The Democrat Thread

[southsider2k5]

well, well, well. it would appear Meg Whitman got busted hiring illegal immigrants.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-sharry...t_b_746046.html

 

She should be charged with a felony.

[Jenksismyhero]

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/michigan...from.U-M.campus

 

Again, my point wasn't that this doesn't happen or that it's not a problem that needs to be addressed. My point was that using one tragedy as an example of what every gay person in the country experiences is ridiculous. It's 2010, not 1950.

 

And really, that story just makes me sad for U of M. Educational institutions are supposed to promote free speech and open discussion, regardless of the message. Negative as it may be, that's his opinion. Interesting that colleges choose to welcome (with open arms) people like Ahmadinejad but deny this guy access to the school. So, eradicate the Jews (and that whole Holocaust thing didn't happen) - acceptable; disagree with homosexuality - not acceptable. Got it.

[StrangeSox]

Again, my point wasn't that this doesn't happen or that it's not a problem that needs to be addressed. My point was that using one tragedy as an example of what every gay person in the country experiences is ridiculous. It's 2010, not 1950.

 

It's still very socially acceptable and even preferable to hate, mock, demean and demonize gays in this country in 2010.

 

And really, that story just makes me sad for U of M. Educational institutions are supposed to promote free speech and open discussion, regardless of the message. Negative as it may be, that's his opinion. Interesting that colleges choose to welcome (with open arms) people like Ahmadinejad but deny this guy access to the school. So, eradicate the Jews (and that whole Holocaust thing didn't happen) - acceptable; disagree with homosexuality - not acceptable. Got it.

 

Yes, the situations are completely comparable. Tell me more.

[NorthSideSox72]

It's still very socially acceptable and even preferable to hate, mock, demean and demonize gays in this country in 2010.

 

 

 

Yes, the situations are completely comparable. Tell me more.

You know, while I disagree with Jenks' take that this is no big deal, I actually agree with the comparison he's making here. If the same University says its OK for Dinner Jacket to visit, but not this guy, that is somewhat inconsistent. They are not identical of course, but the theme is the same - people in positions of authority spouting off hateful rhetoric.

 

Now, I will say this - if I'm the AG, and one of the Assistant AG's did something like this, I'd fire him. Part of what you sign up for as a public official is a standard of conduct. This guy didn't just say he disagreed with the lifestyle - he called them satanic, stalked him, etc. This is not a stable man, I'd expect my people to behave at least somewhat professionally in the community, and this is at-will employment, so... see ya later.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

It's still very socially acceptable and even preferable to hate, mock, demean and demonize gays in this country in 2010.

 

 

Yes, the situations are completely comparable. Tell me more.

 

Except that it's clearly not anymore given people’s reactions to this and other stories. It still happens, sure, but our society is pretty quick to denounce it.

 

And how are they not comparable? It's banning someone from a university based on opinions. In one situation it's allowed, in another it's not.

 

Also, your condescending response really added to the discussion. Thanks.

 

[StrangeSox]

Harassment of an individual student at the university is not the same as inviting a head of state with crazy ideas. If this guy was banned at the university simply for ranting against gays, the comparison would make more sense.

 

edit: For the social reality, the fact that we even have discussions like Prop 8 and DADT and "should gays be allowed to adopt" discussions says enough, and that's without a good chunk of religious organizations railing about how evil and sinful homosexuality is.

Edited October 1, 2010 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

Harassment of an individual student at the university is not the same as inviting a head of state with crazy ideas. If this guy was banned at the university simply for ranting against gays, the comparison would make more sense.

 

edit: For the social reality, the fact that we even have discussions like Prop 8 and DADT and "should gays be allowed to adopt" discussions says enough, and that's without a good chunk of religious organizations railing about how evil and sinful homosexuality is.

 

Was it at the university? I thought he was going after the guy on his blog? The story says he "protested" outside of his house, but so what? I'm sure he was doing it in a legal way (or it would have been reported).

 

And I don't buy that being opposed to something automatically means you support and accept hateful actions.

[StrangeSox]

He was targeting a specific student at the university. He called him "Satan's representative on the student assembly". Regardless of the legality, he was still personally attacking a student at U of M. Why should that behavior be acceptable on campus? What sort of "exchange of ideas" (or similar verbiage often cited for bringing in controversial people) does that foster?

 

How is it at all comparable, even remotely, to a prominent foreign head of state known for spouting anti-Israel/anti-semitic rhetoric but who doesn't stalk and harass students at that very university?

 

 

 

Wanting to stop gays from marrying, stop them from adopting, stop them from serving in our military is hateful towards the gay community. Saying it's a choice or that they have mental problems that need to be 'cured' or they're going to suffer wrath and vengeance for eternity is hateful towards the gay community. You only need to look at the rhetoric and "reasoning" used against them to see that. Read through the federal court ruling on Prop 8, and tell me the people supporting and promoting that weren't acting in a hateful manner towards homosexuals. Tell that to the teens who get bullied routinely, not-uncommonly to the point of suicide or depression or drug addictions. Tell that to gay couples who want to get married but are told that they shouldn't be allowed to because their relationship is less meaningful. Tell that to gay couples who want to adopt, but are told that they shouldn't because they're a threat to raising "normal" children, or the "gay pedophile" boogeyman under a lot of the rhetoric. Tell that to the brave men and women who have to hide who they are or are kicked out of the military, tell them that they don't deserve the ability to serve their country. Tell all of them that every time a right-wing pundit is on the radio or TV ranting about the "HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA!" and how it will ruin (insert 'sacred' tradition here), tell them it's not about hatred and discrimination and "it ain't 1950, so it isn't so bad!"

[Rex Kickass]

Also, your condescending response really added to the discussion. Thanks.

 

Veiled insults don't help conversations on either side. So if you and StrangeSox could lay off the condescension and veiled insults, it would be appreciated thanks.

[Rex Kickass]

Again, my point wasn't that this doesn't happen or that it's not a problem that needs to be addressed. My point was that using one tragedy as an example of what every gay person in the country experiences is ridiculous. It's 2010, not 1950.

 

I think your point was that these incidents are a microcosm of something larger. And the truth is that they are. It starts in school, it doesn't stop there. The difference is that when it happens in the professional world, more often than not someone responsible steps in.

 

All too often, in schools, the support isn't there. There was a recent study about how safe GLBT students feel at a college campus. It's not that great. 1 out of 3 GLBT students leave or consider leaving their school because of what they perceive to be an unsafe environment. I think its a good sign that we can focus on this now, because although GLBT people have a long way to go to achieve equality, the situation has improved enough that we can realize that issues like this matter too. And matter for everyone, not just members of the GLBT community.

[Balta1701]

no way, i don't believe that.

 

I just want to know how they got this down to a neighborhood or physical address. I mean that is some straight up pimp best buy geek squad skillz that they have going for them. Odd though, when I looked at the IP its part of a /16 allocation for the senate in general. And the router announcing that network is in DC, and not Atlanta. But then again I didn't google geoip and use some random website as part of my investigation so it must be wrong.

 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if that is a frame job. It is way to convenient, with a ton of info that really isn't public.

 

Georgia Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss has removed a staffer who left an anti-gay comment on a blog reporting on the thwarted legislative effort to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

 

Chambliss’s office had turned over the investigation into who made the remark, which blogger Joe Jervis traced to the senator’s office, to the Senate Sergeant at Arms.

 

“The office of the Senate Sergeant at Arms has concluded its investigation, and I responded to that report immediately with the removal of a member of my staff. I commend the Sergeant at Arms, Terrance Gainer, and his staff for their very thorough and professional work,” Sen. Chambliss said in a statement released by his office Thursday afternoon.

 

“I have called Mr. Jervis, the blog’s author, and apologized to him personally, and I am sorry for the hurt this incident has caused. Regardless of one’s position on issues and policies, such comments are simply unacceptable, are not befitting those who work in the U.S. Senate, and I will not tolerate them from my staff,” the senator said.

Link and end of this story.

[southsider2k5]

Link and end of this story.

 

That cleared up nothing about the investigation.

[Jenksismyhero]

He was targeting a specific student at the university. He called him "Satan's representative on the student assembly". Regardless of the legality, he was still personally attacking a student at U of M. Why should that behavior be acceptable on campus? What sort of "exchange of ideas" (or similar verbiage often cited for bringing in controversial people) does that foster?

 

How is it at all comparable, even remotely, to a prominent foreign head of state known for spouting anti-Israel/anti-semitic rhetoric but who doesn't stalk and harass students at that very university?

 

Without more it's simply this guy using a blog to spout his opinions. Who cares if it's directed at one person or not? You think an environmental activist that wrote scathing blog posts about a particular person at the school and then "protested" at his house would be banned from the university? I doubt it. Whether this guy is wacko is beside the point. He's speaking his mind. Educational institutions are supposed to foster all sorts of speech, both positive and negative (think about civil rights speakers, anti-war speakers, the nut job professor in Colorado that said we deserved 9/11).

 

 

Wanting to stop gays from marrying, stop them from adopting, stop them from serving in our military is hateful towards the gay community. Saying it's a choice or that they have mental problems that need to be 'cured' or they're going to suffer wrath and vengeance for eternity is hateful towards the gay community. You only need to look at the rhetoric and "reasoning" used against them to see that. Read through the federal court ruling on Prop 8, and tell me the people supporting and promoting that weren't acting in a hateful manner towards homosexuals. Tell that to the teens who get bullied routinely, not-uncommonly to the point of suicide or depression or drug addictions. Tell that to gay couples who want to get married but are told that they shouldn't be allowed to because their relationship is less meaningful. Tell that to gay couples who want to adopt, but are told that they shouldn't because they're a threat to raising "normal" children, or the "gay pedophile" boogeyman under a lot of the rhetoric. Tell that to the brave men and women who have to hide who they are or are kicked out of the military, tell them that they don't deserve the ability to serve their country. Tell all of them that every time a right-wing pundit is on the radio or TV ranting about the "HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA!" and how it will ruin (insert 'sacred' tradition here), tell them it's not about hatred and discrimination and "it ain't 1950, so it isn't so bad!"

 

So, you're picking the opinions of the extreme fringe to say that our society as a whole promotes and accepts hateful actions towards the gay community? And I still think you can be against something without being hateful about it. I'm against people getting money from the government for doing nothing. Doesn't mean I actively support hateful acts towards them.

 

And I think you're misguided a bit. I think the vast majority of the country doesn't care. If they did, popular TV shows wouldn't be successful with gay characters, people like Ellen wouldn't have successful careers, and frankly, if events like this kids suicide were to happen there'd be little to no reaction to it because the majority of people wouldn't care. I don't think that's the case at all.

 

For some reason you're taking my comments to mean that I don't think ANY anti-gay thoughts are out there. That's just not true.

 

 

[Balta1701]

That cleared up nothing about the investigation.

Except for the fact that it actually came from Chambliss's office and anyone who doubted that wound up being wrong.

[StrangeSox]

Without more it's simply this guy using a blog to spout his opinions. Who cares if it's directed at one person or not? You think an environmental activist that wrote scathing blog posts about a particular person at the school and then "protested" at his house would be banned from the university? I doubt it. Whether this guy is wacko is beside the point. He's speaking his mind. Educational institutions are supposed to foster all sorts of speech, both positive and negative (think about civil rights speakers, anti-war speakers, the nut job professor in Colorado that said we deserved 9/11).

 

You're just giving a hypothetical situation to support your assertion. I would hope the university, any university, would apply a similar policy towards someone who routinely attacked and harassed any of their students. It's exactly because he's targeting an individual and not just ranting against gays in general that he's been barred.

 

Educational institutions are supposed to foster critical thinking and intelligent discussions. This guy, who harasses and insults and belittles one specific student at the university, should not be given a platform at the university. None of your examples include the person or group repeatedly attacking a student at the university.

 

So, you're picking the opinions of the extreme fringe to say that our society as a whole promotes and accepts hateful actions towards the gay community? And I still think you can be against something without being hateful about it. I'm against people getting money from the government for doing nothing. Doesn't mean I actively support hateful acts towards them.

 

First, you're comparing an economic situation to a social issue, and it doesn't work. Second, it's not "extreme fringe", it's core social conservative ideology. It's Prop 8. It's DADT. It's various movements to restrict gay marriage or gay adoption. It's all of the anti-gay rhetoric that comes out.

 

And I think you're misguided a bit. I think the vast majority of the country doesn't care. If they did, popular TV shows wouldn't be successful with gay characters, people like Ellen wouldn't have successful careers, and frankly, if events like this kids suicide were to happen there'd be little to no reaction to it because the majority of people wouldn't care. I don't think that's the case at all.

 

For some reason you're taking my comments to mean that I don't think ANY anti-gay thoughts are out there. That's just not true.

 

You're downplaying the amount of anti-gay thoughts, actions, policies, movements, violence and intimidation that exists. You're doing a disservice to the challenges GLBT people face in our society. You're white-washing strong social movements in our country to keep things that way.

 

edit:

 

Why should the university allow someone who says a student at the university is a perverted, racist, child-molesting nazi homo?

Cooper reported that the blog called Armstrong a "privileged pervert," and accused him of "sexual escapades at churches and children’s playgrounds." The blog also referred to Armstrong as a "Nazi-like recruiter for the cult that is homosexuality," and accused the young man of being "racist and elitist to the core."

Edited October 1, 2010 by StrangeSox

[Rex Kickass]

Without more it's simply this guy using a blog to spout his opinions. Who cares if it's directed at one person or not? You think an environmental activist that wrote scathing blog posts about a particular person at the school and then "protested" at his house would be banned from the university? I doubt it. Whether this guy is wacko is beside the point. He's speaking his mind. Educational institutions are supposed to foster all sorts of speech, both positive and negative (think about civil rights speakers, anti-war speakers, the nut job professor in Colorado that said we deserved 9/11).

This was a radio story, and there probably is more to the story. We don't know the nature of the protests. It is possible that the President of the U of M has a thin skin, but its also very possible that the level of "protests" that the crazy guy did bordered on harassment or threats. We don't know that at the moment.

 

 

So, you're picking the opinions of the extreme fringe to say that our society as a whole promotes and accepts hateful actions towards the gay community? And I still think you can be against something without being hateful about it. I'm against people getting money from the government for doing nothing. Doesn't mean I actively support hateful acts towards them.

 

And I think you're misguided a bit. I think the vast majority of the country doesn't care. If they did, popular TV shows wouldn't be successful with gay characters, people like Ellen wouldn't have successful careers, and frankly, if events like this kids suicide were to happen there'd be little to no reaction to it because the majority of people wouldn't care. I don't think that's the case at all.

 

For some reason you're taking my comments to mean that I don't think ANY anti-gay thoughts are out there. That's just not true.

 

You really think that its the extreme fringe? I don't. I wouldn't call my parents extremist, but my mother told me that gay people were an abomination. Like last year. I had an ex who came out while we were dating and his mother almost disowned him. The last thing I would have called her was extremist. Prejudice and bias towards the GLBT community as a long ingrained history.

[southsider2k5]

Except for the fact that it actually came from Chambliss's office and anyone who doubted that wound up being wrong.

 

It still does nothing to clear up the investigation.

[Balta1701]

It still does nothing to clear up the investigation.

Yes it does. It proves that however it was done...the IP address trace process worked.

[Balta1701]

CNN just fired Rick Sanchez for a nearly-anti-Semitic rant that included both John Stewart and CNN management.

[bmags]

In the world of people using their platform to do something really cool, here's a post on Dan Savage's "It Gets Better" project...

Here

[southsider2k5]

Yes it does. It proves that however it was done...the IP address trace process worked.

 

That's the left wing I love... However it was done...

[BigSqwert]

That's the left wing I love... However it was done...

And of course your outrage is for the fact that several people on the blog tracked the IP address and not the actual homophobic comments stated by the perpetrator.

[southsider2k5]

And of course your outrage is for the fact that several people on the blog tracked the IP address and not the actual homophobic comments stated by the perpetrator.

 

And of course you turn it into something it isn't.

[BigSqwert]

And of course you turn it into something it isn't.

My bad. I thought I was in the Dem thread.

[Rex Kickass]

And of course you turn it into something it isn't.

Perhaps than you can specify exactly what it is?