Having submitted my paper on the goddess Athena and the Trojan War and completed two presentations, each involving (in some way or other) that Greek deity, I will hopefully soon be back to blogging, likely tomorrow (Thursday, March 30, 2006) afternoon. I have to say that I was struck by a number of things in the past week, how the MSM in reporting on the death of former Reagan Administration Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger dwelled on his involvement in the Iran-contra scandal. That good man was not convicted of anything, thus the MSM seem more interested in highlighting the accusations of an overzealous special prosecutor than the accomplishments of a distinguished conservative public servant.
And I realized, given one of Bruce’s recent posts, that I need to weigh in (once again) with my thoughts on gay marriage and the increasingly ludicrous debate. Those on the right wish to score political points with social conservatives by pushing gratuitous amendments while advocates of gay marriage seem more interested in attacking social conservatives than in defending the merits of the instiution — and the reasons for extending its benefits & protections to same-sex couples.
And I have some thoughts on Log Cabin, particularly its “convention” which seems more designed as a love letter to the gay rights groups in our nation’s capital than a gathering to consider means to promote “inclusion” (a word Log Cabin loves to use) of gay people in the GOP. I note once again how the language Log Cabin uses, this time to promote the confab, resembles more that of those gay rights groups than it does that of a Republican organization.
And about the narrow-mindedness of California’s openly gay State Assemblyman (Mark Leno) (via BotW). And to wonder why an openly gay anti-American peace activist decided to become closeted while detained by an anti-American extremist group (also via BotW).
And of course, I want to talk about some of the movies I have been watching (mostly for class) — a great variety of other issues. For now, let me just recommend that Patrick Guerriero watch Braveheart which, despite its flaws, has a valuable message which might help him better understand modern American conservatism. (More on that anon.) Oh, and, another flick I included in my presentation was Patton, a film I can’t recommend highly enough.
And I want to blog once again on gay identity — and why I have been considering changing my blogging moniker.
“That good man was not convicted of anything…”
Mr. Weinberger was doubtless a “good man,” but he never got the chance to fight the charges in court. This from a Google of Weinberger’s role in Iran-Contra:
(14) Caspar W. Weinberger: charged with four counts of false statements and perjury; pardoned before trial by President Bush.
It happened on December 24, 1992.
Perhaps he was innocent of the charges. We’ll never know.
Surely Mr. Bush knew the taint would remain.
The whole affair and its aftermath are a sad chapter in American history.
Patton and the original Godfather are two of the greatest movies ever made!
#2 – Agree.
And in other news: Powerline eviscerates the NYT’s coverage of the Judiciary Committee hearings of the NSA terrorist surveillance program, showing that even FISA judges agree it is basically legal and within the President’s Constitutional authority.
On an unrelated note, South Park just totally ripped on ND30 just now.
OK, I’ll bite… how’s that? what’d they do? 🙂
I’m not sure why any gay man would need to watch films by Mel Gibson, given the stereotypes that his movies seem to peddle.
As for why the activist chose to hide being gay – probably because he knew that he was much more likely to be killed if he didn’t.
#5 — Last night’s SP episode was about the intolerable smugness San Francisco residents, who enjoy the smell of their own farts. Their collective sense of superiority rises into the atmosphere in the form of a huge evil black cloud of smug. Eventually, the cloud of smug from SFO merges with the cloud of smug generated by George Clooney’s Oscar acceptance speech, creating a super-storm, and the entire city disappears up its own a–hole.
Carl at #6 “I’m not sure why any gay man would need to watch films by Mel Gibson….”
You gotta help me out here, Carl. I didn’t know I wasn’t supposed to watch films by Gibson –is this getting back to the tired GayLeft fixation on “Man w/o a Face”? Or did something else happen?
A Summary of Last Night’s SP Can Be Found Here
I bet Gryph, especially, enjoys the smell of his own farts.
Getting on to the topic of the anti-American “Christian peace activist” (better known as a liberal wacko) hiding his homosexuality from his “enlightened” Muslim captors, it should just reinforce the proof that Islamofascists are more intolerant than any Christian conservative in the USA on any given day.
Compare that whiny girly-man’s approach with the Afghan Christian convert who was willing to die for his beliefs. Hypocrisy, anyone?
PS – I am currently in a flame war with a gay leftist on a Yahoo group, so my patience is short today. To quote the late great Simon Wiesenthal, “I don’t eat Nazis for lunch. My religion forbids the eating of SCHWEIN.”
Regards,
Peter Hughes
… and to wonder why an openly gay anti-American peace activist decided to become closeted while detained by an anti-American extremist group (also via BotW).
That’s an easy one, GPW. He closeted himself so his Islamist captors would have one less excuse to kill him.
For now, let me just recommend that Patrick Guerriero watch Braveheart which, despite its flaws, has a valuable message which might help him better understand modern American conservatism.
The message, in this case, being that homosexuals — as represented by the flaming swish Edward II — are the enemies of liberty.
Yes, alas, the taint will remain on Cap. Had this gone to trial, I’m certain he would have been found innocent, but at great cost to a man already welll into his 70s.
And Mr. Moderate, we do agree about those two great flicks.
Mel Gibson may hold some anti-gay sentiments and his portrayal of the young Edward II is one of the film’s great flaws, but that does not compromise the film’s overall strengths.
Yes, alas, the taint will remain on Cap. Had this gone to trial, I’m certain he would have been found innocent, but at great cost to a man already welll into his 70s.
The story behind his indictment was absurd. Prosecutor Lawrence “Ahab” Walsh was obsessed with nailing anybody in the administration for anything related to Iran-Contra. So, he indicted CW for “obstruction of justice” (sound familiar?) for not turning over all of his notes to the prosecutor, thereby he was accused of a cover-up. And how did Ahab find out about these notes? CW donated them to the Library of Congress at the end of the Reagan Admin. Do people usually involved in a cover-up turn their notes over to the LoC? No. It was a complete BS prosecution, politically timed to aid Donks in the 1992 election.
Also, let’s not forget why Iran-Contra was a big deal to the left. Iran-Contra helped overturn a communist government which was subsequently replaced by an electoral democracy. They hate Reagan and everyone involved for setting back communism.
You’re compltely unaware of the contradiction between those two statements, aren’t you?
A wholly on-target message, given the lefist bent of the so-called “gay lobby.”
Bingo.
Yup he is, at least regarding evangelical Christians, and the military.
On the other hand, listen to words of the leader of the group:
So the group did come swinging into town in order to “wage battle” in the “culture wars”. They were not exactly behaving like, well, guests. How would you feel if a few thousand Mrs. Grundy’s came in for the weekend to generally point fingers at everybody and tell them how they were evil “terrorists”!? They are entitled to their opinions and the right to express them, but I agree that they also were being quite obnoxious. A more mild form of Rev Phelps militancy. And if GP and GPW are going to occasionally complain about “militant” homosexuals, I don’t see why Leno can’t complain about militant Christianists.
Sounds like anti-corporate leftists.
How would you feel if a few thousand Mrs. Grundy’s came in for the weekend to generally point fingers at everybody and tell them how they were evil “terrorists”!?
Continuing…..I would feel like it was a usual day in San Francisco.
Only this time, Mark Leno and his fellow Code Pink “freedom fighter” terrorist supporters were the ones being pointed at, instead of the ones doing the pointing — and it was spot-on.
As for “hostile”, given the fact that Leno and Tom Ammiano’s tongues and noses are still brown from all their proclaiming how “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” it is for Democrats to strip gays of rights based on their religious beliefs, that is a ludicrous claim.
#16 – “I agree that they also were being quite obnoxious…”
Abusrd. By all accounts, they were exceptionally well-behaved. “Obnoxious” would have been if they had overturned and burned cars, smashed windows, burned flags, urinated on the streets, shouted F-word slogans at neutral passers-by, etc.
As it was, they merely held a rally that YOU DID NOT HAVE TO GO TO, and that WOULD NOT HAVE IMPACTED YOU AT ALL if Leno hadn’t made his own (Leno’s) choice to throw a big temper tantrum about it. Deal with it.
-I didn’t know I wasn’t supposed to watch films by Gibson –
That’s because I never said you weren’t supposed to. You have a mind of your own, you can watch what you want. I watched Braveheart and I thought the movie was preachy and the scene where he threw the prince’s lover out the window seemed like a cheap shot to me, to get the audience laughing at the gay guy being thrown out the window. When I saw the movie in a theater, the audience laughed and said things like “fag” during that scene.
– You’re compltely unaware of the contradiction between those two statements, aren’t you?-
Since they have nothing to do with each other, I guess so.
I simply don’t understand what the big deal is out of Leno voicing his opinion about the group. He doens’t like them, so what? They voiced their opinion, he voiced his. Why is it OK for the Christianist group to voice their opinions but Leno can’t? Double-standard C
Who is Mark Leno?
What I find concerning is that the City Supervisors passed an official condemnation of the rally. Individuals are supposed to be entitled to their opinions but a government unit officially disapproving of religious expression is worrisome.
Aren’t people having rallies in SF all the time? I don’t think anyone could argue that it was a rally that was the problem. What it was, was a rally to protest the decadence represented by San Francisco… only part of that is the acceptance of homosexuality and from the sounds of it the rally hardly touched on that. And that may have hit a sore spot.
But like rightwingprof said… they sound like anti-corporate leftists.
Conform not unto the world but be transformed… the accounts of the rally and reports about the organization is that they are about encouraging young people to refuse the consumer culture and the morally permissive culture and take a stand in their own lives. Preaching to them about not being gay is pointless when the idea is to get the young people to take up a biblical outlook on heterosexual promiscuity, to refuse the “me, me, me” attitude and “but I *want* it” modern expectation of instant gratification.
What people on the “outside” are going to see in the counter protests and the resolution of condemnation is a defense of promiscuity, consumerism, drug and alcohol use, abortion (for all those unwanted teen pregnancies) and whatever else, confirming the view that SF is a modern Sodom and Gomora just waiting for hell-fire from on high.
Not that that attitude needs much encouragment, but there you go.
Argh… not like I think I’m a writer or something. Try again… the sore spot would be San Francisco as a representation of decadence. The way I wrote it sounds like the fact that the group didn’t much talk about gays at all was the sore spot… which is not what I meant.
#7 – Saw it now. Great episode!
Funny little coincidence: a couple weeks ago, someone asked me if I would ever move to SF and I said NO, it’s the most smug and self-righteous city on Earth.
#22 – “Why is it OK for the Christianist [sic] group to voice their opinions but Leno can’t? Double-standard C”
Who has said it’s not OK for Leno to voice his opinion? However contemptible Leno’s “opinion” is, I have not.
There’s Gryph trying to knock down the straw men of his imagination, as always.
What I said, Gryph, is that it is ABSURD (sorry for the earlier misspelling) for you to claim the Christian youth were behaving obnoxiously or as “bad guests”.
Obnoxious would be if they had done behaviors we’ve seen from Left demonstraters, such as: overturning and burning cards, smashing windows, burning flags, urinating on the streets, wearing F-word T-shirts, shouting similar slogans at neutral passers-by, etc. OK? Clear now?
sorry, “burning cars”
GPW’s mention of gay identity and his blogging moniker makes me uneasy. Although being gay, homosexual, whatever is fundamental to who I am, I do find it hard to feel at all at home amongst my gay brethren these post 9.11 days. But what’s the story, GPW? Hope you’re not going to softpedal your perversity!
They have a great deal to do with each other, but unsurprisingly, you don’t see the inconsistency. Liberals never do.
My $.02 on our hosts’ monikers:
I love the juxtaposition of “Gay” and “Patriot”! It re-frames both. I love the way it freaks out the furthest-Left gays, reminding them of their deficiencies when it comes to patriotism and provoking freakish rants for my entertainment. 🙂 (e.g., gay death camps etc. – LOL)
Having said that, I can see where GPW would get tired of having his moniker be so derivative of GP’s, or having mere geography (“West”) as the distinguishing feature. He has a lot more to offer than just where he lives.
#30 — Too bad for him ‘Hollywood Neo Con’ is taken.
in #26 Calarato says:
Don’t be silly, what you have described is not “obnoxious”, its vandalism.
And Caralato,I’m quite certain that more than a few people find you extremely obnoxious, without you ever having set their car on fire etc.
Carl, thanks for the answer to my quesiton of what is wrong with seeing Gibson films… I laughed when the pansy got tossed out the window in Braveheart, too. See, there are gay guys who don’t like the queer, effeminate, dandy stereotype that exists in our subculture. It’s that whole anti-masculine gay thing twinks and drag queens have going. It denies who we are and makes us into perverted objects of self-debased masculinity in order to attract str8 males (yeah, really; it does –talk about gays being self loathing).
It goes to the issue of watching flaming gays be the poster boi for “gay” and that definition makes it hard for me and my partner to gain respect in our neighborhood, city, county, state. Just like all those Pride flags at Democrat fringe rallies and demostrations make it appear gays support those wacked idiots and their lunacy. Both have been such a dominant image that it has become the perception in middle America… and that’s not me/us. So when I saw the pansy get tossed, I didn’t think
“OMG, where’s the exit! Gibson is attacking all gays”
anymore than when I last watched “Beauty and the Beast” with our sons and thought, “OMG! That’s an indictment of all gay muscle bears and reinforcing the negative stereotype that all gay men must be smooth! Children, everyone to the boats!”
Come on Carl; it was slapstick humor. Can’t we laugh at our own absurd stereotypes?
Calarato, I don’t find you obnoxious in the least. Patrick just has a big-assed chip on his shoulder.
I find your comments refreshing, usually insightful, and stated in a concise, deliberate fashion.
BTW, who the Hell is “burning cards” to protest anything? Is that like book-burning (only lighter weights) for the limp-wristed, strength challenged twink set? j/k
Calarato, I don’t find you obnoxious in the least. Patrick just has a big-assed chip on his shoulder.
Agreed. Whenever I read one of Gryph’s comments now, I picture one of the smug, self-satisfied San Franciscans of South Park bending over to savor the smell of his own farts.
VdaK, laughing all the way out the door on that one. Thanks!
#34 – #35 – thanks guys 🙂
Gryph: We all know the lameness of your response concedes my case. Thank you.
P.S. For the record: Only two of the six obnoxious-demonstrator-behavior items I listed would be vandalism. (Look it up, if you’re not clear on it.)
-See, there are gay guys who don’t like the queer, effeminate, dandy stereotype that exists in our subculture. –
The problem is that Gibson may see this effeminate, dandy stereotype as the only image of a gay man. Have you ever seen any other gay portrayals in Gibson films that are anything but this stereotype? I remember one of the characters in Passion of the Christ also being evil/effeminate.
You may have been laughing because of the subculture, but most of the people laughing don’t know anything about one subset or another. They just saw a “fag” who was being thrown out a window. Gibson was pandering to ignorance to get some laughs.
And you may have had mind control devices implanted in your teeth.
Carl: Gibson was pandering to ignorance? And that’s a crime in Hollywood, how? LOL
#7 — Hazard of living here, V the K.
Really, it’s kind of ironic that this city is “smug”, when it has more therapists per square foot than it does cockroaches. 🙂
NDT, having a therapist is a sign of their affluence (as well as “enlightenment”) and one of the things they feel smug about.
-Carl: Gibson was pandering to ignorance? And that’s a crime in Hollywood, how? LOL-
I never said it was a crime. I said that I saw no reason why a gay man would want to watch his films to “learn” anything, when he peddles anti-gay stereotypes. And you don’t really seem to be arguing with me at this point, so maybe you now realize that these are negative stereotypes.
–
And you may have had mind control devices implanted in your teeth. –
And Mel Gibson might be a good filmmaker.
Carl, you’ve lost your tender grip on reality. I’m not arguing with you; that would be as productive as debating a wall of stone on the merits of mortar. I was simply pointing out your silly sense of logic –Gibson panders to the gay bashing elements in society… while Hollywood panders to just about everything else… and the GayLeft panders to Democrats… pandering is a form of seduction where the brain and reason are willingly left at the curb.
It’s amazing that anyone would complain about the depiction of Edward II, whom most historians believe was a homosexual, yet turn around and swish down the street in party dresses and make-up in pride parades.
You can’t complain about pandering to stereotypes, then “celebrate diversity.”
–
They have a great deal to do with each other, but unsurprisingly, you don’t see the inconsistency. Liberals never do. –
And unsurprisingly, you still think that anyone who disagrees with you as a liberal. It gets a bit predictable.
-Carl, you’ve lost your tender grip on reality.-
Why do you have to throw insults at me? Is Mel Gibson this tender of a subject with people now, that I can’t even criticize him for pandering to anti-gay attitudes? You seem to be saying this isn’t a big deal because the “gay left” panders to Democrats. So much for 2 wrongs don’t make a right.
It seems like you’d rather insult than have a debate. That’s a shame, and that is one of the drawbacks of this blog sometimes. Some people care more about being right or being morally superior than about really discussing anything. They seem to just smirk their way through conversations.