Thoughts from Obama vs. McCain II
I have never seen my mother so interested in an election. But it's starting to get scary. When Tom Brokaw wouldn't allow Obama to respond to a McCain attack, she screamed at Brokaw to let him finish.
She hasn't shown that much intensity since she stopped watching pro wrestling. I had to remind her that Tom Brokaw wasn't Ric Flair.
McCain should not tell jokes. Those were the flattest moments of the debate.
And you just know that I simply have to talk about THE MOMENT.
I really didn't catch the impact of McCain's "that one" line. Shows you how dense I can be. It wasn't until that five minutes later when it was posted as a clip on my favorite sites that I realized just how much impact the line will have.
And it did, particularly amongst my fellow African-Americans. There were times during the day in which I forgot exactly what McCain said due to hearing constant interpretations of from fellow black folks.
It all came down to the same principle: they were insulted by the inference. As one of my friends put it, "you just know McCain wanted to say "that little ni . . er over there."
Personally, I think McCain got caught up in the excitement and was trying to be witty. But these things do have a habit of taking on another life.
And I do remember cosmically hearing two sounds when McCain said "that one."
One was the sound of numerous black women snatching off their earrings.
The other: the last little bit of good will the Republicans had with the black community going down the drain.
But basically it was a good night for Obama. Which means things are going to get more nastier than they were before.
Heck, it's starting now:
MN radio host Baker goes 2 for 2 - boosts video of pastor calling Obama's mom 'trash'
McCain rally speaker refers to Obama's middle name
The upcoming election is the most critical election in the history of our nation. The very future of our nation’s foundation is at stake. Every person will be affected. If the liberals win, then our foundation will no longer be based on the traditional Judeo-Christian morality. It will gradually but assuredly be based on an ever shifting, ever moving foundation. If the liberals win, the damage can’t be stopped with elections two, four or forty years from now. America will forever be changed. We will keep seeing a gradual and growing hostility toward people of faith, especially Christians. The morals of our nation will continue to decline. Our children and grandchildren will pay the price. - American Family Association in a fundraising email sent to me
All I can say is keep your fingers crossed and your nose plugged locked in tight.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
David Parker's last stand (Supreme Court kicks him to the curb)
Word has come down that our favorite liar in Massachusetts, David Parker, played his last hand in his lawsuit against his son's school.
The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to look at his case. Last year, federal judge dismissed Parker’s lawsuit, saying that schools are "entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy."
Parker had sued his son's school, Joseph Estabrook Elementary in Massachusetts, after he was arrested in 2005 for not leaving campus. He claimed that school officials refused to give him assurances that his son would not be "taught" about homosexuality.
At least that is the spin Parker and members of the anti-gay industry have tried to turn the incident to.
And of course the claims are blatant lies.
Even though Parker lost at the highest level, his case won't die per se. It will continue to be incorrectly cited by the anti-gay industry as an example of parential rights sacrificed on "altar of the gay agenda."
As recent as today, Bishop Harry R. Jackson mentioned it in a Town Hall column:
The dangers of primary school “re-education” of children are illustrated by the true story of David Parker who was outraged when he opened up the book Who's in a Family? This book was given to his 5-year-old son in 2005 at the Joseph Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington, Mass. Parker deemed that both the message and the method of the book were highly inappropriate. The book depicted different kinds of families, including same-sex couples raising children.
Jackson's column was claiming that if Proposition 8, a dreary "marriage amendment" in California isn't passed, things that "happened" to Parker could be a common occurrence.
Of course Jackson is wrong on sooo many levels, but let's focus on the Parker story. In order to combat stories that are going to be coming out about it ad naseum, allow me to push a brief summary of truth and lies about the Parker controversy:
Distortion—David Parker objected to his child being exposed to homosexuality because it was an issue of sexuality and Joseph Estabrook Elementary refused to accommodate him
Truth—In a January 17, 2005 email to the school, Parker said: “There is a book included entitled, Who’s in a Family (with pictures) that include lesbian and homosexual couples with children—implicitly equating this family structure as a morally equal alternative to other family constructs. We stand firmly against this book or any other subject matter pertaining to homosexuality ever being indoctrinated to our child, discussed in school, or sent home. We don’t believe gay parents constitute a spiritually healthy family and should not be celebrated.”
Joseph Estabrook Elementary principal, Joni Jay, wrote Parker an email clearly saying homosexuality is not a part of the kindergarten curriculum. She also said she cannot control what students say to one another and that many children attending Joseph Estabrook Elementary live in same-sex households.
Point of fact: The entire controversy began because Parker’s son brought home a “diversity bookbag” with several items in it. Among them was a book showing certain types of families, including same-sex families. It was the only book in the packet that talked about anything of a homosexual nature.
Distortion—Parker was well within his rights because Massachusetts laws says parents must give permission to have their children discuss any issue involving human sexuality.
Truth—Parker was not well within his right because discussions of differing families, including gay-led households are not included in the parental notification policy. This is because it is not an issue about human sexuality. Principal Jay informed Parker of this on March 4, 2005. Jay said she confirmed this with the district assistant superintendent and the director of Health Education. She was answering an email in which Parker said that neither he nor his wife authorize any teacher or adult to “expose” his sons (Parker has two sons) to “any sexual orientation/homosexual material/same sex unions between parents.”
Point of fact: The night before Parker’s arrest, he addressed the Lexington School Committee during their public meeting. In his speech, he attempted to link gay-led households to sexual behavior:
“Children who are successfully indoctrinated that same-sex marriage is normal and correct will eventually understand that sexual intimacy is a part of this union. Let’s not be naive about the implied human sexuality aspect of same-sex unions. Let’s be honest with ourselves. When we accept same-sex unions, we accept its implied . . . sexual intimacy. These concepts are indeed inextricably linked.”
Distortion—David Parker was arrested because Joseph Estabrook Elementary did ot respect his rights as a parent.
Truth—David Parker was arrested for trespassing. Even though his initial questions were answered, Parker persisted and finally received another meeting with school officials. According to a press release issued by William J. Hurley, Interim Superintendent of Schools and Christopher Casey, Chief of Police in Lexington, Parker and his wife requested that the school, in the future, ensure that teachers automatically remove their children from discussions of same-sex households, even if the issue rises spontaneously. It was explained to Parker and his wife that the policy allowing students to opt out of discussions of human sexuality was not relevant here and the Parkers’ request was “not practical” because children could discuss “such matters among themselves at school.”
When Parker and his wife were told that they could appeal the response to the Commissioner of Education, Parker did not want to. It was then that the two decided not to leave the school. The Lexington Police were called. Parker’s wife went to the couple’s car but he stayed. Two plain-clothed detectives came at 5:20 p.m. and a police lieutenant came at 6 p.m. All asked Parker to leave but he refused.
Distortion—David Parker did not intentionally get arrested. According to his lawyer, Jeffrey Denner:
“He (Parker) was invited to come in, he came in, there was a dialogue going back and forth, there were faxes sent back and forth to the school committee. His intent was not to get arrested. His intent was to establish a dialogue to protect his own children and other children as well.”—Father faces trial over school’s ‘pro-gay’ book, WorldNetDaily, August 4, 2005
Truth—According to the press release submitted by Hurley and Casey, Parker said “If I’m not under arrest, then I’m not leaving.” The press release also said Parker began calling people on his cell phone and a small group of people began arriving with cameras. Parker was finally arrested at 6:24 p.m. The group with the camera was waiting behind the police station and photographed his arrival.
Mass Resistance (Massachusetts conservative group) claimed that Parker was using his cell phone in order to keep his wife up to date with the meeting while she sat in the couple’s car.
Point of fact: There are pictures of Parker being arrested and led away by police on the Mass Resistance web page. Now how could any of this have happened by chance? For that matter, there are pictures of Parker addressing the Lexington School Committee the night before his arrest. The fact that these pictures are on the web page do give an impression of premeditation by Parker and Mass Resistance.
Distortion—David Parker got into this fight solely because of his concern for his children and what they are being exposed to in school.
Truth—Since his arrest, Parker has been speaking against gay rights in other states. On June 13 and 14, he was the speaker in a six-town “Wake UP Maine” tour with Brian Camenker, the head of Mass Resistance. The purpose was to aid a Maine referendum against the recently passed bill outlawing discrimination against the gay community. A flyer was distributed showing Parker in handcuffs. The flyer also claimed that Parker “questioned the homosexual rights movement.”
The image of Parker in handcuffs had made its way around several web pages like some sort of bastardized picture of Che Gueverra. He also appeared in a commercial in another effort to overturn the Maine anti-discrimination bill.
And then don’t forget this interesting addendum:
In May 2006, Parker’s son was involved in a fi ght at school with a friend over seating in the school cafeteria. His son and the other student made peace with each other and continued to be friends. They even had a play date later that week. In addition, Parker was informed as to what happened.
However, less than a month later, the Mass Resistance sent out a press release claiming that Parker’s son was set upon by eight to 10 students who did not appreciate his fight against Joseph Estabrook Elementary. The press release generated considerable buzz with the anti-gay industry, as it was either run or referenced by many so-called “pro-family” web pages, including the Traditional Values Coalition and Concerned Women for America.
Joseph Estabrook Elementary School explained the true story in a press release. However, none of the so-called “pro-family” groups, including Mass Resistance and the Traditional Values Coalition, apologized for any of their claims about a conspiracy to hurt Parker’s son nor did they correct the error.
Parker should chalk this entire experience up as a lesson that all of us, no matter what age, can learn.
When you lie, you lose. And you deserve to lose.
Articles and web pages used for this post:
www.massresistance.org
www.lexingtoncares.org
www.davidparkerfund.org/
Arrested father had point to make, The Boston Globe, April 29, 2005
Wake UP Maine Tour announced, www.MaineToday.com, June 10, 2005
Massachusetts Men Speak Against Homosexual Rights, www.MaineToday.com,
June 14, 2004
Coalition for Marriage to host David Parker at Littlefi eld Baptist Church, www.
MaineToday.com, November 3, 2005
Father faces trial over school’s ‘pro-gay’ book, WorldNetDaily, August 4, 2005
Report: Christian Parent Arrested After Being Denied Say-Son in Son’s Education,
Agape Press, April 28, 2005
Dad Becomes Icon in Battle over Homosexual Agenda in Schools, Agape Press,
May 18, 2005
School dispute persists after plea deal is struck, The Boston Globe, October 27, 2005
Press release, Lexington Public Schools, May 2, 2005
David Parker’s Son Beaten Up on the Playground, Traditional Values Coalition,
June 15, 2006
New liberal strategy: Assault 7-year-olds, Kevin McCullough, June 16, 2006
Press release, Lexington Public Schools, June 16, 2006
Word has come down that our favorite liar in Massachusetts, David Parker, played his last hand in his lawsuit against his son's school.
The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to look at his case. Last year, federal judge dismissed Parker’s lawsuit, saying that schools are "entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy."
Parker had sued his son's school, Joseph Estabrook Elementary in Massachusetts, after he was arrested in 2005 for not leaving campus. He claimed that school officials refused to give him assurances that his son would not be "taught" about homosexuality.
At least that is the spin Parker and members of the anti-gay industry have tried to turn the incident to.
And of course the claims are blatant lies.
Even though Parker lost at the highest level, his case won't die per se. It will continue to be incorrectly cited by the anti-gay industry as an example of parential rights sacrificed on "altar of the gay agenda."
As recent as today, Bishop Harry R. Jackson mentioned it in a Town Hall column:
The dangers of primary school “re-education” of children are illustrated by the true story of David Parker who was outraged when he opened up the book Who's in a Family? This book was given to his 5-year-old son in 2005 at the Joseph Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington, Mass. Parker deemed that both the message and the method of the book were highly inappropriate. The book depicted different kinds of families, including same-sex couples raising children.
Jackson's column was claiming that if Proposition 8, a dreary "marriage amendment" in California isn't passed, things that "happened" to Parker could be a common occurrence.
Of course Jackson is wrong on sooo many levels, but let's focus on the Parker story. In order to combat stories that are going to be coming out about it ad naseum, allow me to push a brief summary of truth and lies about the Parker controversy:
Distortion—David Parker objected to his child being exposed to homosexuality because it was an issue of sexuality and Joseph Estabrook Elementary refused to accommodate him
Truth—In a January 17, 2005 email to the school, Parker said: “There is a book included entitled, Who’s in a Family (with pictures) that include lesbian and homosexual couples with children—implicitly equating this family structure as a morally equal alternative to other family constructs. We stand firmly against this book or any other subject matter pertaining to homosexuality ever being indoctrinated to our child, discussed in school, or sent home. We don’t believe gay parents constitute a spiritually healthy family and should not be celebrated.”
Joseph Estabrook Elementary principal, Joni Jay, wrote Parker an email clearly saying homosexuality is not a part of the kindergarten curriculum. She also said she cannot control what students say to one another and that many children attending Joseph Estabrook Elementary live in same-sex households.
Point of fact: The entire controversy began because Parker’s son brought home a “diversity bookbag” with several items in it. Among them was a book showing certain types of families, including same-sex families. It was the only book in the packet that talked about anything of a homosexual nature.
Distortion—Parker was well within his rights because Massachusetts laws says parents must give permission to have their children discuss any issue involving human sexuality.
Truth—Parker was not well within his right because discussions of differing families, including gay-led households are not included in the parental notification policy. This is because it is not an issue about human sexuality. Principal Jay informed Parker of this on March 4, 2005. Jay said she confirmed this with the district assistant superintendent and the director of Health Education. She was answering an email in which Parker said that neither he nor his wife authorize any teacher or adult to “expose” his sons (Parker has two sons) to “any sexual orientation/homosexual material/same sex unions between parents.”
Point of fact: The night before Parker’s arrest, he addressed the Lexington School Committee during their public meeting. In his speech, he attempted to link gay-led households to sexual behavior:
“Children who are successfully indoctrinated that same-sex marriage is normal and correct will eventually understand that sexual intimacy is a part of this union. Let’s not be naive about the implied human sexuality aspect of same-sex unions. Let’s be honest with ourselves. When we accept same-sex unions, we accept its implied . . . sexual intimacy. These concepts are indeed inextricably linked.”
Distortion—David Parker was arrested because Joseph Estabrook Elementary did ot respect his rights as a parent.
Truth—David Parker was arrested for trespassing. Even though his initial questions were answered, Parker persisted and finally received another meeting with school officials. According to a press release issued by William J. Hurley, Interim Superintendent of Schools and Christopher Casey, Chief of Police in Lexington, Parker and his wife requested that the school, in the future, ensure that teachers automatically remove their children from discussions of same-sex households, even if the issue rises spontaneously. It was explained to Parker and his wife that the policy allowing students to opt out of discussions of human sexuality was not relevant here and the Parkers’ request was “not practical” because children could discuss “such matters among themselves at school.”
When Parker and his wife were told that they could appeal the response to the Commissioner of Education, Parker did not want to. It was then that the two decided not to leave the school. The Lexington Police were called. Parker’s wife went to the couple’s car but he stayed. Two plain-clothed detectives came at 5:20 p.m. and a police lieutenant came at 6 p.m. All asked Parker to leave but he refused.
Distortion—David Parker did not intentionally get arrested. According to his lawyer, Jeffrey Denner:
“He (Parker) was invited to come in, he came in, there was a dialogue going back and forth, there were faxes sent back and forth to the school committee. His intent was not to get arrested. His intent was to establish a dialogue to protect his own children and other children as well.”—Father faces trial over school’s ‘pro-gay’ book, WorldNetDaily, August 4, 2005
Truth—According to the press release submitted by Hurley and Casey, Parker said “If I’m not under arrest, then I’m not leaving.” The press release also said Parker began calling people on his cell phone and a small group of people began arriving with cameras. Parker was finally arrested at 6:24 p.m. The group with the camera was waiting behind the police station and photographed his arrival.
Mass Resistance (Massachusetts conservative group) claimed that Parker was using his cell phone in order to keep his wife up to date with the meeting while she sat in the couple’s car.
Point of fact: There are pictures of Parker being arrested and led away by police on the Mass Resistance web page. Now how could any of this have happened by chance? For that matter, there are pictures of Parker addressing the Lexington School Committee the night before his arrest. The fact that these pictures are on the web page do give an impression of premeditation by Parker and Mass Resistance.
Distortion—David Parker got into this fight solely because of his concern for his children and what they are being exposed to in school.
Truth—Since his arrest, Parker has been speaking against gay rights in other states. On June 13 and 14, he was the speaker in a six-town “Wake UP Maine” tour with Brian Camenker, the head of Mass Resistance. The purpose was to aid a Maine referendum against the recently passed bill outlawing discrimination against the gay community. A flyer was distributed showing Parker in handcuffs. The flyer also claimed that Parker “questioned the homosexual rights movement.”
The image of Parker in handcuffs had made its way around several web pages like some sort of bastardized picture of Che Gueverra. He also appeared in a commercial in another effort to overturn the Maine anti-discrimination bill.
And then don’t forget this interesting addendum:
In May 2006, Parker’s son was involved in a fi ght at school with a friend over seating in the school cafeteria. His son and the other student made peace with each other and continued to be friends. They even had a play date later that week. In addition, Parker was informed as to what happened.
However, less than a month later, the Mass Resistance sent out a press release claiming that Parker’s son was set upon by eight to 10 students who did not appreciate his fight against Joseph Estabrook Elementary. The press release generated considerable buzz with the anti-gay industry, as it was either run or referenced by many so-called “pro-family” web pages, including the Traditional Values Coalition and Concerned Women for America.
Joseph Estabrook Elementary School explained the true story in a press release. However, none of the so-called “pro-family” groups, including Mass Resistance and the Traditional Values Coalition, apologized for any of their claims about a conspiracy to hurt Parker’s son nor did they correct the error.
Parker should chalk this entire experience up as a lesson that all of us, no matter what age, can learn.
When you lie, you lose. And you deserve to lose.
Articles and web pages used for this post:
www.massresistance.org
www.lexingtoncares.org
www.davidparkerfund.org/
Arrested father had point to make, The Boston Globe, April 29, 2005
Wake UP Maine Tour announced, www.MaineToday.com, June 10, 2005
Massachusetts Men Speak Against Homosexual Rights, www.MaineToday.com,
June 14, 2004
Coalition for Marriage to host David Parker at Littlefi eld Baptist Church, www.
MaineToday.com, November 3, 2005
Father faces trial over school’s ‘pro-gay’ book, WorldNetDaily, August 4, 2005
Report: Christian Parent Arrested After Being Denied Say-Son in Son’s Education,
Agape Press, April 28, 2005
Dad Becomes Icon in Battle over Homosexual Agenda in Schools, Agape Press,
May 18, 2005
School dispute persists after plea deal is struck, The Boston Globe, October 27, 2005
Press release, Lexington Public Schools, May 2, 2005
David Parker’s Son Beaten Up on the Playground, Traditional Values Coalition,
June 15, 2006
New liberal strategy: Assault 7-year-olds, Kevin McCullough, June 16, 2006
Press release, Lexington Public Schools, June 16, 2006
Monday, October 06, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Another researcher cries foul over anti-gay industry misuse of study
Last week, I talked about how the phony news site One News Now distorted a study to claim that the lgbt orientation in itself leads to depression and substance abuse.
I pointed out not only how the study was distorted but also the fact that One News Now cited researcher discredited researcher Paul Cameron.
Well today brings part two of the story, courtesy of my friends over at Box Turtle Bulletin:
A British researcher has denounced two North American anti-gay web sites for distorting his research. University College London professor Michael King, in a statement to Box Turtle Bulletin, clarified the findings of his research on depression and suicide among LGB people, and emphasized the importance that “all sectors of society welcome them as equal and valuable citizens.”
Professor King spoke out in response to an article that appeared last Wednesday in LifeSite, an unofficial Catholic web site, which claimed that the “homosexual lifestyle [is] strongly linked to depression [and] suicide.” The same article by Kathleen Gilbert appeared again Saturday on the American Family Association’s OneNewsNow.
. . . We asked Professor King for his reaction to the LifeSite/OneNewsNow article. This was his reply:
"LifeSite News and OneNewsNow have misinterpreted our review. Evidence from around the world identifies the main stressors leading to mental distress in gay and lesbian people as discrimination, prejudice, bullying in schools and colleges, and the consequent need for many LGB people to keep their homosexual identity secret, even from their families.
Our review did not examine links between mental disorder and homosexual “behaviour” or “lifestyle”. Our work reviewed studies of the mental health of lesbian, gay and bisexual people, and sadly, those studies showed that it is people (not behaviour) that are discriminated against, and not least by religious groups and organisations.
Discrimination on the grounds of sexuality is even more devastating than other forms of discrimination such as racism, as it reaches right into families and leaves no refuge for its victims.
We suggest in our review that the availability of alcohol and drugs at gay social venues may be a factor in the greater risk of drug and alcohol misuse in LGB people. Reducing this problem is something for which LGB people must take greater responsibility. However, the fact that discrimination still exists in our societies means that many are forced to use such venues to meet each other rather than through more common ways available to heterosexuals, such as at work, during the pursuit of hobbies and past-times, or at church.
There is now abundant evidence that homosexuality is not itself a mental disorder and that it is compatible with a healthy lifestyle. We shall only begin to see a reduction in mental distress and deliberate self harm in LGB people when all sectors of society welcome them as equal and valuable citizens."
Now we all know the modus of operation of the anti-gay industry. They are going to either ignore the rebuke or claim that King is biased and pro-gay.
Their tactics are beginning to sound like a broken record.
But one thing is clear and everyone had better take note of it - members of the lgbt community are getting highly savvy in pointing how just how the anti-gay industry distorts legitimate studies.
And sooner or later all of their tactics, every lie they told, every study they misused, every discredited study they used will come back to bite them in the ass.
Payback is a bitch and I hope to be around to enjoy every minute of it.
Hell, I hope to be right in the middle of it all, directing traffic.
Last week, I talked about how the phony news site One News Now distorted a study to claim that the lgbt orientation in itself leads to depression and substance abuse.
I pointed out not only how the study was distorted but also the fact that One News Now cited researcher discredited researcher Paul Cameron.
Well today brings part two of the story, courtesy of my friends over at Box Turtle Bulletin:
A British researcher has denounced two North American anti-gay web sites for distorting his research. University College London professor Michael King, in a statement to Box Turtle Bulletin, clarified the findings of his research on depression and suicide among LGB people, and emphasized the importance that “all sectors of society welcome them as equal and valuable citizens.”
Professor King spoke out in response to an article that appeared last Wednesday in LifeSite, an unofficial Catholic web site, which claimed that the “homosexual lifestyle [is] strongly linked to depression [and] suicide.” The same article by Kathleen Gilbert appeared again Saturday on the American Family Association’s OneNewsNow.
. . . We asked Professor King for his reaction to the LifeSite/OneNewsNow article. This was his reply:
"LifeSite News and OneNewsNow have misinterpreted our review. Evidence from around the world identifies the main stressors leading to mental distress in gay and lesbian people as discrimination, prejudice, bullying in schools and colleges, and the consequent need for many LGB people to keep their homosexual identity secret, even from their families.
Our review did not examine links between mental disorder and homosexual “behaviour” or “lifestyle”. Our work reviewed studies of the mental health of lesbian, gay and bisexual people, and sadly, those studies showed that it is people (not behaviour) that are discriminated against, and not least by religious groups and organisations.
Discrimination on the grounds of sexuality is even more devastating than other forms of discrimination such as racism, as it reaches right into families and leaves no refuge for its victims.
We suggest in our review that the availability of alcohol and drugs at gay social venues may be a factor in the greater risk of drug and alcohol misuse in LGB people. Reducing this problem is something for which LGB people must take greater responsibility. However, the fact that discrimination still exists in our societies means that many are forced to use such venues to meet each other rather than through more common ways available to heterosexuals, such as at work, during the pursuit of hobbies and past-times, or at church.
There is now abundant evidence that homosexuality is not itself a mental disorder and that it is compatible with a healthy lifestyle. We shall only begin to see a reduction in mental distress and deliberate self harm in LGB people when all sectors of society welcome them as equal and valuable citizens."
Now we all know the modus of operation of the anti-gay industry. They are going to either ignore the rebuke or claim that King is biased and pro-gay.
Their tactics are beginning to sound like a broken record.
But one thing is clear and everyone had better take note of it - members of the lgbt community are getting highly savvy in pointing how just how the anti-gay industry distorts legitimate studies.
And sooner or later all of their tactics, every lie they told, every study they misused, every discredited study they used will come back to bite them in the ass.
Payback is a bitch and I hope to be around to enjoy every minute of it.
Hell, I hope to be right in the middle of it all, directing traffic.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
I got dem Folsom Street Fair blues
There's a crazy guy in Illinois
Bum bum bum bum bum
Who's really anti-gay
Bum bum bum bum bum
And he won't rest
Bum bum bum bum bum
Until everyone else
Bum bum bum bum bum
Is the same way
Ugh. I was not born the sing the blues.
The WWE has Wrestlemania.
Malls have the Christmas holidays
And our friend Peter has this period; the time where he attends California's Folsom Street Fair, takes pictures of gays engaged in frivilous activity (while ignoring the heterosexuals doing the same thing), and tries to paint the entire community with a broad nasty brush.
This year, he and others, including Linda (I can't tell you why but I am a pro-family expert) will be holding a press conference designed to bring attention to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome and U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
Of course the press conference will conveniently ignore the fact that Republican Arnold Swarzeneggar is the governor of California and as such, should have attention devoted to him. After all, San Francisco is a state in California.
Frankly, Peter leaves me weary. I am three-days away from one of the most successful prides in South Carolina where families (including children), lgbts of all racial and ethnic backgrounds, and their allies came together for good clean fun.
As such, I really don't have the mental patience to deal with Peter's grandstanding.
All I can say is I hope no one is fooled by it. What Peter and company are doing is no different than a racist distorting FBI crime statistics to make the case that African-Americans are more criminal than whites.
From my conversations with Peter, I gauge that he knows fully well what he is doing. And he knows fully well that sometimes people on his side of the argument (himself included) skirts rules of accuracy for the sake of shock.
So why does Peter do it? Why does he knowingly attempt to paint the lgbt community with a broad brush of lies? Why does he concentrate on things that puts the lgbt community in a bad light with the full knowledge that what he is doing is unfair?
Because Peter is a fanatic. Some of you know this already, but up until this moment, I shirked away from extreme namecalling.
But the fact of the matter is that Peter is so convinced that homosexuality is a sin that he is willing to bend the rules to prove this point. He seems to think that "robbing Peter to pay Paul" is a Christian virtue.
Hmmm. I think America should fear his attitude more than that of a gay man in a leather harness.
There's a crazy guy in Illinois
Bum bum bum bum bum
Who's really anti-gay
Bum bum bum bum bum
And he won't rest
Bum bum bum bum bum
Until everyone else
Bum bum bum bum bum
Is the same way
Ugh. I was not born the sing the blues.
The WWE has Wrestlemania.
Malls have the Christmas holidays
And our friend Peter has this period; the time where he attends California's Folsom Street Fair, takes pictures of gays engaged in frivilous activity (while ignoring the heterosexuals doing the same thing), and tries to paint the entire community with a broad nasty brush.
This year, he and others, including Linda (I can't tell you why but I am a pro-family expert) will be holding a press conference designed to bring attention to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome and U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
Of course the press conference will conveniently ignore the fact that Republican Arnold Swarzeneggar is the governor of California and as such, should have attention devoted to him. After all, San Francisco is a state in California.
Frankly, Peter leaves me weary. I am three-days away from one of the most successful prides in South Carolina where families (including children), lgbts of all racial and ethnic backgrounds, and their allies came together for good clean fun.
As such, I really don't have the mental patience to deal with Peter's grandstanding.
All I can say is I hope no one is fooled by it. What Peter and company are doing is no different than a racist distorting FBI crime statistics to make the case that African-Americans are more criminal than whites.
From my conversations with Peter, I gauge that he knows fully well what he is doing. And he knows fully well that sometimes people on his side of the argument (himself included) skirts rules of accuracy for the sake of shock.
So why does Peter do it? Why does he knowingly attempt to paint the lgbt community with a broad brush of lies? Why does he concentrate on things that puts the lgbt community in a bad light with the full knowledge that what he is doing is unfair?
Because Peter is a fanatic. Some of you know this already, but up until this moment, I shirked away from extreme namecalling.
But the fact of the matter is that Peter is so convinced that homosexuality is a sin that he is willing to bend the rules to prove this point. He seems to think that "robbing Peter to pay Paul" is a Christian virtue.
Hmmm. I think America should fear his attitude more than that of a gay man in a leather harness.
Monday, September 22, 2008
SC Pride 2008 - a Monster successI know, I know . . . McCain's chief of staff is allegedly gay. And this is going to cause a mad blogsphere rush of speculations, accusations, etc.
And you can get the dish on any blog, so allow me to indulge a bit about something that I feel is equally important.
My state celebrated its 19th gay pride and it was awesome. It was largest, most diverse, most enthused crowd of lgbts, our families, our allies, and our children that I have ever seen.
You see, this is the what gay pride is all about; not some subcultural event that our friend Peter will attend in order to demonize the entire community, nor some spooky "other" that other members of the anti-gay industry try to portray us as.
Whether some folks like it or not, we are America. And we are God's children, created exactly as we are supposed to be. Other pictures can be seen here under SC Pride 2008 and Pride 2008. A special no-prize to anyone who can spot me in one of the pictures below.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
One News Now distorts another study AND cites Paul Cameron
SC Gay Pride is over and it was a huge success. But more on that later.
As I sit here, an item from One News Now hit me:
A new study in the United Kingdom has revealed that homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population, reports Health24.com.
After analyzing 25 earlier studies on sexual orientation and mental health, researchers, in a study published in the medical journal BMC Psychiatry, also found that the risk of suicide jumped over 200% if an individual had engaged in a homosexual lifestyle.
Warning signs went off in my head when I read this due to One News Now's penchant for distorting news items (which has been chronicled on many occasions on this site).
Warning sign 1: One News Now did not give the name of the study.
I found the study here. And the first paragraph says the following:
Homosexual and bisexual men and women may face higher risks of depression, substance abuse and suicidal behaviour than heterosexuals do, a new study suggests. The reason for this may lie in discrimination and rejection often associated with being homosexual or bisexual.
Warning sign 2: One News Now acknowledged what the study was saying about discrimination and reject and then tried to dismiss it:
While the Health 24 article suggested that homosexuals may be pushed to substance abuse and suicide because of anti-homosexual cultural and family pressures, empirical tests have shown that there is no difference in homosexual health risk depending on the level of tolerance in a particular environment. Homosexuals in the United States and Denmark - the latter of which is acknowledged to be highly tolerant of homosexuality - both die on average in their early 50's, or in their 40's if AIDS is the cause of death. The average age for all residents in either country ranges from the mid-to-upper-70s.
The first problem with this is the fact that One News Now claims that Denmark is "highly tolerant" of homosexuality without giving actual proof of the assertion. This is only to create a straw man argument that homophobia has nothing to do with gays engaging in negative behaviors.
But even if One News Now's assertion regarding Denmark is correct, the study talks about this factor too:
This study could not examine the reasons for the higher-than-expected rate of mental disorders and substance abuse. However, (Michael) King told Reuters Health, it is likely that lifelong stress is involved.
Even in relatively liberal societies, he said, gay, lesbian and bisexual people face both overt and subtle discrimination. They may also have to deal with social exclusion and rejection by their own families.
Warning sign 3: One News Now cites the work of discredited researcher Paul Cameron:
These findings strongly support the results of similar studies conducted in the United States, which have unveiled the severe physical and psychological health risks associated with homosexual behavior. Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron of the Family Research Institute revealed in 2007 that research shows that the lifespan of a homosexual is on average 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual. As a health threat, even smoking pales in comparison, as studies show smoking can shorten one's life by only 1 to 7 years on average.
No, sorry. One News Now is telling a boldfaced lie. The study in question was actually conducted in the early 1990s. In addition, the study is indicative of why Cameron has been discredited, censured, and mocked by so many legitimate physicians, researchers, and other folks (this blogger included. )
Let's go into more detail regarding Cameron's study:
What he did was count obituaries in various gay community publications and claimed to be able to use them to calculate the average life expectancy for homosexuals.
The conclusion – that homosexual men and women have a shorter life span than heterosexual men and women – provides a textbook example of the perils of using data from a convenience sample to generalize to an entire population.
Most city newspapers include a section containing death notices for community residents. These notices – which can carry a small fee for printing – typically list the name, age, address, and survivors of the deceased, along with information about funeral or memorial services. Funeral directors often assist the loved ones of the deceased in submitting such notices.
Gay community newspapers do not have sections of death notices. When the AIDS epidemic began to claim the lives of so many gay and bisexual men in the 1980s, however, many gay newspapers began to print obituaries. Except in the case of prominent community figures, these obituaries are typically written by (or based on information from) the loved ones of the deceased.
Assuming that the deceased person wasn't famous, an obituary appears in a gay community newspaper only if (1) a loved one or friend notifies the newspaper about the death (and, in many cases, writes the obituary) and (2) the editor decides to print the obituary.
Consequently, many gay men and lesbians who die never have an obituary in a gay community publication. Here are just a few examples of who is left out of gay newspapers' obituaries.
gay men and lesbians who were not involved in the gay community
gay men and lesbians who were in the closet about their sexual orientation
gay men and lesbians whose loved ones or family didn't want their homosexuality to be known
gay men and lesbians whose loved ones or family simply didn't think of sending an obituary to a gay community newspaper
gay men and lesbians whose loved ones did not write an obituary for some other reason (e.g., they were too grief stricken)
gay men and lesbians who died without leaving anyone to write an obituary for a gay publication (e.g., those whose loved ones and relatives died before them).
An accurate estimate of the life span of gay men and lesbians would have to count such people. By restricting their analysis to obituaries in gay newspapers, however, the Cameron group systematically excluded them from the sample.
In later years, Cameron tacked on more data but the general reasonings as to why his study has been discredited remain unchanged.
Frankly, I am surprised that One News Now would have the nerve to cite Cameron. Maybe the phony news service thought that no one would be paying attention.
For more details about Cameron's lies, go here or here.
Or if you don't feel so inclined, allow me to give you a partial timeline of the man that One News Now feels is an expert on gay issues. This is taken from the timeline of my Anti-Gay Lies and Liars blog:
1982 - He invented a story about a child being mutilated in the bathroom by a gay man in Nebraska. When the police investigated and found the story to be false, he admitted to making it up.
1983 - He was kicked out the American Psychological Association after an investigation that he distorted the work of six researchers to prove negative theories about gay men.
1984 - A. Nicholas Groth, director of the Sex Offender Program at the Connecticut Department of Corrections, complained to the Nebraska Board of Examiners of Psychologists about Paul Cameron’s usage of his work to make the claim that gays molest children at a high rate.
1985 - The Midwest Sociological Society censures Paul Cameron. Also, the American Sociological Association and the Society for the Study of Social Problems both pass resolutions against him.
What does it say about One News Now as a supposed Christian news service to cite a discredited researcher?
What does it say about One News Now as a supposed Christian news service to use a study against gays while at the same time discarding the part of the study that does not fit their stereotype of gays?
The sad thing is that what this phony news service did most likely contributes to more gays feeling isolated and abused which will most likely lead to more negative behaviors.
And when that happens, there will be studies to say so. And when this happens, One News Now will be there to distort the studies.
I think we are getting in a rut here.
SC Gay Pride is over and it was a huge success. But more on that later.
As I sit here, an item from One News Now hit me:
A new study in the United Kingdom has revealed that homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population, reports Health24.com.
After analyzing 25 earlier studies on sexual orientation and mental health, researchers, in a study published in the medical journal BMC Psychiatry, also found that the risk of suicide jumped over 200% if an individual had engaged in a homosexual lifestyle.
Warning signs went off in my head when I read this due to One News Now's penchant for distorting news items (which has been chronicled on many occasions on this site).
Warning sign 1: One News Now did not give the name of the study.
I found the study here. And the first paragraph says the following:
Homosexual and bisexual men and women may face higher risks of depression, substance abuse and suicidal behaviour than heterosexuals do, a new study suggests. The reason for this may lie in discrimination and rejection often associated with being homosexual or bisexual.
Warning sign 2: One News Now acknowledged what the study was saying about discrimination and reject and then tried to dismiss it:
While the Health 24 article suggested that homosexuals may be pushed to substance abuse and suicide because of anti-homosexual cultural and family pressures, empirical tests have shown that there is no difference in homosexual health risk depending on the level of tolerance in a particular environment. Homosexuals in the United States and Denmark - the latter of which is acknowledged to be highly tolerant of homosexuality - both die on average in their early 50's, or in their 40's if AIDS is the cause of death. The average age for all residents in either country ranges from the mid-to-upper-70s.
The first problem with this is the fact that One News Now claims that Denmark is "highly tolerant" of homosexuality without giving actual proof of the assertion. This is only to create a straw man argument that homophobia has nothing to do with gays engaging in negative behaviors.
But even if One News Now's assertion regarding Denmark is correct, the study talks about this factor too:
This study could not examine the reasons for the higher-than-expected rate of mental disorders and substance abuse. However, (Michael) King told Reuters Health, it is likely that lifelong stress is involved.
Even in relatively liberal societies, he said, gay, lesbian and bisexual people face both overt and subtle discrimination. They may also have to deal with social exclusion and rejection by their own families.
Warning sign 3: One News Now cites the work of discredited researcher Paul Cameron:
These findings strongly support the results of similar studies conducted in the United States, which have unveiled the severe physical and psychological health risks associated with homosexual behavior. Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron of the Family Research Institute revealed in 2007 that research shows that the lifespan of a homosexual is on average 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual. As a health threat, even smoking pales in comparison, as studies show smoking can shorten one's life by only 1 to 7 years on average.
No, sorry. One News Now is telling a boldfaced lie. The study in question was actually conducted in the early 1990s. In addition, the study is indicative of why Cameron has been discredited, censured, and mocked by so many legitimate physicians, researchers, and other folks (this blogger included. )
Let's go into more detail regarding Cameron's study:
What he did was count obituaries in various gay community publications and claimed to be able to use them to calculate the average life expectancy for homosexuals.
The conclusion – that homosexual men and women have a shorter life span than heterosexual men and women – provides a textbook example of the perils of using data from a convenience sample to generalize to an entire population.
Most city newspapers include a section containing death notices for community residents. These notices – which can carry a small fee for printing – typically list the name, age, address, and survivors of the deceased, along with information about funeral or memorial services. Funeral directors often assist the loved ones of the deceased in submitting such notices.
Gay community newspapers do not have sections of death notices. When the AIDS epidemic began to claim the lives of so many gay and bisexual men in the 1980s, however, many gay newspapers began to print obituaries. Except in the case of prominent community figures, these obituaries are typically written by (or based on information from) the loved ones of the deceased.
Assuming that the deceased person wasn't famous, an obituary appears in a gay community newspaper only if (1) a loved one or friend notifies the newspaper about the death (and, in many cases, writes the obituary) and (2) the editor decides to print the obituary.
Consequently, many gay men and lesbians who die never have an obituary in a gay community publication. Here are just a few examples of who is left out of gay newspapers' obituaries.
gay men and lesbians who were not involved in the gay community
gay men and lesbians who were in the closet about their sexual orientation
gay men and lesbians whose loved ones or family didn't want their homosexuality to be known
gay men and lesbians whose loved ones or family simply didn't think of sending an obituary to a gay community newspaper
gay men and lesbians whose loved ones did not write an obituary for some other reason (e.g., they were too grief stricken)
gay men and lesbians who died without leaving anyone to write an obituary for a gay publication (e.g., those whose loved ones and relatives died before them).
An accurate estimate of the life span of gay men and lesbians would have to count such people. By restricting their analysis to obituaries in gay newspapers, however, the Cameron group systematically excluded them from the sample.
In later years, Cameron tacked on more data but the general reasonings as to why his study has been discredited remain unchanged.
Frankly, I am surprised that One News Now would have the nerve to cite Cameron. Maybe the phony news service thought that no one would be paying attention.
For more details about Cameron's lies, go here or here.
Or if you don't feel so inclined, allow me to give you a partial timeline of the man that One News Now feels is an expert on gay issues. This is taken from the timeline of my Anti-Gay Lies and Liars blog:
1982 - He invented a story about a child being mutilated in the bathroom by a gay man in Nebraska. When the police investigated and found the story to be false, he admitted to making it up.
1983 - He was kicked out the American Psychological Association after an investigation that he distorted the work of six researchers to prove negative theories about gay men.
1984 - A. Nicholas Groth, director of the Sex Offender Program at the Connecticut Department of Corrections, complained to the Nebraska Board of Examiners of Psychologists about Paul Cameron’s usage of his work to make the claim that gays molest children at a high rate.
1985 - The Midwest Sociological Society censures Paul Cameron. Also, the American Sociological Association and the Society for the Study of Social Problems both pass resolutions against him.
What does it say about One News Now as a supposed Christian news service to cite a discredited researcher?
What does it say about One News Now as a supposed Christian news service to use a study against gays while at the same time discarding the part of the study that does not fit their stereotype of gays?
The sad thing is that what this phony news service did most likely contributes to more gays feeling isolated and abused which will most likely lead to more negative behaviors.
And when that happens, there will be studies to say so. And when this happens, One News Now will be there to distort the studies.
I think we are getting in a rut here.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Peter LaBarbera tries to regain relevancy through lies
I think our friend Peter LaBarbera from Americans for Truth (in name only) is scrambling for attention.
Fresh from the disappointment of Hurricane Gustav killing his attempts to take pictures of "naked gay men" during Southern Decadence, Peter has been mute for a while. That is except for pathetic attempts to make Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin the new Christian martyr.
And now low and behold comes the Ray Boltz situation.
Boltz, a gospel singer who has come out as a gay man, seems to have gotten LaBarbera's undivided attention:
Ray Boltz Buys the Lie, Says God Made Him Homosexual
An excerpt reads as follows:
(Self-styled “queer” activists will say that Boltz was living a lie, but his four children do not owe their existence to a “gay” lifestyle.) I read the entire Blade story, but all you really need to know is in the final paragraph:
“This is what it really comes down to,” [Boltz] says. “If this is the way God made me , then this is the way I’m going to live. It’s not like God made me this way and he’ll send me to hell if I am who he created me to be … I really feel closer to God because I no longer hate myself.”
Wow, talk about presumption! This talented man is lost and he needs our prayers. Boltz may “feel” closer to God, but if you believe the Scriptures, he’s farther than ever from Him. We understand that the radical “gay” movement exalts its collective “feelings” over the Bible’s clear teaching — and certainly they are not alone in that regard — but each of us must choose between the truth and lies every day, and homosexual behavior is egregiously sinful, according to God’s Word. (See www.robgagnon.net if you are tempted to rationalize away the Bible’s clear condemnation of homosexual practice.) You just can’t sugarcoat that verdict, although these days even many Christians try.
Peter seems to go out of his way to bring up "success stories" of gays who have "changed" as if that negates Boltz's life story.
The fact of the matter is they don't. But that's not what attracted me to Peter's screed.
The subject of this blog has to do with how the anti-gay industry distorts studies and science to make some sort of case that homosexuality is a "dangerous lifestyle."
And Peter's piece perfectly illustrates my point. Particularly this part:
Would society ever hold up the men and women who tried to overcome addictions but then failed and returned to their destructive habit as the norm and role models for others? (Yes, homosexual practice is a destructive habit, as attested by the drastically shortened lifespans and high incidence of disease among men who practice same-sex sin.)
No Peter.
Now the links that Peter uses to make this case comes from earlier posts on his blog.
The link about "high incidence of disease" comes from a post where former Concerned Women for America spokesman Matt Barber castigated former National Gay and Lesbian Task Force head Matt Foreman because Foreman called HIV/AIDS a "gay disease" in a speech at the time. Barber infers that Foreman was admitting that homosexuality is a "deadly lifestyle."
In actuality, Foreman was challenging the gay community to take the initiative to prevent HIV/AIDS in our community.
Much like NAACP head Julian Bond wanted the black community to do when he called HIV/AIDS a "black disease."
Later in the post, Barber says the following:
To the consternation of “gay” activist flat-earthers and homosexual AIDS holocaust deniers everywhere, one such study - conducted by pro-”gay” researchers in Canada - was published in the International Journal of Epidemiology (IJE) in 1997.
While the medical consensus is that smoking knocks from two to 10 years off an individual’s life expectancy, the IJE study found that homosexual conduct shortens the lifespan of “gays” by an astounding “8 to 20 years” - more than twice that of smoking.
“[U]nder even the most liberal assumptions,” concluded the study, “gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871. … [L]ife expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men.”
That is only half the story.
In 2001, those same researchers went on record complaining that folks like Barber was distorting their work.
And Barber knows this because he says a few paragraphs later:
Not surprisingly, that same homosexual lobby and its codependent enablers in the mainstream media moved quickly to sweep the IJE study under the rug. Under tremendous pressure, the researchers who conducted the study even jumped into the political damage control fray issuing a statement which read, “[W]e do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group.”
Matt Barber is a liar. There was never any "pressure" on these researchers.
And please bear in mind that Barber never went into detail as to what the pressure was. He tries to dimiss the letter as "political spin.
The letter is here. Read it and determine if it sounds like spin.
The second link Peter uses to try in order to refute Boltz's declaration of his homosexuality is one having to do with the controversy regarding Bush's pick for Surgeon General, James Holsinger.
You will remember that the Holsinger nomination failed because of intense scrutiny regarding his personal opinions about homosexuality and a paper he wrote about it. Holsinger disavowed the paper to the intense consternation of the anti-gay industry, LaBarbera in general.
In attacking Holsinger's decision to disavow the paper, Peter said:
So desperate are pro-”gay” advocates to force their Bible-rejecting myth on the culture that they downplay even serious health risks that result from embracing behaviors that a loving God proscribes. The result is that children in schools across the country are NOT being taught that there are special dangers, including HIV/AIDS, associated with homosexual behaviors. (See Dr. John Diggs’ paper, “The Health Risks of Gay Sex,” for more information.)
I talk about Diggs' paper in my book and have mentioned it several times in this blog. But the truth always stands repeating. This is the caliber of work that Peter finds credible regarding lgbts.
For those who have not read my book, let me give you an excerpt:
Twice, John R. Diggs includes the study done by Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg in their book, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women, as indicative of the entire gay population. In one passage, he even refers to it as “a far ranging study of homosexual men . . .” But Bell and Weinberg never said that their findings were indicative of all gay men. They actually said “. . . given the variety of circumstances which discourage homosexuals from participating in research studies, it is unlikely that any investigator willever be in a position to say that this or that is true of a given percentage of all homosexuals.”
Diggs cites a Canadian study twice in order to claim that gays have a shorter lifespan than heterosexuals. But his citation of the study is a mischaracterization. In 2001, the six original researchers (Robert S. Hogg, Stefan A. Strathdee, Kevin J.P. Craib, Michael V. O’Shaughnessy, Julion Montaner, and Martin T. Schechter) who conducted that study have gone on record saying that religious conservatives (like Diggs) was distorting their work. - That's right. Just like Barber, Diggs is distorting the Canadian study.
In another section entitled Physical Health, Diggs claims that gays are victims of “gay bowel syndrome.” The term is an obsolete medical term. exist and even the CDC does not use it. In fact, if one was to look at the endnotes of Diggs’ study, he would find that two of the sources he quoted concerning “gay bowel syndrome” were from articles in published in 1976 and 1983, which is consistent with the years that the term existed. One last source was a letter to the editor printed in 1994 but Diggs does not make it clear as to whatwere the circumstances surrounding it.
Diggs generalizes convenience sample studies as indicative of the gay population at large. Diggs takes studies done in foreign countries and claims that they are indicative of the gay population at large.
Diggs claims that there are five distinctions between heterosexual and homosexual populations including levels of promiscuity, physical health, mental health, lifespan, and monogamy. However, he spends very little time comparing the two dynamics. He uses all of his time castigating gay populations.
Diggs uses an out of date book, The Gay Report (published in 1979) to claim that gays are engaging in deviant sexual practices. Only once does he attempt to tie the alleged deviant practices of gays in 1979 to present day; and to do so, he cites two events that took place regarding bondage workshops. However, there is a strong indication that heterosexuals took part in these events as well as gays. Diggs ignores this dynamic.
Nothing that I am saying is new to Peter. He knows that he is using bad sources because I as well as others have pointed it out to him.
But he continues to ignore what we say as if that will make his distortions true.
I think in the case of his attack on Ray Boltz, he has taken a page from the McCain campaign: repeat a lie even after the truth has been discovered.
Sorry Peter but it's not working for them. What in the world makes you think it will work for you?
I think our friend Peter LaBarbera from Americans for Truth (in name only) is scrambling for attention.
Fresh from the disappointment of Hurricane Gustav killing his attempts to take pictures of "naked gay men" during Southern Decadence, Peter has been mute for a while. That is except for pathetic attempts to make Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin the new Christian martyr.
And now low and behold comes the Ray Boltz situation.
Boltz, a gospel singer who has come out as a gay man, seems to have gotten LaBarbera's undivided attention:
Ray Boltz Buys the Lie, Says God Made Him Homosexual
An excerpt reads as follows:
(Self-styled “queer” activists will say that Boltz was living a lie, but his four children do not owe their existence to a “gay” lifestyle.) I read the entire Blade story, but all you really need to know is in the final paragraph:
“This is what it really comes down to,” [Boltz] says. “If this is the way God made me , then this is the way I’m going to live. It’s not like God made me this way and he’ll send me to hell if I am who he created me to be … I really feel closer to God because I no longer hate myself.”
Wow, talk about presumption! This talented man is lost and he needs our prayers. Boltz may “feel” closer to God, but if you believe the Scriptures, he’s farther than ever from Him. We understand that the radical “gay” movement exalts its collective “feelings” over the Bible’s clear teaching — and certainly they are not alone in that regard — but each of us must choose between the truth and lies every day, and homosexual behavior is egregiously sinful, according to God’s Word. (See www.robgagnon.net if you are tempted to rationalize away the Bible’s clear condemnation of homosexual practice.) You just can’t sugarcoat that verdict, although these days even many Christians try.
Peter seems to go out of his way to bring up "success stories" of gays who have "changed" as if that negates Boltz's life story.
The fact of the matter is they don't. But that's not what attracted me to Peter's screed.
The subject of this blog has to do with how the anti-gay industry distorts studies and science to make some sort of case that homosexuality is a "dangerous lifestyle."
And Peter's piece perfectly illustrates my point. Particularly this part:
Would society ever hold up the men and women who tried to overcome addictions but then failed and returned to their destructive habit as the norm and role models for others? (Yes, homosexual practice is a destructive habit, as attested by the drastically shortened lifespans and high incidence of disease among men who practice same-sex sin.)
No Peter.
Now the links that Peter uses to make this case comes from earlier posts on his blog.
The link about "high incidence of disease" comes from a post where former Concerned Women for America spokesman Matt Barber castigated former National Gay and Lesbian Task Force head Matt Foreman because Foreman called HIV/AIDS a "gay disease" in a speech at the time. Barber infers that Foreman was admitting that homosexuality is a "deadly lifestyle."
In actuality, Foreman was challenging the gay community to take the initiative to prevent HIV/AIDS in our community.
Much like NAACP head Julian Bond wanted the black community to do when he called HIV/AIDS a "black disease."
Later in the post, Barber says the following:
To the consternation of “gay” activist flat-earthers and homosexual AIDS holocaust deniers everywhere, one such study - conducted by pro-”gay” researchers in Canada - was published in the International Journal of Epidemiology (IJE) in 1997.
While the medical consensus is that smoking knocks from two to 10 years off an individual’s life expectancy, the IJE study found that homosexual conduct shortens the lifespan of “gays” by an astounding “8 to 20 years” - more than twice that of smoking.
“[U]nder even the most liberal assumptions,” concluded the study, “gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871. … [L]ife expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men.”
That is only half the story.
In 2001, those same researchers went on record complaining that folks like Barber was distorting their work.
And Barber knows this because he says a few paragraphs later:
Not surprisingly, that same homosexual lobby and its codependent enablers in the mainstream media moved quickly to sweep the IJE study under the rug. Under tremendous pressure, the researchers who conducted the study even jumped into the political damage control fray issuing a statement which read, “[W]e do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group.”
Matt Barber is a liar. There was never any "pressure" on these researchers.
And please bear in mind that Barber never went into detail as to what the pressure was. He tries to dimiss the letter as "political spin.
The letter is here. Read it and determine if it sounds like spin.
The second link Peter uses to try in order to refute Boltz's declaration of his homosexuality is one having to do with the controversy regarding Bush's pick for Surgeon General, James Holsinger.
You will remember that the Holsinger nomination failed because of intense scrutiny regarding his personal opinions about homosexuality and a paper he wrote about it. Holsinger disavowed the paper to the intense consternation of the anti-gay industry, LaBarbera in general.
In attacking Holsinger's decision to disavow the paper, Peter said:
So desperate are pro-”gay” advocates to force their Bible-rejecting myth on the culture that they downplay even serious health risks that result from embracing behaviors that a loving God proscribes. The result is that children in schools across the country are NOT being taught that there are special dangers, including HIV/AIDS, associated with homosexual behaviors. (See Dr. John Diggs’ paper, “The Health Risks of Gay Sex,” for more information.)
I talk about Diggs' paper in my book and have mentioned it several times in this blog. But the truth always stands repeating. This is the caliber of work that Peter finds credible regarding lgbts.
For those who have not read my book, let me give you an excerpt:
Twice, John R. Diggs includes the study done by Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg in their book, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women, as indicative of the entire gay population. In one passage, he even refers to it as “a far ranging study of homosexual men . . .” But Bell and Weinberg never said that their findings were indicative of all gay men. They actually said “. . . given the variety of circumstances which discourage homosexuals from participating in research studies, it is unlikely that any investigator willever be in a position to say that this or that is true of a given percentage of all homosexuals.”
Diggs cites a Canadian study twice in order to claim that gays have a shorter lifespan than heterosexuals. But his citation of the study is a mischaracterization. In 2001, the six original researchers (Robert S. Hogg, Stefan A. Strathdee, Kevin J.P. Craib, Michael V. O’Shaughnessy, Julion Montaner, and Martin T. Schechter) who conducted that study have gone on record saying that religious conservatives (like Diggs) was distorting their work. - That's right. Just like Barber, Diggs is distorting the Canadian study.
In another section entitled Physical Health, Diggs claims that gays are victims of “gay bowel syndrome.” The term is an obsolete medical term. exist and even the CDC does not use it. In fact, if one was to look at the endnotes of Diggs’ study, he would find that two of the sources he quoted concerning “gay bowel syndrome” were from articles in published in 1976 and 1983, which is consistent with the years that the term existed. One last source was a letter to the editor printed in 1994 but Diggs does not make it clear as to whatwere the circumstances surrounding it.
Diggs generalizes convenience sample studies as indicative of the gay population at large. Diggs takes studies done in foreign countries and claims that they are indicative of the gay population at large.
Diggs claims that there are five distinctions between heterosexual and homosexual populations including levels of promiscuity, physical health, mental health, lifespan, and monogamy. However, he spends very little time comparing the two dynamics. He uses all of his time castigating gay populations.
Diggs uses an out of date book, The Gay Report (published in 1979) to claim that gays are engaging in deviant sexual practices. Only once does he attempt to tie the alleged deviant practices of gays in 1979 to present day; and to do so, he cites two events that took place regarding bondage workshops. However, there is a strong indication that heterosexuals took part in these events as well as gays. Diggs ignores this dynamic.
Nothing that I am saying is new to Peter. He knows that he is using bad sources because I as well as others have pointed it out to him.
But he continues to ignore what we say as if that will make his distortions true.
I think in the case of his attack on Ray Boltz, he has taken a page from the McCain campaign: repeat a lie even after the truth has been discovered.
Sorry Peter but it's not working for them. What in the world makes you think it will work for you?
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Tuesday fall out and other gay stuffToday's post is dedicated to the memory of Alvin S. Glenn. He was a 29-year Army veteran who served in the Korean War and gave his life in 2000 to protect the citizens of South Carolina.
He was my father and a MAN in every sense of the word.
We have gotten all sorts of positive comments from yesterday's press conference. I also noticed a very interesting exchange on SC Politics Today including the following comment:
Being a sodomite is nothing to be gay or proud of. It's an immoral, disgusting chosen lifestyle. They should be classified with all the other sexual perverts and pedophiles and run out of SC.
Of course I had to jump on the responder in a dignified fashion. One cannot take off one's shoes and earrings in every situation.
The lady's comments don't bother me. For one thing, we have supporters who let her know her comments were stupid (for those who watch Designing Women, feel free to channel Dixie Carter's'pronunciation of the word "stupid").
For another, I like the fact that we are getting the state to talk about OUR issues. Debate is the first step in finding solutions.
And on another front . . .
I haven't messed with One News Now in a while (and when I do, it's only because the phony news service makes it so easy), but something caught my eye.
It seems that a popular gospel singer, Ray Boltz , has come out of the closet. Personally, even though I have never heard of him, I support the guy. He is being honest.
Please take a tip from him anonymous black male gospel singers who shall remain nameless.
Anyway, One News Now is all up in arms about this. Particularly offensive to me is the comment by columnist Matt Friedeman:
Boltz' addiction apparently is men . . .
Excuse me? Boltz came out of the closet. That does not denote an addiction.
It is here that we can see the semantics of the anti-gay industry. It is not enough for them to disagree with homosexuality on a religious basis. With their words (including discredited and misrepresented studies), they try to cast the image that being an lgbt is an addiction.
That's why you hear them talk about the supposed "gay agenda" or the "gay lifestyle."
It reminds me of "welfare queen" or "reverse discrimination."
Not a bad idea on a cynically political basis, but very petty when it comes from supposed Christian people.
As usual, Jeremy from Goodasyou.org breaks down the situation better than I ever could:
So let's see here: Molesting a kid, uncontrollably wacking it to porn, boozing it up in excess, hitting a crack pipe, burning down a house, having a crippling addition to intercourse, or -- loving someone of the same sex in the way that others love someone of the opposite sex?! These are all birds of the same feather that deserve similar form of address? Wow, we don't know who should be more offended by that: Gay people who know it's far more apt to compare their orientations to their heterosexual peers, or credible counselors and therapists whose authentic work is far too important to be hampered by biased fallacy!
But hey, why choose? There's enough offense in the "pro-family" community's self-created, self-propagated, highly unscientific views to offend multiple groups of people.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
SC Pride press conference goes well
The press conference was over hours ago and it went well. The media was all over the place. We had television news, the State (area newspaper) and the AP there asking questions, filming, and taking notes.
I was going as a supporter and spectator but the chairman of Black Pride called and asked me to read a statement because he couldn't attend.
Talk about a minor shock. I think I did well though. While our president (Ryan Wilson - an absolutely incredible young man who will do a lot of positive things for our community) read his statement, I stood in the background giving off my "I'm security so don't fuck with me" look.
My statement was brief so I was able to go through it without peeing in my pants.
But wouldn't you know it. I was shopping for shoes (yeah, yeah, its a gay thing to do) and missed the newscasts. Oh well. My aunt called and told my mother everything.
At this point, my mother doesn't freak out over any of my community activities. Of course she worries that some dumb ass may take it upon himself to try and be physically homophobic. She has mentioned it slightly on more than one occasion.
But she knows I will be safe. My mother is one of those old fashioned black women from the country, where they have more churches than houses. I know she prays for my well being.
It's good to have a mother like that.
So as you can tell, I am psyched for Pride this year. It's going to be fun.
UPDATE - I was emailed a clip of the press conference. Everyone did well. I especially liked what Harriet Hancock (the founder of SC Pride and PFLAG in Columbia) said.
The press conference was over hours ago and it went well. The media was all over the place. We had television news, the State (area newspaper) and the AP there asking questions, filming, and taking notes.
I was going as a supporter and spectator but the chairman of Black Pride called and asked me to read a statement because he couldn't attend.
Talk about a minor shock. I think I did well though. While our president (Ryan Wilson - an absolutely incredible young man who will do a lot of positive things for our community) read his statement, I stood in the background giving off my "I'm security so don't fuck with me" look.
My statement was brief so I was able to go through it without peeing in my pants.
But wouldn't you know it. I was shopping for shoes (yeah, yeah, its a gay thing to do) and missed the newscasts. Oh well. My aunt called and told my mother everything.
At this point, my mother doesn't freak out over any of my community activities. Of course she worries that some dumb ass may take it upon himself to try and be physically homophobic. She has mentioned it slightly on more than one occasion.
But she knows I will be safe. My mother is one of those old fashioned black women from the country, where they have more churches than houses. I know she prays for my well being.
It's good to have a mother like that.
So as you can tell, I am psyched for Pride this year. It's going to be fun.
UPDATE - I was emailed a clip of the press conference. Everyone did well. I especially liked what Harriet Hancock (the founder of SC Pride and PFLAG in Columbia) said.
Monday, September 15, 2008
SC Pride is here - all Mondays should start like this!!!!!!
When I woke up this morning, I was ready to go through another dreary Monday with my spirit down and my dander up. Then this lovely bit from Daily Kos caught my attention.
Can you say "rope-a-dope, bitch!"
Don't count Obama out.
I was fired up and have been all day. And just in time too because tomorrow is a special day.
SC Pride (which I have been a proud board member of for five years) will be holding a press conference on the steps of our state capitol. We will be presenting Governor Mark Sanford with an "award."
Pick your mouths up from the floor. It ain't exactly a good award. We will be presenting Sanford an "award" for his dubious efforts to kill an ad campaign designed to bring more lgbt tourists to the state:
Of course, knowing our governor's penchant for baby pigs, I was going to include that maybe we should give him a few baby sows to go with his award.
But after last week, I don't even want to think about pigs.
Now if tomorrow's press conference is interesting, expect a full report here online.
For more information regarding SC Pride, including RuPaul coming to our festival on Saturday, go to www.scpride.org
Thursday, September 11, 2008
One News Now, allies manipulate numbers on referendum count
Apparently the recent decision to stop a referendum against a Montgomery County law that would protect the transgender community have members of the anti-gay industry a bit loopy.
Check out this headline. It's insulting and funny at the same time:
Sexual Deviants Given Green Light in Maryland
Court decides 900,000 petition signers can't challenge the controversial "gender identity" law allowing any man to use the women's shower by just claiming he felt like a woman at the time.
900,000 petition signers?
The blog in question claims to have received the story from the Washington Post. However, if you look at the Post article (feel free to do so by this link) you will see that there is no mention of any number of petition signers.
So where did the blog get the 900,000 number? Why from my favorite phony news page - One News Now:
Baltimore residents have lost their battle against an ordinance protecting transgendered people.
Under the controversial "gender identity" law, a man would be allowed to walk into a women's restroom or shower room claiming he believes himself to be a woman, essentially opening the door for rape or sexual molestation. In July a lower Montgomery County court agreed more than 900,000 petition signers had the right to see it on the ballot to choose whether to overturn it -- but it was appealed.
So much for truth.
Now the reasoning behind the decision has not been published as of yet, but to get a good idea of the situation, I looked at teachthefacts.org, a web page created by those fighting the referendum.
This is what was said before the decision was rendered. As you can say, the number of petition signers are far below 900,000:
The Citizens for a Responsible Whatever were told by the county Board of Elections that they needed 25,001 signatures to get a referendum on the November ballot to relegalize discrimination on the basis of gender identity in Montgomery County. They got that many and a few extra, submitted them on time, and did their victory dance. Opponents of the referendum went through the signatures, found a lot of problems, and sued the Board for not correctly verifying petition signatures. In the process of arguing back and forth in court, it came out that the Board of Elections had given the CRW the wrong number, and now they didn't have enough. The Board had counted only active voters, ignoring the considerable number of voters who are registered but have not voted in a general election recently. Today, even the Board's attorney, Kevin Karpinski, said, "The sponsors didn't get enough signatures." But -- the Circuit Court judge said that the complaint had been filed too late, and so it didn't matter that there weren't enough signatures.
So the court might need to require the Board to enforce the law, if they rule that because the CRW failed to produce 27,615 valid signatures -- the actual target number based on all registered voters -- the referendum should not be on the ballot.
This fudging of the numbers by One News Now doesn't surprise me. Since when has this phony news site ever let accuracy get in the way of a good "those evil people are out to hurt us decent Christians" spin.
Apparently the recent decision to stop a referendum against a Montgomery County law that would protect the transgender community have members of the anti-gay industry a bit loopy.
Check out this headline. It's insulting and funny at the same time:
Sexual Deviants Given Green Light in Maryland
Court decides 900,000 petition signers can't challenge the controversial "gender identity" law allowing any man to use the women's shower by just claiming he felt like a woman at the time.
900,000 petition signers?
The blog in question claims to have received the story from the Washington Post. However, if you look at the Post article (feel free to do so by this link) you will see that there is no mention of any number of petition signers.
So where did the blog get the 900,000 number? Why from my favorite phony news page - One News Now:
Baltimore residents have lost their battle against an ordinance protecting transgendered people.
Under the controversial "gender identity" law, a man would be allowed to walk into a women's restroom or shower room claiming he believes himself to be a woman, essentially opening the door for rape or sexual molestation. In July a lower Montgomery County court agreed more than 900,000 petition signers had the right to see it on the ballot to choose whether to overturn it -- but it was appealed.
So much for truth.
Now the reasoning behind the decision has not been published as of yet, but to get a good idea of the situation, I looked at teachthefacts.org, a web page created by those fighting the referendum.
This is what was said before the decision was rendered. As you can say, the number of petition signers are far below 900,000:
The Citizens for a Responsible Whatever were told by the county Board of Elections that they needed 25,001 signatures to get a referendum on the November ballot to relegalize discrimination on the basis of gender identity in Montgomery County. They got that many and a few extra, submitted them on time, and did their victory dance. Opponents of the referendum went through the signatures, found a lot of problems, and sued the Board for not correctly verifying petition signatures. In the process of arguing back and forth in court, it came out that the Board of Elections had given the CRW the wrong number, and now they didn't have enough. The Board had counted only active voters, ignoring the considerable number of voters who are registered but have not voted in a general election recently. Today, even the Board's attorney, Kevin Karpinski, said, "The sponsors didn't get enough signatures." But -- the Circuit Court judge said that the complaint had been filed too late, and so it didn't matter that there weren't enough signatures.
So the court might need to require the Board to enforce the law, if they rule that because the CRW failed to produce 27,615 valid signatures -- the actual target number based on all registered voters -- the referendum should not be on the ballot.
This fudging of the numbers by One News Now doesn't surprise me. Since when has this phony news site ever let accuracy get in the way of a good "those evil people are out to hurt us decent Christians" spin.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Oink, oink - Give me a break
Put your nose up in the air and sniff.
That smell you are taking in is the 2008 election. I was wondering when the mess was going to start.
Who knew it would be pig mess?
It's a real shame that the campaign has come to this. I used to think that John McCain was a man with integrity, but yet during this campaign, I have seen him forsake all forms of decency including resorting to the tactics used against him in South Carolina in 2000.
On September 11, 2008, we will be commemorating the worse attack on American soil in history. On September 17, 2008, I will be commemorating the worse day of my life - when my father was murdered during an attempted prison break.
Therefore, I absolutely refuse to comment further about pigs and lipstick. I will just cite a line from the Boondocks:
This here is some bullshit!!!!
I would rather spotlight a good piece of news out of Florida. A judge overturned the state's ban on gay adoption:
A Florida judge shook up that state’s 31-year-old ban on gay adoption, ruling it unconstitutional. But the ruling doesn’t necessarily mean that the state, one of two remaining that forbid gay adoption, will overturn the statewide ban.
Monroe Circuit Court Judge David J. Audlin Jr.'s decision will allow an openly gay Key West foster parent to adopt the teenage boy he has raised since 2001, according to the Guardian.co.uk.
Florida’s ban on gay adoption has been declared unconstitutional twice before in 1991, but an upcoming gay adoption hearing in Miami, could further challenge the law.
Audlin stated that the adoption was in the 13-year-old, special needs boy’s “best interest.” He also said the law that bars gays and lesbians from adopting children is contrary to the state constitution because it singles out and punishes a group of people.
Put your nose up in the air and sniff.
That smell you are taking in is the 2008 election. I was wondering when the mess was going to start.
Who knew it would be pig mess?
It's a real shame that the campaign has come to this. I used to think that John McCain was a man with integrity, but yet during this campaign, I have seen him forsake all forms of decency including resorting to the tactics used against him in South Carolina in 2000.
On September 11, 2008, we will be commemorating the worse attack on American soil in history. On September 17, 2008, I will be commemorating the worse day of my life - when my father was murdered during an attempted prison break.
Therefore, I absolutely refuse to comment further about pigs and lipstick. I will just cite a line from the Boondocks:
This here is some bullshit!!!!
I would rather spotlight a good piece of news out of Florida. A judge overturned the state's ban on gay adoption:
A Florida judge shook up that state’s 31-year-old ban on gay adoption, ruling it unconstitutional. But the ruling doesn’t necessarily mean that the state, one of two remaining that forbid gay adoption, will overturn the statewide ban.
Monroe Circuit Court Judge David J. Audlin Jr.'s decision will allow an openly gay Key West foster parent to adopt the teenage boy he has raised since 2001, according to the Guardian.co.uk.
Florida’s ban on gay adoption has been declared unconstitutional twice before in 1991, but an upcoming gay adoption hearing in Miami, could further challenge the law.
Audlin stated that the adoption was in the 13-year-old, special needs boy’s “best interest.” He also said the law that bars gays and lesbians from adopting children is contrary to the state constitution because it singles out and punishes a group of people.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Victory in Maryland - Anti-gay referendum is stopped!!!!
Everyone is either losing their minds over the election or getting into the act of losing their minds.
Our friend Peter LaBarbera (who never really had that much of a mind to begin with) has been posting sporadically and those posts are attacking the Huffington Post. Apparently Peter is trying to spin a "they are after Sarah Palin because they want to bash Christians" line.
I think he is pissed cause the Hurricane Gustav stopped Southern Decadence from taking place.
Well in the midst of the prognosticating and nailbiting over polls, a bit of good news just took place in Maryland:
Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) applauded a Maryland Appeal Court ruling today which dismissed attempts to roll back landmark protections for transgender residents in Montgomery County, Maryland, by way of a November ballot initiative. The court's unanimous ruling ends a campaign by anti-transgender activists to strip the county's civil rights law of protections based on gender identity. The law was amended in November 2007 and, because of today's ruling, will now be enacted to include the transgender community.
"The anti-transgender campaign in Montgomery County was based on bigotry and fueled by misinformation," said Jody M. Huckaby, executive director of PFLAG. "It was being forced onto the ballot with no regard for state law or the fundamental rights of our transgender neighbors and allies. Today's ruling sends a clear message that opponents of equality are not above the law, and our transgender loved ones are not below it. Montgomery County's civil rights law offers important protections to transgender and gender-variant people. We join our allies in Maryland and the transgender community in celebrating its long over-due enactment."
I blogged about this referendum drive before. You will remember that those pushing for it was able to get enough signatures by falsely claiming that the law will allow men to go into women's lockerrooms and restrooms. The proponents said that all the men had to do was say "I feel like a woman."
This was the same group that organized a phony moral panic by claiming that a man dressed as a woman had entered an local lockerroom gym. Of course no one saw the incident but it caused a lot of controversy.
In this crazy world, it's nice to see good triumph over bullshit.
Everyone is either losing their minds over the election or getting into the act of losing their minds.
Our friend Peter LaBarbera (who never really had that much of a mind to begin with) has been posting sporadically and those posts are attacking the Huffington Post. Apparently Peter is trying to spin a "they are after Sarah Palin because they want to bash Christians" line.
I think he is pissed cause the Hurricane Gustav stopped Southern Decadence from taking place.
Well in the midst of the prognosticating and nailbiting over polls, a bit of good news just took place in Maryland:
Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) applauded a Maryland Appeal Court ruling today which dismissed attempts to roll back landmark protections for transgender residents in Montgomery County, Maryland, by way of a November ballot initiative. The court's unanimous ruling ends a campaign by anti-transgender activists to strip the county's civil rights law of protections based on gender identity. The law was amended in November 2007 and, because of today's ruling, will now be enacted to include the transgender community.
"The anti-transgender campaign in Montgomery County was based on bigotry and fueled by misinformation," said Jody M. Huckaby, executive director of PFLAG. "It was being forced onto the ballot with no regard for state law or the fundamental rights of our transgender neighbors and allies. Today's ruling sends a clear message that opponents of equality are not above the law, and our transgender loved ones are not below it. Montgomery County's civil rights law offers important protections to transgender and gender-variant people. We join our allies in Maryland and the transgender community in celebrating its long over-due enactment."
I blogged about this referendum drive before. You will remember that those pushing for it was able to get enough signatures by falsely claiming that the law will allow men to go into women's lockerrooms and restrooms. The proponents said that all the men had to do was say "I feel like a woman."
This was the same group that organized a phony moral panic by claiming that a man dressed as a woman had entered an local lockerroom gym. Of course no one saw the incident but it caused a lot of controversy.
In this crazy world, it's nice to see good triumph over bullshit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)