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.

Beware the potential Zogby spin - it may not be accurate

My prayers go out to those who are affected by Hurricane Gustav. And I think that McCain made a good decision to make changes to the Republican National Convention.

But I echo Obama's sentiments - hopefully those in charge will do better than they did during Hurricane Katrina.

I read something today that is interesting and I want to bring it to everyone's attention before the "spin doctors" try to manipulate it:

Republican John McCain's surprise announcement Friday of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate - some 16 hours after Democrat Barack Obama's historic speech accepting his party’s presidential nomination - has possibly stunted any Obama convention bump, the latest Zogby Interactive flash poll of the race shows.

The latest nationwide survey, begun Friday afternoon after the McCain announcement of Palin as running mate and completed mid-afternoon today, shows McCain/Palin at 47%, compared to 45% support for Obama/Biden.

In other words, the race is a dead heat.

The interactive online Zogby survey shows that both Obama and McCain have solidified the support among their own parties - Obama won 86% support of Democrats and McCain 89% of Republicans in a two-way head-to-head poll question not including the running mates. When Biden and Palin are added to the mix, Obama's Democratic support remains at 86%, while McCain's increases to 92%.

That's the Zogby poll. But the National Gallup poll has Obama ahead by eight points. It also says that Sarah Palin is an unknown quantity.

But how much do you want to bet that the Zogby poll will be repeated ad naseum by McCain's people, Fox News, One News Now, Town Hall, and every conservative blog and talking head who wishes to score quick points for the Republicans.

Already there is an effort underway to spin the Zogby poll. This is what the conservative writers from Newsmax said:

It is incredible, but the designation of Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate seems to have totally obliterated Barack Obama's bounce from his convention and after his magnificent speech. Zogby actually has McCain two ahead and Rasmussen's Friday only data shows Obama only three up!

First of all, the use of the Rasmussen poll by Newsmax is a clever distortion.

According to the Rasmussen poll, before the convention, Obama and McCain have been pretty much even with Obama leading slightly.

During and after the convention, the poll shows Obama moving up by three to four points at the most. The Rasmussen poll never showed a "bounce."

So for Newsmax to use the Ramussen poll to claim that Obama enjoyed a big bounce from the convention and that McCain destroyed said bounce by his pick of Palin is highly farfetched.

Which brings me back to the Zogby poll. Anyone who tries to use the Zogby poll to make the case that Palin destroyed Obama's convention bounce is clearly not reading the entire article. Please bear in mind the words in the first sentence of the article's lead:

Republican John McCain's surprise announcement Friday of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate - some 16 hours after Democrat Barack Obama's historic speech accepting his party’s presidential nomination - has possibly stunted any Obama convention bump, the latest Zogby Interactive flash poll of the race shows.

What the Zogby poll is actually saying is that McCain's choice of a vice president has added more interest to the race by energizing his base. Before his pick of Palin, many were so-so about his candidacy. Now that he has picked his running mate, interest in him from his base has picked up.

In other words, as the second paragraph of the article clearly says, both candidates have solidified support in their own bases.

This election is not predictable. No one could have ever predicted that Obama would defeat Hilary Clinton for the Democratic nomination and no one could have predicted that McCain would pick Sarah Palin as his running mate.

And I am sure that before it's all over, more unpredictable things will happen.

But hopefully the most unpredictable occurrence will be the pundits and journalists doing their jobs and not giving us half the story . . . for a change.

I await in anticipation to be surprised.

Good choice? Bad choice?

Awesome speech by Obama. That's all I can say.

And I noticed that McCain is trying to blunt the effect of the speech by his vice presidential pick, Sarah Palin.

Palin, Governor of Alaska, is not known to many people. Naturally the internet is abuzz with google searches, yahoo searches, and every other search.

She is pro-life and not necessarily pro-gay. Of course members of the anti-gay industry are lining up to praise McCain's choice.

Palin has also been called blunt, not necessarily a positive characteristic for someone who is allegedly not necessarily gay-friendly. This means she has the potential to say something ridiculous about the lgbt community while at the same time claiming that she is not homophobic.

So did McCain pick a younger, cuter version of Sally Kern?

Who knows. Maybe I am making too much of the situation.

But from what I do know, McCain picked a first term governor with no national experience and who is currently under an ethics violation (allegedly for using her office in a vendetta against her former brother-in-law) to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

Well there goes that argument against Obama regarding lack of experience. At any other time, this would be considered a crappy choice. Hell, if Obama had made a choice like that he would be rode out of town on a rail.

You do have to give McCain points for effort though. By going for the odd choice, he has attracted some attention.

But attention, as does mystery, fades in time.

The question is what will the voters see when that happens.

Radom thoughts and significant ramblings

The Democratic Convention is almost over. Meanwhile John McCain will soon name his vice presidential candidate and the Republicans are going to start their convention.

I feel as if I am watching the coming attractions in a movie theatre.

Folks, its about to get ugly.

Last night, I googled the latest lie about Obama (the one about William Ayers and the Weathermen) and it got me thinking.

Why is it so hard for some Republicans to campaign on the issues? Why can't they just say "we feel so and so won't do a better job than our candidate."

But no. In a huge show of self involvement that would land many of us on a psychiatrist's couch, Republicans and their cohorts (especially the anti-gay industry) make every election a pitched battle between good and evil with them wearing the wings and the halo:

We can elect Michael Dukakis because he is a card carrying member of the ACLU who opposes children saying the Pledge of Allegiance.

We can't elect Bill Clinton because he is a draft dodger who protested against his country on foreign soil.

We can't elect Al Gore because he is a congenital liar who says he created the Internet.

We can't elect John Kerry because he didn't deserve the medals he got in Vietnam.

It's a broken record that no one seems to have the sense to throw away. And that's because its somewhat effective.

Dirty political tactics are like pornography. Americans claim to be disgusted by it, but at the same time, it draws their interest.

And this time, there is a serious overload of rumors, conjecture and intentional whispering campaigns. Forget how nasty it was with Bill Clinton. Republicans, conservatives, and the rest of the so-called moral folks have gone into hyperdrive about Obama, accusing him of every of bad behavior except for shooting J.R. Ewing and "squeezing the Charmin."

By themselves, the claims are bizarre. But if you grouped them together, they take the semblance of one of those ridiculous Left Behind books combined with an episode of Twin Peaks:

Obama has deep ties with Jerome Wright, a "nutty" preacher.

Obama is a rock star.

Obama’s birth certificate is fake .

Obama has deep ties with “terrorist” William Ayers.

Obama had sex and did drugs in a limo with a white guy.

Obama is the anti-Christ.

Obama is secretly Muslim.

Obama’s mother was Communist.

Obama received “training” in a Muslim school while a youngster.

Obama did drugs while in the Senate.

Obama is for infantcide.

Obama is uppity.

Obama is like Paris Hilton.

Obama is unpatriotic because he does not put his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance.

Obama is unpatriotic because he does not wear an American flag pin on his lapel or tie.

Obama was sworn into office on the Koran.

Years from now, people will look back at this election and scratch their heads. They are going to ask the question that I have been asking for a number of months:

What's wrong with these people.

Gay adoption, Hilary and other Wednesday musings

I got a message from a member of Arkansas Family First, the group working against the ballot measure I talked about yesterday:

This is Laura from Arkansas Families First.

Please visit our website, http://arkansasfamiliesfirst.org/, to join us in the fight to defeat this amendment!

I echo that sentiment for a number of reasons. Not only is the proposed law a piece of symbolic claptrap that will actually hurt children, but if it passes, we can count on seeing similar ballot initiatives in other states.

On other issues, give it up to Hilary. She turned it out last night.

Last night, I flipped between PBS and Fox News while the pundits and reporters on both channels were analyzing the speech.

What was funny about the entire thing was the pundits on Fox News attempting to find things wrong with Hilary's speech.

She only did it her herself. She didn't help Obama. I could hear her saying asshole under her breath everytime she said Obama's name. That wasn't Hilary on the podium because the Democrats kidnapped her. It was a Stepford Wife like that movie.

Then this morning, I happened to catch Joe Scarborough and his panel (with only one black man onboard) try and deconstruct Hilary's speech.

The ironic thing about that was Pat Buchanan's participation on the panel. Buchanan has said some ugly things regarding Obama and black people in general; something to the tune of black people were lucky to come to America as slaves because they were exposed to Christianity, blah, blah, blah.

And it made me realize that Pat Buchanan is a living, breathing symbol of the hypocrisy of racism on America's underbelly.

I mean if he was a black man and had said half the things about white people than he (as a white man) has said about black people, he wouldn't be considered as a venerable newsperson.

He would be a part of those code words Fox News uses when they want to scare white people about the motives of black people.

You know the code words - Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan.

Finally, some of you may have noticed that the countdown clock that usually sits on the right of this blog is gone. I removed it yesterday.

The countdown clock was showing how many days had passed since anti-gay doyenne Peter LaBarbera had seen my book (Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters) and not responded to the charges lodged in it.

It was not (as a certain individual put it) a plea by me to get LaBarbera to review my book. It was put there to demonstrate LaBarbera's hypocrisy.

He can go from one subcultural event to another and demonize the lgbt community from the depravity he sees there but will not address the fact that he and folks on his side have engaged in unfair and unscrupulous tatics to lie on the lgbt community.

Well as seen in my blog two Saturdays ago, Peter finally addressed those charges.

Granted, it took me pulling it out of him via a series of emails, but he did address my charges.

We're not perfect, he said.

Well duuuuh.

Arkansas makes a possible boo boo

Wasn't Michelle Obama awesome last night? Personally I think she nailed her speech. And her two little girls were just adorable.

How can anyone vote against that family?

But seriously, in all of the hoopla about a presidential election, we sometimes forget state votes that could have a negative impact on our lives.

It happened in 1992 when Bill Clinton was elected. During that same time, Colorado passed a mindbogglingly bad law that prevented the state from passing any laws prohibiting anti-gay discrimination.

It was overturned by the US Supreme Court in 1996. If this law had not been overturned, the effects on our fight for rights and self-determination would have been disastrous. Laws like it would have popped up virtually all over the country.

And I don't think I have to rehash the anti-gay marriage laws that passed in 2004. To this day, some people still say that they were the key to the re-election of Bush.

So now in 2008 comes the following, courtesy of Arkansas:

A proposal aimed at effectively banning gays and lesbians from becoming foster or adoptive parents was cleared Monday to appear on this fall's ballot in Arkansas.

The measure would prohibit unmarried couples living together from fostering or adopting children, and Arkansas doesn't allow gays to marry or recognize gay marriages conducted elsewhere.

Secretary of State Charlie Daniels certified the proposed initiated act for the Nov. 4 ballot after verifying that the Arkansas Family Council Action Committee had submitted 85,389 valid signatures of registered voters. Supporters needed to turn in at least 61,974 valid signatures.

"Arkansas needs to affirm the importance of married mothers and fathers," Family Council President Jerry Cox said. "We need to publicly affirm the gold standard of rearing children whenever we can. The state standard should be as close to that gold standard of married mom and dad homes as possible."

This proposed law is pernicious on so many levels. It illustrates how the anti-gay industry is willing to distort while at the same time trumpet how they stand for morals.

The part about unmarried couples is a dodge because the Arkansas court recently said that a ban on gay adoption is unlawful. So the Arkansas Family Council Action Committee can't come out and say to keep lgbts from adopting is the purpose of the law, but everyone knows that is the case.

Apparently ducking and dodging is now a Christian value.

Of course lgbt couples can get around this law if it is passed by using surrogates or sperm donations.

And it is here where we see just who the law will hurt.

For all of the bluster about it, this proposed law does not guarantee that foster children will end up in two-parent heterosexual households. It neither encourages nor mandates that two-parent heterosexual households take foster children in.

Jerry Cox and those like him all over the country are constantly saying that "children have a right to a mother and father." Well this is all well and good but this law does not guarantee them that right.

In fact, it does just the opposite.

It eliminate choices based on outdated concepts of family. It is also based on an inaccurate assumption that unmarried couples (be they heterosexual or lgbt) are stealing foster children away from two-parent heterosexual households.

Based on the number of children in foster care nationwide, that's not happening.

This law is about symbolism, not actualities.

And it's a shame because a child can't get love from a symbol.

But the real shame is that in their attempts to get at the lgbt community, the anti-gay industry in Arkansas aimed wrong and kicked foster children squarely in the mouth.

All eyes on Denver

This week will be a drag regarding news about the anti-gay industry.

You all know why. This is the week of the Democratic National Convention so all eyes are on Denver as the media will pontificate, guesstimate, and, in the case of Fox News and others like them, try to throw a monkeywrench in on the proceedings.

And the majority of the heavy hitting progressive bloggers are there also.

Oh well, there is always 2012 for me.

Seriously though, my guess is that the anti-gay industry will have their forces all keyed to making Obama look like a sepia Damien Thorne.

One good thing about him getting the nomination is how it threw everything into chaos. I think the anti-gay industry, et. al. were expecting Clinton to get the nomination and they were counting on her to galvanize supporters who are not necessarily sold on McCain.

How the pedulum turns.

Other than watching the convention, I think that I am going to take time out this week to work on several projects, including my other blog.

This is not to say that I am taking a break. We all know how the anti-gay industry is.

No rest for the wicked.

Hallmark joins the 'overthrow of America'

In my best faux European accent - Our operatives tells me that we were able to elicit Hallmark Greeting Cards in our plans to overturn Christian values in America. With them selling cards congratulating gay couples on their marriages, nothing can stop us now.

Okay that was corny but I only did it to give a gist of the mindset of the anti-gay industry. Apparently they are all up in arms with Hallmark's decision to start selling gay marriage greeting cards.

In fact, the American Family Association will be launching a boycott:

Today, the right-wing American Family Association (AFA) announced a protest of Hallmark for its decision to start selling gay marriage greeting cards. AFA wants Hallmark to “stop promoting a lifestyle that is not only unhealthy, but is also illegal in 48 states.” From the protest site:

We’ve all given or received Hallmark Cards – remember their slogan – “when you care enough to send the very best.” But promoting same-sex marriage for profit is not the very best for families or our nation.

Hallmark is a private company obviously driven by greed. Let them know you do not appreciate Hallmark promoting a lifestyle which is illegal in 48 states. American Greeting Cards, Hallmark’s competitor, does not offer same-sex marriage cards.

Enough of the semantics already! Hallmark is selling these greeting cards because of the old reliable concept of supply and demand.

God bless capitalism. If you don't agree with the concept of gay marriage greeting cards, then don't buy any.

But don't waste your time telling that to the AFA. The group continues to push the lie that anything recognizing the fact that lgbts are normal people and should be catered to and treated as such is really part of a nefarious plan to destroy Christianity.

Somehow I just know Janet Folger is going to connect Hallmark with putting Christians in jail. Or Peter will connect the company with Folsom Street Fair.

What kills me about the AFA is their intentional deception regarding the legality of gay marriage - Hallmark is a private company obviously driven by greed. Let them know you do not appreciate Hallmark promoting a lifestyle which is illegal in 48 states.

That passage is not accidental nor is it a product of an overeager publicity writer. It's an intentional distortion.

Same-sex marriage is not illegal per se. True, it is not legally recognized but it is not against the law. The illegality of an act entails penalities such as arrests and jail terms.

I personally think that the AFA has stock in Hallmark, especially when one considers how successful their boycott against McDonalds is going.

I'm expecting Hallmark's sales to go through the roof.

Is the Family Research Council distorting another study?

From the Family Research Council's 25 Pro-Family Goals For The Nation:

In addition to deliberately creating and affirming motherless or fatherless families, other harms would result from same-sex “marriage.” Homosexuals are less likely to enter long-term partnerships, less likely to be sexually faithful, and less likely to remain committed for a lifetime. Commitment, sexual fidelity, and lifelong marriage would all decline if the behavior of homosexuals is incorporated into society’s concept of marriage. Demands for legalization of polygamy would grow. Religious liberty and freedom of speech would also suffer, since opposition to same-sex “marriage” would be treated as the equivalent of racial bigotry."

I have just emailed the Family Research Council asking where did they receive this information regarding gay marriage. I have an idea as to what study they got this information from. And if it's what I think, then the Family Research Council will have a lot of explaining to do.

My guess is that they used a study completed in the Netherlands by one Dr. Maria Xiridou. If this is the case, they took the study out of context big time.

You see, the 2003 published study's objective was “to access the relative contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam and to determine the effect of increasing sexually risky behaviours among both types of partnerships in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART).”

The study only looked at casual relationships amongst gay men and was completed before same-sex marriage was legalized in the Netherlands.

There are other facts about Dr. Xiridou's study that speaks to how it cannot be used to gauge monogamy amongst lgbts in general. But I won't bring that up until I get an answer from the Family Research Council

If I don't get an answer back via email, then I will be calling their 1-800 number.

I will keep you all posted.

Jerome Corsi and his fancy toilet paper

I am sure many of you know about the Jerome Corsi book that tries to skewer Barack Obama.

Corsi, who wrote a book about Sen. John Kerry four years ago during time in which Kerry was running against Bush for president, claims that this book will show the real Obama.

Please.

This book is a piece of crap and everyone knows it. It recycles some of the worst lies about Obama and creates a few more. Corsi is so scandalous that he even talks about Obama's mother.

But it is the number one book on the New York Times best seller list thanks to a skilled campaign of bullshit emanating from the right.

Corsi gets featured on Fox News unopposed in his lies on several occasions, conservative columnists (such as those on Town Hall and One News Now) give Corsi attention, conservative groups buy Corsi's book in bulk . . .

and lo and behold, we have to divert time away from real issues to talk about a smear job.

Whatever happened to true journalists like Edward R. Murrow, who would have devoted a significant bit of time to call out this bullshit, just like he did to Senator Joseph McCarthy.

With the crop of "journalists" we have now, McCarthy would probably be canonized.

LGBT For Obama - an excellent site.