Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills): Ne-Yo already disappoints, Matt Healy and that kiss

Tuesday, August 08, 2023

Ne-Yo already disappoints, Matt Healy and that kiss

Hope you read yesterday's "Cross-dressing Jason Aldean, Ne-Yo apologizes, Lionel Richie." We're back on Ne-Yo. Stephanie Holland (THE ROOT) notes:

Comparing transgender youth to thinking you’re a goldfish shows a shocking lack of understanding and compassion. The way he and Velez laugh throughout the interview also demonstrates how they don’t appreciate what a difficult time this is for the LGBTQ+ community. Later in the conversation, the father of seven called out parents who allow their children to be open and fluid about their gender.

“I feel like parents have almost forgotten what the role of a parent is. If your little boy comes to you and says, ‘Daddy, I want to be a girl.’ And you just let him rock with that? He’s five…If you let this five-year-old boy decide to eat candy all day, he’s gonna do that,” Ne-Yo said. “When did it become a good idea to let a five-year-old, let a six-year-old, let a 12-year-old make a life-changing decision for themself? When did that happen? I don’t understand. He can’t drive a car yet, but he can decide his sex?”

First of all, no one is performing surgery on five and six-year-olds. I know this is a popular talking point for anti-transgender politicians and organizations, but it’s not true. This statement was part of a larger rant that featured the singer complaining about how “sensitive” the world has become. Frankly, he sounds like a grumpy old man at the barbershop who’s upset that he can’t make inappropriate jokes anymore. After receiving some backlash for his comments, Ne-Yo responded to the criticism on Instagram.

“1st and foremost, I CONDEMN NO ONE. Who am I to condemn anybody? Your life, your kids, your choice. I was asked a question and I answered it,” he wrote. “My opinion is mine. I’m not asking anybody to agree with me nor am I telling you what you can and cannot do with your children. I stated my opinion on a matter and that’s that. Why should I care if my opinion upsets you when you don’t care if yours upsets anyone? Opinions aren’t special. We all have one. People voice them regularly whether they’re asked or not. I was actually asked mine. Agreeing to disagree is not a declaration of war. Y’all do whatever the hell y’all want to. But my feelings on the matter are mine. Same way yours are yours. Meanwhile, I love everybody. Don’t agree with some of y’all’s ideals….but love you no less.”

So you remember that from yesterday, right? I noted that some people didn't feel the apology was sincere. I said I was taking a wait-and-see attitude because if he was sincere or if he was insincere, we'd know in a few days. It only took one day. He's retracted his apology as Stephanie Holland notes. Ne-Yo? I'd say he's dead to me but his career died so long ago (as I noted yesterday).

This is from THE EVENING STANDARD:

Matty Healy has admitted he feared being sent to prison after he kissed his bandmate Ross MacDonald on stage in Malaysia and criticised the nation’s anti-LGBTQ+ laws.

Healy’s band The 1975 were banned from the Southeast Asian country, where homosexuality is illegal, after the 34-year-old protested the laws at the Good Vibes Festival in Kuala Lumpur on July 21.

In light of the controversy, the British singer has revealed he and his bandmate were convinced they were going to have to “shave” their heads in preparation for a stint in prison.

Speaking during the band’s show in Hawaii on Sunday, Healy said how “doing the right thing often requires quite a lot of sacrifice” before referencing the incident.

Terri e-mailed that article and asked me what I thought about all of it?

1) He needs to stop using the f-word

Later on in the article, he'll say he and his band mate thought they might go to jail for "being f**s." The use of that term kind of undercuts what he did.

2) What he did on stage?

Kurt Cobain did that in Nirvana very often. He did it to make a point -- check out the linear notes for Nirvana's INCESTICIDE if this is news to you. What Matt did on stage? Applause.

3) "White savior" and complaints?

I don't know if Malaysians were trying to save themselves -- fine, if they were. But they came off ridiculous in my eyes.

Someone risked their own safety to make a statement about this issue and that's your response?

Again, they are not a true democracy and they may have had to make those statements. (They are a "federal representative democratic constitutional monarchy.")

No, I do not see anything wrong with Matt kissing his bandmate onstage and I applaud him for it.

Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Tuesday, August 8, 2023. The Whore of Baghdad Jane Arraf gets fired again and idiots who don't know her work are outraged, Moms for Bigotry and their allies (Naomi Wolf among them) are targeting libraries, and much more.

Starting with THE NEW YORK TIMES which has fired Jane Arraf.

At SEMAFOR, Max Tani types:

Arraf occupied what was once one of the most coveted foreign postings in journalism. But her unceremonious departure came as Iraq was marking the 20th anniversary of the US invasion of the country, and with it, the continued shift of American media attention and resources away from Iraq for conflict zones like Ukraine and the deep-pocketed Emirates and Saudi Arabia.

Over the last several years, almost every major US outlet has scaled back its presence or pulled out of the country: The Times, which once had over a hundred people in its Baghdad office, has not had a bureau chief there for most of the year. The Associated Press’ Iraq correspondent was reassigned to Ukraine last year. While the Washington Post has a Baghdad bureau chief, the paper is in the process of closing down its physical bureau.

The moves are understandable. Major US news organizations have limited resources for on-the-ground foreign coverage, which is costly and often has a limited audience at home. With the US spending billions on the war in Ukraine, and with an increasing diplomatic focus on China, it makes sense that major US organizations have reoriented their international coverage to focus on these areas of national interest.

Late to the story and can't nail down the facts. MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS walked away. Pretty much everyone walked away following the election of Barack Obama in November 2008. The press withdrew -- the only US force that did -- and they started in December of 2008 as they insisted the war was winding down. It didn't, it hasn't. ABC NEWS announced then that it was closing shop, for example, and that they'd cover any major news out of Iraq by re-running BBC NEWS reports.

As for the ridiculous claims that they have to leave to cover Ukraine -- they're not covering Ukraine. They're part of propaganda effort, yes. But they're not covering it. Where is the investigative reporting coming out of Ukraine -- or US-based reporting on Ukraine? There is none. "Reading press releases from the Green Zone." That's what we called THE NEW YORK TIMES early post-invasion coverage because that's what it was and all that's happening with Ukraine now is US reporters reading press releases and calling it "coverage."

As for Jane Arraf?

I love how the press tries to protect The Whore of Baghdad.

Jane is a lousy reporter. Her work does not stand up. We made excuses for her for years. Then came the youth uprising in Iraq -- no, not 2019. We're talking thug Nouri al-Maliki was prime minister. It was right before ISIS became visible in Iraq. The thug had a protester shot and killed. Several, actually. But Arraf Tweeted in real time about one. But 'forgot' to include it in her written coverage or on NPR. Then the whore really showed her true colors a few weeks later when a protester was killed because the 'security' forces fired on the people -- Jane was on NPR justifying it, claiming these were peaceful responses.

She's an embarrassment who lied for CNN - -that was the point of Eason Jordan's now infamous column for THE NEW YORK TIMES "The News We Kept For Ourselves."

She has written nothing of value her entire time covering Iraq. Grasp that. Her fellow whores on Twitter are aghast that Jane was fired and go on and on about her 'experience.' She's in her fourth decade covering Iraq. She's never broken a story, you grasp that right?

She started that under Saddam Hussein. It's how she got to stay in the country -- by never reporting on anything that angered the Iraqi government. It's what she has continued to do ever since.

Many people have broken stories covering Iraq since the US-led invasion -- Damien Cave, Alissa J. Rubin, Ellen Knickmeyer, Nancy A. Youssef, Leila Fadel, Dahr Jamail, etc -- but Jane is not one of them. She never has been.

She only covers what's already public. And then she downplays violence against the Iraqi people.

A protester killed when the 'security' forces fire a tear cannister into his head? There's Jane on NPR insisting it was just a normal response.

That's The Whore of Baghdad.

But her press allies want to pretend like she's suffering now and the victim.

First off, she was already under trouble for a 'report' she filed before the money issue arose.

Second off, as the NYT person in charge in Baghdad, it's not her job to lie to her employer. They tell her X is all that's going to be paid, then X is all that's going to be paid. She can certainly try to lobby them to change their minds, but she can't overrule them. That's not allowed.

THE TIMES has made their staff smaller and smaller and cut back over and over. If Jane can't follow the budget regulations then she shouldn't be in the position.

(It's also rumore that Jane helped herself to some of the extra dollars.)

Money. In the end, that's all The Whore of Baghdad cares about. Four decades in Iraq and nothing to show for it. She didn't even expose the (government) abuse of Iraq's disabled/challenged children. No, that was CBS and, as usual, Jane's response was to come along after everyone else was covering it and to downplay it.

That's how she ends up staying in Iraq, that's why prime ministers of Iraq love her and embrace her. They get her to moderate talks for them. That's really not journalist and her (mainly female) peers that are defending her? They've never covered Iraq and they don't know Jane's own work. They only know that she's been in Iraq since the 90s -- and gone through every outlet there is in her sorry and embarrassing career.

There are real things to get upset over. Jane Arraf getting fired by THE NEW YORK TIMES isn't one. Nor was Jane Arraf getting fired by CNN. Nor was Jane Arraf getting fired by THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR. Nor was Jane Arraf getting fired by REUTERS. Nor was Jane Arraf getting fired by NPR. Nor was Jane Arraf getting fired ALJAZEERA. Get it? Let's stop pretending, after all these firings, that it's the outlets problem and not Jane herself.

Let's move to another loser. Tyler Kingkade (NBC NEWS) reports on one:

Wyoming Rep. John Bear, a Republican and chair of the state’s Freedom Caucus, said he’s pushing his state to leave the ALA [American Library Association] because he believes the association is full of Marxists who promote books that “create a sexualized child at an earlier age” and are “turning libraries into activist training grounds.”

“The ALA has allowed this political point of view to infiltrate every aspect of their training,” Bear said in an interview. “And their trainings are just completely full of things like, how to deal with parents who don’t appreciate the type of materials that are available to children in the library, how to deal with your state legislature or your local government.”

Bear’s sentiment has been echoed by his colleague, state Rep. Pepper Ottman, who claimed in a July 12 webinar that the ALA’s recommended reading lists were provided “to open children up to pornography” and to groom them for sex trafficking. And his wife, Sage Bear, is on a library board in Campbell County that recently fired its library director because she would not remove books that included LGBTQ or sex education themes.

These prigs and hate merchants never understand. Americans don't want to be told what to do. But John Bear, just another element of cancel culture, wants to dictate what people can read. That never works out well. This isn't an opinion, this is historical. It doesn't end pretty for the prigs and hate merchants. They become the joke (dirty joke) they deserve to be. Americans are very opposed to censorship. This is not a new development. In 1956, STORM CENTER starred Bette Davis as a librarian being pressured to remove books from the library. Run that up to the response to Tipper Gore. To this day, the former Second Lady is reviled for her efforts to censor music -- and, yes, Tipper, your label system was censorship.

What's really amazing is when people who should know better go along with these efforts. Moms For Bigotry? Their existence is expected. That Naomi Wolf would get behind them? I guess she's the Peter Hitchens of this century as she rushed to support banning and censorship and the overturning of ROE V WADE. I think Naomi Klein's going to have a strong selling book based just upon the sections about the now hideous Naomi Wolf. Naomi Klein's book is DOPPELGANGER: A TRIP INTO THE MIRROR WORLD is due out September 12th and addresses the world we live in today. I'm reading through it now and enjoyed the section on Naomi Wolf -- I'm sure many people will enjoy it.

The American Library Association notes these were the books of 2022 that faced the most banning attempts:

1. Gender Queer: A Memoir by Maia Kobabe

Number of challenges: 151

Challenged for: LGBTQIA+ content, claimed to be sexually explicit

Shareable graphics: Twitter | Facebook

2. All Boys Aren't Blue by George M. Johnson

Number of challenges: 86

Challenged for: LGBTQIA+ content, claimed to be sexually explicit

Shareable graphics: Twitter | Facebook

3. The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison

Number of challenges: 73

Challenged for: depiction of sexual abuse, EDI content, claimed to be sexually explicit

Shareable graphics: Twitter | Facebook

4. Flamer by Mike Curato

Number of challenges: 62

Challenged for: LGBTQIA+ content, claimed to be sexually explicit

Shareable graphics: Twitter | Facebook

5. (tie) Looking for Alaska by John Green

Number of challenges: 55

Challenged for: LGBTQIA+ content, claimed to be sexually explicit

Shareable graphics: Twitter | Facebook

5. (tie) The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky

Number of challenges: 55

Challenged for: depiction of sexual abuse, LGBTQIA+ content, drug use, profanity, claimed to be sexually explicit

Shareable graphics: Twitter | Facebook

7. Lawn Boy by Jonathan Evison

Number of challenges: 54

Challenged for: LGBTQIA+ content, claimed to be sexually explicit

Shareable graphics: Twitter | Facebook

8. The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian by Sherman Alexie

Number of challenges: 52

Challenged for: profanity, claimed to be sexually explicit

Shareable graphics: Twitter | Facebook

9. Out of Darkness by Ashley Hope Perez

Number of challenges: 50

Challenged for: depictions of abuse, claimed to be sexually explicit

Shareable graphics: Twitter | Facebook

10. (tie) A Court of Mist and Fury by Sarah J. Maas

Number of challenges: 48

Challenged for: claimed to be sexually explicit

Shareable graphics: Twitter | Facebook

10. (tie) Crank by Ellen Hopkins

Number of challenges: 48

Challenged for: drug use, claimed to be sexually explicit

Shareable graphics: Twitter | Facebook

10. (tie) Me and Earl and the Dying Girl by Jesse Andrews

Number of challenges: 48

Challenged for: profanity, claimed to be sexually explicit

Shareable graphics: Twitter | Facebook

10. (tie) This Book Is Gay by Juno Dawson

Number of challenges: 48

Challenged for: LGBTQIA+ content, providing sexual education, claimed to be sexually explicit

Shareable graphics: Twitter | Facebook

Spread the Word

Download the two-page 2022 Infographic

Shareable Graphics
Twitter | Facebook | Instagram

The Top 13 Most Challenged Books of 2022 infographic was released as part of the 2023 State of America's Libraries Report on Monday, April 24. View the full report.

Find more data about 2022 book ban attempts here.

Reading is about education. I have never called for a book to be banned and I never will. That doesn't mean I read all books. I had no interest in reading AMERICAN PSYCHO but I did not call for it to be banned. We broke with WORLD CAN'T WAIT over this nonsense. They were calling for a film -- one that they had not seen -- to be banned. Whether they were being paid for that or not, I have no idea. But Harvey Weinstein, who turned the Academy Awards into a blood sport, did pay a number of people to trash that film.

I don't believe in banning. I believe you can make the decision not to read something. I believe you can make some decisions on what your children can and cannot read. Some? More often than not, your child is going to read it if you make it "no." And you should be glad about that. You should be glad your child is curious and independent and not just a little kiss-ass who will go through life doing exactly as told.

I can remember being at a library when I was seven -- public library -- and reading when a librarian came over and told me I had to go back to the children's section and could not read the books from the section I was in. I responded, "Tell it to my mother" and pointed the librarian towards her. I never, ever again heard a word about what books I needed to read from the librarian. My mother believed in reading and didn't believe there were any restrictions. I also had reading problems (dyslexic but not diagnosed then) so my mother was fine with any book I read for that reason as well. (And the book I was reading that so alarmed the librarian? Agatha Christie's DEATH ON THE NILE.)

Every book, even a poorly written one, is an experience that can enlarge our understanding of the world we live in.

From the American Library Association, here are the books with the most censorship attempts from 1990 to 1999:

Scary Stories (series), by Alvin Schwartz
Daddy’s Roommate, by Michael Willhoite
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, by Maya Angelou
The Chocolate War, by Robert Cormier
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, by Mark Twain
Of Mice and Men, by John Steinbeck
Forever, by Judy Blume
Bridge to Terabithia, by Katherine Paterson
Heather Has Two Mommies, by Leslea Newman
The Catcher in the Rye, by J.D. Salinger
The Giver, by Lois Lowry
My Brother Sam is Dead, by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier
It’s Perfectly Normal, by Robie Harris
Alice (series), by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor
Goosebumps (series), by R.L. Stine
A Day No Pigs Would Die, by Robert Newton Peck
The Color Purple, by Alice Walker
Sex, by Madonna
Earth’s Children (series), by Jean M. Auel
The Great Gilly Hopkins, by Katherine Paterson
In the Night Kitchen, by Maurice Sendak
The Witches, by Roald Dahl
A Wrinkle in Time, by Madeleine L’Engle
The New Joy of Gay Sex, by Charles Silverstein
Go Ask Alice, by Anonymous
The Goats, by Brock Cole
The Stupids (series), by Harry Allard
Anastasia Krupnik (series), by Lois Lowry
Final Exit, by Derek Humphry
Blubber, by Judy Blume
Halloween ABC, by Eve Merriam
Julie of the Wolves, by Jean Craighead George
Kaffir Boy, by Mark Mathabane
The Bluest Eye, by Toni Morrison
What’s Happening to my Body? Book for Girls: A Growing-Up Guide for Parents & Daughters, by Lynda Madaras
Fallen Angels, by Walter Dean Myers
The Handmaid’s Tale, by Margaret Atwood
The Outsiders, by S.E. Hinton
The Pigman, by Paul Zindel
To Kill a Mockingbird, by Harper Lee
We All Fall Down, by Robert Cormier
Deenie, by Judy Blume
Flowers for Algernon, by Daniel Keyes
Annie on My Mind, by Nancy Garden
Beloved, by Toni Morrison
The Boy Who Lost His Face, by Louis Sachar
Cross Your Fingers, Spit in Your Hat, by Alvin Schwartz
Harry Potter (series), by J.K. Rowling
Cujo, by Stephen King
James and the Giant Peach, by Roald Dahl
A Light in the Attic, by Shel Silverstein
Ordinary People, by Judith Guest
American Psycho, by Bret Easton Ellis
Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley
Sleeping Beauty Trilogy, by A.N. Roquelaure (Anne Rice)
Bumps in the Night, by Harry Allard
Asking About Sex and Growing Up, by Joanna Cole
What’s Happening to my Body? Book for Boys: A Growing-Up Guide for Parents & Sons, by Lynda Madaras
The Anarchist Cookbook, by William Powell
Are You There, God? It’s Me, Margaret, by Judy Blume
Boys and Sex, by Wardell Pomeroy
Crazy Lady, by Jane Conly
Athletic Shorts, by Chris Crutcher
Killing Mr. Griffin, by Lois Duncan
Fade, by Robert Cormier
Guess What?, by Mem Fox
Slaughterhouse-Five, by Kurt Vonnegut
Lord of the Flies, by William Golding
Native Son, by Richard Wright
Women on Top: How Real Life Has Changed Women’s Fantasies, by Nancy Friday
Curses, Hexes and Spells, by Daniel Cohen
On My Honor, by Marion Dane Bauer
The House of Spirits, by Isabel Allende
Jack, by A.M. Homes
Arizona Kid, by Ron Koertge
Family Secrets, by Norma Klein
Mommy Laid an Egg, by Babette Cole
Bless Me, Ultima, by Rudolfo A. Anaya
Where Did I Come From?, by Peter Mayle
The Face on the Milk Carton, by Caroline Cooney
Carrie, by Stephen King
The Dead Zone, by Stephen King
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, by Mark Twain
Song of Solomon, by Toni Morrison
Always Running, by Luis Rodriguez
Private Parts, by Howard Stern
Where’s Waldo?, by Martin Hanford
Summer of My German Soldier, by Bette Greene
Tiger Eyes, by Judy Blume
Little Black Sambo, by Helen Bannerman
Pillars of the Earth, by Ken Follett
Running Loose, by Chris Crutcher
Sex Education, by Jenny Davis
Jumper, by Steven Gould
Christine, by Stephen King
The Drowning of Stephen Jones, by Bette Greene
That Was Then, This is Now, by S.E. Hinton
Girls and Sex, by Wardell Pomeroy
The Wish Giver, by Bill Brittain
Jump Ship to Freedom, by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier

Okay, I've read 61 of those books. I wouldn't ban any on the list and I would recommend all 61 that I have read. I'd recommend people read whatever they want. As often as they want.

On Moms For Bigotry, BUZZLOVING notes:

A spokesperson for the extremism watchdog group wrote that Moms for Liberty was the most prominent of 12 extremist “anti-student inclusion groups” mobilizing to “attack public education, ban books, and remove any curriculum that contains discussions of race, discrimination, and LGBTQ+ identities.”

SPLC Intelligence Project Director Susan Corke added, “The movement is primarily aimed at not wanting to include our hard history, topics of racism, and a very strong push against teaching anything having to do with LGBTQ topics in schools. We saw this as a very deliberate strategy to go to the local level.”

The list includes Oath Keepers, the Three Percenters, and the John Birch Society, among others. SPLC added 11 more right-wing “parents’ rights” groups to the list of extremist groups.

[. . .]

According to SPLC, the group has risen to power by “intimidating and harassing teachers and school officials,” battling teachers’ unions, attacking corporations like Disney that are supportive of LGBTQ+ rights, and supporting and making use of laws like Florida’s so-called “don’t say gay” statute, which limits classroom discussion of gender and sexual identity.

Moms For Bigotry -- with Naomi Wolf's stamp of approval -- keeps pushing their war on 'woke' -- despite the fact that it's not helping any Republican Party candidate. Katie Balevic (BUSINESS INSIDER) reports:

Some GOP candidates and lawmakers have assembled like a crime-fighting cartoon squad ready to take on woke-ism.

The problem? Voters don't really care as much about tackling "woke" issues as Republican candidates may think, new polling suggests.

In fact, more GOP voters favored candidates who focused on law and order, a new New York Times and Siena College poll of Americans, with emphasis in Iowa — where voters will be the first to cast their ballots in the primaries.

Marina Pitofsky (USA TODAY) reports:

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ war on “wokeness” has been one of his signature political promises in the Sunshine State.

And DeSantis has vowed to carry that battle into the White House if he’s elected in 2024. But it may be hurting more than it’s helping, USA TODAY's Savannah Kuchar reports.

Multiple billionaire backers have dropped their contributions to DeSantis’ White House bid over disagreements with his stances on a slate of social issues.

Deep-pocketed hedge fund CEO Ken Griffin pulled his financial support over DeSantis’ fight with Disney fueled by education policies, namely a law opponents have dubbed “Don’t Say Gay.”

Nelson Peltz, an investor and billionaire businessman, also took a recent step back from the DeSantis campaign, taking issue with the governor’s abortion position.

THE MAJORITY REPORT addressed Ronald's faltering campaign.

Greg Owen (LGBTQ NATION) reports:

A battle over LGBTQ+ books in a Virginia county may cost teenagers their right to visit the public library.

The chair of the Board of Supervisors in rural Botetourt County has decided the best way to ensure “parental rights” in the tiny rural area, pop. 34,000, is to send parents to the library with their kids.

Acting on a campaign pledge made in June before a primary election, board chair Donald “Mac” Scothorn (R) announced a proposal at the board’s July 31 meeting to prohibit anyone under 18 from visiting the county library without adult supervision.

It’s the board chair’s solution to a long-simmering dispute over LGBTQ+ content in the county’s four public libraries, pitting Botetourt County residents associated with groups like Moms for Liberty against free speech advocates.

The “parents’ rights” activists have pursued their book-banning agenda at school board meetings, filing removal request forms at the libraries and publicizing what they believe is inappropriate content for minors on a website likely available to minors.

Their war on intelligence, on books and on libraries goes to their ignorance and their strong desire to bring us all down to their level of stupidity.

The following sites updated: