Here’s an Understatement For You
[Posted by The Angry Clam]
So the Associated Press decides to do a story on today’s oral arguments on the Solomon Amendment, which denies federal funds to any university that refuses to allow military recruiters equal access to its campus.
However, there’s a real nugget buried in the article I linked to. See if you can find it, then click “more” to see if you’re correct.
About a half dozen supporters of the law, all members of the same Topeka, Kan., family, waved signs, with slogans like “America is Doomed,” and yelled at reporters and passers-by in front of the court before the argument. They dragged behind them U.S. flags tied around their ankles as they paced the wet sidewalk.
“The Supreme Court shouldn’t even have to debate about this,” said Rebekah Phelps-Roper, 18.
That’s right, the Godhatesfags.com and Godhatesamerica.com owners, including our favorite 1988 Al Gore for President Kansas campaign chairman, Fred Phelps, are described as if they were any other protesters.
— The Angry Clam
God hates cigarettes, too? I thought it was shrimp that he didn’t like.
Xrlq (6c76c4) — 12/6/2005 @ 11:24 amI’m rather surprised. You’d think the MSM would have pounced on that to try to make the claim that only loonies like the Phelps family actually favor the Solomon amendment.
Steven Den Beste (b57a45) — 12/6/2005 @ 11:54 amYeah, that surprised me too.
Then I thought “damn, if they make people who could be conservative caricatures look this normal, imagine what the reality of their leftist protest reports must be like.”
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 12/6/2005 @ 12:11 pmYou had me at “all members of the same Topeka, Kan. family”. I knew where that one was going.
jinnmabe (3eb403) — 12/6/2005 @ 12:39 pmI note in Minneapolis most protestors are stringy haired young girls, fat grandma types, short-haired fat ugly butchy type women and thin lipped guys wearing flood jeans and plaid jackets. Whenever I spot a “Wellstone Lives” or “What would Wellstone do” bumper sticker, i’ll bet fifty bucks it’s some hag driving.
alexandra morris (a9eb8b) — 12/6/2005 @ 12:43 pmCorrect me if I’m wrong, but the quote seems to have been neutered. In the AP article I read just now by following the link, the paragraph says:
“Outside court, about a half-dozen supporters of the law from Topeka, Kan., waved signs and yelled at reporters and passers-by in front of the court before the argument.”
There is no quote from Rebekah Phelps-Roper.
Ben Pugh (1527b3) — 12/6/2005 @ 2:12 pmYeah, the AP newswire is something of an evolutionary creature.
They changed it too to make it less obvious these were the Fred Phelps types. Good or bad is up to you.
Angry Clam (a7c6b1) — 12/6/2005 @ 3:06 pmAngry Clam: “conservative caricatures”? What is conservative about the Phelps group? I’ve always thought that they are just typical left-wing whackos who have opted out of the alliance with the gays.
There is nothing particularly leftwing about tolerating gays or particularly rightwing about hating them.
Doc Rampage (47be8d) — 12/6/2005 @ 3:08 pmGod actually likes shrimps but has been advised not to eat them. Nobody wants to worship a fat God with outa sight cholesterol.
Zhombre (ae2ee4) — 12/6/2005 @ 4:17 pmYou miss my point- Fred Phelps and company are easy to misrepresent as your typical “conservative” in the same way that, say, Ramsey Clark could be used as your typical “liberal.”
Angry Clam (a7c6b1) — 12/6/2005 @ 4:31 pmSix months ago, Orrin Kerr predicted that the Solomon Amendment would be upheld 9-0. I read the 3rd Circuit’s opinion and I agree with him. The other secret nugget in the AP story is that there is even a litigable issue. You have been writing about law schools and bar exams lately. Do you think that law schoolos are “expressive associations” (whatever the f-word that means)?
nk (77d95e) — 12/6/2005 @ 5:39 pmCNN managed to cover the SC’s oral arguments and had 2 experts to discuss “don’t ask, don’t tell” and continually called it the “military’s policy” approved by Congress.
Never once did CNN mention it was Bill Clinton’s policy, forced on the military by a Democrat controlled congress.
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 12/6/2005 @ 6:03 pmRegardless “whose” policy it is, it is the law. Are the U’s saying that the military should disregard those laws that it doesn’t like? Apparently so. No slippery slope there.
ras (f9de13) — 12/6/2005 @ 6:17 pmThey are expressive organizations, in so far as, these days, they’re essentially a club and a platform for the crackpot ideas of the faculty, the students be damned.
Angry Clam (a7c6b1) — 12/6/2005 @ 6:59 pm“There is nothing particularly leftwing about tolerating gays or particularly rightwing about hating them.”
Nothing leftwing about tolerance? nothing rightwing about opposing changes to social mores and finding acceptance for gays? okley dokley!
actus (e025c6) — 12/6/2005 @ 7:34 pmhate != unacceptance, and tolerance != forced acceptance.
Angry Clam (a7c6b1) — 12/6/2005 @ 8:19 pmSomeone needs to tell the Buddhists about this.
Steverino (a044a6) — 12/6/2005 @ 9:57 pmDon’t understand why supporters of the law would walk around with American Flag tied to their ankles. Did I read that wrong? Of course, they’re a bunch of wackos anyway.
sergeant3 (640f3c) — 12/7/2005 @ 6:32 amThe Phelps crew thinks that the fact that America doesn’t treat homosexuals like, say, the leftist workers’ paradises of Cuba or Red China by throwing them into prison and/or executing them, means that this country is damned by God.
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 12/7/2005 @ 7:04 amActus: no, there is nothing leftwing about tolerance. Leftists are only tolerant so long as they need allies to gain power. Once they gain power, they start showing just how tolerant they are.
And I said there is nothing rightwing about hating gays, I didn’t say there is nohing rightwing about opposing certain social changes. Only someone who is pathologically prone to hatred would think that there is no difference between believing that an activity is morally wrong and hating people who engage in that activity.
Doc Rampage (b7bb1a) — 12/7/2005 @ 9:05 amBy the way, has anyone else noted the cynicism of the law-school policies: that they ban military recruiters but not other federal recruiters? After all, it isn’t the “military” that discriminates against gays, it’s the federal government. The Pentagon doesn’t get to make those decisions.
Doc Rampage (b7bb1a) — 12/7/2005 @ 9:10 amWell, while the feds make the call, they’ve made the call only for the military.
Too bad, too, I wouldn’t mind something that gets Barney Frank and David Dreier thrown out of congress.
Angry Clam (a7c6b1) — 12/7/2005 @ 9:44 amConsidering how upsetting the media’s display of Fred Phelps is to mainstream conservatives and Christians, I wonder if mainstream crazy people are as upset at the media’s attention given to Howard Dean.
Lew Clark (02d237) — 12/7/2005 @ 11:42 amWho is this Angry Clam? Why is he so Angry?
Mark Daniels (d86eaa) — 12/7/2005 @ 12:54 pmYou would be angry too if you were a ball of snot in a shell.
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 12/7/2005 @ 1:40 pmAP has changed that paragraph so the “protesters” are no longer identifiable as the scumbags family from kansas.
Robin Boult (ae1f3e) — 12/7/2005 @ 3:55 pmI thought the reference was to Ginsburg’s comment about tolerance for short people.
Pat Patterson (5b3946) — 12/7/2005 @ 5:36 pm“hate != unacceptance, and tolerance != forced acceptance.”
Tolerance is certainly not forced acceptance. But lefties see the issue as one of tolerance, whereas the right doesn’t. That’s whats particularly leftty.
actus (1eef6d) — 12/7/2005 @ 7:11 pmNo, you see it as forced acceptance. Witness the eagerness to label everyone else a homosexual hater.
Angry Clam (a7c6b1) — 12/7/2005 @ 8:22 pmWell, OK. I liked this, from Roberts:
Kevin Murphy (6a7945) — 12/7/2005 @ 9:16 pm“No, you see it as forced acceptance.”
Like i said. therein is the difference between a conservative and a liberal on homosexuals.
actus (1eef6d) — 12/8/2005 @ 7:07 amKevin-
Scott (57c0cc) — 12/8/2005 @ 7:09 amOr put slightly differently, it’s kind of like a prostitute saying “I’d be a nun if the pay weren’t so good”.
As I see it the question is not of tolerance but of what to tolerate.
One might tolerate certain behavior (e.g. same-sex marriage) but not others (e.g. polygamy).
Certainly most people in our society would not tolerate murder, yet most would tolerate freedom of speech, etc.
The question is whether one issue should be tolerated – liberals generally tolerate things until proven otherwise, while conservatives need to be convinced to tolerate something new. Neither position is inherently better or worse; if gay rights deserve to be recognized, proponents should be able to convince a majority of the country to support them, in which case they won’t have to go through the courts.
You want to convince the military to accept homosexuals? The army is certainly not going to get more liberal as long as non-conservatives shun it. Harvard wants to liberalize the army? They should send some students to serve.
jvarisco (2c5028) — 12/9/2005 @ 12:48 amjvarisco: It may or may not be true that leftists are more likely to tolerate something new than conservatives are (I rather doubt it since the entire movmement is based on a centuries-old absolutist social theory), but the implication that homosexuality is something new is amusing.
Doc Rampage (b7bb1a) — 12/9/2005 @ 10:23 amIt’s the tolerance of homosexual behavior that is new. Conservatives tend to be intolerant of tolerance to homosexual behavior, got that? 😛
Dan S (3d35f0) — 12/10/2005 @ 7:47 am