It's heart-warming to see the irascibly uncharming uber-lib, Lawrence O'Donnell find common ground with the self-righteously earnest neoconservative, Jamie Kirchick. Kirchick recently commandeered an RT interview in which the scheduled topic was the Bradley Manning case. Kirchick's self-aggrandizing ambush of his interlocutor included criticisms of the Russian policy on homosexuality and the dangers Russian journalists face from the Russian government.
Today [O'Donnell] will meet his hero – partisan gay reporter James Kirchick, who, sitting in a Swedish TV studio, bravely stood up against Putin’s evil homophobic dictatorship authoritarian Russia during a LIVE appearance on a Kremlin propaganda machine. And what happens when a real journalist meets real journalist on air? Right – an explosion of objectivity and balance.
...Minutes before one of the most anticipated and crucial news announcements in recent years, pure heroism happened when Kirchick pulled on his gay-pride suspenders and started blasting the “horrific repression” of gay people in Russia and the “anti-propaganda law”, which, according to Kirchick, “effectively makes it illegal to talk about homosexuality in public” (but not according to the law itself, though who needs fact checking?).
...Attracting the world’s attention to human rights issues is one of the main tasks for journalists. But if it is done without dignity, without coherence and puts the journalist above others – that is the moment where the sympathy of the audience is lost. So, I really hope you too sleep very well, Mr. Kirchick.
RT
71 comments:
The left likes to deny or at least downplay collusion with the former Soviet Union. All that espionage in the last century? -- It never really happened and it wasn't as bad as anyone ever said. Want a concrete example of someone who fits that moniker I use so loosely: "the left"? That would be Robert Cook on Althouse and people who admire his consistency.
So now when the Russians challenge someone's freedom to be gay instead of say their freedom to exist or their freedom to worship, or freedom to associate or trade freely, the left (the Cooks) are all saying "bad Russians." It's comical and hypocritical.
And no, Deborah, I didn't watch the video. Would it change my mind?
I have no way of knowing, chick.
It's a shame that guy standing in front of the tanks in Tiananmen Square wasn't wearing the Mork from Ork suspenders, too.
...Attracting the world’s attention to human rights issues is one of the main tasks for journalists.
Disagree. Report the facts. Let the readership decide if its a "human rights issue".
But challenge the readership biases. Like doing an expose of repression of house churches in China in Mother Jones
People, you DO know that "tank man" has Looooonnnngggg since disappeared from the face of the earth. Gee, I wonder why......I mean, in the "new" more "progressive" China "opened up" by "trade & commerce?" How oh how can that possibly be?
The zen menace.
What Phil said.
Oh, wait, that was back in the days before Journ-o-lists.
Now they shill for their cause (Glorious world Socialist Revolution) and lie happily in the cause.
Maybe Kirchick stirs some longings that O'Donnell did not know he had? The suspenders...like a young Larry King.
I would say Charley Weaver suspenders. Didn't Charley hit from the other side of the plate?
Althouse thinks she can avert a race war by getting conservatives to act better.
It's not conservatives, it's the media.
And, Hearne's Law, anything there's a stink about something in the media, it's because some charity or politician wants a stink in the media about it.
The media plus who wants a race war?
I'd suggest ridicule of the media as the best approach.
This in turn will involve ridicule of women, who are its support.
Then it doesn't succeed in the media even if a politician wants it there.
Gender determination: I'd suggest XX and XY be used.
Nobody is obligated to make you feel comfortable.
Take up a hobby.
Another topic on Althouse Today.
I never heard such, Nick, but I'd give anything for Elena Kagan's batting stance.
Isn't rh's dog a female? It appears he likes her and treats her well.
The great thing about Get Smart (2008) is feminist 99/Anne Hathaway's evolving reaction shots to Carell/Max's deadpan flirting.
The very end is a letdown, as if some committee vote intervened. It ought to end in a sweatsuit or something.
Feminism ought to end in appreciation of men, not an end of nontraditional interest.
"Feminism ought to end in appreciation of men..."
Most definitely my goal.
rhhardin said...
Althouse thinks she can avert a Merde war by getting conservatives to act better by insulting them.
rhhardin, I took the liberty of rewriting this statement for you.
Althouse is a social liberal and her advice - in substance - to conservatives never changes, namely:
Don't fight back and don't try to win. Be the loyal opposition and lose gracefully while wearing pants.
@EBL: She's trying to use forces of repulsion to influence and change rather than forces of attraction. I could expand on that. I suppose she sees it as holding up a mirror. To some degree, it's also Inga's schtick which is why many people confuse the two at times.
Be the loyal opposition and lose gracefully while wearing pants.
She's also revealed distaste lately for pale hairy males.
Is Meade tanned and manscaped?
(from memory)
Kramer: I imagine her hair pulled back into a black velvet scrunchy.
Jerry: You have very particular tastes, don't you.
Ever wonder why right wingers feel "toxic" to lefties, why they don't want to go anywhere near them?
This is why.
I'm trying to tell you.
Althouse gets all mysterious and oracular when she starts getting into her squishy lib zone.
She's only trying to help.
You mean we're not going to war with Russia over its apostasy against the church that worships homosexuals and abortion? That would be the Ruling Class Church of Fuck Traditional Values. Ah c'mon guys, let's go to war as Leader of The Decadent World and punish Russia for its return to retrograde, uh...sanity.
Locking people up for being gay isn't real sane.
Kirchick's self-aggrandizing ambush...
Um, seems to me he was actually "aggrandizing" those in Russia whose personal lives are now banned from being mentioned, and those who would care about those rights having been lost.
Seriously? You'd prefer to aggrandize the whims of the authoritarian Russian Duma and its propaganda arm under Putin? I checked out the RT page. No discussion on the law itself. Just attacks on Kirchick and O'Donnell. No discussion here of the law either. I guess that doesn't matter so much as does the opportunity to, in true Kremlin-Pravda-style, simply go after the messenger.
RT even saw fit to cheerlead a tweet about how it's ok for Russian TV to lie because CNN supposedly lies about Russia. That's one hell of a defense of journalistic integrity - in hell. Cheering on Tit-For-Tat accusations of lying without standing up for objectivity as an aim at all. On the premier media outlet from Russia. Talk about lacking even the pretension of "fair and balanced".
And then we have the cute tidbit about dignity. I'm sure Russians are very practiced in the art of taking their oppression dignified. Here, we battle water hoses and German Shepherds and rightly call the dignified ones those who stand up for and win their rights.
I've heard so much from the right in America lately about how important the 1st amendment is finally becoming to them. It's a shame to see this level of equivocation on an issue from a land that seems completely, eternally incapable of grasping the most fundamental concepts of liberty at all.
@ Rit:
"2013 turned out to be the year when the international community finally "found out" about the long lasting human rights violations of LGBT people in Russia. But what helped them in this? The federal law banning so called propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations to minors, signed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, is seen as the most outrageous piece of legislation in the world since Adolf Hitler came to power to exterminate Jews. Maybe around the world people are convinced or being convinced that this law is horrific, which means we can use any means we have to protest it, by calling for a boycott of the forthcoming Olympics in Sochi and dumping Russian vodka. Ironically, if the Olympics were not awarded to Sochi, the outcry would hardly be close to what we see today. But are boycotts the effective way forward?"
http://rt.com/op-edge/russia-gay-rights-sochi-945/
Let's explore this issue together. What is and is not allowed WRT LGBT in Russia?
Any straight white male would be a fool to take anything the Evil Blogger Lady has to say seriously. She has always been a very liberal apologist for minorities and gays.
Never listen to your enemies when they give you advice.
I'm fine with that -- not least of all because it seems that discussion of the actual law itself is vague. Never a good thing when it comes to something so controversial and connected to Western concepts of rights.
Also, just keep in mind that I'm not convinced Kirchick was wrong in describing RT as receiving Russian gov't funding. That doesn't mean they're a necessarily horrible source; I've found Alyona Minkovski's show interesting in the past - probably moreso as a result of her own talent, though. So in matters unrelated to Russian policy, at least, I don't assume they'd have an uninteresting or unenlightened voice.
But the law itself is about "propaganda" to minors. I understand that conservatives seem to worry that minors might be propagandized even here. At one point in my life I could have understood being concerned about that, myself. But the issue in America, to my liberal mind, was that being gay was often just another good excuse for bullying and repression that is now widely understood, thanks to the power of the internets and the ability for all sorts of geographical subcultures in America to communicate, as largely a bad thing - at least if an interest in keeping your gay kid from killing himself/herself in shame was something worth avoiding.
So, yes. If this law calling itself "anti-propaganda" (and do we even have laws going by such descriptions in free countries?) is somehow just that, I guess I could at least entertain where the case is being made. But what is and what is not propaganda, when it comes to legal restrictions? Again, I think there's a reason we've not seen fit to legally proscribe anything going by that name. (Mock it, criticize it? Yes. But not ban it).
So if banning the propagandizing of children is just another way to prevent kids from understanding that they don't deserve the bullying (even more common/condoned in Russian society) or stigmatization related to attractions that they didn't ask for and that harms no one in particular, then it's not hard to see where opposition or even outrage comes from.
Putin might have done this just as a symbol to curry favor with a Russian society that is particularly sensitive to/conservative about allowing homosexuality, but I still don't see how his pandering makes that right.
I might be in and out throughout the rest of the late afternoon but I won't abandon the discussion and appreciate your interest and invitation to go into it a bit more seriously. I'll keep checking back as I return through the evening so don't take any momentary lapses as an offended exit.
Thanks -
P.S. Also, and in that same vein, RT did link a video to the discussion they'd allowed earlier. So in fairness, a discussion was allowed by them. What purpose it served or how widely it would be entertained is another question entirely. I have no question that Putin would just as likely throw a bone to the left as he would to the right, in this regard.
Here's my take on Russia and Gays:
Their country, their rules.
So, shut up and improve something in this country.
Thanks back, Rit. I'll also be in and out, may not post till late, or even tomorrow.
Where are the anchors from on RT?
They are definitely not Russian.
tits.
I would say Charley Weaver suspenders. Didn't Charley hit from the other side of the plate?
Maybe you're thinkng of Grandpa Walton?
Where would the left be without its useful idiots and pet projects? Lawrence "Neck Vein Bulge" O'Donnell loves earnest neo-con so long as he's toeing the party line. Ann Althouse loves conservative commenters so long as they gracefully decline to try point out to their fellow Americans that THE TV TELLS LIES.
Wotwotwot?! Pointing out black on white crime that isn't mentioned by the MSM? How gauche! Why, that's just the sort of racialism that might revivify 300 million white supremacist zombies and send them out across this great land of ours, pillaging and murdering people of color, gays and women.
Oh, puhleeze.
It's so typical of TOP to think in terms of game-playing and skewing. Spoken like someone who thinks she's in charge. Spoken like someone with an interest in maintaining the status quo wherein the populace is kept off balance, divided amongst itself and distracted, lest we notice that the would-be overlords don't know what they're doing. No more games nor skews. I don't want to "rebalance public opinion." I want it to be informed by fact. I'm not "frustrated by the taking account of race." I'm frustrated that people are being lied to, daily, hourly, minutely, by the media, and forming wrong opinions of each other, bitter and contemptuous feelings, based on these lies. I don't want to "stir hearts," I want to wake up minds.
Here's my take on Russia and Gays:
Their country, their rules.
Why?
Was that your take on the oppression of women in Afghanistan?
I don't know about you, but I think it's even more important to have a Russia that shares our core values than it is to have an Afghanistan sharing our core values - that is, if realpolitik and a defense of Western civilization is to mean anything.
R&B: With all due respect, LGBT rights are not yet "core" American values. These days, liberals are fond of reminding conservatives to call off their own extremists; I suggest your side gets to work on your Bradley Mannings from within.
Free speech is a core American value. That's why there aren't any "anti-propaganda" laws in this country. Not even when it comes to election campaigns. Any lie gets through. You can't defend that and then defend a squelching of speech attesting to the reality of one's own personal desires.
And regarding "views" of homosexuality itself (not that those should matter more than the reality of the phenomenon, but ok), just let me know how far above 50% acceptance a growing attitude has to reach before you no longer consider it an extreme position. Thanks.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/135764/americans-acceptance-gay-relations-crosses-threshold.aspx
http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/the-global-divide-on-homosexuality/
http://www.religionnews.com/2013/01/10/americans-less-inclined-to-view-homosexuality-as-a-sin/
I see you're following Trooper's advice given at 4:22 PM.
Very well then.
And seriously, EPR - the section of DOMA defining marriage to be a heterosexual-only union is struck down by SCOTUS and you're worried about a defense of that stance being too extreme for America? What counts as mainstream in America? Not upholding or respecting Supreme Court rulings? Wow.
What are you saying about 4:22? Are you being silly/humorous? You are not my enemy. You are simply sympathetic to an attitude that is finding less support or is simply less defensible these days (I wish I knew or could understand why) and that is just that. It doesn't make you an enemy. There is no war... You are not a belligerent person.
You are just trying to find succor for a dwindling view. I can find no reason why you would do so, so how can I take your reasoning as "aggressive" when you haven't even explained it?
Are you saying homosexuals are your enemy? That would include Palladian, you know. I really want to understand what's going on. I'm guessing Trooper's comment was serious, but it seems to be in reference to EBL, who's simply a cuckoo. That doesn't mean everything she's for one should oppose, though. Yes, she's wrong on big things, or maybe right on things for the wrong reason. But the issue with her is she's a narcissist who didn't respect her fans. I don't see a reason to make it political. Sure, she said some demeaning things about men, but again, why make that political? It also just stems from her narcissism. Why complicate it?
Ah well. It seems everyone's gone to sleep. I'm off to watch some NatGeo. 'Night.
@R&B With reference to my earlier 9:41 comment, I take it that you can't perceive or admit of extremists within your ranks.
I'll catch up on this tomorrow.
No. As stated earlier, I don't see a groundswell of public opinion mounting against an allegedly "extreme" Supreme Court ruling on the DOMA. And I really doubt that you do, too.
Good night.
Watch this NatGeo episode on digging up ancient ichthyosaurs in the arctic islands north of Scandinavia.
Trooper York said...
Any straight white male would be a fool to take anything the Evil Blogger Lady has to say seriously. She has always been a very liberal apologist for minorities and gays.
Never listen to your enemies when they give you advice.
August 24, 2013 at 4:22 PM
Actually you can listen to it...then either discount it as irrelevant or do the opposite of whatever she is saying.
Homosexuals are not the enemy. Please. That is nonsense in the sick twisted mush of the Althousian binary reptilian brain.
You are missing Trooper's point.
R&B has ignored what I meant as "extremist." As far as I'm concerned, R&B is the face of Bradley Manning in these comments.
No one knows what you mean by "extremist" because you never defined it. As far as I can tell, by "extremist" you mean "someone who is happy to agree with the latest Supreme Court ruling on the DOMA". And if that's the case, then your definition itself sounds pretty darn extreme.
The face of Bradley Manning? So now I'm supposed to put on a blonde wig and lipstick? Nice way to stick to the argument. Lol.
Chickie - The SCOTUS is under no obligation to refuse to rule on a case by reasoning that whichever elements of society are "unready" for the ruling... That it needs to "go slower" and "put off a ruling" until polling shows that it will take another ten years for public sentiment to go from 50% support to 80% support. It is not a political branch. It doesn't even need any public support for them. Its rulings are basically mainstream because that's how the constitution defines the way that American government works. Period. The SCOTUS rules, and that's the law. One doesn't get to say, "Well, sorry. I'm just not ready for that."
I was not too happy with the Citizens United ruling, back when it occurred. Over time, though, I can see how it makes more sense and might not be such a bad thing. But I made sure to confine my criticisms to the reasoning behind the ruling. Or maybe even, to a lesser degree, the effects. And sure, if I'd have been unhappy over some larger societal comment made by it I might have voiced that, too. But for God's sake, I at least had a criticism for what it was in the ruling that I disagreed with. You're failing to do even that. In fact, you're failing to even acknowledge the fact that the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, has ruled on this very matter - let alone the over-riding legitimacy that provides.
If that's not extreme then maybe one might want to redraw up some articles of confederation, consider some unclaimed piece of land on Antarctica to move to, and form a new government on the basis of not having a high court to determine these things. It would still be an extreme thing to do, but at least it wouldn't be an illogically indefensible position. And come to think of it, a certain land mass going by the name of "Siberia" is not that far away and, lo and behold, seems to operate under a government abiding by just such a set of principles.
You're surely capable of better than this, Sir.
Hah - sorry. I misplaced Antarctica by confusing it with the location of the North Pole. Guess my mind's even working a bit slower this morning! But the rest stands.
The EBL comment, related, it seems here to Paco's linking to some nonsense she's now said earlier in the month. And is obviously irrelevant to anything I said. I don't take her seriously in any way, really - so if she has advice on how conservatives "look bad" with a position that's all on her, and on anyone else to decide whether to trust or not trust. It really doesn't matter. I'm not making the aesthetic or social argument she seems to have made and I'd never look to what she has to say for wisdom anyway.
I think he feels compelled to defend a concept of traditionalism for the sake of others, even if it isn't very well defined. But he did once say that Chaz Bono was vainglorious and I presume therefore unworthy of being presented on TV, which seemed a bit of a stretch and more than a little prejudiced.
But I'll leave that for him to clarify or explain.
From wiki:
"Lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) persons in the Russian Federation have faced increasing restrictions of their rights in recent years.[3] Although male homosexual acts were decriminalized in 1993,[1] there are no laws protecting against discrimination or harassment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.[citation needed] Same-sex marriages and civil unions are not recognized. Many local legislatures have passed laws prohibiting dissemination of information about homosexuality.[4][4][5][6][7] Moscow's top court has ruled that no gay pride parades may be held in Moscow for 100 years.[8] In 2013, Russia's government adopted a federal bill banning the distribution of "propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations" to minors. The law imposes heavy fines for using the media or internet to promote "non-traditional relations".[9] Human rights activist Lyudmila Alexeyeva called the proposed law "a step toward the Middle Ages",[10] and international rights groups have said the current situation in Russia has become the worst human rights climate of the post-Soviet era.[9]
Increased homophobia in Russia has led to several incidences where gay minors have been attacked by Neo-Nazi groups.[11]"
Here the author asks more questions than he answers:
"Our moral and cultural elites have put Putin on notice: Get in step with us on homosexual rights -- or we may just boycott your Sochi games.
What this reveals is the distance America has traveled, morally and culturally, in a few short years, and our amnesia about who we Americans once were, and what it is we once believed.
Only yesterday, homosexual sodomy, which Thomas Jefferson said should be treated like rape, was outlawed in many states and same-sex marriage was regarded as an absurdity.
Was that America we grew up in really like Nazi Germany?
In the Catholic schools this writer attended, pornography -- let alone homosexual propaganda -- would get one expelled.
Was this really just like Kristallnacht?"
I hope readers will read the whole article as a jumping off point for this discussion.
Well, Deborah - it seems like I said, moreso a curtailing of free speech rights targeting specifically homosexuals.
As far as the RCP quotes go, it seems to forget that these "distance(s) traveled" are usually a product of Supreme Court rulings that tend, on the whole, to expand rights - esp. basic rights like those in the 1st amendment or the first ten amendments. Some conservatives seem to find comfort in that although I would suppose that not all do. Regardless, that's the history of rights in America. They tend to expand, not contract.
And even that aside, to transplant cultural norms from eras that lacked an internet or even the widespread adoption of electricity, onto us, is what really seems absurd in my mind. Jefferson slept with his slaves - or at least with one of them. Is abolition now an absurdity? Is a modern day revulsion at the abuse he took of that situation also an absurdity? Would comparing a re-emergence of slavery, (race-based or otherwise), to Nazism be an absurdity? Mind you, Jefferson didn't even know of Nazis, because they hadn't yet existed. Maybe we should ban the invoking of Nazis, because, you know, Jefferson didn't have a way of conceiving of them and their horrors.
Do we go around with powdered wigs and consider wooden teeth to be dental hygiene advancements?
Come on. At some point the past is in the past for a reason.
More from the article...
The Post weeps for the "young women of the persecuted rock band Pussy Riot," who engaged in half-naked obscene acts on the high altar of Moscow's most sacred cathedral.
Had these women crayoned swastikas on the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C., would the Post have been so sympathetic?
1. Crayons leave behind marks that must be removed.
2. The Holocaust Museum is not a religious institution, but a place devoted to learning about historical atrocities and preserving their evidence so that people don't forget about them as a precautionary tale. Not to denigrate religion, but museums actually require exhibits to be maintained - instead of just allowing a place for the performance of rituals. The Russian group left no marks on anything that needed to be removed, they only "hurt feelings". The better comparison would be to someone entering the museum wearing a swastika on their own clothing.
Putin suggested the ladies try the same stunt in Mecca.
So would I, but without the sarcasm or irony. Does Putin feel bad that Mecca's "out-Puritanized" him? I wouldn't.
Reading the quote about the Russian band in more detail, I can see the point of fining them, perhaps very heavily, even restrictively so. Or a misdemeanor sentence with imprisonment. (And isn't that what happened, anyway?) Place restrictions on speech are different from total bans.
But including them in the piece just helps perpetuate this diffuse and inchoate idea of "tradition being under attack! Let's fight back any way we can!" and does nothing about the specific issues of speech rights (if Russia even recognizes anything of the sort) and how to balance those against community concerns.
Oh. It's Buchanan. The C-Fudd of punditry.
When the ultra-Orthodox haredim of Jerusalem denounce the annual gay pride parade in the Holy City, whose side is America on?
America thankfully hasn't chosen a "side" in this, nor should it. Retrogrades have just as much a free-speech right to voice their opinion ("denunciation") there as they do here. That is what happens when you decline to crack-down on private-sector speech that could still just as well be classified (correctly, in this case) as "propaganda".
He continues to make similarly sloppy comparisons throughout the piece. Should I go through them one-by-one?
Male homosexual acts were decriminalized in 1993. The crux of the matter is why it is considered a breach of free speech to present homosexual content to minors.
"Should I go through them one-by-one?"
Please do.
The crux of the matter is why it is considered a breach of free speech to present homosexual content to minors.
It's funny, because yesterday I was actually thinking about this as if to address concerns about "recruitment" would make a difference. And what I managed to come up with, perhaps humorously, of course, was that gays are usually too vain to go for the cross-generational thing. I live in/near a somewhat gay area of town and can attest to old gays being too unpalatable to the younger ones to see much in the way of May-December pairings.
But here you could at least liken it to conservative efforts in America to restrict the content of sex-ed courses. Of course in that case, though, the issue is what happens in public (government-funded) schools, and not an across-the-board crackdown of speech across the entire private sector.
Please do.
I'll see what I can do. ;-) Am traveling far and wide come Tuesday and need much to prepare for!
As I see it, the post was about the behavior of an American journalist abroad.
R & B insists on a discussion of whether and how far SCOTUS rulings should apply to the Russian Consitution. I simply asked R & B whether Bradley Manning could be viewed as an extremist who harms his cause. Obviously to countenance such a thought is too far for him.
Both Ritmo and I have strayed from the topic as I see it.
R & B insists on a discussion of whether and how far SCOTUS rulings should apply to the Russian Consitution.
But is there even such a thing as a "Russian Constitution"? How much weight does it have in the context of how free Russia is seen as a Western norm as opposed to how free we are seen as? Shouldn't they emulate us more than we should them?
I simply asked R & B whether Bradley Manning could be viewed as an extremist who harms his cause. Obviously to countenance such a thought is too far for him.
More like annoyance than countenance. Manning's case is complicated by all sorts things having nothing to do with homosexuality, like for instance the fact that he's a little spy who engaged in either unprecedented levels of espionage or whistle-blowing, depending on what that means in an era of unlimited information, and would now face 35 years imprisonment for doing so. Making him the poster-child for homosexuals (is he engaged in any outreach, anyway) sounds about as beside the point as making Willie Horton the poster child for civil rights. It's just unnecessarily inflammatory and doesn't allow for the actual discussion.
Both Ritmo and I have strayed from the topic as I see it.
It's ok. Deborah will pull us back. It's her post. ;-)
I don't see the issue as cross-generational recruitment, but indoctrination/normalization of a life-style that youth does not have the emotional maturity go distinguish. Kind of like the American laws curbing the amount of commercials that can be shown during cartoons directed at the very young, because they are unable to distinguish cartoons from commercials.
Chick and Rit, I have no problem with whatever twists and turns this thread takes. I think that is part of what Comment Home is about.
but indoctrination/normalization of a life-style that youth does not have the emotional maturity go distinguish.
But doesn't that just re-open a debate, on third-party soil, on whether or not it's innate? Is that something we want to do?
I don't see any evidence that heterosexuality is learned behavior so to question whether kids who feel that way might benefit from some more intense appreciation of the "normalized" orientation just seems like a way to fuel the ostracization and bullying of our youth that America did so much to combat over the last few years. Isn't that a valid concern?
Most gays will tell you they knew before they were old enough to possess the ability to articulate or explain it.
I agree there are those who know, but I'm talking about those who are lead by suggestion...have to run now, but will fill in more later...ta :)
Rit, I don't really have a dog in this hunt. I can see the point of view of a government facing a declining population, rampant alcoholism and rampant AIDS.
Russia is not true Democracy, but is probably headed toward a an authoritarian capitalist framework.
The devil is in the detais, and the problems of keeping homosexuality under wraps will have to be hashed out like any other hot-button issue, such as abortion and same-sex marriage.
I prefer to let Russia figure out what works for them on this issue. This is not the Jews being rounded up for execution, and they will come around to where the US is in due time.
Post a Comment