Think About It

There was an interesting juxtaposition of two articles in today's San Francisco Chronicle.

The first one talked about citrus growers in the Central Valley, who are looking at the potential destruction of their crops due to a prolonged cold snap, and included this point:

Philip LoBue of Lindsay (Tulare County), who has a packing operation and grows citrus on 1,000 acres, said Monday morning that another destructive dose of cold had just struck.........

LoBue said that California's chronic shortage of farmworkers worsened his problems. He wanted to speed up his harvest last week to try to beat the freeze, but no additional field workers were available. He had his own crew of 125 workers but could have used 200, he said.

"We need a guest worker program," LoBue said, referring to a program proposed as immigration reform.

Meanwhile, over in Atlanta, the tune was a bit different.

Against the backdrop of an escalating war in Iraq and increasing economic disparity in the United States, many who spoke during the ceremony used King's pulpit to call for a return to the principles of social justice and nonviolence that defined the civil rights leader's life.

"Millions can't find jobs, have no health insurance and struggle to make ends meet, working minimum-wage jobs," said Mayor Shirley Franklin of Atlanta. "What's going on?" she asked, invoking the title of the Marvin Gaye song.

Why haven't the twain met?

Simple answer; the growers can't afford to pay what the "millions" want, and the "millions" won't work for what the growers can afford to pay.

What people are continually missing in the immigration debate in this country is that we don't have a worker shortage; we have a disconnect of priorities between the groups involved. Consumers want cheap fruit, growers want cheap labor, and laborers want high pay. But if laborers receive high pay, labor is no longer cheap for the grower, and neither will fruit be for the consumer -- which means consumers, by and large, will either eat less fruit or switch to imported fruits produced by cheaper labor, thus collapsing the grower and putting the laborer out of work.

Thus we see the great unexpected consequence of the immigration debate. If we continue to allow what is, for all intents and purposes, unlimited immigration of labor, our growers can remain competitive with foreign producers, but at the cost of driving down labor rates and taking jobs that Americans theoretically could hold. However, if we tighten the borders and do nothing else, the cost of labor will skyrocket, driving up prices, making our growers uncompetitive in world markets, and forcing them out of existence -- or slapping tariffs on imported fruits and forcing the consumer to pay more.

One area where I differ from classical economic libertarianism is that I do believe there is a place for government intervention in the market -- and resulting higher costs -- when it can be justified from a strategic and defensive standpoint. For instance, we do not allow foreign-owned companies to act as primary contractors on defense projects; even though they could in theory do it more inexpensively, we believe the added risk is not worth the cost savings.

Agriculture is a similar situation. Without food, we cannot survive, period; thus, it makes perfect sense that our government should take proactive steps to protect our capability to grow and harvest our own food.

Towards that end, what I would suggest is that the government set up an internal "guest worker" program for American agriculture. Growers who employ verified, registered American citizens who are part of the program would receive a dollar-for-dollar tax cut reimbursing them for every dollar above the local prevailing wage they pay; in addition, anyone enrolled in the program would be immediately eligible for Federally-funded health insurance.

Yes, it is subsidizing. But it's subsidizing growers who employ Americans and pay them above-average wages -- which ensures not only that growers will survive, but that Americans will be employed, their dollars earned will remain in our economy, and we will have a workforce capable of keeping us in food in the event of an international emergency or incident.

Think First, Act Differently

Not surprisingly, the Dems are starting to fudge and renege on their campaign promises -- such as cutting interest rates for all student loans.

Their proposal, scheduled for a vote next week, would cut interest rates on some student loans in half. However, the college tuition plan has been scaled back since it was first touted on the campaign trail last year.

The interest rate relief would apply only to need-based loans and doesn't help people who take out unsubsidized student loans -- a distinction not made in the campaign literature Democrats handed out before winning control of Congress last fall. The measure also abandons a pledge to reduce rates for parents who take out loans to help with their kids' college costs.

But my favorite is how they intend to pay for what rate reductions they're forcing:

To avoid increasing the deficit, the bill's cost would be offset by trimming subsidies the government gives lenders and reducing the guaranteed return banks get when students default. Banks also would have to pay more in fees.

So banks would have to make loans at cheaper interest rates, but get less in subsidies, less in fees, and less in the very likely event that someone defaults.

What seems most likely is that less banks will choose to make student loans at all -- which ought to do wonders for college accessibility.

Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings has the right idea; if the government wants to make college more accessible, it should cough up more via Pell Grants (which don't require repayment), rather than forcing private industry to unprofitably subsidize matters. But that makes it impossible for Democrats to even continue to pretend that they can increase spending massively without similarly increasing taxes.

Talk About Your Next-Door Neighbors

The State Armory building at 14th and Mission here in San Francisco can be said at the very least to be striking. It's a massive and glorious pile of brick and stone, columns and arches four stories high, dominating nearly the entire block and area. Perfect for a castle or dungeon -- and that's what its new owners have planned.

Obviously, this is causing more than a bit of chagrin and upset among local residents and businesses. But don't cry for them just yet; as San Francisco Examiner columnist Ken Garcia puts it, they shouldn't complain, since they shot down every other attempt to use it.

I Do So Laugh

It's always more than a bit amusing when two people who were all buddy-buddy when it came to banning you use the same sort of accusations as reason to turn their guns on each other.

Almost makes me think I should provoke another battle, just to give them a target before they tear each other apart.

Naaah.

A Tale of Two Psychologies

There is hope for the gay community yet.

It almost makes up for the constant reminders of why it's needed.

All of the reasons for why gays continue to have rates of sexually-transmitted diseases that would do the Third World proud are in that second article. Men are quite obviously having sex in public places, writing it off as part of being gay, and all the authority figures can do is worry about being called "sex-negative", or explain it away as, "well, straight men probably screw in the steam room too".

Perhaps a push for introspection and evaluation of gay mens' values, as in the first story, can set us on the road to eliminating the second.

I certainly hope so.

UPDATE: The ever-eloquent Jamie at I Must Be Dreaming saw the same article -- and has a most linkworthy response.

Veddy, Veddy Interesting

Malcontent links, via Andrew Sullivan, to a quiz from 1994 that rates you on where you stand on the political-ideological spectrum from liberal to conservative. Wholly liberal is 0, wholly conservative is 40.

I scored a 25.

Not quite what people expect, I wager.

In a Fit of New Year's Optimism....

I went ahead and commented on Malcontent, on a post regarding smoking bans.

Whoever did so can take pride in the fact that they are well on their way to matching the world speed record for erasing my posts, as previously set by John Aravosis.

And that's with a post that agreed with one of them.

Like I said.....they.

Democrats We Love

Meet Ross Lajeunesse.

He's brainy, as he showed in his previous position as Chief of Staff and Chief Deputy Controller for the state of California.

He's got impeccable credentials, having worked for Democrats like Susan Kennedy and Steve Westly.

And he's now in a seat of enviable power, having accepted the role of Deputy Chief of Staff for newly-reelected Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

What makes this writer gush over him the most, though, is his statement in last week's Bay Area Reporter:

Same-sex marriage advocates should not count on LaJeunesse trying to convince the governor to sign a pro-gay marriage bill into law next year. He said he agrees with the position Schwarzenegger took in vetoing the bill in 2005, and besides, he is focused on other legislation.

"What I personally believe isn't that relevant," he said. "On the marriage issue he has clearly stated while he supports domestic partner rights and will defend those if need be, the people by referendum decided gay marriage is something that is not going to happen in California. Since the people have spoken in California that is the way it is."

LaJeunesse pointed out that the governor favors seeing either the courts rule on the matter or voters overturn the state's antigay marriage laws at the ballot box.

Either choice, he said, "makes a lot of sense legally and is correct as far as I am concerned."

That, my friends, takes guts on the level of telling Rosie O'Donnell to sit down and shut up.

And to it, I say, "Amen".

It is gays like Lajeunesse, current Schwarzenegger Chief of Staff Susan Kennedy, California Assembly candidates Steve Sion, Mark Patrosso, Brenda Green, Ralph Denny, and William Chan, that will help make and maintain progress in this state. Bravo to them all.

And for those of you out there looking for someone....Ross is single.....and those nights in Sacramento can be more than a little bit chilly.....

Really, It IS Simpler Than It Looks

Chris Crain, the former editor for the Washington Blade, has on his blog a piece discussing the impending retirement of Republican House member Jim Kolbe and the issues on which Chris feels Kolbe should speak out more.

By and by, it's fairly even-handed; however, there's one thing that caught my attention.

Ironically, Kolbe complains later in the interview that the Human Rights Campaign hasn't devoted more energy to extending Social Security survivor benefits to gay couples — a move that would require repealing the half of DOMA that goes unmentioned in the article.

Actually, that's not quite the case.

DOMA, as Chris correctly points out, prevents the Federal government from recognizing anything that isn't a man-woman coupling as a spouse or married.

However, that only causes a problem if Social Security conditions survivor's benefits on spousal or marital status.

Many private pension and retirement plans do not; they allow an employee to designate beneficiaries, who may or may not be related or married to them, to receive their accrued benefit upon their death. This process was made even easier and simpler by the past year's pension reform bill, which allowed such transfers to take place without an immediate tax hit regardless of the individual's relationship to the beneficiary.

Congress is more than capable of changing Social Security to match that; instead of requiring "spouse", they could with perfect right institute a beneficiary system in which you designate someone to receive your survivor benefits from Social Security regardless of their relationship or other status. Since you would no longer need to be a "spouse" to receive these benefits, DOMA would not be violated.

However, it kind of begs the question.......why bother?

To explain why, one need only take a look at what would happen under Social Security if my partner and I were married and I died. First off, because he isn't old enough or disabled, my partner would not have immediate access to my survivor's benefits in the first place; he would only be able to claim them if he were of a certain age and/or disability status. Second, even if he were of age or status, any amount that he could collect would be reduced relative to his income if he continued to work. If he begins to collect Social Security -- or is already collecting Social Security -- he gets the better of his direct benefits or what he can collect of my survivor's benefits, not both of them; in either case, he must take them as a cash distribution and be taxed accordingly. Finally, if he were to remarry, the government could with perfect right immediately terminate any survivor's benefits he was receiving.

In contrast, if I were to die, my private retirement plans would immediately pay out my accrued benefit to him as my beneficiary as he preferred, either as a taxable cash distribution or as a tax-free transfer into his own retirement account, there for him to invest as he sees fit and use when he needs it. He doesn't have to choose between his own retirement funds and mine; he gets both. Furthermore, he gets to keep both regardless of whether he remarries or not with no dimunition in their value.

This convoluted mess is why we found straight couples arguing for domestic partnerships in last year's battle over the Arizona marriage amendment; they're trying to dodge the fact that, if they get married, their Social Security payouts drop, either by the negation of survivor's benefits or the fact that the Social Security limit on payouts to their household is lower than the combined value of their benefits if considered separately.

In short, until meaningful reform to Social Security takes place, the argument over gay couples needing marriage to get Social Security benefits is pointless AND contradicted by the fact that straight couples are avoiding marriage so as not to lose Social Security benefits by getting married.

And the chances of a Democratic lapdog group like HRC advocating for meaningful changes to Social Security are about the same as that of Perez Hilton advocating for restraint in journalism.

A Lovely Little Conundrum

Once you get past the article headline, I can see only one problem with this research; the potential reduction of the gay dating pool.

Others aren't quite so easygoing.

The research, at Oregon State University in the city of Corvallis and at the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, has caused an outcry. Martina Navratilova, the lesbian tennis player who won Wimbledon nine times, and scientists and gay rights campaigners in Britain have called for the project to be abandoned.

Navratilova defended the “right” of sheep to be gay. She said: “How can it be that in the year 2006 a major university would host such homophobic and cruel experiments?” She said gay men and lesbians would be “deeply offended” by the social implications of the tests.

The irony here, of course, is that this research goes a long way towards the Holy Grail of gaydom; proving once and for all that, "it's not our fault, we were born this way". What Martina and crew evidently forgot is that, once you know the cause, the next logical action is to figure out various ways to sidestep the effect.

For me, this research is a dream come true; I finally get to see what happens when it becomes possible to identify gay babies in utero. It should be interesting to watch the Martinas of the world try to argue that a baby that can be merrily cut, folded, spindled, mutilated, vacuumed, and harvested for parts without a word of protest from them suddenly has rights, as well as seeing the rabidly-homophobic contort what little morality they have to justify aborting the demon-spawn that they previously argued was "life" and "sacrosanct".

Hat tip: Rhymes With Right

Muslims 1, Uninformed 0

This gives a whole new meaning to "defense-related pork spending".

The best line is this one:

Earlier this month, Baker conceded that the Muslims probably aren't after his land, but he said he had to go through with the pig races because "I would be like a total idiot if I didn't. I'd be the laughingstock now because I've gone too far."

It reminds one of the old Western adage......a lot of wrecks begin as a matter of principle.

Rest in Peace, Dear Friend

In memoriam of occasional commentor and blog-buddy Blewsdawg's sad news about the passing of his companion Snickers, I offer George Graham Vest's moving 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. She will sleep on the cold ground, where the wintry winds blow and the snow drives fiercely, if only she may be near his master's side.

She will kiss the hand that has no food to offer. She will lick the wounds and sores that come in encounters with the roughness of the world. She guards the sleep of her pauper master as if he were a prince. When all other friends desert, she remains. When riches take wings and reputation falls to pieces, she is as constant in her 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, her head between her paws, her eyes sad but open in alert watchfulness, faithful and true even to death.

Those of us who share our lives with a canine companion -- or companions -- know well your pain, Blews......and offer our deepest, deepest sympathies.

If You Think This Is Funny....

you may have spent way too much time in the tech industry.

1. There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

2.If at first you don't succeed; call it version 1.0.

3. Microsoft: "You've got questions. We've got dancing paperclips."

4. My pokemon bring all the nerds to the yard, and they're like you wanna trade cards? Darn right, I wanna trade cards, I'll trade this but not my charizard.

5. 1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d.

6. I'm not anti-social; I'm just not user friendly.

7. I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.

8. Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the universe is winning.

9. A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in human history, with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila.

10. My software never has bugs. It just develops random features.

And by the way, I thought it was hilarious.

Hat tip: The Tech Chronicles

Daily Small Ironic Pleasure #2584

Seeing that the truck that neglected the niceties of turn signals and just cut you off in traffic is pulling a trailer.....emblazoned with "PUTZMEISTER".

(Hint: Think Yiddish)

Post-Christmas Bits and Pieces

First bit of advice: when asked to choose among five different desserts at Christmas dinner, the correct answer is not "One of each."

Second order of business: the reasonable question of commentor John, in regards to my returning fire to Malcontent.

Isn't this all just a bit silly?

If Antonio Villaraigosa, Gavin Newsom, and Arnold Schwarzenegger can learn to get along (those three have been very buddy-buddy lately, what with all the friendly joint press conferences on global warming, homeland security, schools, etc.) -- so can Gay Republican Bloggers!

One, I think Michael, Matt, and Robbie would be somewhat perturbed by you referring to them as "Republicans". I personally don't mind, but a better descriptor under political party for me would be "pissy".

Second, and more to the issue, my comments are open to them, they are free to link me, they are welcome to email me, and they are, as several of my posts show, copiously linked on my blog, with deserved kudos showered upon them when they make a good point.

If they want to get along, my door is quite open, as it always has been and always will be. But the key word in that is they.

And finally, for those of you who haven't found it yet, there is a great dialogue going on in the comments between regular Pat and new guest DayTrader. Thanks to both these individuals for being willing to share their thoughts and insights in a most-refreshing fashion.

Now, back to the leftovers.......

Pax Terra

Today I want to wish you all a very simple sentiment: Merry, blessed Christmas.

Those simple words seem to have brought an enormous amount of heat and smoke to the world, agitating the secular and the "pious" to actions which are not only unbecoming behavior, but in several ways, spit in the face of what Christmas truly represents. This is appalling on so many levels, but enough of it has been said that to do more would be a distraction to what this day is.

To me, the best representation of Christmas comes from Martin Luther in his sermon on the Nativity (emphasis mine).

How unobstrusively and simply do those events take place on earth that are so heralded in heaven!

On earth it happened in this wise: There was a poor young wife, Mary of Nazareth, among the meanest dwellers of the town, so little esteemed that none noticed the great wonder that she carried. She was silent, did not vaunt herself, but served her husband, who had no man or maid. They simply left the house. Perhaps they had a donkey for Mary to ride upon, though the Gospels say nothing about it, and we may well believe that she went on foot. The journey was certainly more than a day from Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem, which lies on the farther side of Jerusalem.

Joseph had thought, “When we get to Bethlehem, we shall be among relative and can borrow everything.” A fine idea that was! Bad enough that a young bride married only a year could not have had her baby at Nazareth in her own house instead of making all that journey of three days when heavy with child! How much worse that when she arrived there was no room for her! The inn was full. No one would release a room to this pregnant woman. She had to go to a cow stall and there bring forth the Maker of all creatures because nobody would give way.

Shame on you, wretched Bethlehem! The inn ought to have been burned with brimstone, for even though Mary had been a beggar maid or unwed, anybody at such a time should have been glad to give her a hand.

There are many of you in this congregation who think to yourselves: “If only I had been there! How quick I would have been to help the Baby! I would have washed his linen. How happy I would have been to go with the shepherds to see the Lord lying in the manger!” Yes, you would! You say that because you know how great Christ is, but if you had been there at that time you would have done no better than the people of Bethlehem. Childish and silly thoughts are these! Why don’t you do it now? You have Christ your neighbor. You ought to serve him, for what you do to your neighbor in need you do to the Lord Christ himself.

The birth was still more pitiable. No one regarded this young wife bringing forth her first-born. No one took her condition to heart. No one noticed that in a strange place she had not the very least thing needful in childbirth. There she was without preparation: no light, no fire, in the dead of night, in thick darkness. No one came to give the customary assistance. The guests swarming in the inn were carousing, and no one attended to this woman. I think myself if Joseph and Mary had realized that her time was so close she might perhaps have been left in Nazareth. And now think what she could use for swaddling clothes – some garment she could spare, perhaps her veil - certainly not Joseph’s breeches, which are now on exhibition at Aachen.

Think, women, there was no one there to bathe the Baby. No warm water, nor even cold. No fire, no light. The mother was herself midwife and the maid. The cold manger was the bed and the bathtub. Who showed the poor girl what to do? She had never had a baby before. I am amazed that the little one did not freeze. Do not make of Mary a stone. For the higher people are in the favor of God, the more tender are they.

Let us, then, meditate upon the Nativity just as we see it happening in our own babies. Behold Christ lying in the lap of this young mother. What can be sweeter than the Babe, what more lovely than the mother! What fairer than her youth! What more gracious than her virginity! Look at the Child, knowing nothing. Yet all that is belongs to him, that your conscience should not fear but take comfort in him. Doubt nothing.

To me there is no greater consolation given to mankind than this, that Christ became man, a child, a babe, playing in the lap and at the breasts of his most gracious mother. Who is there whom this sight would not comfort? Now is overcome the power of sin, death, hell, conscience, and guilt, if you come to this gurgling Babe and believe that he is come, not to judge you, but to save.

And that, my friends, is what it's all about.

With love from me and my family to yours,

Dan (North Dallas Thirty)

Return Fire

I always debate bringing comment catfights out into the public view, but hey, it's Monday, I'm home sick with the flu, and it's about time for my annual channeling of Saint Joan (of Crawford, for those of you not familiar with the gay list of holies).

To whit, Matt of the Malcontent has responded to my previous post about his invoking my name in discussion -- and it ain't pretty.

There was no one precipitating event, per se, that got you banned, even though there was indeed a "last straw" that led me to believe your antagonism against gay people and gay people's interests goes beyond anything I've seen in someone who is himself putatively gay.

Right. I hate gay people and gay peoples' interests so much, I only spent the better part of a year working my ass off, outside my own job, to raise thousands of dollars for them.

What makes this funnier is that Matt -- or his co-blogger Robbie, for that matter -- knows about what I've been doing -- because I've sent him emails about it. He knew before our falling-out, he knew during it, and I continued to send him information about it afterwards. Furthermore, knowing that he knew, how he can describe me using the words "putatively gay", or, stated differently, "thought, alleged, or assumed to be gay" is completely beyond me.

Then again, it's not; after all, since I wasn't publicizing the fact, Matt could say pretty much what he wanted; it would be my word against his, and heaven knows, gay people aren't likely to believe anything, much less whether a person is gay or not, from someone who breaks so many rules of gay behavior.

Somehow, though, I'm not betting even this will convince people otherwise.

Deja Vu, Minus Denzel

Fellow blogger Jamie at I Must Be Dreaming pointed out this week the crusade by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation criticizing drug manufacturer Pfizer for allegedly encouraging meth use and unsafe sex among gays through its marketing of Viagra.

Oddly enough, it looks a lot like last year's crusade by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation criticizing drug manufacturer Pfizer for allegedly encouraging meth use and unsafe sex among gays through its marketing of Viagra. I will even go out on a limb and say that, come Hanukkah 2007, we'll be looking at the same press release.

Now, the simple fact of the matter is that their allegation of a link between Pfizer's advertising and infections or drug use is not a justifiable assertion by any fact, piece of scientific research, or even plain empirical observation. That millions of men manage to use Viagra annually without being compelled to shtup bare or tweak themselves into unreality is persuasive enough, and the additional point that thousands of gay men manage to do both without Viagra being involved at all should neatly demolish their theory. Indeed, the whole thing reeks of an utter darkness devoid of any glimmer of rational thought that surpasses even this week's right-wing black hole.

But if you've managed to brainwash yourself sufficiently to eliminate any thought that gay men choose to have unprotected sex and use meth as a potential cause of HIV infection and meth use, I suppose it makes perfect sense.

Different Statement, Different Reaction

I wonder if Matt of The Malcontent had a case of burning ears after my Monday post; at any rate, I was surprised to see him mention me now, nearly four months after he banned me from his blog.

Then again, I am just as distrustful of someone who actually buys the crap that Mormons or Scientologists shovel as I am someone like George Bush, who seems legitimately to think he is an agent of God. [Pause to consider what this thread would be like if NDT weren't banned]

I hate to disappoint, but it would likely be really, really boring.

What Matt is expressing in this thread is his own skepticism towards religion; that is his right and prerogative and, given the bad experiences he has seemingly had with religion, understandable. However, where Matt creates a problem -- and where I would respond -- is when he denigrates those who "buy the crap", as he puts it, because they do so.

Stated differently, I have no problem with someone stating honestly that they are distrustful of me because I am a Christian. I have an enormous problem with them stating that they are distrustful of me because I am a Christian and Christians are all untrustworthy.

Oh, and what finally got me banned? Pointing out, loudly, that there was something wrong with gay blogs encouraging people to steal from Christians because said gay bloggers didn't like them.

Of course, don't miss the ironic fact that the person who started that mess arrogantly tried to justify it as saving cash for his upcoming vacation -- only to have his vacation completely snafu'd a week later.

As U2 might put it.....She moves in mysterious ways.

Celebrity Is Not Life

First off, I am unilaterally removing The Malcontent and Gay Orbit from my sidebar of "Blogs On Which Mentioning My Name Will Get You Banned, Too".

Why? Life is too short to feud with people whom you want to cite.

At any rate, Robbie of The Malcontent pointed to a piece by Chip Arndt, who has much to say about newly-out Lance Bass and the supposedly-closeted celebrity mass that Bass represents:

But I am always offended when celebrities say, “leave me alone … none of your business … my life is my life.” It must be nice to be able to insulate yourself from the scrutiny and harassment of the world because you have money to escape to your island retreat, hideaway in Aspen or exclusive dinners in Malibu all while living your “secret gay life.” What about setting an example and standing up for common gay and lesbian folk who don’t have the money to protect themselves from scrutiny or harassment from others in the workplace, in public or by their own government?

This is surprising, when one considers that Arndt was blaming the media for over-scrutinizing his relationships and poking into areas that weren't their business a few years ago. Why is he suddenly being so mean to the erstwhile Mrs. Reichen Leimkuhl, after whining about having had his own sexual proclivities made front-page news a few years back?

Probably because that was back when he was Mrs. Reichen Leimkuhl.

And I loved this part:

Maybe it’s time to reassess the role that a celebrity plays in society. That role should include being a role model to help end bigotry and hatred. And it is simple to do: Just come out and be proud of who you are.

I agree. Perhaps Arndt and his ilk should stop portraying gays as celebrity-obsessed, catty b*tches who demand that other people stay out of their dresser drawers, but come up with convoluted reasons why they should go rummaging through other peoples', especially those of people who are (or were) dating their ex.

Thank You for Pointing Out the Obvious

The only surprise in this is who's actually going after the Democrats for doing it. Gateway Pundit has more.

But really......duh.

Of course the Democrats knew about the Mark Foley emails in 2005. Did people honestly think Republicans were shopping them to every media outlet in the free world AND the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee -- as Matt Miller, former communications director for the House Democratic Caucus, admits he was doing?

A Tiny Ray of Justice In a Dim and Dark Blogosphere

Be assured that the numerous clicks, source reference reading, and other actions you will have to carry out in understanding this story are worth it.

Kind of makes me wish I could give elite points for taking Internet connections as opposed to nonstop data references.

Politics by Occam

In the latest news on the gay marriage front in California, Bill Lockyer, former 25-year state legislator, California's outgoing attorney general, and incoming treasurer, kicked off his 2010 campaign for governor by performing a required act of pandering, requesting that the California Supreme Court review the ruling of the appellate court in October upholding the state's gay marriage ban.

Normally, this wouldn't raise eyebrows -- except that Lockyer is asking a court to review (and hopefully overturn) a decision which he won. He's apparently intelligent enough to realize that appealing the decision would make no sense whatsoever, even assuming that he was able to do it; however, it should be obvious that he's hoping that the California Supreme Court will make up for his failure to sabotage the case in the lower courts.

And of course, you knew that this was coming; Assemblyman Mark Leno, no doubt with the support of We Only Support Democrats, Even Homophobes Equality California, once again began the process of trying to force gay marriage through the California Legislature.

Both of these, in my opinion, are a waste of time.

The fifty-ton elephant in the room that both of these individuals are trying to ignore is Proposition 22, aka the California Defense of Marriage Act, which is elegant in its simplicity:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Thus, the answer to this issue is equally elegant and simple: repeal Proposition 22.

However, the reason neither Lockyer or Leno would even breathe that possibility is because it would require a statewide referendum -- and they know they don't have the votes.

In a referendum election, people would be casting their ballots based on how they felt about gay marriage, not on party affiliation, gerrymandered districts, or how much they liked the candidate; because of that, even in the Golden State, a repeal of Prop 22 likely would not pass. It's the same reason that gay leftists and their purchased allies are frantically using any means possible to prevent the electorate of Massachusetts from voting directly on whether or not they wish to allow gay marriage; if an election is focused solely on that, it will lose.

Thus, they blunder onward. Lockyer has failed (and likely will continue to fail) in getting a court to declare Proposition 22 unconstitutional. Leno is trying to get around it by making the preposterous claim that it was only meant to ban gay marriages contracted outside California -- or, in other words, that 61% of California's voters only cared if gays were getting married OUTSIDE California, and not inside. Even if Leno and enough of the Legislature buys it, Governor Schwarzenegger obviously doesn't.

I will throw down the gauntlet right now; the first person to come along, gay or straight, with a viable statewide push and campaign to repeal Proposition 22 will have my wholehearted personal, public, and financial support. However, not a penny or endorsement will be gotten out of me by the Lenos, Lockyers, and EQCAs who are attempting everything but.

And Mary Shall Be With Child....

Sorry, couldn't resist the Christmas reference. :)

Congratulations to Heather Poe and Mary Cheney on their announcement today that they are having a baby.

Of course, this news was greeted with the usual spitting and vitriol that comes from the gay left whenever Mary is mentioned; summing it all up, I think, is this lovely post wishing that the baby would be deformed and that Mary be rendered painfully infertile. Particularly amusing is their attempt to quote a piece from 2004 to prove how awful Virginia is for gays because state law allegedly prevents private businesses from extending domestic partner benefits -- despite the fact that said law was undone last year.

But this sort of thing is, after all, expected from those folks; what is more entertaining is when the sanctimonious "spokesperson" gays enter, such as Jennifer Chrisler, head of the Democratic money-laundering organization gay group Family Pride.

The couple "will quickly face the reality that no matter how loved their child will be. ... he or she will never have the same protections that other children born to heterosexual couples enjoy," Chrisler said. "Grandfather Cheney will no doubt face a lifetime of sleepless nights as he reflects on the irreparable harm he and his administration have done to the millions of American gay and lesbian parents and their children."

Of course, what is left out is that Chrisler and her partner, former Human Rights Campaign head Cheryl Jacques, previously dismissed the need for marriage to protect their children -- and, more amusingly, during the time their group and they were pumping money and endorsements to Democratic candidate John Kerry in support of his position on gay issues.

Which was?

According to Kerry, the same as Cheney's and, most interestingly..... Bush's.

"The president and I have the same position, fundamentally, on gay marriage. We do. Same position."

And, given his enthusiastic support of constitutional amendments to ban it, he followed through on that.

Yet Chrisler, Jacques, HRC, and the rest of the gay left called that position "pro-gay" and "gay-supportive", and gave tens of millions of dollars in cash, endorsements, staff time, and support to promote and push it -- all the while claiming that the "same position" on the other side was an "attack" causing "irreparable harm" to gays and lesbians.

It makes one think of the post-"Jews suck" cut-budget ending for Apocalypto.

(line of captives inches towards altar, head bowed, sobbing, as blood gushes by their feet, each one being sliced open and having his heart cut out, still beating.
Jaguar Paw reaches front of line; as priests reach for him......)

Jaguar Paw: Wait! No! It is horrible and repressive for you to cut out my heart and offer it to the god Snaky-Haired Monkey With Finger In Nose!

Head Priest: But we must, otherwise we will get no rain and our land and empire will crumble.

JP: I don't care. It's ALWAYS wrong to kill another human being! Your actions endanger my family and all others. I must protest and label you as evil, wicked, and smelly.

HP: All right, all right already, quit yelling! How about we sacrifice you and your family to the god Buck-Toothed Lemur With Horrible Anal Warts, who despite having the same position on human sacrifice, opposes everything which Snaky-Haired Monkey With Finger In Nose supports?

JP: Now THAT'S more like it! (jumps up onto altar)

(Horrible natural disaster intervenes, priests scream and go running away, Jaguar Paw chasing after them)

JP: Wait! WAIT! YOU FORGOT TO KILL ME!

Let's face facts. Mary Cheney takes a lot of sh*t from hypocritical activists like Chrisler, knows that every move she makes is going to be met with hate......and still has the strength and willingness to be public with her life.

I admire that.

Good luck, Heather and Mary.

It Ain't Just the Kids.....

What is it with basketball and whining this week?

World AIDS Day

Today we mark World AIDS Day.

As GayPatriot brilliantly puts it:

In remembrance of those of friends and the faceless, family and strangers who lost their lives to this terrible epidemic.

In celebration to those who live productive lives with HIV and those who love and care for them daily.

And I add: in thanks to those who give of themselves, in time, talent, and treasure, to both combat the disease and assist its casualties.

As we go through this day, I would ask you to consider the case of Father Angelo D'Agostino -- and the reality of the AIDS epidemic that it represents.

There are those who view HIV/AIDS as God's judgment upon the planet, a terrible swift sword wielded against those who break His laws and commandments. The suffering of the infected is nothing more than they deserve, the consequences of their decision to have sex and use drugs; justice requires their punishment.

At the same time, there are those who view HIV/AIDS as an unnecessary constraint, an unfair obstacle placed in the way of uninhibited sexual expression. The suffering of the infected is a travesty, a plot created and backed by the religious right and conservatives, who either created the disease, withhold funds for curing it, and who repress sex out of envy and loathing for those who do not and who glory in its sensations and desire.

And the children of Nyumbani sit in the middle -- condemned for crimes that they did not, could not have committed, paying for pleasures that they did not, could not, receive. They are both the scapegoats for their parents' bad decisions and the ones left paying the debt for their parents' choice of expenditures.

That is in no way just or fair.

And neither is HIV.

Were it God's way of punishing the guilty or the religious right's way of limiting sexual pleasure to procreation only, these children would not have it. Like a terrorist who hides behind our Constitutional protections, the virus is more than willing to exploit our squabblings over ideology to spread itself to both the holy and the hedonistic without care for the beliefs of its host.

HIV is neither divine retribution for sins or an unnecessary obstacle to unlimited sexual pleasure. It is a reminder to us that the act of sex is one with the power of life and death, and as such, carries extraordinary consequences. It screams at us, not to cease or overindulge, but to consider our actions and think through them.

The children of Nyumbani represent neither the punishment of sin or the repression of freedom, but the natural outgrowth of sex.

Keep that in mind today.

The Gay Centrist Manifesto

Change not one word, jot, iota, or sentiment.

Gentlemen, Start Your Keyboards

As a convert by marriage to Apple (Jew versus Christian was acceptable, OS X versus XP was not), I can honestly say that the launch of the new Microsoft Windows Vista operating system means nothing to me personally.

Unfortunately, it seems to mean nothing to most people professionally as well -- a fact which may not bode well for Microsoft's rapid recoup of the beaucoup amount of money spent on building the thing.

But to those out there who indulge in the pleasures of using nasty code to blow up other peoples' computers, this has to be the equivalent of seeing your upstairs neighbor with the loud stereo open their window -- while you're holding a water balloon.

How DARE You Follow Sound Business Practice!

And also in today's news, Mayor Gavin Newsom is screaming that the San Francisco 49ers's previous contacts with officials in the South Bay regarding a possible move to Santa Clara shows that the team was "not being honest with San Francisco".

Of course, the article goes on to point out that the 49ers not only made it clear to Santa Clara that San Francisco was their first choice, but that they even warned Newsom and his entourage that their staying put was not a guarantee. Furthermore, to anyone even remotely familiar with the City's politics, the team's having a backup plan was a sound decision; after all, the only certainty in dealing with the San Francisco Politburo is that there are no certainties.

But Newsom, still smarting from the collapse of his monument to himself and the private party to milk for the costs of it, isn't having anything of it -- and, in an ironic twist, is drawing up his smoke-saturated cloak about him and huffing about how "dishonest" people are as he storms out of the backroom, a mysteriously-rustling sack jammed under his arm.

Today's Insane Thought

There's a moral in this somewhere, I swear.

But personally, kudos to Coach Nibarger; she may be rough around the edges, but she's put up with about twenty times more than what I would tolerate.

What really scares the bejesus out of me is that this whole parental fracas is being spearheaded by the wife of the county Superior Court judge -- and they're now threatening a lawsuit for violation of civil rights.

As C.W. Nevius so wisely puts it in the linked article, "You think you have a civil right to be on the basketball team?"

Today's Homework

Read this first.

Then follow with this.

Cogitate accordingly.

(Hat tip, GayPatriot)

Happy Thought For Today

One pinch of fairy dust, and this could boost my plus-size tushy right over Mount Shasta.

The Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund will donate $1 million to 14 Bay Area AIDS organizations that have been pinched by tighter federal budgets and may face severe cuts in the coming years......

On Friday, which is designated World AIDS Day by the United Nations, the Goldman Fund will formally announce the 14 grants. They range from $250,000 for Project Open Hand -- which provides groceries and cooked meals to homebound patients with AIDS and other diseases -- to $25,000 for the National AIDS Memorial Grove in Golden Gate Park.

Absolutely amazing. Astonishing. And most incredible....completely unsolicited.

None of the recipients had applied for the grants.

"It came out of the blue. We were literally jumping up and down,'' said Bob Brenneman, director of development for Project Open Hand.

Brenneman said cuts in federal funding have made for difficult times at many organizations serving people with AIDS in San Francisco. "One of the reasons the Goldman Fund gave these grants was to encourage other private funders to do the same," he said.

Mr. Goldman, I can't say this enough......thank you.

And I certainly hope my readers will take up your challenge.

Who Wants to Bet.......

if you'll see this discussed on many gay-oriented blogs?

As far as the actual behavior, it should be no surprise to anyone; after all, sexual favoritism in the workplace has been around since the first protozoans posited prodigious pseudopod preferences. It would be more surprising if we of the lavender persuasion were immune to such temptations and never changed promotion requirements to "demonstrated understanding of departmental procedures manual and/or The Kama Sutra".

But where this creates a problem is in the self-righteous rhetoric of the gay left, that, like the radical feminism and racism from which it is descended, sanctimoniously blames "white males" for everything from workplace discrimination to hurricanes and bad hair days. Finding out that a lesbian engaged in back-office maneuvering equivalent to the sleaziest of old-boy networks neatly blows a Michael Richards-sized crater into that argument.

One wonders if those among the gays who are usually so quick to scream "hypocrite" and point fingers at people like Ted Haggard will be as vociferous in opposing Bleskachek's actions.

Personally, though, I'd have the incense ready; given the toe-sucking reception for the last person who made personnel decisions based on who he wanted to sleep with him, I think Pope Solmonese will soon be declaring the ceremony of canonization for St. Bonnie the Oppressed.

Desperation Is the Mother of Stupid Arguments

Just in case you were worried that people were running out of ludicrous justifications for gay marriage, here's the latest one, courtesy of Lambda Legal: so that ill-gotten assets of gay couples can be confiscated.

Alphonso David, a staff attorney for the gay legal advocacy group Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund, said that if Kopper and Dodson were married, the Enron funds that now belong to Dodson would be considered jointly owned by the two men under the marriage laws of most states.

“It’s ironic that some of the same people who are opposed to legal recognition of marriage between same-sex couples are upset that this couple gets to keep about $9 million in stolen funds,” David said. “This highlights the point that people don’t always think about the obligations as well as the rights that go with marriage.”

David said that if Kopper and Dodson were married, the Enron funds that now belong to Dodson would be considered jointly owned by the two men under the marriage laws of most states.

What this makes obvious is that Lambda lawyers are chosen more for their devotion to leftist causes than they are for their legal knowledge or assessment capabilities.

It is technically correct that, had the two men been married, the government would have a viable claim to some of their assets that were held jointly. However, it is also true that the government would not necessarily have had claim to those that were in Dodson's name only -- and worse, both Kopper and Dodson could have invoked spousal privilege to avoid testifying against (and thus implicating) each other.

However, as any good investigator can tell you, it is not uncommon for criminals to attempt to hide ill-gotten gains by putting them in the name of a girlfriend, lover, or other unrelated third party. This can be quite often difficult to discover, but when it is, the response is swift and painful -- both by the IRS and by any creditors, including those filing lawsuits, both of whom can call on various legal strictures to freeze and capture assets, especially in regards to criminal activity.

Thus, the logic: if it had chosen to prosecute Dodson on criminal charges, the Federal government would have run up against a considerable wall, since it would have had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Dodson's likely claim of being an innocent bystander was incorrect, and that he was in fact well-aware of both the maneuvers of Enron that were enriching him and was actively participating in them -- very difficult to prove of a non-employee.

Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, filing charges against Dodson would have effectively blocked (thanks to double jeopardy) any possibility of the IRS filing tax evasion charges. Given that the Feds have, in addition to Dodson's own 1040s, Kopper's sworn testimony in court as to where the money came from, where it went, and who got it, the word "slam dunk" is not adequate to describe how easily that can be accomplished.

To wrap things up, consider the gazillion civil lawsuits that have likely already been filed -- and which, like the OJ case, will demonstrate that, while there may not be enough evidence to send you to prison, there is more than enough to drain you dry financially.

Thus, despite them not being married, Dodson and Kopper aren't retiring to the Caymans any time soon on that $9 mil -- and the chance is good that, not only will Dodson eventually end up in prison, but that a significant portion of the cash they stole will be returned to the people who lost it.

In short, we don't need gay marriage to punish gay criminals. But we do need organizations like Lambda who deliberately or ignorantly spread misinformation of this sort to shut the h*ll up.

Licence to (shovel) Swill

Many of the Net's more prominent authors and publishers are cheering Monday's decision by the California Supreme Court saying that Federal protections on free speech shield Internet providers from liability for libelous messages posted on their sites.

I'm not so sure it's a good idea -- mainly because of the particulars of the case.

The Alameda County plaintiffs, physicians Stephen Barrett and Terry Polevoy, claimed they were libeled by hundreds of messages that Ilena Rosenthal, an alternative health care advocate, got from other sources and posted in online news groups from 1999 to 2001.

The general thrust of the plaintiffs' argument was that similar standards as used for print and conventional electronic media should be applied to the Internets; that is, these entities can be sued for publishing libelous statements. The court correctly, in my opinion, recognized the obvious difference between these media forms -- the relative amount of control that exists over author and content prior to publication.

However, they made one more judgment whose implications are much more problematic (emphasis mine).

One message accused Polevoy of stalking a radio producer. The physician said he had told Rosenthal the accusation was false before she posted it. But the court said she was immune from being sued because she had merely passed along messages she hadn't written, just as an Internet provider displays messages from others.

My issue: their doing so extended the protections of conventional media to those who are not bound or compelled to follow the practices of conventional media.

The problem is that, in 1996, when the law was written, mass publication and content generation were much more intimately connected. Back then, getting anything published beyond telephone-pole flyers or Podunk Register levels meant going through one of the media companies that could afford a global communications infrastructure. What it also did was ensure that, through a battery of reporters, editors, content committees, and lawyers, nothing that couldn't be fact-checked six ways from Sunday or was too hateful made it through -- partially out of ethical concerns, but primarily because anything that turned people off to watching or advertising with them turned millions of dollars in printing presses and transmitters from revenue-generating into revenue-sucking. In addition, the sheer cost of producing the media made it certain that only the most newsworthy (read, "what will sell ads or garner viewers") stories ever reached precious newsprint or radio waves.

Now, however, there's no such linkage. I can literally write whatever I want, check it as I see fit, and push a button -- and in seconds, it is accessible to literally ANYONE with a Web connection from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe at little or no cost to either of us. And, thanks to the California Supreme Court, I'm immune from lawsuits, even if I publish something that I KNOW is defamatory -- a privilege that not even the most venerable of old-media enjoys.

Fellow California blogger Boi From Troy makes, with some validity, the point that the speed at which Internets content can be updated should play into this -- presumably under the argument that, as in Rathergate, information that is false can be (and quite often is) immediately detected and countered publicly -- thus, theoretically, lessening its impact.

However, I would argue, in regards to individual bloggers, "So what?"

Somehow, the threat of being delinked or denounced just doesn't quite have the same force as being censured for violation of professional ethics, fired from my job, completely destroying the credibility of a news outlet, and costing a company millions of dollars in legal fees, lost advertising revenue, and bad publicity -- such as would happen (and has happened) to a journalist or media group who knowingly or even inadvertently published false information or failed to verify its sources. Plus, as people like Mike Rogers at Blogactive has shown, no matter how dubious your information or your past record with handling it, if you play a tune to which they wish to dance, people will continue to shovel you cash and advertisements.

In my opinion, this could be handled very simply by an adoption of a Federal law with three rules:

1. Providers (Internet, print, or otherwise) are not liable for what is posted by individuals who are not their employees, contractors, or vendors.

2. All libel and slander cases filed will proceed to trial and be ineligible for summary dismissal unless all sources cited by the defense as justification for making the statement in question are made public information.

3. The standard for libel and slander will include not only malicious intent to harm, but failure to verify information, either willfully or through negligence.

In short, you are perfectly able to make whatever anonymous accusations you like; however, if a libel suit is filed, you are going to trial unless you make your sources public -- and you will ultimately have to convince a jury as to why you didn't do your fact-checking or ignored the facts that came up.

A Picture is Worth a Thousand...Um.....

With a hat tip to one of the Talented, Sexy, and Beautiful Straight Women Who Blog, Army of Mom, we bring you the latest in our Inanimate Object series.



Look at it.....I mean, just LOOK at it.

I am so sending this to V the K.

UPDATE: Pam (thanks for the hat tip) has made matters even more interesting by providing us with an actual promo for the thing:

Talk to her!
Laugh and play together!
Share your secrets with her!
Give her love!
Discover her songs and dances!

She also plays and interacts with the Boots too!
Have an adventure with Dora the Explorer, your interactive friend!

Wow......just, wow.

Deprivation Can Do Strange Things

November in San Francisco is not exactly a month that lends itself to torrid sexual expression, so imagine my surprise to see this potboiler prose in today's Chronicle.

It's amazing how shabby your living room suddenly looks after you take the latest PlayStation console out of the box. The PlayStation 3 is all sleek lines and chrome accents, like a Sub-Zero refrigerator and a Porsche 911 had a wild weekend of sex -- ending up with an 11-pound, 20-gigabyte love child.

Um....all right. Things like that happen when you spend 48 hours in line to get something and a week playing it. Understandable.

But things get better (or worse) on the next page:

I have right here in my hot little hands that actually aren't all that little and are only slightly warm at the moment a brand new lick-ready smooth-as-love Apple MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo Super Orgasm Deluxe Ultrahard Modern Computing Device Designed by God Herself Somewhere in the Deep Moist Vulva of Cupertino Yes Yes Don't Stop Oh My God Yes.

HOO-kay.....back away slowly....don't make eye contact.....and for God's sake don't drop the soap....

Stupid Criminal Trick #576,948,098,003

Evidently running out of material about Britney and Fed-Ex, CNN and the New York Times chose today to air former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's remarks from last week about a failed plot to kill all nine of the Supreme Court justices.

"Every member of the Supreme Court received a wonderful package of home-baked cookies, and I don't know why, (but) the staff decided to analyze them," the Fort Worth Star-Telegram quoted O'Connor as saying at the legal conference November 10 in the Dallas area. "Each one contained enough poison to kill the entire membership of the court."

Of course, the reason why is revealed in the Department of Justice's laconic summary:

Each envelope contained a one-page typewritten letter stating, either "I am" or "We are," followed by "going to kill you. This is poisoned."

This reminds me of a classic Calvin and Hobbes story, in which Calvin, on a whim, kidnaps neighborhood girl Susie Derkins's Binky Betsy doll and holds it for ransom, sending the following sinister note cleverly written in letters cut and pasted from magazines to disguise his handwriting and identity:

Susie:

If you want to see your doll again, leave $100 in the envelope by the tree out front. Do not call the police. You cannot trace us. You cannot find us.

Sincerely,

Calvin

Congrats on Ditching Your Loser Landlords

"Let's put this is perspective: this is sports guys, this is not life.....It's a sport, it's a game, it's entertainment. I think we take it a little too literally. It doesn't define who we are, it's what we enjoy. At the end of the day, life is so much bigger than a game."

At least, that's what San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom used to say -- right up to last Wednesday night's announcement by the San Francisco 49ers that the team is planning to ditch its rickety and cold stadium on blighted, inaccessible, infrastructure-less Candlestick Point for a brand-new one in the middle of warm, booming, transit-proximate, developed Santa Clara.

THEN the tune changed.

Now, we have the following gale blowing up in the City by the Bay. Hold on to your toothbrushes.

-- City Attorney Herrera, at Newsom's prodding, is threatening to file a lawsuit preventing the team from using "San Francisco" or "49ers" in their name -- an action which, according to most experts, has a probability level somewhere between "nonexistent" and "impossible".

-- Newsom himself is threatening to refuse to change bus routes and -- get this -- to withhold essential services like game-day police protection -- apparently believing that voters will blame the 49ers for the resulting smashed car windows, muggings, beatings, and shootings when he orders San Francisco's finest to stay away from a stadium and parking lot full of cars located in the highest-crime area in the City.

-- State Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, and Senator Carol Migden, D-San Francisco, are authoring state legislation to ban the team from using either "San Francisco" or "49ers" in their name if they move, plus other laws to prevent municipalities or jurisdictions from raising taxes to pay for infrastructure improvements to attract teams from another locale.

-- Not to be outdone, Representative and Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi, D - San Francisco, and Senator Dianne Feinstein, D - CA, threatened to introduce, Federal legislation to do the same, with DiFi going so far as to put pressure on the NFL through Senate hearings to bring the 49ers to heel.

Why all the hubbub, you ask?

Because the 49ers's move essentially torpedoed local leaders' potential monument to themselves -- San Francisco's bid for the 2016 Olympics.

"Wait," you say......"Couldn't the City just build a stadium itself for the Olympics and redevelop the Bayview-Hunter's Point area with affordable housing? Why do they need the 49ers?"

Because, dear reader, that goes completely against the fundamental principle of San Francisco liberalism; never do yourself what you can use the power of government to force successful private industry to do for you.

Just as in this past year's debate, in which the City, instead of digging into its own pockets and tax revenues to fund health insurance for all its residents, enacted an ordinance of questionable legality to make businesses do it, the point here was to force a private entity with money -- the 49ers -- to redevelop a place they don't own for purposes that have nothing to do with them in a way inconsistent with what they need and on a timetable which leaves them essentially hanging for the next eight or so years.

Can you blame the 49ers for saying, "See ya"?

Honestly, if the San Francisco Politburo could have gotten this worked up over fixing the, oh, decades of complaints that stadium had already garnered, keeping the 49ers wouldn't be a problem. Heck, if they'd managed even half this level of energy, they could have gotten a venue built and the "affordable housing" into which they were going to turn the proposed Olympic Village (on a toxic waste site, no less) regardless of whether the 49ers were there or not.

But that would have required them to spend their own money, thus leaving less for lucrative contracts for their cronies, grants for their corrupt neighborhood associations, and concessions to the unions whose perks-for-votes trading have already put the City about $3 billion in the hole; therefore, we have the current fireworks and screeching show.

So, to the 49ers, I say.....more power to you, and best of luck in Santa Clara.

To everyone else, I just turn the iPod up a little louder.

No, Mr. Bond; I Expect You to Strip!

Despite my usual disdain for modern cinema, lately I've been finding myself more drawn to the new James Bond movie Casino Royale.

It could be due to a curiosity over how this particular film will interpret the "prequel" formula, in which you take a movie franchise that has become ridiculously over-the-top (a la Batman and Superman), strip out the gazillions worth of CGI and talent contracts, keep at least one older and recognized actor (preferably British and raised to the peerage) for stability, and add in an array of young art-film talent to build a story centered on how the protagonists became so screwed up in the first place.

Or it could be that I'm dying to see Daniel Craig take his clothes off.

Update: You knew Chad would find a way to top me. :)

Whither Adulthood

Paul Varnell, writing on the Independent Gay Forum, asks an interesting question: where are the gay adults?

His theory:

There are actually gay adults around in considerable numbers. They run gay businesses, the gay cultural institutions, the gay bars and clubs, the community health and social service organizations. But perhaps they are inconspicuous to young people focused on the bar, party and hook-up scene.

Still, there are millions of gay adult besides those. And indeed, where are they? Perhaps they withdraw from the gay community because they view being gay as largely about drinking, drugs, and fast-food sex. That is a sad misunderstanding. More than anything, gay is about Civic Life. The gay community is an affinity group. It is about interpersonal empathy, friendships, social and political progress and cultural creativity.

Well, if my partner and I are any example, there's a more prosaic reason; we're busy with other things instead. Between work, our respective professional groups, various organizations to which we belong, and attending other events, there are only so many hours left in the day. All the fundraising commitments I've made for this year have been out of personal time, and we've been strained and harried more often than not trying to balance the needs of work and our relationship with community events.

What that points out, though, is the root of the issue; namely, that gays are no longer limited to the gay-only world. As has happened with other groups which were kept together by popular disdain, the increasing acceptance of gays and lesbians outside the traditional borders has, while providing many more opportunities, significantly changed the character of the community left behind. An apt analogy is the "middle class creep" that is quite often identified as a major cause of the problems in the black community; namely, when those who can take advantage of new opportunities elsewhere do so en masse, what remains is like brine -- highly concentrated, less diverse, and progressively more unpalatable.

To an enormous degree, I think it is important that gays continue to push the envelope in terms of public involvement and life outside the gay community. We SHOULD strive to be more involved in our work, our cities, our neighborhoods, our schools, and in other places where our presence among straight people does much to dispel the popular stereotypes of gays as sex-crazed, drug-shooting, leather-wearing circuit boys and undercuts the argument of social extremists who keep trying to portray our lives as threats to Mom, America, and apple pie.

At the same time, however, it is imperative that we bring back this widened perspective to our brethren and proactively work to keep our historic and social communities from collapsing into suspicious, paranoid enclaves. Like the black and ethnic ghettoes, we cannot afford to have the gay community develop mores, culture, and attitudes that actively resist what they see as "outside influence", reject change, and perpetuate destructive behaviors, all out of ignorance or fear. The last thing the universe needs is the homosexual analogue to hip-hop music.

No one in our community should feel constrained by their sexual orientation; you should feel free to live, do, vote, and be what you like, regardless of it. However, we should always keep in mind that those of us who can and do operate outside of the day-to-day gay must share that perspective with those who can't.

The Whited Sepulchre

I find it more than interesting that one of the principals in the Foley matter -- and the newspaper with whom he was working -- have now come out with a pair of stories that.....ahem....take liberties with some key elements of the timeline involved in their actions.

Here's how the Los Angeles Times, who was a media source with which the StopSexPredators blogger, Lane Hudson, was working, characterizes the release of information concerning the Foley emails:

Just after 11 a.m. Sunday, Sept. 24, Hudson put up the Foley e-mails.

"This is absolutely amazing … ," he wrote that morning. "There must be even more out there. E-mail me … and let me know what we should do!!!!"

By that Wednesday, Wonkette, a popular Washington gossip site, had linked to Hudson's blog. On Thursday, ABC News posted an article on its website.

However, as the Radar Online blog has previously pointed out, a link to the StopSexPredators blog was already posted on DailyKos -- twelve minutes after Hudson put up the emails.

Furthermore, as Radar Online also points out, the same online ID who posted the Foley link opened a diary with it on DailyKos six minutes later....but not only that, had written a suggestive post concerning Foley over two weeks earlier.

One wonders why they are so quick to ignore -- or whitewash, depending on how you look at it -- how quickly and repeatedly this information was posted, in what looks like a deliberate fashion, on a blog on which it would generate an inordinate amount of attention -- and which has a history of being a publicity mouthpiece for the Democratic Party.

Furthermore, what I find interesting is that both Hudson and his media sources are ignoring the fact of the other posts he made accusing Congresspersons and making other unreferenced statements, all of which makes him look much less like a concerned citizen and much more like a partisan demagogue. One wonders if their concern is really for the facts....or for spinning their involvement with actions which appear to be less concerned with sex predators and more with flinging mud.

The fact that an HRC staffer was doing this, again, is no great surprise. And, as the Blade article implies, I'm quite sure that the only reason Hudson is no longer employed by HRC had more to do with the negative publicity of keeping him than it did on their actually disagreeing with what he did or the practice of outing for political advantage.

HRC needs to once and for all come clean about this entire issue. Either they support outing, or they don't. If they do, they should publicly admit it, instead of saying one thing to the media and encouraging it behind closed doors. If they don't, let's see some action on their part to stop it.

Research? Who Needs Research?

If you write for a newspaper, it only stands to reason that you would read it, right?

Not necessarily, as Kevin Neff, editor of the Washington Blade, shows us in his gush over the spectacularly-partisan Bill Maher jumping on the outing wagon:

No word on which officials Maher has in mind, but Maher said the stories about the closeted Republicans had already appeared in print. I hope he gives the Blade some credit if he’s been reading our coverage (past and present) of “openly closeted” officials like Mark Foley, Kirk Fordham, Mehlman, Charlie Crist, David Dreier and others.

The term “openly closeted” refers to those who refuse to answer “the question,” as Mehlman has in the past. How many straight people refuse to cop to their sexual orientation?

Interestingly enough, though, Mehlman has -- and in a place where you would expect Neff would see it.

A mere oversight on Neff's part -- or, more likely, an example of not seeing what you don't want to see?

The Republicans Lost......

and amazingly enough, the sun is still shining.

Am I pleased with the results of Tuesday's election here in the US? No.

But am I ready to move on and forward? Yes.

In the final wrapup, it really boils down to this; voters wanted change, and enough Democrats were able to convince them that they represented one. Not too big of a one, but a change nonetheless.

My questions for the crystal ball:

Will Democrats be able to actually carry out the bipartisanship they're claiming -- or will the moonbats once again grab hold of the steering wheel?

Will Republicans realize that this election was not a repudiation of conservativism, but of what happens when conservatives swallow too much Washington water -- or make the mistake of the Dems in 2002 by moving even farther to the extreme?

I guess we'll find out.

Haggard Redux

I think I know now how most public defenders feel. (grin)

To whit, Ted Haggard seems to have cut the knees out from under my argument by supposedly confessing to "sexual immorality" -- which most everyone is interpreting as "sex with men".

Thus, do I think he's guilty? Yup.

Do I think, as I posited before, that the Democrats and the gay left are behind it? Yup.

Do I still think what happened was wrong? Emphatically yes.

Why?

Well, one of the things that's been most entertaining to watch is the feigned "compassion" for Haggard's family and Haggard himself coming from the people who were the first to throw every juicy bit of gossip onto the airwaves and blogwaves -- and justified what looks like an action of vengeance and hate worthy of Haggard himself by saying that he "attacked our families".

To me, that's sort of like a paparazzi photographer coming up to Princes William and Harry, saying "Sorry 'bout your mum"; it also confirms my suspicion that removing Huckleberry Finn from school reading lists was a bad idea.

The thing to keep in mind through all of this is that hypocrisy and misbehavior can be confronted without ever going anywhere near a microphone. It would have been a simple matter for Mike Jones to call and confront Haggard directly; that failing, he could easily have contacted Haggard's wife or Haggard's congregation. Ironically, in doing so, he would have most likely accomplished what he claims to care about -- ending Haggard's destructive behavior towards himself, his family, and his congregation -- with a minimum of harm to all parties involved.

But he didn't.

And why he did it is best explained, I think, by the estimable Mistress Mink, as published in Frontiers, whose column this week sums up the issue at hand:

Scumbags aside, Mink thinks people have the right to come out—or not—in their own time. Forcing their hand doesn’t foster any sense of community. Mink herself knows of a few unofficially gay actors whom her friends have dated, and she’s not about to put that into print. Not her business to. Because people have the right to live their lives as they wish—they even have a right to lie about their relationships. In L.A. the right to be inauthentic seems to be wildly flaunted anyhow.

Mostly Mink wonders why people are so interested in the private lives of strangers. What an enormous distraction this all is from our own lives, and the health and well-being of our community. Every time she sees a photo in the tabloids, Mink wonders what kind of nefarious stalkery was behind it. There are theories Mink entertains about this—we mere serfs use the media and paparazzi to leverage our class hatred of the rich and famous. And especially at the ones who most resemble ourselves.

Truer words are rarely spoken.

Why Gays Will Continue To Be Politically Impotent

On the one hand:

Too often in recent years, the monolithic gay voting bloc herds into the voting booth to cast a ballot for the Democrat. Once in power, most of those Democrats quickly turn their backs on one of the most reliable constituencies that put them in office in the first place.

But on the other:

Unfortunately, a gay vote for the current Republican Party, which has been hijacked by fundamentalist Christians hell-bent on stripping gay citizens of equality, is unconscionable.

Or, in other words, "We care less about your record of screwing us over than we do our stereotypical and prejudicial beliefs about the other party."

Hence, Republicans won't get gay votes regardless of what they do, and Democrats will get gay votes regardless of what they do.

Paccione May Have Done It; The Ted Haggard Case

Bold statement, I know.

But, based on my interpretation of the evidence, that's what I think happened.

First, the overall story, for those of you who missed it; Mike Jones, a male prostitute in Denver, Colorado, accused Reverend Ted Haggard, pastor of New Life Church in Colorado Springs and president of the National Association of Evangelicals, of having a three-year affair with him and purchasing/using methamphetamines from him. Haggard, while admitting that he did purchase methamphetamines from Jones, insists that he did not use them and that he only contacted Jones for a massage.

Towards my postulate, here's the evidence in order.

Item 1: the male prostitute in question flunked the lie detector test which he insisted on having.

Item 2: the male prostitute in question is in significant financial trouble and, despite insisting that he has given up both selling drugs and himself, was advertising his wares in a November 1 magazine issue.

Those two items establish both that the source is, at best, questionable, and that there is significant financial and legal incentive for him to cooperate with any proffered golden keys or incentives.

Item 3: the political situation. Allegations against Haggard would primarily affect the evangelical vote, especially in Colorado. That could affect two major points -- one, the amendments to ban gay marriage and enact a domestic partner registry that are on the ballot, and the hotly-contested race between Marilyn Musgrave and Democratic challenger Angie Paccione.

As it turns out, this race is a cause celebre for the gay leftist community, mainly because of Musgrave's sponsorship and authorship of the Federal Marriage Amendment and Marriage Protection Act. Blogs such as John Aravosis's Americablog (look under the "banned" on the sidebar blogrolls) have not only taken it upon themselves to raise thousands of dollars for Paccione, but have offered their political support and assistance of the gay community to her.

Interestingly enough, Americablog has strong ties to the blog Blogactive and its proprietor, Mike Rogers, who is expert in the practice of making false accusations and bringing forth "anonymous" sources about peoples' sexual orientation, and who regularly solicits information in order to blackmail and harm conservative and religious (not Democrat) individuals. Indeed, John Aravosis has regularly praised Rogers and supported his efforts, including his recent attempts to claim (via "anonymous sources") that Senator Larry Craig is a criminal who has sex with men in public restrooms.

Given the links to both the Paccione campaign and Rogers, one need only put two and two together. While I have no direct evidence that Paccione was involved, the connections between her and these bloggers, as well as the similarity of the tactics used to those previously employed by Rogers and Aravosis, is quite a compelling argument that she may have been.

Perhaps Paccione should clarify her relationship with these bloggers, issue a public statement that she would not engage in such tactics, and, as a show of her good faith, return any donations that said sites have collected and repudiate their actions in supporting outing and vicious mischaracterizations of her opponent.

After all, it's what she would demand Musgrave do.

Requiem for Halloween

In case you haven't heard, at last night's Halloween festivities in the Castro -- San Francisco's world-famous gay neighborhood -- the worst happened.

Note I said "worst"......not "unthinkable".

Ever since 2002, when four people were stabbed and the police responding were bombarded with bottles, anyone with half a brain cell in their head could have seen this coming (and several did). While the city has laudably stepped up enforcement and taken measures to prevent violence, over six hundred law enforcement officers, searches, confiscation of even costume parts that could be used as a weapon, and denying drunks entry didn't keep ten people from getting shot.

So what's the problem?

Well, for the first, take a look at this photo of the event; particularly, count the number of people you see in costume.

Not many. And that's the issue -- more people are coming for reasons other than to show off their costumes and enjoy Halloween. It's not necessarily a bad thing when it's just a few straight and other people who come out to enjoy the costumes and share in the spirit; however, what is becoming obvious is that it's rapidly become an excuse for a lot of people to get together, get drunk, and with their inhibitions lowered, start gangbanging. Worse, it's rapidly spilling over into the Saturday night informal celebrations that most gays have started frequenting instead -- as was made abundantly clear when about eight street toughs taunted my husband and I with calls of "faggot, faggot", said they would "kick our ass", and followed us for a block, flinging epithets.

Thirty-two years in the buckles of the Bible Belt, and I had to come to San Francisco to get gaybashed.

The second issue, though, is the fruitcake ideology that so many in the City push which makes its way into our governance system -- and, while it ostensibly seeks to reduce crime, actually encourages it.

For instance, the Halloween celebration has become a major, if not the main issue, in the race for the office of city supervisor, District 8, which represents the Castro. Current Supervisor Bevan Dufty has repeatedly pushed for heightened security, tightened venues, increased police presence, and measures taken to limit the amount of time people spend out in the street; he has also recommended that the event be moved out of the Castro, which is a mixed residential and light retail district, to Union Square or the Embarcadero, both of which are primarily commercial and used for large events.

His primary competitor, Alix Rosenthal, whose platform consists primarily of accusing Dufty of being too conservative, had this to say:

Tuesday's event will mark the one-week countdown to election day, and the issue of Halloween in the Castro has become a central issue in Dufty's re-election campaign. His main challenger, Alix Rosenthal, has said Dufty is slowly draining the fun out of the neighborhood.........

She said shutting the event down at 10:30 p.m. -- the time many partyers are arriving at the event -- will only anger people and encourage them to hang out in surrounding areas and perhaps cause trouble. Having just one entertainment stage will further compound the problem, she said.

"When people get bored is when they start gay bashing or committing acts of property damage," she said, noting that a parade or some other form of entertainment would keep people happily distracted.

With all due respect, distraction is something you do to toddlers. It stretches the bounds of credibility to believe that the reason teenagers and adults are committing acts of violence at these events are because they're not being entertained every second -- especially given San Francisco's history of assaults and homicides at events, parks, and community centers. Furthermore, San Francisco is a veritable embarras de richesse of nightlife, bars, clubs, theaters, porn shops, arcades, and options for people with nothing to do; why should taxpayers be required to shell out for more in order to prevent flying bullets or arson?

But that's the "progressive" mentality; it's not the fault of the perpetrators of violence, nor should they be punished. It wasn't the fault of those kids that they were gaybashing and threatening my husband and me; they were bored. It wasn't the fault of the thief that kicked down the door and broke into my husband's nephew's apartment last night and stole his wife's heirloom necklace; it was their fault for having nice things in a not-so-nice neighborhood. Everything will be peachy-keen if we just keep pumping more money into the supervisors' re-election slush funds community grant programs and put more restrictions on the police and things like security cameras to foster "good relationships" and "protect privacy".

And they wonder why more and more San Franciscans are starting to ironically refer to the City, channeling the late Herb Caen, as "Baghdad by the Bay".

But one thing's for certain; "Baghdad's" Halloween celebration is no longer welcome in our neighborhood.