Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
A Bump in Huckabee’s Road to the Nomination?
Posted by: Dale Franks on Saturday, December 08, 2007

Well, I have to say, I question the timing.
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, surging in Iowa polls in the Republican presidential race, wrote on a questionnaire while running for U.S. Senate in 1992 that homosexuality is "aberrant" and "sinful."

"I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk," Huckabee wrote in the questionnaire for The Associated Press, which reported the answer on Saturday.
So, a 15-year old questionnaire comes to light just as Huckabee's momentum in Iowa is peaking.

No doubt people will be asking Mr. Huckabee if he still thinks homosexuality is "aberrant" and "sinful."

But wait! It gets better!
In another answer that could damage his standing in the presidential race, Huckabee wrote on the questionnaire that AIDS research was receiving an unfair amount of federal money. Instead, he said celebrities should pay for the research themselves.
Well, that oughtta have an interesting effect on the moderate voters
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Well, 15 years ago I was pretty intolerant towards homosexuality myself. It wasn’t something that I ever talked to people about and my objections to homosexuality were mainly based on some vague notion that it was a biblical sin. I didn’t really change my mind about it until I started engaging in debates about it on usenet in the late 90’s. At the end of the day I decided that I was wrong and agreed that homosexuals should have the same rights and privileges as any other tax paying citizen.

So I don’t necessarily hold the 15 year old questionnaire against him but yes I’d like to know where he stands on the issue today. I just can’t get excited about him as a candidate though. Regardless of where he stands on the question of homosexuality I can’t see myself supporting him. If it was him against Obama I might find myself supporting Obama. If it was him against Hillary I’d have to give it some deep thought.
 
Written By: Bob
URL: http://
Actually, from a lives saved per public health dollar expended measure, AIDS research is overfunded. I’m no Huckabee fan, but I won’t whack him for that one.
 
Written By: MarkD
URL: http://
These revelations will probably increase his support among the GOP and right wingers more generally.

The obsessive hate of those on the right side of the political spectrum of gay people is disturbing and frightening.

Sad. Truly sad.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
His statement regarding Aids funding is correct - but not alone. Breast cancer research - another illness that has a great deal of coverage is also overfunded by comparison to other major terminal illnesses.

Of course I base that on the National Institute of Health’s own admission:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1116068
 
Written By: BillS
URL: http://bills-opinions.blogspot.com/
Imagine for just one moment that Huckabee said that blacks or people of the Jewish faith or women or the disabled were "aberrant" and "sinful." He would be rightfully and decidedly denounced as a bigot. On each side of the political spectrum.

So why is it any different when the terms are applied to people who happen to be gay or lesbian?

Assuming that the persons with the ability to post on this site are at a minimum halfway decent and moral, one would expect a comdemnation of Huckabee’s bigoted, hateful remarks, just as if he was discussing race, gender or religion. But what do we get? The following:
Well, that oughtta have an interesting effect on the moderate voters
Huh? Assuming you are not disputing what Huckabee said, what the is wrong with you? Why aren’t you declaring Huckabee the bigot that he is?

Imagine for one moment that Huckabee wsaid Jewish people were "abberant" and "sinful." What would the response would be here? "Well, that anti-semitism oughtta have an interesting effect on the moderate voters."

Huh?
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Huh? Assuming you are not disputing what Huckabee said, what the is wrong with you? Why aren’t you declaring Huckabee the bigot that he is?

Imagine for one moment that Huckabee wsaid Jewish people were "abberant" and "sinful." What would the response would be here? "Well, that anti-semitism oughtta have an interesting effect on the moderate voters."
1. The materials are 15 years old - As such IMHO the statute of limitations on those comments has expired. I’m sure he’s going to have to respond again.

2. Regarding calling the Jewish people "abberant" and "sinful" apparently you aren’t aware of the Christian teachings because when you get down to it that’s pretty much what each religion says about all the other religions.

3. Having a belief system which supports his opinions does not make him a bigot - the man is entitled to his opinions - it’s whether or not he tolerates Gays and Jews that makes him a bigot - read the definition of bigot before you defame someone with the term:
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Thanks for letting us know however that you are utterly intolerant of anyone who doesn’t follow your belief’s with regard to gays and lesbians.

 
Written By: BillS
URL: http://bills-opinions.blogspot.com/
Assuming you are not disputing what Huckabee said, what the is wrong with you? Why aren’t you declaring Huckabee the bigot that he is?

Imagine for one moment that Huckabee wsaid Jewish people were "abberant" and "sinful." What would the response would be here? "Well, that anti-semitism oughtta have an interesting effect on the moderate voters."
Yeah, pretty much. I don’t see any particular need to belabor the obvious.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
adj.
1. Deviating from the proper or expected course.
2. Deviating from what is normal; untrue to type.

Since homosexuals comprise less than 5% of the population they are not only aberrant, they are also, by definition, abnormal, unnatural, and deviant. Calling them sinful is a moral judgement, calling them aberrant is a fact. Don’t argue with me, argue with the dictionary. If you don’t like it, speak another language.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Since homosexuals comprise less than 5% of the population they are not only aberrant, they are also, by definition, abnormal, unnatural, and deviant. Calling them sinful is a moral judgement, calling them aberrant is a fact. Don’t argue with me, argue with the dictionary. If you don’t like it, speak another language.
Actually that 5 percent has held pretty steady through time so it IS the EXPECTED course and it is perfectly normal.
 
Written By: Bob
URL: http://
homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle
He called homosexuality a "lifestyle" choice. You don’t have a choice in your physical gender or skin tone, but you do have a choice in who you sleep with.

I suspect he would use the common phrase "Love the person, hate the sin."
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
"it IS the EXPECTED course and it is perfectly normal"

Here are some the definitions;
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:normal&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Aexpected

Each individual is expected to be normal at birth, to fall within a certain distance from the population mean with respect to various characteristics. Something that falls outside two standard deviations from the mean certainly is abnormal. It can be expected, and I suppose can be called normal, that some individuals will fall into the category of being abnormal. Language can be imprecise, but calling homosexuality abnormal, etc., is correct and accurate. Being left-handed is also abnormal, etc.

 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
I don’t like this drudging up of old statements, but I hope it does derail Huck. I don’t like this guy at all. I think he is the reincarnation of G W Bush as far as fiscal policies are concerned. We need more fiscal conservatism and less social conservatism, just the opposite of this huckleberry.
 
Written By: kyleN
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
My initial reaction to Huckabee is that no political party would have such an impulse to self destruction that they could conceivably nominate him. Then I remembered McGovern...
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Hey, Tim:

All religions except for Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Chinese Universist, and Buddhism number less than five percent of the world population - which makes Jews, Taoists, Shintoists, atheists (I know, don’t write letters) and Confucianists (among others) "aberrant."

They aren’t, of course, because believing in a religion is not aberrant. Just as having a sexual orientation is not aberrant.

It’s pretty obvious that you yourself are aberrant in your understanding of common English words and concepts, especially those used in dictionary definitions.

Don’t argue with me, man. Go argue with a dictionary.

That’s probably about your speed anyway.

 
Written By: Bill Quick
URL: http://www.dailypundit.com
Just as having a sexual orientation is not aberrant
There’s no sexual orientation that you would consider "aberrant"?

Maybe since you find it so obvious of what is NOT aberrant, you could help us by classifying what IS aberrant.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
timactual said:
Something that falls outside two standard deviations from the mean certainly is abnormal." ... Being left-handed is also abnormal, etc
Tim:

I’m having trouble understanding how one fits a normal distribution (and the associated analysis thereof) to the plot of a variable that can take just two values, e.g., heterosexual or homosexual, left handed or right handed. Tell me this, assuming 5% of the population is homosexual, what is the mean orientation? What is the standard deviation (no pun intended)?
 
Written By: Alfred Centauri
URL: http://
a variable that can take just two values
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
JWG, I though I made it quite clear my question was for Tim. Please allow Tim to answer this and no fair giving hints!
 
Written By: Alfred Centauri
URL: http://
Maybe since you find it so obvious of what is NOT aberrant, you could help us by classifying what IS aberrant.
Apparently you can’t read for comprehension either. I object to Tim’s use of the concept of aberration to mean merely a minority practice. See my other example regarding religion.
Maybe since you find it so obvious of what is NOT aberrant, you could help us by classifying what IS aberrant.
Well, for starters, anybody who had no sexual orientation might be considered an aberration in the correct sense of the word.

To answer your unasked question, I would not consider any sexual orientation or practice that involved individuals capable of giving legitimate consent to be aberrant - in the sense you seem to be trying to put on the word, ie., reprehensible, blame-worthy, or beyond the pale. (Yes, I understand there’s a gray area in that word "legitimate," mostly involving age...)

Why, yes, I see that slippery slope, and I slide right down it. Polygamy? Bring it on. S&M? Are you sane enough to legitimately give consent? Fine, then. Animals? Well, we slaughter and eat them. I don’t see why screwing them is any worse. (Or less - the porn flick of the lady and the German Shepherd, in which "no animals were harmed to make this video"). And so on.
 
Written By: Bill Quick
URL: http://www.dailypundit.com
in the sense you seem to be trying to put on the word, ie., reprehensible, blame-worthy, or beyond the pale.
I made no such claim. I am merely interested in what you see as aberrant since it was so obvious to you what is not aberrant.

It was my understanding that timactual was doing the opposite — he was arguing that those terms were NOT part of the official definition of "aberrant." Why would you write that I (or timactual) am trying to put these terms on the word? Aren’t YOU the one arguing they are part of the word?
I object to Tim’s use of the concept of aberration to mean merely a minority practice.
That’s fine. You have yet to point to any English language authority to make your point. All you have done is thrown out some insults based on your own understanding of the word after he linked to the dictionary.

It should be fairly simple to point him in the right direction to make your point.

Or are you just going to call him a dumb@$$ based on your own claims of linguistic superiority and run away?
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
"ab·er·rant (br-nt, -br-)
adj.
1. Deviating from the proper or expected course.
2. Deviating from what is normal; untrue to type."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/aberrant

" which makes Jews, Taoists, Shintoists, atheists (I know, don’t write letters) and Confucianists (among others) "aberrant"

What is the proper or expected course for humans which makes being a member of one of those religions aberrant? What is the normal religion of humanity?


"Just as having a sexual orientation is not aberrant."

Having a sexual orientation is normal; virtually all animals have one. Having a sexual orientation that differs from over 95% of your fellow humans is aberrant.


***********************
"I’m having trouble understanding how one fits a normal distribution... "

Ouch. Me too, now that you mention it. Thank you ever so much for bringing that to my attention. I do so enjoy the humiliation that comes from ones ignorance being exposed for all the world to see. *sigh* I guess it is a good thing I save all my textbooks.
The best I can come up with now is the Bernoulli distribution, and I am not sure about that. The random variable, a discrete one (thus NOT a normal distribution, which is for continuous variables), being sexual orientation. The expected value (mean) of someone being homosexual would be .05 and the variance would be .0475 and the std. dev. about .22. If I recall correctly, which at this point is certainly in doubt, the ex. val., mean, var., and std. dev. are meningless for this distribution.

*****************************************
"Please allow Tim to answer this and no fair giving hints!"

No problem. I didn’t read JWG’s comment until I wrote the above. I didn’t see much use in going any farther and exposing myself to more embarassment before I coped with the first.

Thanks anyway, JWG.

****************************

"I object to Tim’s use of the concept of aberration to mean merely a minority practice."

What do you mean by ’merely’? A minority is also aberrant, according to the definition I quoted.

"Well, for starters, anybody who had no sexual orientation might be considered an aberration in the correct sense of the word."

So what is the correct definition or sense of the word? And yes, having no sexual orientation is indeed aberrant, no ’might be’ about it.

"in the sense you seem to be trying to put on the word, ie., reprehensible, blame-worthy, or beyond the pale."

Just in case you are talking to me, I cited the definition I am working with. Twice. Where is it wrong?

 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
"A minority is also aberrant, according to the definition I quoted."

I would feel more comfortable with changing that to CAN also be aberrant. Classifying a 48% minority as aberrant seems unclear or stretching a bit to me.

 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
I guess it is a good thing I save all my textbooks.
You do that too?

To be fair, my question to you was a bit loaded. As JWG hinted, sexual orientation does not, according to some, take on just two values in which case the mean (normal) sexuality would in fact not be 100% heterosexual. Conversely, if sexual orientation does take just two values, some statistical notions we’re accustomed to using aren’t, as you pointed out, particularly useful.
 
Written By: Alfred Centauri
URL: http://
"I object to Tim’s use of the concept of aberration to mean merely a minority practice."

What do you mean by ’merely’? A minority is also aberrant, according to the definition I quoted.

aberrant - Definitions from Dictionary.com
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
ab·er·rant /əˈbɛrənt, ˈæbər-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-ber-uhnt, ab-er-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. departing from the right, normal, or usual course.
2. deviating from the ordinary, usual, or normal type; exceptional; abnormal.
–noun
3. an aberrant person, thing, group, etc.
[Origin: 1820–30; < L aberrant- (s. of aberrāns, prp. of aberrāre to deviate). See ab-, errant]

—Related forms
ab·er·rance, ab·er·ran·cy, noun
ab·er·rant·ly, adverb

—Synonyms 1. wandering. 2. divergent, unusual.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.It errs in the assumption that anything less than a majority of [whatever] is an aberration. No, you don’t get to arbitrarily draw the line at 5%, 25%, or whatever, because the definition does not permit you to do so.

The issue is sexual orientation. All (or nearly all) humans have some sexual orientation, so merely having one variety of orientation is not aberrant at all. You’ve mis-defined your terms - a GIGO effect.
 
Written By: Bill Quick
URL: http://www.dailypundit.com
"You do that too?"

I even have a bad habit of buying used textbooks for courses I have not taken, just for curiosity and reference. I am hoping that I will absorb the contents by osmosis, but so far no luck.

"As JWG hinted, sexual orientation does not, according to some, take on just two values in which case the mean (normal) sexuality would in fact not be 100% heterosexual"

For convenience, I use just two values, heterosexual and other.

*****************************8
"It errs in the assumption that anything less than a majority of [whatever] is an aberration...."

Interesting approach. Cite a definition then contradict it. Do you have a definition you will actually agree to? According to your redefinition of your definition, there is no such thing as aberration. Or, if anything less than a majority is not an aberration, then the only thing left is the majority. Ergo, if aberration exists at all, the majority must be an aberration. Jerry Falwell will be p**sed.

"The issue is sexual orientation. All (or nearly all) humans have some sexual orientation, so merely having one variety of orientation is not aberrant at all."

Different questions, different variables. If the test is whether or not a particular human has a sexual orientation then yes, having a sexual orientation is not aberrant. If the question is whether the sexual orientation is (for simplicity) heterosexual or other, then other is aberrant. The issue is not just sexual orientation, the issue is the second question, ’other’. Huckabee was not referring to the presence or absence of a sexual orientation. Nice try.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
"To be fair, my question to you was a bit loaded."

Yeah, I suspected as much. Heh. You ain’t the only one. Questions, like firearms, should always be assumed to be loaded. Glad you asked it, though. Sooner or later I hope I would have discovered my stupidity on my own, but sooner is much better. Retreats are always difficult and embarrassing, but the longer you have to go, the worse. I appreciate the lack of mockery.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
I even have a bad habit of buying used textbooks for courses I have not taken, just for curiosity and reference.
Hmmmm... They are hard to resist aren’t they? I recently bought a textbook on the Scheme programming language at the Engineer’s Bookstore for no good reason other than, well, it was in the bargain bin and heck, ya never know...
 
Written By: Alfred Centauri
URL: http://
qwDh6v iazdizagyfzu, [url=http://retdcdoaxzdn.com/]retdcdoaxzdn[/url], [link=http://wpdkzaoensjs.com/]wpdkzaoensjs[/link], http://smqyjrgkpolc.com/
 
Written By: qqwnjd
URL: http://nryjdnxbdgey.com/
qwDh6v iazdizagyfzu, [url=http://retdcdoaxzdn.com/]retdcdoaxzdn[/url], [link=http://wpdkzaoensjs.com/]wpdkzaoensjs[/link], http://smqyjrgkpolc.com/
 
Written By: qqwnjd
URL: http://nryjdnxbdgey.com/

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider