Maddow vs. Cohen

Thread's dead, Sarah. Thanks a lot. Oh and it's not a motorcycle; it's a chopper. (kidding!)

Wow. Rachel is formidable, indeed. Not to be sexist, but YOU GO, GIRL.

The Liberal Lioness? I'm just awestruck right now.

I don't think I've ever seen Billow Reilly ask his guest if they feel they've been "treated fairly" in his pig sty. Bravo Rachel!

Wow, I did not mean to start this kind of shit storm!

Back in Comment #10 when I said "If I could chose to be gay, I would try to seduce Rachel Maddow"
What I meant was that I was so impressed with her that I would love to have her as a permanent, intimate fixture in my life. Not intimate as in fuckable, but as in emotionally close because she is so clearly someone that you would want on your side.
The fact that I'm straight (and a woman) shows that the whole point is that I'm NOT sexually attracted to her. but mentally. I think confirms what Josh is saying in comment 130 with "They are implying that the metric for 'how fuckable she is' is how intelligent... "

I think what people have been trying to convey on this site is that they think she is fabulous. Saying I wanted to seduce her is just a short hand and one that I thought most readers would interpret as "respect and think is intelligent and fierce" rather that "super do-able".

"Dick" is as gay as a parade...but he is severely conflicted and a epic disgrace to Bi, hetero and ghey alike.

He is not as straight as he boasts, and I do not mean just sexual orientation, look at the dude he exudes counterfeit politeness and grace, and fails miserably to convince, he is a fake halfwit but a very dangerous one.

Even ter ghays would not want the jerk-off mingling with them, ugly human that he is through and through.
One can only wonder what the story really is behind the 'buy a bride' lookalike in that photo of claimed wife.
That would be no surprise 'no woman of free will' and all that.

He refuses to admit to stoking genocide against Homosexuals and he is hiding behind a dubious, apparently non sexual, according to him in that clip, relationship to promote same.

De dude is a sleazeball and uses his anti-gheydom rhetoric to punish his own obvious self loathing.
Anyone that thought acted and promoted such crass bollocks would be justified in loathing himself....it is the only thing genuine about him.

No evolution there just a cess pit of right wing propaganda and greed for greed sake.
He presumably started to want to curry favour with the religious right wing in the US, got himself in a spot of bother though, ignorance believes his flatulent incontinence.
Now it is getting out of hand.
The fuckhead has single handedly started a pogrom against gays in another country, and has given a few bitter ass wipes in the US pause for thought about a similar campaign...it will not be forgotten.

lol destlund ;P

Bill Dauphin, et al.

I guess I just don't get it, really. I don't see how "I'd do her/him" relevantly enters into any discussion other than one about who you'd do or not. It does seem to be a part of human nature to do that though. People are "totally in love with" a celebrity's public persona and really know nothing about that person. And it's certainly not reciprocated, even assuming a gender/proclivity match. Objectification is especially bad in Rachel's case because she doesn't seem to be remotely interested in trading on her looks as some do. (Thought I was going to say something else, didn't ya?) It was pretty funny, though, whoever said that they would get a sex change so they could be a lesbian.

Bill @ 151:

As one of the guilty parties, I find myself struggling to think of some way to say "I'm really sorry" and "lighten up," simultaneously, without sounding like a dick. Because I mean both sincerely.

I don't think that's possible as you can't truly be sorry AND push responsibility for a person's offence back on to them by demanding they "lighten up".

Personally, I respect her combination of intellect, insight, and compassion more than that of almost anyone in the world, and definitively more than anyone in her line of work. And... I confess I think she's hot. In all likelihood, that latter perception is largely due to the former; certainly the latter is not an obstacle to, or distraction from, the former.

That's awesome, and I'm glad. However, women, last I checked are not psychic and can't tell your intentions when you say that they're hot when discussing their professional merits. It would be better if you refrained from discussing it altogether to avoid awkward clarifications like the one I'm responding to!

...but it's not true that prominent men are never judged according to their looks, or according to hotness based on factors other than looks. We don't just switch off our sexual nature when "serious" topics are on the table, and I'm not sure we should necessarily try to.

I think it's fine if you think it (for the right reasons), but really, why should you let everyone else know that you think a particular professional is hot or not? It's not really relevant to the discussion, leaving aside all the inherent sexism that women face on a disproportional scale to men.

I think Bill hit the nail on the head in terms of people using the idea sexual hotness largely as a way of expressing adoration, in much the same way that Maddow herself talks about "crushes" on people she admires.

There is a slippery slope from there.

Sarah T:

Wow, I did not mean to start this kind of shit storm!

Well you blew it. :-)

Back in Comment #10 when I said "If I could chose to be gay, I would try to seduce Rachel Maddow"
What I meant was that I was so impressed with her that I would love to have her as a permanent, intimate fixture in my life.

I think that was a pretty good and clear version of what Bill was talking about.

You were saying that Maddow is so intensely generally cool that it would overcome your normally fixed preference (heterosexuality) in that regard.

My followup, where I quoted you and basically said "me too" was pretty lame---a (mostly) straight man saying he'd try to seduce a physically attractive woman just isn't interesting in that way. Lots of straight men would try to seduce her, so so what? It doesn't convey the same overall adoration, and could just mean "what a hottie!"

My bad. I was just trying to play along with the sort-of-joke and express my general admiration, and segue to my real subject, but I made a not-funny sort-of-joke.

I don't mostly mean my sort-of-joke was "not funny" in the sense of being in poor taste, I mostly mean it was uninteresting and therefore not funny; jokes have to have a surprise in them, and there's no surprise there, as there was in what you said.

It just doesn't convey any surprising intensity of general adoration for a straight guy to say he'd try to seduce a physically attractive woman! (Duh, dude!)

In my own defense, I was dumb one-line throwaway and I proceeded to do what I really meant to do---I gave my opinions on her arguments, both pluses and minuses.

Nobody seems to care about that part, which was almost all of what I posted in two posts.

Maybe if I was a hottie people would pay attention. :-)

Arrgh... I dithered over writing my comment (@151) so long that the whole conversation had essentially already been had before I posted. Ahh, 'twas ever thus... :^(

Sarah (@128):

And does anyone else find it ironic that in a thread speaking about the stupidity and insanity of the ex-gay movement is in general, and one ex-gay numbnut in particular, the response from so many men here is expressing their approval by saying they wish they could have sex with her?

Of course it was ironic... but why do you assume the irony was unintentional. You may not think it was funny, but make room for the possiblity that people were, at least in part, trying to joke around about this.

Paul W. (@133):

Sarah's right that it's still somewhat objectifying, because it's obviously not independent of her being physically a hottie in the usual heteronormative objectifying way.

But that's just the thing: Despite my earlier comments about her appeal, I'm not at all convinced she is "physically a hottie in the usual heteronormative objectifying way." She regularly describes herself as "mannish-looking," and while I think that's a somewhat harsh self-appraisal, it's certainly true that she's not — in terms of hair, face, figure, makeup, or dress — the sort of generic sexual fantasy object that men regularly get slapped around for desiring.

It's hard to know for sure (because I was already a fan of her radio work long before I ever saw a picture of her), but I think if I'd been shown her picture before I knew who she was and asked to comment on her looks, I would've said she was pleasant looking... maybe even "cute"... but I doubt I'd have called her a hottie or joked about wanting to seduce her.

I know the smart-is-sexy meme can seem like a cheap excuse in conversations like this, but in this case I think it really is true that it's everything else wonderful about her (not just her intelligence, though that's admittedly most of it) that makes Maddow sexy to my, and truly not the other way 'round.

Carlie:

It has nothing to do with which part is the yardstick and which one is the measure, it's that fuckability shouldn't be on either one.

Yeah, you're probably right... but I ain't waitin' underwater for humans to stop looking at the world in terms of our appetites. I grok that this hyperattentiveness to sexuality would be far less problematic if it weren't for the predicate sexism of our society. I think we're more likely to have success at trying to get people to be more equitable than we are at getting people to be less horny... though I confess I don't have any foolproof plan for either.

FWIW, by the way, fuckability implies something quite a bit different than what I mean when I comment that someone is sexy. Not everyone who notices sexiness is a salivating beast. Jus' sayin'....

Justin,

Lighten up.

I think Bill explained himself pretty well.

I think it's fine if you think it (for the right reasons), but really, why should you let everyone else know that you think a particular professional is hot or not?

It's not really relevant to the discussion,

Yes, it is. I think Bill is right about why that sort of thing is done pretty often around here---often by women or gay men---and why it's usually considered acceptable.

Maybe it isn't or shouldn't be acceptable coming from a straight man praising a gay woman, but please grant his point about how people sometimes try to express general admiration metaphorically or partly-metaphorically by calling someone hot.

Do you object if a woman calls, say, Dawkins hot, amidst praising his intellect and rhetorical vigor, because it's simply irrelevant?

I doubt it. I suspect that in that case you'd recognize that the woman was trying to express strong overall admiration, not just purely physical attraction.

Sometimes guys around here say they "have a man crush on" somebody. (I learned that phrase from seeing that here, several times, and had to look it up to make sure I understood it.)

That's the same idea, but clearer---you're expressing the intensity of your admiration for somebody (like a romantic crush) while saying that it's not actually romantic or sexual.

I think that in the right context, where people are unlikely to take it wrong, it is also okay to say that you have an actual crush on somebody, expressing mostly general admiration, especially for someone's intellect, but mixed with a physical sexual attractiveness component as well.

But for a man to say that about a beautiful woman is problematic---not because it's not actually a reasonable sentiment, but because it's an ambiguous thing to say that could just be mostly sexual admiration, and it reinforces the objectification of women, which there's too much of.

leaving aside all the inherent sexism that women face on a disproportional scale to men.

I don't think that you can leave that aside. As Bill explained, it makes sense to express general admiration as something akin to, or even mixed with, romantic/sexual adoration.

What makes it a bad idea in many contexts is precisely that in our society it's hard to distinguish from simple sexual objectification, and it's not as clear or interesting as when it's about someone of your not-preferred sex, and it reinforces our tendency to objectify women in general.

MrKafka sez:
I just want to point out that Cohen's wife is Korean, not Thai. It was a marriage arranged by Sun Myung Moon.

AHA! I was wondering if that was him. Very early 1990s a group of us from Queer Nation/Boston heckled an appearance of him at Boston University. It was ... depressing, all those earnest young college students, looking for some "hope"...

Paul @ 162:

Lighten up.

No.

I think Bill explained himself pretty well.

I think he did too. However, how often does one in real life have time for long winded explanations for why they said or did a certain thing?

Yes, it is. I think Bill is right about why that sort of thing is done pretty often around here---often by women or gay men---and why it's usually considered acceptable.

I wouldn't say it's acceptable per se, but it's less frowned upon precisely because it's a strike against the institutional sexism that I mentioned at the end of my last post.

Maybe it isn't or shouldn't be acceptable coming from a straight man praising a gay woman, but please grant his point about how people sometimes try to express general admiration metaphorically or partly-metaphorically by calling someone hot.

Sure, people do it, but does that make it right?

Do you object if a woman calls, say, Dawkins hot, amidst praising his intellect and rhetorical vigor, because it's simply irrelevant?

I usually let it slide, again because it's a strike against institutional sexism, but that doesn't mean I cheer for it either. I usually just ignore it. I understand however that if I was a woman and I received comments like that every single day, I would be a bit annoyed.

That's the same idea, but clearer---you're expressing the intensity of your admiration for somebody (like a romantic crush) while saying that it's not actually romantic or sexual.

The difference here is that the preclusion to sexual attraction is RIGHT THERE IN THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM. If however, "man crush" was sexually ambiguous, I don't think people would be using it that often.

I think that in the right context, where people are unlikely to take it wrong, it is also okay to say that you have an actual crush on somebody, expressing mostly general admiration, especially for someone's intellect, but mixed with a physical sexual attractiveness component as well.

In the right context certainly. How do you know what the right context is? Define the proper circumstances that allow such comments to be acceptable.

I don't think that you can leave that aside. As Bill explained, it makes sense to express general admiration as something akin to, or even mixed with, romantic/sexual adoration.

If we're not leaving institutional sexism aside, then you can clearly see how a man referring to a woman in that context while discussing her professional performance is sexist; it's degrading her to merely a thing that provides you pleasure, as opposed to an actual person who has done a great job.

What makes it a bad idea in many contexts is precisely that in our society it's hard to distinguish from simple sexual objectification, and it's not as clear or interesting as when it's about someone of your not-preferred sex, and it reinforces our tendency to objectify women in general.

Exactly, and since people can't tell your intentions without you spelling them out (leaving aside the possibility of insincerity), it would be best if you refrained from such comments for the most part.

This Cohen douchebag is just doing to gays what religion does to the populace in general: convince them they're cut (original sin) and that only their religion has the bandaid (credit to Sastra for this observation).

Convince gays they're wrong to be who they are (sell them your hate) and then offer them a useless "bandaid" that they never needed in the first place, and that is only going to exacerbate their misery further.

Cohen pretty much defines the term "shitbag".

@Carlie #143:

"It has nothing to do with which part is the yardstick and which one is the measure, it's that fuckability shouldn't be on either one."

'Which one is the measure' has everything to do with it. I was attacking the LOGICAL CONSTRUCTION as false. Refer to #130. I don't give two shits about Maddow's 'fuckability.' I think it is irrelevant to the original discussion here. HOWEVER, it was a constituent element of a statement made earlier by someone else. I believe that statement to be illogical. I said so. That is what skeptics do.

I agree with Justin, but with one distinction. If you are discussing someone in a professional sense, their "hotness" or "fuckibility" should be left out of the discussion... unless their "hotness" or "fuckability" is a logical prerequisite for their job (e.g. a stripper or porn star).

However, if one is generally discussing their opinion of someone, it is an unreasonable expectation to say that commentary on their perceived physical appearance should be faux pas.

skeptifem,

My love for Rachel Maddow is not about sex, but rather because I find her to be an utterly brilliant, progressive person. She seems to be exactly the kind of person I would like to have a long term relationship with. Unfortunately, for me, there are several barriers to a relationship with her. One, she's already in a relationship. Two, I'm straight. Three, and most significantly, she's a famous journalist, and I have no chance of ever even meeting her.

I do, however, understand your objection, and you are spot on in saying that her femaleness is probably the root cause of the "I wish I could date her" comments. Just for the record, I say similar things about Keith Olbermann, Al Gore, and Al Franken all the time. These are a few of my political crushes.

Just watched the whole thing. Cohen smiles the whole sixteen minutes through. That must hurt.

I didn't notice any spectacular take-down, though. It was good, but... that's what a journalist doing her job should look like, and I think I've seen that kind of thing before. Is that my sheltered life showing? Anyway, I agree with comments 99 (except the first line) and 102.

I just want to point out that Cohen's wife is Korean, not Thai. It was a marriage arranged by Sun Myung Moon.

<headdesk>
<headdesk>
<headdesk>

It is weird how many people see Maddow and talk about how they wish they had complementary sexual orientations so they could have sex with her.

Yeah. What's up with you people? Do you confuse everything you like with sexiness? Like... food? Sunshine? Clean air? Er... Mozart's 40th symphony? I don't get it.

Also, comment 146.

"This means asexuals can fall in love..." What the hell does it mean to "fall in love" anyway? I mean this as an honest question. Is there any way to define it without being arbitrary and subjective?

It can fairly easily be separated from sexual attraction, if that's what you mean. It doesn't happen often, but eight-year-olds (unless aromantic, see below) are capable of falling in love without any hint of sexuality – even though it's AFAIK always with the gender they'll later develop sexual attraction to.

Or won't. There are asexuals who are not aromantic – heteroromantic, homoromantic, and biromantic ones.

BTW, beauty and sexiness aren't the same thing either, even though they're closer.

If someone told me my math was solid and they wanted to put their mouth on me, I'd be honored on both counts...

It would creep me out, and I'd try very hard to never be seen (literally seen) by that person again.

[...] her being physically a hottie in the usual heteronormative objectifying way.

People here (women and men) would be way less likely to joke about seducing her if she were either of average looks or of average smarts.

Stop pretending that it's an objective fact that she's beautiful. She's not. :-|

We've had a some number of women---mostly straight, I think---make a running joke of their being "sluts" and joking about doing people, and stuff like that.

That seems to be mostly to creep out certain trolls. As in "I'm whatever threatens you".

And then there's the reference to "Jane, you ignorant slut!" which has made that word come up in contexts where it would otherwise make no sense whatsoever.

What's up with you people? Do you confuse everything you like with sexiness? Like... food? Sunshine? Clean air? Er... Mozart's 40th symphony? I don't get it.

Gosh, I dunno. Of all the many and varied things I like, the ones I'm sexually attracted to are disproportionately animate, specifically mammals, and... lemme think... humans. Yep. Pretty much all humans.

But maybe that's just me.

We've had a some number of women---mostly straight, I think---make a running joke of their being "sluts" and joking about doing people, and stuff like that.
That seems to be mostly to creep out certain trolls. As in "I'm whatever threatens you".

Hmmm... usually I don't pay much attention to that kind of banter, but it seems to me that at least a few times I've noticed it being a lot closer to the current kind of issue than that.

In particular, people talking about how they find brainy and/or science geeky people sexy, joking about how they find a certain type sexually irresistable, and so on.

I'm pretty sure sometimes that's been more of a yay-for-us-geeks kind of thing that a freak-out-the-trolls kind of thing.

I've got to wonder; why is it always gay or straight with these people? Why no love for the bisexuals?

damn blockquote fail. Sorry. 1st sentence of my last comment was me, rest of the 1st para was David, and the rest was me.

David:

What's up with you people? Do you confuse everything you like with sexiness? Like... food? Sunshine? Clean air? Er... Mozart's 40th symphony?

You say that like it's a bad thing! What, clean air doesn't make you hot? I know sunshine, almost all the time, gets me high.

;^)

Pygmy Loris:

I say similar things about Keith Olbermann, Al Gore, and Al Franken all the time. These are a few of my political crushes.

Ah, jeez! For some reason, the rhythm of that sentence reminded me of "My Favorite Things" from The Sound of Music, and now I can't stop trying to write the parody version in my head:

Rachel in glasses,
And Al Gore talks climate.
Franken's not joking,
He's got his assignment.
Olbermann slashes
Through Fox News reports;
These are just some
Of my fav'rite retorts!

ummm... OK... I'll stop now; sorry....

PS: A straight man who knows show tunes: Another stereotype shattered!

[quote]I've got to wonder; why is it always gay or straight with these people? Why no love for the bisexuals?[/quote]

Fie! Fie I say! Everyone knows that there's no such thing as bisexuals! They're all either heterosexual and in denial, or homosexual and in denial! ... Wait, what? Kinsey Scale? What's that? Can you eat it? ;P

Newfie #139, that photo rocks! Why are so many people gullible enough to eat a steaming pile of hypocrisy?

I'm not familiar with the schmuck in question's work, but unless he's actually advocated imprisoning and executing gays, I don't think it's fair to blame any part of the Uganda situation on him, any more than it is for the creationists to blame the Holocaust on Darwin. Criticize the idiot for his own actions, not those of other idiots who may or may not be inspired by him.

Scyldemort,

There is no such thing as bisexual Erasure. Those guys are totally gay.

Mike Crichton,

She's not holding him personally responsible for what's going on in Uganda exactly, she's taking him to task for publishing pseudoscience under discredited credentials and pointing out the harm that such behavior can (and here has) cause(d).

Great skewering.

RM: Paul Cameron? Seriously?
RC: Yeah, my bad. I'm taking that out.
RM: Race?? WTF??
RC: Uh...I didn't write that?
RM: So, still loving men?
RC: Technically...no...heh...ahem...nonsequitor.org!
RM: They're going to kill people.
RC: I didn't tell them to kill people, I was just pointing out who deserved to die! I'm the victim!
RM: I think you're scum. Good luck, Dick.
RC: Am I still smiling? I can't feel my face.

Just for the record, I say similar things about Keith Olbermann, Al Gore, and Al Franken all the time. These are a few of my political crushes.

How bizarre... Olbermann is the left's equivalent of Bill O'Reilly. He's a loud-mouthed egotistical self-promoting idiot.

Franken, on the other hand, I'm surprisingly impressed with. He's not been a bad senator. And as I said, I'm actually quite impressed with Maddow's professionalism as an interviewer. So this isn't a partisan remark. Equally, the political Right includes some people who are brilliant (Andrew Sullivan), and others who are self-important twits (Bill O'Reilly) or complete and utter basket-cases (Glenn Beck). Every political movement has its share of blithering idiots.

She's not holding him personally responsible for what's going on in Uganda exactly

He didn't say she is, but a number of people here are, e.g.,

The link between this charlatan Cohen et al. and the legislation in Uganda seems clear and well documented. If they ever got as far as imprisoning or executing someone under this law in Uganda, could those who helped and encouraged it in the US be charged with a crime or sued for damages?

Also, there's a lot of lightly veiled homophobia here -- the way he is being treated here is very much like gays of the past who tried to hide it in order to meet societal expectations. There's a lot to criticize him for, but the Uganda bill and his apparent gender confusion are not among them.

How bizarre... Olbermann is the left's equivalent of Bill O'Reilly. He's a loud-mouthed egotistical self-promoting idiot.

Of course, Walton ... since your judgments are never incorrect, it's bizarre for anyone to have a differing one. (In my view, KO is to B'O as Michael Moore is to Ann Coulter -- they are claimed to be counterparts by people who pay little attention to detail.)

I feel sorry for the guy's wife. How must it feel to constantly have the message of "I love you honey...because I spent years and years and years forcing myself to!"

Bill, I get what you've said here and elsewhere about how we ought to have a culture in which sexuality isn't any more privileged or taboo than other characteristics, but we currently don't. I don't think it's the kind of thing that can be changed that way by simply trying to use it that way; it's too similar to the current usage to be distinguishable. I think the only way that could happen is to have a total break away from sexuality being bad before a new milieu of it being neutral could develop.

Sarah from Chicago - sorry I was all stalkery weird and shit. :) That's neat that you're back, and you'll kick ass at policy work.

#182

"the way he is being treated here is very much like gays of the past who tried to hide it in order to meet societal expectations."

Sorry Truth machine got to disagree on that one.
The cretin is using his dubious and unsubstantiated sexual history to claim a highly suspect contention that it is a lifestyle choice and therefore curable.
This is neither supported by the research or admitted by Homosexuals anywhere.

"There's a lot to criticize him for, but the Uganda bill and his apparent gender confusion are not among them."

But it is to be suggested that his gender confusion, or rather his sexual orientation, is the motivation behind completely crass assumptions on the reason why.
The idiot is in denial and utter meltdown and is blaming anything he can dredge up from the murky depths to excuse himself, the dude is suffering guilt, probably through religious affiliation.
And one reason for Homosexuality is apparently Race! WTF?

Although he probably did not set out to enshrine executions or imprisonment in Uganda for Homosexuality,the fact is that his book will be a plank that mentally hysterical folks,like Warren and 'the family', will quote as 'Proof' of the fact that Homosexuality is outside of the remit of lawful protection, as it is not a civil liberties issue.
(Although how that works with religion I know not...they tend to regard the xian lifestyle as compulsory but they are apparently flame proof in society? but their choice in personal behaviour is apparently sacrosanct)

They might back away from the Ugandan 'cure' in public but they are not overly shocked by that recipe, in fact they are no doubt envious of the pledge.

There is no excuse for Cohen...he is an imbecile...he deserves all the criticism he gets!

Also, there's a lot of lightly veiled homophobia here -- the way he is being treated here is very much like gays of the past who tried to hide it in order to meet societal expectations. There's a lot to criticize him for, but the Uganda bill and his apparent gender confusion are not among them.

I know that being gay doesn't give me preternatural homophobia detection skills, but it does make me sensitive to it, and I haven't really gotten that vibe so far, except from Cohen himself. He is clearly behaving very much like gays of the past who tried to hide it in order to meet societal expectations, which makes him a very good example of internalized homophobia.

The Uganda bill provides a strong (the strongest?) example of just how dangerous preaching his views can be to people, and... wait... gender confusion? You lost me there.

How bizarre... Olbermann is the left's equivalent of Bill O'Reilly. He's a loud-mouthed egotistical self-promoting idiot.

You're talking about the guy who covered Votergate.

Stop being concerned about tone.

I like Rachel Maddow.
I don't agree with her on some issues, but nobody's asking me to. One of the things I like about her the most is her brains. Everybody gets one, but she uses hers like a virtuoso. And that's one of the things that make her likable. Further, Ms Maddow's interview style is very much a change of pace from the usual run of talking-head shows. This interview is no exception. She's also interviewed the head of that AstroTurf group that's doing the tea-party anti-healthcare tour. Maddow exposed the guy for the fraud he is, without yelling, name-calling, talking over him or cutting his mic. It was a brilliant job.
PZ is right. Definitely someone to put on the "would love to sit down, have coffee and chew the fat with " list.

Walton,

There's a big difference between Olbermann and O'Reilly. O'Reilly is well-known for making shit up. I happen to like angry and right! Olbermann's hour long Special Comment on health care was spot on and he didn't have to lie to make his points.

#177 Mike Crichton,

I don't think it's fair to blame any part of the Uganda situation on him, any more than it is for the creationists to blame the Holocaust on Darwin. Criticize the idiot for his own actions, not those of other idiots who may or may not be inspired by him.

except that Darwin wasn't alive in the 1930s/1940s.

If he had, I doubt he would have stayed idle with the nazi pseudo science that claimed to be inspired by his writings.

Also, I don' recall that Darwin ever wrote stuff such as "the jews are more likely to be criminals" and other damning claims with zero evidence.

That's all that's being asked from Cohen (and the other twots like him, Rick Warren, Scott Lively, Paul Cameron, members of the US neo-conservative Christian Right ans some of their "think-tanks" : see my post #59) : that they reverse the damage they've done with their nonsense.

Cohen has admitted he rejects a particular paragraph in his own book, well, why doesn't he go and explain that to the Ugandans ? Maddow even suggested to sponsor his plane ticket.

And what about all the other Christian right twots who've "inspired' that crazy bill, why don't they go and explain to the Ugandans that many of their claims are complete nonsense ?

If they really think the Ugandan Anti-gay bill is such a bad idea, why don't they explain why ?

Come on, you know the answer.

Musings on the Rachel Maddow is a hottie theme.

I adore her intellect (more on the adore below) and enjoy listening to her talk. However, I do not find her “hot” nor do I find her fuckable. I think she is as cute as button (yeah, I am 60, deal with it). I tend to think of her more as a niece or the daughter of one of my contemporaries. I find her fascinating and would love to have a meal and/or drinks with her, but wanting to have sex with her just does not enter my mind. I am just not wired that way now. I do find her sexy, just not an object of sexual desire (I am 60, not dead!). I find lots of men and women sexy without wanting to have sex with them.

Rachel reminds me of a friend of mine who is half my age. She and I have had a platonic relationship for well over a decade. Ate together, drank together, worked (briefly) together. I adore her, find her sexy and have told her so without creeping her out - it can be done, and adore her mind. Neither of us has ever wanted it to go farther. Objectively, she is very fuckable - can we find a better phrase? - but that has never entered into our relationship. Has it ever been in the back of either of our minds? Well, it has been in mine, but I put it aside. The affection, friendship, mutual admiration is too valuable to jeopardize.

Full disclosure, apparently I was bit of hound as a young man. At least when I give a correct answer to how many women I have slept with, female friends assure me I was a hound. So, yeah, I have a normal sex drive. I do not think I ever seduced anyone, though I have been seduced, or let myself be. It was all consensual. The one thing all of them had in common was being smart, capable, usually very bright come to think of it. Even my first, an older woman, was brilliant. It has always been thus for me - smart equals sexy.

So, what does sexy mean to me? It means I think someone is fascinating. It does not mean I necessarily want to sex with them. I know I have embarrassed SC several times by telling her I find her mind beautiful. Since I figure I have probably made her uncomfortable I have slowed down on saying that and refrained from telling that to other female regulars here. Of course, I also feel that way about David M, Knockgroats, Josh, the other Jeff, and a few others as well (yep, out of the intellectual crush closet, guys). (Embarrassment alert) I have never met SC, hope to do so some day, never seen a picture of her, but I know what she looks like just as I know what the other women I respect from their posting look like - beautiful, sexy. SC could be a leper IRS auditor and I would still find her beautiful. (Sorry SC, if this makes you uncomfortable.) The guys I like to read all handsome and graceful as well. It partly is the way I am wired, but it is also a choice. It is all because your mind appeals to me, and thus I find you (the general you) desirable for the entire range from friendship to sweaty and breathing hard. However, if I do not love your mind, I will not love your body.

Now, if one of my female intellectual crushes on this blog had the ultimate hots for me and set out to seduce me, if I was not in a stable and committed relationship (this is an absolute no, BTW), if the sight of me did not kill my potential seducers sex drive (possible, I am kinda scary looking), and if I had the rubber sheets and a half gallon of mayonnaise handy, I might, repeat might, succumb. Yeah, this applies to Rachel and to the friend I mentioned above as well, but the odds of all of those things happening are a bit remote.

Hmmm, the above is a ramble so will tie it up, maybe. I think wanting to sleep with someone because they appeal to you is normal, no matter what the appeal is. I do not think fuckable is a compliment and agree with other commentators that saying you have the hots for Rachel is kind of...off putting. Admire her for her brilliance, balance, accomplishments. If you find this irresistible sexy, then that is OK, but I think you should put it that way. Acknowledge the person, acknowledge them for what they are. On the other hand folks sometimes all of us engage in hyperbole. I have said that I would crawl across a street full of broken glass to lick Tina Turner’s ankles. That is hyperbole (well, maybe - how wide is the street?). I do not think saying you would go gay for someone is an insult nor do I find it denying the object of affection/crush their personhood. I do not think that is objectifying the person. Well, sometime I am wrong and I know I can rely on this crowd to let me know. (smile) Be kind, it is 730PM here and on my second good Scotch.

Ciao y’all

neg:

Darwin wasn't alive in the 1930s/1940s.

If he had, I doubt he would have stayed idle with the nazi pseudo science that claimed to be inspired by his writings.

Also, I don' recall that Darwin ever wrote stuff such as "the jews are more likely to be criminals" and other damning claims with zero evidence.

The Cohen/Darwin analogy is full of even more FAIL than that: Cohen treats homosexuality as an affliction that can be cured1, if the homosexual wants to be cured. This way of looking at it enables a regime that considers homosexuality evil to treat homosexual people as perpretrators of evil, rather than as victims. We may or may not be able to blame Cohen for the fact that Uganda considers homosexuality evil, but in any case, his assertion is the basis for this shifting of "blame."

For the Cohen is to Uganda as Darwin was to Nazi Germany analogy to be apt, Darwin would've had to claim that Jewishness was curable, and thus that anyone who remained Jewish did so by choice... which, in real life, is parsecs from anything Darwin ever actually said... and, BTW, not what the Nazis believed, either. The link between Cohen's assertions and the Ugandan law is much more direct than even the wildest accusations of Darwin having inspired Hitler.

Further, it's not just a matter of unintended consequences of well-intentioned work: I'm firmly convinced that Cohen is lying about gay conversion for the sake of making profits off the misery of others (note: I'm not suggesting gay people are necessarily miserable, but I am suggesting that only miserable people would subject themselves to — and pay for — Cohen's "treatment"). The Ugandan connection may or may not be unintended, but Cohen's work is the diametric opposite of well-intentioned.

1 Yes, I heard his blah, blah, blah about how he avoids the word "cure," but I ain't buying any: He knows full well that his model is that of curing an affliction; any pretense to the contrary is just a matter of trying to establish plausible deniability.

walton wrote:

Every political movement has its share of blithering idiots.

True, but in the case of the Republican meltdown still going on, they have way, way more than their share. It's much easier to enumerate those who aren't blithering right wing idiots than those who are.

What's truly amazing is how many of these idiots (Palin, Beck, Bachmann, ...) have become so detached from reality that it becomes worrisome. There is something going on that isn't healthy for those individuals or society in general. It's also interesting to note that many people on the right who are more sane and intelligent, like Andrew Sullivan, have shifted their positions considerably over the last year around issues like health care and foreign policy.

And as for Olbermann and O'Reilly, about the only thing they have in common are egos that can be seen from the space shuttle. As others have correctly pointed out, as newsmen (a term that really doesn't apply to O'Reilly in the first place) they couldn't be further apart.

Bill,

indeed, the "Cohen is to Uganda as Darwin was to Nazi Germany" analogy is pathetic.

But the "Cohen/Cameron/Lively/Warren are to Uganda as Fischer/von Verschuer/Lenz/Baur were to Nazi Germany<"/i> analogy would seems more appropriate.

"...the banality of evil."

He iz it.

Strangest Brew@156:

he is a fake halfwit but a very dangerous one.

Then he must be very good at faking it, because he came across to me as a genuine halfwit.

And is it just me, or did he seem to be strangely "happy" with being publicly humiliated? Perhaps like certain trolls, he derives satisfaction rather than shame(or both at the same time?) from a good rhetorical flogging.

Does Smoggy have his contact info yet?

The cretin is using his dubious and unsubstantiated sexual history to claim a highly suspect contention that it is a lifestyle choice and therefore curable.
This is neither supported by the research or admitted by Homosexuals anywhere.

Did I say otherwise? You claim to disagree yet you didn't even address what I wrote.

For the Cohen is to Uganda as Darwin was to Nazi Germany analogy to be apt, Darwin would've had to claim that Jewishness was curable

No; you don't understand analogies, which don't assert that everything is in common, only that some relevant things are. What you in effect are saying is that, if someone's work is used to justify genocide, that really is the fault of that person, despite their not endorsing the genocide or its justification, as long as they are making a false claim.

But the "Cohen/Cameron/Lively/Warren are to Uganda as Fischer/von Verschuer/Lenz/Baur were to Nazi Germany analogy would seems more appropriate.

That's vile nonsense. As the article you site says,

"While the Mischling descendants of the mixed marriages might be useful for Germany, he recommended that they be eradicated after their usefulness ended."

Cohen has not called for the eradication of anyone or the banning of anything. Again, there is much to criticize Cohen for, but it is those who use his book as an excuse to kill gays who have the blood on their hands.

There is no excuse for Cohen...he is an imbecile...he deserves all the criticism he gets!

You share the impulse of those who think that criminals in prison deserve to be anally raped.

truth machine, that's a bit of a stretch. It seems he more shares the impulse of those who think that criminals deserve to be prosecuted and imprisoned.

That's vile nonsense.

Agreed, so I take away what I wrote in post #194.

I stick with what I wrote in #190, and I think it's fair to blame him (and others) for being partly responsible for the Ugandan bill.

JeffreyD,

What's your email address?

I think wanting to sleep with someone because they appeal to you is normal, no matter what the appeal is.

Yes. That. I think it's tremendous that people find her attractive for (in addition to not being hard on the eyes; but...huh) her intellect, logic, voice, intensity,... I don't mind that people talk about how hot she is - in fact, in this case it's cool; just wish they would talk more about why :).

But:

I do find her sexy, just not an object of sexual desire (I am 60, not dead!). I find lots of men and women sexy without wanting to have sex with them.

...So, what does sexy mean to me? It means I think someone is fascinating. It does not mean I necessarily want to sex with them.

Hmmm. I think this dilutes the word. As I see it, it's a strange set of Venn diagrams, with complex and ambiguous relationships between the "sexy" set and others...

I don't quite accept that. I work with all these 18-22 year old women, and no, I don't want to sleep with them. At all. I think human relationships are a lot more complicated than that, and we're able to maintain a majority of our social connections with sexual desire kept completely out of the equation.

Well, some people can't. And they're a problem.

truth machine (@198):

No; you don't understand analogies...

Well, there's an extraordinarily broad claim, as gratuitously insulting as it is (if I do say so myself) unfounded.

...which don't assert that everything is in common, only that some relevant things are.

Indeed. But your analysis, far from showing that I don't understand analogies, simply demonstrates that you didn't understand what I was saying was relevant (even though it was pretty well spelled out in the balance of my post):

What you in effect are saying is that, if someone's work is used to justify genocide, that really is the fault of that person, despite their not endorsing the genocide or its justification, as long as they are making a false claim.

No, what I am saying is that theoretical work's degree of responsibility for derived policies follows from how directly the two are related. Cohen's work makes very specific claims about a very specific population of people, and those claims have been fairly directly translated into policy by the Ugandans. IMHO, that makes him responsible to some degree for the existence of that policy (not, BTW, that some degree of responsibility ≠ strict culpability).

There is, I assert, a nontrivial difference between basing an evil policy on directly relevant theoretical assertions, on the one hand, and stretching and distorting essentially unrelated theory to justify an evil policy. For any theorist to stand in the same relation to the Holocaust that Cohen stands to the genocidal Ugandan law (which, as an aside, seems to have been somewhat softened in the wake of international condemnation), that theorist would have had to make specific claims about the Jews (for the most obvious example, though I don't mean to dismiss the other victims of the Holocaust) that would have required only the addition of the Nazis' perception of Jewishness as evil for translation into genocidal policy. (And it's not as if Cohen was blissfully unaware that there were people in the world looking for excuses to persecute gays.)

Which is precisely what my analogy said: The beef I have with Cohen is that his work gave the Ugandans all the philosophical ammunition they needed to get from their a priori position that homosexuality is bad to a legally plausible justification for eliminating (either by imprisonment or death) gay people from their society. Nothing about Darwin's work on evolution bears directly on what the Nazis saw as the "problem" of Jewishness in any even vaguely similar way. The Ugandans made a perfectly reasonable and fairly direct inference from Cohen's work ("reasonable," that is, given their going-in position... a false premise, of course, but the premise they were reasoning from just the same); the Nazis did nothing of the sort WRT Darwin.

BTW, I didn't attribute Cohen's responsibility to the falseness of his claim; I said the craven dishonesty and invidious intentions of his claim (i.e., my specific assertion was that he was lying for the purpose of profiting off of misery) exacerbated his moral guilt. If Cohen's claims were the result of well-intentioned, honest work that was simply wrong, he'd still be responsible (and to the same degree) for the outcomes that work enabled, but his moral guilt would, IMHO, be mitigated.

Finally, it seems to me that there's a rich tradition of scientists worrying about the moral implications arising from practical and political application of their work. Honest scientists worry about it, that is; charlatans like Cohen shrug the question off with facile armwaving.

I can't understand for the life of me why you're defending this guy, even a little bit.

I don't quite except that.

Except what? :P

I work with all these 18-22 year old women, and no, I don't want to sleep with them. At all. I think human relationships are a lot more complicated than that, and we're able to maintain a majority of our social connections with sexual desire kept completely out of the equation. Well, some people can't. And they're a problem.

That's fine, but then you wouldn't be talking about how sexy they are, no? (That's what JeffreyD was doing.) I'm not arguing that all relationships are necessarily sexual, but that there isn't this clean line on a spectrum or hierarchy (I don't believe these exist) that divides the two. As you say, human relationships are complicated.

For you there's a set of women you want to have dinner and/or drinks with which doesn't overlap with those you connect with intellectually or emotionally? Those you find fascinating? Those you adore as friends? Those you think are pretty? Those who appeal to you physically?

Bill, if I were you I would simply ignore truth machine. He seems to take great pleasure in gratuitously insulting and attacking anyone who dares disagree with him. His MO is to provoke pointless arguments about minor and pedantic points, simply so he has an opportunity to fling invective at others and question their intelligence.

I am well aware that one of the founding principles of Pharyngula is "it's better to be right than to be nice". But truth machine takes this too far. He doesn't just attack trolls; he attacks everyone.

In other words, if you say, "Oh, she's smart, cool, articulate, funny, but I appreciate that in a completely nonsexual way," it seems to me that you're suggesting basically that sexuality and sexual desire only about a narrow range of physical attributes.

Bill, if I were you I would simply ignore truth machine.

Oh, fuck off. He just provided extremely educational links re eliminativism on another thread a few hours ago.

No; you don't understand analogies, which don't assert that everything is in common, only that some relevant things are.

So, you find more relevant things in common in the Cohen/Darwin analogy than in the Cohen/Fischer one ?

SC OM, #203 - Per your request my email is keltixx (at) yahoo.com . Please do not hurt me. (smile)

Ciao

Walton:

Bill, if I were you I would simply ignore truth machine....

I am well aware that one of the founding principles of Pharyngula is "it's better to be right than to be nice". But truth machine takes this too far. He doesn't just attack trolls; he attacks everyone.

Nah. By not ignoring him, I was able to sharpen my own argument, and further explain the case I was making to others who potentially might have misunderstood it in the same way TM did.

True, I could've done without the gratuitous "you simpleton!" he employed as his opening salvo, but I'm a big boy; it's all good.

Scott Lively has issued a statement on the Ugandan Kill The Gays Bill :

As a Christian attorney and international human rights advocate who has worked closely with Uganda’s pro-family movement, I have a special interest in this issue. In my view, homosexuality (indeed all sex outside of marriage) should be actively discouraged by society -- but only as aggressively as necessary to prevent the mainstreaming of alternative sexual lifestyles, and with concern for the preservation of the liberties of those who desire to keep their personal lifestyles private. Marriage-based culture served humanity very favorably during the centuries when homosexuality was disapproved but tolerated as a sub-culture in America, England and elsewhere. It has obviously not fared well in the decades since the so-called sexual revolution kicked open Pandora’s Box and unleashed both rampant heterosexual promiscuity and “Gay Pride“ on the world.

As a Christian attorney and international human rights advocate who has worked closely with Uganda’s pro-family movement, I have a special interest in this issue.

Pro-family? Really? Why do attack movements never admit that they're against someone?

In my view, homosexuality (indeed all sex outside of marriage) should be actively discouraged by society

Oh, I guess I'll just get mar-- hey! Fuck you, too, and the horse you rode in on!

but only as aggressively as necessary to prevent the mainstreaming of alternative sexual lifestyles, and with concern for the preservation of the liberties of those who desire to keep their personal lifestyles private.

This really chaps my ass. "Lifestyle" is a hedge. It's a straw man that only Fred Phelps dares knock down in public, but every time a conservative uses it, they get a little mental reward as follows: being gay is a lifestyle -> lifestyles are adopted by choice -> being gay is a choice -> gays are evil and must be destroyed.

Marriage-based culture served humanity very favorably during the centuries when homosexuality was disapproved but tolerated as a sub-culture in America, England and elsewhere.

Tolerated? TOLERATED?! It's barely tolerated today! Oh and I think wh

It has obviously not fared well in the decades since the so-called sexual revolution kicked open Pandora’s Box and unleashed both rampant heterosexual promiscuity and “Gay Pride“ on the world.

As a Christian attorney and international human rights advocate who has worked closely with Uganda’s pro-family movement, I have a special interest in this issue.

Pro-family? Really? Why do attack movements never admit that they're against someone?

In my view, homosexuality (indeed all sex outside of marriage) should be actively discouraged by society

Oh, I guess I'll just get mar-- hey! Fuck you, too, and the horse you rode in on!

but only as aggressively as necessary to prevent the mainstreaming of alternative sexual lifestyles, and with concern for the preservation of the liberties of those who desire to keep their personal lifestyles private.

This really chaps my ass. "Lifestyle" is a hedge. It's a straw man that only Fred Phelps dares knock down in public, but every time a conservative uses it, they get a little dopamine rush from following the logic: being gay is a lifestyle -> lifestyles are adopted by choice -> being gay is a choice -> gays are evil and must be destroyed. That last bit is a non sequiter, but who said God had to be logical?

Marriage-based culture served humanity very favorably during the centuries when homosexuality was disapproved but tolerated as a sub-culture in America, England and elsewhere.

I think when you said "humanity" you meant "wealthy white men." Also, tolerated? TOLERATED?! It's barely tolerated today! Salvatore Romano is not who I want to be. Ever.

It has obviously not fared well in the decades since the so-called sexual revolution kicked open Pandora’s Box and unleashed both rampant heterosexual promiscuity and “Gay Pride“ on the world.

I haven't got time to respond to this one, as I'm late for my love-in. Seriously, where does this guy get off? I bet it's somewhere pretty sleazy.

Oh shoot. I accidentally posted while I was working on it, but I thought I hit "back" before teh intertubes did their job. PZ if you're watching, would you delete the draft please?

Carlie (@184):

Bill, I get what you've said here and elsewhere...

Yeah, "here and elswhere." Between this thread, the porn thread, and a couple other recent threads on related topics, I begin to fear that I've reduced myself, in the eyes of this community, to a mustachioed, turtleneck-wearing pencil drawing straight out of an old copy of The Joy of Sex. I'm really not as retro-sex-obsessed as these threads must make me seem; my interest is largely (sadly) intellectual.

I actually had written (and rewritten, and copyedited) a long response in my head, but eventually decided to shelve it for fear of perpetuating my own self-generated stereotype. That's why it's taken me so long to get around to this much briefer reply.

...about how we ought to have a culture in which sexuality isn't any more privileged or taboo than other characteristics, but we currently don't.

I think you and I probably agree broadly that Things Are Not as They Should Be®, howevermuch we may differ on the path to improvement. I'm happy to focus on the agreement more than the conflict. It's just that many of the arguments folks (I'm not saying you) make in this debate boil down to "people (and mostly men) should just stop thinking so much about sex." Which might even work... but strikes me as vanishingly unlikely to happen in anyone here's lifetime.

In addition, while I understand the logic behind the argument advanced by some that it's OK for women and gay men to pash on people like Maddow, "you straight men need to just put it on the shelf," it's hard to find any justice in that approach.

Jus' sayin'...

yep, Scott Lively is a real piece of work :

modern Ugandans are very unhappy that homosexual political activists from Europe and the United States are working aggressively to re-homosexualize their nation. Ugandan citizens report a growing number of foreign homosexual men coming to their country to turn desperately poor young men from the slums into their personal houseboys, and that some girls in public schools have being paid to recruit others into lesbianism.

"to re-homosexualize" ?

Choice selection of Lively-quotes (note the Christian Love):

"The gay movement is an evil institution that’s goal is to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity in which there’s no restrictions on sexual conduct except the principle of mutual choice."

"[homosexuality and pedophilia] They are equated. They are equated because the very same arguments you can make for homosexuality you can apply to pedophilia in many ways, not in every way but in many ways…clearly it’s not the way it ought to be. It’s wrong and it should be discouraged."

"There is a norm, there is a model of the way things are supposed to be. When you find yourself outside of that, when you find yourself not fitting the way things are designed to be, it’s a simple matter of just learning how you ought to be and working to restore the way things are supposed to be."

"Nobody has been able to stop them [homosexuals] so far, I’m hoping Uganda can."

truth machine, OM | December 12, 2009 1:26 PM:

There is no excuse for Cohen...he is an imbecile...he deserves all the criticism he gets!

You share the impulse of those who think that criminals in prison deserve to be anally raped.

uh, you compare criticism to anal rape?

Yeah, "here and elswhere." Between this thread, the porn thread, and a couple other recent threads on related topics, I begin to fear that I've reduced myself, in the eyes of this community, to a mustachioed, turtleneck-wearing pencil drawing straight out of an old copy of The Joy of Sex.

:D. I'm sure that's not true. I think part of the complexity is that some people are talking (unconsciously at times) about sex or sexual desire as somehow inherently immoral, while others are talking about the moral aspects of the intersection between sex and power relationships. There's so much overlap amongst all of the camps that these discussions can get very confusing.

***

Hitler's Scientists is a good read. It's not a matter of responsible or not responsible, but of determining personal moral responsibility in specific cases. It's extremely important to do so.

This just in: Texas has many, many flaws, but tonight my old stomping ground of Houston helped prove that Texas is still a few steps ahead of Uganda, by electing a lesbian as Mayor of the countries 4th largest city! Wonder if she'll grant Rachel Maddow an interview?

Urkk! "...country's...," not "...countries...."

All I can say is it's late, and I've had a long day.

I think part of the complexity is that some people are talking (unconsciously at times) about sex or sexual desire as somehow inherently immoral, while others are talking about the moral aspects of the intersection between sex and power relationships.

Yes, this. I never would have been able to figure it out and express it as clearly as SC did, but I think that gets right at it. I don't mind a bit that people find each other sexy; it's the fact that historically women have always been kept "in their place" by sex appeal being their most important characteristic that I don't like. And, since both "you're sexy" and "you're sexy and that's the most important thing about you" often get expressed the exact same way, I don't think it's easy to just substitute one for the other without a lot of potential for misunderstanding and perpetuating of the latter mindset.

Bill,

Texas has many, many flaws, but tonight my old stomping ground of Houston helped prove that Texas is still a few steps ahead of Uganda, by electing a lesbian as Mayor of the countries 4th largest city!

Yep. First lesbian mayor of a major U.S. city, and the largest city in the U.S. with an out gay mayor.

Yee haw. Pretty damned cool for Texas---not even Austin, that wouldn't be a big surprise, but Houston that did this. (I guess we're not all a bunch of religious right rednecks down here.)

Kind of cool for Texas to be #1 in something good, for a change.

I'm an old Houston boy, too. (Montrose is the gay neighborhood I referred to earlier, where I lived and worked for years. Wish I could be there for the celebrations.)

I remember the bad old days when the corrupt cops used to do atrocious things (or atrociously fail to do things), and nobody'd make a big deal about it, because who gives a damn about a bunch of fags?

Wow, times have really changed. I've always been a gay rights advocate, but until a few years ago, I never thought I'd see this in my lifetime. Just wow.

Let's hope atheists can shift the Overton Window so much...

I was so glad to hear that Annise Parker won the Houston election. She doesn't shy away from being gay, either; from her acceptance speech:

This election has changed the world for the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community. Just as it is about transforming the lives of all Houstonians for the better. And that's what my administration will be about. -YouTube Link

And *tears up* she recognized her wife of 19 years, Kathy Hubbard, and their son and daughter.

I'm kind of amazed that Parker won, in a runoff with low turnout. (Runoffs usually have low turnout.) Only a bit more than 1 in 8 eligible voters voted.

(Probably because Parker and her opponent are both democrats and not very far apart on most actual issues. So it was the black straight guy vs. the white lesbian, and most people just didn't care much.)

Normally, a gay candidate is very vulnerable in a low-turnout election, because the right wing religious kooks will get out the vote and make sure they lose.

They tried, and they failed.

She is also not a shrinking violet almost-closeted lesbian who knows her place. She got her start in politics as a gay activist, and has always been out and proud. She's the kind of gay person who the right like to stereotype as actively promoting their sinful lifestyle and recruiting your children.

She didn't make her sexuality an issue in the race, but she's a longtime destroyer-of-the-family-and-thefabric-of-society. (With a mate of 19 years and three kids.)

Interestingly, she had the endorsement of the police union. I guess HPD has changed considerably since I lived there.

@Paul W.

Pretty damned cool for Texas---not even Austin, that wouldn't be a big surprise, but Houston that did this.

Hey, I vote for Leslie every time he runs. It's not my fault people don't see "homeless cross-dresser" as an electable demographic. I don't think he's gay, anyway, but if you keep up with such things, he's recovering well from being beaten into a coma by crackheads.