Letters to the Editor
Margalis
Published Letters: 614 Editor's Choice: 16
-
The "pragmatic" approach
[Read the article: Why the T in LGBT is here to stay]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I find none of this in his article. He is fully sympathetic to the plight of the transgendered.
No, he isn't, which is quite obvious if you read his further comments in that letters thread, which I quoted in my first post in this thread.
The "pragmatic" people here are missing some very key points:
1. They can't actually explain how many votes removing T from the equation will gain or give any explanation for how their "pragmatic" approach is actually pragmatic.
2. They didn't fight the good fight to keep T as part of the equation; instead they hunted for reasons to dump T immediately.
3. They make it a point to use insulting language, re-brand anti-gay rhetoric as anti-T rhetoric, and give zero indication that they will actually "come back" for Ts.
4. They cannot respond to allegations that the bill without gender expression protections will be mostly useless.
It would be one thing if you pragamatic folks fought a long, bloody battle, poured your hearts and souls into including Ts but in the end, after very careful analysis and trying everything you possibly could, were forced to remove T from the equation to get something passed.
Instead it doesn't look like any of you can muster even a half-hearted attempt to include Ts. Rather than fight for them you've spent your energy trying to divorce them from your movement and explain how their rights are a completely different cause. Kind of betrays your true intentions about "coming back" later no?
I don't see even a whiff of dissapointment that Ts might have to be left behind.
-
He should consider READING the law
[Read the article: Joe Klein's defense of warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It isn't that long or particularly hard to understand, and most of it is enforcement stuff that can be skimmed. *What* the law allows is only a couple of pages.
It seems like if I bothered to do that just to understand it for my own curiosity he could do it for his friggin' job.
-
Does John speak for all gay people?
[Read the article: Why the T in LGBT is here to stay]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]He constantly cites the "25 million gay people" as if he is speaking for all of them. But then he writes something like this:
As for Barney defending his side of this debate, and criticizing your efforts, you are aware that 200 or 300 gay organizations in your coalition all signed a letter calling for Barney's version of ENDA, that he's been pushing for years, to be killed?
Sounds like John is speaking for himself. Before he said he would have to "listen to the community" but it sounds like a lot of the community has already spoken and they don't agree with him.
Instead of making it about "25 million gay people" vs a few trans let's call it what it is: John vs. a few trans. The 25 million gay people have nothing to do with it.
---
Also I have to point out that I am white, male, straight and an arrogant prick to boot, and I've yet to have a single person on Salon call me out for it. Most of the people who claim white-male victim status (LOL - I can't even type that without cracking up) are being taken to task not because they are white and male but because they are saying something dumb and often explicitly use being white and male as cover for their "un-PC" views.
It's annoying to have other white men speak as if they represent me. I don't feel marginalized or victmized, so please don't lump me into your pity-party.
I thought we white men were all about being "real men," not sad pandas who cry about victimization at the first sign of trouble.
-
Gore just wants attention
[Read the article: Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Unlike bloggers, politicians, or posters in this thread. Unlike Bush, Rush and Coulter.
When you are fighting for a cause then yes, you do want attention -- that's the friggin' point geniuses!
-
Why do people still respond to shooter?
[Read the article: John Edwards' dark leftist America]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Isn't it obvious that he's just a Coulter that will say anything to get a rise out of people?
-
Administration defenders
[Read the article: The Beltway Establishment's contempt for the rule of law]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What they "argue" is truly bizzare:
1. That these programs are vital and effective, even though they have no idea how effective they are or even what they do.
2. That these programs, while illegal, were done in good faith again without knowing what was actually done or how it was done.
I've never seen anyone argue these points credibly, they are merely stated as fact. It amounts to "I have no idea what is going on, but I whole-heartedly endorse it!"
-
Bozo would be offended
[Read the article: The Beltway Establishment's contempt for the rule of law]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]He just played a clown for his day job.
-
Who is to say it is "just" data mining anyway?
[Read the article: Harry Reid works to ensure telecom amnesty, warrantless surveillance]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That assertion is based on nothing. What's wrong with data mining? A lot, and in addition there is no reason to believe that broad data mining is the only thing being done.
-
@thegris
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have come to think that the FISA capitulations are part of the failed Democratic "leadership" strategy.
In my blog the other day I addressed the idea that the Democrats have some master plan that explains their behavior.
They might, but if they do it's a really dumb and self-defeating one. Some people not only believe they have a grand plan but that their grand plan is a great idea.