Arkansas Blog

Since the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the GLBT and Freeper communities are now partnered against Obama and attack him with equal zeal. It's straight out of Machiavelli, or the Rove playbook, for that matter-- all it takes is a common enemy to harness together two groups that hate each other.

What everyone seems to forget is that Obama is a politician. He plans to be successful and smart. He might personally agree with Warren more than some might think, or he may be totally opposed to him and planning to use him. We don't know, but to expect a politician not to act as a politician is to not think.

I think lots of groups will be angry with Mr. Obama as time goes by, but I think that wide middle of centrist to right of center voters will be comfortable. I think that may be his main goal.

"I think lots of groups will be angry with Mr. Obama as time goes by..."

That sounds an awful lot like dadadadum - TRIANGULATION

I wonder what would happen if a gay President chose a preacher that was openly racist?

Speaking of Obama.....clicky on Cato

While I completely disagree with Warren's position on homosexuality, I don't understand what is to be gained by ignoring him or pretending he doesn't exist. While it's easy to sneer and say that Warren and his followers won't change their minds, how does not engaging with them change their minds? While I'm lucky to get a conservative friend to concede a point 1 out of 10 times, I've never gotten him to change his mind by avoiding him altogether.

Rick Warren has responded to his critics by blaming the messengers and their medium --- bloggers --- for the controversy. Bloggers everywhere should feel very good about their role in exposing Warren for what he is, a duplicitous weasel.

I'm afraid I don't get the argument that Rick Warren and his followers haven't been "engaged."

Who has failed to engage them? When? When have they not had ample opportunities to hear gay stories, meet gay folks, understand gay lives?

What more can gay human beings and their many friends and supporters do to "engage" the religious right? Please see bluename.

Got thinking about Obama and racism again today while Joel touched up my roots, so to speak, for the glorious holidays.

To my white friends, Obama's black. To my black friends, Obama's "not really" black.

To me . . . I've just "regretted" my invitation to stay in the Lincoln Bedroom in the White House (issued me out of the blue by my celebrity friend whose hubby will be abroad) and attend the White House Inaugural Ball.

I was SO looking forward to the night! Fabulous gown-fittings, jumping up and down on Lincoln's bed, doing the Electric Slide with the Obamas and Bidens and Madonna and A-
Rod . . . and blogging EVERYTHING from the Ladies' Room off the White House Ballroom!

But no.

Because then I got thinking about, of course, sexism. I mean, have you ever had Joel's magic fingers running through your hair?

The phony 5,000 year old "traditional structure" of marriage. The equally phony 5,000 year old "traditional hatred of sex" except for the local male majority. You know. Monkey Island at the zoo. Baboon colonies.

For 5,000 years, whether Babylonia, Brooklyn or Bethlehem, sex is only okay for the dominant male ethnicity and religion. For THEM, everything and anything is okay. Women? Fine. Multiple wives? Fine. Children of either sex? Fine. Passive gay men? Fine. Gay women? Nobody cares. (See Bible, etc.).

Women can't be sexual on their own (that would be evil Eve offering Adam her "apple"), yet must respond like eager prostitutes to dominant males. Gay men can't be sexual with each other (evil, again), but only with dominant "straight" males who penetrate them.

Then, like a blinding flash on the road to Damascus (Maryland, Syria) . . .

"Don't miss the bangs, Joel. I've got to get through the next three weeks with them. I'm on the road a lot."

. . . I realized those clever dominant baboon colonies had evolved into Cradle-of-Civilization desert Homo sapiens wiseacres who set up Religions to keep all the sex for themselves and control it elsewhere - particularly among women (and their counterparts, receptive gay men).

The origin of the 5,000 year old "tradition" of hating (fearing) Women and Gays, equating them with Satan and condemning them in God's name, it exploded like a light-bulb in my thought-bubble!

Joel started my rinse. The warm waters and his wonderful fingers felt like a "baptism" of sorts - a Christmas Catharsis, if you will.

I knew I could no longer attend Obama's Inauguration nor his Ball.

(I thoroughly stated WHY in a previous post - cut-and-paste the link below, as only one clicky is permitted per post]:)

http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/2008/12/the_lesson_of_lynchings.aspx#comment-184023

John Brummett's and E.J. Dionne's comments are tepid and completely ignore the dark heart of Rick Warren's invited participation in Obama's Inaugural.

Maybe they're just too old to get it. Because the under-30 generation sure as hell does. Maybe Brummett and Dionne are just too irrelevant for the dawn of the 21st Century.

Racism, though ever-present among ever-decreasing bigoted minorities (largely rural and relatively uneducated), is SLOWLY dying in America. Obama's election is proof enough.

Sexism is also dying, SLOWLY, and among the same bigoted minorities as racism. Women in the workplace, religion and politics for instance. The SLOW decline in global cultural acceptance of child brides, pederasty and polygamy as "traditional" - therefore okay.

Information = Freedom. The Internet is more threatening than Women have EVER been, to the dominant baboons.

"Jesus, Joel - are you trying to drown me in this fucking lavatory?" I unfortunately yelled during an abrupt silence between tracks on Joel's Christmas CD. (Microcosmic "silent night" throughout salon.)

Joel, ever-tip-savvy with his regulars, saved my bacon by mock-slapping my head and shouting, "Norma! Don't say 'fuck' in front of the Elves!"

But by now I realized Obama's Inauguration would welcome the ugly homophobic Jew-hating Rick Warren. I wanted no part of it any longer.

Sure, I'll miss sliding with Madonna and A-Rod. But I can always catch up with them in Dubai.

Too many gay friends / family; too many black friends / family for that matter; to endorse American religious bigotry by attending this Inauguration.

Instead, I'll be staying with OTHER friends in D.C. and confine myself to live-blogging from the MTV Inaugural Ball just a few blocks from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Because, really, now that Joel's touched up my roots, cut, set, blow-dried and combed me out, I know I belong with MTV and not this White House.

Besides.

Straight or gay, at the MTV Ball you can dance with anybody you like and say "fuck-fuck-fuckity-fuck" and nobody bats an eyelash.

That's the new America.

That's where I'll be January 20, 2009.

Thanks for the link to the thoughtful article, MuddlingThrough. I certainly understand the anger toward Warren and others like him. That said, I still don't see how blocking him from giving the invocation furthers the worthy cause of gay rights. Is it hoped that that would send a message to other people opposed to gay rights that they would not be able to give invocations and that eventually they would be shunned from public life?

>> While it's easy to sneer and say that Warren and his followers won't change their minds, how does not engaging with them change their minds? While I'm lucky to get a conservative friend to concede a point 1 out of 10 times, I've never gotten him to change his mind by avoiding him altogether.<<

Seems we find the same mindset that Bush and company had when they declared it was useless to talk to Iran, NKorea, etc.

Here's my rule of thumb, ARHawk:

We would not invite anyone to give the inaugural invocation who uses the bible to endorse slavery, racism, or the subjugation of women to men.

There are those out there who do interpret the bible in sexist and racist ways. The use of the bible to support slavery, racism, and sexism is deeply rooted in Christian culture and has a venerable tradition.

As a democratic society, we have concluded that even if some believers want to use the scriptures this way, they should not be allowed the right to influence the political arena to adopt their peculiar views.

We have not yet made such a decision re: use of the bible to bash gay people. We are moving there, though. For many of us, the use of the scriptures in that way--particularly in the public sphere--is no longer debatable. It's as wrong as using the bible to support racism, slavery, or the subordination of women to men is.

The person charged to give the invocation address is not merely representing his/her peculiar religious view. He or she is symbolically calling down God's blessing on the new administration.

It was wrong to choose Rick Warren for this responsibility--for the reasons I outline above.