Maybe Mark Jackson ISN'T a victim. MAYBE.

So Mark Jackson got fired from the Warriors yesterday, despite being the best coach they've had since the first time Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles came out.  Remember those days?  You could still buy a black and white TV.  Michael Jackson being white was a new thing. 

All the reports are saying that no one liked him and that's why he got fired.  Well, no one except the team.  You know, the most important people to impress.  Because there's plenty of coaches that got along great with the front office who would get outcoached at the YMCA youth league, which is why they now have a well paid job working the telestrator on ESPN.  ESPN is nature's way of removing shitty coaches from the business of winning basketball games. 

Logically speaking, though, that's probably the dumbest reason of all time to fire a coach.  The dude won 51 games, got the team into the playoffs the last two years, and has the support of the team.  You know, the guys who put asses in the seats.  He's making you money and he's winning games.  How fragile does your ego have to be to end all of that just because the coach doesn't like you, Joe Lacob?  I would say that coaches have been fired for less, but there will always be Jerry Jones and George Steinbrenner.  You have to sink to subhuman levels of pettiness to get where they are, but that's where Joe Lacob seems to be now.  Firing a coach for not getting along with the owner is like firing a coach who just won two Super Bowls for you, because the media didn't give you enough credit for putting the team together. 

Now, everyone's mad at the owner, because everyone loved Mark Jackson, and in basketball, that's important.  The media needs to like the coach, otherwise, they'll start a campaign to D'Antoni your team.  Of course the players have to like the coach.  The fans should like the coach, because they're buying tickets.  Who gives a fuck what the people working for the organization think?  No one's coming to see you.  And do you know how irrelevant the owner can be when it comes to public outreach?  Donald Sterling is a racist and has owned the Clippers for 33 years.  When he bought them, almost everyone I know was semen.  He's been a racist the whole time, and it hasn't stopped the Clippers from selling tickets. 

So as long Mark Jackson isn't messing up that cash, it really shouldn't matter.  Then again, scuttlebutt around the Bay says there's more to it than that. 

Word from the SF Gate has it that Mark Jackson, who is a pastor (I honestly had no idea until a few hours ago), and team president Rick Welts, who is "a gay (that's a quote from Donald Sterling)," were at odds about Welts's openly gay lifestyle.

Well, that changes everything.  Because if that's true, then it changes from a story about a sensitive ass owner to a guy who was openly insulting his boss.  'Cuz Mark Jackson wasn't shy about weighing in about gay issues in the NBA, and he didn't seem like the most gay-friendly guy.  On a scale from "one" to "Tim Hardaway," I would hope he was closer to "one," but he doesn't exactly sound welcoming.  When Jason Collins came out, Mark Jackson said something about having "beliefs of what’s right and what’s wrong."  He also said he was going to pray for Collins's family.  And as a guy who hasn't been to church since the last time the Warriors were good, someone saying that they're going to pray for you means that they want something about you to change.  By some accounts, Jackson really wasn't feeling "the gays."

And if this is true, it's probably going to become a thing about how a "God-fearing Christian man" lost his job because of his religious beliefs, and I'm going to start insulting people for being hypocrites again.  If it is true, Mark Jackson lost his job because he wouldn't shut the fuck up.  You can't go around insulting your boss, even if you believe your religion entitles you to shit on everyone else's lifestyle (it doesn't).  That's what this is about.  Mark Jackson isn't a victim when you put it like that.  Mark Jackson isn't even a man of conviction.  Mark Jackson is stupid.  Just because you believe something doesn't mean it needs to be said all the time. 

Besides, can you really get that mad about some religious guy getting fired by his openly gay boss?  It's actually kind of ironic, considering all of the roadblocks people are throwing up at gay people in the name of "religious freedom."  I almost hope this story is true, just so I can laugh at the people who get mad. 

But if it isn't true, then I retract all of that and I'll meet everyone at the picket line to cape up for Mark Jackson.  I'll have my trash can ready for optimal window-throwing and everything.  Promise.  

No One Cares If You Approve Of Their Life Choices

It's pretty common these days to say, "I just don't agree with his lifestyle," as if people are sitting around waiting for your fucking approval.  You usually hear this in conversations about gay people or gay marriage, but I don't see why people even waste time thinking about it.  Gay people haven't gotten the approval of lots of people in human history, and it hasn't curbed the inherent lust for same-sex flesh even a little bit.  So clearly, they're not waiting for you to give the thumbs up. 

In fact, the more people that come out against gay activities has led to a response in the other direction:  More gay people are being openly gay.  The idea that you think your approval is needed has actually drawn more gay people out of hiding.

Back when people didn't talk about gay sex so much, because everyone was sexually repressed, gay people just kept quiet and snuck off to their bathhouses or the Blue Oyster, or wherever gay people got together.  But now that gay sex is on everyone's lips, gay people decided to fight back.  And yes, that particular phrasing was done on purpose.  

See, you don't have to approve of anything, because it's still going to happen.   For instance, I don't approve of bigotry, but it hasn't stopped you from saying stupid shit about gay people, has it?  In fact, to drive the point home, try that strategy in other scenarios to demonstrate how effective it is.  Next time a bear attacks you or a guy tries to rob your house, you should tell them, "I don't approve of this lifestyle choice," and report back here to let me know if it prevented you from getting shot or eaten.  My thinking is that I won't ever hear from you again.


That's why, despite this overt lack of approval, we still have gay people.  The arrogance needed to believe that approval matters is why we still have thickheaded people walking around worrying about cock-ravenous gay men attacking them in showers and alleyways.  I wish bigots understood how funny it is to listen to them fear the lustful urges of gay men without ever considering that:

A: Gay men might also have self control.

B: The bigot in question probably isn't even their type.  

Instead of saying that you "approve" or "agree" with something, you should really ask yourself if you do or don't care.  If you don't care, then you generally don't give a shit, and never think up stupid phrases like, "I don't agree with his lifestyle," or "What if he looks at me in the shower?" If you do care, then you probably give more thought to the activities of gay men than actual gay men do.  At this point, you have to ask yourself why you care so much what gay men are doing.  The answer is either one of those things:  You're fucking ignorant, or you're...you know, curious. 

You probably also assume that your own life is worthy of approval.  It probably isn't.  You probably cheat on your wife, or steal pens from your job, or vote Republican, or contribute to Love & Hip-Hop's ratings.  Maybe you drink too much, or let your kids sag their jeans, or cheer for John Cena.  Any number of things that deserve to be frowned upon.  By my standards, I think that saying kind words about Justin Bieber should come with a mandatory jail sentence.  And if you're thinking right now that it isn't about your standards, but the standards of your religion: I don't approve of your religion.  Odds are, it's a manmade invention designed to placate the masses so they don't attack their wealthy overlords.  It probably has a well-entrenched history of murder, genocide, racism, and misogyny, and in the modern age, does nothing but drive wedges in between people and/or hides pedophiles from justice. 

So instead of wasting all that time and energy being judgmental (because this is a game that we can all play), why not just go live your life and let everyone else live theirs?  All of that focus on manlove is time you could be spending inventing a Fruity Pebbles drink, or an iPad that does more than waste time.  We don't need another person trying to stand in the way of other people's happiness, but we can always use another person who really couldn't give two fucks what's happening in someone else's bedroom.

In Response to "The Chick-Fil-A Buycott." What a stupid name.

I’ve always wanted to do this. Well, ever since I read Drew Magary over at Kissing Suzy Kolber doing it.

Anyway, what follows is the text from the website www.afa.net, or the American Family Association. They’re organizing a “buycott” in support of Chick-Fil-A, because gay people are mad at Chick-Fil-A for not liking them. The text is unedited, with periodic breaks for my own commentary. It’s so much easier to respond to stupidity this way.

What is a BUYCOTT?

It is collectively showing appreciation for a company by purchasing their products or services – the opposite of a boycott.

Why BUYCOTT Chick-Fil-A?

You probably didn't hear about this on the evening news or read about it in the newspaper,

What? But the lamestream media should have been all over this! It involves those evil sodomites hating Christians for their love of God! That lovely Sarah Palin once said, “Gays masturbate all over the pages of the Bible.”

but after a Chick-fil-A restaurant in Pennsylvania donated some sandwiches and brownies to a marriage seminar hosted by the Pennsylvania Family Institute, pro-homosexual activists went ballistic. According to syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin:

Stop right there. There’s something to be said for considering the source, because if you’re starting off by quoting Michelle Malkin, you know you’re about to hear some lies. Its like holding up the word of Loki as the gospel.

Fact is, Chick-Fil-A has been financially supporting anti-gay politicians and Focus on the Family for a while now. Of course, it sounds much better to say the boycott happened because Chick-Fil-A was “donating sandwiches and brownies to a marriage seminar,” because it allows you to throw “because they hate marriage and God,” on the end of it.

• Several left-wing activist blogs launched an all-out attack on Chick-fil-A.

This is probably true. Because if someone was giving money to the Klan, I’d expect black people to boycott them. Gays are just like black people, in that they’re also people.

• Some started calling the company's main product "Jesus Chicken."

This is also probably true, and it’s pretty clever. You’d think they’d like this name, because if they actually had self-replicating chicken that allowed them to feed the masses, profits would skyrocket.

• They mocked and belittled the company's "Not Open on Sunday" policy.

To be fair, lots of people mock this policy, including people who like Chick-Fil-A’s food and fat people. At least a couple of those can be considered “Christian.”

• They smeared company employees, calling them "anti-gay."

This is most likely an exaggeration, but if anyone was going to be called “anti-gay,” it was probably the executives. I doubt anyone’s gonna run up in a Chick-Fil-A and call the 17-year-old behind the counter “anti-gay.” It’s not like they’re being asked to murder gay people. They’re just selling chicken.

• One individual – Michael Jones – started an online petition campaign "demanding" that Chick-fil-A renounce "extreme anti-gay groups."

And this is bad why? I mean, isn’t Focus on the Family considered “extremely anti-gay?” Oh, I get it: We all should support anti-gay groups, because that’s what Jesus would do.

• Users of Facebook organized witch hunts on college campuses.

Sure, they did. Facebook users organized mobs that hunted down innocent people and burned them at the stake. The police really shouldn’t have found out about it this way.

• In a feature article that ran in the New York Times' Sunday A-section, reporter Kim Severson attacked Chick-fil-A saying it is "anti-gay."

Well, all of the evidence points towards the Cathy family (the owners of Chick-Fil-A) being right-leaning, deeply religious, and supportive of conservative groups. So maybe they’re not “anti-gay.” Just “not in favor of their lifestyle,” which is totally different.

All that because one Chick-fil-A franchise donated a few sandwiches to a seminar aimed at helping couples strengthen their marriages.

If only that was all they did. Really, even gay people wish that straight couples would get their shit together, because they are RUINING the sanctity of marriage. Every little chick helps.

That reaction certainly seems like making a mountain out of a mole hill. You get the sense that there's more to this attack on Chick-fil-A than meets the eye. And you're right. There is.

Yeah, but it’s less about sandwiches and more about money towards anti-gay groups. Not that Michelle Malkin would tell you that. Her angry spittle washed all those pesky facts off of the page.

Chick-fil-A operates on Biblical principles and that irritates secularists

Because no pro-Christian propaganda would be complete without Christians playing the victim. Forget the fact that they actually are anti-gay. Gay people are not anti-Christian. They appear that way because they’re actually responding to the bullshit you brought to them. Otherwise, they’d just go on being gay and gay.

It’s stupid as shit to even suggest that Chick-Fil-A’s business practices are an actual reason, because no one cares about Chick-Fil-A being a Christian-run business. I’ve never heard anyone say, “I don’t eat Chick-Fil-A because they read Bibles in their corporate boardrooms.” Perhaps they don’t because the sodium content is a touch high, however.

Secondly, I think it’s a safe bet that a huge percentage of the people that they paint as “secularists” are actually Christians. They’re just not sensitive assholes.

Thirdly, no one gets irritated by Christians for being Christians. It’s just when they start that whole, “The Bible says you shouldn’t do this,” crap that they become annoying. “Don’t put too much air in your tires, because Thessalonians 2:10 says this.” If you try hard enough, there’s a Bible verse against everything, and having someone throw that in your face all day is fucking annoying. Especially when the God you believe in isn’t nearly as anal. Besides, who wants to live in a world where they’re not allowed to enjoy anything? That’s what makes Christians annoying. And it only gets worse when they form those overbearing fundamentalist groups that don’t believe in the mantra “live and let live,” but instead, “legislate into submission.”

• For Example:
• Chick-fil-A plays Christian music in its restaurants ... exclusively.

Even Kirk Franklin? I never hear Kirk Franklin in Chick-Fil-A…and for that, I thank you.

• Chick-fil-A closes all its locations on Sunday ... no exceptions.

Again, only annoying to people who eat food.

• Chick-fil-A's stated corporate purpose is: 1) To glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us; and 2) To have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A.

Sounds good on the surface, and in fairness, Chick-Fil-A is the only fast food spot that has never pissed me off. But can’t you glorify God after I’m done ordering? I don’t wanna get religion all over my food.