>>"This vote showed that marriage matters."

You can't really believe this was the honest reason the Mormons, Lake Forest crowd, et al put forth Prop 8.

but it was....

It absolutely was not. If it was, why are the same parties now pushing to have the gay marriages that took place prior to Prop 8 annulled? Clearly their agenda extends well beyond the simple idea of "protecting marriage"- a premise which is in and of itself deeply flawed.

The fact that you buy so readily into the Warren crowd's propaganda indicates to me that maybe you should approach Townhall for some column space. They'd eat you up with a spoon.

Let me briefly expand, Travis...

I think you make the mistake of many beginning fiction writers - you decide who a villian is and then you give them villainous motivations...since you know, they are the villain. In fiction, this leads to one-dimensional characters.

In reality, most 'villains' are people who don't think of themselves as villains at all. They don't have fundamentally different motivations from everyone else - they make a series of choices based usually on trying to do what they think is correct. It may not work out that way. It may work out disastrously and may cause suffering to a lot of people. But it's not the one dimensional sort of thing that you seem to be implying.

Understanding how people can make wrong decisions without that intention is the key to empathy. That doesn't mean agreement or some sense of everyone's opinion leading to equally good consequences. But it does lead to understanding. It's not pollyannaish (as QT pointed out in another context recently) - quite the opposite it's realistic, not a cartoon fiction of our supposed enemy's motivations.

It's as simple as long division- whether they can admit it to themselves or not, on some intellectual level the leaders of the religious right know they aren't protecting "the institution of marriage" through things like Prop 8. Their worldview includes an imaginary gay culture that is dead set on overwhelming "traditional" society and (somehow) converting others to their sodomistic ways.

Understanding is one thing, enabling is another. You seem to live in some fantasy world where change is enacted by sitting on one's hands and hoping that everyone eventually realizes what's best. Basically the Invisible Hand as applied to the world as a whole. I'm guessing you're the type of person who owns stocks, so I can imagine you're currently learning the hard way how well Lasseiz Faire works in the economic sphere.

Forgive and forget doesn't float when the wronged are treated as second class citizens.

You guys know that this kind of divisive infighting is going to let the fundamentalist right take over the country again, right? You see that, don't you?

>>You guys know that this kind of divisive infighting is going to let the fundamentalist right take over the country again, right? You see that, don't you?

Define "infighting"

"infighting" - inability of people on the same side of an argument to agree with each other long enough to fight the other side instead of each other.

QT

Great post Lee. Keep up the good work.

In this context, I'd define infighting as general bickering between any of us who had hope to see change from the Bush administration. I know I am safe in saying that includes both Lee and Travis.
They my not like being lumped into the same grouping right now, but that's almost exactly my point. The radical right will find a way to take advantage, and the fragmented left will be so busy bickering about why this change was not enough, but that change was too much, that we will not even notice the powerful united fanatical right steamrolling us until it is too late.

If we cannot have an itelligent discussion about serious issues without it devolving into bickering and name calling, then we may as well just cancel the innauguration all together and let Bush stay in the WH. Seriously.

My friend Elwood Foreclift sums up the flaw in Rick Warren's argument about "redefining marriage" fairly well:
http://www.ieatgravel.com/?p=2303

Thanks QT - you said what I meant with so many fewer words!

>>In this context, I'd define infighting as general bickering between any of us who had hope to see change from the Bush administration. I know I am safe in saying that includes both Lee and Travis.

I'd argue that Lee is firmly planted in the Lieberman middle whereas I'm somewhere on the Sirota side of the left.

Which is to say, we're not for the same things at all.

>> Which is to say, we're not for the same things at all.

My point exactly. We might as well print up the Palin 2012 inaguraton tickets.

Travis - if by 'sitting on my hands' you mean that I've written a number of articles that articulated an approach that I think is the most effective way to win, then yeah - I do nothing. And obviously, I advocate doing nothing, too. Man, you nailed me.

And you pulled the Lieberman comparision out of your ass. Here's mine in language you'll understand - I'm Gandhi and you're Hitler. I am Fonzie and you are Potsie. I'm everything good, and you suck. Just like long division, my sixteen year old could figure that out in just a few hours.

Gee, Travis - it's FUN to write like you! It's a lot less work than trying to get to the reality of complex issues.

>>Travis - if by 'sitting on my hands' you mean that I've written a number of articles that articulated an approach that I think is the most effective way to win, then yeah - I do nothing. And obviously, I advocate doing nothing, too. Man, you nailed me.

Sitting on your hands- it's how you taught your kid math, isn't it?

Your approach is to coddle and praise hatemongers. That's the Gephardt way, and that won absolutely dick for the last 30 years.

>>And you pulled the Lieberman comparision out of your ass.

I'm fairly sure the first post I noticed by you was praising Obama for giving Lieberman the "no hard feelings" hug.

>>Gee, Travis - it's FUN to write like you! It's a lot less work than trying to get to the reality of complex issues.

Don't you have a moving slide show to upload to YouTube? While we're picking nits regarding style.

>>My point exactly. We might as well print up the Palin 2012 inaguraton tickets.

Well if people can't tell the difference between her and Obama, you might just be right. See also: 2000.

My 16 year old kid in college, you fuckwad? That one?

That's productive.

I know, douchebag - it's as productive as bring up long division in about 10 fucking posts. You're a total asshole and worse, you don't even know how to insult someone's children properly...

But for some reason you keep wanting to bring people's families up over and over and over. I guess your mother had trouble teaching you manners with my dick in her mouth...

That more productive, sweetheart?

>>>>My point exactly. We might as well print up the Palin 2012 inaguraton tickets.

>>Well if people can't tell the difference between her and Obama, you might just be right. See also: 2000.

Right. If this discussion is any predictor, there will be a dozen or more Democratic candidates in 20012: the "Rick Warren is a douche faction", the "Gates is a terrorist faction", etc., etc. All the while, the radical fundamentalists will consolidate behind the chosen figurehead - even if she is a fucking moron, she's "our" fucking moron.

While I'm still really positive about PE Obama, I'm getting a really bad feeling about how the country will let him govern. The mess left by previous admins is bad enough, but the impossible expectations by everyone else will quite possible doom him.

"I'd argue that Lee is firmly planted in the Lieberman middle whereas I'm somewhere on the Sirota side of the left."

Id say from everything I've been reading from both that that's a pretty accurate characterization.

People often forget that there are many shades to the homo rainbow..err lefty politics.

Lees wont budge on inch off his latest cause to champion and that's cool, its his right to think anyways he wants. What bugs the hell out of me is how the blog writer feels the need wrestle with the blog commenter in an attempt to invalidate their comments and basically gets into a pissing match with their readers. When you write a blog post that has comments enabled you are INVITING CRITISIAM. Deal with that.

Getting into it with commeters CONSITANTLY or in this case ONE specific commenter like its little pet project, is seriously stupid and that i submit is what is devise here.

Not that Travis doesn't agree with Lee, or that Travis can be caustic because god knows Lee can be caustic too. MANY people have said how they don't agree with Lee on this .. hell wasn't Bob just on the tube radio DISAGRREING with Lee the other day. He was, i know, i listened. Lee has decided to try to make Travis the bad guy and get down and dirty with him in the comments over and over and over and that my friends is devise, not that someone doesn't agree with Lee.

Ive told this to Lee offline so im sure he wont be surprised by my posting it here.

Alan - the hope I have is that Obama seems self-confident enough to keep on doing what he's doing...

And I'll apologize to everyone here for losing my shit in this comments thread.

>>I know, douchebag - it's as productive as bring up long division in about 10 fucking posts. You're a total asshole and worse, you don't even know how to insult someone's children properly...

I was goofing on you for not teaching your children, not your children. Massive difference. And I wouldn't know it if you didn't feel the need to turn this blog into your livejournal.

>>But for some reason you keep wanting to bring people's families up over and over and over. I guess your mother had trouble teaching you manners with my dick in her mouth...

Man you even throw insults like someone stuck in the 90's. Note I'm not joining in.

>>That more productive, sweetheart?

You're trying to be a Kenickie, but I think Arvin is more your speed.

Feel free to respond to my substantive points regarding strategy if you get the time between...whatever else you do.

Moving on to people who aren't crying into their beards-

>>While I'm still really positive about PE Obama, I'm getting a really bad feeling about how the country will let him govern. The mess left by previous admins is bad enough, but the impossible expectations by everyone else will quite possible doom him

I'd ask you what you think the left should do in response to rightward leans by the Obama team? Doing little-to-nothing turned Clinton from the man from Hope into the man from Welfare-to-Work and Don't Ask Don't Tell.

I don't see how pressure from the left is a necessarily bad thing, unless you're Steve Hildebrand.

>>Ive told this to Lee offline so im sure he wont be surprised by my posting it here.

Hmmmmmm.

Also, word up sister. Good looking out.

Jenny, really? You really think Lee drew first blood in this thread, or you're just partial to people who see things as you do?

Honestly - the long division thing is a personal ad hominem having absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, and intending only to piss Lee off. I think that's shitty. With no asterisks.

QT

>>I'd ask you what you think the left should do in response to rightward leans by the Obama team? Doing little-to-nothing turned Clinton from the man from Hope into the man from Welfare-to-Work and Don't Ask Don't Tell.

>>I don't see how pressure from the left is a necessarily bad thing, unless you're Steve Hildebrand.

I'm not saying there shouldn'be pressure, or critisism, or disagreement with the incoming administration. There damn well should be. It's the tone of the argument that I think is destructive.

As far as 'forgive and forget' not working, let's ask the South Africans. I don't remember a parade of Apartheid government officials going to prison after Mandela's Truth and Reconciliation commissions.

Lee, I like the way you think. Thanks for staying vocal.

>>I'm not saying there shouldn'be pressure, or critisism, or disagreement with the incoming administration. There damn well should be. It's the tone of the argument that I think is destructive.

How specifically should people who are against science and civil rights be described in internal discussions between the center and the left?

I think setting the bar low and soft peddaling the issues got us John Kerry '04.

QT: i dont care who drew "first blood" I care that there are people bleeding. To care who started it reeks to me if "i know you are but what am i"

Am i partial to people who agree with me? i can be sometimes but really round theres here parts i more partial to Lee since he's an Online buddy and Travis well we've had .. umm words. Though im warming up to him quite a bit :)

So your analysis of my motivation is soooooo far off base its laughable

Honestly Lee please continue to present your views as you at least do it respectfully. Comments like Travis writes are not helpful....really Travis it is easy to sit back and be a critic but ultimately not at all useful. How does bitching change anything?

>>How specifically should people who are against science and civil rights be described in internal discussions between the center and the left?

Who, in this thread, are you speaking of?

I will not take up the debate about Mr. Warren - you have clearly made up your mind and it's obvious no one can change it. Your point has been made - some agree with you, some don't. Any further discussion is just arguing, and that is counterproductive, and exactly what I think is wrong.

>>Any further discussion is just arguing, and that is counterproductive, and exactly what I think is wrong.

The premise of this thread is "Yet Another Defense of Homphobia, Chapter XXI". That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with discussing differing viewpoints, or discussion in general. It's a free-ish country.

I made no analysis - I asked a question based on what I saw exclusively in this thread. I'm not suggesting who's buddies with whom - I don't know that.

And - my only reason to ask about the first blood thing is that you seemed to say that Lee was making Travis a bad guy, where it seems that they were disagreeing amicably until Travis said something unkind and intending to draw ire. I don't see any real reason for Travis to do that - he can make his point without attacking Lee (or his kid) personally.

That is all.

QT

If anyone saw what I wrote as a defense of homophobia, I believe it's because that is what they want to see. You may not think my arguement will be effective but I think it's very clearly a direct response to and argument against homophobia.

This deliberate misrepresentation of my views amount to calling me a homophobe. It's part of a pattern of attacks that don't just disagree with me but that also call my actual motivations into question. Eg, I should write for conversative website Townhall, I'm Joe Lieberman, and so on...

That draws my ire, too.

Travis: The premise of this thread is NOT a defense of "homophobia." The only person who would make any defense of anything that could be called "homophobia" by you guys is me. Lee isn't making that case - he's making the case of how to talk to people who otherwise aren't going to listen.

QT

>>The premise of this thread is "Yet Another Defense of Homphobia, Chapter XXI". That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with discussing differing viewpoints, or discussion in general. It's a free-ish country.

After a week or so of this, I think it's gone beyond a discussion. Regardless of the initial intent of this thread, or even someone else's interpretation of what the thread was about, I've chosen to comment on what I felt was important to me based on what I've read (the whole free-ish country thing, doncha' know).

>>deliberate misrepresentation of my views
>>I'm Joe Lieberman

Come again?

Read my Lieberman post and I'm pretty positive I said I don't like or agree with Lieberman. Again, I think it's a point I made clearly - don't like him, but Obama did the right thing.

So, again - it's deliberate misrepresentation of what I said.

"I asked a question based on what I saw exclusively in this thread."

well then the answer to your question is No, I'm not.

When you interject your personal life into a blog post then you damn well better expect that people could pick up on that and possibly use that against you. Blogging and using the Internet 101 don't post anything you don't want people to know about you or could use to hurt you. This is NOT a private conversation and neither i posting a CONTROVERAL blog topic where you specifically use your own children as an example private.

>>I'm fairly sure the first post I noticed by you was praising Obama for giving Lieberman the "no hard feelings" hug.

That's the sentence I wrote. You're not really reading my posts, are you.

>>You're not really reading my posts, are you.

Seems to be a lot of that going around lately.

The sentence you wrote was "I'd argue that Lee is firmly planted in the Lieberman middle whereas I'm somewhere on the Sirota side of the left."

And there's no truth to it. And you used Lieberman as an example of the 'middle' because Lieberman is hated. So, no - I read just fine.

And Jenny -that's just not the point at all. If someone was attacking you in a comment thread for stuff you've 'revealed' when it NOTHING to do with the topic, I'd tell them to stop. It's bullshit.

A lot of people mention personal stuff. That doesn't make it fair game for anyone to use whenever and however they like...and if they do it to piss off someone, don't be shocked if it pisses them off.

I used Lieberman as example because he's more well known than Evan Bayh or Ben Nelson. It's your Gang of Fourteen approach to the issues that strikes me. Hence I'm not actually inferring that you ARE Joe Lieberman, but you're equally as willing to give in to the wrong ideas that have been weighing this country down for the past 3 decades or so.

By your logic, I claimed to be David Sirota. Don't I wish.

I don't have a gang of anything response. I'm just as progressive on issues as Sirota. I care enough about those ideals that I want to win, not flail around in a self satisfied way and call names.

I know, douchebag - it's as productive as bring up long division in about 10 fucking posts. You're a total asshole and worse, you don't even know how to insult someone's children properly...

But for some reason you keep wanting to bring people's families up over and over and over. I guess your mother had trouble teaching you manners with my dick in her mouth...

That more productive, sweetheart?

OK, someone had asked, "define infighting."

I guess the answer is, "That."

At some point, this does become one of those Life of Brian People's Front of Judea hating the shit out of the Judean People's Front.

Suffice to say, I think that Lee is looking to make lemonade out of lemons. Extending this metaphor, I think that those of us who disagree with him on this issue see it as a matter of a misapprehension of the thing in question being a lemon, when the fruit in question is more like a poison berry. You CAN'T make a tasty drink out of it, no matter how you try.

Better to cultivate different, and more plentiful fruit.

BUT there really is no need to genuinely hate one another. This actually is the textbook definition of becoming disagreeable while disagreeing.

I disagree with Lee on this point, about Warren. I don't want to drive to his house and throw a bag of shit at his door because of it. I hope, in the discussion, he has not portioned out a bag of shit with my name scrawled in Sharpee on it, and consulted Google Maps for the best route to my door.

I think the same may not be able to be said between Travis and Lee.

Josh - you and I do disagree on some points but I've never taken it personally nor thought you were out of line in any way. I hope I haven't said anything to make you think otherwise, too...

"...and if they do it to piss off someone, don't be shocked if it pisses them off."

I'm not shocked it pisses you off, of course it pisses you off. Im just saying that you had to know or should have known that when you put personal shit out there especially controversial personal shit people will use that, trust me i know from experience. I'm a controversial bitch. Don't have a cow over it and in the process shine a big bright spot light on it, now everyone knows how to really piss Lee off and the whole community gets to to drink a big glass of poison berry lemonade as a byproduct.

"Knowing the divorce statistics, knowing that people change over time and knowing that the incredible and powerful feeling of being in love can change radically with time - we still choose to stand up and say that we are ready to risk pain and heartache by stepping into the important and life changing event called marriage. We want the freedom to take that risk.

Because...we love."

I really like that, Lee.

Jenny - At a certain point, I've come to feel that Travis is just disagreeable for no purpose other than to be a troll. There's a pattern and in the past couple of days, I don't feel like ignoring what is obvious.

You're holding me responsible for his behavior and I don't agree. I've already apologized for my behavior.

Travis accused me using this blog as my livejournal. You've said 'when did this become Lee's blog'? Both of those basically come down to 'shut up, Lee'.

If Bob is unhappy with my posting or commenting, he has yet to share with it with me. But I think the two of you telling me to shut up in public isn't a real community building exercise, either.

Thanks Kat - I liked that part, too. Reworked it a couple of times. That's really it, in essence, I think...

And I repeat (pointlessly, apparently):

>> You guys know that this kind of divisive infighting is going to let the fundamentalist right take over the country again, right? You see that, don't you?

Alan - right now, I think it's more about netiquette on this specific board as much as anything and I'd prefer to thrash it out and get it over with, if that's possible...

>>Alan - right now, I think it's more about netiquette on this specific board as much as anything and I'd prefer to thrash it out and get it over with, if that's possible...

That may be your intent right now Lee, but I fear it's just a harbinger of things to come on a wider stage. I hope I'm wrong...

Im holding you responsible Lee because you are the blog writer. Maybe you don't get the role you are in. you set the agenda,(write the blog) the commenter's react (post their comments). But you want to set the agenda and then also be the reactor. When you want to be both parties, then you get this as a result. A pissing match.

Clarifying a position or answering a question or updating a thought cuz facts change is one thing but you get into with the commenter's when they don't agree.

its kinda controlling, i mean let the people diss-a-fucking-agree with you.

I think calling Travis a troll is out of pocket. hes not a troll and if you really believed that, why do you insisting in feeding him big healthy meals.

"if Bob is unhappy with my posting or commenting, he has yet to share with it with me."

I guess that about sums it up. Im sharing with you but im not Bob, so i guess my thoughts are invalid huh?

Hmm.
The thin veneer of civility is so easily stripped away.
To state the obvious: Ad hominem attacks serve no purpose other than provide some measure of satisfaction to the attacker. Nastiness sure as hell isn't going to convince someone to change their point of view.
Frankly, this vitriol is becoming tiring, and I don't give a shit "who started it."
Don't MAKE me stop this car!

>>Frankly, this vitriol is becoming tiring, and I don't give a shit "who started it."
>>Don't MAKE me stop this car!

Are we there yet?

Same thing I'm feeling Packy!

The whole arc of the discussion here, between the attempted salvaging of Lieberman and the perceived salvaging of the people Warren represents, it makes me wonder:

Were we not in 2008, but rather the late 1780s, would alternate-timeline Lee Stranahan be one of those people arguing vigorously that the best course of action is to revise the Articles of Confederation in a more measured, gradual manner and finding the idea of a secret convention to craft a new and wholly different governing document too crazy?

I think really, this is the nature of all of these points of disagreement so far. Do you salvage a faulty system/dynamic, or do you try to build a wholly new one to replace it (especially when the iron is hot to do so?)

Video game-wise, I find that the former approach is the 90s Sega one; with increasingly byzantine add-on units that are constrained by both the form factor and hard-wiring of the base console. The idea seems sound on paper; you have an installed user-base, why not try to appease it by not forcing them to get a totally new set of hardware that is not backwards compatible with their existing library? Moving forward, SOME of the new software requires the additional units, but you're still servicing and adding to the previous "version's" library.

But it is a losing strategy in practice, as it a)limits the progress of the software for the add-on units because of the legacy hardware underneath and b)creates a strange 2 branched user base, with a majority of users sticking to the original, unmodified console and a minority of adopters, who become increasingly irate because they feel like they've gone out on a limb and been loyal, but aren't being adequately catered to (because the original base, sans update, still is the majority).

Also, at PZ Myers' site today, there's a post about how evangelicals numbers rise during woeful times; in a way, it is a better sort of "programming," for their strategists, for maximum membership, that times remain hard indefinitely. Suffering in the system is not a bug, it is a feature.

Warren, not being quite as rubbery and easy to spot as the previous models, makes you think that somehow, he's different, but it is the same product. It requires a suffering populace to turn to his product.

I suggest that YES, marginalizing the need for evangelicals by creating actual progress is the way to go. Along the way, this also entails marginalizing actual evangelicals.

It is an incompatible system with progress, no matter how many 32X CD drives you try to place ontop of it.

Also, as this previous election proved, YOU DON'T NEED THEM TO WIN ELECTIONS. So prove what you can do without them, and do it, and keep on winning elections. Along the way, creating genuine prosperity reduces the demand for the evangelical product, so their numbers dwindle to a manageable, marginal amount over time.

Regardless of your empathy, you must understand that their core principles entail stripping others (including your daughters and mine) of their rights, stopping science and progress and retarding learning. That is something which not only needs to be opposed whereever it crops up, but also defeated. In a very real sense, their ideology IS the enemy, as it is the enemy of reason, and reason is needed to not only survive, but make survival enjoyable. Theirs is an eschatology that welcomes the imminent end of the world; that shit can't be invited in for coffee.

It is hard, because their propagation strategy is very easy and requires little work (say this magic sentence and PRESTO you are saved and important!... Now buy into all this crap, too, to keep it up), and ours requires front-loading of understanding and learning things which are nuanced.

Ultimately, I am an optimist in that I believe that smartness will eventually always win over stupidity, even if stupidity has flare-ups, because stupidity can't innovate or maintain working systems.

>>Were we not in 2008, but rather the late 1780s, would alternate-timeline Lee Stranahan be one of those people arguing vigorously that the best course of action is to revise the Articles of Confederation in a more measured, gradual manner and finding the idea of a secret convention to craft a new and wholly different governing document too crazy?

He'd have gone back to Britain ages ago. (Seeing where we are now as a nation and where the UK is, I actually think he would have been making the right move for his ancestors.)

>>It is an incompatible system with progress, no matter how many 32X CD drives you try to place ontop of it.

Sadly your target audience won't get this but I do. 4.5/5 starzzz