It's funny - I spent a while thinking of a response, but decided to look for that jpeg of Reynolds with the I HEART COCK shirt instead on the assumption that this would be far more fulfilling.
He's a law professor, and therefore employed in the academy, and I probably will never be. Either,
1) I am smarter than he, and therefore I must despair at the state of the academy; or,
2) I am dumber than he, in which case I probably should slit my wrists 'cause I'm wasting oxygen.
The set of issues which a particular gay person cares about isn't co-extensive with "position on gay marriage," nor even issues explicitly about gay people at all.
Holding "the same fundamental position" ≠ advocating for or being willing to sign the same laws/
Isn't it dogma for conservatives (small-government conservatives, that is) that one's moral beliefs about whether or not aid to impoverished people is a moral imperaitve tells one nothing about whether or not government should be the institution which takes care of that imperative? Doesn't Glenn Reynolds purport to be in favor of small government on domestic issues?
ding ding ding! W/D IDs my two:
(1) conflating "gay marriage" with "gay issues generally" and
(2) conflating content with intensity of support.
Both of those seem pretty bad. Aren't layers notoriously jesuitical?
First, becoming a law professor isn’t that hard. It mostly requires getting very good grades at an elite law school, and taking full advantage of the doors opened up by those grades. That’s not a cakewalk, but it is in a different stratosphere than writing a job-landing dissertation.
Second, while it is true that some people succeed as academics because they are brilliant, it is also true that plenty succeed because they lack the smarts to realize how mediocre and uninteresting their work is and thus are able to pump out a steady stream of it. It’s the people in the middle who can’t hack it.
Yeah, this sort of reminds me of last month's "liberals support wealth redistribution within political communities, so they should also support seizing Saudi oil fields."
Yeah, this sort of reminds me of last month's "liberals support wealth redistribution within political communities, so they should also support seizing Saudi oil fields."
No, don't you see? The reason these things seem so insanely dishonest is that we have no sense of humor. Whenever they get called on shit like this the response is "lighten up, guys".
Even mealy-mouthed nods to my existence as a human being beat being the favored scapegoat of an entire end of the spectrum. Even half-felt endorsements of my basic humanity create a more positive environment than arguing publicly that I am no better than somebody who fucks a box turtle.
Mary Cheney has chosen to make Christmas and Thanksgiving more comfortable than they might have been at the expense of some part of her human dignity, and it is that simple.
On the other hand, I am someone who is in favor of outing politicians and other public figures who make homophobia and the branding of the queer community as 2nd-class citizens a central part of their persona, so I am not exactly neutral on this issue. I have no sympathy for her. People can bitch and moan about Kerry bringing it up in the debate, or about Mary Cheney being publicly criticized for publicly abandoning a part of herself in order to help beef up dad's retirement portfolio, and that's all very nice. When it's all said and done, however, I will take more self-righteously petty pleasure from exacting some small revenge from those who would hide behind a false identity in order to reap their own rewards at my expense than I would garner self-righteous nobility from just pretending those people aren't huge assholes who deserve to be talked about and criticized, at length, in every public forum available.
Pointing out someone's hypocrisy is, yes, using the bigotry of the other side against itself. Not using those bigots won't make them go away, however, and if the issue that hangs in the balance is whether someone is going to hold office who will at least say he respects me and my boyfriend or that the person who holds office will be someone who actively works to classify me and my boyfriend as someone to blame for everything, I will use whatever tools are available to defend myself.
(Sorry, I guess I'm commenting on two threads at once.)
It's funny - I spent a while thinking of a response, but decided to look for that jpeg of Reynolds with the I HEART COCK shirt instead on the assumption that this would be far more fulfilling.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 6:18 PM
Reynolds depresses me.
He's a law professor, and therefore employed in the academy, and I probably will never be. Either,
1) I am smarter than he, and therefore I must despair at the state of the academy; or,
2) I am dumber than he, in which case I probably should slit my wrists 'cause I'm wasting oxygen.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 6:19 PM
The set of issues which a particular gay person cares about isn't co-extensive with "position on gay marriage," nor even issues explicitly about gay people at all.
Holding "the same fundamental position" ≠ advocating for or being willing to sign the same laws/
Isn't it dogma for conservatives (small-government conservatives, that is) that one's moral beliefs about whether or not aid to impoverished people is a moral imperaitve tells one nothing about whether or not government should be the institution which takes care of that imperative? Doesn't Glenn Reynolds purport to be in favor of small government on domestic issues?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 6:28 PM
2: If I've learned anything in my years in the workforce, it is that smarts correlate only rarely with advancement.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 6:30 PM
ding ding ding! W/D IDs my two:
(1) conflating "gay marriage" with "gay issues generally" and
(2) conflating content with intensity of support.
Both of those seem pretty bad. Aren't layers notoriously jesuitical?
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 6:32 PM
While they may have held the same position on gay marriage, they certainly didn't hold the same position on civil unions. Also, Mary Cheney sucks.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 6:32 PM
Dude, Cala, don’t despair.
First, becoming a law professor isn’t that hard. It mostly requires getting very good grades at an elite law school, and taking full advantage of the doors opened up by those grades. That’s not a cakewalk, but it is in a different stratosphere than writing a job-landing dissertation.
Second, while it is true that some people succeed as academics because they are brilliant, it is also true that plenty succeed because they lack the smarts to realize how mediocre and uninteresting their work is and thus are able to pump out a steady stream of it. It’s the people in the middle who can’t hack it.
Posted by pjs | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 6:33 PM
Lawyers. Plus we've got the ToS. Crap.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 6:34 PM
I thought it was
1. The D's position on gay marriage is the same as the R's;
2. Honest bigotry is better than mealy-mouthed justice.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 6:35 PM
And I'm gloriously drunk.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 6:36 PM
Also, there's a pretty big difference between not being in favor of gay marriage and advocating a constitutional amendment to prevent it.
Posted by Bailey | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 6:41 PM
And I'm gloriously drunk
But do you have hands?
Posted by Stanley | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 6:41 PM
The 2001? Worth the money.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 6:42 PM
Oh, and roasted turnips? The bomb.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 6:44 PM
I only have hands for you, Stanley.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 6:45 PM
Oh, apo. You can roast my turnips anytime.
Posted by Stanley | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 6:48 PM
The last time this happened, I ended up with a nipple burned into my retina. Tonight ends in sorrow for all, I just know it.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 6:50 PM
Apparently if you're gay, you're only allowed to support Democrats, whatever they say about gay marriage.
Apparently if you're a loyal American, you're only allowed to support Republicans, whatever they say about any damn fool thing.
Somebody else better comment soon or I'm going to morph into M/tch. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 6:50 PM
Yeah, this sort of reminds me of last month's "liberals support wealth redistribution within political communities, so they should also support seizing Saudi oil fields."
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 6:57 PM
Somebody else better comment soon or I'm going to morph into M/tch.
I'm not so sure I would recommend it, but of course YMMV.
On second thought, you'd probably end up doing it better than m/e, and that would like totally suck. So don't. Please.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 6:57 PM
Hey apo, did you buy the Chapel Hill because you thought it was local? Tell the truth.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 7:00 PM
No, I'm well acquainted with the Chapel Hill Winery.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 7:02 PM
But don't you think it's kind of dishonest of them to label themselves like that?
Stinking duplicitous Aussies!
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 7:18 PM
Yeah, this sort of reminds me of last month's "liberals support wealth redistribution within political communities, so they should also support seizing Saudi oil fields."
No, don't you see? The reason these things seem so insanely dishonest is that we have no sense of humor. Whenever they get called on shit like this the response is "lighten up, guys".
Posted by tom | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 7:30 PM
Did I mention I'm silly?
Posted by shank | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 7:33 PM
And I'm gloriously drunk.
SHOW YOUR TITS! SHOW YOUR TITS!
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 7:34 PM
BOTH OF THEM! BOTH OF THEM!
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 7:35 PM
Apo emailed me to say "only if Mitch shows his petit baguette."
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 7:42 PM
Even Ezra Pound would've called Reynolds a bitch.
Honest bigotry is better than mealy-mouthed justice.
IME, that's actually the reason behind a lot of support for the current Republican Party. PJ O'Rourke's made a career as an "honest bigot."
I often wonder what Mary Cheney says to her partner about all this.
Posted by Paul | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 7:57 PM
They call me Vanilla Pudding, and they tell me to kick it.
SHOW YOUR TITS!
Dude, I'm tired. Noah's got my tits. Imagine them with curly red hair on them.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 8:03 PM
Apo emailed me to say "only if Mitch shows his petit baguette."
Deal.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 8:05 PM
I'm silly!
Posted by ...................... | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 8:08 PM
I also have a rare picture of Labs constructing his Edward Baguette-Hands costume.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 8:10 PM
I'm not sure who this is, but he's pretty talented.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 8:19 PM
Waka waka.
Posted by noir | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 8:28 PM
33 is one of the best things ever.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 8:58 PM
(Helps probably that I read it while the Jerry Springer episode of Whose Line is it Anyway is playing in the background.)
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 8:59 PM
36 gets it exactly right.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 9:10 PM
Meanwhile, the Eurovision contest is much more entertaining than Glenn Harlan Reynolds and it's going on right now!
Iceland's Silvia Night is awesomely, eye-gougingly over the top.
Posted by Paul | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 9:13 PM
FL wrote:
"Aren't layers notoriously jesuitical?"
No, that's the fryers.
Posted by Dr Paisley | Link to this comment | 05-15-06 11:41 PM
Even mealy-mouthed nods to my existence as a human being beat being the favored scapegoat of an entire end of the spectrum. Even half-felt endorsements of my basic humanity create a more positive environment than arguing publicly that I am no better than somebody who fucks a box turtle.
Mary Cheney has chosen to make Christmas and Thanksgiving more comfortable than they might have been at the expense of some part of her human dignity, and it is that simple.
On the other hand, I am someone who is in favor of outing politicians and other public figures who make homophobia and the branding of the queer community as 2nd-class citizens a central part of their persona, so I am not exactly neutral on this issue. I have no sympathy for her. People can bitch and moan about Kerry bringing it up in the debate, or about Mary Cheney being publicly criticized for publicly abandoning a part of herself in order to help beef up dad's retirement portfolio, and that's all very nice. When it's all said and done, however, I will take more self-righteously petty pleasure from exacting some small revenge from those who would hide behind a false identity in order to reap their own rewards at my expense than I would garner self-righteous nobility from just pretending those people aren't huge assholes who deserve to be talked about and criticized, at length, in every public forum available.
Pointing out someone's hypocrisy is, yes, using the bigotry of the other side against itself. Not using those bigots won't make them go away, however, and if the issue that hangs in the balance is whether someone is going to hold office who will at least say he respects me and my boyfriend or that the person who holds office will be someone who actively works to classify me and my boyfriend as someone to blame for everything, I will use whatever tools are available to defend myself.
(Sorry, I guess I'm commenting on two threads at once.)
Posted by Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 05-16-06 1:13 PM
Hear, hear.
(The box turtle thing really worried me. I mean, what could you actually do to a box turtle, other than sort of rub it on yourself?)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-16-06 1:17 PM
Am I misremembering, or was it Edwards who brought it up, in his debate with Cheney?
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05-16-06 1:18 PM
They both did, Edwards more smoothly than Kerry.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-16-06 1:23 PM
I can get behind 41.
Only in the most manly way possible, of course.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-16-06 1:30 PM
Oh, LB, don't ask that! Apo might have a link!
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05-16-06 1:34 PM
Or Ben. I still can't believe I clicked on that chicken-link at work. (I'm also astonished that the net-nanny software let it through.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-16-06 1:46 PM
It's an occupational hazard (of the net-nanny software). Over time, it develops … predilections.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05-16-06 1:54 PM
I mean, what could you actually do to a box turtle, other than sort of rub it on yourself?
Stand firm the resplendant ham, for tomorrow brings another form of peacock.
(Please see your local resistance cell leader for today's decryption code. Only Class II-A rebels are issued decoder rings as standard equipment.)
Posted by Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 05-16-06 2:24 PM
47: Wolfson is the new apostropher.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-16-06 3:06 PM