Gay Patriot Header Image

GayPatriotWest’s Last Post

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 10:46 pm - August 17, 2009.
Filed under: Blogging

This will be my last post as GayPatriotWest.

As may of you know, I have long been considering changing my blog moniker, even announcing the immanence of this change earlier this year when I settled on the new name (by which I would sign my posts).

Me being me, I didn’t want to just switch from one moniker to another, but, well, also wanted to explain why I was making the change.  I kept putting off the change so I could craft the perfect explanation.  So, tomorrow, with my next post, I’ll do just that.  (In the post linked above, I explained the origins of this soon-to-be-retired moniker.)

(I may update this post should I find it necessary.)

Do “Kiss-Ins” Hinder Social Acceptance of Gay People?

In the 1990s, when I was President of the Log Cabin Republican Club of Northern Virginia, I used to appear regularly at Republican events across the region (and in the District of Columbia).  While I would identify our group as an organization of gay Republicans and would occasionally bring a date, getting one date’s permission in 1998 to introduce him to the then-Lieutenant Governor of Virginia (current father-in-law to W’s daughter) as my boyfriend.

Beyond that, I did little to advertise my sexuality.  I found it best to let them know I was gay and show that I was otherwise just a regular Republican.  I didn’t think it helped promote social acceptance of gay peopl by being “in your face” about it.

This is why I don’t have much truck with those who stage certain stunts into order to make a statement.  On Saturday, in response to two gay men being arrested last month for kissing on property owned by the Church of the Latter Days Saints in downtown Salt Lake City (as well as similar incidents in Texas), gay groups across the nation organized kiss-ins in cities across the nation:

Twenty-two people, many of them strangers to one another, gathered under the scorching sun on Washington’s National Mall to participate in the national smooch. They were gay and straight, couples and singles of all ages, with placards that read “Equal Opportunity Kisser” and “A Kiss is a Not a Crime.”

Do you interpret this as I do? That some of the couples doing the public smooching included individuals who didn’t know one another?  Hardly a public display of spontaneous affection that.

While the AP article dwells (and dwells and dwells) on how the arrests hurts the Mormon church’s image (despite the absence of evidence that the Texas arrests were linked to Mormons), I wonder how such stunts stymie the social advancement of gay people.  People will wonder why we need so advertise our sexuality.  (The media does seem obsessed with maligning Mormons.)

It’s one thing to walk hand in hand with the person you love.  Or to in a moment of passion, kiss him, even if in a public place.  But, a staged kiss-in does more harm than good.

If such folks really think such kiss-ins will improve our image, I suggest they try them in front of a mosque or church in the African-American community.

(Oh, and, in the article linked above, the AP reporter leads off with an error by saying Prop 8 “banned gay marriage in California.”  It did no such thing; it merely prevented the state from recognizing it.)

Once again, they can’t even acknowledge sincerity of our concerns

Sometimes, our readers do a better job of defending us than we do ourselves.

When a critic contended that those protesting the President’s plans to overhaul our health care system were mere stooges of the insurance companies (and not grassroots protesters), North Dallas Thirty took issue with him (far more succinctly and much more to the point than I):

. . . he believes that the only way people would oppose Obama is if they were paid to do so. He simply cannot even entertain the possibility that people could disagree with Obama.

While I might quibble with a term NDXXX used in the part (of his comment) I did not quote, he’s really onto something here.

All too many on the left (and even a good number on the right) are simply astounded at the intensity of the spontaneous protests against a bigger and more intrusive national government.  We Americans may have not seen anything like this since the ’70s, the 1770s, that is.

It’s simply amazing that some of our readers as well as those who work in the liberal media and write for left-wing blogs refuse to accept that their fellow Americans could have principled objections to and genuine concerns about Obama’s big-government policies, particularly given the failure of so many statist schemes to improve the economy as well as the delivery of a great variety of services, including health care.

Even Obama’s campaign rhetoric suggested some sympathy for those favoring smaller government.  If he could understand those concerns in his campaign, why can’t his supporters understand then now that he’s in office?

FROM THE COMMENTS:  ThatGayConservative writes:

These folks have paid rent-a-mobs so they assume everybody else does it too. Still waiting for somebody to provide evidence of the insurance companies paying folks to oppose Chairman Obama. Should be just as easy as finding ads on CraigsList, right?

Rep. Massa To His Constituents: Drop Dead

Citizens in the 29th District of New York should pay attention to this video (hat tip Washington Times):

On the heels of the president of the United States saying he doesn’t want to hear from those who oppose his Stalinist plans, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives calling those “well-dressed” people who stand up against the statist take-over of the health care industry Nazis, comes now a Representative who intends and brags that he’s going to vote against what his constituency wants.

To give the hapless Congressman a break, I think his reiteration, that he “will vote against their opinion” is probably what he meant to say when he at first said he “will vote adamantly against the interests” of his district. But isn’t that bad enough?

I guess it’s for the “right wing” people of Canandaigua and Hornell to decide. One-term Congressman? Looks like it to me!

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

Just Because Crackpots Join a Political Movement
Doesn’t Mean They Define It

Remember back to those halcyon days of 2005, when, in the wake of George W. Bush’s historic reelection (never before in U.S. history had the son of an President won a majority of the popular vote in his own bid for the White House or been elected to a second term) and those protesting his policies showed such civility and respect, unlike, say, the gun-toting loonies who gather today to protest his successor’s statist solutions to all manner of problems.

Back then, it was only grannies and others who had never previously protested along with a diverse group of everyday folk who took to the streets on their own steam to take issue with an out-of-touch Administration:

In the crowd: young activists, nuns whose anti-war activism dates to Vietnam, parents mourning their children in uniform lost in Iraq, and uncountable families motivated for the first time to protest.

Connie McCroskey, 58, came from Des Moines, Iowa, with two of her daughters, both in their 20s, for the family’s first demonstration. McCroskey, whose father fought in World War II, said she never would have dared protest during the Vietnam War.

But, today, save the AP’s Erica Werner (and a few others), when the MSM turns their attention to the rallies, they focus not on the grannies (of whom they are very, very, very, very many) protesting the President’s proposed healthcare overhaul) and others taking to the streets for the first time, but the loony-toon-toons, of whom there are a few.

As anybody who has ever participated in a political organization or cause can tell you, there are always a handful of loony-toon-toons.

Back in 1995, when I took the environmental activist Democrat I was dating to a Republican event, he commented how the make-up was exactly like that of liberal events he had attended, a diverse mix of folk, with a share of, well, crackpots.  We didn’t do a scientific survey so could not determine whether my side or his had a greater percentage of crackpots, but they were there–and very often, the friendliest of the lot.

Had the media covered the 2005 anti-Iraq War rallies as they cover the anti-Obamacare rallies, they would have written much about the socialist ideology of the sponsoring organization, pointing out that many left-wing groups were bussing in their acolytes and showing, not bespectacled grannies in comfortable clothes wearing sensible hats to protect them from the sun, but angry leftists with hateful T-shirts, hoisting colorful placards depicting the then-President as Hilter and his supporters as goose-stepping Nazis.

MSM: Defining Obamacare Protests by Their Worst Elements

Note how in this transcript of former House Majority Leader Dick Armey’s exchange on NBC’s Meet the Press with Rachel Maddow and David Gregory, the latter presses the Republican to repudiate the Nazi imagery at a Tea Party rally, but Gregory and she fail to answer whether they repudiated “it when MoveOn.org did it to George Bush” (i.e., compared that good man to Hitler).

It will be interesting to see if anyone can come up with comments from media voices eager to link the various T-party movements to Nazi imagery demanding that Democrats repudiate left-wing groups whose members (and sometimes leaders) compared Bush to Hitler and Republicans to Nazis.

Why must Armey repudiate them? Does he belong to a group which made such a comparison? Did he encourage members of that group to do so? Did he countenance such comparisons? Did Gregory ever press any prominent Democratic activist to repudiate the antics of moveon.org or International A.N.S.W.E.R. which organized the anti-Iraq War rallies? Or the name-calling of the Bush years? Did Maddow claim a left-wing group promoted violence because of an imaginary video on its web-page?

Yes, in the course of the countless rallies and protests at various townhalls across the nation, some of the opponents of the Democrats’ health care overhaul have behaved in a boorish manner, waving signs saying “mean things” and attempting to shout down their opponents. They hurt their own cause when they behave that way.

And yet, the overwhelming majority have only done what the First Amendment to the Constitution allows us to do,”peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Despite that, all too many in the mainstream media have focused on the boorish behavior and have determined that it defines the movement. Recently, a friend of mine, a decent, civil liberal and supporter of the President, asked me if I supported the rallies, assuming they included primarily mean-spirited protesters insulting the President.  He had no idea how diverse they really were. (more…)

How Hollywood Stars Get Their Names

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 9:12 am - August 17, 2009.
Filed under: Movies/Film & TV

gregory-peck

A street sign at an intersection in Beverly Hills.

MSM to report Canadian doctors’ discussion of their “sick” system?

As Canadian doctors prepare to meet in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, to discuss their country’s “sick” health-care system, Dr. Anne Doig, the incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) says, “We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize“.  (Emphasis added.)

As the Canadian system implodes,  Dr. Robert Ouellet, the outgoing President of the CMA, will be putting forward the notion of allowing “a role for private health-care delivery within the public system.”

Wonder if the American media will be covering the Canadian doctors’ push for change in the direction of the system President Obama is trying to overhaul.

(Via GatewayPundit who has more.)

UPDATE:  A search for Anne Doig on google news yields no links to American publications.  I get a similar result when I search for Robert Ouellet.

UP-UPDATE:  Well, they are picking this up “>on the right- and libertarianosphere (guess the former is (by my definition at least) inclusive of the latter).

Of Politically Incorrect Grocery Stores & Pink Elephants

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 2:58 am - August 17, 2009.
Filed under: LA Stories,Synchronicity

Some days turn out better than expected, even when you were already expecting a very good time.

And such was my experience at the GayPatriot BBQ this Sunday at reader Leah’s Valley home.  Not only did we have a good turnout of readers, but several straight bloggers joined us as well, including Roger Simon and his wife Sheryl Longin (who discovered the real Deep Throat of Watergate),  Joe of Valley of the Shadow and Wesley of In My Copious Free Time.

I knew it was destined to be a great party before I even got there.  Defying the liberal boycott, I went to Whole Foods to buy cheese and olives.  When I asked the adorable man at the cheese counter if they had Humboldt Fog (quite possibly my favorite cheese), he replied that they did–for he had just cut  up a wheel and put out the wedges he had wrapped.  And then, on my way out, passing the pastry counter, I saw on an adjacent display carousel, boxes of cookies marked, “Pinky the Elephant.”  How perfect for a BBQ for blog of gay people sympathetic with the GOP.

At at the BBQ, a good time was had by all.  The food was delicious, especially the chicken and a homemade cheesecake.  And it was so nice to have a conversation without having to defend ourselves against charges of self-hatred.  And the topic varied widely from considerations of Anthony Perkins to discussions on the prospects of the health care overhaul passing and Ma’am Boxer winning reelection.  At its peak, we may have had 25 people, with guests ranging in age from 20 to 65.

We stayed well into the night; I didn’t realize it was long past 10 when I left.

Ma’am’s Myriad Macaca Moments

Just to show the different treatment Republican and Democratic Senators receive, consider this. In 2006, he Washington Post obsessed about then-Senator George Allen’s one-time use of the strange word, “macaca,” to describe a left-winger (with a mohawk or mullet (depending on who’s describing it) stalking his campaign with a video camera. It was indeed an odd moment and a strange expression.

Somehow, the Post found deeper meaning in that. By contrast, Ma’am Barbara Boxer, his one-time colleague from the state where he was born, has made multiple strange statements, many of which are indeed indicative of her attitude toward her critics and constituents. And yet, she gets a pass from the media.

In the past Ma’am has won election and reelection in California because she is the Democratic candidate in a largely Democratic state.  But, if people saw exactly what kind of person this Democrat was, well, they would surely opt for different representation.

To remind you of Ma’am’s attitude toward those with opinions different from her own, let me show them to show again.

Here’s how Ma’am treats a Brigadier General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:

Here’s how Ma’am tries to discredit a black man offering the views of the business association he heads:

Here’s Ma’am saying that those whose disagree with Democratic proposals for increased state involvement in the health care market (including many of her own constituents) are really stooges for outside organizations:

If any Republican Senator had been caught this many times on tape saying such silly things, his party would have long since made sure she wasn’t running for reelection.

I still have no evidence that any local television station in the Golden State has shown Ma’am Boxer for what she truly is.