Politics & Pop Culture from a homocon.
Category Archives: Media
This newspaper applauds the Supreme Court’s recent decision to hear arguments in two same-sex marriage cases — one on California’s Proposition 8, which bans such marriages, and one regarding the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples.
Same-sex marriage has been percolating at the state level for several years, leading to a patchwork of laws that create more confusion than clarity. The court can undo that confusion by determining the constitutional parameters of this issue.
We urge the Supreme Court to affirm the right of gay couples to marry based upon the fundamental American ideal of equality before the law. It is critical that the court also make clear that such a ruling won’t require churches whose doctrines oppose same-sex marriage to perform such ceremonies.
Debating the reversal of centuries of views about the institution of marriage cannot be considered without upheaval, and we recognize that the notion of gays and lesbians marrying can divide families, friends and, especially, generations. But the growing support for same-sex marriage, including within families whose gay members have changed the way these unions are seen, makes the embrace of gay marriage less of a radical shift.
Polls show that American attitudes have shifted dramatically on the subject. Surveys by organizations such as Gallup reveal that half or more of Americans support the concept of gay marriage. Equality in marriage laws is particularly embraced by younger Americans, including some younger evangelicals.
Even leading conservatives favor gay marriage. Former Vice President Dick Cheney is among the most notable. So, too, is former Bush solicitor general Ted Olson, who will lead the team arguing in favor of the constitutionality of same-sex marriage.
Olson contends that the federal government lacks the right to deny gay couples the opportunity to marry. He also will argue that the ban denies gay couples the right to due process. As the Republican wrote in Newsweek, “This bedrock principle of equality is central to the political and legal convictions of Republicans, Democrats, liberals and conservatives alike.”
We respect that some religious traditions see same-sex unions as an affront to their canons, scriptures and traditions. The First Amendment protects such places of worship from being compelled to conduct same-sex marriages. Additionally, the justices should take care to carve out strong and significant protections so that the institutions’ religious liberties, for instance their tax-exempt status, are not circumscribed.
In 2004, this newspaper opposed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. We have backed efforts to outlaw discrimination against employees based on sexual orientation. Now, we believe that the Supreme Court should conclude that equality under the law includes the right of gay couples to wed.
What’s at stake before the Supreme Court is how a secular society should respond to the growing demand for same-sex marriage. That is where Olson’s arguments seem so persuasive. How can a secular government grant marriage rights to some but not others?
I was having a great conversation last night over Opus X cigars at Shelly’s Back Room, and the subject of Mitt Romney’s VP app came up. We both rolled our eyes and delved into… basically… why it sucked.
This afternoon, my friend sent me a blog link titled “Ten Things About the Mittons VP App That Make My Eye Twitch.” It pretty much sums up our combined thoughts on the app. I am happy to share it with you.
It appears that one of the President’s most ardent cheerleader is showing signs of a fickle pre-pubescant teenaged girl, ditching the starting quarterback because he got injured in a game. Maureen Down — Big M0 — penned her latest column, titled “Dreaming of a Superhero” and it’s pretty biting .
ON Friday night, the nation’s capital was under a tornado watch. And that was the best thing that happened to the White House all week.
Later, she laments that “The president who started off with such dazzle now seems incapable of stimulating either the economy or the voters,” as if Obama the quarterback has fumbled the ball and thrown several interceptions.
Her closing is just as telling. She carries on about Obama not being able to see the forest for the trees, being too caught in legacy. She simply says, “In some ways, he’s still finding himself, too absorbed to see what’s not working. But the White House is a very hard place to go on a vision quest, especially with a storm brewing. ”
As the country learns more about the unnecessary killing of young Trayvon Martin in Florida, the media, of course, chimes in with its delusional wisdom.
Enter Geraldo Rivera, who, like a cockroach, will survive even a nuclear winter. In a segment of Fox News Channel’s Fox & Friends, Rivera claims that the shooting can partially be traced back to Martin’s clothing choice: a hoodie.
He gets more stupid… He goes on to say that people associate the hoodie with crime.
“You have to recognize that this whole stylizing yourself as a gangster– you’re going to be a gangster want-to-be. Well, people are going to perceive you as a menace, that’s what happens.”
Funny. I see skinny white boys walking around Dupont Circle all the time with their hoodies on. They don’t look menacing, or like a “gangster want-to-be.”
Don’t look for Maroon 5 frontman and all-around hottie to be invited to perform at any MTV event anytime soon. Yesterday, @adamlevine tweeted “the VMAs. one day a year when MTV pretends to still care about music. I’m drawing a line in the sand. fuck you VMAs.”
To which @MTV promptly replied, “.@adamlevine Soooo you’ll be tuning in at 9/8C tomorrow right? (BTW, bonus points if you TwitPic your 2004 Moonman!) #VMA cc @MTVBuzzworthy
Showing that he wasn’t backing down, Adam answered “Still waiting to have my ‘Jerry Maguire mission statement moment of deep regret. Not happening. Phew!”
Are you watching the VMA’s tonight? Did you even know they were happening? That’s what I thought.
Yesterday, it was widely reported that CNN chief White House correspondent Ed Henry was leaving CNN to Fox News Channel, to become chief White House correspondent for FNC,
Most journalists and people familiar with Henry congratulated him on the new gig and opined of how great a reporter he is. In a quasi-hit piece, Media Matters, the leftist “media watch” organization took the opportunity to highlight everything Ed has done that they didn’t agree with.
Now I’ve never met Ed. But I have been a fan of his from his early days on Capitol Hill with Roll Call’s Heard on the Hill. I’ve always considered him one of the good guys. He’s always proved that. And that won’t change with his new assignment
Before this weekend, I didn’t know much of Congresswoman Gabriella Giffords. I knew she was a Democrat, and I knew she was from Arizona. Then early Saturday afternoon, I started hearing reports of a shooting in Arizona. My first instinct was to send a tweet to my two good friends out there to warn them to stay away from all Safeways today.
Then I learned that among those shot was Congresswoman from the 8th District. In the head at point blank range. My first thoughts were to say a little prayer for everyone involved. Then I wanted to know more about the shooting and the Congresswoman.
Rep. Giffords is a blue dog Democrat. She’s a staunch defender of the Second Amendment. She supports an immigration overhaul that would stiffen border security, impose tougher penalties against employers who hire illegal immigrants and create a guest worker program allowing foreign citizens to work seasonally in the United States. And when it was time to vote for Speaker of the 112th Congress, Rep. Giffords was one of 19 Democrats who did not vote for Nancy Pelosi.
These killings are an unspeakable tragedy. And we may never learn the real motives behind this horrific event. This was not a political act. It was an assassination attempt. Just days ago, we were all lauding the images of a peaceful transfer of power in the House of Representatives from outgoing Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to the newly elected Speaker John Boehner. We marveled and even reminisced about President Obama’s swearing in as the 44th President and the peaceful transfer of power from George W. Bush.
That’s how we solve things in America. We have elections, we fight, we vote, and hopefully, our guy (gal) comes out on top. If not, we regroup and plan for the next election cycle. What we do not do is go out and shoot people because they have different political views.
Immediately after the news reports were buzzing, some started politicizing the events. These morons will stoop to any level to attempt to make a political point. But in doing so, they only show how insignificant they truly are. Knee jerk reactions blaming one side or another are simply pathetic.
The first person attacked from the left was Sarah Palin. Everyone from The Daily Kos to Rep. Chris Van Hollen went after Palin for using images of cross hairs, bulls eyes and such, until it was uncovered that Van Hollen’s Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee website had similar images for the last two election cycles. I don’t even think Markos Moulitsas realizes that back in June of 2008, he himself put a bulls eye on the district of many suspect Democrats, including Giffords.
The reality is that both sides are guilty of this vitriol. There are crazy people on both sides. Using their own twisted logic, Palin is as much to blame as Jesse Jackson, because the shooter is said to be anti-Semitic. It was former Congressman Alan Grayson who said his opponent was a member of the Taliban.
During the presidential campaign back in 2008, then-Senator Obama said “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” So should we now blame the President of the United States? Of course not. That would be puerile.
The media does its own share of engaging in this level of speech. How many times do you hear the media talk about battlegound states, like the presidential campaign is a war.
When there’s actual evidence that Jared Loughner was motivated by someone’s political rhetoric, I’ll consider people lecturing to tone it down.
Of course, we will shortly revisit the debate of gun control. And that is fine. As long as it is a sensible one based on facts and statistics, and not on emotions.
As many of you have heard by now, Juan Williams, who was a new analyst for National Public Radio (NPR), was summarily fired over the telephone last week for statements he made on the Fox News Channel. Let’s set aside the debate of whether NPR should receive taxpayer money for another day.
What happened last week is a travesty, and shows a complete double standard in the way NPR deals with its talent. Where are the outrage and pink slips for Cokie Roberts, or better yet, for Nina Totenberg, who both traditionally appear on political shows and espouse their own opinion, separate of fact? They are safe, because their opinions don’t differ from the top brass of NPR. To me, that doesn’t create the mantra of journalistic integrity.
It proves the point of Brit Hume, who said that NPR fired Williams for being a ‘Bill Cosby liberal.’ Which is to say, a liberal who stands up to his or her own leaders and says stop, let’s talk about the real issues of our community? In short, airing “dirty laundry.” That’s what Cosby did several years ago when he publically criticized black youths.
People are correct when the say that over-reaching political correctness is chipping away at the fundamental American freedoms of speech and expression. Civil debate and political discourse are the fabric of this nation
I’m glad to see outrage not only from the right, but also from the left. They fired Juan for saying how he felt in a particular situation, based on an event of significant importance to our American culture. He didn’t say that Muslims should be barred from wearing their traditional attire or even banned from flying all together. He simply said that when he sees one dressed in their traditional garb, he gets apprehensive.
But don’t cry for Juan Williams just yet. Upon termination from NPR, Fox News offered him a most excellent 3 year contract, to which I say BRAVO. I may often disagree with Juan, but I enjoy listening to his thoughtful point of view from the other side. Moreover, he has some outstanding books on civil rights and race relations, which are a must read.
In case you missed it, yesterday, there was a great editorial in the Washington Post about the Republican candidates for City Council.
Republicans add provide choices on the Nov. 2 D.C. ballot
RESIDENTS of the District know better than anyone the indignity of being denied choice in government. It’s important, then, that voters not give short shrift to next month’s general election. There are still significant offices to be decided, and the local Republican Party, for the first time in recent memory, is competing with an interesting slate of candidates.
We are not yet prepared to endorse individual candidates. But it’s important to call attention to the fact that, as critical as the September party primaries were in this Democratic-dominated city, voters do themselves and the District a disservice by not weighing all the alternatives available to them on Nov. 2. Single-party rule is never healthy, and GOP officials deserve credit for this year’s imaginative efforts to build a stronger party.
While not fielding candidates for the citywide races of mayor, D.C. Council chairman or at-large council seats, the local GOP recruited candidates to run in all four city wards on this year’s ballot. The group – Marc Morgan in Ward 1, David Hedgepeth in Ward 3, Timothy Day in Ward 5 and Jim DeMartino in Ward 6 – present themselves as urban Republicans: conservative on fiscal issues and progressive on social issues such as gay rights. [more]
Yesterday on CNN’s Larry King Live, the radio talk show host announced that she would not renew her contract which is up at the end of this year. She blabs on and on to King that she wants to “regain my First Amendment rights.”
She, like the Dixie Chicks, seems to forget that with rights come responsibility. One can’t have a nationally broadcasted radio show and say the N-word nearly a dozen times in the span of five minutes with no expectations of consequences, be it calls for boycotts, lost listeners, or even lost advertisers.
If the reader may recall, back in 2003, the Dixie Chicks sparked controversy when they criticized then President George W. Bush while they were on tour in Europe, saying in part, that they were ashamed the President was from Texas. Country music railed against them. Fans stopped buying their records, radio stations refused to play their songs.
Their retort was something to the effect of ‘we have a right to free speech.’ This is a very true statement. But radio stations have a right to play what it wants to play. And consumers have a right to buy the cds they want to and go see the movies they want to. Just ask Tom Cruise and Mel Gibson.
Whether you like him or not, President Bush was completely accurate when his response to the Dixie Chicks was “Freedom is a two-way street.”