Wednesday, 21 August 2013

The Gay Right: Whose Side Are You On?

This video has - as they say - gone "viral".
Unfeasibly right-wing gay Neocon Jamie Kirchick goes on Russia Today to talk about Bradley Manning's sentencing; "I'm not really interested in talking about Bradley Manning..."
Who knew? *
So what does our little Homocon want to talk about?
He launches into a hysterical, poorly informed - or rather willfully misinformed - rant about; "The horrific environment of homophobia in Russia right now...."
Much of the gay media are declaring him a "hero" - Kirchick that is, not Manning, obviously.
What? For wearing a pair of rainbow braces on TV!
Again, ask yourself why this issue is so animating the gay right - who here literally ignore what a great injustice their own beloved country has done to a gay man like Bradley Manning, to rant about Uncle Sam's mortal enemy, Russia?
Only the deeply indoctrinated could see this right-wing hijack as something to celebrate.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you thought control in a democratic society in action!

> saying they lie about USA. And @cnn">@cnn> does not lie about Russia?!— Nikolai Alexeyev (@n_alexeyev) August">">August 22, 2013

* Here Kerching argues the "traitor" Manning should fry in an electric chair. Which is nice.
Here's a panel debate on the boycott from Russia Today.
(Kirchick, laughably, claims RT has ignored this topic).
Against? A man from the Russian LGBT Sports Federation, a British gay journalist who lives in Russia, and two other Russian people who actually know what's happening in, err, Russia.
And for a boycott? Reactionary British lesbigot, Julie Bindel!
You really couldn't make it up.

Update: And finally... Eddie Mair takes on the architect of much of Russia's recent anti-gay laws, Vitaly Milonov. That's the way to do it etc etc. Listen here. 


  1. Dear Fagburn,

    You're awesome.


    Chase Madar

  2. Re:

    No surprise, given how Lawrence O'Donnell has carried on.

    In the past, he has called Ron and Rand Paul liars. On his show of this past evening, O'Donnell uncritically applauds James Kirchick, who falsely said that RT hasn't covered LGBT matters.

    When it became clear what Kirchick was doing, the RT host should've promptly said: excuse me, followed by what is appropriate. At that point, Kirchick would've babbled on. The host could've then lowered K's microphone and say something like: Mr. Kirchick, I lowered your microphone because you're rambling on in an off topic and inaccurate manner. RT has covered the LGBT subject you brought up. We aren't covering that right now. You're aware of this. If you can't stick to the intended subject in a civil way, you'll be given the boot.
    Kirchick would have likely babbled on, prompting a well justified boot. The host could have then safely stated a prediction that Kirchick would suggestively present himself as some kind of hero - with follow-up kudos Tweets from elements within the neocon-neolib leaning commentariat. For a seasoned media observer, this correct prediction takes into account a predictable manner.
    RT more resembles American mass media TV news than some think. The show in question essentially pandered to Kirchick. In contrast, I recall another RT segment when Nebojsa Malic was repeatedly interrupted by the host, even though Malic was staying on topic - much unlike Kirchick's stunt.
    Kirchick's exhibited manner is somewhat akin to the ice hockey cheap shot player, whose antics are passively accepted by the home team.
    A Russian gay activist with a different view from Kirchick:
    Michael Averko -

  3. I wonder how long, say, Jeremy Paxman would have let JK carry on his tirade?

    1. I watch RT now and again. Their biggest flaw is that many of their presenters are terrible and don't seem to know how to do their job.

  4. That Wentworth Miller letter is doing the rounds now, too.
    No one seems to have noticed the irony of a man who couldn't come out publicly until he was 41 and when his career as an actor was effectively over, commenting on Russia as a place where gay people can't live and love openly.
    And Smugtwit just tweeted citing him as an example of someone who came out without it affecting his career. Er, he only came out yesterday. And, even more hilariously, as someone who has put the gay community and principle before career and personal gain.
    I'm glad Miller came out, though. I do like him.

    This whole saga just gets more and more depressing.

    1. Miller lived openly, he just kept his private life private. Just as Anderson Cooper did for many years. He wasn't "in the closet," he just preferred not to be a publicity whore like Kim Kardashian.

    2. Miller was the obvious subject of several blind items doing the round years ago about how he wanted to come out but "his people" kept strongly advising against it.
      I don't think any celebrity *needs* to come out and I defended Cooper, for a long time before he came out, against the usual accusations about him being closeted.
      But the defence that they both wanted to keep their private lives private is nonsense - both have spoken about very private things, I think. In fact, I'm pretty sure Cooper spoke a lot about his brother, his mother, his childhood and much else besides. It was just their sexuality that they chose not to talk about for clear reasons.
      The issue with Miller is that he's finally chosen to come out in a letter condemning another society as somewhere that gay people cannot live and love openly.
      There's a huge irony there.