Gay Patriot Header Image

Best Movie Villainess — Open Thread

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 8:33 pm - February 22, 2006.
Filed under: Movies/Film & TV

When I logged onto AOL, I saw that they were running a poll to determine the “vilest” movie villains. Their poll reminded me that ever since the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences once again slighted Tilda Swinton, that few women have done as good a job playing the villain as she did in The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Thinking about movie villainesses (and talking about them with other movie buffs), a few names of other stellar & sinister performances came to mind, including Margaret Hamilton as the Wicked Witch of the West in The Wizard of Oz, Angela Lansbury in The Manchurian Candidate, Bette Davis in Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?, Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction, Kathy Bates in Misery and Dame Judith Anderson in Rebecca.

What great performances have I left out? Who do you think are the best female movie villians? Please feel free to offer your suggestions in the comments section or by e-mailing me.

Send David Gregory to Antarctica?

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 8:01 pm - February 22, 2006.
Filed under: Media Bias

Last week, at the height of the media frenzy over the White House’s failure to cater to their every whim in informing the MSM about the Vice President’s hunting mishap, I suggested to a reader that if NBC News were serious about providing balanced coverage of the Administration, they would relieve its White House correspondent David Gregory of his current duties and replace him with someone less excitable. Since the White House is the plum berth to which all reporters aspire, it would seem that if a White House correspondent acts is a less than a professional matter, he should be dispatched to a less prestigious post.

Given the growing interest in penguins as result of this wonderful Oscar-nominated documentary (and because their sexual behavior may teach us something about human relationships), I jokingly suggested that they should send him to Antarctica, the native land of these fascinating creatures, to open up an NBC News Bureau there. Now I’m not so sure NBC need dispatch Gregory as far away as that chilly southern continent, but wonder if a serious newsgathering organization would want to keep someone as a White House correspondent who compared the White House to a “rodeo.” Even as he apologized losing his cool at a news briefing, he seemed to retract that apology, indicating that he was not apologizing for his aggressive manner.

More than that, he borrowed a Democratic talking point to describe the White House’s handling of the Vice President’s mishap as “emblematic of the rather secretive style with the press by the vice president.” He sounds more like a flack for the DNC than an unbiased reporter. So, while Mr. Gregory may claim the White House press corps is a “proxy for the American people,” writer Randall H. Nunn finds Mr. Gregory to be rather “a proxy for liberal Democrats, the ‘beautiful and smart’ opinion leaders in Hollywood, the academic community and the mainstream media.” (Via Transterrestial Musings via Instapundit).

No, I don’t think NBC News need dispatch Mr. Gregory to Antarctica, but if this network wishes to show that they’re doing their best to cover the White House fairly, they would do well to offer him another assignment, preferably one that is not so prestigious and one which would enable him to better understand the American people whose proxy he claims to hold. By replacing David Gregory as its White House correspondent, NBC News can show they take seriously the charges that their coverage of the Administration is slanted. They could show as well that they are serious about gathering the news and reporting it fairly rather than spinning it to fit a pre-set agenda.

**UPDATE from GP: Did you know Crazy David is blogging on the UAE/port control issue at NBC’s The Daily Nightly blog?**

Gay Dems Tell Their “Gannon” To Quit

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 7:12 pm - February 22, 2006.
Filed under: Gay America,Gay Politics

I just saw this story and since we brought you our varying takes (mine here and Dan’s here) on TX House Candidate Tom Malin (aka – The Democrat’s Jeff Gannon) earlier this week, I figured this development was at least worth mentioning.

Malin admits ‘lurid past’ – DallasVoice

The board of Stonewall Democrats of Dallas on Friday rescinded the organization’s endorsement of Tom Malin, Democratic candidate for the District 108 seat in the Texas House of Representatives, after Malin acknowledged Thursday that he once worked as a male escort.

Malin said Thursday he is not withdrawing from the race against Jack Borden in the Democratic primary on March 7.

But [Michael] Moon [Stonewall’s President] said Friday he believes Malin has hurt Stonewall Democrats and the Dallas County Democratic Party by lying about his history.

“This is not about him being in recovery. It’s not even about him being an escort in the past. This is about the fact that he lied to us,” Moon said. “We asked him before we endorsed him if the rumors were true, and he said they were not.”

Moon added, “I hate to say this, but I think if he really cares about the Democratic Party, he will withdraw from the race.”

What’s your take on this, gang? Are the Stonewalls right in pulling the rug out from their guy who is apparently openly gay based on this article? Are they really upset because of his statements about religion? Did he find religion just last week or before the Stonewall Dems endorsed him?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

American Idol – Male Night

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 6:56 pm - February 22, 2006.
Filed under: Movies/Film & TV

It was the girl’s shot last night as the final 12 females sang (some great, some not-so). But tonight begins the paring down of the final 12 men. I think that this is the best crop of guy singers that ‘Idol’ has ever had. I’m guessing most would agree that these are the two frontrunners for the guys.


Chris Daughtry


Ace Young

They both have “the look” as well as great voices from what we’ve been able to hear so far. I’m rooting for the two Carolinians in the competition, though….. Daughtry and Kellie Pickler.

So consider this “American Idol Open Thread Wednesday”. I’ll be watching in an hour!!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Brokeback Fan Breaks Own Bank For Film’s Famous Shirts

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 6:47 pm - February 22, 2006.
Filed under: Movies/Film & TV

Whew. And I thought my obsession with Back To The Future bordered on crazy!

Brokeback Shirts Go For $100,000 – CNN.com

Tom Gregory just spent more than $100,000 on two used cowboy shirts.

And he couldn’t be happier.

The shirts are the ones worn by the ill-fated lovers, played by Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, in Oscar front-runner “Brokeback Mountain.” The shirts that represent their relationship. The shirts that, to Gregory, represent the ongoing plight of gays for acceptance in society.

“They really are the ruby slippers of our time,” said Gregory, 45.

Actually, I have to say it would be kind of cool to own real movie props like that. As I always say, if you got $100,000 to dump, you can dump it where ever you want. (Okay, I don’t “always say” that….)

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

DADT: A Gay Servicemember’s Perspective. Part II: What’s Really Important Here?

Posted by ColoradoPatriot at 8:17 am - February 22, 2006.
Filed under: Gays In Military

Blogger’s Note:
Here is Part Two in a short series of posts regarding Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
Oh, and again I’d ask everybody to show respect by please doing what you can to limit conversation to the topic at hand rather than use this as an opportunity to attack each other. All criticisms, of course, are always welcome.

In my previous post (Not-So-Straight Facts), I helped shed some light to the often used, but unsubstantiated argument that the number of discharges of gay servicemembers has increased in the past decade since DADT was introduced. As nobody took any issue with the substance of that clarification, today I endeavor to walk a little further out on the limb in hopes of adding some military perspective advocates should keep in mind if they’re ever to get this policy changed.

Let’s start with something simple: Yes, I’d prefer to be able to serve openly as a gay man in the US Military. It would be much easier for me and I’d also enjoy my service a lot more. Every gay military colleague with whom I’ve discussed this feels likewise. I presume all our friends, families, and co-workers (to whom we are out) also agree.

Now let’s look at the facts on the ground: The US Military doesn’t change the type of toilet paper we use in the latrine without an exhaustive feasibility analysis and thorough study of its impact on the mission. Hell, it takes us years to make simple changes to our uniforms.

Our mission in the US Armed Forces is to kill the enemy and break his things. Period. And no policy change, even as logical and right as it may seem from the outside, is even going to be considered if it hasn’t been shown to enhance that mission.

That may seem stupid and short-sighted and we may seem like blinded ogres. But these are the facts, and when it comes to changing military policy, advocates would be best served to learn to argue from the military’s perspective. Appeals to the mainstream of American thought and sensibilities and cries of unfairness are good and well, but the advocate community has to realize it’s not going to get anywhere with its goal of allowing homosexuals to openly serve until they start coming up with hard facts (that stand up to scrutiny) that show how a change to the policy will better enable the military to perform its duty.

Generals and admirals, top DoD officials and powerful Congressional committee members are not going to advocate for a change to the policy simply because enough people show up on a poll saying it’s unfair. At least I hope not. Hopefully there’s a clear and demonstrable mission-related reason to change the policy. Hopefully advocacy groups are looking actively for these reasons. Historically, with a few interesting exceptions, they’ve fallen quite short.

Ending the policy for the wrong reason could have disastrous consequences. If a precedent is set for changing our strategic military defense policies because enough people cry about it being unfair, it’s only a matter of time before the Armed Forces better resembles your local neighborhood watch than the world’s greatest military machine it is today–not because of openly-serving gays, but because of a lack of standards in the decision-making process. On the other hand, if we are able to show beyond reasonable criticism how ending the ban would strengthen the military and enhance our ability to perform the mission, not only would we get our way (as recalcitrant and backward as the brass may seem to the outside world, they’re always looking for ways to do their jobs better), but we’d probably also gain more respect as a “community” by having earned our way in through a presentation of the facts rather than pouting until we got our way.

Long story short, don’t expect folks who don’t shit without doing a mission-impact assessment to change a policy because it seems unfair and makes some soldiers feel bad. On the other hand, give them some proof that it’ll make it easier to fight and win wars and you’ll have decision-makers on your side.

Let’s start our argument with: National Security will be enhanced through a stronger Armed Forces and America will be safer by allowing openly homosexual members to serve because…

When we can unquestionably complete that thought–with facts to back it up–we’ll have made our point and it will take care of itself. In my next installment I’ll show how some of the arguments don’t finish that thought, and how closely some of them actually do.