Item 1 (of 2, including foto): Hypocrisy on Cheney's Daughter. The New York Post and both Dick and Lynne Cheney have reacted with make-believe indignation to the fact that both John Kerry and John Edwards have mentioned that their daughter is a lesbian. Cheney himself addressed that issue very publicly in standing AGAINST his President's and his party platform's insistence that same-sex marriage should be barred by a constitutional amendment. That daughter, Mary, actually "works for the campaign but keeps a low profile". In short, she is an anti-gay and self-despising anti-lesbian bitch who deserves no respect from anyone.
+
Still, the Post on October 15th called mentioning Ms. Mary's orientation "loathsome"!

As if [the fact that Cheney raised the issue of his daughter's orientation] gives Kerry-Edwards the right to drag an innocent bystander's name into the muck. * * *

Clearly, he has no respect for Mary Cheney; has he none as well for the dignity of the office he seeks?

The two candidates — and Elizabeth Edwards — owe Dick and Lynne Cheney a public apology.

Mary Cheney, too.

The Post just doesn't "get it": there is nothing WRONG with lesbianism, nor homosexuality, so mentioning it is not "dragging" anyone "into the muck". Muck! Astounding. Lesbianism is "muck"! And this is supposed to be a sympathetic reaction?
+
The furor from the 'Right' about this "loathsome" behavior of the Democrats is grotesque. The implication is that Republicans are tolerant and accepting of lesbians but Democrats are anti-lesbian bigots, when the exact opposite is the case. Democrats are relatively pro-gay and pro-lesbian, which is the very reason the Republicans have raised the ridiculous proposal to amend the Constitution to forbid states from sanctioning same-sex marriage. They can't have it both ways, bashing 'faggots' and 'dykes' with a campaign pledge to "defend marriage" against 'deviants', AND pose as champions of sexual tolerance!
+
Nor is Ms. Cheney "an innocent bystander". She has taken a public stand in favor of the re-election of George Bush, an antihomosexual and anti-lesbian bigot. That makes her a legitimate subject of public discussion.
+
Would it be "loathsome" and "despicable" for the Kerry and Edwards campaign to say that Bush's daughters are heterosexual? Of course not. The Post's bigotry is showing.
+
Moreover, it is entirely appropriate to point out that the champions of Bible Belt bigotry have themselves lesbian or gay relatives (Candace Gingrich), even children (Mary Cheney) who, 'despite' the best upbringing, insisted on being 'deviants'. What does that say about their upbringing, if one thinks that homosexuality or lesbianism is a "choice", "against God"? Character matters, and if a parent "raised his kids wrong", as Bible-thumpers might see things, that is a legitimate issue in a campaign about "values", now isn't it?
+
And if there is a split in the Republican ticket on a major issue, it is the right of the electorate to know that. Because Vice Presidents do sometimes become President mid-term (e.g., Truman, Johnson, Ford in living memory — and Gore would have too, had the Republicans succeeded in ousting Clinton).
+
Altho Dick Cheney's heart problems might lead people to think him more likely to die in office than Bush, Bush is Public Enemy No. 1 for a billion Moslems, so might very well be assassinated before his term would end. Then Cheney, with his "soft", "permissive" attitude toward "deviancy", would become President, and he would stop pushing for a constitutional amendment to "defend marriage", now wouldn't he? That is a legitimate issue for social conservatives to bear in mind when they vote in November.
+
The Post also reveals its simpleminded ignorance in calling Mary Cheney "gay". "Gay" is not a catchall for "nonheterosexual". It may be a little cumbersome to speak of "gay and lesbian", but it is no more proper to call lesbians "gay" than it would be to call blacks "Oriental" just because they are both "nonwhite". The differences between people cannot be swept aside by linguistic legerdemain. The world is complicated, and it is important to recognize that people are what they are, not just what they are not. This is a common error that must be corrected by all media.
+
I wrote the following letter October 6th to The New York Times over this same issue. Inasmuch as it has not yet been published by the Times, I assume it won't be published there, so publish it here:

The Times made a serious error in speaking of "Mr. Cheney, who has a gay daughter". No, Mr. Cheney has a lesbian daughter. "Lesbian" is a distinct word because lesbians are not "gay", which term is specific to men. I know there is willful confusion of these two terms by the dysfunctional "lesbigay" movement, but you must realize that that movement is dominated by people with identity problems who have never outgrown the fact that they were raised to be heterosexual, and have never thought about what it is to be gay nor, more to the point, what it is not.
+
Seeking allies and larger numbers for demonstrations and political influence, the movement has not just reached out to lesbians but actually subordinated gay men to lesbian women. Could any more powerful proof be adduced of the deformed state of the lesbigay movement than that the Gay MEN’S Health Crisis has a female executive director – and the default identification for people requesting information at the top of the Gay MEN’S Health Crisis website is "I am a woman"?
+
Thirty-four years ago I put forward the term "Gay Pride" for events surrounding the then-upcoming first march commemorating the Stonewall Riots. Through all that time I have seen gay men fail to grow but constantly falter and fall backward, in large part because they refuse to accept that they are alone in the world, and every attempt to increase their numbers by identifying with people unlike them is destructive to their identity, undercutting their personality and everything they hope to achieve.
+
It is supremely important that gay men reject identification with women, be they heterosexual or lesbian. Gender confusion is one of the most painful and difficult problems gay men face in a predominantly heterosexual society. It manifests itself most tragically in the notion that people can be "transgendered", a "woman trapped in a man’s body", which of course is certifiable lunacy.
+
Gay manhood starts with refusing to identify with lesbians, and the Times does gay men grave disservice in calling lesbians "gay". If lesbians were covered by "gay", they wouldn’t need their own word, would they?

Item 2: Jewisher (and More Militarist) Than Thou. The Associated Press reported this week:

George Bush appealed to Florida's large Jewish population by signing a bill requiring the State Department to document attacks on Jews around the world. The department had opposed the measure, calling it unnecessary.

* * *

"Senator Kerry apparently decided supporting the troops even while they were in harm's way was not as important as shoring up his own political position,'' Bush said.

To a chorus of anti-Kerry boos, Bush accused his rival of playing politics with war: "At a time of great threat to our country, at a time of great challenge to the world, the commander in chief must stand on principle, not the shifting sands of political convenience.''

What is he saying here? (a) He is the real Jew, and his Government is dedicated to the Jews above all others on Earth. Mind you, Kerry's ancestors were REAL Jews. Can Bush really expect Jews to prefer a "goy" to a member of their own tribe?
+
And what, exactly, is George Bush's country, that he thinks that its government should track attacks upon Jews worldwide? Does he demand that attacks on Christians worldwide be tracked? If not, why not? Are Christians unimportant to Bush?
+
His war in Iraq has brought attacks upon churches in Iraq, and produced the characterization of Christians as "crusaders" and enemies of Islam everywhere! But that's apparently not important to him.
+
(b) Bush put our kids "in harm's way"! Kerry doesn't want them "in harm's way". For whom , then, should Americans worried about our kids being "in harm's way" vote? For the guy who PUT them in harm's way or the guy who wants to take them OUT of harm's way? The choice really is that simple.
+
My friend Gaetano here in Newark sent me, today, the following wonderful picture that he got from his Republican cousin, which the cousin thought to be a pro-Bush image for showing him among the people he supports. But it is a mosaic made from the fotos of DEAD SOLDIERS. Gaetano sent it with the caption "Nobody died when Clinton lied", and appended this note:

This photo is a composite of American soldiers who have died in Iraq over the last year.

A picture is worth a thousand words. Or in this case, hundreds of lives. And growing daily.

Please consider forwarding this note to eligible voters.

And let's remember in November.

Amen. Let me, however, add that the fotos in this picture are woefully inadequate to convey the horror Bush has unleashed thru his lies. At least 20 TIMES as many Iraqis would have to be pictured WITH these Americans to show that. There is no personal computer able to show so large a picture. You have to imagine it.
- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 4:32 PM