Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The Culture War

Expand Messages
  • Gregory
    After this weeks outcome in Maine and Texas I share what I blogged earlier today. First however a sincere THANK YOU to those who lived in either state and
    Message 1 of 6 , Nov 10, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      After this weeks outcome in Maine and Texas I share what I blogged
      earlier today. First however a sincere THANK YOU to those who lived
      in either state and voted for equality.

      Now my thoughts...

      Civil rights have always been in the forefront in my thinking. I was
      drawn to the world of concern of Rosa Parks, and others like her,
      while in high school and never have forgotten the need to help insure
      all people are treated fairly in our society.

      Today however the culture warriors are hell-bent on undermining the
      basic code of equality and what living in America represents. With
      large amounts of funding they are determined to add hatred into state
      constitutions and work to place federal judges with "constructionist'
      views in power.

      This past week two states dealt with the issue of gay rights. Maine
      and Texas came to different conclusions. But the general consensus
      across the nation from many Americans is that civil rights for gay
      people should be voted on by the masses. That did not happen for Rosa
      Parks, Catholics, the handicapped, or any other group in our history.
      Gay people, it appears, are to being judged for civil rights
      eligibility by an electorate that too often can't name their local
      State Representative, or the basic concepts of democracy in America..

      The lowest common denominators are shaping civil rights for many
      millions of Americans!

      So let me see if I have this correct.

      Gay teenagers can help decorate and promote the local high school
      prom, listen as their friends announce who their date will be, but
      are unable to take the person of their choice to the same dance.

      Later gay people can invest time and money in weddings for those same
      friends, then await the announcement of children and show added
      support by buying presents for the youngsters.

      As taxpaying gay adults they get the pleasure of insuring tax
      deductions go for the families of those who get to marry.

      But then something strange happens. Many Americans find that loving
      relationships need to fit their model and decline to reciprocate with
      laws that afford equal rights to gay people.. Cultural warriors would
      like to convince us that gay relationships are bringing down the
      institution of marriage. One can read almost daily that gay Americans
      are somehow responsible for the decline in the moral underpinnings of
      America.

      It should be noted here that many gay relationships have stronger
      underpinnings and longevity than that of the heterosexual community,
      but why mix facts in with a good old-fashioned cross-burning
      mentality as exhibited by James Dobson and his ilk.

      In addition to blanket hatred that comes as a result of the cultural
      war against gay Americans comes the added insult of depriving many
      the rights that come with the marriage license.

      If a city bus hit a gay person there is no spousal privilege to allow
      his/her partner to visit in the hospital. If that victim wanted to
      sue the bus company there is no testimonial immunity in legal matters
      for his/her partner. If they wanted to undertake rehabilitation
      through a local gym or YMCA there are no family discounts for gay
      couples.

      In fact there are no family privileges for gay families riding the
      bus in the first place.

      Where I live (a liberal island of sanity) it is not uncommon to see
      gay men and women walk down the street hand in hand. This is always a
      serious matter for the cultural warriors who denounce any such act as
      just "lewd activity." What about the children they scream?

      Well my response would be after watching the latest hatred through
      balloting measures these past weeks that perhaps a dose of public
      love is required. It appears that hand holding upsets the religious
      right so much as it confirms that families come in variety of
      designs. And each of those families shares the bond of love.

      The true measure of what we are as Americans will be shown by how
      strong we stand up to hatred and reject the simplistic and irrational
      arguments by the latest incarnation of those who wish for more Salem
      witch trials.
    • THOMAS JOHNSON
      I think Eisenhower was the last Republican not to demonize.. well there was McCarthy.. Anybody know where Ike came down on McCarthy? ...
      Message 2 of 6 , Nov 11, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        I think Eisenhower was the last Republican not to
        demonize.. well there was McCarthy.. Anybody know
        where Ike came down on McCarthy?

        --- Gregory <greggolopry@...> wrote:

        > After this weeks outcome in Maine and Texas I share
        > what I blogged
        > earlier today. First however a sincere THANK YOU
        > to those who lived
        > in either state and voted for equality.
        >
        > Now my thoughts...
        >
        > Civil rights have always been in the forefront in my
        > thinking. I was
        > drawn to the world of concern of Rosa Parks, and
        > others like her,
        > while in high school and never have forgotten the
        > need to help insure
        > all people are treated fairly in our society.
        >
        > Today however the culture warriors are hell-bent on
        > undermining the
        > basic code of equality and what living in America
        > represents. With
        > large amounts of funding they are determined to add
        > hatred into state
        > constitutions and work to place federal judges with
        > "constructionist'
        > views in power.
        >
        > This past week two states dealt with the issue of
        > gay rights. Maine
        > and Texas came to different conclusions. But the
        > general consensus
        > across the nation from many Americans is that civil
        > rights for gay
        > people should be voted on by the masses. That did
        > not happen for Rosa
        > Parks, Catholics, the handicapped, or any other
        > group in our history.
        > Gay people, it appears, are to being judged for
        > civil rights
        > eligibility by an electorate that too often can't
        > name their local
        > State Representative, or the basic concepts of
        > democracy in America..
        >
        > The lowest common denominators are shaping civil
        > rights for many
        > millions of Americans!
        >
        > So let me see if I have this correct.
        >
        > Gay teenagers can help decorate and promote the
        > local high school
        > prom, listen as their friends announce who their
        > date will be, but
        > are unable to take the person of their choice to the
        > same dance.
        >
        > Later gay people can invest time and money in
        > weddings for those same
        > friends, then await the announcement of children and
        > show added
        > support by buying presents for the youngsters.
        >
        > As taxpaying gay adults they get the pleasure of
        > insuring tax
        > deductions go for the families of those who get to
        > marry.
        >
        > But then something strange happens. Many Americans
        > find that loving
        > relationships need to fit their model and decline to
        > reciprocate with
        > laws that afford equal rights to gay people..
        > Cultural warriors would
        > like to convince us that gay relationships are
        > bringing down the
        > institution of marriage. One can read almost daily
        > that gay Americans
        > are somehow responsible for the decline in the moral
        > underpinnings of
        > America.
        >
        > It should be noted here that many gay relationships
        > have stronger
        > underpinnings and longevity than that of the
        > heterosexual community,
        > but why mix facts in with a good old-fashioned
        > cross-burning
        > mentality as exhibited by James Dobson and his ilk.
        >
        > In addition to blanket hatred that comes as a result
        > of the cultural
        > war against gay Americans comes the added insult of
        > depriving many
        > the rights that come with the marriage license.
        >
        > If a city bus hit a gay person there is no spousal
        > privilege to allow
        > his/her partner to visit in the hospital. If that
        > victim wanted to
        > sue the bus company there is no testimonial immunity
        > in legal matters
        > for his/her partner. If they wanted to undertake
        > rehabilitation
        > through a local gym or YMCA there are no family
        > discounts for gay
        > couples.
        >
        > In fact there are no family privileges for gay
        > families riding the
        > bus in the first place.
        >
        > Where I live (a liberal island of sanity) it is not
        > uncommon to see
        > gay men and women walk down the street hand in hand.
        > This is always a
        > serious matter for the cultural warriors who
        > denounce any such act as
        > just "lewd activity." What about the children they
        > scream?
        >
        > Well my response would be after watching the latest
        > hatred through
        > balloting measures these past weeks that perhaps a
        > dose of public
        > love is required. It appears that hand holding
        > upsets the religious
        > right so much as it confirms that families come in
        > variety of
        > designs. And each of those families shares the bond
        > of love.
        >
        > The true measure of what we are as Americans will be
        > shown by how
        > strong we stand up to hatred and reject the
        > simplistic and irrational
        > arguments by the latest incarnation of those who
        > wish for more Salem
        > witch trials.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        > --------------------~-->
        > Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make
        > Yahoo! your home page
        >
        http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/CvmplB/TM
        >
        --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        > prezveepsenator-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Ram Lau
        ... Ike didn t like him at all but didn t do much to rid him either, pretty much consistent with his lukewarm attitude towards everything:
        Message 3 of 6 , Nov 11, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          > I think Eisenhower was the last Republican not to
          > demonize.. well there was McCarthy.. Anybody know
          > where Ike came down on McCarthy?

          Ike didn't like him at all but didn't do much to rid him either,
          pretty much consistent with his lukewarm attitude towards everything:

          http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/34_eisenhower/eisenhower_politics.html

          "Eisenhower defended his refusal to denounce McCarthy publicly,
          claiming that to do so would only further polarize the nation and
          reward McCarthy with additional publicity. To his aides, Eisenhower
          vowed, 'I will not get into the gutter with this guy.' By the end of
          1953, polls indicated that at least half of all Americans had a
          favorable impression of McCarthy and his tactics. Emboldened by such
          support, McCarthy set out to widen the scope of his investigations.
          This time, however, he would go too far."

          Ram
        • THOMAS JOHNSON
          Thanks, Ram. More questions, if I may. Did Hoover, Coolidge or Harding need to frame their presidencies with enemies? I think it would be safe to say that
          Message 4 of 6 , Nov 11, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Thanks, Ram. More questions, if I may. Did Hoover,
            Coolidge or Harding need to frame their presidencies
            with enemies? I think it would be safe to say that
            Wilson did with communism, but how about LBJ? How
            about FDR, Truman, Carter and Clinton? Just ignore
            this if I'm out of line with too many questions.

            Tom



            --- Ram Lau <ramlau@...> wrote:

            > > I think Eisenhower was the last Republican not to
            > > demonize.. well there was McCarthy.. Anybody know
            > > where Ike came down on McCarthy?
            >
            > Ike didn't like him at all but didn't do much to rid
            > him either,
            > pretty much consistent with his lukewarm attitude
            > towards everything:
            >
            >
            http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/34_eisenhower/eisenhower_politics.html
            >
            > "Eisenhower defended his refusal to denounce
            > McCarthy publicly,
            > claiming that to do so would only further polarize
            > the nation and
            > reward McCarthy with additional publicity. To his
            > aides, Eisenhower
            > vowed, 'I will not get into the gutter with this
            > guy.' By the end of
            > 1953, polls indicated that at least half of all
            > Americans had a
            > favorable impression of McCarthy and his tactics.
            > Emboldened by such
            > support, McCarthy set out to widen the scope of his
            > investigations.
            > This time, however, he would go too far."
            >
            > Ram
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
            > --------------------~-->
            > Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make
            > Yahoo! your home page
            >
            http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/CvmplB/TM
            >
            --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            > prezveepsenator-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • Ram Lau
            ... Tom, Enemies as in wars, definitely. Don t forget that LBJ had to start a war on poverty on top of Vietnam. It s a matter of legacy. There seems to be a
            Message 5 of 6 , Nov 11, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              > Thanks, Ram. More questions, if I may. Did Hoover,
              > Coolidge or Harding need to frame their presidencies
              > with enemies? I think it would be safe to say that
              > Wilson did with communism, but how about LBJ? How
              > about FDR, Truman, Carter and Clinton?

              Tom,

              Enemies as in "wars," definitely. Don't forget that LBJ had to start a
              war on poverty on top of Vietnam. It's a matter of legacy.

              There seems to be a theme in each presidency, with some being more
              obvious and intentional than the others. Coolidge is definitely best
              known as the laissez faire Sir Sleep-A-Lot (with a 2-4 hour nap every
              afternoon); Hoover, the fishing geek who had the most tragic
              presidency in history (as seen in Carter's to a lesser extent);
              Truman, the partisan yet veracious straight shooter (half a century
              before McCain); Carter, the Plains guy who can't tell a lie; Clinton,
              the slick Rhodes scholar political genius and the first "Black
              President" beloved by the majority of the country even during his
              impeachment days.

              So the "enemies" depend much on the current events. The Cold War
              presidents all had an enemy by default. During the sixties, it
              definitely got "heated up" with Khrushchev and Mao. (LBJ was literally
              forced to go all out with Vietnam thanks to his insecurity about
              looking soft on Communism. I really think JFK would have handled the
              situation differently.) Having said all that, it was Reagan the actor
              who stole all credit for ending the Cold War that took decades of
              effort of all the Presidents since Ike anyway. Reagan made the
              baby-boomers "feel good about being themselves again" but future
              generations will eventually judge him with much more serious scrutiny.

              Didn't mean to single out Harding. But my guess is that Harding would
              have been a Grant redux had he lived longer. (The current President
              took it to another level.) Finally, note that Nixon doesn't belong to
              this group.

              Ram
            • THOMAS JOHNSON
              Ram.. Thank you, as always, for answering my questions. I just read this in a short bio on Grant: Grant learned that he was dying of throat cancer. He wrote
              Message 6 of 6 , Nov 14, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Ram.. Thank you, as always, for answering my
                questions. I just read this in a short bio on Grant:

                Grant learned that he was dying of throat cancer. He
                wrote his autobiography so that his family would not
                be penniless. Mark Twains helped get the book
                published. It was a success and brought the Grant
                family over half a million dollars.

                We had a discussion some time back about Twain's
                involvement in Grant's book. It would appear Twain was
                at least in the periphery, although far from clear
                whether he ghosted, as HST opined.

                Tom



                --- Ram Lau <ramlau@...> wrote:

                > > Thanks, Ram. More questions, if I may. Did Hoover,
                > > Coolidge or Harding need to frame their
                > presidencies
                > > with enemies? I think it would be safe to say
                > that
                > > Wilson did with communism, but how about LBJ? How
                > > about FDR, Truman, Carter and Clinton?
                >
                > Tom,
                >
                > Enemies as in "wars," definitely. Don't forget that
                > LBJ had to start a
                > war on poverty on top of Vietnam. It's a matter of
                > legacy.
                >
                > There seems to be a theme in each presidency, with
                > some being more
                > obvious and intentional than the others. Coolidge is
                > definitely best
                > known as the laissez faire Sir Sleep-A-Lot (with a
                > 2-4 hour nap every
                > afternoon); Hoover, the fishing geek who had the
                > most tragic
                > presidency in history (as seen in Carter's to a
                > lesser extent);
                > Truman, the partisan yet veracious straight shooter
                > (half a century
                > before McCain); Carter, the Plains guy who can't
                > tell a lie; Clinton,
                > the slick Rhodes scholar political genius and the
                > first "Black
                > President" beloved by the majority of the country
                > even during his
                > impeachment days.
                >
                > So the "enemies" depend much on the current events.
                > The Cold War
                > presidents all had an enemy by default. During the
                > sixties, it
                > definitely got "heated up" with Khrushchev and Mao.
                > (LBJ was literally
                > forced to go all out with Vietnam thanks to his
                > insecurity about
                > looking soft on Communism. I really think JFK would
                > have handled the
                > situation differently.) Having said all that, it was
                > Reagan the actor
                > who stole all credit for ending the Cold War that
                > took decades of
                > effort of all the Presidents since Ike anyway.
                > Reagan made the
                > baby-boomers "feel good about being themselves
                > again" but future
                > generations will eventually judge him with much more
                > serious scrutiny.
                >
                > Didn't mean to single out Harding. But my guess is
                > that Harding would
                > have been a Grant redux had he lived longer. (The
                > current President
                > took it to another level.) Finally, note that Nixon
                > doesn't belong to
                > this group.
                >
                > Ram
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                > --------------------~-->
                > Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make
                > Yahoo! your home page
                >
                http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/CvmplB/TM
                >
                --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
                >
                >
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                > prezveepsenator-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.