Although I love words, lately, I have been reluctant to use them, at least not in writing, so I expect blogging to be light for a few days. Perhaps this is because I have been up to my ears in reading (and writing) for class; I have also been busy with other obligations.
When I have had a moment to spare, I have been more introspective than expressive (so to speak). Perhaps some of my ideas will find their way into future posts. Class reading has also kept me thinking. One or our assigned books, Maya Deren’s, Divine Horsemen: The Living Gods of Haiti , has helped open my eyes to a religion which I had once thought was little more than witchcraft, concerned largely with zombies and kewpie dolls — the focus of ridicule and horror movies.
As I learn that what we call “voodoo” is far more than a cult, I wonder at many things we misunderstand. In reading just a few pages of Deren’s book, we learn how the Voudoun religion developed when European colonists brought West Africans to Caribbean islands as slaves. Those enslaved people developed a new religion, mixing elements of their African spiritual heritage with the Christian tradition of their masters. A rich faith, as complex and nuanced as Christianity, Judaism or even the ancient Greek religion, resulted.
When I compare what the Voudoun religion really is to what I had thought just a month ago, I wonder if many on the Left see the GOP as I once saw (what most people call) “voodoo.” They define it not by what it is, but what others have portrayed it to be. We have, alas, learned about voodoo from those who wish to dismiss it as sorcery and witchcraft. Just as all too often, those on the left dismiss the GOP as a reactionary force. Both are wrong.
Much as I have come to appreciate the richness of the Voudoun tradition, I dare say I will not convert to this fascinating faith. By the same token, I would hope that those on the left would learn to appreciate the GOP for what it is — and not the caricature that its enemies have presented.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
More liberal hypocrisy?
Over at Cake or Death, Chad wonders why the New York Civil Liberties Union holds that:
It’s illegal for the city of New York to randomly search bags on the transit system, but it’s perfectly a-okay, hunkey-dorey, peachey-keen for them to be searched when entering buildings (who happen to house the NYCLU).
Chad sees some hypocrisy in their actions, but then again, hypocrisy is only the “greatest crime one can ever possibly commit” for Republicans. Since the ACLU is not Republican, well, then, they can get away with it. Anyway, check out Chad’s post for a taste of his wit — and wisdom.
Hillary Clinton — (Mendacious) Hypocrite
Those on the left who get upset at the slightest whiff of hypocrisy among Republicans should be in high dudgeon about Hillary Clinton’s remarks on the indictment of Vice President Cheney’s former chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby. In a statement on Friday, Mrs. Clinton said it was “simply reprehensible” that Mr. Libby “willfully interfered with the investigation into the possible exposure of a CIA agent’s identity.”
Well, it seems Mrs. Clinton did a little willful interference of her own into another investigation, that which independent counsel Robert Ray’s led into an abuse of power in the early days of her husband’s administration, the firing of officials in the White House travel office so the Clintons could give their jobs to cronies. While that prosecutor, like Patrick Fitzgerald, did not bring charges on the underlying offenses, he did find that one of his key witnesses lied under oath. Only Mr. Ray chose not to prosecute her.
In his October 18, 2000 report, Ray “determined Hillary had given false testimony when questioned about the travel office firing.” Giving false testimony certainly sounds like interfering into Mr. Ray’s investigation. By Mrs. Clinton’s own standards, that’s “simply reprehensible.”
Malcontent’s Robbie observed that “For many on the Left, hypocrisy is quite possibly the greatest crime one can ever possibly commit.” Given Mrs. Clinton’s comments and the silence of the left, I would amend that only to read hypocrisy is the great crime Republican can commit because Democrats do it all the time.
In Reaction to Miers Withdrawal, HRC & NGLTF (once again) Fail to Understand Conservatives
In their reactions to the withdrawal of the Miers nomination, both the Human Rights’ Campaign (HRC) and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) show that they have absolutely no understanding of American conservatism, the dominant political philosophy in America today. Joe Solmonese, HRC”s president, claimed last week that her withdrawal “demonstrates that the president is beholden to extremist groups rather than to the American people”
Had this many paid any attention to the conservative debate over her nomination? While several pretty “extreme” social conservatives, namely Focus on the Family‘s James Dobson and Pat Robertson, supported the nomination, many mainstream conservatives, indeed, many libertarian conservatives opposed it. (Indeed, as I noted when I first blogged on the nomination, I was “troubled” that Ms. Miers’ “most enthusiastic support . . . came from social conservatives.”)
The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force had a similar reaction suggesting that its leadership has spent more time reading its own press releases and other left-wing interpretations of the conservative movement than paying any attention to that movement itself. Its president, Matt Foreman, called Miers’ withdrawal “a sorry testament to the absolute control right-wing evangelicals have over this administration.” Moreover, he claimed that “Miers’ intellectual and professional abilities and accomplishments were never really on the table.” Actually, had he bothered to read conservative op-eds and blogs on the nomination, he would have noted that criticism of her intellectual ability, particularly her lack of demonstrated understanding of complex constitutional issues, was at the heart of countless conservative critiques of her nomination.
[Read more…]
Judiciary Committee vote on Roberts Shows (Once Again) why Republicans are Better than Democrats
With the Senate Judiciary Committee vote to approve the nomination of John Roberts as the next Chief Justice, we once again have proof that Republicans show more respect for their ideological adversaries than do Democrats. Only three of the Committee’s eight Democrats (Vermont’s Patrick Leahy and the two Senators from Wisconsin, Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold) joined all ten Republicans in voting to confirm this good man. Five voted against. This contrasts with the same committee’s unanimous vote twelve years ago to confirm a one-time American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) activist to the Supreme Court.
Yep, all the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1993 voted to confirm Ruth Bader Ginsburg even though her appointment would shift the court to the left. President Clinton tapped her to replace Byron White who, while appointed by President Kennedy, usually voted with the court’s conservative bloc; he wrote the dissenting opinion in Roe. v. Wade.
Even though conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer thinks a Chief Justice Roberts would “move the court only mildly, but most assuredly, to the left,” a majority of Judiciary Committee Democrats voted against this good man. My state’s normally sensible senior Senator, Dianne Feinstein, said “her vote was decided after Roberts refused to fully answer questions from her and other Democrats in his confirmation hearing last week.” Twelve years ago, she didn’t express similar qualms about Ms. Ginsburg’s failure to fully answer questions from Democrats — or Republicans.
Let’s face it, while Democrats and others on the left repeatedly accuse conservatives of intolerance and narrow-mindedness, they, by and large, are far more ideologically hardheaded than are most Republicans and conservatives. Bill Clinton won only 43% of the popular vote in 1992, yet Republican Senators respected his constitutional role in appointing judges — even if his first Supreme Court appointment shifted the court to the left. Today’s Senate Democrats are a much different sort, more concerned with answering to left-wing interest groups than in respecting constitutional principles.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
UPDATE: Powerline‘s Paul writes, “The Democratic “no” vote on the 18 member Committee exceeds the number of Republican votes, Senate-wide, against Justice Ginsburg.”
UPDATE FROM GP: I noted with interest the point that Rush Limbaugh made today. DiFi was voting no on Roberts partially because she wasn’t sure how Roberts was as a husband and a father. Really. So feminism is now decided on whether you are a GOOD husband and father? I thought it was irrelevant to them. Plus, imagine the screams from the LibDems had someone asked Ginsberg if she were a good mother or wife!!! Double-standards never end among our friends from the Anti-Religious Left.
A Warm Reception from Conservatives, a Colder One from the Gay Left
I had intended to blog yesterday on a National Review fundraiser I attended Saturday night in Studio City, but decided to delay my post until after I had attended a gay party in the heart of West Hollywood later in the afternoon. And in contrasting my reception at these two gatherings, one where I was openly gay among conservative, the second where I was openly conservative among gays, I experienced nearly exactly the same thing I had when I attended two such events back to back last fall.
This time, however, I actually had a good discussion of gays and the GOP with one guy at the gay party. I had quite a blast at the NR shindig Saturday. The hostess (a former liberal and fan of the magazine) told me that she had never seen so many straight people at her place at one time. She regularly socializes with gay men. More evidence that conservatives are not so narrow as our critics (and some readers of this blog) claim.
I met a number of writers and editors whose columns (and Corner “chatter) I enjoy and got to talk to Peter Robinson, newly installed as a trustee of Dartmouth and author of the wonderful book, How Reagan Changed My Life (which I bought when I visited the Reagan library with Bruce). Jonah Goldberg was much taller than I imagined and most gregarious. A Lord of the Rings fan like me, he is, alas, not so keen (as I) on The Silmarillion.
Ramesh Ponnuru proved to be an excellent conversationalist, well-read and familiar with the details of legislation in this Congress (and past Congresses). K-Lo (i.e., Kathryn Jean Lopez), witty and smart, informed me that my Athena reads the Corner. And even though he once considered running for Mayor of New York, Rich Lowry looks like he’s still a student at America’s finest state university.
I introduced myself to each by indicating the blog (with which most were familiar). Kate O’Beirne was the only one who raised an eyebrow when I identified myself as gay. And that may have been because I reminded her of an exchange we had at the Cato Institute in the mid-90s (which she did not remember as well as I–if she remembered it all).
[Read more…]
Boy Scouts and Orangemen Don’t Mix
I was troubled this week to see this news item outlining a second instance of Syracuse University — my alma mater — discriminating against the Boy Scouts of America.
Boy Scouts banned from holding event at Syracuse University
Now, the argument by the University is that since Boy Scouts of America don’t allow gays in their organization, the University can refuse to provide them a place to meet and have award dinners. Really…
[Read more…]