The NYT has a surprising editorial in support of abstinence-only sex education that seems to be defending Obama’s decision to allow such programs be funded by federal funds so long as they are based on “science”.
The Obama administration, with Congressional acquiescence, has wisely eliminated funding for abstinence-only programs that meet the old ideological criteria and is supporting a range of programs to prevent teenage pregnancy, provided they are based on rigorous science. This study fits the new rubric, not the old.
Forget the fact that it is just one study of a very small group, what I don’t get is how the results in anyway illustrate how abstinence only education leads to fewer pregnancies and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
The study, published in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, a journal of the American Medical Association, was led by a husband-wife team at the University of Pennsylvania. They randomly assigned 662 African-American students in grades six and seven to one of four different programs — an eight-hour abstinence-only program stressing the benefits of delaying intercourse; an eight-hour safer-sex program stressing condom use; a comprehensive intervention that covered both abstinence and condoms; and a control group that offered health information unrelated to sexual behavior.
The only program that successfully delayed the start of sexual activity was the abstinence-only instruction. By the end of two years, only a third of the abstinence-only group had engaged in sexual intercourse compared with almost half of the control group.
Really? The abstinence only program was the one that delayed sexual activity? shocking. But seriously, I’m not so sure I even believe that. But if I did, what significance does it have? I haven’t read the entire study, but I don’t see any claim that the program was better at preventing the transmission of STD’s or unwanted pregnancies. I imagine that the third of “abstinence” students who did have sex were much more unprepared for and less informed about how to best have sex safely. What is the incidence of STD’s and pregnancies of that group compared to the group that was taught proper sex education?
This is apples and oranges people. The purpose of sex education is not to reduce sexual activity (unless you’re a christian fundie, that is) it is to reduce unwanted pregnancy and disease. I dare the NYT or the Obama administration to show me some “science” that proves that these abstinence programs do that.
UPDATE: I forgot that I had predicted that this would happen in a post I wrote last August. This is pure propaganda. It is laying the groundwork for the Obama administration to fund abstinence only education based on a “scientific” rather than religious basis. That’s a bunch of bullshit.
Gay people are pretty used to being spit on by most of the world. We have struggled through silence, and pain, and sickness only to be made the scapegoat for society’s ills at worst, or the butt of a joke at best. In between we carve out lives as best we can as second class citizens. Yet as Anne Frank so poignantly demonstrated in her diary, it is next to impossible to extinguish the human spirit. The gay community has always relied on humor to help us cope with the inequities with which we live. We even created our own genre of comedy: Camp.
And what better material do we have to work with than the crazy folk from Westboro Baptist Church? You know, the people whose bible actually says “God hates fags”?
I guess God hates Twitter too, because they showed up to protest at their SF headquarters. Upon arrival, however, they ran into some people who had some signs of their own. My favorite one is “God hates kittens”. Well, it is Dog spelled backwards after all…
h/t rubin 110
And maybe if those Christians would get their heads out of the gutter and stop obsessing about our sex lives so much, they might take a second to reflect on how their fashion sense is an offense to God…
Meanwhile, back at the Twitter protest, one protester challenges the Westboro people to think outside the box..
So instead of writing a post about the DADT clusterfuck, I thought I’d take a little breather. Besides, DADT isn’t going anywhere, believe me. Even if Obama has sooo totally been thinking about us since Christmas, his Internet storm troopers are hard at work shaming gay people into silence. We’ll have plenty of time to discuss Obama’s cowardice and lies on that subject in posts to come.
Hometown sleazebag and primary spoiler John Edwards demonstrates how the American body politic is a nothing but a rotten festering corpse:
According to Young, Hunter called him in May 2007 to say she was pregnant. Young says that when he informed Edwards, the senator told him to “handle it,” to which he replied: “I can’t handle this one.” Young writes that Edward unloaded on Hunter as a “crazy slut,” said they had an “open relationship,” and put his paternity chances at “one in three.” Young says that Edwards asked him for help persuading Hunter to have an abortion…
…Young says that Edwards would confide in him about how he thought about leaving “crazy” Elizabeth, but how she plays better with American voters than he. “I cringed when he said this,” Young writes.
Well Andrew Young can kiss my ass. If he had told the rest of us what a slimebag Edwards is when it really mattered, this world would be a very different place right now. And I daresay that Barack Obama would still be the junior Senator from Illinois.
As far as John Edwards goes, those of us in NC have known what a prick he is for a long time now. But there’s a special hell especially for assholes like this that live one way and then have the audacity to say things like this:
Fuck you John Edwards. FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCKYOUFUCKYOUFUCKYOUFUCKYOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Politico recently printed a rather silly piece of propaganda on behalf of President Obama detailing what a wonderful Commander in Chief he has become, and how very hard he has worked to earn the respect of the soldiers. He even had a super secret military expert teach him how to salute:
Under the guidance of an expert, aides say Obama privately repeated his salute over and over again until he got it down. In a testament to how sensitive the White House is about the commander in chief practicing this basic military gesture, aides would not say who taught Obama how to salute. But every time he uses it, Obama is trying to convey an insider’s respect for the armed forces without saying a word.
To me, this is a prime example of why Obama is an awful COC. It clearly demonstrates the importance of the superficial over any meaningful policy that would make the lives of our soldiers better. You know, like getting the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Or improving the care of our soldiers after they’ve spent one too many tours in those hellholes. Or ending DADT. I don’t care how well you salute, it isn’t going to make up for any of that.
The article goes on to paint a picture of a Commander who is in touch with the rank and file members in a way his predecessors were not. Typical propaganda fluff. Nothing I wouldn’t expect from Obama’s media lapdogs. Then I read the following jaw dropping quote from Astroturfer in Chief, David Axelrod:
“What benefits him most is that he’s always had a very strong connection with younger people, with people in their 20s and 30s and that’s mostly what you see at military bases,” said Axelrod, who downplayed Obama’s potential appeal as an African American commander in chief to rank-and-file members of one of the most integrated institutions in the country.
Yeah, downplayed it so much that it made it into the article itself. But really, one of the “most integrated institutions”? You’ve got to be fucking kidding me right? I mean this is an institution that regularly engages in witch hunts to expel gay and lesbian service members. And Obama has gone out of his way to make sure that those expulsions continue. He has it within his power to stop this bigoted madness with the stroke of a pen, but has so far refused to do so, despite repeated promises to the LGBT community. The author implies that Obama has refused to act on his promise because he doesn’t want to make the same mistakes Clinton did. As I’ve said before, this is a lie. 1993 was over 15 years ago. Public opinion (even within the ranks of the military) overwhelmingly supports the notion that gays and lesbians should be able to serve openly. The simple fact is that Barack Obama is a bigoted homophobe who doesn’t believe that gay rights are civil rights. He has repeatedly demonstrated this with his actions, even though he lies through his teeth to the gay community about the subject to keep them voting and contributing against their own interests.
Richard Socarides provides an emotional response to this kind of nonsense in an editorial in the WSJ. The whole thing is worth a read, but the following excerpt shows just how much this COC has let down those gay and lesbian soldiers who expect him to look out for them and show them the respect they deserve beyond how well he fucking salutes.
What is especially troubling, however, is Mr. Obama’s oversensitivity to a dwindling minority of bigots on this issue. Hundreds of military careers have been destroyed on his watch for no valid reason. The country has been deprived of the talents of these service members and has wasted millions of dollars on their training.
Many wonder when their president will show the same kind of concern for the constitutional rights of gay American service members as he has for enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay. Many wonder what the administration’s willingness to treat gay Americans as second-class citizens says to Uganda and other countries that are considering laws that would subject gays to imprisonment and even death.
Socarides is spot on with his analysis that Obama’s bigotry sends a powerful message to those who prefer genocide to mere discrimination. But I think it’s time to admit the obvious. Obama is a homophobe. He doesn’t like gay people. He doesn’t believe we should have civil rights. He thinks that hatemongers like Rick Warren and the other evangelicals who guided Uganda’s government toward genocide have a valid point of view. The sooner the gay community realizes this and abandons all hope of gaining any ground under this administration the better. Because if we’ve learned anything from Obama it is that without concrete actions, hope is just another word.
Even though I don’t really know much about Martha Coakley and Scott Brown, I can’t get rid of this nagging sensation of deja vu while watching their election drama unfold. I get the feeling that I’ve been here before. What it is, of course, is the never-ending drone of the Obama for America campaign. The same campaign that made me lose faith in not only the Democratic party, but politics in general in this country, is STILL UP AND RUNNING.
I saw it on Friday as Coakley’s campaign changed moods abruptly signaling that the shock troops of David Axelrod had been mobilized. It was the same campaign that went into panic mode during the primaries whenever Obama was about to lose big, like in Pennsylvania, or on Super Dooper Tuesday (that seems like centuries ago now…) when Hillary won in traditional Democratic strongholds like California.
When The Campaign is threatened, it goes on the attack, feeding the most outlandish stories through their propaganda networks to the mainstream media. In this case one suggested that Scott Brown agreed to look into putting a curling iron up Coakley’s butt when some stranger yelled it out in a crowd. (are you fucking serious?? really?)
What really struck me is how much this past weekend took me back to those primaries. I remembered the cries of racism that came to a head just before the Pennsylvania primary. The Campaign had fought really, really hard to convince those blue collar Democrats not to vote for the girl, but nothing worked. As the vote drew near, they panicked. They started claiming that by mentioning white voters, she was actually a secret racist who was speaking code to all of her klan supporters out there. Then there was the outlandish claim that Hillary was advocating the assassination of her opponent a la RFK just before her decisive wins in South Dakota and Puerto Rico. Not to mention the rumor floated by the AP that Hillary had suspended her campaign while the voters were still going to the ballot box. The Campaign will do or say ANYTHING to win. No lie is too big and no mud to slimy to distract people from the reality that Obama never, ever, ever appealed to the majority of mainstream Democrats. In Pennsylvania I recall them squabbling over several tenths of a percent to argue that Clinton didn’t REALLY win PA by double digits, and therefore didn’t win at all. The Campaign creates reality and their propagandists in the media write the false narrative of that reality for the masses. That narrative, just now coalescing in the MA Senate race, seems to be that Coakley herself is to blame for the downfall of the entire Democratic Party. Not to mention those shrill naysayers in the Democratic base for pointing out the fact that their president wasn’t really acting like a Democrat. Something we told them over a year ago, but hey, who’s keeping score.
So as the reality sets in that Massachusetts just lost what should have been the safest senate seat in the country for Democrats (can you imagine a Dem ever getting elected senator in Texas, even in 2006 or ‘08, when GWB was as popular as a tax man at a tea party rally??), I can’t help but revel in the pretzel twisting acrobatics The Campaign will employ to explain how this has nothing to do with them or Obama. The finger pointing and name calling have just begun.
But this isn’t the primaries anymore. The voters of Massachusetts made it abundantly clear that they aren’t buying what Obama is selling anymore. It is not crazy wingnuts who are storming the gates, it is disaffected Democrats with a bad case of buyers remorse that cost Coakley the election. And if it is happening in MA, the bluest of the states, it is happening everywhere. No amount of reality distortion is going to hide the fact that once and for all, the Obama administration and The Campaign have been soundly repudiated. No amount of spin can save them from falling kicking and screaming into disgrace and humiliation. Not even their toadies in the media are going to lie for them this time. And for that, I’m glad that Scott Brown won. I wish it had happened earlier, but the fact is that Obama is fully exposed for the fraud he is, and that’s a good thing. Obama, and The Campaign, came to Boston but ended up at Waterloo. Not to face defeat at the hands of the Republicans, but at the hands of their own party.
Well, actually, he appointed the most qualified person to a position in the Commerce Department who just happens to be transgendered. But that’s not stopping anyone from using Amanda Simpson’s appointment to further their own political agendas. Simpson has 30 years of experience working in the field of military technology, so it is no surprise that she has been appointed to work with the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security:
Simpson brings considerable professional credentials to her new job. For thirty years, she has worked in the aerospace and defense industry, most recently serving as Deputy Director in Advanced Technology Development at Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, Arizona. She holds degrees in physics, engineering and business administration along with an extensive flight background. She is a certified flight instructor and test pilot with 20 years of experience.
Yet Obama apologists are using this appointment as an indication of Obama’s commitment to LGBT issues. The Advocate even had the nerve to headline their story on Simpson “Obama Makes History, Appoints Trans Woman”. Well, actually, it is Simpson who is making history by being the first transgendered appointee. Obama is simply not discriminating against the most qualified candidate for the job. I don’t think that really counts as “making history”. Unless, of course, like The Advocate, you consider every act of President Obama “historic”.
Amanda Simpson, believed to be America’s first openly transgender presidential appointee, the job she starts Tuesday in the U.S. Commerce Department is an honor and the culmination of a career dedicated to understanding military technology.
But what gnaws at her, she says, is the fear of being labeled a token who was hired because of her sexual identity rather than on her merits.
“Being the first sucks,” she told ABC News.com. “I’d rather not be the first but someone has to be first, or among the first. I think I’m experienced and very well qualified to deal with anything that might show up because I’ve broken barriers at lots of other places and I always win people over with who I am and what I can do.”
The National Center for Transgender Equality’s Mara Keisling added,
“There is certainly not enough being done by either the administration or Congress,” said Keisling. “It is frustrating as hell things work as they work, and more needs to get done.
“This was not an appointment because they have to fill a transgender spot. This is a real serious technical policy position and the job matches her resume. Her being transgender had nothing to do with getting that job,”
And to prove her point, legislation that would actually make a difference to all LGBT workers languishes in congress
Speaker Nancy Pelosi privately assured skittish first-term Democrats that the House wouldn’t bring controversial bills to the floor this year unless the Senate acted first, worry turned into panic. Is ENDA dead for this congressional session? Will gender identity protections be cut from the bill again, as they were in 2007? Are our leaders selling us out?
Yeah, they are. But what else is new.
Now if Obama were to, say, appoint a transgendered person to the civil rights division in the Justice Department, that might be historic.
Not. Holding. My. Breath.
David Letterman is still an asshole
In other Simpson related news, David Letterman continues to show what a juvenile, homophobic, sexist dickhead he is.
Oh really ?!!?
In that same article on Amanda Simpson, ABC tries to lower the bar for the Obama Administration on gay rights by rewriting history on his commitment to our community, specifically when it comes to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
President Obama has walked a fine line when dealing with members of the gay and transgender community. He was widely supported by gay voters in 2008, but has since come under criticism from many of those same proponents for not acting fast or hard enough to expand their rights, in their view. Obama opposes gay marriage and has made only vague commitments to ending the military’s ban on openly gay service members, aka “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Really??? You mean vague like this:
or this?
But then those facts just don’t support the media/administration narrative that gay rights activists are impatient whiners who are putting words in the President’s mouth. Fucking liars.
Harold Ford Jr.? Are you fucking kidding me???
News is also coming out that Harold Ford Jr. is exploring a bid to challenge Kirsten Gillibrand for the US Senate seat in New York.
Mr. Ford, 39, who moved to New York three years ago, has told friends that he will decide whether to run in the next 45 days. The discussions between Mr. Ford and top Democratic donors reflect the dissatisfaction of some prominent party members with Ms. Gillibrand, who has yet to win over key constituencies, especially in New York City.
I guess they are referring to Wall Street constituents (Ford is a VP at Merrill Lynch), because I’m sure New York’s large LGBT population won’t be supportive of a man who opposes our civil rights and actually voted for a constitutional ban on gay marriage.
Ford cast one of only 36 Democratic votes in the House in 2004, and one of only 34 last year, for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. The Stonewall group finds those votes all the more upsetting, spokesman John Marble maintains, because before the 2004 vote Ford had privately assured gay and lesbian Democrats in Tennessee that he did not support the same-sex amendment.
He made no such assurances in last year’s campaign against Republican Bob Corker . Ford ran ads that explicitly contradicted Corker spots describing Ford as a backer of gay marriage. And when the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in October that same-sex couples in the state are due the same rights and benefits as married heterosexuals, Ford demurred. “I oppose gay marriage,” he said. “This November, there’s a referendum on the Tennessee ballot to ban same-sex marriage — I am voting for it.”
The choice here for liberals is a no brainer. Yet some “progressive” bloggers like Jerome Armstrong are suggesting that Ford’s candidacy be taken seriously, and that his biggest problem may be his southern accent.
I thought he ran a terrific race in 2006. His pollster also did Webb in ‘06, and he’ll tell you that in the numbers, he ran as good as Webb, but lost because of what? I’ll tell you- because he was running for statewide federal in TN, and he is black. Name me another black person from the southern part of the US that has won a Senate seat recently.
Compared to Obama, who lost by 15% to McCain in TN in ‘08, Ford, losing by just 2-3% in ‘06, ran a pretty good race.
He’ll have to ditch the southern accent though, in NY.
Indeed, Armstrong’s broad generalization that Ford lost “because he is black” may be a precursor of what is to come in this race. As the Times notes:
Mr. Ford, who is black, may also be able to tap into African-American donors nationwide; the Senate is poised to lose its sole black member, Roland W. Burris of Illinois, at the end of the year.
Is it wrong, then, for me to speculate that all opposition to Ford based on his blatant homophobia will be attributed to rampant racism in the LGBT community? Probably, but it wouldn’t surprise me in the least.
Ironically, that statement came from the lips of the Ugandan minister of ethics and integrity. I suppose that one of those human rights is the right to be alive, because recently the Ugandan government has been trying to enact a law that would result in the death penalty for gay sexual behavior in some instances, such as HIV infection. This is from the draft of the anti-gay law
(2) A person who commits the offence of aggravated homosexuality shall be liable on conviction
to suffer death.
Not only is this bill a gross violation of the human rights of gay people, just a cursory reading of the bill shows that it would set the foundation for a witch-hunt of unthinkable proportions. I wonder if this is laying the groundwork to not only kill of the country’s gay people, but to provide a way for those in power to hobble their enemies by accusing them of being gay. Just check out some of the wording of the bill:
5. Protection, assistance and payment of compensation to victims of homosexuality.
(1 ) A victim of homosexuality shall not be penalized for any crime commuted as a direct result
of his or her involvement in homosexuality.
(2) A victim of homosexuality shall be assisted to enable his or her views and concerns to be
presented and considered at the appropriate stages of the criminal proceedings.
(3) Where a person is convicted of homosexuality or aggravated homosexuality under sections 2
and 3 of this Act, the court may, in addition to any sentence imposed on the offender, order that
the victim of the offence be paid compensation by the offender for any physical, sexual or
psychological harm caused to the victim by the offence.
(4) The amount of compensation shall be determined by the court and the court shall take into
account the extent of harm suffered by the victim of the offence. the degree of force used by the
offender and medical and other expenses incurred by the victim as a result of the offence. 6. Confidentiality.
(1) At any stage of the Investigation or trial of an offence under this Act, law enforcement
officers, prosecutors, judicial officers and medical practitioners, as well as parties to the case,
shall recognize the right to privacy of the victim.
(2) For the purpose of subsection (I), in cases involving children and other cases where the court
considers it appropriate. proceedings of the court shall be conducted in camera, outside the
presence of the media.
(3) Any editor or publisher, reporter or columnist in case of printed materials. announcer or
producer in case of television and radio, producer or director of a film to case of the movie
industry. or any person utilizing trimedia facilities or information technology who publishes or
causes the publicity of the names and personal circumstances or any other information tending to
establish the victim’s identity without authority of court commits an offence and is liable on
conviction to a fine not exceeding two hundred and fifty currency points.
I’m not sure how many gay sex acts include “victims”, although I’m sure that the writers of the bill imagine all gay people to be sexual predators and rapists. Regardless, what this law does is set up the scene for denunciations of people as gay for all sorts of other nefarious reasons and strips them of the right to confront their accusers publicly. So not only does this law have the potential to violate the human rights of gay people, it has the potential to be used to violate the human rights of large swaths of the population in general and to be used as way to terrorize the population into submission. The chilling effect has begun before the law has even been passed.
“I can defend them,” said Haj Medih, a Muslim taxi driver with many homosexual customers. “But I fear the what? The police, the government. They can arrest you and put you in the safe house, and for me, I don’t have any lawyer who can help me.”
It is not surprising that a country like Uganda has such bigoted and hateful views about homosexuality. As the New York Times notes, many African nations have rather backwards and bigoted views about gays and lesbians.
Many Africans view homosexuality as an immoral Western import, and the continent is full of harsh homophobic laws. In northern Nigeria, gay men can face death by stoning.
And indeed most countries that are strictly Islamic both inside and out of Africa routinely execute gay people (mostly men) for being gay. Uganda, however, is a predominantly Christian country. And the groundwork of this barbaric law was laid by religious extremists who are far too close for comfort for this gay American.
Last March, three American evangelical Christians, whose teachings about “curing” homosexuals have been widely discredited in the United States, arrived here in Uganda’s capital to give a series of talks.
The theme of the event, according to Stephen Langa, its Ugandan organizer, was “the gay agenda — that whole hidden and dark agenda” — and the threat homosexuals posed to Bible-based values and the traditional African family.
For three days, according to participants and audio recordings, thousands of Ugandans, including police officers, teachers and national politicians, listened raptly to the Americans, who were presented as experts on homosexuality. The visitors discussed how to make gay people straight, how gay men often sodomized teenage boys and how “the gay movement is an evil institution” whose goal is “to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity.”
One month after the conference, a previously unknown Ugandan politician, who boasts of having evangelical friends in the American government, introduced the Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009, which threatens to hang homosexuals, and, as a result, has put Uganda on a collision course with Western nations.
I think this speaks more to the “evil Christian agenda” rather than any gay one. What these people want, not only in Africa, but in this country as well, is the systematic eradication of gay people. These liars and hypocrites accuse gay people in the US of “culture wars” and destroying traditions like marriage, yet conceal their purpose, which is the wholesale genocide of the gay and lesbian population. They just have a more receptive audience in a place like Uganda where people are more open to their vile lies. And for those of you sell outs who continually defend any resistance or stonewalling of laws protecting the civil rights of gays and lesbians in the US, maybe this will serve as a cautionary tale and explain why we find these laws so desperately important.
But not only are these supposed “men of God” murderous bigots and liars, they are despicable cowards. When the inevitable results of their hate filled speech come to fruition they feign shock and dismay.
The three Americans who spoke at the conference — Scott Lively, a missionary who has written several books against homosexuality, including “7 Steps to Recruit-Proof Your Child”; Caleb Lee Brundidge, a self-described former gay man who leads “healing seminars”; and Don Schmierer, a board member of Exodus International, whose mission is “mobilizing the body of Christ to minister grace and truth to a world impacted by homosexuality” — are now trying to distance themselves from the bill.
“I feel duped,” Mr. Schmierer said, arguing that he had been invited to speak on “parenting skills” for families with gay children. He acknowledged telling audiences how homosexuals could be converted into heterosexuals, but he said he had no idea some Ugandans were contemplating the death penalty for homosexuality.
“That’s horrible, absolutely horrible,” he said. “Some of the nicest people I have ever met are gay people.”
Mr. Lively and Mr. Brundidge have made similar remarks in interviews or statements issued by their organizations. But the Ugandan organizers of the conference admit helping draft the bill, and Mr. Lively has acknowledged meeting with Ugandan lawmakers to discuss it. He even wrote on his blog in March that someone had likened their campaign to “a nuclear bomb against the gay agenda in Uganda.” Later, when confronted with criticism, Mr. Lively said he was very disappointed that the legislation was so harsh.
So these guys are perfectly comfortable advocating for the torture of gays and lesbians (even adolescent ones) with “reparative” measures, but they draw the line at execution? How noble of them. The truth is, however, that they are absolutely comfortable with the killing of gays and lesbians in the name of God. They just know to admit it would cost them some of their more squishy supporters who aren’t yet willing to advocate murder in the name of religion. At least Mr. Lively acknowledges that in his opinion there should be some kind of penalty for being gay, but that death is perhaps “too harsh”. Although I think if his true intentions were known, he wouldn’t lose sleep over it.
If you haven’t heard of any of these Christianist extremists, there is another name which keeps cropping up in this story which is much more recognizable, and with friends in very high places.
Uganda has also become a magnet for American evangelical groups. Some of the best known Christian personalities have recently passed through here, often bringing with them anti-homosexuality messages, including the Rev. Rick Warren, who visited in 2008 and has compared homosexuality to pedophilia.
Of course Warren has joined the chorus of cowards who claim that they never meant for their words to be used to justify murder and genocide. As if that were some kind of excuse for their evil endeavors.
This brings us back to our own government, and indeed the one political party who claims to be our advocates, the Democrats. I often get accused of unfairly slamming Obama and his administration for being homophobic. When I, and others, decried the decision to allow hatemonger Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration of Obama, many responded that he was merely reaching out to both sides of a contentious debate in American politics. What those people failed to understand is that this is not about some philosophical political debate. For gays and lesbians this is a matter of life or death. If you don’t get that, then whether you admit it or not, you’re suffering from homophobia. It doesn’t take a lot for us to imagine this country quickly slipping into the mentality of a place like Uganda where gay men and lesbians live their lives in constant fear with no recourse or protection. The most insidious thing is that politicians like Obama know this, and use our fear to keep us in line while they schmooze with the likes Rick Warren, Donnie McClurkin, James Meeks, etc to expand their voter base.
When it comes to civil rights, there is no compromise. There is right and there is wrong. Until we are protected by law, just as other minorities are, we are always in danger of finding ourselves in the exact same position as gay and lesbian Ugandans. So to all of those people (including some in our own community) who call us impatient, or whiners, for demanding our rights, just think about that for a minute. And until Obama stands up for those rights, I will continue to believe that it is the result of his own deep seated homophobia. Just take a look at the anemic response this bill got from his administration.
PEPFAR chief Eric Goosby said he didn’t have a dog in that fight:
I’m very concerned about any decision that any country—including our own—would make to target a group that’s in the population, and that’s always been in the population, by excluding them from a service or passes legislation that criminalizes their behavior. Every time you do that, you push the behavior underground. It never works. Rather than minimizing the spread of the virus, it actually amplifies it.
The U.S. policy is trying to work with governments to say exactly that. I think I would do more harm than good by connecting our resources to respond to the epidemic to making them dependent on a behavior that they’re not willing to engage in on their own. My role is to be supportive and helpful to the patients who need these services. It is not to tell a country how to put forward their legislation. But I will engage them in conversation around my concern and knowledge of what this is going to do to that population, and our ability to stop the movement of the virus into the general population.
So, for all those who hoped that PEPFAR funding might be used as a hammer to pressure the Ugandan powers-that-be to abandon their crusade: no dice. The Obama era is the dialogue era; don’t pick fights, but persuade through elegant theses.
Since then, the administration has gotten slightly tougher with Uganda after nearly a month of outcry from gay rights groups and their allies, but it appears that, as usual, this is probably just for show. Thankfully many in the LGBT community aren’t buying what they’re selling anymore. Particularly when a statement regarding a life and death matter for gays and lesbians is part of the late night Friday news dump:
“The president strongly opposes efforts, such as the draft law pending in Uganda, that would criminalize homosexuality and move against the tide of history.” —A statement from the White House submitted late Friday night, and thus far the Obama administration’s only public comment on the planned state-sponsored extermination of LGBTs in Uganda. No promise of action, no denouncement of President Yoweri Museveni, no threats to withhold aid to a country approving identity cleansing. And no, the State Department’s “guidance” missive does not count as action. Neither does the White House’s statement, which is so brief and lackluster, it’s almost funny.
Well it looks like there may be some movement on the part of the Ugandan government in response to such heavy pressure:
Uganda will soften its proposed anti-gay legislation, but the government denied on Wednesday that it was bowing to an outcry in the West over a controversial bill that could have seen homosexuals put to death.Ethics and Integrity Minister Nsaba Buturo told Reuters that the revised law would now probably limit the maximum penalty for offenders to life in prison rather than execution.
Gee, thanks a lot. How humanitarian of you. If and when this “softened” bill passes, it will be interesting to see if it is enough to appease the current administration or if they will impose sanctions (specifically the withholding of PEPFAR funds). Those of us in the gay community will be watching intently. Our lives may depend on it.
As a footnote to this posting, I thought it was interesting to point out a fact that clearly demonstrates the lies that Christians use to demonize gay people. One of the arguments that these hatemongers use is that gay marriage would lead to the destruction of that institution and lead to widespread polygamy if allowed to pass. Yet in heavily Christian Uganda homosexuality is already quite taboo, while polygamy is quite common, even legal:
So in a country where homosexuality is already illegal, these Christian extremists still find it more important to combat the scourge of being gay rather than lecture their hosts on the immorality of the already legal practice of polygamy. And you still want us to believe that your convictions are derived from your religion rather than pure, seething hate? Yeah, right.
There seems to be a lot of second guessing the nature of Firedoglake propagandist Jane Hamsher over at The Confluence. Several posters over there have alternately been praising and bashing Jane Hamsher for her complicity in the Democratic primary shenanigans and her new-found fortitude in standing up to the administration on health care reform.
Bostonboomer’s latest post probably comes closest to the real truth about Hamsher by exposing her blatant lies when it comes to her characterization of an exchange with a Hillary Clinton supporter while on C-Span.
In the discussion thread attached to her post, linked above, Jane posted this comment:
“I had a woman call up and scream at me when I was on CSPAN the other day for all the horrible things Markos and I had done to Hillary Clinton during the primaries, telling me that I had destroyed the Democratic party.
“And I’m like, seriously? I know some people you should meet, you guys would have an interesting fight.”
The women caller on C-Span did no screaming. She did not even raise her voice. Instead, she listed her credentials to confront Jane Hamsher and then did so very articulately. Jane responded with condescending lies and half-truths. I decided to transcribe that portion of the interview so we can dissect it here. The relevant section begins at about 25:50.
You can read the transcript on BB’s post. What I don’t get, though, is why people like Bostonboomer and Riverdaughter are still asking themselves how Hamsher can have had such a revelation about Obama and yet still hold those of us who were right about him all along in such high disregard. Both seem to think it is some kind of coping mechanism to protect her overblown ego about being so wrong. According to them, Jane must think that since she didn’t see it coming, nobody could have. Here’s BB:
I honestly think that Jane’s rationalizing is an unconscious defense mechanism. Now that she has seen what Obama really is–a DINO, a conservative hack, maybe just barely qualifying as a Rockefeller-style Republican–she has to go back and try to cover up her own behavior during the primaries. But Jane has a very very long way to go before she understands the damage that she and the other A-list bloggers caused. I sincerely doubt that she will ever take responsibility for her actions–or lack of actions.
Well, BB got the last part right. As far as Jane “rationalizing” for her mistaken support of Obama, which implies she’s somehow a victim of all this too, that’s just way to much naïveté for someone like BB who had roughly the same experience as I did in the primary battles. If I were to analyze BB in the same way she did Hamsher, I would guess that she (and many other disgruntled, former Democrats) are looking for any glimmer of hope of reforming those who destroyed our party and threw democracy out the window in 08. Those people include Markos Moulitsas, Josh Marshall, Arianna Huffington, John Aravosis, and yes Jane Hamsher, among others. And none of those people did what they did because of principle. They did it because it was politically expedient and to further their own personal gain (both political and financial).
None of these people have changed. None have had a “come to Jesus” moment as they say down here. Some just saw the writing on the wall after the election and didn’t like what they saw.
Some of those sycophants who dutifully carried water for Obama, made up outrageous lies about the Clintons, and simultaneously banned and labeled as racist those of us who dissented, were greatly rewarded. One of the biggest winners was TPM’s Josh Marshall whose blog has been granted access and journalistic legitimacy that it never had prior to Obama’s election (And don’t think for a second that such a reward hasn’t made Josh Marshall a very wealthy and powerful man). As such, Marshall continues to support any action from this administration no matter how anti-progressive or anti-liberal it is.
Others of them (including Hamsher), not so much. Bloggers like her, and Aravosis, and to some extent Moulitsas (although he, like Huffington, had already cobbled together a media empire) were left off the gravy train once Obama took power. I predicted Jane’s bolt from the Obamacrats nearly 9 months ago when she (and other bloggers) publicly lamented being snubbed by the people they had so eagerly supported with lies, misinformation and trashing of fellow Democrats. From a 4/9/09 post:
It looks like there’s trouble in paradise between the Obama administration and the fauxgressive blogosphere.
Some of the leading liberal bloggers are privately furious with the major progressive groups — and in some cases, the Democratic Party committees — for failing to spend money advertising on their sites, even as these groups constantly ask the bloggers for free assistance in driving their message…
Why should they spend their money on people that have been giving it away for free for him going on 3 years now? They didn’t really expect a payback for all their hard work in smearing fellow Democrats and the party’s most qualified candidate for president in a generation did they? Well I guess so.
“They come to us, expecting us to give them free publicity, and we do, but it’s not a two way street,” Jane Hamsher, the founder of FiredogLake, said in an interview. “They won’t do anything in return. They’re not advertising with us. They’re not offering fellowships. They’re not doing anything to help financially, and people are growing increasingly resentful.”(snip)
That last sentence very clearly explains, for me, Hamsher’s newfound insight into Obama’s real character. This has nothing to do with standing up for health care reform for the masses, or protecting a woman’s right to control her own body. It is payback to the people who counted on her as a propaganda tool and then stiffed her when it came time to pay the bill. Other bloggers, like John Aravosis, also began to turn on Obama around the same time, and for very much the same reason.
Jane Hamsher doesn’t have an ounce of integrity in her body. She didn’t during the primary season when she knowingly lied about and smeared anybody who questioned Obama’s legitimacy. And she doesn’t now as she turns on the people who failed to reward her properly for her dirty work.
Having no integrity makes it easier, then, to cozy up to the likes of Grover Norquist and the most radical right wing fringe to fight back against the Obamacrats. He, of course, has what Hamsher most desperately craves: money and political influence. Those of us who were right all along about Obama’s impending betrayal of gays, women, liberals, anti-war activists, civil libertarians, et al. had nothing to offer Jane but a well deserved “We told you so”. Someone with principles might have eaten that crow and gotten behind us. But not Jane Hamsher.
We know that the Catholic Church was heavily involved in Tuesday’s vote to repeal gay marriage in Maine. They donated thousands of dollars and used their considerable influence to encourage Mainers to vote to restrict the civil rights of their fellow citizens.
Anti-abortion Democrats will be allowed to offer an amendment during the House health-care debate Saturday that would ban most abortion coverage from the public option…
It is also a big win for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which used its power, especially with conservative Democrats in swing congressional districts, to help force Democratic leaders to permit a vote that most of them oppose.
“We didn’t have a choice,” said a Democratic leadership source. “We didn’t have the votes” on health care without agreeing to this.
Well at least the leadership in the house stood up to the threatening bullies from the conference of Bishops, right? Well, no actually, they didn’t. Instead they invited them right in and made them part of the negotiation process!!!
Liz Farrar, a spokeswoman for Ellsworth, told CNN that some two dozen Democratic lawmakers made it clear that they needed assurances from the Catholic bishops before they could sign on — and that the religious group made clear it wanted to bolster the abortion restrictions.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other leaders were negotiating with the Catholic bishops and their representatives on Friday.
That’s right, a bunch of OLD CELIBATE MEN got to have a voice in negotiating away women’s reproductive choices. The same men who would restrict access to not only abortion, but birth control as well if they had their way. Although no agreement was made, the fact that the CATHOLIC FUCKING CHURCH is negotiating with Democratic members of congress is so troubling I don’t even know where to begin.
You can bet your ass that the final bill will end up reinforcing restrictions on the access to abortion. Not only in a government public option, but across the board, including women with private health insurance.
Planned Parenthood decried the amendment, saying it would result in the elimination of abortion coverage currently offered by most private health insurance plans.
“This amendment would violate the spirit of health-care reform, which is meant to guarantee quality, affordable health-care coverage for all by creating a two-tiered system that would punish women, particularly those with low and modest incomes,” the group said in a statement.
“Women won’t stand for legislation that takes away their current benefits and leaves them worse off after health-care reform than they are today.”
I sincerely hope she’s right. Otherwise, as Rep. Alcee Hastings suggested, this could be the first step in a return to the Dark Ages for women. And that’s exactly what the Catholic Church wants. It was, after all, their heyday.
Those who hang on to the nostalgia of the past can live in it. There is no question in my mind that the vast majority of the LGBT community is ready to move forward with new visions and new tactics. What is happening to us with this expanding system of Gay Apartheid in America cannot be allowed to continue and if it does, we cannot go quietly into the night enabling such abuse anymore.
How can we have any dignity, honor or pride in ourselves if we validate this continued process of ballot box terrorism? How can we stand tall next to each other if we explain away another’s cowardliness? How can we allow people to dehumanize our relationships and our very integrity if we give people passes to sit out the battle for our very freedom? No longer are political timelines a reason for delay, no longer are incremental approaches acceptable and no longer can the political process expect us to be patient and wait our turn. Our turn came long ago and there will be no more waiting
Amen, brother. Amen.
Mixner goes on to address some issues that I have been screaming about for nearly a year now. First, we want accountability from our so called gay rights advocacy groups:
Our national organizations should be put on notice that we expect more from them and that we want more accountability and more dynamic leadership. For example, who talked to the President about Maine? Why did the White House refuse to become heavily involved? Why was Attorney General Eric Holder’s statement not disavowed by the White House? Did we have direct access to the President or not? Wanting to know these answers is fair. Holding organizations that ask for our money and support accountable is not divisive it is common sense. We want leaders and organizations that represent our interests and are not beholden to the trappings of political power. Time to end the cozy relationship between our national leaders and Washington power brokers and start playing tough.
No more political support for ANY candidate that doesn’t fully support marriage equality:
I was astounded a few weeks ago in Washington when all my liberal friends were urging me to support the Democrat Owen in upstate New York who won election on Tuesday. When I responded that he was strongly against marriage equality and opined that they shouldn’t be supporting him, it was quickly pointed out to me that the Human Rights Campaign was supporting him. Well, you know what? I don’t care. If we support people who are against full equality, how can we expect others to do differently? No more excuses. Stop it. Close the checkbooks to those who are not fully on our side.Promises are not enough. Before we support people they must be CO-SPONSORS for the repeal of DOMA and DADT. How in the world can Speaker Pelosi justify not being on Congressman Nadler’s “Respect for Marriage Act?” No sponsorship equals getting no money, it is really that simple In addition, we must cease giving money to groups that contribute to those ‘Blue Dog’ Democrats who are holding so much of our legislation up. Instead of national party committees, give to those politicans who have proven themselves directly. How can we possibly send money to the Democratic National Committee which urges the people of Maine to phone New Jersey and not a word about our struggle? How can you justify it?
No more Mr. Nice Gay:
New tactics must be embraced and honored. Civil disobedience must now be on the table and it is time for a long discussion about how it is to take place in the community. Perhaps we have to fill the jails, block military bases, sit in Congressional offices, block marriage bureaus, etc in order for them to know that business as usual has stopped. Careful and thoughtful consideration must be given now to this option.
I wrote in my last post/rant that I was done until somebody came along who was willing to start making some noise and ruffling some feathers. Mixner seems to have been reading my mind. I’m on board. How about you guys? Please go over to Mixner’s blog and leave a comment in support. Most of them are supportive, but there are still a few out there trying to tear him down for having the guts to speak the truth. This is the kind of leader our movement has been waiting for. Equality for the gay community NOW. Enough is enough!
Click here to adopt a pet in need! Send me a pic (email above) and I'll donate $10 for every pet adopted. I'll also add your new best friend to by dog pics!--even if it is a cat!
The NYT has a surprising editorial in support of abstinence-only sex education that seems to be defending Obama’s decision to allow such programs be funded by federal funds so long as they are based on “science”.
Posted by garychapelhill 
Those who hang on to the nostalgia of the past can live in it. There is no question in my mind that the vast majority of the LGBT community is ready to move forward with new visions and new tactics. What is happening to us with this expanding system of Gay Apartheid in America cannot be allowed to continue and if it does, we cannot go quietly into the night enabling such abuse anymore.
how it is to take place in the community. Perhaps we have to fill the jails, block military bases, sit in Congressional offices, block marriage bureaus, etc in order for them to know that business as usual has stopped. Careful and thoughtful consideration must be given now to this option.
