Friday, August 7, 2009

A challenge for SC conservative bloggers. C'mon, boys, man up!

Anaconda's said Waldo obsesses about gay rights while contending the only legal rights gay Americans should have are under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Boy Fogle summoned his flying monkeys and tremendously increasing "earned media credit" to try and "out" Waldo for calling Fogle out on the homophobia he simultaneously advocates and denies to this day.

Savonarola announced in January he was above responding to gay bloggers but has attacked Waldo three times since, calling him, among other Christianist endearments, a "sodomite troll."

Earl Capps (who's capable of remarkably subtle analysis in nonpolitical settings) and Wesley Donehue ( who is equally so but on a shorter leash to his paymasters)just stick cheese in their ears, close their eyes and shout "la la la la" until the subject changes, while hewing to the SC GOP's ingrained homophobia without complaint.

Cyclops- well, he's just Savonarola's Mimi-Me, only with the weird sci fi and sex fixations.

That's pretty much the Algonquin Round Table of the conservative SC blogdom. The big swinging bloggers.

Them whom everyone reads.

Waldo's put this question to them before, and they've all retreated to see no evil, speak no evil hear no evil.

But a National Journal columnist, Jonathan Rauch- no liberal he- has written a striking column placing the gay rights debate in the context of health care and, as well, the conservative search for footing in a changed political landscape.

So Waldo renews his challenge to Messrs. Cassidy, Folks, Capps, Donehue and Fogle:

Read the article that follows and then get out in public and explain what rights you believe gay Americans are entitled to when your party returns to power, if not now, given that we can safely assume your and your party's default reponse to everything is "NO."

If, as we suspect, the answer is "none," then say so. It's easy and won't rile your base or your Sunday School class.

If it's something more nuanced, we're all ears.

We'd really like to know. You boys seem to be sitting out all the big debates of the day. (Well, except Savonarola, whose goodwill ambassadorship for the US Commission on Civil Rights is, well, risible, and which demonstrates that the man has no ethical standards whatever, clinging to office under a president he feverishly- and repeatedly, insists is illegitimate).


SOCIAL STUDIES

A Moral Crossroads For Conservatives

THE GENIE THAT GAY-MARRIAGE OPPONENTS STILL HOPE TO STUFF BACK INTO THE BOTTLE IS OUT FOR GOOD.

Last October, Bill Meezan, my cousin, left his home in Columbus, Ohio, for a business trip to Philadelphia. Bill is the dean of Ohio State University's College of Social Work, and he travels quite a bit. In Philadelphia, he thought he felt an old cold coming back. Then he developed a nasty cough. On October 31, he went to the hospital.

He remembers nothing of that day, but Mike Brittenback recalls sharply how doctors in Philadelphia called him in Columbus to say they suspected pneumonia. Mike, an organist and choirmaster, is Bill's partner of 30 years. A few hours later that Friday, they called back to confirm the diagnosis. Mike was concerned but not alarmed.

At 3 a.m. the next day, the phone woke him up. It was a doctor in Philadelphia. Mike needed to come to Philadelphia immediately. Bill had gone into septic shock and might not survive more than a few hours.

* * *

"Here's the key principle," Peter Sprigg, a gay-marriage opponent with the Family Research Council, said in an April radio interview on Southern California's KCRW. "Society gives benefits to marriage because marriage gives benefits to society. And therefore the burden of proof has to be on the advocates of same-sex marriage to demonstrate that homosexual relationships benefit society. Not just benefit the individuals who participate but benefit society in the same way and to the same degree that heterosexual marriage does. And that's a burden that I don't think they can meet."

Can't they?

* * *

Having just been told, at 3 a.m., that his partner of three decades might die within hours, Mike Brittenback was told something else: Before rushing to Bill's side, he needed to collect and bring with him documents proving his medical power of attorney. This indignity, unheard-of in the world of heterosexual marriage, is a commonplace of American gay life.

The genie that gay-marriage opponents still hope to stuff back into the bottle is out and out for good.

Frantic, Mike tore through the house but could not find the papers. He would need to retrieve them from a safe-deposit box. Which was at a bank. Which did not open until 9 a.m.

Somehow Mike made it through the next six hours, "crying and frantic and all kinds of awful things running through my mind," fetched the documents, and got on the road. By some higher mercy, those lost hours did not cost Bill his life. When Mike arrived in Philadelphia on Saturday afternoon, Bill was still alive, though in grave danger.

Mike had packed clothes for a week.

* * *

National Review has a cover story this month by Maggie Gallagher, a prominent anti-gay-marriage activist, subtitled: "Why Gay Marriage Isn't Inevitable." She is right, in a sense. Most states explicitly ban same-sex marriage, often by constitutional amendment, and the country remains deeply divided. The national argument over marriage's meaning will go on for years to come.

In another sense, however, she is wrong. Never again will America not have gay marriage, and never again will less than a majority favor some kind of legal and social recognition for same-sex couples. The genie that gay-marriage opponents still hope to stuff back into the bottle is out and out for good.

Oddly, Gallagher, Sprigg, and other gay-marriage opponents don't understand why this has happened. It comes down not to demographics (young people are more likely than their elders to favor gay marriage, but the demographics are changing quite slowly), nor to liberal elites' cultural influence (Gallagher's explanation). It comes down to Mike and Bill.

* * *

At the hospital, Mike found Bill in an induced coma, attached to so much equipment that the only place Mike could touch him without touching a tube was on the forehead.

A vigil began. Mike spent days at Bill's bedside and nights at a hotel. His career and personal life mostly stopped while he fielded queries from friends and relatives, kept in close touch with Bill's anxious parents, and dealt with mail and household business from Columbus. Above all, he managed Bill's care.

Bill had repeated setbacks. Two cardiac arrests. The dialysis machine kept failing. Thrush spread to the lungs. Heart arrhythmia. Hallucinations. Trouble removing a breathing tube. In person by day, on the phone at night, doctors huddled with Mike.

Days stretched into weeks. Thanksgiving came and went. Six weeks passed in Philadelphia. "I never missed a day," Mike recalls. "I felt he needed me there. I really felt he knew I was there. He would smile when I came in, even when he was in an induced coma."

* * *

Peter Sprigg and Maggie Gallagher are cut from different cloths in some respects--Sprigg condemns homosexuality, whereas Gallagher accepts it--but they have in common what they offer to couples like Mike and Bill: silence. The same is true of nearly all other prominent opponents of same-sex marriage. (David Blankenhorn of the Institute for American Values is an honorable exception.)

If gay couples can't be allowed to marry, what should they be able to do? Asked this question, cultural conservatives say, in the words of Tom Lehrer's song about the German rocket scientist Wernher von Braun, "That's not my department." Effectively, conservatives are saying that what Mike and Bill do for each other has no significance outside their own bedroom.

If cultural conservatism continues to treat same-sex couples as outside the social covenant, the currents of history will flow right around it.

But what happened in that hospital in Philadelphia for those six weeks was not just Mike and Bill's business, a fact that is self-evident to any reasonable human being who hears the story. "Mike was making a medical decision at least once a day that would have serious consequences," Bill told me. Who but a life partner would or could have done that? Who but a life partner will drop everything to provide constant care? Bill's mother told me that if not for Mike, her son would have died. Faced with this reality, what kind of person, morally, simply turns away and offers silence?

Not the sort of person who populates the United States of America. If Republicans wonder why they find themselves culturally marginalized, particularly by younger Americans, they might consider the fact that when the party looks at couples like Mike and Bill it sees, in effect, nothing.

* * *

By Thanksgiving, Bill was stable enough to be brought out of sedation. As he drifted in and out of consciousness, he formulated a plan. Tubes and a tracheostomy prevented talking, but almost as soon as he could write on a whiteboard, he scrawled a message for Mike. "Will you marry me?"

Mike broke down. "I cried. It was tears of joy."

In January, now back in Columbus, Bill was finally released from the hospital, his weight down by more than a fourth. Over the next few months, he underwent weeks of physical therapy, and Mike developed post-traumatic stress disorder, and Bill's mother died, and Bill decided not to renew his deanship. In the press of events, the marriage proposal seemed to recede. In conversations with Mike, Bill equivocated about when to tie the knot.

* * *

Conservatives have a decision to make. They can continue pretending that the bond between Mike and Bill does not exist, is of no social value, or has no place on conservatives' agenda. Doing so would be of a piece with their retreat to economic Hooverism, their embrace of cultural Palinism, and, in general, their preference for purity over relevance.

Or they can acknowledge what to most of the country is already obvious: Whether the nation finally settles on marriage or on something else for gay couples, Bill and Mike are now in the mainstream and the Republican Party is not. If cultural conservatism continues to treat same-sex couples as outside the social covenant, the currents of history will flow right around it, and future generations of conservatives will wonder how their predecessors could ever have made such a callous and politically costly mistake.

* * *

This month, Mike and Bill will vacation on Cape Cod. Mike is expecting to relax. Bill has been shopping, secretly, for wedding rings. His equivocation, of course, is a ruse. Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts. On August 20, without warning Mike, Bill will produce the same whiteboard that he used in the hospital last year, and on it he will again write, "Will you marry me?" Four days later, they will be married in a small ceremony with friends.

"When I asked him to marry me in the hospital," Bill says, "I have never seen a smile on his face like that. I have never seen that kind of joy. Ever. I want to re-create that. And that's why I want this to be a surprise."

And so it will be, reader, if you can keep a secret.

Who knew what really unites Americans is our collective jaw?

God help the Republican Party and the United States: Sarah Palin's pronouncement on health care is based on a speech by one of the leading members of the On Golden Pond Caucus ("the loons, Norman, the loons!") in the GOP, Michelle Bachman.

H/t Andrew Sullivan:


Obama's Gonna Kill My Baby!

Sarahpalin_200908_477x600_7
And now the health insurance debate becomes some gruesome mix of camp and high farce. Sarah Palin contributes her policy ideas for health insurance reform:
The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

You thought it wouldn't get worse? Really?
(Photo courtesy of this fantastic series of photos in a slideshow from Runners' World.)

When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. When both are against you, just lie.

Illustrating the insanity of the conservative right, WorldNetDaily is both promoting the Kenyan"birth certificate" flogged by Savonarola and in the next breath claiming its "exclusive" investigation reveals it's a fake:

NEW YORK – The Kenyan birth document released by California attorney Orly Taitz is probably not authentic, according to WND's investigative operatives in Africa, though officials in Nairobi do not rule out the possibility President Obama may indeed have been born in their country.

Thursday, August 6, 2009

A question Savonarola won't crawl out from under his rock to answer

Are there any gay rights groups that are not radical? Define what makes them radical. Then, give an instance or two of what you think is a non-radical gay rights group.

If you dare.

For extra points: what's the difference between a homosexualist and a sodomite.

C'mon, tough guy- you're the #1 conservative blog in SC. Man up and deal with things. Don't just hack for loony toons right wing blog sites. Draw on all that Christianist hate you preen over and speak for yourself. If God's really on your side, hang it out for everyone to see.

Can Elvis on a grilled cheese sandwich be far off?

Boy Fogle, who last year claimed his blog was "transforming South Carolina politics" now thinks this headline is a scoop:

To no one's surprise, Savonarola can't handle the truth

Never mind that the Census Bureau started reporting same-sex household data after the 2000 census.

Savonarola's getting all flagellatory over the news that the Bureau plans to count same-sex marriages in states where it is legal.

Disclosure of actual facts about same-sex couples has been right-wing christianists' greatest fear for years. If you can quantify a thing, it's way harder to demonize it. Even as Daniel J. Cassidy wears out a priest in a closet at least once a week with his spew of hate, he wants same-sex couples pushed back into a closet. If same-sex couples are counted in states where their marriages are legal, after all, more federal money may flow those states' way.

Savvy's all about punishing those states for exercising their rights under the Constitution to give their citizens more rights than the federal government does.



Wednesday, August 5, 2009

It's another "Dynasty" shoulder-and-lily-pads- bitch fight: Boy Fogle, Anaconda, and their imaginary friends

Aww… wooks wike poor wittle Willie is a wittle jealous.

But there's more- McLovin's getting all butchy about it:
By now you have noticed that The Palmetto Scoop has undergone a pretty serious face lift. And hopefully you’ll agree it is pretty badass.
The latest version of TPS (3.0) is the product of months of suggestions, complaints, and general input from readers and fans. And I think it pretty well suits everyone’s requests including my own.
I absolutely love the design because it is crisp, clean, and offers easy access to the thing that keeps y’all coming back: Great content.
Trouble is, there's no new content at all. Scoop Doggy, if anything, has reduced his content. Adam Piper, whom Boy Fogle claims as a contributor- has posted exactly one post : in March. There's been nothing seen of cartoonist Mike Beckom since Waldo called him out for plagiarizing a National Review cover.


Nothing from the anonymous Wild Moose, either, even as Himself preens over the evils of anonymous blogging:
"It’s no secret that The Palmetto Scoop was an anonymous blog for the first three months of its existence. But then I decided to do the right thing and reveal my name.

After all, it was only fair to the folks of whom I was critical — and those I praised — to have a name to respond to. Plus, since I “outed” myself, I’ve been having a whole lot more fun blogging."

Then there's the vanished post announcing the addition of a financial advisor to the Fogledom. He never posted anything.

Then there was his five-minute self annunciation as the tribune of downtrodden SC taxpayers.

Then there was his two-minute self annunciation as The Cultural Critic of Columbia, and a string of subsequent reviews of performances he didn't attend.

Then there was his stint as Tourism Director of South Carolina.

If he didn't have Henry McMaster's campaign finance reports- and his paymasters' choke-chain- to spank the monkey over, he'd be mute.










Sounds like a Hell Buffet

Savonarola has completely supplanted Boy Fogle as the Margaret Dumont of the SC blogdom.

Today he is branching out from his usual work as a goodwill ambassador for the US Commission on Civil Rights to give some advice to college-bound young conservatives, printing the Princeton Review's evaluation of where to find the most religious college students in the US of A.

When you go to Princeton Review's list, what's fascinating is the other ratings Savvy's top twenty schools for aspiring Pharisees land on:

Demographics: Most Religious Students
Are students very religious?

Rank
School Name / Location

Wheaton College (IL)

Wheaton College offers academic programs rooted in the classic liberal art...More

Other Rankings
Most Conservative Students
Scotch and Soda, Hold the Scotch
More >

Hillsdale College
Hillsdale, MI

Hillsdale College has remained private, non-sectarian, coeducational and f...More

Other Rankings
Most Conservative Students
Don't Inhale
More >

University of Dallas
Irving, TX

The University of Dallas, known as "the Catholic university for independen...More

Other Rankings
Least Beautiful Campus
Most Conservative Students
More >

United States Air Force Academy
USAF Academy, CO

The Air Force Academy was established in 1954 to train and motivate Air Fo...More

Other Rankings
Is It Food?
Least Happy Students
More >

St. Anselm College
Manchester, NH

As a four-year Catholic liberal arts college in the Benedictine tradition,...More

Other Rankings


More >

Brandeis University
Waltham, MA

Other Rankings


More >

University of Utah
Salt Lake City, UT

Other Rankings


More >