In my former life as a vet tech, one of the hardest and most difficult things to watch or do was, as it was so often euphemistically put, "to send him/her to a better place". No matter how rationally one explains it, there is nothing that salves the wound about the decision to end the life of your animal companions. All you can do is to grieve and to let it heal with the balm of memory.
Such is the sorrow that Blog Ally GayPatriot and PatriotPartner are feeling at the end of life for their canine companion Romper. As I did for Worthy Adversary Pam of Pam's House Blend, I now reprint, in Romper's memory, George Graham Vest's Eulogy on the Dog.
The best friend a man has in this world may turn against him and become his enemy. His son or daughter that he has reared with loving care may prove ungrateful. Those who are nearest and dearest to us, those whom we trust with our happiness and our good name, may become traitors to their faith. The money that a man has, he may lose. It flies away from him, perhaps when he needs it most.
A man's reputation may be sacrificed in a moment of ill-considered action. The people who are prone to fall on their knees to do us honor when success is with us may be the first to throw the stone of malice when failure settles its clouds upon our heads. The one absolutely unselfish friend that a man can have in this selfish world, the one that never deserts him and the one that never proves ungrateful or treacherous is his dog.
A man's dog stands by him in prosperity and in poverty, in health and in sickness. He will sleep on the cold ground, where the wintry winds blow and the snow drives fiercely, if only he may be near his master's side.
He will kiss the hand that has no food to offer. He will lick the wounds and sores that come in encounters with the roughness of the world. He guards the sleep of his pauper master as if he were a prince. When all other friends desert, he remains. When riches take wings and reputation falls to pieces, he is as constant in his love as the sun in its journey through the heavens.
If fortune drives the master forth an outcast in the world, friendless and homeless, the faithful dog asks no higher privilege than that of accompanying him to guard against danger, to fight against his enemies, and when the last scene of all comes and death takes the master in its embrace and his body is laid away in the cold ground, no matter if all other friends pursue their way, there by his graveside will the noble dog be found, his head between his paws, his eyes sad but open in alert watchfulness, faithful and true even to death.
Rest in peace, Romper. Your family and friends miss you.
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Friday, September 16, 2005
View At Your Own Risk
For those of you who have been dying to know, for whatever reason, what North Dallas Thirty looks like.......
I STILL say I need a haircut.
I STILL say I need a haircut.
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Woo HOO, Ragweed Listening Party!
While visiting CMT.com today for a totally-unrelated reason, I stumbled upon the fact that Cross Canadian Ragweed, one of NDT's favorite country groups, has their new album featured as a Listening Party -- which means you can hear full-length tracks.
Don't miss their latest, "Fightin' For" -- Track 1!
Don't miss their latest, "Fightin' For" -- Track 1!
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
How the Gay Left Spins for Antigay Democrats
I quite honestly had to post this as an example of what's most frightening about gay leftists in this day and age.
The following quote is from a response to my previous post that arose when another commentor dared to challenge gay dogma by stating that Kerry and Bush had the same position -- no gay marriage.
Hardly. Bush supported an amendment to the US Constitution to ban SSM. Kerry opposed such an amendment. Now NDT will wail "what about Massachusetts?" Well, if you read NDT's link to an article detailing Kerry's position, you will see that his support for a state constitutional amendment banning SSM was contingent upon the amendment also providing for civil unions with all the legal rights of marriage. For Kerry, then, no civil unions with full legal rights meant no support for an amendment. In contrast, Bush's "support" for civil unions was meaningless since passage of the amendment he strongly supported would not allow for civil unions.
To me, that paragraph is an early Halloween fright -- terrifying because it lays out the depths of depravity to which the gay left will go to defend antigay Democrats.
You see, the promise of civil unions in Massachusetts was an empty one -- because, since the Goodrich decision, gay couples were allowed to exercise full marriage rights. This person is in essence arguing that Kerry's taking away the established right of gay couples to marry was legitimate because he allowed for "civil unions" -- a step which the Massachusetts Supreme Court itself blasted as NOT equal and, indeed, as purposefully maintaining an "unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples".
If John Kerry believed in full marriage rights for gays, he could have kept his mouth shut. Instead, he DELIBERATELY supported taking full marriage rights away from gays -- and the gay left and gay Democrats to the tune of millions of dollars chanted "pro-gay" and "gay-supportive". People like Mark Leno who are currently blasting Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for supposedly taking away marriage rights and leaving behind inferior "domestic partnerships", which offer all the legal rights of marriage were last year calling John Kerry "pro-gay" and "gay-supportive" for doing exactly the same thing.
The lesson for politicians is clear. Gays will support a Democrat stripping them of rights because that person is a Democrat. We saw it with DOMA, we saw it with the FMA, and we saw it with antigay state laws and constitutional amendments.
In an earlier comment thread, I was criticized for supposedly "blaming the victim". I now respond.....the victim is to be blamed if the wound is self-inflicted.
UPDATE: With a hat tip to Mike of Republic of M, Robbie over at Prism Warden has a phenomenal post along exactly the same lines.
The following quote is from a response to my previous post that arose when another commentor dared to challenge gay dogma by stating that Kerry and Bush had the same position -- no gay marriage.
Hardly. Bush supported an amendment to the US Constitution to ban SSM. Kerry opposed such an amendment. Now NDT will wail "what about Massachusetts?" Well, if you read NDT's link to an article detailing Kerry's position, you will see that his support for a state constitutional amendment banning SSM was contingent upon the amendment also providing for civil unions with all the legal rights of marriage. For Kerry, then, no civil unions with full legal rights meant no support for an amendment. In contrast, Bush's "support" for civil unions was meaningless since passage of the amendment he strongly supported would not allow for civil unions.
To me, that paragraph is an early Halloween fright -- terrifying because it lays out the depths of depravity to which the gay left will go to defend antigay Democrats.
You see, the promise of civil unions in Massachusetts was an empty one -- because, since the Goodrich decision, gay couples were allowed to exercise full marriage rights. This person is in essence arguing that Kerry's taking away the established right of gay couples to marry was legitimate because he allowed for "civil unions" -- a step which the Massachusetts Supreme Court itself blasted as NOT equal and, indeed, as purposefully maintaining an "unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples".
If John Kerry believed in full marriage rights for gays, he could have kept his mouth shut. Instead, he DELIBERATELY supported taking full marriage rights away from gays -- and the gay left and gay Democrats to the tune of millions of dollars chanted "pro-gay" and "gay-supportive". People like Mark Leno who are currently blasting Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for supposedly taking away marriage rights and leaving behind inferior "domestic partnerships", which offer all the legal rights of marriage were last year calling John Kerry "pro-gay" and "gay-supportive" for doing exactly the same thing.
The lesson for politicians is clear. Gays will support a Democrat stripping them of rights because that person is a Democrat. We saw it with DOMA, we saw it with the FMA, and we saw it with antigay state laws and constitutional amendments.
In an earlier comment thread, I was criticized for supposedly "blaming the victim". I now respond.....the victim is to be blamed if the wound is self-inflicted.
UPDATE: With a hat tip to Mike of Republic of M, Robbie over at Prism Warden has a phenomenal post along exactly the same lines.
Thursday, September 08, 2005
California Dreamin', The Rebuttal
I expected a bit more activity around my previous post concerning Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's impending veto of the California Assembly's recently-passed bill allowing gay marriage.
Fortunately, Blog Ally Dunner took up the challenge, and let me have it. Several of his points are definitely worth bringing up and deconstructing.
Perhaps now you "completely understand" why Kerry said what he did about gay marriage?
Not really. As I've already blogged, Kerry's stance was completely unnecessary. What makes it worse is that, since liberal gays insist that we should always vote for Democrats because they never pander to the religious right, to whom was Kerry pandering, then?
Does he get the same "crass politics" get-out-of-jail-free card that Schwarzenegger now has, according to you?
This is in response to my statement:
There is no reason other than crass politics for him (Schwarzenegger) to do otherwise (veto the gay marriage bill).
which was preceded by (new emphasis mine):
Schwarzenegger is wrong to veto this bill. Even though I have my doubts that the Assembly is representative in doing it, allowing gay marriage is simply the right thing to do, period.
Many people confuse understanding someone else's position with a) agreeing with it and b) supporting it. I don't agree with Schwarzenegger's position. I certainly don't support it, and I don't excuse it. But I DO understand it, and I can explain the reasoning behind it. Let the chips fall where they may at that point.
This was what I found most interesting and illuminating in Dunner's response:
He's lost the gay vote and has simply shown that he's just another anti-gay Republican.
Quite honestly, the first part of that makes me laugh. Did Schwarzenegger ever HAVE the "gay vote"? In San Francisco, 80% of voters voted against the recall in the first place, with over 50% doing the same statewide. Every time I walk by the intersection of Castro and 18th, I am accosted by people shouting "Stop Schwarzenegger now", and that has been taking place since the day he was elected. You can't lose what you don't have, and I would severely doubt that Schwarzenegger ever HAD the "gay vote", or a majority of gay voters, mainly because of the "R" after his name.
Taking that a step farther, when we look at the second part of Dunner's remark, it becomes even more illuminating what the problem is. Schwarzenegger supports California's domestic partnership law, equality in insurance benefits, and nondiscrimination, but opposes gay marriage -- exactly the same position as Gray Davis and arguably better than John Kerry. However, as I've previously noted, Kerry's position is called pro-gay and "gay-supportive", while Schwarzenegger is "antigay".
The problem here is that the gay community has demonstrated time and again that it cares less about what one does than to what political party one belongs. This is why you have Mike Rogers and John Aravosis protecting Democrats who vote for the FMA and MPA while attacking Republicans who voted against both. This is why Joe Solmonese and Ellen Malcom, both card-carrying members of the gay oligarchy, can say that those who criticize them for giving money to a candidate who supports the FMA are missing the "bigger picture".
Put bluntly, Schwarzenegger loses nothing, because he knows that gays, by and large, will never vote for him anyway and will oppose him regardless of what he does. Furthermore, the gay community's argument that his actions are wrong are fatally impaired when they give millions of dollars and accolades to Democratic candidates who act similarly or even worse. This is the direct result of the exploitation of gays by unscrupulous gay leaders who value power and their personal finances above all else and the refusal of gays to stand up and say that what is being done to them is wrong, regardless of who is doing it.
As long as the gay community plays only by party, we will remain irrelevant. I'm more than happy to identify and call out antigay bigotry; however, blaming antigay bigotry is useless and counterproductive when we deride it in one party and support it in the other.
Fortunately, Blog Ally Dunner took up the challenge, and let me have it. Several of his points are definitely worth bringing up and deconstructing.
Perhaps now you "completely understand" why Kerry said what he did about gay marriage?
Not really. As I've already blogged, Kerry's stance was completely unnecessary. What makes it worse is that, since liberal gays insist that we should always vote for Democrats because they never pander to the religious right, to whom was Kerry pandering, then?
Does he get the same "crass politics" get-out-of-jail-free card that Schwarzenegger now has, according to you?
This is in response to my statement:
There is no reason other than crass politics for him (Schwarzenegger) to do otherwise (veto the gay marriage bill).
which was preceded by (new emphasis mine):
Schwarzenegger is wrong to veto this bill. Even though I have my doubts that the Assembly is representative in doing it, allowing gay marriage is simply the right thing to do, period.
Many people confuse understanding someone else's position with a) agreeing with it and b) supporting it. I don't agree with Schwarzenegger's position. I certainly don't support it, and I don't excuse it. But I DO understand it, and I can explain the reasoning behind it. Let the chips fall where they may at that point.
This was what I found most interesting and illuminating in Dunner's response:
He's lost the gay vote and has simply shown that he's just another anti-gay Republican.
Quite honestly, the first part of that makes me laugh. Did Schwarzenegger ever HAVE the "gay vote"? In San Francisco, 80% of voters voted against the recall in the first place, with over 50% doing the same statewide. Every time I walk by the intersection of Castro and 18th, I am accosted by people shouting "Stop Schwarzenegger now", and that has been taking place since the day he was elected. You can't lose what you don't have, and I would severely doubt that Schwarzenegger ever HAD the "gay vote", or a majority of gay voters, mainly because of the "R" after his name.
Taking that a step farther, when we look at the second part of Dunner's remark, it becomes even more illuminating what the problem is. Schwarzenegger supports California's domestic partnership law, equality in insurance benefits, and nondiscrimination, but opposes gay marriage -- exactly the same position as Gray Davis and arguably better than John Kerry. However, as I've previously noted, Kerry's position is called pro-gay and "gay-supportive", while Schwarzenegger is "antigay".
The problem here is that the gay community has demonstrated time and again that it cares less about what one does than to what political party one belongs. This is why you have Mike Rogers and John Aravosis protecting Democrats who vote for the FMA and MPA while attacking Republicans who voted against both. This is why Joe Solmonese and Ellen Malcom, both card-carrying members of the gay oligarchy, can say that those who criticize them for giving money to a candidate who supports the FMA are missing the "bigger picture".
Put bluntly, Schwarzenegger loses nothing, because he knows that gays, by and large, will never vote for him anyway and will oppose him regardless of what he does. Furthermore, the gay community's argument that his actions are wrong are fatally impaired when they give millions of dollars and accolades to Democratic candidates who act similarly or even worse. This is the direct result of the exploitation of gays by unscrupulous gay leaders who value power and their personal finances above all else and the refusal of gays to stand up and say that what is being done to them is wrong, regardless of who is doing it.
As long as the gay community plays only by party, we will remain irrelevant. I'm more than happy to identify and call out antigay bigotry; however, blaming antigay bigotry is useless and counterproductive when we deride it in one party and support it in the other.
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
California Dreamin'
As almost everyone in the gay blogosphere knows by now, the California Assembly passed a bill legalizing gay marriage yesterday.
As I mentioned in talking to Blog Ally Dunner yesterday evening, my "educated guess" was that Schwarzenegger would let the bill pass without his signature. However, this morning, in the bus on the way to the airport, I was thinking through the issue again.....and the old political adage suddenly came to mind, "Do nothing for those who will not appreciate it."
Quite frankly, not vetoing this bill holds nothing for Schwarzenegger. Vetoing it earns him the ire of groups who already hate him and reinforces the support of groups that already do. Not vetoing it would earn him the ire of groups who support him and perhaps make the groups who already hate him change their reasons for doing so. From a sheer political calculation standpoint, it will do little to nothing to garner him support he doesn't have already and will alienate that which he does.
Schwarzenegger is wrong to veto this bill. Even though I have my doubts that the Assembly is representative in doing it, allowing gay marriage is simply the right thing to do, period. There is no reason other than crass politics for him to do otherwise.
But I completely understand why he will veto it.
As I mentioned in talking to Blog Ally Dunner yesterday evening, my "educated guess" was that Schwarzenegger would let the bill pass without his signature. However, this morning, in the bus on the way to the airport, I was thinking through the issue again.....and the old political adage suddenly came to mind, "Do nothing for those who will not appreciate it."
Quite frankly, not vetoing this bill holds nothing for Schwarzenegger. Vetoing it earns him the ire of groups who already hate him and reinforces the support of groups that already do. Not vetoing it would earn him the ire of groups who support him and perhaps make the groups who already hate him change their reasons for doing so. From a sheer political calculation standpoint, it will do little to nothing to garner him support he doesn't have already and will alienate that which he does.
Schwarzenegger is wrong to veto this bill. Even though I have my doubts that the Assembly is representative in doing it, allowing gay marriage is simply the right thing to do, period. There is no reason other than crass politics for him to do otherwise.
But I completely understand why he will veto it.
Monday, September 05, 2005
And the Stakes Officially Rise.....
as Bush nominates (John) Roberts as chief justice.
This will be an interesting set of confirmation hearings. However, if you asked me to predict the box score of the outcome, I think it will be threefold:
-- Roberts will be confirmed as chief justice by a bare sixty votes
-- The Dems will show how in hock they are to their moonbat left wing by a) smearing Roberts as much as they can publicly and b) filibustering.
-- The Republicans (and a few key Democrats with presidential aspirations....no need to name names) will come out of this looking like moderates.
From the gay side, it will be interesting to see how the "Gay Rights Means Killing Babies" crowd, aka HRC, NGLTF, et al. end up reacting. My guess is that they will not abandon ship and will end up testifying before the Senate, publicly linking gay rights to requiring and promoting unrestricted abortion, including the removal of parental consent laws.
In short, it's going to be a very bad 2006 for gays.
This will be an interesting set of confirmation hearings. However, if you asked me to predict the box score of the outcome, I think it will be threefold:
-- Roberts will be confirmed as chief justice by a bare sixty votes
-- The Dems will show how in hock they are to their moonbat left wing by a) smearing Roberts as much as they can publicly and b) filibustering.
-- The Republicans (and a few key Democrats with presidential aspirations....no need to name names) will come out of this looking like moderates.
From the gay side, it will be interesting to see how the "Gay Rights Means Killing Babies" crowd, aka HRC, NGLTF, et al. end up reacting. My guess is that they will not abandon ship and will end up testifying before the Senate, publicly linking gay rights to requiring and promoting unrestricted abortion, including the removal of parental consent laws.
In short, it's going to be a very bad 2006 for gays.
Saturday, September 03, 2005
Warning, Wide Load
Two weeks ago, I flew up to Chicago for the weekend to spend some quality time with family I have up there, but also to visit a dear friend of mine, who had moved from Dallas a few years ago to be with his partner, who had just recently passed away.
To say this guy is special to me is an understatement. He was one of my first online buddies when I started skulking around gay chat sites, looking for someone to just talk. He invited me up to Dallas for my first weekend out at gay bars. He helped me find an apartment and put me in touch with the right people about work when I made the choice to move to Dallas. He piloted me through the rough seas of coming out in your mid-twenties and the dangerous shoals that exist around the gay community. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that, without him, I would be like 25% of Dallas-area men my age and be HIV-positive.
Unfortunately, he may have contributed to the destruction of my ass.
Now, NDT is nothing overly spectacular (as far as I'm concerned), but I do spend a fair amount of time at the gym and am more than a bit concerned about my weight, having a few prime examples in my family of what happens when you let it get out of control. If you come to the Thirty, don't expect sugar for your coffee, cookies for dessert, or chips for snacking -- they are banned from the place.
However, on the night I arrived, tired after a long week, my buddy had laid out a beautiful spread for a late supper....and then, as we were pushing back from the table, savoring a fine meal and a wonderful merlot accompanying it.....he brought them out.
Dreyer's Dibs.
It was all over from there.
I don't know what it is about these things. There are calories galore in them. They practically drip sugar and butterfat. In short, they are everything that NDT is against.
And I can't stop eating them. It's like smooth, creamy crack.
You have been warned. And with that, I'm off to the elliptical trainer before I have to install backup lights and beepers.
To say this guy is special to me is an understatement. He was one of my first online buddies when I started skulking around gay chat sites, looking for someone to just talk. He invited me up to Dallas for my first weekend out at gay bars. He helped me find an apartment and put me in touch with the right people about work when I made the choice to move to Dallas. He piloted me through the rough seas of coming out in your mid-twenties and the dangerous shoals that exist around the gay community. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that, without him, I would be like 25% of Dallas-area men my age and be HIV-positive.
Unfortunately, he may have contributed to the destruction of my ass.
Now, NDT is nothing overly spectacular (as far as I'm concerned), but I do spend a fair amount of time at the gym and am more than a bit concerned about my weight, having a few prime examples in my family of what happens when you let it get out of control. If you come to the Thirty, don't expect sugar for your coffee, cookies for dessert, or chips for snacking -- they are banned from the place.
However, on the night I arrived, tired after a long week, my buddy had laid out a beautiful spread for a late supper....and then, as we were pushing back from the table, savoring a fine meal and a wonderful merlot accompanying it.....he brought them out.
Dreyer's Dibs.
It was all over from there.
I don't know what it is about these things. There are calories galore in them. They practically drip sugar and butterfat. In short, they are everything that NDT is against.
And I can't stop eating them. It's like smooth, creamy crack.
You have been warned. And with that, I'm off to the elliptical trainer before I have to install backup lights and beepers.
Ironic Counterpoint of the Week
Point
New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, explaining what he needs to evacuate the city after Hurricane Katrina's hit:
I need reinforcements, I need troops, man. I need 500 buses, man. We ain't talking about -- you know, one of the briefings we had, they were talking about getting public school bus drivers to come down here and bus people out here.
I'm like, "You got to be kidding me. This is a national disaster. Get every doggone Greyhound bus line in the country and get their asses moving to New Orleans."
That's -- they're thinking small, man. And this is a major, major, major deal. And I can't emphasize it enough, man. This is crazy.
Counterpoint
As reported by JunkYard Blog, photos show hundreds of school buses, sitting useless in flooded lots, next to the freeway leading out of New Orleans, just a few miles from the Superdome.
Logic would suggest that, if you were mayor of New Orleans, knew that a major hurricane had an almost certain chance of cutting off nearly all your transportation links, leaving people stranded, that you would use all the resources you had to get people out of the city, including school buses and your own three-hundred-plus city transit buses, BEFORE the hurricane hit, instead of demanding buses that can't get to you afterwards.
The fact that those buses are still in New Orleans demonstrates that New Orleans's disaster plan does not operate on logic.
New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, explaining what he needs to evacuate the city after Hurricane Katrina's hit:
I need reinforcements, I need troops, man. I need 500 buses, man. We ain't talking about -- you know, one of the briefings we had, they were talking about getting public school bus drivers to come down here and bus people out here.
I'm like, "You got to be kidding me. This is a national disaster. Get every doggone Greyhound bus line in the country and get their asses moving to New Orleans."
That's -- they're thinking small, man. And this is a major, major, major deal. And I can't emphasize it enough, man. This is crazy.
Counterpoint
As reported by JunkYard Blog, photos show hundreds of school buses, sitting useless in flooded lots, next to the freeway leading out of New Orleans, just a few miles from the Superdome.
Logic would suggest that, if you were mayor of New Orleans, knew that a major hurricane had an almost certain chance of cutting off nearly all your transportation links, leaving people stranded, that you would use all the resources you had to get people out of the city, including school buses and your own three-hundred-plus city transit buses, BEFORE the hurricane hit, instead of demanding buses that can't get to you afterwards.
The fact that those buses are still in New Orleans demonstrates that New Orleans's disaster plan does not operate on logic.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
At the Blog Around the Corner......
Thanks to the enticements of Blog Ally Army of Mom, I couldn't resist taking the Classic Leading Man quiz.
The results surprised my husbear not in the least. Then again, he's a classic movies buff of epic proportion (his must-have channel is TCM, mine is HIST).
| Jimmy Stewart You scored 21% Tough, 9% Roguish, 42% Friendly, and 28% Charming! |
| You are the fun and friendly boy next door, the classic nice guy who still manages to get the girl most of the time. You're every nice girl's dreamboat, open and kind, nutty and charming, even a little mischievous at times, but always a real stand up guy. You're dependable and forthright, and women are drawn to your reliability, even as they're dazzled by your sense of adventure and fun. You try to be tough when you need to be, and will gladly stand up for any damsel in distress, but you'd rather catch a girl with a little bit of flair. Your leading ladies include Jean Arthur and Donna Reed, those sweet girl-next-door types. Find out what kind of classic dame you'd make by taking the Classic Dames Test. |
 |
My test tracked 4 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:
|
| Link: The Classic Leading Man Test written by gidgetgoes on Ok Cupid |
The results surprised my husbear not in the least. Then again, he's a classic movies buff of epic proportion (his must-have channel is TCM, mine is HIST).
And Here We Go Again......
As reported by Darth Apathy ( hat tip to Blog Neutral Michael over on GayOrbit), gays are now being blamed for having caused the devastation in New Orleans, with Southern Decadence (an annual bacchanalia that usually makes Mardi Gras look like a church picnic) specifically mentioned.
With that in mind, I link to the response I had when similar accusations were made following the Indian Ocean tsunami. Not only is the situation the same, quite honestly.....I've always thought that was one of my better posts that nobody saw. (grin)
With that in mind, I link to the response I had when similar accusations were made following the Indian Ocean tsunami. Not only is the situation the same, quite honestly.....I've always thought that was one of my better posts that nobody saw. (grin)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)