Isn't that the truth? Try reading the sycophants on Talkingpointsmemo.com, who pretend that those who took the time to sign up and protest Obama's cave-in are actually republican troublemakers. A few times they even reference this site and call Mr. Greenwald a liar (though of course with no evidence to back that up other than that they don't want Obama held to account for any slipshod reasoning and pandering he may do). Some call it pandering if Obama were to reject this FISA amendment, rather than recognizing that what he's doing now is the true pander. This election has made me so sick of so many of my fellow democrats. It's hard not to despair. Still, the only way for things to get better is to stick to the truth, even when the political candidates you support are heading the wrong direction, as Obama did.

--Ron

<<The sad thing is, those of us who joined the Obama website to protest his decision to vote yes on the upcoming bill are widely held to be accomplices of Karl Rove, sent there to disrupt the Obama campaign. It would be funny if it weren't so frustrating and sad.>>

Thank you, that was perfect, and crystallizes very well the difference I was trying to put my finger on.

--Ron

<<Clearly there is a difference between irrational hatred and justified hate. Unfortunately, conservatives - as well as many liberals it would seem - would have us believe that irrational hatred is justified and justified hate is irrational.>>

I think your word style is great, and really fun to read!

As for "man-crushes", I suppose I've had them, but off-hand I can only think of a few, mainly because I've had a life-long suspicion that I'd be disappointed in them. I don't ever recall being impressed by any musicians or actors, for instance. I think a better word for all of this is "inspired by" since that seems closer to the true feeling. For instance, I think Steve Jobs at Apple is pretty inspirational for what he's accomplished with his team at Apple, as well as at Pixar. He knows how to lead quite well. Another guy I'm pretty impressed by is right here on Salon, Glenn Greenwald.

I think I tend to get more inspired by specific acts/works, like a certain movie, book or action. But, I have seen obvious man crushes in other guys. My partner's 19 y.o. son gets them with his friends, who can do no wrong.

I wonder what the opposite of a man crush is? Probably contempt. That's what I feel for Bush (especially the younger one), Cheney, Hoyer, McCain, Douglas Feith, Bolton, Lieberman and a lot of politicos, and well as several talking heads, like Brian Williams, Chris Matthews, Charles Krauthammer, Nicholas Kristof, David Broder, Richard Cohen, etc.

--Ron

That's rich, coming from Mr. Flip-Flopper, whose every position changes with the political winds of the split-second. He's never met a principle he wouldn't subjugate to get himself ahead. McCain has always had a problem with the truth, and when he lies (which is often), the press just admire him the more and call him "honest" because he tells them plainly that what he said before wasn't true (I suppose it never occurs to them to ask whether what he's telling them right now is also not true).

These days there's a simple test for telling if a republican is lying, just see if his/her lips are moving.

It'd help if the democrats didn't try to emulate them so often themselves. Obama is basically lying about FISA right now, or at best, incoherent.

--Ron

Actually, being one of the gay people who doesn't have a problem with this article, I'd appreciate not being told by you, or anyone else, what I think, or what I think of you. If you think others think you're stupid, well, only you can determine whether you actually are, though others certainly can have their opinions.

--Ron

<<I was bored. It's not very good writing. For God's sake, how can people defend this. It's soooo telling that only gay people and mothers liked this. The irony is that they think that they 'get it' and the rest of us are stupid. What they don't realize is that their own experiences are coloring their reaction to this dull uninspiring piece.>>

There's a difference between Maureen Dowd and Sarah Bird, Maureen attacks the people she apparently supports (democrats), and fawns over people she doesn't (republicans). When she isn't fawning over republicans, she's replicating stereotypes that play (somewhat) in their favor politically, like the ones that make republicans macho. I despise Dowd's writing and what she's done to the democrats during her overlong career (you didn't bring her up, but I also despite Camille Paglia's writing, she's just a lesbian version of Dowd, in my opinion, only worse). I didn't laugh over anything in Ms. Bird's article, but I enjoyed reading it.

--Ron

<<One last thought: even NYT columnist Maureen Dowd must have fans, though I have never met one, nor read one blog about her in a positive light. Whatever quantum paradox explains Maureen Dowd's continued employment may also explain the view that Bird's article was funny.>>

I'm a gay man, too, and I have no problem with anything she wrote. My favorite line was the one of her son saying "I'm surprised you still believe I'm not" when asked about his mother wishing he was gay.

Sarah Bird did touch on stereotypes about gay men, but guess what, that stereotype exists for a reason in this case. There are lots of gay men who care about many of the same things Ms. Bird cares about (probably a sizable contingent of straight guys too, but probably not as many).

Anyway, it sounds like she's raised a good son, and she's been a good mother, who's going to miss having her son around. I'm pretty sure my mom feels the same way, now that I live thousands of miles away (but she does love visiting here!).

It's too bad her rather charming story meets with so much invective, here. Must be difficult to be a writer and be on the receiving end of so much hate. Hopefully, she can do like I do when I read deranged commentary about gay people, take it with a grain of salt and realize it says more about the haters than anything about herself.

--Ron

I don't blame them for not having faith in democracy, since democracy without the rule of law is basically mob rule (thats why they created a republic). And look at what happens when people do get to vote on rights, look at all the anti-gay initiatives that have passed around the country. You can't rely on democracy alone to protect rights.

Your insult to Mr. Greenwald is unfounded, as he has been promoting actual action, like donating to ActBlue's campaign targeting DINOs like Hoyer, Carney and Barrow. You should back that statement up, or apologize, if you wish to have any credibility, otherwise you're just another hypocrite.

Basically, your analysis is wanting.

--Ron

<<it's easy to see that something...

needs to change. but if you have no idea what needs to change you should maintain a modest silence. if you know what needs to be done, but don't say so, you're a professional 'chicken little'- like gg.

the american constitution was written by people who had no faith in democracy. not to be wondered at, most were wealthy and many slaveholders. "all men are created equal" should have been followed by "unless we can enslave them."

if you are tired of the consequences of being political cattle, get off your knees and demand democracy. the alternative is '1984', coming soon to your neighborhood.

-- al loomis>>