What In the HELL?

As most people know, this blog is no fan of so-called "gay activist" Mike Rogers.

From reading through other blogs and musings, one would get the idea that several other people feel that way as well -- like Michael at GayOrbit.

You spend your life terrorizing and intimidating people into doing what you want, and you wonder why someone calls you a terrorist?

Mike Rogers is a petty man, and I am glad to see how much he is being called out by some of the larger blogs for this act of complete immaturity.

Or Matt at The Malcontent.

Fair-minded individuals such as me are still waiting for him to quit shilling for anti-gay Democrats. Then perhaps we will look harder for any shred of redeeming value in his "outings." (He's probably more afraid of the fact that Berkowitz and the GOP are making inroads among Jewish Americans, which would explain why a rabid partisan would "expose" a gay Republican for the flimsiest of reasons.)

Until then, his website, which regularly toadies for the Dems and deletes many non-sycophantic comments, should be rechristened as "Blog Redactive."

Or Robbie at The Malcontent.

Enforced racial, sexual, or gendered loyalty to one political party is a form of ideological slavery. People like Mike Rogers are the bounty hunters intended to use whips of gossip and privacy invasion to lash those errant thinkers back onto the plantation of partisan Democratic thought. Do not wander too far, lest you get the beating that is coming to you courtesy of Overseer Mike.

Or Chris Crain of Citizen Crain.

But it is not the role of the media, and should not be the role of the media — or activists, bloggers, or activists masquerading as journalists — to dig into the private sex lives of others, no matter how much the policies they advocate impact the sex lives of gay people. To quote some apt clichés, two wrongs do not make a right and the end does not justify the means.

Or Boi from Troy.

I have no empirical knowledge of what is a fact in this matter… In addition, Rogers attributes comments made in this post to me, specifically about what may or may not be known “in his District”…if that is what he calls “evidence” then Ed Schrock is owed an apology. I only know what people say…and do not appreciate Mike’s misrepresentation of this as an “outing”.

Well, it turns out that appearances are deceiving.

What do BlogActive and PageOneQ, unabashedly liberal sites, have in common with GOP bloggers like BoiFromTroy and The Malcontent? Gay Politics BlogAds, that's what! Realizing that many folks want to reach the politically aware LGBT set, I created the network at BlogAds to do just that.

I am especially proud of this project because I am focusing on recruiting new blogs to BlogAds. And the network is about a lot more than the usual set of bloggers you see listed around the web. While the list of members includes some of the community's best know blogs (Pam's House Blend and Good As You), I am just as excited that new bloggers are with us.

Of course, if you head over to the referenced link, you can see much more than that, including the list of bloggers, the lovely "We Would Like To Invite You" letter, and the order form, with prices listed that show you just how much each blogger is charging (with them receiving 70% of the take) for the ads.

Most importantly, why Rogers is so eager to push this and recruit new blogs is beautifully spelled out on a buried portion of Blogads.

Blogads works by invitation only. You will earn 5% of the ad revenue sold by bloggers you sponsored.

So what it seems we have here are bloggers who affect to loathe and condemn Rogers and his tactics, but seemingly have no problem funding him -- as long as they're making a few bucks in the process. And with prices upwards of $500 per week for ads, that 5% kickback adds up in a hurry -- guaranteeing Rogers a sizeable income while he carries out the kind of attacks and harassments that these bloggers are supposedly against.

It astounds me that Michael Demmons can seemingly go to a Log Cabin gathering while providing income to someone who tries to get Republican gays fired from their jobs. It astonishes me that Boi from Troy can represent gays at conservative gatherings while generating money for someone who accuses conservatives of building concentration camps for gays. It is beyond my comprehension that Matt and Robbie can hold themselves up as examples of right-of-center gays while giving money to someone who thinks gays who don't toe the Democrat party line should be hunted down and harassed. It blows my mind that Chris Crain can be giving Mike Rogers money on one hand while condemning his actions as counterproductive on the other.

And words frankly fail me beyond that.

There Is a Word For This......

"exploitation".

Before their meetings with lawmakers, Lozano gathered the children in a church to practice recounting their stories.

"OK, so why are you here?" Lozano asked Juan.

"Because I'm trying to get my Dad and my Mom papers," the boy answered confidently in English.

"And what are they trying to do to your Mom and Dad?" Lozana prompted.

"They're trying to take them to Mexico," he said, his voice suddenly becoming smaller.

"And what's going to happen to you if that happens?"

"I'm going to be left all alone!" he said, bursting into sobs.

Of course, why is this taking place?

Immigrant advocates, however, are increasingly putting such children at the forefront of their lobbying efforts, convinced that they offer the most compelling argument for granting illegal immigrants opportunities to legalize.

"Once the average American citizen learns the facts, they are not going to want these families to be separated. This is about the family values our country holds most dear," said Emma Lozano, co-founder of Familia Latina Unida in Chicago, one of several groups that have coalesced around the issue across the country.

But the problem is that they don't HAVE to be separated. The children are perfectly free to travel back to their home countries with their parents.

It's just that the parents don't want to go -- so they're having and using children as a propaganda tool to prevent the enforcement of laws they knew they were breaking well before they even got here. Worse, they're telling us lies about how they'll be "separated from their children" when, in fact, it would be only by THEIR choice that their children would be kept here rather than by going back with them.

Why, exactly, should we even be giving this the time of day?

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"

Misguided Ardor

I have to wonder what Michael over at GayOrbit is thinking with this post.

The lengths gay couples will go to protect themselves, and how it’s not enough. Anyone that says signing contracts and entering into other agreements is all we need to do is simply wrong.

The story he links to is about the attempt being made by the heirs of a wealthy family to prevent the lesbian lover of one of them, who was legally adopted by her partner as a means of supposedly protecting the lover, from collecting on trust payouts to be made to all grandchildren -- obviously, another case of a hateful and homophobic family trying to prevent a poor helpless gay partner from receiving their legal due.

Except when you read this part.

Spado and Olive Watson aren't together anymore. They separated in 1992, and while Spado received about $500,000 from Watson, there is nothing in court records to show any arrangement beyond that.

As far as I can tell, the logic here is that, if Olive Watson and her lover would have been allowed to marry, the family wouldn't be going through the legal mess to nullify the claim of a "granddaughter" who is one year older than her "mother", hasn't been in a relationship with her "mother" for fifteen years, and about whom the "mother" apparently forgot to tell her family.

Or put differently, "Marriage will cure stupidity in gays and lesbians."

Cassie For Short

Now I know how Cassandra felt.

For those of you who had better things to read growing up, Cassandra was a princess of Troy, beloved by the god Apollo, who gave her the ability to foretell the future. However, when she chose not to shack up with him -- wise, considering Apollo practiced about as much fidelity as P. Diddy -- he cursed her in a most ironic fashion. Instead of merely taking back his gift, he let her keep it.....but made it so that no one would ever believe anything she said until it was too late.

Evidently he turned her into an iconoclastic gay conservative.

Over the past few days, each wind from the gay blogosphere has brought another clash and revelation of shocking -- SHOCKING! -- information. Chris Crain of Citizen Crain and Matt of The Malcontent have reached the conclusion that Joe Solmonese and HRC are lying to gays and are launching lavender-scented jihad against those who disagree with them. Robbie of the Malcontent has discovered that Arnold Schwarzenegger is being unfairly targeted by gay groups and that these same groups put politics first and gay rights second. Pam Spaulding of Pam's House Blend is preaching the necessity of reaching out to others of different ideologies.

On the one hand, it's great that they've figured it out.

On the other, it's not like they weren't told months, years, (what seems like) decades, and relative eons ago.

During that time, though, there was a slightly-different set of descriptions for these attitudes.

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.

Add to what I believe are your dangerous views your ever-present martyr complex, your link-whoring, your hectoring, self-righteous tone and general obnoxiousness, and it wasn't a hard call.

Or, even more precisely and clearly:

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

And I assure you, those were the nicer ones.

In the grand scheme of the universe, or even in the limited corner of it that is gay issues and activism, I don't suppose these matter too terribly much; after all, I am rather a dust mote when it comes to the more titanic blogging powerhouses. One could easily argue that my lone voice, even if it had been heard, wasn't going to make much difference in terms of keeping gays from doing damaging and stupid things; after all, in our community, never has so much anti-drug and safe-sex advertising costing so much money been ignored by so many.

But it makes it very easy to understand why Cassandra went stark raving mad.

I'll Give You a Hint....

one of the guys in this picture is me. (grin)

Now I Think I See Why......

Senator Barbara "S-S-S-SENATOR Schwarzenegger?" Boxer thought it so necessary to ensure that San Francisco didn't lose any HIV/AIDS funding.

What really pains me is that I know and have worked with guys with the STOP AIDS Foundation -- wonderful, committed fellas who work hard to educate people and put the brakes on the epidemic. They do great stuff, and the workshops that NZBear mentions in his links are not (quite) as vacuous or obscene as they sound.

However, if given the choice between paying to keep babies from being born with AIDS and paying to support four-part erotic writing classes held in a sex club (yes, that is what EROS is), the babies win, hands down.

HIV/AIDS is a defining, and unfortunately enormous, aspect of the gay community. But it's time we realize that other people got sick, too; just because we were one of the first groups at the buffet doesn't mean we're entitled to hoard everything.

And The First One Bites The Dust........

Question, though....was he ever really in?

Carrying Your Own Bucket

There's an interesting discussion going on over at The Malcontent concerning Robbie's take on Arnold Schwarzenegger's actions concerning gay marriage as it pertains to California law -- namely the fact that, as I have previously reported, the existence of voter Proposition 22 blocks it. Since I am banned from commenting over there, I figured I'd talk about it over here.

Robbie's co-blogger Matt makes a provocative, albeit California-bashing, statement:

The Western states in particular — those that came into the Union later — are totally fucked up when it comes to the initiative/referendum process. Our country is based on republicanism. Why even have a legislature if you’re going to allow voters to override it willy-nilly? Legislatures aren’t perfect, but some godawful law has been made by yokel majorities across the country.

The proclivity that we Western folk have towards initiative and referendum comes primarily from one thing; we know what it's like to be ignored by politicians. Even in the United States, frontier areas, such as we once were, quite often were underrepresented and overlooked in state and Federal legislatures, due to the tendency (accidental and not quite accidental) for legislative power and representation to be concentrated in urban and metropolitan areas. Furthermore, one must remember that many of us were once part of Mexico, who was pioneering Bolivarian-style government by dictatorship and/or one-party "elected" legislatures long before Hugo Chavez ever came along.

Initiative and referendum offer a useful solution for both dilemmas. Because they draw on a cross-section of voters, not just artificial groupings by districts, referendums allow those voters who may be sympathetic with underrepresented groups on one issue, but not on others, to voice their opinion without having to throw out their current representative. Furthermore, by virtue of the fact that they bypass and supersede the elected representatives, they provide voters with a useful check and/or prod against an unresponsive or recalcitrant legislature.

Matt then makes another argument:

Further, where exactly does it say that ballot measure trumps legislature, always and everywhere? It really makes a mockery out of representative government, doesn’t it, if the people who are elected to legislate and govern have no say on matters of great import? Again, why not just disband the California legislature and turn that huge state of 30 million people into a government of Vermont-style town meetings.

I’m sorry, but just as there are idiots on the right who decry “judicial activism” (except when it suits them), I’m not going to simply abdicate the role of a legislature. If they fuck up, that’s what elections are for.

Technically, that is true; the voters always have the power to remove representatives with which they disagree in an election.

However, the supremacy of the electorate over their representatives in every respect is established in the first three words of the Federal Constitution. Not "We, the Legislature", or "We, the Judiciary", or "We, the Executive", but "We, the people". This makes it clear that the authority and power of the legislative body flows, not from the legislature itself, but from the peoples' grant of authority to it.

Second, the mere fact that the legislature can be overridden by a vote of the electorate does not mean that the legislature lacks authority; just that it lacks the authority to make decisions that bind the electorate without the electorate's consent. The fact that my boss can override decisions that I make under the authority she has delegated to me does not remove my decision-making power or mean that I have no say on the matter; it merely means that my decisions are binding if and only if my boss agrees or chooses not to contest them. The fact that Matt's decisions concerning his husband's welfare and financial affairs can be overridden by his husband does not mean that Matt does not have decision-making power or mean he has no say on matters; it simply means that Matt's power to make decisions for his husband on his behalf does not trump his husband's ability to make decisions for himself.

Most importantly, to insist that the only way voters can remove or countermand a politician is to wait for an election is to potentially tie voters' hands in the face of corrupt or patently-foolish actions. No one would suggest that voters be unable to impeach or recall elected officials with whom they disagree; thus, it is perfectly logical that voters need not wait for an election to make their will known. It then stands to reason that voters should not be constrained by the all-or-nothing proposition of removing a legislator when they can simply be given the right to countermand or override his or her orders.

All that aside, the main reason we Californians are so fond of the initiative and referendum process can be demonstrated by taking a look at our state elected officials.

Take for example, Cruz Bustamante. He started by winning a "special election" (read, "party picked him") to get into the Assembly, pingponged over to Lieutenant Governor when he was about to term-limit out of the Assembly, ran for Governor against Arnold to replace fellow Democrat Assemblyman/Senator/State Controller/Lieutenant Governor/Governor Gray Davis and lost, and then tried to run for Insurance Commissioner when he termed out of Lieutenant Governor.

Meanwhile, the reason the Insurance Commissioner position was open was because John Garamendi left it to run for Lieutenant Governor to replace Bustamante -- after having served in both the Assembly and Senate, making two unsuccessful runs for Governor, and serving two non-consecutive terms as California Insurance Commissioner, with a cushy job courtesy of the Democrat Party as Deputy Secretary of the Interior along the way.

Thus, an election in California is basically a game of shuffle-the-chairs, with the same candidates moving with relative impunity between Assembly, Senate, state officials, and dogcatchers. Once you are elected to office in California, especially if you are a Democrat, you have a job wherever you want it; the only way you can lose is to do something patently stupid, unequivocally criminal, or in defiance of Democrat special-interest groups.

As a result, we citizens of the Golden State have observed a pattern; bills that matter to miniscule-sized groups of leftist campaign contributors like standards for teaching lesbian history in school, bans on spanking, and outlawing incandescent lightbulbs are rushed through the Assembly as imperative to our survival. Little things like seismic upgrades and repairs to keep the Bay Bridge, Golden Gate Bridge, the San Francisco water supply system, and Transbay Tube from collapsing and killing/stranding millions of people....those are pushed into committee to age for another decade or so.

In short, if we want something done, we have to do it ourselves. And that's why, to an outside observer, we seem referendum-happy; it's the only way state government can be forced to do anything that benefits the state.

Stars and Stripes Forever?

To QuakerJono of Forgotten Beatitudes, thanks......I think.

Now, if opposites attract....what does that make me?

Pre-Club Info Bites

Two interesting bits of blogosphere news for your Friday evening.

-- Matt of The Malcontent, fresh from his recent return to DC and its world of paid Democrat filth bloggers, has apparently decided that, if you can't beat 'em......join 'em.

-- Pam Spaulding of Pam's House Blend, still upset that she was not given the opportunity to remove death threats that her commentors made against anti-gay activist Peter LaBarbera, despite the three-week lag between their posting and their prior being publicized, is now complaining that supporters of LaBarbera have called her employer about the death threats, apparently in an attempt to get her sanctioned or fired -- a tactic which she has repeatedly supported when used by fellow Democrat bloggers like the aforementioned Mike Rogers.

Now, to happy hour!

Maestro, A Little Romantic Music, If You Please....

These Words (I Love You, I Love You), Natasha Bedingfield (recommend the Lenny B Radio Mix)

Perfect song for you to play for your special other on Valentine's Day.

Britney and Me

As my husbear snidely puts it, I am a technological wizard -- as long as someone else buys it.

Seriously. From the Apple II in the corner of the first-grade classroom to the latest PeopleSoft upgrade, I've had a knack with software, hardware, middleware, and sportswear. And I AM the only person in my office not secretly terrified of Microsoft Access. But despite that, until April, I was still running Windows 98 on a seven-year-old laptop; I don't want a forty-two inch HD TV, and I think the Blackberry is a cruel joke perpetuated on humankind by some twisted soul whose outlook puts the Marquis de Sade to shame.

I call it being frugal, doing without, saving for the future. Others use the word "cheap".

At any rate, I got my first iPod at Christmas (yes, I won it, but we won't split hairs), and have been re-acquainting myself with my inner DJ and songs I used to spin and love -- melodies of life, loves, and one too many boilermakers.

There are numbers in the iTunes list where you kinda want to cover the display screen, though, and one of them is Britney Spears -- Stronger. Not exactly what you would be expecting a reasonably-butch cub to be lip-synching to, eh?

Yes, there is a back story. That song came out during the breakup of my very first long-term relationship -- which I had, naively, expected to be "the one". My friends, bless their hearts, had been subtle, nicely pointing out that we were two drastically different personalities, that our core values weren't anywhere close to each other, and that there was a very good possibility that his main interest in me had more to do with my Oaklawn apartment and my bar comps as a means of escaping his ex-wife and child in the 'burbs.

But of course, your dreams and the intoxication of first love outweigh the drab reality, the signs that get louder and louder, more and more insistent..........and before you know it, you're sitting next to a smouldering fireplace with a half-empty bag of Doritos and a box of Puffs, checking the phone for the umpteenth time to see if the ringer is still on and working......worst of all, wallowing in the overwhelming conviction that it is your fault, that you're nothing but a fat ugly geek with pimples and a peon job that no man could ever love. If you'd not been so stupid, if you'd only put out more, if you'd just given in more often, if you'd said nothing when you knew he was out catting around, he'd still be here, his arms around you........maybe if you just called, left another message, apologized again....

Britney was my lifesaver.

But now I'm stronger than yesterday
Now it's nothing but my way
Loneliness ain't killing me no more
Now I'm stronger

Here I go, on my own
I don't need nobody, better off alone
Here I go, on my own now
I don't need nobody, not anybody
Here I go.....

And with that, I learned something, a very valuable lesson that many people never do.....if you are ever to have a good relationship, you have to learn how to be happy without one.

Britney, in the off chance you're reading this...thanks.

And keep that last lesson in mind.

Works Both Ways, You Know

As one might expect, the chattering lefties of the universe are dancing and throwing poo in joy over an alleged zinger by one of Barack Obama's spokespersons in response to criticism from Australian Prime Minister John Howard concerning Obama's anti-war stance.

(Obama spokesperson Robert) Gibbs went on to say that Howard was not in a position to be overly critical.

"If Prime Minister Howard truly believes what he says, perhaps his country should find its way to contribute more than just 1,400 troops so some American troops can come home," he said. "It's easy to talk tough when it's not your country or your troops making the sacrifices."

Really, that is a very true statement.

But one should also take Obama's anti-war stance in the same context; it was easy for him and his fellow leftists to "talk tough" about not removing Saddam and not getting after the corruption-ridden UN who was facilitating his brutality and genocide when it was Iraq and millions of Iraqis making the sacrifices for his "peace".

What makes it really amusing is that he throws public hissy fits about the US needing to militarily intervene in Darfur to stop the genocide there -- which Saddam made look like a bunch of middle-school girls spreading gossip in comparison. But then again, that's typical; the media has publicized Darfur, and covered up for Saddam Hussein.

As the Democrat adage goes, it's not the number of bodies that matter; it's the number of TV cameras.

Only In San Francisco......

can a Holocaust denier attack a Holocaust survivor -- and have it take over a week to make it into the news.

Of course, this is no surprise, given that, while no rally in The City is complete without a torching of Old Glory, desecrating the flags of terror organizations who openly state their goal is Jewish genocide brings swift and overwhelming howls of protests and demands for destruction.

I do love this town. But I quite often wish that we knew why it is so attractive to moonbats.

Hair Today, More Tomorrow

Hard to believe I missed this article.

True Courage.....

is being willing to speak out.

Especially in light of this.

Females between the ages of 16 and 24 are more vulnerable to intimate partner violence than any other age group -- at a rate almost triple the national average, according to a 2001 U.S. Department of Justice report.

About 1 in 3 teenagers reported knowing a friend or peer who had been hit, punched, kicked, slapped, choked or physically hurt by their partner, according to a February 2005 study on teen dating abuse from Teenage Research Unlimited, a national research firm specializing in youth.

Or, more troubling, this.

"No one really believed me," Sarah said. "Even though I had the bruises on my stomach, no one really cared."

Ironic Statement of the Day

as promoted (also ironically) over on Pam's House Blend:

At the meeting, LGBT finance staff and key fundraisers did sit at the Caucus table, as before, but what is different is that lately we seem to be treated solely as an ATM for the party, with our civil rights seeming an afterthought or burden.

Let's see....since the Clinton campaign in 1992 was the first to actively court gays for dollars, but then treat what gay leftists and Democrats argued were "civil rights" as an afterthought or burden, it's only taken, oh, fifteen years or so to realize the fact.

At this rate, we can expect that they might actually consider doing something about it just in time for the midterm elections -- in 2022.

But in the meantime, I offer Donald Hitchcock and his fellow Dems a bit of sage advice; if you don't want to be treated like an ATM, stop spitting out money on command.

Self-Inflicted Inability

Money quote from today's Los Angeles Times concerning the increase of dissident views in Iran (emphasis mine):

"We are not worried about a military attack, and we are completely ready to defend our country. If they want, we can make the Persian Gulf the tomb of the United States of America," said Hamidreza Taraghi, political director of the conservative Islamic Coalition Party.

"But the United States doesn't want to do this because they cannot right now. They are weak," he said. "They don't have enough power to start another war. Lots of American politicians are against starting another war, and everybody knows this."

What a surprise; the Iranians are emboldened by the obvious fact that the party in control of Congress is absolutely opposed to using the military, regardless of the provocation.

Sort of like how brandishing a gun has no effect on a robber who knows it isn't loaded.

Let Your Words Be Sweet As Honey

Such a pity. Really.

And if you want a good answer as to why, note the juxtaposition of a post of one of their co-bloggers defending them -- next to said blogger's attempt to explain why she left material giving someone's home address, instructions for where to situate oneself to shoot them, and a diatribe on why shooting them would be justified up on her blog for nearly an entire month.

Note in particular that she tries to mount a smear job on another blogger for not censoring his comment threads -- right after she insists that she shouldn't be held responsible for what's in hers. More entertainingly, she argues that she can't possibly read all of the comments posted to her site -- despite the fact that she never had any trouble finding mine and using them to ban me.

Of course, in her defense, apparently what made me easy to find were complaints from her frequent contributors; however, you have to wonder why not one of those commentors spoke up when someone was making death threats in her comments section.

And just in case any of you are wondering, censoring of comments is something I am disinclined to do personally; however, that will last only up until the point you start posting peoples' personal information with the clear intent of encouraging them to be harmed.

How Right, How Right They Are......

You Are The Sun

You represent the best of life - vitality, success, and and truth.You tend to have a strong, centered, balanced personality.Inspiration and discovery are your fortes. You are very mentally strong.A talented mind, you tend to excel at math, philosophy, and music. Your fortune: As well as you have done in the past, the future is going to be filled with more success.A new creative project is coming your way. Feed it, and it will grow into something huge.Great riches, recognition, prosperity, or happiness is coming your way.And it's possible that a fantastic vacation, or a new baby, is coming sooner than you think.

What Tarot Card Are You?

Hat tip to Jamie of I Must Be Dreaming, although I didn't dare do as did he and put in my given name. :)

All Hail the Queen

Unfortunately, I was in the South Bay yesterday with a group of bears for the "other event" and missed the main one in San Francisco.....but I was assured that it was wonderful.

And yes, it was that gorgeous of a day.

Better Humor Through Offensiveness

I can already hear the howls of outrage from the usual suspects......but you know, this was pretty damn funny.

UPDATE: Robbie of The Malcontent and GayPatriotWest of GayPatriot share their viewpoints on the commercials, the humor or lack thereof, and the attempts by the array of gay three-year-olds to make themselves relevant.

UP-UPDATE: Another good 'un from Robbie.

Warning -- Put Down All Beverages Before Hyperlinking

Cartoonist Don Asmussen, who draws the feature Bad Reporter ("The LIES behind the TRUTH, and the TRUTH behind those LIES that are behind the TRUTH") for the San Francisco Chronicle , is, to put it mildly, inspired -- if by "inspired" you mean "deliciously sick and twisted".

When the Gavin Newsom scandal broke, I figured Don would have something good to say about it.

But this, THIS........is a masterwork.

One of these days, I must meet this man.

More of That Humongous Problem

Remember that thing I was telling you about enablement?

Here's our latest example -- from commentor "John":

Finally, the way you use your volunteering and fundraising to browbeat critics is really tiresome and calls into question your true motives for doing such work.

Yep, John, you caught me; I devote, as I pointed out previously, an enormous chunk of high-profile and behind-the-scenes time to raising money and providing vital services to the gay community for the sole purpose of being able to browbeat people in the blogosphere with the fact. Just like those vigilant leftie and Democrat gays uncovered Mary Cheney's unholy plot to cripple gaykind permanently by giving money and support to an organization fighting Virginia's state constitutional amendment.

"John" can rest assured, though, that he's in good company; despite occasional stray flashes, the illumination of what I believe and do remains, for the foreseeable future, buried under the overwhelmingly-dark, inky, and pervasive belief that gays of my philosophical, religious, and political persuasion will not be happy until we're all in slimming stripes, behind barbed wire, and merrily scattering ashes just beyond the gate that reads, "KEUSCHEIT MACHT FREI".

Evidently it satisfies something with them. And gradually, I am reaching the point of realization that it's to them what chopped liver is to my husband; something that they've enjoyed for so long, they don't realize how repulsive it is to everyone else.

Facing a Humongous Problem

In response to my post about the charming statement made about me yesterday, commentor "Eric" had this to say:

You act like a doush on those boards, and you've said much worse things. While that doesn't excuse what he said, it's really no suprise that eventually you'd build up a big backlash against you (removed links, name calling, called out on behavor, etc)

Which was followed by this, once I had pointed out that the relationship between leftist vitriol and the behavior of an individual was rather tenuous:

Unfortately, to a large degree your words ring true, but it speaks of both sides. Left and right. Intollerance can be found wherever one cares to look. All I'm saying is, try not to be an agent of it yourself, and lead by example. If it doesn't start with you, who?

Put bluntly, people who worry about me in that respect are wasting their time. Despite the nearly-constant avalanche of "Jewish Nazi" and "self-loathing" I have received ever since I began speaking publicly, never once have I threatened another person with violence or told them to commit suicide. Moreover, I have been more than willing to stand up for people whose views I loathe if I think they're being treated unfairly.

And for my trouble, I am threatened with violence, told to commit suicide, and subjected to a constant barrage of verbal abuse because of my political beliefs -- only to be told by other gays that, if I wasn't so "provocative", I wouldn't have these problems.

One of my good friends is a teacher in a very poor neighborhood in the New York City area -- dedicated, devoted to student success, and continually working to improve himself so that he can be a better educator. And he wants out in the worst possible way, for one simple reason; according to his administrators, everything bad that happens is always his fault. Students flunking, students threatening other people, students threatening him -- no, it has nothing to do with the students, it must be the fault of the teacher. Obviously he provoked them, or didn't interpret their intent correctly, or made things too hard for them, the explanations are legion; in short, even if their behavior was bad, since he obviously contributed to it, he is at fault.

Addiction therapists call it "enablement" -- when one person allows another to persist in bad behavior, even to the point of denying their own thoughts and judgments and projecting blame elsewhere, because they want to avoid short-term conflict. What is universally agreed, though, is that this rewards the bad behavior by lessening or eliminating the consequences -- and, perversely, can actually reinforce them, since the enabler allows the individual to place others at fault for the individual's actions. Hence you have public school teachers being threatened with being shot and gays exhorting other gays to commit suicide; one, because they know there will be no consequences for them, and two, because they know other people who they don't like will be yelled at or punished for "causing them to misbehave".

The annoying thing is that these schoolchildren grew up, became gay, and continued blithely on their way, convinced that there was no behavior so vile or awful that it couldn't be blamed on someone else's provocation.

And as Eric's comment shows.....they're right.

Making a Tiny Difference

As frequent readers know, I take a lot of sh*t from other gays, both metaphorically and literally, because of my viewpoints. What's sad on several levels is that being told I should commit suicide is among the kinder of them; at least if I killed myself (or the blog), I wouldn't have to put up with the constant screams of "Jewish Nazi" and "self-loathing", or the insinuations that I hate gay people and gay peoples' interests.

But there are times when it is actually worthwhile.....and this was one of them.

That's a nice way to start a weekend....and I hope it's a trend.

Thank God That's ALL He Did

I was going to hold off on commenting about this since the rumors over the past few days have smacked of tabloidism, but it's now official; San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has admitted to an affair with a staffer's wife.

Public reaction is mixed, but generally favorable, which I attribute to two things:

1. Newsom cut to the chase, admitted what he had done, and apologized.

2. Our standards for mayoral behavior fall well below merely having an affair.

Today's Expression of Love......

for those like myself who have a regular tendency to disagree with gay dogma.

Try a .357 to your ear canal to clear that out, you'd be doing us all a favor.

The source of ironic amusement from this comes from the fact that I was de-linked from said blogsite a few weeks ago, most probably for being too controversial in my comments; the proprietors never provided an explanation.

Sometimes I fantasize about what I could get away with -- telling people to commit suicide, hoping that mothers have deformed babies and be rendered infertile in the process, for example -- all for changing my voting registration.

UPDATE: It gets better.

This Brings New Meaning to "Massive Mistake"

Normally I would consider firing people to be a severe-enough punishment for work-related screwups.......but not in this case.

Here we're talking the stocks....public flogging....or....I've got it....being locked in a soundproof room 24/7 for a week with an endless replay of Ted Kennedy speeches.

Cause and Effect? Never Heard of It

People often ask how someone like myself manages to survive in San Francisco, especially given the hotbed of lunatics that we have in place of real city government.

The answer; it's endlessly amusing.

Take, for example, the major story from Wednesday.

San Francisco supervisors expressed shock Wednesday over a report that parking meters are pulling in just a fraction of the revenue that might be expected in a city where competition for space to tuck away one's car can be cutthroat.

"There's something seriously wrong here," said Supervisor Jake McGoldrick, who called for the hearing. "We've got to get an analysis. We've got to understand what's going on here. It's beyond credulity."

McGoldrick was responding to a report from Board of Supervisors Budget Analyst Harvey Rose that shows San Francisco's roughly 23,000 meters collect on average between $2.61 and $5.59 a day.

Surprisingly, the lowest collection rates were recorded in the core of downtown San Francisco, where drivers run the gantlet to find a legal parking space and where meters cost as much as $3 an hour.

Of course, one wonders what their answer will be when confronted with this.

San Francisco has about 23,000 coin-fed parking meters, while city residents hold about 90,000 permanent and temporary handicap parking placards, issued by the state Department of Motor Vehicles, allowing them to park for free, said Judson True, spokesman for the city's Municipal Transportation Agency.

That's about four placards for every meter.

And, to put a nice bit of icing on the Supervisors's wacky cake:

More than 450 City Hall aides, police officers and others in San Francisco have had passes for free parking in city-owned garages -- a perk that could add up to more than $1 million a year.

And many of those passes may have been distributed in violation of the city's charter and policies to encourage transit use.

True, it does get annoying on occasion. But if there's one thing that the move to San Francisco has taught me, it's that the universe has an enormous self-correcting mechanism when it comes to nitwits.

Good Job; Let Me Beat You For It

This is, to put it nicely, insane.

But in a Senate Banking Committee hearing examining credit card practices this week, one consumer advocate suggested those who pay their balances in full every month (about half of all cardholders) should pay a small annual fee to credit card companies.

And why is that?

Those who carry balances on which they pay interest and fees are subsidizing cardholders with no revolving balance who may even be in rewards programs, said lawyer Michael Donavan of Philadelphia-based Donavan and Searles. He represents those who have unwittingly fallen into many of the sandtrap fees and penalties embedded in hard-to-understand credit card agreements.

Restoring small annual fees on cards used by "non-revolvers" would bolster revenues for card issuers, who then in turn might not make life so expensive for those with revolving balances.

Therefore, those of us who do what you're supposed to do and use our credit cards responsibly should be forced to pay because doing so might lower costs for those who don't.

Or, in other words, those of us who drive carefully and cautiously should have our premiums raised so that insurance for those who don't will cost less.

Does that make sense to anyone who isn't a Democrat?