Archive for ‘Jamie Kirchick’

July 16, 2009

"Megan McCain — and you can quote me — is less attractive than Jamie Kirchick"

Yeah, I know Smitty’s already taken a whack at this particular pinata, but it was the New Republic‘s Jamie Kirchick — my favorite gay Jewish writer — who conducted the Out magazine interview, and since she’s kinfolk, I figure I deserve a few whacks of my own.

And, unlike Meghan, Jamie is attractive. This I state as a journalist describing an objective fact since, as a married father of six, my hetero bona fides are beyond reproach. (Ignore that legion of online amateur psychologists shouting “overcompensation!”)

“Does it sound campy to say I love gay men?” says Meghan in typical fag-hag fashion, since this is the only way she has of getting affection from men.

What Meghan does not fully comprehend is the special contempt that exists within gay male culture for such desperate female hangers-on otherwise known as fish. Very simple questions, Meg:

  • If they actually like women, why are they gay?
  • What makes you think you are the exception to the rule?

Lesbian culture is more honest. Lesbians don’t hesitate to identify men as the enemy. Some are more tolerant than others, but there is no analog in lesbian culture for the fag hag. You don’t see straight guys “hanging out” with their lesbian friends. The straight guy who walks into a dyke bar is an unwelcome presence, and may be asked to leave.

Women hanging around the gay disco, however, is a very familar phenomenon. And the belief of some women that they have a special friendship with their gay male friends is a myth.

Let me disabuse you ladies of your naivete: A reasonably attractive young gay man has no problem getting with two or three guys a night. And that’s if he’s really picky. (Read And The Band Played On, by Randy Shilts.) So when some lonely, frustrated woman wants to hang around with gay guys because it’s the only male companionship she can get, she is recognized for the truly pathetic loser she is.

Show of hands: Who thinks Meghan McCain has the slightest inkling of the things her gay “friends” say behind her back?

Uh, I’m guessing Jamie Kirchick didn’t raise his hand. In this, as in everything else, Meghan is clueless. And it is her cluelessness, nearly as much as her bitchy desperation, that makes her so unattractive. Look at this:

“Homophobia is the last socially accepted prejudice,” McCain says, repeating it for emphasis.

It’s not true. It’s just a politically correct slogan, dependent on a dubious pseudoscientific term, “homophobia.” Grant that there are genuinely intolerant people in the world, in what sense does opposition to a political agenda — and her support for same-sex marriage is the chief topic of the interview — constitute a “phobia,” an irrational pathology?

And if homophobia (whatever that means) is so “socially acceptable,” then why did Ann Coulter get raked over the coals for calling John Edwards a “faggot”? Coulter was actually making reference to a celebrity imbroglio involving the cast of Grey’s Anatomy, and defended herself: “I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.”

Still, even though liberals have spent years calling Coulter a “tranny” — which is “socially acceptable” as a putdown, because they’re liberal and she’s not — even though there is zero evidence that she is actually hostile to homosexuals, merely by saying the word “faggot” out loud, she was deemed worthy of banishment from the CPAC main stage.

Yet Meghan thought her little slogan was so important she repeated it for emphasis, so that the actual meaning was clear: “Like me! Please like me!”

Desperation, see? She’s like one of these ridiculous white liberals who parade around denouncing racism as if the act of denunciation were in itself proof of moral superiority — and proving their moral superiority is the entire purpose of such exercises.

In the end, we can only imagine the ironic thoughts that Kirchick pondered after his interview with Megan. Here he is, denied the right to marry a man. And there is Megan, who has that right — but not a man on earth is interested in marrying her.

What a waste, eh, Jamie?

June 3, 2009

Thank you, Jamie Kirchick

The Religious Right Didn’t Kill George Tiller

Jamie is gay. Jamie is a Democrat. But Jamie isn’t one of those crazy dingbat leftists who revel in comparing “Christianists” to al-Qaeda.

Thanks, Jamie. You are owed beers.

November 23, 2008

Impotent Netroots deny impotence

Jamie Kirchick in the New York Daily News:

Barack Obama isn’t even President yet, and he’s already angering some of his most devoted followers on the party’s left wing. This is the mark of what could be a very successful presidency.
“With its congressional majority, the Democratic Party has refused to seriously try to end the war, to stop the bailout and to stop the trampling of civil liberties, just to name a few off the top of my head,” wrote David Sirota on the popular liberal blog OpenLeft, decrying the serial betrayals of Obama and the congressional Democratic majority. The Democratic Party, he wrote, has “faced no real retribution” for its manifold heresies, something that Sirota believes he and his band of angry bloggers must change. “We better understand why this happened,” he fumed.
Allow me to provide an answer. You don’t matter.

Kirchick goes on to detail the failure of left-wing bloggers to force Senate Democrats to punish their longtime nemesis, Sen. Joe Lieberman, for his support of Republican John McCain. This is evidence, Kirchick says, “that the leadership of the Democratic Party isn’t as petty, vindictive and small as its left-wing supporters.”

Naturally, the “petty, vindictive and small” bloggers are angry — at Kirchick. So what do they do? Gay-baiting:

He’d be a classic Uncle Tom is he was African-American. Instead he’s a very unhappy gay wingnut, a sad species indeed, forever obsessed with trying to justify his pitiful existence.

That’s from a left-wing blogger whose post is headlined, “Jamie Kirchick Poops His Panties Because He Wants Attention.” Exactly how is Kirchick’s sexuality related to the topic at hand? Not at all. But this is how the Netroots operate, lashing out venomously at anyone who criticizes or opposes them. Tomorrow, they’ll be back to bashing conservatives as “homophobes,” without irony.

(Cross-posted at AmSpecBlog.)