When will Ann Coulter go too far?

[Robert Sharp]

OK, the latest scandal is that she called Edwards a "faggot". Actually, she said something like : "I would talk about the other Democratic candidate [meaning Edwards] but apparently you now have to go to rehab if you say the word 'faggot' so I better just leave it alone."

The gay community is upset, obviously.

But this is the same woman who said she wished McVeigh had blown up the NYTimes.

Will there ever be a point when she is finally called on this shit? Will there ever be a time when people will just have to stop supporting her because associating with her will be political suicide?

[Aeon221]

No, because she is "ballsy" and "real".

[Enidigm]

What will ruin Coulter is when she 'cracks'. Which by the sound of things, is not that far off.

And by 'crack' i mean of course, come out.

[Angie Gallant]

No, because bigoted and cowardly Republicans -- which is not all of them but a significant number of them -- think she is "ballsy" and "real" and a "truthteller".

[Robert Sharp]

Ah, but in this case she was on C-Span and introduced as part of the conservative party (it was CPAC), to roars from people who presumably are major politicians:

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003553226

[extarbags]

I don't think she could possibly go too far. Her audience is the extreme right wing of the already pretty right wing Republican party. They're as crazy as she is.

[Robert Sharp]

I get that, and so I know there will always be a market for her. She can make money. What I mean is when will the Republican party have to condemn her, for political reasons?

[extarbags]

Never. She doesn't work for them (officially). She doesn't speak for them. They don't get smeared with her craziness, they just reap the benefit when she riles their base for them. It's all upside.

[Enidigm]

When she comes out.

Hearing what they want to hear from an anti-progressive attack dog of a woman is exactly what they want (women can be conservative too!). Hearing it from a hypocritical self-hating lesbian woman is not.

Of course, she can parley that into a reverse-course career with the liberal establishment when it comes time to "retire", as a sort of Michael Behe of Women's Issues. It won't be as bright or profitable, but it will keep her utility bills paid.

Honestly though, at this point it think she's already riding on inertia. Whatever you see on TV, most people i know whom are conservatives don't really pay much attention to her. The "outing" is near the surface already. Her career is more institutional, and she's playing the conservative networks, organizations, and talking heads more than the public at this point.

[Glenn]

I'm pretty sure that every Republican candidate except for McCain was present. At least a few of them are going to get caught laughing in the audience.

[Midnight Son]

Isn't it about time for her to shave her hair off and go into rehab so she can learn how to be human?

[noun]

I still refuse to believe Ann Coulter was born a woman until someone can find a high school yearbook picture of her.

[extarbags]

I still refuse to believe Ann Coulter was born a woman until someone can find a high school yearbook picture of her.

Not that tall an order, as it turns out (http://www.jossip.com/gossip/ann-coulter/ann-coulter-hot-or-not-highschool-edition-20060615.php).

[Bad Neighbor]

I never really looked before the Edwards comment, but she really does have an adam's apple. Thanks, ifuckedanncoulterintheasshard.blogspot.com!

[id4698]

Henry Rollins views on the situation:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZgSBhlw-o9E

[Christien Murawski]

When she comes out.

Hearing what they want to hear from an anti-progressive attack dog of a woman is exactly what they want (women can be conservative too!). Hearing it from a hypocritical self-hating lesbian woman is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammy_Bruce


"Not that there's anything wrong with that."

-Amanpour

[dannimal]

Not that tall an order, as it turns out (http://www.jossip.com/gossip/ann-coulter/ann-coulter-hot-or-not-highschool-edition-20060615.php).

And yet, that particular photo doesn't slam the door.

[Ranulf]

Yawn. The tranny looking wacko with the sharp knees and anger issues is merely pointing out the insanity that is political correctness over that tv actor's "fag" comment. Oh noes, someone used a slur!

[Christien Murawski]

Will there ever be a point when she is finally called on this shit? Will there ever be a time when people will just have to stop supporting her because associating with her will be political suicide?

Apparently.

G.O.P Candidates Criticize Slur by Conservative Author (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/us/politics/04coulter.html?_r=3&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)

[AaronSofaer]

I'm a pretty solid Coulter hater, but even I wouldn't get all that in an uproar about this one.

In fact, I think this line is pretty funny:


C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.

Beautifully done!


But seriously, why Edwards? Is he really that serious of a contender that the G.O.P. needs to unleash the hounds on him? I'd think they'd be more concerned about Obama. When I was visiting the US, it was all ObamaObamaObamma with a little bit of Hillary. But it might have changed since, I suppose.

[John Reynolds]

Oh, so presidential hopefuls denounced her words because of heat from the left. Where's the denunciation from the right? Let's see some conservative groups saying that this level of discourse is childish and inappropriate.

[Robert Sharp]

I'm a pretty solid Coulter hater, but even I wouldn't get all that in an uproar about this one.

In fact, I think this line is pretty funny:




Really? Tell you what, insert the word 'nigger' for 'faggot' and 'Obama' for 'Edwards' and see what you think about it. Because that's how gay people feel about the use of that word. And at a time when they have JUST attacked someone for saying it, she makes light of the whole thing, using the word for a joke AND as an insult against Edwards.

[Lum]

While I'm no fan of Ann Coulter, I'm pretty sure she's not a lesbian. She was dating Bob Guccione's kid for a while.

[Indierthanthou]

While I'm no fan of Ann Coulter, I'm pretty sure she's not a lesbian. She was dating Bob Guccione's kid for a while.

Oh, that means nothing. I believe your example would fall under the category of "beard" (which on a related note is something that Coulter could grow if really she wanted to). This is a woman with a lot of hate - most of it being self-hatred:


When a questioner asked Coulter why she praises marriage but broke off so many engagements, she responded by calling the questioner ugly."

[Lum]

Can she both a genetic male *and* a lesbian? I think you kind of have to pick one slur or the other here.

[Indierthanthou]

Can she both a genetic male *and* a lesbian? I think you kind of have to pick one slur or the other here.

Nah - she is just a manly woman. Like the bearded ladies at the circus.

Edit: Also, there is only one slur in my post, i.e. her being manly. I don't think that there is anything wrong with her being a lesbian...her being a closeted lesbian who spouts foul bigotry to hide her orientation is a problem (unless she is just a garden-variety bigot, which is just as big of a problem).

[Jason McCullough]

There's not realy anything conservatives pundits can say that will get them off the talk show circuits or booted out of respectable society. There's a real asymmetry on the political divide.

[Mordrak]

Can she both a genetic male *and* a lesbian? I think you kind of have to pick one slur or the other here.

I'm a woman trapped in a man's body and who happens to be a lesbian.

[extarbags]

Can she both a genetic male *and* a lesbian? I think you kind of have to pick one slur or the other here.

Nice of you to consider those two things "slurs."

[Donald L.]

Outrageous comments + press coverage = book sales

[Lum]

Actually, I don't (I mean, last time I checked, I *was* male), but I'm not the one slinging them around about Coulter, either. I doubt people are implying she has an Adam's apple or accusing her of being a closeted lesbian as compliments!

But please, continue to throw insults at the harridan throwing insults because she threw insults.

[mystery]

Oh, fuck her, she doesn't deserve my civility. I'll reserve that for political discussions with game designers.

[Lum]

How to properly deal with Ann Coulter (http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/07/08/adam-carolla-hangs-up-on-coulter/).

[extarbags]

Actually, I don't (I mean, last time I checked, I *was* male), but I'm not the one slinging them around about Coulter, either. I doubt people are implying she has an Adam's apple or accusing her of being a closeted lesbian as compliments!

Well, I think they're accusing her of being a hypocrite.

[Lum]

And all I was doing was helpfully pointing out she can't be both a transsexual AND a lesbian! (Well, I guess technically she could. But that seems like an awful lot of work.)

Anyway, back to the question posed by the thread title, I would guess the answer would be "now", as the right-wing blogosphere en masse is dumping on Ann Coulter for being, well, Ann Coulter.

Michelle Malkin (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006976.htm)
Hugh Hewitt (http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/380bdbbd-8f01-45cb-8dd8-d1370aa6f1b2)
National Review (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjllNzk5NTdiOGJhOGZjMDg3NmM4NDA5MWFlMWVlNmI=)

Of course, this is all about the same person who regularly calls Muslims "ragheads" in her writing and famously called for the Middle East to be forcibly converted in some sort of latter-day Christian jihad. It's political pornography and only complete idiots and Fox News take her seriously.

[SlyFrog]

And all I was doing was helpfully pointing out she can't be both a transsexual AND a lesbian! (Well, I guess technically she could. But that seems like an awful lot of work.)

Anyway, back to the question posed by the thread title, I would guess the answer would be "now", as the right-wing blogosphere en masse is dumping on Ann Coulter for being, well, Ann Coulter.

Michelle Malkin (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006976.htm)
Hugh Hewitt (http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/380bdbbd-8f01-45cb-8dd8-d1370aa6f1b2)
National Review (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjllNzk5NTdiOGJhOGZjMDg3NmM4NDA5MWFlMWVlNmI=)

Of course, this is all about the same person who regularly calls Muslims "ragheads" in her writing and famously called for the Middle East to be forcibly converted in some sort of latter-day Christian jihad. It's political pornography and only complete idiots and Fox News take her seriously.


Those links are all fake. They didn't say that. It's a conservative conspiracy. They're all backing her, and acting the liberals no matter what.

[Jason McCullough]

I guess we've got an answer on how far is too far. To my knowledge that's the first time any of those three have said anything but praise for Ann.

[MatthewF]

It's political pornography and only complete idiots and Fox News take her seriously.

The latter group is included in the former, I think.

[Jason McCullough]

Conveniently, the poor man puts together a list of the conservative method's greatest hits of the last few years:

http://www.thepoorman.net/2007/03/02/a-style-guide-to-civility-and-seriousness/


Suggest that Arab countries, being too primative for democracy, should be reduced to rubble.

Some are blogs or Thomas Friedman, but in general, there you go.

[Enidigm]

I don't think it's a compliment or insult, but more of a psychological profile. I'm saying she's gay because i think she really is.

[Jason McCullough]

It was either Laura Ingraham or Ann Coulter that was David Brock's fag hag for a while, according to Blinded By The Right. I can't find the reference though.

According to brock like half of the conservative movement in DC is in the closet, so it wouldn't be much of a surprise. I'd prefer if she's straight; it's less embarassing to those of the gay persuasion.

[noun]

And yet, that particular photo doesn't slam the door.

Yeah, I'm not buying it.

[bago]

My thread has the Malkin diss!

[Rimbo]

Ann Coulter lost it a long, long time ago. In fact, I'm not sure she ever really had it. She is an old-school troll; she says what she says to get a rise out of people, not because it makes any sense or has any tact.

[Jeremy Johnsen]

I'm pretty sure that every Republican candidate except for McCain was present. At least a few of them are going to get caught laughing in the audience. Romney even told the croud how lucky they were (http://politicalderby.com/2007/03/03/will-romney-denounce-ann-coulters-bizarre-and-vulgar-insult/) to be able to hear from her.

At the Conservative Political Action Conference, Mitt Romney introduced Ann Coulter enthusiastically, saying, “I am happy to hear that after you hear from me, you will hear from Ann Coulter. That is a good thing. Oh yeah!” Of course he went on to denounce what she said aftwards. Does he not know what kind of person she is, what candidate in their right mind would gudh over Ann Coulter?

[SpoofyChop]

I despise Coulter but she's not alone in hateful utterances:

http://patterico.com/2007/03/05/5901/leftist-hate-speech/

This stuff isn't confined to the right or the left.

[Stroker Ace]

I think we can safely hate on Coulter without having to be reminded that there are assholes on both sides of the aisle.

[Hawkeye Fierce]

As pointed out already here and in the other thread on CPAC, the point isn't that Coulter is a hateful, venomous hosebeast. We all knew that already. And it isn't that the left doesn't have similar vitriolic voices. The point is that she was invited to speak on the same stage with prominent Republicans, and was cheered and applauded by same for spewing out her usual tripe.

Each side has its ridiculous fringe voices. It's when they get invited to the core's constituency's parties that eyebrows go up.

[jeffd]

In the spirit of discussion - probably the closest left-wing analogue to Coulter I can think of is Al Sharpton. Maybe Jesse Jackson.

[SpoofyChop]

Each side has its ridiculous fringe voices. It's when they get invited to the core's constituency's parties that eyebrows go up.

Practically everybody on the list from the blog link I just posted are considered mainstream liberals. They're right in there with the core constituency all the time.

[SpoofyChop]

In the spirit of discussion - probably the closest left-wing analogue to Coulter I can think of is Al Sharpton. Maybe Jesse Jackson.

QFT...

[BlueJackalope]

Outrageous comments + press coverage = book sales

She's more Professional Wrasslin' heel than legitimate commentator, she just never breaks kayfabe.

[Indierthanthou]

Practically everybody on the list from the blog link I just posted are considered mainstream liberals. They're right in there with the core constituency all the time.

While I totally agree with Jeffd's quote about Jesse Jackson, hate speech, and core constituency, I have disagree with this quote. I can only name 5 people on the list that have the both the name-recognition (at least to the majority of Americans) as Coulter and the direct political ties to the Democratic party: Carville, Byrd, Jackson, and Huffington.

I am not counting the Howard Dean quote because almost every person of both parties we would be considered hate-mongers if saying you "hate" the opposite was considered vile hate-speech.

On a related note, one of the big reasons politcal debate in this country has gone down the tubes is because political parties demonize the other side in an effort to pander to the "core" constituency (i.e. the fringes) (At least more so than in previous decades, demonizing your opponent has always been a political standby).

[Hawkeye Fierce]

Practically everybody on the list from the blog link I just posted are considered mainstream liberals. They're right in there with the core constituency all the time.

Oh, whatever Spoofy. A few out-of-context quotes does not a Coulter make.

Besides which, you're missing the point. Obama's not up on stage with Dan Savage, laughing and clapping as Santorum is compared to fecal matter.

[SpoofyChop]

On a related note, one of the big reasons politcal debate in this country has gone down the tubes is because political parties demonize the otherside in an effort to pander to the "core" constituency (i.e. always the fringes).

Yeah. It really sucks too.

[jeffd]

Practically everybody on the list from the blog link I just posted are considered mainstream liberals. They're right in there with the core constituency all the time.

It's instructive to note that "practically everybody on the list from the blog link I just posted..." includes such leading liberals as:
- USA Today syndicated columnist Malveaux (who?)
- Chris Rock (I hear he's been offered the keynote speech at the DNC!)
- Syndicated Columnist Alexander Cockburn (wha?)
- Advice columnist Dan Savage
- Huffington Post blogger Tony Hendra (yeah I hear he's running for President)
- Members of the St. Petersburg Democratic Club (not joking about this one)

Yeah, I'm cherrypicking the absurd ones to make a point. The only people in the list who have any real influence in the Democratic party are:
- James Carville (who made a joke about kneecaping Ken Star)
- Sen. Robert Byrd (yeah he's an ass)
- Jesse Jackson (yep, he's an ass too)
- Howard Dean (who was quoted as saying he hates Republicans... oooh, how horrible!)

I'm posting this just to highlight how again SpoofyChop is choosing to dodge the topic of discussion. The issue isn't that "There are Republicans who spew hate filled vitriol." Nor is anyone saying that there aren't liberals and Democrats who do the same.

The issue -and people need to hammer on this - is that the Republicans are the ones who invite their premiere wackjob hatemonger to be a featured speaker at one of their major events where presidential hopefuls kowtow to her as she makes vile remarks while beeing enthusiastically cheered.

[Christien Murawski]

I despise Coulter but she's not alone in hateful utterances:

http://patterico.com/2007/03/05/5901/leftist-hate-speech/

This stuff isn't confined to the right or the left.

I love how this article about the hate speech of the other side begins:


A certain intellectual fraud who goes by the name of Glenn Greenwald...

It's always advisable to begin your article condemning the hate speech of your rivals with an ad hominem attack. Well played!

"Liberal? Conservative? All that matters is that you're wrong."

-Amanpour

[shift6]

It's funny how the "core" is actually the "fringe" nowadays.

[Indierthanthou]

It's funny how the "core" is actually the "fringe" nowadays.

When average person could care less about voting (average turnout for 2002 and 2004 presidential = 51.3/55.3%; average turnout for Congressional (state and national) in 2002/2004 = 36.4/37.0%), the parties tend to go for their rabid voting base (which are generally "fringe") and voting independents. So in today's fun, fun, fun world of politics what was once the "fringe" is now the "core."

My wild guess is that if the parties thought that the 48% of non-voters actually would go out in vote that campaigns would look a little different.

[Jason McCullough]

I disagree; I don't think things would change much. The underlying society has become polarized. there's some interesting results showing a correlation (http://www.google.com/search?q=inequality+political+polarization) between economic inequality and political polarization.

[Rimbo]

I disagree; I don't think things would change much. The underlying society has become polarized. there's some interesting results showing a correlation (http://www.google.com/search?q=inequality+political+polarization) between economic inequality and political polarization.

Most people are sheep.

[Anti-Bunny]

Michael Moore.

What I wouldn't give to see them both fight to the death. Now that's news-worthy.

[Shadarr]

I don't think it's a compliment or insult, but more of a psychological profile. I'm saying she's gay because i think she really is.
Yeah, I agree. Something about her screams dyke, and my gaydar is pretty good.

[Rimbo]

Not that tall an order, as it turns out (http://www.jossip.com/gossip/ann-coulter/ann-coulter-hot-or-not-highschool-edition-20060615.php).

as much as it is possible for a teenage girl to "look" like a dyke, ...

[Indierthanthou]

Yeah, I agree. Something about her screams dyke, and my gaydar is pretty good.


as much as it is possible for a teenage girl to "look" like a dyke, ...

WTF is up with the use of "dyke" in a thread devoted to bashing Coulter for calling Edwards a fag? Unintended hypocrisy?

Yes, she is probably a self-hating lesbian (or we could be giving her way too much credit and she is just a garden-variety bigot), but what is up with this?

[Enidigm]

Please attribute that quote above correctly :).

[Indierthanthou]

Please attribute that quote above correctly :).

Fixed - sorry about that.

[Rimbo]

WTF is up with the use of "dyke" in a thread devoted to bashing Coulter for calling Edwards a fag? Unintended hypocrisy?

it's called "irony"

And the hypocrisy was quite deliberate. :)

[Flowers]

If I had a news show, I would tap Ann Coulter for some almost subliminally fast self-parody reactions. I know there is some blocking in here, and there shouldn't be, but I can fucking do what I want.

NEWSCASTER
In related news, conditions at Walter Reed are..

ANN COULTER
Freeloaders.

NEWSCASTER
...improving in light of recent allegations of mistreatment of our soldiers.
In our next story, Tom Brokaw called them, "The Greatest Generation," and..

ANN
Shoplifting drag queens.

NEWSCASTER
Moving on, we get to our top story of the night, it seems that Reverend Je-
(Pause, looks at Ann, She looks back and smiles innocently.)
se.

ANN
(Leans forward, fighting to contain herself.)

NEWSCASTER
(Looking at Ann.)
Ja-
kuh-
sssssssssss

ANN
(audible squeal.)

NEWSCASTER
Awwww, look at that, it's time for a commercial. When we get back, Television's Dave Coulier is going to show us some common ways to protect against bank fraud.
(to offscreen during slow fade)
Is that right? "Televisions" Dave Coulier?
(Nod.)
No, I know about Full House, I was just thinking, at some point, when you're not on TV, don't you kind of stop being TV's whatever? No, I didn't forget about Surreal Life. No, I don't think that really counts. Ok, Full House's Dave Coulier I get, but I think "Television" is sort of pushing it. Fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion. Alright, if you say so. I...I...I don't want to fight about this. Look, listen, it's not like being a President or a Senator.
(to a second offscreen target.) No, no, it's really not. I don't care what you say. Look, I said I didn't want to argue about this, and now you're making me. Listen, it was a joke and I'm sorry. (to the second target.) I'm sorry Dave, I didn't mean to make a joke at your expense. No, we still want you on our show. No, please, don't take your show on the road. (pause.) Yes, I am being sarcastic.

[bloo]

I heard her quoted on the radio this morning or last night saying that 'Faggot' is not an insult toward Gay people. "It's a schoolyard taunt that means 'wuss.'"

The juvenile in me wishes she was right. I loved that insult back before I knew what it meant. But she's not.

Lum's right in pointing out Adam Carolla's response. I see or hear her, I change the channel.

[madkevin]

I heard her quoted on the radio this morning or last night saying that 'Faggot' is not an insult toward Gay people. "It's a schoolyard taunt that means 'wuss.'"

Well, she is a Republican. They're sort of used to making words mean whatever they want at any given moment.

[Rimbo]

Well, she is a Republican. They're sort of used to making words mean whatever they want at any given moment.

I presume you think the Democrats are in any imaginable way better?

[Nick Walter]

I presume you think the Democrats are in any imaginable way better?

Actually, I'd say worse. Worse as in "not as good at it" though I suspect they'd like to be.

The Republicans have been very successful in recent years in reframing any contentious topic however they want.

[Phil_Stein]

I presume you think the Democrats are in any imaginable way better?

That depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.

[Sebmolo]

Snipped: Awesomeness

That was great.

[Dirt]

Really? Tell you what, insert the word 'nigger' for 'faggot' and 'Obama' for 'Edwards' and see what you think about it. Because that's how gay people feel about the use of that word. And at a time when they have JUST attacked someone for saying it, she makes light of the whole thing, using the word for a joke AND as an insult against Edwards.
Or, more likely, you would substitute the word 'redneck' for 'faggot' and 'Obama' for 'Edwards'.

[Glenn]

Or, more likely, you would substitute the word 'redneck' for 'faggot' and 'Obama' for 'Edwards'.Denigrating Obama as a redneck could be delightfully paradoxical, but it really doesn't seem like the kind of thing Robert Sharp would do.

[Rimbo]

If anything valuable can be gleaned from this event, consider this:

1. She felt the need to attack John Edwards.
2. Her attack was a baseless insult.

From this, you can gather a couple of things. It's not like she made this comment in a vacuum; the audience responded. The need to attack him, and the positive response, demonstrates the very real threat he represents to Republican leadership, even more so than Obama or Clinton.

Secondly, the crowd's approval of such a baseless insult shows that they got nothing on Edwards. They don't have a legitimate criticism to make. The guy is teflon.

I felt, back in 2004, that John Edwards was the only Democratic presidential candidate who had a legitimate shot, because he was the only one who carried a positive message, about helping hardworking Americans. Everyone else was running a campaign of: "Vote for me because I'm not George Bush."

I'd vote for him.

[Andrew Mayer]

If anything valuable can be gleaned from this event, consider this:

1. She felt the need to attack John Edwards.
2. Her attack was a baseless insult.

Her entire shtick is saying things that conservatives think will piss off liberals.

[Dirt]

Denigrating Obama as a redneck could be delightfully paradoxical, but it really doesn't seem like the kind of thing Robert Sharp would do.
With a wife and 3 kids, it's kinda paradoxical to call Edwards a faggot. At least Obama's mother was white.

[Robert Sharp]

With a wife and 3 kids, it's kinda paradoxical to call Edwards a faggot. At least Obama's mother was white.

Yep, because gay people never get married and have kids.

Oh, and Glenn, it's absolutely the kind of thing I would say, but we were talking about Coulter here!

[Dirt]

Yep, because gay people never get married and have kids.

Oh, and Glenn, it's absolutely the kind of thing I would say, but we were talking about Coulter here!
Are you saying that you agree with Ann Coulter's assessment of John Edwards.

[Robert Sharp]

Nope. I'm just saying that she could have been serious. In other words, she could really believe he is gay and just hiding it somehow. I don't know if that would make what she said better or worse though.

[jeffd]

Rimbo: What?

Dude seriouly you have no idea what you're talking about. Coulter didn't call Edwards a fag because she's "got nothing on him" or because there are no legitimate criticisms to make.

She called him a faggot because that's what Ann Coulter does. She does it because that's what gets the Republican base excited..

Glenn Greenwald had (another) timely post about this today. The gist is that the modern conservative movement is one of authoritarianism and nothing makes an authoritarian feel better then questioning the manliness of the Enemy.

[Rimbo]

Her entire shtick is saying things that conservatives think will piss off liberals.

I know. But that's why I emphasize that the audience responded well to her comments. That's the key.

They also respond to comments about Hillary, because Hillary is also perceived as a threat, even though I think she has about as much chance of getting elected president as she does turning up in a brothel in Bangkok. As an employee.

[Rimbo]

Rimbo: What?

Dude seriouly you have no idea what you're talking about.

Of course, it's not possible that you didn't understand what I was saying. :)

[jeffd]

You seem to be saying that the reason Coulter went after Edwards like that is because she percieves him as a serious threat to Republicanism and that they don't have any substantial material to go after him with, so they called him a faggot.

What'd I miss?

[CindySue22]

Rimbo: What?



Glenn Greenwald had (another) timely post about this today. The gist is that the modern conservative movement is one of authoritarianism and nothing makes an authoritarian feel better then questioning the manliness of the Enemy.


Jeez, I am a transsexual, I wonder the level of my "manliness"? I also wonder how much I am into "authoritarianism"? Agreed that the "Republican" spin sometimes gets a little homophobic, but all in all, I find it a better fit than the socialist agenda.

[LesJarvis]

Glenn Greenwald had (another) timely post about this today. The gist is that the modern conservative movement is one of authoritarianism and nothing makes an authoritarian feel better then questioning the manliness of the Enemy.

The blog post in question also included the following image, which sums up the topic better than anyone could hope to with mere words:

http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/6606/bushij2.jpg


Awesome.

[Nick Walter]

Jeez, I am a transsexual, I wonder the level of my "manliness"? I also wonder how much I am into "authoritarianism"? Agreed that the "Republican" spin sometimes gets a little homophobic, but all in all, I find it a better fit than the socialist agenda.

Okay, that's better, your trolling is back on form after a disappointing performance over the last week. And just to the ball rolling, I'll be the first person to be trolled.

I'm sure you prefer the homophobic "Republican" spin to the socialist agenda, but wouldn't you prefer the nice sane "Democratic" agenda to both?

[Midnight Son]

I've wondered why some people of an abused or victimized minority would ever become Republican..... Andrew Sullivan for example.

[Glenn]

Awesome.I'll see your homoeroticism and raise.
http://static.flickr.com/46/146110069_5100727239.jpg

[Midnight Son]

That's disturbing and I don't believe in fairy tales.....

[Flowers]

Jeez, I am a transsexual, I wonder the level of my "manliness"? I also wonder how much I am into "authoritarianism"? Agreed that the "Republican" spin sometimes gets a little homophobic, but all in all, I find it a better fit than the socialist agenda.


If h-only there were some happy medium betwixt patent leather boots with bad attitudes and filthy hippies getting their sharing on you.

And sorry, CindySue. tranny you may be, but your political beliefs mean that no matter how hard you try, you will always be manlier than a piss drunk fireman copping a feel from a topless prom queen as he rescues her from a dinosaur fight. The authoritarian nature of the Republican party nowadays is simply a hallmark of the leatherdaddy kink, so you don't need to worry about that. Perhaps a more laissez faire copafeelitalism is just around the corner.

[Midnight Son]

Flowers hits for +2 Koontz!

[Rimbo]

You seem to be saying that the reason Coulter went after Edwards like that is because she percieves him as a serious threat to Republicanism and that they don't have any substantial material to go after him with, so they called him a faggot.

What'd I miss?

That her comment was a hit with her intended audience.

I realize that it's popular and fashionable among the Left to believe that Republicans are a bunch of homophobic racist authoritarian dickheads, but homophobia is too far out of the mainstream to be acceptable to either major money party, and the party leaders know this damned well. If she'd picked some other random celebrity (one who is presumably straight), someone who didn't pose a threat to the party's leadership, I seriously doubt the comment would have been such a hit. I also suspect we'd have some serious shit coming from the Republican party about her comments being out of place and not representing the ideals the GOP stands for.

[jeffd]

Les: Yep! That right there sums up exactly how the conservative base sees itself.

That it's not actually a parody is even better.

[jeffd]

Rimbo: We're going to have to disagree then. You see dynamics at play that I simply don't think exist. I don't think the wild applause she got wasn't a result of them feeling unconsciously threatened by Edwards. It was a matter of Coulter saying what a lot of the folks in the audience would like to say but don't have the guts - precisely because of how homophobia is frowned on.

I don't believe Republicans are a bunch of racist authoritarian dickheads or any such thing. I do believe that the Republican movement of the past ten years is based around a philosophy of authoritarianism and as a result it has gathered such folk as a significant part of its base.

FYI this isn't the first time Coulter has called someone a faggot. Iirc she called Gore a fag in an interview, but at the time it went largely unremarked upon.

[Rimbo]

Fair 'nuff.

[LesJarvis]

Les: Yep! That right there sums up exactly how the conservative base sees itself.

That it's not actually a parody is even better.

Funny you should say that. When I first caught notice of the image I assumed it was something created specifically for the article, like the drawings that so often accompany Slate's articles. That not only someone, but multiple someones purchased a poster sized version of it and presumably are displaying it in their home/office/truck/shed only adds to the Awesome factor.


I'll see your homoeroticism and raise.

Dammit Glenn, you always have to top me, don't you? /cry

[Lizard_King]

I've wondered why some people of an abused or victimized minority would ever become Republican..... Andrew Sullivan for example.
Because they don't define their political beliefs entirely by leftist conceptions of proper victim categories? Not everyone believes their particular "abused or victimized minority" group is in and of itself the most significant issue they should vote on, much to Democratic chagrin.

[Rimbo]

Because they don't define their political beliefs entirely by leftist conceptions of proper victim categories? Not everyone believes their particular "abused or victimized minority" group is in and of itself the most significant issue they should vote on, much to Democratic chagrin.

I wonder if Midnight Son even realizes how patronizing and offensive his attitude is.

[Lizard_King]

I wonder if Midnight Son even realizes how patronizing and offensive his attitude is.
Oh, I didn't mean it that way. Far be it from me to compete in the most hysterically outraged category in this forum, not in this lifetime. I meant it literally and directly, and not necessarily as a form of praise to people that do break from the perceived appropriate sociological mold. I mean, it certainly can be an interesting and deep set of reasons that push a person to be outside the norm in their beliefs, but is just as likely to be shallow and inconsequential reasons that drive such a political choice as it is for more conventional ones.

And I'm not just saying that because I've become a single issue voter in a defined political minority, I swear.

[Rimbo]

Oh, I didn't mean it that way. Far be it from me to compete in the most hysterically outraged category in this forum, not in this lifetime. I meant it literally and directly, and not necessarily as a form of praise to people that do break from the perceived appropriate sociological mold. I mean, it certainly can be an interesting and deep set of reasons that push a person to be outside the norm in their beliefs, but is just as likely to be shallow and inconsequential reasons that drive such a political choice as it is for more conventional ones.

And I'm not just saying that because I've become a single issue voter in a defined political minority, I swear.

I'm just quoting you so that I can read it again. :)

[Midnight Son]

I wonder if Midnight Son even realizes how patronizing and offensive his attitude is.

To me, Andrew Sullivan being Republican makes as much sense as MLK joining the Klan. Why join a group that victimizes and stigmatizes you? This is patronizing and offensive? Only to people on "your side."

[Lizard_King]

To me, Andrew Sullivan being Republican makes as much sense as MLK joining the Klan. Why join a group that victimizes and stigmatizes you? This is patronizing and offensive? Only to people on "your side."

Only if you want to automatically trivialize the possibility that a gay man in 2007 America might have a slightly less pressing need to be concerned about things other than his homosexuality, some of the time, than a black man in 1960's America might about his particular "minority issues". I certainly hope Democratic strategists don't share your simplistic mindset.

Besides, if you really want to effect change, you don't necessarily need to be in direct opposition to the powers that be. Andrew Sullivan merely practices political jiujitsu to advance gay issues, as well as catering to other stuff that (OH THE HORROR) he cares about as much or more.

[Midnight Son]

He's doomed to fail unless his party changes immensely.

[Flowers]

To me, Andrew Sullivan being Republican makes as much sense as MLK joining the Klan. Why join a group that victimizes and stigmatizes you? This is patronizing and offensive? Only to people on "your side."

I have conversations along the same lines with my father, who votes Republican despite their demonization of trial lawyers. He thinks that Democrats are more likely to carry out their threats to take his livelihood through taxation and other schemes than Republicans. Fair enough.

This is why someone should form a new politcal center party. Economics should be the main focus, and discussion of divisive issues such as the legality of homoeroticism should be dismissed as counterproductive, wasteful indulgence. The problem is that currently, the center of American politics and the mainstream American people are only allowed to participate in elections via the kingmaker scenario.

[Lizard_King]

He's doomed to fail unless his party changes immensely.
He doesn't have to change it to improve things. He just has to undermine their devotion to the antigay platform to the point where it become less politically tenable than the current bash gays= win elections paradigm. Nowhere to go but up, and I think the black/Democrat relationship is actually a powerful argument for why gays should not be single issue voters based on their minority. They'll get very little in return, and I'm pretty sure at least some of them have other priorities that need addressing.

But I'm all for the Flowers party.

[CindySue22]

If h-only there were some happy medium betwixt patent leather boots with bad attitudes and filthy hippies getting their sharing on you.

And sorry, CindySue. tranny you may be, but your political beliefs mean that no matter how hard you try, you will always be manlier than a piss drunk fireman copping a feel from a topless prom queen as he rescues her from a dinosaur fight. The authoritarian nature of the Republican party nowadays is simply a hallmark of the leatherdaddy kink, so you don't need to worry about that. Perhaps a more laissez faire copafeelitalism is just around the corner.

I wish I knew WTF you were talking about.

[Sebmolo]

To me, Andrew Sullivan being Republican makes as much sense as MLK joining the Klan. Why join a group that victimizes and stigmatizes you? This is patronizing and offensive? Only to people on "your side."

At this stage I can't see how you could call him a Republican. Conservative, yes - at least on his own definition of the term - but Republican? Nope.

[madkevin]

I wish I knew WTF you were talking about.

Now you know how we feel.

[Flowers]

I wish I knew WTF you were talking about.

You pointed out that you were a transexual. Some say that makes you unmanly and, in the view of people critical of Andrew Sullivan's Republican leanings, makes you not a good candidate for membership in the ever so manly Republican Party. I merely pointed out that the Republican Party's healing light is so much the masculine version of a Mother Earth that it makes even transexuals of any stripe manlier than truck collisions spliced into the fight scenes of a Conan movie. The essential truth of the raw male power that permeates the Republican Party is such; all members of the party are the functional equivalent of Kurt Russell lighting cigarettes with his fist or Kurt Russell lighting cigarettes with his first while wearing a dress he stole to wear while he infiltrates Hell to beat up Hitler and doesn't take off at first opportunity because, hey, the fabric feels good against his body and if you have a problem the line for ass-beatdowns forms to the left.

I don't know how I can make this any clearer.

[Midnight Son]

I wanna smoke some o dat!

[Christien Murawski]

Aren't you required to use Chuck Norris in that analogy instead of Kurt Russell?

[Flowers]

Aren't you required to use Chuck Norris in that analogy instead of Kurt Russell?

Chuck Norris is asexual.

[Christien Murawski]

A sexual what? Dynamo?

[DeepT]

A General Question:

Why is a picture of a scantly clad, hot guy considered homo-erotic? It would seem to be, by the same logic, a picture of a scantly clad, hot chick would be lesbo-erotic (or something like that).

[Rimbo]

To me, Andrew Sullivan being Republican makes as much sense as MLK joining the Klan. Why join a group that victimizes and stigmatizes you? This is patronizing and offensive? Only to people on "your side."

Well, I'm not on that side, either.

Your defense above pretty much proves my point, anyhow.

[Rimbo]

Only if you want to automatically trivialize the possibility that a gay man in 2007 America might have a slightly less pressing need to be concerned about things other than his homosexuality, some of the time, than a black man in 1960's America might about his particular "minority issues". I certainly hope Democratic strategists don't share your simplistic mindset.

They do. (Hell, this is the party that just hired Howard "We need to appeal to the pickup and gun rack crowd" Dean as the national chairman. Ya wanna talk about simplistic mindsets?) Which is why the GOP's stance on immigration, religion and abortion is starting to draw Hispanics towards voting Republican. We're talking about issues that speak directly to what it means to be Hispanic in the USA. While guys like Midnight Son are talking about how the GOP's been marginalizing Hispanics, the Hispanics see the GOP talking about and acting upon the very things they themselves are concerned with.

So yeah, comments about how the GOP stigmatizes minorities ring false with Hispanics.

And don't even get me started with the high-ranking positions that African Americans have held under the current administration.

So I really have to wonder if Midnight Son was able to write what he did with a straight face, or if his head is just that deeply buried in the sand.

[noun]

Which is why the GOP's stance on immigration, religion and abortion is starting to draw Hispanics towards voting Republican.

Why on earth do you think this?

[Anders Hallin]

A General Question:

Why is a picture of a scantly clad, hot guy considered homo-erotic? It would seem to be, by the same logic, a picture of a scantly clad, hot chick would be lesbo-erotic (or something like that).
I think that has to do with the theorised "male gaze" in which most pictures/movies/etc presuppose a male observer. Thus, a picture of a hot guy is often homo-erotic and a picture of a naked woman is almost definitely hetero in nature.

[jeffd]

Rimbo: Wait you think that Hispanics are being brought into the Republican fold because of the GOP's stance on immigration?

[JessicaM]

Now you know how we feel.
IMHO, he is basically saying that the GOP and the radical right is filled with wannabe leather-boys, looking for a master daddy to tell them what to do. Part of that schtick is to be "manlier than thou", which is why conservative pundits spend so much time trying to feminize Democratic or liberal candidates. As long as you're in the GOP. they won't consider you a woman; at best, you are just a confused man making a grave error and at worst you are an abomination that needs to be killed or put in a camp somewhere, so you don't corrupt the precious bodily fluids of our Republican youth.

If I'm off on that, I'm sure I'll be corrected, :D.

And I tend to agree with him. The process is made easier because the MSM - again, IMO - is basically owned by the conservatives these days, so they can set and maintain the tone. The old saw about controlling the communications of a country to control the country is here with a vengence.

For clarification: Most people here know that I am also a TS, as well as a former conservative voter. I left both the movement and the country after the 2000 and 2004 national elections; it got tiresome being literally spit on by all those 'compassionate conservatives."

[Johan O]

...
For clarification: Most people here know that I am also a TS, as well as a former conservative voter. I left both the movement and the country after the 2000 and 2004 national elections; it got tiresome being literally spit on by all those 'compassionate conservatives."
If you pardon me for making you a spokesperson for all gays and transsexuals. Do you think you catch more flak as a transsexual than an openly gay non TS man does? I assume you are a more readily identifiable target, but do you think it goes beyond being just an easy target? That people perhaps find transsexualism even more provocative than run of the mill homosexuality?

[JM]

I'm still laughing over the fact that Spoofy's hilariously off-target blog link quoted Charlie Brooker.

Charlie fucking Brooker.

Amazing.

[DeepT]

Do you think you catch more flak as a transsexual than an openly gay non TS man does? I assume you are a more readily identifiable target, but do you think it goes beyond being just an easy target? That people perhaps find transsexualism even more provocative than run of the mill homosexuality?

Not that I can speak for JessicaM, but I would not assume it should be easy to identify a transsexual, in fact if the surgeons did a good job it should be very difficult. A transvestite on the other hand...

As for the topic of what makes homosexuality rub so many guys the wrong way, I suspect its the trans gender implications. I heard an interview with a well known gay guy (I can't remember his name) on NPR or something several years ago. He said that he would not have much of a problem walking down the street holding hands with his boyfriend, but he didn't think he could do it if he was dressed like a woman (as in you could still tell it was a guy dressed as a woman).

I strongly suspect that if all feminine connotations were removed from social expectations of a homosexual, that a lot less males would have a problem with it.

IE: If you took a random sampling of guys and ask them to disrobe a gay guy, and their description was very masculine (likes football, movies about war, and all that 'hetero guy stuff') with the only difference being that they preferred men to women, I think their level of disgust or hatred for homosexual males would vastly lower then it is now.

So basically, homosexuality implies a lack of masculinity and that is what is *really* offensive about being called a homo, fag, or whatever.

[Flowers]

IE: If you took a random sampling of guys and ask them to disrobe a gay guy[...]


First.

[Anders Hallin]

So basically, homosexuality implies a lack of masculinity and that is what is *really* offensive about being called a homo, fag, or whatever.
Andrew Sullivan had an interesting post about that the other day.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/03/faggots.html

The word "faggot" is used for two reasons: to identify and demonize a gay man; and to threaten a straight man with being reduced to the social pariah status of a gay man. Coulter chose the latter use of the slur, its most potent and common form. She knew why Edwards qualified. He's pretty, he has flowing locks, he's young-looking. He is exactly the kind of straight guy who is targeted as a "faggot" by his straight peers. This, Ms Coulter, is real social policing by speech. And that's what she was doing: trying to delegitimize and feminize a man by calling him a faggot. It happens every day. It's how insecure or bigoted straight men police their world to keep the homos out.

And for the slur to work, it must logically accept the premise that gay men are weak, effeminate, wusses, sissies, and the rest. A sane gay man has two responses to this, I think. The first is that there is nothing wrong with effeminacy or effeminate gay men - and certainly nothing weak about many of them.
[...]
What Coulter did, in her callow, empty way, was to accuse John Edwards of not being a real man. To do so, she asserted that gay men are not real men either. The emasculation of men in minority groups is an ancient trope of the vilest bigotry. Why was it wrong, after all, for white men to call African-American men "boys"? Because it robbed them of the dignity of their masculinity. And that's what Coulter did last Friday to gays. She said - and conservatives applauded - that I and so many others are not men.

As usual, of course, he ignores what this means for women. And the other responses to Coulter has the usual accusations of her being a lesbian/man, doing almost the exact same thing in reverse.

[Flowers]

Rimbo: Wait you think that Hispanics are being brought into the Republican fold because of the GOP's stance on immigration?

It looks like you just discovered a cost effective and delicious substitute for high fructose corn syrup. Trade name? Irony.

[Robert Sharp]

Andrew Sullivan had an interesting post about that he other day.

As usual, of course, he ignores what this means for women. And the other responses to Coulter has the usual accusations of her being a lesbian/man, doing almost the exact same thing in reverse.

I'm not sure what you mean. That she gets it back tells you something about her critics: that they are just as bad in many ways. But that doesn't excuse what she did at all. And I'm not sure what you are saying about "what this means for women".

[BlueJackalope]

FYI this isn't the first time Coulter has called someone a faggot. Iirc she called Gore a fag in an interview, but at the time it went largely unremarked upon.

This is a sort of tic with Ann, she called Clinton (Bill) a "latent homosexual"
http://mediamatters.org/items/200607260007

Bill Clinton. The guy's poon addiction got him impeached. Seriously.

Ann isn't as batshit crazy as she'd like everyone to think. She has cultivated a right wing Don Rickles act calculated to piss off the left and entertain the right. The more she can do the former the more money she generates from the latter. I'm sure she doesn't care about the veracity of anything she says.

[jeffd]

Well yeah - I've got no doubts that Coulter's act is, well, an act.

That doesn't make it any less revolting, and it doesn't make it any less disturbing that a goodly chunk of a large political movement cheer her on.

[Lizard_King]

Well yeah - I've got no doubts that Coulter's act is, well, an act.

That doesn't make it any less revolting, and it doesn't make it any less disturbing that a goodly chunk of a large political movement cheer her on.
Well, she complements the industry the left has created around being perpetually offended quite nicely. I'm not saying what she does is right, but your kind only encourage her and her fans. How many monocles must pop before you decide enough is enough?

[Stroker Ace]

I never!

[jeffd]

"my kind?" Here's where we run into the danger of taking our generalizations and applying them to individuals.

Coulter doesn't offend me. She's an idiot and a hack but I sure as hell didn't pop a monocole (or whatever) over her calling Edwards a fag. That doesn't make what she spews any less vile, and it doesn't make it any less revolting that the conservative base agrees with her.

But seriously LK that is some twisted fucking logic you've got going there. I mean not to put too fine a point on it but you're coming awful close to "Well she was asking for it, dressed like that..." Because people find the things Coulter spews hateful and offensive they're part of the problem?

[JessicaM]

If you pardon me for making you a spokesperson for all gays and transsexuals. Do you think you catch more flak as a transsexual than an openly gay non TS man does? I assume you are a more readily identifiable target, but do you think it goes beyond being just an easy target? That people perhaps find transsexualism even more provocative than run of the mill homosexuality?

Quite a few men certainly seem to see a TS as some sort of a threat and that includes quite a few gay men. Before the 2000 elections, for example, the worst I have ever been consistently treated badly in public was in the gay areas of San Francisco, followed closely by the denizens of the conservative haven of Orange County, CA. It has been my experience, however, that the overwhelming majority of women either don't see it as a threat or really don't care one way or the other; 99% of the times that I have been hassled publicly, it has been by men. Whether this is from some deep-seated "anti-TS" attitude or not, who knows? My personal experience has been that quite a few men act threatened by the concept. I don't know why for sure.

At the risk of seeming like a whiner: For all that we get more than our fair share of publicity, TSes are an easy target minority. There are very few of us compared to the population (maybe 50,000 in all of the US) and we're not organized; even if we were, we'd have nearly zero effect, because we can't mobilize a lot of voters or contributions. We're also so far off the estabished 'norms' that, combined with our few numbers, it is pretty easy to toss us to the lions. It is no coincidence that the word "transsexual" is usually the first one tossed from equal treatment legislation proposed by GLBT groups during negotiations with Congress-critters; it is that or lose support for the whole bill. Most days I can understand the reasoning. I don't like it, but reality can be like that.

Let me state upfront that I do have my days where I look like a truck driver in drag; I'm 6'4" tall, weigh in at over 200 pounds and on a bad hair day have been known to scare the crap out of bear-wrasslin' lumberjacks. So yeah, I got my share of surprised stares and nervous laughter before 2000, certainly more than the average gay guy just standing around on a street corner. In some ways, many men DO find a male-to-female TS more provocative just because it is more easily identifiable. In general, though, it wasn't a major issue before 2000; maybe 1 or 2 bad incidents a year. Most people seemed to have a live-and-let live attitude about the whole thing.

However, there was a fundamental shift in public attitudes after Bush II took office, one that became painfully obvious to me after the GOP took control of Congress in 2002 and the MSM began to shut out liberal voices from air time. Suddenly, it started to become OK to become ruder and more callous publicly toward a TS. Where before someone might do a double-take in the grocery store aisle, after 2002 and especially immediately after the 2004 elections, there would be a double-take and then maybe an 'accidental' elbow shot as the person passed by. Where once there might be raucous laughter and finger-pointing from a passing car, now it would be accompanied by a thrown bottle or soft drink cup and a loudly yelled "Fag!" I've posted elsewhere in these forums what it was like for me immediately following Bush's re-election; I had to stay off the streets at night for a couple weeks, until things calmed down a bit. And this was when I was living and working in Santa Monica, not known as a hotbed of conservatism.

I pin this to the "leadership starts at the top" concept: if the leaders make it known that it is OK to do something, then people just do it. During the Clinton years, things got progressively better for me in public year after year. In the case of the GOP control of the government after 2002, it was a major crack in the social contract; it became OK to be violent, not just insulting. When people like Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, Donohue and their ilk are given major air time on CNN, Fox and the networks to spew their hate, with no reply allowed from less radical elements, then it becomes OK to demonstrate that hate in the minds of the dittoheads.

I find the whole thing ironic, not just because of the revelations recently about Foley and Haggard, et al; TS hookers have known for decades that their most loyal group of customers is to be found among conservative males who want a discrete and close-mouthed outlet. It was the topic of conversation at more than one support group meeting, believe me. Hell, for that matter, when I get hit on in hotel bars while traveling (yes, it does happen occasionally; I look MUCH better in dim bar lighting), it is almost always a straight, married, conservative, self-identified evangelical man wanting to take a little walk on the wild side. They'll start out talking about their wife, kids and politics, then move to their church group activities, then move on to "Why don't we continue this conversation in my room, where it isn't so loud?" wink-wink, nudge-nudge. Yes, that is all mostly anecdotal; take it with a grain of salt.

So, to answer your question: It certainly SEEMS like there is more going on than just "Hey, guy in a dress; throw bottle and laugh!" That's subjective, though, and doesn't constitute objective evidence.

On the other hand: After two years in Europe, I have yet to have even ONE bad incident. There have been several cases of nervous public laughter, but that is it. No thrown bottles, no shouts of "Fag!" or the equivalent in the local language, no being spit on in the streets. It is a refreshing change not to have to be constantly on alert in public for violence from some right wing nutcase. Sure, there are some areas of Frankfurt or Paris I won't go into after dark, but in the US, I was constantly on guard everywhere in public, day time or night time.

So, does that rambling missive answer your question? :D

[Lizard_King]

"my kind?" Here's where we run into the danger of taking our generalizations and applying them to individuals.

Coulter doesn't offend me. She's an idiot and a hack but I sure as hell didn't pop a monocole (or whatever) over her calling Edwards a fag. That doesn't make what she spews any less vile, and it doesn't make it any less revolting that the conservative base agrees with her.
It also runs into the danger of assuming that everyone who laughs at what Paul Mooney says hates white people, or everyone who laughs at Howard Stern (I'm assuming someone does) "agrees" with them.


But seriously LK that is some twisted fucking logic you've got going there. I mean not to put too fine a point on it but you're coming awful close to "Well she was asking for it, dressed like that..." Because people find the things Coulter spews hateful and offensive they're part of the problem?
I'm not talking about some generic, far away people. I'm talking to you, precisely, monocle and all. Because you think it is a hugely significant social indicator rather than just a form of entertainment you find objectionable because it hinges on breaking societal taboos (oh! the horror!), it is automatically a bigger problem than, say, Chappelle's show. But by all means, feed the troll.
So, yeah. You was asking for it wearing that dress.

[jeffd]

Lizard King not to put too fine a point on it but you're being an idiot.

Which is notable because you're normally not. If you really don't see a difference between Dave Chapelle poking fun in a stand up routine or Howard Stern being crass on a radio show premised around being crass and a pundit being raucously cheered at a major political event for gaybashing then honest you're probably the one who needs a monocole. Because there is a world of fucking difference.

[Jason McCullough]

Come on LK, what do you think would happen if Coulter had said "kike" instead of "fag"? There's literally no difference there other than homophobia hasn't been stamped out of polite society like anti-semitism has.

[Rimbo]

Why on earth do you think this?

Maybe because Hispanics are generally devout Catholics who do like the idea of getting the church more involved in people's lives and don't like the idea of abortion very much.

And those who got here legally, became citizens and have the right to vote generally do not care much for illegals; the attitude is, "I had to wait my turn; so can you." And those who are second-gen or third-gen or twelfth-gen are even more likely to be hostile towards illegal immigrants, not less.

Also, Hispanics are not exactly a marginalized race in Texas. In fact, many Texans don't even consider Hispanics a different race from whites; both "races" are a mixture of European and Native American descent. The only real difference is that white Texans tend to be Protestant, and Hispanic Texans tend to be Catholic.

Really, we can come up for reasons why the hispanic electorate is shifting to the GOP all day. You can say it's because they're a bunch of dumbasses who don't realize how those Evil Republicans are out to kill them all; I can say it's because the GOP happens to have policies that appeal to the demographic. It's shifting either way.

[Rimbo]

This is a sort of tic with Ann, she called Clinton (Bill) a "latent homosexual"
http://mediamatters.org/items/200607260007

Bill Clinton. The guy's poon addiction got him impeached. Seriously.

His inability to fess up to his poon addiction while under oath got him impeached. But back on topic: You know, it's enough to make one wonder why Ann Coulter sees closeted homosexuals under every rock she looks.

[Glenn]

I think that has to do with the theorised "male gaze" in which most pictures/movies/etc presuppose a male observer. Thus, a picture of a hot guy is often homo-erotic and a picture of a naked woman is almost definitely hetero in nature.Before responding, I'd like to take this opportunity to state that while I am not technicaly a TS, I am a hermaphrodite who has previously self-identified as female and now lives as a man (a process simplified by a unisex name), so I feel specially qualified to answer this question.

The homoerotic aspects are most easily noticed in the subtle violence, hypermasculinity of the subject, and the voyeuristic aspect, each of which individually would be unusual for a female artist, but represented together in a single work are virtually unheard of. Also, all female artists are dykes. No, this piece is the creation of a male artist, and intended, perhaps unknowingly, for a male audience.

Moreover, while some might dismiss this piece as a fetishistic work, combining a religious subject matter with a ten-year-old boy's simplistic revenge fantasy. But this is not the case. I believe the artist is a young man, probably in his early twenties, still living a very carefully guarded existence under the auspices of his intensely religious parents. He has an interest in bodybuilding, or rather an interest in male bodybuilding magazines, which are perhaps the only sexual outlet he can find in an existence dominated by family and church. He has always been interested in the male form, but learned long ago to limit his profligate output to religious figures as a means of avoiding suspicion.

But this is not an act of repression and shame, as we would at first suspect. No, this is a carefully crafted piece, in which the Christian perspective of redemption and forgiveness is rejected outright by an act of violent, intentional blasphemy. The artist has long empathized with the figure of Christ, suffering silent and misunderstood, but here he reimagines him (and himself) as a phoenix, breaking free from the confines of tradition and announcing himself to the world proud and unbroken.

This is not just the work of a gay man, this is an unyielding declaration of gayness, in no uncertain terms. This is, in fact, the gayest piece of art that has ever been created. And truly, it is a masterpiece.

[Johan O]

...
So, does that rambling missive answer your question? :D
Yeah, and thanks for your reply. I was a little shocked when you said that you were spit on in public, I guess I hadn't thought it was that bad. Glad to hear that you have managed to find a bit of reprieve.

[BlueJackalope]

Before responding, .... it is a masterpiece.

I heart Glenn

[Lizard_King]

Which is notable because you're normally not. If you really don't see a difference between Dave Chapelle poking fun in a stand up routine or Howard Stern being crass on a radio show premised around being crass and a pundit being raucously cheered at a major political event for gaybashing then honest you're probably the one who needs a monocole. Because there is a world of fucking difference.
Stop threatening to put too fine a point on it. I'm not even sure what that expression means in the context of having already embraced calling me an idiot. I'm saying there is no significant difference in the "wrongness" of the humor, and the biggest thing that creates a difference is you getting riled up about it, to the point where you bring up the always popular dress/rape analogy. Give me a call when Ann Coulter rapes somebody, and you just might have something. Until then, leave the victim manufacturing to the professionals. Ann Coulter doesn't matter; anti-gay legislation promoted by Republicans and social conservatives does. Ergo, she does the US a favour by putting such policies in candid words that everyone can understand, and she saves you all the trouble of paging through countless bland soundbites about family values.

If anything, you should be thanking Coulter for casting in the limelight what so many at that event probably feel to a certain degree. I wouldn't even bother asking Coulter any questions about it: we know why she did it. I say put Mitt Romney on the spot and ask him if he thinks Edwards is a faggot as well, as often as possible.

Come on LK, what do you think would happen if Coulter had said "kike" instead of "fag"?
It wouldn't have made any sense, is what I'm guessing. Also, assuming it made sense at all as a joke, you'd be asking the same question of me except bringing it to the next level with "nigger" as your plateau of intolerance for America. And I'd be answering the same way...I don't care. It's just as important that vestigial anti-semitism be aired as anti-gay sentiment; it lets everyone know where they stand.


There's literally no difference there other than homophobia hasn't been stamped out of polite society like anti-semitism has.
Except there is still a huge difference between a joke and something that needs stamping out. Offensive humor is great not only as something that makes (some) people laugh, it's great because it airs societal issues openly in a way that few other media can or will. I don't think any sort of racial/minority humor is off limits, so long as it is a) funny and b) the one making it is willing to pay the price of being controversial. Ann Coulter occasionally hits a and certainly has b covered, so onward. She trolls vast segments of society with a single sentence.

Now, return to your regularly scheduled discussion of gender issues in this thread.

[Lum]

I was one of the people who metaphorically spit on Ms. Mulligan in public.

It was when she was taking over the UO volunteer program. UO players - and young male gamers in general - are a pretty rabidly homophobic bunch. It was very easy to make jokes about it, and I, well, did so, even going so far as to set up a mock "dream date with Durga" contest (Jessica's professional UO nick). Ha ha, you get to win a date with a TS! Yeah, I was a putz. Jessica took it in good humor, but it hurt (she said as much in public) and it didn't make her job any easier.

I apologized to her privately eventually, after the damage was done. She took that in good humor as well.

She's a wonderful person no matter what her chromosomes may say, and anyone contemplating funding an MMO should hire her as a consultant pronto, since she's worked on them for 20 years or so. And society could learn much from simply accepting people for whom they are and want to be.

Now, back to the ritualized stoning!

[Stroker Ace]

/me casts the first stone at Lum

[Flowers]

Zam!


So Ann Coulter is like the Tim Hardaway of homophobia? I much prefer Tim Hardaway as the Tim Hardaway of homophobia. I think Ann Coulter should have to be the Tim Hardaway of...
ATM fees?

[DeepT]

This is not just the work of a gay man, this is an unyielding declaration of gayness, in no uncertain terms. This is, in fact, the gayest piece of art that has ever been created. And truly, it is a masterpiece.

I do not see it. If you knew nothing about that painting at all or the guy who made it, then saw it somewhere, I can't see how you could have made the conclusions you have made about it.

I look at it, I see a buff Jesus on a cross that is breaking free. I do not see anything that makes a statement about being gay. What clues am I supposed be seeing that i am not?

If I were to ask to interpret that painting, as in what did it mean, I think all I would come up with is that Jesus is sick of being on the cross and has decided to "not take it anymore" and rip himself free. Maybe "I am no longer going to suffer for your sins." is another interpretation.

I am going to go look at it some more, and may edit this post if I see a new interpretation.

[Flowers]

/me casts the first stone at Lum

I do know for a fact you have been informed that "he who is without sin" should cast the first stone. I know you want to follow what Jesus says. This, coupled with your conduct since the age of twelve, leads me to the only logical conclusion.

No one has told you that what you have been doing with your hand and that duck puppet is a sin.

[BlueJackalope]

I am going to go look at it some more, and may edit this post if I see a new interpretation.

Dude, your going to be turned soooo gay. Do not stare directly into his holy pecs.

[jeffd]

LK are you deliberately missing the point?

Ann Coulter's not a stand up comedian, she's not a shock jock or anything else that you've compared her to. She's a political pundit (a bad one) who was asked to speak at the "conservative event of the year." She called John Edwards a faggot and got roaring applause. She didn't call Edwards a faggot in the context of a stand-up routine, nor did she do it to shock us into a reaction or to help us explore our prejudices or biases or societal issues or any other zany justification you can come up with.

She called John Edwards a faggot to demean him, plain and simple. She called John Edwards a faggot the same way idiots in Quake or whatever the FPS of the moment is use the word. It was intended to belittel him. And her audience ate it up. I don't find what she said particularly offensive, and I honestly doubt John Edwards did. I'm not manufacturing victims or whatever the hell you're frothing at the mouth over.

What I'm saying (and all I've been saying) is that what Coulter said was pretty awful and the fact that she got cheered so heartily is kind of disturbing. I think it says something disturbing about the so-called conservative base. She wasn't applauded because people thought that calling John Edwards a faggot was witty, or because it was particularly funny. She was applauded because people liked that she demeaned someone they disagree with politically.

But hey, I agree with some of what you're saying. As someone who these days self-identifies as liberal I'm glad she opened her big yap. It exposes the ugly underside of the conservative movement for what it is.

[Lizard_King]

LK are you deliberately missing the point?

Ann Coulter's not a stand up comedian, she's not a shock jock or anything else that you've compared her to. She's a political pundit (a bad one) who was asked to speak at the "conservative event of the year." She called John Edwards a faggot and got roaring applause. She didn't call Edwards a faggot in the context of a stand-up routine, nor did she do it to shock us into a reaction or to help us explore our prejudices or biases or societal issues or any other zany justification you can come up with.
Which, while often used as an after-the-fact explanation for any such humor, is usually just a cover for the simple fact that people get off on offensive humor.


She called John Edwards a faggot to demean him, plain and simple. She called John Edwards a faggot the same way idiots in Quake or whatever the FPS of the moment is use the word. It was intended to belittel him. And her audience ate it up. I don't find what she said particularly offensive, and I honestly doubt John Edwards did. I'm not manufacturing victims or whatever the hell you're frothing at the mouth over.
See this? A complete absence of froth. My bad, then. I mistook you for some of the other people in this thread who are opposed to offensiveness per se, on the grounds it might hurt someone's feelings. Nevertheless, I still think you owe her a debt of gratitude. Her bluntness is your ally, in the same way that feel-good handwringing about her words is not.

Also, I am really upset that you are on Qt3 and use "Quake" as example of what "the people" play. Seriously, get with the program.


What I'm saying (and all I've been saying) is that what Coulter said was pretty awful and the fact that she got cheered so heartily is kind of disturbing. I think it says something disturbing about the so-called conservative base.
I guess I'm just so used to it as a fact of life in a country where something as insignificant and simple to resolve as gay marriage could radicalize national elections that it barely makes me blink in surprise.


She wasn't applauded because people thought that calling John Edwards a faggot was witty, or because it was particularly funny. She was applauded because people liked that she demeaned someone they disagree with politically.
So, it's not people calling each other faggots that bothers you so much as political candidates being demeaned and people liking it as entertainment. Now I'm really confused.


But hey, I agree with some of what you're saying. As someone who these days self-identifies as liberal I'm glad she opened her big yap. It exposes the ugly underside of the conservative movement for what it is.
Not really an underside so much as a platform in and of itself. Can we agree that Paris is the capital of France? Good. Then we're in agreement.

[Rimbo]

What I'm saying (and all I've been saying) is that what Coulter said was pretty awful and the fact that she got cheered so heartily is kind of disturbing. I think it says something disturbing about the so-called conservative base. She wasn't applauded because people thought that calling John Edwards a faggot was witty, or because it was particularly funny. She was applauded because people liked that she demeaned someone they disagree with politically.

Now here's a point where you and I are definitely in agreement: The response she got said something about the conservative base, or at least the Republican base. And what it says to me is that they perceive Edwards to be a threat.

I truly believe that if Edwards had been the Dem's presidential candidate in 2004, he'd be our president today.

[Rimbo]

Before responding, I'd like to take this opportunity to state that while I am not technicaly a TS, I am a hermaphrodite who has previously self-identified as female and now lives as a man (a process simplified by a unisex name), so I feel specially qualified to answer this question.

The homoerotic aspects are most easily noticed in the subtle violence, hypermasculinity of the subject, and the voyeuristic aspect, each of which individually would be unusual for a female artist, but represented together in a single work are virtually unheard of. Also, all female artists are dykes. No, this piece is the creation of a male artist, and intended, perhaps unknowingly, for a male audience.

Moreover, while some might dismiss this piece as a fetishistic work, combining a religious subject matter with a ten-year-old boy's simplistic revenge fantasy. But this is not the case. I believe the artist is a young man, probably in his early twenties, still living a very carefully guarded existence under the auspices of his intensely religious parents. He has an interest in bodybuilding, or rather an interest in male bodybuilding magazines, which are perhaps the only sexual outlet he can find in an existence dominated by family and church. He has always been interested in the male form, but learned long ago to limit his profligate output to religious figures as a means of avoiding suspicion.

But this is not an act of repression and shame, as we would at first suspect. No, this is a carefully crafted piece, in which the Christian perspective of redemption and forgiveness is rejected outright by an act of violent, intentional blasphemy. The artist has long empathized with the figure of Christ, suffering silent and misunderstood, but here he reimagines him (and himself) as a phoenix, breaking free from the confines of tradition and announcing himself to the world proud and unbroken.

This is not just the work of a gay man, this is an unyielding declaration of gayness, in no uncertain terms. This is, in fact, the gayest piece of art that has ever been created. And truly, it is a masterpiece.


^---bloody awesome

[BlueJackalope]

Now here's a point where you and I are definitely in agreement: The response she got said something about the conservative base, or at least the Republican base. And what it says to me is that they perceive Edwards to be a threat.

I truly believe that if Edwards had been the Dem's presidential candidate in 2004, he'd be our president today.

It had nothing to do with Edwards.She could have said it about any known Dem and gotten the same response.

I'm not sure why your so in love with Edwards. He had his chance in a debate with Cheney and instead of using his Trial Lawyer +1 abilities he went out of his way to be congenial. Very disappointing. He does have him some sweet hair though. Is it the hair?

I do think that if anyone other than Kerry, Gore or Hillary was the '04 candidate the Dems would have won.

[Rimbo]

It had nothing to do with Edwards.She could have said it about any known Dem and gotten the same response.

I'm not sure why your so in love with Edwards. He had his chance in a debate with Cheney and instead of using his Trial Lawyer +1 abilities he went out of his way to be congenial. Very disappointing. He does have him some sweet hair though. Is it the hair?

Throwing zingers in televised debates is a guilty pleasure, but it doesn't win you elections. The greatest zinger of all time -- "You're no Jack Kennedy" -- was given by the losing VP candidate in one of the biggest election landslides in history.

The explanation for this is simple: While it may make your current supporters feel better about themselves, it does nothing to win you over any new supporters, and galvanizes your opposition against you. When the victim cries "foul," people are more likely to agree with him than they are with your clever retort.

My love for Edwards came from the fact that he went out of his way to be congenial. And his congeniality is in fact the skill that affords him the +1 bonus to his Trial Lawyer stat, and a +5 bonus to Beating Evil GOP Candidates. It also gives him Immunity to Mudslinging; mudslingers, in fact, must make a Saving Throw vs. Looking Like An Asshole or face losses.

It's his attitude that's a winner.

[Christien Murawski]

Ann Coulter's not a stand up comedian...

Maybe it would be better if we just thought of her as one, regardless of what she actually is. The way Keith Olbermann consistently refers to Rush as "Comedian Rush Limbaugh" has really helped me put in perspective all of the asinine things he says. He becomes less offensive, more of a clown really, and this diminishes his power.

There is no doubt she is vile--I mean, between her statement and the Tim Hardaway oral excrement I had the strange urge to call up my gay friends and apologize for straight people [and how idiotic is that?]--but if we just laughed at her--her in particular--and moved on, there would be no wind for her sails.

"I don't mean to offend you Bob. But your brother's a cocksucker. Does that offend you?"

-Amanpour

[BlueJackalope]

Throwing zingers in televised debates is a guilty pleasure, but it doesn't win you elections. The greatest zinger of all time -- "You're no Jack Kennedy" -- was given by the losing VP candidate in one of the biggest election landslides in history.

The explanation for this is simple: While it may make your current supporters feel better about themselves, it does nothing to win you over any new supporters, and galvanizes your opposition against you. When the victim cries "foul," people are more likely to agree with him than they are with your clever retort.

My love for Edwards came from the fact that he went out of his way to be congenial. And his congeniality is in fact the skill that affords him the +1 bonus to his Trial Lawyer stat, and a +5 bonus to Beating Evil GOP Candidates. It also gives him Immunity to Mudslinging; mudslingers, in fact, must make a Saving Throw vs. Looking Like An Asshole or face losses.

It's his attitude that's a winner.

I wasn't thinking of "zingers" though they are fun (and we can always thank Connelly for destroying Quayle's political future).

I was thinking more "confronting the corrupt, dishonest and incompetent architect of an unnecessary and disastrous war with more than a smile and compliments on having a lesbian daughter".

B.T.W. - I'd be ok with Edwards at the top of the ticket and think he's handled the Coulter thing correctly - by leveraging it for more money and media attention - I'd just like to see a little more of his inner shark.

[jeffd]

Like I keep saying Amanpour - I don't need perspective in Coulter. She's an idiot; I don't really take anything she takes seriously. The notable thing is that I think she exposes an ugly side of the modern conservative moments - one that should be exposed for what it is.


Maybe it would be better if we just thought of her as one, regardless of what she actually is. The way Keith Olbermann consistently refers to Rush as "Comedian Rush Limbaugh" has really helped me put in perspective all of the asinine things he says. He becomes less offensive, more of a clown really, and this diminishes his power.

There is no doubt she is vile--I mean, between her statement and the Tim Hardaway oral excrement I had the strange urge to call up my gay friends and apologize for straight people [and how idiotic is that?]--but if we just laughed at her--her in particular--and moved on, there would be no wind for her sails.

"I don't mean to offend you Bob. But your brother's a cocksucker. Does that offend you?"

-Amanpour

[Anders Hallin]

I'm not sure what you mean. That she gets it back tells you something about her critics: that they are just as bad in many ways. But that doesn't excuse what she did at all. And I'm not sure what you are saying about "what this means for women".
With "this" I mean his arguments about weakness and femininity, and what effect that has on women in society. Of course, what it means for men and women is vastly different, it's not like "masculinity" is a very encouraged trait in women, but the reactions to it is definitely different.

Why would I be interested in excusing her behaviour? I just did a bit of a lament now that most people are agreed that Ann Coulter is an idiot.

[Jason McCullough]

And those who got here legally, became citizens and have the right to vote generally do not care much for illegals; the attitude is, "I had to wait my turn; so can you." And those who are second-gen or third-gen or twelfth-gen are even more likely to be hostile towards illegal immigrants, not less.

12th generation? The ones who got here back in, uh, 20 years * 12 = 240 years = 1770?

You're going to have to cough up a poll on hispanic views of illegal immigration to support this one. What we actually see in practice is "Republicans campaign on anti-immigration, which in pratical terms ends up being racism against hispanics, hispanics get pissed, GOP takes big hit in hispanic vote in next election." Happened in 1998 and 2006 both.

For chrissakes, Hispanics broke 69/31 againt the GOP in 2006 (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html). The effects of the outreach Bush did in Texas has completely disappeared for all intents and purposes, thanks to the disaster of the Iraq war and the GOP's not-that-thinly-vieled racist anti-immigration talk of the last couple years.

[JessicaM]

Yeah, and thanks for your reply. I was a little shocked when you said that you were spit on in public, I guess I hadn't thought it was that bad. Glad to hear that you have managed to find a bit of reprieve.

Thanks, Johan. I'm enjoying Europe, indeed, :D.

[JessicaM]

I was one of the people who metaphorically spit on Ms. Mulligan in public.

It was when she was taking over the UO volunteer program. UO players - and young male gamers in general - are a pretty rabidly homophobic bunch. It was very easy to make jokes about it, and I, well, did so, even going so far as to set up a mock "dream date with Durga" contest (Jessica's professional UO nick). Ha ha, you get to win a date with a TS! Yeah, I was a putz. Jessica took it in good humor, but it hurt (she said as much in public) and it didn't make her job any easier.

I apologized to her privately eventually, after the damage was done. She took that in good humor as well.

She's a wonderful person no matter what her chromosomes may say, and anyone contemplating funding an MMO should hire her as a consultant pronto, since she's worked on them for 20 years or so. And society could learn much from simply accepting people for whom they are and want to be.

Now, back to the ritualized stoning!

You're a class act, Scott. Thank you.

[JessicaM]

Not that I can speak for JessicaM, but I would not assume it should be easy to identify a transsexual, in fact if the surgeons did a good job it should be very difficult. A transvestite on the other hand...

<snip>

It varies, generally with age, but also bone composition, et al. The later in life you start the transition, the less effect the hormones have; the less money you have, the less facial and body surgery you can afford.

So yeah, with the right resources and starting young enough, you can achieve some pretty amazing results in looks. For most of us, though, we're happy to achieve a look where we don't get called "sir" in restaurants.

[Mordrak]

A General Question:

Why is a picture of a scantly clad, hot guy considered homo-erotic? It would seem to be, by the same logic, a picture of a scantly clad, hot chick would be lesbo-erotic (or something like that).

It really depends on how the figure is posed and framed. I honestly don't see a lot in the buff Jesus painting. You could make some arguments for its homo eroticism, but an artists statement would clear it up. Otherwise, I think it is open to interpretation.

You were close with the masculine/feminine traits. Basically to make a picture homo erotic you switch the masculine and feminine tropes(?) common in advertising, photography, and film. Women tend to be photographed with less clothing, faces often cast downward or to the side. Often the back is arched and/or the shoulders not level. More often than not, women will be touching or caressing themselves in some way. Women are also more often framed in pieces (a leg shot, butt shot, chest, or back). Now instead of a woman, swap in a male, and you basically have what some people say is homo-eroticism. If you look at pictures of men who might not be fully clothed but don't come across as homo erotic they are generally doing something. They just aren't sitting there partially clothed, they are getting dressed, playing a sport, or doing something else that either justifies their partially nude state or shows off their physical prowess. Another key element to look at is are there other people in the photograph and how do they look at the figure that's the focus of the piece? Scowls, glares, or intimidating poses are sometimes used to help partially clothed males come across as more "masculine."

In short, look for anything about the photo that objectifies the male and anything in the photo that indicates the male is inviting the viewer to objectify him.

Of course, there are other stereotypes that would indicate homo eroticism (leather clad "bears" for example) and androgyny/metro sexual are blurring the lines, but the above items are some of the most common forms in entertainment(probably the arts too).

[Rimbo]

12th generation? The ones who got here back in, uh, 20 years * 12 = 240 years = 1770?

I was exaggerating, but wait... you're not actually suggesting that there were no Hispanics in the neighborhood that far back, are you?

Coronado was here a good two centuries before that; the city of Santa Fe was established in frickin' 1607, the same year Jamestown was founded. And don't get me started on St. Augustine, Florida.

These areas that are heavily hispanic are that way for the idiotically obvious reason that they were birthplaces of "hispanic" as a race, as a combination of Spanish and Native American bloodlines.


For chrissakes, Hispanics broke 69/31 againt the GOP in 2006 (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html).

Wasn't the support in the high teens before then? I'd say that's a pretty substantial increase. And even 31% would seem pretty high for a party that's so horribly "marginalizing" no less! You'd think Klansmen would be able to get 25% of the black vote from the hysterics from some of you loons.

[Flowers]

You'd think Klansmen would be able to get 25% of the black vote from the hysterics from some of you loons.

Would you?

Would you really?

Oh wait, I get it, you're exagerrating. Well, since you defended the point so well last time you were exagerrating and someone expressed disbelief, I hereby pretend that I don't know that you aren't stone cold serious and, I PUT YOU TO YOUR PROOF.

[DeepT]

So basically, if a picture of a guy is "A piece of meat to be drooled over." it is homo-erotic? Sounds like a double-standard to me. It is as if what women think doesn't count at all.

I was thinking a picture would have to have at least TWO guys in it, that at the very least, seem to have a "more then friendly" attitude towards each other to be considered homo-erotic.

[Mordrak]

So basically, if a picture of a guy is "A piece of meat to be drooled over." it is homo-erotic? Sounds like a double-standard to me. It is as if what women think doesn't count at all.

I was thinking a picture would have to have at least TWO guys in it, that at the very least, seem to have a "more then friendly" attitude towards each other to be considered homo-erotic.

I won't argue it's not a double standard, but society is full of double standards. Gender roles based on sex are a double standard, but while they are breaking down, they still persist today. I just think you'll find that pictures that make men sexualized passive objects will be labeled as homo-erotic. That's not to say heterosexual women won't find the men attractive or desirable (making it in reality both homo/hetero erotic), just how it will be labeled. Edit: Nor am I saying that photos of men who aren't passive--partially nude but active or threatening--couldn't be erotic to other guys. Just that the activity, the justification for nudity, is often used to "code" the picture as non-sexual, basically non-threatening to homophobic guys.

This is also a fairly U.S. (N.A.?) specific analysis, I'm not sure how it might be understood in other areas.

[Jason McCullough]

I was exaggerating, but wait... you're not actually suggesting that there were no Hispanics in the neighborhood that far back, are you?

I was just making fun of you extending the "children of immigrants have different views" thing back 200 years.


Wasn't the support in the high teens before then? I'd say that's a pretty substantial increase. And even 31% would seem pretty high for a party that's so horribly "marginalizing" no less! You'd think Klansmen would be able to get 25% of the black vote from the hysterics from some of you loons.

You might want to look at the data before claiming these things. This (http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=52) Pew report has some interesting results on immigration. 31/43/13 think legal immigration from latin america should stay the same, increase, and decrease. 68/23/8 think illegal immigrants help/hurt/don't know the economy (55 positive for native-born, 75 positive for foreign born). It's the 55-64 and richer brackets that think they hurt, interestingly. 41/55 liked/disliked Bush's proposal to deny driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. The guest worker proposal thing shows an interesting 20 point slide from 2002 to 2004 from 75 to 55; not sure what's up with that. 90% favor a program where current illegal immigrants can become legal.

On the history of the Hispanic vote in Presidential elections, I can't find a single data series. Here's a random bit (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/news/9611/21/1latino.ip/) about how Clinton went from 58% of the Hispanic vote in Texas in 1992 to 75% in 1996. Also mentions Reagan won 40% of it in 1984 (admittedly a landslide year). Hispanic turnout has historically been low, but started picking up in the mid-1990s.

Ah ha:

GOP Presidential candidate share of the Hispanic vote.
1976,1980 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1980). 24%, 36/7% (anderson is second number).
1984 (http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/CJ312-Leal%5B41-49%5D.pdf). 37%.
1988 (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2005/06/b856667.html). 30%.
1992,1996 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1992). 25/14, 21/6 (perot is second number).
2000 (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html). 35%.
2004 (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html). 44%.
2006 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2006/2006-11-09-hispanics_x.htm). 29%.

It's basically "averages around 65%, bounces around based on the personality of the two candidates involved." I don't know where you got that high teens thing. Bush totally blew the opportunity to convert his personal popularity into lasting gains with the GOP by that fence bullshit and not shutting up his racist congressmen. Just like his dad, he'll fall back on nasty racist politics when he's in trouble.

You're going to have to find some contradictory data to that to support "Hispanics are significantly concerned about illegal immigration", much less that the GOP can appeal to them successfully on that issue. It's just one of Rove's goofball theories that hasn't worked.

[Jeff Fries]

There's a good diavlog on the controversy here (http://bloggingheads.tv/video.php?id=217&in=38:20). Good because it gives Mickey Kaus the opportunity to shine.

[Rimbo]

Dammit, Jason, there you go with your silly "facts" and "evidence" again. ;)

[Glenn]

Ah ha:

GOP Presidential candidate share of the Hispanic vote.
1976,1980 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1980). 24%, 36/7% (anderson is second number).
1984 (http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/CJ312-Leal%5B41-49%5D.pdf). 37%.
1988 (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2005/06/b856667.html). 30%.
1992,1996 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1992). 25/14, 21/6 (perot is second number).
2000 (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html). 35%.
2004 (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html). 44%.
2006 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2006/2006-11-09-hispanics_x.htm). 29%.AH HA! THERE WAS NO PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN 2006!

I knew you were the one who killed those hookers, Jason, and now I finally have the proof.

[Jason McCullough]

:(

Kaus seems to have gotten about as conservative as he can get, but it's good to see he gets uglier every year. Man.

[Anti-Bunny]

HA HA HA HA HA (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/25/ann-coulters-jaw-wired-sh_n_146248.html)

[MattKeil]

HA HA HA HA HA (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/25/ann-coulters-jaw-wired-sh_n_146248.html)

Best. November. Ever.

[WarrenM]

Hahahahaha

[Robert Sharp]

I heard she joined the Frag Dolls and then ran into McMaster at the mall


(yeah, that's an old, obscure reference)

[RSofaer]

She's coming to NYU on December 10th. I got a ticket to see her speak.

[Tankero]

Does it include agrarian missile fees?

[RSofaer]

Does it include agrarian missile fees?
Was this toward me? I don't understand. My ticket was free.

[bago]

Think vegetable projectiles. Ballistic banannas. Launched lettuce. Tossed tomatos.

[RSofaer]

Oh. No, that's a separate package. You can't get that with an online ticket order, you need to actually visit the counter so you can get your bag in time for it to rot properly before the event.

[Yo Rudy]

She's coming to NYU on December 10th. I got a ticket to see her speak.

She was coming to my school (The College of New Jersey) during December too, but the jaw wiring shut bit has pushed that off until February.

When it was announced she would be speaking, our campus was filled with Anti-Coulter graffitti. Then that graffitti was crossed out and Pro-Coulter graffitti was put next to it. Stuff like "Ann Coulter is a monster" turned into "Ann Coulter is a patriot".

My friends got tired of the petty arguing and re-graffittied it to fit Battlestar Galactica (we've been playing a lot of the board game lately). So the students of my college woke up to see "Ann Coulter is a Cylon" written all over the place.

[Tankero]

Ballistic banannas.

Teeheeehee.

[bago]

I serve the whole B.L.T.