The Malcontent

Gay Left-Coast Kookiness

I'm sure there are more such reports to be found in California alone, but a casual perusal of blogs this afternoon helps underscore the dogged determination of some gay liberals to alienate the rest of us who might otherwise support them on issues that concern us all.

BoiFromTroy writes about a trip to his local gay bookstore, during which he had hoped to find a copy of gay American Mary Cheney's new tome.  But the shop was good enough to carry plenty of copies of straight American, and frothy socialist, Noam Chomsky's new book.

Perhaps these are wise business decisions for someone with a West Hollywood clientele.  But why, then, call yourself a "gay" bookstore?  Answer: Because a disturbing number of gay Americans naïvely consider ultra-leftist politics part and parcel of the homosexual experience.  For millions of the rest of us, this just doesn't compute.

In a somewhat related story, Queerty reports that the California State Senate has passed a bill "that would require textbooks in public schools to instruct students on contributions by gays and lesbians in the state's development."

Normally I would decry the balkanization of education by officious politicians.  But the bill already reads like a laundry list of aggrieved groups — "men and women, Black Americans, American Indians, Mexicans, Asians, Pacific Islanders, and other ethnic groups, and people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender" — so gays might as well join the hit parade.  (It's similar to my thoughts on hate-crimes laws: They're stupid and pointless, but as long as we have them, gays should be protected by them.)

But why can't they just teach students about Californians' contributions to the state, regardless of whatever preferred group to which they belong?

Mary Quite Contrary - Updated /w New Video

Cashing in on a nation's and GLBT folks' curiosity, vice-presidential daughter Mary Cheney appeared on Primetime Live last night to promote her new book, Now It's My Turn.

During the course of her chat with Diane Sawyer, Cheney describes coming out to her parents, her fourteen year relationship with partner Heather Poe, why she remains loyal to the Republican Party, her disagreements with right-wing orthodoxy, her reaction to her lesbianism-as-Democratic-demagoguery during the debates, and the careful balancing act of existing between a vitriolic gay left and the venemous religious right.

It's remarkable how poised and likeable Mary comes off in this interview. By virtue of her middling position on the political divide, it's safe to say she's subjected to a great deal of unfair attacks from opponents on the Right and Left. Lesbian Traitor and Unrepentant Sinner, Mary Cheney seems to take it all in stride.

[Watch video – 14:10, WMV format, high bandwidth]

[Watch video – 14:10, WMV format, low bandwidth]

Update: Mary Cheney took live viewer questions today with Diane Sawyer on Good Morning America. Somehwat related, John Aravosis reacts to Rosen and Birch's recent op-ed. His commenters are not quite as charitable. Andrew Sullivan pens an article on the closet tolerance of the president and vice-president. Though I feel he utterly mischaracterizes Dick Cheney's public statements and opposition to the Federal Amendment (not to mention the equating with Darth Vader shtick), there are some good points offered, especially about the potential effects of the November elections on gay rights.

[Watch video – 5:45, WMV format, high bandwidth]

[Watch video – 5:45, WMV format, low bandwidth]

Brawl Under the Big Tent

As if the conformity mafiosi weren't bad enough with their "gay Republicans are an oxymoron" trope, there has also been a spirited battle raging in the past couple of years – mostly under the radar – within the ranks of gay conservatives, libertarians and Republicans themselves.

At the center of the big shitstorm is Log Cabin Republicans, a storm that only intensified when LCR announced in 2004 that they wouldn't endorse George Bush for President and would instead spend $1 million toward his defeat to "educate" voters on why the Federal Marriage Amendment was such a bad thing.  (For the record, I feel those decisions were fairly sensible, despite the internecine warfare and identity crisis that they were bound to precipitate.)

Perhaps as if to reinforce the sensitivity involved, LCR's press release announcing those ads is buried on their website.  Their press-release archive page begins only after that announcement was made.

The debate centers on whether Log Cabin should be primarily a gay group or a Republican one.  The head of LCR, Patrick Guerriero, planted his flag squarely in the latter camp in a December interview with The Advocate: “Are we first and foremost a Republican organization, or are we first and foremost a gay organization with a role to play inside the Republican Party? The board and I made a conscious decision on the second, and that has affected everything we have to do and continue to do.”

It's against this backdrop that LCR reached out to bloggists to cover their 2006 national convention, which is underway in Washington, D.C.  (Disclosure: I was invited to attend but am unable to travel this weekend.)  Blog-pal BoiFromTroy is filing reports, as is MeetJustin.

The convention's agenda, true to the Guerriero interview, is heavy on gay advocacy and light on issues related to ways to support and elect Republicans who are more friendly to gay causes.  This has prompted Bruce at GayPatriot, one of the most vociferous critics of Log Cabin, to issue a challenge to BoiFromTroy:

[I]f you find any actual Republicans at the Log Cabin “convention”.. please notify the media!! I’m sure you will trip over the Gay Rights Pro-Abortion Lobbyist and the Neo-Liberal-Neo-Conservative-Neo-Confused Speaker many times, though.

BFT essentially concedes the point:

While the speakers have not been Republicans (sorry Bruce) they see a potential strong ally with Gay Republicans who can certainly do some educating among the members of our party.

As usual, I think I come down somewhere in the middle on this one.

I think advocacy is extremely important: Winning hearts and minds, whether among the public or among elected officials, is indispensable.  But unlike groups such as HRC, which are at least supposed to be bipartisan and advocacy-oriented, LCR was established as a partisan, political entity supporting Republicans.  If it ceases to function as such, it might as well merge with any of the other sundry gay-rights groups out there.  (In fact, the Liberty Education Forum was established parallel to LCR to function as a non-political, 501(c)3, advocacy arm, putting LCR at risk of becoming doubly redundant.)

I do not expect Log Cabin to rush in to support people like Tom DeLay, Rick Santorum or Marilyn Musgrave, nor should they.  But as a gay man who is deeply disillusioned with the current direction of Republicans, I would feel better if Log Cabin spent more of its time and resources at helping build a better GOP: recruiting and supporting more gay and gay-friendly candidates, working harder to build bridges on Capitol Hill, and influencing the legislative process.

Log Cabin Republicans was originally established to say, "We are going to play a unique role in the gay political landscape."  Today, what they are more often saying is, "Ditto!"

Drive-By Blogging

Miserable old troll Mike Rogers, the Abu Musab al-Zarqawi of the gay blogosphere, is up to his old tricks.  I'm not sure what to call it anymore, because it isn't really even an "outing" campaign: His latest victim was never "in."  (And no, Mike, it isn't "reporting."  Your partisan hackery is a brown santorum stain on real journalists everywhere.)

The case for the prosecution this time seems to be that his target works for a guy who doesn't want the international community to be associated with a group that has had past ties to pedophiles, and he's also supposedly a bit brusque – according to a hard-left New York publication, that is.  Rogers apparently hasn't worked with many PR folks before.

Mike Rogers eats up to three square meals a day.  Meanwhile, 842 million innocent people are starving around the globe.

There truly is no justice in this world.

For the Love of God, Please Hide Your Freak Flag

"WILL & GRACE" SPOILER IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWS:

Those of you who are upset that you didn't get to see Britney Spears last night on "Will & Grace" weren't missing much, except maybe for your chance to savage her thespian-lesbian act.

Surprise, surprise, the ultra-conservative co-host of "Jack Talk" was a dyke.  But her acting chops were so weak that I wouldn't have believed Britney as a lesbian, even if she had given Karen Walker's carpet the ol' steam-cleaning.

On the other hand, the character Britney was reportedly supposed to play might have been infinitely more entertaining.

The overnight rating (5.6) was a bit above the 4.0 average "Will & Grace" had been pulling in January, but the episode was a cringe-fest.  I think I laughed once, and that was probably at something Wanda Sykes said.  (I didn't include her in this clip, though.  Gotta cut somewhere.)

I know there are only a few episodes left, but can they drag this thing out behind the barn with a shotgun now?

[Watch video – 9:56, WMV format, high bandwidth]

[Watch video – 9:56, WMV format, low bandwidth]

Damn, That Whiny Bastard Can Screw!

A study out of (the unbiased, I'm sure) UC Berkeley found that "whiny kids tended to grow up conservative, and turned into rigid young adults who hewed closely to traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity," while "confident kids turned out liberal and were still hanging loose, turning into bright, non-conforming adults with wide interests."

Meanwhile, GQ is reporting that "after numerous years of intensive research on both sides of the aisle—and sometimes in the aisle—I am here to report that Republican men (except the closet cases) are infinitely better to have sex with."

Sex columnist Dan Savage this week essentially agreed, writing: "People's political leanings, competence, and command of the English language tell us very little about their private sexual conduct. Indeed, one study in the mid '90s found that conservatives were, on average, kinkier than liberals."

We're assuming that liberals who want a good lay travel with a bag to put on their partner's head.

[Thanks, Alan]

What Do You Say When Your Ideas Lose Elections Even in Canada?

"You're ugly!"  (Memo to Joe: The kettle is on line 2.)

9/11 Victims for Osama

Nary a cycle goes by on a Pentium processor that someone, somewhere on the blogosphere isn't invoking the vile and bereft-of-creativity "Jews for Hitler" meme against gay Republicans.

I'm not in favor of facile comparisons that are intended to arouse such an emotional response about one's political opponents as to render their actual merit a faint afterthought.  But as long as they insist on dragging this dead filly for another lap around the racetrack, let's try a simile on for size that, in my view, has more currency and applicability:

Gay Democrats are just like "9/11 Victims for Osama."

Why is such a comparison more appropriate, you ask?

First of all, because the "Jews for Hitler" calumny is more ridiculous on its face.  That comparison has to reach back more than six decades to find any relevance.  Let's face it, there are precious few Nazis left today and even fewer of them are in the extermination racket.

And despite liberals' wildest fantasies, whatever "collaboration" they imagine between gays and Republicans isn't remotely comparable with genocide.  Not only is it not in the same ballpark, it's a different league altogether.

Yet the most feverish of the fabulists persevere: "I can imagine far right extremist groups, emboldened by a bigoted and outspoken Republican party, perpetrating acts of terrorism against large gay communities in places like New York, San Francisco, Atlanta and South Beach."

Of course you can "imagine" that.  Because one's imagination is the only place where such claptrap is remotely plausible.

No responsible Republican would ever countenance violence against gays, and he could expect swift excoriation if he did.  Similarly, reasonable Democrats distance themselves when the most radical within their party make the most unhinged of statements.

Except that the irrational fringe has indeed held thrall over the Democrats in the past couple of years, making the comparison between gay Democrats and "9/11 Victims for Osama" more relevant than ever before.

Gay Democrats who are in such a hurry to throw their GOP brethren under the bus had better take a hard look at the party with which they have themselves made league:

Theirs is a party that has little trouble finding the "softer side" of Osama but is utterly confused as to the difference between Americans and Nazis or terrorists and "freedom fighters."  (Hint: Only one of the two shoots at U.S. soldiers.)

It is a party that regularly advocates for unilateral surrender in the War on Terror, that has collectively turned a blind eye to radical Islamic fundamentalism, and that opposes even the most reasonable efforts to keep the bad guys from coming across our borders.

Gay Democrats continue to stuff hay into a strawman called "domestic theocracy" while showing little desire to confront genuine and deadly fundamentalist threats worldwide – the very same forces that, if given the chance, would show their gratitude in the form of a bullet through the head.

They have allied themselves with a party that claims to love people but less charitable toward life, retaining as its most salient litmus test the support of abortion on demand.  How many fewer gay Democrats (and Republicans) do you suppose there will be if one combines that political position with the future discovery of a "gay gene"?

I concede that this is a provocative and simplistic comparison.  But its equivalent – "Jews for Hitler" – is what passes for legitimate political debate among gay Democrats these days.  There can be little reasonable discourse when we are constantly putting our opponents in bed with the most barbarous murderers in history.

Quote of the Day

"I kind of describe myself as the free safety for this speaker (Hastert)," (Rep. David) Dreier says. "Wherever he throws the ball, I just want to make sure I'm there to catch it."

Reminded that free safety is a position on defense, not offense, he says: "I just want to catch the pass."

— From Wall Street Journal, via The Hotline (sub. req.)

"Wide receivers" and "tight ends," of course, catch most of the passes on football teams.  Little wonder, then, that Dreier's clumsy metaphor steered clear of offense.

Two Mascots for the Gay Left

If the politics of Larry David weren't so well-known – according to tray.com, he contributed nearly $81,000 to Democrats and Democratic entities in the 2002-2004 election cycles alone, with just $1,000 to a single local GOP candidate – I might be tempted to think he were a Republican.

Last night TBS reran one of the last episodes of "Seinfeld" that David executive-produced before leaving the show after the seventh season (only to return to write the series finale), titled "The Sponge." In it, Elaine learns that the Today contraceptive sponge is being removed from the market and she attempts to hoard them.

But it was the "B story" that interested me most.  Kramer volunteers for an AIDS walk but is the only one in the vicinity to decide, for reasons known only to him, not to wear "the ribbon."  ("This is America!  I don't have to wear anything I don't want to wear!")

He is quickly descended upon by an angry group of enforcers, led by a fey couple named Cedric and Bob, whom Kramer previously described in the "Soup Nazi" episode as "street toughs" after they stole an armoire Kramer was supposed to be guarding for Elaine.  (They are, incidentally, also the same couple who would later lead a rowdy mob against Kramer after he accidentally stomps out a flaming Puerto Rican flag, a controversial scene that led to the episode's being pulled from the rerun rotation.)

It didn't really register with me when "The Sponge" first aired 10 years ago, but it sure hit me in the face like a cold drink last night:

Cedric and Bob are every gay I have met who "won't date" Republicans.  They are every gay who has called me an "Uncle Tom" or a "quisling" or a "Benedict Arnold."  They are every gay who (moronically) called me as an "oxymoron."  They are every gay who has thought me a traitor to some nebulous "cause" simply because I happened to disagree with them on budgets, crime or foreign policy.

Gay Democrats/liberals who demonize, caricature or screen out the people with whom they choose to associate based solely on an ideological filter probably do so, in part, because they have the luxury of numbers.  But it is incredibly myopic to think that a tiny segment of the population that is striving for its "rights" is going to gain any traction if a majority among us feels so justified in marginalizing such a sizable minority.

(Disclaimer for the slow or stupid: No matter how hard I try to be discerning, many people automatically think I am lumping together "all" gay Democrats or gay liberals when I criticize the Left.  I am not.  But if you have lived a life as I have, encountering the kind of "tolerance" described above, then you will understand how tiresome it becomes.  I have no problem – zero – with Democrats or liberals as a whole.  As long as you can accept that gays of good faith can have legitimate ideological or partisan differences, then we will have no problem.)

So to Cosmo Kramer, I say, "Bravo."  Stand tall and ribbonless, and stay strong against the ideological enforcers.  But your constant harassment at the hands of the Cedrics and Bobs of the world is a sad reminder, even a decade later, that some things will probably never change.

OK, some things change.  "Today" sponges are back on the market.

[Watch video – 2:00, WMV format, high bandwidth]

[Watch video – 2:00, WMV format, low bandwidth]

More Contests, More Opportunities To Alienate People

Within the next few days, I will be posting New Year's resolutions of assorted digerati among the blogosphere.  One of my own resolutions, after the clusterfuck that was the Weblog Awards (and our endorsement of blog-pal Ethan), should be to steer as clear of those things as possible.

But since it isn't 2006 yet, allow me a couple of more plugs for friends:

The boys at GayPatriot have searched high and low to find "Conservative Blogress Divas," seeking to prove that diva status is not limited to the left.  Their nominees are here, and you can vote here.  (Gay-hating venom-spewer LaShawn Barber isn't nominated?  The fix is in!)

Our endorsements are usually only good enough for a solid second-place finish, so I don't know if it is a blessing our a curse that I will be voting for Bridget Johnson (AKA "GOP Vixen.")  She's funny, irreverent, smart, and she needs the publicity more than some of the others.  Plus, she's always been good to this site, and is very friendly to the gays!

And finally, my friend Ran has the dubious distinction honor of being nominated for Gizmodo's "Dork Contest Finals."  Follow the link and tell me that it doesn't get much dorkier than a kid in a Spock T-shirt who looks so pleased with himself at meeting Leonard Nimoy. 

Come to think of it, maybe it's Nimoy who should have been nominated.

(Unless they are rotating the nominees, he is eighth on the list.)

Political Extremist Rorschach Test

Question: Is the following comment on Mike Rogers' hate-blog from a left-wing moonbat or a right-wing wingnut?:

I hate to break the bad news, but the only "aids" that are a threat to our liberty are the aids on capital hill, and those do need to be erradicated, or irradiated, or something.

If there are people that want to take death-programming instructions from death clinic clinicians, that's their problem. Their rules. They can burn in hell. Screw the Federal Reserve, screw Citibank, with their connections to arab banks and the carlyle group and all that crap, and screw you. The revolution is on, and there are a million things to do, you know that there are.

I don't have the answer, I'm just asking.

Oh, and yeah, Mike apparently outed another guy just for being a Republican.  (Indeed, his rationale grows more tenuous by the moment.)  But that's old news where he is concerned.

Buh-Bye, Jim West

You'll have plenty of time to cruise Gay.com now.

Kolbe to Retire

The only openly gay Republican in Congress, Jim Kolbe, is retiring:

You may remember him as the subject of an ever so charming protest by the Texas delegation during the 2000 Republican National Convention. The protestors bowed their heads in prayer while Rep. Kolbe (AZ) was speaking in a prime time slot.

A longer profile of the soon to be former congressman can be found here.

Update: GayPatriotWest reminisces about his personal experiences with Kolbe here.

Bedeviled By The Advocate

The world is a scary place to be today, especially if you are gay: Executions in Iran.  Increasing violence and persecution in Europe.  Naturally, these are topics a publication billing itself as the "national gay and lesbian newsmagazine" could spend at least a full page or two on.

So let's see what The Advocate is covering this week:

Hmmm, the cover talks about liberal actor "George Clooney vs. the far right."  We are teased to read more about George Bush's "antigay agenda." We are also startled by a picture of a dour Mary Cheney.

Inside, Editor Bruce Steele makes a casual comparison between McCarthyism and modern Republicans.  (Liberals always forget that real Communist spies were uncovered during that period.)

There is the aforementioned article about Mary Cheney, apparently taking exception with her having any sort of gainful employment whatsoever.

There is the article that has been written 10,000 times before, appearing vastly more interested in the 18,462 members of the Log Cabin Republicans, an organization that decided not to endorse George W. Bush for president in 2004, than in the 1 million gay Americans who continue to vote for him despite everything.

There is, of course, the story about superhero George Clooney fighting the "far right."  (Clooney's father hasn't fared any better in that fight than George has.)

Then we turn to the article "Conservatives on the Edge," complete with cartoonish, fun-house mirror images of notable figures on the right.  ("Newsmagazines" lampoon; you decide.)  There is a sidebar on "Scalito" that uncritically regurgitates talking points from any generic moonbat blog of your choosing.  (Apparently this more flattering portrayal of Samuel Alito merited only a brief mention, buried far down in the article.)

And finally, gratefully, we reach the last page: the "Final Word."  Here we learn that George W. Bush is not just bad for gays, but he hates blacks as well.  (Am I reading The Advocate, or Essence?)

So to sum up: George Bush is the devil, conservatives are uniformly antagonistic of gays, Democrats and liberals are unalloyed heroes, and the only good Republican is one that opposes the president.  These are the same strawman arguments and knee-jerk tripe we have been hearing for two years or more, yet it somehow still manages to fill page after page in a November 2005 publication.

The real world is not a place where Republicans are in black hats and Democrats are in white.  It is also a place where more is at stake than who said what stupid thing on the Senate floor.  But if you are interested in complexity or challenges to conventional wisdom, don't look for it in The Advocate.  (Come to think of it, you can find more nuance in a part-time, two-man blog.)  It should be ashamed to call itself a "newsmagazine."

Mini-Summit Memories: Good, Yet Hazy

It was a pleasure to see BoiFromTroy last night for only the second time ever, and to finally meet in person Gay Patriot, Cake or Death, and Party Crasher.

And the woman "female impersonator" at Therapy was, well, just a train wreck.

I remember little else.

Leaving the Cabin

Even in a hotel ballroom in Midtown, Gay Patriot breaks news about the Log Cabin Republicans: It seems the alliance between gay-rights and pro-abortion groups grows ever stronger.

Look, I will "come out" and say that I am essentially "pro-choice."  I am part of that vast middle out in the country that feels uncomfortable either outlawing abortion altogether, or opposing reasonable restrictions such as parental notification or banning partial-birth abortion infanticide.  But this growing nexus between gay-rights organizations and abortion-rights groups just baffles me.

As I told GP, if "privacy issues" are the supposed common denominator between these groups, as espoused by people like Joe Solomonese, then how come we don't see alliances between, say, NARAL and these guys?

I suspect the answer is because it is another case of Democratic identity-politics at work.  Chris Barron is a nice enough guy, but you'll forgive me when I chuckle about a role involving "Republican outreach" for Planned Parenthood, especially given his background as a former Democrat activist.

Then again, that might be the only kind of Republican who would fit in there.

"Pajamas" Gets All Gussied Up

Congratulations to my friends at Open Source Media (formerly Pajamas Media) on their big launch day, which is being held right now, just blocks from me in Midtown.

Gay Patriot is live-blogging the launch here (in between IMs with me).  He also links to an audio feed of the festivities.

But it looks like BoiFromTroy forgot his batteries – something that must be utterly unfamiliar to him.

UPDATE: Outside the Beltway links to an AP story on the venture, and has more commentary here.

The Gay GOP: Here, Queer, You Know the Rest

If you're a gay Republican or conservative, chances are that you have grown a thick skin against epithets like "Uncle Tom" or "traitor."  They are made by left-leaning echo-chamber types who are blinded by the brilliance of their own rightness, or who are just too lazy to try to understand legitimate differences between human beings.  That attitude is usually evinced by the gay press, as well, despite the duty of journalists to be dispassionate, seek truth and challenge conventional wisdom.

But sometimes the gay press can surprise, covering gay Republicans and conservatives like they don't have a third eye growing from their foreheads.

Kudos to the Gay & Lesbian Times for making quick work of the canard that such gays are "oxymorons."

Out 100: Not Looking Hard Enough?

Out magazine chose a Republican to be among the "Out 100."  And the world didn't stop turning on its axis.

Congratulations to Redondo Beach, Calif., Mayor Mike Gin:

(Click to enlarge)

But if they were going to choose a token Republican to be among the leftist hoards, couldn't they also find a single Democrat for their "Hall of Shame"?  (Do you think they have ever been as uncharitable to Coburn's 2004 Democrat opponent?)

(Click to enlarge)