Archive | MetroWeekly RSS feed for this section

Stonewalled – the LGBT serpent eats its own tail?

29 Sep
A shorter, less mean and funny, version of this was published yesterday at Breitbart.

Roland Emmerich

About a third of the way through Roland Emmerich’s moving, kind of brilliant movie Stonewall, which opened this weekend, a police detective investigating mob control of gay bars and human trafficking of underage teens, one of whom has turned up dead, asks a recalcitrant witness refusing to identify a killer, “What is it with you gays?  Are you all stupid.”

The reaction to this movie in some quarters, and the state of gay politics generally, suggest that the answer is probably yes.

Jeremy Irvine

Emmerich – who previously directed films like Independence Day, featuring uber-Aryan stars Will Smith and Harry Connick Jr. – is being denounced as a racist for having a midwestern white high school runaway (played by British actor Jeremy Irvine) be the star of his telling of the Stonewall riot that in 1969 ignited the current gay movement and was the catalyst of the first gay pride march in Manhattan in 1970.

PC gay leftovers have their assless chaps in a twist because they say Emmerich (who is gay) should have given the starring role to a black transsexual.  As the editor of the gay magazine 
Metroweekly Randy Shulman (a graduate of NYU’s art school and a prominent DC film and theater critic) concluded his list of sins of the movie: “And the renowned drag queen Marsha P. Johnson, one of the era’s most fascinating, important people, is given a tiny sliver of screen time.”  Mr. Shulman thinks Johnson is a character (played by actor Otoja Abit), who like Will Smith will reel them into the theaters.


Otaja Abit

Nigerian born Otaja Abit is good in the Johnson role,  that of one of the many transsexuals and prostitutes who started the riot at the mafia controlled Stonewall bar when the police raided it one too many times in the summer of 1969. One of the most fascinating things about Johnson’s depiction may be his resemblance to a defrocked Michelle Obama who has been forced to shop at Dress Barn.

Shulman, and the reviewers at the gay magazine The Advocate, and other enforcers of political correctness and coerced multiculturalism have instructed reviewers that they will be denounced as bigots if they don’t pan the movie, and many of them are.  Just as they would denounce someone who does not jail a Christian baker or fine a Christian florist as anti-gay, or as they would put a gym out of business for not allowing pre-op male-to-female transsexuals into the women’s locker room as anti-gay, or as, in the same issue of Metroweekly editor Sean Bugg denounces Dr. Ben Carson as a racist bigot because he thinks a President should have to swear to place the Constitution above Sharia Law.  The Sharia Law that ISIS is invoking to behead and lynch gays all over Syria and Iraq.  (As we’ve seen so often, Democrat hacks, including gay Democrat hacks, will use character assassination against someone like Ben Carson, who is not a sophisticated speaker, while deeply felching lawyerly liars like the Clintons, who give evasive answers parsing what the meaning of “is” is.)
Nick Sibilla
Marsha P. Johnson

The movie includes lots of information gay reviewers don’t even realize is there, like the interconnections between government regulation, bribery, the mob, and oppression of gays and limitations on their opportunities.  That doesn’t fit the simpleton parochial Democrat politics gays have been taught to parrot.   The gay liberation movement actually started because of opposition to business regulation (elaborated in a brilliant piece by Nick Sibilla, a writer at the free market public interest legal firm the Institute of Justice), in Stonewall regulations that made it illegal to serve alcohol to gays and other unseemly sorts, or to get a liquor license if you were gay.  In San Francisco, gay martyr Harvey Milk started out as a Goldwater Republican trying to end harassment of and denial of permits and licenses to gay businesses (Milk became a Democrat only when he decided that in San Francisco he couldn’t get elected and work on gay issues without putting together a coalition of people on the dole, unions, and tenants rights groups).  (Indeed, the recent gay marriage victory in the courts was occasioned by the so called Death Tax that Democrats favor.  A lesbian was being taxed out of the house she had lived in for decades when her partner died and left her her half of the house as an estate, the taxation for which only a legally married spouse has an exemption.)

Most of the characters depicted in Stonewall are effeminate, of color, poor, etc. There is one runaway from a rural white Indiana family and the story is told from his viewpoint. To claim drag queens, lesbians, transexuals, prostitutes and racial minorities were not represented is a lie. The function of the main character, Danny (played by Irvine), is to draw in a wider audience. The plight of a Puerto Rican transsexual hooker who has been on the street since before puberty because his single mom died of a drug overdose doesn’t engage or disturb most people as much as does a kid who is secretly dating the High School quarterback, with a loving baby sister, and a scholarship to college, who is tossed out by his family when they find out he is gay.  We’ve had movies exclusively about transsexuals of color before, like Paris is Burning, way back in 1990.  It made less than $4 million and had to get a government grant to even be made.  And very few people outside of the gay community have ever seen it (even though it is a fine film).

 Only PC lobotomies prevent the gay political class and its PR flaks from getting that.  Historically, one such transsexual of color, a Sylvia Rivera, was supposed to have thrown the first brick, and what has the PC crowd in a sling is that in this movie the cute white blond boy throws the first brick.  

Bryan Singer

It’s interesting that the other criticism of the movie by the PC crowd is that Emmerich depicts transsexual prostitutes and the mobsters who own the gay bars (and kidnap underage gay runaways disowned by their parents and force them into prostitution) as unseemly.  Apparently we are supposed to think that just because they fought back against police abuse they are idols to emulate.  Funnily enough, I don’t remember any of these gay critics getting outraged at another major gay director, X-Men director Bryan Singer, and reports that he regularly has pool parties at which underage blond twink teens are consumed like Absolut, and perhaps auditioned on the casting couch.  Apparently it is OK to sexually exploit a blond white boy from England or Indiana, but wrong to cast him as a star in a movie.

What we have here is the gay political class eating its own tail.  They’ve accepted the statist civil rights paradigm that has left so many African Americans and others in failed schools, unemployment, illiteracy and poverty.  They’ve decided “discrimination” – having preferences, making choices, grasping distinctions – is the original sin.  As a result no one can ever choose to associate with whom they wish, and all choices to be “exclusive,” including keeping men out of women’s rooms or preferring to marry someone of your own race or religion, deserve social ostracism if not incarceration.  (And there have already been problems within the gay community, as male-to-female transsexuals demand to be admitted to lesbian feminist events, like the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival, conflicting with “woman-born” women who don’t want transsexuals to be a central focus of their events.)

This version of civil rights hasn’t really worked for its original intended beneficiaries in Baltimore, Detroit, or Anacostia.  It may work better for gays, many of whom intend to be the bureaucrats and lawyers running the show.  It’s already producing a dumb-downed and boring gay political discourse.  Will gay ghetto poverty be far behind?

DC corporate media censoring news coverage of Libertarian candidates

17 Sep
It does seem like there is going to be a local DC media blackout of the Libertarians, by

WMAL — where most of the on air talent claim to be libertarian-leaning, but never mention any DC or Virginia Libertarian candidates, except to attack them the day after the election, as they did Robert Sarvis when he ran for Governor in 2013.  WMAL seems to have orders from its corporate owners to push Cuccinelli, Gillespie and Catania and never mention or interview Libertarians.  Is it a Republican thing or do they just like Italians?
Washington City Paper – ran a long article when we only had three candidates recruited, perhaps mainly so they could say Libertarians are all nerdy white guys.  Now that we have 9 candidates, including black and brown and gay and female candidates, they don’t cover them much, especially any Libertarian candidate of color;
The Washington Post – where pretty much every reporter except Michael DeBonis reports that there are are only 3 candidates (including my friend Carol Schwartz who has little chance of being elected), and occasionally even mentions the Green Party candidate, but have stopped mentioning Libertarians especially me.
(The gay press, MetroWeekly and the Washington Blade, are covering us.  I believe the Washingtonian is going to as well.)

Of course, most local coverage is essentially sports coverage — who is up, who is down.  Or it’s just about who is white or black or gay or unmarried.  Nothing about ideas or policies.  These are the same people who never exposed any corruption in DC until Tim Day and other private citizens brought it to light.  Who have never looked at who donates hundreds of thousands to all our incumbents from Eleanor Holmes Norton down, and whether it correlates with committees they sit on and votes they take.

So, we have to raise money and bypass them.  We’ve distributed around 6,000 brochures and I just got another 4,000 door knockers on school choice that we will be going door to door with.  Our website goes live this week (if you don’t get a snail mail fundraising letter you can give there when it is up).
We will be campaigning mainly on 5 issue areas (vaguely in order of emphasis) :
1) radically expanded school choice to address DC’s failed schools.  DC currently budgets $29,000 per pupil for public school students, but only $17,000 for charter schools and even less for students who use an opportunity voucher to attend an independent school.  This is the subject of the door knocker we are distributing now.  We want voters to vote Libertarian to signal to the DC political class that they want unequal and discriminatory funding against charter schools to end.
2) refocusing criminal justice on real crime – people are being assaulted for appearing to be gay, for having an Iphone, etc. all over town – a libertarian just last week in NoMa – while DC prosecutes alleged prostitutes and other victimless crimes and sets up ticket trap surveillance cameras.  In addition DC residents who go to federal prison are shipped around the country where their relatives cannot find them (we have no local prison), and we have DC residents who cannot get jobs because of their criminal record for involvement in victimless crimes.
3) pointing out all the ways DC keeps people without law degrees from getting a job, starting a business, or becoming wealthy, by making it illegal for them to start a school, cook and sell food, braid hair, provide day care, etc. etc.
4) encouraging voters to vote for the marijuana legalization initiative, including people who are usually non-voters, and while they are at it voting Libertarian for candidates who would push that issue.
5) calling for an end to DC policies that restrict the supply of housing, driving up rents and causing homelessness, including limiting the height of buildings (so the city is filled up with 10 story buildings to meet our growing housing demand, since no once can build a 40 or 50 story one) and regulating owners of smaller multi-unit buildings with moderately priced apartments so that they sell out to condo and apartment developers and leave the DC market to invest in Virginia.
If we end up getting more donations this month we may do internet and radio ads, as well as more door knockers.  We will also be doing more substantial responses to and alternatives to the welcome platforms some of the other candidates have finally put out.
As always, the dollars per vote spent by Libertarians will be far less and far more efficient than the incumbent candidates.  They’ve already spent $4 million, which means they’ve already spent way over $10 per vote, which is even more than Democrats and Republicans usually spend (often around $3 per vote).  Libertarians typically spend less than $1 per vote, since we don’t receive corporate, union, or PAC donations.

Gay Liberal Democratic group crows that it gets instant IRS approval of its 501c3 status

28 Oct
Groups critical of the Obama regime get IRS harassment and delays, but those supportive crow they get instant approval.  Here’s Sean Bugg on LinkedIn!

Sean BuggSean Bugg 
nextgeneration.jpgThe Next Generation Leadership Foundation (NGLF) is dedicated to inspiring, nurturing and mentoring LGBT youth and young adults, creating spaces for them to lead in a variety of fields, from business to politics to activism to arts.
NGLF achieves these goals through directly honoring achievements of LGBT people under 30, building a network of Next Generation Award winners to mentor and teach others, and organizing leadership-training events for interested and qualified applicants.

Mr. Bugg is a publisher of the leftist Democratic magazine and website Metroweekly, in which one will have great difficulty finding any significant criticism of any Democrat, or anything other than attacks on anyone from any other political party.  Indeed, if memory serves, if you go through the archives of Mr. Bugg’s own columns you will find him rationalizing, excusing and defending President Obama when he fails to deliver on gay issues.
I attended the awards ceremony for the Foundation last year.  It was a room full of people who work for the government and Democratic Party groups and allied non-profits.  I would suspect about 3 people there were something other than Democrats.  The award winners were diverse by race and sex but all basically worked for the kind of government funded non-profits Democratic campaign workers are parked in to collect a salary in between campaigns.

For instance Ms. Victoria Kirby, a 2011 winner interviewed by Bugg’s own Metroweekly.  Where does she work?  Obama’s Organizing for Action:

Victoria Kirby is also doing her part to support the foundation. This 2011 Next Generation Award winner, now based in Tampa, Fla., as state coordinator of Organizing for Action, has joined on as one of Bugg’s board members.

“I’m really excited about this,” says Kirby. “I think it’s a great idea. When you look at the programs available for people in our community, it’s needed.”

While Kirby grants there are a number of organizations running programs aimed at guiding young LGBT people, she believes the Next Generation Leadership Foundation is unique with its emphasis on mentoring across a range of fields. Similarly, Bugg emphasizes that he wanted to ensure the NGLF mission would not duplicate any work already being done.

“Having programs where people can see role models is very important,” Kirby says of the foundation’s efforts. “It’s important we raise leaders who feel comfortable in their own skin.”

“I’m very proud of Sean for making this jump,” adds Kirby, 26, building up to the pitch that shows she has board-member acumen beyond her years. “I’m excited about the idea, making the camp a reality. I’d encourage readers to give, open their pocketbooks and hearts to young people being trained and empowered to truly become the leaders of the next generation of our community.”

For more about the Next Generation Leadership Foundation, visit

Gay DC tires of Obama duplicity

23 Jun
Obama, like most Democrats, has been tapping the GayTM and taking two thirds or more of the gay vote, while not delivering much more than Bush.  He didn’t campaign to stop the North Carolina anti gay marriage constitutional amendment last year, nor did he campaign against California’s Prop 8 when running for office in 2008.  The repeal of DADT was forced on him (Democrats were trying to keep the ban on gays in the military alive as long as possible as a wedge and fundraising issue), until the courts, in a law suit largely sustained by Log Cabin Republicans, was about to overturn the ban.

Now Obama is not issuing an executive order to ban discrimination among federal contractors.  Though I’m sensitive to the beliefs and rights to freedom of association of people who go into business and then find the government has so monopolized their markets it is the main customer, I still favor this executive order (for government contractors only).

Of course the gay political establishment wants the right to enforce quotas and other regulations on all private associations where employment is offered.  My suspicion, given that most Fortune 500 companies have banned employment discrimination, is that the government sector may be worse on this issue than the private sector, and that the private sector is also experiencing more change.  Making all private employers equally gay friendly of course eradicates market signals.  High tech firms and others that are particularly inclusive, and that innovate ways of being inclusive and doing outreach that their competitors and government regulators have never dreamed of, may be reaping rewards in acquiring a superior talent pool.  Government regulation will prevent that, ending salutary evolution of better business practices.

Here’s Sean Bugg in MetroWeekly, both the stereotypes of off the shelf gay mainstream so called “progressivism”:


We all have our rhetorical tics and tricks. For example, mine include the excessive use of clauses such as ”however,” ”actually” and ”for example.” I also tend to spend the first couple paragraphs of any column making jokes and references that are only tangentially related to the subject I’m writing about.

However, that’s no guarantee the jokes will be funny.
President Obama speaks at LGBT Pride reception
President Obama speaks at LGBT Pride reception
(Photo by Todd Franson/Metro Weekly)
I was reminded of this last week when President Obama spoke at the White House’s annualLGBT Pride reception. The president’s verbal tics are as well known as old Saturday Night Live catchphrases — every time he says ”Let me be clear,” someone might as well call out, ”More cowbell!”
But Obama’s particular rhetorical trick with the LGBT community is his repeated urging for us not to be patient, followed by declaring that he won’t do the thing we’ve been impatiently asking him to do — in this case, to sign an executive order requiring federal contractors to have nondiscrimination policies that include LGBT employees. This is not a big ask for our community. The president clearly has the authority. He has explicitly said that executive action is an important and necessary part of advancing LGBT and other civil rights issues. He promised to do so when he was running for his first term.
Yet here were are in 2013 and he simply refuses to do it.
The official White House line is that he wants to pursue a legislative strategy, which is why Obama mentioned the legislative repeal of ”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” back at the end of 2010. Of course, that molasses-paced legislative process resulted in a lame-duck nail-biter that barely squeaked through before Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) got enough votes to recklessly abuse the filibuster.
The idea that we should be putting our sole hope in a legislative strategy for a transgender-inclusive ENDA – in a Senate that threatened to scuttle immigration reform that even Republicans admit is crucial to their long-term survival as a political party over the inclusion of gay couples – is simply ludicrous. And that’s even before we get to the Republican mad dog caucus in the House.
There is a two-pronged approach to take here: an executive order that reinforces and grows protections for thousands of LGBT employees across the nation, while helping to build increased support for ENDA by demonstrating the positive effect (or lack of negative effect) in the many, many congressional districts that represent federal contractors.
Yet the president insists on pursuing a one-pronged approach, even as that one-prong is the least likely to succeed given the Republican recalcitrance and control on the Hill. It really makes no sense. If there is a logical reason for Obama to not sign an executive order that he previously promised to sign and that fits within his own stated approach to civil rights, someone at the White House needs to explain it. Brushing off inquiries by referring to the ”hypothetical executive order,” as spokesmen have done, doesn’t cut it. Jay Carney rotely repeating that the president believes in pursuing a legislative strategy on ENDA has become insulting.
And President Obama standing before a roomful of LGBT people, telling them not to be patient and then citing DADT repeal as a model for ENDA is, frankly, a finger in the eye.
For a president who has undeniably done so much for LGBT equality, these rhetorical tics and tricks are maddening, and the political strategy on ENDA indecipherable. He needs to explain why he’s chosen only one option when he can pursue two. Or he needs to bite the bullet and sign the executive order.
Actually, I’m getting awfully damn impatient.
Sean Bugg is the co-publisher of Metro Weekly. He can be reached at Follow him on Twitter @seanbugg.