Over a decade ago, when I was active in Republican politics in Northern Virginia, I tried to convince a friendly, socially conservative woman that gay people were capable of mutually supportive monogamous relationships.  No, she assured me, “homosexuals” (she, as I recall, never used the word, “gay”) just couldn’t control their sexual libido (though I think she used another term) unless, of course, they found Jesus and went through an intensive course of “reparative therapy.”

What struck me was not just her intolerance, her parroting of the ex-gay talking points, but the fact that she held to her prejudices even when dealing with a real, live “homosexual” who was trying to tell her about the reality of gay people’s lives.  Reality didn’t seem to intrude on this woman’s narrow world view.

I thought of this woman when I reviewed some of the comments to Bruce’s recent post on The American Divorce Agreement (which had been caught in our spam filter).  Their authors displayed the same sort of prejudice as did that woman who received her opinion of “homosexuals” from people who had limited, if any, knowledge of such a creature.

Only the prejudice our readers displayed was not to “homosexuals,” but conservatives.  It seems they derive their entire knowledge about conservatives from left-wing blogs and the mainstream media.  As I case in point, let me offer you “Auntie Dogma’s” comment in its entirety:

As if! Like the conservative freakshow is SOOOOO going to give you gay “patriots” a bunk on their bigoted ark. You’d be the floorshow, babycakes. You’d be walking the plank the minute they spotted a pod of Orcas.

Bon voyage. Enjoy your new home in Palindia — if they let you in. And remember, you won’t be missed.

Once again, someone assumes that American conservatives exclude gays and would prefer us dead.  Yeah, there are some right-wingers who would do just that.  I referenced one at the outset of this post.

But, since Bruce founded this blog, he and I have been referenced (regularly) on other conservative blogs, included in events for conservative bloggers (I believe he’ll be participating in CPAC later this month) and even offered credentials to the 2008 GOP convention.  I’ve been invited to speak to a local Republican meeting and invited to appear on Pjtv.com.

But, facts just don’t matter to some people. They’d rather see the world through their prejudices.   (more…)

With President Obama’s hyper-partisan Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel once more in the news for his, well, direct manner of expressing himself, many who follow politics are asking if it’s time for the president to seek a replacement.

When, right after the 2008 election, then-President-elect Obama tapped the veteran of the Clinton White House to be his Chief of Staff, Republicans (and independents) should have recognized that the Democrat’s post-partisan campaign rhetoric was just that, rhetoric.  In his three terms in the House, the Chicago Democrat (Rahm, not Obama) never showed much of an inclination to forge bipartisan compromises.  He preferred attacking Republicans to working with them.

The president could show that he really means to work in a bi-partisan manner by replacing Rahm with someone less belligerent toward the increasingly resurgent GOP.  Yet, in her article considering where the Chief of Staff is  liability or asset to Obama, Julie Mason thinks he’s keeping his job:  ”his close relationship to the president means his position is largely secure.”

That’s too bad, this is a man whose background is not shaping policy, but promoting his fellow partisans.  His departure would signal a White House less committed to winning political fights and more concerned with advancing the national interest.

GET READY FOR THE LARGEST SNOWSTORM ON RECORD IN WASHINGTON, DC HISTORY

SPECIAL WEATHER STATEMENT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE BALTIMORE MD/WASHINGTON DC
1234 PM EST FRI FEB 5 2010

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA-FREDERICK MD-CARROLL-NORTHERN BALTIMORE-
HARFORD-MONTGOMERY-HOWARD-SOUTHERN BALTIMORE-PRINCE GEORGES-
ANNE ARUNDEL-CHARLES-ST. MARYS-CALVERT-LOUDOUN-ORANGE-CULPEPER-
PRINCE WILLIAM/MANASSAS/MANASSAS PARK-FAIRFAX-
ARLINGTON/FALLS CHURCH/ALEXANDRIA-STAFFORD-SPOTSYLVANIA-
KING GEORGE-NORTHERN FAUQUIER-SOUTHERN FAUQUIER-
INCLUDING THE CITIES OF…WASHINGTON…FREDERICK…WESTMINSTER…
GAITHERSBURG…COLUMBIA…BALTIMORE…ANNAPOLIS…WALDORF…
ST MARYS CITY…LEESBURG…CULPEPER…MANASSAS…MANASSAS PARK…
FAIRFAX…ALEXANDRIA…FALLS CHURCH…FREDERICKSBURG…WARRENTON
1234 PM EST FRI FEB 5 2010

…RECORD SNOWFALL FORECAST IN THE BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON DC REGION…

…EXTREMELY DANGEROUS WINTER WEATHER CONDITIONS DEVELOPING TONIGHT…

GUSTY NORTHEAST WINDS 20 TO 30 MPH WITH VISIBILITIES FREQUENTLY
FALLING BELOW ONE-QUARTER MILE DUE TO HEAVY SNOW WILL DEVELOP
TONIGHT TO PRODUCE NEAR-BLIZZARD AND EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS WINTER WEATHER
CONDITIONS TONIGHT THROUGH SATURDAY MORNING. TRAVEL IS HIGHLY
DISCOURAGED TONIGHT AND WILL BE VERY DANGEROUS.

Pobres pequeños bebés….

[RELATED STORY:  Climategate Ripping Apart the "Science Community" - via Yid With Lid.

Climate scientist William Sprigg delivered a bold challenge to his fellow climate scientists in a blockbuster address to EUEC 2010 in Phoenix, Arizona on February 2.

Sprigg, an adjunct research professor in the Institute of Atmospheric Physics at the University of Arizona, led the technical review of the first global warming report issued by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1990.

In his address to the Thirteenth Annual Energy and Environment Expo, Sprigg took on the ClimateGate scandal and called for “serious reforms” of the global scientific community. He warned of a growing perception that “the IPCC is biased, conflicted, [and] pushing political agendas.”

Sprigg called for a new climate research agency supported not entirely by the government, but in conjunction with the private sector.

“We need to stick to our scientific principles,” Sprigg said, referring at least in part to the critical importance of sharing data with other scientists so that hypotheses and methodologies can be checked and double-checked. “We need to improve our peer preview process, and expand the stakeholders’ role to keep us all honest.”

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Amidst the frenzy of activity on Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell this week, the folks at AOL asked me to write a piece on the hullabaloo and I decided to tip my hat to bloggers with whom we are often at odds, but who, this time, got one right:

While President Barack Obama’s decision to move forward with the elimination of the military’s much hated “don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy has attracted widespread coverage, the reason behind the sudden push hasn’t.

To be sure, some small efforts were made by the administration months ago toward repeal.

In October, the White House approached Sen. Joseph Lieberman, an independent congressman well-regarded in the military who has long opposed DADT, about developing a means to lift the ban.

The same month, Kevin Nix, a spokesman for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network — a group that advocates for gay members of the armed forces — welcomed the appointment of retired Marine Gen. Clifford Stanley as undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness as a sign of the administration’s seriousness of purpose to move forward.

Yet, despite these and other rumblings, there was no evidence that the White House had a strategy (or timetable) to effect repeal.

Click here to read the rest.

Following the news these past two weeks, I have been pretty bullish about the Administration’s new-found commitment to repealing Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT).  The president sent signals to Congress and directed his top defense officials to develop a strategy to repeal the ban without compromising the military’s effectiveness.

Earlier this week, Adm. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, expressed his intentions to do just that, telling

the Senate Armed Services Committee he believed the “don’t ask” restrictions—which require gay troops to keep their sexual orientation a secret—could be eliminated without harming military morale, recruitment or readiness.

But, now via Instapundit, we learn that “White House and congressional leaders are sending contradictory signals on scrapping the Pentagon’s ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy“:

[House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi on Thursday did not commit to a clear legislative timeline on “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”

“It would be my preference to go first with legislation,” Pelosi told reporters. “But we’ll have to examine and see what the model is for what the review is.”

Now, while she may claim she’s waiting for the Pentagon to review this, we can more readily translate her remarks as, “We’re kicking this can down the road.”

Other Democrats, including Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) do have some plans to pursue full or partial repeal.  While it’s nice to see Mrs. Pelosi so concerned about the Pentagon review, perhaps she should consider legislation for repeal to kick in once the Pentagon has produced  plan for its smooth implementation, an implementation that would not compromise morale or readiness.

From today’s Wall St. Journal:

Pfizer Inc. said Wednesday that it plans to cut research-and-development spending by as much as $3 billion by 2012, in an attempt to wring efficiencies following its take-over of Wyeth without sacrificing future product development.  

The New York pharmaceutical giant outlined the aggressive cuts, which represent more than a quarter of the two companies’ combined research budgets in 2008, as it reported fourth-quarter earnings of $767 million, or 10 cents a share, up from $266 million, or four cents a share, a year earlier.

 The drug maker also forecast lower financial targets from the Wyeth deal than it provided last year, sending Pfizer shares down 2.3% to $18.62 on the New York Stock Exchange.

R&D is considered the lifeblood of pharmaceutical companies. Big drug makers like Eli Lilly & Co. and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. are increasing their spending to find new products that can replace aging blockbusters. Yet drug discovery is unpredictable, and industry scientists have struggled in coming up with big new products. Pfizer’s announcement suggests executives believe its research hasn’t been worth the high levels of investment.

Add this news to the fact that I know two major pharma companies have laid off a combined 20,000 employees since November and you have serious signs that one of the last economic innovative engines of America is in trouble.

Thanks Washington.  Anti-industry rhetoric and anti-capitalism policies have direct consequences out here in the real world.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

There are times when I feel sorry for the Obama White House. No, not for the president’s typical complaints about the problems he “inherited” or the criticism he’s endured, but this time for the expectations his fellow partisans have the attacks they’ve unleashed when he’s failed to meet them.  Democrats are behaving as if he really is the person they’ve portrayed him to be.

As if riding into town on his pink unicorn, he can wave his magic wand and make popular legislation that doesn’t sit well with the American people. To be sure, he enables such criticism by saying his biggest mistake was not doing a better job explaining his proposals. 

A line caught me in an article on Al Franken’s latest temper tantrum. At least, this time, the former funny man is not venting his spleen on his ideological adversaries. This time, he’s taking one of Obama’s right-hand, er left-hand, men to task:

Democratic senators are frustrated that the White House hasn’t done more to win over the public on health care reform and other aspects of its ambitious agenda — and angry that, in the wake of Scott Brown’s win in the Massachusetts Senate race, the White House hasn’t done more to chart a course for getting a health care bill to the president’s desk.

In his public session with the senators Wednesday, Obama urged them to “finish the job” on health care but did not lay out a path for doing so. That uncertainty appeared to trigger Franken’s anger, and the sources in the room said he laid out his concerns much more directly than any senator did in the earlier public session.

The private session was set up in a panel format, with Axelrod joined at the front of the room by Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine and Democratic strategist Paul Begala.

Did you catch the same thing I caught?  No, not about the directness of Franken’s laying out which, given Franken’s record, is probably a euphemism for tart-tongued attack.  It was in the very first line of the quote–about Democrats frustrated that the White House hasn’t done more to win over public opinion.

Huh?  Huh?

This White House hasn’t done more to win over public opinion?   (more…)