Sunday, December 31, 2006

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

Saturday, December 30, 2006

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.

Friday, December 29, 2006

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

Thursday, December 28, 2006

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)

Tuesday, December 26, 2006

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.......

Monday, December 25, 2006

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)

Monday, December 18, 2006

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.

Saturday, December 16, 2006

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.

Friday, December 15, 2006

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.

Monday, December 11, 2006

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?

Thursday, December 07, 2006

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.

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

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)


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.

Friday, December 01, 2006

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.