Here's another Seattle conservative blog you should check out: GayNeoCon. It's written by Brian Ballard, of Seattle's Ballard neighborhood (naturally). He's a senior project manager at a Seattle technology company. By design, Brian's blog is essentially composed of his opinion essays, not much in the way of links, and no comments. He says he hopes to update it about once a week. I especially like this post, "Supporting The Liberation Of Iraq."
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at June 15, 2005 01:13 PM | Email ThisAlso I'm assuming the "Gay" in GayNeoCon means Happy?
Posted by: Mark D on June 15, 2005 02:16 PM"Oooh. Evil neocon nazis and fascists."
Fools. Can't even get their insults right.
Posted by: jimg on June 15, 2005 02:41 PMneo-
pref.
1. New; recent: neonatal.
2. New and different: Neo-Freudian.
3. New and abnormal: neoplasm.
So, using definition 1, a neo-con would be a new-conservative.
using def 2, it would be a new conservative with some different views (see Libertarian, Fiscal Conservative/Social Liberal, etc)
using def 3, it would be a new but abnormal conservative (and since any liberal calling someone ANY form of conservative means they think they are abnormal ... this could very well be the same as definition 1).
As Scoop's anti-Soviet Union, pro-Israeli views lost support in the Democratic party in the 70's & 80's, many Democratic supporters of his foreign policy thinking became disenchanted with their own party...which is why a lot of notable neocons have Jewish roots given the importance of pro-Israeli thinking in that paradigm. Accordingly, other prominent neo-cons also include are Paul Wolfowitz & Norm Podhoretz.
Posted by: Eric Earling on June 15, 2005 03:40 PMIf you you check out his site, you'll see that gay in this instance doesn't mean "Happy", it means homosexual.
It's a great blog, by the way. Kinda shows that all gays don't have to be liberals, any more than all Republicans have to be straight.
But of course Howard Dean would point out that he's probably still white and Christian...
:-)
RM
Posted by: Randy Mueller on June 15, 2005 03:54 PMPosted by: Elvis is the King County on June 15, 2005 04:13 PM
Cudos to Mr. Ballard for taking on one of the labels directly to show how meaningless it is. And if he's really gay (not "happy"), it should be a reminder to homophobes everywhere, especially those who read this blog, that gay people are just as capable as anyone else of embracing and fighting for freedom and personal responsibility.
Posted by: srogers on June 15, 2005 04:13 PMRM
Dogbert: LGF?
All: speaking of all gays not having to be liberal, my favorite line that I've read here at SP was by some guy (sorry I don't remember who! Let us know who you were) who commented on being gay but definitely NOT liberal: "Hey I'm gay, not stupid!" Love it!~
Posted by: Michele on June 15, 2005 05:06 PMI should have added the /sarc tag to my comment.
Mark.
Posted by: Mark D on June 15, 2005 05:49 PMPS, I also voted for Rossi, because I thought Gregior would be a Bad Idea. I've already been proven right on both counts.
Posted by: Jeannette W. on June 16, 2005 09:15 AMHe is to Monorail Matt.
Posted by: Jim on June 16, 2005 09:19 AM"Matt, Brian Ballard is not a conservative. He might be a libertarian at best."
What do you (and anyone else out there) think a conservative is? What do you think a libertarian is?
What label do you attach to Madison? Jefferson? The first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall? Reagan? Thomas Paine? Adam Smith? Ayn Rand? Pat Robertson? The traitor Roosevelt (as opposed to Teddy)? Yourself (why)?
My suspicion, if you think a libertarian is a substandard conservative, is that you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
Posted by: srogers on June 16, 2005 11:49 AMI have a question for you. why can't we talk about religion. At least 80% of people in this country believe in God.
Posted by: M&M on June 16, 2005 12:44 PMThat doesn't mean I think conservatism and libertariansm are identical. They are not. I'd be happy to take a look at the wikipedia definition of "conservative," but I'm more interested in discussing with you and others what you think it is, because that label and others are thrown around all the time as if we all would define them the same way. I guarantee you, we would not, and therein lies a big source of disagreement that is a complete waste of time. To get to the merits of a philosophy, or even to start to discuss one, the people involved have to start from a common lexicon - we have to know that when we use words in two way communication, we are evoking the same ideas each way.
To answer your question, we can talk about religion any time you would like. I love talking about religion. But I couldn't care less how many people believe in God (even if it were everyone except me) - that's not relevant to any discussion about whether He exists or whether a particular religion is correct, or whether there are commonalities between Religions and what that means, or whether its possible to know if God exists, and on and on. These are not questions to be answered by majority rule.
Above, I objected to one person's (perhaps tongue-in-cheek) definition of "neo-cons" as the opposite of "godless, heathen, liberal pinheads." I objected because it implies that one who is not a liberal pinhead (like me) believes in God and is not a heathen (I'm agnostic and I have no idea whether I'm a heathen - but I object to the characterization because so many people have been brutally killed in history because someone else in power labelled them a "heathen"). Mr. Cynical responded nicely. I may have taken him to literally, as Michele was quick to point out. But Religion is a personal issue that has virtually no place in politics (in this country, at least) - Religion is limited in politics to the principle that we all are free to exercise our own religious beliefs (with certain limitations) and that the state may not act in a manner that establishes a preferred religion (now taken to mean ANY religion). So, we're now talking about religion.
Posted by: srogers on June 16, 2005 01:38 PM