|
September 29, 2007
Moral equivalancy? Or just wishful thinking?
I don't know, but this morning's cartoon (from the editorial page of the Inquirer, but once again, not from the web site!) gave me a chuckle: Tough to tell whether they're just taking advantage of a handy opportunity to ridicule both men at the same time, or whether there's a larger comparison. If it's the latter, I'm reminded of something I've been saying for at least a year: Whenever two apparent adversaries agree with each other, it worries me. Right now, I see agreement along the following lines:By "apparent adversaries," I do not mean Iran and the GOP, of course, but the activist netroots on the left and the anti-gay "sex war" faction of the GOP.RESOLVED: Gays do not belong in the Republican Party. Of course, the idea may just be to compare Ahmadinejad and Craig, and not Iran and the GOP. Either way, I think it's a bit of a stretch.... Speaking of Iran, last night I watched an early 90s film which I do not believe could be made today -- "Not Without My Daughter," starring Sally Fields as an American woman tricked into moving to Khomeini's Iran with her disguntled, deceitful -- and ultimately physically abusive -- Iranian husband, who will not allow his wife and their American daughter to return to the U.S. She finds herself helpless and literally a prisoner of her husband's hostile and paranoid family, and finally risks her life to venture a hazardous escape through dangerous countryside. Her complaints about the forced veiling, the religious brainwashing inflicted on her daughter, the backward and primitive Iranian theocracy and its brutally sexist religion would probably not be presented sympathetically in a major Hollywood film today. After all, today's Iranian rulers, well yes, they're a little backward.... But aren't they really just misunderstood and comic, along the lines of Larry Craig?
posted by Eric on 09.29.07 at 08:57 AM
Comments
I find it hard to believe that the Republican party wouldn't have kicked out someone who admitted guilt to soliciting sex in a public restroom, and then tried to use their card to get out of it, whether the attempted sex was heterosexual or homosexual. I'll save my disgust until, you know, there's not a more logical explanation than "They hates teh gays!" gattsuru · September 29, 2007 11:14 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
September 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
September 2007
August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSALLAMERICANGOP See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, leading Queer Theorist?
Spare the switch and spoil the lock! Panic In Iran Women Of The Israeli Army Agreed. Freedom can be nauseating. Khat. Not a problem until laws made it one. Waiting For The Man Prevent Global Warming - Bring Back Slavery Moral equivalancy? Or just wishful thinking? Dr. John Beresford Has Passed
Links
Site Credits
|
|
"RESOLVED: Gays do not belong in the Republican Party." I remember when the Log Cabin Republicans were first formed. I told some of the founding members then that they were being naive. The New Right, which has controlled the Party since Reagan, will never welcome gays - although they will accept their money and votes.