Damn the skies, watch the smears
Just something that I have noticed:
Saturday - Sarah Palin accuses Barack Obama of "palling around with terrorists."
Sunday - GOP announces lawsuit against Obama for illegal "foreign contributions"
Monday - One News Now runs article talking about "pro-Obama" registration in mosques.
Tell me again how John McCain and his cohorts want to talk about issues. Apparently the issue that most interest them is character assassination.
Paging Paul Cameron, paging Paul Cameron
The chaplain to the London Stock Exchange is under pressure to quit today after demanding gay men should be forced to have "sodomy" warnings tattooed on their bodies.
The suggestion is contained in a series of comments on the internet blog of the Rev Peter Mullen.
The Bishop of London today branded Mr Mullen's comments "highly offensive" and Stonewall, the gay rights charity, said he should resign.
Mr Mullen, 66, wrote on his blog: "It is time that religious believers began to recommend ... discouragements of homosexual practices after the style of warnings on cigarette packets.
"Let us make it obligatory for homosexuals to have their backsides tattooed with the slogan SODOMY CAN SERIOUSLY DAMAGE YOUR HEALTH and their chins with FELLATIO KILLS."
Jeremy from goodasyou.org covers this story with his usual excellence.
I am personally speechless.
Monday, October 06, 2008
Friday, October 03, 2008
Libraries should not cave in to the anti-gay industry in book selections
The anti-gay industry has taken an interesting approach to getting their opinions heard. They are now attacking libraries for daring to have standards:
During a week that librarians nationwide are highlighting banned books, conservative Christian students and parents showcased their own collection outside a Fairfax County high school yesterday -- a collection they say was banned by the librarians themselves.
More than 40 students, many wearing black T-shirts stamped with the words "Closing Books Shuts Out Ideas," said they tried to donate more than 100 books about homosexuality to more than a dozen high school libraries in the past year. The initiative, organized by Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family was intended to add a conservative Christian perspective to shelves that the students said are stocked with "pro-gay" books.
The article also says:
"the collection should support the diverse interests, needs and viewpoints of the school community." But library officials said donated and purchased books alike are evaluated by the same standards, including two positive reviews from professionally recognized journals.
None of the donated titles met that standard, said Susan Thornily, coordinator of library information services for Fairfax schools. Some librarians also said that the nonfiction books were heavy on scripture but light on research, or that the books would make gay students "feel inferior," she said.
I’m usually not one for censorship but I am for standards. And I have a hard time believing that anything put out about the lgbt community by the anti-gay industry or their allies belong in a public library without extreme scrutiny on its credibility.
The anti-gay industry has a track record of relying bad research (Paul Cameron) or distorting legitimate research (i.e. Elizabeth Saewyc, Robert Spitzer, Patrick Letellier, Robert Garafalo, Carol Gilligan, Lisa Waldner, Joanne Hall, Francis Collins, etc. )
And this track record of lies should not be ignored simply because the anti-gay industry was able to find enough guillible students and their parents to try and play a game of semantics.
These are the inferences I got from the press conference :
“Why are we being censored?”
“I thought libraries for free speech”
“I thought gays were supposed to be tolerant.”
All that’s missing was the louding weeping, elaborate fainting, and the bloodhounds snapping at their rear ends.
Sorry but I am also not buying this phony appeal for “tolerance” pushed by Dobson, LaBarbera and their allies.
And frankly, I wouldn’t mind seeing a full listing of these books they are pushing. We aren’t talking about mere tolerance here; we are talking about the possible codification of lies.
I don’t think a book should be included in a library’s selection simply because a group holds a press conference and sidesteps the issues of accuracy by appealing to emotions and religious beliefs
When choosing books, libraries should always adhere to high standards and the highest of all of these are veracity, or truth.
Or more to the point, would libraries have to allow books by David Duke to be carried simply because some parents feel there are too many “pro black” books on the shelves?
**Note - one of the books is Marriage on Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting. I may try and find a copy of it and see how many distortions I can link via my Anti-Gay Lies and Liars timeline.
The anti-gay industry has taken an interesting approach to getting their opinions heard. They are now attacking libraries for daring to have standards:
During a week that librarians nationwide are highlighting banned books, conservative Christian students and parents showcased their own collection outside a Fairfax County high school yesterday -- a collection they say was banned by the librarians themselves.
More than 40 students, many wearing black T-shirts stamped with the words "Closing Books Shuts Out Ideas," said they tried to donate more than 100 books about homosexuality to more than a dozen high school libraries in the past year. The initiative, organized by Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family was intended to add a conservative Christian perspective to shelves that the students said are stocked with "pro-gay" books.
The article also says:
"the collection should support the diverse interests, needs and viewpoints of the school community." But library officials said donated and purchased books alike are evaluated by the same standards, including two positive reviews from professionally recognized journals.
None of the donated titles met that standard, said Susan Thornily, coordinator of library information services for Fairfax schools. Some librarians also said that the nonfiction books were heavy on scripture but light on research, or that the books would make gay students "feel inferior," she said.
I’m usually not one for censorship but I am for standards. And I have a hard time believing that anything put out about the lgbt community by the anti-gay industry or their allies belong in a public library without extreme scrutiny on its credibility.
The anti-gay industry has a track record of relying bad research (Paul Cameron) or distorting legitimate research (i.e. Elizabeth Saewyc, Robert Spitzer, Patrick Letellier, Robert Garafalo, Carol Gilligan, Lisa Waldner, Joanne Hall, Francis Collins, etc. )
And this track record of lies should not be ignored simply because the anti-gay industry was able to find enough guillible students and their parents to try and play a game of semantics.
These are the inferences I got from the press conference :
“Why are we being censored?”
“I thought libraries for free speech”
“I thought gays were supposed to be tolerant.”
All that’s missing was the louding weeping, elaborate fainting, and the bloodhounds snapping at their rear ends.
Sorry but I am also not buying this phony appeal for “tolerance” pushed by Dobson, LaBarbera and their allies.
And frankly, I wouldn’t mind seeing a full listing of these books they are pushing. We aren’t talking about mere tolerance here; we are talking about the possible codification of lies.
I don’t think a book should be included in a library’s selection simply because a group holds a press conference and sidesteps the issues of accuracy by appealing to emotions and religious beliefs
When choosing books, libraries should always adhere to high standards and the highest of all of these are veracity, or truth.
Or more to the point, would libraries have to allow books by David Duke to be carried simply because some parents feel there are too many “pro black” books on the shelves?
**Note - one of the books is Marriage on Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting. I may try and find a copy of it and see how many distortions I can link via my Anti-Gay Lies and Liars timeline.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
UPDATE: I'm glad that's over
The debate is over and I am full of ribs and macaroni.
My thoughts - Palin will be declared the winner solely on the point that she didn't faint at the beginning. I actually think she did well at the beginning but as time ran on, Biden started zeroing in on her and she began to channel Tina Fey. I got a little confused as to who was debating Biden.
I am sure there will be sheafs of written copy and volumes of words said, but for my money, I came away with the belief that she needed to do better than adequate and she was unsuccessful.
Another update - Stith admits error.
I am eager (very eager in fact) to jump on the anti-gay industry when they distort and lie about lgbts.
But what about when one admits when he or she is wrong?
In my defense, I cannot remember when this has ever happen; that is until now.
Last week, I wrote about a controversy involving the distortion of research by Dr. Francis Collins.
Today, one of the principals involved, Bob Stith of the Southern Baptist Convention, sent a letter to Ex-Gay Watch apologizing for the misusage for the work.
Not only does he get kudos for doing this but he also gets special pat on the back for saying that he does not use Paul Cameron statistics.
Pardon for the short post today but I am in a rotten mood.
And it has nothing to do with the election or the debate later tonight (which I will be posting on later).
Bad moods happens to everyone and I am no different. So I will try to make myself feel better by making a huge pan of bar-b-que ribs.
Meanwhile, don't give up on me yet. Look to this site later for my thoughts about the debate.
But until then, look at the following for very good reading material regarding what's going on today:
One News Now declares Biden as debate winner before it even takes place
Those lovely transphobic liars in Maryland dealt another kick in the teeth (and you would think that it would put me in a good mood)
Right-wing lying machine targets Sandra Bernhard
The debate is over and I am full of ribs and macaroni.
My thoughts - Palin will be declared the winner solely on the point that she didn't faint at the beginning. I actually think she did well at the beginning but as time ran on, Biden started zeroing in on her and she began to channel Tina Fey. I got a little confused as to who was debating Biden.
I am sure there will be sheafs of written copy and volumes of words said, but for my money, I came away with the belief that she needed to do better than adequate and she was unsuccessful.
Another update - Stith admits error.
I am eager (very eager in fact) to jump on the anti-gay industry when they distort and lie about lgbts.
But what about when one admits when he or she is wrong?
In my defense, I cannot remember when this has ever happen; that is until now.
Last week, I wrote about a controversy involving the distortion of research by Dr. Francis Collins.
Today, one of the principals involved, Bob Stith of the Southern Baptist Convention, sent a letter to Ex-Gay Watch apologizing for the misusage for the work.
Not only does he get kudos for doing this but he also gets special pat on the back for saying that he does not use Paul Cameron statistics.
Pardon for the short post today but I am in a rotten mood.
And it has nothing to do with the election or the debate later tonight (which I will be posting on later).
Bad moods happens to everyone and I am no different. So I will try to make myself feel better by making a huge pan of bar-b-que ribs.
Meanwhile, don't give up on me yet. Look to this site later for my thoughts about the debate.
But until then, look at the following for very good reading material regarding what's going on today:
One News Now declares Biden as debate winner before it even takes place
Those lovely transphobic liars in Maryland dealt another kick in the teeth (and you would think that it would put me in a good mood)
Right-wing lying machine targets Sandra Bernhard
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Defending my sista
I have fixed the Mandy Carter, Pepper LaBeija, and Dorian Corey links that weren't working. I wasn't aware of it until it was brought to my attention. I also added a new link that gives a list of lgbts of color via wikipedia.
Okay, this isn't an lgbt issue, but it is an issue.
Everyone in the blogsphere has gone election crazy while I have chosen to stay focused on ways to throw wrenches at the anti-gay industry (and I mean in a figurative sense. I want to make that clear. Otherwise, Peter and company will be sending out an email about the "radical gay activist" who wants to injure "pro-family" folks with wrenches.)
However, I simply have to defend journalist Gwen Ifill.
Apparently McCain feels that the election is slipping away so he is getting so desperate that he is relying on nonsense by sites like Free Republic.
To recap: There are rumblings that Ifill will not be impartial in tomorrow's vice presidential debate because she is the author of a book that looks at the impact of African-Americans on the political process.
Some are even construing the book as a "pro-Obama" tome.
And it hasn't even come out yet. Here is what the summary says. Judge for yourself:
In THE BREAKTHROUGH, veteran journalist Gwen Ifill surveys the American political landscape, shedding new light on the impact of Barack Obama’s stunning presidential campaign and introducing the emerging young African American politicians forging a bold new path to political power.
Ifill argues that the Black political structure formed during the Civil Rights movement is giving way to a generation of men and women who are the direct beneficiaries of the struggles of the 1960s. She offers incisive, detailed profiles of such prominent leaders as Newark Mayor Cory Booker, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, and U.S. Congressman Artur Davis of Alabama, and also covers up-and-coming figures from across the nation. Drawing on interviews with power brokers like Senator Obama, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Vernon Jordan, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, and many others, as well as her own razor-sharp observations and analysis of such issues as generational conflict and the "black enough" conundrum, Ifill shows why this is a pivotal moment in American history.
THE BREAKTHROUGH is a remarkable look at contemporary politics and an essential foundation for understanding the future of American democracy.
We all know what's going to happen. Conservative bloggers and phony news sites are going to dig up anything that can be construed as anti-conservative bias on Ifill's part.
Hell, it's happening now via the Media Research Center:
As we learned in the first debate, moderators can help shape the outcome. PBS host Jim Lehrer asked tough questions to President Bush about his record, but failed to do the same for John Kerry. He asked Kerry to list Bush's “colossal misjudgments,” and then to list the President's lies. But he never once asked Kerry about his 20-year Senate record. Will PBS’s Gwen Ifill do better in the running-mate debate? The evidence suggests here comes liberal moderator number two . . .
How fitting. The Media Research Center now houses Robert Knight. For years, Knight made his bones conducting the same tactics against the lgbt community. If you breathe in deeply, you can smell his odor on this smearing of Ifill.
There will probably be more attempts to pile on. I see that Michelle Malkin (who seems to always be curiously at the front of the pack when conservatives take the guise of attack dogs) is trying to get her shots in.
For the record, I have enjoyed watching Ifill for years and she has never shown a bias. She reminds me of what journalism was like before Hannity, O'Reilly and the rest of the pundits took over.
And I know that tomorrow night, she will continue to show America what a true journalist should be like irregardless of this pathetic attempt by conservatives to "work the ref."
UPDATE - Ifill responds and becomes one of my heroes
PBS journalist Gwen Ifill, moderator of the upcoming vice presidential debate, dismissed conservative questions about her impartiality because she is writing a book that includes material on Barack Obama.
Ifill said Wednesday that she hasn't even written her chapter on Obama for the book "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," which is to be published by Doubleday on Jan. 20, 2009, the day a new president is inaugurated.
"I've got a pretty long track record covering politics and news, so I'm not particularly worried that one-day blog chatter is going to destroy my reputation," Ifill said. "The proof is in the pudding. They can watch the debate tomorrow night and make their own decisions about whether or not I've done my job."
More here . . .
That's class defined.
I have fixed the Mandy Carter, Pepper LaBeija, and Dorian Corey links that weren't working. I wasn't aware of it until it was brought to my attention. I also added a new link that gives a list of lgbts of color via wikipedia.
Okay, this isn't an lgbt issue, but it is an issue.
Everyone in the blogsphere has gone election crazy while I have chosen to stay focused on ways to throw wrenches at the anti-gay industry (and I mean in a figurative sense. I want to make that clear. Otherwise, Peter and company will be sending out an email about the "radical gay activist" who wants to injure "pro-family" folks with wrenches.)
However, I simply have to defend journalist Gwen Ifill.
Apparently McCain feels that the election is slipping away so he is getting so desperate that he is relying on nonsense by sites like Free Republic.
To recap: There are rumblings that Ifill will not be impartial in tomorrow's vice presidential debate because she is the author of a book that looks at the impact of African-Americans on the political process.
Some are even construing the book as a "pro-Obama" tome.
And it hasn't even come out yet. Here is what the summary says. Judge for yourself:
In THE BREAKTHROUGH, veteran journalist Gwen Ifill surveys the American political landscape, shedding new light on the impact of Barack Obama’s stunning presidential campaign and introducing the emerging young African American politicians forging a bold new path to political power.
Ifill argues that the Black political structure formed during the Civil Rights movement is giving way to a generation of men and women who are the direct beneficiaries of the struggles of the 1960s. She offers incisive, detailed profiles of such prominent leaders as Newark Mayor Cory Booker, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, and U.S. Congressman Artur Davis of Alabama, and also covers up-and-coming figures from across the nation. Drawing on interviews with power brokers like Senator Obama, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Vernon Jordan, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, and many others, as well as her own razor-sharp observations and analysis of such issues as generational conflict and the "black enough" conundrum, Ifill shows why this is a pivotal moment in American history.
THE BREAKTHROUGH is a remarkable look at contemporary politics and an essential foundation for understanding the future of American democracy.
We all know what's going to happen. Conservative bloggers and phony news sites are going to dig up anything that can be construed as anti-conservative bias on Ifill's part.
Hell, it's happening now via the Media Research Center:
As we learned in the first debate, moderators can help shape the outcome. PBS host Jim Lehrer asked tough questions to President Bush about his record, but failed to do the same for John Kerry. He asked Kerry to list Bush's “colossal misjudgments,” and then to list the President's lies. But he never once asked Kerry about his 20-year Senate record. Will PBS’s Gwen Ifill do better in the running-mate debate? The evidence suggests here comes liberal moderator number two . . .
How fitting. The Media Research Center now houses Robert Knight. For years, Knight made his bones conducting the same tactics against the lgbt community. If you breathe in deeply, you can smell his odor on this smearing of Ifill.
There will probably be more attempts to pile on. I see that Michelle Malkin (who seems to always be curiously at the front of the pack when conservatives take the guise of attack dogs) is trying to get her shots in.
For the record, I have enjoyed watching Ifill for years and she has never shown a bias. She reminds me of what journalism was like before Hannity, O'Reilly and the rest of the pundits took over.
And I know that tomorrow night, she will continue to show America what a true journalist should be like irregardless of this pathetic attempt by conservatives to "work the ref."
UPDATE - Ifill responds and becomes one of my heroes
PBS journalist Gwen Ifill, moderator of the upcoming vice presidential debate, dismissed conservative questions about her impartiality because she is writing a book that includes material on Barack Obama.
Ifill said Wednesday that she hasn't even written her chapter on Obama for the book "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," which is to be published by Doubleday on Jan. 20, 2009, the day a new president is inaugurated.
"I've got a pretty long track record covering politics and news, so I'm not particularly worried that one-day blog chatter is going to destroy my reputation," Ifill said. "The proof is in the pudding. They can watch the debate tomorrow night and make their own decisions about whether or not I've done my job."
More here . . .
That's class defined.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Yes, I like to mess with One News Now but they make it so damned easy
(Presently I am at lunch and thus am making this post at the public libary. I usually post when I get home but I felt I just had to direct your attention to something I read in One News Now. Many are aware of the fact that One News Now made it difficult for me to link to their site from my computer. However, I am unaware of whether that little edict can affect me if I link to their stuff from another source. One more thing - if you haven't read yesterday's post, please do because it has a lot to do with one of the subject of today's post - i.e. repeition of anti-gay lies irregardless of refutations. )
Those who read this blog will probably notice that lately I have been devoting much time to breaking down the lies of phony news services One News Now.
This is true but don't mistake my motives. I am amused that the powers-that-be there made it difficult for me to link to the site.
But that is not why I poke fun at One News Now.
Truth be told, I can't help myself because One News Now puts itself out there with not only its constant easy-to-refute lies, but its stubborn decision to reveal the mindsets of the "Christians" who read the site via the comments section.
Today is a hallmark in One News Now idiocy.
Yesterday, I wrote how the anti-gay industry will go out its way to repeat a negative point about the lgbt community even after said point has been continuously refuted.
And today, One News Now proves me right it an article published, Smoking banned - so why not a more dangerous lifestyle, too?
Of course the so-called dangerous lifestyle is homosexuality (is it just me or are these people easier to read than a Dick and Jane book). But check out this gem from the article:
Diane Gramley of the American Family Association of Pennsylvania agrees that smoking imposes health risks. But she argues that the State System of Higher Education condoned a riskier lifestyle last year when it voted to extend domestic partner benefits -- including tuition and health benefits -- to same-sex partners of faculty members.
According to a press release from Gramley's group, The New England Journal of Medicine reported that men who smoke shorten their lives by up to 7.2 years. But Gramley says according to the Oxford Internal Journal of Epidemiology, the homosexual lifestyle can shorten a man's life by up to 20 years.
The distortion of this study (by the way, the article got the name of the journal wrong. There is no Oxford Internal Journal of Epidemiology. The Oxford study appeared in 1997 in the International Journal of Epidemiology) has been refuted continuously by myself and countless other sources.
Even the authors of the study themselves, in 2001, went on record complaining how their work was being misused by the anti-gay industry.
But of course who cares about truth when God is on your side, huh One News Now.
And if this very bad piece of journalism isn't enough, One News Now compounds the error by their articles about a possible Obama victory in the presidential election:
Could an Obama loss spark race riots?
The article itself is a supreme hoot. Nothing like a bit of inferred racism to get the white folks scared enough to vote against Obama.
But it gets better. Yesterday, One News Now published an article, Political observer: Black voter turnout critical for Obama, that got some very interesting comments by its readers.
Allow me to give you a few choice sniglets:
"How does the black community relate to Barak Obama? He is half white. He was raised white. He speaks real English. He wears two-button suits, and diagonal stripped ties like an old white guy. He's rich. He is not the descendant of African slaves, but a part-Arabic African and a white woman. He has more in common with white people than blacks. African-Americans are grasping at straws with Barak Obama."
"Any votes that goes toward Barak Obama can only come from people that hates the Word of God
"If black voters will pay attention to their "thinking" leaders such as Thomas Sowell, none of them will think about voting for Obama because he is "black". Actually, people in Kenya say he is more Arabic than black and more "white" than black. I received an email from a missionary who has been to "his native village" in Kenya and states that Obama went there to request voodoo curses be hurled at McCain's campaign so that he can be elected. There is more to Barack Hussein Obama than meets the eye. Also most people when they convert from Christian to Muslim will take a Muslim name (ie Cassius Clay to Mohammed Ali) and the same is true of Muslims who convert to Christianity. So why did Barry Sotero change his name to Barack Hussein Obama?"
Gotta love those "Christians."
(Presently I am at lunch and thus am making this post at the public libary. I usually post when I get home but I felt I just had to direct your attention to something I read in One News Now. Many are aware of the fact that One News Now made it difficult for me to link to their site from my computer. However, I am unaware of whether that little edict can affect me if I link to their stuff from another source. One more thing - if you haven't read yesterday's post, please do because it has a lot to do with one of the subject of today's post - i.e. repeition of anti-gay lies irregardless of refutations. )
Those who read this blog will probably notice that lately I have been devoting much time to breaking down the lies of phony news services One News Now.
This is true but don't mistake my motives. I am amused that the powers-that-be there made it difficult for me to link to the site.
But that is not why I poke fun at One News Now.
Truth be told, I can't help myself because One News Now puts itself out there with not only its constant easy-to-refute lies, but its stubborn decision to reveal the mindsets of the "Christians" who read the site via the comments section.
Today is a hallmark in One News Now idiocy.
Yesterday, I wrote how the anti-gay industry will go out its way to repeat a negative point about the lgbt community even after said point has been continuously refuted.
And today, One News Now proves me right it an article published, Smoking banned - so why not a more dangerous lifestyle, too?
Of course the so-called dangerous lifestyle is homosexuality (is it just me or are these people easier to read than a Dick and Jane book). But check out this gem from the article:
Diane Gramley of the American Family Association of Pennsylvania agrees that smoking imposes health risks. But she argues that the State System of Higher Education condoned a riskier lifestyle last year when it voted to extend domestic partner benefits -- including tuition and health benefits -- to same-sex partners of faculty members.
According to a press release from Gramley's group, The New England Journal of Medicine reported that men who smoke shorten their lives by up to 7.2 years. But Gramley says according to the Oxford Internal Journal of Epidemiology, the homosexual lifestyle can shorten a man's life by up to 20 years.
The distortion of this study (by the way, the article got the name of the journal wrong. There is no Oxford Internal Journal of Epidemiology. The Oxford study appeared in 1997 in the International Journal of Epidemiology) has been refuted continuously by myself and countless other sources.
Even the authors of the study themselves, in 2001, went on record complaining how their work was being misused by the anti-gay industry.
But of course who cares about truth when God is on your side, huh One News Now.
And if this very bad piece of journalism isn't enough, One News Now compounds the error by their articles about a possible Obama victory in the presidential election:
Could an Obama loss spark race riots?
The article itself is a supreme hoot. Nothing like a bit of inferred racism to get the white folks scared enough to vote against Obama.
But it gets better. Yesterday, One News Now published an article, Political observer: Black voter turnout critical for Obama, that got some very interesting comments by its readers.
Allow me to give you a few choice sniglets:
"How does the black community relate to Barak Obama? He is half white. He was raised white. He speaks real English. He wears two-button suits, and diagonal stripped ties like an old white guy. He's rich. He is not the descendant of African slaves, but a part-Arabic African and a white woman. He has more in common with white people than blacks. African-Americans are grasping at straws with Barak Obama."
"Any votes that goes toward Barak Obama can only come from people that hates the Word of God
"If black voters will pay attention to their "thinking" leaders such as Thomas Sowell, none of them will think about voting for Obama because he is "black". Actually, people in Kenya say he is more Arabic than black and more "white" than black. I received an email from a missionary who has been to "his native village" in Kenya and states that Obama went there to request voodoo curses be hurled at McCain's campaign so that he can be elected. There is more to Barack Hussein Obama than meets the eye. Also most people when they convert from Christian to Muslim will take a Muslim name (ie Cassius Clay to Mohammed Ali) and the same is true of Muslims who convert to Christianity. So why did Barry Sotero change his name to Barack Hussein Obama?"
Gotta love those "Christians."
Monday, September 29, 2008
You're supposed to be steadfast and unmovable in TRUTH, not lies
Well one debate is down and Obama rocked the house. One thing about him, he believes in consistency. Throughout all of the hype, Obama has stayed focused on relaying how he is an excellent choice for president. Now the debate between Biden and Palin is going to be interesting. It's not about knock out punches or one-liners. I have faith that Biden can ignore all of the hype regarding the Lindsay Lohan of Alaska (sorry Lindsay) and continue to show why Obama would be an excellent choice for president.
And that's my two cents about the election for today.
I am not going to do it.
I will not link to Peter LaBarbera's Folsom Street nonsense nor will I talk about it any more than I have to.
Frankly, Peter gets me upset. Not only does he continue to unfairly demonize the lgbt community; that is a given.
But how is it that he, a raging homophobe, can have more visual access to naked men while I in the prime of my life (eat your heart out, Jean Brodie) can't get these mean queens in SC to show me at least a bare ankle.
It's just depressing.
But seriously . . .
An annoying characteristic of the anti-gay industry (and they have several) is their inability to admit wrongdoing even in the face of exposure.
God forbid that any of these so-called followers of Jesus remember the Christian tenet of admitting wrongdoing and seeking absolution. Instead, when confronted with their distortions and lies, they either ignore the exposure or try to "kill the messenger."
A perfect example is a series of incidents that I unfortunately overlooked due to the merriment of South Carolina Pride; that is until I read excellent posts from goodasyou.org and Pam's House Blend.
Allow me to recap as best I can:
Ex-gay Greg Quinlan made the claim that geneticist Dr. Francis Collins had gone on record saying that there is no genetic cause for homosexuality.
In fact Quinlan's exact words were:
" . . . the director of the Human Genome Project, Dr. Francis Collins, said this: homosexuality is not hardwired. There is no gay gene. We mapped the human genome. We now know there is no genetic cause for homosexuality."
But Dr. Collins said no such thing. In fact, Collins was not happy with how his work was being distorted by folks like Quinlan and "ex-gay" organizations like NARTH.
In May 2007 he told Ex-Gay Watch just how he felt.
Now when confronted with this, Quinlan did not backtrack an inch. He actually accused Ex-Gay Watch of making up Dr. Collins' response.
And even after Dr. Collins went on record again verifying what he told Ex-Gay Watch, Quinlan has made no effort to admit wrongdoing.
It gets better. Apparently last week, Southern Baptist Convention member Bob Stith wrote a column making the exact same claim about Dr. Collins that Quinlan did.
Those of us who know the anti-gay industry aren't suprised by Quinlan's and Stith's behavior. We have come to expect it. It's the classic anti-gay industry tactic of repeition, or repeating a negative point about lgbts regardless of the fact that said point has been continuously refuted.
There have been so many examples over the years Let me give you a few of my favorites:
In 1998, 14 anti-gay industry group used the research of pediatrican Dr. Robert Garafalo to make the claim that gay teens indulge in negative behaviors (i.e. drug abuse, suicide) because such things are indicative of the "gay lifestyle." When Dr. Garafalo complained that their citation omitted a crucial part of his findings (i.e. gay teens do these things when faced with abuse from a homophobic society), then Concerned Women for America (CWA) spokesman Robert Knight attacked Dr. Garafalo, calling him a thrall of political correctness.
Bear in mind that Knight has never had any background in field of pediatrics. (the entire story is told here - Boston doctor says ads distorted his work on gays, The Boston Globe, August 4, 1998)
A more up-to-date example would be how both Peter LaBarbera and former CWA spokesperson Matt Barber, this year, tried to infer that the recent MRSA infection scare amongst gay men in a certain area of the country was like the start of the AIDS virus in the early 1980s.
When confronted, both tried to play the game of exact verbiage. They falsely claimed that "gay activists" were accusing them of outright calling the MRSA infection the "new gay plague."
Though I have no proof of this, I like to think that the pitiful way Barber tried to cover up his distortions and the public (and very, very enjoyable from my standpoint) lashing he and LaBarbera received from the blogs led Barber to realize that he was in over his head as an anti-gay spokesperson and slink to the safe confines of Liberty University.
And then there is my favorite: I had an interesting exchange earlier this year with an anonymous poster that reached the level of high camp.
According to him (or her), the anti-gay industry are actually correct when they distort the work of physicians and researchers because these physicians and researchers have such a pro-gay bias that anything they print which can be construed as a negative fact about lgbts is correct because psychologically, they are telling the truth to themselves . . . or something like that.
There have been so many other incidents like the ones I have mentioned in which anti-gay industry members refuse to admit they are wrong, even to the point of lunacy.
And I have to wonder why won't members of the anti-gay industry admit when they make a mistake?
But then I tell myself, "mine is not to wonder why, mine is to nail those suckers for every lie they tell" (I know it doesn't rhyme, but I like it).
Maybe there will be time later to wonder about their mind sets but I could care less.
For now, I am all for exposure.
Well one debate is down and Obama rocked the house. One thing about him, he believes in consistency. Throughout all of the hype, Obama has stayed focused on relaying how he is an excellent choice for president. Now the debate between Biden and Palin is going to be interesting. It's not about knock out punches or one-liners. I have faith that Biden can ignore all of the hype regarding the Lindsay Lohan of Alaska (sorry Lindsay) and continue to show why Obama would be an excellent choice for president.
And that's my two cents about the election for today.
I am not going to do it.
I will not link to Peter LaBarbera's Folsom Street nonsense nor will I talk about it any more than I have to.
Frankly, Peter gets me upset. Not only does he continue to unfairly demonize the lgbt community; that is a given.
But how is it that he, a raging homophobe, can have more visual access to naked men while I in the prime of my life (eat your heart out, Jean Brodie) can't get these mean queens in SC to show me at least a bare ankle.
It's just depressing.
But seriously . . .
An annoying characteristic of the anti-gay industry (and they have several) is their inability to admit wrongdoing even in the face of exposure.
God forbid that any of these so-called followers of Jesus remember the Christian tenet of admitting wrongdoing and seeking absolution. Instead, when confronted with their distortions and lies, they either ignore the exposure or try to "kill the messenger."
A perfect example is a series of incidents that I unfortunately overlooked due to the merriment of South Carolina Pride; that is until I read excellent posts from goodasyou.org and Pam's House Blend.
Allow me to recap as best I can:
Ex-gay Greg Quinlan made the claim that geneticist Dr. Francis Collins had gone on record saying that there is no genetic cause for homosexuality.
In fact Quinlan's exact words were:
" . . . the director of the Human Genome Project, Dr. Francis Collins, said this: homosexuality is not hardwired. There is no gay gene. We mapped the human genome. We now know there is no genetic cause for homosexuality."
But Dr. Collins said no such thing. In fact, Collins was not happy with how his work was being distorted by folks like Quinlan and "ex-gay" organizations like NARTH.
In May 2007 he told Ex-Gay Watch just how he felt.
Now when confronted with this, Quinlan did not backtrack an inch. He actually accused Ex-Gay Watch of making up Dr. Collins' response.
And even after Dr. Collins went on record again verifying what he told Ex-Gay Watch, Quinlan has made no effort to admit wrongdoing.
It gets better. Apparently last week, Southern Baptist Convention member Bob Stith wrote a column making the exact same claim about Dr. Collins that Quinlan did.
Those of us who know the anti-gay industry aren't suprised by Quinlan's and Stith's behavior. We have come to expect it. It's the classic anti-gay industry tactic of repeition, or repeating a negative point about lgbts regardless of the fact that said point has been continuously refuted.
There have been so many examples over the years Let me give you a few of my favorites:
In 1998, 14 anti-gay industry group used the research of pediatrican Dr. Robert Garafalo to make the claim that gay teens indulge in negative behaviors (i.e. drug abuse, suicide) because such things are indicative of the "gay lifestyle." When Dr. Garafalo complained that their citation omitted a crucial part of his findings (i.e. gay teens do these things when faced with abuse from a homophobic society), then Concerned Women for America (CWA) spokesman Robert Knight attacked Dr. Garafalo, calling him a thrall of political correctness.
Bear in mind that Knight has never had any background in field of pediatrics. (the entire story is told here - Boston doctor says ads distorted his work on gays, The Boston Globe, August 4, 1998)
A more up-to-date example would be how both Peter LaBarbera and former CWA spokesperson Matt Barber, this year, tried to infer that the recent MRSA infection scare amongst gay men in a certain area of the country was like the start of the AIDS virus in the early 1980s.
When confronted, both tried to play the game of exact verbiage. They falsely claimed that "gay activists" were accusing them of outright calling the MRSA infection the "new gay plague."
Though I have no proof of this, I like to think that the pitiful way Barber tried to cover up his distortions and the public (and very, very enjoyable from my standpoint) lashing he and LaBarbera received from the blogs led Barber to realize that he was in over his head as an anti-gay spokesperson and slink to the safe confines of Liberty University.
And then there is my favorite: I had an interesting exchange earlier this year with an anonymous poster that reached the level of high camp.
According to him (or her), the anti-gay industry are actually correct when they distort the work of physicians and researchers because these physicians and researchers have such a pro-gay bias that anything they print which can be construed as a negative fact about lgbts is correct because psychologically, they are telling the truth to themselves . . . or something like that.
There have been so many other incidents like the ones I have mentioned in which anti-gay industry members refuse to admit they are wrong, even to the point of lunacy.
And I have to wonder why won't members of the anti-gay industry admit when they make a mistake?
But then I tell myself, "mine is not to wonder why, mine is to nail those suckers for every lie they tell" (I know it doesn't rhyme, but I like it).
Maybe there will be time later to wonder about their mind sets but I could care less.
For now, I am all for exposure.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Clay Aiken - Coming out and defining heroes
I did something naughty today. I called a good friend at work who is a dyed in wool conservative Republican and said the following:
"We are working fast. We got Lindsay Lohan and Clay Aiken yesterday."
Needless to say, he got the joke but didn't appreciate it. I guess I am going to have to buy him lunch next week.
I was referring to two incidents in which celebrities have come out.
Lindsay Lohan (the newest track on the Hollywood train to stardom and ruin - let's hope she doesn't go the way of Carole Landis and Lupe Velez) has admitted to dating female DJ Samantha Ronson.
While it is still up to speculation and may be considered as a stunt via Madonna and Sandra Bernhardt, I still say good for her.
Since talk has been going on about the two dating, I have stopped being exposed to pictures of Lohan with no underwear, Lohan passed out, Lohan drinking too much, etc.
If they are dating, maybe Ronson is good for her.
Now the Clay Aiken situation is a bit more definite.
Aiken has come out as a gay man.
And in other news, I will be on the next cover of People with the headline "Yep, I'm an African-American."
I think that a lot of jokes about Aiken's coming out stems from the fact that for a long time, he was a stereotype.
You know the one I speak of - the who is he kidding. Everyone knows he is gay so he should just come out stereotype.
But when you stop laughing, you have to admit to yourself that Aiken came out for the right reason.
He did not want to teach his child that lying about one's self is a good thing.
End of story as far as I am concerned.
But there will probably be discussion as to Aiken's celebrity status and his "responsiblity" to the community.
Before it gets into overdrive (and it can despite this wild presidential election), allow me throw out some thoughts.
I don't buy the celebrities should come out because they have a responsibility as role models argument. There are just too many problems with that.
Just because someone is in the public eye doesn't make them suitable spokespeople. And we shouldn't try to anoint them as such.
Remember the hell Lance Bass went through when he made comments about "straight acting." To some folks, he was someone who should have known better. Why? Because he sold millions of records?
To me, he was still a child just coming into something he did not fully understand. He made mistakes just like I did when I first came out (in my case, it was some very ugly comments about women in general, i.e. referring to them as a certain aquatic animal). The only difference is that his being in a former member of a boy band magnified his comments.
Then there is the tug of war. Let's say Ellen DeGeneres is invited to an HRC function. Before she even agrees to attend, another group who is angry at how HRC supported ENDA legislation that omitted the transgender community starts making public requests for her to boycott the function?
Now what's Ellen to do? Before she probably got her outfit picked out, she is in the middle of a hot mess.
Let's face it - our community objectifies being a celebrity too much. This is not to downplay celebrities or the visibility that gay celebrities provide us. This is to say that role models and heroes don't necessarily have to be actors, actresses, singers, etc.
They could be people next door who, while not fitting the physical image of homosexuality that is thrust upon us, are heroes in their own way. The young gay man who adopts three children, the lesbian who staffs the local pride center without wanting anything in return, the transgender person who, while quiet and unassuming, carries herself with a certain aura of grace and dignity that would make Audrey Hepburn jealous.
And let's not forget the nameless faces who show up at city council or state legislative meetings, who write letters to the editor, who kick in a little money to support a function, or who greet you with a simple hug.
I have been fortunate to be exposed to all of the above. And I consider them as my role models.
I did something naughty today. I called a good friend at work who is a dyed in wool conservative Republican and said the following:
"We are working fast. We got Lindsay Lohan and Clay Aiken yesterday."
Needless to say, he got the joke but didn't appreciate it. I guess I am going to have to buy him lunch next week.
I was referring to two incidents in which celebrities have come out.
Lindsay Lohan (the newest track on the Hollywood train to stardom and ruin - let's hope she doesn't go the way of Carole Landis and Lupe Velez) has admitted to dating female DJ Samantha Ronson.
While it is still up to speculation and may be considered as a stunt via Madonna and Sandra Bernhardt, I still say good for her.
Since talk has been going on about the two dating, I have stopped being exposed to pictures of Lohan with no underwear, Lohan passed out, Lohan drinking too much, etc.
If they are dating, maybe Ronson is good for her.
Now the Clay Aiken situation is a bit more definite.
Aiken has come out as a gay man.
And in other news, I will be on the next cover of People with the headline "Yep, I'm an African-American."
I think that a lot of jokes about Aiken's coming out stems from the fact that for a long time, he was a stereotype.
You know the one I speak of - the who is he kidding. Everyone knows he is gay so he should just come out stereotype.
But when you stop laughing, you have to admit to yourself that Aiken came out for the right reason.
He did not want to teach his child that lying about one's self is a good thing.
End of story as far as I am concerned.
But there will probably be discussion as to Aiken's celebrity status and his "responsiblity" to the community.
Before it gets into overdrive (and it can despite this wild presidential election), allow me throw out some thoughts.
I don't buy the celebrities should come out because they have a responsibility as role models argument. There are just too many problems with that.
Just because someone is in the public eye doesn't make them suitable spokespeople. And we shouldn't try to anoint them as such.
Remember the hell Lance Bass went through when he made comments about "straight acting." To some folks, he was someone who should have known better. Why? Because he sold millions of records?
To me, he was still a child just coming into something he did not fully understand. He made mistakes just like I did when I first came out (in my case, it was some very ugly comments about women in general, i.e. referring to them as a certain aquatic animal). The only difference is that his being in a former member of a boy band magnified his comments.
Then there is the tug of war. Let's say Ellen DeGeneres is invited to an HRC function. Before she even agrees to attend, another group who is angry at how HRC supported ENDA legislation that omitted the transgender community starts making public requests for her to boycott the function?
Now what's Ellen to do? Before she probably got her outfit picked out, she is in the middle of a hot mess.
Let's face it - our community objectifies being a celebrity too much. This is not to downplay celebrities or the visibility that gay celebrities provide us. This is to say that role models and heroes don't necessarily have to be actors, actresses, singers, etc.
They could be people next door who, while not fitting the physical image of homosexuality that is thrust upon us, are heroes in their own way. The young gay man who adopts three children, the lesbian who staffs the local pride center without wanting anything in return, the transgender person who, while quiet and unassuming, carries herself with a certain aura of grace and dignity that would make Audrey Hepburn jealous.
And let's not forget the nameless faces who show up at city council or state legislative meetings, who write letters to the editor, who kick in a little money to support a function, or who greet you with a simple hug.
I have been fortunate to be exposed to all of the above. And I consider them as my role models.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)