South Carolina is an excellent place to live, but we really need to elect better public officials
First Governor Mark Sanford, now Senator Jim DeMint:
The Senate on Wednesday overwhelmingly defeated Sen. Jim DeMint's bid to cut the $48 billion cost of expanding President Bush's global AIDS initiative to dozens of countries beyond Africa.
DeMint's amendment to a five-year reauthorization of Bush's signature program lowered the price tag to $35 billion and removed funding for new efforts to fight malaria and tuberculosis.
"What we're doing here this week I consider obscene -- completely unacceptable," DeMint said in an angry Senate floor address before the vote. "We're talking about creating the largest foreign aid program in the history of our country, with no thought."
The Senate's 64-31 vote against the DeMint measure indicated strong bipartisan support for Bush's heralded 2003 campaign targeting AIDS in Africa, which supporters say has saved 2 million lives.
Two hours after defeating DeMint's amendment, the Senate voted 80-16 to pass the AIDS bill. Its total cost is $50 billion, with senators voting earlier in the day to divert $2 billion to domestic benefits for Native Americans.
Meanwhile, the tourism controvery heats up. Some lgbts (who don't live in South Carolina) aresaying that SC Pride is in the wrong for offering to raise money to pay for the ad.
I totally disagree. I have been a board member of SC Pride for over five years and I want to commend my fellow board members for their initiative in this matter.
You see, some of us do think that despite the attitudes of some, South Carolina is an excellent place for lgbts.
I love this state and I am tired of the stereotype that it is backwards and homophobic. One of the reasons why the stereotype is so prevalent is because very few take the initiative to affect change.
We didn't start this controversy, our Governor did. And now that it is started, we will use it to our advantage; to shine a light on this sate.
We will not sit on our asses, twiddle our thumbs, and whine about discrimination. Nor will we ruminate about how "homophobic" South Carolina is.
You see we believe that the state belongs to us also and we will not surrender our rightful place as South Carolinians to ignorant people.
Sometimes fighting battles involve thinking out of the box .
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
South Carolina “so gay” ad controversy - See this is what we mean when we say homophobia
Maybe I am wrong, but I am getting a huge kick out of this controversy regarding my state and the gay tourism ad.
On Friday it was learned that a London company was working on an ad campaign that would attract gay tourists to South Carolina. South Carolina tourism officials said they would not pay for the ad campaign because it was not agreed upon in the right manner.
Governor Mark Sanford and Greenville State Senator David Thomas objected strongly to the ad campaign. Senator Thomas demanded an investigation.
Since that time, much has taken place.
The person who was responsible for the ad campaign is said to have resigned. However, my paranoid Southern intuition tells me that maybe he was helped in that direction.
We don’t know for sure because no one is talking.
Meanwhile our esteemed Governor and Senator have removed themselves from their soapboxes of righteous indignation and onto the tables of conciliatory gestures. Both are trying to backtrack from their earlier comments
You think it has something to do with the fact that their overly aggressive condemnation of the ad campaign sends the message that lgbts aren’t welcomed in South Carolina?
Perhaps. And now the word is coming down that the state’s tourism industry could be harmed from all of their political posturing.
We will see what happens. All I know is that the more our representatives talk, the more they seem to wallow in the mess they put themselves in:
Governor Mark Sanford’s spokesman - “We welcome anyone to visit our state, but we agree with Sen. Thomas about using tax money to promote any group with a particular social or political agenda.”
Social or political agenda? We are talking about tourists here, not the Chicago Seven. The only agenda tourists have is getting a tan and lots of pictures so that they can make their friends back home jealous.
Greenville Senator David Thomas - “If the ad had said, ‘You will love the Southern Baptist beaches,’ I would also be offended. If a homosexual is attracted here, that’s great. But I have a problem with tax money being spent on ads with a social viewpoint, particularly with sexual orientation.”
Thomas is obviously tap dancing to the same tune the Governor’s office is listening to. And he is dancing as badly as the Governor.
I’m still stuck on the part about Southern Baptist beaches though. But I think I will leave that alone. No sense in causing a new controversy.
I want to say something stark and bold but modesty prevents me from being as rude as I want to be.
I hope that our representatives learn something from this. Our state has been laughed at on television and in the newspapers because of this controversy and frankly, we deserve it.
Don’t even try to sell me on the notions of Southern values and how South Carolina is entrenched in the old ways and traditional morality.
Our representatives acted liked damned fools (well, there goes the modesty).
They heard the word “gay” and conjured up images of half-naked men cavorting shamelessly on beaches complete with whips, chains, and leather chaps. Their minds spun visions so nasty and vile that they forgot that they were adults chosen by their peers to conduct business at a higher standard than that of ugly rumors and preconceived notions of sex and mindless bacchanalia.
Instead of using their heads, they acted with their emotions. They were so quick to take part in a gay version of the ‘War of the Worlds’ paranoia that they did more damage to South Carolina than any invading army, gay or otherwise.
You see when gay people talk about homophobia, this controversy is a perfect example of we mean.
This state is already in the middle of another controversy involving a high school principal who thinks that a gay/straight alliance in his school is the same as a sex club. It is obvious that the actions of Governor Sanford and Sen. Thomas aren’t isolated incidents, but patterns in a huge tapestry of ignorance.
What is that scares people so much about gays and lesbians in this state anyway? We all have gay relatives and we are all privy to occasional rumors about gay public officials. Whether we want to admit it or not, we interact with gays and lesbians almost every day.
So why does it scare people to realize that there are gays among them who lead normal, boring lives; who work, pay taxes, and even go on vacations.
Why is there this need to make gays the natural enemy of South Carolina families when many of them are the heads of those families?
Whatever the case may be, it goes way beyond believing that homosexuality is a sin. But I am not a psychiatrist so I am not going to try and analyze it from that standpoint.
I just hope that Governor Sanford, Sen. Thomas, and everyone in general learn something from this about gay South Carolinians and, most of all, themselves.
UPDATE - It has now been discovered by Q-Notes that the Governor's Office was personally involved in stopping the tourism campaign. The article is here.
Also, the Board of the SC Pride Movement has decided to raise the $5,000 necessary to pay the debt owed by the state for the "South Carolina is so gay" ads created for London Pride Week.
They will launch the campaign using the attached "South Carolina WILL BE 'So Gay'" ad on Thursday from the SC Pride website with PayPal as a way to donate. They will also accept donations mailed to them (Payable to SC Pride, PO Box 12648, Columbia, SC 29211).
Once they repay the state's debt to the UK company, all other proceeds will benefit the SC Pride 2008 Festival and Parade featuring RuPaul to ensure that South Carolina will be "SO GAY" on September 20, 2008 in Columbia, SC.
Anyone interested in donating should contact Ryan Wilson, call the Harriet Hancock Community Center (803) 771-7713, or visit www.scpride.org for more info.
Robert Knight returns and reminds me the nature of not being truthful
Those who have read this blog or my book know that I don't particularly care for anti-gay industry talking head Robert Knight.
He was the only major anti-gay industry talking head whom I had the displeasure of meeting and I have never met anyone whom I would probably dislike more.
Some of you may accuse me of making hasty judgements, but I assure you that I am not. There is simply no other way that I can describe somone who talks about values and morality while at the same time repeating information that he knows is false.
For those who have not read my book, Knight and I met at the University of South Carolina a number of years ago when he was affiliated with Concerned Women for America. Before then he was with the Family Research Council. During his sojourn with these two groups, he freely cited the work of discredited researcher Paul Cameron. He even did so in front of a Congressional committee.
On the night that he and I met, I was able to ask about his usage of Cameron's work. His answer to me was "we have used his work. So what?"
And that my friends (and forgive me for my use of hyperbole) is when I came to a true understanding of the nature of evil.
Sometimes evil has nothing to do with monsters that we see in horror movies like Jason Voorhees or Freddy Krueger. The true and insidious nature of evil is the ability to give deceptive information with a straight face even though you most likely know that the information will lead to broken families, lgbt children being kicked out of their homes, elderly lgbts losing everything at the death of their partners, and the eventual psychological boxing in of the lgbt community in general.
That is the essence of Robert Knight. Dr. Martin Luther King once said he wanted to be remembered as a drum major for justice. Knight will be remembered as a drum major for lies.
What got me so philosophical about Knight was reading a piece he wrote in One News Now today entitled Washington Post tells kids that homosexuality is fine.
Actually the article does not takes sides. But to Knight and those like him, any article that does not include lies about the "health risks of being gay" is one sided.
Of course one good thing about his column is that while Knight gives the spiel about "gay health risks," he does not go into the lies about "gay domestic violence" and "gays having a short life span."
In the past, he would have. The fact that he cannot now is to the credit of intelligent lgbts and bloggers who have destroyed those patterns of lies.
But this is not to say that Knight doesn't try to do damage. Especially when he talks about the murder of Matthew Shepard:
(Washington Post writer Theresa) Vargas pulled out all the stops, even repeating the gay-activist-created myth that Wyoming college student Matthew Shepard "was killed for being gay." Shepard, as revealed in an ABC News investigation on 20/20 on Nov. 26, 2004, was tied to a fence and left to die after a drug deal turned into a robbery in 1998. The assailants, who were convicted of murder and given life terms, picked out Shepard not to make a savage point about hating gays but because he was carrying cash and looked like an easy mark. Nonetheless, the media have continued to follow the "killed for being gay" script written for them by homosexual activists who flooded into Wyoming and made Matthew the martyr for their cause.
Knight is referring to a 20/20 special that made the claim that Shepard was not murdered because he was gay. In all honesty, the investigation brought up points of hearsay that were never proven. According to wikipedia:
Commander Dave O'Malley — who was also interviewed by ABC and criticized the 20/20 report — pointed out that the drug motive does not necessarily disqualify the anti-gay motive: “My feelings have been that the initial contact was probably motivated by robbery because they needed money. What they got was $20 and a pair of shoes ... then something changed and changed profoundly... But, we will never, ever know because Matt’s dead and I don’t trust what [McKinney and Henderson] said.
You see, before the report, McKinney and Henderson did say that they targeted Shepard because he was gay. In addition, their girlfriends testified under oath that the two had planned to rob a gay man.
So to Knight, in the case of an anti-gay murder, a convicted murderer has more credibility than a man on trial for murder.
But such is Robert Knight, the drummer major for lies.
By the way, this link is the original Washington Post article that got Knight all up in arms. It's good journalism; something Knight knows nothing about.
Maybe I am wrong, but I am getting a huge kick out of this controversy regarding my state and the gay tourism ad.
On Friday it was learned that a London company was working on an ad campaign that would attract gay tourists to South Carolina. South Carolina tourism officials said they would not pay for the ad campaign because it was not agreed upon in the right manner.
Governor Mark Sanford and Greenville State Senator David Thomas objected strongly to the ad campaign. Senator Thomas demanded an investigation.
Since that time, much has taken place.
The person who was responsible for the ad campaign is said to have resigned. However, my paranoid Southern intuition tells me that maybe he was helped in that direction.
We don’t know for sure because no one is talking.
Meanwhile our esteemed Governor and Senator have removed themselves from their soapboxes of righteous indignation and onto the tables of conciliatory gestures. Both are trying to backtrack from their earlier comments
You think it has something to do with the fact that their overly aggressive condemnation of the ad campaign sends the message that lgbts aren’t welcomed in South Carolina?
Perhaps. And now the word is coming down that the state’s tourism industry could be harmed from all of their political posturing.
We will see what happens. All I know is that the more our representatives talk, the more they seem to wallow in the mess they put themselves in:
Governor Mark Sanford’s spokesman - “We welcome anyone to visit our state, but we agree with Sen. Thomas about using tax money to promote any group with a particular social or political agenda.”
Social or political agenda? We are talking about tourists here, not the Chicago Seven. The only agenda tourists have is getting a tan and lots of pictures so that they can make their friends back home jealous.
Greenville Senator David Thomas - “If the ad had said, ‘You will love the Southern Baptist beaches,’ I would also be offended. If a homosexual is attracted here, that’s great. But I have a problem with tax money being spent on ads with a social viewpoint, particularly with sexual orientation.”
Thomas is obviously tap dancing to the same tune the Governor’s office is listening to. And he is dancing as badly as the Governor.
I’m still stuck on the part about Southern Baptist beaches though. But I think I will leave that alone. No sense in causing a new controversy.
I want to say something stark and bold but modesty prevents me from being as rude as I want to be.
I hope that our representatives learn something from this. Our state has been laughed at on television and in the newspapers because of this controversy and frankly, we deserve it.
Don’t even try to sell me on the notions of Southern values and how South Carolina is entrenched in the old ways and traditional morality.
Our representatives acted liked damned fools (well, there goes the modesty).
They heard the word “gay” and conjured up images of half-naked men cavorting shamelessly on beaches complete with whips, chains, and leather chaps. Their minds spun visions so nasty and vile that they forgot that they were adults chosen by their peers to conduct business at a higher standard than that of ugly rumors and preconceived notions of sex and mindless bacchanalia.
Instead of using their heads, they acted with their emotions. They were so quick to take part in a gay version of the ‘War of the Worlds’ paranoia that they did more damage to South Carolina than any invading army, gay or otherwise.
You see when gay people talk about homophobia, this controversy is a perfect example of we mean.
This state is already in the middle of another controversy involving a high school principal who thinks that a gay/straight alliance in his school is the same as a sex club. It is obvious that the actions of Governor Sanford and Sen. Thomas aren’t isolated incidents, but patterns in a huge tapestry of ignorance.
What is that scares people so much about gays and lesbians in this state anyway? We all have gay relatives and we are all privy to occasional rumors about gay public officials. Whether we want to admit it or not, we interact with gays and lesbians almost every day.
So why does it scare people to realize that there are gays among them who lead normal, boring lives; who work, pay taxes, and even go on vacations.
Why is there this need to make gays the natural enemy of South Carolina families when many of them are the heads of those families?
Whatever the case may be, it goes way beyond believing that homosexuality is a sin. But I am not a psychiatrist so I am not going to try and analyze it from that standpoint.
I just hope that Governor Sanford, Sen. Thomas, and everyone in general learn something from this about gay South Carolinians and, most of all, themselves.
UPDATE - It has now been discovered by Q-Notes that the Governor's Office was personally involved in stopping the tourism campaign. The article is here.
Also, the Board of the SC Pride Movement has decided to raise the $5,000 necessary to pay the debt owed by the state for the "South Carolina is so gay" ads created for London Pride Week.
They will launch the campaign using the attached "South Carolina WILL BE 'So Gay'" ad on Thursday from the SC Pride website with PayPal as a way to donate. They will also accept donations mailed to them (Payable to SC Pride, PO Box 12648, Columbia, SC 29211).
Once they repay the state's debt to the UK company, all other proceeds will benefit the SC Pride 2008 Festival and Parade featuring RuPaul to ensure that South Carolina will be "SO GAY" on September 20, 2008 in Columbia, SC.
Anyone interested in donating should contact Ryan Wilson
Robert Knight returns and reminds me the nature of not being truthful
Those who have read this blog or my book know that I don't particularly care for anti-gay industry talking head Robert Knight.
He was the only major anti-gay industry talking head whom I had the displeasure of meeting and I have never met anyone whom I would probably dislike more.
Some of you may accuse me of making hasty judgements, but I assure you that I am not. There is simply no other way that I can describe somone who talks about values and morality while at the same time repeating information that he knows is false.
For those who have not read my book, Knight and I met at the University of South Carolina a number of years ago when he was affiliated with Concerned Women for America. Before then he was with the Family Research Council. During his sojourn with these two groups, he freely cited the work of discredited researcher Paul Cameron. He even did so in front of a Congressional committee.
On the night that he and I met, I was able to ask about his usage of Cameron's work. His answer to me was "we have used his work. So what?"
And that my friends (and forgive me for my use of hyperbole) is when I came to a true understanding of the nature of evil.
Sometimes evil has nothing to do with monsters that we see in horror movies like Jason Voorhees or Freddy Krueger. The true and insidious nature of evil is the ability to give deceptive information with a straight face even though you most likely know that the information will lead to broken families, lgbt children being kicked out of their homes, elderly lgbts losing everything at the death of their partners, and the eventual psychological boxing in of the lgbt community in general.
That is the essence of Robert Knight. Dr. Martin Luther King once said he wanted to be remembered as a drum major for justice. Knight will be remembered as a drum major for lies.
What got me so philosophical about Knight was reading a piece he wrote in One News Now today entitled Washington Post tells kids that homosexuality is fine.
Actually the article does not takes sides. But to Knight and those like him, any article that does not include lies about the "health risks of being gay" is one sided.
Of course one good thing about his column is that while Knight gives the spiel about "gay health risks," he does not go into the lies about "gay domestic violence" and "gays having a short life span."
In the past, he would have. The fact that he cannot now is to the credit of intelligent lgbts and bloggers who have destroyed those patterns of lies.
But this is not to say that Knight doesn't try to do damage. Especially when he talks about the murder of Matthew Shepard:
(Washington Post writer Theresa) Vargas pulled out all the stops, even repeating the gay-activist-created myth that Wyoming college student Matthew Shepard "was killed for being gay." Shepard, as revealed in an ABC News investigation on 20/20 on Nov. 26, 2004, was tied to a fence and left to die after a drug deal turned into a robbery in 1998. The assailants, who were convicted of murder and given life terms, picked out Shepard not to make a savage point about hating gays but because he was carrying cash and looked like an easy mark. Nonetheless, the media have continued to follow the "killed for being gay" script written for them by homosexual activists who flooded into Wyoming and made Matthew the martyr for their cause.
Knight is referring to a 20/20 special that made the claim that Shepard was not murdered because he was gay. In all honesty, the investigation brought up points of hearsay that were never proven. According to wikipedia:
Commander Dave O'Malley — who was also interviewed by ABC and criticized the 20/20 report — pointed out that the drug motive does not necessarily disqualify the anti-gay motive: “My feelings have been that the initial contact was probably motivated by robbery because they needed money. What they got was $20 and a pair of shoes ... then something changed and changed profoundly... But, we will never, ever know because Matt’s dead and I don’t trust what [McKinney and Henderson] said.
You see, before the report, McKinney and Henderson did say that they targeted Shepard because he was gay. In addition, their girlfriends testified under oath that the two had planned to rob a gay man.
So to Knight, in the case of an anti-gay murder, a convicted murderer has more credibility than a man on trial for murder.
But such is Robert Knight, the drummer major for lies.
By the way, this link is the original Washington Post article that got Knight all up in arms. It's good journalism; something Knight knows nothing about.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Bill Whitman is right - they do hate gays
It was a very big crowd during lunch at McDonalds today. Everyone was supersizing their menus and were also very nice.
I ran into a very polite, well-dressed young man. Another five minutes and I would have been engaged.
Apparently news of the AFA's boycott isn't affecting McDonalds here in South Carolina. And to a degree, that is interesting. After all, South Carolina is the buckle of the Bible Belt. Down here, we not only argue over Biblical interpretations, but also the length of baptism pools and the size of the cross on which Jesus was crucified.
Who knows. Maybe very few people down here know about it. Or maybe they do know about the boycott and the general feeling is "the AFA be damned. I'm hungry and hot. Now supersize me!"
Either way, it's really not surprising. Telling Americans not to go to McDonalds is like telling my great aunt not to go to church. The difference is that in the case of my great aunt, you might get cut.
But you have go give the AFA points (albeit very small ones) for using the words of McDonalds spokesman Bill Whitman.
Notice that I did not say twisting words because Whitman did infer that the actions of the AFA and others are motivated out of hatred.
It is something that us lgbts know all too well. Now some may say describing the AFA and other members of the anti-gay industry as hateful and homophobic is overused. Certainly it gives them a chance to play innocent. All we are doing is standing up for Christian values and traditional morality, they say. Why is that when Christians stand up for what they believe in, they are called haters?
I personally don't have a problem with describing the AFA and the others as hateful. I do have a problem with folks doing so without supplying proof of their offenses.
The fact of the matter is that no matter how AFA, Donald Wildmon, Peter LaBarbera, the Liberty Counsel, Concerned Women for America, etc. try to spin and plead ennui, they really do hate the lgbt community.
And as luck would have it, there is a paper trail. Just in time for their press conference tomorrow, too.
Read on if you have a strong stomach and feel free to pass this list to anyone else, especially "pro-boycott" supporters:
“If you look at the footage from Operation Rescue, um, vigils outside abortion clinics, you will see that the anti Operation Rescue demonstrators invariably have a pink triangle on and they are usually pretty big heavy set women who look like they’ve been over working October Fest for the last six years . . .” — Robert Knight (formerly of the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America)
"Now the Bush Administration is opening its arms to homosexual activists who have been working diligently to overthrow the traditional views of Western Civilization regarding human sexuality, marriage and family… AFA would never support the policies of a political party which embraced the homosexual movement. Period.” – Don Wildmon, AFA Press Release
"Why is the House of Representatives wasting taxpayer dollars to discuss whether or not drag queens or she-males are offended because of their cross-dressing or sexual behaviors in a business environment?” Of course, “I already know the answer: Because liberals…are aggressively promoting the normalization of cross-dressing and transsexualism in our culture.” - Andrea Lafferty, Traditional Values Coalition
" . . . I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them into the United States because we believe homosexuality is destructive to society." - Peter Sprigg, the Family Research Council
“Imagine, if you will, a 280 lb linebacker who likes to wear a dress and high heels and lipstick, you know comes to church wanting a job at the front desk as a receptionist and they turn him away because they don’t feel that that represents their values or the image that they’re trying to hold at that church, under ENDA they could be held accountable for discrimination against that individual.” - Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel
"Obviously, we’re saddened at the spectacle of the Vice President’s daughter, Mary Cheney, living in an open lesbian relationship, and now bringing a child into a home that is fatherless by design. In our view, this is another case of the “gay” movement putting its wants (in this case, having a child) above what’s best for children. “Two mommies” or “two daddies” will never substitute for a home with a married mom and a dad, and it is sad when men or women model immoral homosexual behavior before innocent children in a home setting".– Peter LaBarbera
It was a very big crowd during lunch at McDonalds today. Everyone was supersizing their menus and were also very nice.
I ran into a very polite, well-dressed young man. Another five minutes and I would have been engaged.
Apparently news of the AFA's boycott isn't affecting McDonalds here in South Carolina. And to a degree, that is interesting. After all, South Carolina is the buckle of the Bible Belt. Down here, we not only argue over Biblical interpretations, but also the length of baptism pools and the size of the cross on which Jesus was crucified.
Who knows. Maybe very few people down here know about it. Or maybe they do know about the boycott and the general feeling is "the AFA be damned. I'm hungry and hot. Now supersize me!"
Either way, it's really not surprising. Telling Americans not to go to McDonalds is like telling my great aunt not to go to church. The difference is that in the case of my great aunt, you might get cut.
But you have go give the AFA points (albeit very small ones) for using the words of McDonalds spokesman Bill Whitman.
Notice that I did not say twisting words because Whitman did infer that the actions of the AFA and others are motivated out of hatred.
It is something that us lgbts know all too well. Now some may say describing the AFA and other members of the anti-gay industry as hateful and homophobic is overused. Certainly it gives them a chance to play innocent. All we are doing is standing up for Christian values and traditional morality, they say. Why is that when Christians stand up for what they believe in, they are called haters?
I personally don't have a problem with describing the AFA and the others as hateful. I do have a problem with folks doing so without supplying proof of their offenses.
The fact of the matter is that no matter how AFA, Donald Wildmon, Peter LaBarbera, the Liberty Counsel, Concerned Women for America, etc. try to spin and plead ennui, they really do hate the lgbt community.
And as luck would have it, there is a paper trail. Just in time for their press conference tomorrow, too.
Read on if you have a strong stomach and feel free to pass this list to anyone else, especially "pro-boycott" supporters:
“If you look at the footage from Operation Rescue, um, vigils outside abortion clinics, you will see that the anti Operation Rescue demonstrators invariably have a pink triangle on and they are usually pretty big heavy set women who look like they’ve been over working October Fest for the last six years . . .” — Robert Knight (formerly of the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America)
"Now the Bush Administration is opening its arms to homosexual activists who have been working diligently to overthrow the traditional views of Western Civilization regarding human sexuality, marriage and family… AFA would never support the policies of a political party which embraced the homosexual movement. Period.” – Don Wildmon, AFA Press Release
"Why is the House of Representatives wasting taxpayer dollars to discuss whether or not drag queens or she-males are offended because of their cross-dressing or sexual behaviors in a business environment?” Of course, “I already know the answer: Because liberals…are aggressively promoting the normalization of cross-dressing and transsexualism in our culture.” - Andrea Lafferty, Traditional Values Coalition
" . . . I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them into the United States because we believe homosexuality is destructive to society." - Peter Sprigg, the Family Research Council
“Imagine, if you will, a 280 lb linebacker who likes to wear a dress and high heels and lipstick, you know comes to church wanting a job at the front desk as a receptionist and they turn him away because they don’t feel that that represents their values or the image that they’re trying to hold at that church, under ENDA they could be held accountable for discrimination against that individual.” - Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel
"Obviously, we’re saddened at the spectacle of the Vice President’s daughter, Mary Cheney, living in an open lesbian relationship, and now bringing a child into a home that is fatherless by design. In our view, this is another case of the “gay” movement putting its wants (in this case, having a child) above what’s best for children. “Two mommies” or “two daddies” will never substitute for a home with a married mom and a dad, and it is sad when men or women model immoral homosexual behavior before innocent children in a home setting".– Peter LaBarbera
Monday, July 14, 2008
David Benkof shows his ass
I am feeling frunky today (frunky - not funky. Frunkly is three steps below funky). It's probably because I hate Mondays.
Nothing can sway me out of this mood, not even the news that I have exceeded my goal of selling 100 copies of my book, Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters.
One hundred copies doesn't seem like a lot, but remember this book was self-published and not promoted (at least not in the usual way). My initial goal as to sell at least 100 copies and I have reached that goal within a year of Holy Bullies's publishing.
Now it's time to work on an updated (and much better) version.
That is if I can get out of this mood.
But enough of that. The more cosmopolitan readers of this site probably already know that we have lost an enemy today in the marriage equality fight.
David Benkof, who markets himself as a gay man who believes in the "sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman" has closed the veil:
"I no longer feel comfortable being allied with the people running the Prop. 8 campaign, and the same-sex marriage movement in America in general, with a few exceptions - most notably Maggie Gallagher. I have made a tentative decision not to publicize the disturbing information that caused me to end my promotion of man-woman marriage in the United States. But there is very little that I know about those subjects that a journalist, blogger, or activist cannot find out through diligent googling and asking the right questions of the Prop. 8 campaign."
-- former proprietor of the disturbing blog "Gays Defend Marriage," David Benkof to Truth Wins Out's Wayne Besen, July 14
Benkof was slowly getting attention for the paradox of being a gay man who didn't believe in gay marriage. However, there was a possible problem with how he would allegedly distort the words of people he interviewed. Box Turtle Bulletin wrote an excellent report on him.
Maybe it's just the Monday frunkies talking but other than the paradox, I never took Benkof seriously. He is a talented writer but he was clearly exploiting the idea of being a gay man who opposes gay marriage.
And while his concession is good, two things about it bothers me.
The first is the part about him still being allied with Maggie Gallagher. Gallagher is yet another one of those "experts" from the right-wing that seem pop up about lgbts issues. However, her expertise seems to lie in playing Joan of Arc being burned at the stake by so-called radical gay activists.
The argument, "gays and liberals believe that if you support traditional marriage then you are a bigot" seems to almost always turn up in her writings.
Then there is this very interesting deception that she is guilty of:
Gay marriage opponents frequently buttress their arguments with the assertion that children have better outcomes when they grow up with a married mother and father. The most articulate advocate of this point is Maggie Gallagher, founder of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, a "pro-marriage" think tank.
She summarized it best in an article in the August 2003 Weekly Standard: "As a Child Trends research brief summed up, 'Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. . . .'" She goes on to argue that because that parenting structure is best for kids, legalizing gay marriage means subjecting children to less-than-optimum outcomes: "[Gay marriage] would mean the law was neutral as to whether children had mothers and fathers. Motherless and fatherless families would be deemed just fine."
Child Trends, the organization that she cites, is a highly respected, nonpartisan research center. But Gallagher slyly misrepresents the conclusions of their research review, which does not discuss straight versus gay family structure, but various forms of straight family structure. Gallagher leaves out the key sentence that qualifies the statement she cites: "Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes than do children in intact families raised by two biological parents." There is no evidence here about how children raised by gay couples fare.
A right-wing expert distorting a legitimate study? It must be a usual day in the United States.
Also there is this comment Benkof left on Pam Spaulding's site:
Since you brought it up, I thought I'd clarify. I no longer feel comfortable being allied with most of the people who run the man-woman marriage movement in the United States (not counting Maggie Gallagher). I still feel, however, that Pam Spaulding is a nasty bitch.
Okay, that pissed me off. I am talking snatching off the earrings, kicking off the shoes, putting vaseline on the face, getting ready to get ghetto on someone type anger.
My first reaction was "Oh no that $&@^ didn't!"
But then I realized that I cannot behave in such a way.
So I will just say this:
Mr. Benkof, Pam Spaulding has more integrity in her fingernail than you have in your pseudo-intellectual body. The very fact that you said what you said only goes to prove how phony you are.
But don't think that Benkof's nonsense is the only thing going on today.
Our friend Peter LaBarbera has gotten into the AFA's boycott of McDonalds. His group Americans for Truth (in name only) will join the AFA at a press conference in front of McDonalds' headquarters in Illinois. They will be joined by women who will say why they won't take their children to McDonalds ever again.
Which is fine with me. I'm sure that there will be a lot of lgbt parents who will take their children to McDonalds.
And I plan to have a supersize meal tomorrow.
And speaking of lgbt parenting, John McCain continues to be on his "please support me James Dobson and company" tour. Today he came out against gay adoption.
I liked what PFLAG had to say about this development:
"In a country where more than 125,000 children are waiting for foster parents, Senator McCain would deny loving homes to children who desperately need them simply because of an outdated prejudice about what a family may look like," said Jody M. Huckaby, executive director of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG). "We are disappointed and saddened that a public leader who is himself an adoptive father would deny the children in America's foster care system the opportunity to thrive as part of a welcoming family. Love makes a family, but short-sighted positions like Senator McCain's can certainly tear families apart, too."
..."Senator McCain's position is out of synch with the research and science and out of step with what is in the best interests of children waiting for a home and a family," Huckaby said. "PFLAG knows the pain inflicted upon families due to misinformation about LGBT issues. We implore Senator McCain to take a serious look at the overwhelming evidence and listen to the stories of the countless children raised by loving lesbian and gay couples. The evidence is clear: children should not be denied access to the loving homes of gay couples."
I am feeling frunky today (frunky - not funky. Frunkly is three steps below funky). It's probably because I hate Mondays.
Nothing can sway me out of this mood, not even the news that I have exceeded my goal of selling 100 copies of my book, Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters.
One hundred copies doesn't seem like a lot, but remember this book was self-published and not promoted (at least not in the usual way). My initial goal as to sell at least 100 copies and I have reached that goal within a year of Holy Bullies's publishing.
Now it's time to work on an updated (and much better) version.
That is if I can get out of this mood.
But enough of that. The more cosmopolitan readers of this site probably already know that we have lost an enemy today in the marriage equality fight.
David Benkof, who markets himself as a gay man who believes in the "sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman" has closed the veil:
"I no longer feel comfortable being allied with the people running the Prop. 8 campaign, and the same-sex marriage movement in America in general, with a few exceptions - most notably Maggie Gallagher. I have made a tentative decision not to publicize the disturbing information that caused me to end my promotion of man-woman marriage in the United States. But there is very little that I know about those subjects that a journalist, blogger, or activist cannot find out through diligent googling and asking the right questions of the Prop. 8 campaign."
-- former proprietor of the disturbing blog "Gays Defend Marriage," David Benkof to Truth Wins Out's Wayne Besen, July 14
Benkof was slowly getting attention for the paradox of being a gay man who didn't believe in gay marriage. However, there was a possible problem with how he would allegedly distort the words of people he interviewed. Box Turtle Bulletin wrote an excellent report on him.
Maybe it's just the Monday frunkies talking but other than the paradox, I never took Benkof seriously. He is a talented writer but he was clearly exploiting the idea of being a gay man who opposes gay marriage.
And while his concession is good, two things about it bothers me.
The first is the part about him still being allied with Maggie Gallagher. Gallagher is yet another one of those "experts" from the right-wing that seem pop up about lgbts issues. However, her expertise seems to lie in playing Joan of Arc being burned at the stake by so-called radical gay activists.
The argument, "gays and liberals believe that if you support traditional marriage then you are a bigot" seems to almost always turn up in her writings.
Then there is this very interesting deception that she is guilty of:
Gay marriage opponents frequently buttress their arguments with the assertion that children have better outcomes when they grow up with a married mother and father. The most articulate advocate of this point is Maggie Gallagher, founder of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, a "pro-marriage" think tank.
She summarized it best in an article in the August 2003 Weekly Standard: "As a Child Trends research brief summed up, 'Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. . . .'" She goes on to argue that because that parenting structure is best for kids, legalizing gay marriage means subjecting children to less-than-optimum outcomes: "[Gay marriage] would mean the law was neutral as to whether children had mothers and fathers. Motherless and fatherless families would be deemed just fine."
Child Trends, the organization that she cites, is a highly respected, nonpartisan research center. But Gallagher slyly misrepresents the conclusions of their research review, which does not discuss straight versus gay family structure, but various forms of straight family structure. Gallagher leaves out the key sentence that qualifies the statement she cites: "Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes than do children in intact families raised by two biological parents." There is no evidence here about how children raised by gay couples fare.
A right-wing expert distorting a legitimate study? It must be a usual day in the United States.
Also there is this comment Benkof left on Pam Spaulding's site:
Since you brought it up, I thought I'd clarify. I no longer feel comfortable being allied with most of the people who run the man-woman marriage movement in the United States (not counting Maggie Gallagher). I still feel, however, that Pam Spaulding is a nasty bitch.
Okay, that pissed me off. I am talking snatching off the earrings, kicking off the shoes, putting vaseline on the face, getting ready to get ghetto on someone type anger.
My first reaction was "Oh no that $&@^ didn't!"
But then I realized that I cannot behave in such a way.
So I will just say this:
Mr. Benkof, Pam Spaulding has more integrity in her fingernail than you have in your pseudo-intellectual body. The very fact that you said what you said only goes to prove how phony you are.
But don't think that Benkof's nonsense is the only thing going on today.
Our friend Peter LaBarbera has gotten into the AFA's boycott of McDonalds. His group Americans for Truth (in name only) will join the AFA at a press conference in front of McDonalds' headquarters in Illinois. They will be joined by women who will say why they won't take their children to McDonalds ever again.
Which is fine with me. I'm sure that there will be a lot of lgbt parents who will take their children to McDonalds.
And I plan to have a supersize meal tomorrow.
And speaking of lgbt parenting, John McCain continues to be on his "please support me James Dobson and company" tour. Today he came out against gay adoption.
I liked what PFLAG had to say about this development:
"In a country where more than 125,000 children are waiting for foster parents, Senator McCain would deny loving homes to children who desperately need them simply because of an outdated prejudice about what a family may look like," said Jody M. Huckaby, executive director of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG). "We are disappointed and saddened that a public leader who is himself an adoptive father would deny the children in America's foster care system the opportunity to thrive as part of a welcoming family. Love makes a family, but short-sighted positions like Senator McCain's can certainly tear families apart, too."
..."Senator McCain's position is out of synch with the research and science and out of step with what is in the best interests of children waiting for a home and a family," Huckaby said. "PFLAG knows the pain inflicted upon families due to misinformation about LGBT issues. We implore Senator McCain to take a serious look at the overwhelming evidence and listen to the stories of the countless children raised by loving lesbian and gay couples. The evidence is clear: children should not be denied access to the loving homes of gay couples."
UPDATE - As you all can see, David Benkof is channeling a little Joan of Arc himself via the comments page.
David, no one is lying on you. You did distort Ms. Kendall's comment just like you distorted a lot of others.
That is why your credibility is low. But I have to admire your shameless plugging of yourself.
Friday, July 11, 2008
South Carolina doesn't want gay tourists, but it will take pigs and "I Believe" license plates
And I thought I wouldn't have to post today.
But my home state is in the news and it involves the lgbt community:
South Carolina’s top tourism agency has canceled an overseas advertising campaign targeting gay tourists.
The campaign, tied to gay pride week celebrations in London, included ads that proclaimed “South Carolina is so gay.” A handful of other U.S. destinations joined the campaign, including Atlanta, Boston and New Orleans.
After learning last week the state had agreed to spend tax money on the campaign — and spurred by a post on The Palmetto Scoop blog — the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism said Thursday it would not pay the tour operator.
Parks, Recreation and Tourism director Chad Prosser said an agency advertising manager signed off on the contract, proposed by the agency’s London advertising contractor.
To me, this is a story of an advertising manager making a possibly unauthorized business deal. However since it talks about the gay community, leave it to our lovely legislators to not miss this sterling opportunity to bloviate about "values:"
Some lawmakers were shocked to learn about the campaign, with state Sen. David Thomas, R-Greenville, calling for an audit.
Joel Sawyer, spokesman for Gov. Mark Sanford, said using tax money to support a social or political agenda is inappropriate.
I get it: an ad campaign to generate tourist money is a part of an "agenda," but passing legislation regarding "I Believe" license plates is a-okay.
Geez.
Please bear in mind that this is the same governor who, in 2004, walked into the State House carrying two pigs.
He wanted to get back at the legislators who overrode his budget veto by symbolizing a protest against "pork projects."
The pigs symbolized things much better than Sanford hoped. In fact, they symbolized all over Sanford and the floor of the State House.
From what I hear, the smell was especially symbolic.
So in this talk of values, who do you choose: gay folks or the Governor who was once covered in pig droppings.
I'm choosing my lgbt brothers and sisters. At least I won't have to hold my nose when I hug them.
Box Turtle Bulletin exposes a hot mess
One of my favorite sites, Box Turtle Bulletin, has exposed an unfortunate incident involving an insurance company and anti-gay industry lies. It demonstrates how difficult it is to kill anti-gay junk science:
Insure.com is a publicly traded company with an advisory board ranging from a former US Senator to executives with various companies, including AT&T. The company is a major sponsor of Bill O’Reilly’s radio talk show and Bill gives voice to their commercial.
In addition to selling insurance, they provide information about the insurance industry. Joe White, an employee and company blog contributor, wrote two pieces in which he claimed that “being gay” was a health risk, and not just a minor one.
In an article on the business website entitled Top five ways to kill yourself and get away with it, White lists the number one way to kill yourself:
1. Being gay. A gay lifestyle is by far the biggest risk to life expectancy that goes unrecognized by insurance companies. The question has been considered by multiple studies, and the gay lifestyle is universally acknowledged to decrease life expectancy. A conservative estimate is that a gay lifestyle takes away 8-20 years from the average lifespan.
In other words, living a homosexual lifestyle has health risks at least as severe as smoking (by some estimates even more), but due to the sensitive nature of the issue, life insurance companies don’t charge different rates for gays. So gays save money on life insurance at the same rate they die young.
It turns out that Mr. White made this claim based on the distortion of the 1997 Canadian study (which I have talked about ad nauseum on this site) and the "research" of the discredited Paul Cameron.
It's like a horror movie. We just can't kill the monster.
But Box Turtle Bulletin is on the case, including contacting the CEO of Insure.com.
I commend them for their work.
And I thought I wouldn't have to post today.
But my home state is in the news and it involves the lgbt community:
South Carolina’s top tourism agency has canceled an overseas advertising campaign targeting gay tourists.
The campaign, tied to gay pride week celebrations in London, included ads that proclaimed “South Carolina is so gay.” A handful of other U.S. destinations joined the campaign, including Atlanta, Boston and New Orleans.
After learning last week the state had agreed to spend tax money on the campaign — and spurred by a post on The Palmetto Scoop blog — the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism said Thursday it would not pay the tour operator.
Parks, Recreation and Tourism director Chad Prosser said an agency advertising manager signed off on the contract, proposed by the agency’s London advertising contractor.
To me, this is a story of an advertising manager making a possibly unauthorized business deal. However since it talks about the gay community, leave it to our lovely legislators to not miss this sterling opportunity to bloviate about "values:"
Some lawmakers were shocked to learn about the campaign, with state Sen. David Thomas, R-Greenville, calling for an audit.
Joel Sawyer, spokesman for Gov. Mark Sanford, said using tax money to support a social or political agenda is inappropriate.
I get it: an ad campaign to generate tourist money is a part of an "agenda," but passing legislation regarding "I Believe" license plates is a-okay.
Geez.
Please bear in mind that this is the same governor who, in 2004, walked into the State House carrying two pigs.
He wanted to get back at the legislators who overrode his budget veto by symbolizing a protest against "pork projects."
The pigs symbolized things much better than Sanford hoped. In fact, they symbolized all over Sanford and the floor of the State House.
From what I hear, the smell was especially symbolic.
So in this talk of values, who do you choose: gay folks or the Governor who was once covered in pig droppings.
I'm choosing my lgbt brothers and sisters. At least I won't have to hold my nose when I hug them.
Box Turtle Bulletin exposes a hot mess
One of my favorite sites, Box Turtle Bulletin, has exposed an unfortunate incident involving an insurance company and anti-gay industry lies. It demonstrates how difficult it is to kill anti-gay junk science:
Insure.com is a publicly traded company with an advisory board ranging from a former US Senator to executives with various companies, including AT&T. The company is a major sponsor of Bill O’Reilly’s radio talk show and Bill gives voice to their commercial.
In addition to selling insurance, they provide information about the insurance industry. Joe White, an employee and company blog contributor, wrote two pieces in which he claimed that “being gay” was a health risk, and not just a minor one.
In an article on the business website entitled Top five ways to kill yourself and get away with it, White lists the number one way to kill yourself:
1. Being gay. A gay lifestyle is by far the biggest risk to life expectancy that goes unrecognized by insurance companies. The question has been considered by multiple studies, and the gay lifestyle is universally acknowledged to decrease life expectancy. A conservative estimate is that a gay lifestyle takes away 8-20 years from the average lifespan.
In other words, living a homosexual lifestyle has health risks at least as severe as smoking (by some estimates even more), but due to the sensitive nature of the issue, life insurance companies don’t charge different rates for gays. So gays save money on life insurance at the same rate they die young.
It turns out that Mr. White made this claim based on the distortion of the 1997 Canadian study (which I have talked about ad nauseum on this site) and the "research" of the discredited Paul Cameron.
It's like a horror movie. We just can't kill the monster.
But Box Turtle Bulletin is on the case, including contacting the CEO of Insure.com.
I commend them for their work.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
One News Now 'journalist' gets taught a lesson in truth
I am watching (and taking part in) an interesting war of words on a blog site.
But first a little background:
I have talked about Ken Hutcherson many times on this blog, especially that so-called protest he organized against the Day of Silence at Mount Si High School in Washington.
But as it is, the war between Hutcherson and Mount Si goes back farther than the Day of Silence.
It began when Hutcherson was invited to speak at the high school during Martin Luther King Jr. Day. His anti-gay reputation got some teachers and students upset at the invite. One booed him during the assembly (that wasn't good taste and the teacher was reprimanded).
Another teacher questioned Hutcherson's opposition to lgbt rights.
Needless to say, Hutcherson's ego was hurt and he has had it in for the Mount Si High School ever since.
A group of concerned parents began a blog to support students and the teachers at Mount Si High School. It is called Mount Si Parents and is a very informative site.
Hutcherson, meanwhile, has continued to pursue action against the teachers of Mount Si High School. He recently complained to Rosalund Jenkins, the executive director of the Washington State Commission on African American Affairs.
Apparently he didn't get what he wanted from her because he has now accused Jenkins of making racist comments.
It boggles the mind, doesn't it.
But I am getting the crux of this post.
One News Now in their familiar biased fashion published an article regarding the situation. I would link the article but One News Now has banned any linkage from me.
The Mount Si Parents blog published a post accusing One News Now of biased reporting. The blog also clarified several issues.
And now comes the rub.
Allegedly, the author of the One News Now article, Jeff Johnson was very, shall we say, offended by what was said. He took it upon himself to say so. You can read his entire post if you pan down to it.
In part, it said:
Anonymous #1 said "One News Now is known for spinning incorrect and biased stories." Really? We report news from a biblical perspective and clearly advertise that fact in the "About" section on our site. If you reject the Bible as the infallible Word of God, you're not going to agree with our perspective on stories involving homosexuality. Similarly, if you are politically conservative, you're not going to agree with the perspective from which The New York Times reports political news. All news outlets report from a perspective. The difference is, we admit ours.
Anonymous #2 wrote: "Just in case there's any doubt about the credibility of One News Now as a legitimate news source, check out this PI Big Blog post about their story which identified sprinter Tyson Gay's name as Tyson Homosexual in stories about his record-setting run at the Olympic Trials."
Yes, we set up an automated filter to catch the politically correct word "gay" in reference to people who choose to have sex with others of the same gender, who are more accurately referred to as "homosexuals." And, yes, we forgot to take into account that there are some people whose first or last names are "Gay." The error has been corrected.
The Associated Press uses the word "gay" instead of the word "homosexual" because that's the word homosexual activists prefer. Those activists prefer the word "gay" because it's a very positive word that takes the focus off the fact that the issue under debate is their choice of sex partners.
By that reasoning, the Associated Press should refer to people who oppose abortion as "pro-life" because it is the term that group prefers and it's a positive term that takes the focus off their advocacy for restriction access to abortion.
But the AP is biased in favor of homosexuality and in opposition to restricting abortion. So they use the positive term "gay" to refer to those they support and the negative term "anti-abortion" to refer to those they oppose.
OneNewsNow tried to automatically write the AP's obvious pro-homosexual bias out of their stories as published on our site and the initial way we chose to do that didn't work out so well. Another News Flash: We're human. We made a mistake. The difference between us and the "mainstream" media is, when we became aware of the mistake, we admitted it and corrected it. Try to get that kind of response from a major newspaper or television news network. . .
But I will challenge anyone who uses the word "lie" to describe my reporting. You may not agree with the biblical perspective from which I report the news. That is your right and I am thankful that we live in a country where we can agree to disagree on that issue. But I ALWAYS endeavor to report the truth as accurately as possible within my human limitations of gathering information and discerning who is and is not being honest with me.
A "lie" is an intentional misrepresentation of the truth. There are no lies in my reporting, unless I quote someone who is lying, and I will not knowingly report even that kind of statement.
Needless to say, Jeff got his ass handed to him. Various returned comments said the following:
No one is accusing YOU of lying, you are merely printing Hutchersons LIES!
Any good reporter would actually fact check their sources before making such allegations.
All of the facts are readily available to anyone who wants to be informed.
Tell me Mr. Reporter man, did you contact Dr. Potratz for his side of the story?
Have you read through the archives of the local media covering this story for the past six months?
Of course not! You just take the word of a blow hard bigot like Hutch as the truth!
Do some research and pretend you are a journalist!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This isn't the first time you have printed falsehoods because you failed to research. Here is just one example;
As previously reported, one of the teachers who booed Hutcherson sponsors the school's Gay Straight Alliance -- and also happens to teach his daughter's advanced placement British literature class. According to the pastor, his daughter has continued to suffer emotional stress in that classroom since the school assembly. But his requests to have the teacher removed from the class have been denied, forcing him to enroll his daughter, who is a senior, in an online class with the University of Washington.
This is NOT true.
Dr. Potratz booed the blow hard, NOT Kit McCormick who is the GSA advisor in question.
FACT CHECK, it's not hard
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for you ONN apologetics, you folks are nothing like the New York Times, they make an effort to report the truth, you folks "report" pleasing spin for your fundamentalist audience.
As for your rewriting of AP stories to conform to your version of Political Correctness, just where was your published correction on the Tyson Gay debacle? I must have missed it, from what I saw you merely corrected the story and pretended that the error never happened. Unlike a real news source (e.g. the NYT, which publishes a correction when they make a mistake.)
So maybe you didn't intentionally misrepresent the facts in your story, but for someone, who labels himself a reporter, you showed an appalling disregard for the accuracy of your reporting. Where is your interview with Potratz to get his side of the story? Did you even bother to speak to him? Or did you just accept Hutcherson's version of events because you knew it would be pleasing to your readers (and undoubtably your bosses as well)?
Another thing journalists do is investigate, rather than just regurgitate one sides talking points. Your story reads like a Ken Hutcherson press release from a conservative activist(a fairly common thing on ONN).
Your work may not be intentional lies, but it is dishonest and disingenuous, just like your defense of it here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
dear jeff,
A lot of times, One News Now articles are just one-person interviews with someone who takes their point of view.
If you doubt me, take a look at their site now. There are several Barack Obama articles present but none of them have any comments from the Obama campaign.
Being Christian is no excuse for bad journalism.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and let's not forget when one news now (when it was agape press) used to freely cite paul cameron as a pro-family expert without filling its readers in on his history of distortion, censures and organizational rebukes (like from the APA for example)
This discussion is still going on. Of course there are some people who are actually trying to defend Johnson. My favorite is the following:
where in the Bible (the guide for a Christian’s life) does it say “Thou shalt not be biased”??? I don’t seem to see that anywhere and since you obviously can’t accept that two people can see the same situation differently (which I alluded to in an earlier post), let me remind you of the MOST biased of all Christians, Jesus Christ Himself, when in the Gospel of John, Chapter 14, verse 6 He states: “I am the way and the truth and the life. NO ONE comes to the Father except through me.”
But I have noticed that Johnson has not posted anything else as a response.
It must be hard when you have to deal with the real world instead of the world of Dobson and Wildmon.
I am watching (and taking part in) an interesting war of words on a blog site.
But first a little background:
I have talked about Ken Hutcherson many times on this blog, especially that so-called protest he organized against the Day of Silence at Mount Si High School in Washington.
But as it is, the war between Hutcherson and Mount Si goes back farther than the Day of Silence.
It began when Hutcherson was invited to speak at the high school during Martin Luther King Jr. Day. His anti-gay reputation got some teachers and students upset at the invite. One booed him during the assembly (that wasn't good taste and the teacher was reprimanded).
Another teacher questioned Hutcherson's opposition to lgbt rights.
Needless to say, Hutcherson's ego was hurt and he has had it in for the Mount Si High School ever since.
A group of concerned parents began a blog to support students and the teachers at Mount Si High School. It is called Mount Si Parents and is a very informative site.
Hutcherson, meanwhile, has continued to pursue action against the teachers of Mount Si High School. He recently complained to Rosalund Jenkins, the executive director of the Washington State Commission on African American Affairs.
Apparently he didn't get what he wanted from her because he has now accused Jenkins of making racist comments.
It boggles the mind, doesn't it.
But I am getting the crux of this post.
One News Now in their familiar biased fashion published an article regarding the situation. I would link the article but One News Now has banned any linkage from me.
The Mount Si Parents blog published a post accusing One News Now of biased reporting. The blog also clarified several issues.
And now comes the rub.
Allegedly, the author of the One News Now article, Jeff Johnson was very, shall we say, offended by what was said. He took it upon himself to say so. You can read his entire post if you pan down to it.
In part, it said:
Anonymous #1 said "One News Now is known for spinning incorrect and biased stories." Really? We report news from a biblical perspective and clearly advertise that fact in the "About" section on our site. If you reject the Bible as the infallible Word of God, you're not going to agree with our perspective on stories involving homosexuality. Similarly, if you are politically conservative, you're not going to agree with the perspective from which The New York Times reports political news. All news outlets report from a perspective. The difference is, we admit ours.
Anonymous #2 wrote: "Just in case there's any doubt about the credibility of One News Now as a legitimate news source, check out this PI Big Blog post about their story which identified sprinter Tyson Gay's name as Tyson Homosexual in stories about his record-setting run at the Olympic Trials."
Yes, we set up an automated filter to catch the politically correct word "gay" in reference to people who choose to have sex with others of the same gender, who are more accurately referred to as "homosexuals." And, yes, we forgot to take into account that there are some people whose first or last names are "Gay." The error has been corrected.
The Associated Press uses the word "gay" instead of the word "homosexual" because that's the word homosexual activists prefer. Those activists prefer the word "gay" because it's a very positive word that takes the focus off the fact that the issue under debate is their choice of sex partners.
By that reasoning, the Associated Press should refer to people who oppose abortion as "pro-life" because it is the term that group prefers and it's a positive term that takes the focus off their advocacy for restriction access to abortion.
But the AP is biased in favor of homosexuality and in opposition to restricting abortion. So they use the positive term "gay" to refer to those they support and the negative term "anti-abortion" to refer to those they oppose.
OneNewsNow tried to automatically write the AP's obvious pro-homosexual bias out of their stories as published on our site and the initial way we chose to do that didn't work out so well. Another News Flash: We're human. We made a mistake. The difference between us and the "mainstream" media is, when we became aware of the mistake, we admitted it and corrected it. Try to get that kind of response from a major newspaper or television news network. . .
But I will challenge anyone who uses the word "lie" to describe my reporting. You may not agree with the biblical perspective from which I report the news. That is your right and I am thankful that we live in a country where we can agree to disagree on that issue. But I ALWAYS endeavor to report the truth as accurately as possible within my human limitations of gathering information and discerning who is and is not being honest with me.
A "lie" is an intentional misrepresentation of the truth. There are no lies in my reporting, unless I quote someone who is lying, and I will not knowingly report even that kind of statement.
Needless to say, Jeff got his ass handed to him. Various returned comments said the following:
No one is accusing YOU of lying, you are merely printing Hutchersons LIES!
Any good reporter would actually fact check their sources before making such allegations.
All of the facts are readily available to anyone who wants to be informed.
Tell me Mr. Reporter man, did you contact Dr. Potratz for his side of the story?
Have you read through the archives of the local media covering this story for the past six months?
Of course not! You just take the word of a blow hard bigot like Hutch as the truth!
Do some research and pretend you are a journalist!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This isn't the first time you have printed falsehoods because you failed to research. Here is just one example;
As previously reported, one of the teachers who booed Hutcherson sponsors the school's Gay Straight Alliance -- and also happens to teach his daughter's advanced placement British literature class. According to the pastor, his daughter has continued to suffer emotional stress in that classroom since the school assembly. But his requests to have the teacher removed from the class have been denied, forcing him to enroll his daughter, who is a senior, in an online class with the University of Washington.
This is NOT true.
Dr. Potratz booed the blow hard, NOT Kit McCormick who is the GSA advisor in question.
FACT CHECK, it's not hard
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for you ONN apologetics, you folks are nothing like the New York Times, they make an effort to report the truth, you folks "report" pleasing spin for your fundamentalist audience.
As for your rewriting of AP stories to conform to your version of Political Correctness, just where was your published correction on the Tyson Gay debacle? I must have missed it, from what I saw you merely corrected the story and pretended that the error never happened. Unlike a real news source (e.g. the NYT, which publishes a correction when they make a mistake.)
So maybe you didn't intentionally misrepresent the facts in your story, but for someone, who labels himself a reporter, you showed an appalling disregard for the accuracy of your reporting. Where is your interview with Potratz to get his side of the story? Did you even bother to speak to him? Or did you just accept Hutcherson's version of events because you knew it would be pleasing to your readers (and undoubtably your bosses as well)?
Another thing journalists do is investigate, rather than just regurgitate one sides talking points. Your story reads like a Ken Hutcherson press release from a conservative activist(a fairly common thing on ONN).
Your work may not be intentional lies, but it is dishonest and disingenuous, just like your defense of it here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
dear jeff,
A lot of times, One News Now articles are just one-person interviews with someone who takes their point of view.
If you doubt me, take a look at their site now. There are several Barack Obama articles present but none of them have any comments from the Obama campaign.
Being Christian is no excuse for bad journalism.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and let's not forget when one news now (when it was agape press) used to freely cite paul cameron as a pro-family expert without filling its readers in on his history of distortion, censures and organizational rebukes (like from the APA for example)
This discussion is still going on. Of course there are some people who are actually trying to defend Johnson. My favorite is the following:
where in the Bible (the guide for a Christian’s life) does it say “Thou shalt not be biased”??? I don’t seem to see that anywhere and since you obviously can’t accept that two people can see the same situation differently (which I alluded to in an earlier post), let me remind you of the MOST biased of all Christians, Jesus Christ Himself, when in the Gospel of John, Chapter 14, verse 6 He states: “I am the way and the truth and the life. NO ONE comes to the Father except through me.”
But I have noticed that Johnson has not posted anything else as a response.
It must be hard when you have to deal with the real world instead of the world of Dobson and Wildmon.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
What happens in Arkansas may happen elsewhere
Something is presently happening in Arkansas that could negatively affect lgbts in the future:
The Little Rock, AR based organization largely responsible for placing a constitutional ban against gay marriage in Arkansas in 2004, is back in 2008 with an anti-gay adoption ban.
On Monday, the Family Council Action Committee (FCAC) met a deadline to submit 61,974 signatures to the Secretary of State to place a proposed law banning unmarried couples from adopting children on the November ballot. While the initiative bans both same-sex and opposite-sex couples, the organization's website lists banning gay and lesbian couples from adoption as a goal of the law.
The Arkansas Adoption Act makes it illegal for adoptive and foster care children to be placed in homes with individuals who cohabit with a sexual partner. Single people, living alone, would be free from the restrictions.
Arkansas did initially bar gays from adopting or becoming foster parents before the state court struck down the law. Then the legislature wouldn't pass a law prohibiting lgbts from adopting or becoming foster parents.
So now some folks are taking the "let the people decide through a vote" route. And while they have tried to word the law to make it seem that its not an attack on lgbts, they freely admit that it is:
“[The Arkansas Adoption Act] is about two things. It's about child welfare, first of all. Secondly, it is to blunt a homosexual agenda that's at work in other states and that will be at work in Arkansas unless we are proactive about doing something about it,” FCAC Executive Director Jerry Cox told Fox16 News.
This attempt is nothing new. After their success in banning gay marriage, the anti-gay industry have long had their sights on making it more difficult for lgbts to be foster or adoptive parents. It is obvious that Arkansas is a testing ground. If they are successful there, then they are going to try the same thing in other states.
What gets me is this part:
The FCAC lists three primary reasons for the law: For the safety of children, to increase the number of prospective homes, and to “blunt a homosexual agenda.”
Increase the number of homes? How can you increase the number of homes that will take in children by prohibiting potential foster and adoptive parents?
Sadly, that question is not answered by the FCAC in the article.
And that is the crux of the fallacy involving denying lgbts the right to be foster and adoptive parents.
According to the National Resource Center for Family Centered Practice and Permanency Planning:
510,000 = Number of children in foster care on September 30, 2006
129,000 = Number of children waiting to be adopted on September 30, 2006
51,000 = Number of children adopted from the public foster care system in FY 2006
And according to the Department of Health and Human Services' s Administration for Children & Families, 984 Arkansas children were waiting to be adopted in 2005.
But I bet the FCAC law doesn't address that point.
What we get from them is the same talking point the anti-gay industry shovels about children in foster care:
Children have a right to a mother and father.
But (and here is the rub) the FCAC potential law does not guarantee that children in foster care will be placed in this type of home. In fact, it does not guarantee that children in foster care will be placed into a home at all.
You see, this talking point is not designed to do anything but create the premise that somehow two-parent heterosexual households are being discriminated against for the sake of same-sex households.
And according to national figures, this notion just isn't true.
Children don't necessarily need a home that appeals to someone's limited view of "family.
Children need homes where they can receive love and support.
And there are no studies that say they cannot receive love and support from a same-sex home.
But thanks to FCAC, Arkansas children in foster care may not get any home at all.
Something is presently happening in Arkansas that could negatively affect lgbts in the future:
The Little Rock, AR based organization largely responsible for placing a constitutional ban against gay marriage in Arkansas in 2004, is back in 2008 with an anti-gay adoption ban.
On Monday, the Family Council Action Committee (FCAC) met a deadline to submit 61,974 signatures to the Secretary of State to place a proposed law banning unmarried couples from adopting children on the November ballot. While the initiative bans both same-sex and opposite-sex couples, the organization's website lists banning gay and lesbian couples from adoption as a goal of the law.
The Arkansas Adoption Act makes it illegal for adoptive and foster care children to be placed in homes with individuals who cohabit with a sexual partner. Single people, living alone, would be free from the restrictions.
Arkansas did initially bar gays from adopting or becoming foster parents before the state court struck down the law. Then the legislature wouldn't pass a law prohibiting lgbts from adopting or becoming foster parents.
So now some folks are taking the "let the people decide through a vote" route. And while they have tried to word the law to make it seem that its not an attack on lgbts, they freely admit that it is:
“[The Arkansas Adoption Act] is about two things. It's about child welfare, first of all. Secondly, it is to blunt a homosexual agenda that's at work in other states and that will be at work in Arkansas unless we are proactive about doing something about it,” FCAC Executive Director Jerry Cox told Fox16 News.
This attempt is nothing new. After their success in banning gay marriage, the anti-gay industry have long had their sights on making it more difficult for lgbts to be foster or adoptive parents. It is obvious that Arkansas is a testing ground. If they are successful there, then they are going to try the same thing in other states.
What gets me is this part:
The FCAC lists three primary reasons for the law: For the safety of children, to increase the number of prospective homes, and to “blunt a homosexual agenda.”
Increase the number of homes? How can you increase the number of homes that will take in children by prohibiting potential foster and adoptive parents?
Sadly, that question is not answered by the FCAC in the article.
And that is the crux of the fallacy involving denying lgbts the right to be foster and adoptive parents.
According to the National Resource Center for Family Centered Practice and Permanency Planning:
510,000 = Number of children in foster care on September 30, 2006
129,000 = Number of children waiting to be adopted on September 30, 2006
51,000 = Number of children adopted from the public foster care system in FY 2006
And according to the Department of Health and Human Services' s Administration for Children & Families, 984 Arkansas children were waiting to be adopted in 2005.
But I bet the FCAC law doesn't address that point.
What we get from them is the same talking point the anti-gay industry shovels about children in foster care:
Children have a right to a mother and father.
But (and here is the rub) the FCAC potential law does not guarantee that children in foster care will be placed in this type of home. In fact, it does not guarantee that children in foster care will be placed into a home at all.
You see, this talking point is not designed to do anything but create the premise that somehow two-parent heterosexual households are being discriminated against for the sake of same-sex households.
And according to national figures, this notion just isn't true.
Children don't necessarily need a home that appeals to someone's limited view of "family.
Children need homes where they can receive love and support.
And there are no studies that say they cannot receive love and support from a same-sex home.
But thanks to FCAC, Arkansas children in foster care may not get any home at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)