Jacobson, Boudreaux & GaGa
Legal Insurrection, Cafe Hayek, American Thinker, Lady GaGa & More
It’s weird how interconnected some things are. And the bizarre position gay folks are in relative to it all. Here it is, after having taken the weekend off (mostly) from politics I go to my favorite blogs this morning and I read these things:
At www.cafehayek.com I find that Don Boudreaux (who almost certainly is I think, a fellow Louisianian, he by birth, me by choice – he went north, I went south, go figure.) wrote two letters to www.americanthinker.com about some article that two guys named Richman wrote about foreign trade. The Richman fellows were concerned about something or other, as such folks usually are, relating to “imbalance” and “American Jobs.”
I have always believed just like Mr. Boudreaux does – never limit foreign trade. He’s much better at explaining it, I just understand it intuitively. Open up the economic borders and the world will see a boost in economic activity like you can’t believe. Indeed, recent history has shown exactly that – free trade just makes everyone richer. In many ways it’s actually environmentally favorable too. For instance, sugar. Sugar imports are restricted, the price kept high at home, the environmental damage of the sugar cane fields manifest particularly in Palm Beach County, Florida with the destruction of the Everglades, and in Hawaii with native habitat threatened. So, in this sense, economically, one could say I’m “conservative.” And yet, “liberal” because I see the good in the environmental preservation of threatened habitats. Habitats in peril for no good reason other than “trade imbalance” and “American sugar.” Sure, and we have to help those struggling countries to the south were sugar is virtually a weed with foreign aid. I wrote a post about it long ago, “The Sugar Mess” which oddly still gets a lot of traffic.
OK, then, over at www.legalinsurrection.com I see that the fine professor did a Saturday Night Race Card post – as he does every weekend – about Lady GaGa and her song “Born this way.” There’s a brouhaha because this bimbo may or may not have ripped off lyrics, and the tune itself, and the ripped off lyrics and her amendments to them somehow referred to “cholas” and other supposedly derogatory remarks about Latinos. In his post, and in the quotes of people he uses to make his point, which is reasonable, he and they mention that “gays” think this GaGa is a “gay icon.” And I’m like, what? You mean to tell me that some two-bit hussy with lousy music is my “icon”? I hardly think so. No, not at all. I have never willingly sought out her music. And I can vouch safe that not one man I know has willingly said to me, “Hey, let’s go listen to GaGa!” Nor has one showed me her albums, her pictures, or talked about her, or barely mentioned her in passing other than to say “I gag at GaGa.” And I concur with them on that. So I wonder, how can this woman be a “gay icon” if I don’t seem to know any gays who will have anything to do with her? I mean, don’t icons have to be, um, in the picture somehow, in one’s life?
In fact, just yesterday an icon of mine was commemorated all over this land. Ronald Reagan is an icon of mine. So is T. Jefferson, G. Washington, etc, et. al. Must I list them all? Why, Jesus is an icon of mine as a gay man seeking to survive in our wondrous world long before GaGa comes to mind. Geez, a flash in the pan, and one of those ladies famous for being famous and not having done much at all. She’s the modern equivalent of Zsa Zsa Gabor. (And good health to you Zsa2) Now true, she might be liked my some gay men. I know gay men. Some gay men are friends of mine. Some gay men are indeed, truly infatuated with the current People Magazine sort of stuff. Not many of them are friends of mine.
In any event, the discussion was somewhat tedious because it came to no conclusion other than to show evidence of why the Left’s weird idea of group-politics is nuts. As if the all the “Latino community” speaks with one voice, or that there is such a thing, even, as a “gay community.” In fact, given our pitifully tiny number, we can barely get a hold on a few streets, while, say Latinos, Asians, African-Americans, Indians, Muslims, Iraqis, and all sorts of groups can get sway over entire state assembly districts, and even seats in Congress. But a “gay district”? Hahahaha. No place has enough gay folks to make anything resembling what could be called a “community.” In fact, we’re in every community. Which is why we really have no spokesperson or leader, and we definitely don’t have an “Icon” of any sort. Not even Ricky Martin or Elton John, or even the hideous Barney Frank – who are, um, actually gay men, rather than say, GaGa, who is not.
But besides all that discussion I noticed two things. One is that the good professor says he had an article on www.americanthinker.com a while back, about which anon. The other is that I had just sent him, on either Thursday or Friday, a link to a website I found fascinating: http://borngaybornthisway.blogspot.com/
This site will compile the anecdotes of gay folks saying exactly what we have said over and over again – we were born this way, we knew it at an early age, we have no idea why, and we’ve each dealt with it in our own individual way, some more ruggedly than others – all while pleading with anyone who will listen for acceptance of this reality. And reality is a Conservative value, indeed. Already the site is filled with stories from all over the world. But the most fascinating thing is the photographic evidence to back up our claim. Every story is accompanied by a photograph of us when we were young, like 5 to 10 years of age. And it’s just so obvious. I went and looked at some of old pictures of me, and I’m like, yep, that was fairly obvious.
Be this as it may, I just find it almost equally as fascinating to think that Professor Jacobson got my email with the link one day and the next day his Saturday night post – out of I’m sure hundreds of stories he could have chosen from – is one about “Born that way” and the controversy with it. Co-inky-dink? Hmm.
And since I also sent it to www.iowntheworld.com I had a most busy Saturday night – because that fine website did publish the link, with that Born website’s banner as the picture for the post, with my name and a link to this site for the hat-tip – and then, well, and then the fireworks started. Nothing lights up the message boards at IOTW than when I get to say something! I find that fascinating, too. For amongst many people there is this idea that for me to defend myself and my people I’m trying to “promote homosexuality” and make someone else gay or something. Or that I’m trying to make your little Baptist Church Around the Corner all of a sudden open its doors to heathens and pagans with animal sacrifices, or even just a commitment ceremony of any kind you don’t like. Or perhaps I’m accused of “flaunting” “it.”
Though somehow, too, many of the commentators at IOTW – and everywhere else I go – are quite sure that they, as fine heterosexuals, have not only the right to comment to their hearts content about gay people – but moreover have the right to tell me what I must believe or not believe as a gay man. They will define my positions on the issues for me, as if I’m a child in want of a spanking or something. Even stranger, they are assured that I have no right to question them – but no right to actually show evidence to defend my case. This is a suspect activity by “militant” or “radical” “homosexual” come to invade the pristine waters of the conservative blogosphere, I guess. Nonetheless, I say what I want to say, with permission of IOTW mucky mucks, and so I shall continue.
However, about that American Thinker website. Oddly, I used to comment a lot over there. For more than six months in early 2010 I commented hither and yon on a dozen topics and over time my commentary gained respect. My comments were referred to by other comments in a positive way. My comments often brought huzzahs and hoorays. So much so that one day I got an email from the chief Moderator of that site to ask me if I wanted to help moderate the comments. “Oh, you’re one of our favorites” she cooed into my ear once I emailed back and said I would talk to her to consider it. “Oh, we value your opinion” and “your level headedness” and “your conservative positions” and “your historical knowledge.” My how she cooed about what a wonderful thing I would be for that fine site’s moderator crew. So I said yes. And then she asked me the question that all heterosexuals ask – (you just don’t think you do – but you all determine your eligibility and sexuality):
“Are you married?”
Uh huh. Important information for the Conservative Resurgence to fight the looming Socialist Hell. I guess. Always got to know if someone is married, right? So I paused. I had the chance to go the fuzzy route or the truth. The fuzzy route is to hem and haw, and allude perhaps to being between spouses (for you all respect the sanctity of marriage by getting divorces at prodigious rates, right Newt?)
But no, she asked, so I told. “I’m gay.”
Her pause. “OK, not a problem.” Fine. So now I was a moderator. And then I got to moderating. For a few hours each day I worked diligently to moderate the many comments to all the articles – articles just like Jacobson wrote, or Boudreaux responded too. I was one of the crew who said yea or nay on whether a comment would be allowed. (Thank heavens there’s none of that at IOTW! I love that give and take!)
There I was, a Conservative, rational & reasonable, volunteering in the bowels of the Conservative Resurgence. I was in hog heaven. For I felt good about getting back into the fray that I sort of left when it was decided by the Supreme Court in Bowers V. Hardwick that any law might be passed against me because I was born this way. That decision soured me – not dimmed my pride in the nation – no Michelle stuff for me. Nor did I go Obama-Preacher Wright and scream “God Damned” about our nation. No, I went underground and convinced folks one by one that this is absurd. But there was no point in the public defense of us, for there was really nowhere to do it. My many letters to Tyrrell’s American Spectator and Buckley’s National Review were ignored. Why bother to listen to a gay guy when you can just talk about us, right?
But then one day there was an article at AmThink called “The Queering of America.” By a Ms. Graber. And I was appalled. For though it was the first gay themed article, it was so mind numbingly mush-filled that I cringed. And then the comments came in. And my fellow moderators allowed the most salacious and mendacious comments to be posted. The most horrendous things were being said in support of the mush. I wrote Ms. Grabar to tell her she was crazy. And I started deleting all the worst comments against gay folks. And this became an issue. And the lady who cooed to me now told me to shush. And I said, “No.”
For I had warned her – I will not tolerate anti-gay stuff just to be anti-gay. For that is not a Conservative or Christian thing to do. And so that ended my brief career as a fine Conservative moderator at a formerly good site which I have never returned to since I’m still so pissed off. And I usually don’t hold grudges long. There’s plenty of other news sources, like Jacobson and Boudreaux.
And then, just last week, I ran across two articles which perhaps showed me that there is light at the end of this bizarre tunnel that gay folks are in:
And all I can think is, well, it certainly is getting better for gay folks. For at least everyone is talking about what the situation for us is. And some conclusion will be reached. For the current mishmash cannot long endure in a Free Republic. I told Liz Mair that, and she thanked me for my take on why Real Gay Men’s icon is Sarah Palin.
Which was what I sort of pointed out at www.hopenchangecartoons.blogspot.com this very morning about one of my real icons: Ronald Reagan. Being Conservative is very easy for a gay person. And no one can tell me otherwise. Now I’ll go listen to some Franz Schubert, which is some real music.
- Posted in: Uncategorized