I wrestled some in high school and college. It’s not really an erotic experience. (Despite what the knockoff Tom-of-Finland cover art would suggest.)
Other than that, open thread. Steve, do your thing.
This one’s been sitting in my email InBox since last fall.Â I’m FINALLY digging out.
Here is a fellow gay conservative from my hometown (area) of Philadelphia.
Introducing… The Conservative Rainbow.
Why am I a gay Conservative (i.e. a Classical Liberal)? Because our Founders were! Classical Liberals that is–NOT gay–at least to the best of my knowledge! The Democratic Party has become nothing more than a Marxist front group for malignant narcissists attempting to feed their power-hungry egos with a governmental philosophy that has proved, without a doubt, throughout the ages–to be a flawed & failed philosophy. Tammy Bruce, a 2nd Amendment gun-toting lesbian feminist described them as malignant narcissists in her book “The Death of Right and Wrong”. The term itself, according to Tammy, originated from psychoanalyst Otto Kernberg. Tammy–you’re absolutely correct. Ronald Reagan said it best, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me.”
This website has been created as a fun, informative, & hopefully somewhat entertaining place for other gay Conservatives to chat, hob nob, and otherwise engage in lively conversation & current events affecting the gay community today. So, for those of you disenchanted with the current state of your traditional political alliances–welcome! I’m happy to announce there is a new place for gay men & women who don’t necessarily agree with the big government, socialist agenda of the current Democratic Party. There are Republicans out there looking out for us. And there are more Gay Conservatives out there than many of you may have expected. Gay marriage is, after all, a very conservative idea.
How can you NOT like this blog?Â Â Go visit The Conservative Rainbow and say hi from all of us at GayPatriot.
Every now and again, we got a comment which defines an attitude. But, it’s rare that that commenter will keep posting, continually proving how narrow-minded was his initial point about our blog, how wrong he was about our ideas and how ignorant he was about gay Republicans.
But, yesterday, not long after I announced that we were opening up nominations for our annual competition to determine the Grande Conservative Blogress Diva, reader John Santos claimed that “all those women” (emphasis added) that we were considering “have at least one anti-gay post on their blogs.” Amused by the ignorance of his statement, I chimed in in his comment asking him to back up his point with actual links.
Something which should be easy given that he had claimed that every single one of these blogresses had posted at least one anti-gay piece.
To be sure, I haven’t read every single post of every single woman I listed. I try to read a few of them regularly. That list includes blogresses whose work I (or Bruce) had read (and admired) at one time or another as well as blogresses whom readers had recommended when we held this competition in past years.
Perhaps, one of them had said something anti-gay–and that post escaped my notice. But, I highly doubt that “all of the women” had posted an anti-gay piece. Several blogresses (on our list) have libertarian leanings. One (Tammy Bruce) is an open lesbian, another has not only become a friend (Bridget Johnson of GOP Vixen), but she also regularly socializes with gay men while several others who have, from time to time, been critical of social conservatives for their extreme stands on homosexuality. I have met at least three others on the list, having identified myself to each as GayPatriotWest. None reacted adversely to this information.
When I challenged Mr. Santos to back up his point with links, he came up with only one, but in that post, Kate (the blogress with the supposed anti-gay comment) only weighed in on the fury of a transgender activist scorned. That activist got upset at the publication of a book nominated for an award by the Lambda Literary Foundation, a foundation which defines itself as “the country’s leading organization for LGBT literature.” Doesn’t sound like an anti-gay group to me.
In eighteen (18) comments posted after my challenge, Santos refused to provide a single post where a single one of the blogresses mentioned in the post made (as he claimed they all did) anti-gay comments.
Upon reading the post, Santos made an assumption about the women we gay conservatives choose to honor. Assuming (as do all too many in our community) we are self-hating hypocrites, this man is certain that we admire anti-gay women.
This man’s not interested in engaging our ideas, but in proving to himself that we are as narrow as he imagines us to be. Only, I–and a number of our regular defenders–fought back, taking issue with his ludicrous claim. Not only that, his failure to provide any examples supporting his point shows that he did not base his assumption on the reality of the situation. He just threw out a statement. Were that statement even close to true, he could have (in a matter of moments) come up with several examples.
What is it about all too many of those who spend so much time on this site that they repeatedly misunderstand our ideas, our arguments, even our rationale for supporting a party which, alas, still promotes policies (on gay issues) that we oppose? I do try to make rational arguments and know that from some of the comments (as well as some of my e-mail) that some liberals do get my points and appreciate (even while not supporting) my commitment to the GOP.
It’s too bad that others don’t take the time these people do to understand the arguments of their ideological adversaries.
All that said, perhaps someone will track down an anti-gay post one of these blogresses has written of which I am (at present) not aware. Such a post would surely lower my regard my regard for the blogress who penned it.
Having read a number of them regularly and others occasionally, I doubt any reader will come up with anything so incriminating. For most of these women appear to be supportive of rather than antagonistic to gay people.
– B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest@aol.com)
Sometimes, I’ll put days of thought and hours of work into a post, thinking I’m addressing an important issue and get no links and only a handful of comments. Most people didn’t find take as much interest in the idea that I found so compelling. Other times, I’ll read some post (or encounter an idea) in an e-mail and, on a whim, whip off a piece.
Such was the case yesterday when I pondered an e-mail from a reader referencing Michelle Malkin’s on ABC “staging” news by hiring actors to engage in PDA to provoke a reaction from people in Alabama. And I wondered about the MSM’s disinterest in something we gay conservatives encounter frequently when we come out to our peers, an intolerant reaction from our fellow gays.
After whipping off the post, I went out to run some errands. I didn’t think anyone (beyond our regular readers) would be particularly interested in the piece. I mean, I didn’t even send an e-mail out to other bloggers, alerting them to the piece. But no sooner did I post it than Pajamas picked it up, then did some relatively high-traffic left-wing blog (of which I had theretofore been unaware). Before I knew it, we were inundated with comments, many of which I had to review in our spam filter.
Talk about hate speech.
It was amazing reading through those comments. It seemed half the people hadn’t even read the post, limiting themselves to responding to what the blogger linking us had said while the other half focused on my anecdote about the date. Hardly the point of the post, just an illustration of my idea.
And then when I read the comments to their post!! WOW! So much fun! Almost grateful for the misrepresentations and projection. And the repetition of empty soundbytes and stock phrases about our self-hatred! It provided a window into their worldview. This time it seems Ann Coulter got something right. These people weren’t interested in argument, but in “anathematiz[ing] their enemies.”
Most (but not all) of those commenting had absolutely no understanding of the modern conservative movement, seeing it instead through the narrow lens of the mainstream media and left-wing blogs.
Despite the meanness of many of the comments, this experience did provide much amusement. I could not help but smile as I read (and occasionally chimed in) the various comments, all too many confirming Coulter’s observation while showing their total misunderstanding of ideas and individuals they claim to abhor. (No wonder I woke in such a good mood even though I did not get as much sleep as I would have liked.)
And I wondered. . . . what does it say about these people that they so revile something they don’t even understand and repeatedly misrepresent? It is that they merely need find an outlet to express their bile? Kind of like someone lashing out at the first person he meets after being stuck in traffic for several hours?
I’m not sure what it is. But, it does give food for thought. I’ve asked it before and wonder yet again: Why do they hate so?
(This post ended up going in an entirely different direction than the one I intended when I started writing it. Funny, how I often struggle to find a good beginning for expresssing an idea and then that opening leads me to explore another idea altogether. Ah! How much fun blogging is.
In other words, there were a couple of issues I had intended to explore in this post, but didn’t get to. So, I decided to limit this post to the idea above on the hatred and misunderstanding of some of our ideological adversaries. I had intended to expand upon the point I made in comment 71, reflecting an insight EssEm offered in comment 69. I hope to do that in a subsequent post. And come to think of it, given that would deal with some broad-minded liberals, it would make a nice companion piece to this one.)
If I didn’t know better, I would think that either Ted or Michael is a clone of me!
Separately we enjoy: tech gadgets, reality TV, political discourse, Harry Potter, computer games, ancient history, kitchen accessories, romantic/comedy films, Johnnie Walker, pop culture, The Office, Jimmy Buffet and feta cheese.
Together we enjoy: cooking on Sunday afternoons, reading, Gosford Park, our dog Charley, playing bridge, world travel, Montreal, shoes from Allen Edmonds, our log home at the lake, seafood, our Mini Cooper and House.
Well, aside from the bridge-playing. Somehow I always thought that game involved math. Math….yucky.
Welcome to the blogosphere — The Adventures of Ted & Michael!
Oh…. ya gotta love the Elephant pic banner!
UPDATE (from GPW): Hmm. . . . gay bloggers who also like ancient history, reading and appreciate the (in my opinion, underrated) flick, Gosford Park, sounds like they have a blog worthy of my attention. 🙂
There are times when words fail me. And times when I struggle with the right word. Or the right post. Sometimes, when I experience an unexpected kindness, I, who have often defined my gift as words, stammer and can’t respond. I can’t find the words to match the generosity. Would it that this post were about such silence.
Alas that this is about something which so totally stupefies me because it’s so outrageous, I feel I must write to express my incredulity. But, given that what has so outraged me has come from the angry anti-war left, incredulity is not quite the word. Because by now, we already seen the levels to which these extreme outfits would descend to attack President Bush or people who promote and/or execute his policies. We are accustomed to the mean-spirited and dishonest attacks they have long since produced.
I am referring of course to Moveon.org’s ad insinuating that General Petraeus is General “Betray Us.”
I have spent the better part of the day struggling to find the proper words to express my own outrage not only at this ad, but at the New York Times for agreeing to publish it, quite possibly at a discount (Via Instapundit).
The ad itself begins by accusing the general of being “constantly at war with the facts,” yet it is the ad itself that is at odd with the facts.
I’m sure the left-wing bloggers busy trying to sift through his testimony and label anything with which they happen to disagree as a “lie” or spin. I’ve already seen such tactics in a post linked in the comment section to my post on the Democrats’ preferring their version of the truth to the report of Petraeus on the facts on the ground in Iraq.
Too many on the left, including a number of Democratic elected officials, aren’t interested in the report of the top general of the ground in Iraq. They would rather attempt to discredit him by twisting his words than listening to his testimony.
Fortunately, while I can’t quite find the words to express my outrage, other bloggers have. Paul Mirengoff at Powerline said that MoveOn has hit the bottom.” Hugh Hewitt called the ad “repulsive and, as I noted before calls on Democrats who “fail to denounce the slander of this honorable and courageous American . . . complicit in that slander.”
I may have more to say about this in future posts, but at least I’ve had the chance to express my outrage at this excess. I encourage you to follow the links I provide to read posts where others have expressed their feelings on this topic much better than I have been able to express mine at this time.
UPDATE: Peter Hughes just e-mailed me, reminding me of Dean Barnett’s post on the topic which I had read yesterday. In his piece, The Party of No Decency, Dean comments on “the symbiotic relationship between the respectable political front men of the Democratic Party and the gutter dwelling sewer rats who do their dirty work.” Read the whole thing!!
UP-UPDATE: This morning, Hugh observes, “The general silence from Democrats tells you that their fear of MoveOn.org trumps their respect for the general and the troops he leads.” That pretty much sums up the modus operandi of today’s Democrats.
I had hoped to write some serious posts this week and do expect to get to work on another in short order, but this has been a kind of crazy time for me, with my volunteering for Outfest and preparing to give the sermon at my synagogue this coming Friday night. It seems that in thinking about that, I have pushed other thoughts to the back of my mind.
As I began work on my remarks last night, the words flowed and I wrote the first half (about 700 words) in about a half an hour. But, then this morning, when I hoped to carry that literary energy into blogging, the ideas did not come as readily. Perhaps, it’s that I’ve been reading Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness for my Underworld class. That powerful book has taken me into the depths, a place where it is not often easy to write, but which often gives us food for thought and later inspiration.
In my talk Friday night, I will be exploring the similarity between Moses and the heroes of myth and legend — and inquire into his uniqueness, that alone among cultural heroes (save perhaps King Arthur), the stories of his journey do not end with him becoming leader of his people, but instead focus on that leadership.
If you’re interested in hearing me speak, please contact me and I’d be delighted to provide details about Friday’s services.