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
Squeek,
“There is an excerpt lost above in spam somewhere.”
Sure there is. And this excerpt would explain everything; I’m sure.
@DarrenS:
Demonic. There is an excerpt lost above in spam somewhere.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Are we referring to demonic or demotic?
I am becoming confused here.
Squeek,
I’m not a grammar nazi, I’m a accepted definition nazi. Talk to Bron, he’ll confirm this.
If you want to make up your own definitions, go right ahead. It does nothing but weaken your argument.
gbk:
A grammar nazi is telling somebody to “step up their game”??? Ohhhh, my! Perhaps, you should just buy Demonic, and add up all the notes for each chapter, and come back and give everybody a report! You could even footnote it! I suspect that you excel at such tasks!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeek,
“Uh, is this a trick question???”
No. Just calling you on a minor detail contained within your major bullsh*t.
“Additionally, I have some accounting experience, and we also use the term, “footnotes”, and they most often appear at the end of the financial statements.”
Yippee!!! Unfortunately, accounting references do not map to accepted structures of most any other genres of writing. My wife is a CPA, so I also know this from experience.
Hey, if Demonic has x numbers of endnotes then so be it. Just call it what it is. Step your game up a notch.
gbk:
Uh, is this a trick question??? I took page 338 and lessed out page 305. This gave me 33, I think, if my math is right. The fact that you obsess about whether something is a footnote or an endnote tells me that you are probably not a “Big Picture” person. FWIW, Ann simply calls them “Notes.” I am happy calling them “footnotes.” I would also be content calling them endnotes, citations and references, or simply notes. But I like calling them “footnotes.” Because I am more of a Big Picture person, and I like the connotations. Endnotes just sounds kind of stilted to me. Plus, you knew what I was talking about, and I bet you were simply trying to “gotcha” me, with something that isn’t worth “gotcha-ing” a person over, IMO.
Additionally, I have some accounting experience, and we also use the term, “footnotes”, and they most often appear at the end of the financial statements. There simply isn’t room for them under the actual statements in most cases.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
gbk,
The devil is in the details.
Squeek,
It’s funny how your Webster reference is for footnotes. I never questioned the esixtence of such.
So, I’ll ask again:
If the thirty-three pages of “footnotes” in Demonic are footnotes how do you know there are thirty-three pages of said?
Did you measure the font size of each and every footnote and the page space dedicated to the footnotes and then wildly calculate. Or are they endnotes with their own pagination?
Details are important. If you had written anything other than your tripe on this blog you would know this.
“If this is that important to you, then what can I say???”
The fact that you confuse footnotes with endnotes tells me you don’t read much. You’re the one that claimed thirty-three pages of footnotes. How did you come up with this claim if they are footnotes?
Just asking.
@gbk:
If this is that important to you, then what can I say???
“: a note of reference, explanation, or comment USUALLY placed below the text on a printed page”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/footnote
Some people have more than one frame of reference, so that somebody in another field, may indeed place “footnotes” at the end of statements. Not beneath them. I only mention this to keep you up tonight worrying about it. LOL.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky,
“However, “footnotes” is also used as a more generic term for “additional comments” regardless of position.”
Not true, Squeek.
Footnotes are at the bottom of a page and used for immediate clarification of information on said page. Endnotes are typically references of source occuring in their own section of a book, typically before a bibliography, if any.
@gbk:
If “endnotes” lights your bulb, then consider them “endnotes.” However, “footnotes” is also used as a more generic term for “additional comments” regardless of position. I love that Divinyls song! I played it a few times the other day when I read about her dying.
@elaine: Uh, you haven’t seemed to present too much info outside of “Here’s somebody else’s opinion that agrees with mine!” Which is OK the first couple of times, but then it begins to morph into what courts call “cumulative evidence” and there is no practical probative value. Frankly, the more people who don’t like her, the more I want to read what she writes.
I do not doubt that Ann is far from perfect, and do not doubt that the same is true of most other persons on the left, right, middle, and wherever. I have read several of her books, and even I do not agree with everything she says. But, she has a real talent for cutting through liberal and lefty BeeEss and leaving their pomposity totally popped.
Maybe you should try reading something new, something outside your comfort zone, maybe H.L.Mencken. That would be a good comparison. He was far from perfect, on many levels, and had his flaws. But on the whole, people who read him, love his stuff.
After Mencken, then try Demonic. There is a reason why libs go apesh*t about Coulter, and it ain’t a few historical boo-boos or a mis-cite here and there. It is because she eviscerates the left. If she lived in Biblical times, I feel sure TLPTB would be calling for her head on a platter.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Ann Coulter: Plagiarist?
Squeeky,
I guess you didn’t watch the video about Coulter’s lies–and “footnotes.”
Squeeky,
“May I suggest Demonic with its 33 pages of footnotes.”
Wow, thirty-three pages of footnotes! Who can write such a thing? And are they footnotes or endnotes? I ask only because if they are footnotes how do you know the page total?
I must admit I like your referential handle. This one’s for you, clean sheets included:
Well, I have a comment which is stuck in spam that may make it out with an excerpt. . .
but in the meantime, you know, the best way to settle the Ann Coulter question is for more people to read her books. May I suggest Demonic with its 33 pages of footnotes. Here is what wiki says about it:
It’s a really fun and well written book! Stuff like this is why the libs and lefties hate her. The stuff on the Weathermen is particularly hilarious.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
A publisher’s book description is meant to sell the book to the targeted audience. No different then when, think it was you, said Ann Coulter tells the truth and the proof of that is a column for which you give click.
Olbermann Exposes a few of Coulter’s Lies
Elaine,
And Nancy Grace is into comedies as well…..as well as the devils mentor Rush Limbaugh….
Juliet,
I agree. She’s nothing but a high-priced hate monger who’d do or say almost anything that would get her attention and make her money.
A little Ann Coulter humor: