Gay Patriot Header Image

NJ Democrats Manipulated Post-9/11 Security

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 7:43 am - August 8, 2005.
Filed under: General

This qualifies as the Outrage of the Decade. Once again, the Democrats illustrate why they are more interested in power, for power’s sake… than actually helping the people they are always opining about. (Hat tip: Michelle Malkin)

Governor’s Office Steered Terror Aid – Newark Star-Ledger

The homeland security grants sparked controversy in July when The Star-Ledger reported that 93 percent of the $23 million handed out since 2002 had gone to districts controlled by Democrats. At the time, Codey spokeswoman Kelley Heck said the governor’s office “didn’t play a role in the awarding of those grants.”

More than $8 million was allocated for the program this year with 94 percent going to districts controlled by Democrats. The money was part of the 2005 budget approved six weeks before McGreevey announced his resignation last summer.

When the grants were distributed in April, more than $7.8 million went to Democratic legislative districts. Municipalities in Republican districts got $523,454, despite requesting a similar amount as Democrats.

By the way, this pattern of corruption began as policy under Jim McGreevey…. you know the one the gay community wants to hold up as a proud “gay American.” No thanks.

One final note…. the only winner in this outrage is the Star-Ledger. This is the kind of reporting, regardless of which party is doing it, that the media should concentrate on. Not silly conjecture over whether the most photographed “undercover” CIA agent had her cover blown by anyone other than her blowhard husband.

-Bruce (GayPatriot) – gaypatriot2004@aol.com

Share

43 Comments

  1. This qualifies as the Outrage of the Decade.
    GP
    ===========
    Oh, so you’ve never heard the name Jack Abramoff?
    Sounds reasonable.
    =

    Comment by chandler in hollywood — August 8, 2005 @ 8:36 am - August 8, 2005

  2. I’m assuming part of the reason of the disparity is because the large cities, which would require more funds, are democrat controlled. But the disparity seems way too high. I’m afraid in New Jersey, both parties really try to outdo the other when it comes to corruption.

    Also, in my little (mostly liberal) gay community, we do not hold McGreevey as a “proud ‘gay American.'”

    Comment by Pat — August 8, 2005 @ 8:52 am - August 8, 2005

  3. I am sure Karl Rove arranged for this inequitable distribution of funding in order to discredit the NJ Democratic Party.

    Just like when Air America stole that money from the children’s charity. Is there any doubt that wherever there is Democratic malfeasance, it’s obviously because of Karl Rove.

    Comment by V the K — August 8, 2005 @ 9:20 am - August 8, 2005

  4. From what I’ve seen, the monies seem to have been pretty judiciously divided among the counties.

    I’ve been trying to find some data, but what is the percentage of Republican controlled districts in New Jersey, and how does that correspond to the percentage of monies distributed? Also, do we know what kind of requests were made by Republican controlled districts? Part of the process was that each township had to submit proposals, correct?

    There are way to many details left out of this report to evaluate it fairly.

    Comment by Question — August 8, 2005 @ 9:42 am - August 8, 2005

  5. As one who is Jersey born and raised I can tell you that this does NOT surprise me. This state has to got be the most vile, corrupt state in the whole union!

    And the current tenant of Drumthwacket – Codey – is simply following in this state’s tradition. Tell me again whose brother received a huge salary boost when Codey became Governor? (hint: it was NOT my brother)

    BTW, Jim McGreevey was known for being a ‘user.’ He does not understand loyalty in any sense of the word. Just ask any of his political ‘friends’ and you will hear many stories of being stabbed in the back by him. Better yet, ask his beard, er, I mean, his ex-wife. I think most gay folks in NJ realized this and it was only a few ignorant folks who supported him. I think that was part of his downfall. Somebody somewhere was ticked off by being stabbed in the back by him. If he had shown more loyalty maybe others would have shown it back and his ‘affair’ would not have become public knowledge.

    Comment by Charles — August 8, 2005 @ 10:32 am - August 8, 2005

  6. McGreevey as “user” – Makes a lot of sense, considering the way he tried to (1) use his little boyfriend there, then (2) use the gay community and our hard-won efforts to achieve openness and respect in society, once he needed a way to paint himself as “victim” or distract attention from his misdeeds.

    Comment by joe — August 8, 2005 @ 11:29 am - August 8, 2005

  7. you know the one the gay community wants to hold up as a proud “gay American.” No thanks.

    I don’t know where you got that idea. I’ll give you a quarter if you can actually prove it. The gay community rarely makes politicians into icons of gaydom. We probably should. At the moment we tend to grant has-been celebrities with more respect than openly gay politicians.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — August 8, 2005 @ 11:34 am - August 8, 2005

  8. “I’m assuming part of the reason of the disparity is because the large cities, which would require more funds, are democrat controlled.”

    Well, yes and no, Pat. First of all, there are no truly “large” cities in New Jersey. Newark’s the biggest and that’s got a population of well under 300,000. And while Newark is solidly Dem along with some smaller north Jersey cities like Patterson and Elizabeth, the much, much heavier populated suburban areas that surround them only lean that way. Even so, there are plenty of affluent municipalities in north and central Jersey where the GOP is solidly entrenched.

    But the more important question should be what constitutes a district “affected” by 9/11??? Unlike NY, PA and VA, New Jersey sustained no physical damage, so that can’t be part of the state’s distribution equation. But if the primary criterion was merely being a bedroom community where a high number of the victims who were worked in the Twin Towers actually lived, then I have to believe those NJ communities were as likely to be Republican as they were Democrat, if not more so.

    By and large, the lower classes from Democratic districts in Essex and Union Counties didn’t work at the WTC – at least at 9 a.m. – but the middle to upper classes from Republican districts in Bergen, Monmouth, Somerset, Middlesex, Morris, Ocean, and Passaic Counties certainly did. To that extent, these districts should’ve gotten a LOT more than the 10% or so of the total available funds they received.

    Knowing my home state as I do, this will NOT go down well there as 9/11 is still a highly sensitive subject that most citizens do not want politicized in any way. If this story gains traction, it may finally be enough to convince New Jerseyans that they’ve had their fill of the kind of jaw-dropping Democrat-sponsored scandals they’ve had to endure over the past few years.

    P.S.: Dont’cha just love the name “Drumthwacket”?

    Comment by glisteny — August 8, 2005 @ 11:45 am - August 8, 2005

  9. NJ is notoriously corrupt and I don’t have any love for McGreevey, but these statistics are utterly useless unless we’re given a comparison of how many districts where the threat assessment is the highest (the many chemical plants, the ports, etc.) are in Democratic areas. And frankly, if the accusations are correct, then the corollary is that the NJ GOP is totally asleep at the wheel and not paying any attention to the security needs of their constituents.

    Comment by Andy — August 8, 2005 @ 11:57 am - August 8, 2005

  10. Is the the same “brave” Gay-American that the HRC coached when the news of his on-the-State-payroll boy-toy surfaced?
    The same boy-toy that he wanted confirmed as NJ’s Director of Homeland Decurity, despite being unbale to be FBI-cleared for the secured-briefing due his being an Israeli-citizen?

    Bwhahhahhhahaha……

    Comment by Ted B. — August 8, 2005 @ 11:57 am - August 8, 2005

  11. “And frankly, if the accusations are correct, then the corollary is that the NJ GOP is totally asleep at the wheel and not paying any attention to the security needs of their constituents. ”

    Only an malicious brat would say such a thing. Translation: “Yeah, we cheated again but you weren’t looking so too bad if your residents get hurt or worse!”

    Two things in response: 1. the Dems control the purse strings in NJ so the blame lies entirely with them. 2. Apparently, somebody WAS paying attention and that’s why this is now a story.

    Anyhow, I read thru the Ledger’s story and was wrong to assume that these grants were related to post-9/11 impact. They’re actually to support ‘homeland security’ efforts generally, including infrastructure protection, first responders, yadda yadda. And that does clarify the equation some because many of the industrial areas where refineries, bridges, chem plants are located are indeed in Democrat-controlled areas. But certainly not 93% of them, which is the percentage of funds shoveled to Dem vs. GOP districts by the disgraced former governor.

    Regardless, it still smells bad (no pun, Jersey) and will surely be looked into further. And the Dems, including current Gov. Richard Codey and our nation’s only bearded senator, Jon Corzine, better have a good explanation. A damn good one, actually.

    By the way, Ted, that’d be “boi toi”, not “boy toy”. Remember, we’re gay, gay, gay so it’s gotta be just a little bit different to show how impossibly clever we are!

    Comment by glisteny — August 8, 2005 @ 12:24 pm - August 8, 2005

  12. Charles-

    As another NJ-ex-pat, I’d agree that NJ has quite a bit of corruption — but having lived in Mass. and Cali. since then, I can’t say that I noticed that much difference in either the quality or quantity of political corruption.

    There’s quite a bit of information missing in this story, so far. I’d like to see a breakdown that includes Dem. districts that aren’t near any obvious source of concern (Newark Airport, Atlantic City, the Meadowlands, any bridge or tunnel, power plants, reservoirs…) compared to a Repub. district that also isn’t near one of those — or even data on a Repub. district that does have a potential target and isn’t getting funds. I’d expect a substantial amount of this money to be used to get local police, fire and EMT units prepared for possible disasters — and I’d expect that to be more necessary for EMT workers at Newark Hospitals, who’d be called if something happened at the airport, or firefighters in Fort Lee, who’d be called if anything happened to the GW Bridge.

    Also, just a thought, but is some of this money going to county-level organizations (sherriff’s offices and “offices of emergency management” and the like)? If so, are these being counted towards the party affiliation only of the county seat?? I’m only familiar with Bergen County — but I’d guess that county seat tends to be more democratic than the county as a whole fairly routinely.

    Clint

    Comment by Clint — August 8, 2005 @ 2:15 pm - August 8, 2005

  13. Glisteny-

    Knowing my home state as I do, this will NOT go down well there as 9/11 is still a highly sensitive subject that most citizens do not want politicized in any way. If this story gains traction, it may finally be enough to convince New Jerseyans that they’ve had their fill of the kind of jaw-dropping Democrat-sponsored scandals they’ve had to endure over the past few years.

    I agree. 911 is both personal and sacred in the tri-state area. If this story pans out, the fallout will be huge. Remember “Dump Florio”?

    (Also, just a note on the source of this investigation — the Star Ledger endorsed Kerry for president. So this isn’t coming from Fox News or the Washington Times.

    Clint

    Comment by Clint — August 8, 2005 @ 2:33 pm - August 8, 2005

  14. NAR – Look at comment #10. is it true?

    Comment by joe — August 8, 2005 @ 8:08 pm - August 8, 2005

  15. true about the HRC helping McGreevey, I mean….

    Comment by joe — August 8, 2005 @ 8:09 pm - August 8, 2005

  16. NAR-

    Time to review the archives. Try this piece from 365gay.com. They are a fairly liberal gay news source — but they hit just the right note with this, announcing the facts, saying a few good things about him being liberal and then observing “But he has been dogged by several scandals involving fund-raising.”

    Contrast with the quotes they provide from Lambda Legal’s director of education, the HRC’s president, and the NGLTF’s executive director — all praised his courage in coming out.

    I’m not aware of any quotes from any of them expressing anything negative about the Governor at the time.

    I’m not claiming that the leadership of the HRC, Lambda Legal and the NGLTF necessarily represent the mainstream opinion in gay America — but they are certainly the most visible and vocal figures claiming to speak for us. And they circled the wagons to defend McGreevey.

    Comment by Clint — August 8, 2005 @ 9:10 pm - August 8, 2005

  17. NAR-

    Time to review the archives. Try this piece from 365gay.com. They are a fairly liberal gay news source — but they hit just the right note with this, announcing the facts, saying a few good things about him being liberal and then observing “But he has been dogged by several scandals involving fund-raising.”

    Contrast with the quotes they provide from Lambda Legal’s director of education, the HRC’s president, and the NGLTF’s executive director — all praised his courage in coming out.

    I’m not aware of any quotes from any of them expressing anything negative about the Governor at the time.

    I’m not claiming that the leadership of the HRC, Lambda Legal and the NGLTF necessarily represent the mainstream opinion in gay America — but they are certainly the most visible and vocal figures claiming to speak for us. And they circled the wagons to defend McGreevey.

    Comment by Clint — August 8, 2005 @ 9:12 pm - August 8, 2005

  18. Great post Bruce.

    And Clint, good job of nailing the slippery slick liberal nonsense that gay libs weren’t big McGreevey fans when he was forced out of the closet… HRC was all over this story applauding the gay Gov for his courageous character to shed the hetero dishonesty and stand proudly in the light of gay love. “We are family…” was being lip sync’d by the gay darlings at the HRC.

    Revisionist crap from NevrARep. Crap. And I love the “…well, not ALL liberals or Democrats…” WTF. Were these the same “not all liberals or Democrats” who voted the scumbag into office? Gheez, sometimes I wonder if those people take 20 seconds to think about their nonsense statements before spewing it?

    Comment by Matt-Michigan — August 9, 2005 @ 6:38 am - August 9, 2005

  19. Re: #17 – NAR, I did not claim or believe that HRC represents the whole spectrum of the gay community. I only asked if it was true that they coached/defended McGreevey.

    What a strange, defensive answer you’ve given! I take it as a “yes”. Too bad that that is a sore point for you (for reasons I can’t guess).

    Comment by joe — August 9, 2005 @ 6:56 am - August 9, 2005

  20. “And this blogsite has not changed a thing — always blamed the Liberals and Democrats.”

    Gee, NAR…what would you expect from a site called “Gay PATRIOT”?

    Maybe you just don’t understand what the actual definition of “patriot” is. Websters defines it as, “One who loves, supports, and defends one’s country.” I can’t think of many liberals who can meet all three criteria without creatively bending the meaning of each.
    For example, merely telling us that you “support the troops” but then working to pull the rug out from under them while they’re fighting a war isn’t at all patriotic. It is, in fact, treasonous.

    But here’s a tip to get you started on your long road to recovery: when the Dems/Libs stop bad-mouthing their own country and fellow Red State citizens at every turn and doing everything possible to block the agenda of OUR president who was elected fairly by a *majority* of Americans, maybe you’ll be able to reverse the reality-based perception that you’re nothing more than a bunch of anti-American, anti-military, anti-Christian, anti-traditional values, hippies who’d rather see us fail than ever see any success under a Bush administration.

    In short, don’t blame anybody but yourselves for your current predicament. You all worked very, very, very hard at earning the reputation you’re now trying to shrug off. You made your own beds so don’t complain when you’ve got to lie in them, and when you stop quacking maybe people will no longer think of you as ducks. Maybe, but not likely.

    Comment by glisteny — August 9, 2005 @ 7:33 am - August 9, 2005

  21. “And this blogsite has not changed a thing — always blamed the Liberals and Democrats. Even if the hurricanes came by, it is still our fault.”

    That gives me a clue to what you’re feeling, NAR. It also tells me you’re out of touch with reality here. Bruce/Dan do often point out when liberals happen to be at fault. But rarely have I seen them do so irrationally or inappropriately. On a few occasions when they have, they’ve accepted corrections from their readers and admitted mistakes. They’re rational and fair-minded.

    Perhaps you are suffering frustration, because there are a number of arguments where you just don’t hold the cards (i.e., the facts and logic) to win. Perhaps that should be a sign to you that some (I’m sure NOT all) of your positions need revising.

    Comment by joe — August 9, 2005 @ 8:05 am - August 9, 2005

  22. On a few occasions when they have, they’ve accepted corrections from their readers and admitted mistakes. They’re rational and fair-minded.

    You’re kidding right? Gaypatriot is not punditry, just a “conservativeperspective?”

    Give me a break.

    Comment by Question — August 9, 2005 @ 10:05 am - August 9, 2005

  23. Re: #25 – Well if you don’t think so, then why are you here? Is this all some kind of crazy therapy/venting for you? If so, I’ll be sure not to bother responding to your comments. Let us know – thanks.

    Comment by joe — August 9, 2005 @ 11:24 am - August 9, 2005

  24. Glisteny – give me a break. YOU and your ilk who make such absurd arguments are exactly why liberals don’t support the “red state mentality” because for you everything is simple and black/white. You’re either with us or against us. Sound familiar? Well I guess I’m just against you, because I’m certainly not “with” you on a lot of issues. I guess I’m not a patriot. Boo freaking hoo. I’d prefer to be a rational, caring, thoughtful person who doesn’t get scared when someone throws around the word “traitor” and know that I have every right, and certainly a responsibility to challenge the system, to make sure that people like you with your blinders on are kept in check. I won’t bend over and just take it because a “majority” of VOTING Americans (since you can’t actually argue a majority of Americans since not all Americans voted) decided that a man who represents the “values” you believe in is our President. ESPECIALLY when he won by a very SLIM majority and there are evidently about 50 million or so Americans who DON’T think the way you think. Who think you can question the justification for war, question whether our troops should even be in harm’s way, question whether eliminating social security is a good idea (or rather, Bush’s plan or lack thereof is the right course) and not be labeled a “traitor”, who think that maybe there can be more than one definition of marriage, that a woman should have the right to choose, that public schools should NOT be allowed to teach my kids that Christianity is the WAY, who know that the BLUE states are the ones who continue to foot the bill for the RED states who take far more than they put back into the federal bank accounts. I will be the first to admit the Democratic party needs to definitely be reorganized, but I don’t for one second think the marginal election of Bush is proof that somehow everything Democrats or Liberals stand for is worth spitting on. Especially from someone who accuses Democrats as doing the exact same thing to Republicans!

    Comment by Britton — August 9, 2005 @ 1:06 pm - August 9, 2005

  25. And in fact there are moderate Republicans who have questioned whether going into Iraq was justifiable and whether the current state of affairs is acceptable for our troops, plenty of moderate Republicans believe a woman has a right to choose, that separation of church and state is sacred, that gay relationships have merit and value and that questioning whether the war in Iraq should continue to be quagmire it is means that you are automatically a traitor to God, Country and our Troops. So to not just accept that bush has all the answers and that everything he does is justified because he won the election isn’t a “liberal” or “Democratic” phenomenon.

    Comment by Britton — August 9, 2005 @ 1:30 pm - August 9, 2005

  26. Britton-

    The implication in your last two posts are that GP and GPW (as well as many of the conservatives commenting here, like glisteny) are, among other implausibilities, in strong opposition to statements like “gay relationships have merit and value”?????

    Is that really what you mean to say?

    Comment by Clint — August 9, 2005 @ 3:33 pm - August 9, 2005

  27. NAR-

    According to “urbanlegends.about.com” the quote you attribute to Jefferson is a common mistake. (see here)

    Also, note that the original misattributed quote (apparently from historian Howard Zinn) distinguished dissent from a lack of patriotism, where your attempt to use the quote assumed that dissent was unpatriotic, but asserted (by argument from authority) that it was nonethless “true american”.

    Piece of advice: When you find yourself pissed off by something someone has written, it’s usually wise to take a few deep breaths before responding.

    Comment by Clint — August 9, 2005 @ 3:42 pm - August 9, 2005

  28. Glisteny-

    While a number of prominent Democrats clearly demonstrate a lack of patriotism when a Republican is in the White House…. it’s unfair to paint every liberal with that brush.

    Just looking at former Democratic senators, how about Bob Kerrey, John Glenn or Sam Nunn as strong counterexamples. I wish I could think of a good example from the current crop of house and senate Dem’s, but none come to mind —- someone want to help me out?

    Comment by Clint — August 9, 2005 @ 4:19 pm - August 9, 2005

  29. Yeah, and I’d point out to YOU that Bob Kerrey, John Glenn, or Sam Nunn AREN’T IN OFFICE ANYMORE!!!!Instead we get Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, and Barbara Boxer. You wann defend any of them??? Thought not.

    Next time, maybe you should think first before proving my point with your own words, i.e., “former Senators”. None of those bastards would stand a chance in today’s uber-whacko Democrat party.

    As for you, Britton, I didn’t read more than 2 sentences you wrote as it was the same bitter horseshit you always spew. BTW, my “ilk” are the very same people who voted for Bush in the last election and who, therefore, are the MAJORITY in this country. And don’t you ever forget it, pal.

    As I’ve said to Reader before, WE WON, YOU LOST, GET OVER IT, you f’ing pussy loser. We’ll be sure to find you and yours when the war’s over and we get to start purging the traitors here at home. Better pack now.

    Comment by glisteny — August 9, 2005 @ 9:25 pm - August 9, 2005

  30. “Ducks? Ever seen a dog or a cat attacking a duck? You never will. Because the whole flock of ducks will attack them back to defend the wounded one. Think about it.”

    NAR, you’re truly an idiot if you think your stupid little analogy translates into the real world. By now, we all know how effective this “pack mentality” has been in helping the Democrat “ducks” succeed in fending off the cats and dogs that I can only guess would be conservatives in your asinine fantasy world. If you want to stand a fighting chance, maybe you should try being a man with a stiff spine instead of being a duck with a loud quack.

    Comment by gli\ — August 9, 2005 @ 9:47 pm - August 9, 2005

  31. Glisteny – the factual things you said are pretty true, but you lost me when you got to the foul language and hateful attitude. Please cut the f-words (even if not spelled out) and, more importantly, the “hateful personal attack” attitudes.

    Comment by joe — August 10, 2005 @ 6:26 am - August 10, 2005

  32. As for you, NAR – you don’t “bring debate”, just foolishness. If you actually believe what you said earlier, that Bruce/Dan aren’t rational and fair-minded, it’s a poor reflection on you that would try to hang out here and inflame anybody, or be inflamed yourself.

    Comment by joe — August 10, 2005 @ 6:37 am - August 10, 2005

  33. I have no issues with GP or GPW. If I did, I wouldn’t read this site at all. I do however have issue with some of the idiotic commentors (Glisteny) who only make themselves look petty and ridiculous by generalizing about everyone else. While also making absurd statements about being in the majority, which I never denied except to point out that the majority in which he claims to be is a slim one at best and only a majority of those Americans who cared enough to vote. And pointing out that being part of a majority does not mean that you are right about everything.

    Comment by Britton — August 10, 2005 @ 7:40 am - August 10, 2005

  34. I do however have issue with some of the idiotic commentors (Glisteny) who only make themselves look petty and ridiculous by generalizing about everyone else.
    Britton
    ==============
    Britton,
    Glisteny is more amusing than a chimp on rollerskates grabing at your balls. What glisteny lacks in intellectual fortitude, is made up for in spades with entertainment value. I laugh and laugh and laugh!
    =

    Comment by chandler in hollywood — August 10, 2005 @ 10:12 am - August 10, 2005

  35. OK, OK, I’ll try to be less hostile and foul-mouthed in the future. Sorry if anybody was honestly offended by that last series; it was a bit much.

    Back to NJ: people up there are talking. This is def gonna hurt spinach-chin Corzine quite a bit, and right now he’s only up on Forrester by 10% in a supposedly “solid” Blue state. Like Hillary, he has nowhere to go but down.

    As for Britton and the WeHo Boi, I’m glad that I amuse you! If my mere presence helps lighten the many burdens you carry around every day, then I consider it a feather in my cap. To that extent, gumdrops and lollipops to you both! Now you’ll excuse me…I have to strap on my roller skates and hunt for choice bananas.

    Comment by glisteny — August 10, 2005 @ 10:58 am - August 10, 2005

  36. As for Britton and the WeHo Boi…
    Comment by glisteny —
    ====
    glisteny,
    I live in Original Hollywood. Not WeHo, not NoHo, but OHo. Hence the name O Ho Mo. And if you can call me a “boi” with the hump, the short leg and the drippy eye, so be it.
    =

    Comment by chandler in hollywood — August 10, 2005 @ 11:47 am - August 10, 2005

  37. Geographic inaccuracies aside, hereafter you shall be known only as WeHo Boi. Nice try, tho.

    As for Cindy Sheehan, the schizophrenic Moonbat Military Mom who yesterday loved Bush (no pun) but today hates him, she’s getting the shit kicked out of her over at Little Green Footballs . And rightly so.

    Comment by glisteny — August 10, 2005 @ 12:52 pm - August 10, 2005

  38. WeHoBoi, I see you have a blog of your own (sort of). And I also see from your bizarre profile that you claim to be a “writer-actor-producer”. That’s quite a feat, my boi! Amazing that you can find the time to post here so often in between all your writing, acting, and producing of…things.

    But you’re not the only one who’s impossibly multi-faceted, you know. I myself am a self-made bazillionaire with my own private spaceship and an 11″ schlong. Oh, and I’m a “writer”, too! Look, I’m writing now! Write, write, write. Aren’t we both fortunate to live in a country where we’re free to be whatever we think we are? Mmmm, good times.

    BTW, your site was a spot-on confirmation of the embarassing stereotype I had you pegged for. All the elements were there: the predictable references to drugs and booze, plus the obligatory pic of a naked guy…and that’s just on one page! All that was missing was an homage to Judy, but I expect that’ll come in time.

    If anything, your site deserves credit for making it easier for straight people to perceive gay men as little more than shallow, self-absorbed, sex-obsessed children who aren’t ready for a seat at the adult table. Fortunately, I don’t think it’ll be getting much traffic, straight, gay, or otherwise. Unless, of course, you count the comments you made to your own posts as “traffic.” I don’t, but I’m not a writer-actor-producer, so what do I know?

    You know, I was feeling pretty bad about going off the deep end in my earlier post. But visiting your site immediately lifted my spirits, as it is certainly high comedy. In fact, it’s so funny that maybe you can turn it into a script, produce it into a made-for-TV movie (cable, of course), and play the leading role. Hell, why not play ALL the roles? And you could dance, too…and maybe even sing! And then you’d be a writer-actor-producer-dancer-singer! And then you could….

    Well, clearly you can see where this is going. But at least we’re now even insofar as we both made each other laugh today: you at my regrettable comment and me at your regrettable blog. I can’t promise that my comments from here on will continue to amuse you but you can be 100% certain that your site will keep me in stitches for as long as you can afford the hosting fees.

    And you never know, maybe we can combine our comedic talents and I can start posting comments on your blog! Do you think the world could actually stand that much humor? It’s probably better that we don’t tempt fate; I fear the consequences of such concentrated hilarity.

    I could go on and on but alas, I have a distant planet to visit and I’m sure you have something to write, produce, or act in. But if not, at least take solace in the fact that you wrote an amazingly ridiculous blog, acted like a fool while doing it, and produced a great deal of laughter on this end. So thanks again for cheering me up so effectively, WeHoBoi. You da best!

    Comment by glisteny — August 10, 2005 @ 2:02 pm - August 10, 2005

  39. But if not, at least take solace in the fact that you wrote an amazingly ridiculous blog, acted like a fool while doing it, and produced a great deal of laughter on this end. So thanks again for cheering me up so effectively, WeHoBoi. You da best!

    Comment by glisteny
    =====================
    Are you always this cunty?
    =

    Comment by chandler in hollywood — August 10, 2005 @ 4:50 pm - August 10, 2005

  40. Daniel & Bruce,
    Well there she goes again. Another unwarranted ad hominem. I’m glad that she has only hinted at wasting so much of my blog as opposed to actually wasting valuable space here. But as a sterling member of the conservatiz crowd, I’m glad she’s one of your as opposed to one of ours. And boi, does she make all y’all look real good.

    H@@@@@
    =

    Comment by chandler in hollywood — August 10, 2005 @ 4:55 pm - August 10, 2005

  41. Glisteny – you don’t amuse me. You’re just another apologist who thinks gays deserve the way they are treated because they don’t act straight enough. Because straight people are so damn upstanding. Your comments about gays not being allowed to eat at the adult table because they don’t act like heterosexuals tell me all I need to know about how you think. It doesn’t amuse me. And your rants criticizing someone’s occupation are rude, annoying and childish. And you think somehow you have earned the right to sit at the adult table? Gimme a break. I would think you’d be happy that Weho boi as you call him has a job and isn’t a sap on the tax payer. But that’s not good enough I guess. Get over yourself. Who the f*** are you?

    Comment by Britton — August 11, 2005 @ 11:14 am - August 11, 2005

  42. Hi, Britton. LOL! Man, you’re all over the map today! Try to pull it together before you blow a fuse, huh? First off, remember that no matter how hot they get kitchens almost always have doors that you can leave by if you don’t like the temperature. This site is no exception.

    Next, how are gays “treated”, exactly? I’m treated just fine, thank you very much. Aren’t you? Of course, I don’t make it a point to always be up in other peoples’ faces blathering on about my sexuality and how society owes me something or somesuch nonsense. Maybe if you take the chip off your shoulder and stop pretending to be a victim you’d find that people would treat you just like everyone else. In fact, they probably already do.

    And just to clarify, it’s not gays who don’t “act straight enough” that I speak out against. It’s just the ones who are living, breathing, characitures of the very worst elements that the gay “lifestyle” (whatever that means anyway) that I have a problem with. You know, the fringe whackos that get all the attention, just like those backwards, inbred, bible-thumping, Red State crackers that you and yours like to trash regularly with such enthusiasm? Seems we both have an aversion to human cartoons but the key difference is I’m actually gay and can make these kinds of criticisms based on first hand knowledge. I sincerely doubt you can say the same about those whom you find equally vulgar but then again liberals have always been prone to throwing darts from the sidelines.

    Finally, re: your defense of WeHoBoi, I’m not so sure that merely calling oneself a “writer-actor-producer” actually constitutes having a wage-paying job. I won’t even bother asking what you pretend to do for a living.

    Comment by glisteny — August 15, 2005 @ 10:07 am - August 15, 2005

  43. “Are you always this cunty?”

    Gee, WeHoBoi…I’d answer you but I’m afraid don’t know what the word “cunty” means. Must be another of those uber-witty colloquialisms used only by starving waiters, er, I mean “writers” from West Hollywood.

    Comment by glisteny — August 15, 2005 @ 10:20 am - August 15, 2005

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.