shotbanner.jpeg

June 10, 2005

From The "When Did You Stop Beating Your Wife" School of Slander

Over on the "Dumpbachmann" blog, in a piece on an upcoming appearance by loathsome human and all-purpose gay-bashing caricature Fred Phelps at Eden Prairie High School (warning - PDF flyer, definitely objectionable), Eva Young asks:

Will Michele Bachmann be in attendance at this?
Enlighten us, Eva!

Phelps is a radical anti-gay activist. He's a thug who perverts Christianity. I have yet to encounter a Republican who endorses anything about Phelps (who is, or was in fact a registered Democrat).

Does Ms. Young have some source, somewhere, that says Bachmann will attend?

Or is this just vacuous slander?

Is there an answer to this question? Or is everyone involved in "dumpbachmann" too busy murdering hitchhikers and dumping the bodies in shallow ravines? Or perhaps smashing the windows on Jewish-owned shops? (Hey, there's as much evidence of that as there is of Bachmann's sympathy with Phelps!)

Perhaps an apology is in order. Whether you support a politician or not, this sort of tripe is uncalled for.

Posted by Mitch at June 10, 2005 06:45 AM | TrackBack
Comments

There's been a great discussion of the same-sex marriage question at my site, and Eva has contributed some positive comments there. But it only takes one post like the one Mitch describes to undo a lot of good discussion. I posted the following at Dumpbachmann --

Eva --

Mitch is right on this one, but more importantly, you missed an opportunity.

Why take the opportunity of the appearance of someone that clearly comes down on the bigot side of the equation to apply that label across the board and antagonize a lot of people you are trying to make your allies?

Why not take the opportunity to point out that this flyer will be seen by the children of gay parents? What these kids will not see is any real recognition by society that counters it. Conservatives will say it is wrong, as Mitch did, but they won’t go so far as to deny there must be at least some truth to it otherwise there would be no reason to push for an amendment that excludes gays from the most sacred traditions of society.

Seeing this kind of material, but seeing no significant institutional denial of its validity by society does more pathological damage to children than simply being the child of a gay parent.

You could have made an argument rather than implying an insult (even if you believe the insult is true). Think, Eva -- to get where you want to go you have to make converts, not preach to the choir.

Posted by: Craig Westover at June 10, 2005 10:07 AM

Craig you have given Eva and her seven dwarves wayyyy to much credit.

But then again, you haven't had the pleasure of witnessing her activities and "commentary" for the past for or five years as both Mitch and I have.

Believe what you will, but as for me, there is a reason I find dumpbachmann an appropriate place to leave nothing but derision and laughter behind.

In other words, I have a clearly defined limit to what I'm willing to accept as "debatable opinion" beyond which I find nothing but sheer lunacy.

Eva has looong ago crossed that boundry.

Posted by: Swiftee at June 10, 2005 01:18 PM

I'm kinda torn here.

On the one hand, gay marriage is an issue of great importance to a lot of people - on BOTH sides, obviously. At one point, I was convinced that gay marriage was an OK idea, for reasons both Craig and, natch, Andrew Sullivan spelled out. I've drifted back to the center on this one; I support civil unions, have theological problems with the idea of same-sex marriage. So much of the "pro" argument involves the abnegation of the religious idea of marriage.

To which you may say "who cares about religion?" I do. To me, marriage is a spiritual much more than legal state. It matters, and I'm hardly alone.

The problem with too many gay marriage proponents - the Dumpies being a salient example at the moment - is that to get from A to B, they need to trash faith (which the Dumpie site certainly does in spades), and demonize those who disagree with them - look at the adjectives the Dumpies and Eva's personal site ise, to say nothing of the coverage of Bachmann herself, which frequently goes beyond snarky to settle in "scurrilous" territory. "Leviticus Crowd?" Indeed.

The Dumpies are not alone among pro-gay-marriage sites to skew sharply negative (it is, indeed, a blog entirely based on a negative premise); problem is, with social change as with politics at large, negative doesn't sell.

"Dump" sure doesn't; it's become a mini-DU, an echochamber for obsessive Bachmann-haters.

Indeed, while I rarely have my attitude changed by the contents of a blog (Sullivan affected my thinking on this issue greatly, I'll add), and I really *don't* have a dog in the District Six fight (I live in the Four), I've had to fight hard to keep the Dumpies' approach from souring me on the whole notion of gay marriage on it's own. I, who have been called the most pro-gay Christian conservative anyone's met; I, who has intervened in a gay bashing, violently, on the side of the bashee; I who am a small-"l" libertarian who'd like to find a solution that steps neither on gay rights nor religious freedom. Reading some of the hate-drenched crap from the Dumpies at the very least makes me think Bachmann might be the right candidate for that reason alone!

As to the Dumpies' continued, borderline-slanderous obsession with Bachmann - it's always puzzled me. I remember when MREdCo first came on the scene, reading "constituent" Karl Bremer's foamy-mouthed, spit-flecked rants about her. It's only gotten worse. I've met Bachmann several times now; I agree with her on many things, disagree on more than a few, find her an interesting multifaceted person who's a lot more complex than the scabrous cartoon that the likes of Young and Bremer and their ilk circulate in the interest of demonizing and dehumanizing the object of their obsessive rage.

Which is, indeed, what seems to afflict a lot of the Dumpies.

Posted by: mitch at June 10, 2005 02:38 PM

"Dumpies"? I'd have thought that "Dumplings" would be more apt (groundling, Earthling, ...).

Posted by: Doug Sundseth at June 10, 2005 02:51 PM

I've responded to this on DB.

http://dumpbachmann.blogspot.com/2005/06/compare-and-contrast-bachmann-and.html

I make a case for the comparison. I did not say that Bachmann was planning on attending. I suggested that people write her campaign and ask.

I do agree with Craig that there's a need to reach converts, not just preach to the choir.

I think both you, Mitch and Carson all raised good points.

I also asked that people on the thread over there address the issues.....

This was my comment over there..... I'll be writing a policy - to be put up on the main site about commenting over there.

Hey folks:

My philosophy here has generally to let commenters speak for themselves. However I'd like to urge people to avoid personal attacks. An example of a personal attack is to talk about a commenter "not having a job" or whether someone is going to "enlist in the army" is irrelevant to this issue. That's irrelevant to the discussion.

What is relevant is whether it's fair to compare Bachmann's rhetoric on how school programs that reach out to gay and lesbian students with Fred Phelps rhetoric on the same.

I don't think Bachmann would ever participate in the picketting of a funeral of a gay man who died of AIDS. However, I think it's a legitimate question about how much her rhetoric differs from Fred Phelps rhetoric on the issue of how gays are treated in the public schools. Is a bullying prevention program that directly addresses anti-gay bullying ("smear the queer").

I cannot police comments threads during the day on weekdays.

I appreciated Mitch's comment this time, because it was non-confrontational, but rather made a valid point. Craig Westover and Jacob Carson also added thoughtful points worth discussing. It also discussed the current issue, rather than rehashing an old disagreement.

While Avidor's question has been raised in this race before - especially by Bachmann's opponent Cheri Yecke (Yecke makes the point of mentioning that her kids are grown), it's not an issue that I think relevant to whether Michele Bachmann should be in a policy making position.

It's ok to be a little snarky in the comments, but when it degrades into name calling, it reflects badly on the blog.

I'm not sure where Mitch Berg stands on the Bachmann amendment, but it is very clear that Craig Westover strongly opposes the amendment. Westover's blog is hosting a number of excellent discussion threads on that issue. I'd encourage people here to go weigh in. (Craig does have stricter civility rules than I do.)

I will generally not delete comments. However, I will occasionally delete an anonymous comment that is simply name calling. I have not deleted any comments so far. I will disclose when I have deleted comments on a thread. If you have a request for me to delete a comment, please send it to dumpbachmann@gmail.com - also send any complaints to dumpbachmann@gmail.com. I will review the situation and decide what to do with it.

Ok - keep on commenting....

...........................

The Dump Bachmann blog has it's mission - which is to defeat Bachmann. There's a mix of audience there, and I do throw red meat out. It's the same as Craig putting the Dean post on his blog or Mitch posting about the Hatch girls.

Are you sure you don't want to take over the Dump the Bachmann Dumpers blog? That's been abandonned.

http://dumpthebachmanndumpers.blogspot.com

Posted by: Eva Young at June 10, 2005 06:31 PM

Leviticus Crowd comes from Mary Matalin - an aid to VP Cheney. I thought the term good, so use it regularly.

I do that to distinguish from the term christian and conservative - which refers to a wide variety of people - who have different opinions on this.

On this:

The problem with too many gay marriage proponents - the Dumpies being a salient example at the moment - is that to get from A to B, they need to trash faith (which the Dumpie site certainly does in spades), and demonize those who disagree with them - look at the adjectives the Dumpies and Eva's personal site ise, to say nothing of the coverage of Bachmann herself, which frequently goes beyond snarky to settle in "scurrilous" territory. "Leviticus Crowd?" Indeed.

EY: Actually, on the DB site, I changed the City Pages Title for their article on Bachmann from the word "Christian" to "Theocrat" - because I think there is a difference. People of Faith constitutes a broad group of people that do not agree on a variety of political issues. I'm curious what you think of Archbishop Harry Flynn's recent call for a tax increase for the rich to help the poor.

Your decision on how to feel about gay marriage - pro or con shouldn't be about what you think of me personally.

I could get all mad and huffy because gee, I helped you appeal your eviction from MNPol. I didn't do that. Now you trash me on your blog every chance you get. You also made sure I got evicted from the Minnesota Organization of Bloggers after Swiftee suggested it. But that doesn't make much sense.

Mitch - I think part of the problem is though we communicated on the mn-politics list, we weren't friends who socialized. We've never talked over any of this face to face. Instead, it's just this circus over the internet.

Regardless, if you don't like me personally - that's fine, we aren't friends who socialize, that shouldn't affect what you think about gay marriage. If it does affect what you think about gay marriage, then that's your problem, not mine.

I'm not going to decide what I think about concealed carry based on what I think of you, Mitch. It makes no sense for you to make a decision about what you think about gay marriage based on your visceral dislike for me.

Posted by: Eva Young at June 10, 2005 06:48 PM

I recommend, as Mitch does, keeping the level of discourse sane and civil. It's possible to be opposed to gay marriage and/or civil unions while not coming anywhere near being something vaguely resembling a waste of protoplasm like Fred Phelps. I disagree -- strongly -- with Senator Bachmann (and with Mitch) on the issue, by the way.

I'm very much in favor of the state recognizing marriages between gays, and letting religious denominations make their own determinations about the religious status of such marriage. I think that opposition to my opinion can come from an honest reading of much religious opinion on it, or from a differing (although, in my opinion, horribly wrong) view on what social policy ought to be to encourage viable families, or, for that matter, from the flaming nutbat fuming of an asshole like Fred Phelps, and I think the discussion of what is, and will be, an important issue can and should be engaged in without deliberately and viciously attempting to sow confusion between those.

Or, to use an analogy: I understand that David Duke favored the elimination of the 55 mph national speed limit. (Not that I give a rat's ass what David Duke thinks.) So, for that matter, did I. I'll consider anybody who claims I've got neonazi sympathies because of that to be an utter asshole.

Posted by: Joel Rosenberg at June 10, 2005 07:06 PM

" I disagree -- strongly -- with Senator Bachmann (and with Mitch) on the issue, by the way."

I wonder - is it possible to disagree strongly with an opinion that is not very strongly held?

Because gay marriage is on my "C" list of issues.

Posted by: mitch at June 10, 2005 07:45 PM

"Your decision on how to feel about gay marriage - pro or con shouldn't be about what you think of me personally."

And it doesn't.

"I could get all mad and huffy because gee, I helped you appeal your eviction from MNPol. I didn't do that. Now you trash me on your blog every chance you get."

Eva, stop me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware that I trash you personally, beyond the occasional, exceptionally mild reference to things like copying and pasting entire comment threads, things that strike me as amazingly obsessive (in a harmless way).

I go after things you say, it's true. I think it's fair game, no?

" You also made sure I got evicted from the Minnesota Organization of Bloggers after Swiftee suggested it. "

Without going into any details, I didn't "make sure" of anything.

Posted by: mitch at June 10, 2005 07:49 PM

Can anyone here actually read the entirety of anything Eva says...man, that's a hard slog....

Posted by: Colleen at June 11, 2005 12:15 AM

Is it possible to strongly disagree with a position that is not strongly held? you ask.

I think so. I think the strength of my disagreement isn't limited by the strength with which you hold your position. But I don't feel strongly enough about that subject that I would strongly disagree with you, even if you strongly disagreed with me. :)

The whole gay marriage thing is an important subject to me, and not just in theoretical terms -- at least two of my sisters (term used conventionally: we share the same parents) aren't straight. One was involved with -- I'd say "married to", although that's not the case in a legal sense -- another woman for two decades. They made a home together, raised their three kids together, and their breakup -- I'd call it a divorce -- was as painful as such things are, and there were some very awful possibilities that could have made things go very pear-shaped if there'd been custody problems that they couldn't settle by agreement between themselves... and those couldn't have been settled in court for the benefit of the children, because of the non-birth-mothers' status. (They took turns, and, legally speaking, the argument that both are parents of all three kids is, at best, weakish.)

Until things went downhill for them, the only difference I could see in their family from a straight one is that they were well above average -- exemplary, in fact -- in the way that they related to and raised their kids (which they still do, of course, in the way that competent, caring, divorced parents try to: they put aside their own personal difficulties when the kids are involved, as much as they can).

If I was trying to make a cheap political point, and without ethics, I'd say that the way that society treated their marriage caused, or contributed to, their breakup. But I won't; I think that was, as must such things are, personal and idiosyncratic.

But while I fully respect the right of religious folks to make their own religious judgments about marriages (and don't much care if a given religious sect thinks that my own marriage -- never sanctioned by any Christian church; Jews tend to avoid such things -- is religiously invalid), I feel very strongly that, as secular public policy, good, solid families -- regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents -- are a boon to society, and should be encouraged, not discouraged, by the secular legal system.

Michelle Bachmann obviously disagrees, strongly -- and, to be fair, she seems to think that there is something about same-sex-headed families that makes them intrinsically less good than ones with straight parents.

That's fine. That's what I'd like the public discussion on the issue to be about: the societal effects of either giving or withholding the secular legal (not the religious) of marriage between same sex people.

And on that, I've some sympathies for the Dump Bachmann people -- in their goal, if not their message. The senator has taken point on a prospective amendment to, in Minnesota, make gay marriage extra-unlawful (it already has no legal status); for those who feel that that would be a bad thing, attempting to do legal (check), vigorous (check), and proper (ooops) things to remove her from office are, it seems to me, acting entirely properly.

Me, I'm not in her district, and won't work to "dump" her; she's been an important ally on a matter that I feel more strongly about than the gay marriage one. But if she hadn't been, I'd be part of the "Dump Bachmann" movement -- although I hope I'd play a LOT fairer than the folks involved with it have.

Posted by: Joel Rosenberg at June 11, 2005 06:32 AM

Joel, how has the Dump Bachmann blog, and meetup community been unfair? Her performance is a matter of public record.

I've tried to put together information - links to her own words, some testimonials from other people, articles in various papers, radio shows all in one place in the Bachmannalia section of the blog.

The marriage amendment isn't the only issue that we've covered over on the blog. Bachmann's efforts to get "equal time" for Intelligent Design Creationism have also been focused on over there.

And on this from Mitch:

"Your decision on how to feel about gay marriage - pro or con shouldn't be about what you think of me personally."

And this:

Indeed, while I rarely have my attitude changed by the contents of a blog (Sullivan affected my thinking on this issue greatly, I'll add), and I really *don't* have a dog in the District Six fight (I live in the Four), I've had to fight hard to keep the Dumpies' approach from souring me on the whole notion of gay marriage on it's own. I, who have been called the most pro-gay Christian conservative anyone's met; I, who has intervened in a gay bashing, violently, on the side of the bashee; I who am a small-"l" libertarian who'd like to find a solution that steps neither on gay rights nor religious freedom. Reading some of the hate-drenched crap from the Dumpies at the very least makes me think Bachmann might be the right candidate for that reason alone!

EY: You might have been called the most pro-gay Christian conservative by someone. I don't know you on a social level, though I've met you at some MN Politics gatherings. You've had entries on this blog where you've praised the tactic of trying to use this gay marriage issue as a wedge issue to attract African Americans to the Republican party. That's an ugly tactic in my opinion. There's a debate going on about that issue over on Craig Westover's blog by the way.

On the issue of David Duke - the keynote speaker at the Bachmann amendment rally - Tony Perkins - paid David Duke 82K for his mailing list when he was running a campaign in Mississippi. Perkins also addressed the Louisianna Chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens - which is a racist group - go check out their website at: http://www.cofcc.org. Bachmann should condemn Tony Perkins for this - and do so publically.

But maybe Bachmann agrees with this one:

"If the KKK opposes gay marriage, I would ride with them," Rev. Gregory Daniels, a Chicago Black minister, said from the pulpit in February.


Posted by: Eva Young at June 11, 2005 09:16 AM

Joel, how has the Dump Bachmann blog, and meetup community been unfair? Well, that's easy: just to pick one example, see http://www.shotinthedark.info/archives/005841.html.
If you're going to argue that, in addition to invididious, disgusting, unfair, and self-discrediting attacks on the Senator, your blog has additionally engaged in some legitimate criticism of her political activities, I've got no problem with that.Hope this helps.

Posted by: Joel Rosenberg at June 12, 2005 07:22 AM

How is this unfair?

Here's Bachmann's statements about GSAs in the schools:

This is an earthquake issue. This will change our state forever because the immediate consequence if gay marriage goes through is that K-12 little children will be forced to learn that homosexuality is normal and natural and that perhaps they should try it. And this will take away the civil right of little children to be protected in their innocence. ...

This is a very serious matter because it's our children that are the prize for this community. They are specifically targetting our children. ...

But should we allow them to teach sinful ways to our children in the public schools? Should that be allowed? ...

Here's Phelps - from the flyer for this rally:

In the Name of God it is time to stand up and speak: These godless GSA clubs or Diversity canards - and school officials leading kids astray like so many Pied-Pipers-from-Hell - pose a clear and present danger to public health, morals safety.

EY: That's why I asked if Bachmann was going to be there. Phelps is more over the top, but they appear to share the same goals.

Posted by: Eva Young at June 12, 2005 11:27 PM

That's twice you've posted both comments in their entirety, Eva, and this is twice I've answered it:

Phelps: Calling for death, hellfire and damnation upon gays.

Bachmann: Calling for more parental control over what their kids are taught.

Maybe it's just because I have kids that I can see the distinction?

Posted by: mitch at June 13, 2005 04:53 AM

csHi. May be this is BAD, but is something different: pissing panties
http://pisska.unkemptgirls.com/
boys pissing
http://pisska.unkemptgirls.com/boys-pissing.html
peeing pussy
http://pisska.unkemptgirls.com/peeing-pussy.html
piss on you
http://pisska.unkemptgirls.com/piss-on-you.html
pee girl
http://pisska.unkemptgirls.com/pee-girl.html

Posted by: serge at May 1, 2006 01:30 PM

mechanism applicators reluctantly thorny,miscellaneousness instigates.Barnard.

Posted by: at June 26, 2006 06:59 PM

ineffectiveness rivers purr,pompous Yuba hermitian?initializes

Posted by: at June 26, 2006 11:33 PM

humiliations specialize delegations.kiloblock.generalizing spectators gastronome

Posted by: at June 27, 2006 10:55 AM

confronts glanced acquaint inflict!controversies .

Posted by: at June 27, 2006 11:10 AM

Yokuts ivory phasers verifiers Friesland taker Brandeis?- Tons of interesdting stuff!!!

Posted by: at June 28, 2006 12:16 PM

sensationally,harrier intransigent Nipponize attendance sweetens mover Antilles pharmacy [url=http://www.yourspharmacy.com/] pharmacy [/url] pharmacy http://www.yourspharmacy.com/ http://www.yourspharmacy.com/ amplifies Leopoldville:monotonous credit score [url=http://www.ourcreditscore.com/] credit score [/url] credit score http://www.ourcreditscore.com/ http://www.ourcreditscore.com/ endlessness Macaulayism assessments!respectably holiday inn express [url=http://www.getholidayinnexpress.com/] holiday inn express [/url] holiday inn express http://www.getholidayinnexpress.com/ http://www.getholidayinnexpress.com/ will

Posted by: credit card offers at July 4, 2006 06:54 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?
hi