Jeremy Abbott on Anti-Gay Laws & Interior Décor

[Bluebonnet]

Here's another thing that bothers me about the "protect the children" - friends of ours are Missionaries to Eastern Russia - kids are pretty much neglected in the small towns they live/visit in. they're in the streets, dirty, doing whatever they please. orphanages and group homes are even worse. How are they protecting the children in that situation?

and doesn't Russia allow abortions? how is that protecting the children?

Russia is such a diversified country. Eastern Russia is a remote place totally different from the cultural centre in European part of the Russia. I have no idea whether or not they allow abortion. If they do, I think it's good, for all the reasons that democrats in US said.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

I was unaware that adoption in Russia was "closed"... might explain why so many of my friends are adopting from the Congo and Haiti these days. oh, and Thailand.

Adoption of Russian kids by people in foreign countries that have same-sex marriage rights is prohibited under Russian law, thanks to this legislation. Just like adopted kids of current LGBT couples is now prohibited and kids are being taken from their parents that they've known and who have raised them... these LGBT couples are actually having to ship out their kids to tolerant countries lest the government takes them away.

 

[Olympia]

Here's another thing that bothers me about the "protect the children" - friends of ours are Missionaries to Eastern Russia - kids are pretty much neglected in the small towns they live/visit in. they're in the streets, dirty, doing whatever they please. orphanages and group homes are even worse. How are they protecting the children in that situation?

and doesn't Russia allow abortions? how is that protecting the children?

Toni, that's very upsetting to hear. I've known about the orphanages for years, but not this. It's definitely a more significant issue than protecting children from imaginary gay recruiters. Another issue that I've been reluctant to mention, because I don't mean to heap insults on Russia, but it's a widespread problem there, is the incidence of fetal alcohol syndrome, which is related to the high rate of alcoholism among the parents.

All of those factors together are much more urgent than whether someone is parading around with a rainbow flag.


As for Jeremy's statement, I don't think it's idiotic. It's a low-conflict metaphor that's probably meant to be tactful. Everyone has a different capacity for confrontation. I hope he makes the team because when at his best, he's our most accomplished skater. But every skater isn't going to have the perfect answer for reporters about this issue.

 

[Mathman]

As for Jeremy's statement, I don't think it's idiotic.

I do. All he had to say was that he was concentrating on his skating and felt that athletes should be courteous to the host country by honoring their laws.

 

[Olympia]

You know, many of us are idiots is the spotlight is ever on us. I can't remember every good experience I ever had, but I remember in painful detail most if not all of the times I said something boneheaded when more than, say, five people were listening. This makes me give Jeremy the benefit of the doubt. It's easy to be succinct when you can delete and edit onscreen (and sometimes not even then). When you're speaking, goodness knows what can flow out sometimes.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

You know, many of us are idiots is the spotlight is ever on us. I can't remember every good experience I ever had, but I remember in painful detail most if not all of the times I said something boneheaded when more than, say, five people were listening. This makes me give Jeremy the benefit of the doubt. It's easy to be succinct when you can delete and edit onscreen (and sometimes not even then). When you're speaking, goodness knows what can flow out sometimes.

The decor comment was dumb and a thick-headed analogy... but where he really lost me was where he said speaking out makes him out to be an ***... it's one thing to say you won't get involved and leave it at that, but to essentially say that anyone who speaks out or protests this discrimination is an *** was a bad statement.

Also, while we're on the whole coaching skaters what to say, he's 28. He should have way more tact than this.

 

[Tonichelle]

I do. All he had to say was that he was concentrating on his skating and felt that athletes should be courteous to the host country by honoring their laws.

maybe he had a particular skater in mind when he was suggesting he didn't want to look like an ***? I kinda saw it as a jab to one of those former champions who's having a hard time in his dimming spotlight.

 

[Tonichelle]

Also, while we're on the whole coaching skaters what to say, he's 28. He should have way more tact than this.

I seem to recall saying something similar about Johnny Weir's comments where he referred to his competitors as different types of drugs/substances, though he got high praise from most for speaking his mind/not minicing words.

I've also heard the argument (not here, just in general) that swearing makes for an "adult statement" and "free speech". This is being discussed in several circles I'm in where I've said all cursing does is turn me off to hearing a person out.

 

[Mathman]

25089

 

[louisa05]

The law is for the purposes of the suppression of a minority, with a veiled attempt to make it about protecting children. In Nazi Germany, anti-Semitic/anti-Black/anti-gay laws didn't advocate violence specifically -- but they condoned violence towards those minorities and failed to protect their human rights, thus perpetuating this violence... eventually leading to mass genocide.

Not quite.

What the Nazis did was gradually create policy that allowed them to perpetrate a genocide. Merely having discriminatory laws does not automatically lead to genocide. If it did, we would have had a genocide of African-Americans in this country. In fact, the response of many Americans to early anti-Semitic policies in Nazi Germany was that it was merely the same thing as segregation in the South. Additionally, anti-Semitic policies were allowed in many ways in the U.S. at the time--such as banning Jews from certain private groups/organizations and many prominent Americans were openly anti-Semitic.

Your simplistic interpretation implies that the Holocaust was perpetrated by civilians because of the Nazi government's lack of will to stop it. That is entirely false. The government itself carried out the Holocaust, in fact, using its most horrific means outside of domestic territory.

 

[Mathman]

You know, many of us are idiots is the spotlight is ever on us. I can't remember every good experience I ever had, but I remember in painful detail most if not all of the times I said something boneheaded when more than, say, five people were listening. This makes me give Jeremy the benefit of the doubt. It's easy to be succinct when you can delete and edit onscreen (and sometimes not even then). When you're speaking, goodness knows what can flow out sometimes.

That is quite true. From everything I know of Jeremy he is a fine fellow. And I have certainly said many boneheaded or insensitive things in my life, as has everyone.

But...if I say a careless thing, it's still a careless thing, no matter how fine a fellow I am.

 

[Mathman]

Not quite.

What the Nazis did was gradually create policy that allowed them to perpetrate a genocide. Merely having discriminatory laws does not automatically lead to genocide....

I agree with this post. Still, it was a two-way street. Elements of the "gradually created policy" that allowed a genocide to occur were vilifying the targeted victims in the minds of the public and backing this up with increasingly harsh discriminatory laws.

In the case of the American civil rights movement, it went the other way. The federal government was out in front of the human rights struggle, pulling the citizenry reluctantly along behind. It was "the people," not the federal government who thought it was OK to lynch black people for being black; the federal government took a dim view of such activities.

"States' rights" also stood in the way of progress. It took a long time for people to come around to the idea that states don't have rights, people have rights.

 

[Bluebonnet]

Why do you keep bringing up the US? This is a discussion about anti-gay laws in Russia. If you wanted to make a point of comparison, you would have to look at anti-gay legislation in the US... and the US, as conservative as it has historically been, is miles more progressive than Russia.

Because bringing up US seems to explain better for what I meant. US, conservative? Ha! It might have been more conservative under Republicans. But under Democrats these past 5 years, it's just gotten unbelievablely liberal.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Because bringing up US seems to explain better for what I meant. US, conservative? Ha! It might have been more conservative under Republicans. But under Democrats these past 5 years, it's just gotten unbelievablely liberal.

I don't understand what US politics have to do with Russian anti-gay laws. Yes, in the US, they have finally had a president who supports same-sex rights, abortion based on the mother's choice, and a number of other "liberal" things. But to you this seems unbelievably liberal, but it's actually par for the course. Think of it less as liberal and more as progressive. The fact that granting the same rights to a minority as everyone else is considered "liberalism" at work to some people is odd. How dare the US treat same-sex couples as equal to other citizens!

As far as going unbelievably liberal, the states still control many laws, including same-sex marriage. The US isn't exactly a bastion for gay rights, but they're certainly much better than they were years ago. The Republicans in the US are living in a stone age where women don't have a right to their bodies and people clutch their pearls every time they see two guys kiss (of course, when it's two girls kissing that's apparently hot ).

 

[Bluebonnet]

I don't understand what US politics have to do with Russian anti-gay laws. Yes, in the US, they have finally had a president who supports same-sex rights, abortion based on the mother's choice, and a number of other "liberal" things. But to you this seems unbelievably liberal, but it's actually par for the course. Think of it less as liberal and more as progressive. The fact that granting the same rights to a minority as everyone else is considered "liberalism" at work to some people is odd. How dare the US treat same-sex couples as equal to other citizens!

As far as going unbelievably liberal, the states still control many laws, including same-sex marriage. The US isn't exactly a bastion for gay rights, but they're certainly much better than they were years ago. The Republicans in the US are living in a stone age where women don't have a right to their bodies and people clutch their pearls every time they see two guys kiss (of course, when it's two girls kissing that's apparently hot ).

I support abortion for the reasons I believe are right. As of same-sex rights, yes, US has gone unbelieveably liberal. Remember Obama did not support gay marriage in his first three years as a president. He avoided that subject entirely. Some people said it was because he wanted to win the votes from gay community and gay supporters, so he started to pronounce it out loud. Some black community don't like it, but they said if it could win him another term as a president, then be it.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

I support abortion for the reasons I believe are right. As of same-sex rights, yes, US has gone unbelieveably liberal. Remember Obama did not support gay marriage in his first three years as a president. He avoided that subject entirely. Some people said it was because he wanted to win the votes from gay community and gay supporters, so he started to pronounce it out loud. Some black community don't like it, but they said if it could win him another term as a president, then be it.

Right, because if Obama hadn't decided to show his support for gay marriage, most gays/gay supporters would have voted Republican...

Obama decided to support gay marriage because he, like many Americans, have come to agree that not discriminating against LGBT people or infringing their rights is the right thing to do - screw what the Bible says, screw fossilized bigots, screw getting votes or winning elections... it was the right thing to do.

As for going "unbelievably liberal", I'm sorry that non-discrimination is so "unbelievable" to you and such an outrageous concept.

 

[Mathman]

[The United States] might have been more conservative under Republicans.

If only the Republican Party were conservative.

The Republican Party abandoned conservatism 1980. What the Republican Party needs to do to restore itself to national relevancy is return to the following two traditional principles of conservatism.

(a) Fiscal responsibility. President Ronald Reagan introduced “Reaganomics” (what his running mate George H. W. Bush correctly called “voodoo economics”). Borrow, borrow, borrow, spend, spend, spend, and hope to die before the bill comes due. Unfortunately for the nation, the bill came due in 2007.

The following graph shows the rise in the national debt as a percent of gross domestic product. Note what happened starting in 1980 (although it is possible that Obama will out-Reagan Reagan before he’s done).

http://scm-l3.technorati.com/10/09/01/17469/National-Debt-GDP.gif

(b) A less intrusive government. Don’t be misled by “small government” versus “big government” arguments. All politician are in favor of small government when they are running for office and big government after they are elected. The enemy is not big government projects (like the federal interstate highway program carried out under the Eisenhower administration in the 1950s). The enemy is rather government intrusion into the lives of private citizens (for example, telling them whom they can and cannot marry).

The Republicans should be all over President Obama for the recent revelations of the NSA spying on law abiding U.S. citizens. But no, this is the one area where Republicans give Obama a free pass, pushing instead for a religious right agenda that the American electorate does not care about one way or the other.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/21/nsa-illegally-collected-thousands-emails-court

(Just my opinion, of course. )

 

[Mathman]

I support abortion for the reasons I believe are right. As of same-sex rights, yes, US has gone unbelieveably liberal. Remember Obama did not support gay marriage in his first three years as a president. He avoided that subject entirely. Some people said it was because he wanted to win the votes from gay community and gay supporters, so he started to pronounce it out loud. Some black community don't like it, but they said if it could win him another term as a president, then be it.

It was interesting that both both Obama and Romney relegated social issues to the back of the bus in their campaigns. Issues like gay marriage and abortion were hardly mentioned.

The reason is clear. These are hot-button emotional issues that, no matter what you say, you will create a bunch of irate enemies while gaining no new friends.

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." (W.B. Yeats)

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

True, Mathman.

The Republican party is slowly dying out (figuratively, and literally). Their whole mandate is based off America being formed on Christian principles.

How can the party survive by advocating against abortion when most women want rights to their own bodies?

How can the party survive when they are anti-gay marriage and the majority of the country supports it?

One of the few strongholds that Republicans have is gun control... and even that will be overturned shortly, as Americans are further acknowledging the detrimental, and needless, effects of gun violence.

The only hope as Mathman said, is focusing on fiscal responsibility - which is hard to convince people of after Republicans incited a billion-dollar war.

 

[Tonichelle]

If only the Republican Party were conservative.

The Republican Party abandoned conservatism 1980. What the Republican Party needs to do to restore itself to national relevancy is return to the following two traditional principles of conservatism.

(a) Fiscal responsibility. President Ronald Reagan introduced “Reaganomics” (what his running mate George H. W. Bush correctly called “voodoo economics”). Borrow, borrow, borrow, spend, spend, spend, and hope to die before the bill comes due. Unfortunately for the nation, the bill came due in 2007.

The following graph shows the rise in the national debt as a percent of gross domestic product. Note what happened starting in 1980 (although it is possible that Obama will out-Reagan Reagan before he’s done).

http://scm-l3.technorati.com/10/09/01/17469/National-Debt-GDP.gif

(b) A less intrusive government. Don’t be misled by “small government” versus “big government” arguments. All politician are in favor of small government when they are running for office and big government after they are elected. The enemy is not big government projects (like the federal interstate highway program carried out under the Eisenhower administration in the 1950s). The enemy is rather government intrusion into the lives of private citizens (for example, telling them whom they can and cannot marry).

The Republicans should be all over President Obama for the recent revelations of the NSA spying on law abiding U.S. citizens. But no, this is the one area where Republicans give Obama a free pass, pushing instead for a religious right agenda that the American electorate does not care about one way or the other.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/21/nsa-illegally-collected-thousands-emails-court

(Just my opinion, of course. )

In general a two party system is what created this mess... don't trust either side... they aren't FOR THE PEOPLE.

and as much as Republicans would like to believe we were always FOR small government our "founding father" and the "most beloved president" Abe Lincoln created the biggest stepping stone FOR big government and usurping of power. All in the name of a "Good cause" (I'm not denying that what he did was RIGHT... however it came with a price that is throwing us all back into a new form of slavery)