Someone at The White House has lost his or her mind. Or Karl Rove is being investigated again and doesn’t have time to do gutchecks on stupid Administration decisions. Remember, we got Harriet Miers last year during the period where Rove was under intense scrutiny in “Plamegate.”

Whatever the reasons, those of you who think we never criticize President Bush on anything (and you are wrong) are going to love this from me today: Bush is nuts for threatening a veto of the United Arab Emirates port deal and defending this stupid decision. Nuts, nuts, nuts! These were Bush’s comments aboard Air Force One. (Hat tip – Michelle Malkin)

“After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward,” Bush told reporters who had traveled with him on Air Force One to Washington. “I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, `We’ll treat you fairly.’”

Well, since we also should have been holding Middle Eastern-looking airline passengers to a different standard since 9/11, why not the company controlling our major ports? If we profiled at the airports, maybe 97-year olds and babies wouldn’t be getting frisked and our odds of catching would-be terrorists or those here illegally would be much higher. The ironic thing out of all of this is…. those whining the loudest about the UAE port deal are those also shouting the loudest to NOT do profiling at our airports. I say, DO BOTH!

I don’t care about the convoluted economic explanations as to why the deal might actually be good. And I know that it has nothing to do with actual security of the ports, but management of them. Doesn’t matter. Even Fred Barnes last night on FNC’s Special Report was doing mental gymnastics to try to rationalize this deal.

Not me. This is not only stupid, it is obviously stupid and makes me wonder who the hell is in charge right now at Homeland Security and, frankly, The White House as a whole.

All I need to know is this: we cannot have a Middle Eastern-run company running our ports when we are at war with much of the Middle East (either in a “hot” or “cold” way). We cannot have those who burn down neighborhoods over a cartoon suddenly overseeing one of our most vulnerable places of entry in our post-9/11 world. As someone said on the radio this morning in Charlotte, “that’s like having Bill Clinton provide security at a sorority party.”

President Bush…. what is going on?

Now that I’ve taken a stand against the President on this issue (among others), I suppose this makes me a liberal, Andrew?

*UPDATE @ 7PM: If CAIR, John McCain and Jimmy Carter are all for the port deal, there’s another good reason to be afraid… be very afraid!*

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Today marks the 90th anniversary of the start of the Battle of Verdun, one of the bloodiest battles in the history of warfare. That World War I (WW I) battle began with a German offensive aimed at crippling the French and ended with the French pushing the Germans back and regaining lost territory. When the battle was over, each side had suffered approximately 400,000 casualties, roughly half of that total being fatalities. (Some estimates put the total number of causalities closer to one million.)

More soldiers were killed at Verdun than the total number of U.S. troops deployed in Iraq. Even as the slaughter of Verdun helps us gain perspective on American losses in the current war, we recognize that one death is one death too many. And it’s impossible to measure the pain that each family who lost a loved one has suffered.

Despite the valor of many on those bloody fields ninety years ago, the hundreds of thousands who lost their lives at Verdun died in vain. The victors at Verdun — and of World War I — imposed harsh terms on the vanquished and so helped set the stage for the rise of Hitler, whose aggression they failed to challenge until it was too late. Less than a quarter century after Verdun, the next generation of Germans and French soldiers would face off in another bloody war and millions of Europeans would perish.

It is too soon to tell whether those Americans who died in Iraq have died in vain. If our project there succeeds, we will have helped promote our own security by defeating a tyrant who threatened the region and who sought the means to attack us. At the same time, we are helping democracy and freedom flourish in the nation that dictator once ruled with an iron fist.

Unlike the victors at Verdun, our leaders have, even before the war started, had an idea of the victory we wanted to achieve. Instead of humiliating Iraq as the Allies humbled Germany after WW I, we seek to rebuild our erstwhile adversary. On September 12, 2002, President Bush told the United Nations:

The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond.

Contrast that vision with the sinister maneuvering which caused World War I. The Austro-Hungarian general staff used the June 1914 assassination (by a Serbian nationalist) of their Archduke Francis Ferdinand to attack Serbia. Soon allies of the two nations joined in the fray and by the end of the year an entire continent was engulfed in war.

(more…)

It is not often that I disagree with Bruce’s posts. While we have very different styles, we have very similar political views. Often when something in the news strikes me and I want to post on it, by the time I check our blog, I’ll find Bruce has already posted on it.

I had thought that Bruce and I would agree when V the K of Caption This! e-mailed us both about Tom Malin’s past. What struck me about this was the hypocrisy angle, not of Mr. Malin, but of the anti-Republican gay bloggers, ever eager to pounce on anything, no matter how minor, which they could use against the President or his party. Yet, if they discover that someone on the Left had done something similar, they ignore or it make excuses for the Democrat’s behavior.

To me, that’s the issue here. And to that extent, I believe Bruce’s post was newsworthy — to draw attention to the hypocrisy of the left-of-center bloggers who were obsessed with Gannon’s past (because he’s a Republican), yet indifferent to Malin’s (because he’s a Democrat).

That said, I’m troubled by posting this stuff on Malin’s past for a number of reasons. First, I just don’t believe it’s right to snoop around in someone’s private life (to glean details of that individual’s private activities where he did not harm anyone). Not only that. Malin has acknowledged his past mistakes and changed his behavior, thus, assuming that he did not hurt anyone (to whom he would need make restitution), we cannot hold this against him.

And finally, because of my libertarian streak, I could basically care less if someone is (or was) an escort. As long as he’s not coercing anyone and not having sex with minors, it’s his body. What Malin used to do may not be good for his soul, but it’s his soul, not mine.

In Malin’s race for state legislature, voters should evaluate him, not on his past behavior, but on his present platform. As to what he did in the past, provided he didn’t hurt or harm anyone, that’s his concern — and should not be one for the voters. But, it is interesting that so many who work themselves into a lather about what a Republican does on his own time are indifferent to what a Democrat does on his.

(GP Update – 4:00PM Tuesday – I understand where Dan is coming from on this and agree that gutter politics is gutter politics. However my biggest problem is that this man, who expects the public to put their trust in him, had the bad judgement to allow this story to come out — no pun intended — by someone else, and then appears to suddenly “find religion” in order to salvage his political candidacy. However, my biggest question of judgement is why anyone with an escorting past would think they could run for public office without the past being disclosed.)

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

Another WSLS weatherman admits struggle with heroin – Roanoke.com (h/t – Drudge)

Not one, but two WSLS (Channel 10) meteorologists — Marc Lamarre and Jamey Singleton — have struggled with a heroin addiction in recent months, according to an interview with Singleton that aired on WSLS’s late-night newscast Friday.

“Anyone can fall into this,” Singleton said. “It’s hard, it’s a disease and it’s been rough.”

Singleton said the toughest part of his ordeal was finding out that his friend and neighbor, Lamarre, 36, suffered a near-fatal heroin overdose on the evening of Feb. 2. Lamarre is recovering, according to WSLS, but he is no longer employed with the station.

The most unfortunate part of this story is that it wasn’t cocaine so I couldn’t do any lame “let it snow” jokes….

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Unbelieveable…. can you guess which national Democrat said these comments this morning on various cable news shows?

The repressive steps taken by the [coalition], to the extent that there is no longer any mentionable difference between this criminality and the criminality of Saddam.”

“The war against America and its allies has not remained confined to Iraq as he (Bush) claims, but rather Iraq has become a point of attraction and recruitment of qualified forces.”

“The Pentagon’s figures indicate an increase in the number of killed and injured in addition to the massive material losses, not to mention the collapse of troop morale and the increase of the suicide rates among them.”

Ted Kennedy — who celebrated the anniversary of the Abu Grahib prison revelations, but not the free elections in Iraq?

John Murtha — who advocates an immediate retreat from Iraq because it has nothing to do with the War on Terror?

Howard Dean — who thinks President Bush knew in advance about the 9/11 attacks?

Nancy Pelosi? Barbara Boxer?

Nope, keep guessing… (answer revealed after the jump)

(more…)

Blogger’s Note:
I have been meaning to write this since Bruce invited me to join him and Dan as a regular contributor here at GP. Last week’s release of the University of California’s advocacy group CSSMM‘s study revealing that the costs of Bill Clinton’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy amounted to one one-hundredth of one percent of the military budget over 10 years seems to have re-sparked the debate about gays in the military. This will be the first in a series of posts I’ll make regarding facts, opinion, and the realities on the ground. The hope is to do a 3- or 4-part posting, each separated by a day or two to allow for dialog. I invite vigorous discussion, but do implore the readers and commenters to stick to the topics I raise and refrain from tangientially attacking one side or the other on issues of no relevance.

I’ve been advocating we maintain perspective on this issue for some time (alas, often in vain). But let’s start with some real facts before we move on:

1) The total number of gays discharged prior to DADT’s implementation will never be known. Gay ‘rights’ advocates who stomp around yelling about how many more gays have been discharged as a result of DADT are either consciously misleading their followers or are simply unfamiliar with how the military works and how it discharges people.
2) The reason this number cannot be known is that, prior to DADT, each prospective member was asked as part of the recruiting process if he was gay. Once DADT was put in place, this practice naturally ended. This means that,
3) A military member who came out as gay once he was enlisted (having, prior to DADT, signed a statement affirming he was not gay) was guilty of false enlistment.
4) Therefore, this member would not be kicked out of the military for being gay; No, he was kicked out for false enlistment, a far more serious matter. This had two results:
a) The member usually received a discharge under less-than-honorable circumstances, and
b) He would not be counted as having been kicked out “for being gay”
5) Now, there were some people discharged simply for being gay in the pre-DADT days. These were members who could convince their commanders that they were straight when they enlisted (and signed the paper saying so), but only afterwards realized they were gay. This realization is natural, of course, as most military members sign up at a time in their lives when they may not necessarily be aware of themselves fully. Although this type of realization happens often, back in those days, due to societal mores, few gays were self-aware enough to be able to articulate such a situation to a commanding officer when under the stress of being discharged.
6) Therefore, most (a vast majority of) gay members discharged from the military before DADT were not kicked out “for being gay”. On the other hand,
7) In the post-DADT world, damn-near all gay members booted under the policy are administratively discharged “for being gay”. (I say “damn-near all” because there are always some cases wherein a poorly-performing member has this tossed onto his pile of reasons. However, in these few instances, a servicemember’s sexuality is a moot point as he is not performing, which is the military’s focus in the first place.) Which is to say, comparing the number of servicemembers kicked out “for being gay” pre-DADT and post-DADT is comparing apples to oranges (apologies for the fruit reference). The number of servicemembers who were told, “You’re gay, so you have to hit the road, sorry” was basically nil, as compared to now, where basically all of them are told this, instead of being dishonorably discharged for false enlistment.
9) It should be obvious to any observer that this is a much better (although admitedly not ideal) situation for a gay servicemember: Rather than having his future ruined with a Less-Than-Honorable Discharge (or a Court Martial conviction, which transfers to your record as a felony conviction), they are relieved of their duty and obligations without any official black mark. Ask any former servicemember who was kicked out with an LTO Discharge if he’d swap it for an Administrative Discharge, you’ll see what I mean.

Saying the number of discharges for gay members has risen as a result of DADT is like changing the definition of obesity and then saying the number of obese people has changed. You’re moving the ruler, not the measurement.

My point in bringing this to light is not to argue either side of the DADT debate. It is simply to make sure we’re all starting with the same facts on the ground. We can all come to different conclusions based on the facts, but when we allow one side of the debate to insult reality by manipulating the facts, we’re destined to fail to come to any acceptable consensus.

In my next post, we’ll go into perspective and what’s really important as we move forward with the debate.

In a shocking mirror image, a Democrat running for a Texas House of Representatives seat pulls a “Jeff Gannon” and admits to a prostitute past.

Mirror image because when Gannon was forced out via the Lefty Bloggers, he seemed to fully embrace his gay roots, including being given a regular column by the Washington Blade. By contrast, TX House candidate Tom Malin has completely embraced his Christian roots.

Tom Malin for District 108

I am a human being with a flawed past. I have made mistakes and have made amends; changed my behavior. I stood before my Creator years ago and asked for His forgiveness, grace and redemption. I was born again and feel as if He has granted me a second chance in life and I thank God every day that I am alive and that I am able to dedicate my life to teaching others, enriching lives and acting as a vehicle of empowerment.

Funny, there’s no mention of candidate Malin at Gannongate Central. Why is that? Perhaps it is because the tactics of the radical gay “outers” have come home to roost with their own kind? Double standards by the Radical Lefties? Never!

Oh, I almost forgot…

Tom’s success as an entrepreneur has included being a Mary Kay Independent Senior Sales Director and Pink Cadillac Driver.
Tom was recognized as one of the top recruiters and sellers with Mary Kay and one of only 3 men to ever earn the use of the highly coveted Pink Cadillac.

And even though AmericaBlog had every piece of Gannon’s anatomy all over the Web for weeks, they why don’t they have all the dirt on Tom Malin’s (aka Todd Sharpe) escorting webpages?? (More info on that can be found at PinkDome).

Um….$500 an hour was his rate?!? Was he a prostitute or a lawyer?!?

What I find most amusing is that the results of this very micro version of a double-blinded clinical study seem to suggest that outed gay Republicans run to the Left (at least a bit!)….and outed gay Democrats run to God. What does John Aravosis think of this??

(Hat tip to V the K @ Caption This for reminding me of this story. I actually heard this on Friday on Rush’s radio show, but it slipped my mind until VdaK emailed this weekend!)

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Jimmie Johnson (#48) wins the Daytona 500 for the first time under the yellow caution flag.

Jimmie Johnson – first NASCAR hottie winner of the season

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Red State America’s favorite sport — NASCAR — has returned for the season as the Daytona 500 has been running all day today. We are in the closing laps of the race and there is nothing like watching NASCAR on HDTV!!!

It was five years ago that Dale Earnhardt, Sr. was killed during the Daytona 500 race. More on that here and here.

While the deaths of Adam Petty, Kenny Irwin and Tony Roper brought attention to the danger in stock-car racing, the death of Earnhardt, a seven-time champion in NASCAR’s top series and the sport’s most popular driver, galvanized an industry and accelerated a safety revolution.

“What went through a lot of drivers’ minds was that if Earnhardt could get killed like that, what about me?” retired NASCAR President Bill France Jr. said.

“You hate to say this, but you have to,” said H.A. “Humpy” Wheeler, president of Lowe’s Motor Speedway. “Earnhardt’s death got us all moving fast, which needed to be done. There’s never been the death of a race driver that’s had more of an impact.”

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I have some catching up to do, as pointed out in an earlier post.

First, big time props to Shani Davis, the Gold Medal Champ of the 1000m Speed Skating race. He became the first African-American man to claim an individual gold medal in Winter Olympic history yesterday. Despite the controversy between Davis and Hedrick earlier in the week, this was a great race for the Americans and for Davis yesterday. Congrats! Oh, and Davis now exceeds the Gold Medal demographic expectations of an African-American on an USA team. If you consider that blacks make up about 11% of the population, Davis is ahead of that target making him represent 14% of the Golds acheived by the USA. Take that, Bryant Gumbel!

And I missed skiing hottie and Gold medalist in the men’s combined downhill contest last week, Ted Ligety (a PatriotPartner favorite.)

By the way, watching bobsledding in HiDef was really cool. And skijumping last night…. very cool. I love the Winter Games!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

When Glenn Reynolds first blogged about Norah Vincent’s new book Self-Made Man: One Woman’s Journey into Manhood and Back, I knew I had to read the book not only because I have enjoyed this iconoclastic lesbian’s columns, but also because, like me, Norah is a graduate of America’s finest small college. Despite its hype, the book did not disappoint. Indeed, I would call it one of the most important books published in the past decade, particularly important for gay people as it deals with the difficult subject of gender difference.

I ***highly recommend*** this book and regret that I will not be able to address all of the many points Norah raises. I underlined so frequently that were I just to type up the passages that struck me, I would spend all weekend on this post.

After spending one evening in drag in Greenwich Village, then watching a TV reality show where two men and two women “set out to transform themselves into the opposite sex,” Norah realized that the show’s producers “didn’t have much interest in the deeper sociological implications of passing as the opposite sex.” So, she decided to do her own experiment and live for a few months disguised as a man named Ned so she could “survey some of the unexplored territory that the show had left out.” Over the course of eighteen months, she would join a bowling league, frequent a strip club, date a number of women, live in a monastery, work as a door-to-door salesman and join a men’s group.

Of the many things she learned in her life as a man, what struck me the most (perhaps because it relates to the Ph.D. dissertation I hope to write on the role of the goddess Athena in men’s lives) is her growing awareness of women’s role as “communicators, the interlocutors between men and themselves, men and their children and even men and each other.” She found that one of the downsides of life at the abbey was that the “nurturing influence that women could provide, the communicative skills they could lend and foster were lost to these men, and much to their emotional detriment.”

We gay men are as in need of that nurturing influence as those monks in the abbey. The monks “took refuge in machismo because they feared inappropriate intimacies between men.” They feared being seen as weak — or gay. And yet, we gay men, comfortable defining ourselves as such, seem often to take refuge in a similar machismo, boasting about our sexual conquests and making catty remarks about having sex with our buddies, not so much out of sexual desire, but because we too fear intimacy. It’s far easier to boast about sex or hook up with another man than it is to forge an emotional connection with him.

(more…)

While I don’t always agree with him, I believe Dale Carpenter currently to be the mostly consistently conservative columnist who writes on gay issues. In his latest piece, on the burgeoning number of conservative gay voices on the Internet, he seems to hold a similar opinion of us, calling our blog “the most reliably conservative gay blog on the Internet.”

In his piece, Dale observes how the Internet has facilitated the dissemination of gay conservative viewpoints. As he puts it, “Gay-conservative bloggers and Web sites, of which there are now dozens, are major competitors in this marketplace.” Just over a decade ago, it seemed that all gay people, at least those who spoke out on issues of concern to our community, were critical of mainstream America and at odds with the growing conservative moment in America as well as with the GOP.

That began to change as Andrew Sullivan rose to prominence in early 1990s and with the publication in 1993 of Bruce Bawer’s book, A Place at the Table: the Gay Individual in American Society. A year later when Dale began writing his column, “a narrow ideological band monopolized the gay press. The views expressed in gay periodicals, either explicitly in opinion columns or implicitly in ‘news’ features, ranged from liberal to radical.” At the same time, “Gay publishers and editors acted as gatekeepers of opinion, defining what was acceptable.”

The rise of the Internet limited the ability of these gatekeepers to prevent conservative gay opinion from reaching a broader audience. As I wrote a year ago, reviewing Hugh Hewitt’s book, Blog : Understanding the Information Reformation That’s Changing Your World, in large part because of blogs, the gay conservative “message is no longer blocked by gatekeepers who sneer at our politics and mock our values.”

Because of the growing media marketplace, especially the Internet, gay people no longer have to rely upon left-of-center news and opinion sources for information and commentary on issues of concern to us. Those in the gay media (and at some gay organizations) who wish to suppress our ideas, suggesting that their views reflect that of the gay community can no longer get away with the claim that they speak for all gay people. With the growing number of gay conservative bloggers, there are now gay voices publicly standing up to left-leaning gay organizations and gay media. And we’re reaching an ever-increasing audience.

In his piece, Dale lists a number conservative blogs and web-sites, many of which I check regularly. His latest column is thus a great resource for those who want a broader perspective on gay issues, a resource which will help people realize that the media image notwithstanding, gay people’s ideas are as politically diverse as those of straight people.

As with anything Dale writes, I recommend you just read the whole thing!

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

Perhaps I have been too harsh on Andrew Sullivan lately. While I have faulted him for appearing to join the angry left in criticizing the president’s every move, he distinguished himself yesterday by taking issue with Russian authorities for caving it to a “mainstream Muslim” leader who threatened to bash marchers “if they dared to walk the streets” as part of a gay pride parade. Moscow authorities will not allow the parade to proceed. (Via Volokh via Instapundit.)

Just over a week ago, I noted how, ever eager to fault the Bush Administration for the slightest infraction (or appeared infraction) against gays, HRC (and other gay groups) are reluctant to criticize anti-gay abuses in anti-American regimes. While I also find (that on those occasions when I read his blog) Andrew seems eager as well to fault the Administration, his post on the Russian march addresses anti-gay attitudes (& policies) of non-Republicans. It’s too bad that the gay establishment is so focused on President Bush that it barely has time to address dangerous anti-gay attitudes from those who are not their domestic ideological adversaries.

And while some of those adversaries do harbor anti-gay sentiments, Eugene Volokh (via Instapundit) offers some statistics which should offer to comfort to American gays. While one poll showed that 43% of Russians (in 2005) thought gays should be incarcerated, only 33% of Americans (in 1998) though gay sex between consenting adults should be illegal. Indeed, Talgat Tadzhuddin, the Mufti who warned that “Russia’s Muslims would stage violent protests if the march went ahead” also “criticized riots over the Mohammed cartoons.” Although this Mufti finds that “harming innocent people is banditry” he feels, according to Volokh, that “flogging homosexuals is just fine.” Even some of the more moderate Muslim leaders abroad are not favorably disposed to gay people.

That Russian authorities would cancel this gay march shows that while things are not yet as good as they can be for gays in the United States (and other Western nations) that we still have it pretty good. We can march freely in cities even in the “reddest” of states. When we make local authorities aware of threats to our parades (and protests), they send in the police, not to close down our gatherings, but to protect our First Amendment rights (of freedom of speech and association).

In his post, Andrew warns that “self-censorship is a slippery slope.” That seems to be not just a warning to authorities in nations not as free as ours, but also to gay groups who often seem unwilling to offend other “oppressed” groups — even those harboring hateful anti-gay sentiments.

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

ADDENDUM: We saw something similar in China two months ago when police there closed down a gay cultural festival.

Today, on her blog, Michelle Malkin ran her second post critical of the Bush Administration’s decision to turn control of several ports on the eastern seaboard over to a company owned by the government of Dubai (one of the United Arab Emirates). As I read Michelle’s post, I realized how frequently this blogress criticizes the Administration on border control and immigration issues. Indeed, the first time I heard her speak (after Bush took office) — I believe it was on FoxNews — she faulted the president for not adopting stricter immigration controls. She has, for example, been relentless in criticizing him for tapping Julie Myers, niece to Richard B. Myers, former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to head the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency in the (e.g. here).

And although Michelle has frequently criticized the president, I would never think to call her a liberal. Indeed, although we knew about her criticism of the president, we included her as one of our nominees for “Conservative Blogress Diva,” even identifying her as conservative in my first post on the contest — before we had begun to receive nominations from readers. That is, we called Michelle conservative even though she had not pledged “blind loyalty to George W. Bush.” She’s been criticizing him for years and, in our eyes at least, this great blogress remains a conservative.

Earlier this week, I made much of Andrew Sullivan’s posting as quote of the day a comment from Glenn Greenwald that “in order to be considered a ‘liberal,’ only one thing is required – a failure to pledge blind loyalty to George W. Bush” (Via The Corner). Andrew’s claims notwithstanding, Greenwald did not diagnose “the current situation accurately.” Because if he did, no one would consider Michelle a conservative.

And it’s not just Michelle. Indeed, as Marshall Wittman has written:

The reality is that prominent conservatives have been critical of this President on a range of issues – the Weekly Standard has questioned Administration’s execution of the war, the National Review and the Heritage Foundation has been critical of the President’s big spending ways. And now, a range of libertarian conservatives have differed with the President on the NSA program.

. . .

While Greenwald suggests that “loyalty” to Bush is the requirement for the right, the standard to be a member in good standing of the liberal/left community is hatred of Bush. . . . Because in the left wing universe, one must oppose everything the President supports.

(Via Instapundit.)

In the right wing universe, however, we are open to a variety of viewpoints. Far from seeing blind loyalty to the President, we have instead seen vigorous debate on a number of his policies, with general (and strong) appreciation for his leadership in the War on Terror and strong and unrelenting criticism of those who accuse him of dastardly and diabolical motives. Once again, Andrew Sullivan got it wrong. Perhaps he’s mistaken conservatives’ blunt criticism of unhinged Bush-haters as blind loyalty to the man himself.

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

I know I’m a bit delayed.. I’ll blame the tape-delayed NBC coverage, how’s that. Anyway, here’s another one of our Team USA Olympic Gold Hotties!

Seth Wescott (another native Carolinian!) in the Men’s Snowboard

GO TEAM USA!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I can die now. Tammy Bruce (who I have a secret crush on despite both of our preferences) has listed us in her personal daily blogroll!

Many of you have indeed asked for a Tammy Blog Blogroll, so here is one for today, not in any particular order, and this certainly is not an exhaustive list, but it gives us a start. Keep in touch with these sites for all the news and updates you need. They’re ones I visit frequently, and I’ll do this every so often, with a different variety. In the meantime, I’ll chime in tonight. Have a great Friday afternoon everyone.

Pajamas Media
Little Green Footballs
Cardinal Martini
Brussels Journal
The Anchoress
All Things Beautiful
Right Wing News
Jihad Watch
Immodest Proposals
The Manolo
Gay Patriot
Tech Central Station

If the well-known progressive lesbian (who voted for W.) can embrace the two “right-wing gay nutcases”… there’s hope for humanity!

I’m just blushing….

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

American gays worry about this…

Iranian gays worry about this…

Where would you rather be living?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Today I officially declare that I’m tired of the Brokeback Mountain hype. Over it. I’ve talked to too many folks who have seen it (no, not gay conservos either) who, like me, thought the film was just “okay.”

Sure it was a high-profile film because two macho A-list young straight actors play gay cowboys. But the film itself wasn’t the sweeping romantic, or tortured tough-guy epic that the hype leads you to believe. I reviewed the movie earlier and haven’t said much since, well with the exception of getting the Willies earlier this week.

But something struck me a few days ago when I read this post by DJ Drummond about the “cleansing” of Islamic terror by Hollywood. In it, DJ notes the following fact…

Well, at least they managed to avoid making [Sum Of All Fears] an action film about gay sheepherders, “Brokeback Mountain”, Oscar nominations or not, has only pulled in $97.6 Million worldwide, and does not appear to be gaining strength at the box office. For comparison, the much-snubbed ‘Narnia’ movie has already grabbed $511 Million at the box office.

Imagine you are a non-gay hating Red State American with kids. A single day hasn’t gone by where you haven’t heard about Brokeback and how wonderful a film it is. You would think to yourself, “gosh…that Brokeback must be the number one film of 2006!!!” But The Chronicles of Narnia and Brokeback were released on the same day — December 9, 2005. And yet DJ is right, Narnia has walked circles around Brokeback in terms of gross dollars at the box office — people voting with their pocketbooks.

Chronicles of Narnia worldwide gross to date:
Domestic: $285,283,677 43.4%
+ Overseas: $371,878,000 56.6%
= Worldwide: $657,161,677

Brokeback Mountain worldwide gross to date:
Domestic: $67,821,000 63.5%
+ Overseas: $39,000,000 36.5%
= Worldwide: $106,821,000

Now I am not trying to diminish the impact and impressive gross of the gay cowboy film at all. A $100M film (especially with a $14M budget) is damn impressive and is considered a blockbuster last I checked. But where is the relative attention to a half-a-billion-dollar film that happens to have a Christian/family theme? And having seen both, there is no debate that Narnia is the far superior movie product than Brokeback.

It certainly shows the liberal political bias of Hollywood and the news media. If you were an average joe, wouldn’t you assume Brokeback was the $500M film? This is just my way of pointing out that it is no wonder Americans think there is some sinister “gay agenda” out there seeping into society. From their perspective, there is.

**UPDATE** – I’ve noticed the commenters discussion over the true meaning of gross revenue and its relevance to which movie is more popular. It seems pretty simple to me. If you think that the average ticket is $8-$10. Then divide the gross of BB ($106M) by $10.00 and that is 10M people. Conversely, Narnia’s $657M means that at $10.00 a ticket, 65M people have seen it.

Amazing.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from GPW): We should also note that Narnia may have attracted more viewers than the 65 million people Bruce indicated in his update. This movie attracts a lot of children — and most theaters offer discounted prices for kids.

Now that United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said that the U.S. should close its detention facility for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, I’m just wondering if he also has asked China, Cuba, Iran, Syria, Zimbabwe and other nations which incarcerate and torture political opponents to close down their detention facilities.

UPDATE: I had wanted to maintain the terseness of this post because, as I tend to write rather lengthy pieces, I was delighted that a number of people complimented me on saying so much in so few words. But, after returning from a pleasant dinner with a friend (and seeing the delightful movie The Matador), I decided to do a few google searches to see if I could find out if Mr. Annan had called for closing down any prisons in the tyrannies mentioned above. While I found evidence of torture in an Iranian prison, I could only find one piece of evidence that the United Nations Secretary General spoke out on Iranian prisons–he had written a letter to Iranian President Ahmadinejad asking him to release imprisoned journalist Akbar Ganji (but not to close down the prison where he was held). I have as yet found no evidence that he asked Iran to close down any of its prisons.

If you have information that Annan has requested that prisons in Iran, North Korea or any other non-Western nation be closed, please e-mail me so I can update this post accordingly.

UP-UPDATE: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says that desipte what Kofi says, “The Pentagon will not close its Guantanamo Bay prison for terrorist suspects.” Calling the Secretary-General “just flat wrong,” the Defense Secretary said that the facility “is being run as well as any detention facility can be run” and that the prisoners have been “trained to lie” (Via: Lorie Byrd at Polipundit).

UP-UP-UPDATE: Deroy Murdock shows why Kofi is wrong and why we should not close the facility at Guantanamo Bay. He points out that when released, a number of former Gitmo detainees, returned to violence, some taking up arms against the U.S. So, instead of having me summarize the piece, just read the whole thing!

Earlier today while watching FoxNews, I heard Eleanor Clift describe the Vice President’s delay in contacting the media after his hunting mishap this weekend as a “defining moment” for him. Ms. Clift did get something right. This story is a defining moment, but not for the Vice President, as she claims. It is instead a defining moment for the mainstream media.

On Hugh Hewitt’s blog, Mary Katharine Ham describes the press reaction as “Making a Bazooka Outta Some Birdshot.” On Valentine’s Day on Fox, National Review’s Kate O’Beirne said this was another example of the conspiracy mind-set of the MSM.

MSM mavens claim this is yet another sign of this secretive Administration, yet have yet to make a serious suggestion of what the Vice President might be covering up. They don’t seem to be satisfied that the local sheriff’s office “closed its investigation” of the matter, issuing a “report that supports Cheney’s account of the weekend accident.” Kenedy County’s sheriff, Ramon Salinas, III, is, by the way, a Democrat.

This hasn’t stopped other Democrats — and their allies in the MSM — from seeing this as a sign of the Administration’s secrecy. Although she withheld documents from investigators and delayed turning over evidence to authorities, Hillary Clinton rants that this is just another disturbing sign of the administration’s refusal “to level with the American people on matters large and small” (via Michelle Malkin).

Despite Mrs. Clinton’s angry accusations, in his interview with Brit Hume on Fox News, the Vice President leveled with the American people, taking responsibility for his errors. After watching excerpts of the interview last night on Fox, I agree with Polipundit’s Lorie Byrd that his “explanation [is] quite understandable” even though I still think he should have gone to media earlier. He was concerned that the Harry Whittington’s family know that their relative had been shot before the accident had been made public and did not wanted to go public until medical personnel had an accurate picture of Whittington’s condition.

Watching the Vice President and listening to his words, I can better understand one of the reasons he offered for his delay in contacting the media. My Dad’s wife wondered about Cheney’s personal trauma, that is, what he went through as he realized that his own error may have cost a friend his life. Naturally, in such a state, he would want to have better knowledge of his friend’s condition before going public. Indeed, the Vice President acknowledged as much in his interview, notably his comment that he will never be able forget the image of Whittington falling. It was, he said, “one of the worst days of my life.”

Like the president, I could tell that the Vice President had been “profoundly affected” by his mishap. Far from being secretive, he was being human. That the MSM has dwelled on this, as if there were a cover-up, is another sign of the MSM’s prejudices towards Republicans in general and this Administration in particular. They see scandal in every mishap or policy difference and cover-up in every failure to treat the Washington press corps precisely as these reporters expect to be treated.

The MSM’s reaction to the Vice President’s hunting mishap — and his delay in contacting the media — is indeed a defining moment for them. In his latest post, Nick noted out of touch the media are with reality. And once again we see how suspect they remain of the Bush Administration and the GOP — no matter how slight the evidence.

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

UPDATE: In an excellent post which I ***HIGHLY*** recommend, D.J. Drummond observes, “Simply by being who he is, the Vice-President has once again revealed the dirty laundry which is the MSM’s daily wardrobe.” Exactly.