April 2, 2013

"This morning's David Brooks column on same-sex marriage was one of the weirdest, most mean-spirited things I've ever seen in The New York Times."

"Entitled 'Freedom Loses One,' the article is a sarcastic broadside against... well, against something, though it's not clear exactly which of the many post-Sixties permissive-society hobgoblins Brooks hates is the real target here."

Says Matt Taibbi, in Rolling Stone.

213 comments:

1 – 200 of 213   Newer›   Newest»
Patrick said...

Matt Taibbi commenting on David Brooks is like Bart Simpson commenting on Homer Simpson.

bpm4532 said...

I don't react that way. He's trying to make a point that there shouldn't be gay marriage, there should be something different that better suits the needs of a different type of relationship. Unfortunately, most people are so emotionally tied up in "winning" the argument for gay marriage that they fail to be "long-headed" about it.

Big Mike said...

"Marriage restricts freedom?"

I guess Sarah doesn't proof-read his columns before they're published.

wyo sis said...

I don't think either one of them knows what they're talking about.

bagoh20 said...

"Marriage restricts freedom?"

That is the point of it.

Rob said...

The Brooks column was "one of the most mean-spirited things I've ever seen in The New York Times," according to Taibbi. From this, we can infer that Taibbi never read the Times's editorials vilifying George W. Bush and George Romney.

Guimo said...

Homosexual "marriage' is a canard.
It flies against the laws of nature. It glorifies homosexuality, which should merely be tolerated. It opens the door to legal attacks against the Catholic Church.

AJ Lynch said...

Taibbi, a librul icon, must be really dense.

edutcher said...

Maybe the Gray Lady has looked at the real polls and figures it's time to start prepping the battlespace so, when the air goes out of the Great Gay Revolution of '13, it really isn't the Gotterdammerung it really is.

YoungHegelian said...

Taibbi misses it entirely. What a surprise!

Brooks isn't denigrating SSM. He's not being mean-spirited about anything as far as I can tell.

He's commenting, accurately I think, on how the gay rights movement has taken two causes on itself (marriage & military service) which, on their face, militate against the idea of the movement as being based on "libertine" behavior. Both causes point to a movement that seeks to embrace its sense of responsibility to the mores of the larger society. Do I necessarily agree with his observation? No, but it's not outrageous.

Is Taibbi so historically clueless that he doesn't see the historical forces of "embourgeoisation" at work on the gay liberation movement? 40 years ago its adherents would have spit at the idea of marriage, as did many progressive hets. This is no secret among gay activists who are old enough to remember when.

chickelit said...

Marriage restricts freedom?

But won't the Dan Savages just say that once they've gotten the foisted legal status they can work to undermine the fidelity part and loosen the "restrictions" of marriage? That's the cynical ruse.

bagoh20 said...

"The Brooks column was "one of the most mean-spirited things I've ever seen in The New York Times,"

Ooooh, it must be really really bad.

I'd like to ask Taibbi what the meanest article he ever saw was that he agreed with, and then compare the two.

Richard Dolan said...

Taibbi missed the point completely. Brooks was suggesting, not all that subtly, that SSM is an agenda that embraces and advances traditionally conservative values. He sees SSM, and the end of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, as the triumph of communitarian responsibility over selfish libertinism. Agree or not as you will, it was about as far from a mean spirited attack on gays as you could get. Brooks was writing to those who presumptively oppose SSM, using classically conservative premises, to suggest that their opposition was ill-considered.

YoungHegelian said...

@chickelit,

But won't the Dan Savages just say that once they've gotten the foisted legal status they can work to undermine the fidelity part and loosen the "restrictions" of marriage?

I agree that some like Dan Savage are playing that game. But, from Brooks point of view it doesn't matter.

Marriage is a legal contract. When you break it, the courts take over. And, gays who think they're going to subvert family court/law are going to find out what the phrase "fucked up the ass" really means.

rhhardin said...

Rolling Stone fighting with the NYT should just be entertainment.

Who is the most high-minded, would be the stakes.

Inga said...

We've heard all that and even more mean spirited crap here at Althouse, in the comments section. I wonder if Matt Taibbi ever reads Althouse.

bagoh20 said...

Why write a whole column, when just calling Brooks a bigot would do? Oh yea, he gets paid by the word.

MadisonMan said...

I don't think either one of them knows what they're talking about.

And they're both paid by the word. What could go wrong?

bagoh20 said...

"I wonder if Matt Taibbi ever reads Althouse."

I'm sure the NYT is as far out of the liberal box as he goes. Still pretty courageous of him.

Quayle said...

Here is my "post gay-marriage" workaround to the federal gift tax and income tax.

Say you want to give $3M to your friend. But you also don't want to pay the gift tax and he doesn't want to pay income tax.

Solution: marry your friend.

Let's say you live in Texas. The money becomes community property, and either your friend can spend it out of the communal pot, or you can both decide to convey it to your friend's personal separate property and it remains with him after the marriage.

Then you get divorced.

Done.

How is the government ever going to call it a sham?

Because you never had sex with your friend?

But the government isn't allowed into the bedroom to check on the kind of sex you ARE having. How can the government claim a right to come into the bedroom to see if you ever HAD sex?

This is but one example how we're at a tipping point of our current superstructure of law coming entirely unglued.

rcocean said...

Poor David, not liberal and dumb enough for Rolling Stone.

chickelit said...

I wonder if Matt Taibbi ever reads Althouse.

I hope so. He's been an absolute asshole regarding Sarah Palin and I'd love see him meet some real push back.

rcocean said...

I doubt is Matt reads anything to the Right of the NYT. Hence, his shock at how "mean-spirited" David Brooks is.

Methadras said...

When you seek to equalize something against something else, it invariably becomes lesser. Like the old saying, When you try to be everything to everyone, you end up being nothing to no one. That's what will happen here and the fools don't care.

Methadras said...

When you seek to equalize something against something else, it invariably becomes lesser. Like the old saying, When you try to be everything to everyone, you end up being nothing to no one. That's what will happen here and the fools don't care.

Lem said...

This whole same-sex marriage issue is much less about freedom than it is about justice. This is about a group of people wanting to be fully recognized as citizens, with absolutely equal rights, who among other things no longer want to subsidize the tax-advantaged marriages of straight people like Brooks.

So, Matt Taibbi is saying that marring for the right to tax advantages (amoung other reasons) and not love, the sacrificing of the self for the other, is a more ennobling reason for wanting to marry?

What a tool... no wander SSM is going to succeed... Nobody has a clue as to what it is to begin with...

Brooks struck a nerve and Matt Taibbi is saying... ouch!

Or is it possible that Brooks is wrong again... it is a sport around here, spotting his blunders.

Broomhandle said...

Rolling Stone has always been leftish of course, but many years ago it was at least worth reading. Now, like so many of the young contrarians of my youth, it's writers are just a bunch of goose-stepping reactionary clowns.

Lem said...

rh.

Chip Ahoy said...

The whole time I was reading Brooks, which I wouldn't have done under natural conditions, I was thinking a similar thing to what he is on about. The voluntary choosing of limiting freedom, because it's too much to handle, such as firearms with the word "assault" in them.

That is, why would our leading political Parties, and the people who vote for them, lead us so far from slavery just to corral us back into by the unbearable burden of unpayable debt, and Look then to their children, grandchildren, and beyond to repair today's decisions.

Why do they behave so irresponsibly and as if that does not matter?

Why do they behave as if money grows on trees, then print it to prove money really does grow on trees, and nothing diluted by that?

It is perplexing.

It was discouraging and heart breaking spectacle to see voters insist on having government force them to purchase what they already decided is not their priority. They said as a block, "Make me do the right thing." Even when they already know they'll have less service for more cost due to their unreasoned distaste for the word "profit."

So there, I don't care for Brooks and do not usually read his opinion, were it not for you, Honey, you're the only reason I did, there is no value for me there, and care even less for anyone bent on misreading him.

bagoh20 said...

"How is the government ever going to call it a sham?

Because you never had sex with your friend?"


I think for $3 million he'll let me screw him once.

Marshal said...

But, if it wins, same-sex marriage will be a victory for the good life, which is about living in a society that induces you to narrow your choices and embrace your obligations.

I think his point is: you got what you wanted, don't prove your opponents correct by treating the conventions of marriage as disposable.

Taibbi isn't worth discussing.

Bob R said...

Brooks vs. Taibbi. This is sort of like the old Iraq/Iran war, isn't it? Except I would have clicked through to articles about Iraq and Iran.

Patrick said...

Matt Taibbi commenting on David Brooks is like Bart Simpson commenting on Homer Simpson.

edutcher said...

Inga said...

We've heard all that and even more mean spirited crap here at Althouse, in the comments section.

Yes, someone ought to do something about the She Devil of the SS and her friends.

Bob R said...

Brooks vs. Taibbi. This is sort of like the old Iraq/Iran war, isn't it?

I was thinking Barbarossa.

Would the German be more offensive or the Russians more repulsive?

AprilApple said...

I am thrilled Brooks is pissing off liberals for a change.

Revenant said...

one of the weirdest, most mean-spirited things I've ever seen

Irony, thy name is Taibbi.

Nini said...


"Marriage restricts freedom?"
----------------------------

That is the point of it



If true then marriage for homosexuals is irrelevant.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Are we absolutely certain that we oughtn't to take into consideration that this was published on April 1?

AprilApple said...

Dear David Brooks,
Your NYT Op-ed does not pass the politically correct progressive group think test. It will now be purged for your own good to spare you any further embarrassment. Asshole!
Sincerely,
--Progressive Supremacist Committee Chair Beta Matt Taibbi
Our motto: Community, Identity, Stability

Lem said...

I used to hear this refrain from heteros (who didn't care for the whole marriage vows thing).... "I don't need no stinking piece of paper to tell me I love my wife".

Come to think of it... only heteros said that... this SSM thing is brand new.

Methadras said...

Inga said...

We've heard all that and even more mean spirited crap here at Althouse, in the comments section. I wonder if Matt Taibbi ever reads Althouse.


Oh Inga, you poor bulgy-eyed wino of Althouse. People are such meanie faces to you. All that limp-wristed hand flapping at how mean everyone is. Poor poor dear. Here, have another sip of pino. There there, all better now.

bagoh20 said...

"If true then marriage for homosexuals is irrelevant."

Now we're getting somewhere.

Lem said...

I think his point is: you got what you wanted, don't prove your opponents correct by treating the conventions of marriage as disposable.

Right.

AprilApple said...

I used to know this really great guy in the Boston area. He was gay and he lived with his long-time partner. He used to say to me- "why the fuck would I want to get married!? I like my unconventional life just the way it is."

Revenant said...

say you want to give $3M to your friend. But you also don't want to pay the gift tax and he doesn't want to pay income tax. Solution: marry your friend.

Where's the problem? Anything people can do to get around the death tax and gift tax sounds great to me.

That being said, the IRS will go after you if you try something like that, just like they'd go after you if you tried the same stunt with a female friend. At the very least you'd have to stay married long enough to allay their suspicions, and there are all manner of problems associated with that.

Saint Croix said...

First of all, gays and lesbians are not asking to be forced into marriage – they're actually campaigning for a new legal choice they didn't have before.

Wow, Taibbi's an idiot.

So technically speaking, they are campaigning for more freedoms, and Brooks's argument is already fatally screwed.

Irony-impaired, humor-impaired, clueless. Taibbi is so dumb he makes Brooks seem smart by comparison.

This whole same-sex marriage issue is much less about freedom than it is about justice. This is about a group of people wanting to be fully recognized as citizens...

Taibbi is so sanctimonious that I think it's Brooks' tone that annoys him. Taibbi wants a civil rights march, he wants Martin Luther King, he wants to sing we shall overcome, he wants the drama of good versus evil. He wants Bull Connor to release the dogs. He wants to blow up the death star. So he's mad that Brooks is not playing the role.

What an asshole!

Brooks is not opposed to SSM. He thinks it will be a good thing for gay people. It will make them more responsible, and thus better people.

Taibbi is apoplectic. How dare you support SSM for the wrong reasons! And yet, back in the day, many gay people mocked the idea of gay marriage precisely because marriage was supposed to reform gay people. See, for instance, Andrew Sullivan's original article proposing gay marriage. Brooks is making the same points that Sullivan was making twenty years ago.

Was Taibbi arguing for gay marriage twenty years ago? It's amazing, and kind of embarrassing, how Taibbi is unable to remember the past, or think outside his little box. When did Taibbi start supporting gay marriage, six months ago?

Inga said...

Meth are you insane?

Why yes, you are.

Nini said...

Quayle: Here is my "post gay-marriage" workaround to the federal gift tax and income tax.

Say you want to give $3M to your friend. But you also don't want to pay the gift tax and he doesn't want to pay income tax.

Solution: marry your friend.



What about disentangling the institution of marriage from taxation and treat everyone as individuals for taxation purposes. Maybe that will reduce calls for legalization of homosexual marriage.

Freeman Hunt said...

"He wrote about gay marriage and a bunch of other stuff I couldn't quite make out, but it didn't seem positive because 'obligation' and something about restricting freedom were in it, so obviously I'm hacked off."

bagoh20 said...

I'm hoping I can eventually serial marry all my family members and close friends to avoid the gift tax and estate tax. Even better, I could marry them all simultaneously, have a big wedding, hand out checks, and drink myself to death right there. Woohoo! They would love me so much for that, as they hand me drink after drink with enthusiastic toasts. "To your health!"

Methadras said...

Inga said...

Meth are you insane?

Why yes, you are.


rofl, you are so fucking stupid that you make me laugh at how fuck stupid you are.

Lem said...

Rex: My wife has me between a rock and a hard place.

Miles Massey: That's her job. You should respect that.

Intolerable Cruelty (2003)

Writ Small said...

Brooks is making a point similar to one I made here days ago.

Any never-married straight man or woman in their 20's or 30's gets to hear their parents and assorted relatives continuously ask them when they're going to settle down and get married.

Welcome to our world, good gay people.

Lem said...

Freeman.

Patrick said...

I think Taibbi was potty training 20 years ago.

Revenant said...

He used to say to me- "why the fuck would I want to get married!? I like my unconventional life just the way it is."

You don't have to be currently interested in an option to be interested in having the option. After all, feelings do change.

That's why we have laws allowing for divorce. :)

Inga said...

Yes, we all know you are nuts Meth, you don't need to convince anyone, it's ok, we get it. Perhaps you would enjoy basket weaving in room 112?

Revenant said...

So technically speaking, they are campaigning for more freedoms

Technically speaking, they are campaigning for more government benefits. They already have the freedom to marry; they just don't get any of the special benefits and legal protections the government gives out to licensed marriages.

Shouting Thomas said...

Drifting

Drifting
On a sea of forgotten teardrops
On a lifeboat
Sailing for
Your love

Sailing home

Drifting
On a sea of old heartbreaks
On a lifeboat
Sailing for
Your love
Sailing home

traditionalguy said...

Matt Taibbi is a good writer who usually clearly sees both sides to the arguments and then takes the wrong side. But heck, that's a breath of fresh air compared to the inane, twisted David Brooksisms.

garage mahal said...

I think Taibbi was potty training 20 years ago.

20 yrs ago Taibbi was writing about greed and corruption for a newspaper in Moscow. A seamless fit segueing into writing often about Wall Street.

edutcher said...

Methadras said...

Meth are you insane?

Why yes, you are.


rofl, you are so fucking stupid that you make me laugh at how fuck stupid you are.


Sounds like the Alinsky crowd is using the she Devil of the SS to test a new approach (actually, it's the old approach) to people who tell the trolls exactly what they are.

Methadras said...

Inga said...

Yes, we all know you are nuts Meth, you don't need to convince anyone, it's ok, we get it. Perhaps you would enjoy basket weaving in room 112?


please, continue on the same rant of you unoriginal thought stream of running pus. Your ever present, shallow, simple minded thinking that is stewed in some form of liquor based mind fart is always entertaining. You calling my nuts or insane is like a mouse calling a cat about to eat him as evil. Please cry more like you usually do with nonsense. You never fail to entertain me.

AprilApple said...

Chip Ahoy @8:49

"It was discouraging and heart breaking spectacle to see voters insist on having government force them to purchase what they already decided is not their priority. They said as a block, "Make me do the right thing." Even when they already know they'll have less service for more cost due to their unreasoned distaste for the word "profit."


Beautiful and right on the money.

Nini said...

Taibbi: This whole same-sex marriage issue is much less about freedom than it is about justice. This is about a group of people wanting to be fully recognized as citizens...


Let's ask Taibbi if that applies to the pederasts, polygamist, polyarmorist, and necrophiliacs.

Lem said...

Taibbi says..

It's more like this: Once America accepted that gay people exist, giving them full and equal rights became a foregone conclusion for all decent people.

Who gives what to who?

You see that what he does there?

Liberals self appoint as enablers and guarantors of rights and freedoms and then they turn around, as Chip points out, and try to take away those kinds of freedoms they don't like.

Inga said...

Meth, I would ask what YOU are drinking, or what substance you are taking, because you obviously do not realize what you sound like to normal people.

Saint Croix said...

Google "Larry Craig" sometime if you want to see how liberals really feel about gay people. It's like listening to liberals talk about Sarah Palin or Clarence Thomas. All their buried pathologies come out in a flood of venom and hate.

And they're not just hating on Republicans here. The vitriol aimed at Palin was aimed specifically at her gender. The attacks on Thomas are based on his race. Craig was routinely mocked and scorned for being gay.

edutcher said...

Nini said...

Taibbi: This whole same-sex marriage issue is much less about freedom than it is about justice. This is about a group of people wanting to be fully recognized as citizens...


Let's ask Taibbi if that applies to the pederasts, polygamist, polyarmorist, and necrophiliacs.


Don't forget the Incest Isn't Icky crowd and the bunny huggers.

wyo sis said...

I'm 100% for justice for everyone. This and other threads make me think that not everyone is.

Revenant said...

20 yrs ago Taibbi was writing about greed and corruption for a newspaper in Moscow

That's a euphemistic way of putting it. The paper was published in Moscow so they could avoid getting sued for libel. In the United States, libel law requires that you knowingly print false information to harm someone -- the only reason to fear libel suits here is if you're planning to print false information on a regular basis.

So a better way of describing his career in Moscow would be "he made his living by telling malicious lies about people who couldn't do anything about it". :)

Shouting Thomas said...

It's absolutely fascinating to watch our society tear itself to pieces in an orgy of sexual and racial hatred.

I really think we are past the point of no return. We seem doomed to rip each other to pieces in our bloodlust.

We are living through a time of drama on a Biblical level. In some bizarre and incomprehensible way, the attack on the WTC was the landmark event that unleashed the furies and brought everything crashing down.

Methadras said...

Inga said...

Meth, I would ask what YOU are drinking, or what substance you are taking, because you obviously do not realize what you sound like to normal people.


Listen you imbecile. I rarely drink, i smoke cigars on occasion and I don't do drugs. So get back to your usual habit of downing some cheap boxes of wine per night and get back showing us what an insipid moronic thinker you are. It's what you do best.

Libertarian Advocate said...

Shouting Thomas: I hate to admit it, but I do think you may be right.

Lem said...

In Taibbi's world if you have a different opinion on SSM you are indecent.

He doesn't even realize that he is undermining the very thing he is supposedly standing up for... tolerance, equanimity, peace, love and understanding.

The best song Costello ever recorded... he didn't write it.

Marshal said...

Inga said...
Meth, I would ask what YOU are drinking, or what substance you are taking, because you obviously do not realize what you sound like to normal people.


Pot-kettle.

chickelit said...

I really think we are past the point of no return.

In the words of Merle Haggard: "Are we rolling downhill like a snowball headed for hell?"

Saint Croix said...

This morning's David Brooks column on same-sex marriage was one of the weirdest, most mean-spirited things I've ever seen in The New York Times."

Is Matt Taibbi Amish? Maybe he's just used to a G-rated, Disney world, and so the rough and savage prose of David Brooks sent him for a loop.

But gosh, then I googled Matt Taibbi. I don't believe he's Amish at all! It's almost like he's got a mean spirit or something.

I have to say, I’m really enjoying this whole teabag thing. It’s really inspiring some excellent daydreaming. For one thing, it’s brought together the words teabag and Michelle Malkin for me in a very powerful, thrilling sort of way. Not that I haven’t ever put those two concepts together before, but this is the first time it’s happened while in the process of reading her actual columns.

Previously Michelle Malkin’s writing was on the edge of unreadable; she’s sort of like Ann Coulter, only without that tiny fraction of P.T. Barnum/Mick Jagger-esque self-promotional flair that makes Coulter at least vaguely interesting. When you read Ann Coulter, you know you’re reading someone who would fuck a hippopotamus if she thought it would boost her Q rating. That’s a rare quality and it commands one’s attention.

Michelle Malkin doesn’t have that. She’s just a mean little dunce who’s wedged herself into a nicely paying career as a GOP spokesclown, and she’s going to ride that gig for as long as it keeps gas in her minivan.

And that’s fine, good for her. But that doesn’t make her readable. However, this move of hers to spearhead the teabag movement really adds an element to her writing that wasn’t there before. Now when I read her stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth. It vastly improves her prose.

chickelit said...

In Taibbi's world if you have a different opinion on SSM you are indecent.

Was Taibbi paraphrasing Althouse?

Revenant said...

In Taibbi's world if you have a different opinion on SSM you are indecent.

You could replace Taibbi's name with that of most of the SSM opponents who comment here, really.

William said...

Ir's not enough that Brooks is in favor of gay marriage, he has to be in favor of gay marriage for the right reasons. It' all very discouraging. Those who think that gay issues will be on the back burner after the gay marriage issue is resolved are destined for disappointment. It's like thinking that the election of Obama would remove or even diminish racial issues in this country......If you want mean-spirited, check out the comments section to Taibbi's column. A lot of Taibbi's readers apparently believe that Brooks is a closeted homosexual and that's why he is advancing his arguments.

Inga said...

Then dear poor Meth, you are indeed insane. Your behavior is not normal.

Unknown said...

Mean spirited like whe Matt Talbi said of Andrew Breutbart's death "fuck him, I couldn't be happier that he's dead"? Like that?

Unknown said...

Mean spirited like whe Matt Talbi said of Andrew Breutbart's death "fuck him, I couldn't be happier that he's dead"? Like that?

Unknown said...

Mean spirited like whe Matt Talbi said of Andrew Breutbart's death "fuck him, I couldn't be happier that he's dead"? Like that?

chickelit said...

Revenant said: You could replace Taibbi's name with that of most of the SSM opponents who comment here, really.

Ann Althouse said: How did the gay rights movement go from nothing to some kind of joke to damned near what all decent people think? That has happened before your eyes. link

edutcher said...

Shouting Thomas said...

We are living through a time of drama on a Biblical level. In some bizarre and incomprehensible way, the attack on the WTC was the landmark event that unleashed the furies and brought everything crashing down.

Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.

Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?

Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.

Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.

Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!

Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...

Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!

chickelit said...

@revenant: Is "what all decent people think" an exclusive Venn bubble with the implication that if you don't share that opinion you're indecent? That's certainly the way I read it at the time.

It's audacious, and judgmental.

Shouting Thomas said...

The attack on the fathers that began in the 60s has produced astonishing chaos and destruction.

To my eternal discredit, I played a role in that attack on the fathers. What I would do to be able to travel back in time and change that.

When we started that attack on tradition and the fathers, we claimed that we only wanted people to question those traditions. 50 years later, every tradition is under attack, assumed to be entirely arbitary and built on discrimination and bigotry.

As a result, the wisdom of the fathers has been lost. I fear that that wisdom will only be recovered in the ashes of our self-destruction.

Dante said...

Once, gay culture was erroneously associated with bathhouses and nightclubs.

That's why Feinstein shut down the Gay Bathhouses in SF to stop the spread of AIDs. Oh, wait.

Derek Brown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Methadras said...

Shouting Thomas said...

It's absolutely fascinating to watch our society tear itself to pieces in an orgy of sexual and racial hatred.

I really think we are past the point of no return. We seem doomed to rip each other to pieces in our bloodlust.

We are living through a time of drama on a Biblical level. In some bizarre and incomprehensible way, the attack on the WTC was the landmark event that unleashed the furies and brought everything crashing down.


I personally believe the assassination of Kennedy was the beginning of this. Once he was assassinated it wiped the veneer of American idealism right off the map. The left got it's way and we have been dealing with the consequences ever since. 9/11 was simply a spectacular attack on America because by then the 5ht column had already done it's job and then we inversely react by beginning the further subjugation of our citizens. This is leftism we are watching sweep across the world. America is the only thing standing between it and it's envelopment.

Dante said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Derek Brown said...

If the gay rights movement were truly communitarian it would have argued that we as a community would like to get married but in deference to tradition and the wishes of our fellow citizens we will abstain from pushing the issue through the courts. Nothing communitarian ever comes from a Supreme Court decision. The DADT argument is especially weak because honestly how many gays are rushing to sign up to fight. When you push for something with no interest of actually exercising said right you are engaged in a naked power play. DADT was the communitarian option. If you truly wanted to serve as a gay man you sublimated your sexual indenity into the "higher" calling of US soldier. It makes no sense to insisit on recognition as a precondition to participation if your interest is communitarian.

Also what's so communitarian about a inherently sterile marriage. It takes no village to raise no children.

Dante said...

What about disentangling the institution of marriage from taxation and treat everyone as individuals for taxation purposes. Maybe that will reduce calls for legalization of homosexual marriage.

Because the state has a very keen interest in the institutes that yield fertile ground to raise healthy individuals to reproduce the state.

Something Ann has ignored and not addressed in her holier than though "it's about fairness"

Dante said...

And for the record, with this AIDs stuff, I'm totally with ST on it.

I mean, a bunch of people knowingly risk their lives and spread a deadly disease, and then complain for special support because they can't use a condom.

Or at least insist on a recent AIDs test. How hard can it be?

It's fine if these people value sex more than dying from AIDs, but seriously, to expect others who are more careful to pay for their lifestyle?

Oh, crap. What am I talking about. That's the way things are, with people who bought into risky homes, and corporations who took advantage of it, only to be bailed out by the next generation. Same with the illegals.

I've got to get with it. How can I profit from the decline? That's what I ought to be thinking about.

EMD said...

This is unfair. Matt Taibbi had his funny bone removed via surgery in 2004, just shortly after David Brooks lost his sense of humor in a gardening accident.

Palladian said...

It's fun to see you bitches defend David "Obama's So Dreamy!" Brooks.

Palladian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Palladian said...

Also what's so communitarian about a inherently sterile marriage.

That's not a nice way to talk about Althouse & Meade.

Revenant said...

@revenant: Is "what all decent people think" an exclusive Venn bubble with the implication that if you don't share that opinion you're indecent? That's certainly the way I read it at the time.

I was simply observing that the pro-SSM has no monopoly on the "everyone who opposes us has malicious intent" mindset.

Steve said...

Matt Taibbi and David Brooks deserve one another.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

When I channel it is based upon a channel of a river and a bed combined and nothing less except for nearly all times in real time.

Revenant said...

Also what's so communitarian about a inherently sterile marriage. It takes no village to raise no children.

I have no children. Despite that, over the course of my adult life thus far I have paid six figures in taxes that went towards feeding, clothing, policing and educating other peoples' children.

So really, if you think childless people don't contribute I recommend one of the following two options:

1. Write me a refund check.
2. Go fuck yourself.

Derek Brown said...

Their marriage wasnt communitarian oriented seeing as how they are both seemingly libertarian. Did they ever claim it was communitarian in intent. Nice try though.

chickelit said...

@revenant: It's OK. "Decent" is a term of art in politics, fraught with political baggage.

bagoh20 said...

Althouse: "How did the gay rights movement go from nothing to some kind of joke to damned near what all decent people think?"

Taibii: "Now when I read her stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth."

Decent must not mean what I thought it did.

I write some pretty juvenile stupid shit around here, but I'm just an anonymous commenter, and an amateur.

I can't believe someone who writes crap like that is a professional writer who puts his name on it. Who hires that guy? Was he the only one who applied for the job or what? Is he even old enough to work? Does his Mom know what he does out in that treehouse.

Derek Brown said...

You haven't supported any of my kids so go fuck yourself. Obviously you have quite a few times it might be why you are so sterile. Also learn what communitarian means you stupid fuck its not writing a check.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Victim or The Crime

The Dead did baby.

So far. (I paused before the period I just typed, just to be sure, just so you know, as it were)

garage mahal said...

So a better way of describing his career in Moscow would be "he made his living by telling malicious lies about people who couldn't do anything about it". :)

I'm sure corruption stories out of Moscow wrote themselves. But, nice to see you stick up for the Russians though!

garage mahal said...

Putin always did have his own little fan club on the American right.

chickelit said...

@garage: You and Taibbi both hated Breitbart--BFF!

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Goes to show,

You don't ever know,

Watch each card you play, and play it slow.

It cost's a lot to win.

a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...

High minded. It restricts freedom in other ways as well. You are no longer free not to believe in it; adoptions of the Catholic Church through public agencies are no longer acceptable. I think it is such things that are really the point. It is to create a public shaming of those who don't agree, create Schadenfreude for the victors.

EMD said...

We've heard all that and even more mean spirited crap here at Althouse, in the comments section.

You expect a lot of B.S. Civility in a anonymous comments section.

chickelit said...

Actually, and FWIW, restricting freedom is how enzymes work.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Sexistly like, as ST will adhere, as a white male I am, how about than Ann Barnhardt?

Real television, meaning real money, subsides in my head.

Bought by media.

YET NOT SOLD.

I'm gonna just turn to Robert Stacey McCain and his new site.

And Bob Marley too.

Methadras said...

garage mahal said...

Putin always did have his own little fan club on the American right.


You been swigging the same gutter shit as bug-eyes wino I see.

Methadras said...

chickelit said...

Actually, and FWIW, restricting freedom is how enzymes work.


Well, none of my enzymes are sentient, so there.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Palin. Barnhardt. Althouse.

Ain't no way Barnhardt is in the middle; yet she would be in ways my, sure sure male, mind can't comprehend.

Mike Rosen of KOA 850, a good man, a friend of William F. Buckley, is wont to say one should let him know "where you sit" before, on his radio show, you tell him "where you stand."

Sexist white males, me, talk about spreading knowledge prophet-like but much more so and much less so in ways not appealing.

I am sorry.

AlanKH said...

Wow, I was wondering when somebody would figure out that marriage is regulation and not privilege or right.

"The proponents of same-sex marriage used the language of equality and rights in promoting their cause, because that is the language we have floating around. But, if it wins, same-sex marriage will be a victory for the good life, which is about living in a society that induces you to narrow your choices and embrace your obligations."

Of course, he's assuming that SSM would conform to the constraints of marriage. But that doesn't look likely.

SSM proponents appear to define marriage as little more than companionship with tax breaks. Under such a definition, the word "marriage" has no reason to exist.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

You wanna make a difference?

Of course you do; we all do.

You wanna create unique, entrepreneur-level dialogues?

Do it.

Like Mr. J. Hendrix.


Jimmy pronounced "Yimmy" when it purposes require it.

chickelit said...

Remember the good old days of Althouse when she posted quotes by F. Scott Fitzgerald?

That was Prose Lit. class.

Now it's Social Studies 24/7

creeley23 said...

I'd agree with Brooks that some of the popularity of gay marriage with straight Americans is because they interpret it as evidence that gays wish to embrace a more responsible lifestyle in line with straight society.

I'd agree with Taibbi that Brooks misunderstands and is condescending. Gays are not looking for the approval of straight society or to be aligned with it; they are demanding justice they believe they are owed. What gays do with marriage is their business.

To whatever extent Taibbi roots for gay marriage to be ratified, however, he should accept Brooks as a soldier on Taibbi's side, albeit fighting a few fronts away.

I'd rather straight Americans read Taibbi's column than Brooks's. It's much closer to the truth. Gays are not volunteering to restrict their freedom with gay marriage.

Palladian said...

I can't believe someone who writes crap like that is a professional writer who puts his name on it. Who hires that guy? Was he the only one who applied for the job or what? Is he even old enough to work? Does his Mom know what he does out in that treehouse.

He started as a shitty alt-weekly writer.

The only thing that improved was his paycheck.

Kevin Walsh said...

The same Taibbi who wrote

http://nypress.com/the-52-funniest-things-about-the-upcoming-death-of-the-pope/ ?

Nah, couldn't be him.

creeley23 said...

I enjoyed reading Taibbi in The eXile, the Moscow free paper he co-edited.

There his hysterical, purple, gutter-prose against the backdrop of the Russian Wild West after the collapse of the USSR was fun and probably apt.

Lem said...

Gays are not volunteering to restrict their freedom with gay marriage.

Maybe Its going back to this then...

In older times, the wedding rings were not only a sign of love, but were also linked to the bestowal of 'earnest money'. According to the prayer book of Edward VI: after the words 'with this ring I thee wed' follow the words 'This gold and silver I give thee', at which point the groom was supposed to hand a leather purse filled with gold and silver coins to the bride.[3]

Historically, the wedding ring was rather connected to the exchange of valuables at the moment of the wedding rather than a symbol of eternal love and devotion. It is a relic of the times when marriage was a contract between families, not individual lovers. Both families were then eager to ensure the economic safety of the young couple. Sometimes it went as far as being a conditional exchange as this old (and today outdated) German formula shows: 'I give you this ring as a sign of the marriage which has been promised between us, provided your father gives with you a marriage portion of 1000 Reichsthalers'.[3]


Sometimes you have to go back, so you can go forward... or something.

Lem said...

Now it's Social Studies 24/7

lol

Lem said...

What Am I talking about...

It is already about the money.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Jesusbuiltaship

Lem said...

By calling it SSM or gay marriage... Isn't that a default acknowledgement that SSM or gay marriage is not the same as the marriage that has been established?

Trying to be differential I think Rush ceded too much when he said the argument was lost as soon as the language "SSM" was allowed to enter the lexicon.

To me its a acknowledgment that it wont be the same... otherwise why call it something else?

Another problem with this thing is that in order for it to succeed they have very shrewdly not giving it a mouth nor a body or a face.

Cant ask anybody questions but nobody can demonize anybody either.

Revenant said...

You haven't supported any of my kids so go fuck yourself.

Oh, you're not an American? You don't check that child tax credit box on your income tax forms? Etc, etc?

Fuck you and fuck your kids.

Revenant said...

I'm sure corruption stories out of Moscow wrote themselves. But, nice to see you stick up for the Russians though!

"He had to move to Moscow to escape libel suits by crooked Russians" is a particularly hilarious argument, gm. :)

AimHighHitLow said...

I went to the University of Chicago while Brooks was there and this column is a throwback to the sorts of papers we would write for social science classes. I would just add that Taibbi needs to get out more and see beyond the constricted world view of the Rolling Stone.

Paco Wové said...

"It's fun to see you bitches defend David "Obama's So Dreamy!" Brooks."

...because here at Althouse, it's always about attacking the man, not attacking the argument!

Paco Wové said...

Shouting Thomas said...
 [DOOM!]


Methedras said... [DOOM!!]

JFK, 9/11... these are all fine waypoints on the road to societal breakdown, but personally I think the real turning point was the spread of the Internet, which made it blindingly obvious to all Americans that half their fellow citizens are so deluded and stupid as to be dangers to themselves and the community at large. And, on top of that, to be able to tell their fellow citizens, in real time, just how stupid, retarded, deranged, drug-addled, besotted and generally fucked up they are.

Take this forum, for example. Americans from all walks of life, from every geographic region, can all come together and tell each other what fucking degenerate douchebags they are. O brave new world, that has such assholes in't!



Rusty said...


Take this forum, for example. Americans from all walks of life, from every geographic region, can all come together and tell each other what fucking degenerate douchebags they are. O brave new world, that has such assholes in't!


(sniff) God, I love this country.

Robert Cook said...

I'm a great admirer of Taibbi's work and his rhetorical style, but I do think he has missed Brooks' point here. But then, Brooks' point is rather faint, if not inscrutable. As Taibbi points out, Brooks takes 800 words to arrive at a contrived ironic (and wrong) conclusion that "gee, gays, once radical voices for freedom, have decided that self-restraint on their personal behavior is a good thing after all, just like the conservatives have always said!"

Fucking moronic. In other words, it's typical Dave!

Lem said...

Fucking moronic. In other words, it's typical Dave...

Contract... constraints, union, bond, promise of obligation in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer... until death do you part...

Yea... it's silly alright.

gerry said...

Brooks thinks marriage will destroy the free-wheelin' gay lifestyle (higher suicide rate, (even in the Netherlands), higher drug-abuse rates (even in the Netherlands), higher STD rates (even in the Netherlands), shorter relationship durations (even in the Netherlands), when the free-wheelin' gay lifestyle will destroy what is left of marriage, making it even less meaningful than it is now.

Jeff Teal said...

Revenant has it right this movement isn't about freedom it is about subsidized benefits -and societal acceptance.If your group isn't getting its booty from the government you just haven't made it.Thieves all.Including hetero marrieds.

Michael said...

Taibbi has annointed himself as a financial expert, an investigative reporter whose mandate is to unmask the malfeasance of the capitalist pig. It is equivalent to having a fundamentalist Baptist with no scientific training writing on evolutionary biology. Not to be trusted but excellent for the true believer: see Robert Cook above.

Henry said...

The answer is pretty simple. Brooks is not being sarcastic. He's kidding. (I keep this distinction in mind from a point made in a biography of Don Marquis. Marquis was a kidder. H.L. Mencken was sarcastic.) This column is, in fact, rather insistently good-natured.

The key point is that when Brooks writes "if it wins, same-sex marriage will be a victory for the good life, which is about living in a society that induces you to narrow your choices and embrace your obligations" he is being utterly sincere. From his communitarian, Burkean point-of-view, this is a good thing and the best defense of gay marriage.

When he writes "The proponents of same-sex marriage used the language of equality and rights in promoting their cause, because that is the language we have floating around" he is kidding. He is saying to his Manhattanite readers, "you talk in the terms of liberal progressivism, but you're really supporting a conservative idea. ;)"

Tank said...

Taibbi is calling someone else mean spirited? Well, I guess it is an area that he knows.

Taibbi strikes me as the kind of writer who does some research, makes some good points in a very nasty way, but also gets more things wrong than he gets right, and so can not be trusted.

Robert Cook said...

"Taibbi has annointed himself as a financial expert...."

Uh, no. He has done what journalists do...he has endeavored to report on recondite matters in order that the majority of the public who have little or no understanding of the subject matter may better understand it. In this effort, he has educated himself on the topic, and he has spoken of the labor involved in his coming to an understanding of the subject.

Do you assume all investigative reporters come to their subjects as experts beforehand?

Shouting Thomas said...

Some of the regular customers can't wait for the daily brawl to commence!

Beautiful day in Woodstock. A little chilly.

I plan to write some songs, and to chime in with some well placed insults, rebukes, tirades and such.

Gotta get busy booking the Old Dawgz, too!

Shouting Thomas said...

Don't any of you guys ever get tired of the political slugfest, and just think about knockers?

It's spring, and a young man's fancy turns to...

Well, we kinda hope it doesn't turn to other men's cocks, as Althouse puts it so brightly!

Lem said...

You know, when you say your marriage vows, they're supposed to be for real. I mean... if you think back about what you really said, what it's all about, honor, loving and obeying till death do us part and all. But it shouldn't be that way, it should... it should, it shouldn't be lies because if it turns out to be lies. If you don't honor what you said, you lie to God. The words should be changed...

Marvin Gaye - When Did You Stop Loving Me, When Did I Stop Loving You (1978)

jr565 said...

I was watching the preview for Modern Family and the gay couple was discussing their adoptive daughter and how she had questions about boobs. They then have to call in Eva Longoria to give her the talk while they leave the room.

It's done for comedic effect, but inherent was the point that gays are not really equipped to deal with girls issues. Hell they're not equipped to deal with heterosexual male issues. This takes nothing away. From them as being nice people.

But when even a sitcom that is pro gay marriage is saying gays have to leave the room when their daughter is taught about woman issues, there's a problem there.

DADvocate said...

Marriage is one of those institutions — along with religion and military service — that restricts freedom. Marriage is about making a commitment that binds you for decades to come. It narrows your options on how you will spend your time, money and attention.

Whether they understood it or not, the gays and lesbians represented at the court committed themselves to a certain agenda. They committed themselves to an institution that involves surrendering autonomy. They committed themselves to the idea that these self-restrictions should be reinforced by the state. They committed themselves to the idea that lifestyle choices are not just private affairs but work better when they are embedded in law.


Brooks sounds pretty spot on to me, and not at all mean spirited. There will many gays who will regret getting married. What will happen in common law marriage states? How many will marry reluctantly due to pressure from their partner? This won't necessarily be an improvement in quality of life.

Michael said...

Robert Cook. He has done a demonstrably poor job of "educating" himself on the banking industry beyond learning a few buzzwords. Like many journalists, investigative or otherwise, he assigns too high a credit rating to his intelligence. Also, like most journalists he is able to find what he is looking for versus what is actually there. He is writing for an audience that is completely illiterate in finance and thus has the freedom to write to the audience's predjudices and ignorance. Rolling Stone. Indeed.

Michael said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jay said...

Once, gay culture was erroneously associated with bathhouses and nightclubs.

HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA

1/5th of gay men died from AIDS in just over 20 years.

The majority of new HIV infections, every year in America are with gay males.

"erroneously" does not mean what that author thinks in means.

jr565 said...

It's done for comedic effect, but inherent was the point that gays are not really equipped to deal with girls issues. Hell they're not equipped to deal with heterosexual male issues. This takes nothing away. From them as being nice people.

in fact the preview makes the point about how they're not equipped to deal with heterosexual males as well.

Cameron and Mitchell are saying that they can't relate to Lilly, the daughters questions, but they could address the masculine stuff, because they are guys and then Mitchell has to grab Cameron's arms and tell him to,stop moving them in so non masculine a fashion (since he's moving them in a really exaggerated way, in a stereotypically gay fashion) since the arm gestures are undermining his point. They're not really equipped to deal with those issue either.

Sorry, just saw the preview and don't remember any of he dialog so,it sounds like I'm trying to explain a joke.

But the gist of the point was, this gay couple had to call in a woman to deal with women issues and are so non masculine that they really can't deal with masculine issues either.

Drago said...

garage: "Putin always did have his own little fan club on the American right."

Still waiting for garage to post all the links that will clearly demonstrate his claim about the "American right" being a fan club for Putin.

I wonder how long I'll have to wait?

jr565 said...

Jay wrote:

Once, gay culture was erroneously associated with bathhouses and nightclubs.


ONCE? all you have to do is watch a gay pride parade to realize the association is alive and well.

Jay said...

Robert Cook said...
he has endeavored to report on recondite matters in order that the majority of the public who have little or no understanding of the subject matter may better understand it.


That's funny.
What is even funnier is you think that someone who uses the same (incoherent) buzzwords you do is "educated" on the topic.

Note:
Obama administration pushes banks to make home loans to people with weaker credit

I'd also add you are utterly incapable of criticizing government in any manner, shape, or form.

garage mahal said...

Still waiting for garage to post all the links that will clearly demonstrate his claim about the "American right" being a fan club for Putin.

I'm guessing you're a Putin fanboy. You need that Big Daddy authority figure to complete yourself, instead of the lame Moms Jeans President

"Just look at Putin with his shirt off! He hunts whales from small boats! Wooo-la-la! *HAWT* *fanning self*"

Robert Cook said...

Michael,

I note you denigrate Taibbi's understanding of his subject matter, but you don't explain how or where his understanding is weak.

I'm truly interested to know where you believe Taibbi has gone wrong in his critiques of Wall Street and the banking industry.

I haven't seen any pushback by spokespersons for Wall Street and the banking industry pointing out Taibbi's egregious errors, or, for that matter, any critiques of his critiques by journalists who might be presumed to speak for the other side.

What facts do you know and care to share that they don't?

garage mahal said...

Did you see that karate punch by Putin?

Oh.My.God.

jr565 said...

Gays are not volunteering to restrict their freedom with gay marriage.

is that Taibbis way of saying gays will not be monogamous? Is this one of those have their cakes and eat it too type stances?

bagoh20 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bagoh20 said...

The American fanboys of Putin were on the left when Bush was President. Now we are all together in beautiful harmony, although the left still covets his level of power over his people. They would love if Obama could just make his critics disappear like that, but first we need to disarm them.

Henry said...

Taibbi has been as good as any journalist at going after the crony capitalism in the Obama Treasury department. I give him credit for that.

Drago said...

So, that's really all you have, isn't it garage?

LOL

Drago said...

bagoh20 said: "The American fanboys of Putin were on the left when Bush was President."

And they still are.

obama has already demonstrated his post-election "flexibility" in the service of his fandom to Putin.

And you just know that garage eats that up with a spoon.

AllenS said...

Did you see that basketball shot by Obama?

Oh.My.God.

Drago said...

How's that reset button working out?

Big Mike said...

Still waiting for garage to post all the links that will clearly demonstrate his claim about the "American right" being a fan club for Putin.

@Drago, you need to recognize that garage has some serious trouble with the real reality, as opposed to the faux reality that exists within his mind. The other day he called bullshit on me, I linked to one of many articles in the NYT that confirmed my point, and he was utterly unmoved.

So keep that in mind when you deal with garage and the group-thinkers with whom he demonstrates solidarity. They cannot be bargained with, they will not negotiate in good faith, and they are utterly contemptuous of any reality that is not in full accord with their version of reality.

garage mahal said...

The American fanboys of Putin were on the left when Bush was President

Nice try, but that's a negative.

Jay said...

garage mahal said...

I'm guessing you're a Putin fanboy


I'm guessing you're a fucking moron.

I mean, non-moron's wouldn't take to the Internet to pretend a singular link, one where the alleged person of worship is ripped in the comments, represents thinking on "the right"

So you're a fucking moron, right?

Jay said...

You also have to understand that garagie is a high school graduate.

He doesn't do critical thinking.

garage mahal said...

I mean, non-moron's wouldn't take to the Internet to pretend a singular link, one where the alleged person of worship is ripped in the comments, represents thinking on "the right"

Oh there's a lot more than that. I take it you're a Putin fanboy too? What's yer fave pic: Putin whale hunting from a small boat, or that black and white photo of Putin in a wife beater?

Shouting Thomas said...

WTF?

We haven't even got a topic yet this morning, and we've already got a brawl?

Jesus said: But I say to you that hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.

Loving garage might even challenge Jesus!

EMD said...

You don't check that child tax credit box

I made too much money this year to check the box, apparently. I still have kids, though.

Frankly, I think the box is stupid. The tax code should never been intended to encourage/discourage behaviors. I know that is way too much to expect from our political class to understand, however.

bagoh20 said...

I know one at least one very famous leftist who has been anxiously waiting to bend over for Putin, and even promised as much, but that's just one leftist, so it probably doesn't mean much. Still that's one fanboy.

To be fair, Bush once thought he was a nice enough guy, but he didn't make any hushed promises to cheat on his voters back home, but that's more the new guy's style. Are there any promises this guy kept to you suckers who voted for him?

creeley23 said...

As Taibbi points out, Brooks takes 800 words to arrive at a contrived ironic (and wrong) conclusion that "gee, gays, once radical voices for freedom, have decided that self-restraint on their personal behavior is a good thing after all, just like the conservatives have always said!"

Robert Cook: I agree that Brooks is mistaken about gays' interest in gay marriage, but Brooks is correct that some straight Americans are taken in by that line. This misunderstanding is a factor in the so-called victory for gay marriage.

But it's a cover story which some gays, including Sullivan, put out for domestic consumption -- "Just when gays want to settle down and be more sexually responsible because of the AIDS crisis, straights won't let us get married, boo hoo."

Marshal said...

Shouting Thomas said...
WTF?

We haven't even got a topic yet this morning, and we've already got a brawl?


Seriously, this comes from ST?

Next up:

-Inga will demand others' provide evidence for their arguments,
-Garage will complain right-commenters don't engage issues,
-Whores will complain about the blog's tone.

Renee said...

Growing up outside of Boston, the gay community were to the left. There news and lifestyle were on the 'alternative' independent radio stations and newspapers. WFNX and the Boston Phoenix. Both are gone, and were eaten up by the media giants.

So weird to hear gay community news on KISS 108, an I Heart Radio station owned by clear channel.

I brought this up to some of my progressive friends, and I remember a few months ago that I thought it was odd that there were corporate sponsors to gay pride parades.

I don't know, I feel old more then anything.

Shouting Thomas said...

@Marshal

I used to lie, I used to cheat
I used to lie, cheat, step on people's feet
I used to lie and cheat, lie and cheat and step on people's feet
Well now I'm steppin' on that glory salvation in my beat

Because I'm saved, I'm saved
People let me tell you 'bout kingdom come
I am saved I'm saved
Well I can preach until you're deaf and dumb
I'm in that soul saving army beating on a big bass drum

garage mahal said...

-Garage will complain right-commenters don't engage issues,

My complaint is that the right *has* issues.

Marshal said...

Shouting Thomas said...

Because I'm saved, I'm saved
People let me tell you 'bout kingdom come


Must have been a busy night.

Drago said...

garage: "Oh there's a lot more than that"

Can't wait to see it.

Why don't you provide the links?

Should be easy, since "there's a lot more than that."

Should be dozens.

Hundreds.

I'll bet we'll get them any minute now....

Inga said...

Marshal laments that no one engages ....him.

Drago said...

garage: "My complaint is that the right *has* issues."

Well, I'll bet the "issues" on the right aren't as odd as your fixation with modular classrooms.

Still waiting on the links showing right wing fandom of Putin.

Should be any time now....

Marshal said...

Inga said...
Marshal laments that no one engages ....him.


Amusing from someone begging for friends.

Marshal said...

Inga said...
Ah Freeman, what can I say? it's a strange strange world at Althouse lately.


"Please let me be in your clique".

Inga said...

Marshal, dear boy, I do not come here looking for "friends", I'm a liberal, this is still a 90% conservative comments section, silly.

Shouting Thomas said...

"Must have been a busy night. "

I come in last night about half past ten
That baby of mine wouldn't let me in

So move it on over
Rock it on over
Move over little dog
A mean old dog is movin' in

roesch/voltaire said...

Of late Brooks has been reaffirming his belief in the need for moral codes based on tradition, often Jewish and so he writes: "Being virtuous often means thwarting your inclinations, obeying a power outside yourself." He uses an ironic tone for a movement which in the past, according his his view, wanted only acceptance for a life style that included fewer restrictions and fisting bars etc .Not so much mean spirited as ignoring the wide range of desires and goals of the gay community.

Inga said...

Marshal, that is called being human, do you suffer from Aspergers?

Derek Brown said...

I don't have any kids asshole. And you pay taxes because if you don't the government will take your mobile home away from you. Again learn what communitarian means. You don't pay taxes out of the goodness of your heart you pay them because you know you wouldn't fare so well in prison.

Marshal said...

Inga said...
Marshal, that is called being human, do you suffer from Aspergers?


I suffer from a lack of patience with ignorant half-wits.

Inga said...

Marshal, you are probably an Aspie. You have the personality down pat, it's ok, nothing to be ashamed of.

Inga said...

Just don't hang out with sociopaths like Meth, OK Marshal?

Aridog said...

Question, vis a vis the touted tax benefits of being married:

Where is the benefit in having your marginal tax threshold for AGI reduced by 50% or close to it?

I may be just oblivious and missing something...wouldn't be the firs time, eh ... if so, tell me.

If two people who earn roughly the same incomes "marry" and are recognized as such by the IRS, they can either file "Jointly" at a pittance over the AGI threshold for "Single", or they can file "Separately" with their AGI threshold reduced by half. No way this isn't a cost of marriage.

I'm fully aware of the tax advantages vis a vis property transfer and gifts, and a few others, but these are infrequent benefits...income tax is every year until you die.

And yes, we ALL pay for children, ours (if any) and those of others via tax collections of various kinds...property taxes most notably....as well as income taxes when the federal and state governments pay for education...and don't give you much choice, if any.

In cases like where Bagoh20 wants to leave his enterprise assets to others I strongly believe their should be a tax exception/exemption for such honest altruism ... and do mock my calling it that, it is something I admire greatly.

I will repeat again, because I notice more commenters here have gotten the idea by various avenues, that as we approach making a protected group (married) inclusive of everybody, it will protect nobody and what benefits there are will cease to be offered by government....to anybody. THAT concept is more bankable than anything in Fort Knox.

creeley23 said...

Not so much mean spirited as ignoring the wide range of desires and goals of the gay community.

r/v: I don't get many chances to agree with you, but ... yeah.

However, as I've said, Brooks is correct that many straights believe gay interest in gay marriage is similar to their own, which is part of the support for gay marriage.

Susan Stewart Rich said...

That was the most elitist (self-serving) piece of journalism I have ever read because it infers gay rights activists are either totally ignorant or knowingly motivated by some right-winged, fundamentalist agenda. He might as well have just said "the majority of people living in the US are either sheepish morons or evil." And if it was meant to be sarcastic, it sucked at that. What garbage.

Aridog said...

Inga said...

Marshal, you are probably an Aspie. You have the personality down pat, it's ok, nothing to be ashamed of ... Just don't hang out with sociopaths like Meth, OK Marshal?

Jesus H Christ on a Pogo Stick, Inga...how in Hades do you criticize others for personally demeaning attacks? Seriously?

Methadrus made a salient point, on topic:

When you seek to equalize something against something else, it invariably becomes lesser. Like the old saying, When you try to be everything to everyone, you end up being nothing to no one. That's what will happen here and the fools don't care.

Inga ... where are your topical points on this thread? Why don't you respond even slightly on topic or offer alternatives to the post's import? You fall for the aggressive bait every time. Why?

We all have faults: mine is I ramble on too much sometimes. Yours is you talk too much off topic many times...yours is cureable, mine isn't.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 213   Newer› Newest»