Gay Patriot Header Image

2010 Grande Conservative Blogress Diva: Let the Nominations Begin

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 8:04 pm - December 11, 2009.
Filed under: Blogging,Blogress Divas,Strong Women

Well, the end of the year is soon upon us and Grande Conservative Blogress Diva Pamela Geller must either prepare to surrender her crown — or fight to keep it.  As you know, we here at GayPatriot consider a conservative blogress diva any blogress who commands the support of gay conservative men.

And this past year, I have discovered many blogresses meriting the honor of being a blogress diva that I will wait and see the names our readers submit before submitting my list (as we have in years past).

I will, however, kick off the context by placing in nomination the name of an Obama supporter who has long commanded my respect:  Camille Paglia.  As we receive submissions and seconds, Bruce and I will determine which divas compete for the crown.  We expect to honor not only a Grande Conservative Blogress Diva, her prize hereinafter to be known as the “Ethel” in honor of that Republican most beloved by gay men–Ethel Merman.

She will be helped by at least one Conservative Blogress Regent, a title now held by Tammy Bruce and neoneocon and known as the Endora (or Agnes) in honor of the Lavender Lady herself, that “staunch” conservative, Agnes Moorhead.  This year, we may also be establishing the Lucy Award in honor of another star of the small screen and famous friend of Ron, that lifelong Republican Lucille Ball.

We will accept nominations until midnight Wednesday, December 16.  Shortly thereafter, we will alert the nominees and announce the beginning of the cat fight balloting.

On the Kevin Jennings’ Kerfuffle & the Silence of the MSM

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:54 am - December 11, 2009.
Filed under: Blogging,Gay America,Gay Politics,Media Bias

The more we learn about Kevin Jennings’ past and his leadership of GLSEN, the more questions we have.

The other night, when finishing this post, I wanted to confirm two things I had seen on the web earlier in the day.  For one, the question of whether GLSEN had stopped the seminars on “fisting” after 2000, I could find no confirmation in my browser’s history, realizing only later that I had read that information via a comment in a Facebook thread.  (A reader would later confirm that in a comment.)  I could not confirm the second, that GLSEN regularly prohibited parents from attending events in which their children participated (having evidence that they do so only in 2001).

Further research may confirm the initial views of this blogger–and other conservatives–that Jennings is not fit to serve in the Department of Education.  Or it may contradict the emerging picture of this man, showing him to acknowledge the importance of promoting the complex nature of human sexuality and discussing its emotional aspects, perhaps even encouraging high school kids to wait until they find romance for their first sexual experience.

Some bloggers and other independent researchers have looked into this matters on their own, often at great personal expense.  (Not to mention the sacrifice of their own uncompensated time.)  Much of the information we need is several years old, often only readily accessible via databases requiring paid subscriptions. Other information remains in the “dead-tree” archives of schools and non-profits and not yet uploaded to the web.

Most of us lack the resources to conduct research (it would involve travel to Boston); some might have difficulty gaining access to school archives and need help to file Freedom of Information requests.  And right now, we’ve only got bloggers and their amateur allies looking into this.  The mainstream media, by and large, seems indifferent to a story which includes some of the same elements which made a recent scandal in the Catholic Church a national, if not international sensation.  Why, we ask, isn’t the media doing the followup they would do were this story to involve priests or Republicans?

There are questions that need be asked. And the answers just might put Jennings (and GLSEN) in a better light. (more…)

Obama’s Best Speech Ever?

I did not hear the president’s speech yesterday in Oslo when he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, so cannot comment on his delivery.

When I started reading snippets on conservative blogs, most singing the speech’s praises (with slight quibbles for some of the language), I thought I was reading something from a speech by John McCain or Joe Lieberman.  So, I printed it out to read at my leisure.

Now that I have read it, I agree that it is very strong speech, if a bit overlong.  My biggest quibble was that he didn’t acknowledge those great warriors throughout history who have secured the peace, whether it be generals like George Washington and Ulysses S. Grant or leaders like Winston Churchill and Ronald Reagan.  When the president mentioned the Gipper, he didn’t mention his arms buildup which put the U.S. in a position to promote peace through strength, but cited instead his “efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika“.

That said, the Gipper would have appreciated the better part of this address.

I absolutely loved his beginning when he acknowledged the “considerable controversy” of his selection.  He called “the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics . . . far more deserving of this honor than” he.

Then, he was wise to describe the war in Afghanistan as “a conflict that America did not seek”.   A great way to introduce the notion of a just war.  Then, in perhaps my favorite passage in the speech (because it relates to some of my dissertation research):

Now these questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease — the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.

And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a “just war” emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

Well said, very, very well said.  Later, after expressing great admiration for Mohandas Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., two advocates of non-violence, he reminds us that their strategy cannot always work:

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason. (more…)