She's some kind of journalist who just resigned over it. Might've worked for the NY Times. I read about it last week.

Tony

Googled the quote and got this:

http://www.thatliberalmedia.com/archives/003156.html

Still means nothing to me.

Wait, she worked for National Public Radio.

Tony

One of my dad's patients? (He's a psychiatrist.) But seriously...

A reporter at an NPR affiliate at WHYY in Philly left that message on laptoplobbyist.com's voicemail after they sent her an e-mail that was critical of her support for special gay rights. Or something like that.

Google the entire message.

---

__________________________________________________
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell

I read about it in the Washington Times.

You don't find it a little ironic, considering the source, and her target?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Yeah, she got really bent out of shape over the whole gay rights thing. I think the uproar is that, once again, the publicly-funded National Public Radio is having a hard time keeping its affiliated staff on a short leash and non-partisan.

You know what's really funny? Surveys show that the majority of people who say they listen to NPR also identify themselves as being conservative.

I know I listen to it every morning, on the way into work. And I used to love "All Things Considered". But that old hag Diane whatshername gives me heartburn sometimes ;-)

Tony

Err - I don't really get it. Maybe I'm being a bit slow. Left wing reporter write about support for gay rights; right wing outfit spams her with a critical email; she leaves a snotty message on their answerphone; they record it and replay it; she loses her job.

Sorry - I give in - what am I missing?

I don't really get it. Maybe I'm being a bit slow.

Oh, come on. You don't find it the least bit ironic that a left-wing NPR reporter tells an anti-gay rights outfit that God hates them and wants to kill their children, and that they should all burn?

I'm not trying to draw any big conclusions from it, but if it doesn't strike you as a bit freaky, maybe you are a bit slow. ;)

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"God hates you and He wants to kill your children. You should all burn,"

Sounds like some of the "born again" Christians that I've met, spreading the word of the gospel.

Exactly my point. Isn't it a startling reversal of stereotypes?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I think there are enough loons on the Left and the Right to fill a dozen large stadiums.

This is why we can't come to a reasonable accommodation over abortion or gay rights. Neither side will listen to reason.

Tony

As further proof of the above statement, here's an article by David Frum in today's National Review Online:

DEC. 9, 2004: FEDERALISTS

Gay marriage legislation will probably be introduced in Canada today, a final culmination of a debate that has been marked along the way by a remarkable disdain for democratic opinion. Gay marriage has not triumphed in Canada because Canadians are more liberal on the issue than Americans, although they are, slightly. Gay marriage has triumphed because Canadian politics is much less subject to popular control than US politics.

All Canadian judges above the level of police magistrate, including judges on the mis-named provincial courts, are appointed by the prime minister at his sole whim: there are no judicial hearings, no opportunities for representatives of the people to block out-in-left-field nominations. Canada’s constitution was negotiated in 1982 without any kind of reference to the public: It is now effectively unamendable. Open debate is restricted: The federal government regulates radio and television to keep unwelcome opinions off the air. American programs that take a traditionalist view of marriage – Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s for example – were forced off the airwaves by government power. Individuals who express traditionalist views on the gay marriage question can (and have been) harshly punished. (One Saskatchewan man was fined $5,000 for buying an ad in his local paper made up of verses from the bible.) Even today, it’s doubtful that same-sex marriage would pass Parliament on a free vote: But, as the Globe and Mail observes today in the story linked above, “Several cabinet ministers have voted against same-sex marriage on previous occasions in the House, but will have to change positions if they want to remain in cabinet.”

From an American point of view, however, what may be most remarkable about the Canadian debate has been its disingenuousness. I’ve been participating in this argument since the late 1980s. At every step along the way, it was obvious what the next step was – and what the ultimate destination would be. At every step along the way, proponents of same-sex marriage passionately denied that the next step was coming – or was even contemplated.

That same spirit of disingenuousness has now crossed the border. Take a look at Andrew Sullivan’s blog this morning. He has an item affirming his support for a “federal” approach to same-sex marriage. He even links to a story about two Massachusetts women who were married in Massachusetts and then moved to North Carolina where their marriage was not recognized. Andrew describes this as an example of the system working. But either he’s kidding himself or he’s kidding his readers.

Here's how “federalism” on the marriage question really “works”: Two Vermont women, Lisa and Janet, entered a civil union. One became pregnant. The relationship ended. The mother and child moved out of state to Virginia – a state that does not recognize civil unions. The non-custodial women sued for visitation rights in Virginia and lost. So she sued in Vermont and on November 20 won a custody order from a Vermont court. If the birth mother ignores the order, Vermont will hold her in contempt - and will then demand that Virginia enforce the contempt ruling.

Result: Either Virginia must accept the validity of a marriage that flagrantly violates the public policy of the Commonwealth – or else it ignores a facially valid custody order and violates the public policy of the United States in favor of comity between state courts. To put it more bluntly: the “federalist” approach to marriage will destroy either federalism (as states ignore each other’s judicial orders) or else it will destroy marriage (as individuals using their freedom of movement carry same-sex marriages with them into states that do not wish to recognize them).

And just as a footnote: I did a quick google search this morning and discovered that none of the self-described proponents of federalism have taken Virginia’s side in the custody matter. No surprise there: For the advocates of same-sex marriage, federalism is a tactic, not a principle. It will be discarded as soon as it ceases to serve its purposes.

The only happy result of the Canadian tragedy is that it dramatically demonstrates the true trajectory of the marriage debate: Like Canada, the US will go all one way or the other. You can see why the people on the losing side of the current debate would want to kick the problem down the road and settle it later, when they hope that something might alter public opinion in their favor. For the same reason, people who believe in marriage as it has always been understood in the United States should insist on settling the issue now, with a federal constitutional amendment.

"article by David Frum "

I honestly wish somebody would tell this little punk to shut the fuck up. He's an idiot.

His only claim to fame is that his mother was for many years a well known liberal CBC television commentator. He's been using his surname to ride on her coat tails to get where he is. His ultra conservatism must be some sort of response to an oedipus complex.

Well......was his mother hot? (hee-hee)

Tony

was his mother hot?

Hey, kahuna, what the %$*!? Wrong room!!!

;)

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Rehm. That show has run its course - they oughta put us out of our misery. My fave was the "gardening in Suburbia" show.

That said, NPR flat-out rocks, compared to what else is out there. Those reports from Ann Gerrols (sp?) form Iraq were pretty wild. And before people are screaming that they're a bunch of liberal pinko pantywaists: listen to it for a while, and give them a fair shake. They've added some conservative commentators (just like Tucker Carlson is on Pub TV these days) so you right-wing nutjobs can also enjoy your radio listening experience, and are more willing to part w/ your taxbreak-for-the-rich dollars (that are really supposed to be mine...).

Just kidding on the last part!

---

Josef
-------
blog

Actually, it doesn't surprise me one bit. Liberals are every bit as closed-minded as anyone, regardless of how they may view themselves. You can try to debate the effectiveness of the school lunch program, and you want kids to starve. You can question the need for the ERA, and you are a misogynist, chauvinist pig. You can challenge the idea of gay marriage, and you are a homophobe. You can question the fairness of Affirmative Action and you are a racist. Once you question any of their cherished ideas, you will be called every name in the book.

Once you question any of their cherished ideas, you will be called every name in the book.

Yeah, but they don't usually say that God hates you, and you're going to burn in hell. They usually leave that line of assault to us right-wing wackos. ;)

I just thought it was an unusual attack considering the source. Got a chuckle out of it, that's all.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Yah, eh? As long as his mother is hot ;-)

T.

"Yah, eh? As long as his mother is hot ;-)"

Wife not back yet?;-)

Yea I listen to National Liberal Radio daily while in the car. Most stuff is quite interesting, but Diean Reahme (sp) tries to pass herself off as being objective, but it is quite apparent she has an innate hatred for conservatives. She'll give callers the opportunity to get through, but is quick to cut conservative view points off while at the same time allows more liberal thinkers to rant on and on and on....

Lately I've turned her off. I'd rather listen to Led Zepplin.

Rocketboy