Posts Tagged ‘Interview’

Outing: Is sex off limits?

Thursday, May 14th, 2009

Recently, a Washington DC news anchor, Doug McKelway, while hosting a local interest news program called Let’s Talk Live, interviewed Mike Rogers about outing hypocritical politicians. The movie is Outrage1 and Mike Rogers can be found at BlogActive.com. The interview made McKelway rather hot and bothered because he told Rogers that he would like to punch him in the face (more or less).

What exactly is the outrage here? Many, of which Mike Rogers is one, have dedicated themselves to unearthing the hypocrisy of politicians at any level who engage in homosexual behavior yet routinely vote against gay rights issues. Is outing the sexual behavior of a hypocritical public official the right thing to do?

I think that each of us has a right to our private lives. Sex is just one facet of things that should be private. If we don’t need to know the intimate conversations you have about politics or money, why do we need to know the intimate conversations regarding your sexual activity? Of course, if the activities in which you engage are illegal, then those activities become a matter of public record. The intimacy is over because the right to privacy ends.

However, any action that you take as a public official that is counter to the actions you take in your private life is a real problem. If you are Eliot Spitzer (former New York Governor, New York Attorney General, Manhattan District Attorney) and you prosecute prostitutes all the while secretly engaging the services of prostitutes in multiple jurisdictions, you are not only hypocritical but you are violating the law. You cannot be trusted. Eliot was outed, sexually speaking, but Eliot is not gay.

During the interview, McKelway asks Rogers about the outings of certain public officials like Larry Craig, who was infamously arrested in the bathroom of a Minneapolis airport while attempting to obtain sex from the person in the adjacent stall. Larry Craig, apparently, has also voted against gay rights issues on multiple occasions. Rogers also mentions Florida Governor Charlie Christ, who recently announced he will run in the US Senate race in 2010. While Larry Craig’s issues are rather obvious, Charlie Christ’s issues are not. Although rumors have spread for years about both gentlemen, Christ has yet to have anyone provide proof publicly of his non-heterosexual behavior. (I don’t follow the news stories on Christ, so I am more than willing to be corrected on the facts.)

If a public official, particularly one that holds an elected position, is engaging in personal behavior that is contradictory to his/her publicly stated positions or to his/her public actions (such as a voting record), then I think that the personal behavior should be known. If Larry Craig were to dress up in women’s clothing and hang out in gay bars in order to bag a guy at a DC hotel, I really don’t care. However, if Larry Craig takes a consistent public stance against people who otherwise engage in the same behavior he does, and he echoes that stance with a voting record to match, I think Larry Craig should be outed. I don’t mean to beat up on Larry Craig, poor guy, but he’s the most recent posterchild for hypocritical sexual activity.

The question becomes this: Why is sex off limits to outing? We often out people for financial misdeeds, such as Sam Donaldson for being against farm subsidies yet consistently accepting federal subsidies for his goat ranch (or whatever) in New Mexico. That is just one example of a hypocrisy uncovered, and that was a hypocrisy committed by a private individual functioning in a public capacity (news reporting), who also reports on the hypocrises of other public figures. 

Did the message about our sexual lives being private become overdone? I don’t care what anyone does in their private lives, but if I am going to vote for you, or if you are appointed by someone else to act on my behalf, then your personal behavior better withstand the public scrutinty of a position you hold publicly. If you consistently think gays shouldn’t marry or adopt children or even be allowed to work anywhere, and you are consistently engaging in homosexual behavior, watch out! I am the public and I think I have the right to know.

Doug McKelway needs to get off the horse he’s riding because it’s way too high.

  1. IMDb: Outrage [<]

Rachel Maddow Gives Props to FSM on Darwin Day

Thursday, February 12th, 2009

Rachel Maddow celebrated Darwin Day tonight by calling the FSM movement a “perfectly brilliant challenge” to the popular idea that the Christian god created everything (i.e., the assertion that religion needs to be taught alongside science). She noted that when creationism (or “intelligent design“) was being proposed as something that needed to be taught in schools, the “inventor” of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Bobby Henderson, challenged the Kansas State Board of Education. Henderson stated that if creationism were to be taught, then the scriptural basis for creation showing that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything ought to be taught, as well, and that it would be offensive if the teaching weren’t done in proper Church of the FSM garb — full pirate regalia.

Maddow also cited the 39% of Americans believing in evolution Gallup poll (25% not believing in evolution) before interviewing Edward Larson, Pepperdine University (affiliated with the Churches of Christ) Law Professor, who stated, “If people are given the choice between God and Darwin, most of them will choose God.”

Rachel, you rock.


2009 March for Fetus Life in DC

Thursday, January 22nd, 2009

Today is the annual March for Life in Washington DC.

According to the March for Life flyer, their campaign consists of an “important simple prolife message that the intentional killing of even one innocent preborn human is never licit or justified and is never necessary because America can and must provide equal care for both a pregnant mother and her preborn child — with no exception!”

In the past, these pro-lifers have indicated that “no exception” means that the mother’s right to live gets trumped by the fetus’ right to live. Sometimes health workers are forced to make a choice between trying to save the mother or saving the fetus. If they’re bound by a “no exceptions” rule, then both could be at risk if given “equal” treatment when treatment of only one or the other would save one life. The issue here is the double standard created by the pro-lifers — “pro-life, but prioritize the fetus.” That’s not pro-life. That’s pro-fetus.

It’s evident that the March for Life protesters are pro-fetus (over the life of the mother) when we read a portion of their Application of their “Life Principles” :

When two or more human beings are in a situation in which their lives are mutually endangered, all available ordinary means and reasonable efforts shall be used to preserve and protect the life of each and every human being so endangered:

With respect to a difficult pregnancy, the principle of “equal care for both the pregnant mother and her preborn child” is well established. Although a pregnant mother and/or her preborn child may die, there is no justification in the law of God or man for the intentional killing of even one innocent born or preborn human in existence at fertilization. NO EXCEPTION! NO COMPROMISE!

Today’s rally will start off at the Verizon Center with various activities (youth concert, mass with the Archbishop, prayers, and an “Important program about important application of the Life Principles.”) The march itself will begin at noon on the Mall and end with a Rose dinner at their headquarters at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in DC. And, yes, roads will be closed.

I’m tempted to stand out there and interview some of the protesters, to ask them the recently provocative set of questions “Should abortion be illegal?” and then “What should we do with the women who have abortions?”

I wonder if we could rally as many people for a “separation of church and state” march.

UPDATE:

I didn’t really want to make a new post about this, and it’s being covered all over the blogosphere, but, check out the madness that is the manifestation of the “principles” espoused by the Catholics:

A 9-year-old girl who was carrying twins, and whose stepfather is suspected of raping her, underwent an abortion on Wednesday despite complaints from Brazil’s Roman Catholic Church. The stepfather has been jailed since last week, the police said. Abortion is illegal in Brazil, the country with the most Roman Catholics, but judges can make exceptions if the mother’s life is in danger or the fetus has no chance of survival. Fatima Maia, director of the public university hospital where the abortion was performed, said the pregnancy, which was in its 15th week, posed a serious risk to the girl, who weighs 80 pounds. But Marcio Miranda, a lawyer for the Archdiocese of Olinda and Recife in northeastern Brazil, said the girl should have carried the twins to term and had a Caesarean section. “It’s the law of God: Do not kill,” he said in comments reported by the newspaper O Globo.

Posted in the NY Times, via AP

State of Protest

My 2009 Predictions

Tuesday, January 6th, 2009

Evan Bernstein, from the Rogues Gallery (the Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe blog) had a fun idea to test his powers of prediction for what’s to come in 2009, and he invited others to chime in. So, to spread the word, I’m posting my prediction comment here, as well. Be sure to head on over to TRG to submit your own predictions, so you can brag about them coming true later.

Here are mine:

1. The world will not end. (fn: if it does, there will be no one around to say I was wrong)

2. Sarah Palin will first pardon, and then eat, a turkey.

3. Pastor Rick Warren will say the word “God” at the inauguration at least three times, but no more than five.

4. Obama will say the word “God” twice.

5. Car companies will continue to manufacture gas-guzzling p.o.s. cars, despite the need for alternate types of vehicles.

6. Rachel Maddow will interview at least one new Cabinet member, and quite possibly the Pres or VP.

7. Keith Olbermann will not dye his hair. (And why should he?)

8. California courts will hold that all marriages that were held during the “gays are okay” window will maintain validity, despite the Prop 8 law against gay marriage. Complainants will lose their battle to take it to the U.S. Supreme Court because that Court will claim a lack of jurisdiction over a state matter (marriage). Gay marriage advocates will push to overturn Prop 8, and that movement will fail.

9. President Obama will sign a bill authorizing the FCC to censor the Internet. For everyone.

10. Credit card companies will increase the interest rates of all their customers (”victims”) just before Congress rules that credit card companies will be prohibited from doing so — and that ruling won’t be retroactive.

11. Multiple successful “civilian” stratosphere trips will increase in popularity, decrease in price, and make NASA look even more incompetent, which will prompt the government to nix even more space development and funding, which is generally what makes NASA look so bad in the first place.

12. Sports will continue to be about 3000% more popular than science, and will receive about that much more funding.

13. An amazing archeological find will prove once and for all that baby Jesus played with dinosaurs.

14. “Caligula” will be made into a Broadway show and musical, and it’s about time.

15. One prominent and famous Scientologist will denounce Scientology, claim he/she was brainwashed and mistaken, and then will claim to have found Jesus.

16. One state (besides Alaska) will seriously contemplate secession.

17. One house of Congress will pass (again) a Flag Desecration act. The other house will not pass it, but the margin will be the closest it’s ever been.

18. The U.S. will have a presence in Afghanistan and Iraq throughout the year, approximately equivalent to the presence it has now (but possibly shifting from one country to the other).

19. Marijuana will still be illegal for non-prescription consumption, and will still be illegal in most places for prescription consumption.

20. You’ll still be able to buy alcohol and firearms, though.

-Procrustes

State of Protest

The Trend of Obama Doubt

Thursday, December 18th, 2008

Is he merely catering to the small minority of Christian fundamentalist fanatics whom he threatens to depose by his mere accession to the presidential seat? Is he secretly homophobic? Is this subtle humor to show us what life would have been like under a McCain/Palin administration? Did all the hundreds of other potential choices have something scheduled on January 20th? Or was Obama just not thinking straight when he decided to invite the notorious fundamentalist homophobe Rick Warren to offer an inaugural prayer next month?

Yes, this is what everyone is jabbering about right now. Oh my God, you picked Rick Warren!?!?! Out of all the people! Well, I was jabbering, among a few others, about Obama’s pro-Christian, to the point of making me nervous about him, attitude way back in July, when I wrote “Thank God Obama Worships the “Right” God.” I mentioned that in light of rumors that Obama was Muslim, because he had attended a Muslim school for a short time as a child, Obama’s “Factcheck” web page, devoted to quelling such rumors, spent an inordinate amount of space not only just simply denying Obama’s Muslimhood, but also wildly exaggerating Obama’s Christianity. I was worried that what appeared to be wild exaggeration was actually a sign that Obama was a closet fundamentalist, or at least has a strong preference for the Christian religion and beliefs. My examination of the statements he’s made to that effect in the past, coupled with his selection of Rick Warren, have solidified my doubts about his demeanor with regard to Christian partisanship.

Regarding Warren, vjack at Atheist Revolution sums the pastor up nicely:

-Warren supported the ban on gay marriage in California.
-Warren opposes reproductive rights.
-Warren is clearly outside mainstream America and has been compared, fairly I believe, to James Dobson. Hell, he’s compared himself to Dobson!1

Now, we probably shouldn’t jump on the guilt by association bandwagon (as Obama’s opponents were wont to do during the election), but there are significantly safer, more neutral, and more politically correct (forgive me) selections for an inaugural companion. And this news of the Warren selection is right on the heels of other questionable behavior by Obama — notably, his cabinet choices. Having a cabinet and set of advisors that even Cheney agrees with should send up little red flags all over America.

Someone should ask Obama about what part of “change” we must have misunderstood. Is this country about to be run by the old administration in sheep’s clothing? Instead, how about… A bit of change away from the status quo of treating Christians and most other mainstream religions with preference; a change away from the Bush Doctrine; a change away from civil rights destruction (including the Patriot Act and its relatives); a change away from arbitrary discrimination in the guise of morality, promoted and perpetuated by religious groups; a change from the useless war on drugs (that ends up leaving the U.S. with the highest ratio of inmates in the entire world); a change from sexual discrimination in every form; a change away from criminalization of that which does not hurt, but is criminalized solely because of puritan influence; a change from pointless wars or wars fought for oil, or dominance, or whatever; a change from homophobia and the perpetuation of tradition that used to sit comfortably next to slavery and treating women as chattel. This isn’t change for the sake of change. It’s a change to improve our lives, get us out from under the foot of oppression, and help make this entire world more livable and, gods forbid, lovable.

Where’s that change, Obama? I don’t see it. I see, again, falling in line.

-Procrustes (pissed)

Who else has something to say about this issue?

Christopher Hitchens, at Slate, says we can do much better than Warren. If we must have an officiating priest.

Rob Boston at the AU Blog says that although Warren poses as a moderate, he’s really just another Falwell wannabee.

Vjack, as mentioned above, has a few things to say, including the wise advice to not sweep this one under the rug. He’s also indirectly supplied me with a few of these links to other articles, as well as bringing to my attention the contact information for Obama’s team.

The Atheist Experience is calling this Obama’s first big screwup.

Pam Spaulding, at Pam’s House Blend, suggests that although it’s a good idea to let the Obama camp know how we feel about this issue, it’s unlikely to be reversed.

Dave Silverman, at American Atheists, reminds Obama that he’s supposed to be a Democrat. (however, I say, look at the behavior of the rest of the self-proclaimed Democrats in Congress)

Bligbi nails the point in that by choosing Warren, Obama is making the pastor his representative. And, better yet, calls Obama out on his claim to be a fierce advocate of the LGBT community.

CNN has an interview of Rick Warren by Kiran Chetry.

Greta Christina (recently featured at BoingBoing) worries that Obama just wants everyone to like him, and in his attempt to eschew intolerance, he will become too tolerant.

Daily Kos acknowledges that there may be a silver lining in all this — that Obama will now be forced to continue to affirm his stance of equality with regard to LGBT rights.

Olbermann on Warren:



Rachel Maddow:



More to follow soon, as the theatrics roll.

StOP

  1. http://www.atheistrev.com/2008/12/obamas-inaugural-blunder-rick-warren.html [<]