NEWS FLASH: Whiny Homosexuals Not Satisfied With Being "Tolerated"

This just in from the Southern Baptist Conference Newsroom – homosexuals aren’t satisfied with simply having their sinful, disordered existence tolerated:

Once upon a time, homosexual activists claimed they simply wanted to be tolerated. “Live and let live” was their mantra.

But today, only the most strident activists would deny that homosexuality is accepted in America. Homosexuals are represented in every strata of society. If their goal was simply toleration, it has been achieved.

However, toleration for homosexuality was never the end for activists; it was only a stepping stone. Their real goal is equality. Homosexual activists will not be satisfied until their behavior is validated and valued as equivalent with heterosexuality.

Come on! Christians have stopped stoning gay people or burning them at the stake. What more do they want? A television show about a pretty straight girl, her gay roommate and their flamboyant friend? WHAT DO YOU MEAN IT JUST ENDED AFTER 8 SEASONS!?!

Anyway, these “homosexual activists” will stop at nothing to achieve equality with the heterosexual race – er – I mean, heterosexuality. How are they pursuing this goal, you ask? How else? They’re targeting America’s schools!

In April, parents in Lexington, Mass., complained because their second-grade son was read a fantasy book about two princes who get "married." When they contacted the school, they were told that because "same-sex marriage" is legal in Massachusetts, parents cannot opt out a child from such experiences. An administrator explained that the school was "committed to teaching children about the world they live in."

The Massachusetts incident, while the most recent, is not isolated. Over the past few years there have been other reports of teachers introducing "homosexual marriage" to young children.

Scandalous. Next thing you know, we’ll be teaching kids that women can vote just because the damned 19th Amendment says so!

Don’t be fooled by those hippie tolerance peaceniks who say this isn’t any big deal. The future of man hangs in the balance!

Someone once said, “He who controls the youth, controls the future.” Homosexual activists want a future that not only validates their behavior but also equates it with heterosexuality. And they are going to try and manipulate America’s children to get it.

Sobering stuff indeed. Thank goodness Christian groups would never manipulate young people to indoctrinate kids into their views on sexuality.

Pat "the Love Doctor" Robertson

Ladies, are you single? Lonely? Looking for a godly man to submit to? I give you the dating advice of that foremost authority on love, Pat Robertson:

Q: I’m a Christian woman who would like to get married. I was always taught that the man was supposed to initiate the relationship, but I’m getting tired of waiting. Do you think men would appreciate being pursued? And is it wrong for a woman to take the initiative?

A: Well, the object is to get them to pursue you until you catch them. And the clever woman knows how to initiate something. And I’m sure I can’t explain to you feminine wiles on this program in a couple of minutes. Use the innate talents that God has given you. First of all, if you’re going to catch fish, you’ve got to go where the fish are. So you need to go where men are who are single. And there are plenty of them out there who would like to meet an attractive lady who shares their values. So go places. And don’t be reluctant to be friendly and see what happens. If a man thinks you’re chasing him, then he’s going to run. So you’ve got to let him think he’s chasing you. But, obviously, you’re going to be in control, ladies.

That's right, girls. This isn't an exercise is getting to know someone and making a deep connection. This is an intricate game of strategery. So get out there and use those feminine wiles, but don't let him see it coming!

Best Geological Formation Ever

"Big Stoney" - Kodachrome Basin State Park, Utah

You have to love geology that makes park rangers giggle like twelve-year-olds. I had to search around a bit to find a travel website that actually included a picture of ol' Stoney. Mrs. Midwestern Gent and I shot this picture last summer on a trip through southern Utah.

Tending the Mulch

I'm president of my condo association (geek!), which rarely leads to profound insights. This Wednesday's meeting was an exception. After fixing sidewalks so disabled residents don't fall and planning for the replacement of a couple hundred old water heaters to avoid catastrophic damage (stay with me, the interesting part's coming), we turned our attention to a request by a resident to put mulch on her little private garden.

What ensued was a 30-minute free-for-all in which no fewer than five residents commented to excoriate us for the rank favoritism, yea, the unmitigated injustice that we visited upon this poor soul by refusing her request when other private gardens were (mistakenly, we explained) granted said mulch. You'd have thought we just told her pets were against the condo rules (relax, they aren't) and then kicked her puppy to drive the point home.

This got me to thinking, all of the so-called "conservatives" who want to tell us whom we can marry, what we can watch on TV and how we can screw are just "tending the mulch." While serious and dangerous issues swirl around us -- grotesque deficits, rampant government corruption, etc. -- they're more concerned with the things that make them feel good (or icky, as the case may be) than dealing with real problems that affect more than just their narrow interests.

Anyway, that's my contribution to the lexicon. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to call a landscaper.

Jesus Was a Democrat

Ruth Marcus in today's WaPo worries in "The New Temptation of Democrats" that in reaching out to evangelical Christians, the Democratic Party might sell out some of it's core beliefs (yes, I realize this means accepting that Democrats actually believe something). Nevertheless, she acknowledges that the exercise may be worthwhile:

To some extent, Democrats could help themselves with evangelicals simply by showing up -- at the megachurches, on Christian radio and in other venues where Democrats have been scarce. Whether the Democrats are deploying the right messengers is more questionable: a liberal San Francisco Democrat and a civil union-signing Vermont governor may not be the party's best bet with evangelicals. More important, occasional drop-bys and clunky dropping of biblical references aren't going to do the trick. These voters weren't born again yesterday.

This latter point is the real risk for the Dems -- that they will look clumsy, opportunistic and foolish trying to woo evangelical voters. Keep sending Dean, Pelosi or any of the other tone-deaf party aparatchniks to be the messenger, and this risk becomes nearly a certainty.

Any appeal to religious voters must be based on a sincere belief that Christians and Democrats have important things to say and do together. The Gospels provide myriad examples of the overlap between Christian ethics and progressive policies intersect. The Dems would do well to identify one of their own with sincerely held beliefs, or at least a sincere respect for the beliefs of others, and send him/her/them on a non-stop outreach tour from now until November.

Bayh Watch

Interesting story on MSN about Sen. Evan Bayh's forays into Iowa as precursor to a potential run for president. Choice words on the senator's biggest challenge:

At a living room event in Sioux City on Saturday night, former Woodbury County chairman Al Sturgeon told Bayh that rank-and-file Democrats still feel “outrage over this incredible debacle in Iraq.”

Calling it “the biggest political and military blunder of my lifetime,” Sturgeon said to Bayh, “I’d like you to explain your vote on the war and why you gave the president a blank check to get us into this disaster.”

Bayh calmly answered that “I wouldn’t cast the same vote today as I did then.” He noted that “the French believed that (there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq), the Germans believed that, the Russians believed that, everybody believed he [Saddam Hussein] had weapons of mass destruction.”

Bayh said if the Iraqi factions “get their political act together — and we will know this in the next six to eight weeks… if they can form a government… then there’s something to work with there.” If not, then “we’re out.”

Afterward Sturgeon said, “It was an honest answer and I did appreciate the candidness. It’s not a good answer, because there aren’t any good answers.”

No question, I like Bayh and would love to see him run and succeed. He was my Governor growing up, and his cross-over appeal cannot be overstated. In a very red state, he enjoys enormous respect and popularity. If Democratic primary voters hang him simply because he voted for the war, they'll be missing the boat on a strong national candidate.

A first-hand account of one blogger's encounter with the Senator can be found here.

Hopeful Signs of Democratic Leadership

This just in -- there are Democrats out there actually thinking about solutions to problems that don't end with blaming Bush:

This month they published a fascinating book that lays out what the foreign policy of a winning campaign by one of those Democrats -- or perhaps Hillary Clinton -- could look like. Sponsored by the Progressive Policy Institute, which is an outgrowth of the Clinton-friendly Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), it's called "With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty."

Like most of its authors, editor Will Marshall, a DLC founder who now heads the policy institute, sees himself as reviving the foreign policy of Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy, who formulated the Democratic response to the totalitarian menace of communism. Jihadism, Marshall says, requires a similar exercise of intellectual muscle. "Democrats have always been at our best when we have defended democratic values against illiberal ideologies," Marshall told me last week. "When we do that we can appeal to a broader public, not only at home but globally."

This is a hopeful sign for Democrats, who, generally speaking, are better at crafting policy than they are at politics. Far too much of the Dems' reaction on Iraq has been political, which is why they don't appear to have any viable alternatives. Simply put, they haven't offered any.

A carefully thought-out strategy of committing the resources to secure Iraq, and then eliminating the blatant double standards from our Middle East policy (by not coddling the Saudis or Egypt), could lend real momentum to Democratic efforts to retake Congress. More importantly, they would represent a genuine exercise of leadership - something desperately absent from national politics for too long. We'll see if the Democrat's political heads have the stomach (or the brains) to move forward in this direction.

Hitching a Ride on the Straight Talk Express

Interesting reader e-mail on Andrew Sullivan today about John McCain's recent speeches:

McCain seems to be stating one obvious, but frequently over-looked, truth. You need not agree with me on every issue to support me. It's laughable to suppose otherwise, yet that's where we seem to be as any deviation form party orthodoxy is treated as an act of excommunicable heresy. That's crazy and childish. If McCain can change that dynamic then he'll have done his country yet another service. After all, that's how most people actually think and feel.

As much as I agree personally with the e-mailer, I'd be very curious to see how this hypothesis plays out with the public at large. My sense is that one the extreme left and right, there are a large number of "single issue" voters who will run from any candidate who doesn't push their button on that particular issue. Abortion comes to mind as the clearest example, taxes as another.

But how great would it be to get not only a Republican, but also a Democratic candidate, who didn't spout the party orthodoxy on every single point?! Might the middle 50% of voters actually find themselves more engaged with the issues and perhaps have to work harder (much to their benefit) to make a choice?

Another brick in the wall

Charles Krauthammer's discussion of the need for border security in today's WaPo raises a question I've wrestled with -- why not build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico? If the concern is merely one of symbolism, it's time to get over it. Walls have been used for millenia to control territory. They are practical, functional objects. Only when they are used to imprison people, to keep them in, a la the Berlin Wall, should they be considered objects of oppression. A wall to aid in border control seems to be one pillar of a humane, long-term immigration policy providing for control of the borders, a path to legalization for immigrants already settled in the U.S., and increased opportunities for legal immigration (i.e., a responsible increase in the ridiculously small numbers of visas available each year.).

"The Bloody Eighth" - Home Sweet Home

I live near and work in Washington, DC, so politics has become one of my favorite sports to watch. In case anyone back home is interested, here's what the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza recently had to say about John Hostettler's chances this year in my home district:

Looking at the cash-on-hand positions of Republican Rep. John Hostettler ($56,000) and Vanderburgh County Sheriff Brad Ellsworth ($533,000), this looks like a sure pick-up for Democrats. But Hostettler never raises any significant money and always pulls out a win. This southern Indiana district is decidedly conservative and seems to have taken a liking to the quirky Hostettler over the years. If Ellsworth can't beat Hostettler in what's expected to be a bad year for Republicans nationally, it's likely no one can.

I sincerely hope this is the end of Hostettler as a politician. He's not "quirky"--he's a ruthless, gay-baiting zealot who manipulates Hoosiers' fears and worst instincts to maintain himself in office. The Eighth deserves better.

Stranger In A Strange Land

Growing up in Indiana, we referred to "the East Coast" as though it was a foreign land located much further away than the 700 miles separating the Atlantic from our oasis in the corn. "The East Coast" also carried derisive connotations, conveying our sense that the over-crowded, hyper-speed world of the east (as communicated through television depictions of New York) lacked common sense, common decency, and knowledge of the truly important things in life.

Now some four years since I last called the Midwest home, I occupy a little condo in a lovely town, smack in the middle of "the East Coast." Looking back toward home from this perspective (for Indiana will always be home), its strikes me that the people here understand the Midwest as little we understood them. "The Midwest" is a savage place to some of them, occupied by bible-thumping zealots scattered across terrifyingly empty landscapes. The distances, the simplicity of life, the quiet, are all unfathomable to the mind accustomed to driving between four states in the course of an afternoon and dodging innumerable bodies jus to move along the sidewalk.

Across this gulf (consisting primarily of Ohio, which is unbelievably empty even to a Hoosier) I step, hoping to strike up conversations in both places on topics relevant to the denizens of both. Here's hoping someone reads it!