Thursday, June 11, 2009

San Francisco Diary--Journal Of An Exile

A little while back, the Great Peacemaker said that he would offer Jihadistan an open hand, and hope it wasn't greeted with a clenched fist. Liberals make love, not war. Liberals are always ready to make the gesture of peace toward the enemy who blows up civilians, flies jumbo jets into buildings, and murders young soldiers at recruiting stations. So naturally, they are equally peaceful toward their mere political opponents, right?

Earlier this week, former Vice President Dick Cheney reiterated his tolerance for gay marriage by stating that "freedom should be for everyone." That puts him well in the mainstream of California heterosexuals who are fed up with the whole gay marriage imbroglio. So Mr. Cheney, not for the first time, proffered the olive branch of tolerance and acceptance to the gay community. And in return, San Francisco hit him with a redwood two-by-four. I guess clenched fists were too subtle.

For those not familiar with our local customs, the San Francisco Chronicle publishes its online articles at www.sfgate.com. On June 5, regular contributor Mark Morford wrote a column on SFGate with the gentle title: "Nice Try, Dick--Your Mumbled, Half-Assed Support of Gay Marriage, Mr. Cheney? Not a Chance." And that was the nice part. He continues: "You can't have even a moment of credit, a glimpse of sympathy, any sort of merciful forgiveness just because you sort of, kind of half-assedly came out in support of gay marriage, again, even though you actually didn't." I'm a little unclear as to what that sentence actually means, since apparently Mr. Cheney either did, or didn't, support gay marriage. But the message is very clear. Unless Mr. Cheney divorces his wife, pledges himself to undying support for gay marriage, comes out of the closet, declares death to all "breeders," and offers to marry Mayor Gavin Newsom, nothing he says will be greeted with anything short of open hostility.

Many of you who surf the blogs are used to this sort of thing at the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post, but we lucky San Franciscans get to read it straight from the online version of a supposedly mainstream newspaper. Morford wanted to make sure that nobody misunderstood his overture of peace and liberal love, so he added "What, is that too harsh? Too mean-spirited? Should I be more accepting and tolerant and kind because you supposedly revealed in your recent chat with the National Press Club that you might have an actual glimmer of an extant human heart, even though everyone knows you absolutely don't? Not a chance."

I'm not sure if Morford was addressing that last question to the former Vice President or to his gentle readers, but I definitely got the impression Morford doesn't like Mr. Cheney very much. I'll spare you the entire article, but his peace overture included the following gems: "Sitting in your puddle of sour irrelevance." "Impale yourself on your bed of nails." "America's most beloved torture fanatic and destroyer of civil liberties and humanitarian rights worldwide." "Too busy molesting the integrity of the White House, international law, the U.S. Constitution and human joy itself to really give a damn about such petty matters as the sanctity of the human heart." OK, you get the gist of it.

And you thought this was about gay marriage, didn't you? No, it's about "love and the sanctity of the human heart," unless of course Morford is addressing the reason behind Mr. Cheney's expression of empathy: "Maybe it's because you have a lesbian daughter, a sad, lost woman whose existence you barely acknowledged for eight solid years despite how she herself has so calmly spit in the face of the gay rights movement by campaigning for you." Well, now I understand. It's not bad enough that Mr. Cheney isn't out making stump speeches for gay marriage, it is also obvious that he has produced a gender-traitor of a daughter who has also failed to make her entire life about gay marriage.

So now you have it. Love of country and love of family mean nothing when you don't get out the vote for gay marriage. In fact, Morford imagines the conversation where Mr. Cheney says to his insufficiently-militant daughter "Swallow your own soul, honey. Stab it to death for the sake of power and profit. Hide your true self. And for God's sake, keep your mouth shut about the civil rights crap until it's politically useful."

I remind our readers that the pro-gay marriage advocates made a big deal of carrying "Vote against PropH8" signs. Apparently Morford didn't get the message about peace and love, forgiveness and the open hand. In San Francisco it's "if you're not for us, we'll spew venom at you, defame you, your daughter, your family, your friends and say in print as much as we dare say in a family newspaper." There is no peace, there is no compromise, there is no negotiation. If you are not completely, absolutely, unequivocally, definitely, unabashedly, uncompromisingly and actively in favor of gay marriage, you are a loathsome monster who deserves to be bashed, not reasoned with. The Chronicle has a thumbs-up/down system for posts and comments. Of the approximately six hundred voters, the pro-Morford votes were running five to one over the anti-Morford votes. And about half of the dissenters had no quarrel with Morford's logic--they just thought his language was a little too extreme.

ONLY IN SAN FRANCISCO.

Side note: Wednesday's headline in the print Chronicle: "The City Now Has the Toughest Compost Laws in the Country." No comment.

If you have the stomach for it, the link to the full Morford rant is here. You will then click on search, and enter Mark Morford. His columns for the past two months will pop up.

16 comments:

freedom21 said...

Oh dear. You get the prize Hawk. I would have gone postal by now if I had to read that hypocritical non-sensical garbage everyday.

I can't believe newspapers allow that pieces like that get to print. Not only was it bad English, but it was pointless as well.

One would think that the gay community would ostracize people like that. Having such a hate filled idiot being your spokesman can't do much for your PR--or combat any religious zealot accusations that there is something mentally unstable about homosexuals.


Can't wait for more of your diary :)

StanH said...

Priceless Lawhawk, insight into the mind of madness. There is no point in appeasing these lunatics, give crazy no place to go, and usually when you have someone that’s frothing at the mouth like this “reporter/ editorialist,” stand back and they’ll vaporize in anger. These are basic lessons of life that the loony left has learned from two and three year olds, you don’t get your way hit the floor crying and kicking your little feet and hands until you get your way, or not? As far as Mr. Cheney I think he’s great, I agree with him on most issues, save gay marriage. As a conservative that leans libertarian, I believe in live and let live, however taking thousands of years of civilization (marriage) and turning it on it’s head, is to much to be stylish. Thanks again for the insight Lawhawk.

AndrewPrice said...

I'm not amazed that this guy is a zealous whack-job, but I am amazed that supposedly reputable newspaper would let this guy spew out these things. Could you imagine the paper giving the same platform for someone who took a similar tone against gays? Doubt it.

Nice article Lawhawk.

freedom21 said...

AP: You nailed it. How is he not labeled a zealot? Could you imagine if someone even tried to submit a reason response to that hate piece?

That's exactly one of the problems that I come across daily. All my liberal friends rail on how stupid the fly over country is, or how the religious right wing are just stupid "clingers". They feel it's OK to hate those groups...but other groups are completely immune to any critique. I find myself constantly reminding them that I am those people that they're talking about --to which they respond "but you know why you believe what you do. Most of those people just follow along"

We are slowly embracing a society where having values is considered close minded. I was born about 50 years too late.

AndrewPrice said...

freedom21, I feel your pain. One of our problems is that the media loves to pick out the whackiest representatives to give our views. I wouldn't select these morons to poop scoop after my dog, but there they are on national television telling the world what I supposedly believe! WTF?

But also, there is another problem in that the left has gotten increasingly angry and strident in the last 10 years. They have now hit the point that they can no longer tolerate disagreement.

In fact, I have to disagree with you to an extent. We are not becoming a "tolerant" country without "judgmental values" as the left would phrase it, we are becoming a country that is HIGHLY judgmental with very clear values, only those "values" are all left-wing identity politics.

Moreover, it has always been a characteristic of left wing thinking to consider themselves to be the tolerant or peaceful or fair ones, even as all the evidence runs to the contrary.

It's delusional, but they need to think that way or they would realize that their whole world view is a fraud. After all, who wants to believe that they are the party that wants to control over one's lives?

Writer X said...

I'm surprised Morford didn't end his hysterical tirade with an "OMG" or two. I felt like I was reading a Perez Hilton rant.

And I'm sure Dick Cheney expected this. He's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. And I doubt he loses too much sleep over it.

Captain Soapbox said...

Well that was certainly illuminating. And for my money nothing shows good journalism like using "Half-Assed" in the title of a story, Morrow would be proud I'm sure. Although I take issue with them using the line: "Impale yourself on your bed of nails." I copyrighted that curse in 1995.

You're right Andrew, the words "tolerant" and "open minded" don't mean what liberals think they mean. They're nothing more than codewords for: Think like I think, say what I say, and if you get out of line we're going to verbally eviscerate you. Gee, sounds really tolerant to me...

"Diversity" is another good one, to the left it seems to mean: Take every radical idea that you can find, no matter how appalling to the majority, and make that the new norm. Real diversity is allowing people to be who they are without trying to shoehorn them into a set of stereotypes to further your political agenda. And not castigating anyone that disagrees with you. But maybe that's just me.

Freedom21, if it wouldn't get you impaled on a bed of nails (still pondering suing them over that) I'd suggest that you remind your liberal friends that the "clingers" in flyover country provide about 75% of the military for the US. Get those people too annoyed and you're in trouble, there aren't friendly Goths, Franks or the like next door they can hire when the knuckledragging flyover types tell them to take the job and shove it.

LawHawkSF said...

Freedom21: There's always an upside. I finally found a writer who writes longer run-on sentences than I do. By the time you get to the end of the sentence, you've forgotten what he said at the beginning of it. His sentences look more like paragraphs. Or chapters.

It's not uncommon knowledge that there is a large, middle-class gay community in this town. Most of them were probably equally appalled by the Morford article. There is a large, left wing, and very radical element here, and the gay marriage issue has become their current favorite hate forum. Most members of the gay community would never talk like that.

LawHawkSF said...

StanH: As you have said, the gay marriage debate is a genuine and serious modern social issue. Legitimate opponents have fair arguments about the potential damage to the traditional relationship of men and women, as well as the possibility of interference with freedom of religion. The advocates of gay marriage believe it's a personal issue between two human beings which denies them equal protection of the laws. Both are fair arguments, and need open debate. But the radical haters on both ends of the spectrum have turned the debate into open warfare. Most gay marriage proponents know that outside of San Francisco, that article does them far more harm than good.

LawHawkSF said...

Andrew and Freedom21: The combination of zealotry and illiteracy is what first caught my attention. The headline at first led even this hard-bitten veteran of San Francisco politics into thinking it was a parody. Who but a dark comic could write that sort of trash? But alas, it was just more radical-chic hate babble. I'm sure that somewhere in the country there is some small rag with writers as horrendously right wing as this author is left wing. Aryan Nation publications come to mind. But this man writes for a newspaper which proudly called itself "The Voice of the West." The torturing of the word "tolerance" by today's left is much the same as the torturing of the word "peace" by the left in the 60s. We will peacefully tolerate our own views. You shut up and go away or we'll ruin you.

WriterX: The only difference between Perez Hilton and this guy is that Morford can string more words together in one sentence. It's like Val-Speak on steroids. OMG, I'm like so over it.

Captain: Andrew loves doing pro bono work. I'm sure he would be delighted to sue the bastard for you at no cost to you. Right, Andrew? ANDREW?

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, I do like U2 (the band, not the plane -- much prefer the SR71), but I'm not really pro-Bono per se.

Captain Soapbox said...

So that would make you pro-Cher then?

StanH said...

Lawhawk we have a large gay community in my hometown of Atlanta. I know, and have worked with many of them through the years they are for the most part decent people that want to live their lives, and be left alone. The shocker is many are conservatives business people that like government as much as any sane businessperson. The equal rights argument is a good argument, but doesn’t change my mind on gay marriage. I believe they should have every right short of marriage. Call it something else Civil Unions, etc. IMO.

LawHawkSF said...

StanH: The word "marriage" is where the vitriol begins. But your experience is similar to mine. My personal religious beliefs prohibit me from believing in a sanctified same-sex marriage. It has nothing to do with my attitude toward the gay community or same-sex unions, which is quite liberal. And whatever my political and social beliefs about what same-sex partnerships might or might not do to society, I still see that as a legal/political matter to be dealt with on an entirely different plane. Most virulent gay marriage advocates have very little attachment to the concept of marriage at all. It's about re-ordering society, rabid egalitarianism, and interfering in freedom of religion. If they really cared about assuring "equal rights" it could have been resolved with a great deal less metaphorical bloodshed. About half of my gay friends and acquaintances think that gay marriage is nonsense, and the other half say they want equal legal rights, but want the state's nose out of the religious ceremonies. A huge percentage of the rabid pro-"marriage" crowd is neither gay nor religious. It's just another way to stick it to traditional American beliefs. The perfectly sensible concept of "unions" or "partnerships" will never satisfy them because that wouldn't undermine America's Judeo-Christian underpinnings.

Ultra-liberals and radicals want to keep the churches out of the civil arena, but they want the civil authorities to dictate religious practice. Their prattle about "separation of church and state" swings only one direction. What they really mean is "destruction of the church and elevation of the state." Non-radicalized gays want no part of the latter doctrine.

StanH said...

I agree, the intentions of the radical left is to dispense or diminish organized religion, Christianity more specifically, as it’s counter to the state in that it also contends for the hearts and minds of the American people, it’s tuff to go up against God. To me it’s a classic liberal overreach and will be rebuked by the American people. If liberals are anything they’re tenacious, and many of the things from the ‘60s are now reality, some good, some bad, “inch by inch.”

Andrew I thought it was Lawhawk that said he was going to work pro-bono? Being from SF and all, I think he posted something along the lines of, “screw it, I’m going to start my egalitarian existence, drinks are on me… Ooh…wha…”

LawHawkSF said...

StanH: Bite your tongue. Andrew's the good guy. I'm the grubby capitalist. No matter how free you may think something is, I'll find a way to make you pay. I've modified my old lefty beliefs a little. I now believe that poverty is ennobling, and wishing to ennoble everyone I know, I intend to take their money. Do I qualify for a position in the Obama adminsitration?
LOL

Post a Comment