Sunday Scan

Foreign Aid

A lot of my friends oppose foreign aid, and there are plenty of reasons to feel that way. Not resonate with me, however, is the complaint that we should spend it here instead of there; God knows we spend too much here on swollen entitlement programs as it is, and we have so much plenty that we can afford to give some there.

So I just want to register my sense of pride as President Bush tours Africa to create political support for his President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief funding request of $30 billion. The Dems don't like the requirement that a third be spent on abstinence education and are threatening to hold up the funds.

Why? What harm would a bit more abstinence to for Africa? What complaints are there that there aren't enough condoms and medications in the $30 billion? And in this aid there is a lesson in Democracy and good governance that Africa desperately needs. As Bush told a crowd in Tanzania:

"I'll just put it bluntly, America doesn't want to spend money on people who steal the money from the people. We like dealing with honest people, and compassionate people. We want our money to go to help human condition and to lift human lives as well as fighting corruption in marketplace economies." (AP)

China is spending billions to woo Africa, but they're not showing compassion at this fundamental level that turns human hearts. Bush's proposal is for money that would be well spent, strategically and compassionately.

Friends Of Barack

The new FOB's -- socialists? Steve Bartin at Newsalert conjures up this passage, from pages 100-101 of Obama's Dreams of My Father:

To avoid being mistaken for a sellout,I chose my friends carefully.The more politically active black students.The foreign students.The Chicanos.The Marxist Professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets.At night,in the dorms,we discussed neocolonialism,Franz Fanon,Eurocentrism,and patriarchy.When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake,we were resisting bourgeois society's stifling constraints.We weren't indifferent or careless or insecure.We were alienated.

Funny, I don't hear "bourgeois" very often in his speeches nowadays.

San Diego Tax Dollars At Work

If you saw city fire fighters on a city fire truck in a gay pride parade, would it ever cross your mind that they were straight, on-duty and required by the city to ride in the parade to represent the city's position, not theirs?

It's true. In San Diego, a group of straight fire fighters is suing the city under sexual harassment laws for requiring them to ride in a Gay Pride parade. San Diego Union Trib columnist Gerry Braun writes,

I've read a few sexual-harassment suits in my time, and I find this one credible. The remarks directed at the firefighters – “You're making me hot!” “You can put out my fire!” “Show me your fire hose!” “I can't breathe, give me mouth to mouth!” “Pull out your hose!” – have been confirmed even by their critics.

How is the gay community, concerned as they are that we all be tolerant, responding to the lawsuit? If you guessed intolerantly, you'd be right. Braun:

An editorial in the Gay & Lesbian Times called the firefighters “sissies” and “wimps” before laying it on thick: “As far as we can tell, you are weak-wristed, unstable, unsuited, incapable little mama's boys.”

Caution: If you think that makes it OK to call a gay a sissy, wimp, weak-wristed or a mama's boy ... prepare to be sued.

Movie Break

Just watched a movie with Incredible Wife ... Saving Sarah Cain. It was a bit Lifetime-ish, but still a nice turn on the Amish in the city story, made by Michael Landon Jr. and other people with deep faith.

Red Hot And Green

Myself, I don't even want to know, but in case you're losing ... er, sleep ... over whether your sexual activity is appropriately green, you'll find ways to green-up your red hot sessions here. Here's an excerpt:

Sure, you love that hot-pink plastic [sex toy], but have you ever thought about what is in it? That item you’re hiding in the nightstand might contain phthalates, a chemical used to soften rigid plastics. Though nobody knows for certain if phthalates are harmful to human health, studies have linked ... blah, blah blah.

Greenies ... they can take the fun out of anything.

Extreme Bad Taste Case OK'd

Close to home, some good news: A judge is allowing the family of Nikki Catsouras to move forward with their lawsuit against a California Highway Patrol dispatcher who made gory photos from Nikki's fatal car crash public.

Attorneys for CHP dispatch supervisor Thomas O'Donnell, accused of releasing the photos, argued that it was his first amendment right to release the photos. As if.

What happened to the Catsouras family is a case of the worst sort of bad taste that grows out of the anonymity of the Internet, as photos of their beloved daughter's and sister's decapitated body appeared on numerous Web sites with insulting comments.

The Catsouras family has been able to shame many of the sites into removing the photos, but their only possible legal action is against O'Donnell for his scummy (alleged) action of releasing the photos.

One Web site I won't link to that includes links to the photos also includes a reader poll with these results:

Do the parents deserve to win their lawsuit? Yes, 57%, no 43%.

Should Web sites be allowed to show the graphic photos of Nikki Catsouras? Yes, 33%, no 32%

Obviously, people who visit these sites are a schitzy bunch: Rooting for the parents, while a significant amount of them root against them, too.

A Big 'Heh!' On Biofuels

What's wrong with me? Why do I get such glee from environmentalism gone bad? Especially when environmentalism and Congressional eagerness to score greenie points -- and get votes -- coincide?

With corn and soy prices both at or near record highs, the article tries to handicap which crop farmers will plant more of in the coming growing season. Impossible to tell, it concludes. Nevertheless:

Fertilizer producers benefit either way. Corn demands more fertilizer than soy or wheat. But price competition among the grains, stoked largely by federal supports for ethanol production, has bled generously into fertilizer markets.

That's boilerplate. Anyone who's checked out the stock chart of Mosaic -- the fertilizer giant, two-thirds owned by agribiz behemoth Cargill, recently profiled here -- knows that the fertilizer industry has been essentially printing money. (source)

Fertilizer, of course, is hated by the greens ... it's a chemical, for cryin' out loud, and its production produces gasp! greenhouse gases!

And every gallon of biofuels produced drives up fertilizer sales.

If anyone who says there are easy solutions to global warming that won't wreck our economy and negatively impact our health and well-being, their heads are full of greenhouse gases.

Transgender Wars

Last weekend, I put up an "Our Crumbling Civilization" post about a second-grade boy who wants to go to school as a girl, and a school system that was allowing it.

Perhaps you read it and nodded in agreement. Not everyone did. You might want to revisit the post and check out the comments that are coming in from the transgender community. Stuff like:

• "it is so sad that people are so close minded. You people who have the nerve to call a child "perverse" or label TSism as a "perversion" really need to wake up. If you spent just one day in their shoes I seriously doubt that you would be spreading hate speech and outright lies."
  
  
• "My current nine-year old doesn't seem to have a problem with his mother who has been transitioning/ed since he was five. He has been told age-appropriate and understandable facts about what has gone on. He seems perfectly well-adjusted, shows no signs of ever wishing to 'be a girl' or any of the difficulties you seem to think he might have from such a 'traumatic' experience as having his 'father' be who she actually is."
  
  
• "Tolerance has replaced not 'sanity', however you define that, but cruelty. ... Between one in 500 and one in 2000 Americans seek to change their genders."
  
  
• "i am married, transgendered and have two kids, one boy and one girl. it is quite offensive that people call this perversion. i suppose it would be more liberating that a girl would want to be a boy? no one would find that strange because she wants to be masculine. my daughter and son both seem to be masculine and feminine. my daughter rips holes in the knees of her pretty jeans and my son screams at mom putting on makeup. if they grow out of it-fine-if they don't-fine."

The comments are thought-provoking to say the least, and I encourage you to give them a look.

They haven't changed my view one iota in this case, which to me is all about the kids in the classroom, not the kid who wants to dress as a girl.

I don't think that as second graders they should have to deal with this, and the school district should have required the boy and his parents to go through several years of therapy, allowing him time to consider his desires and the consequences of his choices from a more mature perspective, and time for the kids in the class to mature before being asked to deal with issues like transgenderism.

Our Crumbling Civilization: Girly Boy Edition

I knew we were in for cultural melt-down when a news article out of Denver started with this:

The issue of being transgender usually pops up with students in high school.

It does? Not in the America I grew up in! But bad as it is, the lead sentence is just a set-up for a civilization-crumbler of much greater magnitude:

However, a 2nd grade biological boy wants to dress as a girl and be addressed with a girl's name.

"Biological boy?" It's come to that? We can't just say "boy?"

Of course, you know that concerned educators immediately realized there's something amiss with the boy and his family (can you say "dominant mother/wimpy father?"), and immediately arranged counseling for all of them. Not.

"As a public school system, our calling is to educate all kids no matter where they come from, what their background is, beliefs, values, it doesn't matter," said Whei Wong, Douglas County Schools spokesperson.

What a calling! Don't think, don't care, just educate.

Hey, Wongster! I want to enroll my little boy in your school, and you should know he thinks he's Pol Pot. I expect you to accommodate his values, which are manifested in a desire to murder his classmates and impose a repressive government. The teacher? Enemy of the State. Summary execution!

I'm too cruel. Wong and the school system are very concerned about the other kids, too ... concerned that they need to be taught to accept this perversion.

Wong says the staff at one of Douglas County's schools is preparing to accommodate the student and answer questions other students might have. ...

Wong says teachers are planning to address the student by name instead of using he or she. The child will not use the regular boys or girls bathroom. Instead, two unisex bathrooms in the building will be made available. The school is handing out packets to parents who have questions. The packets contain information about people who are transgender.

Gone from all the school system's accommodation is any concern for other kids and other parents; there's no question in the District's mind -- everyone else needs to be exposed to this perversion, because the rights of the perverted come before the rights of those who support normalcy.

Do other parents, other kids have any rights in this situation? Should we worry, given that this must be an exception? You bet we should worry:

Kim Pearson says the family is getting support. She is the executive director of a national organization called TransYouth Family Advocates. The group has been working with the family and Douglas County Schools.

"Initially there was a lot of resistance," said Pearson. "Now, their position is they want this child to be safe in their school."

Pearson says their group is working with an increasing number of families nationwide who have elementary age transgender kids. ...

Pearson says children as young as 5 years old are realizing their true gender identity and her group wants to help parents who may be resisting the acceptance of this.

Why do you suppose there are more and more elementary school kids who are apparently transgender? Could it be that sex has permeated society? That tolerance has replaced sanity? In a sane society, this boy would be receiving therapy that would lead him back to the mainstream rather than drive him headlong into a life that will be difficult.

In a tolerant society, however, he is encouraged to leave the mainstream -- and we are forced to nod our heads giving him acceptance instead of help, and stand approving as other kids are exposed to him as mainstream, furthering the watering down of that once meaningful term.

Most parents are much more sensible than the administrators:

"I don't think a (2nd) grader does have the rationale to decide this life-altering choice," said Dave M.

He is also unhappy with the way the school is handling this. The district has been preparing for the child's return to this school for months. Dave M. thinks other parents should have been made aware of this sooner.

"I just find it ironic that they can dictate the dress style of children to make sure they don't wear inappropriate clothing, but they have no controls in place for someone wearing transgender clothing," said Dave M.

Oh, please, David! Get with the program. Your daughter needs to be sacrificed on the altar of tolerance, and if she starts dressing butch, you should happily go along with it.

hat-tip: Jim

Savannah Episcopalians Split Over Gays

At breakfast this morning Savannah's The Olde Harbour Inn, I was joined by a couple from Connecticut who had just returned from the early service at Christ's Church. Built in 1733, the Episcopal church is the oldest in Georgia.

When I asked how the service was, they looked troubled and upset. It turns out that on this very Sunday the church announced that it, like many other Episcopal churches, had split off to join with the Ugandan Episcopal church in order to avoid the American church's fondness for gay priests and gay marriage.

My breakfast-mates were not happy; they're of the school that Christ told us to love everyone.

"We're having a vote next week on the church's mission," the gentlemanly husband of the couple told me. Then, with a smile, "It's not going to be controversial." The more liberal New Englanders won't be following the more conservative Southerners on this one.

(What's funny is that last night while Incredible Wife and I were waiting for the start of a walking tour, we were sitting in Johnson Square, next to Christ's Church, and talking about the Episcopalian's split -- unknowing that it would split a bit more asunder the very next morning.

Anglican Leader Between A Rock And A Gay Place

Bad days are ahead for the Anglican church, I'd say, as its Archbishop panders to the country's most wealthy, liberal ... and morally questionable ... believers. Reports the Times of London:

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, is to hold a secret Communion service for gay clergy and their partners in London.

Williams will celebrate the Communion at the unfortunately named St Peter’s cathedral at tony Eaton Square, comparable to dishing up the wine and wafer in Cambridge or Nob Hill.

What's really interesting about this article is how it shows the duplicitous, double standard ways of the liberals when it comes to homosexuality. There's nothing wrong with gays, they say, but by all means, keep someone's gayness a big secret ... unless they're conservatives, of course.

The event has been organised under Chatham House rules, which prevent any disclosure of the discussions. The event will take place at 10am on November 29. A list of the names of those who will be present will be seen only by Dr Williams. It will be shredded afterwards.

Shredded?!

Look, my dear old Archbishop chap, you're either OK with gays or you're not. They're either just like us, or they're not, so if you're not shredding the names of clergy who attend your routine Communions, don't shred the names of the folks attending the gay ones. And if you're not offering a straight Lord's Supper, don't offer a gay one.

In this matter I am unusually in accord with the Rev Richard Kirker of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement who blasted the Archie for trying to pull off the ceremony in secret. I'm no fan of secrecy, if for no reason than it's rarely a successful strategy. Kirker's got some other problems:

“I don’t think it is a good thing in many ways. The conditions of secrecy are quite at variance with the openness of his meetings with a panoply of antigay church leaders. We are astonished at the attempts to make the meeting clandestine when it would be far better to have this in the open. The fact that he wants to go there without anyone knowing he’s going there makes it quite clear that he has an attitude towards the event that he doesn’t have at any other meetings.”

All and all, it's trouble Williams doesn't need in a church that's barely holding together, pulled one way by those who believe the Bible is there for a living purpose and the other way by those who think the Book is a nice, but quaint and disposable, collection of literary imagery.

Left Wing Gay-Bating

The Left has it so hard. They have to keep their wretched belief systems intact no matter how violently the logic bull bucks them.

Bush hates gays! Yeah! We hate Bush!

Bush's closest confidants are gay! Yeah, we hate Bush!

[Insert retro sound of needle scratching on vinyl.]

Here's the latest, from the blog The Gist in which the author is discussing a Condi Rice hit book by author Glenn Kessler:

There have long been questions about Rice's sexual orientation and her personal life in general. As Kessler notes, "She has built a wall of privacy around her that is never breached." But Kessler had access to Rice's closest friends and to Rice herself, and he reveals some eyebrow-raising information that hasn't been out there before.

In the book and on the show, Kessler described how Rice's "closest male friend" is openly gay, a man by the name of Coit D. Blacker, a Stanford professor (Rice served as the provost as Stanford in the late 1990s for six years) and a Democrat who served in the Clinton administration. Blacker, whose partner is also mentioned, advised Al Gore's campaign in 2000, while his close friend Rice served as a chief confidante for a president who has tried to make gays into second class citizens in the U.S. Constitution. But wait, it gets better.

Rice's "closest female friend" is a woman named Randy Bean (pictured here), who is unmarried and whose sexual orientation is not stated. She is described as a "liberal progressive;" she's a documentary filmmaker who works at Standford University and once worked for Bill Moyers. She and Rice and Blacker (again, who has a partner) are discussed as a "second family," a term Bean uses, also saying that, "on friends, [Rice] goes narrow and deep."

According to newly revealed information in the book (which Kessler found through real estate records), the two women, Rice and Bean (yes, hilarious), own a home together and have a line of credit together.

"for a president who has tried to make gays into second class citizens in the U.S. Constitution" -- Lie, lie, lie. The movement to force gay marriage into the law of the land through the courts, which typically is opposed to 70 percent or so of Americans, and the Prez is merely acting to thwart their assault on our laws and our sensibilities.

But onto what I''m really writing about here ...

It's just too ironic. First they were convinced Karl Rove -- wife, kids and all -- was gay, never realizing the irony of having the man who hated gays the most having a gay as the man he trusted the most.

Now Karl's gone and rather walk away from their untenable, disconnected position, they have to find a replacement gay that's a Bush confidant. Cheney's daughter's not close enough to the Prez, so they fire up the Condi Rice rumor machine.

It's clear that Bush has the same view of most Christians when it comes to homosexuals -- they're guilty of a sinful behavior, sure, but who isn't? We all sin and fall short of the glory of God. There's no reason for hatred, in fact, there's no reason not to be friends or trusted advisors.

That the "tolerant" Left doesn't get this says a lot, doesn't it?

Just Another Day In San Francisco

It was gay pride day in San Francisco yesterday, and you can see that it was a bit more colorful than the local conservative Republican pride day here in South OC -- an event that is so conservative no one shows for it.

Look who showed up at the parade -- Elizabeth Edwards, mom of two, wife of a somewhat girly presidential candidate.

Whatever she said to the members of the Alice B. Toklas (famous for hash-laced brownies, as I recall) Democratic Club in an effort to pander to whatever voters her odd husband might appeal to, it ultimately wasn't noteworthy enough to make the SFChron's coverage. But this did:

The parade included a retinue of politicians, from Mayor Gavin Newsom, who received applause and shouts of gratitude for his sanction of same-sex unions, to gay political leaders including Assemblyman Mark Leno, Sen. Carole Migden, and Supervisors Tom Ammiano and Bevan Dufty.

There were also an array of corporations with contingents in the parade, such as Google, Wells Fargo, Delta, Bud Light, Bank of America, Kaiser, Comcast and Macy's, to name a few.

And there were the more homespun groups -- such as the lesbian midwives, with a dozen or so marchers -- and the assorted drag queens, lion dancers, stilt walkers, balloon men and naked people. There was even a group holding a banner reading, "Straights for gay rights."

And, of course, let's not forget the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, an offense to most right-thinking Catholics, who probably would not have found solace when the Catholic Gays and Lesbians marched by in bikinis and headdresses.

Thank God for San Francisco. Without it, where would all these folks feel normal?

Photos: SFChron

We Trust These People With Our Children?

As reason number infinity minus one to not subject your children to public schools, I submit this photo from the June 25, 2005 issue of Teachers United, showing LA County Unified School District teachers participating in a gay pride parade.

Note the T-shirt of the guy on the left in the back: Buck Fush.

Note the sign he [?] is carrying: Teach Respect.

Note: You can't teach respect; you can only earn it or deserve it, or neither earn nor deserve it.

hat-tip: Dennis Prager

Hiding From Sharia Law

Where's GLAAD? They're apparently too busy preparing for tomorrow night's Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation Media Awards to take note of some very real -- as opposed to their usual perceived outrages -- threats against lesbians.

Also mum: The ACLU, Human Rights Watch (both too busy bashing the U.S.) and the entire state of Massachusetts (taking off for a gay wedding). But BBC has the story:

A Nigerian lesbian who "married" four women last weekend in Kano State has gone into hiding from the Islamic police, with her partners.

Under Sharia law, adopted in the state seven years ago, homosexuality and same-sex marriages are outlawed and considered very serious offences. (Sing along with me, "Everybody, let's get stones!")

The theatre where the elaborate wedding celebration was held on Sunday has been demolished by Kano city's authorities.

Lesbianism is also illegal under Nigeria's national penal code. ...

Islam says a man can take up to four wives if he is able to support them.

"As defenders of the Sharia laws, we shall not allow this unhealthy development to take root in the state," the Hisbah's deputy commander Ustaz Abubakar Rabo told Nigeria's This Day newspaper.

Mr Rabo told the BBC's Focus on Africa programme that if the women were found guilty of lesbianism they faced one of two punishments.

For a married woman the offence would be considered adultery for which the punishment is death by stoning. A single woman would be caned.

For moral and societal reasons, I'm all for not letting lesbian or gay marriages take root, but stoning or caning? Only Islam forces its beliefs on others with such brutality.

The gay community, dominated as it is by Libs, has not been completely silent on the issue, but you have to dig pretty deep into the GLAAD site to find only a little exposure of what goes on behind the Allah Curtain -- and when you find it, it's decidedly strange, like this story:

Human Rights Watch: Iranian Teens Were Hanged for Rape, Not Gay Sex But Questions Remain
by Rex Wockner

The two male teenagers hanged in Mashad, Iran, July 19 were executed not for having sex with each other, as has been reported, but for raping a 13-year-old boy, Human Rights Watch is claiming.

The New York Times and the Times of London separately reported the same thing.

Mahmoud Asgari, 18, and Ayaz Marhoni, 19, allegedly raped the boy at least 14 months prior to their executions, meaning at least one, and perhaps both, of them were minors at the time. ...

So, if they were hanged for rape instead of being gay, is Sharia all right with the gay community? And if they were hanged for being gay, what's' GLAAD to do about it? The organization's Web site is full of solicitation for funds and calls to action -- but its Muslim/Arab American page includes no calls to action against Islam's inhumanity to gays.

It's a tough trap for the gay/lesbian/whatever community: Speak out against Islamic extremism and align with all the Bush-buddies, or let the Islamists kill the gays and keep your liberal banner waving proud.

Decisions, decisions ...

A "Gay Mafia" At The NYTimes -- And Beyond

Women's Wear Daily knows a thing or two about gay men, dahling, so it gaily reported on a story in Out that alluded to a "gay mafia" at the NY Times:

Does a scattershot list of gay Timesmen a mafia make? According to Out magazine's media-heavy Power 50 list, which ranked several New York Times reporters a collective seventh on the list, it does, even if many of its made men don't actually know each other. "Yes, there really is a queer cabal in the Eastern elite media, and it works on West 43rd Street in New York City," reads the accompanying text

Those outed (I won't use their names) include the editor of T magazine, an assistant managing editor, a national correspondent, the advertising columnist, a style reporter a theater critic and a restaurant critic.

A theater or restaurant critic doesn't have much influence over how the gay agenda is presented, but a national reporter, an assistant managing editor and a magazine editor certainly do. Out certainly thinks so:

As for the use of the 'M' word related to the assorted journalists, Aaron Hicklin, editor of Out, told WWD: "The Times still has an old-fashioned power that I think the Web has tried to replace but been less successful at. It's still a cultural arbiter….Should we have used the word mafia? Only inasmuch as mafia is shorthand for people whose combined weight is fearsome." And according to Out, these Timesmen are "one group you don't want to run into in a dark alley."

Agreed on that last point, for sure. Fortunately, Elliot suggests a defense:

"What are we going to do?" wondered Elliot. "Beat them with the Sunday Times?"

So much has been written over the years about gay teachers and their ability to influence (or, more sinisterly, corrupt or even abuse) the next generation, but little has been made of gays in the media, and the potential they have to position the gay agenda as mainstream.

Perhaps we should. Look at who's who in the top ten of Out's Power 50. People who worry about Jewish control of the media are whacked; people who ponder gay influence and control have reasons to be concerned. (All copy below is from Out except for my comments in brackets.)

1 David Geffen
What does $4 billion-plus buy for a Hollywood entertainment powerhouse? Your name on UCLA’s medical school; great American art (Pollock, de Kooning, Johns); and headline-making influence over Democratic presidential politics: When Geffen supported and later dissed Hillary earlier this year, the fur flew between the candidates’ camps. “If you’re his enemy, you might as well kill yourself,” Howard Rosenman once told The New York Times. And to think it all began in the William Morris Agency mailroom. [Note: Geffen has not given up on plans to acquire the LA Times.]

2 Anderson Cooper
Anointed an “emo-anchor” by The New York Observer for his coverage of Hurricane Katrina, the rise of Anderson Cooper heralded the simultaneous demise of the Dan Rather-Tom Brokaw era of dry efficiency. Despite an unfortunate side trip into reality TV in 2001 as host of ABC’s late, unlamented The Mole, his instincts have served him well: His annual salary at CNN was reportedly doubled this year, from $2 million to $4 million.

3 Ellen DeGeneres
With over 2.4 million viewers on a daily basis, The Ellen DeGeneres Show is an essential stop for any celebrity peddling their wares, and her breakthrough gig at the Oscars only elevated her Hollywood stature. The fact that seemingly everyone loves an out-and-proud lesbian makes her powerful—that and the $65 million she’s reportedly worth. [Lately, DeGeneres has played down her sexuality and appears a very different woman than she was in earlier days ... but things can change.]

4 Tim Gill
Gill is the country’s biggest gay political donor and “the nexus of an aggressive new force in national politics,” according to a major story in The Atlantic. After founding and making his fortune at publishing software giant Quark, Gill moved on to philanthropy; in January he launched the Gill Action Fund. His guiding strategy: Giving to many key local and state candidates is more cost-effective than large donations to a few national candidates. [Gill has donated over $100 million to LGBT causes, and is a big Dem campaign contributor. The foundation is headed by a former Log Cabin republican, however.]

5 Barney Frank
When the Democrats took over control of the House and Senate this year, the outspoken, popular, and frequently quoted Massachusetts Democratic congressman assumed chairmanship of the House Committee on Financial Services. [I'm sure Frank is very popular with Out's readers, but I can't say that I share the feeling.]

6 Rosie O’Donnell
The View is much better since O’Donnell took over as moderator last fall. Her opinionated stances and battles with the Donald have fanned a huge ratings rise. Plus, her R Family Vacations have elevated the world of gay travel. [The View is much better? Yeah, and Bush blew up the WTC.]

7 The New York Times Gay Mafia Richard Berke, Ben Brantley, Frank Bruni, Stuart Elliot, Adam Nagourney, Stefano Tonchi, Eric Wilson
Yes, there really is a queer cabal in the Eastern elite media, and it works on West 43rd Street in New York City. Style editor Tonchi, style reporter Wilson, assistant managing editor Berke, national correspondent Nagourney, and advertising columnist Elliot can set agendas in their areas of expertise. In the case of restaurant critic Bruni and theater critic Brantley, the fate of fledgling enterprises rests in their hands. This is one group you don’t want to run into in a dark alley.

8 Marc Jacobs
One of the most recognizable names in fashion, Jacobs helms his own label and is also artistic director for Louis Vuitton. His empire extends beyond clothing (including his acclaimed spring shows in New York, London, and Paris) with new fragrances for Coty, home decor for Waterford, and watches. For his opulent holiday ball last December, he arrived disguised as a pigeon. [Wow, a pigeon.]

9 Andrew Tobias
He’s not just a personal finance guru (The Only Investment Guide You’ll Ever Need) and memoirist (The Best Little Boy in the World), he’s the treasurer of the Democratic National Committee and a major fund-raiser for the party. [Repeating, the treasurer of the DNC.]

10 Brian Graden
As president of entertainment for MTV Networks’ music channels, Graden oversees the programming on those arbiters of youth culture MTV, CMT, MTV2, and VH1. Since taking the reins at MTV in 1997, MTV has been the number 1 basic-cable network in the advertiser-coveted age 12-24 demographic, and after adding VH1 to his responsibilities in 2002, ratings have risen there an astonishing 95%. He championed the ever-expanding Logo—now in over 26 million homes—and serves as its president as well. [Woe, woe, ye of the next generation!]

Homophobe disclaimer: This article is about the gay agenda, not gays. Some of my best friends are gays. Really. All of these folks have every right to their jobs, but we also have the right to ponder the consequences of having pro-gay agenda powerhouses like these in positions that afford them so much opportunity to move that agenda throughout society.

If You're So Angry, Why Should We Call You "Gay?"

Yesterday, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network was all worked up because Joint Chiefs of Staff prez. General Peter Pace called homosexuals immoral.

But when it turns out the gays, lesbians and whatever elses the Network represents are actually being treated better by the military, well, it's Big Snit, Act Two:

The number of homosexuals discharged from the U.S. military under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy dropped significantly in 2006, according to Pentagon figures released today, continuing a sharp decline since the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts began and leading critics to charge that the military is retaining gay and lesbian personnel because it needs them in a time of war.

According to preliminary Pentagon data, 612 homosexuals were discharged in fiscal 2006, fewer than half the 1,227 who were discharged in 2001. On average, more than 1,000 service members were discharged each year from 1997 to 2001, but in the past five years that average has fallen below 730.

Well, that should make advocates of gays in the military happy, shouldn't it? Even if it makes the guy in the foxhole a bit nervous.

Think again, Breeder. Here's what the gay advocates at the Network say:

"It is hypocritical that the Pentagon seems to retain gay and lesbian service members when they need them most, and fires them when it believes they are expendable." (WaPo)

So do I have that straight (if that's the right term)? The gays want to be in the military as long as they're not needed, but if they're needed, well, they have a big problem with that?

C'mon, you emotional babies! You're not representing gays well by acting like a bunch of sissies in a mad pout.

Hang In There, General Pace!

It's been leaked by senior aides that Marine Gen. Peter Pace won't apologize for calling homosexuality immoral — despite a lot of lip-flapping from homosexuality advocacy groups.

You've certainly heard Pace's comment by now:

"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way."

Hangin' right out there with the truth, unafraid. Like he was a Marine or something. As expected, the reaction was swift:

"General Pace's comments are outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops now serving in our armed forces," the advocacy group Servicemembers Legal Defense Network said in a statement on its Web site. (source)

Interesting ... there are currently about 1.4 million people serving in the armed services, so this group appears to be going with gays being less than 5% of the population, not 10%. Cool ... but I digress.

The Massachusetts Dem (natch!) who introduced legislation to replace the "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" policy with full acceptance of gay, lesbian, transgender and who knows what else in the military also was having a hissy little snit over the General:

"General Pace's statements aren't in line with either the majority of the public or the military. He needs to recognize that support for overturning (the policy) is strong and growing" and that the military is "turning away good troops to enforce a costly policy of discrimination." (source)

Is that so? Meehan didn't bother to quote a source, most likely because he was, as Incredible Wife has noted of my opinions from time to time, talking out his butt. Verification of his butt-talk comes from Jim, the Johnny Appleseed of story-planting in C-SM, who sent these AOL survey results over a bit ago:

How do you feel about Pace's comments?

Agree: 64%
Disagree: 33%
Not sure: 3%

Yeah, yeah, it's not scientific -- but considering that most polls that claim to accurately predict the national opinion do so on the basis of about 1,500 votes, let's not kid overselves. General Pace's comments are mainstream and acceptance of them is about on a par with votes in support of various states' initiatives proclaiming that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

In an interesting sidebar to the noisiness of the gay lobby, it's interesting to note that Pace also said this:

"As an individual, I would not want (acceptance of gay behavior) to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else's wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior."

So, where are the howls of protest from the adultry lobby? Anyone? Anyone?

Making Sure The Clueless Keep Educating Our Kids

Judge Mark Wolf's decision in the most recent "What in the heck are they teaching our kids?!" case of Patrick v. Hurley opens a pretty wide door:

"The constitutional right of parents to raise their children does not include the right to restrict what a public school may teach their children. Under the Constitution public schools are entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy."

In this case, two couples didn't think teaching their gradeschoolers about homosexuality was a particularly good way of preparing their kids to become productive citizens of the American democracy. Tough, Judge Wolf tells them, you've just got to shut up and let educators, who know more than you do, take care of educating your children.

Under Wolf's' ruling, parents have no say whatsoever about any subject whatsoever. Protest schools teaching white supremecy? Too bad; you've got to let them teach. If the schools want to slam Bush and recognize Muslim holy days while banning all things Christian, parents better just put up and shut up.

Jeff Jacoby summarizes the the foolishness of letting someone as stupid as Judge Wolf -- yes, he may be intelligent, but that doesn't mean he's not stupid -- in the Boston Globe:

The only way to end the political battles over schooling is to depoliticize the schools. And the only way to do that is to separate school and state.

Parents should have the same freedom in educating their kids that they have in clothing, housing, and feeding them. You wouldn't let the government decide what time your kids should go to bed, or which doctor should treat their chicken pox, or how they should spend their summer vacation, or which religion they should be instructed in. On matters serious and not so serious, parents are entrusted with their children's well-being. Why should schooling be an exception?

The answer to that "'why" is simple: Bad judges like Mark Wolf who cannot see the stupidity of giving decision-making ppower to educators who rely on "zero tolerance" programs because they don't trust themselves to make sound decisions.

hat-tip: Real Clear Politics