Bad, Bad Jeff.
By Mitch Berg
Before I get started, let me just start by saying how very, very much I hate Andy Birkey of the Minnesota Independent.
Part of it is the gay thing, sure. But for the most part, it’s because like most sentient people I hate liberals; their attitudes, their smug self-centered perspective on all things, their beliefs themselves.
I don’t think “hate” is too strong a word; they differ from me – so “hate” would seem to be perfectly appropriate. No?
Well, of course “no”.
Hating someone for what they believe – presuming it’s a legal belief that harms nobody – to say nothing of what they are, genetically or through whatever means beyond their control, is not just wrong; it’s one of those things that society has branded as “evil or pretty darn close to it” in the past 70-odd years.
So did Jeff Fecke never get that message?
First off, let me note that I hate Carrie Prejean as much as the next sentient human.
Sentient humans as a rule don’t hate, at least not over things that are within the rational realm.
And what did Ms. Prejean do that warranted this “hatred?”
Held a view on gay marriage that echoes that of the vast majority of our society, including the voting majorities of the 31 states that have held elections on the subject and, at least in terms of public pronouncements, the President that Mr. Fecke supports.
Disagree? Sure. It’s what people in a democracy do; disagree without, ideally, being disagreeable.
But to all too many on the left, “difference of opinion” is grounds for hatred. And hate they do.
And while Fecke does go on to make plenty of sense…:
It’s sick and wrong. And it’s nothing to laugh about, even if the victim in this case has been moralizing about other things. For all her wrongness, I don’t recall Prejean arguing that LGBTQQ individuals should have their nude, intimate photos and videos released to the world.
…I just have to point out another thing that nobody, Fecke included, can recall Ms. Prejean doing; hating gays. You might be one of those who believes that denying the rectitude of gay marriage equals hatred; that’s the sort of reductionist argument that boils every difference of opinion down to instant blacks and whites that leave no room for anything but yelling, screaming and, well, hatred; every disagreement requires a level of emotional commitment most people can not sustain for long enough to try to drag it back to sanity; every disagreement becomes a choice between “Hate as well” or “walk away and stay away”.
I’d like to think we could do better.
November 20th, 2009 at 9:06 am
Prejean shares the same opinion of gay marriage as Obama.
It’s yet another sign of the utter bankruptcy of liberalism that they hate Prejean because she is sincere in her beliefs while they forgive Obama his trespass because they believe that his position is a calculated cynicism.
November 20th, 2009 at 9:45 am
I get the LBGT, but what’s the QQ? Agreed that Mr. Fecke is having a little difficulty wtih the “disagreeing without being disagreeable” thing. Maybe he needs to spend some time in the South.
And off topic, but it seems to me that Miss Prejean’s biggest problem is that she’s been way too friendly with a bunch of people who can’t be trusted…..praying that she gets a worthwhile figure in her life to protect and guide her a bit more.
November 20th, 2009 at 10:06 am
QQ = Queer Questioning
Seems like a single Q would suffice.
November 20th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Fecke is just jealous because, thankfully, none of his ex-boyfriends have released a video of Jeffie pleasuring himself.
One can only conclude that Fecke hates other Californians as well, i.e. the 7,001,084 who voted for Propositian 8.
November 20th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Now, Right – let’s do try to keep things civil here. Jeff may be out on an ethical and moral limb here, but as we see in the next post, he makes at least a nod toward doing the right thing.
Which is something this world could use a lot more of.
November 20th, 2009 at 11:08 am
That next post had better be pretty damn good, Berg….otherwise Feckless Jeffy is going to come storming over here and beat you down with his honorary uterus and maybe scratch somebody else’s eyes out.
November 20th, 2009 at 11:28 am
whew, I groggily arrive for my cup of morning SitD and for a moment I thought you were chastising me for something…
November 20th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Mitch how dare you question a liberal. We all know that they are advanced thinking intellectuals who have to keep us knuckle-dragging conservatives from dragging us back into a 1950’s morality mindset. God forbid…
November 20th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Mitch, I’ll have to take your side on this one. My participation on this site is due largely to a self-imposed penance. I hated conservatives. All of them. They were ruining my country and I was sick of it. What I hated most about them was that they had no respect for people with opposing opinions. You can see where this is going, and I was pretty embarrassed to discover what a hypocrite I really was, and there’s obviously a few things I need to work on.
Separating the opinion from the person and being respectful about it takes practice (for me, at least). I like this site because I think Mitch does a very good job of that. So I do empathize with Fecke. I rail against Prejean, Bachmann and other conservatives because I disagree with them, but I can’t honestly make any judgments against their character since I’ve never met them. Maybe I would hate Carrie Prejean, maybe we’d get along just fine. Who knows.
At the same time Mitch (now that my Hallmark moment is over), you’re kind of jumping on a P.C. bandwagon here. Wouldn’t it be easier to give him the benefit of the doubt that he uses the word “hate” as shorthand for “respectfully oppose the opinions of?” (To say Prejean “respectfully opposes the opinions” of gays is pretty fair.) Political blogging is contact sport, and sometimes it’s hard to tell when you need to qualify yourself.
P.S. Ben, it’s nice to see coming along with us into the Age of Irony. Kick off your shoes, make yourself at home.
November 20th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Given that this is the era of “hate” crimes, Apathy Boy, I don’t think Fecke deserves the benefit of a doubt on this.
Or were you being ironic? That stuff flies right over my head.
November 20th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
What’s wrong with hate crimes?
November 20th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Nothing, as long as you’re hating the right people. Age of Irony rule #1.
November 20th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
I didn’t say that there was anything wrong with hate crimes, Apathy Boy.
Maybe you weren’t being ironic or sincere. Maybe you just have trouble reading sans.
DOES IT HELP IF I USE ALL CAPS?.
November 21st, 2009 at 10:26 am
There’s something particularly ugly about the fixation on Prejean in some quarters. As you know, I’m in favor of SSM — while I understand that others have come to different conclusions, I think it’s good public policy. So it’s not like I’m supportive of her, or Obama’s, position that we shouldn’t have it.
Prejean was in the position to make one comment about it that got national attention during a beauty contest. She doesn’t have much — well, any — serious influence on the national discussion; people who haven’t made up their minds don’t go looking for beauty contestants to help them decide such things.
Obama — just to pick one example — is in a position to have a lot of influence on it. He could, by a stroke of his pen, take a big step toward acceptance of same sex relationships by turning Don’t Ask Don’t Tell into Don’t Ask Don’t Care. (Whether or not that’s a good idea is an issue for another day.) He could support a bill in Congress or the Senate to give SSM Federal recognition, by promising to sign it if it reached his desk. The President doesn’t have any formal role in Constitutional amendments, but Presidents have, in the past, helped such get through with their bully pulpits.
Yet Prejean has become the poster girl for mocking SSM opposition.
Sounds like a whole bunch of folks have decided to pick a target, freeze it, and personalize it — and in aid of what? Will SSM somehow become more politically viable if beauty contestants and folks of similar (lack of) influence are afraid to put forward objections to it when asked?
November 21st, 2009 at 10:50 am
Mitch observed: “Most of us believe there’s only been one perfect Christian so far.”
Angryclown accepts your gracious compliment.
November 21st, 2009 at 11:00 am
I guess that one was a little like bouncing the Clownsignal off the cloud…
November 21st, 2009 at 11:08 am
Sounds like a whole bunch of folks have decided to pick a target, freeze it, and personalize it — and in aid of what? Will SSM somehow become more politically viable if beauty contestants and folks of similar (lack of) influence are afraid to put forward objections to it when asked?
That’s exactly right, Joel. The attacks on Carrie Prejean are like hunting gnats with an elephant gun. Who the hell cares what she thinks?
November 21st, 2009 at 5:40 pm
apparently the MSM does. Because she doesn’t articulate it very well. Nevermind that fag Perez Hilton was actually the one who started this. Funny how everyone forgets that.
November 22nd, 2009 at 10:11 am
Which raises the question: why would the MSM care? My thinking is that it makes her an easy substitute punching bag for lefty folks in favor of SSM, not because they (or anybody else) normally looks to beauty contest constants, per se, for guidance on social policy. (Palin’s an exception, of course — and that’s not because she was one, but because of a serious political career after.)
And while Fecke does give her a (deserved) bye on her private videos, he does go with the crowd on that.
With ballot initiatives on SSM now having gone 31-0, I think it’s safe to say that that hasn’t been part of a winning approach. The folks who are on the fence about SSM (and I know quite a few; I can’t imagine that there aren’t lots of others) aren’t going to be persuaded by and if any of you voices opposition to or concerns about it, you’ll be mocked incessantly, which is precisely what the subtext of this whole thing is.
November 22nd, 2009 at 1:37 pm
I wouldn’t call it a subtext, JoelR.
November 22nd, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Well, it’s not a well-hidden one, for sure.