The New, Socially Acceptable Ku Klux Klan

Yes, it' Ovid up on his moralistic high-horse again.

There's a new Klan on the loose. 'Cept they ain't huntin' themselves no niggers. No sirree. They's huntin' faggots. They support George W. Bush and George W. Bush, in turn, supports them. They hate faggots, and bisexuals, the occasional muslim and anyone else that it's still OK to hate.

They still lynch people, too. It's not just some rednecks having a bit of fun. Matthew Sheppard is dead. That's murder. That's murder which is encouraged when we tell ourselves we have more important things to do. Many others are dead, or their lives are made a living hell because good people are looking the other way. Marriages lie in ruins because the new Klan hates anyone who doesn't agree with them. They're teaching their children to hate. They're teaching your children to hate. If they have their way, their hatred will be enshrined in the Constitution of the USA. While many other countries are eschewing bigotry and allowing people to marry those whom they love, the United States, under the "leadership" of a smiling bigot, is continuing on this path of shame.

For those of you who have studied history, there's hope. As you may recall, the Klan was a powerful force in the first half of the Twentieth Century. Here in Oregon, it wasn't easy to get elected if you didn't have the support of the Klan. The Klan also managed to pass a law that almost shut down Catholic schools. Across the country, this once-powerful force opposed blacks marrying whites, didn't want "special rights" for black people and while it was too late to keep blacks out of the military, they still fought to keep them away from white people.

In fact, if you read many of the things that were written back then, you'll find that racists often hid their messages of intolerance behind messages of concern. Blacks shouldn't marry whites because it would hurt the children. We should outlaw marijuana because it made white women want to sleep with Mexicans. Blacks should stay in their own school because they do better with their own kind. Of course, while these messages are appalling today, in a culture where racism is not frowned up, these don't sound nearly as shocking -- or as hateful.

Today the situation is different. While some people sat around and debated when it would be a good time to let black people be treated fairly, others had the courage to stand up for decency. The Klan died out and while there are a few of them still around, even those who support them at least know enough to keep quiet about it.

In Oregon, governor Ted Kulongoski has made it clear he cares more about the polls than about human rights. Fifty years ago, we would have been very apologetic to the blacks as he told them to go back to their schools. But he, like others who support bigotry and in turn are supported by the bigots, will find their way into history books. They'll be the standard bearers of hate and children will read about Kulongoski and shake their heads. The David Duke's of this world are at least honest about their bigotry. The callous likes of Kulongoski, Bush, and others like them are the one's we really need to stand up to.

An added note
Another scary thing, is that to most (my assumption) people who live in pocket communities with very little exposure to a greater portion of society would think this entry of yours would seem like an over reaction of sorts.

I mean, "how could it be?" is what your average organic middle aged crunchy type is thinking; "Didn't we win in the sixties?".

The short answer is no!

There are still 16 year old kids running around claiming to be skinheads.
There are still politicians trying (and succeeding) to pass bills prohibiting people from doing things based on so called "moral" values.
Non-white (or non-white looking) people still do not get a fair shake in this country.
Religion is still in one way or another forcing the hands of many voters.

Just because people are no longer afraid of those who hold bigoted view points and stand up and say hate and hating in what ever form it takes is wrong; just because of that doesn't mean that we have won, not by a long shot.

No, nothing specific. This has been on my mind for a while and when Bush made the comments suggesting that Creationism (now masquerading under the moniker "intelligent design") needs to be taught in schools, it brought this to the fore. Like politicians who openly courted the Klan vote, Bush is openly courting the 21st Century Klan.
I don't really follow the Klan connection, but I agree that trying to shoehorn "intelligent design" into public schools is absurd.
I just mean they're the modern day version in that, like the Klan of old, the religious right has a lot of public support, they promote discrimination and politicians court their support. And like the Klan of old, Americans will eventually be embarrassed about this period of US history.
Even the hardcore bigots can catch a whiff of the increasingly conservative zeitgeist and try to seize their opportunities. I still remember my shock when they paid a late-night visit to my house.

Here they probably figured that since the suburbs went overwhelmingly Republican they'd find some sympathizers. Interesting assumption. But from talking to my neighbors, (too) many of whom are unrepentantly conservative Republican Bush supporters, they are out of luck. The Klan (even the "new" one in their more moderate pretensions) is despised by everyone I talked to without exception.

I can personally remember when you'd have been shunned in public here in the South had you stood up for the rights of black people.

We've really come a shockingly long way on this. Wonder what these racists think of Bush appointing Condi secretary of state? But they just switch targets. Hate is their game, the specific targets are really not all that important.
At least we can say we weren't raised like that! I don't remember ever being taught to hate! Heck I got in trouble for fighting more than anything! But never for hate!
response to new socially acceptable klan comment
You refference that President Bush supports and is supported by the "New socially acceptable Ku Klux Klan. Where did you get that information? I am studying political science and have already done work as a political analyst, so I'm pretty sure I know what I am talking about. Also, I have no political affiliation, so there is no agenda on my part. But there are a lot of misrepresentations of President Bush that have no refferencable facts. This statement you have made here is actually not fact based, it carries no weight. It is misinformed, unintelligent, ignorant of politics people like you who are ruining America by dumbing down the average "sheep"(meaning they follow and believe anything they are told to be true, whether or not they know anything about it) American. You should hold yourself to a higher standard if you are going to write something that even one other person would possibly read. You are a burden on the country, and therefore the whole world. Please, do everyone including yourself and myself a favor and make an attempt to educate yourself. Forget that it is fun to construct and dissiminate conspiracy theories and "secret" plans and identities. I hope you will consider my plea, and I will pray for you. Please do not hestitate to contact me at brandon82suttle@yahoo
Re: response to new socially acceptable klan comment

You refference that President Bush supports and is supported by the "New socially acceptable Ku Klux Klan. Where did you get that information?

I didn't 'reference' that. I wrote an analogy. I'm deliberately comparing today's bigotry towards gays with the formerly socially acceptable Ku Klux Klan. I'm not talking about "conspiracy theories" or "secret plans", I'm drawing an analogy. I'm not talking about hidden secrets because all of that information is in the paper, on the television, or freely available however you take your news. So go look up analogy and then you can read the last paragraph. Go on; I'll wait.

Since pretty much your entire statement attacks my alleged assertion of facts and you fail to grasp the concept of analogy, I think it's pretty safe to say that as a "political analyst", you're not going to get very far. Skip the political science classes and take freshman English and critical thinking. You still won't agree with me, but maybe you'll be less likely to completely misread what someone writes. On the other hand, maybe you have a future with FOX news as an analyst.

Re: response to new socially acceptable klan comment
Okay smarty-britches, how far in college do you think you can get studying anything without taking freshmen English and Critical Thinking? I've already accomplished that and just to let you know I have maintained a 4.0 GPA. So I'm not the uneducated one you are. You people have bashed George W. Bush since the beginning of his presidency, but yet none of you have any logical, feasible options to counter President Bush's. Despite what you hear the stock market is on the verge of record highs. The only thing Mr. Bush has made a mistake on is defending our borders. He has valiantly led the war on terror and stuck to his guns, regardless of his "poll numbers" or media opinion on him, both of which are increasingly rising. People like you scream free speech so often, but then when someone's free speech denounces the morality of a subcultural lifestyle you say it's being prejudiced or narrow minded. It's your favorite friend here, Thank you.
Re: response to new socially acceptable klan comment
While you might not believe me (I've a number of folks on my friend's list who can attest to this), I too maintained a 4.0 GPA in college. And you know what? It ain't all it's cracked up to be. Since you weren't capable of understanding what an analogy was, I'm hardly likely to credit you for your ability in reading comprehension.

You people have bashed George W. Bush ...

Really? And just who are "you people"? That's an awfully broad brush you're holding, particularly since you're not even identifying who "you people" are. Frankly, I try very hard not to pigeon hole folks and I've made it extremely clear on many an occasion that there are conservatives I disagree with yet admire, there are Christians and Muslims I disagree with yet admire, there are many people whose views I strongly disagree with, but I respect their right to have them and while sometimes I make a mistake of painting with too broad a brush, I usually apologize or correct myself when called to the carpet.

Now if you read through my past posts, you'll find many posts which I reason very carefully about my views and cite my sources quite extensively. However, that's not to say my conclusions are correct or incorrect. That's just to say that I present arguments and evidence for them. An analogy, however, ain't a friggin' research paper. Since you decided to completely sidestep the fact that you misread my entire post, I'll respond by pointing out that what I'm responding to, like my root post, is opinion with not factual statements to back that up. And you know what? That's OK. You can wander into my blog and piss all over me, but when you for the second post in a row either misunderstand or ignore what I have to say, you're not doing yourself any favors.

And if you think I'm uneducated, I'd like to know what standard you judge that by. The fact that I hold different viewpoints from your own? It's a sad world if that's the criteria we're held to.

On the other hand, if you truly wish to judge if I'm uneducated, I'll cheerfully discuss negative and positive externalities correlated with government regulation of illicit markets. I'll explain why linear activation functions are not appropriate for back propagation neural networks. I'll debate theories of whether or not Corinna was actually Publius Ovidius Naso's first wife or why he was relegated to the city of Tomis. Or maybe you'd feel more comfortable discussing the long-term implications of the the carving up of the Ottoman Empire after they through their post World War I collapse?

But I suspect you wouldn't consider that to mean I'm educated either. Of course, I might be wrong, but since you're offering a lot of opinion without backing it up (mine was for a target audience and any debate, speech, or advanced writing class would help you understand what that means), I really can't respond to what you say since you're about as clear as mud. But you know what? What I may know about such things can't justify my being educated because there are so many wonderful things in the world worth knowing that none of us can know all of them. So while you, with no knowledge of who I am, choose to randomly show up and spew invective at me and call me uneducated and then get huffy when I treat you in turn, I can only say "let it go". This is my blog where I talk to my friends. I didn't invite you here. Go be rude to someone else.