Arkansas Blog

For sustaining Conway's economic development, Baker and Tyler are the best choices.

Posting here for someone else:

Again it sounds like the upcoming state legislators plan on wasting more time again this year trying to impose their church philosophy on the rest of us. This happens every two years. They waste about half of the session playing these games and then need additional time to do their sworn duty. I would suggest that if the people can't do their work in the allotted time, they be allowed to meet without pay until they get finished. Also cut out the per deim and mileage between sessions. The annual salaries of every representative and senator should be published against their "authorized salary".

There is no better reason to vote against annual sessions.

-- Fed Up to Here

I know and like Linda Tyler. Respect her views? Not so much.

Ask her if she's for equality for same-sex Americans (her son is gay and she's not for same-sex equality). Ask her if she's pro-choice (she's not).

In other words, on social issues Linda Tyler is indistinguishable from far-right religionists. Privately she is palpably uncomfortable, touchy and defensive about her views.

On those issues, in any case, Linda Tyler is like Phyllis Schlafly in a donkey costume for political purposes.

Norm, I think you're so far down the spectrum that the parallax convergence puts Linda and Phyllis together. Nonetheless, Linda is a fairly typical social conservative/fiscal moderate-to-liberal Arkansas Democrat which is precisely why Democrats have held the majority here and not in any other southern state. When the Linda Tylers and MarK Pryors and Mike Beebes in Arkansas become Republicans the good news for you is that you will finally like the Democrats and the bad news is that they won't be in charge any longer.

Linda will likely win this race. The money race is deceptive because she has almost no cash on hand so they start out pretty even again. It remains to be seen how many of her supporters will double down to fund the fall race. Unfortuantely, like many first-time candidates she has been led to waste valuable resources on consultants and stupid spending. Hopefully she can overcome this and other rookie mistakes.

Does her opponent have any significant community ties?

Thanks, Theo, for setting me straight about the difference between Linda and Phyllis on same-sex equality and a woman's right to choose.

What are they, again?

"...On those issues, in any case, Linda Tyler is like Phyllis Schlafly in a donkey costume for political purposes."--normabates

Oh my...what an ugly visual, but it tells me everything I need to know about Tyler.

Linda Tyler would be a good legislator. While she may be conservative on those issues, I do not suspect she will author legislation to act upon those beliefs. I suspect her GOP opponent will clog up the arteries of the legislature with anit-everything bills.

I can't vote for her, but I support LT in this one. Since when did abortion stances dictate state legislative elections?

Norma, if - as religious conservatives are so often accused - you boil everything down to those two hot-button, wedge issues then perhaps you are right. Some of us might even see those "issues" as broader, more complicated, and more nuanced than your tag phrases leave them.

Here's why these "stances dictate state legislative elections," rockstar. (Zelda gets it. So do many if not most on this blog.)

On these two issues -- same-sex equality and women's right to make their own medical reproductive choices -- there are only two camps: those who base their political positions on objective scientific facts and studies and those seeking to impose their personal (superstitious) religious beliefs on everybody through legislation.

Those in the second camp, in other words, are willing to turn America into a theocracy. They are willing to dictate what medical procedures women and their physicians may and may not choose, and what rights same-sex Americans may and may not enjoy.

Further, the theocrats are willing to legislate against scientific and medical research that could help and save millions of lives (stem-cell research for example).

They are against factual sex-education, which can help prevent pregnancies and STDs, and for religiously-based "abstinence only" programs which have be proved ineffectual. Again, based solely on their religious beliefs.

They are fundamentally FOR establishing a state religion because they are right and everybody else is wrong. That's both un-American and un-Constitutional.

Which is why both Linda and Phyllis are angry and defensive when called on the truth.

You say, "I do not suspect she will author legislation to act upon those beliefs."

Of COURSE she will. She will consistently vote against adoptions by same-sex couples, against same-sex equality and against women's right to choose.

Who are you kidding?

Why be charitable to her when SHE is not to others?

In Arkansas, Linda wouldn't stand a chance of winning if she DIDN'T hold these positions.

But that doesn't make it right.

It simply preserves Arkansas' national reputation as a backward religiously bigoted anti-education anti-science state that sees big businesses flock to more liberal cities and states and keeps us economically poor.

As I stated, in these issues Linda Tyler and Phyllis Schlafly are identical.

Except one's an elephant, the other a donkey.

Both will not hesitate, as politicians, to deny their own honestly gay sons full American equality.

And THAT, my friend, tells me all I need to know about them as politicians and human beings.

One more thing: can you be a successful politician in the south and support same-sex equality? You sure can.

Jon Kislack contributed $50,000 to Florida Red & Blue, the committee against the initiative to discriminate against same-sex equality. Kislack is straight and a Republican. He's also the chair of the committee - and totally open about his motivation. His daughter is a lesbian, lives in Rhode Island with her adopted son, and doesn't like visiting the homophobic Sunshine State. He wants to see his grandkid. "It's just not right that our laws, public policy, and social climate in Florida are so unwelcoming," he writes.

Would that Tyler and Schlafly had the fortitude to demonstrate such integrity.

I disagree with the premise of your argument, Norma. This "us v. them" fight is what prohibits progress. No one seems willing to compromise these days. What happened to the shades of gray? I do not fall into either of those categories you listed. My discomfort with abortion comes from an internal, moral argument I continue with myself. I'm whole-heartedly against it as a practice in cases not related to medical conditions of the mother or child/fetus--on a personal level.

That said, I'm even more against the government telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. The greatness of being "pro-choice" is that you don't have to be "pro-abortion". I hate the fact that any person/family would be put into that position. But the greater evil to me is the government taking away the right to make that decision based on all the evidence available.

Back to LT (or any legislator on the Dem side since this seems to be more of an ideological discussion now), I believe you misread my post. You said:

"You say, 'I do not suspect she will author legislation to act upon those beliefs.'

Of COURSE she will. She will consistently vote against adoptions by same-sex couples, against same-sex equality and against women's right to choose."

Voting and authoring are obviously two different things. You act as though LT is running on an anti-gay, anti-choice platform. I doubt that is the case (but I've not seen any campaign material, so I don't know for sure.) IF SHE IS RUNNING ON THAT PLATFORM THEN I YIELD ON THE LINDA TYLER POINT.

As a general rule, though, the good legislators seem to be focused on the work of the people. Don't forget that it was the people in the House that defeated the "anit co-habitating adoption" rule. That's why Cox and the hate-mongers are bothering us now!

Thanks, rockstar, and welcome to a blog that's ecstatic to have another adult here who can post comments that respect differing viewpoints.

I agree that Linda Tyler (as far as I know) isn't publicly running on an anti-gay anti-choice platform.

I do, however, know her and have had these discussions with her and personally witnessed her discomfort and defensiveness (religiously based) when they're brought up.

Funny. I'm not the least bit discomforted or defensive about my positions on these issues. Why? Because they're based on research, questioning, investigation and objective facts.

Rather, it is those who HAVEN'T questioned, researched or investigated, those who AREN'T armed with objective facts, who get angry and defensive over their positions on these issues. They bring their religious (superstitious unscientific) certainties to these issues, which are "black and white" and see no "shades of gray" as you say. Objective facts are threatening to such people, so fragile is their religious "certainty." If they yield an inch, they fear, their entire belief system will crumble.

As for your "us vs. them" statement, I've never known even ONE gay person who wants to force ANY church to perform same-sex marriages. All that they want is to be able to visit city hall, pay the same fee as anybody, and be accorded the same and equal rights as everybody else without discrimination from a theocratic government. If they desire a religious ceremony, there are certainly plenty of religious institutions around the country that will perform one.

Christian fundamentalists created this "us vs. them" battle -- as witness their constant "war" metaphors. Not gays and lesbians, whose only "agenda" is simple equality with all other Americans.

As for your opposition to abortion, fine. Don't HAVE one, rockstar.

But it sounds like that's not enough for you. It sounds like you want to prevent American women from obtaining one except under the limited conditions you define (presumably on religious grounds). It sounds like you'd like to see this area of women's access to medical reproductive choice restricted to what YOU think.

Though, honey, if you're a male you have no dog in this hunt.

Thankfully, you then turn around and affirm that you're against the government making this choice for women. Bingo. And good for you.

I'm glad you disagree with my premise. I disagree with yours. Namely that there are "shades of gray" in these issues.

Your position suggests that there are legislative injunctions that "sort of" but "not really" recognize the full equality of same-sex Americans (and maybe women's reproductive rights, though you claim otherwise).

No, rockstar, there are no "shades of gray" here. People either have full equality under the law or they don't. It's the old "separate but equal" argument. If they have "some" equality, that's not "full" equality. It's discrimination.

Yes, it is that simple.

If the reasons for denying full equality are "faith-based" then that's a theocracy.

Yes, it's that simple.

Some things, rockstar, really ARE black and white. Some aren't.

Those trying to "nuance" this issue are basically mincing words and flailing for arguments to discriminate against a group of people based on their "faith" and not scientific research or facts.

Linda Tyler falls into that group (unless she's progressed, unbeknownst to me).

Is she running on an anti-gay anti-abortion platform? No. Will she vote that way because of her "faith?" Absolutely, as far as I know (unless she's done a 180 since we last spoke).

Finally, I can only wonder how her son must feel, knowing that his politically active mother will vote to deny him full equality with all other Americans because she loves her religious dogma more than the facts of life . . . and him.

Oh, shit. This is bad. A sovereign Indian nation in Oregon has just recognized same-sex marriages, joining countries like Spain, the Netherlands, and some six other countries around the globe legally recognizing same-sex marriages (plus more who legally recognize civil-unions).

What's "bad?"

Well, Oregon voted to discriminate and NOT recognize same-sex marriage. Except the Choquille tribe isn't bound by Oregon's Constitution because they are a sovereign nation.

So this marriage conflicts with both Oregon's Constitution and the federal Defense of Marriage act (DOMA).

Holy fuck! (No pun intended.)

I'm laughing so hard that if I weren't sitting here in my Carlisle separates I'd be pissing my Depends!

Two overweight joyous lesbians who've been a couple since high school are about to challenge the sovereignty of America's Indian Nations and DOMA in one fell swoop?

God, I love witnessing religious bigotry collapse in slow motion in a John Wayne cowboy-and-indian movie!

Except it's REAL LIFE!

Circle the wagons, pilgrims!

And now, off to cocktails and dinner at Furneau.

It's probably time to move on from this, but just to be clear I do not want the government to limit anyone's rights. I've gone back to re-read my posts, and I'm not sure where you see that. I may have personal quibbles and moral questions, but those are for me to figure out. I don't need or want my government to answer them for me--or anyone else.

Norm Bates, be careful, you and I actually agree on a few things. I belong to First Methodist Church in LR, a very liberal congregation where openly gay folks hold leadership roles in the church, women are in the highest leadership positions, and for the most part, everyone is tolerant of everyone. I also enjoy Furneau and cocktails immensely, my daughter, who attended UCA, is the champion of all things liberal and a past officer of the gay and lesbian coalition, she is now married, I am just happy to have an empty nest with much love for the flown away (or escaped) hatchlings. I feel better now, knowing we agree on some things. Please do not let it upset you.

Oh, rfhiii, lovey, I'm totally understanding of your "belonging" to the First Methodist Church.

That's the church whose ad slogan (HOW much did they pay for it?) is, "Open Minds . . . Open Hearts . . . Open Doors."

Isn't that special.

Except your Methodist church defrocked their only honest and open lesbian minister two years ago. Why? Because she was, uh, a lesbian.

Google it, chipmunk.

You REALLY expect the rest of us to be ignorant of your church's hateful hypocritical bigotry?

Stating one thing in ad slogans for public consumption (to increase membership and tithes), while actually practicing ugly discrimination based on the ignorance of 2,000 year old desert nomads?

REALLY?

And not call you on it?

What: is your church "debating" whether or not to kill disobedient children, as the Bible demands? Nope, you cherry-picker.

How can I put this delicately? Sensitively?

Bullshit.

Will that do?

What a crock of crap you just dumped about your "tolerant" Methodism.

Pat yourself and your church on the back all you like. Tell us all about the "leadership" roles gays and lesbians have in your church. And your "tolerant" offspring. Sweet.

Then explain why the church you and yours wholeheartedly support defrocked its only "honest" lesbian minister for being lesbian, two years ago.

Not so sweet. Ugly, in fact.

How deaf, dumb and blind do you think the rest of us ARE, petunia?

Your church, with its pricey ad slogan, is lying from the get go.

Your Methodist church is anything BUT open minded . . . open hearted . . . open doored.

Its actions prove that if you're an honest same-sex minister, your church is close-minded . . . close-hearted . . . close-doored.

Tithe and defend it all you like.

You're not fooling or "upsetting" me or anybody else who can think.

Actions speak louder than words. Your church "says" one thing and "does" another.

Frankly, I prefer honest bigots to pseudo-"tolerant" people like you who congratulate themselves and their children on being liberal and diverse and accepting . . . when in fact your church defrocks its own ministers for not conforming to their church's bigoted dogma . . . and you support that bigotry with your time, energy and financial commitment . . . all the while proclaiming your "enlightenment."

Uh-uh, honey.

The hallmark of an adult, my darling, is that one's words and actions are in synch.

Neither yours, nor your church's, are.

The global church does not always reflect the attitudes of the local churches on many issues including this one. You win, I can't try and argue with you anymore. Obviously, you are the open minded one who is willing to listen and consider both sides of any issue. I would like to meet you and try to understand some of your positions. You are very passionate about many things and I like that. Please get in touch with me 907-2018 (work), I would like to try and understand you better. My last post, you win.

These discussions aren't contests. They're not about "winning."

They are about facts.

About facts I AM passionate. You bet.

Lies and euphemisms, not so much.

Which is why I wonder about commentators like Theodosius calling Linda Tyler a "social conservative" when the non-euphemism is "religious bigot."

ANY "social conservative" (namely politicians who want to limit women's rights to choose their own medical and reproductive decisions, or same-sex Americans' full right to marry) is in fact a religious bigot.

Why not just say so? Why not just tell the truth about them?

Banish the euphemisms in favor of facts. Then people would see these people for who and what they really are.