It’s unfortunate that despite all the media bellyaching about the supposed racial component of the Tea Parties based on a handful of signs and the prejudices of those writing about the grassroots movement for the nation’s major dailies or reporting on it for the major broadcast networks (as well as minor cable news networks) that they have all but ignored the gay presence there.

Indeed, despite my calling our presence “infiltration,” it seems that I am not the only gay person to have been made welcome at such rallies. Since I first posted on the matter, I keep receiving reports, like this comment of gay people made welcome at Tea Parties:

Dude. Infiltrated? I just showed up at our local rallies, EVERYBODY knows I’m gay – NOBODY cares. I get TONS more hate at the (gay) bar cos I don’t like ol’ Bammy….

Brian’s experiences parallel my own.  I find get more grief for being a gay conservative in gay circles than I do for being gay in conservative circles.  But, I’ve said this before.

So, why doesn’t the MSM address this narrative?

Today was one of those days when it seems your life is like a movie. Amidst all the little things I need do before I head out of town, I needed some work done on my car.

Yesterday, I had to take my car in for new tires and learned I needed new brakes (as I had thought I did back in October, but was told I didn’t). So today, after picking up my car, I gave myself just over 1 hour and 30 minutes to get from the dealership (they had the cheapest price on tires and could replace the brakes) to the LA County Registrar in Norwalk where I would vote early.

Mapquest said it would take 30 minutes. It took one hour and thirty minutes. I was literally turning into the building parking lot at 5:00 and was told that I could vote if I got into the building by 5.

Now, as I was driving to Norwalk, I am wondering why would they put such an important office in a distant corner of the county–just a few miles north of the Orange County line. Shouldn’t these offices be centrally located?

I was in bumper-to-bumper traffic for the better part of my time on the Golden State Freeway. And trying to keep my cool, was delighting in the irony of how frustrating this drive was, yet how much I was looking forward to driving cross country. Fortunately, they won’t have LA traffic in Utah, Nebraska or Iowa.

Anyway, back to my story, they allowed me into the building. Unable to find the stairs, I dashed into an open elevator, pushing the button frantically to make it move faster. I reached the 3rd floor (where the voting office is located), ran down the hall. The door was locked, so I knocked and knocked and knocked again. A nice woman came to the door. Mustering the best sad puppy face I could, I explained that I had been stuck on the freeway for nearly two hours and really wanted to vote in this primary election. (more…)

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!

Glenn asks, “WHY DOESN’T THE PRESS care about unemployment?”

Michelle Obama’s obesity report: Tax pop and candy, subsidize fruits and veggies.

Now, I certainly salute the First Lady for her commitment to combating child obesity, but why can’t she manage to come up with a solution that doesn’t involving taxing one product and subsidizing another?

It seems that those on the left identify problems in order to come up with government solutions.

So much to blog about when I have so little time to blog about it.

I still need do my post on George Alan Rekers and pseudo-science.  May just do it as a short bullet-point post and leave it as an item for discussion as I doubt I’ll have the time to turn my ideas into a thoughtful essay before I depart on my “odyssey.”

A number of readers have alerted me to this great post where a number of milbloggers, most highly respected in the rightosphere, issued a statement on DADT, concluding thusly, “we welcome open and honorable service, regardless of sexual orientation.”

Another sign of the emerging consensus for DADT repeal, even among the military community.

Read the whole thing.

No wonder Democrats had to rush passage of their health care overhaul legislation:

Congressional Budget Office estimates released Tuesday predict the health care overhaul will likely cost about $115 billion more in discretionary spending over ten years than the original cost projections.

The additional spending — if approved over the years by Congress — would bring the total estimated cost of the overhaul to over $1 trillion.

Over at Verum Serum, John observes, this “almost precisely negates the amount the bill is supposed to reduce the deficit, i.e. $138 billion.”  And let’s not forget this is over a ten-year period during which the program is only fully operational in the last six years.

First, we had the report of the Medicare actuary, then we learned that companies might start “dumping the health care coverage they provide to their workers in exchange for paying penalty fees to the government.”  Guess we could say we told you so.

Don’t think this program will be cutting health care costs or reducing the deficit as the Democrats promised.  And even with their promises, they couldn’t sell it to the American people (but they could sell it to Congress).  Wonder what this latest report will do for its numbers.  I mean, most people never even believed it would cut the deficit anyway:

. . .  according to a Rasmussen poll released this morning before the new CBO figures came out, the number who think O-Care will increase the deficit is at its highest level yet and approaching supermajority levels. If you think repeal or serious revision is impossible, think again.

If this gets any coverage, it’s going to do wonders for the president’s poll numbers — and those of Democrats.

RELATED:  56% of American Voters Want Dem’s Obamacare Law Repealed

In  his reflection on the Maine GOP’s decision to adopt a new Tea Party-flavored platform at its convention this past weekend, James Taranto offers a great insight into social conservatives and Tea Parties:

In truth, most of the religious right is part of the spectrum of respectable political opinion in America. While everybody deplores racism, opposition to abortion and to same-sex marriage are mainstream positions to everyone except extremists on the other side. To call the tea-party movement socially conservative or “religious right,” then, does not have the same sting as calling it racist or violent.

Yet it does seem to be almost as inaccurate. An April New York Times poll found that while tea-party sympathizers were more conservative than average on social issues, by 78% to 14% they said economic issues are more important–nearly identical to the response from non-tea participants. While tea-party sympathizers were less pro-abortion than others, 40% said Roe v. Wade was “a good thing.”

One can see why liberals and Democrats would be eager to pigeonhole the tea-party movement as socially conservative. A substantial number of voters are put off by the religious right, either because their views are more liberal or because, even if not, they find its preoccupation with matters like abortion or gays creepy or beside the point.

Emphasis added.

Given this focus on economic issues, it’s no wonder Tea Party participants have not been averse to the homosexual infiltration we’ve detected.  Now, we wonder how those social conservatives would react if the media reported on gay participation in the movement which, by our observation, far exceeds that of extremists hoisting racist signs or spouting hateful racial epithets.  (Indeed, by our estimate, there have been more gay men and lesbians at Tea Parties in the Los Angeles area alone than racist epithets hurled by Tea Party participants at protests across the country!)

Perhaps, I might have a different view of Media Matters if I checked their site every day. And while they claim to be investigating conservative bias in the MSM, they do seem to have an obsession with FoxNews and Rush Limbaugh, the former which “everyone knows” has a right-wing bias and the latter who proudly advertises his conservatism.

Finding conservative bias on Rush’s program is kind of like shooting fish in a barrel.

Well, just discovered this Greg Gutfield’s wonderful spoof of MM’s obsession with FoxNews.

Yup, and they’re right about Janeane Garofalo in the The Truth About Cats & Dogs. Good performance.  Good movie.

Via BigJournalism via Instapundit.

As per Bruce’s recent post on the allegations of Elaine Kagan’s sexuality, basically the nub of what I have to say is that we have more important things to discuss, especially about this woman’s qualifications, than to question her sexuality as some juvenile left-wing bloggers want to do.

Her sexuality is irrelevant to her ability to serve on the Supreme Court.  And we shouldn’t be making an issue of it.

If she is a lesbian and wishes to keep this matter private, that’s her business.  If she’s not, then we’ve got a lot of people making assumptions about the private life of a middle-aged single woman who may well wonder if by focusing on a career where she has enjoyed considerable success, she compromised her chances to find a husband.  I know many single women of her demographic who would very much like not to be.  And the more people blather on about her supposed private life, the less likely it is that she’ll find a man.

Did people make these assumptions about Sonia Sotomayor, divorced in 1983 and single ever since?

Look, I think it would be a great thing to have a lesbian on the Supreme Court and I was all prepared to go all out to defend my former law professor Pam Karlan’s qualifications if the president had tapped that distinguished law professor.  But, Ms. Karlan self-identifies as a lesbian (though she had a boyfriend when she taught me).  That’s her choice.  And we should respect it.  Ms. Kagan doesn’t talk about her private life.  And we should respect that too.

As per that nominee, let’s consider her qualifications, her record as a jurist, her scholarly writings and leave her private life out of it.

UPDATE:  Her friends say she’s not gay:

“I’ve known her for most of her adult life and I know she’s straight,” said Sarah Walzer, Kagan’s roommate in law school and a close friend since then. “She dated men when we were in law school, we talked about men — who in our class was cute, who she would like to date, all of those things. She definitely dated when she was in D.C. after law school, when she was in Chicago – and she just didn’t find the right person.”

Read the whole thing.  Some bloggers have got a lot of ‘splaining to do.

Last night, I wondered if the president’s approval numbers enjoyed a slight uptick in recent weeks (while his disapproval is on the decline) because his unpopular health care overhaul is no longer on the front page.

And today I learned that Tom Jensen at the Democratic Party-affiliated Public Policy polling, whose latest poll reflect that trend, seems to share my views:

Obama’s numbers saw a significant downward trend during the health care debate and with that issue in the rear view mirror he seems to be regaining at least a little bit of his support across party lines. It’s not that voters have changed their minds on the bill- the 49/43 spread against it now is nearly identical to the 49/45 spread against it right before the vote was taken. But it no longer seems to be near the top of voters’ minds when evaluating Obama and his numbers do finally seem to be seeing some improvement as a result.

I think the president’s been helped by a media which do not devote as much attention to his Administration’s stumbles and scandals as they would if he were a Republican.  The media hyped federal blunders in the aftermath of Katrina while downplaying those after the oil spill.  They have all put ignored ties between tie between these Administration and BP, not investigating the exemption the Administration granted this Obama campaign contributor to the extent they would if a Republican Administration had reacted similarly to a campaign contributor.

Nor are we likely to see much investigation of the huge pay increases Labor Secretary Hilda Solis gave to her staffers when they moved from Capitol Hill to the Labor Department.

Without the relentless negative coverage the media would give to a Republican executive similarly situated, the American people move to their default reaction toward the president:  they generally approve of his policies because they want him to succeed.

So, expect the president’s approval to hover around 50% for a while unless he introduces another unpopular initiative.  Or if the nascent recovery fades as some economists (and bloggers) warn.

Okay. Check out this video:

(From VerumSerum by way of NRO)

It’s the aftermath of somebody attacking the Swedish artist who drew this picture. (Natch, I use the term “artist” loosely. No, I couldn’t do better—we’ll see in nine days—but you don’t have to be good to have your own opinion. After all, look at Keith Olbermann.)

What we have here is an observant of the Religion of Peace attacking somone for having drawn a (crappy, albeit) picture of the Prophet Muhammed. I echo blogger John Sexton’s characterization of the audience’s reaction as being a good source for the “creeps”: Chants of “Allahu Ackbar”.

While I understand and respect that my Occidental colleague and many commenters passionately disagree with Bruce and me about the event (and they have a very good argument), this sort of nonesense demonstrates precisely why I support it.

That the offense of a religion (in the year 2010, need I remind you?) results in physical violence is the clearest sign that this sect needs to be dragged, kicking and screaming (and apparently head-butting) if necessary, into the 21st Century (or at least the 19th). That may sound insensitive of me to say, but I’d rank it below heat-butting somebody, and definitely not even in the same solar system as a suicide bomber.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

The day has arrived! The NASCAR Hall of Fame grand opening ceremonies are taking place in Uptown Charlotte as I type. PatriotPartner and I are thrilled to be here as a part of history for NASCAR and our city.

I’ll update things on the ground all day via my Twitter feed on our right-hand sidebar.

Hey, since Queerty.com and our friend Andrew Sullivan have “gone all in” by declaring Elena Kagan a lesbian (frankly, I have no idea or not…. nor do I care)….

It is no more of an empirical question than whether she is Jewish. We know she is Jewish, and it is a fact simply and rightly put in the public square. If she were to hide her Jewishness, it would seem rightly odd, bizarre, anachronistic, even arguably self-critical or self-loathing. And yet we have been told by many that she is gay … and no one will ask directly if this is true and no one in the administration will tell us definitively.

….then I’m playing this card:  IF she is, is she actually filling the homosexual Supreme Court seat left vacant since last year? 

Oh come on, you never heard of the David Souter gay talk?  Where have you been?  In the same crowd of women that pine for Anderson Cooper…. or the Village People?  Sheesh.

Again, my big question is why does Obama think that being a lesbian is such a bad thing?  His White House indicated as much when Kagan’s name first surfaced after Justice Stevens announced his retirement.

Why is the White House treating lesbian rumors like allegations of vampiric necrophilia? When CBS republished a column repeating the rumor that possible Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is a lesbian, the White House responded furiously. Because lesbians are terrible?

The White House press office blew up. Anita Dunn said: “The fact that they’ve chosen to become enablers of people posting lies on their site tells us where the journalistic standards of CBS are in 2010.” Spokesman Ben LaBolt said the column “made false charges.”

On this topic, I find myself agreeing with Andrew Sullivan (yes, End of Days is nigh).  (h/t – Instapundit)

 Is Obama actually going to use a Supreme Court nominee to advance the cause of the closet (as well as kill any court imposition of marriage equality)? And can we have a clear, factual statement as to the truth? In a free society in the 21st Century, it is not illegitimate to ask. And it is cowardly not to tell.

What are we afraid of, people?  And by “people”…. I mean President Obama and his Gay Leftist Lickspittles. 

The new Democrat slogan: “Live by Identity Politics…. Die by Identity Politics.”

[RELATED - Andrew Sullivan's Confused History of the Politics of The Closet.  Heh.]

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I’m not yet going to chime in on the merits of the president’s latest pick for the Supreme Court.  I am impressed, however, with the respect she has shown for conservative academics, her commitment to intellectual diversity and the appreciation she has shown for the Federalist Society.

That said, despite her broad-mindedness, Republican Senators have a good case for filibustering her.  Indeed, they just need crib from the comments made by Democratic Senators during the Alito hearings, including the words used by a certain Senator then representing Illinois.

NB:  To make sure I’m not misunderstood.  I’m not making the case for filibustering Kagan, just pointing out that Obama and his fellow partisans have already made it.

In his very self-important piece that Mark Lilla penned for the New York Review of Books, that very smart man has a real problem of putting things into context.  He writes that Obama

. . . has been elected president by a healthy majority and is grappling with a wounded economy and two foreign wars he inherited—and what are we talking about? A makeshift Tea Party movement whose activists rage against “government” and “the media,” while the hotheads of talk radio and cable news declare that the conservative counterrevolution has begun.

Yet, he is absolutely clueless how Obama built that majority.  If he had paid the slightest bit of attention to the Democrat’s campaign rhetoric, he might better understand the roots of Tea Party activism.  It’s as if Lilla believes that because Obama represents the more liberal party and because he won a majority, therefore people must accept the big-government initiatives he proposes.

Alas, that Mr. Lilla seems blissfully (deliberately?) ignorant of the rhetoric the Democratic nominee used to win over voters in the middle.  Recall, as I pointed out in a recent post, how Obama promised, in the campaign to hold the line on spending:

“In his half-hour infomercial” the Wednesday before the 2008 election, the Washington Post reported, candidate Barack Obama “repeated earlier assurances that he had ‘offered spending cuts’ to pay for every cent of the post-election bonanza that he plans to shower on his fellow Americans.”  (Emphasis added.)  Indeed, in the third debate that fall, pointing out ”that we’ve been living beyond our means and we’re going to have to make some adjustments” he told what he’d been doing ”throughout this campaign”: he had proposed “a net spending cut.”

Not just that, Obama was going to go line by line through the federal budget to root out waste.  Guess Lilla takes Obama’s campaign rhetoric as seriously as does the candidate himself.

So filled is Lilla with contempt for conservatives that he blinds himself to the circumstances of Obama’s (electoral) success and the sincerity of our concerns, concerns which parallel Obama’s campaign rhetoric.  And, as per my prior post on his essay, he’s all but blind to the economic reality (worldwide debt problem) which has, in large measure, spurred our activism.

You just gotta love our Queen Conservative Diva (I created a new title).

From today’s Washington Post “Right Now” blog by Dave Weigel:

On Friday, I noted that anti-gay activist Ryan Sorba, in the process of angling for a role in a CNN documentary, challenged prominent gay conservative Tammy Bruce to a debate.

Let Tammy Bruce and/or Andrew Sullivan know that I am going to publicly challenge both to a debate soon!

Bruce, who as of last week leads the advisory board of the gay GOP group GOProud, responded to me (bolds mine):

I was amused by Ryan Sorba’s declaration that he would be soon calling for a debate between himself and either me or Andrew Sullivan. I have a better idea — I would suggest Sorba ‘debate’ Ted Haggard, Bob Allen or perhaps even George Alan Rekers. I think that might prove more interesting, and would certainly help shed some light on how hypocritical homophobic bigotry has been masquerading as an element of both Christianity and conservatism for far too long. Frankly, I do find it rather odd that homosexuality seems to be more on the minds of certain so-called religious conservatives than it is for most of my gay friends.

In the meantime, as the new chair of the Advisory Council of GOProud, I’m excited to be able to do further work promoting how authentically conservative ideals improve the quality of everyone’s lives, especially gays and other minorities. We are only truly free as individuals when we are able to make life choices that best suit us. That requires limited government, lower taxes, and personal responsibility. This is the conservative message I embrace, that compels the Tea Party movement, and will transform this nation on November 2nd.

Bruce, who appears frequently on Fox News, has quite a bit more credibility with conservatives than Sorba, whom even some gay marriage opponents consider needlessly abrasive. Hence, smack-downs like this.

HAHAHAHA.  Ryan Sorba — what a tool.  I’d pay to see this debate.  She’ll eat him alive.

By the way, can we PLEASE stop the notion that Andrew Sullivan is a conservative.  For crying out loud!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)