Comments on: Some Thoughts on the Inauguration

By: CrankyOtter

CrankyOtter — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 08:59:05 +0000

The only way I could stomach the Warren invocation was through this lens someone offered: Having Warren invoke the beginning is like unto how Bush ran his administration. Then there’s the transition where Obama gets sworn in, and the much more inclusive Lowery leads us into the next administration. Sort of bookending the ceremony with contrasts of what was and what will be.

Plus, it gave that annoying creep enough of a platform that his church (so I heard) pulled down all of its anti-gay propaganda (at least for today), and thwarted him from speaking out against Obama to his masses. Still don’t like him.

Still don’t know if it was a good choice, but thinking in these contexts helps me make sense of it.

(And I parsed Lowery’s ending as very ’60s hippie/ this land is your land vibed. am I wrong?)

By: homer

homer — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 03:18:16 +0000

I left the room for most of Warren’s speechifying but returned in time to hear him mangle the kids names. What a waste of oxygen. They should have had Aretha sing two songs instead.

By: bigfathooters

bigfathooters — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:37:57 +0000

I went out to have a smoke when Warren prayed. He makes me want to vomit, the scum moneymaker.

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:50:02 +0000

People wondered if Warren would end his prayer “in Jesus name” or if he would for just one moment in time drop his arrogance and say a prayer that was inclusive. Well we got our answer when he not only prayed in Jesus name but he went out of his way to name Jesus in four languages.

What a complete dickhead this sorry excuse for a man is.

By: louise

louise — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:46:23 +0000

I think you’re overly sensitive on the gay thing. Obama mentioned gay people in every speech he made over the weekend. In this speech he didn’t single out anyone except in the one section that referred to religion. Slipping ‘gay’ in there wouldn’t really have been appropriate ;-)

He also didn’t mention disabled people, as he had on Saturday. I didn’t take this to mean he doesn’t care about them either.

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:42:14 +0000

I’m more impressed by the lofty promises on the new whitehouse.gov. I’ll believe civil unions when I see them, but the promise has been made.

By: Emily K

Emily K — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:35:33 +0000

I 100% agree with Jarrett. We will TRULY be included when no mention is necessary.

By: Charles Lanigan

Charles Lanigan — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:21:35 +0000

I guess the white house website has a new webmaster. The new site is pretty cool including a piece on the civil rights site notably “Support for the LGBT Community”!

By: Jarrett

Jarrett — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:20:21 +0000

To me, the lack of specific reference to gay people is of a piece with Obama’s insistence on transcending blue state vs red state politics. The idea that we can feel included only if we are specifically named would seem to suggest that we are gay before we are Americans. This was always the downside of our well-intentioned litanies of inclusion, all the endless meetings we’ve spent composing phrases like “gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, and transsexual” and then repeating these to death. Even to some gay people, these lists are uninspiring, because they imply that none of us has a reason to feel a part of our society unless we are called by name. If that’s the case, we should just demand that the president read the entire phone book at every speech. Then each of us would really feel included.

As an environmentalist, I could be equally offended by Obama’s reference to “roads and bridges,” but not public transit, in his passage on economic stimulus. But this morning I choose not to be. There will be time for that tomorrow.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:16:15 +0000

Ah, man. The desire to be offended on this site is overwhelming. I guess I can’t hack it.