A little laugh for your AM.
Mr. Homo-Toms is back for more after my gentle spanking of him for his last essay a few weeks ago (“Kaufman at Huff Post: misguided race-based rant on LGBT rights — and ‘Homo-Toms’“). David Kaufman is the multi-racial proprietor of Transracial.net, and for some reason, he’s 1) fixated and confused about why LGBTs might draw any parallels to the black civil rights movement and 2) angry that the LGBT online community isn’t walking in lockstep and happy with the rollout of the Democratic/Obama agenda.
Kaufman takes a crack at several bloggers, movement commentators, including yours truly, for our alleged cheering and crowing about Scott “Cosmo” Brown’s win in Massachusetts. I never supported Brown or cheered him on; in fact we ran fundraising links for Coakley. And note Kaufman links to nothing on my blog — he can’t find anything of the sort. From the Huff Post piece, “LGBT Leaders and Spokespeople Undermining the Cause.”
The schadenfreude surrounding Scott Brown’s Massachusetts Senate win is the final confirmation of the current LGBT leadership’s betrayal of 50 years of progressive politics. It began within minutes of Coakley’s concession speech: A volley of “I told you sos” by her haughty Carolina highness, Pam Spaulding. Mock-shock and caustic concern from the dirt-dishers over at Queerty. Dispassionate dispatches from those “just-the-facters” Towleroad, Joe.My.God and the AMERICAblog. And finally — a muddled, misanthropic, self-serving and — obvi! — Obama-bashing brief from David Mixner.
That Brown won should have come of little surprise to these LGBT “leaders” or their devoted fan base. After all, Spaulding, Queerty, Mixner and Co. practically cheer-led the former Cosmo-hunk to this critical triumph. Having officially turned on their president, these netrooters have conceded the greater good for their own shortsighted image-inflating. Well aware of the monumental consequences of a Republican win, Gay-stream media nevertheless continued their Dem-dissing and Obama-bashing with little concern for its election-day implications.
I like that I have earned yet another keen endorsement – “her haughty Carolina highness.” That’s NORTH Carolina highness if you’re nasty… :)
Anyway I’d love to see where Kaufman could find any pro-Brown posts on here, but why bother when you can generate incoherent pablum like that. What’s even more outlandish is that our criticism of the slow-go, no-go, run-from-timetables strategy of this administration and Congress when it comes to LGBT civil rights, is seen by Kaufman as endangering the entire progressive agenda.
Health care is at risk following the loss of the Democratic Senate majority. Additional Democratic senate seats are vulnerable to attack by an emboldened Republican party. Progressive White House initiatives may now be scaled back as Obama is forced to downsize his populist platforms. And — most crucially — the very LGBT issues these leaders triumph have never been more threatened by political rollbacks and the potential for voter-led regressive propositions. Our very economic, civil and physical liberties are imperiled — and all Spaulding can dish up is an “I told you so”. All Mixner can muster is yet another MLK-mooching missive on HuffPost.
What are we homos, 3%-7% of the population? And how many of us are bloggers of note? What in blazes is Kaufman smoking, because we all needed that to get through the eight years of Bush.
I do love that I’ve been endowed with so much power that I can topple prospects for a Dem-controlled Congress. Might Obama, Rahm and Nancy and Harry have a little to do with the state of things right now, David? The essay is again, so misguided that it’s not hard to imagine that Kaufman is either: 1) on the payroll of the Obama admin (btw, that would be a raw deal) or 2) has extreme hostility issues that he needs to deal with unrelated to the topic at hand.
The one part of the essay that is actually worth addressing because of its offensiveness is Kaufman’s obsession with declaring that the LGBT community, which includes black gays, has no business even discussing the relevance, for instance, of Loving v. Virginia and how it will play a role when marriage equality goes before SCOTUS.
Unrepentantly racist and race-bating on the White side; complicit, silent and homo Tom-like on the Black. Steeped in anger whilst mired by impotence. And shamelessly borrowing from earlier civil rights movements with zero respect or understanding of what they were truly about.
In fact, it’s time to stop with the niceties and simply tell it like it is: Enough with the Loving v. Virginia references and its “Blacks got their rights too” reductivism. End the Mixner-styled “Gay Apartheid” hysterics and endless take-downs of the Black church. It’s boring, it’s tired, it’s obnoxious and it’s offensive.
Wake up, David – the homo-Tom jive is getting stale. Loving v. Virginia is relevant, and the homophobia of the black church is a political impediment that is worthy of discussion. Look no further than the loud, proud ignorance of carpetbagging NOM-tool Bishop Harry Jackson in his quest to stop marriage equality in DC as the black face of white fundamentalist groups like the Family Research Council.
There are mini-me Bishop Jacksons all around the country willing to shill bigotry from the pulpit with the backing of well-funded white evangelical organizations. And way too many of these pastors in the pulpit are not protecting the sanctity of their own marriages.
And as someone who is also a multiple minority, I nearly fell out of my chair laughing at this bold ego stroke:
I am American, mixed-race, Jewish and Gay. I am, you could say, an ultimate minority.
And this means what? That opposing White House strategy — after promises Candidate Obama made, not something that was extracted out of him — and calling out for accountability, is tantamount to revoking your black and progressive cards? Wow, if you want blind followers, file over to the other side of the aisle. Yawn.
You need better aim than that, David. Try again, with a little less mood-enhancement.
Armed security forces in DC are refusing to identify their agencies — sparking condemnation
On Tuesday, Mother Jones national security reporter Dan Friedman posted an image of heavily-armed federal officials overseeing protests in D.C. — and noted that they refused to identify their agency when asked.
Asked who they’re with, these guys say only that they’re with “The Department of Justice.” pic.twitter.com/ciVDtP8ndk
— Dan Friedman (@dfriedman33) June 2, 2020
Internet scorns Trump for saying D.C. was the ‘safest place on earth last night’: ‘Bunker Boy says what?’
On Tuesday, President Donald Trump took to Twitter to proudly proclaim he had succeeded in restoring order to Washington, D.C. last night.
Washington, D.C., was the safest place on earth last night!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 2, 2020
Commenters on social media did not see it the same way.
Did your hear that George W. Bush’s former alum have launched a Super PAC to elect Joe Biden?
Trump campaign provokes outrage with demand that media stop saying protesters were tear gassed
On Tuesday, the Trump campaign issued a statement demanding that the media "correct or retract" the reports that peaceful protesters were tear gassed in front of the White House — citing claims from the U.S. Park Police that the substance used to forcibly disperse the crowd was not tear gas.
This demand did not go over well on social media, with commenters siding with journalists over the official reports — and others asking what the point is for the White House to dispute the type of substance they sprayed at peaceful protesters.