Democrats & Liberals Archives

The Forest or the Trees?

“Despotism has so often been established in the name of liberty that experience should warn us to judge parties by their practices rather than their preachings.” Raymond Aron Life Quotes

How should we evaluate this junta? Should we look at the forest or the trees?

We are currently obsessed about the Scooter tree. It is a worthless tree. It is too twisted to make into lumber. The Scooter tree is a place where bears rape little girls. These right wing extremist neo-fascist freaks sure like their erotic books don't they? See: THE NEW YORKER

The Scooter tree is no good for fire wood. It has too much sap. Scooter is a sap / dupe / fall guy for the junta. The Scooter tree is no good for shade. It will expose you just like it exposed Valerie Plame and Brewster Jennings. Oddly enough Conservapedia does not have an article for Brewster Jennings. Perhaps we should help the cons out and create one here: Conservapedia The Scooter tree is a filthy, stinking, layer... er... or is it liar. It is filthy and it stinks. It smells like treason.

There are many other trees in the Bush Regime's proto-fascist swamp:

There is the Gonzales tree. This one is very useful, it tortures... credulity. See: Torture_Memos ---- Gonzales Lies Under Oath ---- "Gonzales Lies to Congress. Again." and again. ---- Gonzales lies about policy change. ---- Feinstein Skewers Gonzales ---- What Gonzales Really Told Us The Gonzales tree is also great for anal broom sticks and it is a great place for the merciful Bush to mercilessly hang profoundly retarded Texan convicts: Common Dreams ---- CNN.com The Gonzales tree is also a filthy stinking laying liar...

The Rove tree: Not very much is known about the Rove tree. It pretends to be straight but it is not straight. It is either crooked or it is crocked and gay... See:The brains Also see: Rove Scandal Could Stick Well it hasn't stuck yet, but he is clearly crooked. So he is not straight, but is he gay? He triggers my gaydar. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with being gay. Clearly people have no real choice about their sexual orientation. Read my article on homosexuality titled: I don't "get it." Is there something I am missing? But why would Rove be two faced about it.

Would he stab his gay brothers and sisters in the back by advocating homophobic proto-fascist gay bashing hate mongering just to manipulate the American people? Oh that's right, we are talking about Karl Rove. Of course he would. He is two faced in every other area of his life and he stabs people in the back. So why not be two faced in his sexuality and stab his gay brothers and sisters in the back.

So the question is; is he gay? Because if he is gay, then it is another way in which he is a two faced back stabber. See: Karl Rove and the Gay Republican Mafia ---- Is Karl Rove a Closet Homosexual? ---- Secret Service records raise new questions about discredited conservative reporter. The Rove tree certainly has gay or at least effeminate hands. See the following three links: Rove's Gay Fingers ---- KARL ROVE EXCLUSIVE ---- A finger on sexuality ---- Another picture of Rove's hand.There is some conflict here regarding whether homosexual males have effeminate or hyper masculine hands. These three links interestingly show that Rove has effeminate hands, but that does not prove that he is gay. On the other hand they are one more indicator that he may well be gay. His skin also seems milky white, soft, and effeminate. It is probably nice to touch as long as you do not mind the knife in your back. Perhaps he is not gay. He could be transgendered. But if he is transgendered, then he is still a two faced back stabber.

The Cheney tree: This one thrives in the dark shadows of the deep and scary Bush swamp. See: In Focus: Dick Cheney Its toxic fruit does not fall far from the Haliburton tree. See: Cheney Scandal It is a shot in the dark by a drunk philanderer. See: Booze, Sex and Shooting Quail It is a nesting place for opportunistic chicken hawks. See: The Unauthorized Biography of Dick Cheney (CBC)

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." Thomas Paine
Life Quotes

Cheney sure has Bin Laden on the run - doesn't he? See: Bin Laden behind bombing during Cheney visit, Taliban says

The Bush tree: This one is as dumb as a stump, but it is a compassionate conservative... for... conservatives... well... for elitist conservative extremists anyway. See: Bush mocks Karla Faye Tucker The Bush tree does not even give the time of day to people that are going to die. See the following quote from this link: The New York Review of Books

To make sure that he never had to examine death sentences seriously, Governor Bush used a legal tactic similar to the one used by the US Supreme Court to block death row petitioners' access to constitutional claims. He restricted the standard for clemency so severely that no petitioner could qualify. He stated that since the courts had "thoroughly examined" every obscure detail of a death row petitioner's claims and found no grounds for injustice, it was not his place to "second-guess" the courts.
The Bush tree water boards, renders, and kills the profoundly retarded, but mercifully can't stand the thought of Scooter spending a few months in prison. In reality, the whole Bush junta should have a reunion in Lewisburg Penitentiary. See: Here are 34 scandals from the first four years of George W. Bush's presidency -- every one of them worse than Whitewater. - 34 and still rolling. And see this: Bush Watch Conrad Black is looking at twenty years for obstruction of justice - Scooter??? - not even 20 minutes. Black stole a little money from share holders. Scooter committed treason.

The last link has the following quote from Ron Suskind's book the "The One Percent Doctrine" :

"[The Saudis] went down the items. Sometimes the President nodded, as though something sounded reasonable, but he offerred (sic) little response.

"And, after almost an hour of this, the Saudis, looking a bit perplexed, got up to go. It was as though Bush had never read the packet they sent over to the White House in preparation for this meeting: a terse, lean document, just a few pages, listing the Saudis' demands and an array of options that the President might consider. After the meeting, a few attendees on the American team wondered why the President seemed to have no idea what the Saudis were after, and why he didn't bother to answer their concerns or get any concessions from them, either, on the 'war on terror.' There was not a more important conversation in the 'war on terror' than a sit-down with Saudia Arabia. Several of the attendees checked into what had happened.

"The Saudi packet, they found, had been diverted to Dick Cheney's office. The President never got it, never read it. In what may have been the most important, and contentious, foreign policy meeting of his presidency, George W. Bush was unaware of what the Saudis hoped to achieve in traveling to Crawford."

Bush is not stupid. He is ignorant - willfully ignorant. The Bush junta keeps the President in the dark in order to maintain "plausible deniability." "Every strength conveys a weakness" every weakness conveys a strength." The Bush junta has taken ignorance to a high art and turned it into Bush's greatest strength. Ignorance allows and informs Bush's moral certainty.

"The belief that there is only one truth and that oneself is in possession of it seems to me the deepest root of all evil that is in the world." Max Born
See: Life Quotes

Bush is willfully ignorant. It protects him from criminal culpability. It empowers his persistence and tenacity in the face of abject failure. See my article: Bush is Tenacious. The fact that this junta uses such an extreme form of plausible deniability, and the fact that Bush allows it, is a clear indication that these people, from Bush on down, know that they are going to be up to their necks in some serious criminal crap. Bush is not even allowed to know the agenda of a meeting that he is going to preside over. This is a higher level of plausible deniability than even the mafia uses. Hey, Benny the Buzzsaw... Take care ah Joey the Snitch... Fix em up real good... I doan wanna know nuttin abou hit. Capisci. Of coarse, the mafia is just out to steal money. These people are out to steal the republic. Maybe that is why they call themselves Republicans.

There are other trees in the swamp... The Rice tree, the Paul Naziwitz tree, the Abramoff in the White House tree. But let us move on the forest...

"None of us, no, not one, is perfect; and were we to love none who had imperfections, this world would be a desert for our love." Thomas Jefferson (Life Quotes) Jefferson reminds us that we are called to love these lost souls even as we confront their proto-fascist misdeeds.

The Bush forest:

The Bush forest has brought us endless losing war. It has strengthened and emboldened our enemies. It has spied on Americans. It has subverted the Constitution of the United States of America. It has tortured, rendered, and killed. It has committed treason and protected the treasonous from justice. It has looted our treasury for the profit of its friends. It has manipulated the American people, corrupted the corporate media, and substituted a corporate oligarchy in place of "government of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Someone needs to roll up their sleeves, get out there, and cut that scrub brush down. Who can we turn to, to do that?

How then shall we evaluate it? Shall we evaluate it from the perspective of the forest or the trees?

Posted by Ray Guest at July 14, 2007 2:45 PM
Comments
Comment #226332

How about from the point of view of the nature lovers?? Nobody wants to walk into the woods and find rotting,decayed,fungus-filled,root-dead and dying trees. They spread their disease around and eventually commit many others to the same affliction. Allow them to continue festering and soon the beauty and purity of nature is gone for a long time to come. Take out the sick and soon the healthy and well will come back in greater strength.
It’s time to bring out the axes and chainsaws in massive proportions!!!

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at July 14, 2007 3:10 PM
Comment #226333

Great, so now we’re criticizing fiction and speculating on sexual orientation. Way to hold high the liberal banner, Ray.

Posted by: Gerrold at July 14, 2007 3:22 PM
Comment #226335

Very funny Ray G, I lived in the Orlando area for 15 years, I have pretty good gaydar, and Rove does not ping anything for me. I do not know if he is in the log cabin or not. I posted this link a couple of years ago and people found it amusing:

http://www.bettybowers.com/isbushgay.html

More trees, less Bush.

Posted by: ohrealy at July 14, 2007 4:05 PM
Comment #226337

ohrealy,

That link is pretty funny. Bush doesn’t trigger my gaydar though, Rove does. There have been rumors of Bush, Laura, and Condi. Those ring a little more true for me. I am green with envy.

Posted by: Ray Guest at July 14, 2007 4:47 PM
Comment #226338

orealy,

Fabulous is probably the biggest multisyllabic word that Bush knows.

Posted by: Ray Guest at July 14, 2007 4:50 PM
Comment #226339

Ray,

Really great article. If so much of it weren’t so darn true it would be worth a million laughs. (OK, I admit I laughed a lot.)

Before the “up-tight righties” take you apart for introducing the “gay issue” or the obsession with “sexuality” in general, just let me say that the Theo-cons started this nonsense about needing to protect the institution of marriage with a freakin’ Constitutional Amendment no less, and their hypocritical condemnation of others sexual behavior, even though their own was no better.

Actually this infestation of the forest that is America reminds me of the Dutch Elm disease that wreaked havoc across much of our homeland throughout the 20th century. As with that disease one must go back to it’s beginnings to stop it from growing. A good place to start is with a true in-depth scientific analysis of the Reagan plague which spawned the Gingrich infestation that still threatens us today.

Of course it’s difficult to get a true analysis when powers behind the scenes prevent even a biographical TV movie from airing. (Try to “google” info on that) There’s a reason that a field must be “cleared” before our life sustaining crops can be grown!

Now……….back to private hell: analysis of my right hand says I’m straight, but on the other hand………………………….

Posted by: KansasDem at July 14, 2007 5:23 PM
Comment #226340

Oops, last line should have read…….”MY private hell”

Posted by: KansasDem at July 14, 2007 5:26 PM
Comment #226341

The stuff about Rove’s hands is sort of funny. But if you want to go all in and make insinuations about people because they’re unmarried, I’m wondering why you don’t accuse Condi of being a witch? It’s well-known that unmarried men are gay—you didn’t need to point that out. It’s a given. But isn’t it also established that unmarried women are not only lesbians but witches? I can’t believe you left this out of your otherwise very astute analysis.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at July 14, 2007 5:46 PM
Comment #226344

Why would a gay man marry Laura? Personally, I think she’s a bit of a MILF (not a 10, obviously, but compared to the last few first ladies she’s not bad…).

Then again, Bush did hold hands with that Saudi guy, so maybe he is gay… Not that there’s anything wrong with that…

Ray,

There have been rumors of Bush, Laura, and Condi. Those ring a little more true for me. I am green with envy.

Me too. Laura and Condi? No man could pass that up even if he was gay!

Posted by: TheTraveler at July 14, 2007 6:25 PM
Comment #226357

KansasDem,

Those hand links were a little contradictory of each other, but depending on how they are interpreted mine may a little iffy too. Mine are masculine. The right is more masculine than the left. On the other hand, the one article seemed to be saying that masculine is the new gay. Who knew?

On a more serious note, for the record: I think it is unfortunate that Rove or anyone else feels the need to be closeted assuming that he is gay. If he is gay, I don’t blame him for being in the closet. I would be too, especially if I were a public figure. Public gay men should not have to live a double life of secrecy and shame, but our society discriminates against them. To Rove’s credit, I don’t believe that he is that far in the closet. The problem here is that he advocates proto-fascist anti-gay hate mongering in order to manipulate the American people and that is two faced.


Loyal Opposition,

Thank You for pointing that out. I simply did not have time to get to Condi. For love of God, I pray that she is Bi though, because the picture of her and Laura together - HOT - and if she could brew a love potion too…


Posted by: Ray Guest at July 14, 2007 9:00 PM
Comment #226360


This is what passes for easoned, logical, helpful discourse? God help us all!

Posted by: John Back at July 14, 2007 9:22 PM
Comment #226361

Oops. That should be reasoned, logical, helpful discourse?

Posted by: John Back at July 14, 2007 9:23 PM
Comment #226374

I was excited when I saw an article about forests and trees. Too bad.

Posted by: Jack at July 14, 2007 11:22 PM
Comment #226386

Thankfully, this is what passes for liberal argument these days.

The right is better off than I thought.

Posted by: esimonson at July 15, 2007 1:46 AM
Comment #226388

Umhh…OK. So Thompson’s not getting you’re vote I take it?
It is funny though to watch how the left owns the rules of PC..whatever I got some money to make and responsibilities to attend while you organize your hippiepoloza.

Posted by: andy at July 15, 2007 2:39 AM
Comment #226399

What about Rove’s wife (2nd one…married in 1986) and their son Matthew (born in 1989)….why do we never hear about these people or see them????

Posted by: Rachel at July 15, 2007 8:48 AM
Comment #226417

No fair having a little fun in the blue column Ray, You can only do that over in the red column,you should know by now its only funny when they talk trash about the libs.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 15, 2007 11:57 AM
Comment #226419

All you have to do is ask youself this: Would I object to a line of rhetoric if it were used by my opponents? If “no,” then have at it. If “yes,” then you must object. Otherwise you place party above ethics and you are part of the problem.

We liberals are often accused of holding our nation to higher standards than other nations. Regardless of whether that is true, we should at least hold our own side to the same standards we apply to the other side.

Remember when Democrat Jim Webb was opposing Republican George Allen in Virginia? We objected to using Webb’s sometimes graphic fiction against him.

I trust I don’t really need to say anything about speculating about sexual orientation.

Posted by: Gerrold at July 15, 2007 12:39 PM
Comment #226425

Gerrold, Of course your correct on this matter,but its hard to turn the other cheek after so many years of Rush Hannity Oreilly, Fox in general and the all out verbal assult on anything liberal by elected reps like Newt, Delay, etc. Im not sure if insult is the only level of communication they (the cons)understand but it sure is the one they use to communicate with most often. Hopefully your call to raise the level here and in previous threads will be acted upon by all sides. Perhaps, as you have suggested, we should try to start with one entire thread of civility by all and let it grow from there.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 15, 2007 1:12 PM
Comment #226429

j2t2,

There are some Red column writers that are so abusive and ridiculous that I sometimes don’t even read their articles. If they had any interest in persuading their ideological opponents, then they are failures. If they are just cheerleading for their side, then they are engaging in a form of masturbation.

I’ve adopted this stance late in life. I used to sling it as much as anyone, but at some point I started thinking about the tactics themselves. I now think think they are counterproductive. I’d much rather have civil debate because, occasionally, minds can be swayed, including our own.

Posted by: Gerrold at July 15, 2007 1:23 PM
Comment #226435

Ray, very funny article, with some good quotes.
The whole messy clump o’ trees and Bush-es reeks of treason, corruption, and repressed sexuality to this girl, too.

You wrote:
There have been rumors of Bush, Laura, and Condi. Those ring a little more true for me. I am green with envy.

Traveler:
“Me too. Laura and Condi? No man could pass that up even if he was gay!”

Ray:
“For love of God, I pray that she is Bi though, because the picture of her and Laura together - HOT”

Okay, this exchange gave me an instant gag reflex. Because Laura and Condi have always looked to me like a couple of excruciatingly unexciting and uninteresting gals with their prissy every-hair-in-place demeanor, and sporting that habitual Ladies-Who-Lunch attire.

Okay, my husband just wandered into the room, and I asked him what the thought of a Laura and Condi lesbian interlude or three-way did for him. He made a face and said: “Ughhh, I’ll pass…” Then after a short pause he added: “Both too Republican and schoolmarm-ish for my taste — but I guess some guys might like that…”

I guess he’s right since you guys obviously do. :^)

Gerrold:
“I trust I don’t really need to say anything about speculating about sexual orientation.”

Normally no, we really don’t, but these are people who want to Constitutionally define Marriage as only for straight people. Meanwhile, they had arranged for male prostitute Jeff Gannon/James Guckert to lob them pre-rehearsed softball questions rather than take actual questions from the press. And gave him a revolving door pass to the White House — which he sometimes didn’t end up using at night.
In the media, they’ve got Ann Coulter — a woman who looks like a transvestite, and who has never been married — wearing a cross around her neck at all times while calling all Liberals “Godless,” and John Edwards a “faggot.”
And on the Evangelical Pulpit, they’ve had Ted Haggard pushing the GOP talking points on “Family Values” and excoriating gays, just before he went off to his own male prostitute for a little anal and oral sex on crystal meth.
As the party of strict heterosexuality, and rights-withholding mean-spiritedness toward gay people, I think the GOP has every bit of our pointed remarks and satire coming to them.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 15, 2007 1:45 PM
Comment #226445

Ray,

That was excellent! I laughed most of the way through because of your clever, urbane rhetoric NOT because I take issue with the content of what you wrote. When faced with the option to laugh or cry over something as abhorrent as the Bush Administration, I favor laughing. Why should I let those demons rob me of my health too?

I knew it about Rove!!! LOL.


esimonson said:

Thankfully, this is what passes for liberal arguments these days. The right is better off than I thought.

Thank you esimonson for so succinctly demonstrating Ray’s points!

Posted by: Kim-Sue at July 15, 2007 2:51 PM
Comment #226450

We face some grave issues that cannot be resolved by any one party. We have an administration that has violated the Constitution, which has placed itself above the laws of the land. To preserve the integrity of our form of government, we need to remove the president and the vice president from office. This is not merely to “get” Bush and Cheney, it is to check executive power and preserve the integrity of the Constitution. Let’s not be under any illusions. No matter who is elected the next president, he or she will not cede expanded powers. Congress must draw the line.

In order to remove the president and vice president, we need the help of Republicans. There are some Republicans who will see beyond loyalty to party and will do what is best for the nation, but it won’t be easy. When we engage in polarizing rhetoric, we make it harder to deal with the challenges we face. Certainly, if the Democrats could get their act together, we have the numbers in the House to start impeachment proceedings, but we will need some Republicans in the Senate to get the necessary 2/3s.

Listen, I like a joke as much as the next person. In private with friends I’ve said much of what this article says, and worse. I simply know that when it comes to impeachment, climate change, health care, the Iraq War, the vast influence of corporate and wealthy interests, and other important issues, that we can only make progress if the two dominate parties find a way to work with each other. Civility can go a long way toward helping us achieve our goals.

When I take the Republicans to task for distorting the evidence or engaging in hateful rhetoric, they say, “Well, the liberals do it too.” I hate the fact that they are correct. I sincerely believe we need to rise above easy games of political gamemanship; we need to get beyond the desire to score easy political points and make a point of doing what is best for our nation.

I hate to come off as a prude; I’m really not. But I’m more concerned for our nation now than I’ve ever been. Some of you may say I am harder on the liberals on this matter than on conservatives. If that is true, it is the akin the same charge conservatives toss at us. We are harder on our own nation than on other nations. We should be. We are a nation of very profound ideals — ideals that we have to struggle to live by. Our ideals are our benchmarks, not other nations. Similarily, the ideals of liberalism are what we should measure ourselves against, not the tactics of those who ideologically disagree with us.

I’m sorry if that sounds like I’m lecturing, but this is something I truly believe.

Posted by: Gerrold at July 15, 2007 3:55 PM
Comment #226452

This is pretty darn funny if you need a chuckle:

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid716758716/bctid1111464757

Posted by: KansasDem at July 15, 2007 4:03 PM
Comment #226453

Gerrold
Your absolutly right. Although I claim no party I vote for who I think can do the best job be it Dem. Rep. or Ind. But comments like the ones in this rag turn me away from the Democrats. No wonder congress has such a low approval if this is the example of the leadership.

Posted by: KAP at July 15, 2007 4:04 PM
Comment #226460

Joke em if they can’t take an F.

The Red Column might as well be on another planet for me, but I was able to listen to George Will this morning without muting him. FNN aparently has some kind of Jon Stewart rip off show, which was ragging on Albert Gore 3.
I wonder if this comes on before or after they try to hypnotize people with a slow speed car chase in LA.

Posted by: ohrealy at July 15, 2007 5:22 PM
Comment #226468

Regardless of of whether anyone is homosexual, the matter still exists that these “scandals’ have existed for quiet some time.

Frankly, I’d hate to lay blame on the homosexuals of the world. Most of them are much more honorable, discreet, and seldom cause scandals. Frankly they are on a higher plane than anyone listed in this post.

In other words, I’d trust a homosexual over all the “good, decent politicians listed above.

Posted by: Linda H. at July 15, 2007 6:18 PM
Comment #226474

Thanks ALL for comments.

First, Adrienne, sorry for the gag reflex. My taste are wide ranging shall we say, and I also appreciate real quality.

Gerrold,

Good arguments, I agree with your premises. I am getting beat up pretty bad here as expected. It is, as intended, a provocative, tongue in cheek article. If one writes provocative, one has to expect to provoke. I expected to be attacked by the right for suggesting that this regime has engaged in proto-fascist policies, subverted the Constitution, and instituted or expanded a corporate oligarchy. Or, I expected a real discussion about gay rights and the biology of homosexuality. I do not think that I am that out of line here if at all. In this country, and many counties people are convicted of felony crimes and sent to prison on the basis of circumstantial evidence. In this country, and some other countries, people are executed on the basis of same. If there is a circumstantial case to be made that a major Regime official is disingenuous and two faced, then the American people need to know that - IMO. If the process of doing that also pokes a stick in the homophobia of Regime supporters - so be it - they need to get over it. I was not simply speculating, I was presenting the available evidence that this man is not to be trusted. Unfortunately, the tongue and cheek style of this has clearly resulted in my article not being taken as seriously as I might have hoped - Oh well - next time. My use of words such as; junta, Regime, Proto-fascist, and “stinking, layer… er… or is it liar” might have been a little unnecessarily inflammatory, but I thought justified by the facts.

Posted by: Ray Guest at July 15, 2007 7:48 PM
Comment #226480

Ray Guest- Especially the Republicans take kindness
as ignorance, an I believe Pelosi and Reed do not have
what it takes to be able to deal an implement arm
twisting, an tough control required to move the
Congress an Senate towards the desired goals which
most Americans expect an want. Respect is earned
an I would suggest the Democrats get on the stick
PDQ. The Democrats should tell the White House to
to hand over Subpoenaed material asked for in one
week or they will start Impeachment proceedings
against Bush an Cheney, an charge all those who
refused to comply with Subpoenas that they will be held in
contempt of Congress an follow threw with what
you promise, an stop being a bunch of wimps!


Posted by: -DAVID- at July 15, 2007 8:46 PM
Comment #226503

You’re right on DAVID, and I’d love to see that happen as well…..but…..don’t think either one of us should hold our breath until it happens. Just as the previous thread says “Another Wasted Opportunity”.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at July 16, 2007 12:43 AM
Comment #226523

DAVID , Sandra,

I agree, although Gerrold also has a point that you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar. In this case however, we are not trying to catch flies. We are trying to drown rats and turning their brand of Proto-fascist neo-conservatism into a dirty word may the best way to persuade, cajole, pressure, and demand that moderate conservatives /true conservatives join us. But, we also need peace makers like Gerrold, Pelosi, and Reed to welcome them aboard. Their is a roll for all of us to play in this. The Dems are moving in the correct direction - left.

Posted by: Ray Guest at July 16, 2007 10:47 AM
Comment #226524

DAVID, Sandra,

I decided to apply a better metaphor drawn from my childhood on the farm. We did not drown rats. We flooded their burrow in order to drive them into the open and then stomped them. Rats are fast, vicious, and they bite. You have to practice what I call the step and stomp. Step to pin - stomp to kill. Congressional investigations are taking the “steps” necessary to pin these rats now. We have to make sure that Pelosi and Reed are ready to stomp at the appropriate time.

Posted by: Ray Guest at July 16, 2007 10:56 AM
Comment #226534

Ray,

I appreciate your comments. I guess what I really want is more genuine statesmen among our politicians, people who can rise above partisanship and get done what needs to be done.

I’m not sure I like being lumped with Pelosi, though. I still haven’t forgiven her for taking impeachment off the table.

Posted by: Gerrold at July 16, 2007 11:36 AM
Comment #226540

And I understand what you’re saying, too, Ray…even though switching back and forth from sugar to stomp gets frustrating after a while. You’re right, too, about finessing a situation rather than slapping the s**t out of someone, when that is by far the most rewarding. I think we are all at such a level of frustration that anything short of “nookYUlar” just doesn’t seem right.
Agreed, too, on no impeachment on the table….when I think we would almost rather give it a try and lose, then to just sit back and watch the constant barage of crap from this administration.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at July 16, 2007 12:38 PM
Comment #226558

“Really great article. If so much of it weren’t so darn true it would be worth a million laughs. (OK, I admit I laughed a lot.)”

Shoot K-Dem, IF you could prove just about any of them to be true, it would be worth a million dollars.

Posted by: kctim at July 16, 2007 3:29 PM
Comment #226655

Ray Guest- Sigmund Freud once said that he had spent

thirty years of research into Feminine Soul,is”what


does a Woman want?” which never came to fruition.

Homosexuality is more complex than most people

realize. If any one has read the letters between

Sigmund Freud an Carl Jung, both Psychiatrists

would possibly lead you to the conclusion that

they may have been lovers. Since we know there are

cultures of people, such as some tribes in Borneo

where the men all live in a very large building

an the women in another. Nothing all that strange

except the men only love each other and have

consential sex with each other, an the small kids

stay with their mothers. The only time they have

sex with their wives are when they want children

I am opposed to psychoanlyzing groups

with out permission an this is just a speck in

eye of researchers trying to discover the question

as to what Homosexuality really is. The Question.

Has any one reading this post, at any time had

that little spark of love for someone of the

same sex, or a thought with out acting on it,

an then if you Hate homosexuals, why an when an

how did those feelings begin. Masters an Johnston

have many books on this subject, which in my

professional opinion abused children an adults as

well, in order to prove their sick an demented

fantasies. This subject is complicated an no one

should attempt to self evaluate themselves because

sometimes I believe it’s a stage every one goes

through an some choose to keep that life style.

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 17, 2007 8:24 AM
Comment #226671

DAVID,

Thanks for comment. I am not sure if I fully understand what you are saying, but I certainly agree with much of it. Homosexuality is extremely complex. I have many opinions, but not certain knowledge. I have always thought that Sigmund Freud was at least partially correct and that it is a normal stage of development between the ages of 12 and 18. We boys had some masturbation parties when I was around 12 and I was homosexually sexually abused by an older brother and cousin. I was also heterosexually sexually abused. I do not believe in victims, so I do not see myself as a victim, but I had those experiences, and I was affected by them. I see those experiences as having given me the opportunity to be a better person, and to have greater understanding and compassion for the sexual woundedness of others and I do that by healing my own sexual woundedness. Whether I fulfill that opportunity or not is an on going question to be answered one day at a time. The problems with Freud’s theory as I see it is that labels homosexuality as a sickness - a case of arrested development - which was an improvement at the time, but still conscribes an entire class of people to a “less than” status. In my other article on homosexuality, I point out that very few people are purely heterosexual or homosexual. On a scale of 0 to 100, I would arbitrarily place myself at about the 75th percentile. Solidly heterosexual with latent homosexual tendencies (in Freudian terms) and I think that is probably about average. The other problem with Freud’s theory is that it is overly simplistic. These recent discoveries about finger length, and about the older brother womb affect, as well as anatomical differences in the brain point at biology as a cause or predisposition. The other over simplification with Freud’s theory is that it throws all gays into one basket. In terms of gay males, there certainly are masculine gays (perhaps hyper-masculine) - football players, motorcycle gang members, and so on. The guy who fitted me for last new suit that I bought was extraordinarily handsome and manly looking, also flamboyantly gay. There are also effeminate gays. Then there is the whole separate issue of gender identity. A good friend of mine was ambivalent about his / her gender. He liked women but wanted to be one and thought that he might like men after he made the transition. Was he gay when he was with women as a man? Is she gay now when she is with a man as a woman?

There is a tribe in south America, if memory serves, where the heterosexual behavior is taboo by their religion for more than 200 days per year. Homosexual activity is allowed at any time. The tribe is not able to sexually reproduce itself, so it maintains itself by raiding neighboring tribes, stealing children, and raising them. They believe that you receive your lifetime supply of semen through oral and anal injections from older males when you are young, and they encourage their young boys to get injected as often as possible. They take them into the jungle for special religious injection ceramonies. The children that are stolen from heterosexual tribes grow up to be homosexual. This culture helps to keep the population of the entire region in balance with the environment. But this culture tells me that there is or at least can be a learned behavior aspect to homosexuality.

So, in summary: Learned behavior, biology, psychology, it is very complex. In the end, what difference does it make? However one becomes gay, it is a deeply ingrained trait - something we cannot change as a practical matter, so we need to accept people as they are. Is is in fact easier to change your skin color. You can do that with a skin graft or whatever Michael Jackson done.


Posted by: Ray Guest at July 17, 2007 11:53 AM
Comment #226685

Ray Guest-
This is a work of art on your part, thank you!

My post was intended to get some feed back from
others. Since many including myself believe that
Freud was compromised by, an from little knowledge to
base his findings on, along with his own personal
conflicts in dealing with what he assumed were
abnormal. In my generation, some of us disagreed
with the old school of thought, but as I am sure
your years in Collage may have changed, but just
to even to dare suggest other analytical concepts
would earn you a one way ticket out of collage!
Needless to say I was easily convinced to
make the jump into Forensic Psychiatry with out
regret. Your Progressive, Humanistic, thinking
is very impressive, an your positive attitude does
indeed qualify you as an exemplary person. Thanks.

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 17, 2007 5:23 PM
Comment #226693

Ray Guest- One last thought on this subject.

Many years ago I was invited to give a lecture
at large collage, the subject was on Adolescence an
when I finished, there were 125 students who stayed
to ask questions, which I usually do not do, because
it turns into a group therapy session. Any way, most
questions were about the students own personal
problems, rather than a how to discussion. Needless
to say, I was overwealmed. From that day forward I
never participated in any group therapy simply
because every person has their own personal problem, an must be dealt with in a single an
independent manner. Many people will pick up a
Psychology book and every now an than, will say
to themselves as they read, “That’s Me” an soon
they have themselves all in a frenzy until they
finally figure why they are reading the book in
the first place. As you can tell, this is the
first time in years that I have discussed this
topic in an open forum, simply because people
will attempt to apply terms used, an apply it to
themselves. that could become a serious problem.
One day I would like to present my thoughts on
Inherited, acquired by learned experiences or a
possible defective Gene an many other reasons
why a person may be Homosexual.


Posted by: -DAVID- at July 17, 2007 6:38 PM
Comment #226719

DAVID,

Thanks for your kind words.

Posted by: Ray Guest at July 18, 2007 9:09 AM
Comment #226826

Ray- I would have to assume that my Poorly written
post garnered no interest, an scared everyone
away. I do apologize for that Pandora’s Box!

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 19, 2007 2:23 AM
Comment #227035

DAVID,

I think that the thread is dead. There are a lot of good articles here that are generating a lot of interest.

Posted by: Ray Guest at July 21, 2007 3:10 PM
Post a comment