What are you smiling about?

Last Spring, my Geek Jeep still sported a "SPORTSMEN FOR BUSH" sticker in the rear window.

You may be aware that I work at a University in the Pacific Northwest, and I park on campus five days a week.

One Monday when I went to the parking lot to get my car, I noticed that someone had taken advantage of the thin layer of dust (I had attended an IPSC match the day before, and the dust from the dirt access roads hadn't yet been washed off . . . it wasn't time for my Semi-annual Wash The Car Day) to write "BUSH IS GAY" on the back hatch.

Now, you all know that the entire PNW is a Red State, and the Geek Jeep is red. Honestly, I was trying to get along as passively as I could.

Yet someone, presumably a University student, had decided that the only reasonable response to a Jeep with a "Sportsmen For Bush" sticker in the back window was to write "BUSH IS GAY" on the car. (I'm just grateful that they used their dirty finger, instead of a key, to write it!)

I wondered why this particular phrase was used to disparage the President of the United States. In a Liberal state, at a Liberal college, with a very active Gay Pride center within a mile of my parking place, does someone consider that the unfounded accusation of being Gay is an appropriate insult?

What does that do for the "Celebrate Diversity" movement on campus? How does it correlate to the professed inclusionary slant of the anti-Bush movement?

Is being Gay a Bad Thing? If so, how does the writer get along with his fellow liberals, who seem to take acceptance of homosexuality as a plank on their political platform?

Or was the writer merely commenting that President George W. Bush seemed especially jovial?

I find this a little difficult to accept, considering that Bush 43 has been experiencing one of the most difficult tenures in the history of the country. 911, war in Afghanistan, war in Iraq, Terrorism in general, the need to expend resources (which could be otherwise slotted for domestic social issues) on defensive measures such as TSA . . . what has Bush got to be happy about?

One could imagine that President Bush, in an introspective moment, would envy President Eisenhower. The worth thing Ike had to deal with was the uncomfortable 6-month period between the day when the USSR orbited Sputnik, and the day when the USA managed to get a satellite in orbit. (Joke of the day: "Why can't Ike ride horseback at night?" Answer: "Because he doesn't have a saddle light". Saddle-light, satellite. Get it? Okay, it's lame, but that was the fifties.)


The reason all of this boiled to the top of the melting pot is because I just read a Doctor Adams article entitled "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and dog-gone it, Stuart Smalley likes me!"

Here, Doctor Adams discusses Al Franken, whose distinction between "Unfair Mean" jokes and "Fair Mean" jokes is difficult to define, at best. The difference seems to be whether the speaker is a Liberal or a Conservative. If you take Franken's history into account, it's wrong for Conservatives to say anything 'mean' about homosexuals. However, it's okay for a Liberal to say anything 'mean' about homosexuals, if the homosexual in question is a Conservative.

In that vein, I spent the most grueling week in my recent history listening to "Air America" earlier this week. (The actual listening time was just under five minutes; I'm not able to listen to that show any longer for fear of hurling.) I do this from time to time, just to see if the Liberal Voice of America has begun to make sense. I'll save you the torture of listening for yourself: they haven't.

The woman who was talking (Randi Rhodes?) was talking about the big stink those nasty ol' Conservatives made about Clinton's affair with Lewinski, and then asked "What about the homosexual prostitute [note: Gannon/Guckert?], what was he doing in the White House?"

It's not clear whether she was concerned about the homosexuality or the prostitution of this guy, but she made it clear that the relationship between Clinton and Lewinski was a . . . quote . . . "Social Situation", while that between the man who seemed to be carving out a new career as a White House reporter and the President seemed somehow to be comparable.

There's no suggestion here, or elsewhere, that President Bush was carrying on a "Social Situation" with a male prostitute, but Rhodes seemed to relish the inuendo.

That's what it's all about with the Liberal press . . . inuendo. And it's infecting the young people of our country.

It's okay to use homosexuality as a weapon against Conservatives, if you're a Liberal. But if you're a Conservative, and you aren't publicallyl and viciferously in support of homosexuality, you're "Just Mean".

So what does it mean when you only allow a homosexual to attend your White House Press Conferences, and you're a Conservative? Are you inclusive, or are you perverted?

What are you smiling about?