Anti-Trans Letterman Skit Insults Obama Appointee Amanda Simpson
posted by Joe
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/01/anti-trans-letterman-skit-insults-obama.html (http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/01/anti-trans-letterman-skit-insults-obama.html)
I've been a fan of David Letterman for decades and was reasonably impressed with his handling of his recent adultery scandal. But this insulting bit of anti-trans middle school assclownery is really f---ing disappointing.
UPDATE: For those who don't see anything wrong about this, consider how it reinforces the age-old "tricked by a transwoman" claim that so many hate crimes defendants use, such as in the recent case of murdered teen Jorge Mercado. Aside from being sophomoric and a sitcom cliche, running off the stage as if about to vomit from the news that Amanda Simpson is trans is just not the sort of entertainment we should give a pass.
That was rather rude and juvenile. Particularly on the part of Allen Kalter.
I look forward to the day that I don't have to post such transphobic idiocy! ::)
Meanwhile, here's a place to take action
http://www.change.org/actions/view/demand_that_david_letterman_apologize_for_transphobic_joke#letter_form (http://www.change.org/actions/view/demand_that_david_letterman_apologize_for_transphobic_joke#letter_form)
Demand that David Letterman Apologize for Transphobic Joke
Send a message to the producers at the Late Show letting them know that transphobia isn't funny. Amanda Simpson is well-qualified, distinguished in her field, and will prove an asset to the U.S. Commerce Department. For the Late Show to make a joke about how "sick" she is because she's transgender is offensive, rude, and fosters the types of discrimination and violence that affect the trans population at large
also
What can you do? Contact CBS using its feedback form.
http://www.cbs.com/info/user_services/fb_global_form.php (http://www.cbs.com/info/user_services/fb_global_form.php)
Z
Yeah, because we all know how well it went went Sara Palin got all bend out of shape about one of his jokes.
I sent both off. Will it do anything? Probably not, but we have to flood them with complaints. Pure and simple.
Janet
Sure it will do something if history is any president, it will encourage his staff to write even more jokes about her.
That is why I don't watch show like Letterman. They promote bigotry and hatred.
Not as bad as it could have been, but still annoying as hell.
Twitter'd and Facebook'd.
Twitter'd and Facebook'd.
As countless other will do no doubt, thus giving Dave even more publicity, even more coverage. As Oscar Wilde once said about such things, the only thing worse then being talked about, is not being talked about.
Quote from: tekla on January 06, 2010, 02:20:17 PM
Twitter'd and Facebook'd.
As countless other will do no doubt, thus giving Dave even more publicity, even more coverage. As Oscar Wilde once said about such things, the only thing worse then being talked about, is not being talked about.
Are you implying that it's _bad_ this gets spread around?
Regardless, I've personally found that the more I've communicated with my heavily masculine gear-obsessed social circle (I build guitar pedals), the more they've grown to understand and accept the trans-experience.
It doesn't always yield immediate results, but there's definitely some enlightening going on over time. Something that absolutely requires fighting for.
As a matter of fact, my facebook post end up leading into a pretty nice civil discussion on the subject : http://www.facebook.com/deviever?v=feed&story_fbid=240978898769#/deviever?v=feed&story_fbid=240978898769&ref=mf (http://www.facebook.com/deviever?v=feed&story_fbid=240978898769#/deviever?v=feed&story_fbid=240978898769&ref=mf)
Some enlightening over time also builds a sense of humor. If she didn't know this was going to happen, I'd venture to say she's not bright enough for the job. But I'm sure she did. If she was highly offended by it, her skin is not thick enough to be a political appointee, and again, I'm sure she's blown it off, having faced worse things in the past. Third, the joke was really not as her expense, it was at the expense of the sidekick, who's job it is to be the butt of jokes.
Quote from: tekla on January 06, 2010, 03:53:23 PM
Some enlightening over time also builds a sense of humor. If she didn't know this was going to happen, I'd venture to say she's not bright enough for the job. But I'm sure she did. If she was highly offended by it, her skin is not thick enough to be a political appointee, and again, I'm sure she's blown it off, having faced worse things in the past. Third, the joke was really not as her expense, it was at the expense of the sidekick, who's job it is to be the butt of jokes.
This isn't about how it effects her though, this is about how it effects the trans-community as a whole.
... and the joke _was_ ultimately at her expense, because it implies that she wasn't always a woman, thus making an implied sexual encounter the sidekick had with her a painful enough realization for the man to run away screaming and crying.
People are ultimately laughing at the fact the man got duped into being with someone who "really wasn't a woman", not that the man couldn't handle the fact he had been with a trans-person.
i just watched the clip...and really i don't see why this is such an issue..she looked good in her pic and if she identifies as transgendered in such a high profile manner then its part of her trip.....if she had very masculine features and the joke was a sarcastic " i would never have guessed" type of thing then maybe it would be right to complain..it was just a gag and the laugh was on the man who ran off the set...i thought it was funny...
;D
Quote from: ius2avasasage on January 06, 2010, 05:37:58 PMi thought it was funny...
Explain to me what's funny about a guy being so embarrassed to have been with a trans-woman that he feels ashamed enough to run away crying?
I'm being serious about this. I don't find it amusing what-so-ever.
yep i just watched it again...
i was right it was funny... :angel:
Quote from: ius2avasasage on January 06, 2010, 06:15:39 PM
yep i just watched it again...
i was right it was funny... :angel:
Mind answering my question? :-\
why are you so angry...it cant be nice.. it was funny and i dont have a problem with it...its okay if you do..that doesn't make me angry...i think its funny thats it... have to go to hospital now
c u
Well sure, the skit is in poor taste and I didn't care for it
But I'm not going to get all bent just because others find it humorous
Life's too short
Quote from: ius2avasasage on January 06, 2010, 06:39:15 PM
why are you so angry...it cant be nice.. it was funny and i dont have a problem with it...its okay if you do..that doesn't make me angry...i think its funny thats it... have to go to hospital now
c u
I've already stated my stance on this subject.
I'm honestly curious why anyone would find it amusing. I think I've made a pretty clear case as to why it's _not_ funny, and why it _is_ disrespectful to trans-women.
I apologize if this comes across as negative to anyone, but I've been dealing with people all day who debate with me about it until I bring up how it's not funny, and then mysterious each person doesn't want to be involved in the conversation at that point.
While not angry, I am definitely frustrated by it, especially experiencing such non-communication on a trans-specific forum.
Once again, my apologies if I have come across harsh. I'd just really like someone to back up their ideas with some solid thoughts on the matter.
Quote from: devi ever on January 06, 2010, 03:57:22 PM
... and the joke _was_ ultimately at her expense, because it implies that she wasn't always a woman...
I think Amanda did that herself by proclaiming herself a
"transgender woman" in a press release, rather than just... being Amanda.
/sigh
I don't have patience to fight the good fight today.
:-\
Quote from: devi ever on January 06, 2010, 07:34:14 PM
I don't have patience to fight the good fight today.
Yea, my apologies. I've been getting snippy. I'm just a bit frustrated with some of the things time and distance from the "community" have shown me. But taking it out on people here isn't going to help anyone much.
Quote from: Marie731 on January 06, 2010, 07:53:07 PM
Yea, my apologies. I've been getting snippy. I'm just a bit frustrated with some of the things time and distance from the "community" have shown me. But taking it out on people here isn't going to help anyone much.
No worries. I'm off my hormones because of surgery in two weeks plus I've been dealing with misogynistic a-holes elsewhere on the internet today, so I'm kinda wound up too. :-\
Quote from: Marie731 on January 06, 2010, 07:29:18 PM
I think Amanda did that herself by proclaiming herself a "transgender woman" in a press release, rather than just... being Amanda.
I'm not sure that Ms Simpson had a choice about what was in the press release. The first of any ethnicity or gender is likely to be identified as such in these types of appointments; first woman astronaut, first African American president, first openly gay congressperson, etc.
Z
First, I don't watch David Letterman or Conan O'Brian because I consider their shows to be dumb television. Dumb or not, from what I gather here the joke was in bad taste and offensive to the trans community. Now I understand that late night talk shows are designed around humor and satire and they will poke fun of lots of different people and groups. However, some parody is healthy and some is not. Due to the nature of the news and the style of the talk shows, I could see the necessity of the talk shows making some joke about Amanda Simpson or gender variant people but it should be done in a way that people can laugh with us and not at us. Better taste humor would have been a quick show where the host brings on say four highly attractive women but one of the four is a transwoman and seeing if the audience can guess. They could have thrown another spin of humor in it say and instead of the guy running away he then runs into say Sarah Palin or some other political character and then chooses Simpson over them. I'm sure the script writers could have come up with some funny idea that would be entertaining while not damaging at the same time. Sadly, they don't seem to care.
Another point is a lot of jokes about transwomen in general are a form of misogyny. The same applies about non-trans women as well. Mass media and entertainment simply don't show women in the best possible light in most cases. A simple example is how a commercial advertising a product will show a close-up view of a girl's chest and then zoom out and eventually zoom in on the product she is holding. People say that "sex sells" but who is it directed for and at who's expense? You won't see the camera zoom in on a man's crotch and then to the product. There is clearly a severe imbalance here. American culture is excessively focused more on what a woman looks like than other qualities and it should be plainly obvious to anyone in any public place who may witness any type of advertisement featuring women. This is already de-humanizing women to mere objects of sexual attraction instead of whole people.
When it comes to transwomen in the media and advertisement, it is even more extreme. If you see a transwoman on some TV series or movie, she is not likely to be a character who works a normal job and does relatively normal things in the context of the film. No, she will be a sex worker at a Las Vegas 1-star motel who ends up getting murdered by gangbanger macho men.
The sad reality is that the people have the power but fail to use it. The best that trans people can do is speak out and try to educate others but perhaps that will only go so far. The bulk of the problem that I see is that very few people out there derive the bulk of their understandings from direct experience. This means something that is natural in the world and not artificial. A workplace who witnesses a transwoman co-worker's transition from male-to-female on the job is an example of direct experience. How much the workplace respects that person will also depend on what other experiences they have with trans issues most of which will be from artificial experience. Artificial experience is that which is based on second-hand knowledge or even pure fiction. An example is when that workplace turns on their TV sets and sees a transperson on some TV show. They are seeing an artificially and technologically created example of a transperson and filtered dialogue of trans issues but nothing direct.
It frightens me that we even have to educate people but we have to because nobody hardly has any direct experiences. People are so damn plugged into mass media and mass entertainment, constant television, music, and consumption driven by advertisement that people don't even know anything about anything. Maybe I'm sounding dystopian but it is true. If people as a whole shut off their TV sets and actually tried to experience the world directly and in an interactive manner instead of second-hand or through a third-party filter we would have a lot more understanding and likely equality. Millions of Americans "think" they know about "->-bleeped-<-s" while not having met a single one in their entire lives, gathering all of their "information" from TV, gossip, and grocery store tabloid stands, while not once in their life picking up a book and reading about it. Sad.
Thank you Britney... I hope you don't mind me linking to your post. You said a lot that's been on my mind lately, but didn't have the energy to say myself.
fates bless you
Very much one more case of reinforcing how disgusting it would be to have sexy with a ->-bleeped-<-. Very sad and very sick. I am glad I don't watch Letterman either.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi
Quote from: Britney_413 on January 06, 2010, 10:44:53 PM
It frightens me that we even have to educate people but we have to because nobody hardly has any direct experiences. People are so damn plugged into mass media and mass entertainment, constant television, music, and consumption driven by advertisement that people don't even know anything about anything. Maybe I'm sounding dystopian but it is true. If people as a whole shut off their TV sets and actually tried to experience the world directly and in an interactive manner instead of second-hand or through a third-party filter we would have a lot more understanding and likely equality. Millions of Americans "think" they know about "->-bleeped-<-s" while not having met a single one in their entire lives, gathering all of their "information" from TV, gossip, and grocery store tabloid stands, while not once in their life picking up a book and reading about it. Sad.
I unplugged my TV in 1993. Among the best things I ever did in reclaiming my life and thoughts. Yes, Britney, you're quite right about people not having direct experiences. Too many people live vicarious lives, caring more about a character on TV than someone in their own family or a friend. I haven't watched Letterman in years, and am rather amazed that he still has an audience or appeal. I find his brand of humor, if we can call it that, to be immature and belittling, especially towards women.
Z
Great posts by devi and britany.
I shudder at the thought of people sitting at home watching the late show, people who have no previous opinion on the TG community to only have one suggested to them in the form of a childish joke.
And to then walk down the street and bump into one of these highly suggestible folk.
Speaking from the ages here, regarding late night TV hosts/comedians/society commentators, it is just like any other popular medium; ratings are the controling, in fact, the ONLY factor in determining the quality of the product. And product is exactly what TV is, existing only to serve as an advertising delivery system, as deadly to society as smoking is to the individual.
Of course time change, and with it, public taste, and the response by the media to satiate that taste. I have the years to have experienced Jack Paar, Johnny Carson, Jay Leno, now Letterman, O'Brien and the others. Parr was the most outwardly and unashamedly intellectual, and very mercurial. He had the most interesting guests. Carson was the funniest, and was so while rarely issuing disparaging remarks based on class bigotry or personal attacks. Leno less so. Letterman and the others have shown little in the way of exhibiting common decency toward others; the cheap laugh always pays the best while satisfying the least.
Letter-writing and E-Mail complaints should be sent by those that are sufficiently outraged, but understand, they serve as signs that their programming is doing what they want it to do. Somewhat more effective would be to contact some of the sponsors of the Late Show and ask why they are underwriting this hurtful, stupid and bigoted appeal to the lowest levels of society. And if they are honest (and they are not!) they would respond that they do so because it sells. That is all they care about.
SusanKG
I thought it was funny. Getting offended at comedians is silly. They will say anything to get a laugh. It's not about being offensive or not offensive. It's just about laughs. No big deal. Now if Sean Hannity or Glen Beck did something like this, it might be a little different.
yep...had another look at the clip and i tried really really hard to get mad but i couldn't it just made me laugh again.... ;D
Quote from: joe
I've been a fan of David Letterman for decades and was reasonably impressed with his handling of his recent adultery scandal. But this insulting bit of anti-trans middle school assclownery
uuuuummmm....joe?
That's what Letterman IS
that's what Letterman has ALWAYS been
That's what you are a self described "fan" of (when it's directed at people it's okay to make fun of in your eyes - like rednecks and religious nuts and republican politicians and their children among others)
Quote
is really f---ing disappointing.
UPDATE: For those who don't see anything wrong about this, consider how it reinforces the age-old "tricked by a transwoman" claim that so many hate crimes defendants use, such as in the recent case of murdered teen Jorge Mercado. Aside from being sophomoric and a sitcom cliche, running off the stage as if about to vomit from the news that Amanda Simpson is trans is just not the sort of entertainment we should give a pass.
Again - sophomoric is all Letterman does and all he's EVER done.
I don't know who he thinks he's talking about. Mow if someone had made a joke like this while hosting the Emmys for instance, then I think complaints might have traction.
but LETTERMAN? Please.
The only reason there's a controversy here is because folks are suddenly pissy when it's THERE ox being gored.
Bet you sweet bippy Joe and the rest were quite placid when Letterman was implying Palin's 15 year old daughter was a slut.
Quote from: SarahFaceDoom on January 07, 2010, 02:20:01 AM
I thought it was funny. Getting offended at comedians is silly. They will say anything to get a laugh. It's not about being offensive or not offensive. It's just about laughs. No big deal. Now if Sean Hannity or Glen Beck did something like this, it might be a little different.
I'm sorry but personally I don't enjoy being the butt of someones joke trans related or otherwise. There are usually two levels of communication happening in most comedians acts, they basically use the power of humour to express opinions. They can be hugely and subtly influential. It's one of the things I love about them when done right.
There are guidelines in place on the letterman show, no jokes about religion, homosexuals and disabled people. So trans doesn't fall under LGBT when it's convenient? Yet we are labelled as just that (gay) by a large portion of the public.
I believe the worlds general opinion of TG is still quite young and impressionable by laughing off such comments made by letterman and his gang only encourages social ignorance and pre-judging. By standing up to it we can basically say "hey we are people too not freaks, how about you learn the facts before judging?".
But we're all entitled to our subjective opinions so you're right we're wasting our time complaining really.
Quote from: Muffin on January 07, 2010, 02:50:27 AM
I'm sorry but personally I don't enjoy being the butt of someones joke trans related or otherwise.
No one does, but that's what modern comedians do - and hardly anyone is safe, some of us less so than others.
Quote
There are usually two levels of communication happening in most comedians acts, they basically use the power of humour to express opinions. They can be hugely and subtly influential. It's one of the things I love about them when done right.
There are guidelines in place on the letterman show, no jokes about religion, homosexuals and disabled people.
Right. How nice.
I'm a Christian - fair game. (no jokes about religion maybe, but religious...?)
I'm a conservative (libertarian actually but far to the right of Letterman)- easy and inviting target
I'm fat - bring it on!
I am a white person of modest income living in the south - Mississippi no less - JACKPOT!!!!
I'm SO impressed that the moron has SOME standards. but what comfort is that to those the standards don't cover?
As far as being "done right" - even the smart ones like George Carlin (whom I LOVED before he got so bitter) have no problem taking shots at people they don't respect - and for most in the audience as long as they also don't respect the target it's all good.
One of the commenters at PHB actually came out and said he was perfectly cool with Letterman bashing Palin because "she kinda had it coming" but now he's offended.
All this does is reveal that those who cry out now are not being intellectually consistent unless they are offended when ANY person or people group is unfairly mocked - even the ones they themselves don't agree with or respect.
Why should Letterman care if such people are pissed?
Quote
So trans doesn't fall under LGBT when it's convenient? Yet we are labelled as just that (gay) by a large portion of the public.
As an aside, I'm certainly on the side of the discussion that thinks it does us no good to be seen by the public as just a variant of gay.
Quote
I believe the worlds general opinion of TG is still quite young and impressionable by laughing off such comments made by letterman and his gang only encourages social ignorance and pre-judging. By standing up to it we can basically say "hey we are people too not freaks, how about you learn the facts before judging?".
But we're all entitled to our subjective opinions so you're right we're wasting our time complaining really.
I'm coming at this not so much from the angle of "laugh it off" as I am from the angle of "what? you are surprised Letterman is an insensitive bozo?"
What fascinates me is all the people who profess to have been a fan of Letterman while he was being an ass to OTHER people but now suddenly realize he's an ass.
As for the joke itself...I "get" it, and I think on the whole spectrum of entertainment that it is such a very trite and typical gag that it's not worth protesting not because it doesn't offend but because it's a tired bit that's been done 100,000 times and NOW it's worth an uproar?
To me it's not at all like those DJ's in Sacramento that got pressured into reversing course because what they were doing wasn't an example of the same old gag like this was.
what Letterman did was, essentially, a "blonde joke"
No more original than a gag about women having PMS or about a guy being lazy or about a kid being bratty or about an old person being a bad driver.
In THAT sense, it's a poor target for outrage, IMO.
Quote
I'm sorry but personally I don't enjoy being the butt of someones joke trans related or otherwise. There are usually two levels of communication happening in most comedians acts, they basically use the power of humour to express opinions. They can be hugely and subtly influential. It's one of the things I love about them when done right.
I'm sorry but you can't just pick and choose what is fair ground for comedians to do material on.
What comedians do you like?
Get used to it folks. And enjoy it. For these are the good old days.
With the resignation of key democrats in the house and senate the writing is on the wall for 2010 and is starting to look grim for 2012.
The conservative ultra right will hold sway over this land and will begin to undo all the good that has been done to now.
I wouldn't be surprised if in 2013 President Palin introduces legislation to outlaw cross dressing of any sort and, after having "proved" that transsexuality is a lie, require that all post op ->-bleeped-<-s have reversal surgery at their expense. And force heterosexual re-education for all those who are homo. Neighborhood watches and a toll free tip line with a reward will also be set up.
At least right now they're just laughing. The lynchings will happen soon enough. That will make for great comedy, trust me.
-Sandy(very cynical today)
I'm really sad how many trans people find this as acceptable behavior.
If the discrimination and prejudice we face wasn't so widespread and blatant, maybe one could find this humorous. No one knows how the majority of people took this without asking them but it seems the audience found funny Kalter's reaction and it's very possible that was because they could relate.
I didn't find it funny. I'm sure Letterman didn't find it funny when his reputation was being dragged through the mud either.
Brendan Behan once quipped that "There is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary." I think he happens to be right. The best way to handle this is to turn Letterman off, and let him know we have.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi
The deal with worrying about some late night comedy joke is that for such people coverage is coverage. Not good or bad, just coverage. In the end a hella lot of people will just remember seeing your name, and not what was said about you. Morever, there is the great lesson from The Last Temptation of the Christ which goes a little something like this.
But lets go way back to 1988. A fairly young director, who had had some success decided to make a very personal movie. He could afford it, after all Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, The Last Waltz and the boffo box office hit, The Color of Money all had done well, why not do something personal?
So this young director took a book by Nikos Kazantzakis and made a 164 minute film about what Jesus was thinking about when he was on the cross. The movie had no fights, no car chases, no space toys, no wiseguys, no major stars, no nuttin. And 164 minutes is a very long film. It's distributor was having trouble getting it booked into Art Houses - showing it in First Run Houses was out of the question. It had zero box office potential.
Then, then the Xians got their knickers in a twist over it. First it was noted that the book that was the basis for the movie was placed on the Roman Catholic Church's highly popular and very interesting, Index of Prohibited Books* (Index Librorum Prohibitorum for you Latin scholars) alongside Kepler's New Astronomy, and Kepler's World Harmony, along with writers like Jean Paul Sartre, Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, David Hume, Rene Descartes, Francis Bacon, John Milton, John Locke, Galileo Galilei, and Blaise Pascal. Talk about pallin' around with terrorists!
Then it was denounced as heresy, blasphemy, anti-Christian and just about everything else by so many Xian leaders that eventually Time, Newsweek and other popular publications began to take note and wrote about it.
The end result was that a movie that they were having trouble booking at off-beat theaters was running at all the major ones, and receiving major acclaim.
They should have learned to STFU, and left it at that, I'm sure outside of some movie buffs, no one would have noticed it at all.
* - which I find particularly hysterical, as Calvin, Knox and Luther are on the same list.
When Julie Marie first mentioned that she had seen this on Susan's, my reaction was frustration and disgust. Lettermen is a liberal, but he and his writers seem quick to cash in on a cheap joke at our expense. For those here who don't see what's wrong with this brand of joke consider this:
(1) Our family or friends who have abandoned us feel justified and backed up with their in sensitivities. "See, being trans is gross and wrong-everyone is laughing at the freaks" mentality.
(2) Over 100 trans killings and serious acts of violence took place in 2009.
(3) Under or unemployment amongst trans people is very high. Discrimination by employers is once again justified by perpetuating stereotypes exhibited by these jokes. Phobic people think they are in the right because of media like this.
(4) This low level appointment of Amanda would have never made news had she not been trans. Tells you how rare it is for one of us to be placed in a position of power once our gender history is made public. Employers don't want to take a chance on us because we might "embarrass" their company in the eyes of the public.
I'll write the show(and encourage our state gender group) to let them know that this humor has real negative effects on us. Imagine had they done a joke about a biracial person, and the band member had run out of the room screaming, "I didn't know she was part black"~followed by the roar of laughter from the audience. Our society needs to grow up and move on!
I think that Letterman and his staff do nothing but cash in on cheap jokes. What other choice do they have? They have to put that show on five days a week, and writing on that kind of schedule has a burnout rate that is off the charts. Even SNL had a hard time keeping writers more than a few years and that's just doing one show a week. Point being, there is no time to really work the material and the timing, and to hone it the way people doing stand-up in clubs can do. So you can't really ask them to do something that is not in the job description in the first place.
Really its a show for poseur hipsters (and really, aren't hipsters a style of woman's underwear?) because any real hip person ain't at home watching TV at that time of night. Matter of fact, anyone really hip doesn't watch TV at all, considering it little more bland, mainstream, middle of the road mush.
Some of the other stuff you mention, though true, can hardly be blamed on some late night jokes. Like high unemployment rates. It's hard when people with very real skills, and excellent work records can't find work (and lot's of non-trans persons are in the boat these days also) but for the most part, I don't see where that describes the majority of the people on this board, many of whom have deficient and marginal educations, no skills, and spotty work records. Realistically I wouldn't hire most of them, and if you told the truth, neither would you. I've read countless posts from people who have a great deal of trouble separating their personal life from work, and to me that's about the worst trait anyone can have. I can teach you the skills if I have to, but you have to take your problems to your wife/GF/family/friends/therapist/minister - anywhere but here. I don't tolerate it, nor do most workplaces.
Nor do I see any of this as being responsible for violence, and I doubt that the people doing the violence are watching this kind of stuff on TV either, like I said, it's poseur hipster stuff. And they are not out bashing anyone. Matter of fact, they are not even out, they are at home watching TV.
And I'm not so sure that her appointment is all that low-level. It requires a top-secret security clearance to begin with. And such positions come with a 6 figure salary, so it's not exactly chump change.
At any rate, its topical humor, that was the press release that day, it will only continue to the degree that people make a deal out of it, and it becomes an ongoing topic.
Truly, it's best to let it alone. Let our old pal Sara prove the point for us, because after she got all hot and bothered about old Dave - to the point of having to issue an apology (highly insincere, at best) - did he then lay off her? Nope, they go out of their way to write a new Sara joke every day.
Quote from: tekla on January 07, 2010, 01:22:05 PM
I think that Letterman and his staff do nothing but cash in on cheap jokes. What other choice do they have? They have to put that show on five days a week, and writing on that kind of schedule has a burnout rate that is off the charts. Even SNL had a hard time keeping writers more than a few years and that's just doing one show a week. Point being, there is no time to really work the material and the timing, and to hone it the way people doing stand-up in clubs can do. So you can't really ask them to do something that is not in the job description in the first place.
Really its a show for poseur hipsters (and really, aren't hipsters a style of woman's underwear?) because any real hip person ain't at home watching TV at that time of night. Matter of fact, anyone really hip doesn't watch TV at all, considering it little more bland, mainstream, middle of the road mush.
Some of the other stuff you mention, though true, can hardly be blamed on some late night jokes. Like high unemployment rates. It's hard when people with very real skills, and excellent work records can't find work (and lot's of non-trans persons are in the boat these days also) but for the most part, I don't see where that describes the majority of the people on this board, many of whom have deficient and marginal educations, no skills, and spotty work records. Realistically I wouldn't hire most of them, and if you told the truth, neither would you. I've read countless posts from people who have a great deal of trouble separating their personal life from work, and to me that's about the worst trait anyone can have. I can teach you the skills if I have to, but you have to take your problems to your wife/GF/family/friends/therapist/minister - anywhere but here. I don't tolerate it, nor do most workplaces.
Nor do I see any of this as being responsible for violence, and I doubt that the people doing the violence are watching this kind of stuff on TV either, like I said, it's poseur hipster stuff. And they are not out bashing anyone. Matter of fact, they are not even out, they are at home watching TV.
And I'm not so sure that her appointment is all that low-level. It requires a top-secret security clearance to begin with. And such positions come with a 6 figure salary, so it's not exactly chump change.
At any rate, its topical humor, that was the press release that day, it will only continue to the degree that people make a deal out of it, and it becomes an ongoing topic.
Truly, it's best to let it alone. Let our old pal Sara prove the point for us, because after she got all hot and bothered about old Dave - to the point of having to issue an apology (highly insincere, at best) - did he then lay off her? Nope, they go out of their way to write a new Sara joke every day.
So I guess that in the end that is all we have to do. Just STFU and leave it at that. Always and everywhere. Anytime anybody makes any ->-bleeped-<- jokes or decries that queers are taking over society, or that the homosexual agenda is out to teach fisting to our children. Just shut the ->-bleeped-<- up and hope it goes away. Right.
God! I never knew that getting acceptance in society was so damned simple!
whowuddaguessed!
-Sandy
No, but I think its far more useful to frame outrage at people who matter and not people who don't. While it might feel good to write some note of outrage to some faceless corporation who isn't really going to do anything about it, its far more important to confront people who are really out trying to change things for the worse. Of course that takes personal commitment and getting out of the basement, and out in the streets and in people's faces. Letters to a stand-up are a hella lot easier.
I won't deny that more Republicans in power means no new progress towards expansion of protection for us (given that all politicians knee-jerk to their political baseand the most vocal Christian activists are the most unfriendly to such issues)
BUT
This:
Quote
I wouldn't be surprised if in 2013 President Palin introduces legislation to outlaw cross dressing of any sort and, after having "proved" that transsexuality is a lie, require that all post op ->-bleeped-<-s have reversal surgery at their expense. And force heterosexual re-education for all those who are homo. Neighborhood watches and a toll free tip line with a reward will also be set up.
I love you Sandy, but that's as unrealistic as saying "I wouldn't be surprised if Aliens from Saturn came to earth and executed all the transsexuals."
Be concerned? Absolutely. But such wild overstatement is equivalent to the worst of what the legalistic assume about us.
(apologies if it was intended as humor - I didn't pick up any tells of that)
hipsters watch the daily show and Colbert. Not Letterman.
Quote from: devi ever on January 06, 2010, 06:56:27 PM
Once again, my apologies if I have come across harsh. I'd just really like someone to back up their ideas with some solid thoughts on the matter.
I don't think it's possible to explain humor with "solid thoughts."
Quote from: tekla on January 07, 2010, 02:38:37 PM
No, but I think its far more useful to frame outrage at people who matter and not people who don't. While it might feel good to write some note of outrage to some faceless corporation who isn't really going to do anything about it, its far more important to confront people who are really out trying to change things for the worse. Of course that takes personal commitment and getting out of the basement, and out in the streets and in people's faces. Letters to a stand-up are a hella lot easier.
To be an effective revolutionary (social or otherwise) you must fight your battles, and the war, intelligently. If you foam at the mouth over every little thing then you'll get a reputation like PETA has and find yourself slowing the progress of your movement. Pick your battles.
The funny part to me is that some people are surprised that a late night talk show would make a joke about something like this. I saw it coming the moment I heard the news.
At least the punch line wasn't "You mean Amanda IS a dude?" She is getting a lot worse treatment elsewhere in the media.
I think this joke says something about the age group of Letterman's target audience. No, not middle schoolers. An older generation. It probably never occurred to him or his writers that it would be over the line. I mean, it's not like they strive to be in good taste.
Quote from: Laura Hope on January 08, 2010, 01:54:27 AM
I love you Sandy, but that's as unrealistic as saying "I wouldn't be surprised if Aliens from Saturn came to earth and executed all the transsexuals."
Be concerned? Absolutely. But such wild overstatement is equivalent to the worst of what the legalistic assume about us.
(apologies if it was intended as humor - I didn't pick up any tells of that)
Laura:
If there was humor in it, it was very dark humor. I was then, and am now, in a very cynical mood about the possibility of any further progress made for the LGBT community in general and trans people in specific.
I feel that the tide of progress for the LGBT community has turned, starting with Prop H8 and continuing with every defeat of civil marriage since.
I really don't feel that ENDA will be passed, neither will DOMA or DODT be repealed. After all the political capital that has been spent on health care reform, the democratic party will not really want to really go into any more heated political controversy. Least of all for minorities like us.
When the next republican president is elected in 2012, they will specifically address those issues that the extreme conservative fundamentalist religious "chrisitian" right find most appealing. I picked Palin simply because she is so much in the public eye, though, in my opinion not even qualified to be the president of the PTA let alone hold the keys to nuclear launch codes.
With the head of the RNC, Micheal Steele, saying that the republican party must become even more conservative and more right wing in order to return to power, I don't see much hope for any continued progress and feel that we will be easy targets for discrimination.
I really should keep my political opinions to myself and I apologize if I have offended anyone and you specifically Laura. Also I use the term "christian" in the way that is probably the least in line with true Christian ideals of love and acceptance.
-Sandy
Currently the only thing doing worse in the polling then the dems are the pubs. Extreme right wing candidates who have been teabagged will not win elections outside of places that are already sending total nut jobs to Congress.
In the last 2 years, the value of homes in Modesto have fallen on the average of 67%, do you think those people care about social issues? Do people without a job care about who is marrying who? So long as the economic situation continues to go down (and it will) social issues - which are really champagne problems - will not gain traction against economic issues.
And the only people in the US with less chance of getting elected than Sara Palin are the followers of Chuck Manson. She polls high with a fringe group in the Republican Party, but its not like people in the West, or Northeast are going to vote for her.
Foget Letterman , I don't look at that show anymore . He's not funnny to me at least . Lets examine what Michiael Savage has against Transpeople . Would somebody from San Francisco please enlighten me ? i only want to hear from those citizens of the Oakland and Marin County area . Ellen Shaver
Quote from: tekla on January 08, 2010, 10:06:24 AM
Currently the only thing doing worse in the polling then the dems are the pubs. Extreme right wing candidates who have been teabagged will not win elections outside of places that are already sending total nut jobs to Congress.
In the last 2 years, the value of homes in Modesto have fallen on the average of 67%, do you think those people care about social issues? Do people without a job care about who is marrying who? So long as the economic situation continues to go down (and it will) social issues - which are really champagne problems - will not gain traction against economic issues.
And the only people in the US with less chance of getting elected than Sara Palin are the followers of Chuck Manson. She polls high with a fringe group in the Republican Party, but its not like people in the West, or Northeast are going to vote for her.
Yes, Bush XLI lost the bid for his second term because of jobs, although he had an incredibly high approval rating during the first Iraq war. So I agree that it will be jobs, not social issues that will be the driving issues in the 2010 and 2012 elections.
But "Going Rogue" sold over half a million copies in the first week. Teabaggers, right wing extremists and other wing nuts will have much more say over platform issues than they have been in past. I still don't have a warm fuzzy for us maintaining even a toe hold on the social gains we have made. And it will be extremely easy to lose what we have.
The fruitcakes still say that minority rights must be approved by the majority. And it goes against the basic principles of our democracy. And yet they still manage, time after time, not only to get our issues put up for referendum, but and ALWAYS WIN! Not once has civil marriage been approved by the majority despite the best efforts of the LGBT community.
I have been and still remain cynical.
"Audacity of Hope" indeed.
-Sandy
Quote from: Sandy on January 07, 2010, 07:17:59 AM
Get used to it folks. And enjoy it. For these are the good old days.
With the resignation of key democrats in the house and senate the writing is on the wall for 2010 and is starting to look grim for 2012.
The conservative ultra right will hold sway over this land and will begin to undo all the good that has been done to now.
I wouldn't be surprised if in 2013 President Palin introduces legislation to outlaw cross dressing of any sort and, after having "proved" that transsexuality is a lie, require that all post op ->-bleeped-<-s have reversal surgery at their expense. And force heterosexual re-education for all those who are homo. Neighborhood watches and a toll free tip line with a reward will also be set up.
At least right now they're just laughing. The lynchings will happen soon enough. That will make for great comedy, trust me.
-Sandy(very cynical today)
Well, when that happens I will just end it all. At least I would die on my own terms rather than being beaten or shot to death (or worse).
What makes it all too easy for us to lose what we have gained is the number of us who are willing to sit back and let it happen. Gee, if you're going to off yourself, they are not even going to have to try very hard are they?
And 500,000 books, most of which were sold in bulk purchases to conservative groups who bought them to inflate sales figures and then turn around and give them away as donation premiums, isn't a lot in a country of over 300,000,000. For a more accurate estimate about sales, look at the price. You could find deeply discounted copies the week it came out. More people listen to Rush then bought that book (not that such is a comforting thought) but where that number seems huge in isolation, in reality it's not much. In fact it's like .16%, or in statistical terms, insignificant.
I don't really see where this fearmongering is coming from. I happen to be an economic conservative myself as well as conservative on some other issues. I also have quite a few conservative friends. I don't seem to run into all this bigotry and hate that so many seem to believe conservatives have. Perhaps, part of the problem is defining conservative. If you are referring to "social conservatism" then that is where the prejudice will be found. You have political conservatism and social conservatism. I am a political conservative meaning I believe we need a traditional government. Social conservatives push for traditional values. Some Republicans may be both or they may be one or the other.
I find this political liberalism actually more frightening than anything else. It is certainly true that trans issues have a long way to go and I have to agree that the social and political liberals will be more on our side on this issue than the conservatives. Unfortunately, everything often is a trade-off. What we often fail to remember is that the power is in the hands of the people. Liberals want to push for things like ENDA where the federal government makes it a law that employers cannot discriminate on the basis of gender identity. Sooner or later this will materialize. It won't materialize because more Democrats are in power or because more Republicans are won over. It will result by the actions of the people. Ask yourself why gays didn't have the protection they did in the 1970s than they do now? It had little to do with laws and everything to do with not being out in the public eye.
We don't have ENDA but many companies are already in the process of adding us to their non-discrimination policies and many already have. Why? Because of credibility. Companies want to make a profit, they need customers to buy their products or use their services, and they need happy employees to run them. They don't want bad press. ENDA won't happen because of liberals. It will happen because 80% of companies already have it in their policies to begin with.
This is why I'm a conservative. If you want change, get out there and change the world and it will change. Stop asking the government to do it for you. If starting tomorrow, every TG/TS/CD went public there would be change overnight. This rests on us. Will there be pain and suffering? Absolutely. Discrimination? Absolutely. Danger? Of course. Freedom isn't free and you have to fight for it. I'd rather have a society that isn't perfect but where you can struggle through your problems while maintaining most freedoms than a society where everybody is provided a safety net and spoon-fed handouts.
This same Obama administration that passed a law "protecting" us from hate crimes is the same administration that doesn't believe citizens should be allowed to own or carry firearms for personal protection. Here's another one as well: I think discrimination is wrong so how should it be handled? I think it is more productive to reveal true colors than to hide problems with sugar coating. Let a corporation discriminate against gender identity and then let the public protests begin, let them get bad press, and let them lose customers. Then they will learn from their mistakes and make better decisions. If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was repealed today, you wouldn't see stores suddenly putting up "Whites Only" signs because they don't want to lose business. It wasn't "liberals" that got that Act passed in the first place. It was black activists and allies who made their voices heard. You can't have all trans people hiding in their closets, sitting at their computers, watching their TV sets, waiting for "Change We Can Believe In." If you want change, get out there and do it.
So instead of all of this conservative bashing, let's take responsibility for our own futures. We have life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness in this country. Are you guaranteed happiness? No. But you have the right to pursue it how you see fit. Liberalism seems to want to force happiness where everyone's happiness has to be regulated and properly distributed. There are probably some who would even make it illegal for Letterman to say what he did. That is stupid. Expose these people and let the consequences come on their own. If my job does not like me for being trans, I will expose them and either find a different job or stay when they make things right. If I want to go out in my preferred gender and am concerned about hate criminals, I will carry a gun or other device for self-defense. If a store doesn't treat me nicely, I will spend my money with their competitor and expose them as well. What I am not going to do is sit there and whine for big government to take care of me.
Life is tough. You have problems. I have problems. We all have problems. What did all the trans people do before surgery was available? This doom and gloom is ridiculous. The U.S. is not likely to go back to 16th Century England. An individual is responsible for where he or she is in life. The people are responsible for the state of their society. The millions of trans people and crossdressers in this country who were watching Letterman could have spent that hour doing something more productive for their lives as well as their society. I've even considered going to one of these "tea parties" as some here seem to hate dressed in my preferred gender identity even if I don't pass and I would still feel safer going to such a gun-toting freedom-loving event than to some huddle where everyone is crying about ObamaCare not passing. I have been to many conservative rallies and I just don't seem to see or hear the hate that everyone discribes here. That is because a lot of conservatives are political conservatives but not necessarily "traditional values" or social conservatives. Rank-and-file conservatives are not the Bible-thumping bigots everyone seems to make out. If conservatives are so evil, why is it that liberal states such as New York and California seem to have virtually all of the hate crime murders in? Enough said.
Quote from: Sandy on January 08, 2010, 06:51:25 AM
Laura:
If there was humor in it, it was very dark humor. I was then, and am now, in a very cynical mood about the possibility of any further progress made for the LGBT community in general and trans people in specific.
I feel that the tide of progress for the LGBT community has turned, starting with Prop H8 and continuing with every defeat of civil marriage since.
I really don't feel that ENDA will be passed, neither will DOMA or DODT be repealed. After all the political capital that has been spent on health care reform, the democratic party will not really want to really go into any more heated political controversy. Least of all for minorities like us.
When the next republican president is elected in 2012, they will specifically address those issues that the extreme conservative fundamentalist religious "chrisitian" right find most appealing. I picked Palin simply because she is so much in the public eye, though, in my opinion not even qualified to be the president of the PTA let alone hold the keys to nuclear launch codes.
With the head of the RNC, Micheal Steele, saying that the republican party must become even more conservative and more right wing in order to return to power, I don't see much hope for any continued progress and feel that we will be easy targets for discrimination.
I really should keep my political opinions to myself and I apologize if I have offended anyone and you specifically Laura. Also I use the term "christian" in the way that is probably the least in line with true Christian ideals of love and acceptance.
-Sandy
Well please know that what I'm about to say is NOT any sort of values argument or any other sort of "confrontational" reply to your thoughts...just my general political take.
On the point of whether or not further progress will be made: I think you are right that it will be a while on the national level. they MIGHT squeeke EMDA through but nothing else. they will be in election year mode next year.
I DO think that the Reppublicans have a fair shot at taking back the house and a great shot at picking up enough Senate seats to get back to a near balance of power in the upper chamber.
I do think, barring a remarkable recovery, that obama is in danger of being a one-term president.
I don't think I take any great satisfaction in that because I don't think the Republicans have learned anything from their loss of power.
All that said:
IMHO, the massively full plate that whoever is in power has, in terms of dealing with an economic situation that is not only not over but is not even as bad yet as it will be, along with what looks to be a generational international conflict (not Afghanistan particularly but the conflict between the west and Radical Islam) will be SO VERY demanding that I would be very surprised if the people in power wish to spend ANY time on "social issues"
I don't think there will be significant legislation out of Congress on ANY issue typically associated with the Religious Right - furthermore, as a matter of political stratagy, I don't thing the RR particularly WANTS them to.
the Right wing Christian political activists are as much or more worried about what they perceive to be the "war on terror" and "creeping socialism" (as personified by the Health Care Bill) than they are about abortion or gay rights or whatever right now (on the national level).
There won't be ANY political capital lost with the Religious Right if the next Republican with political power ignores the social issues altogether until the economy is sound again.
Please note, that doesn't mean there won't be "Prop 8" type battles on the state level all over. I simply mean in Washington.
But then, the state and local battles go on no matter who's in power in Washington.
Post Merge: January 10, 2010, 01:39:19 AM
Quote from: tekla on January 08, 2010, 10:06:24 AM
Currently the only thing doing worse in the polling then the dems are the pubs. Extreme right wing candidates who have been teabagged will not win elections outside of places that are already sending total nut jobs to Congress.
In the last 2 years, the value of homes in Modesto have fallen on the average of 67%, do you think those people care about social issues? Do people without a job care about who is marrying who? So long as the economic situation continues to go down (and it will) social issues - which are really champagne problems - will not gain traction against economic issues.
Which the RR knows - which is why, outside of the early Republican primaries, they will have next to nothing to say about those issues in the next two or three election cycles.
And likewise, if they don't bang the drum about abortion or whatever - if they talk about economics and spending and so forth, those homeowners you mention will not be saying to themselves "Yeah, you SAY that but really you are just waiting to ban abortion if you get elected!"
No, they will be responding to the attention being paid to their issues - which is their wallet.
I DO think that the Reppublicans have a fair shot at taking back the house and a great shot at picking up enough Senate seats to get back to a near balance of power in the upper chamber.
Oh damn if I had only had half a hit of that stuff on NYE when Bob and Phil played. Sugar Magnolia would have never sounded better.
To 'win' the House would take a reversal of 40 seats and not even the RNC chairman thinks that can happen.
Well, I said that not really looking at the numbers so I'm not prepared to defend the thought.
But I will say that I think that with a properly run campaign (as in '94) which I have no idea if they will mount, they could have similar results numerically (and no, I don't remember how many they won in '94 off the top of my head)
More than the left thinks they will for sure, and possibly more than even the GOP leadership thinks (they, like you, vastly underestimate the potential effect of the tea party folks - they are not in the pocket of the GOP but right now, it's an "enemy of my enemy" thing)
A LOT of the passion of the tea-party crowd is that they are a lot of the same folks that said "there's no real difference in the parties so I'll boycott McCain because the GOP nominated a RINO and teach them a lesson" in 2008 and are now horrified at just how much worse Obama is than McCain would have been (and McCain WOULD have been bad - well mediocre instead of bad on war issues, but bad otherwise)
That's likely to drive them to work hard to get the Republicans they want in the next couple of cycles, true - but it will also make them bite their tongue and vote Republican over staying home too.
Well, I said that not really looking at the numbers so I'm not prepared to defend the thought.
You're kidding me right? What else are elections and congressional and senatorial representation except numbers?
Any wonder as to why you are, and will remain, the minority party starts and ends pretty much right there.
And the first thing you need to win is a candidate who can capture (we're talking numbers here again) the majority of votes. If recent history is any guess, you're not only going to lose, you're going to lose even worse then you lost the last time. NY-23 mean anything to you? The 'pubs lost a seat that they had had for over a hundred years. Way to go.
People might hate the Dems. I know I'm not thrilled. But the opposition is about to put up ass-clowns and as much as a circus as Washington is, I just don't think we're going to go down that road yet.
There are 49 other states in the Union. Everything is not Mississippi.
Post Merge: January 10, 2010, 02:44:51 AM
I'd draw a huge, bright and very fat bright line between the conservatives I knew growing up, those 'Goldwater conservatives' and the neo-cons, and their pals in the religious right. It's like two different worlds.
You're kidding me right? What else are elections and congressional and senatorial representation except numbers?
Oh PLEASE.
I simply meant that I was throwing out an off the cuff remark in the middle of the night on a BBS - not posting the results of exhaustive research into the subject.
And the first thing you need to win is a candidate who can capture (we're talking numbers here again) the majority of votes.
And EVERY survey shows that people identify themselves as conservative 2-1 over those who identify themselves as liberal.
the reason the Republicans get their collective asses kicked at the polls is when they try to out Dem the Dems.
People LIKE a clear distinction between what the parties say but they also like the parties to do WHAT they say and the reason things have gone south for the GOP is in direct correlation to their failure to do that.
that's not to say that everything they say they want to do is a good idea - I have significant disagreements (I have significant disagreements with what the conservative base of the party stands for too) but objectively, they lost elections (and will lose elections) because they don't govern as the campaign.
Post Merge: January 10, 2010, 04:01:45 AM
Everything is not Mississippi.
Significantly more of the country is "Mississippi" than is "San Francisco"
in areas at least, if not in population.
If you drew a line from the western edge of DC north to the Canadian border, and took away everything east of that - the country would as a whole move so far to the right you wouldn't have words to describe how horrified you'd be.
If you took away all the counties that touched the Pacific Ocean it would move almost that far to the right again.
Everything that remained wouldn't be "Mississippi" but outside of a few big cities, it would be in the same political neighborhood.
Despite the illusion (and it goes back to Jeffersonian thought) that America is a rural nation, strong yeoman farmers and all that, the reality is that since the 1920 Census the majority of American citizens live in urban, as opposed to rural areas. Mississippi has almost 3 million people in the state, the greater LA area, 14 million. The city itself, LA proper, is 3.5 million. The population of the states of New York and California by themselves comprise 20% of the population of the entire nation almost all of that located in 3 major urban areas. In order to get any sort of relevant turnaround you would need to get those seats out of the urban areas, as those seats tend to be more volatile then rural seats are - which almost never turn.
The fact is - sad perhaps - is that in most elections the people of the United States return more congress persons to office then members of the Politburo were returned in the height of rigged elections in the old USSR. Though Congress tends to poll very low in popularity, right down there with journalists and used-car salesmen, the rub is that even though Congress as a whole is unpopular, people love their Congressperson, and as such most seats are in fact 'safe'. Jesus and Jerry Garcia couldn't beat Nancy Pelosi in SF, despite the fact that most of her constituents think she is not 'liberal enough.' We have 3 members of the House that have won more than 20 elections in a row, and 60 or so that have won 10 or more elections in a row. John Dingell has been there since 1955, that's pretty entrenched power.
And, though people might see themselves as 'more conservative' the actual numbers of people joining the Republican party (along with money flowing into the party itself) are both at historic lows. So all that conservative stuff is not going to matter if people don't ID the pubs as representing those kind of values. And I think that to the degree that for most of those people see 'conservative' as running along the Goldwater lines, and not social lines, then the current party will keep losing them.
And the greatest growth is going to be seen in predominantly Hispanic areas, and though that particular group shares a lot of values with a more traditional Republican base (faith, family values and such) it's hard to imagine a group that the party itself has done a better job of turning off. It's the one thing that Bush/Rove had right, and tried very hard to reach out to, only to get teabagged by the extreme right and its take on immigration issues and Prop 187 in California.
Perhaps, they are only being 'conservative' in wanting to hold on to 'liberal policies' - which is in keeping with the American political system. They see this nation slipping away from many things it once was, and perhaps when they ID as conservative when it comes to holding on to those things. People are very worried about losing everything they have worked for and are looking for someone who can put on the breaks, not anyone with a huge new plan to embark upon.
In the broadest sense, it is in fact the 'conservative' thing to do to back Obama, because to change would be the more 'radical' choice. But again, it's not just a deal with Obama's popularity - as the dems have found out many times - but with the relative strength of your own candidates. Didn't matter how unpopular Bush II was so long as he had Kerry to run against for example. Same with BushI and Michael Dukakis.
QuoteIn the broadest sense, it is in fact the 'conservative' thing to do to back Obama, because to change would be the more 'radical' choice.
I disagree. While Obama is more of a social liberal which is a plus for the trans community, a lot of his other values are just too far left for many Americans to subscribe to. Constant talk about public healthcare, public housing, and other things reeks of socialism. Not to mention the economy is still bad and we are further into debt and a small portion of the tax-paid bailout funds are actually going to working America but mostly instead to big banks. Excessive talk of "equality" should be enough to raise one's eyebrows. True American values at least the ones our Founding documents meant referred to things such as pursuit of happiness, equal opportunity, everyone is created equal, etc. Equality taken to the extreme is communism where everyone works equally at the same crappy jobs, gets the same lousy pay, and lives in the same slums, and gets the same shoddy healthcare. It seems like Obama and many supporters prefer "equal results" instead of "equal opportunity." Scary.
Look at this man's past dealings with organizations such as ACORN. This is not what most Americans want. Most Americans do want regulations, checks and balances, and reasonably fair capitalism, but other than that most Americans want to be left alone to live their private lives and pursue happiness as they see fit. They don't want to be increasingly forced into public programs such as Obamacare, be asked intrusive Census questions such as the conditions of their residence, and they certainly do not want any aspect of their private lives regulated such as being required to register how many firearms they own.
Change is certainly something we need but that change should not include further invasions into people's privacy nor further distancing the public from deciding how their tax dollars are being used. Enough said.
Ok, upon investigation -
there was a 54 seat swing in 1994
The GOP needs a 40 seat pickup to take the House in 2010.
I saw a few projection sites that didn't seem to have an obvious partisan bias and they projected something like a 12-15 seat pickup.
but all of them predicted my district as a Dem hold and that is a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG way from certain.
People around here are so pissed at the Dems that I could almost win on the GOP ticket (based on what I hear and see in public forums.
Assuming they are making similar mistakes in other such districts...I'm not prepared to say a 40 seat pickup can't happen. I'd be very surprised if it wasn't over 20.
I could almost win on the GOP ticket
Of course the Republican Party in Mississippi is not going to let you in the door, much less release you as a candidate, but that's just a minor flaw in their thinking.
As for Health Care - there are very solid economic and social reason why every other industrial nation has such coverage. And not having it - though not totally responsible, I'd blame the cutting of almost all checks and balances for most of it - is part of the reason our economy is sucking harder than Linda Lovelace ever did.
Did they blow it? Did Linda? We already have it you know, and the easy - if not only - way to do it is just to extend MediCare to everyone. That law could have been written in a paragraph, and worked. But not for the people who buy our government on a daily basis.
All that talk about socialism, we already have it. We have had it since the Great Depression. We've had it really from the very start of this nation, and if our schools we're not so messed up you'd be aware of that. Let's just say that way back, way way back, back in Massachusetts, they called it a 'commonwealth' for a reason.
Education, roads, defense - all socialism. The railroads were built with government grants (Except the Great Northern). The richest industries in the US are defense contractors whose only real client is the government - much as I'm sure you'd love to get your hands on a stinger, least someone try a home invasion robbery from a helicopter. Most of our great universities (at least the ones you could maybe, perhaps, afford to go to) are state institutions. All that water that makes Arizona a place were people can live? Hey, it's federal water, not that it's going to stop you from using it. MediCare, socialist. Social Security, socialist.
And, given the collapse of the residential real-estate market, the current impolosion of the commerical real-estate market, the collapse of our biggest banks and financial houses and the auto industry and an implosion of the retail sector I guess I have to ask, So, hows that whole unfettered capitalism/free market deal working out for you?
In no uncertain terms, the big boys brought this on themselves.
And 10-15 seats maybe, not enough to swing anything. And that's assuming that if people don't like the Ds, then R is the only other way to go. Keep up unemployment rates where they are which in real figures are close to one in five now, and you might see real left wingers try to run. Coupled with an almost suicidal plunge into 'party purity' that the Rs are undergoing, they might well not gain, but lose even more.
Jokes like this perpetuate an attitude that gets people like us beaten or murdered, so no not funny and yes a big deal. I wonder how ignorant the writing staff at The Late Show is of this?
With regard to the politcal stuff, last time I checked, policy-wise Obama and the Dems have reversed exactly nothing of the Bush admin stuff that drove me most up the wall. Impotent imo, or maybe they aren't so different after all.