From Twitter..

[theducks]

Regarding this: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/03/04/crimesider/entry6266524.shtml (tl;dr: anti-gay republican congressman gets arrested DWI after leaving a gay bar with another man)

I expressed some schadenfreude over this. It's a kneejerk reaction, and it has been called the most unpleasant of the emotions. I feel I should explain.

Part the first: There's nothing wrong with being gay, and what goes on in relationships in terms of non-monogamy isn't a problem if all parties agree to it. If they don't, that's another story, but it is a problem primarily within the bounds of the relationships in question. The extent of what he has done in that evening that is actually a publicly shamefully wrong act is drink driving.

Part the second: However, he is a member of the republican party, and his voting record includes some very strong anti-gay rights activities. I do not agree with those, and I think that makes him a bad person. Though I admit I was not familiar with them until his arrest (let's just assume all members of the republican party suck on this count though)

Part the third: While I believe in forgiveness, I have a bloodlust for people who do the wrong thing on an on-going basis. In this instance the wrong thing was voting anti-gay, repressing the rights of gay people, and being a member of the republican party. But that said, someone's sexuality is by and large their own business, unless they try to make other people's sexuality an issue (ie through legislating against them), then it's game on.

Part the fourth: I'm sure it can't be easy to be gay or of alternative sexuality (suicide rates amoung gay teens for example are terrible), and I can understand why people would want to hide it (but they shouldn't). They deserve compassion and understanding. And if you live your whole life without the companionship you want because of it, that's sad. However, there's a level some people seem to go to in their denial: hate.

As an intermission, here's a brief run down of some of the recent sex scandals of the family values party.

Part the fifth: if you have a politically valuable secret, stay out of politics. He had freewill. He could choose not to run for government, he could choose to resign and become a lobbyist or businessman, he could choose to vote for gay rights, he could choose to come out either with a big announcement like Ellen Degeneres or a quiet realisation by popular media like Lindsay Lohan.

He had lots of choices to make this not an issue but for his drink driving, but he chose not to, all the while trampling the rights of people just like him, but the starts aligned to make it a perfect news story. That makes his downfall a shameful joy to watch. Such is the nature of "news". Too often it is slanted to encourage higher ratings through rousing emotions, not inform of important events. And as I acknowledged, I was suckered in by it.

--

While I'm at it with my ranting, don't get me started on The West Australia's beatup series of articles on the Poor Young Mum being refused a liver transplant in WA because she's A) had one already and B) has a wrecked liver because she was a heroin addict up until .. 8 weeks ago. Sure, there's a measure of second guessing to be done on that decision but you either say it's ok to give a third liver to someone who has already required a liver transplant because of drug use, then had that transplant fail, or you say it isn't. There need to be guidelines, and they shouldn't be subjective.

Comments

[greteldragon.livejournal.com]

I was going to ask how sore you knee gets, you seem to have a habit of this. But I mostly agree with you anyhow.

I really don't know about that girl though. I mean two livers at like 24? But at the same time its not right either way. :(

[alias_sqbr]

I agree with a lot of this but I don't think it's fair to say people shouldn't stay closeted. It's an imperfect solution to an imperfect world. But yes: closeted is one thing, active bigotry is quite another.

Don't really agree with 5 either: this is America, where being an atheist is a politically valuable secret :/

[the-s-guy.livejournal.com]

It's not the gay, it's the hypocrisy.

And yes, he could have chosen differently. But he decided that he wanted power and its trappings, and the easiest way to get them was to hitch his wagon to a party and set of values which vocally opposed a lifestyle he personally practiced.

And he assumed he'd be untouchable and could get away with it. It's that hubris that makes for open media slather.

Doubly so because of all the other Republican politicians who have been caught in recent years in exactly the same situation. But no, HE was smarter than all the others. HE would never get caught. HE would be able to talk his way out of anything. And in the meantime, he would continue to enjoy the spoils of his huge double standard.

For some reason, people keep doing things where others in precisely the same situation have been caught and publically excoriated. Apparently the mix of power, money, sex, and blindness to anything which could threaten that is a common one.

The smart thing to do in this case would be to either temporarily give up the career or the lifestyle, or at least take smarter measures to avoid detection. Or even openly switch to a supportive party (or go independent) while coming out (assuming that the local electorate would support that, of course). Or do it as part of a mass defection to at least diffuse the spotlight a little.

There's a book called The Light of Other Days, in which humanity develops a look-into-the-past machine which can view (but not alter) any space-time moment in Earth's history. When the machine is made available to the public, two-thirds of all national politicians resign on the spot.

[nephron.livejournal.com]

It's a bit more complicated than "you either say it's ok to give a third liver to someone who has already required a liver transplant because of drug use, then had that transplant fail, or you say it isn't."

If I recall the guidelines correctly from when I worked in the liver transplant unit, it is as follows.

If you need a liver because of your drug/alcohol use, you need to have been free of alcohol/drugs for a certain period of time (I can't remember whether it was 6 months or a year?). Sometimes, in emergent situations, that guideline might be revised, if someone looked likely to remain sober/drug free, particularly if they were close to the guideline time.

If someone returned to drinking/drug use after a transplant, they are not entitled to another one.

If their transplant failed (as most transplants eventually do) while they were largely compliant to the treatment regimen, they could be put back on the waiting list, regardless of the reason they initially required the transplant.

I think her case is sad, I really do, but the truth is we don't have unlimited money or organs, so they need to be prioritised to people who will benefit from and take care of them.

[auntpol.livejournal.com]

The issue I have is that there are a lot of people who have illnesses which are not-self inflicted who don't seem to get this kind of second chance. Do the government always give out interest free loans for this kind of thing?

Basically I think it's insulting to people who have other shit to deal with who never get help to give help to someone who just made noise to the media. But maybe I'm heartless, and don't believe in political stunts.

Also, apparently Corrin's mum knows her stepfather (I think?). She's playing the kids card and she doesn't even have custody of them at the moment. Using your children to get a liver = problematic.

[nephron.livejournal.com]

I've never heard of the government giving interest-free loans before (which is not to say that it hasn't happened, but it's certainly not common practice). And she got her second chance- when she got the first donated liver.

Someone else has apparently come forward and asked for a loan from the government so they can go overseas to get chronic fatigue treatment that isn't offered here- and it's a reasonable thing to ask when you can see that person over there getting the equivalent.

[kudzita.livejournal.com]

I feel that Schadenfreude is entirely justified when applied to a certain level of hypocrisy, particularly the hypocrisy of gaining votes via scare-mongering over family values and then, say, getting caught with a hooker or something.

(Which is just to say that, y'know, I wouldn't've bothered to explain why I was all HA HA YOU DOUCHEPIGEON, SEE WHO VOTES FOR YOU NOW. You're a better person than I am!)

[shifuimam.livejournal.com]

Some of this was a bit harsh, although I know you were ranting.

Specifically:

I think that makes him a bad person.

Voting against gay rights doesn't necessarily make you a "bad person". It might make you a misguided or uneducated person, but it's a little strong to automatically assume that a person who votes that way is a "bad person". It could very well be that in this particular individual's case, he voted against gay rights policies simply because that's what his party's platform has historically supported, or even because he was disturbed by his own homosexual tendencies and trying to repress them through his voting habits.

I just think it should take more than not liking gay behavior or homosexuals to label someone a bad person.

I have a bloodlust for people who do the wrong thing on an on-going basis. In this instance the wrong thing was ... being a member of the republican party.

o.O

I'm a registered Republican, y'know. Does that mean I'm doing the wrong thing on an ongoing basis?

Don't get me wrong, I totally understand the ranting, and I agree that this guy is a hypocrite for continually voting against gay rights while acting out his own homosexual tendencies on the side. But the semantics of some of your rant are just a little strong. :P

[theducks.livejournal.com]

You may be a member of the republican party, but not an elected official of them. You also support gay rights, so all up, no, we're good :)

[shifuimam.livejournal.com]

But I'm considering running for some kind of political office sometime in the future, probably at a local/municipal level. If I do that, it'll most likely be on the Republican ticket. Being a Republican - and, more specifically, representing the Republican party in a political official position - isn't necessarily "doing the wrong thing on an ongoing basis".

Did you think I was a bad person in the past, when I was still held a generally anti-homosexual viewpoint?