Yesterday I wrote:
Someone with a private business wouldn’t make you a cake and you felt “dehumanized”, talk about being a complete wimp. Get over yourselves and grow up. You are acting like a 12 year old girl.
Yes, I’m pissed, because this goes against everything a believe about private business. You should be able to discriminate at will in a private business and I can discriminate at will on whether I shop there.
The free market, it’s a beautiful thing.
And I guess I need to explain that a little more fully.
Or maybe just repeat myself.
When it comes to getting people to accept you in general society, there is a little give and take. You aren’t going to get everyone in the world to accept you, someone is always going to have some problem with you, as the Pink song says:
Done looking for the critics, cause they’re everywhere
They don’t like my jeans, they don’t get my hair*
You really just have to learn to love yourself and stop worrying what other people think so much, but the gay left is so hyper sensitive that everything is a direct attack on them and every one and every thing that goes against them makes them so angry that they have to attack attack attack constantly.
Frankly I pity them.
The specific reason for this post is to remind the gay left that suing people and getting them sent to jail because they wouldn’t bake you a cake, is sort of the epitome of childishness and isn’t do you any favors when it comes to gaining acceptance with others.
Everyone is talking up a storm about Jason Collins, a pro-basketball player who just announced that he’s gay to the entire world.
Or at least everyone who reads Sports Illustrated.
I don’t, so I had to wait for the rest of the world to catch up and start frantically covering it in the news and on twitter to hear about it. I just shrugged and said “Okay? So?”
I’ve never understood the need to make a huge spectacle of your personal life.
Well that’s a lie, I used to bring up my sexuality in conversations when I was in 9th grade and I was an obnoxious little liberal troll, but that’s about it.
I didn’t make a big production of coming out, in fact I usually came out by accident, because I would talk about “my girlfriend said…” as normally as I would have said “my boyfriend said…” in a conversation. So I would say that and people would interrupt the flow of the conversation to say “Whoah, whoa there!….you’re gay?” I would confirm and then we would carry on with the conversation.
What I didn’t do was take out a page in the school newspaper to announce that, yes, the obnoxiously smart kid in the freshmen class was, in fact, a lesbian.
What is it about being gay that leads famous people to announce it to the world? They don’t feel the need to announce their straightness to the world and they still make plenty of headlines. Why not just live your life and answer the question honestly if you are asked and you want to let people know that you live with a person of the same sex and not the opposite.
Maybe I’m more annoyed by this because I wish that the Gosnell trial or Benghazi or Fast and Furious had gotten even half the amount of media coverage this is getting. Why in the world is the sexuality of an NBA player more important than the murder of small children or the death of American citizens? Why is it that our culture has more interest in the sexuality of a Basketball player than they do in terrorism or foreign policy.
I know, I know, the latter seems awful boring and the former is titillating and interesting.
To some anyway.
I probably wouldn’t even be writing an article about this if it weren’t for the fact that Obama still hasn’t said a word about Gosnell, but he apparently too the time to call up Jason Collins and let him know how proud of him he is.
It’s that I don’t think he should be gay or that I don’t think he’s brave for announcing it, it’s just that I don’t care.
And more to the point, the fact that anyone DOES care when someone announces their sexuality is a black mark against what the gay community is supposedly trying to accomplish. My straight friends don’t preface the announcement that they are dating someone with “Oh right, I’m straight, so don’t be shocked when I announce that my significant other is the opposite sex”. Neither do I and that has, to date, never been a problem for me. I thought the gay community wanted to be accepted the same way? Which doesn’t involve making a big production out of announcing which gender you sleep with.
I don’t announce that I’m gay when I meet a new group of people, I just act like a normal human being. My sexuality is not who I am, though I admit to employing it to make liberals heads explode, but that’s also part of who I am. If you talked to most of the people who met me at CPAC or Right Online in last year or so, they would tell you that they were not aware I was gay until they heard me talk about my girlfriend or they got home and checked my twitter bio.
That, ideally, should be how people operate. Why would Jason Collins want to be known as “the gay NBA player” for the rest of time? Like being gay is who he is?
Then again, maybe being gay is who he is. Perhaps he’s like all those liberal gay activists that feel the need to wear rainbow bracelets and a shirt announcing that they’re here and they’re queer.
If that’s your identity, fine. Don’t expect the rest of us to get all excited by it.
One year ago today, I woke up in my dorm room and checked twitter. At first I thought someone had pulled a prank. There was no way that Andrew Breitbart was actually dead, I knew it had to be a hoax. He was so full of life and energy.
Then the confirmation started to roll in and I stayed in bed for 2 hours, crying for him and his family…and a little for myself. Breitbart was a big inspiration and influence for me.
This following is an excerpt from my book, which is currently in progress. I haven’t even begun to edit it yet and this is the first time it’s been typed up, so forgive the occasional mistakes.
March of 2009 I was living like a bum. I had graduated high school a semester earlier than my peers, I had no job, and lived rent free in my parent’s house. I had no real plans for my life and no inspiration to do anything much at all.
I had come far from being the liberal militant Atheist that I had been between the ages of 14 and 18, but I was still drinking the liberal kool-aid in many ways. I was starting to change in small ways though, such as refusing to vote for Obama in 2008, based on the fact that i knew Obama was a hack who had no actual plan (or worse, a plan he didn’t want to share) but if you had asked me about the GOP or the Tea Party, I still would have had much that was nice to say about them.
In fact, the key words in my response would have followed a very Rachel Maddow-esque set of dialogue “blah blah blah racist, blah blah blah homophobic blah gay marriage blah blah women’s rights blah blah pro-choice blah blah religious extremists blah teabaggers.”
Yeah, I was one of those people. Despite personally knowing Republicans who didn’t fit that mold, including a pagan pro-choice Republican who liked gay people just fine.
I was still in contact with a large number of liberal and atheist message boards where I was active and had acquaintances, the same ones that had convinced me years ago that I had to be a liberal because I was gay, one of those “friends” send me a youtube clip one day and the accompanying email read something like “Haha, look at Bill Maher and Dyson tear this Breitbart guy a new one, lol”.
Anyone who has read Breitbart’s book, Righteous Indignation, knows of which interview I’m talking about.
The problem was that when I watched that clip, instead of laughing at the “stupid” conservative and cheering on Maher and Dyson as I should have, I found myself saying “wait a minute, this Breitbart guy is pretty smart. What he’s saying makes sense and Maher just looks like a buffoon.” (Strangely my opinion on Maher never changed from that day on.)
So I started looking this guy up. I followed him on twitter, which, for those of you who were in the conservative new media world before Breitbart passed away will know this, was an enlighting experience all on it’s own. I started paying attention to more than just the mainstream media and began searching for more avenues of news. Twitter became my morning newspaper and Red Eye my evening nightcap (which made for some weird dreams, let me tell you.)
It was a difficult transition for me. No matter how much I disagreed with the rhetoric and ideals of the Democratic party, I was also a lesbian and my introduction to politics as a teen had come through that frame of reference. The liberals and homosexuals who had formed my support grous when I was “coming out” had spent a lot of time (intentionally or unintentionally, I’ll never know which) indoctrinating me to believe that the Republican party hate me and wanted to put me in a re-education camp to “cure” me.
In a strange way I guess the idea of the “gay community” “indoctrinating” the young is true, but it’s not their sexuality that they influence, but their politics.
No matter my values, I had been told over and over again that I had to be a liberal because they were the ones that wanted equality and fair treatment for me. I would never be accepted or represented by the Grand Old Party because of their inherent religious intolerance and bigotry.
I had yet to see actual concrete proof of this bigotry on a wide scale in the GOP, but I was utterly convinced that it was there, hidden somewhere. So when I interacted with conservatives and shared ideas, I kept my sexuality hidden, hiding a part of myself at the same time. That wasn’t what I wanted either. I wanted openness with my peers, how else could I really exchange ideas, but I was afraid of being shunned by the GOP for my sexuality and I couldn’t freely discuss my recently discovered conservative ideas with those who knew my sexuality for fear of being “the nail that sticks up”.
Strangely enough, when I got the courage to come clean to both sides there was only one group that reacted in an overwhelmingly negative manner and it certainly wasn’t the conservatives.
Once again it was Andrew who hit me over the head and told me I wasn’t alone. Well it was actually a group Breitbart was a part of at the time, GOProud. The reason GOProud even entered my field of view at the time was because of Breitbart. He was on the board of directors and that had caused a large amount of speculation from liberal assholes about his “true” sexuality. Never mind that liberals pushed constantly for the creation of “Gay-Straight Alliances” in schools so that that straight allies could have a place to speak out.
Liberal hypocrisy was alive and well in their speculation that Breitbart, happily married to a woman, had to be a self-loathing closeted gay man if he was going to be involved with GOProud.
The board of GOProud also held other conservative faces, such as Ann Coulter, who I had hated with extreme vitriol when I was a liberal. I hated everything was and everything she wrote and I thought she was the biggest moron in existence. Unsurprisingly I had managed to come to that conclusion without having read a single article she had penned or cracking open a single one of her best-selling books. I knew I hated her because I was supposed to hate her and I knew for a “fact” that she hated me for being gay…but she was on the board of a gay conservative group and I wasn’t quite so sure of myself and the many views I still held about conservative pundits.
Somehow at least 70% of my story of “coming out” as a conservative, seems to revolve around Andrew Breitbart in some way. From the very beginning he was an inspiration to me and I can’t say for sure that I would be the same person today if he hadn’t been for him.
He was one of kind and I don’t think that any one person in our movement can stand in his shoes. I certainly wouldn’t have the guts to rollerblade through an OWS rally, but I think that we can all be a little like Breitbart. Fearless and passionate about our love for this country and maybe he’s watching us now, cheering us on and cursing out the liberal morons we have to deal with on a daily basis.
In his memory and for the future of his children, our children, ourselves, and this country, we have to keep fighting.
I annoyed my co-host from The Open Door yesterdaydi when she posted a story on my facebook page, sure that it would incense me and make my blood boil, only to find that I was uncommonly clear headed and rational about it. She was annoyed because she couldn’t be “irrational and indignant” while I was making so much sense.
What was the story?
Look we may find this to be rather distasteful, but as long as they do what they say they are going to do, which is:
Their idea is to create their own separate…traditional prom. Students say there are several others from their high school who agree, but are afraid to take a stand.
then I have absolutely zero problem with it. As long as the public school and the tax payers have no part in paying for, advertising, or hosting this “traditional” prom then it’s absolutely none of our business.
Recently on my political tumblr I’ve been dealing with an onslaught of messages from liberals, criticizing my respect for Ronald Reagan, because, in their words “A significant source of Reagan’s support came from the newly identified religious right and the Moral Majority, a political-action group founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell. AIDS became the tool, and gay men the target, for the politics of fear, hate and discrimination.“ and “Do you think that Reagan refused to do anything positive for aids stricken people because they were gay?“
I can only be led to believe that, tumblr being a hive of liberal misinformation (like repeatedly posting links to satirical news sites as ‘proof’ that Romney wants to ban tampons), that this liberal lie has come around on the guitar again as a favored talking point.
It shouldn’t surprise anyone that this is bullshit.
The first ridiculous idea here is the Reagan was some sort of homophobe.
First of all, the man worked in Hollywood and as Martin Anderson, a high level adviser to Reagan, said “I remember Reagan telling us that in Hollywood he knew a lot of gays, and he never had any problem with them,…I think a number of people who were gay worked for the Reagans,…We never kept track. But he never said anything even remotely like that comment in the movie. His basic attitude was ‘Leave them alone.’”
Reagan, in 1978, publicly opposed Proposition 6 in California, which called for the dismissal of teachers who ‘advocated’ for homosexuality.
“Whatever else it is,” Reagan wrote, “homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual’s sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child’s teachers do not really influence this.” He also argued: “Since the measure does not restrict itself to the classroom, every aspect of a teacher’s personal life could presumably come under suspicion. What constitutes ‘advocacy’ of homosexuality? Would public opposition to Proposition 6 by a teacher — should it pass — be considered advocacy?”
That November 7, Proposition 6 lost, 41.6 percent in favor to 58.4 percent against. Reagan’s opposition is considered instrumental to its defeat.
Then there is the fact that Reagan’s own family denies that he was some sort of homophobe and they were none to pleased by hatchet job portrayal of the former President in the Showtime tv movie The Reagans.
According to the screenplay for “The Reagans,” my father is a homophobic Bible-thumper who loudly insisted that his son wasn’t gay when Ron took up ballet, and who in a particularly scathing scene told my mother that AIDS patients deserved their fate. “They who live in sin shall die in sin,” the writers and producers had him say.…
Not only did my father never say such a thing, he never would have. If you have any doubts, read the recently published book of his letters. They reveal a man whose compassion for other people is deep and earnest, and whose spiritual life is based on faith in a loving God, not a vengeful one.I was about eight or nine years old when I learned that some people are gay — although the word ‘gay’ wasn’t used in those years. I don’t remember what defining word was used, if any; what I do remember is the clear, smooth, non-judgmental way in which I was told. The scene took place in the den of my family’s Pacific Palisades home. My father and I were watching an old Rock Hudson and Doris Day movie. At the moment when Hudson and Doris Day kissed, I said to my father, “That looks weird.” Curious, he asked me to identify exactly what was weird about a man and woman kissing, since I’d certainly seen such a thing before. All I knew was that something about this particular man and woman was, to me, strange. My father gently explained that Mr. Hudson didn’t really have a lot of experience kissing women; in fact, he would much prefer to be kissing a man. This was said in the same tone that would be used if he had been telling me about people with different colored eyes, and I accepted without question that this whole kissing thing wasn’t reserved just for men and women.
You should know this story because it’s something the producers Craig Zadan and Neil Meron won’t tell you. They have exhibited astounding carelessness and cruelty in their depiction of my father and my entire family. They never consulted any family member, nor did they speak to anyone who has known us throughout the years.
Then there comes this fantastical idea that liberal subscribe to which is that Reagan was happy that AIDS existed and did everything he could to stop it from being cured, because he was a homophobe who thought gays deserved to die of AIDS.
In a Congressional Research Service study titled AIDS Funding for Federal Government Programs: FY1981-FY1999, author Judith Johnson found that overall, the federal government spent $5.727 billion on AIDS under Ronald Reagan. This higher number reflects President Reagan’s proposals as well as additional expenditures approved by Congress that he later signed.
Table 5 of Johnson’s report shows annual federal AIDS spending during Ronald Reagan’s watch. This is hardly the portrait of a do-nothing presidency:
Government Spending on HIV/AIDS
Fiscal Year ($ Millions) % growth over previous year 1982 8 1983 44 450.00 1984 103 134.09 1985 205 99.03 1986 508 147.80 1987 922 81.50 1988 1,615 75.16 1989 2,322 43.78 Total 5,727
Source: Congressional Research Service
Funding for AIDS research went up 128.92% between 1982 and 1989!
That’s a lot of money folks, a LOT of money.
Could he have spent more? Yeah, probably. I mean were in hard economic times, but if it would have done any good to have more money spent on the research, I’m sure Reagan could have found the money somewhere.
But it wouldn’t have helped.
“You could have poured half the national budget into AIDS in 1983, and it would have gone down a rat hole,” says Michael Fumento, author of BioEvolution: How Biotechnology Is Changing Our World. “There were no anti-virals back then. The first anti-viral was AZT which came along in 1987, and that was for AIDS.” As an example of how blindly scientists and policymakers flew as the virus took wing, Fumento recalls that “in 1984, Health and Human Services Secretary Margaret Heckler predicted that there would be an AIDS vaccine by 1986. There is no AIDS vaccine to date.”
Reagan had no interest in letting gay people die. He had gay friends, ones that did in fact suffer from AIDS. He held no evangelical, Westboro Baptist, style hatred for gay people, as liberals want to make us believe.
We will continue, as a high priority, the fight against Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). An unprecedented research effort is underway to deal with this major epidemic public health threat. The number of AIDS cases is expected to increase. While there are hopes for drugs and vaccines against AIDS, none is immediately at hand. Consequently, efforts should focus on prevention, to inform and to lower risks of further transmission of the AIDS virus. To this end, I am asking the Surgeon General to prepare a report to the American people on AIDS.
- 1986 State of the Union address
Last time I wrote about San Francisco it was to complain about the high level of stupidity in the city.
Now I’m writing a post to give Supervisor Scott Wiener (really now, that name again? Just change it now before you attract a sex scandal) for a really good decision, that, frankly, makes his name even more hilarious.
The Board of Supervisors voted 6-5 in favor of a public safety ordinance that prohibits exposed genitals in most public places, including streets, sidewalks and public transit. The law still must pass a final vote and secure Mayor Edwin Lee’s signature to take effect early next year.
Supervisor Scott Wiener introduced the ban in response to escalating complaints about a group of men whose bare bodies are on display almost daily in the city’s predominantly gay Castro District.
That whole public nudity thing was one of the reasons that, even when I was a liberal, I was a tad bit squeamish about when it came to thinking about moving there.
There are, for some reason, detractors from this new proposed law.
“I’m concerned about civil liberties, about free speech, about changing San Francisco’s style and how we are as a city,” Supervisor John Avalos said. “I cannot and will not bite this apple and I refuse to put on this fig leaf.”
Yeah, yeah, the religious symbolism is very deep and melodramatic, but there is no way that you are going to make people more comfortable with guys letting their junk hang out everywhere in town.
I’m sure there are a lot of people who would maybe like to visit the city to sight see, who might feel a LOT more comfortable coming into the city, knowing they won’t be seeing the private parts of men OR women in random areas of the city.
Also there is this
A federal lawsuit claiming the ban would violate the free speech rights of people who prefer to make a statement by going au naturel was filed last week in case the ordinance clears its final hurdles.
I’m sorry, in what way is this freedom of speech.
You are just grasping at straws. Go nude in your own home, the homes of your friends, or any private business that allows you too.
Don’t make the rest of us see it.
As readers of my blog, you all need to help keep me accountable and working hard on this book.
Obviously I won’t be ‘live blogging’ the writing of a book, since that would defeat the purpose of writing a book, but you can follow me on twitter and watch for the occasionally frustrated, rending of clothing and tearing of hair, tweets about my progress…among other things.
How do you keep me accountable?
Well if you are interested in the book, send me a tweet or leave me a comment on the blog to nag me about when I will finish the book.
Of course when it’s done I’ll have to find an agent and a publishing company, so if you have any advice on that, feel free to include that along with the nagging.
What’s the book about, you ask?
What do you think? It’s a non-fiction political book which, among other things, tells a bit of my own personal story of transition from liberalism to conservatism, a discussion of what being a gay conservative means (mostly a lot of being insulted by gay liberals), clearing up some misconceptions about what it means to be conservative, and quite a large section devoted to motivating young conservatives (gay and straight) and encouraging them to get their views out there and argue their beliefs.*
Also there is will be some vague threatening posturing towards a few conservative pundits, who have their own shows *cough*GregGutfeld*cough* about what will happen if they don’t invite me to come on their show.
*any and all parts of this description could change. In fact, the whole book could become an argument about why koalas are superior house guards than dogs. I make no promises.
Okay, so now the police say Wood has ‘recanted’. I still think there is more to the story, but my point still stands. The original post was about the lack of reporting, not the incident itself.
The Advocate and other gay news organizations have jumped on dozens of ‘hate crimes’ against gays (the non-conservative ones) that later were proved to be false. Not only was their reporting on it after the falsehood was discovered very low key…to the point of almost not existing, but when you read the comments on the posts, the gay ‘community’ rallies around these liars and either says the cops are homophobic bigots who are lying about the situation or, if they do admit it was fake, they stand by them and say that ‘well this PARTICULAR case may not have been true, but this stuff happens all the time and they are just trying to get hate crimes noticed so people will do something to stop them’. (No joke, that’s almost word for word some of the comments I’ve seen on stories about gay people faking hate crimes.)
The biggest issue here is not that someone lied (still want to know what happened, it was clear he was beaten and it was not a beating he could have administered himself, something happened here and someone is responsible for his assault) but that many of the ‘leading’ gay news organizations did not bother to report on it until after it came out that it was recanted and then they made a HUGE deal out of it…unlike similar stories of gay liberals faking hate crimes.
Then of course there is the absolutely CHARMING commentary on the story about the situation. Gay liberals using every slur in the book, ones that they would normally call a person ‘bigoted’ and ‘homophobic’ for using, but when they do it to a gay person it’s apparently okay.
My point stands. This was not reported quickly for political reasons in the first place, because it did not fit the narrative that these websites want to promote.
It had nothing to do with the ‘lack of evidence’ to support it, no matter how much liberals would want you to believe it.
Why do I say that? Because if this SAME situation had happened to a gay liberal, Dan Savage would have been reporting on it in a heartbeat, not sitting around telling people that it didn’t pass the ‘smell test’.