Donna Milo -- a Cuban-American, conservative Republican, transgender woman running for Congress -- says she doesn't like labels.
``I'm an American. I make my way on the basis of ability. My triumphs are based on my abilities, not on a label or a crutch,'' said Milo, a Miami Planning Advisory Board member running to replace U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Weston, one of the House's most liberal Democrats.
Milo, 48, will speak Monday night at Fort Lauderdale City Hall, a guest at the monthly meeting of the Sunshine Republicans club, a conservative group of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender South Floridians.
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/16/1632958/transgender-candidate-a-label.html#ixzz0oFnlPsVI (http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/16/1632958/transgender-candidate-a-label.html#ixzz0oFnlPsVI)
From what little I know of American politics, this can only be a positive step.
Seems she has an uphill struggle to win, given the incumbent, but her presence, as a candidate is a welcome drift.
As a conservative Republican, it will be difficult for the reactionaries and biggots to attack her as an example of the dangers of liberalism.
Over here, it is quite interesting that most of the progressive steps that have taken place over the last 300 years have been initiated by the conservative wings.
It would be interesting to see an analysis of the vote, assuming she wins, to see whether she picks up more swinging Democrat votes than she loses from disaffected Republicans.
Florida's Fighting 20th Congressional District is one of the most liberal/Democratic districts outside of say Pelosi's San Fransisco district (which last had a Republican in 1953) or Barney's Massachusetts District - so its uphill all the way, and WS is a pretty good campaigner, not to mention that Donna is not Jewish, and that's going to hurt in this district.
I would vote the incumberment democrat. She is more pro-LGBT even she is a staight lady than this Donna.
the counterargument to that, though, is that (assuming she's not the swing vote) she's in a party that is more often T friendly in the first place - it's status quo.
On the other hand, electing Donna would be a significant inroad into the GOP caucus - a chance to "put a face on" our community which mitigates the stereotypes.
This has value I should think.
She's not label free if she labels herself a conservative and a republican.
As for a TG aligning with the Republican party, here's an article that echoes many of my sentiments...
Why Would A Transgendered Candidate Run As A Republican? (http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/48559)
She's not label free if she labels herself a conservative and a republican.
Well yeah, I thought that just with the headline, but that's the kind of humor that just always makes my day, like my fav from 20 years ago in SF "Anarchists Lobby for More Police Protection." I live for stuff like that. Just one more clue as to how clueless it all is.
But I really love this, from her Kickoff speach:
I believe that we must responsibly expand the use of our national energy resources to end our dependence on foreign oil. This dependence makes our country vulnerable to many nations that are not our allies and, in fact, seek to do us harm. By depending on these foreign sources, we transfer both our wealth and our power abroad.
Didn't someone try that? Oh yeah, Jimmy Carter. Good luck convincing the Party of Big Oil of any of that.
Quote from: Julie Marie on May 19, 2010, 01:28:02 PM
She's not label free if she labels herself a conservative and a republican.
As for a TG aligning with the Republican party, here's an article that echoes many of my sentiments...
Why Would A Transgendered Candidate Run As A Republican? (http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/48559)
I believe the writer and the headline writer (editor?) applied those labels, not the candidate herself.
Well if your running for a Republican nomination, then you're de facto, a Republican. Though her site is so thin on policy that its non-existent, though she does make a point of saying "Many of you know me as a builder and developer. I AM NOT A POLITICIAN", which, of course, are labels.
And, again, de facto, if your running for Congress, your a politician. She might not have been one before, but as soon as you announce that your running for Congress, your all the way there.
And its nice, I think its good for people to have hobbies and all that, but running against DW-S in that district is such a hard roe to hoe that some of it sounds like the trivial foibles of the entitled affluent class who have the luxury of indulging in such pursuits. That district has a CPV Index* of D+13. As a comparison, Vermont has a D+13, New York a D+12, Massacutes is D+13, while Alabama, Alaska and Kansas have R+ ratings at about that same level. While it doesn't mean it will be impossible, its going to take the equivalent of DW-S getting caught with a live boy scout or a dead girl scout for it to happen.
But it does bother me that she makes part of her 'qualifications' that she is unqualified. Being ignorant shouldn't be a desired quality in a leader. Our leaders should be the best and brightest of us. How they conned middle America into this ideal that the people in charge shouldn't be much smarter than themselves... well it's friggin' criminal. One side is activity, and fervently advocating a dumbing down of government like that's a solution, and I don't see it working out well in the long run. I'm glad she was very successful as a contractor, but what's does that have to do with writing and appraising legislation? (Not like it's going to matter, anymore the GOP just votes no.) I have worked, and still do, for some awesome crackerjack contractors, but I'm not sure I would want them representing me in Congress.
I mean reverse that and you'd sound like a total moron. Check it out. "Hey Ed, I found just the guy to be the contractor for our development." "Yeah, what kind of contracting has he done." "Well none really, he was a congressman before."
Would you go to an amateur doctor who never studied medicine for your GRS? Then why would you want someone writing law who has never studied it? I don't think you need to be a lawyer, but you'd have to work really, really, really hard to convince me that a college degree from a mainline college or university is pretty close to a requirement for a Congresscritter.
And here is why. I'll pick on Glenn Beck and El Rusbo here, because they among the chief proponents of this notion. Glenn Beck's problem, and Rush too, is that he didn't go to college (neither did his listeners, which is how they fall for this time and time again), and didn't learn the basic lesson that college is supposed to teach, or at least used to - and that is that you can have all the 'facts' right, and still draw the wrong conclusions, particularly when the second drives the first. And I'm afraid that's what's going on here.
But you never know, she could win the nomination, certainly Karen Harrington and Robert Lowry are not exactly the most awesome candidates either. Nor are there all that many Republican in the 20th to begin with, so few I think they can all meet at Denny' s (see below). It does bother me that at this point she does not have a single endorsement she can list.
But after that, she's just toast. Here is the Presidential voting for the Fightin' 20th for the last 3 elections.
2008 President Obama 63 - 36%
2004 President Kerry 63 - 36%
2000 President Gore 68 - 30%
She's better looking than Adlai Stevenson for sure, but she's going to have about the same luck with DW-S as old Adlai had against Ike.
* - a very reliable guide, read all about it at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_Partisan_Voting_Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_Partisan_Voting_Index)
My district has a D+35, and the Republicans don't even really bother running anyone.
ADDED:
From Blogspot, the comments are interesting
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/05/florida-conservative-gop-transgender.html (http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/05/florida-conservative-gop-transgender.html)
Comments on Fark, which is wide open and a pretty good cross section, also interesting
http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=5321933 (http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=5321933)
Six minute Utube Video of her in the flesh doing an interview, but I'm confused about the whole "I'm running for Congress as an American." Isn't that a requirement? Oh yeah, she makes the point about labels.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCwt8kl93gg&feature=player_embedded# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCwt8kl93gg&feature=player_embedded#)
Quote
How they conned middle America into this ideal that the people in charge shouldn't be much smarter than themselves... well it's friggin' criminal.
It might derive from all the astounding screw ups brought to us by those "smart people" (yes, in both parties)
that said, very very very few of those who gain positions of actual power are not smarter than the most of us - it's a necessary skill to achieve the position.
It was such a riot to watch the left tell themselves how stupid Bush was (all the while telling themselves what evil machinations he had devised) as if he took a back seat to his Democratic opponents.
GWB got a lot of things wrong, but telling yourself he's stupid is mental masturbation. You don't get to that point by being an idiot.
Who said anything about Bush? And whatever else (evil) they were, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney et. all. were anything but stupid. Lets see, between the three of them we have Yale, Princeton, Georgetown, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Phillips Academy, and the Harvard School of Business.
Yeah, real everyday guys there.
And that's the real rub here. I just love the GOP stance that leaders should be relatable to the "average joe" when none of them are anything close to average. They're usually born into wealth and privilege. They went to the very schools they decry. They advocate 'home schooling' but send their kids to Phillps, Exeter, and the Sidwell Friends School (cost, oh about $40K a year, real average there) and then off to Yale and University of Texas-Austin.
Then they go off and cater to a group of people so dumbed down that they've developed the sort of cognitive dissonance that allows them to listen to a woman with an unwed teenage mother for a daughter who goes out clubbing getting sloshed while still underage talk about family values, who brags about using public assets to generate income which is redistributed to the population in the same breath she slams socialism.
The cognitive dissonance to listen to a guy claim he learned everything he needs to know about how socialism is evil by reading in the public library.
The cognitive dissonance to stand up and shout "IF YOU'RE NOT WITH US, YOU'RE AGAINST US! YOU HAVE TO SUPPORT YOUR PRESIDENT DURING WARTIME OR YOU'RE NOT AMERICAN!" then immediately switch gears to obstructing and protesting every single thing the President does, down to the jokes he makes at the Correspondent's Dinner, the second their party is out of power.
Bush is mentally defunct of intelligence. It was his staff that had the brains.
Bush is also evil in that his presidency was a manifestation of a psychotic idiot's dream world. God I hope his wife leaves him. Not because I care about her but he needs to suffer.
I understand that what I wrote here may sound cruel but when you rake up all the limbs of the people who were maimed in his fun little sidewar with a nation he assumed would roll over for his 'mighty imperial self', then you may see that some hard feelings are due for Bush.
His administration did the exact opposite from what needed to be done for us to get away from the stupid middle east. Yes. I referred to the middle east as stupid. Despite their whining about inventing written language, what have they done in the past 3000 years?
There may have been a lot of cunning people on the staff, but I don't think they are particularly intelligent. The likes of Douglas Feith, Alberto Gonzales, Paul Wolfowitz, and Donald Rumsfeld were able to achieve their own goals, but they did not exhibit they could actually solve problems.
If Bush is an "idiot," it is perhaps relative to other Presidents on the dimension of leadership. Relative to the masses, he's still above average, maybe even well above average (at least by the standards of the Republican masses). However, that's nowhere near good enough to be an effective President, and he was no match against the ambition of the people who ostensibly "served" him. Keep in mind that this same personnel was able to use a popular mildly-conservative four-star General as a tool for four years and destroyed probably the better part of his credibility. Even though Bush (unlike Colin Powell) could call the shots about who serves in the administration, for a Republican President hearing a lot of what he wanted to hear, it would have taken a particularly bright, shrewd, and/or prepared one to not get suckered in. Bush obviously is/was not such a person.
As for the topic itself, I get the sense that hopeless Republican races are where the GOP does not mind allowing token GLBTs to run to "prove" the party isn't actively denying them the rights available to everyone else -- and in this case, they are being offered the "right" to legislate what the Republican party wants (not like they are going to win anyway, of course). Maybe the real test of Milo's leadership is her ability to articulate to her party (whether she wins or loses) that it should stop catering to the bigotry -- but even she herself isn't convinced that GLBTs should have the same rights.
Quote from: Laura Hope on May 17, 2010, 11:56:23 PM
Donna Milo -- a Cuban-American, conservative Republican, transgender woman running for Congress -- says she doesn't like labels.
``I'm an American. I make my way on the basis of ability. My triumphs are based on my abilities, not on a label or a crutch,'' said Milo, a Miami Planning Advisory Board member running to replace U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Weston, one of the House's most liberal Democrats.
Milo, 48, will speak Monday night at Fort Lauderdale City Hall, a guest at the monthly meeting of the Sunshine Republicans club, a conservative group of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender South Floridians.
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/16/1632958/transgender-candidate-a-label.html#ixzz0oFnlPsVI (http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/16/1632958/transgender-candidate-a-label.html#ixzz0oFnlPsVI)
"Label-free conservative" is an oxymoron to begin with. And how you gonna run for office and not have labels apply? That's too tricky by half, I feel like a con job is going on.
Gotta love it, she's anti-gay marriage conservative, that's just for a "man" and a "woman" you know.
I wonder what percent of conservatives will buy a person born with male gonads as "a woman" in the first place.
Look, we are in the area of first principles here. So there are clear lines drawn 'in the first place'. IME a conservative transwoman who is arguing a fundamental biblical line in terms of personal sexuality is on less than firm terra.
I think the "mainline" conservative position on gay marriage is, in fact, wrong. but in that the nature of being "conservative" is to be cautious about changing that which you perceive to be working, I understand where that comes from.
However, I think the liberal position is wrong too. I take a libertarian type position - marriage isn't the government's business. For anyone.
if I were in charge, there would be no legal status at all for "marriage" any more than there is for baptism - it would be an entierly religious institution.
What the state would recognize would be a - for lack of an original term - domestic partnership contract.
A DPC would be available to ANY two people (or more? not sure about how the legalities of polys would work) - hetro, homo, sibling, whatever - could contract together to receive the privileges - and duties/obligations - which are currently allotted to married couples.
If you want to get married, bully for you - if you want the law to take note of it in ANY regard, you go and get a DPC.
I think that this is in line with conservative values (it keeps government out of your religious business) and liberal values (it makes no discernment or judgment between people) and libertarian values.
Post Merge: June 01, 2010, 12:40:47 AM
I think the "mainline" conservative position on gay marriage is, in fact, wrong. but in that the nature of being "conservative" is to be cautious about changing that which you perceive to be working, I understand where that comes from.
However, I think the liberal position is wrong too. I take a libertarian type position - marriage isn't the government's business. For anyone.
if I were in charge, there would be no legal status at all for "marriage" any more than there is for baptism - it would be an entierly religious institution.
What the state would recognize would be a - for lack of an original term - domestic partnership contract.
A DPC would be available to ANY two people (or more? not sure about how the legalities of polys would work) - hetro, homo, sibling, whatever - could contract together to receive the privileges - and duties/obligations - which are currently allotted to married couples.
If you want to get married, bully for you - if you want the law to take note of it in ANY regard, you go and get a DPC.
I think that this is in line with conservative values (it keeps government out of your religious business) and liberal values (it makes no discernment or judgment between people) and libertarian values.
I would generally agree with the appropriateness of the suggestion but not your assumptions of who believes what. The idea that liberals as a whole expect same-sex marriage sex specifically is not true. Liberals primarily want equal treatment, and that extends to institutions like unions/marriage. Legalizing same-sex marriage is the "mainline" liberal position, but I suspect it is done more to be in the business of "giving" (legal marriage to same-sex couples) than "taking away" (legal marriage from mixed-sex couples). However, if a majority of conservatives would back a proposal where the law is only concerned with a standard contract between two consenting adult that provides for things like visitation, inheritance, custody, and anything else we are traditionally fond of awarding to couples -- and if legal marriage reverts to this contract -- I bet most liberals would take it.
Regarding three+ unions, those can exist, but they would generally be weaker contracts (at least by default) for logistical reasons -- there are 2+ people who would enjoy certain access and could make certain decisions pertaining to another person in the union, and they may have difficulty sharing or agreeing. As such, some work has to be done to draw up such a contract, but some rights should still be possible.
Quote from: Laura Hope on June 01, 2010, 12:34:47 AM
I think the "mainline" conservative position on gay marriage is, in fact, wrong. but in that the nature of being "conservative" is to be cautious about changing that which you perceive to be working, I understand where that comes from.
Interesting. While I was aware that there was a resistance to change, I saw it as fear of the unknown or an irrational fear (phobia) that was the source of that resistance. I think for your statement to be more accurate I'd change it to "that which you perceive to be working for you". But there's no doubt there's a resistance to being open minded, a lack of willingness to educate oneself and a serious lack of empathy that keeps the resistance to change so strong.
When people are out there fighting for the same rights you (general usage) have and you want to fight to prevent them from having those rights, wouldn't it seem the rational thing to do would be to question yourself why you don't want them to have the same rights as you?
There's an element of dehumanization that comes into play when you can justify this line of thinking. "They are gay." "They are freaks." "They are black." "They are immigrants." "They are not human, like me." This is how we justify prejudice. This is how we can work to deny our fellow human being their rights. This is how we can treat people like crap and still sleep at night. Dehumanization is what murders, rapists, pedophiles all use while carrying out their crimes. Denial of one's rights is a crime, just not one "on the books".
We, as a society, seem to be upset when someone is physically hurt but when they are emotionally hurt, we don't seem to respond quite so well. Until we take the time to really get to know one another, we will continue to hurt one another. And we won't be able to see our fellow human being as a fellow human being.Quote from: Kaelin on June 02, 2010, 09:07:25 PM
Liberals primarily want equal treatment
There's something wrong with a society that labels someone liberal because they want equal treatment.
QuoteThere's something wrong with a society that labels someone liberal because they want equal treatment.
You are all different not equal it is only in treatment as a legal citizen that you are equal. Economically, socially, intellectually and patriarchy we all are in a hierarchy.
Of course, we can try to change it. The "hierarchy" is much different than it was 200 years ago or even 50 years ago, so people are certainly inclined to shape it as they'd like. Just because something is in place doesn't mean it has to stay that way.
of course there are a great many ways in which the law makes distinctions between people and handles them in an unequal fashion. Most of which the average person (even the liberal) never gives much thought to.
the question is never "are we unequal?" but "is there a logical and rational basis for the inequality?"
Also, one is not liberal BECAUSE they want equality - most people of whatever stripe would agree with the general statement "I'm for equality"
When I say "liberals want equality" i should probably have said "liberals prioritize equality over other concerns"
In this case, I think they are right, but I was trying to make a distinction between the two thought systems withut disparaging either.
Honestly, it is far too much work around here to ever mention anything political if you are not 1000% died-in-the-wool Nancy-Pelosi-is-too-far-right liberal.
I don't think I'm anything - i have some liberal views, some conservative views, some libertarian views, and some I don't know where they come from. But the part of being in the TG community that most tries my patience is the lock-step liberalism i find on every hand. I GET that the left wing is more friendly to our concerns and in that I support their views, but I have never understood the necessity to support EVERY left wing policy just because the left wing is LGBT friendly(er).
*shrug*
Doesn't matter i guess. I don't think there's any way out of the economic earthquake that's coming anyway so how much of this stuff really matters?
The way you presented the issue of an "appropriate" attitude towards legal marriage was that while there are conservatives who get it wrong, it is only "mainline conservatives" who get it wrong, as if "true conservatives" get it right. On the other hand, you offered no such treatment to differentiate liberals -- you just treated them as if they all think a particular way (and given what you just said about conservatives, you should known better than that). Picking on you on this point is not about promoting "lock-step liberalism" -- it's about pointing out your double standard.
If "liberals" in general "never" give thought as to why the law makes distinctions, so many of them probably wouldn't be saying that marriage should be between "two consenting adults" instead of just "two adults" or "two people."
"Equal treatment" is not a particularly well-defined term. "Equal treatment" to some people means quotas (requiring that various groups are proportionally represented, which I'm against), and to other people it means requiring that people do not face positive/negative discrimination on a list of immutable factors that are not bona fide occupational qualifications (which I'm for). Any sort of assumptions stemming from a particularly interpretation of the term cannot be applied to all people identifying with that certain term.
Susan's members generally don't give a damn about where they or anyone stands relative to Nancy Pelosi (in fact, this should be my first post mentioning her name). Some "liberals" may criticize her, but any use of her as a measuring stick is primarily by talking heads who are more interested in injecting emotion rather than actually articulating what a person has to say or believes in. The general contempt around here for "->-bleeped-<-r than thou" should illustrate that lots of people here are not fond of this type of attitude. If it seems that our more vocal members tend to be "liberal" on other issues, it is not because of a mandate, but because of other factors.
It's not a good idea to make sweeping generalizations about broad or ill-defined groups of people, especially when you want to celebrate a "label-free" politician.
QuoteIt's not a good idea to make sweeping generalizations about broad or ill-defined groups of people, especially when you want to celebrate a "label-free" politician.
Particularly when 'label-free' is a label in itself.
QuoteJust because something is in place doesn't mean it has to stay that way.
Just because something does not work for you but works for most others does not mean it is going to change.
And it doesn't mean that it won't change. We abolished slavery, you know.
QuoteWe abolished slavery, you know.
Nobodies: Modern American Slave Labor and the Dark Side of the New Global Economy
http://www.amazon.com/Nobodies-Modern-American-Global-Economy/dp/0812971841/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275753199&sr=1-1 (http://www.amazon.com/Nobodies-Modern-American-Global-Economy/dp/0812971841/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275753199&sr=1-1)
"Wage Slave" is only true if you really want to radically redefine the basic notion of slavery.
Quote"Wage Slave" is only true if you really want to radically redefine the basic notion of slavery.
The Greeks had a slavery much different than the wipes of Brazil. Many slaves could buy their freedom over a lifetime. England had classes and their domestic help was not much different than the Greeks. In America today we have illegals in factory camps buying from factory store paying rent for factory shacks making below minimum wage because they contract on piecemeal rather than hours. Unable to go to the law as the federal investigators are keep from bringing the owners to court. Thanks to lobbyists such as Tropicana. Then there is sharecroppers.
Quote from: tekla on June 05, 2010, 11:04:24 AM
"Wage Slave" is only true if you really want to radically redefine the basic notion of slavery.
Slavery has many forms, and has always had many forms.
Quote from: Kaelin on June 04, 2010, 05:48:54 AM
The way you presented the issue of an "appropriate" attitude towards legal marriage was that while there are conservatives who get it wrong, it is only "mainline conservatives" who get it wrong, as if "true conservatives" get it right.
No, the implication is (or was supposed to be) "mainline" = "great majority" and the rest are not so much "true" conservatives as a minority of the whole.
Quote
On the other hand, you offered no such treatment to differentiate liberals -- you just treated them as if they all think a particular way (and given what you just said about conservatives, you should known better than that).
if you are implying that there are liberals who in fact oppose gay marriage, I'll defer to you on that point since I don't move in those circles and have never been exposed to such liberals.
Quote
Picking on you on this point is not about promoting "lock-step liberalism" -- it's about pointing out your double standard.
I, like everyone else here, am merely speaking from my knowledge and experience - I have a lot more interaction with various "shades" of conservitism/libertarianism than i do with liberalism. Pretty much all the liberalism I have close contact with is on-line, and on the half-dozen places i am exposed to liberal opinion (speaking of "ordinary folks" here, not outlets like HuffPost or Salon) there is an astounding uniformity of opinion on most major political and sociological subjects.
It might well be true that there's diversity out there in places I've not been - as I said, I'll defer to others on that point. But i can't describe that which I've not seen.
(and yes, I assume most of my left wing sisters here would say the exact same thing about the right wingers they've been exposed to but I hope that I myself, at least, represent at least one counter-example.
Quote
If "liberals" in general "never" give thought as to why the law makes distinctions, so many of them probably wouldn't be saying that marriage should be between "two consenting adults" instead of just "two adults" or "two people."
I was not saying there that ONLY liberals don't give much thought to those distinctions but rather that most PEOPLE, in the general population, don't. Most people, in my experience, don't give a lot of thought to WHY they believe what they say they believe. Rather, they "believe" whatever makes them feel good about themselves (on both sides, or all sides, whatever).
For instance, to get away from the marriage issue a half step, one ofthe reasons that people want gay marriage, or at least an equal status to hetros, has to do with the tax code - which is not an invalid point. BUT the tax code makes all sorts of distinctions between people (doesn't the mortgage deduction discriminate against the renter, for instance?) because it's trying to manipulate behavior as much as it's trying to raise revenue.
that's just one example of what is in reality an inequality under the law. It's also an example of something the great majority of people would never think of in the context of "inequality."
whether said people are liberal, conservative, or whatever else.
Quote
"Equal treatment" is not a particularly well-defined term. "Equal treatment" to some people means quotas (requiring that various groups are proportionally represented, which I'm against), and to other people it means requiring that people do not face positive/negative discrimination on a list of immutable factors that are not bona fide occupational qualifications (which I'm for). Any sort of assumptions stemming from a particularly interpretation of the term cannot be applied to all people identifying with that certain term.
Indeed. which is almost dead on the point I was hoping to make - that "equal treatment" is often more a fuzzy feel-good-about-myself state of mind than it is a well thought out and nuanced worldview.
there are, of course, similar examples of empty rhetoric behind any political philosophy. Again, most people don't think deeply about the reasons and implications associated with what they say they believe.
Take the recent odd comments from Rand Paul as an example. The observation that he makes - that civil rights legislation which requires privately held business and institutions to be non-discriminatory infringes on private property rights and private rights of association is TRUE.
One can easily and persuasively argue that the government has a vested interest in making such an infringement (which he may or may not agree with, but this isn't about him - just an example) but my point is, the great majority of the people have never thought so deeply about civil rights legislation that they ever realize that the infringement exists. They simply take it as a given that such freedoms were never there in the first place.
Again, this sort of shallowness is non-partisan and across the board (though I'd argue that if one is a libertarian, they may well be more likely to have given some deep thought just because it's such a contrarian philosophy).
Quote
Susan's members generally don't give a damn about where they or anyone stands relative to Nancy Pelosi (in fact, this should be my first post mentioning her name).
You may or may not think of her in those terms, but in my pretty extensive experience in being "too far right" for most of the politically aware here, I'd argue that of those posters who are both active here and active politically, almost all of them have a well honed understanding of where they are politically relative to the major political players on the scene.
But Pelosi was just an example of someone who pretty much everyone would agree is well to the left of center on the American political scale.
Quote
Some "liberals" may criticize her,
I wasn't trying to imply that they would criticize her, though I assume there must be some who do.
Look, what I'm doing here is a bit of a play on words type of thing. I used to listen to a preacher who would say he was so far to the right he was sure Rush Limbaugh was a communist. He did not, of course, think badly of Rush - he was simply using a colorful phrase to illustrate where he thought he was on the political scale.
THAT is what I meant when I said that most of the politically vocal here would say "Pelosi is too far to the right" - I'm sure almost all of them thing she gets it right 99.44% of the time. It was just an illustration.
Don't take such things so literally.
Quote
but any use of her as a measuring stick is primarily by talking heads who are more interested in injecting emotion rather than actually articulating what a person has to say or believes in. The general contempt around here for "->-bleeped-<-r than thou" should illustrate that lots of people here are not fond of this type of attitude. If it seems that our more vocal members tend to be "liberal" on other issues, it is not because of a mandate, but because of other factors.
I can't prove this, but it's my hypothesis that the fact that the trans community seems to be 98% "very liberal" flows directly from the fact that they rightly asses the possibility of getting our rights protected to be very good on the left and almost non-existent on the right.
and that consideration forms the foundation for gravitating to the sources of information on that side of the spectrum, which in turn means that their worldview is shaped by a biased flow of information.
I do not say this accusingly, but based on my experience. When I was repressing, I got my information pretty much exclusively from the right of center sources (except for CNN) and over the last few years, I've necessarily been exposed to a lot more info from the left (by virtue of following stories related to trans issues) and several of my political positions have been notably modified by being able to consider both viewpoints.
As shocking as it might be for many of you to consider, I'd argue that a lot of people here would be much more well versed if they would find some right wing sources and make them a part of their regular reading or listening. I don't mean blowhards like Hannity or Savage, but rather some thoughtful commentary.
Even if you disagree with them, it might well provoke (as it has with me) the opportunity to reconsider your views and ponder WHY you disagree.
Quote
It's not a good idea to make sweeping generalizations about broad or ill-defined groups of people, especially when you want to celebrate a "label-free" politician.
I don't think there was nearly as much generalization there as you think, and to the extent that there was I generalized both sides and SPECIFICALLY pointed out I was trying to be even handed and not derogatory to the left.
I think, since it gets so much mention, that the headline to that story is ill-worded. it seems the intent is to suggest the person defies the EXPECTED labels, but that doesn't make for a snappy quote or headline.
Quoteif you are implying that there are liberals who in fact oppose gay marriage, I'll defer to you on that point since I don't move in those circles and have never been exposed to such liberals.
Aside from the conservative-leaning liberals who happen to be conservative on this particular issue, there are some people who may be taken as liberal who actually take your stance (those with a libertarian lean), and there are others who are generally content with making things equal (whether it means legalizing or abolishing, as long as it is the same standard. Regardless of ideology, some people are open to more than one solution, but if there is one that gets talked about more than others, it's easy for them to get locked in to asking for the one in particular.
QuoteAs shocking as it might be for many of you to consider, I'd argue that a lot of people here would be much more well versed if they would find some right wing sources and make them a part of their regular reading or listening. I don't mean blowhards like Hannity or Savage, but rather some thoughtful commentary.
I say this with all sincerity, but would you please list a couple/few examples you find particularly interesting (preferably something to read).
That said, I don't closely follow anyone, "left" or "right." Particularly within the left/right paradigm, the commentary is typically not all that original or interesting (especially because it tends to lock in to politics [the game] and talking points [orders] rather than social issues [outcomes]).
[EDIT: Silly punctuation.]
The last really good conservative writer/intellectual was Kevin Phillips and as I recall the right hated him for telling the truth. But the days when the Right had people like William F. Buckley have been forsaken for Sara Palin, Michelle Bachman and the TV/radio personalities, along with any attempt to be intellectual. Matter of fact, lots of people on the Right disdain any attempt at intellectualism.
Most of this is not a Dem/Repub deal either, as those affiliations are often a matter of historical, rather than idealogical precedents. In the larger picture most of the US is urban, not rural, democratic not republican, cosmopolitan and not homogeneous, and those two worlds rarely meet.
Mississippi has a total population of about 3 million, California has over 6 million students just in the public school system, New York City, all by itself, has 1.1 million in it's public schools where the NYC MSA has over 19 million people living in it. Obviously the problems, solutions, and challenges are not going to be the same. What works in one place does not necessarily transfer. And what works for the majority (urban, cosmopolitan) is going to be the preferred solution for obvious reasons.
Moreover, the real conservatives are often at a loss as those very American notions they profess to hold true are pretty much liberal notions. The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution were radically liberal in their time, and still pretty much to this day. Such things as corporations, free markets, and the capitalistic structure are responsible for most of the progress the results of which conservatives often dislike, while continuing to really like the very instruments of that change. It's rendered them kinda nuts.
Books by Kevin Phillips:
American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush (2004)
American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century (2006)
Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism (2007)
She is against gay marriage so she believes only certain Americans should have full rights. Just another bigot.
QuoteShe is against gay marriage so she believes only certain Americans should have full rights. Just another bigot.
Perhaps the Government should not give any benefits to any married people and leave it as a religious issue. It seems the major reason why the Government got into the marriage business to to increase the number of taxpayers.
I'm all in favor of getting govm't out of the marriage biz. Everyone pays the same tax rate, ball and chain, or not.
Even with some civil union-type contract still in place (and even if we still have a flavor named "marriage" for all couples), I'm all for taxing each individual on their own -- it'll take care of the pesky "marriage penalty" for egalitarian households and "marriage bonus" for single-earner households.
QuoteI say this with all sincerity, but would you please list a couple/few examples you find particularly interesting (preferably something to read).
I'll take a bit to mull a complete answer here but one really good starting place is Thomas Sowell.
For a more libertarian bent, though he's not really a writer, John Stossel will make you think.
If I don't forget I'll give a more complete answer when I have more time.
For a more libertarian bent, though he's not really a writer, John Stossel will make you think.
That's pretty weak sauce if that's the best you can do. He's a cheep media pimp saying what the script his corporate masters write tell him to say. Try to give us a real conservative writer and intellectual who is current.
Yeah, thought so.
Generally speaking, conservatives are conservative when agreeing on who should have what rights and privileges and liberals are liberal in that same respect. So, if you are experiencing problems enjoying the same civil rights as your next door neighbor because you are a minority, then it only makes sense to support those who will work to help you gain those rights.
Your average Republican will vote "No" for ENDA, will vote "No" for DADT, will vote "no" for same sex marriage. Your average Democrat will vote "Yes" for those same issues.
If you are or want to be employed and are gay, lesbian or trans, an Employment Non-Discrimination Act is a good thing. You'll be hard pressed justifying voting for a Republican.
If you are in the military and are gay or lesbian (just don't be trans), you'll want to see DADT pass. And you know siding with the Republicans isn't the way to do that.
And if you are in a same sex relationship and want to enjoy all the same marital rights and privileges opposite sex partners enjoy, you're gonna run from the Republicans as fast as you can.
All I want is the same civil rights I enjoyed before coming out, before transitioning. I can deal with all the other stuff just fine. I just want my rights back. Because I had them once and know what I'm now missing, it's a bigger issue to me than to many other people. From what I see from the conservative side, asking them to help me get those rights back is like talking to the wall. So why would I even think of supporting them or even bothering to give them validation?
The foundation for our personal freedom begins with the unobstructed ability to support ourselves, to be valued for who we are and what we can contribute rather than what we are or how we look, to enjoy the same level of equality as everyone else.
If this country, or any country, is to become the best it can be, it has to first stop oppressing its citizens just because they are different and start encouraging each and every citizen to be the best they can be. This can be done simply by ceasing the practice of giving selective rights and privileges and by ending majority rule in cases of civil rights.
From the publication Principles of Democracy (http://www.america.gov/st/democracy-english/2008/May/20080609194934eaifas0.5346796.html#ixzz0qGp2P3K6) by the US Department of State:QuoteMajority rule is a means for organizing government and deciding public issues; it is not another road to oppression. Just as no self-appointed group has the right to oppress others, so no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual.
It can't be much simpler or any clearer. Why is it so hard to follow?
Quote from: Julie Marie on June 08, 2010, 09:14:34 AM
Generally speaking, conservatives are conservative when agreeing on who should have what rights and privileges and liberals are liberal in that same respect. So, if you are experiencing problems enjoying the same civil rights as your next door neighbor because you are a minority, then it only makes sense to support those who will work to help you gain those rights.
Your average Republican will vote "No" for ENDA, will vote "No" for DADT, will vote "no" for same sex marriage. Your average Democrat will vote "Yes" for those same issues.
If you are or want to be employed and are gay, lesbian or trans, an Employment Non-Discrimination Act is a good thing. You'll be hard pressed justifying voting for a Republican.
If you are in the military and are gay or lesbian (just don't be trans), you'll want to see DADT pass. And you know siding with the Republicans isn't the way to do that.
And if you are in a same sex relationship and want to enjoy all the same marital rights and privileges opposite sex partners enjoy, you're gonna run from the Republicans as fast as you can.
All I want is the same civil rights I enjoyed before coming out, before transitioning. I can deal with all the other stuff just fine. I just want my rights back. Because I had them once and know what I'm now missing, it's a bigger issue to me than to many other people. From what I see from the conservative side, asking them to help me get those rights back is like talking to the wall. So why would I even think of supporting them or even bothering to give them validation?
The foundation for our personal freedom begins with the unobstructed ability to support ourselves, to be valued for who we are and what we can contribute rather than what we are or how we look, to enjoy the same level of equality as everyone else.
If this country, or any country, is to become the best it can be, it has to first stop oppressing its citizens just because they are different and start encouraging each and every citizen to be the best they can be. This can be done simply by ceasing the practice of giving selective rights and privileges and by ending majority rule in cases of civil rights.
From the publication Principles of Democracy (http://www.america.gov/st/democracy-english/2008/May/20080609194934eaifas0.5346796.html#ixzz0qGp2P3K6) by the US Department of State:
It can't be much simpler or any clearer. Why is it so hard to follow?
I compare a member of the LGBT community voting republican as a termite going to work for terminex.
QuoteI compare a member of the LGBT community voting republican as a termite going to work for terminex.
You can flip a coin both parties are not for what is best for the common person. "TERMINIX"
According to the cook political report FL-20 is consider ''solid democrat''.
Quote from: tekla on June 08, 2010, 01:10:50 AM
For a more libertarian bent, though he's not really a writer, John Stossel will make you think.
That's pretty weak sauce if that's the best you can do. He's a cheep media pimp saying what the script his corporate masters write tell him to say. Try to give us a real conservative writer and intellectual who is current.
Yeah, thought so.
I was thinking similarly but didn't know how to express it.