What's with the code words?

Someone tell me what in the world are the so-called prominent television journalists getting paid for these days? They obviously aren't doing their jobs. According to the site http://www.newshounds.us/:

" (Sean) Hannity smugly finished his interview by telling (Bill) Hemmer that he had given some quotes to Cheney from Nancy Pelosi. He said that Cheney shrugged, and smiled, and said those were San Francisco values not mid America values."

And check out Chris Matthews (http://mediamatters.org/items/200610240010)

"Do you think -- does she (Nancy Pelosi) look like if she gets a full -- a full spread on TV, like 60 Minutes, a program like that, she'll probably get more on 20/20, shows like that? Do you think she's looking too San Francisco?"

And now you have a correspondent from CNN, Candy Crowley, asking Democratic House of Representative candidate Heath Shuler:

"Are you a Nancy Pelosi Democrat?" (http://mediamatters.org/items/200610250003)

In an earlier post, I said that it seems that our so-called news gatherers are taking on Republican talking points about Rep. Nancy Pelosi before she even has the opportunity to become Speaker of the House. They seem to be trying to undermine her before she even takes the job.

It reminds me of when Ronald Reagan was running for president in the 1980 election. He made up a story about a "welfare queen" ripping off the government (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarequeen.htm).

The story, of course, was a lie designed to exploit people's ignorance about welfare. But more than that, Reagan's lie conjured up the racist image of lazy fat black women in house dresses who sat around getting pregnant in between watching their "stories" and collecting welfare checks.

That image was effective.

Now, over 20 years later, we have journalists, gatekeepers if you will, taking a page from Reagan's book. What the hell are "San Francisco values" anyway?

Apparently they are supposed to mean "anything goes," which means free love, polygamy, socialism, and yes, homosexuality.

Just like Reagan used racist connotations to get elected in 1980, so-called objective journalists are using homophobic terms to smear Rep. Nancy Pelosi in 2006.

Now I don't know if Nancy Pelosi will be Speaker of the House after November 7 and if she does, I don't know whether or not she will be effective.

But I do know what true journalism is and none of our overpaid, simple minded people smiling on camera spouting soundbites and polemic statements fit the bill.

We should expect and demand more from those who claim to tell us the facts without bias.

I have said it once, and I will say it again:

I dare anyone to tell me that this is purely coincidental.

Is Michael Reagan for real?

Are we in Mississippi circa the 1960s?

I ask that question because of a column I read today by conservative Michael Reagan entitled Conservatives don't hate gays, just agenda (http://www.baxterbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061021/OPINION01/610210329/1014/OPINION).

Mr. Reagan is commenting in blogger Michael Rogers and his outing of in-the-closet Congressmen in the wake of the Mark Foley scandal.

Mr. Reagan's piece is the usual load of nonsense about "the gay agenda" and such but he does something I found very interesting.

These comments are from the column:

I know a lot of gays who live in California. Most of them are not supportive of gay marriage. Most gays are not supportive of the radical gay issue of punishing the Boy Scouts because they won't allow homosexuals to be scoutmasters . . .

Liberals take it as an article of faith that conservatives hate gays. That's absolutely untrue. What we don't support is the radical gay agenda. We are utterly opposed to gay marriage, homosexual scoutmasters or promoting the gay lifestyle in our schools.
And, as I said, most gays agree with me and not with Rogers on these issues.

Now I am a gay man, but I am also a black man. Therefore, I am very sensitive and extremely cognizant about several things when it comes to issues of race and the like.

The thing that strikes me about Reagan's column is how he sounds like the racists in the 1960s. You know who I am talking about. The ones who would say things like:

"Our niggras were alright until them Yankees up north and that N A A C P and the rest of them outside agitators got 'em all riled up."

It seems that the phrase "radical gay agenda" has replaced "outside agitators" but the connotation is still the same.

I wrote Mr. Reagan a letter expressing those very concerns. I don't think he will write me back. But if he does, I am anticipating that he will talk about how dare I compare the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s to today's gay rights movement. How dare I say the two are similar.

But Mr. Reagan, how can the movements not be similar when the ignorance of their opposers are pretty much the same?

Senator obviously "pinch hitting" for anti-gay industry

The Washington Blade is reporting that Senator Tom Coburn is investigating how some agencies fighting the AIDS crisis is spending money going to conferences.

His legislative assistant "conveniently" sent out an email about how "Paul Kawata, executive director of the National Minority AIDS Council, a Washington, D.C., group that organized the Florida AIDS conference, stayed in a penthouse suite at Hollywood’s Westin Diplomat Hotel that included a large screen TV, a luxury spa and a grand piano."

Now Mr. Kawata has gone on record saying that the room was free of charge "along with 25 free meeting rooms, as a “perk” for booking 950 guest rooms at the hotel, 11 months ago, for a conference that drew 3,000 attendees."

The entire article is here - http://www.washblade.com/print.cfm?content_id=9300

But I have harped on the hotel room with the grand piano because I know that is the item that members of the anti-gay industry will probably harp on if and when they use what Senator Coburn is doing for their own benefit.

Senator Coburn seems to be hinting that HIV/AIDS prevention organizations are wasting taxpayer money.

But more than that, he is giving Dobson, Sheldon, and company more fodder to feed upon.

Senator Coburn has never been a friend to the gay community but he is in the hip pocket of Dobson and company. I am willing to bet that by next week, an headline in Agape Press (and press releases by various so-called "pro family" groups) will feature a spot on the hotel room with the luxury piano. What's more, the article will probably not be objective but quote some phony "pro family" activist who will whine about the money spent on HIV/AIDS prevention and education in leiu of diseases that allegedly more of a body count.

You see, this is all a game. And Senator Coburn just threw the anti-gay industry a forward pass.

A challenge to Peter LaBarbera and anyone else

Something terrible happened recently in Great Britain.

An 11-year-old child was murdered by a 14-year-old. And the story is that the murder happened because the 11-year-old refused the 14 year old’s sexual advances.

First off, it was a terrible thing to have happened and we need to pray for all parties involved.

Unfortunately our friend Peter LaBarbera is yet again salivating over the prospect of "catching a homosexual in an act of violence."

On his webpage, Peter makes sure to mention the awful tale but with the headline - Eleven-year-old stabbed 16 times after rejecting homosexual advance.

It seems to Peter that the possibility that a gay person was involved trumps the crime itself.

Which leads me to the challenge that I know he won’t take.

It’s really meant to be rhetorical and it’s a challenge to him and anyone else interested.

A couple of years ago, I ran across a flyer that said:

Don't have sex with blacks!
Avoid AIDS!

The flyer was put out by a white racist group and showed the picture of a black man who had been passing the disease AIDS to his heterosexual sexual partners.

The flyer also contained the names of two other black men who had been convicted of this crime.

The flyer went on to say "These black sexual predators lied about being HIV positive and had sex with dozens of white women . . . Don't be the next victim."

Here is the question for you, Peter.

Do you think that there is a difference between what that racist group claimed about black men and what you claim about gay men?

The art of undermining

Today's blog entry is a departure from the norm because of recent events I want to call everyone's attention to:

"If politics were fair, Democrats would be in as much trouble as Republicans. And they'd be just as vulnerable. They've been obstructionist, anti-tax-cut, soft on terrorism, and generally obnoxious. On top of that, Pelosi is the most unpopular national politician in America. But in the sixth year of the Bush presidency, with a GOP-run Congress, Democrats aren't the issue. Republicans are." - "journalist" Fred Barnes, Oct. 23rd edition of the Weekly Standard

"I think it's interesting, Matt, that both sides agree on the stakes. It is Iraq. It is whether we support the president's policy in Iraq or not. It is whether we want Nancy Pelosi to be the first woman speaker of the House or not. My own view is that iconic fact of that woman sitting behind the president during a State of the Union address is an enormous change in our culture. A lot of professional women and men women will say, 'Great.' A lot of the more conservative people will say, 'Wait a minute, this woman's from San Francisco, she's a liberal.'" - "journalist" Chris Matthews, The Today Show, Sept. 5th

"Let's talk about this possibility -- it seems likely now, in almost all cards that the Democrats will get control of the House, which will bring us two years of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is not a popular figure or respected figure nationally. Her behavior will be more visible than ever, more conspicuous than ever. What effect does that have on the possibility of Hillary Clinton being nominated or even elected in 2008? I think it is a very good question. I suspect the effect would not be terrifically positive." - "journalist" Brit Hume, Fox News, Oct. 15th

"Ordinarily, a party's leadership structure is set by the caucus in advance, and all members are expected go along with the decision. In the eight years Rep. J. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican, has been speaker, he's never had a protest vote cast against him. Mrs. Pelosi, whose voting record is considerably more liberal than many of her fellow Democrats, has never enjoyed that luxury. In last year's election for speaker, one Democrat opposed her for the top post. Four Democrats opposed her in 2003, with three of them simply voting "present" as a protest. Such protest votes are a sign of dissension within a party. But in the upcoming Congress -- where Democrats could hold the majority by just one or two seats -- any members who vote for someone other than Mrs. Pelosi or simply decide not to vote could trigger parliamentary mayhem. " - Pelosi no shoo-in for job as speaker, The Washington Times, Oct. 20, 2006

Does anyone see a pattern here? An echo chamber is forming.

Obviously, in getting ready for a possible change in leadership on Nov. 7, some "journalists" are undermining Rep. Nancy Pelosi's credibility to serve as U.S. of Representatives Speaker of the House before she even has the opportunity to take over the duties.

This is how Al Gore lost in 2000.

Journalists, instead of doing research, took Republican talking points against Gore (i.e Al Gore has a problem with lying because he claims to have invented the internet) and repeated them on talk shows and news commentaries, creating an echo chamber that ultimately helped Bush.

Gore's loss demonstrated just how dangerous lazy journalists are.

Now I am afraid that the same thing is happening with Pelosi.

Just who are these people who claim that Pelosi is unpopular? Do any polls verify this?

No and as proof of this, check out this link- http://mediamatters.org/items/200610150005

One thing this does prove - misrepresentation is not a hallmark that belongs solely to the anti-gay industry.

Liberty Sunday: Garbage in, Garbage out

"They want to silence, and they will silence, Christians. If we don’t win this battle, the day will come when they’ll walk into your church if you say one thing wrong [or] bad about homosexuality; they’ll walk in your church and they’ll shut you up and you’ll be arrested for a hate crime. That sounds far, far removed but it’s the truth."

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, "there they go again."

By now, the anti-gay industry's whinefest, or as they call it, "Liberty Sunday" is over and done. And it was the same mess they always perpetrate.

Blah, blah, blah, homosexuals are out to get us. Blah, blah, blah, it's an agenda to hurt Christians.

I don't know what's worse: the fact that they always conveniently forgetting how many of us gay folks have a deep faith in God or the fact that they are trivializing Christianity by reducing it to a Tammany Hall voting machine.

But lying on the gay community is a usual occurrence for Wildmon.

According to the website, Media Matters for America, Wildmon repeated a lie about gay income during a March 2006 radio broadcast (http://mediamatters.org/items/200603160008):

"You know, I saw yesterday how much - - how much money the homosexual community has. I mean, good gracious, the average homosexual makes four times more than I do"

Not only did Media Matters call this claim a lie, but also it had the facts to back up its claim:

"Though Wildmon did not state specifically ‘how much money the homosexual community has,’ according to the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, the AFA has, for many years, based its statements on average gay incomes on a discredited 1988 survey by the Simmons Market Research Bureau, which listed the average gay income as $55,430 . . ."

Media Matters for America went on to say that the survey was discredited because it did not reflect a representative sample of the gay population. Apparently, the survey only questioned readers of popular gay-oriented magazines and those who filled out sign-up sheets for the 1993 Gay March on Washington:

"As the National Organization of Gay and Lesbian Scientists and Technical Professionals, Inc. (NOGLSTP) noted, ‘ People who buy and read newspapers and magazines tend to have more education and higher incomes. Gay events attract people who can afford to travel or pay an entry fee.’"

As a further example of this, Media Matters for America said, the NOGLSTP also demonstrated that a 1989 survey by the Simmons Bureau showed that readers of African-American-oriented magazines earned 41 to 82 percent more than average African-Americans.

Media Matters for America added this coda that shed even more light on Wildmon’s exaggeration about gay and lesbian income:

" . . . even if the Simmons survey was accurate, Wildmon’s assertion that ‘the average homosexual earns four times more than I do,’ would not be. According to the AFA’s 2004 990 filing - -the Internal Revenue Service’s return for organizations exempt from income tax – Wildmon paid himself $58,010 plus $31, 787 in benefits and a housing allowance of $39,200. He paid his son, Tim, who is president of AFA, $79,000"

We are not the problem. Obviously, Wildmon has gay on the brain.

Scalia's ignorance

In less than a month, my blog has over 1,000 hits. Now I am not completely computer literate but I think that is damned good.

It shows that you all are interested in what I have to say and for that I thank you. Now I hope you buy my book. :D

But onto today's news

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia continues to bitch about the Lawrence vs. Texas decision. In a debate with ACLU head Nadine Strossen, he said that homosexual sodomy is not in the Constitution(http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_Scalia_says_abortion_homosexual_sodomy_1016.html)

No kidding.

Scalia, who dissented with the majority of the court in that decision, still continues to harp about it in terms of gay sex. Don't get me wrong, I think Scalia is a brilliant man. He has to be if he is on the Supreme Court. So why does he continue to break the Lawrence vs. Texas case down to incorrect simplicity?

Lawrence vs. Texas (and by the way, the case is covered in my upcoming book as to how the anti-gay industry creates moral panics) was not about sodomy. The case asked the question can the United States government create laws that discriminate against a group of people simply based on the "morality of the majority."

Remember, Texas's sodomy law prosecuted gays, not heterosexuals.

The court obviously said no, which it should have. People should not be discriminated against simply because of the "morality of the majority."

Of course "the right to homosexual sodomy" is not written in the Constitution. But the right to be judged equally is.

The real question is that how can someone as intelligent as Scalia be so unintelligent about something so simple?

It just goes to show that even intelligence can fall victim to bias.

"Liberty Sunday"

Well "Liberty Sunday" took place and it was as nauseating as I thought it would be. In the coming days, I intend to break down several lies and distortions that Perkins, Dobson, Wildmon and company committed yesterday.

But bear with me if I don't do it tonight. Even I need a break from the trash pits.