On the Opinion Page: April 30, 2008
In which The Gay Recluse scores selected opinions in The Times.
Thomas Friedman/Dumb as We Wanna Be
The Short Version: We need higher gas taxes and more $$$$ devoted to clean-energy R&D!
In his words: “At a time when we should be throwing everything into clean power innovation, we are squabbling over pennies.”
Score: A (Applause)
We completely agree with this column. Hillary Clinton should be embarrassed for pledging to cut gas taxes. (Which is not to say we hate her or anything!) We support gas credits/relief for the working poor, but the average American should be paying a lot more for gas (and big cars!).
Maureen Dowd/Praying and Preying
The Short Version: Reverend Wright is a big test for Obama.
In her words: “Obama’s anger, an unused muscle, had to be stoked by his advisers, who pressed him with drooping poll numbers and the video of Wright at the National Press Club. ”
The Score: B- (Babble)
We understand that Dowd likes Obama — hey! we like him too — but we’re not sure she’s adding much with her mytho/psychoanalysis of Obama versus Reverend Wright. Is it us, or does this story seems to be getting kind of old, anyway?
Filed under: Government, Politicians, The Gay Recluse, The Times | 13 Comments
Tags: Barack Obama, Clean Energy, Gax Taxes, Hillary Clinton, Maureen Dowd, Reverend Wright, Thomas Friedman
A Note To Readers
Please note that The Gay Recluse has officially retired from blogging, but interested readers can now follow Matthew Gallaway on his blog here.Elsewhere for the Intrepid
-
Blogroll
- Acerbic Bubblegum
- Alex Ross
- Arch Noble
- Atherton Bartelby
- Bennett Madison
- Brendan Patrick Hughes
- Brett Berk
- Bright Year
- C-Monster
- Choire Sicha
- City Room
- Curbed
- Emily Magazine
- Ephemerist
- Fading Ad
- Fey Friends
- Francis Strand
- Gavin Plumley
- Gay Men’s Social Crisis
- GayAgenda
- Glennalicious
- Harlem Hybrid
- Hipster Runoff
- Inwood 10034
- James van Maanen
- Janeism
- Johnny I Hardly Knew You
- Manhattan Times
- Manhattan’s Peak
- MSnowe
- NYC The Blog
- One Monkey Show
- Out There
- Outside The Lines
- Queerty
- Rotten in Denmark
- Songs About Buildings and Food
- Sore Afraid
- Tangerines in a Red Net Bag
- The Main St. Diaries
- The Masterpiece Next Door
- The Streets Where We Live
- This Recording
- Tomorrow Museum
- Towleroad
- Trainstalking
- Trust Movies
- Write On My Man
- Zuzu Petals
The Popularity Contest
- On Hot Gay Statues: Washington, D.C. Makes an Opening Bid
- On a Closet-Case Classic: The Big Blue (or I'd Rather Die Than Get Married to Rosanna Arquette)
- On Hot Gay Statues: Florence Getting Hotter
- On Hot Gay Statues: Los Angeles Is Definitely on the Map
- On Hot Gay Statues: New Orleans On the Road To Recovery
- On Hot Gay Statues: Chicago Makes Late-Breaking Bid for the Gold
- On Hot Gay Statues: Met Hercules Extremely Smokin'
- On Hot Gay Statues: Getty Villa Continues To Dominate West Coast
- On Hot Gay Statues: No Surprise, Honolulu Beckons
- On the George Washington Bridge Project: Death, Cruelty and Fiction
-
The Past
-
google verification
The Gay Recluse 
As a general principle, I think Americans should be paying for gas what most countries have paid for a long time. But family budgets are not prepared in a day and wages aren’t increasing to take care of the shortfall. I think you are right there should be gas credits for the poor or something, but I would support a gas tax holiday. The R&D is very important is important in the long term, though.
I was unaware that gay meant intellectually deficient.
People don’t care about economic rationale when they hear that taxes, of any kind, are going to “take a holiday”.
People aren’t just going to wake up tomorrow and have amnesia with regard to the Wright soundbites.
Politics is all about perception. Welcome to the real world.
Kurt, you sound very angry and homophobic! You hurt my feelings, but I don’t mind because you look like Jimmy Carter. You’re funny!
Huntingdonpost, thanks for the relative sanity you bring to the table. I obvs don’t completely agree with you, but thanks for reading.
I am only relatively sane; it depends on to whom I am being compared. I enjoy your blog.
Homophobic?!?
Me?
Are you serious?!?
Look, I disagree with your rose-colored glasses approach to important matters. Do you not accept any sort of criticism?
Kurt, I am the world’s biggest pessimist. I believe nothing ever really changes, I don’t believe in progress, I love Schopenhauer and I ultimately think politics is a complete waste of time. I follow it merely as an entertaining diversion and a way to drive traffic to the blog. It works! One point of doing these short summaries is to implicitly mock the aura of self-importance that is attached to much political blogging/commentary (oh and nasty commenters like you!) That said, I generally support liberal/progressive candidates but have no illusion that the election of any of them is going to make my life any “better” or somehow make me “happier.” I truly don’t care who wins the election this fall. “Important matters” — LOL!
You on the other hand still strike me as extremely angry and homophobic. To wit, you wrote: “I was unaware that gay meant intellectually deficient.” Is that supposed to be funny? Because it’s not. Nor is it “criticism” but a homophobic insult. Ask your gay friends — if you have any — and I”m sure they’ll agree. Another good test is to substitute the word “black” or “female” or “Catholic” (etc.) in exchange for the word “gay” into your “criticism” and see how it sounds then. Bottom line: you sound like an angry bigot, and the fact that you’re oblivious to this makes me think that you have some pretty big Issues to work out. Good luck with that.
@huntingdonpost: Thanks for the kind words. I think you’re a model citizen in comparison to our friend Kurt, who is amazed that I would call him homophobic after he equates “gay” with “intellectual deficiency.”
I asked Greg, Bobby, Amanda and Becky, and they all laughed at your outrage. I have twice as many gay friends as straight. I picked the adjective in your blog name because it was grammatically simpler than to use the noun. To restate: I didn’t know “recluse” meant idiot. Is that better?
Well, I am going to disavow Kurt as my friend, since I have never met him, and personally, as a gay person, I find the “intellectually deficient” remark pretty insulting. I am not big into ad hominem attacks. Why is it that when people want to show they have not said something homophobic, they always point to their gay friends? I have a guy at work who tells me I should be for gay marriage. He’s straight, but he has lots of gay friends, and he thinks my idea that marriage should be done away with by the state and everyone should be allowed civil unions is stupid. (I won’t go over my argument.) So he says all his gay friends agree with marriage, which makes me wrong and not a very good gay person. Huh?
Anyway, keep up the good blog. Kurt, if you want to comment on my blog on any issue, you are still welcome. It’s a free country, kinda. Except for a lot of gay people.
Thanks, Huntingdonpost. And Kurt, I’m far from outraged from anything you could write because you mean so little to me, but there’s a big difference between saying: “Hey Gay Recluse, I think you’re intellectually deficient” and “I was unaware that gay meant intellectually deficient.” The former is an attack against me, which is fine: I’m a big boy and can handle all sorts of personal attacks; the latter — whether you were conscious of this or not — is homophobic because you equate being gay with intellectual deficiency. End of story. The only reasonable course of action is to apologize for the homophobic remark and ask yourself why you made it — particularly if you have so many gay friends — when you could have limited your attack to me personally. But! Since you’re such a great guy, I would love to hear testimonials from “Greg, Bobby, Amanda and Becky” and have them explain to me why the remark in question isn’t homophobic. Have them e-mail me or respond below.
@huntingdonpost: btw, I totally agree with doing away with marriage entirely as a state/government right and making civil unions (for any two people, regardless of gender) the rule as far as ANY government is concerned.
I think Kurt is trying to be wry and ironic. Of course, if wit was a sharp object, his would be a sack of flour, but that’s just my intellectual deficiency talking.