Sensible Erection | Roy Ashburn: "I'm gay."

Monday, 8 March 2010

quote [ Ashburn, a divorced father of four, said that his many votes against gay rights were efforts to represent the conservative views of his constituents. ]

A follow-up to this post.

[politics] [by Krutz@7:30pmGMT] [+10 Interesting]

Comments

lilmookieesquire said @ 7:38pm GMT on 8th Mar
A special kind of Hell.

symmetrian said @ 7:43pm GMT on 8th Mar
What I love about the story is that they don't seem to give much of a shit that he was driving drunk. Apparently, liking cock is worse than risking everyones' lives while driving drunk.

I realize the focus is due to his political stance, so fine, but I see no problem with the hypocrisy. Representing their constituents is what politicians are supposed to do.

KingPellinore said @ 7:45pm GMT on 8th Mar
Represent, yes. Parrot, no.

symmetrian said @ 7:48pm GMT on 8th Mar
I agree that it's a bad practice.

I tried to elaborate in my comment to you, below.

kishi said @ 8:01pm GMT on 8th Mar
Apparently, politicians would rather cling desperately to what few shreds of power they have than actually support something they believe in.

kishi said @ 8:02pm GMT on 8th Mar
Meant to reply to KingPellinore with that.

lilmookieesquire said @ 8:24pm GMT on 8th Mar
True, I don't object to him representing his state... What I object to is him selling out his personal practices and beliefs to do that. He essentially supported laws that conflicted with his own ethics (at least those demonstrated by his own actions).

But- as I understand it, you aren't suppose to do that mindlessly, that's what state ballots are for: straight up democracy. The idea of a representational democracy, as I understood it, is to best have your interests represented, yet to appoint someone intellegent enough to filter out the bullshit.

I suppose the analogy would be a senator from MA passing laws against witchcraft and getting caught doing it at home- when really witchcraft should be a non-issue.

symmetrian said @ 8:44pm GMT on 8th Mar
I think the man is reprehensible for selling out his own belief system, absolutely.

lilmookieesquire said @ 9:06pm GMT on 8th Mar
I hate to say it... But I think you're right here.

The fault lays with what he promised to represent- when he should have changed the issue/dodged the question/called out the bullshit etc.

PottyMouth said @ 9:28pm GMT on 8th Mar
Well, technically, this isn't a democracy, it's a republic. In a democracy, every voter votes on every issue. In a republic, we elect senators and representatives to do the voting for us.

I don't think he was trying to represent his constituents as much as he was probably railroaded by other members of his party to vote a certain way, with little or no attention paid to what kind of person he actually is.

lilmookieesquire said @ 9:51pm GMT on 8th Mar
Good point. I suppose what I'm saying should only really be applied to the House of Representitves or maybe the Senate- but they don't seem exclusive.

Another characterization of a republic is its emphasis on law and rule of the people through elected representatives. In this sense it refers to the notion representative democracy, as one meaning of republic is a system of restricted democracy. underlining mine.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_democracy

Adam said @ 10:49am GMT on 9th Mar
That's not a good point. It's a stupid libertarian non-argument that they make all the time in an attempt to prove ... something. No one knows what.

KingPellinore said @ 7:40pm GMT on 8th Mar
I have never understood the political philosophy that says you have to do what your constituents want. Oh, sure, it's nice if you want to get reelected, but if your constituents are morons, you don't have to represent them moronically.

At the end of the day, a representative should do what is best, not what is popular.

"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion." - Edmund Burke

jaxtraw said @ 7:46pm GMT on 8th Mar [Score:1 Insightful]
So, if you and the majority in your constituency want increased welfare spending (say) and you vote for a guy to get that, then he cuts it instead on his own personal conscience, that's a good thing? I think that's a curious political system to desire.

What makes you think any particular person who wants to be a politician knows what's "best" for you? If you think the constituents are morons, why do you want a democracy anyway?

Krutz said @ 7:59pm GMT on 8th Mar
It'd be a lot more clear cut if a bill labeled "Welfare Spending" contained nothing else except for legislation about welfare spending.

And then that assumes the money isn't coming from something else that your constituents support even more.

But really, this isn't the issue with this guy. He was voting against laws that affect a minority as a part of a party that condemns this minority while he kept his own role in that minority status a secret. Were he openly gay and still held his stance that laws giving equality to gays were bad for the country (which would have been a neat trick come election time), then he wouldn't be as much of a hypocrite.

As for constituents being morons, "ignorant" is a better label. Few people can digest the bills passing before legislators in any country these days, and demagogues come in and tell them that X bill is socialism or Y bill is fascism, etc., and they act on that rather than actual information. On the flip side, omnibus bills are how people can get what they want via compromise. It's just that as of late, with rare ideological exceptions, these bills aren't "give and take" but "give and give," which kind of defeats the purpose.

KingPellinore said @ 8:01pm GMT on 8th Mar [Score:1 Interesting]
I don't want a true democracy and I'm thankful the USA doesn't have one. True democracy gets gay marriage banned and schools segregated.

Let's look at racial integration. If the majority a representative's constituency was against integration, would it be better for that representative to act as his voters demand, or should he drag them kicking and screaming into the 21st century?

And yes, I do want someone in authority looking out for me. That's why I vote, so I can have some say in who's doing it. And if I don't like the way they're doing it, I can vote to have the bums thrown out.

jaxtraw said @ 8:07pm GMT on 8th Mar
Then why have a democracy at all? Why not for instance the Platonic philosopher king model, with people trained from their youth to rule? If you don't trust people, why let them vote for anything? Your stance is not internally consistent.

KingPellinore said @ 8:17pm GMT on 8th Mar
Because, as I already said, in a representative democracy the people have the power to change their representative.

My stance is consistent.

jaxtraw said @ 8:23pm GMT on 8th Mar
No it isn't. If the people are morons, what moron would give them the power to change their representative? They're selecting representatives who align with their moron views. Either the people's judgement can be trusted, or it can't be. You're trying to have it both ways.

lilmookieesquire said @ 8:28pm GMT on 8th Mar
If over 50% support it, it's no longer the view of a moron but a group of them. The government still has responsibility to look after their interests- otherwise we'd be living In a straight up democracy- which we don't.

lilmookieesquire said @ 8:28pm GMT on 8th Mar
(on a national level)

KingPellinore said @ 8:29pm GMT on 8th Mar
It's asinine that I have to explain this to you, but here goes.

No politician gets elected with 100% of the vote. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that while Constituent A may believe one thing, Constituent B may believe the opposite. Their representative represents both constituents, but he cannot vote to support both viewpoints. Therefore, no matter what he does, he votes against the wants of some of his constituency every time he votes.

jaxtraw said @ 8:35pm GMT on 8th Mar
You haven't answered the question of why you think constituents should be allowed to choose representatives (by majority) if they are incompetent to decide on policy (by majority). Please answer it.

KingPellinore said @ 8:40pm GMT on 8th Mar [Score:1 Underrated]
Voting for a representative is a relatively simple choice and doesn't happen very often, giving voters time to make a careful and thought out decision.

Voting on legislation is a horse of a different color, so we elect who the majority feels is the best person for the job.

jaxtraw said @ 8:48pm GMT on 8th Mar
If they don't understand the issues, how can they decide who to vote for, and why would politicians declare policy positions to gain election if the people don't understand them? It makes no sense.

People are anti-gay because they're morons, so they vote for an anti-gay moron, but then you expect him to vote pro-gay because he's wise? The system only works if people lie their way into office? Is that really a sensible system?

lilmookieesquire said @ 9:02pm GMT on 8th Mar
It's the representitives job to explain it. They have the time/education/money to understand the issues that the average Joe doesn't have. Direct democracy is for local elections where the locals understand and live the issues. National level is not.

jaxtraw said @ 9:07pm GMT on 8th Mar
Why bother with representitives explaining things? If the representative is wise and knows what to do, why not just appoint the guy? Why have a vote?

What you and KP seem to be saying is that you want philosopher kings who persuade people to vote for them, then do what they want. What's the use of the vote?

lilmookieesquire said @ 9:16pm GMT on 8th Mar
You have the choice to eat a peanut butter sammich or a ham sammich.

You choose which one you want based on what you know (healthiness/tastiness etc)

You might not fully know HOW it nurishes you, but you have to make the choice with the knowledge you have.

Whichever you choose will do so for you. The best you can hope for is to not get foodpoisoning. Now excuse me, it's lunch time!

lilmookieesquire said @ 9:23pm GMT on 8th Mar
I should point out, I'm not saying a representational democracy is better than a direct one. I'm saying the US senate is a representational democracy, and as such, this guy should represent his constituents' interests as best s/he can. Otherwise, put it on a ballot and let democracy work it's wonders.

Naruki said @ 9:47pm GMT on 8th Mar [Score:2 Insightful]
jax actually has a point, but it's a broken one. He is saying that if the people are too dumb to vote for proper legislation, then they are also too dumb to vote for proper representation.

This is quite logical.

But it ignores the fact that people would vote for individual legislation, but a representative would cover ALL legislation. And with votes for representation coming at prolonged intervals, what really matters to the voters is what they are particularly pissed off about, not every single vote that representative has cast.

jax knows this, but he refuses to let reality spoil his illusion.

lilmookieesquire said @ 9:58pm GMT on 8th Mar
Well said.

Very well said...

Naruki said @ 3:34am GMT on 9th Mar
Oh cut it out. You are not going to make me become a nice guy!

lilmookieesquire said @ 8:46am GMT on 9th Mar
SAY IT! YOU LIKE PEOPLE! FUCKING SAY IT!

Naruki said @ 11:33am GMT on 9th Mar
Oh, alright. I like people... with a nice white wine sauce and a side of egg rolls.

arctan said @ 9:40pm GMT on 8th Mar
Because it's easier to get the masses to swallow a vote than doing it by trial by combat.

In all seriousness, "How can we prevent the masses revolting and making all our efforts moot?" is always a central question in political science, and even a purely cynical, Machiavellian view of elections -- that they keep the masses from revolting -- is nonetheless a legitimate reason to defend their existence.

Ideally elections have *some* substance to them in taking the temperature of what people really want other than just being a show, but even if they are just a show, that's still better than anarchy. (Or, to more accurately reflect my beliefs, they make the social cost of revolution higher, which is a good thing because you should only have a revolution if you've really, truly thought it through.)

jaxtraw said @ 9:51pm GMT on 8th Mar
Hmm, that, and really this whole discussion, just illustrates the Machiavellian hatred of democracy of the left. I just find it funny, because foobar accused me of being anti-democratic. But to suggest greater democracy is immediately derided here.

The truth is, that your side (I'm sorry to generalise, but this does come down to political camps) just see democracy as a means of gaining power and manipulation of the masses into sustaining that power. You've no interest in the democratic ideal, of rule of the people. It's just a system to manipulate, and that's why progressives constantly seek to create political systems without any democratic principles within them at all. It's elitism, pure and simple. Power and control for a few who consider themselves wiser than the untermenschen, who are pressured until they vote the "right" way.

I appreciate that you justify that by the certainty that you are right, but then so has every dictatorship. It's always, "you can't trust the people, the people are fools, they need wise leaders".

Well okay, you're entitled to that view. It's just disgusting to hear the word "democracy" applied to such a sham.

lilmookieesquire said @ 9:55pm GMT on 8th Mar
Interesting take on things.

arctan said @ 10:09pm GMT on 8th Mar [Score:1 Insightful]
For what it's worth, I'm in favor of abolishing the Senate and having unicameral representation, which would make the US government several shades more "democratic".

I'm also not fundamentally opposed to direct democracy, I think it just collapses badly at the level of something as big as California.

I thought it was good to get the Machiavellian thing out there because it is, after all, true, and it was what you were snidely and passive-aggressively hinting at anyway.

Of course it only sounds sinister if you act like the alternative to a regime that thinks honestly and cautiously about how to avoid being overthrown is Pure Freedom, as opposed to the real-life alternative generally being chaos, bloodshed and ultimately a reversion to a series of nasty tinpot despots toppling each other over.

You've no interest in the democratic ideal, of rule of the people. It's just a system to manipulate, and that's why progressives constantly seek to create political systems without any democratic principles within them at all. It's elitism, pure and simple. Power and control for a few who consider themselves wiser than the untermenschen, who are pressured until they vote the "right" way.

Oh, for fuck's sake, like you're willing to abide by the strict majoritarian rule of the masses more than anyone else. Aren't you the one who defends shit like the idea that if the masses haven't earned the right to the food on your land then the fuckers can just starve?

lilmookieesquire said @ 10:23pm GMT on 8th Mar
+1 Insightful I'm also not fundamentally opposed to direct democracy, I think it just collapses badly at the level of something as big as California.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 11:43pm GMT on 8th Mar
Why would direct democracy collapse on a large scale? If everyone has an internet connection, it'd be pretty straightforward to set up a statewide or nationwide or, eventually, even worldwide voting site where everyone could vote daily on any issues they deem important.

lilmookieesquire said @ 12:03am GMT on 9th Mar
Gay marriage ring a bell?

Barnabas_Truman said @ 1:00am GMT on 9th Mar
I'm not saying I agree with what the results would be. I just wish the U.S.A. would make up its freaking mind already: should government represent what The People want or not? If it should, then go all the way and set up an online direct democracy; if it shouldn't, quit pretending and set up a benevolent dictatorship.

kishi said @ 1:01am GMT on 9th Mar
So, I assume you go by the same policy for every other country that's anything less than true democracy? i.e., most of the western world?

Barnabas_Truman said @ 7:04am GMT on 9th Mar
Possibly. Or I might just be making a reductio ad absurdium argument to see what happens; I often find it difficult to tell when I am and when I amn't. In any case I'm afraid I don't know enough about governments outside of the U.S.A. to be able to formulate a cromulent opinion. I think what's unique about the U.S.A. is that it claims so loudly and so vehemently to be the world expert on democracy.

lilmookieesquire said @ 8:45am GMT on 9th Mar
I guess my point is, I don't know if a true democracy would be best for the US. I don't know if I want my friend, who literally believes in Noah's Ark, to have equal say as me when it comes to immigration and trade policy.

A dictator is great if s/he's a good leader and has intelligent & moral people working for them but you're usually fucked at a transition phase.

Something in-between might be best.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 9:49am GMT on 9th Mar
I am in favor of turning the U.S.A. into a total dictatorship, with my high school history teacher Bob Turner as dictator-for-life. That guy had a better grasp on history and politics than anyone else I've ever known.

arctan said @ 4:06pm GMT on 9th Mar
Sort of like how I should either be qualified to perform brain surgery myself or sign away all legal rights to make decisions about my own health care to my doctor completely? There's no in between at all?

Barnabas_Truman said @ 12:13am GMT on 10th Mar
No, more like you should either understand how medicine works or you shouldn't have any say about everyone else's healthcare at all. You can do whatever you want as far as your own health care is concerned.

jaxtraw said @ 11:06pm GMT on 8th Mar
Aren't you the one who defends shit like the idea that if the masses haven't earned the right to the food on your land then the fuckers can just starve?

You don't earn rights, Arctan. You either have them or you don't. I think you're confusing a right with theft there; like, I think I need your stuff, give me it or there'll be violence. Yes?

But anyway, if I have all this food on my land, why would I not sell it to "the masses"? Nobody ever got rich hoarding turnips until they rot. The last thing I want is the masses starving. I want them buying and eating my turnips. I need the masses, just as much as the masses need my turnips.

mrcucumber said @ 1:37pm GMT on 9th Mar
Nobody ever got rich hoarding turnips until they rot.

Well doesn't that just sum it all up.

Silent said @ 2:03pm GMT on 9th Mar
Does anyone know how to dispose of a gross of rotting turnips? My latest get rich quick scheme has gone somewhat wrong..

mrcucumber said @ 2:27pm GMT on 9th Mar
I hear there's a market in pig feed.....

Polyphemus said @ 3:40pm GMT on 9th Mar
I think you have an interesting analogy there. What if they literaly have nothing you want. You have your workers who are well fed on turnips and there are a lot of people with nothing or next to nothing at your gate. You have more turnips than you need but maybe you could get some pigs instead of giving away the turnips then you could get bacon, that would be good.
mmmm bacon

mrcucumber said @ 4:27pm GMT on 11th Mar
mmmmmbacon.

lilmookieesquire said @ 9:53pm GMT on 8th Mar
Elections.

arctan said @ 9:30pm GMT on 8th Mar
Because if a system is bad at making complex decisions on a reactive, case-by-case basis, then it must be bad at making ALL DECISIONS at ALL TIMES and cannot be trusted at all. Is that your point?

I don't think the masses are "totally incompetent at making decisions". I think that if the masses had to make *all* the complex decisions based on rapidly changing situations and large amounts of information that must be quickly processed all the time, they would find their ability to make those decisions to be greatly compromised, and very easily swayed by snap judgments, biases and the manipulation of whoever was presenting this information to them.

I think having competitive elections on a regular basis where we can vote on an *overview* of how politicians have made these decisions *as a whole* over a period of time work better. Those are easier decisions to make. It's still not a perfect system for making decisions and bad decisions will be made, but it's *better* at filtering and packing down the decisionmaking structure to a manageable level that an information filter as huge as an election can reasonably deal with it.

jaxtraw, you're basically using the same logic as saying "If a business owner isn't competent to make all the decisions of running a business all by himself, then how can he possibly be competent to judge the performance of the managers he hires to make those decisions?"

I guess all non-owner managers, like all politicians, are just parasites and should be fired too, huh? Or maybe the concept of delegating work exists because it's easier to evaluate someone else's work at a field you're not an expert in than to do the work yourself?

Baxter_UK said @ 9:54pm GMT on 8th Mar
I think the problem here is that 'moron' is not sufficiently defined. If they're real, shiteating morons then they can't judge policy or even who would be a good candidate for judging policy. In your case of the business owner, he may be a 'policy-moron' but he is not a 'candidate-moron' ... as it were.

lilmookieesquire said @ 9:08pm GMT on 8th Mar
People aren't morons. They don't have the resources to represent their interests on a local, state, and national level.

lilmookieesquire said @ 8:58pm GMT on 8th Mar
"The practicalities of education".

arctan said @ 9:25pm GMT on 8th Mar
Because I want smart people to rule the country but I want the masses to serve as a check on them -- I want people to be free enough of the masses to make decisions the masses *don't understand in the short term*, but not so free that they can do anything they want *including things that are obviously and completely detrimental to the masses*, which is what you get when you get an actual dictator.

And I know this system is kludgey, but it's still the best system out of a best bunch as far as I can tell -- certainly better, in my view, than the anarcho-capitalist free-for-all you're trying to subtly insinuate would be superior (which is really just another kind of representative democracy -- whoever can bilk the masses out of the most cash gets the most power -- only one where the electoral system is *even more* perverse than the regular one).

jaxtraw said @ 9:59pm GMT on 8th Mar
I'm not an anarcho-capitalist.

jaxtraw said @ 10:00pm GMT on 8th Mar
If I was, I wouldn't be arguing for democracy would I?

arctan said @ 9:22pm GMT on 8th Mar
Well, for one thing, a single individual is better at looking over the long-term horizon than the masses as a lump are. The idea of electing someone for a two-year term is so that he can make the judgment "Will you think this was a good idea looking back over these two years as a whole?" rather than "Are you willing to approve of this idea *right now*?"

The dangers of framing everything as a yes/no question in the latter form are kind of obvious if you look at CA politics and how the ballot initiative process has been abused.

symmetrian said @ 7:47pm GMT on 8th Mar
He's a representative. How do you represent a group of people without representing what they want? He's not a champion or a hero, he's a man who's supposed to be indicative of the views of the people who elected them.

I do object to people molding their own beliefs in order to best represent the group by which they would like to be elected. I find that incredibly dishonest and stupid. If people would simply stick to what they actually believe and advocate what they themselves wanted, then elections would be a proper way to choose a representative that shared the constituents' views. Unfortunately, that's not how it works.

KingPellinore said @ 7:56pm GMT on 8th Mar
Our representative democracy was implimented as an attempt to avoid exactly what you describe, and what is still an unfortunate reality in politics. It's known as the "tyrany of the majority". The idea is that we elect representative not to be bound to the will of their constituency, but to do what is right for it. If the majority opinion was always the right choice, we wouldn't need representation.

symmetrian said @ 8:12pm GMT on 8th Mar
I agree with the concept, but our system rewards people who can make friendly with the wild beasts of opinion and punishes those who don't alter their promises to fit the expected narrative. It's much easier to get a liar elected.

Something would have to change drastically for that to become untrue.

KingPellinore said @ 8:18pm GMT on 8th Mar
That problem is much older than democracy, my friend.

symmetrian said @ 8:34pm GMT on 8th Mar
That's true, but democracy takes the problem and runs with it.

KingPellinore said @ 8:35pm GMT on 8th Mar
True, but I'll take a liar over a dictator any day.

symmetrian said @ 8:46pm GMT on 8th Mar
Yep, and that's pretty much the dog and pony show we've got.

lilmookieesquire said @ 8:54pm GMT on 8th Mar [Score:1 Underrated]
I hate to say it, but you have a point. The problem isn't that he did what he promised. That was proper. The issue is what he promised to do was opposite to his own believes and interests. He sold out. If he was more intellegent or less greedy, he might have found a way to get elected without doing that (as badly).

Naruki said @ 9:59pm GMT on 8th Mar
Except the liar is part of a collective dictatorship. They are liars about the very thing they were hired to do, so that's not a good thing.

arctan said @ 9:34pm GMT on 8th Mar
Every society has some kind of elite class that lies to the masses to some degree to accomplish what they think is best. This is a universal truth, and for all the shit our politicians are guilty of and that we mock them for, I think a balanced view of history would still tell you that they're a hell of a lot better than most of the historical alternatives.

(jaxtraw's passive-aggressive baiting seems to be based on the idea that a an anarcho-capitalist or "minarchist" system where we shrank the government to nearly nothing would remove this elite completely and we'd have a truly egalitarian society. Because, of course, private corporations are egalitarian utopias totally free of manipulative, lying, power-hungry elites who never abuse their upstream real estate on the information stream to manipulate voters/stockholders/customers into acting against their interests.)

jaxtraw said @ 10:13pm GMT on 8th Mar
"Every society has some kind of elite class that lies to the masses to some degree to accomplish what they think is best."

Well, so much for, eh, "liberalism". "Somebody has to be king, I think it should be ME!" Yay, liberty.

As to that last bit of mouth-frothing... how did we get from government to corporations? Nobody suggesting that General Electric should take over from the State. That seems to be your own fevered imagination there, Arctan. I certainly haven't suggested it anywhere. Where did you get it from?

arctan said @ 4:05pm GMT on 9th Mar
You'll notice I'm not making myself out to be a member of the elite class, given that I didn't go to law school and I'm not running for elected office or anything.

It's really only one kind of "elite", anyway. I also hire people who are trained in medicine to a degree I am not to tell me things about my body in a simplified, basic way that I can understand (which from their perspective probably feels a lot like "lying" to me) in order to get a result I couldn't if I were responsible for my own medical care.

Why is it so different doing that when it comes to government?

kishi said @ 5:16am GMT on 9th Mar
But was he truly accomplishing what he thought was best, or was he just saying and doing what he had to in order to retain what small bit of power he had?

kishi said @ 7:43pm GMT on 8th Mar [Score:2 Insightful]
Congratulations, you hypocritical dick.

+1 Unsurprising

radioelectric said @ 10:40pm GMT on 8th Mar
Just to be clear, did this guy ever rail against "gayness" in general? Or did he just take political stances on gay marraige etc.? I could imagine a gay guy who doesn't believe in gay marraige, is all.

kishi said @ 11:31pm GMT on 8th Mar
It's not just marriage. He did vote against expanding anti-discrimination laws to include sexual orientation and against a bill that would have established May 22nd as "Harvey Milk Day".

Source

pel said @ 6:11am GMT on 9th Mar
There's such a thing as taking self-loathing too far...

Chop-Logik said @ 8:04pm GMT on 8th Mar
While I don't know the extent of his anti-gay actions, is it not his purpose in government to represent the views of his constituents, and not let his personal views sway them?

KingPellinore said @ 8:06pm GMT on 8th Mar
Not necessarily. Although many successful politicians do exactly that since it's easier to get reelected if you do what the voters want.

kishi said @ 8:08pm GMT on 8th Mar
But he presents himself as supporting those policies to get elected.

symmetrian said @ 8:39pm GMT on 8th Mar
And he then supported them.

Krutz said @ 8:12pm GMT on 8th Mar
Would anyone elect a man in a wheelchair who was trying to get elected by promising to eliminate the Americans with Disabilities Act?

sanepride said @ 8:30pm GMT on 8th Mar
Of course he wasn't elected, but I can't help but think of Clarence Thomas- who directly benefited from Affirmative Action programs and has ruled and railed against them at every opportunity.

KingPellinore said @ 8:41pm GMT on 8th Mar
Clarence Thomas just does whatever Scalia tells him to do.

lilmookieesquire said @ 8:48pm GMT on 8th Mar
*shifty eyes*

Uncle Tom is a pejorative term for a black person who is perceived by others as behaving in a subservient manner to white authority figures, or as seeking ingratiation with them by way of unnecessary accommodation.[1]

*shifty eyes*

ala wiki

symmetrian said @ 9:48pm GMT on 8th Mar [Score:1 Insightful]
Kinda makes you wish he were your uncle. You know, so you could say it at reunions and shit. "Hey there's my uncle! You know, my uncle... Tom!"

lilmookieesquire said @ 8:41pm GMT on 8th Mar [Score:1 Insightful]
I'd argue that it is to best serve his people's interests.

Banning homosexuality does not maximize this. Getting his district funding does. Getting more education does. Reducing taxes does this. Focusing on sexual activity takes away time from these things. Crime rate affects his constituents. Gay sex does not. Even so that should be local politics at best where a straight up democratic vote can be made. As a representitive he shouldn't, ideally, be caught up in this. poo-pooing gay sex (pun intended, sorry that was bad) does little to help his constituents- and I think there is nothing wrong with abstaining from the vote to focus on more practical things. That said, as a representitive, sure, he can do that... but on the otherhand, maybe he should think twice before entering a gay bar. That's my take at least, but I think you could argue otherwise.

symmetrian said @ 8:50pm GMT on 8th Mar
I like the idea of separating interests from moral dilemmas.

lilmookieesquire said @ 9:09pm GMT on 8th Mar
Perhaps one day our government will too :)

danshyu said @ 8:10pm GMT on 8th Mar
This is why political parties are the cancers of our democratic process.

todde said @ 8:36pm GMT on 8th Mar [Score:-2]
I was about to say "Eat a bowl of dicks, you hypocritical drunk."
Then I realized, he probably has. Without protection.

Chop-Logik said @ 8:59pm GMT on 8th Mar
The joke is that you consider homosexuality an insult?

sanepride said @ 8:39pm GMT on 8th Mar [Score:1 Insightful]
Congratulations on your coming out Senator Ashburn!

Allow me to propose a toast...

lilmookieesquire said @ 8:42pm GMT on 8th Mar
+1 inside-full.

foobar said @ 9:23pm GMT on 8th Mar
Let's all be better people.

This guy has a terrible self hatred. He's taken a step to correcting that, so we should applaud him, not jeer.

lilmookieesquire said @ 9:35pm GMT on 8th Mar
Too bad it took a DUI and public outting for it to happen. But... You're right. It's a step in the right direction. I'm happy for him. Maybe he can sleep easier at night now.

Naruki said @ 10:01pm GMT on 8th Mar [Score:1 Funny]
The problem is he may very well have been sleeping happy before this.

lilmookieesquire said @ 10:21pm GMT on 8th Mar
Zing

JOECAM said @ 10:58pm GMT on 8th Mar
Someone working in The Guardian’s photo department is a real wise guy. Just take a look at the image they chose to run with the story about the Vatican’s gay sex scanda

pel said @ 6:13am GMT on 9th Mar
Geez. They have sex with little boys, they get slammed. They pay for consenting male prostitutes instead and they STILL get slammed. They just can't win!

;)

Isosceles Lock™ said @ 1:16am GMT on 12th Mar
Sith lemon party :(((((

iosef said @ 2:26am GMT on 9th Mar
+10 Bad Pr0n? I Believe.