The Enemy of My Enemy Is a Pain In the A....

As much as I quote from them, I am tempted to rename this blog "Malcontent West Coast".

At any rate, Robbie, secure in his Midwestern fortress of Chicago, has been tracking of late the ongoing meltdown of the Illinois State antidiscrimination panel.

This problem was touched off by the refusal by one of its members, Sister Claudette Marie Muhammad, to condemn or distance herself from lovely remarks made by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan:


These false Jews promote the filth of Hollywood that is seeding the American people and the people of the world and bringing you down in moral strength. … It’s the wicked Jews, false Jews that make it a crime for you to preach the word of God, then they call you homophobic.


Given that he included gays and lesbians in the definition of "filth", then threw in anti-Semitism as a nice topper, one would think the reaction from gay groups would have been swift and violent. Instead, the controversy has continued to seethe, pushed along by the further finger-in-eye behavior of the protagonists, who are apparently quite sure in the knowledge that Illinois Democratic governor Rod Blagojevich, who appointed Sister Muhammad to the position, needs their votes more than he does Jews or gays, and are equally certain of the knee-jerk "racist" support that black Illinois legislators are giving them.


Meanwhile, the sound from the gay-rights groups?


Of course, given that Blagojevich is a Democrat, HRC, NLGTF, and even Equality Illinois would not be inclined to raise a peep over this in the first place; the Democratic Party pays their bills and sends them cocktail-party invitations, and it would not be amused over a controversy that could a) cause political problems for an unpopular Democratic governor, b) antagonize the Democrats' most reliable voting bloc, and c) put the Democrats' new media face Barack Obama in an even more-embarrassing position. Matt Foreman, Joe Solmonese, and the bevy of Democratic leeches lobbyists that make up their boards know full well their continued plush existence is conditional upon their obesiance and obedience, and they act accordingly.

However, the one that is really amusing is GLAAD. You'd think that an organzation calling itself the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation might have something to say about someone calling gays and lesbians "filthy", especially someone with Farrakhan's long and storied history of doing so, but it seems that they're just too busy crying over Brokeback Mountain not winning Best Picture to mention it.

Then again, it was the "Hollywood Jews" that Farrakhan was bashing who didn't vote in sufficient quantity for Brokeback, and it was that Jewish critic Gene Shalit who called their beloved Jack a "sexual predator", and......

Today's Philosophical Bon-Bon

Ponder the following bit of mental gymnastics, provided courtesy of the Democratic Party this past week:

It is wrong to wiretap phone calls or other forms of electronic communication made from Dubai and the United Arab Emirates to the United States or other countries because it is unreasonable to assume that, because a person or business is based in the UAE, that they support and/or have links to terrorism.

However, it is wrong for a person or business based in the UAE to manage ports secured by the US military because it is reasonable to assume that, because they are based in the UAE, they support and/or have links to terrorism.

Creating a Scene vs. Creating Change

Via Boi From Troy, I'd like to bring forward today's nominee for the Wasted Effort award: the anonymous gay activists who littered downtown Boise, Idaho, with approximately 150 "Heterosexuals Only" stickers, in protest of the Idaho Legislature's passage of an amendment, to be submitted to voters in November, banning same-sex marriage in Idaho.


The group says it used the "Heterosexuals Only" stickers to symbolize "Whites Only" and "Colored Only" stickers from past discrimination in the history of the American civil rights movement.

"In the struggle for human rights, an iconic image of that struggle has been signs that exclude classes of people," an activist said. "You know, 'Whites Only' on drinking fountains, or blacks to the back of the bus."


Two problems with that, kids:

-- Equating not being able to get married with being barred from homes, jobs, and public areas, as blacks actually were, requires a lack of proportion on a par with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

-- Screaming "discrimination" usually works better when people OTHER than you are the ones putting up the signs and barring you from park benches and fountains.


You had a choice between taking the issue to Idaho voters and making a coherent argument.....or carrying out a publicity stunt, littering public property, that has little to no relevance to the situation and is insulting to blacks who actually DID suffer through segregation.

Why is it always a foregone conclusion that they choose the latter?

I'm Not Gay...Or Am I?

One of the interesting things about being a gay conservative type in cyberspace who blogs under a pseudonym is how apparently malleable and changeable my sexual orientation is.

Just in the past week alone, I've discovered that the following activities, according to other commentors, indelibly purge you of any impulse of homosexualism, damning you forever to the ninth circle of non-fabulousity:


-- Voting for Bush

-- Leaning conservative and/or Republican

-- Criticizing Lawrence v. Texas as a poor decision

-- Arguing against abortion

-- Defending Christianity

-- Agreeing with Dr. James Dobson on one or two points

-- Not particularly caring whether Brokeback won one, three, or eight Oscars (this being a particularly heinous crime)


By any definition, then, I should be on my first wife, second minivan, and third kid. Instead, I'm missing the 7:48 AM Bay Point Flyer because of the 6:46 Sodomy Express. What gives?

Well, to most of our so-called "gay activists", being homosexual is not a matter of being attracted to your same gender; instead, it's a matter of genetics determining your political affiliation, religious beliefs, taste in movies, fashion sense, and ideology. Break the rule, and you lose your gayhood. It's just that simple.

Were this just a matter of internecine fighting and insults, it wouldn't be that big of a deal. However, the reason why it is a problem is outlined in another provocative post by Robbie (indeed, does he ever write any other kind?) over on The Malcontent, where the Chicago Chaucer details in stunning prose how the addictive association of homosexuality to unrelated political causes not only causes gay groups to get too close to the lunatic edge, but go running off it screaming with arms flailing at every opportunity, much to the detriment of the advancement of gay rights as a whole.

I particularly like the comment from Aatom of Aatom Bomb about the issue and solution:

Which is why it is critical to whittle down our agenda to the most efficient gay friendly platform possible, if we are to maintain any relevence in the political process. marriage, adoption, overturning anti-gay legislation, providing safety nets for the AIDS community. these are things that we should be united in fighting for. If you don't believe in gay marriage, fine, but please don't stand in the way of those of us who wish to have the right. But we can certainly weed out unnecessary dead political weight by avoiding hotbutton issues like abortion and foreign policy for god's sake. a simple recognition from our "own" that we all don't speak with one monolithic voice on every political issue would prove to me that our advocates in the non-profit community recognize the true diversity of our community, instead of simply giving lip service to a diversity that suits their purposes alone.


Truer words were never spoken.

Newsy Bits

-- As much as I oppose violence, there are certain things that fall close to justifiable attempted homicide -- and this is one of them.


-- People support Proposition 82, California's initiative to provide universal free preschool, by nearly a two to one margin -- unless they actually know something about it.


-- Listen as the Bay Area, the baseball-watching public, and quite possibly Buddhist monks on mountaintops in Tibet let out a collective, "DUHHHHHH!".

And wonder what Bonds, as part of his comeback, may be packing this season.


-- "Inadvertently posted", my foot. I've dropped my calling card in front of too many good-looking men to fall for THAT one.

It's My Party, And I'll Cry If I Want To (Even Though It Makes No Sense)

This sort of thing is why I worry about the gay community.

The frenzy among gays over Brokeback Mountain reminded me of the last time I saw people freak this much over a movie and the Oscars.

In that case folks organized entire gatherings and get-togethers around the movie, many of them seeing it multiple times. They insisted others go with them to see it, insinuating that, if you didn't, you were somehow prejudiced. If others criticized the movie, to say they didn't take it well would be a gross understatement; the critical person would receive numerous messages, letters, and calls from outraged supporters. Almost a cult grew up around the movie, with numerous individuals saying it "changed their lives" or made them feel "accepted and loved".


However, in the end, this mad activity didn't make a bit of difference.


Why?

Well, as it turned out, these people were using the movie as a means of pushing and validating their unpopular worldview, and, if you will, converting the heathen masses to their way of thinking. When they didn't get the desired result, they lashed out, insisting said movie was the best of the year and that the Oscars "discriminated" and were "against them".


The movie? The Passion of the Christ.


Once again, it amazes me how "religious" activists and "gay" activists can act so similarly -- and without a trace of irony in mimicking the actions they despise and mock in the other.

UPDATE: if you want a morning's laugh, take a trip over to Towleroad and read through the comments. Be careful not to be trampled in the rush to victimhood.

No Free Lunch

Best news of the morning:

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that colleges that accept federal money must allow military recruiters on campus, despite university objections to the Pentagon’s policy on gays.

Justices rejected a free-speech challenge from law school professors who claimed they should not be forced to associate with military recruiters or promote their campus appearances as now required by federal law.

And my favorite part:

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the decision, which was unanimous.


In other words, no one but the moonbat left native to college and university campuses thinks that they should be able to dine freely at the Federal trough but pick and choose which rules they want to follow.


DADT is a lousy policy. But the last thing gays need is for people who are also demanding a "million Mogadishus" for US troops to pretend that they care about gay rights in any way; they simply hate the military, and we're a convenient smokescreen.

One Question I Never Thought I'd Ask

For the love of humanity, put down whatever beverage you are drinking.

Then, and only then, read this.

Salient point (emphasis mine):

Bostic had filled a fake penis with his urine that Creighton, a friend, planned to use to pass a drug test she was taking to get a job, Police Chief Joseph Pero said.

Creighton asked a store clerk to microwave the device so the urine inside would be body-temperature and fool those giving the drug test, Pero said.


Assuming, of course, that no one noticed that the applicant was now endowed both down below AND up above.


Now, the question.

Who was dumber.....the woman using the fake penis to pass a drug test, or the store clerk who stuck it in the microwave for her?

Get Out The Tiny Violin

And start playing:

Former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham was sentenced Friday to eight years and four months in federal prison for collecting $2.4 million in homes, yachts, antique furnishings and other bribes on a scale unparalleled in the history of Congress....

Federal prosecutors sought the maximum and his attorneys asked for mercy....

Cunningham's attorneys asked for six years for the former Navy "Top Gun" flight instructor and Vietnam War flying ace. Given Cunningham's age and history of prostate cancer, a 10-year sentence "would likely be a death sentence," Cunningham's lawyers wrote in a sentencing memorandum.

"His own misconduct has already left him penniless, homeless, estranged from those he loves and disgraced in the eyes of his countrymen," they wrote.


Good. You can add "and imprisoned" to that, and he still hasn't come CLOSE to covering what his actions did to our system of government.

It Depends On What You Ask

An interesting thing, marriage.

One the one hand, we are told that not having it causes health and psychological problems.


However, on the other, we are told that having it causes myriad health and psychological problems.

Albany resident Renita Pitts, who has five kids and was married for close to 20 years, told us that having a husband can often feel like "having another child — another grown child. At least the little ones mind."

Pitts says that, except for a few years when she was working, she and her ex-husband spent most of their marriage on welfare and using drugs. On occasion, he also beat her.

"The minute my husband left, I was able to get off drugs," she said. "My whole life just opened up. I started going to school full time; I became a citizen in my community. It seemed like my life improved financially, emotionally, and physically."


The problem? The same people who are saying the one are also saying the other.


It reminds me of this sardonic nugget of humor about the message parents often send their kids; "Sex is filthy and disgusting, so you ought to save it for the person you'll marry."

A Primer On Bayside Politics

For those new to San Francisco, the city's political operation can be, to say the least, confusing.

It can be easily sorted out, though, based on the application of these two simple rules:

1) Make decisions based on who will respond, not who or what will benefit.

2) There is no group that cannot be bought with a meaningless and empty gesture.


For example:

Falun Gong members are raising protest and lawsuits against their exclusion from the San Francisco Chinese New Year parade last year.

To counter this, Supervisor Chris Daly introduced a resolution to the Board of Supervisors in support of Falun Gong.

However, this outraged San Francisco gays, who consider Falun Gong to be a homophobic cult.

The solution? Introduce a resolution calling for Bush's impeachment shortly thereafter (which passed yesterday).

See? Piss off one group with one meaningless gesture, throw them a bone the week later.


Now, for your homework problem:

You are Gavin Newsom, mayor of San Francisco, a city in which glbts, according to estimates, comprise nearly 25% of the population and wield enormous political and economic power. You have been cavorting of late with gorgeous actress Sofia Milos of CSI: Miami.

However, Milos, besides being beautiful, is also an avowed and confirmed Scientologist -- that is, a follower of a religion whose founder clearly states that homosexuality is a form of sexual deviance and that society will not survive unless gays are removed from it. In addition, you have accompanied her to public events that are specifically meant to promote Scientology's viewpoint.

Do you:

A) State publicly that Milos's beliefs and your romance have no relevance to your job?

B) Dump Milos, plead for public forgiveness, and demand that the city spend $20 million or so to build a statue of a giant penis and vagina for the intersection of Castro and Market?

C) Use the fact that a few thousand worthless marriage licenses purchased you the right to commit anything short of (and possibly including) mass murder in San Francisco without outrage from the gay community?

Feel free to add additional answers in comment.

Hat tips to V the K and Rick Ross!

It's Official; Bill And Hillary Are In Bed, But Not With Each Other

How else do you explain this latest nugget concerning the Dubai ports deal?

And I particularly like the potential for tit-for-tat. One wonders if one of the underlying motives of the Dems in this case is to make the Arab oil-producing states mad enough that, not only will they pull investment and block US companies, they will take steps to drive up the price of petroleum, thus capsizing the US economy and creating the "recession" that they've been insisting exists throughout the past few years of continually-improving economic signs.

To quote Big Daddy from "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof", this has one "powerful odor of mendacity".

Hat tip to SonicFrog!

Dooby Dooby Dubai

It seems that the Democrats are in a fine lather this morning over the pending deal for a company based in and owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates to operate US ports that have previously been operated by a British company. Robbie over at The Malcontent offers his take on the situation.

I have one myself.

Apparently, these Democrats believe that, despite the US military providing security and oversight, this company is just a front for the UAE government to steal US high technology and knowledge and give it to terrorists for use in attacking US interests.

Of course, these are the same people who raised not a finger or word of protest when they sold the UAE government F-16s, including giving them access to our defense contractors and THEIR knowledge.

Explain that to me.

Let Him Speak

Over at GayPatriot, occasional contributor Average Gay Joe steps into the nasty swamp and takes a stand against bills restricting protests at funerals, specifically in response to the antics of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist "Church".

He's right.

Philosophically, this is not an issue on which we can bend one inch, even though it puts us in the invidious and awful position of defending one of the world's worst homophobes, one of the most disgustingly-behaved individuals on the planet. We can never forget that the fundamental issue of gay rights is the fact that, though a person's behavior may be considered offensive by others, that in and of itself does not justify denying that person's rights.

Pragmatically, people have been able to write Phelps off for far too long as someone who's just a bit overzealous concerning gays. They need to see once and for all that Phelps is an equal-opportunity hatemonger and that he will be just as vicious towards them for not persecuting the homos as he is towards us.

In short, let Phelps protest -- because it shows him as the evil he is and gays as the evil we aren't.

Brokeback Humor and the Humorless

With a hat tip to frequent contributor V the K over at GayPatriot, two things about this story concerning Brokeback Mountain jokes:

-- I want a job counting Jay Leno's jokes.

-- Matt Foreman and the rest of the gay left are intent on turning Brokeback into the homo Passion of the Christ, apparently with the same goal of converting the infidels and controlling the faithful.


I'm afraid the second is far more likely than the first, although I expect the gay fundamentalists will have the same degree of success as the Christian ones did.

Thinking Way, WAY, Way Outside the Box

Robbie's aforementioned post over on The Malcontent, which talks about the courage and tenacity of the head of the Empire State Pride Agenda, Alan Van Capelle, in telling Hillary Clinton to go do naughty things to herself rather than letting his organization shovel her money, has triggered a slew of excellent comments.

One of the best, however, comes from commentor WFoster:


Idle thought: Mother Theresa spoke to US politicians once about abortion, saying something like “Unwanted babies!? If you don't want them, give them to me!”

So along those lines, what about starting a little pro-life gay organization that stands outside pre-natal abattoirs and encourages those entering to stick with the pregnancy and let gay couples adopt the little unwanteds? Maybe offering to pay for the woman’s healthcare, etc.


Now that, my friends, is brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. And, minus the "standing outside pre-natal abattoirs" part, a most worthwhile endeavor.

Why? Three reasons.


First off, doing so would show the universe that a) there is diversity of opinion in the gay-rights universe and b) that there are gays that don't believe abortion is an acceptable solution.

As regular readers of this blog are aware, I have come down, both humorously and not so humorously, on queers who insist on mixing abortion with gay rights. While my individual beliefs on the issue do play a big role in this condemnation, the argument is considerably strengthened by the fact that the enormous majority of Americans favor parental notifications and limits on abortion.

As long as groups like HRC and NGLTF are demanding unlimited abortion and the removal of parental notifications and calling it "gay rights", the gay community will continue to lose. These groups -- or, more specifically, the leaders and lobbyists who make up the executive boards of these groups -- are far too beholden to and dependent on abortionist money to change. However, their impact can be significantly blunted if other groups are willing to step forward and be vocal.


Second off, creating a group to promote adoption by gay couples as a means of preventing abortions would make immediately obvious the agenda of the right-wing organizations. Imagine the disaster of them having to publicly say that they would rather children be aborted than adopted by gays. At worst, they would have to drastically step up their efforts to get the kids adopted themselves -- and then we can applaud them for their following through on what they preach. Talk about heaping hot coals upon their heads. (grin)


Finally, since, as The Malcontent himself points out, gay adoption is the new obsession of the radical right. From a PR standpoint, people are primed to talk about the issue; a group that was willing to step forward, especially with a position so completely different from "gay standard", would receive an enormous amount of coverage.


Any takers?

Ah, Sweet, Sweet Sanity

Many thanks to Robbie of The Malcontent for a pleasant little nugget of news to start my day.

To Mr. Van Capelle, a hearty note of congratulations; you, sir, are an excellent sign that there is still life and sense in the "gay community" and that we have not yet completely become a money-laundering front for the Democratic Party.

However, I completely understand why you weren't available for comment for the article; on an academic note, how many hate mail pieces and phone calls have you received, or did the meter shut off once it got over a hundred?

Talk About Really Desperate....

does anyone else think this sounds like bad movie dialogue?

As I opined previously, Osama and al-Qaeda may be many things, but I don't think "getting stronger" qualifies as one of them.

One Tempest, One Teapot

Thanks to Mal of The Malcontent, I was informed of the latest kerfuffle over government websites.

While Mal does make a good point about how this looks like scrubbing information, I will reproduce what I think are the salient points from the Family Research Council's letter on the issue.


We've reported to you on the homosexual website at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). When some of you wrote to HHS to criticize this misuse of taxpayer dollars, you received anonymous, abusive, and even threatening responses. I protested this vigorously in a letter to HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt. Recently, I received a call from Rick Campanelli, legal counsel to Leavitt. He acknowledged that the website had been taken down and that the unidentified contractor employee responsible for the abusive replies had been fired. That's fine--as far as that goes. But Mr. Campanelli did not explain how HHS became involved in promoting the unhealthy homosexual lifestyle in the first place. We had pointed out the medical inaccuracies that were promoted by the website. Nor did Mr. Campanelli explain to me how HHS could allow a contractor to speak for the largest federal department on such a vital matter. To be fair, many of the replies received to your expressions of concern were civil and respectful--if noncommittal.


Fair question. The FRC may be bigots, but they're still voters and taxpayers, and they have the right to request that information and that it be communicated to them in a respectful fashion. It is absolutely not acceptable for a Federal contractor to reply in the fashion that they apparently did. Before any information is restored to that website, an answer better than "we fired the offending employee" is necessary.

Why? Because the FRC wouldn't do it for us, and we are better than they are. The only way to expose them as the asses they are is in comparison to us.

What Home Means to Me

It's a cold night in Albuquerque.

The lights aren't the greatest in this room and someone was a little heavy-handed with the disinfectant, but at least the connection is good.

The NDT Mascot is looking for a soft spot on the industrial-green rug, wandering around with the dazed look of someone who thought he was just taking a ride to the park, not a ten-hour two-state trek crammed into the back seat of a Mazda.

Finally, he just gives up and hoists himself onto the saggy king, searching in vain for the extra pillows he normally has to use, then tipping over with his head on paws and letting out an aggrieved sigh.

He's said it that way countless times before, back from our days on the rodeo circuit, our itinerant-consultant times, our "if it's Tuesday, it must be Texarkana" weeks; "Dad, what the hell are we doing here?"

He knows better than to expect an answer.

He didn't get one when we first headed south, my life stuffed first into a U-Haul and then into a 300-square-foot horse barn apartment, searching for what I thought would be my future.

He didn't get one when bare months later, we traded rural solitude for urban rush, twenty acres for twenty square feet of grass in Oak Lawn, my attempt to come to grips with what I had finally admitted to myself that I really was.

He didn't get one when I chased a dream of a white picket fence and Honda Accord with someone who I wasn't smart enough to realize couldn't and wouldn't do that out to the north 'burbs, or when I thought I could get stability with three bedrooms, one living area, tile floors, and a hot tub. And he certainly hasn't had one in the past few months in someone else's house, Dad packing and disappearing with alarming regularity, coming back with a lot of luggage tags reading "SFO".

In all these times, he's seen wonderful things -- the laughing and joking with good friends, the thrill of biscuits with a big sale or bonus celebration, even the intimate moments on the sofa, the floor, or in bed in which two hearts touch and join as one, his dad and his dad's latest lost in pleasure both physical and psychic. But never have these things been there to stay; they dwindle and shrink, finally vanishing, ghosts in the rearview mirror.

I look at him, my friend, my steadfast companion, his trusting eyes staring back at me. There's so much waiting ahead for him to discover, I think -- the thrill of every nook and cranny in a new residence, the nearby park with canid friends-to-be aplenty, a new avian "stepsister" and "stepbrother", a happy dad coming home with GOOD stories about his job.....and, most of all, TWO parents, both head-over-heels in love and committed to building a life together. Solidity and substance, passion and power, acceptance and love, home life and career, location and history -- his dad's dreams have come true, and in a way not only unexpected, but far beyond what his dad ever dared to imagine.

How can I tell him how wonderful it is? How can I explain what I'm feeling? How can I put into words something that is so incredible, so magnificent, that I STILL pinch myself that it's happening?

But it all comes out in one phrase:

"We're going HOME, pup."


Note: This essay was written as a submission for the Homomojo Gay Blogger Writing Contest. If you enjoyed it, please follow the link and review the other submissions, then vote for your favorites.

And while you're there, check out the Homomojo main site!