In 1968, his second campaign for the White House, Richard Nixon rode into office on what later became known as the "Southern Strategy." While running as a moderate in most states, Nixon used code words like "states' rights" and "busing" to appeal to the racist tendencies of southern whites. This was the nail in the coffin of black support for the GOP, which, since the days of Abraham Lincoln, had traditionally been the party of civil rights. Two years ago, former Republican National Committee Chair Ken Mehlman officially apologized for his party's attempt to "benefit politically from racial polarization."
How ironic that Barack Obama - the first, serious black presidential candidate in the history of the United States - would resurrect one of the most disreputable features of the Republican Party's campaign playbook.
Obama is the candidate of the same liberal elites who supported Howard Dean, ecstatic about the opportunity to challenge the old guard represented by Hillary Clinton. He's promising to end the cynicism embodied by Clinton, the sort that "triangulates," as he put it in a thinly veiled attack several weeks ago. He is also hungry, however, for black southern voters, many of whom are social conservatives on the subjects of homosexuality and the separation of church and state. So Obama decided to sign Donnie McClurkin, a Grammy-winning, African-American, "ex-gay" singer, onto his campaign as part of a gospel tour of the important primary state of South Carolina.
McClurkin denies being homophobic (explaining away his views with the usual "Christian" apologetics, loving the sinner but hating the sin), yet his message about gay people is egregious. He states that he was drawn into homosexuality by the rape and abuse he suffered as a child. Homosexuality, he says, is an affliction that its victims can overcome.
This sort of bigotry would be bad enough coming from a Pat Robertson or a Lou Sheldon - men far removed from the "gay lifestyle" - but it is especially harmful when spoken by someone who identifies as "ex-gay." Such individuals can at least claim to have a personal experience, and sympathy toward, homosexuality and their "past" thus gives them bogus credibility.
Would any major presidential candidate associate with a black pastor who spoke of Jews or black people in the denigrating way that McClurkin talks about gays? It's inconceivable. But gays are the one minority group that it's still acceptable to ridicule, and Obama - despite his preachy talk of "hope" - is perpetuating this phenomenon. The Obama campaign's continued advertising of its endorsement by McClurkin once again signifies that the Democrats are perfectly willing to use homophobia for their electoral advantage.
The Clintons perfected the art of speaking out of both sides of their mouths on gay rights - passing the Defense of Marriage Act along with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," all the while scooping up massive amounts of campaign contributions from gay bigwigs - and it appears that Obama is learning from his party's most skilled set of campaigners. So much for his recent promise to part ways with the cynics who "tout their experience working the system in Washington." Obama's starting to "work the system" just fine himself.
Atlantic Monthly blogger and Obama fan Andrew Sullivan has suggested that the benighted one should fire the staffer who invited McClurkin onto the campaign. This is wise counsel, but how can Obama fire the person who welcomed McClurkin onto the "gospel tour" while keeping McClurkin onboard? In a presidential campaign, the buck stops with the candidate and unless Obama is willing to dump McClurkin he cannot, in good faith, dump some hapless staffer.
Singling out a class of Americans as a basis for that fear - as Nixon did 1968 - is reprehensible and destroyed Bush's pledge to be a "uniter, not a divider." For many years, the Human Rights Campaign and the Democratic presidential candidates have promised to offer us something different.
But the events of the past week have shown that even the most platitudinous of liberals is not immune from utilizing the cynical election tactics concocted by the right.
60 Comments for “Obama’s Offensive ‘Southern Strategy’”
posted by The Gay Species on
Obama’s staff claimed the anti-gay rant by an ex-gay black preacher “cured from the curse of homosexuality” demonstrated Obama’s ability to bridge differences and promote inclusivity.
I noted the inclusivity of the anti-gay, ex-gay, black preacher, but where was David Duke, Louis Farrhakan, Osama bin Laden, etc., in Obama’s Rainbow? Who was Obama’s token honkey queer representing “those” pink people? I didn’t see an Asian Lesbian.
“Those not opposed to us are for us,” said a sage, and Obama’s campaign made it clear where HE stands, and GLBT are to be grateful that the black man permits us on the bus (“something is better than nothing,” he claims), but only after one is cured from the curse, first.
Imagine MLK accepting those platitudes in the face of Rosa Parks? I’ve found the “black enough” remarks surrounding Obama vile, but perhaps Obama’s black experience fails to understand the double-barrel discrimination against GLBT of color — and especially the discrimination against gay black men.
posted by Brian Miller on
So Obama did the Democrats’ equivalent of speaking at Bob Jones University.
We already know that politicians in the two old parties are cynical, lying panderers. Get back to us when you’re ready to endorse a candidate based on his or her stance on gay issues — rather than point out the endless examples of hypocrisy and mendacity that make up the fabric of the Democratic and Republican parties.
Thanks!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
He states that he was drawn into homosexuality by the rape and abuse he suffered as a child. Homosexuality, he says, is an affliction that its victims can overcome.
And in cases like his where it’s related to early sexual abuse, he’s probably right.
Why should we care? It only makes us look petty to denigrate the man’s experience just because we don’t like the story.
Furthermore, Obama is doing simple mathematics. Gays are barely 7% of the voting population. Black voters are more than double that amount, carry much more weight with delegates and have the race card, and can topple a campaign if they aren’t appeased.
Besides, Obama is hardly stupid. Why should he waste time on outreach to a community that has already been sold by its masters to Hillary Clinton? He’s fully aware that the same gay liberals hyperventilating over McClurkin are spinning like tops over why there’s nothing wrong with Hillary’s own antigay black preachers.
posted by Brian Miller on
Why should he waste time on outreach to a community that has already been sold by its masters to Hillary Clinton?
Because that “community” is independently minded and doesn’t jump when its leaders command them to (unlike, say, the Log Cabin Republicans, who will clam up and vanish when party HQ orders them to — as we saw in the California marriage equality battle a month ago).
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Or like the “Libertarians” did last year when they were sucking up to the Nunezes and Peratas who ordered them not to propose any marriage bills because it was an election year — and of course, not embarrassing those nice leftist gays like Leno and Kuehl who were finally inviting them to pretty cocktail parties and pre-Folsom brunches.
posted by Brian Miller on
Or like the “Libertarians” did last year when they were sucking up to the Nunezes and Peratas who ordered them not to propose any marriage bills because it was an election year
I’m glad you put “Libertarians” in quotes, since you’re not referring to the Libertarian Party (the only properly capitalized “Libertarians” in US politics).
In California, while the supposedly openly gay Log Cabin Republicans were praising Schwartzenegger for $300,000 in pork spending while studiously avoiding marriage equality, the mostly heterosexual board of the Libertarian Party of California was calling on the GOP guv to sign the marriage equality bill.
It’s kind of sad when the gay Republicans spend less time lobbying the governor on real gay issues than the mostly heterosexual board members of an opposition party.
Then again, Log Cabin has never been renowned for doing much in the cause of LGBT rights.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
That is because the Libertarian Party of California is openly hostile to marriage and sees gay marriage as a way of weakening the law and getting government out of marriage — as it admits in the letter. Gays are just a convenient cat’s-paw to be manipulated to the ultimate purpose.
Furthermore, the “equal protection” argument based on the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t even come close to holding water — unless, of course, the Libertarian Party of California wants to come out as opposing ALL restrictions on marriage, including number of people involved, age, consanguinity, species, and whatnot, as being against “equal protection”, since none of those are listed in the Fourteenth Amendment as being excluded.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
How is getting government out of the marriage business being “hostile” to marriage? Oh wait…it was ND30 that posted that. *Puts on insanity glasses* Ah, now I get it.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Corvino, your manufactured outrage fools no one.
posted by Brian Miller on
How is getting government out of the marriage business being “hostile” to marriage?
It’s hostile to Republican politicians defining a marriage, rather than individuals who want to express a long-term commitment to each other.
Since ND-30’s party’s principles include a strong commitment to government managing our lives for us, that’s a threat to them. Of course, for the average American, it’s not a threat at all — marriage thrived during the first century of this country’s existence when the government had no role, and only started to have problems when control freaks in government got into the business of “licensing and regulating” it.
Incidentally, the California bill, AB43, did NOT get the government out of marriage but merely granted gay and lesbian couples access to the existing marriage license scheme. The overwhelming majority of gay people supported the bill, as did the Libertarian Party and even California’s state Democratic Party leader. When Libertarians and Democrats agree on something, that’s saying something.
The Log Cabin Republicans were completely AWOL — quiet because their leadership, many of whom sit on the state and national Republican committees — didn’t want to “embarrass” their party. They freely sold out gay people in exchange for power for their own party, making them no better than the Democrats they’re always criticizing for doing the same thing.
posted by Carl on
-Why should we care?-
Because he goes on crusades against all gays. He does not simply feel content because he has beaten his demons of homosexuality. He has made quotes like this:
“The gloves are off and if there’s going to be a war, there’s going to be a war. But it will be a war with a purpose? I’m not in the mood to play with those who are trying to kill our children.”
He sees us as child killers and people to declare war on.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Perhaps he sees these statistics, Carl.
Especially these:
AIDS-related illnesses are the leading killer in African Americans 25 to 44 years old. Many of these adults likely were infected during their teenage years.
And:
Roughly three out of four HIV infections among young men occur in young MSM.
African-American and Latina women over the age of 13 comprise 80% of reported AIDS cases among women in the United States last year.
By the way, he’s not the one telling black teenagers to have unprotected sex; in fact, he’s telling them to do the exact opposite.
Meanwhile, gays are dressing children in fetish gear and taking them to sex fairs.
And given McClurkin’s life story, I can fully understand why he would be sensitive to child sexual molestation.
posted by Samantha on
I don’t think it’s so much a southern strategy as just a symptom of gays being invisible, as per usual. McClurkin is very popular, and it might have struck a sour note to Obama to remove him from a concert because he’s said some ridiculous anti-gay things.
However, two things. One, the fact that he didn’t see this coming tells me he doesn’t have a gay presence at the top levels of managing the campaign. It’s one thing to yack on about how you’re for gays (whites do the same thing about blacks all the time, men say similar things about women women…), but it’s quite another to integrate your business with these types of individuals. Had that been the case, this wouldn’t have happened.
And two, I read Obama’s Advocate article responding to this issue, and found it to be unsatisfactory.
You know, if I were Obama and was saddled with big-mouthed Donnie McClurkin, I would enlist an equally high-profile gay black entertainer or sports star or church leader or whoever, who would follow me around like glue, to present a balancing view.
But it doesn’t matter. Obama is losing, and this alienation of the gay community is the last nail in the coffin. As a last desperate gambit, he could appeal to his black base and actually play up the black faith-based “unity” thing, along with the “masculinity” homophobic, million-man march thing. But he doesn’t have the street cred for that. That’s not his base.
posted by Incredulous Samantha on
North Dallas Thirty, all your posts are insulting – on every thread. Get off your gay-hating crusade and go get a hobby.
I can provide you with plenty of links of straight s&m and leather stuff, and examples of offensive or inappropriate heterosexual behavior. And btw I was 7 years old at a drive-in theator when I saw two straights screwing on the roof of their pick-up truck. But, I don’t hold them up as representatives of the straight community, do I?
And by the way, your molestation comment was way over the top. Straight people molest kids, you asshole, not gays.
And of course the answer to AIDS is education and preventation. Maybe if so many black men weren’t on the “down low” and there was an honest conversation about homophobia and sexism in the black community and in the church, maybe they’d have different statistics.
posted by Asking on
North Dallas Thirty, are you even gay?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
My, my, where do we start?
Straight people molest kids, you asshole, not gays.
Right.
Next piece of irony:
I can provide you with plenty of links of straight s&m and leather stuff, and examples of offensive or inappropriate heterosexual behavior. And btw I was 7 years old at a drive-in theator when I saw two straights screwing on the roof of their pick-up truck. But, I don’t hold them up as representatives of the straight community, do I?
If you weren’t holding them up as representatives, why did you mention them and then try to argue “straights do it too”?
And why wouldn’t you support that gay couple, Samantha?
Father of two, John Kruse said it is an educational experience for children. He said there were conservative parents against having kids at the event.
“Those are the same close-minded people who think we shouldn’t have children to begin with,” he said.
Now you don’t want to be “close-minded” and oppose gays having children by saying that what they did was inappropriate, do you?
Maybe if so many black men weren’t on the “down low” and there was an honest conversation about homophobia and sexism in the black community and in the church, maybe they’d have different statistics.
I doubt it — given that, after nearly thirty years of blaming “homophobia and sexism”, and hundreds of millions of dollars spent on “education and prevention”, hardly a dent has been made in gay infection rates.
You claim to be rational and factual, Samantha; I am providing you with facts. Why, then, do you find them “insulting”?
North Dallas Thirty, are you even gay?
Quite gay.
Why? Is a characteristic of being gay that you become incapable of criticizing the behavior and motivations of other gays?
posted by Carl on
-Perhaps he sees these statistics, Carl.-
If he has then he should try to bring that up, instead of declaring war on all gays. Declaring war on people doesn’t do anything to prevent the spread of AIDS. It also doesn’t do anything to protect children. In that quote he never said that he wanted to protect them from getting AIDS. He just seemed to want to protect them from homosexuality (there are many, many African Americans with AIDS who have nothing to do with homosexuality). Many children and teenagers in this country and in other countries get AIDS, or are born with AIDS. Yet McClurkin seems more interested in telling people about his “change” and getting a name for himself.
posted by kittynboi on
This site gets more surreal all the time, largely due to the posts of Stephen, adn the responses of James, ND30, and Bobby. It’s amusing enough a diversion while I spent time level grinding in FF Tactics.
posted by Samantha on
North Dallas Thirty, you are not providing me with “facts.” You’re cherry-picking and twisting stats around to fit your gay-hating agenda. Big deal that you declare you’re gay. So you’ve had sex with a man, so what. So has Reverand Haggard. Self-hatred is a pathetic thing, but unfortunately not an uncommon thing, as we see here.
I do find it EXTREMELY offensive though, that you’re bringing pedophelia into the conversation when discussing homosexuality. That’s not just wrong and stupid, and statistically incorrect in every way around the sun and back,…but it’s also crossing the line.
It’s also more personally offensive to me because as a female, we’re very vulnerable as youngsters, and I have come across many straight female friends and one gay partner who were molested by straight men.
You can google if you want. I googled and found about 5 links for you, and that was just on page one. Not only do the links provide stats, but some explain exactly WHY most molesters are married heterosexual men and not gay, or for that matter, female.
http://mindprod.com/ggloss/childmolesting.html
http://www.robincmiller.com/gayles4.htm
http://atheism.about.com/od/bookreviews/fr/CareGayMarriage.htm
http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/68/gay_or_straight?comment_offset=11
And there was even a link to the documented stages of a healthy gay relationship and why marriage would benefit:
http://www.psychpage.com/gay/library/gay_lesbian_violence/stages_gay_relationships.html
That’s all I’m going to bother to do right now.
posted by Samantha on
The webpage didn’t convert the urls to links, but you can copy and paste them in your browser.
posted by Charles Wilson on
“Hardly a dent has been made in gay infection rates?” That requires a look into the statistics. In fact, the rates of new HIV infections are down significantly among gay men over 30. It’s gay men under 30 who are the issue. The clear implication is that this is a problem of education, not sexual orientation.
Young gay men are thinking that, a) HIV is a disease for a different generation, and b) that it’s not all that serious anyway, given the new drugs that manage it. Neither one of these ideas is true, so efforts must be made to get this message out to younger men.
This will be a constant effort, as with other chronic problems. It does not justify North Dallas Thirty’s self-hatred and gay bashing, nor do reports of crimes that happen to be committed by gay people.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Don’t waste your time, Samantha…ND30 is an example of the common internet troll. He is not interested in honest discussion, just bomb-throwing and sexist/racist rhetoric. Just for fun, you should ask him about his theories on slavery and how African-Americans should be grateful to the institution for getting them out of Africa. Hilarity will ensue.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It’s also more personally offensive to me because as a female, we’re very vulnerable as youngsters, and I have come across many straight female friends and one gay partner who were molested by straight men.
And yet you have nothing to say when gays dress up two-year-old girls in fetish wear and take them to sex fairs to “show off”,except to whine and cry about how gays who don’t just go along with it and ignore everything are “self-hating”.
Figures.
And next, we have Charles Wilson.
In fact, the rates of new HIV infections are down significantly among gay men over 30. It’s gay men under 30 who are the issue.
Of course, that leaves out the following data points; the rates of new HIV infections in men under 30 went from 374 to 499, while the rates of new HIV infections in men over 30 went from 829 to 645.
Or, in other words, even with a decrease of 22%, men over the age of 30 still made up the majority of all new HIV infections.
How, then, do you blame the problem on “young people”, when in fact over half of the new infections are in OLDER people?
Next, Carl:
If he has then he should try to bring that up, instead of declaring war on all gays.
Well, unfortunately, Carl, those who oppose promiscuous sex in the gay community are usually tagged as “self-hating”. Hence, methinks, his belief that promiscuous sex is a requirement of being gay.
And finally to CP:
Just for fun, you should ask him about his theories on slavery and how African-Americans should be grateful to the institution for getting them out of Africa.
(shrug) You keep claiming that, and I’ll keep linking to what I actually said.
posted by kittynboi on
I’ve almost unlocked Dark Knight. My character who has the requirements is on the road to mastering Black Mage, which is taking a long time. He’s already met the requirements as a Knight, Dragoon, Ninja, Samurai, and Geomancer. I don’t know if he’s crystallized enough enemies or not, since it doesn’t seem to tell you anywhere. If he hasn’t, I’ll make him a Ninja again or mayube a Samurai to do that.
After this is done, I’ll have unlocked every job.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “…I have always thought it would be interesting to do a Wonderful Life-type flashback for African-Americans, showing them what would have happened had their ancestors never been brought to the United States in bondage. What do you think they would see?”
Gee ND30…I really don’t see how your words here could mean anything other then what they appear. You, kind sir, are a racist asshole. Ipso fucking Facto. I also find it very telling that you have no qualms twisting other people’s words around to paint them as craven and ill but when you are confronted with your own blatant evilness you whine about being misrepresented. How very douche-baggy of you.
posted by Samantha on
ColoradoPatriot, I see what you mean. Even clicking on the link that ND30 provides in his own defense allows me to see his ignorant revistionist nature in full living color. And I’m not trying to name-call, really, I’m just saying that those kinds of conclusions can’t be made by anyone other than someone who does not have full grasp of the issues, and/or has an agenda.
No, most molesters aren’t gay, they’re straight. Yes, there was a tremendous drop in the increase of AIDS in gay men for 2 decades. Yes, as AIDS gets more managable with drug cocktails and as the straight community still insists on pushing gay sex to the fringes of society, there will be some increases in infection rates. Yes, gay relationships are generally healthy and the quality of living is highest in areas of the world where gays are accepted and full participants in society.
There are the drive-by trolls, and then there are the kind that stick around insist on “debating” on ridiculous points. You can’t get through to that kind anymore than Whoopie can convince Sherry that the world is not flat.
Again, CP, thanks for the heads up.
posted by kittynboi on
I’m making my way through Quake 2 on HArd difficulty. I never played through the game on this difficulty setting, and it’s quite an experience. Hell, all but the weakest of the aliens can survive a full on hit with a rocket and up, and the damn railgun monsters can hit you the instant they see you, forcing you to choose the are ain which you do battle very carefully. Nothing substitutes getting the drop on the enemy. I really love the selection of weapons in this game, and the Hyperblaster is easily one of the finest in any Quake game.
Yeah, the switch from Lovecraftian extradimensional fantasy beasts to conventional military conflict with the alien species known as the Strogg is kinda peculiar, but whatever.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I’m just saying that those kinds of conclusions can’t be made by anyone other than someone who does not have full grasp of the issues, and/or has an agenda.
Or someone who is NOT blinded by denialism, not crippled by a lack of self-esteem, and fully capable of criticizing other gays for bad behavior, especially when they blame it on their sexual orientation.
Perspective is everything. For you, Samantha, and for ColoradoPatriot, your existence is colored by your need to ignore facts in favor of perpetuating your prejudicial beliefs that black and gay people never do anything wrong and that all of the problems they have are due to straight or white “oppression”.
It’s this sort of prejudice-based denialism that has perpetuated probles like HIV in gay society. When one can simply scream “self-hating” or “racist” as a means of avoiding any sort of change to behaviors, they will continue. This is why promiscuous unprotected sex is still rampant in the gay community and why gay parents think it’s a good idea to dress up their children in fetish wear and take them to sex fairs; they know full well that their behavior can always be blamed on someone else.
posted by OK JEFF, WE GET IT on
u r dum
posted by Charles Wilson on
Or, in other words, even with a decrease of 22%, men over the age of 30 still made up the majority of all new HIV infections.
How, then, do you blame the problem on “young people”, when in fact over half of the new infections are in OLDER people?
Because, you stupid fool, the under 30 group includes males from 13 through 39, while the over-30 group includes men from 30 to, well, infinity. There are a lot more people in the over-30 group. Didn’t they have math classes at your Christian academy?
Or someone who is NOT blinded by denialism, not crippled by a lack of self-esteem
Oh please, NDT. You are the most self-hating homosexual I’ve ever seen. Of course, I don’t hang out with Mark Foley, David Dreier, Jeff Gannon, Matt Sanchez, Larry Craig, Ted Haggard or any of your other right-wing buddies.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Correction
I should have written: Because, you stupid fool, the under 30 group includes males from 13 through 29 …
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Notice how Charles Wilson spins and makes excuses for why statistics that he himself quoted are wrong when they demonstrate that his assertions are wrong.
Take responsibility, Charles Wilson, and admit that men over the age of 30 constitute the majority of all new HIV infections.
The reason you won’t, of course, is because it neatly torpedoes your blame-shifting argument about “education” and puts it neatly back on the gays of your generation who, despite years of “education”, still engage in promiscuous and unprotected sex.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
WOOSH!!
QUESTION: What was that sound?
ANSWER: The point flying right over ND30’s head.
WOOSH!!
There goes another one.
Stick to focusing on Human Resources and making up racist theories on the history of slavery ND30…statistics is not your bag.
posted by Mark on
ND30’s comments are a bit strange. Yes, blacks in the U.S. almost always have it better than blacks in Africa. However, if slavery never existed, the African Americans currently here would not somehow exist in Africa. There would be an entirely different set of people both here and there.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL….perhaps this needs to be explained to you in more detail, ColoradoPatriot.
Charles Wilson argued that gay men under 30 are “the issue”, meaning that they are responsible for the majority of new HIV infections, and cited this source.
What I pointed out from this source is that, in every year cited, men 30 and over represented the majority (over half) of new infections.
The reason neither you or Charles Wilson wants to admit this is because it demonstrates how wholly ineffective your “education” theories are, and places blame squarely upon promiscuous gays having unprotected sex.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
WOOSH!! Statistics are your friend, ND30…learn how to use them. It might be a little more difficult then posting random web-links but (I promise) it will help you define your specious and obtuse arguments.
posted by Charles Wilson on
NDT strikes me as the sort of angry, conflicted guy who forms the backbone of the so-called “ex-gay” movement. For this reason, I’m going to do the long division here, lest someday he cite this discussion in some church somewhere. And I’m going to save a copy of this message thread for posterity, just in case.
So here goes:
1. The 13-29 age group spans 17 years. The 30+ age group spans 56 years, if we use age 85 as a cutoff. For that reason alone, it’s logical that the absolute number of new infections would be higher in the 30+ age group. The 30+ group is more than three times as large as the 13-29 group.
2. If we adjust those cohorts for common sense, we’d start the younger group at age 15, and we’d cutoff the older group at age 65. This isn’t to say that no gay 73 year olds are having sex or that no gay 14 year olds are having sex, but it’s fair to assume that the tails of the distribution are infrequent on the sexual activity scale. This leaves us with 15 years vs. 36 years, meaning than when adjusted, the older group is still more than twice as large as the younger group.
3. While some teenagers have sex with older people, the typical teenager tends to have sex with other teenagers. They are less likely to be infected. By contrast, the older cohort is likely to have sex with people who are also older, and have had more opportunities to be infected. This is one more reason that you’d expect a higher absolute number of infections in older people.
4. Older people are more likely to be tested. They are more aware of HIV than younger people are, and more likely to feel vulnerability because they’ve seen what AIDS does. Younger people are known for their sense of invulnerability. These are more reasons for the absolute number of infections to be higher among the older group. At the same time, these are also reasons for educational efforts to be more effective among older people.
5. In fact, New York City’s statistics bear this out. Among people 30 and over, the number of new HIV infections has fallen by 22%, while among younger people it has risen by by 33%.
5. In absolute terms, the decline in new infections among older people has more than counterbalanced the rise in infections among the young.
6. There is absolutely more work to do on all fronts. The rise in infections among the young is a worrisome development. Anyone who says anything else is worse than irresponsible. And the persistence of ANY new infections, especially among older people, is worrisome too. It tells us that this is a never-ending task.
7. More data is needed. For example, I’d like to know how many of the new infections in ANY of these age groups can be linked to drug use. My hunch is that a whole lot of them can be. I would also like to know how many of these new infections are occurring among self-identified gay people, as opposed among men who perceive themselves as “straight” and “playing around” occasionally. How many infections occur among gay people with stable living situations, as opposed to those who are homeless or nearly so? Are rates of depression and other mental diseases higher among people who are infected? All of these issues, and more that I haven’t thought about, can be useful in crafting new approaches.
8. To a degree, some of this is baked in the cake. It’s a physiological fact that males are wired to be more promiscuous than females. You can expect rates of sexual activity to be highest among men who have sex with men, and educational efforts must recognize this or be rendered irrelevant. To the extent that our culture and institutions shove gay people into the shadows, “being gay” tends to mean “having sex,” as it did when I was young. We have a very long way to go when it comes to finding ways to accept and incorporate same-sex attraction into the fabric of the overall culture so that it’s no longer shunned, blocked, and ultimately channeled into the sex act itself.
9. The gay community, to the extent that there is one, has a good track record of confronting the HIV issue, at least after its initial period of denial was overcome by events. There have been failures along the way, but to blast the gay community in the way that NDT has is destructive, and ultimately counterproductive — unless his objective is to turn the clock back to 1959, when homosexuality was illegal in all 50 states and a wide variety of mechanisms were in place to make life hell for gay people who wanted to live open, stable lives.
======
NDT highlights real issues, but he offers no constructive approaches. Not only that, but he has purposely distorted the numbers, and has taken the side of those who hate us for what we are. It’s unfortunate that he has done so, but there have always been NDTs in the world. The rest of us simply press on.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL…and with your last statement, Charles Wilson, you demonstrate why infection rates have continued, will continue, and so forth.
There have been failures along the way, but to blast the gay community in the way that NDT has is destructive, and ultimately counterproductive — unless his objective is to turn the clock back to 1959, when homosexuality was illegal in all 50 states and a wide variety of mechanisms were in place to make life hell for gay people who wanted to live open, stable lives.
Yes, because, as we all know, telling people to think before having sex and to use protection — and being harsh on those who don’t — is akin to “turning the clock back to 1959”.
And as for constructive approaches, I have one; get the idea across to gay men that their worth is tied up in something other than their ability to put out and that being gay doesn’t require you to have promiscuous and unprotected sex.
But, since that puts the onus on the individual and their behaviors, instead of blaming “society” and playing the victim, gays like Charles Wilson have no interest. As a result, they and the people they influence keep right on doing the same behaviors that spread the disease.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
WOOSH!!
posted by Samantha on
“someone who is NOT blinded by denialism, not crippled by a lack of self-esteem.”
ND30, I think you’re describing yourself. I used to know someone who would throw behaviors back on other people like that. You drink too much – no, you do. You raise your voice in arguments – no you do. There’s no way to get someone to look at himself when he doesn’t want to.
You’re missing all perspective on these numerous issues, and you refuse to put them into any kind of context. You see one event on a dot on a map where some bdsm people foolishly brought their kids, and poof – all gay parents are incapable of good judgement. You see gays having unprotected sex and boom, gays are the cause of the spread of STD’s. You dig up some complex stats on AIDS and declare there’s NEVER been a dent in the AIDS rate for gay individuals. You find one gay molester and suddenly all molesters are gay. Tell me that this doesn’t spring forth from a position of shame.
Some other arguments you come up with are just head-scratching. Like Mark said, if slavery never existed, there would be an entirely different set of people on both shores.
But, I think some of this stems also from bad experiences. Like I said on another thread on this site, some folks come from some kind of gay hell where they emerge hypersensative to every fault and wrinkle in the gay community. And if they’re conservative, there’s the whole political correctness thing that just drives them insane.
ND30, you let out a little peak at your frustrations (besides the huge sex issue you have), when you said that I feel gays and blacks do nothing wrong and it’s the fault of white oppression.
I don’t believe that. Of course all people are right and wrong sometimes. And there will be some people out there who will blame shit on white oppression. Surprisingly, I ran into this on a feminist college-age website. It flabbergasted me, actually. But I didn’t come away from that thinking, “all young people suck.” And if I have frustrations with the black community, or hispanic community, I resist the urge to vereach or come away with wild conclusions and generalizations.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
ND30, I think you’re describing yourself. I used to know someone who would throw behaviors back on other people like that.
The funny part is that you really do miss the irony of your making that statement.
You’re missing all perspective on these numerous issues, and you refuse to put them into any kind of context.
You think?
The parents who brought their kids to Folsom because, thanks to years of gays screaming about not being “shamed”, said people who didn’t think that was a good idea were “close-minded” and antigay.
The child molestors outlined weren’t confronted and stopped for years because, thanks to years of gays screaming about not being “shamed”, people thought doing so would be “homophobic”.
And, thanks to years of gays screaming “you’re shaming us” whenever sexual responsibility is brought up, nine out of ten HIV infections in San Francisco are gay men — seventy percent in all of California. Not bad for a minority that makes up less than ten percent of the population.
And I loved this:
I don’t believe that.
Of course you believe that. Why else would you be claiming that my pointing them out means I have “a huge sex issue”?Yours is just the typical leftist gay argument that people who don’t support their complete irresponsibility with sex aren’t “with it” and “cool”.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Yes, because, as we all know, telling people to think before having sex and to use protection — and being harsh on those who don’t — is akin to “turning the clock back to 1959”
What’s akin to turning the clock back to 1959 is to use a willful misrepresentation of statistical data to disparage the entire gay community. Telling people to think before having sex and to use protection is what we should be doing, and in fact is what we are doing. We’ve got to do a better job of it, though.
And as for constructive approaches, I have one; get the idea across to gay men that their worth is tied up in something other than their ability to put out and that being gay doesn’t require you to have promiscuous and unprotected sex.
That is in fact constructive, and if you’d say that without lying about the rest of it, then we’d have no disagreement.
The parents who brought their kids to Folsom because, thanks to years of gays screaming about not being “shamed”, said people who didn’t think that was a good idea were “close-minded” and antigay.
I agree that those parents shouldn’t have brought their kids to the event. One of my brothers is gay and has five kids with his partner. I don’t think I’m crawling too far out on a limb to say that they’d never do what those parents in S.F. did.
Now, NDT, are we also going to blame the entire straight population for beauty pageants where prepubescent girls are dressed like junior sluts and put on stage to perform?
posted by Samantha on
Charles, the JonBenet problem, in my opinion, is so much worse. Because it’s an entire industry that’s glossed over and no one is talking about it. Or talking about domestic violence for that matter, or incest, or poverty, or the sex trade of young girls. These are real problems, not imagined ones.
I wonder if JonBenet’s molester/strangler was in the audience jacking off while she pranced onstage with more makeup on than Tammy Faye Baker.
posted by Charles Wilson on
As much as I disagree with the way NDT has portrayed the issue, I think people need to be aware that there is a continuing problem. Check out this story in The Washington Blade about there being not 40,000 new HIV infections per year, but more like 60,000 cases.
Now, I’m not sure there’s any “spike” in new cases. This could easily be a function of better reporting as a consequence of new initiatives to expand HIV testing. Nevertheless, that’s 60,000 cases a year and it’s a big problem.
NDT will go batshit and say it’s God’s judgment on fags who don’t hate themselves enough. I think we need more information. Specifically:
1. How many of these men are self-identified as gay, versus how many are closeted Larry Craigs.
2. More about the socio-economic status of the people being newly infected. Are they more inclined to be homeless or living close to the economic edge? Prior incarceration?
3. More about the demographics. Ethnicity, age breakdown.
4. How many of the new cases are associated with drug use? Which drugs?
5. Are there higher rates of pre-existing depression or other mental problems among the newly infected?
Answers to those questions will tell us whether this is a problem of circuit parties, rest stops, prisons & jails, the homeless or all of the above. There are clearly big gaps in the educational efforts aimed at preventing HIV transmission, but without more data it’s going to be hard to figure out what to do.
One answer will not suffice, which is to try and pin this on an anti-gay Bush administration riddled with evangelical Christians. I don’t think the 60,000 new cases number is a fiction. This is something we’ve got to deal with.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Now, NDT, are we also going to blame the entire straight population for beauty pageants where prepubescent girls are dressed like junior sluts and put on stage to perform?
Only if you have adults standing around them masturbating and having sex, like you do at the Folsom Street Fair.
NDT will go batshit and say it’s God’s judgment on fags who don’t hate themselves enough.
LOL…..so being responsible, avoiding promiscuous sex, and using protection is “hating yourself”?
Personally, I think it’s called caring enough about yourself to put staying alive and healthy ahead of unlimited sexual gratification.
But given that the gay community values the latter far more than the former, I can see why you WOULD call that “self-hating” and “repressive”.
posted by Charles Wilson on
so being responsible, avoiding promiscuous sex, and using protection is “hating yourself”?
Personally, I think it’s called caring enough about yourself to put staying alive and healthy ahead of unlimited sexual gratification.
But given that the gay community values the latter far more than the former, I can see why you WOULD call that “self-hating” and “repressive”
Notice the Log Cabinette tactics here. I specifically told NDT that I regard it as constructive to avoid promiscuity and unprotected sex. That didn’t keep him from claiming that I did just the opposite.
The more I read from NDT, the more I’m convinced that he’s either not gay at all, or has recently become an ex-gay and an evangelical Christian. Why else would he lie like one?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I specifically told NDT that I regard it as constructive to avoid promiscuity and unprotected sex. That didn’t keep him from claiming that I did just the opposite.
What I pointed out, Charles Wilson, was that you call it “hating yourself” when I suggest avoiding promiscuity and unprotected sex.
Yours is no different than the typical gay community attitude, in which lip service is paid to responsibility and avoiding promiscuity – as long as they never interfere with unlimited sexual gratification. When someone like myself comes along, who actually means it and will not turn a blind eye to gay misbehavior, you deride them as “Cabinettes” and insist they’re not really gay.
One of these days you may see the link between that behavior of ostracizing those who actually practice sexual responsibility and your infection rates. Hopefully it won’t take another generational die-off to do it.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Yours is no different than the typical gay community attitude, in which lip service is paid to responsibility and avoiding promiscuity – as long as they never interfere with unlimited sexual gratification.
I see. So, when I write that I consider it constructive to tell gay people that their worth isn’t tied up in promiscuity and that they should use protection, I am “paying lip service.” But NDT “means it.”
Okay, NDT, exactly how do you mean it? You’ve told us that you think education is worthless. So, what steps do you want to take? Be specific and thorough.
Oh, and you still haven’t told us whether you engage in gay sex yourself, and whether you disdain gay sex. You see, when it comes to imposters, I’m suspecting that you are one. I’m not asking for the details. Just whether you have sex with someone(s) of your own gender, and whether this is something that you disdain.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Oh, and you’ve also ridiculed my suggestion that perhaps you want to turn the clock back to 1959, when gay sex was illegal in all 50 states and all manner of other barriers existed.
So: No educational efforts, because they’re worthless. Doesn’t want to turn the clock back, or so he has implied without actually saying so. Won’t answer whether he has sex with people of his own gender, or whether he disdains that manner of sexual gratification.
Does anyone else spot a ringer here? NDT, what freeway megachurch do you attend down there in Dallas, anyway?
posted by Charles Wilson on
By the way, NDT, if you’re going to crank up the outrage machine over gay child molesters, how about when your wingnut preachers go after little girls? WWJD?
posted by Charles Wilson on
Oops, he’s not a preacher. He’s an Aggie. Close enough for horseshoes.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
In answer to your question, Charles Wilson, I think that he is looking at nearly decades in prison, and he will deserve whatever he gets for it.
And if you ask what Jesus would do, what Jesus did say was that anyone who led astray a little child would be better off punishment-wise if they’d had a millstone hung around their neck and thrown into the sea.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Homosexual child molesters get jail time too. In fact, until very recently in some places, more time than heterosexual child molesters. Do you approve of disproportionate penalties for homosexual molestation?
And what about my other questions, NDT? What’s the matter? Cat got your tongue?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Do you approve of disproportionate penalties for homosexual molestation?
Hardly. Child molestation is child molestation, regardless of who or what practices it, and should be punished as such.
posted by Charles Wilson on
So, NDT, there are some other questions on the table.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Oops, I see that NDT has answered. He wrote in the other thread: I do not disdain gay sex between two consenting adults in private. Indeed, I quite often have it myself.
Let the record show that NDT gave that answer on November 15, 2007. You just never know with these anti-gay, non-gay, former-gay, ex-gay evangelical Republicans who haunt our world.
posted by LongviewCyclist on
The more I see and hear from Democrats and Republicans, the happier I am to be a Libertarian.
Oochka!
posted by LongviewCyclist on
NDT…I’m gay, and I just want to say thank you for everything you’ve said. You are right about so much of it. As a gay person, it shames me that only a few gay people are saying the same things you are. So far, the only one I know of is Tammy Bruce.
Be well.
posted by LongviewCyclist on
Unfortunately, you are very wrong about us Libertarians. But I can understand why you would want to believe the negative things you’ve said about us. And I’m not here to debate, just to make a couple of comments.
posted by BETTY SNEED on
I AM LOOKING FOR AN ATTORNEY FOR A FEDERAL WHISTLEBLOWER CASE- WHICH i WOULD LIKE TO FILE. CAN YOU HELP>