Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Is Markos Moulitsas a Closeted Gay Homophobe?


I don't think anyone should "out" gays out of antagonism toward gays or a homophobic desire to embarrass gays. However, when public figures who are secretly gay make a public point and spectacle of denouncing gays publicly, while denying their own private and strong homosexual desires, and sometimes homesexual behavior, then I believe it is constructive to "out" such public figures.

Why? Because demonstrating the hypocrisy of the public vs. private positions of these gay public figures compels them and entire societies to confront homophobia and reevaluate it in the light of the reality than many of those who persecute gays and fight gay rights are secretly gay themselves.

It is in this context that, we intruduce a letter that Markos C. A. Moulitsas Zuniga (MAMZ) wrote to his college newspaper, published on January 25, 1993 (below) in which Moulitsas Zúñiga:

(a) condemned Bill Clinton for seeking to allow gays to serve openly in the military, and

(b) expressed intense fear and discomfort about being around gays during his military service.

Difference between Markos C.Alberto Moulitsas Zúñiga and U.S. Rep. Barney Frank

The Indictment of Markos C.A. Moulitsas ZÚÑIGA (MAMZ)
by Justice and History
(Updated with Additional Information and Counts)

MAMZ joined the US Army in 1988, at the age of 17, and says he remained in he US Army for four years. Is it possible that MAMZ wanted to be the only gay in the military so that he would be at less risk of acting out his own homosexual feelings and desires?

One study shows quite conclusively that subjects who are most antagonistic toward gays are also the most aroused sexually when they watch films of men having sex with other men. We should absolutely consider this study as we read MAMZ's virulently homophobic letter below. But first, here is the study showing the potential relationship between the virulent homophobia in MAMZ letter (below) and MAMZ own sexuality.

Homophobia and Homosexual Arousal

A 1996 study done by the Psychology department at the University of Georgia and subsequently published in the prestigious Journal of Abnormal Psychology concluded with some very interesting findings. The title of the study was Is Homophobia Associated with Homosexual Arousal. While we have all heard anecdotal just-so stories explaining outward homophobia as some sort of denial or projection, this study gathers empirical data to support these types of hypotheses. This is not good news for the ego of the hondo-macho type.

The basics of the study

The researchers gathered 64 male University of Georgia students to participate in the study. They were all fully informed about the nature of the study and were told they could stop at any time. Once they showed up for the study, they were given a few surveys that have been historically demonstrated to be valid assessment devices. The survey that is probably of most interest here is a survey designed to measure the level of homophobic tendencies or homonegativity. After the surveys were administered, the participants were instructed how to fit the apparatus taken to a private room. Once in the private room, baseline measurements were taken before a display randomly showed three types of sexually explicit videos: heterosexual, homosexual-females, and homosexual-males.

The apparatus

The apparatus was basically a band that the participants wore around their penis. The band contains technology that measures the circumference of the participant's junk. Any increased blood flow due to arousal is measured by the increase in penile circumference. While this may be kind of funny, it is a time tested measure that has been used in numerous studies.

In the analysis of the data, two groups were compared. High score homophobic males and low score homophobic males. These categories were determined by the scores obtained from the before mentioned survey.

The interesting part

Both groups showed an overall increase in penis circumference while watching all three categories of sexually explicit material. But the only instance where there was a significant difference in engorgement between the homophobes and non-homophobes was during the homosexual-male porn. The homophobic males showed significantly more engorgement while watching two men go at it than the non-homophobic males.
Is Markos Moulitsas gay? I don't know the answer to that question. But, is Markos Moulitsas among those "homophobic males" who could be expected to demonstrate significantly more homoerotic penis engorgement when he watched gay films? The above study would seem to indicate that he might well be one of those homosexual homoerotic gay men. It's a question whose answer will undoubtedly become known in the fullness of time.

Admittedly, this is a question about his sexuality, not an assertion of a known truth. And yet the letter that MAMZ wrote to his college newspaper, the Northern Illinois University Northern Star, should be considered, particularly in light of the above study. However, as reported in Paragraph (6) of "The Indictment of Markos C.A. Moulitsas ZÚÑIGA by Justice and History (Updated with Additional Information and Counts)":
6). Markos C.A. Moulitsas ZÚÑIGA (MAMZ) is not a "liberal" and he is not a "progressive." In an essay submitted to the Northern Illinois University campus newspaper, the Northern Star, MAMZ strenuously opposed ALL service by gays in the US military, a position more extremely Republican and discriminatory than that taken by many other military members and conservatives. Northern Star
Here's the letter:
Military right

It's truly disturbing how much ado has been made over Bill Clinton´s campaign promise to lift the ban on homosexuals from the U.S. military. It's ironic how it has taken a president who has never served in the military to make a promise that affects the military in such a negative manner.

Those who have served in the military, such as myself, understand the demands and pressures of military life are incompatible with allowing integration with homosexuals. I´m neither socially conservative or prejudiced, and neither is liberal columnist Mike Royko, Gen. Colin Powell, and influential liberal Democrats Sam Nunn and Les Aspin, all who´ve come out against lifting the ban.

Under military circumstances, as much has to be done as possible to focus the unit's mission and keep disciplinary problems to a minimum. Worrying about whether the known homosexual sleeping next to you is watching as you change your underwear may seem trivial as you read this, but to the soldier who's short-tempered after three weeks in the field and four hours of daily sleep, it becomes a matter of great importance to his pride and sensibilities. And in any case, there aren't many people who would change clothes in a group of co-workers if members of the opposite sex were in the same room watching. There is something inherently uncomfortable about it.

Such fears would go a long way in disrupting efficiency and morale in a unit.




As a result of opposition from ex-military people like MAMZ, the US Congress legislated the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" regime, thereby preventing any president, including President Obama, from opening the military to gays by executive order.

As The Truth About Kos reported earlier,

Cherry Andel, a business student at NIU, contemporaneously criticized Moultisas' stand against gays in the military, saying:
I'd like to address this letter to Marcos C. Moulitsas. First, do not assume that former military service people share your views. Rest assured that this one does not. I resent the fact that you assume that just because I'm prior service, I share your opinion.

Second, if a military unit is inefficient and morale is down, that is the entire unit's fault and not just one soldier's fault. As military personnel, we are trained to accomplish a mission. If you cannot accomplish that mission because you're worried about who's watching you while you change your underwear, it sounds
like you don't have the right mental attitude.
MAMZ has since admitted that he "was an asshole" when he campaigned against gays in the military and against gay rights in general. In fact, even the word "asshole" takes on special meaning in the context of a discussion of common homosexuals sex practices, desires, and behavior. Why not simply acknowledge that he was homophobic, without this remarkable reference to specific body parts that serve an integral part of homosexual intimate relationships? What, exactly, does MAMZ mean when he says he was an "asshole" during the period when he publicly expressed the most virulently homophobic feelings. Is he referring to his desired role in homoerotic homosexual relationships?

Gay or not, MAMZ should acknowledge the petition on behalf of gays and their rights, and he should disavow his (above) homophobic published newspaper piece against gays. As the Truth About Kos wrote in 2007, when it first discovered MAMZ's homophobic letter in his college newspaper archives,
John M. Shalikashvili, a retired army general, was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1993 to 1997. Explaining historically why gays are not allowed in the military today, Gen. Shalikashvili said this year in a New York Times Op-Ed piece,
In the early 1990s, large numbers of military personnel were opposed to letting openly gay men and lesbians serve. President Bill Clinton, who promised to lift the ban during his campaign, was overwhelmed by the strength of the opposition, which threatened to overturn any executive action he might take.
Markos A.C. Moulitsas Zúñiga (MAMZ) was one of the ex-military whose vocal opposition to gays' participation in the media made it politically impossible for Bill Clinton to make good on his campaign promise to allow gays to serve in the military.
Regardless of whether he is gay or not, which is of little interest to me, if MAMZ is truly a "liberal blogger" and a "leftist" and a "progessive" then he has an obligation as a public figure to embrace gay rights in 2009 at least as publicly as he denounced gay rights in 1993.

Once he does so, whether he is gay or not is between him and his lovers, regardless of their sexual orientation.


socrates said...

Markos Moulitsas Zuniga could very well be a latent homosexual. What we know for sure is that he is a closet Republican. No progressive would ever support the CIA. Never! Perhaps Kos has had some wiggle room saying his homophobia was displayed in his youth. Yet, his comments about the CIA were made in 2006, just a few years ago.

Putting Freud to the Test

"Although the causes of homophobia are unclear, several psychoanalytic explanations have emerged from the idea of homophobia as an anxiety-based phenomenon. One psychoanalytic explanation is that anxiety about the possibility of being or becoming a homosexual may be a major factor in homophobia. For example, de Kuyper (1993) has asserted that homophobia is the result of the remnants of homosexuality in the heterosexual resolution of the Oedipal conflict. Whereas these notions are vague, psychoanalytic theories usually postulate that homophobia is a result of repressed homosexual urges or a form of latent homosexuality."

We also know that Kos is against the feminist movement. Remember the pie fight controversy?

An open letter to Markos Moulitsas

"Whereas I'm having a hard time mustering more than apathy for the ad itself, Kos's reaction to it is a completely different story.... I didn't really think the pie fight ad was that big of a deal until Kos wrote the above codswallop. It is all too apparent now that any concerns regarding Kos giving the impression that he approved of sexism have been vindicated in spades. If anything, he's shown that the concerns weren't far reaching enough. The original complaint was giving him the benefit of the doubt by suggesting that people might get a mistaken impression of sexism. Kos has made it clear that it is no mistake at all."

This is what we've got. He respects the CIA. Progressives, peaceniks, intellectuals, and true liberals are hard to find at his website. He was blatantly homophobic in his undergraduate days. Is Moulitsas a latent homosexual? In my honest opinion, yes. I also believe he is a lightweight thinker. I believe he is an agent for the status quo of greed and war. I believe he praised the CIA to serve a propaganda aim. He thought it would help his moderate Republican class gain an edge in elections. If you remember the lead up to the war and how a limited hangout was formed to pit the fault between either the CIA or the Bush Administration for leading to war crimes, then you can see where I am going with this. Unfortunately for Kos, he is no teflon Karl Rove. He unwittingly admitted to having worked for the CIA through his own words. He admitted to having worked for them while running the Daily Kos. Markos Moulitsas is a bad man, a disgrace to democratic ideals and freedoms of speech and association.

Francis L. Holland Blog said...

Frankly, I don't even care about MAMZ's sexuality, but I think it's important that all of the constituencies and stakeholders in the Democratic Party know exactly what Markos Moulitsas has said regarding their interests in the past.

If a guy says he's going to "crash the gates" then it's reasonable and even obligatory that we learn as much as we can about the gate crasher.

And at least in the past MAMZ was crashing the Democratic gates from within the Republican Party, and hewing to the Republican Party line against gay rights and in favor of "states' rights", which is just a code word for, "The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution that gaurantees the rights of women, the disabled, gays and minorities are not applicable to the states, so the states can discriminate as much as they want to."

I don't need that kind of gate crasher. When I hear "states' rights" it's the same as hearing, "Segregation Now, Segregation Forever." No, thanks!

Francis L. Holland Blog said...


socrates said...

Also don't forget about the poor and middle class. You are correct that the main point is that Kos is anything but a progressive. People do need to realise that Kos is one generation away from El Salvadoran hit squads. Has Kos ever come out against that? How could someone not have done so? He has been a big fan of Ronald Reagan. He has been a homophobe and sexist. He runs a racist forum. The verdict is in. Markos Moulitsas symbolises the worst aspects of triangulation, the process by which values are lost in the pursuit of winning elections and making money.

Sure, you are obviously not making fun of Markos probably being gay. This could even be more about mysogyny than homophobia. Perhaps Kos' hatred or fear of women is related to his probable latent homosexuality. True progressives realise sexual orientation isn't a choice. I am actually quite willing to forgive his homophobia, since that paper was written during his youth. But he praised the CIA in 2006 while admitting to having worked for them while running the Daily Kos. Unless he retracts what he said at the Commonwealth Club, unless he says he got his dates wrong, which would be fishy in itself, the fact is that the Daily Kos was run by a CIA agent in 2002-2003. That's disgusting. Who's to say he isn't still affiliated with some branch of intelligence. Examples of modern day cointelpro are all over the place. A military spy named John Towery infiltrated a peace group in Washington State. Hal Turner, Sean Hannity's buddy, turns out to be an FBI informant. One doesn't hear much about these kinds of stories, but they are real. Maybe if Kos hasn't been suppressing his sexuality his whole life, he could have ended up doing something positive for the world. And it's not just Kos. The whole Daily Kos is run by cheating creeps. There is no freedom of speech and association at that blog. Markos Moulitsas Zuniga and his whole staff are full of shite. There's a Tinoire who runs a place called Progressive Independent. She is tied to the neonazi Michael Rivero. Rivero worked for McDonnell Douglas, the largest military contractor of the time. Tinoire claims to have been military intelligence. She also claims to be a socialist. But how does a socialist end up praising Ron Paul and Michael Rivero? One of Progressive Independent's affiliates is Velvet Revolution. That is run by Speedway Bomber Brett Kimberlin and Brad Friedman of BradBlog. Those two have a strange fascination with selling hoaxes in return for donations from wealthy new agers and other assorted gullible people. The internet reeks of cointelpro.

Anonymous said...

Sure, Moulitsas was a conservative homophobe in his youth, but I was under the impression that after he underwent an ideological shift he became more liberal, and now very vocally both opposes don't ask don't tell and supports gay marriage.

The entire argument against him seems to be that he trained at the CIA and was considering a career there before he got involved with the Howard Dean campaign.

So am I to understand that everything he does or says that seems to support progressive causes is actually a "secret CIA plot" to destroy the left? Seems a bit far-fetched.

Francis L. Holland Blog said...

Anonymous, you have acknowledged that MAMZ trained at the CIA and was a committed Republican before he announced that he was a progressive - while he has training at the CIA.

Don't you think it's curious that someone who has always been known as a Republican suddenly decides to enter the "progressive" blogging world while simultaneously spending two years at CIA training headquarters in DC?

That's a lot of circumstantial evidence. And instead of denying that he is working for the CIA, he says they are "very liberal" and he wouldn't mind working for them in the present. That's in his speech to the Commonwealth Club.

After a speech like that I would think that we would at least want Moulitsas to state clearly that he DOESN'T work for the CIA in the present. But he has never disavowed working for the CIA in the present. I wonder why?

Here's another question: Can you explain to me why, after all of this time in the spotlight, you still can't tell me the name of a single member of Markos Moulitsas family. In fact the only place where you can learn the name of ONE member of his family is at this blog, the Truth About Kos.

Why has MAMZ developed such a compelling backstory about his Salvadoran background (virtually all of which turns out to be false), and yet he cannot mention the name of a single member of his biological family in public.

What we have here is a man with a very elaborate cover story. Can you explain to me why MAMZ doesn't go over to his Wiki page and add the fact that he worked/trained at the CIA for two years. Even if it's not one hundred percent probative of his present relationship to the CIA, it certainly is relevant to his biography, wouldn't you agree?

So, why doesn't he acknowledge that at DailyKos and Wikipedia? The answer is very simple. He has something to hide and he will not discuss it because the answers would incriminate him.

Why did his family get a million dollar loan guarantee from the Overseas Private Investment Council? This guy is NOT a progressive. He is a right-wing infiltrator pretending to be a progressive.

libbtards said...

You people are mentally disturbed. The dudes a libb 'pillow biter.' turned libb-tard...

idiots4obama com is the perfect site for you morons.