"Energy Secretary Steven Chu was not aware of Katz's writings before selecting him for the panel...."

Hell, Chu wasn't aware that part of his job involved oil. Guess he thought it all had to do with fairy dust and multi-colored unicorns.

Hmmm...plumes of spilling oil headed for New Orleans and the surrounding environs...

I guess gays don't care about black people.

"Fascism is defined, in part, as the forcible suppression of opposition and/or criticism by those in power. This seems to qualify in spades does it not?"

Hardly, but the question is so simplistic it's clearly not to be taken seriously. Of course it's not fascism, that's just teabagger talk for "I don't know what this is so I'll call it something I don't understand that sounds scary."

Explain how this scientist's "opposition and criticism" was "forcibly suppressed". Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?

It wasn't.

Not even close. In fact, not at all. This person's viewpoint was not stifled one iota.

...distraction...

Now I finally get it. When something or someone is a distraction in this administration, it really is!

These guy are claiming they have A.D.D.!

That explains (not excuse) much of the childish conduct.

"It's disappointing at a time like this that when all Americans need to come together and focus on relief efforts and recovery efforts in the Gulf, someone divisive was placed in a position of power," Bockelman said.

-----------
Agreed.
It is unfortunate that Barack Hussein Obama was placed in a position of power.

Right, Lee? Weren't you against BHO?

Whenever I read a comment from LeeWard, my head hurts from the forehead slap I give myself for not ignoring him.

Explain how this scientist's "opposition and criticism" was "forcibly suppressed". Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?

Well, obviously, this scientist's opposition wasn't suppressed, because he voiced it and he has been duly humiliated and punished for it. But, let's see . . . scientists evaluating this example will understand that they will be excluded or removed from government panels in the future if they don't toe the line. Just the kind of world you want, isn't it?

Lee: If you lost your job, a job you were handpicked for, because of an irrelevant PC issue, wouldn't you feel the clammy hand of coercion (force) at play?

For a public institution to broadcast it's disfavor of an individual is often to harm that person's standing with peers, customers and clients (favorable for bloggers I must admit).

This is the opening play in "shutting down" dissention (used to be patriotic?)

You know he would have found a way to allow the oil spill to effect gays and lesbians and racists.

I bet this guy knows what the queers are doing to the soil... AND the sand.

J.

Here's an easy and 'progressive' solution: Plug up the broken pipe with a few Code Pinkers and then use the scalps of old hippie professors to clean up the spill.

I bet this guy knows what the queers are doing to the soil..

You know, Jay Tea, I *like* you! You're not like the other people, here in the trailer park.

$2 to Rodney Anonymous

Here is Jonathan Kataz's website http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/

Lee is a budding brownshirt.

Lee Ward

"I don't know what this is so I'll call it something I don't understand that sounds scary.""

SOrry we dont follow liberal thinking like that
So Lee You are saying you wouldnt have a problem with an openly gay man who takes a vow of celibacy and is turned down from being enrolled to become a priest?

The professor was clearly fired for his beliefs and not for his work in the profession for what he was hired for. Let someone who is gay get fired for posting pro gay statements and you would have a shit fit.

Michael,

Lee could never actually BE a brownshirt. He'll never amount to more than the bootlicker of a real brownshirt.

a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy, but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion

That is the modern definition of Facism...I would ask you Lee, looking objectivly and "Truthfully" is that more descriptive of the current Admin and it's allies or of the Tea Party Movement? This mans "thoughts" were wrong so he was removed and any argument against said move is rebutted with the worn out racist argument.

If you don't think, act or behave in a certain way you are dismissed, demeened, and cast out of the political and information process. Any objective observer would have to admit this is very Orwellian.

"This person's viewpoint was not stifled one iota."

Lee Ward, BULLSHIT ARTIST(TM)

Yeah, he's just looking for a job for something he said. But Democrats encourage 'diversity'. As long as you toe the "Party" line.

Right? Lee Ward, BULLSHIT ARTIST!(TM)

So, if some corporation hired someone, later found out they were Liberal and supported Obama, and then fired them because of that even though they were eminently qualified for the job. . you would have no problem with it, right, Lee?

I'm going to take a wild guess and say Lee is unfamiliar with William Shockley...

J.

"The human body was not designed to share hypodermic needles, it was not designed to be promiscuous, and it was not designed to engage in homosexual acts"

Well, call me homophobic if you like - but the above seems like just plain common sense. You shouldn't use a wrench for a hammer, you couldn't use a hammer for a wrench. The two tools are designed for completely different things, so to speak - so it would really depend on the act in question. Some acts just shouldn't occur with a one-way street, while others aren't harmful with consent.

Hell, the human body's not even designed to USE hypodermic needles, much less share them. And as far as the promiscuity issue goes, well - guess it depends on what you do and how much you do it, right?

What really concerns me about all this - the guy was picked based on his SCIENCE expertise, right? Something to do with the knowledge necessary to SOLVE A PROBLEM? Frankly, it wouldn't matter to me if he had foursomes with a sheep, an aardvark and a squid (either human or calimari) - if he had some way to take care of the PROBLEM I don't care WHAT his orientation or proclivities are.

So he gets dumped for a NON-PROBLEM related reason. Go figure - I'm more 'progressive' (in that I want PROGRESS in getting the problem resolved) than our administration!

But what 'progressives' seem to miss is that results actually matter.

I swear, the leftists - for all their talk about diversity of thought and tolerance of differing opinions - are some of the most ridgid ideologues and are rabidly intolerant of other opinions. And they call CONSERVATIVES intolerant?

"Well, obviously, this scientist's opposition wasn't suppressed, because he voiced it and he has been duly humiliated and punished for it."

Thanks for acknowledging that he wasn't suppressed in the least. His voice wasn't "suppressed" one bit. He still has all the same freedoms he had before.

Further, he still has the same job at Washington that he had before. He has not been punished at all either.

When you folks toss around terms like "fascism" and claim that opposing viewpoints have been "suppressed" it cheapens the American discourse when these claims turn out to be 100% bullshit.

"We are no longer the land of the free"

Total bullshit.

Oh god, the stupid is making my brain hurt.

He hasn't lost his job. Professor Katz is still Professor Katz of the Washington University of St Louis Physics Dept. - he hasn't lost his job.

Now, we can argue the toss over whether those complaining about his appointment to the oil spill clean up committee have a point, but that's not really the issue here. The fact is that they have an urgent job to do and his writings have created a distraction that the committee can do without - he's a liability, so he has to go. I actually think, even though Katz is clearly a complete asshole, it's the wrong decision, but I can completely understand, in the circumstances why it was made.

But he has not been silenced, his views, loathsome as they are (and I say this as someone who lost a good - hemophiliac - friend to HIV/AIDS), have not been suppressed. I just read the shitty, nasty, hateful piece in question.

Fascism? Jesus, Rick, what are you, 12 years old? Grow the fuck up. Honestly, don't you think that if the current White House regime were really fascists intent on silencing Prof Katz, they might have had his webpage removed from Washington University's website?

Lee Ward:

"We are no longer the land of the free"

Your proof of that dipshit. I however digress.

Remember that night in November? When Barry promised to do better? Follow?

l ward - "When you folks toss around terms like "fascism" and "

Yeah it gets tossed around, funny thing though.

It comes from learning the trait from the BEST. (eight years of Bush-bashing, i.e. "Best" meaning you guys)

"The fact is that they have an urgent job to do and his writings have created a distraction that the committee can do without - he's a liability, so he has to go."

Nah. They found out they've got bird shit in the pool and need to get rid of it. I'm sure Reverend Wright can explain it so much better to him.

"his writings have created a distraction that the committee can do without - he's a liability, so he has to go"

I'd say it's those who are so immature as to be "distracted" by this that are the ones that shouldn't be on the committee, but I doubt anyone on the committee even cared as long as Katz knew his shit. And it's very likely he did since he's "considered a leading scientist". This was a political move--plain and simple.

No, it's a safe bet that it wasn't even his fellow committee members who were "distracted". It was more likely someone like "A.J. Bockelman, director of PROMO" who made a big deal about this and posted it on DU or HuffPo or something like that, or threatened to sue and the regime got scared and ordered the DOE to can him.

Is A.J. on the committee?

"No", you say? THAT IS WHY IT'S FASCISM, my lefttard friends, Lee and Alf.

Could you immagine what the fellow travelers would be screaming if a Republican President fired a scientist because he was a pro-eugenics or a pro-forced sterilizations or had some other far left fringe beliefs. But they'd be right to scream as that would be fascism just as these acts of the Obama regime are.

Alfonso... your brain hurts because it's too damned small to process thought...

Where did I say anything about Katz losing his job? And who exactly are the distracted except those who are all about identity politics? And what specifically is hateful about what Katz has written?

Alfonso, if there's anyone here who needs to grow the fuck up pal, it's you and your 12 year old mentality...

Get a grip and see what the fuck is happening here dipshit... here let me help... what would your thoughts be if Bush were doing the same to a liberal?

Retard.

Lee Ward = Liberal Fascist.

The fact is that they have an urgent job to do and his writings have created a distraction that the committee can do without - he's a liability, so he has to go.

What the hell's he doing? Reading them at committee meetings? Is the administration afraid that someone will (heaven forbid!) take offense to what he's written in the past? Or did someone take offense, and can't get past it?

This is illustrative of how the left does things. It's not important to actually SOLVE the problem, what's important is give the appearance of doing it all correctly. We must have the proper number of minorities and we must be diverse and we must have all the proper forms filled out to show we're diverse and non-exclusive.

And then, after sensitivity training and ethics training, and the mandatory diversity training and exercises, we can think about possibly forming committees to examine the best way to form a working group to determine the proper number of teams to split into, and to make sure that those teams are sufficiently diverse to preclude any possibility of a lawsuit later on because someone felt offended or excluded...

And MAYBE, after all this, we'll decided how to actually tackle the problem in an environmentally sensitive and friendly manner, taking into account the current state of knowledge on oceanic currents, subsurface flotation of the oil masses, wildlife populations and so forth, and subcontract out the ecologial impact studies that will be needed to determine what will need to be done to solve the problem.

By then, we should be into 2012, and if we time it right we should have a wonderful item that Obama can put on his resume when he runs for re-election! We won't have actually done anything to solve the problem, but DAMN we'll look good!

Solve the fucking problem!

Stop wasting time with irrelevant bullshit and petty personal political shit. Get the best possible people in the field on it - regardless of whether they're hetero, homo, sheepo, S&M freaks, bugger chickens, torture amoebas, have fantasies about auto erotica (Hey, Ferrari makes some pretty sexy stuff!) or get off playing with diaper filling (You know, that stuff that's made out of seaweed that soaks up everything in the diaper? If you were thinking something else, then get your pervy mind out of the gutter!) - and if there's some people who can't get beyond the personal aspects of someone they disagree with, get THEM the fuck out of the way and let the experts run!

Let's be a bit more respectful, folks. Remember Mr. Ward is a charter member and chapter Commissar of the Junior Stalinists of America.

Unless we can defeat the Obama regime, Lee may be choosing your reeducation camp, so be nice!

Imagine if one of the scientists that worked on getting the Apollo 13 men home without dying by using what the astronauts had on hand in the module had written this article and was fired from the project. We might not have gotten those three men back alive.

I think, what he wrote on his website is his rights and freedom of speech. It is nothing to do with his work on oil-spill in gulf. It is absolutely unreasonable that he was removed from the group.

Lee, you have a wonderful habit of just ignoring posts that are inconvenient for you to answer: (WIth modification)

So, if some corporation offered a plum posting to someone based on their expertise, later found out they were Liberal and supported Obama, and then denied them that posting because of that even though they were eminently qualified for the job. . you would have no problem with it, right, Lee?

I mean, fair is fair. Except not in the world of Lee Ward. Bizzaro world.

... fascism is defined ... as the forcible suppression of opposition and/or criticism by those in power ...

No it is not.

Fascism, as is every form of Left-Wing totalitarianism (I know, there's redundancy there) is marked by the inevitability of its proponents and practitioners having to employ the forcible suppression of opposition and/or criticism.

But fascism (AKA "modified Marxism) is DEFINED by its centralized dictatorial regulation and effective control of industry, commerce and finance and of the means of production, manufacture, sales and distribution.

Fascism is alive and well and is the gummint-of-choice in every one of the Europeons' Neo-Soviet's every satellite state and throughout the Western World, including post-Trudeau Canada, post-Helen-"Peking"-Clark New Zealand and post-Whitlam/Hawke/Keating/KRudd Australia.

Fascism's definition also best describes the practices of the Reed/Pelosi/"Democratic"-party/fiat-bureaucracy-enabled Buraq Hussayn 0zero regime.

"We are no longer the land of the free"

Total bullshit.

Lee Ward, BULLSHIT ARTIST!(TM)

When the government tells me I MUST purchase a product under penalty of fine, that restricts my freedom.

Rick:

The only direct reference I made to anything you wrote was to your stupid, ignorant, childish labeling of this as fascism. You're just like some teenage student screaming 'FASCIST!!!' at everything you disagree with. Ironically, you're doing exactly what liberals are often accused of doing on here - demonizing instead of arguing. Pathetic and (like liberals are often accused of being on here) hypocritical.

My comments about Prof Katz not losing his job are clearly aimed at all the dipshits replying who seem to think that he's been sacked from his actual job.

Brian Richard Allen:

Even among the rank stupidity and solipsistic paranoia on display here, your #36 really stands out. Do you really believe that shit? Do you honestly think that anything you disagree with politically is fascism? Do you honestly think that all of Europe, New Zealand and Australia have fascist governments? Because that would make you a bit mad, quite honestly.

I'm amused though at your post being marked up. Is there any "conservative" opinion that's too insane to get a knee-jerk supportive response here, I wonder?

If people were required to look up words before they use them, the internet would be a much quieter place.

Alfonzo -

I, for one, don't give a damn about someone's politics or beliefs if they've got the brains and knowledge to solve a problem that's vitally important.

What I'm fucking pissed about is that the left (or progressives, if you will) seem to have this idea that ONLY folks espousing 'proper' ideology are to be considered worthy of consideration when it comes to looking for solutions.

I'm also getting pissed about the circle-jerk that puts actually getting the most capable and competent people to solve the problem far below making sure that 'diversity' is accomodated.

I realize it's an utterly hateful idea to you to think that this horrible person MIGHT have had something constructive to add to finding a SOLUTION - but what's more important to ya? Getting the problem solved, or feeling good about how 'tolerant and diverse' you are by demonstrating to everyone how intolerant you are of the people you dislike because you don't agree with their views?

JL - it's all about "feeling good".

Well, I ain't feelin' all that good, Garandfan!

JLawson

I, for one, don't give a damn about someone's politics or beliefs if they've got the brains and knowledge to solve a problem that's vitally important.

But if they bring more problems to the table than they solve..?

Katz might well have the knowledge to sort all this out - he might not, we don't really know. But I do appreciate that having to deal with whining shits who're ranting about the guy's (admittedly horrible) opinions is a distraction from actually dealing with the problem.

Based on what I know, I don't think he should have been dropped from the committee, but I can accept that I don't know the full details of the situation. The anger, paranoia and just plain stupidity on display here is astonishing. Just maybe, those making the decision are more knowledgeable than we are - maybe?

But Katz is a bigot, an asshole and (at least on some subjects) an idiot.

"But Katz is a bigot, an asshole and (at least on some subjects) an idiot."

So what? So fucking what? It doesn't MATTER.

Is he being tapped for his expertise in those fields, or for something else?

So you don't like his points of view on irrelevant shit. Yes, it IS irrelevant shit - because it has NOTHING to do with the problem.

So you feel like taking a shower after you've been in a room with him. Best computer tech I ever knew had some serious personal hygene issues, AND kept horses. You can imagine what he smelled like. We put up with him because he really, truely, knew his shit.

Does this guy know his shit about what he was needed for?

Can you, for a moment, possibly think about whether the folks who've got a hate on for this clown had their FEELINGS about him cloud their judgement about his abilities for what he was needed for?

Frankly, I think you've got your priorities completely inverted. SOLVE the problem FIRST, deal with the irrelevant (and yes, it IS totally irrelevant on a professional scale) personal crap another time. Put the priorities where they SHOULD be, in getting the problem SOLVED.

But I do appreciate that having to deal with whining shits who're ranting about the guy's (admittedly horrible) opinions is a distraction from actually dealing with the problem.

Then tell them to STFU and hold their damn noses if they have to. What's more important to them, being whiny PC shits, or getting the problem solved? Oh, wait - that's pretty evident, isn't it?

Based on what I know, I don't think he should have been dropped from the committee, but I can accept that I don't know the full details of the situation. The anger, paranoia and just plain stupidity on display here is astonishing. Just maybe, those making the decision are more knowledgeable than we are - maybe?

Angry? Hell, yes. As I've posted before, I don't CARE what someone's opinions are, if they're capable of solving the problem set before them. If not? Then they're not needed, and there's no problem with getting rid of him. But the story, as presented, had this person tapped BECAUSE they thought he was of great value in solving the problem.

And he was bounced out the door because someone didn't like his opinions which weren't even remotely connected to the problem he was tapped to solve.

So I'm puzzled here. Do YOU think it's stupid or paranoid to think that the PROBLEM that needs to be solved is actually more important than making sure everyone's delicate sensibilities are protected from any possible disturbance?

JLawson

What I think is stupid and paranoid is people shouting "FASCIST!!!" and ranting about the guy losing his job and his views being suppressed by the government when neither of these things has happened.

But I don't necessarily disagree with you here. I don't, however, think that I know enough about the situation to comment definitively, and I also think the situation is more nuanced than it just being some guy being dumped from a committee for saying some bad stuff.

For example, I'm not gay, but if I was, I wouldn't exactly be too pleased at some guy who's gone on record saying basically that the gays murdered the hemophiliacs (have you read his homophobia piece - it's fucking repellent) getting government work. I don't know if this was a paid post, but I wouldn't want my taxes going to this fucker and I wouldn't want him benefiting from any sort of government contact, quite frankly.

I can also see that being bombarded with complaints, having to deal with the hoo-hah in the media and generally dealing with the fallout of having this guy around is distracting from the aims of what the committee's meant to be doing. If he's like Bruce Willis and the only guy that can save mankind, then fair enough, but there are other physicists out there.

Imagine we're not talking about Prof Katz. What if, instead, the guy with the knowledge turns out to be some crazy islamist fucker who advocates the destruction of Israel and exterminating Jews? But he knows his shit and can help out with the oil-slick. What then?

Clearly, Katz's opinions aren't as abhorrent as that, but he's still one bigoted fucker.

You're going to need to substantiate your bigotry against Katz with some specifics...

Quote him and tell us how it's bigotry... so far, you're the bigot on this thread pal...

What if, instead, the guy with the knowledge turns out to be some crazy islamist fucker who advocates the destruction of Israel and exterminating Jews? But he knows his shit and can help out with the oil-slick. What then?

Hold your nose, stifle your puking, and DEAL WITH THE FUCKING PROBLEM!

So Katz doesn't like homosexuality. Big fucking deal! Who CARES? It's not important when dealing with an OIL SLICK!

Good god, man, don't you get the fucking point? Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Is there ANY point you can think of where you're going to be willing to work with someone who seriously disagrees with you on social issues?

Let's say you're a racist, anti-semite homophobe. And aliens attack, and you just happen to be one of only two experts in a vitally needed specialty. The other person is a queer black Jew. Between the two of you, you MIGHT be able to come up with something to stop the alien invasion. Either of you will fail separately, and humanity might well be wiped out.

Can you put aside your bigotry and work with the man whole-heartedly, or would you rather accept humanity being wiped out than work with someone you abhor?

"He's a bigot." So? Is he willing to work the problem, no matter who's on the team?

"He's a homophobe." So? Is he willing to be professional on the job? You're not looking to hang out with him, you're looking at getting a problem solved.

"He's a distraction - what if the press hears?" That's what managers are for - to make sure the people they manage get the job done, and to fend off the press. Besides, if you'll notice all through this thread, people don't care if he's a homophobe. Or hetero. Hell, he could fuck trees (with their consent, of course, and only older than 18) if he wants - OFF THE CLOCK.

There comes a time when the professional HAS to be able to override the personal, even if it comes down to the chairman of the committee going "Look, I realize we don't all agree on everything, but this problem is pretty damn important and it needs to be dealt with NOW. You working with someone else to deal with this problem isn't validating what THEY believe in that YOU don't - what it means is that you're professional enough to put aside the personal to deal with what has to be dealt with."

And that's where the Left has got an epic fail going. If the ancillary beliefs aren't right, it doesn't matter how capable or competent you are, you'll be cut out.

On the other hand, if the beliefs ARE correct, again it doesn't matter how capable or competent you are - you're golden and can fuck up like crazy, and you'll get a pass.

Sooner or later, you've got to decide whether competency is more important than your feelings about the person. What I don't understand is why you feel the extraneous crap is apparently far more important than what the person can do. I seriously don't get it.

JLawson

I agree with you, in the circumstances you describe. If he's the only guy who can save us, the only man for the job, then yeah. But if someone else can do it and his extracurricular activities are an issue, for whatever reason, then the government can have who the hell they like on their committees, far as I'm concerned.

It's not black and white and I've already said on this thread that I don't think he should have been kicked off the committee. But I can see the point of view of those who think he should have been. I also freely admit that I've no idea whether someone equally qualified has taken his place. If so, then no big deal, as far as I'm concerned.

I'd also suggest that there are plenty who post here who would blow a gasket if an islamist was appointed to such a position, and regardless of his expertise, this would be seen as more evidence that Obama is attempting to destroy America and bring about a fascist dictatorship.

Rick

A quote from the article in question.

"I am a homophobe, and proud."

Homophobia (Dictionary.com)

The man admits he's a bigot.

Alphonso... he defines, using his own words, what he believes homophobia is... it does not agree with the Dictionary.com's definition...

But you've got to know this... and yet you continue...

It's retarded behavior...

Rick

As expected, dictionary.com definitions apply where they back up your arguments, but the definitions don't apply where they don't back you up..?

The man hates the gays. He's a bigot.

No Doofus... you're attempting to hold the man to a standard you define... when he clearly writes one sentence after another about how he defines the term...

You must have comprehension problems... or no... actually, you're a damned liberal... and words can mean whatever the hell you decide them to mean...

Or so you think...

Rational people will call you on it.

Retarded.

"But if someone else can do it and his extracurricular activities are an issue, for whatever reason, then the government can have who the hell they like on their committees, far as I'm concerned."

(Shakes head.)

And again you miss the point, Al. Some things just don't matter - and even if someone is screaming and shouting about it, a good manager knows when it's time to tell the objectors "Shut the fuck up. Your opinion doesn't matter. He can do the job - can you do it better? If not, like I said, shut the fuck up."

I'd never heard of this guy before this thread. I likely never will again. His opinions on life are of no importance whatsoever to me. I don't hate him, or love him, or even care much about him.

What I do find objectionable is the tyranny of the offended. Where if anyone objects to someone with a conservative point of view then that's sufficient grounds to shove the guy out the airlock, regardless of any other qualifications.

Maybe, just maybe, it's time for the perpetually offended to start going "You know, what they believe doesn't affect me - they can believe what they want, as long as they don't try to force their views on me." To practice the tolerance they're always demanding from everyone else concerning lifestyles and personal choices.

I don't know what your situation is - what you do for a living or what. I'm almost willing to bet you've never worked in an office where there's a lot of differing political or lifestyle opinions - yet somehow most people find ways to work with those they significantly disagree with.

Maybe our government should also.

Good luck to you, man - try to think about being tolerant from time to time when confronted by stuff that makes you uneasy, okay?

JL

I don't know how many times I have to say this - I don't think the guy should have been kicked off the committee (although, again, with the caveat that I don't know the full story...).

FWIW, I think my work history is more varied than most (maybe not though?). I'm an IT guy - I started out working for a city council, but since then I've been freelance and run my own company for a while, with clients ranging from very leftie housing associations to very, very righty hedge funds. I've worked in the commercial art world, where making money is king (and art is very much a sideline), and for theaters, where money is always scarce and the politics are not what you'd call conservative.

Rick

You must have comprehension problems... or no... actually, you're a damned liberal... and words can mean whatever the hell you decide them to mean...

You started by trying to redefine fascism to suit your argument. And I don't think that using the actual dictionary definition of a word is in any way words meaning whatever the hell I decide.

And weren't you just arguing that Prof Katz was redefining homophobia to mean whatever the hell he decided? (hint: yes, you were)

So is Prof Katz a liberal? Is that what you're driving at here?

Guess I'm wrong, then, Al - I took your immediate dislike about Katz's opinions to be the standard knee-jerk reaction by 'progressives' to anything they disagree with.

Anyway, have a good week!

Al,

I started by excerpting in part Dictionary.com's definition of fascism... read it again... slowly...

And Katz started by stating the following:

Homophobia is the moral judgement that homosexual behavior (most of the arguments in this essay refer specifically to male homosexual behavior) is wrong. Homophobia is not like ethnic, racial or religious prejudice, which deny the intrinsic moral rights and value of other people. Rather, it is a moral judgement upon acts engaged in by choice.

If you are religious, you probably agree with the homophobic position, because most major religions make this moral judgement. The Jewish and Christian Bible describes homosexual activity, in most English translations, as an ``abomination''. This condemnation is found in the Book of Leviticus, along with condemnations of incest and bestiality. Unlike homosexuality, there has been no organized effort to win approval for those sexual sins, which are condemned by almost everyone. The same word is used to condemn moving boundary markers, a grievous sin in an agricultural society.

...

The homophobe does not engage in violence against homosexuals. Repelled, he stays away from them. Homophobes are divided on the wisdom of laws against homosexual acts. Some believe laws are a good way to reduce their frequency and damaging consequences. Others, probably the majority, believe that outlawing these acts is futile, just as outlawing drug abuse may be futile, and that laws may lead to destructive witch-hunts. These homophobes believe the best approach is moral condemnation, which is the approach our society now applies to many other destructive practices, such as adultery, alcohol and tobacco abuse, and suicide. Moral condemnation will not extirpate them, but neither can the law; a climate of disapproval may reduce their frequency and their harm.

What of those cursed with unnatural sexual desires? Must they forever suppress these desires? Yes, but this is hardly a unique fate. Almost everyone has desires which must be suppressed. Most men and women think adulterous thoughts fairly often, and find themselves attracted to members of the opposite sex to whom they are not married. Morality requires them to suppress these desires, and most do not commit adultery, though they feel lust in their hearts. Almost everyone, at one time or another, covets another's property. They do not steal. Many people feel great anger or intense hatred at some time in their lives. They do not kill.

I am a homophobe, and proud.

Given this excerpt of Katz', do you consider him still to be a bigot and a hater?

If so, you think the same of most people in the freakin' world...

Which makes you what you claim to abhor.

Given that