RE: Oh, Fuck You! Stephenson Billings

 Way back in OCTOBER I did a short piece about a homophobic (seemingly repressed gay?) pseudo-journalist Stephenson Billings over at Christwire who believes the Golden Girls made an entire generation gay.  Well apparently Miss Billings doesn't have anything better to do than spend his lonely evenings praying for my salvation, assuming my mother is ashamed of me and writing me hate mail about my "nasty writings".  He also seems to want me to post links to his new "news story" with tons of errors, typos, and assumptions-oh and he thinks Doogie Howser is a real person, not a fictional character. It's really sad in this day in age that someone feels the need to spread such inane propaganda and then try to spread the word of Christianity in the same breath with hateful judgement and bigoted bias. Good job Christwire.








Dear Andrew
I was offended and outraged to see your blog post on my journalism. Obviously you are in far over your head when it comes to dealing with modern intellectuals and men of faith. I suggest you refrain from clicking on too much internet during the night time, it clearly muddies what's left of your common sense. The language you use is completely unnecessary and childish. I hope and pray your mother doesn't read blogs, otherwise she must cry every night at your abuse of the English vernacular. Do you make a living promoting this radical anti-American agenda? I bet it makes your buddies in the Portland area bathhouses or roadhouses burst with joy to have such a foul-mouthed anarchist among frothing among them.
Well Andrew, I do pray that there is some light at the end of your tunnel. When you've gone through a long, difficult life you may be inspired to find something meaningful and important in this world, such as a faith in Christianity. Prayer is a wondrous thing! Get down on your knees every once and a while and think of bigger things!

With blessings and love,

Stephenson Billings, Investigative Journalist
My response after  the jump!



My friend Paige is visiting from  L.A. and we came home from a few cocktails with friends and drafted a response to Mr. Billings:


I too was offended and outraged to see your pseudo-journalism.  Let's get a few things straight before we proceed. There is no need to write to me again. Clearly we are diametrically opposed to each other's social ideology. Criticizing my writing was baseless as you obviously know nothing of my work other than a single blog post critical of your baseless homophobic hypothesis that a television sitcom could make someone a homosexual.  I'm sorry sir, it is scientifically impossible.   You are clearly looking for those critical of you to write about you and author your press exposure, otherwise you would not have attached a link to your Ron Livingston piece, which, by the way, is filled with inaccuracies! Some of which are laughable;  for example Doogie Howser, sir, was a fictional Television Character.  The out actor who played him is Neil Patrick Harris. Your assumptions about myself and the company I keep is equally baseless as you clearly know nothing about me if you think I spend my time in Bathhouses and roadhouses. I'm not sure anyone other than yourself actually uses the term "Road House" when not referring to the the near unwatchable Patrick Swayze film of the same name.   
I'm a happily married man, my life is filled with love, and light and religion- I'm Jewish-  I have absolutely no need for your so called evangelical fundamentalist Christianity. As for my mother- she's quite happy and proud of her son, an award winning writer and film director who's work has been shown internationally to critical acclaim. Don't you dare make assumptions about my life and family, you make an ASS of yourself!

Good luck in life and God-speed. :)

Andrew   

7 comments:

Sarah said...

Dear Billings,

I don't understand how being gay, and being openly true to oneself, is anti-American.

What does nationalism have to do with theology...or so-called philosophy (which I take to mean, specifically, a shoddy form of ethics)?

What does nationalism have to do with sexuality?

And, finally, what does theology (officially) have to do with sexuality other than using it as a basis for exclusion? (This is also true in the case of women--wherein exclusion and VIOLENCE has historically been justified by citing anatomical/ontological/soteriological differences).

What I really want to know is, what do the skewed opinions of humankind have to do with God, or even redemption? Wouldn't the intentional perpetuation of suffering, not matter how small, be tantamount to condemning yourself?

Any help understanding your perspective would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
A current Theology student

Alia said...

Andy,
You've gone too far this time. Roadhouse is a lovely film.

Anonymous said...

1. A letter in response to Mr. Billings' comments at CNN in support of Guiliani's claims that there there were no terrorist attacks under George Bush.Sir,
You wrote: “Technically, he [Guiliani] is correct. 9/11 was an act of war by a rogue nation (Afghanistan) and President George Bush and his team worked tirelessly after that to prevent any further acts from happening. On the other hand, Bill Clinton had the two embassies in Africa destroyed, the Cole destroyer burned, etc. etc. And Mr. Obama, too, has been asleep at the wheel, more concerned with giving health care to people who dont want to work rather than protecting this country which I think is actually in his job description. Shame!”
Where to begin?

1. There was not even one Afghani citizen involved in the 9/11 attacks. Of the 19, 15 were from Saudi Arabia, 2 were from Saudi Arabi, 1 was from Lebanon, and 1 (Mohamed Atta, the ringleader of “The Berlin Cell”) was from Eygpt. Only 8 members had ever set foot in Afghanistan.


--continued

Leon Bloomgren

Anonymous said...

1. A letter in response to Mr. Billings' comments at CNN in support of Guiliani's claims that there there were no terrorist attacks under George Bush.

Sir,

You wrote: “Technically, he [Guiliani] is correct. 9/11 was an act of war by a rogue nation (Afghanistan) and President George Bush and his team worked tirelessly after that to prevent any further acts from happening. On the other hand, Bill Clinton had the two embassies in Africa destroyed, the Cole destroyer burned, etc. etc. And Mr. Obama, too, has been asleep at the wheel, more concerned with giving health care to people who dont want to work rather than protecting this country which I think is actually in his job description. Shame!”
Where to begin?

2. Guiliani says that there were no terrorist attacks on the US under Bush; you say that this is “technically” correct, that Bush worked “tirelessly” on preventing attacks and that Obama is “asleep at the wheel.”
These were attacks that began on American soil under the watch of the FAA, CIA, FBA and Homeland Security, all reporting to Bush. As the 9/11 commission states, the Bush administration “did not heed the numerous sources of credible intelligence by either domestic counter-terrorist agencies or international partners” (9/11 Commission Report Executive Summary, p 13). As George Tenant, CIA Director, said at the commission “During the spring and summer of 2001, U.S. intelligence agencies received a stream of warnings about an attack al Qaeda planned, as one report puts it “something very, very, very big”…. “the system was blinking red.” (9/11 Report, p 6).
The evidence included:
March 2001 – Italian intelligence warns of an al Qaeda plot in the United States involving a massive strike involving aircraft, based on their wiretap of al Qaeda cell in Milan.
July 2001 – Jordanian intelligence told US officials that al-Qaeda was planning an attack on American soil, and Egyptian intelligence warned the CIA that 20 al Qaeda jihadists were in the United States, and that four of them were receiving flight training.
August 2001 – The Israeli Mossad gives the CIA a list of 19 terrorists living in the US and say that they appear to be planning to carry out an attack in the near future.
August 2001 – The UK is warned three times of an imminent al Qaeda attack in the United States, the third specifying multiple airplane hijackings. According to the Sunday Herald, the report is passed on to President Bush a short time later.
September 2001 – Egyptian intelligence warns American officials that al Qaeda is in the advanced stages of executing a significant operation against an American target, probably within the US.
Lastly, on August 6, 2001, the President’s Daily Briefing, entitled “Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US” warned that bin Laden was planning to exploit his operatives’ access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike: “FBI information… indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country, consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attack.” (http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf)
Condeleeza Rice responded, when being asked about the PDB at the Commission hearings, that “it wasn’t something that we felt we needed to do anything about”.
Also, as you know, there WERE Terrorist Acts perpetrated AFTER 9/11, in spite of Bush’s “tireless efforts,” both domestically and internationally planned.
Here are some examples:
a) The Anthrax attacks
b) The blowing up of the King Fahd Mosque in California
c) Luke helder’s Pipebombing in the midwest
d) Beltway Sniper Attacks
e) University of Oklahoma bombing
f) Chapel Hill incident
g) Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle shooting
h) The SUV incident in San Francisco, 2006
i) Attempted Bombing of the Mexican Consulate, NYC
j) Palm Beach arson incident, 2005
k) Edgerton Women’s Care Center destruction, 2006
l) Arson of Planned Parenthood in Virginia Beach
m) Virginia Tech Massacre
Who was “asleep at the wheel”? Who is “technically correct”?

Anonymous said...

3. You write “Bill Clinton had the two embassies in Africa destroyed.” With that logic, then, you should state the obvious: “George Bush bombed the Trade Towers.” This is disingenuous, false and cowardly “journalism”. I say “Shame” to you, Sir.

4. You write Obama is “more concerned with giving health care to people who dont want to work rather than protecting this country which I think is actually in his job description.” Why would you resort to red-herring argumentation? This has nothing to do with Guiliani’s comments at all. Shame, again. Also, in response, isn’t a health plan part of the “protecting this country” mandate of a Presidential job description? Even the present Medicare system saves more lives each year than any number of terrorist attacks. Sounds like “protection” to me.
5. In your response to Greg, above, you accuse Obama of “laziness” in dealing with the Middle East, in spite of the fact that in November the President outlined the first coherent Middle East foreign policy since the mid 1990s. He is, as I am sure you have heard, making the unpopular choice to send in a large increase of troops to Afghanistan to help secure the region. How is that lazy? Although George Bush was advised numerous times from top military brass that the real struggle against terrorism was in Afghanistan, he never spent as much engery there as in Iraq which, as I am sure you know, is a war of occupation, not terrorism. There is not, and has not been, a terrorist movement in Iraq. As I am sure you know, that war was begun by America invading a sovereign country under the false assumption (many say impeachable lie) that there were wmd’s. This, according to the United Nations, is an illegal war. Obama, on the other hand, is actively building a Mid-East policy that endeavors to fight terrorism and is taking steps to downsize American involvement and loss in Iraq, in other words undo damage done before his tenure. What was George Bush’s terrorism policy during his 2000 election run? You would not know because he did NOT have one. Where did Bush send in extra troops after 6-7 years of war? Iraq. Who is lazy again?

Anonymous said...

In summary Guiliani is not “correct” at all: there were both domestic and foreign terrorism in America under Bush’s watch. I hope to chalk this mis-step of his to senility, drunkenness, a loose tongue or brain freeze–at least that would be an ‘honest’ mistake. However, it is hard to not take these baseless, incorrect and deceptive comments as something more insidious–like revisionist history. I would hope that he clarifies his comments soon to ensure that this disturbing idea remains just that.
In summary, you too are not correct at all, Sir. You have not researched your facts, you have engaged in rhetorical false logic and more importantly have entered in on a debate on which you have no ability or understanding to add anything. You are playing partisan politics in its most vulgar form.
I too hope that you put more effort into your certified “Investigative Journalism” career. From my persective your comments suggest that this certification be stripped.

You, Sir, Mr. Billings, are a buffoon.

Sincerely,
Leon Bloomgren

Andrew Klaus said...

Mr. Bloomgren,

Thanks for Sharing your letter to Mr. Billings. Clearly the mental instability over at Christwire (whether they are a satire or not) is simply too high for common sense or rational or even cold hard facts to sink in. Hope you keep readingand enjoying Diggin' To China and keep in touch.