CPAC Crowd Boos Woman For Telling Truth

At last week's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), conservative Mona Charen participated in a panel on the #MeToo movement. She wrote about the experience in a New York Times op-ed:

"...[T]his time, and particularly in front of this crowd, it felt far more urgent to point out of the hypocrisy of our side: How can conservative women hope to have any credibility on the subtext of sexual harassment or relations between the sexes when they excuse the behavior of President Trump? And how can we participate in any conversation about sexual ethics when the Republican president and the Republican Party backed a man credibly accused of child molestation for the United States Senate.

I watched my fellow panelists' eyes widen. And then the booing began."

Charen shares that uttering this truth was freeing, in a way, even though she was dreading the reaction. By her account, it seems as though the women on this CPAC #MeToo panel were perhaps supposed to be there to bash liberal feminist hypocrisy, rather than to truthfully acknowledge and critique the conservative men who have actually raped, harassed, and molested women and children.

What I want to note in relation to this event is that Trump ran on a message that he was a courageous truth-teller in a world gone mad with truth-repressing political correctness. Yet, at CPAC, when confronted with the reality that the Republican Party, evangelical Christians, and conservatives now openly aid and abet the political careers of sexual predators, possibly one of the most Trump-friendly crowds to assemble in the US couldn't handle it.

I remain convinced, as ever, that the real aim of modern-day conservatism is: "truth, unless it's inconvenient to white male domination."

As always, "deplorables"  and "half" was probably too kind.

Related, and regarding Donald's recent claim that he would've run into Stoneman Douglas High School unarmed to stop the shooting:

The only reason Donald Trump would run into a school building is if he thought there would be girls in various states of undress.

— Fannie Wolfe (@fanniesroom) February 26, 2018

Rightwing Roundup: Correcting the Anti-Gay Industry

1) Correcting the Anti-Gay Industry

Last week, I wrote about the anti-gay industry's lies about pending Hate Crimes legislation that would include sexual orientation, gender identity, gender, and disability to the current Hate Crimes law. Specifically, Focus on the Family, American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, Exodus International, WorldNetDaily, Digital Network Army (via email blast), Illinois Family Institute, Traditional Values Coalition, and Liberty Counsel have claimed that "paraphilias" like bestiality and necrophilia (sex with dead people) are "sexual orientations" that will be protected under the Hate Crimes law. Numerous bloggers and media sources, including political fact checker PolitFact, have pointed out this lie.

Well, via The Box Turtle Bulletin, the Illinois Family Institute has issued a correction admitting that they "mistakenly stated that the American Psychiatric Association’s actual definition of 'sexual orientation' includes paraphilias. The APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) classifies 'sexual orientation' as heterosexual, homosexual, and bi-sexual. The 547 mental disorders called 'paraphilias' specifically involve non-human objects, physical pain, or unwilling partners as in pedophilia. IFI apologizes for the error."

The IFI claims that it made a mistake, and given that many of the people who run such organizations are not mental health professionals, I don't find that hard to believe. I can fathom how maybe their mistake is the result of ignorance, as opposed to hatred. I applaud the IFI for owning up to its error. But still, and this comment is mostly aimed at the larger organizations who have not admitted their error, check your facts people. The IFI made an error and admitted it, but what accounts for the fact that so many other organizations have parroted this inaccuracy? Are we to believe that all of these various family values organizations genuinely don't know the difference between "sexual orientation" and "paraphilia"? Do these organizations not have editors or competent professionals on their staff to check facts? Isn't it responsible to check out statements you hear before promoting and echoing them, or does accuracy not matter when ScArY StOrIeS are to be written? If I remember correctly, a pretty common shared American Value is honesty. The public deserves truth and the members of these organizations should demand as much.

Also, via Truth Wins Out, Exodus International has silently corrected the definition of "sexual orientation" on its website albeit without publicly acknowledging its error. I suppose that's better than nothing. However, the folks over at Truth Wins Out make a good point about Exodus International, an organization that promotes "freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ":

"How is it that an organization of Exodus’ longevity, which claims to teach churches the 'Truth' about sexuality, could not tell the difference between orientation — an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward others — and what the APA calls 'recurrent, intense sexual urges, fantasies, or behaviors that involve unusual objects, activities, or situations and cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning'?

Why has Exodus refused to tell its churches and supporters that the organization has been lying about such basic information?"

Will Exodus release a correct statement and admission of error? And, when will these other organizations issue corrections and admissions of error?


2) And, Another Correction

In similar news, the family values group Cornerstone Policy Research recently claimed to have surveyed "every New Hampshire household" and found that "64% supported marriage to only one-man one-woman." Focus on the Family then parroted this claim that "marriage defenders" then echoed and echoed. (That reminds me, although "marriage defense" blogger Chairm has managed to author scores of comments and blogposts in the past 7 months since he promoted the dishonest hate-group-authored Mass Resistance piece on the "harm" of same-sex marriage, I hope he will find time to justify this previous parroting of inaccuracy as promised, even though he considers my request to be "trivial").

Well, via Good-As-You, Gary Schneeberger from Focus on the Family admitted that they made an error and that it was "not accurate to say that all households in New Hampshire responded to the survey questions." Well, of course. To anyone with a halfway objective mind, it would be preposterous to believe that researchers could survey every single household in a state. Sadly, some of these organizations don't give their own members, or the discerning public, very much credit. What's even more sad is that some people have accepted this ridiculous claim without question.

Not only that, but it's been pointed out that the survey question was highly misleading. Specifically, one journalist observed that it asked:

"This survey concerns a new law the state Legislature just passed that will affect marriage in New Hampshire. Do you agree that marriage between only one man and one woman should be legal in New Hampshire?"

Well of course people are going to say yes to that. One can, after all, believe that marriage between "only one man and one woman should be legal" while also believing that same-sex marriage should also be legal. The placement of the word "only" in the question is confusing, misleading, and erroneous. If the researchers wanted to know whether people believed that only a marriage between a man and a woman should be legal, they should have just asked "Do you agree that only marriage between one man and one woman should be legal." However, their current question is an entirely different one. Word placement is everything.

You know, when those working in the anti-gay industry prove time and time again to be incompetent and/or error-prone, you start to question their real motives as well as the accuracy of the rest of their claims regarding the Great Harms That Will Befall Society If Gay People Get Married! The American people aren't (all) suckers, and that's why the dominoes are falling.

Well done Box Turtle Bulletin, Truth Wins Out, and Good-As-You! Well done. Correcting lies and errors that the anti-gay industry puts out could be full-time jobs for many people.

Rightwing Roundup: Fun in the Townhall Echo Chamber

Sit back and relax, ladies and gentlemen, it's time for a Townhall.com edition of Rightwing Roundup.

1. "Deep Thoughts" With Professor Adams

How does one know that one is preaching to an anti-gay choir?

When one can "write" an article by merely posting the job description for a LGBTQQ Community Coordinator, with little commentary of one's own, because the inanity of it all supposedly just speaks for itself.

Seriously, I'm pretty sure Mike Adams just got paid to copy and paste a job description and pretend to apply for it in order to entertain his like-minded readership. Is the silliness of a gay-friendly position at a university really just self-evident to all people? Was the professor too busy to write a real column? Can some people really find nothing else to "critique" in the world other than long gay acronyms?

Unfortunately, Professor Adams is a bit late to the party if he thinks he's the first person to find humor in the LGBTQQLMNOP-bit. The thing about we overly-sensitive politically correct gays is that we find humor in mocking ourselves. The thing about loving, Christian conservatives is that they seem to most often find humor in mocking other people.


2. Klassy Christian Criticism

A loving, Christian fellow by the name of John Hawkins has offered some "constructive criticism" in his article entitled "A 'You Suck' List." In this article, Hawkins offers up some advice to those "idiots who are too dumb to ever take it." For instance, his ending tidbit to the "mob" protesting Proposition 8 in California? "Stop acting like perverts in those public parades, you weirdos." This fellow's article was such a hit at Townhall, it seems, that he also wrote a sequel.

Now, at this point I have to wonder if Mr. Hawkins knows the proper meaning of "constructive criticism." While John here might be sincerely intending to help the many "idiots" he is offering advice to, generally constructive criticism comes from a place of compassion from someone qualified to give it. While there is no universal definition for "constructive criticism" virtually every article I've read on the subject distinguishes "constructive criticism" from negativity and, first and foremost, mentions that it should be fair, skillful, and solicited.

Unfortunately, Mr. Hawkins' "criticisms" are none of these things. It is mean-spirited rhetoric dripping with sarcasm meant solely for an audience of like-minded believers. Klassy.


3. The Bear Calling the Grizzly Black

In his article entitled "Gays and Atheists Joined at the Lip," a fella named Burt Perlutsky manages to kill two of Townhall's un-favorite birds with one stone. Of both "gays" and "atheists," he writes:

"Basically, they erect straw men, put words in their straw mouths, and then engage in battle with these creatures they’ve cobbled together with spit and glue."

The one thing mildly interesting about this article is that Mr. Perlutsky manages only to do precisely what he accuses "gays" and "atheists" of: erecting straw men and blowing them down. After claiming that there is no such thing as homophobia, he claims that the gays supposedly argue that "those who don’t fully support the gay agenda are most likely latent homosexuals." In actuality, this idea comes from scientific research showing that compared to non-homophobic men, "only homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli." Although this response could suggest latent homosexuality, researchers also acknowledge that the increase in penile erection could be a function of anxiety.

Where Mr. Perlutsky goes wrong here (other than the fact that his entire article is like his very own game of Anti-Gay bingo) is that he disregards this scientific evidence and suggests that this homophobes-are-latent-homosexuals idea is a figment of hyper-active gay imagination. And while I would certainly agree that the latent sexuality of a homophobe is largely irrelevant, what Burt further does is ignore every valid criticism that the gays make of bigots and presents the homophobes-are-latent-homosexuals idea as though that is our only critique of bigotry, intolerance, and inequality.

Sounds like a strawman to me. Further item of note: Townhall readers gave this article 5/5 stars.

Rightwing Roundup: War on Christmas/Christians Edition

1. Persecuted Christians

Perhaps by now, you've seen the "Prop 8 Musical" featuring Jack Black:

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

The gist of this video, if you aren't able to watch it right now, is that there are many biblical rules that we no longer follow so it's strange that so many Christians cherry-pick biblical passages to justify the condemnation of homosexuality.

With hyperbolic predictability, the professional Christian set is declaring this video to be a gross violation of their human rights. The ChristianNewWire, for instance, claims that the musical "defames Christ, mocks Christians and distorts the teaching of the Bible." Gary Cass, of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission, says "Jack Black should remember from his days at Hebrew School that homosexual acts aren't funny and are roundly condemned in the Bible."

First off, I think Mr. Cass missed the point. Nowhere did the musical say or imply that "homosexual acts" are funny. What this video does is use humor to observe how the Bible states many rules, such as those who use the services of fortune tellers shall be stoned to death for instance, that are absurd and obviously a product of the culture and times in which the Bible was written. Many people today view condemnations of "homosexual acts" as just as archaic as many other Biblical laws and view Christians who use the Bible to condemn everything gay as doing nothing more than using alleged moral "truth" to justify their own bigotry.

What is far from funny is that people have used, and continue to use, Biblical condemnations of homosexuality to persecute and oppress gay men and lesbians.

For instance, in the YouTube comment section following the Prop 8 musical, some Christians have expressed similar sentiments with respect to the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality. For instance, "doubleslottedflaps" voices his frustration at the musical's Biblical errors in his own special way:

"eat shit and burn in hell you faggot ass jack black i hope you get aids you cocksuckin piece of shit fag,you dont know shit about the bible you devilish faggot ass blasphomous jackass black,the people voted and thats that ,else we should sue to have barak (insane)obama the fuckin house nigger or is it nigga replaced with hillary,faggots are haters,they HATE the opposite sex and are very violent when they dont get there way,hurray for the passage of prop 8,go mormons (morons ?) go,yes on prop 8"

(emphasis added)

And that's the problem with the Christian Persecution Complex. In our eyes, we are criticizing those who use the Bible to justify their bigotry because it often leads to violence and hatred against the LGBT community. In the eyes of some Christians, however, such criticism is unwarranted "mocking."

You know, last week I wrote about the National Organization for Marriage's defamatory "Above the Hate" campaign. I would take that campaign more seriously if it expressed an iota of concern about the hate that so many of their allies express with respect to gay people in the name of the Bible. Sorry, but when it comes to "persecuted" Christians, I can't help but to be reminded of a young boy who calls people names and then runs and hides behind his mother's skirt claiming that people are being "mean" to him when he's criticized for being a bully.


2. Who's the Fascist Now?

In the weeks leading up to the 2008 election, "marriage defenders" complained that some of their Yes on 8 signs were being stolen. Well, now it appears that someone- a "persecuted" Christian perhaps- has stolen an atheist "Winter Solstice" sign that was erected next to a nativity scene outside of a state building in Washington. (It was later reported that the sign was eventually found in a ditch).

Some Christians believe that the sign is all part of the War on Christmas (tm) and that it doesn't belong next to a nativity scene. (For some background, the atheist sign touted the much older yet less-well-widely-observed Winter Solstice). A similar campaign was instituted in Washington DC, much to the chagrin of conservative Christians. CNN reports:

"In Washington, D.C., the American Humanist Association began a bus ad campaign this month questioning belief in God.

'Why believe in a God?' the advertisement asks. 'Just be good for goodness sake.'"

Of this campaign Roberta Combs of the Christian Coalition responded "We will ask our millions of supporters to call the city of Washington, D.C., and Congress to stop this un-Godly campaign."

See, that's the thing about these "persecuted" Christians. It's their world and the rest of us are just living in it. Obviously, there is an inherent tension between atheism and Christianity in that each adherents of each claim the other viewpoint to be false. Yet, the great thing about our nation is that people have the right to express competing viewpoints in the public sphere. For the Christian Coalition to want to restrict the free speech of an organization that has a different viewpoint than its own is, well, fascist.

Contrary to what some believe, that Christians observe Christmas does not give them a monopoly on the winter holiday season. Nor does it constitute a "war" on Christmas for other people to observe their own holidays.

Rightwing Roundup: Oogedy-Boogedy Edition

1. You May Not Be Gay But You May Be Next

Why many of us angry about Proposition 8's passage is because, in our view, a bare majority voted to take away the rights of a minority group and circumvented the judiciary branch of our government. While some "marriage defenders" believe that the majority should always rule at all times, our democracy operates under a different concept- one in which an informed-about-things-like-constitutional-rights judicial branch exists to protect the rights of minorities.

Recognizing this principle, Terrance over at Pam's House Blend has reported that the NAACP has joined 4 other civil rights organizations in petitioning the California Supreme Court to have Proposition 8 overturned.

According to the brief [PDF], Proposition 8 has "set a precedent that could be used to undermine the rights of racial minorities." Specifically, "If a simple majority vote could carve out an exception to heightened scrutiny for one minority group, the rights of any group entitled to strict scrutiny under the California Constitution could be imperiled.....[If the initiative process] were to permit the use of simple majority politics to oppress historically disfavored minorities in such a fashion, then we would all be less safe."

In other words, as Terrance writes, "You may not be gay, but you may be next."

This is an interesting argument. Given our nation's past dealings with minority groups, it is not inconceivable that a small misguided majority would vote to take away the rights of a small group of people.

On that note, simple majority rule with respect to civil rights is problematic on so many levels. How many of those who voted for Prop 8 believed the innuendo and lies put out by the Yes on 8 campaign? How many of the pro-Prop 8 voters really didn't have a strong feeling either way but just marked "yes"? How many were misinformed about what the proposition would do? How many of these folks were just on power trips, basking in their power to take away people's rights behind a private curtain? How many really just don't like gay people?

Perhaps some Christians, whites, and heterosexuals would have a better understanding of what we're talking about it if they'd take a minute to imagine waking up in a nation in which they are in the minority. I would hope that then they would be a little nervous of the precedents they have set.



2. Ooogedy-Boogedy

Conservative Obama-endorser (no it's not an oxymoron anymore) Kathleen Parker caused a small ruckus in the extreme rightwing blogosphere by acknowledging what liberals have known for years. Namely, that extreme fundamentalist Christians are ruining the Republican party. She writes:

"Three little letters, great big problem: G-O-D....

To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh....

Which is to say, the GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows. In the process, the party has alienated its non-base constituents, including other people of faith (those who prefer a more private approach to worship), as well as secularists and conservative-leaning Democrats who otherwise might be tempted to cross the aisle."

Now, I grew up in a very "red" area of the country. To many libertarian-leaning Republicans I know, they are feeling marginalized from the current Bible-beating extremist incarnation of the Republican party that has co-opted what it means to be a "real American. My friends believe in Jesus and all that, but what drew them to the Republican party was military service or their belief in a small government. I think there are many people like this. And, I'd bet that if John McCain would have chosen a Goldwater Republican as his running mate, as opposed to his preaching-to-the-choir appeal to the Christianist base, come January he'd be the lucky inhabitant of 9 houses rather than 8.

But alas. It's their problem. They have 4 years to try to fix it.

On a random note, I love the phrase "oogedy boogedy" in describing some of the Christianist demagogues. Given their tendency to exaggerate virtually any social ill as a harbinger of The Destruction of Society and Total Collapse of Civilization, I think the label is apt.


3. $Our Town$

Speaking of oogedy boogedies, the American Family Association has recently released a new DVD entitled "They're Coming to Your Town." I bet you can guess who the "they're" refers to. Yep, that's right ThE hOmOsExUaLz. Apparently, this family-friendly Christian DVD "presents a look at how a handful of homosexual activists infiltrated the Eureka Springs, Arkansas government and changed the very moral fiber of the city."

Fun times.

Upon seeing this ad, I immediately wondered what offense these "homosexual activists" in Arkansas committed other than, you know, existing. Apparently, the AFA has serious issues with gays and lesbians serving their cities and legally participating in their government. You know, when Christians participate in the democratic process their service is honorable and admirable. When gay people do the same, it's sinister. That's why groups like the AFA have to make videos about how to stop it from happening.

Yet, not only does the AFA take issue with gay and lesbian representation in the political process, they also take issue with homosexualists bringing revenue into "their" "Christian" cities. In their own words, the AFA reports that the homosexualists began to "offer a 'registry' where homosexuals could register their unofficial 'marriage.'" And now, dun dun dun, "City Council member Joyce Zeller said the city will now be promoted, not as a Christian resort, but a city 'selling peace, relaxation, history, and sex.'"

You know, I knew that the American Family Association's version of Christianity was opposed to sex, but I didn't know that it was also opposed to cities promoting peace, relaxation, and history. How bizarre.

$$Purchase your copy now$$ Or, as the AFA recommends:

"Show it at home, in Sunday schools, Bible studies and community groups. Purchase your copy, or a 5 pack to share with others today, and spread the news - They're Coming To Your Town."

Okey-dokey. We'll get right on that.

Rightwing Roundup: Theocrat Edition

1. Suggested T-Shirt For Focus on the Family

I successfully defended marriage from homosexualists and all I got was this lousy layoff.

That's right. After "pumping money" into the Prop 8 battle, James Dobson's Focus on the Family has just announced another round of layofffs.

While I don't wish financial disaster on anyone, it is not surprising that during these economic times, donors might prioritize making contributions to organizations that actually address real, tangible problems that families face as opposed to made-up wars against an already-maligned group of people.


2. Loving Christian Quote of the Week

Earlier this week I wrote about the immature name-calling that some "marriage defenders" have engaged in after winning the Prop 8 battle. Jennifer Roback Morse jumps on this unfortunate bandwagon saying:

"The Leftist gay lobby are [sic] a bunch of sore losers. It is not as if the Religious Right is sweeping the country, imposing itself on everyone....We won. You lost. Get over it."

I suppose if this were all a mere game, this sort of in-yo-face touchdown-dance gloating might be appropriate. However, since we're talking about serious matters of constitutional rights, equality, and oppression, I just really find these sentiments unbecoming and bullying.

And really, that bit about the Religious Right not trying to impose itself on everyone, seriously made me spit up a little. I don't know where Morse has been lately but the "Religious Right" certainly has been trying to impose itself on everyone. I mean, that's pretty much what it does best.


3. A "Heavenly" Amicus Brief

This next piece has been circulating throughout the LGBT blogosphere because it shows just how unhinged some "marriage defenders" are.

Honestly, I think it's refreshing when "marriage defenders" put all their cards on the table and are completely up front about wanting our nation to be an extremist Christian theocracy. The person who wrote this document [PDF], one of the most bizarre Amicus briefs ever in the history of ever, is one such person.

Writing on behalf of the "Almighty Eternal Creator" in the "Kingdom of Heaven," one Mariette Do-Nguyen submitted a brief to the California Supreme Court claiming that she is "fully God and fully human in nature" and therefore has super special insight into how God thinks same-sex marriage is wrong. In true theocrat fashion, she then requests the court to "comply with the laws of the Almighty Eternal Creator." Included are amateurish photo-copied pages of the Bible with underlined passages along with the woman's psychiatric evaluation.

To give her some credit, it was a good call to include the psych evaluation but still...what a bizarre brief.

I mean, I can't help but to feel sorry for this woman. Judges see a lot of incompetent and odd pro se briefs, but I would love to see a judge's reaction to this. I just think that this brief is so completely unhinged that it will do nothing but hurt the "marriage defense" side.

I know this brief is odd, but it is actually pretty similar to the arguments that many "marriage defenders" make: Homosexuality is against God's will. Therefore, same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed. Kudos to this woman for actually admitting it in court.


p.s.- Remember when Jennifer Roback Morse said "It is not as if the Religious Right is sweeping the country, imposing itself on everyone."

Yuk yuk.

Rightwing Roundup: Muslim-Baiting, Anti-Elitism, and Separatism

1. Joe McCarthy Called and He Wants His Tactics Back

In case you haven't heard, Republican Colin Powell has endorsed Barack Obama for president.

What I find most important about Powell's statement is that a prominent politician has finally said what should have been said 2 years ago. Namely, to paraphrase, even if Obama were a Muslim, so what? Intimating that Obama is a secret Muslim is insulting to Obama, who is a Christian, and to Muslims. It has been clear during this election season that Muslim-baiting is the new Red Scare. Obama is forced to deny that he's a Muslim as though there is something inherently bad about being a Muslim, thanks to the All-Muslims-Are-Terrorists meme that circulates among the conservative crowd.

This sort of religious intolerance is shameful and has no place in the free nation that we say we are.


2. The Age of Mediocrity

The McCain campaign has an interesting tactic with respect to denigrating smart people. Apparently, it would be very bad for our country if smart people were in charge of things. It would be much, much better if Joe Six-Pack were in charge.

This anti-elitism is an interesting phenomenon among the right in general. Previously, I've written about Laura Ingraham's anti-elitism tirade of a book Shut Up and Sing. I re-read my review and remain convinced that the word "elite" is, basically, the new pejorative term for anyone with whom the Republican elites disagree. By framing liberals, progressives, and Democrats as "elites," Joe Six-Pack mistakenly comes to believe that those in charge of the Republican party are the ones looking out for the little guy.


3. A "Gay" Idea

Apparently, Chicago is creating a separate (but equal?) "gay-friendly" school for kids who have been harassed because of their sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation. Although the intentions appear to be good, I believe that this separate school is problematic. Kids can be brutal during the high school years, especially towards those who are gay or thought to be gay. When I was in high school I was way too scared to be "out." And, I do remember multiple occasions where I was verbally harassed because people thought I was gay. While racial epithets were not tolerated at my school, gay ones and gay jokes were par for the course. Even these days, I regularly hear teenagers say "That's so gay" meaning something along the lines of "That's stupid."

Rather than removing innocent gay people from these schools, I think the far better solution would be to turn schools into safe spaces where intolerance is not tolerated or condoned. Discipline kids for calling people "fags." Explain to them why it's not okay to say things like "that's so gay."

And, most importantly, remove bullies from schools rather than removing gay kids from the "normal" schools. The harassers are the ones who create the unsafe space. Merely removing gay and lesbian kids from an unsafe situation will not give bullies the opportunity to address their sexual prejudice and abusive behavior. When the "fags" and "dykes" leave, these bullies will inevitably find other people to pick on. Then, they will graduate (or not) and become ignorant, bigoted members of society.

Rightwing Roundup: Propaganda Pete, Bush, and Palin

1. A Convenient Omission

As he usually does, anti-gay head of the Illinois-based Americans For Truth [sic] About Homosexuality Peter LaBarbera recently ventured all the way to California to cover the fetish-themed Folsom Street Fair. As of October 1, 2008, in fact, 7 out of the 8 articles on AFT[sic]AH's front page were devoted to covering this fair which caters to a small segment of the LGBT community. (I'm not providing a link, but here's a screen shot):



Mr. LaBarbera frequently attends events like the Folsom Street Fair, events that are attended by a minority of mostly gay men, some lesbians, and others. His schtick is to then present these events as though their attendees are representative of all gay men and lesbians. His tattle-tale site conveys the message that gay people are depraved and that being gay is all about public displays of (gay male) nudity, "sexual anarchy," and "public sex." The implication is clear: Because gay people are so depraved, filthy and immoral, gay people should not have equal rights. To even tolerate them is an assault on "Christian" values.

Of course, the reality is that many gay men and lesbians live pretty mundane lives. Sure, maybe we'll go to the pride parade during the summer, but it's certainly not par for the course for us to just start randomly having "public orgies" in the middle of the street or to even see such things! And, even if some members of our community attend fetish fairs like Folsom that cater to sado-masochist sub-cultures, so what? Heterosexuals also attend fetish events and that certainly doesn't mean that they do not deserve equal rights. And it certainly doesn't mean that all heterosexuals have these fetishes. If LaBarbera has an issue with the activities that occur at the Folsom Street Fair he should protest that fair, not present it as some sort of "expose" that is reflective of all gay people. That's just dishonest.

Logical people know this. That's why I wonder what LaBarbera's motives are. He claims that his organization is about exposing the "truth" about the "homosexual activist agenda," but one presenting such a one-sided distortion of gay men and lesbians cannot by definition ever present the truth.

See, in his zeal to cover some events catering to the LGBT community, Peter LaBarbera selectively forgets to send correspondents to cover less socially-malignant events like the Matthew Shepard March Against Violence that took place in Chicago last weekend. I searched and searched his website for "incriminating" photos of the March but all I found were a few articles mentioning Matthew Shepard. And, all of these articles were not about the peaceful LGBT-led march against violence, but rather, they were about how Matthew Shepard was killed not because he was gay but because he was a druggie.

This historical revision is a common, but erroneous, argument that anti-gays use to try to deny that violence is ever inflicted on gay people on the basis of sexual orientation. The anti-gay so lacks compassion that he believes all that of this liberal hullabaloo about Matthew Shepard and "hate crimes" is just some sort of conspiracy to discredit the anti-gay movement.

It is not surprising, given the fact that LaBarbera selectively "exposes" the LGBT community and denies that sexual orientation-based hate crimes exist, that he fails to mention events like the Matthew Shepard March. After all, why cover LGBT events that remind his Christian readers that LGBT people really are sometimes victims of hate-based violence? Doing so would go a long way towards humanizing gay people. And we certainly can't have that, can we Peter?


2. Heckuva Job

President Bush is not a usual target of my bloggings. His place as one of the worst presidents in the history of our nation, I think, is already cemented. To the extent that McCain is desperately trying to distance himself from Bush, this given has made the president irrelevant to the 2008 election. Personally, I'm just hoping the man doesn't decide to touch anything else before he leaves office.

Yet, if only for the sake of history, it is worth noting that President George W. Bush has hit 70% disapproval. This is historic because, in the entire history of the poll since 1938, a president has never been so disapproved of.

It sort of makes you wonder who the people are who actually approve of the job he's done.


3. Bush III?

The thing about George W. Bush is that I think he was twice elected on the basis of his Average Guy appeal to voters, his extremist Christian beliefs, and his opportunistic use of the "family values" card. More than any other presidential or vice presidential candidate, these characteristics remind me of Sarah Palin. Many McCain/Palin supporters lurve their Sarah Palin because she's an "Average Jane" who just happens to be an elite politician, a Young Earth Creationist(!), and a devout family woman.

I know Palin's not running for president, but in my opinion she'd be a wee bit too close to the presidency if McCain is elected in November. And scawrily, I think that a Sarah Palin presidency would be as equally disastrous as the George W. Bush presidencies have been. Simply put, I have nothing against the woman personally, it's just that nothing she's said up to this point has convinced me that she would have the capacity to address the economy, manage two wars, and lead our country in a way that is thoughtful, informed, and nuanced. At least 5 well-known conservative writers and pundits have publicly voiced similar feelings, in fact.

That's why I wished people would realize that voting for a candidate to lead our nation just because s/he believes homosexuality is wrong, ridicules "elites," hunts moose, or would be fun to get beer with just doesn't make sense. These factors are simply irrelevant as to whether that person would make a good, intelligent leader.

Rightwing Roundup: End of the World Edition

1. The Original Version is Better

Rightwing churches across the nation are not happy that Katy Perry's catchy tune "I Kissed a Girl" has become such a hit. Previously, I highlighted one bright rightwinger who suggested that this song has lesbian "undertones." On perhaps the most humorous church sign ever, one pastor decided that the implications for this song were even more sinister. The loving bold-faced Christian message displayed on his sign:

"I KISSED A GIRL
AND I LIKED IT
THEN I WENT TO HELL"

While it's not quite as catchy as Perry's tune, I'm sure with a little effort the church thespians can work it into the next church musical.


2. They Were Right?

In a previous Rightwing Roundup, I discussed the rightwinger's remarkable propensity for believing that various social phenomena signify that the world is on the verge of imminent collapse. It turns out, however, that the world may very well be on the verge of imminent collapse after all.

European scientists have created a massive particular accelerator to study the Big Bang. One scientist is concerned that this accelerator could produce tiny "black holes that could suck up anything around them -- including the whole Earth"! Eeep!

We should definitely make a sign for this.

THEY ACCELERATED ATOM-THINGIES IN ORDER TO ADVANCE SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE OF THE BEGINNINGS OF OUR UNIVERSE
THEN WE ALL WENT TO HELL


3. So, It's Not Gay Marriage Then?

In other alarming-yet-unhelpful news, a bipartisan Weapons of Mass Destruction group has released a report calling the threat of a nuclear, chemical or biological terrorist attack "the single greatest threat to our nation."

Sally Kern and other anti-gays take note. Your gay-baiting past-time might soon become outdated. Maybe just maybe you'll advocate for us all to come together as a nation to actually address actual threats to our nation rather than threats invented for political purposes.

Rightwing Roundup: "Mavericks," "Pride," and Female Political Bloggers

1. Raising the Discourse

Yesterday, I gave liberal and Democrat writers a hard time for obsessing about Sarah Palin's daughter's pregnancy and urged them to, instead, focus on substantive issues. Yet, when Sarah Palin herself had the opportunity to raise the discourse she failed miserably.

Palin's acceptance speech was a collection of barbs, one-liners, and soundbites that lacked substance and specifics on the issues. For instance, after touting her cred as a "hockey mom" (which, I suppose, is the female politician's equivalent of "family man") she leveled this barb at Obama: "I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities." Hardy-har-har, right? Not so much. Community organizing, of course, is the antithesis of elitism and is how disenfranchised populations make change when their politicians have failed them. Unless you're as well-off as the sea of rich white faces at the Republican National Convention, you're nothing but a sucker if you chuckled along to that little "joke." Then, Palin lied, "Our nominee doesn't run with the Washington herd." Except, of course, that their nominee voted with President Bush 90% of the time.

That's okay. Maybe in the McPain world, "maverick" doesn't mean what we think it means. Maybe voting with the Republican Elite is "mavericky" and organizing with the working class is "Elite." Who knows.

What is clear is that those who believe Palin truly represents "change" in politics, solely on the basis of her appealing personal narrative, are deluding themselves. The only thing unique about Palin in politics is that she's a woman in a good ol' boys club. The Obama campaign was right on when it said that her speech, which was written by George Bush's speechwriter by the way, "sounds exactly like the same divisive, partisan attacks we've heard from George Bush for the last eight years." Obama responded aptly when he said:

"This is what they do. They don't have an agenda to run on. They haven't offered a single concrete idea so far in two nights. They spent the entire two nights attacking me and extolling John McCain's biography."

Seriously. I hope those who voted for George W. Bush because they fell for his Crusading-"Cowboy"-Who-Would-Be-Fun-to-Grab-a-Beer-With Act take note that the McCain/Palin "maverick" ticket is really offering us a repeat of the past 8 years.

Good luck with that, suckas.


2. Happy Heterosexual Pride Days, Everyone!

On to more happy news, who else thinks it's hilarious that the odd "Straight Pride Parade" had a whopping turn out of.... 0? I hope all you heterosexuals out there can make it through another oppressive year without your one day of celebration.

But seriously, I guess the "organizers" didn't get the memo that every day is straight pride day and that fact, therefore, necessitates a month to celebrate "Gay Pride."

Some people are so clueless.


3. Not a Mommy Blog in Sight

The Political Voices of Women site has compiled, and continues to compile, a list of women political bloggers. (Yeah, this isn't exactly rightwing news, but I'm guessing rightwing female political bloggers are and could be included on this list).

This list is an answer to the question "Where are all the women political bloggers?" Apparently, we're all over the place. Oftentimes, however, political writing from a woman's perspective is seen as less "objective" than political writing from a man's perspective. This is especially true of feminist bloggers. Those of us who regularly write about feminism, sometimes have the experience of someone informing us that that the feminist perspective is not as "objective" as analyzing politics through the (invisible male-centric) lens of "objective" thought.

Neat.

What is truly revealing is the large number of men who have either commented or emailed me saying that they didn't notice a particular male-centric aspect of society until I wrote about it.

Rightweeeeeeng Roundup: Townhall Edition

For this week's edition, I ventured over to the rightwing hellmouth that is Townhall.com. It's always fun times over there, folks.


1. Minor Details

Phyllis Schlafly, who I previously wrote about here, starts us off with an article called "Title IX Tied Our Hands At the Olympics" in which she blames our "lack" of competitiveness in China to, dun-dun-dun, Title IX and those trusty scapegoats teh feminists. Of Title IX "quotas" that supposedly eliminate men's sports, Schlafly writes, "The effect of this injustice hit us hard in Beijing."

What's that you say, dear readers?

Didn't we win the total medal count?

Why yes. Yes we did, actually. We won the Olympics. Go us.

That's why I think Schlafly is a little confused.

In what universe is a country's "hands tied" win it wins the Olympics, earns 110 out of 958 possible medals, and in which only two other countries remotely came close to this count (China- 100, Russia- 72)?

If I were a cynical person I'd say that Schlafly is trying to make a debate about Title IX relevant again by using the Olympics as a platform to spew anti-Title IX propaganda. In which case I'd say "Sorry Phyl, Title IX's not going away. Get over it." Yet, her desperation to demonize Title IX is topped only by her dishonesty. Of men's sports being eliminated she writes,

"The Americans who won in Beijing typically did so in spite of Title IX. Michael Phelps, who won eight gold medals (about one-fourth of all U.S. gold medals), trained privately and didn't compete on a college team."

Schlafly's implication is clear: Michael Phelps trained privately and didn't compete in college because Title IX eliminated his college team! Of course, the real reason Phelps doesn't compete on his college team is because he lost his amateur status and is, therefore, ineligible for his college team under NCAA guidelines. In the real world, as opposed to Schlafly's invented universe, Phelps served as an assistant coach for the University of Michigan which does, actually, have a men's swimming team and would, undoubtedly, be thrilled to have him join it if he were eligible. You think Townhall or Schlafly will so enlighten their readers of that little tidbit? Nope. Me neither.

(Oooh. And I'm sure Phyl would hate this, but speaking of those pesky women in the Olympics, Dorothy Surrenders has a delicious roundup of how some out lesbian athletes fared in Beijing. *Sigh*.... Um, I mean, back to serious important things.)

Where was I? Oh yes. Secondly, let's just play make-believe and go along with Schlafly's little theory. Let's say Michael Phelps didn't get to swim in college because of Title IX. Let's pretend the reason he had to train privately was because Title IX eliminated his swim team. Okay...... He still went on to win a record 8. fucking. gold. medals. anyway. That sort of evidence kind of entirely counters one's arguments that Title IX "tied" our hands in the Olympics or that Michael Phelps almost didn't win his gold medals because of stupid dumb cumbersome Title IX.

So, the gold-medal question is whether Phyllis Schlafly is a liar or just an ignorant bleeting woman with a platform? Surely, Schlafly isn't just leeching onto an American hero in order to advance her anti-feminist jihad, right?


2. A Fun Quiz

Conservative commentator Dennis Prager has created an interesting litmus test as to whether a person is a liberal or conservative. It's easy. Gauge your response to Prager's scenario in which the owner of a business discovers someone painting graffiti on his business:

"Do you think that this guy should have shot these people spray painting graffiti on his shop?"

If you believe that maiming (but not killing) someone writing graffiti on your property is an acceptable response, as Prager does, you're a conservative. If not, you're a liberal.

It really is that simple.

Prager spends the bulk of his article explaining why it is justifiable for civilians to shoot "taggers." And he also takes Andrew Sullivan to task for presenting such an opinion as though such a position is self-evidently wrong. Well, I don't think Prager's opinion is self-evidently "wrong" per se. I just think it's an extremely exaggerated and fearful response. My main issue with vigilante Batmen shooting "taggers" is that the punishment does not fit the crime. Under our rule of law, property crimes generally do not warrant the infliction of bodily harm as punishment.

Yet Prager believes that graffiti is oh so much more than a mere property crime. For, "the moment one sees graffiti, one knows one has entered a largely lawless and violent environment where thugs terrorize innocents" and thus, a property owner is entitled to shoot the "thug." Am I reading this right? Is Prager really saying that "taggers" deserve to be shot by civilians because they're probably violent criminals anyway? Okay, but still. We can't go shooting "taggers" just because we think they're probably also violent criminals. We have pesky issues like due process and trials and presumptions of innocence with respect to those other crimes. To suggest that "taggers" don't deserve these protections is really sort of radical.

Why then, is this sort of vigilantism justified, under Prager's view? Graffiti, he says, is "...an assault on society, perpetrated by pathologically narcissistic lowlifes bent on undermining the foundations of higher civilization."

Wow.

After reading that, it hit me. Is there any social phenomena disliked by rightwingers that does not "undermine the foundations of higher civilization?"

I mean seriously. Why aren't extreme rightwingers able to just say "you know, graffiti is wrong," something most of us could agree with, without raising it to some sort of ridiculous apocaplyptic level? I think many of them truly believe that they are the last guardians of imminent social collapse. Thus, I created a little litmus test of my own. The FUHC Test- Foundation Undermining of Higher Civilization Test:

Recognizing that the world is not always black and white, a rightwinger's extremity exists along a gradation from 1 to 20 depending precisely upon how many of the following phenomena s/he, not just disagrees with, but sincerely believes "undermine the foundations of higher civilization": Gay Marriage, Pornography, Abortion, Birth Control, Euthanasia, Teletubbies, Harry Potter, Non-Christian Faiths, Feminism, Women's Right to Vote, Veganism, Inter-Racial Marriage, Sex Outside of Marriage, Sex for Fun, Masturbation, Gay Sex, Title IX, Affirmative Action, and Graffiti.

But seriously, I feel small tingly bits of compassion for those who are so extremely paranoid and fearful that the only way they know how to construct arguments is by using such extreme Armageddon-language. Perhaps society will always have these Chicken Littles forever squawking that the end is nigh and that the world is black and white and doom and gloom and on the verge of imminent collapse. The refrain of Great Harm is a tired one, after all. Ultimately, upon hearing someone react so disproportionately to stimuli he disagrees with, it is hard to take that person seriously.

If Dennis Prager could get a grip and say "You know, graffiti is wrong because it damages other people's property" we could talk. But to say that all of those who write graffiti are "bent on undermining higher civilization" is bordering on the delusional. I'm sorry, but it really is. And I don't blame Andrew Sullivan one bit for not seriously engaging the argument.

Rightwing Roundup: Lesbian "Terrorists" and Fires

1. Hyperbole of the Week

When you see a headline like "Lesbians Terrorize San Diego Community" you definitely have to read the accompanying article. I mean, I for one get scary images of hoards of evil lesbians wielding machine guns and wreaking havoc through a city. You know, sort of like Heath Ledger's sociopathic Joker blowing up hospitals and planting bombs on boats just for the fun of it.

Yet, upon reading that very headline and associated commentary at some guy named James Hartline's blog I realized there was a profound disconnect between his reporting of the San Diego Dyke March and the reality of what occurred that day. His "objective" eye describes this dyke march as a "terrorist" event in which "some" parents "were forced to keep their kids off the streets so that they would not be exposed to these lesbians carrying obscene signs." Ohhhhh yes. Not only that but it was a "nightmarish event" full of (vague and unnamed) "disgusting activities." It was a "vile event" and "perverted escapade" in which women professed to love their "boobies!"

[WARNING WARNING This article includes links to photos of happy lesbians and families! WARNING WARNING]

Peruse the pictures that Hartline links to and see it all for yourself. Try not to laugh, though. See, I predict that anyone with any grasp on reality will quickly realize that Hartline's descriptions of the parade are slightly unhinged.

When I look at the pictures I, for one, see smiling toddlers walking hand-in-hand with their mothers. I see women dancing in the sun, laughing. I see women holding up placards peacefully walking through the streets. I see women on bicycles and women in wheelchairs waving to the cameras. In fact, the only thing I saw that was remotely "nightmarish" about the day's activities were the photos of the two white mom-aged women awkwardly dancing in the sun.

But seriously, when a person has to so profoundly exaggerate and vilify lesbians to advance his anti-gay "Christian" crusade, I can only think that he has no legitimate way to do so.

But I suppose we knew that already, didn't we? And by the way, is anyone else as sick as I am of the gays as terrorists "metaphor"?

James Hartline, get a fuckin' grip.


2. Must Have Been Those Lesbo Terrorists

In "breaking" news, Fred Phelp's Church of God-Hates-Fags caught on fire a few days ago. The Phelps' clan apparently believes the fire is a case of arson. In fact, the good reverend posted a really Christian message on YouTube saying that the fire was "no doubt the work of fags or fag sympathizers" and he has requested that the US Attorney General investigate the fire as a hate crime!

Oh, but in less exciting news, the fire marshall who investigated the fire said "it didn't appear that accelerants were used to ignite the fire."

Sorry, Fred. Sometimes bad things just happen to bad people.


3. That's All

Hi, dear readers. I just got back from womantopia. Thus, while Rightwing Roundup usually has at least 3 featured pieces of rightwing asininity, the above two are all I can muster right now. It's all about easing back into the "real" world in a healthy manner.

Peace.

Rightwing Roundup: Guns, DADT, and "News"

1. People who carry guns in their purses and then forget that they are, in fact, carrying a deadly weapon are probably a bigger threat to our nation than gay people.

Yes, I'm referring to anti-gay Sally Kern. Who was just caught by security for the second time for trying to carry a gun into the state Capitol building. Her excuse? And I quote, she "forgot" it was in her purse.

LOL, oopsy-daisies.


2. Just Keep Talking

Earlier, I wrote about military "expert" Elaine Donnelly's wacky testimony regarding the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) policy. A transcript of the full testimony can be found here (PDF). It's not to be missed. Some highlighted statements include:

"[F]orced cohabitation in military conditions- which offer little or no privacy- would force persons to live with persons who might be sexually attracted to them." [emphasis in original]

The minor default of this argument is that hellloooooo gay people already are in the military living with "persons" who they might be sexually attracted to. Whoop-dee-doo.

And then, citing the 1974 case where a woman was allegedly assaulted by a "group of lesbians," Donnelly also writes:

"[The allegedly assaulted woman] predicted that if professed homosexuals serve in the military 'An assault like the one I endured would be 'de-criminalized,' on the grounds that the victim is a 'homophobe' if they won't just 'relax and enjoy' being sexually assaulted."

What a crock of shit. I'm sorry, but that's just simply a big fat crock of shit. Thousands of lesbians and gays currently serving in the military, and the best Donnelly can do to "prove" that gays and lesbians will assault other soldiers is to cite a case from 19-flippin-74?! She should be ashamed of herself. Besides, as members of Congress noted when they heard this ridiculous statement, the military would punish homosexual conduct the same way it punishes heterosexual misconduct. Get a grip.

In all seriousness, Donnelly's argument against gays in the military hinges mostly on her "forced cohabitation" argument. To that argument I can only say the following. If the readiness of our military is so severely compromised because some of its members have to endure the awkwardness of living with people who might, might, be attracted to them, then our national security is already in serious trouble.


3. A Quick Thanks

Today, I would just like to give kudos to "LGBT news correspondent" Peter LaBarbera for running a website that serves as a phenomenal aggregate for breaking LGBT "news." That website? The Americans for Truth [sic] About Homosexuality.

Some journalists bravely go to scary places like war zones, but our favorite "journalist" takes it a step further by bravely wading through "extremely vile content" in the media, frequently going so far as valiantly attending and reporting back on LGBT events such as the "tragic" female-to-male transgender conference in Washington DC, the "gay pride" parade in Chicago, and Folsom Street Fair in "Sodom-by-the-Bay, San Francisco."

Thank you Peter, for bravely going where hundreds of thousands of people have gone before.

RightWing Roundup: Theocracies, Confused Bigots, and Vegans

1. Another Reason We Don't Want an American Theocracy

What I find ironic about Christian dominionists is that they use the American principle of freedom of religion as a tool to attempt to prevent other religions from flourishing in our nation. They see no problem with the concept of theocracy. Such a form of government is, in fact, their ultimate goal. Thus, their main objection to oppressive Muslim theocracies in the Middle East is not that these nations are theocracies, but rather that it's the "wrong" "god" via the "wrong" religion that's in charge.

The comparisons between fundamentalist factions of the three major Abrahamic faiths are numerous, in fact. What immediately comes to mind is the common condemnation of homosexuality and the oppression of women all, of course, which hinge on the alleged word of a "god."

Thanks but no thanks.

A most intolerant tenet of Christian dominionism is to have a legal system calling for the execution of homosexuals (via stoning or burning) in accordance with "biblical law." The Middle Eastern nation of Dubai doesn't go that far, but here is a little taste of what we could look forward to in an American theocracy:

The pseudo-Western nation of Dubai, part of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), recently detained 17 foreigners who "allegedly displayed homosexual behavior in malls and other public places." Unfortunately for these men, "outward homosexual behavior" is banned in the UAE.

The only question I can muster at this situation is what sort of "homosexual behavior" did these men exhibit in a shopping mall? Ridiculing someone's shoes?

Good times.


2. "Genital Drives"?...... Weird.

Marriage defenders often like to joke that gay people are gay because they're just "confused." What follows sort of demonstrates that that claim is sort of a projection. Straight people obsessed with gay sex come off, actually, quite confused themselves. I think that the idea of two men together so flusters, enrages, or arouses some of these anti-gays so much that they lose all ability to think rationally.

Recent winner of the Box Turtle Bulletin's LaBarbera Award, Arizona Republican candidate for Congress Joe Sweeney confounds us all in an interview:

"Q: So, again I’m going to ask the same question I asked Mr. Chewning. Basically, a secular reason why two consenting adults of the same sexual orientation should not be married or allowed to be married.

Sweeney: Well because it’s addictive and it creates social chaos, social problems.

Q: Just out of curiosity, what would you base that on?

Sweeney: Well I would base that on the fact that people come together with their genital drives, and they either bridle their genital drives — and that’s what a marriage contract is supposed to be about — or they just go around acting like they can go whoring down in Nogales or prostituting anywhere they want, they can do whatever they want with their bodies. They don’t have any higher responsibility other than their own gratification. Hedonism, which is maximizing pleasure over pain. And that’s what happens at Nogales every night when they go down there whoring and causing all the social strife. Now they got those kids in the whorehouses in Nogales coming up here to Tucson to be anchor babies. You know I’ve witnessed that stuff.

Q: Okay, so there’s another question following that. You guys both have said marriage should be between a man and a woman. What about a transgender person who used to be a man, now became a woman and wants to marry a man.

Sweeney: Well, I’ve got a friend like that. And… you know… That’s what he wants to do with his social activity and his life, his social functioning, that’s up to him, you know? But to say that we have to validate that, the rest of society has to validate that kind of behavior, you know, let him conduct his behavior the way that he’s going to conduct his behavior. You know, I don’t agree with prostitution in Mexico, but they have laws that say it’s a way of functioning, socially functional society five feet the other side of the border that allows that to happen. We think the repercussions of that totally outweigh the responsibilities.

Q: Just out of curiosity, what do you think that homosexuals have to do with whorehouses in Mexico?

Sweeney: Oh, I don’t know. We’ve got the only Southwest weekly newspaper, we’ve got more homosexuals down here than we’ve got a lot of other kinds of people.

Q: Again, what does that got to do with whorehouses in Mexico?

Sweeney: Well, what happens is you get what I call a hedonistic attractiveness to do anything and everything with your genital drive . ….

Q: Again, are the homosexuals frequenting the whorehouses?

Sweeney: I wouldn’t be surprised. Anything can happen around this town. We’ve got gay bars down on Fourth Avenue …"

It's certainly an, um, interesting tactic to talk about "homosexuals," prostitution in Mexico, and "genital drives" as many times as you can within the confines of a incoherent hot mess of an interview hoping some of those concepts stick.

What a confused man.


3. Who Are You Calling a Vegan?

Speaking of the Peter (LaBarbera), our favorite anti-gay was recently outraged that the mainstream media failed to cover his "pro-family" boycott of the McDonald's headquarters he held in Oak Brook, Illinois. Apparently, McDonald's is too pro-gay or some shit for the Peter's liking.

Yawn.

While only a handful of people attended the Peter's latest boring anti-gay event, a lot of entertaining things are going on his latest hissy fit of an article describing it. For one, he uses one of my favorite words- "bawdy"- to describe Chicago's Pride Parade. Secondly, he refers to the mainstream media as the "secular media," as though the media would be less biased if it were "Christian."

What really takes the cake, though, is this statement:

"The people involved in this boycott of McDonald’s are good family people — not vegans, America-hating leftists, or some other fringe group."

That was way harsh, Peter.

I can see how "Christians" might want to demonize so-called leftists and other fringe groups. But what's so bad about vegans?

I mean, I know some of them can be self-righteous moralists who make you feel guilty for biting into that delicious juicy Quarter Pounder, but I'm pretty sure that many vegans are also "good family people" too.

RightWing Roundup: Lindsay, "Wrestling," and DADT

Sometimes, you have to take step back from the immersion into RightWing Asininity. That's sorta the theme of today's Roundup.

1. I Was Hoping For Natalie Portman But I Guess This Will Do

Okay, I don't know that the stories about Lindsay Lohan's recent birthday speech actually confirm her lesbian status or her alleged romance with another lady (wait, does anyone even care about this?) but if the rumors are true, I'd like to take a non-RightWing moment to congratulate the happy couple.



Too gay to function?


2. It's All About Channeling Our Urges Into Acceptable Behavior

Professional "wrestling" has always been bizarre to me. Back where I'm from, a lot of guys love watching ripped, pretty men in tights and make-up pretend to fight. They seriously get really into it. That's why I like to think of pro wrestling as soap operas for men: Drama, suspense, and action all wrapped up in macho blue-colored wrapping paper to make it acceptable for men to like.

Humorously, like the idolization of male athletes in general, pro wrestling is also especially homo-erotic. Small contingents of grown men and adolescent boys are absolutely and inexplicably enthralled by the "sport" to the point where you sort of think they have unknowingly have crushes on their favorites wrestlers. With all this in mind, I could only laugh at one recent Arkansas "cage fight." If the audience members weren't already standing at attention, one utterly hilarious homo prank certainly got a rise out of them:

"The day after the June 5 Texarkana bout, Fort Smith's convention center hosted 'Blue Collar Brawlin.' Fort Smith police Sgt. Adam Holland said organizers told him a character named 'Straight Dave' would goad a planted audience member into the ring for a fight.

The two men would then wrestle, rip away some of their clothes and share a brief kiss reminiscent of one between Baron Cohen and Will Ferrell in the film "Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby....

The audience, as well as local fighters drawn to take part in the show, became enraged. 'It set the crowd off lobbing beers,' Holland said. 'They had beers in plastic cups. Those things can get some distance on them actually.'

Holland said it took officers about 45 minutes to clear the convention center, as the two actors sprinted away through a specially set-aside tunnel."

Apparently, two sweaty men rolling around together in a cage is for fightin' purposes only!


3. Don't Ask Don't Tell Update

A nonpartisan group of four retired officers from different branches of the military studied the effectiveness of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (DADT) and recently issued a public report (PDF). Based on its findings (below), the group made several recommendations, including the repeal of DADT.

"Finding one: The law locks the military's position into stasis and does not accord any trust to the Pentagon to adapt policy to changing circumstances

Finding two: Existing military laws and regulations provide commanders with sufficient means to discipline inappropriate conduct

Finding three: "Don't ask, don't tell" has forced some commanders to choose between breaking the law and undermining the cohesion of their units

Finding four: "Don't ask, don't tell" has prevented some gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members from obtaining psychological and medical care as well as religious counseling

Finding five: "Don't ask, don't tell" has caused the military to lose some talented service members

Finding six: "Don't ask, don't tell" has compelled some gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members to lie about their identity

Finding seven: Many gays, lesbians, and bisexuals are serving openly."

Interestingly, "not a single expert who opposes gays in the military was willing to meet" with the study group. I wonder if this unwillingness to participate in a non-partisan study had to do with these experts' unwillingness to go on the record, and down in history, as continuing to support DADT as late as 2008. Or, perhaps, these experts had a hunch that attitudes about gays in the military had shifted since 1993 and didn't want to put their name on some sort of faulty "unit cohesion" argument and go down in history as being on the wrong side of history.

RightWing Roundup: "Homos" and Hitler

1. Don't You Hate it When Being Disrespectful Makes You Look Like an Ass?

I have long maintained that calling people by their preferred names and/or labels is an important step in promoting civil, respectful dialogue. It's a small concession that one can make at little or no cost to oneself. However, some anti-gay groups stubbornly insist upon calling gay people "homosexuals." I have explained before why many gay men and lesbians find the term "homosexual" offensive- namely because it invokes pathology.

Yet, we often find the most staunch anti-gay and marriage defense groups using the term anyway. For instance, OneNewsNow, which claims to bring us a news from a "Christian perspective," automatically replaces the word "gay" with the word "homosexual" in any of the Associated Press articles it runs.

In a priceless piece, Right Wing Watch has captured something that has become the laughingstock of the internets:

"In addition to blocking traffic from websites they don’t like, it looks like the web-geniuses behind the American Family Association’s OneNewsNow site have a few other tricks up their sleeves, such as automatically replacing any use of the word 'gay' with the word 'homosexual' in any of the AP stories they run … leading to instances in which proper names are reformatted to meet their ridiculous standard, such as this article about sprinter Tyson Gay winning the 100 meters at the U.S. Olympic track and field trials in which he is renamed 'Tyson Homosexual.'"

Check out Right Wing Watch's screen shot of this tiny error. The original article is here. Obviously, OneNewsNow has since edited the piece.


2. Oh, the Irony!

In one of the more ironic argumentum ad naziums I've seen, anti-gay blogger "On Lawn" warns us that John, a gay rights advocate he likes to argue with, is a little too much like "someone from 20th century history" whose name rhymes with Gaydolf Titler. After first saying that his article is "tongue in cheek" yet paradoxically also "gravely serious"(!) Lawn even goes so far as quoting the "First they came for the Jews" poem.

Oh dear! Leftist Gender Warrior, (wo)man your battle-station!

Seriously though, if "Lawn" were more credible I'd be offended on my friend John's behalf. But alas, I can only laugh and say, "mkay 'Lawn' if you say so." This "Lawn" character, after all, regularly vilifies the gay community, mis-uses virtually every study he reads to support his anti-gay opinions, and falsely accuses his adversaries of a wide range of evil and grossly exaggerated motives. Why is all this ironic? It means that under "Lawn's" criteria as to what makes a person similar to Hitler, he pretty much embodies those very characteristics.

That being said, I have to ultimately disagree with "Lawn's" criteria as to what makes a person Hitler-esque (a-der). The main reason being that I think the key traits that make a person resemble Hitler are being a totalitarian dictator and acting out a belief that millions of minorities and other "undesirables" should be exterminated. I mean seriously, get a grip.

Besides, it's sort of a fact that a Hitler/Nazi analogy sort of cues you to stop taking a person seriously.


3. Hitler Again?!

"Lawn" also recently compared me to Hitler. Why? Because I believe the preposterous notion that gay people have historically been victimized. Hitler, too, believed that he was victimized. Therefore, I am like Hitler. Obvi.

"Lawn's" tactics remind me of the example in my grade school logic book in which a propagandist accused a vegetarian of being evil because, dun-dun-dun, Hitler was a vegetarian too!

What is most funny, ironic, and sorta sad is that our Master of Projection fits, once again, his own Hitler criteria. For, he firmly believes that heterosexuals are really the ones who are oppressed at the hands of oppressive homosexuals. Again, I don't agree with his Hitler criteria, I just think it's funny that "Lawn" meets his own definition of what makes a person like Hitler.


4. More Hyperbole!

Speaking of Hitler analogies, remember this gem of a Pat Robertson also (in)famous Nazi allusion:

"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history."--Pat Robertson, 1993 interview with Molly Ivins

It really is too bad that evangelical Christians these days have to go to gas chambers, "showers," and concentration camps. What is happening to them now is totally not in the least bit different at all compared to what happened during the Holocaust.

But seriously. Unless you're describing something that is genuinely horrible and close to equivalent, does everyone get how ridiculous Nazi/Hitler analogies are?

Take it down a notch. I mean, someone really needs to do a study on why some anti-gays are so prone to exaggeration.

RightWing Roundup: The End is Nigh, Tyrannies, and Scared Men

1. Exaggeration of the Week

The anti-gay Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) submitted a petition asking the California Supreme Court to stay its recent decision until after the November elections when voters decide whether to amend the California state constitution to ban same-sex couples from marrying. [PDF] Their reasoning?

"Permitting this decision to take effect immediately... risks legal havoc and uncertainty of immeasurable magnitude."

and

"Great public harm and mischief, as outlined herein, will result from permitting same-sex 'marriages' [sic] for a five-month period, only to later change the law by returning marriage to its traditional definition."

Those are strong words. Accordingly, I scoured the ADF's petition for the specific reasoning process and evidence for this alleged havoc, uncertainty, great public harm, and mischief. Disappointed, all I found was (a) an explanation as to how some clerks would issue marriage licenses after the decision and some would not, (b) an irrelevant lecture on how a civil rights issue should be decided "by the people," and (c) an exaggerated statement on how it would be super-duper confusing and wasteful if gay people were allowed to marry for a few months but then were no longer able to marry if the constitution was amended to ban same-sex couples from marrying.

That's it? That is what will cause Great Harm to society? Puh-lease.

See, this petition is a prime example of how anti-gay groups are unwilling to concede any victory no matter how large or small to gay people. With obsessive zeal, they do everything in their power to prevent us from having even a small taste of equality. A state-recognized marriage, after all, doesn't even guarantee a same-sex couple the numerous federal rights, benefits, and protections of marriage that opposite-sex couples enjoy. But groups like the ADF don't even want us to have that, do they?

What is also notable is that whenever anti-gays speak of the future harm that gay marriage will cause, it is always in vague unquantifiable terms. Now that the California Supreme Court has ruled against this petition, let's all grab a cold beverage, sit back, and watch all this havoc, mischief, uncertainty, and great public harm not occur.

Yet, playing a psychic and predicting with absolute certainty that some future harm is bound to happen can be a pretty good bet if one knows how to mis-use statistics. To make an anti-gay's prediction of harm "true" all one has to do is note any social ills that have occurred after gay marriage was legalized. Then, side-stepping the fact that Correlation Does Not Imply Causation, an anti-gay can say something like "Oh dear, California began experiencing a drought mere days after same-sex marriage was legalized in the state. Harm has occurred here. Now I'm not sayin' one caused the other but the relationship definitely needs to be looked at." Okay, sweet. But those of us who operate in reality will keep advocating for real solutions to problems.

Sometimes, I think that the intellectual standards of being an anti-gay are so low that it sorta makes me want to join the other side, where I would surely be some sort of genius.


2. The People Totally Have No Voice

Speaking of the California case, now that same-sex couples are allowed to marry it's time to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex couples from marrying. Proving that (phew!) the people actually do have a voice and the only tyranny in our nation is that of the majority, the California Secretary of State has approved a ballot initiative allegedly signed by 1.1 million Californians to put the civil rights of gay men and lesbians up for popular vote. Specifically, the measure to be voted on would amend the state constitution to "provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Let's watch how this most pressing issue to ever face our nation plays out in the '08 presidential elections!


3. The Will of Who?

In non-gay news, the Vatican has recently announced that women taking part in ordinations will be excommunicated. Darn

According to the article:

"The church does not feel authorized to change the will of its founder Jesus Christ," Amato said in an interview prepared for Vatican Radio that was released to reporters. The reference is to Christ's having chosen only men as his Apostles.

Thank you feminist religious scholars for giving us the tools to realize that the more likely explanation for the ban on women priests has more to do with the will of the men in charge than it does with the will of any supreme being.

Also, coming soon to a Breakable Bible Rule near you: How Christ also chose only Jewish men as his Apostles.


4. Who Are you Calling RightWing?

This is totally not a bit of rightwing news, but my latest addition to Stuff Lesbians Like is up.

RightWing Roundup #6: Conservative Hate, Slippery Slopes, and Paranoia

1. Being Peaceful is, Like, So Immature

If you remember, my biggest qualm with Washington University in St. Louis' granting of an honorary degree to Phyllis Schlafly is not because she espouses anti-feminist views, but rather because she perpetuates an angry, divisive, us versus them, simplistic way of thinking that distorts feminism rather than informs. So, kudos to the students, faculty, and family members who peacefully and silently protested WUSTL's conferral of the degree. When a speech honoring Schlafly was read:

"about a third of the graduating students draped in the school’s green and black robes turned their backs to her, along with some faculty members sitting on the stage behind her. Many family members in the audience also took part.

Three faculty members made the extra point of walking off the stage and then turning their backs from the audience."

Unlike other protests where students have disrupted free speech, silent protest is a respectful way to demonstrate that you oppose a person or his/her views while still letting that person have a platform. Phyllis Schlafly, unsurprisingly, takes another view. Of her detractors, she said:

"I’m not sure they’re mature enough to graduate."

And the culture of hate lives on!


2. It's All a Slippery Slope, My Friend!

Now that same-sex marriage is legal in California, we can all take a deep breath and focus on our true ultimate goals of legalizing polygamy, man-on-goat marriage, and incest. Okay, seriously. After the California decision, we can pretty much cue a revival of these shrill slippery slope "arguments" from those opposed to gay rights. It's Only a Matter of Time (TM).

Legal Commentator Dale Carpenter gives a good rundown of arguments as to why same-sex marriage does not, contrary to the scare tactics and misunderstandings of others, automatically lead to polygamous nuptials. One of the strongest arguments, I believe, is that "there is nothing in principle that necessarily leads from the recognition of a new type of monogamous union (same-sex unions) to the recognition of polygamous unions."

A-der.


3. When Your Inaccuracy and Paranoia Automatically Discredit You

Speaking of the slippery slope, read what the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) says is the true goal of same-sex marriage advocates:

"Homosexual activists are now beginning to openly admit that they don't want to marry just to have a normal home life. They want same-sex marriage as a way of destroying the concept of marriage altogether-and of introducing polygamy and polyamory (group sex) as 'families.'"

The TVC is a Christian organization and, because it's un-Christian to lie, what the TVC says must be true.

[Insert laughter]

But seriously, what's most funny about this TVC "fact" sheet is that most of the "homosexual activist" quotes they provide don't even support TVC's conclusion that the gays are really out to legalize polygamy. For one, the quotes are largely taken out of context. And secondly, since when is one person the spokesperson for any minority group? Sure there are gay people who have no problem with the legalization of polygamy, just as there are heterosexuals who have no problem with it, but they don't speak on behalf of "the gay agenda." No single person or group does.

But, of course, any thinking person knows all of this already. Contrary to its stated goal of empowering "people of faith through knowledge," TVC woefully misinforms its members- many of whom are probably decent, trusting people. Unfortunately, I think many Americans swallow the lies hook, like, and sinker. For instance, in the past "Reverend" Sheldon of the TVC has stated,

"A dangerous Marxist/Leftist/Homosexual/Islamic coalition has formed – and we’d better be willing to fight it with everything in our power. These people are playing for keeps. Their hero, Mao Tse Tung is estimated to have murdered upwards of 60 million people during his reign of terror in China. Do we think we can escape such persecution if we refuse to fight for what is right?"

That quote is uncannily similar to the paranoid comments of our blogger friend "Fitz" (two-time winner of Fannie's Room's Red Scare Awards) who never fails to discuss this alleged Leftist/Marxist conspiracy in virtually any comment or article he writes. Here, for instance, he "informed" me that Critical Race Theory has Marxist roots (a-der), dismissed the theory on that sole basis rather than substantively addressing it, and as if reading a TVC script he repeated the "50 million people [who] were slaughtered and countless more held in bondage" bit. Continuing to show that he's eaten up the Commies Are Under Your Bed theory of what's wrong with America, Fitz is also responsible for inspiring the Leftist Gender Warrior Chronicles, as he believes "leftist gender warriors" are pretty much ruining everything.

I don't write this to pick on the fellow. Rather, he's the perfect example of a real person who lets these vague conspiracy theories do the thinking for him. Pretty much whenever I hear someone "warning" us about the commies, the only thing red I see is the warning light telling me that I'm not dealing with a rational thinking person.

In short, it's unfortunate that groups like the TVC are seen by some as legitimate and trustworthy sources of news and information. No news source is completely objective, but when one regularly lies and misrepresents, that has tangible consequences as it affects the thinking of real people.