Monday, May 25, 2015

the duggar scandal that could have, should have, but hasn't.

It didn't last very long.

What's that, you ask?

The ensuing outrage over the Duggar scandal.

Mind you, it's a good one.  You have a family supposedly symbolizing christian beliefs and family values, alot of it mired in homophobia and transphobia, and until recently there was not much we in the gay activist movement could do about them because The Duggars are considered religious media darlings.

Then along comes the news Josh Duggar, who until last week was executive director of FRC Action, the non-profit and tax-exempt legislative action arm of Family Research Council, admitting to past wrongdoing with five underage girls as a teenager, including his sisters.

Cue the schadenfraude. 

To top it off, there appears to have been a massive systematic cover up at play. For example, Although TMZ attempted to play Oprah off as a hero - Read more: - The reality, pun intended?, is Oprah should have done more to, at they very least, expose a reality TV scam, and at the very most, a child abuse coverup.

Just saying, had this been someone else, the feds could have would have arrested Oprah and her staff as an accessory, tampering evidence, withholding evidence, geez.

Thus the rhetorical, What did they know and when did they know it?

The gay blogs and writers ought to be making this a thing, and were to some extent but unfortunately, they all, or we, got distracted by Ireland saying yes to same sex marriage and the Memorial Day Weekend.

On the other hand that might turn out to be a good thing because there were already signs the self anointed champions of right and wrong were about to fuck this up badly.

In fact, they may have already done so.

On Friday, Dan Savage appeared on All In With Chris Hayes on MSNBC and attacked The Duggars on their sanctimonious hypocrisy, while also cautioning the liberals aka the gays against taking delight in exploiting the Duggar's hypocrisy.

Not that there's anything wrong in Savage calling the Duggars hypocrites, but Savage of late has proven to be his, and our, worst enemy.

That's a big problem, especially for LGBT activists combating anti-gay extremism in religion and politics.

It begs to question whose side is Savage on?

He claims to be opposed to anti-gay religious leaders and politicians comparing gays to pedophiles, but he once wrote a column defending pedophilia.  He's known to talk smack against religion but on the other hand he imagines himself on the right side of jesus christ, taking it upon himself to show the evil do badders of the anti-gay right the error of their ways.

We already know what happened when he [and his husband, Terry, and their son] invited Brian Brown of the National Organization to his/their home for dinner in what was heralded a "dinner table debate."  It turned out to be Savage grooming Brown on how to beat our most effective talking points about him, his organization, and anti-gay incorporated.

And then there is Savage and his sanctimonious flip flop on transgenderism.  It wasn't long ago when trans qaeda had put a fatwa on Savage for his alleged anti-transgender views; Now he's their bestest friend ever.

And, as Scott Long noted in his essay, Savage appears to be making a case for sex offender registries, a system which has proven often counterproductive.

And therein lies the problem.  This Duggar molestation scandal is one of the greatest scandals ever. It should have been our tipping point, our smoking gun.

It's turned out to be neither.

This "incident" should have put the Family Research Council out of business, but it did not; This Duggar scandal should have woke everyone up from this nightmare preoccupation with reality TV because it looks like TLC had some knowledge something wasn't right about this family, but did nothing; and it seems, thanks to LGBT activists like Dan Savage, we now have everyone taking pity, not just on The Duggars, but also on Tony Perkins, Peter Sprigg, the Republican candidates for President who have taken photo ops with Josh Duggar and The Duggar Family, and everyone else in anti-gay incorporated.

I'm at a loss for words.  I take that back.  That would imply having a voice and as its been well known around here, I'm not allowed to have a say in anything here.  To do that would be an insult to those on the liberal side who reject or deny personal responsibility.

Update: If I have one, I wouldn't be having the gay blogs and writers blocking me instead of their adversaries.

Meanwhile it's the ones who take personal responsibility, who do the time, who work hard to reestablish themselves whom are denied the benefit of the doubt.

This whole thing sucks.

Friday, May 22, 2015

about this duggar thiing..

Yesterday, Josh Duggar, one of the stars in an American reality show on TLC called 19 Kids And Counting, resigned his position as executive director of FRC Action, the political action arm of the Family Research Council, after In Touch magazine reported that he sexually abused young girls, including his sisters, as a teenager.

This morning, I received notice someone started an online petition calling on TLC to cancel the show.

More on that later.

As to be expected, the schadenfreude fueled LGBT social media didn't waste any time reveling in the news. I would have too but then someone suggested I should sit this one out, citing my own history.

For the record, I spent year one year in prison after I had agreed to plead guilty to one count of promoting a sexual performance of a minor.

And I was planning to do just that, except it sort of invited me into the belief this was an another shameful attempt by the gay media to play themselves off as infallible and monolithic.

As a gay blogger and activist who has been personally witnessed to the ugly side of lgbt social activism, were I, then I would be as irresponsible as all these so called friends and allies of mine who believe the best way to deal with problems is do nothing and say nothing.

Just move on, they say. You don't need permission from anyone. You've already done it all, done the time, reestablished yourself, did everything to come back and prove yourself as a responsible person.

Whatever has happened is a reflection on them, not you.

And you should take the high road, because if that come at you, it will be your fault.

True. So, with that, let me talk or write about why I reject this notion to sit this one out.

First off, for a long time now, there have been people who have been trying, sometimes successfully, to present a sanitized and gentrified version of our LGBT social movement, so as to sell a false product, an ideology to make gay/lesbian people seem like average, normal everyday citizens in the eyes of the general public, and that all we want is what everyone else wants: equal rights and recognition, a husband or wife, 2.5 kids. a house with a white picket fence and a dog and cat.

Not that there's anything wrong with settling down and starting a family, but that's an ideology that comes with consequences.

In this ideology, no LGBT ever commits a sacrosanct crime, much less or more takes personal responsibility because doing so goes against the narrative.

Case in point:
  • MIchael "Tiger Mandingo" Johnson; According to Steven Thrasher at Buzzfeed, he's an HIV scapgoat, not a criminal. 
  • Blogger Wade Grant, aka Waddie G, insists, despite recent reports, the man being sought in connection with an alleged hate crime at a Dallas BBQ in Chelsea, is a victim not a suspect.
  • The man formerly known as Bradley Manning?; As far as everyone is concerned, he should be serving his time in paradise, not prison.So you see the need by others for me to sit this one out.
Fat chance I'm staying quiet.

In this case of Josh Duggar, it would seem we're dealing with a case of someone suffering from affluenza. Instead of prison, he instead receives "christian rehabilitation."

From Wikipedia:
On May 19, 2015, tabloid magazine In Touch Weekly reported[1] that Jim Bob had turned his son, Josh Duggar, a minor at the time, in to the Arkansas State Police for molesting at least one underage girl.  According to the police report, Josh had molested at least five underage girls including several of his sisters. Parents Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar were aware of the abuses and, along with leaders of their church and a rogue law enforcement officer, were complicit in their subsequent cover-up. 
Jim Bob told police that he had referred Josh to a 15-month program consisting of physical labor and counseling after consulting with his church's leadership. Michelle later revealed to police that Josh never received counseling, but was instead sent to stay with a family friend in the home remodeling business. Upon Josh's return home, Jim Bob brought Josh to Arkansas State Trooper Jim Hutchens, whom Jim Bob knew personally. Hutchens did not take any official action, only giving Josh a "very stern talk". With Hutchens' later arrest and convictions on child pornography charges, the case went inactive. 
Jim Bob only spoke officially to law enforcement in 2006 after the abuses were reported to authorities by producers of The Oprah Winfrey Show, who were interviewing the family, after the show received an email detailing the allegations. Because the three-year statute of limitations had passed once allegations were formally documented, Josh avoided charges. 
In a joint statement to People magazine following the report, Jim Bob and Michelle said that their son's sexual abuses drew their family "closer to God."
And with that, a child molester and sex offender is given his own reality show and a job at the Family Research Council.

There are two issues at play here: The first one is the more obvious: This proves sex offender registries are bullshit. They don't work, they serve no purpose, and these laws that are supposedly meant to protect women and children and make everyone feel safe do the exact opposite.   Because here, they sure as fuck didn't do anything to protect those young girls.  

Then there is TLC; This is a network that seems to have a thing for exploiting dysfunctional people for the purposes of entertainment: First Honey Boo Boo, now this.

So if the FRC or anyone else wants to come at me, bring it.  And bring all your friends.  I would love for them to read and know about the christian child molester and sex offender who had his crime covered up by the church and media.

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

dispatches from the bubble, or today in schadendraude

It's not often I can bask in schadenfraude.  Too many times this blog and its writer has exhibited a tendency to criticise the gay blogs and the writers, mostly because they warrant such criticism. And I've lots to criticize this week.  But I have a problem well, two: One,I cannot keep up with all the online insanity taking place; and two, I just can't tell the right from the wrong.

What it does it say about those bloggers or writers whom prefers the company of lying liars?

I don't know if I will ever get around to finishing that piece but in the meantime....

In Touch is reporting exclusively, Josh Duggar, he of the TLC reality show 19 Kids and Counting, and, more importantly, vice President for the Family Research Council and FRC Action, was named in a police report as the “alleged offender” in an underage sexual abuse probe; you know, the kind of crime they love to accuse gays of except when they do it.

And then there is the story of the anti-gay priest whom was outed on Queerty. As per their writer Dan Tracer, It would seem that Reverend Matthew Makela, a married man and father of five kids, when he wasn't preaching of the evils of homosexuality to his congregation, he was trolling guys on Grindr:

Unfortunately, this has become an all too frequent occurence;


We’ve seen it time and time again. The lawmaker who spends his days fighting against gay rights and his nights cruising for bottoms, or the ex-gay activist who isn’t quite as ex-gay as he’d like everyone to believe.

Yes, we have.

dispatches from the bubble

Here at ngblog, I've often been accused of many things, one of them being  exploiting a victim mentality, that is, portraying myself as a victim of an unjust society or cause and thinking, speaking, writing, and acting as if that were the case, sometimes in the absence, or so "they" say or write, in the absence of clear evidence.

Never mind that I've proven many times over the advocacy community has exhibited a tendency to behave like bullies, but it's just that no one seems to want to know there exists such a problem.

Or maybe it's just no one wants me to give the issue any of type of veracity because I'm not one of the made men of the gay mafia.

Either way, I love it when one of the inducted members of the exclusive family reveals an inconvenient truth of our godforsaken movement and the other inductees pass themselves off as victims so as to manipulate their all too often naive and gullible readers.

On May 19, Aaron Hicklin, editor in chief of OUT, one of the largest gay men's magazines here in US, wrote a column accusing the gay community of a bullying fetish.
We act like petty tyrants exploding in anger whenever someone says something that falls foul of approved policy. Increasingly, of course, the targets of that anger are other LGBT people, because that is the way tyranny works — the enemy eventually becomes anyone who is not on exactly the same page, exactly the same word, at exactly the same time.
Let's be clear: Aaron Hicklin is no friend of this blogger.  His, um, "lifestyle" surely conflicts with mine, I doubt he's ever experienced what its like to live a life under extraordinary pressure having always to walk a fine line between conformity and invisibility.

On the other hand, Seems that a certain popular gay blogger didn't like being indirectly called a bully and took time out of his new gimmick as the only gay parent in this new world of gay parenting to play victim, again and write a 2700 word rebuttal of sorts...
...Quite remarkable for a guy who claims to be "disconnected from all that."

Having been accused in the past of wearing a tin foil hat, accusing gay activists of being bullies and victim playing, I am somewhat suspicious as this lends to a new working theory of mine gay activists specifically the ones involved in the professional gay media are exploiting our social causes and are only trying to raise their own personal reputation.

Nonetheless, I've been sitting here laughing my ass off, having just had someone prove my point for me.  I suppose I should thank Mr. Hicklin, but I've already been let down way too many times this year, and I'm over quota.

But it does beg to question how in the fuck we managed to turn an outrage into an $800,000 payday for two pizza owners in Indiana who recently told a local station they are refusing to cater gay weddings.

For that, I'll have to point fingers at the popular gay blogs and writers because they have no fucking appreciation for consequences, most notably with Hooper because he seems to be the guy gay and anti-gay social conservatives run to when they need something publicized.

And here in this crazy world of ours where it seems the only true victims of homophobia are white gay men, this whole thing seems rather disingenuous if you ask me.

To be fair, someone did try to turn that phenomena of making our opponents into cause celebres around, raising money for homeless LGBTQ youth; Not there's anything with wrong with that, but all I want to know is how much of that $162,723 Scott Wooledge raised for #pizza4equality did he kick back to himself.

I would ask, but the last time I did just that, Wooledge went on a homophobic tirade at my expense and blocked me on social media.  Not that anyone else noticed because that's not how it works around here.

In fact it seems no one ever does seem to notice that it's usually me who first calls attention to a problem taking place within our LGBT community, and is repeatedly shamed, ridiculed, or dismissed for repeatedly criticizing Gay Inc and the media and their lack of ethics.

Until of course, it's a white gay man who does it. 

And then everyone comes out of their bubble and puts on a show on social media, where of course it's only the naive and gullible who can view because everyone else the ones who truly know what it's like to experience true hate are blocked.

The notion that Hooper can refer to an underlying problem of bullying as "short sighted." is a notion that tends one to believe Hooper simply does not give a fuck about our movement.  That or he's he's just a guy who trolls and whores himself to social conservatives.

Saturday, May 16, 2015

the maddening, cont;d

So here's the problem, at least for me: I would love to get around to writing and blogging about all the anti-gay shit taking place at my or our expense, but the popular gay blogs and writers have made doing so next to impossible.

Because really, how many times must we read about putting the nail on the coffin on the Regnerus study?

Need I remind anyone it was Scott Rose who debunked the "New Family Structures Study by Mark Regnerus as junk science, that it was Scott who proved Regnerus was guilty of scientific misconduct, and that it was Scott who proved, hands down, the study is nothing more than a horrendous piece of anti-LGBT propaganda?

How many more nails must we put into that metaphorical coffin before we call it a day?

Here's another one: Back in January, we in the lgbt advocacy business were led to believe that Bryan Fischer, who was then Director of Issues Analysis for the American Family Association and chief spokesman for the anti-gay organization, had been fired. Bloggers and activists automatically assumed it would mean the end to his long running talk radio program, Focal Point.  But as it turned out, it was just some political move, a publicity stunt, by the AFA to avoid being classified as a hate group.

How did that work out for them? Not too good.  The Southern Poverty Law Center, to their credit, didn't fall for the trick, and their hate group designation remains;  That's bad news for the AfA, and good news for the gay blogs and writers who need them more than they do the LGBT community they're supposed to be fighting for.

Want more?

As per the gay blogs and writers, if and when the Supreme Court rules in our favor, the National Organization For Marriage and The Family Research Council will soon go out of business, because without marriage equality, what point is there to their existence?

But they don't appear to be going anywhere. They will be at this so as long as there will continue to be priests, pastors, bakers and photographers and printers who will gladly deny their services or goods to gay people under the guise of "religious freedom." 

And it won't matter to anyone they're breaking the law, because they're guaranteed to have Gay Inc make goddamn certain that doesn't happen.

On the other hand, it is often foolish to be a pessmist, as we do have Gay Inc occasionally doing something right:

For example, as per Gay Star News, The Southern Poverty Law Centre added ATLAH World Missionary Church in New York City’s Harlem neighborhood to their list of active anti-LGBTI hate groups. 

See more at:

To be clear, James David Manning, the pastor who runs this church or organization has been begging for placement. Although it's not so much news anymore, he continues to display homophobic messages on a letter board outside the church and no one other than a few protesters who appear to be more publicity seekers than activists, no one has been able to do anything about it.

You know, because the first amendment can be a bitch.

He's also been known to publish outrageous videos on his YouTube, accusing gay activists of "sodomite semen latte."

On a more serious note, he's called on gay people to be stoned to death and advocated for Harlem, where his church is located, to be a "homo free zone" whatever that means.

Update: I know what that means. Manning is simply playing word tricks and thinks he's a genius.

Unfortunately here is where the pessimist rears its ugly head again:  It's doubtful the hate group designation will do much if anything for the gay people who live in and around Harlem; they're the ones whom have to put up with that crap, not me. I live elsewhere in New York City, as does many other LGBT activists.  If we were to take aggressive action against Manning and Atlah World Missionary Church, Gay Inc (aka The Southern Poverty Law Center, GLAAD, The Task Force, and all the little LGBTQI groups in New York and throughout the US would denounce it.

We could be charged with intent and motive and violating Manning's first amendment rights.

Don't think so? It's happened once before: On August 15, 2012, Floyd Corkins attempted to FRC's Washington, D.C. headquarters and shot a security guard in the left arm. Even though the security guard was not badly injured, 25 LGBT Groups issued a statement condemning Corkins, and subsequently turned their backs on him while the FBI and The Metropolitan Police Department went on to accuse Corkins of [a] federal hate crime[s]. In January 2013, Corkins was forced to plead guilty to crossing state lines with guns and ammunition, intent to kill while armed, and committing an act of terrorism with the intent to kill. Corkins was sentenced to 25 years in prison on September 19, 2013.

Not to keep dwelling because this is supposed to be a post proving my veracity as a radical homosexual activist, but this is an LGBT movement that demands special treatment for transgender people serving long prison sentences and are outraged, OUTRAGED, I tell you, when certain gay men who commit sacrosanct crimes are arrested and charged for those offenses.

I just wonder often why they gave up Corkins to the opposition movement.

Won't be the first time that's happened either.

the mad mad mad mad world of lgbt activism

Yes, people, this is intended to be another criticism of LGBT activism, news of which will sure disappoint my readers and my "friends and colleagues" in the LGBT activism whom are hoping and praying I would go back to becoming "a radical homosexual activist" again.

Only problem with that is calling out anti-gay misinformation in the new and old media, religion, and politics has become circuitous, repetitive, and tedious, and for that I have to write thank you gay blogs and writers whom have put a price tag on their activism.

They've whored themselves out to the very people trying any AND every which way they can to create laws demonizing homosexuality; and worse still they sold me out to an anti-gay bigot.

I may have moved on but I won't forget what they have done, and this blog will continue to reflect that view whether people like it or not.

In fact, the fact that more people would prefer bliss instead of outspokenness appear to be my motivation these days for blogging than anything else these days; For example, the ones who go through all this trouble to create an internet brand based on their expertise on the issue of lgbt rights, and they, just, well, for lack of a better term or expression...


They buy a domain or vanity url, they spend money buying a blog or website usually from Wordpress or Typepad or Tumblr, buy folowers on Twitter and Facebook, maybe throw some money at Gay Inc so they in turn will legitimize them, and they they'll spend a certain period - six months on average - publishing content which makes them look like they're at the front lines of the equality movement...

And maybe, just maybe, they too will become a critic, demonstrating how gullible and uncritical the gay media are when covering LGBT social issues, before they ultimately realize being an activist requires sacrifices, an appreciation for consequences.

And then they're never to be heard from again, except perhaps on special occasions, and then only to rest on their laurels, because they had anything to do with the so called "radical homosexual agenda."

This is a very long preamble.  I'm not really sure where I'm going with it and at this point perhaps it might be better to stop at get to the gist of it:

I just don't understand lgbt activism any more.  According to the LGBT prime directive, the guiding principle for LGBT, there is not supposed to be any more hiding in the closet because the closet is our enemy;  But yet there are activists (bloggers and writers and social justice warriors) whom have exploited the closet, usually at the expense of other LGBT who do not adopt certain beliefs and act and think the way others think they should.

Never mind there is no such thing as an LGBT prime directive, but let's not spoil the fun.

Then there is this thing commonly referred to as the ex-gay movement.  I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but rumors of its demise have been greatly exaggerated.  Nonetheless, those of us in advocacy are supposed to, by default, discredit this movement with prejudice because, to use an popular talking point, "one can't pray away the gay."

On the other hand, when it comes to transgenders and or transgenderism, an ideology and movement founded on a house of lies and imagination,  we gay and lesbian people are supposed to accept them unconditionally because to them, they are our brothers and sisters; again, never mind our leadership, and by them I mean the popular LGBT blogs and writers, celebrities, politicians, religious leaders, et al, have all gone on record to announce, and affirm, gender identity/expression and sexual orientation are two different issues, causes that must be for fought for on their own merits, and that the two should not and must not be lumped together.

But they are, and the culprits are [the usual suspects:] Gay Inc and the popular LGBT blogs, writers, and activsts on their payroll.

Thus, the gay [and or lesbian, and sometimes even bisexual and transgendered] blogs and writers who warn repeatedly of this movement within a movement of sociopaths, pedophiles, misogynists, misandrists, rapists, sex offenders, murderser, traitors, etc,] using transgenderism as a cover toward a new identity, we're the ones who are villified, sometimes and often, worse.

And it's not becaue we're wrong to believe transgenderism has gone too far; but when you people advocating puberty blockers for five year olds, there are people circumventing parental rights so they can give children who think they're transgender access to devices so as to mutliate themselves, an there are activists advocating special rights for transgender prisoners, the notion that we're the ones in the wrong is a notion not based in reality.

That said, there exists a caveat or problem; It seems we who oppose transgenderism and all of it's evil and unethical ways cannot form a united front.  Granted, some of these activists and bloggers and writers are doing amazing work as it is in exposing transgenderism is an ill and don't need, or perhaps want help, but, some may be doing our cause more harm than good.

What's the difference between them, people picking and choosing who can or cannot be on their side of the cause, and the chrsitians who pick and choose what to believe in the bible?

I've cited four examples; Is there anyone who thinks these are isolated incidents, anamolies to which I'm exaggerating?

Perhaps, but then how does one explain what took place just within the forty eight hours?

On Thursday, a jury in Missouri found Michael Johnson, an HIV-positive former college wrestler better known as “Tiger Mandingo,” was found guilty of knowingly exposing his gay partners to HIV and is now facing life in prison.  The gay blogs and writers are upset, showing a bias for this criminal, and no sympathy or empathy for any of Johnson's victims.

According to logic, their's not mine, they - the victims - consented - so it's really all their fault and we shouldn't put a black man to prison for it.

Just one week ago, these very same bloggers and writers were demanding the exact opposite for an alleged black man involved in a chair throwing incident at a Dallas BBQ in Chelsea whom may have overreacted in defense of a possibly racist gay man.

Still think I'm exaggerating or making shit up?

I was planning to end this piece by challenging the blogs and writers to prove me wrong, but then would be giving everyone the benefit of the doubt.  I would have to accept these blogs have an understanding and appreciation for consequences, and to do that, I would be to accept a fantasy over reality.

To do that would be absolutely maddening.

Thursday, May 14, 2015

is greed the only way to be a successful blog

Here at ngblog, I'm often accused by, ahem, my colleagues in the LGBT writing and blogging community of, among things, exaggerating things, often for attention; an odd indictment to make given the fact the primary purpose for starting a blog and or becoming an advocacy writer is to either earn a living - a concept I've denied myself, by the way - and or campaign for social change.

This is why I started in blogging in essence; There were certain events taking place in my life that were threatening my health and safety, the people whom i counted or depended on for help and guidance weren't there, and online, there were things taken place that were taking place that at first I didn't understand but began to eventually.

And where I hoped to find people to help solve those problems, instead I came out of one set of problems into another set of problems.  They be, in no specific order, Gay Inc; gay blogs and writers and their contempt for money; the gay media who insists on pushing narratives that may or may not be doing us more harm than good.

I don't want to turn this into yet another rant against transgenders or transgenderism, but I know I'm not the only one who thinks this whole trans thing has gone way too far.

But therein lies a problem, and that is, those who have those who have the knowledge, skills and abilities to do something and say something about this or them, either won't, or they've become obsessed with the prospect of winning, they have no idea anymore of what it means to be an activist.

Or maybe it's me who doesn't know because I've no idea what it means to be greedy.

Until now, I've had no desire to become an "blogebrity." I've far too many times seen what happens to people who blog,or write, or create videos for or against a social cause, they become an overnight sensation, and they then either or forget and abandon their causes in exchange for a career in politics, a board seat, or maybe some TV, radio or book deal, the latter which they then use or exploit to go on the lecture circuit.

Want proof say you? Be careful what you ask for.

With all due respect, can anyone really call what took place earlier this week here in New York City, "a conversation?"

Yes, I watched "A Conversation With Michelangelo Signorile and Dan Savage" [and moderated by Oriol Gutierrez.]

Proof? After Eric Hegedus, a gay journalist who works for the New York Post introduced everyone, they suddenly experienced an audio problem.

Granted, it was only for a minute or so but what about the rest of it?

Thus, no, there wasn't much of a conversation at all: Just two guys taking turns hearing themselves talk and mouth off a bunch of isms they've become famous for.

The so called QandA that followed was nothing to write home about either.

To be clear, had I known about the event in due time, I would have made some effort to go in person. On the other hand, had I, I probably would have left angry and disappointed, feeling that it was a waste of time, a bait and switch to sell books... and that, it indeed was.

But lest anyone invite themselves of some imaginary right to call me bitchy or worse, you can go here and watch the event yourself:

Because I might have to again, just to make sure I didn't miss anything.

Yeah, I can be own worst enemy at times, a glutten for punishment.

What about The Huffington Post?

In addition to being a news aggressor and blog, where people can go to have their work published [for free], they also have an Internet-based video streaming network called Huffpost Live; and of their many recurring shows is one called Queerview, hosted by an Australian dude named Josh Zepps. 

I like Josh Zepps even though I haven't actually met him. He seems like a pleasant dude whom woudn't harm a fly; And therein lies the problem: Josh's ideas of what makes for the "biggest news stories of the weeks" involving comic book characters, a photo or video or blog gone viral on social media, or some other dumb ass new story or event, for example, Ricky Martin tweeted something, Elton John said something, or some minor leaguer in sports came out and now we're all supposed bend over backwards and worship the ground they walk on just because.

Since January, I've been begging Josh to, no pun intended, go hard; that is, host segments that are uncomfortable and controversial.

Again for those who want me to cite examples, here in New York we've now had two incidents involving gay on gay violence; the first is the boycott taking place against the two gay hoteliers who hosted a non fundraiser fundraiser for anti-gay Republican candidate for President Ted Cruz; the second, the alleged hate crime that took place at Dallas BBQ in Chelsea.

On the latter, when is a hate crime not a crime? According to white gay and uncle tom blogs and writers, it's when they say so.

So far we seem to be at a stalemate; the guy who hit a gay couple with a wooden chair hasn't or won't come forward to take responsibility, the gay bloggers and writers and celebrities whom witnessed the incident or have personal knowledge are unwilling to step forward, the gay white bloggers who live in New York City are jonesing for a lynching arrest, and that much needed conversation that needs to be had, isn't because, well, no one wants one.

Right now, I think anyway, Huffpost Live appears to be the only place to have that conversation, but it's unlikely there will ever be one because there appears to be no one working at Huffington Post with balls.

It would seem they've all been castrated by the trans qaeda.

This is why I more or less prefer to stay home and put up with all the dysfunction that occurs here daily, sometimes hourly, rather than offering myself as a guest or pundit. i can control the bullshit at home, more or less; What I can't do is be a Representative of a community that can't or won't appreciate consequences.

Am I wrong to believe that? That's where the blogs and writers need step in to prove me wrong.

In the meantime,  I suppose, because I just can't see myself becoming a greedy blogger, and yes I am aware of those invasive ads throughout my blog, I may have to give myself a fail, although the reality is, it is the gay community that has failed me.

I'm not sure what it is I'm supposed to be doing: Do I go back to becoming that radical homosexual activist blogger again? I suppose I could, but then I would have to compete with a bunch of other gay blogs and writers, and i don't feel like competing with them; It would also mean I would have to let the anti-gay inc call all the shots.  Without them what would we be?

Or, do I just keep doing whatever it is I'm doing here currently and deal with the consequences (ignorance, arrogance, apathy, hypocrisy, the backstabbing, the blacklisting, the scapegoating, the hating, the blaming, etc.)?

One thing is certain; this notion that I am or run a transphobic blog is a notion that is not based on reality because this week, I defended a trans woman who hosts a internet based radio show from someone who is not, pun intended, normal; and I'm taking sides with two transgender activists taking a stand against this new transgender trend where we're not supposed to question the transgender population in anything, never mind these people are now admitting their own transition, from MTF and or FTM, was a mistake, and that we should let kids be kids, while the real enemy appears to be the blogs and writers who share the same belief I do transgenderism has gone too far.

Or the ones who say I can't advocate for a new community center because I have an agenda.


Meanwhile if you're wondering what that sound is, its' coming from the opposition movement, laughing their asses off at how easy they have it.  Don't blame me for that.

Ad Space

Ad Space