We have come a long way as a society since the 1950s, the height of the Baby Boom generation!
But we see that it is many Baby Boomers, mostly white and supposedly ‘Devout” Christians, who are unable to accept that society has changed, and that it is time for them to adapt!
Yes, gay and lesbian Americans have gained their rights, including marriage, in many states, and by federal law announced by Attorney General Eric Holder over the weekend. And yes, now we have an openly gay football prospect, Michael Sam, and we have people in all walks of life in the public sphere coming out as gay. The answer is “so what?” It is no longer acceptable to be advocating homophobia in the name of God, as it has always been in the past, but conveniently forgotten, on the issue of racism and sexism and nativism, which the history of religion in America has been trying to push under the rug, so that we are not aware of the long discrimination against other groups, and including anti Semitism as well, along with the advocacy of slaughtering native Americans!
It is time for professional football to make it clear to its employees that it will no longer tolerate an atmosphere of homophobia in its locker rooms, and if so, then such players, no matter how prominent or outstanding they are on the football field, shall be kicked off the team, and no other team should employ such a bigot!
And the same goes for other organized sports, including baseball, hockey, and basketball! Behave and be tolerant, or else you are not welcome to play professional sports!
It is time to make it clear that homophobia, racism, sexism, and nativism will no longer be tolerated in American society, and that religious bigots, when revealed, shall be fought tooth and nail until it is eliminated!
This is not the 1950s, but instead it is the 21st century, so get used to it!
Who so angry Ronald?
Mark, I assume you mean “why”, not “who”. It is not anger, simply the fact that in the 21st century, it is no longer acceptable for anyone to display hate against anyone based on sexual orientation, race, gender, or ethnicity. Is that too much to expect?
Your tone is very angry. It’s like you let the thug inside you come out.
I am angry, if you want to call it that, when prejudice and discrimination shows through, and I do not apologize for that, as I believe in social justice!
I wonder, Mark, why you use the word “thug”, as it sounds very racist, and is uncalled for, whether in response to this entry, or just as a term to be utilized.
Partly for provocation purposes and amusement.
I figured that Mark! LOL You like to be a trouble maker, don’t you? I have you pegged!
Sure, a serious point though:
I don’t think you’re a thug, but the word thug cannot be racist. There are countries which have very homogeneous populations, sort of like they can’t be racist because their isn’t even many people of other races in these countries to be racist against, and yet they have the word thug in their language as well.
Actually, Mark, most nations in Europe have substantial “minority” populations, whether from Africa, the Middle East, Asia, or Latin America, so what you state is not really true. But I have read and heard of many people using these terms, and I agree it should not be used, as it is an insult to any nationality group!
Amen to this article Professor!
Right on Professor! Just as this piece says, Americans are rejecting the Republicans intolerance stance! http://www.politicususa.com/2014/02/08/duck-dynastys-ratings-plummet-proof-america-liberal-nation.html
In countries that are homogenous, the nature of man will still prevail. Such as an economic stratification prejudice spurring on hatred.
There will always be someone (including a group of people) that can only feel good about themselves if they can find fault, many times nihilistic in nature, of others. It soon morphs into a dehumanizing of others.
This group of people must never be delegated to run a country or government. It never turns out well.
Professor and Mark,
I’m sure we can come up with a long list of this type in many countries, including our own.
“This group of people must never be delegated to run a country or government. It never turns out well.”
If people who hate some group shouldn’t “run” a country, then Obama shouldn’t be President, as he hates successful people.
Thank you for passing on the very good example of nihilistic reasoning.
Others on this site will see how i handle it and learn from it. You have never disspointed us thus far.
Mark, that is totally ridiculous and asinine to say! Obama is NOT against successful people, as he is one of them himself. That is more Fox News Channel BS, all because Obama AND I believe that those who earn more should contribute more, instead of the constant demand for tax cuts as the country faces needs in infrastructure, education, and health care. You need, Mark, to stop listening to the hate mongers and bigot on Right Wing talk radio and Fox, and recognize that we are all in this together.
“Obama is NOT against successful people, as he is one of them himself.”
Then he hates himself.
But I don’t think he accomplished anything of any value. Regarding why he was elected President, Mencken explained decades in advance:
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.â€
So as the country goes to hell and people are more and more like spoiled narcissists, the Presidency comes to reflect that.
Mark, you misread Mencken. He was referring to Calvin Coolidge, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush, none of whom would win an IQ contest, particularly Coolidge and Bush! And this would include ALL of the GOP potential nominees in 2012, with the exception of Romney and Huntsman, and also includes ALL of the potential GOP nominees in 2016, with the exception of Jeb Bush and Huntsman, and the damaged Christie!
And spoiled narcissist? That is definitely George W. Bush, the most moronic President in American history, a cocaine and alcohol affected man, who felt he never had to learn or read, as he came from the Bush family. In that regard, I see Jeb Bush as totally different, the one who, if a Bush should have succeeded the dad, would have been Jeb, not George W.
“And this would include ALL of the GOP potential nominees”
You think Ron Paul is a “downright moron” as well?
Obama was probably snorting cocaine when his Obamacare website was about to launch, that’s why he found what a disaster it was through the newspapers.
Ron Paul is NOT running again. He is NOT a moron, which his son is, but he is a whacko and a racist in his past, and not truly “normal”!
You are thinking of George W. Bush, a true cocaine addict in his younger days, and too lazy to read the memos about terrorism before September 11, much more significant than the shortcomings of ObamaCare might be, and they will be resolved over time, as was the case with Social Security, Medicare, and Medicare Part D (the latter under W).
“Ron Paul is NOT running again. He is NOT a moron, which his son is, but he is a whacko and a racist in his past, and not truly â€œnormalâ€!”
I agree that Ron Paul is not a moron, you forgot to include him in your exceptions along with Huntsman and Romney.
And what’s so bad about not being normal? You’re probably aren’t normal either, normal can be quite boring.
(in case you’re wondering, I’m not normal, I’m waaaaaaaaayy above average)
HAHA, Mark, EXCUSE me, for leaving Ron Paul out of the list of sane candidates in 2012! LOL
I am discovering how funny you can be LOL and I agree that being “normal” may be boring LOL
As far as you are concerned, you do NOT have an enlarged ego, now do you, heh? LOL hahahahaha!
But I donâ€™t think he accomplished anything of any value.
Here’s a list of Obama’s accomplishments, Mark: http://www.winningprogressive.org/president-obamas-accomplishments
Hereâ€™s a list of Obamaâ€™s accomplishments, Mark:
“Rescuing the American Auto Industry”
Response: LOL, that’s stealing money from the people, including very poor people, to give it to corporations. It’s an accomplishment of value as much as theft is an accomplishment of value. I don’t consider theft an accomplishment of value, like you do, so that’s why I realize it’s not a valuable act.
Mark, you ignore all of the accomplishments of Obama, and focus on the auto industry. But realize saving the auto industry saved tons of jobs, and the Midwest would be a lot worse off if it had not been for what Obama did, and had listened to Mitt Romney, who his own father would have condemned for setting out to destroy Detroit and the Midwest, by allowing only foreign cars to compete in the auto market. You are so short sighted NOT to understand this, but again it is too much right wing talk radio and Fox News Channel hammered into your head! You need, Mark, to liberate your mind!
The rescue helped save working class jobs:
“The rescue helped save working class jobs”
Sure, whenever there is theft, some people benefit from it.
LOL Mark! There was no theft! Stop listening to Faux News lies!
He can’t Rustbelt! His mind is too full of kool-aid! 😉
Good one Jane Doe! And he also wears a tin foil hat! 😉
Stop feeding the Mark troll people. He’s not to be taken seriously.
I have decided to stay out of this, as others have done the job necessary to destroy the arguments of Mark! HAHAHA ! LOL
I still wonder if these trolls are paid to come here to argue with us by the Koch Brothers. 😉
Hahaha! That wouldn’t surprise me one bit Leia!
I know you’re paid by the auto industry to post here.
I suspect that Mark MIGHT be a troll, LOL, but he seems much nicer AT TIMES than Juan, Roberto and others that I have effectively eliminated! LOL
Dave on the other hand, I do not think is a troll, just plain ignorant and dense, and unwilling to open up his mind, which makes him quite pitiful, sad to say! 🙁
Mark, you are totally ridiculous, and I guess you would wish the auto industry in America be destroyed? To what purpose? You make no sense at all! 🙁
It makes more sense that me being paid by the Kochs, which I was just accused of. I despise those big government advocates pretending to be libertarians.
I would suggest, everyone, that we stop name calling, and stick to the subjects at hand, ok?
No, Mark, I do not work for the auto industry. Sorry to burst your bubble.
I don’t work for the auto industry either Mark.
Me neither Mark.
Nor do I.
We Americans want better government, not smaller government.
And, by the way, I don’t work for the auto industry either.
Southern Liberal said:
We Americans want better government, not smaller government.
Amen to that Southern Liberal!
Excellent piece about small government and libertarianism: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/16/1187595/-What-s-Wrong-with-Small-Government-Libertarianism#
A highlight from the article:
When libertarians argue government means fewer choices, they’re only looking at half of the equation. A society with rules restricts some choices. But living in the wild without the benefits of an organized society able to provide a modern world prevents one from having a lot of choices people have today. Perhaps, we’d like to have our cake and eat it too. We can’t. We have to choose which choices we deny ourselves. Modern society does not and cannot exist without substantial government.
ONE HUNDRED PERCENT IN AGREEMENT, RUSTBELT DEMOCRAT!
Good job, Rustbelt Democrat. Attempting to make an argument -even if one fails to make a good one- is better than smearing a person as a distraction after you lost an argument.
Thanks for digging up that wonderful piece Rustbelt. And ignore Mark’s stupid comment. You did not fail and you did not lose an argument.
Excellent piece by Norbrook! 🙂 http://cendax.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/hypothetically-i-shouldnt-be-a-liberal/
Excellent article, thanks, Pragmatic Progressive!