Tea Hee (updated)

Or, OK, the "tea bagging" thing.

As you know if you've been watching Countdown, The Daily Show and so on, the likes of Keith Olbermann and Jon Stewart have been having the time of their lives.

They've been playing with the double-entendres inherent in the allegedly anti-tax, but really anti-Obama, allegedly nonpartisan, but really GOP-dominated "tea parties," you see.

A writer named John Lillpop noticed this too. Among other places, Lillpop writes for the Canada Free Press.

(You'll remember the Canada Free Press. They're the (allegedly Canadian, but really awfully interested in what we're doing down here*) conservative wingnut paper among those taken in by a fake Michelle Obama interview, last October.)

Writing about a recent appearance Janeane Garofalo made on the Olbermann show in an Op-Ed for a site called "News Blaze," Lillpop accuses her of

"Racial Profiling, [and a] Gay Slur in Attacking Tea Parties"

By racial profiling, he means that Garofalo said the protests were racist in nature, which she did--as it happens, I saw the appearance.

I wasn't sure about that statement of hers myself (I go back-and-forth about Garofalo). I am quite sure that racism played its part (if you doubt that, look at these), but whether it was the motivating factor for all, or even a majority, as opposed to the fringe whack-jobs, I'm not sure.

But regardless, unless you think Garofalo's point was that white people cannot protest against the actions of a black person without it being racial in nature...it wasn't racial profiling.

And I don't think that was her point. I think she was arguing that since the protests don't make sense politically, financially, or historically....

This is not about bashing Democrats. It's not about taxes. They have no idea what the Boston Tea party was about. They don't know their history at all.

...then the conclusion she draws is that

It's about hating a black man in the White House," she said.

As I said: I'm not sure about that, but I think it was her point.

Now, what about the gay slur? I've usually got a pretty good ear--considering that I'm straight--for that sort of thing, and I didn't remember anything Garofalo had said hitting me that way. So what is Lillpop talking about? This:

Any reasonable person (white or not) would study the facts and ask some probing questions before accusing millions of strangers of engaging in tea bagging, which is actually a homosexual practice not understood very well by straight Americans, a condition Barney Frank hopes to correct with tens of billions of "education" dollars in the next stimulus package.

Emphasis, need I add, mine.

Ah heh. Ah heh heh. Ah heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh...

So, this guy--who lives, would you believe it, in San Francisco--thinks "tea bagging" is "a homosexual practice," and to "accuse" someone of it is to hurl a gay slur.

Now, I'm quite sure that none of you, my gentle readers, have ever done such a thing in a straight partnership (neither have I...). But I feel I can say with some confidence it is a sexual (not homosexual, not heterosexual, just sexual) practice understood perfectly well by sexually healthy Americans straight, gay, or indecisive.

And to have it suggested that you engage in it--well, I don't see where that's a slur, gay or otherwise. Hell, in some circles, that would be a badge of honor...I imagine.

Of course, no one has been seriously suggesting all these protestors engage in the practice anyway (though many of them assuredly do). Some have just been having fun with the fact that the GOP organizers of these events, apparently unknowingly, left them open to the double-entendre.

Is it sophmoric? Of course. But it's not a gay slur.

"Morning, faggot!" is a gay slur.

Saying Rep. Barney Frank wants to include teachings about this practice, as part of a stimulus program...because Rep. Barney Frank, as you may know, is gay (shudder)...is a slur.

Just so we're clear.

*No play on words intended.