February 27, 2005
Gannon-fodder for the gay-hating Left.
I've refrained from commenting on Gannongate because, honestly, I haven't been able to figure out exactly what it's about. I've read thousands of words about it, yet if you asked me to write a one-sentence summary of the issues at stake, I really couldn't.
I figured maybe I just wasn't paying enough attention. That's common enough. Or maybe I wasn't smart enough, or versed enough in the context of the case, to make any sense of it. Also not unheard of. Or maybe I was just missing that one key piece of information that would make everything fall into place with a satisfied, "Aha!"
But I'm coming to believe that the reason I can't understand Gannongate is that there's really no "there" there. Gannongate is a fierce dust storm whipping around all kinds of garbage and detritus, but every time I look past the pelting filth and into the vortex, there's nothing in there.
The strongest impression I'm left with after brushing off all the flying dreck is this.
The left is furious because the Bush administration:
- does not administer a strict morality test to every potential member of the press pool.
- allows gay reporters in the press pool, even if they have actual gay sex in their background. Presumably the White House should shun and punish gay hustlers, though we're never told exactly why.
- does not do deep, invasive CIA-style background searches on every potential member of the press pool, to ensure that no one who has participated in an activity that the Christian Right disapproves of ever has a shot at attending a press conference.
- allows partisan reporters, or those from obscure organizations, to question the president. Presumably there should be an audience-size cutoff and a partisanship test, which would of course have to apply equally to the Left.
Basically, the Bush administration is being pilloried for not being bigoted enough.
I'm stunned by the gleeful openness of the Left's jihad against this guy for having allegedly been a gay escort.
More than that, I continue to be incredibly discouraged by the free pass the Left gets from gays.
This is one of the many reasons why, though I care a great deal about civil rights for gays, I can never, ever support the Democratic party in its current form ever again. Forced to choose, I settle for the Republican stance on homosexuality. I don't agree with it, and I wish it were progressive, instead of just seeking to solidify the current status quo, but at least the Republican Party says what it means on gay rights.
By contrast, I am disgusted by the pathetic, pandering lip service the Democrats offer gays, and the tragic eagerness with which the "gay community" laps up the half-assed, wishy-washy sorta-promises year after year. No wonder the Republicans write gays off; they can afford to. Nothing they can do or say will win them those votes anyway. Gays have asked for nothing from the Dems, and have eagerly accepted the nothing they receive, while always finding a way to blame "the Right" for the scarcity of gay-rights goodies. I don't know whether homosexuality is hard-wired from the womb, but apparently the need to vote Democrat is hard-wired in homosexuals.
But maybe Gannongate explains the need for gays to vote Democrat: Because a gay Republican unleashes the inner Fred Phelps in every Lefty. Gay Democrats, you see, are a put-upon, protected, victimized minority, and anyone who has a critical thing to say about them is a bigot indulging in hate speech. But gay Republicans — why, they're unclean, immoral faggots who'd hump any filthy pervert with a few dollars in his Vaseline-smeared paws, and how dare they even hope for a place in the public discourse, let alone in the White House press room!
There are some things I'll just never understand. One of them is why most gays think the Democratic Party is on their side, or has any use for them beyond their ability to pull a lever in a voting booth.
Update: Just One Minute reports great news from the White House Correspondents Association: They're not accepting the Gay Hustler Trojan Horse that comes bearing a press credentialing crackdown. Pressure to crack down on who has access to the White House -- isn't it delicious that this should come from the same moonbats who screamed about the loss of free speech in AshKKKroft's AmeriKKKa?
February 25, 2005
How Bush caused all the world's disasters
We Bush voters, of course, are all too well aware that W has caused virtually everything bad that's happened since he took office. Since we are constantly told that Bush is a moronic cokehead chimp, many of us have been left wondering how he was able to cause, for example, a Tsunami. Wouldn't that require some rather sophisticated know-how?
At last, KorlaPundit has explained it all with graphics simple enough for even a FReeper to understand. All Americans who hope to comprehend the perfidy of the current regime owe it to themselves to view the horrifying explanations of ...
How Bush Caused It (an ongoing series).
November 22, 2004
"Guards! Seize him!" ...So Chile wants W unguarded, eh?
Wizbang has a nice little commentary up on the Chilean Secret Service kerfuffle. (There's an excellent summary of the incident here.) Paul feels that W did something very foolhardy when he dived into the scrum of scumbags to rescue his Secret Service agent. I share his concern, but I have to disagree.
My first thought when I heard of the incident was, "Now that -- that is a mensch!" As Paul points out later on Wizbang, it's certainly not something you can imagine any other president doing.
But my second thought was, "Why are the Chileans dead set on separating the President from his Secret Service protection?" They were certainly expecting the SS men; in fact, there had been extensive haggling over the topic of who was going to provide protection for the President. The Chileans were insisting on total responsibility. Very suspect. Why would you want total responsibility for the security of someone so important, whom so many people want dead? If anything were to happen, Chilean security would be accused of more than laxity; they'd be accused of complicity.
And when the President showed up, as expected, with his Secret Service men, these thugs felt the need to physically, manually tear the agent away from the President's side. Very odd, no? The very fact that Chilean security was physically attempting to separate them suggests that W was right not to want to be separated, whatever the cost. The man has good instincts.
I'd love to know the full story on this one. In any case, it's creepy.
Update: Alarming News has a few excellent stills that tell the story, in case you're unwilling or unable to download the video (linked in both the Alarming News and Wizbang stories).
November 19, 2004
Bush Dolly: Trampled Underfoot!
Dean Esmay says he's boycotting Canada because a Canadian MP squished a Bush dolly under her boot.
|"I show my power to you, KKKowboy! I crush a little dolly that nominally looks like a teeny, tiny plastic version of you! Ha! Take that, you basket-flaunting, phallocentric, JDAM-hurling oppressor of Islamic women and babies! This is grrrrrrrl power! Tremble before my might, KKKowardly AmeriKKKan fascist!"|
All power to Dean, and I certainly respect his decision. But I
personally found this incident hilarious. So this is what our foreign
allies are reduced to? This is it? This is all you got? Playing with
dollies? We've got the Marines mowing down Zarqawi's men thousands of
miles away, and you've got a child's doll pinned helplessly on the
floor? Bring it, Canuck.
Also... you know, I never intended this blog to be so focused on sexual matters... but am I the only one who wonders whether this MP, Carolyn Parrish, is a Crush or Trampling fetishist? (Yes, there are at least two sex fetishes that focus on women stepping on things. I believe the "trampling" fetish involves stepping on men, and the "crush" fetish involves stepping on objects or small living creatures.) There's just something both laughable and weird-kinky as all-get-out about that photo. The Mrs. Peel boot doesn't hurt either.
I tell ya... those long, cold, winters up there... and they have to wear boots, don't they? I mean, with all the snow and all? I mean, I guess it's only natural that they should learn to express all their emotions with their feet....
Update: The Crusty Curmudgeon notes that the MP in question got sh!tcanned. Apparently she'd been a problem for the Labour party for a while. Such a shame, though; we get Chirac-style hissy fits from just about every "ally" these days, but it's rare to see such a kooky, kinky, key-rayzee, and downright entertaining form of dissent.
Update: Citizen Smash links to an interesting response from a Canadian.
Bush's Bulge Part II: The POTPOTUS of Love
Continued from Part I.
Okay. This is the part where I swear that I am not obsessed with politicians' baskets. Also the part where I mention that I am not in any way sexually attracted to Bush or Cheney. Not that there's anything wrong with that. With those caveats out of the way....
I stumbled on a Village Voice article on the POTPOTUS. (That's my new suggested acronym for the Package of the President of the United States. It's kind of like a pompatus, as I imagine it. You know, the Pompatus of Love?)
Anyway, I figured maybe the happenstance of stumbling on this May 21, 2004 Voice article meant I should update my earlier post. Leave it to the Voice to
lend, well, a weighty heft to this topic. I thought the whole thing was
a larf, but Richard Goldstein sees a sinister plot for bulge-enhancing
photo-ops in the famous "Mission Accomplished" flight suit:
Clearly Bush's handlers want to leave the impression that he's not just courageous and competent but hung. Why is this message important to send? That's a very salient question, if only because it's unlikely to be addressed.
I love this. I just love the exceedingly improbable image of Dubya's handlers fussing and futzing with his jewels, stuffing a sock in his jock, bunching up his 'nads just so, floofing out his crotch-fabric so it catches the light magnificently. "Hold on a sec, Mr. President. I think you're flopping to the left, and heaven knows we don't want that!"
But something about Bush's image seems as artificially enhanced as his crotch. His need to flaunt it can be read as a response to anxiety. If you have to show your balls, maybe it's because you can't take them for granted. That isn't just Bush's problem. If macho seems so tragicomically x-treme these days, it's because many men think masculinity could actually disappear."
X-treme"? D00d! Multiple choice question: The use of "x-treme" for "extreme" here is meant to represent
- Bush's Xtianity?
- The writer's mad skillz at X-Box gamez?
- A subtle invocation of "generation X"?
- The writer's current state: Trippin' his ass off on X?
It's impossible for someone here in Jesusland, Brooklyn, to understand this confounded citified Voice-speak, so the answer must remain a mystery. Moving on, I find it fascinating that Goldstein looks at Bush's basket and sees reflected therein all of the state of manhood in today's changing world. That's some meaningful package there, Richard. (May I call you "Dick"?)
He represents a model that invites female initiative and counsel but not control. This is the Dred Scott compromise of our time, and it's evident in Bush's administration as well as in his marriage to an intelligent woman who knows how to stay three steps behind her husband.
I'm sure Goldstein would say the same thing even today. For the
Bush-haters, Condi Rice as Secretary of State is nothing but another
powerless, shackled yes-woman. (Note the Dred Scott namecheck? Nice touch. Remember, as John Lennon said (or was it Marx?): "Woman is the Nigger of the World.")
Sure, sure, it's all very well that Bush invites "female initiative and
counsel," it makes for feel-good photo-ops, but the folks at the Voice see right through it. (But wait, hold on -- why should Bush "invite female control"? Isn't the President supposed
to be in control? Aren't the Libs constantly distressed because, they say, "Cheney is
pulling the strings" or "Rove is Bush's brain"? Would they feel better
if one of the behind-the-scenes string-pullers were a female? Is that
it? Oh, darn. Liberals are so danged hard to please! If only they'd
just say straight out what they want, instead of making the world
guess! But I digress.)
But Bush also embodies the primal uncertainty many men feel in the face of sexual change. This angst, which threatens to pop up like a sour belch, solidifies his bond with threatened men. They identify with his struggle to carry off the feat of macho, and many women empathize with that effort.
I believe this may have been an early, abortive attempt to pre-emptively create a "why we lost in '04" meme: "The Castration-Fearers all voted for Bush!" (Think back to the "Angry White Men Goaded by Rush Limbaugh" meme that was meant to explain the '94 midterm losses.)
Goldstein goes on to explain why, really, to anyone with any brains and
an eye for more than stuffed crotches, Kerry is the true macho man in
the contest. He concludes with:
Fasten your crotch straps. With luck, we're in for a bumpy ride.
Oh, Dick! I feel all... light-headed. Ooh!
November 14, 2004
Bush's Bulge: A view from a broad
Say Anything finally reveals the oft-discussed photo at the heart of Dickdickgate. Sweet turgid Jeebus! Look at the size of that bunker-buster! Just the thing to further emasculate the already-hurtin' Dems. They should just be grateful the photo wasn't widely publicized before the election. Talk about an October surprise!
I can't resist commenting here on Bush's bulge, the famous cause celebre of the first debates.
Memo to Democratic operatives, bloggers, campaign strategists, and conspiracy kooks:
Had you not considered the effect of your constant harping on Bush's bulge? Did you not realize the subliminal images it called to mind, especially for women? In the morning paper, on the news, on the blogs, in the evening before bed -- for a few days there, it was a Bush's bulge-a-thon. A girl can only take so much before she has to retire to a cold shower (or a hot one). Talk, talk, talk about the man's bulge, and what do you expect a wench to do when she's finally confronted with the man's lever in the voting booth? She's going to pull it, of course.
Good going, Dems. And you wonder why you're losing the female vote.
Now all the administration has to do is periodically give Bush a large, mysterious package to hold, or a big basket to carry. Then we can hear about Bush's huge package this, Bush's giant basket that. Bring it, lefties. Bring it.
Update: More bulge analysis in a new post: Bush's Bulge Part II: The POTPOTUS of Love.
Update: Industrial Waste has more. Including a nice shot of Bush's... well, Bush's other bulge. The one Kos, Atrios, and the others don't talk about. Yowzah.
Update: QandO has the full,
uncut uncropped photo. Good God in heaven, it appears there's a little girl sitting at the Cheney's feet! I'm hoping against hope that the sight has not permanently affected her psychosexual development.
Update: Who Can Really Say? thinks he's found a concrete link between Bush's bulge and Cheney's bulge. (Warning: Not quite as kinky as it sounds, alas. But worth checking out.)