Yglesias Award Nominee

“If the Obama administration wants to make a statement and impress upon the world their fundamental rejection of the forces of bigotry and homophobia, how about sending a gay ambassador to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia? And now that the president has cleared the way for the same-sex partners of our foreign service officers to participate in programs available to spouses, how about sending him with his partner? That would be impressive, and would likely be as warmly received by Republicans as by Democrats,” – Michael Goldfarb.

Reagan appointed a black ambassador to apartheid South Africa, as Dan Savage noted. Now that was symbolism. But I suspect Goldfarb is a little dewy-eyed about Republicans, especially the base. Condi Rice and Laura Bush might have backed it, but the current leadership – Limbaugh, Levin and Hannity? And Rove?

Peace Prize Reax IV: The Readers

A reader writes:

I’m as much of an Obama supporter as anyone, but until he delivers on some of the things he has promised, he shouldn’t be winning Nobel Prizes.  There has been no follow-up to Cairo.  Guantanamo is still open.  Iran is still trying to get nukes, North Korea still has them.  Afghanistan is in limbo.  Obama is a great big step in the right direction, but lets wait until he delivers before we start to celebrate.

Another writes:

So, it’s a bad thing that the world is so optimistic about America’s role as a world leader with Obama as President that the Nobel Committee gave him the Peace Prize?  Really?  So bad he should turn down the honor?  Really? Have we gotten so cynical in our views that when a segment of the world shows optimism toward our country, we think the best reaction is to double down on our cynicism?

Another:

So now the far right is angry that Obama got the peace prize. No surprise, everything makes them angry, but this one is especially hysterical. How is it possible that American citizens can not take pride in the idea that an elected sitting President has received one of the world’s highest honors? So allow me to pose a question they have asked many times: Why do you hate America?

Another:

The liberal notion (much bemoaned by Brooks & Will) that we’re all just special on our own without actually doing anything is on full display. Obama deserved much praise for becoming who he is and overcoming obvious personal difficulties and trials.  But that’s about it.  He hasn’t actualized that much in the world other than being a symbol for a lot of (admittedly important) things. I, personally, would be embarrassed by this.  During the campaign Obama told us he was looking forward to the celebrity fluff part of the campaign being over so that people could see what he was really about and get down to business.  Clearly the Euros haven’t gotten the message yet. This is really awkward, and it is a healthy serving of red meat to those who discredit Europe (and more general the UN) with being completely out of touch with reality.

Another:

I’m humored by the commentators saying Obama doesn’t deserve the Peace prize because he hasn’t done anything. That’s precisely the point. And it’s speaks volumes about how much damage Cheney and Bush caused, and for so long, that the rest of the world is giving our leader a prize simply for cutting it out, and doing nothing.

Another:

They nominated him two weeks after he became President.  This award has been given to him on the basis of his campaign and inauguration address.  It is intended in the same spirit as Jimmy Carter’s award was, as a rebuke to George W. Bush.  It’s yet another case of conservatives being damned for their failings, and liberals being praised for their good intentions.

Another:

Remember how Obama should have stepped aside and let Hillary win the primaries? Remember how America wasn’t ready for a black President, of course, so why didn’t he just realize it and wait his turn? Remember last summer when the candidate went to Germany and gave speech before hundreds of thousands of adoring fans?  How arrogant.  Who does he think he is?  Only a president should do that.  He should have at least waited until he won. And then he did win.  And he took a world tour and gave a game changing speech in the Cairo.  Who did he think he was?  A rock star?  The arrogance and audacity–it’s breathtaking. If the man would just wait his turn, dammit.

Another:

I find it really amusing that commentators are proclaiming the Nobel committee’s decision to award Obama the Peace Prize “political.”  Of course it’s political, and it’s political on a global scale, and might arguably matter.  Unlike, for example, the ridiculous decision made by ASU to withhold an honorary degree from the first African-American president because he hadn’t accomplished anything yet.

Another:

You know, this Peace Prize has more potential than people give it credit. Think of it in the long term: it works to paint him into a course of action. Does he want to be the Nobel Peace Prize President who invaded a third country? Who continued two wars beyond all reasonable expectations? Who hides evidence of torture? By handing out this award, they have sent their own message to the President concerning future international relations: live up to the expectations of the Peace Prize.

Voices From The GOP Base, Ctd

Althouse responds:

Sullivan is upset/annoyed that some homophobic things show up in the threads here, as if it says something about my blog. He doesn't have comments, but I'll bet if he did, he'd collect plenty of homophobic crap at his place too. Probably even more than shows up here. Maybe that's one reason he doesn't have comments. But I've chosen to open my place to comments, and I have a strong free speech policy.

Fair enough, I guess, so far as it goes. But it's disingenuous on several counts.

The Dish has polled its readers annually on whether they want comments threads that degenerate the way Althouse's and anyone else's can. The readers don't want them by a massive majority. What we do here is read and post the most intelligent and eloquent reader responses we can find and readers can judge whether I allow dissent and push-back on this blog. All I can say is: show me another blog that airs as much self-criticism and dissent as this one – without the vile ad hominem, anonymous hate-speech she relies on for traffic.

Secondly these were not just homophobic comments. They were vicious personal attacks on a specific human being, using both my sexual orientation and my illness as targets. I find attacks on someone because he is gay and has HIV to be disgusting – and I would obviously feel the same about anyone else in my position. I'm all for free speech and I respect her open comments, but there has to be a line somewhere and this kind of personal abuse has been a feature on her blog now about me for years. It's perfectly possible to lambaste me for daring to ask questions about a national politician's fishy personal stories, without accusing a 16 year HIV-survivor of AIDS dementia. If even that does not prompt her to remove a comment, then what would? She then says:

So I did engage with a commenter in that thread. I answered a specific question that was addressed to me, and that I happened to find interesting. What I don't do — and what Sullivan is wrong to infer — is monitor the hundreds of comments that come in every day. I don't systematically keep track of anything. Sometimes I read haphazardly, and I am a very busy person… a very busy person who is committed to free speech and to creating a place where people with different opinions can talk with/at each other.

I am glad she does not deny that she engaged in this thread herself, and she did so long after many of the references to my HIV were published. It seems to me that if you are actually contributing to a comment thread, you tend to have read the thread leading up to that point. So the idea she had no idea what was afoot is ludicrous. She has already accused me of being a racist, a heterophobe and a misogynist and she teed off the most recent and most vicious assault by accusing me of having no shame because I cannot pretend to have resolved the doubts I have about Sarah Palin's stories about her fifth pregnancy. (I'm sorry but I cannot. God knows I know I'm in a tiny minority and that my own dear colleague, Patrick, has blogged in this space arguing I'm off-base and on and on. But I owe my readers honesty. I'm here answerable and accountable at all times and I feel duty-bound not to bullshit my readers, even if it makes me look like a loon. That's why I went silent as I first tried to figure out if this bizarre story could possibly be true. I had to address it if I were to be honest, but I simply didn't know. So I shut up, simply asked for the thing to be resolved (as it easily could be), and have never ever claimed that I knew the truth. I have always, always only expressed my lingering doubts and asked them to be resolved.)

Anyway – deep breath – even if everything Althouse says in her defense is true, it says a lot to me that she is unable even to offer a word of apology or regret, or to remove any of the vilest personal attacks in that thread. I offended her a while back with a post on her announcement that she was getting engaged to one of the commenters on her site. You can read the post here to see how offensive it was. Her immediate response was:

Not sure he quite sees the time line…. but… thanks for noticing.

I subsequently apologized for any offense she subsequently felt. I was too glib, and insensitive, but it's in a different universe from the hate speech she publishes. In that same Althouse post in March, the following comment soon appeared:

The years of HIV infection have taken a toll on his body and his brain. He can beef up with testosterone and steroids, but there's no drug to cure AIDS-related dementia.

If Althouse had not partially built her traffic on this kind of stuff for years, and if she weren't a big blog, and a contributor to bloggingheads and other MSM outlets and a professor at a university, I'd let this slide as I usually do. But at some point, you have to say: enough. And someone on the right has to say: no more.

Conservatives Embrace Gay Citizens

In Britain, of course, where the resurgent Tory party, facing a national election, threw its first official convention event for its gay members and supporters:

Party chairman Eric Pickles told partygoers: “We’re very, very proud of this event tonight and I Spiritbar think that this has shown just how far the Conservatives have come. “Next year I want to see another official gay pride night and I hope to see you all there!”

Openly gay shadow environment secretary Nick Herbert told the crowd he was "living proof" of the fact the party had changed. He said: "I am lucky enough to be in David Cameron's shadow cabinet as an out gay man, I was elected as an out gay man, I have never experienced any prejudice or obstacle along the way."

Herbert added that the party was proof that "gay people are not the property of the left." Party host and Conservative blogger Iain Dale told PinkNews.co.uk: “I’m really pleased that so many people have come and that people are having such a great time, I think that it is really important that we have events like this.”

The British Tories make Obama look like a member of the religious right. Unlike Obama, they have openly gay figure in real positions of power and have married gay future cabinet members. And they make the current Republicans look like the fearful, retrograde bigots so many of them are.