Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters: 07/01/2010

Friday, July 30, 2010

Know Your LGBT History - A Different Story

African-Americans absent at anti-gay marriage rallies and other Friday midday news briefs

Guess who is NOT showing up at NOM’s rallies - Trust me when I say that we black folks don't have time for that type of mess.

One man (who celebrates Christmas), one woman (who observes Easter) - Do these people have to make a political/religious issue out of everything? They are probably mad because Chelsea Clinton didn't invite any of them to the wedding.

Councilwoman Getting Death Threats For Supporting Non-Discrimination Against Gays - Let's keep Councilwoman Janis Fullilove in our prayers.

More Layoffs Looming At Focus? - Just in time for James Dobson's new political group.

Calling All Tipsters: The Time To Speak Out Against Ex-Gay Abuse Is NOW - An important call to arms by Truth Wins Out.

'Porno' Pete LaBarbera for your listening pleasure

Like I said last night - if you give the religious right enough rope and they hang themselves. Courtesy of David Pakman and Midweek Politics.comes an interview with your friend and mine, "Porno" Pete LaBarbera. If you have time and want a good laugh, check it out:

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Anti-gay activist Scott Lively makes a fool of himself on The Daily Show

More proof that if you give members of the religious right enough rope, they tend to hang themselves.

I give you anti-lgbt activist and Ugandan anti-gay law supporter Scott Lively on The Daily Show.

God, I love Jon Stewart:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Gay Reichs

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor

Tea Party

How the Family Research Council manipulates legitimate data to hurt the lgbt community

Once religious right groups find an item which can be used to demonize the lgbt community, they repeat this item ad naseum, even if they have to omit some crucial facts which could change the flow of what they are trying to push.

For example this quote by AIDS researcher Ronald Stall:

One of the nation’s leading AIDS researchers, Ronald Stall, has declared, “It may be a fallacy to say that HIV is the dominant, most dangerous and most damaging epidemic among gay men in the United States today. There are at least four other epidemics occurring among gay men that are intertwining and making each other worse. This is called a syndemic.” The “four other epidemics” are “substance abuse, partner violence, depression and childhood sexual abuse.”

That is how the Family Research Council spun the quote while using it to make the case against a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

FRC also manipulated it to use against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) (item 7 with Peter Sprigg).

But like so many other things they use, the Family Research Council distorts the meaning of Stall's words.

The organization is omitting the rest of his quote:

“It may be a fallacy to say that HIV is the dominant, most dangerous and most damaging epidemic among gay men in the United States today,” Stall said. “There are at least four other epidemics occurring among gay men that are intertwining and making each other worse. This is called a syndemic.”

Stall cited the population-based Urban Men’s Health Study, which demonstrated that at least four other epidemics – substance abuse, partner violence, depression and childhood sexual abuse – may be affecting this patient population.

“What do these other factors have to do with HIV infection?” Stall said. “The analysis further demonstrated that men who were most affected by this syndemic were also more likely to have recently engaged in high-risk sex and/or be HIV positive. Therefore, we now have these co-occurring psychosocial conditions that are intertwined and are making each other worse driving an infectious disease epidemic.”

Stall added that other marginalized populations – including ethnic minorities and the urban poor – may also be suffering from a similar syndemic; this may be further exacerbating the HIV/AIDS epidemic in these patient populations as well.

In other words, Stall isn't implying that it is the lgbt orientation causing these problems but the marginalization of lgbts.

How FRC manipulates Stall's words is similar to how the organization manipulated medical information in its pamphlet The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality.

In the pamphlet, FRC cited information that listed the medical problems facing the lgbt community (i.e. depression, drug abuse) but omitted the part of the data calling homophobia the cause of these problems.

It's a cagey thing to do. Not very Christian or moral, but highly cagey.

And one more thing, Box Turtle Bulletin says the following which throws another monkey wrench in FRC's claims:

According to our estimates, the prevalence of HIV is probably below 10% of the total LGBT population. (Those estimates however are fought with unknowable variables, so caution is advised whenever anyone attempts to estimate HIV prevelance in the LGBT population.) All people entering the military are tested for HIV, and all military personnel are retested at periodic intervals.

Fox News admits mistake in pushing Sherrod story

It's interesting how the Shirley Sherrod story demonstrates the similarities between the African-American and lgbt communities. Both communities are seeking equality and both communities have to combat forces who seek to dominate the narrative with the idea that they are either overly complaining or attempting to unfairly "change the definition" of normalcy.

For those who have been complaining that Fox News has been unfairly targeted in the Shirley Sherrod debacle comes this item, which as far as I am concerned, is an admittance of a faux pas on the part of the company:

The first mention of the Sherrod video, which surfaced on Monday, July19th on Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com, was made later that day on Bill O'Reilly's 8 p.m. show. O'Reilly later apologized for how he characterized Sherrod.

But FoxNews.com did run a story about the existence of the video, titled "Video Shows USDA Official Saying She Didn't Give 'Full Force' of Help to White Farmer" at 5:58 p.m. on Monday, an hour before the Agriculture Department announced Sherrod’s resignation. And Wednesday, (Fox News Senior Vice President of News Michael) Clemente told POLITICO that was a mistake.

"There was a breakdown in the system, and it is being addressed," he said. "But it must say something about the power of Fox, that a week after she resigned, we're still talking about this."

The breakdown occurred following Fox's afternoon news meeting that day, when Clemente, according to The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz offered the following advice: "Let's take our time and get the facts straight on this story. Can we get confirmation and comments from Sherrod before going on-air. Let's make sure we do this right."

Clemente said he gave the advice in the meeting, not in a memo to staff, and his guidance clearly did not make it down to the reporter and producers who put the story on FoxNews.com.

Clemente was wrong about one thing. It does not demonstrate the power of Fox News that people are talking about the Sherrod incident a week later.

It demonstrates the bullheadedness of Fox News to not admit its error.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Shirley Sherrod critic humiliates himself on definition of 'lynching'

I thought I had seen it all when it comes to the Shirley Sherrod debacle.

At first the incident was an embarrassment for the Obama Administration and the NAACP, but apparently members of the right are getting jealous. Some are obviously trying to outdo both parties in terms of humiliating themselves:

From Talking Points Memo comes this:

On Monday, former Reagan administration official Jeffrey Lord astonished the left and the right by penning an article in the conservative American Spectator attacking former-USDA official Shirley Sherrod for using the term "lynching" to describe the murder of one of her relative years ago. The problem, according to Lord, was that the victim, Bobby Hall was beaten to death by a blackjack, rather than being hanged by the neck. "It's...possible that she knew the truth and chose to embellish it, changing a brutal and fatal beating to a lynching."

Critics, even at his own magazine, pounced, noting that a lynching is an extrajudicial murder by a mob, whether or not the weapon of choice is a rope.

Lord was referring to the story Sherrod told about the murder of her relatives in the infamous speech which was truncated to make it seem as if she was a racist:

I should tell you a little about Baker County. In case you don't know where it is, it's located less than 20 miles southwest of Albany. Now, there were two sheriffs from Baker County that -- whose names you probably never heard but I know in the case of one, the thing he did many, many years ago still affect us today. And that sheriff was Claude Screws. Claude Screws lynched a black man. And this was at the beginning of the 40s. And the strange thing back then was an all-white federal jury convicted him not of murder but of depriving Bobby Hall -- and I should say that Bobby Hall was a relative -- depriving him of his civil rights.

Because of the criticism his piece received from both the left and the right, Lord goes farther in his criticism of Sherrod:

. . . Lord later expanded his critique of Sherrod by arguing that Hall wasn't beaten to death by enough people to constituted a mob, and therefore it couldn't have been a lynching in two different ways. He stands by that assessment.

"Certainly the image in my head of a lynching is rope around the neck," Lord told me. "And when we really got into this, it was quite apparent to me that there was all sorts of other things. That there has to be a mob -- mob action. Well what is a mob? Is it two people? Is it three people?"

Unbelievable. I have always believed that electing a black man as president would bring all sorts of strange people out of the woodwork.

And here is Jeffery Lord bending over backwards to prove my point.

Give it another week and they will be saying that Sherrod isn't an African-American.

Related posts:

360 degree turn - Now the right is attacking Shirley Sherrod for calling Breitbart a racist

Andrew Breitbart - the NAACP's best friend and the Tea Party Movement's worst enemy

Peter LaBarbera obsesses about bathhouses (again) and other Tuesday midday news briefs

NJ Library Removes LGBT Book, Calling It “Child Pornography” - For those who think that Glenn Beck's nonsense won't touch the lgbt community, think again.

NOM's hurtful voices: 'One hand, one woman' edition - More proof of the National Organization for Marriage's hypocrisy. It's joining forces with a pastor who lied about "gays teaching children to masturbate."

What Is the Cause of LaBarbera's Ignorance? - Peter LaBarbera thinks about bathhouses more than any gay man I know.

Elisabeth Hasselbeck Cracks Lesbian Code - Okay I have NOW officially heard everything.

Sherrod To Speak At Black Journalists Convention; Breitbart Backs Out - Bullies generally chicken out when they are challenged.

Court knocks down latest religious right cause celebre

A religious right cause celebre has been knocked down by federal courts on Monday:

A federal judge today dismissed a lawsuit brought against Eastern Michigan University by a master's student who said she was removed from the school's counseling program because of her strong religious views against homosexuality.

As part of her course work, Ward had refused to counsel homosexual clients, saying she believed homosexuality was morally wrong.

The university removed Ward from the counseling program after determining her actions violated university policy and the American Counseling Association (ACA) code of ethics.

Julea Ward sued the university in 2009, alleging violation of her First Amendment and religious rights.

On Monday, U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh ruled in favor of the university and granted it summary judgment.

"The university had a rational basis for adopting the ACA Code of Ethics into its counseling program, not the least of which was the desire to offer an accredited program," Steeh said in a 48-page opinion.

"Furthermore, the university had a rational basis for requiring its students to counsel clients without imposing their personal values.

"In the case of Ms. Ward, the university determined that she would never change her behavior and would consistently refuse to counsel clients on matters with which she was personally opposed due to her religious beliefs -- including homosexual relationships."

The judge said Ward's "refusal to attempt learning to counsel all clients within their own value systems is a failure to complete an academic requirement of the program."

Ward had been touted as the lastest "victim" of the so-called homosexual agenda by members of the religious right, including your friend and mine, Peter LaBarbera.

My feeling is that if you can't do the job completely and for everyone then we have a serious problem, especially if you are seeking to be a healthcare worker.

Let's hope that the court's ruling is the last we hear of this nonsense.

Hat tip to Ray Whiting, one of my new online buddies.

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Family Research Council using fraudulent pamphlet in anti-gay ad

The Family Research Council is speaking against broadening an anti-discrimination ordinance in Holland, MI. How the organization has chosen to do so is raising alarm:

A community group that is trying to make Holland more accepting of gay people planned to meet Wednesday, July 28, to decide how to respond to a full-page advertisement in the local daily newspaper that one of its leaders said included "blatant untruths" about gay people.

. . . The ad, which was sponsored by the Family Research Council and Request Foods and published July 23 in The Holland Sentinel, made reference to efforts toward broadening the city's anti-discrimination ordinance to include sexual orientation and gender identity. The Holland City Council has referred the measure to its Human Resources Commission for review.

The ad stated that "pro-homosexual activists" were trying to give Holland gays and lesbians "special protections" under employment discrimination laws and called homosexuality a choice that is "harmful to individuals and to society."

The ad, which can be viewed here, contains the standard religious right propaganda about the lgbt community, i.e. we are mentally diseased, we don't need protection from discrimination, and people can change their sexual orientation.

But here is where things get interesting. FRC doesn't provide references for any of their claims in the ad except one. On the far lower right corner of the ad is the image of a pamphlet that the ad invites people to consult.

The pamphlet is called The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality.

And I've talked about this pamphlet before.

To recap, The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality is a fraudulent piece of work with many problems in regards to veracity including:

1. Ten Myths repeats the lie that the Robert Spitzer study proves that homosexuality is changeable, excluding the fact that Spitzer has said on more than one occasion that his research was being distorted.

2. Ten Myths utilizes the work of the organization National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). The website Truth Wins Out calls NARTH a discredited "ex-gay" fringe organization that peddles fraudulent "cures" for homosexuality.

3. Most importantly, Ten Myths intentionally distorts information to make it seem that negative behaviors, i.e. drug and alcohol abuse, are indicative of the lgbt orientation. The pamphlet accomplishes this by citing data in regards to the lgbt community and such negative behaviors while omitting the fact that much of the data places the blame on homophobia for these negative behaviors.

It is apparent that in the fictional world inhabited by the Family Research Council, lgbts being able to live without fear of discrimination is a sin, but lying about the lgbt community is allowed.

Hat tip to Truth Wins Out

Related post:

'Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality' Is a Huge Homophobic Fraud

Another study confirms lgbt households and other Monday midday news briefs

U.Va. study: Adoptive children of lesbian and gay couples developing well -Religious right freak out soon to come.

Fight Inequality with Inequality? - A needed discussion on the tactics we need to and don't need to use in pursuit of equality.

Vague language stalls gay rights measure - Not good news at all.

The American Spectator’s embarrassingly ignorant attack on Sherrod - As this story ebbs away, members of the right can't help using it to make total fools of themselves. The spin here is that Sherrod was "lying" when she said a relative was lynched because he was "merely" beaten to death.

National Organization for Marriage needs to disavow its 'zany' followers

During its failed Summer Marriage Tour, it is obvious that the National Organization for Marriage is trying to incite anger in the lgbt community and allies in order to fuel their propaganda.

It's all a part of their routine of being fake victims. But before this can succeed, NOM needs to not only address those in its ranks, such as Lou Marinelli, but also those who support their cause, like this guy:

This is Larry Adams and if you think his comments are interesting, check out his sign which he envisions his "solution" to marriage equality:

Maggie Gallagher really needs to talk to her people. If you are going to pretend like you are a victim, it's helpful not to advocate the lynching of those you claim to be victimized by.

Hat tip to NOM Tour Tracker and Bilerico.

Monday, July 26, 2010

Video games are SO gay

My apologies for the lateness of this post. We had a nasty storm in my area which knocked the power out three times.

And now a look at gay video games from the folks at Infomania. This is hilarious!

Past Infomania posts:

A funny look at lgbt villains

A funny look at 'gay' commercials

An interesting and thought-provoking take on lgbt pride

Elena Kagan 'plays softball like a lesbian'

Conversion Therapy - a video with George Rekers in mind

Advice to closeted politicans - How to keep from being exposed

Why the phrase 'No Homo' is highly needed

Reasons why the 'sanctity' of proms MUST be preserved from Constance McMillen

Why gay marriage is 'wrong'

Donohue links lgbts to pedophiles (again) and other Monday midday news briefs

Catholic Church's issue is homosexuality, not pedophilia - This EXTREMELY piss poor attack on the lgbt community by Bill Donohue speaks for itself. He is getting destroyed in the comments section.

Judge blocks Arizona law on domestic-partner benefits - Doggone activist judges are always doing the right thing.

A Victory for Clay Greene - a terrible wrong has been addressed and taken care of.

Peter LaBarbera is Personally Boycotting McDonalds - Please no comments about butt-less chaps and fat booties.

TPM Exclusive: Steele To Hold RNC Event -- Co-Starring Andrew Breitbart - Why oh why should anyone be surprised?

Phony disclaimer won't help National Organization for Marriage

Lou Marinelli, the one-time self identified "NOM strategist" and driver of its very, very, VERY unsuccessful marriage tour is now seeking to distance his blog from the organization with a silly disclaimer:

A statement of clarity

I would like to take this opportunity to state that the opinions and statements made in this blog reflect only the opinions of myself, personally, not the National Organization for Marriage.

I am not an employee of the National Organization for Marriage. I am a third party who is directly involved as a partner with the Summer for Marriage.

Therefore, positions I take and statements I make do not reflect the positions or opinions of any other person, entity or the National Organization for Marriage as a whole.

This statement of clarity has been added due to the heavy attention our opponents give to this blog and the great lack of understanding of who or what I represent. Let this stand as a clarification to all.

This disclaimer probably is due to rude and ugly comments Marinelli has made about the lgbt community, which goes counterclockwise to NOM's talking point of unfairly being called bigots simply because it supposedly wants to defend marriage.

Comments like the claiming that the lgbt rights movement is about ""pedophilia, polygamy, and prostitution."

Or an absolutely disrespectful comment he made about a gay couple and their daughter last weekend:

There was one couple (one of those bolder couples who came into the rally itself) who were particularly disappointing. The two men decided not to just attend the rally but they brought a baby with them. Notice I said 'a baby" because it isn't "their baby". It was clearly adopted. They were white the baby was not.

This baby has been adopted and is being raised in a house of homosexuality and can't even speak yet. Who will speak for this and all the other children who are adopted and are being subjected to a house of homosexuality?

And he includes a picture of the couple he is skewering (complete with their adorable daughter), which does nothing more than push the fact about what a scuzzy thing it was for him to make such a comment - which, by the way, he is getting butchered for in the comments section of his post.

The huge irony about that is Maggie Gallagher made an appearance during NOM's tour and she had this to say:

Hate is not a family value. The 62 percent of Ohioans who came together across lines of race, creed and color to vote for marriage are not haters, and it’s wrong to portray them, or the American people that way.

Perhaps Gallagher should address those sentiments to Marinelli.

The fact that she most likely didn't but still uses him during NOM's summer tour - which does connect him to the organization no matter how much he tries to backtrack - says a lot about the organization's lack of basic integrity.

Hat tip to Box Turtle Bulletin.

Related posts:

National Organization for Marriage needs to address hate in its own ranks

National Organization for Marriage tries to cover up ugly comments with pitiful lies

National Organization for Marriage - gays were never hunted down and murdered like 'Jews, Christians, and blacks'

Message to Maggie Gallagher: associating with bigots does make you a bigot

Sunday, July 25, 2010

Shirley Sherrod and the Circle of Bigotry

A commentator on Pam's House Blend, Rebecca Morn, broke down the Shirley Sherrod debacle in such an awesome way that I simply have to repeat her words:

Breitbart: This woman is a racist! See! I have a heavily doctored video! She used her position as a fed in the USDA to discriminate against white people!

Wingnut Noise Machine: ALERT! ALERT! UPPITY BLACK PERSON ADMITS TO HATING WHITEY!

The Media: Ooooh! Quick, let's panic like a pack of four year olds upon seeing their first big spider. She is! She is! She weally is a wacist! Fire her ass.

The Administration: Aaaaaaaaaah! Fire her! Fire her now! Quickly! She's toxic and Glenn Beck is gonna do a story on her. Panic!

Responsible people: Like hell. Look at the rest of the video. First of all, this was like 30 years ago; secondly, she was working for a non-profit organization, not the government, and thirdly, Sherrod's anecdote was all about her realizing she had the wrong attitude, that she should stand for ALL poor people, regardless of their color or origin.

The Media: Er, um... No way we were snookered that badly. Must be something wrong with her.

The Administration: Uh oh. Activate ostrich mode!

Wingnut Noise Machine: ALERT! Those white people she helped -- they're fakes! They don't exist!

Responsible people: Afraid she's not a racist, and those farmers are totally legit. Oh, and by the way -- her father was murdered by racist bigots during the civil rights era.

The Media and the Administration: Oh crap. We gotta make this right.

Breitbart: No no -- it wasn't about HER. I was pointing out the racism of the entire NAACP. See, they were hooting and hollering at her anecdote like a bunch of... well, you know.

Wingnut Noise Machine: ALERT! NAACP -- are they total racists? Also, did they collude with the Obama Administration to destroy this woman's career? It would be irresponsible not to speculate...for hours and hours.

Responsible people: Give Sherrod her damned job back. Better still, make it a promotion. And we want to hear some apologies. After this ridiculous lynching, there better be a POTUS call, too.

The Media and the Administration (scuffing the dirt): All right... Sorry.

Sherrod is interviewed. She's kinda p.o'd at having been railroaded like she was, and for no good reason than the perfidy of the bigots and the cowardice of her supposed employers and friends. She rightly calls Breitbart on his shit, calls him a racist and someone who'd probably like to see African Americans reduced to slavery again.

Wingnut Noise Machine: ALERT! Sherrod must apologize abjectly to Breitbart! She's evil again! Black woman disrespecting white guy who nearly got away with ruining her career! Release the hounds!

Repost: The religious right and the power of transference

reprinted from February 3, 2009:

A few minutes ago, I had a say what moment.

A say what moment is when someone says something so unbelievable that it renders you silent for a few minutes with your mouth open in shock.

Who was the culprit of this say what moment? Why my and your favorite anti-gay spokesperson, Peter LaBarbera. In a piece he wrote about the recent Creating Change conference, LaBarbera complains about a speech by Rea Carey of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

One of his points:

. . . thousands of left-wing, grassroots activists attend these annual “Creating Change” conferences; there is no parallel on the social Right for this scale of people and groups working closely together toward common goals. There are precious few organizing and political “how-to” conferences for pro-family conservatives. The Left eats and breathes politics; the Right is more distrustful of government, worse at politics, but more oriented toward God, family and church (the latter is obviously a good thing).

And thus, my say what moment.

Did LaBarbera actually say that there is no parallel on the social Right in terms of conferences and groups working together for their own agenda and the like?

Then what the hell were the Justice Sunday events in which religious right organizations whined about the courts?

Or Vision America, where pastors are "organized" to fight supposed "Godlessness,"

or those unbelievable Values Voters summits.

It's nice that LaBarbera seems to be fearful of lgbt power but his whining about organizations on his side of the so-cultural battle having no power is patently false, or to be less polite about it, a blatant lie.

At any rate, its a perfect segueway to what I wanted to write about today.

It always amazes me when I hear religious right spokespeople and organizations claim that lgbts are following some type of pragmatic plan to take over the country.

We should be so fortunate to be that organized.

I've come to the conclusion that whenever they accuse us of playing James Bond villian games, it's only to cover up just how skillful they plan and organize.

Follow me now:

The Supreme Court rules favorably for lgbts in a certain case.

One News Now, owned by the American Family Association, prints an article (biased, of course) against the ruling and quoting only so-called “pro-family” leaders such as Gary Bauer who claim that the ruling is a travesty on the country.

Other talking heads such as Michelle Malkin write columns falsely claiming that the Supreme Court ruled against them because of alleged biases of the justices. These columns are filtered
to other right-wing publications and blogs.

James Dobson (Focus on the Family) criticizes the ruling on his radio program, as does Tony Perkins (Family Research Council). Other articles are written trying to prove how the ruling will hurt America. More articles are written digging up speeches that the judges made, hinting on flimsy correlations between their ruling and so-called personal biases.

The blogs begin smear the reputations of the judges. Religious right code words (i.e. "activist judges") is repeated in columns, articles, and books.

The Traditional Values Coalition, the Family Research Council, and other so-called “pro-family” groups solicit donations making the claim that either the ruling will doom Christians and will lead to homosexuality being taught “as normal” to children or it will lead to criticizing homosexuality as being designated as a hate crime. They get people of faith who are gullible enough to believe their lies to write letters to their local newspapers (using a script of anti-gay industry talking points.)

Backdoor meetings are held and suddenly, Congressmen friendly to religious right causes begin to cite religious right talking points in speeches and on the floor of Congress.

So-called news programs (Fox News) begin debating whether or not judges have a bias against people of faith.

Talk show hosts such as Mike Huckabee have religious right spokespeople as the sole guests on their shows where they spew talking points unchallenged.

Events such as Justice Sunday fill the airwaves, scaring people of faith about a supposed plot to take away their liberties and their ability to worship.

And then they really begin to organize.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is how planning and organizing is done. And folks like Peter have cornered the market on it.

Saturday, July 24, 2010

360 degree turn - Now the right is attacking Shirley Sherrod for calling Breitbart a racist

As fast as they issued mea culpas because of the treatment of Shirley Sherrod, some members of the right are now seemingly taking back those mea culpas and are attempting to make Sherrod into Madame Defarge while at the same time trying to make Andrew Breitbart into a victim.

My guess is that in the next few days you will be hearing about this interview with Anderson Cooper in right-wing circles:

The portion of the interview which will probably be focused on is at 2:30 when Sherrod says she thinks Breitbart would like to get African-Americans "stuck back in the times of slavery." She later says that she thinks he is a racist. Both of these statements came from her responding to a comment Breitbart made in Politico, another online site.

Did I say will be focused on? I meant to say is now being focused on.

BigGovernment.com, one of Breitbart's websites, now contains a listing of links from conservatives who on Friday said that Sherrod owes Breitbart an apology:

Goldberg: Sherrod Owes Breitbart an Apology

Riehl: Sherrod owes Breitbart an apology

Ponnuru: Sherrod owes Breitbart an apology

This also includes a listing of other right-wing pieces demonizing Sherrod:

Human Events: Shirley Sherrod Falsely Sainted by Propagandist Media

Powerline: Sherrod acted racially irresponsible

'the Obama admin now owns Shirley Sherrod'

Now in all fairness, there are pieces listed praising Sherrod or focusing objectively on her story.

I say don't you dare apologize, Ms. Sherrod. I fail to see how anyone can make Breitbart the victim in this situation when he was the one who tried to ruin your career and name as part of a vindictive attack on the NAACP, which he has YET to apologize for.

And don't be fooled by the "we were in Ms. Sherrod's corner until she started spouting nonsense" that's most likely sure to come.

According to Media Matters, members of the right were making this turn as early as Thursday when some were claiming that the White House orchestrated the entire situation.

I guess we will know by Monday whether or not the right will return to their regularly scheduled program of the "Obama Administration don't like white people" but this time featuring Ms. Sherrod as the star.

Related post:

Circling the wagons: Right-wing media figures rush to defend Breitbart

Andrew Breitbart - the NAACP's best friend and the Tea Party Movement's worst enemy

Andrew Breitbart - the NAACP's best friend and the Tea Party Movement's worst enemy

In the midst of the Shirley Sherrod hoopla, an interesting situation involving the Tea Party Movement seems to have gone unnoticed:

One of the most prominent men in the tea party movement, Tea Party Express spokesperson and former chair Mark Williams, is abandoning the group he helped propel into the role of the tea party's public face.

. . . In his resignation letter to the TPE, Williams says he left the group after the past week's public battle with the NAACP made him too hot to handle.

"I feel compelled to separate myself from any further involvement with the Tea Party Express so that I can pursue other interests," Williams wrote, "and to free the tea party movement from any more distraction based on my personal comments or blogs."

It’s interesting that when Van Jones resigned, folks were commenting about how Glenn Beck - who orchestrated opposition to Jones - "got a scalp.” When ACORN was taken down thanks to the videos of James O’Keefe which were pushed by Andrew Breitbart, both were given the dubious honor of “getting a scalp.”

Shouldn’t the same be said for the NAACP regarding Williams?

After all, it was their resolution denouncing racism in the tea party which fueled the entire controversy causing Williams to make a complete ass of himself and thereby proving the NAACP’s point.

Probably not and for two reasons. No one likes to think of the NAACP as out to “take scalps” and wreck careers. It wouldn’t fit into the image of a venerable civil rights groups, although it couldn’t hurt if it did.

Secondly there is this awful idea propagated that no one on the left in general knows how to fight hard and asks questions later. The image of Breitbart and many on the right is that of warriors who figuratively dance on the graves of their enemies and gloat even before the bodies have gotten cold.

Meanwhile those of us on the left are seen as wimps, unable to be decisive because we are constantly fretting over the repercussions of our actions even before we take them.

So no, I don’t think anyone will be awarding the NAACP with “scalps” anytime soon.

But the organization does have a victory here because one of the head warriors, Breitbart, seems to have tripped and fallen on his own spear.

Right now, the NAACP is dealing with the embarrassment of having to apologize to Sherrod after throwing her under the bus. But we must all remember that in controversies like this one, there are long term repercussions that go with the short term ones and sometimes the two run diametrically opposite to each other.

We saw this with the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky situation. While the Republican Party ended up with a huge amount of egg on its face because of the controversy, the scandal made it difficult for Al Gore to embrace Clinton’s administrative successes when he ran for president in 2000. Gore shied away from comparing himself to Clinton, which did hurt his campaign.

That added with a few other situations, including what some on my side still call chicanery, ensured the election of George W. Bush.

In that same vein, we should recognize what effect the Shirley Sherrod situation has on the Tea Party Movement.

If Breitbart had meant to deflect cries of racism from the Tea Party Movement, he failed miserably. If anything, his actions only ensured that the Tea Party Movement will be forever yoked to the image of racism and oppression. And this image will only worsen should Breitbart make an appearance at tea party functions, which I know he will. And I am betting that he will receive thunderous applause too.

In the long run, it doesn’t matter how many African-Americans tea party leaders can pull out of the woodwork or how many shows they appear on to decry the idea that they are racist, the one thing people will take from the Sherrod case is that one of their leaders, a white man, helped to railroad an innocent black woman with a doctored videotape and a false claim of racism.

And that image isn't going away anytime soon.

Friday, July 23, 2010

Know Your LGBT History - Victim

I have never seen Victim (1961) but I've heard of it so many times. It was a landmark in lgbt cinema.

From Wikipedia:

Victim is a 1961 British film directed by Basil Dearden, starring Dirk Bogarde and Sylvia Syms. It is notable in film history for being the first English language film to use the word "homosexual". The world premier was at the Odeon Cinema in Leicester Square on 31 August 1961. On its release in the United Kingdom it proved highly controversial and in the United States it was initially banned.

. . . Until the 1967 Sexual Offences Act, which implemented the recommendations of the Wolfenden report, homosexual acts between consenting adults were illegal in England and Wales. There were prosecutions and Sunday newspapers gave space to the court reports. Yet, by 1960, the police were as relaxed as possible over the old laws. There was a feeling that the code violated decent liberty. But police restraint did not deter the menace of blackmail.

When the team of producer Michael Relph and director Basil Dearden first approached Bogarde, they warned him that a lot of people had already turned down the script because the material might be considered dangerous or unwholesome. In 1960, Bogarde was 39 and just about the most popular actor in British films. He had proven himself playing war heroes (The Sea Shall Not Have Them; Ill Met by Moonlight); he was the star of the hugely successful Doctor film series; and he was a reliable romantic lead in movies like A Tale of Two Cities. He was flirting with a larger, Hollywood career—playing Liszt in Song Without End. Bogarde was suspected to be homosexual, living in the same house as his business manager, Anthony Forwood, and was compelled every now and then to be seen in public with attractive young women. He seems not to have hesitated over the role of Farr. Similarly, Sylvia Syms never flinched from the part of his wife, though apparently several actresses had turned it down.

Other gay cast members included Dennis Price and Hilton Edwards. Though it mostly treats homosexuality in a non-sensationalized manner, there is one rather catty aspect to the film-- Price's character (a prominent gay theater star) would have been fairly easy for contemporary audiences to identify with Noel Coward.

Did gay marriage 'kill' the penguins? and other Friday midday news briefs

In Memphis, Greatest Opposition to Non-Discrimination Ordinance From Pedophile-Protecting Pastor - Definition of an ugly irony: a pastor who kept quiet when he knew a child was being molested now opposing an lgbt-positive ordinance on the grounds that it may harm children.

Avoiding NOM's Trap - Pay attention, folks.

New Zealand researcher reports correlation between sexual behavior and childhood abuse - Another study we need to get ahead of before the religious right has a chance to exploit it.

Gay Marriage Killed The Penguins - There are no words.

Right-wing conspiracy: Sherrod controversy "orchestrated" by the White House to "smear Breitbart" - If the White House is that diabolical, I would rather have them for a friend rather than an enemy (sarcasm alert).

Andrew Breitbart 's smear of Sherrod resembles his attack on Kevin Jennings

The lgbt community would do well to remember that what Andrew Breitbart tried to do to Shirley Sherrod is the same smear job he attempted on Obama appointee Kevin Jennings. Through his websites and via writer Jim Hoft, Breitbart pushed a disturbingly large amount of lies on Jennings. From Media Matters comes this listing:

Blogger Hoft's smear campaign against Jennings. Writing for the website Gateway Pundit, Jim Hoft has authored a series of factually dubious attacks on Department of Education staffer Kevin Jennings and the organization Jennings founded and previously led, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). Hoft's Jennings posts -- which he has labeled "Fistgate," even though many of those allegations have little or nothing to do with the sexual practice of fisting -- often draw upon the work of MassResistance, a Massachusetts based anti-gay organization that has been labeled a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Even conservative commentator Dean Barnett has stated that the organization "verges on being a hate group."

Breitbart eagerly embraced and promoted Hoft's false attacks on Jennings. Hoft's "Fistgate" attacks on Jennings and the GLSEN have been faithfully cross-posted on BigGovernment.com, and Breitbart himself has used Twitter to promote Hoft's work. Among the smears and distortions Breitbart has embraced:

Hoft deceptively linked Jennings to "fisting" workshop he criticized. Hoft claimed that a 2000 conference sponsored by the Boston branch of GLSEN included "a workshop where GLSEN activists promoted 'fisting' to 14 year olds," citing a recorded exchange that occurred during a "Queer Sex and Sexuality" workshop at that conference. In fact, Jennings reportedly criticized some of the workshop's content when the recordings were first released in 2000, and the people involved in conducting the controversial discussion were state employees and contractors, not GLSEN employees.

Hoft falsely claimed high-school students received "fisting kits" at 2001 GLSEN conference. Hoft falsely claimed that "fisting kits" -- which he placed in quotes -- were distributed at the 2001 GLSEN/Boston conference. But Hoft has presented no evidence that the kits distributed by Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts were actually intended for fisting. Indeed, while the conservative newspaper Massachusetts News -- cited by Hoft -- reported in 2001 that the kits were "intended for 'fisting' or oral sex," the paper described the kit's contents as "a single plastic glove, a package of K-Y lubricant and instructions on how to make a 'dental dam' out of the material" and offered no support for the claim that the kits were "intended for 'fisting.' " Even FoxNews.com has reported that Hoft "alleged that Jennings and GLSEN were involved in Planned Parenthood's purported distribution of 'fisting kits,' " but that the kit "was actually for making a 'dental dam' -- designed to prevent STD transmission during oral sex."

Hoft falsely suggested Jennings' organization handed out explicit safe-sex booklet to children. Hoft falsely suggested that that GLSEN had distributed to children an explicit safe-sex booklet that included "a list of the local gay bars" and "Pushed Anal S*x in Parks With Strangers." In fact, a community health group -- not GLSEN itself -- reportedly said that it had mistakenly "left about 10 copies" of the booklet on an informational table it rented at a 2005 GLSEN conference at Brookline High School in Massachusetts; the group reportedly apologized for doing so; GLSEN stated that if it had known the booklets had been at the conference, it would have demanded they be removed; and the Brookline school superintendent reportedly said he believed no students had actually taken the booklet.

Hoft falsely claimed Jennings "Pushed Books That Encouraged Children to Meet Adults at Gay Bars For Sex." Hoft falsely claimed that Jennings "Personally Pushed Books That Encouraged Children to Meet Adults at Gay Bars For Sex," citing MassResistance's falsehood that a book Jennings recommended to high school and college students, One Teenager in 10, "encourage[s] teens to, among other things, go to gay bars and have sex with adults to see if they like it." Media Matters for America has reviewed the book, compiled all references to gay bars, and determined that the book at no point encourages teens to "go to gay bars and have sex with adults." In fact, a majority of the youth testimonials included in the book that mention gay bars refer to them negatively.

Breitbart.tv also smeared Jennings. An October 6, 2009, Breitbart.tv post grossly distorted comments Jennings made to a GLSEN audience in 2000 to claim he "criticize[d] schools for promoting heterosexuality." In fact, in the audio files posted at Breitbart.tv, Jennings promoted a curriculum that demands "respect [for] every human being regardless of sexual orientation, regardless of gender identity, regardless of race or religion or any of the arbitrary distinctions we make among people," and said that efforts to promote a specific sexual orientation through schools were ineffective.

The irony is that in this particular case, the Obama Administration did not capitulate to the right-wing hatchet job. Jennings still has his job and the faux controversy faded away.

Editor's note - Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters covered the entire smear campaign on Kevin Jennings and has an extensive listing of all the attacks - The War on Kevin Jennings - Chronology of a Failed Smear Campaign Hoft and Breitbart's lies are in section 2 of that piece.