|
-- tips@phblend.com
PHB Mobile
Access 11/5 Senate ENDA Hearing Live Blog
Access Tuesday's Election Live Blog
33|175:175
| Best of the Blend |
|
Blog Posts
Special Events and Interviews
| Blend-o-licious endorsements... |
The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend:
"a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."
He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior."
(CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)
Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego)."Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:
A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist."
(Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)
"A nutty lesbian blogger."
(MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)
Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush
who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
--"Joe"
|
Support the Blend
|
|
An Online Magazine in the Reality-Based Community.
|
Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 20:00:00 PM EST
|
I have to admit, I'm confused by the sentiment and numbers of this Wall Street Journal article entitled Donor Disclosure Has Its Downsides; Supporters of California's Prop. 8 have faced a backlash. The article begins with the line "How would you like elections without secret ballots? To most people, this would be absurd," and then goes to make a case for keeping donations secret.
We have secret balloting for obvious reasons. Politics frequently generates hot tempers. People can put up yard signs or wear political buttons if they want. But not everyone feels comfortable making his or her positions public -- many worry that their choice might offend or anger someone else. They fear losing their jobs or facing boycotts of their businesses.
And yet the mandatory public disclosure of financial donations to political campaigns in almost every state and at the federal level renders people's fears and vulnerability all too real. Proposition 8 -- California's recently passed constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage by ensuring that marriage in that state remains between a man and a woman -- is a dramatic case in point. Its passage has generated retaliation against those who supported it, once their financial support was made public and put online.
For example, when it was discovered that Scott Eckern, director of the nonprofit California Musical Theater in Sacramento, had given $1,000 to Yes on 8, the theater was deluged with criticism from prominent artists. Mr. Eckern was forced to resign...
The writer then goes on to cite the cases of Richard Raddon (the director of the L.A. Film Festival who resigned under pressure), a Palo Alto dentist who lost patients as a result of his $1,000 donation, and restaurant manager Marjorie Christoffersen (the El Coyote restaurant manager who resigned due to loss of customers).
I don't believe the losses of these four people match the possible future of marriage dissolutions of 18,000 same gender couples by the state of California -- 18,000 same gender couples who married when it was lawful in the state.
The authors of the WSJ op-ed conclude:
In the aftermath of Prop. 8 we can glimpse a very ugly future. As anyone who has had their political yard signs torn down can imagine, with today's easy access to donor information on the Internet, any crank or unhinged individual can obtain information on his political opponents, including work and home addresses, all but instantaneously. When even donations as small as $100 trigger demonstrations, it is hard to know how one will feel safe in supporting causes one believes in.
Public disclosure laws aren't meant to encourage violence, and there has been little to no violence against individual voters based on their political donations.
So since we're not talking about physical violence, I actually believe disclosure laws were created in part specifically so citizens could respond to how people "vote" with their money -- to know who is financially supporting political causes, and respond with protests, boycotts, and buycotts based on who supported what candidate and/or initiative that they didn't. I certainly don't want to go back to the days before disclosure laws were passed, and moneyed interests could purchase the government they wanted without any public knowledge of who was "buying votes" at the expense of significant numbers of those in minority populations.
So, don't count on this Californian supporting any initiatives or laws that repeal campaign public disclosure laws. Good government demands more transparency -- especially in the election process -- not less transparency. |
| Autumn Sandeen :: To 18K Other Stories, I'm Confused By The Significance Of 4 Victims Of Transparency Stories |
|
|
|
