Patterico's Pontifications

4/27/2015

Intolerant Group Pressures Gay Hotelier Who Hosted Ted Cruz “Fireside Chat” To Apologize

Filed under: General — Dana @ 6:34 am



[guest post by Dana]

After hosting a non-fundraising “fireside chat” with Ted Cruz, gay hotelier Ian Reisner faced a barrage of attacks and a boycott for such a brazen act. As a result, he has bowed to pressure and issued an apology:

Ian Reisner, one of the two gay hoteliers facing boycott calls for hosting an event for Senator Ted Cruz, who is adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage, apologized to the gay community for showing “poor judgment.”

Mr. Reisner put the apology on Facebook, where a page calling for a boycott of his properties, the gay-friendly OUT NYC hotel and his Fire Island Pines holdings, had gotten more than 8,200 “likes” by Sunday evening.

“I am shaken to my bones by the emails, texts, postings and phone calls of the past few days. I made a terrible mistake,” wrote Mr. Reisner.

“I was ignorant, naïve and much too quick in accepting a request to co-host a dinner with Cruz at my home without taking the time to completely understand all of his positions on gay rights,” Mr. Reisner said.

“I’ve spent the past 24 hours reviewing videos of Cruz’s statements on gay marriage and I am shocked and angry. I sincerely apologize for hurting the gay community and so many of our friends, family, allies, customers and employees. I will try my best to make up for my poor judgment. Again, I am deeply sorry.”

Clearly, this was a preemptive strike:

Mr. Reisner’s apology came before a scheduled protest march tomorrow evening in front of Out NYC.

In addition to the boycott calls, Broadway Cares, a charity that focuses on curing AIDS, canceled an annual event at a nightclub the two men own.

At the event, Cruz had reiterated his view that gay marriage was best left to the states.

–Dana

208 Responses to “Intolerant Group Pressures Gay Hotelier Who Hosted Ted Cruz “Fireside Chat” To Apologize”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (86e864)

  2. I guess now the Maoist struggle sessions are done on social media and by phone.

    This is how cults operate, you know. It goes by various names; coercive persuasion, mind control, brainwashing. The techniques have existed for centuries. Only the names are products of the 20th century.

    Steve57 (08cad4)

  3. Unfortunately for these men, the Democrats’ idea of a big tent means they have to choose between being gay and Jewish. Now they know which group is higher on the liberal totem pole.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  4. is 8,200 “likes” a lot?

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  5. Now it is verboten to even discuss this topic with those that do not share your outlook

    JD (532ee0)

  6. “the Maoist struggle sessions ” are really what we are seeing. The gays have become the totalitarians. I suggest a gay convention in a Muslim country. Then we could all get back to normal.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  7. I would like to see these supposed videos of Cruz’s anti-SSM statements that made these guys “shocked and angry.”

    Cruz is awesome on fiscal issues and constitutional government: he’s one of McCain’s “wacko birds” along with Amash and Rand. The major concern about Cruz is that he’s too social conservative. That’s good to win the GOP nomination, of course. But in the general election he might alienate more than just the Left.. We can win by emphasizing limited government, but a majority of America including independents and moderates do not want candidates who are loud about their opposition to SSM, drug decriminalization, etc.

    That’s one reason why I prefer Rand Paul. I like his libertarian oriented views; he’s pro life and favors traditional marriage, but he doesn’t make these issues a large part of his campaign, and he otherwise lines up more with average America than he does with the GOP base. What we need is a small government politician who doesn’t play mostly to the evangelicals, but is always trying to increase the size of the GOP tent through outreach and finding common ground. Maybe Rand won’t get more of the black vote or the youth vote than any other candidate (especially if they find out about his radical budget proposals), but at least I see him trying harder to reach out to people who don’t typically vote Republican.

    I think Cruz and Rand are 99% similar on the policies and issues: constitutional government, states’ rights, believable about balancing the budget.. The difference is in how they’re perceived. The Left we know will hate both of them. But who is better positioned to win the independents in the swing states?

    Rob Westbrook (4870a6)

  8. So.

    When do they mandate a uniform and flag and salute? And a special way of marching?

    When they get to the part where they have large rallies in huge stadiums and the

    main speaker harangues them for hours about their “destiny” and “struggle” then

    I’m out of here.

    jakee308 (49ccc6)

  9. What’s oddly fascinating, ironic and contemptible is that many of those people most up in arms about the hotelier hosting a Republican are the same ones who will be less indignant, if indignant at all, about Islamicism and the reactionary adherents wrapped around it. See: Typical college campus.

    Another illustration that the quip of liberalism being a mental disorder really isn’t just pure sarcasm and light-hearted flippancy.

    Mark (607f93)

  10. when pressed will Rand support traditional marriage, or will he pander, the hoteliers were most concerned about Israel, but you must be fully dhimmi, like Stay Puft or the Medici, to get consideration on that score,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  11. satire, has to be edgy, but only with safe targets:

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/garry-trudeau-clarifies-charlie-hebdo-comments/

    narciso (ee1f88)

  12. 7. …We can win by emphasizing limited government, but a majority of America including independents and moderates do not want candidates who are loud about their opposition to SSM, drug decriminalization, etc.

    Rob Westbrook (4870a6) — 4/27/2015 @ 7:15 am

    This is why the left has to use draconian methods to silence conservatives. And I do mean social conservatives. Because you’ll never get limited government by ceding social issues to the left. You get more wards of the state.

    Only a social conservatives can survive in a libertarian society. You don’t need to criminalize drugs. But if people use them, they’ll never be able to hold jobs. Redefine marriage so it has nothing to do with having children. We already have generations of single moms who have already gotten that message. They don’t know anyone (mom, grandma, sisters) who waited to get married before having kids. And they can’t make it without a large social safety net. Let’s go ahead and make that the law of the land, and see what happens.

    If independents don’t like to hear social conservatives talking about these things, it’s because the coercive persuasion tactics of the left work. Only a racist sexist Islamophobic homophobe would even listen to Ted Cruz.

    I don’t think it’s so much that independents don’t like listening to Ted Cruz. They don’t like what these fascists did to Brendan Eich, or now Ian Reisner. And they don’t want the same thing to happen again.

    Steve57 (08cad4)

  13. You will not be allowed to agree to disagree.

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  14. And they don’t want the same thing to happen again. To them.

    Steve57 (08cad4)

  15. “Only a social conservatives can survive in a libertarian society.”

    I see your argument but social conservatives can be intolerant, too. They drove me away from Ricochet on evolution. I don;t care about gay marriage, per se. I just don’t like bullies and contributed to the GoFundMe thing for the Washington state florist, I also deleted Firefox from my computer after Brenden Eich was attacked.

    The thing I don’t like about Rand Paul is his foreign policy. Big L Libertarians assume a world where everyone obeys the rules like they do.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  16. yes, that’s a big part of it, he bought all the left tropes, re Iraq, back in the 00s, and the memes from Volodya’s messenger, Snowden, hook line and sinker,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  17. …assume a world where everyone obeys the rules like they do.

    The epiphany that there are some who not only disobey rules but urge others to do likewise, requires an honest acknowlegement of the existence of objective evil in the world. Who will teach this lesson if the teachers are driven to silence?

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  18. 13. You will not be allowed to agree to disagree.
    felipe (b5e0f4) — 4/27/2015 @ 7:34 am

    No. That’s why the next step after deconstructing marriage is to deconstruct gender. Because then they want to make “misgendering” a thought/speech crime. So the next target will be people who believe their own lying eyes. Like the woman who complained when she went into the locker room and was shocked to see some guy changing.

    Their gender is whatever the person claims it is, and it’s a hate crime not to participate in their delusion.

    The fitness club kicked her out, and the language they used to define their policy was absolutely Orwellian. They want to be inclusive and create “safe spaces” where everyone feels welcome.

    So she was excluded in the name of inclusion. Because their “safe space” was unsafe. So she’s no longer welcome at the fitness club where everyone is welcome.

    Like I said, this is how cults operate. And the progressive left is a cult. If that lady gets exposed to a few more coercive persuasion techniques such as attacks on her self-concepts and worldview, and undermine her confidence in her own judgement and her ability to make decisions, then maybe one day she’ll be a good prog and let the collective do her thinking for her.

    Steve57 (08cad4)

  19. I wish the guy had said to his howling critics, “look, I’m not going to vote for him, but since he’s running I wanted to hear what he had to say on a whole host of issues affecting all of us, our country, and our world. And I was pleased to have the chance to personally explain some of our specific issues and concerns to him. Sometimes a dinner is just a dinner.”

    This pathetic mewling apology in its tone reminds me of the space guy forced to apologize to the feminazis about the shirt he wore to the press conference–because even successful people are no longer allowed to entertain guests in their own homes, or chose their own clothing, unless it meets the standards of the mob enforcers.

    elissa (c25497)

  20. Dr.K.@15
    To be more precise… Big L libertarians do not think it is the US’s job to ensure people obey the rules, and that harm to the US when they break the rules is usually less than the harm to the US that results from the after effects osus going in and whooping their posteriors.

    kishnevi (9c4b9c)

  21. I did a post on this myself before noticing this post. I cut off comments on my own post so that there will be only one discussion.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  22. actually, i don’t criticize the boycotters in this case.
    This person’s business is just the hotel business, it is a business targeted for the homosexual community and provide places for these clients to have sex. So in this case, it seems it is fair to have a single issue litmus test.

    seeRpea (8fa79e)

  23. like the bathhouses in San Francisco, that the health director, refused to close, of course he ended up the head of the largest AIDS nonprofit, and spent time castigating the Reagan administration,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  24. All of this over them just talking to someone that disagrees. Thy didn’t endorse, or raise money, etc. they talked.

    JD (08d44e)

  25. elissa @19, the tolerant left isn’t interested in tolerance.

    Besides, that explanation would just confirm that Ian Reisner doesn’t hate the white heteronormative patriarchy enough. And not hating that just proves Reisner isn’t caring and inclusive.

    Steve57 (08cad4)

  26. possible crimethink, JD, certainly doubleunplusgood,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  27. Big L libertarians do not think it is the US’s job to ensure people obey the rules, and that harm to the US when they break the rules is usually less than the harm to the US that results from the after effects osus going in and whooping their posteriors.

    I just don’t think you are correct but you have a perfect right to disagree. I’m not a gay activist.

    My philosophy is that someone has to enforce some level of international rules. Great Britain did it for 100 years from 1814 to 1914. After 1920, nobody did and we had WWI. After 1945 we did and we had peace. Little wars, like Vietnam, were often the result of bad judgement, chiefly that of Lyndon Johnson. Remember Eisenhower left the French to their destruction in Vietnam.

    Read Emma Sky’s book, “The Unraveling.” She was an opponent of the Iraq War but came to see what was accomplished, at great cost for sure, but what was lost when Obama abandoned them as surely as the Democrats abandoned South Vietnam in 1975.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  28. “After 1920, nobody did and we had WWII.

    What it should have read.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  29. FWIW, to Patterico’s post: I consider the pathetic nature of the apology and his unwillingness to stand up for himself as an individual with a brain and certain rights, to be a completely different issue than some in the gay community calling for a boycott of his properties. People can and should choose where to spend their money and where they feel comfortable doing it. That’s how the market is supposed to work. People in semi-public life in this country should also be able to safely say that they’d attend a gay wedding for a friend, or to contribute to a cause, or to entertain a presidential candidate in their private home when it has nothing to do with their business operation , without having to explain themselves to the nth degree to people they don’t even know.

    elissa (c25497)

  30. Let the free market determine which businesses are viable. We all should be free to choose which businesses we wish to do biz with and which we’ll choose to avoid. And who we choose to associate with… and so on…

    Colonel Haiku (ad804b)

  31. planet fitness is much much gayer than any of these hotels i think

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  32. I think it’s more trans than gay.

    Steve57 (08cad4)

  33. Because they needed the deception then, so they could do enable what Oregon is doing now.

    narciso (ee1f88)

  34. 22. …So in this case, it seems it is fair to have a single issue litmus test.
    seeRpea (8fa79e) — 4/27/2015 @ 8:05 am

    It’s a Brave New World, where we have political litmus tests for hotels.

    Steve57 (08cad4)

  35. maybe they should open a hotel in Jiddah, it’s on the coast,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  36. it would be one thing if cruz simply didn’t like the idea of gay folks marrying but he’s frantically running around trying to ram through some…any…legislation that will, if not completely make same-sex marriages illegal, will, at least, make the lives of gay couples more complicated and uncomfortable.
    we’ve had over a decade now of experience with gay nuptials and it has turned out that giving gay citizens the same marriage license that is given to straight couples has only resulted in happily, and legally, married gay couples and happily, and legally, married straight couples. the people who are still ranting about how awful it is that everybody gets the same shot at happiness look like nothing other than the bigots that they are…regardless of their pious claims of religiousity.

    el polacko (d568bb)

  37. el polacko–do you run around posting this blurb from site to site? I ask because it seems to have little actual relevance to the subject(s) of this thread.

    elissa (c25497)

  38. Gays should be able to choose what stores to patronize and what politicians to support, as should Christians, but that isn’t what this debate is about. This debate is about forcing Christians who oppose SSM to accept and literally cater to it.

    We are seeing the same strident, intolerant response from gay activists that we saw from pro-abortion activists. Instead, there should be a balancing of interests as the Hobby Lobby Court took regarding Christians who oppose abortion

    DRJ (e80d46)

  39. recall Judge Walker’s subterfuge, along with the mob action against any Prop 8 supporter, the tool is irrelevant to the goal, which is crush all opposition, much the same way, Voldemort’s minions have operated going back to Quayle in 88, (am I oblique enough)

    narciso (ee1f88)

  40. El po,

    Are you oblivious to reality or are you just trolling with that nonsense? As Joe Wilson said, “you lie.”

    njrob (eb5911)

  41. This is about enabling the fascist state and only permitting approved speech to exist. 1984 was a blueprint for these monsters.

    njrob (eb5911)

  42. Ted Cruz personally opposes SSM but thinks each State should decide whether to allow it. The only legislation he has introduced on the topic of SSM is to leave it to the States. Here is a list of Cruz’s sponsored legislation, el polacko. See for yourself.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  43. the left paints federalism as the same thing, whereas they make it impossible to avoid their strictures, Obamacare, EPA regulations, common core,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  44. I wonder how many other Americans there are out there who, like me, vehemently dislike people who try force their own beliefs and values on others… “our way or the highway” type of people. I’d kick ’em all in the balls, if it wouldn’t result in my arrest. Or take so much time, heh.

    Colonel Haiku (ad804b)

  45. no kicking

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  46. ==I wonder how many other Americans there are out there who, like me, vehemently dislike people who try force their own beliefs and values on others…==

    Well, there’re at least two of us, Haiku!

    elissa (c25497)

  47. 3%ers are 100% attention grabbers. Have a real cause you one minded nit wits.

    mg (31009b)

  48. “So, if a homosexual hotelier must apologize for allowing Senator Cruz to hire his facilities for a campaign event, doesn’t this mean, inter alia, that the homosexual community accepts the idea that a businessman can refuse to provide facilities or goods or services to people or events with which he morally or ethically disagrees?”

    http://www.journal14.com/2015/04/27/for-the-left-whats-sauce-for-the-goose-is-never-ever-sauce-for-the-gander/

    Walter Cronanty (f48cd5)

  49. walter–I’m pretty sure this was Ian Reisner’s private home, not his “hired facilities” for a campaign event.

    elissa (c25497)

  50. Something to keep in mind when reading el polacko’s comments.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/lesbian-activist-gay-marriage-fight-a-lie-to-destroy-traditional-marriage

    He’s just doing his part.

    Steve57 (08cad4)

  51. 49. Elissa – OOPS, you’re right. It does not appear that Cruz “hired” the private penthouse, but that it was provided by Reisner and a co-owner.

    Walter Cronanty (f48cd5)

  52. ==but that isn’t what this debate is about. This debate is about forcing Christians who oppose SSM to accept and literally cater to it.==

    Actually DRJ, I think today’s debate, here, is about forcing a Jewish gay man to apologize for hosting a dinner in his own penthouse private home where a presidential candidate was invited to discuss various issues. Interesting to me is that the photo that was widely published showing Cruz at that event was him with Mati Weiderpass, the other half with Reisner of the business partnership, whom the NYT says were “once a couple” but apparently no longer are. I wonder if Mr. Weiderpass views the need for an apology differently that Mr. Reisner since I am not aware that he has issued one. (Perhaps he has, but I’ve not read about it.)

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/politics/at-new-york-reception-ted-cruz-is-said-to-strike-different-tone-toward-gays.html?_r=0

    elissa (c25497)

  53. I thought it was about the progressive left’s thuggery.

    Steve57 (08cad4)

  54. floor wax, dessert topping, it’s nearly the same thing

    narciso (ee1f88)

  55. 53. …http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/politics/at-new-york-reception-ted-cruz-is-said-to-strike-different-tone-toward-gays.html?_r=0

    elissa (c25497) — 4/27/2015 @ 10:03 am

    This is what I meant @12:

    Only a racist sexist Islamophobic homophobe would even listen to Ted Cruz.

    That’s the message the liberal fascists have to send, and why they have to enforce discipline so harshly among their wholly owned constituent groups. Because they must not listen to Ted Cruz (another coercive persuasion technique; restrict access to information [and manipulate language]).

    Because Cruz wasn’t striking a different tone. That’s Ted’s usual tone on the subject of SSM. He doesn’t rabidly snarl about hating gays.

    On the other hand the liberal fascists do rabidly hate conservatives.

    Steve57 (08cad4)

  56. I just don’t talk about it anymore. I ignore all red equal signs when posted on FB. I smile benignly when someone occasionally mentions a gay wedding etc. I do have gay friends or friends who are parents of a gay child of marriageable age. One example of the former is interesting – we used to discuss the possibility of gay marriage about 10 – 15 years ago and she thought is was a LUDICROUS notion. She was and is a liberal. Now, to hear her talk she never uttered any objection to the notion of gay marriage. She has blotted it all out. The gay mafia has done an excellent job of convincing everyone this is no big deal for society. My objection is naturally all about civilization, the family and society at large, not the individual or each case by case situation.

    Janetoo (0c6e40)

  57. This story reminds me of this:

    http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=354460

    Billy Crystal Apologizes for Saying That As a Straight Guy, He Kinda Doesn’t Want to See a Bunch of Graphic Gay Sex on Network TV

    So Billy Crystal is a homophobe. The evidence of this is that he doesn’t like gay sex– a position which is apparently forbidden by the Clerisy in 2015.

    …That last bit I think because he’s now been forced into his Apology Tour, forced into lying about what he meant.

    …It is officially now the Sexual Left’s position that the only way you can not be homophobic is to be gay yourself, or to at least be open for some Gay Adventures.

    Steve57 (08cad4)

  58. ‘welcome to the party pal’ he started this ball rolling with Soap,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  59. If Social Conservatives boycotted Gays, I bet they would sue.

    Mike Giles (ea55d1)

  60. hey, I’m a straight guy and I don’t want to see a lot of hetero sex on TV either.
    I guess I’m old fashioned, like back to the beginning old fashioned.

    More serious, feets brought up in another thread we haven’t seen nk for awhile. Last time that happened, as I recall, he was having some serious medical issues.
    Anybody know?

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  61. I wondered about nk, too. It’s way too long since he’s posted for it to just be him going out for a smoke. Hope he’s OK.

    elissa (c25497)

  62. 61. hey, I’m a straight guy and I don’t want to see a lot of hetero sex on TV either.
    I guess I’m old fashioned, like back to the beginning old fashioned.

    MD in Philly (f9371b) — 4/27/2015 @ 10:49 am

    Maybe Billy Crystal can put with more of the herero sex than the gay sex.

    It shouldn’t be a hate crime to say he prefers to watch one rather than the other.

    Me, I don’t watch TV.

    Steve57 (08cad4)

  63. what exactly has he been watching lately, rhetorical, I don’t want to know, the slippery slope really has turned into a slalom,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  64. narcisco, it’s not loger “the slippery slope”, it’s the KY jelly slide! The slippery slope is behind us. Pun intended.

    Hoagie (58a3ec)

  65. Hoagie, I guess the Oak Lane Diner had a fire and then closed shortly after. I couldn’t find anything else with a brief search.
    A great vacuum in the neighborhood for a restaurateur…

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  66. 19. I wish the guy had said to his howling critics, “look, I’m not going to vote for him, but since he’s running I wanted to hear what he had to say on a whole host of issues affecting all of us, our country, and our world. And I was pleased to have the chance to personally explain some of our specific issues and concerns to him. Sometimes a dinner is just a dinner.”

    This pathetic mewling apology in its tone reminds me of the space guy forced to apologize to the feminazis about the shirt he wore to the press conference–because even successful people are no longer allowed to entertain guests in their own homes, or chose their own clothing, unless it meets the standards of the mob enforcers.
    elissa (c25497) — 4/27/2015 @ 7:48 am

    Apparently Reisner tried the first tactic, elissa.

    http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/prominent-nyc-hotel-owners-ignited-a-dialogue-with-senator-ted-cruz-about-gay-rights-and-reiterated-their-support-of-marriage-equality-300071962.html

    Ian Reisner released the following statement after the meeting, “For my entire adult life, I have been an ardent supporter and activist for gay rights and LGBT organizations worldwide. I was given the opportunity to have a candid conversation with Senator Ted Cruz on why he should rethink his view on gay marriage. We also spoke about where he stood on issues including the state of Israel and national security, which are the only places where we share common ground. My support for Hillary Clinton remains steadfast and my meeting with Senator Cruz was a chance to engage head-on with Hillary’s opposition. It was just 3 months ago that I hosted a “Ready for Hillary” event for 900 people at my hotel The OUT NYC. Senator Ted Cruz and I disagree strongly on the issue of gay marriage, but having an open dialogue with those who have differing political opinions is a part of the political system that this country was founded on. My tireless support of the gay community and its causes worldwide has not and will not change; on the contrary I reaffirm my commitment to gay rights by not shying away from engaging with anyone opposed to us.”

    But that didn’t satisfy theAnd his business partner has also issued his own pathetic, mewling apology.

    Steve57 (08cad4)

  67. Accidentally hit submit. I was going to say the Gaystapo was out for blood. Hence his pathetic, mewling apology. And his business partner’s:

    http://neoneocon.com/2015/04/27/ian-reisner-learns-what-it-means-to-step-outside-the-strict-boundaries-of-the-new-orthodoxy/

    In a way, Weiderpass’ statement was even more revealing than Reisner’s:

    “I share in Ian’s remorse. I, too, lay humbled with what has happened in the last week,” he wrote on Facebook. “I made a terrible mistake. Unfortunately, I cannot undo this. You taught me a painful but important lesson. The people that know me know the work that I have done over the last 20 years for the advancement of gay rights. Today, I came to realize that I might have nullified my past efforts and accomplishments in just one week. On the eve of this momentous legal occasion at the Supreme Court, I dedicate myself to work even harder to advance our cause that I share with the LGBT community; our community. Again, to all that I have hurt, please accept my sincerest apologies.”

    In other words, he had thought that twenty years of pro-gay activism was enough to shield him from the suspicion that he had betrayed the cause merely by hosting a discussion with someone who holds a different view. He has since discovered how wrong he was, and he promises to toe the line from now on.

    As neo-neocon notes, it’s clear that won’t be enough now, either. He will not be forgiven.

    Reisner pathetically tried to remind everyone he’s a Hillary! supporter. Not a Cruz supporter. He hosted a 900 person “Ready for Hillary!” event at his hotel.

    Neo-neocon has some of the comments from the article that she cites. It’s clear their directing the rabid hatred at Reisner and Weiderpass that they were supposed to direct at Cruz. If they were down with the cause. Which clearly, according to the comments, they’re not. They betrayed the cause by not hating the white hereronormative patriarchy with sufficient zeal.

    Steve57 (08cad4)

  68. I just saw the Weiderpass atonement statement, Steve. Thanks. These two guys have been neutered for sure. While circular firing squads are often amusing to observe, this thread is a good reminder that it’s not just “Christians” the gaystapo go after.

    elissa (c25497)

  69. R.I.P. Jayne Meadows, actress, longtime wife of Steve Allen, sister of Audrey “Alice Kramden” Meadows

    Icy (ccdf95)

  70. i’m having a wee small bit of trouble taking these drama queen hotel poofters seriously

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  71. you really really should hire professionals to write your apologetic grovelings for you that’s what they’re there for

    and it’s 100% deductible usually cause of it’s a legitimate business expense

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  72. 69. …this thread is a good reminder that it’s not just “Christians” the gaystapo go after.

    elissa (c25497) — 4/27/2015 @ 1:13 pm

    All forms of crimethink must be punished. And oddly enough the liberal fascists go after their own even more fiercely and with more venom than they go after me, the white male heteronormative racist sexist Islamophobic homophobic oppressor.

    Steve57 (08cad4)

  73. In case anyone’s interested (or surprised), Baltimore is erupting after the Freddie Grey funeral. Bricks. Rocks.

    Seven Baltimore police officers have suffered major injuries, including one who is unconscious and others with broken bones during clashes with protesters Monday, Capt. Eric Kowalczyk said.

    He described those responsible for the violence as “outrageous criminals.”
    Video showed police in riot gear taking cover behind an armored vehicle, as protesters pelted them with rocks.

    At one point, it looked like officers used tear gas. The Baltimore Police Department said it had heard reports of protesters setting small items on fire.
    Earlier in the day, the department said it had received a “credible threat” that gangs were teaming up to “take out” officers.

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/27/us/baltimore-unrest/index.html

    elissa (c25497)

  74. they killed freddie

    now they’re whining about rocks srsly?

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  75. #73: Steve, ah, but you fight back. The one thing that is constant across the progressive constellation is that no matter what the cause, their targets are always easy. Quite often they are in custody over charges that will ultimately be thrown out, or better yet, out on parole subject to discretionary jailing. And when they don’t have a suitable real target, straw men do nicely. Obola, being a responsible progressive, uses straw men exclusively, as this frees up his time for the occasional round of golf. It also allows him to contrast the evil conservative hench-straw-man that is thwarting his utopian pronouncement with perfect specificity.

    bobathome (ef0d3a)

  76. I wonder if any of the rock throwers are from Baltimore, elissa?

    mg (31009b)

  77. This is interesting, and relevant to the topic.

    I’ve evolved. In the not-so-distant past, I held a view that has since proven to be oppressive, a view of the law and culture that I now see as stifling the rights of others and damaging the fabric of our families and our democracy.

    I supported same-sex marriage.

    Read more at http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417546/president-and-hillary-my-views-marriage-have-evolved-david-french#EwClPcbXLMgbpvZf.99

    It pretty much sums up my view. I didn’t evolve, though. I just hadn’t thought about it until I saw the effects.

    My thesis was rather simple: Since the advent of no-fault divorce, the secular definition of “marriage” had become nothing more than a voluntary arrangement less binding than a refrigerator warranty. Adding same-sex couples to that already thoroughly secular institution would be, at most, an incremental, largely irrelevant cultural and legal change.

    I could not have been more wrong.

    …It’s important to understand that this wave of coercive intolerance is not mere aberrational excess but the natural and inevitable byproduct of grafting same-sex relationships into an institution that is a key building-block to civilization itself…

    The fundamental transformation always starts with high minded rhetoric from people I will no longer flatter as having good intentions. And end in the gulags or the killing fields. Because when you start thinking of people as classes instead of individuals, as this cultural Marxist path we’ve taken requires, then you dehumanize them. As Instapundit says, that’s a feature not a bug as it just makes the next steps easier. Then you demonize your opponents, and they become complete nonpersons. Not nonhuman; as we’ve seen the nonhuman Chimpanzees are gaining rights. Nonpersons deserve no rights.

    It is later than you think. Reisner and Weiderpass found that out. They didn’t just betray the cause, they betrayed their class.

    Steve57 (08cad4)

  78. elissa #74, I’m not surprised. That’s what I meant by it being later than you think. And if anyone voted for Obama, you voted for this.

    Steve57 (08cad4)

  79. gay marriage is just a great new development

    I love it i really really do

    but some people are having trouble adjusting

    for example the maggie gallagher

    but she’s a cow

    cows don’t count

    just people and chimpanzees

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  80. http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-death-of-left.html

    …The American left survived its last round of victories by losing elections. It won while maintaining the appearance of defeat. Now it has both the appearance and the substance of victory. And there’s nothing left except making sure that every pizzeria caters gay weddings. Maddened social justice warriors lynch-tweet their own over trifles as the revolution’s children devour its elders in search of someone to fight.

    The left has won and victory is killing it. It’s a slow miserable death for it, and for us.

    If we win, then a defeated and revitalized left will go back to fulminating and ranting, plotting and scheming its way to a victory that will kill it. If its victory becomes permanent, a generation from now Cuban sex tourists with pesos will be visiting the Socialist enclaves of Berkeley or Boston for their child prostitution needs.

    Steve57 (08cad4)

  81. I’m boycotting teh ghey boycotters, cuz that’s how I roll.

    Colonel Haiku (ad804b)

  82. 80. gay marriage is just a great new development

    I love it i really really do

    but some people are having trouble adjusting…

    happyfeet (a037ad) — 4/27/2015 @ 2:40 pm

    I’m always going to have a hard time adjusting to the fascism you love. That’s what the gulags are for.

    Steve57 (08cad4)

  83. mg–surely you’re not suggesting that outside agitators of the communist and gang variety are involved, mg!

    elissa (c25497)

  84. where dem pups

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  85. You can be an incredibly entertaining person and an incredibly offensive person, happyfeet. Who is the real you? You seem very angry.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  86. 12. Only a social conservatives can survive in a libertarian society.

    Totally disagree. Hardcore social conservatives are out of place in a libertarian society. You can’t force your version of morality on the rest of us.

    I don’t think it’s so much that independents don’t like listening to Ted Cruz.

    Totally disagree. Unlike the far Left, most independents are tolerant; they’ll listen to what Cruz has to say, but they WILL disagree with him on his social positions.

    Rob Westbrook (4870a6)

  87. oh my goodness DRJ i’m not angry today not even a little

    i would however like a glass of wine please, cause of i have a sinus infection which I think I got from the public transportation

    um what else

    i wanna go home and have a glass of wine and wrap up that daredevil series, which is really only watchable cause of the True Blood girl is in it, and the daredevil guy is interesting mostly cause of the american accent he affects is really kind of neat and unique

    it’s not really coming together i don’t think, but they might be getting all the pieces in place for a way more better season 2

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  88. You are wrong on both counts, Robbie.

    I take it you’re a libertarian. What would the laws look like if libertarians were running the country?

    Steve57 (08cad4)

  89. If anyone notices a good rock chucker with a move to first call the Twins hotline. Please.

    mg (31009b)

  90. also there’s an NFL draft or somesuch in town

    does this mean Tim Tebow is gonna be here?

    nobody tells me anything

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  91. mg-the White Sox are scheduled to play the Orioles tonight at Camden Yards, but apparently some public transportation has been shut down by city government and the Baltimore Sun says only one gate into Camden Yards is open. There was already a Freddie Grey brouhaha with some damage at or near the baseball park on Saturday. I suppose the teams can play without fans in attendance as long as the ball park can be secured.

    http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bal-university-of-baltimore-closes-amid-high-school-purge-threat-20150427-story.html#page=1

    elissa (a15381)

  92. Relief! Just was advised the Sox Orioles game has been postponed to a later date. I think this suggests that officials suspect Baltimore is in for a long violent night.

    elissa (a15381)

  93. So you’re sick, then. I’m sorry. I hope you feel better soon .

    DRJ (e80d46)

  94. elissa- friends of ours had to stay inside Camden Yards after the red-sox game the other night, until it was safe.

    mg (31009b)

  95. Libertarians often claim to care about limited constitutional government.

    But not about morality or values or social issues. And they certainly don’t want anybody forcing their morality or values on anyone else. As Rob Westbrook so kindly notes when he misses my point about how only social conservatives can survive in a libertarian society.

    “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

    John Adams.

    I think he knew something about the Constitution.

    Freedom is incompatible with anyone who can’t govern themselves. If you think you can govern yourself but the morality and values of others aren’t important as it’s none of your business, they can do what they want, then you will all end up being governed.

    The only people who are can maintain a free society are social conservatives. Not because they force their values on others but because they live by them. The problem with most libertarians is that they’re really libertines. But that leads to anarchy, and eventually people will demand somebody bring order out of chaos. Which is precisely why we’ve got to this point where we have a large, intrusive government regulating every aspect of our lives. We have lost the Constitution, in case no one has noticed.

    Exactly as John Adams predicted.

    Steve57 (08cad4)

  96. Only a social conservatives can survive in a libertarian society.

    Totally disagree. Hardcore social conservatives are out of place in a libertarian society. You can’t force your version of morality on the rest of us.

    I think his point was that literally only social conservatives can survive. Once the drug users have made themselves useless and the many versions of “anything goes” sexual morality have messed up their lives and extended families, largely those who have spared themselves the drama will be surviving as functional members of society.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  97. thank you DRJ i’m a head out now – gotta get back on the unhygienic transportation machine

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  98. Yes, MD, but also that when enough people have messed up their lives or made themselves useless then we get the leviathan nanny state.

    Steve57 (08cad4)

  99. > But if people use them, they’ll never be able to hold jobs

    Really? The overwhelming majority of the people I know who use drugs (marijuana, cocaine, mdma, mushrooms, lsd) hold jobs just fine.

    aphrael (42bd3f)

  100. Hell, if it weren,t for coersion through threat of public shaming there wouldn’t be any fags.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  101. > But if people use them, they’ll never be able to hold jobs

    Really? The overwhelming majority of the people I know who use drugs (marijuana, cocaine, mdma, mushrooms, lsd) hold jobs just fine.

    aphrael (42bd3f) — 4/27/2015 @ 4:02 pm

    You mean like Heath Ledger and Philip Seymour Hoffman?

    Steve57 (08cad4)

  102. It’s hard to watch the news today. The government leadersin Baltimore and Maryland only seems to care about serving criminals, not unlike the federal government.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  103. Do you know anybody who uses crack, aphrael?

    Steve57 (08cad4)

  104. aphrael,

    Do your friends who use drugs do their jobs better or worse because they take druvs? Don’t tell me the same because they wouldn’t take drugs if it didn’t make them feel different.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  105. Really? The overwhelming majority of the people I know who use drugs (marijuana, cocaine, mdma, mushrooms, lsd) hold jobs just fine.

    You probably don’t associate much with people who are unable to hold jobs. So, within the sample set of people you know, yes, the drug users hold jobs. But I’d bet if you took a survey of all cocaine or LSD addicts, the percentage of job holders would be much smaller.

    Chuck Bartowski (11fb31)

  106. Remember when some people here said throwing rocks, etc., couldn’t seriously hurt law enforcement? We don’t know for sure but the early reports indicate police officers have broken bones and one is unconscious because of being hit my rocks and such.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  107. Rumor has it your hotelier is quite used to bending over and taking it. The wonder to me is that Cruz hadn’t anticipated an old faggot would try and shaft him first chance he got. It’s not as if as a group they are noted for character, standing up against bullies and the like.

    OTOH Cruz’s naivety vis-à-vis queers speaks well of his upbringing.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  108. 103. …The government leadersin Baltimore and Maryland only seems to care about serving criminals, not unlike the federal government.

    DRJ (e80d46) — 4/27/2015 @ 4:15 pm

    They’re their best clients. Keeping people poor and dependent on government services is job security. They’re angry now, but if you listen to them talk they’re angry that the government they’ve grown dependent on isn’t doing enough for them. As in, free stuff.

    Clearly more wealth transfer is the only answer. And rioting mobs, especially combined with police forces unwilling or ordered not to prevent violence and looting is a great way to get the productive classes to agree to the ransom. The government officials were raised to believe they’re morally superior to the greedy, grasping bourgeois middle class. And they care more about the poor and underprivileged. And those are the people looting the bourgeoisie’s businesses.

    This is social justice in action, DRJ.

    Steve57 (08cad4)

  109. If it were me, well I wouldn’t be running a rent by the hour hotel catering to perverts and debauchery, but lets say my totally legitimate business were being picketed by a group of wannabe Nazi’s.
    I’d call the cops then turn on the sprinklers, or maybe have the bellhops man firehoses.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  110. How can he deny service to Ted Cruz?

    How is this different than bakery cakes from evangelicals?

    Rodney King's Spirit (b31520)

  111. Really? The overwhelming majority of the people I know who use drugs (marijuana, cocaine, mdma, mushrooms, lsd) hold jobs just fine.

    aphrael (42bd3f) — 4/27/2015 @ 4:02 pm

    I call BS.

    Rodney King's Spirit (b31520)

  112. ==How can he deny service to Ted Cruz? How is this different than bakery cakes from evangelicals?==

    What on earth are you talking about RKS?

    elissa (a15381)

  113. Elissa,

    How could the Hotel Owner have denied Cruz service? (Not that he did but now he is saying he should have)

    How is this not the same issue as a Bakery denying a gay couple a cake?

    ….. now you can be as condescending as you want in your response if you have something to add … Thanks.

    Rodney King's Spirit (b31520)

  114. LOL. Yes. I do have something to add. Check your facts RKS. This is not about anybody denying Cruz service.

    elissa (a15381)

  115. RKS Cruz wasn’t renting a hotel room. He was seeking a character endorsement, campaign cash, what have you, from people who as a group have none to give.

    Sort of a mistake, but he came by it honest.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  116. i just don’t get how you can read through here and me *I’m* the angry one

    raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens

    happyfeet (831175)

  117. feets–I’m just guessing but I think it might have been the

    “they killed freddie

    now they’re whining about rocks srsly?”

    that DRJ noticed. IDK. To me it sounded more irresponsible of you to say that than anger, but we all perceive things differently. And she may have been referring to something else entirely.

    elissa (a15381)

  118. yes yes i am extremely irresponsible

    i could give a crap if your fascist racist failmerican piggy piggy pension whore copsluts get pelted with rocks all day

    not when there’s so much binge tv to watch

    happyfeet (831175)

  119. *pension-whore* copsluts i mean

    happyfeet (831175)

  120. Really? The overwhelming majority of the people I know who use drugs (marijuana, cocaine, mdma, mushrooms, lsd) hold jobs just fine.

    You can only be flyin’ on 11 different herbs and spices at teh Colonel’s… KFC, to be clear.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  121. @89&96. Stevie, the argument is not whether drugs are good or not. We know drugs in general are bad. The question is, do you continue to support the huge failed War on Drugs? Do you think the answer to drug addiction is just throwing everyone in jail? You’re not rehabilitating anyone, you’re not helping the poor families and the single parents by throwing all the drug users in jail. Stop criminalizing people who aren’t violent, who have psychiatric disease, who were abused as children, who need rehab/medical care instead of a jail cell.

    You asked how the laws would be different if I had my libertarian paradise, Stevie? For starters: Get rid of the bureacracy, follow the constitution and the bill of rights, shut up about SSM and let consenting adults enter into private relationship contracts, decriminalize drugs with emphasis on rehab and addiction treatment (cops focusing on violent crime), and reform welfare by tying it to productive work and on-the-job training. Obviously we’re going to get very little of what I’m proposing in the future, because we have the fascists on the right fighting with the fascists on the left over who can better control our lives. Rs might be better than the Ds, but not by as much as you think (with few exceptions).

    Your biggest problem, Stevie, is believing that only the social cons are moral, that they have a monopoly on morality. Not even the social cons can all agree on what exactly constitutes morality. I have news for you, Stevie: atheists can be moral, whereas evangelicals can easily be hypocritical and immoral. You think libertarians are “libertine” and have no moral code? You’re wrong. Freedom from government coercian is not an endorsement of an “anything goes” lifestyle. How are you so blind you can’t see the failure of your logic? There can be right and wrong lifestyles without the politicians or the “majority” deciding what specific lifestyle each individual must conform to (and attempting to force us to live by your specific religious code).

    So pay attention, Stevie, because this is what I want you to learn: Libertarians believe in freedom and limited government, but just because we support the RIGHT to be left alone doesn’t mean we believe it is MORAL to do whatever you want. Morality doesn’t require religion; it requires allegiance to the values of productivity, reason, self esteem, and integrity. You can pursue these values without the Bible, without Jesus. These values are compatible with SSM. They aren’t an endorsement of drug addiction, but neither is it moral to throw people in jail and harass them for using substances YOU deem to be dangerous because of what “might” happen.

    We get it. You don’t want to pay for drug addicts’ lifestyles, Stevie. None of us do. But it costs society more to ban drugs and throw people in jail than it does to rehab people with addictions. Save the prison space for real criminals. If people need assistance, have them work for it or beg for charity. But stop harassing people just because your idea of a “good time” is different than theirs. You DON’T have a monopoly on morality. And if you support government coercian to enforce your personal moral code on others, then you might be as fascist as the Leftists.

    Stevie.

    Rob Westbrook (4870a6)

  122. Always seeking clarity.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  123. In all of the medical offices I worked in over the years,
    the people who were using cocaine and heroin were generally patients.
    Pot I don’t know so much about, but they say the stuff today is a lot more potent than yesteryear,
    and I remember what frequent users were like back in the day when it was weak.
    And my sons’ friends who were the most frequent users were still trying to get their adult lives started when last seen…

    Those who you know who use aphrael, do any of them have children?

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  124. BTW, I’m with Bob. The drug war only fills up prison with people, making crooks of otherwise peaceful citizens. And the stretch of prison time doesn’t improve them when they get out. Generally speaking prisons are habitual offender factories, creating actual beat you over the head and take your wallet type crooks rather than the toking up at the park type.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  125. Gays should be able to choose what stores to patronize and what politicians to support, as should Christians, but that isn’t what this debate is about. This debate is about forcing Christians who oppose SSM to accept and literally cater to it.

    That’s certainly one debate that is going on these days, and it seems to be the main one that keeps cropping up again and again. But I see the Cruz/gay hotel guy story as a little different. It raises issues about speech and punishing tactics, and I think it’s very difficult to separate one’s opinion as to the legitimacy of certain tactics from one’s views as to the legitimacy of the underlying speech.

    To illustrate why I think so, let me give you an example that I think flips the hypo of this post on its head:

    Lefty gay owner of company that makes Kosher food hosts fireside chat with lefty presidential candidate who loves him some gay marriage and also loves him some Palestinians. Call him “Barack” just for the sake of the hypo. Presidential candidate has repeatedly criticized Israel, and expressed sympathy for Palestinians. Fox News reports that Kosher food dude hosted a chat with Mr. I Love Palestinians, and the Jewish community goes ape-you-know-what. They plan a protest of his food products, and he hurriedly issues a statement saying he is sorry, he didn’t realize how anti-Israel Barack is (although everybody and his dog knows this) and his heart sank after getting thousands of emails saying screw you I will find different Kosher food.

    Don’t we think, in that scenario, that conservatives would be applauding the boycott, and lefties would be wringing their hands over the idea that this guy is getting ruined just for chatting it up with a guy (Barack) with whom he shared common views about gay marriage — but happened to disagree with regarding Israel?

    I’d like to think I would remain consistent, and say that I am disturbed by the illiberal response that seeks to punish the guy for merely talking to someone who holds different views — but then again, the Jewish community has a right to consider it important that the guy making their Kosher food is fully supportive of the Jewish cause, and if they choose to boycott this guy you can hardly blame them.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  126. How many rocks coulda thug chuck chuck if a thug could refrain from the illegal discharge of they gats?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  127. I saw a couple leaving their kids in the car while entering a pot dispensary (now defunct) to shop.

    Circumstantial evidence is good enough?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  128. Sorry but gays, Christians, Jews or whattever have the right to partronize or boycot any business or person they want but they have no right to use the force of government or law to drive any American out of business, out of town or into bankruptcy. That’s why the government and courts should not be involved in rediculous things like hate crimes and discrimination.

    Hoagie (58a3ec)

  129. No problem papertiger, now if they were dogs and not kids PETA and the law would be all over them. And how does a pot dispensary go defunct?

    Hoagie (58a3ec)

  130. It was the brief moment in time when medical mari pot was flirting with legal in California. Lots of dealers just opened up neighborhood shops calling them clinics. Then when they reached a sort of saturation level the government revoked business licenses en mass. Jailed up the proprietors I guess.

    It’s easier than chasing bad guys. Just let them think it’s legal for a minute. LoL/

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  131. Sorry but gays, Christians, Jews or whattever have the right to partronize or boycot any business or person they want but they have no right to use the force of government or law to drive any American out of business, out of town or into bankruptcy. That’s why the government and courts should not be involved in rediculous things like hate crimes and discrimination.

    I’m not sure who you’re saying sorry to, but it shouldn’t be me. I have been quite clear that I think business owners have the right to do business with whomever they like. (Legally, they don’t — but in my view they have that natural right, which the government simply ignores, as it often ignores natural rights).

    Part of the argument for this view, though, is that the market can address the situation. And frankly, that’s exactly what the gays are doing with the gay hotel guy.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  132. I suppose one can agree that citizens have the right to be hateful, spiteful, and mean, and criticize and boycott anyone they want,
    but by this display of hating “their own”,
    they kind of undercut their argument about being the nice people who just want to be free to be.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  133. MD that shipped sailed along time ago. It’s all about power and revenge. For some, it always was.

    Gazzer (c1d25a)

  134. #115 and #116,

    OMG, I read all about it now. The event was not at his Gay Hotel, it was at his gay home. Thanks for trying!

    Again, questions still stands, can Mr Gay Hotel Man deny Ted Cruz the right to hold an event in his Gay Hotel. And if so, how is this different than an evangelical baker not wanting to bake gay wedding cakes.

    Sank u bery mushh. Anyone???

    Rodney King's Spirit (b31520)

  135. Robbie @122, I take it you never read the Libertarian party platform.

    http://www.lp.org/platform

    There’s reason libertarians will never win an election. Because my logic doesn’t fail. Everybody can see that platform is a recipe for disaster. Except for pot smoking libertarians. It’s positively juvenile.

    “These values are compatible with SSM.”

    No, they’re not. Because when people are free to create marriage for themselves (I thought libertarians were for freedom, Robbie) they never defined it as anything but a man and a woman. And people did decide what marriage was before government ever got into the marriage business. Because there’s one basic function every society needs to perform. Even a libertarian one. Produce a next generation.

    That’s not from the Bible, Robbie.

    The only way you get to SSM, Robbie, is through the heavy hand of government forcing it on people. Unwilling people. There’s a reason it’s going to take 9 unelected judges to get us to SSM. So what kind of libertarian are you?

    And who said I was for government coercion to “to enforce your personal moral code on others.”

    When this country was founded there were other institutions that existed that were sources of the moral code. And there was social stigma attached to being a single mother, or being a hopeless drunk, or a drug addict, or having to rely on handouts.

    So I’ll stick with John Adams, Robbie. He knew what he was talking about. It’s a demonstrated fact at this point. You live in your fantasy world. This doesn’t work. It never has worked.

    We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

    Because they may not be forcibly interfering with the right of others to live as they choose. But even nonviolent anarchy fails. That’s not the society the Constitution was designed for. Libertarians imagine a society that has never been.

    Steve57 (08cad4)

  136. Many times the argument goes being a libertarian, I don’t believe in stop signs.

    Government has it’s uses I’ll admit. If you want to interpret that as libertarianism has it’s limits, be my guest.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  137. ==Thanks for trying==

    Look, no one’s aiming to give you a hard time. But please, quit raising straw men and get back to us if and when Ted actually tries to hire space at one of their hotels and is actually refused. That might or might not be a story depending on the laws in NYC. Until then, the issue is that Ted and his wife were invited to and attended as guests, along with about 12 other people, a private dinner and casual fireside chat at the gay mens’ own personal home, a penthouse. The men are now deeply regretting issuing the invitation because they are taking fire for it from their community who apparently think the men were being traitors by voluntarily entertaining Ted Cruz in their home.

    elissa (3fb9e8)

  138. I think one of our biggest problems is that we’re trying to be consistent and not be hypocritical, while liberals could care less and are in this to win. This is political war and we can only afford so many moral victories (that are actually losses) before we have to focus our political efforts on winning. I think we are at that point.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  139. MD in Philly – some of them do, yes. Most of them do not.

    DRJ – that’s a good question. As a general rule, the people I know who use use recreationally and wouldn’t be going to work under the influence. So I’m not sure what the answer would be.

    Steve57 – I am of course speaking of people *whom I know personally*. That said, what I specifically claimed was that the people I knew were able to hold down jobs just fine, which I think was true of Robin Williams and of Philip Seymour Hoffman – as otherwise we wouldn’t both recognize their names. :)

    I do not, as far as I know, know crack users. I know people who have used cocaine recreationally and who are able to hold down jobs just fine.

    Rodney King’s Spirit: you in effect just called me a liar, based on nothing more than your *disbelief* in what I am saying. Please withdraw that accusation.

    I was thinking about this this afternoon, after I posted, and the recent “rat park” study comes to mind: it turns out that among rats, there’s a substantial difference in behavior between rats who are exposed to heroin and who live in pleasant environments versus rats who are exposed to heroin and who live in unpleasant environments – the ones in unpleasant environments generally speaking become hopelessly addicted, while those who aren’t in unpleasant environments don’t suffer from a compulsion to use the drug. (http://boingboing.net/2013/09/16/bruce-alexanders-rat-park-a.html).

    It stands to reason that a similar effect would work for human. My social circle consists largely of well educated professionals and graduate students, most of whom live fantastic lives by historic standards and none of whom live in real poverty (except for some graduate students for whom that is a *temporary* condition) – it seems unexceptional to me that drug use would play out differently in my social milieu than in other, less priviliged, ones.

    And yet my point remains: it isn’t per se true that drug use makes it impossible for people to hold down jobs. I know a lot of people who *do* hold down jobs, and who use drugs.

    aphrael (42bd3f)

  140. > who apparently think the men were being traitors by voluntarily entertaining Ted Cruz in their home.

    The belief that someone could be a traitor because they voluntarily chose to entertain a sitting United States Senator, in their home … that belief is part of the problem.

    I do not particularly like Ted Cruz. It’s extremely unlikely that I’ll vote for him. And yet willingness to maintain relationships – and even friendships – across the political divide is *essential* if we’re going to function as a political community, and people should not be denounced and hounded for doing so.

    The people who put pressure on the hotelier, in this case, are just *wrong*, and they should be ashamed of themselves.

    aphrael (42bd3f)

  141. MD in Philly – it’s an interesting point, I think, about the difference between *heavy* use of marijuana and *non-heavy* use. The people I know who smoke pot – and who hold down jobs – and whose usage patterns are known to me – aren’t *heavy* users, they’re more *occasional* users (the range of occasional varying from once in a blue moon to once or twice a week).

    I think it’s a fair point that heavy users have problems keeping their life moving. But the vast majority of marijuana users, in my experience, aren’t heavy users. (And I have a fair amount of experience in this; in the 24 years since I first moved to Santa Cruz, I have basically *always* known people socially who were marijuana users, but I’ve known very, very few people I’d describe as heavy users).

    It would be interesting to know if there are studies that help explain who becomes a heavy user and who doesn’t.

    aphrael (42bd3f)

  142. Do you have even a rough guess as to what percentage of the gay community may feel as you do about this particular situation, aphrael?

    elissa (3fb9e8)

  143. 140. …And yet my point remains: it isn’t per se true that drug use makes it impossible for people to hold down jobs. I know a lot of people who *do* hold down jobs, and who use drugs.
    aphrael (42bd3f) — 4/27/2015 @ 10:41 pm

    The odds go way up that people who use drugs won’t be able to hold down jobs. I didn’t say it happened immediately, upon first use.

    The question becomes, for how long will they be able to hold down a job?

    Steve57 (08cad4)

  144. This 2013 NIH study says there aren’t any studies of long-term marijuana use and proclivity in humans, although there are animal studies. Thus, the linked study is based on a RAND simulation that shows whites are more likely to become heavy users of marijuana during their lifetimes than blacks and Hispanics, and males are more likely than females.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  145. so, can anyone here shed light on
    http://www.samaritanspurse.org/article/christian-couple-faces-135000-fine/ ?

    wondering how legit Samaritan’s Purse is and if it has the ‘legs’ to compete with GoFundMe .

    seeRpea (8fa79e)

  146. I think one of our biggest problems is that we’re trying to be consistent and not be hypocritical, while liberals could care less and are in this to win. This is political war and we can only afford so many moral victories (that are actually losses) before we have to focus our political efforts on winning. I think we are at that point.

    DRJ,

    I’m not sure what you mean in concrete terms. I believe in the right of these business owners to refuse service to anyone they like, on any ground they like. I believe that is a matter, not just of religious freedom, but freedom in general. I will fight that battle in any moral way possible.

    I know you don’t mean we shouldn’t try to avoid hypocrisy, because I know you. But I’m not sure what exactly you do mean.

    I know there are some conservatives who are eager to use moments like this to rush out and use Alinsky tactics against every leftist they don’t like. I think such people just enjoy using Alinsky tactics. I’m not one who favors using tactics like let’s pick someone, freeze them, polarize them, distort what they say, etc. I have been on the receiving end of people trying to do that to me to teach me some obscure “lesson” and I think it was less about the lesson and more about sadism. I think gleefully engaging in nasty tactics is corrosive to the soul and not what I would want to teach my children. Again, I’m confident you’re with me on this too.

    Maybe you could elaborate more on what you believe we need to do. Knowing you as I do, I suspect I’ll agree.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  147. SeeRpea – Samaritan’s Purse is a legitimate Christian charity (check them out on http://www.charitynavigator.org if you’d like).

    TG (2c8903)

  148. > I think gleefully engaging in nasty tactics is corrosive to the soul and not what I would want to teach my children.

    Hear, hear.

    aphrael (42bd3f)

  149. Elissa, at 143: I think that’s a good question, and I don’t know the answer. I suspect it’s mixed; my guess is that apolitical gays would agree with my take while heavily politicized gays wouldn’t, but I haven’t surveyed the landscape. My news attention is currently focused on (a) puppygate, (b) nepal, and (c) today’s supreme court arguments; between the three of them i’m nto having much time for anything else.

    aphrael (42bd3f)

  150. Steve57, at 144: twenty, thirty years so far, in the case of some of the people I’m talking about.

    I understand that my experience and yours differ.

    aphrael (42bd3f)

  151. I agree with what you say. I wasn’t thinking about you or religious freedom as much as I was thinking about Republican politicians and the path ahead. I think politicians need to point out liberal hypocrisy, but that’s basically playing defense and we won’t win by playing defense. Instead, conservatives need to play offense by forcefully explaining why conservative policies work. I think we both support Cruz because we know he can do that. Whoever wins the nomination, I hope he can make a compelling argument. Unfortunately, I fear too many Americans are no longer receptive to these free market, constitutionally conservative arguments. If so, then the only way I see to win these battles, let alone the war, is secession.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  152. It’s ironic that aphrael’s current number 1 issue is Puppygate, since that is a real-world example of what we’re talking about: Ethics and politics in the battle between liberal and conservative views.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  153. I’m not sure why that’s ironic, DRJ. :)

    aphrael (42bd3f)

  154. That’s true, aphrael. As I wrote that, I wondered if the reason I like you and Patterico is that we are all concerned with ethics.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  155. Switching gears, the federal disaster procedure is for the local government to respond first. The State (and the National Guard) only intervene at the request of the local government or if the Governor declares martiallaw.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  156. I was disappointed in your Maggie Gallagher slur, happyfeets. I never heard of her and had to Google her when I read your comment, but it struck me as a particularly cruel thing to say. Of course, now that I read your indifference to injuries to the police, I see this is how you think when you don’t feel well. I hope your sinus infection gets better soon.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  157. i am very familiar with maggie and i think she is an odious cow, but mostly i just base this on things she says she believes, plus she’s very unattractive

    and yes i am very indifferent to the police thing

    i don’t regard failmerican police as public servants – i regard them more like a sleazy hyper-violent organized crime syndicate what serve a shadowy union boss whose name we are not allowed to know

    i think tomorrow I’ll be in good shape – i am wfh today, and the sinuses are much better – but i have a headache which i think is just part of the healing process

    happyfeet (831175)

  158. I see. This is what you really think about people who disagree with you, but you’re more direct about saying it when you don’t feel well.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  159. juat another hoochie, right pikachu,

    with the exception of Oscar Grant, when has the media mob, been right about any of these cases,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  160. Can you name 3 or 4 professions you respect, happyfeet?

    DRJ (e80d46)

  161. she wrote a particularly obnoxious piece i think about 10 days ago where she consigned gay people to the fiery pits of hell and et cetera

    bigots like maggie are a big reason why the republican party is a joke to anyone under 30

    happyfeet (831175)

  162. aphrael,

    Explain to me your concerns about Puppygate because it seems like an acceptable gambit to me. Why should it bother me?

    DRJ (e80d46)

  163. here is a linker link

    happyfeet (831175)

  164. well true, but getting Mayor Rawlings to recognize the problem is a fool’s errand, the zampolits of science fictions are getting tiresome,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  165. i respect many professions for example i respect dentistry

    and anything in food service as long as they don’t do bigotry on people

    and robotics

    and I like marketing, but maybe not as much as i used to

    and i like procurement and logistics

    and i like public relations

    and i like aquaculture cause I think it’s the future

    and mixologists

    happyfeet (831175)

  166. happyfeet,

    So you aren’t a Republican and never have been. Libertarian, maybe?

    DRJ (e80d46)

  167. You seem very future-oriented, happyfeet.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  168. DRJ – at an analytic level, what’s just happened is the open and public introduction of political parties. From this day forward it will be impossible for people to *as individuals* nominate what they liked; in order for a work to get on the ballot, it’s going to have to attract the attention of the people assembling and creating one of several competing slates. It’s similar to how it was once possible and normal for candidates to get on the political-election ballot without going through a party to get there, and now it’s rare and unusual.

    I think that’s a diminishment of the system, and it greatly reduces (for me) the value of the award and of the process.

    I don’t necessarily blame the puppies for this, and I don’t think the blanket “no award” is a good answer. I think the genie’s out of the bottle and can’t be put back in.

    [I also think the spectacle offers lots of opportunity to see people behaving atrociously towards one another, and I really wish they’d all *stop*.]

    aphrael (42bd3f)

  169. i was a republican once

    but they got weird

    i’m not a big marijuana fan, not enough to be a libertarian

    the pikachu walks alone

    happyfeet (831175)

  170. (The puppies would respond by saying that this was in fact already the case, and all they’ve done is bring it out into the open. I think they’re *wrong* about that, but I also think they honestly *believe* it to be true. And at the end of the day, I feel like I can lament the coming of political parties without needing to take sides in the debate about who started it and whose fault it is.)

    aphrael (42bd3f)

  171. I don’t read your Gallagher link as hate speech. I can see it as uncomfortable for Gallagher to say and gays to read, but not hateful. Sometimes life is uncomfortable, especially when we disagree.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  172. my new senator

    man he lurvs him some equality and twice on sunday

    too bad he’s a flaky flaky squish squish

    my understanding is his days are numbered

    2016 the democrats take the seat back is what they say

    happyfeet (831175)

  173. (For what it’s worth, my approach will be to do what I’ve always done – read as many of the works nominated as I can manage and rank them in the order I think is appropriate based on my reaction to reading them, including ranking ‘No Award’ above works I don’t like.)

    aphrael (42bd3f)

  174. aphrael,

    Perhaps it wasn’t organized in the past so it does seem like this is taking things to a new level, but I find it hard to believe there weren’t cliques who effectively organized support/opposition to ideas or people. Gossip, rumors, conspiracies, etc., are particularly human qualities, aren’t they?

    DRJ (e80d46)

  175. Noah Ward will be a popular vote for awhile.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  176. i have no problem really with gallagher’s screed but for she wants to impose it as a litmus test on Team R candidates

    that kind of bibble babble is not really germane anymore to selecting presidents

    i blame Reagan for inflating the self-importance of these people beyond all reality

    but just as that government governs best what governs least, so must the concerns of a properly conservative party be necessarily delimited to matters of True Import and Consequence

    but everybody has their own agenda anymore

    I sigh, and I think how sad it is to live in failmerica in this era of the Great Squandering

    happyfeet (831175)

  177. yes, best leave it Gosnell’s girl and Zaphod, as they burn every institution to the ground like that CVS in Baltimore

    narciso (ee1f88)

  178. Oh, absolutely – gossip, rumors, conspiracies, etc, are part of human nature. Rumors of conspiracies in particular. :)

    I think it’s a valid question, though, at what point “taking things to a new level” constitutes a difference in kind. I’m with the people who think that the puppy campaign rises to the level of a “difference in kind”, although I think many of the proposed reactions to that are unhelpful at best and are probably making the situation worse.

    That said, I think there’s also a real difference of opinion between the two groups as to (a) what constitutes quality fiction and (b) who is or isn’t a member of the “community” at issue. The difference of opinion in (a) is exacerbated by the fact that both sides seem to enjoy publically proclaiming that the other side’s tastes are *wrong* as a matter of fact rather than simply different as a matter of opinion. The difference in opinion in (b) is causing communication difficulty as each side seems to use the same words to mean different things, and it’s also [1] confusing the anti-puppy side because there’s no real means of social enforcement against people who aren’t part of the social group, and [2] angering them as it’s giving rise to a real impression of being overrun by outsiders. On balance, the anti-puppy side isn’t handling its reactions to either of these very well. (That said, some of the puppies are being real ***holes about the situation, too – it almost appears that some of them are deliberately trying to induce bad reactions, in the way of online trolls).

    aphrael (42bd3f)

  179. DRJ – yeah, it will be.

    For me it’s odd, because Noah Ward has always been a legitimate option, and it’s an option I *always* use. (I rated last year’s winner below Noah Ward, for example, because I couldn’t get more than 50 pages into it for lack of caring).

    aphrael (42bd3f)

  180. just as like with the Journolist, the same preferred memes are circulated, so the likes of Correia and Wright, don’t get recognition, and the mob directed by Scalzi and Stross*,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  181. Narciso – I read Correia’s book last year and rated it below “No Award” because, while it was fun and enjoyable, it was popcorn – it was fun and a good example of what it is, but it’s not what I would describe as “best”.

    I *loved* _Count To A Trillion_ but I find Wright’s short stories to be lacking the spark of excitement that makes me enjoy science fiction short stories.

    So in my view neither of them really deserve recognition in the form of awards. But then again, I’m looking for different things in my fiction than the puppies are. And that’s fine; we’re different people with different likes.

    What irks me is the allegation that the awards are controlled by a conspiracy rather than simply being voted on by a bunch of people who have different tastes than the puppies’ taste. There’s a huge difference between “john c wright isn’t getting awards because the voters have different tastes than me” and “john c wright isn’t getting awards because of a conspiracy”.

    But then again – I don’t generally think in terms of conspiracies, and the allegation of conspiracies *always* irks me. :)

    aphrael (42bd3f)

  182. I read the Ann Leckie one, I’m familiar with most, I read the Japanese origin tale, of ‘Edge of Tomorrow’ which made the danger much more imminent,,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  183. I really is a metaphor for national politics, isn’t it?

    DRJ (e80d46)

  184. Of this year’s nominees for novel, I’ve currently read *zero*.

    I didn’t like _Ancillary Justice_, so _Ancillary Sword_ was not on my list. I’ve positively loathed everything I’ve *tried* to read by KJA, so his getting nominated for a Hugo for best novel is basically the only reason I’d give him another chance. :) _Three Body Problem_ has been on the to-read list since about November, based on buzz. The latest iteration of _The Dresden Files_ could be fun, but honestly the entire series, while something I read, isn’t on my “go out and get this” list. _The Goblim Emperor_ I was completely unaware of until it got nominated.

    aphrael (42bd3f)

  185. Because I think, at some level, everyone feels like their side is genuine/real/sincere/right and the other side isn’t.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  186. DRJ – one of the funniest commentaries I’ve seen on puppygate came from an Australian who decried the entire situation as the injection of the American culture wars into the science fiction community awards process.

    aphrael (42bd3f)

  187. DRJ at 186, I think that’s an accurate observation, and it irritates me here as much as it irritates me there. I think it’s much more productive to assume that 99% of the people involved are sincere and to acknowledge that while there *are* some insincere people, they’re outliers, and the sincere majority shouldn’t be held responsible for the actions of the insincere outliers. On *both* sides. Or on *all* sides in cases where there’s more than one side.

    aphrael (42bd3f)

  188. 188. DRJ at 186, I think that’s an accurate observation, and it irritates me here as much as it irritates me there. I think it’s much more productive to assume that 99% of the people involved are sincere and to acknowledge that while there *are* some insincere people, they’re outliers, and the sincere majority shouldn’t be held responsible for the actions of the insincere outliers. On *both* sides. Or on *all* sides in cases where there’s more than one side.

    aphrael (42bd3f) — 4/28/2015 @ 10:51 am

    I’d like to remind you that Hillary Clinton is currently considered the front runner, and may well become, the Democratic party’s nominee for President.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417555/why-wont-media-hold-hillary-same-standard-they-did-bob-mcdonnell-mona-charen

    The job of the First Lady in the Third World is to launder the bribes, as anyone who’s spent much time there knows. In this case, Bill Clinton was the First Lady, and his foundation was how he laundered them.

    You don’t need “direct evidence” or a smoking gun to establish political corruption. In fact, there is zero evidence that Bob McDonnell ever took any action that enriched Johnnie Williams, the businessman who lavished McDonnell, his wife, and daughter with gifts and favors. There is plenty of evidence that Hillary! took action within the same 3 month IRS reporting period that Bill Clinton received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the people who benefited from his wife’s actions.

    The standard has always been donor x gave politician/official y (or close family member) large cash donations. Later politician x/y did something for the donor. All they could prove in McDonnell’s case is that he made a couple of phone calls for Williams, and allowed him to arrange a party at the governor’s mansion where he announce a new product, which isn’t illegal on McDonnell’s part.

    There is far, far more evidence of Hillary!’s corruption then what sent McDonnell to prison. Or for that matter, than what got Bob Menendez indicted. If, that is, she was ever held to the same standard that sent other public officials to prison.

    If she becomes the nominee, if she becomes President, how do possibly expect me to assume any sincerity on the part of her, and all the voters who put her in office who don’t care that she’s corrupt. Just that she’s a Democrat?

    Steve57 (08cad4)

  189. whereas Terry McAuliffe is a sleaze convoy, yet because the Top Men, found Cuccinelli too prolife, he’s allowed to walk into Richmond, and raid the silverware,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  190. seeRpea (8fa79e) — 4/27/2015 @ 11:07 pm

    I thought I saw something about the cause being dropped/prohibited by GoFundMe for some reason.

    AFAIK, charities don’t get more legit than samaritan’s purse, but I’ve never seen them do anything that wasn’t more directly disaster relief/medical needs/economic development before.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  191. I wonder if the pizza people can give some of their money to the cake people.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  192. “Do your friends who use drugs do their jobs better or worse because they take druvs? Don’t tell me the same because they wouldn’t take drugs if it didn’t make them feel different.”

    – DRJ

    What if they take the drugs on the weekends, when they’re not at their jobs, then proceed to hold down their jobs during the week?

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  193. What if they take the drugs on the weekends, when they’re not at their jobs, then proceed to hold down their jobs during the week?

    And what if they don’t? Do you really believe a whole bunch of low information druggies are going to separate the two 100% of the time? Cause I don’t. Hell, regular old drunks can’t separate it 100% of the time let alone drugged out whackos. So now we’ll have druggies AND drunks driving to and showing up for work. Cool. What could possibly go wrong?

    12,000,000 non-minority voters (58a3ec)

  194. all these people with their drug issues

    number one they’re almost certainly financing terrorism number two it’s a good way to get the HIV, doing all these drugs

    number three you don’t have to do drugs to have fun

    number four it’s illegal

    happyfeet (831175)

  195. Leviticus,

    Do you always keep your weekend pleasure separate from the work week? I submit recreational drug users are like everyone else. What they do on weekends ends up leaking over into the work week and sometimes into work, especially if they believe they are equally productive and reliable when they take drugs as when they don’t.

    In addition, it’s very hard to keep work and non-work completely separate. For instance, do you only socialize on the weekend and never during the week? Do you take a drink with lunch or dinner now and then, or go to a movie (at home or out), or take a couple of hours off for personal time? I bet you have and that’s fine, but the same thing that tells someone it’s fine to mix personal and business time — and this is especially true of professionals who are always on call — also tells them they know their limits on drugs and alcohol. And they do, right up until they don’t.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  196. 194. What if they take the drugs on the weekends, when they’re not at their jobs, then proceed to hold down their jobs during the week?

    Leviticus (f9a067) — 4/28/2015 @ 2:15 pm

    I know of very few people who can limit their drug use to weekends.

    Just to show how it screws people up, a friend of mine is a general contractor. One of his employees needed a ride to work one day, so my friend agreed to pick him up on the way to the job site. He gets their a little early so the guy’s wife invites him in.

    They go into the kitchen for a cup of coffee. The employee is sitting there pulling on his boots. And taking drags on a joint.

    Not only couldn’t that guy confine his drug use to the weekend, he thought so little of it he was willing to smoke weed in front of his boss.

    Naturally my friend had to fire him. He couldn’t knowingly allow someone who’s stoned help build someone’s house or operate power tools. Just for insurance purposes, or more importantly the guy screwing up the house or hurting himself or others.

    At least twice a week one of three ladies who worked in a now defunct clothing boutique across the street would come in for takeout. It didn’t matter which one it was, it didn’t matter what day of the week it was. They always reeked of pot.

    Think the pot smoking had anything to do with the business failing? I do. You just can’t run a business stoned.

    Steve57 (08cad4)

  197. Also, “holding down their jobs” is a fairly low standard. It’s the equivalent of saying a C student is good enough, and I guess it is by current standards.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  198. http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/16/politics/hunter-biden-discharged-from-navy/index.html

    The Navy Reserve discharged Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter this year after he tested positive for cocaine, U.S. officials confirmed.

    …Biden was commissioned as an ensign in May 2013 and assigned as a public affairs officer in a Norfolk, Virginia-based reserve unit. A month later, he tested positive for cocaine, and he was discharged in February, according to the report.

    I know for a fact his command told him he’d be randomly tested for drugs. I don’t know which day of the drill weekend they piss tested him, as they can do it both Saturday or Sunday.

    I’m going to put my Navy ADAMS (Alcohol and Drug Abuse Managers/Supervisers) training to use.

    When they test for drugs they test not only for the actual drug but also for metabolytes. In the case of cocaine testing for the drug is of limited use, as the actual drug will be out of your system fairly rapidly. It takes much longer for the metabolytes, or liver enzymes produced when your body metabolizes the drug, to leave your system.

    Still, cocaine metabolytes can only be detected for 3-5 days if someone is a moderate user. Which means even if they tested him on Saturday the latest he could have used was Monday. Of course the length metabolytes will stay in your system depends upon how much and how frequently you use. If he was a heavy user or a chronic user of extremely high doses it can be detected for from 10 to as much as 22 days.

    Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt and say he was a recreational user, he could have used cocaine no later than Monday to pop positive on Saturday. Which means he was using cocaine during the week. I suspect he was a heavier user as he tested positive his very first weekend at his first command. And he was warned. And he did it anyway.

    But at the very least we know this attorney and managing partner of an investment firm was using coke during the week.

    Like DRJ said, very few people can confine their recreational activities to the weekend.

    Steve57 (08cad4)

  199. Joe Biden’s son Hunter is a coke fiend just like his daughter Ashley

    it’s sad is what it is

    happyfeet (831175)

  200. Aphrael,

    Of course you don’t see a conspiracy because everyone thinks like you and votes the same way you think. Your science fiction needs to hit your hit buttons otherwise it isn’t worthy of an award.

    Puppies has made it clear what their vision of sci-fun is, fun stories that take the reader on an exciting journey, messages and PC talk isn’t necessary. No surprise you wouldn’t see a conspiracy when you are the typical voter before the puppies decided to get books they liked nominated.

    Do you think Scalzi is worthy of more nominations than Bradbury and Asimov? Have you not seen how Hayden and Scalzi have created the exact environment you deplore when they told Correia to get his own voters?

    njrob (c94106)

  201. Scalzi and his ilk corrupted that award a while back, and are now throwing a SJW temper tantrum because someone had the audacity to nominate an actual diverse group of writers – men, women, multiple nationalities, many ideologies. The hyperventilation by the leftists has been amusing.

    JD (3b5483)

  202. NJRob @ 202: *laugh*. The last year that my first choice for best novel won was in 2010; before that, it was 2005. In two of the last five years, I ranked the winning novel below No Award.

    So your claim that I don’t see a conspiracy because everyone thinks like me and votes the same way I think is absurd! I regularly don’t agree with the way the Hugo voters vote – but that doesn’t mean there’s a conspiracy, it just means my tastes and the tastes of the rest of the people voting are different.

    If I thought that everyone thinks like me and likes what I like, I *might* conclude that the votes are rigged and there’s a conspiracy to foist the views of an unpopular minority and suppress the thoughts of true fans like myself … but I *don’t*, because I understand that tastes differ. :)

    > Do you think Scalzi is worthy of more nominations than Bradbury and Asimov?

    No! I ranked both _Redshirts_ and _Old Man’s War_ third.

    > Have you not seen how Hayden and Scalzi have created the exact environment you deplore when they told Correia to get his own voters?

    Got a link for that claim?

    aphrael (42bd3f)

  203. I found Redshirts mildly amusing, but not really worth the nomination as the best of the year,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  204. now Kollin’s the Incorporated Man, which won in 2010, is the only one I bought,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  205. This is an old story but I think this op-ed is worth linking.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  206. DRJ, thank you.

    > Like the vast majority of people who don’t like Ted Cruz, I’ve never met the junior senator from Texas. Were we to discuss the state of the world over a “fireside chat,” my impression of him would undoubtedly change: maybe for the better, quite possibly for the worse. But as someone with a natural curiosity about the world, and who believes that talking about political differences is far more productive (and interesting!) than shouting at or silencing those with whom I disagree, I would relish the opportunity to put Ted Cruz in the hot seat.

    It is nice to see people talking like this in public :)

    aphrael (42bd3f)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.9243 secs.