The Dish

The story goes back at least as far as 1983 in the following Kaus piece in The New Republic (not on Google):

There I was, moping in my beer, because Barney’s Beanery (a famous old hangout on Santa Monica Boulevard) was forced to stop distributing matchbooks bearing its ancient motto, ‘Fagots Stay Out,’ and to take down a similarly misspelled sign tacked over the bar. The restaurant had since been sold and did not actually exclude homosexuals. The matchbooks and sign were kept as part of the place’s heritage.

But Barney’s had the misfortune of being located in West Hollywood, a sliver of miscellaneous L.A. County land incorporated last November after a petition drive by gay and tenant activists. About a third of the area’s residents are gay, and three of five members of the new city council are openly homosexual. Their first official acts were to roll back rents and to ban antihomosexual discrimination. (As James Wolcott once said of the politics of The Village Voice, "We’re for fistfucking and against gentrification.")  Attorneys for the city threatened to turn over the Barney’s matchbooks to the D.A.’s office. After a brief period of pleading the First Amendment, Barney’s owner caved in. The city’s mayor (yes, one of the three) removed the offending sign from above the bar in a brief ceremony on Martin Luther King’s birthday.

Civil rights march on. So why did I find myself sympathizing with Barney’s? Was it that the slogan was unenforced? Partly. I certainly don’t sympathize with the Jonathan Club, an oceanfront resort in Santa Monica that seems to actually exclude blacks, women, Jews and Hispanics. But I’d be offended if the matchbooks said ‘Nigers Stay Out,’ even if the policy was unenforced. I guess I have two arguments. First, while homosexuals certainly have a history of oppression, it seems clear that, at least in West Los Angeles, they are no longer the oppressed group. They’ve won, politically and, more important, economically, in a way that blacks haven’t. There is something inflated, and unnecessarily defensive, in the gay politicos’ righteous invocation of the elaborate and (necessarily) humorless mechanisms of racial equality.

Second, the Barney’s sign wasn’t really designed to keep out homosexuals so much as to keep out the homosexual life-style, which was taken over virtually every other bar in the area (except one called The Raincheck Room which responded to the Barney’s Crisis with a mysterious sign warning ‘Farraguts Stay Out’). The difference seems important. Sexuality may not be a matter of choice for many people, but ‘life-style‘ is. And some discrimination on the basis of life-style is, I think, both unavoidable and ultimately healthy. What the Barney’s sign implied was that, no matter what your sexual preference, you were expected to act a certain way inside. You were supposed to feel uncomfortable if you didn’t. I am made to feel uncomfortable in most gay bars, if they don’t stop me right at the door. So what? One of the ways the gay life-style is defined is by excluding ‘breeders’ like me. Should I be able to sue if I can’t get in to Studio 54 because the doorman thinks I look like a nerd?

Does the 2007 Kaus still believe what the 1983 Kaus believed? On just one point of information. I know of no gay bars anywhere that exclude straight guys. We have no issues with straight guys, nerds included.

Romney has found his theme. But if they put the five sons up there, won’t they look like the Osmonds?

Qinghai Province, China, 3 pm.

It’s under siege – and no one knows who exactly is murdering whom. Here’s a piece from a pro-Putin realist who nonetheless believes the level of intimidation has reached crisis levels.

It’s with voters and activists like this one. Money quote:

Today, the Republican Party is not only threatening to undo the inroads that it made since the 1970s when it began attracting Catholics and other pro-lifers, it is toying with its very existence.  Like in the 1850s, this large bloc of people will not scurry back to the Democrat party since they have already sold their souls to the devil over abortion.  More likely, another political party will emerge that could see the Republicans go the way of the Whigs.

We’ve been debating bigotry and words and context. South Park covered the same ground last night, somewhat more amusingly. And two Malcolm Gladwell blog-posts on the subject, here and here, may be of interest. A reader emailed them in. Malcolm cites a memoir by his black mother who reared him partly in England:

My parents are living outside Southampton, settled – finally – after a tumultuous first few years of marriage. It’s hard to read this, I think, and not acknowledge the kind of strength and effort necessary to overcome the terrible power of name-calling:

Three months later, on a Sunday afternoon, I stood at my front door waving to Graham and the older children as they set off for a walk. I was staying behind with the baby to rest. At that moment a boy went by on a bicycle and shouted at me, "Nigger!" Quickly I glanced at Graham and the children, hoping they had not heard him, and then I turned indoors, my heart and mind in turmoil.

A poisoned arrow had found its mark, a ghost from the past had visited me, and I was unprepared and vulnerable. The picture I had built up of an accepting community vanished. Once again I lived in an insecure world where thorns were waiting to wound in unexpected places. Where was the mastery of myself I thought I had gained–the freedom from concern about color and race? I was hurt and I was angry and I had to find expression for my raging feelings. Aggressively, I came to God with more boldness than I had ever done before. I would teach that boy! I would show him that I was not to be belittled!

"Lord, let me reprove him!"

Silence.

"Lord, let me speak to him firmly and kindly and show him that I am above being made angry by his taunt."

"Lord, let me teach him that he is mistaken in his attitude to colored people."

God remained silent at each suggestion. He had no more to say to me about race and color. He had said enough. My own heart said, "In all these things you only seek revenge."

Then unaccountably I was at peace. I got up from my knees but continued listening. I used to think that when I was distressed, this was God’s punishment or condemnation. I did not think so  now, but I still asked the question. "Lord what are you saying in this?" and the rejoinder came. "Will you trust Me more, walk with Me step by step?"

Americans aren’t buying it:

Americans’ mood about the conflict hasn’t improved since Mr. Bush announced his new policy of sending another 21,500 troops to improve security in Baghdad and the rest of the country. Just 20% of respondents characterize themselves as "more confident" the war will conclude successfully, while 69% say "less confident"; that’s essentially unchanged since January.

Nor are Americans feeling positive about the war against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Just 28% say that conflict is going well, while 69% say it isn’t.

Among the poll’s more striking findings is the high level of public interest fully 20 months before Election Day. About three in four Americans say they are following the campaign "fairly" or "very" closely; that’s not far below the proportion that reported paying close attention to the president race in October 2000 — one month before the election.

I think the latter amazing stat is a function of the previous one. We know this presidency is over and that the war is going very, very badly; we’re simply waiting to see who can take us from here. The trouble is: we have almost two years still to go. And al Qaeda isn’t going to wait. 

A reader writes:

After being a registered Republican for over 30 years, I became a Democrat to vote for Kerry in the primaries. My party deserted me a long time ago. On a simplistic plane, back in the 60’s and 70’s, the Democrats wasted money and started wars (which was why I chose to register Republican). Now that war and waste have become the mantra of Republicans, I’m sure I’m not the first vote they will lose. I still believe in fiscal conservatism; but the "Ann Coulter View" of social and moral America makes me want to puke.

Me too. But she thknks we’re both "liberals." The Democrats should give her a commission for all the conservatives she has turned into "liberals."

"’Liberals’ think they can live in a world of only Malibu and East Hampton — with no Trentons or Detroits. It does not occur to them that someone has to manufacture the tiles and steel and glass and solar panels that go into those "eco-friendly" mansions, and someone has to truck it all to their beachfront properties, and someone else has to transport all the workers there to build it. (And then someone has to drive the fleets of trucks delivering the pachysandra and bottled water every day.)

Liberals are already comfortably ensconced in their beachfront estates, which they expect to be unaffected by their negative growth prescriptions for the rest of us," – Ann Coulter, Townhall.com.

Coulter has an estate in Palm Beach a block from the beach, with a current market value of $1.7 million.

Not so much:

Despite written BBB Wise Giving Alliance requests in the past year, this organization [the Human Rights Campaign] either has not responded to Alliance requests for information or has declined to be evaluated in relation to the Alliance’s Standards for Charity Accountability. While participation in the Alliance’s charity review efforts is voluntary, the Alliance believes that this lack of cooperation may demonstrate a lack of commitment to transparency and accountability.

The BBB Wise Giving Alliance reports on national charities and determines if they meet 20 voluntary standards on matters such as charity finances, appeals, and governance. Without the requested information, it cannot verify if the charity meets these standards. The Alliance does not evaluate the worthiness of the charitable program.

A reader comments:

My partner and I joined HRC’s "Federal Club," for major donors, after the 2000 presidential election.  After contributing several thousand dollars to this organization, I realized that all we were getting in return were more solicitations for donations and solicitations to purchase merchandise – along with the occasional token bumper sticker as a sign of HRC’s appreciation.  We were receiving so many solicitations for money that I had to make sure we had joined "The Federal Club" and not Pat Robertson’s "The 700 Club."  But unlike "The 700 Club," which seemed to have been effective in lobbying Washington and the state houses, it seemed that HRC did little else than throw parties and sell t-shirts.  We soon cancelled our Federal Club membership, albeit several thousand dollars poorer.

We may not have a lot of pro-gay legislation on the books, but we do have a nice collection of pretty bumper stickers.

Maybe if gay people knew how much of the Human Rights Campaign’s budget goes to staff, building and fundraising, and how much actually goes to lobbying or activism, they’d stop giving. But slowly, the sheer scale of the scam is being revealed.