OneAngryCultist: Love Thy Neighbor

In a recent article on the Catholic Lane, retired schoolteacher and fellow, Seattle OCCUPY activist and writer Robert “Bob” Struble, Jr. writes about the ongoing problem of institutional child abuse. In his recent articles, Paterno, Pedophiles, Homosexuals, and Cowards; and Homosexuality/Pedophilia Correlation? Struble explores the recent Penn State sex abuse scandal in which assistant coach Jerry Sandusky had been found guilty of sexually assaulting or having inappropriate contact with at least eight underage boys as indicative of the moral decline of society due to the growing acceptance of homosexuality.

In the first article, Struble writes:

“Cultural commissars in the West urge citizens to worship at the altar of a much-touted triune ethic – tolerance, diversity and choice. This secular trinity militates against the influence of righteous indignation. It demands that people who express disgust at sexual sins be reprogrammed. Teach them to reconsider their negative attitudes. Show them that a tendency to look down on homosexual sex is wrong in itself. Brow beat them with the notion that such a critical attitude is condescending and judgmental.”

Putting aside any snarky reference I could make by invoking Matthew 7:1-5, there is a tendency in our culture to censor language that is perceived to be intolerant or that doesn’t respect the current values of diversity and choice and with good reason –this kind of language kills people!

 In a free society we do have the right to speak our minds, however the point at which this language and dialogue infringes upon the lives and liberty of others, I take serious concern.

In specific regards to Catholic social teaching, of which Mr. Struble should be well aware, sexual minorities, “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” Quoting the controversial archbishop of the airwaves, Fulton Sheen, Mr. Struble writes in agreement:

“Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience toward evil…, a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment…. Architects are as intolerant about sand as foundations for skyscrapers as doctors are intolerant about germs in the laboratory. Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles.”

Immediately following, in his own words, Bob additionally calls for an end to, “the prevailing idolatry about inclusiveness. We need, rather, to exhibit the militancy and intolerance that Jesus modeled when he cleansed the temple.”

So, Bob, tell us what you really think about the teachings of Jesus who enjoins all Christians to, “love your neighbor as yourself” (Mk. 12:31). Thousands of Catholics struggle on a daily basis with deep-seated problems related to being faced with having to choose between being true to themselves or their faith – I for one think they are owed at least a modicum of tolerance.

In his second article, Bob attempts to make the case that the child abuse case at Penn state is not only a moral problem, with which I fully agree, but correlates homosexuality to pedophilia – clearly something I cannot endorse. Pedophilia cannot in any way be related to homosexuality.

Pedophilia, as defined by the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems is “a sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age” and has nothing to do whatsoever with homosexuality even in cases where the abused are of the same gender of the abused.

In essence, pedophilia is a profound psychological and emotional disorder that cannot be correlated in any way to homosexuality in which relationships formed between same-sex partners are most often consensual in nature, as with heterosexual relationships, and based on positive regard for partners and are not typified by power-dynamic disparity as in the case of pedophilia.

Continuing, Bob predicts:

“That if social mores continue their downward trajectory, and society reaches such a level that NAMBLA’s agenda gets mainlined into the culture (as was its equivalent in ancient Greece and Rome); then the social climate will be about as libertine as we read about in pagan antiquity, when there was not much about pedophilia that scandalized people… 

At that point, homosexuals and homosexualists (their heterosexual backers) will not be compelled to conjure up so much anger or indignation whenever someone associates them with pedophilia. To the extent that all sex is considered good sex, no stigmatizing of deviant sexuality will exert enough social suasion to make people feel guilty about sexual relations with children.”

With all due respect, Bob, NAMBLA represents a socially deviant organization that I can guarantee the majority of the LGBTQI community along with the rest of society views with equal disdain as you yourself hold. Also, as something of a lay-historian myself, I’m profoundly disappointed in Bob’s anachronistic reading into the fall of ancient Rome which most historians now assess as being due to extreme economic pressures brought about by territorial expansionism and not about sexual excess and moral denigration. 

Historically speaking, same-sex attraction as understood in the ancient world was understood differently than it is today. While the cultural practice of pederastry as practiced to a small extant in Ancient Greece and Rome may be to some extant equitable with hebephilia – a related but different disorder from pedophilia and something against which Paul rails in Romans – there are cultural contexts which separate making such a drastic comparison to NAMBLA.

These two articles fail to pass biblical and intellectual standards of editorial excellence and are indicative of a small-mindedness that should not be confused with the great academic and loving religious values present in Catholicism, instead they appear to regurgitate the same old “gays are bad because the pope says so” arguments that contribute to a strong social stigmatization of the Church.

I humbly, yet frankly, ask the author to look deeper into the issues at stake as well as inform himself better on the Spirit of the Gospel as opposed to the letter of the law and enjoin him to make a sincere and loving inventory based on love of his sisters and brothers and cease depriving what he likely would not appreciate having deprived himself – the right to love their partners as themselves.

In Dedication to Ss. Sergius and Bacchus
(Aren't they cute?!)

Conservative Columnist: Allowing Poor People To Vote Is Un-American

Finally!  A member of the opposition finally says what's on every conservative's mind: we shouldn't let poor people vote because they will vote for candidates that support social programs.

The recent war on the right to vote at the hands of Tea Party-backed candidates and their cronies has reached a fever pitch in the past two years, with several states passing restrictive voter registration laws aimed at making it harder for poor and ethnic Americans to vote.  Much of this revolves on the necessity of presenting a photo ID at the polls, something many Americans below the poverty line simply don't have.

Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin passed one of these laws, and then proceeded to attempt the shutdown of many urban DMVs, making it well-nigh impossible for the economically depressed urban (and mostly Democratic) populations from getting the IDs necessary to vote.  Happily, he was thwarted at his efforts and those DMV offices remained open, but the fact remains that GOP leadership is attempting to disenfranchise liberal voters.

Until now, the party line for the anti-voting movement in conservative circles has been that these attempts are part of an effort to control voter's fraud.  Keep in mind, of course, that it's statistically more likely for an American to be killed by a lightning strike than to commit voter fraud.

 This guy thinks that poor people shouldn't vote.  I think he's a grade-A asshole.

Now, finally, one man admits the truth: conservatives believe allowing poor people to vote will enable candidates to "redistribute wealth"-- or as I like to call it, "funding vital and necessary social programs for the financially disadvantaged"-- and that, friends, is UN-AMERICAN.  Matthew Vadum, writing for American Thinker:

Registering them to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals. It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country -- which is precisely why Barack Obama zealously supports registering welfare recipients to vote.

A decade before the Motor-Voter law that required states to register voters at welfare offices was enacted, NAACP official Joe Madison explained the political economy of voter registration drives.

"When people are standing in line to get cheese and butter or unemployment compensation, you don't have to tell them how to vote," said Madison, now a radio talk show host in Washington, D.C. "They know how to vote."

And let me tell you why: If they don't have those social programs, they don't get to eat.  Of course the poor know how to vote.  In a time when a massive sentiment of shared sacrifice-- true shared sacrifice, where the rich pay the same taxes that the middle class does-- is sweeping the nation, how can the poor not vote for candidates who will ensure that Social Security, food benefits, Medicare and other social programs continue operating.  It is vital that they vote, or else their interests will not be recognized.  

Until America decides the same thing that Belo Horizonte, a city in Brazil, decided (namely, that food is not a commodity, but a human right), the social programs we have that keep people fed and give them access to health care are necessary for the survival of the poor. 

On a personal note, I must confess that I am biased on this topic.  I myself am quite poor.  I receive food stamps every month.  I receive the HIV medication that I need to live because of state and federally funded health insurance.  I am planning on starting school in the fall, and when I do so it's because I will be accessing government benefits that will pay my tuition.  This blog?  I don't get paid, other than the small donations my readers make to the PayPal donation button.  When I vote, I vote for candidates who will responsibly make sure that the money my country collects in taxes will be used for the benefit of of those that need help, to include myself.

And Mr. Vadum?  You want to take away my ability to vote?  I dare you to try and take it from me.  There is no more sacred right in this country of ours, and I, and the financially depressed millions of Americans, will fight to maintain that right with every fiber of our being.

So thank you, Mr. Vadum, for finally saying what we knew the conservatives were thinking all along.  Thank you for telling the truth!  My suggestion, for you, however, is to pay your damn taxes and not screw with my ability to cast a ballot.  It's probably better for you in the long run.

Ever Asked The GOP A Tough Question? You Might Now Be On Their "Watch" List

Here's a quick test, kiddies:  Are we in 2011, or 1984?  One can see why you'd be confused, as ThinkProgress has a shocking story of intimidation coming from GOP Congresspeople who don't like being asked tough questions during town halls.

Rep. Webster’s Winter Garden, Florida district office gave out a “Watch List” of six Floridians who had asked questions at Webster’s previous town halls. The list, with the header “For the Media,” included names, photographs, and questions that members of the media should ask them.

The Watch List itself doesn’t contain any information on who wrote it or where it comes from. The memos surfaced in Arkansas in connection to the office of Rep. Tim Griffin, and were traced back to Rep. Webster’s office.

With black and white photos that resemble police surveillance, some of them pulled from the individuals’ Facebook profiles, the memo is clearly meant to intimidate these six people and anyone else who might stand up and ask a question of their elected representative. At a Griffin town hall, staffers were handing out the Watch List to attendees, calling it their “homework.” Griffin staffers were also spotted taking photos and shooting video of attendees, creating an extra layer of intimidation.

So let me get this straight: people are asking Congresspeople to explain their policies and they are being photographed and intimidated for their troubles?  This is beyond disturbing.

This comes hot on the heels of the news that Paul Ryan, along with other Republican members of Congress, are holding town hall meetings during their recess that charge $15 to enter.  Think less town hall and more Kenny Loggins concert (cuz that's the most I'd pay for a Kenny Loggins concert, and it better be front row).  I mean, $15?  What, do they let you throw fruit at him? 

 Kenny Loggins is better than Paul Ryan.  Kenny Loggins can READ YOUR MIND.

Ryan's spokesperson claims it was the venue's decision to charge for access to the Representative, but keep this in mind:  Ryan and Friends are under heavy fire right now for their part in the debt ceiling crisis and the resultant S&P credit downgrade.  The people who care most about the economy right now?  Poor people.  People with no jobs.  That $15?  That would buy people like this several days' worth of food at a discount grocery store. 

Do you really think those poor people, the ones with the most to lose, can now go and address their problems with Ryan?

These recent tactics on the part of the GOP to avoid tough questions from their constituents are disturbing, not least because we have a representative government.  Once those representatives refuse to even learn their constituents' concerns (you know, in order to represent them?) that government is in a rapid spiral of failure.

Spider-Man Writer: "Glenn Beck Is An Idiot"

A couple GSWs ago, I mentioned briefly that Glenn Beck became outraged at Marvel's newest iteration of Spider-Man, blaming the biracial superhero's ethnicity on Michelle Obama.

One writer for Marvel, Brian Michael Bendis, who is writing the book, was overjoyed.  He responded that Glenn Beck was an idiot:

"We pissed off Glenn Beck, and that was amazing. I don't think Glenn Beck is an idiot because he's a conservative. I literally think he's just an idiot. Regardless of his belief system, he's just a lunatic. So that was hilarious. Not that I'm going out of my way to find ways to piss people like that off, but boy is it so nice when you do it by accident. I told my wife that she doesn't have to get me anything for my birthday because nothing will make me happier than this made me. I was happy all day.

*sigh* I dream of the day Glenn Beck blames me on Michelle Obama.

Glenn Beck Is Even More Disgusting Than Usual

Glenn Beck has left Fox News and is floundering about in radioland, but that doesn't stop the Tea Party favorite from being a shocking pig.

The world watched in horror Friday as news broke of a bombing-shooting spree attack in Norway, with anti-Islamic Christian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik claiming responsibility for the deadly and reprehensible mass murder of the 76 victims.

While some are extending their condolences to the families of victims and attempting to stand with Norway in solidarity, perennial douchebag Glenn Beck is taking this opportunity to compare the Utøya campers to Hitler Youth:

"Glenn Beck, the rightwing US broadcaster and Tea Party favourite, has compared those who were massacred on the Norwegian island of Utøya to the Nazi party's youth wing.

"'There was a shooting at a political camp, which sounds a little like the Hitler youth, or, whatever. I mean, who does a camp for kids that's all about politics. Disturbing,' said Beck on his syndicated radio show."

Not only is this a disgusting attempt to spin and politicize a national tragedy, the Tea Party-aligned Beck would do well to keep his mouth shut on political indoctrination camps.  After all, the Tea Party itself has one, teaching children Ayn Rand's drivel on socioeconomics.  From The Week:

What other principles will Liberty School impart?

"Timeless and incorruptible" ones, gleaned from the organizers' understanding of the Constitution and other writings of the founding fathers. And how will these lessons be taught? Here are some examples:
The gold standard is superior: The camp will have a store where kids can buy things using hard, wrapped candies (representing gold), or a paper currency that will lose its purchasing power throughout the week. "Some of the kids will fall for it," Lukens says. "Others kids will wise up." Max Read at Gawker finds "the idea of a My First Federal Reserve setting monetary policy... rather endearing." But Salon's Alex Pareene is confused: "What will children buy at the 'store' if they already have candy?"
"America is good": The kids will start by sitting quietly in a bare room (Europe), then progress through an obstacle course to a festive party room (the New World), where red, white, and blue confetti will be thrown about. Then the kids will have to clean up the confetti, to teach them that freedom requires work and responsibility. Maybe,says Gawker's Read, but I bet the smart ones "use their hard, wrapped candies to pay other kids to clean up the confetti."
Socialism is bad: The campers will blow bubbles from a communal tub of soapy water, then use squirt guns to shoot other kids' bubbles, tallying the number they pop. Next, they will switch to individual bubble containers, popping their own bubbles, to learn "that you can do a lot more with individual freedom," says Lukens. Huh? says Kirsten Boyd Johnson at Wonkette. Everyone knows "popping other kids' bubbles is way more fun than popping your own."

Dear Glenn Beck: just shut the fuck up already.

Today In WTF

This story has myself and just about everyone else scratching their head.

It's been federal policy for 30 years to deny men who have sex with men the ability to donate blood unless celibate. While that in and of itself is pretty much bullshit, you wouldn't think the Red Cross's irrational fear of HIV tainted blood (now almost a zero chance with modern testing methods) would affect straight donors.

One man, Aaron Pace, attempted to give blood at a donor center. However, the screener judged him to be a little fey and decided he "appeared homosexual" and could not donate. The thing is, Aaron is straight, no matter how effeminate he may appear.

"'I was humiliated and embarrassed,' said Pace, 22. of Gary [Indiana]. 'It’s not right that homeless people can give blood but homosexuals can’t. And I’m not even a homosexual.'

"Pace visited Bio-Blood Components Inc. in Gary, which pays for blood and plasma donations, up to $40 a visit. But during the interview screening process, Pace said he was told he could not be a blood donor there because he 'appears to be a homosexual.'

"No one at Bio-Blood returned calls seeking comment, but donation centers like it, and even the American Red Cross, are still citing a nearly 30-year-old federal policy to turn away gay men from donating."

While I'm not going to knock on the homeless, Aaron says it pretty succinctly-- why did he get turned away? Not only is that clearly a breach of the rules, but it enforces negative (and inaccurate) stereotypes. The Food and Drug Administration needs to stop treating gay blood as "icky" and start letting MSM help people in need.

FCKH8: Winning Them Over By Dropping F-Bombs

Do I think this is going to convince the opposition of anything?  No, but they swear a lot and prance around in underwear, then makeout.  Plus, if you "like" the video on Facebook, they'll donate money to marriage equality in Minnesota.  So watch it (NSFW) and then visit their Facebook page!

Watch the top five reasons to ban gay marriage:

Oh Hail Naw

The Family Leader, an ultra-conservative Christian group in Iowa, has created a document called "The Marriage Vow – A Declaration of Dependence upon Marriage and Family," which they have asked Republican candidates for President to sign.  It is a firm pledge to uphold "family values," and those who would sign the pledge must agree to the following principles (to include the banning of pornography).  From ThinkProgress:

Bitch, don't fuck with my porn.

– HOMOSEXUALITY IS A CHOICE: The preface to the pledge reads, “Social protections…have been evaporating as we have collectively ‘debased the currency’ of marriage…in complete absence of empirical proof, that non-heterosexual inclination are genetically determined, irresistible and akin to innate traits like race, gender and eye color; as well as anti-scientific bias which holds, against all empirical evidence, that homosexual behavior in particular, and sexual promiscuity in general, optimizes individual or public health.” Footnote 8 reiterates this notion.

– HOMOSEXUALITY IS LIKE POLYGAMY, ADULTERY, POLYANDRY: Vow 4 requires the candidate to pledge “Vigorous opposition to any redefinition of the Institution of Marriage…through statutory, bureaucratic, or court-imposed recognition of intimate unions which are bigamous, polygamous, polyandrous, same-sex.”

– HOMOSEXUALITY IS A PUBLIC HEALTH RISK: Footnote 4 claims that homosexuality causes shorter life expectancy and a higher probability of a long list of sexually transmitted diseases. The Leader has previously compared same-sex marriage to second-hand smoking.

– SEX IS BETTER AFTER MARRIAGE: Vow 5 requires the candidate to support the notion that “married people enjoy better health, better sex.”

– PORNOGRAPHY SHOULD BE BANNED: Vow 9 stipulates that the candidate must “support human protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy” and protect them from “seduction into promiscuity and all forms of pornography…and other types of coercion or stolen innocence.”

– REJECT SHARIA ISLAM: Vow 11 requires the candidate to reject Sharia law.

Right?  Kind of a stinker of a document, requiring signers to basically attach their name to some policies that would be extremely unpopular.  Who the hell would sign it?

You guessed it.  My favorite crazytrain, Michele Bachmann, has put her name on it and vowed to end pornography in the United States of America.

I've worked in numerous porn stores, and while I do not really watch pornography all that often (it gets old after a while and I'm too busy besides), don't fuck with my right to watch hot gay boning whenever I want.  Not only is this a booming industry (I thought you didn't want industry regulation, Mrs. Bachmann) that supports a LOT of employees in this country, there are far better industries to tackle that do a lot more harm.  

The idea that sex is bad is one I firmly reject.  I'm sorry that Mrs. Bachmann had to get herself hitched while she was a young chit of a thing, but the rest of us plan on having lots of fulfilling, happy sex for the rest of our lives.  And in my case, no, it probably won't be with just one person.  Banning pornography (but not, say, big tobacco or violence on TV) helps no one and certainly doesn't change the way people are going to fuck.

You know what?  I would love to peruse the browsing history of Mr. Bachmann's laptop and see just what he would think about a ban on porn.  

Gov. Brown Vetoes Fair Treatment For Farm Workers

This is seriously fucked.

Farm workers in California are a vulnerable group characterized by attacks from employers on workers attempting to form unions and subverted union elections, leaving naturalized citizens and undocumented workers in fear of losing their jobs.  The California state legislature has attempted to rectify the situation by passing the Fair Treatment for Farm Workers Act, only to be vetoed-- three separate times!!!-- by the Governator.  The act (via Daily Kos):

"would give California’s 400,000 farm workers an alternative to traditional, on-the-job polling place elections to decide on union representation. Under the new process, farm workers would fill out state-issued ballots in privacy.

"At present, many farm workers fear participating in union elections because the secret-ballot process established in 1975 in California has been subverted. Time and again, anti-union employers fire and threaten farm workers who want union representation. And, on election days growers watch farm workers casting their ballots helping ensure a 'No Union' vote."

So when 1,000 workers delivered the newly passed (for the fourth time) Act to Governor Jerry Brown, they were hopeful for a signature and improved working conditions.

Not so.  Brown followed Schwarzenegger's lead and vetoed the bill.

United Farm Workers president Arturo Rodriguez released a statement condemning the veto:

"What never changes in politics is power. Governor Brown accepted the arguments made by the powerful agribusiness lobby and rejected the cause of powerless farm workers."

Maybe Governor Brown should look at Georgia's mistakes and recognize that being cruel to farm workers is a failing strategy for a state with large agricultural interests.  Or does he want all those employees going elsewhere?

Chris Brown, Ever A Douche, Runs Afoul Of The Gays

As if beating up his ex-girlfriend wasn't enough, Chris Brown has now made a mistake that he should have perhaps avoided by learning from Tracy Morgan's example: running off at the mouth and drawing the ire of HRC and the gay community at large.

While speaking to a parking meter attendant, Brown noticed some paparazzi taking pictures of him (because that's what they do, Chris!  It's their job!) and got predictably angry.

"Ya’ll niggas is weak! Did ya’ll call them to try and film me? Ya’ll niggas gay."

HRC responded:

"Invoking words meant to demean gay Americans is just plain unacceptable. Chris Brown should know better. He irresponsibly neglected to recognize the impact of his words and the unacceptable message that it sends to couple the word gay with negative actions."

Of course, he Tweeted a weak apology, but at this point, I am so over Chris Brown.  Who gives a shit that he apologized?  He seems a waste of space.  

GLAAD Supports AT&T Making Tons Of Money

Really, GLAAD?

The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation has suddenly decided that an organization designed to protect the image of LGBTs in television suddenly has the right to chime in on whether or not the FCC should approve a telecommunications merger of two giant corporations.  WTF?

"In sum, we believe that the proposed AT&T-T-Mobile merger will serve the public interest in multiple ways.  If approved, it will expand the availability of true high-speed access to millions of Americans who do not currently have it. This new deployment also holds the promise of dramatic improvements in healthcare, education, the arts and the overall economy.

"Thank you for your consideration of this letter and for keeping in mind the voices in the LGBT community as you consider, and hopefully approve, this merger."

Not only that, but the company that stands much to gain from this merger, AT&T, is a member of the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce that screwed ant-discrimination law in that state for years to come.  Now why should GLAAD join the HRC in giving AT&T a pass in the TN debacle?

Yet again, it's the money.  Not only does AT&T have a member on the board of GLAAD and donate to the Alliance, but the annual awards show put on by the organization is underwritten by the communications giant.  I mean, really, what does a gay rights organization care about a business deal like this?

To this I have to say:  FUCK YOU, Gay Inc.  By no means has the HRC nor GLAAD shown in recent weeks that they accurately represent the interests of the gay community, instead having the gall to speak for LGBTs and toss our "approval" onto projects and companies that benefit only the contributions made to those organizations.

I in no way benefit from this merger, and I am tired of being spoken for by these corporate chumps.  Let me make this clear:  The interests of OneAngryQueer and the queer community as a whole are not represented by these people.  They represent a sell-out: the selling out of our advocacy for corporate dollars.  Fuck that.

[AmericaBlogGay]

MN GOP Rep. Really Doesn't Want To Hear From You: "Give It A Rest!"

One Minnesota legislator is tired of hearing from people taking him to task for voting to put a gay marriage ban to referendum.  Tony Cornish's reply to an e-mail chastising him for the anti-gay vote?  "Give it a rest!"

Geez, Tony, I'm sorry!  I know it's tough making decisions on people's civil rights and then having to put up with the consequences of your decisions.  Poor Tony!

Fellow blogger and angry person Will Kohl from Back2Stonewall wrote Tony an email of his own, found below:

Yeah, Will gets kind of excitable.

But I Want My Toaster!

The Montana Supreme Court ruled that criminalizing homosexuality was unconstitutional in that state and, like so many other states, Montana has ignored that ruling.  Many times in the 14 years since the ruling, the legislature has attempted to pass laws decriminalizing gay sex acts and it failed, each and every time.  They failed again this year, and Republican state lawmaker Ken Peterson can tell us why it should keep on failing.

"The legislature's inaction was not, it turns out, another non-priority falling off the too-long to-do list. Rather, it's homophobic lawmakers subtly suggesting that homosexual acts should still be outlawed, the Supreme Court—and equal rights in general—be damned. In fact, at least one lawmaker, Rep. Ken Peterson, R-Billings, an attorney, argues that the archaic law may still apply in certain situations.

"Which situations? According to Peterson, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, there are at least two prosecutable offenses—felonies punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $50,000 fine. One is the 'recruitment' of non-gays. 'Homosexuals can't go out into the heterosexual community and try to recruit people, or try to enlist them in homosexual acts,' Peterson says. He provides an example: '"Here, young man, your hormones are raging. Let's go in this bedroom, and we'll engage in some homosexual acts. You'll find you like it."' Peterson hasn't actually seen this happen, he says, because 'I don't associate with that group of people at all... I've associated with mainstream people all my life.'"

Good for you, Ken.  Congratulations on being mainstream.  Plus!  Congrats on figuring out my master strategy and favorite pickup line:  "Here young man!  Let's go into the homosexual acts room!  Then we can perform some homosexual acts on each other.  Also, perhaps a spot of anal intercourse might be in order, after some fellatio!"

The recruitment myth is one the gays have had to deal with for years.  We kind of just roll our eyes and shrug it off, because we know it's inherently stupid.  Outside the realm of porn (which is fantasy), "Straight neighbor goes gay for a day" instead is really just a case of "Gay neighbor gets it on but doesn't want you to be an ass to him so pretends he is straight."

Because we're not capable of recruitment.  If you aren't intrinsically gay, you can't suddenly love same-sex relations.  Chances are, seeing the failure rate of ex-gay reparative therapy, you can't suddenly become straight either.

Speaking of which, isn't it your camp recruiting from ours?

Here's the difference, and here's why we can't recruit:  We're not the ones telling you that you are amoral, that you are wrecking our nation's culture (though you might be tearing it apart), and we're certainly not telling you that you're going to hell.  The only thing we do is encourage people who are already gay to be okay with themselves.  Because if we don't?  They jump off the fucking George Washington Bridge.  Your hate is killing people, your rhetoric is pushing them off bridges, and if you want to call the support we give people in loving themselves "recruitment?"  Well, hell yeah.  I'm a fuckin' recruiter.

I recruit people into being happy with who they are. 

So fuck off with your allegations of recruitment, Ken.  We don't want your young men, they sound like a handful.  And we've already got our hands full trying to heal the people that you have tortured trying to recruit them to your heteronormative agenda.

That's it.  We should introduce legislation putting a halt to heterosexual recruitment!  I have had it with their ex-gay nonsense, with their claims of my amorality, and with their shaming of a people who should be proud.  I am disgusted by the culture of hate and death that allows men like Ken Peterson to make foul allegations about a class of people that he proudly crows he doesn't even know. 

Lastly, I think it's a pretty tried and true trend in conservative politics that if you're afraid of gays recruiting, it's probably because you're afraid that you can be recruited.  What's in your closet, Ken?

[MissoulaNews]

AOL and HuffPo: SUED

It was only a matter of time.

Unpaid contributor Jonathan Tasini is seeking class-action status in his suit filed on behalf of his fellow bloggers.  What's at stake?  The estimated $105 million worth of content earned by Arianna Huffington, the proceeds which, Tasini says, should now be given to those writers.

"'The Huffington Post is nothing without the bloggers who created the content,' said Jonathan Tasini, a one-time Huffington Post blogger who filed the lawsuit and is seeking class-action status on behalf of the bloggers.

"Part opinion, part news, the left-of-center website has to some extent relied on free contributions by celebrities, politicians and experts to drive its Internet traffic, turning it into a major online force since its start in 2005.

"A spokesman for the website said he had not reviewed the lawsuit, but called the allegations 'completely baseless.'"

Rock on.  Blogging is a sadly un-lucrative business.  Even Joe Jervis, author of the wildly popular blog Joe.My.God., works a day job to support himself.  For Arianna to make millions off this deal and not pass down some of the profit is a slap in the face to the people who contributed thousands of man-hours to her success.

[Reuters]

AOL Cans Freelancers, Switches To Newsroom Format For Writers

It seems like the AOL purchase of the Huffington Post isn't just making Arianna a quick buck but also screwing over freelance writers who work for AOL.

 
A few weeks ago the freelancers who supplied AOL with much of their business and finance materials were placed in limbo as the managerial team decided what to do with them after the formation of the Huffington Post Media Group. Most of them assumed this meant they were getting the axe. They were, of course, correct.

"Well, it's official: The Huffington Post Transition team has just eliminated all AOL freelancers and contractors (at least those in business and finance--everything under Peter Goodman). But we have been invited to continue contributing for free. We will be replaced either by a handful of people Goodman has in mind, or with young, new (read cheap) writers who have yet to be hired.

"We've been told that all these new, full-time employees will be expected to report to the office every day for a 40-hour work week. For some reason, it's very important to Arianna [Huffington] to have writers physically working in a newsroom in either LA, New York or Washington, DC, thus going back to an archaic newsroom model that went out with the invention of the telephone, and needlessly eliminating any talented writers in other parts of the country. So much for a global, cutting edge news team."

How the hell do you go from being the forefront of liberal blogging to becoming... CNN?!  Arianna:  You are officially the worst businessperson ever.  

[Business Insider]

The Big Picture

With Republicans bemoaning the "necessity" of a government shutdown (while secretly celebrating it behind closed doors), proposing caps on food assistance which would target impoverished children, and threatening to defund public broadcasting (which, by the way, receives less in subsidies than Liberty University, a private Christian college founded by apartheid lover Jerry Falwell), it's easy to get confused by the political and economic mire that has become our budget crisis.

US Government:  Your taxpayer dollars should go to an institution that teaches students to hate gay people and to destroy a woman's right to choose.  Not NPR, tho!

Over the past two days, I've had to resolve a lot of people's questions and misunderstandings over the current crisis on Facebook.  Why, some of them ask, are we in trouble when we can just cut welfare (those lazy-ass couch monkeys!)?  And isn't government shutdown a necessary evil? 

It's easy, for instance, to blame our budget crisis on people who collect federal and state assistance through social programs.  "Government handouts" can seem to be a luxury when we are operating at a tremendous deficit.  But are they? 

Hardly.  Eating is not really what I would call a luxury, and thousands of families who rely on food assistance would suffer were proposed caps to go into effect.  And while I have no doubt that there are some who abuse the system, this is true of ANY social program, private or public.  There will always be a minority of people who take advantage of charity and government help, but this doesn't mean that we should defund these programs simply because there is an outspoken political group insisting that everyone who collects assistance is lazy.

Wouldn't there be nice if there were another solution?

There is, and it's simple!  Stop allowing certain groups of people avoid paying their taxes. 

Gasp!  Who would do such a thing?  Corporate America, that's who.  Last year Bank of America reported boom profits but, due to tax loopholes, didn't pay one single red cent in taxes.  That's right.  YOU paid more in taxes than one of the largest and successful financial institutions in our country.  Time and time again our much needed social programs have had to step up to the chopping block while corporations like this have been able to get by without paying their fair share. 

Bank of America isn't alone.  There are billions of dollars in unpaid taxes waiting to be collected if leadership in Washington stopped eying the food on your dinner table and started eying the bonuses collected by Wall Street CEOs.  Why would is our leadership protecting CEO salaries while looking to take away your food benefits?

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the huge campaign contributions made to political candidates from these companies.  Of course not.

It's not just food assistance or NPR that is on the chopping block-- this government shutdown?  A report from the Air Force Times indicates that non-essential military personnel will miss out on salaries necessary to pay their monthly bills-- believe me!  I was a non-commissioned officer in the Army and was living paycheck to paycheck-- while members of Congress will still collect their paychecks as scheduled. 

This guy is clearly leeching off the government and we should cut one of his paychecks in half in order to cover the asses of the true heroes-- Wall Street CEOs!

Why are our nation's heroes being asked to forgo their much needed pay when not a dime is being asked from the ultra-wealthy?

The projected savings of a government shutdown amounts to 0.02% of the budget.  However, for the projected length of the shutdown, service personnel will be missing out on an entire week-- 50% of one paycheck-- in order to scrape together what amounts to spare change.  A drop in the bucket for the budget, but a crippling blow to our military personnel.

In essence:  Don't be fooled.  The shutdown is not a necessary evil, nor is asking Americans to tighten their belts when we should be living in a time of plenty.  We are seeing the effects of government corruption at the hands of the corporate dollar, and those corrupting individuals are only too happy to lie to you and tell you that the real problem is slutty black people who use welfare as an excuse to rut like rabbits (I wish I was making this up). 

Bryan Fischer's latest gem:  Feeding impoverished families only teaches black women that they should spread their legs to everyone who walks by!!!  Er, what?

Some may have you think that the budget crisis is the blame of many different factors-- NPR is to blame!  Welfare is to blame!  Black slutty women are to blame!-- but they don't want you to see the big picture.

The problem is easy, and so is the solution:  Some people aren't being asked to pay their fair share.  Maybe it's time we did some asking?

Huffington Post No Longer A Leftist Publication

In a recent interview with the New York Times, Arianna Huffington stated what many of us suspected would happen once the sale of her website was complete:  The Huffington Post will no longer be considered by the publishers a "lefty" leaning news source.  Huffington maintains that it has never been a leftist blog and thus there's no great change in policy now that it belongs to AOL.

 Arianna refreshes herself with the refrigerated tears of sweatshop writers.

"You’ve been saying recently that The Huffington Post is not a lefty publication?
Actually I’ve been saying that for three years. The tag line that we’ve used a lot is 'Beyond left and right.'

"Three years ago was 2008. I looked at The Huffington Post a great deal during the election. It felt like the Internet version of Keith Olbermann’s show, and if that’s not lefty. . . .
Why don’t you be more specific? What were the messages that you considered lefty?

"It’s as if you’re trying to tell me that Smurfs aren’t blue.
I’m just telling you that it is very clear that we have progressive views, but to call everything we’re doing lefty — it misses the whole point that American policy needs to be redefined beyond left and right. It’s a completely obsolete view of politics.

"Still, I’m amazed you’re trying to tell me that The Huffington Post wasn’t started as a lefty blog?
I’m not trying to tell you anything. I’m telling you things. I’m not trying, O.K.?"

HuffPo has a larger readership than the New York Times, and that is due to the hard work of thousands of unpaid liberal contributors.  Arianna, my dear, I hate to be crude (not really) but:  HORSESHIT. 

The rest of the interview is here:
[NYT]

Fascist "Pro-Family" Blogger Tries To Strip Muslims Of Their First Amendment Rights

As a writer, activist, and former soldier, I hold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights dear to my heart and love them as many love their Bible or Qur'an.  The First Amendment and other rights accorded Americans are important enough to me that I would have gladly given my life for them.  You can imagine how I feel, then, when fellow blogger and conservative asshat Bryan Fischer decides that the First Amendment only applies to Christian Americans.

"'The First Amendment was written by the Founders to protect the free exercise of Christianity,' he wrote in his column at Renew America. 'They were making no effort to give special protections to Islam. Quite the contrary.'

"'Islam has no fundamental First Amendment claims, for the simple reason that it was not written to protect the religion of Islam. Islam is entitled only to the religious liberty we extend to it out of courtesy,' Fischer continued."

Keep in mind that he wrote this for the hate group the American Family Association.  So now not only does Fischer want to destroy gay families in America, but Muslim ones as well.  Fuck this guy.


[TheRawStory]

OneAngryCultist: Calling Cardinal Bullshit

In an article released Monday on Irish Central, Archbishop Cardinal Francis George shot back against LGBTQ activists who had recently picketed Chicago's Holy Name Cathedral, protesting the Church's attempts to block equality and civil unions in that state:

Some members of the Gay Liberation Network demonstrated in front of Holy Name Cathedral on Sunday, February 13, protesting against Catholic Church teaching on the immorality of homosexual genital relations and opposition to so called 'gay marriage.' These are deeply felt issues, because they speak to the personal identity of some and to the religious beliefs of others. No matter the issue, Catholics should be able to worship in peace, without fear of harassment. An open display of prejudice against the Catholic Church because of resentment of Church teachings prejudices civil discourse in our society.

Umm... alright. So, you feel you're being persecuted after spending so much time and MONEY trying to ensure that others don't get the same rights that you enjoy? FUCK YOU!

Does anti-Catholicism exist in America? Yes. Is it terrible? Yes. Do Catholics as a whole deserve the bad-wrap by association? No - some of the sweetest, kindest, and sexiest people I know are Catholic. Does the institution of the Church deserve a bad rap? Not entirely - although I will rally against the against the INSTITUTIONAL exclusion and discrimination that DOES exists. Is it fair that they use the "victim card" when being faced by groups they routinely discriminate against? Absolutely not! Therefore, loudly and proudly I say: FUCK YOU! Cardinal Francis and get back to doing the good shit your god on a stick demands.

Texas Governor Uses Lies And Smokescreens to Distract From the Real Issues. Oh Yeah, He's a Republican. Carry On.

Governor Tom Perry said Tuesday that the State of Texas is doing just fine, financially.

 All you guys that live in this state?  You're totally fucked.  Just really royally fucked.

A critic of stimulus money and a supporter of sweeping cuts to education and health services in his state, he has refused to raise taxes or dip into the states near $9.4 billion "rainy day" fund.  Of course, he was only TOO happy to quietly cover 97% of the state's deficit with federal funds-- then touting that conservative fiscal policy turned Texas into a miracle state free from economic strife.

So who was surprised when this clear liar and hypocrite threw up a smokescreen with social issues in order to distract from his fiscal failings?

"'Governor Perry has been waking up in a very different reality than most citizens of Texas,' State Senator Wendy Davis, a Fort Worth Democrat, said at a press conference. 'Their reality is becoming starker by the day.'

"The governor also called on state lawmakers to quickly approve a list of 'emergency' proposals. These include implementing stricter voter identification requirements, requiring women seeking an abortion to first view a sonogram, targeting cities that provide sanctuary to undocumented immigrants, strengthening the rights of property owners in cases of eminent domain and calling for a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution."

What in GD hell is this dude smoking?  How are stricter voter requirements and forcing women to look at sonograms "emergencies?"  How about the $27 billion shortfall that is going to hit his state when this budget cycle ends-- making it impossible to continue many of the programs and services poor Texans rely on to get by.  

This is an all-too common theme with modern-day Republican politics.  It doesn't work.  Because IT'S A LIE.

Listen, I'm all for opposition in politics.  I wish there were MORE parties involved!  More ideas!  And I'm not opposed entirely to fiscal responsibility and smaller federal involvement in state matters.  But here's the thing:  These guys barely (in reality) make ANY decisions that are fiscally responsible, hemorrhaging taxpayer money in earmarks and salary increases-- bleeding their states dry.  How do they get away with it?  By distracting voters with morality-based initiatives... while, uh, sending shirtless pics of themselves to strange women on Craigslist, who, by the by, are not their wives.  In the process?  They destroy gay families, interfere with what goes on in a woman's body, blocks minorities from voting... all so they can get fucking rich.

Yet another "family values" candidate who is a sex fiend.  Really?  Why do Republican voters believe these assholes anymore?

It's the FACTS, guys.  The GOP today is not your Grandfather's party.  There have been positive changes-- lynchings are now frowned on, thank God-- but for the most part, it's become a diseased, corrupt, bloated monster filled with hypocrites and liars.  I read the news ALL DAY LONG, and I can't recall the last time I saw a conservative ACTUALLY espouse conservative values.

I suppose I could have just titled this post "Why I'm a Liberal."

Ok, I'm done rambling, but these motherfuckers are going to make me hyperventilate and go into cardiac arrest someday, I swear.

[MSNBC]