Today in Hypocrisy Part 1 – Dan Savage is a Cyber-bully.

This is the kind of story that reminds me of why I started a blog… A lot has happened in the last year but not much of it takes precedence over the 3 points at which my fellow so-called liberal Democrats have decided to play “Republican for a day” and began drafting their plans for the first semi-automatic glass-housed stone launcher…

First, let’s start out with the possibly the most neglected hypocrite of them all: Dan Savage… Yes, I’m talking about the “It Gets Better” guy…

You see, It Gets Better aims to foster warm-fuzzy feelings not in the bullying victims themselves, but rather the people who made the videos. Sadly, the videos made by concerned citizens are largely ignored on YouTube while everyone really only cares to hear from their favorite celebrity… However well intentioned it was to start, it’s becoming a PR tool to tap into the gay market. But the irony of this movement is that Dan Savage himself is a cyber-bully.

There. I said it.

Was he not the person who designed the nauseatingly vulgar and intentionally humiliating website which attacks a Catholic Republican candidate named Rick Santorum? This action fits squarely within every definition of cyber-bullying on Wikipedia. So what is Dan Savage REALLY teaching kids about bullies? If you can’t beat them, join them?

I wish it ended there - I really do. But (ahem!) it gets better…

Dan Savage is serophobic and rather hateful about it too. In case you’re not familiar with the term “serophobia”, let’s call it somebody who hates people with HIV or fears them. It is serophobia that lead to proposed legislation in Uganda that would effectively put all gay people in prison or have them killed (even though the majority with HIV in Uganda are heterosexual or “straight”).

Have you ever read one of those articles by a right-wing flamethrower that tries to connect the dots between homosexuals and pedophilia? Do you remember wondering how hateful a person would have to be to make that connection in their mind and try to convince others that it was true?

Dan Savage has never done that to gay people in general. But he’s done it to people with HIV… specifically gay men whom enjoyed bareback pornography or got HIV from practicing condomless sex. You see, Dan Savage wanted to make a case against “bareback” pornography. This was presumably to gain favor with Democrats who were concerned about a “gay sex columnist” joining their ranks as “the Ann Coulter of the Left”.

So, with his usual flair for the obscene, Savage chose to equate condomless pornography with child pornography. His writing on the subject assumed that young boys were being victimized by the California above-ground porn industry and being intentionally infected with a deadly virus by predatory men with HIV who want nothing more than to harm your little boy… You think I’m making that up? Read it here (as he’s never had the shame to take it off his blog).

Speaking as someone who has worked in the adult entertainment and novelties industry, I can say with some certainty that the producers of condomless pornography go to great lengths to make sure their models are tested for a wide array of STD’s and that those with HIV (the least problematic of the main ones) are only paired up with partners of the same status. If anyone disagrees with my rose-colored view, they can feel free to leave a comment.

Child pornography, on the other hand, is some SERIOUS shit. I’ve also been witness to the absolute terror that is child pornography and I’ve suffered effects of PTSD from only having viewed what I did. I imagine that not too many of the children I witnessed being raped managed to live through the ordeal. That is all discussed in other places on my blog.

If Dan Savage thinks it's ok in any way to try to connect condomless (natural) sex with such crimes... he's not the person you want to leave your kids to look up to. The fact that this scare-tactic laiden and bullying propaganda came from a so-called Democrat astounds me to no end. But lest you think Savage is just a prude - he's all about using images of children in explicit content without the permission of their parents.

All of this brings me to my next blog post – where I will be highlighting the recent hypocrisy of some other audacious Democrats including President Obama, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Nancy Pelosi who all seem to have "sex issues" because of Congressman Anthony Weiner's penis.

Until then, I’m just “keeping ‘em honest” as Anderson Cooper says… but I’d like to end on this note: If Dan Savage is willing to take down the Santorum website that made both he and the homophobic Republican famous in the first place, and if he is willing to take down his article comparing condomless pornography to child pornography, I will in turn remove my criticism of him from my own blog and congratulate him on taking the necessary steps to not be such a bully himself.

Gay Newspaper Rolls with Stone

No Apologies from Republican for Hijacked Blog


When a strange silence suddenly falls upon a gay pride parade, you can bet that the Sunshine Republicans are nearby; a group of LGBT Republicans who split off from the Log Cabin Republicans over concerns about political tone and conservative values. The Sunshine Republicans were closely associated with (although not formally in sponsorship of) Florida’s first Transgender Republican candidate for the House of Representatives, Donna Milo, who incidentally did not believe in Gay Marriage… but she intended to go up against Florida's Pro-gay Democratic Rockstar Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Nick Stone is their Vice President. He operates his own website at http://drawnlines.com/ .

Recently he wrote a blog piece called “Do Words Matter to Debbie Wasserman Schultz”. In this piece, he attempted to counter-attack Mrs. Schultz’s opinion that we all need to cool our heads and tone down the political rhetoric because “words matter”. In the news broadcast that Stone refers to in his rant, Congresswoman Schultz (D-FL) tells CNN’s TJ Holmes that we all need to be conscious of what we say in light of the recent assassination attempt on her good friend Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ).

Never once in the referenced news broadcast did Schultz ever say that the man who shot Giffords was a Republican. Nor did she make any other kind of partisan divide in that speech. Nonetheless, Stone wrote his counter-attack by questioning Schultz’s integrity, her honesty, and her motives. From there he connected all of America’s most beloved Democrats to the worst violence in US History.

"I want to clarify that just about everything you've heard from me or that I've written is just my opinion,” said Stone in an interview on Friday, “and should not reflect on The Sunshine Republicans or be seen as an official statement on any matter."

When he wrote the item for his blog, it was geared mostly toward his fans, friends and fellow Republicans. It was meant to be sort of a morale booster for the sort of Republicans who like to turn up the volume on rhetoric and defy what they refer to as our “PC Culture”.

But when Stone wrote the piece, he didn’t intend for the Florida Agenda to swipe it from his blog and publish it in the context of an editorial in their newspaper…

“I could be wrong but I believe that the author would have addressed things somewhat differently,” said Andy Eddy, a Log Cabin Republican, “if he were under the impression this was an op-ed piece for media consumption and not just blogging among friends and cohorts.” Eddy has met Debbie Wasserman Schultz once before, unlike Stone, and remembers that even though he was introduced to her as “one of those Republicans”, she said something reasonable like “it is most important that we, as Americans, are politically involved regardless of our differences.”


Stone says he never gave permission to the Florida Agenda to re-print his blog post at all and that he thinks the media sometimes uses Republicans to label as crazy and weird for a sort of boost in readership. He says journalists will often pick “the weirdest statement” to highlight. “I didn’t pursue the Agenda about it and they didn’t pursue me about it.”
Now, aside from the already scandalous way that The Florida Agenda (a gay newspaper) selected this particular gay-friendly Democratic Congresswoman to attack in their newspaper, there is the matter of all the other Democrats who were dragged through the mud in Stone’s original blog entry.

For instance, Stone stated boldly that President Carter and his wife Rosalynn had been “close friends” with John Wayne Gacy - a serial killer who preyed on teenage boys. He evidenced this accusation by showing a photo of Rosalynn with Gacy which was taken at a large Democratic event in the Chicago area. Gacy was just one of many people who were photographed with the President’s wife that day.

“Whether or not Gacy and the Carters were ‘besties’ is not the point,” said Stone when pressed for clarification on the matter, “the fact that Democrats and violence have a long and sordid history together was my big point.” But for every statement in the entire piece there should be a separate retraction and apology if it were to appear in a real newspaper.

As another example of his propagandizing spin, Stone cites the Discovery Channel Hostage situation in which James Jay Lee, who stone describes as an “enviro-terrorist” [sic] and a “left-wing nutjob”, held hostages at the popular science show headquarters. It’s important that we realize this, according to Stone, because “everyone in the media” had supposedly jumped to the false conclusion that “since he had a gun” he must have been a conservative or Tea Party member.
When pressed to come up with a source of who Stone believes originally blamed James Jay Lee of being a “Tea Party Extremist” in the media, he admitted that it was “just a sort of rumor that got started”.

But Stone has dug his own hole even deeper by choosing this particular event to highlight because environmental terrorists are not what Stone thinks they are (check the definition) and Lee was actually what’s properly called an eco-terrorist. On his own website, Lee ranted about “immigration pollution” and “anchor baby filth”. When asked about this particular section of the piece, Stone said plaintively, “I feel that being an enviro-terrorist [sic] is generally a left-wing ideal and everything else is tangential to me.”

As predictable as his spin can become after a glance or two, the dapper young Republican is not without his surprises… He speaks more favorably of MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow than he does of Fox News’s Glenn Beck and he’s not so quick to toss Hillary Clinton into the fray either.

At the end of the day, a lot of Stone’s criticism of Democrats seems reactionary to an either real or perceived hatred that he feels is directed toward him by the majority of left-leaning gays and lesbians who can tolerate just about everything EXCEPT Republicans in their midst. He perceives danger and hostility at what most of us consider as being rather benign events like Gay Pride Parades. For this reason, much of what he says becomes self-fulfilling prophesy for him. Because he thinks negatively about Democrats, some Democrats behave negatively toward him. He really doesn’t seem to think of his writing or opinions as hostile or unwelcoming either - but if you use a term like “teabagger” in his presence, you’ll likely not be forgiven.

It must be this sensitive side of himself that is bothered by Congresswoman Schultz. Some Republicans have referred to as "the DNC's Head Cheerleader" or "The Mean Girls version of Nancy Pelosi" because of her biting wit and clever use of props on the house floor... But even her Republican counterparts in the House are generally humored by her antics. She doesn't use "violent rhetoric" or "tell bald-faced lies" as Stone states in his blog... She's just very partisan... because that's her job.

In the end, Nick Stone is also just a puppy. That is to say he is a young guy with a pleasant demeanor whose bark is worse than his bite. “Debbie Wasserman Schultz is right,” he says, “in the sense that if her party does their part as well, we can make things better […] but it has to be fair and even handed. No, I won’t apologize for what I’ve written.”

An apology for threatening the congresswoman with damnation to “the darkest pits of hell” if she dared to use any rhetoric herself, was in the end, too much for him to manage. But in his defense, he went on to list even more supposed connections between Democrats and violence. I’ll leave it to his fellow Republicans to correct him on those matters if they would be so kind.