Wednesday Open Thread

 

"The Money Song" - Monty Python (featuring Eric Idle)

- Extremely good piece by Eric Alterman regarding Governor Cuomo, who has now, in the wake of the gay marriage triumph in New York, become the beau ideal of liberalism for many -- often by way of negative comparison with President Obama.   Alterman notes that one of the great advantages of say, pushing marriage equality, is that it doesn't actually cost anyone any money - indeed, it is probably an economic winner across the board in a place like New York.  In other respects, however, Cuomo is far from being the fierce fighting liberal that some would like to think and that his policies in office, at this early point, have been extremely solicitous of New York's ultra-wealthy (many of whom are also big supporters of marriage equality).  As we have discussed here on innumerable occasions, I am a huge supporter of marriage equality as well, but still remain convinced that being a person of the left means being a proponent of economic justice, workers' rights, a more robust social safety net, and a vibrant public sector, in addition to being a supporter of fundamental freedoms embodied in things like marriage equality and reproductive rights.   

- Sarah Palin pops by Iowa.   One wonders how long the grifter can continue this political striptease.  I get the sense that the entry by Bachmann into the race has got to be a bit annoying for her -- she really is used to being the belle of the lunatic ball and I think enjoys making starbursts appear in the eyes of the faithful.  Essentially she faces a kind of business decision -- is the grifting helped or hurt by a presidential run.  I have always thought that she would run because of the need to cash in while she still can.  There has to be a limit (I think) on how long a former half-term governor can continue to get the absurd amount of press attention that she does if she is not ever going to hold office again.  (Although there is the Gingrich example to counter my thinking -- that asshat hasn't held office in twelve years and managed to command a great deal of attention until such time as he declared, whereupon he crashed and burned like the Hindenburg.)

- Neil helpfully linked to this article regarding a full-on wingnut screed against the marriage equality law just passed in New York, which announces that the law will lead to a "perpetual pansexual pagan party," which, if true, may in fact make Andrew Cuomo the next president of the United States -- possibly by acclimation.  The aforementioned screed, bearing the name "Entitlement Sex" (also a winning platform me thinks) is worth a look to give you a sense of where marriage eqquality opponents are coming from -- it's not a pretty place.

- Really good news from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit today upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate provision, a 2-1 decision that included a concurrence by former Scalia law clerk Jeffrey Sutton. 

- Things I did not know category -- I'm reading a new history on World War II called The Storm of War by Andrew Roberts.  He notes in the book that in 1943 the United States was producing 83% of the world's oil.  That's kind of hard to imagine now. although it provides an insight into they way the U.S. developed in the post-war period. 

- Oh, and one last thing, here's Bruce Springsteen's eulogy for Clarence Clemons, which is just perfect. From its description it leads me to believe that the Big Man would have been at home at the perpetual pansexual pagan party.     

Leave a comment if you can break away from your own perpetual pansexual pagan party.

 

Comments

[oddjob]

Oh, and did I mention public sex, the porn explosion and public nudity?

How odd....... Is she old enough to remember the 1960's, or has she educated herself sufficiently to realize it was the SCOTUS 1964 decision in Griswold v. Connecticut that did that?

Conservative asshate Jeff Jacoby was more polite in today's Boston Globe, but just as weak in his argument (if you can call it that).

[oddjob]

("asshat", not "asshate". Jacoby's not that nasty in regards to gay people. His stances are harmful, but they don't arise from antipathy or open animosity.)

[Sir Charles]

Jacoby is a moron though. Christ why does the Globe run this clown?

[oddjob]

I wish I knew. His columns typically cite supporting data that seemingly permit him to come to sweeping conclusions (that - no surprise - he favors), but as in this particular column I've linked to if you know even a little bit of the relevant topic and its history you can almost immediately see that he's failing to include other highly salient data that fatally undercut those sweeping conclusions.

[BP in MN]

if true, may in fact make Andrew Cuomo the next president of the United States -- possibly by acclimation.

I wouldn't normally point out typos, but I just really like the image this presented.

"How'd we wind up with President Cuomo?"

"Well, once the perpetual pansexual pagan party started, we all just lost track of things and got used to weird stuff, and then one day we looked around and damned if he wasn't President."

[Davis X. Machina]

Jacoby is a moron though. Christ why does the Globe run this clown?

The Times -- the Globe's mother ship -- was duck-walked at gunppoint and made to hire Agnew's old speechwriter, Bill Safire, because it had aided and abetted Nixon's downfall, published the Pentagon Papers, and in various other ways had disrespected the Bing. He was still there at the time of his death in 2009.

Jacoby went into the Globe the same way, and will leave the same way.

Safire, however, was occasionally caught actually writing.

[kathy a.]

public sex, public nudity, and porn explosion? really?

gay people who want to marry just want the same ability to file joint tax returns, worry about each other's health, maybe raise a family, grow into old fart-hood together. their private sex lives are already nobody else's business. their public behavior is still subject to the same rules as heterosexuals. so, wtf?

[Sir Charles]

BP,

Thanks for pointing that out. Although I hate typos, and always correct them when pointed out, I'm going to keep this one in your honor.

DXM,

It's amazing how the liberal media managed to feel tainted for doing its job.

kathy,

It's clear to me that these idiots have never met an out gay couple. Having known many in my days, I think it is fair to say that they are by and large just as boring as straight people -- as is more or less embodied in this movement -- the freedom to indulge in dull domesticity.

[Paula B]

re: the relationship between abortions in NY and the legalization of gay marriages, according to Linda Harvey, in Welcome to Entitlement Sex.

>>[NY] citizens abort 41 percent of all pregnancies. Is it a coincidence that sexual deviance accompanies rejection of new life and children? I think not.<<

??? Would someone please explain the birds and the bees to Ms. Harvey?

[Sir Charles]

Linda would not have done well in Torts I suspect -- her sense of causation is a little it off.

[kathy a.]

i once met an old woman who had been pregnant 25 times [that she knew of]. she lost about half the pregnancies to miscarriage -- possibly in part because she was doing very arduous field work in an effort to feed the family, and possibly because there never was enough food, nevermind medical care. she was part of the dust bowl migration to california, and what she earned did not come close to living wages. there was a lot of hardship in that family, and the children who survived did not do well. nor the grandchildren.

any questions about why reproductive health care is important?

[Paula B]

An avalanche of (close but no cigar) depravity!

Rhode Island Legislature Approves Civil Unions
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/30/us/30unions.html?_r=1&hp

[Beckya57]

I just posted on my Facebook page that I want to join the perpetual pansexual pagan party.

[judy]

I'm looking forward to reading about your articles!
thank you!

[low-tech cyclist]

I can't wait until my kid's a little older, and my wife and I have a bit more time and energy for some depravity!

SC, I don't think the Gingrich counterexample applies to Palin. Gingrich has stayed in the public eye because the Villagers somehow came to regard him as a Serious Conservative Thinker. Even our commentariat isn't so stupid as to make the same mistake with Palin, even if she does read ALL the newspapers.

She needs to rely on wingnut support to keep her con going, and ultimately Bachmann, or somebody else who's less of a flake than Palin, will steal her oxygen. Even wingnuts will get a clue eventually about someone who can't even manage to finish a bus tour.

[oddjob]

Or handle a gun knowledgeably on a reality television show specifically made for your benefit, despite supposedly having grown up using them.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

somebody kill the comments of spammer Judy, please!

Okay, now on the perpetual pansexual pagan party, Sir Charles is right that the 'dull respectability' that gay couples are seeking has little room for this. In fact, many gay activists seem to have as much trouble with bisexuals -- particularly male bisexuals -- as straight activists do.

Partially it is because we blow holes in their 'do you think we'd be this way of we had a choice' whine-meme. Some of us know we have such a choice and choose to enjoy our full sexuality and not just part of it.

I should say that I can accept that there may be a genetic component to gayness in some individuals -- though I've yet to see any solid evidence -- but that over all the meme is both inaccurate and eventually self-defeating. Let me ask how far a civil rights leader would have gotten if he argued that "Of course, we'd rather be white. Would anyone imagine we'd be black and suffer the discrimination if we could choose not to be?"

If that isn't ugly enough and absurd enough to bother you, let me ask our female contributors how many of them would state that they never would have been female if they had a choice.

And yet gays make an equivalent statement and it isn't seen as ugly.

I'd like to suggest a different way of looking at things, and would ask anyone bothering to read this for a colloquy on it.

First, we tend to view the statements 'I'm gay" or "I'm straight" as positive statements about one's own sexuality. In fact, I think they most often are, in reality, negatives, that a person saying "I'm straight' is not saying anything about who -- or even if -- he has sex with. Instead a person who says "I'm straight" is actually saying "I don't, don't want to, and won't have sex with my own gender." And a gay person is saying the equivalent about the opposite gender.

(A 'straight' person might also be 'explaining away' situational gayness -- having sex with one's own gender because there are no members of the opposite sex available, say in prison or in boarding school or convents or in the 'old' navy. In that case it means "I really prefer the opposite gender and want you to ignore the guy/girl I've been having sex with.")

As for 'choice' I believe there is an unstated but very powerful 'demand' from society that a person has to choose, sometime shortly after puberty, 'which team they have to sign up with.' Bisexuality has always bothered straight activists, and it seems to bother gay activists as well. (And yes, I understand why, because they are afraid that admitting there is a 'choice' component opens the door for all the people who want to 'cure' them. The door is shuttable but requires extra effort.)

But it is society that says 'you are either straight or gay' and -- just as 'black blood' is, to racists, far more 'powerful' than 'white blood' so if you are 1/8th black, you are black, period -- 'gayness' is more 'powerful' than straightness, so if you've had one enjoyable sexual experience with a guy -- the lesson is nowheres as strong for women, whose sexuality, after all, 'doesn't matter as much' -- you are gay, period and have only been fooling yourself if you thought you also had enjoyed sex with, or found yourself attracted to women.

One thing this attitude reinforces is the 'straight male pathology' that only they really enjoy sex, that women who are being fucked are only submitting to give the man pleasure. The idea that 'sex is something you do to someone, not with someone' -- important for shielding this type of guy against guilt for lying, or cheating, or even rape, at least 'date rape' -- is threatened if you can imagine that guys are out having sex with other guys because sucking cocks is -- or can be -- as enjoyable as getting sucked, that getting fucked in the ass is also enjoyable. Hell, the next thing you're going to force us to realize is that women have real orgasms and don't just make funny noises for our benefit.

Responses?

[kathy a.]

open thread -- i'm really unhappy about how california plans to accomplish the budget this year.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

kathy: I love the comment about 'the average person will pocket $1000 this year in tax reductions.' Sure implies that there is something of a trade-off. Which would be great, if the people who were impacted by the service cuts were the same people who were getting the tax breaks. But the people who are suffering most, of course, are the people whose income is small enough that they can't benefit much from the tax 'breaks' that the article mentions.

[kathy a.]

i want to pay taxes to support these social welfare and health programs, education, etc. there are many more cuts, i think, that aren't outlined here. the judiciary is up in arms about huge cuts to the courts. i expect lots of layoffs of public employees.

but you're right, the people taking the brunt are not going to benefit from savings on taxes.

[oddjob]

Excellent rant.

[oddjob]

Responses?

Beyond that you're largely right? None from me.

[Sir Charles]

Jim,

I think sexuality is a mysterious thing and occurs on a kind of continuum for a lot of people.

I think that the liberal/left position on consensual sex should be one not just of tolerance, but generally of celebration.

Obviously there a host of positions out there though and we aren't all going to see eye to eye on the merits of the perpetuaal pansexual pagan party.

So tolerance -- weak tea though it is -- is probably the best we will do.

[kathy a.]

prup, i've always told my kids that people can't help who they love, and love is good. i'm really disinterested in categorizing other people's sexuality, because i think that is such a private, personal thing.

my rules are consent on both sides, and nobody gets exploited or hurt; the details are not my business. my private life is nobody else's business, either.

i have strong views against child sex abuse, relationships with serious power imbalances, stalking, and rape. a person's own sexual feelings do not trump anyone else's rights, ever.

each of us has attractions and feelings that are deeply a part of us, and unique to us -- we can't help those feelings. but each of us makes choices about pursuing those attractions -- again, very personal choices. sometimes, lots of times, the decision to pursue is not mutual, so scratch that one. so, i guess i don't really see "i was born this way" as inconsistent with "this is someone i chose, and who chose me back."

[oddjob]

For of the blog's shortcomings one reason I'm glad I spent the time at Shakespeare's Sister/Shakesville that I did was Melissa's relentless reminders that when it came to the rights of "sexual minorities" (or whatever relevant general term one wishes to use) arguing that they were born the way they were ought to be beside the point. As long as you're not harming anyone and the interaction is consensual it's irrelevant whether it's "chosen" or not. Your right to the pursuit of happiness is the same whether you were born with an inclination or not. (I'll agree here with the founding fathers and assert that I think it's self-evident that all are born with the right to the pursuit of happiness, even if that right isn't specified in the Constitution.)

Melissa was right in her assertions. I didn't used to think about things that way so much, but her writing on that topic made me see that I was neglecting a critical consideration.

[oddjob]

(For all of the blog's shortcomings....)

[Sir Charles]

oddjob,

One of the few strong affirmations I ever got from over there was for my unequivocal stand against trying to compromise with the "partial birth abortion" forces.

I think Amanda is really good on this front as well.

In line with Jim's comment, there is one of those head shaking articles on page 1 of the Times today about bisexual players being banned from a gay soft ball tournament.

There are infinite forms of madness in this world of ours.

[oddjob]

An excellent confirmation of the frustration Prup expressed.

[MR Bill]

As someone who called himself 'bisexual' when I was a married guy, and call myself, gay now: Prup is, of course, right.
I have heard both straight and gay bigots say "if you (have sex) with a man, you're gay". I've heard gay guys (and some lesbians) say that 'bisexual' was just people fooling themselves. Some of it may be that a lot of men, particularly, call themselves bisexual earlier in their life, and like me, eventually come down with being comfortable with saying 'I'm gay'. Sexuality is often developmental: I mean, no one starts out into Leather/SMBD.
I'm not a gender/sexual essentialist, but most people seem to be, and need to have that bright line, the clarity that isn't really there in 'real life'. I also tend to feel that sexuality is a bit more plastic than people think.
Of course, the real data shows a continuum, and I think it was Arthur C. Clarke who wrote (pretty sure it was in Songs of a Distant Earth ), of a character who was usually straight, but having a gay 'adventure', "The real 100%s are so rare as to be pathological".
My own experience indicates a lot of 'straight' people have sex with their own gender. Maybe it's that, since "Aladdin Sane" there just hasn't been many open bisexuals..

[big bad wolf]

mr. bill you may be on to something---the lightening bolt makeup may have been too much. :)

[Sir Charles]

I remember at 12 years old sort of hiding my Space Oddity album away from my other records because although I quite loved Bowie it made me uncomfortable. And I am sure in my sort of blue collar environs it would have invited a little derision.

One of the more ironic things I remember from around that same time is that a friend of mine who had a tendency to make homophobic remarks was a huge fan -- indeed a fanatical fan of Queen and Elton John. Talk about an underdeveloped sense of gaydar.

[MR Bill]

Perhaps apropos:
"The mistake that straight people made was imposing the monogamous expectation on men. Men were never expected to be monogamous. Men had concubines, mistresses and access to prostitutes, until everybody decided marriage had to be egalitar­ian and fairsey. [Rather than granting women] the same latitude and license and pressure-release valve that men had always enjoyed, we extended to men the confines women had always endured. And it’s been a disaster for marriage." - Dan Savage, quoted in an extensive NYT Magazine article on fidelity. Via Joe.My.God.

[Paula B]

re: Let me ask our female contributors how many of them would state that they never would have been female if they had a choice. prup

Well, Prup, the only time I wished I were male was before 1980, every time I was blocked from doing something fairly ordinary, thanks restrictions in education, hiring, financial rights and other barriers related to the accident of being born with a vagina.

Does that form of gender abuse have anything to do with sex? I think so, because -- as Kathy points out -- power imbalances, resentment and fear get in the way of all relationships, sexual or social. Thank goodness women have made political and financial gains since then to even out some of those imbalances.

Kathy, re: my rules are consent on both sides, and nobody gets exploited or hurt...i have strong views against child sex abuse, relationships with serious power imbalances, stalking, and rape. a person's own sexual feelings do not trump anyone else's rights, ever.

I couldn't agree with you more on exploitation, child sex abuse and personal rights. I don't think many heterosexual men have had to worry about being stalked, raped or abused. But, gay men and all women have, and still do worry in many parts of the world, even here. That worry, and the less worrisome continuum of attraction several people have mentioned in this thread, may be where many of us share experience and understanding.

I, too, read the Dan Savage stuff today, and don't even want to go there. Talk about power imbalance!

[kathy a.]

paula -- i think a lot more men than will admit it have been abused and/or raped in childhood, and stalked and abused in adulthood.

and of course the taunting and insults extend far beyond potential sex partners. women hear from mothers and girlfriends and employers and random strangers if they are not cute enough, or if they are cute and so why don't they respond to random strangers, and/or how else they should be more ideal. men hear from fathers and classmates and random strangers if they are not macho enough, and how they should be more something or another. and then there are the gay jokes. why can't everybody stfu on gender stereotypes?

[Paula B]

Exactly, kathy. all of those incidents in our childhood, and even birth order, help make us what we are as adults, no matter who or how we love. Add to that institutional insults -- including laws that forbid us from marrying whomever we want -- and you wonder how anyone builds a workable relationship.

[nancy]

i'll stay out of this fray, as it cuts just a little too close to the bone. a stalking experience almost cost me my son last summer and i'm still in no mood to excuse it. anyone who has ever gotten the 3 am phone call from dad, " there's been an accident and i'm on my way to harborview" will understand.

that said, no, being female has been just fine with me except for the occasional moment when i'd like to be more inclined to say "who the fuck do you think you are?" rather than fall back on the temperamental peacekeeper that i am.

also, per dan savage. have kids?--monogamy, most definitely preferable. no kids, it's all up to the two, three, or however more of you.

[nancy]

sorry--pasteover. delete comment. and over and out. way too personal and not germane.