Comments on: The Exegesis Of The Unfunny

By: Dayv

Dayv — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:27:37 +0000

Jillian-

I’ve been hiding from politics for a month or so, just catching up now, and wanted to say thank you for this post.

By: Mooser

Mooser — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 16:02:25 +0000

I think you are suffering from a chronic drug underdose.

By: Nenya

Nenya — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 18:06:31 +0000

Jillian, I just want to say that you are awesome. I hope you are okay. And also, that I’ve borrowed a paragraph from the middle of your post to share with some friends of mine–maybe, maybe it will help them to get it, to understand that gay rights is about life and death and not their squick factor. I don’t know–but you’re being at least one more light in the darkness, and thank you for that.

And the rest of you guys–I mostly lurk here, but just wanted to say thank you for these threads, with all their discussion and occasional crude jokes: they help me, as do other parts of the blogosphere, think through things and come to some answer inside my own head. Thank you.

I am both sad at the things Obama’s fucking up, and SO VERY THRILLED that he’s NotBush. I think we have a man here who is sane and can be reasoned with. So let’s fucking reason away.

Huh, guess I missed the memo that Thanksgiving was a month (or two) back….

By: 4jkb4ia

4jkb4ia — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 05:27:42 +0000

I am sorry that Jillian is so sad. The genius of MLK was that he was not even asking these sensible liberal ministers to enter a political process, but to try to bear moral witness. Once you have people bearing moral witness some political leaders will be moved by it and try to do what is right, and there will be some progress. But the political process as a whole may not have caught up with MLK yet. Gay marriage may have been thrown to political processes without enough people bearing witness to gay families and so on. It is very easy for me to give up on working for it here in Missouri because we will not get it until every blue state has it.

By: 4jkb4ia

4jkb4ia — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 05:17:27 +0000

I am preparing to get yelled at.
The very lack of being able to establish one federal civil right for gays, including the adoption which Jillian spoke of, means that you establish the one civil right before you can even talk about federal civil unions, much less marriage. It seems to me to be a sign of progress in society that gays are accepted at a certain level so that marriage is the natural thing which they would demand. I vaguely remember reading a Catherine McKinnon piece from the time of the ERA saying that she did not know “why gay women and men would want marriage” as an institution when they had the chance to do other things.
I also repeat that government cannot make these marriages holy. It is up to churches and synagogues which would never do these marriages in a million years to ensure that they are truly regarded as equal, because civil unions are instituted for legal protection purposes.

By: Pak Tam

Pak Tam — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 19:54:59 +0000

Dear Mr President-Elect & his Transition Team,

Considering the promises & circumstances of your campaign, this Inauguration belongs to ALL people. To have Pastor Warren to deliver the Invocation is a fundamental antithesis to what we hope your presidency will be. His advocacy to categorically strip civil rights from a group of citizens will forever mar this historical event. There will be other occasions for dialogue & reconciliation for the contending issues, but this invitation to Pastor Warren is definitely inappropriate for the symbolic re-birth of the great nation, and is clearly disrespectful to your millions of supporters who yearn for a fair & just society.

Sincerely yours,

Pak TAM

Help our voice to be heard! Please kindly circulate this!

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/107914679
http://www.new.facebook.com/profile.php?id=538567008&ref=profile&pub=2915120374#/group.php?gid=40933512660
http://www.eqca.org/siteapps/advocacy/ActionItem.aspx?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4025663&aid=11543
https://secure.pfaw.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=Warren_Inauguration&autologin=true&JServSessionIdr006=b3zrfzfmv2.app304b

By: kenga

kenga — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:31:44 +0000

I mean, all I’m asking for is something *substantial* to set up the circular firing squad over.

I think the RNC has the circular firing squad checked out right now. We should maybe wait to see when they’re returning it before we make any concrete plans. Last I heard, the RNC chair was looking down the barrel for obstructions. http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/12/in_internal_memo_rnc_chief_con.php

By: kenga

kenga — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:15:14 +0000

Honestly, I’m conflicted; yes, it’s pandering, but simultaneously, is having one evangelical speak briefly at the inauguration going to be the extent of pandering?

He’s not an evangelical – that term doesn’t necessarily refer to religion except in the vernacular – he styles himself a fundamentalist evangelical Christian, so we know what kind of religion he evangelizes.

What he is, is a moneychanger.
The lamb of god literally kicked their asses last time.
Wonder what the lion would do, upon realizing the moneychangers have only broadened their scope of “work”. Could be the old “nailing to a tree” sketch would just be the warm-up act.

I’ll be watching, strong liquor and whatever contraband I can get at hand. I will be hoping that Rev. Lowery will be completing his benediction with Warren’s words fresh in his mind and a can of whoop-ass in his heart.

By: RvB

RvB — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 12:24:45 +0000

Very good work, Jillian and very touching–but no changes in the last 30 years? 30 years ago was 1978 (going on 1979). A baby born back then would be 30 years old now, and you’re telling us that he or she wouldn’t have seen any significant changes in the way gay people are treated during that long time? Sometimes when the liquor is talking it tends to overstate its case slightly.
As for Hopey, he is going to require pushing toward the left, but as he has shown pushoverist tendencies, it might not be that tough. What we got last November is someone who will listen. He may not do what we’ll want every time, but he’ll listen, and we’ve had deaf leadership long enough.

By: Tehanu

Tehanu — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 07:23:04 +0000

Jillian: what John O said at 5:13 and what Alec said in several posts. Hang in there and don’t panic! I didn’t vote for any damn messiah when I voted for Obama; I voted for a human being to take a tough job working for me and the rest of the citizens. So cut him a little slack at least till he actually has the job.

By: Raijin

Raijin — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 06:10:06 +0000

This was so beautiful and so goddamn depressing it hurts.

By: Bitter Scribe

Bitter Scribe — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 06:04:20 +0000

What, exactly, is your problem with Arne Duncan? From what I’ve seen, he’s made a good-faith effort to deal with the almost intractable problems of the Chicago Public Schools.

By: Simba B

Simba B — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 02:26:52 +0000

Yep, this guy’s definitely entered H.A.A.M. territory. Ban plz.

It is instructive, however, that the enhanced filtering softwarez and the possibility that no one would ever pay any attention to him again, was what drove him off the cliff. Not that we didn’t see it coming (cf. his obsession with DrDick) or that it surprises anyone, but yeah…time to ban the guy. He’s not even trolling on politics anymore, he’s just trying to freak people out and disgust them. In other words, he should be institutionalized, medicated, or something. I’m not kidding.

By: Jillian and The Truth

Jillian and The Truth — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 02:18:40 +0000

Sitting in a tree.
F
U
C
K
I
N
G.

By: lesserdevil

lesserdevil — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 00:18:50 +0000

Great piece, Jillian.

I had to quit drinking (so as not to die and all), but I’m with you in spirit.

By: muslim terrorist

muslim terrorist — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 23:54:17 +0000

Obama didn’t select this guy, someone selected him for him.

Wherever you come down on the whole Warren Ideological Crisis, I don’t think you can effectively hang your hat on this statement. Whoever decided on Warren, if Obama didn’t want him, he wouldn’t have been picked.

I mean, c’mon. He’s certainly got enough power to overrule some committee…

mikey

By: Leon Trotsky, Exile-in-Mexico

Leon Trotsky, Exile-in-Mexico — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 23:07:41 +0000

Well, in both that third assumption and silence, no actual meaning escapes. It’s just one is disguised by inundating others with babbling nonsense while the other is silent.

By: ckc (not kc)

ckc (not kc) — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 23:05:42 +0000

A possible third assumption: that his false predictions are actually truer than you libs think, heh, because they just prove you as hypocrites, it is to laugh, and this is Teh Funey that is central to my boo-diddly spread of badoodle-boo.

…and this would shame him into silence ..how?

By: N.C.

N.C. — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 22:53:17 +0000

This is a cunning plan but it makes two key assumptions:
(1) CST actually cares about the accuracy of his predictions and statements, rather than regarding them as a tool for annoying people; and
(2) CST has a sense of shame.

By: ckc (not kc)

ckc (not kc) — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 22:38:14 +0000

…or that shame would lead to silence (a normal response, it’s true, but we do suspect that our friend is not normal, no?)