Newt Gingrich: Truth in Advertising

"Vote for Obama, you homo."

Thanks to my dear friend Rylee for inspiring me to write this article.  While there is something to be said for truth in advertising, I can’t help but to be mortified and disappointed that GOP Presidential bigots wear their discrimination as a badge of honor.

While campaigning in Iowa, Newt Gingrich (the poster child for the sanctity of marriage) had a brief conversation with a gay man who went to hear Gingrich and wanted to keep an open mind.  Scott Arnold, the gay Iowan, reports:

I asked him if he’s elected, how does he plan to engage gay Americans. How are we to support him? And he told me to support Obama.

I can’t sum up Arnold’s reaction any better than his own words:

When you ask somebody a question and you expect them to support all Americans and have everyone’s general interest. It’s a little bit frustrating and disheartening when you’re told to support the other side. That he doesn’t need your support.

What type of national leader proclaims their bigotry with such pride and insolence?  Even if Gingrich does not support equality for the LGBT community on a personal level, is he not supposed to defend the civil rights of all Americans?  How sad for Gingrich, he is becoming George Wallace. At least Gingrich is letting all of us that are part of the LGBT community, or allies of the LGBT community, and for those of us that are pro-choice, and pro-woman, we should vote for Obama.  Click here to see the full article.

Blessed are the dying spouses, for they shall be left for a younger and healthier spouse.

What was I saying about Alzheimer's?

I need to thank my friend, Tim Jung, for the title of this post and for inspiring me.  For the past few years, I have often worried and wondered if I am on a ship of fools called the United States.  Lunacy engulfs the American citizens, with people like Sally Kern calling “blacks lazy” and maintaining that “homosexuals are worse than terrorism,” and the Republican Presidential candidates signing a pledge to discriminate against the LGBT community, and Rabbi Yudin blaming gays for hurricane Irene and the earthquake on the east coast.  Now we have the illustrious, always homophobic, and reliably crazy Pat Robertson of the 700 Club releasing a statement to go for a trade in if you are not happy with your current spouse–now that is what I call the sanctity of marriage! All of this would be laughable, save that the  Tea Party (Teahaddists) eat it up, as does Fox News (Mad Hatter) the host of the Tea Party.

Pat Robertson, a former Republican Presidential candidate himself, told his flock of march hares (I mean sheep):

divorcing a spouse with Alzheimer’s is justifiable because the disease is a kind of death…I know it sounds cruel, but if he’s going to do something, he should divorce her and start all over again, but make sure she has custodial care and somebody looking after her.

Clearly, Robertson and Newt Gingrich are listening to the same god.  Honestly, while I find both men despicable, I don’t really find their views news worthy, save that they possess and abuse power.  Unfortunately, there is a very significant population that is guided by what these insane misogynistic hypocrites say.  My hope is that bloggers such as my self and others will help to expose their hypocrisy, which will then allow others to use a different moral compass–a moral compass that talks about love, compassion, and equality for all.

And for christ’s sake, can all of you right wing nuts stop scapegoating women and the LGBT community for natural disasters? Am I the only one that just finds it unseemly? Because really, if the Gay Agenda had that kind of power, a handful of very select people might disappear, but seven states wouldn’t have to declare disasters. It’s the god of the “righteous” who’s willing to take out innocents to make his point. And that, sadly, seems to have inspired our Pat.

Let Bigotry Reign Supreme: New Republican Motto

Ship of Fools

Thank you to my friend Jim for sharing the youtube video of the Republican debate last night. I’m afraid I was not able to stomach watching the entire thing last night.  Talk abut a group of people that can really make me feel ashamed of being an American.  What rock did these people crawl out from under?  I feel horrible for all the foster children Bachmann had influence over.  As a gay man, I found it disgusting and horribly bigoted that not one of the Republican candidates is for marriage equality or will support the repeal of DADT.  They are supposed to protect the citizens of the country, not discriminate against us!   If you are a gay Republican, shame on you!  Click here to see the video.

Newt: Protecting the Fairer Sex (?)

He just wants to protect women (?)

Hopefully the title of this article did not make all of you spit up!  For those regular TSM followers, you may remember my tribute to women and LGBT soldiers and my rant against Newt for his misogyny.  I also outlined the myths or rather horse dooky that prevents women from serving in combat:

1. Women are too emotionally fragile for combat.
2. Women are too physically weak for the battlefield.
3. The presence of women causes sexual tension in training and battle. (Hm, didn’t we hear this same argument about not allowing gays in the military?)
4. Male troops will become distracted from their missions in order to protect female comrades. (Are the men equally distracted from killing women in Iraq and Afghanistan?)
5. (I love this one!) Women can’t lead men in combat effectively.

Fortunately, a friend and colleague of mine, Jennifer Lockett has written a wonderfully historic perspective that certainly adds to the argument for full equality in the military. I strongly encourage you to please read Jennifer’s article.  Click here.

Not Your Usual Memorial Day Article

During this Memorial Day, I wonder how many gay men and women will be honored and or remembered?  While I think it is safe to say that gay men and women have been active in wars since the beginning of wars, how have they been recognized and honored?  Oh, yes, I suppose we can argue they have been recognized by being publicly humiliated with a dishonorable discharge (Lt. Dan Choi); what a great way to reward someone who has dedicated his/her life to serving their country.  Let us hope that the repeal of DADT will bring some peace to the very ill way we have treated our LGBT soldiers.

(Thank you Jen Lockett for inspiring me to compose this article) I also wonder when we will stop buying into the lies being told about women who serve in the military.  May 30, 2011, women are still not allowed to serve on the front line of duty.  Let us be very clear here! There are women that are fighting in combat, but technically they are not allowed to and are not recognized for their contributions to the military combat.  Yes, people like Newt Gingrich (the self appointed expert on all things military) told a group of college students that:

 …that women can’t serve on the front lines because they get infections.  They might be tortured, and they can’t handle that. They might be raped.

I’m sure Mr. Gingrich witnessed this first had during his military service.  Oh, that’s right. Gingrich never served in the military.  Click here to see the source I used about the hypocrite and fool Gingrich.  Here are five lies/myths men use to prevent women from serving in combat:

1. Women are too emotionally fragile for combat.
2. Women are too physically weak for the battlefield.
3. The presence of women causes sexual tension in training and battle. (Hm, didn’t we hear this same argument about not allowing gays in the military?)
4. Male troops will become distracted from their missions in order to protect female comrades. (Are the men equally distracted from killing women in Iraq and Afghanistan?)
5. (I love this one!) Women can’t lead men in combat effectively.

Am I the only one here that says this stinks of complete horse dookey?  This is nothing less than blatant misogyny!  Click here to see the full article in the Washington Post. As we remember and honor those that have served in the military, I hope each and every TSM follower will take some time to reflect on all of the women and LGBT people that have also served.

Wednesday Word of the Week, May 18

The More You Look, The Less You Like.

This week’s word is: CANDIDATE

one of the people competing in an election

Despite the Presidential Primary season being months away, many Republican hopefuls have declared their candidacy, officially and not so much so. Who are these people, anyway?

Herman CAIN

Cain and Abel were the first children of Adam and Eve born after the Fall of Man; Cain killed Abel out of jealousy and was exiled by God

Oops. Not too auspicious there, Herman. Given his low profile, exile seems pretty likely after a primary or two.

NEWT Gingrich

a small animal similar to a lizard that mostly lives in water

At the risk of offending the lizards, small and slimy seems like a good description. He’s also wriggly, given how many times he’s decided not to decide about running.

Mike Huckabee, whose affable demeanor hides the heart of a HUCKSTER

someone who sells things dishonestly or illegally

Ron Paul, whose election would cast a PALL

a sudden numbing dread

on the whole country.

Tim Pawlenty may not be well-know by most Americans, but there are PLENTY

a large amount of something, or a large number of things

of reasons to dislike him.

Mitt ROMNEY

one of an English breed of hardy sheep, having coarse, long wool

He’s certainly hardy, as his constantly resurging candidacy attests; his demeanor is slickly robotic, but his methods are coarse and woolly.

Rick Santorum, a man whose views are so loathsome that his last name was rather vulgarly redefined in a contest.

Donald TRUMP

the suit that players decide will be worth the most in a card game

Heavy on the suit, light on the “worth the most” especially now that it looks like he’s out of the running again. We’ll see what he decides next week…

We also have a quartet of nearly complete unknowns, the DARK HORSE

a political candidate who is not well known but could win unexpectedly

Republicans, with an emphasis on “unexpectedly” for Fred Karger, Gary Johnson, Tom Miller, and Vern Wuensche. Their best chances of winning rest on the fact that their competition is so well known for their odiousness. If they are anything like the rest of the pack, consider them to be the four darkhorsemen of the Apocalypse.

Last but not least, a pair of undecideds, Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, whose candidacies would lend a certain festival air to the election but in the end an utterly maddening one. Perhaps they will run together so we can go into Bachmann Palin Overdrive…

Looking at this probable competition, it is easy to see why President Obama’s favorables are rising. We must be vigilant, however, as the last election demonstrated just how absurd and unpredictable the actions of the electorate can be.

All of this week’s definitions courtesy of Macmillan Dictionary Online.

The Bullies in America’s Backyard

The Bullies in our Backyard

Since the GOP took control of the House in November, we have seen first-hand what a group of bullies looks like, be it the fake-and-bake tan of John Boehner, the frog-like “patriotic” face of Newt Gingrich, or the used car salesman face of Darrell Issa.

That Bully (GOP) Attack Plan:  First, the Republicans demand that the Bush tax cut be extended to wealthier Americans for two more years, at a cost of more than $60 billion. (I wonder who will help pay for these tax cuts?)

Second: Blackmail seems to work well for these folks: “Either slash close to 40 billion dollars from the budget or we will shut the Federal Government down.”  The close to 40 billion means CRUSHING social services to those that most need it, crushing Planned Parenthood and attacking women’s health (thus causing an increase on the over-burdened healthcare system), attempting to eliminate NPR (keep them stupid and keep them voting Republican).

Third: Listen to Paul Ryan and screw senior citizens by crushing Medicare and Food Stamps to give even more big tax cuts to the rich.

Fourth: Get rid of the bi-partisan health care plan passed before the midterm elections. Who cares about those that don’t have health insurance.  If they were not born wealthy then there must be something wrong with them.

Fifth: Let’s spend taxpayer money in this time of a budget crisis to defend discrimination and make sure those homos can’t have marriage equality–we all know marriage equality would make Republicans appear in droves to divorce court, that is the power we have as homos, bwhahahahaha!

Of course the list goes on and on and yet I see no new jobs, nor do I see anything that helps or protects the American people. Click here to see an article that talks about how the GOP is holding the nation hostage.

You Gotta Love Keith Olbermann

Thankful for Olbermann

With all the craziness with the Tea Party sinking and trying to shut down the federal government, and cutting funding for NPR and Planned Parenthood, it is a relief to hear the reasonable and intelligent voice of Keith Olbermann injecting some levity while simultaneously drawing attention to the hypocrites putting in their bids for President of the United States. Please let us hope that the bigoted Herman Cain had no real traction. Click here to see the full video and why Susan Burns should be the GOP nominee.

Randy Randy, The Model of Family Values…

Hypocrite Extraordinaire

Randy Hopper (R-WI), is proving to be consistent with the GOP’s platform of Family Values. As with our Newt, Hopper is showing Americans how glamorous hypocrisy can be and how dangerous marriage equality is.  Yes, it is obvious that teachers, labor unions, firefighters, and the gays are to blame for Wisconsin’s woes.  Scott Walker (brought to you by the Koch Brothers) has told America that the state of Wisconsin has no money, thus they can’t pay those fat cats (teachers et al.).  How very strange then that Hopper’s mistress was hired by the state on the advice of Scott Walker’s cabinet as a “communications liaison,” and that  her salary is 35% higher than her predecessor’s.  If people in Wisconsin and the rest of the United States are not paying attention to this, then shame on you.  We all should be outraged. It is time for a recall!  Please share this and expose Hopper and the GOP!

Will this post about Charlie Sheen get 1,000,000 views?

Is this picture hot enough to get more clicks?

That seems to be everyone else’s strategy for good ratings this week. Why should we miss out on the fun? Despite not having seen a movie he’s starred in since the early 90′s and having only watched (ironically) half of an episode of his recently cancelled hit sitcom, I feel, through media osmosis, suddenly expert on this week’s candidate for the Robert Downey, Jr. Celebrity Train Wreck Award.

I understand the public fascination with celebrity and disasters, so when someone embodies both of them it is no surprise that he’ll get a lot of air time. From the snippets I’ve read, Sheen has also been very quotable and colorful in his public breakdown, providing a huge number of juicy soundbites. I expect the big media noise machine to make the most of something like this for a week or so.  (Three interviews on the Today show in one week does seem like overkill even for this story, however.) What baffles me is how pervasive this story is.

I subscribe to fifteen separate feeds from blogs and other online resources. They focus on politics, gay rights, comics, libraries, and social justice. Not one is a popular culture or big media resource. Nevertheless, eleven of these sources have posted a Charlie Sheen story in the past 48 hours. I find this fascinating and disturbing. Sadly, it seems that most of these stories have had only the weakest of connections with Sheen.

Is using his name a shallow ploy for traffic? Is he so much a part of the culture of the moment that we can’t help ourselves? If Sheen’s antics can provide a life lesson or a valid illustration which is relevant to your thesis, using a popular figure for emphasis makes sense. If, as with the Comic Alliance, you can achieve something truly hilarious, then go for it. But Sheening for ratings seems alarmingly shallow and cynical.

A couple of months ago, I expressed my dismay that the media were more interested in Barbara Walters getting Oprah to cry than in blatant goverment censorship of art. Just for fun, let’s visit Google news on a few topics of the day:

• Charlie Sheen: 19,708
• 2011 Oscars: 14, 623
• Government Shutdown: 13,491
• Scott Walker layoffs: 5,524
• Newt Gingrich: 5,070
• Abortion restrictions: 467
• Boehner and DOMA: 366

Need I say more?