I’m almost done with episode nine of A Coming Out Story, and I expect to have it up sometime this weekend. Yes…it’s been over six months since the last one and I’m really sorry about that. I started writing the script for it back in the summer of 2005, and by 2006 I had it pretty well fleshed out. But then sometimes the past suddenly reaches out and taps you on the shoulder and that kinda makes it a bit harder to think about the way you did before.
Still following the script though. There’ll be about fifty or so episodes when it’s all done. Hopefully sometime before I’m eighty…
The whole point of Holsinger’s paper is to draw a sharp contrast between gay relationships and heterosexual relationships. But to do so, he he culls his evidence largely from papers which describe injuries from nonconsensual intercourse to denigrate consensual relationships, he describes odd sexual practices that are enjoyed by heterosexual couples to denigrate the minority of gay couples who indulge in those same practices, and he misleads his readers by padding his bibliography with more references to papers explicitly describing injuries experienced by heterosexual men and women to imply that they describe gay men instead.
In other words, to describe gay sexual acts, more often than not he turned to papers which describe injuries sustained through heterosexual activity. And then he used this evidence from heterosexual activity to say that “when the complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and diseases may occur as noted above.” But what does this evidence suggest about “complementarity” in heterosexual relationships? Holsinger doesn’t answer.
Burroway, as he has done previously with other religious right bigots, most notibly Paul Cameron, illuminates again and again the casual and deliberate deception in Holsinger’s anti-gay tract. For example, how Holsinger used a study of 365 male patients of a single urban STD clinic in Copenhagan so prove that homosexual sex is more likely to result in disease. As Burroway dryly notes…
This of course means that if you study people with STDs, whether they are gay or straight, you will find people with STDs. Holsinger uses the behavior of one particular sample of men who expose themselves to the risk of STDs to denigrate all gay men (and lesbians!). This study says nothing of those whose “lifestyle” choices do not lead to contracting STDs. And of course, Holsinger’s arguments don’t address whatever responsibility heterosexuals overall have for the 64% of this particular Copenhagen sample who were exclusively straight and were treated for STDs.
This was what Evelyn Hooker understood back in the 1950s when she did her landmark study of the psychological adjustment of gay men. If all you study are sick homosexuals, then all you’re going to see in homosexuality is sickness. But that’s all that some people want to see. Holsinger uses data on injuries to the rectum gleaned from emergency room treatment of people who had been raped, to smear the sex loving same sex couples have as physically damaging. Perhaps in his own mind, Holsinger really cannot see the difference between love and rape when it involves homosexuals. Or perhaps he’s just trying to make sure that nobody else can. Either way, it speaks volumes about that open sewer he calls a conscience.
And here, Burroway nails it:
But worse, Holsinger made the fatal error of ignoring the bonds of affection and devotion that arise in gay and lesbian couples. He reduced the rich complexity of their relationships to pipe fittings and how they interlock with each other. But the interlocking parts that fit together in relationships are those parts that fit sublimely. They have absolutely nothing to do with pipes or connectors or any other analogies drawn from the local Ace Hardware store.
But the interlocking parts that fit together in relationships are those parts that fit sublimely. Yes. Just so. But that is the part of an intimate romantic relationship, that the right reliably fails to grok. I think the reason why is obvious.
We have needed a Jim Burroway in this movement for a long, long time. Someone to actually take the time and effort to rigorously dig below the surface of these religious right anti-gay tracts and show, point by point, how they are looking you in the face and lying through their teeth, confidant that their ostentatious religiosity will keep you from questioning their facts. Surely men of God wouldn’t deliberately lie to us. They may be uptight moral prudes and cranks, but at least they believe in and live by their own moral values and we can trust in that. They are merely zealots, blinded by their prejudices, not conniving con artists. No. There is no mistaking this kind of thing for what it is. You cannot pick and choose your data to suit your purposes, without knowing that you are picking and choosing your data to suit your purposes. It is calculated, it is deliberate, and it is to virtue and morality as Al Capone was to law and order.
Some years ago, long before I’d ever ventured out into the Internet, I wrote an essay on my own coming out to myself experience, to post on a gay FidoNet echomail board. It’s been through many iterations since…mostly to edit unclear or awkward passages and add a bit of clarifying text here and there. I’ve taken it down from my web site here for the moment, while I give it an update. But I’ve posted it in response to many arguments I’ve had over the years with online bigots.
I saw early on that the personal computer enabled us as a people, for the first time in human history, to tell our own stories to the world, in our own words, completely bypassing the traditional gatekeepers of culture. Ever since I’ve been taking every opportunity to tell these little slice of life stories out of my own life, and encouraged other gay people to do the same. If we don’t tell our stories, the only people who will are the ones who hate us…the ones who cannot see the people for the homosexuals. For generation upon generation, the haters were the only ones who were allowed to speak on the subject of homosexuality. Our voices were silenced, often brutally, so their lies could be told without any fear of being contradicted by the truth of our lives. No more. For all the same reasons the totalitarians in China couldn’t massacre thousands of their own people in Tiananmen Square on a Sunday evening, and then tell the rest of the world Monday morning that it never happened, the homophobes can no longer insist that Homosexuals Don’t Love, They Just Have Sex and expect everyone to just nod their heads and accept it as a given.
But insist they will, because that’s all their cheapshit hatreds allow them to see. My own personal favorite example of that, happened when I once again posted my coming out to self story on a Usenet message board, in response to a bigots assertion that every homosexual that ever lived got that way because they were molested as a child. I said I wasn’t…I said that the first sex I’d ever had was with another guy about my own age, and that I was in love, and I reposted my essay, which reads in part…
Slowly and deliberately we drew ourselves closer together. One summer afternoon we arranged to go hiking. There was a place we’d both never been to that we wanted to explore.
At a shop where I once worked one of the guys there described, a little too graphically for my taste, the loss of his virginity. A guy never forgets his first woman, he said. Actually he didn’t say woman he made a reference to a woman’s organ. What I’ll never forget that day when I was 17: the moment he put his hands on me. That gentle tentative touch was electric.
I woke up that instant from the dream of childhood. We laid down and took each other all that green warm golden afternoon across the threshold, into the land of adults. My gym teacher’s ravings and everything else I’d ever been told about what homosexuals were and what it meant to be one disappeared in my first passionate embrace of another male. And after, breathless and exalted, we looked into each others eyes for, I don’t know, minutes, hours… To this day I can still remember quite vividly things like the sounds of birds calling each other in the trees above us, the scent of his skin, the feel of his hands on me, the sunlight drifting over his hair in the warm breeze…
I had been an instrument sitting idly on the maker’s shelf, watching curiously the work around me, hearing the first tentative notes of the others along side of me, and not knowing that I too had been created to make this music until that moment when the maker took hold of me, and I felt myself lifted up, and I sang.
Sure as the sun rises in the east, the very next day that gutter crawling bigot posted back, accusing me of putting pornography on the message board. I’d written a story he said, about "two pervs feeling each other up."
I was gratified to see that I wasn’t the only one reading that message board, who thought the man in question was nuts. But you need to pay attention to this: All I’d said was that he touched me, and Instantly this man read that as we were feeling each other up. I never actually described the sex we had, because that detail wasn’t important. I was writing about my state of mind, about how it felt to be in love for the very first time, and to find yourself one lovely summer afternoon in the arms of the one you love. And this prize pervert took what I wrote about being in love, and his twisted little mind turned that into some graphic and satisfyingly disgusting homosexual sex scene that he could not take his eyes off of. And he had to make sure no one else could either.
The very idea of “Gay Conjugal Visits” for prisoners sounds like a bad joke, but officials of the California penal system are to worried to laugh. Because of the state’s new “civil unions” law, the gay convicts who linked themselves to partners before incarceration are now entitled to scheduled sessions of intimacy, just like their married counterparts. This means that prison staffers who spend their time in desperate efforts to prevent behind-bars gay conduct, including rape, must now assist selected prisoners with trysts involving their “domestic partners.” This absurd innovation exposes the true nature of the so-called gay rights agenda: it’s not about equality, it’s about governmental promotion of behavior that many Americans still consider disgusting and immoral. Gay conjugal visits should cause the public to look past platitudes about love to focus on the raw actuality of male-male eroticism. Is this practice – with all its hygienic, physiological harm—really deserving of governmental (and prison system) support?
Now…read this part again: Gay conjugal visits should cause the public to look past platitudes about love to focus on the raw actuality of male-male eroticism. Sure Michael. Sure. Just like the sight of a gay male couple walking down the street holding hands makes you focus on the raw sexuality of their relationship. Just like the sight of a gay male couple sitting together at a restaurant peacefully eating lunch, content simply in each other’s company, makes you focus on the raw sexuality of their relationship. Just like the sight of a gay male couple standing bored out of their minds in a grocery store checkout line makes you focus on the raw sexuality of their relationship. And that’s because you don’t see human beings when you look at homosexuals Michael. You see monsters. The monsters your cheapshit bar stool prejudices have always told you they are. Homosexuals don’t love, they just have sex…
They have Sex…they have Sex…they have Sex…they have Sex…they have Sex…!!!!!
Anyone whose mind functions normally might otherwise be able to see the sense in this new prison policy. First of all, if opposite sex couples can have them, then it’s just a simple matter of human decency to allow it to same sex couples as well. It may actually serve to Reduce the incidence of prison rape, by lowering the sexual tensions inside prison. It can serve as an incentive toward good behavior. And helping to keep couples together while one is in prison, means that when they are eventually released, they still have something to go home to. Or would you rather dump them back out on the streets with nothing at all left in their lives Michael? Oh never mind…of course you would. The emotion of love registers inside your dark little heart about as much as a candle in a blizzard, doesn’t it Michael? That gray, sterile, brutal toxic human wasteland where love never was, and can never be, and where no inhumanity is impossible, is your beloved homeland, isn’t it Michael? That’s why all you can see, when your eyes behold a couple, is the sex they’re probably having, isn’t it Michael? Because that’s the only thing about how couples feel about each other that you Can understand, deep down inside that dark little heart of yours, isn’t it Michael? And it isn’t just the feelings same sex couples have for each other that completely mystify you…is it Michael?
In support of President Nice Job Browine’s Surgeon General nominee, the religious right web site Lifewatch (Your Life, Family and Culture Outpost), tells half a truth, and carefully hides the whole, so they and their readers can feel righteous…
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 8, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A doctor tapped by President George Bush for the position of Surgeon General has been attacked by homosexual activist groups for saying homosexual activity is unnatural and unhealthy.
…
Homosexual activists and their supporters have expressed outrage that a doctor who has warned of the physical dangers associated with homosexual activity would be considered for the position of Surgeon General. Holsinger’s article has been condemned as a scientifically outdated piece of political ideology expressing a “very narrow view” of homosexuality, according to an ABC News report.
Studies continue to emerge, however, showing the grave health risks of engaging in homosexual activity. A report in the February issue of the International Journal of STD & AIDS found that “HIV-positive men who have sex with men are up to 90 times more likely than the general population to develop anal cancer.”
A study released in 2005 in Psychological Reports confirmed earlier findings that homosexual men have on average a 20-year shortened life span. “[U]nder even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men…are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871,” said the authors of the Canadian research team. The team was supportive of the homosexual lifestyle and conducted the study in order to assist health planners with estimating the impact of HIV infection on homosexual men.
(Emphasis mine) Note that alarmist quote "[U]nder even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men…are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871…" Psychological Reports, some of you may recall, is the outfit that uncritically published a bit of Paul Cameron’s razzle-dazzle and have yet to admit that they were bamboozled. But this time the religious right is using another study by a different group to demonize homosexuals.
In fact, they began bending this particular study to their own ends earlier in the year. In an article that seems to have first surfaced on the right wing site World Net Daily, David N. Bass, a self-described 20 year old homeschool graduate, wrote:
A 1997 study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology found that even under “the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban center are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.” The same study estimated that homosexual behavior reduces the lifespan of males by eight to 20 years. Comparatively, the CDC has found that male and female smokers lose an average of 13.2 to 14.5 years of life, respectively.
The problem with the IJE study is that while the researchers (unlike Cameron) may have been credible and while the number may have had some kind of original validity, it is no longer valid and citing as if it were is akin to lying.
The IJE figure was derived from one study, never replicated, taken from one Canadian urban enclave (so it probably never had a representative sample of gays, but rather disproportionately drew from sub-culture oriented urban gays). More importantly, the study was done during the worst of the AIDS crisis, just before the newer, groundbreaking meds were introduced. And those meds greatly impacted and reduced mortality rates within the gay community. In 2006, whatever validity the statistic originally may have had, it has not been valid for many years and the authors of the study attest to this. They wrote in 2001:
In our paper, we demonstrated that in a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 21 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality continued, we estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years would not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre were experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by men in Canada in the year 1871. In contrast, if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia.
(emphasis mine) So these righteous, upstanding, so very very Moral men of God are deliberately citing a study whose own authors know was only representative of a single moment in the history of a single population of gay men, at a time when AIDS was claiming its greatest number of victims in that one particular population. The quote they’re waving in everyone’s faces now, no longer applies, and never did in fact apply to all gay men in Canada, let alone all gay men everywhere.
The authors of the study have protested the misuse of their work, but of course to no avail. The operators of Lifewatch know that whatever their sins, God forgives them.
Momentarily abandoned by the two people at the party that I know well, I am engaged in conversation by a yellow Crocs-wearing, pop-collared, fauxhawkedangertwink:
Angertwink: So, Rob said you are a writer?
JMG: Depends on your definition. I have a blog.
AT: A what? A blog? Wait, is that on the internet?
JMG: What, you seriously don’t know about blogs?
AT: Um, I don’t know, I guess I do. Like, name one.
JMG: Well, I guess one of the most famous ones is Andrew Sullivan’s…
AT: Andrew…. who? Oh, right! That guy who killed Gianni Versace!
…and I have to open a Google Image page and first I Google "Crocs clothing" because I figure it’s an article of clothing he’s talking about.
Oh Sweet Jesus…
No! No! No!Please dear God keep those goddamned things off of cute guys! Next I have to Google "faux hawked" Ugh. Those… Then I Google "popped collar" Meh… Then I Google "angertwink" and I’m back at Joe. My. God…
Angertwink (noun):
A young urban gay male who goes through his life very angry because:
1) The rest of the gay world does not recognize his incredible hotness.
2) The rest of the gay world is not incredibly hot, like he is.
Identifying characteristics: Angertwinks can often be spotted wearing fauxhawks, popped collars, and expressions of disgust.
Angertwink was coined by my friend Dagon, on his blog At The Mountains Of Madness. (Example: here). After a few beers last night, I told him that he had to get this word into UrbanDictionary.com or Wikipedia or something,
I dunno… How angry can you be when you’re wearing goddamned Yellow Crocs?
Once upon a time
Once when you were mine
I remember skies
Reflected in your eyes
I wonder where you are
I wonder if you
Think about me
Once upon a time
In your wildest dreams
Over at This Modern World, Jonathan Schwarz takes a look from James Holsinger over to another corner of the open sewer that is the Bush administration, from whence the Project For A New American Century came from. Hold your nose, and hold on to your stomach…
As you may have already seen, Dr. James Holsinger, Bush’s nominee for Surgeon General, is very concerned about gay men and their “anal eroticism.” Indeed, like most extremely manly men, he spends a lot of time thinking about this. I’m guessing that, at least when he was younger, he thought about it four or five times a day.
So everyone’s getting a good laugh about this. But Bush & co. work out their peculiar psycho-sexual obsessions in ways far more serious than this.
Take Eliot Cohen, for instance. Cohen wrote the Air Force’s study of the effects of air power during the Gulf War. Later he was a founding member of Project for a New American Century. And now he works for Condoleezza Rice in one of the State Department’s most prominent positions.
And this is what Eliot Cohen wrote about bombing other countries in 1994:
Air power is an unusually seductive form of military strength, in part because, like modern courtship, it appears to offer gratification without commitment.
Ha ha ha! Yes, killing thousands of people with high explosives is sort of like sex out of wedlock! What a witty, apt comparison!
These people are the world’s most genuine perverts.
Yup. That would be about right. This is all of a piece. A sickening, stench filled piece. A movement so utterly willing to brutalize lovers is sick to it’s core. Gratification. Gratification. Do you understand now why so much of the torture inflicted on people who were essentially prisoners of war at Abu Ghraib was sexual in nature?
Lovers…and especially same sex lovers…when one of these jackasses calls you a pervert, laugh in their face. You are beautiful. They are the perverts.
I haven’t sat down for the entire movie, but there’s a scene from Kinsey that keeps popping into my head as I consider the paper Bush’s nominee for Surgeon General, John Holsinger, wrote for the United Methodist Church’s Committee to Study Homosexuality back in 1991. Bear in mind that Holsinger wrote that paper, not as a fellow believer, but as a doctor of medicine.
The scene is a doctor’s office. Kinsey and his wife are trying, uncomfortably, to discuss their unsatisfactory sex with him. The couple is having trouble achieving sexual intimacy. Kinsey’s wife Clara endures great pain whenever he tries to have sex with her. The doctor holds up a ruler and asks Clara to indicate how big her husband’s erect penis is on it. She seems befuddled. But it’s more then simple embarrassment at discussing such an intimate detail. The doctor moves his fingers along the ruler. This big? No? This big? No? Eventually Clara works up a little nerve, reaches over, and moves the doctors finger to a point somewhere Past the end of the ruler. The doctor nods. No wonder you were experiencing pain, he tells her, and he suggests they take a somewhat different approach to intercourse.
The scene is intended as a bit of humor, but it has a point. Clara thought that the problem was with her. She had no way of knowing that it wasn’t. Back before Kinsey began his famous studies of human sexuality, people lived in almost perfect ignorance of how humans actually have sex. Oh most people thought they knew, certainly. But what they knew, as the shock and outrage clearly revealed when Kinsey finally published, was mostly a collection of handed down folk tales and dirty jokes. Real facts about human sexuality were few and far between because no one had actually rigorously and dispassionately studied it. Before they visited their doctor, neither one of the Kinseys understood how physically mismatched they were, and that it meant they had to be a tad creative in their approach to sexual intimacy.
Which leads to this other thing that leaped out at me.
A penis wasn’t designed for an anus. The parts don’t fit. Heterosexual intercourse is complementary…homosexual intercourse is physically damaging… Gay men have had this thrown in our faces for decades now. Never mind that many of us know from first hand experience that it isn’t true…the hate machine doesn’t want to actually hear from the people it’s talking about. On and on and on like a broken record, they keep insisting that male homosexual intercourse is well nigh physically impossible, in contrast to heterosexual intercourse in which tab ‘A’ just naturally slides into slot ‘B’. But that’s not true. Male same sex couples have thrilling and blissfully contented sex every day and the only thing damaged by it are the lies bigots have been pounding into their heads for ages. And even opposite sex couples sometimes just aren’t physically well matched for each other.
I don’t like discussing my sex life in public. That’s not because I’m ashamed of it, or of anything I’ve ever done with another guy in my arms. But those moments are precious to me. And it’s not only my privacy that I have to consider. But I’m living in a time when the sex lives of gay men are a cultural battle ground and our enemies shrink from no filthy lie about us they think they can get away with, so long as it incites fear and loathing and hatred. If we don’t talk about our sex lives, the only people who will are the ones who hate our guts and want everyone else to hate us too.
So let me say that I can relate to poor Clara in some ways. One guy I dated once upon a time, was just simply too damn big for me to comfortably have sex with him. And I’m not just talking anal sex either. But I was in love, so I tried this and I tried that, because I wanted to make him happy, and let’s face it, I wanted to enjoy having sex with him too. But it was a struggle. And to this day I wonder how much that played a part in our breaking up. Thing is, he had tried the ex-gay thing previously, and had been married, and he’d told me that his former wife had the same problem having sex with him. I wasn’t at all surprised to hear it.
A penis is designed for a vagina. No…It isn’t that simple. The fact is, depending on any number of factors, intercourse can be physically very painful, even damaging, to a woman. It can be a struggle for some opposite sex couples to achieve sexual gratification during intercourse. Over the course of my many road trips I’ve probably stopped at hundreds of truck stops, probably beheld hundreds of those ubiquitous condom vending machines…
The anus and rectum, unlike the vagina contain no natural lubricating function…
…each one advertising pre lubricated condoms…
The rectum is incapable of mechanical protection against abrasion and severe damage to the colonic mucosa can result if objects that are large, sharp, or pointed are inserted into the rectum…
…and an assortment of “french ticklers”. Holsinger goes on a tear in his paper about gay men inserting things into the anus of their partners as though it’s someone everyone does, and conversely something opposite sex couples do not do to a vagina. It’s a fact the sex toy industry would be greatly surprised to hear. In the comments section of Atrios post on Holsinger’s paper, one commenter tells of a woman who went to the ER to have rocks removed…
I had to get an ER doc to remove my diaphram once. The damn thing was just stuck. I told the doc that I felt like an idiot and she said, "Oh no way. I take a lot more stuff out of there that shouldn’t be there." So of course I had to ask, "Like what?" And she told me that a few nights earlier she had taken a bunch of rocks out of some woman’s vagina. The woman and her partner apparently experimented with all kinds of objects to "enhance" intercourse.
Notice that the poster had to go herself, to get a perfectly common form of female birth control removed from Her vagina. Now…the very thought of inserting a foreign object into my body, let alone the body of a lover, just completely disgusts me. But that’s my own particular sexual temperament. Don’t fucking tell me that opposite sex couples aren’t doing that to each other every night all around the world. And don’t…don’t even think of trying to tell me that a motherfucking doctor doesn’t know this.
Which brings me to my point. But first…let us pause for a moment and think of poor Clara Kinsey. She’s in the doctor’s office with her husband, and the doctor is holding out a ruler for her to indicate the size of Mr. Kinsey’s erect penis, and she is confused. The doctor is telling her with that ruler, that you can measure the size of most men with a ruler. If you think it’s laughable nowadays that anyone wouldn’t know that men come in all sizes and shapes, let alone that most men don’t actually have foot long dicks, much as some of them seem to wish, strangely, that they do, thank the Supreme Court of the hated Earl Warren, which struck down all those obscenity and censorship laws back in the 1950s, to the absolute horror of American right wingers and fundamentalist kooks. Probably the first male penis poor Clara ever saw, was that of her husband’s on their first honeymoon night. That’s why she thought there was something wrong with her when sex became painful.
She didn’t know. Her husband didn’t either. It would be years later that he undertook to study human sexuality. But their doctor knew. Good thing for that couple. But he had to know.
And so does Holsinger.
When the complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and diseases may occur as noted above. Therefore, based on the simplest known anatomy and physiology, when dealing with the complementarity of the human sexes, one can simply say, Res ipsa loquitur – the thing speaks for itself!
What speaks for itself clearly, loudly, sickeningly, are this man’s words. When he sat down to write that penises and vaginas are perfectly mated to each other, he knew, he had to know, that it isn’t always so. He knew…he had to know…that sex with the wrong partner, let alone with an uncaring, aggressive one, can be damaging to a woman’s body. He knew…he had to know…that opposite sex couples resort all the time to lubricants, and sex toys inserted into the vagina to enhance sexual pleasure. He knew…He Damn Well Had To Know…that sexually transmitted disease is easily spread during penile/vaginal intercourse, and that before the advent of antibiotics, it was often as incurable and lethal as AIDS was in 1991
But he also knew this: that he was writing for a bunch of sexually ignorant rubes who would believe it if he told them otherwise, so he could make the sex that gay men have look ugly and unnatural.
He used his degree to give his lies authority. And he did it in the name of God, and in the name of morality. And that is why he’s George Bush’s nominee for Surgeon General. His moral values, his instinctive sense of right and wrong, are those of the religious right, and the republican party. Let’s hear it for virtuous men.
My gay friends are also friends with my family. And they’re glad that we have a healthy heterosexual relationship and a healthy relationship with our kids. But they want to be respected too—their rights, their relationships—and not be scapegoated for things that have nothing to do with them.
I had this conversation with Focus on the Family, and I said I agree with you that family breakdown is a huge crisis, a serious crisis. And I don’t think the Left talks about that enough. My neighborhood is eighty percent single parent families. You can’t overcome poverty with that, with eighty percent single parent families. But how do we reweave the bonds of marriage, family, extended family, and community, to put our arms around the kids? And it’s not just in poor neighborhoods. Kids are falling through the cracks of fractured family in all classes and neighborhoods. So I said to them, I want to rebuild family life and relationships, but explain to me how gay and lesbian people are the ones responsible for all that? which is what their fund-raising strategy suggests. And after about an hour and a half they conceded the point. They said, Okay Jim, we concede that family breakdown is caused much more by heterosexual dysfunction than by homosexuals. But then they said, We can’t vouch for our fundraising department, which says a lot, I think.
Yes, it’s bullshit. But it brings in the bucks. Gay rights wasn’t even a blip on the radar of the religious right until Anita Bryant showed them that it made the fundies come out to the polls in droves, and open their wallets wide to anyone who said they would smite the queers for Jesus. And as long as it keeps making them money, they’ll keep right on waving the gay bogeyman, no matter how obvious it is to everyone that even they aren’t swallowing the bullshit they’re spreading about homosexuals. The fundies have no conscience, and the con artists who are praying on them have no shame.
‘Twas ever thus in the business of hate mongering. I could feel sorry for the little old granny ladies who throw their social security checks at these con men…except for this knife in my heart, and in so many others’, with their names on it. Kinda like those little brass name plates you sometimes see on the backs of pews. Remember, every small tithe of $500, allows us to buy enough stones to properly execute one homosexual in accordance with biblical teachings. These stones are hand polished in our Christian owned and operated factory in Ecuador, and every one has a copy of The Lord’s Prayer hand engraved on it. For an extra $500, we’ll add the personal dedication of your choice (30 characters or less…remember spaces count the same as letters). Give one as a gift. Use it to remember a dearly departed loved one…
Oh…You Noticed That You’re Being Used Now Did You…?
Comes the dawn…
IT’S ALRIGHT MR. KENNEDY, MY UTERUS IS ONLY BLEEDING . Marty Lederman points us to an interesting WaPo article, in which a few members of America’s tiny minority of serious, principled "pro-lifers" have come to see that "Partial Birth" bans are silly, irrational laws whose primary purpose is to separate money from their wallets and funnel it to the Republican Party. Focus on the Family, however, maintains that the bans do have an upside: the law does increase the "danger of internal bleeding from a perforated uterus." If you don’t believe me that most of the American forced pregnancy lobby cares a great deal more about punishing women for sexual choices they don’t approve of than protecting fetal life, well, I say we take their word for it.
And, again, this explains the sexism in Kennedy‘s opinion; you take it away, and the legislation has no connection with a legitimate state interest at all. As you can see, most anti-choicers (despite the bad-faith congressional findings that 2+2=171) don’t really think that these bans on a safer procedure protect women’s physical health. They simply believe that women can’t be trusted to make judgments about their own lives, and if this causes some women to be seriously injured that’s a feature, not a bug. It’s almost impossible to overstate how disgusting this legislation is, and how deeply entwined outright misogyny is with the American "pro-life" movement.
In a highly visible rift in the anti-abortion movement, a coalition of evangelical Protestant and Roman Catholic groups is attacking a longtime ally, Focus on the Family founder James C. Dobson.
Using rhetoric that they have reserved in the past for abortion clinics, some of the coalition’s leaders accuse Dobson and other national antiabortion leaders of building an "industry" around relentless fundraising and misleading information.
Misleading? Dobson and company? Oh good heavens no…
In an open letter to Dobson that was published as a full-page ad May 23 in the Colorado Springs Gazette, Focus on the Family’s hometown newspaper, and May 30 in the Washington Times, the heads of five small but vocal groups called the Carhart decision "wicked," and accused Dobson of misleading Christians by applauding it.
Carhart is even "more wicked than Roe" because it is "not a ban, but a partial-birth abortion manual" that affirms the legality of late-term abortions "as long as you follow its guidelines," the ads said. "Yet, for many years you have misled the Body of Christ about the ban, and now about the ruling itself."
…
Another signer, the Rev. Bob Enyart, a Christian talk radio host and pastor of the Denver Bible Church, said the real issue is fundraising.
"Over the past seven years, the partial-birth abortion ban as a fundraising technique has brought in over a quarter of a billion dollars" for major antiabortion groups, "but the ban has no authority to prevent a single abortion, and pro-life donors were never told that," he said. "That’s why we call it the pro-life industry."
In Rohrbough’s view, partisan politics is also involved.
"What happened in the abortion world is that groups like National Right to Life, they’re really a wing of the Republican Party, and they’re not geared to push for personhood for an unborn child — they’re geared to getting Republicans elected," he said. "So we’re seeing these ridiculous laws like the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban put forward, and then we’re deceived about what they really do."
No shit Sherlock. That gang has been manipulating your hatred of women and homosexual people to rise money for fucking decades. Welcome to the real world asshole. Your cheapshit knee jerk prejudices are like keys on a piano to them. And as long as you allow your hatreds to lead you around by the nose, they’ll keep playing you for all the money you’re worth.
When you signed on to a movement to grind hopes and dreams of women, of gay and lesbian people for love and happiness and and that intimate peaceful contentment in the arms of someone they loved into the dirt, I guess it didn’t occur to you that perhaps the people running it might be a bunch of soulless conniving thugs. But think for a moment, if you have a single functioning synapse left in that thing you call a brain…what else could they have been? What kind of person does that to innocent people, jackass? You thought the sort of person who incites fear and loathing and hate toward lovers was trustworthy? Trustworthy? I’m laughing in your face. If you had a shred of conscience you’d have seen him for the predator he is the moment he approached you with his little sales pitch. Give me your money, and I will wage holy war on the sex lives of the heathen… But you couldn’t. You couldn’t do anything but fall for it, because your hate, your contempt, and your cheapshit conceits made you weak. So you got taken advantage of. And if I’m sorry for you about anything, it’s that all you lost was your money. Look into the face of someone who lost the possibility of love sometime asshole. You’re both predators. The only difference between Dobson and you is that he wants to enrich himself. You just want to see hope die, so you can feel righteous.
They say you can’t cheat an honest man. But I’ll tell you something: it’s real easy to cheat a bigot. All you gotta do, is wave that scarecrow in his face, and he’ll dance for you. Like you danced for Dobson.
Quick! Send Money! Now! Before the homos take over!!!
This is one of his essays, reposted in the comments section on Kos. Here he is on what looks like a riff about the meaning of liberalism, but it’s really about swinging back when the gutter takes a swing at you. Steve had no patients for liberals and democrats who wouldn’t stand up proudly for themselves and their political and moral values, and who by default, allowed the right wing smears against their party and its history to go unchallenged in the name of not sinking down to their level. Steve understood that you just can’t allow a single solitary right wing lie to go unchallenged because before you know it, that lie will take on a life of its own. As many have.
This is so typical of him, and why he will be much missed.
You know, I’ve studied history, I’ve read about America and you know something, if it weren’t for liberals, we’d be living in a dark, evil country, far worse than anything Bush could conjure up. A world where children were told to piss on the side of the road because they weren’t fit to pee in a white outhouse, where women had to get back alley abortions and where rape was a joke, unless the alleged criminal was black, whereupon he was hung from a tree and castrated.
What has conservatism given America? A stable social order? A peaceful homelife? Respect for law and order? No. Hell, no. It hasn’t given us anything we didn’t have and it wants to take away our freedoms.
The Founding Fathers, as flawed as they were, slaveowners and pornographers, smugglers and terrorists, understood one thing, a man’s path to God needed no help from the state. Is the religion of these conservatives so fragile that they need the state to prop it up, to tell us how to pray and think? Is that what they stand for? Is that their America?
Conservatism plays on fear and thrives on lies and dishonesty. I grew up with honest, decent conservatives and those people have been replaced by the party of greed. It is one thing to want less government interference and smaller, fiscally responsible government. It is another thing entirely to be a corporate whore, selling out to the highest bidder because the CEO fattens your campaign chest. They are building an America which cannot be sustained. One based on the benefit of the few at the cost of the many. The indifferent boss who hires too few people and works them to death or until they break down sick. Cheap labor capitalism has replaced common sense. "Globalism" which is really guise for exploitation, replaced fair trade, which is nothing like fair for the trapped semi-slaves of the maquliadoras. In the Texas border towns, hundreds of these women have been used as sex slaves and then apparently killed,the FBI powerless to do anything as the criminals sit in Mexico untouched by law.
For the better part of a decade, the conservatives made liberal a dirty word. Well, it isn’t. It represents the best and most noble nature of what America stands for: equitable government services, old age pensions, health care, education, fair trials and humane imprisonment. It is the heart and soul of what made American different and better than other countries. Not only an escape from oppression, but the opportunity to thrive in land free of tradition and the repression that can bring. We offered a democracy which didn’t enshrine the rich and made them feel they had an obligation to their workers.
Bush and the people around him disdain that. They think, by accident of birth and circumstance, they were meant to rule the world and those who did not agree would suffer.
Liberal does not and has not meant weak until the conservatives said it did. Was Martin Luther King weak? Bobby Kennedy? Gene McCarthy? It was the liberals who remade this country and ended legal segregation and legal sexism. Not the conservatives, who wanted to hold on to the old ways.
It’s time to regain the sprit of FDR and Truman and the people around them. People who believed in the public good over private gain. It is time to stop apologizing for being a liberal and be proud to fight for your beliefs. No more shying away or being defined by other people. Liberals believe in a strong defense and punishment for crime. But not preemption and pointless jail sentences. We believe no American should be turned away from a hospital because they are too poor or lack a proper legal defense. We believe that people should make enough from one job to live on, to spend time on raising their family. We believe that individuals and not the state should dictate who gets married and why. The best way to defend marriage is to expand, not restrict it.
It was the liberals who opposed the Nazis while the conservatives were plotting to get their brown shirts or fund Hitler. It was the liberals who warned about Spain and fought there, who joined the RAF to fight the Germans, who brought democracy to Germany and Japan. Let us not forget it was the conservatives who opposed defending America until the Germans sank our ships. They would have done nothing as Britain came under Nazi control. It was they who supported Joe McCarthy and his baseless, drink fueled claims.
Without liberals, there would be no modern America, just a Nazi sattlelite state. Liberals weak on defense? Liberals created America’s defense. The conservatives only need vets at election time.
It is time to stop looking for an accomodation with the right. They want none for us. They want to win, at any price. So, you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?
Why are so many liberal bloggers up in arms about Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine being picked to give the Democrat’s reply to Bush’s State of the Union? There’s been fury in the blogosphere about everything from Kaine’s looks, style, obscurity, his open talk about his faith and his inexperience in national security.
Liberal writer Ezra Klein (no Brad Pitt, last time I checked him out) vented that Kaine is "a squat, squinty, pug-nosed fellow." Even the invariably smart and strategic Arianna (Huffington) weighed in: "What the hell are they thinking?" She accused Democrats of picking "someone whose only claim to fame is that he carried a red state" when they need to make the case that "the GOP is not the party that can best keep us safe."
But, let’s get real here.
1. It doesn’t really matter who gives the reply, since no one listens and it’s an impossible task.
2. This is slightly less important than whether House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi chooses to wear blue or red to listen to the speech.
…………….
4. And, hell, Kaine is pretty liberal for a Virginian. During the campaign, he was derided relentlessly by the GOP, in an expensive and vicious campaign, as "the most liberal candidate who’s ever run for governor in the Commonwealth of Virginia’s history." Kaine is a guy who made a name for himself working with the American Civil Liberties Union, who connected his faith to his politics in authentic ways (he was a thoughtful opponent of the death penalty), who was an honest and forthright advocate of government’s affirmative role–supporting moves to increase taxes to fund education, transportation and environmental programs…………………..
For liberal bloggers who want to get exercised about something really important: Where are the Democrats or liberals talking about Ford laying off some 30,000 workers, the end of middle class benefits for working Americans, IBM’s gutting of pension security, and the collapse of American manufacturing?
…………………….
If you want to know why Dems don’t win elections, it won’t be because Kaine is talking this Tuesday night. It’s because the mainstream leadership of the Democratic party doesn’t think, feel, viscerally respond to the increasing insecurities of working americans.
I guess Katrina doesn’t read any labor blogs, oddly enough she should, but that’s a pig fight for another day.
First, let’s start with her cheap shot at Ezra Klein. He wasn’t talking about the man’s stature for no reason. It’s because it matters. And the point of having Jack Murtha speak was to discuss the war and Bush’s lies with impecable credibility. We don’t need any fucking lectures on Tim Kaine’s strengths and weaknesses. We’re the ones who backed his campaign. And frankly, we were more concerned with ginning up support for a filibuster than who refuted Bush at the SOTU. A couple of opinions is not a controversy. Less people posted on this than a discussion on mac and cheese I had on this site a few weeks ago.
I mean, I wouldn’t call Marc Cooper a fat piece of shit to describe him, beacuse that’s cheap, mean and irrelevant, just like that was a cheap and unfair shot about Klein, who unlike some heiresses with a taste for short skirts and leather jackets, didn’t have his blog handed to him. It’s an unfair use of power and position to smack someone down for no good reason. But he has friends and friends of friends who won’t let that little slam go unremarked.
When Jonah Goldberg attacked her over the hurricane, many in the blogosphere ripped him a new asshole for what he did. It was cheap and unfair and we stuck up for her. This is our repayment.
Ever wonder why liberals get their ass kicked? Because they don’t take things seriously like responding to the State of the Union. It may not matter to her and the cocktail party circuit, but it matters to millions of people on TV to hear they’ve been told bullshit by the President. If she thinks it’s on par with Nancy Pelosi’s clothing choices, well………
"Pretty liberal for a Virginian". Wow, not condescending at all. That’s pretty much like saying "he speaks well for a black man". And she’s giving lectures on what Democrats miss? Well, fuck me, she just sneered at the fairly large number of liberal democrats in Virginia (UVA, what’s that?) like they were trained monkeys or something. Just because he has an accent doesn’t mean he’s a racist or a conservative. There are liberals in every part of the country, but not to the Nation.
She’s has the gall to lecture us on workers rights? I mean, I could swing a dead cat around the Nation’s offices before hitting a black person. Did you ever notice this city was 57 percent minority? What, not enough blacks or hispanics at NYU or City College to offer internships to? Or only when you know the parents do the offers come through. It’s easy to talk about 30,0o0 Ford employees you’ll never meet.
But don’t you think something is just fucked up when you look around your offices and it looks as white as a country club? You want to talk about visceral? Let’s talk about your hiring practices. You want to talk about Democrats and liberals, yet your own publication reflects an increasingly narrow and unrepresentative slice of liberal ideology, one which oddly enough, people are rejecting to read blogs for. Who do you speak for? Not the majority of New Yorkers or urban america, except through a filter of uper middle class entitlement and distant concern.
So I’m in no mood to take lectures from people who have no clue about what Democrats or bloggers even do. And is frankly so spineless as to keep the aformentioned Marc Cooper on the masthead, after he shit on the staff of the Nation to cozy up to his reactionary buddies at Pajamas Media. If the Nation was run by some of the tough minded people who run blogs, his ass would have been bouncing down the street.
We’ve lost a fighter. Steve Gilliard was someone I admired immensely and read daily, and when he fell ill this time, and I read about the difficulty he was having in the hospital, I was afraid it would come to this. I am going to miss his passionate, angry, righteous voice more then I want to think about right now.
He began as a frequent commenter on Daily Kos…
When reporters ask me when I first started thinking Daily Kos would become something more important, I tell them about the Dean campaign, or about the traffic explosion during the run-up and start of the Iraq War.
But that’s pretty much bullshit. Because the reality is much more mundane, much less sexy —
It was the arrival on the site’s comment boards of two people — Meteor Blades and Steve Gilliard.
They were a real revelation to me — I couldn’t believe that people like them, so brilliant, so insightful, so talented, would spend time at my little corner of the world. They inspired me to keep writing, keep building this place. Because if nothing else, I needed to make sure they had a platform upon which to speak.
So they ended up being two of the first contributing editors on Daily Kos. Steve, in fact, was the first person I ever approached with the "guest blogger" offer. And he didn’t waste time getting started, drawing on history of the region and the British occupation of Iraq in the late 1910s to set the stage for what the US would soon face in Iraq. He was frighteningly prescient on Iraq, and it wasn’t the only topic he would consistently nail. He was a credit to the progressive blogosphere.
Steve was a big personality, and it was clear he needed his own stage. And he got it with the News Blog, which he soon built into a full-time gig, still a rarity among bloggers. It was one of three sites I religiously checked more than three times a day.
If you knew Steve only from his blog, you’d think he was a pit bull. He was blunt, loud, aggressive, unafraid, and took no prisoners.
But you’d meet him in life, and he was the exact opposite. He was soft-spoken, shy, modest, calm, friendly, and — this was the most surprising to me — gentle.
I never would’ve gotten that from his writings. But that’s what he was.
I’d known Steve five years — just about my entire blogging existence. I don’t know of a blogging life without him. He has been a friend, a confidant, a sounding board, a reality check, a loyal ally, a mentor. He was family.
And while that all came to an end Saturday morning, I’m still not ready to let it go.
We were blessed to have Steve as long we did. But I’m selfish. I wanted much, much more.
I went a couple of rounds with Steve a few years back, mostly ribbing during one of the earlier rounds of blogger wars (the "pie fight" drama). More often than not though, over the last two years, we agreed on quite a bit, including our disdain for the religious right and the outlandish transparent efforts by the GOP to promote the candidacies of sell-out, fundie kissing house negroes like Ken Blackwell as proof of the party’s "outreach" to the black community.
We corresponded every once in a while, mostly of the "can you believe this sh*t?" nature regarding the above. Steve enthusiastically came to my defense back in February when The Peter and CWA launched their email disinformation campaign to discredit me (and attempt jeopardize my day job) by calling me "anti-Christian." Steve emailed and said:
You need to call these people out as racists and homophobes.
They think you’re going to care what they think. Tell them that you don’t need a bunch of racists lecturing you on the black church or anything else. That their rampant homophobia also disqualifies them. And then add in that they have no respect for lesbians or blacks anyway, besides hiring tokens.
As far as anti-Christian, unless you grew up in a far different family than mine, you know about the church and the one you grew up in was not filled with hateful screeds like this.
Steve was a fighter. He knew that when the gutter takes a swing at you, you have to swing back, and hard and keep on swinging until they crawl back to wherever they came from. None of this, faux civility crap when it came to dealing with the gutter. Steve told it like it was, said it like it needed to be said, and never, Never conceded so much as an inch of the moral high ground to posturing republican thugs. He knew his history…God how he knew his history…and he could relate the past to the present with breathtaking precision and insight. Kos is right about how prescient he was on Iraq. He saw with clarity how the imperialist impulse, and that relentless blindness to the lives and humanity of non-westerners, the arrogance and conceit of white superiority, still lives on and moves the hard right. He understood it. He understood how it informs the history we are living today. And he never shrank from calling it for what it was, just as he never thought twice about calling out democratic party sell-outs, or those black leaders and ministers who think they can make a deal with the right for their own personal glory. He always called it for what it was, no matter how impolitic.
We need more like him nowadays, not less. And now he’s gone. Damn. Damn!
You were an honest, righteous, decent voice. You fought the good fight. You’re going to be missed. I’m not sure I’m going to be able to bear taking your link down.
This blog is powered by WordPress and is hosted at Winters Web Works, who also did some custom design work (Thanks!). Some embedded content was created with the help of The Gimp. I proof with Google Chrome on either Windows, Linux or MacOS depending on which machine I happen to be running at the time.
