Neither MLW nor its proprietor, Maryscott O'Connor, are a registered charity: NO donations made to MLW or MSOC are tax deductible.

blog advertising is good for you

HOME

Halliburton Watch

Bush Regime Countdown Clock

DK Readers Discuss Kos' Stand Against Gays in the Military

by: francislholland

Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:56:17 AM PDT

Correction: Articles published by Moulitsas Zúñiga at the Northern Star in 1993 identify Markos Moulitsas as a "staff writer" for the newspaper in 1993. Another source says he "eventually managed" the same school newspaper.

Cross-posted at the Truth About Kos Blog
and the Francis L. Holland Blog.

"Military Right," by Markos A. C. Moulitsas

An online biography of Markos Alberto Moulitsas Zúñiga says:

After leaving the Army, he [Moulitsas] attended Northern Illinois University and wrote for, and eventually managed, the Northern Star college newspaper. Eventful.Com

While at Northern Illinois University in 1993, during the period when President Clinton was endeavoring to implement a new policy that would allow gays to serve openly in the US military, Markos A. C. Moultisas published an essay in the Northern Star, opposing the service of gays in the military. This essay, entitled "Military Right," was among the more than three dozen pieces he published in his role as "staff reporter" for Northern Illinois University college newspaper.

"ColoradoDem," a regular participant at DailyKos, says of this revelation:

Okay, I realize that this was written quite a long time ago, and if [Kos] has flip-flopped it is not nearly as large of a flip flop as Mitt Romney has done on any number of issues in a much shorter time frame, but nevertheless I found this article troubling. ColoradoDem at DailyKos

Pardon me if I don't "Yawn" as others on this post have. Frankly, I don't see this as a minor issue. ColoradoDem at DailyKos

Clinton's 1993 initiative for gay rights was defeated. Markos A.C. Moulitsas' 1993 essay opposing Clinton's gay rights initiative is reprinted below, verbatim, in its entirety.

francislholland :: DK Readers Discuss Kos' Stand Against Gays in the Military

Markos C.A. Moulitsas wrote:

Military Right
Published on: Monday, January 25, 1993
It's truly disturbing how much ado has been made over Bill Clinton's campaign promise to lift the ban on homosexuals from the U.S. military. It's ironic how it has taken a president who has never served in the military to make a promise that affects the military in such a negative manner.
Those who have served in the military, such as myself, understand the demands and pressures of military life are incompatible with allowing integration with homosexuals. I'm neither socially conservative or prejudiced, and neither is liberal columnist Mike Royko, Gen. Colin Powell, and influential liberal Democrats Sam Nunn and Les Aspin, all who've come out against lifting the ban.
Under military circumstances, as much has to be done as possible to focus the unit's mission and keep disciplinary problems to a minimum. Worrying about whether the known homosexual sleeping next to you is watching as you change your underwear may seem trivial as you read this, but to the soldier who's short-tempered after three weeks in the field and four hours of daily sleep, it becomes a matter of great importance to his pride and sensibilities. And in any case, there aren't many people who would change clothes in a group of co-workers if members of the opposite sex were in the same room watching. There is something inherently uncomfortable about it.
Such fears would go a long way in disrupting efficiency and morale in a unit.
MARKOS C.A. MOULITSAS
Undecided
Freshman
Northern Star

John M. Shalikashvili, a retired army general, was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1993 to 1997. Explaining historically why gays are not allowed in the military today, Gen. Shalikashvili said this year in a New York Times Op-Ed piece,

In the early 1990s, large numbers of military personnel were opposed to letting openly gay men and lesbians serve. President Bill Clinton, who promised to lift the ban during his campaign, was overwhelmed by the strength of the opposition, which threatened to overturn any executive action he might take.

Markos A.C. Moulitsas Zúñiga (MAMZ) was one of the many ex-military whose vocal opposition to gays' participation in the military made it politically impossible for Bill Clinton to make good on his campaign promise to allow gays to serve in the military.

The irony of Markos A.C. Moulitsas' political career is that if he had not been so successful in his Republican activism as a youth, then much of what is wrong with America today would never have come to pass. For example, without the Republican activism of military people like Markos A.C.Moulitas, gays might be serving openly in the military today, instead of waiting until some time in the future.

While President Clinton and his wife Hillary were taking hits from Republicans because they were trying to open the military to service by gays, Markos A. C. Moulitsas was siding with the Republicans and criticizing equal rights for gays.

Now, MAMZ accuses the Clintons of being too conservative! MAMZ accuses the Clintons of selling out progressive values, but this essay shows who the real enemy of progressive values is. When the Clintons were providing leadership for gay rights, Markos C.A. Moulitsas stood up and opposed the Clintons. And the homophobic anti-gay policy that Markos C.A. Moulitsas successfully championed in 1993 is still in place today.

I can't trust MAMZ to fight for gay rights. I can't trust MAMZ to fight for Blacks' rights. I can't trust MAMZ to fight for women's rights, and I don't want MAMZ running the Democratic Party.

I regret that ColoradoDem will probably now be banned from participation at DailyKos because of (1) linking to a critic and (2) refusing to accept the DK meme that Kos is a great leader for progressives even though he is a Republican anti-gay bigot. ColoradoDem is gay and supports gay rights, but now they are ginning up a banning mob against him at DailyKos simply for re-printing at DailyKos MAMZ's 1993 essay against gays in the military.

Tags: Kos, MAMZ, gays, Republicans, military, Critical Thinking, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View Send As Email

DK Readers Discuss Kos' Stand Against Gays in the Military | 93 comments

francislholland"s Tip Jar (7.56 / 9)

I get up every morning determined to both change the world and have one hell of a good time. Sometimes this makes planning my day difficult. E. B. White

by: a small quiet voice @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 07:03:15 AM CDT

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

MAMZ? or MCAMZ? (8.33 / 3)

{:o)

by: donkeytale @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 07:53:23 AM CDT

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

What IS his real name, anyway?! (9.00 / 3)

I also see in the archives at the Northern Illinois University's Northern Star student newspaper that MAMZ also went by the name "Mark Moulitsas" at one time. I'm getting whiplash trying to keep track of the names that this guy has gone by during his various political transmutations.

But, now it's clear that when he was a rabid college homophobe MAMZ went by the name "Markos A.C.Moulitsas."

I wonder what the "C" stands for? Maybe it stands for "Carlos," as in the name "Carlos Alberto Delgado Zuniga."

"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."

by: francislholland @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 08:12:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I think I called him "Mark Zuniga" in a diary once... (8.00 / 3)

This is a boy who appears to have had some serious personal identity issues going on, for sure...back and forth between Schaumberg and El Salvador...that alone would be traumatic indeed...I was traumatized simply by being shuttled back and forth between LA and the Midwest US...the funny thing about him to me is his, well, his effeminancy...doesnt make him gay but I am sure the thought had to be in the back or front of more than a few military minds during MAMZ patriotic stint in the Air Force, or Army, or wtf...

by: donkeytale @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 08:18:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Francis (6.40 / 5)

I think you're ascribing way more power to Markos than he has; then or now. He was a college kid and a follower, not a leader. You're also slightly misrepresenting Gen. Shalikashvili's commentary. His point was that his opposition to lifting the ban was based largely on overall sentiment within the military; not that it was the over-arching political reason. He stands by his previous assessment, even now. But he feels that there has been enough of a shift in that opinion, among the ranks, that it is now time to lift the ban. But if you think that that shift alone will make the change possible, you're wrong. It's still going to be an uphill battle, because of the polticians and the military brass who are still committed to keeping gays, if not out of the military, very, very quiet. Shalikashvili's views may have changed, but many in the power structure have not had a similar change of heart, because their reasoning was different. They don't care if a new survey says that three quarters of the military are now comfortable with gays amongst the ranks. Many, like General Pace, think homosexuality is "wrong" and should not be countenanced by the military.

Consider the case of Capt. Josh Gibbs. He wrote a column on April 23, 2007 endorsing open gay service. On April 30, 2007, he was "reassigned," which is a nice way of saying fired, from his current billet with the 8th Marine Corps Div, and will ship out to Okinawa. It's a ding on his record and would hurt his military career if he intended to stay in, which he does not. Details can be found here and here.

That Markos spouted idiocy back in the day comes as no shock. He just spouts different idiocy today. But he is not responsible for deeply entrenched cultural views that he at one time happened to share.

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

by: Curmudgette @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 08:20:18 AM CDT

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Markos was manager of the student newspaper. (0.00 / 1)

There are few student roles of greater importance and prestige on a college campus than manager of the student newspaper. Students express their political views and lead or oppose movements through their student newspaper.

In 1993, Markos A. C. Moulitsas was the manager of the student newspaper at one of the largest universities in Illinois, the Northern Illinois University, that now has a student body of 25,000 students.

In that position of power and influence within the student body, at a time when President Clinton and the nation were considering how to improve gay rights, Markos A. C. Moulitsas used his influence to oppose gay rights.

It doesn't matter how much power he had. It matters how he used the power that he did have.

If this were a contemporary Republican leader, we would certainly believe it was relevant that he opposed equal rights for gays when he was a student leader. Should we be less interested in someone's political history because the same person says he is a progressive?

Precisely because political leaders tend to tell us about themselves ONLY whatever they believe will win our support, we have to look beneath the veil, to compare what they say about themselves now with what they have done in the past, throughout their careers.

When we look at the Clintons, they were for gay rights in 1993 and they're still for gay rights. When we look at MAMZ, he was adamantly opposed to gay rights in the military in 1993, and we really don't know WHERE he stands on the issue right now.

Actually, we are at risk of establishing a terrible premise: if you are a Republican who was against equal rights in the 1990's, then you are unfit for office. But, if you call yourself an "ex-Republican" progressive, then it no longer matters that you opposed equal rights. So, the best way for Republicans to clean up their awful records is to claim to be progressives.

And if only what you say TODAY matters, then is no way to distinguish the real progressives who actually have a heart-felt belief in progressive values from the opportunistic fakers who pretend to be progressives, for now, only because they see an opportunity on the Left.

Compare out response to Markos' right-wing 1993 statements to the drubbing we gave Senator George Allen about his 1993 statements:

"But, while Allen may have genuflected in the direction of Gingrich, he also showed a touch of Strom Thurmond. Campaigning for governor in 1993, he admitted to prominently displaying a Confederate flag in his living room. He said it was part of a flag collection--and had been removed at the start of his gubernatorial bid. When it was learned that he kept a noose hanging on a ficus tree in his law office, he said it was part of a Western memorabilia collection. These explanations may be sincere. But, as a chief executive, he also compiled a controversial record on race. In 1994, he said he would accept an honorary membership at a Richmond social club with a well-known history of discrimination--an invitation that the three previous governors had refused. After an outcry, Allen rejected the offer. He replaced the only black member of the University of Virginia (UVA) Board of Visitors with a white one. He issued a proclamation drafted by the Sons of Confederate Veterans declaring April Confederate History and Heritage Month. The text celebrated Dixie's "four-year struggle for independence and sovereign rights." There was no mention of slavery. After some of the early flaps, a headline in The Washington Post read, "governor seen leading va. back in time." " GEORGE ALLEN'S RACE PROBLEM

I think it's time we stopped defending Markos' Republican reactionary history and started heeding the warnings of his Republican history.

"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."

by: francislholland @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 09:18:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Actually (6.00 / 3)

I think gays are the one major constituency Markos hasn't specifically pissed off with his dismissive screeds.

Yet, anyway.

(Insert name here) is a right-wing fascist warmonger!

by: Jake's Guilt @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 09:25:23 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Maybe because his past anti-gay stand is a matter of public record already. (0.00 / 0)

Above, Curmudgette said that Markos wasn't very important back in 1993. The fundamental question really is, "How important should this man be allowed to become TODAY in light of what we know about him?"

If Senator George Allen was rejected even as a Republican leader for his past stands on rights issues, and for what they indicated about his present beliefs, I think MAMZ should be rejected by progressives for the same reason.

I'm not gay, but I find these anti-gay statements by MAMZ to be intensely offensive and abhorrent. These were not off-the-cuff statements, but they were the public position taken by the manager of the student newspaper in a editorial. These are not the makings of a leader of a progressive movement, and I don't care WHEN or WHY he made these statements.

"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."

by: francislholland @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 09:34:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Robert Byrd (7.50 / 2)

tell us what you think of him.

by: dhonig @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 09:50:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Bird has acknowledged that his bigotry was a mistake. (7.50 / 2)

If anyone can find where MAMZ has disavowed the essay above, I would be very pleased to read that disavowal.

"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."

by: francislholland @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 11:18:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Markos Moulitasa Dyed in the Wool Conservative Republican (10.75 / 4)

Francis continues coming up with relevant information that creates an undeniable historical thread of unbroken conservatism on the part of Markos Moulitsas.

At what point in the continuum do we ever see a person with so called liberal views?

He said he became a progressive after joining the military. Here he is in 1993 expressing conservative Republican viewpoints. 8 years later ...Moulitsas at least...applies to the CIA and is given as assignment to become a spy in Washington D.C ...and at that time he has a blog and has spoken to the CIA about his blog. Meaning to me...he would continue blogging...using his blog for CIA activities and an undercover agent...just like Valerie Plame did....working undercover for a phony company....Moulitsas might have been blogging for a phony blog to root out....imaginary enemies of the state...I suppose....It ought to be discussed....he was given a job assignment to be a spy in D.C. he was an active blogger at the time...what the hell do you thing they had in mind for him...c'mon....he was to be among other things....a undercover blogger for the CIA....It stands to reason..

In 2006 he says he would have no problem working for the CIA. Just recently we have become aware that the torture, rendition programs used by the American government and it's people have been designed by two horny, sexually and mentally disturbed CIA "psychologists" who express and place their own sexual deviation fantasies on innocent people who have been accused...but rarely ever charged... with terrorism...resulting in events where Iraqi fathers and sons are forced to have sex with each other. And Moulitsas has no problem with working for the CIA as of 2006 and his statement to that effect

Prior to 1993 he campaigned for extremist conservative Henry Hyde who embraced Jesse Helms and was found to be lying and covering up for the Contras in their drug running operations. In addition to being a family values man...he too was found to be having affairs with other women.

He was a Reagen Republican prior to this and supported the Right wing military in El Salvador...meaning he supported the Death Squads and his family was involved in the Government through his uncle an education minister.

Now....where, when was this man ever a liberal...there is a thread...and it's continous....it's a reactionary conservative thread.

Stu Piddy....a free range human

by: Stu Piddy @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:11:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

George Allen's racist history (10.00 / 2)

became an issue because of his racist present. Senator Byrd was an Exalted Cyclops in the KKK, but his recent voting record doesn't reflect that, his other views are quite sound, and he's a darling of anti-war progressives. I, for one, won't hold his racist history against him unless he starts espousing extreme racist views again. I respect that people can change, or at least in public life, hold their views and their responsibility as stewards of public faith in proper perspective.

I find it interesting that Markos was outspoken on his boneheaded views in college, but I don't really think it's relevant today, nor is a manager of college newspaper a position of power. It teaches some skills and builds resume, but that's about it. Our college newpaper only ever effected events when a satirical column was misinterpreted and a riot broke out. Opposition it could get. Shape opinion, not so much.

I would also like to know where Markos stands on the issue today, but as he himself has stated, he's not issue oriented. Allow me to crib from myself:

Earlier this month, Washington Monthly, published an article on Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, proprietor of the "Daily Kos." It highlighted Kos's affection for sports and his lack of interest in actual policy. This is something that becomes rapidly apparent in his blog entries. Kos doesn't care about issues and he said so to the Washington Monthly .
"They want to make me into the latest Jesse Jackson, but I'm not ideological at all," Moulitsas told me, "I'm just all about winning."

The only time Markos really talks about "issues" is when he's explaining why caring about them detracts from party unity and effective "strategy." And if he ever did care about an issue and the Democratic Party dropped the ball on it, all we'd get from Markos is an explanation of why it was better that they drop it for now and a reminder to think long term.

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

by: Curmudgette @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:07:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Curmudgeon...I think you missed the point of history (8.00 / 1)

Your missing two points, I think Curmudgette:

1). Since he isn't interested in Policy...he's only interested in winning....he's not interested in expressing his own views about liberal values...lets' call it liberal values....equality...workers rights....health care...war vs no war....So what makes him a Liberal? He isn't. He...at this time ...just doesn't like Republicans...they are the other team in what is for him nothing more than a game....a sport. Politics is SPORT FOR MOULITSAS. He's not on anybody's side....as far as issues go. if you want to know his views on Policy...they are Ronald Reagens....

I think it may be that he's angry at Republicans...for some reason...perhaps he felt "banned" or rejected by them and now he's punishing them by electing Democrats...doesn't matter who the Democrat is...what theyre' viewpoints are...he just wants Democrats to win.

I think that's really shallow, dumb, pointless and assinine.

2). He has no history of having changed views ...only parties...

That's why he has essientially contributed to the obsfuscation of the fact that the Democrats are adopting Repbulican positions and in fact simply becoming liberal wing of an extremist Republican reactionary party.

History...the truth of history is everything...it puts everything in perspective... Robert Byrd has not stopped being a racist...he has added another layer to his history.....which simply contrasts...but does not wipe out his racism in the past....Once a drug addict...a person always has that as part of their history...the urge doesn't go away...racism like drug addiction has another layer of something else placed over it...abstinence for example...that mutes the urge....other events excite the ugre and bring it back up....people don't change...they develop and you never stop being what you once were...you add something new which changes the mixture of your personality....and these layers can shift to the front or the back depending on the events which exicite them....white whole Milk mixed with cocoa is still white Milk...the cocaa has been added so it looks different...and it is different...but it's the still the same milk before the cholclate was added....

And that's how we develop as personailites...we are the sum of our history...layer upon layer. And once a layer is formed it doesn't go away...it simply has a place...behind or infront of another layer....that's true in photoshop and it's true in real life.

Stu Piddy....a free range human

by: Stu Piddy @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:38:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

As I said (9.50 / 4)

I think this bit of history is interesting. The idea I take issue with is that he has some major culpability for the failure of Clinton's attempt to allow openly gay people serve in the military. As an insight into his personality structure, it's as fascinating as he is fascinating, which is to say, "not very." I've been saying for some time that I thought he had the depth of teaspoon and that he thinks of poltics as sports, hence the title for my above linked blog entry, "For Markos Politics is a Game of Inches." I've also NEVER described Markos as a liberal. All of that is readily apparent from his current commentary. The added insight fleshes out a picture and, as you note, shows some contradictions in his "story." If it were presented that way, I'd have no quibble.

I do think people's views change, your chocolate milk analogy not withstanding. We are constantly moving through that Hegelian model and shifting a lot or a little. Some people are more fixed than others. I tend to think Markos is one of those people. I don't think that he lives a terribly examined life and it shows. If he ever really becomes a mover and shaker that might be worth more scrutiny, but I think he's a big fish in a very little pond and I'm not impressed or intimidated.

I actually like that Francis dug this up. I think he should be confronted with it. I think it's another nail in the coffin, in terms of his "progressive" veneer. I just don't think his views matter much in the greater scheme of things.

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

by: Curmudgette @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 11:13:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Thanks! Let's ask MAMZ at YearlyKos if he still holds this position! (0.00 / 0)

I don't think we can assume that MAMZ has changed his mind about this without asking him whether he has or not.

I think this is a legitimate issue to be raised in the biographical articles that accompany all of the coverage of YearlyKos 2007.

Thanks for your comment!

"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."

by: francislholland @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 11:35:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

So when did he stop caring about opposing gays in the military? (0.00 / 0)

He wants to remake the Democratic Party in his image and we are to believe that his is an ex-anti-gay, but now he is a-political and only wants to help the Democratic Party?

Why would anybody who doesn't care about policy care what political party holds the reigns in Washington?

"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."

by: francislholland @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 11:24:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

If George Allen had trained at the CIA, he might have dissembled as Markos does. (1.50 / 2)

If you believe Markos has changed (because he says he has), then nothing that he did in the past will matter to you, no matter what God-awful things he proves to have done. Even IF he was on the CIA payroll when he started DailyKos, it doesn't matter because he "has changed." And we know that because he says so and we believe him.

Since MAMZ has never said that he did NOT receive money from the CIA, I cannot see why there is anyone who would condemn me for raising the possibility.

But, if you believe as I do that six months training at the CIA is never entirely wasted, then you may believe as I do that Markos' protestations of progressivism in the present are merely a cover story to more easily infiltrate (literally or figuratively) the progressive Left.

Since many of us have decided that NOTHING Markos did in the past is relevant to the present, he really doesn't even need the credibility that comes with a consistent political record. He is whomever he says he is, and that's good enough for many people.

I still believe that resumes matter, and I am not willing to accept the proposition that MAMZ suddenly became a progressive during the six months while he was training at the CIA.

I think there are other explanations for his current posture that are far more probable, even if they are far less positive for MAMZ's political credibility as a progressive.

"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."

by: francislholland @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 12:07:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Liberal (6.00 / 1)

Oh...It just occurred to me...he become a liberal after interviewing with the CIA...since they are liberal....their influence...their reasoning must have turned him into the liberal that we know now....it was the CIA that convinced him to become liberal.

Stu Piddy....a free range human

by: Stu Piddy @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 14:39:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

One more thing. (6.75 / 4)

You're killin' me with this one.

There are few student roles of greater importance and prestige on a college campus than manager of the student newspaper. Students express their political views and lead or oppose movements through their student newspaper.

First of all, outside of the newspaper cliques themselves, this so patently false as to be laughable. And manager? Editor-in-Chief, maybe. But still, only within a certain sphere. The football quarterback. Now that guy has some clout.

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

by: Curmudgette @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:18:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I hate myself for this ... (8.00 / 4)

and I know I'm showing a serious lack of self-restraint and consistency to my prior statements, but my problem is I can't help but ask two questions in the face of this crap:

(1) How many Freshmen make it on the editorial board of a school newspaper, especially when they list their major as "undecided" (e.g. not a Journalism major yet)? My answer: None.

and

(2) How often are "editorials" signed by the writer with their name and major (undeclared) instead of being bylined? My answer: Never.

This is a letter to the editor.

FLH is again demonstrating his lack of fidelity to the truth by characterizing this as an editorial because he wants to spin this letter as being more than what it was: A letter to the editor in a student newspaper at an unimportant college in the mid-West. He wants to inflate the import of this letter in order to attempt to convince everyone to view Markos as a Republican (or CIA) operative then and now.

He conveniently uses a manipulated graphic in stead of an accurate image of the letter on his site to obscure this basic fact.

How low will FLH go? The opinions he spouts ("DailyKos is a white supremacist site") are ridiculuous, and he seems incapable of telling the truth.

I will give him this: Yes, this letter is demonstrative of Markos' views in 1993. But, then again, Markos has always admitted he was a Reagan Republican back in 1993. So I'm not sure why this is important.

What are Markos' views on gay rights today, FLH?

For that matter, what are your views? Given that your attacks on non-Christians and athiests from your fundamentalist Christian perspective, I'm extremely surprised at your championing of gay rights.

Kudos to Curmudgette for at least offering some common sense. Opposite of Kudos to everyone who read the false factual assertions herein and let them pass unremarked.

No mas.

by: cityduck @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 11:14:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I conveniently cite the original article so everyone can read it for themselves. (0.00 / 0)

I also cite another online biography that says that Markos was the manager of the student newspaper when he was at Northern Illinois University.

This is what Markos himself wrote, and nobody forced him to publish it in the school newspaper. The truth is not "low." It's simply the truth!

I am amazed that while cityduck is passing out kudos s/he doesn't pass any out for quoting MAMZ verbatim and citing to the original source where MAMZ's words were published.

"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."

by: francislholland @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 11:28:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

If you had not misstated the facts ... (8.50 / 2)

I wouldn't comment on this diary at all. Markos' views in 1993 are irrelevant to me. I only care what his views are in 2007, and even then not to that great extent because I view his commentary on many subjects as being of little import.

The bottom line: You know that a letter to the editor is not an editorial.

Yet, instead of admitting it, you continue to obfuscate. Was Markos the "manager" (which means what? Managing editor, equipment guy, or what?) of the student newspaper his "Freshman" year when he was an "undeclared" major? Or did he obtain that position later in his years of undergraduate education? I think common sense tells us the answer.

Just as common sense tells us this wasn't an editorial (either unbylined as the opinion of the editorial board or bylined to a columnist), but a signed letter to the editor.

So why do you lie about this, FLH? I think we all know.

by: cityduck @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 11:40:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I'm not surprised, FLH, that you don't (9.00 / 1)

answer my two questions:

(1) What are Markos' views on gay rights today?

and

(2) What are your views?

As to my first question, it's worth noting that on June 25 Markos linked to Elizabeth Edwards' endorsement of gay marriage and said "If Elizabeth Edwards was running for president, she'd be my candidate with no reservations."

As to my second question, it's worth noting that you have condemned non-Christians and athiests and appear to be a fundamentalist Christian.

by: cityduck @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 12:08:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

So, Markos supports Edwards instead of the family that tried to overturn the rule against gays in the military. (1.00 / 1)

I'm so sick and tired of people valuing what people say over what they actually do. What the above Kos essay shows is that while Clinton was trying to let gays into the military, Kos was publicly speaking out AGAINST gays in the military. Kos was against gay rights when Clinton was for them.

Now, once again, Kos is against the political family that fought for gays in the military (the Clintons) but Kos is FOR a political family that has never done anything positive about gays in the military (the Edwards).

Now, we're supposed to give Kos' credit for a positive reference to Mrs. Edwards, a woman who who has never done anything official to help gays at all, to my knowledge.

I can't see the logic in that, but apparently some people can.

"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."

by: francislholland @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 13:20:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

In 1993, when my minister ridiculed "Adam and Steve", I challenged him about it. (0.00 / 0)

Back in the 1992/1993 era, when ministers of my church said anti-gay things, I challenged them about it in private and in the context of groups. Instead of being against gay rights (like Markos), I was always for them.

For example, when a minister said that gayness was "wrong, but of course there is no one like that here," I challenged him, asking how he knew there were no gay people present. In fact, as friend at the church had come out to me the previous week, and I knew that that friend would be turned off had he been present at that time. So, I stood up for inclusion, unlike MAMZ.

No matter what MAMZ says about gay rights today, I will NEVER believe that he is the best person to choose Democratic leaders who will have the responsibility for assiduously defending gays' rights.

And since I'm one of the two Black lawyers whom I know to have been banned from DailyKos (which seems statistically improbable that so many Black lawyers should be banned), I will never, ever trust MAMZ to advocate for Blacks people issues when it counts either. Because this comes in a group (DailyKos/YearlyKos) where Blacks and Latinos are already grossly underrepresented.

To my mind, this disqualifies MAMZ as a progressive leader, and all protestations to the contrary just drive deeper wedges between Blacks, gays and Latinos on the one hand, and the others who like to call themselves progressives on the other hand.

"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."

by: francislholland @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 18:39:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're right!!! (0.00 / 0)

It's a letter to the editor. So funny. Well, I'm sure that was faxed straight to the White House. Having been a newspaper geek in college, you'd think that would have jumped right out at me. Ah well.

And Francis, a hypertext link straight to the page in question would be good form. That would have spared me the need to to hand-type from a graphic. But that's one of those niggly structural things that you know drive me batty.

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

by: Curmudgette @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 11:44:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

CityDuck (6.00 / 1)

I think you would have a good argument except we have to believe that MAMZ has an epiphany at some point and transformed into a wholly different person. Not just changing his view on gays but a long list of issues.

I can not say my beliefs have changed much since I was a college freshman. I became more intersted in taxes/economics for instance but my core beliefs simply developed. They did not do an about face.

The only ecplanation for a lot of this is to assume that MAMZ was just immature emotionally and intellectually in his young adult life and grew over time.

His political posts are nothing more than sports talk. Replace the candidates names with the Rams or the Niners and his shit reads like any pedestrian sports commentary. It doesnt sound like the writings of someone who has had expansive growth. Just a bunch of ramblings on statistics by a guy who has said he doesnt give a shot about policy

The 44th most popular political blog on Facebook!

by: Libertarian Green @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 14:14:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Why does a guy who doesn't care about policy get into politics? (7.00 / 1)

It doesn't make sense that a guy who doesn't care about the substance of policy gets into politics, unless it's (1) just a game to him or (2) just a way to make money and get famous, or (3) because it's what your employer requires of you.

I don't believe that MAMZ doesn't care about politics. Why did he become a lawyer, write for a school newspaper and help elect Republicans, working on their campaigns, if he doesn't care about politics. That simply doesn't make ANY sense AT ALL.

I have a strange quirk and I don't mind telling you what it is: I absolutely refuse to believe stories that don't make any logical sense. This quirk all started when I was a little boy and I asked a construction worker why they put steel reinforcement bars in concrete structure. The construction worker explained to me that those steel bars were "wicks" that could be lit on fire to bring the building down quickly and easily when it came time for the building to be destroyed.

When I told my mother this story, she was underwhelmed at my newfound knowledge. You see, the story wasn't true just because somebody told me it was true. And when you think about it, it just doesn't make any rational sense, based on the laws of physics.

Ever since I failed to use my critical thinking and was taken in by that construction worker, I refuse to believe things just because someone says them. I insist on employing critical thinking skills to determine whether what I am being told is logical and rational and comports with what I and others know about the universe.

Nothing that people tell me to explain away MAMZ's right-wing behavior and his family makes any sense to me, particularly when they insist that he is NOW the world's most ardent progressive after spending his youth as an ardent Republican right-winger.

What makes more sense to me is that MAMZ is from an aristocratic right-wing family, adopted the right-wing ideas that went along with his class status in El Salvador, and is now PRETENDING to be a progressive simply because it facilitates his entry into the leadership of the progressive movement and into the halls of power.

Why would someone suddenly pretend to be a progressive after spending six months training with the CIA in Washington? Everybody's going to have their own theory about that, but I insist on finding a theory that harmonizes ALL of the facts, instead of a theory that requires us to ignore most of the facts.

Steel reinforcement bars are not "wicks" that can be lit with matches to destroy concrete structures and MAMZ is not a progressive CIA ex-trainee who is trying to take over the Democratic Party but doesn't care about policy and only cares about politics, and who consistently has lied about his family background, but for no particular reason.

"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."

by: francislholland @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 16:33:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

on francis (11.00 / 1)

I won't disagree, except you can go to that paper, do a search for markos, and see that stories come up with him as "staff reporter".

anyway, it just shows how markos thought then, regardless of how "important" it is to have a position at a small college newspaper.

maybe his views have changed, but if so, I suspect slightly, on this particular topic.

-pyrrho-

by: pyrrho @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 16:55:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

The chronology seems obvious to me. (5.00 / 2)

As a freshman he wrote a couple letters to the editor. Joined the staff as a sophmore, and by the time he ended his undergrad career had been EIC.

The writing in question was a letter to the editor. I don't dispute Markos wrote what he wrote, and I disagree with that opinion from 1993. Just reinforces to me what he's always admitted, he had different political views back then. Still, his four part series on racism and accompanying editorial show that even back then, as a self-labeled "Reagan Republican," he had some decidedly non-conservative attitudes.

by: cityduck @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 17:04:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

CIA is to the EXTREME RIGHT of the Democratic Party (0.00 / 0)

But City Duck....he applied to the CIA...is that Progressive in 2001 and in 2006 he said he would have no problems working for the CIA.

The CIA (no matter who he may have met there who claimed to be liberal or was percieved by him to be liberal)...is not known in the world, on this planet, Earth...to be a liberal orgainization that strives to make the world a stable place as he says.

You can see by picking up a paper almost any day of the week that the CIA is involved is destablization, torture, kidnapping, law breaking in foreign nations, murder, sabotage and destruction.

You have to be willing to make yourself unreal...to deny reality...I think ...to think his act of applying to the CIA is anything but a RIGHT WING REACTIONARY MOVE...there may be "liberals" in the CIA...there may be "liberals" in the KGB, MOSSAD, the former NAZI Party....what matters is the organization as a whole and it's history...

I'm baffled by any defense of this person ...by saying that was way back in 93...that's not that long ago....when was he a Liberal:

Stu Piddy....a free range human

by: Stu Piddy @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 18:57:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

about the CIA (0.00 / 0)

true, but also depends on the definition of "stable"

-pyrrho-

by: pyrrho @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 19:22:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

CSA Central Schzoid Agency....shoud rename CIA (6.00 / 1)

Moulitsas claimed the CIA had it's heart in the right place and wanted a stable world...that's what I'm referring to...

Stability....roughly speaking politically has to do with the policies of a government and the endurance of those policies and actions that result from them over time...

In other words...a lack of movement politically. IdI Amin, Sadaam Hussein and many others presided over stable governments at some point.....

So yes, stability isn't necessarily a good thing....but destablilization....of foreign governments by the CIA is alwasy a bad thing. I dare anyone to give me an example of the good the CIA has done in destablizing any nation....it always turns out bad...the reason is...the CIA is an organization without any understanding and without any understanding of what it's actions produce.

The CIA is generally made up of provincial, paranoid, isolated, schzoids creatures who resemble human beings...but they are actually a form of Vampire often. ...that's the mentality. They like to destroy and or make other beings weak who they.....can feed off of.

They seek to "compromise" people and entire nations.

The CIA is a place where the ideas of the mentally ill become introduced as standards for normal behavior.

Stu Piddy....a free range human

by: Stu Piddy @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 19:41:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So, this opinion is alright b/c MAMZ wasn't a quarterback? n/t (0.00 / 0)

The tortured defenses of MAMZ are killing me. George Allen wasn't a quarterback either (right?) when he placed a severed horse head in the mailbox of a Black family whom he didn't know.

I'm certainly glad George Allen wasn't a quarterback at when he did that, or it might really have scared the hell out of that Black family.

"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."

by: francislholland @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 11:32:26 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

There's a difference between (6.00 / 2)

important and influential. You assert that he was using a position of influence. He was not. Cityduck is right. He wrote a letter to the editor. He did not publish an editorial. These are very different things. And I still say that even if it had been in an editorial in college paper.... well, big whoop! That the view stated is moronic, I don't dispute. Just its relevance in the larger scheme. He was not an opinion leader. He was a statistic.

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

by: Curmudgette @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 11:50:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

It's bigoted, not just "moronic" (0.00 / 0)

What, you ask, is the relevance NOW of the fact that he was an anti-gay bigot back in 1993? I think it's relevant because I believe he is still very much the person he was back then. You believe it's irrelevant because you trust that he has changed, because he says he has.

A little while ago everyone at MLW was talking about all of the misogyny at DailyKos NOW. Now, we discover that, in addition to being accused of misogyny in the present, Kos was an anti-gay activist in the past.

The weight of the evidence is gathering. Only proof that Kos had a 360 degree awakening can save his political career from the conclusion that he simply IS NOT A PROGRESSIVE.

"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."

by: francislholland @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 12:23:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Where did I say I think he's changed? (6.00 / 1)

Find it. I dare ya. I have no idea what his current views are on gays in the military. As far as his not being a progressive, this is not news. All of which I've stated, on this thread. You really should read a little more carefully. It would go a long way to improving your commentary.

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

by: Curmudgette @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 14:00:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

OK. I noticed that you're really not defending MAMZ. (0.00 / 0)

You're saying that being anti-gay is really pretty much in keeping with what we already know about him, so it's not that surprising.

And you're agreeing that being anti-gay really isn't consistent with being "progressive," so we have to logically conclude that MAMZ is NOT progressive. And rational people who are paying attention already know that.

And so, when we ask ourselves by what right he should lead America's progressives, we really cannot think of any good reason at all.

If that's what you're saying, I agree with you 100%!

"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."

by: francislholland @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 16:41:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

NO, flh, what she is saying (8.50 / 2)

is that you did a piss-poor, incomplete, and dishonest piece of work with this essay.

In this particular case (leaving aside all others) you made false claims about the evidence you presented that were refuted by the very evidence that you presented, and you failed to do due diligence in checking your work and your statements/conclusions.

At this point it doesn't mean jack-shit what kos wrote or didn't write almost 15 yrs ago because you are distorting the evidence (and incompetantly at that) today in a flagrant attempt to swiftboat the guy.

What fucking matchbook-cover law school did you go to anyway?

I don't care for Marcos politics particularly, mostly because I distrust his motives, but I will not sit idly by and let this kind of false character assassination go unopposed. It is just plain wrong.

As for you conflating this into the primary campaign as a reason to support Clinton over Edwards, that is some happy horseshit, too. Sure, Bill made an attempt to do right by gays as far as the military went, but Edwards has never had the opportunity to do anything like that so you don't have a clue WHAT he would do in similar circumstances.

Furthermore, if you look at the situation back then honestly, Clinton knuckled under to the bigotry instead of standing on his declared principles. So exactly how does that support your argument?

-8.88/-7.08... Go ahead, accuse me again of being a rightwing conservative.

by: zedaker @ Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 01:12:26 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're right. He became a "manager of the paper" after he wrote this essay. (6.00 / 1)

Comparing the dates of this essay to the dates of dates of MAMZ's 43 or more articles as "staff writer" for the same newspaper during the year 1993, it does seem that he became the manager of the newspaper AFTER he published the above essay at the newspaper.

While Bill Clinton was working to change the rule against gays in the military, the above essay demonstrates that MAMZ was a student activist letter-writer AGAINST gay rights during the same period.

And that anti-gay activism on campus apparently did not hurt is his drive to become manager of the school newspaper.

"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."

by: francislholland @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 12:51:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

This statement: (0.00 / 0)

And that anti-gay activism on campus apparently did not hurt is his drive to become manager of the school newspaper.

What does it mean? I've read it three times. What are you implying? That Markos pursued a position in the paper to better advance an anti-gay agenda? That the paper was anti-gay and therefore promoted anti-gay activists? This is a serious question. What the hell are you trying to say?

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

by: Curmudgette @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 14:06:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

MAMZ has a history of opportunism. (0.00 / 0)

I'm stating as a matter of fact that MAMZ wrote and published an anti-gay essay in his university newspaper and then he subsequently was permitted to write three dozen articles for the school newspaper and became manager of the school newspaper.

This means, logically, that writing and publishing that anti-integration essay did not hurt MAMZ's career at the newspaper.

I do not have enough information to assert that the anti-gay article helped him. That would be pure speculation at this point. But I DO have sufficient information to conclude with 100% certainty and assert that the article did not hurt him, because he was promoted to newspaper editor after the fact.

Was the published essay opportunistic, taking advantage of an anti-gay fervor on campus to promote himself politically? Or was the essay a heart-felt expression of his fear that gay people desperately wanted his ass, and therefore they could not be trusted in the same tent as him?

Whatever the case, I certainly could NEVER trust MAMZ to advocate for any minority's rights until I know the answer to this question. And even then, I'll never trust him!

WHY should progressives trust MAMZ to be a spokesman for them (isn't he in Washington and behind closed doors claiming to be representing US?) if they can't answer even the most basic questions about his political metamorphosis from CIA trainee to ardent a-political Democratic activist?

If none of these facts are inconsistent with being a progressive, then why do the MAMZ supporters hate it so much when I point these things out?

Where there's the fetid smell of feces, there's usually some actual feces nearby. And where there's smoke, there's usually fire. I'm smelling the fetid smell of feces AND I'm seeing so much smoke that there MUST be a forest fire somewhere among the excuses and rationalizations that we have been offered to explain MAMZ's leadership of progressives.

"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."

by: francislholland @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 16:54:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why should his expressed views (8.50 / 2)

be a detriment to his participation in the college newspaper? They really shouldn't be a factor at all. It's not a valid enquiry. As to why he should be a progressive leader today, I don't think he should. Never have.

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

by: Curmudgette @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 17:31:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

no evidence it was or wasn't an editorial (0.00 / 0)

'Evidence' is not that there are the words 'freshman' and 'undecided' under the article/essay/editorial/letter. That's a common form in college newspapers for both guest editorials and essays, and for letters to the editor.

I'm important, and everyone else is too. - G.K. Chesterton

by: fairleft @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 16:11:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

wait (0.00 / 0)

well, it isn't important except to anyone that still thinks markos is "progressive"... though I don't see the letter at the site anyway, just articles by markos as a reporter there.

until I see it actually in a reliable context it's going to be right up there with "admitted to being employed by the CIA"... er, down there.

-pyrrho-

by: pyrrho @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 16:58:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

In 1995 Markos (0.00 / 0)

was editor in chief of the UNI Northern Star. I'm not sure whether or not he was ever 'manager' there.

I'm important, and everyone else is too. - G.K. Chesterton

by: fairleft @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 16:07:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

bad link (5.00 / 2)

http://www.northerns...

-pyrrho-

by: pyrrho @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 17:00:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Why did Communists want to Kill the Zunigas? (0.00 / 0)

I sure would like to know WHY "communist guerillas" would threaten the lives of the Moulitsas family....he was just a poor immigrant whose uncle seems to have been education minister in the junta.

One Education minister, was killed by guerillas for involvement in the killing of some 20-30 people.

One Education Minister actually publicy joined the guerillas movement another resigned in protest of the government.

He seems to have been involved in a very political family and he's not talking one bit about it.

Stu Piddy....a free range human

by: Stu Piddy @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 19:04:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Are you trying to tell us (0.00 / 0)

that the student paper of a university of that size would put a freshman in charge?

You'ld better check that again because I frankly find it unbelievable. Maybe he was manager later as a junior or senior but the byline you show was clearly written when he was a freshman.

-8.88/-7.08... Go ahead, accuse me again of being a rightwing conservative.

by: zedaker @ Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 00:39:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

You were right. He apparently became manager AFTER writing this essay. (0.00 / 0)

"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."

by: francislholland @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 17:51:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Markos's 1993 'Bad Attitude' (9.00 / 1)

Bad attitude
Published on: Friday, February 5, 1993
I'd like to address this letter to Marcos C. Moulitsas. First, do not assume that former military service people share your views. Rest assured that this one does not. I resent the fact that you assume that just because I'm prior service, I share your opinion.
Second, if a military unit is inefficient and morale is down, that is the entire unit's fault and not just one soldier's fault. As military personnel, we are trained to accomplish a mission. If you cannot accomplish that mission because you're worried about who's watching you while you change your underwear, it sounds like you don't have the right mental attitude.
CHERYL ANNDEL
Business
Senior

I'm important, and everyone else is too. - G.K. Chesterton

by: fairleft @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 16:22:37 PM CDT

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Thanks for the link. (0.00 / 0)

Perusing the Archives it is now clear that Markos January 25, 2003 writing was a letter to the editor. He wrote a second letter (on sports) on Feb 22, 2003, and then nothing until he appears to have joined the staff in June 2003, presumably at the beginning of the Summer term after his Freshman year.

I also find it noteworthy that while on staff Markos did a four part investigation on racism on campus and a concluding editorial praying for tolerance. Perhaps he was not as much a Reagan Republican as he says.

by: cityduck @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 16:48:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Why is it clear? (0.00 / 0)

Show me something from that newspaper with the paper's 1993 designation of 'essay' or 'editorial' or 'op-ed piece', and then we could contrast that to Markos's long 'letter' if that's what it is.

In any case, whether or not it is a letter would not show anything in particular about Holland's honesty/dishonesty. He calls it an essay and that's what it can be described as, whether it is an op-ed or a letter.

I'm important, and everyone else is too. - G.K. Chesterton

by: fairleft @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 16:54:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

FLH has edited his diary, doofus. (6.00 / 1)

He has now changed the word "Editorial" to "Essay," but even that is misleading. No one I know, and my parents were both professional journalists (Dad EIC of college paper for what it's worth), would ever call a letter to the editor and "essay."

The fact Markos' alleged "essay" is a letter to the editor is obvious by looking at the editorial and letter to the editor formats used by the paper at that time as reflected in the Archive.

by: cityduck @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 16:58:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I'm shocked (6.00 / 1)

that FH corrected his essay her to adhere to the facts... evidently he listened to your criticism.

So the letter/essay/whatever is real then... I would love a link right to it... FH's didn't take me there... ok, I'll check again.

-pyrrho-

by: pyrrho @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 17:03:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I'd laud him for it, but (9.00 / 1)

(1) the error was obvious from the outset, (2) he's posted no update to reflect his change from "editorial" to "essay," and (3) even the term "essay" is misleading -- it was a letter to the editor. He is intentionally obfuscating.

by: cityduck @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 17:08:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Why should it shock anyone when a diary that's virtually 100% factually correct becomes 100% correct? n/t (7.00 / 2)

Someone pointed out an error and I fixed it. I don't find the one or the other that shocking. It just shows that when people are engaged and reading critically we can fact check each other in a way that is lacking in the mainstream media.

I said he was manager at the time of the publication of his anti-gay screed. Someone pointed out that he had become manager later on. I'm glad we worked that out, because now that all of the facts of MAMZ's anti-gay essay are clear, we can think together about the implications of these facts.

"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."

by: francislholland @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 18:02:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Yes, I did change that word based when I realized that he was not manager at that point. (6.00 / 1)

You called me a "liar." A "liar" does not cite articles that would easily disprove misrepresentations. Rather, I provided all of the information that was needed to us to resolve the facts that:

(1) This letter WAS written by MAMZ and nobody disputes that;

(2) This letter WAS published at this college newspaper, and nobody disputes that.

(3) MAMZ WAS manager of his college newspaper and nobody disputes that. (But, it appears that he was not manager at the time that he wrote this letter. Good for you! Now, how much difference does that make?)

In fact, I assumed that, because he was named as the manager of the newspaper, that what he wrote was an editorial. In fact, he appears to have became manager at some unspecified time AFTER writing the abhorrent essay and publishing it at the paper.

Perhaps he was "only" a staff writer at the time of this letter, or perhaps this letter brought his right-wing advocacy to the attention of the newspaper and helped him win his managing job.

This goes not to what Markos believed at the time (he made himself perfectly clear) but rather to MAMZ's authority at the school newspaper at the time of publication. That's an ancillary issue.

The question is, why did he write and publish this anti-gay essay at all?

"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."

by: francislholland @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 17:14:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

This is close to your best post on this subject. (6.00 / 1)

As I stated in my second post on this diary, I wouldn't have commented at all if you'd been accurate about this being a letter to the editor from the outset.

I agree with your points 1 and 2.

So what do they prove about Markos? That he held a position in 1993 that I disagree with today.

Does he still adhere to that position today?

We know he now supports gay marriage. So I would not call him an anti-gay bigot like the fundamentalist Christians (of which you are one are you not?) who also enjoy slamming athiests (as you do).

All the innuendo about your point 3 is irrelevant and made up. The chronology is obvious: He wrote the letter while as a freshman, joined the staff of the paper as a sophmore, and ultimately rose in the ranks as a Senior.

It's also worth noting that even back when Markos was, by his own admission, a Reagan Republican he was wrote a four part investigation of racism on campus and an anti-racism editorial that demonstrate he was probably not as conservative then as he's portrayed himself to be.

by: cityduck @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 17:25:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Your chronology is wrong (0.00 / 0)

He wrote the essay as a freshman when he was a staffwriter at the newspaper. The succeeding year (1993-1994) he became 'editor for special projects'. (Search the text for 'moulitsas' and you'll find that in an announcement about changes at the paper. In '1995' (1994-1995 or 1995-1996) he was the paper's editor in chief.

I've asked but you've decided not to say how you've determined the essay is not an op-ed but is instead a letter.

I'm important, and everyone else is too. - G.K. Chesterton

by: fairleft @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 17:48:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Nope. (0.00 / 0)

He did not get the appointment to "editor for Special Projects" until the "Spring Semester of 1994 as revealed in an announcment in December of 1993. His first published writing as a staff member was not until June, 2003, after his Freshman year. You can click on the articles written by him after June in 1993 and see he is denoted as a "staff reporter" in the byline.

As I pointed out to you above, the writing in question follows the style of letters to the editor (carrying a signature etc.) at that time not the style of news or commentaries (carrying bylines etc.).

by: cityduck @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 18:03:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

op-ed sig style for non-staff members (0.00 / 0)

Show me an example, as I asked, and then we'll know it was either a letter or an op-ed piece.

I'm important, and everyone else is too. - G.K. Chesterton

by: fairleft @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 18:29:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't slam atheism per se. I slam atheist ACTIVISM as an ELECTORAL strategy. (0.00 / 0)

The polls say that touting atheism is NOT going to win over middle America, and will lead to electoral losses. That shouldn't surprise anyone after the statistics coming out of the 2004 presidential election. (Republican election fraud also contributed to the loss, in my opinion.)

I would have a Constitutional right to have consensual oral sex with as many men and women as I want to, all at the same time, and all in my bathtub, if I wanted to (and if my wife would permit it). Does this mean that I should announce that this is my policy while stumping for my favorite candidate. I can say whatever I want to, but I have to accept the political consequences for what I say and so does everybody else who will have to suffer the consequences for what I say publicly.

We have a Constitutional right to be atheists, but we don't have an inherent or Constitutional right to be elected to public office. That's why highlighting blogs at which people make anti-Christian statements is not a solid electoral strategy.

Markos says he's an atheist. That's fine for him. Should we put him in a television commercial in which he says, "I'm Markos Moultisas and I support the Democrats because I'm an atheist"? Absolutely not! The polls say that such an ELECTORAL strategy would be deadly!

I don't think that commercial would be the most effective use of our money, and I hope Markos has been compelled to pledge not to hold a MARCH FOR ATHEISM at YearlyKos, with all of the Democratic candidates for president in attendance. Because that would, in the minds of many voters, be a negative for our candidates, and that's why MAMZ and his supporters should refrain from such behavior.

We have a right to be atheists, but we don't have an inherent right to be elected to public office or to have our candidates elected to public office. That's something we have to EARN through the exercise of discretion, among other things.

"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."

by: francislholland @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 18:18:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sounds like "don't tell." (0.00 / 0)

by: cityduck @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 18:34:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Doofus, for not knowing that? (0.00 / 0)

I hope you don't fall below your high standards.

I'm important, and everyone else is too. - G.K. Chesterton

by: fairleft @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 17:32:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I edited the text above when I realized he became manager AFTER posting this essay. (0.00 / 0)

I assumed based on his biographies that he WAS manager, which was true, but he hadn't become manager yet at the time when he published this essay, because other subsequent articles that he published at the same paper identify him as "staff writer." Logically, he may have been something other than manager when this was published.

That makes this abhorrent anti-gay and homophobic MAMZ text a published "essay" rather than an published editorial.

"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."

by: francislholland @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 17:55:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

No. (0.00 / 0)

It makes it a letter to the editor.

Think of it this way, if I claimed on my resume that I had published an "essay" in the NYT when I really just wrote a letter to the editor, I'd be guilty of resume fraud. Your claim is equally suspect.

by: cityduck @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 18:05:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Does it SAY anywhere that it's a "letter to the editor"? (0.00 / 0)

I'm really quite a bit more interested in what this published essay says about MAMZ's thinking and his political views. Suffice to say, he wrote what he thought and published it where he could.

"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."

by: francislholland @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 19:51:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Great letter from Cheryl Anndel! (0.00 / 0)

This shows that there were some people on the campus of Northern Illinois University who understood that it was MAMZ who had a problem, not gay people.

Was MAMZ really worried that gay people would try to sex him, or was he doing the usual Republican tap dance - using whatever specious argument is available to deny rights to a minority that is unable to defend itself?

Whatever the case, I don't want this kind of progressive defending my rights and I don't want him at the table when my rights are being negotiated. I want a REAL progressive at the table, not an ex-anti-gay bigot who had an epiphany that turned him into a progressive during his six months at the CIA.

Why did his burning desire to become a progressive blogger coincide so closely with his training at the CIA for six months in the year 2001?

"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."

by: francislholland @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 17:02:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Cheryl a symbol of Markos's female problem (11.00 / 1)

Markos thought bubble: "If I could I'd ban letters like that, smart-ass ones that make me feel short."

I'm important, and everyone else is too. - G.K. Chesterton

by: fairleft @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 17:38:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Go Cheryl Anndel! (0.00 / 0)

Whoever you are. Wherever you are...

"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

by: Curmudgette @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 18:55:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

ok (11.00 / 1)

I see the link now I skimmed past, good, the letter seemed real and is.

it shows how markos thought at the time, a thread of thinking that continues.

I far prefer real stuff like this to speculation stated as "admissions".

-pyrrho-

by: pyrrho @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 17:04:26 PM CDT

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Continues? (0.00 / 0)

Last writing I saw from Markos on gay rights was lauding Elizabeth Edwards for her strong stance in favor of gay marriage.

Do you know what his position is on gays in the military today?

by: cityduck @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 17:05:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

When it mattered, he was with the Republicans. (0.00 / 0)

At the time when he wrote this letter, the country was deciding whether to admit gays to participate openly in the military, as they do in Israel and Great Britain and other progressive countries. MAMZ was against it and he made his position known, even though he was but a lowly undergraduate student at the time.

When the issue was being hotly debated in Congress, the White House and the media, MAMZ stood up for what was WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, and made his views known publicly. His side won and gays still can't participate in the US military openly, precisely because of wrong-headed people like Markos A.C.Moulitsas.

"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."

by: francislholland @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 17:19:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

problem (10.00 / 2)

I don't believe markos is straight forward, if he supports gay marriage, that would likely be because he thinks it's a winning play.

I have no idea on that, but his conservative framing continues, that I know, and that's what I'm talking about.

From what I see even markos' more liberal positions derive from a way of thinking which I think is conservative, authoritarian, elitist, exclusionary.

He went very fast for the secret email list and "starving of oxygen" way of thinking, a very conservative view of the role of media, also the most common view.

I am curious though, i'll admit, to know what he thinks about gays in the military now.

-pyrrho-

by: pyrrho @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 19:28:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

What do the polls say? (7.50 / 2)

by: peeder @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 19:31:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Blogs are great, b/c you can get confirmation right away. (7.50 / 2)

Once I found this information, I summarized it, quoted it verbatim and published it immediately (within 45 minutes), because I believe it is that important. In so doing, I mistakenly concluded that MAMZ was manager of the newspaper at the time of publication, because so many of his biographies say that he was manager of the newspaper at that time. But those biographies did not say that he was manager of the university newspaper already AT THE TIME OF THE PUBLICATION OF THIS ESSAY.

Asserting that he was inadvertently distracted readers from the letter itself, but now we are back on track.

Now, we have all examined what MAMZ wrote, we have confirmed that it is authentic, and we have confirmed that in 1993 he took a public position against gays in the military, at a time when the issue was being hotly debated and decided in Washington, DC.

That is the information that we did not have before, and publicizing that information was the point of this diary.

"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."

by: francislholland @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 17:30:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

just fyi (1.00 / 1)

at that time I was on the Harvard campus loudly protesting Colin Powell's 1993 commencement address and booing mightily as he tried to deflect this issue in it...("We'll get through it, just like we got through Tail Hook..." BOOO)

But then again I don't think my social liberal bona fides have been much in question...and I've always been straight...

I once came upon something that would make this particular story quite a bit more interesting, but of course, I have a whole attic full of crap that I don't feel a need to get dusty rummaging through at the moment.

by: peeder @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 17:32:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Mr, Breathless Gossip is back (0.00 / 0)

Do they hire programmers at "US Weekly"?

(Insert name here) is a right-wing fascist warmonger!

by: Jake's Guilt @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 18:44:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

What's interesting is that there's so much discussion about gays & lesbians in the military as if it were a new issue, (0.00 / 0)

when, in fact, it's an age-old issue: there always
have been gays & lesbians in the military. President Roosevelt , for example, also opposed the idea of gays and lesbians serving in the military, but people under him protested and he changed his mind.

Ahhhh....Life goes on.

by: independentminded @ Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 16:28:11 PM CDT

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

If you continue to post lies... (8.50 / 2)

I will ban you.

And yes, this includes "ambiguous" statements that you know damned well will be interpreted one way when they are not accurate.

--7.88, --6.56 If I can't rant, I don't want to be part of your revolution.