Sunday, August 17, 2008

Temper Temper

I want to point out the touchiness of certain bloggers. These bloggers are famous for
crying about any critical comment that they post. I can and have disagreed with Mr. Beamish, Nanc or AOW without them going postal. The over the top responses seem to indicate that there is perhaps more substance to my critique than either would admit publicly.

For people that cry about personal attacks this dynamic duo certainly engages in them
quite frequently. A response to criticizing an author of whose book they have not bothered to read is met with the standard "you are a liar". My response is to demonstrate how a personal attack should at least contain some originality. For example what was the last book you have read? Did it have a man in a yellow hat or an over sized red dog? My response at least was original, but being usual suspect number one deleted the whole exchange this is lost.

I will respond to the usual suspects. They know who they are without my saying so. Person A from moment one was always an imbecile. You can search his writings, which he deletes frequently, for intelligent content and you will find nothing. This person
demanded I drop a certain gas masked friend whom he calls evil and the house bigot.
In fact he states that there are many bigots here. He doesn't bother to name these bigots.

His greatest crime was claiming I write these posts to impress my "fundamentalist"
friends. Who these friends are he doesn't name? The positions on this blog are written because it is a representation of what I believe. Oddly, had this person half a brain, he would have seen similar discussions on MZ's site. Why would I dissent from MZ on this subject as far back as two years ago. Moreover, who was I trying to impress on that site?

This person literally reinvents himself every other week. Who knows what person we are dealing with this week or next. Perhaps he is going to be a New Age Folk Singer
next week or perhaps it will be a combination of tarot cards and rap music. While he has been all over the map and has become increasingly hateful I am still the same man. He was tolerable because he was a decent sort with a good sense of humor. He is
now neither a decent sort nor has he evidenced any sort of humor. It is very hard to
have a sense of humor and you are in a self righteous mania at the same time.

On to the last of the dynamic duo. It is with great reluctance that I even start this. I am well aware of words said in anger because a close friend is hurting over whatever ails him. I am also aware of a person desperately trying (not you) to regain credibility within his community by attacking innocent people and saying the most outlandish hateful comments about "fundies".

It is one thing for a TMW or even a Nanc to criticize the remarks about "radical Christians". It is quite another for a non practicing secular Jew to notice this theme. While I do not deny that some dreadful homophobic comments are made there is no mass movement by Brill Cream haired men high on the 700 club to herd gays by force
into NASCAR events, make them eat red meat and make them heterosexuals. There is no mass movement towards a Christian theocracy and this is Henny Penny. The sky is not falling.

Ironically, person A has criticized me in terms that some of his mutual friends have said to me in private. I could switch my name for his in his critique of me and produce identical comments. I honor the man who served his country and was a decent thoughtful person and someone I valued as a friend. His words do not bother me at all because I am aware of the desire and context to protect a friend. I would remind this person that sometimes we try too hard to protect our friends and there is truth to every one of my critiques and points. The truth is also said by a person who has similar training to his own. There are jobs that are best handled by professionals and if you are honestly interested in helping this person you should encourage this person to seek guidance and listen to that guidance.

Person B has reinvented himself several time. At one point he was a Catholic Priest.
Then he was unaffiliated and when we last met him he was claiming to be a messianic Jew. Oddly, I came to his defense, which he forgets, and thanked me at the time. I respect messianic Jews, I respect Christianity in general and I respect the right of gays to individual dignity. I do not respect liberation theology as it is an attempt by Marxists to subvert religious denominations. Oddly, my criticism of this malady is meaningless as the membership either dies or forms a cha cha line to a more traditional Church. When person B talks of "radical Christians" he is leaving out the
people who think the communist manifesto is a sacred text. I am neither the first nor
likely the last to Rowan Williams a Marxist. Moreover, one can take the time and read
the entire entries on "Liberation Theology, Social Justice" and Williams on Discover
The Network.

Person B has not even bothered to read this material and seems to think my critique
on this point is contrived out of thin air. In fact two Popes were quite clear about
liberation theology and agreed with my position. It is a fallacy to say Jesus cared about the poor so we will act in their name to liberate them from oppression. If you wish to serve the poor as a calling it is a noble thing. The poor suffer from many things lack of education, mental illness, substance abuse, domestic violence but they
are in no definition oppressed. A social worker who mistreats her charges is guilty of malfeasance, not oppression. In reality that social worker is likely a dedicated professional who has helped more people than bug eyed Marxist clerics running between protests, jet setting to every Marxist hot spot, cocktail parties and press interviews. The social worker has rules, procedures and works for the government. Sometimes the self righteous types who seek to exploit (not B) the poor for political
power deliberately exploit their needs.

I am no longer welcomed on their site, but this is merely stating something in public
that has been an unwritten policy for a while. Unlike this blog where we allow dissent that blog pays lip service to dissent. This blog has always allowed dissent
but we do not allow criminal threats or spam. The Duck comes here almost daily and is
almost never if ever censored.

Neither A nor B are banned from this site. They are free to comment if they so desire. I have no interest in A as a friend. It was his choice initially, but upon reflection I concur for reasons of my own. I still consider B a valued friend with whom I disagree even if he no longer describes me as such. I salute B for his service
to America and wish him well.

There will be no changes as a result of this parting of ways. The content of this blog is determined by the way I see things. It is apparent that those who claim the content of this blog is written to please "fundies or bigots" are projecting their
own foibles on me. The over the top shrill hateful rhetoric of A is clearly an attempt to regain credibility within the gay community. Then again when one is all over the map who knows what the real A is or will be next week. It is almost like watching Dr Who regenerate every two months.

This blog has been clear about our respect for religious people. If you look carefully you will even note that we do not say a word about Islam. It is quite possible to be a patriot and be concerned about your faith as Stephen Schwartz has clearly demonstrated. Schwartz literally places himself in danger for his convictions
and even when I disagree with him it is respect. The limits of religion in this country is when your religious practices violate the law, incite people to criminal acts or infringe upon someone else's liberty.

I believe gays and lesbians should be left alone as a matter of civil law. I also want freaks in black robes, like Bader Ginsberg, as far from religious terms as possible. All religious denominations have strict rules about marriage. Gays are entitled to civil unions that would carry the same legal benefits. This should not be available to heterosexual couples who may marry legally.

I have always been for humanizing both gays and so called "fundamentalist" Christians. One can only hate what one has dehumanized and pointless hate is something I have always been against.

Now B might point out that I hate liberals. This would be amusing if I were a conservative. I hate Utopians and given the crimes against humanity they have committed this is justified. Communism is a religion (Toynbee) that is deceptive in nature and deadly in practice. Communists will practice entryism and seek to subvert
and manipulate people. Liberation theology is an attempt by Communists to subvert religious institutions.

I respect genuine liberals who have the decency to step away from the communists. Freedomnow and Jams are examples of liberals I respect. Pro American social liberals
left the Democratic party long ago when the Harkin, Rangel and Gomer Kerry types started appeasing communists. In fact the Democratic party has allowed these same subversive types into the party. A quick check of the writtings of the Daily Kos crew, Moveon maniacs and Code Pinko cast congregate proves my point. Pro American liberals need to step away from the Marxists who write such wonders as "General Betrayus" or write Jewish conspiracies to blow up the WTC.

While I am still the same guy with the same positions the critics of this blog are always reinventing themselves. This also includes the person in Chicago who is a Kahanist, an ex Kahanist seeking truth, a born again Kahanist and now back on his way to being an ex Kahanist again. Who knows maybe next week he might be a retro beatnick. He has already started the dreadful Prozac poetry and all he needs is a goatee, bongos and some pot.

At least some of the cast remains stable.TMW, Nanc, Warren, AOW, Mr B and many others
are still the same. Sonia is still unclothed and even more anti communist than I. Pagan is still himself as is the ever decent Jams herding befuddled felines through
the seasons.

15 comments:

Beamish said...

Out kicking the henhouse again, eh Beak?

beakerkin said...

Mr B

My fight with the suspects named started when one of them demanded I end my friendship with you.

I am well known for disagreeing with your sentiments on gays. Ultimately,my message is a different message. I just never saw the issue as a big deal.

My life experiences are unique and
I see gays as the person next door
or in the cube in the next row. I have always envisioned a common American tolerance for the person next door, unless they are some type of utopian nut.

One can not hate a person with whom
they have so much in common. There
is no gay litmus test. I see the man that was once Justin and I see plenty to admire. If he is still that person is unknown. I think he is somewhere.

Compare my life to Justin's on a fictional gayometer

Beakerkin Justin
Lives in NYC Texas
including years
in Greenwich
Village

Frequents Art Probably has
galleries, Broadway been in an
Musicals and likes Art Museum
Renoir. I can even or two. He
sing show tunes might have
seen Fidler
on the Roof
or Oklahoma

Secular Deeply
Religious

Never in Miltary Served with
honor

No Kids Has a couple

Likes Exotic All American
foreign food

Not great with Can fix a
Machinery few things

Worked in Military
Fashion

According to the stereotype I would
be the gay man and the person we
knew as Justin would be the guy
next door. In reality all of us make too much of a big deal.

It doesn't matter anyway, hating a person because of the way they read scripture or what consenting adults
do in the bedroom is illogical.

Devon said...

beak
i have been setting in the background and reading what has gone on between you and the 2 you were posting about for some time now. I read their posts along with the posts you had Bs. He seemed to be through in his postings and yet you came back with something different and out of left field. Then you go and post something on your blog completely of base from what was posted on their site and yet you wanted your people to believe you had readand answered everything. needless to say they probably didnt read what was posted I wish they had. As for you statement well what you were saying about A isnt true look at your own posts this 1 has and i quote "Did it have a man in a yellow hat or an over sized red dog?" but the acutal post the other day down there VVVVand i qoute " Did it have a man in a yellow hat or a big red dog. I should ave asked if it was a pop up book." After reading this post I kind of wonder just who has a problem. considering everythng you post seems to have to have marxist or comunistic or leftisic or something of the wall

Devon said...

OH and i see you took thier site off your blog. Beak you didn't even have thier right web address their site address was changed about 8 monts ago.

beakerkin said...

Devon

This is a respectable agreement. There were a total of three posts and even in your exact quotes they were more or less references to Curious George and Clifford. I am not going to get bogged down on the difference
between big and over size. The quote is essentially the same thing.

Lets start this from the beginning. Rob pronounced a verdict on a book
he has not bothered to read. Have
you ever seen me or any rightist complain about the latest Bush bashing book. My attitude is go read it yourself and then we will talk.

His comments and Justins about the
Kerry book were wrong as well. The furor in that book was over the sections in Vietnam and those were written by Oneil. The sections written by Corsi stirred no reaction.

Facts from the original book

1 Kerry was never in or near Cambodia

2 He certainly was not Sgt York as he presented.

3 He was a member of a communist front group VVAW.

4He met illegally with the NVA in Paris while a member of the USNR.

Kerry still has not released his military records.

I am quite open about my disdain for Marxists etc. An American Jew should look at them in the same manner as a Black man looks at the KKK or a gay man looks a Phelps. The difference is that as evil as the KKK or Phelps is they have not had anywhere near the history of unrivaled evil of Marx.

My critique of group rights, social
justice and liberation theology is actually mainstream. Sorry, but two
Popes and many other clerics see it my way. The Marxist roots of social
justice and "liberation theology" can be read in a concise form at Discover the Network.

That being said Robo call me a liar
and I respond to his personal attacks with a humorous repartee and the whole crowd goes postal. Sorry, but the remarks were much nicer than the hateful words of either Rob or Justin.

I understand Justin feels he is protecting a friend. He would not be the man I had admired if he did
not act precisely as he did. Yet at some point he should have said we
agree to disagree.

I am still more or less the same person preaching sanity in the midst of baseless hate. Gays should
have human dignity and gays should respect some people who interpret scripture differently than they prefer. My message has always been
and remains one can not hate the man next door. Progress will only be made when gays reach out to reasonable people.

While I have remained the same Rob has gone from a decent gay guy on the left, to an amiable ex gay guy in the center and now to a very hateful far left humorless oaf. Sorry but I am almost curious as to
see what comes next a hip hop fortune telling new age guy or a banjo playing, culinary snob who is into yoga.

Justin has reinvented himself several times as well. Yet, I always respected his dignity even as he went into over drive on yours truly. Maybe he is right and if we
stay in one place it isn't necessarily a good thing.

Many of our mutual friends are puzzled by Justin's behavior. He is still widely respected and it should remain so. My hand is always
open in friendship to Justin. It is
quite easy and juvenile to burn bridges and this is also why radicals fail. It is a harder thing
to build bridges and show those who hate that you are just as human.

I will pursue my vision of common humanity as others venture off into
hate on both sides.

beakerkin said...

Devon

It was pointed out it was the wrong address and I an not welcome there.
I made the correction and removed the link.

Rob has made his wishes clear as has Justin. It was their choice and if at some future date Justin decides to extend the hand of friendship he will be welcomed back. I will not likely make the same offer to Rob. Then again I am
a very forgiving sort and neither
party has done much more than raise
my eyebrow. There is nothing for them to apologize for as neither party has wronged me.

Beamish said...

Beak,

I can't help myself.

A hormonal imbalance in the womb genetically predisposed me towards believing that slathering one's own genitalia with someone else's fecal matter residue right from the pipeline for kicks is best defined as disgusting, offensive, psychologically disturbed behavior at the least, promoting epidemic diseases at the most.

Let them heterophobic chickens keep clucking. I don't care.

nanc said...

beamish a bye got?

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahah!

beakerkin said...

Mr B

It certainly is not my preference but there is more to a relationship than the sex act. What about the day to day matters.

Are gays solely defined by the sex act alone? I thought of my relationship/ marriage and that was a part of a larger picture sex was but one part.

Beamish said...

Beak,

Are gays solely defined by the sex act alone?

I think John Derbyshire probably nails my point of view best. Homosexuality isn't something people are, but rather it is something people do. That something done is deviant, unhygienic, stomach-turning disgusting sex acts.

No amount of collecting show tunes or wearing Boston Red Sox hats is going to conceal that the defining attribute of "homosexual" is precisely the sex act.

When someone tells you they are gay, they're not just telling you that they like show tunes or that they cheer fanatically for the Boston Red Sox.

They're mostly telling you that they like to root the stoolbox.

It's TMI.

The Pagan Temple said...

Hey Beamish, what if it was a good looking woman's fecal matter and pipeline? Say, for example, Katie Holmes, or Angelina Jolie, or if neither of them tickle your fancy, think of any woman you consider top-notch. Go on, admit it, you know you would.

If you wouldn't-well, I guess we know what that makes you, huh?

HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa

nanc said...

hahaha - what?

Beamish said...

PT,

Up north, men wash their hands after they pee.

Down south, men don't pee on their hands.

Always On Watch said...

I can and have disagreed with Mr. Beamish, Nanc or AOW without them going postal.

Well, I would hope not! I don't have time to waste by having temper tantrums.

Besides, expecting total agreement from anyone else is an impossibility.

Z said...

:-)

to all of it!

And you ARE 'kicking the henhouse again' Beak!