In Which Our Author Gets Mad Sometimes (and Spells "Publically" With an "a" Because Screw Spellcheck)

Have you ever gotten mad, the Internet, and done something you know you shouldn't have done?  It's okay if you have.  I think a lot of people do it.  I did it just recently, and that's what I'm writing about.

See, I know that sometimes people will say things I disagree with, and that sometimes they will say those things publically, and that sometimes they will say them so badly that I can't decide whether to punch something or vomit on something or vomit so hard that my vomit punches something.  I also know that when these things happen, the best response is always to ignore it.  The person is obviously retarded, and when you're mean to retarded people, society does that thing where they rub one index finger perpendicularly over the top of the other one which is pointing at you.  I don't know what it's called but it indicates you should feel shame.

I know these things, and yet, when I opened my Purdue student newspaper the other day, I embarked upon a regrettable journey.  For those of you who do not attend Purdue or who do and are wise enough to avoid the opinions section of the Exponent, I'll explain that it is. . . not inspiring.  It is most commonly used in debates between liberal arts and engineering students, as both groups try to conceal the disquieting anxiety they feel about their future and convince themselves that they made the right choice by disparaging the alternatives.  Rarely, a reader will find an argument about an issue of substance, but he can be assured that the letters themselves will reduce a complex, multifaceted topic to a bitter contest of passive aggressive ad hominem attacks.  That is the world into which my anger led me.

Recently, the opinions page has been roiling and seething with reactions to the blog of Purdue professor of library science Dr. Bert Chapman.  Dr. Chapman, who has ruined the positive ideal that I once held of librarians, has written "An Economic Case Against Homosexuality."

The Positive Ideal I Once Held Of Librarians

You can read the case here: http://bertchapman.blogtownhall.com/2009/10/27/an_economic_case_against_homosexuality.thtml
While I was disappointed, I reserved my opinion and watched as the debate played out over the weeks.  But the other day I opened my paper and found the following letter written in support of Dr. Chapman.  The anal retentive punctuation is, for once, not mine.

       The Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, on its Web site (http://glma.org/), offers two surprising documents:  One, "Top 10 Things Gay Men Should Discuss with their Healthcare Provider" and the other, "Top 10 Things Lesbians Should Discuss with their Healthcare Provider."
       Three quotes from the former: 1) [M]en who have sex with men are at an increased risk of HIV infection. ... [T]he last few years have seen the return of many unsafe sex practices."
       2) "Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) occur in sexually active gay men at a  high rate.  This includes ... syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, pubic lice, ... Hepatitis A, B or C virus, Human Papilloma Virus, etc."
       3) "Gay men may be at risk for death by prostate, testicular or colon cancer.  ... (And there are) increased rates of anal cancers in gay men."
       Two quotes from the latter: 1) "Lesbians have the richest concentration of risk factors for breast cancer than any subset of women in the world."
       2) "Lesbians have higher risks for many of the gynecologic cancers."
       Perhaps those intolerant, judgmental, censorious and bigoted students who want a librarian fired for having a "case against homosexuality" blog should try to censor the GLMA.
       When are the ADULTS in this country who believe in the First Amendment going to put the discriminatory, pro-homosexual fascists in their place?

Now, if you haven't vomited a hole in your wall, I hope you can understand why I did.  Immediately after I drove my neighbor to the hospital and explained to the doctor that, yes, barf-induced concussions are a real thing, I decided to fire off a passive-aggressive ad hominem letter in response.  If I had taken a little bit of time to cool down and think about my response, I would have calmly explained that being homosexual is not the same as practicing unsafe sex, and that we can reasonably ask people to stop doing something, but that we cannot ask them to stop being something.  If I had taken even more time to cool down and think about my response, I would not have written one, for fear of that finger thing.  But I took no such time and ended up with a letter that uses the words "economic case against black people."  My last hope was that the editorial staff would choose not to fan the flames of hostile discourse and would not run my letter.  Reading that sentence over, I realize what a ridiculous hope that was.  Here is the letter that was printed in today's Exponent:

Dear Mr. Lela
       In order to preserve my fragile faith in humanity, I must assume that your recent submission regarding the health risks of homosexuality was actually a veiled satire, and that the opinions presented were not yours but those of a cartoonishly ignorant character you were portraying.  I refuse to believe that any real person with an adult mental capacity equates statistical health risks with subhumanity.  According to the CDC, African-Americans are also at a significantly higher statistical risk for developing AIDS than the average population, but I double-dog-dare you (I mean, your satirical character) to publically support “an economic case against black people.”  
       Your character might argue that sexuality is a choice, as opposed to race.  I would strenuously disagree, but for argument's sake, I will offer another example.  Excessive eating is also a choice and also puts those who partake at higher risk for certain expensive diseases, such as diabetes and hypertension.  I have yet to hear it suggested, however, that we strip the overweight of their dignity and basic human rights, forbidding them to marry or have children on the pseudo-rational grounds that they would teach them similar destructive habits.  If your character or Dr. Chapman were truly committed to the economic well-being of the nation and not to their own superstitious ignorance, they would demand that all populations suffering from higher-than-average risk of disease, including minorities and the elderly, be subjected to public ridicule, governmental persecution, and religious condemnation.  For the economy.  Anyways, I think you’re a talented humor writer, but watch that you don’t overexaggerate the stupidity of your subjects.


In conclusion, I get mad sometimes.