Blogging, Primaries and Mel
After a very busy past few weeks of papers and classes, including writing the Comprehensive Exam essay (for my Master’s) and an intense summer session last week, I felt more intellectually drained than I normally do after my class sessions at Pacifica. I have been spending the time since I returned recharging my batteries. I had hoped to return to blogging on Monday, but had a lot of busy work to attend to.
There are a number of important issues that I’d like to address, notably the primaries today — and not just in Connecticut, but also in Georgia and Michigan where gay conservatives have a real dilemma between Joe Schwarz, a gay-friendly Republican incumbent who happens to be one of the most liberal members of the GOP caucus, and his more fiscally conservative opponent, Tim Walberg, who is regrettably very social conservative as well. If I lived in Michigan’s Seventh Congressional District, I’d probably pinch my nose and vote for Schwarz. But, if he loses tomorrow, it won’t be just because he voted against the Marriage Protection Act (MPA).
And of course, there’s Israel’s War against the Terrorist Group Hezbollah and the incredible media bias in covering that conflict. And the meltdowns of Andrew Sullivan and Mel Gibson. The media-obsession with the boorish celebrity has at least made Gibson’s angry rant more entertaining.
I have long been a fan of his films, notably Braveheart. And I have learned to see past the angry attitudes of other entertainers to enjoy their work. I wonder now if I will see Gibon’s portrayal of Scottish hero WIlliam Wallace in a different light after having learned what he said when he vented his spleen to police officers last week.
I take heart that Gibson has apologized for his actions and offered to meet with Jewish groups. I will wait to learn the outcome of those meetings before again gaining a favorable opinion of the man. He should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for driving under the influence, but the First Amendment protects his right to express his feelings, hateful as they may be.
I expect that’s all I have to say about l’affaire Gibson, but hope to blog on the other topics mentioned above in the next few days.
27 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I liked your link to Dean Barnett’s Andrew Sullivan Word of the Day. I hadn’t seen that one yet.
I like it, quite honestly, because it intelligently agrees with me.
I had noticed as much as 2 years ago that words are meaningless rubber bullets to Sullivan – since 2/24/04, his big day.
Dean should be sure to invoke “torture” as his next mis–used Andrew Sullivan Word Of The Day. In Andrew-speak, it signifies any U.S. treatment of any terrorist suspect, good or bad.
Dean could also invoke “homophobic”. In Andrew-speak, it’s anyone who disagrees with Andrew for any reason – but especially those who may have happened to notice Andrew’s sad degeneration into thoughtless, feeble hysteria.
Speaking of being right – one more little thing – remember rajIan gloating pre-emptively, maybe 3 months ago, over how we’d be paying $4 for gas this summer? (And how that would be a factor in the coming triumphant annihiliation of the Bush presidency, blah blah blah.) Well, it’s summer, and yesterday I paid $3.07 in one of the nation’s more expensive gas markets. Just a small thing I noticed. But, I digress.
Comment by Calarato — August 8, 2006 @ 10:07 am - August 8, 2006
Just one question for all the Gibson-bashers out there:
Where is all the vitriol for the Arab guy who shot all those unarmed Jewish women in Seattle (aka North San Fran)? All Mel did was shoot off his mouth. This “lone gunman” used real bullets.
Think about that.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — August 8, 2006 @ 10:30 am - August 8, 2006
#2 – Not 100% certain where that is going, Peter. Please count me as one of the Gibson-bashers. The viewpoint he expressed was just contemptible. But, I would expect you think so. And I support your point, that the LACK of appropriate outrage over the terrorist attack in Seattle – and attempts to excuse away the Muslim angle, saying the killer had once been momentarily Christian or whatever – have been startling.
Comment by Calarato — August 8, 2006 @ 10:53 am - August 8, 2006
The Michigan 7th Congressional is an interesting race for more reasons than just that, Dan. Rev. Tim Walberg has been running TV ads offering that, unlike Joe Schwarz, he would have defended the sacred institution of marriage.
Of course, Schwarz thought the issue is best left to individual states –and he offered it didn’t help in Michigan that we adopted a Constitutional Amendment in 2004 which snuffs out civil unions, domestic partner benefits, and local choice.
So why plug your nose? Is it the spending-liberal Joe Schwarz image? Is it the issue of illegal immigrants and aliens? Something else?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 8, 2006 @ 10:53 am - August 8, 2006
#3 – Yes, Cal, I agree – what Mel said under the influence was reprehensible. Does he realize this? Yes. Did he apologize for it and offer to do penance? Yes. Should we put this behind us now? YES.
My point is that for some people out there, what Mel did with his mouth was “morally equivalent” to what the Islamofascist did with his gun. I’m sorry, but I cannot accept that reasoning. And you don’t hear the JDL or B’nai B’rith or the Anti-Defamation League going as hard against the Seattle gunman as they are with Mel.
Something is obviously wrong here.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — August 8, 2006 @ 11:12 am - August 8, 2006
#2 Peter Hughes — August 8, 2006 @ 10:30 am – August 8, 2006
Just one question for all the Gibson-bashers out there:…
I’m not going to bash Gibson. He was entertaining in Mad Max (the original), but not much else. But I would seriously question anyone who paid a whole lot of attention to a mere apology or a sudden transformation. In Tequila Veritas.
Where is all the vitriol for the Arab guy who shot all those unarmed Jewish women in Seattle (aka North San Fran)? All Mel did was shoot off his mouth. This “lone gunman” used real bullets.
Don’t know. Maybe because–as far as I can tell–none of the posts or comments here have triggered discussion on the issue (although I haven’t done an exhaustive search) until, maybe, your’s. Or maybe because sometimes, someone goes on a shooting rampage just because he is a littled “touched in the head”. John Salvi did it in the mid-1990s. Buford Farrow a bit latter. The Kolumbine Kids. And there have been others. Remember the rash of shootings by postal workers in the 1980s and ’90s–they used to call it “going postal.”
As far as I can tell, spewing a lot of “vitriol for the Arab guy” isn’t worth spending a lot of time on.
Comment by raj — August 8, 2006 @ 11:13 am - August 8, 2006
Oh, so “spewing a lot of ‘vitriol for the Arab guy’ isn’t worth spending a lot of time on.”? (Your quote.)
Gee, if we had paid more attention to a mad Austrian painter in 1933, things would have been a lot more different, eh? Or maybe if we’d have investigated a bunch of Arabs named Mohammad who were taking flying lessons in the summer of 2001, things would have been a lot different on September 11.
You are a piece of work. Unbelievable.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — August 8, 2006 @ 11:29 am - August 8, 2006
I never really understand about the fuss made over what actors say or do. They are actors. Mel Gibson saying something vile is equivalent to hearing your waiter say something vile. Unpleasant, but hardly front-page news.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — August 8, 2006 @ 11:31 am - August 8, 2006
[...] Conservative bloggers blogging on today’s primary or news related to it include- Ed at CQ, Lorie at Wizbang, Betsy, Don Surber, Michelle Malkin, One Big Dog, Sister Toldjah, Bullwinkle, The Anchoress, Mark at Blogs for Bush, Gay Patriot, Mr Smash, Junkyard Blog, Just One Minute, [...]
Pingback by The Florida Masochist » Blog Archive » Obsessions — August 8, 2006 @ 11:38 am - August 8, 2006
#7 Peter Hughes — August 8, 2006 @ 11:29 am – August 8, 2006
When I see evidence that Haq, or John Salvi, or Buford Farrow or Eric Frank Rudolph or the Kolumbine Kids are part of various conspiracies involving a bunch of brownshirts, I’ll sit up and listen. No, why don’t you run along and find that evidence, instead of just sitting there tinkling the ivories of your keyboard?
Oh, and, by the say, before you go to sleep tonight, be sure and check under your bed. The boogey man might get you.
Comment by raj — August 8, 2006 @ 11:50 am - August 8, 2006
Hey Patrick, you’re right.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 8, 2006 @ 12:17 pm - August 8, 2006
Since my retort to you will probably be deleted, raj, suffice to say that your attitude is the reason why nobody trusts the RATS to defend the USA against Islamofascists.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — August 8, 2006 @ 12:35 pm - August 8, 2006
Peter, of course the trump card in the “if we had only known” game is to posit if JimminyCricketCarter had only known that his turn-tail-and-run-from-the-Shah strategy for dealing with Shia street protests in late-1970′s Tehran Iran would have resulted in modern day Iran, maybe he wouldn’t have been so negligent and impractical to throw away the Shah in the hope that America’s new found lovefest with humanitarian priorities would net us a peaceful, loving, embracing arab world.
That man deserves America’s eternal scorn and if history’s liberal apologists screw up the truth about Carter’s Presidency like they have Truman’s, God help the history books and the next generation.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 8, 2006 @ 12:59 pm - August 8, 2006
Well said, Patrick in #8. Michigan-Matt, while I knew Walberg was in favor of the FMA, I did not know about his ads.
The Club for Growth has done a good job pointing out Schwarz’s record on fiscal issues — which is far from conservative.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — August 8, 2006 @ 1:28 pm - August 8, 2006
Dan, Rev Walberg’s ads are intended to paint Joe as something akin to RuPaul on GayMarriage. No need to hold a nose; Schwarz is a good choice.
I don’t agree with Joe Schwarz on spending or earmarking or on the urgent need for fiscal restraint at the Federal level, but in Michigan, when he served on the Senate Approps Committee he got most things right, most of the time on spending –he wasn’t a pig or hog.
The Club4 growth is looking at his less than 2 year stint in the US House and indicting him from there. That’s just wrong.
He’s a moderate -which probably makes him a liberal in the GOP House Caucus these days. He favored the Prez’s tax cuts, liability reform, malpractice reform, is pro-choice and in favor of reasonable but tough environmental sanctions against producers –including cities and the state when appropriate.
The real reason Club4Growth has placed a target on Joe’s butt is because he didn’t get out of the 2002 race and let former Congressman Nick Smith’s son, Brad, take the nomination. Which is what Club4Growth wanted… How cheeky of Joe.
The Club4Growth is wrong on this one.
If Rev Walberg wins today –unlikely that he’ll even get 40% of the GOP vote in the primary– then it’s bad news for the 7th District ’cause that’s one seat the GOP could lose with enough money and the Rev out front.
I’d hate to ever build a grudge with the Club4Growth… those guys are smoking crack insane.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 8, 2006 @ 1:46 pm - August 8, 2006
More Andrew Sullivan…in a post having nothing to do with him. Sorta like those UnhingedMadLibAngryFascistCommunistDemFrenchSpeakingNYTimesReadingGays who, out of nowhere, proclaim their dislike for Bush. How much projection can this screen take?
Comment by jimmy — August 8, 2006 @ 2:30 pm - August 8, 2006
jimmy, just curious… when did you become AndieSullivan’s public defender? I don’t get it –you criticize others for posting about Andie and then you don’t even comment topic? What’s with that, jimmy? “Do as I say, not as I do”?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 8, 2006 @ 3:07 pm - August 8, 2006
Um, Jimmy, it’s a post on a number of issues.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — August 8, 2006 @ 3:51 pm - August 8, 2006
For people who are so disdainful of actors sticking their noses in to the political arena, this is a nice little bit on Gibson. He rants out about Jews, does a mea culpa 2 seconds later and the world is hunky dory again. (has the sincerety of Eddie Murphy turning up on entertainment tonight the morning after he got busted for picking up a transverstite prostitute) Mr. Gibson has been known as a rampant homophobe for years (note the scenes of the king’s son and his lover in Braveheart, mentioned here). What would have been the response if his alcohol fused rant had been about gays? In addition, it seems his drunken binges at this bar with young women are fairly well known. Good for a conservative, catholic father of umpteen children. But, being a good conservative, I’m sure he’ll get his Rush Limbaugh get out of jail free / forgiveness card.
Comment by Kevin — August 8, 2006 @ 11:51 pm - August 8, 2006
#14 Michigan-Matt — August 8, 2006 @ 12:59 pm – August 8, 2006
Peter, of course the trump card in the “if we had only known” game is to posit if JimminyCricketCarter had only known that his turn-tail-and-run-from-the-Shah strategy…
Ah, the Shah again. Sure, he was a despot, but at least he was our despot.
And let’s ignore the fact that if the American CIA and the British MI6 had not restored him to power in Iran in 1953 against a democratically elected government, there might not have been a despot there at all in 1978-79 to be overthrown. Such selective memories some people have.
Comment by raj — August 9, 2006 @ 4:47 am - August 9, 2006
raj, you’re still worthy of debate.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 9, 2006 @ 11:32 am - August 9, 2006
opps, insert “not” at the appropriate point.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 9, 2006 @ 11:39 am - August 9, 2006
Dan, you were right… Rev Walberg won last night –it’s projected here he will take about 52% of the GOP primary vote… and a lot of crossover Democrat voters who played “spoil-the-GOP” choice in this election (maybe as high as 7% of the votes cast).
It’s interesting to note that voter turnout was low –about 9% of all eligible voters. So about 4.8% of all eligible voters narrowed the choice in November to Walberg and a no-name candidate in an unimpeachable GOP Congressional district. 4.8% –it makes me want to go back to the days of county conventions and congressional district caucus picking the nominees. Nawh, just kidding.
Walberg may be a friend to tax cutters and fiscal conservatives, but he’s no friend of gays.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 9, 2006 @ 11:57 am - August 9, 2006
“More Andrew Sullivan…in a post having nothing to do with him. Sorta like those UnhingedMadLibAngryFascistCommunistDemFrenchSpeakingNYTimesReadingGays who, out of nowhere, proclaim their dislike for Bush. How much projection can this screen take?”
Just be grateful he didn’t work in the Log Cabin Republicans too. Mel has the Jews. GPW has Sully and the LCRs. We have GPW. Everybody needs somebody.
Comment by Ovid's Lovechild — August 9, 2006 @ 12:20 pm - August 9, 2006
#25 – So, OLC, who are you co-dependent upon?
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — August 9, 2006 @ 6:03 pm - August 9, 2006
#18. Me don’t comment topic, correct, I guess… Anyway, the topic does seem to be, as always, Andrew Sullivan. He’s underlined and linked. I comment underlined and linked.
#19. Exactly. And the Andrew Sullivan utterance still escaped in the stream of talk. Again, how much projection can this screen take?
Comment by jimmy — August 9, 2006 @ 6:29 pm - August 9, 2006
#22 Michigan-Matt — August 9, 2006 @ 11:32 am – August 9, 2006
raj, you’re still worthy of debate.
Oh, so, let me understand. When you are faced with inconvenient facts, you wish to take your ball and go home.
Comical.
Comment by raj — August 11, 2006 @ 8:37 am - August 11, 2006