Year: 2005

Oh yes she did…

Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter’s stunt double, on Cindy Sheehan: “I can’t imagine that Casey Sheehan would approve of such behavior.”

Casey is Cindy’s late son, a Marine who died in Iraq.

Now you might normally think that a dead man’s mother would know his mind better than some batshitcrazy columnist he never met. But you would be wrong. Everyone in our armed forces backs their Vacationer-in-Chief-except for that Paul Hackett dude, of course. Alive, wounded, or even dead, America’s heroic armed forces are 100% behind our Dear Leader! Just ask Michelle “I See Dead People” Malkin.

-posted by Dan

THIS JUST IN: Today’s Washington Post reports on a badly wounded soldier who refused to see George W. Bush during a recent presidential visit to Walter Reed:

“I don’t want anything to do with [Bush],” [Terry Rogers]] explains. “My belief is that his ego is getting people killed and mutilated for no reason — just his ego and his reputation. If we really wanted to, we could pull out of Iraq. Maybe not completely but enough that we wouldn’t be losing people — at least not at this rate. So I think he himself is responsible for quite a few American deaths…. Rodgers says he also declined to meet Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice. This wounded soldier has lost faith in his leaders, and he no longer believes their repeated assurances of victory.”

I have some serious ‘splaining to do yet on the whole I-thought-it-might-be-a-good-idea-to-invade-Iraq thing-as you all keep reminding me-and I promise to do just that before the week is out. But I wanted to put this up now. Maybe Michelle Malkin could visit Rogers at Walter Reed and tell him whether the leg he lost in Iraq would approve of such behavior?

-posted by Dan

A reader writes…

Your thoughts on tolerance/intolerance are right on. No tolerant society should have to suffer intolerance to the extent that the latter is actively attempting to destroy that society, in the same way that a democracy should not have to put on the ballot a group that wants to extinguish democracy. Tolerance is not a euphemism for suicide.

By the way, I’m a straight, Republican, socially-liberal, pro-war, atheist, foreign-born Asian-American attorney in San Francisco. Oh yeah, and I’m married to a white, tree-hugging, flaming liberal, vegetarian, anti-war public interest attorney from Oklahoma. Just goes to show what a little tolerance can do.-Sung C.K.

-posted by Dan.

Is the insurgency losing stream? Is in its last throws? Or are there no more cars left in Iraq to blow up? Rumsfeld’s “dead enders”-they’re lingering longer at death’s door than Terri Schiavo did-are now rigging dogs with explosives.

-posted by Dan.

I warned you on Monday that my life runs on West Coast Time. It’s only 9:15-ish here, so as far as I’m concerned I’m at work bright and early. Unlike the Andrew of old, I can’t stay up until 2 AM writing for a whole host of reasons (kid, responsibilities, VH1). So I’m sorry about the noonishness of my first posts today… but, hey, you were warned.

-posted by Dan.

ONLINE COFFEE COMPANIES: I’m coming to you live this AM from Fuel Coffee, a great new independent coffee place in my neighborhood in Seattle. Despite being Starbucks hometown, there’s always a new coffee place opening in Seattle-places with character, individuality, and, as in the case of Fuel, real design sense. Like Victrola, where I was working yesterday, Fuel has a website. I find this kind of baffling. Websites for coffeeshops? Why? What’s the point? Dunno. But if you’re just dying to get a glimpse of the spot where I’m drinking tea RIGHT NOW (black, no sugar), check out Fuel’s website.

-posted by Dan.

HEADLINE OF THE DAY: Is our children learning? Not in Kansas:

“Kansas Board Backs Limits on Evolution” -NYT

So that’s what’s the matter with Kansas. I have a policy proposal: Anyone who doesn’t believe in evolution shouldn’t enjoy the benefits of evolution. No eyes, no walking upright, no opposable thumbs. It’s back to the primordial ooze for members of the Kansas Board of Education.

-posted by Dan.

MY SECRET SHAME: A confession: I had three beers last night. For most Irish Catholics this would not be a big deal. My brother Billy pours three beers over his cornflakes in the morning. But I am the freak of the family-not for THAT, that subject that I shall not touch on today. I’m the only lightweight in Savage family. Three beers on Tuesday night means a wicked hangover on Wednesday morning. Oh, and the bar I was drinking in? They have a website too.

-posted by Dan.

THE PERILS OF HETEROSEXUALITY: Whew! It looks like there’s at least one straight Catholic priest out there. From today’s NYT:

A Westchester county man claims… that the rector of St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Midtown has been having an affair with his wife, the rector’s longtime personal secretary…. The man, Philip DeFilippo, says that his wife, Laura DeFilippo, and the rector, Msgr. Eugene V. Clark, have taken many vacations together, spent many weekends at Monsignor Clark’s house on the South Fork of Long Island and exposed the couple’s teenage daughter to their romantic relationship.

Mr. DeFilippo showed reporters a videotape of his wife and the Msgr. Clark “entering and leaving the White Sands Resort Hotel in Amagansett.” Mrs. DeFilippo, according to Mr. DeF, told him that she was sorting books that day at a storage facility 30 miles away.

Msgr. Clark-33 years older than Mrs. DeFilippo-denies everything. But Catholic priests no longer enjoy the benefit of the doubt when it comes to alleged sexual misconduct.

Amusingly enough, Msgr. Clark once gave a homily that pinned the blame for the Catholic sex-abuse scandals on “American immorality.”

If the past is any prologue, Msgr. Clark can expect to be transferred to another post any day now-most likely to a Catholic girls’ school.

-posted by Dan.

ASK FOR THE CELIBACY SUITTE: The White Sands Resort Hotel in Amagansett has a website too.

-posted by Dan.

A reader-at least as gay as I am-gets the last word…

Dan: Too bad you missed “Once Upon a Mattress” in San Francisco last year. They took your casting suggestion and then some. Lea de Laria played the princess. As you know, she is huge, loud, funny, gay, and in my book a far better musical comedy performer than Rosie O’Donnell. With this formidable comic presence at its center, the show-which is pretty slight-turned into something really memorable. If you print this, please give credit to 42nd Street Moon, a mostly-amateur local company that does a great job reviving obscure musicals. —

I always enjoy reading your column locally in the SF Weekly, even though I’m almost completely uninterested in the subject matter. You’re a great writer and a principled person, and I’m enjoying your blog very much.-

Barbara B.
–
P.S. I just noticed that Microsoft Word spell check does not recognize “blog,” and suggests “bog,” “blob,” and “blow” instead.

-posted by Dan.

Andrew gets it, I get it.

If you’re gay and you write for and edit a newspaper that’s not gay (like I do), or a blog that’s not necessarily devoted to gay issues, anytime you mention gay stuff you get grief. Folks scream that gay stuff is all you (or your paper) ever write/writes about. Folks say this even when the evidence that it’s not true is literally staring them in the face. They’re reading the blog, they have the paper in their hands-how can they say it’s 100% gay?

I’ll admit, however, that my posts during my stint as guest blogger have been, up to now, gayer than Richard Simmons sitting on Tucker Carlson’s lap. But you know what? Our culture is pretty heavy on the gay stuff. (And, I’m sorry, but Rosie O’Donnell going into Fiddler? How could I refrain from commenting on that?) There are really two wars going on right now: The War on Terror (or the “Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism” or “Not So Many Car Bombs as the MSM Would Have You Believe” or “The Mission Accomplished Any Day Now” or whatever it is we’re calling it today) and the War on Gay Stuff. Or maybe I should say the War Over Gay Stuff.

Straight writers have a hard enough time avoiding gay issues, let alone gay writers. And it’s hard to sit on the sidelines, or let some insult or injustice pass, when you feel like you’re being attacked. And trust me… I would adore having the luxury to avoid gay issues for, oh, ten or twenty years. But if straight writers can’t, how can I?

-posted by Dan

JUDGE NOT: Take for instance the latest news about SCOTUS-bound John Roberts. Guess what? A conservative group is yanking its support for Roberts and calling on Bush to withdraw his name. Why? Because Roberts, as everyone by now knows, did a little pro-bono work (sounds dirty) for gay groups in the mid-90s. Pull down the websites, alert Lou Sheldon, off with Robert’s so-recently-lionized head.

I don’t know Jesse J. Holland, the reporter who wrote the story up for the AP, but I’m guessing he’s straight. Most men are. And yet there he is, writing about gay stuff. Why? Because he has no choice, and neither do I. Neither does Andrew. But I’ll bet you no one screams “Enough, Jesse!” when he files his gay stories. Gay issues are big news in America just now and they can’t be avoided. Not by me, not by the AP, not by Judge Roberts, not Lou Sheldon. (Check out Lou’s website-there’s more gay stuff there than Andrew could ever hope to pack on to his website.)

A lot of people who don’t like gay people-those who don’t approve, or think Jesus hates us more than he hates, say, adulterers or people who support the death penalty (I expect Jesus, if he exists, has a real issue with supporters of the death penalty)-say they’re just sick of hearing about it/us. They just wish we’d shut up and go away. Well, that’s not going to happen. We’re not going to go away, and it’s unlikely that we’ll ever shut up. But want to know how we could cut the number of headlines and AP stories and blog entries written about gays and lesbians by at least 90%? Let us have our rights. There will be a lot less debate after we’re fully enfranchised citizens, I promise you. Until that time comes-and it will come-there’s going to be a lot to say about gay stuff, unfortunately.

-posted by Dan

BUT NOT TOMORROW: But tell you what…

As an experiment I will attempt to blog away the day tomorrow without once mentioning gay stuff. Someone wrote in and asked me to write about my “other passions,” and that’s exactly what I intend to do. Can I do it? Can I rise above, as Ralph Nader once put it, gonadal politics? Tune in tomorrow to find out.

-posted by Dan

ONE PARTING GAY THOUGHT:…and it’s a doozie. Sensitive readers, or readers with a low threshold for red-hot gay action, may want to skip this item…

Rosie O’Donnell should have been cast in the 1997 Broadway revival of “Once Upon a Mattress,” not Sarah Jessica Parker. This has been eating me up for years. I mean, the lead role was originated by Carol Burnett-it’s a big, brassy, bawdy part. Half the joke is just how unprincess-like the princess is. (It’s a musical version of “The Princess and the Pea,” yo.) Parker is too slight! She’s too tiny! O’Donnell would have been perfect for the part.

Okay, enough with the gay stuff. Tune in tomorrow for so-straight-you’ll-be-begging-me-to-go-gay-again blog-a-thon.

-posted by Dan

A reader writes…

Hey being intolerant of intolerance sounds like call for a gay run government witch hunt on bad people. Hey man, think of it Baptist Preachers and Catholic bishops locked up for saying “hateful” things. Gee, wouldn’t that be a great. Pass a couple laws and jail everybody you don’t like.

Are you smoking something? Setting up a police state to control all thought and speech has been tried in various places and at various times and it never works. It is always a bloody mess.

Better you tell folks you don’t like to kiss your ass.

I do tell folks to kiss my ass-all the time. (Hey, Robertson! Kiss my gay ass!) But I did not, and would not, call for a gay-run government. I mean, please. The only people I know who have a harder time living within their means than gay people are, well, Republicans. Two years with a gay-run government and we’d have more red ink-and shoes-than we do now.

The funny thing about your letter, dear reader, is that you accuse me of something religious people are guilty of. It’s a common tactic. Who recruits? Not the gays. It’s always Witnesses and Mormons at my door. It’s never the gays. When I walk through downtown Seattle I’m accosted by Scientologists, not lesbians.

It’s the fundies, many of them, who want to lock up gay people, not the other way around. For the record: I don’t want to lock up anybody. (Well, not anybody who doesn’t want to be locked up-and even then only for a weekend, tops.) I’m happy to live in a world where Pat Robertson is free to think I’m going to hell, and free to preach as much. I reluctantly battle Robertson because he believes the federal government should deprive me, a tax-paying fellow citizen, of my civil rights and responsibilities, even jail me, because of who I am.

Look, I’m all for free speech, I’m all for persuasion. If Pat Robertson can talk me out of being gay then, by God, I’ll give it up tomorrow. If a “Choose Life” billboard convinces a woman not to have an abortion, that’s great. The problem with Pat is that he wants to compel me to give up being gay, or, failing that, he seeks to deprive me of my civil rights because I’m gay. The problem with the anti-choice movement is that they want the law to impose their beliefs about abortion.

Why, I often wonder, can’t the religious right extend gay and lesbian Americans the same courtesy they extend to, say, adulterers? Or shrimp lovers? Yes, the gays are going to hell-it says so right there in the bible somewhere. It says we should be put to death along with the adulterers and shrimp eaters. But the adulterers and shrimp eaters don’t come in for the same degree of persecution. No attempts to strip them of their civil rights or write them out of the U.S. Constitution. And what about the Jews? They’re going to hell, along with Tom Cruise and his Scientologist pals and Lutherans (if you ask the Catholics) and the Catholics (if you ask the Lutherans). So many hell-bound sinners-and everyone else gets a pass. Fundamentalist Christians seem content merely knowing that everyone else will suffer horribly when we’re all left behind after they’ve been-what is it again? Ruptured or something? They may attempt to persuade others to join them, prior to the rupture, but there’s no attempt to actively persecute. Anyone else. Just us.

Is it too much to ask for gays and lesbians to be extended the same courtesy fundamentalist Christians seem so capable of extending to others? It’s called tolerance-the theme for the day. I’ll tolerate Pat Robertson if he’ll tolerate me. We don’t have to like each other, but we do have to share a continent-at least until the rupture.

Blah blah blah-who put a nickel in me? Just getting the gay stuff out before the clock strikes 12.

-posted by Dan.

Does EVERY SINGLE one of your entries have to deal with homosexuality?

Gee, I didn’t know that Cindy Sheehan and Tony Blair were both gay. Does Mrs. Blair know? And, hey, maybe Bush should send Mary Cheney out to meet with Sheehan. And I suppose there’s something intrinsically gay about the Space Shuttle, cell phones, the war in Iraq, Wi-Fi, and coffeehouses, but I can’t quite figure it out for myself. But I’ll work on it.

Of course it goes without saying that The National Review is basically the Out Magazine of right-wing closet cases. But cell phones? I still don’t get it…

-posted by Dan.

There’s a brilliant op-ed by Irshad Manji in today’s NYT responding to Tony Blair’s moves to deport Islamo-fascist clerics. She confronts what so many people seem to view as a contradiction at the heart of Western liberalism: Our society, dependent as it is on tolerance (of different religions, political points of view, ethnicities, and, yes, sexualities), doesn’t know how to respond to people whose world views are fundamentally intolerant. The money quote, as Andrew would put it, is this:

[The] ultimate paradox may be that in order to defend our diversity, we’ll need to be less tolerant. Or, at the very least, more vigilant. And this vigilance demands more than new anti-terror laws. It requires asking: What guiding values can most of us live with? Given the panoply of ideologies and faiths out there, what filter will distill almost everybody’s right to free expression? Neither the watery word “tolerance” nor the slippery phrase “mutual respect” will cut it as a guiding value. Why tolerate violent bigotry?

Manji’s op-ed is being praised by the right, as well it should be. It deserves praise from everyone with a brain in her head. But Manji’s call for intolerance to be met with intolerance applies not only to Islamic preachers who preach hate and would compel others to live by the strictures of their faith. It also applies to American preachers who do the same.

When gays and lesbians express disgust or contempt for, say, the Pat Robertsons of this world, we’re accused of being intolerant-and isn’t that hypocritical of us? After all, isn’t tolerance what we’ve been asking for? How can we refuse to tolerate Pat Robertson?

But as Manji points out, being intolerant of intolerance is not the moral equivalent of being intolerant. Violence is always wrong, everyone agrees. But there are times when violence is justified. For instance, violence is justified in self-defense. Well, being intolerant of the intolerant is simply tolerance acting in its own self-defense. It is justifiable intolerance.

-posted by Dan

Manji, incidentally, is a lesbian and, perhaps more controversially, a Canadian. She’s also the author of a brilliant book: “The Trouble With Islam Today: A Muslim’s Call for Reform in Her Faith.” If you haven’t read it, go buy it . It’s interesting that so many homos-I’m thinking Bruce Bawer, Pym Fortyun, Manji, and, yes, Andrew Sullivan-clearly recognize the threat that the Islamo-fascists represent. (Or thought, in Fortyun’s case.) Too bad so many on the American right just can’t get over their homo hatin’ ways. The freedom gays and lesbians enjoy in our societies is a credit to the west, and the eloquence of people like Manji, Bawer, and Sullivan should be marshaled in defense of our shared values.

-posted by Dan

BRUCE FORCE: A forceful Bruce Bawer essay on the idiocy that is tolerating intolerance.

-posted by Dan