Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Response to BJH from Taylor Batten--2/8/10
Thanks, Bernie. I'm catching hell from our less-tolerant readers this morning, so it's nice to hear from a supporter! ... Thanks for the letter about Krauthammer. I'll make sure our letters editor is aware of it. We run Krauthammer, and other conservative columnists, because we think that page should carry a wide breadth of opinions from all across the political spectrum. Conservative readers love Krauthammer, and we hope he at least makes more liberal readers think about why they believe what they do.
BJH Letter to Taylor Batten--Feb 8, 2010
Taylor---You're on a roll! Another great piece of writing in yesterday's Observer. Congratulations, Taylor, and especially for having the cojones to take on Bill James. Best wishes, Bernie PS I filed another Letter to the (Observer) Editor there over the weekend, again taking strong exception to carrying the poisoned messages of this guy Charles Krauthammer every Saturday morning. My letters on this same subject (there have been several) may not come across this way, but I'd like to here clarify that they are not at all intended to be, meant to be, personal attacks on real people (like you, for example) there at the Observer.
Taylor Batten--Editor--Ch Observer--op-ed peice-2/7/10
Taylor Batten is the editor of The Charlotte Observer's editorial pages.
"Crossing the Latest Civil Rights Frontier"
Months before Charlotte made national news for its intolerance of homosexuals in 1997, the most bigoted Mecklenburg County commissioners were already laying the groundwork for their assault into people's bedrooms.
It was late 1996, and Republican commissioner Bill James forced a vote on eliminating county funding to any group that provided information about homosexuality and other "crimes against nature."
I caught up with Democratic commissioner Hoyle Martin in the hallway behind the meeting chamber during a break. He called homosexuality "a problem in this society," then dropped this bombshell:
"If I had my way, we'd shove these people off the face of the earth," Martin told me. There is "an aggressive tendency of some (homosexuals) to try to indoctrinate other people, particularly youth, into this lifestyle."
Martin ultimately voted against the measure that night, killing it. But he would be the key swing vote in the infamous 1997 move to defund the Arts & Science Council of $2.5 million in retribution for the Charlotte Repertory Theatre putting on a play with gay themes.
Thirteen years later, Martin's views seem even more antiquated, at least to some of us. But our community and our nation, incredibly, are still hung up on people's sexuality and what they do in their private lives. There are still those who would prefer to shove these people off the face of the earth, those who would rather judge people on their genetic makeup than on the content of their character.
The nation's persistent division on this question was evident again last week. Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Senate panel that Congress should repeal the twisted "Don't ask, don't tell" policy that has made gay soldiers - regardless of their bravery and heroism - second-class citizens since 1994. Mullen's call ended decades of military brass opposing gays serving openly in the military.
For Mullen, it's simply about doing the right thing. "No matter how I look at the issue," he said, "I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens."
The policy was wrong from the start, a compromise based on nothing more than politics. Those political motivations linger. Sen. John McCain is among many who continue to balk at what America's highest-ranking military officer says is best for the military.
The day Mullen testified, Americans were telling pollsters that homosexuality is inappropriate. HCD Research found that 55 percent of respondents said CBS was right to pull a gay dating Web site's Super Bowl ad that showed two men kissing. About two-thirds said the ad would have been less inappropriate if it showed a man and a woman kissing.
Discrimination against gays lives on at Mecklenburg commissioner meetings as well. Bill James, the lone remaining commissioner from the 1997 vote, unapologetically called a fellow commissioner's dead son "a homo" at a meeting in December.
Get over it, folks. Homosexuals do not choose their sexual orientation any more than heterosexuals choose theirs. Given the venomous treatment they receive, why would they? America was founded on the premise that all men (and women) are created equal and that among our unalienable rights are liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution guarantees equality under the law, including the 14th Amendment's guarantee of due process.
It's a matter of time before this latest civil rights frontier is crossed. Five states permit gay marriage. Ten permit civil unions or domestic partnerships. Houston just elected a lesbian mayor, and there are almost 10 times as many openly gay elected officials as there were in 1993. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2003 said states can't criminalize homosexual acts. Virtually all polls show a growing acceptance of gay marriage and gay civil unions.
Even Ted Olson, the lifelong conservative Republican who served George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, is on board. He is the lead lawyer trying to overturn California's gay marriage ban. In a Newsweek cover story last month, Olson, the U.S. solicitor general under Bush, argued convincingly that liberals and conservatives alike should value equality, strong, loving marriages and a government that stays out of our private lives.
If Ted Olson is convinced, maybe everyone should ask themselves: What's the big threat?
Reach me at tbatten@charlotteobserver.com.
"Crossing the Latest Civil Rights Frontier"
Months before Charlotte made national news for its intolerance of homosexuals in 1997, the most bigoted Mecklenburg County commissioners were already laying the groundwork for their assault into people's bedrooms.
It was late 1996, and Republican commissioner Bill James forced a vote on eliminating county funding to any group that provided information about homosexuality and other "crimes against nature."
I caught up with Democratic commissioner Hoyle Martin in the hallway behind the meeting chamber during a break. He called homosexuality "a problem in this society," then dropped this bombshell:
"If I had my way, we'd shove these people off the face of the earth," Martin told me. There is "an aggressive tendency of some (homosexuals) to try to indoctrinate other people, particularly youth, into this lifestyle."
Martin ultimately voted against the measure that night, killing it. But he would be the key swing vote in the infamous 1997 move to defund the Arts & Science Council of $2.5 million in retribution for the Charlotte Repertory Theatre putting on a play with gay themes.
Thirteen years later, Martin's views seem even more antiquated, at least to some of us. But our community and our nation, incredibly, are still hung up on people's sexuality and what they do in their private lives. There are still those who would prefer to shove these people off the face of the earth, those who would rather judge people on their genetic makeup than on the content of their character.
The nation's persistent division on this question was evident again last week. Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Senate panel that Congress should repeal the twisted "Don't ask, don't tell" policy that has made gay soldiers - regardless of their bravery and heroism - second-class citizens since 1994. Mullen's call ended decades of military brass opposing gays serving openly in the military.
For Mullen, it's simply about doing the right thing. "No matter how I look at the issue," he said, "I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens."
The policy was wrong from the start, a compromise based on nothing more than politics. Those political motivations linger. Sen. John McCain is among many who continue to balk at what America's highest-ranking military officer says is best for the military.
The day Mullen testified, Americans were telling pollsters that homosexuality is inappropriate. HCD Research found that 55 percent of respondents said CBS was right to pull a gay dating Web site's Super Bowl ad that showed two men kissing. About two-thirds said the ad would have been less inappropriate if it showed a man and a woman kissing.
Discrimination against gays lives on at Mecklenburg commissioner meetings as well. Bill James, the lone remaining commissioner from the 1997 vote, unapologetically called a fellow commissioner's dead son "a homo" at a meeting in December.
Get over it, folks. Homosexuals do not choose their sexual orientation any more than heterosexuals choose theirs. Given the venomous treatment they receive, why would they? America was founded on the premise that all men (and women) are created equal and that among our unalienable rights are liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution guarantees equality under the law, including the 14th Amendment's guarantee of due process.
It's a matter of time before this latest civil rights frontier is crossed. Five states permit gay marriage. Ten permit civil unions or domestic partnerships. Houston just elected a lesbian mayor, and there are almost 10 times as many openly gay elected officials as there were in 1993. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2003 said states can't criminalize homosexual acts. Virtually all polls show a growing acceptance of gay marriage and gay civil unions.
Even Ted Olson, the lifelong conservative Republican who served George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, is on board. He is the lead lawyer trying to overturn California's gay marriage ban. In a Newsweek cover story last month, Olson, the U.S. solicitor general under Bush, argued convincingly that liberals and conservatives alike should value equality, strong, loving marriages and a government that stays out of our private lives.
If Ted Olson is convinced, maybe everyone should ask themselves: What's the big threat?
Reach me at tbatten@charlotteobserver.com.
Great Peasant Revolt-2/6/10--Krauthammer
Great Peasant Revolt of 2010
By Charles KrauthammerNational Columnist
Posted: Saturday, Feb. 06, 2010
'GETTY IMAGES',
false_format=>'Pool' -->
President Barack Obama needs to start paying attention to the concerns of plain folks, the ankle-dwelling mob. GETTY IMAGES
WASHINGTON "I am not an ideologue," protested President Obama at a gathering with Republican House members last week. Perhaps, but he does have a tenacious commitment to a set of political convictions.
Compare his 2010 State of the Union to his first address to Congress a year earlier. The consistency is remarkable. In 2009, after passing a $787 billion (now $862 billion) stimulus package, the largest spending bill in galactic history, he unveiled a manifesto for fundamentally restructuring the commanding heights of American society - health care, education and energy.
A year later, after stunning Democratic setbacks in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts, Obama gave a stay-the-course State of the Union address (a) pledging not to walk away from health care reform, (b) seeking to turn college education increasingly into a federal entitlement, and (c) asking again for cap-and-trade energy legislation. Plus, of course, another stimulus package, this time renamed a "jobs bill."
Walking over a cliff
This being a democracy, don't the Democrats see that clinging to this agenda will march them over a cliff? Don't they understand Massachusetts?
Well, they understand it through a prism of two cherished axioms: (1) The people are stupid and (2) Republicans are bad. Result? The dim, led by the malicious, vote incorrectly.
Liberal expressions of disdain for the intelligence and emotional maturity of the electorate have been, post-Massachusetts, remarkably unguarded. New York Times columnist Charles Blow chided Obama for not understanding the necessity of speaking "in the plain words of plain folks," because the people are "suspicious of complexity." Counseled Blow: "The next time he gives a speech, someone should tap him on the ankle and say, 'Mr. President, we're down here.'"
A Time magazine blogger was even more blunt about the ankle-dwelling mob, explaining that we are "a nation of dodos" that is "too dumb to thrive."
Obama joined the parade in the State of the Union address when, with supercilious modesty, he chided himself "for not explaining it (health care) more clearly to the American people." The subject, he noted, was "complex." The subject, it might also be noted, was one to which the master of complexity had devoted 29 speeches. Perhaps he did not speak slowly enough.
Then there are the emotional deficiencies of the masses. Nearly every Democratic apologist lamented the people's anger and anxiety, a free-floating agitation that prevented them from appreciating the beneficence of the social agenda the Democrats are so determined to foist upon them.
Liberal conceit, Part 2
That brings us to Part 2 of the liberal conceit: Liberals act in the public interest, while conservatives think only of power, elections, self-aggrandizement and self-interest.
It is an old liberal theme that conservative ideas, being red in tooth and claw, cannot possibly emerge from any notion of the public good. A 2002 New York Times obituary for philosopher Robert Nozick explained that the strongly libertarian implications of Nozick's masterwork, "Anarchy, State, and Utopia," "proved comforting to the right, which was grateful for what it embraced as philosophical justification." The right, you see, is grateful when a bright intellectual can graft some philosophical rationalization onto its thoroughly base and self-regarding politics.
This belief in the moral hollowness of conservatism animates the current liberal mantra that Republican opposition to Obama's social democratic agenda - which couldn't get through even a Democratic Congress and powered major Democratic losses in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts - is nothing but blind and cynical obstructionism.
Dissent and patriotism
By contrast, Democratic opposition to George W. Bush - from Iraq to Social Security reform - constituted dissent. And dissent, we were told at the time, including by candidate Obama, is "one of the truest expressions of patriotism."
No more. Today, dissent from the governing orthodoxy is nihilistic malice. "They made a decision," explained David Axelrod, "they were going to sit it out and hope that we failed, that the country failed" - a perfect expression of liberals' conviction that their aspirations are necessarily the country's, that their idea of the public good is the public's, that their failure is therefore the nation's.
Then comes Massachusetts, an election Obama himself helped nationalize, to shatter this most self-congratulatory of illusions.
Common sense prevails
For liberals, the observation that "the peasants are revolting" is a pun. For conservatives, it is cause for uncharacteristic optimism. No matter how far the ideological pendulum swings in the short term, in the end the bedrock common sense of the American people will prevail.
The ankle-dwelling populace pushes back. It re-centers. It renormalizes. Even in Massachusetts.
Charles Krauthammer is a columnist for the Washington Post Writers Group. Write him at letters@charleskrauthammer.com.
By Charles KrauthammerNational Columnist
Posted: Saturday, Feb. 06, 2010
'GETTY IMAGES',
false_format=>'Pool' -->
President Barack Obama needs to start paying attention to the concerns of plain folks, the ankle-dwelling mob. GETTY IMAGES
WASHINGTON "I am not an ideologue," protested President Obama at a gathering with Republican House members last week. Perhaps, but he does have a tenacious commitment to a set of political convictions.
Compare his 2010 State of the Union to his first address to Congress a year earlier. The consistency is remarkable. In 2009, after passing a $787 billion (now $862 billion) stimulus package, the largest spending bill in galactic history, he unveiled a manifesto for fundamentally restructuring the commanding heights of American society - health care, education and energy.
A year later, after stunning Democratic setbacks in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts, Obama gave a stay-the-course State of the Union address (a) pledging not to walk away from health care reform, (b) seeking to turn college education increasingly into a federal entitlement, and (c) asking again for cap-and-trade energy legislation. Plus, of course, another stimulus package, this time renamed a "jobs bill."
Walking over a cliff
This being a democracy, don't the Democrats see that clinging to this agenda will march them over a cliff? Don't they understand Massachusetts?
Well, they understand it through a prism of two cherished axioms: (1) The people are stupid and (2) Republicans are bad. Result? The dim, led by the malicious, vote incorrectly.
Liberal expressions of disdain for the intelligence and emotional maturity of the electorate have been, post-Massachusetts, remarkably unguarded. New York Times columnist Charles Blow chided Obama for not understanding the necessity of speaking "in the plain words of plain folks," because the people are "suspicious of complexity." Counseled Blow: "The next time he gives a speech, someone should tap him on the ankle and say, 'Mr. President, we're down here.'"
A Time magazine blogger was even more blunt about the ankle-dwelling mob, explaining that we are "a nation of dodos" that is "too dumb to thrive."
Obama joined the parade in the State of the Union address when, with supercilious modesty, he chided himself "for not explaining it (health care) more clearly to the American people." The subject, he noted, was "complex." The subject, it might also be noted, was one to which the master of complexity had devoted 29 speeches. Perhaps he did not speak slowly enough.
Then there are the emotional deficiencies of the masses. Nearly every Democratic apologist lamented the people's anger and anxiety, a free-floating agitation that prevented them from appreciating the beneficence of the social agenda the Democrats are so determined to foist upon them.
Liberal conceit, Part 2
That brings us to Part 2 of the liberal conceit: Liberals act in the public interest, while conservatives think only of power, elections, self-aggrandizement and self-interest.
It is an old liberal theme that conservative ideas, being red in tooth and claw, cannot possibly emerge from any notion of the public good. A 2002 New York Times obituary for philosopher Robert Nozick explained that the strongly libertarian implications of Nozick's masterwork, "Anarchy, State, and Utopia," "proved comforting to the right, which was grateful for what it embraced as philosophical justification." The right, you see, is grateful when a bright intellectual can graft some philosophical rationalization onto its thoroughly base and self-regarding politics.
This belief in the moral hollowness of conservatism animates the current liberal mantra that Republican opposition to Obama's social democratic agenda - which couldn't get through even a Democratic Congress and powered major Democratic losses in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts - is nothing but blind and cynical obstructionism.
Dissent and patriotism
By contrast, Democratic opposition to George W. Bush - from Iraq to Social Security reform - constituted dissent. And dissent, we were told at the time, including by candidate Obama, is "one of the truest expressions of patriotism."
No more. Today, dissent from the governing orthodoxy is nihilistic malice. "They made a decision," explained David Axelrod, "they were going to sit it out and hope that we failed, that the country failed" - a perfect expression of liberals' conviction that their aspirations are necessarily the country's, that their idea of the public good is the public's, that their failure is therefore the nation's.
Then comes Massachusetts, an election Obama himself helped nationalize, to shatter this most self-congratulatory of illusions.
Common sense prevails
For liberals, the observation that "the peasants are revolting" is a pun. For conservatives, it is cause for uncharacteristic optimism. No matter how far the ideological pendulum swings in the short term, in the end the bedrock common sense of the American people will prevail.
The ankle-dwelling populace pushes back. It re-centers. It renormalizes. Even in Massachusetts.
Charles Krauthammer is a columnist for the Washington Post Writers Group. Write him at letters@charleskrauthammer.com.
Letter to Ch Observer--Charkes Krauthammer--2/6/10
To The Editor:
Tell me it ain't so--can I be the only Observer subscriber who finds it revolting that every single Saturday edition-- week after week--continues to print Charles Krauthammer's column and his relentless, never-varying attack on President Obama? Forgive me, but I need to ask: Why? Why do you do this? For what gain? On what grounds can you possibly defend doing this? Early on I was angered by it all but no longer--now it's just pure dismay and bewilderment.
Sincerely,
Bernie Hargadon
435 S. Tryon St. #606
Charlottfe, NC 28202
704 377 5305
Tell me it ain't so--can I be the only Observer subscriber who finds it revolting that every single Saturday edition-- week after week--continues to print Charles Krauthammer's column and his relentless, never-varying attack on President Obama? Forgive me, but I need to ask: Why? Why do you do this? For what gain? On what grounds can you possibly defend doing this? Early on I was angered by it all but no longer--now it's just pure dismay and bewilderment.
Sincerely,
Bernie Hargadon
435 S. Tryon St. #606
Charlottfe, NC 28202
704 377 5305
Letter to Mr. Funk--Religion Editor--Observer-1/30/10
Mr. Funk:
I read with some interest today your column about the new pastor at Northside, Brian Boyles. I was caught up short reading that "Northside is not only for a literal reading of the Bible...." Your column doesn't say but I'm curious to know: What did you make of that? Did you question it at all, as in, for example, "Did I hear you right"? Assuming that what you ascribe to his having said is correct, it strikes me as absurd and I would have thought this to be your reaction as well. Was it?
Thank you and regards,
Sincerely,
Bernie Hargadon
Charlotte, NC
I read with some interest today your column about the new pastor at Northside, Brian Boyles. I was caught up short reading that "Northside is not only for a literal reading of the Bible...." Your column doesn't say but I'm curious to know: What did you make of that? Did you question it at all, as in, for example, "Did I hear you right"? Assuming that what you ascribe to his having said is correct, it strikes me as absurd and I would have thought this to be your reaction as well. Was it?
Thank you and regards,
Sincerely,
Bernie Hargadon
Charlotte, NC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
