Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Poll

Why did Sarah Palin resign?

Personal scandal
 5 (17.2%)
Probable indictment
 7 (24.1%)
Just plain craziness
 3 (10.3%)
Looooong lead up to 2012
 4 (13.8%)
Something else
 2 (6.9%)
Some combination of the above
 8 (27.6%)

Total Members Voted: 29

Author Topic: The Thread on Politics  (Read 418897 times)

Burning Sands, Esq.

  • Global Moderator
  • LSD Obsessed
  • ****
  • Posts: 7072
  • Yes We Kan-sas!!!
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #7530 on: December 22, 2008, 06:34:24 PM »
It is tradition for the Chief Justice to swear in the President. That doesn't make it odd at all for people to be protesting something that was an actual choice. Come on, now.

It's not about his beliefs sucking - it's about them being antithetical in many ways to the things that Obama claims to stand for, and involving the removal of rights from members of our society. Also, he hasn't just been invited to the inauguration - he was invited to speak at the inauguration. There's a significant difference.

Sure, but that's my point - the guy has been invited to speak the inauguration of a president who believes the opposite of what the speaker believes.  Look, we said we were going to do this thing differently right?  Well then, let's make good on that promise and do it differently.  Inviting only people to speak who believe what we believe is not doing things differently. 

And I've acknowledged that, but I've also noted that this choice bears a cost for one of our most legally vulnerable populations, and that it is, at the least, understandable that people are upset by it. In one way it represents change, in another it represents the status quo.

Perhaps.  I would be more inclined to agree with you if the widespread interpretation of the invitation is that, Warren's views on same-sex marriage, for example, now speak of those of the persident-elect. However there has been too much controversy surrounding this invite for that inference to be the prevailing view.  The talk now is less on what Warren has to say and more on how shocking it is for a guy like Warren to get invited to an inauguration for a guy like Obama, which would imply that most folks (or at least the media) know(s) that the two individuals are not identicle.
"A lawyer's either a social engineer or a parasite on society. A social engineer is a highly skilled...lawyer who understands the Constitution of the U.S. and knows how to explore its uses in the solving of problems of local communities and in bettering [our] conditions."
Charles H. Houston

A.

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 15712
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #7531 on: December 22, 2008, 06:37:15 PM »
My problem with The LGBT movement is that they want to equate their efforts to the Civil Rights Movement, but expect change to come from the top down. It didn't happen that way in 60's and it probably won't happen now. Obama is probably the most gay-friendly president we've ever had and I believe it only works to galvanize Christians around this homophobic pastor when we appear at odds with Obama over Warren. I just think there is a smarter way to respond to this.

this is the credited response

Susan B. Anthony

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 6571
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #7532 on: December 22, 2008, 06:53:19 PM »
It is tradition for the Chief Justice to swear in the President. That doesn't make it odd at all for people to be protesting something that was an actual choice. Come on, now.

It's not about his beliefs sucking - it's about them being antithetical in many ways to the things that Obama claims to stand for, and involving the removal of rights from members of our society. Also, he hasn't just been invited to the inauguration - he was invited to speak at the inauguration. There's a significant difference.

Sure, but that's my point - the guy has been invited to speak the inauguration of a president who believes the opposite of what the speaker believes.  Look, we said we were going to do this thing differently right?  Well then, let's make good on that promise and do it differently.  Inviting only people to speak who believe what we believe is not doing things differently. 

And I've acknowledged that, but I've also noted that this choice bears a cost for one of our most legally vulnerable populations, and that it is, at the least, understandable that people are upset by it. In one way it represents change, in another it represents the status quo.

Perhaps.  I would be more inclined to agree with you if the widespread interpretation of the invitation is that, Warren's views on same-sex marriage, for example, now speak of those of the persident-elect. However there has been too much controversy surrounding this invite for that inference to be the prevailing view.  The talk now is less on what Warren has to say and more on how shocking it is for a guy like Warren to get invited to an inauguration for a guy like Obama, which would imply that most folks (or at least the media) know(s) that the two individuals are not identicle.

I haven't spoken to anyone about this issue who thinks that it means that Obama actually agrees with Warren, though some may hold that view. What is offensive to people, in the conversations I have had, is that Obama has invited someone who actively campaigned for Prop 8, among other things, to usher in a presidency that is supposed to represent progress for LGBT individuals.

That doesn't mean that the other kinds of change that this presidency is supposed to represent aren't important, too - but surely we can at least acknowledge that there is a tension there.

A.

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 15712
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #7533 on: December 22, 2008, 06:56:28 PM »
No one expects Obama to walk into the White House on day one and sign something that legalizes gay marriage.  We just don't expect to have the concept of our civil rights publicly degraded by even a tacit veil of presidential legitimacy. 

Yes, but unless you're about to engage in sit-ins and such, I think it would serve the cause better to pick its fights carefully.  Is this really the most pressing issue facing the LGBT community?  Is this where you're throwing down your gauntlet?

Burning Sands, Esq.

  • Global Moderator
  • LSD Obsessed
  • ****
  • Posts: 7072
  • Yes We Kan-sas!!!
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #7534 on: December 22, 2008, 06:59:00 PM »
Ahmadinejad wasn't invited to speak at the inauguration of an American president.  He wasn't invited to speak at the White House.  He wasn't invited to speak to an organization concerned with human rights, or nuclear proliferation, or the Holocaust.  Most importantly, he wasn't invited as an example of "inclusion" or in "bringing people together."  He was one of many people to speak at a private university's World Leaders Forum, because he's a world leader.  


And you took the words right out of my mouth because I was just about to make the parallel of this point regarding the decision to have Warren do the invocation.  Warren was chosen because, quite frankly, there's an invocation to be given and he is a pastor.

I could be wrong, but I don't believe that Warren is going to take to the stage and start spouting anti-gay sentiment for 60 minutes.  He's been asked to come, give a prayer, and sit down.  Now if I am grossly underestimating the extent to which Warren's speaking engagement will exist, then I'll be one of the first to sound the alarm b/c for an event like this, it wouldn't make any sense to do anything that departs from giving an invocation.


But this whole controversy speaks to 7S's point, which I think we're going to have to come to terms with which is there will be times when Obama's administration will have to do something that will be unpopular with the Democrats/Black Community/Minority Community/Liberals/etc.  I, for one, am ok with that as long as our interests are being looked out for.  I don't expect Obama to make every executive decision from the viewpoint of the black community.  That's ok.  But I can guarantee that there will be many folks within the black community, democratic community, etc. who will be up in arms over the next 4 years over some issue when an Obama policy departs from our ideology/interests.  I think people's expectations sometimes are a little unrealistic.

In the great words of the Rolling Stones "you can't always get what you want..."


but you get what you need.
"A lawyer's either a social engineer or a parasite on society. A social engineer is a highly skilled...lawyer who understands the Constitution of the U.S. and knows how to explore its uses in the solving of problems of local communities and in bettering [our] conditions."
Charles H. Houston

LadyKD

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1297
  • And so it began..
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #7535 on: December 22, 2008, 07:28:54 PM »
No one expects Obama to walk into the White House on day one and sign something that legalizes gay marriage.  We just don't expect to have the concept of our civil rights publicly degraded by even a tacit veil of presidential legitimacy. 

Yes, but unless you're about to engage in sit-ins and such, I think it would serve the cause better to pick its fights carefully.  Is this really the most pressing issue facing the LGBT community?  Is this where you're throwing down your gauntlet?

TITCR and why I said this was a non-issue.

LadyKD

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1297
  • And so it began..
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #7536 on: December 22, 2008, 07:32:21 PM »
Ahmadinejad wasn't invited to speak at the inauguration of an American president.  He wasn't invited to speak at the White House.  He wasn't invited to speak to an organization concerned with human rights, or nuclear proliferation, or the Holocaust.  Most importantly, he wasn't invited as an example of "inclusion" or in "bringing people together."  He was one of many people to speak at a private university's World Leaders Forum, because he's a world leader.  


And you took the words right out of my mouth because I was just about to make the parallel of this point regarding the decision to have Warren do the invocation.  Warren was chosen because, quite frankly, there's an invocation to be given and he is a pastor.

I could be wrong, but I don't believe that Warren is going to take to the stage and start spouting anti-gay sentiment for 60 minutes.  He's been asked to come, give a prayer, and sit down.  Now if I am grossly underestimating the extent to which Warren's speaking engagement will exist, then I'll be one of the first to sound the alarm b/c for an event like this, it wouldn't make any sense to do anything that departs from giving an invocation.


But this whole controversy speaks to 7S's point, which I think we're going to have to come to terms with which is there will be times when Obama's administration will have to do something that will be unpopular with the Democrats/Black Community/Minority Community/Liberals/etc.  I, for one, am ok with that as long as our interests are being looked out for.  I don't expect Obama to make every executive decision from the viewpoint of the black community.  That's ok.  But I can guarantee that there will be many folks within the black community, democratic community, etc. who will be up in arms over the next 4 years over some issue when an Obama policy departs from our ideology/interests.  I think people's expectations sometimes are a little unrealistic.

In the great words of the Rolling Stones "you can't always get what you want..."


but you get what you need.



 That pretty much says it all..

Susan B. Anthony

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 6571
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #7537 on: December 22, 2008, 07:45:59 PM »
No one expects Obama to walk into the White House on day one and sign something that legalizes gay marriage.  We just don't expect to have the concept of our civil rights publicly degraded by even a tacit veil of presidential legitimacy. 

Yes, but unless you're about to engage in sit-ins and such, I think it would serve the cause better to pick its fights carefully.  Is this really the most pressing issue facing the LGBT community?  Is this where you're throwing down your gauntlet?

First, Saxby doesn't represent the "cause"

Second, whether or not this is the most pressing issue, and even if one does acknowledge that Obama will let all kinds of people down at various points (which most people do acknowledge, and have since before the election), that doesn't mean that one should just sit down and shut up when it happens.

I personally think it's important for people to say "this guy disgusts me, and I don't appreciate his voice being a part of this moment." I don't think - nor do most people, so far as I can tell - that this is a make or break moment for Obama, but that doesn't mean it isn't bothersome. And honestly, much of the angry reaction and continued debate about this stems from people refusing to acknowledge that there's even any reason for people to be bothered.

A.

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 15712
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #7538 on: December 22, 2008, 09:16:18 PM »
No one expects Obama to walk into the White House on day one and sign something that legalizes gay marriage.  We just don't expect to have the concept of our civil rights publicly degraded by even a tacit veil of presidential legitimacy. 

Yes, but unless you're about to engage in sit-ins and such, I think it would serve the cause better to pick its fights carefully.  Is this really the most pressing issue facing the LGBT community?  Is this where you're throwing down your gauntlet?

First, Saxby doesn't represent the "cause"

Show me where I said he did.


Quote
Second, whether or not this is the most pressing issue, and even if one does acknowledge that Obama will let all kinds of people down at various points (which most people do acknowledge, and have since before the election), that doesn't mean that one should just sit down and shut up when it happens.

I personally think it's important for people to say "this guy disgusts me, and I don't appreciate his voice being a part of this moment." I don't think - nor do most people, so far as I can tell - that this is a make or break moment for Obama, but that doesn't mean it isn't bothersome. And honestly, much of the angry reaction and continued debate about this stems from people refusing to acknowledge that there's even any reason for people to be bothered.

That may very well be so, but there comes a point at which voicing one's discontent becomes counterproductive if you're not going to use it to launch the next part of your plan.  Complain with a purpose, not just to complain.

Susan B. Anthony

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 6571
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #7539 on: December 22, 2008, 09:20:25 PM »
No one expects Obama to walk into the White House on day one and sign something that legalizes gay marriage.  We just don't expect to have the concept of our civil rights publicly degraded by even a tacit veil of presidential legitimacy. 

Yes, but unless you're about to engage in sit-ins and such, I think it would serve the cause better to pick its fights carefully.  Is this really the most pressing issue facing the LGBT community?  Is this where you're throwing down your gauntlet?

First, Saxby doesn't represent the "cause"

Show me where I said he did.


Quote
Second, whether or not this is the most pressing issue, and even if one does acknowledge that Obama will let all kinds of people down at various points (which most people do acknowledge, and have since before the election), that doesn't mean that one should just sit down and shut up when it happens.

I personally think it's important for people to say "this guy disgusts me, and I don't appreciate his voice being a part of this moment." I don't think - nor do most people, so far as I can tell - that this is a make or break moment for Obama, but that doesn't mean it isn't bothersome. And honestly, much of the angry reaction and continued debate about this stems from people refusing to acknowledge that there's even any reason for people to be bothered.

That may very well be so, but there comes a point at which voicing one's discontent becomes counterproductive if you're not going to use it to launch the next part of your plan.  Complain with a purpose, not just to complain.


Saxby and I have been explaining why this isn't a non-issue, and why there is a legitimate reason for people to be distressed by this. Unless you're intending to change the scope of the discussion to what the movement as a whole should be doing, then your comment serve as no reasonable retort to Saxby's arguments.

I'm done with this discussion, though.