Mormon | Nature | News | Proposition 8 | Towleroad Guide to the Tube

Towleroad Guide to the Tube #405

PROP 8 BOYCOTTS: Californians Against Hate's Fred Karger is interviewed on Fox Business Network by Stuart Varney.

JAWS: Couple of terrifying shark encounters in Australia. Son of victim says, have mercy on the animal.

JIBJAB: Their 2008 Year in Review.

CHRISTMAS SPIRITS: Mom had one too many.

Check out our previous guides to the Tube here.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Stuart Varney, proving his penis is as small as his mind.

    Posted by: ggreen | Dec 30, 2008 5:14:12 PM

  2. Stuart Varney is an idiot but sometime I wish our side would just call it as we see it and not let idiot interviewers frame the discussion. Yes people's lives are being ruined just like the thousands of gay people's lives that suffered the loss of rights. 36,000 more people face the loss of rights that they already have.

    The chilling effect is not from economic boycotts but the lives of gay people who have been redefined as second class citizens. Free speech is threatened by telling people who they can and cannot have legally recognized.

    Yes, hate is a strong word but when a majority of people seek to remove the rights of a minority, hate is often the only word to describe it.

    Posted by: Ed | Dec 30, 2008 6:05:07 PM

  3. Is Fred Karger a coward or WHAT? Come on, a boycott IS INDEED intended to economically hurt, damage, intimidate, make feel bad, ruin, and other wise "wipe out" the boycotted entity. Fred Karger needs to get some balls and admit to the boycott goal. Call those that oppose Civil Equality hateful. Yes they have "hate" for Civil Equality. Gay people really seem to have a problem being tough. Fred Karger is NOT the best spokesman for any boycott cause, he won't admit to the goal.

    Posted by: Sargon Bighorn | Dec 30, 2008 6:21:56 PM

  4. ok, stuart varney is a freaking douchebag who can't posit a credible or intelligent arguement around the issue. but really, where was the very real arguement from karger that boycotts have been used by the religious right for decades against companies and other organizations to accomplish their objectives.

    Posted by: alguien | Dec 30, 2008 6:33:35 PM

  5. Good points all. I'm not all rah-rah on the boycott bandwagon, but I'm not afraid of it completely either. It seems conservatives crying "bully" conveniently forgot things like the Souther Baptist Convention's Disney boycott during the 90s...

    Posted by: Jay | Dec 30, 2008 7:13:07 PM

  6. What kind of a response was that? The answers should have been: Yes, if you gave just one dollar to take away my rights I consider you hateful, and yes, I'll seek to ruin you for that one dollar that you have paid to place me into a second class. When will our side stop trying to gloss over and play nice with the vicious right?

    Posted by: SammySeattle | Dec 30, 2008 7:19:31 PM

  7. This is getting fricken' ridiculous (and btw, I agree with all the previous comments). I think the point is I don't want to patronize someone who is trying to take away MY RIGHTS. If they are financially ruined in the process, that is icing on the cake. Funny, I don't see anyone complaining about the previous "anti-gay" boycotts, e.g. Ford, McDonalds, Disney, Proctor and Gamble... I could go on and on... and as far as that lady at El Coyote - too bad. What about the thousands of married gay couples who are now at risk of having their marriages dissolved. Some of them are probably at risk of having a nervous breakdown. The right wing is trying to frame the argument that the people who just have had their rights yanked away from them are the oppressors... what a bunch of bullshit. We need to be vocal and not put up with this crap. What a bunch of whinny hypocrites!

    Posted by: Mike | Dec 30, 2008 8:08:30 PM

  8. kill rogue sharks..

    Posted by: anon | Dec 30, 2008 8:33:38 PM

  9. I am so sick of these new commentators with an english accent...why are they here??? who is the freaking moron to get on Fox News without any knowledge at all??? Send those fuckers to their Motherland and never allow them to come back. Every fucking single show....from Dancing with The Monkey and American Idiost and Who wants to be a Retarded Idiot has someone with an english much for PATRIOTISM!!!!!

    Posted by: Eric | Dec 30, 2008 8:35:03 PM

  10. Patriotism is idiotic. So what?

    Posted by: Chris | Dec 30, 2008 10:25:23 PM

  11. I think Karger's sad defense of the word "hate" was all too appropriate: the use of the word "hate" is not helpful to us. By branding someone as a hater, they just turn off and stop listening. I think it also makes us look mean-spirited instead of righteously angry.

    I'm also mad as hell about this shit (you should hear me talk about religion!), but I think we need some better language. Let's call them "anti-marriage" and "anti-family" or American Taliban since that's what they are.

    I can't believe I'm disagreeing with SARGON BIGHORN :-(

    And I think Karger's kinda cute.

    Posted by: David R. | Dec 30, 2008 11:46:15 PM

  12. One of the reasons we use the word hate is to expose the the basis of their movement to those who are blindly following or on the fence.

    Posted by: Dan A. | Dec 31, 2008 12:02:01 AM

  13. David R. honey, Karger is cute (we have the same taste in men) I can't believe you're not with me on this one. Why do you hate me so; um I mean why don't you love me more...Flowers on the way.

    Posted by: Sargon Bighorn | Dec 31, 2008 1:17:44 AM

  14. Seriously, can we organize media training? Every point raised could have been easily countered.

    1.Free speech comes with responsibility - Deal with it. Stand for what you say and support it. This does not have a 'chilling' effect on free speech, it just makes people realize that there are implications for what you say and do.
    2. 'Ruin' is an equally strong word - he should have simply stated that these boycotts will not 'ruin' anyone. They *will* hurt them economically and make them think of the implications of their actions and where their money comes from.
    3. Yes, 'hate' is a strong word and it is being used in reference to the proposition, not always people who supported it. Prop 8 is a HATEful proposition. If I recall correctly Obama never actually SUPPORTED prop 8. Warren on the other hand DID, and equally compared being gay to incest and pedophilia - hateful.

    Posted by: Gregus | Dec 31, 2008 4:29:17 AM

  15. Free Speech includes the right to support those business' with our dollars or not. Plain and simple free speech. If I like your company - I'll buy your product - if I don't - I won't. My decision process is free to include anything about your business - its politics, products, actions, anything.

    I don't shop at Wal Mart because I don't like how they treat their employee's - I guess this English twit would believe I'm having a "chilling" effect on free speech for that....

    Posted by: talldoggy | Dec 31, 2008 8:12:41 AM

  16. Well, that was a sad excuse for a defense against quite the douchebag Brit. Why is Karger on tv being interviewed by that mofo if he allows Varney to verbally spin the situation, won't interrupt him and take charge of the convo, and can't give a decent argument promoting his own cause? What the hell? Let me get this straight; I am a second class citizen whose right to get married is being stripped from me because I'm a minority, and that British twat is blathering on about how not spending my dollar on companies funding discrimination against me is a "chilling attack on free speech"? Oh, HELL no, that's some bullshit right there!

    I'll tell you one thing though, I would have LOVED to see Varney interviewing the drunk mom instead. It would have been awesome if she was a lesbo and they got in a televised fistfight.

    I also second the previous remark about the surge of British commentators/interviewers/minor television personalities...mostly when they're conservative assholes like that bitter English motherfucker whose only purpose is to pop up and rant about Clinton being an evil witch. I hope Queen Elizabeth orders Varney beheaded --- or at the very least, cavity searched.

    Posted by: DONOVAN | Dec 31, 2008 10:51:15 AM

  17. He was awful. I'm talking about Karger. I agree with gregus above, we need to organize and streamline our talking points. I am sick of watching these (self-appointed?) leaders of our tribe blubber their way through interviews. COME ON. Don't they prepare? SPEAK OUT, SPEAK SMART! They have the eyes of the nation, and that's what they give? Disgusting. Squandering the chance to excite and incite.

    Posted by: Chad in NYC | Dec 31, 2008 11:06:12 AM

  18. Couldn't even finish listening to the interview with Karger because Varney is so disgusting. He makes my skin crawl. I absolutely will continue to boycott all mormon owned and operated businesses. This is what their 20 million dollars bought them so they can just deal with it. No mercy.

    Posted by: Tom Clark | Dec 31, 2008 11:57:59 AM

  19. @ SARGON BIGHORN: Gerbera daisies please—in a nice mix of colors.

    Re: "hate", it just seems like a blunt, schoolyard instrument to me. If you ask people who voted for Prop8 if they think they are "haters", they will say no. I don't think we can convince them that they are (whether or not it's true). We need to change minds to win, which means we must connect somehow. I don't know if these descriptions __of their views on marriage__ are better, but at least more specific: ignorant, churlish, fascist (in the sense of "my way is the way for everyone").

    @ CHAD IN NYC: yes, yes, yes! Can we draft Maddow to be our Leader? I also like Urvashi Vaid, but I haven't seen her doing much nationally lately.

    Posted by: David R. | Dec 31, 2008 2:24:05 PM

  20. P.S. I think we can connect better when we attack positions/policy, not people.

    Posted by: David R. | Dec 31, 2008 2:25:59 PM

  21. I am so fucking mad right now I can barely type. If people like Fred Karger are speaking for our community, we are all screwed. I'm SO tired of these timid faggots "fighting for rights" with fluffy kid gloves. IT IS HATE.

    * A man has the child he raised as his own TAKEN AWAY one day after his spouse died.
    * A man loses the house he built and lived in for 30 years after his spouse dies.
    * A woman loses her spouse's pension after she dies; both are police officers.

    IT IS HATE. We have to STOP pussy-footing around here. Across the board, all I hear about are "rights", with absolutely NO MENTION of the REAL LIFE consequences when these rights are NOT in place. Horrible, inhuman, cruel suffering.

    I guess many of us will have to wait until our lives are completely devastated and ruined before we get angry ENOUGH. I'm sorry I waited until it happend to me. PLEASE DO NOT WAIT.

    Posted by: John Bisceglia | Dec 31, 2008 4:46:43 PM

  22. While I understand why many Q's think a TAX PROTEST may not be "effective", I also think many miss the BIGGER IDEA here.

    Regardless of whether or not a MASS TAX REVOLT occurs and brings change, I think we simply DO NOT DESERVE the legal hatred and legal violence we are subjected to, and wonder why the hell so many Q's accept this treatment without responding IN MORE FORCEFUL, ACTIVE WAYS (holding a sign and donating money is about as passive as you can get).

    If heterosexuals experienced the same repercussions of legal inequity that we do, aside from a tax revolt, many would be PUTTING BULLETS THROUGH THE HEADS of elected officials. SERIOUSLY.

    Yet we continue the snail-paced march to equality, in TOTAL DENIAL that true equality will NOT occur before the year 2035 or later at the rate we are moving; you are naive to history if you think it will be sooner. Considering the constant backlashes we WILL experience from the Religious Right, and how the act of demanding FULL EQUALITY is viewed as being part of the "far left", our pathetic compromising to the "middle" will guarantee a 30+ year wait for what everyone else ALREADY has right now - FULL & EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.

    Posted by: John Bisceglia | Dec 31, 2008 4:52:24 PM

  23. @ JOHN BISCEGLIA: I hear you brother. I'm mad too and don't want to wait any longer for my marriage to be recognized. I will be lobbying my state legislators this spring and sending a nice letter to Pres. Obama re: his basic misunderstanding of civil marriage.

    What other tactics do you propose?

    I think we should work on a mass, person-to-person (i.e., not HRC suits) lobbying effort in DC with our Senators and reps there. Perhaps Lambda Legal could organize this?

    Any other ideas on what to do?

    Posted by: David R. | Dec 31, 2008 6:44:42 PM

  24. David R. - My thoughts on protest are found at the link below; I won't go into it here. [click on Keith Haring's art]

    Posted by: John Bisceglia | Jan 1, 2009 8:39:12 AM

Post a comment


« «News: Rod Blagojevich, Sushi, Cam Gigandet, Latisse, Daniel O'Donnell« «