Tuesday, December 23, 2008


Thought this was a good articulation of the direction we are hopefully, most of us, going in. More understanding and acceptance, less knee jerk reaction.


Butch in Waukegan said...

Jeeze, how easy is it to hoodwink a Hollywood "liberal"? First thing, tell them you're a fan:

I told my manager to reach out to Pastor Warren and say "In the spirit of unity I would like to talk to him." They gave him my phone number. On the day of the conference I received a call from Pastor Rick, and before I could say anything, he told me what a fan he was. He had most of my albums from the very first one. What? This didn't sound like a gay hater, much less a preacher.

Lally said...

Butch, I wrote an amazingly perceptive and unbelievably well-articulated response to your comment. But my new computer crashed half way through. So you'll just have to take my word for it. The essence of my point was that Warren didn't just tell Etheridhge he dug her recordings, he also appeared with her—an out lesbian with a wife and family—on a public program, with Muslims as well. He admitted it was wrong of him to compare gay marriage to incest or pedophilia, he said he supported gay unions just not "marriage" etc. And Etheridge's response was to suggest that those angered over intolerance might try being tolerant in return. Something Obama seems to be doing as well, and making a point of, to try and turn our society in a direction of more inclusion rather than more division. It may be idealistic or even unrealistic, but if it helps to make important (and from my perspective progressive) changes in public policy and government programs and social interaction, why not give it a shot? And by the way, how does a "Hollywood liberal" differ from a, say, Jersey liberal exactly? And how does a "Hollywood liberal" compare to a Hollywood conservative or neoconservative, of which there are many many more than the media ever seems to portray (from my personal experience)?

Butch in Waukegan said...

We are on our way to my daughter and son-in-law's for the holiday so my reaction will be brief.

Of course what everyone's reacting to is not Warren per se but Obama's decision to give him a pulpit at the inauguration. Will the outcome of that decision be positive or negative? From what you wrote it appears you think it might turn out to be a good thing. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I think it's a definite negative, giving cover to bigots and homophobes. As with Obama's other decisions and appointments it reflects the outlook of the right wing of the Democratic Party - Democrats must repudiate the progressive part of their base and ally themselves with the Republican base. With Obama it is Sister Soulja 24/7.

Believe it or not I hesitated over the "Hollywood" adjective. But on reflection I decided that it was meaningful. With an information challenged society most people don't know a thing about any specific issue, just what the entertainment industry tells them. Etheridge's name recognition can't be compared to a non-celibrity "New Jersey liberal". How many members of the Warren's Six-Flags-Over-Jesus megachurch, Saddlebrook, are saying to themselves "See, we don't hate gays, even Melissa says so."?

By the way, is it a good thing Obama received this endorsement:


AlamedaTom said...

Butch: What do you think of this post, which is similar to Melissa's, but even more sensible to me:


Then you can read his follow up post of yesterday:


This is a fascinating issue and I can see both sides, but in the end, I stand with Barack. As I have come to learn, Obama is wise and crafty.

~ Willy