Due to the work I needed complete on my dissertation before I set off on my journey, I was unable to devote as much time to the George Rekers story as I would have liked.  Earlier this week, he “resigned from the board of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH)”.

Because NARTH promotes the idea of “reparative therapy,” the idea that through treatment, we can overcome our same-sex attraction, this notion is once again in the news.  And Rekers’ recent behavior, like ex-gay activist John Paulk’s 2000 visit to a Washington, D.C.-gay bar, suggest that their “best” efforts notwithstanding, many “ex-gays’” (or social conservatives obsessed with homosexuality) longing for intimacy, emotional, sexual, sensual or otherwise, with men does not always disappear through therapy.

Now, I have occasionally met some men who acknowledge having had (sexual) relationships with other men in their high school, college and early post-college years and then find themselves dating women in their mid to late 20s.  That suggests that for some people, their sexuality is less fixed than it is for others.  So, I wonder if when the ex-gay groups (like NARTH) tout their “success” rate, they are merely citing those men (and women) who found their sexual attraction shifting naturally, or, find that while they’re bisexually inclined, when it comes time to choosing a life-partner, they want someone of the opposite sex.

After studying the ancient Greeks, who were remarkably tolerant of male homosexual behavior, I am aware that only rarely do they talk about homosexual relationships as being on the same plane as traditional (yes, even back then) marriage.  We do get that in the Symposium, with the relationship of Pausanias and Agathon and Aristophanes’s speech.  Otherwise, they accept that married men will, from time to time, seek sexual relationships with other (usually younger) men.  Or, that some men, like Alexander for example, often had relationships with both men and women.

All I am saying here is that while for many of us, our attraction seems fixed in one direction, for some it is not. (more…)

As I was revising the conclusion to the chapter of my dissertation that I sent out earlier today to my committee chair, I wondered if I needed cite some of the observations I made in those final pages.  Once I had completed the body of the chapter, I set my books aside (save for two quotations I wished to use at the end), cleared my desk and just wrote, using primarily notes I had scribbled (i.e., independent observations I had made) during the course of my research.

Yet, as I wrote I found that I was occasionally expressing certain ideas and interpretations that very likely would not have come to me had I not read some of the secondary material I had consulted.  That said, the idea was there in my head.  I wondered if maybe I needed go back and find the book (or article) which allowed me to offer the observation that I had.  To be sure, in that particular case, the notion of the Phaeacians as the “most civilized” people in the Odyssey, I recalled that several scholars had made that or a similar observation.

Which brings me to blogging.

Whenever another blogger links an article or blog post, I strive to tip my hat to him (either with “h/t” or “via”).   Sometimes I may forego those expressions, but link the blogger so as to indicate my gratitude to him for tracking down the post.

But, there are times when I am blogging, similar to my experience writing the conclusion to this latest chapter, where I find myself reporting a fact or offering an opinion that I know I had encountered somewhere else, but can no longer remember where.  Sometimes, I can find it by searching the history on my browser, other times, a google search will yield the source.  In many cases though (usually with facts), I am able to find a source to confirm the fact, while uncertain that it was my original source.

In short, sometimes you can’t always cite your original source.

And one more thing.  Every now and again (particularly  now when I have less time to read blogs than I normally do), I find one blogger links a post on another blog I often check, but had not yet checked (and may be intending to check that very day).  And I wonder if I need hat tip someone who alerts me to a post I would have almost certainly found on my own.

I’m still a little bit uneasy about some specifics of the new Arizona anti-illegal immigration law. I haven’t read the entire thing yet, but unlike some careless and impudent public figures who also haven’t read it, I’m not going to come out and talk it down out of hand. That said, I’m gratified that some changes have been made to clarify and discourage misuse and misunderstanding. (Natch, the old-school press still insist upon distorting (lying?) the actual narrative about the law.) The immediate action by the Arizona legislature and executive to address legitimate concerns should show those watching that law-makers of the Grand Canyon state are earnest in their efforts not to be racists, but rather to ensure that the spirit of our Nation’s immigration laws is alive in well in the state, especially considering the Federal Government has chosen not to enforce them themselves.

It’s striking how eager the inky-fingers of the old-school media are trying to destroy this incredibly popular (and necessary!) move toward national sovereignty. In the immediate aftermath of its passage, the then-new law enjoyed the support of 51% of Americans. Since then, the media, illegal-immigrant activists, and even the President of the United States (talk about unprecedented!) have done their best to undermine support for the new law.

The result? That support is even higher now (at 59%), and Governor Jan Brewer’s popularity has enjoyed a boost. Seems the more the elites of the Left demonize the measure, the more popular it gets.

Perhaps there’s something to learn from dismissing the nay-sayers and just unapologetically doing what’s right, and damn the chattering.

Last night at my Congressional District’s Republican Assembly I was joking with a fellow delegate that if I ever ran for office, my stump speech would be something like: “Vote for me and you’ll get less from the government. I’m not going to bring any money back to the district, I’m not going to fight for our ‘fair share’. I’m just going to return your own choices and leave the spending of your money to you rather than run your life from Washington (or Denver).”

Fat chance winning with a platform like that, but maybe Christie and Brewer are starting to realize Americans are pining for straight-forward, common-sensical leadership and are ready to embrace someone who simply solves problems. Is there a new yearning in America for politicians who simply do what they think is right and dismiss their detractors? And if so, why does it only work when it’s conservative ideas (Christie’s budget cuts and the new Arizona law) and not Leftist ideas (SoHCA2010, Cap-and-Trade, bailouts, etc.)?

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

Here, the Cubby One smacks down a reporter who asks if his “confrontational” nature is a hindrance to governing. And what an incredibly refreshing response he gives!

As someone who is constantly getting into trouble not for what I say, but more often how I say it, The Guv is speakin’ my language.

Killer quote: “I came here govern, not to worry about re-election.”
(h/t, HotAir)

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

UPDATE: From the comments, an excellent point made by Sonicfrog:

Compare and Contrast…. 17 Minutes!