's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

I'm shocked! Hypocrisy in government?!!(37 posts)

I'm shocked! Hypocrisy in government?!!Matno
Dec 11, 2002 10:24 AM
Why is it that so many of the most vocal accusers of Trent Lott's supposedly "racial" comment (whatever) are members of the "Black Caucus"? Can you imagine how much hell there would be to pay if someone actually tried to start a "White Caucus"? Why do we put up with some of the worst examples of racism while lambasting others who are no different? Just seems kind of weird. Everyone should take it upon themselves to be careful, but when someone cries foul and raises a stink, THAT is when racial divisions get worse. I think the media has probably done more to promote racism in the last couple of decades than any misinterpreted comments ever could.
Now you sound like a racist!Wayne
Dec 11, 2002 10:49 AM
Lott's comment could definitely be interpreted as racist, esp. when he failed to give a reasonable clarification of what he meant by "all these troubles" etc. How about we lambast the white and black racists, not just the former and not just the latter?

There's no need for a white caucus but I agree people should be against the reverse discrimination laws etc. liberals and minority groups have gotten implemented.
It seems like to me if we want a "color blind" society you don't get that by discriminating against people now to supposedly correct past injustices.

I also agree about the media. The media is sensationalist and simple-minded. Most "racial" differences in this country are not even racial differences they're socio-economic differences. Poor whites/blacks have more in common with one another than rich blacks do with poor blacks, etc. There is however a disproportionate percentage of poor blacks due to the history of discrimination in this country. Consequently, the media portrays the problems of the lowest socioeconomic groups in this country as "black" problems rather than "poor" problems.
Hrad to see how Lott's comments could beOldEdScott
Dec 11, 2002 11:16 AM
'misinterpreted.' I'm as weary as you of racial politics in this country, but it was clear as a bell to me what he meant, and to every black (and every racist) too. Maybe it wasn't obvious to the soccer moms.

Trent Lott's a high-level politico who knows how the game's played, and a Southerner to boot. He knows the code and meant exactly what he said: We'd be better off in this country if Negroes were still segregated and in their place.

Old Trent has a history of hanging with folks who feel that way. Maybe you do too, for all I know. But don't be surprised when saying it pisses people off.
Which is worse?Sintesi
Dec 11, 2002 12:07 PM
Lott's statement or the fact that a Dixiecrat segregationalist was able to survive as long as Strom Thurmond did in the Senate? Saying v. doing.
All these problems53T
Dec 11, 2002 12:08 PM
Call me jaded, but I immediatly thought he was talking about Kennedy and Clinton chasing skirs around the oval office. Ol' Strom would not have had any of that.
WHOA! Check out old Strom's sexual history.OldEdScott
Dec 11, 2002 12:13 PM
Quite a ladies man, with much younger ladies.
He likes 'em youngCaptain Morgan
Dec 11, 2002 12:21 PM
I heard that at that party, it was announced that Strom was going to be a first-time GRANDFATHER -- at the age of 100! And I thought I had kids late. My daughter will be 67 when I'm 100.
I doubt itCaptain Morgan
Dec 11, 2002 12:09 PM
C'mon people, let's be realistic. I find it hard to believe that his comment was intended to support racial discrimination/segregation in any way. Unlike in 1948, in today's world it is not in vogue to support racism, particularly for a Majority Leader, not even in a jokingly manner. For people to say that it is "clear as a bell" what he meant, I think is ludicrous. I'm no Trent Lott supporter, but unless you are a mind reader, there is no way to know what he was thinking.

A much worse farce is the fact that the U.S. let Strom serve on the Senate for so many years. Where were the liberals the past 50 years while this was going on?
Well ...OldEdScott
Dec 11, 2002 12:23 PM
Strom ran as a Dixiecrat on one issue: Segregation. Lott said (close to quote, not exact)"We voted for him (Strom carred Mississippi), we're proud of that, and if he'd gotten elected we wouldn't have had the problems we've had in recent years."

OK, what the hell else could that mean?

In Lott's defense, I'm sure it was just one good old boy yukking with another on the race thing. I'm sure Lott doesn't support segregagtion now. But the comment was certainly a wink and a nod between racist SOutherners. And I say that as a Southerner who hears stuff like that daily.
He has a history of this kind of gaff.czardonic
Dec 11, 2002 1:06 PM
Based on his record, it is hard not to interpret his remarks exactly as they have been: a continuation of his long standing suport for racism.

As for his comments not being in "vogue", I suspect that he beleives most people secretly agree with him. That's just a guess though.

Where were the liberals 50 years ago? Are you suggesting that they were voting for Thurmond, or that there has been no criticism of him? Is the fact that there were enough racist/conservative voters to keep him in office the fault of liberals? (I am not suggesting that all conservatives are racists, though you have to wonder about those willing to turn a blind eye to a candidate's racist past.)
Gaff or gaffeCaptain Morgan
Dec 11, 2002 1:34 PM
I say it was a gaffe, not a gaff (two different meanings). I suspect that if this type of gaffe had come from a liberal, you would have taken a different view of the meaning. Democrats as well as Republicans, liberals as well as conservatives, they all play the political game. As a liberal, I can understand your view of assuming the worst; I would too.

Regarding my comment regarding 50 years -- Perhaps the President of the NAACP should have focused on public awareness regarding Strom's racist past, as opposed to harping on a comment by Lott which MAY have been misconstrued.
My <i>gaffe</i>.czardonic
Dec 11, 2002 1:45 PM
What liberal would imply that the Dixiecrat platform was what this country needed in 1948?

I'm not sure that Strom Thrumond persists in the views he represented 50 years ago. For some reason I thought he was considered a reformed segregationist at this point. Lott's speech demostrates that he is not.
re: He has a history of this kind of gaff.tao
Dec 11, 2002 1:45 PM
I don't like Lott, I think he's an idiot, but can you really give me two other clear examples of "his long standing support for racism"? I don't doubt they could exist, I've just never heard them. And I don't consider the 1980 remark after a Thurman speech in support of Reagan's policies of smaller government and fiscal responsibility that echoed the one last week as a clear sign in support of racism.

And what about the Democrats blind eye support of one Senator Byrd, a long-time member of the KKK who used the n word not two months ago in a national interview? Should we infer that all Democrats are racists or just the ones that turn a blind eye to their colleagues?

And I never heard much criticism of President Clinton from the left when he gave the Presidential Freedom Award to the segregationist senator widely known for his numerous attempts to repeal Brown v Board of Education, I'm drawing a blank, was it Wallace? Are we really to infer that Clinton is a long time supporter of racism?

Again I don't like Lott, I hope he steps down from his position of Majority leader elect, but I can't help but think much of the criticism is politically based. If it's not, I have no idea how to explain the lack of outrage for similar and worse actions by other leading Democrats and the sudden reversal of Daschle on the issue.
And his affiliation to the Council of Conservative Citizens?czardonic
Dec 11, 2002 2:09 PM
Which is the "politically correct" successor to the White Citizens' Councils of the 1960s. Of course, he had no idea (wink, wink) about their segregationist roots.

Democratic support for Robert Byrd, or whoever this clown that Clinton awarded was just as wrong. Unless these guys categorically denounce racism and demonstrate an honest disavowall of their former views, their feet should be kept to the fire.
He could be right.Matno
Dec 13, 2002 8:19 PM
If he really "beleives most people secretly agree with him." At least in certain parts of the country. Back when i worked construction, I had one (white) coworker from Mississippi who swore that slavery was alive and well down there. (He didn't support it, just said that there are horrible working conditions for many black workers, including actual physical abuse). Hard to believe, but you never know. Different places that I have lived have had very different "undercurrents" of feeling about racism. Since it's one of those things that people don't really say out loud unless you know them very well, it's hard to tell. When I lived in Germany, I got the distinct impression that most people there were "veiled racists." I often heard comments like "Well, I'm not racist, but the Turks/East Germans/Africans sure cause a lot of problems." (Germany has a very large immigrant population that is growing fast). It's too bad that it's so hard to integrate different cultures (especially with different languages). I think all cultures have fascinating aspects. I'm a particular fan of foreign (exotic, not gross) foods. Nowhere else can you find the variety of restaurants that you can in America (especially here in NYC). Mmmmm!

Interesting side note: wasn't it the "liberal" Democrats in the first half of this century who were the greatest advocates of segregation? Of course, that's really a moot point since the party has changed so much since then. Even my grandma, who at 80 years old still actively participates in every Republican party function in her area, was once a Democrat.
Reminds me of ......eyebob
Dec 16, 2002 6:37 AM
"Well, I'm not racist, but the Turks/East Germans/Africans sure cause a lot of problems."

That same undercurrent runs through many many people regarding everything from race, to religion, to sexuality, to (whatever). Whenever I hear someone qualify their position on homosexuality (for example) by stating "I'm not gay, but....." I always wonder why that person feels complelled to state that. Smacks of fear if you ask me, the root of all intolerance.

One of the problemsMatno
Dec 16, 2002 3:37 PM
is that people tend to equate racial discrimination with discrimination based on sexual orientation. Apples and oranges. (I'm not trying to start a flame war with that one, just saying that the discrimination has a fundamentally different basis). However, as to your example, while there may be many people willing to let others practice whatever sexual practices they want, it could be detrimental (to your dating scene, for example) to give someone the wrong impression about yourself. Hence the qualification. Just one of many possible reasons.

Personally, I don't think very many (if any) people are "afraid" of homosexuality, even if the more liberal element in our society insists on branding them as "homophobes." They just don't like it, for whatever reason. (By the way, "homophobia" is a TOTAL misnomer if you break down the word to its actual meaning). People with real phobias get psychiatric treatment. People who have a different moral stance on sexual practices just have a different opinion, which our system still protects to some degree. And some people just think it's weird, the same way many people who practice homosexuality have no desire for heterosexual relationships. Obviously, not everyone is attracted to the same things.

One other thing I thought was fascinating was the discrimination of West Germans against East Germans. Just a few decades ago, they were the same people, but after the wall came down and the initial excitement subsided, suddenly there was a lot of bitterness. Not hard to understand when you look at the way Eastern European communism destroyed incentives and raised an entire generation of less than hard-working citizens. (Of course there are exceptions, but West Germans are hard working by comparison). Add to the melting pot the fact that under communism and the Stats Polizei (secret police), you never knew whom you could trust, even within families. Now the West has a hard time trusting the East, even though they should be friendly. I imagine pouring tens of billions of dollars into a population you've been enemies with for 40 years to help them be as well off as you are can be a bitter pill to swallow. However, I will qualify this by saying that my experience in Germany may be outdated. I haven't lived there since '95. And things may well have changed since then. In the meantime, the influx of foreigners into Germany has continued to increase at a rapid rate.
What's the difference?czardonic
Dec 16, 2002 6:09 PM
What's the difference between racial discrimination and descrimination based on sexual orientation? If you believe, as many gays and lesbians do, that homosexuality is not a choice, then then I don't see a difference. There are some that insist that they "choose" their "lifestyle," but these tend to be the same people who want to discriminate against them, so their beliefs are somewhat self serving.

Homophobia is far from a total misnomer. It quite acurately describes the fear that many straight men have that gays are going to prey on them, or that gays are going to recruit their children. These are completely irrational fears that should be treated professionally. I'll grant you that it does not accurately describe those who are simply narrow-minded.
Not a completely irrational fear.Matno
Dec 16, 2002 7:26 PM
I do not believe that anyone is born "gay." I do however, think that environmental factors can develop same sex attraction much stronger in some individuals than others. Honestly, though homosexuality is thoroughly unappealing to me personally, it wouldn't bother me nearly as much if it were kept private and away from kids. (Just like heterosexuality). If you've ever been to one of New York's "Gay Pride" parades, you would know what I mean. There is nothing positive about such rallies. Even many pro-homosexual activists condemn them for what they are: gross displays of promiscuity that do more harm than good even for their own movement. I would be equally appalled if I saw the same sort of action from heterosexuals.

"Completely irrational fears" isn't true at all. I'm not saying that children are less prone to assault from heterosexual predators, well, actually, I am. At least half of them are. Women are rarely sexual predators, therefore, if there were no homosexuality, young boys would be a lot safer than they are. My point is that bad things do happen with alarming frequency. I was hit on as a teenager by a man in his 40's. I was alone in a remote wilderness location (fly fishing), and he actually touched me, and tried to get me into his car. Fortunately for him, I was not afraid. I'd hate to think what might have happened had I not been very level-headed. I imagine that many people in the same situation might have reacted differently. That was not the only time I've had similar (or worse) experiences. Bad people exist in every group. Some things just happen to be a lot more offensive than others. Anything unwanted of a sexual nature is much more offensive than, for example unwanted religious proselyting. (The religious proselyting can be ignored. Emotional scars of sexual abuse last forever).

From a European website advocating lowering the age of consent for male (homosexual) activity: "A study of homosexual people in the United States found a disturbing picture, that 37% said they had been encouraged or forced to have sex with an older or more powerful partner before they reached the age of 19. However, their average age when this first occurred was ten." ( It's apparently not a completely irrational fear for some people.
are you freaking serious?MJ
Dec 17, 2002 5:22 AM
you are equating homosexuality with child abuse!!

re your study - the relevant quote is
"A study of homosexual people in the United States found a disturbing picture, that 37% said they had been encouraged or forced to have sex with an older or more powerful partner before they reached the age of 19. However, their average age when this first occurred was ten. This clearly highlights the need to protect young people from child sexual abuse but it is not evidence against lowering the age of consent to 16." i.e. child abuse bad - homosexuality and age of consent not related to child abuse

even your own study works against your argument...

Stalin and a long list of other unsavoury characters were all straight - you don't see hets getting a bad name do you?

it doesn't surprise me that you're offended by Gay Pride marches - I do not trust your opinion regarding what may constitute 'positive' or 'promiscuous' as it's likely to involve some sort of Leave it to Beaver standard of decorum - can you provide any evidence about 'pro-homosexuals' who condemn pride marches?

as for being born gay - you're as born gay as you're born het - you can believe what you want - but your beliefs and reality aren't in any way linked

as for your reaction to gays - perhaps you are having such a strong reaction because someone's hit on a nerve - or your experience when fishing - whatever - it's left you with a distorted sense of the world
"freaking serious"Matno
Dec 17, 2002 6:03 AM
Same world. Different planets.

If it involves a child, it IS child abuse. Period. (By the way, that wasn't my study. Just thought it might have a bit more credibility to you and your crowd since it came from your side).

Your point about Stalin is no point at all. Prior to the political rise of homosexuality, heterosexuals were classified as normal (and rightly so). Stalin didn't exactly fit into that mold. Since a few people here like to equate anything conservative with the Nazi's, here's an interesting link about Hitler's use of homosexuality in his rise to power:

Before the AMA's role shifted from primarily medical to primarily political, homosexuality was classified as mental illness. No science went into the decision to change that, just some very loud opinions from a few. You're entitled to your opinion, however unfounded it may be. (Morally unfounded that is). But keep in mind that it is your opinion. As Dostoyevsky wrote, if there is no God, everything is permissible.
"freaking serious"MJ
Dec 17, 2002 7:02 AM
child abuse is child abuse - you are equating it with homosexuality - most rapes are committed by men - are all men therefore dangerous?

are you also now saying that homosexuality is a mental illness? you should be careful here because though you may think it's ok to call people who are gay mentally ill alot of other people don't myself included - maybe if you do you could go over to some fag bashing site to carry on enlightened discourse with other neanderthal knuckle draggers

the point about Stalin isn't about him at all - it's that there are plenty of groups of people who can be lumped together to create an irrational fear of them - straight white men (to refer indirectly to Michael Moore's excellent book) seem to be responsible for alot of bad things too ye you're not classifying them as a dangerous group

what exactly do you mean me and my crowd? people who can read? particularly read and quote accurately from reports posted by neo-conservatives people who haven't? anyways as the author of your report is a christian leader (a vicar) isn't he more likely to be one of yours?

so you allow me to have an "opinion" on scientific fact but maintain that I don't get to choose what may constitute the foundations of morality? - presumably your twsited interpretation of the bible will suffice as a measurement of true knoweldge - you and your ideas are a disgrace to christians and everyone on the right

I wonder how many things we could list that the AMA have changed their opinion on since its inception? or should just conclude that Victorian medical knowledge and practice was the pinnacle of enlightenment?

maybe you're very upset about this homo thing because you have unresolved issues in this regard abd I've hit a raw nerve?
P by PMatno
Dec 17, 2002 7:56 PM
I only equated homosexual child abuse with homosexuality. However, I do think that there are much higher levels of abuse among homosexuals. Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that so many of them were abused themselves as children. Abuse tends to perpetuate itself.

Like I said, you're entitled to think what you want.

You seem to continuously overlook percentages.

By "you and your crowd" I meant liberal, pro-homosexual. I assumed that article was written from that viewpoint since it advocated lowering the age of consent for boys. Hardly "one of mine."

"Scientific fact" - HAH! That almost made me fall out of my seat. There is no more scientific evidence to support a genetic predisposition for homosexuality than there is to support life on Mars. In other words, there are theories that propose the "fact," and a lot of evidence has been sampled, but no conclusions have ever been substantiated. Nobody has isolated ANY genetic basis for homosexuality. I don't think they ever will. I don't mind being a disgrace to Christians in your opinion. That means I'm obviously doing something right. You can't please all of the people all of the time, nor should you. God is the only one whose opinion ultimately matters.

I don't have a problem with the AMA changing its opinion on medical knowledge. There was no scientific reason for that particular change. It was made solely on the basis of political pressure. Period.

I have no "unresolved issues." When I have a problem, I resolve it or forget about it. In the particular case that I mentioned, it was certainly resolved. However, I'm not unaware of the irony of this thread. It's not every day that I get flamed by a flamer...
P by PMJ
Dec 18, 2002 1:19 AM
your proffered percentages here are demonstrably less than reliable - the study referred to in your thread isn't sourced and can't be examined

I've never read that homos have suffered more abuse as children - why is homosexual child abuse any worse than heterosexual child abuse? they're both child abuse and both are abhorrent

why not one of yours - he's a protestant minister - or is that not conceivable in your world? there are lots of gay christians about - if the bible does conclude it's a sin (which many don't think it does) it can only be considered a sin on par with eating pork and the how to treat your second wife - you should know the bible doesn't grade sins for severity despite a deep need for many on the right to treat homosexuality as a "special" sin a la the god hates fags brigade which you probably sympathise with

I guess you and sciencists with their maps of the human brain will just have to disagree - you can keep your opinion - they can rely on facts - to take you on the merits of your own, er, logic - you can't prove homos aren't genetically predisposed to be homos - maybe you should cut them some slack until you can

you're more than a disappointment to christians and the right in general - your continued mean spiritedness, fear and loathing of others would disappoint God too - you need to work more on the New Testament portions and leave the fire brimstone and condemnation behind

no scientific change for concluding that homos are mentallyu ill - the better questions is on what basis were homos ever classed as mentally ill in the first place? it sounds like the first decision was political pressure - the second was based on science - i.e. we don't have a leg top stand on here fellas we should really change this until we have some basis

if I'm a flamer then you must consider everyone else who takes issue with your astounding posts to be a flamer too - when so many people respond to you in the way they have here one must wonder who the reasonable party is mate

anyways - you seem all riled up by this - maybe you should do some soul searching as clearly there's a raw nerve here for you - it appears to me that when you have a problem you're keen to find a scapegoat to blame it on rather than dealing with it
Dec 18, 2002 10:24 AM
it must be strange to get spanked everyday here
Couple points.czardonic
Dec 17, 2002 12:31 PM
First, I would submit Mardi Gras, Carnival and their multitudinous copycat festivals as examples of the distasteful public display of promiscuity and sexuality, primarily of the heterosexual persuasion. Then there are the countless examples of overt heterosexual sexuality one could glean from popular culture outlets like film and TV, where homosexuality remains a relative taboo.

Second, rape and sexual abuse should not be confused with sexuality. These crimes are about power, not sex. In fact, many of these crimes are commited by family members or friends who are otherwise heterosexual.

Incidentally, does that study compare these "disturbing" numbers to the experience of females?
Dec 17, 2002 1:56 PM
thanks czar

don't really have anything to add to that - just wanna make sure Matno doesn't fail to review the thread... I suspect I will be disappointed
Good points.Matno
Dec 17, 2002 8:03 PM
I wholeheartedly agree that Mardi Gras, Carnival, etc. are equally as distasteful. Same goes for pop culture. However, homosexuality is NOT a relative taboo on television any more. A huge number of prime time shows have either plots that involve homosexuality, or full-time gay characters. Personally, I don't think this reflects the population of our country very well, but we all know which way the media leans.

I disagree with your statement that sexual crimes are more about power than sex. I'm sure some of them are, but certainly not the majority.

I don't know much about that particular study. The numbers are disturbing on both sides, but harder to explain from the homosexual side (because they're inordinately high).
I can't let this go.Len J
Dec 18, 2002 6:59 AM
Matno, You certainly are entitled to your oponion but when you cross the line into something dangerous I have to speak up.

As a result of childhood abuse, I have been very active in investigating the causes and recovery from all types of abuse (including sexual, psycological, rape etc). In addition I have worked a number of help lines over the years aimed at assisting victims coping with the aftereffects. The most significant myth attached to sexual abuse is that it is about sex. This leads to many guilt inducing thought processes that end up being detructive to the abused party (What did I do to "bring on " the abuse? How is this my fault?). So when you say:

"I disagree with your statement that sexual crimes are more about power than sex. I'm sure some of them are, but certainly not the majority."

I can state unequivically that you are dead wrong. There are many studies that support that Abuse is about power, sex is the domination tool, the method, but the motivation is power. There are no studies that I have ever seen, and I have researched extensivly, that support the concept that sexual abuse is about sex at it's core.

While it may be your oponion, it perpetuates a potentially destructive myth that hinders the recovery of the victims.

well saidMJ
Dec 18, 2002 9:04 AM
Matno is dangerous

he sounds rational but doesn't have a clue or basis in fact for most of his extreme knee jerk viewpoints
well saidMatno
Dec 18, 2002 9:22 AM
Dangerous to whom? You perhaps. My values offer safety to children (and adults), for whom your liberal ideas can be extremely harmful. But you will never see it that way, because it's too hard to admit it. You said your father was a Baptist minister, most of whom - in my experience - are very good people. Maybe you feel guilty for contradicting what you learned as a child and know to be true? Kind of reminds me of the aftermath of the Clinton/Lewinsky thing. All of the people I know who said it was okay to lie about something like that actually HAD lied about something like that themselves.

I SOUND rational because I AM rational. It takes more than a clueless nut to offer rational viewpoints. My reactions are only knee jerk reactions in that I respond to things that need to be corrected. Your foundless criticisms often need correction.
Your postEager Beagle
Dec 18, 2002 9:31 AM
Assumes that one can't be rational and wrong at the same time. That is not the case. LenJ and MJ are correct (mebbe it's the "J" thing?). You are wrong. It's a simple matter of factual accuracy sometimes.
You're right.Matno
Dec 18, 2002 1:18 PM
But only if two wrongs make a right.
Dec 19, 2002 12:59 AM
I guess I would resort to playground logic too if I got spanked by almost everyone who responded to me

two wrongs make a right? I don't even know what that means you're so far off point

you need to raise your game if this is going to remain of any interest to me

BTW - it appears you dropped the thread above...
er, maybe you could respond to Len J's postMJ
Dec 18, 2002 10:23 AM
Clinton/Lewinsky, my Dad, my beliefs - sounds like you're running for cover to safer areas of discussion

let's assume I'm a happy well adjusted mature adult - let's also assume both me and my father are happy with how things stand at the moment in every respect - although if you wanna discuss things not particularly relevant we could talk about your sex life with your wife or whatever...

I'm happy to admit there are other ways of doing things and recognise alot of things I might not believe in or even agree with are actually very positive - I do not consider a conservatve approach being positive amounts to a liberal approach being negative - I respect, admire and understand alot of people who are extremely conservative - politically, religiously, fiscally, sexually, etc. many of those people, though I do not agree with them, are rational and provide sound reasoning for their beliefs and I respect them and their beliefs

you are not one of those people - your stated beliefs here are the antithesis of a reasoned conservative position which indicate your fear and distrust of anyone who is not exactly like you

you are a threat - you don't understand your own faith and beliefs - thay are not put together in any sensible fashion - and when you make comments about child abuse not being about power it just shows how wide of the mark you are again
Couple more points.czardonic
Dec 18, 2002 10:55 AM
First, something you said earlier bothered me more and more after I thought about it:

"Women are rarely sexual predators, therefore, if there were no homosexuality, young boys would be a lot safer than they are."

Think about that. There may be fewer abused boys in this situation, but there would be a corresponding increase in the number of girls that were victimized. Is that somehow less deplorable because at least the abusers aren't gay?

Second, while there may have been an upsurge in the number of gay and lesbian characters on our screens, you practically never see them express their orientation in any physical way. Kissing, appearing in bed together etc. remains an absolute rarity. This is what I meant by absolute taboo. Doesn't that meet your standard of keeping their sexual orientation private and away from kids?
Well . . .carnageasada
Dec 11, 2002 4:54 PM
I think you raise some interesting points. On paper it hardly seems fair that we allow a 'Black Caucus' racist free status while a'White Caucus' would result in a lot of racist remarks. My heart says that we already have a white caucus, most of congress and the oval office so to speak, although I will concede that philosophically you're correct . . . if you're going to allow a black caucus than a white caucus should be allowed too.

As far as crying foul on Lott, I cry foul too. Strom Thurmond stood for inequality and segregation. The Black Caucus, I believe, stands for promoting a people's rights that haven't always had equality and integration so I don't blame them for being upset about someone praising Thurmond's previous exploits. Calling for Lott's resignation is alott(sorry) to ask, but asking for a full throttle apology is a good place to start.

Your point on the media promoting racism is true. The media promotes everything--life, death, Clinton, Bush, Bin Laden, Gandhi, hurricanes, baby formula, racism, free love, talcom powder--with an eye more towards our desires for entertainment than our desires for truth or societal wellness.

P.S. Byrd isn't much better than Lott and should be condemned for racisit remarks too.