Every once in a while a post shows up that’s surprisingly instructive to read. This one by Catholic News Agency columnist Louie Verrecchio is such a thing. His arguments are notable for several reasons:
1.) They’re more cogent than most.
2.) They come out of the ‘intellectual’ Christian community.
3.) They address homosexuality.

Louie surely believes he knows of what he speaks, or he wouldn’t remind you that his opinion “has been endorsed by Cardinal George Pell of Sydney, Australia; Bishop Emeritus Patrick O’Donoghue of Lancaster, England, Bishop R. Walker Nickless of Sioux City, IA, USA and others.” Thus we’re reading a top notch Christian editorialist.

This is his post: “Bullying: A pseudo crisis of convenience.” You’ll have to indulge me because the arc of all his arguments gets a bit long, so I’ll skip to homosexuality. On that he writes:

As the [Dan] Savages of the world would have us believe, a large percentage of human beings have always been “born gay,” but it is only thanks to the good efforts of people in the LGBT community that increasingly more of these kids are now able to come out of the closet.

This would be our argument. Louie knocks it down by telling us what he and other Christian intellectuals already know:

Nonsense. The LGBT community has done nothing but yeoman’s work in making sure that sexually under-developed, confused adolescents who are wrestling with unnatural, disordered desires exist in spades.

This is early homo-sexuality. Some kids happen only to be partially developed, and confused. I’m trying to think of an apt analogy for this. When your two year-old puts a stick in his mouth, his desire for food is confused. But once he gets older (more ‘developed’), he’ll know that his mouth is really meant for cake and pie.

From there, these champions of justice do everything they can to make sure that these unfortunate children are summarily deprived of the help they really need, because God forbid anyone acknowledge the underlying psychological and spiritual maladies that accompany homosexuality.

Chaos reigns, and that’s when gay activists tell the young child to eat even more sticks. And dance (yes!) to his heart’s content because he’s a special wood-gobbling fag. Oh no. Now you see the problem.

The reality is that people like Dan Savage and his “husband” are simply using these poor kids to further their own self-satisfying agenda.

As if the people like Dan could have a “husband” because that’s not “legal.” Anyway, that’s the story of homosexuality. In short: immaturity plus acceptance equals fake. Homosexuals just aren’t sexually real. They’re unedited miscues, preserved by enabling. Ebonics comes to my mind, as if that were “language.”

Now we draw back from these details, and we look at the whole post. Working backward from homo-sexuality . .

With K-thru-12 schoolyards from sea-to-shining-sea boasting a bumper crop of soft-bellied boys who have been raised to believe that every incident of normal youthful conflict is best resolved by mommy in a parent-teacher meeting, the time was apparently ripe for launching a corresponding ersatz crisis; namely, that dreaded social epidemic known as “bullying.”

. . we see that nearly all American boys are wussies. Holy smokes. That’s a difficult charge to level at millions of young people, but it sounds somewhat clever when it lacks evidence. I sense why bishops and cardinals like this ‘Louie’ (how again do you herd 20,000 species of beetle onto an ark?). Now all the way back, to the top:

. . liberal social engineers are hell bent and determined to see to it that society doesn’t allow a healthy sense of maleness (e.g., attributes like competitiveness, protectiveness and leadership) to take hold in the next generation of husbands and fathers; ergo their deliberate effort to discourage the development of authentic masculinity in male children from boyhood to adolescence.

. . we liberals are wiping the whole of masculinity off the map. Right. [Hey why, btw? Louie: 'Because liberal guilt over the way Grampa treated women.' Louie does not grasp how making every man gay might be even crueler to them.] Let’s be honest: this is raving madness. Where the hell could this lunacy have come from?

You wonder, then it clicks. That fancy Christian model, again — all males are exactly alike. The fully-developed destination for each of us is easy heterosexuality, remember? Something’s got to explain for the huge number of queers. And there’s your fancy answer: we leftists have been decimating male identity and behavior. It would be wise to stop the march of masculinity in its tracks before it fell upon macho. Hence, America has been cranking out shiny new limpwrists “in spades.”

So let’s just stop bullying the bullies, shall we? Before this country’s seen its last red-blooded kid crying before Matthew Shephard’s picture, or something worse.

They should have been prepared for this: “. . it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.” Right then, a vicious co-ordinated salvo of political recriminations should have been launched at Obama’s head. I expected scorched Kenyan.

Instead, it was very lame. It continues at best as a values food fight: all sorts of things going every direction all at once. Mary Matalin’s Sunday take on Obama’s statement was a perfect example. It’s a buffet of every bitter bigoted rant — and wasn’t she lovely as always? But first, Hilary Rosen’s relevant comments. This was on ‘This Week with George Stephanopoulos’:

You know, when I think about it personally, I came out at 17. The idea that a president of the United States would ever say that I could have that kind of a relationship, when all I was trying to do was figure out how, you know, just to sort of walk down the street without worrying about it. And — and I think that kind of clarity, that kind of leadership, it was a politically risky move for the president to take. The fact that he did it I think is really admirable.

Great take. Matalin responded with a 7-sentence reply, parsed for amusement:

. . It’s not risky if you don’t have a choice.

Obama had no choice. Say what?

You don’t get bonus points if you’re doing your job.

Only the left would tell the President to embrace gay marriage because ‘it’s your job mister.’ I think she’s insinuating. . actually I’m not sure how this is an insult. Weird.

He evolved into the position he originally had.

He’s done nothing. It’s just an invisible historic thing, of the sort everyone will surely remember years from now. Oh.

He’s not bold.

He’s a coward. Nice try, phobiapants.

He was for it before he was against it, and then he evolved back to where he started, which is to be for it.

She’s beginning to run in circles. Which of course is annoying for everyone involved.

His vice president outed him.

He’s gay. Gay for gay people but in the closet until, you know, bigmouth Joe.

And the gay community was holding the money up, and he was on his way to George Clooney’s with an open purse.

He’s a Hollywood queen, one of those Santa Monica boulevard types. That image should resonate with America, who are already sick of RuPaul. But then there’s no good argument against marriage equality, is there? The nuts don’t know what else to say.

The President’s gayness. Now that he’s mentioned same-sex couples should have the right to marry, Barack is one cakey George Washington. He’s the pink black president, did you know?

[Rand] Paul, Kentucky’s junior senator, “joked about President Obama’s changed postion [sic] on gay marriage in a speech in Iowa Friday: ‘Call me cynical, but I wasn’t sure his views on marriage could get any gayer,’ ” BuzzFeed.com reports. Brown, editor in chief of Newsweek, dubbed Obama THE FIRST GAY PRESIDENT on the magazine’s cover . .

And the New Yorker put a rainbow White House on its cover, great. Can we stop this, please? It is difficult to be homosexual. Let’s not throw the word ‘gay’ around like it meant ‘surprising’ or ‘having a new haircut.’ He’s shown some courage now, and that’s to be applauded, but Barack’s hardly shown gay courage. It’s political courage, that’s all.

People get a thrill out of appropriating things foreign and strange to them, like the wiggers I used to see in the 90s. The media are calling Obama ‘gay’ in the same way Clinton was called ‘black’ during his time. I thought that was stupid, too, but here’s the difference: black folks said it first. Fair enough.

Newsweek and the New Yorker? That’s too much, thank you. Back into your computer cubicles, culture whores. More Taranto, ugh:

Paul’s joke was widely condemned, with the lefties at ThinkProgress.org crowing that “even Tony Perkins” of the conservative Family Research Foundation found it “unacceptable.” Of course although Paul and [Tina] Brown made essentially the same joke, the tone was different. Paul’s joke was mocking, perhaps even mean-spirited, while Brown’s (promoting an exultant piece by Andrew Sullivan) was a sympathetic in-joke.

There’s the wind-up, here’s the predictable pitch:

Yet if you think about the substance of the joke rather than the tone, Brown’s version was worse, or at least was representative of something worse. Paul, it seems safe to say, was expressing the views of the majority of his constituents, nearly 75% of whom voted in favor of a 2004 constitutional amendment . .

Rand Paul, Ayn’s frat-boy with the I.Q. to match, decided to throw aside his insulting personality in favor of speaking as an agent of the state of Kentucky. I see. Seeing as how the “Iowa’s Faith and Freedom Coalition” were really begging him to talk about his home state, that’s perfectly understandable. Of course, if anyone should call Obama a butt-boy, it might just bring down the house. Worlds collide.

You can bet Rand’s the sort of guy who stifles the urge to spit in the faces of gays. In a previous life, and still a drunken teen, he’d infiltrate the queer bars on the outskirts of town and lure the fays outside so he and his buddies could beat them half to death. That’s not politics, that’s disgust. And only gay people have to live with being gay.

What it is, I don’t know. Is this good or bad for the country? I don’t know. Maybe it will create a strain of krav maga super-soldiers. Would that be good for the country? I don’t know.

I do know that I remember being four years old. I wouldn’t want to remember that. No offense. And that’s my entire take on this, whatever it is.

The brainiac super-sailors over at American Thinker had more to say about it.

May 11, 2012
Time Magazine’s motherhood cover is a disgrace.
Keith Riler

Time Magazine’s motherhood cover is a disgrace.

It looks nothing like the real and loving act of a mother nursing her baby and is thus vulgar.

For the right-wing, reality is always about appearances. For the rest of us, the image is too much reality. Compared to their Eisenhower reference three-by-fives, it might as well be Martian. They probably felt the same way about an Arab war until the Iraqi insurgency kicked in and Americans began getting torn to pieces. Then they remembered World War II and were immensely relieved. Whew, thank god . .

The child is oddly and uncomfortably too old and large and both parties are coldly depicted without any trapping of nursing, suggesting pornography.

Heh, that’s actually true. But porn, we shall say, has crowded my particular reality.

And, of course, the composition glorifies single motherhood.

Are You Mom Enough, Buddy?

It is anti-family, anti-child, a disgrace and a sixties cliché for “liberation.” It is also a perfect snapshot of Barak Obama’s way “Forward” for the country.

Front and center, maggots! Standard issue tatas in your mouths and we staaaarrrrt marrrchiiinggg . . hep-two-three-lick hep-two-three-sip.

The comedy is robust; today is no different. Having heard that 18 y.o. Mitt Romney was a gay-bullying charmer back in 1965, yes, Ann posted the story. But she then sat quietly for a few minutes, stumped. How to beat this? The truth is an Althousian construct after all. There must be something I can do to make everything right.

I know, she thought: I’ll go after Barack Obama. Fair is fair, after all:

ADDED: Obama bullied a black girl:

BINGO. “Dreams from My Father.” What a terrific pile of oppo that’s become, huh?

Her name was Coretta, and before my arrival she had been the only black person in our grade. She was plump and dark and didn’t seem to have many friends. From the first day, we avoided each other but watched from a distance, as if direct contact would only remind us more keenly of our isolation.

Finally, during recess one hot, cloudless day, we found ourselves occupying the same corner of the playground. I don’t remember what we said to each other, but I remember that suddenly she was chasing me around the jungle gyms and swings. She was laughing brightly, and I teased her and dodged this way and that, until she finally caught me and we fell to the ground breathless. When I looked up, I saw a group of children, faceless before the glare of the sun, pointing down at us.

“Coretta has a boyfriend! Coretta has a boyfriend!”

The chants grew louder as a few more kids circled us.

“She’s not my g-girlfriend,” I stammered. I looked to Coretta for some assistance, but she just stood there looking down at the ground. “Coretta’s got a boyfriend! Why don’t you kiss her, mister boyfriend?”

“I’m not her boyfriend!” I shouted. I ran up to Coretta and gave her a slight shove; she staggered back and looked up at me, but still said nothing. “Leave me alone!” I shouted again. And suddenly Coretta was running, faster and faster, until she disappeared from sight. Appreciative laughs rose around me. Then the bell rang, and the teachers appeared to round us back into class.

So you wonder about this tale. The kids all seem awful young, don’t they? You do a little digging, and you find out that the school, Punahou, was in Hawaii. And Barack transferred into it when he was all of 10 years old.

Coretta is Joella Edwards, who now lives in Florida. In interviews, she recalled the day Barry Obama arrived as a fifth-grader, having returned to Hawaii from four years in Indonesia with his mother. “He had a brown and white weird-design shirt, and just kind of stood there,” Ms. Edwards said. “I remember thinking, ‘Wow, there’s another black person here.’”

By the time ‘Coretta’ started chasing him, and he shoved her, what do you think Barack would have been? 11? Maybe? Nice try, Ann. ‘Coretta’ got so sick of Punahou that she left when she was 15.

Anyway, this isn’t even “bullying.” It’s embarrassment. When you dig up the incident, Ann, where 18 year-old Barack gets a gang of his buddies to hold down a lesbian teen so he can cut off her ponytail, call me. You idiot.

. . he spotted something he thought did not belong at a school where the boys wore ties and carried briefcases. John Lauber, a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney, was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality. Now he was walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye, and Romney wasn’t having it.

After he organized a posse to tackle the fay, Mitt cut off the damned blondness. Everyone else who participated in the bullying feels bad about it, but the candidate can’t even remember it:

His campaign spokeswoman, Andrea Saul, said in a statement that “anyone who knows Mitt Romney knows that he doesn’t have a mean-spirited bone in his body. The stories of fifty years ago seem exaggerated and off base and Governor Romney has no memory of participating in these incidents.”

Enough of your tales of cruelty, partisans. Everyone knows he’s not that sort of guy. Hold up, this just in:

Mitt Romney said Thursday that “back in high school I did some dumb things” but insisted that the prep school pranks chronicled in a news story were never intended to target gay students specifically.

“They talked about the fact that I played a lot of pranks in high school, and they described some that, boy, you just say to yourself, ‘Back in high school,’ you know, ‘I did some dumb things.’ If anyone was hurt by that or offended by that, obviously, I apologize. But overall, high school years were a long time ago . .”

So Romney does have “a mean spirited bone in his body.” Oops. The winger scrambling had already gone ant-like and map-wide before Mitt admitted to assaulting the poor kid. One wonders just how everyone will handle the new truth. Gawd knows they were already doing a piss-poor job of bailing the candidate out in the hours before this.

Jim Geraghty at National Review: “New Bright Shiny Object Enters Presidential Campaign Debate”. Somebody needs to give Jim a refresher course in propaganda.

But it is a fascinatingly convenient coincidence for the Obama campaign.

Romney said he does not recall the 1965 incident . . [cut/paste] . .

The bullying victim in the story died in 2004.

Jim barely sat down before Rich Lowry slapped the back of his head. You don’t admit it was bullying, fool. And you certainly don’t remind everyone the victim is dead. Sympathy? Heard of it? Jim’s post, 89 words of his own and 84 of the Washington Post’s, then got an update. This new opinion of Jim’s, skeptical and derisive, was a 371 word footnote to the original:

. . it is fascinating that an alleged assault, with many witnesses, generated no reports to authority or discipline at a school where smoking a cigarette is sufficient to get a student thrown out of school. If the victim’s hair was such a topic of attention and conversation, it is impossible no one noticed his hair had been cut.

However, it is possible that Jim can’t remember how gays were once treated, or how they’re treated in much of the United States today. The NR prides itself on its sentient writers, whoever they may be. Darleen Click at Protein Wisdom, “Praetorian WaPo: Romney not better than Jesus.” If this makes no sense to you, you’re with me. See if this helps:

… OOooooOOOoooo! Troubling! Not just any long-haired non-conformist, but a presumed gay kid! In 1965!!

Now the peroxide student is a long-haired non-conformist. I suppose bleaching your hair near Mitt Romney makes you some sort of asshole, and Darlene’s just stating the obvious.

At least when Jesus tossed the money changers out of the temple, they weren’t presumed homosexuals.

If they’d been cakey, think of how much worse! Good on Mitt for his Biblical style. Pro-fess-or Le-gal-donk: “Your mainstream media at work – Romney teased someone in high school in 1965.” Gootchy goo, fags:

I once participated in a group which gave someone a wedgie when I was at summer camp in the 1960s. That’s why I’ll never run for President, my record is stained.

If you were 18 years old, like Mitt was, and organized a group of your peers to tackle a queer and cut his BVDs off, you’d have a serious problem, Pro-fess-or. Laws and such, dude.

Now about that Obama trip to Pakistan and his 20 years in Jeremiah Wright’s church … bigot, racist, Islamophobe, wingnut.

Pro-fess-or and Mittens are the exact same sort of victimized conservatives, aka ‘American Studs.’ Go prove it, pal — grab some scissors and tackle the first twinkle toes you see. See you in court, de-fen-dant. Ed Morrissey: “Cutting-edge reporting from WaPo: Let’s take an in-depth look at … Romney’s cruel high-school pranks.”

Despite demonstrating zero curiosity over Barack Obama’s college transcripts to check on just how brilliant the academic actually was, the Post now has a big expose on Mitt Romney’s high school career as … a practical joker:

When a young man is left crying and screaming for help, the “prank” counts neither for practical nor joking. But at least Ed has the right idea, lying and then changing the subject. What about grades? What about this?

Here’s something that happened in the last three years:

Jesus Christ! It’s the seasonally adjusted civilian labor force participation rate in four-month increments! What a vicious 2% socialist wilding across three years. If that don’t make you wanna tackle this Barack feller and shave his head, well, then.

But Friedemann and several people closest to Romney in those formative years say there was a sharp edge to him. In an English class, Gary Hummel, who was a closeted gay student at the time, recalled that his efforts to speak out in class were punctuated with Romney shouting, “Atta girl!”

And worse. The piece begins by recounting an attack that Willard led upon another student, John Lauber. Lauber had the nerve to bleach his hair.

“He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!” an incensed Romney told Matthew Friedemann, his close friend in the Stevens Hall dorm, according to Friedemann’s recollection. Mitt, the teenaged son of Michigan Gov. George Romney, kept complaining about Lauber’s look, Friedemann recalled.

So the Governor’s son did something about it:

. . Friedemann entered Stevens Hall off the school’s collegiate quad to find Romney marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber’s hair. Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors.

It was a troubling incident. For the bullies, now in their sixties, it’s a bad memory.

The incident was recalled similarly by five students, who gave their accounts independently of one another. Four of them — Friedemann, now a dentist; Phillip Maxwell, a lawyer; Thomas Buford, a retired prosecutor; and David Seed, a retired principal — spoke on the record. Another former student who witnessed the incident asked not to be named. The men have differing political affiliations, although they mostly lean Democratic. Buford volunteered for Barack Obama’s campaign in 2008. Seed, a registered independent, has served as a Republican county chairman in Michigan. All of them said that politics in no way colored their recollections.

“It happened very quickly, and to this day it troubles me,” said Buford, the school’s wrestling champion, who said he joined Romney in restraining Lauber. Buford subsequently apologized to Lauber, who was “terrified,” he said. “What a senseless, stupid, idiotic thing to do.”

“It was a hack job,” recalled Maxwell, a childhood friend of Romney who was in the dorm room when the incident occurred. “It was vicious.”

“He was just easy pickins,” said Friedemann, then the student prefect, or student authority leader of Stevens Hall, expressing remorse about his failure to stop it.

Except for the guy with the scissors:

His campaign spokeswoman, Andrea Saul, said in a statement that “anyone who knows Mitt Romney knows that he doesn’t have a mean-spirited bone in his body. The stories of fifty years ago seem exaggerated and off base and Governor Romney has no memory of participating in these incidents.”

That’s why we you and me suck. I figured that out by reading some graduate level work from various Bryman scholars of Poltroon Studies [adjunct courses available through the Routine Butt Panic and Testosterone Misanthropy schools]. No, I didn’t read much more than the students’ dissertations and, frankly, nothing past their titles. Because that’s how you analyze scholarship: first, title searches and, then, laughing. Followed by top-notch serious blogging with a limit of 500 words what renders it immune from critical glibbery.

A Terrible, No Good, Awful Night for Barack Obama
by Erick Erickson

Nope this one’s about something else. I think Barack got crowned by a klieg light backstage at Fay Hegemony Studios, or something.

Breaking: Noted gay-marriage supporter finally drops cynical charade
by Allahpundit

Here we go — Obama said he was against it, then he said he was for it. Obviously he was lying then, and he’s lying about lying now. Wait: I see a body, near moving water. Not far from a remote road, with some bushes, maybe.

Gay for Pay
Obama reversal on same sex marriage comes just days after donors threatened to withhold funds
by the Washington Free Beacon Staff

The President is getting raunchy with men for money. This is a radical theory, one whose meanings are immediately unexplained, so they’re lost to history. Goodbye there they go. The ‘Washington Free Beacon Staff.’

OBAMA FLIP FLOPS, DECLARES WAR ON MARRIAGE
by the Fox Nation

He was leading the War on Virginity. As well as that was going, God knows why he switched sides. Maybe it was a numbers game: a virgin can break a cherry all of once. A family values guy can break his vows whenever there’s a full moon (it’s true. try arguing otherwise.). Also whenever hooker bargain days. Or when he’s got that old methamphetamine binge hankering for some sodomy sweet’ums. Sweet bugger loving sodomy, Jesus help me.

‘On My Behalf’
Really?
• By ELLIOTT ABRAMS

I’m lost. Guesses? Can’t believe I have to read this.

The debate over same sex “marriage” has engaged the heartfelt feelings and convictions of millions of Americans. Then there is Barack Obama.

Then there’s the debate over him. And that’s by way of the same: heartfelt feelings and convictions, millions of good honest people blah blah. Unless Elliott meant something else? ‘Obama’s a merciless operative bent on destroying the world’s ABRAMs with gay rights.’ That would by callous and cynical, but Elliott said it first and internet dibs.

TRENDING: Romney: ‘I’ll take a lot of credit’ for auto industry success
CNN | Kevin Liptak

. . the presumptive GOP presidential nominee said Monday his views played a big part in the auto industry’s recovery.

“I’ll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry’s come back,” Romney told WEWS-TV in Cleveland.

He hasn’t had a job in years, certainly not among the executive ranks of the auto industry, and he’s held no sway within the Obama administration. Still, you can thank him for GM, Chrysler and Ford turning big profits now. I saved your asses, union millionaires. You’re welcome, America.

“My own view is that the auto companies needed to go through bankruptcy before government help,” Romney said. “And frankly, that’s finally what the president did. He finally took them through bankruptcy.”

Yes, but wrong. First: Mitt demanded the government allow the companies to fail. The legendary NYT op-ed:

Let Detroit Go Bankrupt
By MITT ROMNEY | November 18, 2008

IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

At the time, the automakers were begging the Bush administration for billions of dollars. Romney saw his political opportunity and took it: don’t you give them a penny, he wrote. Until they’re radically restructured by their creditors in bankruptcy, they’ll be too fat to survive. The Bushies ignored Romney the genius and coughed up some money.

The Obama administration later took over and went further: we are going to remake these companies and rescue the industry. Come up with plans to make yourselves 21st-century carmakers, Detroit, and then we’ll give you tens of billions in loans. With that government money, GM and Chrysler could be walked through bankruptcies without the creditor sharks ripping the flesh from their bones.

This is what Romney is too chickenshit to admit, though he knows it. Without the money, they get torn to bits. Chrysler surely would have been reduced to rubble or a smoking husk, but then destruction was Dr. Romney’s prescription. This sort of capitalism will be good for them, said the preening capitalist.

The government refused that sorry advice. So, second: They gave the carmakers money despite Mitt Romney. And the radical re-making of the car industry was underway. Next up, what a disaster.

Before the companies were allowed to enter and exit bankruptcy, the U.S. government swept in with an $85 billion sweetheart deal disguised as a rescue plan.

By the spring of 2009, instead of the free market doing what it does best, we got a major taste of crony capitalism, Obama-style.

So Romney, third: The $85 billion dodge of healthy free-market practices is disastrous corruption. Unions buying into a failing business in order to save their members jobs is crony capitalism. Typical profit-free corruption, a sure-fire fail. Romney had been wobbling on this narrative a bit, but hadn’t quite derailed. The bailouts were appalling.

But then, fourth: Booming profits for the new automakers — wasn’t that predictable? So now, fifth: Thank God everyone listened to me. Slap my freaking back, country. This is the sort of man other men call “asshole.”

funny

As long as the Nets are allowing Jay-Z to call their marketing shots — what a shock that he chose black and white as the new team colors to stress, as the Nets explained, their new “urban” home — why not have him apply the full Jay-Z treatment?

Why the Brooklyn Nets when they can be the New York N——s? The cheerleaders could be the Brooklyn B—-hes or Hoes. Team logo? A 9 mm with hollow-tip shell casings strewn beneath. Wanna be Jay-Z hip? Then go all the way!

Unlike Phil, I’m classless and will spell it out: The New York Niggers.

I wonder why he picked out that particular team name. What with Jay-Z in charge, he could have figured the Nets for the New York Moneybags, or New York Bling. Maybe the New York Beyonce Hubbies. But he figured them for The New York Niggers. Jay-Z was born in Brooklyn, and maybe that’s a clue.