Month: December 2008

What’s The Big Deal?

by Chris Bodenner
Confronting the tension over gay marriage between two loyal Dem constituencies, blacks and gays, Atlantic contributors/Californians Caitlin Flanagan and Ben Schwartz write:

“This is our moment,” the president-elect has told us, stirringly. This is our time to stand shoulder to shoulder, the hipsters of Washington Square and the minivan moms of Minnetonka. Our nation is seeing huge numbers of its citizens slide into actual — and virtually intractable, if we keep hold of President Bush’s policies — poverty. We can stand together on these big issues, or we can balkanize ourselves with the help of good old-fashioned identity politics, which didn’t serve too well the last time around.

Savage seethes:

For many of us—Obama supporters, just as concerned about the economy as anyone else—marriage equality is one of the "big issues." Sorry.

And, sorry, but we’re going to keep pressing for our full civil rights. That many straight African Americans object to same-sex marriage not just for religion reasons, but also because "many blacks feel a significant aversion to homosexuality itself" is, um, a very interesting observation, but I don’t see how you get from that assertion to your strongly implied, although never explicitly stated, advice for gay and lesbian Americans: STFU, give this marriage equality thing a rest, so that we can "regain… lost ground," and focus on the "big issues," the important stuff, the stuff that matters—like our 401Ks.

The exact same advice could be given to liberal and progressive homophobes—whatever their ages, races, or religious beliefs—who voted for Obama and against the rights of same-sex couples: Give your "significant aversion to homosexuality" a rest and focus on the "big issues."

I’m with Dan.  Antagonizing evangelicals with two Josephs and two Marys is identity politics.  Demanding equal rights and recognition for all loving couples is not.

Fisking Bill

By Patrick Appel

Hendrik Hertzberg responds to O’Reilly:

I didn’t accuse Gingrich of being a bigot, let alone a “vicious bigot,” as the guy with the mike put it. I think it’s fairly clear that what I did accuse him of was playing to bigotry.

Nor do I think I took Gingrich out of context. In Gingrich’s November 14th interview with O’Reilly, the context is O’Reilly’s mention of two instances of disruptive thuggery, one person being “fired” (the reference is to the artistic director of the California Musical Theatre, who resigned under pressure after colleagues and financial contributors objected to his financial support of the California anti-gay-marriage ballot item), and some boycotts of restaurants. As O’Reilly talks, the screen shows pictures of people protesting peacefully and carrying signs.

The thuggery O’Reilly mentions was contemptible, but the rest of it was just normal democratic protest. (O’Reilly himself frequently asks his viewers to boycott businesses that offend him, such as department stores whose employees wish customers “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas.”) None of it comes anywhere near “fascism,” let alone some sort of fascist “movement” that could plausibly threaten to take over the government. I don’t think it was at all unreasonable for me to infer that the targets of Mr. Gingrich’s “fascism” remarks were the mainstream gay-rights movement in general and the opponents of Proposition 8 in particular.

A New Islam?

By Patrick Appel
Irshad Manji writes:

Here’s news of a superstar Iranian scholar — and devout Muslim — who’s shaking the core of Islam as we know it. Abdulkarim Soroush argues that the Qur’an could have been authored by the Prophet Muhammad, not by God.

The implications of this thesis are game-changing.

However divinely inspired he may have been, the Prophet was a human being. If it’s possible that he wrote the Qur’an, then it’s also possible that Islam’s holy book contains human touches — inconsistencies, contradictions, even errors. Thus, continual re-interpretation is not only conceivable; it’s necessary, since the full and final Truth is known only to God.

Hashing It Out

By Patrick Appel
A reader writes:

I want to commend The Dish for having a site with enough integrity that the guest-host can strongly disagree with the host. That, along with the “dissent of the day” says a lot about your values, and is a lot of why I keep coming back.

The tolerance of dissent is among my favorite aspects of the Dish. I often select Dissents Of The Day for Andrew to keep him honest, and I make sure he links to bloggers who challenge him. LGF and Michelle Malkin are gleeful because I called Andrew out over the Palin baby rumors, but I can’t imagine that either blog would ever allow this type of open debate.
 

“I Inhaled Frequently — That Was The Point”

by Chris Bodenner
Alex Pareene notes:

Here is a fun fact: The Drug Czar is forbidden, by law, from supporting legalization of any drugs, including for medicinal purposes. This is per the office’s congressional mandate, so barring a rather unlikely withdrawal of congressional authorization from the office, any Drug Czar appointed by any president will be required by law to state that medicinal marijuana will make you put your baby in the microwave and decriminalization will lead to your child becoming William S. Burroughs.

He also notes that retiring Rep. Jim Ramstad (R-MN), a hardliner rumored to be Obama’s new czar, is a recovering alcoholic.

Much Ado About Nothing

By Patrick Appel
John Judis hits Ben Smith for questioning Obama’s church attendance:

This is the kind of reporting one would expect from the Christian Broadcast Network, whose editors and reporters presumably view less than weekly religious observance as an offense against God, and as a sign of moral depravity in a public official, but why is this presumably secular publication making such a big deal about it? I regard as an invasion of Obama’s privacy.