The NY POST's GAY delight in McGregor's Bulge

McGregor's bulge is not a hill in Ireland.

It's an obsession with the New York Post.

Like so:

Yes, over a dozen pictures of this lunatic, carefully chosen by some gay staffer, to show off McGregor's package. The fight with Mayweather? Not important. Going through photo files to find BULGE pictures? VITAL.

Vital to attracting a gay audience to the New York Post's website.

The New York Post is supposed to be a NEWSPAPER. It's supposed to publish NEWS.

But now that sales on the newsstand are down, and more and more people ride to work surfing the Net, they're BEEFING up their online content. With INFOTAINMENT. Very GAY infotainment.

"Not that there's anything wrong with that." Or is it? One must applaud the NY Post for hiring gays and putting them in power positions to play the gay card. This is no different than pushing a Black columnist at the NY Daily News (Shaun King) when there are no columns especially for Asian, Jewish or even Muslim readers.

But...there used to be a phrase called "prurient interest." It was a definition of obscenity. If somebody is showing you "prurient" images, designed to call your attention to things you wouldn't normally be looking at, that's "obscene." Put it this way, probably 90% of the Post's audience weren't thinking, "Gee, what I'd really like is to look at some MMA fighter's junk." The "in yer face" NY Post does it anyway, even if it's not NEWS.

Yes, we see endless rear-end pictures of fat ass Kardashian, and the tabloids routinely run "wardrobe malfunctions" and talk about how Katy "rocks" a bikini or some Jenner or other is "showing lots of skin." But it's usually NEWS of some kind. That's what female celebs do. They go to an event, wear (or nearly wear) something, and count on the NEWSpapers to run photos.

McGregor was not expecting some gay guy at the Post to cull through every press conference and check every angle, to find the most lurid pictures of him showing what might be McGregor and might be mostly jockstrap or protective cup. This is quite different from those "ooh, isn't he cut" beach pictures of Justin Bieber or some other idiot. I mean, there's gay in small letters and GAY in capitals. There's stuff you don't want to see, and stuff you REALLY DON'T WANT TO SEE.

Meanwhile, over at the NY Daily News, Shaun King was probably sulking, "They didn't check through the files and look for pictures of Mayweather's junk?"

As for the before and after pix of Bruce and Caitlyn, "let's not go there, artificial girlfriend."

(This post is intended, in part, for the minority who appreciate things that are Politically Incorrect, and are offended by people constantly being offended.)

Charlie Hebdo says GOOD, The Houston Flood Killed Texas NAZIS

Oh, Les Provocateurs! Sapristi!

The latest issue of Charlie Hebdo offers a picture of the flood victims in Houston. Their take? Texas is 100% rednecks. They're all a bunch of Nazis.

The translation on their cover cartoon on the Tropical Storm Harvey disaster: "GOD EXISTS! He Drowned All The Neo-Nazis of Texas."

Here are some of those NEO-NAZIS:

We don't have a complete list of the dozens of people who were swept away in flash floods, or drowned trying to save others. My guess is that very few even looked like "rednecks."

We all know that it's common to splash hatred with a very broad brush. "The French are all a bunch of cowards" for example. It's easy enough to say, "The South is loaded with Nazis and KKK members." Saying it in a moment of anger is one thing, but putting into print, and pretending it's "satire?"

This comes from a magazine that had more than a few antiSemitic cartoonists. SINE (Maurice Sinet) was openly hateful toward Jews. This would tend to make him...A NAZI. He once said: "Yes, I am anti-Semitic and I am not scared to admit it...I want all Jews to live in fear, unless they are pro-Palestinian. Let them die."

Mr. Sinet had a regular column in, yes, CHARLIE HEBDO. He spread his anti-Semitic "satire" there, too, offering snide jokes about Jean Sarkozy (son of the French President) marrying a Jew, and therefore, converting to Judaism.

Sapristi! Charlie Hebdo has regularly made fun of Jews and Arabs alike. They've had their trademark badly-drawn cartoons include jabs at both religions.

I once discussed "bad taste" and "forbidden" humor with Steve Allen. I said, "Is there anything you can't make fun of?" And he said, "No. You can always find a way to joke about something. The question is whether to tell that joke."

Nobody told jokes when the Charlie Hebdo office was bombed by Islamic fundamentalists and members of their staff were killed.

How "Freedom of Speech" Led to Racist Children's Book Insanity

People scream "Freedom of Speech" over plagiarism, stealing and copying, and just about anything you can do on the Internet. The Internet has become the brat heaven for "BECAUSE WE CAN!" Nyaaa nyaaaa.

People who wouldn't dare attempt their stunts in front of actual Blacks or Jews, and wouldn't dare admit to Brian Wilson they are giving away every Beach Boys album on a blog, and wouldn't ask Emma Watson to sign a gangbang Photoshop job they are giggling over on 4Chan or selling on eBay, are happy with their anonymous pranks on the Internet.

Here's another recent example of how low it can go (as if leaking some woman's nude selfies or putting a camcorder into the peephole of a female celebrity's hotel room isn't low enough). It involves a frog named Pepe.

Frankly, and frogly, I haven't delved into the whole story of Pepe, but you can find it elsewhere. Basically, unlike the usual humor of parodying a famous character via rude words or Photoshop antics, Eric Hauser swiped the frog character created by Matt Furie and used it for alt-right racism. As reported at the Huffity-Puffity Post, which is much more clever about plagiarizing news articles and regurgitating them as commentary:

Yes, it's nice that a copyright owner can get justice. What's NOT nice, is that copyright owners have to go through a lot of legal expense, or a tedious amount of hours of hoops to get anyone to cease and desist on the Internet. Google, Paypal and most file-sharing services will insist you fill out THEIR forms, give up all privacy (to prove you are a rights owner), and then wait till they're good and ready to remove the illegal content. They might, additionally, float your takedown request onto the Internet so all can see who "ruined the fun," and give your contact information to the anonymous asshole who was abusing your work.

Key words in this piece include 4CHAN and INSTAGRAM and REDDIT. To say nothing of even more insidious and obnoxious outfits operating from the safety of Croatia, Ukraine, Russia and other Communist countries that love to give away American products for free. The "BECAUSE WE CAN" bunch thrive because of insanely weak laws regarding the Internet. It isn't just "irksome" that some assholes want to give away every album, TV show, movie or book. It's destroying the economy (like climate change, only morons would insist that bookstores and record stores haven't gone under and that artists haven't seen piss poor royalty checks). The bullies of the world, including Google, YouTube, Paypal, Ebay, Reddit, Instagram and Facebook have relied on "they're trying to regulate the Internet, they're trying to TAKE AWAY YOUR FREEDOM" as an excuse for blatantly illegal, racist and vicious activity. And all they're bitching about is having to enforce DMCA Takedown requests, not actually patrol and take preemptive measures.

What's needed is much more direct "red flag" and "report item" and "report abuse" prompts on websites, that websites take the reports seriously (and not say "we don't see a violation" or "tell the copyright owner to file"). If somebody is doing something obviously illegal, like bragging about using Zippysharee to give away every Neil Young album, demand proof that this person has an agreement with Neil Young to do it, don't expect Neil Young to file a report and give his name address and phone number to verify who he is. In other words, have a human brain, not a frog's.

Piers Morgan, the Asshole Who Can't Say ARSE

The Daily News reported today that most everyone is happy Piers Morgan, the noted provocateur and tabloid newspaper editor, fell and broke three ribs.

The story quoted a Tweet in which Piers said he fell on his "a**e." Which had me briefly wondering WHAT the ASS-terisks were hiding. Ah. He's British. It must be ARSE.

The weird world of MEDIA spins interests me. I'm also baffled by the strange ways in which we are tremendously permissive in showing Kardashian's ass or ogling Hadid's chest or checking out Bieber's dick...but at the same time cringing and bowing to anyone "offended" by mere words.

How is it that the Internet is free to let even 8 year-olds see all the porn they want, and all the racist and rotten (dot com) pictures of cruelty and sadism and Sharon Tate morgue pictures and beheading videos...and yet everyone goes into a rage because somebody wants to remove a statue of Robert E. Lee because mindless rednecks use it to recruit more Nazis into their secret basement hate-parties.

So, did the Daily News actually censor the word ARSE or did Piers Morgan do it?

Backtracking through Twitter:

Morgan did it. Piers Morgan self-censored himself! Didn't this guy work for a newspaper that routinely published topless pictures of the Woman of the Day? Now he's afraid to use a word that AUDREY HEPBURN spoke in "My Fair Lady" over FIFTY years ago? ARSE is on the "No No" list?

I can understand the Daily News censoring CUNT. The Twitter user who called Morgan a CUNT ended up calling him a C**T according to the Daily News. Naive readers might have thought, "Oh, Morgan is a Colt?" I've been watching the slow-but-sure censoring of various mild epithets. The media is often prone to censor "The B Word." It would OFFEND feminists to say BITCH, which is simply used to connote an obnoxious or barking mad or evil woman who is behaving like a female dog? The media is creating an alphabet of euphemisms, as various groups growl and grind their teeth over what OFFENDS them. We're going to run out of initials. We've got "The C Word" and "The F Bomb" and the "N" word and the "S" word, and many have added "The B Word" and the "A Word" (ass or arse) and hey, we already are having duplication. "The F Word" in some contexts, is FAG not FUCK. There's "The P Word" that sometimes is disallowed even when talking about a cat. And on it goes. Somehow, the same media that doesn't think twice, and doesn't think at all, about showing a burn victim, a beheading, and almost any act of cruelty on the front page (with no spoiler alert for those having lunch) a simple word like "arse" is censored because it might upset somebody.

There's still a lot of confusion. Conan O'Brien on WTBS, can say SHIT but not FUCK. The latter is censored. This recalls the old Lenny Bruce gag that Priests and Rabbis have a different take on these two words. SHIT is ok, because both the Priest and Rabbi shit. But only ONE of them FUCKS.

Rolling Stone: Pro Gay, Muslim-Correct and Tolerant of Piracy

Over at Roiling Scone, run by the once-straight Jann Wenner, you come to expect a certain tinge of gayness. Why else do you put that awfully cute Muslim terrorist on the cover? The one who merely blew up the Boston Marathon and knocked the legs off children?

Remember that one? He's sooooooo cuuuuuuuute. Isn't he, Jann?

You remember the Scone. It's the magazine that once put Lennon on the cover in a fiery interview that included a slam at Mick Jagger for his "faggot dancing." Now? Now, some covers look more like the mag is aimed solely at gays and a few swooning teenage girls:

A few issues ago, the cover boy was hunky handsome Trudeau, the Prime Minister of Canada. Jann Wenner swooned, "Why can't we have HIM as President?" Because, uh, he's CANADIAN? Nevermind, he's sooooo cuuuuuute. Isn't he, Jann?

Scone's website trumpeted four important articles you should click to read. One was a gushy drag-queenish gawk at Taylor Swift, another was something aimed at kiddie nerds who love "Game Of Thrones" and "Yasss Queens." Then there was the spectacle of two men stripped to their boxer shorts, and a piece of transsexuals. Gosh, Jann....this doesn't seem like ROLLING STONE does it? In every issue, the magazine harks back to point out how important it used to be. One issue had a piece on Hunter Thompson. Could Hunter Thompson write for the magazine NOW? Not unless he had a sex change and called himself Cunter Thompson. Not unless he wrote about "Fear and Loathing at what Taylor Swift wore in her Video."

The Scone got all buttery about the McGregor-Mayweather fight, but not because it was a SPORTS event. Because it was a GAY event.

Here's the lead for the article:

WHAT the FUCK?

First off, props to Roiling Scone for letting go so many veteran writers, and making sure to play the race card and hire people with visibly ethnic names.

Seerat. Nice to know Rolling Stone is fearless in making sure that Isis doesn't blow up their office. As in: "We can't do that, Seerat works there! This magazine is on our side!"

But wait a minute, Seerat is talking about DICK.

IF I'M BEING HONEST, I didn't think a match-up between a young and powerful fighter with little boxing experience, and an old veteran known for defense, had anything to do with DICK SIZE. Call me straight, but when I watched the fight, I didn't ONCE think "Gee, I wonder who has the biggest dick." But SEERAT did. I thought the interest was in a 29 year-old so-called KO artist MMA fighter with no boxing experience vs a 40 year-old guy who hadn't KO'd anyone since 2011, was known for defence, and was retired for nearly two years.

It was really a DICK MEASURING contest? Seerat is either gay, or a hack who has a very boring idea about metaphors.

What was equally disturbing about Seerat's introduction was that it also condoned piracy.

Seerat begins his pointless after-fight ponderings by noting that everybody on the Internet saw the fight. Like that's a GOOD thing.

Roiling Scone, you may recall, once had a column where they featured piracy blogs. Yes, they actually did. They told people all about Tofu Hut and other places where you could download illegally. Scone kept doing it, until the record labels that advertise began to complain. So, Scone IS a bit soft on piracy because "we all like FREE."

Maybe Seerat thinks he'll always have a job at the Scone because the magazine will always exist online, even if piracy is forcing actual magazines to disappear from actual newsstands. No, I have news for you, Seerat, Scone will just be another hapless site like Decider, Newser, Cannibalizer, Paraphraser, Plagiarizer and GNU-Rights Stealer, struggling to get ad banner money.

Because content is easily pirated. Just like the Mcgregor-Mayweather fight.

Does the Scone really think that a mammoth bunch of people are going to go read Seerat's gay analysis of the fight, when they can read 500 other opinionated assholes at Huffington Post and on blogs? Or see a bunch of idiots posturing their video editorials on YouTube?

Maybe Roiling Scone is carving a niche hoping to get more and more gay readers. Talking about DICK SIZE and covering cutie-pie singers with no talent IS the one-direction they are taking.

It's a bit sad and ironic, that a magazine that thrived on Bob Dylan covers, and championing prog rock, now has almost NOTHING to do with that type of music. Maybe there's an article on Tom Petty now and then, or a review of the latest from Dylan, or a picture of McCartney or Ringo giving a thumbs up or a peace sign. But when it comes to promoting a new album from Procol Harum, or mentioning the Strawbs are in the studio, it's a big FUCK and YOU. It's more important what some rapper idiot does, or if Bieber took his shirt off again.

As Seinfeld would say: "Not that there's anything wrong with that." It's just that Rolling Stone was, and should remain, a magazine of REAL music and politics. There are plenty of gay magazines and teen magazines without Rolling Stone turning into something you'd expect Jimmy Savile to edit.

If some of the thousands who read my blog every day (!) think there's something anti-Muslim about this piece, fear not. Like Bill Maher, I don't single out one particular religion that happens to account for almost all the terrorist activity on the planet. And to offer you a polar opposite to be found in the very same Roiling Scone, I am VERY much against the moronic use of Yiddish expressions where they don't belong. Another feature article in the Scone was a silly and gay piece on what various people WORE at the VMA's and what moments were tongue-clucks or not. The opening paragraph included the words KVELL and KVETCH. WHY?

This is Rolling Stone, not Heeb. (That's a real magazine.) PS, Rob Sheffield, one of the GOOD young writers at Rolling Stone, wrote a separate article on the VMA's so this one with the KVETCH and KVELL was just badly written repetition.

Meanwhile, getting back to Seerat, if you want to read a sample of his dubious intellect and worthless opinion, here's a snippet, in which he gleefully discusses why YOU watched the fight. Maybe it's because you're a racist.

Lesser Known Moments from Broadway

You're not going to have a great success when the music and lyrics are by Leopold and Loeb.

The original story was based on a Bazooka Joe comic insert.

Mort spent most of the show with his hand against his jaw, which at least prevented the audience from hearing some of the dialogue.

Director Ray Charles never worked again.

Losing ten million, twenty million to piracy doesn't bother some people. So let's have MORE.

People don't know how to stop piracy but they know how to document it. Odd, huh?

Somehow, it's easy to discover all the ways the McGregor-Mayweather fight was pirated. NOBODY did anything about, and NOBODY is calling for stricter rules and punishment for violations of copyright. VARIETY has all the figures:

The message being sent is "We now accept piracy as a way of life. We have NO intention of trying to push through a bill such as SOPA or anything like it. Like roach parts in the peanut butter, or the fact that in an urban city breathing the air is like smoking two packs of cigarettes a day, we ARE COOL WITH IT.

Besides, piracy only affects, what, movie theaters, mom and pop bookstores and record stores, libraries, actors and actresses, writers, singers, athletes...

The rationalization is clear enough. We've got plenty of people paying $99 for a PPV fight. People can brag about paying for a fight and leaking it to Periscope or Facebook or Twitter. It's like sharks swiveling through the ocean with lampreys sucking their bellies. And so what if Communist websites make more money via piracy and that money goes to charmers like Putin or Kim Jung-Un. "Balance of power" is too complicated. Just think, "I got to seeeeee the fight for freeeeeee."

And every movie and TV show and book and anything on CD, DVD, vinyl. What a wonderful world. Shrug shrug. You can't put the genie back in the bottle, dude.

So accept piracy like you accept your significant other cheating on you, somebody hacking into your computer and stealing your identity, or some religious fanatic blowing up a rock concert. It's ALL good.