A few folks across the Wisconsin blogosphere have commented on the recent murder of Lodewikus “Vic” Milford in Milwaukee’s Third Ward, and surprisingly enough, James T. Harris – he of the “hip musings” – actually made some great points in his recent entry on Milford’s murder. However, Harris’ spot-on entry was spoiled by one James Pawlak, who responded with these comments:

Curious that the Milwaukee media has not reported on the name of the bar from which this “gentleman” went to his death OR the description of the offenders (Latinos?) OR called on the City Aldermen to shut down that Bar as they did for one where there was a justifiable killing of thugs by armed security guards.

Just in case his response in James Harris’ blog were too subtle, Mr. Pawlak made his way over to Dad29‘s blog, where he came up with this doozy:

Of course the Milwaukee Urinal will not publish the name of the bar (Did it fly a rainbow banner at half-staff) or the description of the Latino killers and, if they are taken, the fact of their citizenship status.

Of course, I felt compelled to respond, simply because I fail to see what the victim’s sexual orientation has anything to do with the facts of the case. Vic Milford was shot and killed in cold blood, and his sexual orientation doesn’t – and shouldn’t – have any bearing on the case, nor is it something that’s essential to understanding the crime. It’s disappointing to see homophobia rear its ugly head in this situation, especially given the fact that the victim’s sexual orientation has nothing to do with the facts of the case.

6 Responses to The Homophobia of James Pawlak

  1. iT says:

    I guess Pawlak knows where all the gay bars are at.

  2. Zachary says:

    Heh….I’m of the mindset that the folks who most vehemently rant and rave against homosexuality are often closeted homosexuals themselves. Now I could be way off base, but it’s that whole self-loathing thing at work.

  3. iT says:

    I barely ever gave a thought to whether people were gay until I started hearing the likes of James Pawlak making a prurient issue out of it. At the very least, they seem to harbor a deep fascination over it.

    Incidentally, that somebody went to a gay bar is no guarantee, or even an indicator, that they’re gay. I’m not gay, but I’ve been with friends to gay bars a number of times, albeit not the likes of the ones Al Pacino hung out at in Cruising.

    While I certainly don’t go out of my way to frequent gay bars, my impression is that they often have the best jukeboxes and I’m here to tell you that gay karaoke night is truly a sight to behold.

  4. James Pawlak says:

    “Homophobia” is an incorrect term as it is based on the root word for “fear”. The correct term should be “homoaidia” based on the term for “revulsion” or “disgust”.

    If we eliminate all moral concerns (As has been the homosexual drum-beat for years) and only consider science, then many (Most?) male homosexuals should be considered as a “disease vector” as are flies, rats and their fleas, rabid critters, cockroaches and such like vermin—And we know what good public health measures are to such.

  5. Zachary says:

    Thanks for clarifying James!

  6. iT says:

    Get your stereotypes straight, Pawlak. Are gay men “disease vectors” or immaculately groomed professionals with a distinct flair for interior decorating?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *