GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Back from my travels

by

I apologize for the light blogging of late. Before leaving L.A. just over two weeks ago, I thought I would have time to blog on a trip which included four days of classes, a drive to Colorado to spend some time with my Dad and celebrate his birthday with him and a visit to the home of a straight Mormon friend in the Beehive State. I may blog on that latter visit later. Now that I’m back in the City of Angels, I should be able to blog regularly again.

Ever loving to drive across this beautiful land of ours, particularly the western states, I took the long route home from Utah, driving across the beautiful southern region of the state and overnighting in enchanted Sedona, Arizona. WOW! That part of the Grand Canyon State is as beautiful as Zion–one of my favorite national parks, stunning red rock cliffs, mesas and mountains, some like the crumbling ruins of long-forgotten civilizations. And the colors, not just that rich redness of the rock, but the contrast of that red with the colors around it. Those red cliffs set against the blue skies and highlighted by the various shades of green of trees and other foliage. And then in the evening, declining light darkens the hills, creating unusual hues of black and gray.

I still have not gotten through all my e-mail and I also need to collect my notes, ideas and thoughts that have crossed my mind in recent days. I hope to be back up to speed by early next week with commentary on the Katrina catastrophe and the Governor’s veto of the same-sex marriage bill in the Golden State–and to the reaction of the media to both — and of the gay community to the latter.

And I’m eager to hear from y’all, to read thoughtful comments to our posts as I continue the great conversation as help Bruce (and other gay conservative bloggers) remind the world that the gay community is not an intellectual monolith. Finally, let me salute my blog-league (a bit belatedly) on his first blogiversary and express once again my thanks to him for inviting me to join him here, on this, the most free-thinking of gay blogs.

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

Comments

  4. “I took the long route home from Utah, driving across the beautiful southern region of the state and overnighting in enchanted Sedona, Arizona.”

    Hrm. Note to self: Drive through southern Utah during the day.

    Because it’s really a rather scary trip at 1 AM. They kept stopping me.

  5. When you get back into gear Dan, just remember:

    BUSH LIED! AND NOT ENOUGH DIED! The Nagin prediction of 10,000 dead from Katrina is way off….so the Democrats won’t get their new Presidency….and it’s ALL BUSH’S FAULT! As gays, we must immediately convene an inquiry commission to find out why NOT ENOUGH DIED!

    I’m obviously being sarcastic….hat tip LGF….and beneath my sarcasm is head-shaking sadness at how some people are (NOT humor or amusement). The overall reference is to this news article in today’s Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090901934.html

    On the second page of the article, they finally reveal that Louisiana’s current official body count is 118. That’s right. 118. And it’s unquestionably 118 too many. 🙁 But then that takes us back into the story of Blanco’s failure to call out her own Guard to keep order and her prevention of Red Cross access to the Superdome; Nagin’s pathetic failure to follow his own evacuation plan (hundreds of unused buses); etc.

  9. In case levee funding is (unbelievably) still a live issue for anyone out there:

    “Despite Landrieu’s complaints of budget cuts and paltry funding, the fact is that over the five years of the Bush administration, Louisiana has received more money — $1.9 billion — for Army Corps of Engineers civil works projects than any other state, and more than under any other administration over a similar period. California is a distant second with less than $1.4 billion despite a population more than seven times as large.”

    From this commentary about Mary Landrieu and her family’s longtime chokehold on Louisiana: http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=1&issue=20050909

  11. So…..

    Where are the topics of Brown being sent back to Washington??

    Where are the blogs about Bush and his sinking poll numbers?

    I’m getting tired of reading about glisteny and that black dude (mepundulam)or whatever….and joe, etc….. 🙂

    Lay off the wine, glisteny.

    Monty

  15. #11 — Monty, better question, where’s your blog where you can post about all the topics you think the GP’s are overlooking? I am sure there’s a vast audience just starving for your wit and insight.

    Oh, and welcome back, GPW.

  18. #14 Monty, thanks.

    Glisteny doesn’t know me. I did see one slightly weird/inexplicable mention of me in one thread, but there are a bunch of threads I haven’t read. Gang, if there’s anything serious about me I should know about, please leave me the tip here! appreciate it! 🙂

  20. So you are a “conservative” blog. Do you know what a conservative is? Maybe en.wikipedia.org can help:

    Conservatism: Political philosophy presented by English statesman Edmund Burke that wishes to conserve heritage; they advocate a political bias in favor of the current social climate, value existing institutions, and allowing only gradual “organic” change. Conservatives have a strong orientation to traditional values, which they consider universal. Many endorse biblical prescriptions for civil society. Strong, even jingoist, nationalism, militarism, patriotism (right or wrong), and anti-separatism. Antagonistic to socialism and communism, it often gravitates towards fascism. Preservation of the existing society, as it is, and in its totality; novation and innovation are shunned. Preferences include order over chaos, orientation toward the past rather than the future, the rural over the urban, unity and homogeneity over discord and fragmentation, the natural over the artificial and technological, existence over possibility, slow and incremental change over utopian projects, hierarchy over egalitarianism, and acceptance of inequality over redistribution. Most modern conservatives support the free market and capitalism, although an economic system as such is not conservative. Highly authoritarian valuing homogeneity rather than diversity. Conservatism in the broad sense, seeks to use of the power of the state, to enforce a social or cultural value, on those who do not voluntarily adhere to it. While some classical conservatives may be wary of government intervention into the private lives of citizens, even when that intervention is in support of traditional values, conservative movements in general tend to support such causes. They have negative positions on bio-ethical issues such as abortion and euthanasia. For Burke, the proper formulation of government came not from abstractions such as “reason,” but from time-honored development of the state and of other important societal institutions such as the family and the church. Indeed, tradition is a much sounder foundation than “reason”. They often prefer aristocracy, plutocracy, and oligarchy to democracy, which they identify as “mob rule.” Modern exponents: Michael Oakshott, William F. Buckley, Jr., Russell Kirk, and Roger Scruton.

    So something as radical as gay-inclusive marriage is off the charts. GWB, born-again yet moribund, right or wrong? Diversity nixed? Gays silenced? Are you SURE you want to be known as gay conservatives? That’s an oxymoron by any objective standard. And look at the company you keep: Lou Sheldon, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Jerry Fallwell, and all those religious fanatics that want the 318 Levitical Codes enshrined in our lives?
    That’s conservative, folks. I hope you’re obedient to your parents, because the conservative agenda, according to Deut. 21:18-21, will have you stoned to death if otherwise. Tradition trumps all, and so gay marriage, even consensual private sex acts between two men, shall not stand. I can see being libertarian or classical liberals, but conservative? You can really baffle a lot of us.

  22. DSH-

    You are a “gay” commentor? Do you know what gay is?
    Maybe dictionary.com can help:

    Gay: Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement; merry. Also, bright or lively, especially in color: a gay, sunny room.

    Your every post oozes negativity, so the first definition clearly doesn’t apply. While it is possible you’ve had your face and body tatooed in bright and cheerful colors, it would be strange to describe that as an aspect of your on-line presence.

    No, DSH. You are clearly not gay.

    Redefining other people’s terms, when their meaning has been clear, is one of the many forms of “argument” with all of the maturity of grade school playground taunts that, for some reason, too many academics seem to love anyway.

  23. Clearly, look at the reaction to the appellation of “conservative” as defined in a widely-respected encyclopedia. Just look at the visceral, ad hominem, non-sequituir, and clairevoyant responses. I certainly understand your antipathy, and I would be running from it as well.

  24. #20 – Wikipedia is obviously garbage, Stephen – at least here. Written by liberals, apparently. Not a lot could be more opposed to fascism in basic principle, than Edmund Burke. “Negative positions on bio-ethical issues”? Give us a break. Wanting to preserve life is positive. More generally, wanting to preserve and extend freedom is positive. Opposing socialism / communism / collectivism / “liberalism” (whatever you want to call it) is, in today’s world, forward-looking or future-oriented. Why? Because in today’s world, liberals are “the Establishment”, and the world they’ve created so plainly does not work.

    So what’s the deal, overall? Do you support the ideals of Barry Goldwater, as you’ve hinted in a few previous writings? which would then make you, in fact, a kind of gay conservative? Or are you, instead, someone who proudly refuses to be an “oxymoronic” gay conservative? You can’t claim both.

    #23 – Errrrrrr…….”widely respected”? By whom? (LOL) By true believers, plus yourself? 🙂

  25. P.S. I do admit that anything to do with fantasy characters on Wikipedia – Dungeons and Dragons, Tolkien, all the rest of it – is very good. I am being serious and ironic together. Because I’ve used their stuff about Tolkien, to keep the movies straight; they were great. But note it’s fantasy. Hmmm, Wikipedia fantasy orientation and Wikipedia liberal orientation….could there be a connection? Since, after all, socialism/liberalism in themselves are fantasies?

  26. Are you SURE you want to be known as gay conservatives?

    Absolutely. You see, the gay bit is less important than the conservative bit.

    What you seem to think is that what is truly important is getting what you want, when you want it, the methods and peripheral effects be damned. If you can work within the structure of the Republic, great. If you cannot, well, the Consitution is merely a piece of paper. It doesn’t “mean” anything.

    Gay conservatives more often than not believe in gay marriage. However, we do not believe in wrecking government to obtain it. We much prefer an incremental change through constitutional, democratic means. We recognize that the classical liberal institutions of the Constitution are important. They are the greatest hope for maximum individual freedom while retaining the cohesiveness necessary to maintain a functioning Republic.

    If we simply appealed to the judiciary to appease us by ruling in our favor, whether or not it is constitutional, we are asking them to set aside the constitutional order and embrace Government by Tribunal. Though we may like how they rule today, we may not like the institutions and traditions they abolish tomorrow.

    And if you think that will never happen, I simply ask you look at the recent Kelo decision to see what happens when we allow a judiciary to rule however it pleases, unfettered by law, institutions, or tradition.

  27. They often prefer aristocracy, plutocracy, and oligarchy to democracy, which they identify as “mob rule.”

    Which is far more true of contemporary liberal democrats than the contemporary right. It is the left that wants democracy replaced by judicial oligarchy, and consistently seeks to undermine popular democratic reforms, such as several California referenda dealing with illegal immigration, same sex marriage, and term limits. The left elites are appalled that the diversification of media permits non-elites to have a voice in political debates. The left elites favor campaign finance reform laws that make it easier for elites to stay in power, and harder for ordinary citizens to remove them from power. The left elites oppose education reforms that would give the children of ordinary citizens access to better schools. The left opposes giving individuals control over their retirement and health care choices. The left would even like to restrict non-elites from owning certain types of vehicles, sentencing them to mass transit while preserving the right of mobility for themselves.

  28. Off-Topic: SO LONG, “glisteny”! – A note to all GP posters:

    I think you all should know that READER has spent the past week or so posting a variety of whacked-out messages on a number of different GP threads under my screen name “glisteny”. I think most of the regular posters here may have suspected as much.

    Judging from the weight of his previous posts, it should be fairly clear to all by now that READER is a highly disturbed individual with issues that go far beyond his frustration with me, other gay conservatives, President Bush, or the current state of American society. I am fairly confident that he is afflicted with more than a few pathologies of an undetermined nature and possibly suffers from other, more personal problems that motivate him to lash out in the way he does. Some of you will also know that prior to his current on-screen persona, he posted here under the name “DEMESNE LORD” until he was banned by Bruce for his over-the-top comments.

    To that extent and in order to maintain control over my own statements, I’m permanently retiring “glisteny” in favor of another, yet-to-be-determined moniker so anything you see posted by “glisteny” from here on – whether with the incorrect Capital “G” or not – will not have come from me but instead from READER. I may also choose to post under a few different names but I’m sure you’ll be able to recognize me from the tone and sentiment expressed in the message. And, of course, by the always-correct spelling, impeccable grammar, and razor-sharp wit – none of which READER possesses.

    Keep in mind, this doesn’t bother me. I am neither annonyed nor deterred by this, and I don’t really excpect Bruce to get involved because he shouldn’t have to play baby-sitter here. But the rest of you should be aware that READER is fully capable of posting under your own names, too. And you should be prepared to call him out on it if you feel he has done so.

    Anyhow, say goodbye to ‘glisteny’, guys, and hello to someone else. Much like Puff Daddy/P-Diddy/Diddy, etc., etc., the name may change but the message will be the same. See you all soon!

    P.S.: To JOE: Apparently, you get under READER’s skin as well, and so he’s decided it would be a good idea to include you indirectly in some of the posts he’s attributed to me. You might wish to take this up with him yourself, and you’d also be wise to suspect that he’s also posting under the screen name “MONTY”, as well. He’s not above lying about who he is, as you now know.

  36. #28 – glisteny – Thanks for what you’ve said, and I’m glad those bizarro posts weren’t you. I look forward to more good discussion from you!

    Bruce/Dan – Again, whoever is posting the bizarro stuff is in the way of good discussion – could you please turn on comment registration? Registration would at least prevent “impersonation”.

  37. I realize many conservatives on this list don’t recognize Goldwater-type Republicanism or classical liberals (libertarians) like Andrew Sullivan and myself, but prefer the appellation “conservative,” apparently without knowing its etiology, history, foundations, or its practices (see definition above and reaction to it). Maybe that explains the disconnect on so many levels. But even by the efforts to justify your brand of conservatism, does GWB really fit it? Take for example this pericope from Sullivan:

    “What Bush has done to conservatism is align it with big government moralising, big government spending and big government inefficiency. He hasn’t vetoed a single spending bill. Pork-barrel spending — on projects often unneeded — has taken precedence over real needs in a Republican-run Congress with a Republican president.

    “Republicans and Democrats in gerrymandered districts have siphoned public money for pet projects to reward donors and constituents, rather than prioritising for the public good. There’s plenty of blame to go round. Government in America is bloated and broken at the same time. A true conservative would be cutting and prioritising it.

    “George W Bush isn’t that person. If that isn’t clear by now, you have blinkers on. And, ultimately, he’s the one responsible. He campaigned fundamentally on his ability to run the country in wartime, on emergency management, on protecting Americans from physical harm. That was his promise. It was swept away as the waters flooded New Orleans. And Al-Qaeda was watching every minute of it.”

    And I’ve repeatedly asked to no one’s response why it’s “conservative” to increase non-military discretionary spending by 33%? Federalize education? Invade a sovereign nation? Be anti-gay? Break down the church-state wall? ad infinitum? I’m trying to understand YOUR version of “conservative” and how you reconcile it with gay freedom and rights.

  39. And DSH, 1.) We don’t have to like or agree with Bush to prefer him over the alternative at the present and 2.) If Andrianna Sullington is a “conservative,” he’s the only one I know who supports massive tax increases (especially on other people), court-imposed social engineering, courts ignoring Black Letter law in order to impose social policy favors, and thinks liberating Iraq should be conditional on the Chief Executives position on same-sex marriage.

    Now, why don’t you just go back to Raimondo’s website and try to find a new talking point that you barely understand yet still manage to beat to death?

  41. Glenn Reynolds at InstaPundit pretty much sums up my own views on this subject –

    JOHN ZOGBY:

    In our new poll, every president since Carter defeats Bush. But Kerry still loses to Bush by one point. What am I missing here?

    It says a lot about what a weak candidate Kerry was, doesn’t it? It also underscores Bush’s weakness. I said from the beginning that he was a weak candidate, and vulnerable in 2004, but the Democrats managed to put up a guy that he could beat. (I was prophetic in 2003: “I’m always hesitant to disagree with Barone — but I think that Bush is far more vulnerable than most commentators suggest. The real question, I guess, is whether he’ll be vulnerable to whoever the Democrats nominate.” Survey says — nope!)

    Bush is, in my estimation, adequate as President, but not much more. I’ve thought that all along — which is why you’ve never seen the kind of lyrical praise of Bush here that once appeared at Andrew Sullivan’s place, or the kind of disappointment with Bush you see at Sullivan’s place now. But in a world of goofy-looking yet pompous empty suits, the adequate man is . . . President. And the Democrats made sure that this was the choice we had in 2004.

  42. Some queers just can’t help that their minds are always attenuated to sex. It’s become an obsession to the point where, rather than address conflicted issues, they always just go for the cock and ass or “curly hair in the teeth.” The only sexual acts on this list are the incestual masturbations by “gay conservatives” who, though unafraid of the appellation, haven’t a clue what it means or the inherent contradiction that it entails. Going solo with such a small coterie must be tiresome as it is lonely. But, hey, whatever gets you off. (BTW: How would you know HE’S got curly hair? Been down there recently?) Of course not. If you’ve got anything at all, you’d know fantasized masturbation isn’t all there is to life.

  46. #37 – If there are any doubters that “DSH” is one and the same person as the irrational, hate-filled “Stephen” of 1-3 weeks ago, a.k.a. D. Stephen Heersink, please let them be swept away with his wording and references to our past discussions in post #37.

    Before I get to that part….he says: “I realize many conservatives on this list don’t recognize Goldwater-type Republicanism or classical liberals (libertarians) like Andrew Sullivan and myself…”

    Because you aren’t, Stephen. Really. Come on now. I am a classical liberal (favoring small government / capitalism / individualism / freedom consistently). Andrew Sullivan may join us genuine classical liberals / libertarians in criticizing Bush’s big-spending ways. But a true classical liberal – and/or a true conservative – he isn’t. Anyone reading his blog for 30 seconds (and I read it closely for 2 long years) can see he is all about group identity politics. He conceives bilious, irrational hatreds (as I’ve seen you do) on that basis alone. Secondarily, whenever you scratch the surface of his economics, he ends up as a Left Roman Catholic type of collectivist. Whatever he says in defense of pharmaceutical companies is just him trying to be clever, and a position he will probably abandon in the end, as he sooner or later abandons 80% of the supposed “conservative” and/or “classical liberal” positions he has ever held.

    There is a kind of crypto-Leftist “libertarian” who loves talking about liberty, but who will reverts to leftism and “ressentiment” politics when pushed. That is Sullivan. Barry Goldwater? – In what alternative universe is Barry Goldwater remotely like Andrew Sullivan, or vice versa?

    “And I’ve repeatedly asked to no one’s response why it’s “conservative” to increase non-military discretionary spending by 33%? Federalize education?….”

    As I’ve repeatedly answered you several times now Stephen, a fact which you seem to evade or ignore: It isn’t. Bush is a Big Government guy. As such, and as I have said many times, I do not like Bush. I just see no value or rationality in your type of over-the-top, destructive hatred of him.

    “Invade a sovereign nation?” – You have been answered so many times on that, Stephen, you ought to be ashamed to show your face around here.

    “I’m trying to understand YOUR version of “conservative” and how you reconcile it with gay freedom and rights.”

    There are so many things wrong with that one sentence, I almost don’t know where to start. First, we’ve seen that you aren’t trying to understand anything. You have been answered, in full, so many times on these exact questions. Second, with those answers, you have been asked questions in return – and done NOTHING to answer. Here is but one thread where you expressed your hatred, asked your questions, had your questions answered, then ran and hid like a psychotic coward from questions that were asked you.

  51. Just to make my interpretation of Sullivan crystal clear: I am aware, from having once read his blog so much, that he talks a very good game about being a classical liberal, a centrist small-government conservative or individualist. But the second someone isn’t 100%, perfectly in synch with Sullivan’s particular views on gay rights, he knifes them, and reverts to his inner “true form” – whining, negative Left-liberal.

    Sullivan’s flip-flops on the Iraq War are probably the single largest example, though there have been many others.

    By the way, Stephen – What you make of the fact that Sullivan, a “Goldwater Conservative” such as yourself (right?), was one of the loudest supporters of invading Iraq? In addition to Clint’s questions to you, please answer that.