THE NEW BLACKLIST

[OPTIMUS PINECONE]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/252zsbwa.asp?pg=1

     This is just an all around great read.

[Reginald Ret]

 

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Ah, Tina, my opposition to same-sex marriage does not originate in the pew. However much sympathy, affection--indeed, love--I have for certain gay persons, "gay marriage" burlesques a primal institution rooted in nature. Marriage, as a unique bond between male and female, predates all politics and religious doctrines. And no one has to believe in God to see social anarchy, with children adrift in the wreckage, at the end of the same-sex marriage road.

...

The story disclosed other "suspect" donations of mine (to pro-life groups and, most damning, to the Swift Boat vets) and referred to my Catholicism.

I like how she knows so much about cognitive science that she can definitively separate her beliefs about marriage from her Catholicism.

[Cain]

I was about to throw down a "citation needed" tag on the very same paragraph.

Not only cognitive science, but sociology, history and genetic and evolutionary human behaviour.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It's fucking creepy as hell that someone can just look up your charitable or political contributions and then harass you or try to damage your career. It's both creepy and frightening that a paper can publish a list of names and HOME ADDRESSES of people who donated to a particular cause, especially with the full knowledge that most of their readership is vehemently opposed to that cause and the people who supported it. I mean, fuck, that's just not right. It's not right when the right-wing does it to the left, and it's still not right when the left-wing does it to the right. It's some unethical bullshit, is what it is.

Who fucking cares whether this woman understands the underlying motivations about her beliefs? I may not agree with her at all, but I don't think that or her self-analysis are relevant.

[Cain]

It's fucking creepy as hell that someone can just look up your charitable or political contributions and then harass you or try to damage your career. It's both creepy and frightening that a paper can publish a list of names and HOME ADDRESSES of people who donated to a particular cause, especially with the full knowledge that most of their readership is vehemently opposed to that cause and the people who supported it. I mean, fuck, that's just not right. It's not right when the right-wing does it to the left, and it's still not right when the left-wing does it to the right. It's some unethical bullshit, is what it is.

Who fucking cares whether this woman understands the underlying motivations about her beliefs? I may not agree with her at all, but I don't think that or her self-analysis are relevant.

Except the paper didn't do it.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/13/BA0R16EIMB.DTL&tsp=1

The newspaper did not print her home address or the addresses of other donors.

Mullarkey, an artist, contributed $1,000 to the Prop. 8 cause. But her donation to a statewide initiative was public information, available on the Web site of the California secretary of state.

The Prop. 8 donor database, which was provided to newspapers by the Associated Press, didn't include Prop. 8 supporters alone, as Mullarkey strongly suggested.

It was weighted 2-1 in the other direction, including 96,000 records of donors who were against Prop. 8 and 46,000 in favor of it.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

It's fucking creepy as hell that someone can just look up your charitable or political contributions and then harass you or try to damage your career. It's both creepy and frightening that a paper can publish a list of names and HOME ADDRESSES of people who donated to a particular cause, especially with the full knowledge that most of their readership is vehemently opposed to that cause and the people who supported it. I mean, fuck, that's just not right. It's not right when the right-wing does it to the left, and it's still not right when the left-wing does it to the right. It's some unethical bullshit, is what it is.

Who fucking cares whether this woman understands the underlying motivations about her beliefs? I may not agree with her at all, but I don't think that or her self-analysis are relevant.

What would be unethical is if all the people who bought her art with GLBT subject matter were denied knowledge of her true intentions.

That she lies about her motivations is entirely the crux of the issue here. If she didn't make art with GLBT subject matter, people wouldn't be nearly as pissed off at her backstabbing, swine behavior.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It's fucking creepy as hell that someone can just look up your charitable or political contributions and then harass you or try to damage your career. It's both creepy and frightening that a paper can publish a list of names and HOME ADDRESSES of people who donated to a particular cause, especially with the full knowledge that most of their readership is vehemently opposed to that cause and the people who supported it. I mean, fuck, that's just not right. It's not right when the right-wing does it to the left, and it's still not right when the left-wing does it to the right. It's some unethical bullshit, is what it is.

Who fucking cares whether this woman understands the underlying motivations about her beliefs? I may not agree with her at all, but I don't think that or her self-analysis are relevant.

What would be unethical is if all the people who bought her art with GLBT subject matter were denied knowledge of her true intentions.

That she lies about her motivations is entirely the crux of the issue here. If she didn't make art with GLBT subject matter, people wouldn't be nearly as pissed off at her backstabbing, swine behavior.

1. You clearly didn't read the whole article

2. I know gays who are opposed to gay marriage. Does that make them backstabbing swine?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It's fucking creepy as hell that someone can just look up your charitable or political contributions and then harass you or try to damage your career. It's both creepy and frightening that a paper can publish a list of names and HOME ADDRESSES of people who donated to a particular cause, especially with the full knowledge that most of their readership is vehemently opposed to that cause and the people who supported it. I mean, fuck, that's just not right. It's not right when the right-wing does it to the left, and it's still not right when the left-wing does it to the right. It's some unethical bullshit, is what it is.

Who fucking cares whether this woman understands the underlying motivations about her beliefs? I may not agree with her at all, but I don't think that or her self-analysis are relevant.

Except the paper didn't do it.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/13/BA0R16EIMB.DTL&tsp=1

The newspaper did not print her home address or the addresses of other donors.

Mullarkey, an artist, contributed $1,000 to the Prop. 8 cause. But her donation to a statewide initiative was public information, available on the Web site of the California secretary of state.

The Prop. 8 donor database, which was provided to newspapers by the Associated Press, didn't include Prop. 8 supporters alone, as Mullarkey strongly suggested.

It was weighted 2-1 in the other direction, including 96,000 records of donors who were against Prop. 8 and 46,000 in favor of it.

So it only printed their names and states of residence?

That's better. Marginally. I still think it's pretty fucking alarming. Like I said, harassment of that nature isn't OK when the right does it, and it's still not OK when the left does it.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

What would be unethical is if all the people who bought her art with GLBT subject matter were denied knowledge of her true intentions.

I have to revisit this statement, because I  think it is utter and complete bullshit. The social and political viewpoint of every artist does not need to be made public in case it might offend a purchaser of their art. Her statements clearly indicate that she is not against gays, she is against gay marriage. How, exactly, is that relevant to her artistic depiction of scenes from a Gay Pride parade? If the purchasers were concerned, they could have asked her what her social viewpoints were. She could have declined to answer, but the choice to buy the art would still lie in her hands.

I'm not very public with my social, religious, and spiritual views in my business life. I think that I, like every other American in any line of work, have the right to keep those separate from my career. Do you think it would be acceptable for someone to go dredging through your private life and mail a portfolio of everything you've been involved in to your employer?

I find it frightening that people even think that way, frankly. It's a perspective of punishing someone for their views.

[Requia ☣]

Her views are that I'm not a person.  Just saying.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Her views are that I'm not a person.  Just saying.

She stated that she has affection and love for you, WHY DON'T YOU BELIEVE HER?!

[The Good Reverend Roger]

It's fucking creepy as hell that someone can just look up your charitable or political contributions and then harass you or try to damage your career. It's both creepy and frightening that a paper can publish a list of names and HOME ADDRESSES of people who donated to a particular cause, especially with the full knowledge that most of their readership is vehemently opposed to that cause and the people who supported it. I mean, fuck, that's just not right. It's not right when the right-wing does it to the left, and it's still not right when the left-wing does it to the right. It's some unethical bullshit, is what it is.

Who fucking cares whether this woman understands the underlying motivations about her beliefs? I may not agree with her at all, but I don't think that or her self-analysis are relevant.

Except the paper didn't do it.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/13/BA0R16EIMB.DTL&tsp=1

The newspaper did not print her home address or the addresses of other donors.

Mullarkey, an artist, contributed $1,000 to the Prop. 8 cause. But her donation to a statewide initiative was public information, available on the Web site of the California secretary of state.

The Prop. 8 donor database, which was provided to newspapers by the Associated Press, didn't include Prop. 8 supporters alone, as Mullarkey strongly suggested.

It was weighted 2-1 in the other direction, including 96,000 records of donors who were against Prop. 8 and 46,000 in favor of it.

So it only printed their names and states of residence?

That's better. Marginally. I still think it's pretty fucking alarming. Like I said, harassment of that nature isn't OK when the right does it, and it's still not OK when the left does it.

Political donations are always a matter of public record, for reasons which are pretty obvious, when you think about it from a corruption POV.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Emails started coming. Heavy with epithets and ad hominems, most in the you-disgust-me vein. Several accused me, personally, of denying the sender his single chance at happiness after a life of unrelieved oppression and second-class citizenship.

And they were right.

Epithets and ad hominem attacks (but not threats or worse) are in order.  We all have the freedom to speak our minds, vote our conscience, and donate to the political causes we believe in.  But that freedom does not include immunity to public scorn.  Also, I do not care if her beliefs are rooted in the pulpit or not; the fact is, she went out of her way to make people miserable, people who did her no harm (and would not do her harm by becoming married).  For this, she deserves every ass nugget of shit that rains down on her.

 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

What would be unethical is if all the people who bought her art with GLBT subject matter were denied knowledge of her true intentions.

I have to revisit this statement, because I  think it is utter and complete bullshit. The social and political viewpoint of every artist does not need to be made public in case it might offend a purchaser of their art. Her statements clearly indicate that she is not against gays, she is against gay marriage. How, exactly, is that relevant to her artistic depiction of scenes from a Gay Pride parade? If the purchasers were concerned, they could have asked her what her social viewpoints were. She could have declined to answer, but the choice to buy the art would still lie in her hands.

I'm not very public with my social, religious, and spiritual views in my business life. I think that I, like every other American in any line of work, have the right to keep those separate from my career. Do you think it would be acceptable for someone to go dredging through your private life and mail a portfolio of everything you've been involved in to your employer?

I find it frightening that people even think that way, frankly. It's a perspective of punishing someone for their views.

I agree with you on the art issue.  Art should never have to come with a disclaimer or statement of intent.

However, I don't buy for a minute that she isn't against Gays.  She went to great lengths to step on them.