Some good(ish) news and a book

I got a little too worked up a little too early. The latest Reuters-Zogby Poll put Clinton ahead of Obama, and McCain beating both of them. Gallup has similar results, though McCain's lead there is statistically significant over Obama but not Clinton.

Does this mean the tide is turning? Not really. It just reminds me that it is still far too early to call the race. I need to think positively--I've been reading too much of the morose Andrew Sullivan

New book: I bought Grover Norquist's Book Leave Us Alone: Getting the Government's Hands Off Our Money, Our Guns, Our Lives. He describes gay Republicans thusly:

Gay Americans who simply want to be left alone recognize that the modern center-right movement has no agenda to outlaw homosexuality or use the power of the state to tax or attack gays. Gay Americans who are also homeowners, businessmen, shareholders, gun owners or men and women of faith will find the modern left ready, willing and able to tax, regulate and attack them--not as gays--but as income earners, property owners, gun owners, etc.

That nicely complements my view: why does being gay have to change my views on unrelated issues like guns, taxes, national security, or abortion. Why does gay marriage, to which I am personally indifferent, (or even civil unions, which I support but much of the gay othrodoxy decries as insufficent) have to become my top priority litmus test issue?

Dumbledore

Was gay.

Interesting, I'm not sure what it has to do with anything, but interesting nonetheless.

A few questions. Why is it necessary to sexualize Dumbledore when it didn't come up in the seven books? Is making him gay just something trendy to do?

Sometimes I am a little put off by the current fashion of including a stock gay character for whom sexuality just comes up constantly. I realize that people focus on the sexuality of gay people naturally because it's what makes us different, but there's more to me than my bedroom activities. I guess I just don't want to be seen merely as "the gay guy." However, the more people define characters by their sexuality the more I worry that people will define me that way without getting to know me.

On the other hand, it is nice to see gay characters because perhaps it helps normalizes homosexuality. Maybe I'm just too sensitive. Damned if they do and damned if they don't.

(H/t matt-CNS)

Update:

I realize that it is probably better to have Dumbledore be a beloved and important character. Let him have his role in the story independent of of his sexuality, and then reveal casually that he is gay.

Nonetheless, the reaction to the revelation (both positive and negative) just worries me that Dumbledore will go from being a great wizard character to a great gay wizard character. His sexuality will be inextricably tied to his identity and take on an importance not really warranted by his role in the Harry Potter stories.

If we could look at him as a great wizard character (who happens to be gay), it would be fine. I suppose what really bothers me is that we can't. I'm not mad at JK Rowling for outing him, I'm mad that we care so much that she did. Me included.

A real fiscal conservative

Now, readers may know that I am quite disappointed with the Bush administration, first for its kowtowing to the religious right, and second for being real RINOs when it comes to limited government and fiscal conservatism (I know the War on Terror, especially the Iraq war, figures prominently in many critiques, and although it was clearly handled poorly, it is not one of my makes-me-so-angry-I-can't-see-straight issues).*

Seems, I am not alone in my fiscal policy disappointment. In his new memoir Alan Greenspan criticizes the Bush administration on deficits and spending. Greenspan, former Federal Reserve Chairman (for what, 70 years?) and devotee to Ayn Rand's ideas on the glories of capitalism, has a bit of credibility when it comes to economic policies. According to the review in the NY Times,

Mr. Greenspan describes the Bush administration as so captive to its own political operation that it paid little attention to fiscal discipline, and he described Mr. Bush’s first two Treasury secretaries, Paul H. O’Neill and John W. Snow, as essentially powerless.

Mr. Bush, he writes, was never willing to contain spending or veto bills that drove the country into deeper and deeper deficits, as Congress abandoned rules that required that the cost of tax cuts be offset by savings elsewhere. “The Republicans in Congress lost their way,” writes Mr. Greenspan, a self-described “libertarian Republican.”

The bulk of the bulk is devoted to his views on markets, globalization and the American economy. I will be excited to read it.

*In fact, one could (and many, including me, do) argue that the abandonment of the limited government and fiscally responsible principles that Republicans still pay lip service to (sometimes) is what led to the dominance of the religious right within the party--a classic example of selling out.

The Conscience of a Conservative

I have changed the Pink Elephant's Book Club Selection today, and though usually I do so without much fanfare, I have found a book that I recommend to everyone. I recommend it to liberals, so they can better understand what I mean. I ESPECIALLY recommend it to conervatives so they can remember what it means to be a conservative.


Barry Goldwater is one of my great political heroes. I might even rank him above Ronnie--I haven't decided. He wrote The Conscience of a Conservative almost 50 years ago, and while the political context may have changed, I find much of what he says very relevant to today.


Goldwater bemoans a Republican Party that in practice is almost indistinguishable from the Party it opposes. The Gentleman from Arizona warns that the cavalier disregard of the Constitution replaces the rule of laws with the rule of men. He fears the expanse of government because the natural course of government is to oppress the governed.


An excerpt:

State power, considered in the abstract need not restrict freedom, but absolute state power always does. The legitimate functions of government are actually conducive to freedom. Maintaining internal order, keeping foreign foes at bay, administering justice, removing the obstacles to the free interchange of goods--the exercise of these powers makes it possible for men to follow their chosen pursuits with the maximum of freedom. But note that the instrument by which these desirable ends are achived can be the instrument for achieving undesirable ends--that government can, instead of extending freedom, restrict freedom. And note, secondly, that this "can" quickly becomes "will" the moment the holders of government power are left to their own devices. This is because of the corrupting influence of power, the natural tendency of men who possess some power to take unto themselves more power. The tednency leads eventually to the acqusition of all power--whether in the hands of one or many makes little difference to the freedom of those left on the outside.

Such then is history's lesson . . . : release the holders of state power from any restraints other than those they wish to impose upon themselves and you swinging down the well-travelled road to [government] absolutism. (Emphasis supplied)

Allow me to help establish some cred for Barry among my gay readership. In a 1994 op-ed entitled "The Politics of Gay Bashing" or "Protecting Gays from Job Discrimination" or some variant depending upon the newspaper in which it appeared, Sen. Goldwater wrote:

Gays and lesbians are a part of every American family. They should not be shortchanged in their efforts to better their lives and serve their communities. It's time America realized that there is no gay exemption in the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence. Job discrimination against gays - or anybody else - is contrary to each of these founding principles.

Some will try to paint this as a liberal or religious issue. I am a conservative Republican, but I believe in democracy and the separation of church and state. The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live as they please, as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process. No one has ever shown me how being gay or lesbian harms anyone else.

And in case you don't just love him yet, when Jerry Falwell charged that "every good Christian should be concerned" by the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court, Barry Goldwater responded:

"every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass."

Read his book.

My new best friend Andy

I just got an email from Andrew Tobias (well, yes, it was a two line response to one I sent him, but do you have a personal letter from the treasurer of either the DNC or RNC? I didn't think so). Mr. Tobias, apart from being a mover and shaker, also wrote The Only Investment Guide You'll Ever Need, and more importantly The Best Little Boy in the World, which I found incredibly comforting as I contemplated my own coming out. For that reason, besides his political clout (but in the WRONG party!) and his financial advice, his little nod is especially meaningful to me.

Also, he seemed to think I would be more comfortable in the moderate wing of the Democratic Party. Well, no one's perfect :-)

Book I'm reading...

I have one out gay friend with whom I candidly discuss my orientation (incidentally, we do NOT discuss politics). He recently gave me the book The Best Little Boy In the World. It was originally published in 1973, and perhaps the first coming out memoir--certainly the most successful.

In the book, Andrew Tobias, writing under the pseudonym John Reid, explains what it was like for him to be in the closet and to finally come out. So far I have found his description of being in the closet to be spot on to my own. He also used achievement and prudishness to explain why he didn't have time for dates. He shared my terror that somehow someone might overhear my thoughts and figure it all out (irrational as that is). After college, Andrew Tobias became a workaholic to keep up the same charade. Then at age 23 (my age now) he came out for the first time. Though he didn't describe it in as great detail as he did the closet, he was surprised at how warm and supportive everyone was.

After he came out, however, he started to make up for lost time (although his prudishness endured a bit: he didn't like kissing or oral sex). And for a while became rather promiscuous. Is that typical? I have heard of several gay people talking about their "whore stage" right after coming out. A whore stage in the days before HIV was one thing, but now, one drink too many, one night with the wrong guy, and you have ruined, not to mention shortened, your life. I still shudder in horror at the thought of STDs (my "abstinence-only" sex ed had some effect).

in 1998 Andrew Tobias wrote a sequel to this book, entitled The Best Little Boy in the World Grows Up. In the sequel Tobias details how he came to peace with his sexuality as well as the significant advances that GLBT people have made since his first book. I imagine that AIDS is discussed. What gives me pause, however, is that Tobias, who is treasurer for the DNC, lavishes praise on those whom he admires--such as the Clintons (ugh!). I worry that this second book might get too liberal and preachy. On the other hand, it may still be useful nonetheless, and, of course, I'll never know if I don't read it.