More Pearls of Wisdom
By Laura Oppenheimer in Miscellaneous on Dec 19, 2007 6:00PM
It's time to stop the madness of the Red Eye. The Trib is getting more expensive while its circulation shrinks, the Reader has fired its best writers, the Sun-Times is laying off a quarter of its workforce...so guess what? It's time to hold a widely circulated, widely read daily newspaper to a higher standard.
And despite some of your (and our) claims to the contrary, the Red Eye is this paper.
A lot of the time, we're able to give it a pass. We dig the Metromix stuff, are able to quickly take in a bunch of the Trib's main article, and let's face it: sometimes, reading about Jamie-Lynn Spears' pregnancy is all one can really handle while riding the El.
But this? This should not be in a newspaper. It isn't informative, it isn't news, and it isn't even well written. It's mostly just insulting, and we deserve better from a daily paper.
Today's Humpday column (for those of you that don't pick up the Red Eye) is by our pal Dustin J. Siebert, and focuses on the issue of homophobia. [Ed note: Siebert's take on respecting all kind of people would be a lot more credible if he weren't so sexist: he ditched a date for being "thick." He recently learned "Women must be right. Even when all logic and reason dictates otherwise, they must win the debate." And he's very authoritative about what we should do with our bodies, which are, btw, baby-feeding factories: "All women should keep ink away from the cleavage area. Your infants need food, not reading material." Guh.] Siebert wants people to "get over it" and suggests that homophobic religious people consider these two pieces of "inarguable logic" in order to become accepting of GLBT people.
>> There have been no empirical studies I know of linking one person's homosexuality to that of another. In other words, being around gay people won't make you or your impressionable children gay. [Ed note: But even if it did, isn't the point of this story that there's nothing wrong with being gay?]
>> What so-called benevolent God would allow gays (many of whom are God-fearing) to exist, only to damn them to hell?
God help us all if our opinions about tolerance are formed from studies that Siebert "knows of." And his idea that a benevolent God wouldn't damn gay people to hell? Is this the same God that allows genocide, child abuse and the CTA to happen? Enough is enough. If we can all agree that the Red Eye is here to stay (and acknowledge that boycotting a free publication isn't a particularly effective way to encourage positive change), then let's put our collective thinking caps on. What would improve the Red Eye for you?
Image via Dustin Seibert's Facebook page.