Friday, October 20, 2006
The Washington Blade is reporting that Senator Tom Coburn is investigating how some agencies fighting the AIDS crisis is spending money going to conferences.
His legislative assistant "conveniently" sent out an email about how "Paul Kawata, executive director of the National Minority AIDS Council, a Washington, D.C., group that organized the Florida AIDS conference, stayed in a penthouse suite at Hollywood’s Westin Diplomat Hotel that included a large screen TV, a luxury spa and a grand piano."
Now Mr. Kawata has gone on record saying that the room was free of charge "along with 25 free meeting rooms, as a “perk” for booking 950 guest rooms at the hotel, 11 months ago, for a conference that drew 3,000 attendees."
The entire article is here - http://www.washblade.com/print.cfm?content_id=9300
But I have harped on the hotel room with the grand piano because I know that is the item that members of the anti-gay industry will probably harp on if and when they use what Senator Coburn is doing for their own benefit.
Senator Coburn seems to be hinting that HIV/AIDS prevention organizations are wasting taxpayer money.
But more than that, he is giving Dobson, Sheldon, and company more fodder to feed upon.
Senator Coburn has never been a friend to the gay community but he is in the hip pocket of Dobson and company. I am willing to bet that by next week, an headline in Agape Press (and press releases by various so-called "pro family" groups) will feature a spot on the hotel room with the luxury piano. What's more, the article will probably not be objective but quote some phony "pro family" activist who will whine about the money spent on HIV/AIDS prevention and education in leiu of diseases that allegedly more of a body count.
You see, this is all a game. And Senator Coburn just threw the anti-gay industry a forward pass.
Something terrible happened recently in Great Britain.
An 11-year-old child was murdered by a 14-year-old. And the story is that the murder happened because the 11-year-old refused the 14 year old’s sexual advances.
First off, it was a terrible thing to have happened and we need to pray for all parties involved.
Unfortunately our friend Peter LaBarbera is yet again salivating over the prospect of "catching a homosexual in an act of violence."
On his webpage, Peter makes sure to mention the awful tale but with the headline - Eleven-year-old stabbed 16 times after rejecting homosexual advance.
It seems to Peter that the possibility that a gay person was involved trumps the crime itself.
Which leads me to the challenge that I know he won’t take.
It’s really meant to be rhetorical and it’s a challenge to him and anyone else interested.
A couple of years ago, I ran across a flyer that said:
Don't have sex with blacks!
The flyer was put out by a white racist group and showed the picture of a black man who had been passing the disease AIDS to his heterosexual sexual partners.
The flyer also contained the names of two other black men who had been convicted of this crime.
The flyer went on to say "These black sexual predators lied about being HIV positive and had sex with dozens of white women . . . Don't be the next victim."
Here is the question for you, Peter.
Do you think that there is a difference between what that racist group claimed about black men and what you claim about gay men?
Today's blog entry is a departure from the norm because of recent events I want to call everyone's attention to:
"If politics were fair, Democrats would be in as much trouble as Republicans. And they'd be just as vulnerable. They've been obstructionist, anti-tax-cut, soft on terrorism, and generally obnoxious. On top of that, Pelosi is the most unpopular national politician in America. But in the sixth year of the Bush presidency, with a GOP-run Congress, Democrats aren't the issue. Republicans are." - "journalist" Fred Barnes, Oct. 23rd edition of the Weekly Standard
"I think it's interesting, Matt, that both sides agree on the stakes. It is Iraq. It is whether we support the president's policy in Iraq or not. It is whether we want Nancy Pelosi to be the first woman speaker of the House or not. My own view is that iconic fact of that woman sitting behind the president during a State of the Union address is an enormous change in our culture. A lot of professional women and men women will say, 'Great.' A lot of the more conservative people will say, 'Wait a minute, this woman's from San Francisco, she's a liberal.'" - "journalist" Chris Matthews, The Today Show, Sept. 5th
"Let's talk about this possibility -- it seems likely now, in almost all cards that the Democrats will get control of the House, which will bring us two years of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is not a popular figure or respected figure nationally. Her behavior will be more visible than ever, more conspicuous than ever. What effect does that have on the possibility of Hillary Clinton being nominated or even elected in 2008? I think it is a very good question. I suspect the effect would not be terrifically positive." - "journalist" Brit Hume, Fox News, Oct. 15th
"Ordinarily, a party's leadership structure is set by the caucus in advance, and all members are expected go along with the decision. In the eight years Rep. J. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican, has been speaker, he's never had a protest vote cast against him. Mrs. Pelosi, whose voting record is considerably more liberal than many of her fellow Democrats, has never enjoyed that luxury. In last year's election for speaker, one Democrat opposed her for the top post. Four Democrats opposed her in 2003, with three of them simply voting "present" as a protest. Such protest votes are a sign of dissension within a party. But in the upcoming Congress -- where Democrats could hold the majority by just one or two seats -- any members who vote for someone other than Mrs. Pelosi or simply decide not to vote could trigger parliamentary mayhem. " - Pelosi no shoo-in for job as speaker, The Washington Times, Oct. 20, 2006
Does anyone see a pattern here? An echo chamber is forming.
Obviously, in getting ready for a possible change in leadership on Nov. 7, some "journalists" are undermining Rep. Nancy Pelosi's credibility to serve as U.S. of Representatives Speaker of the House before she even has the opportunity to take over the duties.
This is how Al Gore lost in 2000.
Journalists, instead of doing research, took Republican talking points against Gore (i.e Al Gore has a problem with lying because he claims to have invented the internet) and repeated them on talk shows and news commentaries, creating an echo chamber that ultimately helped Bush.
Gore's loss demonstrated just how dangerous lazy journalists are.
Now I am afraid that the same thing is happening with Pelosi.
Just who are these people who claim that Pelosi is unpopular? Do any polls verify this?
No and as proof of this, check out this link- http://mediamatters.org/items/200610150005
One thing this does prove - misrepresentation is not a hallmark that belongs solely to the anti-gay industry.