MaDD Blogger

When bloggers attack....

For the last few weeks I've been reading the blog of one of our site members, Naoko Bloomtree. Naoko and I don't agree on most major issues but I enjoy his point of view. The other day he blogged about an incident that occurred on MSNBC's Imus in the Morning program that involved host Don Imus and Hardball's Chris Matthews making crude jokes about the movie Brokeback Mountain that caused GLAAD to call for an apology from MSNBC, Imus, and Matthews. It is my belief that while the humor was indeed crude that Imus and Matthews are not in fact homophobic and that GLAAD was making much ado about nothing. Naoko disagreed and a fantastic debate ensued. The following is the original post with all the comments back and forth. My comments are labeled maddhatt with his labeled progblog. What really surprised me is how much I ended up agreeing with him on though I do still hold my original belief. Enjoy! 1/30/2006 - Chris Matthews and Don Imus Like Telling Fag Jokes

Last week on Don Imus' show, Matthews and Imus were making jokes about the movie Brokeback Mountain. Calling it instead things like "Bareback Mounting" and "Fudgepack Mountain."    There has been no apology from Matthews or MSNBC on the matter. MSNBC just said it was unfortunate that it aired. Yes, that's it, just "unfortunate" for all the people who not only get enough homophobic crap in their lives day to day but to get it on news programs they are watching as well and from people who are oblivious to the concept of news with objectivity. Matthews is absurdly conservative and it is sad that in this era we have news anchors bias' making up their news programs, especially since they are selling themselves more than the actual news they should be concerned with reporting on and going this far is one of the worst ways of going too far with your ignorant bias.   There is a boycott starting up against Matthews and MSNBC. To find out more visit http://www.openlettertochrismatthews.blogspot.com/   And GLAAD has responded to it as well. http://www.glaad.org/action/alerts_detail.php?id=3854&PHPSESSID=388b7549f492a06c0ebd791a34ea634c   You can also see a video clip and the transcript to the junior high, homophobic idiots at http://www.glaad.org/

1/30/2006 - A few points...

Posted by maddhatt

I wouldn't classify Chris Matthews as a true conservative. I see him as more of a moderate Democrat with conservative values that stem from his Catholic upbringing. As for Imus I've been a fan for over 10 years and he does indeed make gay jokes but he has also defended gays in the past on his shows and had gay authors like Harvard Professor Peter J. Gomes on as guests and promoted their books. I've been reading your blog for a while now and feel it is one of the best ones that we have here at JBM and I'm saying that not only as the founder of this site but someone who is black, Republican, Pro-Life, and conservative. Our positions are totally opposite on most issues but that's why I started this site. I want as many opposing views as possible and I love the effort you put into this blog. A lot of straight guys just don't understand the gay lifestyle or at the very least find it funny and despite what agenda driven groups like GLAAD say I don't believe that makes you homophobic. I've heard several black jokes from my white friends over the years but I didn't turn around and say that they were racists. I have friends that are openly gay and they've told black jokes and I've told them gay jokes and we just laughed and went out to dinner. We've also discussed gay marriage something I was totally against at first but I seem to be leaning more towards the marriage for all side. I'm just saying that I don't believe that either Matthews or Imus is homophobic just because they joked about gays or Brokeback Mountain. That movie is ripe for parody.

1/30/2006 - Untitled Comment

Posted by progblog

Chris Matthews can be considered conservative because of where he stands on particular issues and whether it's generally considered a position that conservatives generally hold. The line between liberal and conservative is not exactly concrete and is always changing but being homophobic is something that is generally on the conservative side until that changes eventually. Not that liberals are not homophobic though. And saying it's a result of his Catholic upbringing is kind of vapid. I was brought up Catholic, so have many others. And homophobia is not something that is generally taught within Catholicism. And letting jokes towards gays slide because he's defended gays for whatever reasons or had people who are gay on his show doesn't mean much. With this kind of rationale, I suppose Hugo Chavez is not Anti-United States because he does business with us or has some American friends. And perhaps Hitler should not be tagged as an anti-semite because he was related to some people who practiced Judaism. And people can have varying degrees of homophobia or racism, just because there is some small area that they are not homophobic or racist, doesn't mean you can totally wipe the slate clean as if they are not at all. And it is homophobic to make negative comments about gays, for no reason other than because they are gay. People who usually make negative comments like that, do so because there is enough contempt on their part to do so. I am waiting for a movie about two heterosexual couples getting together and to hear Chris Matthews make jokes about them. And when he does, will it just be about the sexual aspects of heterosexuality? Almost all negative homosexual remarks are based only on the sexual aspects, leaving out the 90% of what the rest of gay relationships are about and why? Because homosexuality is not the norm, so it is to be ridiculed by people and all they see is the "physical stuff" happening between someone who has a penis or vagina, with another person who has the same sex organ as them. And in recent years there has been a lot of interest in getting rid of racism and homophobia and showing it as a negative thing, which it is. But what you get from that are people who are racist or homophobic, not wanting to believe they are because there is so much negativity about it and them not wanting to be viewed in such a negative light. And the best way to not believe you are racist or homophobic, is to compare themselves with someone who is even more racist or homophobic. My brother believes he's not racist. Never mind that he believes that people of color are inherently lazy, that they don't like to work, that they prefer to be poor and have no interest in going higher up the economic ladder, that they like to get free money from the government, that most are in gangs, on drugs, or only like hip-hop, basically that they have particular qualities just because of the amount of pigment in their skin. But it's not like he's stringing people up on trees or joining the KKK, so he's not racist. And even moreso, he has a "black friend," so he can't be racist, at least he keeps saying he's not racist while he is constantly bringing up "black people." He can't go ten minutes without doing so and that's odd since he doesn't really know any in the first place. His "black friend" is an aquaintance to some degree from where he works and that's the only person of color he knows. And I'm surprised you read this blog so much, I would think you would find it kind of crap-ish or want to poke some holes in some things since I'm sure there are some. And it would be a good thing to hear them since there could be things I hadn't considered. Not to mention that I find it annoying only talking about politics with people who agree with you, lol. You don't really have to back up most of your views since they agree with you and people let things slide since they see you as in the same "club" or whatever. And that stuff just contributes more to people not having to back things up and getting more into hollow rhetoric.

1/31/2006 - Time for Round 2...

Posted by maddhatt

First I want to make something clear. I never said that being raised Catholic makes you homophobic. What I am saying is that at least in Chris Matthew's case he has stated on several occasions that on the things that he is conservative about like marriage and family that it goes back to his Catholic upbringing. I believe that religion at least in small doses teaches us morality and core values in general. In large doses you get idiots like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson who I believe spread too much unfounded fear about gays and lesbians. I believe in the traditional family but I also believe in tolerating views and lifestyles that are different from my own. I mention Peter Gomes's appearance on Imus because when he promoted the book; The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Mind and Heart, Imus simply interviewed him and never mentioned his sexuality which sparked some debate after Gomes left the studio. Some felt that it was odd that a Imus never mentioned that a religious book was written by a man who is not only gay but teaches Theology at Harvard. Imus said that Gomes's sexuality was irrelevant to the book itself where his producer Bernard McGuirk who is also Catholic felt that Gomes might be rewriting the Bible and promoting the gay agenda. I've seen Gomes on a few shows and I personally feel that he picks and chooses which passages of the Bible to teach and sugar coats things he disagrees with which is why I don't trust him and many other religious figures for that matter. Your examples of Chavez and especially Hitler are way over the top to the point of being outrageous. It would be like me saying that if a gay man jumped in a tub of water holding a toaster and was electrocuted that God punished him for being gay. It would be absurd to make such a statement. I felt you made some other smart valid points but that part was ridiculous. Chavez is anti-U.S. but pro U.S. dollars I see no contradiction there as I too have done business with people that I loathe because it benefited me to do so. And Hitler? Where can I begin on this one? Various historians and the like have stated that Hitler was either a closeted homosexual a Jew or both, neither has been proved definitively. I think that I can however prove that Hitler was not anti-semitic. You see Jews eat food and I have seen several pictures of Hitler taken at various dinners and social functions. It can be assumed based on the fact that Hitler didn't die of starvation that he ate at at least some of those functions. If Hitler was truly anti-semitic he would have forsaken food and starved to death for fear of being seen as Jewish. Sorry to be a smart ass but the Hitler thing drove me insane. It is not homophobic to make statements that could be deemed anti-gay. Homophobia is just that, a phobia or fear of gays. I don't have one and I don't believe Chris Matthews or Don Imus do either. And how can you say "It is homophobic to make negative comments about gays, for no reason other than because they are gay."? The whole point of Brokeback Mountain is it's homosexual relationship and it's being promoted that way just like the "surprise ending" of The Crying Game. That's the very reason some idiot asked Bush if he had seen the film. He knew the President hadn't seen it if for no other reason than his reliance on Christian conservatives in our base. The President cannot admit to having seen this movie and not draw heat from conservative Republicans, but the left ran this soundbite on every cable network and radio program in an attempt to promote their agenda and embarrass the President. What were Chris and Imus supposed to talk about? The fact that Heath Ledger broke up with Naomi Watts and hooked up with Michelle Williams for some on the set boot knocking which resulted in her getting knocked up and having a baby? Well...yeah lets talk about that, but it has nothing to do with what's on the screen. It drives me nuts that I grew up with Archie Bunker and The Jeffersons and that neither one of those shows would make it on the air today because everybody is just too sensitive. I hear GLAAD is also upset with the people over at American Idol because of it's depiction of some of the shows gay contestants. I'm sorry but if you show up in makeup dressed like a chick people are going to goof on you and even worse if you can't sing a note in tune you can't burst into tears and call the judges homophobic for not picking you. People throw words like racist and homophobe around way too loosely for my taste. I read your blog for the same reason I read other member blogs. I'm attempting to build a diverse network of active bloggers and I always try to at least pay attention to the member blogs that help achieve that goal, which you are doing. I've been to so many other blog sites and you never know whose running the damn thing and I don't want to do that. Based on what I've read you and I don't agree on the big issues but I'm very excited that you're here and hope you keep doing what you do and I will pop in on occasion when the mood strikes me. I also agree with you that it is good to get differing opinions on things, otherwise you're just preaching to the choir.

1/31/2006 - This is too easy!

Posted by maddhatt

Did you actually read what I wrote? I ask because you take parts of what I say instead of taking in the whole statement and then respond to the part. My whole section on Hitler was ridiculous. I suggested he couldn't be anti-semitic simply because he and Jews in general eat food and your response was "To say Hitler was not anti-semitic is grossly ignorant."? Of course Hitler was an anti-semite. What 3 year old doesn't know that? Maybe I should have said that Hitler wasn't anti-semitic because both he and Jews both breath air or wear clothes or some other ridiculous argument so that you would know that I was being facetious. I say Don Imus is not homophobic because I have several times over the last decade heard him say that discriminating against gays is wrong. If I hate gays I wouldn't invite gay guests on my show and tell my audience to buy this guys book or tell people that mistreating people who are gay is wrong. One thing I failed to ask before, do you actually listen to Imus's program or did you just hear this one soundbite and label him a homophobe? That's a fair question because if you don't listen to the program on a regular basis and just get riled up because of the schtick you're always going to find something to be offended by. There is a character called Antwan from the Bronx that they do on the show that makes fun of black people. The character has gotten people to label Imus a racist. I don't get bent out of shape because he invites people on that goof on him too. I've learned to judge people more for their actions than by than a few bad words here or there. Richard Pryor often did jokes about white people and a few jokes about gays too so I guess that makes him a racist and a homophobe and since he was a personal hero of mine and I enjoyed his work I guess that makes me one too. And that is not a narrow view of the meaning of Homophobia. Homophobia is a fear of gays. Believing that gays should not be treated like equals or that it's okay to ridicule them is the effect of that fear, cause and effect. Cause - Racist believe that they are of the superior race. Effect - They go out of their way to discriminate against those other races. They teach their kids to hate, they make sure other racial groups can't get jobs or join their social clubs or deny their bank loans or worse. If you eliminate the cause the effect will eventually cease as well. The media does have a liberal bias. Of course Fox covered the Bush soundbite, it was news! But you dodged my original point that the reporter only asked the question because he knew that if Bush admitted to seeing the film it would cause problems for him and the liberals knew it too. You can't be that blind. I used agenda because GLAAD does indeed have an agenda as does the ACLU, the NAACP, and NOW for that matter and their agenda blinds them sometimes and GLAAD is wrong in this case. I was watching Imus live that morning but lets take a look at the transcript courtesy of our good friends at GLAAD: DON IMUS: Have you lost weight? CHRIS MATTHEWS: I was at — I was at 240 and gaining a couple years ago, and I've been working down. I was checking, I said — I got down to 215 after I ran the other day. So I'm somewhere in the teens still. IMUS: Look pretty good. MATTHEWS: I'm trying to get down to 200. IMUS: Look pretty good. I mean, I'm not working toward a "Brokeback Mountain" situation here. MATTHEWS: [laughs] IMUS: I'm just saying that — I remarked to Charles, I said, "He looks pretty good to me." MATTHEWS: Yeah, I've been reading your comments. I don't think you're working in that direction. [laughs] IMUS: [laughs] Well, I'm trying, so... Al Gore... MATTHEWS: [laughs] Have you seen it yet? Have you gone to see it yet? I've seen everything else but that, I guess. IMUS: No, I haven't seen it. Why would I want to see that? MATTHEWS: I don't know. I've no opinion on that. I haven't seen it either, so... IMUS: So, they, um...I don't know. It was out when I was in New Mexico, and, um it doesn't resonate with the cow — with the real cowboys who I know, so... MATTHEWS: Yeah. IMUS: But then, maybe there's stuff going on there on the ranch that I don't know about. Not on my ranch, but you know what I'm saying. MATTHEWS: Well, the wonderful Michael Savage, who's on 570 in D.C., who shares a station with you at least, he said [laughs] — he calls it — what's he call it? "Bareback Mounting." That's his name for the movie, so... [laughs] IMUS: Right. Of course, Bernard calls it "Fudge-pack Mountain," but that's [unintelligible]... MATTHEWS: You know what? I'll bet it wins. It's either that or "Good Night, and Good Luck" who'll win for an Academy Award, I think, this year. I think it's the mood. I think everybody likes the movie who's seen it, so — You'll notice that the Bareback Mounting comment that Matthews used was actually attributed to Michael Savage which he has indeed used a few times. Matthews did luagh at the title but so did I, everything else was said by Imus. Matthews said that he hadn't seen it and that he had no opinion on it and also that he thought it might win an Oscar. Now that's a man who hates gays! You'll also note that the Fudgepack Mountain remark was attributed to Bernard McGuirk the producer of Imus in the Morning. I'll let you in on a little known secret, Antwan from the Bronx is really Bernard. Actually everybody knows it but it's a joke and most people get it.

1/31/2006 - Untitled Comment

Posted by progblog

I did read what you wrote, and i criticized various points that you made, you did the same exact thing of what I wrote, yet you want to view my criticisms as just taking some parts and ignoring the rest. That's what I am doing since there are various flaws that should be mentioned. And some people can be so ignorant that they can believe that Hitler was not anti-semitic. Many people can say things similar to that but really believe it and and you saying he wasn't and giving a reason as to why he was not, did come off as saying that he was not anti-semitic, because you said so. I do no know you, so I can not tell when you are being sarcastic and not being serious. There are people ignorant enough and want to believe the holocaust never happened, people can believe bizarre things and whatever they want, regardless of evidence and facts. Should I believe that you are joking with how you are saying that Matthews did not say something homophobic, because he did? And people can say discrimination is wrong, but not actually live their life as though they believe that. I think people should be judged on their actions, not just by what they say and then do not practice it. Robert Byrd must not be a racist, because he says racism is wrong. And people who have raped someone and then say they did not, must not be rapists. And yes, I listen to Imus sometimes. He can be entertaining here and there. But even if I did not, that does not mean that being made aware of him making a homophobic comment, should not be considered valid if I criticize him for doing such a thing. And I would say that Antwan is a racist character. And I like Richard Pryor, I always considered that Richard Pryor was making fun of racism between people of color and whites. And I don't agree with softening some aspects of homophobia or racism by just saying it's part of the effect, it's a part of the whole, to dissect it like that and divide it up into branches is pointless. But yes, if you get at the root of it and take that out, behaving in a racist or homophobic way will not be there to practice. And Jeremy Parker who asked Bush the question was not a reporter, he was a student. Seems like you are wanting to believe there was a liberal media conspiracy underway when there was not. Something funny happened and there is even more humor to it because of Bush's standing. If the same thing happened to a Democrat, it would have been covered. When Clinton was asked the silly question about whether he wears boxers or briefs, it was all over the news, was there a conservative media conspiracy? No. When Dean made the silly "raaaaar" thing, did the news media all of a sudden change to being conservative and only ran it because of a conservative agenda? And there have been studies on the news media and has been shown that generally it is made up of centrists and some leaning more to conservative with the exception of some being liberal like Air America and some being conservative like Fox news, a large portion of radio with the exception of Air America, and various newspapers around the country, with the exception of some major one's are generally conservative. Then there are various news outlets that can be generally centrist and have a particular journalists who are on the left or the right. I think many people only believe there is a liberal media because if enough conservative opinion makers say so, people will blindly believe that it must be so. And listing organizations that were created for a specific goal is an agenda but to say they are blind because they are working against something that falls under their goal is silly. And of course, listing "agenda" organizations, you only list liberal one's. There is a negative labeling of liberal organizations as having an "agenda," it's naive and just a way to negate them in an exaggerative way, similar to how other terms are used to do such a thing. Like labeling judges that a conservative doesn't agree with, as an "activist judge." Activist is a term usually associated with liberals who are trying to get attention towards something they care about, and since it's usually associated with them, there are people who use the term in a negative way. And yes, nice to show the transcript. It doesn't take away from how they were homophobic. If someone calls someone a nigger and I then say "hey guess what? So and so called someone a nigger" and then start laughing about it, yes that would be racist. Agreeing with it and repeating it does condone and contribute to the ignorant behavior. Just because they did not come up with the names themselves, doesn't take away the degree of homophobia in what they said.

2/1/2006 - You got me!!!

Posted by maddhatt

Isn't google a great thing? You're right Parker is just a student and not a reporter but my point is still valid. Parker has admitted that he asked the question just as a goof and that he himself has not seen Brokeback Mountain and that he probably wouldn't. It was clearly an attempt to embarrass the President. In one interview Parker said "I don’t know if you know this or not, but he's not exactly a huge gay rights guy.", saying that he wanted to ask a controversial question of the President just to see how he would handle it. I feel President Bush did fine but seeing liberal pundits run with it like it was a big "Gotcha!" moment just shows me even more why I am a Republican. And you're right we don't know each other but based on what you have written I at least have given you credit for having a modicum of intelligence. I am now even more dumbfounded that you truly thought my Hitler rant was real but let's take another look at my original Hitler passage: "I think that I can however prove that Hitler was not anti-semitic. You see Jews eat food and I have seen several pictures of Hitler taken at various dinners and social functions. It can be assumed based on the fact that Hitler didn't die of starvation that he ate at at least some of those functions. If Hitler was truly anti-semitic he would have forsaken food and starved to death for fear of being seen as Jewish. Sorry to be a smart ass but the Hitler thing drove me insane." How could you not see that I was being sarcastic there? I even ended it by saying I was being a smart ass. I know some people say that the holocaust didn't happen but I'm not one of them. I even read the passage to a buddy without revealing that I was the person that wrote it, he burst out laughing and said that he could tell it was written in jest. I thought that evoking the name of mein führer was a bit over the top so I decided to respond in kind. You mentioned the name of one of the most diabolical figures of all time when all we were debating was whether or not Matthews and Imus were homophobic. If that's not a bit over the top then I don't know what is. It would be like mentioning Saddam Hussein's brutality in a debate over whether or not Bill Clinton really put that stain on Monica's dress. I'll let Hitler's misdeeds speak for themselves and let Imus and Matthews deeds speak for them. Your mention of the "boxers or briefs" thing is a perfect example of liberal media bias. MTV clearly supported Clinton while pretending to be impartial. He was even called the first President for the MTV generation in a special I saw. The media spun him as young and hip while Bush Sr. was shown as old and weak and the same thing happened again when Clinton ran against Bob Dole. I disected homophobia because you keep describing the effects of homophobia. We have yet to really discuss homophobia. A phobia is a fear. Discrimination against gays is not homophobia but people do discriminate against gays because they are homophobic. If you're gay and feel that your boss is mistreating you because you are gay you would sue for descrimination not for homophobia. The descrimination would of course be caused by homophobia. With Dean liberals turned on him quickly because they still had Kerry to carry the ticket. They had to get rid of him because he scared people after that speech, people who vote and the object was always to defeat Bush, they didn't care who did it. Imus reported the day after the 2004 election that as early as 6 hours before the election results were broadcast in primetime that some of his reporter buddies started calling him and announcing Kerry's landslide victory based on the early exit polls and he mentioned how happy they were to be giving him the news. I'd give anything to have a snapshot of their faces when they found out that the poll numbers had "flip-flopped" and that Bush had been re-elected. "I think people should be judged on their actions, not just by what they say and then do not practice it. Robert Byrd must not be a racist, because he says racism is wrong." I could say the same for Trent Lott or Jesse Helms both of whom I've felt were racists but we both know Byrd's actions were to join the Klan and I'd say that makes him a racist or at the very least a bigot but I would also hope with over half century to reflect on his "youthful error" that he no longer holds those beliefs and realizes that he was wrong. President Truman almost joined the Klan too and ended speaking out on key civil rights issues. People can change over time. As I mentioned before I used to be firmly against gay marriage but my talks with gay friends have forced me to reconsider. "Should I believe that you are joking with how you are saying that Matthews did not say something homophobic, because he did?" Of course not because I say again that he merely repeated Michael Savages remarks and offered no opinion of his own though he did laugh. I truly don't believe he is a homophobe. Ted Turner has often proudly stated his liberal bias and has used CNN to reflect those beliefs. That's why I'm glad Rupert Murdock is kicking his ass on Fox but somehow the Fox bashers are quick to disparage Murdock and ignore Turner and CNN's bias all together. I mention those liberal organizations because I feel that they have at times lost their way and made big deals out of non issues. GLAAD is especially guilty of this. Quick to call someone a homophobe if they say something that they don't like. If a TV show or movie has something in it that they don't like they put the pressure on like a vice and try to get sponsors to pull out or try to get people to boycott the movie. Free speech is never free with them unless you say something that they agree with, and since our views on their tactics are directly opposed no middle ground can ever exist between their views and mine. You said I only mentioned liberal organizations but earlier I mentioned Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, two people who are clearly not liberal and who represent conservative organizations and who are just as full of shit and agenda driven as GLAAD is. I think they mean well but lose their way spreading too much hate and too much divisiveness. GLAAD's style is so aggressive that they turn straight people who would otherwise support their cause against them. I'm just glad that MSNBC wasn't stupid enough to take the bait. I don't know if simply laughing at a racial or gay joke makes you a racist or homophobe, to me it's more about what's in your heart and how you are viewed by your peers. I don't find nigger to be funny but I have found a few "black jokes" funny. I base my overall opinion of the person telling the joke on my history with them. It's ok to make a joke as long as you know that that's all it is. If so and so called someone a nigger and you thought he was correct to do so that would make you a racist.

2/1/2006 - Untitled Comment

Posted by progblog

Yes Parker asked the question as a joke, people can do that as a joke and know that it's a joke question. It's hardly a conspiracy. And with how you view the mainstream media like that is very unobjective. To be so sure and to generalize that many news organizations are liberal seems not correct. It does seem that if a news organization is not conservative leaning, then they are viewed as liberal leaning by some conservatives. And it does seem as a result of people saying it over and over again and people start to believe it when there isn't much evidence showing it. And about you saying you were being a smartass, I thought that was just with bringing up your view about Hitler. People can believe many bizarre things because people can rationalize things any way they want to back something up, regardless of how plausible it is. That's how it seemed with you saying Hitler was not anti-semitic. And about bringing up Hitler and how it's supposedly equivalent to connecting Hussein with being very brutal and Clinton splooging someone's dress isn't accurate. I brought up Hitler who was ignorant in a particular way but that there are some things in his life in which someone could say that it shows he was not ignorant in that way. I see no difference between bringing him up or someone that is more of a nobody, but mentioned him since you are familiar with him. And you were not so opposed to me bringing up Chavez but perhaps in about thirty years after he has been demonized long enough, it will have the same effect and you will be as outraged about that, but at this point you're not. And about homophobia, you are just breaking it up because it makes it convenient to not see things as homophobic. I suppose hanging a person of color is not racist because it can be put in the effect box instead of the racist one. Homophobia is not that different from racism or sexism but with this train of thought, I suppose sexism towards women is a result of men fearing women and racism against people of color is a fear of people of color that whites have. And anything outside of a blatant fear must mean it shouldn't be labeled as such. But there is some truth in there being fear, people do fear and have done so in the past, feared people that they see as inferior as being treated as equals. There is fear that heterosexual marriage will be ruined because homosexuals can marry. And there are many things similar with that with sexism and racism in many areas of our culture. Fear that homosexuality will be viewed as okay and people's children will not see it as wrong or even see nothing wrong with being gay. People fear homosexuals "recruiting" on college campuses. People constantly use the term "slippery slope" with these things because they fear that they will be part of the norm and they do not want that, they do fear it. And GLAAD does not go after just anything, trying to ruin something, if it falls under the category of homophobia then they will do so. People are conditioned into being homophobic just like with being racist or sexist and a big part of the conditioning in our culture is with how our environments are filled with this kind of ignorance, people constantly saying homophobic things, people seeing nothing wrong with it and propelling it even more so because it is condoned and contributed to. People are bothered by homophobia in their environments, on their tv's, in their workplaces, having it in these places contributes to homophobia and GLAAD is working to rid our culture of homophobia. And to see it as people not carring if Dean lost the bid for the presidency because there was another one lined up is hardly accurate. If Kerry had done something just as stupid, the same thing that happened to Dean, would have happened to him most likely. People made fun of Kucinich, was it because they were afraid he was going to get the nomination? No, and to say that Dean was to be dropped because he scared people with that is not true in any way, people were not afraid of him, they were laughing at him. It was obviously a lame attempt at rallying his supporters and people saw it as that. There was more to be scared of with Dean that he actually performed abortions, that could hardly go over well with some of the people the Democrats were trying to win over. And Dean was mostly hype. He marketed himself very well to only a small portion of the population but marketed it as though he was a serious contender which he was not. People like to view his scream as a major reason for his loss, not acknowledging that he made that scream after losing that state by wide margins. Dean was able to make himself seem bigger with the anti-war crowd and on the internet, but the anti-war thing and the internet are not major contributors to getting the large populace behind them, as we can see in hindsight. You can also see this in how you can go to particular websites and check the polls for particular things. Back then you could visit a petitioning site and check the polls for who people wanted to be the Democratic presidential candidate and Kucinich had such a large majority of the votes, that it must seem like a shoe in for him. The same with a poll being asked about gay marriage. Depending on where you go, it seems as if there is an actual shot at winning in that area. Also, Dean had way more backing than Kerry. Dean was viewed as bringing more life into the party, attracting younger voters, he had Gore backing him and a few other major Democrats. I remember a teacher bringing in an issue of some magazine that was published a couple months ahead of the particular monthly date written on it in which they speculated how things would turn out, mentioning how Dean would win in the first state primary and that by then Kerry would be out of the race. So many people really believed the really good marketing and street teaming of Dean, but it did not have much of an effect really.

2/1/2006 - Great stuff!!!!

Posted by maddhatt

I'll try to be quick on the first part because I love your take on Dean and want to focus on that. As I mentioned before I see no conflict with Chavez hating us and taking our money. A buddy of mine just got back from France and he tells me they hate Americans there too. I mentioned Saddam because with all the mass graves and stuff he's been constantly compared to Hitler. He is after all the Butcher of Baghdad. Whether or not you think Imus and Matthews are homophobic do you really think it is appropriate to to even mention them in the same article as someone like Hitler? I totally understand you were just trying to argue a point of view but shouldn't you have used someone like cousin Ray Ray that gets drunk and shoots his mouth off at the family reunion? And let me get this straight, if you meet the President and have an opportunity to ask him one question you're going to waste the chance by asking a goof question? I think you would ask a smarter question. The President was about 45 minutes away from me today in Nashville. If I had been able to talk to him today I would have asked a real question most likely about Katrina since we have so many hurricane victims here. You act like I'm delusional about my take on the media but how do explain Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Brian Williams, Tim Russert, Sam Donaldson, Wolf Blitzer, and Jeff Greenfield? I've watched all of these men in various interviews over the years admit to holding more liberal views or admit like Greenfield and Russert to working for liberal candidates when they were younger but that as newsmen they had to "be objective". I'm sure you can throw a few people like Brit Hume in there to refute my claim but trust me he's outnumbered. "I suppose hanging a person of color is not racist because it can be put in the effect box instead of the racist one." The hanging would be the effect the cause would be racism. Another example would be saying Matthew Shepards' murder was not homophobic. He was murdered by people who were homophobic. Homophobia being the cause, murder being the effect. What if the person was lynched by another person of color or Sheppard were murdered by someone who was also gay or the killer was straight but killed him for some other reason like road rage? Exact same act, different motivation. That being said it could be argued that calling someone a nigger or fag is racist or homophobic but the rules change depending on whose doing the name calling. I've heard gay people call each other fag and blacks call each other nigger. My point has always been that it is possible to tell offensive jokes and not be racist or homophobic. By your standard I'm a homophobe and my buddy Steven is a racist just because we've both joked with each other about him being gay or me being black. Stuff like this can't simply be black and white there has to be a grey area. Now let's talk about Dean as I feel the stuff you wrote there is fantastic and very well argued. I am assuming that you've seen the reports on how many people get their daily news from Jay Leno, Letterman, or Jon Stewart on the Daily Show. After the Dean incident these people turned on him like a pack of wolves. Joking that they weren't sure that Dean was the guy who should have his hand on the button. So yes people thought he was silly but they also supported Kerry because he began to look like the safer choice to Dean's loose cannon persona. Dean was clearly the front runner up to that point when he lost in Iowa and gave the screech heard round the world and buried himself. I remember seeing Democratic polls that showed his approval rating started to take a nose dive after the incident and there was also a report from The Atlantic Monthly that claimed Wesley Clark leaked info about Dean that may have ruined his campaign. Either way at the end Gephart was pretty much done all that was left was Edwards, Kerry, and Dean for the Democratic nomination and after the scream even people who were big Dean supporters started to turn on him and back Kerry. Who the fuck is Kucinich? Just kidding I just thought that whole campaign was a train wreck. By the way I'm curious, how did you feel about Nader? I liked him but people tried to make him look like a kook too.

2/2/2006 - Untitled Comment

Posted by progblog

I do not see anything wrong with bringing up Hitler, the way I did. It was not like I was trying to associate them with him as some sort of guilt by association kind of thing. And about meeting the president. I do not know what I would ask him if I had the chance. I do like humor and would possibly ask a smartass kind of question, or I could ask a more serious question like you mentioning bringing up Katrina. I personally prefered of the two questions that people brought up at Bush's get-together that was shown afterwards, the one where the one student asked about cutting money from students going to college. But I also do like George Bush as a person, outside of where he stands on political issues, I love his sense of humor and he does just seem like a fun person. I would probably ask a friendly kind of question, maybe a little humor mixed in or something, I don't know. And I actually loved that Bush did win. Overall, I would prefer that someone else would have won but it was still hilarious just because I could not tolerate all the anybody but Bush garbage and people being sooooooo incredibly sure that he was going to lose and the petty arrogance and crap from many liberals. More than a year of liberals of the really, really, annoying variety being so petty and smug about the whole thing, that the next day it was just hilarious that their person lost because they were just so sure he was going to lose. I remember the next day after election night, my hippy math teacher was actually really depressed about how Bush won and others too I'm sure, it was funny. And not that I think you are delusional about viewing the news media as liberal but it's so expansive and there are so many sectors and things that go into these huge corporations of information that it just seems shoddy to throw such a blanket of liberalism over so much of it. And I still just don't agree with viewing someone doing something like hanging someone because of the color of their skin as not racist and just an effect of racism. While they are in the process of doing it, I would think the whole thing is very racist. If it wasn't racist, they would see it as wrong and just stop it. And if someone killed someone not because of them being gay or because of their shade of skin being a factor in it, then I do not see that as being homophobic or racist. And yes there is a grey area about humor. Definitely a grey area, I do make jokes about these areas sometimes but with me it's always making fun of the ignorance of people who are racist or homophobic. Or a joke as if you are really homophobic or racist but as a joke, still just making fun of it. I can't remember saying one that wasn't making fun of racism or homophobia in some way with either sarcasm or just making fun of people who are like that. Like I could come up with a silly name for the movie Brokeback Mountain but it would be making fun of homophobia. I don't think Imus or Matthews were doing that. They were just being crude in a junior high kind of way and contributing to it in a negative way. About Dean and Kerry, yes Kerry was definitely a safer choice, Kerry has a more status quo kind of appeal and people liked that about him, even more so which I did not like was that he just seemed more presidential with his character. The democrats choose a wide spectrum of candidates to bring everyone together like with Kucinich appealing to very, very liberal people with the hope that even if they did not win, that they will still support them since they are generally in the same ballpark. What they should have done perhaps was get a bunch of candidates that did have differing views and interests but for all of them to be of presidential material like Kerry and some others. It just seemed like that was a major factor in Kerry winning the primaries. And do you mean Kucinich's campaign was a train wreck? If so, yes, he didn't have a chance at all, but what's a bit loopy and something that I did like was that even after he lost he was still campaigning, having little gatherings with people and stuff. Perhaps to make sure they stay within the fold instead of going with third candidates, I don't really know. Kucinich was important for the Democrats to ensure that many people would not go over to the Green party or to just not vote. And about Nader, I liked that Nader ran. People see him as trying to ruin the Democrats party but he is just trying to get issues that he and others are concerned with to be taken up by the Democrats because they want their votes badly, also just to get more exposure for some issues that are not at all. One of the things that bothers me about many Greens and others concerned with these issues is that they don't see it as an advantage to not vote for the Democrat in the hopes that the Democrats will see a percentage that they could get if they tried to take up some of their issues. Nader was basically pleading with them to take up these issues, that they are important and that they would get peoples votes if they did. People see it as bad if like ten percent went to Nader or a third party candidate but next time, perhaps since there is a sizeable percentage concerned with these issues, that they will take up those issues and try to get their vote. It's proven that this is the case with how both major parties soften their views in trying to get undecided centrists. If that percentage was very miniscule, they would not waste their time trying to appeal to them. And with Nader, how he was treated by Democrats with how they were doing such shady things to keep him off the ballot is ridiculously against the most basic principles of democracy that it was very difficult for me to even consider seriously casting my vote for Kerry. Also, there were only two reasons for why I was considering voting for Kerry, for abortion rights and the possible choosing of Supreme Court judges which was linked to that as well, other than those two things, there wasn't much reason to vote for him. And with how people were trying desperately to portray him as kooky was incredibly ignorant and unobjective. It was so incredibly petty and baseless. And what's interesting about Nader is that people view him as extremely far left but he was actually closer to the middle than Kerry according to this one political site that stuck him somewhere on it based on his positions.

2/2/2006 - All good things....

Posted by maddhatt

You're making it very hard to disagree with you. And one thing I'll give is that you're right, it was very juvenile humor but that's what Imus has been known for for most of his career. During the first Gulf War when Howard Stern was just kicking the shit out of Imus he decided to make a change formats and go into more political humor. But he has often noted when people ask him why he doesn't get rid of the jokes all together and try to do a more Rush Limbaugh type of show that he has to do the goofy stuff to get people to listen to all the authors and politicians, otherwise you would have something about as boring as C-SPAN. Imus does it all racism, sexism, religion, homophobia you name it but then he throws John Kerry or Doris Kearns Goodwin in there or tries to raise money for his cancer ranch. I often argue that racism and homophobia are social diseases or that welfare is a drug. By breaking it down to the root you find out some very interesting things about people involved. It's easy to call someone a racist but I always want to know why because I've seen people change by actually talking to them. You are dead on about Nader. The fact is that Democrats still feel he cost Gore the presidency and with all the shit that went down in Florida it's hard not to agree with that. The same thing happened in with Ross Perot in '92 as he did more damage to Bush Sr. than to Clinton. Clinton was smart in '96 when Perot popped up again and let Dole be the bad guy and keep him out of the debates and off most of the state ballots. Nader would never have gotten anything done because he didn't seem to want to play ball and you've got to make a few shady deals to get things done in Washington, I don't care who you are. This has been a great experience and you've definitely kept me on my toes. I'm really glad you're here. I don't agree with all your views but you make a damn good argument. In any case I'll keep reading.

2/2/2006 - Untitled Comment

Posted by progblog

Yes, that's what is funny about people who hate Nader, there is no mention of Perot and they don't feel like it was wrong for him to run. It's been nice discussing this stuff with you too. I like how people with differing views can still just have a good conversation, most of the time it just turns into rhetorical crap thrown around back and forth, lol.

What a great test!

{ 9:28 PM, June 28, 2007 } { Posted by Markus }

<a href=http://www.google.ca/01.html > T1 </a> [URL=http://www.google.ca/02.html] T2 [/URL] [URL]http://www.google.ca/03.html[/URL] [LINK=http://www.google.ca/04.html] T4 [/LINK] [LINK]http://www.google.ca/05.html[/LINK] http://www.google.ca/06.html VnkAot