Carnival of Ohio Politics–St. Patrick’s Day edition

I’d like to call your attention to the Carnival of Ohio Politics.  There’s a wide range of topics covered by Ohio’s political bloggers in this week’s edition, the Saint Patrick’s Day edition, which was cobbled together by yours truly, Daniel Jack Williamson.

Jill Miller Zimon, of Writes Like She Talks, is on the schedule for compiling next week’s Carnival.

May you all be bestowed with the luck of the Irish.

Glenn Beck: “You are not alone”

I remember when Glenn Beck was a virtual nobody on the radio, and he didn’t always seem to have a message that was in focus.  As time has passed, it seems that he’s really finding his voice, and there’s much more consistency in his views of the issues.  If any program on the cable news networks sounded a cautionary note far in advance of the bursting of our nation’s housing bubble, it was Glenn Beck during his 7 pm and 9 pm time slots on CNN’s Headline News.  I noticed that more and more people who I encountered in daily life were identifying themselves as Glenn Beck fans.

Then there was an announcement that Glenn Beck had reached an agreement with Fox News Channel that he’d be airing a program weeknights at 5 pm.  Immediately, Glenn Beck disappeared from Headline News.  There was a lull among Glenn Beck fans, with no TV show to watch, and with the radio broadcasts difficult to locate on radio dials (and perhaps at a time of day when one isn’t available to listen in) but it was a lull with baited breath, as Glenn Beck fans counted down the days anticipating Glenn Beck’s return to television.

I thought that a 5 pm air time would knock some wind out of Glenn Beck’s sails, since he no longer had air times that were considered prime time.  That doesn’t seem to be the case.  If anything, the audience interest is intensifying, and I’ve encountered even a greater percentage of people that I bump into are taking notice of Glenn Beck.

A case in point:  Last Friday, I watched Glenn Beck’s show on Fox News.  But I didn’t watch it at my house.  Instead, I watched it amidst a small gathering of people who’d assembled together for the express purpose of watching Glenn Beck together.  I wasn’t the ringleader behind the effort to gather for a Glenn Beck program, either.  Usually, I’m the one who’s dragging others to political events, not the other way around.  This time, others invited me, . . . and my dad, and my mom, and my brother, too.  Others were taking the initiative.

Is it just my imagination?  Or is Glenn Beck really motivating people at the grassroots to engage each other in discourse about our communities, our states, and our nation?  OK, maybe the numbers are still small . . . maybe I’m making a mountain out of a molehill, but there’s one thing I did get a sense of while watching Glenn Beck:  I’m not alone.  For Glenn Beck, that was a primary purpose behind the desire for people to view Friday’s program at gatherings rather than staying home to watch.  His message of “You are not alone” was designed to demonstrate that I’m not the only person up in arms over the erosion of the maxim that government in our nation is “OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people.”  I sometimes wonder at the loneliness of my soap box perch at Buckeye RINO, with its modest traffic count of perhaps one page view per month, wondering if my disdain for bailouts and for socialist takeovers registers with anyone.  Well, others may not be reading Buckeye RINO, but I did find myself gathered among like-minded individuals who share my concern that the people need to reassert their sovereignty over the government . . . thanks to Glenn Beck.

Besides assuring me that I’m not alone, there were a couple of other things Glenn Beck wanted to achieve.  One of those was to remember the way we all felt on September 12, 2001.  To that end, Glenn Beck invited all to check out a website titled THE912PROJECT.COM.  I don’t want to have to explain what it is, so just click on the link and see.  OK?

One other thing that we could achieve by gathering was to make plans for what we, individually and collectively, could do along a civic vein in the spirit of September 12th.  After watching Glenn Beck, our gathering took a short break, drove over to a local restaurant, and reconvened for supper where we discussed being involved in local campaigns and local politics.  I thought I would be the one most eager to get revved up for local political advocacy, but not so.  Others seemed quite eager to take the bull by the horns.

One more thought:  For those who think this recent smattering of “Tea Parties” in various cities around the country are just a hiccup, that’s not the vibe I’m picking up.  I think it’s the tip of the iceberg.  I think there is more fervor among the right-of-center grassroots now than there was a year ago, and the fervor seems to be growing, not waning.

Carnival #158 has sprung

Lisa Renee, of Glass City Jungle is anticipating the advent of spring.  Spring hasn’t sprung yet, but installment number 158 of the Carnival of Ohio Politics has sprung, thanks to Lisa Renee’s hard work.

By the way, if you feel like you need to put a face with a name, Lisa Renee made a television appearance in Toledo on March 3rd, and she posted about it at GCJ.  Check it out.

I’m slated as the editor charged with compiling next week’s Carnival, and the submission deadline will be next Tuesday night (Saint Patrick’s Day) at 11 pm.

Smackdown on women in Sandusky

Okay, let’s start with a basic fact:  I’m male.

Therefore, when it comes to sexism, more specifically, misogyny, I am not always able to perceive subtleties.  For example, when Jill Miller Zimon, of Writes Like She Talks, complained how a photograph of Hillary Rodham Clinton was used on a magazine cover, I just didn’t get it.  I think Scott Piepho correctly assessed the situation at Pho’s Norka Pages.  If I was perplexed about what JMZ was driving at, when referring to Hillary Rodham Clinton, I was further perplexed at what was in-bounds and what was in foul territory after JMZ ridiculed Sarah Palin mercilessly in the run-up to the November elections.

But here’s one more basic fact to consider:  I was born in Sandusky, Ohio.

In Sandusky, Ohio, one doesn’t have to sift through nuance and subltety to find instances of sexism.  No.  In Sandusky, the Good Old Boys’ tastes in misogyny trend more toward sexism that’s blatant and overt.  Perhaps that’s why I couldn’t discern the nuances that JMZ expounded upon, because I was raised in an environment of stark contrasts.

Read the rest of this entry »

Carnival #157

Are RINO’s more conservative than the rest of the Republican party these days, when they used to be more liberal than the rest of the party?  It might be a topic for further conversation at The Boring Made Dull, but don’t hold your breath for that blog entry, even though the blog author of TBMD hinted about it in Issue #157 of the essential weekly digest of Ohio’s political blogs known as Carnival of Ohio Politics.

As for the RINO terminology applied to me, detractors call me a RINO in an effort to paint me as a liberal.  Some call me a RINO just because I’ve leveled criticisms at a few other Republicans.  Others call me a RINO because they feel I have heretical (liberal) views on public education, diversity, mental health parity, labor unions, tort reform, the environment, and so forth.  But, as I say in my right-hand sidebar, liberals don’t think I’m liberal.  They think I’m way too conservative.  I don’t try to be conservative, and I don’t try to be liberal, and I don’t try to be middle-of-the-road.  I just try to be myself.

If you’re an Ohio political blogger who’d like to have your entries included in a future Carnival, there’s a new opportunity to participate nearly every week.  Next up in the Carnival editorial rotation: Lisa Renee of Glass City Jungle.

MSM frames California Prop 8 debate incorrectly

Look back over the centuries at any culture you care to single out.  Was there ever a taboo against cohabitation of unrelated adults of the same gender?  Whether it’s military barracks, or university dorms, or monasteries, or convents, or private dwellings, I can think of no instance in which unrelated adult persons of the same gender were forbidden by culture to cohabitate.  Feel free to inform me if I’ve overlooked any such cultures that believed otherwise.

Undoubtedly, a study of history might reveal that there may have been occurrences of  homosexual activity within such environs, yet unrelated adults of the same gender still required no permission from society to cohabitate.

There have been taboos, though, against cohabitation of unrelated adult persons of opposite genders.  Hmm . . . I wonder why.  Could it be that cohabitation of unrelated adults of opposite genders is much more consequential to society?  After all, might such cohabitation lead to offspring?  And what are society’s responsibilities in regards to children?  Does it seem at all strange that society decided to regulate cohabitation among unrelated adults of opposite genders, considering what it might lead to?  So, to regulate cohabitation, an instrument that we commonly call “marriage” was devised by society.  Marriage regulated the cohabitation of unrelated adults of opposite genders, and it also served as a structure for the nurture of children.  Bastard children not born to such married couples were often stigmatized.  Even the word “bastard” has negative connotations.  Society has much more difficulty in defining its responsibilities for nurturing bastard children.  Thus, society devised taboos against cohabitation of unrelated adults of opposite genders and against occurrences of heterosexual activity outside the construct of marriage.  Marriage requires society’s permission.

Now we have activists who want government to peer into our bedrooms to determine whether we are heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or transsexual so that we can inject more regulation into our households.  For some strange reason, we are now asked to regulate cohabitation of unrelated adults of the same sex by applying the construct of marriage to them, too.  These people never needed permission before.  Why do they seek such societal intervention now?  And if society intervenes to regulate such cohabitation by means of marriage, society must also intervene to regulate the breakup of such cohabitation by means of divorce.  Sounds like lawyers are the ones who stand to benefit the most.

But this is not how the MSM portrays the debate surrounding same-sex marriage.  This Associated Press article, written by Lisa Leff, is typical of how the debate is portrayed.

According to the MSM, opposition to same-sex marriage stems from religion.  Religion is portrayed as the boogeyman.  The MSM is apparently trying to stir up antipathy toward religion.  Did I mention religion in any of the foregoing paragraphs?  The MSM apparently doesn’t want an honest debate on the matter, because they are setting religion up to be a straw man.

Also, according to the MSM, denying same-sex marriage is a form of discrimination.  How so?  Marriage laws apply equally to all.  An adult may marry an adult of the opposite gender.  No adult may marry an adult of the same gender.  No exceptions are carved out for rich or poor.  No exceptions are carved out according to skin color.  No exceptions are carved out according to religious creed.  No exceptions are carved out according to sexual orientation.  Thus, the cry of “discrimination” has a hollow ring to it.

But proponents of same-sex marriage DO want exceptions carved out according to sexual orientation.  Proponents want special rights granted to those who aren’t heterosexual.  Beyond providing a marriage structure so that society can nurture the offspring produced through sexual relations between an adult male and an adult female, should government be prying into our bedrooms to categorize us as either being heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or transsexual for the purpose of determining who gets special rights?  I think not, but the LGBT community would like to differ.  In past fights against anti-sodomy laws, the LGBT community told the government to stop prying into the bedroom, but these days, it seems the LGBT community has done an about-face, and frequently endeavors to parade their bedroom behavior in front of us while encouraging the government to categorize us according to our boudoir preferences.

The MSM also postulates that if same-sex marriage is not permitted, that laws against mixed-race marriage may emerge or resurface.  This unreasonable hypothesis is advanced by an MSM that views the African-American struggle for civil rights as a parallel to the LGBT crusade for special rights.  As I mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs, society didn’t have taboos against cohabitation of unrelated adults of the same gender.  No government permission was necessary for persons of the same gender to cavort together within their domiciles.  How does that equate with an antebellum tyranny that didn’t even acknowledge that slaves of African descent were even human?  Has government ever designated that homosexuals are merely beasts or property?  The parallel does not exist.  At any rate, I am a Caucasian male who has been married (and divorced) twice.  My first marriage was to a woman who was a citizen of Japan.  My second marriage was to an African-American woman.  I am not at all fearful that such marriages will become illegal in the future if same-sex marriage is denied.  As I said before, as things currently stand, marriage laws are equally applied.

If the MSM were brutally honest, concerns over property and inheritance might be at the heart of the crusade to create same-sex marriages, in which case, I suggest that instead of beating around the bush, let’s have the legislatures address concerns over property and inheritance instead of trying to apply a marriage construct to a situation that it doesn’t fit.

In California, the people have spoken.  The future actions of California’s Supreme Court will illustrate whether we have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, or whether the people will be overruled by a tyranny of elites determined to grant special rights to a population that can only be quantified by an invasion of our bedrooms.