This. Crystalline perfection, weapons-grade Scylla.
I remember, it was 1970. Bunch of Nixonian hard hats started an impromptu game of “Let’s Kill the Hippy”. A merry chase ensued, but I trained on brown rice and veg, their training table was mostly beer and cheeseburgers.
But I never got the chance to thank them for the honor and respect of their open opposition. They’re probably dead by now. Darn.
I don’t buy the idea that open hostility constitutes an improvment over benign neglect. Or even over benign neglect accompanied by elucidator-eqsue “We’re all in this together for justice. Now, stop rocking the boat by complaining about being treated as a second-class citizen” sanctimony*.
I ain’t gonna argue against that one though.
*Anyone else read luci’s posts and have flashbacks to making a customer service call that ends without anything resolved and the customer service rep cheerily asks “Is there anything else I can help you with” while you want to respond, “You do realize that ‘Anything else’ implies that you’ve actually helped me with my original problem, don’tcha?”
Nah…the guy’s been coasting on the blimps and groundhogs since about 2002…
This “logic” is simply astounding to me. In your world, was the KKK better on civil rights for blacks than the moderates who didn’t march, didn’t vote, and just stood on the sidelines because, at least you knew where the KKK stood? I think my Reeder/Scylla comparison is spot on.
I think we’re pretty clear that I don’t agree with DADT, but it was, at the time, a small step in the right direction. It was a compromise between groups who wanted the absolute ban completely lifted or modified, and those who wanted to keep the ban. That was the problem, and oddly enough is the same problem Obama is facing. Actually trying to compromise with the right is a complete and utter waste.
And, I gotta ask. Do you think the actions of a few brave conservatives who are fighting for the repeal of DADT is indicative of the Republican party as a whole? Because, to me, it seems you’re simply taking the very best of one group (Log Cabin Republicans), and comparing it to the not so good (Obama’s filing an appeal on DADT, instead seeking a legislative solution). Anyone can win that kind of comparison.
It’s very sad, because we kinda agree that Obama is screwing the pooch on this and the Democrats record isn’t the best on gay rights. We have a point where we can both agree. Huzzah!
But that reality isn’t good enough for you. You have create this fantasy world, where the actions of a few brave Republicans, completely outweighs the rhetoric and actions of the rest of the rest of the party. Prop 8, fighting extending anti-discrimination laws to homosexuals, hateful rhetoric, anti-same sex marriage, and the rest all poof just seemingly disappear because of Log Cabin Republicans v. USA. Nice trick. Not very convincing, or logical. But very Scyllaesque.
You don’t like coalition politics? I don’t either, its long, hard and slow. Best I can tell, its all we got.
You got a better plan? Bring it. If you don’t, then grab your end of the rope and pull, dammit, pull! Bitch all you want, but pull!
The Forces of Darkness are not going to roll over and play dead, they won’t just give it to you, you have to take it. What are you going to do, overwhelm the electorate by the sheer mass of your numbers? Get real. You need allies, you need a coalition, and to get that, you will have to make compromises and deals.
Our ememies are rich, ruthless and powerfui. You got a better plan, birng it. Lead, follow, or get the fuck out of the way!
The lyrics are a bit different, but the tune is the same as this one.
CMC fnord!
“Vote Democratic and we’ll drag our feet on DADT, won’t repeal DOMA and won’t support same sex marriage” ain’t much of a deal or a compromise.
But if that crap was accompanied by a simple “Face facts: it’s still an improvement over the guys who think you’re an abomination against the Lord and want a Constitutional ammendment to kill same sex marriage entirely” it could be swallowed.
It’s when all that is accompanied by your combination of "We’re all on the same team!’ cheerleading and “Aren’t you committed to justice for all and not just ‘Gimme mine’?” hectoring that it becomes grating as fuck.
I didn’t ask you how I might gain your respect and affection. I asked you how you would improve on the plan, I asked how you might advance our common cause more effectively.
If I read you right, and please correct if I’m mistaken, then you accept that coalition politics, with all of its agonizing problems, is the only way forward. But you don’t like me much. OK, fine. Just pull. You can call me an asshole every few minutes, if you like, I ain’t delicate. Just pull.
Actually, you don’t seem to be trying to advance our common cause. You sound like you want to exploit me to advance your agenda. At least judging from things like…
(PS.: To the person who needs health care for her children, I’d say, “Looks like we should’ve picked someone with the cojones to follow through on his promises. Sorry that we both got fooled again.”)
Hamlet:
Sorry I can’t quote easily, I’m posting from an iPhone in a car. I think this is different hwn your comparison of a KKK member to a moderate who did nothing. I think the more apt comparison would be between a KKK member, and a guy who joins the NAACP, and displays all the right attitudes and says all the right things but still won’t hire a black man or rent to him.
And, I think the KKK member is better. He’s being true to his beliefs. He’s wrong, but he’s true to his beliefs. The possibility exists that if you can show him he is wrong and change his beliefs than than you can change the man.
The other guy understands that he’s wrong, and he’s doing it anyway, and he’s hiding it, pretending he’s being true to his beliefs. I think that’s worse, and more difficult to change.
And they call liberals the idealists.
Yeah right! Nice try! My uncle used to say that exact same thing, but when you finally pulled his finger guess what happened?
Anyway, I disagree with you buddy. Coalition politics isn’t going to change this. What will change this is one man, likely a conservative.
Somewhere out there is a highly religious binaries acceptable conservative who is going to deliver the message that this is not about religion, it is about freedom and equality. That person will hacve the moral authority with the social conservatives to make it happen.
No, they call them “idiots”
No, more likely the people who oppose gays are either going to die out, stop caring, or find something new to get enraged about that eclipses gays. This kind of thing is a generational shift, not an overnight revolution.
Edit: And it’s so cute that you think your side is so noble.
More surprising than anything politicians say or do is the fact that anybody, anybody at all, actually believes them.
Why do gay people think they are the only ones let down by politicians? Nothin’ new here.
Ok. So that’s the plan. We just tell all the gay people to keep waitng until that happens, and then they can be treated like humans.
Nice plan.
42fish:
Boy, you got me there! I’m all about advancing the cause of aging hippies from Texas, I was just trying to con you. Darn! Too smart for me. As soon as I get Federal support of the makers of tie-dye shirts and scented candles, I’m outa here, the rest of you guys are on your own!
But lets go with that hypothetical. In real life, its never this cut and dried, but let’s just pretend.
You make the decision. You can have total marriage equality and an end to DADT. But if you do, you let the law on latinos being stopped and questioned stand. Assuming, as I do, that marriage equality is going to happen, and that DADT will be dead in a matter of weeks or months. Not years.
Which would you choose? And how would you explain your decision to the people you would have to disappoint?
And not Obama, because he betrayed you and broke your heart? Ok, who? That can win! Not just make a principled stand and go down to glorious defeat. Win!
Are you taking disingenuity lessons from gonzo?
No, it’s because of the push for equal rights that new generations grow up more tolerant of other people at all. Older generations aren’t going to be swayed from their set beliefs. Even today we have older folk – who vote – who casually throw about the word nigger even though they’re aware on some level that it’s unacceptable.
It’s a false dilemma Lucy. There’s no reason why repealing DADT will strengthen the deportation of illegal aliens.
It’s nice to think it would. I support the AZ law. I’d call it a twofer.
See, this just astounds me. While there is certainly nothing admirable about simply paying lipservice (although we can disagree on whether or not what the Democratic party has done is simply lipservice), I simply cannot fathom how you find doing nothing positive is worse than doing something negative. For all the Democratic party faults in dealing with homosexual issues, they are still nowhere near as bad as the Republicans, who actively work to do harm to homosexuals. Maybe you can better explain how actively seeking to continue to deny equal rights to homosexuals is better than not taking enough positive steps to stop the other party.
Take the extension of federal benefits to homosexual partners. Democrats have done only a small bit to get it done (Obama’s tiny extension, passing the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act out of committe (over Republican votes), but the little they accomplish is in the face of strong Republican objections. While I think it is well beyond time for the Act to be passed, I can understand the political decision to not prioritize it at this time, not because the Democrats don’t want to extend them, but rather because of midterm elections and the opposition of the Republican party. It sucks, and I condemn their spinelessness, but I understand the Machiavellian need to put it on the back burner.
But, despite my dislike for the spinelessness of the modern Democratic party, I am still flummoxed that anyone could conclude the Republicans are the better option.