Yes, I like to mess with One News Now but they make it so damned easy

(Presently I am at lunch and thus am making this post at the public libary. I usually post when I get home but I felt I just had to direct your attention to something I read in One News Now. Many are aware of the fact that One News Now made it difficult for me to link to their site from my computer. However, I am unaware of whether that little edict can affect me if I link to their stuff from another source. One more thing - if you haven't read yesterday's post, please do because it has a lot to do with one of the subject of today's post - i.e. repeition of anti-gay lies irregardless of refutations. )

Those who read this blog will probably notice that lately I have been devoting much time to breaking down the lies of phony news services One News Now.

This is true but don't mistake my motives. I am amused that the powers-that-be there made it difficult for me to link to the site.

But that is not why I poke fun at One News Now.

Truth be told, I can't help myself because One News Now puts itself out there with not only its constant easy-to-refute lies, but its stubborn decision to reveal the mindsets of the "Christians" who read the site via the comments section.

Today is a hallmark in One News Now idiocy.

Yesterday, I wrote how the anti-gay industry will go out its way to repeat a negative point about the lgbt community even after said point has been continuously refuted.

And today, One News Now proves me right it an article published, Smoking banned - so why not a more dangerous lifestyle, too?

Of course the so-called dangerous lifestyle is homosexuality (is it just me or are these people easier to read than a Dick and Jane book). But check out this gem from the article:

Diane Gramley of the American Family Association of Pennsylvania agrees that smoking imposes health risks. But she argues that the State System of Higher Education condoned a riskier lifestyle last year when it voted to extend domestic partner benefits -- including tuition and health benefits -- to same-sex partners of faculty members.

According to a press release from Gramley's group, The New England Journal of Medicine reported that men who smoke shorten their lives by up to 7.2 years. But Gramley says according to the Oxford Internal Journal of Epidemiology, the homosexual lifestyle can shorten a man's life by up to 20 years.

The distortion of this study (by the way, the article got the name of the journal wrong. There is no Oxford Internal Journal of Epidemiology. The Oxford study appeared in 1997 in the International Journal of Epidemiology) has been refuted continuously by myself and countless other sources.

Even the authors of the study themselves, in 2001, went on record complaining how their work was being misused by the anti-gay industry.

But of course who cares about truth when God is on your side, huh One News Now.

And if this very bad piece of journalism isn't enough, One News Now compounds the error by their articles about a possible Obama victory in the presidential election:

Could an Obama loss spark race riots?

The article itself is a supreme hoot. Nothing like a bit of inferred racism to get the white folks scared enough to vote against Obama.

But it gets better. Yesterday, One News Now published an article, Political observer: Black voter turnout critical for Obama, that got some very interesting comments by its readers.

Allow me to give you a few choice sniglets:

"How does the black community relate to Barak Obama? He is half white. He was raised white. He speaks real English. He wears two-button suits, and diagonal stripped ties like an old white guy. He's rich. He is not the descendant of African slaves, but a part-Arabic African and a white woman. He has more in common with white people than blacks. African-Americans are grasping at straws with Barak Obama."

"Any votes that goes toward Barak Obama can only come from people that hates the Word of God

"If black voters will pay attention to their "thinking" leaders such as Thomas Sowell, none of them will think about voting for Obama because he is "black". Actually, people in Kenya say he is more Arabic than black and more "white" than black. I received an email from a missionary who has been to "his native village" in Kenya and states that Obama went there to request voodoo curses be hurled at McCain's campaign so that he can be elected. There is more to Barack Hussein Obama than meets the eye. Also most people when they convert from Christian to Muslim will take a Muslim name (ie Cassius Clay to Mohammed Ali) and the same is true of Muslims who convert to Christianity. So why did Barry Sotero change his name to Barack Hussein Obama?"

Gotta love those "Christians."

You're supposed to be steadfast and unmovable in TRUTH, not lies

Well one debate is down and Obama rocked the house. One thing about him, he believes in consistency. Throughout all of the hype, Obama has stayed focused on relaying how he is an excellent choice for president. Now the debate between Biden and Palin is going to be interesting. It's not about knock out punches or one-liners. I have faith that Biden can ignore all of the hype regarding the Lindsay Lohan of Alaska (sorry Lindsay) and continue to show why Obama would be an excellent choice for president.

And that's my two cents about the election for today.

I am not going to do it.

I will not link to Peter LaBarbera's Folsom Street nonsense nor will I talk about it any more than I have to.

Frankly, Peter gets me upset. Not only does he continue to unfairly demonize the lgbt community; that is a given.

But how is it that he, a raging homophobe, can have more visual access to naked men while I in the prime of my life (eat your heart out, Jean Brodie) can't get these mean queens in SC to show me at least a bare ankle.

It's just depressing.

But seriously . . .

An annoying characteristic of the anti-gay industry (and they have several) is their inability to admit wrongdoing even in the face of exposure.

God forbid that any of these so-called followers of Jesus remember the Christian tenet of admitting wrongdoing and seeking absolution. Instead, when confronted with their distortions and lies, they either ignore the exposure or try to "kill the messenger."

A perfect example is a series of incidents that I unfortunately overlooked due to the merriment of South Carolina Pride; that is until I read excellent posts from goodasyou.org and Pam's House Blend.

Allow me to recap as best I can:

Ex-gay Greg Quinlan made the claim that geneticist Dr. Francis Collins had gone on record saying that there is no genetic cause for homosexuality.

In fact Quinlan's exact words were:

" . . . the director of the Human Genome Project, Dr. Francis Collins, said this: homosexuality is not hardwired. There is no gay gene. We mapped the human genome. We now know there is no genetic cause for homosexuality."

But Dr. Collins said no such thing. In fact, Collins was not happy with how his work was being distorted by folks like Quinlan and "ex-gay" organizations like NARTH.

In May 2007 he told Ex-Gay Watch just how he felt.

Now when confronted with this, Quinlan did not backtrack an inch. He actually accused Ex-Gay Watch of making up Dr. Collins' response.

And even after Dr. Collins went on record again verifying what he told Ex-Gay Watch, Quinlan has made no effort to admit wrongdoing.

It gets better. Apparently last week, Southern Baptist Convention member Bob Stith wrote a column making the exact same claim about Dr. Collins that Quinlan did.

Those of us who know the anti-gay industry aren't suprised by Quinlan's and Stith's behavior. We have come to expect it. It's the classic anti-gay industry tactic of repeition, or repeating a negative point about lgbts regardless of the fact that said point has been continuously refuted.

There have been so many examples over the years Let me give you a few of my favorites:

In 1998, 14 anti-gay industry group used the research of pediatrican Dr. Robert Garafalo to make the claim that gay teens indulge in negative behaviors (i.e. drug abuse, suicide) because such things are indicative of the "gay lifestyle." When Dr. Garafalo complained that their citation omitted a crucial part of his findings (i.e. gay teens do these things when faced with abuse from a homophobic society), then Concerned Women for America (CWA) spokesman Robert Knight attacked Dr. Garafalo, calling him a thrall of political correctness.

Bear in mind that Knight has never had any background in field of pediatrics. (the entire story is told here - Boston doctor says ads distorted his work on gays, The Boston Globe, August 4, 1998)

A more up-to-date example would be how both Peter LaBarbera and former CWA spokesperson Matt Barber, this year, tried to infer that the recent MRSA infection scare amongst gay men in a certain area of the country was like the start of the AIDS virus in the early 1980s.

When confronted, both tried to play the game of exact verbiage. They falsely claimed that "gay activists" were accusing them of outright calling the MRSA infection the "new gay plague."

Though I have no proof of this, I like to think that the pitiful way Barber tried to cover up his distortions and the public (and very, very enjoyable from my standpoint) lashing he and LaBarbera received from the blogs led Barber to realize that he was in over his head as an anti-gay spokesperson and slink to the safe confines of Liberty University.

And then there is my favorite: I had an interesting exchange earlier this year with an anonymous poster that reached the level of high camp.

According to him (or her), the anti-gay industry are actually correct when they distort the work of physicians and researchers because these physicians and researchers have such a pro-gay bias that anything they print which can be construed as a negative fact about lgbts is correct because psychologically, they are telling the truth to themselves . . . or something like that.

There have been so many other incidents like the ones I have mentioned in which anti-gay industry members refuse to admit they are wrong, even to the point of lunacy.

And I have to wonder why won't members of the anti-gay industry admit when they make a mistake?

But then I tell myself, "mine is not to wonder why, mine is to nail those suckers for every lie they tell" (I know it doesn't rhyme, but I like it).

Maybe there will be time later to wonder about their mind sets but I could care less.

For now, I am all for exposure.

Clay Aiken - Coming out and defining heroes

I did something naughty today. I called a good friend at work who is a dyed in wool conservative Republican and said the following:

"We are working fast. We got Lindsay Lohan and Clay Aiken yesterday."

Needless to say, he got the joke but didn't appreciate it. I guess I am going to have to buy him lunch next week.

I was referring to two incidents in which celebrities have come out.

Lindsay Lohan (the newest track on the Hollywood train to stardom and ruin - let's hope she doesn't go the way of Carole Landis and Lupe Velez) has admitted to dating female DJ Samantha Ronson.

While it is still up to speculation and may be considered as a stunt via Madonna and Sandra Bernhardt, I still say good for her.

Since talk has been going on about the two dating, I have stopped being exposed to pictures of Lohan with no underwear, Lohan passed out, Lohan drinking too much, etc.

If they are dating, maybe Ronson is good for her.

Now the Clay Aiken situation is a bit more definite.

Aiken has come out as a gay man.

And in other news, I will be on the next cover of People with the headline "Yep, I'm an African-American."

I think that a lot of jokes about Aiken's coming out stems from the fact that for a long time, he was a stereotype.

You know the one I speak of - the who is he kidding. Everyone knows he is gay so he should just come out stereotype.

But when you stop laughing, you have to admit to yourself that Aiken came out for the right reason.

He did not want to teach his child that lying about one's self is a good thing.

End of story as far as I am concerned.

But there will probably be discussion as to Aiken's celebrity status and his "responsiblity" to the community.

Before it gets into overdrive (and it can despite this wild presidential election), allow me throw out some thoughts.

I don't buy the celebrities should come out because they have a responsibility as role models argument. There are just too many problems with that.

Just because someone is in the public eye doesn't make them suitable spokespeople. And we shouldn't try to anoint them as such.

Remember the hell Lance Bass went through when he made comments about "straight acting." To some folks, he was someone who should have known better. Why? Because he sold millions of records?

To me, he was still a child just coming into something he did not fully understand. He made mistakes just like I did when I first came out (in my case, it was some very ugly comments about women in general, i.e. referring to them as a certain aquatic animal). The only difference is that his being in a former member of a boy band magnified his comments.

Then there is the tug of war. Let's say Ellen DeGeneres is invited to an HRC function. Before she even agrees to attend, another group who is angry at how HRC supported ENDA legislation that omitted the transgender community starts making public requests for her to boycott the function?

Now what's Ellen to do? Before she probably got her outfit picked out, she is in the middle of a hot mess.

Let's face it - our community objectifies being a celebrity too much. This is not to downplay celebrities or the visibility that gay celebrities provide us. This is to say that role models and heroes don't necessarily have to be actors, actresses, singers, etc.

They could be people next door who, while not fitting the physical image of homosexuality that is thrust upon us, are heroes in their own way. The young gay man who adopts three children, the lesbian who staffs the local pride center without wanting anything in return, the transgender person who, while quiet and unassuming, carries herself with a certain aura of grace and dignity that would make Audrey Hepburn jealous.

And let's not forget the nameless faces who show up at city council or state legislative meetings, who write letters to the editor, who kick in a little money to support a function, or who greet you with a simple hug.

I have been fortunate to be exposed to all of the above. And I consider them as my role models.

Another researcher cries foul over anti-gay industry misuse of study

Last week, I talked about how the phony news site One News Now distorted a study to claim that the lgbt orientation in itself leads to depression and substance abuse.

I pointed out not only how the study was distorted but also the fact that One News Now cited researcher discredited researcher Paul Cameron.

Well today brings part two of the story, courtesy of my friends over at Box Turtle Bulletin:

A British researcher has denounced two North American anti-gay web sites for distorting his research. University College London professor Michael King, in a statement to Box Turtle Bulletin, clarified the findings of his research on depression and suicide among LGB people, and emphasized the importance that “all sectors of society welcome them as equal and valuable citizens.”

Professor King spoke out in response to an article that appeared last Wednesday in LifeSite, an unofficial Catholic web site, which claimed that the “homosexual lifestyle [is] strongly linked to depression [and] suicide.” The same article by Kathleen Gilbert appeared again Saturday on the American Family Association’s OneNewsNow.

. . . We asked Professor King for his reaction to the LifeSite/OneNewsNow article. This was his reply:

"LifeSite News and OneNewsNow have misinterpreted our review. Evidence from around the world identifies the main stressors leading to mental distress in gay and lesbian people as discrimination, prejudice, bullying in schools and colleges, and the consequent need for many LGB people to keep their homosexual identity secret, even from their families.

Our review did not examine links between mental disorder and homosexual “behaviour” or “lifestyle”. Our work reviewed studies of the mental health of lesbian, gay and bisexual people, and sadly, those studies showed that it is people (not behaviour) that are discriminated against, and not least by religious groups and organisations.

Discrimination on the grounds of sexuality is even more devastating than other forms of discrimination such as racism, as it reaches right into families and leaves no refuge for its victims.

We suggest in our review that the availability of alcohol and drugs at gay social venues may be a factor in the greater risk of drug and alcohol misuse in LGB people. Reducing this problem is something for which LGB people must take greater responsibility. However, the fact that discrimination still exists in our societies means that many are forced to use such venues to meet each other rather than through more common ways available to heterosexuals, such as at work, during the pursuit of hobbies and past-times, or at church.

There is now abundant evidence that homosexuality is not itself a mental disorder and that it is compatible with a healthy lifestyle. We shall only begin to see a reduction in mental distress and deliberate self harm in LGB people when all sectors of society welcome them as equal and valuable citizens."

Now we all know the modus of operation of the anti-gay industry. They are going to either ignore the rebuke or claim that King is biased and pro-gay.

Their tactics are beginning to sound like a broken record.

But one thing is clear and everyone had better take note of it - members of the lgbt community are getting highly savvy in pointing how just how the anti-gay industry distorts legitimate studies.

And sooner or later all of their tactics, every lie they told, every study they misused, every discredited study they used will come back to bite them in the ass.

Payback is a bitch and I hope to be around to enjoy every minute of it.

Hell, I hope to be right in the middle of it all, directing traffic.

I got dem Folsom Street Fair blues

There's a crazy guy in Illinois

Bum bum bum bum bum

Who's really anti-gay

Bum bum bum bum bum

And he won't rest

Bum bum bum bum bum

Until everyone else

Bum bum bum bum bum

Is the same way

Ugh. I was not born the sing the blues.

The WWE has Wrestlemania.

Malls have the Christmas holidays

And our friend Peter has this period; the time where he attends California's Folsom Street Fair, takes pictures of gays engaged in frivilous activity (while ignoring the heterosexuals doing the same thing), and tries to paint the entire community with a broad nasty brush.

This year, he and others, including Linda (I can't tell you why but I am a pro-family expert) will be holding a press conference designed to bring attention to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome and U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

Of course the press conference will conveniently ignore the fact that Republican Arnold Swarzeneggar is the governor of California and as such, should have attention devoted to him. After all, San Francisco is a state in California.

Frankly, Peter leaves me weary. I am three-days away from one of the most successful prides in South Carolina where families (including children), lgbts of all racial and ethnic backgrounds, and their allies came together for good clean fun.

As such, I really don't have the mental patience to deal with Peter's grandstanding.

All I can say is I hope no one is fooled by it. What Peter and company are doing is no different than a racist distorting FBI crime statistics to make the case that African-Americans are more criminal than whites.

From my conversations with Peter, I gauge that he knows fully well what he is doing. And he knows fully well that sometimes people on his side of the argument (himself included) skirts rules of accuracy for the sake of shock.

So why does Peter do it? Why does he knowingly attempt to paint the lgbt community with a broad brush of lies? Why does he concentrate on things that puts the lgbt community in a bad light with the full knowledge that what he is doing is unfair?

Because Peter is a fanatic. Some of you know this already, but up until this moment, I shirked away from extreme namecalling.

But the fact of the matter is that Peter is so convinced that homosexuality is a sin that he is willing to bend the rules to prove this point. He seems to think that "robbing Peter to pay Paul" is a Christian virtue.

Hmmm. I think America should fear his attitude more than that of a gay man in a leather harness.

SC Pride 2008 - a Monster success

I know, I know . . . McCain's chief of staff is allegedly gay. And this is going to cause a mad blogsphere rush of speculations, accusations, etc.

And you can get the dish on any blog, so allow me to indulge a bit about something that I feel is equally important.

My state celebrated its 19th gay pride and it was awesome. It was largest, most diverse, most enthused crowd of lgbts, our families, our allies, and our children that I have ever seen.

You see, this is the what gay pride is all about; not some subcultural event that our friend Peter will attend in order to demonize the entire community, nor some spooky "other" that other members of the anti-gay industry try to portray us as.

Whether some folks like it or not, we are America. And we are God's children, created exactly as we are supposed to be. Other pictures can be seen here under SC Pride 2008 and Pride 2008. A special no-prize to anyone who can spot me in one of the pictures below.

One News Now distorts another study AND cites Paul Cameron

SC Gay Pride is over and it was a huge success. But more on that later.

As I sit here, an item from One News Now hit me:

A new study in the United Kingdom has revealed that homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population, reports Health24.com.

After analyzing 25 earlier studies on sexual orientation and mental health, researchers, in a study published in the medical journal BMC Psychiatry, also found that the risk of suicide jumped over 200% if an individual had engaged in a homosexual lifestyle.

Warning signs went off in my head when I read this due to One News Now's penchant for distorting news items (which has been chronicled on many occasions on this site).

Warning sign 1: One News Now did not give the name of the study.

I found the study here. And the first paragraph says the following:

Homosexual and bisexual men and women may face higher risks of depression, substance abuse and suicidal behaviour than heterosexuals do, a new study suggests. The reason for this may lie in discrimination and rejection often associated with being homosexual or bisexual.

Warning sign 2: One News Now acknowledged what the study was saying about discrimination and reject and then tried to dismiss it:

While the Health 24 article suggested that homosexuals may be pushed to substance abuse and suicide because of anti-homosexual cultural and family pressures, empirical tests have shown that there is no difference in homosexual health risk depending on the level of tolerance in a particular environment. Homosexuals in the United States and Denmark - the latter of which is acknowledged to be highly tolerant of homosexuality - both die on average in their early 50's, or in their 40's if AIDS is the cause of death. The average age for all residents in either country ranges from the mid-to-upper-70s.

The first problem with this is the fact that One News Now claims that Denmark is "highly tolerant" of homosexuality without giving actual proof of the assertion. This is only to create a straw man argument that homophobia has nothing to do with gays engaging in negative behaviors.

But even if One News Now's assertion regarding Denmark is correct, the study talks about this factor too:

This study could not examine the reasons for the higher-than-expected rate of mental disorders and substance abuse. However, (Michael) King told Reuters Health, it is likely that lifelong stress is involved.

Even in relatively liberal societies, he said, gay, lesbian and bisexual people face both overt and subtle discrimination. They may also have to deal with social exclusion and rejection by their own families.

Warning sign 3: One News Now cites the work of discredited researcher Paul Cameron:

These findings strongly support the results of similar studies conducted in the United States, which have unveiled the severe physical and psychological health risks associated with homosexual behavior. Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron of the Family Research Institute revealed in 2007 that research shows that the lifespan of a homosexual is on average 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual. As a health threat, even smoking pales in comparison, as studies show smoking can shorten one's life by only 1 to 7 years on average.

No, sorry. One News Now is telling a boldfaced lie. The study in question was actually conducted in the early 1990s. In addition, the study is indicative of why Cameron has been discredited, censured, and mocked by so many legitimate physicians, researchers, and other folks (this blogger included. )

Let's go into more detail regarding Cameron's study:

What he did was count obituaries in various gay community publications and claimed to be able to use them to calculate the average life expectancy for homosexuals.

The conclusion – that homosexual men and women have a shorter life span than heterosexual men and women – provides a textbook example of the perils of using data from a convenience sample to generalize to an entire population.

Most city newspapers include a section containing death notices for community residents. These notices – which can carry a small fee for printing – typically list the name, age, address, and survivors of the deceased, along with information about funeral or memorial services. Funeral directors often assist the loved ones of the deceased in submitting such notices.

Gay community newspapers do not have sections of death notices. When the AIDS epidemic began to claim the lives of so many gay and bisexual men in the 1980s, however, many gay newspapers began to print obituaries. Except in the case of prominent community figures, these obituaries are typically written by (or based on information from) the loved ones of the deceased.

Assuming that the deceased person wasn't famous, an obituary appears in a gay community newspaper only if (1) a loved one or friend notifies the newspaper about the death (and, in many cases, writes the obituary) and (2) the editor decides to print the obituary.

Consequently, many gay men and lesbians who die never have an obituary in a gay community publication. Here are just a few examples of who is left out of gay newspapers' obituaries.

gay men and lesbians who were not involved in the gay community

gay men and lesbians who were in the closet about their sexual orientation

gay men and lesbians whose loved ones or family didn't want their homosexuality to be known

gay men and lesbians whose loved ones or family simply didn't think of sending an obituary to a gay community newspaper

gay men and lesbians whose loved ones did not write an obituary for some other reason (e.g., they were too grief stricken)

gay men and lesbians who died without leaving anyone to write an obituary for a gay publication (e.g., those whose loved ones and relatives died before them).

An accurate estimate of the life span of gay men and lesbians would have to count such people. By restricting their analysis to obituaries in gay newspapers, however, the Cameron group systematically excluded them from the sample.

In later years, Cameron tacked on more data but the general reasonings as to why his study has been discredited remain unchanged.

Frankly, I am surprised that One News Now would have the nerve to cite Cameron. Maybe the phony news service thought that no one would be paying attention.

For more details about Cameron's lies, go here or here.

Or if you don't feel so inclined, allow me to give you a partial timeline of the man that One News Now feels is an expert on gay issues. This is taken from the timeline of my Anti-Gay Lies and Liars blog:

1982 - He invented a story about a child being mutilated in the bathroom by a gay man in Nebraska. When the police investigated and found the story to be false, he admitted to making it up.

1983 - He was kicked out the American Psychological Association after an investigation that he distorted the work of six researchers to prove negative theories about gay men.

1984 - A. Nicholas Groth, director of the Sex Offender Program at the Connecticut Department of Corrections, complained to the Nebraska Board of Examiners of Psychologists about Paul Cameron’s usage of his work to make the claim that gays molest children at a high rate.

1985 - The Midwest Sociological Society censures Paul Cameron. Also, the American Sociological Association and the Society for the Study of Social Problems both pass resolutions against him.

What does it say about One News Now as a supposed Christian news service to cite a discredited researcher?

What does it say about One News Now as a supposed Christian news service to use a study against gays while at the same time discarding the part of the study that does not fit their stereotype of gays?

The sad thing is that what this phony news service did most likely contributes to more gays feeling isolated and abused which will most likely lead to more negative behaviors.

And when that happens, there will be studies to say so. And when this happens, One News Now will be there to distort the studies.

I think we are getting in a rut here.

Peter LaBarbera tries to regain relevancy through lies

I think our friend Peter LaBarbera from Americans for Truth (in name only) is scrambling for attention.

Fresh from the disappointment of Hurricane Gustav killing his attempts to take pictures of "naked gay men" during Southern Decadence, Peter has been mute for a while. That is except for pathetic attempts to make Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin the new Christian martyr.

And now low and behold comes the Ray Boltz situation.

Boltz, a gospel singer who has come out as a gay man, seems to have gotten LaBarbera's undivided attention:

Ray Boltz Buys the Lie, Says God Made Him Homosexual

An excerpt reads as follows:

(Self-styled “queer” activists will say that Boltz was living a lie, but his four children do not owe their existence to a “gay” lifestyle.) I read the entire Blade story, but all you really need to know is in the final paragraph:

“This is what it really comes down to,” [Boltz] says. “If this is the way God made me , then this is the way I’m going to live. It’s not like God made me this way and he’ll send me to hell if I am who he created me to be … I really feel closer to God because I no longer hate myself.”

Wow, talk about presumption! This talented man is lost and he needs our prayers. Boltz may “feel” closer to God, but if you believe the Scriptures, he’s farther than ever from Him. We understand that the radical “gay” movement exalts its collective “feelings” over the Bible’s clear teaching — and certainly they are not alone in that regard — but each of us must choose between the truth and lies every day, and homosexual behavior is egregiously sinful, according to God’s Word. (See www.robgagnon.net if you are tempted to rationalize away the Bible’s clear condemnation of homosexual practice.) You just can’t sugarcoat that verdict, although these days even many Christians try.

Peter seems to go out of his way to bring up "success stories" of gays who have "changed" as if that negates Boltz's life story.

The fact of the matter is they don't. But that's not what attracted me to Peter's screed.

The subject of this blog has to do with how the anti-gay industry distorts studies and science to make some sort of case that homosexuality is a "dangerous lifestyle."

And Peter's piece perfectly illustrates my point. Particularly this part:

Would society ever hold up the men and women who tried to overcome addictions but then failed and returned to their destructive habit as the norm and role models for others? (Yes, homosexual practice is a destructive habit, as attested by the drastically shortened lifespans and high incidence of disease among men who practice same-sex sin.)

No Peter.

Now the links that Peter uses to make this case comes from earlier posts on his blog.

The link about "high incidence of disease" comes from a post where former Concerned Women for America spokesman Matt Barber castigated former National Gay and Lesbian Task Force head Matt Foreman because Foreman called HIV/AIDS a "gay disease" in a speech at the time. Barber infers that Foreman was admitting that homosexuality is a "deadly lifestyle."

In actuality, Foreman was challenging the gay community to take the initiative to prevent HIV/AIDS in our community.

Much like NAACP head Julian Bond wanted the black community to do when he called HIV/AIDS a "black disease."

Later in the post, Barber says the following:

To the consternation of “gay” activist flat-earthers and homosexual AIDS holocaust deniers everywhere, one such study - conducted by pro-”gay” researchers in Canada - was published in the International Journal of Epidemiology (IJE) in 1997.

While the medical consensus is that smoking knocks from two to 10 years off an individual’s life expectancy, the IJE study found that homosexual conduct shortens the lifespan of “gays” by an astounding “8 to 20 years” - more than twice that of smoking.

“[U]nder even the most liberal assumptions,” concluded the study, “gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871. … [L]ife expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men.”

That is only half the story.

In 2001, those same researchers went on record complaining that folks like Barber was distorting their work.

And Barber knows this because he says a few paragraphs later:

Not surprisingly, that same homosexual lobby and its codependent enablers in the mainstream media moved quickly to sweep the IJE study under the rug. Under tremendous pressure, the researchers who conducted the study even jumped into the political damage control fray issuing a statement which read, “[W]e do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group.”

Matt Barber is a liar. There was never any "pressure" on these researchers.

And please bear in mind that Barber never went into detail as to what the pressure was. He tries to dimiss the letter as "political spin.

The letter is here. Read it and determine if it sounds like spin.

The second link Peter uses to try in order to refute Boltz's declaration of his homosexuality is one having to do with the controversy regarding Bush's pick for Surgeon General, James Holsinger.

You will remember that the Holsinger nomination failed because of intense scrutiny regarding his personal opinions about homosexuality and a paper he wrote about it. Holsinger disavowed the paper to the intense consternation of the anti-gay industry, LaBarbera in general.

In attacking Holsinger's decision to disavow the paper, Peter said:

So desperate are pro-”gay” advocates to force their Bible-rejecting myth on the culture that they downplay even serious health risks that result from embracing behaviors that a loving God proscribes. The result is that children in schools across the country are NOT being taught that there are special dangers, including HIV/AIDS, associated with homosexual behaviors. (See Dr. John Diggs’ paper, “The Health Risks of Gay Sex,” for more information.)

I talk about Diggs' paper in my book and have mentioned it several times in this blog. But the truth always stands repeating. This is the caliber of work that Peter finds credible regarding lgbts.

For those who have not read my book, let me give you an excerpt:

Twice, John R. Diggs includes the study done by Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg in their book, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women, as indicative of the entire gay population. In one passage, he even refers to it as “a far ranging study of homosexual men . . .” But Bell and Weinberg never said that their findings were indicative of all gay men. They actually said “. . . given the variety of circumstances which discourage homosexuals from participating in research studies, it is unlikely that any investigator willever be in a position to say that this or that is true of a given percentage of all homosexuals.”

Diggs cites a Canadian study twice in order to claim that gays have a shorter lifespan than heterosexuals. But his citation of the study is a mischaracterization. In 2001, the six original researchers (Robert S. Hogg, Stefan A. Strathdee, Kevin J.P. Craib, Michael V. O’Shaughnessy, Julion Montaner, and Martin T. Schechter) who conducted that study have gone on record saying that religious conservatives (like Diggs) was distorting their work. - That's right. Just like Barber, Diggs is distorting the Canadian study.

In another section entitled Physical Health, Diggs claims that gays are victims of “gay bowel syndrome.” The term is an obsolete medical term. exist and even the CDC does not use it. In fact, if one was to look at the endnotes of Diggs’ study, he would find that two of the sources he quoted concerning “gay bowel syndrome” were from articles in published in 1976 and 1983, which is consistent with the years that the term existed. One last source was a letter to the editor printed in 1994 but Diggs does not make it clear as to whatwere the circumstances surrounding it.

Diggs generalizes convenience sample studies as indicative of the gay population at large. Diggs takes studies done in foreign countries and claims that they are indicative of the gay population at large.

Diggs claims that there are five distinctions between heterosexual and homosexual populations including levels of promiscuity, physical health, mental health, lifespan, and monogamy. However, he spends very little time comparing the two dynamics. He uses all of his time castigating gay populations.

Diggs uses an out of date book, The Gay Report (published in 1979) to claim that gays are engaging in deviant sexual practices. Only once does he attempt to tie the alleged deviant practices of gays in 1979 to present day; and to do so, he cites two events that took place regarding bondage workshops. However, there is a strong indication that heterosexuals took part in these events as well as gays. Diggs ignores this dynamic.

Nothing that I am saying is new to Peter. He knows that he is using bad sources because I as well as others have pointed it out to him.

But he continues to ignore what we say as if that will make his distortions true.

I think in the case of his attack on Ray Boltz, he has taken a page from the McCain campaign: repeat a lie even after the truth has been discovered.

Sorry Peter but it's not working for them. What in the world makes you think it will work for you?

Tuesday fall out and other gay stuff

Today's post is dedicated to the memory of Alvin S. Glenn. He was a 29-year Army veteran who served in the Korean War and gave his life in 2000 to protect the citizens of South Carolina.

He was my father and a MAN in every sense of the word.

We have gotten all sorts of positive comments from yesterday's press conference. I also noticed a very interesting exchange on SC Politics Today including the following comment:

Being a sodomite is nothing to be gay or proud of. It's an immoral, disgusting chosen lifestyle. They should be classified with all the other sexual perverts and pedophiles and run out of SC.

Of course I had to jump on the responder in a dignified fashion. One cannot take off one's shoes and earrings in every situation.

The lady's comments don't bother me. For one thing, we have supporters who let her know her comments were stupid (for those who watch Designing Women, feel free to channel Dixie Carter's'pronunciation of the word "stupid").

For another, I like the fact that we are getting the state to talk about OUR issues. Debate is the first step in finding solutions.

And on another front . . .

I haven't messed with One News Now in a while (and when I do, it's only because the phony news service makes it so easy), but something caught my eye.

It seems that a popular gospel singer, Ray Boltz , has come out of the closet. Personally, even though I have never heard of him, I support the guy. He is being honest.

Please take a tip from him anonymous black male gospel singers who shall remain nameless.

Anyway, One News Now is all up in arms about this. Particularly offensive to me is the comment by columnist Matt Friedeman:

Boltz' addiction apparently is men . . .

Excuse me? Boltz came out of the closet. That does not denote an addiction.

It is here that we can see the semantics of the anti-gay industry. It is not enough for them to disagree with homosexuality on a religious basis. With their words (including discredited and misrepresented studies), they try to cast the image that being an lgbt is an addiction.

That's why you hear them talk about the supposed "gay agenda" or the "gay lifestyle."

It reminds me of "welfare queen" or "reverse discrimination."

Not a bad idea on a cynically political basis, but very petty when it comes from supposed Christian people.

As usual, Jeremy from Goodasyou.org breaks down the situation better than I ever could:

So let's see here: Molesting a kid, uncontrollably wacking it to porn, boozing it up in excess, hitting a crack pipe, burning down a house, having a crippling addition to intercourse, or -- loving someone of the same sex in the way that others love someone of the opposite sex?! These are all birds of the same feather that deserve similar form of address? Wow, we don't know who should be more offended by that: Gay people who know it's far more apt to compare their orientations to their heterosexual peers, or credible counselors and therapists whose authentic work is far too important to be hampered by biased fallacy!

But hey, why choose? There's enough offense in the "pro-family" community's self-created, self-propagated, highly unscientific views to offend multiple groups of people.

SC Pride press conference goes well

The press conference was over hours ago and it went well. The media was all over the place. We had television news, the State (area newspaper) and the AP there asking questions, filming, and taking notes.

I was going as a supporter and spectator but the chairman of Black Pride called and asked me to read a statement because he couldn't attend.

Talk about a minor shock. I think I did well though. While our president (Ryan Wilson - an absolutely incredible young man who will do a lot of positive things for our community) read his statement, I stood in the background giving off my "I'm security so don't fuck with me" look.

My statement was brief so I was able to go through it without peeing in my pants.

But wouldn't you know it. I was shopping for shoes (yeah, yeah, its a gay thing to do) and missed the newscasts. Oh well. My aunt called and told my mother everything.

At this point, my mother doesn't freak out over any of my community activities. Of course she worries that some dumb ass may take it upon himself to try and be physically homophobic. She has mentioned it slightly on more than one occasion.

But she knows I will be safe. My mother is one of those old fashioned black women from the country, where they have more churches than houses. I know she prays for my well being.

It's good to have a mother like that.

So as you can tell, I am psyched for Pride this year. It's going to be fun.

UPDATE - I was emailed a clip of the press conference. Everyone did well. I especially liked what Harriet Hancock (the founder of SC Pride and PFLAG in Columbia) said.

SC Pride is here - all Mondays should start like this!!!!!!

When I woke up this morning, I was ready to go through another dreary Monday with my spirit down and my dander up. Then this lovely bit from Daily Kos caught my attention.

Can you say "rope-a-dope, bitch!"

Don't count Obama out.

I was fired up and have been all day. And just in time too because tomorrow is a special day.

SC Pride (which I have been a proud board member of for five years) will be holding a press conference on the steps of our state capitol. We will be presenting Governor Mark Sanford with an "award."

Pick your mouths up from the floor. It ain't exactly a good award. We will be presenting Sanford an "award" for his dubious efforts to kill an ad campaign designed to bring more lgbt tourists to the state:

Of course, knowing our governor's penchant for baby pigs, I was going to include that maybe we should give him a few baby sows to go with his award.

But after last week, I don't even want to think about pigs.

Now if tomorrow's press conference is interesting, expect a full report here online.

For more information regarding SC Pride, including RuPaul coming to our festival on Saturday, go to www.scpride.org

One News Now, allies manipulate numbers on referendum count

Apparently the recent decision to stop a referendum against a Montgomery County law that would protect the transgender community have members of the anti-gay industry a bit loopy.

Check out this headline. It's insulting and funny at the same time:

Sexual Deviants Given Green Light in Maryland

Court decides 900,000 petition signers can't challenge the controversial "gender identity" law allowing any man to use the women's shower by just claiming he felt like a woman at the time.

900,000 petition signers?

The blog in question claims to have received the story from the Washington Post. However, if you look at the Post article (feel free to do so by this link) you will see that there is no mention of any number of petition signers.

So where did the blog get the 900,000 number? Why from my favorite phony news page - One News Now:

Baltimore residents have lost their battle against an ordinance protecting transgendered people.

Under the controversial "gender identity" law, a man would be allowed to walk into a women's restroom or shower room claiming he believes himself to be a woman, essentially opening the door for rape or sexual molestation. In July a lower Montgomery County court agreed more than 900,000 petition signers had the right to see it on the ballot to choose whether to overturn it -- but it was appealed.

So much for truth.

Now the reasoning behind the decision has not been published as of yet, but to get a good idea of the situation, I looked at teachthefacts.org, a web page created by those fighting the referendum.
This is what was said before the decision was rendered. As you can say, the number of petition signers are far below 900,000:

The Citizens for a Responsible Whatever were told by the county Board of Elections that they needed 25,001 signatures to get a referendum on the November ballot to relegalize discrimination on the basis of gender identity in Montgomery County. They got that many and a few extra, submitted them on time, and did their victory dance. Opponents of the referendum went through the signatures, found a lot of problems, and sued the Board for not correctly verifying petition signatures. In the process of arguing back and forth in court, it came out that the Board of Elections had given the CRW the wrong number, and now they didn't have enough. The Board had counted only active voters, ignoring the considerable number of voters who are registered but have not voted in a general election recently. Today, even the Board's attorney, Kevin Karpinski, said, "The sponsors didn't get enough signatures." But -- the Circuit Court judge said that the complaint had been filed too late, and so it didn't matter that there weren't enough signatures.

So the court might need to require the Board to enforce the law, if they rule that because the CRW failed to produce 27,615 valid signatures -- the actual target number based on all registered voters -- the referendum should not be on the ballot.

This fudging of the numbers by One News Now doesn't surprise me. Since when has this phony news site ever let accuracy get in the way of a good "those evil people are out to hurt us decent Christians" spin.

Oink, oink - Give me a break

Put your nose up in the air and sniff.

That smell you are taking in is the 2008 election. I was wondering when the mess was going to start.

Who knew it would be pig mess?

It's a real shame that the campaign has come to this. I used to think that John McCain was a man with integrity, but yet during this campaign, I have seen him forsake all forms of decency including resorting to the tactics used against him in South Carolina in 2000.

On September 11, 2008, we will be commemorating the worse attack on American soil in history. On September 17, 2008, I will be commemorating the worse day of my life - when my father was murdered during an attempted prison break.

Therefore, I absolutely refuse to comment further about pigs and lipstick. I will just cite a line from the Boondocks:

This here is some bullshit!!!!

I would rather spotlight a good piece of news out of Florida. A judge overturned the state's ban on gay adoption:

A Florida judge shook up that state’s 31-year-old ban on gay adoption, ruling it unconstitutional. But the ruling doesn’t necessarily mean that the state, one of two remaining that forbid gay adoption, will overturn the statewide ban.

Monroe Circuit Court Judge David J. Audlin Jr.'s decision will allow an openly gay Key West foster parent to adopt the teenage boy he has raised since 2001, according to the Guardian.co.uk.

Florida’s ban on gay adoption has been declared unconstitutional twice before in 1991, but an upcoming gay adoption hearing in Miami, could further challenge the law.

Audlin stated that the adoption was in the 13-year-old, special needs boy’s “best interest.” He also said the law that bars gays and lesbians from adopting children is contrary to the state constitution because it singles out and punishes a group of people.

Victory in Maryland - Anti-gay referendum is stopped!!!!

Everyone is either losing their minds over the election or getting into the act of losing their minds.

Our friend Peter LaBarbera (who never really had that much of a mind to begin with) has been posting sporadically and those posts are attacking the Huffington Post. Apparently Peter is trying to spin a "they are after Sarah Palin because they want to bash Christians" line.

I think he is pissed cause the Hurricane Gustav stopped Southern Decadence from taking place.

Well in the midst of the prognosticating and nailbiting over polls, a bit of good news just took place in Maryland:

Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) applauded a Maryland Appeal Court ruling today which dismissed attempts to roll back landmark protections for transgender residents in Montgomery County, Maryland, by way of a November ballot initiative. The court's unanimous ruling ends a campaign by anti-transgender activists to strip the county's civil rights law of protections based on gender identity. The law was amended in November 2007 and, because of today's ruling, will now be enacted to include the transgender community.

"The anti-transgender campaign in Montgomery County was based on bigotry and fueled by misinformation," said Jody M. Huckaby, executive director of PFLAG. "It was being forced onto the ballot with no regard for state law or the fundamental rights of our transgender neighbors and allies. Today's ruling sends a clear message that opponents of equality are not above the law, and our transgender loved ones are not below it. Montgomery County's civil rights law offers important protections to transgender and gender-variant people. We join our allies in Maryland and the transgender community in celebrating its long over-due enactment."

I blogged about this referendum drive before. You will remember that those pushing for it was able to get enough signatures by falsely claiming that the law will allow men to go into women's lockerrooms and restrooms. The proponents said that all the men had to do was say "I feel like a woman."

This was the same group that organized a phony moral panic by claiming that a man dressed as a woman had entered an local lockerroom gym. Of course no one saw the incident but it caused a lot of controversy.

In this crazy world, it's nice to see good triumph over bullshit.

Student GOP leader smears Obama via old reliable racial slur

I defy anyone to say that Obama's race won't be a factor in this election. At least the young man didn't use code words like "reverse discrimination," "welfare queen," or (dare I say it) "community organizer."

Student GOP leader resigns over Obama remark

The leader of a statewide group of college Republicans has been forced to resign after posting racially insensitive comments about Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama on the Internet.

Adam LaDuca, 21, the former executive director of the Pennsylvania Federation of College Republicans, wrote on his Facebook page in late July that Obama has "a pair of lips so large he could float half of Cuba to the shores of Miami (and probably would.)"

LaDuca, who previously had called Martin Luther King Jr. a "pariah" and a "fraud," also wrote: "And man, if sayin' someone has large lips is a racial slur, then we're ALL in trouble."

The College Republicans asked LaDuca to resign after his remarks were publicized by the Pennsylvania Progressive, a blog written by a Democratic committeeman from Berks County. The group announced LaDuca's resignation on its Web site Friday.


Anti-gay industry tries to shore up its base

Those who have read this blog know what I am about to say:

I hate Mondays.

This Monday has an interesting note to it. I am currently trying to recover from the Republican National Convention. And in the middle of my attempts comes this news:

CHICAGO -- Declaring that clergy have a constitutional right to endorse political candidates from their pulpits, the socially conservative Alliance Defense Fund is recruiting several dozen pastors to do just that on Sept. 28, in defiance of Internal Revenue Service rules.

The effort by the Arizona-based legal consortium is designed to trigger an IRS investigation that ADF lawyers would then challenge in federal court. The ultimate goal is to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out a 54-year-old ban on political endorsements by tax-exempt houses of worship.

"For so long, there has been this cloud of intimidation over the church," ADF attorney Erik Stanley said. "It is the job of the pastors of America to debate the proper role of church in society. It's not for the government to mandate the role of church in society."

Yet an opposing collection of Christian and Jewish clergy will petition the IRS today to stop the protest before it starts, calling the ADF's "Pulpit Initiative" an assault on the rule of law and the separation of church and state.

Backed by three former top IRS officials, the group also wants the IRS to determine whether the nonprofit ADF is risking its own tax-exempt status by organizing an "inappropriate, unethical and illegal" series of political endorsements.

I am not against churches inviting candidates to speak to the congregation (as long as they extend the invitation equitably) and I am certainly not against objective voter registration drives at churches nor am I against churches organizing carpools to get members to the polls.

But a pastor advocating a particular candidate from the pulpit is dangerous.

Regardless as to how the ADF tries to spin the situation, the only reason why it is trying to overturn this law is so that James Dobson, Rod Parsley, and company can better organize churches to elect their candidates to public office.

I find that sleazy.

Pastors are the leaders of the church, so they don't represent themselves per se, even if they stand in the pulpit and say "in my personal opinion, you should support so and so."

The pastor is still speaking as the leader of the church. Anything he or she does in that role affects more than just themselves.

Futhermore, I don't like the implications behind pastors advocating political candidates.

Pastors are the spiritual leaders in the community. What message are they sending by supporting a particular candidate - "God wants you to support so and so?"

Encouraging pastors to do this reduces the integrity of religion as far as I am concerned. Religion and spirituality has to do with souls and your relationship with God, not electoral candidates and certainly not trying to "win a nation for Christ."

Seems to me that if Jesus wanted this nation, he could take it without any of our help.

But yet in this country, there is this nasty idea that Jesus somehow said, "take up your cross and follow me and I will give you a nice car, nice house, two point five children, and a Republican in the White House every four years."

Humbleness and simplicity are replaced with warehouse sized churches filled with egotistical people thinking that God has blessed them above all others, demagogues waving Bibles as they confuse spiritual completeness with earthly conquest, and words like "morality," and "values" used to create a caste systems ruled by unrealistic characteristics of family.

And on top of all of this, some Christians propagate the lie that they are somehow "second class citizens in America."

I don't think it has come to that. But I wish these so-called Christians remember that "pride goeth before a fall" and sooner or later "you reap what you sow."

Now the fun really begins

Well I survived the Republican National Convention with my heart intact. But as luck would have it, us lgbts in South Carolina are going to be gearing up for Gay Pride that will be coming up this month.

And on the heels of the "South Carolina is so gay" controversy, things promises to be very interesting. Especially seeing that RuPaul will be performing.

This year I have made up my mind - I will not be a parade monitor. Every year I volunteer to walk alongside the floats and the marchers in order to keep the parade going and keep them from the protestors.

To hell with all of that - this year, I am going to ride on a float.

But there are other important things to consider.

Like what am I going to wear.

Seriously though, I doubt that the following will be my last thoughts regarding the upcoming election, but I still feel the need to voice them:

1. John McCain's speech - I told myself that I wasn't going to watch it. But I succumbed to temptation and turned the channel.

To put it nicely and without bias - John McCain's speech reminded me of Tucker Carlson on "Dancing with the Stars."

Forget gay marriage, can't we get a constitutional amendment against McCain making speeches?

2. If Sarah Carlin is so damned vivacious and exciting, then why won't the McCain camp let her do an interview?

3. About the Log Cabin Republicans endorsing McCain - A popular anti-gay industry stereotype about gays is about how we loved to get screwed. This has to be the first time I have ever seen a gay group try to prove this stereotype through its political practices.

Until Monday (or barring something monumental happening), I am out of here.

UPDATE - I told you that community organizers remark was going to bite Palin in the ass

From ThinkProgress.org:

Last night during her speech to the Republican National Convention, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) sought to play up her experience as mayor of a small town in Alaska by mocking community organizing:

PALIN: And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves. I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a “community organizer,” except that you have actual responsibilities.
Today, the nation’s leading organization’s responded to Palin’s attack:

– Center for Community Change: When Sarah Palin demeaned community organizing, she didn’t attack another candidate. She attacked an American tradition — one that has helped everyday Americans engage with the political process and make a difference in their lives and the lives of their neighbors.

– Assn. of Community Organizations for Reform Now: ACORN members, leaders and staff are extremely disappointed that Republican leaders would make such condescending remarks on the great work community organizers accomplish in cities throughout this country. The fact that they marginalize our success in empowering low- and moderate-income people to improve their communities further illustrates their lack of touch with ordinary people.

More at ThinkProgress.org


Before this solemn mockery is o'er, all hell will break loose

One more speech and I can go back to monitoring the anti-gay industry.

McCain will talk tonight on what he can do if elected president.

But of course all of the attention is on last night and Sarah Palin's speech.

If you ask me, there are two more things to be brought up:

1. This "blame the media" mode will sooner or later backfire if the Republicans continue it. I have already seen some members of the media speak on it and they ain't exactly happy about it. The last thing McCain and his folks need are enemies in the press. And just how long will it be before the American public write them off as whiners?

2. To hell with claims of sexism. Palin obviously wants to stomp with the big dogs so let her stomp or get chewed up.

In other words (and this is me channeling myself when I was in high school watching a good old fashioned catfight) - beat that sista down!!!!

I almost can't wait to get back to showcasing the lies of the anti-gay industry. For one reason, One News Now has put their comments section back up. (I would link to it but as you know the powers that be on that site Rickrolled me).

Secondly (and this is something I don't think anyone has thought about with the convention and hurricanes) I think that our friend Peter LaBarbera may be a very unhappy camper. As I understand it, Southern Decadence was supposed to take place, thereby insuring that Peter would get more "research" of scandalously clad gay men in leather.

I think Hurricane Gustav put a kibosh on that.

But if I know Peter, he probably has something extra silly planned.

I await with interest. Really I do.

Associated Press - Palin stretched the truth in speech

Well the speech is over and to the surprise of no one, Sarah Palin did a good job.

But a few things caught my eye -

1. That attack on the media will backfire. As articles have shown, we don't know that much about her. Hell, McCain didn't know that much about her when he selected her. Trying to bully the media isn't going to play out well publicly. It just gives the impression that the campaign has something to hide.

2. All of that talk about attracting Hilary Clinton voters just went out of the window. Palin did nothing concilatory to appeal to those women. Her tone was mean and sarcastic. The delegates may have loved it but remember some of those same delegates loved Pat Buchanan's 1992 speech and we all know how that played out.

3. The crack about community organizers and the comment about Obama wanting to read terrorists their rights are going to backfire on her.

4. And the most important thing (by way of Americablog), Palin was highly deceptive about many things in her speech:

Ballsy move to lie to America during one's introductory speech. But, that's what Palin did tonight. AP said Palin "stretch[ed] the truth. She lied:

PALIN: "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere."

THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere."

The gloves are truly off here. When the hype and afterglow of Palin's speech is over, I am interested in seeing what is going to happen.


The Palin paradox and other things (because it's not all about her)

In the words of Addison DeWitt in All About Eve, tonight Sarah Palin will give the performance of her life.

No matter how the media tries to hype her speech up as a do or die situation, we all know how it's going to end. She is going to walk out to the podium under thunderous applause before her speech and will be hailed as a "gutsy underdog" when it's over.

Short of cutting a loud fart in front of the microphone, Palin will do just fine tonight, causing conservatives to heap her with more platitudes than Michael Jackson received when he started winning awards for the Thriller album.

But I find the line of defense that she is being attacked due to sexism highly funny. It would be more funny it if weren't insulting.

For months, we have all be inudated by claims, phony anecdotes, and out-and-out lies about Barack Obama.

And when folks pushing those claims got called to the carpet, they feigned shock saying "oh so it's wrong to even criticize Barack Obama. We are only just trying to find out the truth."

Now they take the opposite road with Sarah Palin. Give me a break.

When Palin has a book written on her by an attack artist like Jerome Corsi, then we will talk. Other than that, everyone is well within their rights to scrutinize her.

After all, John McCain certainly didn't.

But don't be fooled by this circling of wagons. According to this link, not all Republicans favor Palin.

And according to an MSNBC poll, people (by a large margin) think that the media should not back off investigating her background.

In other news . . .

I want to link you all to this very interesting story by a young black gay man. He recounts coming out to his family and introducing them to his partner.

In this fast paced world of bullshit, it's nice to spotlight brave folks like him.

I will try to not have a heart attack this week

With the good comes the bad.

Last week was the Democratic National Convention. So now this week will be the Republican National Convention.

And I may not watch it.

While I firmly believe in looking at two sides of an issue, even if my mind is made up, my heart just won't be able to take it.

I tried really hard yesterday to watch Fox News as their pundits pontificated about the effect of Hurricane Gustav on the convention. I was doing well until one of them, Fred Barnes, remarked that the relief effort of Hurricane Gustav wipes away the ill feelings of the inaction during Hurricane Katrina.

After ten minutes of mental profanities and two minutes of feeling slightly guilty for wishing that I could jump through the television and bury my foot in Barnes's ass, I came to the conclusion that maybe just this once, I don't have to look at both sides of an issue.

I'm an Obamaniac and I'm proud of it. And I am not voting for him solely because of his color. I am voting for him because he is a Democrat. The fact that he is an African-American is simply icing on the cake.

But you know what? What if I was going to vote for him solely because of his ethnicity? In this political climate, just what is wrong with that?

After all, John McCain choose Sarah Palin as vice president simply because she is a woman and evangelicals are excited about her because she claims she is also one.

But who is going to point the finger at that?

And speaking of choices and heart attacks, I see the Log Cabin Republicans have endorsed McCain.

While I understand the need for them to be autonomous, I also have to say that they aren't that smart.

The Log Cabin Republicans cited several reasons why they support McCain, but I want to talk about one:

An endorsement will give Log Cabin better access to a McCain administration.

Yeah right. How much access do you think they will get when James Dobson starts threatening to pull supporters away from McCain unless he stops "legitimizing the homosexual agenda?"

How much access do you think they will get once Donald Wildmon gets his followers to send letters to the White House demanding that McCain not meet with them.

Unfortunately the Log Cabin Republicans' endorsement of McCain glosses over an ugly but true fact regarding Republican politics. Since Reagan, every Republican presidential candidate sooner or later have had to pander to the religious right and the anti-gay industry.

And McCain is no different (hence the pick of Palin). When and if the time comes that McCain has to choose between Log Cabin Republicans and the religious right, just what can they do?

They don't have any real power in the Republican party. If they do, would someone please write me and tell me just what it is.