Embarrassment, Thy Name is Eugene Delgaudio

By Lloyd the Idiot

UPDATED WITH FULL TEXT OF DELGAUDIO EMAIL HERE

As much as I bag on other politicos for unbecoming behavior, there is no one, and I mean no one, that even remotely compares to the embarrassment brought upon us all by Eugene Delgaudio. His latest missive, full of ridiculous distortions and outright lies, proves my point.

Under Public Advocates’ letterhead, Delgaudio voices his opposition to a federal bill, HR 998, put forward by Democratic lawmakers to outlaw discrimination against homosexual students. Below the fold is the relevant text of the bill and then Delgaudio’s email (full text here), but suffice it to say that Delgaudio’s hair is, once again, on fire – claiming this time that the bill would “require schools to teach appalling homosexual acts.”

Frankly, even if he were to shovel my driveway, cook my dinner and wipe my kids’ butts, no level of constituent service could justify voting for, much less openly supporting, such an individual.

First the relevant provisions from the actual text of the bill:

SEC. 4. PROHIBITION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION; EXCEPTIONS.

    (a) In General- No student shall, on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity of such individual or of a person with whom the student associates or has associated, be excluded from participation in, or be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
    (b) Harassment- For purposes of this Act, discrimination includes, but is not limited to, harassment of a student on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity of such student or of a person with whom the student associates or has associated.
    (c) Retaliation Prohibited-
    (1) PROHIBITION- No person shall be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination, retaliation, or reprisal under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance based on his or her opposition to conduct made unlawful by this Act.

From that, Delgaudio get’s this:

 
You see, the Homosexual Classrooms Act contains a laundry list of anti-family provisions that will:
*** Require schools to teach appalling homosexual acts so “homosexual students” don’t feel “singled out” during already explicit sex-ed classes;
*** Spin impressionable students in a whirlwind of sexual confusion and misinformation, even peer pressure to “experiment” with the homosexual “lifestyle;”
*** Exempt homosexual students from punishment for propositioning, harassing, or even sexually assaulting their classmates, as part of their specially-protected right to “freedom of self-expression;”
*** Force private and even religious schools to teach a pro-homosexual curriculum and purge any reference to religion if a student claims it creates a “hostile learning environment” for homosexual students.
 
And that’s just the beginning of the Homosexual Lobby’s radical agenda.In fact, it will set them up to ram through their entire perverted vision for a homosexual America.

 

Where he gets such bizarre statutory readings is simply beyond me.

And to think we have another four years of apologies ahead of us . . .


Comments

  • edmundburkenator says:

    “Believe me, Lloyd, if you had someone set up a flophouse next door to you under those circumstances, with the 24/7 noise; the cars parked all over the lawns and streets; the value of your own home sinking like a rock, the sudden rise of street crime and vice dens, the trash violations attracting the rats which then burrow into your yard and show up in your home…”

    Who was the crappy supervisor that LET THIS HAPPEN.

    Oh. Wait.

  • Then there’s this curious passage from Wolverine: “So, having lost three times in a fair fight, the next step is what? To find a way to deprive Delgaudio of his constitutional rights of free speech and advocacy in the public forum? ”

    I notice that Barbara repeatedly keeps trying to assign to me a power I don’t have – the ability to tell other people how to vote or what to say – and then pretending to heroically resist something I don’t have the power to do in the first place. This is more of the same nonsense. Clearly, none of us has the power to curtail anyone else’s freedom of speech. To state the obvious, if Mr. Delgaudio’s freedom of speech were being interfered with, he wouldn’t be able to continue commenting here and elsewhere, telling lie after lie.

    No, Barbara and Wolverine, that false claim won’t wash – what you actually appear to want is for me and others to stop saying that Mr. Delgaudio’s behavior is morally indefensible, and that you are responsible for choosing to defend it.

  • Sunshine says:

    52 comments, including one from ED are no longer available? Did the mailbox get too full or was it censored?

  • Sunshine, click on “Older Comments” under this page of comments. That will get you to the first 50.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    David, that’s a real beaut: You have often declared YOURSELF the arbiter of morality as Wolverine repeatedly notes, and have then passed numerous declarative judgements on those who do not fully support everything you declare. You are projecting (again).

    Are we talking about the legislation again, or the usual?

    Please respond: what is the proper name for what is commonly referred to as the Matthew Shepard Act, and must bullying be addressed through an LGBT prism, and new protected class legislation (that will be interpreted and applied HOW, as Wolverine ALSO notes)?

  • Sunshine says:

    Thanks David. It’s about open hearts and minds, no matter what the legislation or who’s the target. Some will always be closed.

  • “David, that’s a real beaut…etc”. Please explain in what way your freedom of speech has been curtailed by other people speaking. You don’t like what I say, check. If there is any part of my previous observation you can actually refute, please feel free to do so. You haven’t yet.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    David, neither of our freedoms to speak have been curtailed, much as you might like claim people have framed things that way.

    Your pattern has been to state that your freely expressed OPINION is FACT.

    You then state that anyone who disagrees with any portion of your OPINION is immoral, and it goes downhill from there (if possible). Your justification for this is to hold up once again your OPINION as FACT.

    You then go on to say that anyone who disagrees with your OPINION is somehow trying to curtail your freedom to express it because they can’t handle the FACT.

    When it is still your freely expressed OPINION.

    And so on, lather, reframe, repeat.

    Can you please answer my small questions re the law popularly known as the Matthew Shepard Act, and how this law might be implemented in re bullying remedies?

    (I didn’t realize that you saw yourself as Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men”. Okay.)

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    This NEW law, that is the supposed subject of some of the discussion of the post, and how it would be implemented re bullying.

  • Barbara, you still haven’t said anything that can’t be summed up as this: I say things you don’t like, and you would like for me to not say them. We know this already.

    No, I’m not going to scamper to get information for you that 1) you can just as easily look up yourself, and 2) is not germane to the topic of Lloyd’s post, which is Eugene Delgaudio’s lies and other despicable behavior which people like you inexplicably continue to defend.

    It’s you who is being challenged to refute this: “No level of constituent service could justify voting for, much less openly supporting, such an individual.”

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    It could be summed up in other ways too David (including what I’ve actually said), but again, you are holding that your opinions are facts, and anyone who disagrees with any portion of your opinions is immoral, and so on.

    The post has multiple topics, including laws to protect LGBT people (toward which some people exercise the right to oppose passage with language every bit as hyperbolic as your own in both support of such laws, and opposition to anyone who disagrees with you), and how those laws are applied.

    I don’t expect you to “scamper” anywhere David. I already knew the name when I asked, and was curious to see what response I would get. Yours is priceless.

    The full name is The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

    In the process of reading up a bit on LGBT protection law, I began to wonder why this law was near-exclusively referred to by the name of the gay victim memorialized in the title, even though Mr. Byrd was murdered four months before Mr. Shepard, and was in the news a lot that year as well for being another victim of a senselessly vicious crime by equally vicious and truly immoral people.

    Mr. Byrd was 49, more than twice as old as Mr. Shepard, and race still ranks far above LGBT perception in discrimination, bullying and harassment stats. Mr. Byrd may have seen many many more years of harassment and injury than Mr. Shepard did, but he is symbolicly wiped clean of the law that bears his name too.

    Why?

    There is the added poignance in Shepard’s death, because he was killed before he could have a full life; who knows what he might have done or accomplished? How many years were robbed from his family?

    Mr. Byrd had a fairly unremarkable life, apparently–how much richer might his have been if he had not grown up in the south under decades of entrenched racial inequity?

    No one travelled to Texas that I know of to do a “project” on his murder. No one wrote a play and advocated that it be performed at schools nationwide to promote “dialogue”.

    Apparently no one even remembers that the “Matthew Shepard Act” is actually the Shepard-Byrd Act.

    I don’t have to justify voting for Eugene: I don’t live where I can vote for or against him.

    Neither do I have to justify my opinions to you, whether you declare yours to be “facts” or not.

    Why is James Byrd Jr. disappeared from the mention of the act that also bears him name?

    While you preach your own advocacy, will you start to call it the Shepard-Byrd Act, since minute parsing of language is so very (selectively) important to you?

    Does how popular culture thinks of the hate crimes law provide a hint as to how some might apply this proposed law? The Shepard-Byrd Act provides for $5M in funding annually to assist in prosecuting hate crimes. Maybe this proposed law will eventually produce funding for LGBT student awareness and advocacy assistance?

    I’m really rather astonished that instead of saying “the name is The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act” your reply was “No, I’m not going to scamper to get information for you”.

    But in another way, not really astonished at all, and I find that a little sad.

  • Barbara, none of what you are telling us here is news, at least not to me – and you openly admit that you already knew the answer. Hate crimes are committed for a variety of specific hatreds, we all know that, don’t we? Yes, it’s very significant that the law is named for those two horrific crimes. It should always be referred to by its full name, for that reason, but often isn’t. That’s typical of laws and court rulings. I don’t know why you’re trying to introduce this idea as a means of arguing with me, however, since I agree.

    You still haven’t explained why you find it so objectionable for me to state my observations, or explained in what way I’ve done something other than that. All I am doing is stating that Mr. Delgaudio’s behavior crosses a moral line that ought to be universal, and I’m sorry that you and others don’t recognize it. Encouraging angry people to define some members of the human family as less than human – as those who murdered Mr. Byrd did – and willfully inciting fear and hatred toward a group of people for profit, to hell with the consequences, is not something you can morally defend. I’m not going to argue about it with you. If that’s what you object to, you’ll just have to live with it.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    David, I do not find the fact that you are stating your OPINION objectionable, and I’d like you to cite where I specifically did so if you are going to keep making the statement.

    I find it somewhat objectionable that you continue to state that your opinions, and your opnions of my opinions, are FACT, and dismiss my opinions (never stated as anything but) and others on those grounds.

    There’s a glimmer of hope here for me: “All I am doing is stating that Mr. Delgaudio’s behavior crosses a moral line that ought to be universal”. That’s an opinion, and expressed as such, with the conditional language “ought to”.

    Previously, you have not only declared it to be universal, but have used that declaration to attack anyone who disagrees with any portion of any related discussion to be “immoral”, among other things.

    Yes, Mr. Byrd was a victim of hatred, hatred by people with well-documented connections to avowed white supremacy. In fact, far better documented than any anecdotal evidence that the dregs who murdered Shepard had any long-standing and documented crusade against the LGBT community.

    If the advocacy is civil rights, the advocacy should be inclusive, shouldn’t it? Kind of like the bullying argument: addressing the behavior is only “generalizing” if one is exclusive in one’s advocacy.

    I am not arguing in favor of advocacy against anyone, nor attempting to morally defend it.

    And as long as you continue to redefine any statement of mine in your own image and present it as fact, I will not deny your right to say so, but I will disagree with you.

  • Barbara, if you don’t think that the moral line I have identified numerous times *is* or *should be* universal, I have yet to see you or anyone else make an argument to that effect. And that is really the point, isn’t it? There isn’t one that any person wishing to be seen as part of the mainstream would dare to make in public. Singling out groups of people and inciting fear and hatred toward them by making up lies, and defining certain members of the human family as less than human – those discursive methods have been precursors to every instance of terrorism and genocide in history. It is immoral to defend them and anyone who engages in them.

    You did answer my question about what it is that you want from me over at Progress; you want to have control over what I “expect” from you (“please do not expect me to…”). As I responded there, I don’t even know what that means. I think I’ve already pointed out the obvious enough times – no one’s freedom of speech is being abridged, and no one is disputing that you disagree with me or that you are entitled to do so.

    It sounds as if what you want is for me to agree with you that there might be some legitimate moral argument for defending Mr. Delgaudio’s behavior – specifically and concisely, that of defining some members of the human family as less than human. The fact is that I don’t agree with that, and so I’m not going to say that I do. That’s really all there is to it.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    No David, I do not want control over what you expect from me. The fact that you frame it that way indicates that control is the most important thing to you, and I’ve gleaned that for some time. I’d like you to extend the courtesy you demand from others TO others, but no, you want to define both. Well, sorry, you yes have the right to say so, and yes I have the right to disagree that it is anything other than your personal opinion. Thanks.

    That is why the endless argument is futile: several people, Wolverine most notably, seem to have made the argument that for some, gays rights is a matter of the morality THEY accept. (and that does not automatically assume that they advocate for violence against anyone–another of your frequent declarative assumptions). If you can state that you feel your statement of morals SHOULD be universal, instead of stating that it IS, you are one step closer to talking to the people whose minds you’d like to change, because for those for whom it is a moral issue due to the precepts of their religious creed, etc, they see the issue the very same way you might, but from the other side of the mirror.

    I don’t see either of you getting any closer to an actual discussion as long as you each demonize the other and hold your own beliefs up as the one true way, but if you want respect for your own beliefs in discussion, you may have to at least allow some basic respect for others opinions, and that means not rewriting them and saying you have the right to do so.

    I don’t see total control of language, opinions, ect as moving anywhere in a fruitful direction, unless you are deliberately mirroring some on the other side’s use of the word “moral”, in an attempt to take away a “rock” from their pile.

    It’s quite simple: you don’t allow anyone else to define you. It would be nice if you extended others some of the same courtesy–and it is a stretch to call it courtesy sometimes! recall that I was not present in this thread at all until you copied a comment of mine from a thread on courthouse displays, inserted it here, and snarked that you would save me some time by responding for me.

    You have that “right” why, exactly?

  • Barbara, now you’re actually challenging the right of other people to say things you don’t like. You may not like that I quoted you in this thread (from another thread about exactly the same topic, another outright lie by Mr. Delgaudio), but what could possibly make you believe I need to explain my “right” to do so?

    I’ve been very clear about this, and will continue to be so: I’m not going to pretend that there is a legitimate moral argument in defense of Mr. Delgaudio’s dehumanizing behavior. There is not, and there is a reason that nobody has tried to present one. Trying to create a false moral equivalency between the (yes, universal) truth that no human being should ever be regarded as less than human, and the *dead opposite* of that truth is not going to help your case. Although it is, in its own way, hilarious.

    Since you are speaking on behalf of Wolverine, maybe you’d also like to defend his silly and self-evidently false notion that any of us has the capacity to interfere with Mr. Delgaudio’s freedom of speech by exercising our own. He certainly hasn’t.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    David, how funny you are in your control issues!

    I am not “speaking for” Wolverine, but referencing comments he made.

    I am not attempting to challenge the right of other people to say things I don’t like, because that isn’t what I did, or said you did.

    Look back at the thread: you purported to POST FOR ME.

    Tenth post on this thread, by you, none preceding by me:
    “David says:
    November 23, 2011 at 7:45 PM
    I will save Barbara some time:

    “Lloyd: Move to Sterling. Run against him. Have everyone you know move there too, so they can vote for you. Win. Set the world to rights in your own image.

    Then find something new to crusade about (like maybe why the LCRC should put up candidates you approve of, in districts that you don’t live in, can’t vote in, and wouldn’t vote for ANYWAY?)

    Please, try and have a happy Thanksgiving. You and the War Department may not be blessed with absolutely everything you want in a perfect world, but you are surely blessed with more than many people on earth.

    Happy Thanksgiving to you.”

    But it doesn’t exactly answer your question, does it?

    Thanks for getting it.”

    You have a habit of speaking for people, and then you get huffy when people challenge you on it?

    Again, what gives you the right (other than your own decision) to speak for someone else, post for them, rewrite their words, or attempt to define their opinions, and then tell them they’re wrong if they differ from your dictation?

    David, you are probably the most thorough example of someone who quite obsessively attempts to “be the change they’d like to see in the world”.

    You can change yourself however you like, because you are the only thing under your control.

    The rest of the world isn’t, and that’s not an opinion but a fact.

  • Barbara and David, not to cut this short, but let me suggest you give it a rest – or move it over to LP.

  • No problem, Lloyd. I’m probably the only one bothering to read her comments anyway.

  • […] got Nellie bumped as an advertiser from the Weekly Standard with an apology to their readers, and ridiculed by Too Conservative. A smear of the Student Non-discrimination Act, it exhibits the strict SPLC criteria for a hate […]

Leave Comment