from Box Turtle Bulletin
by Timothy Kincaid
In 2000, the Boy Scouts of America went to the US Supreme Court to defend their right to exclude members based solely on their sexual orientation. And since that time, they have insisted that all scout troops – even those in which the community, the scout leaders, and the parents wish otherwise – expel and exclude gay scouts and leaders. They also exclude atheists and agnostics.
I support their right to do so. Generally, I believe that membership based social organizations should be free to grant or deny membership based on whatever arbitrary or ridiculous reason they wish, even if it be odious and hateful. Even if I believe the policy to be ill conceived and harmful.
But they should not do so with my tax dollars.
And, increasingly, the Scouts have been discovering that the cost of their exclusionary policy is not an inconsequential one. There has been a steady stream of cities that have severed ties or revoked special privileges which the organization had enjoyed. No longer does the City Berkeley provide free berthing to the Sea Scouts. The City of San Diego revoked its $1 lease on a portion of Balboa Park, and the City of Philadelphia evicted the Scouts from a city owned building.
Of course, those who demand their right to discriminate often are outraged and indignant when they think that they are on the other side of the equation. So the Boy Scouts have sued in each of these cases, claiming that revoking their special privileges and taxpayer sponsored handouts is (you saw it coming) discrimination against them.
Yet with each passing year, they are discovering that local governments and institutions give less leeway to the Scouts. Their blind insistence on defining themselves as a religious organization free to disassociate the ungodly also puts them at conflict with establishment of religion issues.
And, frankly, more and more, their pigheadedness is seen as distasteful. Civic institutions don’t want to put gay elected officials or employees in the uncomfortable position of having to deal with a group that considers them not to be “clean” or “morally straight”. And it feels burdensome of the Scouts to put them in this position.
So this organization, once revered and considered an integral part of American youth, is increasingly give the heave-ho. And the latest to sever connections with the Scouts is the Los Angeles Police Department (Daily Breeze).
Since 1962 the Explorers, a program for youth who wish to become police officers, has been affiliated with the Boy Scouts. That will end on Friday; the Police Commission has voted to change the name of the program and cease using the Scout affiliated insurance service (the LAPD has administered the program itself for the past decade).
Commissioner Robert Saltzman, who is openly gay, said that because he cannot support the Boy Scouts, he has invested a lot of time to ensure the new youth program is “as good or – I’m confident – better than the program it replaces.”
“The Boy Scouts are clear that they discriminate based on sexual orientation, gender identity and religion, and the result of that is I could not be active on the Boy Scouts,” Saltzman said.
None of this is a happy resolution. The Scouts are weaker, the program is less respected, ad hoc solutions are pasted about in attempts to keep programs operating, and children are now less connected to their local governments. All the good that comes from connecting with nature, teaching values by example, efforts for self improvement and a call to selflessness has now been tainted by exclusion, discrimination, and recrimination.
All so that some ultra-religious administrators can self-righteously declare that only good god-fearing heterosexuals can be associated with their organization. Oh, and all this sadness and destruction is justified because their bigotry is “for the children”.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Monday, December 28, 2009
VP of Exodus, Randy Thomas, decries Maddow, defends Cohen
by Patrick Fitzgerald
Building on David Robert’s post on the Richard Cohen portion of The Rachel Maddow Show, Randy Thomas, Vice President of Exodus International, had some things to say about the exchange.
Randy Thomas: I am going to share a review of the actual interview and then move into how I believe she, and some other militant gay activists, are missing the point with regard to Uganda’s anti-homosexuality bill.
Transcript, edited for brevity, emphases mine:
MADDOW: But you have told them, particularly in your book, “Coming Out Straight,” which I understand you donated multiple copies of to this organization that‘s promoting this bill. You‘re telling them exactly what they need to hear in order to justify the kill-the-gays bill. I mean, your book portrays gay people as predators who must be stopped to protect the innocent.
COHEN: Oh, no, no, no.
MADDOW: Let me ask – I‘ll just read from your book, OK? Page 49, “Homosexuals are at least 12 times more likely to molest children than heterosexuals. Homosexual teachers are at least seven times more likely to molest a pupil. Homosexual teachers are estimated to have committed at least 25 percent of pupil molestation; 40 percent of molestation assaults were made by those who engage in homosexuality.”
This is the claim that you make in your book that exactly feeds these folks who want to execute people for being gay, what they need in order to justify that. Do you stand by what you said in your book?
COHEN: Actually, you know, that one particular quote, when I do republish it, reprint it, we will extract that from it, because we don‘t want such things to be used against homosexual persons.
MADDOW: That quote is cited – you cite somebody named Paul Cameron as the source of that book.
COHEN: I see that they‘re using it, but you took that one little quote out of a 300-page book.
“you took that one little quote out of a 300-page book”
That “one little quote” may be edited out of Cohen’s next revision, but it’s a paltry excision in light of the other “little” quotes in his book.
But first, a bit of context. Cohen cites Dr. Joseph Nicolosi—co-founder of the anti-gay organization, NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality)—repeatedly, in the effort to demonstrate (simplified) that same-sex attraction can be “overcome,” and that it all boils down to distant same-sex parenting, or clingy opposite-sex parenting.
Much of Cohen’s book is dedicated to promulgating the concept that gays can become straight–a key factor in justifying the passage of anti-gay laws, and the non-passage of pro-equality laws.
Richard Cohen, Coming Out Straight: NARTH conducted a survey of 860 respondents and found that those who want to change their sexual orientation may succeed. [p24]
In addition to the Paul Cameron “research” that Cohen asserts he will take out of his next reprint, there are several other cases of misused studies that were not mentioned in the interview.
Included are some of the anti-gay industry’s favorites to show that gay men are unfaithful sluts at heart (you monogamous lesbians, as usual, are safe on this front).
Richard Cohen, Coming Out Straight: The Gay Rights Movement, the media, the educational system, and the mental-health profession tell use that homosexuality is normal and natural. Let us observe some of the statistics about homosexual behavior and see if this condition is, in fact, normal:
“The Kinsey Institute published a study of homosexual males living in San Francisco which reports that 43 percent had sex with 500 or more partners, 28 percent had sex with 1,000 or more partners, and 79 percent said that over half of their sex partners were strangers.” [p48]
(Ergo, all gay men are male nymphomaniacs.)
That “particular” quote is footnoted as: Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978) , 308-312
As Alvin McEwen of Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters reports:
A citation of the book Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women by Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg as a correct generalization of lgbt sexual habits despite the fact that it was written in 1978 and was not meant by the authors to be a correct assessment of the lgbt community in general…
…“. . . given the variety of circumstances which discourage homosexuals from participating in research studies, it is unlikely that any investigator will ever be in a position to say that this or that is true of a given percentage of all homosexuals.”
We then get the claims that gays and lesbians are more prone to drug and alcohol abuse, that gay teen suicides are over reported, and that gay men are “six times more likely to have attempted suicide than heterosexual men.”
And then, on cue, we are given one of the anti-gay industry’s most famous misused study from the 1984 McWhirter and Mattison book, The Male Couple, to show that 95% of male couples are unfaithful.
Yet, from the first page of the Introduction, we find this disclaimer:
We always have been very careful to explain that the very nature of our research sample, its size (156 couples), its narrow geographic location [San Diego], and the natural selectiveness of the participants prevents the findings from being applicable and generalizable to the entire gay male community. Stricktly speaking, the sample is neither large enough, randomly selected nor geographically dispersed enough to represent necessarily the majority of male couples. As behavioral scientists we cannot report our conclusions as being derived from a representative sample.
That is then compared with a survey boasting of a “93.6 percent” fidelity rate among married heterosexual couples.
(Or, in reality based terms: Only 6.4 percent of married heterosexual couples surveyed were willing to admit that they were adulterous cheaters.)
Only THEN do we get to the Paul Cameron child molestation quote that Rachel Maddow confronts Cohen with. And to Randy Thomas’ credit, he does denounce Paul Cameron as “debunked” and “quite hateful.”
Immediately after that litany of slander, Mr. Cohen has this to say:
…Members of the homosexual community argue that social intolerance and prejudice cause these destructive behaviors. I believe there is some merit to this argument. However, the deeper reason for these unhealthy behaviors is the emotional brokenness that caused the homosexual condition in the first place. The social prejudice merely exacerbates the already-existing pain lodged deep in their souls. [p49]
And exacerbate that social prejudice he does.
It remains to be seen whether these defamatory claims will be redacted from the next revision of his book, but the damage is done and his message received; same-sex attraction can be reversed, therefore it is a choice, and gay men are super-slut child molesters.
Randy Thomas: But here’s the point I really want to make; saving Ugandan lives doesn’t appear to be Maddow and friends top priority, bashing alternate views does.
gay men are sex-fiends = alternative view
The exposition of this tawdry laundry list of anti-gay hate-speech would seem to be what Randy Thomas, Vice President of Exodus International, would have us believe is responsible for the ‘victimization’ of Richard Cohen by Rachel Maddow.
Further:
She did not use any of that precious air time in actually helping the Ugandan people defeat this bill…
…In her very long segment, Rachel didn’t change a thing in her world, our world or help save Ugandan lives.
As a “militant homosexual activist,” Mr. Thomas, need I remind you of Ecclesiastes 3:8:
a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.
This is one of those times, Mr. Thomas. To hate lies and to war against them. If you can’t see that, might I suggest you move into a non-glass house?
Building on David Robert’s post on the Richard Cohen portion of The Rachel Maddow Show, Randy Thomas, Vice President of Exodus International, had some things to say about the exchange.
Randy Thomas: I am going to share a review of the actual interview and then move into how I believe she, and some other militant gay activists, are missing the point with regard to Uganda’s anti-homosexuality bill.
Transcript, edited for brevity, emphases mine:
MADDOW: But you have told them, particularly in your book, “Coming Out Straight,” which I understand you donated multiple copies of to this organization that‘s promoting this bill. You‘re telling them exactly what they need to hear in order to justify the kill-the-gays bill. I mean, your book portrays gay people as predators who must be stopped to protect the innocent.
COHEN: Oh, no, no, no.
MADDOW: Let me ask – I‘ll just read from your book, OK? Page 49, “Homosexuals are at least 12 times more likely to molest children than heterosexuals. Homosexual teachers are at least seven times more likely to molest a pupil. Homosexual teachers are estimated to have committed at least 25 percent of pupil molestation; 40 percent of molestation assaults were made by those who engage in homosexuality.”
This is the claim that you make in your book that exactly feeds these folks who want to execute people for being gay, what they need in order to justify that. Do you stand by what you said in your book?
COHEN: Actually, you know, that one particular quote, when I do republish it, reprint it, we will extract that from it, because we don‘t want such things to be used against homosexual persons.
MADDOW: That quote is cited – you cite somebody named Paul Cameron as the source of that book.
COHEN: I see that they‘re using it, but you took that one little quote out of a 300-page book.
“you took that one little quote out of a 300-page book”
That “one little quote” may be edited out of Cohen’s next revision, but it’s a paltry excision in light of the other “little” quotes in his book.
But first, a bit of context. Cohen cites Dr. Joseph Nicolosi—co-founder of the anti-gay organization, NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality)—repeatedly, in the effort to demonstrate (simplified) that same-sex attraction can be “overcome,” and that it all boils down to distant same-sex parenting, or clingy opposite-sex parenting.
Much of Cohen’s book is dedicated to promulgating the concept that gays can become straight–a key factor in justifying the passage of anti-gay laws, and the non-passage of pro-equality laws.
Richard Cohen, Coming Out Straight: NARTH conducted a survey of 860 respondents and found that those who want to change their sexual orientation may succeed. [p24]
In addition to the Paul Cameron “research” that Cohen asserts he will take out of his next reprint, there are several other cases of misused studies that were not mentioned in the interview.
Included are some of the anti-gay industry’s favorites to show that gay men are unfaithful sluts at heart (you monogamous lesbians, as usual, are safe on this front).
Richard Cohen, Coming Out Straight: The Gay Rights Movement, the media, the educational system, and the mental-health profession tell use that homosexuality is normal and natural. Let us observe some of the statistics about homosexual behavior and see if this condition is, in fact, normal:
“The Kinsey Institute published a study of homosexual males living in San Francisco which reports that 43 percent had sex with 500 or more partners, 28 percent had sex with 1,000 or more partners, and 79 percent said that over half of their sex partners were strangers.” [p48]
(Ergo, all gay men are male nymphomaniacs.)
That “particular” quote is footnoted as: Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978) , 308-312
As Alvin McEwen of Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters reports:
A citation of the book Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women by Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg as a correct generalization of lgbt sexual habits despite the fact that it was written in 1978 and was not meant by the authors to be a correct assessment of the lgbt community in general…
…“. . . given the variety of circumstances which discourage homosexuals from participating in research studies, it is unlikely that any investigator will ever be in a position to say that this or that is true of a given percentage of all homosexuals.”
We then get the claims that gays and lesbians are more prone to drug and alcohol abuse, that gay teen suicides are over reported, and that gay men are “six times more likely to have attempted suicide than heterosexual men.”
And then, on cue, we are given one of the anti-gay industry’s most famous misused study from the 1984 McWhirter and Mattison book, The Male Couple, to show that 95% of male couples are unfaithful.
Yet, from the first page of the Introduction, we find this disclaimer:
We always have been very careful to explain that the very nature of our research sample, its size (156 couples), its narrow geographic location [San Diego], and the natural selectiveness of the participants prevents the findings from being applicable and generalizable to the entire gay male community. Stricktly speaking, the sample is neither large enough, randomly selected nor geographically dispersed enough to represent necessarily the majority of male couples. As behavioral scientists we cannot report our conclusions as being derived from a representative sample.
That is then compared with a survey boasting of a “93.6 percent” fidelity rate among married heterosexual couples.
(Or, in reality based terms: Only 6.4 percent of married heterosexual couples surveyed were willing to admit that they were adulterous cheaters.)
Only THEN do we get to the Paul Cameron child molestation quote that Rachel Maddow confronts Cohen with. And to Randy Thomas’ credit, he does denounce Paul Cameron as “debunked” and “quite hateful.”
Immediately after that litany of slander, Mr. Cohen has this to say:
…Members of the homosexual community argue that social intolerance and prejudice cause these destructive behaviors. I believe there is some merit to this argument. However, the deeper reason for these unhealthy behaviors is the emotional brokenness that caused the homosexual condition in the first place. The social prejudice merely exacerbates the already-existing pain lodged deep in their souls. [p49]
And exacerbate that social prejudice he does.
It remains to be seen whether these defamatory claims will be redacted from the next revision of his book, but the damage is done and his message received; same-sex attraction can be reversed, therefore it is a choice, and gay men are super-slut child molesters.
Randy Thomas: But here’s the point I really want to make; saving Ugandan lives doesn’t appear to be Maddow and friends top priority, bashing alternate views does.
gay men are sex-fiends = alternative view
The exposition of this tawdry laundry list of anti-gay hate-speech would seem to be what Randy Thomas, Vice President of Exodus International, would have us believe is responsible for the ‘victimization’ of Richard Cohen by Rachel Maddow.
Further:
She did not use any of that precious air time in actually helping the Ugandan people defeat this bill…
…In her very long segment, Rachel didn’t change a thing in her world, our world or help save Ugandan lives.
As a “militant homosexual activist,” Mr. Thomas, need I remind you of Ecclesiastes 3:8:
a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.
This is one of those times, Mr. Thomas. To hate lies and to war against them. If you can’t see that, might I suggest you move into a non-glass house?
VP of Exodus, Randy Thomas, decries Maddow, defends Cohen
by Patrick Fitzgerald
Building on David Robert’s post on the Richard Cohen portion of The Rachel Maddow Show, Randy Thomas, Vice President of Exodus International, had some things to say about the exchange.
Randy Thomas: I am going to share a review of the actual interview and then move into how I believe she, and some other militant gay activists, are missing the point with regard to Uganda’s anti-homosexuality bill.
Transcript, edited for brevity, emphases mine:
MADDOW: But you have told them, particularly in your book, “Coming Out Straight,” which I understand you donated multiple copies of to this organization that‘s promoting this bill. You‘re telling them exactly what they need to hear in order to justify the kill-the-gays bill. I mean, your book portrays gay people as predators who must be stopped to protect the innocent.
COHEN: Oh, no, no, no.
MADDOW: Let me ask – I‘ll just read from your book, OK? Page 49, “Homosexuals are at least 12 times more likely to molest children than heterosexuals. Homosexual teachers are at least seven times more likely to molest a pupil. Homosexual teachers are estimated to have committed at least 25 percent of pupil molestation; 40 percent of molestation assaults were made by those who engage in homosexuality.”
This is the claim that you make in your book that exactly feeds these folks who want to execute people for being gay, what they need in order to justify that. Do you stand by what you said in your book?
COHEN: Actually, you know, that one particular quote, when I do republish it, reprint it, we will extract that from it, because we don‘t want such things to be used against homosexual persons.
MADDOW: That quote is cited – you cite somebody named Paul Cameron as the source of that book.
COHEN: I see that they‘re using it, but you took that one little quote out of a 300-page book.
“you took that one little quote out of a 300-page book”
That “one little quote” may be edited out of Cohen’s next revision, but it’s a paltry excision in light of the other “little” quotes in his book.
But first, a bit of context. Cohen cites Dr. Joseph Nicolosi—co-founder of the anti-gay organization, NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality)—repeatedly, in the effort to demonstrate (simplified) that same-sex attraction can be “overcome,” and that it all boils down to distant same-sex parenting, or clingy opposite-sex parenting.
Much of Cohen’s book is dedicated to promulgating the concept that gays can become straight–a key factor in justifying the passage of anti-gay laws, and the non-passage of pro-equality laws.
Richard Cohen, Coming Out Straight: NARTH conducted a survey of 860 respondents and found that those who want to change their sexual orientation may succeed. [p24]
In addition to the Paul Cameron “research” that Cohen asserts he will take out of his next reprint, there are several other cases of misused studies that were not mentioned in the interview.
Included are some of the anti-gay industry’s favorites to show that gay men are unfaithful sluts at heart (you monogamous lesbians, as usual, are safe on this front).
Richard Cohen, Coming Out Straight: The Gay Rights Movement, the media, the educational system, and the mental-health profession tell use that homosexuality is normal and natural. Let us observe some of the statistics about homosexual behavior and see if this condition is, in fact, normal:
“The Kinsey Institute published a study of homosexual males living in San Francisco which reports that 43 percent had sex with 500 or more partners, 28 percent had sex with 1,000 or more partners, and 79 percent said that over half of their sex partners were strangers.” [p48]
(Ergo, all gay men are male nymphomaniacs.)
That “particular” quote is footnoted as: Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978) , 308-312
As Alvin McEwen of Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters reports:
A citation of the book Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women by Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg as a correct generalization of lgbt sexual habits despite the fact that it was written in 1978 and was not meant by the authors to be a correct assessment of the lgbt community in general…
…“. . . given the variety of circumstances which discourage homosexuals from participating in research studies, it is unlikely that any investigator will ever be in a position to say that this or that is true of a given percentage of all homosexuals.”
We then get the claims that gays and lesbians are more prone to drug and alcohol abuse, that gay teen suicides are over reported, and that gay men are “six times more likely to have attempted suicide than heterosexual men.”
And then, on cue, we are given one of the anti-gay industry’s most famous misused study from the 1984 McWhirter and Mattison book, The Male Couple, to show that 95% of male couples are unfaithful.
Yet, from the first page of the Introduction, we find this disclaimer:
We always have been very careful to explain that the very nature of our research sample, its size (156 couples), its narrow geographic location [San Diego], and the natural selectiveness of the participants prevents the findings from being applicable and generalizable to the entire gay male community. Stricktly speaking, the sample is neither large enough, randomly selected nor geographically dispersed enough to represent necessarily the majority of male couples. As behavioral scientists we cannot report our conclusions as being derived from a representative sample.
That is then compared with a survey boasting of a “93.6 percent” fidelity rate among married heterosexual couples.
(Or, in reality based terms: Only 6.4 percent of married heterosexual couples surveyed were willing to admit that they were adulterous cheaters.)
Only THEN do we get to the Paul Cameron child molestation quote that Rachel Maddow confronts Cohen with. And to Randy Thomas’ credit, he does denounce Paul Cameron as “debunked” and “quite hateful.”
Immediately after that litany of slander, Mr. Cohen has this to say:
…Members of the homosexual community argue that social intolerance and prejudice cause these destructive behaviors. I believe there is some merit to this argument. However, the deeper reason for these unhealthy behaviors is the emotional brokenness that caused the homosexual condition in the first place. The social prejudice merely exacerbates the already-existing pain lodged deep in their souls. [p49]
And exacerbate that social prejudice he does.
It remains to be seen whether these defamatory claims will be redacted from the next revision of his book, but the damage is done and his message received; same-sex attraction can be reversed, therefore it is a choice, and gay men are super-slut child molesters.
Randy Thomas: But here’s the point I really want to make; saving Ugandan lives doesn’t appear to be Maddow and friends top priority, bashing alternate views does.
gay men are sex-fiends = alternative view
The exposition of this tawdry laundry list of anti-gay hate-speech would seem to be what Randy Thomas, Vice President of Exodus International, would have us believe is responsible for the ‘victimization’ of Richard Cohen by Rachel Maddow.
Further:
She did not use any of that precious air time in actually helping the Ugandan people defeat this bill…
…In her very long segment, Rachel didn’t change a thing in her world, our world or help save Ugandan lives.
As a “militant homosexual activist,” Mr. Thomas, need I remind you of Ecclesiastes 3:8:
a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.
This is one of those times, Mr. Thomas. To hate lies and to war against them. If you can’t see that, might I suggest you move into a non-glass house?
Building on David Robert’s post on the Richard Cohen portion of The Rachel Maddow Show, Randy Thomas, Vice President of Exodus International, had some things to say about the exchange.
Randy Thomas: I am going to share a review of the actual interview and then move into how I believe she, and some other militant gay activists, are missing the point with regard to Uganda’s anti-homosexuality bill.
Transcript, edited for brevity, emphases mine:
MADDOW: But you have told them, particularly in your book, “Coming Out Straight,” which I understand you donated multiple copies of to this organization that‘s promoting this bill. You‘re telling them exactly what they need to hear in order to justify the kill-the-gays bill. I mean, your book portrays gay people as predators who must be stopped to protect the innocent.
COHEN: Oh, no, no, no.
MADDOW: Let me ask – I‘ll just read from your book, OK? Page 49, “Homosexuals are at least 12 times more likely to molest children than heterosexuals. Homosexual teachers are at least seven times more likely to molest a pupil. Homosexual teachers are estimated to have committed at least 25 percent of pupil molestation; 40 percent of molestation assaults were made by those who engage in homosexuality.”
This is the claim that you make in your book that exactly feeds these folks who want to execute people for being gay, what they need in order to justify that. Do you stand by what you said in your book?
COHEN: Actually, you know, that one particular quote, when I do republish it, reprint it, we will extract that from it, because we don‘t want such things to be used against homosexual persons.
MADDOW: That quote is cited – you cite somebody named Paul Cameron as the source of that book.
COHEN: I see that they‘re using it, but you took that one little quote out of a 300-page book.
“you took that one little quote out of a 300-page book”
That “one little quote” may be edited out of Cohen’s next revision, but it’s a paltry excision in light of the other “little” quotes in his book.
But first, a bit of context. Cohen cites Dr. Joseph Nicolosi—co-founder of the anti-gay organization, NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality)—repeatedly, in the effort to demonstrate (simplified) that same-sex attraction can be “overcome,” and that it all boils down to distant same-sex parenting, or clingy opposite-sex parenting.
Much of Cohen’s book is dedicated to promulgating the concept that gays can become straight–a key factor in justifying the passage of anti-gay laws, and the non-passage of pro-equality laws.
Richard Cohen, Coming Out Straight: NARTH conducted a survey of 860 respondents and found that those who want to change their sexual orientation may succeed. [p24]
In addition to the Paul Cameron “research” that Cohen asserts he will take out of his next reprint, there are several other cases of misused studies that were not mentioned in the interview.
Included are some of the anti-gay industry’s favorites to show that gay men are unfaithful sluts at heart (you monogamous lesbians, as usual, are safe on this front).
Richard Cohen, Coming Out Straight: The Gay Rights Movement, the media, the educational system, and the mental-health profession tell use that homosexuality is normal and natural. Let us observe some of the statistics about homosexual behavior and see if this condition is, in fact, normal:
“The Kinsey Institute published a study of homosexual males living in San Francisco which reports that 43 percent had sex with 500 or more partners, 28 percent had sex with 1,000 or more partners, and 79 percent said that over half of their sex partners were strangers.” [p48]
(Ergo, all gay men are male nymphomaniacs.)
That “particular” quote is footnoted as: Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978) , 308-312
As Alvin McEwen of Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters reports:
A citation of the book Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women by Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg as a correct generalization of lgbt sexual habits despite the fact that it was written in 1978 and was not meant by the authors to be a correct assessment of the lgbt community in general…
…“. . . given the variety of circumstances which discourage homosexuals from participating in research studies, it is unlikely that any investigator will ever be in a position to say that this or that is true of a given percentage of all homosexuals.”
We then get the claims that gays and lesbians are more prone to drug and alcohol abuse, that gay teen suicides are over reported, and that gay men are “six times more likely to have attempted suicide than heterosexual men.”
And then, on cue, we are given one of the anti-gay industry’s most famous misused study from the 1984 McWhirter and Mattison book, The Male Couple, to show that 95% of male couples are unfaithful.
Yet, from the first page of the Introduction, we find this disclaimer:
We always have been very careful to explain that the very nature of our research sample, its size (156 couples), its narrow geographic location [San Diego], and the natural selectiveness of the participants prevents the findings from being applicable and generalizable to the entire gay male community. Stricktly speaking, the sample is neither large enough, randomly selected nor geographically dispersed enough to represent necessarily the majority of male couples. As behavioral scientists we cannot report our conclusions as being derived from a representative sample.
That is then compared with a survey boasting of a “93.6 percent” fidelity rate among married heterosexual couples.
(Or, in reality based terms: Only 6.4 percent of married heterosexual couples surveyed were willing to admit that they were adulterous cheaters.)
Only THEN do we get to the Paul Cameron child molestation quote that Rachel Maddow confronts Cohen with. And to Randy Thomas’ credit, he does denounce Paul Cameron as “debunked” and “quite hateful.”
Immediately after that litany of slander, Mr. Cohen has this to say:
…Members of the homosexual community argue that social intolerance and prejudice cause these destructive behaviors. I believe there is some merit to this argument. However, the deeper reason for these unhealthy behaviors is the emotional brokenness that caused the homosexual condition in the first place. The social prejudice merely exacerbates the already-existing pain lodged deep in their souls. [p49]
And exacerbate that social prejudice he does.
It remains to be seen whether these defamatory claims will be redacted from the next revision of his book, but the damage is done and his message received; same-sex attraction can be reversed, therefore it is a choice, and gay men are super-slut child molesters.
Randy Thomas: But here’s the point I really want to make; saving Ugandan lives doesn’t appear to be Maddow and friends top priority, bashing alternate views does.
gay men are sex-fiends = alternative view
The exposition of this tawdry laundry list of anti-gay hate-speech would seem to be what Randy Thomas, Vice President of Exodus International, would have us believe is responsible for the ‘victimization’ of Richard Cohen by Rachel Maddow.
Further:
She did not use any of that precious air time in actually helping the Ugandan people defeat this bill…
…In her very long segment, Rachel didn’t change a thing in her world, our world or help save Ugandan lives.
As a “militant homosexual activist,” Mr. Thomas, need I remind you of Ecclesiastes 3:8:
a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.
This is one of those times, Mr. Thomas. To hate lies and to war against them. If you can’t see that, might I suggest you move into a non-glass house?
Thursday, December 24, 2009
A culture war cease-fire
By E.J. Dionne Jr.
Washington Post
Thursday, December 24, 2009
It is 2009's quiet story -- quiet because it's about what didn't happen, which can be as important as what did. In this highly partisan year, we did not see a sharpening of the battles over religion and culture.
Yes, we continued to fight over gay marriage, and arguments about abortion were a feature of the health-care debate. But what's more striking is that other issues -- notably economics and the role of government -- trumped culture and religion in the public square. The culture wars went into recession along with the economy.
The most important transformation occurred on the right end of politics. For now, the loudest and most activist sections of the conservative cause are not its religious voices but the mostly secular, anti-government tea party activists.
Especially revealing is the re-emergence of former House majority leader Dick Armey, a prime mover behind the tea parties and a longtime critic of the religious right. He once said that James Dobson of Focus on the Family and his allies were a "gang of thugs" and "real nasty bullies."
Armey and his supporters speak a libertarian language that contrasts sharply with the message of Christian conservatives. "When Republicans are fighting against the power of the state, we win," Armey told the New York Times recently. "When we are trying to advance it, we lose."
At the same time, President Obama has been unabashed in offering his views on religious questions. Two of the most important speeches of his first year -- his addresses at the Notre Dame graduation in May and in Oslo this month when he received the Nobel Peace Prize -- were suffused with the language of faith. At Notre Dame, the president lavishly praised the Catholic social justice tradition. In Oslo, he spoke as a Christian realist clearly conversant with the ideas of Reinhold Niebuhr, the great 20th-century theologian.
ad_icon
On President Bush's faith-based initiative, Obama has made reforms but largely avoided or postponed dealing with the most controversial questions.
Even the cultural and religious conflicts that have persisted were debated at a lower volume. Going into the health-care skirmishes, both supporters and opponents of abortion rights pledged that they would not try to upset current arrangements that bar federal funding of abortion. Although they feuded bitterly over what this meant in practice, their opening positions reflected a pulling back from the brink.
The Senate compromise on abortion negotiated by Sens. Ben Nelson, Bob Casey and Barbara Boxer did not fully satisfy either camp in the abortion struggle, and there will be fallout in the new year. ("Imagine, we Democrats managed to make both sides on the abortion issue unhappy," one House member said wryly but accurately.) Nonetheless, those who expected the abortion controversy to sink health-care reform have, so far, been proved wrong.
And while gay marriage continues to roil politics at the state and local levels, this argument has now become part of the routine of American politics. Republican politicians have shown a limited appetite for nationalizing the issue, something they did eagerly before the 2004 election. Judging by the closeness of some of the referendum votes -- notably this year in Maine, where the measure lost narrowly -- support for gay marriage has grown, although its backers are still short of a majority in most places.
In the meantime, religious progressives are mobilized to a degree not seen since the civil rights years. They weighed in regularly on health care, providing energy for the compromises on abortion that would otherwise have won little organized support.
Of course, it was inevitable that cultural and religious issues would at least partially recede during a sharp economic downturn. Such matters also declined in importance during the Great Depression of the 1930s, and none more so than the previous decade's struggle over the prohibition of alcohol.
At the time, historian William E. Leuchtenburg reported, a Missouri Democrat told James Farley, one of Franklin Roosevelt's top lieutenants, that it was "ridiculous for a jobless wet Democrat to wrangle with a jobless dry Democrat over liquor when neither could afford the price of a drink."
The paradox for Obama is that if the economy continues its comeback in 2010, his overall standing will improve, but the risk of renewed conflict over religion and values will also rise. It's a trade the president will happily take, even if he would then face a much tougher test of his credentials as a cultural peacemaker.
Washington Post
Thursday, December 24, 2009
It is 2009's quiet story -- quiet because it's about what didn't happen, which can be as important as what did. In this highly partisan year, we did not see a sharpening of the battles over religion and culture.
Yes, we continued to fight over gay marriage, and arguments about abortion were a feature of the health-care debate. But what's more striking is that other issues -- notably economics and the role of government -- trumped culture and religion in the public square. The culture wars went into recession along with the economy.
The most important transformation occurred on the right end of politics. For now, the loudest and most activist sections of the conservative cause are not its religious voices but the mostly secular, anti-government tea party activists.
Especially revealing is the re-emergence of former House majority leader Dick Armey, a prime mover behind the tea parties and a longtime critic of the religious right. He once said that James Dobson of Focus on the Family and his allies were a "gang of thugs" and "real nasty bullies."
Armey and his supporters speak a libertarian language that contrasts sharply with the message of Christian conservatives. "When Republicans are fighting against the power of the state, we win," Armey told the New York Times recently. "When we are trying to advance it, we lose."
At the same time, President Obama has been unabashed in offering his views on religious questions. Two of the most important speeches of his first year -- his addresses at the Notre Dame graduation in May and in Oslo this month when he received the Nobel Peace Prize -- were suffused with the language of faith. At Notre Dame, the president lavishly praised the Catholic social justice tradition. In Oslo, he spoke as a Christian realist clearly conversant with the ideas of Reinhold Niebuhr, the great 20th-century theologian.
ad_icon
On President Bush's faith-based initiative, Obama has made reforms but largely avoided or postponed dealing with the most controversial questions.
Even the cultural and religious conflicts that have persisted were debated at a lower volume. Going into the health-care skirmishes, both supporters and opponents of abortion rights pledged that they would not try to upset current arrangements that bar federal funding of abortion. Although they feuded bitterly over what this meant in practice, their opening positions reflected a pulling back from the brink.
The Senate compromise on abortion negotiated by Sens. Ben Nelson, Bob Casey and Barbara Boxer did not fully satisfy either camp in the abortion struggle, and there will be fallout in the new year. ("Imagine, we Democrats managed to make both sides on the abortion issue unhappy," one House member said wryly but accurately.) Nonetheless, those who expected the abortion controversy to sink health-care reform have, so far, been proved wrong.
And while gay marriage continues to roil politics at the state and local levels, this argument has now become part of the routine of American politics. Republican politicians have shown a limited appetite for nationalizing the issue, something they did eagerly before the 2004 election. Judging by the closeness of some of the referendum votes -- notably this year in Maine, where the measure lost narrowly -- support for gay marriage has grown, although its backers are still short of a majority in most places.
In the meantime, religious progressives are mobilized to a degree not seen since the civil rights years. They weighed in regularly on health care, providing energy for the compromises on abortion that would otherwise have won little organized support.
Of course, it was inevitable that cultural and religious issues would at least partially recede during a sharp economic downturn. Such matters also declined in importance during the Great Depression of the 1930s, and none more so than the previous decade's struggle over the prohibition of alcohol.
At the time, historian William E. Leuchtenburg reported, a Missouri Democrat told James Farley, one of Franklin Roosevelt's top lieutenants, that it was "ridiculous for a jobless wet Democrat to wrangle with a jobless dry Democrat over liquor when neither could afford the price of a drink."
The paradox for Obama is that if the economy continues its comeback in 2010, his overall standing will improve, but the risk of renewed conflict over religion and values will also rise. It's a trade the president will happily take, even if he would then face a much tougher test of his credentials as a cultural peacemaker.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Go Forth and Steal, Says English Priest
LONDON (Dec. 22) For some 3,500 years, the 10 Commandments have included the easy-to-follow instruction, "Thou shalt not steal." But one British Anglican priest thinks that ancient command is now out-of-touch with our recession-hit world and has suggested it be changed to something more flexible, such as: "Thou shalt not steal, unless you're short of cash."
The Rev. Tim Jones issued his new religious edict on Sunday, while addressing worshippers at the Church of St. Lawrence, in the northern English city of York. He told parishioners that poor people struggling to survive should steal food and other essentials from shops, rather than raise money through prostitution, burglary or mugging.
"My advice, as a Christian priest, is to shoplift," he said, as originally reported in the Yorkshire Evening Post. "I do not offer such advice because I think that stealing is a good thing, or because I think it is harmless, for it is neither."
The Rev. Tim Jones says the 10 Commandments could use tweaking during a recession, like maybe some stealing is acceptable for those otherwise going hungry.
Keen to make sure that independent retailers wouldn't fall victim to a holy shoplifting spree, Jones set down strict guidelines for would-be Christian criminals. "I would ask that [people] do not steal from small, family businesses, but from large national businesses, knowing that the costs are ultimately passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher prices," he said. "[And] I would ask them not to take any more than they need, for any longer than they need."
Local police condemned his sermon as sinful, telling the BBC that "shoplifting or committing other crimes should never be the solution" for people in difficult circumstances. If everyone in poverty stole from stores, the police added, "this would make the downward spiral even more rapid, both on an individual basis and on society as a whole."
U.K. storeowners -- who pay out $5 billion each year on stolen stock -- were similarly unimpressed. "You'd expect a vicar to appreciate the difference between right and wrong," says Krishan Rama, a spokesman for the British Retail Consortium. "It's the job of our welfare system, which retailers support with the billions they pay each year in tax, to help vulnerable people. There are no excuses for stealing."
Jones also received a telling off from his boss -- no, not that one, but the more temporal Archdeacon of York, the Venerable Richard Seed. "The Church of England does not advise anyone to shoplift, or break the law in any way," the Archdeacon announced. "Father Tim Jones is raising important issues about the difficulties people face when benefits are not forthcoming, but shoplifting is not the way to overcome these difficulties."
The controversial vicar later appeared on British television to clarify his position, and claimed that he had "never said it is OK to steal. It is a dreadful thing to steal." The sermon, Jones said, was in fact only meant to encourage worshippers to give more to charity, not incite them to snatch cookies from the corner store.
The Rev. Tim Jones issued his new religious edict on Sunday, while addressing worshippers at the Church of St. Lawrence, in the northern English city of York. He told parishioners that poor people struggling to survive should steal food and other essentials from shops, rather than raise money through prostitution, burglary or mugging.
"My advice, as a Christian priest, is to shoplift," he said, as originally reported in the Yorkshire Evening Post. "I do not offer such advice because I think that stealing is a good thing, or because I think it is harmless, for it is neither."
The Rev. Tim Jones says the 10 Commandments could use tweaking during a recession, like maybe some stealing is acceptable for those otherwise going hungry.
Keen to make sure that independent retailers wouldn't fall victim to a holy shoplifting spree, Jones set down strict guidelines for would-be Christian criminals. "I would ask that [people] do not steal from small, family businesses, but from large national businesses, knowing that the costs are ultimately passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher prices," he said. "[And] I would ask them not to take any more than they need, for any longer than they need."
Local police condemned his sermon as sinful, telling the BBC that "shoplifting or committing other crimes should never be the solution" for people in difficult circumstances. If everyone in poverty stole from stores, the police added, "this would make the downward spiral even more rapid, both on an individual basis and on society as a whole."
U.K. storeowners -- who pay out $5 billion each year on stolen stock -- were similarly unimpressed. "You'd expect a vicar to appreciate the difference between right and wrong," says Krishan Rama, a spokesman for the British Retail Consortium. "It's the job of our welfare system, which retailers support with the billions they pay each year in tax, to help vulnerable people. There are no excuses for stealing."
Jones also received a telling off from his boss -- no, not that one, but the more temporal Archdeacon of York, the Venerable Richard Seed. "The Church of England does not advise anyone to shoplift, or break the law in any way," the Archdeacon announced. "Father Tim Jones is raising important issues about the difficulties people face when benefits are not forthcoming, but shoplifting is not the way to overcome these difficulties."
The controversial vicar later appeared on British television to clarify his position, and claimed that he had "never said it is OK to steal. It is a dreadful thing to steal." The sermon, Jones said, was in fact only meant to encourage worshippers to give more to charity, not incite them to snatch cookies from the corner store.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Obama vs. Fox News
White House Communications Director Anita Dunn says Fox is an arm of the Republican Party
Best opinion: Nation, Hot Air, Baltimore Sun, Crooks and Liars
The Obama administration has finally declared war on Fox News, said Ari Melber in The Nation. White House Communications Director Anita Dunn went on national television over the weekend to "blast Fox," saying that the cable news channel "often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party." It's about time Democrats started treating Fox as the "hostile force" it obviously is. (watch the White House's Anita Dunn criticize Fox News)
Sure, Fox News offers viewers an alternative to the "Obama Hosannah Hours" on rival cable networks CNN and MSNBC, said Ed Morrissey in Hot Air. But that's why the "ill-advised" strategy of publicly attacking the network is bound to "backfire." The White House is just conducting what amounts to a free marketing campaign that will drive up Fox's ratings.
This isn't just an attack on Fox, said David Zurawik in the Baltimore Sun. It's an attack on "press freedom" that would make Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew proud. "You have to wonder who else is on this administration's enemies list."
Please, Anita Dunn merely stated the obvious, said John Amato in Crooks and Liars, when she pointed out that Fox News is a "propanda" organ for the Republican Party. Can anyone deny that Fox spends an inordinate amount of time and effort reporting on Bill Ayers and ACORN? Obama didn't declare war on Fox—Fox declared war on him.
Best opinion: Nation, Hot Air, Baltimore Sun, Crooks and Liars
The Obama administration has finally declared war on Fox News, said Ari Melber in The Nation. White House Communications Director Anita Dunn went on national television over the weekend to "blast Fox," saying that the cable news channel "often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party." It's about time Democrats started treating Fox as the "hostile force" it obviously is. (watch the White House's Anita Dunn criticize Fox News)
Sure, Fox News offers viewers an alternative to the "Obama Hosannah Hours" on rival cable networks CNN and MSNBC, said Ed Morrissey in Hot Air. But that's why the "ill-advised" strategy of publicly attacking the network is bound to "backfire." The White House is just conducting what amounts to a free marketing campaign that will drive up Fox's ratings.
This isn't just an attack on Fox, said David Zurawik in the Baltimore Sun. It's an attack on "press freedom" that would make Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew proud. "You have to wonder who else is on this administration's enemies list."
Please, Anita Dunn merely stated the obvious, said John Amato in Crooks and Liars, when she pointed out that Fox News is a "propanda" organ for the Republican Party. Can anyone deny that Fox spends an inordinate amount of time and effort reporting on Bill Ayers and ACORN? Obama didn't declare war on Fox—Fox declared war on him.
Obama and gay rights
President Obama renewed his vow to end "don't ask, don't tell," but some activists are getting impatient.
Gay rights advocates rally in Washington D.C. on Oct. 11, 2009.
Best opinion: NY Times, New Majority, Wash. Post
President Obama's renewal of his promise to end "don't ask, don't tell," said Sheryl Gay Stolberg in The New York Times, got a roar of approval from the 3,000 people at a Human Rights Campaign black-tie fundraiser on the eve of Sunday's big gay-rights rally in Washington. "But outside the room, the president's words got a chillier reception," because some activists think the president isn't moving fast enough to lift the ban on gays in the military.
There's good reason for gay-rights activists to be impatient, said Jeb Golinkin in New Majority. Gay rights is yet another case where Obama "speaks big words" but offers little action to back them up. The "real fight for change" is in the courts, where constitutional lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies are challenging California's Proposition 8 gay-marriage ban. If Obama wants to do his part, he'll have to go beyond words and spend some of his "rapidly diminishing" political capital to end "don't ask, don't tell."
Sure, the pace of progress on gay rights is slow, said Jonathan Capehart in The Washington Post, but don't pin the blame on President Obama. Obama has made it clear he would sign bills repealing "don't ask, don't tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act. The huge crowd that rallied Sunday for faster action on gay rights served as a reminder that it's time for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to get Congress to step up and do its part.
Gay rights advocates rally in Washington D.C. on Oct. 11, 2009.
Best opinion: NY Times, New Majority, Wash. Post
President Obama's renewal of his promise to end "don't ask, don't tell," said Sheryl Gay Stolberg in The New York Times, got a roar of approval from the 3,000 people at a Human Rights Campaign black-tie fundraiser on the eve of Sunday's big gay-rights rally in Washington. "But outside the room, the president's words got a chillier reception," because some activists think the president isn't moving fast enough to lift the ban on gays in the military.
There's good reason for gay-rights activists to be impatient, said Jeb Golinkin in New Majority. Gay rights is yet another case where Obama "speaks big words" but offers little action to back them up. The "real fight for change" is in the courts, where constitutional lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies are challenging California's Proposition 8 gay-marriage ban. If Obama wants to do his part, he'll have to go beyond words and spend some of his "rapidly diminishing" political capital to end "don't ask, don't tell."
Sure, the pace of progress on gay rights is slow, said Jonathan Capehart in The Washington Post, but don't pin the blame on President Obama. Obama has made it clear he would sign bills repealing "don't ask, don't tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act. The huge crowd that rallied Sunday for faster action on gay rights served as a reminder that it's time for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to get Congress to step up and do its part.
Friday, October 09, 2009
Obama's Nobel Peace Prize
The Nobel Committee on Friday awarded President Obama its annual peace prize "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." (The New York Times)
What the commentators said
"This is completely bizarre," said Iain Martin in The Wall Street Journal. "Traditionally it has been standard procedure that winners of the prize do their peacemaking first." With whom has Obama made peace—Hillary Clinton? (watch the Obama Nobel Peace Prize announcement; watch Obama give a statement)
What President Obama has done, said Maria Farrell in Crooked Timber, is make peace possible again. The Bush presidency created a "tidal wave of bad faith" that discouraged international cooperation. Obama has "changed how the world feels about America. He’s lifted the planet’s mood. This guy is global Prozac."
Even the president's fans must admit, said Matt Lewis in Townhall.com, that the Obama Nobel peace prize was, "at least, a bit premature." The award couldn't have been based on accomplishments—Obama has "zero"—but on "lots of 'hope' for the future."
The hope is that Obama will advance "diplomacy rather than confrontation around the globe," said Jacob Heilbrunn in The Huffington Post, and he has already done that. He has improved U.S. relations with Europe and the world; focused on global warming; started talks with Iran ... "it would be hard to think of a more electrifying and deserved recipient of this year's Nobel Peace prize."
This kind of puts the whole Chicago Olympics rejection in perspective, said Rachel Sklar in Mediaite, "eh?" The Nobel Committee said it wasn't rewarding Obama for future achievements but trying to enhance his current diplomatic efforts. "No doubt the cries of 'USA! USA!' will be emanating from Rush Limbaugh’s radio show very soon."
Best opinion: Slate, Wash. Monthly, Sun-Sentinel
President Obama should "politely decline" his Nobel Peace Prize, said Mickey Kaus in Slate, saying he's honored but hasn't had time to accomplish his goals. He'll get "the same amount of glory," and chip away at his "narcissism problem" by showing that "he's uncomfortable with his reputation as a man overcelebrated for his potential long before he's started to realize it."
It's fair to say Obama's Nobel is premature "given his fairly brief tenure," said Steve Benen in Washington Monthly. But there's a legitimate defense for giving him the award—it is, after all, reserved for those "who've shown great leadership in advancing the cause of international peace," which Obama undeniably has. And Obama's Nobel Peace Prize is worth having—it could have "meaningful, and positive, impact," by giving him the "high ground in international settings."
Obviously, this was a symbolic message meant to repudiate "the go-it-alone, reckless cowboy mentality of George W. Bush’s administration," said Michael Mayo in the Fort Lauderdale, Fla., Sun-Sentinel, "and a validation of Obama’s more conciliatory approach and his overall message of hope." But "I’m still having a hard time wrapping my head around a sitting U.S. president—commander-in-chief of the world’s most sophisticated military machine—winning a peace prize amidst two wars." If Obama doesn't turn down the prize, he should at least "make sure the $1.2 million prize money goes to a darn good cause (helpful advice: probably not a donation to ACORN)."
What the commentators said
"This is completely bizarre," said Iain Martin in The Wall Street Journal. "Traditionally it has been standard procedure that winners of the prize do their peacemaking first." With whom has Obama made peace—Hillary Clinton? (watch the Obama Nobel Peace Prize announcement; watch Obama give a statement)
What President Obama has done, said Maria Farrell in Crooked Timber, is make peace possible again. The Bush presidency created a "tidal wave of bad faith" that discouraged international cooperation. Obama has "changed how the world feels about America. He’s lifted the planet’s mood. This guy is global Prozac."
Even the president's fans must admit, said Matt Lewis in Townhall.com, that the Obama Nobel peace prize was, "at least, a bit premature." The award couldn't have been based on accomplishments—Obama has "zero"—but on "lots of 'hope' for the future."
The hope is that Obama will advance "diplomacy rather than confrontation around the globe," said Jacob Heilbrunn in The Huffington Post, and he has already done that. He has improved U.S. relations with Europe and the world; focused on global warming; started talks with Iran ... "it would be hard to think of a more electrifying and deserved recipient of this year's Nobel Peace prize."
This kind of puts the whole Chicago Olympics rejection in perspective, said Rachel Sklar in Mediaite, "eh?" The Nobel Committee said it wasn't rewarding Obama for future achievements but trying to enhance his current diplomatic efforts. "No doubt the cries of 'USA! USA!' will be emanating from Rush Limbaugh’s radio show very soon."
Best opinion: Slate, Wash. Monthly, Sun-Sentinel
President Obama should "politely decline" his Nobel Peace Prize, said Mickey Kaus in Slate, saying he's honored but hasn't had time to accomplish his goals. He'll get "the same amount of glory," and chip away at his "narcissism problem" by showing that "he's uncomfortable with his reputation as a man overcelebrated for his potential long before he's started to realize it."
It's fair to say Obama's Nobel is premature "given his fairly brief tenure," said Steve Benen in Washington Monthly. But there's a legitimate defense for giving him the award—it is, after all, reserved for those "who've shown great leadership in advancing the cause of international peace," which Obama undeniably has. And Obama's Nobel Peace Prize is worth having—it could have "meaningful, and positive, impact," by giving him the "high ground in international settings."
Obviously, this was a symbolic message meant to repudiate "the go-it-alone, reckless cowboy mentality of George W. Bush’s administration," said Michael Mayo in the Fort Lauderdale, Fla., Sun-Sentinel, "and a validation of Obama’s more conciliatory approach and his overall message of hope." But "I’m still having a hard time wrapping my head around a sitting U.S. president—commander-in-chief of the world’s most sophisticated military machine—winning a peace prize amidst two wars." If Obama doesn't turn down the prize, he should at least "make sure the $1.2 million prize money goes to a darn good cause (helpful advice: probably not a donation to ACORN)."
Friday, September 25, 2009
Why I'm Grateful for Joe Wilson and the Fury of Racists
By Keli Goff
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keli-goff
I'm not sure when it first hit me, that the future of our country, particularly when it comes to race relations, is really looking up. Perhaps it was when a member of the Boston Police Department referred to Professor Henry Louis Gates as a "banana-eating jungle monkey." Perhaps it was when an angry town hall protester ripped up a poster of Civil Rights icon Rosa Parks -- while others in the crowd applauded. Or perhaps it was when Congressman David Scott was greeted with a swastika spray painted outside of his office and hate mail calling him the N-word all in the same week. Or perhaps it was when Congressman Joe Wilson demonstrated such a lack of respect for our president when he shouted "You Lie," at him during a presidential address.
You've probably assumed that I am being sarcastic in my premise that these incidents are proof that our country is on the verge of significant racial progress but I'm not. During a recent conversation with my mother she expressed fear that Speaker Nancy Pelosi may be right, that the current vitriol being exhibited at town halls and elsewhere is not only uncivil, but down right scary and could soon boil over into violence. We then began to reminisce about the Civil Rights Movement, which my mother lived through, a time when racist rhetoric turned deadly. That's when it hit me: People turn angry when they feel that they are losing ground.
Racist domestic terrorists did not bomb the church that killed four little Black girls in Birmingham, Alabama because they knew those little girls would never attend high school with their children, but because they knew that one day they would. The Ku Klux Klan murdered three civil rights workers, not because they were confident that Blacks would never get the right to vote, but because they were terrified that they would -- and were on the verge of doing so. (It is worth noting that this year the town in which the workers were murdered elected its first Black mayor.)
There are plenty of Americans -- good, fair-minded people -- who do not support the President's proposed health care reform, at least not yet. I consider myself among them. But there are others, who as former President Carter asserted, are simply unhappy that a Black man is president.
And that gives me hope.
Because the reason some people's racism has been brought to the fore is because the America they thought they knew and loved is becoming a different one before their very eyes; an America in which a Black man can get elected president and a Latina can become a Supreme Court Justice. But most of all an America in which their very own children applaud both. This is what really has racists in a tizzy. Every study shows that most of their children do not share and will not pass on, their legacy of intolerance and hate, but instead may end up dating or marrying an Obama or Sotomayor of their own one day.
You know what else gives me hope? The fact that even in a state like South Carolina where the Confederate battle flag still flies near the entrance to the capitol, citizens have seen fit to punish Congressman Wilson in the polls for the lack of respect he showed our president, who as we all know, is Black. If that's not proof of progress then I don't know what is. So let the racists wail. Let freedom ring and let progress come.
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keli-goff/why-im-grateful-for-joe-w_b_297514.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keli-goff
I'm not sure when it first hit me, that the future of our country, particularly when it comes to race relations, is really looking up. Perhaps it was when a member of the Boston Police Department referred to Professor Henry Louis Gates as a "banana-eating jungle monkey." Perhaps it was when an angry town hall protester ripped up a poster of Civil Rights icon Rosa Parks -- while others in the crowd applauded. Or perhaps it was when Congressman David Scott was greeted with a swastika spray painted outside of his office and hate mail calling him the N-word all in the same week. Or perhaps it was when Congressman Joe Wilson demonstrated such a lack of respect for our president when he shouted "You Lie," at him during a presidential address.
You've probably assumed that I am being sarcastic in my premise that these incidents are proof that our country is on the verge of significant racial progress but I'm not. During a recent conversation with my mother she expressed fear that Speaker Nancy Pelosi may be right, that the current vitriol being exhibited at town halls and elsewhere is not only uncivil, but down right scary and could soon boil over into violence. We then began to reminisce about the Civil Rights Movement, which my mother lived through, a time when racist rhetoric turned deadly. That's when it hit me: People turn angry when they feel that they are losing ground.
Racist domestic terrorists did not bomb the church that killed four little Black girls in Birmingham, Alabama because they knew those little girls would never attend high school with their children, but because they knew that one day they would. The Ku Klux Klan murdered three civil rights workers, not because they were confident that Blacks would never get the right to vote, but because they were terrified that they would -- and were on the verge of doing so. (It is worth noting that this year the town in which the workers were murdered elected its first Black mayor.)
There are plenty of Americans -- good, fair-minded people -- who do not support the President's proposed health care reform, at least not yet. I consider myself among them. But there are others, who as former President Carter asserted, are simply unhappy that a Black man is president.
And that gives me hope.
Because the reason some people's racism has been brought to the fore is because the America they thought they knew and loved is becoming a different one before their very eyes; an America in which a Black man can get elected president and a Latina can become a Supreme Court Justice. But most of all an America in which their very own children applaud both. This is what really has racists in a tizzy. Every study shows that most of their children do not share and will not pass on, their legacy of intolerance and hate, but instead may end up dating or marrying an Obama or Sotomayor of their own one day.
You know what else gives me hope? The fact that even in a state like South Carolina where the Confederate battle flag still flies near the entrance to the capitol, citizens have seen fit to punish Congressman Wilson in the polls for the lack of respect he showed our president, who as we all know, is Black. If that's not proof of progress then I don't know what is. So let the racists wail. Let freedom ring and let progress come.
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keli-goff/why-im-grateful-for-joe-w_b_297514.html
Thursday, September 10, 2009
The National Conversation on Race
Just as America was starting to pat itself on the back for coming a long way on race issues, America is closer to having an honest conversation about race than ever before. Some have cautioned against using the "racism card" to describe the vitriol that Republicans the Birthers and the Schoolers have slung toward President Obama. Yet, during this season of disrespect toward the President, we have seen more than ideological disagreement. From a Congresswoman calling for a Great White Hope to save the Republican Party (isn't Michael Steele the leader of the Republican National Party) to parental hysteria about the President's back to school speech, people who are not used to having a black leader are finding tacit ways to revolt.
South Carolina Republican Congressman Joe Wilson shouted “you lie” at the president during his address to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night. Few would doubt this was a sign of disrespect that most Americans would find objectionable. But beyond Wilson's callous disdain for the office of President, it is important to understand the racial connotations involved, and the climate that gave rise to them.
Contemporary racism is not largely about lynching or legalized segregation. Rather, we must be reflective about the myriad ways in which we are tacitly socialized to believe stereotypes about persons of color. Those beliefs reside in our subconscious and affect our attitudes and behaviors in ways that we often do not recognize. All Americans who are attentive to our potential for prejudice have been in situations where we “catch” ourselves with a racially insensitive thought that surprises us. Other times, those thoughts drive our actions without our knowledge. If we only define “racism” as overt bigotry, we ignore the most important elements of a system that continues to perpetuate it.
I am not saying Joe Wilson is a bigot, Rather, the consistent branding of President Obama as “other” by his opponents has created a context within which it is perceived that Obama need not be treated as other presidents have been treated. The creation of that “otherness,” while possibly motivated by racial animosity, is certainly rendered more effective as a result of deeply held negative predispositions about African Americans.
For at least two years, his political opponents (including Democratic opponents during the primary) have attempted to portray Barack Obama as “not one of us.” He has been, at various times, referred to as communist, elitist, corrupt, a terrorist sympathizer, foreign, fascist and even racist. In short, he is everything that we believe America is not. He is not “one of us.” He is “other.”
It is no surprise, then, that some parents felt it dangerous to let this stranger talk to their children on Tuesday, and it is no surprise that at least one member of Congress believed that it was appropriate to hurl an insult at him during a formal address. Keeping in mind that there is a small but vocal group of Americans and conservative leaders who continue to perpetuate the story that Obama is not a legitimate president because of his birth status, perhaps we should not be surprised that this president, then, does not command even the most minimal level of respect from some of his elected political opponents.
By and large, Americans go out of their way to excuse such behavior as being impolite and not at all related to race. If one believes that the threshold of what is to be considered to be “racist” is that an epithet must be hurled (e.g., if Wilson would have yelled, “You lying nigger!”), it is comfortable to believe that in a “post-racial” nation, such behavior is divorced from the nation's rich history of oppression and White supremacy.
Attacks on President Obama are not, in and of themselves, racist. They might be made without racist intent; they can even be made without racist effect if they do not find greater results because of ingrained stereotypes about African Americans. Criticizing the president for being willing to push for a clean energy bill, for example, is likely to be devoid of racial effects. However, arguing that he is lying when the evidence contradicts you, is corrupt when there is no reason to believe so, or has friends who are criminal when he does not does have a racist effect because it is easier for us to believe such claims about a black man.
Some of the folks who make racist appeals may be aware that they are doing so, but others very well may not. Irrespective of intent we must be aware that a context of “otherness” has been established around this president that set the stage for him to be treated differently than other presidents.
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Obama School Speech Sends the Right Message to Many Who are Usually Tuned Out
By Dan Brown
Deep into the presidential campaign last year, I was stunned to learn that a significant number of my high school students had never heard Barack Obama speak. They'd heard of him, but had no clue about anything he stood for. This was shocking to me; I listened to the guy and his surrogates practically every night on TV. I knew the Obama brand inside out. My D.C. pupils, living in a news vacuum, had had no exposure to him.
I set to work on filling this void by introducing campaign-related reading and activities in my class. However, there is no doubt that, for all sorts of reasons, many students across the country are simply tuned out.
That's why Obama's back-to-school speech matters. It probably won't make a significant imprint on kids who read the paper everyday, with parents discussing current events. They've already heard the president discuss personal responsibility. They know how their president speaks.
However, the back-to-school speech does have a real chance to touch the typically disconnected students, and that is a substantial upside. These kids are not absorbing the most basic civics information at home; school has to pick up the slack. There is a psychic cost to not knowing a larger world beyond your immediate day-to-day life; American kids need to know their president, whether they support his policy agenda or not.
They don't need to back his healthcare agenda or weigh in on his military spending, but they do need to know what he's about. That's the barest minimum that a responsible, participatory democracy should settle for.
In the actual speech, the messages Obama offered were all positive, non-controversial, and framed in ways that students could understand. My favorite snippets:
On discovering talent through schoolwork:
Every single one of you has something you're good at. Every single one of you has something to offer. And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. That's the opportunity an education can provide.
Maybe you could be a good writer -- maybe even good enough to write a book or articles in a newspaper -- but you might not know it until you write a paper for your English class. Maybe you could be an innovator or an inventor -- maybe even good enough to come up with the next iPhone or a new medicine or vaccine -- but you might not know it until you do a project for your science class. Maybe you could be a mayor or a senator or a Supreme Court justice, but you might not know that until you join student government or the debate team.
And no matter what you want to do with your life -- I guarantee that you'll need an education to do it. You want to be a doctor, or a teacher, or a police officer? You want to be a nurse or an architect, a lawyer or a member of our military? You're going to need a good education for every single one of those careers. You can't drop out of school and just drop into a good job.
On embracing challenges and failure:
But the truth is, being successful is hard. You won't love every subject you study. You won't click with every teacher. Not every homework assignment will seem completely relevant to your life right this minute. And you won't necessarily succeed at everything the first time you try.
That's OK. Some of the most successful people in the world are the ones who've had the most failures.
On effort:
You're not a varsity athlete the first time you play a new sport. You don't hit every note the first time you sing a song. You've got to practice. It's the same with your schoolwork. You might have to do a math problem a few times before you get it right, or read something a few times before you understand it, or do a few drafts of a paper before it's good enough to hand in.
Don't be afraid to ask questions. Don't be afraid to ask for help when you need it. I do that every day. Asking for help isn't a sign of weakness, it's a sign of strength. It shows you have the courage to admit when you don't know something, and to learn something new. So find an adult you trust -- a parent, grandparent or teacher; a coach or counselor -- and ask them to help you stay on track to meet your goals.
I look forward to showing the speech to my students when they return to school tomorrow. It's sad that a ludicrous kerfuffle launched by Glenn Beck lemmings has precluded many kids from hearing their president's ideas--- from horse's mouth. There's a substantial benefit in taking a few minutes in one school day for all students to listen to their chief executive address them.
President Obama delivered an excellent speech; here's hoping America's students listened. Now the real work begins again to support and drive our nation's youth to realize their profound potential.
Friday, August 14, 2009
You can’t pray gay away
By Andy Birkey
The world’s largest professional association for psychologists released a report last week criticizing attempts to turn gay people straight. The American Psychological Association (APA) found that such efforts — variously called reparative therapies, sexual orientation change plans or “ex-gay” movements — typically demonize the “homosexual lifestyle” and use religious programming to “change” a person’s sexual orientation. In Minnesota, there are at least three such organizations working to alter people’s sexual orientation.
The APA’s report, “Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation,” (pdf) found that change therapies, both religious and secular, failed to change clients’ sexual orientation — and in some cases caused further harm. It also concluded that religion is a strong factor in individuals’ difficulty with being gay or lesbian and that therapists should work to help people reconcile their sexual orientation and religion.
“Scientifically rigorous older studies in this area found that sexual orientation was unlikely to change due to efforts designed for this purpose,” said Judith M. Glassgold, PsyD, chair of the task force that released the report, in a statement. “Contrary to the claims of [sexual orientation change effort] practitioners and advocates, recent research studies do not provide evidence of sexual orientation change as the research methods are inadequate to determine the effectiveness of these interventions.”
Glassgold acknowledged in an interview with the Associated Press that religion can be a strong motivator for gays and lesbians to want to change their sexual orientation.
“There’s no evidence to say that change therapies work, but these vulnerable people are tempted to try them, and when they don’t work, they feel doubly terrified,” Glassgold said. “You should be honest with people and say, ‘This is not likely to change your sexual orientation, but we can help explore what options you have.’”
One ministry in Minneapolis which works with “ex-gays” acknowledges that some people cannot change — even if they want to. Dave Rasmussen, co-director of Simon Ministries, says their operation doesn’t do change therapy but merely exists to provide support for “married men who have unwanted same-sex attractions.” His wife runs a similar group for women.
“I don’t feel compelled to tell these men they need to change, and I am honest with them and say up front that some of their marriages may end in divorce and some will go into the lifestyle.”
“Our group time is for encouragement, understanding, prayer and to draw closer to God. Through intimacy with Him sometimes change does happen. I have seen it,” he said. “Sometimes it does not.”
Two other religiously affiliated “ex-gay” programs, Outpost Ministries in Robbinsdale and UpStream Ministries in St. Cloud, did not respond to a request for comment.
The former has an interesting past. Jeffrey Ford, Outpost Ministries’ director for most of the 1980s, has since renounced change therapy and spoken out about the harms associated with it. A therapist living in Minneapolis with his partner Kent, he recounts his struggles as Outpost’s director:
Even as a married man and director of an ex-gay ministry, I privately struggled with temptations. Unless you’ve been there, it is hard to explain how you can call yourself ex-gay and still have strong homosexual feelings. The denial is supported and encouraged by all those around you. You are taught that to be “tempted” has nothing to do with orientation. You take on Christ’s identity and can honestly say that, in Christ, I am whole and complete and heterosexual.
It became clear to me that I was living and perpetrating a lie. I knew that, for me, the road less traveled involved accepting that I was not a former homosexual and that I needed to resign my position with OUTPOST.
The APA report concluded that such therapies as those practiced by Outpost can be dangerous.
“[S]tudies … indicate that attempts to change sexual orientation may cause or exacerbate distress and poor mental health in some individuals, including depression and suicidal thoughts.”
Glassgold said that it is important that clients know that.
“[W]e recommend that psychologists be completely honest about the likelihood of sexual orientation change, and that they help clients explore their assumptions and goals with respect to both religion and sexuality.”
The world’s largest professional association for psychologists released a report last week criticizing attempts to turn gay people straight. The American Psychological Association (APA) found that such efforts — variously called reparative therapies, sexual orientation change plans or “ex-gay” movements — typically demonize the “homosexual lifestyle” and use religious programming to “change” a person’s sexual orientation. In Minnesota, there are at least three such organizations working to alter people’s sexual orientation.
The APA’s report, “Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation,” (pdf) found that change therapies, both religious and secular, failed to change clients’ sexual orientation — and in some cases caused further harm. It also concluded that religion is a strong factor in individuals’ difficulty with being gay or lesbian and that therapists should work to help people reconcile their sexual orientation and religion.
“Scientifically rigorous older studies in this area found that sexual orientation was unlikely to change due to efforts designed for this purpose,” said Judith M. Glassgold, PsyD, chair of the task force that released the report, in a statement. “Contrary to the claims of [sexual orientation change effort] practitioners and advocates, recent research studies do not provide evidence of sexual orientation change as the research methods are inadequate to determine the effectiveness of these interventions.”
Glassgold acknowledged in an interview with the Associated Press that religion can be a strong motivator for gays and lesbians to want to change their sexual orientation.
“There’s no evidence to say that change therapies work, but these vulnerable people are tempted to try them, and when they don’t work, they feel doubly terrified,” Glassgold said. “You should be honest with people and say, ‘This is not likely to change your sexual orientation, but we can help explore what options you have.’”
One ministry in Minneapolis which works with “ex-gays” acknowledges that some people cannot change — even if they want to. Dave Rasmussen, co-director of Simon Ministries, says their operation doesn’t do change therapy but merely exists to provide support for “married men who have unwanted same-sex attractions.” His wife runs a similar group for women.
“I don’t feel compelled to tell these men they need to change, and I am honest with them and say up front that some of their marriages may end in divorce and some will go into the lifestyle.”
“Our group time is for encouragement, understanding, prayer and to draw closer to God. Through intimacy with Him sometimes change does happen. I have seen it,” he said. “Sometimes it does not.”
Two other religiously affiliated “ex-gay” programs, Outpost Ministries in Robbinsdale and UpStream Ministries in St. Cloud, did not respond to a request for comment.
The former has an interesting past. Jeffrey Ford, Outpost Ministries’ director for most of the 1980s, has since renounced change therapy and spoken out about the harms associated with it. A therapist living in Minneapolis with his partner Kent, he recounts his struggles as Outpost’s director:
Even as a married man and director of an ex-gay ministry, I privately struggled with temptations. Unless you’ve been there, it is hard to explain how you can call yourself ex-gay and still have strong homosexual feelings. The denial is supported and encouraged by all those around you. You are taught that to be “tempted” has nothing to do with orientation. You take on Christ’s identity and can honestly say that, in Christ, I am whole and complete and heterosexual.
It became clear to me that I was living and perpetrating a lie. I knew that, for me, the road less traveled involved accepting that I was not a former homosexual and that I needed to resign my position with OUTPOST.
The APA report concluded that such therapies as those practiced by Outpost can be dangerous.
“[S]tudies … indicate that attempts to change sexual orientation may cause or exacerbate distress and poor mental health in some individuals, including depression and suicidal thoughts.”
Glassgold said that it is important that clients know that.
“[W]e recommend that psychologists be completely honest about the likelihood of sexual orientation change, and that they help clients explore their assumptions and goals with respect to both religion and sexuality.”
Sunday, August 09, 2009
Debunking gay-to-straight therapy
The American Psychological Association has condemned gay-to-straight therapies.
The American Psychological Association just “officially debunked” the validity of gay-to-straight therapies, said Joel Schwartzberg in the Newark, N.J., Star-Ledger. This is a “refreshing triumph of science over willful ignorance,” not to mention a big step toward the acceptance of gays in America. It’s too bad “evangelists” of so-called “conversion” or “reparative” therapy “don’t give a hoot about what the larger psychological community does or says.”
Those ethically or religiously “conflicted” gay men are the whole point of the APA’s report, said Stephanie Simon in The Wall Street Journal. And while the new APA guidelines stress that there is “no evidence therapy can change sexual orientation,” they also—in a “striking departure”—say it’s ethical for counselors to promote rejecting gay attractions, even if that means embracing celibacy.
Such “repression” might work for some struggling gays and lesbians, said Wayne Besen in The Huffington Post, but most of us would find it “destructive to self-worth and psychological well-being.” In fact, the most important point of the APA report is that it “smacks down the absurd notion, pushed by charlatans,” that “ex-gay” therapies do anything but leave a trail of “psychological casualties.”
The American Psychological Association just “officially debunked” the validity of gay-to-straight therapies, said Joel Schwartzberg in the Newark, N.J., Star-Ledger. This is a “refreshing triumph of science over willful ignorance,” not to mention a big step toward the acceptance of gays in America. It’s too bad “evangelists” of so-called “conversion” or “reparative” therapy “don’t give a hoot about what the larger psychological community does or says.”
Those ethically or religiously “conflicted” gay men are the whole point of the APA’s report, said Stephanie Simon in The Wall Street Journal. And while the new APA guidelines stress that there is “no evidence therapy can change sexual orientation,” they also—in a “striking departure”—say it’s ethical for counselors to promote rejecting gay attractions, even if that means embracing celibacy.
Such “repression” might work for some struggling gays and lesbians, said Wayne Besen in The Huffington Post, but most of us would find it “destructive to self-worth and psychological well-being.” In fact, the most important point of the APA report is that it “smacks down the absurd notion, pushed by charlatans,” that “ex-gay” therapies do anything but leave a trail of “psychological casualties.”
Saturday, August 01, 2009
Having a Beer
Henry Louis Gates Jr. and James Crowley "did not link arms," said Joseph Williams in The Boston Globe, "and there were no public apologies." But their chat at a White House beer summit "appeared to achieve President Obama’s goal of encouraging a deeper dialogue on race" between Gates, a prominent African-American Harvard professor, and Crowley, a Cambridge, Mass., police sergeant who arrested him after a report of a possible break-in at Gates' home. Crowley held a news conference after the chat and said that he and Gates were "two gentlemen who agreed to disagree" about the arrest, and Gates' statement was "similarly ambiguous."
Barack Obama's beer diplomacy worked—at least for him, said David Swerdlick in the New York Daily News. "Obama put those beers on his tab so he could get right with voters after saying that the police acted 'stupidly'" by arresting Henry Louis Gates Jr. at his own home. "And it did the job." At least Gates and Sgt. Crowley say they'll keep talking to each other.
One thing we learned from Obama's beer summit, said Peter Baker in The New York Times, is that "President Obama has yet to always find sure footing when it comes to race." The Gates controversy "shows that he has the capacity to inflame, intentionally or not, partly just by virtue of who he is, and that he has an instinct to try to mediate, as with this beer at the picnic table, something I can’t picture any previous president doing. How he will reconcile these in the future is something to watch."
Barack Obama's beer diplomacy worked—at least for him, said David Swerdlick in the New York Daily News. "Obama put those beers on his tab so he could get right with voters after saying that the police acted 'stupidly'" by arresting Henry Louis Gates Jr. at his own home. "And it did the job." At least Gates and Sgt. Crowley say they'll keep talking to each other.
One thing we learned from Obama's beer summit, said Peter Baker in The New York Times, is that "President Obama has yet to always find sure footing when it comes to race." The Gates controversy "shows that he has the capacity to inflame, intentionally or not, partly just by virtue of who he is, and that he has an instinct to try to mediate, as with this beer at the picnic table, something I can’t picture any previous president doing. How he will reconcile these in the future is something to watch."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)