Friday, September 30, 2005

Last Constitution Hero

President Bush on signing Campaign Finance Reform legislation:

. . . the bill does have flaws. Certain provisions present serious constitutional concerns. In particular, H.R. 2356 goes farther than I originally proposed by preventing all individuals, not just unions and corporations, from making donations to political parties in connection with Federal elections.

I believe individual freedom to participate in elections should be expanded, not diminished; and when individual freedoms are restricted, questions arise under the First Amendment.

I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising, which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import in the months closest to an election. I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law.

Yet he signed the law anyway, only to see those things upheld in the courts.

Governor Schwarzenegger on vetoing the California gay marriage bill:

California Family Code Section 308.5 was enacted by an initiative statute passed by the voters as Proposition 22 in 2000. Article II, section 10 of the California Constitution prohibits the Legislature from amending this initiative statute without a vote of the people. This bill does not provide for such a vote.

The ultimate issue regarding the constitutionality of section 308.5 and its prohibition against same-sex marriage is currently before the Court of Appeal in San Francisco and will likely be decided by the Supreme Court.

When the head of an executive branch of government believes a piece of legislation is unconstitutional or presents even more constitutional problems to an issue clouded in murk, he does not sign it. That is the responsible course of action.

President Bush abdicated his executive responsibilities and handed this country campaign finance laws that are messier and more corrupt than ever with the advent of 503c groups. He did the easy thing to avoid negative press.

Governor Schwarzenegger has done the responsible thing, political blowback be damned.

Good for him.

h/t: MalContent

Thursday, September 29, 2005

Hungry, Hungry Pinkists

One of the great justifications of outing as a political tactic is the hypocrisy of it all. Having read endless screeds, rants, and denunciations from various left-wing blogs and message boards, I have reached one inescapable conclusion:

There are hordes of people in this world who cannot spell the word hypocrisy.

I just want to get it out there right now: I am firmly against hippocracy. We simply cannot allow our dread hippopotamus overlords determine the course of government. These are filthy river horses that think little white marbles are a form of sustenance for god’s sake.

That said.

Not only are half these gay radicals incapable of spelling the word, they’re also none too bright when it comes to understanding the concept.

If you believe homosexuals deserve protection under federal discrimination laws but vote against it, you are a hypocrite. If you believe homosexuals deserve protection under federal hate crimes law but vote against it, you are a hypocrite. If you are a gay man living in Boston who is married to another man, but you vote against gay marriage for someone else, you are a hypocrite.

Things like race, sexuality, and gender are not ideologies. They are characteristics. Sexual orientations do not take positions (ahem). Homosexuality is not liberal. Nor is it conservative or libertarian. It simply is what it is. Hypocrisy is an act of doing. One must do the opposite of what one preaches against.

Unchangeable characteristics are, by definition, incapable of being implicated in hypocrisy. A gay man may believe hate crimes are thought crimes and thus abhorrent law. A gay libertarian may reasonably believe discrimination law is unconstitutional. There are plenty of homosexuals on the Right and the Left who believe government has no business in marriage, and thus oppose gay marriage.

If a person is having gay sex, to be a hypocrite they must publicly state that people should not have gay sex. Simply having gay sex while being opposed to legislative proposals granting various kinds of status in discrimination, hate crimes, and marriage law is not a form of hypocrisy. By simple definition.

The hypocrisy argument is a tactic used by thought fascists who believe an immutable personal characteristic must dictate – without exception – the ideological and political state of a person’s mind.

So, this is the tolerant, open-minded Left, eh? We are all ideologically and intellectually bound to our genes and ingrained behaviors and must think accordingly, lest we be punished?

I remember this argument. White people used to make it. Against negro slaves.

Gay radicals who claim to be advancing a civil rights discussion in this country must be ever so proud of themselves.

(I promise this is my last post on outing and hypocrisy for awhile)

Andrew Sullivan - The Man With No Shame

Almost one year ago, to the day, Andrew Sullivan wrote an excellent article on the perils and moral vacuity of outing homosexuals as a political weapon. Sullivan has himself been a target of the radical gay Left when his sexual activities were brought into the public sphere under the justification of - you guessed it - hypocrisy. In a piece filled with clarity and a deep understanding of the issue, Sullivan writes, in part:

. . . every moment we spend obsessing about the enemy within is one moment not spent spreading the message without. The thrill of exposure, the momentary feeling of self-righteousness and power that outing brings, may often surpass in excitement the daily grind of changing minds and witnessing to the truth. But only the grind moves us forward. And everything else ultimately takes us back.

Interestingly enough, Sullivan opens with an encounter with Mike Rogers, who he crowns "the new Robespierre of the gay world." As noted at the end of my post directly below this one, Rogers was highly involved in an attempted outing of Rep. David Dreier of California.

Surely, given his personal history with outing and his apparent distaste for Rogers' tactics, one would think Sullivan would condemn this activity and not give it the time of day.

You'd be wrong. Here is the Andrew Sullivan of today:

DREIER PUSHED ASIDE: Any bets that James Dobson and Karl Rove vetoed? Any bets why?

It seems attacking Republicans is a far higher priority for Mr. Sullivan than his principles. Once against the outing tactics of people like Mike Rogers, he now finds them a handy reference guide for grinding his political axe.

Andrew Sullivan - a man with no shame whatsoever.

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

The Politics of Outing

It is a golden rule, universally acknowledged among my gay partners in crime, that the pettiest, cruelest thing one can do is out a closeted homosexual. It's a dictum taken so seriously, that violation threatens immediate excommunication from our circle of friends. It simply isn't done.

Our sexuality is one of the most private aspects of our lives. All of us, gay or straight, are motivated to reveal or withhold details based on a variety of factors that are unique to each individual. Though I am now out in every sense of the word, it took many years to come clean with my parents. My motivation, however, was not fear of disapproval, or being disowned, or shunned, or a hundred other things.

No, I really just didn't want my parents connecting me with any kind of sex in even the vaguest fashion. We're an awkward people, my clan, and sexual discussions are best had after several bottles of strong wine followed by long periods of sober avoidance. These are, after all, the people who threw a yellow book at me when I was 12 with a "Good luck, and godspeed."

People have varying degrees of comfort with their sexuality. I have friends who will eagerly relate their tales of conquest using fruit, napkins, drinks, and other available props in lavish re-enactments meant to amaze and arouse. I also have friends who spend late nights on sling rotationals in abandoned warehouses who would never breathe a word of it in any kind of company. Our willingness to be open is a matter of disposition and entitled to a certain degree of respect.

There are those, however, who have no such respect when they've coaxed the remaining tatters of conscience with the right motivation. The Malcontent recently nudged me towards this site, run by a stereotypically bitter gossip named Mike Rogers.

In Rogers' view, being Republican and gay are incompatible. Not only incompatible, but morally reprehensible. Surfing around his site, the phrases which leap out are standard gay lefty boilerplate. Gay Republicans are "self-loathing" people who "betray" their "brothers and sisters." Therefore, gay Republicans deserve outing if they are not already so.

Rogers claims the great motivator for these outings is hypocrisy. I have already posted at length on hypocrisy. It is the argument to be made when you have no other arguments.

I believe the real issue here is loyalty. People like Rogers demand strict loyalty among homosexuals to his fiercely partisan sensibilities. There can be no disagreement in ideas, methods, or priority. One commenter went so far as to compare gay Republicans to Uncle Toms (would the gay equivalent be an Aunt Patti?).

Homosexuals are not my brothers and sisters. My friends are my family, and they are my friends for a variety of reasons. I am not loyal to anyone out of a shared orientation. Neither am I loyal to white people due to the color of my skin. Were I to ever make a political argument that someone is betraying their brothers and sisters in the white race by supporting affirmative action, I would rightly be denounced as a virulent racist and bigot. It's an unconscienable mindset that should neither be encouraged nor supported.

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

I have already noted that I am conservative and voted for Bush based on shifting priorities. While I am unabashedly pro gay marriage, I part with the gay left on the method and importance in obtaining it. There are simply greater issues facing the republic which demand my attention and vote. That does not mean I cannot compartmentalize the issues and work against the federal marriage amendment while supporting the broader goals of the conservative movement. That people like Rogers cannot separate gay marriage from larger issues is more a testament to his narrow-minded intolerance than any imagined self-loathing on my part.

These outings are about hatred and fanaticism. When you find yourself justifying delving into the sexual lives of political opponents, you are by definition radicalized. You are unleashing forces that are indisputably a double-edged sword. Under this standard any gay candidate for office is now open season. Our "brothers and sisters" are being pitted against one another in a very dangerous way. Do we really want to create an atmosphere within the gay community where we must fear each other to the point of paranoia? Do we want Republicans within the gay community tracking down a candidate's history of meth experimentation while Democrats start hitting up the sex clubs frequented by a Republican opponent?

The heterosexual world does that already. We must now do that to each other? This is considered looking out for our "brothers and sisters" in the community? Please.

There are other elements in the latest Rogers' story that strike an odd chord, like jarring a contemplative funny bone.

And, on top of the many sources above, this story has been confirmed by an individual who used to work with Mr. Berkowitz at, get this, Generation GOP. GenerationGOP is the organization created to recruit young people to the GOP platform (including the denial of civil marriage equality) and candidates.

My God, he's recruiting young people to be depraved Republicans! Replace the word Republican with homosexual, and that makes for an eerie familiarity in rhetoric.

Rogers claims one of the sources for his latest outing came from within the White House. If someone within the White House is not only aware of the person's orientation, but willing to share it with others, doesn't it track that the president or at least his advisors are aware of it as well? Wouldn't that grind against the notion that George Bush is a homophobic bigot who wants to cleanse the world of us all? (Not that I'd mind that train to Montana if Brokeback Mountain is any indication of what awaits).

Then there is the urging to contact the Jewish media. I realize Rogers is Jewish, but I cannot imagine what he hopes to achieve with this. As far as my experiences go, secular Democratic Jews seem to have little problem with homosexuality, and if he's banking on the fact they do, well, that's appealing to some pretty self-loathing impulses. If he thinks they're going to go wild over the "hypocrisy" of it all, well, good luck with that.

All that is aside from the fact that Jews tend to have some sort of pesky aversion to persecution in any form. It is a mystery.

People like Mike Rogers are anathema to the notion that what we do in our bedrooms is no one's business but our own. Had he limited this to merely political officials, his reasoning might make more sense. But notice his caterwauling that Anderson Cooper is not quite as out as Rogers would personally like him to be. Would he be happier if we all wore badges so the public may more readily identify us? Something in pink, perhaps? Three sides would be good. Oh, Mikey, but that's already been done, sugar.

People like Rogers deserve unabashed shunning within the community when they resort to these tactics. Not only does he break one of our most sacred codes, but he creates and nourishes an atmosphere that thrives on destroying the hard won sexual privacy of his so-called brothers and sisters.

This is no service to any of us, conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican.

Note: I've contacted several gay rights organizations for comment. So far they have hemmed and hawed and seem very much like deer caught in headlights. We will see if the gay community will put their principles where their rhetoric lay.

Update: Karol at Alarming News notes the recently indicted Tom Delay will be replaced by Rep. David Dreier of California. Dreier was once subjected to a vigorous outing campaign led by Rogers. I think we can expect a reinvigorated attempt in coming weeks by those on the Left who have allowed themselves to be consumed by hatred.

h/t: Chad at Cake or Death


I love this story.

DES MOINES, Iowa (Sept. 27) - A man who immigrated from Kenya to the United States found prosperity beyond his expectations on the day he became a U.S. citizen.

Shortly after Moses Bittok, of West Des Moines, took the oath of citizenship on Friday, he discovered he had a $1.89 million winning ticket from the Iowa Lottery's Hot Lotto game.

"It's almost like you adopted a country and then they netted you $1.8 million,'' Bittok said Monday as he cashed in his ticket. "It doesn't happen anywhere - I guess only in America.''

When I briefly emigrated to Britain, the oasis over the M6 offered me a free black, goopy mass consisting of dried blood that they insisted was some sort of breakfast comestible.

Monday, September 26, 2005

Pictures, Thousand Words, Etc.

In a development everyone saw coming, Cindy Sheehan has been arrested in front of the White House today. The story, however, isn't half as interesting as the accompanying pictures:

Nothing epitomizes a mother's suffering quite like a diabolical, shit-eating grin.

It almost seems like a bit of childish fun, doesn't it? "Wheee, I'm going to be on TV again! Wheeeee!"

There she is . . . Miss anti-America . . .

Sheehan, 48, was the first taken into custody. She stood up and was handcuffed, then led to a police vehicle while protesters chanted, "The whole world is watching."

Yes, that is the point, after all. I suppose the greatest anti-war protest in all human history didn't generate the kind of media attention certain fame whores require.

It's a shame I have no vestiges of pity left for this woman, else this would have exhausted it. That's right, dear, embrace the crazy. After all your friends have left you and you're safely tucked away in the gentle white room, you'll find peace and a movie of the week contract.

Sunday, September 25, 2005

They're Trying So Hard

What happens when a major disaster doesn't offer up a racial feast the media can gnaw for weeks on end? Tch, you borrow one.

Rita's Victims Wealthier Whiter than Katrina's

I've read this article several times and cannot fathom its purpose.

Aside from, did you know Katrina's victims were mainly poor and black?

In case, you know, you missed it in the first several thousand stories.

In the Name of Sex, Booze, and Celibacy

One of the most vivid memories I have of my freshman year at a Catholic university is that of a friend, Megan, standing in the boys' bathroom, tapping her black heels, and applying make-up thicker than most caulking. It wasn't unusual for a Friday night. She knew how to find the good parties and often left us all behind as she mixed with seniors at local bars, frat dens, or off campus housing. This time, however, she reached over every now and then between lipstick strokes to tug on my sleeve.

"You should come. You'd like these guys. They asked to meet you."

I leaned backwards out the bathroom door, throwing glances up and down the halls with a paranoia that only a recently decloseted homosexual possesses. "These are priests, right?"

An eye roll. "Noooo. They're in the seminary. They're going to be priests."

Confusion. "Is that . . . better?"

She knit her brow in puzzlement. "Well, they haven't taken their vows, right?"

"Uhm, right." Though I was already thoroughly convinced I was going to hell, going drinking with potential priests seemed like a final, clumsy vault into the inferno.

Three hours later, Daniel, a young seminarian, drunkenly leaning over me as we made out on the pier. It was a scene that would repeat itself throughout my freshman year.

I never went very far with Daniel. There is only so much Catholic guilt that may be assuaged by a fifth of rum. He seemed content to introduce me to other gay seminarians, and we'd often go as a group to Boystown to take in the bar scene. A little money and a well-connected would be priest gets you a fake ID pretty easily.

Whenever I hear about controversies like this, I think back on those days. Since then, I've often compared seminary stories with other gay friends who attended Catholic universities.

"My first was with a seminarian!"
"They always threw the best parties."
"It was like our own private gay club."

That seminaries are chock full of homosexuals doesn't seem like much of a controversy to me. They simply are. While there are no doubt many good, solid celibate gay priests, there also seem to be no small number who are decidedly not.

When 80% of sexual abuse cases reported since 1950 consist of adult men with adolescent boys, this seminarian subculture is worth more than an eyebrow raise or two. There is something deeply, deeply rotten involved in all this. It would be morally bankrupt for the Church to ignore the potential connections between seminaries full of gay men and the epidemic level of male-to-male pederasty incidents.

The Anchoress' thoughts on this matter seem to be my own. The Church must come down harshly on the seminaries to remove priests who do not seem predisposed to take their vows seriously. Sexuality ought to be a non-issue with a priest. It is the celibacy that is important.

In light of the Vatican taking a stricter look at a homosexual culture in seminaries, gay rights groups have - surprise, surprise - gone absolutely bonkers. When thousands of children have been irreparably damaged, this is not the time to get your PC freak on. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force could have chosen the constructive path by offering to work with the Vatican and the American Church to uncover and resolve the problem while still protecting celibate gay priests who honor their vows.

The NGLTF doesn't even get a full sentence into the press release before decrying the Catholic Church as "evil." The witch-hunt comparisons and medieval persecution metaphors come fast and furious.

Does this strike anyone as particularly helpful? Understandably, gay rights groups aren't exactly fans of the Catholic Church. However, thrusting sexually abused children aside to grind a persistently disreligious political agenda seems a little . . . misguided. Not only misguided, but disingenuous. I would be hard pressed to believe Matt Foreman doesn't know more than a few people who have experiences with seminarians similar to my own.

I do not blame those seminarians I had experiences with when I was younger. By then, I was an adult, capable of my own choices, even if they weren't always the wisest ones. However, the audacity, the sheer brashness of their behavior belies a religious organization that does not exercise control over the standards it is meant to protect.

I do not wish to conflate homosexuality with pedophilia as some might claim. Quite obviously, I do not believe there to be a correlation. However, in most of these abuse cases, we're discussing pubescent males. I'm sure there are a variety for reasons for this. My personal pet theory involves an arrested sexual development and entry into the Church as a method of self-control. However, that's all pop psychobabble bullshit.

The fact of the matter is, there is a subculture within seminaries full of gay men who are not celibate. Furthermore, the pederasty incidents are overwhelmingly male-to-male in nature. To attempt to separate the two seems irresponsible at best. People who do that are worrying more about their political sensibilities than the serious problems at hand.

When the Catholic Church finds out what is going on here, I fully expect them to go medieval on some asses.

It is, after all, what they do best.

Call Nicole Ritchie's Agent!

This woman is the biggest fame whore since Paris Hilton.

i am watching cnn and it is 100 percent rita...even though it is a little wind and a little is bad, but there are other things going on in this country today...and in the world!!!!

Other things, like shivering in the cold dark while contemplating the horrific "if they mated" scenario this picture engenders.