9.11 Panel: Cheney lies

Reuters:

The Sept. 11 commission, which reported no evidence of collaborative links between Iraq and al Qaeda, said on Tuesday that Vice President Dick Cheney had no more information than commission investigators to support his later assertions to the contrary.

Read the rest of this post...

Send a letter to the Washington Blade about "outing" gay Hill staffers who work for anti-gay members of Congress

The Washington Blade will likely publish some letters from angry closet cases in response to last week's editorial, and my op ed, in favor of outing gay Hill staffers who work for anti-gay members of Congress, and closeted members of Congress who vote anti-gay. I'd love to see some of you weigh in on the other side (assuming you agree with me). Thanks, JOHN

You can email your letters here:
forum@washblade.com
I assume you should include name, address, and phone to verify it's really you (the usual standard letter to the editor requirement). Read the rest of this post...

New DearMary.com ad threatens to out gay members of Congress & staffers

Heard on the Hill: "Outing on the Hill"
July 7, 2004
Roll Call
http://www.rollcall.com

Gay rights activists are making a not-so-veiled threat to “out” closeted gay and lesbian Members of Congress and staffers as part of their condemnation of the proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Much like the “Call to Conscience” ad that ran in 1996 during Congressional consideration the Defense of Marriage Act, which was credited with helping Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) out of the closet, a “Final Call to Conscience” ad will appear this Friday in the local gay newspaper The Washington Blade.

The ad is sponsored by the Web site DearMary.com, named for Vice President Cheney’s lesbian daughter, which perpetually calls on her to urge her father to drop his support for the gay marriage ban. The ad makes a personal plea to Mary and “all the Mary Cheneys in Washington, DC and beyond.”

“If you are gay, end your silence,” the ad says, calling on gays in Congress to “stop aiding and abetting those who would make us second-class citizens.”

“If you are straight, end your hypocrisy,” it says.

Basically, says John Aravosis, founder of the group, that means: “If Congress wants to debate our private lives in public, we’re going to debate their private lives in public.” And it’s not just targeted at gays, he says. The ad is a shot across the bow to “the Jack Ryans of the world.” (Ryan was the Illinois Republican who dropped out of the Senate race recently after allegations that he had visited “sex clubs” came to light.)

“You are not alone, Mary. Far too many gays and lesbians in Washington, DC choose like you to be fence sitters and sell-outs — anti-gay by day and queer by night. We can no longer afford your silence. You can no longer expect our own,” the ad says.

Aravosis says there are “lots” of people who could potentially be outed, a move opposed by groups such as Log Cabin Republicans and Human Rights Campaign. Read the rest of this post...

I will NOT mention what a big fag my opponent is, really, I won't, and you can quote that

How many times could Kolbe's opponent mention that he is NOT going to mention Kolbe's "lifestyle", thus mentioning it? Crafty, those Republicans.

From the radical right "news" service, AgapePress:

...An Arizona state representative seeking to unseat long-time congressman Jim Kolbe says there are people in the district who are concerned about the ten-term lawmaker's homosexual lifestyle. But his challenger doesn't want to make it an issue. Randy Graf knows he faces an uphill battle to defeat Kolbe in the September 7 GOP primary. The Arizona legislator says while he is not making Kolbe's lifestyle an issue in the campaign, he knows there are many people in the 8th Congressional District who are concerned that the congressman is the only openly homosexual Republican in Congress. Many people have expressed that to me," Graf says. "I want to make this campaign on the issues; and as we discuss the issues, I'm not trying to make this a referendum on his lifestyle. But as we get out and talk, there are many people that certainly don't agree with his lifestyle -- and those are some of the emotional issues that certainly make people vote one way or another." Graf says Kolbe's lifestyle obviously influences his thoughts on various social issues, including his lack of support for the Federal Marriage Amendment. For his part, Graf says he is not willing to allow the nation's courts to redefine marriage.

All I have to say is, this is what the Republican party has come to. And any "moderate" Republicans who didn't think you were next on the party's hit list, you were sorely mistaken. They're even using the gay marriage issue AGAINST their own fellow Republicans. At least they're consistent in their evil-ness. Read the rest of this post...

Nutcase confirmed to the federal bench.

NEWS from Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 6, 2004

CONTACT: Joel Lawson (202) 973-4880, cell (202) 236-2316
or Erin Libit (202) 973-4883

Anti-Choice Extremist James Leon Holmes Appointed to Eastern District of Arkansas
Confirmation Puts Women’s Health and Civil Rights in Judicial Jeopardy

Washington, DC – Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) condemned today the Senate’s confirmation of anti-choice judge James Leon Holmes to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The Senate voted 51 to 46 to approve his nomination.

“Holmes’ record and rhetoric make him unfit for the federal bench,” said Gloria Feldt, president of PPFA. “Holmes has worked throughout his career to erode women’s rights, and to eradicate reproductive rights entirely.”

Holmes served as president of the Arkansas Right to Life, an organization devoted virtually exclusively to outlawing abortion. He also held the position of secretary of the Unborn Child Amendment Committee, which advanced a constitutional amendment to the Arkansas Constitution that would have prohibited the use of public funds for abortion unless the woman’s life was in danger.Holmes has written that “the wife is to subordinate herself to her husband,” and that her job “is to place herself under the authority of the man.”

“Holmes’ proper place is nowhere near the authority of a federal bench,” Feldt said. “His infamous comment that rape exceptions to abortion bans are unnecessary because conception from rape happens ‘as often as snow falls in Miami’ demonstrates both his blatant disregard for the facts and his appalling lack of compassion for the 300,000 American women who are raped each year and the 25,000 of those women who end up pregnant as a result.”

“James Leon Holmes’ confirmation is a mark of shame on the Senate roll call, but a call to action for women nationwide,” Feldt said.
Read the rest of this post...

An anti-gay Hill staffer responds

I was surfing the Net this weekend, and I came across this post on another blog. It talks about the issue of outing gay Hill staffers who work for anti-gay members of Congress, specifically members who support the anti-gay constitutional amendment, and its writer says he's one of the staffers who was "outed." I think this post does a better job than I could ever do to show how messed up these people are.

Here's what the person had to say, and my response follows:

Speaking as one of Rogers/Aravosis recent "victims" I can say that their tactics are not helping their cause at all. They are setting out to ruin lives and careers, and when they find out that most of us are already out to our offices and bosses, it totally infuriates them. They then try to goad offices into filing harassment complaints, so that they can get even more attention.

This is not the 1970s. We are not cowering in fear, we have made conscious decisions as adults. I, for one, will work twice as hard to defeat these so-called activists, who simply take joy in causing other people a lot of pain. As Ben noted, it is not staffers who make these decisions. They are based on what the voters of a district support.

Poliguy

My response:

1. How are you a "victim" of outing if you're already out to your office and boss? And how does this campaign ruin your life and career" if you're already out to your office?

2. You're openly gay and out to your bosses and offices, yet you still choose to work for some of the most anti-gay members of Congress, helping them pass anti-gay legislation and helping them get re-elected. And you think this is some badge of honor? You've admitted to your boss your willingness to work against your own community for pay, and somehow that makes you all honorable while you do the screwing. If anything it suggests that you aren't some terrified closet case for whom we should have pity, but rather an openly gay adult who can choose to work for whomever he pleases - let's not forget there are lots of pro-gay Republicans you could have worked for - yet still you choose to work for the anti-gay ones, helping them bash your own community.

3. You say this isn't the 1970s and that gay staffers working for anti-gay members aren't cowering in fear - and that you've made the conscious decision as adults to work for these anti-gay members. And that's your defense? That you chose with full knowledge of what you were doing to help anti-gay politicians get elected and stay in office? Ok...

4. You say you're going to work twice as hard to "defeat these activists." You mean, you're going to work twice as hard to help your boss pass the FMA? Or are you going to now work for Rick Santorum?

5. And finally, you say that it isn't staffers who make the decisions about which legislation to support, but rather your bosses.

First, that's a bunch of crap, and anyone who's ever worked on the Hill, as I have, knows that staff has a very large say on everything.

Second, even if you were telling the truth, and you were to have no say whatsoever regarding your boss' support of the marriage amendment, you DO have a say in whether you work for your boss at all. You have chosen to accept money in return for actively helping defend the anti-gay constitutional amendment in the media (at least one of the "victims" is the press secretary for a virulently anti-gay member of the House from Pennsylvania - the member is commonly referred to as "Rick Santorum's lap dog"). Several other of the "victims" are chiefs of staff to anti-gay congressmen - you're telling me they have no say in the boss' position, the boss getting re-elected, and in positioning the boss' message in the media? Puhleeze.

The only one who is consciously causing pain here is you. You've chosen to take a job in which you actively help our enemies try to make us second-class citizens in the US Constitution. A legislative crime that is frankly unthinkable in recent American history, let alone gay history. And in the case of the press secretary of the anti-gay member, you even write press releases and give interviews IN DEFENSE OF THIS AMENDMENT, AND YOU HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT?! And somehow you're the injured party here?

Yeah, I bet you're just being a good German. Read the rest of this post...

Why would a gay man want to work for the National Republican Senatorial Committee?

Even bigger question: Why would a gay man want to work at the most senior levels of an organization run by anti-gay Senator George Allen (R-VA), who just came out in support of the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment, and an organization that on its Web site repeatedly attempts to "smear" Democratic Senate candidates by linking them to gays and gay rights groups, as if gay people were some kind of sick pariahs?

Why indeed... Read the rest of this post...

GOP already gay-bashing Edwards

Well, that certainly didn't take long. Apparently, John Edwards is a homo-lover, and the Republican National Committee is not at all happy about it. A friend of mine recently wrote up a quick analysis of how the GOP is using the gay issue to bash Edwards - here it is:

Dear Friends:

The Republican National Committee has wasted no time in launching an attack on Senator John Edwards, who was selected this morning by Senator John Kerry to be his running-mate. In a 24-page document available at http://www.gop.com/RNCResearch/Read.aspx?id=4345 the RNC provides an in depth analysis of Senator Edwards' positions and voting records, concluding that the senator is "a disingenuous, unaccomplished liberal and friend to personal injury trial lawyers."

In their analysis, the RNC specifically attacks Edwards for his gay-friendly positions on issues such as hate crimes, civil unions, employment discrimination, discrimination in the military, needle exchange programs and even sodomy reform. On pages 6 and 7 of their report on Edwards, the RNC cites a series of pro-gay votes and policy statements by Edwards as evidence that "Edwards doesn't share the priorities of American families." Among the charges raised by the GOP:

"Edwards Said States Should Decide Civil Union Status;" "In 2002, Edwards Voted For Amendment That Would Have Broadened Current Federal Hate Crimes Legislation;" and "Edwards Believes In Right To Privacy When It Comes To State Sodomy Laws." On this last item, the RNC provides as background Senator Edwards' response to a question raised by ABC's George Stephanopoulos at a May 3, 2003 candidates debate in South Carolina: Here is the exchange:

"STEPHANOPOULOS: 'Here in the state of South Carolina, it's a felony for two gay men to have sex in their own home. Senator Edwards, do you support the right of the people of South Carolina to keep that law on the books, or do you think that under the Constitution there's a fundamental right to privacy that protects that right?' EDWARDS: 'I believe there is a fundamental right to privacy. I do not believe the government belongs in people's bedrooms. I think that applies to both gay and lesbian couples and heterosexual couples.' "

The RNC is making a clear effort to appeal to anti-gay bigotry in their attacks on Senator Edwards. Surely the RNC with its highly educated staff knows that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that the right of privacy extends to gay people. Does the RNC believe that decision is mistaken? Does the RNC support a return to the day when gay people could be arrested for sexual conduct in the privacy of their homes? Does George Bush? Does Dick Cheney? Will they tell the RNC to remove these items from their Website? Someone should ask them.
Best, G.

Some damn good questions. I for one would like to know exactly where the Republican party stands on throwing gay people in jail. Read the rest of this post...

Portland Archdiocese files for bankruptcy

I wonder if the Pope has a few extra cushy jobs set up in Rome for this lot as well. Why can't the Vatican itself not be sued for this money? Now they're all looking at declaring bankruptcy to avoid paying for their own morally bankrupt people.

"The Chapter 11 bankruptcy action, planned for Tuesday afternoon, puts an immediate halt to a priest abuse case scheduled to begin in Portland on Tuesday. It involves the Rev. Maurice Grammond, who was accused of molesting more than 50 boys in the 1980s.

Plaintiffs in two lawsuits involving Grammond have sought a total of more than $160 million.

The archdiocese and its insurers already have paid more than $53 million to settle more than 130 claims by people who say they were abused by priests.

"The pot of gold is pretty much empty right now," Archbishop John Vlazny said.

Ahhh, hasn't this guy ever been to the Vatican? The priest in question was Maurice Grammond. In case you were not aware of what a piece of shit he was...

"Grammond died in 2002. In a deposition taken before his death, Grammond said, "I'd say these children abused me. They'd dive in my lap to get sexual excitement."

Read the rest of this post...

Dearly held Reagan funeral items selling like hotcakes

I'll admit, I have been eying the commemorative Ronald Reagan toilet seat that is up for auction but I'm surprised that so many Republicans are selling off their historical artifacts. Don't they want a piece of history? Read the rest of this post...

C.I.A. Held Back Iraqi Arms Data, Officials Say

I simply do not believe it. If the facts end up proving otherwise, I will accept it - but at this point, this sounds like such a bunch of bull, it's not even funny. I met with some CIA folks before the war, and they were senior enough to be involved in war planning, and they were not happy at all with the way Bush was twisting their evidence on Iraq. To suggest that now it was the CIA that was gung ho on going after Iraq, and poor ole dumb George was out of the loop again? I just don't buy it.

Not to mention... how many times are we to accept that poor ole dumb George was out of the loop without asking why we don't have a president who's more IN the loop? Read the rest of this post...

Doh!

Read the rest of this post...

Kerry picks Edwards

So what does everyone think about that? Read the rest of this post...

African Union to send peacekeepers to Sudan

I can't believe that both the UN and US are slower to react than the African Union. It's only 300 troops, but it's a start. Let's hope that the US decision makers quit using weasel words and start taking action. Read the rest of this post...

Phamaceutical industry hiding studies from consumers and government

In their own version of cooking the books, the drug industry is avoiding publication of studies that may show the public how poorly their products performed or side effects that may have been detected. The FDA has failed to crack down on the pharmaceutical companies because they have no method of enforcement. With the election right around the corner, it's probably asking too much for politicians to demand accountability from potential fund raisers.

"An FDA analysis found that in 2002 only 48 percent of trials of cancer drugs had been registered, and a preliminary review now indicates the listing rate for drugs for some other serious diseases is in the single digits. Some companies have listed no studies; some trials are listed without identifying the sponsoring company or the drug being tested.

As of Friday, the database, ClinicalTrials.gov, listed 5,754 ongoing studies, but only 13 percent were industry sponsored. The federal government, mainly the National Institutes of Health, accounted for 55 percent. Those proportions are in stark contrast to the true picture, DeAngelis said. "Over 80 percent of trials are funded by for-profit companies, not by the government," she said.

The law required companies to register all effectiveness trials, known as Phase 2, 3 or 4 studies, for serious and life-threatening diseases. In 2002 , the FDA defined "serious" diseases broadly, including everything from AIDS and cancer to arthritis, depression and diabetes.

Companies are hesitant to register trials because they want to control data, said Kay Dickersin, a professor at Brown University who has sought such data for two decades."

Read the rest of this post...

Buffet: Fuzzy Math & Stock Options

I wish I could say that I can't believe Congress is pushing forward a new plan to allow the top 5 employees to run away with stock options, leaving the others behind, but I can't. Is Congress set on creating more disparity between the haves and have nots? Even Warren Buffet can't believe what Congress is up to.

"...the bill decrees that a coveted form of corporate pay -- stock options -- be counted as an expense when these go to the chief executive and the other four highest-paid officers in a company, but be disregarded as an expense when they are issued to other employees in the company. Second, the bill says that when a company is calculating the expense of the options issued to the mighty five, it shall assume that stock prices never fluctuate.

All seven members of the Financial Accounting Standards Board, all four of the big accounting firms and legions of investment professionals say the two proposals are nonsense. Nevertheless, many House members wish to ignore these informed voices and make Congress the Supreme Accounting Authority."

Read the rest of this post...