Christian radio host Janet Mefferd cuts to the heart of the gay rights matter and says out loud what many will not: Many conservative Christians simply do no want to be forced to look at gay people.
Whether the homosexual activists like it or not, and I know this isn’t politically correct to say this, but not everybody wants to see that. I know that that’s offensive to the activist crowd, they want us all to see it, they want us all to approve of it, they want us all to call it blessed and okay and rejoice and have parties and throw confetti in the air over this whole thing. But the fact of the matter is it’s a moral issue. You will always have Christians who will disagree with this and why should the rights of the activists trump the rights of Christians?
By this same logic why should the rights of the black people have trumped the rights of Southern slave owners?
Got an answer for that one, Janet?
I’m sure you do. I’m equally sure that it’s fucking stupid and decidedly unscientific.
(And what about people who are offended by low IQ idiots like Janet Mefford, don’t we have any rights?)
Advice to Janet Mefferd from the Holy Book itself:
If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out.
That’s right, Janet, gouge your own eyes out if you’re offended by gay people. The Bible IS the inerrant word of God, isn’t it? Out they go!
Barring that, stay at home and keep the door locked and the TV off. The 21st century is gonna really suck for you otherwise, doll.
Two of the earliest things that I read by William Burroughs were The Job, a book’s worth of interviews conducted by Daniel Odier, along with some shorter pieces that focused on revolution (and revolutionary technology for lack of a better term) and The Third Mind, his enigmatic collaboration with painter Brion Gysin about the “cut-ups” literary technique, and its occult implications. The cuts-up technique holds that if you randomly rearrange words via chance operation, that you’ll find their “real” meaning or encourage some sort of prophecy to leak through. Sort of like those “Magnetic Poetry” refrigerator magnets used as a Ouija board, to put it simply…
The “occult Burroughs” is my favorite aspect of his work. When the topic veers towards the use of occult technology in the employment of revolution, I prefer that even more (like “The Revised Boy Scout Manual”).
Burroughs had a strong interest in the occult all of his life, but aside from his own writings, there were precious few interviews where he’s speaking openly about his magical interests. The interviews that come to mind immediately are the ones Vale did in RE/Search #4/5 and a late in life Q&A that (I think) was conducted by the great Kristine McKenna around the time of Burroughs’ big LACMA art show in 1996 (I can’t find it online). Burroughs’ major biography, Literary Outlaw by Ted Morgan, barely touches on the subject, as if a major component of his subject’s worldview had sailed right over Morgan’s head, although Barry Miles’ more sympathetic El Hombre Invisible is much more satisfying in this regard.
Below, William S. Burroughs lectures to his writing class at Naropa University, on “wishing machines,” the paranormal, synchronicity, propaganda and dreams. You can hear Allen Ginsberg’s voice in a couple of places. Taped in Boulder, Colorado on June 25,1986.
The same closet-casedickhead who authored the first bill (which was introduced in 2011 but died) State Sen. Stacey Campfield (NATURALLY A GODDAMNED REPUBLICAN), reintroduced SB 234 this time as well. Campfield is, yes, the very same fucknut who proposed cutting welfare payments when kids get bad report cards just last week!
“The act of homosexuality is very dangerous to someone’s health and safety,” says Campfield.
From the new bill:
The general assembly recognizes that certain subjects are particularly sensitive and are, therefore, best explained and discussed within the home. Because of its complex societal, scientific, psychological, and historical implications, human sexuality is one such subject. Human sexuality is best understood by children with sufficient maturity to grasp its complexity and implications [...]
A school counselor, nurse, principal or assistant principal from counseling a student who is engaging in, or who may be at risk of engaging in, behavior injurious to the physical or mental health and well-being of the student or another person; provided, that wherever possible such counseling shall be done in consultation with the student’s parents or legal guardians. Parents or legal guardians of students who receive such counseling shall be notified as soon as practicable that such counseling has occurred.
Family rejection is a serious risk for LGBT youth. Kids who are LGBT often face alienation, if not outright abandonment, because they come out. Forty percent of homeless youth are LGBT, and many of them report that the reason they left home was to escape an environment hostile to their sexual orientation. LGBT youth who experience family rejection are at high risk for depression and suicide.
Annoyed that his opponents dubbed the first go-round the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, this year Campfield called it the “Classroom Protection Act.”
“Protection from who?” asked Chris Sanders, chairman and president of the Tennessee Equality Project.
“It’s kind of like ‘Don’t Say Gay’ on steroids,” Sanders told The Tennessean. “He’s listened to the objections and ended up making it worse.”
If you’d like to give Stacey Campfield a piece of your mind—he’s obviously got none of his own—you can do so here. A Facebook page was also set up to organize getting rid of this jackass who seems intent on giving Knoxville a bad name. Here’s his phone number—(615) 741-1766—and his email address: firstname.lastname@example.org
Below, a (flaming) ignoramus speaks his tiny, tiny little mind:
Some witless asshole dropped off his male pitbull/American bulldog mix at the Jackson Rabies Control Animal Shelter in Tennessee yesterday because he deemed his dog as “gay” for mounting another male dog (by that criteria ALL dogs would be “gay”!). Apparently the fucking idiot owner didn’t want a “gay dog.” The pooch, who displayed no signs of aggression, was scheduled to be euthanized today at 1pm!
Good news, though, a kind soul on Facebook who goes by the name “Jackson TN Euthanasia,” shared the hell out of this poor pup’s story and photo and got this doggie a new home. The dog was lucky, but the old owner will probably always be stupid.
The excellent blog Spectra Speaks reports that award-winning African artist Shishani, has just released a video for her new LGBTI Equality anthem “Minority”.
Award-winning acoustic soul artist, Shishani, has just released the music video for her latest single titled, “Minority”, a catchy, upbeat, acoustic track that calls for freedom and equality for all people despite perceived differences.
Shishani got her big break when she performed at the 2011 Namibian Annual Music Awards in the capital city of Windhoek, where it’s still illegal to be gay. And though, she says, she’s made no real attempts to hide her sexuality, she hasn’t come out as an “out lesbian artist” till now.
“I wanted people to get to know my music,” she says, “Sexuality doesn’t matter. It’s like pasta — asking if you prefer spaghetti or macaroni. It just doesn’t matter… I’m an artist first, before being a gay artist.”
Nambia is one of several African countries where Homosexuality is illegal, and “LGBTI people risk harassment and violence due to a strong culture of stigma in part reignited by religious leaders and government officials.”
As an African musician who identifies as being a part of the LGBTI community, the lyrics of “Minority” no doubt challenge the infamous meme “Homosexuality is unAfrican.” But, Shishan insists, her song is about much more than being gay.
“In Namibia, it also makes a difference what ethnicity you are. “Minority” argues for equal rights for all people regardless of their cultural backgrounds, economic status, sexuality, religion,” she says, “There is so much systemic discrimination against people, for so many reasons.”
The release of “Minority” is timely; January is the month in which outspoken Ugandan LGBT activist, David Kato was bludgeoned to death in an anti-gay attack three years ago, sparking an outcry from fellow African human rights activists. January is also the month in which people in the U.S.–perhaps even all over the world–celebrate Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a powerful civil rights leader and icon. His call for freedom and equality of all people has been taken up by activists all over the world, including Shishani, whose lyrics echo his principles of love and unity.
“Homophobia all over the world comes from the same place; colonialism, apartheid, racial segregation. All our struggles are connected.”
“Transgate”, the recent controversy surrounding writers Suzanne Moore and Julie Burchill’s comments about transgendered people online and in the print media, may seem like a bit of a storm in a teacup to those who have not been directly affected by the issues.
But it could be a decisive moment, not just for transgender awareness, but also how people view the “oldstream” media (in the UK at least) and in turn how social media can shape and express changes in public opinions exponentially quicker, and much more powerfully, than print and television can.
That’s one of the very interesting topics of conversation in a Google Hangout-filmed debate posted by Channel 4 News yesterday, titled Transsexual people and the online age of outrage. It features writer Paris Lees, of META magazine and this well read Vice article, Sarah Savage of Channel 4’s My Transexual Summer, and experts on social media and transgender-issues.
Transgate certainly seems, as is mentioned in the video, a tipping point in public aware of the transgender community and the struggles faced by its members. I certainly don’t remember this much debate around a trans issue in my lifetime, and if there’s any heartening aspect to this whole shameful debacle, it’s that the backlash suggests trans people now have more allies than ever before.
But aside from drawing attention to the hateful attitudes certain persons, columnists, and even schools of feminism display towards people on the trans spectrum, this whole issue has made it that much clearer to the public just how valuable our opinions (and our freedom to express them) are to oldstream media. More and more, the cries of “freedom of speech!” and “anti-censorship” employed by columnists and news institutions over the last week are beginning to translate to the general public as “freedom for us to tell you how it is!”
This is particularly evident when commenters try to repost quotes from the Burchill article itself in the comments sections under certain op-ed pieces decrying the removal of her article only to see the quotes themselves removed. It has happened to me, and it has happened to others, and it makes a mockery of any kind of claim to “free speech”. Why should a writer of such low caliber as Julie Burchill be allowed to make statements about a social group, when members of the public are blocked from doing so?
It’s quite simply a PR disaster for print journalism.
This comes at a time when the Levenson Enquiry is trying to establish whether an independent regulator is needed for the British press. As people are getting their news from online sources much more these days, and thus beginning to doubt the role (and agendas) of mainstream news outlets, journalists are unlikely to be able to whip up enough outrage—real or “manufactured”, a frankly hypocritical term journalists LOVE to use about any controversy that they themselves did not stir up—to make people give a damn.
And let’s be clear about one thing, this is NOT an issue of “censorship”, a claim that’s getting bleated over and over in various echo chambers. If the offensive article was really “censored”, then how come it’s so easy to find on another major, mainstream news platform? I thought “censored” meant it would be gone for good? Or only available through a leaks site? Not on the site of the Daily Telegraph, surely?
This quote from Harry Giles very neatly explains the difference between “censorship” and “editorial policy”:
“… the columnists get it wrong … most call the Observer’s decision “censorship”, without expanding what they mean by that. This makes it seem as if the Observer’s decision were equal with a government passing a law against a speech or a type of speech. Government censorship prevents all speech of a certain kind, or an instance of speech, from happening in a country. Newspaper censorship – another word for which is “editorial policy” – says “we do not think this kind of speech should happen in our house”. Granted, because newspapers have a particular important role in a free speech society, they should be more careful about restrictions in their editorial policy than I would about restrictions on my Facebook wall.”
That is part of an excellent blog post by Giles, called Julie Burchill, Newspapers and Freedom of Speech, that dissects Transgate in a cool, calm and steadfastly philosophical fashion. It’s one of the best analyses I have read about the whole matter, and avoids being confrontational, or emotional (which is pretty hard, considering the language used by both Burchill and Moore.) I highly recommend it.
And for more enlightened discussion of Transgate and the mainstream media’s reaction to the “Twitter storm” here is the Channel 4 News discussion:
“What if the Attorney General, and listen the reason I say this might happen is because if you remember the first report put out by the Director of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, when the President became President of the United States, she put out a paper talking about the people who are the categories of people who might be homegrown terrorists.
In that list she put people who believe in the second coming of Jesus Christ, people who believe in pro-life issues, people who don’t believe in having illegal aliens here, they put a lot of good, decent categories of people in that paper.
Well here’s what number four says, the Attorney General can put who he wants to on the list of people who are too dangerous to get guns. What if he decides radio talk show hosts who don’t believe in gay marriage, they’re dangerous, so they shouldn’t get guns? What about pastors who preach against abortion and homosexuality? They’re too dangerous to get guns? That could happen.”
—“American Family Association” radio host Buster Wilson.
Wilson is the same fucking idiot who tried to get conservative Christians to boycott Google over their “Legalize Love Campaign” and who announced this boycott on Google-owned YouTube. The phrase “Dumber than a bag of wet hair” probably wasn’t coined to describe Buster Wilson, but it could have been.
Back in August, chucklehead Buster blamed Hurricane Issac on a New Orleans LGBT festival!
As one YouTube user commented on the clip below:
Tell me then, genius, why did the power of the most high manifest itself by destroying tiny Joplin in a state that’s 77% Christian? Why does he flood massive areas of Mississippi—the most Christian state—every year? Why is it that he makes NYC the centre of the global economy & LA the centre of global culture, yet does nothing to stop their decadence? A hurricane flattened Joplin, it didn’t even dent Manhattan. Sounds like your god is incompetent.
Admittedly, I’ve always considered GLAAD the most bourgeois LGBTQ organization out there—sort of a feel-good parade of celebrities patting themselves on the back, pushing for the kind of gay acceptance that your grandma could muster. But since they just nominated the John Waters fever dream that is Honey Boo Boo for a GLAAD Media Award, they suddenly seem a little less square. From their website:
Breakout TLC reality star Alana Thompson, better known as Honey Boo Boo, said on her show Here Comes Honey Boo Boo, “Ain’t nothing wrong with bein’ a little gay. Everybody’s a little gay.” Thompson’s out Uncle Lee Thompson (“Uncle Poodle”) and the rest of the family participated in Spirit Day on October 19. GLAAD posted an exclusive video of Lee speaking about being bullied for growing up gay in the South and Alana posted a picture to the official Honey Boo Boo Facebook captioned, “You can’t change the way you are or who you fell in love with… we support Uncle Poodle and all the other poodles in the world too.”
Of course people are losing their minds over such trash being recognized, (apparently the world is suddenly going to hell in a handbasket because a chubby little working-class redneck girl isn’t appropriately ashamed), but kudos to GLAAD for giving a platform to queer folks (and their allies) who don’t meet the luke-warm liberal vision of ideal respectability.
Lee Thompson is also HIV positive, and adamantly vocal about the importance of safe sex—can we get him a nomination, too? Here he is talking about bullying for GLAAD.
Some anti-gay party poopers hired a plane to fly above a Lady Gaga concert yesterday in Tacoma, WA at the start of her US tour.
The virulently anti-LGBT Florida Family Association hired the aircraft to fly their “NOT Born this way” banner over Lady Gaga’s “Born Brave” bus (a LGBT educational resource for young people that is tailgating her U.S. concert dates) for several hours and then to fly continuously around the Tacoma Dome parking lot from 1 PM until sunset before her January 14th concert.
According to the FFA, the protest cost $1,900 and the group is soliciting more money to target further Lady Gaga tour dates. In their fundraising efforts for the stunt, the group asked their members:
“How would you feel if your child or grandchild went to a concert where unbeknownst to you they were convinced to embrace a homosexual or transgender lifestyle for a lifetime?”
I don’t know about you, but for the life of me, I cannot imagine deciding to change my sexual orientation because of a pop singer tried to convince me of it. Not that this has anything to do with Lady Gaga or the wonderful message she’s putting out there, of course.
The group’s monetary appeal went on to read:
“The fact that someone these kids do not know spent significant resources to fly a plan to tell them they are NOT born that way will prayerfully speak to their souls.”
Yeah, right. They pointed and laughed is what they did.
Outside of the Staples Center here in Los Angles before Lady Gaga’s “Monster Ball” show a few years back, there was a single sad-sack asshole Christian guy protesting, his sign accusing Gaga of being the Whore of Babylon. Owing to the number of people we saw telling him either to go fuck himself, or simply passing by him and paying him absolutely ZERO mind like the nutcase he was, I’d estimate his rate of converting Lady Gaga fans to Christianity at about zero as well.
The FFA feels differently:
Thousands of kids who might have otherwise worked through their pubescent sexual identity issues will be inspired to accept the wrong choice based upon this unscientific, emotionally charged propaganda. What’s brave or kind about telling thousands of sexually frustrated teens that they were Born This Way when a high percentage of them would have ended up taking the straight heterosexual path for life?
(Whistles, shakes head)
Still, talk about a terrific waste of money, eh? I hope every fucktard thinking of donating to the FFA gives and gives generously. Last spring, the FFA flew a banner during “Gay Days” at Walt Disney World to tip off parents that there were (whispers) homosexuals in the park.