September 2006November 2006 


56 posts from October 2006

Oct 31 2006
Not-So-Swift-Boating The Democrats Comments (0)

040311_hmed_mccainbush_10ahmedium_2"Trust me, Numbskull...this'll work!"

First it was gay marriage—oh, no, that'll cost us 2006!

Now it's a deliberately twisted take on a John Kerry jokeoh, no, that'll cost us 2006!

You'd have to be stupid yourself to honestly believe that John Kerry meant to call our troops stupid in his speech October 30th—and you'd have to be a shrub to honestly believe he wasn't taking a jab at his old rival, President Bush. Karl Rove is not stupid, nor is John McCain, nor is...this is hard to say...George Bush. (At least, not once the former two explained it all to him.) There is no way any people of intelligence on the right believe Kerry was attacking his own kind—only George Bush has shown he doesn't care about the troops. When cornered, when losing, when running out of time, some people—in this case the Republicans—will say anything to change the subject.

This is because the Republicans believe the American people are stupid.

The mainstream media neutered Howard Dean's presidential run by piling on with coverage of his infamous scream. They did it because most viewers find politics boring or worse, are disgusted by it, and because the scream was a human-interest story. It was also a celebrity story, because Dean had become an Iowa household name. That's what's (unfortunately, no doubt) happening now, as ABC, NBC, FOX (and probably CBS, but no one's watching) pile on with coverage of Kerry's initial Bush-bashing joke, bumbling White House mouthpiece Tony Snow's challenge, John McCain's indignation and Bush's Georgian rebuke. The MSM feeds us celebrity.

That's because the MSM believes the American people are stupid.

If John Kerry had said our troops were stupid, this debate would be valid, and its impact would be fierce. Except John Kerry didn't say that. He clarified his comment not only quickly, but forcefully, with a speech that might have gotten him elected in 2004. John Kerry's balls finally dropped. Unfortunately, Karl Rove loooves teabagging.

But if he'd kowtowed, that would have made John Kerry stupid.


Will it end there? It should. But keep in mind that because Drudge trumpeted a lame press release from George Allen's campaign highlighting the sexy parts of Jim Webb's novels, the MSM made that a huge story for more than a news cycle. It backfired, dragging Lynne Cheney's lip-smacking lesbian masterpieces into the fray and resulting in a big fat jump in the polls for Webb. Drudge—whose site's headline was "KERRY 2006" before "I APOLOGIZE TO NO ONE"—and other right-wing stand-ins thrive on shoveling shit for the Republicans, believing deeply that it matters.

That's because the MSM really is stupid.

So no, it will not end there. It won't end until November 7th, when people voting in umpteen local and state elections vote for their candidates, unmoved by Bush's warnings that terrorists heart Democrats, unswayed by John Kerry's failed stand-up comedy act. Face it—anyone who was going to vote Republican is going to vote Republican. Anyone who was going to vote Democrat is going to vote Democrat. The undecideds are going to trend Democrat thanks to the fact that the American people have realized almost too late how dangerous it is to have a president they barely tolerated enough to re-elect doing whatever he wants without at least the House (and possibly the Senate) keeping him in check.

The American people have realized—and not through one-liners, successful or failed—that one-party rule is stupid.

John Kerry botching a joke will cost us 2006? Don't be stupid, Stupid.

Please pass this post along to any of your Democratic friends who show signs of weakness.

BullshitSpeaking of "stupid," here is how NBC frames their "Live Vote" on the topic—by ignoring Kerry's clarification and offering as a choice, "Yes; the military has long been a step up for those with less education."

Why Don't We Just Use Michael J. Fox's Stem Cells? Comments (2)

Hilarious anti-Republican spoof ad. Wish this had come out sooner, wish this idea had actually been used by Harold Ford Jr.'s campaign.

UPDATE: Here is a BlogActive Ken Mehlman-specific parody that also gets straight to the point.

Blue Brad Pitt Comments (0)

From Towleroad: As the election nears, Brad Pitt is definitely in a blue state.


Oct 29 2006
Right-Wing Nutjobs, Or Young Men In Shameless Pleasure Comments (0)

Ken_mehlmanI guess it should come as no surprise that Republicans are willing to take lots of cash from gay-porn producers. Like a double-dicked deep-throat, it's hard to talk out of both sides of your mouth at the same time...but it can be done.

It's probably even less surprising that a gay-porn company would contribute to the Republicans—no matter your industry, business leaders always want to find ways to buy politicians, buy favor or just (as in the case of porn vs. any possible looming Republican Inquisition) buy time.

But how disgusting is it that the honcho of Marina Pacific Distributors is helping to support right-wingers while his company is putting out a series entitled Velvet Mafia? More appropriately, in light of Bush/Cheney's closet fondness for torture of another kind, MPD also put out Virgin Pain 3: Storeroom Torture Trap. It's not the gay porn that bothers me—it's the politics. I don't do anal, politically.

Boyias_3The man behind the money shots is Nicolas "Nick" Boyias, who also produced The Florida Erection—clearly, this is a person who enjoys picking at Democratic scabs—and is also the owner of Jet Set Productions, the gay-porn studio behind Young Men In Shameless Pleasure.

[As a side note, Boyias produced the pro-gay non-porn indie flick Quinceañera, which was directed by Richard Glatzer and Wash Westmoreland, aka Wash West, a gay-porn director famous for his technical Bizarre5creativity and ingenuity. Along with gay porn, Wash also directed a "compassionate look at a group of conservatives" called...Gay Republicans. Quinceañera is effective as art as well as promoting gay tolerance. I enjoyed it. I do recall feeling that a subplot where a white gay couple uses a virginal Hispanic guy didn't reflect too positively on gay relationships in that it almost felt like their relationship was being presented as typical (as opposed to the argument that hey, not all gay relationships are positive, which they ain't). But it was a movie well worth watching and very well directed.]

Boyias makes no bones about how he makes his bones off bones. As he says here:

"'There are groups out there who will peg us all as people who have no concern for mainstream family values,' says Boyias, who describes himself as a Republican, NRA-supporting, churchgoing parent of four."

I'm not a believer in the "family values" B.S. marketing line the right shovels, but if I were, I can tell you homosexuality and porn in general do not fit in with the right's take on "family values" no matter how much philosophical K.Y. is used. EDIT 10/31/06: Deleting earlier part of post regarding other projects due to inaccuracy—apologies.

Maybe Republicanism has found a perfect anonymous trick with gay people—it's clear that the Republican elite feel they should be able to do whatever is needed to advance their agenda, even if that means blatantly ignoring major portions of that agenda to get...ahead. For gay people, I believe all of us are born into a situation where we eventually realize we are not only different, but are something the rest of the people around us would revile if they knew our true nature. So we hide it. Some of us hide it only until we are safely in our own adult world, where we have more control. Others never stop hiding it. Many more of us—the majority, probably—hide it and expose it in different ways over time, without such a clean break.

I think society's anti-gay default teaches gay people to be duplicitous in order to survive. Unfortunately, some gay people seem to take this lesson to heart and decide that saying one thing and doing another is normal—forget about right vs. wrong—and is essential to survival.

How better to explain closeted gay right-wingers?

I don't think gay people are by nature deceitful, but we are all—in our early years—deceitful by nurture unless we want to get beaten up or sent to Straight Camp. So I would argue that gay people who overcome this hurdle and are able to be publicly honest about our sexualities are success stories—and this argument is the one to use when your friends say, "I'm not into gay pride. What is there to be proud of about being gay?" It's not the fact that you are gay, it's the fact that you'll acknowledge it.

Gay people who do not overcome the hurdle and who keep their gayness concealed absent any immediate threat of bodily harm are not evil (as I sometimes angrily question)—they're just broken. But those who do so and side with a political party hellbent on marginalizing (at best) gay people are not only broken, they're dangerous to themselves and to the rest of their gay family.

These gay wingnuts need to fix themselves or we need to fix them with tough love—outing, speaking the truth, cuts to the heart of their problem. If neither works, then we should abandon them as casualties of a flaw in our society that created them and that they are actively helping to perpetuate.


Why The Donkeys Kick Ass Comments (0)


What's the difference between a Democrat and Republican? Besides a whole lotta House seats on November 7th, the policy differences are many. So many differences, so few parties, so few choices and ultimately lots and lots of ties and nail-biter elections.

One annoying difference between Democrats and Republicans is confidence. For years, Democrats have had self-confidence issues, questioning each other in this very open, evolved way that plays into the hands of our opponents...and depresses the many people (a majority, in fact, of this cool country's citizens) who would like to support us. The Republicans call us "negative," and say that our "liberal media" likes to report "bad news." We're the Demmy Downers. Republicans, on the other hand, are the cocksucking-eyed optimists, always upbeat. No news—literally—is good news. They've won a lot of presidential elections in the past several generations, and have kicked ass in other races, too, since 1994.

During the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, I remember all the facts and figures and polls and prognosticating, and it was very sketchy. I recall a lot of stories pointing out that mathematically or scientifically or according to a computer, the Dems would win. There was enough reason to believe, in theory, that the Dems could prevail, but so many of the news stories felt like wishful thinking. No Dems I knew were bubbling with enthusiasm. Finally, in the end, the stories were right—Dems were close, but not close enough. Not ass-kicked (which would make us depressed forever), but not triumphant.

This year, I'm proud of the Dems. So far, the news has been legitimately good and our side's approach has been realistic, but ambitious. Though Republicans have seized on a few momentary lapses of chickens counted in haste (or drapes Pelosi-measured before their time), the Dems have mainly been very serious and organized and aggressive.

We can still learn from Karl Rove, whose take on reality—and this is a signature approach of all neo-cons—has been to deny it. With gusto. He told NPR that his polls tell him the Republicans will prevail in the House and the Senate, and when the interviewer questioned the math (especially regarding the House), Rove said, "You're entitled to your math. I'm entitled to the math." That is one hell of a psyche-out. Meanwhile, Howard Dean (of whom I am otherwise a fan, especially for this cycle's strategy of running strongly in all 50 states) is telling the New York Times he doubts the Dems have the get-out-the-vote capability to match that of the Repubs. See, that might or might not be true, but that is a conversation to have behind closed doors with other Democrats, not to tell the New York Times.

My own insight into the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans comes from gay issues. With gay rights and gay marriage constant components of so many races, this time it is homosexuality itself that is central.

 Read More

Oct 28 2006
You And Your Rabbit-Faced Wife Can Both Go To Hell! Comments (0)


Veep Dick Cheney accidentally told the truth the other day, admitting he's on board with water boarding. (Then he took it back...) Is torture a family value? Maybe in Dick's family, considering who's in it...that nasty wife for starters. With the Cheneys both in the news, I was reminded of...a Joan Crawford classic.

This is the kind of file that should have been viewed a million times on YouTube, not just 6,000 or so—Dan-O-Rama's (aka Dan Rucks) Joan Crawford salute/evisceration from at least 10 years ago. This version has extended scenes from various Joan movies, TV shows and personal appearances, including the show-stopping, "You and your rabbit-faced wife can both go to hell!" from the regretfully undervalued The Best of Everything (1956).

Hence this post's title.

The Killing Of Sisters' Porn Comments (0)

Lynne Cheney sure knows how to get in her licks!

Our nation's fair Second Lady (someone has to lose) fulfilled a previously skedded sit-down with Wolf Blitzer on CNN to plug her bad-news-is-treason children's book. Watch her debate whether Hillary Clinton's plastic surgery cost, wait, that wasn't the topic. Oh, watch her debate whether it's hypocritical to be a closeted gay man in a party with an anti-gay platform that appeals to an anti-gay religious, wait, that wasn't it either!

Sisters_1Oh, they talked about the fact that George Allen's campaign in VA issued a "press" release (the quotes are because they only released it to The Drudge Report, which then kept it as the main story for almost 24 hours) highlighting the racy parts of his opponent Jim Webb's highly regarded war novels. It's of interest to Lynne Cheney because she has written about lesbian sex, rapes and whoring in her own novel Sisters—which as you'll see she flatly denies.

Neo-cons have found that to flatly deny reality often works. It's their word against perception. If denial doesn't work, they claim to not remember. One day, things will get so bad they'll start saying, "It never happened and then I promptly forgot it."

If Lynne Cheney, a bull elephant among elephants, has never written anything sexually explicit, I'll turn George Allen upside down and put his penis in my mouth.

Oct 27 2006
C*ckblocking Ken Mehlman Comments (0)

Ken-dollMike Rogers of BlogActive asks Ken Mehlman, Republican National Committee Chairman, for a date. Ken demurs—guess Jeff Gannon is more his type—but the mention of rival suitor Phil Berg sure as hell gets his attention. Has Mike found Ken's Barbie?

UPDATE: An old post at Mike's site shows a masthead from a right-wing school publication that Mehlman worked at while recently Brazil-bound Washington Blade editor Chris Crain was managing editor. I discovered the post from 2004 while researching my Right-Wing Nutjobs, Or Young Men In Shameless Pleasure post and happened too notice that Phil Berg worked on this same publication. I let Mike know about this Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy coincidence, in case it becomes of interest in further exploring Mehlman's private policy.


Ads by Gay Ad Network