Clareified

Where does the good go

I DON’T LIKE REPUBLICAN SENATORS JUST AS MUCH AS THE NEXT GUY…

I DON’T LIKE REPUBLICAN SENATORS JUST AS MUCH AS THE NEXT GUY…

But this isn’t cool.

Mr. Senator:

How does this blog decide who to report on? It’s simple. We report on hypocrites. In this case, hypocrites who vote against the gay and lesbian community while engaging in gay sex themselves*.

When you cast that vote, Mr. Senator, represent your own…it’s the least you could do.

Michael Rogers
blogACTIVE.com

Actually, it could probably fall under some legal definition of blackmail, but hey, I’m no criminal lawyer. I don’t get how a openly gay person could be comfortable using “outing” as a threat to change behavior. On the one hand, it would seem to reinforce the idea that homosexuality is something to be ashamed of and kept hidden at all costs. On the other hand, it singles out gay politicians to be punished in ways that their straight counterparts, who vote the same way, are not punished.

It’s like punishing African-American Republicans by calling them white or denying them membership in national black organizations — discriminating against your own people because of who they are…isn’t that something minorities, of all people, should be vehemently against?

Sure, Republican/conservatism is bad and must be stopped at all costs, but can’t we use a nice sexuality/gender/race neutral way to change their Republican minds? Like…I dunno…waiting for them in an alley with a sack of oranges and a bat?

21 Responses to “I DON’T LIKE REPUBLICAN SENATORS JUST AS MUCH AS THE NEXT GUY…”

  1. iocaste Says:

    I disagree. I don’t approve of the blackmailing thing — he crossed the line when he started specifically making threats about votes — but his more general mission is to out politicians who are privately gay (usually they’re out to select people) but who adopt hostile-gay policies. And that to me is newsworthy. It’s newsworthy if a gay person votes for DOMA for the same reason that it is newsworthy when Lieberman crosses the aisle to make another slam at Democrats or when Ward Connerly or Shelby Steele try to get affirmative action banned or when Phyllis Schafly advocates against the ERA.

  2. iocaste Says:

    I disagree. I don’t approve of the blackmailing thing — he crossed the line when he started specifically making threats about votes — but his more general mission is to out politicians who are privately gay (usually they’re out to select people) but who adopt hostile-gay policies. And that to me is newsworthy. It’s newsworthy if a gay person votes for DOMA for the same reason that it is newsworthy when Lieberman crosses the aisle to make another slam at Democrats or when Ward Connerly or Shelby Steele try to get affirmative action banned or when Phyllis Schafly advocates against the ERA.

  3. iocaste Says:

    I disagree. I don’t approve of the blackmailing thing — he crossed the line when he started specifically making threats about votes — but his more general mission is to out politicians who are privately gay (usually they’re out to select people) but who adopt hostile-gay policies. And that to me is newsworthy. It’s newsworthy if a gay person votes for DOMA for the same reason that it is newsworthy when Lieberman crosses the aisle to make another slam at Democrats or when Ward Connerly or Shelby Steele try to get affirmative action banned or when Phyllis Schafly advocates against the ERA.

  4. Karol Says:

    It makes Democrats look desperate, which, I suppose they are. I think that’s your problem with this, Dawn.

  5. Karol Says:

    It makes Democrats look desperate, which, I suppose they are. I think that’s your problem with this, Dawn.

  6. Karol Says:

    It makes Democrats look desperate, which, I suppose they are. I think that’s your problem with this, Dawn.

  7. Gib Says:

    There is no difference between “outing anti-gay politicians because their hypocrisy is newsworthy” and flat-out blackmailing them. Everyone gets that if Senator X voted a certain way, his sex life would instantaneously become less “newsworthy” – unless the Christian Coalition felt betrayed and got ahold of the info, I suppose. (Sauce for the goose, right?)

  8. Gib Says:

    There is no difference between “outing anti-gay politicians because their hypocrisy is newsworthy” and flat-out blackmailing them. Everyone gets that if Senator X voted a certain way, his sex life would instantaneously become less “newsworthy” – unless the Christian Coalition felt betrayed and got ahold of the info, I suppose. (Sauce for the goose, right?)

  9. Gib Says:

    There is no difference between “outing anti-gay politicians because their hypocrisy is newsworthy” and flat-out blackmailing them. Everyone gets that if Senator X voted a certain way, his sex life would instantaneously become less “newsworthy” – unless the Christian Coalition felt betrayed and got ahold of the info, I suppose. (Sauce for the goose, right?)

  10. iocaste Says:

    Gib – I don’t believe that’s true. You might as well say that the general threat that a reporter might dig up something embarassing about you if you vote inconsistently amounts to blackmail. If you take public actions while knowing that there are aspects of your life that will cast those public actions in a different light to voters, that’s just the risk of being a politician.

    In other words, no one should feel bad reporting relevant information about a public official because it might pressure the public official. It’s different if there’s a direct quid pro quo “I have information on you specifically and I will use it unless you vote the way I want you to.”

    That may seem like a slippery slope distinction, but it’s the necessary kind we always make in politics where we recognize that people must have the right to donate to candidates and speak on behalf of candidates, but we can’t allow bribery either.

  11. iocaste Says:

    Gib – I don’t believe that’s true. You might as well say that the general threat that a reporter might dig up something embarassing about you if you vote inconsistently amounts to blackmail. If you take public actions while knowing that there are aspects of your life that will cast those public actions in a different light to voters, that’s just the risk of being a politician.

    In other words, no one should feel bad reporting relevant information about a public official because it might pressure the public official. It’s different if there’s a direct quid pro quo “I have information on you specifically and I will use it unless you vote the way I want you to.”

    That may seem like a slippery slope distinction, but it’s the necessary kind we always make in politics where we recognize that people must have the right to donate to candidates and speak on behalf of candidates, but we can’t allow bribery either.

  12. iocaste Says:

    Gib – I don’t believe that’s true. You might as well say that the general threat that a reporter might dig up something embarassing about you if you vote inconsistently amounts to blackmail. If you take public actions while knowing that there are aspects of your life that will cast those public actions in a different light to voters, that’s just the risk of being a politician.

    In other words, no one should feel bad reporting relevant information about a public official because it might pressure the public official. It’s different if there’s a direct quid pro quo “I have information on you specifically and I will use it unless you vote the way I want you to.”

    That may seem like a slippery slope distinction, but it’s the necessary kind we always make in politics where we recognize that people must have the right to donate to candidates and speak on behalf of candidates, but we can’t allow bribery either.

  13. K Says:

    Personally, I’d destroy the blogger’s life. I’d go after his family, etc. and he’d never forget it.

  14. K Says:

    Personally, I’d destroy the blogger’s life. I’d go after his family, etc. and he’d never forget it.

  15. K Says:

    Personally, I’d destroy the blogger’s life. I’d go after his family, etc. and he’d never forget it.

  16. Gib Says:

    We’re not talking about a journalist committing journalism – we’re talking about an activist explicitly threatening people who don’t vote according to whatever this cretin defines as “pro-gay.”

    He’s not a reporter – he’s not seeking a story, or the truth. He already has the truth, or at least he either believes he does or is willing to pretend – but he’s not going to “report the story” if you will provided he gets a result.

    Deciding something’s newsworthy only if the subject doesn’t agree with the “reporter” is just a flimsy rationalization.

  17. Gib Says:

    We’re not talking about a journalist committing journalism – we’re talking about an activist explicitly threatening people who don’t vote according to whatever this cretin defines as “pro-gay.”

    He’s not a reporter – he’s not seeking a story, or the truth. He already has the truth, or at least he either believes he does or is willing to pretend – but he’s not going to “report the story” if you will provided he gets a result.

    Deciding something’s newsworthy only if the subject doesn’t agree with the “reporter” is just a flimsy rationalization.

  18. Gib Says:

    We’re not talking about a journalist committing journalism – we’re talking about an activist explicitly threatening people who don’t vote according to whatever this cretin defines as “pro-gay.”

    He’s not a reporter – he’s not seeking a story, or the truth. He already has the truth, or at least he either believes he does or is willing to pretend – but he’s not going to “report the story” if you will provided he gets a result.

    Deciding something’s newsworthy only if the subject doesn’t agree with the “reporter” is just a flimsy rationalization.

  19. iocaste Says:

    Gib: In my book, if you disclose things that are in the public interest and that the public has a right to know and that bear on public affairs, you’re serving that function. I’m certainly not going to say “well, it would be okay if he had a column in a newspaper” but “no, it’s not okay because he has a blog.” And god knows political motivation can’t be the deciding factor; we’d have to eliminate god knows how many columnists, commentators, and politically-oriented publications if we did that.

  20. iocaste Says:

    Gib: In my book, if you disclose things that are in the public interest and that the public has a right to know and that bear on public affairs, you’re serving that function. I’m certainly not going to say “well, it would be okay if he had a column in a newspaper” but “no, it’s not okay because he has a blog.” And god knows political motivation can’t be the deciding factor; we’d have to eliminate god knows how many columnists, commentators, and politically-oriented publications if we did that.

  21. iocaste Says:

    Gib: In my book, if you disclose things that are in the public interest and that the public has a right to know and that bear on public affairs, you’re serving that function. I’m certainly not going to say “well, it would be okay if he had a column in a newspaper” but “no, it’s not okay because he has a blog.” And god knows political motivation can’t be the deciding factor; we’d have to eliminate god knows how many columnists, commentators, and politically-oriented publications if we did that.

Leave a Reply