The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend: "a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."
He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior."
(CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)
Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).
"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:
A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist." (Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)
"A nutty lesbian blogger." (MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)
Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush
who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
Update: Some folks in the comment thread took what I wrote in this diary as commentary on gay white men, when it actually is a commentary on the failure of network and cable news media to have diverse enough contact lists.
I added a few lines to the piece to clarify this earlier in the piece.
~~Autumn~~
My weekend was incredibly busy. I went to a Equality California Trans Mixer on Friday night, the San Diego Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Community Center (as the guest of Equality California), and gave a speech for the Annual Scouting For All Rally. So, pardon my delay in getting this diary up.
In between all these events I attended this past weekend, I watched a lot of cable news regarding President Obama's speech at the Human Rights Campaign's (HRC's) annual gala in DC, as well as the National Equality March.
When I watched who the cable news chose from the LGBT community to give commentary: What I saw in the chosen community spokesmodels (which is a colorful way of saying spokespeople) was a sea of gay, white, male commentators. There were exceptions, but those were exceptions.
And, this is a problem. This isn't the problem of the gay white men who are being tapped for commentary, but instead a problem of network and cable news not recognizing the LGBT community is significantly more diverse than just gay white men.
The white gay males I saw speaking for the broad LGBT community included Joe Solmonese, Cleve Jones, Michelangelo Signorile, Wayne Besen, Corey Johnson (Towleroad), Charles Moran (Log Cabin Republicans).
Exceptions I saw included Daniel Choi, Hillary Rosen, Sherry Wolf, Pam Spaulding, and the two LGBT teens I highlighted earlier. However, I saw each of these folk just once each, while most of the white gay males I listed (with the exception of Corey Johnson) I saw more than once. And, the only African-American LGBT community member I saw interviewed on cable news -- Pam -- got one spoken line in that CNN piece.
Now don't get me wrong here. Gay white men are integral part of the LGBT community, and should be represented in giving cable news commentary on LGBT news stories. The problem is that gay white males are the majority of the "go to" guys on LGBT stories; we're getting the LGBT diversity of the cable news producers' contact lists.
And, the amount of diversity that these contact lists are providing is completely inadequate. I won't speak to lesbian and bisexual representation, but I will speak to transgender voices cable news could have tapped.
For example, Kim Coco Iwamoto, an elected State Board of Education member for Hawaii, is an Asian-Pacific-Islander woman who is also trans -- she spoke at the National Equality March Rally. So did Babs Siperstein, the only transgender member of the Democratic National Committee. Trans people were visible and findable at the rally, but they weren't tapped by the cable news producers.
Outside of DC, cable news networks could have tapped many trans community people who could have spoke to LGBT and trans specific issues:
• Monica Roberts, the African American blogger/2008 Weblog LGBT Award Finalist of Transgriot
• Prof. Jillian Todd Weiss, the Associate Professor of Law and Society at Ramapo College who is running a campaign Facebook for an Inclusive ENDA
• Internet Podcasters Mila L-Pavlin and Jayna L-Pavlin of Trans-Ponder
• Vicki Estrada, A prominent City Planner/Landscape Architect in San Diego -- part of the California Transgender Leadership Committee (a group whose current focus is California trans employment issues)
• Internet Broadcaster Ethan St. Pierre of TransFM
The erasure of bisexual and transgender experience was furthered by cable news this weekend by their frequent use of "gay" and "gay and lesbian" instead of more encompassing LGBT terminology. With the notable exception of the writers for Don Lemon on CNN's Newsroom, the news writers at CNN and MSNBC didn't use lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) as the descriptor regarding either the HRC gala or the National Equality March. In fact, in all the hours I watched MSNBC this weekend -- as well as this morning -- I never heard any of the on air reporters use the terms "bisexual" or "transgender." The B and the T were erased by not only by the producers of the cable news networks, but erased by the language the cable network writers used to define our broader community.
And too, by primarily going to gay white men for interview commentary on the LGBT issues, the ethnic diversity of our broader community was ignored as well.
So, in a nutshell, the cable news networks completely failed with regards to LGBT diversity.
When white gay men are the primary "go to" folk for the longer form interview commentaries at mainstream broadcast and/or cable news networks, then mainstream broadcast and cable news networks are not showing the world what our broader LGBT community actually looks like, and what those of us who are erased actually think and believe about our broader LGBT community.
If this were a twitter tweet instead of a longer form commentary, I'd give cable news networks coverage of the HRC gala and the National Equality March the hashtags of #lgbtfail and #diversityfail. The broadcast and cable news organizations need to broaden their contact lists of LGBT spokespeople to represent the actual diversity within the LGBT community.
Sirius-XM OutQ host Michelangelo Signorile was on CNN last night debating the actions of President Obama versus his promises on LGBT policy, focusing on DOMA. Opposite Mike was the Log Cabin Republicans' Charles Moran.
LEMON: Is President Obama living up to his campaign promise to be a fierce advocate for gays and lesbians? Gay activists think Mr. Obama is backtracking on promises both on the campaign trail and in the White House. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think that it is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something that I have been consistent on, and something that I intend to continue to be consistent on during my presidency.
We must continue to do our part to make progress, step by step, law by law, mind by changing mind. And I want you to know that in this task I will not only be your friend, I will continue to be an ally and a champion, and a president who fights with you and for you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: But the Justice Department is fighting a lawsuit that challenges the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. Well, some say that adds hypocrisy.
Joining us is Sirius-XM host, Michelangelo Signorile, an author. He's in New York; and from New York, Charles Moran, spokesman for the Log Cabin Republicans.
Thank you very much, both of you.
You heard a couple of times, the president and once-candidate Obama says I'm a fierce advocate for gay rights.
Has that so far, do you feel, it's been the case, Charles?
CHARLES MORAN, SPOKESMAN, LOG CABIN REPUBLICAN SPOKESMAN: Well, the issue of being an advocate means you actually have to do something. And unfortunately all we've seen from the White House in the Obama administration is more rhetoric and not a lot of action. In fact, the most we've gotten is a little bit of a circuit party with a Madonna remix in the East Room of the White House. And unfortunately that just doesn't cut it. [WTF, lol?]
LEMON: OK, that's an interesting way to put it.
And listen, I'm looking at the filings here. It says, "The administration says it supports the repeal of the law." But in the same filing, "The Justice Department will defend the statute in that case, because a reasonable argument can be made that the law is constitutional," Michelangelo?
MICHELANGELO SIGNORILE, SIRIUS XM RADIO HOST: Look, the president has spoken very, very supportively of rights for gay and lesbian Americans. He has certainly showed a passion in the past, much more than Republicans. What he has lacked since taking office is courage. Courage to really move forward, move forward on repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, move forward on repeal of DOMA.
And he can do things right now even before repealing, he can stop the discharges under federal law of those people being discharged under Don't Ask Don't Tell. He can also decide not to fight the Defensive Marriage, not to fight the challenge. He can actually -- there's nothing in the Constitution that says you have to defend current law. George H.W. Bush actually did not defend current law when he was president, because he didn't believe in it, and his Justice Department made the argument that they weren't going to defend it. And the lawyer making the argument in the Justice Department was John Roberts, who is now the Supreme Court justice.
When I walked in the door yesterday evening, I caught the last minute or so of a segment on CNN, "Gay Issues Closing In On Obama." This is an interesting breakthrough, because finally, finally, there is recognition by the MSM that this administration has done everything in its power to remain silent on anything g-a-y, even to the point of looking foolish as landmark rulings in state courts and legislative actions have affirmed that gay and lesbian couples are equal under the law and have the right to marry.
It's kind of hard to ignore a report like this; it even includes PressSec Robert Gibbs giving his feeble response the other day to ABC's Jake Tapper when he was asked about the President's reaction to marriage equality in Maine.
I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.
A very sensitive issue -- the issue of gay rights. President Obama taking a relatively low key stance right now on what's going on.
Let's go to our senior political correspondent, Candy Crowley -- Candy, it's always a sensitive issue for politicians.
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely. And no less so now. It is completely unclear whether same-sex marriage is an issue who's time is coming. In fact, the polls would argue against that. Regardless, it's an issue that can't be ignored -- or can it?
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CROWLEY (voice-over): During the 100 plus days of the Obama administration...
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Congratulations.
CROWLEY: ...three more states -- Iowa, Vermont, and now Maine -- have sanctioned same-sex marriage.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The legislators understood that this is about families. This is about committed couples.
CROWLEY: But nary a word from President Obama. Think 10 foot pole.
ROBERT GIBBS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Well, I think the president's position on same-sex marriage is -- has been talked about and discussed.
CROWLEY: The question is, how long can the silence last?
STEVE ELMENDORF, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: The more states approve it, the more pressure will build on federal office holders, including a president, to take a stand on gay marriage.
CROWLEY: Public support for same-sex marriage has slowly grown over the years, still the latest CNN Public Opinion Corporation poll found that 44 percent of Americans support it, while 54 percent are opposed. Broken down by party, Democrats overwhelmingly favor it, Republicans overwhelmingly oppose it, but this is what makes it politically tricky. The majority of independents, largely the voters who decide elections, are opposed.
CROWLEY: So same sex marriage remains a political hot spot, circled carefully by most politicians, including the president. During the campaign, he said that he supported civil unions. Same-sex marriage did not fit his definition of marriage.
PRES. BARACK OBAMA (D), UNITED STATES: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. For me as a Christian it is also a sacred union. CROWLEY: Some in the gay community are also restless that the candidates they saw as sympathetic to their causes has seemed less so in office. He has not as promised pushed for repeals of don't ask don't tell in the military. There are complaints the president has not adequately funded AIDS prevention programs. Openly gay people have been given substantial positions in the administration, but some activists hope for a cabinet seat. And the selection of Rick Warren, an Evangelist who opposes gay marriage, to speak at the inauguration still wrangles some in the gay community. Still there is a willingness to be patient. Washington lobbyists and democratic strategist Steve Elmendorf.
ELMENDORF: I think people are very clear that Barack Obama is the most pro-gay president we've had. He's great on 90 percent of the issues that the gay community cares about. At some point they're going to hope that he changes on the 10 percent.
CROWLEY: Elmendorf adds that the majority in the gay community understand that the president has a lot on his plate right now, there is time.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CROWLEY: In the end, on many of the issues of particular concern to gays, the president is likely to deliver, but given the current political dynamics, his support for gay marriage remains a non- starter. That will take a lot of time. Wolf?
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: All right Candy. Thanks very much.
And there's more; a discussion between Wolf, Mary Matalin and Paul Begala followed that report. Click over for the rest of the transcript.
I was watching CNN's American Morning yesterday, and hosts/reporters John Roberts, Alina Cho and Erica Hill were discussing the ridiculous claim by Ty toys that its Malia and Sasha dolls don't have anything to do with the Obama children. It's a coincidence, says the company and that the names for the dolls were chosen because they are "beautiful." Right.
Anyway, the actual point of this post is about the subsequent exchange among the CNNers. Poor John Roberts, who is only seven years older than I am, made this pop culture reference brought to mind by the absurd claim by Ty Toys:
ROBERTS: You know, I think the jury is still out on whether George Harrison copied "He's so Fine" when he wrote "My Sweet Lord" but this, I don't think so.
CHO: I don't know what you're talking about.
ROBERTS: Alina, thanks so much.
CHO: OK.
ROBERTS: Erica?
HILL: Yes, you lost me with that one, too, John, but we'll look it up in the break.
I was appalled, not because they didn't have a clue, but that I was old enough to know exactly what he was talking about. Hill was born in 1976, and Cho may be in the same ballpark; both weren't even born when the late George Harrison got into legal hot water over the hit single, which appeared on the album All Things Must Pass, with the question being whether Harrison plagiarized the Chiffon's "He's So Fine."
In the U.S. federal court decision in the case, known as Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music,[2] Harrison was found to have unintentionally copied the earlier song. He was ordered to surrender the majority of royalties from "My Sweet Lord" and partial royalties from All Things Must Pass. Former manager Allen Klein, who earlier had supported Harrison's case, became the owner of Bright Tunes, after they parted ways. In the long run this worked against Klein, but it resulted in the case continuing for years in court.
The Chiffons would later record "My Sweet Lord" to capitalize on the publicity generated by the lawsuit.
Shortly thereafter, Harrison (who would eventually buy the rights to "He's So Fine")[3] wrote and recorded a song about the court case named "This Song", which includes "This song, there's nothing 'Bright' about it." "I Can't Help Myself (Sugar Pie, Honey Bunch)" and "Rescue Me" are also mentioned in the record.
Erica, Alina -- there's more history about the lawsuit here. Now John Roberts and I will go sit in our respective rocking chairs and talk about all those young whippersnappers.
Q of the day: How many of you out there have had a real "generation gap" experience that you'd like to share?
Video of Harrison performing My Sweet Lord is below the fold.
Over at The Bilerico Project, the National Black Justice Coalition's chief executive officer, H. Alexander Robinson, has contributed a powerful essay on CNN's non-coverage of black gay men in its segment on HIV/AIDS in Black in America.
I have heard the arguments that one CNN special could not be all things to all people, or cover all the aspects of the complex issues facing America and her Black citizens. However, when it comes to their presentation of the Black family and HIV/AIDS, their efforts were an exercise in journalistic malpractice.
HIV respects neither race, gender, class or sexual orientation, but Black gay men remain the most heavily impacted by the disease and we have largely carried the weight of the HIV prevention message on our backs from the beginning until now. Of course we had allies and partners but let's get real- it was Black gay men who led on Black AIDS--and we are still leading.
What was the thinking of the documentary's editors which allowed the series to side-step the issue of men who have sex with men and women without disclosing their sexual practices with their partners? What of the ravages of drug use and addition left unchecked during our endless war on drugs? The disproportionate numbers of HIV infections in Washington, DC noted in the series can be traced in no small part to our failure to adequately address the drug use and needle sharing habits of addicts.
When addressing the issue of the many Black children who are being raised by single parents, CNN seem to suggest first that only Black women were raising our children alone- ignoring the significant number of Black men both gay and non-gay who are raising children. CNN renders invisible the thousands of children being raised by two loving parents in same-sex couples.
...In almost every segment there was an opportunity to bring Black gay men, lesbian women, bisexuals and transgender men and women into the discussion.
Yet there was nothing, not even a suggestion that we exist.
Thank you, thank you. It was also a missed opportunity to present a segment of the community that is also vibrant, positive and has ties to accepting faith communities. But it's clear CNN producers went out of their way to avoid the issue; it's hard to believe this was a simple oversight.
I posted my thoughts about the CNN's two-part, six hour Black in America special over the weekend ("CNN does Black in America 101"). It re-aired several times over the weekend. One of the major issues I had with the program, since a good deal of time was spent on the devastating impact of HIV/AIDS in the community, was the complete invisibility about what it is like to be black and gay in America. It takes a lot of effort to dance around the issue, but CNN did it. More below the fold.
(I'm at Blogging While Brown in Atlanta this weekend. I'm sure we'll discuss this multimedia effort by CNN...)
I was looking forward to the two-part, six-hour CNN special Black in America. The premiere this week (it re-airs over the weekend) was disappointing, but not unexpectedly so. What I mean is that it felt like Black People 101 for the "general audience," i.e. people who may have little or no first-hand exposure to blacks in this country. What it delivered in those six hours was a pretty superficial regrazing of territory that focused way too much on the urban black community and the socioeconomic woes in segments of black America. I was looking for more "advanced studies."
There was acknowledgment of the plight of incarceration of the black man and the unequal treatment in the criminal justice system, the lack of black men who are considered "marriage material" for black women because of underemployment, incarceration and discrimination, the impact of crack, HIV/AIDS, unequal access to quality education, black misogyny in rap -- all of these have been covered in one way or another before in the MSM. That's all well and good, but there was ample opportunity to explore areas that were undercovered or curiously touched upon then abandoned.
* the growing black middle class;
* the internal politics and tension over the definition of "black culture" within the community, including the "acting white" phenomenon;
* the generational divide in terms of political outlook;
* the digital divide and its impact, as well as the black digiterati and new activism;
* colorism and how it still holds sway in elements of the community;
* what it is like to be black and gay in America
* what is "black" in America today.
I'm on the phone with a confused reporter, and I'm confused too. She keeps asking me why I "count myself as black... And why does Barack Obama?" My answer (for Sen. Obama, at least) is "have you seen him?" But she won't let it go. "Is your father annoyed that you deny him?" My dad is white. I interject. "Let's conference him in," I say. "Listen, he married a black woman, he has six black children. He'd be the first person to tell you I'm black."
The questions, to me, reveal more about the asker. This (white) reporter surely doesn't know a lot of black people, or she wouldn't be struggling so hard. She'd know black people come in all hues.
Unlike O'Brien, I'm not biracial, but the product of parents who have families that "come in all hues" -- and we all identify as black.
Acknowledging up front that race is a social construct and putting that aside for the moment, dealing with what it means to be black in America in my mind means taking a deeper look at what the expectation of being black is, not simply whether your appearance alone is the sole arbiter of how you are labeled. Because of the increasingly blurry color line, it's not only the dominant culture that seems to be having difficulties with the various hues and identities. Even within the black community there can be contentious discussion surrounding authentic blackness - that has little to do with how you look, and everything to do with how you culturally identify.
I find it perplexing to hear in some circles that Barack Obama has to prove his blackness, not only in association, but in his fealty to a particular kind of American black culture that has evolved due to the influence of the descendents of west African slaves. If that isn't his experience, why must he represent that? The same could be said of Caribbean black Americans, whose heritage and culture are in many ways differs from the "norm" (my maternal grandfather, for instance, was from Barbados, my paternal side of the family includes descendants of slaves). Does that make me more or less black?
Why is a specific kind of authenticity necessary to be seen as "black" for some in the community? What about socioeconomic status, or education? What role do they play? One can argue that the black support for Clarence Thomas during his SCOTUS confirmation process based on his race alone certainly didn't serve the interests of most black people in America, even though he was raised in the South, and had a culturally "traditional" black background. It seems rather superficial not to take a more expanded view and assessment of a person than the mere measure of hue or culture.
These are simply questions of course, not a declaration of support or dissent of a point of view. It would have been engaging to see people wrestling with these topics in the CNN special. More below the fold.
The White House press spokesbot and former Faux News talking head Tony Snow will now provide fair and balanced commentary at CNN.
Former White House press secretary Tony Snow will join CNN as a conservative commentator beginning today, it was announced by Jon Klein, president of CNN/U.S.
A well-known and respected observer of politics with a longstanding news background, Snow will contribute to CNN as the network continues to broadcast winning political coverage.
Snow most recently served as press secretary to President George W. Bush from April 2006 to September 2007. For 10 years beginning in 1996, he appeared on Fox News Channel, hosting Fox News Sunday, Weekend Live with Tony Snow and other programs. From 2003 to 2006, The Tony Snow Show aired on Fox News Radio. Before joining Fox, Snow served as a substitute "From the Right" co-host for CNN's Crossfire.
..."In the White House, Tony brought a remarkably human touch to the discussion of public policy, which he will continue to do as part of the Best Political Team on Television," Klein said. "He will contribute a unique breadth of political and journalistic expertise to what is already the most provocative and wide-ranging political analysis on the air."
"I'm delighted to be able to join CNN during the most exciting and unpredictable political year in memory," Snow said. "The big challenge in 2008 is to develop deep, creative and aggressive analysis of both political parties, their candidates and campaigns. I'm eager to get started, since this race is sure to shape American politics for years to come."
CNN Newsroom Aired March 23, 2008 - 22:00 ET
(Update: official transcript at link above, and commentary below modified to reflect this)
----
I caught the tail end of this replay at about 1:55 AM. The headline at the bottom of the screen was: "Breaking News, 4,000 U.S. Dead In Iraq."
As usual, whenever there is mention of American deaths in Iraq, I always stop to listen for mention of the Iraqi death toll, which I rarely hear of. This time however, it was mentioned. And fortunately, and as usual, Michael Ware came through to give us earfuls more about the situation.
Panelist Martha Zoller thought that we should be talking about something other than our responsibility for the unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi's (as well as our own), a typical conservative response. Most enjoyably however, Ware, who is based in Baghdad, eviscerates the notion with damning insight.
I was on CNN Newsroom's Blog Buzz at 7:30 ET tonight to discuss the results in Nevada and South Carolina. Tony Harris asked about McCain's "momentum" and we discussed the issue of race as it has been playing out so far in the primaries.
Here it is... Yesterday I let you all know that I was going to be on CNN Sunday night. At 7:30 I appeared on the Blog Buzz segment hosted by Tony Harris.
I was sitting in a very cold studio in Raleigh, listening to Harris and my foil on the right, Amanda Carpenter of Town Hall, through a very trebly, almost painful earpiece, but it was still fun. We discussed the Des Moines Register endorsements -- Hillary Clinton and John McCain, as well as the Boston Globe nods to Obama and McCain.
Joe Sudbay of Americablog was kind enough to snare the video. Argh, I can't watch myself yet; tell me how it went.
Barring breaking news that bumps scheduled programming, I'll be on CNN Newsroom Sunday's four-minute Blog Buzz segment during the 7:30-8:00 PM half hour. It's hosted by Tony Harris, and the format pairs a progressive and conservative blogger to discuss the newsworthy political stories of the week.
I did a pre-interview with the booker on Friday, and the topic is the 2008 elections, specifically focusing on this week's Dem and GOP Des Moines Register Presidential Debates in Iowa.
Among the topics up for discussion (and chat away about them in the comments):
* Since there are so many of these debates, are these meaningful or affecting the polls at this point? Are you still watching/reading about them?
* Are the candidates not addressing certain issues of importance to the American people -- civil rights/justice issues, poverty, LGBT, immigration, etc.
* Are there any standouts in either party at this point?
As I type this it's 9:30 PM and I'm watching the third part of CNN's documentary with Christiane Amanpour, "God's Warriors." Parts one and two dealt with Judaism and Islam. Tonight's installment is about religious fundamentalists in the U.S., specifically the "Christian" right wing.
Amanpour conducted the last TV interview with Rev. Tinkywinky at Liberty University the week before Falwell died. He again recanted the apology he made for saying "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians" were responsible for 9/11. He calls his young Liberty University scholars "pit bulls for Christ;" his goal is to graduate as many fundie lawyers as possible, to infiltrate and influence the judicial system in favor of God's law.
Michael Jensen has a great piece up at AfterElton about tonight's doc. A snippet:
It would be hard to imagine a documentary examining the impact of Christian fundamentalists on American culture that didn't include a look at the part played by gay issues. Fortunately, God's Christian Warriors doesn't disappoint and the result is a fascinating and often frightening look at the religious right that any progressive -- but especially any gay progressive -- would be well advised to watch.
...While watching Amanpour interview some of these fundamentalists, I hoped she would ask just what would happen to gay people should they get their way: stoning to death, as suggested in Leviticus? After all, fundamentalists claim the Bible should be the foundation upon which America is built and that would be the logical conclusion.
...If looked at through the prism of understanding what the religious right wants for America, however, then the documentary can be considered a success if even only a few Americans -- especially gay ones -- wake up to what these Christian fundamentalists aspire to. And for anyone paying attention for the last twenty years, no explanation is needed as to what it is the religious fundamentalists want for America.
As God's Christian Warriors makes amply clear, their goal is an America that is governed by biblical principles; principles that leave no room for gay people to co-exist in any meaningful way except by going deeply back in to the closet.
CNN has done a fine job on this series; I am curious how it is being received by fundamentalists, considering the documentary is quite harsh (and accurate) about the violent history of the religious right regarding abortion activity, showing the shootings of doctors and bombings of clinics, acts Falwell condemns when the topic is raised. I'd venture a guess that being lumped in with extremist factions of Islam and Judaism is going to cause a massive uproar in the fundie press shortly.
CNN will likely re-air tonight's doc later this evening, and all three parts over the weekend. Check listings.
CNN.com is now featuring its long-winded, self-congratulatory response to Michael Moore's scathing letter to the media giant for its initial reporting on his latest movie, Sicko.
Protesting the unfairness of Mr. Moore's detailed criticism, the CNN.com defensiveness has this declaration in the preamble to its supposedly point-by-point ramble: "We have zero vested interest in shading the numbers to tell a certain story," a claim rather amazing on its face, given the corporation's complete dependence on advertising dollars from other corporations that know how to use the power of that money to shape news, and given CNN's long-standing dependence upon the Bush Administration's discriminating willingness to grant or deny access to the halls of administrative power in Washington.
But the kicker comes in the sixth paragraph, where we learn, "CNN has always prided itself on balanced reporting of claims made by special-interest groups."
At the bottom of the article, CNN.com offered a feedback link, which takes the reader to a screen where, along with survey-type features, a person can write a comment, restricted to no more than 500 characters; that is apparently, in the judgment of CNN.com, sufficient latitude for anyone to have a well-formed, substantive say.
I used my 500 characters to the end of getting a few broad points across, and I herewith share with the public that which I just finished roaring at CNN.com:
While I am not a fan of Michael Moore when he holds Cuba up as a positive socio-political model for anything, I am just amazed by the disingenuousness in your claim that, "CNN has always prided itself on balanced reporting of claims made by special-interest groups."
The very use of the term 'special interest groups' serves no purpose other than to degrade and demean those who have strongly opposed the Bush Administration in its systematic prevarications that led to the American-Iraqi War, a war for which CNN served as nothing other than a propaganda outlet for the neo-conservatives, as Michael Moore pointed out in blistering terms to Wolf Blitzer last week.
And by the way, were those 'special interest groups' that pointed out how CNN.com was publishing photos handily provided by the Department of Defense of North Korean 'nuclear facilities' that were the same photographs DoD had also claimed were Iranian nuclear facilities?
Perhaps I am a 'special interest group'; but you are just shills.
The Dark Wraith has thus spoken not Truth to Power, but instead, Hell-Fire and Damnation to Propagandists.
After thinking through the bizarre Obama and race matter, I'm now treated to more confirmation that too many people simply don't know how to discuss race and class intelligently or honestly. Take the rantings of CNN Headline News' bleater Glenn Beck. (Media Matters):
On the February 12 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Glenn Beck featured Philadelphia-based conservative radio host Dom Giordano, who claimed that "the mainstream media has dubbed [Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL)] to be African-American" and said, "If you start to, you know, delve around the edges, say, 'Wait a minute, isn't he mixed race? Weren't we told that last year?' Or whatever, biracial. Not allowed to say that anymore." Beck responded by saying "he's very white in many ways," adding, "Gee, can I even say that? Can I even say that without somebody else starting a campaign saying, 'What does he mean, "He's very white?" ' He is. He's very white."
After the interview, Beck attempted to clarify his comments to executive producer and head writer of The Glenn Beck Program, Steve Burguiere, who is known on-air as "Stu." Beck claimed that Obama "is colorless," adding that "as a white guy ... [y]ou don't notice that he is black. So he might as well be white, you know what I mean?" In addition, Beck said: "I guarantee you, there will be blogs today that will have me being a racist because I say that."
Where do you begin? It's that whole "acting white" thing, the "clean, articulate" shebang all over again. Even as he attempts to explain himself he continues to affirm that somehow, those attributes cannot be found in the otherwise monolithic (in his mind) black population.
As I said yesterday, if you look black, in the end you are still identified by people as black in this country, no matter how you dress or speak. End of story.
Between dolts like Beck and the black establishment hand-wringing over whether Obama is black enough, we're seeing a boatload of ignorance and irrational ingrained fear that is breathtaking to behold.
