When I see a man taking his feminism to this level, I probably don’t think the same thing others do.
Some of the feminists out there may applaud this, or get all emotional and demand an equally emotional speech.
Some guys may think he’s gay, or just bust out laughing. I want to know how well his hustle is working for him.
Guys that do like that fellow in the pic tend to be just as dramatic and needy as any female activist.
But men like that also tend to be hobosexual. By the way, that’s spelled with a “B”, not an “M”.
Hobosexual men always seem to jump on whatever feminists are into, apologizing for being born a guy, and all that.
They always seem to fall in love with females who have their own income and residence, especially around income tax refund time.
They’ll gladly endure women’s rage and curses. After all, going along with the matriarchy gets their phone bill paid, and a roof over their heads.
Hobosexual guys loiter around feminists because that’s where they find the most gullible women- and least male competition.
Despite all that rage, feminists’ anger is more out of longing than hatred. These men know it.
Hobosexual men are just as predatory and slick as any gold-digging woman, and often more so.
But since their involvement with feminism is seen as some successful “conversion”, they seldom face scrutiny.
Even if they are aware of the hustle, what can those women do? Their life situations force them to accept it, anyway.
Few men can match their income. Their their looks and/or attitudes further limit their options.
Hobosexuality hurts both men and women, especially men. People don’t want to see a female suffering, but feel little pity for a weak man.
A male that manipulates his way through life is often destroyed by age 35. His looks are gone, his game is played out, and his keeper is done with him.
If he’s still able to work and make a living for himself, he pretty much has to. If he’s smart, he won’t have a bunch of babies to feed.
Meanwhile, the female is stuck for life seeking out men to basically raise, even after possibly raising a son of their own. The resentment just grows and grows.
A lot of younger men are opting to stay single, and fend for themselves. Shockingly, a lot of guys are getting into transgendered females.
They’re often more feminine and submissive than the feminists are, with ZERO odds of unwanted pregnancies or abortions.
Hobosexual men are all in the feminist movement. But they are not in it to infiltrate or destroy it. They WANT it to succeed.
After all, an angry female is the most volatile, but the easiest to hustle the hell out of.
Next time… the common link between two notorious anti-gay preachers, and the pV$$y hat wearers…
When I first found out Whitney died, part of me was very angry. Drug overdoses are for mere mortals… like me.
Then it dawned on me: Whitney dying was exactly because she was a mere mortal- like me. That mindset changed everything.
Unless you’ve been strung out before, you can’t and won’t know how hard, bumpy, and disappointing recovery can be.
Losing one’s self in work, politics, church, or any number of things let them forget what f*ck-ups they actually are. The escape can be addictive.
Knowing, and even admitting, that these things, are having a mostly negative affect on one’s life, though, is only the start of recovery.
One must be willing and able to leave behind everything they know. One must recognize the consequences of drug use on one’s self and others.
One must also realize a relapse or new addiction are always possible.
These are the things I had to face once meth and coke nearly killed me in Dallas in 2001. I still have to, 15 years after not doing either substance.
I was willing to leave a town and my friends. I was willing to move back home, and have my every minute accounted for. I did it for six months.
It’s sad to say that I don’t think Whitney Houston stood a chance in the long run. The entertainment world is a very dangerous place for an addictive personality.
She brought a drug habit dating back to her teens with her into a world filled with yes-people, enablers, and users. She had NO place to get away from it all, either.
Neither Whitney Houston, nor anybody else, has ever suffered an “untimely death”. People are not gallons of milk with an expiration date on them.
Life is not, nor should it be, determined by the quantity of years a person has. The quality of life they had in them is what makes the difference.
In the 48 years she was here, Whitney brought a literal soundtrack to millions of people’s lives. She also serves as a precautionary tale against the dangers of drug abuse.
Those are quality things… in her favor, for better or for worse.
Next up: Why so many people fall in love from February to May…
Any time somebody asks my favorite Whitney song, this automatically comes out. The simplicity of the song, with an equally simple video premise, done as only THE VOICE could.
(Note: The 45th President of the United States is now in office. Neither he nor his alleged critics, who I’ll get to after this tribute and one other post, are going anywhere. Meanwhile…)
A still-record seven straight number-one singles. A huge movie with the best-selling soundtrack ever. And the artist with the most imitated rendition of the U.S. national anthem.
All these achievements took place less than a decade after a debut album, lauded even now as one of the best intro albums ever released.
For the first fifteen years of her career, Whitney Houston could do no wrong. After that, she could do no right. She was the last celebrity I deified.
By February 11, 2012, the only way to redeem her reputation left was her passing. As a fan, I was sad, and in a way relieved. And as a recovering addict, I was mad.
All the things that made Whitney iconic will be here: the music, The Bodyguard, the fashion, that initial pristine image.
That whole package, handcrafted by music mogul Clive Davis, was meant to be loved. It was, and still is.
Now, however, there is absolutely no chance at one more comeback, or one more live, epic performance of I Will Always Love You.
To my personal relief, there will be no more “Crack is Whack!” or “Hell to the naw!” meltdowns, either.
For all the epic songs, and the later epic hi-jinks with ex-husband Bobby Brown, however, there is one other epic Whitney moment I’ll sadly never get to see again…
The 2009 interview Whitney did with Oprah Winfrey was among the most real sh!t I have ever seen from a celebrity.
The often graphic details about her drug use, and the humor she could show about it in hindsight, was sad, honest, and refreshing all at once.
More importantly, she didn’t try to pretend that there would be some storybook ending for herself, or guarantee she would never slip up again.
In other words, the legendary Whitney Houston was willing to face her own mortality and humanity in front of a worldwide audience.
I loved her voice, and detested her all-too-public downfall. But after that interview, I respected the hell out of Whitney Houston as a person.
That public display of the person also broke me of constantly praising or shredding celebrities and politicians.
Nonstop adulation, excuses, and enabling, or continuous criticisms, are both extremes directed towards what are ultimately mere mortals.
Nonetheless, the entire public life of one Whitney Elizabeth Houston turned out to be an EPIC moral lesson.
Her life vividly shows the greatness a mere mortal can achieve, the tragic capacity for error, and the everyday struggle to live with both. Even if you’re Whitney Houston.
Next time, Part 2: “And as a recovering addict, I was mad”…
I actually used no. 45’s name in that last post. That was the first time I typed that name in months. Why? Because I was that tired of it.
Seeing him on television every fifteen minutes for sixteen months got on my damned nerves. But it never made me hate him.
And hatred of Donald John Trump (Presidential nickname pending) was apparently the primary reason I was supposed to vote for Hillary Rhianna Clinton.
I didn’t like her enough, and didn’t hate him enough, so that instantly sounded dumb as hell to me.
The impression I get is that one of Trump’s biggest sins was being the one obstacle to feminists’ greatest goal: a single-party matriarchy.
It’s hardly going to be mentioned anywhere, but we were literally a single election away from just that.
Had Hillary won, and the Senate went to the Democrats, the already demoralized Republican Party would have been greatly reduced.
To females like Madonna, Chelsea Handler, and Amy Schumer, a world ruled by women with minimal dissent seems like a great idea.
But not every woman can be Madonna, with a carefully structured world to escape to.
A matriarchal society is perfect for affluent females used to footing the bill for men, and men who long to be taken care of.
But a woman who can’t, or just won’t, support a man, or a man who doesn’t want to be kept up by women, will ultimately reject the idea. Even in America.
The feminist movement has worked too well for its own good. It’s fueled by very powerful women.
Powerful, angry, lonely, women.
Next Time: All the things the election WASN’T about, and my favorite meltdown moment.
BTW: Here’s Madonna’s legendary American Bandstand debut, complete with her mission statement. Had she offered to blow domes for the Walt Mondale/Geraldine Ferraro ticket in 1984 like she did for Hillary… Walt still would have lost.
I’ve said it before, and will stand by it: The 2016 Election was supposed to be Watergate 2.0. Donald Trump was deliberately built up to be a modern-day George McGovern.
He was the politically weakest candidate in that whole Republican candidate pool, and the DNC saw him as a pushover that would lead to a 1972 Richard Nixon-style Hillary landslide.
And just like in 1972, the consequences of any questionable activities done for or by the odds-on favorite were to be stifled until after the historic win- when they’d hopefully vanish.
That was the plan, anyway. But it went awry on so many levels. The pro-Hillary folks, and even more so, the anti-Trump crowds, were sloppy as hell.
Not only did cable news outlets and The New York Times, which are supposed to have some semblance of impartiality, campaign for Hillary, they openly went against Trump.
The keyboard warriors on social media that spout about love online often revealed themselves to just as bigoted as Trump may be when they’re offline.
And they really f*cked up denouncing anybody, mainly blue-collar fellow Democrats, for agreeing with even one point of the Trump platform as ignorant racists.
With a race between two very low-regarded candidates, Democrats were in no position to alienate anybody. They needed others a lot more than others needed them.
But the first chance they got to get away from the psycho ex, just enough people in just enough places took the chance and put some space between them, willing to risk the consequences.
In the end, Hillary won the popular vote, but her most vicious, vocal supporters turned a lot of people against in all demographics against them, not just the White working-class.
Some went for Donald McGovern, others went third-party, and some stayed home, so not to be associated with the election period. Regardless, they could have made Hillary Nixon number 45.
After months of creating the ultimate punching bag, this election was literally theirs to lose. And they did.
Next post: Living in a Material World…
I’m making this last post before the 2016 Election a Random Thoughts edition. I’m SO over it, and have a ton of stuff going on personally. I’ll cover that in the year-end post.
I have never, ever longed for an election to be done as I have with this one. It’s the most desperate, negative, and outright contrived campaign season I’ve ever seen.
The GOP candidate is absolutely right that this election is rigged. And his ascendancy to main super-villain is the clearest example of that.
The DNC candidate had to have said super-villain as an antagonist, but SHE’S her own toughest opponent.
The last 16 months have had an obvious story line in play. The woman is supposed to slay the evil man-dragon. What if America breaks character, and the dragon wins?
The DNC has their woman, and the GOP has their loose-cannon pop culture star. Together, they’ve been in the public eye for over 60 years, and have the baggage to prove it.
Are the days of slowly building candidates into national winners over? It worked as recently as eight years ago.
Are people all over the Internet praising their candidates because they actually like them, or because they want to drag others down with them as they make bad choices?
And why is it that most of the defense of one candidate consists of tearing down the other?
Are “undecided” voters actually such, or are they, as is so often the case this time, just too ashamed to admit who they like?
And finally… Who’s going to be the next great bad guy in 2020? Mike Rowe? Caitlyn Jenner? Jake from State Farm?
Well… go on and vote. Enjoy. And by the way, we all know the narrative demands the woman win, but just for the hell of it, I’m putting money on the orangeman. Any takers?
President Richard Milhous Nixon’s White House staff deliberately interfered with the Democratic primaries in 1972 to get the easiest opponent possible.
As a result, the lackluster George McGovern ended up with the DNC nomination, but lost to Nixon by, until 1984, the biggest Presidential landslide ever. And then Watergate erupted.
As I said in Starrcade 2016, the whole point of the media pushing the Orangeman was to give Hillary Clinton the easiest ride to the Oval Office as possible.
So the GOP Presidential Candidate got caught talking nasty in a 2005 video. And? His every word has been televised every 15 minutes for over 16 months. Where is the news in this?
The desperate, feigned “outrage” over her opponent’s latest (older?)antics shows that the attempt to choose an easy bet won’t work as well when the one betting is also sketchy.
We all know there’s an endless amount of coverage of the GOP candidate. The problem is that there’s also plenty on Clinton.
There is absolutely NO SUCH THING as an “uninformed/low-information voter” concerning the 2016 Presidential Election, not with constant coverage of one and 40+ years with the other.
Much like Nixon, Hillary Clinton enters her second run at the White House with a lot of baggage. An easy opponent will not overshadow that fact.
Hillary’s political career started with the very thing that ended Richard Nixon’s: Watergate. She served on an investigative committee handling the matter, beginning circa 1973/4.
For the last 40+ years, it seems like Hillary Rodham Clinton’ s career has been built on waiting for the other shoe to drop. What all is she off in, exactly?
She called young Black men “super-predators” who need to be brought to heel as First Lady of Arkansas and the U.S. She and Bill had some fishy Whitewater property deals.
She’s head of some foundation that takes money from rival and even terrorist-friendly nations. And then there’s this Benghazi and careless email business as Secretary of State…
I can even disregard her drinking from the “birther” wells in the 2008 campaign, and her routinely dead friends. The thing is, all this stuff has taken place before she even gets elected President!
It’s not a coincidence that an obscure Senator with a Negro dialect was able to defeat a former First Lady and Senator in the primaries. Voters didn’t know him that well. They knew Hillary all too well then. That’s why she’s not blasting her opponent out of the water now.
It took a lot of assassinations and social upheaval to get Richard Milhous Nixon into the Presidency. What will be Hillary Rodham Clinton’s cost?
And if the best line of defense for her is “At least she’s not HIM”… well, that says a lot about her supporters, who’d throw in with just about anybody under those auspices.
This is the first time since I was able to vote in 1994 that I have yet to find a compelling reason to vote for a major Presidential candidate.
On the one hand, at least you know what you’re getting with the guy… for better or for worse, With her, you just don’t know, period.
Imagine a guy sitting in a bar at closing time. It’s him and two other women left; everybody else has went home. The lights are on, and the staff is cleaning up.
He talked to the two women earlier that night, but there was no spark there. Besides, neither of them have a very good reputation.
But it’s closing time, and the bouncer is ordering all three of them out. Finally, he chats with one of the women. As his cab pulls up, she gets in it with him, and they leave.
The next morning, he wakes up next to his… choice. She ain’t easy to look at, and she acts a bit odd, but he plays nice as she gets dressed to leave. They promise to keep in touch.
As her friend drives up to get her, he stands in the door, shaking his head. “Oh, well”, he sighs. “Either her or that junkie. I had to go home with somebody…”
“I had to go home with somebody…”
Now, most guys would only mention a really bad hook-up as a war story or even a precautionary tale. Nobody in their right mind would brag about it.
It shows how hard-up they are. After all, only bona fide losers settle for the lesser of two evils, especially in a scenario like the bar scene.
Another reason is the fact that he didn’t have to go home with anybody. As I mentioned last blog, there is ALWAYS a third option, but he refused to even entertain it.
So this screw-up is all on him, and he knows it. He will not and should not expect any sympathy from people. He did what he wanted to; he just didn’t like the consequences.
That scenario plays out every single day somewhere on planet Earth. There’s always some thirsty guy going home with the last thing available to him. But he knows not to brag.
And yet, there are college-educated, six-figure-making, two-car-owning, big-house dwelling people in America who not only settle, but are f*cking proud of it.
Why would a person proudly boast of picking the lesser of two evils to preside over the United States of America? And even worse, why would people applaud such a thing?
If the bottom line on selecting a candidate is “she’s a b!tch, but he’s a d!ck” or vice versa, that is nothing to brag about. It’s pitiful and embarrassing.
I give anybody one time to admit to their spouse that they were chosen as the lesser of two evils, or that they got together because one of them just had to go home with somebody.
I only say once, because I guarantee there won’t be a second chance to do it.
Next time: “Uninformed/Low-Information” Voters.
(Note: Since Volume Six will begin in the middle of a Presidential Election season, the first four Chapters will focus on the four sayings I hear, and loathe, the most during such times. Chapter Four will be posted the weekend before Election Day.)
If you go by these polls out here, the two main Presidential candidates have the lowest credibility and trustworthiness scores ever recorded. Nonetheless, you have people in the two candidates’ parties relentlessly urging undecided voters to pick their pick.
With such low-rated contenders, it only makes sense that it would not only be a tight race, but it would be one where people refuse to just throw in with a questionable candidate. Undecided voters are now the target of party loyalists, and this, in my view, is wrong.
One popular plot used is the allegation that “a vote for X is a vote against/for A”. One should keep several things in mind when they hear that. First and foremost, consider the source. Look at the person saying that. Chances are, it’s a party whore.
We all know people who kick up dust for some newfangled person running under their banner, fancying themselves as revolutionaries.But when the new idol is defeated by a party mainstay, they then throw in with whoever the party’s nominee is.
They NEVER support fringe candidates if they run as independents, only if they join their club. Yet here they are, laying up with whoever their party laid down beside them, and they have the nerve to shame somebody who won’t do the same?
That comes back around to independent, or as they’re sometimes called, protest votes. Both major political parties routinely insist they help their enemies. An independent vote is just that. It is NOT a vote for either of the two; it is against both.
I’ve voted independently because I didn’t like either of the two top candidates. I didn’t give a damn who won; I just didn’t want it said that I voted for either. And I didn’t. As a result, people I didn’t like won regardless, but I didn’t win or lose it for them.
I let it be known that I was against them both… by voting for somebody else. There have been cases where one of the two I refused to vote for turned out to do pretty good. In that case, I would vote for their re-election. Otherwise, I didn’t.
The good thing about voting independent is that you don’t have to jump in bed with a third party. You can just go out on a date and keep your clothes on, rather than just lay there and wait for the next piece. No pressures there.
It’s also worth noting that many of the “Big Two” platforms were originally proposed by independent politicians.
Voters have a right to select a third option- which is always available. Party whores just don’t like knowing somebody’s not as easy as they are. Some people would rather just say no to something than settle for anything, which bothers them.
Next up: “The Lesser of Two Evils”.
As of June 26, 2016, the only thing I knew about Grey’s Anatomy was that McDreamy was dead. I have never watched an episode of the show. Even after one of its stars, one Jesse Williams, gave his speech on the BET Awards, I don’t plan to.
I tend to forgo too much TV, and especially awards shows, at all costs. Greg Gutfeld accurately calls them funerals for the living. I only watched the BET Awards for the Prince tributes. But Williams stole the show.
His was the mandatory struggle speech every affluent Black person has given when accepting an award since 2009. He caught fire because he’s Whiter and better-looking than, say, Marc Lamont Hill or Steve Harvey. Sound familiar?
Well, a person created a petition to get Williams fired from Grey’s. The person who created it goes by the name of “Erin Smith”, and she accuses Williams of spewing “HATE SPEECH!” “But he doesn’t look like those other Black guys”, I bet she said.
An anonymous person petitioning to get somebody fired from a job over hate speech? And nobody stops to query about such a person? I’d want to know more about them than their target.
This… Erin cites another Grey’s actor, Isaiah Washington, being fired after using gay slurs against a gay co-star, T.R. Knight. He was using such language on the set of the show when Shonda Rimes, who created the show, dropped the hammer on him.
Williams was not on the Grey’s set when he gave what his supporters are calling a fiery speech. This does not involve Shonda Rimes, or even ABC, the network that airs the show. He gave the Official Negro Speech on Black Entertainment Television.
I’m all too aware that people like to use boycotts and petitions to supplant businesses, and especially other people. “Lets work together to cut each other’s throats!” is a good way to describe actions such as these. After all, that’s what it leads to.
Does it ever occur to people if an anonymous person can get others to help them get somebody fired, the same scenario can, and in this litigation and two-face era, will, happen to them? And what do these petition supporters know about this Erin?
I looked further into it, and the Facebook profile for this person has no friends, and only went up over the week after the Williams speech. Twitter gave some very interesting clues as to who came up with this petition.
Google “Twitter, Erin Smith, Grey’s Anatomy” and click on the one that talks about weenie dogs; THAT strikes me as somebody who’s just obsessed enough to take it to a level.
And the whole “HATE SPEECH!” thing… people that hate the things you say call it that. And these are people who sit on their @sses all day long looking for something to be offended by, whatever their ideology or politics may be.
Unlike, say, a body of publicly elected officials, just anybody can’t decide who’s on a TV show cast. Advertisers and sponsors weigh in heavily, but the ultimate call is that of the that is the network and/or show’s executives.
It takes some serious backlash to get somebody off the air or job (see Brandon Eicht, Alec Baldwin, etc.). Jesse Williams has caused no major outcry. Besides, Rimes has stated her stance: Williams is still on Grey’s- because she said so.
For what little people may know, this Erin may be some troll collecting names to create problems on their job, send malware to their computers, or worse. In other words, this could be a spiteful person using others’ own spite against them.
But again, nobody knows anything about this person. I would think if they are that offended by Williams’ words, they’d at least show their face to the people willing to reveal their identities to support them.
Of course, if a person is willing to put that much blind faith in such a shady plot to begin with, maybe it’s best to say whatever happens to them is brought on themselves.
Volume Six begins next time. Thank you all for reading.