Current Issue
Back Issues
 Subscribe to BartBlog Feed
How to Read
Members ( need password)
Subscribe to BartCop!
Contact Us
Advertise With Us
Link to Us
Why Donate?
The Forum  -
The Reader
Poster Downloads
Shirts & Shots
BartCop Hotties
More Links
BFEE Scorecard
Perkel's Blog
Power of Nightmares
Clinton Fox Interview
Part 1, Part 2
Money Talks
Cost of Bush's greed
White Rose Society
Project 60
Chinaco Anejo


Search Now:
In Association with

Link Roll
American Politics Journal
Barry Crimmins
Betty Bowers
Consortium News 
Daily Howler
Daily Kos
Democatic Underground 
Disinfotainment Today 
Evil GOP Bastards
Faux News Channel 
Greg Palast
The Hollywood Liberal 
Internet Weekly
Jesus General
Joe Conason 
Josh Marshall
Liberal Oasis
Make Them Accountable 
Mark Morford 
Mike Malloy 
Political Humor -
Political Wire
Randi Rhodes
Rude Pundit 
Smirking Chimp
Take Back the Media
More Links


Locations of visitors to this page

Why I'm a gay-hating prick
  by Michael Medved

Larry Craig casts new light on the importance of banning open homosexuals from military service.

I doubt you can make that case, you gay-hating piece of crap.

If preventing public sex in airport menís rooms is important enough to justify the deployment 
of undercover cops, isnít it similarly significant to avoid, at all costs, sexual encounters in military latrines?

No, because the military isn't made up of children who need to be shielded from life's quirks.

Imagine the impact on morale and unit cohesion if two guys from the same barracks engaged
in toe-tapping while occupying adjacent bathroom stalls in the military facilities?

Imagine an America where the Republican party wasn't built on hatred of those who are different.
Imagine an America where Republican's didn't win elections by using fear and division.

Of course, advocates for gays in the military will insist that any such indulgence would involve a violation 
of the rules, with offenders facing stiff, severe consequences. But the impact of gay GIís on bathroom 
atmospherics doesnít just stem from the real chance of actual sex acts in the latrine, it involves whole 
sexualization of one of the most frequented and important conveniences on any base.

I didn't even know what you meant to say there - I assume it's hate-filled horseshit.

If openly gay males do nothing to compromise restroom integrity and security, why not invite 
female soldiers into menís bathrooms, or open the door of womenís facilities to males? 

This sounds a lot like, "If two men can be together, why not a man and a dog?"
Is Michael Medved into man-on-dog sex like Rick Santorum is?

If Larry Craig gets drummed out of the party for seeking sex,
why do a couple of dig-fuckers like Medved and Santorum get to stay?

Surely, the same rules that would, theoretically, prevent gay men from hassling other men in the head would 
prevent hetero males from harassing women (or vice verse). Just as a gay male in the military would receive 
punishment for bathroom misbehavior, so to a straight guy could be busted for making improper overtures 
to women in the ladies room Ė but that wouldnít make him any more welcome in a female facility.

Why don 't you write a column about an actual problem, like military rapes in Iraq?
You won't do that because your hate career is built on horseshit and homophobia, not the facts.

The problem isnít just the chance of molestation, itís the radical change of mood and sensibility 
if you know you may be checked out as a sex object at a very private moment (of urination or defecation) 
when most normal people prefer to avoid any and all thoughts of physical intimacy. A bathroom 
becomes a vastly more uncomfortable and even menacing place if itís used for sexual encounters,
whether those connections involve gay or straight sexuality.

Medved, as always, avoids the obvious because he's a whore who can't deal with the truth.
If gays didn't have to hide, they wouldn't have to "go stealth" to look for a friend.
If an army base had a club for non-traditionals, who would go tap-tapping in the bathroom?
Nobody, because there'd be no reason to hide who you are.

In a column in Sundayís New York Times, Laura MacDonald insists that toilet sex never involves one-sided, 
unwanted attentions. According to the research she cites (based on ďa groundbreaking dissertationĒ of a 
doctoral candidate at Washington University nearly 30 years ago) ďa straight man would be left alone after 
that first tap or cough or look went unanswered. The initiator does not want to be beaten up or arrested or
chased by teenagers, so he engages in safeguards to ensure that any physical advance will be reciprocated.Ē

Notice the first time Medved says something that might actually be true, he's quoting someone else.
That's because Medved is a lying son-of-a-bitch who appeals to everyone's worst fears and prejudices.

Certainly in the case of Larry Craig, the arresting officer did nothing to discourage the Senatorís
attentions until the very moment of the arrest and almost certainly invited his advances. 

What does that mean?  The cop wanted Craig to hit on him?  

The near unanimous revulsion regarding the incident therefore has nothing to do with sexual assault 
or attempted rape, or any notion of Craig somehow forcing himself on the cop.

What does that mean?
Is Medved typing this with one hand?

The Craig disgust arises from the association of of toilet stalls and sex acts. 

But Asshole, these people are "in the closet."  They can't be honest about who they are because of 
religiously-insane, built-on-fear, caveman-throwbacks like you. Admit it - Craig's being thrown out of 
the senate on a misdemeanor because he's gay and the GOP hates gays so the bastard has got to go. 
If your party could learn to love God's children they wouldn't have to "go underground" to be who they are.

We have a common and compelling interest in keeping such places free of erotic tension 
and thatís why we dispatch police officers to patrol public rest stations.

We also have a common interest in not forcing 10% of America into fear cages.
What if we treated them like human beings - would that be so hard to do?

And if regular users of airport or public park facilities have a right to escape suggestive glances or inviting gestures that 
can poison an already fetid atmosphere, how much more so do young recruits the same right to avoid similar attentions 
(or even suspicions) from their fellow soldiers in the intimate quarters necessitated by military service? Itís no wonder 
that despite some fifteen years of relentless propaganda, most high ranking members of the armed services remain 
unconvinced that we should alter regulations to allow participation of open homosexuals.

Even tho every military ally we have allows openly gay soliders to serve, America resists because we're still hung up 
on Victorian-era taboos that the rest of the world (save Iran, Saudi Arabia etc) got over decades ago.

The national shudder of discomfort and queasiness associated with any introduction of homosexual eroticism into 
public menís rooms should make us more determined than ever to resist the injection of those lurid attitudes into 
the even more explosive situation of the U.S. military.

But when it comes to teenage sex, you say, "Abstinence solves everything."
Why can't our soldiers "Just say no" like you tell the high school kids to do?

Michael Medved, nationally known whore and hate-talk radio host, is author of 10 horseshit books. 

Send e-mail to Bart  |  Discuss it on The BartCop ForumComment on it at the BartBlog

Privacy Policy
. .