When someone suggested that black people are genetically programmed to have lower IQs than other races, he became a pariah in his community. (James Watson, co-discoverer of the double helix)
When someone suggested that women are not neurologically equipped to handle complex science and engineering problems compared to men, he got eased out of office. (Lawrence Summers, ex-president of Harvard and now Obama's economic adviser.)
When someone proclaimed that homosexuality is a genetic defect, and gay marriage is equivalent to pedophilia and incest, he gets a prominent spot during Obama's inauguration.
Wow, so should we now also expect neo-Nazis and other fuck-ups to be part of the celebration of the new leadership of the government of the United States of America?
In my opinion, there are, like any other value, two kinds of diversity: positive and negative. To put a pastor with insulting views up as a representative of religious people should be insulting to everyone, not just to gay and lesbian Americans.
And by insulting views, I mean his explicit and unabashed belief that two people of the same sex getting married is equivalent to pedophilia and incest.
Right, so the next time a neo-Nazi in Berlin (or wherever) welcomes Obama with flying berets (or whatever they could sneak into a press conference), we should be thankful that he/she would "put his life at risk in an attempt to communicate the magnitude of our error" (which I'm assuming would be the grave error in electing a black president).
And while we're at it, let's throw stuff at people we don't like today. I've decided that I'm throwing my hard drive at my dissertation advisor, for obvious reasons.
It's not a question of fascism. It's a question of civilized behavior. The other side of the coin, of course, would be to do all sorts of non-violent means to show your distaste for the guy. To impeach him, for starters, is also civilized thing to do.
I hate Bush as much as the next guy, but throwing shoes at the man is an insult also to the Presidency of the United States. Granted, this president is a total fuck-up, but there are a myriad ways to show your distaste for the guy. Not appropriate at all, and to me certainly not as funny as many view it.
Everytime I see the guy, I get, uhm, wet a little.
(Is that TMI?)
Seriously, people like him inspire confidence in government. He should continue to do what he's doing-- I think he's more effective as principled US attorney than a politician who has to compromise-- so NO on the suggestion for senator.
1. 1992 ain't 2008. I doubt Obama will risk much to move towards repealing the unjust policy.
2. Obama's team, from the looks of it, is more skilled in getting things done. Clinton fumbled and fumbled again in his first 100 days, but I doubt Obama will.
3. Putting the issue of gays in the military wasn't a mistake. It was Clinton's strategy to push it through. Let's be clear about that.
4. National security is a pervading issue in the post-9/11 world; it's not that difficult to cast the argument in these terms, so it wouldn't be about "putting gays in uniform" but "putting compentence in uniform".
5. Saving the economy and universal health care are priority one, for sure. Gay people like me would certainly celebrate with the rest of you heterosexuals once those come to fruition. But there are other issues that can be dealt with in the interim. I'm sure a sensible policy to begin to allow openly gay servicemen to serve wouldn't hurt the economy or ruin the (dim) prospects of universal healthcare.
6. It's the right thing to do. Gay Americans should be allowed to serve this country honorably, and without shame.
7. Yes, "your move, Mr. Obama" is a reasonable statement.