Gay Patriot Header Image

Democrats Just Want Investigations to Prove What They Believe

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 9:57 pm - November 3, 2005.
Filed under: Bush-hatred,Liberals,National Politics

When the president commissions a bipartisan investigation into an important matter of policy or law or to study a controversy, reasonable people tend to regard the panel’s conclusions as dispositive of the issue at hand. To be sure, some may question the bias of this or that panelist or the panel’s failure to evaluate certain evidence, but barring such evidence of bias, most will look seriously at the results of the investigation.

Similarly, if the Justice Department brings in a special prosecutor to investigate allegations of criminal behavior, most people expect that his investigation will be thorough. Should the prosecutor find evidence to substantiate such behavior, he will press charges. Without such evidence, he won’t issue indictments. And when the investigation is particularly thorough, people will understand that where no indictment was issued, the prosecutor didn’t find enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonble doubt that a crime had occurred.

As Democrats’ hatred of President Bush increased, they have called for no end to investigations of his Administration. They claimed they wanted to find out the truth. But, when those investigations, be they criminal or informational, reach conclusions with which they disagree, instead of finding such conclusions dispositive, they call for still more investigations. Or, as Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid did on Tuesday, misrepresent the findings of an investigation to suit their ends.

Like so many Democrats (and others on the Left), Mr. Reid holds that Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation proves something which Mr. Fitzgerald says the investigation didn’t even address. Given that many on the Left found (to borrow the words of one of my most persistent critics) that “Mr. Fitzgerald handled himself so incredibly well,” they should take him at his word that, “This indictment is not about the war.” But, that statement is at odds with the result they wanted his investigation to yield–evidence that the White House twisted intelligence in order to make the case for war.


More liberal hypocrisy?

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 7:19 pm - November 3, 2005.
Filed under: Conservative Discrimination,Liberals

Over at Cake or Death, Chad wonders why the New York Civil Liberties Union holds that:

It’s illegal for the city of New York to randomly search bags on the transit system, but it’s perfectly a-okay, hunkey-dorey, peachey-keen for them to be searched when entering buildings (who happen to house the NYCLU).

Chad sees some hypocrisy in their actions, but then again, hypocrisy is only the “greatest crime one can ever possibly commit” for Republicans. Since the ACLU is not Republican, well, then, they can get away with it. Anyway, check out Chad’s post for a taste of his wit — and wisdom.

Congress vs. Bloggers — Round One

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 7:44 am - November 3, 2005.
Filed under: Blogging,National Politics

Via Polipundit:

Here’s the roll call on that House Bill to exclude blogs and e-mails and such from regulation by the FEC under McCain-Feingold:

179 (77%) = Republicans in favor of excluding the Internet from FEC regulation.

46 (23%) = Democrats in favor thereof.

Totals: 225-182-26, in favor.

This effort to exclude blogs from the FEC’s domain failed, however, because a 2/3 majority was required to pass that particular bill under the chosen procedural framework.

From the Associated Press: House Defeats Bill on Political Blogs

The vote in effect clears the way for the FEC to move ahead with court-mandated rule-making to govern political speech and campaign spending on the Internet.

Disappointing, but not over yet.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from GPW): Over at Malcontent, Robbie sees this as a strike against free speech.


Posted by Bruce Carroll at 6:43 am - November 3, 2005.
Filed under: Liberals

Chad has the Greenpeace Karma lowdown…..

Greenpeace’s flagship, the Rainbow Warrior II, hits a coral reef, blames inaccurate charts.

There’s just so many aspects about that sentence that makes my soul laugh. How much you wanna bet that had an Exxon tanker hit the reef, they wouldn’t be getting by with paying $7000 for damages, and an “Oops, our bad!”? …. Bad charts, my left nut.


-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Romantic Chemistry – A Lost Cinematic Art?

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 3:42 am - November 3, 2005.
Filed under: Movies/Film & TV

Just returned from the movie Prime and while there is much to commend in that flick, some smart dialogue, Meryl Streep‘s brilliant portrayal of a bright Jewish psychotherapist caught in a complex situation, the movie didn’t hold together all that well. For the second night in a row (last night it was Shopgirl), I saw smart flicks where I just didn’t believe the relationship between the romantic leads. While Bryan Greenberg was quite fetching as Dave (in Prime), he just didn’t seem to connect with Uma Thurman, Rafi, his love interest.

Last night, I didn’t believe that either Ray (Steve Martin) or Jeremy (Jason Schwartzman) had fallen for Mirabelle (Claire Danes). (That said, there were elements in that story that really intrigued me and I’m likely to buy the book.) Today, it seems that the greatest problem in movie romances is that the leads don’t match. This is true for gay as well as straight love stories. Last December, I found that the gay romance in Oliver Stone’s Alexander fell flat because “there wasn’t much chemistry” between Colin Farell and Jared Leto, playing lovers Alexander and Hephaistion.

Good chemistry between the (romantic) leads can make up for flaws in the script, as in The Trip, one of my favorite gay flicks. We see this is straight movies as well. Although I found the script for Two Weeks Notice kind of weak, I quite enjoyed the film because I believed Hugh Grant had fallen for Sandra Bullock (and vice versa). Most film buffs overlook the flaws in The Big Sleep and To Have and Have Not because of Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall‘s palpable romantic sizzle. And even the worst of the Katharine Hepburn/Spencer Tracy comedies come alive in the scenes when they’re on screen together.

While the major flaw in Prime was the absence of chemistry between Thurman and Greenberg was the major flaw in Prime, another irritant the movie’s portrayal of its the gay characters–they were all effeminate. I did a crack a smile when one of those characters was identified as a Republican, but he seemed defensive about his politics, saying it was only about the tax issue.

All that said, I might be faulting the movie less had I believed the love story more. Meryl Streep once again proves why many people consider her “the greatest living film actress.” And Uma Thurman delivers a touching performance as a woman in her late thirties who falls for a guy in his early twenties. I just wish directors would pay as much attention to the relationship between the actors in their movies as they do to their talent.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest):