With Wealth (Should) Comes Responsibility

This is one of the most powerful -- and disturbing -- things I have ever seen.

At first blush, it seems kind of fun, and if you are anywhere near an average American, it is rather exciting to see how much better off you are than others.

But then reality sinks in and you realize that, in order for you to be so high.....imagine how much lower others must be.

From the website:

We are obsessed with wealth. But we gauge how rich we are by looking upwards at those who have more than us. This makes us feel poor.

We wanted to do something which would help people understand, in real terms, where they stand globally. And make us realise that in fact most of us (who are able to view this web page) are in the privileged minority.

Well done. And well-spoken.

As the old saying goes, "I felt bad because I had no shoes, until I saw a man that had no feet."

As we head into one of the holiest of both Christian and Jewish holidays, consider that fact.....and that God tells us, not to demand that the government or others take care of the poor, the friendless, and the sick......but that we do it ourselves.

Using Voting Fraud for Good

Hmmmm....this seems ripe for pulling a Sanjaya.

And given GM's complete and utter lack of automotive fashion sense, it seems entirely appropriate.

(thank you, Malcontent!)

Why Pandering to Europe is Pointless

Read this article.

Then review the comments.

Simply put, the article points out why the Iranian kidnapping of British sailors was flat wrong and against international and UN mandate; the commentors explain why it's all right for Iran to break the rules, and why the British deserved it anyway.

Realize that these commentors are the people who the Democrat Party constantly babbles need to be brought back to liking us.

There's very little else that can be said.

Madame Potemkin

This just in, concerning the Democrats' self-promotion of their congressional record.

Democratic leaders point to increased productivity in the House of Representatives -- more than twice as many recorded votes (189) as Republicans held in recent years when they were in the majority; almost twice as many days in session (48); and more than double the number of bills passed (24)......

However, Senate Democrats have only succeeded in pushing through three of these measures in slightly different versions, and none of them has become law.....

When pressed about touting as achievements bills that have not passed, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, insisted Democrats had met their responsibility -- and suggested Republicans should stop gumming up the legislative machinery over on the Senate side of the Capitol.

Or, in other words, you only have to propose it, not follow through on it.

That makes their habit of making flowery fundraising speeches about gays, only to contradict them later, almost comprehensible.

(and just in case you didn't know, this is what "Potemkin" references)

So Much For Bargain Fashion

Well, this is just ducky.

I wonder though......if you're going to commit a crime, why would you bother robbing discount shoppers, rather than these?

Playing for Our Team

Radar Magazine (which is, according to fellow blogger Aatom, "essentially the print version of Gawker, or Jossip, or on a bad day, PerezHilton.com") recently featured an interview with three out former professional athletes -- football Esera Tuaolo, basketball player John Amaechi, and baseball player Billy Bean.

Most clueless quote, courtesy of Tuaolo:

And then, when Tim Hardaway lashed out against John—I couldn't understand. I could see maybe from a Caucasian person, but for an African-American person to have such hateful words ...

Esera, meet Louis Farrakhan.

That may jar some of the gay leftist brainwashing loose.

Most on-target quote, courtesy of Bean:

I was actually once asked if I was a top or a bottom on a radio show, and that was the first time that I think I was embarrassed in public. When you become public, when you "come out," when you invite the public into your private life, there is a sense that you deserve to be asked that question......

Why did you think that question was important? To make fun of Ted (Haggard) or to make fun of bottoms? That's what I mean about self-mutilation. I think that's what holds us back. Do you ask a woman if she's a top or a bottom? Not to get off track, but I just think we're making fun of ourselves.

I'm just asking, "Why do we have to be defined into such little cubicles?" As gay people, it seems like our sex lives are on a trophy display, and I think that's what keeps us divided from the mainstream.

Finally, someone recognizes the contradiction of a community that obsesses over and publicizes sex, but then asks everyone else to ignore it.

Read the article. Worth it.

(hat tip to Boi from Troy)

Environmental Practice for Fun and Profit

President Bush met today with leaders from the Big Three domestic auto manufacturers, during which these industry folk promised that they would make half their companies' annual vehicle production "flex-fuel" -- that is, able to run on E85 (85% ethanol, 15% gas) by 2012.

Color me unimpressed.

People, when we reference Wikipedia, we notice something; Detroit was producing FFV vehicles by the hundreds of thousands over ten years ago.

Furthermore, as this article cites, in our neighbor to the south, Brazil, fully 73% of the cars sold are flex-fuel, with over 40% of the fuel consumed in the country being ethanol.

Granted, Brazil has a few advantages; they have fewer drivers, a better climate for growing the best current source of ethanol (sugarcane), and a fairly-good infrastructure for distribution. But, as the article also discusses, we are more than capable of making a sizeable quantity of ethanol through cellulosic breakdown, and we already have a significant production of it from corn. There's no reason we can't be generating an enormous amount of our transportation energy from ethanol, versus from oil -- and the economic, national security, and environmental benefits thereof are fairly obvious.

If you asked me to solve this problem, the first thing I'd do would be carrot-and-stick; I would raise the required Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) for auto manufacturers, but with a twist -- every flex-fuel vehicle they made would count as double credit.

Next up, I'd be pumping some serious government development dough to ethanol production, both using current methods and cellulosic methods -- likely by tapping and diverting farm subsidies. Why? Because if we start buying all the corn and sugarcane we can to make ethanol.....trust me, income supports for either will be rendered quite unnecessary in a hurry. It's called "the effect of supply and demand on price".

Finally, I'd be after the oil companies with a simple proposition; for every bit you make your infrastructure ethanol-compatible, we'll make your tax lives simpler. Easy as that.

Taken together, these measures should make ethanol a) useful, b) abundant, and c) available -- which will likely translate into d) cheap.

And in the process, we'll be kicking the oil terrorists like Iran squarely in the crown jewels.

What's not to like?

What Do We Want?

It is often said that there is no such thing as an orderly revolution, and the recent coalescence of a series of glbt blogs seeking one in the dysfunctional way in which the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is doing business is no exception.

Andrew Sullivan and The Malcontent are locked in a battle of mutual recriminations.

Chris Crain is being dive-bombed by harpies the gay press, who apparently are making up for lost time from when he was one of them.

And Mike Petrelis is being told, in no uncertain terms, that he is not welcome at HRC gatherings, especially with a video camera.

Meanwhile, with the notable exception of Bay Windows, the rest of the gay press is repeating the usual, "Well, sure, HRC could stand some improvement, but they've probably got a good excuse, and besides, Republicans are evil."

The last demonstrates the biggest impediment, by far, to anything changing; unless the attitudes of "mainstream gays" change, HRC will never have to actually DO anything about their problems.

For example, Kevin Naff, in his cited post from the Washington Blade's blog, notes that the question about HRC's actual membership is one that the Blade was reported about two years ago, insinuating that bloggers who notice this now are "piling on."

However, the question that immediately comes to mind is simple; if it was two years ago, why hasn't anything been done about it? The Blade, for one, was also reporting on HRC's lack of bipartisanship two years ago, yet HRC still feels free to publicly state and avow that their goal is, as the Boston Globe put it, "to become a steady source of funds and grass-roots support for Democrats -- more akin to a labor union than a single-issue activist group."

The issue is not recognizing the problem. It's the fact that the problem HAS been recognized and not a damn thing has been done about it.

Taking that farther, Naff bashes Rudy Giuliani and John McCain for not coming and speaking to HRC -- but never bothers to explain why two Republican candidates should come and speak to an organization that one, has a history of public excoriation and blaming of Republicans for every problem in the gay community, and two, has stated specifically that it only wants to support Democrats.

As people were correctly recognizing almost three years ago, HRC is never going to get anywhere with Republicans if all it can do is spit at them -- and even more so, if it makes it clear that its primary qualification for support has nothing to do with gay issues and everything to do with party affiliation.

In short, as I talked about previously, there are structural and policy changes that HRC could make to rectify these matters. But what I am seeing more and more in the reaction to people suggesting these sort of things is that the major impediment to HRC being more effective is a refusal to demand action of it out of partisan hatreds and intra-gay rivalries.

HRC is simply taking advantage of the fact and doing as its primary movers wish, which is to ingratiate themselves with the Democrat Party and protect their six-figure lobbying incomes, their expensive headquarters, and their lavish parties, all at gay expense.

Is that what we really want?

Or are we willing to set these aside and demand that HRC pay more than lip service and drop its arrogance, its lack of transparency, its self-aggrandizement, and its complete partisanship and intolerance?

Ironic Statement of the Day -- Friday, March 23rd Version

These sort of events are almost reaching the level of astrophysical regularity these days.

Far be it from us to countenance the horrific practice of blacklisting. My co-blogger and I thoroughly condemn the activity. We certainly share Sullivan’s opinion that such petty behavior is unbecoming of those who wish to be taken seriously as promoters of vigorous, thorough debate.

Um....yeah, sure.

Meanwhile, I'm just commenting elsewhere, getting straight people to come around to the idea that, yeah, gays could use some relationship protections and it's silly not to give it to them.

"Dangerous", I tell ya. I am SO dangerous to the interests of gay people.

Starting Out with a Bang

It was a bit surprising to find that North Dallas Thirty had been included in Malcontent's March Gayness 2007 blog tournament extravaganza -- although it did make more sense upon explanation.

Anyway, however we got there, we're in there -- so I felt the need to make the obligatory plea for votes because, you know, putting out effort and winning means something, even if, given the history between Matt and me, it is on the order of paying $5 for a chance to win an all-expenses paid Exodus International weekend getaway.

Our first round competition is against The Pen15 Club, a blog whose primary strength versus North Dallas Thirty can be seen by comparing their exhaustive and well-documented Academy Award coverage to my post on Helen Mirren and Jennifer Hudson titled, "When Good Women Get Bad Cleavage-Displaying Advice" (which is still in draft form and may see the light of day sometime before Christmas....of 2008).

But I do have charms of my own, as it were, and will now unleash my ultimate and battle-proven blog-war weapon -- somewhat-smutty pictures (as in, NOT safe for work):

Fire one!

Fire two!

And I promise.....if I win, and keep winning, there's more where that came from....much MUCH more....

Public Service Announcement

At North Dallas Thirty, we stress the fact that we are inclusive in our programming and provide cultural and educational enlightenment to both those who love the 'mos -- and those who would love the 'mos to be somewhere else.

In response to a clear need of the latter group, we have noticed that there seems to be some confusion over the correct spelling of antigay insults. Since activity in this area seems to be in the public eye of late, we want to be certain that you avoid embarrassing mistakes, such as the ones outlined here, that make your wisdom sound even more ridiculous.

To be clear, "fagot" refers to a bundle of some sort, usually of sticks or wood, which are tied together. "Faggot" is the correct spelling for your desired insult against homosexuals designed to leave us as powerless and quivering as Jerry Falwell's jowls in a windstorm.

The correct use of the two in a sentence is as follows: "Ann, Sam, and Peter gathered a fagot of sticks to burn the faggots."

Next time, we'll answer the question a few of you have had concerning why people mistake your racial epithet for an African country.

A Friday Morning Funny

Read title of article.

Look at picture included with article.

Clean up combination of coffee and nose splooge.

Ironic Statement of the Day -- Pre-St. Paddy's Day Version

Here we go again:

Now I say this, in all sincere honesty, not because I care about the attention or reader traffic we get; I haven't checked our stats in months. But blogging is all about criticism and opinion. The Daily Dish is quite adept at "dishing" it out but completely incapable of taking it.

Blogging also entails a certain etiquette that Sullivan lacks. We can knock each other about, but at the end of the day, it doesn't hurt to give the occasional 'attaboy when it's warranted, because we're all trying to row the boat in the same general direction anyway.

I couldn't agree more, more, more.....you get the idea.

(smiles)

Gay For Pay

The gay lefty blogosphere is stroking themselves into a frenzy over the participation of ex-New Jersey Governor and current queer-as-needed Jim McGreevey at today's ACT UP circle jerk rally in New York -- as well as for his appearance the previous night at Larry Kramer's canonization.

Everyone seems to be wondering WHY McGreevey is suddenly interested in gay activism again.

Let us put it this way; we find it incredibly amusing that McGreevey shows up at a rally to rail against calling gays "immoral" the same week he filed a lawsuit for custody and child support against his cuckolded ex-wife.

The absence of that fact on the aforementioned blogs is rather interesting.....

More Action, Less Talk

Thanks to activity and continued pressure on the part of Andrew Sullivan and other bloggers like Chris Crain, HRC is apparently starting to feel some heat -- a fact which seems to have caught the attention of more-conventional gay media in the West and (apparently) the East.

While all this attention on the problem is nice, what should be remembered is that this isn't the first time that HRC has felt pressure over their hyper-partisanship and sketchy membership and administrative practices -- and given the result of the last time it happened, it would explain HRC Executive Director Joe Solmonese's recent fit of pique.

While it might be tempting on several levels to use the Executive Director du jour as a sacrificial lamb, one should remember that HRC's Executive Board are the people who hired him in the first place; canning him just allows them to hire, as they did with Solmonese, someone who is even more hopelessly partisan and haplessly clueless than the person they just fired. Unless real, proactive change is made to (or forced on) the Board itself and the organization, the same dysfunctional pattern will repeat itself ad nauseum -- and gay rights will continue to take a back seat to pandering.

For real change, here are a few suggested priorities -- and means of implementing them.

1. The HRC Executive Board should represent gays first, not parties.

To do this, there should be two limits on eligibility for Board membership; one, you may not have been employed in any capacity by a campaign for elected office or by a state or national party apparatus within the past two years, and two, you may not be a registered lobbyist.

Doubtless there would be immediate howls of protest over how much "experience" and "access" the Board would be losing. The return response should be simple; you are welcome to volunteer your services for HRC's use, but the Board, not your billing or cocktail-party invitation needs, will determine where and on what those services are wanted.

2. HRC should walk the walk when it comes to non-partisanship.

Even with the removal of paid politicos from HRC's board, the potential still exists for partisan abuse of HRC's funds. Thus, to meet this goal, a 50% rule seems wise; that is, HRC and its PAC are allowed to give up to 50% of its predetermined budget for endorsements and support to candidates, organizations, and 529 groups that are aligned with or predominantly support (as in over 50% of their contributions) a specific party.

In short, HRC can only give half of its budget to Democrats. The rest doesn't have to go to Republicans, but it can't be spent on anything else partisan.

Finally, and most importantly,

3. HRC revenues, expenditures, and endorsements should be absolutely transparent.

The main reason HRC tells so little about its finances now, in the opinion of most, has primarily to do with how people would react to on what they are spending the millions of dollars they receive annually. Until HRC makes a thorough and clean accounting, its activities will constantly be suspect; that is an inescapable reality.

Taken together, I believe these three points can improve HRC's standing both inside and outside the gay community by encouraging sound business practice, limiting partisan overspending, and refocusing the organization on the issues of gays, rather than the issues of the Beltway elite and those who would profit by their association and influence with HRC.

Which means they may not have a snowball's chance in hell of getting implemented. But you never know until you ask.......

Yes Ma'am, Whatever You Say, Ma'am

Sometimes I wonder if Democrats think the rest of us are just really that stupid.

Case in point: Hillary Clinton's recent remarks over the firing of eight US attorneys.

"I'm deeply disturbed by what we have learned thus far," Clinton said, "and I join those who are calling for a full and thorough investigation to try to get to the bottom of these very political decisions that interfere with prosecutorial responsibility by U.S. attorneys, and I think that the attorney general should resign."

Clinton said the evidence so far pointed to "direct interference with the way U.S. attorneys are supposed to operate — to be impartial. There's evidence of political interference and political pressure being put on them to engage in partisan political activities." Clinton added there were "so many examples of an abuse of power, of going in and removing people not on the basis of performance but, in fact, because they were performing well, they were fulfilling their responsibilities as a U.S. attorney, and that wasn't within the political agenda of the administration."

Sounds good so far, right?

But then, as so often happens, the foot goes in with the second statement:

When Clinton's husband took office in 1993, one of the first actions his attorney general took was to remove every U.S. attorney. Clinton was asked how this was different from the termination of eight U.S. attorneys last December.

"There is a great difference," Clinton said. "When a new president comes in, a new president gets to clean house. It's not done on a case-by-case basis where you didn't do what some senator or member of Congress told you to do in terms of investigations into your opponents. It is 'Let's start afresh' and every president has done that."

So to be clear, Hillary Clinton thinks everyone should be evaluated on the basis of their performance and how well they were doing their job, not on the political agenda of the current administration, and that it's wrong to hire and fire US attorneys based on their alignment with the administration's political agenda.

Except that canning every single US attorney without reviewing their individual performance, just the fact that they were put in by the previous administration, then selecting new ones based on your own political agenda, is OK.

In short, everyone else has to play by my rules except for me.

Patterico has a great outline of this whole situation -- and why it's so mind-blowingly silly on so many levels.

Today's HRC Action Alert

Mark my words, this will be their next crusade against "oppression of a gay American".

No, WE'RE The Bigger Bullies!

An interesting piece about the newspapers who previously ran and who are continuing to run Ann Coulter columns after last week's "faggot" remark.....which is over 90% of them.

What is interesting is what happens when Democrat shills, raised on the theory that if they bombard someone with complaints, they get their way, collide with more solid and pragmatic-valued publishers.

The Casper Star-Tribune also plans to continue publishing Coulter. "I don't like Ann Coulter, but many of my readers do," said Clark Walworth, editor of the Wyoming daily. "And I resent being lectured to by people who don't even subscribe to my paper.".....

The Associated Press reported that another Coulter client, the Elko (Nev.) Daily Free Press, decided Friday to keep the columnist after soliciting the opinions of readers.

On Thursday, the Free Press had posted a note reporting that it received thousands of e-mails generated by the HRC campaign, but said none of the e-mails were local. So the paper asked local readers to weigh in.

"As of this morning we had received nearly 60 phone calls or faxes, and about nine out of 10 wanted us to keep running Ann Coulter," said Free Press Managing Editor Jeff Mullins, as quoted in a Friday story in his paper.

Mullins added: "Many callers said they thought Ann Coulter had a right to express herself, and they did not want us to be swayed by those seeking her removal."

Food for thought.....people didn't like what Coulter said, but they liked being bullied by self-righteous gay leftist thought police, who hadn't a clue about those they were criticizing, even less.

Gee, think it might be time for a tactics shift?

Ironic Statement of the Day -- Friday, March 9th Version

Just read it.

Did I mention that I'm proud to have a blog where NDT's comments are actually welcome?

Then remember this.

NDT has finally joined the long, proud list of Malcontent bannees. Like Mike Rogers and company, he is a gay person whom ironically I believe to be dangerous to the interests of gay people.

Then guffaw. :)

Regular commentor and all-around good guy Pat stated in the comments to the first version of this post, "Times change, don't they?"

Actually, I don't think I changed at all; it's just that Matt and Robbie ultimately figured out that I wasn't going to cut their counterproductive and hateful behavior on the occasions they practiced it any more slack than I did Mike Rogers's. I have the utmost respect for both GayPatriot and Boi from Troy, but that doesn't stop me from calling them out in similar situations.

Gays, at least in my opinion, put a higher value on belonging and unity than most. This is understandable, since the great majority of us have been to some degree separated from the places in society that would ordinarily support that, like churches, families, organizations, and such; we want what we haven't had or have been denied. But the danger in wanting to belong too much, to be popular, as shown to us in innumerable after-school specials, is that you put belonging ahead of thinking and keep making excuses about how you have to do this, or people will stop liking you. H.G Bissinger's Friday Night Lights (a great book that became an average movie and turned into a lousy TV show), about the hero worship of high school football in a West Texas oil town, has a powerful and sad example of the lengths to which people went to be associated with the players.

Then there was the girl who had been dubbed the “book bitch”. So desperate was she to ingratiate herself with the football players that she bought one of them a brand-new backpack and then offered him fifty dollars to sleep with her. When that didn’t work, she offered to bring the books of several of them to class. Dutifully, she waited in the hallway, whereupon Don and some others loaded her down with books so she could trudge off to class with them with a slightly chagrined smile on her face, as if she knew that what she was doing was the price you paid for trying to gain the acceptance of the football players when you had blemishes on your face and didn’t look like Farrah Fawcett.

Sounds like Elizabeth Birch at a Clinton campaign rally.

But what's worse in the gay community is that, once we've been "accepted" by other gays -- that is, once our book-bitching actually works -- we have an adamantine resistance to doing anything that might jeopardize that acceptance.

Again, understandable; having been rejected more than most, gays are hypersensitive about avoiding the pain that comes with that, and will thus want to tend towards compromise, accomodation, or saying nothing. But what this means is that, more often than not, gays are faced with a Hobson's choice: go along with something with which you disagree in the name of unity and protecting your position as accepted, or hold to your principles and risk an avalanche of insult.

The reason I do the latter more often than not is simple; the most intrepid revolutionary is one who has a fear greater than anyone can inflict on him. Because of what I have been through in my life and experience, I know full well that letting yourself down is worse than any taunt, insult, or pain another person can bring against you.

And that is what ultimately matters most.

Why Gays Will Never See Progress

Because we allow bullshit statements to stand.

In my job, I deal regularly with salespeople, and it's interesting how, when you call them in to discuss why they didn't make their quarterly quota targets, you can divide them into two groups based on their answer: "It was my fault, I need to improve my skills and techniques, what can I do?" or, "Well, sure this quarter was bad, but the trend is upward, I've got a lot in the pipeline, I'm going to close some big deals and make it up, it all works out in the big picture".

One of those answers reminds me a lot of the responses one gets from gay Democrats and leftists when confronted with examples of Democrat homophobia.

But you can’t cite outliers to the trend, and then ignore the fact that there is a trend.

Or, on a more-national level, in response to the endorsement of an FMA-supporting Democrat by current HRC leader Joe Solmonese:

Solmonese, who is also gay, contends that activists critical of the Tenenbaum endorsement are missing the “bigger picture.”

Interestingly enough, what I've found is that the salespeople who cite "trends", who make promises based on their "pipeline", and ask me to take a look at the "bigger picture" rather than their current history are the ones who end up in my office, quarter after quarter, until they either change answers or they cross the sales director's pain threshold for money loss.

Why? Because all they're doing is avoiding the problem. Like people who buy more house than they can afford on the grounds that it will appreciate, they are using the future as an excuse not to change in the present.

In the same fashion, gay leftists and Democrats, despite overwhelming and detailed evidence that their spending tens of millions of dollars in cash, time, and self-respect on Democrats over the course of decades in attempts to win support is in fact reaping the opposite, continue to insist that we're missing the "bigger picture", that we should focus on the "trend", and so forth.

With my salespeople who try that, I say this: banks, the power company, our suppliers, and other employees will not accept checks written on the basis of "future results", "pipeline", or "trends". They want to see action and cash in hand -- and it is your job to provide them. We will do what it takes to help you improve your skills to do so but, unless you acknowledge the issue first and make a firm commitment to fix it, you will not see improvement -- and, if that is the case, you will no longer be employed here.

As we see elsewhere, the tendency among gays is to, in the name of "moderation" and "tolerance", facilitate that avoidance.

But as long as avoidance is rewarded.....it sees no reason to change.

An Open Letter to CPAC Sponsors and Organizers Regarding Ann Coulter

(as per James Joyner at Outside the Beltway)

Conservatism treats humans as they are, as moral creatures possessing rational minds and capable of discerning right from wrong. There comes a time when we must speak out in the defense of the conservative movement, and make a stand for political civility. This is one of those times.

Ann Coulter used to serve the movement well. She was telegenic, intelligent, and witty. She was also fearless: saying provocative things to inspire deeper thought and cutting through the haze of competing information has its uses. But Coulter’s fearlessness has become an addiction to shock value. She draws attention to herself, rather than placing the spotlight on conservative ideas.

At the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2006, Coulter referred to Iranians as “ragheads.” She is one of the most prominent women in the conservative movement; for her to employ such reckless language reinforces the stereotype that conservatives are racists.

At CPAC 2007 Coulter decided to turn up the volume by referring to John Edwards, a former U.S. Senator and current Presidential candidate, as a “faggot.” Such offensive language–and the cavalier attitude that lies behind it–is intolerable to us. It may be tolerated on liberal websites but not at the nation’s premier conservative gathering.

The legendary conservative thinker Richard Weaver wrote a book entitled Ideas Have Consequences. Rush Limbaugh has said again and again that “words mean things.” Both phrases apply to Coulter’s awful remarks.

Coulter’s vicious word choice tells the world she care little about the feelings of a large group that often feels marginalized and despised. Her word choice forces conservatives to waste time defending themselves against charges of homophobia rather than advancing conservative ideas.

Within a day of Coulter’s remark John Edwards sent out a fundraising email that used Coulter’s words to raise money for his faltering campaign. She is helping those she claims to oppose. How does that advance any of the causes we hold dear?

Denouncing Coulter is not enough. After her “raghead” remark in 2006 she took some heat. Yet she did not grow and learn. We should have been more forceful. This year she used a gay slur. What is next? If Senator Barack Obama is the de facto Democratic Presidential nominee next year will Coulter feel free to use a racial slur? How does that help conservatism?

One of the points of CPAC is the opportunity it gives college students to meet other young conservatives and learn from our leaders. Unlike on their campuses—where they often feel alone—at CPAC they know they are part of a vibrant political movement. What example is set when one highlight of the conference is finding out what shocking phrase will emerge from Ann Coulter’s mouth? How can we teach young conservatives to fight for their principles with civility and respect when Ann Coulter is allowed to address the conference? Coulter’s invective is a sign of weak thinking and unprincipled politicking.

CPAC sponsors, the Age of Ann has passed. We, the undersigned, request that CPAC speaking invitations no longer be extended to Ann Coulter. Her words and attitude simply do too much damage.

Credentialed CPAC 2007 Bloggers

Sean Hackbarth, The American Mind
James Joyner, Outside the Beltway
BoiFromTroy, Boi From Troy
Joy McCann, Little Miss Attila
Kevin McCullough, Musclehead Revolution
Fausta Werz, Fausta’s blog
Patrick Hynes, Ankle Biting Pundits
Ed Morrissey, Captain’s Quarters
Jane Stewart, See Jane Mom
Alexander Brunk, Save the GOP

Other Right-of-Center Bloggers

Owen Robinson, Boots and Sabres
N.Z. Bear, The Truth Laid Bear
Michael Demmons, Gay Orbit
Mark Coffey, Decision ‘08
Russell Newquist, The Philosopher’s Stone
Marshall Manson, On Tap
Rob Port, Say Anything
Matthew Johnston, Going to the Mat
Timmer, The Daily Brief
Rick Moran, Right Wing Nuthouse
Dustin Gawrylow - Free Republicans

And of course, North Dallas Thirty.

Reality Is Such a Drag

(Cross posted on Malcontent....assuming it survives there........in response to this comment.)

Noah:

It is always fun to watch denialism in action.

For example, you criticize the RNC head, but insist that the DNC head getting up in front of an audience of voters to which the Dems are trying to reach out and telling them point-blank that the Democrat platform and Democrat Party specifically supports, as you put it, making gays second-class citizens.

And this is even funnier:

Again, Ken Mehlman and other powerful gay leaders of the Republican Party were happy to enshrine in laws that reduce GLBTs in to second class citizens. They did this for their personal gain.

Really?

What about those gays that frankly littered the Kerry campaign -- as Kerry publicly supported banning gay marriage in Massachusetts, publicly supported state constitutional amendments stripping gays of rights, and bragged publicly that he had the "same position" as President Bush?

And unlike Ken Mehlman, they actually were gay, not just people who are accused by Democrat-funded smear artists who alternate between attempts at "outing" people who aren't gay and insistence that Republicans are building concentration camps for gays in the Pacific Northwest.

Not to mention the tens of millions of dollars and unquestioning support given by HRC, a group dominated by Democrat lobbyists to Democrats like Kerry and Bill Clinton, both of whom touted their support of laws rendering gays "second-class citizens'?

And, as Instapundit pointed out, the DNC poured enormous sums of money towards candidates like Harold Ford, Jim Webb, Heath Shuler, and others who were more than happy to express their belief that gays should be "second-class citizens" on the stump in hopes of garnering votes.

So we have the DNC head, the Democrat Presidential candidates, the DNC-supported candidates for Congress, and others all running around doing this.

But you insist that the Democrats "as a party" aren't doing this.

Craig, get the real-estate prospectus.....we got us a live one.

UPDATE: Erased from Malcontent in two hours. I can't decide whether that's progress or not.

Paging Cotton Mather

One would think we modern folk gave up the idea of blaming our problems on witches years ago.

Not so, it seems -- or at least when pointing fingers for the failure of the Sonoma County gay newspaper We the People.

Hal Campbell, a former We the People staffer, said there were many factors that led to the newspaper's demise, including loss of advertisers and distribution locations; rising costs and shrinking revenues; and the resignation of all the parent company's board members.

"Despite Bush's so-called 'booming economy,' many mom-and-mom and pop-and-pop businesses went belly up and never paid us for what they owed us," he said.


Yes, of course, because we know it's Bush's fault. Despite studies that indicate 33% of small businesses fail within the first two years, half by four, and over 60% by six years, the reason that gay-owned businesses do so is because they were hexed by Bush.

According to psychologists and folks in the know, accusing people of witchcraft back in Salem days served two useful functions -- smearing people you didn't like and, most importantly, avoiding the notion that your actions might in any way be responsible for your problems.

I guess it's easier to blame Bush than to change your business plan.

Why Think When You Can Ban?

These people really need lives.

Or a spine.

The logic used by these groups is that banning advertising to children will reduce pressure on parents by reducing the number of requests/nagging/demands that children have for advertised products -- in short, if they don't know about it, they can't ask for it or throw a temper tantrum over not getting it.

The simple act of saying "No" and sticking to it seems to be quite beyond the capacity of these groups to understand.

What groups like these are doing is trying to make life easier for parents by abdicating responsibility for raising their children. Instead of having parents hold responsibility for what their children eat, ban junk food. Instead of having parents have to refuse their childrens' requests, hide information from the children so they can't make the request in the first place.

Children learn by experience. Instead of trying to get banned programs like Book It! that obviously do help children, these advocacy groups could provide resources to educate parents about how to explain product placement and good consumerism to their kids.

But that would require work, not sexy public ranting that gets you on TV.

Karma Chameleonic

OK, people, I get the points made about letting certain things go or being too melodramatic about past slights.

But can I at least laugh at the irony of this, especially when one considers the history involved?

Willfully or Completely Naive

There are two possible explanations for this article.

1. The Washington Post has been living in a cave for twenty years.

2. The Washington Post finds it more politically correct to comment on the behavior patterns of people in Africa than it does to discuss identical ones in America.

Message in Futility

"Your message expressing your opposition to H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act (which would remove the requirement of a secret ballot election for employees to choose whether or not to unionize, but includes no prohibitions against the use of threats and intimidation by union organizers to force employees who don't want to to accept a union - ed) and asking your representatives to vote against it has been sent to the following recipients:

-- U.S. Congressman Tom Lantos (D-CA-12)
-- U.S. Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-CA-08) Speaker of the House"