boys and put people to their best use - we didn't try to strip people of their identity as a Kentuckian or a New Yorker anymore than we're really trying to strip identities of gays & straights.

    I do not believe there's any high military purpose involved in keeping DADT. What's keeping it is fear, ignorance and homophobia.

    #  October 23rd, 2010 9:53 AM      KVBigSis
    Bravo, Kris! I've been cheering you on through this.

    BV, of COURSE people object to gays because they don't like gays or are afraid of gays or sincerely believe homosexuality is morally wrong. It has nothing to do with extra "services." Why is gay marriage frequently voted down? It involves no extra services. And really, legalizing gay marriage across the country would nullify the question of "special" rights for gays. They would be able to file joint income tax returns, be each other's presumptive heirs, and adopt children together in exactly the way straight married couples can. They could hold property as "survivorship marital property," which in Wisconsin can be a big deal. They would also be responsible for each other's debts and be subject to divorce laws just like straight couples.

    As for DADT, does any man in the military believe he isn't already serving with gays? And why does this seem to be a problem only among men? Aren't female soldiers just as upset about serving with lesbians? I guess not.

    What would you think if DADT was a universal military policy, regardless of sexual orientation? Gay or straight, there can be no mention of wives, partners, girlfriends, boyfriends. No pinups. No sexual relationships. Straight soldiers wouldn't put up with that for a second, and rightfully so. But then maybe they would understand how burdensome this policy is for gay men and lesbians who are simply trying to serve their country.  
    #  October 23rd, 2010 12:23 PM      BVBigBro
    How stupid are you Kris? Really. Just how stupid have you become?

    Why do you suppose recruits get their hair cut? Why do you suppose they don't get to have personal possesions?

    I didn't give a damn about gay rights, but after reading you and KV,
    now I do. From you two, it's obvious it's about nothing other than money. Rather than address the special priveleges the state shovels to all sorts of people you're in favor of picking my pocket to add gays to that list in order to maintain those privieleges. No thanks.  



      page rendered in 0.0394 seconds | ©2004, 2005