Where's the outrage over Pace's prejudice?
In a mainstream media that regularly imagines the possibilities of racism in everything from medical mis-treatment of hypertension to inequitable application of agricultural price supports (actual stories, if you will check), there was surprisingly little attention paid this week to an actual example of bigotry voiced by the nation's highest ranking military official.
Is my hearing or vision bad, or didn't the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff tell the Chicago Tribune that the daughter of the Vice Commander-in-Chief and tens of millions of other Americans are immoral because of who they love?
Would Gen. Peter Pace have lasted one day, would he not have been fired in five minutes, had he expressed the opinion that black people are inferior to white people? An assertion, to be sure, that a public official could have successfully portrayed as just "religious belief," or "what I was brought up to believe," not that many decades ago.
Of course, in true "hate the sin, love the sinner" fashion, Pace didn't exactly say homosexuals are immoral, just homosexual "acts" -- but that is a lawyerly distinction without a difference (imagine, in a different century, a politician arguing, to avoid offending Southerners while placating abolitionists, that "buying people in chains as property is an immoral act, but I'm certainly not saying slave-holders are immoral." Yes, you were, [fill-in the name of your favorite early 19th Century have-it-both-ways-on-slavery politician here.])
Yet The New York Times, which never tires of explaining the world through the prism of tribal identity politics, in its first story on the subject of Gen. Pace's theology devoted just sixteen paragraphs deep inside its "A" section to reporting the neanderthal musings of a man who is supposed to be leading our military effort to spread Age of Reason, Enlightenment-informed, pluralistic democracy to the Middle East.
And The Washington Post, which suggested in a silly piece of pseudo sociology on its front page Sunday that racism might be behind a reluctance by blacks to seek hospice care, relegated to page A-14 Pace's refusal to even apologize for his assault on the integrity of tens of thousands who serve under him via "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," including the many gay men and women he and his Commander-in-Chief send into harm's way in Iraq.
Maybe Gen. Pace got a pass from the press because he's part of an Administration that has become so discredited that this was regarded by editors as just another slip on the banana peel. Or perhaps "Seedy Gonzales," as "The Daily Show" portrayed our Attorney General, soaked up all the front page ink mid-week. And possibly the MSM noticed that even "liberal" Hillary! and ObamaOprah were even a little tongue-tied by their pollsters before they were finally able to condemn this religious "opinion" for the blatant bigotry it was.
In a small construct I devised to place modern public policy on prejudice in perspective, I regularly harangue my political journalism students with the observation that America has been through three phases in the modern era of civil rights.
The first was addressing the problem of government-enforced bigotry against its own people, happily resulting in Truman's integration of the armed forces and Eisenhower sending troops to Little Rock to enforce Brown v. Board of Education.
The second, while protecting the mythical "Mrs. Murphy's Boarding House" from the strong arm of the federal government, was putting into place protections against privately-produced bigotry in housing, employment and other individual and corporate acts of discrimination, partly over-ruling the Bill of Rights because of the hideous legacy of slavery.
The third, lamentably, has been several decades of a spoils system of favored identity group entitlements, written into law that mocks the moral authority of a civil rights movement that demanded we be judged by the content of our character rather than the color or our skin.
Whether or not you accept the wisdom of my three-phases-in-modern-civil-rights, surely it must be conceded that Gen. Pace should be stripped of at least a few medals by a president and a country and a press which may be nearing a consensus that ending government-enforced bigotry against another tribe of its own people (that first era noted above) is a good thing.
General Pace had every right to express his personal moral views in support of an established military policy. He did not attempt to incite anyone to mistreat individuals who engage in homosexuality. As a person who has served his country and fought for the right of all Americans to live freely with the rights under our constitutional it is absurd to ask for the medals he earned. General Pace went to battle and risked his life to ensure your right to freely express your opinion. He deserves respect and not derision.
General Pace, did not write the policy it is simply his job to enforce it. While it was not necessary for him to state his personal moral views he should not be harassed for having done so.
March 19, 2007 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, when you state your views in a public forum, you invite critique. So, of course Pace should face what you're calling harassment.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
March 19, 2007 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
General Pace had no more right to express the views he expressed than he would have to express the view that GWBush is an utterly incompetent Commander in Chief, whome he still has to obey. The military does not grant the same rights to its people that ordinary civilians have.
Hoppy in Sacramento
March 19, 2007 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Terry Michael-
I agree the outrage about the Pace remark needs to re-appear!
I do think that the Gonzalas scandal,the anniversary of the war and the "noreastern" snow storm soaked up the ink as you say over the weekend.
I believe the General should resign immediately.If not resign the Sec of Defense should fire him.
What he said was a national disgrace. A low point in U.S. Miltary history.
And I believe the MSM should get this story back on the front pages asap
Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton, Pa
March 19, 2007 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't this part of a broader question?
Hasn't the media lost the ability to express outrage over just about anything? If one wants outrage, sincere outrage (as well as faux outrage, I guess), one needs to look for it on the Internet. The best the MSM seems to be able to give us is a sort of huffy/snooty embarrassment at the language of outrage as expressed by the "hippies" of the alternate media. Oh, there's the right wing taking umbrage at anything to which the "L" word might be attached, but I don't consider the Hannity/O'Reilly/Limbaugh/Carlson set more than carbuncles on the nose for news.
This doesn't mean that I'm not outraged by what Pace said. I'm just weary of waiting for the "serious" press to express it. For outrage, I look James Wolcott and Frank Rich: for outraged tamed a wee bit for those who are a tad delicate in their constitutions, I look to Paul Krugman. I can't look to Molly Ivins any more, more's the pity--She'd barbecue Pace and give us all a good laugh while she was doing it.
aMike
March 19, 2007 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Molly would want us to look to ourselves.
Tom
March 19, 2007 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Au contraire he did incite people against individuals who engage in homosexuality by saying he believes that such behavior is immoral. He should have kept his mouth shut about that.
Tom
March 19, 2007 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're simply no longer the "serious" press. You can tell because, back when they were "serious," they didn't run around saying it all the time.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
March 19, 2007 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
One more point on Terry's -- I really think we're making progress and that 10-20 years from now, homophobia will be as generally unacceptable as racial bigotry.
But it still, darn it, persists as the kind of point of view that somebody can get away with, largely because it's considered to be a difference in "moral choice."
I think that very soon people will face consequences for making such statements in public. Someday, for people like Pace, this will be a "Macaca Moment."
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
March 19, 2007 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't wait for the day when that statement becomes 'humans in the military'....the day Mr. Roboto takes to the battlefield, everything changes....Skynet, here we come! LOLOL
March 19, 2007 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
domo aragato, mr. roboto.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
March 19, 2007 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno. Personally, I don't much worry about the rantings of closet cases.
But it is illustrative of the difference in perspectives between the right and the left.
Some left winger says something stupid, and the media sets up a hue and cry for weeks on end. It's the new 'missing white woman' story. Larry King does a show about it. It's top billing on CNN. Prominent Democrats are invited to repudiate the liberal, and become the story if they fail to do so. If they jump on board, then the gangbang picks up steam. The red meat crowd goes wild and starts masturbating. Ann Coulter says something stupid, Limbaugh goes to town. And on Little Green Footballs and FreeRepublic the posters mutter darkly about treason and how much better a place the world would be if the offending liberal had an accident.
Now, as Pace demonstrates, if a Republican shill says something offensive, then the media pauses for a second, goes "Hunh!" Then it gets a vague look, scratches its head, and goes looking for a story about a missing white woman.
March 19, 2007 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
if we question the integrity of a soldier, watch out, if the pentagon does it? who cares?
March 19, 2007 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you would then agree that if there were an official US policy against blacks serving in the military, Gen. Pace would be equally within his rights to express personal moral views about the inferiority of blacks?
March 20, 2007 5:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...if there were an official US policy against blacks serving in the military..."
Would that policy be "Don't ask don't tell" if you're African-American? :)
Tom
March 20, 2007 6:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm having a hard time with this because I happen to believe that sexual orientation is not a choice, and that morality has nothing to do with it. I do also believe that people have the right to say what they think. I also disagree with, for example, laws in some countries against holocaust deniers. Their rantings aren't the equivalent of yelling "fire" in a theater; they are the equivalent of proclaiming that they are at LEAST liars or ignorant. So what?
Hoppy, I don't agree that Pace's comments are the same as criticizing the commander-in-chief when he says that his beliefs concur with a policy that is actively a part of the military establishment. I also don't equate those comments with (as someone did above) that African-
Americans are "immoral."
I think Pace is wrong and misguided. For me, immoral acts have to hurt someone else, and so I can't even wrap my head around what he is saying. However, it is what he thinks, and although it is fine to disagree with him (as I do), and to say that his opinion is uninformed (as I believe it is).
I simply think that anyone, including Pace, should be able to state his own beliefs. His comments allow me to have a more informed opinion of him. Would it be better for people to hide all their ignorance and we would only evaluate them based on what they say that we agree with?
It is much better to know what makes people tick and decide your level of trust in them based on more knowledge rather than less.
I vote for Pace letting us look into his eyes right down to his soul.
Jan Knaus
March 20, 2007 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry. I just don't get this:
I believe the General should resign immediately.If not resign the Sec of Defense should fire him. What he said was a national disgrace. A low point in U.S. Miltary history.
Your outrage is misplaced, in my opinion. The outrage should be against the policy of the Armed Forces of DON'T ASK DON'T TELL! How is a comment by a general that is consistent with a policy that has been in place since before he became a general a "low point?" The low point is the policy itself! Pace's comments are like a rash; the visible symptom. It is the policy iself that is the disease.
Implicit in that policy are the following:
1- Gays are not to be trusted
2- They are immoral
3- They will undermind the command structure
4- They are susceptible to blackmail and are therefore security risks.
I have heard all of these (and more) given as reasons for the treatment of gay men and women in uniform. If you want to stop the outrage, go after the policy; not one weak-minded general!
Jan Knaus
March 20, 2007 7:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it seems silly, and yet under a "one drop" rule, someone could be apparently Caucasian and yet be considered African-American by the military (in this admittedly rhetorical scenario)
March 20, 2007 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jan, your comment causes me to reevaluate what I wrote above. I fear I was imprecise when I wrote in response to glissade implying that Pace has no *right* to express his beliefs. Of course he has that right, and being a military commander doesn't revoke that right, although under the rules he may be fired for expressing a personal belief -- all sorts of expressions may be disallowed under national security rules, or if they are judged to reduce his ability to lead and command the respect of his troops.
But glissade seemed to be saying that because he served his country he shouldn't even be "harassed", and there I must disagree. He has every right to express his beliefs; he has no right to immunity from the outrage or outcry stating his beliefs might cause. None of us has that right.
And contrary to what glissade wrote, since Pace is in a position of authority over others, it is even more the case that his speech deserves more scrutiny.
-- Ned
March 20, 2007 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
mcs, yours is the single most concise and insightful comment in the entire thread so far.
March 20, 2007 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, Terry, I'm curious what you meant when you wrote "ObamaOprah".
~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.
March 20, 2007 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But glissade seemed to be saying that because he served his country he shouldn't even be "harassed", and there I must disagree. He has every right to express his beliefs; he has no right to immunity from the outrage or outcry stating his beliefs might cause. None of us has that right."
Ned, I was responding to the original poster, calling for the General to be stripped of his medals, I think that is unwarranted harassment. The General was expressing his views for why he supported the policy and should not incur outrage or outcry for voicing his personal reasons for that support. He particularly should not be stripped of his medals earned in service to our country defending the very right of the writer to express his umbrage.
Pace's personal views were consistent, he even acknowledged that enlisted individuals sleeping with other officers married wives was immoral as well. Both statements, are his personal views on why he supports the present policies, on two issues he views as immoral. So, he was not singling out homosexuals as immoral, he described two situations he believes are immoral acts. That is OK for him to do, as an American citizen, particularly when he is responsible for enforcing those policies as an officer.
The policy should be addressed not Pace personally.
March 20, 2007 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I see your point about the medals. I guess I didn't even notice that Terry Michael had advocated stripping him of medals, and now when I read it, to me it evokes the image of Bush awarding the Medal of Freedom to George Tenet, Paul Bremer etc -- medals handed out like candy. Terry Michael's words were: "Gen. Pace should be stripped of at least a few medals", so please forgive me for reading the sentence as flippant -- maybe I was wrong to interpret it that way.
But I have to take exception, no matter how consistent Pace's arguments are. You can't address a bigoted policy without addressing the injustice behind the policy, and that injustice is grounded in the beliefs of people. Mr. Michael's point is that anti-homosexual prejudice is the last form of culturally sanctioned prejudice, and the least likely to be confronted. (I was struck by an interview comment by Sasha Baron Cohen (on Terry Gross's Fresh Air) that he feels more personally threatened when appearing as the character "Bruno" (a gay fashion designer) than as any other character, despite the fact that Cohen *is* Jewish but is not gay.) If nothing else, the ignorance behind Pace's belief -- the idea that gays must, or should even be expected to be able to, desexualize themselves; that they shouldn't be allowed to act on their sexuality; that homosexual acts are the same sort of choice as adulterous acts -- must be confronted in order to expose the prejudice behind the policy. These beliefs are not just hurtful, they are wrong.
Pace is not only charged with enforcing the policy, while happening to believe in it; he has helped to play an important part in creating the policy, and so he does not get a pass, at least in my book.
March 20, 2007 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that is a classic! I just wish I could remember it word for word. It is good to bring out now and then to savor again.
Hoppy in Sacramento
March 20, 2007 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
ObamaOprah is my thumbnail review of Sen. Obama. I sometimes refer to this possible future Leader of the Free World as "Oprah with nuclear weapons." I am inclined to believe that his abilities to empathize with us are much more apparent than his leadership skills. Leadership is about making hard choices, much more than it's about conflict resolution (which is the job description of a legislator--which is why we elect so few of them as chief executives.)
Terry Michael, Executive Director
Washington Center for Politics & Journalism
"The future is widely misunderstood."
-- Ray Kurzweil, in "The Singularity is Near"
March 20, 2007 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently today's military leaders don't read their own histories. In the last real wars this nation fought, WWII and the Korean War, where don't ask was applied, if not preached, there was no indication that the "Fairy Queens" who served were any less manly or brave or sacrificing or patriotic than the philanders and wife beaters that they served along side of.
If you were in Iraq right now in a fire fight, would you rather have a brave queer or dyke covering your back or the yellow breasted Commander-in-Cheep and his closest cronies?
March 20, 2007 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
it is so weird. pace has been a raving homosexual for decades. he routinely visits with bush and jeff gannon in the inner rectum.
why do we know this? because he refrained from badmouthing the lesbian cheney spawn. and this is not a secret bit of homosexuality.
but he also knows of george's affection for victor. he also knows of the project to erase george walker bush'es affection for penises.
that is what many have on this resident. and why he is nothing but extorted individual. the mossad has him on so much film...they laugh so energetically when they view the footage. sort of like the israeli moving crew in new jersey on 11/09/01.
March 20, 2007 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find it rather bizarre
...that in an essay decrying the media's outrage over Pace's homophobic comments the author doesn't recognize how deeply offensive "ObamaOprah" is. Please put it back on your thumbnail. Empathy and Conflict resolution are for legislators and women, eh? Senator Obama is the political equivalent of a daytime talk show host? What is it? Isn't Obama butch enough for you? He can't make hard "manly" decisions? Those who read my occasional comments around the café know I rarely rant. I'm exercising just about all the self-restraint I can muster to keep this at this level of civility. This is Maureen Dowd journalism at its worst.
aMike
March 20, 2007 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reason that there is no outrage over Pace's comments is simple. He is a General, not a policy maker. We hire Generals for their ability to win wars. Period. If Pace can bring Iraq to a reasonably successfull conclusion (a long shot) he can believe any darn thing he wants and I will still call him a great General. Wouldn't you too?
Our country reveres Generals like George Patton, Ulysses S, Grant, and William T. Sherman...all of whom had some pretty over the top personal views and habits. But they won wars. That is what we expect from Generals
================
D Raymond
Host of Spin Cycle Radio and Now You Know on KSAK
March 21, 2007 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Pace can bring Iraq to a reasonably successfull conclusion...
this is only true if you don't look back at the 4 million and counting Iraqi's who have been displaced, injured and killed and believe that, as Americans, we needed to take the oil by force rather than developing and deploying new energy technologies and/or conserving the ones we have.
for people like myself, the mindshare of "good job" will never be earned...
March 21, 2007 5:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: comment by "aMike"
"I find it rather bizarre
...that in an essay decrying the media's outrage over Pace's homophobic comments the author doesn't recognize how deeply offensive "ObamaOprah" is. Please put it back on your thumbnail. Empathy and Conflict resolution are for legislators and women, eh? Senator Obama is the political equivalent of a daytime talk show host? What is it? Isn't Obama butch enough for you?"
You find it "deeply offensive," AMike? You must offend very easily. You might find it interesting to know that I find Obama perhaps the least offensive of the presidential wannabes. But I don't think he has developed the leadership skills worthy of a president. And yes, "aMike," whoever you are (I don't understand why people are unwilling to use their real names with their comments) Obama is "butch enough" for me..."me" being a 59-year-old gay man.
-Terry Michael, Executive Director
Washington Center for Politics & Journalism
"The future is widely misunderstood."
-- Ray Kurzweil, in "The Singularity is Near"
March 21, 2007 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I stand by everything I said...as a 65 year old gay male.
aMike
March 21, 2007 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's very courageous of you, "aMike"
Terry Michael, Executive Director
Washington Center for Politics & Journalism
"The future is widely misunderstood."
-- Ray Kurzweil, in "The Singularity is Near"
March 21, 2007 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, just who is his designer anyway? And, that hair? Why, my poodle gets better do's than that.
Now that we have the cattiness out of the way, how about we return to the real world? A president needs two things, judgement and the ability to persuade others to accept his judgement. Senator Obama has both. No other candidate for President can say that. Only Kucinich can point to his good judgement, but is totally lacking in ability to persuade anyone about anything. The others have demonstrated neither good judgement, nor ability to persuade. What they have going for them is the instincts of a good Democrat, which places them head and shoulders above any of the Republicans.
Hoppy in Sacramento
March 21, 2007 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Au contraire he did incite people against individuals who engage in homosexuality by saying he believes that such behavior is immoral. "
Tom, do you believe that Pace incited people against individuals who sleep with married women of enlisted men as well, by saying that he believes that such behavior is immoral?
Were you incited to attack/harass individuals who sleep with married women by Pace's remarks?
March 22, 2007 5:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Read your history, there's nothing rhetorical about it.
Up until at least the 1950's, racial politics was such that an apparently white person would be classified as black. There was an entire subculture and tradition of 'passing.'
There are numerous examples of ostensible blacks 'passing' for white, in order to function in white society. This was seen at literally all levels of society, including the military.
There was a major strain of black literature, and racist white literature, which dealt with the subject of passing. Even Mark Twain wrote about it.
Occasionally a black who was 'passing' as white would be uncovered, and in a huge hue and cry, they'd be stripped of whatever social or political achievements they'd acquired.
March 22, 2007 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I'm aware of that. I just meant rhetorical because I don't think it would happen now, in the U.S. But "Don't ask, don't tell" *is* happening now.
March 22, 2007 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Couple of thoughts here for you to chew on, Glissade.
Pace as a soldier has an obligation to serve his country and not to take positions on moral or social views. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is.
If Pace wanted to put his moral views forth, he could go into religion or politics, where that sort of thing finds ready audiences.
If he just wanted to pontificate away, then he could have been a plumber or a lawyer or run a bar.
He chose to become a soldier, he swore his oaths, and he stepped out of civilian life. So sorry.
He wants to have civilian opinions, he can go and be a civilian. No harm, no foul, we'll all respect that.
If he wants to wear stars and tell people how to live moral lives... that's just not on.
This sort of nonsense is just not tolerable.
What happens when he has to make a command decision that involves a soldier who turns out to be gay. Does he make the wrong decision, the non-military decision because he's prejudiced? His prejudice is on the record, no matter what, there'll be a shadow on that decision.
What happens when he's called upon to deal with gay politicians. What happens when his forces perform peacekeeping or rescue operations... does he just let the gays die. Does he choose not to protect abortion clinics, or whatever else offends his moral sensibilities.
I'm sure that in the Republicans world, it would be peachy keen if soldiers could just decide who they were going to serve and protect, and who they didn't have too... as long as they made the right decisions.
In the real world, a soldier has an obligation to serve the entire country, to do his job and uphold his oaths. Not to swan about like a hyperactive sunday school teacher lecturing everyone else about their moral obligations. That sort of thing undermines a soldiers credibility.
It seems to me that we risk a dangerous precedent every time we allow a general to mouth off. In point of fact, generals mouthing off has never been welcomed, and it has usually been punished.
I see no reason that should not be the case here.
Frankly, Pace can say whatever he wants, as a civilian. As a civilian, he has a perfect right to do so. Just as I, as a civilian, have a perfect right to consider him a bigoted asshole for his views.
That's what makes democracy and free speech so wonderful.
Oh, and you know what? I take objection to this whole "As a person who has served his country and fought for the right of all Americans to live freely with the rights under our constitutional..." Sorry. But I'm going to have to call bullshit.
America cannot survive as a free country if it feeds sacred cows. And the biggest sacred cows is the sacred military cow.
Lots of Americans have served their country without being in the military. Policemen, Firemen, volunteers at homeless shelters, politicians, civil rights lawyers, people who donate to food banks.
There's a lot of people out there who never so much as picked up a gun, who served America and its constitution, who devoted their lives, their health, their resources to making America a better place for Americans. No one throws them parades. They don't collect Generals salaries. They don't move on to cushy consulting jobs in the defense industry.
Military service is respectable and it should be respected. But it is not a sacred cow entitling special privileges, and it should not earn special respect.
And isn't this 'fought for the right of Americans to live freely...' guilding the lily? Come on. Military service, as I've said, is to be respected.
But get serious. When did Pace fight for the rights of Americans. Was he with the National Guard in Little Rock Arkansas? When did Pace as a soldier or officer fight for constitutional rights and American freedom.
Vietnam? That wasn't about American freedom. That was about American empire. Kuwait? That wasn't about American freedom. Perhaps it was about principles of international law. Perhaps it was making the world safe for feudalism. Perhaps it was protecting America's cheap oil. Maybe it was just protecting the freedom of Kuwait's royal family...
But it hasn't been about protecting American freedom. Most military actions aren't.
March 22, 2007 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Terry, you really should read aMike's comment about posting under an alias in Amitai Etzioni's thread from a few days ago. In fact, you should read the whole thread. The thread can be found here: http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/mar/19/why_you_are_using_an_alias; aMike's specific comment is at http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/mar/19/why_you_are_using_an_alias#comment-222237
I notice that you've only been a member of TPMCafe for a short time. It really behooves you to familiarize yourself more with the Cafe's conventions, and the people and topics that are discussed here. aMike criticized your use of a term to describe Obama, and you responded by criticizing his use of an alias, which was really kind of an evasion. If you're going to post here (and I for one welcome your posts), you need to get to know the place.
If you go to aMike's bio (http://www.tpmcafe.com/user/amike), notice that he's actually posted a photo of himself -- pretty courageous, I would say.
-- Ned
March 22, 2007 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes and no perhaps. Racism is officially over in America. Yet in the U.S., I constantly see people identified as black who would in Canada or any other country be considered white.
Does this have an effect? I don't know. There is still a lot of evidence of subtle racism in America. It may be that the phenomenon of passing is still there, though much less overt. It may be that some racially ambiguous people who would be considered black, find that life is considerably easier if they just do whatever the need to do to allow themselves to be considered white.
March 22, 2007 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your point about anonymity is well-taken and I can understand why some people decline to share their identity, though I think far too many people, not only here but on most blogs, choose the cover of anonymity when they don't need to. But I'll apologize to aMike and assume he has good reason.
I think I reacted the way I did because I felt his comment interpreting my assessment of Obama's leadership skills and comparing him to Oprah -- and I'm hardly the first person to do that -- was simply foolish. If he wants to argue that Obama would be an effective president, he should make arguments, not write something as silly as charging me with not thinking that Obama is "butch enough" to be president. I made an argument that I frequently make, which is that legislators don't make effective leaders, which is why only three sitting members of Congress, Garfield in 1880, Harding in 1920, and Kennedy in 1960 have EVER been elected president.
Terry Michael, Executive Director
Washington Center for Politics & Journalism
"The future is widely misunderstood."
-- Ray Kurzweil, in "The Singularity is Near"
March 22, 2007 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't disagree with you about that. My point is just that, in the America of 2007, homophobia is still different -- much more officially accepted -- than racism is. I don't want to get into an argument about who suffers more, I just want to focus on the issue of gays in the military in this thread. Officially, gays must "pass".
Even in Canada it is problematic. Ironically, I read recently about a case where a Nicaraguan was at risk of being deported from Canada (link) because he couldn't demonstrate that he was deserving of asylum -- because he refrained from homosexual activity in the US, which he passed through on his way to Canada.
March 22, 2007 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're quite right about the current situation. My reference to the historical situation and the phenomenon of passing was mostly intended to support your point by embedding it in a larger historical context.
March 22, 2007 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink