Oh, please, Washington Times!

[Captain_Amazing]

At lunch, unless I bring a book, except on Thursdays when I read the City Paper, I usually read the Washington Times. I don’t really like the paper that much, but I like some of the editorial columnists, and it gives me something to do while I eat.

Anyway, I was reading it today, and one of the columns in the metro section was about this measure the city council passed to allow strip clubs to serve alcohol. The tone of the article was pretty strongly against the measure, but I’ve come to expect the Times to take positions in their news stories, so that didn’t bother me that much. (I’m actually opposed to the measure myself, but that’s another article.) So, here’s my complaint.

Early on in the article, the Times mentioned that “gay activists” supported the change in policy, and they quoted Frank Kameny, the founder of Gay and Lesbian Activist Alliance. (Kameny, btw, is one of the “grand old men” of DC gay activism. He’s a physicist, who, back in the 50’s was fired from a a civilian job with the Department of Defense for being gay, and became an activist because of that)

Anyway, they gave him one or two lines, saying that this will restore DC’s downtown, then they moved on to other aspects of the story. A few paragraphs later, near the end, they mention that DC’s two Republican councilmembers at large, David Catania and Carol Schwartz voted for rhe measure lifting the ban, which the two councilmembers justified on the grounds of civil liberties and less gov’t inferference with business. At this time, quoting Catania, they felt the need to include the phrase, “an open homosexual”. Ignoring the fact that “homosexual” is not a noun, how is Mr. Catania’s sexual orientation relevant to this story? While they mentioned earlier that GLAA supported the measure, nowhere does the article state that Mr. Catania

1. is a member of GLAA, or even that
2. he supported the measure for the same reason that GLAA did.

Is there any reason to bring up Catania’s sexual orientation other than as a scare tactic?

[matt_mcl]

Ooh, you’ve got your own little National Post too, I see.

The first issue - the first issue - included an article that started out, “On Tuesday, voters in Winnipeg eill have the choice between the first openly homosexual mayor in Canada and a neighbourhood grocer who makes his own deliveries.”

Then a few months ago a columnist on the front page called the protesters at the Republican National Congress “a bunch of faggots.”

It’s one of our national newspapers of record. I’m so proud.

[MEBuckner]

Why would the Washington Times go out of its way to demonize gays? Well…

Homosexuals and lesbians claim that a woman who does not like men, or a man who does not like women can marry someone of the same sex. They demonstrate claiming, “We are the real American population.” This is a totally, absolutely satanic phenomenon from the viewpoint of God’s purpose
of creation. – Reverend Sun Myung Moon Speaks on Declaration Day of Heavenly Parentism

And you know it’s true, because the Rev. Sun Myung Moon is “the sun…rising in that world of darkness, lighting up every corner of it.” And you know that’s true because the Rev. Sun Myung Moon said so himself, and “the sun…rising in that world of darkness, lighting up every corner of it” wouldn’t lie, now would he?

[Montfort]

The Washington Times is evil. It’s the rag of choice of the uninformed, the clueless, the Republicans.

I get the heebie-jeebies just thinking about it. Every morning, I see some otherwise-intelligent seeming folks reading it. I wish Cecil had a daily column, so I can hand it to them, and say, “be gone, ignorance!”

I’m honestly surprised that Shrub didn’t stop by their offices yesterday to cash in on the blow job the paper’s been promising him in their birdcage-fodder of an “editorial section” for the past year.

Ugh.

[sub]There, that’s done. I feel much better now.[/sub]

FTR, the Rev. Sun-Yung Moon’s company (Moonies, Inc.) owns the Times. Take that as you will.

[Sapphire_Bullet]

the uninformed, the clueless, the Republicans.

Like these Republicans?

DC’s two Republican councilmembers at large, David Catania and Carol Schwartz voted for the measure lifting the ban, which the two councilmembers justified on the grounds of civil liberties and less gov’t inferference with business.

Generalizations like yours smack of ignorance, Montfort. Want to help eradicate ignorance? Start with yourself.

[Mandelstam]

Sapphire Bullet, at the risk of inciting your righteous wrath, I’m going to take up Montfort’s defense here.

Montfort called The Washington Times “the rag of choice of the uninformed, the clueless, the Republicans.”

Now this is, to be sure, an invidious comparison. But that is not necessarily to say that all Republicans are uninformed and clueless.

Indeed, this reminds me of a famous quotation by John Stuart Mill, the renowned philospher and–as it happens–civil libertarian.

As a Member of Parliament, Mill (a Liberal) was asked by a Conservative member (the British equivalent of Republican), why he had written that Conservatives are always the stupidest party in the country.

Mill replied, “I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. …Suppose any party, in addition to whatever share it may possess of the ability of the
community, has nearly the whole of its stupidity, that party must…be the stupidest party; and I do not see why
honourable gentlemen should see that position as at all offensive to them, for it ensures their being always an extremely powerful party.”

I always thought that was very funny but, then again, I’m neither a conservative nor a Republican.

Captain A.: Can’t you get hold of the Post or the New York Times?

[Captain_Amazing]

Well, I read the Post on the way into work. The NYT costs over a dollar, so that sort of puts me off. Besides, Amos Perlemutter, who is a member of the department from which I got a degree, has an editorial column in the Times, and I enjoy reading it. Also, most of the time, the paper just amuses me, so I read it for entertainment value. I tend not to rely on it for news.

[Montfort]

Obviously, my seething invictive against the Washington Times was mis-interperpreted.

I don’t think all Republicans are stupid or are “uninformed, the clueless” – just some of them.

I was ranting. This is The Pit, so I got carried away. But do hate the Times. I apologise for potentially insulting those with faulty political thinking (again … joking), but I don’t apologise to the Times.

“I got my job from the Washington Post” – Jerry Ford.

[OpalCat]

Originally posted by Sapphire Bullet *
Generalizations like yours smack of ignorance, Montfort. Want to help eradicate ignorance? Start with yourself.*

Well except that he’s right. Well I’m not totally sure about the stupid and uninformed, but I do know that it is the rag of choice of the Republicans, being the more conservative of the two major papers.

[John_Corrado]

*Originally posted by matt_mcl *
The first issue - the first issue - included an article that started out, “On Tuesday, voters in Winnipeg eill have the choice between the first openly homosexual mayor in Canada and a neighbourhood grocer who makes his own deliveries.”

Then a few months ago a columnist on the front page called the protesters at the Republican National Congress “a bunch of faggots.”

Okay, I can obviously see why the second example is digusting and offensive.

I’m still trying to see what’s offensive about the first example. On the one hand, I can see it being stated as a “the first is a deviant, while the second is obviously a good, decent man of the community”; on the other hand, I can just as easily see it being stated as “the first man is a true hero, standing tall amdist oppression and prejudice; the second man is obviously unknowing of politics and too incompetent to hire help to deliver his groceries for him.”

I realize that, given the context of the second quote and probable context of the story, the first quote was designed as malignatory, but I must admit that on face value I don’t see what’s wrong with it.

[Sapphire_Bullet]

I do know that it is the rag of choice of the Republicans

That much I agree with.

the uninformed, the clueless, the Republicans

This is what I thought was ignorant.

But, this being the Pit and not GD, I realize the need for generalization. Sooooo, I will put away my righteous wrath and simply poke Montfort gently.

[Montfort]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sapphire Bullet *
But, this being the Pit and not GD, I realize the need for generalization. Sooooo, I will put away my righteous wrath and simply poke Montfort gently. /QUOTE]
Okay, I must correct myself:

It’s the rag for the uninformed, the clueless, the Republicans, and the wimpy.

(Anyone wanna take bets on how long it takes for Shrub to adopt his father’s “wimp” nickname?)

[Sofa_King]

Every once in awhile, I turn away from the liberal-ass screed known as the Post and take a look at the Times, just to see how Gordon Liddy views the world.

I usually learn that if everyone I dislike, fear and mistrust were to read the Times exclusive to anything other news source, I wouldn’t have to worry about them so much. Unfortunately, most don’t.

[Revtim]

Here is a pretty nitpicky point: The word “homosexual” can in fact be used as a noun.

ho·mo·sex·u·al

adj.
Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
**
n.
A homosexual person; a gay man or a lesbian.**

[matt_mcl]

*Originally posted by John Corrado *
I’m still trying to see what’s offensive about the first example. On the one hand, I can see it being stated as a “the first is a deviant, while the second is obviously a good, decent man of the community”; on the other hand, I can just as easily see it being stated as “the first man is a true hero, standing tall amdist oppression and prejudice; the second man is obviously unknowing of politics and too incompetent to hire help to deliver his groceries for him.”
**

Oooh, trust me honey, if it’s by Conrad Black, it’s not queer-friendly. The tone of the article and headline quite clearly implied Interpretation Number One.