Focus on the Family has a message for gay rights activists: stay off the playground.
Candi Cushman, an education analyst for the James Dobson-founded group, told The Denver Post this weekend that gay rights advocates have inserted their agenda into anti-bullying efforts, at the expense of Christian values.
"We feel more and more that activists are being deceptive in using anti-bullying rhetoric to introduce their viewpoints, while the viewpoint of Christian students and parents are increasingly belittled," Cushman told the Post.
In an email to TPM, Cushman expanded her argument. "Listing certain categories creates a system ripe for reverse discrimination, sending the message that certain characteristics are more worthy of protection than others," she said.
Cushman's argument has two levels: first, she says anti-bullying efforts wrongly put the focus on the "characteristics of the victim" instead of the "wrong actions of the bullies." Second, she thinks that gay rights activists are using the whole issue to sneak their agenda into the nation's schools. She denounced the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). * * *
Links
- Steve Benen
- Daily Kos
- Talking Points Memo
- Political Wire
- The Plum Line
- Huffington Post
- Slate
- Kevin Drum
- Salon
- Empty Wheel
- Axios
- Ed Kilgore
- Washington Monthly
- First Read
- PoliticusUSA
- Right Wing Watch
- The Onion
- The Rude Pundit
- Eschaton
- The Raw Story
- Think Progress
- Hullabaloo
- Media Matters
- Democratic Underground
- Crooks and Liars
- Blazer's Edge
- ESPN
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Look, I Know The Radical Christian Right Is Fucked Up And All . . .
. . . but Geesus:
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
The Partial Rehabilitation of George W. Bush (at least in my mind)
I found this Atlantic article on Iran interesting, particularly this part (via Think Progress):
Don't get me wrong -- I still think that Bush was an awful president. But every so often I hear something about his presidency -- like his above-referenced refusal to attack Iran -- that makes me think he might not have been as big of a tool that he appeared to be. One example of this was when he openly questioned the need for a second tax cut for the rich -- he told Cheney something like, "didn't the rich already get one of these?"
Cheney ultimately convinced him that they in fact did need to further loot the treasury and hand out the tax cut; but what I found interesting about the aforementioned Iraq decision was that Cheney was unable to convince Bush to bomb Iran, something that Cheney really wanted him to do.
[E]ven Bush balked at attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, and discouraged the Israelis from carrying out the attack on their own. (Bush would sometimes mock those aides and commentators who advocated an attack on Iran, even referring to the conservative columnists Charles Krauthammer and William Kristol as “the bomber boys,” according to two people I spoke with who overheard this.)As noted in the above-linked Think Progress post, Dick Cheney "has admitted that he was in favor of a U.S. attack on Iran, but was vetoed by President Bush."
Don't get me wrong -- I still think that Bush was an awful president. But every so often I hear something about his presidency -- like his above-referenced refusal to attack Iran -- that makes me think he might not have been as big of a tool that he appeared to be. One example of this was when he openly questioned the need for a second tax cut for the rich -- he told Cheney something like, "didn't the rich already get one of these?"
Cheney ultimately convinced him that they in fact did need to further loot the treasury and hand out the tax cut; but what I found interesting about the aforementioned Iraq decision was that Cheney was unable to convince Bush to bomb Iran, something that Cheney really wanted him to do.
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
Quote Of The Week (With Update)
"We needed to have the press to be our friend. * * * We wanted them to ask the questions we want to answer so that they report the news the way we want it reported."-- Sharron Angle, the teabagger running against Harry Reid, on FoxNews yesterday.
UPDATE: If you are still uncertain as to whether Sharron Angle is a batshit-crazy right-wing extremist Bible-beating tea-bagger, try this on for size:
It has become commonplace for Republicans to claim that Democratic policies violate this or that part of the Constitution. But Nevada's Senate Republican candidate Sharron Angle is taking that one step further, claiming that her opponent's legislative victories amount to a violation of the Bible's First Commandment.
"[T]hese programs that you mentioned -- that [President] Obama has going with [Harry] Reid and [Nancy] Pelosi pushing them forward -- are all entitlement programs built to make government our God," Angle said in a little noticed interview with Christian Radio this past spring. "And that's really what's happening in this country is a violation of the First Commandment. We have become a country entrenched in idolatry, and that idolatry is the dependency upon our government. We're supposed to depend upon God for our protection and our provision and for our daily bread, not for our government." * * *
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)