It seems that our infamous former Senator has decided to ply his minimal talent in the name of writing a column for Philadelphia’s freeper paper of record (and as D-Mac notes here, I was expecting “Islamo-fascism Awareness Week” to come and go pretty much without incident; color me surprised).
Who knows, though – Senator Man-On-Dog may actually prove to be an improvement over Smerky, who seems content any more to churn out such dreck as another of his “muzzle meter” columns, an ode to stink bugs (serious), and a supreme fluffing of Flush Limbore (no shot on links).
However, I want to take a moment to focus on the other columnist hired by the Inquirer today, and that would be George Curry (see, the Inky seems to think they can get by forever with this “conservative spin/liberal spin” thing on any chosen writer or topic, and that will always be good enough – not holding my breath).
I don’t know much about Curry, but based on this column from 2003, I think he needs to spend a little more time with gays and lesbians before he decides to write about them (notably)..
…I usually have pretty clear views on most social policy issues. But I confess that I have mixed feelings about same-sex marriages. Not only am I in a quandary, I’ve been in one for weeks as I’ve tried to look at this issue from both sides. And when I do that, I end up right back where I suspect a lot of people are — torn between feeling that homosexuals should not be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation and believing that same-sex marriages should not be sanctioned by the government or the church.Full disclosure: I don’t support gay marriage either, but I support gay civil unions with all attendant legal rights and benefits (and I certainly have no problem with civil unions sanctioned by the government; not sure exactly what Curry means by that).
More importantly, though, I have a problem with Curry’s pejorative language about the gays and “abnormal” behavior (we’re talking about legal rights for a long-discriminated minority here; stop trying to sound like some full mooner if you profess to be the “anti-Santorum,” OK?). I also don’t understand why Curry, in his column, disagrees so strongly with the notion that the struggle of gays and lesbians for legal rights in this country echoes the civil rights movement to a degree (Curry even goes so far as to say that there’s no comparing the struggle of blacks and gays because the latter group “was never lynched”).
Let’s see now, Mathew Shepard, Andrew Anthos, Billy Jack Gaither – even though they weren’t lynched, they all came to pretty horrific ends in their lives, wouldn’t you say, George?
I don’t know how Curry is on other issues, but on this one, he sounds a little too much like the guy he was introduced with today.
Maybe, though, both Curry and Santorum will give new life to this moribund journalistic enterprise and kick-start “Flying Pigs II,” the ad campaign that will play up what I’m sure will be another upcoming increase in the Inky’s circulation numbers…right?
And speaking of freeper ideological kinsmen, Robert Bork was denied a spot on the U.S. Supreme Court 20 years ago yesterday (here).