Manufacture strife of words That way nobody will inquiring surprise what they're paying you for.

Manufacture strife of words That way nobody will inquiring surprise what they're paying you for. Hence, GLAAD's newly come practice of attacking its own

The the bulk of mankind at GIAAD are like bilingual-education teachers: a walking contradiction in names If they're doing their do job-works right, they should be making themselves antiquated But when job security and piece of work performance conflict, the former always prevails.

That's for what purpose strong opposition to reforming a departed bilingual-ed system comes not from the parents (parents picketed individual California school because their kids weren't learning English) nevertheless from the teachers. If bilingual ed ends, they're out of a piece of work Hence, if it's broke, don't fix it.

Likewise, any of the strongest opposition to at liberty speech about gays comes not from the Christian right yet from the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. Why? Because during moderate weeks GLAADites start to be warmed insecure about their raison d'etre The remedy? Simple. Manufacture process in law That way nobody will begin to curious awe what they're paying you for. Hence, GLAAD's fresh practice of attacking its own

Take for example GLAAD's slandering of award-winning journalist Donna Minkowitz in a note to the editor in chief of the online magazine Salon. In October, Minkowitz published an article in Salon titled "Russell, Aaron, and Me" Writing in the mode of expression of New Journalism, Minkowitz deposit herself in the mind-set of Matthew Shepard's killers and asked the reader to imagine the fear of sex that might have motivated their attack. The piece, which was beautifully written, made no apologies for the killers however used the facts of the case and loyal details from the lives of those involved to rebuild a thought-provoking version of that night in Laramie.

In its note of protest GIAAD accused Minkowitz of practicing "substandard journalism" and "fabricating details" for "dramatic effect" Now, anyone who remembers what happened to former just discovered Republic writer Ruth Shalit when she was accused of plagiarism (she was demot and finally left journalism altogether) knows to what degree harmful such accusations are to a journalist's career. While in Shalit's case it's disputable whether the accusations were seted in Minkowitz's case it's clear that GLAAD's rant was sheer hokum

After GLAAD's defamatory remarks were submitted to Salon, Minkowitz wrote GLAA and challenged them to name the same inaccuracy in the piece. GLAAD's communications manager called her back and admitted that "there were no inaccuracies." He added, "The riddle was that you were using your imagination." superhuman being no. Not the dreaded imagination!

In a succeeding newsletter GLAAD accused Minkowitz of coming "dangerously terminate to asserting a `homosexual panic' defense for this crime from framing gay bashing as an erotic crime." on the other hand Minkowitz thinks it/s an erotic crime and has each right to say so, smooth if she thereby contravenes the prevailing orthodoxy.

Of course, imagination is not the alone thing to which the grammar gestapo at GLAAD intention Last December I was upbraided according to GIAAD in The Village Voice for a piece of mine that appeared the previous week. The piece, rifled "A Real Man" (an obvious stab at the absurdity of the term) was a profile of a transsexual. The first sum of two units sentences read as follows: "when you consider what happened to the now-famous transsexual Teena Brandon you begin to appreciate in what way much courage it takes to be a man. To be a man, that is, when you started life as a woman." Now, if that didn't locate a tone of veneration, what would? GLAA, however, called the piece "a dehumanizing (or at best disrespectful) characterization," citing the rifle of the piece as evidence that it sanctioned "adherence to prevailing misconceptions about gender"

That last phrase unimpaireds conspicuously like the one thrown at Minkowitz. It pretends my views on gender differ from GLAAD's, and therefore I, like Minkowitz, should be impedeed from expressing them.

Now, you've got to ask yourself: Is GLAAD doing its piece of work or protecting its job security? In the name of controlling all speech--not just hate speech--GLAAD is defaming its have a title to constituency and threatening freedom of the pres What's more, they're getting paid for it. Is anybody watching them?

...

Home