Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Ken Hutcherson: Miserable Failure


I know Ken Hutcherson is the enemy of freedom and sanity and all that's right with the universe, but this post seems kinda like you're goading him into an attack. It's a little more ad hominem than usual.

Posted by christopher | June 29, 2007 5:31 PM

Yay! I was genuinely worried about that initiative. Not getting any news about it since he file the initiative had me worried.

Posted by Tiffany | June 29, 2007 5:35 PM

Yeah, Christopher, I can see where an item about a suggested law that directly targets Dan and people like him is an ad hominem attack. On Kenny. Sure it is.

Posted by Fnarf | June 29, 2007 5:45 PM

1. Fnarf: calling someone a miserable failure is a personal attack.

2. So what? The right wing makes personal attacks all the time. Only liberals sqeamishly back off the personal side of politics, ceding this field to the right.

3. In truth the personal and the politcal should merge. Right wingers call Democrats wine sipping yuppies and the lazy welfare dependents they mysteriously want to bgive money to. Cowards. Traitors. And so on. It all merges. Unfortunately, liberals/progressives too often fail to characterize the rightists. IT's not just that the war is the wrong policy -- the people pushing it are subverting our freedom/are stupid / are tools of Al-Queda/are doing exactly what the terrorists want/are making us unsafe/are fools. The rightists not only support corporate welfare, they do so so their friends cash in and pay 'em back -- the profiteers!


Posted by unPC | June 29, 2007 6:39 PM

Ken Hutcherson isn't a fool; he's the king of the fools (or at least one of them) a fact that has me both fearing his influence and pitying him personally.

Yes, that's a direct attack against him, and no, I don't care.

P.S. I think we might need another nickname on this one Dan but the "names after sex acts thing" has been done to death. Maybe we should all just start calling him Hutchy-Bear or something.

Posted by Fear stupid people in large numbers | June 29, 2007 7:04 PM

So, how long til the embezzlement or sex scandal? He's about due.

Posted by Gitai | June 29, 2007 8:11 PM

my guess on the hutch is that he either a) has a rather tiny penis, b) has a regular sized penis that doesn't work, or c) lost his penis entirely in some horrific accident involving farm machinery, illicit drugs, and a prostitute that didn't speak english very well.

Posted by jameyb | June 29, 2007 8:25 PM

One could ask why does anyone listen to Dan Savage.

Posted by jonah | June 29, 2007 8:58 PM

Don't bring "ad hominem" and other journalism school crap here. It's what keeps the Stranger, Rolling Stone, and other mags more interesting than USA Today or Newsweek or Seattle Weekly.

Posted by The CHZA | June 29, 2007 9:16 PM

Actually, "ad hominem" is a term I learned in a debate class, not in journalism, but your point's taken, CHZA. Keep on Chizzin' ...

Posted by christopher | June 29, 2007 11:03 PM

The thing is, the people who buy into the brand of religion Hutch is selling don't CARE that he lost this round - that's just more EVIDENCE of the POWER OF SATAN at work in the land, and it will make them even more stalwart, and give him even more fodder to denounce these things in front of the True Believers.

Logic, rationality, evidence - it has no effect on these people whatsoever; in fact, it just convinces them even more of the rightness of their cause.

So seriously, how do you fight that kind of closed-loop mentality? Truth is, you don't - it can't be defeated by conventional means. Although I think pointing and laughing a lot is probably as good a strategy as any other.

Posted by COMTE | June 29, 2007 11:29 PM

Jonah, I do not understand what pointing to Dan's previous opinion about the war has to do with any other issue. Do you imagine yourself to be more pure because you opposed the war earlier than Dan or most of the U.S.?
Even if Dan still supported the war he would be 100% in the right in opposing "Hutch" and his ilk. Get over it, Jonah.

Posted by Mary | June 30, 2007 4:34 AM

@12 Mary, I think that what Jonah is pointing out is that Dan can be just as wrong about things as Hutcherson. But Hutcherson is just a hateful bigot. Dan got it wrong about the war. He bashed the anti-war protesters and helped Bush build support for the war. And now you can see the results every day in the news. Dan is responsible for the positions he takes. "Get over it Jonah", you say. Spoken like an American who doesn't have anyone in Iraq at risk of being maimed and killed--just like Dan-and his president.

Posted by Josh | June 30, 2007 7:18 AM

A bloody three months in Iraq
99 U.S. troops killed in June as push intensifies -- and insurgents fight back

Posted by Jonah | June 30, 2007 7:30 AM

Dan - I sure hope someone else is teaching your kid how to read because you obviously don't know how to.

Oh, and Hutch being a miserable failure - yeah, that's what I would label someone responsible for setting up a free adoption ministry that has placed nearly 300 children. Yeah, Miserable Failure stamped all over that one.

Posted by mighty dr | June 30, 2007 7:38 AM

I love how might dr always comes to Hutch's defense. How many of those 300 kids did you molest Hutch?

Posted by Justy | June 30, 2007 8:58 AM

Whatever to 15 and the free adoption ministry. WTF is an adoption ministry, anyway? Can I apply to adopt one of Hutcherson's ministered children?

But anyway, I remember The Stranger saying something entirely different about Hutcherson's influence. Did I miss an update there?

HB 1515 (against gay discrimination) didn't pass, by one vote in the Senate, and some attribute this to Microsoft's withdrawal of support from the bill. Eventually a new version passed, but only after Microsoft executives realized their abject stupidity and started throwing money at the queers to make up for it.

So I wouldn't be too sure the hatemonger is completely ineffective. I'm sure glad his effectiveness seems to be waning, however.

Posted by bitch on heels | June 30, 2007 9:05 AM

What I meant by "get over it" was not the war and the thousands of deaths caused by US policy, but the fact that he changed his mind. I was was in the streets before the war began. If we want to end the war we should welcome support from those who changed their mind since 2003. Like it or not Mr. Savage's views back then were shared by millions of people who now realize how wrong they were. We need them in a movement to end the war. How one used to fell is not relevant.

Posted by Mary | June 30, 2007 10:29 AM

What I meant by "get over it" was not the war and the thousands of deaths caused by US policy, but the fact that he changed his mind. I was was in the streets before the war began. If we want to end the war we should welcome support from those who changed their mind since 2003. Like it or not Mr. Savage's views back then were shared by millions of people who now realize how wrong they were. We need them in a movement to end the war. How one used to fell is not relevant.

Posted by Mary | June 30, 2007 10:30 AM

@18 & 19

When did Savage change his mind? I don't recall reading anything by Mr Savage in which he says he was wrong and the anti-war movement was right. I recall a piece in which he blames Bush for not doing a good job in conducting the war. But I haven't seen anything by Savage saying gee I'm sorry for helping Bush start a war that has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths and mutilated bodies and the pissing away of hundreds of billions of dollars and strengthening AlQueda's position in the middle east and making America hated and distrusted around the world and at even more risk of a major act of terrorism. Sorry Mary I haven't seen any writing by Savage indicating a change of mind or any sort of remorse. Mr Savge's HELPED shape the views of the millions of fools who supported Bush's war. Now instead of making excuses for Savage why don't you ask him for his current views on the war and his responsibility as a supporter of the war?

Posted by Jonah | June 30, 2007 12:08 PM

It's always fun to watch the ignorant masses bandy about the term ad hominem when what they really mean is "insult". Bonus points for revealing that you learned it in debate class where they would have presumably taught you the difference.

Posted by Bison | June 30, 2007 12:48 PM

Ok, if he cares to answer I would ask Mr. Savage his current opinion about Iraq. I thought he had stated a change of heart, perhaps I was mistaken.
Getting to the topic of this thread, Rev. Hutch., The "Reverend" is as totally wrong about gay rights as Bush is wrong about the war.

Posted by Mary | June 30, 2007 1:19 PM

As wrong as Mr. Savage was in 2002 about Iraq, I think you overestimate his influnce and that of The Stranger.
Despite their frequent attacks on the peace movement some of the largest demonstrations in Seattle history took place then. The Stranger could not have stopped that even if that had been their intent.
As 2008 draws closer I expect them to throw a hissy fit about The Greens or Nader being on the ballot, but they will remain powerless to stop them.

Posted by rich | June 30, 2007 1:42 PM

@22 Yes Mary: "The "Reverend" is as totally wrong about gay rights as Bush is wrong about the war." But I believe you would be more accurate to say as Bush AND SAVAGE is wrong about the war.

@23 Yes, Savage's influence is debatable. The thing that pisses me off most about Savage's support for the war, is that he did it not so much out of conviction, although perhaps there was genuine conviction, but as an act of self-promotion for his career as America's favorite gay man. And let's not forget that as a gay man Savage will never have to fight in a war.

Posted by Jonah | June 30, 2007 2:07 PM

I am a fucking fat black turd who was a failure in football. I look like a piece of shit that somebody taped cat hair to to make a goatee. my dick is so small that it looks like I have 2 belly buttons. one day I went into victorias secret to buy a pair of panties when a lesbian working there laughed at me when I brought a frilly panty to the cash register. I told her that my weiner was small that it kept poking out of the holes in mens underwear so I switched to panties. but she kept laughing. thats when i got so angry that I started hating gays. I put on my panties and went to microsoft the next day to tell them that I dont like their policies. bill gates laughed in my face when he saw my man handbag. he called it a purse. then I went home, waxed my legs, and watched soap operas for a few hours. I then went to the ghetto wearing a furry pink adidas tracksuit and made a speech about my days playing tight end for the seahawks. I was not a very good tight end but i lied. Now you know why I, ken hutcherson, hates gays. You people laughed when I bought panties at victorias secret and I will never forgive you. well, I am off to go eat chicken, drink a 40 ounce of malt liquor and watch Grease....that is NOT gay ok.....

Posted by ken hutcherson | June 30, 2007 6:12 PM

I am ken hutchersons wife and it is true. kens schlong is so small that I had to order a special magnifying glass from a copy of Ebony magazine that I was reading. It looks like a wart with two skittles underneath it. I lied and told him that the kids we have are his. they are actually dennis rodmans kids. That is another reason ken hates gays. he found out about how dennis rodman used to come over, wearing a dress and a blonde wig, and impregnate me. so he started hating cross dressers and all gays. my husband is like a fat black female whale who secretly wears my panties when I am out of the house. I know because they are all stretched out to size 55 and the elastic is broken. I hate my husband.

Posted by Mrs hutcherson | June 30, 2007 6:20 PM

Just remember kids/trolls: racism is always a safer bet than gay bashing.

Posted by Jay | June 30, 2007 6:47 PM

Or maybe it's the reverse. I can never get things straight.

Posted by Jay | June 30, 2007 6:48 PM

there is no racism here my friend. I am a gay black man who is really dark and has lived in all black neighborhoods my whole life an I wrote those two lines about that nigga hutcherson. fuck the black community. they have created this problem by making members of their own community outcasts. this is what happens. you get black people who hate you more than white people do. I dont care fuck you hip hop, fake gangsta rap ass niggas.

Posted by ...... | June 30, 2007 8:27 PM

hell yeah. I feel the same way. I am also black and have moved out of the central district to the subarbs. I wear "black style" clothing still and some niggas come up to me and start calling me brother and shit. but I am not their brother. I hate those niggas because given a chance they would kill me for being gay. so while the rest of you broke niggas live in the CD and go to your poor nigga churches listening to hutcherson types..realize this niggas. I am sitting in a 3 story suburban house drinking white people champaign and I will NEVER give any of you any money. you niggas chase me out of my community and make me an outcast and now I am better of for it....white people make good neighbors cuz they aint stupid ass niggas who make noise and start shit every five minutes. so thanks central district niggas for making me feel unwelcome...

Posted by yeah | June 30, 2007 8:40 PM

Not all rap is gansta.

I'm sorry you feel shunned by your own community, but white gays aren't exactly welcomed in a lot of white communities in this country either. Do you think the shitkicker country/hard rock fans in poor/middle class rural white areas are any more tolerant? Besides, I'm pretty sure Hutcherson isn't a big advocate of hip hop either.

Posted by Jay | June 30, 2007 8:41 PM

Yeah: I'd hate to say it, but black or not, you've internalized some white racism. Seriously man, a lot of my friends in Vegas were black and I'd be pretty pissed if some gay guy, whether he was gay or not, just assumed they were murderous thugs.

Posted by Jay | June 30, 2007 8:44 PM

That should read "whether he was BLACK or not."

Posted by Jay | June 30, 2007 8:49 PM

I have to weigh in on the Dan Savage thing since it is all over this post. First of all, it is not so much the fact that Savage supported the war in 2002 (it is a free country sorta with free speech) but it is what he called the anit-war crowd that really pissed me off at him. Reading that article I was not sure if it was Dan or Michael Savage writing it. But I did hear him publicly admit at a town hall last summer (with Randi Rhodes on the stage with him) he was wrong about his support of the war but did not appologize for the name calling of the anit-war crowd.

That aside I think too many people take the Stranger TOO DAMN SERIOUS!!! Honestly, if the Stranger is your source of news you are in really sad shape. And to take Savage at his word is like listening to an old tired drag queen at CC's on a Saturday night.

But as much as I hate what Hutch does to homosexuals with his church he can say/do what he wants to do. Instead of bitching about Hutch we need to get congress to defund the office of Faith Based Initiatives, and get the IRS to start taxing ANY religous organization that claims tax exempt status and then supports clearly political positions and candidates via their church channels.

Let's stop bitching and start coming up with ideas to give the country back to you know, the people.

Posted by Andrew | July 1, 2007 11:18 AM

Thanks Andrew..
a bit of perspective is always welcome.

Posted by old timer | July 1, 2007 11:58 AM

Old tired drag queen? Sounds like an ad homonem attack ...

Posted by bashed & unabashed | July 2, 2007 1:57 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).