Today on Blogcritics
Home » Thank you, Mr. President

Thank you, Mr. President

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Reynaldus Maximus.

The Great One.

These and many other terms of endearment have been, and will be bandied about over the next week. Even his old enemies seem effusive in their praise of Reagan the man, if not Reagan the politician. Of course there are the LLL who don’t even have the class to keep quiet rather than speak ill of the dead, but that is a topic for another day.

The two men in this world whom I’ve admired the most were my father, and Ronald Reagan. They both greatly influenced who I am today. My father passed on over three years ago now; yet, even though I’ve expected this for a long time, and didn’t even know the man personally, I find myself hit almost as hard by the President’s passing.

When I was in high school, I was a perfect candidate for membership in the Democrat Party. Pacifist, anti-war, pro-abortion, etc. Those were the Carter years, with double-digit inflation, marginal tax rates of 75%, the Iran Hostage Crisis, and the Misery Index(!).

Election Year 1980 marked the end of my junior year and the beginning of my senior year in high school. As I heard more of what Mr. Reagan had to say, the scales started falling, oh so slowly, from my eyes. What concepts! Personal responsibility, small government, an optimism about the future, peace through strength. I was only 17 that year, so I couldn’t cast a vote for him, but by November there were Reagan-Bush ’80 bumper stickers an my little blue Pinto, and I was proselytizing for the Reagan Revolution at every opportunity.

Going through high school, I had no idea what I would do as an adult, and really saw no reason to. After all, the world would probably be a radioactive cinder by the time I reached twenty. When I graduated, I had no direction. But as I grew up from teenager to adult, the President’s attitudes started to take hold in my life.

I ended up joining the U.S. Air Force, and I was honored to have Ronald Reagan as my Commander-in-Chief. I proudly cast my first Presidential vote for him in 1984.

As the Reagan Revolution moved forward, so did opportunity. I work today in the IT industry, supporting my family with a decent income. I am entirely self-taught. I have owned my own business in the past, and I will do so again within the next few years. I have learned that you cannot wait for the world to give you a break; If you can’t find an opportunity, then you make one. If you fall on your face, don’t whine about it; get up and keep on going. No matter what storms come your way, if you lean into it and push through, and look to the Lord for your strength, you will make it to the other side.

Mr. Reagan, thank you. Thank you for helping make this a land of opportunity again. Thank you for your example.

This election year, our choices are nearly the same as in 1980: strength, self-reliance, and optimism; or flip-flops, UN cow-towing, and cynicism.

The Reagan Revolution continues. Let’s win this one for the Gipper!

crossposted at Confessions of a Jesus Phreak

Powered by

About Scott Bell

  • http://www.foliage.com/~marks Mark Saleski

    …or flip-flops

    yes, bush’s flip-flops are becoming quite tiresome.

  • http://www.jackejet.com jack e. jett

    shouldn’t it be…let’s kill some for the gipper?

    let’s kill some more folks from iraq who had nothing to do with 9/11.

    let’s kill some more of their children because they are not as important as ours.

    let’s abuse and torture those WE deem to be criminals prior to any trial.

    let’s totally destroy a country so dick cheney’s company can rebuild it.

    let’s destroy their places of worship because they do not know “jesus as their saviour”.

    yeah…let’s do all that for the gipper.

    i say fuck the gipper and the bush.

    jack e. jett

  • John

    What is it with the snarky, no-class commenters these days? Some intelligent debate would be nice, for a change. For God’s sake, the man just died, and I’ve never seen so many people lining up to piss on his grave. I was taught two things growing up: 1) Speak no ill of the dead, and 2) If you don’t have something good to say about someone, then just shut up!

    Guess it’s hopeless to ask for that anymore.

    sigh…

  • http://www.foliage.com/~marks Mark Saleski

    look, i’m sorry pres. reagan got that horrible disease. i’m sorry that he died. nobody deserves to go like that. i truly feel sorry for his family as well.

    however, his death does not require me or anybody else to elect his king of the ‘effin world.

    this supposedly heartfelt post ended with a “snarky, no-class comment”, by the way.

  • John

    I rest my case.

  • http://www.foliage.com/~marks Mark Saleski

    sorry, i forgot to genuflect.

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    Give the Diva props! I anticipated the Nattering Neanderthals would describe Reagan as their second father Saturday.

    Perhaps we should begin having contests at Blogcritics. I nominate this entry for the greatest use of trite and meaningless phrases recently. Apologies to Al Barger. His entry on Ronald Reagan’s going on to you know where was chock full of ‘morning in America’ and ‘shining house on the hill,’ but Scott Bell has beaten him by a long shot. Unless David Flanagan posts a picture of himself in sackcloth and ashes along with his sure to be lengthy lamentation, Bell gets the blue ribbon.

  • John-z

    Do you have nothing better to do Mac than mutter bullshit.

    You have no say. You are not even a black female, just a fictional character like Sponge Bob.

    I was on here six months ago and all the same freak show idiots are still here.

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    ROFL! Laughing fictional arse off!

    Right Wingers are so strange. I compliment one of them for doing something really well and another of’em complains. There’s no pleasing these people.

  • boomcrashbaby

    Mac Diva, I agree with you on this thread. If I run across one more God and Guns personal home blog, I’m going to start getting paranoid.

    It’s only a matter of time, I suppose before gunshop owners either become ordained ministers, or the little ole ladies in the church start selling ammo and licenses alongside baked goods!

  • http://www.jackejet.com jack e. jett

    wait..
    is mac diva having an affair with sponge bob?

    i find that more intersting than j and mark lo.

    true diversity.

    jack

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    I find most of the comments on this topic tiresome, but here’s a reminder of what good writing looks like from Chris Hitchens (many of you may have already read this since Drudge linked it today.:

    http://slate.msn.com/id/2101842

    Cruel, but brilliant, pointed and honest. Oh, and Hitchens is good too.

    That is all.

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    “let’s kill some more folks from iraq who had nothing to do with 9/11.

    let’s kill some more of their children because they are not as important as ours.

    let’s abuse and torture those WE deem to be criminals prior to any trial.

    let’s totally destroy a country so dick cheney’s company can rebuild it.

    let’s destroy their places of worship because they do not know “jesus as their saviour”.

    yeah…let’s do all that for the gipper.

    i say fuck the gipper and the bush.

    jack e. jett”

    That’s quite a eulogy. Are you going to be in attendance at the National Cathedral on Friday?

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    “this supposedly heartfelt post ended with a “snarky, no-class comment”, by the way.”

    In a sense, I agree. This is the kind of crap that the Wellstone people pulled. And they got burned for it…

    Reagan’s death shouldn’t be a political issue. It should be a solemn occasion for the country to come together.

    Meanwhile, the rabid Left is busy urinating on his non-existant grave, and the right-wing is busy trying to cannonize him, and make him GW Bush’s running mate.

    STOP!

    A great man died. Let’s pay our respects, and nothing more.

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    Except that not everyone believes Reagan was a great man. They should be silent to protect your feelings? When the world is filled with canonizations of this person, perhaps they do a service to provide an alternative POV. Mileage varies, Mr. Elliott, and dissenters won’t march in lockstep just because you want them to do so.

    I’ll give you this much: He was a better actor than some believe.

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    ND:

    When a President dies, the honorable, American thing to do is to either honor him for a week, or shut up for a week.

    Since you hate your country, I expect nothing of the sort from you.

    I was only speaking to patriots.

    BTW, when are you finally emigrating to Canuckistan?

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    No doubt you and I define “patriot” differently, Mr. Elliott.

    I don’t hate my country. I don’t have a country and I don’t believe in the entire concept. And yes, when I can afford to go, you bet I will. You want me to go sooner? Send money. :)

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    RJ, when the former leader of a supposedly free country dies, why is it that free speech should suddenly only apply to the people who thought he could do no wrong?

    There is no reason for people who don’t like the man, didn’t vote for him, and lament his legacy to be quiet in the face of all the blind pro-Reagan nonsense going on. Puhleeze.

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    Again, the decent thing to do is to not piss on his grave. There is clearly quite a bit of indecency on BC. No surprise.

    Attack him in July. Why now?

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    Because I have kids who, from TV and the news, are hearing one side of the story and a lot of inaccuracies. And they are far from alone. Offering a full and honest portrait — which the media are NOT presenting now, only canonization bullshit — is doing a public service. I mourn Reagan in the same way I mourned Timothy McVeigh; every death is a diminishment. But honor him? No. If it’s impolitic for me to speak an abridged portion of my piece rather than to defer to the slobberers, then so be it. But to suffer the BS in silence for the sakes of people like yourself? Why?

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Um, because he DIED now, RJ. It’s time for the retrospectives, and that includes the good and the bad.

    In July, the story will be … well … dead.

    It is not pissing on someone’s grave to talk about how much you didn’t like a certain recently deceased president. It’s commentary on the news.

  • http://nightdragon.diaryland.com Mark Edward Manning

    I respect Hitchens a lot for his position on Iraq, but that column on Reagan really does reveal what a a dyed-in-the-wool leftie Hitchens really is. Hitchens a neo-con, my ass.

  • http://www.foliage.com/~marks Mark Saleski

    ah, so conservatives DO watch their tv’s in black & white.

  • JR

    If Reagan’s critics have to stay silent for a week, then in the interest of fair play his supporters should shut up too. It would be the decent thing to do.

  • John-z

    If it weren’t for President’s like him only criminals would have guns and homosexuals wolud own the public parks and bath houses.

    My mistake they have already diseased the parks and bath houses now the sanctity of marriage is next.

  • http://www.foliage.com/~marks Mark Saleski

    keep digging, we’re enjoying it.

  • boomcrashbaby

    homosexuals wolud own the public parks and bath houses.

    Don’t forget salons, Broadway and the travel industry. We own those too.

    My mistake they have already diseased the parks and bath houses now the sanctity of marriage is next.

    Diseased the parks? Don’t wiggle your wiener at strangers and you should be fine. Diseased the bath houses? Sorry you’re no longer able to bathe with strange men.

    Don’t forget Africa or India. If we’re going to take the blame for AIDS, we should get credit for entire continents too.

  • John-z

    I never mentioned AIDS. By diseased I meant dirtied and closed because of used condoms and feces from buttfucking.
    Keep it in the bedroom, home or get a room.

  • http://dirtgrain.com/weblog Dirtgrain

    Is there anyone on whose grave one can piss? Is there, or has there been, a ruler who was so evil that we could talk ill of him or her immediately after his or her death? If you answer in the affirmative–e.g., Hitler–then you must recognize other people’s right to speak about a dead man’s shortcomings. Surely there are degrees of good and bad when it comes to political leaders–even within America–even within the class of presidents. If someone sees Reagan as bad or as some degree of bad, then why cannot that person speak about it? Are US presidents exempt for some reason?

    I don’t consider Reagan to be as bad as Hitler. But I do see Reagan to have been bad in many ways, and I won’t abstain from saying it. I don’t think Reagan minds. He’s dead. That “don’t speak ill of the dead” notion is religious hokeyness.

    Normally, one would respect the family of the deceased–for them, one should hold back for a while. But in his case, it is different. He was a president, a world leader. Some sappy ass says that we shouldn’t hurt feelings? What kind of crap is that? We have a country to run here.

    They are closing government offices and US stock markets for a day? This is a historical precedent? Why? How can one man’s death be given so much significance when soldiers are being killed in Iraq every day? People, groups and organizations, when somebody dies or some tragedy occurs, so often scramble around like idiots trying to figure out how they can be reverent. Crap like this comes up because people think it’s “the right thing to do.” The right thing to do is to be sad that a man died (even though it is a welcome death, a relief from a terrible disease)–as you would be sad for any other human dying. If you want to honor Reagan, then do it as an individual. This imposed national mourning is empty and sanctimonious.

  • boomcrashbaby

    By diseased I meant dirtied and closed because of used condoms and feces from buttfucking.

    I’ve never heard of a park closed because of used condoms or shit.

    (Apparently hygiene is another thing we own?) It’s probably dog shit. Sometimes one’s been known to find some at a park. Did you analyze it to see if it was human?

    Condoms? You can find them on the ground wherever teens hang out at night. You know why? Cuz they CAN’T go home. Like I said (on another thread), that’s dying out as gay people now CAN go home.

    Keep it in the bedroom, home or get a room.

    I have, for 18 years. But thank you for the order.

    *****
    Just for the record, RJ, it wasn’t a gay person that covered this Reagan eulogy/blog with the topic of feces. Apparently we just piss on him.

  • John-z

    I regret to inform you but there is legitimate proof of public parks and bath houses being closed all over the US because of homosexual actiity.

    In fact a story just aired on the local news of three homo’s being arrested for sucking and fucking each other in a local park and filming it with kids in the area.

    The truth is the truth especially when it is documented in public record. Even George Michael was soliciting gay sex by swinging his tally wacker at a cop in public. Why bcb???

  • boomcrashbaby

    John, I can’t answer for each and every individual, I can only answer for myself, but there are some obvious criteria that you are disregarding.

    First, men are men. Men like sex. Gay men will probably have a higher sexual activity rate than straight men. It’s because same-sex partners like the frequency at pretty much the same rate. Usually.

    Second, there’s a young girl who lives around the corner, who has her boyfriend of the month, park in front of our house all the time, and she blows him in the front seat. She thinks she’s not seen. People have sex in public all the time. Men AND women.

    I’m not defending having sex with kids in the area. That is just three low-lifes, not ALL gay people. Do you condemn all straight people because some married man got a STD from a prostitute? There’s scum everywhere.

    Rest stops, secluded areas in parks, adult bookstores, bars, etc. These places became known as gay meeting places because for many decades, they were the only place to go. Such an ingrained habit does not go away overnight. I’m guessing that these parks which are so overrun by ‘diseases of the cleanliness kind’, are primarily in the midwest, or more rural or conservative areas where there aren’t many gay-tolerant places to go?

    Even George Michael was soliciting gay sex by swinging his tally wacker at a cop in public. Why bcb?

    I don’t know. My guess is that he thought he could get his dick sucked.

    You need to quit generalizing. If you don’t want someone to have sex in your park, then prosecute them. Not an entire group of people.

  • John-z

    I was merely stateing a fact. The fact that 99% of all parks being closed across the nation is the result of gay sex. These gays are doing more harm than good to the gay communuty. They are giving people reason to condem and stereotype gays. The lesbians have to get hell over what the men do. I haven’t heard one story of a public place being closed because lesbians were eating pussy and shiting on picnic tables.

    Enough of that, R.I.P President Reagan.

  • boomcrashbaby

    I was merely stateing a fact.

    No you weren’t. You were telling me where I am allowed to have sex.

    Then the rest of the time, you were generalizing, stereotyping and grossly overexaggerating numbers.

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    John-Z (your remarks would disgust most Johns in the world, including those on the Right, I think, so let’s avoid confusion), you arrived here complaining about some of us are criticizing Reagan’s politics. Claimed to be concerned that we were not being kind to Reagan’s image. Well, your contributions to the thread don’t reflect positively on the kind of person who loves the Reagan at all.

    Speaking of love, men, and Johns, a straight man who is excessively interested in gay sexual activity may not really be heterosexual. You might want to look into the reason for your interest and animosity, John-Z.

  • John-z

    I am not excessively interested in others sexual activities, I am however interested in keeping nice public places clean. As I said above there is a story running now where three queers were video taping themselves blowing each others in front of some kids in a local park. At least they provided the police with their own video evidence and will have to register as sex offenders.

    I also don’t remember being overly concerned with you or anyone else not being kind to Reagan.

    I have a right to my beliefs and convictions as do you, so fuck off Mac Diva.

  • http://www.foliage.com/~marks Mark Saleski

    wow, snarkilcious, mr. Z.

  • John-z

    bcb: Quit crying. I’m not telling you where to have sex the law is. It is a fact that a tremendous amount of parks are being closed for that reason. Give me the time and I will link you to a news archive showing you that homosexual behavior is the number one reason for the closing of a park. Even more than economic resons.

    If you don’t like it that’s tough. I don’t dictate what the police do in undercover sting operations.

  • John-z

    I read comment#10. God and guns: I beleive in both, especially God.

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    I’m not buying it, John-Z. The biggest problem public places have with cleanliness involves the homeless. Some of them, the seriously mentally ill, are incapable of conforming to basic rules about hygeine, Others, the difficult, refuse to. Your attempt to shift the responsibility for filth in parks to homosexuals is not believable.

    I’m not a religious person, but the old lessons from my Quaker education kick in sometimes. If I remember correctly, Jesus was a peaceful person. I believe he would have refused to own a gun.

  • http://www.jackejet.com jack e. jett

    john john john

    thou doth protest too much.

    if our parks are dirty, it is only because folks like reagan and bush use all the money for wars. as far as buttfucking sex…i am not sure that gay folks hold total ownership of that one.
    bathhouses, whorehouses, six of one, half dozen of the others.
    people have sex in public places. gay, straight and bisexual.
    your attempt to blame my critique of ronald reagan to pedophiles in a park if far fetched.
    as far as me pissing on the grave of ronald reagon. i wouldn’t waste my urine.
    you should chill out and watch the non stop coverage to ronald “evita” reagan.
    jack e. jett

  • boomcrashbaby

    I’m not crying. I’m not even remotely upset or even angry. You did tell me to keep it in the bedroom. Yes, the law has told me that too, and I abide by the law but you felt obligated for some reason to come here and let me know (comment 28). I never said I liked it or didn’t like it (public sex), I was speaking out against your gross generalizations.

    I believe in God, and I believe in guns too. The difference in regards to comment 10, is that I do not believe the two mix.

  • John-z

    There is nothing wrong with guns as long as they are used (or hopefully not)for justified self defense.

    As for the parks I guess the media and law enforcement is picking on the gays that get caught. A right-wing,left-wing, media and police conspiracy.

    Just what does it meen when the news station refers to something called cruising. They say it is where gay men go to parks to seek sex and do so in the open. Are they just full of crap when the words condoms, feces on tables and ground are used? Or “park is closed indefinately for clean-up after an undercover sting arrest numerous gay men
    for committing lude sex acts openly”.

    Do it inside and leave the park clean.

  • boomcrashbaby

    As for the parks I guess the media and law enforcement is picking on the gays that get caught. A right-wing,left-wing, media and police conspiracy.

    It’s not called a conspiracy. It’s called enforcing the law. And I have no problem with it. The problem only starts when YOU pop up out of nowhere and accuse ALL gay people of ‘diseasing’ parks.

    Just what does it meen when the news station refers to something called cruising. They say it is where gay men go to parks to seek sex and do so in the open

    Yeah, that’s what cruising is. Ever heard of a group of straight guys going to try to ‘pick up chicks’? Same thing, same type of individual.

    I don’t know the specifics of that story. I do know that if 99% of the parks in this country had crap on the picnic tables, you wouldn’t be the only one I’d be hearing about it from.

    Do it inside and leave the park clean

    Thank you for the order…Sir. I told you I don’t have sex outside. I gave that up once I realized the table where the butcher cuts your meat is much sturdier and not as windy.

  • John-z

    Number one I didn’t say 99% of tables had crap on them. I said the open sex acts were directly reponsible 99% of the parks that are closed.

    Number two: do you want to know how I know? Because I am a Police Detective who has helped round up these perverts on six ocassions in four different parks. My division goes after prostitution as well.

    We regularly get statistics on these crimes for all parts of the country just as every city does. I am just telling you what I know to be fact.

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    John-Z, you are sounding more and more like Roger Ely, one of the few people to ever be banned from Blogcritics.

    If you are a police officer, which I do not believe to be true, you should ask to be reassigned. Someone as bigoted against gays as you are cannot enforce the law objectively in regard to them. Reassignment would also lower your blood pressure.

  • boomcrashbaby

    John, I don’t doubt the arrests. I agree with Mac Diva about your psyche. If there is anybody out there who has ever doubted anything like racial profiling or gay bias or how awful it can be to experience it firsthand, John is a perfect example of it.

    I can just picture it now. I take my daughter to the park, and if I need to go to the restroom, you’d be right there, following me in, prepared to do your moral duty, huh?

  • http://www.jackejet.com jack e. jett

    okay.

    now this is frightening.

    when i said thou doth protest to much, the reason has become clear.
    officer john: i take back all i said about reagan. he is a true american hero. i will never walk my dog in another park.
    please don’t beat the crap out of some gay guy walking through a park because you are pissed at me.
    this is a form or racial profiling/gay bias.
    yikes.

    is a strange round about way, he ended up proving my point.

    we love you john, please don’t have us all arrested.
    jack e. jett

  • John-z

    About #46 MacDiva, you are very wrong. You are in no position to call anyone a bigot. I have a right to a personal opinion even as a police officer. I’m sorry but my religious and moral convictions aren’t in compliance with homosexualality, especially when it’s displyed in public.

    I offered proof to support my statements but no one wishes to see it. I guess if you or bcb saw it then you would have no choice but to acknowledge it’s existence.

    As for this Roger person I sifted through Blogcritics database and found his comments. He and I share similar views on some things but not everything.
    As far as being reassigned it won’t happen. Would you ask a narcotic agent to be reassigned because he or she hated illegal drugs?

    I also viewed many of your comments and you are the one who seems to be filled with hatered.

  • http://nightdragon.diaryland.com Mark Edward Manning

    John-z: “God and guns: I beleive in both, especially God.”

    John-Z, you are wrapping your beliefs up in a very negative way. I give great credit to Boom for parrying with you in a rational way. If I were a gay man, I’d be too incensed to even contribute to this thread.

    Do we have a right to our beliefs? Absolutely – even those “dangerous” Christians. Do we have a right to own a gun? Yes, it’s specified by the second amendment.

    People like MacDiva are going to spill their liberal guts all over conservatives no matter what their image, but the image you are painting of conservatives is not good – and not appreciated by this conservative.

    And I implore everyone to consider following the advice Boom himself offered: Go after the individual(s) in question, not the whole group. This applies to both the Left and the Right and how the handle each other.

  • BRICKLAYER

    How do you “believe” in guns? Guns are real things. Or do you mean you believe in guns that haven’t actually been proven to exist, like the one the alien uses on Bugs Bunny, or the Star Wars missile defense system? And stop associating guns and God. Like, yeah, Jesus would be carrying around a glock in his robe, and attending Ted Nugent seminars. Jesus was a liberal dude, he would have been leading protests against people like you.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    John-z, stop! You’re *killing* the whole man-in-a-uniform fantasy for me! I’ll have to stick with construction workers from now on. [You with me, Boomcrash?]

    Yikes. Cops on personal crusades. I much prefer the police to be reasonably objective about enforcing laws.

  • Shark

    re; John-z

    Hi Roger! Hows it been goin?!

  • John-z

    Shark you are misinformed. Going after the ones committing these acts is exactly what we do. This are perverts who appear on video surveillance as many as five or six times before they are busted. It is much easier to get a conviction with multiple counts. Would you want your son or daughter to be on a swing and look over and witness three men screwing each other while video taping themselves? That very thing just occured in the city in which my mother lives.

    As I said I offered to provide bcb and anyone else with proof. Every state keeps records and statistics of all crimes. I go by what I am presented with. I don’t hate gays or anyone else I just have my own beleifs on this subject as do millions of others.

    I am not a right-winger either. As I stated on the Michael Moore post I voted for and think that Bill Clinton was one of the best presidents in my time. I feel the same toward Ronald Reagan.

    I think that the lessons learned from less competant presidents such as Jimmy Carter and George Bush Sr should make people take a harder look at who they vote for as opposed to staying with a particular party.

  • boomcrashbaby

    I have a right to a personal opinion even as a police officer. I’m sorry but my religious and moral convictions aren’t in compliance with homosexualality, especially when it’s displyed in public.

    You cannot use your status as a police officer to enforce your religious and moral convictions. Public sex is a crime. Homosexuality is NOT.

    I hope you would bust a guy and a girl for making out if you came across them. If you’re gonna be a prude, you need to be one across the board. Don’t forget Janet’s booby traumatized a nation, so hetero sex in public (against the viewer’s will) is just as cataclysmic.

    As far as ‘displayed in public’, only sex is a crime. Not homosexuality. If I hold my partner’s hand at the park, that’s a public display of homosexual affection. If I was harassed by you, because of it, by the time things were over, you’d be nothing more than a scared suspended-with-pay individual, surrounded by vultures like Gloria Allred, Johnnie Cochran and Mark Geragios squabbling over the remains.

    As far as your reports or proof that gay sex is occurring in public, I don’t care to see it or would it change my opinion of anything in any way. One does not use a report of how many African Americans are in jail as legitimate reasoning to go ahead and put them all behind bars.

    Jack: you shouldn’t have to tiptoe around abuse of power, for fear of some innocent gay person being victimized. Cuz you’re not going to save anybody. If he’s that volatile, his fire will be stoked just by passing the nearest Ambercrombie and Finch catalog. Besides, he abuses power. Pleading like that probably stroked him.

    I know people like that too well. I’ve had to perform fellatio on a loaded gun (“you like suckin on things that don’t belong in your mouth, doncha boy?”), I’ve laid on the emergency room table, with a fractured skull and busted up face, to see police officers standing over me and smirking. Yet I’m still able to know there are good cops and bad cops. I can make the distinction in a group, even if he cannot. Tiptoeing around him is what he wants. And he damn sure ain’t gonna get it from me.

    Mark: thanks for the support. Having a conservative speak out on a topic like this, rather than fading into the woodwork is a first in my life, and restores my faith that we ALL can find common ground and work together to make this nation a place where everybody can be free to pursue happiness.

    Now if I can just get you all to vote for Kerry and help me save this country from disaster, we’re all set.

    Back to John:
    Going after the ones committing these acts is exactly what we do.

    yeah, and then you carry your hatred and disgust of them, over to an entire group of people who were never at the park.

    bhw:
    Since I’ve moved out here to California, I’ve actually found that farmers have moved above construction workers or cops as a nice daydream/fantasy. There’s somethin about a man who can just plow all day long, in the hot sun.

  • John-z

    Wow Shark and MacDiva seem to be fixed on this Roger Ely guy. Based on what I read and the fact that he was banned tells me that you guys are really afraid that he knows too much or to smart for his own good.

    A lot of times if you ignore people like that they will go away on their own
    or quit doing whatever he was doing to make you uneasy. If you give people like that too much attention or seem alarmed by their actions they will keep at it and get increasingly aggressive.

    Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

  • http://www.jackejet.com jack e. jett

    has anyone here seen the bobcat golthwaite bit he does about the homophobic gay basher that ends up having sex with the guy he is bshing.

    it is a “i hate you, i hate you, you fag, you queer, you cute queer, with the pretty lips…i hate you…etc.
    john is just to taken with the sex in the park thing. the fact is that most men who go get blow jobs at the park are married with children. everyone in the gay community knows that. they drop off at the park. get or give a blow job and go home and plant a big kill on their wife. we call them “closet cases”. so i wouldn’t be surprised is john is busting some of his church going neighbors. some people suffer from self homophobia.

    if this guy john is really a cop, then this world is far worse off than i thought. everyone knows homophobic/racist cops exist.

    on the plus side, i must say i appreciate john being so open about it.
    do we know what neck of the woods that he operates in?

    bact to the original point.
    ronnie reagan is still dead. it looks like he will remain that way.

    jack

  • John-z

    You are just as bad as as other minorities. Get yourself arrested and now you are a victim of bashing, racism, profiling etc. Go grab a lawyer. Just because I have a set of beleifs and a job to do doesn’t meen I am a homophob.

    If you must know I have had two aids infected homo’s spit at me, and directly on another person. Once inside of a hospital. He had pneumonia, but he had enough strength to spit, suck dick and yell. Did I kick the crap out of him? No. I wish I could have. You know maybe I am a bit homophobic. Getting spit at and hearing that high pitched sissy ass gay voice telling me to die can leave a lasting impression that spills over to all of the others.

  • http://www.tekwh0re.net Ms. Tek

    “You are just as bad as as other minorities….”

    LMAO… that one statement says all about you that we need to know!

  • boomcrashbaby

    John, you are definitely homophobic.

    Should I wonder why a man dying of pneumonia on a hospital bed, felt the need to spit on you? No, I won’t.

    Acknowledging homophobia is a good step. It’s a big step and the best thing you’ve ever said on this thread. In terms of mannerisms, I’m as straight acting as you can get. I’ve been monogamous and kept it in the bedroom for almost two decades. I’ve got a child, I’m a family man. And there are millions and millions of American citizens, taxpayers (who fund your salary) with low baritone voices or ‘high pitched sissy ass gay voices’, who are law abiding citizens just like me.

    You’ve recognized your phobia. If you don’t work on it, to resolve it, what is ultimately affected is your ability to be the best officer, the best representative of truth, justice, integrity and law, that you can be.

  • http://nightdragon.diaryland.com Mark Edward Manning

    BoomCrashBaby: “I hope you would bust a guy and a girl for making out if you came across them. If you’re gonna be a prude, you need to be one across the board.”

    Exactly! I am no more fond of seeing hetero couples snogging and feeling each other up in public than I am about homosexuals doing the same (don’t know if my bisexuality has anything to do with that?!). If you can’t get a room right away, how about dimming the fire just a bit? Why those kind of people have to drag everyone else into their love lives I have no idea.

    BCB: “I’ve laid on the emergency room table, with a fractured skull and busted up face, to see police officers standing over me and smirking.”

    I really hate the sort of people who would do that to you and/or laugh about it, Boom. You’re welcome for the support, by the way. I’m conservative, not heartless.

  • John-z

    bcb, So that you know the man was already spitting at nurses and other hospital staff. Next I guess I get shit because I shackled and hand cuffed the bastard to the bed. Not to mention that it was (in someones mind)politically incorrect that I wore gloves and a face sheild while doing it.

  • http://w6daily.winn.com/ Phillip Winn

    [Administrative note]
    The IP address from which “John-z” was posting has been blocked.

    I neither know nor care whether “John-z” is actually “Roger Ely,” though evidence suggests that they are the same. The problem is that John-z repeatedly posted personal information about a commenter that chooses to use a pseudonyn, which is clearly wrong. The comments have been scrubbed to correct the offense, and “John-z” has been booted.
    [/Administrative note]

  • boomcrashbaby

    Hmm. Well, then.
    I should make a final point to those who are interested in learning, that dementia is one of the final stages of AIDS. I don’t know the situation in that hospital room, maybe he was a criminal, most likely not. Doesn’t matter. The fact that he was spitting on nurses and doctors would tend to indicate he was suffering from some sort of dementia.

    Shackles and gloves would be necessary to protect the dying as well as those around him. But shackles and gloves tempered with compassion, not what you all just saw.

    Any person who works in Vice should have training on the effects of STD’s. Where is the education? What’s Ashcroft spending the money on?

  • http://w6daily.winn.com/ Phillip Winn

    If “John-z” was really “Roger Ely,” then his stories were most likely partially made-up and partially retold as his own from the experience of one of his acquaintances. “Roger Ely” was a PI, not a cop.

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    I couldn’t really stomach reading all the homophobic bile on this comment until now. John-Z’s comments disgusted me. I empathize with your experiences, BoomCrash, particularly the violence you’ve suffered.

    I think this discussion also illustrates the real effect of stereotypes and structural discrimination, e.g., suspicious, harassing cops and no safe places to go, on one’s immediate environment and resultant behavior. If we force people into situations where they have little choice but to re-inforce our unfounded stereotypes of them — “pervert” gays, “criminal” blacks — we can’t really claim to have any moral superiority. In fact, we’re morally culpable. Rejecting the worst offenders and bigots like John-Z isn’t enough.

    That is all.

  • boomcrashbaby

    It all sounds nice on paper Bob. But it isn’t realistic. You can’t legislate thought. People in this world will always approve or disapprove of others. There will always be people who will never tolerate me from day 1. I’ve already known that for a long time. It will not change. And with the way the world is going (terrorism, fusing of government and religion, etc.) the core elements of stereotyping and prejudice are only getting worse, not better.

    What is your solution to combatting stereotypes and discrimination?

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    For people to be around difference every damn day of their lives, to have to talk to and interact with the very people they stereotype. To reduce the social distance based on socially constructed attributions of biology and sexuality that really say very little about character. Empirically, research shows that non-confrontational, regular CONTACT between different groups is the best way to reduce the prejudices that lead to violence. Interestingly, there was a study just released showing that watching shows like “Will and Grace” (for all the faults of that show’s representations of gay behavior) have almost the same effect as real human contact in reducing discriminatory attitudes against gay people. I’m sure some of you also saw the news story on that study. So perhaps it’s incumbent upon people in the culture, news and entertainment industry to question why we portray certain groups so negatively (or not at all) when positive portrayals can have a real effect.

    Perhaps that’s utopian considering how segmented society is increasingly becoming and how fearful we are. I don’t know why people are so willing to stake sides for another “culture war” on issues like gay marriage and affirmative action when we should be having a dialogue for once.

    And people regarded as “different” should speak out, live without shame and constantly confound people’s expectations of them. This creates cognitive dissonance and forces people to question their paper stereotypes — the “promiscuous, public park homosexual pervert” or the “sneaker-pimping, trash-talking black thug” or the countless other troublesome schema that operate within our minds — against the reality of their lived experience of your complexity as an individual. Force people to think beyond their narrow, learned prejudices every damn day.

    That’s the best I can think of for now.

  • boomcrashbaby

    That’s a good post Bob. While it’s a great way to reduce stereotypes, and is actually what I am doing, I am reminded though, that Cosby was talking about getting out of poverty. While reducing stereotypes will certainly help that, I think poverty involves more than racism and stereotypes. So to me, it’s two different interrelated concepts.

    To reduce the social distance based on socially constructed attributions of biology and sexuality that really say very little about character.

    I’m curious. How can you reduce the distance between a white, rich kid who grew up in the exclusive suburbs of Dallas, and an African American who grew up in the roughest part of Compton? Where will they end up being together, in order to get to know each other? College? Medical School? Job? I think in order to ensure they have a good chance of running across each other later in life, you’d have to level the playing field in education, right? Make access to Harvard, Yale, etc. not based on how much one can pay? While this comment sounds good, I don’t see it being practical or happening any time soon. I dunno, I guess I just gave up waiting for stuff like this to happen in society. I don’t see it as happening, unless we convert from some sort of democracy into socialism. And I’m not real fond of socialism, kills the human drive. Capitalism, by it’s very nature, creates social/economic classes within a society. You’d have to eradicate these classes.

    Empirically, research shows that non-confrontational, regular CONTACT between different groups is the best way to reduce the prejudices that lead to violence. I’m sure some of you also saw the news story on that study. So perhaps it’s incumbent upon people in the culture, news and entertainment industry to question why we portray certain groups so negatively (or not at all) when positive portrayals can have a real effect.

    I see now where you are coming from, in your beef with Cosby. That first sentence is how I’m living, and I’ve seen a dramatic difference in the people around me over the years. I haven’t seen the news story on that study, but I believe it to be true, I’ve experienced it. Individually, yes it happens, and it’s the most powerful piece of change. But like you say, society is becoming increasingly segmented, so I don’t see it in practice socially.

    And people regarded as “different” should speak out, live without shame and constantly confound people’s expectations of them….Force people to think beyond their narrow, learned prejudices every damn day.

    This is what I do. But you know that. I agree with all that you said, about what can be done to remove stereotypes and discrimination. I’m 39 years old, and I’ve never seen it applied though, on anything other than an individual level. Somewhere along the line, I came to the mindset that, ‘that is how things should be, but this is how they are’. Went the individual route and just decided ‘fuck what the rest of the world thinks’.

    Unless I’m mistaken, the Bible says nothing derogatory about being dark skinned? However, it does condemn homosexuality, so I know that the solving of stereotypes will need to be somewhat different, since they stem from different roots. Many people will not be receptive to the idea at all, and will even be overtly hostile to the idea of being FORCED to be around and tolerate a gay person. Quite a few on this board will even affirm it. So I just take the stereotyping that comes my way, like that from John Z. I speak out, but I know it ain’t gonna change. It didn’t change in that instance, I’m sure. So I take personal responsibility for my lot in life and I go on.

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    “I regret to inform you but there is legitimate proof of public parks and bath houses being closed all over the US because of homosexual actiity.

    “In fact a story just aired on the local news of three homo’s being arrested for sucking and fucking each other in a local park and filming it with kids in the area.

    “The truth is the truth especially when it is documented in public record. Even George Michael was soliciting gay sex by swinging his tally wacker at a cop in public. Why bcb???

    There are three parks/beaches in my local area that have been closed or “reformed” relatively recently due to kooks.

    One beach was patroled because gay men would do adult things with each other in the brush after dark.

    One park had to undergo serious “weeding” because homosexual men were doing odd things in the shrubs after “meeting” in the restroom.

    Another beach had a bunch of nudists baring everything for everyone to see, even though it wasn’t really a “nudist beach.” So, I guess some laws were passed, and enforced.

    Why can’t those who engage in bizaree sexual activity do so in their homes? Why must they do so in public places, where children might be?

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    Oh yeah: They had to fix the HOLES drilled into the men’s room stalls in one beach area.

    I mean, WTF?

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    “First, men are men. Men like sex. Gay men will probably have a higher sexual activity rate than straight men. It’s because same-sex partners like the frequency at pretty much the same rate. Usually.”

    Great point, BCB.

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    “Yeah, that’s what cruising is. Ever heard of a group of straight guys going to try to ‘pick up chicks’? Same thing, same type of individual.”

    Yabut, they tend not to fornicate on Old Faithful, in full view of pre-teen tourists…

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    “If you are a police officer, which I do not believe to be true”

    Well, to be fair, I don’t believe you are a journalist/lawyer/teacher/civil rights activist. But I guess I’ll never know, since you’re anonymous

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    “Since I’ve moved out here to California, I’ve actually found that farmers have moved above construction workers or cops as a nice daydream/fantasy. There’s somethin about a man who can just plow all day long, in the hot sun.”

    [retch]

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    Please remind me to harvest my tomato crops in a burka…

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    “Acknowledging homophobia [sic] is a good step”

    Homophobia is a misnomer. Recent studies (which I could probably cite) back me up on this.

    It is disgust, not fear, that leads most straight men to dislike blantantly homosexual men. And fucking a dude in the shrubery is pretty damn blatant…

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    “Any person who works in Vice should have training on the effects of STD’s. Where is the education? What’s Ashcroft spending the money on?”

    Most police funding is at the state and local levels, BCB. We do not have a unitary form of gov’t here…

  • boomcrashbaby

    I cannot explain or defend the actions of every individual in my community. I have no idea why America’s parks are now the equivalent of Caligula’s private chambers. I’ve known that there are places, of which some remote parks are included, where men can go to find each other. When you’re not easily identifiable in society, having a meeting place sort of helps things. I did not pick these meeting places, it was not in my handbook so I don’t know what to say.

    One beach was patroled because gay men would do adult things with each other in the brush after dark.

    I’m not advocating public sex, but I would be more worried about what my pre-teen child is doing in the park, near the brush, after dark, than I would be about two consenting adults of any sex trying to get a little privacy.

    Why can’t those who engage in bizaree sexual activity do so in their homes? Why must they do so in public places, where children might be?

    Why can’t those who engage in any sexual activity, whether bizarre or vanilla, keep it in their homes? I don’t know. Children are in homes too. I walked in on my parents when I was about 8. Traumatized mom a lot more than me. The whole scene scared the shit out of the dog too.

    I don’t know what to say, except pass laws that forbid sexual activity in public, enforce those laws, and then don’t lump all gay people in with the lawbreakers.

    If this discussion keeps up, I’m going to have to go on a picnic this weekend to see what the hell I’m missing.

  • boomcrashbaby

    RJ says: [retch]

    Hopefully I didn’t destroy the moment between you and your mouse pad. :-)

  • JR

    …I would be more worried about what my pre-teen child is doing in the park, near the brush, after dark,…

    Uh, looking for fireflies? Geez, is it suddenly wrong to be interested in wildlife? I’d be more worried if my kid just sat in front of the TV every night.

  • boomcrashbaby

    pre-teen means 12 and under, JR. He said ‘in the park, after dark’. Most parks that I know of, have a sunset curfew, so everybody there would technically be violating some law or rule anyway.

    Like I said, I’m not advocating or defending any behavior. Let a 10 year old or a 6 year old go tromping around in the dark wildnerness unattended, and I think the potential for harm, far greater than the glimpse of sex, is just waiting to happen.

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    RJ Elliott says (without violating copyright. History has been made!):

    Well, to be fair, I don’t believe you are a journalist/lawyer/teacher/civil rights activist. But I guess I’ll never know, since you’re anonymous. . .

    Actually, it is pretty easy for a capable person to get degrees in two fields and do some adjunct teaching. Barely scratches the surface of what I would like to achieve. But, RJ Elliott will not be having even such modest experiences.

    I did not want to interrupt, but needed to make something clear. RJ Elliott is now free to get back to fantasizing about what might happen to him after dark in a park with gay men. I would pass him a virtual napkin if I could.

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    “Homophobia is a misnomer. Recent studies (which I could probably cite) back me up on this.
    It is disgust, not fear, that leads most straight men to dislike blantantly homosexual men. And fucking a dude in the shrubery is pretty damn blatant…”

    You’re wrong on both counts. It’s neither disgust nor fear if you really want to talk about psychological research. There have been several studies that have measured arousal of stated homophobes while watching gay pornography through monitors attached to their genitalia and other monitors attached to the skin to measure body temperature, sweat, etc. Men who self-identified as “hating” gays were found to be most physically stimulated by watching gay pornography, more so than even self-identified gay men. The men who showed the least phallometric arousal were straight men who said they accepted gays and their lifestyle and knew gay people in their personal life. There have been arguments about the validity of phallometric testing in criminal research (some of our more bizarre folks on this site may be personally familiar beyond the science), but I still think this is a quite revealing, consistent finding that is backed up by other physical measures of sexual arousal as well.

    I’m too lazy to post a link, but there have been several articles written about this in journals and I’m sure you can find much more with a quick Google search if you’re interested in reading more.

    So for all you rabid homophobes: Lighten up, have a few drinks at a gay bar, watch some gay porn, whatever. Whom you have sex with isn’t that big a deal, as we can certainly only guess at what kind of “women” you’ve been working.

    The moral of the story is that gay-bashers have a hard-on for man-on-man action. It’s not just a cliche. RJ’s tumescent right now :) And I think that angry cop was the guy from the Village People.

    That is all.

  • http://www.filteringcraig.com Craig Lyndall

    When RJ says Reagan’s death shouldn’t be a political issue, I agree. I mean we can debate all we want about his legacy and everything else, but I don’t want to hear from those who are interested in using this in any way for the Kerry vs. Bush election. I know it is too much to ask, but I will do it anyway. I don’t agree that people should shut up about it because discussing this man’s legacy is important so that the highs and lows can be noted and remembered. I just wish everyone with other motives would go away.

  • http://www.filteringcraig.com Craig Lyndall

    Also, regarding Booey’s last post, I would like to think that is true, but I haven’t done any research to know it or not. I will say that it is logical and I would like it to be true because I find it hilarious. Homophobes being homophobes because it excites them and that scares them? I guess I should feel sorry for them, but it makes me laugh.

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    It is true, Craig. I have a friend, a psychologist in Philadelphia, who uses that procedure in his work. In addition to the probes (pun intended) of heterosexual men who are overly interested in gay sex, the method is used to try to cure pedophiles. They are shown pictures or videos of children.
    When they become aroused, a shock is used to as a disincentive. The control is showing them sexually provocative pictures of women, or adults having sex, to see if their interest is shifting.

    The most interesting thing about the more recent comments to me is the way RJ Elliott has taken John-Z’s place as the supposedly straight man very, very interested in gay sex.

  • boomcrashbaby

    It’s true. Maybe not 100% of the time, but a very very high percentage of the time.

    They don’t like what they see, whether it’s drag queens, effeminiate men, disco music, whatever, and they say to themselves ‘but that’s not me’. Then they come from very repressive environments as well, where they would be stigmatized, even attacked themselves, for being out. So hate builds. Inner hate.

    Michangelo Signorile, a famous gay columnist, was a former basher.

    Sometimes it’s subconscious and they don’t even know they are gay. You know this is possible, because you’ll hear stories about a man who ‘discovers’ himself when he’s in middle age or beyond and already has the wife and kids. Only then does he realize he’s gay. They don’t always become violent though, that’s actually a minority of people who are having issues with their sexuality, or go through life so repressed they don’t even know their sexuality until after their prime.

  • Novaline

    Gay people no more responsible for what the gay miscreant does than heterosexuals are for the heterosexual miscreant.

    I would be surprised if any relaible source could be produced for the 99% claim and while the folks who usually collect pictures of gay people behaving badly can’t be trusted there might be some legitimate ones out there. I don’t know and neither do most of the people who repeat these sweeping charges. Peter Labarbera and his ilk are not reliable sources, so spare me anything from them.

    Here’s what I do know. The only people who seem to see all this gay public sex are the ones with an ax to grind. IN all my years of going to parks, beaches, and other public places including clothing optional places I have never seen two people of the same sex or opposite actually having sex. I have seen people who probably were, but I never saw the actual act so clearly I could testify in court that they were actually copulating.

    I have also seen exidence of sex, but not nearly in the quantity that the CWA AFA and all those other anti-gay groups claim and blame exclusive on ly gay people.

    Next- this is not a “but they are doing it too” argument. What this is is a statement of fact which is often left out of such discussions. Some gay men have sex in the park. Some gay men cruise parks and go elsewhere to have sex. It happens. Do straight people do this too? Not in any great numbers.

    Two bad behaviors do not have to be identical to be corrollary.

    Major and some small cities in the United States have prostitution DISTRICTS. These are usually resident or mixed use neighborhoods. They are also heterosexually oriented for the most part, despite the fact that some of the “girls” aren’t girls. It’s a heterosexual phenomenon dating back centuries. It’s also messy and known for being part of a larger criminal sphere. You can find condoms, needles, and all sorts of things in the alleys and even the parks and playgrounds of these urban wallows.

    So are heterosexuals to be condemned for this peddling and consumption of sex in public? Of course not. Bob and Jane Condominium are no more responsible for what John Q Trick and Felicia do in the park than Rick and Mark von Fabulous are for what Phil Closeteer and Joey Trade do in the park.

    As I said I have never actually seen anyone having sex in public such that I could see the mechannics, not even in San Francisco and trust me I looked. But it seems that lots of people on BBSes like Free Republic and the websites they feed from have seen this countless times from public beaches to Disney World. Isn’t it amazing that these people just happen to be the only ones who see this?

    A final note- unattended bathrooms get nasty and dangerous. Nasty and dangerous bathrooms get closed down. This started mostly with the advent of street people, but also when parks and public services stopped paying for bathroom attendants. It seems a specious claim that these places would be closed down due to the activities of a few men having or looking for sex.

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    RJ says: [retch]

    Hopefully I didn’t destroy the moment between you and your mouse pad. :-)

    Funny comeback! :-]

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    Link here: http://www.altpenis.com/penis_news/20020509222641data_trunc_sys.shtml

    Quote:

    “Homophobia is not an actual phobia, according to three University of Arkansas psychologists. In a recent study, these researchers showed that homophobia originates not out of fear or anxiety – as true phobias do – but from feelings of disgust.”

    Different studies will find different results. But I agree with this study. And I guess BAB agrees with his. Whatever…

  • boomcrashbaby

    I agree with this study too, RJ. It says that the homophobes in that study had a conservative sexual attitude (believe it or not, sometimes a gay person grows up in a conservative household) and that the homophobe’s disgust also stems from a FEAR of contagion.

    Prime conditions for a person of questioning sexuality to crack, so to speak. Like I said, I don’t think violence always stems from someone with inner sexual turmoil, and I’m not going to make claims about anyone on this blog, BUT, it does happen and thanks for the report because it helps to substantiate the others already out there.

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    Those who physically attack gays simply for being gay have some sort of psychological problem.

    This problem may be based on mindless hatred of “the other.” It may be a supressed homosexuality. It could be a lot of things.

    Anyway, “homophobia” is a misnomer, IMO. It is not based upon fear as much as it is based upon distaste.

    I find “scat” porn to be disgusting. But I don;t fear it. And I’m not secretly wishing for a relationship with someone who eats my shit…

  • boomcrashbaby

    I agree again, RJ. I said it wasn’t always from an inner turmoil. Sexuality runs on a spectrum, it’s not just black and white. The same would apply for how people deal with sexuality. That’s not just black or white either. Why one person is homophobic won’t necessarily be the reason why another is.

    Anyway, “homophobia” is a misnomer, IMO. It is not based upon fear as much as it is based upon distaste.

    That’s your perception and you’re entitled to it. But with all the variables and nuances of sexuality, I don’t see how any person can say homophobia primarily stems from this or that. You don’t know that it primarily stems from disgust unless you have psychoanalyzed thousands of phobes yourself. All you can say is what it stems from, for you alone.

  • Novaline

    I personally don’t care for the word homophobia, but since we don’t have a Ministry of Culture in this country to decide such things, words evolve to mean what they are accepted to mean.

    Homophobia is not a misnomer- it certainly applies to many to whom it is applied. Those would be the people who actually do express fear of the impact of gay people. This would include the “guilt by association” types, those who harbor irrationial fears of “indoctrination”, and those who inexplicably believe that gay people will destroy the culture of this country.

    While technically a misnomer when applied to those people who demonstrate a conditioned response of distaste, disgust, or hatefulness to gay people, like high school boys- the use of the term encompasses such behavior. Indeed some of their conditioned response _is_ fear of being thought gay, which is aggravated by the fact that most high school boys have engaged in behavior with peers which causes them to worry about such things.

    This isn’t all that different than any other word which applied to a spectrum of feelings, observations, or responses. It also doesn’t mean that the word isn’t misused or used to intimidate or stifle discussion. The word has no control on who uses it or how they use it.

    Of a similar nature is insisting on debating terminology with a commonly accepted meaning for the purpose of confusing the issue or posturing. It’s like trying to tell someone that their house is on fire while they continuously interupt you to correct your grammar- at some point you say “Screw it, let the house burn down.”

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    This has really been an enlightening discussion. I thank you all for it.

    I harbour no ill will towards gays. But I simply cannot help but find some of their behavior disgusting.

    I don’t think their behavior should be criminalized. I think sodomy laws are insane.

    But I don’t really want to see two dudes “do it” in a public restroom.

    I’m sure most gay men don;t do such things, but some do. And they create a bad cultural meme for the rest of the gay population.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    And they create a bad cultural meme for the rest of the gay population.

    Is that what straights who visit the red light district to the straight population’s cultural meme?

    I’ll answer my own question: No.

    For some reason, a sweeping generalization is applied to gay culture when some of its members have sex in public places. And yet, no such generalization is applied to straight culture when the same thing happens.

    Why is that, I wonder?

  • Novaline

    For some reason, a sweeping generalization is applied to gay culture when some of its members have sex in public places. And yet, no such generalization is applied to straight culture when the same thing happens.

    Why is that, I wonder?

    It’s simply a fact of life of being in the minority. It’s exaggerated by being in an arguably invisible minority. It is grossly distorted owing to several factors:

    A: Gay people in the news are usually only identified as such when they are being political, being outrageous, or accused of a crime. So those people whose only real exposure to gay people is from the news interpret gay politics, outrageousness, and crime not as being different aspects of the gay comunity as they would be of any community, rather as one in the same. They conclude that the gay person that they might actually know personally must be the exception.

    B- There is a machine out there running full time and with tremendous resources to defame and demonise the gay population. Not bound by any sense of ethics they produce an enormous volume of smear tactics which are consumed by people who are predisposed to believe them.

    C- Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. When normal everyday gay folks do indentify themselves, be it verbally, a flag on their house, a sticker on their car, or a T-shirt emblem- it is seen by many straight people as flaunting or culural gregariousness which they do not relate to their own outward signs of sexual orientation. So they focus on the “flaunting” rather than the people. When gay people don’t identify themselves, then they often don’t enter into a straight person’s rational experience. Thus, when Mrs. Maplestreet sees drag queens on TV, she doesn’t see them in the context of that event and she doesn’t say to herself, “My, but those people are so different than all those nice people who cleaned up that neighborhood over on Pine Street.”

  • boomcrashbaby

    This has really been an enlightening discussion. I thank you all for it. I harbour no ill will towards gays. But I simply cannot help but find some of their behavior disgusting.

    RJ, you probably won’t care, but for the record, I don’t think of you as a homophobe. You’ve said some irrational homophobic things though. My own definition of homophobia, John-z fit perfectly, and I believe he’s the only one on this site that I ever called that. I know others have called you that, but I don’t see it that way. Just wanted to let you know.

    I’m sure most gay men don;t do such things, but some do. And they create a bad cultural meme for the rest of the gay population.

    They create a bad cultural meme for the rest of the gay population because the world is filled with prejudice and stereotype. That is the only reason why I would be condemned for something someone else does, correct?

    Public sex is wrong, I’m not trying to make light of it, but which is worse? Two people getting it on where they aren’t supposed to, or millions of Americans being denied basic rights and priviledges and recognition because of the actions of a few?

    Well, to see what’s worse, let’s look at the penalties of the two. Public sex probably involves a court appearance, and a fine and maybe a public record? (I don’t know, I’m guessing). Condemning an entire group of people for the actions of a few runs counter to what America stands for and therefore has far more dire consequences in a democratic society, right? Meaning, why do you go on condeming homosexual sex in public and not sex in public in general? Were you as traumatized by Janet’s booby as you would be by seeing a guy naked? It’s because since you aren’t gay, you don’t mind public sexual expression but you want it to be in line with your own sexual expression, right? And that’s the way all America should live then, right?

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    Look, this is silly.

    First, that study says that homophobes don’t have actual physical phobias the way that people do in response to spiders or snakes or lightning, etc. That is to say, people of difference don’t arouse their fight-or-flight response. Obviously. This wouldn’t be true with ANY social group, regardless of the prejudice. A person you find disgusting isn’t the same as a bear chasing after you in the woods. Perhaps that response would arise if a homosexual made an aggressive pass at a homophobe like RJ — I have no reservations about calling him that.

    That study doesn’t reveal anything particularly interesting — it’s still quite clear that the DISGUST spoken of is abnormal and probably related to the “conservative sexual attitudes” at the root of much sexual anxiety and repression. It doesn’t prove homophobes aren’t dealing with issues of their own and quibbling about the incluse of “phobia” in the name is only an academic exercise. Homophobia is still rooted in an anxiety about, and lack of awareness of, people regarded as different and scary because of their sexual behavior. The “contagion” fear mentioned in the study is especially revealing — if you’re secure in your own masculinity, why on earth would anyone be afraid that they’d be “converted” or “catch” something by being around gays? There’s a fear that homosexuality itself is contagious that goes beyond any homophobic assumptions about AIDS.

    Also, does anyone find it ironic that RJ used a study by a graduate student cited on a “get a bigger penis” website in order to prove that he’s not obsessed with man penis? Perhaps some of our gay friends could find him a well-endowed boyfriend to help him compensate.

    MacDiva: that kind of aversion therapy and shock stimuli aren’t used in phallometrics. They’re now generally considered against the code of ethics by most legitimate psychologists as well in any context. Phallometrics did start with testing sex offenders and child molesters, but it’s been mainly used to identify potentially criminal impulses (as problematic as that notion might become), not to “cure” them. There are a couple of law review articles about this you could find easily on Lexis-Nexis if you’re interested in the application to criminal law. The point remains that whether or not so-called homophobes are physically frightened by gays, they are physically aroused by the idea and images of gay sex.

    That is all.

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    “Also, does anyone find it ironic that RJ used a study by a graduate student cited on a “get a bigger penis” website in order to prove that he’s not obsessed with man penis?”

    I had no idea. Cite?

    “Perhaps some of our gay friends could find him a well-endowed boyfriend to help him compensate.”

    If I was gay, why on earth would I want a “well-endowed” boyfriend? Wouldn’t that just hurt more? Wouldn’t I want a little fella?

    BCB can maybe help me with this one.

    I understand women wanting a man with a big one, but is that something gay men want as well?

  • boomcrashbaby

    If I was gay, why on earth would I want a “well-endowed” boyfriend? Wouldn’t that just hurt more? Wouldn’t I want a little fella?

    BCB can maybe help me with this one.

    I’m sorry, I don’t understand.
    You want me to help you decide which penis size is right for you?

    I understand women wanting a man with a big one, but is that something gay men want as well?

    If there’s straight men who would be interested in a woman solely because of big boobs, then rest assured there are gay men who are only interested in big ‘ones’ as well. If there’s straight men interested in love, compatibility and sharing life/home/family with a woman and don’t care about her size, then there are gay men who seek the same critieria in their partners as well.

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    RJ, I clicked the link to your study there.

    Hint: http://www.ALTPENIS.com — the banner at the top of the page says “Penis Enlargement Information.”

    BoomCrash: I think he wanted a more flamboyant answer. Make us breeders happy with our stereotypes, will ya? :)
    I’m just kidding, of course.

    That is all.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    “I’m sorry, I don’t understand.
    You want me to help you decide which penis size is right for you?”

    I think he wants you to help him make another sweeping generalization about gay men.

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    “I’m sorry, I don’t understand.
    You want me to help you decide which penis size is right for you?”

    Funny! :-/

  • boomcrashbaby

    Oh RJ, I’m just playing. It’s a silly question.
    Not all men are size queens, although my husband is. :-p

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    I refused to go to the penis page, peeps. Ain’t gonna have that in my browser history.

    Bob said what I was thinking about the fuss over one study saying we aren’t talking physical phobias in regard to supposedly straight men who get all excited about the “disgusting” behavior of gays. It is likely another form of psychosexual disorder, probably a paraphilia, like people who are turned on by amputees or folks in wheelchairs.

    Bob, my friend worked with the hard cases, convicted repeat sex offenders. That method of treatment may have fallen into disfavor, but it was the thing for a while.

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    I don’t want to get too explicit, but…

    After a young woman has been run-through a few dozen/hundred times, she ain’t the gal she used to be. She’s rather tattered downstairs. Later in life, after her old boyfriend ditches her for something a little nicer, she may very well go looking for a guy who “fits” a little better…

    This, I understand.

    What I DON’T understand is why a gay man would want to date a guy with a “big one.”

    I mean, I guess the muscles down there get shredded after a while. And maybe it’s akin to women: They need “more” to elicit the same response as before.

    If so, I guess that explains it.

    But it’s gotta hurt! I mean, most guys are pretty much exit-only with that area. It’s not really meant for a large mass to be inserted (unless you’re a Colombian drug trafficker).

    Anyway, whatever works for ya. Just wondering. Sorry if it’s too much to provide a real response…

  • http://www.gwbush.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    Oh RJ, I’m just playing. It’s a silly question.
    Not all men are size queens, although my husband is. :-p

    LOL!

  • http://www.tekwh0re.net Ms. Tek

    I don’t want to get too explicit, but…

    After a young woman has been run-through a few dozen/hundred times, she ain’t the gal she used to be. She’s rather tattered downstairs. Later in life, after her old boyfriend ditches her for something a little nicer, she may very well go looking for a guy who “fits” a little better…

    RJ, you know fuck all about sex or women so you should just stop right there. Everything you have ever posted about the subject only shows you naivety. Though I must admit, I hope that you speak up like this around potential women that you are interested in so they know to run screaming toward the hills.

    She’s rather tattered downstairs. Later in life, after her old boyfriend ditches her for something a little nicer…

    Perhaps if he some misogynistic, Neanderthal, pick asshole, sure! Because you know its all about if her vagina is tight and virginal. God forbid she should pop out some of his spawn which does and even better job of not “making it feel like it used to”.

    But I’m lucky… I live in the world were the men that I KNOW are real men and though they are piggy sex gluttons, they also truly like the chicks they are with beyond if they have a tight snatch. They actually like the chicks because they want more than a “lubed up O-ring”.

    And maybe it’s akin to women: They need “more” to elicit the same response as before.

    No, they need someone who knows what the fuck they are doing.

    RJ, you complain a lot about women who like big cocks. I mean a lot. The subject seems to always turn to homosexuals or more often penis size with you. They seems to weigh heavy on your mind. What happened? Did you pull your pants down and some chick laughed or something? If she complained about size, you probably didn’t know what you were doing as that if you KNEW what you were doing, size doesn’t matter. That is why God made tongues and dildos, and vibrators. Nothing wrong is getting a little help if your package isn’t up to par though the average size of the penis is 6.5 inches which isn’t *big* by any means.

    So either you suck in bed, or you are a virgin. Either one isn’t shameful but something YOU need to deal with and not be all pissed off and the big dick men in the world or the women who just want a normal sized penis.

    Here, read up on penises… it also will tell you a bit about a woman’s vagina if you have never seen one/touched one before:

    http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/sex_relationships/facts/penissize.htm

    As far as penis size, there really isn’t much you can do about that besides cut a bit of muscle at the base which might drop you penis from a half inch to 1.5 inches but you will end up having a floppy dick and piss all over the place as that muscle/skin, helps keep it in place when erect. You could use a penis pump but you run the risk of looking like a bigger dork. Or you can just maybe learn something from a porn film or a very understanding woman.

    My suggestion to you: Shut up if some woman decides to be kind and give you a little lesson on how please a women. If you open your mouth, you might get a lesson on being choked by a g-string.

  • boomcrashbaby

    Sorry if it’s too much to provide a real response…

    It is, at least on a site about music, movies, politics, etc. If you really wanna know the nitty gritty, send me an email and I’ll speaketh the truth.

  • Eric Olsen

    thank God for a modicum of tact

    And as far as women and their parts go, as all who have borne children, or who care about those who have, know: it’s all about the kegels.

  • http://www.tekwh0re.net Ms. Tek

    Eric… who cares about kegles? Admit it, Dawn is getting “rather tattered downstairs”. She has borne your seed. Seems its about time for you to look “for something a little nicer.”

    Sorry Dawn. Not trying to be mean, but you know… its time to put you out to pasture because you “ain’t the gal you used to be”. I mean, you have one or two kids, right? So you MUST have been “run-through a few dozen/hundred times” with great success!

    Eric, you might want to look again into the hotties in FHM magazine… or the Olsen Twins who are now legal and probably have been run through at the most eleven times so they are one short of the dozen times that will make them “rather tattered downstairs”. (How does RJ come up with theses exact figures?).

    Dawn, I know some REALLY HOT Scottish boys if you are looking for some HUGE PENISES (you know, 6.5 inches). They should be able to satisfy you as Eric runs off after near-virgin pleasures.

    Though Eric… you know you could just go suicide bomb something then got to heave and feat at the “all you can eat” virgin bar (no pun intended).

    OR EVER BETTER!!

    RJ… Why don’t you strap a bomb to yourself and go blow up a mullah in Iran!!! Then you get to satisfy doing something for your country, getting rid of an evil arab/muslim AND HAVING ALL THE TIGHT LITTLE MUFFINS you could EVER WISH FOR for ETERNITY!!!

    I have $10 for you if you are short cash for fertilizer to create your bomb… though I think if you just gather what comes out your mouth, you should make for one nice big bang when you “blow one up for the Gipper”.

    Gal- Now that is a term I use for cows. =)

    Love, Love, Peace, Peace

    ~Tek~

  • David

    I’ve scanned through this post and read a few comments and have a few comments and questions of my own.

    First I noticed that someone brought up George Michaels name and cited his incident with the law. Oddly, George Michael was on the NBC Today show Mon 06-14-04. One of the first questions that Matt Lauer asked him was why with your popurlarity and wealth did you expose yourself in public? He answered by stating that “straight people didn’t understand the concept of gay cruising”.
    He went on to say that it (“gay crusing”) was a self destructive behavior comparing it to other self destructive behaviors.

    My question: how do the people who represent the gay community on this site respond to one of their own (George Michael) going on record to say that gay cruising is a self destructive behavior much like other self destructive behaviors.

  • Eric Olsen

    yes, but a demonstrated dedication to pelvic health is worth far more than the uncertainty of even the most pristine current candidate, ie you know what they say about birds, hands, and bushes

  • boomcrashbaby

    David, I don’t know of anybody, including George Michael, who can accurately say that they ‘represent’ the gay community. There are tolerant heterosexuals and intolerant ones. So how can one straight person ‘represent’ the heterosexual community?

    (one should always question the motives of any individual who claims they are representative of any given group, including those of a conservative/religious bent)

    Given my disclaimer there, that I am a representative of anything other than myself, I’ll do my best to answer your question.

    Gay cruising boils down to sex with an anonymous stranger. Same as a straight man with a prostitute, or an Andrew Dice Clay mentality going to a bar to try and get a one night stand. Anonymous sex is not exclusive to the gay community. If anonymous sex has a higher rate in the gay community, it’s not because of orientation, it’s because of gender (being male) and societal perception (self-esteem issues, living in a world that constantly berates you). Sex is a self-esteem booster.

    Having said that, anonymous sex/cruising is primarily self-destructive. But not always. Assuming safe sex is practiced so the obvious reasons for being self-destructive are removed, there’s still the psychological effect.

    Most of the reasons gay people cruise are:
    (and I’ll leave it to you to decide the psychological ramifications of each, since it’s going to be a unique effect to each individual)

    1) Some gay men can separate sex from love, and they also enjoy the conquest, the hunt, the prowl, whatever you want to call it. The chase is as fun if not moreso than the catch.

    2) Some gay men have self-esteem issues, given the society they live in, and they end up feeling they are unworthy of a relationship, so anonymous sex is the only way to satiate a biological urge.

    3) Even in this day and age, some men would be disowned from their own families (or their celebrity status), if it were known they were openly gay. These men can’t bring home a lover for the holidays so to speak, so they can’t have a relationship in their life, unless it is completely hidden. So they don’t maintain relationships.

    Anonymous sex, no matter the orientation, is what is destructive more times than not.
    Given the fact that two of the three reasons listed above, stem from societal condemnation and self-esteem issues, it stands to reason that steps like allowing gay marriage, and societal ‘tolerance’ (different than acceptance, but a first step nevertheless), will directly result in America getting their picnic tables and park bathrooms back.

  • http://www.tekwh0re.net Ms. Tek

    LMAO!!!

    I know about “hands and bushes” but the birds certainly put a new twist to an old tale.

    Do tell me when you publish this book with all the diagrams, Eric. I already know about the hands but I’m especially curious about the placement of the birds in relation to the “bush”. An old “ho” like myself might learn a new trick or five. ;)

  • Eric Olsen

    now, you don’t want to necessarily laugh it all the way off, and “old” is very relative, my pet

  • Richard

    I liked it best when he was governor and reduced the number of state inspectors in the semiconductor industry. The women who had miscarrages from the leaking chemicals at the Fairchild corporation probably think Ronnie is great too.