A very creative blog (which features some very cool graphics) reports the latest twist on an old theme -- the bashing of "homocons" for not conforming to the cultural diktats of the gay cultural Stalinists. This time, Michelangelo Signorile is calling Andrew Sullivan an "Auntie Tom" for daring to write for the "homophobic" Washington Times:

Last week, NY Press columnist Michelangelo Signorile wrote that Sullivan (and Matt Drudge) were big gay hypocrites for their associations with DC's looney Moonie rag, The Washington Times. Turns out that despite his ultra-faggy outfits, Rev. Moon hates the gays.

....[W]e do love the way Rev. Moon put it:
"If you misuse your love organ, you destroy your life, your nation, your world." "Love organ"! We're totally stealing that.

Therefore, any homo who's published in his paper is an "Auntie Tom"!

Now, I could see the logic of a charge of hypocrisy were Andrew Sullivan (or any other accused "homocon" or "Auntie Tom") to actually say something hypocritical.

But here, the hypocrisy is said to be found not in the views or opinions of the writer himself, but rather, hypocrisy by association: the writer is responsible for the views of his publisher.

If that is the standard, then it would seem to me that any gay writer whose writing is published by Communist or Islamist publishers would also have to be a hypocrite. Because after all, Communist and Islamist countries do not tolerate homosexuality. It's also a pretty high standard in general, because it's tough to get published anywhere, and if writers are to be judged for the thoughts of their publishers, well, where does it end? Should conservative writers refuse to write for liberal journals and vice versa? Am I allowed to write a letter to the editor of the Washington Times?

Here's what Signorile said about Sullivan (and Matt Drudge):

It’s sleazy enough that a conservative would work for Moon and ignore his dark and dangerous agenda. But how on earth could a gay writer take a check from a man who can’t wait to see him thrown into an oven? Andrew Sullivan has reveled in his own idiotic claim that after 9/11 certain liberals, because they didn’t agree with George W. Bush’s policies, represented a "fifth column" supporting Osama bin Laden. Meanwhile, here he is, on the payroll of a guy who would like to see the mass extinction of his own people. Sullivan likes to think of himself as a gay rights activist–that’s actually how New York magazine described him recently–but he only seems to activate when the targets are liberals. Bill Clinton gets the Sullivan hatchet treatment for signing the Defense of Marriage Act, while the grossly homophobic Unification Church’s leader gets a weekly column from him in return for a few bucks to keep Sullivan’s increasingly lackluster and predictable web page afloat.

Apparently not the latter, for here's what Signorile says about Drudge:

Equally duplicitous is the sexually circumspect Drudge, who draws credibility from the Washington Times’ numerous references and vice versa. He spent the better part of last week trying to frame liberals as belittling the Nazis and the Holocaust. For days he stoked a bogus story pushed by the Republican National Committee and the Wall Street Journal that claimed that the group MoveOn.org had created tv ads comparing Bush to Hitler. When the ads were gone from the group’s web site, the right-wingers claimed they had scored another victory, as when they got cowardly CBS to ban The Reagans.

I don't think anyone abhors Moon's views on homosexuality more than I do. I have condemned them before in this blog. His latest psychotic gibberish is more of the same. But I'd sure as hell let him -- or the WorldNetDaily, or any other website -- print anything I write. Maybe someone would read it and change his mind about killing all the homos.

I wish to state for the record that Reverend Moon and I go way back. At UC Berkeley in 1974 (possibly '73; the dates are dim) Reverend Moon gave a speech which I attended with a friend. When Moon launched into an attack on immorality and homosexuality (translated for him by his interpreter, Colonel Park Bo Hi), my friend and I felt compelled to put on a demonstration of live guerilla theater by getting as close to the stage as we could, French-kissing (is that Freedom-kissing now?) in front of everyone, and being thrown out by Moon's gray-suited goons. We spent the rest of the evening pulling down his posters, and shrieking obscenities at "Moonies" -- and I think the word was invented that night. (I was young then, OK? In case any of you are wondering, I don't do things like that these days....)

So you're not going to get one peep from me in defense of Moon. I think the man is a walking loony tune.

With all of this in mind, let us examine closely the hiring of Andrew Sullivan to write a column for "his" newspaper. There are only a few possibilities:

1. Moon exercises no editorial control over the Washington Times;
2. Moon is a complete hypocrite himself, because he promotes the views of someone he wants to burn to death;
3. Moon does not mean what he says;
4. Moon is completely nuts, and out of touch with reality.

I can't but wonder where Signorile has been published, and I feel like doing some research to discover the thoughts of his publishers, but I don't think it's really worth my time. I wonder whether this latest attack isn't motivated by a little professional jealously though. Because, even if Sullivan obeys Signorile's demands and quits writing for the Times, the relentless Signorile is not about to stop there; when Sullivan writes for Salon.com (an online 'zine definitely not owned by Moon), then Signorile attacks Salon -- for the crime of publishing Sullivan!

[O]ne of the newest incarnations of the left’s media—Salon—has showcased gay columnists such as Camille Paglia, Norah Vincent and Andrew Sullivan, all of whom are vociferously hostile toward the gay rights movement and have championed conservative causes. The online publication has also run columnists such as David Horowitz, who has attacked gays and AIDS activists in bitter, offensive tirades. It’s akin to having three Clarence Thomases and a David Duke writing on racial issues, without having any well-known black liberal columnist—and this is supposed to be the actual liberal media!

One thing is clear: Signorile's standards are as elastic as his definition of hypocrisy.

While I don't think such obvious bias is worth taking too seriously, I do have one additional beef with Signorile, and this is as good a place as any to state it.

While Andrew Sullivan and Matt Drudge stand on their own feet and make it in a hostile, often anti-gay world, Signorile champions and perpetuates victimization, and has the unmitigated gall to condemn guns, gun nuts and even gay self defense. Rejecting Ann Coulter's attempt to link Islam to DC sniper John Muhammad, Signorile blames (who else) the "gun nuts":

Timothy McVeigh was a screwed-up Gulf War veteran. John Muhammad is a screwed-up Gulf War veteran. Robert Flores Jr., who shot three people and himself at the University of Arizona last week, was a screwed-up Gulf War veteran. And they were all gun nuts who were able to get weapons of destruction pretty damn easily.

[ANGRY EDITORIAL NOTE: Hey there Signorile, when you talk about gun nuts, you're talking about me. And you're talking about my blogfather! To insiders, "gun nut" may a term of endearment, but the way you use it, it comes close to being hate speech!]

Oh, but once you bring up the gun issue—as I did a few weeks ago regarding the sniper case—the NRA types start sounding like every crude stereotype they’ve thrown out there about the whining and whinging, politically correct, ACLU-loving left. I received a slew of mail telling me how "ignorant" and "intolerant" I was of the poor, downtrodden "shooting community." (I’m sorry for the insensitivity, really I am. And I’ll make sure to tell that to the families of the snipers’ victims as well.)

Some hate speech is more equal than others, I suppose....

I saved the worst for last! Recalling anti-gay abuse he suffered as a child, Signorile condemns his own self defense (he rightly fought back) -- and then makes that into an argument against guns!

If I'd had access to a gun, if I knew I could get one from my father's top drawer perhaps, I might have shot someone.

I don't believe I was a coward. I believe I was doing whatever I had to do in desperate moments, when parents and teachers were not there for me, to preserve whatever sanity I had left and to guard against physical and verbal attack.

Did I do something hurtful and awful? Absolutely -- so did Andy Williams, but with far graver consequences. Calling the actions of Williams or me or any other abused and traumatized kid an act of "cowardice" is not going to solve the current problem, and in fact only inflames it. Speaking out against homophobia, against bullying and against verbal and physical abuse of any kind in schools -- and demanding accountability from school authorities -- will go a lot farther toward stopping this epidemic of violence, as will curbing the availability of guns to young people.

And he dares to call Andrew Sullivan a hypocrite?

Let's assume that Sun Myung Moon is in fact the murderous, genocidal maniac Signorile makes him out to be. By writing in his newspaper, Andrew Sullivan at least serves to raise in readers' minds (and maybe in whatever remnants of a conscience Moon and his ilk may have) the possibility that homosexuals are in fact human beings and not the "dung-eating dogs" Moon calls them.

Then again, maybe not. Moon is probably a hopeless case.

That is precisely where guns come in. If Moon and his henchmen decide to wage their holy war against homosexuals, armed homosexuals are not going to sit idly by and allow this to happen. Signorile, who would take away my firearms in the face of the anti-gay genocide he complains of, is far more of a threat to me than imagined hypocrites who might actually be helping assuage it.

If the word "hypocrisy" applies at all, Signorile has by far done more to earn it.

UPDATE: Julian Sanchez (in an essay about Signorile's comrade Richard Goldstein) speculates that professional jealousy may be motivating Signorile to marginalize independent gay thinkers:

....[I]t must be less galling than confessing that, say, Paglia and Jonathan Rauch are just infinitely more original, interesting writers than Richard Goldstein and Michelangelo Signorile. Perhaps, to preserve their egos, the two of them are entitled to that belief. Nobody else should be tempted, however. Goldstein and his thought police have grown accustomed a political climate in which their marginal progressive agenda got a free ride on the need of homosexuals to defend themselves from an irrational and hostile majority. Now, they want the rest of the gay community to stay marginal, and surrender a real opportunity at expanded political influence, in order to keep free riding. In this, Goldstein may be reaching out to the right after all: I'm sure nothing would please Pat Robertson more.

Is Signorile helping the right wing by working to keep gays marginalized?

"Hypocrisy" may be too mild a word.....

UPDATE: My blogfather (who was kind enough to link to this post -- THANKS JEFF!), illustrates this week's famed "Weekly Check on the Bias" column with the ultimate gun cell phone -- a modified mini AK-47 which I hope comes in designer colors....

Jeff has gotten so proficient at PhotoShopping that I was going to ask him about doing a modified political cartoon involving Edvard Munch's "The Scream".....

But now I am worried about Jeff's remarks about "getting Dowdy...."

Am I....(gulp)..... "getting Dowdy" too, Jeff?

Is there a..... cure?

MORE: While you're at it, read Jeff's original post on the "Attack Queers" (weren't Signorile and Goldstein really projecting when they complained of "gays attacking gays"?) and Andrew Sullivan.