James McPherson's Media & Politics Blog

Observations of a patriotic progressive historian, media critic & former journalist


  • By the author of The Conservative Resurgence and the Press: The Media’s Role in the Rise of the Right and of Journalism at the End of the American Century, 1965-Present. A former journalist with a Ph.D. in journalism, history and political science, McPherson is a past president of the American Journalism Historians Association and a board member for the Northwest Alliance for Responsible Media.

  • Archives

  • August 2021
    S M T W T F S
    1234567
    891011121314
    15161718192021
    22232425262728
    293031  
  • Categories

  • Subscribe

Posts Tagged ‘gay rights’

Republican platform: gallows for GOP suicide?

Posted by James McPherson on August 25, 2012

It has seemed for some time as if the Republican Party is suicidal, and determined to make sure that Barack Obama wins re-election. Maybe Republicans just want to prove that a couple of professors who forecast a Mitt Romney win aren’t so smart. Because the schedule proposed platform for next week’s GOP national convention provide new evidence that Republicans either cluelessly think that they will win easily–perhaps by voter suppression in key states–or have simply decided that they can’t win and so might as well be entertaining as they go down in flames.

A positive sign for Romney is the fact that various media are now helping him do what he and his campaign have generally been unable to do–look more human. Though he was unfairly bashed for a ride on a personal watercraft, yesterday two major media sources–the New York Times and MSNBC–have produced largely flattering portrayals of the GOP nominee. OK, it may be stretching it to call MSNBC a major media source, but it is a generally liberal-leaning cable network that could help portray Romney as more moderate than his campaign has been. Both stories include what Times writer Sheryl Gay Stolberg calls a “crisis” narrative, details about Ann Romney’s multiple sclerosis and Mitt Romney’s auto accident in France (a head-on collision apparently caused by a priest who may have been drunk, killing a passenger in Romney’s car).

There also are signs that Romney is ready to reveal more about his faith (even if he won’t say the “M-word”), as demonstrated by a laudatory Bloomberg piece on Thursday, a Tuesday Seattle Times story picked up via the Associated Press by newspapers around the country, and the fact that the invocation for one night of the GOP convention will be given by a fellow Mormon. MSNBC has also taken advantage of Romney’s religion to do a “Rock Center” program about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints on Thursday. Not that the religious aspects may matter much. As I’ve mentioned previously (demonstrating the decreasing influence of the Religious Right) it seems a bit ironic that if the Christian Right gets its way in November, for the first time ever there won’t be a single Protestant among the president, vice president and entire Supreme Court. But anyone on the far right will be voting against Obama, even if not for Romney–or, as some fruitcakes might phrase it, will favor the Mormon over the Muslim.

Bigger problems than religion come from the fact that Romney has run to the right to represent a party that is already “akin‘,” with controversies about”legitimate rape” (more evidence of the need for better science education) and a judge who suggests that Obama’s re-election could lead to “civil unrest, civil disobedience, civil war” (considering that he’s a Texan, though, his stupidity may not be particularly surprising). Still, it might be moderately surprising that Republicans will apparently repeat their Sharron Angle/Christine O’Donnell/Joe Miller/Ken Buck Tea Party debacle of two years ago with a new round of questionable candidates–Todd Akin, Ted Cruz, Richard Mourdock, Deb Fischer and  Josh Mandel–who (along with repeat loser Linda McMahon) will likely keep them from gaining control of the Senate.

Still, it would be nice if voters would cast ballots based on the actual positions of the candidates. So while party platforms rarely matter much, I would recommend that everyone check out this year’s GOP draft version (thanks Politico)–just to affirm how thoroughly the party has given up on attracting the number of women, gays and people of color that it needs to win the presidential election in November. Some of the key points of the platform would:

Admittedly, all we have so far is a draft document. But it is a draft that the New York Times accurately depicts as “more aggressive in its opposition to women’s reproductive rights and to gay rights than any in memory.” Not a good sign, for a party scrambling to come from behind. A blogger for the Guardian compares it to a useless body part: “Like party platforms, the appendix’s role is a mystery to most people: it may be a useful harbour for bacteria but can also rupture, causing pain and misery.”

Speaking of misery, in fact, Republicans may want to start praying that Hurricane Isaac will reduce Americans’ exposure to official GOP ideas, just as Hurricane Gustov disrupted the GOP convention four years ago. If that does happen, perhaps Pat Robertson and other loonies will point out that Republicans must have offended God in some way (maybe, considering the male names of the hurricanes, with the party’s official anti-gay stance). On the other hand, if this election does drive off enough Americans to lead to the death of the Republican Party–or at least to generate a future GOP “crisis narrative”–perhaps Romney can baptize it after its demise.

P.S.: Just after I posted this, the GOP announced that Isaac will indeed cancel the first day of the convention.

Posted in History, Journalism, Legal issues, Politics, Religion, Written elsewhere | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 45 Comments »

WorldNetDaily mad at Coulter because she shares founder’s values

Posted by James McPherson on August 18, 2010

You’d think hatemongers would hang on to any allies they could. But wnd.com founder/editor Joseph Farah, in today’s lead story, announces, “WND dumps Ann Coulter from Miami due to Homoconflict.”

Despite the interesting headline, Coulter isn’t fighting with a girlfriend, or going after Farah’s boyfriend. (And what is a Homoconflict, anyway? A fight between homo sapiens? A one-person fight involving someone with multiple personalities?)

Coulter is apparently being “dumped” (though probably not from all of Miami–I don’t think even Farah is delusional enough to think wnd has that much power) from her gig as a conference speaker because she agreed to speak for the “Republican group GOProud that promotes same-sex marriage and military service for open homosexuals.”

I did find the headline and lead surprising, at first, finding it difficult to believe that Coulter would be so enlightened as to speak for gay rights. But then I remembered: For enough money and attention, she’ll talk anywhere and say pretty much anything; getting her to shut up is the hard part.

Reading further confirmed the thought:

Asked by Farah why she was speaking to GOProud, Coulter said: “They hired me to give a speech, so I’m giving a speech. I do it all the time.”

Farah then asked: “Do you not understand you are legitimizing a group that is fighting for same-sex marriage and open homosexuality in the military – not to mention the idea that sodomy is just an alternate lifestyle?”

Coulter responded: “That’s silly, I speak to a lot of groups and do not endorse them. I speak at Harvard and I certainly don’t endorse their views. I’ve spoken to Democratic groups and liberal Republican groups that loooove abortion. The main thing I do is speak on college campuses, which is about the equivalent of speaking at an al-Qaida conference. I’m sure I agree with GOProud more than I do with at least half of my college audiences. But in any event, giving a speech is not an endorsement of every position held by the people I’m speaking to. I was going to speak for you guys, I think you’re nuts on the birther thing (though I like you otherwise!).”

Get that, birthers? Ann thinks you’re nuts. But at least the rubes who pay to attend Farah’s latest self-enrichment scam won’t have to hear her talk at his latest gimmick conference.

Of course you’ll get to keep reading her garbage at wnd.com. After all, she isn’t the only one whose “values” take a back seat to profit.

Funny next-day follow-up: Today wnd.com has a story whining that Ann Coulter “launched a verbal assault on WND Editor Joseph Farah today, calling the veteran journalist ‘swine’ and a publicity whore after she was dismissed as a keynote speaker for the news site’s upcoming “Taking America Back National Conference” here.”

Takes one to know one, I guess.

Coulter also took more shots at Farah’s ethics and at birthers:

Coulter took issue with WND’s publication of her e-mail discussion with Farah concerning her appearance.

“[T]his was an email exchange [between] friends and even though I didn’t expressly say ‘OFF THE RECORD’ and I believe everything I said, he’s a swine for using my private emails politely answering him,” Coulter wrote to the Daily Caller. “[W]hy would he do such a despicable thing? … for PUBLICITY.”

She continued: “I will say that [Farah] could give less than two sh–s about the conservative movement – as demonstrated by his promotion of the birther nonsense (long ago disproved by my newspaper, human events, also sweetness & light, american spectator and national review etc, etc etc). He’s the only allegedly serious conservative pushing the birther thing. for ONE reason: to get hits on his website.”

One good thing about wnd.com in dealing with Coulter: In the photos used to illustrate those stories, Coulter looks less like a hooker than usual.

Saturday update: The fun continues, with Coulter calling the wnd.com folks “fake Christians.” As I said early in this post, I suppose it takes one to know one.

But hey, at least she and fellow “gay-lover” Glenn Beck can be redeemed.

Posted in Journalism, Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »

Want smarter kids? Turn them over to lesbians

Posted by James McPherson on June 9, 2010

Heather has two mommies? No wonder she’s so well-adjusted.

That’s the conclusion of an article in New Science magazine–that “Compared with a group of control adolescents born to heterosexual parents with similar educational and financial backgrounds, the children of lesbian couples scored better on academic and social tests and lower on measures of rule-breaking and aggression.”

In other words, the children of lesbian parents were smarter and less obnoxious than most other kids.

Actually I’d never heard of New Science until Slate cited this study, and the research seems to have some flaws (maybe women just tend to be better parents than men, for example, making them superheroes in the traditional, often unappreciated,  sense). But the study does cast further doubt on the idea that gays shouldn’t be allowed to adopt. Homosexuals are legally prohibited from adopting in Florida, while joint adoption is illegal in several states.

Posted in Education, Legal issues, Politics, Science, Women | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 7 Comments »

‘Unbearable’ Japanese gay marriage experiment fails

Posted by James McPherson on November 26, 2008

Japanese experts have encountered a sex problem that can’t be cured by Viagra or Cialis, nor is it caused by repeated watching of commercials for those products. It can’t even be blamed on the “arranged marriage,” which is common for these types of relationships.

The funniest story on CNN today states that Japanese zookeepers have finally figured out they keep failing in their attempts to mate a couple of polar bears: Both bears (along with the “brother” of one) are female.

Aside from the fact that the zookeepers apparently were chosen by the same method George W. Bush used in naming key members of his administration, the failed experiment might provide a valuable reminder to politicians, religious leaders and voters who base their arguments against gay marriage on their own religious principles or on the the belief that homosexuality is a “choice.”

I have no idea what makes someone gay, any more than I know what makes a Japanese polar bear straight. Nor do I care. I do notice that the key figures involved in both relationships apparently pay more attention to a multitude of issues other than their sexuality, even if outsiders keep trying to interfere with their sex lives. Nonetheless, as bears and even Utah legislators might point out, the tide is moving against the anti-gay forces. The military’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy may be on the way out (and not just because we’re running out of “straight” soldiers). Many Americans, including politicians, now favor non-discriminatory civil unions.

Some also argue that churches should not be quasi-governmental agencies that “legalize” any marriage, gay or straight. Those critics point out that modern marriage laws violate the separation between church and state favored by early Americans. If legal marriage becomes simply a civil requirement (with churches allowed to add or withhold any religious blessing they choose), some of the arguments against gay marriage probably will fade.

Thanksgiving Day will mark 30 years since gay activist (and Korean War veteran) Harvey Milk (the topic of Sean Penn’s new film) was assassinated. Thirty years from now, I predict that my committed gay friends will be able to marry, and that very more Americans will consider such unions to be more a sign of “family values” than they are “unbearable.”

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »