You have got to add some type of warning icon (similar to the cowbell) that warns us if reading this post may be harmful to those working in a crowded office.

You are just not supposed to snort and spit toward the end of work, unless you are getting fired.

I bow before your Mencken quote greatness.

The quote of the day is: "Santorum - the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex."

Now that's quality blogging!

maybe you guys have already seen it but Dorkafork has a great photoshop that ties into this:

http://dorkafork.com/blog/

When I mentioned to a gay friend of mine that a new book was coming out (no pun intended) that Lincoln was gay, he said: "I don't believe it, he's not good looking enough." But the many pix of the gay-wedding couples prove this not true of course, and were the worst advertisement for gay weddings anyone could dream up. If it were true about Lincoln does that change aynthing? Nope. Disreali was a great conservative statesman and he was gay, as have been many great people throughout history. It would merely prove that greatness knows no bounds, be they race, gender or "sexual orientation."

Spare me. Not trashing the quote, I mean that litterally, as a lawyer... spare me from this doom. Perhaps working for a corporation and contributing to the economy, rather than leeching from it, makes me exempt.

72Virgins, yeah BUT, it would discredit the faction of today's conservatives who rail against gay marriage. If Abe *was* gay (not that there's anything wrong with that...) they could slander all conservatives as homophobes (even more than they already do) b/c this, to them, would be proof that we're all just a bunch of racist-homophobe-intolerant-red necks, and oh look, there's already been a kick ass gay president...

Feh. I think this is all just laying the groundwork for a "Sully in '08" campaign. Heh.

If only I didn't work for a law firm, I would comment on this thread, perhaps even saying that it was funny and accurate. But I do work for a law firm, so I am not, in fact, saying, nor otherwise expressing or implying said aforementioned statements.

Why mahjong? Can't we at least be made in to respectable game pieces-maybe a nice hand carved chess set?

Ace--

Jonah Goldberg had the best quote on this today in the Corner. He was joking, but I still think it's true.

Read it here: http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/05_01_09_corner-archive.asp#050179

The part that's great? About gays looking for historical role models:

"If Lincoln did gay stuff in private, he did not do it in public. He got married, had kids and never for a moment advocated that society or government should create social space for homosexuals. Indeed, if one were so inclined, one could take the available evidence and say "See! Lincoln's gayness proves that if homosexuals just stay in the closet, they can achieve great things!" "

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

My impression is that right-wingers in the blogosphere don't really give a damn if Lincoln was gay. As for those who think that all conservatives are "racist-homophobe-intolerant-red necks," I think that things like 'proof,' 'argument,' and 'logic' are irrelevant. Hate and snobbery don't need no proof.

fat kid: Yeah I see your point. Though I do not support gay marriage, truth is truth and God has given his gifts to all races, genders and types. Damn it would be nice if we could all move beyond that stupid, childish bullshit. And if Liberals had not divided us along these fault lines we would have been much further along the road toward REAL acceptance of everyone, perhaps even Christians!

i dont like gay people or Abe Lincoln for that matter.

perhaps even Christians!

Kinda like muslims trying to sneak into childrens text books that there were muslim sailors on Christopher Columbus' boat. Trying to establish that pesky "America is muslim land so we have the right to wage jihad to take it back" thing.

F*ckers.

In the spirit of forgiveness I think we should only kill practicing attorneys. Those of us who have seen the errors of our ways should be spared.

Else we'll sue your asses.

This is indeed a great quote for the day. But truthfully, the Quote Of The Day, from an Ace of Spades perspective, must be the offhanded patronizing of Instapundit towards Filet O'Fish:

"...notwithstanding my tweaking of Oliver Willis, who seems a bit overexcitable these days..."

I love that. Not even an entire sentence for him, just an appositive clause! "Overexcitable," the way you'd talk about an annoying kid in 1st Grade class.

Ah, be happy Ace: you've sub rosa converted the InstaMan to your anti-Willis cause.

was abe gay or wasnt he? who cares. if you want gay-look no further:

http://www.tronguy.net/TRONcostume/

hat tip-the corner

I Googled Abe, I couldn't find the man-pooter reference but I did find this:

Lincoln warned the South in his Inaugural Address: "In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you.... but Vinnie Falcone might."

72Virgins

There was no conception of "gay" as a political/social until this century. Disraeli may, like Wilde, have been considered a sodomite in his private life, but most likely attached zero political weight to his predilections.

Even the classical Greeks failed to define man-love by the sexual act. In fact, (in Sailing the Wine-Dark Seas) the author notes that being the "catcher" had always been frowned upon, even as romantic associations were condoned.

The raising of the sex act to political status in the modern age skews greatly the interpretation of even non-sexual close male bonding (which seems to be the kind Lincoln had).

There's simply no way to argue that so-and-so in history was "gay," because "gay" is a wholly modern idea (and a repellent one at that, not for the sexual act itself (which admittedly most men find a little gross), but for cheapening a person to the level of mere animalistic desires).

To say Alexander was gay is to simply miss the damn point. He may have loved a man or men. When drunk he may have diddled them (or the slave boys). But he didn't much care about that when he was on the field of battle.

You are right that we need to move past this, but not by acknowledging the "gayness" of historical figures, but by recognizing that no mere sex act can define or even speak to the greatness that is present in humanity.

hobgoblin:"which admittedly most men find a little gross"
Speaking for myself-seeing two dudes make out is more than 'a little gross'. It makes me physically ill. This isnt a moral or religious reaction (im neither)but a purely physical one. Its like watching eye surgery. Like the idea of cannibalism or necrophilia you can rationalize it all day long (and god knows ive tried)-but in the end its just wrong. Like Rosie Odonnell.

Well, I think we can divine who the smart one of the group is {hobgoblin}. Heh.

Hobgoblin: Except for the bible, history does seem to be without much mention of homosexuality, though I don't see quite understand what you mean that "gay" is a wholly modern idea. Surely every idea one can have on the subject has been thought of before. However, your larger point that "no mere sex act can define or even speak to the greatness that is present in humanity" is what I was trying to say. And almost anyone would rather be led by Alexander or Lincoln than most people ever born.

Amish,

Dude, I'm pretty sure I totally linked the TRON costume half a year ago.

Hat tip to ME!

ok, ok-i blew it on the TRON guy-but you are gonna love this! I just stumbled across link to a hillarious audio clip of Paul Anka chewing out his band!

http://www.noisetank.com/integrity/

you can thanck me later

and after your done thancking me you can thank me

72
(love your shirt, just received two from here:)
http://secure.milspecgroup.com/cgi-bin/75thrangers/505-102.htm

Don't unnerstand your dont unnerstand-- are you being rhetorically obtuse for amusement's sake?

my daughter happily skipping around the back yard when she was 5 yoa was being gay.

Don't disabuse and dilute the MOST successful, POWERFUL, weapon and tool of human communication in history, recorded or otherwise, i.e., the English language. We pay people to do that full time--they work for the State Department.

Hobbs (and AA)got it 'xactly right--the political/societal birth of homosexual gayness is considered by most to be an appendage at the end of the women's sexual revolution of the seventies (free love, burn yer bra, oh, yuk, put on a coat, them things is hangin' past yer knees) and hence once removed from the civil rights movement that slightly preceded IT (all within a 20 year period, more or less) I would concede that they are all related--same family, different children--after the "onset"/outbreak of AIDS in the 80s into the mainstream population--the homosexual community promoted their "minority" status so aggressively, and admittedly successfully by copying the tactics of black Americans during the 1960s. (and of course, standing around loudly wringing their hands, sweaty, teary eyed, lookin' for and demanding a hug--kinda like Leo Buscalia on a Pledge week PBS special)

Ace. I luv you, man...metaphorically speaking of course, not in the andy sullivan kinda way...kay?
I would NEVER want to "sully" you or your reputation--really.
What AAron said--we caught a round in the compound--the noise I was makin' reading this shit was blamed for bringin' it......man pooter..you're killin' me, guy...

My favorite from H.L. follows. This is from memory, so it is only "about" right. Perhaps some reader can fix it up.

In response to an invitation to attend an event H.L. Mencken responded: "At this point in my life I find myself unable to attend functions where speeches are made, or, at which people are present who have made speeches."

As Shakespeare would have said if he'd played video games: First, we kill the lawyers. Then we loot their bodies.

Perhaps Abe was the first to be subjected to the 'Gaymaker' chemical weapon?

Virgins,

YOu got me wrong. History is replete (that means there's a lot of it, fat kid ; ) ) with homosexuality. There's just very little notion of "gayness" in history.

Maybe you don't readily see the distinction, perhaps because it is the water in which you swim (modernity that is, not homosexuality). Most of Greek culture engaged in homophilia, or same sex romance. The (usually) younger object of desire could not be orally or anally sodomized, though (unless he was a slave), there could only be thigh-humping, for lack of a better term.

As in prison (or penguin houses), these men would have utterly rejected the modern idea of "gayness" as a socio-political status. The idea that their sexual attraction somehow "defined" them as human being was anathema to the classical man. Greek men loved each other because like in modern Arab society, women were shut away and relegated to reproduction and second-class status.

I'm reminded of the Afgan saying a buddy of mine brought back from there: "Women are for making children, boys are for pleasure." (eewwww, I need to boil my keyboard now for repeating that) He thought the idea was equally repellant, but it seems to be the norm in sex-segregated societies that men can be the object of desire, and retain their own honor (or the ones without hair on their legs in the case of the Middle East), so long as there is no (what now is called) "gay sex." Only the bitches the weak), poofs (effeminate males), and slaves can be penetrated.

In this type of environment, so alien to everything male Americans know and are happy with, can the idea of Lincoln or Alexander be contemplated.

What I'm saying to you is that your thoughts on the posibility of greatness in humanity are right, but slightly misstated, and colored by your preception of sexuality. A perception that has no basis in historical or human reality.

The ascendence of "homosexuals" in this current culture is really the triumph of the poofs. Effeminate homosexuals have redefined homophilia that has existed historically and in all sex-segregated cultures (even feudal Japan) to mean the homosexual behavior that was frowned upon everywhere and in all times. A drunken Greek male orgy (ick) was regretted in the morning and a source of shame, even as the romance of two Greek men (again, ick) was countenanced by the culture.

What I'm saying is that Lincoln and Alexander were not "gay" in the modern sense in any way, shape or form, because they would have found modern gays to be beneath contempt, and without honor, for being on the "receiving" end of homosexual activity.

To say Alexander was a mincing, effeminate, mama's boy (as befits the modern gay archetype, and Oliver Stone's imagination) is the height of ignorance and insult.

Really, I guess the bottom line is that if gays were more like Lincoln (if indeed he had homophilic tendencies) than dissolute flamers like Darcelle here in Portland, Oregon, us straight guys might have a bit more respect for them.

Do you think 'the bottom line' was the right choice of words?

Even if Lincoln did say "Four thcore and theven yearth ago", he didn't say it in a gay way but like a Viking.

My only objection is that I don't really like mah-jongg.

But I could learn.

How disappointing, and gob-smackingly vile. I type "triumph of the poofs" into Google, and and this is where I end up?

I'm reminded of the Afgan (sic) saying a buddy of mine brought back from there: "Women are for making children, boys are for pleasure."

I think, its more accurately attributed as an "Arab"/muslim maxim--a more palatable, euphemistic version being

(they) consider it a duty to do their wives, an honor to do or have it done to them by their friends, and In Iraq, (& the Stans) the occasional goat or camel can do in a pinch--that ain't an urban legend like them camel spiders, either....

And yeah, there's (seemingly) a lot of it in the Stans, too...

Would you call it a certain kind of "cultural" shame of the act--in some sense like an "orthodox" catholic doing it for other than reproducing and liking it, then running to confession to get absolution? Not unreasonable-and "grudingly" acceptable if occuring between heterosexuals..less stigma anyway.

However, Somalia is primarily "muslim" but the culture there is empirically different (was in 93, anyway) I dont mean it wasn't present, just not as obvious (lotta other factors too) there's a difference there, I'm just too tired to connect the dots-it has something to do with the level of "tribal" organization and population density---there has to be a better term than "degree of primitiveness"...

It comes down historically to
what you do determines who you are (Alexander/Lincoln) UNLESS what you do is THAT..which, as you've noted has been historically reviled by societies at large.
unless, of course as Oliver Stone paraphrases Tom Petty..It's good to be the king--then if you object--well...off with your head...uh, that's Alice in Wonderland...unless your a King who likes draggin' like a "queen"....That's not helpful, is it Hobbs?

Nap time...sheesh. Man Pooter, prisons and penguin houses--i dread the dreams I might have.....eeewwwhh

MAD, LOL. After I thought so hard about that post, I probably shouldn't have gone and used used "bottom line" at the end

. . . oh, I guess I shouldn't have said "though hard," either.

Damn. I guess ol' hysterical Andy would say I'm obsessing about certain things . . .

And ignore the man,

Enjoy your dreams about penguin prison rape

I just read excitable Andy's gushings (so you don't have to) over at AS. I'm simply perplexed that this guy can take himself seriously. Obviously for him, acts make the man. In his life and thus in the Universe.

What a maroon.

Hobgoblin, if you ever read this, please get in touch, need your opinion on something.

Tks,
Alessandra
alessandrab2004@hotmail.com