Just another WordPress.com site

Posts tagged ‘California’

Thomas Sowell is one of those fascists who loves free speech

Sorry, I haven’t been updating lately. The Nor’Easter that hit Massachusetts knocked out my internet for a while. I blame global warming for the surprise October snowstorm. Unfortunately, I was completely cut off from my favorite gay porn sites. After a few days, I was in quite the foul mood, as you can imagine.

When I finally got back online, I was incensed to read Thomas Sowell’s latest column,” The Media and ‘Bullying'”.

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2011/10/25/the_media_and_bullying

In short, he argues that homosexuals are “special” victims of bullying. When they are bullied, the media pay attention while ignoring other types of bullying. The result is to create a special kind of victim class.

Thomas Sowell, Stanford economist and known homophobe. Somebody ought to tell him that butt sex is kind of like black skin.

I don’t want any special victim status for gays. I just want the same equal treatment that blacks get. You know–separate gay proms just like blacks have separate black proms. Separate gay dorm floors just the same way blacks get separate black dorm floors.  I want to be treated with kiddy gloves, to be able to break the rules with impunity. I want standards to be lowered so that I can get my dream job without actually possessing the qualifications. I want my sexual escapades to be considered when applying for a job, just so long as they work in my favor. The same way we do for the blacks. Gay is the new black.

And I think we’re owed as much, Dr. Sowell. I’ve spent years toiling in the trenches, fighting for the civil rights of black people not to be held to the same standards as white people. I understand that as a conservative, you don’t want lowered standards for your particular group. But I have fought for those lowered standards nonetheless. The least you could do is return the favor.

Okay, Dr. Sowell, if you are reading this, let me spell it out for you. Two men sodomizing each other is the equivalent of having black skin. Behavior is the same as identity so long as you really, really want to engage in the behavior. Oddly enough though, I don’t usually engage in behavior that I don’t want to engage in. In any case, the desire to engage in behavior (sodomy, in this case) is genetically programmed and therefore comparable to skin color. It’s still my choice whether I will act on the impulse, but that’s not really relevant. When your dick tells you to do something, there’s just no sense in resisting.

Sowell’s column really starts to tick me off here:

The current media and political crusade against “bullying” in schools seems likewise to be based on what groups are in vogue at the moment. For years, there have been local newspaper stories about black kids in schools in New York and Philadelphia beating up Asian classmates, some beaten so badly as to require medical treatment. But the national media hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil. Asian Americans are not in vogue today, just as blacks were not in vogue in the 1920s.

First off, he puts “bullying” into quote marks, just the same way that I put terms such as “Christian”, “family values” and “traditional marriage”. He’s mocking the term bullying. It’s almost as if he’s saying that “bullying” is a term so vague that it’s become almost meaningless, which it’s certainly not. The meaning of the term bullying is crystal clear. You are guilty of bullying if you hurt the delicate feelings of butt pirates like me.

But then he starts comparing gay kids to…Asians? That’s so ridiculous. A bunch of Asian kids got beat up. Uh, so? The guys who did it were punished, right? Of course they were. Just the same way that any student should be punished for beating up any other student–gay, straight, Asian, black, Latino, white, Christian, Jewish, handicapped, whatever. So beating people up is already against the rules. It kind of makes you wonder why the explosion of special bullying laws have become absolutely necessary in recent years if they only punish things that were already prohibited.

I think the point that he’s trying to make is that the media didn’t jump into action after the Asian kids got beat up. They didn’t work overtime to create a media-driven hysteria about anti-Asian bullying. Despite the fact that the Asians in question were hospitalized, reporters didn’t think that the story was newsworthy. Just another brainy Asian kid being beat up by blacks. Unless the Asian kid liked giving blowjobs on the side, I don’t see how this can be considered news. So let’s not talk about it.

Reporters don’t have time to waste on Asian kids in the hospital. Not when there’s real bullying going on!There’s a kid in Texas named Dakota Ary who said “I think being a homosexual is wrong.” Now that’s bullying!

Sowell’s main point seems to be that the relative importance of an incident of bullying depends more on the identity of the victim and possibly the aggressor, and less on the severity of the incident. Hence, words directed at sodomites are just as bad as barbaric acts of violence directed at Asian kids. Wait a second, did I say “just as bad”? No, it’s infinitely worse to disapprove of homosexuality than it is beat up Asian kids.

Sowell:

Most of the stories about the bullying of gays in schools are about words directed against them, not about their suffering the violence that has long been directed against Asian youngsters or about the failure of the authorities to do anything serious to stop black kids from beating up Asian kids.

Well, duh! That’s because we’re trying to criminalize dissent. Everyone already agrees that physical violence is terrible and shouldn’t be tolerated. In fact, there isn’t a single school in the whole country in which it’s permitted. Our obsession with bullying is really an obsession with gagging our opponents.

If you think it’s wrong for people to sleep with persons of the same sex, you are a monster. You are a bully. And we have a zero tolerance policy for bullying in our school. Ergo, you may not express your opinion in our school. What do you think this is–America?

Unfortunately, most Americans are raised with a healthy respect for freedom. They think that speech is a protected right. They think that people have a right to disagree with each other and with authorities, and to express that disagreement. We had to think of a new way to frame our censorious, thought-stopping, speech-gagging policy in such a way that people would be so filled with shame that they would never stoop to the old “freedom” arguments to oppose us.

And this is what we came up with. We exploit the deaths of gay children. Sometimes we even exploit the deaths of children who aren’t gay.

Sure, we will all still enjoy free speech in America. But you can’t say that! Our constitutional rights must be curtailed or some gay kid might kill himself! When gay people are exposed to shame, they tend to blow their brains out. Interestingly, shame is the primary weapon that we use against those Christofascists.

Sowell continues:

“But there is still a difference between words and deeds — and it is a difference we do not need to let ourselves be stampeded into ignoring. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees freedom of speech — and, like any other freedom, it can be abused. If we are going to take away every Constitutional right that has been abused by somebody, we are going to end up with no Constitutional rights.”

Uh, excuse me? There’s a “difference” between words and deeds? No, there isn’t. Violence is the same as words. Because if you say the wrong words to me, I might commit violence against myself and it would be your fault, not mine. So now that we’ve established that words are equivalent to violence, we can now get to work gang-raping the free speech rights of people I don’t want to hear–Christofascists, for example. And that’s how we will circumvent your silly argument about the First Amendment “protecting” speech. We will just say that your speech is killing poor, abused gay teenagers.

This woman is a genius! See? When you say things I don't want to hear, it's the equivalent of murder. And murder is illegal, so why shouldn't speech be illegal too?

More idiocy from Sowell:

“Already, on too many college campuses, there are vaguely worded speech codes that can punish students for words that may hurt somebody’s feelings — but only the feelings of groups that are in vogue.”

So what? I’m on that list of “in vogue” groups and so the censorship codes are never exercised against me and always against my enemies. And Sowell thinks that makes me a “special class” of victims! Ha! Aren’t all groups of people entitled to live their lives without ever hearing an idea that hurts their feelings? I’m all for campus speech codes, so long as they continue to used as weapons against those I disagree with. Try again, Tom.

“Women can say anything they want to men, or blacks to whites, with impunity. But strong words in the other direction can bring down on students the wrath of the campus thought police — as well as punishments that can extend to suspension or expulsion. Is this what we want in our public schools?”

Yes! With one important addition–homosexuals can say whatever they want to Christofascist H8ers, but not the reverse. That’s a perfectly acceptable policy to me.

The tiresome Sowell blathers on:

Meanwhile, a law has been passed in California that mandates teaching about the achievements of gays in the public schools. Whether this will do anything to stop either verbal or physical abuse of gay kids is very doubtful. But it will advance the agenda of homosexual organizations and can turn homosexuality into yet another of the subjects on which words on only one side are permitted.

There he goes again with that “gay agenda”. When is he going to learn that our only “agenda” is equality? And when I say equality, I mean outlawing the religious beliefs of hateful religions.

But he’s right about one thing. Teaching about the achievements of homosexuals in schools probably won’t have the effect of reducing bullying. We wouldn’t want that because we need our martyrs. It’s about sending the message that homosexuality is good.

And yes, we do want words on only one side to be permitted. OUR SIDE. That’s the American way. If you disagree with me, that’s like saying that slavery should be permitted. Opposition to homosexuality is kind of like slavery. That’s the catch-all excuse I use, anyway. You can borrow that if you’d like. What I mean to say is that this issue is beyond discussion. Opposing viewpoints are not allowed. If you attempt to voice them, we will discipline you.

And to think that Sowell and his band of wailing hysterical conservatives think that we want CENSORSHIP! Isn’t that ridiculous? We don’t want censorship. We just want to make your beliefs unspeakable under penalty of law, that’s all.

Gay marriage: Yes, it really is all about pissing you off.

Rosie O’Donnell is back in the news in recent weeks, this time explaining in an interview with USA Today that she married her girlfriend Kelli Carpenter just because she wanted to give the president the old “up yours!”

Rosie heard what Dubya said about that "traditional" marriage stuff...and she's PISSED!

Rosie explains:

“There’s something about marrying someone in a commitment with all your friends and family around you. … Kelli and I got married (in San Francisco in 2004) in some ways as an act of civil disobedience as much as anything. We didn’t have our family there, we didn’t have our children there. George Bush held a press conference in the middle of the war and says, ‘You know what the problem in this country is — those gay people in San Francisco.’ And I was so furious. I said, ‘Let’s go.'”

Yeah, there certainly is something about making a commitment to another person. Her commitment to her previous wife was so strong that it lasted three whole years!

But seriously, it wasn’t about the commitment. You can have that without the seal of approval from the state. Rosie and her new girlfriend can have whatever ceremony they want in any state, and they can commit themselves to each other until their hearts are content. That’s not what she wants. And neither do I. I want the power of the state to force other people to recognize my relationship as every bit as worthwhile as other relationships that don’t involve sodomy. And I want to force people to call Michael my “husband”. I want the heavy hand of the state to force people to do things against their will.

Getting married to piss of George W. Bush is really a pretty good reason to get married. I mean it. I’m just so surprised that a marriage based in spite toward another person didn’t last that long.

Rosie O'Donnell got hitched just to piss off this guy. And I think it really hurt his feelings. I'm sure it was part of his intelligence briefing the next day.

As it turns out, Rosie admitted more than a year ago that her marriage to Kelli was based more in hate than in love. Let’s listen to her words of wisdom:

What happened is, one state–California–Gavin Newsome, decided that it was unconstitutional to prevent gay people from getting married, and so, he started marrying people there in the state of California and the city of San Francisco. And that’s when Kelli mommy and I went and flew there and got married.

Okay, just to clear a few things up here. When Rosie says that “one state–California” decided that “it was was unconstitutional to prevent gay people from getting married”, she didn’t really mean California. California decided no such thing. She meant Gavin Newsome, who was, at the time, the mayor of San Francisco. And he decided, on his own whim, that it was unconstitutional and started issuing marriage licenses in defiance of state law. Which is really awesome. Now, if the mayor of one particular city in my state of Massachusetts decided that he was the arbiter of the state constitution, and that it was unconstitutional to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, then I would be all up in arms. And I certainly wouldn’t say that “one state–Massachusetts” decided that marriage equality was unconstitutional. I would say that one fascist, law-breaking, rogue mayor had decided as much, but who really cares what the hell he thinks because it’s not his job to determine the constitutionality of jack squat. But I digress.

Rosie continues:

George Bush, in the middle of a war, had an all-station news conference to announce how horrible it was for the safety of America that gay people were getting married in San Francisco, which pissed me off enough to get on a plane and go get married.

Yeah, and he did this IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR! During wartime, we aren’t allowed to talk about anything else except the war. Well, I tell that to people who oppose marriage equality, not those who support it. So basically, during wartime, those evil conservatives have to punt all the other issues to us. They must concentrate only on the war, which we on the other side are actively trying to lose.

Come to think of it, I kind of like this war thing. The one in Afghanistan has been going on for more than a decade, and no one knows how long it will take. Let’s stretch it out for a while. So long as there is a war going on, everybody has to shut up about the social issues. Everybody except the people on my side. And then, if we ever get out of this Afghanistan thing, I’ll say that conservatives have a lot of gall to oppose my agenda in the middle of this awful economy. The point is that I will always find a reason why we just shouldn’t talk about these things, and then I will apply those reasons only to people I don’t like.

I’m going to have to take it on faith that Dubya called an “all stations news conference” to talk about the grave security threat that marriage equality poses to the American way of life. That’s what Rosie said, and I believe her. I don’t remember that particular news conference but I’m sure it happened and he said exactly those things.

Tim Graham over at NewsBusters does not take Rosie at her word. The son-of-a-bitch fact checked her, which is really a mean trick. No fair going back and trying to find confirmation that Rosie’s version of events really happened. Her side of the story is an emotionally driven piece of propaganda, just like everything we fags say.  This is what Graham came up with:

“Okay, first of all, on February 24, 2004 , President Bush didn’t call ‘an all-station news conference.’ He made a rather routine statement (not a press conference) in the Roosevelt Room of the White House. And he didn’t say it was ‘horrible for the safety of America’ that gays would marry. He did say the people had voted to endorse the traditional definition of marriage, and some activist judges in Massachusetts and city officials in San Francisco were overturning the will of the people of California.”

You mean there wasn’t a single reference in the entire speech to the safety of America? Damn it, if this guy Graham keeps dragging in those things called “facts”, we might not be able to lie and rewrite history.

Graham actually provided a link to a news story about the speech. Bush went as far as to say:

“We should also conduct this difficult debate in a matter worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger. In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and good will and decency.”

That’s hate speech! Good will and decency? Well, fuck him. I don’t want a civilized debate on this issue. I want what I want, and I want it NOW! Not only do I reject the idea of civilized debate, I reject the idea of ANY debate. This is not a topic that we will discuss and work out our differences. My policy preference will become law and if you stand in my way, I will hunt you down and punish you. I do not want dialogue, and I do not want dissenting opinions. Those things are downright un-American.

And really, I don’t care if the people of California voted twice to define marriage as between a man and a woman. That’s why I run to a homosexual judge every time I lose in a fair election and ask him to impose our personal agenda and overturn the will of the majority. You’ve got millions of Californians on your side? Tough shit! I’ve got a cock-sucking judge and he wins every time. No bias there. Just because he’s a homosexual doesn’t mean that his rulings are a foregone conclusion.

Besides, the mayor of the fourth largest city in California decided that the people of the entire state were wrong. And then he unilaterally decided to usurp authority that was not his. But Newsome was the mayor of San Francisco, and it’s his job to determine the constitutionality of the state’s marriage laws. And if he finds that they’re not up to muster, he can just defy them.

Gavin Newsome, Lt. Governor of California and former mayor of San Francisco.

Gavin Newsome is a hero! He doesn’t believe in any of that “sanctity of marriage” crap! We know that because he got caught stepping out on his wife. Yeah, he’s an adulterer. I tend to get pissy whenever anyone who opposes marriage equality gets caught cheating, but that’s because they’re HYPOCRITES. Go ahead and be a two-timing dirtbag if you want to, just as long as you don’t talk about marriage being “sacred” or anything like that. Don’t pretend to have any morals and we won’t blame you at all for moral failures.

Back to Rosie. So she got herself all in a huff back in 2004 over some imaginary remarks made at an imaginary news conference and then she ran off to San Francisco and got one of those illegitimate marriage licenses that the rogue mayor was handing out. Funny thing is, the marriage didn’t last and now they’re splitsville. I was shocked. It’s amazing the brash things that people will do when they react to things that exist only in their fevered imaginations.

As I listen to Rosie, I’m reminded of Julie and Hillary Goodridge, the two lesbians who sued the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for marriage rights and won. (They were represented by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders–GLAD–an organization that was born in the man-boy love movement. For more on that, see previous post: https://twogaybullies.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/kiddie-porn-ring-busted-glad-theyll-have-good-lawyers/ ) When arguing their case, the Goodridges pointed out that they had been together for more than twenty years, they had a child together, and they were in love!

Julie and Hillary Goodridge. They're IN LOVE! Well, they were until they achieved their goal of redefining marriage and then they fell out of love. Just like straight people do, m'kay?

And who are you to stop these two from loving each other? Okay, so no one was stopping anyone from loving anyone else. We just made that part up because of the emotional appeal that it has.

The Goodridges were married in 2004, seperated in 2006, and divorced in 2009. So their marriage lasted a little bit longer than Rosie’s. Now, don’t go getting all judgmental. Gay people will divorce just like straight people. Interestingly, we used the high rate of divorce among straight couples as an argument for why marriage isn’t really sacred and why we homos can do better. And now that I think of it, it does seem that they made such a big deal out of the fact that they had been together for twenty years and that they had a daughter together was because they wanted to demonstrate their stability, that they’re the model family. Huh. And then two years later they can’t stand each other and they want a divorce. Weird.

It’s almost as if playing house wasn’t fun any more, not after they’d succeeded in forcing their agenda on everyone else and pissing off the religious right. Ha! Ha! We won! And now, I don’t really want to be married to you until death do us part. I didn’t mean that shit. 

Gays get divorces just like straights, okay? But then again, straight people didn’t spend their whole lives crying about how they aren’t allowed to get married, how they’re just soooooooooo in love and they can’t live one second longer if the state doesn’t recognize that love, how they’re wonderful parents and they have such a stable and loving home. Nope, that was Hillary and Julie. As it turns out, twenty years together as cohabiting mommies was easy, but give them a marriage license and they’ll be divorced in less than the national average.

Marrying your partner just to piss off religious people is always a good way to make a good foundation for a family. I recommend it highly!

Tag Cloud