Monday, February 27, 2006
SENATORIAL INDULGENCIES
I’m getting beat up today for defending the UW Senate’s handling of the proposal to erect a monument honoring “Pappy” Boyington:
“Pappy Boyington - Shot Down By American Imperialism”
http://dontlikeanyofthem.blogspot.com/2006/02/pappy-boyington-shot-down-by-american.html
Comments made by 2 of the 100 Senators have especially inflamed the conservative blogosphere. Ashley Miller commented “many monuments at UW already commemorate rich white men" and Jill Edwards said she “didn't believe a member of the Marine Corps was an example of the sort of person UW wanted to produce.”
I offer some observations on the roots of the attitude displayed and then opine:
“Here's the real issue. The Senate did what Senates do: It debated the question. A lot of the things said by US Senators are over the top; it's not surprising the UW Senators said a few wild things. What they did was perfectly reasonable.”
What, exactly, constitutes unreasonable in this context?
VIA Huffington Post, Politics 1 brings us an example of what “reasonable” means:
“Gay Adoption”
http://www.politics1.com/blog-0206a.htm#0227
From the post:
“State Senator Robert Hagan (D-Ohio) says he will introduce legislation to ban Republican couples from adopting children. According to Hagan, "credible research'' shows that adopted children raised in GOP households are more at risk for developing "emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, and alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves and an air of overconfidence to mask their insecurities." Hagan agrees there is no scientific evidence backing his claims about Republican parents -- just, as Hagan notes, there is none backing State Representative Ron Hood's (R) bill banning gay parents from adopting. Hood claims children purportedly suffer from emotional "harm" when they are adopted by gay couples. Hagen admits he created his proposal to mock Hood's proposed ban on gay adoption in a way that people would see the "blatantly discriminatory and extremely divisive" nature of the bill. The GOP House leadership does not support Hood's proposal.”
That’s what passes as reasonable for a Senator… Proposing a bill banning GOP adoption…
I’m reminded of last summer [July 22, 2005] when US Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney led a Capitol Hill hearing on whether the Bush administration was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001…
Reminded of this and of a lot of other utterances our national and state leaders have given vent to… I’m sure everyone has their favorites…
Now, in between beatings, if will someone will please explain to me how Edwards and Miller can be considered out of order… Within the context of their examples…
“Pappy Boyington - Shot Down By American Imperialism”
http://dontlikeanyofthem.blogspot.com/2006/02/pappy-boyington-shot-down-by-american.html
Comments made by 2 of the 100 Senators have especially inflamed the conservative blogosphere. Ashley Miller commented “many monuments at UW already commemorate rich white men" and Jill Edwards said she “didn't believe a member of the Marine Corps was an example of the sort of person UW wanted to produce.”
I offer some observations on the roots of the attitude displayed and then opine:
“Here's the real issue. The Senate did what Senates do: It debated the question. A lot of the things said by US Senators are over the top; it's not surprising the UW Senators said a few wild things. What they did was perfectly reasonable.”
What, exactly, constitutes unreasonable in this context?
VIA Huffington Post, Politics 1 brings us an example of what “reasonable” means:
“Gay Adoption”
http://www.politics1.com/blog-0206a.htm#0227
From the post:
“State Senator Robert Hagan (D-Ohio) says he will introduce legislation to ban Republican couples from adopting children. According to Hagan, "credible research'' shows that adopted children raised in GOP households are more at risk for developing "emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, and alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves and an air of overconfidence to mask their insecurities." Hagan agrees there is no scientific evidence backing his claims about Republican parents -- just, as Hagan notes, there is none backing State Representative Ron Hood's (R) bill banning gay parents from adopting. Hood claims children purportedly suffer from emotional "harm" when they are adopted by gay couples. Hagen admits he created his proposal to mock Hood's proposed ban on gay adoption in a way that people would see the "blatantly discriminatory and extremely divisive" nature of the bill. The GOP House leadership does not support Hood's proposal.”
That’s what passes as reasonable for a Senator… Proposing a bill banning GOP adoption…
I’m reminded of last summer [July 22, 2005] when US Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney led a Capitol Hill hearing on whether the Bush administration was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001…
Reminded of this and of a lot of other utterances our national and state leaders have given vent to… I’m sure everyone has their favorites…
Now, in between beatings, if will someone will please explain to me how Edwards and Miller can be considered out of order… Within the context of their examples…
