Tonight, at dinner with some friends, two gifted actors and a talented up and coming director, we noted how difficult it is to make a good comedy that is a powerful drama as well. While there are many great comedies like “RUTHLESS PEOPLE” which make us laugh, there are few flicks like the classic “THE PHILADELPHIA STORY” which stir our more tender — and deeper — emotions as they make us laugh. Indeed, the Greeks, those who “invented” the western concept of drama, staged entertainment, had their three great tragedians (Aeschylus, Sophocles, Eurpides) and their one great comedian (Aristophanes). None of these four greats ever seemed to “mix their genres.”

In addition to the Katharine Hepburn-Cary Grant-Jimmy Stewart classic (i.e., “THE PHILADELPHIA STORY“), we came up with a couple movies which were both dramas and comedies, notably “WHEN HARRY MET SALLY” and “AS GOOD AS IT GETS.” Now, I open it up to you, readers, to suggest other movies which succeed in blending these genres. I am particularly interested in gay movies which move us deeply while making us laugh. Maybe, “TRICK” . . . .

So, comment below or drop me an e-mail and let me know what you come up with. . .

UPDATE: Reader Terry writes in to note that I was incorrect to write that the four great Greek playwrights (whom he calls poets) did not “mix their genres.” Instaed, he points out, “the custom was to submit four plays during the festival, three tragedies and one comedy, all of these poets mixed genres, it’s just that the remnants of their opposite genres are few and limited, hence unread by those who only take the college survey course. Each poet had one day for their presentation, and at the end of the festival one was awarded the prize. Poets were expected to be able to master both tragedy and comedy in order to win the festival’s prize that year.”

UPDATE #2: A friend of mine wrote in to suggest Woody Allen‘s best movie, “ANNIE HALL” as a comedy with meaning. I agree.

UPDATE #3: A successful screenwriter e-mailed me, “I’d say most of the Billy Wilder comedies (esp. SOME LIKE IT HOT, THE APARTMENT) and the Preston Sturges comedies (esp. THE GREAT McGINTY and SULLIVAN’S TRAVELS) as well as the Chaplin silents like THE GREAT DICTATOR, MODERN TIMES and Buster Keaton‘s THE GENERAL just to name a few.” (My friend’s e-mail reminds me of my favorite Chaplin flick: “CITY LIGHTS.”)

Just today, 365gay.com posted an piece on a Gallup poll showing growing support for the Federal Marriage Amendment. I posted on the poll 15 days ago.

UPDATE (04-19-05 11:30 PST): Just before turning in, I noted that Gallup has just posted an analysis of its poll on attitudes toward gay marriage. I have printed it out and will try to comment on it tomorrow (Wednesday, April 20) and note that some readers are clamoring for my views on the new Pope.

BoiFromTroy did a good post yesterday commenting on the president’s indication of support for “placing decency standars on satellite and cable services.”

Boi has it right when he distinguishes broadcast from cable television. Broadcast television uses the public airwavies, but, as Boi put its “you have to actively pursue” cable programmming. You have to pay to get cable.

I agree with many of those who fault many cable programs for their lack of “decency.” (Please note the quotation marks.) I also fault many clubs for playing music so loud that I can’t hear my friends talk. So, I just don’t go to those clubs. As long as they keep the noise within the clubs, that’s their business. These clubs are private places; we can choose to enter (or not to enter) as we will. By the same token, as Boi bluntly puts it, if you don’t want the programming that cable offers, “turn the damn thing off.”

The president seemed to agree, saying, “I think there ought to be a standard. On the other hand, I fully understand that … the final decision is a parent turning off the TV.” Fine, let there be a standard, but let it be set by a private institution. Not enforced by the government.

I don’t disagree about the proliferation of “indecent” programs. (Please note the quotation marks.) But, many people have already responded to this by refusing to subscribe to cable. If those social conservatives are upset by this alleged wave of cable TV “indecency,” then they should mount a campaign against it, appealing not to the federal (or state) government, but to the American people and encourage them to cancel their cable or to write to their cable company threatening to.

I have blogged previously (here and here) that the government shouldn’t fund the media, like PBS or NPR. It shouldn’t censor them either, especially media that people have to pay to watch. The president understands that private institutions, be they religious or secular, do a better job of setting standards than the government. He should apply that understanding here. Don’t regulate the content of cable and satellite TV.

The thing that struck me the most about the Unity Statement this past January of 22 gay groups was its absence of vision, its failure to get beyond policy prescriptions and address the ultimate goal of the gay movement. Like so many documents coming out of Washington, D.C., it was long on self-congratulation and stock phrases, but short on what the president’s father once called “the vision thing.”

Too many gay activists and leaders, it seems, have failed to ask themselves what they, through their activism and lobbying, ultimately seek to accomplish. They focus too much on passing this or that piece of legislation, securing this or that “right,” pushing for “equality” and “fairness,” yet, in the end, they rarely articulate what all these things mean in our lives today.

To be sure, it’s not all that easy to articulate that vision. When I attempt to do so, I find myself telling stories rather than outlining a list of specific goals. I respond that what we seek is what I experienced just over six years ago, the first time I brought a date home for Thanksgiving. My family treated this man as they would the different-sex schweetie (i.e., significant other) of any one of my (straight) siblings. My Dad recognized him in his toast at dinner, welcoming him into the family.

A few weeks later, this man invited me to his office’s holiday dinner where I received a welcome similar to that he received in my family.

The stories seem to articulate the better part of our “ultimate goal,” that our families, our friends, our professional colleagues include our “schweeties” with us in their lives. Add into a few other things, such as state recognition of our unions, repeal of the Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT) policy and general acceptance of the normality of homosexuality and you pretty much have it.
(more…)

Today while browsing in the Super Bargain DVD rack at Target, I saw a stupid comedy which, when it was first released, changed my attitude. You see, at the time, I was living in Europe and looked down on popular culture. If it wasn’t high literature, I then thought, it wasn’t worth reading, it wasn’t worth watching.

Well, the youngest PatriotBrotherWest insisted we see this comedy, “Ruthless People.” Because I was back in the U.S. only for a short while and because my brother’s a great guy, I decided to go with him, fully intending to have a terrible time.

Quite the contrary. Watching the movie, I couldn’t stop laughing. I left the theater feeling better than I had when I first walked in. This “stupid” comedy reminded me how stupid, how narrow-minded, I had been, to assume that only literature (or movies) with some deeper meaning could accomplish something meaningful.

About a decade later, I saw another movie, this one a classic, Preston Sturges‘ “Sullivan’s Travels” where Joel McCrea‘s Sullivan learns a lesson similar to the one I did watching Ruthless People.

So, now, every time someone knocks Hollywood for making schlocky comedies with no redeeming value, I recall that day when a “stupid” comedy reminded me of the power of laughter. Their value, like that of the great vaudeville entertainers in the early part of the last century and so many others in the succeeding years who, on stage and screen, have made us laugh is simply that; they make us laugh. It’s the very reason Jessica married Roger Rabbit. Laughter helps lighten the load, easing the burdens of the day. No wonder that (despite its many flaws) I’ve come to love Hollywood so much.

Today, for just $5.50, I bought “Ruthless People” on DVD to remind myself of the lesson I learned and to watch yet again a movie which helped teach me the meaning of movies so that I can laugh and then laugh again and delight in the power — and meaning — of laughter.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

UPDATE: I’m delighted to note the number of people who share my love for “Ruthless People.” Just tonight (04/18), while celebrating a friend’s birthday, we all agreed that the movie was one of the funniest of the 1980s, with some of the greatest one-liners of the period. And others have e-mailed to tell me how much they loved the flick. All this fun for just $5.50. I love Target!

The Connecticut House has passed a civil unions bill, but with a gratuitous provision defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Republican governor has said that should this bill clear the Senate, she will sign in.

The Oregon Supreme Court nullified nearly 3,000 marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples by Multonah County, holding that the both state law and the state constitution had limited marriage to opposite sex couples. The Democratic governor said he would push for a law recognizing same-sex civil unions.

Several readers, including Eva Young, have e-mailed me that Paul Koering, a Republican State Senator in Minnesota, came out as gay and voted against putting a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman (and ruling out same-sex civil unions) on the ballot. Eva notes that the reaction to his coming out has been generally supportive, though a handful of Republicans are not pleased.

And on this tax day, Log Cabin follows up its praise yesterday of the vote in the U.S. House to repeal the Death Tax with a release calling for comprehensive tax reform, pointing out that the “current tax system severely disadvantages gay and lesbian familes.”

In general, it seems that things are looking up for gay people, but with a few dark clouds on the horizon. Hopefully, once I file my taxes, I’ll be able to resume regular blogging and comment on these developments at length.

It seems everyone wants me to blog on Bill Clinton’s latest attack on a Republican. This time, the former has accused an openly gay GOP campaign consultant of being “self-loathing.” Two people mentioned it in comments to my last post. A guy I’ve been dating e-mailed me the same link that a reader sent me. A couple people commenting to my last post were eager to hear my thoughts. Naturally, I was flattered by the interest in my ideas.

So, instead of giving my brain a rest after much studying, writing and reading, I’ll share my thoughts with you. Once again, we see Clinton returning to his basic campaign tactic, what I call, the “reverse-offense defense,” where he attacks those who criticize him. As he recycles his old standard, I am reminded of the words Ronald Reagan used in his debate with Jimmy Carter in 1980. “There you go again.” There Bill goes again, taking the low road. Engaging in invective instead of answering the charges.

Except in his case, no charges have yet been leveled against his wife. All that’s happened is after marrying his longtime partner in Massachusetts, political consultant Arthur Finkelstein has launched the “Stop Her Now” campaign, a “527″ advocacy group (like those which raised millions to defeat our man W), reportedly raising $10 to prevent Hillary Clinton’s reelection to the U.S. Senate. Perhaps, the former president should note that his wife, the Senator Finkelstein is working to defeat, opposes gay marriage.

It’s comedic watching Clinton — of all people — tar a gay man as self-loathing, Clinton who made promises to gay people as a candidate that he didn’t keep as president because keeping them would have hurt him politically. Will any gay group criticize this man for calling an openly gay man self-loathing?

Well, one has. Log Cabin Political Director Chris Barron shows how this Democrat has always put politics ahead of gay interests, noting that Clinton is

the same President who signed the Defense of Marriage Act, implemented the military’s discriminatory ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy, and encouraged John Kerry to support anti-gay state Constitutional amendments, thinks he has any credibility passing judgment on the life of Arthur Finkelstein or any other gay and lesbian American.

To think that some gay activists see this man as a hero is beyond me.
(more…)

Because I am busier than expected while out of town taking classes in Mythology, I regret that blogging will be light for a few days. I do have much to say, but, after spending a day studying the archetypes of Greek gods and goddesses and currently preparing for a day of intense study of the work and significance of a most complex man, the great Carl Jung, I’m not sure how lucidly I would blog. I’ll try to say something tomorrow (Tuesday) night, but may not be back to regular blogging until Thursday.

To celebrate my six-month blogiversary, I reposted the quotation from Camus with which I entered the blogosphere. To me, that quote helps define what blogging, especially for blogs, like this one, which invite comments, should be all about.

Camus feared the “long conversation of mankind” was coming to an end, in part, because people remained fixed in their ideologies, not willing to let themselves be persuaded by the arguments of others.

As gay conservatives, we see all too clearly such narrow ideologies, both in our gay identities and in our political leanings.

As gays, we are stigmatized by certain social conservatives who are unwilling to recognize that many of us strive to live our lives with the same — or similar values — as the most pious Christians. This past week, I have posted twice (here and here) on how they refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of legislation enacted (or in the process of being enacted) which recognizes gay unions. It seems they have blinded themselves to the reality of many gay lives, those countless same-sex couples who seek (and do) live together in monogamous unions. They see gay people not by looking at the broad range of gay “lifestyles” but through a narrow definition of the “gay lifestyle” — and by a narrow reading of Scripture.

As conservatives, we are stigmatized by many on the left who assume that being a part of some minority, be it one of race, religion or sexual orientation requires one to adopt the principles of contemporary American liberalism, which includes strong and frequent critiques of all forms of American conservatism, even those which are not anti-gay. When we do not fit their narrow view of what a gay person should be, they dismiss our arguments and label us “self-hating.”

It seems that more often that not, neither wishes to engage us. Too many of them, on the social right as well as on the angry left, have become no more than what Camus would call, representatives of an ideology. They think like those around them, having created an abstract view of the world, leaving no room for individual distinction or philosophical difference.
(more…)

From the moment I walked into the “Welcome Reception” last Thursday at the Liberty Education Forum Symposium/Log Cabin National Convention in New Orleans, I could feel that things had changed since my last Log Cabin Convention in 1998. Gone was the tension between the clubs and the national office. I observed LCR President Patrick Guerriero mingling with the crowd, talking to chapter leaders just as he talked to national Board members.

This has certainly been the biggest change in the organization. When I was a club president, my fellow presidents and I found that the national office staff frequently didn’t return our phone calls and often failed to respond to our e-mails. Listening to the chapter reports on Saturday morning, I heard club presidents and other officers praise the national office for quickly responding to their concerns. They were particularly impressed with LCR National Field Director Jeff Cook who has traveled the country, helping build clubs and serving as a liaison with the local leaders and LCR national.

In New Orleans, there was a private reception for chapter presidents togther with the boards of LCR and LEF. A sign that LCR national recognizes that the clubs — and their leaders — are an integral part of the organization. When I talked to club leaders, even those who disagreed with the national office on the non-endorsement of President Bush and several policy issues, they all agreed that Patrick and Political Director Chris Barron had demonstrated a commitment to work with them; the national staff was attentive to their concerns, their phone calls were returned.

At the convention, national staff and Board members socialized with club leaders and others. They didn’t separate into their own corners and look suspiciously at one another. As Eva Young noted in a comment to a previous post, LCR has a “number of new leaders who are energized and engaged — and goal oriented.” Patrick welcomed the staff onto the stage and acknowledged their efforts. Eva notes, “That’s a big difference from the old days.” Yes, a change for the better.
(more…)

A reader tipped me to this article heralding the good news in Connecticut where, by a margin of 27-9, the Connecticut State Senate voted to recognize civil unons between same-sex couples. Six Republicans joined 21 Democrats in voting for the bill. Republican Governor M. Jodi Rell favors the concept of civil unions, but has not taken a stand on this particular legislation.

Yet, not everyone is happy. “Brian Brown, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, had maintained that most voters do not support civil unions or same-sex marriage, and he called the vote ‘a slap in the face of democracy.’”

Called the vote a slap in the face of democracy? Since when is a vote of elected legislators a slap in the face of democracy?

This guy seems to be mimicking the rhetoric of those reacting to court decisions mandating same-sex marriage. In Connecticut, however, it was a little different. You see, an elected legislator presented a bill to the legislature, all of whose members, were elected by people from the various districts of the Nutmeg State. They debated the bill. Some Senators spoke out in favor of the bill, others against. Both sides got to make their case. Afterwards, Senators voted on the bill, first in committee, then in the full Senate.

That’s not a slap in the face of democracy. That is democracy.
(more…)

Back in the late 1990s when I was involved in Log Cabin, I realized that other gay organizations were not our natural allies. While I agreed with the groups on a number of issues, I often found that their leaders had a knee-jerk reaction to most problems facing society. (Just as all to many had a knee-jerk reaction to the very word, “Republican.”) If there was something wrong, they felt that the government needed to step in, either with a regulation or a handout.

Most conservatives, however, believe that individuals and private institutions, whether business, civic or religious are better equipped to handle social (and other) problems. Indeed, many of us on the right fault the Bush Administration for not being aggressive enough in containing the growth of federal spending.

This weekend in New Orleans, it seems LCR has, at least on gay issues, signed on, to the liberal worldview. They used the same words to describe the struggle for “gay rights” as do the liberal gay groups: “equality” and “fairness.” Given that LCR calls its “educational think tank,” the Liberty Education Forum, one would think that they would add the terms “liberty” and “freedom” more often to the mix.

I’m all for fairness and equal opportunity, but am concerned whenever the government tries to enforce fairness and equality. I mean, I think this blog is a good as Andrew Sullivan’s, so it’s only fair that we should get an equal number of hits. But, for whatever reason, more people read his blog than read this one. If the government tried to make it “fair” to this blog, it would either have to force people to read this blog (which could be unfair to them) or limit the number who read Andrew’s blog (which would be unfair to those (over the quota) who wanted to read it).

That policy would necessarily limit the freedom of many individuals, forcing some to read this blog and blocking others from reading Andrew’s. Since the government should protect our freedom, it shouldn’t regulate blogging. So, I accept things as they are. Even if the blogosphere appears unfair and unequal, it remains free. As it should be.
(more…)

As Connecticut prepares to be the third state to recognize same-sex unions, The Hartford Courant ran an insightful piece on attitudes toward civil unions and same-sex marriage. This article confirmed something that I have long believed — that there are many people who oppose calling same-sex unions marriage, but who are clearly not anti-gay. Many opponents are supportive of gay issues, a healthy number even favor some form of state recognition of same-sex couples. But, as the title of the article indicates, they draw the line at gay marriage.

“Marriage and gay rights are two different issues,” says Bob Utley, a retired insurance industry employee from Burlington. Utley has a gay nephew and supports civil unions, which he believes would address most of the problems facing gay couples. “If they’re after legal rights, they can have those,” he says.

“But when you talk about changing the definition of marriage, it just raises a whole bunch of questions,” says Utley, who has been married for almost 40 years. “The term `marriage’ means `marriage between a man and a woman.’”

As I have said repeatedly on this blog (e.g., here, here and here), we need to understand why people like Utley oppose gay marriage. Voters in 18 states have voted to amend their state constitutions to preclude gay marriage. A host of other states are preparing similar initiatives for future ballots.

Reporter Daniela Altimari has done a good job of helping us understand the success of these initiatives. She has collected the thoughts of a number of Americans, many sympathetic to gay men and lesbians, who oppose gay marriage. Every gay leader, particularly those who advocate gay marriage should read her piece.
(more…)

According to 365gay.com, Texas State Representative David Swinford, a Republican from Dumas, chairman of the House State Affairs Committee in the Lone Star State, led the effort to strip a proposed amendment to the Texas Constitution precluding same-sex marriage of a clause that would bar civil unions and same sex benefits. “It just goes too far,” he said. Another Republican, Rep. Martha Wong of Houston, was “shocked” to see the provision barring civil unions. Wong “supports a ban on gay marriage.” The amendment’s author, also a Republican, Warren Chisum of Pampa, agreed to remove the new language, but would try to amend the bill when the full House debated it.

I still hope (but doubt) that this proposed amendment (even without the anti-civil unions clause) goes down to defeat, but, this shows that while some Republicans in the very “red” state of Texas, like many Republicans in the “blue” state of Connecticut, may balk at state recognition of same-sex marriage, they favor (or at least are not opposed to) civil unions.

With this in mind, I repeat a point I made yesterday, “the best strategy for now is to pursue civil unions in state legislatures.”

UPDATE: North Dallas Thirty has a more in-depth post on this very topic.

Before I turn in tonight, I wanted to note that as of today, I have been blogging for six months. To honor that, I reference my “virgin post” and quote again the words of the great Albert Camus with which I entered the blogosphere:

Something in us has been destroyed by the spectacle of the years just past. And this something is the eternal confidence of man, which has always made him believe that one could draw human reactions from another man by speaking to him in the language of humanity. We have seen lying, debasing, killing, deportations, torture, and each time it was not possible to persuade those who were doing it not to do it, because they were so sure of themselves and because one cannot persuade an abstraction, that is to say, the representative of an ideology.

The long conversation of mankind has just ended. And, of course, a man whom one cannot persuade is a man who frightens us….

We live in terror because persuasion is no longer possible, because man has been delivered entirely to history and because he can no longer turn to that part of himself, as true as the historical part, which he discovers in front of the beauty of the world and of human faces…

The Century of Fear from “COMBAT,” November 1946 (my translation)

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

During the Log Cabin Republicans National Dinner Saturday Night at the New Orleans convention, LCR showed a short video on the group’s efforts in 2004. Among other things, the video included footage of a press conference held during last summer’s Republican National Convention where LCR announced the release of TV ad claiming that the GOP was focusing on issues which divide the party. Once again it struck me as odd that, just as Republicans were coming together to rally around their nominee, Log Cabin had been focusing on divisions within the party.

Of course, it makes sense for Log Cabin to distance itself from the president’s stand on the Federal Marriage Amendment as well as the GOP platform’s plank on civil unions (and other such planks). But, it seemed odd to use an occasion for party unity to promote and distribute a commercial which highlights their differences with the GOP.

Including that press conference in the video reminded me of the most frequent criticism this blog’s readers have made about Log Cabin. They cite such examples and wonder if Log Cabin is truly interesting in promoting the GOP.

At the convention this past weekend, I noted the relative paucity of Republicans on the panels. To be sure, former New York Senator Alfonse D’Amato joined us at the Welcome Reception while former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman delivered the keynote address at the dinner (when Chris Matthews had to rush off to Rome to cover the passing of the Pope). But, these two Republicans are former elected officials. No current Republican elected official addressed the convention.
(more…)

Like most gay people, I am saddened, but not surprised, by yesterday’s vote in Kansas to add the definition of marriage (as one man to one woman) to the state’s constitution. I am especially troubled by the sweeping nature of the provision. Not only does it define marriage, but it also prohibits the state from authorizing civil unions. The measure passed with 70 percent of Kansans in favor. All but one county, Douglas, voted for the proposition.

Kansas is now the 18th state to amend its constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Voters in every state who have had the chance to vote on the issue, have approved, in many cases by margins of more than two-to-one, measures which so define marriage.

The people of Kansas have spoken. I wish they had voted differently than they had. But, now that the results are in, we must recognize their reality. Our task now is not to condemn the Kansas vote as HRC and NGLTF have done, but to figure out what it means.
(more…)

Just over two years ago, when I first read that Patrick Guerriero was talking over Log Cabin, I contacted my friends who were still involved in the organization and asked about LCR’s new leader. To a person, they replied that he was personable and engaging and that he was making an effort to reach out to the leaders of the various clubs across the nation. I heard the same thing from those who had supported his predecessor as well as those who had criticized him.

Meeting (and observing) Patrick this weekend in New Orleans, I confirmed the comments of my friends. Before we met, I watched him interact with the people at the convention. He shook their hands enthusiastically (or hugged them warmly) and looked into their eyes when he spoke to them.

I introduced myself to him Saturday afternoon at a fundraising reception for LCR members running for office. Earlier in the day, this blog had broken the story of the lawsuit against him. And yet, when he heard my name, he knew who I was — and still greeted me warmly. He did not fault (or otherwise show any disregard for) me. I was impressed how he maintained his cool while talking to someone who has frequently criticized his leadership. He came across as a genuinely nice guy who seemed to take criticism in stride.
(more…)

In 1998, when I attended the Log Cabin convention in Dallas as president of the Log Cabin Republican Club of Northern Virginia, I brought with me The Virginia Plan, a report I had written and our board had unanimously approved, for consideration at the convention’s strategy session. Alas, that that session was limited to remarks by LCR’s then-Executive Director. I distributed the plan and received feedback from several club leaders, but none from the national office.

Our board approved a second plan in February 1999 which I hand delivered to the then-chairman of LCR national. He never got back to me.

This year, while no longer a club officer in Log Cabin, I found that I enjoyed greater respect at the convention in New Orleans than I had at a similar conclave nearly seven years earlier in Dallas. A number of national officers indicated that they were familiar with the blog. In his speech at the banquet Saturday night, LCR President Patrick Guerriero noted that “blogs” were one of the sources of Log Cabin’s criticism. As I reported earlier, someone close to the national office asked that I “write good things.” He knew we had an impact.

This blog has earned the attention of the Board, something which I could not accomplish as president of a chapter which grew from 10 members at its founding in June 1997 to just under 60 a year later. And we owe it all to the guy with the guts to found GayPatriot, the guy with the guts to speak openly for gay conservatives who, while not always agreeing with the president, did generally admire him and supported his reelection. We owe it all to our founder, the GayPatriot.

I knew this weekend that every time I identified myself as GayPatriotWest to someone at the convention and that individual recognized the blog, I would not have been called a “celebrity” had GP not invited me on board six months ago.

Largely because of him, the Log Cabin leadership is paying more attention to gay Republican critics of the organization. And the world can better see the diverse views of gay conservatives.

So many readers have e-mailed (or Instant Messaged) me to express concern for this blog’s founder. They miss his wit — and his insight. And, like me, they are grateful for what he has accomplished.

So, thanks, GP. We miss you — and want you back.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

For his homework, my second youngest nephew, a fourth grader, had to use each of the week’s spelling words in a sentence. Being a wise and precocious individual, this PatriotNephewWest was a bit more creative than the average ten-year old and used these words to craft a story, which I reprint with the permission of his father, the eldest PatriotBrotherWest:

1. Today the president gave the press a tour of what goes on in his OFFICE.
2. He was very GRACIOUS even with all the media.
3. He seemed to enjoy all the PUBLICITY.
4. But some of the media CRITICIZED him on how he did things.
5. He said he didn’t always like working in the cramped SPACE of the OFFICE, and liked to get outside to work sometimes.
6. The media did their job of being CRITICS and suggested that it might not be safe for him to work outside.
7. Apparently, half the journalists there were full of MALICE towards the president.
8. He also told the media that he planned to get closer to the PUBLIC.
9. He also planned to be one of the many presidents to PUBLICIZE his own book.
10. But after that day he wrote himself a letter in ITALIC to never invite the media over again.

I expect my nephew to soon join the blogosphere.