Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

Friday, December 17, 2010

Know Your LGBT History - Bring Me The Head of Alfredo Garcia

Bring Me The Head of Alfredo Garcia (1974) was a huge box office and critical flop at the time it premiered. However it's now a cult classic.

Regardless, it's still an ugly nihilistic little film about a Mexican drug lord who offers to pay $1 million for the decapitated head of the man who impregnated his daughter.

Naturally when word of this gets around, it attracts all sorts of uglies out of the woodwork, filtering down to grizzled Benny (Warren Oates), a retired military man who is now a bar manager and piano player at a Mexican dive.

It just so happens that Benny finds out from his girlfriend that Alfredo Garcia is already dead, the victim of a car crash. So all that's left to do is dig up his grave and collect his head.

Easy money, right? Wanna bet.

This film was partly created and totally directed by the late Sam Pecknipah, a filmmaker renowned of his grittiness, realism, and umcompromising view of the world. And if you ever saw any of his other films (particularly The Wild Bunch), then you just know that Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia will be an orgy of violence, blood, and unsavory characters pushed by their greed to unhappy endings.

And for the purpose of this blog, let's talk about two of these characters; two of the Mexican bandit's hitmen who just happens to be a gay couple. Sappensly (Robert Webber) and Quill (Gig Young) are brutal, hateful characters as the following scene demonstrates. But at least their being gay is an incidental thing to their nastiness. (Editor's note - if you hate extreme violence, do not watch this scene):

Gay father receives White House honor and other Friday midday news briefs

White House Invites Father at Center of Adoption Victory - I love this!

SPLC myth #4: Homosexuals don’t live nearly as long as heterosexuals - Warren Throckmorton takes the religious right to task for the gays don't live as long as heterosexuals lie. I've talked about the lie several times but Throckmorton adds some information even I wasn't aware of.

Maybe Brian thinks if he spins hard enough, the thumbs down will reverse? - Jeremy Hooper schools the National Organization for Marriage's Brian Brown. Go get 'em Jeremy!

Council of Conservative Citizens To Boycott "Thor" Over Casting of Black Actor - Apparently before Tony Perkins joined the anti-gay group the Family Research Council, he used to hang out with racist hate groups.

Rachel Maddow Takes Gay Republican Group to Task: Video - Point blank, Rachel Maddow is probably the best journalist on television today. She is not rude, she does not dumb down her intelligence, and she doesn't NEED to take cheesecake photos. Here is a game you can play - match the Fox blonde female anchor out the three choices (Laura Ingraham, Megyn Kelly, Gretchen Carlson) with the offense.

Family Research Council plans to go on tour against the Southern Poverty Law Center

Another interview with another "friendly" publication and the Family Research Council puts its foot in its mouth.

The organization and its leader, Tony Perkins is still steaming over the anti-gay hate group designation given to it and several other religious right groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center. This week, the organization ran full page ads in Politico and the Washington Examiner calling the designation into question but conveniently not directly addressing the charges that they deliberately spread anti-gay propaganda and junk science to smear the lgbt community.

The ads also had the signatures of over 150 conservative leaders, including over 20 members of Congress.

Yesterday during an interview with Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller, FRC's Perkins made an interesting comment:

“We’re not afraid to debate the issues,” Perkins said in a phone interview. “We are not running from the debate. We are confident on the issues we advocate for based on empirical, peer-reviewed research.”

The comment is highly ironic seeing that the last time Perkins did have a debate on the issue - on the news program Hardball with the SPLC's Mark Potok - he distorted data to make the inaccurate claim that pedophilia and homosexuality is connected. He also cited an organization, the American College of Pediatricians. It was later discovered that the ACP is not a legitimate medical organization but a sham group created to push religious right distortions about the lgbt community.

Hardball's host, Chris Matthews, was forced to give a clarifying statement regarding the ACP on a later broadcast.

Since that time, Perkins has pretty much avoided debates, appearing on "friendly" news programs such as Fox and Friends. Nor has he been directly addressing SPLC's charges.

That seems to have been left up to the other anti-gay groups listed by SPLC. But unfortunately, their spokespeople haven't been doing such a good job.

This week during an interview with the Concerned Women for America's Martha Kleder, Peter LaBarbera (head of Americans for Truth, another organization cited as a hate group) actually admitted to citing bad studies in order to smear the lgbt community.

Meanwhile, Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association (yet another group cited by SPLC's for its spreading of anti-gay propaganda) has made statements during interviews and columns that have, to many, justified SPLC for calling his organization and several others out.

During the same Daily Caller interview, Perkins said the organization plans to go on a nationwide tour to get more signatures for its letter. He also said:

We’re going to full-speed but not in the direction they want us to. The left wants to say these issues are beyond debate. If we, as a country, decide there is no debate, it becomes a totalitarian state.”

SPLC didn't respond to the Daily Caller's request for a comment * (see below), but the organization already put out a statement regarding the Family Research Council's campaign:

(FRC's letter) was a remarkable performance, given that it was precisely the maligning of entire groups of people — gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people — that caused the SPLC to list groups like the FRC.

. . . Despite the claims made in today’s statement, the SPLC’s listings are not in any way intended to suppress these groups’ free speech. We’re not asking that these groups be silenced or punished in any way. What we are doing is calling them out for their lies. There is nothing wrong with labeling an organization a hate group based on what they say. A simple example illustrates the point: If a neo-Nazi group said all Jews are “vermin,” no one would argue with our characterizing it as a hate group.

Neither are we mounting an attack on individuals or “groups that uphold Judeo-Christian moral views,” as today’s statement suggests. In fact, as we say in our article dissecting the views of these groups, “Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups.” Instead, as we explained there, “the SPLC’s listings of these groups is based on their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling.”

Personally, I am all for FRC taking their letter on tour. That would give the lgbt community the opportunity to ask them several questions such as:

Please explain how the following statements are an example of upholding "Judeo-Christain" moral views:

•Gays should be exported from the country;

•The federal government must be overthrown if it allows gay marriage;

•"Moral perverts" need to be kept out of the military;

•There is nothing "conservative" about "one man violently cramming his penis into another man’s lower intestine and calling it 'love'";

•Homosexual behavior ought to be outlawed;

•Gay sex ought to carry criminal penalties;

•Gays ought to be prohibited from serving in public office;

•Gay sex is domestic terrorism;

•"Hitler recruited around him homosexuals to make up his Stormtroopers ... [because] homosexual soldiers basically had no limits [to] the savagery and brutality they were willing to inflict."

Hat tip to People for the American Way's Right Wing Watch.

* Even though SPLC didn't respond to the Daily Caller's request for a quote, the site had an obligation to at least report the fact that SPLC did address FRC's letter. That's what a credible journalist would have done. Or have I answered my own question in terms of why the Daily Caller didn't report on SPLC's reponse to FRC?

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Perhaps anti-gay hate groups should put a muzzle on Bryan Fischer

If the organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-hate groups want to get anywhere in their campaign of refutations, perhaps they should take up a collection and buy a muzzle for the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer.

Almost singlehandedly, he is doing more than enough to destroy any credibility they may receive.

I've already talked about how he tried to take down SPLC's list of 10 anti-gay myths last week and got smacked down hard.

And then there was his interview with David Pakman yesterday which only can be described as a slow moving trainwreck of homophobia.

But today, according to People for the American Way's Right Wing Watch, Fischer actually tops his past displays of anti-gay lunacy.

You see today, Fischer took the time to respond to SPLC's smackdown of his lies from last week. This how he did it:

By writing a new post accusing the SPLC of engaging in the "propagation of known falsehoods" about homosexuality ... and simply restating the very same points that the SPLC had already debunked

You got that? Fischer merely repeated the same lies he told last week, the same lies the SPLC refuted.

It's as if he stuck his fingers in his ears to drown out all of the information that he didn't want to hear.

I think I need to clear things with "national headquarters." Maybe there is a secret memo proving Fischer to actually be a spy working on our side.

It's either that explanation or the plain fact that he is simply a homophobic dunderhead.

Family Research Council reveals itself to be the big rat and other Thursday midday news briefs

Scott Brown supports DADT repeal, and it's not a question of 'time' - Hot dog! After Senator Olympia Snowe also indicated that she will sign on too. So get cracking Senators, we are almost there!

FRC questions pro-equality side's humanity; we no longer question irony's mortality - Forget being nice and go straight to the hyperbole about those "evil homosexuals." Doesn't the Family Research Council remind you of the main villain from that Disney movie "The Great Mouse Detective"? He spends the entire movie trying to deny that he is a rat, pretending to be a highly cultured mastermind. But the end when his evil plans are thwarted, he says to hell with it and embraces the stinky, nasty rat that he is.

Gohmert: Without DADT, Military Stands to Lose Thousands and US Will Reach the “End of its Existence as a Great Nation” - Congressional representative Louis Gohmert (of the gaping hole) shows why he readily signed on to FRC's silly attack on the Southern Poverty Law Center.

An Answer to LaBarbera’s Challenge to the SPLC - Meanwhile, Box Turtle Bulletin answers Porno Pete LaBarbera absolutely stupid question he posed last weekend - i.e. "if homosexuality and pedophilia aren't connected, then why are so many victims of pedophiles little boys?" LaBarbera got that question from the Book of Idiotic, Ignorant Questions. The one on the page next to LaBarbera's question asked "why are serial killers almost always white men?"

Religious right activist claims that gays stole the rainbow

According to a member of the religious right, us lgbts stole the rainbow and she wants to take it back.

From the American Family Association's One News Now:

An activist fighting for traditional marriage in California is urging Christians to reclaim the rainbow from homosexual-rights activists who have hailed the symbol as their icon of "gay" pride.

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse of the San Diego-based Ruth Institute rightly argues that the rainbow is a sign of God's covenant with man, and she says proponents of Proposition 8 -- California's measure that passed in 2008 to define marriage as between a man and a woman -- are the original "rainbow coalition."

"Proposition 8 was passed by a great grassroots coalition that included people from all across the religious traditions, and also people of every race and color," Morse recognizes. "We are the real rainbow coalition. The gay lobby does not own the rainbow."

Let's look at the history of the rainbow in the lgbt community. According to Wikipedia:

The rainbow flag was popularized in 1978 by San Francisco artist Gilbert Baker, during the Gay Freedom Day Parade (though the association between rainbows and the LGBT community existed before 1978).

The multi-colored flag represents diversity, and hence acceptance of those different from us.

The original flag had pink and turquoise in it, but the colors were taken out because of dye unavailability. As it stands, there are six colors on the Pride Flag, each standing for a specific symbol chosen by Baker:

red: life
orange: healing
yellow: sunlight
green: nature
blue: serenity
violet: spirit

It may seem like a silly matter but don't let the triviality of the situation blind you to what's going on here. Morse's claim that we somehow stole something from Christians is in line with her later comments:

"We can't simply let that go by. Families put rainbows in their children's nurseries. Little Christian preschools will have rainbows...

Here is my question - don't lgbts have families? Don't we have children? Don't our children go to preschools and nurseries? Don't we come from every race, creed, and religious tradition?

I think Morse isn't necessarily upset that we have taken the rainbow symbol. I think it has more to do with the fact that the lgbt community will not accept the role that she has designated for us.

To Morse (and no doubt others who agree with her), we don't have a right to certain things, be they symbols of unity and love or families in general, because we don't deserve them. To Morse, lgbts are the eternal outsiders, the freaks, the people who will never fit in no matter how we try.

Perhaps Morse would be happier if we walked about angry and depressed, constantly asking folks like her for their "tolerance" or "pity."

Sorry, but the days of the self-hating lgbt who roams the outskirts of proper society in a depressed haze is on its way out of the door and definitely not fast enough.

So while Morse is correct in saying that the lgbt community doesn't own the rainbow, none of us ever said we did. But she doesn't own the rainbow either. Nor does anyone else on her side of the spectrum.

Therefore, I would suggest that Morse learns to share. And not just the rainbow either because the concept of family isn't something that belongs solely to her either.

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Family Research Council's 'we are not a hate group' campaign gets destroyed on two fronts

Step 1 of the DADT stand alone repeal is done. Now the Senate needs to do their job - however long it takes.

This morning, the Family Research Council announced a huge campaign complete with full page ads in Politico and the Washington Examiner attacking the Southern Poverty Law Center for "daring" to call them and other religious right groups out on their anti-gay propaganda and deceptions.

FRC trumpeted the fact that over 20 Congressional leaders and conservatives gave their support to the campaign.

By this afternoon, both FRC and those Congressional leaders may want to do a rewind for two reasons.

First, the Southern Poverty Law Center issued a what can only be described as devastating response to the campaign. This is my favorite part:

Despite the claims made in today’s statement, the SPLC’s listings are not in any way intended to suppress these groups’ free speech. We’re not asking that these groups be silenced or punished in any way. What we are doing is calling them out for their lies. There is nothing wrong with labeling an organization a hate group based on what they say. A simple example illustrates the point: If a neo-Nazi group said all Jews are “vermin,” no one would argue with our characterizing it as a hate group.

Neither are we mounting an attack on individuals or “groups that uphold Judeo-Christian moral views,” as today’s statement suggests. In fact, as we say in our article dissecting the views of these groups, “Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups.” Instead, as we explained there, “the SPLC’s listings of these groups is based on their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling.”

The second reason is a bit more practical.

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association (one of the groups SPLC named as an anti-gay hate group) had a radio interview today on the David Pakman Show and in less than 30 minutes, he proceeded to totally wreck any claims by the FRC that religious right groups don't peddle anti-gay hatred through junk science and propaganda, giving new meaning to idea of giving someone enough rope to hang themselves:

Among the highlights according to David Pakman:

“The Southern Poverty Law Center belongs on its own list [of hate groups]...for peddling falsehoods about homosexuality”

“We're the ones telling the truth about the link between homosexuality and pedophilia.”

“Active participation in the homosexual lifestyle will deprive a male of anywhere between 8 and 20 years of his life expectancy” - a Paul Cameron lie.

“There is ‘no such thing as a monogamous homosexual relationship’”

“The rectal wall is one cell thick” - now Fischer is quoting Paul Cameron almost verbatim.

“We need to take our cue from gay porn actors”

“Those homosexual activists that are so intent on normalizing homosexual behavior...they must be harboring some deep seated longing to be straight”

“...homosexual activists must be latently heterosexual”

It's funny except for the fact that over 20 Congressional leaders signed a letter saying that this sort of thing isn't hatred but an example of "Judeo-Christian" moral views.

Whatever you do, don't tell Jesus. I think He may get rather upset over this.