Bloodless Coup

Somehow I have the sense to figure out that if this were a Democrat senator, you'd talk about the right wing's hate crusade against teh gays, violating civil rights by profiling and cracking down only on gay men. But why no mention of that when it's a Republican, only a "Who's next in line?"

Uh, because lots and lots and lots of other blogs have mentioned that this is a ridiculous waste of police resources, and of course it is, but since lots and lots and lots of other blogs have noted that ... is there some reason that I have to do that too?

I just thought the choral group thing was kind of funny (and I hadn't seen it noted elsewhere).

Plus, there is a real difference between exposing hypocrisy in power and using power to oppress. While the case of Craig in the individual sense is extremely sad... the person is so self-loathing and pathetic, however his actions taken in the context of his politics and the politics of his party (check Craig's voting record on gay issues, and see what it looks like) illustrate the untenable position he and his party have long occupied. I thought Armand's use of satire, throwing the stereotype back in their faces, was both on point and amusing. Schadenfreude

I'm with Kurtz on this one. It's a dumb case, and it was a dumb arrest, made interesting only because of the R next to this turkey's name.

And I think I'm with Morris, too.

yeah (echoing binky), you can't just run this symmetrically, morris, when the circumstance is asymmetrical. i don't care -- as is true of everyone i know on the left -- who is gay or straight or whatever in between. i only care that they adhere to the principles that they espouse. if someone has made political hay for a decade about denying gays basic civil rights (and i'm not talking just about those who have pounded the podium unabashedly, but also those who have voted consistently more measures favored by the hate-mongers among their constituents in ways designed to disadvantage the gays, which encompasses a great deal of the right, sadly), and he or she turns out to be gay, then he or she deserves to be flagged as a hypocrite, plain and simple. show me a dem who rails against gays but is one, and i'll say the same thing, but you're going to have trouble with the first part of that equation, hence the asymmetry.

(double bonus points for those who've equated homosexuality with sexual deviancy but have turned out to be homosexuals who engage in behavior that even liberals would tend to think of as at least vaguely deviant.)

that doesn't mean dems don't go in for scrutiny in other areas, and i've called dems hypocrites before and i'll do so again. but while i'm leery of the pithy generalization that a rabid homophobe is probably a self-loathing gay, i have to admit, no one has made a better case for its potential kernel of truth than the handful of right-wing legislators and preachers who've been caught with their pants down in the past few years.

"One way to think about awe/[responsiveness to beauty and excellence] is as the opposite of schadenfreude (joy in another’s failure or misfortune). We might even coin the term tugendfreude (joy in another’s virtue) to refer to the taking of pleasure in the skills, virtues, and successes of others. Awe/RBE might then be thought of as encompassing both aesthetic sensitivity and tugendfreude."
--Jonathan Haidt and Dacher Keltner

Bearing in mind that on this particular issue I do not disagree, yet your response exemplifies the untenable liberal position on values, "Nothing anyone desires to be but is not can ever be valued because the presence of its absence implies self loathing." If life is a process of becoming and overcoming, then it is exactly the absence of the good that is sin qua non, for without a time in which a person is limited, without a time in which they are without whatever good they desire, they may never experience limitlessness and a sense of achievement. Were the world truly experienced without contrasts and distinctions your approach might be workable, but then it would be purgatory:

Lois: This isn't bad... it's not that good, but y'know... it's not that bad.
Brian: It's so-so.
Peter: Yeah... more or less...

That's an utterly ridiculous assertion - and while an extremely tiny handful of truly tiresome types (perhaps the sort who are more likely to be Naderites or MacKinnons or whatever) might believe it, I don't know anyone who does.

Odd, my comment about schadenfreude was truncated. It said something to the effect of: Schadenfreude is hardly new, and while not pleasant, an entirely human response to those who have used their power to deny others' aspirations (in this case to things like protection from hate crimes and marriage).

Like it or not, the reaction to someone who has a history - dating back decades - of hushing up stories about his own orientation while demonizing it in others, is an expression of feelings in an "aha!" moment. Whether it is useful, desirable or productive is another question, which, of course, Morris has his own answer to above.

p.s. Barney Frank.

Oh dear. The Brazilian papers have picked up the Craig story: Ja ouviu falar do Brokeback Bathroom?

Yeah, Savage gave me a laugh a few days ago when he pondered what tune Craig was tapping his toes to, started playing Gene Autry's Back in the Saddle Again, then started listening to the lyrics and wondering about Gene Autry.

The restroom foot action and hand motions -- we all know what that stuff means. Craig is a liar and damn hypocrite. As Michael Jackson would say, "Welcome to Neverland."

There's a good argument to be made that Craig isn't a "hypocrite" at all: he thinks gays, and gay sex, should be driven underground and kept out of polite society, and he has treated his own gay self in exactly that way.

So he's the leader the masochists of America should unite behind, eh? Interesting thought.

Not sure about masochists. Self-haters, maybe?

Surely everyone here has heard tell of the down low and other cultural contexts in which men who have sex with men don't define themselves as gay. That's why some anti-AIDS efforts have started trying to reach out to "men who have sex with men" as opposed to gay men. In my former country of residence, it was widely accepted that as long as you (the man) were not on the receiving end of anal sex, you were not gay. Period. Even if you penetrated other men regularly. So, who knows what Craig believes, whether sub-cultural or self-delusional. Or self-loathingal.