Alright, you guys know what’s up – it’s Friday, which means that we’ve gone through each and every comment and picked a few of the brightest gems.
Experience our top five faves, after the jump. (It’s worth mentioning that the last one’s by far our favorite favorite.)
• Let’s start with today’s post on Irene Monroe’s continuing battle against democratic presidential candidate, Barack Obama (Sappho-Journo Threatened After Anti-Obama Op-Ed). We trust that you can read the original post, so we’ll spare you the gory details. We loved all the comments, but we’d like to share on in particular. Reader John writes,
Obama’s professed opposition to gay marriage because of his “religion” is highly dubious. His church (the Unitarians) is in fact one of the more liberal of the Protestant denominations. And 80% of the delegates to its General Synod voted to endorse same-sex marriage in 2005.
More likely, Obama is using the Christian faith as “cover” for expressing discriminatory beliefs that’s popular with the masses…in a cynical attempt to increase his chances of becoming president.
A valid point, we think.
• Back to Monday, when we all got a taste of Jimmy Kimmel’s unique brand of hypocritical journalism. You may recall the late night talker invited American Idol‘s Sanjaya Malakar for a little man-to-man chat in which Kimmel wondered why Malakar would “offer” People his heterosexuality (The Queer Case of Sanjaya Malakar II). Loads of comments on this one – some good, some bad – but we’re going to feature reader and regular commentator Samantha’s textual musings:
I found it distasteful that Jimmy Kimmel brought the issue of sexuality up to a 17 year old. I can’t imagine a single 17 year old kid of my acquaintance that I would want to see subjected to being quizzed on that subject by an adult male of short acquaintance. Add the studio audience which included his mother and sister and the broadcast audience and it’s a plainly disgusting thing to do to a kid.
We don’t know if it’s disgusting. Distasteful, yes, but disgusting may be a stretch. Still, we’re totally with you, sister.
• Let’s turn our queer eye (fuck, did we just say that?) to another queer case: Lord John Browne. The BP chief stepped down this week after lying about how he met his former lover, Jeffrey Chavalier, who sold their love story to The Mail on Sunday (BP Honcho Outed As Gay, Steps Down). Again, lots of comments, but we’re going to pick on reader Musa Kahn for a second. Kahn writes:
This is not a “gay” story, but a traditional kiss-and-tell scandal in the wake of a lengthy affair between a rich and powerful older man and a young and pretty lover.
We understand where you’re coming from, Musa, we really do, but we have to respectfully disagree. Yes, on the surface the John Browne affair’s just a bit of tawdry drama. Considering the high-powered, high-testosterone realm in which he worked – namely: big oil business – we think there’s more to this story than meets the eye. To read what we mean, check out our follow-up story: Lord John Browne Gay Outing Fall Out.
• And, of course, who could forget the news that Isaiah Washington has teamed up with GLAAD to record not one, but two (!) pro-gay PSA’s? (Isaiah Washington’s Pro-Mo Musings Will Be Televised) Reader el polacko’s comment gave us a bit of a chuckle:
gross. i don’t need to hear his enforced apology for calling somebody a fag. glaad is way off-base with this one. it just makes us look like a bunch of overly-sensitive wusses and does nothing for him either. give it damned rest already.
Mr. Polacko, that’s what GLAAD does – they’re total reactionary wusses. If they gave it a “damned rest”, as you so eloquently put it, they would cease to exist. Except when they pipe in on other, less “gay” issues, like that whole Shirley Q. Liquor thing.
• And, finally, we’d like to take a second to highlight reader Alan Brickman’s comment(s) to our French advertising run-down: Racism At Its Coldest, in which we posted two French ice cream commercials which employ some tried and true black stereotypes, ie: headhunter, big lips etc, etc. Well, Mr. Brickman’s so impassioned about our so-called “straight cliches” that he had to post the same comment thrice:
First of all, we’d like to know which “straight cliches” we’re promoting. It’s rare that we even talk about straight people as a social group. In fact, we can’t remember the last time we did such a thing. So, Brickman, please provide us with some examples. Also, even if we do “promote” straight stereotypes, they wouldn’t be racist. They would be homosexist – the opposite of heterosexist.
On that note, have a heterosexist, racist free weekend!