Would You Please Sign My “Kill the Gays” Proposal?

Y’know, I always wondered about those two…

Though it might seem like the recent “religious freedom” act signed into law by Indiana’s Republican governor is a giant step backwards for gay rights, all things considered the U.S. is a pretty good place to be LGBT. It could always be better, but despite the reactionaries on the Right trying to push gays back into the closet, both public sentiment and history are lined up against them. These are the desperate acts of small-minded bigoted homophobes.

That’s not to say everything is sunshine and flowers. I’m not gay, but if I were and read the details of the proposed Sodomite Suppression Act and wonder if I went to sleep in America and woke up in the dark ages somewhere in Iran, Uganda, or Nigeria where putting homosexuals to death is legally codified.

In February, California attorney Matt McLaughlin paid $200 to propose a ballot measure called the Sodomite Suppression Act. McLaughlin’s measure describes gay sex as “a monstrous evil that Almighty God … commands us to suppress on pain of utter destruction.” Given these high stakes, McLaughlin suggests all gay people “be put to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method.”

An excerpt of McLaughlin’s proposed law:

a) The abominable crime against nature known as buggery, called also sodomy, is a monstrous evil that Almighty God, giver of freedom and liberty, commands us to suppress on pain of our utter destruction even as he overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.
b) Seeing that it is better that offenders should die rather than that all of us should be killed by God’s just wrath against us for the folly of tolerating-wickedness in our midst, the People of California wisely command, in the fear of God, that any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method.
c) No person shall distribute, perform, or transmit sodomistic propaganda directly or indirectly by any means to any person under the age of majority. Sodomistic propaganda is defined as anything aimed at creating an interest in or an acceptance of human sexual relations other than between a man and a woman. Every offender shall be fined $1 million per occurrence, and/or imprisoned up to 10 years, and/or expelled from the boundaries of the state of California for up to life.
d) No person shall serve in any public office, nor serve in public employment, nor enjoy any public benefit, who is a sodomite or who espouses sodomistic propaganda or who belongs to any group that does.

Makes doggone good sense to me.

Monstrous and appalling. Such evil hatred makes me sad for this world and violated by reading such filth.   This insanity is the pushback that comes from people on the wrong side of history.

Whenever you see guys like Mr. McLaughlin whom are simply obsessed and thinking about these homosexuals and the things they do and how it creeps him out and its on his mind all the time all day long it makes you wonder why, oh, why is he on this Evil Sodomite Thing?

Maybe The Onion had the answer?.

A letter writer to the San Diego Gay and Lesbian Times crunched the numbers and calculated the possible effects if Mr. McLaughlin’s murderous proposal were approved.

Here’s how lawyer Matthew McLaughlin’s initiative would actually pan out:

1. Assuming you kill 1.4 million people (approximate LGBT population of California) and congressional seats are based on population, you would lose two seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

2. Next, consider that the median income of Californians is $61,000 and the average household size is 2.9 people. The average state income tax rate is 8%. Killing off the LGBT community would cause a loss of $40 million in tax revenue in California each year. The Fed would be out $112 million annually

3. Finally, the average additional cost associated with a capital punishment trial is $1 million per person. Multiply that times 1.4 million LGBT and well, you do the math.

I believe not only should this “attorney” be disbarred, he should also be charged with all applicable crimes. Matthew G. McLaughlin is perhaps proposing killing more people at one time than were killed at Auschwitz during World War II.

Until such time as the laws of California are changed, McLaughlin is within his rights to file his disgusting proposal no matter how nuts it is. This perversion of the process allows McLaughlin to go looking for about 370,000 like-minded morons to sign his proposal in a state of nearly 39 million and the Sodomite Suppression Act would end up on the ballot. Even if it were defeated as it definitely would be, as the law currently exists, there is nothing to stop McLaughlin from coughing up another $200 to try it again,

Attorney General Kamala Harris  would like to find a court to allow her to deny certifying of McLaughlin’s putrid proposal, but legal experts doubt she will able to.

It’s not a quantum leap from state-approved discrimination against the LGBT community to state-approved executions. How dare we sneer at the Islamic extremists when we have good Christian extremists doing the same thing here?

What the hell happened to the American Dream? How did it get warped and perverted to this?

The only way to hold back the darkness of ignorance descending on this country, is to drag the homophobic bigots kicking and screaming into the light.  From a crank in California to the governor of Indiana.

The choice is between everybody having theirs rights or the last rites.   McLaughlin has the right to hate homosexuals and want to see them dead, but not the right to force the state to do his dirty work for him.

California A. G. Harris wants to block the “Kill the Gays” proposal, but likely will not be able to.

Dead Fred: A Cold End For A Bad Man

Dead Fred.

Fred Phelps, the fire-and-brimstone “God Hates Fags” preacher and leader of a flock on inbred idiots called the Westboro Baptist Church, won’t be picketing the funerals of dead soldiers and gay celebrities any more.   His hateful little cult of cretins will probably attempt to carry on without him, but it just won’t be the same without Freaky Fred leading the chorus of ugly screaming and shouting at grieving families.

That’s because Fred is dead and that’s a good thing because when he was alive he was one crazy and annoying man.  He was not a good man.  He did not do kind things.  He was one selfish, vicious, worthless old bastard who lived only to bring misery to the world and we’re all better off he’s no longer above ground polluting the air with his rancid teachings.

Nice people should have nice things said about them when they die.  Nasty people don’t become nice people because they are dead people now and Fred Phelps was not nice people.  Not at all.

If I’m forced to say something good about Fred Phelps, Satan’s newest BFF, it’s this, as a gay friend pointed out. If this loathsome man did nothing else in his miserable excrescence of an existence, he did more to make homophobia hatred so repulsive and repellent it cut right across EVERY diving line. Phelps made the difficult act of learning tolerance far more preferable than his preaching prejudice.

English: Oberlin College, in Oberlin Ohio, on ...

English: Oberlin College, in Oberlin Ohio, on Tuesday May 10, 2000, Gay and Lesbian students kiss in front of the group of anti homosexual protestors. The protests were brought into Oberlin by Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., and have also been protesting the General Conference of the United Methodist Church in Cleveland Ohio. Several hundred Oberlin College students turned out to rally against the out-of-town protesters. (Photo/Paul M. Walsh) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Liberals, conservatives, Christians and atheists, hard-Right-wingers and loony Lefties, the reddest of rednecks and the most heavy-handed of Bible-thumpers could agree on this one they: none of them wanted anything to do with Phelps. Even if you didn’t care for your fellow Gay Americans, you didn’t want your dislike lumped in with the rabid insanity of a Fred Phelps.

Phelps never intended to be a unifying force, but he turned out to be one anyway. Everyone could at least unite against him.

Alas, poor Fred. One less inflamed asshole in the world.  One more inflamed asshole burning in the purgatory he wanted to damn gays and lesbians to.  If this all sounds cruel and cold, what do you expect?  Phelps  was a cold and cruel man full of fear and bigotry and that’s all he filled the world with.  The world is already dark enough.  What Phelps contributed was nothing anybody needed.

To the bitter end Phelps was an hypocritical shitheel.  Now that he’s gone all cold and stiff he’s not going to have a proper funeral?  Wassup with that, bud?  Afraid the case of Glee will show up with picket signs?

Fred doesn’t need to be buried.  He should be recycled.  Put him in a yard waste bag, drag his dead ass to the corner and he can be picked up and turned into something useful.   He was full of crap and should make excellent mulch.

He deserves a 21-flush salute.  And then let’s forget all about Fred Phelps.  The same way you forget about a big meal after your body expels it as waste 24 hours later.

That’s Fred Phelps.  Human waste.

Goodbye to all that? Lord, let’s hope so!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Lies, Injustice and Homophobia Are Not the American Way

What the Internet does better than anything else is give ignorance, intolerance, bigotry and hate a means to reach millions of people in a matter of seconds.  If not millions, at least dozens.

Today’s daily dosage of Internet Ignorance comes from a defender of Orson Scott Card, the science-fiction author and notorious homophobe who sparked controversy when DC Comics announced Card would be writing a Superman comic  book.   The fans of the Man of Steel gave a collective middle finger to that news and Card’s debut on the most popular super hero of all time has been delayed indefinitely after the artist resigned from the book.

Card and DC miscalculated the degree of resistance they would meet, but that isn’t to say his hateful homophobia doesn’t have his supporters.  One of  them directed me to an essay on a right-wing website and said, “It provides solid counterarguments to much of the “logic” used to justify this unfair boycott, particularly that the character of Superman is inherently incompatible with Card’s beliefs.”

“I’d encourage you to give it a read.”

So I did and for my troubles I was exposed to a particularly ugly expression of hate-filled homophobia that left me as queasy as Superman exposed to green kryptonite.    I didn’t find any solid counterarguments. I found spectacularly weak justifications of bigotry.    I also found a rhetorical  IED set by the author, Kathy Shaidle, to blow up when it was read. It’s almost clever how Shaidle set up her hate bomb.

Gay activists insist that faggot comes from the word for the kindling beneath the feet of heretical homosexuals. That’s a lie.

But while the word “faggot” doesn’t come from “a bundle of sticks,” the word “fascist” does.

Funny, that.

Behold: In the name of “truth, justice and the American way,” a renowned science-fiction writer has just been condemned to (professional) death for expressing his views on homosexuality in a tiny Mormon magazine almost twenty-five years ago.

The Far Right has rallied to Card’s defense.

Orson Scott Card wrote the beloved 1985 Hugo and Nebula Award-winning novel Ender’s Game “about the innocence of a child winning out over war and hatred,” an “irony” which seems to be making his “homophobia” all the more heartbreaking to his lifelong (liberal) fans.

So what did Card say?

Back in 1990—and again in 2004—he objected to the legalization of sodomy and “gay marriage” by judicial fiat. If unelected judges can nullify thousands of years of civil and religious law in a trice, he asked, what else will our robed rulers force us to accept? Will ordinary people someday rise up against this tyrannical system?

That candid, decades-long (and, some would say, perfectly sound) opposition to “gay marriage” in particular and top-down social engineering in general suddenly rendered Card persona non grata when DC Comics hired him to write a Superman comic last month.

That was the stick that broke the faggots’ back, or perhaps the one they’d been waiting to beat Card with for some time.

Like I said. Almost. What all that was for was to set up an excuse for Shaidle to use “faggot” as a slur, not as a descriptive for kindling.

Five feet of fury. And homophobic hate.

Kathy Shaidle likes that slur. She likes to say it. A lot.

Who is Kathy Shaidle?

She has called Muslims “pathetic, whiny losers” who practise “a sick, sick religion.”

She has accused Asians of spreading disease in Toronto, disparaged natives and blacks, and suggested the poor “are no more real than Bigfoot.”

Now, controversial right-wing blogger Kathy Shaidle may be coming to London to speak about human rights.

The invitation to Shaidle by some members of the city’s Jewish community has alarmed anti-racism activists and provided fresh ammunition to the country’s heavyweight politicos over freedom of speech.

“She is a purveyor of some of the most offensive racial stereotypes I have ever read,” Bernie Farber, head of the Canadian Jewish Congress, said yesterday.

“Any group that associates with or defends her is diminished by her,” charged Warren Kinsella, Liberal insider and author of Web of Hate: Inside Canada’s Far Right Network.

“They shouldn’t have anything to do with her. They will just hurt themselves.”

“I will not be intimidated. I am not going to apologize about anything I have written,” she told The Free Press yesterday. “This is a goofy smear campaign by name-calling leftists.”

No wonder she’s riding Card’s jock so hard. She’s just another hateful bitch who thinks her religion gives her the right to hate others.

And I don’t mean “bitch” as a sexist slur. I mean it as describing a female canine. As in lie down with dogs and wake up with fleas. Homophobic, racist fleas.

See how that playing around with the duality of words works?

It’s A Bird! It’s A Plane! It’s Super-Homophobe!

Don’t mess with the “S.”

DC Comics announced this week that Orson Scott Card, author of Ender’s Game will be the writer of the Adventures of Superman. Mr. Card is an extremely conservative, extremely controversial choice based upon his strident anti-gay beliefs and opposition to same-sex marriage.

Card explained his views at length in a 2004 essay.

Calling a homosexual contract “marriage” does not make it reproductively relevant and will not make it contribute in any meaningful way to the propagation of civilization.

In fact, it will do harm. Nowhere near as much harm as we have already done through divorce and out-of-wedlock childbearing. But it’s another nail in the coffin. Maybe the last nail, precisely because it is the most obvious and outrageous attack on what is left of marriage in America.

Supporters of homosexual “marriage” dismiss warnings like mine as the predictable ranting of people who hate progress. But the Massachusetts Supreme Court has made its decision without even a cursory attempt to ascertain the social costs. The judges have taken it on faith that it will do no harm.

You can’t add a runway to an airport in America without years of carefully researched environmental impact statements. But you can radically reorder the fundamental social unit of society without political process or serious research.

Let me put it another way. The sex life of the people around me is none of my business; the homosexuality of some of my friends and associates has made no barrier between us, and as far as I know, my heterosexuality hasn’t bothered them. That’s what tolerance looks like.

But homosexual “marriage” is an act of intolerance. It is an attempt to eliminate any special preference for marriage in society — to erase the protected status of marriage in the constant balancing act between civilization and individual reproduction.

So if my friends insist on calling what they do “marriage,” they are not turning their relationship into what my wife and I have created, because no court has the power to change what their relationship actually is.

Instead they are attempting to strike a death blow against the well-earned protected status of our, and every other, real marriage.

They steal from me what I treasure most, and gain for themselves nothing at all. They won’t be married. They’ll just be playing dress-up in their parents’ clothes.

Very conservative, very homophobic, very controversial.

That’s pretty harsh as is, but the further you drill down into Card’s essay the deepest it descends into the ugliest of homophobic stereotypes and hetro-paranoia:

Already any child with any kind of sexual attraction to the same sex is told that this is an irresistible destiny, despite the large number of heterosexuals who move through this adolescent phase and never look back.

Already any child with androgynous appearance or mannerisms — effeminite boys and masculine girls — are being nurtured and guided (or taunted and abused) into “accepting” what many of them never suspected they had — a desire to permanently move into homosexual society.

In other words, society will bend all its efforts to seize upon any hint of homosexuality in our young people and encourage it.

Now, there is a myth that homosexuals are “born that way,” and we are pounded with this idea so thoroughly that many people think that somebody, somewhere, must have proved it.

In fact what evidence there is suggests that if there is a genetic component to homosexuality, an entire range of environmental influences are also involved. While there is no scientific research whatsoever that indicates that there is no such thing as a borderline child who could go either way.

Those who claim that there is “no danger” and that homosexuals are born, not made, are simply stating their faith.

The dark secret of homosexual society — the one that dares not speak its name — is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.

It’s that desire for normality, that discontent with perpetual adolescent sexuality, that is at least partly behind this hunger for homosexual “marriage.”

They are unhappy, but they think it’s because the rest of us “don’t fully accept them.”

Homosexual “marriage” won’t accomplish what they hope. They will still be just as far outside the reproductive cycle of life. And they will have inflicted real damage on those of us who are inside it.

Who needs Metropolis when you've got Gay City?

Who needs Metropolis when you’ve got Gay City?

This is the dude DC Comics thinks would be a great choice to write Superman? I don’t read the comic books any more, but I recall Superman standing for “truth, justice and the American way.” Is overt hatred for a group of people the American way?
Some gay activists don’t think so, but for now DC Comics is standing by the controversial Card.

The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender activist website AllOut.org has collected more than 11,000 signatures on an online petition asking DC to drop Card from the project.

“By hiring Orson Scott Card despite his anti-gay efforts you are giving him a new platform and supporting his hate,” the petition reads. “We need to let DC Comics know they can’t support Orson Scott Card or his work to keep LGBT people as second-class citizens.”

Card and his representatives did not respond to requests Wednesday for a comment.

A statement released Wednesday by DC said: “As content creators we steadfastly support freedom of expression, however the personal views of individuals associated with DC Comics are just that — personal views — and not those of the company itself.”

The publisher has a history of being pro-LGBT with its series. Batwoman, featuring a strong and nuanced lesbian superheroine who shares the Gotham City streets with Batman, has won two GLAAD Media Awards for outstanding comic book and is up for a third this year.

That’s partly why some comics readers have difficulty understanding the Card hiring.

“When you consider all the writers available in the world, picking one as controversial as Card seems like a clueless, tone-deaf move by DC. On the other hand, they were probably just thinking of the Ender’s Game movie coming out (in November) and getting even more attention,” says Heidi MacDonald, editor in chief of the comics-culture website The Beat.

Other authors such as Brad Metzler, Jodi Picoult, Eric Jerome Dickey and Stephen King have taken their turns writing mainstream comics for DC and Marvel, but Card’s history of demonizing an entire segment of readers makes him a poor choice to write the most iconic character in the history of the comics genre.

DC is kidding themselves if they think their LGBT readers will overlook Card’s odious beliefs and separate them from his writing talents. It isn’t political correctness to punt Card from writing Superman.  In a time when comic books are struggling to hold on to every reader they have, doe it make sense to use a writer who has displayed such contempt for a portion of the audience based upon their sexual orientation.    If Card were railing against Jews or Blacks in blatantly anti-Semitic, racist language DC wouldn’t consider for a moment hiring him.

Superman has played gay such as the time he was exposed to pink Kryptonite and faster than a speeding bullet he was hitting on Jimmy Olsen, ”

The excuse by DC that Card’s  odious “personal views” don’t reflect on the company is crap.    What they’re saying is they tolerate some forms of bigotry  as long as its gays and lesbians being dumped on.

Card is a hate-filled fanatic and DC should drop this guy like a bad habit.    Superman deserves a writer who shares his beliefs.

When Superman went gay, things got…interesting.

GLAAD’s Outrageously Selective Outrage

Kirk says for gays it doesn't get better.

Like an example of double standards and selective outrage?  Me too.  Here’s one case of it in action.

LOS ANGELES, March 4 (TheWrap.com) – Former “Growing Pains” star Kirk Cameron‘s negative comments on homosexuality and gay marriage, made Friday on CNN’s “Pier Morgan Tonight,” have drawn a rapid response from GLAAD.

Cameron said he thought homosexuality was “unnatural.”

“I think that it’s detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization,” the actor told Morgan.

Cameron, who is an evangelical Christian, also spoke out against gay marriage.

“Marriage is almost as old as dirt, and it was defined in the garden between Adam and Eve. One man, one woman for life till death do you part. So I would never attempt to try to redefine marriage. And I don’t think anyone else should either,” Cameron said. “So do I support the idea of gay marriage? No, I don’t.”

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation issued a statement Saturday in response to the actor’s appearance on the CNN program.

“In this interview, Kirk Cameron sounds even more dated than his 1980s TV character,” Herndon Graddick, senior director of programs at GLAAD, wrote “Cameron is out of step with a growing majority of Americans, particularly people of faith who believe that their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters should be loved and accepted based on their character and not condemned because of their sexual orientation.”

Graddick also addressed Cameron’s remarks regarding gay marriage.

“With an increasing number of states recognizing marriage equality, Americans are seeing that marriage is about committed couples who want to make a lifelong promise to take care of and be responsible for each other and that gay and lesbian couples need equal security and legal protections. That’s not ‘redefining’ anything.”

In brief remarks to TMZ Saturday night, Morgan called Cameron “brave” to voice his beliefs. Morgan said he feels Cameron “was honest to what he believed” even if most people find his views to be “antiquated.”

When Roland Martin tweeted remarks GLAAD considered homophobic and possibly an incitement to gay bashing, they unleashed their rap on him leading to CNN suspending him indefinitely, despite Mr. Martin’s apology.

GLAAD gives Piers Morgan a pass on enabling homophobia.

Piers Morgan gives Kirk Cameron a forum to call homosexuality “unnatural,” “detrimental” and “ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization” and though a has-been, hack actor like Cameron gets the GLAAD smack down, why is Morgan given a pass for telling TMZ Cameron’s remarks were “brave” and “honest?”  Does the qualifier that they were “antiquated” give Morgan a pass from Martin’s apology does not?

Seems like GLAAD has their own evolving standards when it comes to Martin’s silly Tweets and  Morgan’s tacit approval of Cameron’s clear and present homophobia.   What’s the lesson to be learned here?   It’s a bad thing when a Black CNN contributor implies homophobia but it’s okay when a White CNN host applauds it?

How can GLAAD plausibly criticize a nobody like Cameron while giving Morgan a pass?   I could care less what a nobody like Cameron says.  This is a guy who attacked Steven Hawking and John Lennon for not believing in heaven.  To go after the former teen idol of Growing Pains while saying nothing about Piers Morgan, the enabler and defender of Camerion’s bigotry makes no sense.  Or maybe it does if GLAAD figures they’ve bagged their quota of CNN personalities by getting Martin off the air.

GLAAD apparently considers the sin lies in making remarks they consider offensive.  But if you give the homophobe a forum and defend his right to be homophobic, it’s no harm, no foul.

Or maybe the simplest answer is it’s true that hypocrisy IS the greatest luxury and GLAAD is more willing to take on homophobic remarks when they’re coming from self-described Christians like Martin and Cameron and tolerate them when Morgan sticks up for bigotry.

The White privilege card.  Don’t leave home without it

The Soul Sacrifice of Roland Martin

Live by the word and die by the word

CNN contributor Roland Martin makes his living off of words.  A few of them led to his suspension from the network and an uncertain future.

While most of the country was watching the Super Bowl, Martin was merrily tweeting away providing a running commentary of the game, the commercials and anything else that popped in his head he figured might amuse his thousands of Twitter followers.

Soccer star David Beckham’s commercial with him stripped down to his skivvies appeared and next came the words that croaked Martin at CNN.

“If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham’s H&M underwear ad, smack the ish out of him!”

If all hell didn’t break loose a small enough piece did and with it the gay activist group, GLAAD, ripped Martin for encouraging anti-gay violence and demanded CNN fire him.   Martin later issued an apology, but with his standard sarcasm dripping from it.

“Let me address the issue that some in the LGBT community have raised regarding some of my Super Bowl tweets yesterday,” he wrote. “I made several cracks about soccer as I do all the time. I was not referring to sexuality directly or indirectly regarding the David Beckham ad, and I’m sorry folks took it otherwise.”

Roland Martin's troublesome Tweet

Got that LGBT community?   It’s not me, it’s you.   As an apology it was inadequate.   As far as saving Martin’s job with CNN, it was insufficient.

CNN suspended Martin indefinitely and issued a statement “Roland Martin’s tweets were regrettable and offensive.  Language that demeans is inconsistent with the values and culture of our organization, and is not tolerated. We have been giving careful consideration to this matter, and Roland will not be appearing on our air for the time being.”

Roland Martin is an experienced journalist and he knows journalists have to be accountable for their words.   He is also a Black man with a high-profile gig and there’s a hot spotlight on him.  He shouldn’t overshare on Twitter and while what he said was silly and sophomoric, I don’t think it was vicious or homophobic.

GLAAD did and they pounced.   They could have seen Martin’s remarks as a teaching moment opportunity to point out how words can be hurtful and homophobic speech creeps out when we least suspect it.

Nuh-uh.  That’s not how GLAAD rolls.  They’re in the business of collecting hides, not educating minds.  They howled for Martin’s head and CNN served it up on a silver platter (but not conservative commentator Dana Loesch who said she’d happily piss on dead Afghanis as U.S. troops have done).  The takeaway here is White gays have a stronger lobby than dead Afghanis.

GLAAD fires back at Martin.

I can’t say I know Roland Martin, but I’ve met him and sparred with him over other issues. Martin is passionate, articulate, smart and he fights for what he believes in. He is also caustic, patronizing, overbearing, and occasionally nasty.  Martin can be pleasant and charming when he wants, but get on his bad side (and it doesn’t take much to get there) and bring your lunch for an all day fight.

I don’t think Roland should be fired for his Tweets. He should be educated and learn how homophobia hurts. This is the proverbial “teaching moment” and rather than hang Mr. Martin out to dry,  GLAAD and other gay activists missed an opportunity to show Martin and the Black community that discrimination and insensitive speech is unacceptable no matter who does it.

Martin should have known as a Black man in a prominent position, the spotlight is always on and with social media you’re ALWAYS “on the record.”  I have never understood why some people can’t go to the john without reporting the details on Twitter, but some folks find these details riveting reading.

But there is a double standard here where a CNN conservative commentator can say she would piss on dead Afghanis and she isn’t suspended, but Rick Sanchez is fired for making insensitive remarks about Jews and Martin is suspended for offending gays.   Apparently, CNN is selective about what kind of speech crosses the line depending on what group is demeaned.

Martin objects to homosexuality based upon his religious upbringing and his 2006 article references how his wife ministers to gays to change their orientation.  I think that kind of ministering is crap, but I also recognize Martin and his wife believe the same way as other Black folks do.  That does not make it right. It does make it a reality.

Mr. Martin is no friend of mine. I don’t even much like the guy, but I do think he has the right to free speech. His employers at CNN have the right to hold him responsible for that speech–as long as everyone else is being held to that same standard and that is not the case.

Martin’s discriminatory words are being matched and trumped by GLAAD’s hectoring and CNN’s cave-in to a pressure group.   He was served up as a soul sacrifice on a silver platter to the altar of political correctness gone berserk.

Freedom of speech does not men freedom from taking responsibility for that speech.  Martin will have to do the same as Tracy Morgan, Mel Gibson, Michael Richards and everyone else who words have done a drive-by past their brain.  Martin is a man of strongly held and expressed opinion and sometimes those opinions come back to bite where it smarts.   I’m sure he will emerge from this externally chastised and internally unbowed.

The takeaway from this is other oppressed groups have learned well the tactics of Blacks during the Civil Rights era of protest and how to seize, hold the moral high ground and slap down the oppressor.  They have learned it so well they have turned the tables on the once oppressed whom they now consider are oppressing them.

This must be what they mean by poetic justice.

The Black Mamba Who Had Anger Management Issues


Don't make Kobe homophobic. You won't like him when he's homophobic.

After Kobe Bryant dropped a profane double-F bomb on referee Bennie Adams following being assessed a foul, I wasn’t expecting anyone could find a justification for Bryant’s ugly idiocy.   I should have.  It seems there is nothing that can be said anymore that somebody can’t be an apologist for.

In this case it came from David Kaufman writing in The Root, (a publication I contribute to as well).   Kaufman said:

Although Bryant’s word choice is certainly unfortunate, equally worrisome is the near-instant racial — and racist — overtones now permeating this debate. At its core is the comparison of the word “faggot” with “nigger,” a comparison that has become emblematic of the LGBT movement’s unabashed co-option of the African-American struggle. In this case, reader comments on blog after blog repeatedly invoke the word “nigger” in their Kobe takedown as — in the words of Joe.My.God reader “beeblmeyer” — they “wonder how Mr. Bryant would feel if someone said, ‘Fucking nigger.’ “

The real wonder here is how folks could think there is anything to compare in the first place. Without a doubt, Bryant uttered the epithet in anger, but in a fit of homophobia? Not necessarily, at least until we know for certain whether referee Bennie Adams is gay.

Despite what gay, black ex-NBA player John Amaechi might have said in today’s USA Today, calling someone a “fucking nigger” has an entirely different historical meaning and context. A black person is called a nigger precisely and exclusively because he is black. Period. And the core of the word’s offense — and racism — stems from this sheer conspicuousness. I’ve been called a nigger more than once, and there’s no doubt it was because of the color of my skin, not because I’d pissed someone off.

Anger management class?

Like Kaufman, I’ve been called a nigger too and more often than not the person doing the calling was Black, not White.   It hurt less, but it offended more because you would think someone Black would know better.  Too often they don’t because they mistakenly believe it’s okay when it’s used within the race.  But even Richard Pryor learned how wretched a word “nigger” really is.  To suggest it hurts a gay man less to be called a “faggot”  is absurd.  

Sometimes I can go weeks and months without calling my wife or kids niggers. I can kiss my lovely wife on the cheek in the morning without saying, “Hello, nigger.” When my daughter comes home from high school, I almost never ask, “Hey, nigger! Learn anything useful today?” When my son drags himself home from a lousy day at work rarely do I greet him at the door with, “Nigger, why didn’t you take the trash out this morning?”

I don’t use the word “nigger” as a commonplace word and I’m weary of the suggestion “all Black people do.” Not in my house they don’t. I’ve been Black for some time now and I deleted it out of my lexicon once I figured out I people I admired like Nikki Giovanni, Muhammad Ali, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King or Shirley Chisholm’s were nobody’s niggers.

I do get offended by the casual and thoughtless way the slur is tossed around. If it’s wrong for a White fan at a NBA game to shout from the cheap seats, “Pass the ball and stop jackin’ up shots, nigger!” it’s equally wrong for a Black power forward to scream at the Black point guard on his team, “Pass the ball and stop jackin’ up shots, nigger!”

“Nigger” always was a slur and always will be. Ignorant words don’t become acceptable merely because ignorant people mistakenly think it’s fashionable.

That includes calling someone a “fucking faggot” after you get whistled for a foul. Even if you don’t believe you fouled anyone. David Stern should have doubled the fine and given Kobe a game off without pay. Sure, he’d be out $259,298.00, but he probably wouldn’t have to result to collecting tin cans by the freeway to make up the difference.

Is Kaufman saying there’s nothing homophobic in what Bryant said unless we know referee Bernie Adams is gay?  What about the gay fans who heard Bryant?  What about all the players, coaches, trainers and anyone else within earshot who might be gay?

Once we start choosing “this word you should be offended by, but that word we’re going to let slide” we say this kind of bigotry and prejudice is okay because it affects me, but others are okay because they don’t.   Contrary to what Mr. Kaufman might think straight Black people do not have the exclusive rights on suffering. 

I don’t question the fact Kobe is one hell of a basketball player who can single-handedly impose his will on a game, but his greatness is no excuse for his brain-dead behavior.  Bryant is also a pampered, entitled brat who scowls, sticks out his lip like a perpetually pissed-off teenager and seems to lose his mind when a referee has the audacity to assess a foul on him.

Kobe’s constant scowling gets on my nerves. The Black Mamba seems to think it makes him look tough. I think it makes him look like an irate two-year old with a fully loaded pull-up.

The ref should have shot back, “I’m not a fucking faggot, Kobe Bean Bryant, but you are a fucking dick.”

Kobe needs a class in sensitivity training and apparently a few of us do as too.   Mr. Kaufman, take your seat.

"I did NOT call a foul on you. You're not even in the game!"