Tag Archives: Homosexuality

Whiners of the World Unite!

Now “Sir” Ian McKellen is getting in on the Oscar “Woe is me” act. He’s complaining that gay actors have been left out of the Academy Awards.

I’ll give you a moment to lift your chin off the floor.

Gay actors have been winning Oscars for about as long as Oscars have been around…

So what’s his real complaint? That “openly” gay actors haven’t been winning them. I’m still not quite sure what he’s getting at. Being as the awards are about acting and not what you do in the… well, nevermind the details.

Pray tell, Ian, exactly what would be this “openly gay” acting that you feel should be rewarded? Is it different than what you usually do? Or are you acting gay now in, say, “X-Men: Days of Future Past”? It doesn’t seem to be a whole lot different than in earlier “X-Men” roles, other than you were a lot more understanding in “Future Past,” but that seemed due more to the plot and supposed age of Magneto. Maybe it was mellow gayness.

He seems to feel that he’s supposed to be rewarded for playing “straight” characters though who knows if Gandalph was straight. Who cares? Must everything be measured by its purported sexual appetite?

He carps that straight men such as Tom Hanks and Philip Seymour Hoffman won Oscars playing gay characters. The truth is that those actors won for those roles because of liberal politics not their acting.

But that’s not the point he wants to hear. So is he insisting that only gays can play gays and straights play straights? If he followed that line of action, Sir Ian would have had a very short career.

Or, is he insisting that you are simply supposed to be rewarded for what you do off-screen?

I’m sure a lot of casting couch starlets would have some Oscars coming their way as well if that was the new criteria.

Hey, whiner, you want to know a group that doesn’t get a lot of acting Oscars — openly Christian actors. Remember when Jim Caviezel announced he was a hardcore Christian a few years ago? You’d have thought he’d announced he was a pedophile and was proud of it. He suddenly hit a dry spot in roles. Christians and conservatives know that they need to keep their pronouncements to themselves if they want to survive in Hollywood.

Actually, with the upside-down way things are now, the pedophile confession probably would have been applauded.

Yahoo! Sports Writer Runs Liberal Press Release as Story

Or so it seemed with Charles Robinson’s piece on Houston’s voting to not give sexually confused people special rights to visit whatever restroom they felt like.

It really does read like he just slapped his name on a cut and paste job from a Democratic National Committee press  release or maybe one from the pro-homosexual group, the misnamed Human Rights Campaign.

Robinson impugns the motives of everyone who voted for it (they’re all just bigots, ya’ know) and unquestioningly repeats the claims of those supporting the push for special rights (We’re just asking for people to love warm and cuddly puppies and kittens, what’s so bad about that?).

Of course he brings the big guns to bear now that the city has disappointed the liberal intelligentsia that runs most of the big sports organizations these days. He uses not particularly veiled threats that there could be consequences to pay from the NCAA or professional sports. Well, maybe we need to look into those Congressional protections that these organizations enjoy — if they want to play politics.

And to think that Houston went to all the trouble of electing and reelecting the nation’s first big-time lesbian mayor. (She followed the same path as Obama – a candidate that was supposed to show how far we’ve come but has become a disaster and then was reelected because people couldn’t admit they made a mistake in the first place).

Liberals are never grateful. It’s always, whatever have you done for me in the last five minutes? Robinson cheers the attacks on Houston Texans owner Bob McNair because McNair gave to the opposition campaign. Paging Brendan Eich.

All this is another reason why I’ve turned away from the NFL and big-time college football.

Most of the commenters hammer Robinson. Again this brings up the question, why does Yahoo! continue to employ writers that Yahoo! Readers dislike? I ask that question here.

Paging Gen. Charles Napier

Perhaps you’ve heard of the case of U.S. Army Sgt. Charles Martland, the Green Beret who put a beat down on a corrupt Afghan police chief who was fond of little boys and supposedly kept one chained nearby to satisfy the desire when it came upon him.

Martland is being forced out of the army because of this attempt to set things right. There’s some fuzz as to exactly why he’s being pushed out — disobeying orders or simply being mean to “allies.”

Obviously we can’t have soldiers, especially NCOs, taking matters into their own hands. After all, we live in the age of respecting other cultures, no matter how bad some of their cultural peccadilloes are. In fact, for the modern liberal, the crazier, the seedier the custom is, the more radiance one receives for “tolerating” it. Ironically, when it comes to his fellow Americans, a liberal has absolutely no tolerance for cultural differences. Everyone must conform to the liberal’s imperial cultural preferences.

But back to our story…

The question has arisen as to who might have issued orders to American soldiers that they weren’t to harm the Afghan pedophiles. So far the Obama administration has stonewalled on that query. No surprise there.

Is it possible that this ties in with the Obama administration’s insistence on inserting homosexuals and promoting homosexual conduct everywhere? It recently nominated an open homosexual, Eric Fanning, to be the next Secretary of the Army. (We’ve moved from ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ to ‘Shout It From the Rooftops’ in a very short time.)

Does the Obama administration not see any evil in this practice? Does it really consider this just some “cultural difference,” no different than liking different foods, dressing in brightly colored outfits and wearing funny hats or living in communal houses?

With that bunch, I would not proffer an answer.

I’m reminded of the response to a “cultural difference” by British Gen. Charles Napier when in the 1840s he confronted the then Indian practice of “suttee” — requiring (usually tossing) an Indian widow onto the funeral pyre of her late husband.

He allegedly said to some practitioners, “Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.”

We’ve some a long way, baby!

Hot Air has some stories here, here, here and here.

Hart of the Matter

Is nothing sacred?

Short answer — in our modern PC world, no.

You have to read this to believe it, “NBC’s ‘Hart to Hart’ Reboot Will Have One Groundbreaking Difference.”

You can probably guess what that “groundbreaking difference” is going to be.

These people are really shameless. They have no respect for anyone different than them, and by different, I mean normal. They have no respect for the past, either.

“Hart to Hart” was a purebred example of 1970-80s Aaron Spelling schmaltz. It was great prime time family entertainment. Utterly harmless and didn’t have a mean bone in its body (except to the bad guys caught at the end of each show). Bob Wagner was a handsome devil and supersexy Stephanie Powers was a MILF before there was an acronym for such a creature. They even had a cute dog. Their butler, in real life, was an old hardcore commie who, when exposed and blacklisted, went to work on Wall Street before returning to acting. America, what a country! And Reagan was president during “Hart to Hart.”

So instead of letting “Hart to Hart” rest in peace as a hunk of cultural amber… the liberals in Hollywood feel the need to “reboot” it, which tends to mean take everything that made it successful and strip much of that out and see how long they can con the rubes.

Number one target, take the two hot, mature, heterosexuals and turn them upside down. (In reality, that might be the only reason ‘Hart to Hart’ is getting ‘rebooted.’)

You might remember a few months ago when the liberal culture warriors were in angst demanding all the superhero characters be “rebooted” into SJWs, with all the proper political correct traits – gay Green Lantern, black Captain America, female Thor, etc. You might also remember at that time actress Michelle Rodriguez — innocent, naive, Michelle Rodriguez — suggested that maybe all those concerned folks should just write original stories with newly created heroes who displayed all the characteristics the PC crowd wanted rather than appropriating existing superheroes and changing them.

You could have heard a pin drop … Right before the volcanic reaction demanding Rodriguez’s head on a platter, in a nice aspic with maybe some arugula garnishing… She meekly apologized in a sack cloth, forever destroying her hard-earned reputation as a tough girl afraid of no man (but clearly terrified by the politically correct crowd).

You see, dear Michelle, it’s not about creativity. It’s about control, intimidation and power. That which can’t be controlled must be destroyed, including the past. People can’t be allowed to choose what they like because they might not like the things that the cultural commissars think that they should like. That’s what the politically correct are really about.

No “gay” superhero is ever going to be anything other than a niche, other than in a parody (cue The Ambiguously Gay Duo — which almost certainly couldn’t be made today). That won’t satisfy the professional culture warriors. To appropriate Erick Erickson’s point (everyone must be made to care about liberal talismans, whether they like it or not), everyone must be made to love gay characters, precisely because they are gay!

So, to take that back to “Hart to Hart.” Some of the charm of the show was because Jonathan and Jennifer Hart loved each other and had a fun time with each other as they went around solving crimes and mysteries. To most people whoever lived on this planet that wouldn’t seem out of the ordinary, but we live in “different” times. In the eyes of the rebooters the Harts exist to be used for the greater good of gaydom. The Harts have to be made to care.

You might be asking, as Michelle Rodriguez did, why can’t these Hollywood writers and producers come up with their own gay, mystery-solving, super-rich couple (modeled maybe on Chris Hughes and Sean Eldridge)? Perhaps call it, maybe, “Rock and Lee” (after Rock Hudson and Liberace) or something like that. A high-profile campaign getting the writers, producers and stars to appear on every talk show on every network plus sympathetic news stories and NPR puff pieces would be a piece of cake. Make a few episodes and put them on the air and see if anyone watches. The show would almost certainly crater if the writers pushed the homosexual angle but then that’s what the show is supposed to be about so maybe you can understand their need to appropriate someone else’s work as a Trojan Horse. That’s how the left works.

You will be made to care about the gay Harts, even if the Harts have to be destroyed. You have been warned.

This Kim Davis Thing

I have to admit that the whole Kim Davis thing conflicts me.

She has a local public government job so she really loses all possibility of choosing what jobs to perform. She’s public servant — emphasis on public and servant. This was the job that she campaigned for (it’s an elected office). It wasn’t foisted upon her (though it sort of changed after she was seated). She wasn’t promoted into the job but sought it out. If she didn’t like everything about the job (including potential changes) she probably shouldn’t have run for it. She is supposed to serve all of the county’s citizens.

Yet our liberals have set out a precedent that public servants don’t have to actually perform jobs that that they are uncomfortable with. Look at the mayors, city councils, et al, of “sanctuary cities” and their refusal to enforce immigration laws or cooperate with federal authorities on immigration law enforcement. Or look at King Barry, he specifically ordered immigration officials to not enforce laws, even if some of them felt compelled to do their jobs.

Kim Davis was actually jailed by a federal court judge for “contempt” of his court by not issuing the marriage licenses, in support of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Obergfell decision.

So a federal judge, not a judge for the state of Kentucky or the county of Rowan, has decided to jail a county officer for not doing his bidding.

A federal judge is not an enabler of a county. A federal judge is not an officer of that county nor of that state. A federal judge does not sign Davis’s paycheck nor contribute to the county in any Constitutional, statutory, economic or civil way. He would seem to have no legal connection to Davis, her office or her county other than some declaratory overlord relationship. Maybe subservience is a better description.

Why do we even bother with local authorities anymore? Why not just have federal judges run everything? After all, by their own acknowledgment, they know so much better how to run the county than the yokels that live in those counties.

Who voted for this judge? No one in Rowan County. No one in Kentucky. No one in the United States voted for this judge. U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning is appointed by an authority outside of the state.

It needs to pointed out that Bunning was appointed to his position by George W. Bush and is the son of former Rep. Jim Bunning, a Republican. Davis herself is listed as a Democrat (Kentucky is the last redoubt of Yellow Dog conservative Democrats).

Things like this should engender a serious debate of the role and power of our federal judiciary.

Why is this woman being detained? Why not move to have her removed from office, for failing to fulfill her duties (as decided by this ‘inferior’ court), by the tools available to the citizens of Rowan County or the state of Kentucky?

Is it because the outcome of those time-consuming attempts possibly wouldn’t satisfy the gays behind this legal imbroglio?

Why the recourse to instantly federalize this issue and legally annihilate anyone standing in the way? We have time-honored and traditional models of dealing with public servants accused of not doing their jobs.

For centuries marriage laws have been the jurisdiction of states and their counties. Local community values, such as age, were defined and addressed by this approach. Few things are more “community” than marriage and its traditions.

What’s the hurry? Gay marriage was just ruled “legal” or “Constitutional” last June, having not previously been seen in the Constitution in the centuries before.

But suddenly marriage laws have become a one-size-fits-all (or fits liberal preferences) federal government issue. Everyone has to turn on a dime.

Here’s a question: Are the people pushing the legal proceedings actually citizens of Rowan County? Kentucky? Do they really have standing?

I can’t believe there are that many gay couples in Rowan County (population 23,000) demanding marriage licenses…

This proceeding would seem to have been concocted by legal tourists looking to start trouble. The “couples” I heard on the radio reports declaring their sudden liberation and joy didn’t exactly have Kentucky accents (though I’m sure there are gays in Kentucky).

If the supposed gay wave of Rowan County can’t obtain marriage licenses, nothing prevents them from moving or applying to the state of Kentucky for a remedy. Don’t like the laws of Rowan County or Kentucky? Run for office to change things, assuming that the citizenry wants to change, or move. Go live with people who are like you, share your values and want to be with you.

That’s the way things are/were supposed to be handled.

No longer. Increasingly, every conflict, disagreement, political issue is being inflated into a big issue and federalized. No doubt some of this intention is that liberals are increasingly dominant in the judiciary. If you can;t win at the ballot box, using the judiciary to obtain your goals has long been a liberal tactic.

The decent thing for the “couples” would have been to go elsewhere and let Davis suffer at the hands of the Rowan County citizens, if they want gay marriage. If not, why not let them live in their “backward,” insufficiently enlightened world.

But why be friendly when you can be a bully and make people you don’t like knuckle under to your particular desires? Especially when you have big brother behind you. That’s modern liberalism in a nutshell. It’s about power and submission.

Of course one can also argue it’s also true for Kim Davis and her supporters. She precipitated this.

This whole mess is an overreaction. No one is dying because Kim Davis refuses to issue marriage licenses to a handful of gays. Yet people are dying because King Barry and the officials of several cities, counties and states refuse to enforce the laws, notably on immigration, that they have sworn to uphold. Where’s the Supreme Court on this? Where’s Judge Bunning? Where are the activists now demanding compete and instant obeisance to the latest judicial farago? (You’ll find a lot of those ‘activists’ are also supportive of the law-ignoring sanctuary cities movement, how ironic.)

The Diversity Scam

It’s no secret that the cost of attending college has skyrocketed and continues to go up. With the federal government taking over the student loan industry under Obama, with promises of “free” education dancing in their heads, the shoveling of money into higher ed continues unabated (despite the constant squeals that we’re cutting the budget of education). For some reason, these supersmart people that run our government and academia haven’t noticed the correlation with throwing (student tuition) money at a problem and the continued rise of that problem.

One of the chief (if not the chiefest) burners of money at a school is its administration. Many have chronicled the explosion in “administrative” costs and the number of administrators at the country’s higher education facilities, public and private. Here’s a random take on it from the Pope Center.

Perhaps the premier example of mushrooming administration is what is probably the most unneeded office of all on any campus — the Office of Diversity (or some variant on that name).

Its an office that exists purely for mischief. It’s often an anti-academic office, placing itself in opposition to academia’s once traditional mission — education. It is almost always arrayed in opposition to what are called “conservative” elements outside of academia but the Office of Diversity labels them as “hostile” and seeks to suppress them (ask any College Republicans or Young Americans for Freedom chapter). Its target inevitably, the dreaded “white male,” more specifically, the heterosexual variety.

The Office of Diversity is not interested in actual “diversity.” Its definition of “diversity” is very narrow. Like its corporate and governmental siblings, its definition of “diversity” is based on skin color, gender and sexual proclivities. It has no interest in diversity of thought. It wants to stamp that out, which is why when you meet these people or learn of them, they are always liberals, usually women, seemingly most of them black. Here’s a typical example of a recent hire at the University of Tennessee’s law school.

Why a law school at a state university needs a “Diversity and Inclusion” office is beyond me. Don’t they have one for the whole school? Why in fact they do! Here’s one website for the Office of Equity and Diversity. And here’s one for the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, which seems to be a different office. Oh, and look, here’s one for the School of Engineering (which is straight up-front about its racialist and sexist existence: ‘The goal is to enable the successful recruitment, retention and graduation of underrepresented [African American, Hispanic, Native American, Alaskan Native, Pacific Islanders, and women] students.’) And here’s one for the school of business. The school has numerous administrative offices, officers, commissions and so on for this stuff. Hey, they even have a “Safe Zone” program, lest a student encounter an idea they are unfamiliar with or that might challenge a preconceived and officially PC-approved notion. All costing the Tennessee taxpayer (and generous alums) millions, probably tens of millions, of dollars, for what purpose other than perpetuating a racial and gender grievance regime?

Wait, I jumped to a judgment there. Here’s something they are working on: “Inclusive Practice: Pronoun Usage.”

This made some headlines last week. In all seriousness, this isn’t from The Onion. The promoter is “Director of the Pride Center” (‘pride’ is another word co-opted by the homosexual movement), another item costing the taxpayers of the Volunteer State. No greater confused wretch can be found anywhere. Why let he/she/it command our communication?

As laughable as this effort is, these people are serious; Orwellian serious. Yet, despite resembling Chinese, it still seems to divide pronouns into three categories based on their gender origins. So what was the point? It’s not about improving language, it’s about power. Control the language and you control the discussion. Control the language and you can shut down those that disagree with you. That’s the point.

Oh, and the whole U of T system has an overall Office of Equity & Diversity too. All of these people in these offices make good money. More than a few make six-figure salaries.

Check out some of those pages and you will read about state and federal grants, private monies siphoned off. This money is not earned in the marketplace, obtained through open and fair work, voluntarily transacted. It’s wheedled and cadged from a series of interlocking, self-perpetuating agencies at many levels, staffed with like-minded activists, but funded mostly by the unaware taxpayer. They know that if the individual taxpayer knew about this they would not freely disgorge their hard-earned money for such things.

These people contribute nothing to the polity other than larceny and dyspepsia. They spit on the people that fund them, while also attacking the very community and values that have made them possible. They should be fired and the whole system cleaned out. They should not be used to facilitate a highly tendentious political agenda nor be funded by the state. Does any school maintain a “Heterosexual Pride” office? Any office aimed at specifically recruiting white, heterosexual males? Of course not, that would be silly and not a proper use of taxpayer or alum money. So why these well-funded efforts to promote racism, sexism and the homosexual agenda?

As Walter Williams said recently, “For starters, benefactors should stop giving money to universities that endorse anti-free speech and racist diversity policies. Simply go to a university’s website. If you find an office of diversity, close your pocketbook. There’s nothing like the sound of pocketbooks snapping shut to open the closed minds of administrators.”

The Arrogance of King Barry

Our peripatetic president, King Barry I, has gone “on safari” as they used to say in quaint Victorian era and Edwardian books. He’s in Africa and while in Kenya, despite being warned ahead of time not to broach the subject,  made his displeasure with the natives known concerning their failure to make the U.S. homosexual agenda a top national priority of Kenya. “This is a big deal to me,” his majesty intoned (could he be laying the groundwork for coming out of the closet himself??? Inquiring minds want to know!).

It seems that the Kenyan rubes are no better than their bigoted American counterparts in their shockingly backward attitudes towards gays, homosexual marriage and forcing every bakery to bake a cake in celebration of gay marriage. Apparently, the Kenyans view their gays as odd, dysfunctional, unworthy of lionization and not that big of a deal when considering all the other problems the country is faced with — hunger, health, water, crazed Muslims filtering in from unstable neighbors, attempting to grow out of a medieval economy, etc.

So King Barry, noting himself to be an African-America in America, felt the need to lecture the heathen on the true religion along with the proper care and feeding of said homosexuals.

However, the uppity Kenyan president. Uhuru Kenyatta, told King Barry to mind his own beeswax.

And much rejoicing was heard…