Pride goes before disaster,
and a haughty spirit before a fall.  -Proverbs 16:18

I spent last week in San Francisco for work. My duties required me to arrive on Sunday, which means I got there smack in the middle of the Pride Parade. The practical effect of the parade is that it snarled traffic enough that my Lyft driver had to drop me off a block and half from my hotel, and the parade lasted for six hours. I  had work to do once I arrived, so I didn’t actually attend the parade, but I definitely saw some of the crowd.

Mostly I found myself wondering what these people were thinking. I fail to see how wearing lingerie in public and dying your hair orange – as one woman (I assume) I saw in the hotel lobby – or wearing T shirts with offensive messages “celebrates” anything. It was a six-hour long exercise in seeing who could break the most social norms and get away with it. Apparently, you can get away with anything in San Francisco.

The tragedy of a once-great city like this spending so much money on a parade was brought home to me later in the week when I walked about a mile and a half from my hotel to go see a movie (“Infinity War” – I’ll just say I’m not a fan). You know all that stuff you’ve read about homeless people and feces on the street in San Francisco? It’s all true. And it’s heartbreaking.

The caricature of Republicans is that they are heartless and uncaring, but then you see a Democrat-run city like San Francisco spend all of its money on Pride Parades and a massive construction project to extend the rail system to the new Chase Center, the future home of the Golden State Warriors. Yes, the arena itself is privately financed, but the infrastructure costs around it will come from taxpayers. And all of those taxes are being spent to make it easier for people to hand over even more of their money to the greedy capitalist who owns the team. As Instapundit always asks, “why are democrat-run cities such cesspits?”

Is it possible that the Democrats who run San Francisco are using the Gay Pride movement as a “shiny object” to lure people to this supposedly “enlightened” city to take their tax dollars while distracting them from the fact that they get nothing in return but the opportunity to dress up in weird outfits and vent for a day? What is there to be proud of in that?

In life one of the things you often find that while you might hope for one thing, when you actually need another. This is often how God answer prayer providing what you need rather than what you want.

A great example of this is this story about Michael Sam:

The St. Louis Rams released defensive end Michael Sam on Saturday, the team announced.

Sam’s hopes of sticking with the Rams and becoming the first openly gay athlete to play in the NFL came up just short in a competition against undrafted rookie Ethan Westbrooks.

Westbrooks is one of nine defensive linemen to land a roster spot on the team.

There were likely a lot of people, particularly in the MSM who while not in prayer were hoping above hope that Michael Sam would make that final spot in the Rams roster in order to advance, not so much Sam’s career but their own agenda.

But while they and perhaps the Sam’s fans may not believe it, the Rams gave Sam exactly what he needed. Respect and incentive.

Rather than giving him a roster spot that he didn’t earn which had the potential to set him up not just for failure but for derision as an “affirmative action” hire, the team treated him like any other 7th round pick trying to make a team who just didn’t do enough to earn that spot.

That does two things:

#1  It forces him to raise his game:

It takes skill and strength and drive to make an NFL roster. Being cut will make him work harder and do what is necessary if he wants to be one. That is exactly what a player of his caliber needs to succeed in the league

#2  It’s a sign of respect.

It tells him that media desires not withstanding an NFL roster spot is something to be won on the field, not behind a microphone. It tells them that he will be judged not as a man who prefers the sexual companionship of other men, but as a man who plays football in the NFL.

That exactly the type of respect a man wants.  The knowledge that what he gets he’s earned.  

The Rams showed a lot of character by making this choice and how Sam reacts to it over the course of the weeks to follow will say a lot about him as a player.

As for those in the media or the “Gay” movement If the actual goal of said movement is equality, they should be absolutely delighted.

If however their goal is raw bullying power, not so much.

Update: Robert Silverman, regardless of what he says doesn’t respect Sam as a player because if he did he wouldn’t be saying stuff like this:

It’s not worth giving these bigots any more oxygen than they deserve. Just take my word for it that it was, and probably still is, awful. Unlike, say, a random cornerback from Boise State, moments after the Rams announced they were cutting Sam, there was a near-celebratory outpouring of weirdly giddy hate, using the relative anonymity of social media as a modern-day Klansman’s e-frock.

Seriously a team is supposed to sign Sam because Silverman doesn’t like the results of a twitter search?

 speaking against Islam produces murder and threats of murder.

If you don’t believe me ask Seattle based cartoonist Molly Norris, or rather you could ask Molly Norris if she hasn’t spent the last four years in hiding due to a fatwa on her life.

DaTechGuy July 10th 2014

 

I was in my 24 hour countdown to the start of Season 8 (or 36) of Doctor Who when I saw this tweet from Stacy

That linked to a piece from Ace

Noah C. Rothman provides the facts of the case, in which a group of men, led by a Ali Mohammad Brown, used the hook-up phone app “Grindr” to arrange liaisons with gay men, before Brown murdered them. (I do not know the extent of the accomplices’ involvement.)

and when I read hat piece and the Hotair post it linked and saw Ace’s question

Did you know any of this?

The answer was, why yes, my readers and I know all about Mr. Brown:

If you are hearing about this for the first time it’s likely because national gay groups don’t seem to think that radical Muslim beliefs that provoke murder are as dangerous as Christian belief that forbids us to bake a cake for a gay marriage.

As for Noah Rothman’s statement

This is a story tailor-made for the national press but, rather than highlighting it, the opposite has occurred. It seems that the press has sanitized the actions and motives of Brown and his two accomplices. He was not simply a murderer and a criminal, though he was most certainly both of those things. Brown was also a terrorist who targeted a specific group of victims based on their sexual identity. It is quite uncharacteristic of the press to understate those two facts.

I disagree, it’s completely characteristic of the press to ignore anything Pam Geller has warned about a month ago

They have been vocal about denouncing religious objections to co-operation with Gay Marriage. Strangely enough, Pam Geller notes that this vocal outrage doesn’t extend to other actions done in the name of religion:

Let’s be blunt.  If Mr. Brown was a Roman Catholic or an Evangelical Christian, heck if he was merely white his name would have been all over the county by now.  Jake Tapper, Anderson Cooper & Rachel Maddow would have been broadcasting live from Seattle covering “days of rage” and marches, and prominent members of the Gay community would be sitting on panels today discussing how Gays are oppressed by Christian belief & Hobby Lobby.

Alas for the media  the surname ” Brown” is preceded by “Ali” and “Muhammad” so as Glenn has said there must be  “sanitizing”  of this case but  not just journalist fear becoming the next Molly Norris or James Foley.   although that is likely the primary reason why both Gay groups & the media are staying away.

The truth is if the administration thought promoting this case would boost Democrat turnout among their base would have been on their phones to the MSM to produce at least a modicum of hard coverage and perhaps it would in the Gay community.

But thanks to the race of Mr. Brown the potential boosting the turnout of Gay activists would have come at the expense of highlighting a man of color as a serial killer of gays and upsetting Islamic activists in Michigan & New Jersey where two senate seats are up for grabs.

And if there is one thing we’ve learned about this administration there is no threat more dear to them than a political one.

If only Stacy, if Only

**********************************************************

Olimometer 2.52

We need a total of  $7225 to cover the rest of the expenses for the year.

If you think the coverage and commentary we provide here is worth your support please consider hitting DaTipJar below and help keep the bills paid.

Consider the lineup you get In addition to my own work seven days a week you get John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit)  on Sunday Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.

If that’s not worth $20 a month I’d like to know what is?

From Americaisconservative.org:

As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (hereafter referred to as The Church or The Church of Jesus Christ), I have been watching the process the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) has been going through the past few weeks. The Church has a century-long relationship with the BSA and how they voted could affect that relationship. As a strong conservative who is actively involved in politics, I have been concerned about the pressure that has been placed on the BSA, and other organizations, to violate their religiously-protected freedoms to endorse a way of life not consistent with their beliefs.

The Boy Scouts issued the following statement:

“For 103 years, the Boy Scouts of America has been a part of the fabric of this nation, with a focus on working together to deliver the nation’s foremost youth program of character development and values-based leadership training.

“Based on growing input from within the Scouting family, the BSA leadership chose to conduct an additional review of the organization’s long-standing membership policy and its impact on Scouting’s mission. This review created an outpouring of feedback from the Scouting family and the American public, from both those who agree with the current policy and those who support a change.

“Today, following this review, the most comprehensive listening exercise in Scouting’s history the approximate 1,400 voting members of the Boy Scouts of America’s National Council approved a resolution to remove the restriction denying membership to youth on the basis of sexual orientation alone. The resolution also reinforces that Scouting is a youth program, and any sexual conduct, whether heterosexual or homosexual, by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the virtues of Scouting. A change to the current membership policy for adult leaders was not under consideration; thus, the policy for adults remains in place. The BSA thanks all the national voting members who participated in this process and vote.

“This policy change is effective Jan. 1, 2014, allowing the Boy Scouts of America the transition time needed to communicate and implement this policy to its approximately 116,000 Scouting units.

“The Boy Scouts of America will not sacrifice its mission, or the youth served by the movement, by allowing the organization to be consumed by a single, divisive, and unresolved societal issue. As the National Executive Committee just completed a lengthy review process, there are no plans for further review on this matter.

“While people have different opinions about this policy, we can all agree that kids are better off when they are in Scouting. Going forward, our Scouting family will continue to focus on reaching and serving youth in order to help them grow into good, strong citizens. America’s youth need Scouting, and by focusing on the goals that unite us, we can continue to accomplish incredible things for young people and the communities we serve.”

What I read as I reviewed this message was that 1) boys are better when Scouting and 2) the behavior of scouts will remain the same.

The Church of Jesus Christ released a statement regarding the changes of the BSA:

For the past 100 years, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has enjoyed a strong relationship with Boy Scouts of America, based on our mutual interest in helping boys and young men understand and live their duty to God and develop upright moral behavior. As the Church moves forward in its association with the Boy Scouts of America, Church leaders will continue to seek the most effective ways to address the diverse needs of young people in the United States and throughout the world.

The Church’s long-established policy for participation in activities is stated in the basic instructional handbook used by lay leaders of the Church: “young men … who agree to abide by Church standards” are “welcomed warmly and encouraged to participate” (Handbook 2: Administering the Church [2010], 8.17.3). This policy applies to Church-sponsored Scout units. Sexual orientation has not previously been—and is not now—a disqualifying factor for boys who want to join Latter-day Saint Scout troops. Willingness to abide by standards of behavior continues to be our compelling interest.

These standards are outlined in the booklet For the Strength of Youth and include abstinence from sexual relationships. We remain firmly committed to upholding these standards and to protecting and strengthening boys and young men.

The Church appreciates BSA’s reaffirmation of its commitment to “duty to God,” which includes service to others and moral behavior—central principles of our teaching to young men. As in the past, the Church will work with BSA to harmonize what Scouting has to offer with the varying needs of our young men. We trust that BSA will implement and administer the approved policy in an appropriate and effective manner.

Many have expressed concern over this decision. Others have expressed disbelief that the Church of Jesus Christ would support the BSA – saying it has lost its way or is pandering. I would argue that neither of these is the case. As a church, “‘young men … who agree to abide by Church standards’ are ‘welcomed warmly and encouraged to participate.'” It sounds as though the Boy Scouts’ policy change is actually more in line with the existing policy of the Church.

The doctrines of the Church help us to understand that we have a Heavenly Father who is concerned for the welfare of His children. He wants us all to have an opportunity to make it back to His presence. During His ministry, the Lord was clear during His time on earth in telling all to “come unto me.” When I separate politics from religion, I understand this decision.

Politically, however, it makes me nervous. I know that gay rights activists are likely cheering this decision and find it as a win. I believe the BSA entered into this decision-making process from outside pressure it was receiving. While I believe each private organization has a right and obligation to set the terms of its membership, it does concern me that that this process appeared to be made under pressure. But just because a process begins under pressure does not mean the outcome is made by that same pressure. The BSA had to evaluate their value system and assess if their policies reflected that. By making the decision they did, I believe they are saying they want all young men to have an opportunity for growth is a value-rich environment. Young men (and women) make powerful decisions that will affect the rest of their lives starting at an early age. By allowing young men to participate in uplifting activities where their confidence is strengthened and positive virtues are reinforced, it increases positive decision-making down the road.

Moving forward, the Boy Scouts have a lot of decisions they will need to make as a result of this decision. This includes if they choose to make changes to the requirements and activities. They will also likely be reevaluating their decision regarding gay leadership. The GLAAD spokesman stated, “Today’s vote is a significant victory for gay youth across the nation and a clear indication that the Boy Scouts’ ban on gay adult leaders will also inevitably end.” The Boy Scouts organization will have to evaluate that as well.

Sometimes, political decisions have an all-or-nothing flavor to them. You don’t want to give an inch lest the other side take a mile or seven. In this case, a private organization has made a decision to redefine its membership. While there was political pressure to do so, this decision was made by the BSA. This process is challenging the beliefs of many strong, valiant Christians who are striving to make decisions, personally and politically, that uphold their value system. Each individual will need to evaluate if their personal value system, not just political beliefs, allow them to continue in their membership or affiliation with the Boy Scouts.

**Please note, the views expressed in this article belong to this author alone and may not necessarily reflect those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I do not speak for the Church. Click here for more information on the Church’s stance.**

– Rebecca @ Americaisconservative.org

Raj: Stewart, settle an argument for us: Who would win, Billy the Kid or the White Wizard?

Stewart:
If I tell you that I’m robbing you of the hours of fun you can have from the magical rootin-tootin low price of $24.95.

Raj: I’ll take one.

Howard: Hmmm make it 2

Leonard: I hate all of you and myself, 3.

Stewart: Ok I’ll ring it up…(under his breath) like shooting Nerds in a barrel.

The Big Bang Theory “The Flaming Spittoon Acquisition” 2012

It’s not personal , it’s strictly business

Michael Corleone The Godfather

Because of the large penetration of the comic book market into the film industry these days (the Avengers movie was pardon my language, a comic collectors wet dream) people forget just how small the niche comic book market is.

The idea normally is to try to find either a character or an artist that gives a reason for people to buy the comic, Me I was always a story guy myself, it was rare that story guys moved books. If you can’t find a character, artist or a story plot, there was always the backup plan: Find a gimmick.

That’s why when I heard about the decision to make a “major DC character” gay I snickered when people asked: “Will it be Batman? Will it be Superman?” Maybe Americans don’t know how few Gay people there actually are in the US but the sales crew at DC does and there was no way they were tampering with the franchise.

Then I heard the choice was Alan Scott the Golden age Green Lantern. I laughed out loud NOT because his weakness is wood, but because of my years as the owner of a comic book store allowed me to see this for what it is.

Earth to the general public: There is not a vast comic book customer base for a “gay” character. The single guys who are the vast majority of comic collectors aren’t without a women by choice…

Stuart: Need help finding anything you like?

Amy Farrah Fowler: Yeah, a comic book without a woman whose bosom could be used as a flotation device.

Stuart: Sorry, people who come here like big boobs. Some of them have big boobs.

…but if you make a comic a “gay icon” there will be a large chunk of the gay community that will buy the comic simply because it is the IN thing to do.

In terms of sales as a guy who once owned a comic store let me tell you a comic featuring Alan Scott had as much chance generating the sales needed to be cost-effective as an X rated movie starring the overweight Michael Moore and the 95-year-old Zsa Zsa Gabor.

But suddenly you re-launch Alan Scott as gay and presto, your minor character introduced in 1940 isn’t just a comic, it’s a cause celebre . Suddenly buying the comic is making a statement. If you purchase the new Green Lantern featuring Alan Scott you are an obviously enlightened and not some racist bigot homophobe.

And now that Jim Parsons who plays the most famous comic book geek in TV fiction, has come out he can buy 100,000 copies of each of the various alternate covers of the first issues (each with a different color corresponding to the rainbow flag) and distribute them to schools nationwide as part of the anti-bullying campaign.

While on the other hand consider Alan Scott’s Green Lantern was launched in 1940 and cancelled in 1949 that means just about everyone who would care about making him gay is either long dead or hasn’t opened a comic since the troops came home from Korea.

Bottom line is this comic will sell a bunch of extra copies to people who would never buy a comic book in their lives. They won’t actually READ the comic, it will sit on the shelf somewhere next to their copies of The Satanic Verses and Dreams of my father and DC will keep it up as long as they can.

As long as they don’t fall for their own propaganda thinking “Hey there is a huge market for gay superheroes” they will be able to play this out for quite a while until the next mandatory “buy this to prove you aren’t a bigot” crusade comes out and will laugh all the way to the bank.

Oh and to the few people who will look at the title of this post and have a “Sarah Palin target” conniption fit, get a life.