Fifty years ago, Martin Luther King stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and gave his “I Have A Dream” speech and spoke of the day when people would be judged by the content of their character. I am not sure that the recent controversy over singer Donnie McClurkin is what MLK had in mind. McClurkin is a deeply religious man who says that God delivered him from being gay. That reportedly led to his being told that he was no longer welcomed at the anniversary performance of the speech.
McClurkin was scheduled to perform at the concert Saturday evening but gay rights activities objected to his participation ahead of the event.
Yet, Doxie McCoy, a spokeswoman for Mayor Vincent Gray, insisted that it was McClurkin who removed himself from the lineup to avoid controversy over his participation. She issued a statement that “[t]he Arts and Humanities Commission and Donnie McClurkin’s management decided that it would be best for him to withdraw because the purpose of the event is to bring people together.”
McClurkin however contradicted that account and said that he did not agree to be excluded. He states that he was “asked not to attend” the concert. That is quite a difference in accounts. Where the Mayor’s office is claiming that he removed himself, he is saying that he was barred because of his religious beliefs.
I can understand the feelings of gay rights advocates, particularly given the clear analogies of their own current struggle with the fight of Martin Luther King. However, the greater symbol of division can be found in barring people who share their admiration for MLK but subscribe to opposing religious views. I am equally concerned over what McClurkin is clearly suggesting is a false account from the office of Mayor Gray on the matter. The burden is now on Gray’s office to produce proof that the singer did opt not to attend to avoid controversy.
What do you think?
Source: Washington Post
Anne Coulter might just be a lovely person, Bron.
Ann Coulter is a hate mongering shill.
But thanks for the second funniest thing I’ve read today.
Anne Coulter is much more civil than many on the left.
“Ann Coulter’s take on it just wakes me up, makes me laugh, and helps me see things from a more moderate position.”
That’s probably the funniest thing I’ve read today.
David: “I don’t think that I have ever heard Ann speak about a specific person in the vile manner that you just did about her. Even in the videos put forward to discredit her, Ann seemed very respectful, polite, and humble.”
That’s the most ridiculous statement I’ve read this week. I’m going to get her book out of my garage, today, and post a few of her “polite and humble” excerpts. Your comments are so disingenuous and self-serving, David. That’s one of the reasons I tend to not address you, directly. I truly dislike debating someone who’s intellectually dishonest.
Um, thanks?
“Ann Coulter graduated with honors from Cornell University in 1984 and received her law degree at University of Michigan Law School, where she was an editor of The Michigan Law Review.”
I’d say she sounds pretty smart or maybe just harder working?
I have read one of her books and did not find it to be all that interesting, she made a couple of interesting points which were thoughtful but on the whole it was more of a diatribe. I was rather disappointed with her book but then Mark Levin’s Men in Black was disappointing as well. Mark, Bob or Gene could have done a better job.
I think she and Levin and other conservative pop stars write to make money and not for scholarship, it is one of the reasons I dont buy their books. It is a shame too, Men in Black could have been a great book.
Really, Sqweaky, she is, but I can’t take the credit.
I was quoting Juliet.
@GeneH: She’s dung??? Really??? Oh, that needs an Irish Poem!
Sheesh, Kaboobs!!!
Some folks say Ann Coulter’s manure!
Who ought to be flushed down the sewer!
I think it is such,
They protest too much-
Skew-ees seldom do like a Skew-er!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
skewer: to criticize or ridicule sharply and effectively.
“Ann Coulter is a vicious, dung-stirring pile of steaming offal. I don’t despise her for her politics. I despise her because she’s a nasty, awful person.”
I’d just like to add that in addition to being a nasty, awful person that I do indeed despise her politics too. She’s not just conservative – which is fine – she’s a neoconservative – which is anything but fine. If this were 1930’s Germany, her entire wardrobe would be brown.
So long as we’re all just layin’ it all out there about Ann.
I’d also like to say that’s a terrible thing to say about offal.
I see what you did there.
I dislike her politics, as well, but I despise her because of her person. If ever a person deserved a throat-punch, it is she. If this were 1930s Germany, I suspect she’d still be a whore, but of the more horizontal variety.
Juliet,
Don’t hide your feelings, just come right out and say what you mean.
Military training. 😉
Juliet,
Yet, conservatives/admirers hold up Coulter as a brilliant source of information/insight. I think it best to point out that Coulter isn’t as intelligent or as well-informed as she purports to be.
I didn’t like her when I was a conservative, either. I tried to read one of her books, back then. I found her even more distasteful in print than in person.
Juliet, you nailed it
It’s so annoying when people argue over nitpicky details having little to with the actual topic. Whether or not Canada sent troops to Vietnam has nothing to do with the fact that Ann Coulter is a vicious, dung-stirring pile of steaming offal. I don’t despise her for her politics. I despise her because she’s a nasty, awful person.
Juliet Lester Neary wrote: “Ann Coulter is a vicious, dung-stirring pile of steaming offal. I don’t despise her for her politics. I despise her because she’s a nasty, awful person.”
Well, you sound so nice and sweet yourself.
Obviously Ann Coulter’s humor is lost on you. I don’t think that I have ever heard Ann speak about a specific person in the vile manner that you just did about her. Even in the videos put forward to discredit her, Ann seemed very respectful, polite, and humble.
The truth is that I usually do not like ideologues like Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, or Sean Hannity. They always seem to see things only one way and cannot hear another side of an issue. I also usually do not like sarcasm as a form of humor. I am somewhat serious and do not like something said opposite to what is really meant. For some strange reason, the way Ann packages it all together just does something right for me. Sometimes when I am letting my sentiments drift toward the left a little bit too far, Ann Coulter’s take on it just wakes me up, makes me laugh, and helps me see things from a more moderate position. She makes some excellent points from time to time. I have never actually read any of her books. I have just heard her express herself on television a few times, and as I mentioned before, I have talked to her in person face to face.
@leejcarrol
@elaine
@The American Reading Comprehension Emergency Response Team
Uhhh, maybe you should try this again, reallllyyyy sloooowwwly, and focus on all the words, OK??? I will even say a few words “louder” for you, like we have to do to help foreigners who don’t speak English:
Elaine & Lee,
Sometimes the jokes just write themselves.
leejcarroll,
🙂
That’s right–why not use an unbiased, not-well-informed source to make one’s point?????
@elaine:
Hmmm. I guess a person really could dislike Ms. Coulter because she got a few things wrong about history. I mean, I guess whether or not Canada sent troops to Vietnam could be pretty important in the overall scheme of things to some people. But, I suspect that Ms. Coulter is disliked more for the stuff she gets right! Stuff like this!
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2013-08-14.html#read_more
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
So Ann Coulter tells the truth and the proof of that is a column by Ann Coulter? I mean, really?
davidm,
Coulter said that Canada sent troops to Vietnam. Canada did not send troops to Vietnam.
*****
Ann Coulter Sticks Her Entire Leg in Her Mouth
by Doug Ireland
Published on Sunday, February 6, 2005 by Doug Ireland
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0206-23.htm
Excerpt:
Ann Coulter is a loudmouth ignoramus who spouts her outrageous nationalist inaccuracies on American television with little challenge from the empty talking heads who interview her. But she finally found someone to stand up to her, in Canada–and she was exposed for the arrogant fool she is. Interviewed by the Canadian Broadcasting Company’s Bob McKeown for the investigative TV broadcast “The Fifth Estate,” which devoted an hour-long January 26 special to how U.S. media have been highjacked by conservative bullies, Coulter was berating Canada for not sending troops to Iraq when she displayed her empty-headedness in the following exchange:
Coulter: “Canada used to be one of our most loyal friends and vice-versa. I mean Canada sent troops to Vietnam – was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?”
McKeown interrupts: “Canada didn’t send troops to Vietnam.”
Coulter: “I don’t think that’s right.”
McKeown: “Canada did not send troops to Vietnam.”
Coulter (looking desperate): “Indochina?”
McKeown: “Uh no. Canada …second World War of course. Korea. Yes. Vietnam No.”
Coulter: “I think you’re wrong.”
McKeown: “No, took a pass on Vietnam.”
Coulter: “I think you’re wrong.”
McKeown: “No, Australia was there, not Canada.”
Coulter: “I think Canada sent troops.”
McKeown: “No.”
Coulter: “Well. I’ll get back to you on that.”
McKeown tags out in script:
“Coulter never got back to us — but for the record, like Iraq, Canada sent no troops to Vietnam.”
Elaine M wrote: “Coulter said that Canada sent troops to Vietnam. Canada did not send troops to Vietnam.”
Yes they did. Unfortunately, you are relying on propaganda pieces. Pay attention to the facts. Although Canada did not “officially” engage in the conflict in a hostile way, they did send troops there, some of whom died and some of whom are still missing in action. Estimates range from 30,000 to 50,000 troops from Canada fought in Vietnam. Someone who is well read and well traveled will acknowledge this through seeing monuments erected in memorial to Canada’s fallen in Vietnam.
Of course, a hardliner academic might smugly claim Canada did not send troops, but the way this is presented, the interviewer is the deceiver and not Ann Coulter. She spoke honestly and accurately, though the exact details of the facts escaped her at the time of being challenged on the spot. Kudos to her for telling McKeown that she thought he was wrong. He was wrong.
If you really want the truth, I suggest you start your search with these two links:
http://youtu.be/ul6Wg_4bBA0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_the_Vietnam_War
Although the Wiki piece starts out in a biased way claiming that Canada did not fight in the Vietnam War, keep reading and you will see facts contrary to this statement. The next sentence mentions a small number of national forces sent to enforce the Paris Peace Accords. These Peace Accords were what ended the war there, and was based upon the 1954 Geneva conventions which called for maintaining peace in the Indochina area. If you read further in the wiki article, you will see it discuss the deterioration of relations between US and Canada, which is again what Ann was talking about, despite the interviewers ignorance. Read further and you will see the mention of 30,000 Canadian troops who volunteered to fight in Vietnam. You also will read of monuments erected to those Canadians who died there. There is no doubt that despite Canada’s official posture of non-belligerence, Canada did send some troops and some Canadians did die there. Looks to me like Ann Coulter was definitely more informed than this interviewer.
Chris Christie Signs New Jersey Bill Banning Ex-Gay Therapy For Minors
By Zack Ford
August 19, 2013
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/08/19/2486811/chris-christie-signs-new-jersey-bill-banning-ex-gay-therapy-for-minors/
Excerpt:
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) is expected to sign a bill Monday banning ex-gay therapy for minors, making it the second state in the country to institute such a ban. According to a statement Christie released to CNN, he still has reservations about “government limiting parental choice”, but believes the expertise on this issue is too profound to ignore:
CHRISTIE: The American Psychological Association has found that efforts to change sexual orientations can pose critical health risks including, but not limited to, depression, substance abuse, social withdrawal, decreased self-esteem and suicidal thoughts. I believe that exposing children to these health risks without clear evidence of benefits that outweigh these serious risks is not appropriate.
Christie has said that in the past that he believes people are born gay, but he also vetoed a marriage equality bill. Commenting on this bill back in March, Christie’s office made clear that the governor “does not believe in conversion therapy.”
Gene,
All true, sadly, and well put. But there are more pure-hearted and less pure-hearted people, and a pure heart can be cultivated, to a degree. And, in any single person, through the ever-shifting emotions and motivations, once in a while, the better ones come to the fore, and a person acts on their highest motives. When they do, it’s like you’ve seen an angel come to earth. Just for an instant. Then something darker reconfigures the expression on their face, and it’s gone.
So sleepy I’m gonna fall over. Very nice chatting with you.
All the best,
Vestal Virgin
VV,
Aye, but there’s the rub. Extremism often, in fact rarely, appeals to the good in people. It usually plays to the exact opposite. But purity of heart? I think that’s an impossible standard. Even Jesus was tempted. Even Buddha grappled with his desires. Humans, even the nicest of them, usually have a line where darkness becomes an option. We are all killers. It’s in our nature. We’re apex predators with a brain born of the savannah. Semi-aquatic primates with technology evolving faster than our minds. But if we survive our social and technological adolescence, we just might evolve to become the species many of us aspire to be. We are far from the goal just yet.