Tuesday, March 31, 2015

would pc liberals feel the same animosity for keith olbermann too?

Unless you've been living under a rock, there has been all kinds of internet outrage over Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, anti-gay legislation which Governor Mike Pence signed into law late last week.

On Monday, Keith Olbermann, a sports and political commentator and writer, and host of a show on ESPN called Olbermann, delivered a special comment on why sports franchises, including the NCAA and NFL "must lead society against prejudice."


So far, no one has yet to criticize Olbermann of creating a false equivalency; I suppose it's only because Olbermann didn't fault liberals.

Had he, I've no doubt the popular gay blogs and writers would be on their fainting couches and fetching for the smelling salts crying foul the way they have at the expense of Bill Maher.

Here's what Mr. Olbermann did not acknowledge in his commentary; liberals are as much responsible for this law being passed as the racist, anti-gay christian conservatives who supported RFRA.

It was Gay Inc whom in their wanton disregard to appease religious bigots who first came up with the idea of adding  religious exemption clauses on equality legislation.  Originally, the popular gay blogs and writers were for it because all they cared about is getting married and living in heteronormativity.  Once they realized the anti-gay machine does not care an infinitesimal rat fuck about marriage, much less or more for gay people, they were against it.

The Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act is Gay Inc's religious exemption clause on steroids.

And let's be clear about this too; if, and there is a backlash over RFRA, credit (I write this under duress)  goes to big business and the entertainment and sports community. not the gay blogs or state based or national gay rights organizations. 


jeremy hooper's dialogue on monologue he would prefer done his way

On Friday, March 28, Bill Maher, host of HBO's Real Time With Bill Maher, ended his show by delivering an editorial commentary on the recent controversy over Dolce and Gabbana's remarks to an Italian magazine and the fake outrage that ensued, courtesy of Sir Elton John.

Maher's remarks have hit a sour note, especially among the so called PC liberals, some whom are known to vilify anyone who deviate from what the consider to be acceptable discourse regarding the LGBT.  For them, it doesn't matter if that person is gay or straight;  Here, because I'm gay and a liberal, if you don't act or behave in the way or manner they think we should, they will look under every rock, dig up every flaw, and exploit every mistake you ever made. They are going to distort and exaggerate everything.


Among the chieftains of this movement is Jeremy Hooper.


As I noted in an earlier post, Hooper was one of the first to respond to Maher's commentary on social media:
















 


Today, Hooper followed up with a post that reeked of arrogance and privilege, and yes, false equivalency.

I respond.


Hooper starts out by criticizing Maher for criticizing boycott activism, accusing Maher of "stifling expression."

Regardless of his personal feelings for the stories he mentions, Maher's take is actually the one that denies others of free speech and viewpoint expression. Outrage, pushback, scrutiny, reaction, boycotts—those are all forms of speech. When you start telling people that they can't have a reaction, are wrong for having an impulse, or that their reaction is too petty or off-base for your liking, then you are the one who is stifling expression.
Really?  Maher has been known to criticize religion, politics, bureaucracies, political correctness, and the mass media, all his commentaries skewered mostly to the right and far right. Funny how that was never a problem for Hooper until now.
I've witnessed thousands of anti-LGBT campaigns and boycotts in which some group that bastardizes the words "family" and "freedom" go apesh*t crazy simple because a gay person appears on a TV show or secures some sort of job. I mock these campaigns. I criticize them. I push back against them. I try my best to defeat them. However, never once in my over ten years of doing this kind of work have I suggested that even my most ardently oppositional group should be denied the opportunity to react in the way that they're reacting. They have the right to speak out. The way to defeat them is to put out a better case against them. That is how discourse works. Shutting down a person's right to react and respond is what theother side does, not us.
You're so vain.  You actually think Maher's rant is about you.

This is the part that has me going:

Personally, I don't care one sequin about what Mr. Dolce or Mr. Gabbana think about me or my family or anything else. Their opinions are not the point, even though Maher's glib comments about bedazzled codpieces make it sound like they are. The real point is that high profile people—and fellow gay people, to boot—who run a high profile company used a high profile platform to espouse damaging views that do very much hurt people who are still fighting for deserved rights. The anti-gay right has picked up on Dolce & Gabbana's views and ran with them (just today Tony Perkins applauded their "traditional values"), as they try to make a case against us in the run-up to the Supreme Court's marriage cases. And that I do care about. A lot of other people care as well. When politically aware people care, they like to speak out.
I remind myself and others, again, that Hooper was among a handful of activists, writers, and bloggers who threw me under the bus, one, to the delight of the opposition movement, known for their conquer and divide strategy, and two, so as to seek corporate sponsorship and have big government on their side.

Hooper should be the last person to talk about what happens when gay people, be they bloggers, writers, or everyday people sharing a view or opinion on the internet that do not correspond to his.


He's upset that Tony Perkins and the anti-gay right lauded Dolce and Gabbana? Please.  Hooper is the opposition movement's bestest friends.  They go to him when they need publicity for their anti-gay campaigns and internet based projects, and they know if they ever need help in neutralizing one of their adversaries, Hooper is just the man to get it done.

People who can't be bothered with these kinds of reactions to these kinds of controversies (which most always involve minority groups reacting to a majority, it must be noted) love to act like the response is due to some sort of carefully orchestrated campaign from "the left." But that is simply not true. The Dolce & Gabbana thing reached the heights it did because people were genuinely insulted that these two gay men were using their considerable media presence to go after decent families and their impressionable children. People spoke up because they had something to say. And they also had the right to speak up (thanks, America!), so they used it. When campaigns reach the attention level that the Dolce & Gabbana thing did, it's especially off-base for someone like Maher to step in and try to shut it down, or to act as if it was concocted in some sort of CrazyTown.
To be fair, Dolce and Gabbana both are representative of the arrogance, ignorance, apathy, and hypocrisy that so plague our community.  Maher thinks they're views are bullshit, too, not that Hooper will admit this.  But the reality is not all gay people desire to marry and live in a house or expensive apartment building with 2.5 kids and a dog and cat.

And the outrage wasn't against Tony Perkins and the anti-gay right, it was against Dolce and Gabbana for speaking their truth.

Maher also makes two very lazy errors that I'm more used to seeing from political opponents rather than allies. One, he acts as if those who had something to say about Dolce & Gabbanna are somehow being negligent about real gay rights issues like the font of resistance that is Antonin Scalia or the brutalities of ISIS, when the obvious truth is that people can very well possess enough bandwidth to express numerous concerns, all along the spectrum, within the same span of time. Two, he (around 2:30) sets up the notion that he's going to deny that he's creating a false equivalency between far-right outrage (which is so often used in service of discrimination) and far-left outrage (which is typically not), but then he just concludes his setup with a joke about the far-right crazies being the elected politicians. He never explains why his equivalency is not, in fact, false. He just rails on.
Maher invoked a false equivalencies? Let's see about that: Hooper created a false equivalence touting far right outrage over Dolce and Gabbana's views on so called "traditional families." to their views on "traditional marriage."

As a blogger and activist known to criticism the gay media, sometimes more so than I do the opposition movement, it is not the same thing.  The anti-gay right are motivated by animus toward LGBT people, and it seems they will never be fully content


It's as if Perkins and the anti-gay right views on LGBT social causes had been irrelevant until DandG.


And does Maher really need to explain the far right crazies? Seriously? Many of us become activists as a result of something or someon doing something homophobic which causes an indvidual or group to fight back with a vengeance.  Almost all of it has come from the far right.  The idea that Hooper would dismiss that as an lazy error, is in of itself lazy.


Speaking of lazy, isn't it long past time for Hooper to update his blog and get a better email provider?

I should say here that there are sometimes controversies that arise on "the left" that don't personally resonate with me. Some that Maher mentions aren't things that I would personally rise up and take on. Some of them might even seem wrongheaded to me. If and when I feel that way, then I can try to learn why folks are reacting the way they are, or I can publicly challenge the campaign with what I see as more meritorious arguments. It's not up to me or Bill Maher or anyone to just tell the pissed off group that their pissed-off-iness is itself the problem. Or if I think the reaction is itself a problem, then it's on me to make a better case for why that is than simply telling an outlet like Media Matters to "shut the f*** up" for forming an expressing an organic opinion to something it and some of its Latino staffers did, in fact, find problematic. That's not winning the argument—that's denying the right to have one.
I remind myself again, Jeremy Hooper, rather than defending me, instead sided with Peter LaBarbera and other far right crazies.

And as far as those "latino staffers" are Media Matters, it's you and Carlos Maza playing the race card, not Bill Maher.  And then there's this: When ABC was mired in controversy over its sitcom, Work It, Carlos, Media Matters, and Jeremy Hooper were nowhere to be found.

This is what I've always found so reductive about the "political correctness" charge. It can be form of bullying, in a way. It's often just a more neutral-sounding attempt at suppression. It's this holier-than-thou idea that you, someone with a specific set of life experiences and ideas and values, are the one who gets to adjudicate what is and is not an acceptable thing for each and every person in America to find fair or objectionable. That's just bull. Why do you and you alone get to determine which conversations get to be a one-way street? And this is especially true when it comes from someone like Maher, who speaks from a place of great privilege. And not only a place of great privilege, but also a place of great scrutiny. Does he really want to live by the standard that he's setting here? Does he really want to be told which of his public campaigns are too divisive or beneath him or whatever? Just a week before this one, he closed by literally making a case for the banning all fraternities. Couldn't someone else turn around and make the same "P.C." case against him? Or even on something like his Donald Trump feud of a few years back—aren't their tonal similarities between his dedicated concern for that reality TV personality and what he sees as the frivolous concern for these designers? Frankly, I'm a little surprised that Maher, someone who speaks and speaks so much about so many controversial things, would even take on this road. It seems to shaky ground for him, at best.
Quite laughable having Jeremy Hooper having it both ways on political correctness. It's the basis of his entire activism, to make LGBT people seem average, normal everyday citizens in the eyes of the general public.  The only way to make that happen is to shame, ridicule, and dismiss those within the LGBT who don't share his views or lifestyle.

"Lifestyle," as in, have his marriage profiled and sponsored by Martha Stewart, live in an expensive co-op in Midtown Manhattan and invite the pretense this is ordinary.

Equally troubling that Hooper would defend frat culture, which is a breeding ground for rape and racism and Donald Trump, a homophobic misogynist millionaire sociopath.
I also think it's interesting that Maher saved this rant for the last segment, when his panel is tasked with sitting their silently while he alone speaks his monologue. I say it's interesting because this particular panel was made up of two out gay men, Barney Frank and Zachary Quinto. I'm not sure how either of these two gay men would've reacted, if asked, but I do no with absolute certainty that they have a little more insight into the insult that people were feeling than does Maher, a straight man who has made his own lack of desire for children quite known. Personally, I would've liked to hear what these two (and even gay ally S.E. Cup) had to say. But then again, I typically like more speech, not less.
If you're really a fan, Jeremy, then you'll know he often saves the best for last.  And really what were you expecting Barney Frank or Zachary Quinto to say? No?  Come on, dude.

Hindsight being 20/20, Barney Frank may have been right about ENDA and transgenders, but it is he who can be credited with causing irreparable damage to our LGBT movement.  As for Zachary Quinto, isn't it getting tiresome everytime Gay Inc or an activist fucks up, they turn to the celebrity wing to bail them out?

With all due respect, Zachary Quinto is not our lifesaver.  It took a well publicized and highly exploited suicide of a gay teenager for Quinto to come out, an act or action that has done nothing for our movement as a whole, but done lots for him and his career.

And I'll note his coming out hasn't stopped LGBT teens from killing themselves or anti-gay laws from being passed.

Summation

And therein lies the problem with Jeremy Hooper, a guy who pretends to have the monopoly on wisdom.

For those concerned, don't worry about Hooper; He lives in a bubble and will pretend I don't exist.  It's been his game since 2007 ever since he threatened me at the behest and to the delight of his anti-gay far right friends.

And for those demanding peace and harmony, fuhgeddaboudit.  If he wans to apologze, I'll take it, but that wont stop me from criticizing him and everyone else involved in gay pc playing these silly games. But now that he's a dad, the main thing he ought to be concerned with is not me, but making goddamn sure his daughter doesn't become the female equivalent of Robert Oscar Lopez.

Sunday, March 29, 2015

mike pence and bill maher prove everything wrong and right with the equality movement.

Thanks to his New Rules commentary on Friday night, Bill Maher has become the latest liberal supporter of LGBT rights to run afoul of the very community he’s advocates for. Why, you ask? Because he said things about the gay and transgendered community and Media Matters that were true yet highly unpopular.

“How deeply stupid has the far left become when gay designers can’t get along with gay musicians, when vegans attack vegetarians for not being pure enough…I see agnostics and atheists bitching at each other . Why is this even a thing? Do you believe in a talking snake? Me neither – we’re on the same team!

Although it took them awhile, Jeremy Hooper, Towleroad, and Media Matters have since taken to social media to respond to Maher....exactly the way Maher described.

I've already called out Hooper, so no need to go into reruns.

On Twitter, Carlos Maza who writes for Equality Matters, has so far, accused Maher of racism...


Engaged in petty name calling...


Played himself up as a infallible seasoned veteran of the gay rights movement...


Maza, who appears to be in his 20's or low 30s, began writing for Media Matters in 2011.)

...And threatened him and his job.


On the same show, Maher also called Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) for signing up for Obamcare, and although I called it a softball interview, he grill former Governor Mike Huckabee (R-Arkansas) on his Christian persecution complex; Not that it matters to Carlos and the gay blogs.  For them, everyone one is fair game...except themselves.

Meanwhile Governor Mike Pence (R-Indiana) appeared today on ABC's This Week to defend a bill he signed into law which has been garnering widespead criticism... and rightfully so.

Governor Pence repeatedly dodged questions whether Indiana's new Religious Freedom Restoration Act will allow business owners to discriminate against members of the LGBT community.

The usual suspects are calling Pence out on his cowardice and hypocrisy; Not that there's anything wrong with that, but if you saw the interview, Governor Pence invoked Clinton and Obama.

And therein lies the problem; Gay activists can fake outrage and scapegoat to their hearts content, but at the end of the day, it's themselves whom they have to fault for this anti-gay law legislation.

If I'm not mistaken, The Human Rights Campaign supported the federal version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (later ruled unconsitutional by the US Supreme Court) and have done little or nothing about the 20 other states who have passed their own RFRA's.

What say the gay blogs, writers, and the media to this? Nothing.  This privilege pussies are too busy looking for someone to blame for their lot in life.


Saturday, March 28, 2015

bill maher bashes elton john, transgenders and the gay pc, gay pc respond by bashing bill maher

Via Jeremy Hooper on Twitter:



The above tweet is in response to Bill Maher, the host of HBO"s Real Time With Real Maher, who last night made Elton John, Dolce and Gabbana, politically correct liberals, and the transgendered the subject of his New Rules commentary:

Don't through the synthetic baby out with the bathwater. Last week you may have seen that the iconic designers Dolce & Gabbana caused a raucous when they said that even though they are proudly gay, but when it comes to how you make bambino, they're old school Italians who don't approve of what they said is "synthetic children," because you know synthetic, they just don't breath like cotton... 
Yes, we joke about everybody here and that's something that a lot of liberals have forgotten about how to do. For folks who take such pride in their love of diversity liberals seem to tolerate none in their own ranks. I don't necessarily agree with Dolce & Gabbana, but what is the point of attacking people who are 95% on your side? Give them a break. They're from Sicily -- the same place Justice Scalia comes from and if you want to protest someone who doesn't support gays, start with him. 
But no, it's easier to get all faked outrage over the hateful anti-gay speech from two men who bedazzle codpieces for a living. Ellen, Martina [Navratilova], they were all furious. Courtney Love said she planned to burn her Dolce [and] Gabbana, and then breath in the melting polyester because, hey, you never know might get you high. 
But Dame Elton John was the angriest of all, tweeting, 'How dare you refer to my children as synthetic? My hair yes, but my children.' He recorded a protest song called "I Won't Let My Son Go Down On You." And called for a boycott. Really? You can't sell handbags now if you only agree with Elton John almost all the time. In Syria ISIS is throwing gay people off buildings. Maybe there are bigger battles to fight? 
We liberals always talk about how the right needs to rein in its crazies but the left has some crazy reining in to do too. Unless you think I am creating a false equivalency, I'm not. Because on the right, unlike the left, they have actually been able to carve out a place for their crazies; unfortunately, that place is elected government.
Personally, I'm not sure why Hooper would feign outrage over Mr. Maher's remarks;  It's been an open secret Hooper is one of those persons who claims to be liberal yet says and believes in ideas pertaining to conservatism.

To be fair to Hooper, that goes to anyone who seeks to push this insane ideology of making gay/lesbian people seem like average, normal everyday citizens in the eyes of the general public, and that all we want is a husband (or wife), a house with a white picket fence,2.5 kids, and a dog and cat, has been.

It's a point of view that is assimilation, fascist, and authoritarian.

Newsflash: I'm a liberal.  I went to prison for my views.  But this "boycott activism" thing has gone too far.

I wasn't planning to rant on Hooper, but I made the unfortunate mistake of visiting his Twitter feed, and noted his response to Maher's New Rules Commentary.

And I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend Hooper is a man of divine wisdom.

At the risk of reopening old wounds, In 2007, Hooper was part of the fringe group of activists, bloggers, and writers who had vilified me after I spent most of the summer and fall in a very ugly battle with the opposition movement.  Because they, Hooper and others, had decided to advance their agenda through corporate sponsorships and see about getting big business and government on their side as a way to advance equality, they had to take me out.

But that was then. This is now.  I've gotten over it.  And to be fair, because I can, as an avid viewer of the show, there have been times where Maher doesn't always get it right.

In fact, earlier on his show, he had what for all intents and purposes can be called a "softball interview" with notoriously anti-gay Mike Huckabee who is readying himself for another run as Republican candidate for President.

Rumor has it, he's blacklisted liberals (Randi Rhodes, MIke Malloy) as would be guests on his show.   There could be reason for that too.  They've gone so far off the edge of the crazy no one cares for them anymore.

Nonetheless, when Maher is right, man on man, is he right.  And on this one, he nailed everyone good.

Update: And as for Media Matters... I told you so.

Friday, March 27, 2015

i blog about stuff

One of the downsides of being an activist and blogger is sometimes there are not enough hours in the day to write and comment on the social issues affecting the LGBT community. 

For example there is there is a national outcry over Governor Mike Pence (R-Indiana) signing into law this week anti-gay legislation called The Religious Freedom Restoration.

No surprise, the gay organizations, the blogs, writers, and activists are none too happy and have been looking under every rock and closet and trolling social media looking for someone to blame, and rightfully so.  Although the law is being described as a "anti-gay," there is a fear the law will be exploited by individuals and businesses to turn away someone based on their skin color or religion, as in something other than catholic.

But should they?

From Wikipedia:

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is a federal law that was passed almost unanimously by the U.S. Congress in 1993 and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.[The law mandates that the courts protect religious liberty by stating religious freedom can only be limited by the “least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest.” Originally, the federal law was intended to apply to federal, state, and local governments. In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court in City of Boerne v. Flores held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act only applies to the federal government but not states and other local municipalities within them. As a result, 19 states have passed their own RFRAs that apply to their individual state and local governments.

Whoops.

Here's something else I noticed; The National and state based equality organizations were, as the saying goes, "phoning it in," relying on a few popular gay blogs and social media activists to do their job for them.

Even there is a problem because all they're doing is outsourcing their rights and responsibilities over to the Hollywood community. With all due respect, while it's great having Ashton Kutcher, Audra McDonald and James Van Der Beek calling out Governor Mike Pence signing RFRA on Twitter, whoop de freaking do.

Meanwhile, in Florida, a so called anti-transgender bill has cleared its second hurdle. On March 17, the House Government Operations Subcommittee held a hearing on an anti-transgender bill (HB 583) in Florida that was attended by the usual suspects, Equality Florida, Trans Lives Matter Tallahassee and others.  And here too, activists are trying to attack the sponsor of the bill, Rep. Frank Antilles (R-Miami); they're calling him, yawn, transphobic.

But once again, should they?


This alleged transwoman actually said this:

"As been demonstrated, today, it's impossible to determine with any degree of certainty, a person's gender by the way they look."



What?

If this bill passes, don't blame the sponsor.  Blame the trannies.

video

And finally, Yvette Comier, the woman the woman who was kicked out of a Planet Fitness in Midland, Mich., for refusing to stop complaining to other patrons about a transgender woman using the locker room is now suing Planet Fitness for damages.

The popular gay blogs are calling Comier transphobic because she the law firm representing Comier has ties to a hate group.

Uh-huh.  What's going to happen when someone does a background check on Carlotta?

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

look no further

Until recently, Looking is an American comedy-drama television series about a group of gay friends living in San Francisco. It premiered on January 19, 2014, on HBO. 

According to news reports, HBO cancelled Looking but has ordered a special to serve as its series finale.

Why bother? The show, which centered around a gay man named Patrick and his "tight-knit group of friends as they explored San Francisco in search of love and lasting relationships" was by far one of the most boring television programs ever in the history of boring television programs.  One is more entertained watching a traffic news cam than this nonsense.

It's hard to imagine this show was critically acclaimed. By who or whom?  Let's find them, round them up and shoot them.  No, I'm serious as a heart attack.  If the intent was to show gay people are ordinary and bland, then all it did was to prove having television shows featuring gay and lesbian people is/was not only a bad idea but a genre whose time has come and gone.

And that sucks because other TV shows and networks have done a way better job featuring gay and lesbian characters. For example, ABC Family, a basic cable television network once owned by Pat Robertson, made history recently when two thirteen year old characters shared a same-sex kiss on the show "The Fosters." Ex-gay and Anti-gay writers have called the scene child pornography. 

Had this been on HBO, no one would have cared or noticed.

zoey tur becomes part of the problem, not the solution

Good news: After a week of silence, this week Zoey Tur resurfaced.

Bad news: It seems that Tur is playing cafeteria politics or activism, picking and choosing her allies and thus becoming part of the trickle down effect as a result of their competing to prove themselves the most oppressed.

Tur appeared on Real Talk With Mark & Lynna, an internet based talk program hosted by a trans man (Mark Angelo Cummings) and a trans woman (Lynna Arielle) to talk about the so called transgender blacklash currently taking place at her expense as a result of her controversial remarks on CNN and World Of Wonder.

Not that there's anything wrong with that; but Mark, who also claims to be a victim of the so called transgender backlash has also done his share on inflicting abuse on others who do not share his views.

And now we have Zoey Tur, who has apparently let the fame and celebrity that came with becoming 'America's first transgender news reporter" go to her head.

To be fair, because i can, this is a problem that affects lots of LGBT people, especially the ones who become popular thru their blogs, appearances on TV and Radio, or social media activism.

But here, rather than simply addressing the reality of lgbt infighting, an ongoing phenomena which is shamed, dismissed, and ridiculed by the elitist contingent, and a disease or affliction that doesn't discriminate, instead she wants to play silly games at the expense of others, especially those who aren't as fortunate as she is.

For those who might be wondering if I'm mad because Tur did not respond to my request for comment or confirmation, the short answer is no.  

The longer answer is, I've stated here repeatedly i do not want to become an blogebrity or celebrity because of my views and concerns. I've also said I don't want having this blog turn into another Towleroad, GoodAsYou, or Joe.My.God; that would then mean having to put up with socially dsyfunctional commenters, the kind who encourage infighting and abuse that motivates LGBT activists and bloggers.

But what I hate the most is the elitism that occurs, particularly among gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people who gain notoriety and or popularity, either thru their gender identity/expression or sexual orientation.  If I'm not mistaken, Tur, who used to be a straight man attracted to women, is now a trans woman attracted to men.

Tur can legitimately claim to be a victim all he wants, but at the end of the day, Zoey Tur is a member of a dangerous special interest group forcing their will on the majority. And Tur is no better  or worse than her enemies trying to oppress her.

About the interview, it was mostly pretty bland, if not overwhelmingly boring.  The good part comes at the 28 minute mark when Dawn Ellis, a writer for The Advocate and someone who claims to be a journalist calls into the show and attempts, rather poorly, to pick a fight with Tur. The incident brings new meaning to fail journalism.

Check Out Current Events Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with Transition Radio on BlogTalkRadio