Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

Poof! He's Straight!
During my 20s, when I was having a hard time finding a boyfriend, it would have been great to be into, well, munching a little rug. While I'm a sexual person, and could probably sleep with a girl in a pinch, I'm just don't have it in me to want to have sex with women.

Of course, I can no more change my sexuality than I can change the fact that I loathe eggplant. We all know that, huh? So, what does that idiot Haggard think he's going to accomplish with his latest announcement, "I'm 200, no, 300, no, 656 percent straight!" (Other than making us weep with laughter?) I mean, does the guy think he's going to get another moneybags parish out of the deal?

Lena and I were talking Tuesday night, wouldn't it be great if the guy, like George Michael, finally just came out and said, "Yay! I'm a fag!"? And why is it that these guys have to be caught sucking somebody off in a bathroom or something before they'll do that?

I look forward to the day when it's just as boring to be gay as it is to be heterosexual.

Posted by aalkon at February 7, 2007 11:32 AM

Comments

It worked for Donnie Davies!

http://eveningservice.com/Video

Posted by: Jim Treacher at February 7, 2007 3:12 AM

Maybe you've talked about this before, I don't know, but what's the connection between these hyper-religious figures and their strange sexual behavior?

I know you don't have to be a priest, a preacher, or a pope, necessarily, to be a such a creepy freak, but there has to be some kind traceable anomaly here, no?

Man, people like Ted Haggard scare me more than any terrorist ever could. Unless that terrorist was also a gay pedophile predatory preacher on crystal meth.

I shouldn't even think those thoughts.

Posted by: Brian Mann at February 7, 2007 4:54 AM

> what's the connection between
> these hyper-religious figures
> and their strange sexual behavior?

None whatsoever. There's a lot of freaky stuff out here in atheist-land, too, it just doesn't make teh papers.

Tell me again who this guy is and why we care. Did anyone even bother to know who he was and hate him before the scandal? Should that be required somehow? For scandals involving males over age 17, I mean. Women should be permitted to enter the public consciousness through sexual misconduct up to age 24 (astonauts excepted). New rule, OK? We need standards.

Posted by: Crid at February 7, 2007 6:09 AM

Speaking of your up-to-the-age-of 24 rule, I just wrote about Monica Lewinsky in my column yesterday, quoting the supportive letter I wrote to her in 2002. In case you're wondering, I like Monica, and all lusty Jewish girls, and I think it's great she's graduated from the London School of Economics.

In other news, I got the nastiest, most low-blow series of e-mails I've gotten since I started writing newspaper columns (over 10 years ago) from a Yorba Linda preacher.

I do love how he referred to the fact (gleaned from a joke in my column) that I'm in a committed relationship that is not marriage. He calls my relationship with Gregg, "Fornicating for the weekend."

Let's hope, huh?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 7, 2007 6:39 AM

Here it is:

One should never make one's debut with a scandal. One should reserve that to give an interest to one's old age. --Oscar Wilde

Posted by: Crid at February 7, 2007 6:41 AM

Very good advice.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 7, 2007 6:52 AM

Maybe you should post teh emails, Seipp-style.

> I look forward to the day when it's
> just as boring to be gay as it is
> to be heterosexual.

We're there! We're there! Gay influence has ruled pop culture my whole life... Nowadays, the gay Commentariat offends mostly by assuming the rest of the world really cares how they wiggle their naughties. And we're embarrassed for them, because after all, we are not their divorced mother's boyfriend, the one they're still hoping to shock and provoke.

Posted by: Crid at February 7, 2007 6:59 AM

Heterosexuality boring? You must not be doing it right.

BTW, I believe the term is "Astronut", or will be by the end of the day.

Posted by: Casca at February 7, 2007 7:00 AM

"Did anyone even bother to know who he was and hate him before the scandal."

Well, Richard Dawkins certainly did, Crid!
They get deliciously pissy with each other - watch from about 4 min 30 secs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiDXiJmUnVE

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at February 7, 2007 7:15 AM

I think he reverted because gay sex is just so much more fun when you're a straight guy.

Posted by: Todd Fletcher at February 7, 2007 7:33 AM

> ust so much more fun

In the same way that being a violent, urban gangbanging black rapper is more fun when you're actually a suburban white teen enrolled at a state university?

Posted by: Crid at February 7, 2007 7:46 AM

Holy wacked out nutjob, batman! I've never actually seen that Haggard guy on video before. I had no idea how weird he is! And people give him money and listen to him speak? I'd be waiting for his head to spin around or something.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at February 7, 2007 11:55 AM

Just a little more work and he could have been 666% heterosexual...

Posted by: eric at February 7, 2007 12:14 PM

great. He has repested sex with a male prostitute, and he's straight. I give ONE BLOWJOB, and I get called gay the rest of my life:p

Posted by: Hasan at February 7, 2007 12:47 PM

Test.

Posted by: Jay J. Hector at February 7, 2007 1:35 PM

He was probably on the crystal meth during the interview with Dawkins. Can't get that norepinephrine and dopamine high with just prayer alone.

It would explain the euphoria/grace he had when being question by Dawkins and the sudden hostility in the church's parking lot.

There were 2 other church/revelations/sex scandals dealing in the Colorado area during 2006. Haggard made the national spotlight, because of his connections to Rove and Bush. A Pastor Paul Barnes resigned from his mega evangelical Grace Chapel church in Englewood (South of Denver) because he was gay.

http://www.denverpost.com/allewis/ci_4817067

Another minister (Christopher Beard) from Haggard's church had to step down over another sex scandal. The Denver Post just mentions the affair was with an adult and does not mention the gender. The New Life Church public statement emphasized it was not a minor, because Beard was the Youth Minister on Leadership Skills.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_4858943

Posted by: Joe at February 7, 2007 2:58 PM

To answer your earlier query, Crid, we care about this guy and his sexuality because he was the leader of a huge evangelical group, among whose messages were that homosexuality is a choice, and an evil one.
This message causes parents to disown children, or to keep their dying children apart from their partners. It gets people fired from jobs, and oh yeah, being gay can get your ass kicked repeatedly in high school, and after.

Your following comment implies that we Americans are already bored with gaydom and that it's no big deal. If that's the case in your home town, congratulations. It is not the case in most of the rest of America. A prominent cardiologist in my town (Charleston) just closed his practice and left when it came out that he was gay.
I wouldn't stay here ten minutes if I was gay, but yet another illustration of how far we have to go, tolerance-wise.

Posted by: Cat brother at February 7, 2007 4:58 PM

Also, Alexandra Pelosi (daughter of the House Speaker) just made a documentary "Friends of God" for HBO. Her tour guide through the fundamentalist right was Ted Haggard. In the interview Ted tells her that evangelicals have the best sex life. Of course this was before the scandal and resignaiton.

Posted by: Joe at February 7, 2007 5:22 PM

Be sincere, Cat! Be heartfelt and compassionate! Be chin-down humble and brows-pursed attentive!

Love you, Big Guy.

Posted by: Crid at February 7, 2007 5:34 PM

According to the Dawkins piece, that closet case had a "weekly conference call" with George Bush. The president of the most powerful nation in the world won't listen to scientists or policy analysts with real data in their pockets; he will listen to a guy who believes in a big imaginary man in the sky. Frightening.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 7, 2007 5:37 PM

Oh, puh-leeze. Puh-hoodly-hoot-hoo-hoo-leeze. Ours is a substantially Christian electorate... The president isn't even supposed to TALK to people who believe in God?

Posted by: Crid at February 7, 2007 5:57 PM

The president isn't even supposed to TALK to people who believe in God?

Not what I was saying. But, how does taking the time to have weekly chats with a guy who believes there's an imaginary friend in the sky serve those of us living in the real world?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 7, 2007 6:07 PM

Poof is right.

Posted by: Jeff at February 7, 2007 6:25 PM

Certain blogs hosted by atheists have been monitoring church related crimes(as of 01/07: 11 nationwide scandals), post some churches' slick recruitment videos and even Islamic 'educational' films. On how to beat your wife in western nations without alarming the authorities and Islamic sex ed. courses. Those are priceless.

You can watch the firt part Dawkins' special in its entirety on Google Video. Just type The God Delusion. The running time is about 48 minutes.

Posted by: Joe at February 7, 2007 6:28 PM

Just watched the Jody/Youtube piece. Seekers, this is atheist porn, and simulated porn at that.

Back in the 70's we used to see this guy on my hometown campus:

http://tinyurl.com/2kqjne

If we weren't looking forward to lecture that day (we were undergrads, after all) we'd stop and shout stupidities at him, and he'd respond in kind. Apparently he never outgrew the habit. But eventually the weather changed and it was better to go to class and be indoors where it was warm, and we learned that philosophy and theology had more thoughtful approaches to these matters than we were likely to get from the campus visitor.

I'm more convinced than ever that you folks are just looking for an excuse to be pissy. There's a tremendous difference between a believer and an extremist. "Imaginary friend in the sky" horribly shortchanges the meaning of these beliefs.

Posted by: Crid at February 7, 2007 7:23 PM

Haggard's claim isn't unusual. Some of the best blowjobs I've ever gotten have been from men who identify as heterosexual. My current fuckbuddy Ken is straight... even when his dick is stretching open my quivering rosebud man-pussy.

Posted by: Lena at February 7, 2007 7:38 PM

In case you're wondering, I like Monica, and all lusty Jewish girls, and I think it's great she's graduated from the London School of Economics.

[hack]Yeah, she aced the oral exam![/hack]

I don't know if it's boring to be gay, but plenty of gay people these days are proving that you don't need to be straight to be a drag (no pun intended). See the "Snickers hates fags" incident from the last few days.

Hey, here's one: Gay people are just as capable of being humorless and self-righteous as normal people. Discuss!

Posted by: Jim Treacher at February 7, 2007 8:36 PM

Oh, I know. Ridiculous. It's really poking fun of straight guys, if anything. I thought it was hilarious, and I'm a lifelong fag hag.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 7, 2007 8:38 PM

Just watched the Jody/Youtube piece. Seekers, this is atheist porn, and simulated porn at that.

Why? Dawkins let Haggard hang himself on his own...uh, petard.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 7, 2007 8:43 PM

It's HOKEY. It's confrontation for mild little ninnies... The stakes couldn't be lower. If the players had the slightest chance of changing the opinions of the opponents or their listeners, they wouldn't waste the spittle for these mock encounters.

Years ago a guy in Time or Newsweek, either Rosenblatt or Krauthammer, wrote an end-of-the-book Happy Graduation note to his teenage daughter (or maybe she was getting out of college). Anyway, one of the pieces of grand advice for life was: If you *must* fight outside your weight class, always fight *up*.

Dawkins' punches don't land; he's wasting his time.

Posted by: Crid at February 7, 2007 9:00 PM

Crid,

Personally, I find formalized debates with atheists and believers pointless. Case in point, Sam Harris had a debate against Oliver McTiernan at the NY Public Library. Who was a former priest and does the religious commentary for the BBC.

McTiernan would be considered a very educated believer, but would use the same debating style of some mindless Elmer Gantry drone. The style consists:
1. Condescending attitude towards the lack of faith among atheists as a personality defect.
2. When asked a question on the correlation of violence and religious faith by Harris. McTiernan would give a knee jerk reaction: "Well, its not my faith!" Well, it wasn't the question Harris asked. It's the old Robert McNamara defense: Only give the answer to the question you would have liked to been asked by your opponent.
3. End the debate on vague generalities on human suffering, more metaphors and why can't science or atheists solve these problems.

Now Sam Harris' approach:
1. Evidence. Or the lack of evidence used by believers.
2. Use of scientific and historical evidence to put a lot of doubt on the existence of an earthly interpretation of a god.
3. Use of condescension when the believer fails to deliver on the specifics.

The criteria used by each group is completely incompatible. If the approach towards standards are different, then how can the conclusions be compared on equal terms? If someone was to take a cosmology course and decided between two instructors: Dr. Neil Tyson or some token but eloquent pantheist-new ager? I'm stressing the quality of the course and not an individual's personal preferences.

Posted by: Joe at February 8, 2007 7:58 AM

The criteria used by each group is completely incompatible

That was reflected in Haggard's responses to Dawkins. Amazing, the approach of responding in a sane and certain tone to absolute unproven, unfounded ridiculousness, and never breaking that stance.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 8, 2007 8:03 AM

Pretend it's interesting; pretend it hones your understanding. Why do you bother? Only to condescend.

Posted by: Crid at February 8, 2007 8:35 AM

Actually, Crid-O, we're a bit off the original tangent, which was that Haggard, a man who told millions, including the president, that gays were living a self-imposed, evil lifestyle, turned out to be a big ol' sissy.
And now, he's gone through a bogus re-education camp that supposedly has made him a 100% pussy lover, and will inspire many parents to follow his example with their gay children.
I'm not quite sure what your point was, aside from your admiration of my sincerity and humility, and your fervent wish that all discussion of teh gheys would disappear.

Oy, Lena! What's your Closet-Case-O-Meter register with Crid?

Posted by: Cat brother at February 8, 2007 9:58 AM

The actual debate goes back the impact of religions' influence in the public discourse. Not the eventual elimination of religion through the scientific process or the proof of a god's existence. Do you want this to be a Christian Nation (in Pat Roberts' words) or a nation full of Christians? Where the separation of church and state is still enforced by the courts?

Posted by: Joe at February 8, 2007 10:09 AM

I agree, Cat. Back to the topic...

Personally, I find it funny that Haggard uses these reparative 'therapy' groups. The real damage of this type of therapy is gay and lesbian teens.

Utah is littered with these 30 day program facilities for religious parents to dump their gay and lesbian kids for a miracle cure mixed with some basic psych therapy along with a dose of the holy spirit.

A news magazine did a special on a teenage lesbian who thought her parents were taking her to a regular place for depression therapy. Well, she found out there was something odd about the place when her counselors told her the source of the depression was her attraction to other women. Also, her lack of faith in Jesus, who died for her sins.

The other half of the show concentrated on these therapy facilities. They print these glossy brochures full of personal testimonies and deliver them to the various evangelical churches across the nation. Especially, to the churches' youth ministers. Mommy and Daddy have a suspicion that Johnny may be peculiar... enter the youth minister with the brochure. They make a phone call. Next thing Johnny is being love bombed by an encounter group of Jesus freaks and an assorted prescription pill cocktails. Johnny can't do anything about it, because he is a minor.

Posted by: Joe at February 8, 2007 10:57 AM

Ever see that movie "But I'm a Cheerleader" It was a pretty funny take on those sexual reeducation places. RuPaul is in it (As RuPaul Charles!) I was amused. That is all I have to add to this conversation.

Posted by: Shinobi at February 8, 2007 11:21 AM

The "IT'S GREAT TO BE STRAIGHT" shirt RuPaul wore was classic.

Posted by: Cat brother at February 8, 2007 11:57 AM

I want the rainbow PJs they wore in the Ex-Ex Gay refuge. Yay for Rainbows!

Posted by: Shinobi at February 8, 2007 1:33 PM

"Oy, Lena! What's your Closet-Case-O-Meter register with Crid?"

Oh, Cat. Everyone wants to sleep with you and me. Everyone finds us irresistable. The closets fly open when we hit the pavement.

Posted by: Lena at February 8, 2007 3:54 PM

> Sam Harris had a debate
> against Oliver McTiernan

Who against who? The BBC? Fuck 'em.

> Condescending attitude
> towards the lack of faith

You take great pride in reflecting that condescension volt-for-volt. It's didso/didnot, even though you (presumably) grew past grade school years ago.

> put a lot of doubt on the
> existence of an earthly
> interpretation of a god.

You doubt there's an "earthly interpretation of a god"? That's not atheism, that's denial.

> a bit off the
> original tangent

Wow! It's not even The Invasion of The Topic Police; it's the Inquisition of the Sub-Topic Ninjas!

> a man who told millions

What, you dislike salesmanship?

> including the president

Are you saying you want Bush to trust his own instincts, or only that everything he hears should be what you agree with?

> I'm not quite sure what
> your point was

Relax, here it is for the third time: Nobody, especially among those who snicker here about him, really knew or cared who this fucker was. Every now and then we hear that this-or-that rapper was cut down in a gunfight, or that such-and-such a sports star's career has been ended prematurely. Hundreds of thousands or millions, we are told, weep tonight for the loss. But we can be certain that the audiences for these products will be content with whatever figures appear to replace them, and the form will be unchanged by the ltragedy. (This afternoon, Lauderdale gave Paris Hilton a glimpse at the future.) People who want to make a big deal about this guy are trying to prove things to each other, just as transparently as he's trying to prove things today. It's obvious that *his* people aren't taking you seriously.

> The other half of the show

The show is what this is, stroking emotions and looking cool like the people do on TV. It's political correctness and populist refinement. It's the posture of courage at zero cost, expressed on behalf of imaginary figures ("keep their dying children apart from their partner") or anecdotal ones theatrically presented ("A news magazine did a special"). It presumes that by being infantile and clinging onto the coping techniques of your inner child --who you can count on to always be with you-- you too can support the needy and oppressed as if it had simply occurred to you to you to do so... Even though their terrors were exposed, and their battles often successfully enjoined, long before you were old enough to turn on a TV set for yourself. The (desperately few) families who take this guy seriously were not going to be any good for raising kids anyway... Gay, straight, or undifferentiated. Do you suppose the erotic obliviousness of these families exceeds their financial incompetence, or their aesthetic blindess, or any other interpersonal awareness you can name?

> your fervent wish that all
> discussion of teh gheys
> would disappear

I ask only that it be made insightful or at least amusing, but you're not up to it.

> or a nation full of
> Christians?

I want this to be the best nation to practice Christianity, Islam, Fafun Gong or atheism.

And it is!

Posted by: Crid at February 8, 2007 4:41 PM

And not only that, George Michael didn't finally just come out at say anything. He busted for pestering park patrons in fucking Beverly Goddamn Hills! And he hasn't had a good song since Kissing A Fool, which had too much echoplex in the mix, and it was twenty years ago besides.

Posted by: Crid at February 8, 2007 4:46 PM

"Oy, Lena! What's your Closet-Case-O-Meter register with Crid?"
“Oh, Cat. Everyone wants to sleep with you and me. Everyone finds us irresistable. The closets fly open when we hit the pavement. “
Well, I figure between the two of us, we have the women, the gays, and the closeted homos locked up….Jo, I know you’re in the Midwest, but you could bicycle out here…
No, Lena, doesn’t Crid give off a strong whiff of….mothballs? Or something in a small dark room you keep clothes and shoes in? Your thoughts? Ken’s not a paunchy crabby video editor, is he?

I dislike salesmanship, Crid, in unethical and destructive causes, like disowning your own kids. And I would be so so fine with Bush only hearing stuff I agree with, as he couldn't do any worse than he has already. I used to make arguments like yours, and then, as you said, I grew past grade school.

If you think Haggard had no influence, you’re ignorant or deluded. He was the head of the 30-million strong National Association of Evangelicals, pastor of the 12,000 member Colorado Springs New Life Church. Yeah, hardly anyone to speak of.
Yes, he’ll be replaced, hey, he’s already straight, again! We people making a big deal about this guy are making a point about the hypocrisy of the religious right, as well as the ridiculousness of the ‘going straight’ re-education movement. Or rather, Teddy’s making the point for us, and will make it again when he’s caught blowing a male hooker in a cheap motel.
The fact that the right has an unlimited ability to forgive the most heinous behavior of its spokespeople, while continuing to rail against the behavior that they practice, is no surprise, and I doubt that his people read this blog, much less care what I think. But their kids may well, and so the old attitudes crumble.

I have to wonder what you’d consider ‘insightful’ discussion of homosexuality would be. Shhhh, shhhh, don’t worry, Criddy, we’ll carry on without you.


Posted by: Cat brother at February 8, 2007 5:20 PM

Crid, the doubt was used by Sam Harris in the debate. It was used by him to defend a person who was beginning to question his/her faith without reprisals. Especially, in the Islamic world. Where McTiernan still does his nonclerical mission work and intefaith conferences with Muslim clerics. Sorry for the vagueness. My premise to the original post was on how the 2 different debating styles are not on equal ground and not the details of the debate.

Posted by: Joe at February 8, 2007 6:34 PM

> He was the head of the 30-million strong National
> Association of Evangelicals, pastor of the
> 12,000 member Colorado Springs New Life Church.

Um-hmm. Frank Zappa had a questionaire for his prospective fan club members in the 1960s. #1 was "How many minds do you control?" #2 was "Why not more?" L. Ron Hubbard had the same questionaire, but he wasn't kidding. Scientologists never kid. Did Tom Cruise ever do a comedy? Even a bad one?

Those "30-million strong" evangelicals aren't really that strong, are they? The Wikipedia entry leads with: "The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) is an agency dedicated to coordinating cooperative ministry for evangelical denominations of Protestant Christians in the United States." This is the genius of American Christianity, that no sect has become so dominant that they can push the others (or much of anyone else) around.

This is not a 30-million-member organization. It's probably a few dozen people working in a DC office, working feverishly to squeeze the 47 member churches for money for Post-Its, office coffee in those funky foil bladders, and Windows Vista. Those 47 sects, on the best Sundays of their history and including funerals for winos, may have attendance approaching 30-million members.

But it's not like they can be counted on for anything. Hell, they can't even pick a team for Global Warming (unlike those rat bastards at the National Council of Churches!).

This very dangerous organization is basically try to keep these guys out of each others way, as well as giving CNN a place to do standups when a sex scandal breaks.

Posted by: Crid at February 8, 2007 7:22 PM

We likely all want this country to be the best place to practice budhism, sufism, animist, shik, taoism or atheism.

But still, he preaches that there is a better world than this, when we are dead. Then, he lies to himself and other about the most intimate details of his life.

Advisors are nice, but most advisors have a specialty. What is this guy advising? And whatever it is, is it based on any reason or logic, or is he making shit up. Clearly, reasonable people can rightly believe this guy talks out of his ass.

And the reason we care about this donkey, is that he has the ear of POTUS.

Posted by: jon at February 8, 2007 7:54 PM

> he lies to himself

You... YOU...
I'm good for another round if anybody's into it.

Posted by: Crid at February 8, 2007 8:17 PM

Of course you are!

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 8, 2007 8:39 PM

Y'all need to get back to work. Amy's got a book to write, and I'm trying to push out a decent grant, and finish a couple of papers, before class starts in May. There's no time! I looked at the length of these blog comments and nearly started hyperventilating. Send Valium!

Now, go!

PS: Crid rocks. Deal with it, Cat.

Posted by: Lena at February 8, 2007 8:39 PM

Quickly, before Lena gets steamed: Psychotherapy soaks up a lot of the energy for atheists that religion drains for the faithful, and to no better effect. And dammit, SOMEONE's going to have the president's ear, and OF COURSE we're not always going to be happy about who that is. The most frequent guest of State at Clinton's White House was Arafat. I;m not saying 'get over it', just that as political gripes go, it's kinda obvious. Yeah, sure: If we could control every word the guy ever heard, things might be different.

Posted by: Crid at February 8, 2007 9:10 PM

Arafat wasn't there to play chess with Bill, or, I'd imagine, because Bill thought he was a great guy. Sometimes, you have to talk with the creeps to try to get peace going.

http://telaviv.usembassy.gov/publish/peace/archives/2001/january/me0103c.html

You'd have the president hop on over to the West Bank?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 8, 2007 9:23 PM

> Arafat wasn't there to
> play chess with Bill,

That's exactly what he was there to do. To look cool on the world stage, be flattered and fed at the expense of the American taxpayer. And this brought us to where, exactly?

You dowanna know what I'd have had in mind for Arafat.

Posted by: Crid at February 8, 2007 9:36 PM

Some serious cosmetic surgery, I hope.

Posted by: Lena at February 8, 2007 10:20 PM

Lena, if you think Crid rocks, that's your priviledge, but I have to wonder if he'd vote to let you into his condo unit.

I'll post anon about the power and actual numbers of the NAE, but the problem I have, Crid, with Haggard having the president's ear is more with our dear sweet dumb president than Haggard. I strongly disagree with Haggard's ideas, but I would stub my toe hard for him to have the right to hold them. In a better world, he'd be standing on a corner spouting that gibberish, not speaking to the most powerful man on earth.

It matters that Bush takes cues from him, because those cues have real-life results, like abstinence-only education (Go Texas!), keeping the morning-after pill hard to get, dumbing down our educational system, and keeping in place laws that marginalize gays.

That said, I also really want him exposed as a raving hypocrite when he acts like one, and the non-validity of such things as sexual-preference reprogramming shown. So, he has the right to (mis)interpret scripture to smash on the fags, but we the people have the right to see color pics the next time he's caught in a George Michael moment.

Posted by: Cat brother at February 9, 2007 4:25 AM

> vote to let you into
> his condo unit.

That's how it works, too! We --the gray, caucasian men-- vote over who gets in! We like to vote against Jews, Negroes and single mothers most. Also the mentally retarded and wheelchair-bound. But we're always eager to expand the list! Because we're mean-spirited! And if we go thumbs-down, then you're out on the street, babe!

This is what I meant about 'battles enjoined long before' in the comment above. If anyone with green money wants to buy into this place, there's all kinds of law with decades of precedent compelling the present owners to welcome them. This is not 1924 or even 1957, where people got excluded for going to church on the wrong part of the weekend. But when you're a Radio America liberal, you dream of being courageous in battles that are already won... The ones in the future are too dicey to dream about. Because you wouldn't want to make a bad call, right?

And as regards Lena, or um, 'Lena types' taking up residence here, it's already not a problem, if you catch my drift. And if he could fix the goddamn roof, I'd pay his mortgage for a summer.

> he'd be standing on a corner
> spouting that gibberish

There are people who do that, too. In every nation on the globe. Except where it's illegal, which is even worse, wouldn't you agree?

> It matters that Bush

It's always about Bush! Bush Bush Bush! Have you met Eric? You guys could hang.

I mean it.

But seriously...

> we have the right to
> see color pics

Who's accusing who of supressed appetites?

Posted by: Crid at February 9, 2007 5:59 AM

Right on Cat Brother, Amy...

Crid,
I simply don't get your fastidiousness over Haggard.

I've read your comments twice and they're just beginning to sound perverse - but not in a splendidly radiant way?

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at February 9, 2007 6:05 AM

I wanna be splendidly radiant! I want love and admiration!

What exactly is our difference?

Posted by: Crid at February 9, 2007 6:09 AM

No, Crid, it's not always about Bush, but when we talk about public policy, much of which is steered from the Executive branch, bringing him into it is germane.
Up next, rocket science.

Jody, I can help with your confusion. Crid is claiming that nobody in the US cares if anyone else is gay, that gays suffer no discrimination, prejudice, or outright physical assault. Any problems having to do with homosexuality have been solved, and the country's moved on....Oh, and nobody listened to Haggard, certainly not the thousands he preached to weekly, or the millions getting the NAE mailouts, or the President.
Does this make him deluded, or wilfully ignorant? Your guess's good as mine.

Why does Lena think Crid rocks? As s/he forthrightly said, 'straight' guys give the best head....no, can't think of it. It burns, it buuuuuuurrrns....

Posted by: Cat brother at February 9, 2007 7:30 AM

> much of which is steered
> from the Executive

I just don't see it. You live in a world were there are all these powerful oppressive forces from distant exterior points... Powerful executives and powerful church affiliations terrorizing little gay teenagers in their teenage underpants through powerful intimidation. But these people aren't leaders, they're followers. They're a symptom, and not an especially grievous one. It would be better if Americans could handle atheist public servants, but it hasn't happened in my lifetime (Carter! Reagan! Clinton! Frickin ' Kennedy! [Dunno about Eisenhower, I think he kept the lid on it, though.]). The faith of the electorate is an important truth about an important country, which at some point should put some humility in your heart... If not for theological implications, then for the Constitutional genius that keeps the assholes pretty much out of our way.

> Crid is claiming that nobody

Cites, please; I claimed only that this guy was largely irrelevant and almost wholly unknown to the readers of this blog. I'm like Pirate Jo:

> I've never actually seen that
> Haggard guy on video before.
> I had no idea how weird he is

Most if not all of us hadn't heard of him until the scandal broke. That's not because we're unaware, it's because he's unimportant.

> Why does Lena think...

Riiiiight... You're going to tell gays when to think, and who their friends are. And you're going to tell blacks where their aspirations should begin and end. And Lord God knows, you have plans for the women.

Be AUTHENTIC, Lena! Also:

> Some serious cosmetic surgery, I hope.

You'd not have recognized him.

Posted by: Crid at February 9, 2007 8:06 AM

Cite -
"...This is not 1924 or even 1957, where people got excluded for going to church on the wrong part of the weekend. But when you're a Radio America liberal, you dream of being courageous in battles that are already won..."
Does this apply to living in your apartment building? Maybe. Is this attitude nationwide? No. You're saying that this is no big deal, because gays have already achieved parity. I disagree.

"Powerful executives and powerful church affiliations terrorizing little gay teenagers in their teenage underpants through powerful intimidation. But these people aren't leaders, they're followers. They're a symptom, and not an especially grievous one.
This is more Crid-word-salad. A pastor of a huge congregation with a weekly bully pulpit isn't a leader? Really? They're followers of...who exactly?
Glad that you think they're not a real grievous problem, and that gay teenagers have it A-OK. And did you know the blacks were happier back when they knew their place? Your comments should come with a laugh track.

"You're going to tell gays when to think, and who their friends are."
If being around you gives Lena a certain rough frission, and especially if you give great head, more power to her.
"And you're going to tell blacks where their aspirations should begin and end."
Uh, what? Where their aspirations should begin and end...don't remember writing that screed.
"And Lord God knows, you have plans for the women."
Well, something we can agree on! They'll get weekends off, and half-Wednesdays, though.

Posted by: Cat brother at February 9, 2007 10:28 AM

> You're saying that this
> is no big deal

Why are you compelled to translate my words? It's a freak reflex. I'm happy to let them stand on their own, but it gets tiresome to repeat them over and over in the same comment stack. You should have some faith in your beliefs. If you need to take people by the hand to show them what you think is out there, maybe you're mistaken. You should trust them to see it for themselves.

> weekly bully pulpit

Without looking it up, distinguist a bully pulpit from a regular pulpit.

> isn't a leader?

I'm not much afraid of (or for) his minions.

> you think... that gay teenagers
> have it A-OK.

Cat, fella, this is getting ridiculous. If I'd meant that, I'd have been happy to say it.

Posted by: Crid at February 9, 2007 10:37 AM

Crid,
I was gonna say that Cat has pretty much punished all your points perfectly - and continues to do so.

Haggard is/was not a negligible public figure.
It is/was not a negligible fact that Bush listened to the guy's views on a regular basis in private.
It is not a negligible matter, and surely not unrelated either, that Bush is publically opaque on whether creation science is "an idea" in more or less the same way evolution is "an idea" in 2007.

Your comment - that the Haggard/Dawkins head-to-head is "atheist porn" trips off the tongue beautifully. Except it's the brain that's the chief organ involved here, I think. And atheists rarely get the real money shot in any case - the one when Haggard admits he's been wrong all along! About everything.

Like Cat, I was also struck by your words: "This is not 1924 or even 1957, where people got excluded for going to church on the wrong part of the weekend. But when you're a Radio America liberal, you dream of being courageous in battles that are already won..."

You DO seem to be saying on some level "If "Brokeback" is on at the multiplex, all's right with the world..."..


And I bet there were folk in 1924 shrugging and saying "relax, the battle is already won. It's not like it's SALEM any more...".

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at February 9, 2007 11:57 AM

"Jo, I know you’re in the Midwest, but you could bicycle out here…"

Hey Cat brother, it's a little cold for that right now, but why don't you come to Iowa and do Ragbrai this year? What about the rest of you guys? It'll be nice in July, and you wouldn't believe the variety of food that can be served on a stick!

Posted by: Pirate Jo at February 9, 2007 12:33 PM

'Bully pulpit' is a term for any office or position that gives a person the ability to disseminate their views, often without opposition.
Harder one next time.

But by golly, you're right about the other issue - why should I 'translate' your words. Here they are, again -
""...This is not 1924 or even 1957, where people got excluded for going to church on the wrong part of the weekend. But when you're a Radio America liberal, you dream of being courageous in battles that are already won..."
Now, this whole thread started on the subject of Ted Haggard,
caught acting gay, now supposedly straight. Just what battles were you talking about? The already-won ones?

Jo, you're seriously messing with my fantasy of you climbing off your road bike after your long, long ride, steam, STEAM I say, rising off your hard thighs..
Iowa?! Now? THis year? You crazy? But I do like meat on a stick.

Posted by: Cat brother at February 9, 2007 2:15 PM

.....and got so carried away in my Jo-fantasy, forgot the part about 'July.'
Will look up Ragbrai online.

Posted by: Cat brother at February 9, 2007 2:18 PM

> I was gonna say that Cat has
> pretty much punished all your
> points perfectly

And then... Something stopped you!

> Haggard is/was not a negligible
> public figure.

You'd heard of him before the scandal?

> It is/was not a negligible fact
> that Bush listened to the guy's
> views on a regular basis in private.

Reagan used to call that "Dancing with the one who brung ya": He wouldn't have been elected without the evangelicals, so they got some special Oval Office lovin'. Wasn't such a churchgoin' man hisself... Liked to spend Sundays in the (White) House with the Missus and the TV tray.

Clinton needed them too, and he used to give them the dance, but usually just by being so darned affable in church. His West Wing bookings were set aside for fleshier encounters...

Who exactly are the Americans who you want to elect our presidents? Don't be vague. Show them to me. At 10am on a Sunday, sober, dressed well and warmly greeting pathetic old women and slobbering young punks as if they liked them, the way Christians do.

> publically opaque on whether
> creation science

He's PRIVATELY opaque! Can we move now to end any confusion on this matter? Boyfriend is Christian! Know that! There are a lot of Christians and other religious types in this country, and they get a say in who gets elected. You can spot all sorts of personal failings and public hypocrisies in their individual lives, and it won't make a shred of difference. The atheists have those, too. Religion ain't the cause.

But the for the record, this stuff gets out of hand when you start citing private hypocrisies, eg "he lies to himself... about the most intimate details." If they're *THAT* intimate, what business is it of yours? They used to call you people "thought police," and Orwell made a million describing your deportment.

Well, several thousand, but the war was just over.

> And atheists rarely get the
> real money shot in any case
> - the one when Haggard admits
> he's been wrong all along!
> About everything.

You share this quality with Christians: You have vivid, rewarding dream lives, wherein no one who disagrees with you about anything is even partly right.

> You DO seem to be saying
> on some level

All right, little girl! On some level, it's true! But on a higher, more sane and literate level, that analysis is infantile and smug.

On some level, Anna Nicole Smith's wretched death represents the sad denouement of the Gen X's erotic subconscious.... On a more meaningful level, she was a troubled woman who was flying on fumes the whole trip.

On some level, a bowl of Captain Crunch with four ounces of whole milk represents a nutritious diet. But on another... Etc.

You are so eager to make fun of this fucker --whom, for the seventeenth goddam time, I'd never heard of before the scandal-- as if your mere hatred was protecting troubled teens. This is silly! Mockery is cheap. I think he deserves mockery! OF COURSE he does. But don't pretend you're earning points toward an atheist heaven. It's amusing that people who are so sophisticated and understanding about religious belief overseas are so confounded by it here at home.

> Harder one next time.

You Googled... We can tell.

> Just what battles were
> you talking about?

The trick to righteousness is to be ahead of the curve, not preening before strangers in anonymous fora years after it demands courage.

Does anyone, anyone on the surface of this planet need another round of this?

Just ask!

Posted by: Crid at February 9, 2007 6:21 PM

Nope, didn't Google, 'bully pulpit' is a pretty common expression, especially if you grew up around DC. Like I said, pick a harder one next time.

And I'm sorry, I nodded off there, the excitement of the weekend and all, but what were, exactly, those already-won battles, again? Just asking.

Posted by: Cat brother at February 10, 2007 6:00 AM

You don't think this is the best time to be a gay teen?

Posted by: Crid at February 10, 2007 7:38 AM

You can't have it both ways, Crid.

EITHER a) Haggard was a nobody because he was unheard of by you OR b) he was a sufficiently powerful religious right leader to command weekly telephone time with the dim but canny POTUS.

Moving on swiftly to the Haggard/Dawkins Youtube, you write:

"If the players had the slightest chance of changing the opinions of the opponents or their listeners, they wouldn't waste the spittle for these mock encounters."

Bollocks.

Sure, the encounter was mock - as in staged - but when are they not?

Your empty dismissal could be applied - just as emptily - to the famous public "mock encounter" between the Brits "Soapy Sam" Wilberforce (aka the rhetorically slick Bishop of Oxford) and Thomas Huxley (Darwin's brilliant booster buddy) in 1860 - the year after the publication of "The Origin of Species".

(Not googling - reasearch reading for something else entirely, FWIW. Like Lena, I'm a busy little flower.)

This particular battle between authority (heavily invested in the status quo of dogma) and reason will be fought over and over.

It's a vital generational thang , Crid. If you want to call it old hat, or PC righteousness just because it's been played out before, you might as well start yelling "Get off my lawn, kids" and be done with it. Instead, you say: "Does anyone, anyone on the surface of this planet need another round of this?" (same thing.) And the answer is yes, yes, yes.

What are we supposed to DO when someone like Haggard - an exemplification of public hypocrisy - pops up? Just chortle nicely and move on to prove how cool we are?

"I want this to be the best nation to practice Christianity, Islam, Fafun Gong or atheism."

So do we all, Crid (I think).

And we are all responsible for noticing when it's not.

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at February 10, 2007 7:42 AM

You don't think this is the best time to be a gay teen?

Maybe if you live on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. But, I get a good number of letters from gay teens about some pretty sad situations in the great between.

On the bright side, I also got a series of letters from an 80-year-old guy in Rhinebeck who just admitted he was gay. It's a little unusual for me, recommending "Coming Out, An Act Of Love" to people who've not only hit puberty, but so long ago that they've probably forgotten about it.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 10, 2007 9:34 AM

Stupid Pajamas Media! Crid, I swear you were just about to tell me exactly where I was misquoting you, and what old battles were now won, and it vanished! Or something, 'cause I don't see it.

Yes, it's definately the best time ever to be a gay teen, and if that's the discussion we had been having, it'd mean something here. It still often sucks to be a gay teen, with consequences like being disowned by your parents, 're-educated,' or the subject of frequent ass-whippings by your peers at school. It's a better time now because some people noticed these things and spoke out, as opposed to pretending there was nothing to fix.

Recommended reading, for those thinking back on high school as the happy wonder years -
http://www.citybeat.com/1999-06-10/cover2.shtml

Posted by: Cat brother at February 10, 2007 10:21 AM

> he was a sufficiently powerful religious
> right leader to command weekly
> telephone time

You keep saying that, and I'm like, yeah.

> dim but canny

You can't let go of the pleasure of calling him stupid, can you? Even when two words later, you concede his brilliance. I love that.

> You can't have it both ways

He's dim but canny!

> when are they not?

When thoughtful players speak persuasively to the unconvinced rather than entertainingly to those who agree.

> This particular battle between authority
> (heavily invested in the status quo of
> dogma)

We covered this. You live on Planet Cat, where the distant-yet-instrusive Man keeps his oppressive boot on the throat of the beleagered, defenseless gay teen, a poor little sad sack who's just trying make his way through a world that doesn't care.

> Just chortle nicely and move on [...]?

Exactly. Have the moment, tell a joke, and move forward, without pretending [A] some great principle of sexual misconduct is in evidence or [B] that continued mockery of figures about whom you know so little helps out imaginary gays the way Rosa Parks helped real bus riders, or persuades those who need to recognize your righteousness.

> Maybe if you live on the Upper
> West Side of Manhattan.

Hell, how many Hispanics live there? Listen, your favorite neighborhoods may not represent the pinnacle of human aspiration. More to the point, your imagination serves you badly in describing how others handle sexuality.

> the great between.

Amy, that's just dumb. Middle America doesn't exist to give you something to smirk about.

> if that's the discussion we had been having

Stop policing topics.

> you were just about to tell

I never felt compelled to prove your negatives. Your imagination is pornographicly engaged:

> with consequences like being disowned
> by your parents, 're-educated,' or the
> subject of frequent ass-whippings

Where, buttercup? Beatings? Why aren't you doing something meaningful about it? Because it's mostly in your head. The point of this exercise is to pretend you're Henry Fonda (there he is again!) as Tom Joad. Monochrome; off-center CU; dramatic light; weary, unblinking: "Wherever a cop's beating up a guy, I'll be there!"

But it was a shitty movie. I went looking for a video link. Whaddya know, NPR happened to have the audio (@5:50):

http://tinyurl.com/32ga8y

God I hate public broadcasting.

Posted by: Crid at February 10, 2007 2:37 PM

Crid, this may be a blow, so grab the Cheetos and sit down - just because you don't know about somebody, doesn't mean that they're not important. That idea of 'if I don't see them, they don't exist' mode of thinking may be useful when avoiding monsters under the covers, not so much in the realm of political and social discourse.
So, go on saying 'yeah.' I can assure you with some confidence that few people know or care about YOUR existance, so you're kind of half-right.

Not policing topics at all - just letting you demonstrate where I so cruelly misquoted you. You know, like above, your comments suggest that no gay teenagers are abused and beaten, any such are imaginary. That's....quite a statement. Or did you mean something else?

And I've been doing something about it since the 80's, writing articles, donating my time and services to gays (and others) with HIV and Hep-C. And correcting smug insular boneheads like yourself in public forums like this one.

I am, however, glad to have my own planet. Amy, I need minions, and I'd like some to have red hair. I'll make you one of the Major Empresses, OK? We'll get Gregg a summer cottage or something.

Posted by: Cat brother at February 10, 2007 3:04 PM

> they don't exist' mode of thinking

We're all happy for charity, but that's it exactly... You're scared of boogiemen.

Posted by: Crid at February 10, 2007 3:18 PM

Hey, I actually followed that link. I'd read that column years ago, and it was one of Savage's better ones. It supports my viewpoint more than yours!

Posted by: Crid at February 10, 2007 9:18 PM


Okay, Crid,
You describe your paragon of public debate thus: When thoughtful players speak persuasively to the unconvinced rather than entertainingly to those who agree.

Can you provide an example of your paragon?

We are apparently permitted to murmur our brief piece about Haggard but "without pretending... some great principle of sexual misconduct is in evidence."

Well - turning this around -what great principle of proper sexual conduct is in evidence here?

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at February 10, 2007 9:24 PM

First, let me look up paragon.

---

Aha! OK, here's a not-too-shabby piece from Hitch, four parts, no prisoners. I like him because he's an Oxford-trained rhetor who takes obvious pleasure in the craft, but doesn't make arguments for fun. He says it because he means it, and won't sugar coat it for friendly (or unfriendly) rooms. Love this kid, love him to death.

http://tinyurl.com/ytzg35

Constrast this with Andrew Sullivan, whose flightiness ("excitability") was once described by Kaus as being a consequence of an Oxford education that values *victory* in debate above all things. It's a mechanical challenge more than a moral one. Josh Marshall once said of Sullivan: "Reading him, you feel that he is not thinking, exactly; rather, one side of his brain is merely fondling the other."

Watching the debate you linked, it seemed like each player was fondling himself, and taking tremendous pride that the opponent cared enough to watch.

> what great principle of proper
> sexual conduct is in evidence
> here?

Who said any was? Not me.

Are you in London?

Posted by: Crid at February 10, 2007 10:30 PM

Crid, not sure what link you followed, Savage talks about spending his teenage years in fear, and seeing gay or effeminate peers of his get beaten on a regular basis. His whole point being, Columbine was no surprise to him, given what geeks and gays go through.
In other words, the stuff you say doesn't happen.

How does this support your point? ANd which point was it, exactly?

Posted by: Cat brother at February 11, 2007 6:19 AM

> gay or effeminate peers

Not just gay or effeminate ones... Almost any who aren't spotlessly well adjusted, attractive, dialed into casual, carefully bounded socializing. And plain, awkward kids from good homes (unlike Harris & Kleybold) are taught to be as a aggressive as necessary (and no further) to protect themselves. And it works!

Everybody, everybody who goes to a high school has to deal with this, and it doesn't matter where in the world or in history that high school is. This is a human nature problem, not a policy problem or a preacher problem. Parents who love you teach you to fight. Parents who don't are the first problem you have to deal with. The White House can't help, and shouldn't be expected to.

In his backhanded way, Savage comes out praising the Second Admendment. But do you think he's kidding?

> the stuff you say doesn't happen.

Cat, honey, sugar, kitten: When did I ever say any such thing?

Posted by: Crid at February 11, 2007 6:47 AM

> the great between.

Amy, that's just dumb. Middle America doesn't exist to give you something to smirk about.

I'm from the great between. Made me what I am today: a girl who had to get out of the great between pronto.

And plain, awkward kids from good homes (unlike Harris & Kleybold) are taught to be as a aggressive as necessary (and no further) to protect themselves. And it works!

Didn't work for me. I was a skinny little kid, and while my dad taught us (abstractly) to be strong, my personally fighting a gang of Jew-hating boys wasn't an option. Fighting a gang of Jew-hating girls wasn't even an option. In the first case, my parents ignored years of abuse by other kids, probably so they could duck out of the fact that they'd moved to a neighborhood where people hated Jews. In the latter case, my father finally went to the junior high principal. Years later, one of the girls saw my column running in a Detroit alt weekly and wrote me to apologize for her part in how they treated me.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 11, 2007 7:42 AM

> alt weekly and wrote me
> to apologize

Exactly, it's a phase that people can grow out of. Maybe there's an intense strain of antisemitism in Detroit (well there’s obviously likely to be one now, but I mean back then). But theyda beaten you for having Irish red hair too. If your parents said abuse was something to ignore, how were they teaching strength abstractly or otherwise?

> a girl who had to get out of
> the great between pronto.

And you're very proud of yourself. The guy who wrote What's the Matter with Kansas? had a whole chapter of self-aggrandizing horseshit, about how he loved life so much more than others, and was just so much more intelligent, that he had to leave before he could express his love for his origins by mocking them in a bestseller.

When reading it, I kept hearing the slap bass solo from Gabriel’s “Big Time.”

My parties have all the BIG names….

Posted by: crid at February 11, 2007 8:20 AM

What, you've forgotten? It's only been twenty years~

http://tinyurl.com/2l44w9

Posted by: Crid at February 11, 2007 8:31 AM

It's not a "phase" -- I'd venture that most of those kids grew up to be adults who hate Jews -- and express other bigotry. They didn't come up with it themselves; they got it at home, and those they learned it from probably learned it at church. Father Coughlin preached a lot of hatred of Jews on the radio in Detroit.

My parents didn't say abuse was something to ignore; they preferred to ignore the fact that, while my dad thought we were "just like everyone else," "everyone else" had different ideas.

And I got out of the Detroit suburbs because they were a cultural and intellectual dead zone.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 11, 2007 8:49 AM

"Aha! OK, here's a not-too-shabby piece from Hitch..."

Compare like with like please, Crid.

(Though, golly, Hitch is on form in your 4 parter -and, yes, he's outstanding as a journalist-pamphleteer. Thanks.)

Dawkins, unfortunately, does not have the benefit of luxuriantly laying out a statement of personal belief to "comrades" as Hitch does, does he?

Dawkins is angrily confronting a charlatan who operates - for starters - from a self-servingly misleading definition of evolutionary chance.

If Dawkins comes off like a dyspeptic snot in the clip- which he probably is - Haggard's manipulation of scientific principes is at least bared.

I don't see that I've pretended anything about Haggard.

That's been your department Crid i.e. that Haggard doesn't matter, or his vile views aren't in any way representative, or whatever you seem to be saying.

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at February 11, 2007 9:01 AM

Take it from me: Dawkins is an asshole. But, he's an asshole who's right.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 11, 2007 9:14 AM

> Compare like with like please

You asked for an example and got one. What else can I do for you?

> Dawkins, unfortunately, does not
> have the benefit of luxuriantly
> laying out a statement of personal
> belief to "comrades" as Hitch
> does, does he?

Why wouldn't he? Of course he does. That’s what he was doing! It’s safe to assume he wasn’t there on Oxford’s dime. Does the University (motto: Dominus Illuminatio Mea) have an Office of Fucking with Evangelicals? Not saying they shouldn’t, just asking.

The “friends and comrades” thing is a tiny little joke from a guy who used to be socialist. You shouldn’t take it personally.

> a self-servingly misleading
> definition

We all take language seriously.

> pretended anything about
> Haggard.

You contend that he’s worth gratuitous mockery, and I just don’t see it. There was a Hollywood comedy (title forgotten) a few years ago where we heard the police dispatcher calling cars in the field to begin a chase: “The use of excessive force HAS been authorized! Repeat, the use of…”

Posted by: Crid at February 11, 2007 9:23 AM

"You contend that he’s worth gratuitous mockery..."

Oh - wow - Crid just gratuitously slipped in the word "gratuitous" when I wasn't looking!

Remember, Amy rightly zeroed in on the Miracle Whipped Haggard sexual fundie reconversion AFTER the scandal. There's been no gratuitous mockery.

BTW, I used to be a Londoner. I've lived in NY for 13 years now.

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at February 11, 2007 10:16 AM

WHY CAN'T PEOPLE READ WHAT'S WRITTEN???

1. He deserves to be mocked!

2. People are getting carried away: The mockery is therefore gratuitous!


Aiyyyaiaiaiaiaiaiaiiiiiiii.......

Posted by: Crid at February 11, 2007 10:37 AM

Crid,

You forgot to put "people are getting carried away" in quotes. Then you should have added "said Crid".

Because that's about all your argument stacks up to, old bean.

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at February 11, 2007 10:41 AM

Meltdown in aisle four!

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 11, 2007 10:41 AM

> you should have added "said

Yes! These are my assertions! Here they are in black in white! You don't have to be clever or do subtextual analysis or look beneath the surface or any special math to figure out who said these things! Amy and Gregg set up the software to put our names right there at the end!

Wherever you're from, you have an American's love for silly consensus.

Aisle four has the sake, right? Good.

Tell us why Dawkins is an asshole.

Posted by: Crid at February 11, 2007 10:51 AM

"Yes! These are my assertions! "

Shoulda, woulda, coulda said "scare quotes" rather than "quotes" then.

(Especially to point up the effrontery of "You contend that he’s worth gratuitous mockery...". Never contended any such thing.

"Wherever you're from, you have an American's love for silly consensus."

Bad idea to more or less quote Hitch just after you've linked him, no?

And wouldn't you just LOVE to know where I'm from? (It would actually add heft whatever daft, superficial national slur you were trying to hurl!)


Posted by: Jody Tresidder at February 11, 2007 11:10 AM

Punctuation? Effrontery? Stolen themes? Slurs?

Brown paper packages, tied up with string?

These are few of my favorite things!

Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens ...

Posted by: Crid at February 11, 2007 11:17 AM

Julllleeeee!

In case any of you were wondering, Julie Andrews, one of my personal favorites, is dirtier than you think.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 11, 2007 12:13 PM

"Julie Andrews, one of my personal favorites..."

Crid probably thinks she's gratuitous.

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at February 11, 2007 12:23 PM

Posted by: Crid at February 11, 2007 12:35 PM

Cridland?


Cridland?

That bloody explains it.

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at February 11, 2007 1:28 PM

Wut?

I wasn't even living in that country at the time... The coed's a conniving liar, and I can prove it!

Posted by: Crid at February 11, 2007 1:35 PM

Oh Crid, I sympathize, it's SO awkward, pretending you didn't say things, when they're still in print. Your meltdown is hardly a surprise.

"Beatings? Why aren't you doing something meaningful about it? Because it's mostly in your head."
Also
Cite -
"...This is not 1924 or even 1957, where people got excluded for going to church on the wrong part of the weekend. But when you're a Radio America liberal, you dream of being courageous in battles that are already won..."
Now, I know you don't have much recourse to explain these, rather than doing rhetorical doughnuts and hoping everyone forgets about this thread. You certainly didn't answer the question "Which battles are those, Crid?"

If you're just tuning in, and don't feel like reading all 96 previous entries, try this handy synopsis -

Crid - How dare you attribute that to me? I never said or implied that!
Everyone else - OK, what did you say?
Crid - (Sounds of crickets chirping)......uh, and my good buddy Hitch says....

You've repeated said that gay kids are not abused in school, or most recently, that it's no worse than what anyone else goes through. Wrong and wrong. I don't care but so much about changing your mind, as it's a moot point with you; a major point on your not reproducing is you not getting the chance to drop this science on a gay kid.

Savage never mentions the Second Amendment, backhandedly or no, and no, he's not kidding. I've heard him discuss the same article, and he's perfectly fine with sadistic jocks getting a fear-check.
And feel free to discuss how ANY PART of Savage's article backs up anything you've said.

Posted by: Cat brother at February 11, 2007 2:30 PM

Is there anything that hasn't been covered? You think gay teens have problems because Haggard's an asshole. You don't actually cite any 'beatings, re-educations, or ass-whippings' resulting from this guy... But believing they're happening gives you lots of energy. I think he's incidental, and that your concern for the poor dears is mostly a means to a pose of compassion and insight.

> "Which battles are those,

Stonewall comes to mind. You weren't there... You had yet to do your first crunches and presses. Being gay is not the terror it used to be. That fact that some people in some contexts still get trouble for it doesn't make this less true. The vast majority of the heavy lifting is behind us, and you're silly for pretending it's not.

The Savage piece considers firearms, which are discussed in the Second Amendment. "Like most students, I lived in fear of the small slights and public humiliations used to reinforce the rigid high school caste system". It ain't just about being gay, and Savage deserves admiration for saying so. I remember emailing that piece to a then-sweetheart who had a high-schooler in the house.

It's been a long weekend. What will you say I said now?

Posted by: Crid at February 11, 2007 3:26 PM

Criddy-Schookie-Lumps...

"The vast majority of the heavy lifting is behind us, and you're silly for pretending it's not."
I do believe Dan Savage and other post-Stonewall gays would disagree with you, and thus much of what he's written. It's a long shot, but I just emailed him, inviting him to comment on this thread. I'll be interested to see who he agrees with,

Posted by: Cat brother at February 11, 2007 4:08 PM

> Savage and other post-Stonewall
> gays would disagree

They're welcome to, just like you.

If Dan stops by, make sure he knows I think he's wrong about this part: "The power cliques that rule American high schools are every bit as murderous as Harris and Klebold..." That carries poetic license a bit far. Later he asks: "How many commit suicide every year?" Less than 12 per school (plus a teacher, and 24 wounded to bleed and worse), I'd wager.

Spirits are diminished by cliques, but they're also forged. I think maybe one reason parents don't help their kids with this is that they have no clue how to do so. A second reason may be that they think the kids need to be toughened. This is a cold planet.

If you call Hitchens too, tell him I also disagree with this: "I'm am absolutely convinced the main source of hatred in the world is religion." (From the 3rd YouTube fragment.)

If you call Paglia, give me time to type up something up and have it bound.

If you call Zappa, just pass the phone.

Posted by: Crid at February 11, 2007 5:06 PM

I look forward to the day when it's just as boring to be gay as it is to be heterosexual

Knock the drama down a few hundred notches and you folks will have a good start.

From my experience, it is rarely been an issue to anybody that someone is homosexual. The issue is being annoying about it. Even that Carson fellow on QE can flame without being overly annoying (perhaps that is editing). Try it sometime.

Posted by: Guy Montag at February 21, 2007 9:31 AM

Leave a comment