Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Sunday, January 05, 2014


It's rare for a Facebook page to garner the kind of attention people are giving this piece by journalist Itay Hod, formerly of CBS. (A very qabalistic name, that.) Hod wonders why he should refrain from "outing" a Republican congressman who has compiled a formidable anti-gay-rights record.
here’s a hypothetical: what if you know a certain GOP congressman, let’s just say from Illinois, is gay… and you know this because one of your friends, a journalist for a reputable network, told you in no uncertain terms that he caught that GOP congressman and his male roommate in the shower… together. now they could have been good friends just trying to conserve water. but there’s more. what if this congressman has also been caught by tmz cameras trolling gay bars. now what if you know that this very same guy, the darling of the gop, has also voted against repeal of don’t ask don’t tell, opposed the repeal of doma, is against gay marriage; and for the federal marriage amendment, which would add language to the us constitution banning gay marriage and would likely strike down every gay rights law and ordinance in the country?

Are we still not allowed to out him?
No. And I'll tell you why: Because what Hod presents as conclusive evidence may not be conclusive at all.

I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about.

A few years ago, a reader directed my attention to a rather outrageous long-form YouTube video about the history of gay actors in Hollywood. The documentary decried the sufferings inflicted on those who could not be open about their sexuality. Now, obviously, there was indeed a lot of unnecessary pretense in the film industry -- decades ago. The examples of Rock Hudson and Montgomery Clift come to mind. We are all glad that the prejudices of yore have been largely overcome.

I use the word "outrageous" to describe this particular video because the narrator solemnly informs us that most actors are gay. Not only that: The video asks us to believe that, as a general rule, gays are the only truly creative people. In other words: If you're a boy-who-likes-boys, you deserve a cool, high-paying job at a movie studio or ad agency -- but if you're a guy who likes curvy women, get used to saying the words "Welcome to Wal-Mart!" That's all you're good for, you piece of non-creative garbage.

The video went on the decry the ill-treatment given to Paul Reubens, a.k.a. Pee-Wee Herman. The narrator sadly informs us that Reubens was drummed out of the industry after he was caught masturbating in a theater showing gay porn. This claim is repeated several times. Poor gay Pee-Wee. His career was ruined just because he was gay gay gay. Oh, the intolerance of it all...!

Of course, this is bullshit. The film Reubens attended was Night Nurse, starring Sandra Scream, a woman with a figure no sane person could ever describe as "boyish." She is now a metaphysical counselor in Orange County, and although I've never met her, I am reliably informed that she is an absolutely lovely person.

(Even though I can't blame Reubens for what he did, I would never have been in such a position, having invested in a VCR for just such contingencies.)

My point is this: Some gay writers, for reasons best known to themselves, are perfectly willing to tell lies if doing so conveniences their argument. Of course, let us quickly stipulate that there are plenty of non-gay writers who commit the same sin, for all sorts of reasons and in all sorts of contexts. Across the board, dishonesty and manipulation are inescapable parts of the human experience.

And that's why we should maintain a taboo against "outing" others: The person doing the outing may have an angle.

The writer who pretends to be giving you the (pardon the expression) straight skinny may, in fact, be a deceiver or a rumor-peddler. For example, it is entirely conceivable that someone who doesn't like a congressman's voting record might go so far as to concoct a smear designed to make said congressman look like a hypocrite. And if said congressman denied the charge, he'd probably end up making things worse for himself.

And that brings us back to Hod's piece about that allegedly gay politician in Illinois. A lot of people presume Hod's claims to be accurate, even though he has produced zero evidence. Evidence may crop up in the future, but right now, we have nada.

Another point: How many sleazeball writers have assured us that Hillary and Huma were sleeping together? By what metric do we consider Hod better than said sleazeballs?

One doesn't have to do much googling to discover that Hod is talking about Aaron Schock, a politician for whom I have no affection. Even if we leave his votes on gay rights out of the equation, he's exactly the sort of far-right, tea-stained toady I can't stand.

But even when dealing with a creature like Schock, there's no excuse for publishing unverified, second-hand tales. Even politicians should be allowed to reveal only what they choose to reveal about their private lives.

And there's certainly no excuse for this article, in which blogger John Aravosis scries "gayness" in Schock's Instagram posts.

In one instance, Schock offers his audience a picture of himself in which he wears a pair of ugly greyish plaid pants. Aravosis would have us believe that only a homosexual would wear such trousers. I'm unconvinced. Frankly, Schock's sartorial choice reminds me of those inane wide-patterned suits Reagan used to favor before someone told him that he looked like a doof.

I don't get it. Is Aravosis saying that only gay men have bad taste in clothing? But I thought that good grooming was supposed to be an indicator...! Well, which is it? Let me know by tomorrow night, because I'm going somewhere and I have to choose between my nice cashmere sweater and an old hoodie splattered with paint stains.

In another allegedly revealing Instagram, Schock allegedly outs himself by displaying a picture of a shoe collection, which includes one pink pair. If Aravosis had read the text, he would have understood that Schock bought shoes for his nieces, and that the purpose of his post was to publicize a "socially responsible" footwear company which donates heavily to children in need.

I wish people like Aravosis would understand the harm they do to their own cause when they set their gaydar-detectors to hypersensitive. As I said on an earlier occasion: Although we were told that gay liberation would free straights from having to conform to stereotyped "macho" behavior, those stereotypes have, in fact, grown far more inflexible and absurd during my lifetime. Look at nearly any movie from the 1970s and you'll see what I mean.

Now, thanks to Aravosis, Congressman Schock has locked down his Instagram account. Presumably he is studying each photo to make sure that he is always depicted wearing trousers of unassailable heterosexuality.

Cah-MON. This is ridiculous.
Surely the most macho things are now seen as gay. Moustaches. Muscular, oiled bodies. String vests.

Recently I was walking along the street and someone shouted at me "get a haircut". I considered the possibility that I may have experienced a time slip and found myself in 1959, but I was able to establish that this was no the case, as the miscreant was passing a computer repair shop at the time.
Off-topic, I know, but here's another reason to get off of Yahoo webmail:
As the blogger of a tenth tier blog, I was given a stick of dynamite by a very, very inside source on the private behavior of an evil politco we all know. Even though the story could've made my hit counter spin like a power meter in AC season, I chose not to run the tale because I could find no other confirmation. I knew that even this most reliable source could possibly make shit up because he belonged to the human species. Or he could simply be misinterpreting the event.

So even the A bloggers can lose sight of reality when the need for hits exceeds the will to resist bullshit.
Bob...I know what you're talking about. From time to time, I've mentioned that I stumbled onto a dirty secret involving a well-known figure. And this story was verifiable. I could have made myself famous, and possibly changed history, by making the story public.'s all just so slimey.

And really, how does it profit you when the hit counter spins? I've had a few "high traffic" periods on this blog. It's fun for a while, and then the whole thing gets tedious.

So are you going to start referring to us as the Gay Gestapo now, Joseph? Let me introduce you to a concept called Internalized Homophobia. Google it. Aaron Shock presents himself to the world in the most stereotypical gay fashion possible. He taunts it. He fetishizes it. Then votes against gay rights 100 % of the time. Do you think we don't know what we're doing to poor little Aaron who just happens to like to look a certain way? I mean really, butt the hell out, Joseph. You are too naive for words. Aaron Schlock is a gay man in the closet who is HARMING gays and lesbians by continually voting against our civil rights in order to hide the fact of who he is. You have empathy for this fellow? Well fine, that's your business. It's not YOUR rights on the line, pal. If you think GAYS and LESBIANS going to stand for this, then you think wrong. It's not about his checkered pants. It's about his voting record. We force OUT closet cases who work AGAINST us and do us HARM. Last time I looked, that had nothing to do with Hillary or Huma or Robin Roberts or anybody else. But if you're Mark Foley or David Drier or Larry Craig, then bingo, you get the treatment. Does that make us big, bad, evil, nasty gays? No, it simply means if you're gay and your in the closet and you vote against us, prepare yourself for the consequences.
Alas you don't yet realize that you are living in a world of Simulated Reality. In SR there is no true and no false which belongs to the dialectic. there is only speculation and credibility which is a very individual thing. I have a blog called occupytabloids where I run that stuff and exaggerate to ridiculous levels to mimic and make fun of the tabloids. And yes I would definitely run this gay story on this fugger to mess with him. This is the problem of neo-liberals like us. We are always 3 steps behind because we are counteracting the made up poison they produce. This is exactly what they want us to do as we strengthen them by doing it.It's all in DeLillo's novel Cosmopolis. Ayn Rand also understood it. The teaers know that you now make history rather than report it. Your thinking iswhy we keep getting bashed. Read Machiavelli.
Ironically, around 75 to 80 percent of all female talk show personalities are gay. Um, not that there's anything wrong with that.
By the way, Hillary Clinton's secret achilles heel for 2016 might be all the lesbian bloggers who love her so much they can't stand the thought that male bloggers might like her as well.

Crazy, huh, but true.
omg, the 70's. They are inexplicable. So outlandish the garb is hypnotic.

But seriously, hoodies vs cashmere? Cashmere every time.

Good post.
I agree that there should be proof for calling someone out for hypocrisy, but people like Schock aren't private figures. They make decisions that affect the lives--personal, sexual, financial, and social--of hundreds of millions. If they're liars or hypocrites, their constituents and the rest of us deserve to know.
For some reason the gay marriage movement chose to shove gay marriage equality down the throats of the one group that would have supported them more enthusiastically if they had just stopped saying that a gay marriage is like a heterosexual marriage.

A gay marriage is like any marriage in which the couple can't conceive a child. But rather than take that stance, the gay movement had to publicly posture that a gay marriage is no different than any heterosexual marriage.

That is patently absurd.

There are MILLIONS of heterosexuals who never married because they were not sure they could raise a child with the financial security and the proper amount of attention.

There are MILLIONS of heterosexual couples who have had to completely modify their own behavior to control when and how many kids they would have.

Why the gay marriage movement went for the jugular and used fertile heterosexual couples in their comparison arguments rather than taking the peaceful route....demanding equal marriage rights to anyone who marries and can't have kids, is a mystery to me.

Since the gay marriage agenda has been so flawed in strategy, why should a politician, even a gay politician, support all gay political agendas/
Alessandro, you make no sense. Gay couples can and do conceive and procreate and adopt children...

The problem as I see it is some absurd tug of war over a word. I guess I was married as a "civil union" because we had no religious element to our marriage.

Let the godbags have the word "marriage" if it means so much to them. Let the states recognize civil unions and let the churches and mosques and synagogues and temples decide who they let have their ceremonies....and then let the godbag ceremonies have NO weight with the states even if they have sole right to the word "marriage."

Problem solved.

My my, Joseph, is that Anonymous Aravosis? He sounds peevish.

Zee, this was not meant to be a discussion of gay marriage. I've made my feelings on that score clear -- I just don't care about the issue, except to the extent that I'm not a fan of marriage period, for anyone.

Anonymous may or may not be Aravosis, but he's exactly the sort of creature I can't stand: A member of a once-oppressed minority who uses that status as an all-purpose excuse for behaving abominably and considering himself above criticism. I'm reminded of those Jews who call you an anti-Semite if you dare to point out that the Holocaust does not justify the nakba. I'm also reminded of those black people who, in 2008, relentlessly called me a racist simply because I supported another Democratic candidate.

Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Image and video hosting by TinyPic