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?

Think About It

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why haven't the twain met?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Think First, Act Differently

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk About Your Next-Door Neighbors

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

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

I Do So Laugh

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

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

Naaah.

A Tale of Two Psychologies

There is hope for the gay community yet.

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

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

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

I certainly hope so.

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

Veddy, Veddy Interesting

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

I scored a 25.

Not quite what people expect, I wager.

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

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

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

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

Like I said.....they.

Democrats We Love

Meet Ross Lajeunesse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And to it, I say, "Amen".

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

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

Really, It IS Simpler Than It Looks

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

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

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

Actually, that's not quite the case.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Lovely Little Conundrum

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

Others aren't quite so easygoing.

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

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

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

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

Hat tip: Rhymes With Right

Muslims 1, Uninformed 0

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

The best line is this one:

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

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

Rest in Peace, Dear Friend

In memoriam of occasional commentor and blog-buddy Blewsdawg's sad news about the passing of his companion Snickers, I offer George Graham Vest's moving Eulogy on the Dog.

The best friend a man has in this world may turn against him and become his enemy. His son or daughter that he has reared with loving care may prove ungrateful. Those who are nearest and dearest to us, those whom we trust with our happiness and our good name, may become traitors to their faith. The money that a man has, he may lose. It flies away from him, perhaps when he needs it most.

A man's reputation may be sacrificed in a moment of ill-considered action. The people who are prone to fall on their knees to do us honor when success is with us may be the first to throw the stone of malice when failure settles its clouds upon our heads. The one absolutely unselfish friend that a man can have in this selfish world, the one that never deserts him and the one that never proves ungrateful or treacherous is his dog.

A man's dog stands by him in prosperity and in poverty, in health and in sickness. She will sleep on the cold ground, where the wintry winds blow and the snow drives fiercely, if only she may be near his master's side.

She will kiss the hand that has no food to offer. She will lick the wounds and sores that come in encounters with the roughness of the world. She guards the sleep of her pauper master as if he were a prince. When all other friends desert, she remains. When riches take wings and reputation falls to pieces, she is as constant in her love as the sun in its journey through the heavens.

If fortune drives the master forth an outcast in the world, friendless and homeless, the faithful dog asks no higher privilege than that of accompanying him to guard against danger, to fight against his enemies, and when the last scene of all comes and death takes the master in its embrace and his body is laid away in the cold ground, no matter if all other friends pursue their way, there by his graveside will the noble dog be found, her head between her paws, her eyes sad but open in alert watchfulness, faithful and true even to death.

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

If You Think This Is Funny....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And by the way, I thought it was hilarious.

Hat tip: The Tech Chronicles

Daily Small Ironic Pleasure #2584

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

(Hint: Think Yiddish)

Post-Christmas Bits and Pieces

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

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

Isn't this all just a bit silly?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pax Terra

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With love from me and my family to yours,

Dan (North Dallas Thirty)

Return Fire

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deja Vu, Minus Denzel

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

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

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

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

Different Statement, Different Reaction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Celebrity Is Not Life

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

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

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

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

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

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

And I loved this part:

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

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

Thank You for Pointing Out the Obvious

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

But really......duh.

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

A Tiny Ray of Justice In a Dim and Dark Blogosphere

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

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

Politics by Occam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And Mary Shall Be With Child....

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which was?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I admire that.

Good luck, Heather and Mary.

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

What is it with basketball and whining this week?