.
.
.
Should a public figure have to divulge, for example, if he or she has ever been a flasher?
I was surprised and appalled to read this comment from Art Pedroza’s on his new political blog:
I do believe that closeted politicians are being dishonest with the voters. They should come clean as to how they swing. They have to report their finances, they should also let the voters know about this – especially since some voters have a problem with the community in question. In fact your pal Mike Tardif is one of them.
Maybe I’m just somehow misinterpreting this, which is why I open the question to you. What do you think?
The ethics of “outing” GLBTs, as I’ve understood them since first reading Michelangelo Signorile’s writings in the Village Voice decades ago, are disputed, but for political figures they seem to be more or less this: if a closeted political figure is making bigotry against gays part of his or her appeal to voters, then “outing” them is fair because it speaks to the politician’s hypocrisy. If a closeted politician does not make bigotry towards gays part of his or her appeal to voters, then their own sexual orientation is their own business.
(To take a borderline example: I’m not breaking any news here by noting that Rep. David Dreier is commonly understood to be gay despite (so far as I know) his never publicly confirming or denying it; he, however, has a good record on GLBT issues and so Democrats, at least, don’t tend to dwell on it. Some argue that his vote for John Boehner as Speaker of the House is enough of a “betrayal of the movement” to justify his outing; most Democrats, though, seem to think he should be given his privacy.)
This viewpoint has been the opposite of that taken by, say, the Dartmouth Review back when the likes of prominent conservatives Dinesh D’Souza and Laura Ingraham used to run it in their college days, when outing other politically active GLBT college students was used to punish them for taking open political stances on the issue.
(Of course, anyone who was involved in student government back in the day, and it probably is still this way, knows that candidates were often accused of being gay or lesbian regardless of the truth. I recall one race back at Cal State Long Beach where a closeted gay candidate’s supporters were loudly accusing his straight opponent of being homosexual. She did not want to out him. Guess who won?)
The notion presented by Pedroza that all politicians should have to “let people know how they swing” just like they would report their finances — and I would love to see the disclosure form he has in mind — so that bigots would know the truth about them and could make up their mind accordingly is … novel. I mean, really, I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone even express this opinion aloud before, let along in print. (Have you?) What I enjoy thinking about most is how far one can take this “reveal yourself to bigots so that they can decide whether to be bigoted towards you” ethos of his. And, again, I look to you for your suggestions.
Does it apply to bloggers and journalists too, I wonder? For anyone who may have any prejudices against it, I admit that I am a vegetarian who likes foreign movies. Out and proud!
“In fact your pal Mike Tardif is one of them.”
really?
Didn’t see that until now? The quote is verbatim. Clearly, we’ll have to organize a watch to monitor this new blog for personal mentions.
I do not agree with Art’s rationale, but then I don’t agree with yours either Mr. Diamond. According to you, it is OK to attack someone who disagrees with policies of the Democratic Party, but NOT OK to attack someone who agrees with the policies of the Democratic Party. You see this all the time where a Republican is eviserated for a behavior completely ignored when done by a Democrat. HYPOCRITS! Is the below from the left when in actuality that is often not true and is every bit as applicable to the Democrat.
I for one don’t think that we want to elect a bunch of Justice Souter’s (who had left such a boring life that he had left almost NO footprints whatsoever) elected to poltiics. We have become a country of folks focused on our pet issue that then descend like a horde of locusts on those with any foibles instead of understanding that we are all human and simply looking for the best person for the job.
Both parties believe that their people get comparative maltreatment from the media, Geoff. (Of course, only we Democrats are correct about it.)
BUT ANYWAY … I am conflicted about the issue of outing, but I think that you misrepresent the rationale. For those who favor outing, it’s not about partisanship but about hypocrisy. In other words, it’s “character evidence.” If someone is yelling that the law should crack down on sodomy while practicing sodomy — well, isn’t that worth reporting? If someone is not practicing (or I suppose abetting) sodomy, or of they don’t call for cracking down on sodomy, then no hypocrisy is possible. And believe me, I know that Democrats can be hypocritical about things like sodomy. Where I disagree with your writing is your inference that making money and desiring restraints on the excesses of capitalism necessarily constitute hypocrisy.
(Note for the appalled: I use the word “sodomy” because it seems to be the preferred term in legal opinions for a category of activities. I don’t intend it as my own value judgment or a comment on the beleaguered people of Sodom.)
NOTE: I just removed a ridiculous offensive anonymous comment about Art’s personal life (which was also absurd.) I wish Art’s blog and the Weekly did the same for others.
Pedroza only removes comments negative against him or his friends. Comments about you, Diamond, especially the LibOC boys get approved no matter how nasty.
True that, true that. I guess we’re just better than them. *sigh*
Oh well, I still say FUCK SEPTEMBER 11.
Well, yes, Vern, but don’t you feel that way about every day of the year?
Vern’s comment was, and still is, completely insensitive, but you sanctioning his making light of one of the most tragic days in our history (and making light of it yourself) is a great example of why the Juice is losing important contributors like Larry Gilbert.
If you think I ever “made light” of that tragic day, then you either didn’t read my piece, didn’t understand it, and definitely need to read it again. Fortunately most people understood it and agreed.
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2011/09/fk-september-11/
I read your piece and understood it at the time and found it out of line at the time- “make light” might not fit but “disdain and disrespect” do. I understand that you were trying to say that you don’t believe in commemorating a tragedy – you have the right to that opinion but you are in the minority. Pearl Harbor, the Maine and related tragic events will always be remembered and commemorated. Anyone losing a relative on 9/11 would surely find your remarks insensitive, disrespectful and insulting – I did as well. I do understand your point that sometimes a rallying cry can be used to mislead and spur wrong thinking (“We are the 99%” for example) – but if I were to say F*#k the 99%, I think that I would expect a lot of people to be righteously angry (and by the way, I am NOT saying that).
This time you seem to be saying it as simply a juvenile device to get attention thus supporting Newbie’s claim that you are “making light” of a tragic day.
It wasn’t against “commemorating” it, but more what I see as fetishizing it, letting it define us, letting it “give us meaning” and determine our foreign policies and internal security policies. Hopefully with the ten-year anniversary gone, that sickness will start to fade away. My piece was an effort to kick it in the ass and speed up that process.
I thought that the title was attention-getting at the cost of trampling on people’s sensitivities. There was a substantive thesis behind it, though, that I thought was far better than the title. I don’t get your dismissal of it.
I didn’t “sanction” it then or now; it preceded my joining the blogforce here, in fact, and in any event it’s not my place to do so. But your saying that I’m “sanctioning” anything by making a joke about Vern’s supposed outlook on life prompts me to say: huh?
I would like to know the date (month and day) of your birth Vern – no particular reason … really.
I’m sure the LibOC boys never allow negative comments against Art, myself or our friends no matter how nasty, right?
Touche, Sean.
Sean, I’ve been presuming that the answer to this will be “yes,” but: you do disagree with the quote from Art that I’ve included here, right? As someone who works in politics, can you expound on why that is?
Greg,
I don’t think that someone’s sexual orientation is anyone’s business other than that person. I don’t vote for or against someone based on who they sleep with.
However I do think their hypocrisy should be outted, like for instance the case of Rev. Ted Haggard or Republican State Sen Roy Ashburn.
Now lets wait for the sock puppets to arrive and call me a “homophobe” based on 25 year old letters to the editor or out of context emails.
Oh lookee, an anonymous sock puppet with nothing to say. I wouldn’t put my name to that insightful comment either “Doobie”. Thanks for adding nothing of substance to the conversation though.
I think that that’s a fair position (and I’m surprised at Art’s position.) I’d add that I don’t think that “X has a friend who supported Prop 8” or “Y supported someone despite his stand on Prop 8” is enough hypocrisy to be a basis for outing. Politics makes strange bedfellows at times, so to speak.
You have friends?
Why Sean you can’t mean the out of context emails that are published completely? You still loves you some Ted Moreno who is a complete homo hater. What would Ted think?
Geoff Willis
Posted January 11, 2012 at 10:31 AM
“I do not agree with Art’s rationale ..”
That’s a JOKE – right Geoff? As if ……
“I don’t intend it as my own value judgment or a comment on the beleaguered people of Sodom.”
Not to mention the equally beleaguered folks of Gamora.
These folks who think Sodomy is so outrageous … just wait till they see someone getting Gomorrhized!
Sense of humor too dry for you, skally?
I shouldn’t have looked around.
That’s a common reaction to Orange County politics.
I was going south on Main St. near OCHSA, on my way to a city ground breaking event.
I saw these two lovely ladies in short skirts walking north, I thought they be Latino, but as they got closer they looked more Asian, as they walk by me I could easily tell they are MEN dressed in skirts.
Can someone tell me what political office they are running for?
You should be able to check with the Orange County Registrar of Voters. Check their “made old white guys hot” file.
I was walking down Main St to visit my mom when she was still alive years ago.
I saw this cute young Viet girl in front of a hair salon.
As I walked by her she said, ” Sex with me”, ” Sex with me”.
I looked at her and said “WHAT?” as she gave me a business card.
The card said, “Hair cuts, sixth one free”
I think I need to clean out my ears.
“.. if I were to say F*#k the 99%, I think that I would expect a lot of people to be righteously angry (and by the way, I am NOT saying that).”
I am saying that: FUCK the 99% – DOUBLE FUCK the 99%.
What is your birthday Vern?
September 11, 1960.
really?
maybe
My old friend and then-roommate in New York was born on Sept. 11. I was to take him out to dinner that day in Astoria. After me being glued to the TV all day (hearing the sirens and the electric ozone smell) and him walking down towards the tragedy to bear witness as best he could, we decided to go out to dinner after all. Big steakhouse, seated probably 200. We were the only customers. Had some good talks with the waiters. It was surreal.
Let’s be clear. The impetus for this is the question of whether or not Jordan Brandman is homosexual.
Nobody wants to say it, ask it or admit it, but what this boils down to is this:
“IS JORDAN BRANDMAN GAY?”
The debate shouldn’t be whether Jordan likes men or women, but rather is he qualified to serve.
In my opinon, this is all distracting bullshit, just like saying: “Look at the Lazy Mexican, from Santa Ana” based on this:
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d825e92b9/article/jets-players-insist-they-still-believe-in-maligned-qb-sanchez?module=HP11_headline_stack
I think I agree with you, if I’m following you.
At least, I agree with the fourth line there.
I continue to think that Jordan’s love life is none of our business. I don’t know what Art has against Jordan, but I can’t believe that it justifies publicly hammering down the answer to that question.
David Drier has a good record on LGBT issues? That’s news to me!
Obviously, you did not see Kirby Dick’s documentary “OutRage” where he documented Drier’s “support” for LGBT issues.
You’re correct that I did not. I’m just going by what I’ve heard from people (in both parties) who have explained to me over the years why people generally don’t try to out Dreier — except when it’s fellow GOP reps doing something important like keeping him from rising too high in the Republican House leadership. If he were a huge hypocrite on GLBT issues, I’d expect him to have been treated differently.
Every time I stop by and read the comment stream here I feel like I’m back on the playground and in eighth grade. Who gives a rip if someone is gay or straight? Good Lord. Grow up and then kindly eat a bullet.
And who in their right mind is surprised by whatever hateful venom sprews from the mouth of Art Pedroza?
American politics is out of control. As a Political Science major from one of the most prestigious universities in the nation I will try and set this straight. Just as we no longer call a Down’s syndrome child a mongoloid and we no longer call a mentally challenged person a retard, we should no longer call the teachings of Jesus Christ Communist nor Socialist when referring to watching each other’s back, living in peace together and picking each other up when we fall down. Jesus Christ’s preaching will never become a reality as we are, when broken down to brass tactics, the animals that we are. Thus God had to adjust his plan and sacrifice his son for our unforgiving sins so that our animalistic values are forgiven even though we don’t deserve it.
The truth about the extreme right and the extreme left (the word extreme is threatening by itself)
Extreme left: No government exists, anyone can do as they wish and anyone may react to whatever the other may have done in retaliation, hands down the absolute definition of the Survival of the Fittest, as has the earth’s wild animals have lived since the beginning of life, from single celled ameba to complex structures.
Extreme right: No one may do anything outside of perfect rule by the government. Mankind, in its entirety, is living in a self-made prison and a definition that I call the Eye in The Sky society. In the opposite direction of the extreme right where no laws exist, now every movement is directed by law. Cameras in every room, sterilization, the food you eat and things you say, and what you think.
Political Ideologies like Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Nazism and so on and so on, play on both sides of the left and right and try and spin us into thinking that being called one side or the other is verily bad. But don’t believe either as each is trying to buy you into following their interpretation for your rule. That’s why we vote and we demand rule by the majority and not rule by idiocracy but by common patriotism and as I said earlier, watching each other’s back, living in peace together and picking each other up when we fall down.
That’s weird, a lot of people would think you have the right and left reversed.
But really, in history we’ve seen both extreme left and right turn into totalitarian gov’t.
What you’re calling “exteme left” most of us would call anarchism.
Really, you’re just showing that the left-right dichotomy doesn’t explain everything well.