Sunday, December 07, 2008

Keeping Our Eyes Open

Hey, did you see that snow yesterday? That was fun, I thought, it wasn't much but it was enough to tickle your cheeks and put a thin layer of white on cars, window sills, lawns. Today it's chilly, winter is really here.

Now, a month after the elections, there have been a number of articles looking back at Proposition 8 and other initiatives and how the progressives were beaten by the anti-gay campaigns. Funny how it has gone, at first there was outrage against the Mormon church, which was the major source of funding and support for the repressive movement, but as the dust settles activists are realizing that our side, the progressive side, simply didn't understand what they were getting into. It wasn't only that the Mormons and Catholics put so much into it, the pro-marriage activists failed by underestimating the challenge.

A few months ago I unhappified a few people when I criticized the campaign that was going to fight an anti-transgender referendum here in Montgomery County. The shower-nuts had gotten people to sign petitions to relegalize discrimination on the basis of gender identity, and our side needed to fight back. This was going to require a gigantic education campaign, you would have to teach the public about gender identity and issues involved, it would take not only the conveyance of important facts but a serious attitude adjustment, getting people over the initial gut reaction when you're faced with somebody who is different from you in a way you can't comprehend. The public would have to care enough to vote to support the rights of transgender people, and why would they?

It was going to be a tough fight, and when the group held its first public meeting to announce their strategy and solicit donations, I went to it, and wrote afterwards, "I'm worried." Everybody seemed earnest and committed, but it did not appear to me that they had any idea of the kind of underhanded opposition they would be facing. Those good-hearted people seemed to think that all you had to do was appeal to the higher consciousness of the public and the public would respond to you. They didn't realize that the other side will say anything without regard to truth or accuracy, the other side will do anything no matter how cowardly or gutless, the other side never sleeps, they work surreptitiously and secretly through churches, newsletters, living rooms, talk radio.

Worst of all, to my mind, the people organizing the campaign didn't understand how powerful the other side's symbolism was, the image of a sexual predator, pedophile, or pervert in a dress, lurking in the ladies shower-room, molesting our wives and daughters, protected by the new law. Our side laughed at that image, because in itself it represented everything we disdained. There was nothing in the law that could possibly justify or protect any man going into a ladies room for any sexual reason -- the image was completely irrelevant to the actual issue.

The image had nothing to do with the new law, but it was vivid, emotional, personal. It played on stereotypes of transgender people as "she-males" and worse, weird sexual monsters who will do anything -- anything -- to invert morality and mock ordinary citizens' decent way of life. It invoked protective responses to threats to our families. It unleashed the power of our cultural sexual repression, the fear that lust, once freed, will run wild and destroy us all. The shower-room nightmare was like a scene out of Psycho, alarming and frightening and appealing somehow to a dark side of people that is afraid of unseen and unknown threats. It was nonsense in every way, but man, it was powerful.

"Our" campaign staff wanted to counter that with the slogan "Prohibit discrimination."

There has been a lot of postmortem discussion of Proposition 8 in California, and other anti-gay initiatives that passed in the last election cycle, and one realization is sinking in everywhere. Here's how Rolling Stone has it (note: foul language seems justified here to me):
Prop 8 should have been defeated -- two months before the election, it was down 17 points in the polls -- but the gay-rights groups that tried to stop it ran a lousy campaign. According to veteran political observers, the No on Prop 8 effort was slow to raise money, ran weak and confusing ads, and failed to put together a grass-roots operation to get out the vote.

"This was political malpractice," says a Democratic consultant who operates at the highest level of California politics. "They fucked this up, and it was painful to watch. They shouldn't be allowed to pawn this off on the Mormons or anyone else. They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and now hundreds of thousands of gay couples are going to pay the price." Same-Sex Setback: Don't blame Mormons or black voters - the California activists who tried to stop Prop 8 ran a lousy campaign

TeachTheFacts has been fighting for truth, justice, and the American way in Montgomery County for almost exactly four years now. We started out supporting the county school board in getting a decent sex-ed curriculum implemented, and then we supported the County Council in banning discrimination on the basis of gender identity. Our opponents are a rather lame handful of nuts who usually lose by shooting themselves in the foot. If you want to beat them, all you have to do is put them on television and get them talking. There are a few who can put a sentence together, but after a while you realize that they are trying to justify hatred, and people in our county don't buy into that. The thing is, they are tireless, they never let up, I don't know what motivates them but they keep it up. We have learned a lot dealing with these people, lessons that the progressive community in general hasn't quite grasped yet. The Prop-8 situation is a clear example of that, our side simply underestimated the intensity of the lunacy.
It's ironic that the coalition to define marriage in California as the union between "one man and one woman" was anchored by a church whose founder claimed 33 wives. It's also ironic that the coalition — which framed Prop 8 as a fight to protect California's children — was quietly knit together by the Catholic archbishop of San Francisco, who once excused the molestation of children at the hands of a pedophile priest as mere "horseplay." But once the Mormons joined the effort, they quickly established themselves as "the foundation of the campaign," says Frank Schubert, the consultant who directed Yes on 8. "We could count on their money and their people being there early."

It is absolutely ironic that the Mormons, of all people, would be mounting a campaign to define marriage as heterosexual monogamy -- the word "ironic" is used wrong most of the time, but this is an incredibly perfect example of the concept. And the Catholics, well, that is somewhat less ironic, but they do have a problem with priests who prey when they should be praying, they are not in a position to be invalidating someone's heartfelt love.

The Mormon Church has become tentatively involved in our county's controversies, as well. Several of the leaders of the Citizens for a Responsible Whatever are Mormon. The Family Leader Network claims on their web site that they are not affiliated with any church, but they are. With Proposition 8 we saw the LDS church emerge as a major political force, exploiting their tax-exempt status to campaign and influence secular politics in a way this country has never seen before. We need to stay on our toes in Montgomery County and keep an eye on these guys.
The No on Prop 8 campaign, meanwhile, was oblivious to the formidable field operation that the other side was mounting. Worse, its executive committee refused to include leaders of top gay and lesbian grass-roots organizations, which deprived them of an army of willing foot soldiers. "We didn't have people going door to door," admits Yvette Martinez, the campaign's political director. The field operation consisted of volunteers phone-banking from 135 call centers across the state, an effort that didn't begin ramping up until mid-October.

"They had no ground game," says a leading Democratic consultant. "They thought they could win this thing by slapping some ads together. It was the height of naiveté."

Naiveté is not our friend. If we are going to fight for reason and fairness then we will need to keep our eyes open, it is frightening sometimes but we need to be aware of the trickery and ugliness that the other side is capable of. It's hard to fight the sound-bite, it's easy to make fun of it but at the end of the day people are too busy to think things all the way through, you tell them that gay people are recruiting our youth and undermining the traditional family and they'll believe you, that's just how people are. Our side needs to put out a strong and concise message that will get through to the public, we can't rely on conscience, we can't expect people to empathize with someone who is very different from them, we can't expect our argument to be accepted simply because it's sensible.

As we saw in the recent elections, the tide in this country has changed, yes some anti-gay bills passed but at least we the people elected reasonable legislators and executives. We are going to see a progressive shift as the citizens learn that we don't have to live in fear of everything that's different from us. But there has never been a time that you could stop paying attention, we have to go into this with our eyes open.

78 Comments:

Blogger BlackTsunami said...

Amen.

As I have said on my blog many a time (and no doubt we will be witness to when anonymous puts his/her comments to this post), the anti-gay industry operates on fears, stereotypes and anecdotes taken out of context.

It would do us well to learn their tactics so to combat them.

December 07, 2008 5:28 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

Just to get this off my chest:

“Oh Jim, you unhappificater, you.”

Beyond that, stellar post.

December 07, 2008 11:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yes, stellar

as in, way out in another galaxy of reality

December 08, 2008 8:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's time, "Anonymous" Troll, for you to join that "galaxy of reality" and finally get some sense and reality into your own life. But, alas, that will never happen...you are too comfortable and happy in your own ignorant and bigoted existence.

December 08, 2008 12:35 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Is there a special constellation for trolls?

rrjr

December 08, 2008 1:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If we are going to fight for reason and fairness then we will need to keep our eyes open, it is frightening sometimes but we need to be aware of the trickery and ugliness that the other side is capable of."

You mean like making statements they can't support?

Here's some statements that TTFers make continually that they can't back up:

TTFers say Republicans lost the election because they were controlled by the religious right yet can't come up with one policy that has resulted from "religious right" influence that could potentially affect any election.

TTFers say the current financial crisis happened because the Republicans deregulated the banking system yet can't come up with one regulation whose elimination can be shown to have caused any economic problem.

TTFers say CRC and CRG have tried to make their views "legally enforceable" and yet can't name any instance of CRC or CRG proposing legislation rather than trying to maintain the status quo.

Furthermore, TTFers regularly lie about the dangerous behaviors associated with current homosexual practice, about the effectiveness of comprehensive sex ed, about scientific evidence for the innateness of homosexuality, et al.

They also regularly launch personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with them and call religious viewpoints other than their own "evil".

Yes, you guys need to vigilant.

If you don't keep sliding the cups around, someone will notice that you're lying.

December 08, 2008 1:55 PM  
Blogger BlackTsunami said...

What "dangerous behaviors" associated with homosexuality, anonymous?

Can you be more specific?

Are you going to look on some anti-gay industry site for a bastardization of legitimate studies? Or are you going to do what they do and make up some of your own?

Perhaps the 1997 study claiming that gays have a shorter lifespan REGARDLESS of the fact that the authors of the study said that their work was being distorted?

Perhaps you will cite HIV/AIDS rate DESPITE the fact that the CDC said that those statistics cannot be used to gauge life spans whether they be gay or straight.

Or maybe you will cite the studies that allegedly say that lgbts are in danger of certain behaviors (i.e. depression, cigarette smoking and the like) WITHOUT telling us that those studies also blame the homophobic climate of inducing these behaviors. - btw don't even try to push the Theo Sandfort study because I will blow you out of the water on that one.

Are you going to talk about anal sex and incorrectly call it "homosexual behavior" DESPITE the fact that a January 17, 2007 issue of The New York Magazine,
the CDC’s National Survey for Family Growth, released in 2006, showed that 38.2 percent of men between 20 and 39 and 32.6 percent of women ages 18 to 44 engage in heterosexual anal sex.

Or maybe you will try to sneak some studies past us authored by discredited researchers such as Paul Cameron and John R. Diggs (men who believe that gays stuff gerbils up their rectums).

Or maybe you are going to try and sneak some made up anecdotal lies you gleaned from a religious right webpage.

Or maybe you are going to try and refer to some religious right claims despite the fact that over 10 researchers (including A. Nicholas Groth, the six researchers of a Canadian study (Robert S. Hogg, Stefan A. Strathdee, Kevin J.P. Craib, Michael V. Shaughnessy, Julio Montaner, and Martin T. Schehter), Dr. Robert Garofalo, Lisa Waldner, Patrick Letellier, Dr. Kyle Pruett, Dr. Joanne Hall, Dr. Elizabeth Saewyc, Carol Gilligan, and Dr. Robert Spitzer) gone on record pissed off about about the religious right distort their work?

It's easy to throw out an incorrect talking point rather than backing it up, anonymous.

So back it up already.

This idea about homosexual "dangerous behaviors" is a myth, a factoid, a meme, an urban legend created by prejudiced people (I said it) who hide behind their religion when pressed about the truth.

http://www.antigayliesandliars.blogspot.com/

December 08, 2008 2:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alvin,

What's your theory about why AIDS has consistently been disproportionately present in the gay community in America and other Western countries?

And don't start attacking blacks. There are explanations for that phenomenom.

The most likely explanation for the gay statistic is random promiscuity with a wide range of partners.

Have you got a better explanation?

Do your gay friends seem to engage in such behavior?

December 08, 2008 3:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Supreme Court today said it will not formally consider Barack Obama's eligibility to become president.

Today's decision centered on an emergency appeal from New Jersey man Leo Donofrio, who says Obama is ineligible to be president because he was a British subject at birth. Donofrio said that since Obama had dual nationality at birth - his mother was American and his Kenyan father at the time was a British subject - he cannot possibly be a "natural born citizen." The Constitution says all U.S. presidents must be a natural-born citizen in order to hold office.

There's still one case pending before the judicial system giving those questioning Obama's eligibility hope that their voices wil be heard.

Attorney Philip J. Berg of Lafayette Hill, Pa., argues that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii. Federal courts in Pennsylvania have dismissed Berg's lawsuit but he's not giving up. He and others want Obama and the Democrats to produce the president-elect's "real" birth certificate to the world, instead of the copy that was posted on his FightTheSmears Web site over the summer. They worry that the Constitution is being threatened if the Electoral College gives Obama a pass.

"This is the biggest attempted hoax in the history of our country," says Berg, who's a Democrat. "Obama and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean should be criminally indicted, tried and criminally jailed."

Obama's camp has been mum on this since the summer.

December 08, 2008 3:34 PM  
Blogger BlackTsunami said...

Why would I attack African-Americans when I am one myself.

As a gay black man, I have an interesting view of how AIDS affects both communities. To me (since I am a member of the gay and black communities and can probably speak to this issue better than most), it is an issue of not promiscuity per se but self esteem. African-American gay men generally are not embraced or given role models of self esteem. A lot of them are kicked out of their homes for being gay and have to forge their own families. Thus, some make bad decisions. And others are have been so programmed by society to think that being gay is a bad thing that they act accordingly.

This point is important, anonymous. You tried to pin the HIV sign on gays and then tried to anticipate that I would bring up alleged high rate of HIV in the African-American community.

In your attempt to blunt what you thought I would say, you said there are "explanations" for the HIV rate in the African-American community. So I guess those explanations (whether they be a lack of self esteem, etc.) are appropriate for explaining HIV in the black community but not the gay community?

Why is that? Is it because its more socially acceptable to blame gays for AIDS and not African-Americans? I think so.

December 08, 2008 3:57 PM  
Blogger BlackTsunami said...

And Obama should be mum. He was elected to help the country, not defend himself against frivilous lawsuits.

December 08, 2008 3:58 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Keep spinning the lies Ahem. You are proving the need to reasonable people to KEEP OUR EYES OPEN.

I already posted the full text to the FactCheck.org report on a thread below, showing the original birth certificate and the Hawiian newspaper birth announcement. You and your conspiracy theorist friends are another wrong we need to KEEP OUR EYES OPEN to observe because it's doubtful anything will quiet you all. As Salon reports in an article titled Sex, lies and creatively edited interviews with Sarah Obama:

...Not surprisingly, almost all of the people who've been most prominent in pushing this story have a history of conspiracist thought. There's Jerome Corsi, who's best known as the co-author of the book that launched the Swift boat vets; he's a chief proponent of the claim that the government is secretly planning to form a "North American Union" with Canada and Mexico. Philip Berg, who filed the lawsuit that had until now drawn the most public attention, is a 9/11 Truther. Andy Martin, who's credited with starting the myth that Obama is a Muslim and has been intimately involved in the birth certificate mess as well, was denied admission to the Illinois bar because of a psychiatric evaluation that showed he had "moderately severe character defect manifested by well-documented ideation with a paranoid flavor and a grandiose character." He also has a long history of anti-Semitism. Robert Schulz, who's responsible for the ads in the Tribune, is a fairly notorious tax protester. In 2007, a federal judge ordered Schulz to shutter his Web site because he and his organization were, in the words of the Justice Department's Tax Division, using the site to promote "a nationwide tax-fraud scheme."

We could be dealing with the repercussions of the tangled web these people have woven for years after Obama is inaugurated. We already have some hints of what's to come. Gary Kreep, who heads the United States Justice Foundation and is representing Alan Keyes in one of the lawsuits over the president-elect's eligibility, has said his group will file suit to challenge each and every one of Obama's actions as president.

He may well inspire others. There are a surprising number of people out there -- tax protesters, for instance -- who rely on similarly creative legal thinking based on conspiracy theories for their defense. So don't be too surprised if, sometime after Jan. 20, defendants in federal trials suddenly claim they can't be prosecuted. If Obama isn't really president, then laws he signs have no effect, Department of Justice prosecutors have no authority and judges he appoints aren't legally judges. Anyone who tells you otherwise is just part of the conspiracy.

December 08, 2008 4:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All it would take is for Hawaiian officials to allow people to see the actual birth certificate.

Obama could tell them to.

Obviously, something is going on.

December 08, 2008 4:40 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Yes, GOP operatives are up to their usual tricks, smoke, mirrors and lies. The Hawaiian authorities have said the birth certificate is in order and allowed FactCheck.org to see it and post the facts about it.

Keep spinning your web of lies so the rest of us continue to be thankful this Vigilance blog is here.

December 08, 2008 5:24 PM  
Blogger BlackTsunami said...

Yeah something is going on.

A group of people who should get over an election are being exploited by a political machine. Come on now. We all know that money is behind this. The question is whose money.

December 08, 2008 5:29 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Black Tsunami said "In your attempt to blunt what you thought I would say, you said there are "explanations" for the HIV rate in the African-American community. So I guess those explanations (whether they be a lack of self esteem, etc.) are appropriate for explaining HIV in the black community but not the gay community?".

Amen Black Tsunami.

December 08, 2008 6:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We're still waiting for Alvin's theories about why gays are so susceptible to AIDS if it's not behavior-based.

Interesting that I named a number of flat-out lies posted by TTFers all the time and this is the only thing they address.

Gays are susceptible to AIDS because of their behaviors.

Everyone knows it.

You're not fooling anybody!

You're trying to fool high school students but it won't work.

They're too smart.

Did you see SNL on Saturday night satirizing Boy George's activities with a gay escort?

Boy George would keep saying, "there's nothing wrong with that"

and Seth Myers kept saying, "well, actually, there is"

December 08, 2008 7:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amen, Anon.

That's uproarious!

December 08, 2008 7:26 PM  
Blogger BlackTsunami said...

We?

The only "we" here is you my friend. It's cute that you are trying to make yourself sound like two people.

And I thought YOU answered that question when you tried to sidestep a potential contradiction regarding the African-American community and the HIV rate.

Again, I ask the question - "I guess those explanations (whether they be a lack of self esteem, etc.) are appropriate for explaining HIV in the black community but not the gay community?"

Stigmatization plays a role in the HIV rate in BOTH communities. Again you prove that its more socially acceptable to blame gays for AIDS and not African-Americans?

Also, the only reason why I am addressing it is because that is my interest which I am sure you know by reading my blog. The other stuff I leave to the other folks and they seem to be ignoring you because they are used to your bleatings.

And I love that bandwagon technique you tried to pull - "You are not fooling anyone." as if to infer "everyone is against you."

But that's not proof of anything but your basic ignorance of this subject.

Lastly you did not answer the question regarding your claim - "the dangerous behaviors associated with current homosexual practice"

AIDS is not a practice, it is a disease. So what exactly do homosexuals (and I think you meant lesbians too) do that are "dangerous?"

Is it holding hands? kissing? talking to each other on the phone, or passing notes?

You made the statement, so defend it.

December 08, 2008 8:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So what exactly do homosexuals (and I think you meant lesbians too) do that are "dangerous?""

Thought I answered that but, if you'd like a repeat, the behavior in question is engaging in promiscuity with large numbers of random individuals.

The reason is also obvious. Having broken societal taboos against sexual activity with those of their own gender, it's hard for them to think of any compelling reason to follow any of society's other little rules.

You've not answered why you think gays have such high rates of AIDS or this:

"Do your gay friends seem to engage in such behavior?"

Wonder why?

You know as well as everyone else this behavior is common in gay community.

Your excuse that it is because of low self-esteem doesn't change the fact that the behavior is common and, if schools tell kids homosexuality is normal, some will become involved in this community as a result and die.

trickery and ugliness....

December 08, 2008 8:44 PM  
Blogger BlackTsunami said...

No anonymous, gays on the whole do not engage in promiscuous sex with a high number of folks.

IT IS NOT common in the gay community to have that much sex.

I am sure you can find some who do (or at least try) just like I can find some heterosexuals who also have lots of sex. That, my friend, is an ugly stereotype.

But I am curious as to what you think this number of sex partners is? I have seen the claim that we have as many as over 500 a year and then there is a thousand.

Now a year has 365 days so that would mean gays have sex with different partners at least once every day out of the year.

Isn't that stupid? Especially when one takes into account how, according to the religious right, we are only three percent of the population.

OR better yet, how the religious right likes to claim that since we are "socio economically" better off than the average American, we don't deserve non discrimination protection.

Just where do we find all of those sex partners or how do we have time to have all of that sex if we are making money and achieving socioeconomic status higher than the "average American?"

Your claim was "ignant?" You do know what that is, don't you? And idea expressed that is so stupid it doesn't deserve the courtesy of three syllables to let people know how stupid it was.

December 08, 2008 8:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Aunt Bea keeps referencing Factcheck.org as if it is some non-partisan, independent source. It's not. See below.

FACTCHECK.ORG: Undisclosed conflict of interest

FactCheck.org is an arm of the powerful Annenberg Foundation which also runs the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, the entity which employed Barack Obama as its chairman of the board. 

According to the National Review, the Annenberg Challenge was founded by former "Weather Underground" terrorist Bill Ayers, who apparently played a pivotal role in politically positioning Obama to run for public office.

December 08, 2008 11:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah, the Tsunami.

Much sound and fury but....

still no answer to this very simple question:

"What's your theory about why AIDS has consistently been disproportionately present in the gay community in America and other Western countries?"

I mean, come on, gays have low esteem in all societies and their status is actually higher in America and Western Europe than most other places.

No trickery or ugliness. Just a fact. Places where the status of gays is the highest is where the highest concentration of AIDS exist. Think San Francisco.

Come to terms with reality, Alvin. AIDS is widespread among gays because of their dangerous behavior.

Think, and change.

December 08, 2008 11:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The Hawaiian authorities have said the birth certificate is in order and allowed FactCheck.org to see it and post the facts about it."

They weren't allowed to see the original. The authorities did confirm the certificate is in order but that could be true even if he was born in Kenya.

Get your facts straight, Beatrice.

You're embarassing yourself like a lush!

December 08, 2008 11:32 PM  
Blogger BlackTsunami said...

Thank you for making yourself look foolish (yet again).

You make silly claims about lgbts and then can't back them up. Instead you make ugly snide comments and then try to make it seem that I am avoiding a question you asked. You never asked a question - you made a dumb statement and tried to hem and haw when pressed on it. And I might point out that those snide comments to Aunt Bea don't enhance your credibility either.

It's sad. You aren't even a good troll.

Lastly, about Obama and Fact Check:

"Both Obama and Ayers served on a board for the Anneberg Challenge. This charitable foundation was set up by the late Walter Anneberg, a philanthropist and former U.S. ambassador. The current president and chairman of the foundation is Walter’s widow, Leonore Annenberg. Both were/are Republicans who were friends with Ronald Reagan. In fact, Leonore Annenberg served as Reagan’s “chief of protocol” in the State Department."

I guess that makes Reagan a terrorist, huh?

December 08, 2008 11:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Black Tsunami,

I don't understand your question about Reagan being a terrorist. If you read what I wrote, you will see that I was stating that FactCheck.org has a definite conflict of interest regarding Obama, and his terrorist pal Bill Ayers. FactCheck.org, therefore, needs to be taken with a grain of salt regarding the subject of Obama (or Ayers).

Suppose, for instance, Teach the Facts was owned by Equality Maryland, and Emproph was the chairman of the board of Basic Rights Montgomery. Then, suppose Teach the Facts said that they conducted research regarding Emproph and submitted their findings to the public.

In that scenario, there is definite conflict of interest, and Teach the Facts' facts would have to be taken with a grain of salt. No one's saying that Teach the Facts might not be completely correct --it's just that their conflict of interest would need to be considered.

I don't get the weird connection you made to Reagan and terrorism here.

December 09, 2008 12:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You're embarassing yourself like a lush!"

Hitting the Jack Daniels again, Wyatt?

December 09, 2008 12:34 AM  
Blogger BlackTsunami said...

It wasnt a question. I was being sarcastic in order to highlight the silly "guilt by association" game that you are playing.

December 09, 2008 12:34 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

The Prevalence of HIV in the Gay Community
In total, we can say that perhaps 5.9% of gay people (men and women) are living with HIV/AIDS.
----
Trickery and ugliness said…

-the dangerous behaviors associated with current homosexual practice
-AIDS has consistently been disproportionately present in the gay community
-We're still waiting for Alvin's theories about why gays are so susceptible to AIDS if it's not behavior-based.
-Gays are susceptible to AIDS because of their behaviors
-engaging in promiscuity with large numbers of random individuals.
-gays have such high rates of AIDS
-this behavior is common in gay community
-AIDS has consistently been disproportionately present in the gay community
-Places where the status of gays is the highest is where the highest concentration of AIDS exist.
-AIDS is widespread among gays because of their dangerous behavior.


Argumentum ad nauseam
This is the incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to be true, or is more likely to be accepted as true, the more often it is heard.

Shifting the burden of proof
The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
--
“TTFers regularly lie about the dangerous behaviors associated with current homosexual practice, about the effectiveness of comprehensive sex ed, about scientific evidence for the innateness of homosexuality, et al."

Projection: When a person has uncomfortable thoughts or feelings, they may project these onto other people, assigning the thoughts or feelings that they need to repress to a convenient alternative target.
--
“They also regularly launch personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with them and call religious viewpoints other than their own "evil".”

Deconstructing the Persecution Complex: What Are Individual Rights?
The misunderstanding inherent in this use of the persecution complex goes to the basic definition of the rights of the individual. While equally-situated individuals have the right to be treated equally (the antidiscrimination principle), no-one has a right to institutionalize legal discrimination against an innocent group, no matter how much they want to, and no matter what "values" this goal of discrimination is based upon. Thus, "persecution" of discriminators is justified.

Put another way, the individual has the right to do anything that does not infringe upon the rights of others.[2] Unjust discrimination infringes upon another's rights, and is thus not a right that should be valued.

December 09, 2008 6:45 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

The only one embarassing himself is the one who has to resort to personal attacks, lies, and spin as he obessesses here day after day. The facts are plain for all to see, all who are not blinded by the spin over at World Daily Nut, ah Net where they so desperately want to Derail the Obama Express and sell their editor/founder's 2003 book.

That was one doozy of a press conference the conspiracy theorists held in the rented out National Press Club yesterday. Here's Salon's report on it:

...considering the Supreme Court had refused Monday morning to hear a lawsuit about Obama's citizenship, there was reason to hope that maybe things at the afternoon press conference would stay reasonable.

Two and a half hours later, as dentist-slash-lawyer Orly Taitz harangued reporters for not investigating whether Obama's mother was actually dead, that hope had been obliterated. It was crushed by a torrent of half-baked legal theories, vague platitudes about the Constitution and sinister "facts" assembled by a collection of true believers so extreme that even Michelle Malkin wants nothing to do with them. (Let alone actual Republican operatives, who appear to realize that questioning Obama's citizenship isn't the best way to begin their journey out of the political wilderness.) Although the news conference wasn't quite over when Taitz began her harangue, it had been 15 minutes since a member of the audience compared Obama's alleged electoral fraud to how Hitler rose to power -- a sure sign it was well past time to leave.

...Taitz -- the lead attorney in the case the Supreme Court declined to hear Monday morning -- kept making stranger and stranger assertions. At one point, she asked why the government had fined broadcasters for Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction," but didn't intervene to force the media to report on Obama's allegedly phony birth certificate. She claimed Obama holds passports from at least four countries, compared him to Black Panther leader Eldridge Cleaver, equated the "controversy" about Obama to Watergate, and finished her tour-de-force presentation by saying that if Obama can claim he's a U.S. citizen and win an election, then so could just about anyone. "If a person can become a presidential candidate only based on his own statement," she said, "then somebody like Osama bin Laden, theoretically, can come and write a statement, 'I'm eligible,' and we should put him on the ballot, too?"

That sort of thing went on for 90 minutes before Schultz opened the press conference up to questions. It was clear from the occasional applause that most of the people in the room agreed with Schultz, anyway. Although the event was at the National Press Club, that's no guarantee of mainstream media interest. Groups may appear legitimate because they hold a news conference at the club, but the dirty little secret is the club rents out its rooms to anybody who shows up with the money. Most of the people apparently came from the weirder corners of the media. One friendly questioner, Shelli Baker of Morning Song Radio, wound up taking the mike for about 10 minutes to tell a complicated story involving Saudi oil barons, John Ashcroft, sharia law, the World Bank and Mitt Romney, which left even Schultz confused.

By Jan. 20, the courts -- which have, so far, uniformly refused to treat this matter as anything other than a nuisance -- will probably have left Schultz and his friends out in the cold. But the enduring power of any conspiracy theory comes from its ability to adapt to any circumstances, and this one is no exception. The only thing legal defeats teach the anti-Obama crowd is that the judges are in on it, too. Berg has another lawsuit up his sleeve if the ones he's involved in fail, though he said he couldn't talk about it because the proceedings have been sealed. For the foreseeable future, there could be "a new lawsuit for every action Obama takes" as president, Berg said. And to think Clinton had it bad.

December 09, 2008 7:16 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“We have learned a lot dealing with these people, lessons that the progressive community in general hasn't quite grasped yet. The Prop-8 situation is a clear example of that, our side simply underestimated the intensity of the lunacy.”

And they are a lunar lot.

A plug for John W. Dean’s book Conservatives Without Conscience, for anyone who would like to get inside the mind of Anon & Co. (109 used from $0.01)

Also, I’m sure I’ve linked to this article by Dean on the subject matter before, but for anyone who hasn’t read it yet or needs a refresher:

Q: You're not saying the Bush administration is full of Nazis, so I am not sure I get the point?

A: I'm saying, as you have discovered, that it has a lot of people with authoritarian personalities. Let me explain for your readers, or those who have not read your new book. There are two kinds of authoritarians, whom researchers can identify by their answers to certain personality tests. There are people who become leaders in authoritarian movements, and there are their followers. The leaders have stronger drives for personal power and they are also pretty amoral. Compared with most folks, they admit, when answering surveys anonymously, that manipulating others, exploiting the gullible, intimidating, cheating, and being a hypocrite are all justified if they get you what you want. They say one of the best skills a person can develop is the ability to look someone straight in the eye and lie convincingly. They say the world is full of suckers who deserve to be "taken" because they are so stupid. All in all it sounds like the game plan for how Bush won Ohio in the last election.

December 09, 2008 7:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

More sound and fury but....

still no answer to this very simple question:

"What's your theory about why AIDS has consistently been disproportionately present in the gay community in America and other Western countries?"

I know, I know.

Anyone who akss that is telling "lies, all lies" but could you just show us how they're lying?

December 09, 2008 7:49 AM  
Blogger BlackTsunami said...

Give it up anonymous, you are displaying your wanton ignorance. And your inability to read posts other than your own.

December 09, 2008 8:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Black Tsunami,

Regarding the conflict of interest...what I outlined is a conflict of interest -- not "guilt by association." There is a very real tie to Annenberg and FactCheck.org -- OWNERSHIP, in fact. The term "conflict of interest" is completely accurate here.

I actually have no opinion on the subject of whether Obama is or isn't a natural born citizen. It seems like it should be easy enough to prove or disprove, though, and the fact that proof is not forthcoming strikes me as strange.

The liberals and conservatives I know all feel it's curious that Obama can't easily lay this issue to rest.

December 09, 2008 8:34 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Lesbians have the lowest rate of HIV/AIDS transmission of any group, a fact you conveniently omit every time. Futher, if you sincerely held a desire to reduce promiscuity and therefore the spread of HIV/AIDS among gays, you'd encourage them to settle down and marry. Marriage has helped reduce promiscuity for some. But given the CDC reported US divorce rates, even marriage is apparently not enough to keep couples together for the sake of the children heterosexual unions produce. Compare red states to blue states to see where divorce is most common. Bothersome facts for you to sort out, Ahem.

December 09, 2008 8:37 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I've noticed that trolls on other blogs seem to have some of the same characteristics as our own troll here. The central pattern seems to be write posts which are empty of content, to repeatedly accuse others of making statements without support, to ask endless questions, then to whine when others don't answer those questions.

I would theorize that this stems from a basic need for attention, or maybe just a reflex need to bother other people by accusing them of something, just anything, no matter how empty it may be.

Our own troll distinguishes himself by repeating calumnious stereotypes about lgbt people, then complaining that no one refutes his prejudices (have you stopped beating your wife), then, when well-meaning people do refute these stereotypes, complaining that the proof isn't sufficient, that the respondents haven't answered all his questions, etc., on and on.

Another thing I've noticed about trolls is that they are always whining about people misinterpreting their words.

Maybe these people sit in dark rooms and blog on the internet because no one could stand to associate with them in real life, and they have no friends.

December 09, 2008 10:53 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said " Having broken societal taboos against sexual activity with those of their own gender, it's hard for them to think of any compelling reason to follow any of society's other little rules."

Let's assume for the sake of argument that that is true. What this then shows is that its a bad idea to set unreasonable boundaries on people such as asking priests to be celibate or gays not to have sex. People aren't designed to be non-sexual and its inevitable that some are going to be sexual and break this poorly thought out taboo. Then as you say they are already considered a wrong-doer so not being labeled a wrong-doer is less of an incentive not to engage in other valid taboos. For example, once the priest breaks his vow of celibacy out of the inevitable human needs, in his mind he can say he's no more of a bad person if he pursues sex with a minor. He's a wrongdoer whether he has sex with a consenting adult or a child.

Wouldn't it be better to avoid placing unreasonable restrictions on people, restrictions they're likely to break (such as no sex, be it gay or otherwise) to avoid the situation where they feel they have nothing to lose by further breaking, this time valid, taboos?

Bad anonymous said "AIDS is widespread among gays because of their dangerous behavior.".

By the same token then AIDS must be widespread amongst blacks because of the dangerous behavior inherent in being black. You can't have it both ways and claim gays have higher rates because its bad to be gay but that higher rates amongst blacks aren't due to being black. The reality is that when you're an oppressed society, black, or gay, you are more likely to suffer social problems Just as in your example above, when tell a person they're bad because they're black, they have little incentive to not be bad by avoiding promiscuity.

December 09, 2008 12:47 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

December 09, 2008 1:24 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous asked "What's your theory about why AIDS has consistently been disproportionately present in the gay community in America and other Western countries?"

Black Tsunami already answered that - self-esteem issues.

What's your theory about why AIDS has consistently been disproportionately present in the black community in the U.S.?

December 09, 2008 1:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Black Tsunami already answered that - self-esteem issues."

Alvin answered nothing. The areas where AIDS have stricken the gay community the hardest is where they are most tolerated. Indeed, from a statistical standpoint, it seems that intolerance towards gays protect them.

To say Alvin answered the question would be like you asked me why Obama was elected and I said because pine cones float.

That wouldn't be an answer and neither did Alvin give an answer!

December 09, 2008 2:58 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

They weren't allowed to see the original.

If you had bothered to read the FactCheck.org piece called Born in the USA I already posted, you'd know FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. [Further,] Chiyome Fukino[, director of Hawaii’s Department of Health,] and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate...Fukino said she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."

Don't believe them? How about Politifact.com or the Honolulu Advertizer or don't you believe them either? Anon has no use for FACTS when in full spin mode, which is where s/he's been since McSame lost the election.

Annenberg and FactCheck.org -- OWNERSHIP, in fact. The term "conflict of interest" is completely accurate here.

Whatever conflict of interest you imagine didn't seem to bother the Rovian presidential campaign of your defeated hero McShame, who quoted FactCheck.org in this campaign ad.

Maybe you can tell us why President Reagan looked so happy to greet the Annenberg's in this picture at Wikipedia. Was his interest in them conflicted too?

That Wikipedia article reports:

Annenberg led a lavish lifestyle. His "Sunnylands" winter estate in Rancho Mirage, California (near Palm Springs) hosted gatherings with such people as President Ronald Reagan and First Lady Nancy Reagan, Frank Sinatra, Bob Hope, Bing Crosby and Charles, Prince of Wales. It was Annenberg who introduced President Reagan to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and the Reagans often celebrated New Year's Eve with the Annenbergs. Leonore Annenberg was named by President Ronald Reagan as the State Department's Chief of Protocol as well.

But why bother with the facts when you can spin deceit like the World Daily Nuts instead? Dana Milbank explains it pretty well in today's Washington Post. Ladies and gentlemen, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is back in business. After eight years in the wilderness, its members are regrouping to combat the Obama menace. For their sake, here's hoping they can come up with better material than they presented at yesterday's news conference.

You are providing exactly what the public needs to see to know the TTF Vigilance blog is necessary. Reasonable people need to stay vigilant, to keep their eyes open and report the underhanded tactics you sore losermen are using these days.

Did you see this one, "spin deluxe" about Rove and Hughes being back in the White House to work on Bush's "Legacy Project?"

[Cheney biographer and Weekly Standard columnist] Stephen Hayes [said] "Yeah it's pretty, it's pretty amazing stuff. I mean, I think that in his discussion about immigration and regretting the tone of the debate, I mean clearly I think that was a criticism of his own party. We're going to be seeing a lot more of this and there's an ongoing Bush legacy project that's been meeting in the White House, really, with senior advisers, Karl Rove, Karen Hughes has been involved, current senior Bush administration advisers and they are looking at how to sort of roll out the President's legacy."

Who needs truth when spin makes a so much better legacy.

The areas where AIDS have stricken the gay community the hardest is where they are most tolerated.

Not true. In parts of Europe where there are fewer cases of HIV/AIDS, gays are much better tolerated. We have DADT in effect for our military but in France and the United Kingdom where gays are free to serve in the military openly, the incidence of HIV/AIDS is lower than here. And in many European countries where same sex marriage or domestic partnerships are recognized, there is a much lower incidence of HIV/AIDS than here.

December 09, 2008 3:36 PM  
Blogger BlackTsunami said...

Anonymous

there wasn't a question asked. There was a dodge thrown out. You said that "there are dangerous behaviors associated with homosexuality." Rather than back up what you said, you try to turn it around into some type of question that has nothing to do with your claim.

And when pressed, you make the incorrect assertion that being lgbt is indicative of have lots of random sex partners.

You offered no proof of this and continue try and spin your dodge despite looking like a fool.

Rather than try and turn it on me, why don't you give TFF some definite proof about the alleged "dangerous behaviors associated with homosexuality."

Or better yet, just admit you don't know what you are talking about.

December 09, 2008 5:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"why don't you give TFF some definite proof about the alleged "dangerous behaviors associated with homosexuality.""

Alvin, there are few things for which "definite proof" exist.

This is no exception.

My theory is that the consistent, disproportionate presence of AIDS in gay communities, especially those like San Francisco where gays are embraced, is evidence of dangerous behavior.

Do you have a better theory?

I surmise not, since if you did, you'd have offered it by now.

In places in our country where there is a degree of intolerance, gays appear to have some protection from this disease.

We're not doing them any favors here in Monkey County, headquarters of TTFLand!

They'd be better off if their bizarre behaviors were less tolerated!

December 09, 2008 5:57 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "Alvin answered nothing. The areas where AIDS have stricken the gay community the hardest is where they are most tolerated. Indeed, from a statistical standpoint, it seems that intolerance towards gays protect them.".

Show me the study that backs up your claim. Where's your evidence that AIDS is the worst where gays are most tolerated? Where's your evidence that gays are most tolerated in San Francisco - lots of gays there get assaulted and murdered. While more numerous, gays are not most tolerated in San Francisco, homophobia is still a serious problem there.

Bad anonymous, you're avoiding the questions again and I'm not surprised:

You said " Having broken societal taboos against sexual activity with those of their own gender, it's hard for [gays] to think of any compelling reason to follow any of society's other little rules[against promiscuity]."



Assuming that's true, wouldn't it be better to avoid placing unreasonable restrictions on people, restrictions they're likely to break (such as no sex, be it gay or otherwise) to avoid the situation where they feel they have nothing to lose by further breaking, this time valid, taboos?

By your own theory its a bad idea to set unreasonable boundaries on people such as asking priests to be celibate or gays not to have sex. People aren't designed to be non-sexual and its inevitable that some are going to be sexual and break such poorly thought out taboos. Then as you say they are already considered a wrong-doer so not being labeled a wrong-doer is less of an incentive not to engage in other valid taboos. For example, once the priest breaks his vow of celibacy out of the inevitable human needs, in his mind he can say he's no more of a bad person if he pursues sex with a minor. He's a wrongdoer whether he has sex with a consenting adult or a child.

Bad anonymous said "My theory is that the consistent, disproportionate presence of AIDS in gay communities, especially those like San Francisco where gays are embraced, is evidence of dangerous behavior.".

By the same token then AIDS must be widespread amongst blacks because of the dangerous behavior inherent in being black. AIDS in the black community is most prevelant in the inner city where blacks are the most common and embraced.

You can't have it both ways and claim gays have higher rates because its bad to be gay but that higher rates amongst blacks aren't due to being black. The reality is that when you're an oppressed society, black, or gay, you are more likely to suffer social problems Just as you said yourself, when you make someone a social reject for trivial reasons like being black or having a monogamous gay relationship they have little incentive to not be bad by avoiding promiscuity.

What's your theory about why AIDS has consistently been disproportionately present in the black community in the U.S.?

December 09, 2008 6:24 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Le'ts contrast a couple of Bad anonymous's theories:

"My theory is that the consistent, disproportionate presence of AIDS in gay communities, especially those like San Francisco where gays are embraced, is evidence of dangerous behavior.".

"Having broken societal taboos against sexual activity with those of their own gender, it's hard for [gays] to think of any compelling reason to follow any of society's other little rules[against promiscuity]."

By your own admission bad anonymous, the social rejection of gays, making them bad people for having even monogamous sex removes the boundaries against promiscuity. The problem is not that gay sex is dangerous behavior, the problem is your making gays outlaws for having even monogamous same sex relationships.

December 09, 2008 6:30 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous thinks (without evidence) that gays in San Francisco have higher rates of AIDS. If this is true then it is true that gays in Massachusetts have lower rates of AIDS and Massacchusetts is where gays are "embraced" more and allowed to marry. Thus the opposite of his theory holds true - where gays are embraced and allowed to marry there are lower rates of AIDS.

December 09, 2008 6:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Aunt Bea said: "Whatever conflict of interest you imagine didn't seem to bother the Rovian presidential campaign of your defeated hero McShame, who quoted FactCheck.org in this campaign ad."

I'm not understanding your point, Aunt Bea. So McCain quoted FactCheck.org in an ad. He was obviously wrong too. Maybe he didn't know about the conflict. Maybe he did. I don't know. That being said, what's your point? The fact remains that FactCheck.org's coverage of Obama presents a conflict of interest. It's that simple.

Aunt Bea said: "Maybe you can tell us why President Reagan looked so happy to greet the Annenberg's in this picture at Wikipedia. Was his interest in them conflicted too?"

Again, I don't follow your point. As I stated above, a conflict of interest exists between FactCheck.org, (which is owned by Annenberg) and Obama. What conflict of interest exists between Reagan and Annenberg? According to their copyright notation, FactCheck.org was founded in 2003. Reagan's last year in office was 1989. Now, the Annenberg Foundation was founded in 1989. Are you saying there was some conflict there? If so, what did that have to do with Obama?

Or, maybe you're saying that the fact that Reagan was friends with the Annenbergs and appointed one of them to protocol chief is a conflict of interest? Maybe -- I don't know what presidents are allowed to do when appointing a Chief of Protocol. But, let's say that Reagan inappropriately appointed his friend to this position. What in the world does that have to do with FactCheck.org and Obama????!

Scratching my head...

December 09, 2008 11:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bea has a history of tossing out non sequitors whenever she's flustered.

Like "the Republicans ruined the economy by deregulating the banks, man..."

Sounds good but Bea hasn't held up well to questioning about any specific regulations that were eliminated and led to any problem.

Turned out she didn't know what she talking about. Even her big hero, Bill "let's hire some more interns" Clinton, didn't agree with such a stupid remark.

December 10, 2008 6:15 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

That's great Ahem, another personal attack on an old lady. Yawn. You hope you fluster me because you are a troll and that's what they do. But instead I use your nonsense to educate our readers with facts.

When they agree with Obama, you say the Annenbergs and their FactCheck.org represent a conflict of interest but when they agree with McCain or are hired by Reagan, you see no problem. And you agree with President Bill Clinton that Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 is not a cause of our current ecomonic woes, while I agree with those who disagree.

But this thread isn't about the economy, it's about the need to keep our eyes open and be vigilant. Here's another reason Vigilance is needed. Bush & Company are trying to rewrite history, to create a legacy for the Worst President Ever.

For Bush's staff, upbeat talking points on his tenure
Administration officials get a memo from the White House suggesting what to say about the last eight years: President Bush upheld 'the honor and the dignity of his office,' for one.
By Peter Nicholas
December 9, 2008
Reporting from Washington -- In case any Bush administration officials have trouble summing up the boss' record, the White House is providing a few helpful suggestions.

A two-page memo that has been sent to Cabinet members and other high-ranking officials offers a guide for discussing Bush's eight-year tenure during their public speeches.


Titled "Speech Topper on the Bush Record," the talking points state that Bush "kept the American people safe" after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, lifted the economy after 2001 through tax cuts, curbed AIDS in Africa and maintained "the honor and the dignity of his office."

The document presents the Bush record as an unalloyed success.

It mentions none of the episodes that detractors say have marred his presidency: the collapse of the housing market and major financial services companies, the flawed intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war, the federal response to Hurricane Katrina or the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.


In a section on the economy, speakers are invited to say that Bush cut taxes after 2001, setting the stage for years of job growth.

As for the current economic crisis, the memo says that Bush "responded with bold measures to prevent an economic meltdown."

The document is otherwise silent on the recession, which claimed 533,000 jobs in November, the highest number in 34 years.

A copy of the memo was obtained by The Times' Washington bureau. A spokesman for Bush said Monday that the White House routinely sends out suggestions to officials and allies on ways to talk about the administration's record.

"What we have in mind with these documents is we feel the president's many accomplishments haven't been given the attention they deserve and in some cases have been purposely ignored," said Carlton Carroll, a White House spokesman.

No one is required to recite the talking points laid out by the White House, Carroll said.

The memo closes with a reference to Bush's 1999 memoir, "A Charge to Keep":

"Above all, George W. Bush promised to uphold the honor and the dignity of his office. And through all the challenges and trials of his time in office, that is a charge that our president has kept."

One accomplishment cited is passage of the No Child Left Behind law, Bush's attempt to improve education. "He promised to raise standards and accountability in public schools -- and delivered the No Child Left Behind Act," the talking points read.

On the presidential campaign trail this year, Democratic candidates found that any criticism of No Child Left Behind was a surefire applause line.

President-elect Barack Obama promised to revamp the program, contending that it elevated test-taking at the expense of a well-rounded education.

December 10, 2008 7:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Aunt Bea said: "When they agree with Obama, you say the Annenbergs and their FactCheck.org represent a conflict of interest but when they agree with McCain or are hired by Reagan, you see no problem."

Aunt Bea -- Still scratching my head here. I can see where you're going with the McCain argument, which I stated above, but I already said that McCain was wrong to trust FactCheck.org, given their conflict. However, your point about Reagan is just completely nonsensical.

I didn't say that FactCheck.org has a conflict of interest with all democrats or all republicans or all presidents. They have a conflict of interest with Obama, who served as chairman of the board for Chicago Annenberg.

An organization can have an absolutely stellar reputation and still have a conflict of interest with various people or groups. In fact, not a single organization exists that doesn't have a conflict of interest with someone or something. It doesn't mean the organization is a bad one.

The only time a conflict of interest presents a problem is if the group who is in conflict doesn't disclose the conflict.

December 10, 2008 8:13 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Why are you hiding bad anonymous?

What's your theory about why AIDS has consistently been disproportionately present in the black community in the U.S.?

You said " Having broken societal taboos against sexual activity with those of their own gender, it's hard for [gays] to think of any compelling reason to follow any of society's other little rules[against promiscuity]."



Assuming that's true, wouldn't it be better to avoid placing unreasonable restrictions on people, restrictions they're likely to break (such as no sex, be it gay or otherwise) to avoid the situation where they feel they have nothing to lose by further breaking, this time valid, taboos?


Actually, its easy to see why you're hiding, you're afraid of the implications of your own ideas. Grow up, be a man and answer the questions.

December 10, 2008 10:11 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

As demonstrated above, trolls just make things up and then complain that a)no one refutes their statements; b)people are dodging their questions; c)others are misinterpreting their words.

It disrupts the discussion.

The reality is that men who have sex with men, along with other demographic groups, in this country represent a disproportionate number of new HIV infections and cases of AIDS. A discussion about that would be interesting and fruitful, and HIV service organizations have them all the time.

Anonymous with his hysteria makes such a discussion here impossible. He is not himself interested in this discussion, simply in putting down lgbt people in his obsessive need to annoy us. It's a shame so much of what we have to say to one another becomes difficult because of his trolling.

rrjr

December 10, 2008 12:20 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Robert, its pretty ironic that bad anonymous has the nerve to complain that people aren't refuting their statements and are dodging his questions when he himself is failing to refute my statments and is dodging my questions. Its because he can see if he goes into the discussion I'd like to have his claims that gay sex is dangerous and that gays should be oppressed will fall apart.

December 10, 2008 1:10 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

It important that trolls' purposes in bloggng are not to discuss but to annoy and disrupt.

I find it intriguing that this phenomenon of trolls has arisen in the context of blogging and electronic bulleting boards, and that the characteristics are so consistent across the board. It would make a good Psychology PhD dissertation.

December 10, 2008 2:21 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Sorry.

I meant "it's important to remember that trolls' purposes...."

December 10, 2008 2:22 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Yes, I tend to forget that. These are not decent people, they get their thrills out of antagonizing decent people. Still, I get a certain amount of satisfaction in exposing their lies and false "logic".

December 10, 2008 3:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I haven't been following the AIDS thread very closely here, but everything I've ever read seems to indicate that the incidence of AIDS is higher in the male gay population because of anal sex, along with more sex partners. Anal sex tears the rectum (and the tear invites the infection in) and gay men have anal sex, thus increasing the incidence of AIDS. Therefore, if everyone that you have sex with is having anal sex, then wouldn't your incidence of contracting AIDS go up too?

I noted a statistic in this blog that said something like 30% of heterosexuals have anal sex. I imagine the figure is 98% for gay men, though I could be wrong. If it's not 98%, I imagine it would be pretty high. Anyway, wouldn't this explain the higher percentage of AIDS? Especially since...if two gay men are having anal sex then the rectum of each is being torn. However, if a man and woman are having anal sex, then only one rectum (the woman's) is being torn. And women usually have a lower number of sex partners.

I have no idea about the Black population in the U.S. One guess could be a high incidence of drug/needle use? More violence that leads to more blood transfusions? Although, the transfusions theory probably doesn't make sense because our blood supply is, I think, fairly safe.

I don't know about the low self esteem theory. It seems to be rampant among blacks and whites. It's hard to find someone who's not on some type of depression medication.

December 10, 2008 4:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Strike my last statement about self esteem and blacks and whites and depression. I was rushing and had been formulating a thought along those lines, and thought I had deleted that part. I don't know if self esteem and depression are related anyway.

December 10, 2008 5:54 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "everything I've ever read seems to indicate that the incidence of AIDS is higher in the male gay population because of anal sex, along with more sex partners".

Wrong. Aids is not higher because of anal sex. Anal sex in a monogamous relationship with a non-infected partner is risk free. The problem is promiscuity, not anal sex. Start telling the truth for a change.

Bad anonymous said "I have no idea about the Black population in the U.S. One guess could be a high incidence of drug/needle use? More violence that leads to more blood transfusions?"


That's not what you said earlier, you're contradicting yourself - previously you said "And don't start attacking blacks. There are explanations for that phenomenom."

If you think anal sex is the cause of the higher rates of aids amongst gays then it naturally follows that vaginal sex is the cause of higher rates amongst blacks - vaginal sex is dangerous. If you don't think vaginal sex is dangerous then it must be that the same things like higher numbers of sex partners that cause the high rates of AIDS amongst blacks also causes the high rates of AIDS amongst gays - you can't have it both ways.

December 11, 2008 11:07 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I would guess about 30-40% of MSM have intercourse.

HIV infection is not widespread among gay men, by any meaning of the word.

December 11, 2008 11:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Priya said: "The problem is promiscuity, not anal sex. Start telling the truth for a change."

Uh, didn't I say "anal sex ALONG WITH MORE SEX PARTNERS." The latter MEANS promiscuity. I was trying to word it nicely. You strangely ignored the fact that I mentioned above -- I said "anal sex along with more sex partners." The two go hand in hand. I didn't say EITHER anal sex OR more sex partners. And more sex partners, also known as promiscuity, leads to a higher chance of getting infected.

I'm not the anon who said "and don't start attacking blacks" so I won't address that.

I read and re-read your paragraph about blacks and vaginal sex and anal sex and found it completely confusing. I really couldn't follow the logic. I don't understand how you can say that that my statement that anal sex and more partners logically leads to the conclusion that AIDS in the black population is caused by vaginal sex. Huh? I'm SO not following your logic.

My logic was that I assumed that we were talking about the straight black population. Since the consensus here seemed to be that the AIDS rate is higher in the black population than the white population, I was surmising various reasons. AIDS is spread by blood to blood contact and sex is not the only means of transmission. It is also spread through needle sharing and transfusions.

December 11, 2008 10:13 PM  
Anonymous old-anon said...

new anon is pretty good

I'll start calling myself old-anon to avoid the confusion, although I think we write differently enough that the distinction is obvious.

December 11, 2008 10:37 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonyomous said "Uh, didn't I say "anal sex ALONG WITH MORE SEX PARTNERS." The latter MEANS promiscuity. I was trying to word it nicely. You strangely ignored the fact that I mentioned above -- I said "anal sex along with more sex partners." The two go hand in hand.".

Wrong. The two don't go hand in hand and your that's why I criticized your statement in the first place, because that's what it falesly implied.

Aids is not higher because of anal sex. Anal sex in a monogamous relationship with a non-infected partner is risk free. The problem is promiscuity, not anal sex. Start telling the truth for a change.


Bad anonymous said "I read and re-read your paragraph about blacks and vaginal sex and anal sex and found it completely confusing. I really couldn't follow the logic.".

Oh, you understood it completely, you just don't want to admit that its clear your logic is bogus when we apply it to blacks. If the reason gays have higher aids rates is because of anal sex then it would stand to reason that the reason blacks have higher aids rates must be because of vaginal sex. You can't have it both ways.

December 12, 2008 10:30 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "I'm not the anon who said "and don't start attacking blacks" so I won't address that.".

Yes you did. You hide behind the anonymous label to facilitate your lying and dodge the implications of your statement. If there are explanations for the high rate of Aids amongst blacks that don't involve the idea that blacks are evil there is no reason for you to think the same reasons aren't applicable to gays.

December 12, 2008 10:39 AM  
Anonymous old-anon said...

"Yes you did."

New-anon is correct. Old-anon made the statement in question.

Sorry for all the confusion folks but there is a new anon who makes sensible statements.

As I said before, I'm now using "old-anon" to avoid further confusion, other than the innate and always present confusion that priya usually suffers from.

December 12, 2008 11:14 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Nice try bad anonymous. Your reputation for lying, deceit and misrepresentation precedes you. No one trusts a word you say.

December 12, 2008 3:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Priya,

OH, okay. In my second post, I said "the two go hand in hand." It took me a couple of re-readings to understand what you were upset about. You thought I meant that anal sex and promiscuity always go hand in hand. I understand that I worded that badly. I meant that when you have anal sex and promiscuity, then those two always go hand in hand in creating a higher risk of AIDS. I'm sorry about that -- I was rushing when I wrote it.

However, the FIRST post I wrote was very clear and succinct and did not imply what you're saying it implied. I was saying that those who have anal sex, along with more sex partners, have a higher incidence of contracting AIDS. Since gay men have a higher percentage of anal sex, then their risk automatically goes up. If you then take a gay man who has multiple partners...then his risk increases even more.

About the other statement you made about blacks...I'm truly still scratching my head. My family thinks I have lice.

I'm thinking that maybe you don't understand the difference between risk with anal vs. risk with vaginal sex. On average, anal sex tears the rectum much more than vaginal sex tears a vagina. The vagina has natural lubrication and is perfectly suited to intercourse. The rectum is dry.

And when you end up with rips and tears, you end up with more blood-to-blood contact.

I told you I agree that if you have two men who are having anal sex, and the two men are not infected with AIDS, and neither of the two men contract AIDS from some other means (like needle use), then, VOILA! --as you state, you won't get AIDS.

See, if a man has anal sex with one man, and then goes to another man and then another man, then you can see, fairly quickly, how this would spread.

Along the same lines, if a woman has anal sex with a man, and that man gives her AIDS (or she gives him AIDS), and then that woman has sex with another man and she gives him AIDS...well, then, you can see how it spreads.

But, as I noted, women are less prone to having this type of sex AND less prone to have multiple sex partners.

For a moment, let's imagine that I throw care to the wind and embrace your logic concerning blacks and vaginal sex. You want me to conclude that blacks have higher AIDS rates because of vaginal sex.

But then....what about whites and vaginal sex? Why would their rates be lower if vaginal sex were the only factor? You see, your logic seems to fall apart at this juncture.

Now, could it be that blacks engage in a higher percentage of anal sex? I hadn't thought of that and I have no idea if it's true.

As for Old Anon: Old Anon I am not. Not that there's anything wrong with being Old Anon. Old Anon makes some fine points and sounds like a fine person. It's just that, I am not, nor have I ever been, not will I ever be, Old Anon.

I could get older and older and be on this blog longer and longer and still, I would never, EVER be "Old Anon." For I intend to stay forever young. So let's just call me "Young Anon."

Old Anon will be the old wise owl.

Young Anon

December 12, 2008 6:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

P.S. Regarding the "promiscuity only" theory you mentioned....another point to ponder is if you had two groups of people, and each group were equally promiscuous...then the group that introduces anal sex into the mix will, without a doubt, have a higher risk of developing AIDS because of the rips and tears. Rectums tear more frequently than vaginas. This is the Young Anon speaking.

December 12, 2008 6:26 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“I noted a statistic in this blog that said something like 30% of heterosexuals have anal sex. I imagine the figure is 98% for gay men, though I could be wrong. If it's not 98%, I imagine it would be pretty high.”

On a scale of one to a hundred, how often would you say that you find yourself “imagining” gay anal sex?

“have a higher risk of developing AIDS because of the rips and tears.”

It’s all about the rips and tears, people.

One word: Scotch Tape.

December 13, 2008 3:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Emproph,

You are being crude.

If you have information which shows that I am making an unreasonable assumption, then you should share that information. If I am wrong in saying that a high percentage of gay men have anal sex, then by all means you should dispute me.

And about the rips and tears....you are correct. It is ALL ABOUT the rips and tears. AIDS enters a person's system that way, just as lots of diseases enter the system through wounds.

Your Scotch tape joke is disgusting. I have a friend who died of AIDS in the early 1980s, and his death was horrible. He hid for months from everyone he knew and worked only at night, after others had left the office. I have another friend who died of AIDS in the early 90s. Before he died, he gave me a book called And the Band Plays On. This is when I first started learning about the issue.

You dishonor both of these men with your Scotch tape joke. Had they known about the devastation that rips and tears in the rectum can cause, they would be alive today.

December 13, 2008 9:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

He is disgusting- and irrational.

His idea of debate is to throw out a bunch of flippant non sequiturs.

We all must remember, however, that he only claims to improvise so we shouldn't hold him to any high standards of logic and sense.

December 13, 2008 10:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks -- yes, no high standard of expectation. I wrote this basic information about the contraction of AIDS based on the chance that some of the high school kids in Montgomery County or elsewhere are reading this blog. i realize that they shouldn't be, but they are probably being sent here by their teachers. I think we need to find various avenues of correcting the misinformation that these kids are receiving -- the misinformation being that anal sex is as safe as vaginal sex.

When I see him making jokes about Scotch tape, I imagine children reading this and absolutely cringe. To treat the subject so grossly and cavalierly is mind boggling.

December 13, 2008 10:57 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

First of all, you need to pick a nickname and stick to it, so that this misunderstanding doesn’t happen again.

Clearly you’re new here, so please understand that when you say something like “Old Anon will be the old wise owl.”, that’s horribly insulting. Because “Old Anon” does not speak of anal sex or AIDS in the effort to further the understanding of its prevention, he speaks of it to inflame, to infuriate, and to belittle.

We’ve been through it all before. And as a result, people like me tend to be defensive -- or sarcastic, as the case in question may be.

December 13, 2008 12:03 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“And about the rips and tears....you are correct. It is ALL ABOUT the rips and tears. AIDS enters a person's system that way, just as lots of diseases enter the system through wounds.”

Fair enough.

But are you asking this in the effort to help gay males to understand how to avoid contracting HIV? Is this the interest you have in being here?

Whatever the case may be, many of us here are sincerely willing to discuss the subject.

So please don’t take my crudeness and sarcasm to be indicative of the sincerity that abounds here.

And that includes me, but I do tend to get sarcastic at times, but if I’m sure you’re being sincere, then I will be sincere back.

I didn’t mean to mock the deaths of your friends, I apologize.

December 13, 2008 12:32 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

There doesn't seem to be any direct research showing that anal sex is a more efficient route of transmission for HIV or any other infection, it just seems to make sense. The fact is, any kind of unprotected sex with someone infected with HIV carries a high risk, condoms reduce the risk but not to zero.

I think the message is: don't have sex with somebody whose infection status you don't know. Anal, vaginal, oral sex are all risky if the person is infected.

Sex with strangers is dangerous, anal perhaps slightly more dangerous than vaginal but I think you'll find the difference is negligible.

JimK

December 13, 2008 12:41 PM  
Anonymous old-anon said...

"There doesn't seem to be any direct research showing that anal sex is a more efficient route of transmission for HIV or any other infection, it just seems to make sense."

That's true. Thanks for conceding a fact that doesn't fit in well with the gay agenda.

"I think the message is: don't have sex with somebody whose infection status you don't know."

No one ever really know but the best protection is basic traditional Judeo-Christian sexual morality. Don't have sex outside of marriage. True, even then, your spouse could be lying but does anyone doubt that a society committed to that ideal would never have AIDS establish a presence? Get real. There would be rebels but the activity would be restrained and underground, unlikely to become widespread.

Someone should be making that point to kids. It will help them as they grow and become the people who decide what kind of society we will have.

"Sex with strangers is dangerous"

Thanks. Is that in the MC curriculum?

Another thing that is obvious, much like the fact that transmission is more likely in anal sex, is that random sexual activity is much less likely among heterosexuals.

Why? Because women, who will have to bear the child, have an interest in keeping track of who should be obligated to provide for the child.

btw, I missed my promise and failed to identify myself with my new handle at 10:46am. Apologies to all.

December 13, 2008 3:07 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

No one ever really know but the best protection is basic traditional Judeo-Christian sexual morality. Don't have sex outside of marriage.

Anon, you might as well get off the fence about this. Gay people want to marry. You say marriage leads to safer sexual practice. Why don't you go ahead and lead the way, start promoting the inclusive view of marriage? You can be a conservative who promotes the stability and security of marriage for all people, regardless of sexual orientation -- it does follow from your beliefs.

Another thing that is obvious, much like the fact that transmission is more likely in anal sex, is that random sexual activity is much less likely among heterosexuals.

Several things here. First of all, we have already agreed that transmission may be slightly more likely with anal sex, it's probably not a big difference but nobody knows. Second, anal intercourse is overwhelmingly a heterosexual activity. Forty percent of adult American men and thirty eight percent of woman have had anal intercourse with a person of the opposite sex. Six percent of American adult men have had anal or oral sex with another man, the survey lumps them together.

You will need to provide some numbers for the statement that "random sexual activity is much less likely among heterosexuals," I doubt that you're right.

JimK

December 13, 2008 8:14 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

‘No one ever really know but the best protection is basic traditional Judeo-Christian sexual morality. Don't have sex outside of marriage.”

The first marriage of which was Adam and Eve, an incestuous family.

But then God changed his mind and decided that that was a sin and allowed polygamy and sex with concubines.

And then apparently, God changed his mind again and decided that it should be all about one man and one woman, once.

But then God changed his mind again and decided that man can divorce what He Himself had “joined together,” in order to marry another, without it being adultery -- even though He, as His son Jesus, said that it was indeed adultery.

Based on that track record, I’d be willing to bet that the god of “Judeo-Christian sexual morality” is going to change his mind again sometime real soon.

December 16, 2008 7:21 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home