“If I had to choose between joining a crowd or making a difference, I would choose to make a difference.”
That’s the closing quote in an interesting article on Gay Republicans just published by the Gay & Lesbian Times.
Read the whole article…. it is worth it. One interesting recurrent theme is the overwhelming personal hostility borne by gay Republicans by their own “tolerant” gay community. Thus, the final quote.
I couldn’t agree more.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
“If I had to choose between joining a crowd or making a difference, I would choose to make a difference.”blockquote>
==================================
The reaity is that both are crowds and the “difference” has yet to materialize. A lovely apologia and self justification that will bring out the warm fuzzies in many a gay republican.
Prick us, do we not bleed?
Bravo Bruce.
Considering how the “mainstream G/L community’s leaders and “spokesmen” continually revile the gay Republicans, you would think that they were a tiny sub-single-digit, misguided and deluded minority. If you mention that your a “Republican” at a G/L venue, you’re usually greeted by cries of “unclean, unclean”…verbally or physically abused…or promptly marginalized. Yet in 2004, somewhere between 17% and 23% of self-identifying G/L voters supported Bush/Cheney…and by extension many other Republican candidates…in the face of widespread unease and discomfort/disgust at the Party’s platform and stated anti-“gay” positions on gay-rights and gay-marriage.
While Patrick Guerriero wants gay Republicans to come out of the gay-closet…perhaps more of us shoud come of the political-closet at the bars, clubs and other venues within the G/L community. And call-out G/L “leaders” when they launch into gratuitous GOP-bashing as if they were speaking for the entire G/L commnity….yes, this means you Messers. Forman and Solmonese.
I think in general, as the article states, there are a lot more conservative gay men and women around that are not part of some group like Log Cabin or are even part of the Republican party. I think that’s where the difference needs to be highlighted. One doesn’t have have to be a Republican or belong to a political activist group like Log Cabin to be conservative.
It’s the radicals, like Log Cabin or the conservatives that post on here, that ruin it for the rest of the quietly conservtive gay community. And it’s no wonder that people become incensed when one announces they’re a gay Republican. And it will remain that way until Republicans stop trying to direct the personal lives of Americans with a conservative social agenda.
Ruin it for the quietly conservative gay community? If you’re gay you’re supposed to be quiet? Oh, if you’re a conservative gay you’re supposed to be quiet.
You’re probably right that there are a lot of conservative gays who are not part of some group. The thing about conservatism is that it’s about a wide variety of things, capitalism and (supposed) fiscal responsibility, foreign policy, individual rather than group activism. There’s no reason at all to think that sexual orientation, gender, race, any of those things have anything to do with what ideas a person will have about the proper role of government and the proper decisions that our leaders should make about economics or foreign policy.
The only thing that is “radical” about Log Cabin is that we are Republicans. GayCowboyBob commenting about conservative gays is quite amusing. It’s like me saying that the radical Democrat Leadership Conference ruins it for the quiet mainstream from the Democratic Underground.
#5 — It’s also amusing that GCB doesn’t seem to believe Democrats have any desire to control the personal lives of the masses. Shall I go through the list again? (Reminder: Democrats believe in total freedom in the bedroom, and total regulation of everywhere else.)
Personally, I’m interested in hearing and having an intelligent discussion on why gays (especially politically active gays) are conservative. It’s one of the reasons I started looking at sites like this one because in a politically diverse country like ours, sitting around with others of similar beliefs in a mutual admiration society doesn’t take the concept of political discourse anywhere. It’s been interesting to see some of the diverse opinions here – excluding of course those who are quite closed-minded and resort to name-calling of others.
Comment 6 –
Yeah V, do it!
Oh, and Kevin –
I don’t condone name-calling, but let’s see you denounce (or separate yourself from) the Left’s endless name-calling on conservatives.
(Howard Dean’s… Al Gore’s… Michael Moore’s… the academic establishment’s… chandler’s… GCB’s… Kewpie’s… Kos Kidz’… etc.)
Then your sniffing about some admittedly deplorable instances of conservatives’ name-calling might not sound absurd and pretentious.
I think when Kevin says “Name-calling,” he actually means, “People who keep reminding others that I said conservatives would be happy to exterminate gay people.” A statement he has never backed up and repudiated, BTW.
If that’s it: How about if we take this opportunity to clear the slate?
Kevin, could you acknowledge in passing that conservatives, as an ideology or group, in no way seek or desire the extermination of gay people?
Surely, in your constructive listening to the opinions of others in this forum, you have learned that much. I’m not asking anything heavy – Just type in a sentence about it.
In exchange, VK would forget (i.e., stop bringing up) that you had once implied or said anything different.
Cool?
#11
I don’t know about V, but I won’t.
That’s a given 😉
Good post, Bruce. ANd I see that guys like Chandler and GayCowBBs just don’t get it once again. The GayLeft is sometimes as intolerant to fellow gays as some elements of the Christian Right are to them.
There’s a simple proof that ought to satisfy any GayLeftie who posts here about the reality of our gay community’s intolerance toward all things conservative-gay or GOP-gay or pro-WOT gay… head over to OutSports, join any discussion thread in Politics & Religion section… make a simple statement about being conservative but gay, GOP but gay, pro-WOT but gay -you choose… and watch the fireworks begin. It’s bloody incendiary.
Don’t need to go to gay parties and offer that you’re a conservative while conversing to be spat upon… don’t need to head to the local AIDS-network center where the REAL intolerance and antipathy among volunteer staff is nearly held to be a virtue to literally have your “gay card” pulled out of your wallet and ripped up in front of your Mother’s cryin’ eyes… don’t even have to go to an HRC event… or a Pride Parade to learn about the intolerance of the GayLeft toward those who don’t march lockstep with the GayLeft agenda.
Just something as simple as an OutSports discussion thread where the commentators are protected by anonymity will drive home the gist of your post and the GLTimes piece –there’s a rotten seed in the GayLeft land and it’s called political gulags for all things conservative.
It’s even worse.
Merely announcing that you are a centrist libertarian who supports Cato Institute – with you and Cato both being strongly pro-gay-marriage, pro-drug-legalization and pro-abortion – will get you branded and rejected as a “conservative” by longtime, supposedly “close” personal friends on the gay Left.
The level of fear, righteous moralizing, conformity and ignorance among “gay community mainstream” type of gay Leftists is astounding.
Yeah, it’s kind of weird. If you say you don’t believe a plane really hit the Pentagon, say that Bush is a Nazi who went to war on behalf of Israel, say that you believe the Republican party is secretly run by a washed-up televangelist… and you’re right in the gay political mainstream.
However, say, that you support tax cuts and school choice, and they’ll brand you a self-hating whacko.
Blah blah blah. A bunch of idiots on the net have a lot of hostility and you call it “overwhelming personal hostility.” But then you turn around and call everyone else unpatriotic, unamerican, communists, and pretend to be the victim.
GROW UP PLEASE.
The GayLeft is sometimes as intolerant to fellow gays as some elements of the Christian Right are to them.
What utter bull! I personally don’t hold it against someone if they say they’re Republican but I will take offense if they simply buy into the rhetoric lock, stock and barrel, just as I feel toward the radical left. I personally have no room in my life for either faction.
It’s simply difficult for the conservative posters to see how wrapped up they are in their own Republican agenda to question the veractiy of it all. And when that personally affects me it pisses me off. And that’s why it’s OK to be intolerant to gay Republicans because, unlike the dykes on bikes at the annual Pride fetival with their tits hanging out which makes me wince and turn away, gay Republicans support a political machine which invariably has the power to impact my life and my personhood as a citizen of this country. Despite all their lip service to personal liberty, the fact is that the party has a specific social agenda and I want no part of it.
The same would be true if it was a Democratic social agenda that negatively affected me, but that’s usually not the case (cue ND30 to begin rant about Kerry and his evil anti-gay agenda).
“What utter bull! I personally don’t hold it against someone if they say they’re Republican but I will take offense if they simply buy into the rhetoric lock, stock and barrel, just as I feel toward the radical left.”
Bob –
You ARE the radical left. What a funny comment, for you to make.
“I personally have no room in my life for either faction.”
OK, you have no room in your life for… yourself, i.e., what you already are… that makes you “self-hating” right? (*cough*)
“it’s OK to be intolerant to gay Republicans…”
Exactly. You just proved Bruce’s view exactly!
“The same would be true if it was a Democratic social agenda that negatively affected me…”
You mean, like, John Kerry supporting 11 state anti-gay-marriage amendments, and emphasizing that his gay rights position is “THE SAME as President Bush’s”? (*cough*)
Another thought:
The Democrats have a gigantic social agenda… that negatively affects Bob and all of us.
– Class warfare / destruction of economic growth through redistributive taxes
– Appeasement of, or at least agreement with many claims of, the terrorists
– Socialism / collectivism / “enslaving all to all”, e.g., socialized medicine
– Easy, unlimited abortion-on-demand
I’m gay, and all those things are anti-me or anti-my-life… and Bob is gay, and all those things are anti-Bob (or anti-Bob’s-life) in reality, even if Bob can’t admit or recognize it… let’s have some outrage now.
20 — Add to the gigantic Democrat social agenda:
– Subjugation of democracy to autocratic judges
– Environmental extremism
– Political correctness/regulation of political speech
– Primacy of the state over the parent in matters of child rearing
– Support of public employee unions to the detriment of the public they allegedly serve
11: I did not say that all conservatives want to exterminate all gays. Some people here twisted it around and turned it into a name-calling fest. The point I made is that many times in history, and even in recent years, groups which gained too much power went too far. I’m concerned because we are starting to see just the merest beginnings of things that, if allowed to go unchecked, could lead us down a very bad path. A few of the biggest ones in mind:
* Trying to pass laws that don’t have to pass the muster of constitutionality.
* Continuous assaults on the judicial system because decisions made with regard to the law don’t sit well with certain people, even if those judges making the rules are know for there adherence to the law and are even conservatives to boot.
* Re-defining of concepts like torture.
* If you don’t agree with each and every point one group makes, then you’re some kind of traitor, nut, only listen to Michael Moore, should go live in France, etc, etc., etc.
I pride myself on looking at all angles of an issue before deciding. You might even notice on some of my posts I actually agree with some of the topics here (such as voting: if you want to vote, then become a citizen – don’t come to the U.S. to live a better life, enjoy what this country has to offer and then say you want to vote simply because your wages are taxed. Take on all the responsibilities of citizenship or none at all).
The thing I find irksome here is that some people simply declare “you all do this” and “you all do that”. I’m happy to listen/read the statements that anyone makes, but as soon as people put in all their statements things like “well, all you leftoids….” that person has made me immediately turn off to what they have to say.
Note: In my last posting, the term about judiciary should have been “rulings” not “rules”
Kev, you are so full of shit. Here’s your quote.
I have yet to see anyone give a sound, logical reason as to why gays/lesbians/bisexuals want to support a group of people who would be perfectly happy to see us exterminated. Seriously, I want to hear a logical, thought out response to this point of view instead of “oh, that’s just an old argument”– Comment by Kevin — October 16, 2005 @ 4:51 pm – October 16, 2005
Now, do you see anything in there about “many times in history, and even in recent years, groups which gained too much power went too far.” ‘Cos I don’t.
And the only people who are “redefining concepts like torture” are leftists who want to define torture as “any discomfort, no matter how temporary or minor, that a terrorist is subjected to.”
Now, if you are saying you only believe that “some” conservatives want to exterminate gays, could you provide examples with links to explicit statements wherein they express the desire to exterminate gays. I can only think of one guy who advocates the exterminationof gays, and he’s a liberal democrat activist named Fred Phelps.
It’s not just the gay community that shuns gay conservatives. A few years ago, casually talking to straight couple (who knew I was gay) over a couple of beers, I said I thought abortion was wrong. The conversation stopped cold. “You are against abortion?”, the wife sputtered in stunned disbelief.
That comment forced me to rethink my definition of stereotypes. Because I was gay I had to follow “lock-step”(a favorite phrase here) to a total belief system? A stereotype goes both ways.
Excellent post Bruce
24: Funny, I said a group of people, not all Republicans/Conservatives, now did I? It’s also nonsense that you bring Fred Phelps name into this discussion. This guy protests against liberals and conservatives and moderates; all have denounced him. He previously aligned himself with both liberal and conservative groups/organizations at some point in his past, so don’t throw up the “liberal/democrat” label to make your point. Does anyone who reads here get a warm, cozy feeling when they see his name? I doubt it.
26: I think it’s easy to at least see why she had that response – and why any stereotype has some basis in fact. As I learned in college, many groups who worked for equal rights worked together to make connections and use their combined resources to acheive their goals. One of the strongest bonds forged was women’s rights and gay rights. This is the reason why many people believe that out, gay people must be liberal. I hope the conversation didn’t stop there and you got to talk a little more about it.
#17
Joey,
You nailed it,
They just don’t get it.
(Hat tip to tired, trite phrases.)
Here in Dallas, the precincts that voted most heavily in favor of both denying any possible future right to marriage AND eliminating partner benefits, etc. also happen to be overwhelmingly Democrat. Based on this week old fact, I call for all gays to reject the Party of Hate, the Democrat Party. Gay and Democrat in Dallas is like being a Jewish Nazi. Don’t be a pathetic apologist for your oppressor! Just say no to self-loathing!
“And the only people who are “redefining concepts like torture” are leftists who want to define torture as “any discomfort, no matter how temporary or minor, that a terrorist is subjected to.”
Here’s a few articles on that topic:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1152AP_CIA_Secret_Prisons.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/03/politics/main664527.shtml
A favorite quote from the second article (Hadley when asked about secret prisons): “The fact that they are secret, assuming there are such sites, does not mean torture would be tolerated.”
The point here is not just how we are carrying out a war on terrorism, but ultimately how far our government will go. What is “ok”? What is the stopping point? When do we cross over the line from what happens to our enemies/non-citizens to people in this country? Isn’t this how really bad governments came into being? acts/changes in government carried out in the name of an enemy, but then carried out against its own citizens? Russia, Italy, Germany, Argentina, Cuba, Spain, Cosovo, Iraq….all within the last century to some degree. And all which came into being (whether military, elected or both) to restore order and morality to their nation.
I remember a very interesting statement from a government/history teacher in high school from years ago: A conservative is someone who believes that it’s ok to put innocent people in jail if it means putting away the criminals. A liberal is someone who believes its ok to let a criminal go free as long as the innocent aren’t put away.
Both are pretty interesting concepts, but it seems that either one taken too far will hurt any true democracy.
Bobo, I’m in Dallas. So shut up or bring it. After quickly reviewing the stuff at the Dallas County Elections site, I can’t see what you’re talking about, but I can quickly disprove what you said!
Wow!
#26: Just because you aren’t stereotypical gay doesn’t mean you have to switch to complete stereotypical right of center gay.
#31
Actually, liberals just want criminals to be free to the detriment of society. After all, it’s not their fault.
America sucks anyway, so what the hell, right?
24: Funny, I said a group of people, not all Republicans/Conservatives, now did I?
Specifically, you made the comment in the context of groups of people supported by the GPs and other conservatives on this board. In fact, that precise phrasing is in your comment. Now, explain exactly which “groups of people” you were referring to. Who is out to exterminate gays, and what is your proof?
And as for your, “A conservative is someone who believes that it’s ok to put innocent people in jail…” again, can you back this up, or is this just your stereotyping and bigotry talking? I think its fair to say that liberals care more about the rights of criminals while conservatives care more about effective law enforcement and protection of people from criminals. But I don’t think there is any conservative who regards the jailing of innocent people as other than the unfortunate, even tragic, result of an imperfect system.
Also, while I oppose real torture, I don’t think that sleep deprivation, loud music, or “Koran abuse” qualify. This is where I split with liberal pants-wetters like Andrew Sullivan and the New York Times.
You and your fellow lefties claim that were on the right are engaging in “name-calling,” when we refer to the left as anti-American, but we can always cite a long list of examples to illustrate our point. Whereas your side just indulges in stereotypes and hyperbole and then, when pressed for proof, you weasel out.
It is also fair to point, since there is proof in the form of example, that it is the left that invites convicted cop-killers to speak at college commencements:
http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/newab012/mumiaEvergrn.html
#17 and 29 –right Chandler, Joey get’s it, you get it, it’s the other 99% of Americans that don’t get it. What a joke given this is partially a thread about the GayLeft’s hostility toward gays who don’t agree with the socialist/political gay agenda spewed out of the Left.
For a self-proclaimed Hollywood writer you sure come up short on being able to communicate effectively. Go back and actually read the article Bruce suggested rather than simply spouting –stream writing is arcane, Chandler.
Kevin –
You’ve written a lot of words. But let’s get back to basics.
(1) You made a comment looking down upon the name-calling you’re supposedly subjected to here (doubtless some is real, and some imagined). I agreed name-calling is bad, and I asked if you could perhaps boost your credibility on the matter by separating yourself from (i.e., by briefly denouncing) the Left’s constant, endless name-calling on conservative figures.
(2) You stressed the importance of constructive listening. I agreed implicitly, and I asked if, having listened in these forums for awhile now, you could perhaps separate yourself from your October comment (quoted accurately by VK) that conservatives “would be perfectly happy to see us exterminated” – or in its most precise form, that the Gay Patriots “want to support a group of people who would be perfectly happy to see us exterminated”.
I am still waiting on both requests.
Your other long words seem to me like side issues; perhaps a distractionary tactic.
You discussed Fred Phelps; but rightly pointed out that conservatives have denounced Phelps, and so (by implication) you did NOT mean hims in your “Gay Patriots want to support a group of people who would be perfectly happy to see us exterminated” comment which is still open.
You mean, like, John Kerry supporting 11 state anti-gay-marriage amendments, and emphasizing that his gay rights position is “THE SAME as President Bush’s”? (*cough*)
Sorry, I should have said “cue ND30 and/or any other radical conservative poster to bring up the anti-gayness of John Kerry.
It’s funny how predictable these threads are.
Yet you always come back, huh Bob? You get your fix here.
Incidentally, look up the psychological term “projection” in connection with your being sadly predictable, radical, etc.
Bobo, I’m in Dallas. So shut up or bring it. After quickly reviewing the stuff at the Dallas County Elections site, I can’t see what you’re talking about, but I can quickly disprove what you said!
So am I, Joey….and oddly enough, if you look at the precinct maps, especially at South Dallas, you can spot the pockets where there are gays in Oak Cliff, but everywhere else….the Potter’s House dictum of gays being bad rules. Those precincts are overwhelmingly Democratic.
You, of course, can persist in your belief that Eddie Bernice Johnson and (formerly) Martin Frost aren’t going directly from Oaklawn fundraisers to the black churches in South Dallas and denouncing us there as threats to the community. You can, of course, believe that the same faithful Democrats who slandered the hell out of Ed Oakley and Monica Barros-Greene don’t hate gays.
But the rest of us don’t.
Joey, I’ll have access to the final official numbers next week and I will share them with all.
– Class warfare / destruction of economic growth through redistributive taxes
i.e. the rich get richer and the poor get poorer which is exactly the current trend during this administration? Weakening the middle class weakens the whole of the country. No, I’m not for it.
However, something that’s very un-Democratic and un-Republican, I am for flat, no sliding scale, no loophole taxes. We should all do our part. No excuses.
And isn’t it through fricken redistributive taxes your Red States are able to suck the life out of the Blue States? you wouldn’t have two-thirds of the transportation bill without Blue money.
– Appeasement of, or at least agreement with many claims of, the terrorists
That’s utter, unfounded bull. Until Bush and his Holy Crusade the conflict was much more contained without the religious overtones on our part. It was obviously time to step up the political response but the administration, in taking the mountain to Mohammed (ah the irony), has simply added fuel to the fire. His fatal mistake was in assuming that Iraq would be a pushover for democracy. A country really has to want to change for that change to be lasting and positive. So now we have a locus of everything the Middle Eastern/Muslim world thinks is wrong about United States involvement. Brilliant strategy Bush & Co. Inc. Nothing like rallying the opposition to further our interests.
And nobody, and I do mean nobody, agrees with terrorism. How we confront that and stop it from happening is a different issue which this administration has completely f***ed up.
– Socialism / collectivism / “enslaving all to all”, e.g., socialized medicine
I’m not really a fan of socialized medicine actually, mostly because the actual practice rarely meets the theory. However, I do believe that one of the elements that elevates our country is a commitment to the basic health care of our citizens. I don’t believe the phrase on the Statue of Liberty reads, “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free… and we’ll keep them only if they can pay their doctor’s bills.”
– Easy, unlimited abortion-on-demand
If you’ve read my previous posts on this, you know that that’s not what I believe either.
See, I represent that crazy gray area that most of the populus also finds themselves in. The not so easy to define area that flips out wingnuts like yourself because our viewpoints can’t be pegged into a hole.
Okay, GCW,
1. Partial credit. This administration’s utter and damn near criminal neglect of the border situation permits illegal aliens to exert downward pressure on labor costs, thus hampering the ability of people lower in the socio-economic strata to improve their incomes.
2. Calls for the left for unilateral, unconditional withdrawal from Iraq are appeasement to terrorists. Furthermore, the reflex response of the left-wing to ‘blame America first,’ (Chomsky, Sonntag, Scheer) is also a form of appeasement. When the left echoes al Qaeda’s talking points, they are engaging in acts of appeasement.
The Democrat determination to treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue is also a form of appeasement, as it legitimizes terrorist goals while addressing merely terrorist tactics. Bear in mind, John Kerry described terrorism as a “nuisance,” as though it were something people should learn to live with.
3. So, you want everyone to have access to health care. (Or, in Canadian terms, access to access to health care). Explain how you propose to achieve it.
4. If you don’t support “Easy, unlimited abortion-on-demand” please explain what limitations you believe are appropriate. Reconcile your position with the position of the Democratic party, which opposes limitations of any kind, and supports public funding of abortion anytime, anywhere, at any stage of pregnancy, for any reason.
The same would be true if it was a Democratic social agenda that negatively affected me, but that’s usually not the case (cue ND30 to begin rant about Kerry and his evil anti-gay agenda).
Or
Sorry, I should have said “cue ND30 and/or any other radical conservative poster to bring up the anti-gayness of John Kerry.
It’s funny how predictable these threads are.
That’s because, Bob, you and yours keep arguing that it’s not antigay and is in fact pro-gay and gay-supportive for Democrats like John Kerry to support and promote state constitutional amendments and legislations stripping gays of rights.
I understand your need to justify the millions of dollars you spent on him while in the process choking off grass-roots initiatives to stop antigay initiatives and unceremoniously yanking bills or protests so as not to “embarrass” him. But that hardly means I’ll go soft on it, nor does it change the facts on it.
Another real world example: one of my gay friends told me never to patronize a particular gay bar in town. When I asked him why, he said, “Because the owners are Log Cabin Republicans.”
35: Since you brought up Mumia: My own position is that this guy is unbeleivably guilty and I’m glad his conviction was upheld (thank you very much). You should look at the background of the case though to get an idea why there are people who support the overturning of his conviction. In it’s zealouness to convict Mumia the prosecution went overboard to prove his guilt. This included changes in the the statements of prosecution witnesses over time. One of the most glaring points was his confession in the hospital to the mruder. Problem is that both a hospital security officer and a police officer waited over 60 days to report Mumia had made that confession. Why would they wait so long? As we’ve seen in many high profile murder cases, all it takes any teeny, tiny sliver of reasonable doubt to create this kind of response.
Comment 37, Kev. That’s the content that people (not only me) need you to respond to.
#46 — GCB must be proud at how well you’ve learned to weasel. First of all, it’s one thing to have a sliver of doubt about a cop killer’s guilt, quite another thing to laud him with invitations to speak at college commencements. Of course, the left has a habit of making cop killers into heroes. There’s the matter of Sara Jane Olson, who planted two bombs under police cars and became a heroine to the left. And there’s Kathy Boudin, another cop-killer lauded by the left, (“We ought to see in this moment an opportunity to recognize her life in prison as a model for others to emulate” — The Nation.)
Second, Calarato is right, you are avoiding (weaseling out of) the direct questions he put to you.
from Kevin in #28
I hope the conversation didn’t stop there and you got to talk a little more about it
It did go further. After some pro-life/pro-choice arguments, she admitted she was forced by her parents to have an abortion at age 17…. Some choice. She also is unable to have children now.
from Joey in #32
Just because you aren’t stereotypical gay doesn’t mean you have to switch to complete stereotypical right of center gay.
How do you know that I’m not a “stereotypical gay”? You make me sound like some kind of secret gay double agent. Why can’t my views differ from other gay people, if our only shared trait is our sexuality?
And just as predictably…..you try to weasel out of it. 🙂
Perhaps that has to do with the fact that telling the truth would neatly expose how you berate blind partisanship while practicing it yourself.