Quick things

1.  You gun nuts are missing the point in what Newscoma’s saying.  So, let me give you the Reader’s Digest version.  Politicians who supported the guns in bars legislation DID NOT consult with their constituents who are bar owners about this piece of legislation.  So, many of them, regardless of their feelings about guns, were shocked and surprised to discover that it’s now legal to carry guns into bars, because they had no idea this was in the works.  If you focus on the whole “but guns…” aspect of this, you are missing what Newscoma is trying to give the state a head’s up on.  Politicians who passed this bill (who cares what the bill is), did not consult with their constituents most affected by the bill.  These constituents have deep pockets.  Even in a bad economy.  And these constituents feel not just neglected by their local politicians, but, in this case, outright disregarded.  She’s sending up a warning signal.  If you guys choose to interpret it as being solely about guns, you will miss the warning.

2.  Liz is back!  Hurray!

3.  Whenever I read something like this, I cannot help but wonder if Huddleston thinks all sexuality works like this.  Is he saying that, if not for his strong personal will and the word of God, he’d be sticking his dick wherever he could?  I mean, I thought the half-naked Red State Update guys on Huddleston’s blog were innocent and funny, but now I’m wondering.

17 thoughts on “Quick things

  1. ‘did not consult with their constituents most affected by the bill’

    Wrong. The NRA lobbied on their behalf. NRA = national restaurant association.

    Also, most affected? Are there more than 340K bar owners?

  2. SayUncle, I was talking about our local legislators representing us in Nashville. They always want a conversation unless it’s something they don’t want to talk about.
    This was an issue they didn’t want to talk about apparently. The local folks just wanted to talk to them about their concerns. It was about conversation and what I highlighted.
    That’s what I mean when I wrote the post about the political disconnect in regards to this issue (and quite frankly, many issues that I’ve also written about over the past three and a half years.)

  3. Exactly. I’m not sure how arguing that because the National Restaurant Association lobbied for this, it indicates that local businesspeople were consulted. I mean, if a politician thinks that because he heard from a lobbyist, he doesn’t have to talk to the folks in his town, then his troubles run deep.

  4. that’s how politics works. lobbyists have access. you don’t. unless you hire a lobbyist or get on the phone. they don’t come to you and ask.

  5. Well, yes, if you’re living in Nashville or Memphis or Knoxville. But when the guy you go to church with and whose kids are on your kids’ baseball team and who sure as hell knows where you are when he needs campaign donations or a jump for his car fails to talk to you about something that’s going to affect your business, that’s a problem. I know the state legislators like to pretend like they’re big-time politicians, but the people they grew up with and have known them forever are unhappy with them.

  6. I know the state legislators like to pretend like they’re big-time politicians, but the people they grew up with and have known them forever are unhappy with them.

    Isn’t that the truth! – back in MS, my Mom grew up with one of the top 5 most powerful men in the state legislature. This guy is one of the goofiest men-children I have ever met. He’s also a serial cheater – to which I over-heard someone say about him “He’d screw a snake if it laid there long enough”

    On the other hand, a cousin is in the MS state legislature, and he’s actually got some sense. And listens to people. He’s a farmer by trade, so he knows which end is up and still is in touch with the real people who have real problems. It’s actually refreshing to know there are actually some good people down there.

    On the other hand, once word about the guns in restaurants/bars reaches MS, those guys will be jealous that they didn’t think of that.
    Seriously, give it time.

  7. Regarding quick thing #3, dontcha just love it when reactionaries try to talk science? Of course there is no “gay gene,” nimrod. Neither is there a ‘straight gene.’ Anyone who knows even the tiniest thing about genetics– oh, never mind. Facts will only muddy the waters.

  8. Huddleson and his right-wing source need to actually read the APA statement before drawing bizarre conclusions.

    While many lay people think there is a “gay gene,” that’s not been an accepted theory in the scientific community, ever. The theory has ALWAYS been that human sexuality is so complex that it can’t be explained by any one factor and is most likely determined by a multitude of varying factors working in combination. They’re dead wrong when the classify the “admission” they found as a reversal or a revision. The brochure may be a new publication but the information they included is nothing even remotely new.

  9. B., “gun nuts” followed by “missing the point” is a recursion. You’re setting yourself up for a visit to the Argument Clinic, followed shortly by Getting Hit On The Head Lessons.

    And Huddleston’s source (“your one stop shop for news with a Christian perspective”) is badly distorting the APA statement about the so-called finding of fact. A lack of scientific consensus isn’t the same thing as a definitive statement, i.e. flatly denying that genetics plays a role in sexual behaviors. That’s not what was said, despite efforts to characterize the statement as such. But we are also talking about people who are inclined to take it as a given that sky-pixies invoke earthquakes as punishment for buggery. Not to say that they’re necessarily all that credulous as a group, but I would say that their standards of evidence are a bit less rigorous than the APA.

  10. “gun nuts” followed by “missing the point” is a recursion.

    i think you meant to say “redundancy”. except that it isn’t that, either; it sounds to me more like a slight against their gun control skills. you know, hitting the target, and — oh, never mind.

  11. LOL, SoBeale investigated the APA story a bit further.

    This is what Huddleston’s source reported the APA said:
    “Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles…”

    Oh what’s behind that ellipsis is hysterical:
    “Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

    LMAO. That pretty much proves they are not “misreading” to fit their agenda, but are willfully lying.

  12. He also neatly leaves out the portion that states:

    “Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience.”

  13. This sort of advocacy doesn’t exist unless it frames issues such that there is no point other than their own. […] It’s a wall of mirrors.

    ah, then you’re using “recursion” in a way not familiar to me. i’m a computer geek; “recursion” in my field doesn’t match any “wall of mirrors” concept all that well. out of interest, what specialty uses the term in the way you’re using it here?

Comments are closed.