The Tragedy Of The Black Gay Blogosphere Keeps Getting More Tragic
And his name just so happens to be Tom.
We had an interesting non-exchange this afternoon with black gay blogger Alvin McEwen of the blog Holy Bullies And Headless Monsters. Mr. McEwen has been keeping himself preoccupied lately on Huff Post these days with essays condemning the racism of the Tea Party.
Oh, he’s all worked up about it. And not that we find that problematic. It’s just that with the recent racist rantings of Americablog, our petition responding to those rants, and the overly abundant coverage of the NAACP denouncing the Tea Party, we just felt maybe Mr. McEwen’s outrage could be used somewhere else where outrage on the behalf of black gay politically-minded Americans is long overdue.
So this afternoon when we saw that McEwen had penned yet another diatribe on Teabaggers and racism on Huff Post, we decided to see what he had to say. The post So Much for No Tea Party Racism: Mark Williams Expelled From National Tea Party Federation, of course gave commentary to the recent announcement by the Tea Party that they’d expelled Mark Williams (the author of “the Abraham Lincoln Letter”) and his group Tea Party Express from the National Tea Party Federation specifically because of “the Abraham Lincoln Letter.
McEwen, not satisfied to just be present to the obvious like any other 3rd grader, pens a pointless essay as if providing the “aha” moment we’ve all been waiting for. Gee thanks Alvin. We were on the tipping point about the Tea Party and its dubious denials of racism. Glad you’ve made clear we should have no doubt from here on out.
But McEwen’s beyond the call efforts in making sure everyone got that the Teabaggers are a bunch of bigots only brought to our attention the obvious: Um, why isn’t McEwen writing an essay on the racism found on popular gay blogs like Americablog? Why isn’t he writing two and three essays about that?
It’s not like he’d be alone in his observations. Why just last week social commentator and blogger David Kaufman wrote a scathing Huff Post essay High Tea: The LGBT Leadership’s Right Wing Party Pals in which he takes to tasks race baiters in LGBT leadership such as David “blame the blacks” Mixner and most recent eloquent race commentator John Aravosis of Americablog.
And then of course there’s ourselves also calling attention to Americablog’s race baiting dreck aimed at the President. Our outrage at this culminated in with our Change.org petition A Demand That Courage Campaign Condemn LGBT Blog Americablog Racial Attacks.
So we wondered if McEwen being so clearly conscientious and all about race, we wondered if he had any thoughts on Americablog’s most recent racial attacks. Furthermore we did indeed ask why is it that he’s castigating the Tea Party writing multiple Huff Post articles a week but nary a word about the gay racism we’ve been subjected to by those who claim to stand tall and proud in the name of equality. WE posted the inquiry as a comment beneath is his latest Huff Post essay.
Let’s see, that was about three hours ago. So far our comment/inquiry has yet to be approved to be seen publicly in the comment area of that article. And since we’re very familiar with Huff Post comment guidelines we know we didn’t say anything that could remotely be misconstrued as inappropriate.
Theres two things with this that we find fascinating:
1. That a black gay man could make so much noise about white racism outside of the gay community even as there are blatant examples in his own immediate realm that clearly need to be addressed.
2. That in his denial of such he addresses the other situation—Tea Party racism aims directly at his own denial in a rather painfully obvious way.
McElwen features a Face The Nation video segment of NAACPs Ben Jealous and African-American tea party leader David Webb. Here’s how he introduces the video:
This is an excellent exchange between the NAACP’s Bejamin Jealous and African-American tea party leader David Webb.
I apologize for not having the transcript, but there are the main points:
Jealous makes a good point about the New National Black Panther Party at 2:46. It is an excellent comparison between the NNPPA and the NAACP as opposed to the racist elements in the tea party movement.
But a better point is made before that by Webb at 1:22. He says that Mark Williams (the author of “the Abraham Lincoln Letter”) and his group Tea Party Express have been expelled from the National Tea Party Federation specifically because of “the Abraham Lincoln Letter.”
But wouldn’t that be an admittance of racist elements in the tea party movement?
No. We’re not making this up.
Oddly enough McEwen’s post—and we really want to thank him for this post because it showcases just how bad things are in relationship to the poor self-esteem of black gay America and the connect of such phenomenons as the catastrophic HIV infection rates that rock the black gay community across the nations—has in it perhaps the most revealing statement about the entire LGBT movement and why we feel that at some point the movement will implode into itself if the LGBT community does not address some realities soon. The statement—something to do with “self-policing,” is uttered no less by black Tea Party member David Webb in his debate/discussion with Ben Jealous in the video. It comes at around 1:48. Check this out:
“Self policing is the right and the responsibility of any movement or organization.”
Oh yes. To that end Mr. Webb is absolutely right. And we commend Mr. Webb and other Tea Party leadership for “self policing” their movement—albeit late as hell and a bit after the fact. Nonetheless they did it.
The absolute crime on McEwen’s behalf is not that not only does he fail to even acknowledge the blatant racism by his non-black colleagues in the blogosphere or take up responsibility at any time to self-police the LGBT equality movement, but then moves to shut down any voice who calls him on his shit. Or at least does so on his Huff Post article as he debates with straight white folks about about the legitimacy of the NAACP’s accusations against the NAACP and how this latest development emphatically proves that the Tea Party is a bastion of racist hate.
So folks just so you understand things; the issues facing black gay America—particularly issues concerning our health like the HIV/AIDS devastation that continues to kill black gay men in droves, these things have a lot to do with serious mental health problems. A lot of those mental health problems are centered around denial, loathing of self—-so much that the self is invisible in relationship to a majority of other selves who are more confident and self-loving.
In some cases so profound is the denial and lack of self love one adopts the thinking and identity of others as one’s own grasping at any crumbs of inclusion in terms of identity that one can glam onto all the while those same others attack the reality of who and what he is and aim particularly at those from which he emerged.
This is a psychosis not uncommon in the black gay community. And the truth of the matter is there would be absolutely no reason to comment on it if it was not deadly on some level to entire black gay population.
McEwen himself attempted to snuff out a black voice appealing to him to stand up for what is really right—ours. Or so he thought he did. By not responding to or giving platform to the black voice speaking on behalf from a place of love for the black community—-especially black LGBTs and SGL folks, the brotha attempts to make invisible and silence those voices that remind him of who and what he is.
But you can’t do that my friend. The harder you try to shut down those voices you don’t want to hear–the louder they going to get. And that’s because those voices are you—-every much a part of you that you don’t want them to be. And those voices are never gonna stop demanding that you recognize them as part of your own chorus. Not as long as black gay men are dying and you are in a position to help turn that around. Those voices will still be in your ear, chile. Til the day you die.
Huff Post: So Much for No Tea Party Racism: Mark Williams Expelled From National Tea Party Federation
Tags: African American community, African American LGBT, HIV/AIDS, lgbt news, Tea Party
Opinion | Derrick Mathis July 18, 2010
22 Comments to “The Tragedy Of The Black Gay Blogosphere Keeps Getting More Tragic”
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
By Chitown Kev, July 19, 2010 @ 4:43 pm
Maybe it's because Alvin feels (as I do) that no president (and defintely not the first "black brotha president") should allow anyone under his command to even utter statements regarding the segregation of gay troops out of their mouth.
(But really, I don't speak for Alvin, only myself)
The President and his Administration needed to sharply condemn those statements instead of clarifying them.
Not that I approve of what Aravosis did in his posting, but I am not giving President Obama's Administration a free pass on that shit; in that sense, I agree with Aravosis substance but not the style in what he did.
Obama is nothing more and nothing less than a pretty pedestrian Democratic politician in the DLC mode of Clinton (well, he's a little bit to the left of Clinton). He's not the new god of blackness and while I am getting resentful at some gay bloggers for their racism, I am getting resentful at some black people (including family members) who act as if he is a god.
By derrick9, July 19, 2010 @ 2:58 pm
But Kevin, no one ever said any statements about segregating the military. It's an accusation that's unfounded—who said it and when? This is the problem. A very serious problem. Because you are having that assumption planted in your head that someone actually said that.
That's seriously criminal. Because a rumor or accusation of this sort—-and Aravosis KNOWS THIS—once something like that takes flight it's very very hard to rein it back in. Especially when it's nowhere near the truth.
Look at your first paragraph. It clearly reads as if you either suspect and/or believe that this was "discussed" by the Pentagon or military heads. And that's SO UNFAIR. Because of the fact of the matter is the Pentagon or the President would NEVER use the word or term "segregate." That's just plain SMEARING and LYING on Aravosis's behalf. And very very skilled at it.
It really really saddens me to see what you've written here—-all based on an unfounded accusation from someone who has been caught blatantly lying about the WH and President so many times hardcopy newspapers and major online new resources stopped quoting and sourcing him.
There is absolutely NO JUSTIFICATION FOR DISHONESTY whether someone is a president and tons of people think he is a God or a Goddamn nightmare—truth is truth is truth. You lie to me and I catch you lying—–we're done. Such is the case with us and Aravosis.
And as far as your opinion of the President—-that's your opinion. I know what I know and I see what I see. I see an LBGT community who hasn't lifted one finger or stepped out of their own comfort zone to support or fight for their own civil rights.
What I see is the fact that his actions in regards to LBGT people, that if he suddenly leaves office today or tomorrow—-he will go down in history as the most lgbt supportive President ever along with the fact of doing more for lgbts than all the presidents combined who preceded him.
What I see is a political party who is so racist as to have the NAACP in unprecedented fashion, draw up public declaration condemning them because of their violent and blatant racism towards the president solely based on his skin color.
To make all this short—–you got it ALL WRONG. This is not about Obama being a God or anything else that walks on water—–this is about the American public—-all of you—–looking at you—-not him. Checking all of your actions—–IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE PRESIDENT.
And coming to the conclusion that you know, this guy is dealing with a lot of shit across the board. Never have I heard him complain once or offer excuse. He continues day in and day out to be in the solution working for a bunch of people who are clearly a good portion of the time irrational in their expectations and their own role in all things American.
So for you to disacknowledge any chance of black people having a critical perspective on things in relationship to politics and social concerns—-that says more about what you think of black people than it says about anything in relationship to what blacks think of Obama.
I'd be more than happy to debate you, Alvin and any other black gay person on the merits of the current administration in relationship to all those that preceded it and blow all of you out of the water. And I'm confident I can do that not because I worship at the alter of Obama, but because as an intelligent, educated, critical thinking black man, for the majority of my adult life, I have dedicated much of my time to studying politics in America simply because I enjoy it.
The fact that I express a strong sense of support for a president who not only is black, but the first black president ever, I don't think that should dismiss all that knowledge and insight I've collected over the years before I even knew there was an Obama.
In instead of focusing on how blacks may be giving Obama a free pass, you might want to look at why you aren't giving blacks the space and the room to be intelligent, objective and politically savvy as anyone else who is not black.
I wonder if the Irish gave other Irish Americans such a hard time in loving John F. Kennedy—-a very beloved and popular president for many who were not Irish in America and around the globe. There's nothing wrong with being proud of one of your own—-ESPECIALLY if one of your own is actually doing the do.
As I said, any time of day anywhere I'm ready and able to lay out just what a fantastic president we have. You just let me know when you're down for going there to take on an opposite FACT BASED perspective.
By Chitown Kev, July 19, 2010 @ 11:07 pm
Derrick, I might co-sign you if this were the first time that this came up.
It's not.
"It’s possible, for example, that homosexuals could be allowed into some occupations or units but barred from others, McHugh said, stressing that he was not aware of any such plans but only discussing how the issue might play out."
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/10/army_mchugh…
I don't want ANY president (much less a black president) having any type of tolerance for that.
AT ALL.
By derrick9, July 19, 2010 @ 5:17 pm
Kevin, you're not being specific. And as a writer I don't cut any slack on that behalf. Meaning discussing separate barracks is not what you said in your original comment.
"Maybe it's because Alvin feels (as I do) that no president (and defintely not the first "black brotha president") should allow anyone under his command to even utter statements regarding the segregation of gay troops out of their mouth."
I repeat: no one has ever mentioned anything of the kind in terms of segregation. I never said no one has discussed "separation."
Segregation and Separation do not mean the same thing and are not interchangeable. Therefore the notion of "separate" barracks like any other option, merits examination without malicious intent or purpose. Examination is justified simply because of reality based consideration of differences in sexuality as honored similarly in the separation of barracks based in differences of gender.
And what about that in considering gender and/or sexuality as rationale in potential separation is bad? I haven't heard any women in the military get worked up yet over living in separate barracks. Or is that your idea of "segregation," too?
From a holistic perspective the military has every right and then some to examine such a possibility as they look at a multitude of scenarios as to what would serve the military best in the integration of openly gay and lesbian soldiers.
The key phrase and it's one that many gay people keep missing is "what would serve the military best." Not gay people. But what would serve the military best.
That's the approach and the only approach the military is taking in regards to all internal matters. If that upsets you I would suggest you immediately start campaigning to halt repeal.
Once again: I'm amazed at your quickness to find fault with the President in regard to this matter, even though segregation has never been on the table. And last I checked I do believe Obama was in high school when repeal was set into place.
I'm quite impressed with Obama's methods of change. It speaks of why blacks didn't out and out reject him when he claimed African Americanship. And what that is, is that the man is clear about the ways and beings of oppressed people and how they got UNoppressed in the legislative realm.
And that is, "sometimes you have to ease your hand out of the lion's mouth."
Many non-black people have no idea what that means because it's not a part of their American experience. I'm always stunned when I find black people who act as if they're not familiar with it either.
I know one thing, in the ways of civil rights I sure am glad as a gay person that undoubtedly my president know what that is and what it means. Gays need someone who understand such things even if they don't which clearly being revealed as the reality among the majority of LGBTs.
I really think you've got some filter going on about Obama that's not seeing too clearly. What I just said is not based on your blackness. Its based on you—your mind. And what you've shared on this topic so far.
That's all I know.
By Chitown Kev, July 20, 2010 @ 12:29 am
Again, in the above quote, McHugh is not referring to separate barracks (although they are already integrated in the barracks).
McHugh is VERY SPECIFIC in talking about omission from certain occupations based solely on the fact of a serviceperson being gay or lesbian.
And what other country that has allowed gays and lesbians to openly serve has ever done this?
Or even discussed it? (That may have happened in England, I will allow you).
Sounds to me as if they are catering to Pentagon homophobes.
And you do imply the need for transparency in your above statement.
No filter really, other than the experience of gays under the Clinton Administration.
I don't see the second black president as being all that different from the first
By Chitown Kev, July 19, 2010 @ 11:35 pm
Now, if the above statement isn't talking about some sort of "segregation" then I don't know what is.
Now you're right about being the most LGBT supportive president ever…I like that terminology as opposed to a "pro-gay president" which neither Obama nor both Clinton would fit my definition of being "pro-gay."
As far as black people being able to judge Obama critically… some can and some can't (I think black Chicagoians can judge him fairly, for the most part, then again Obama didn't have the easiest of times here with the black community either) . I will admit that that's hard to do given the racism underpinning so many of the attacks against Obama but I would expect Republicans to pretty much be opposed to any Democrats, no matter what the race/ethnic origin of the Democrat…that's as it should be.
By Chitown Kev, July 20, 2010 @ 12:36 am
Main Entry: separation
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: being apart; break-up
Synonyms: break, dedomiciling, departure, detachment, dialysis, disconnection, disengagement, disjunction, disrelation, dissociation, dissolution, disunion, division, divorce, divorcement, embarkation, estrangement, farewell, gap, leave-taking, parting, parting of the ways, partition, pffft, rift, rupture, segregation, severance, split, split-up.
Make of that what you will.
By Chitown Kev, July 20, 2010 @ 12:41 am
Let me add this and I'll leave it alone…for the night anyway.
The difference between you and I seems to be that you trust Obama and I don't; I'm having the exact same feeling that I had in 1996 when I didn't vote in the presidential election.
By Chitown Kev, July 20, 2010 @ 12:43 am
In the meantime, I might suggest Nathan Glazar article in some magazine or another pertaining to the fact that at no time in recent American History has black issues been off of the table and out of the public eye as today.
By derrick9, July 19, 2010 @ 11:58 pm
Wait. You're good, Kev. You actually had me going for awhile there. I'm talking about this debate about the president. It was a most effective sidetrack because I do believe in our President. But you see that wasn't and hasn't been my beef—in terms of black gays and any issues some of them—us may have with the president.
My issue has always and still is—-why aren't black gay bloggers speaking out on the racism that's being spewed by other bloggers? That's the grit of the grievance of this particular post and any criticisms I've aimed at the likes of:
Pam Spaulding
Rod 2.0 blah blah
Alvin McEwen
To be fair Rod a long time ago spoke out against Dan Savage quite vocally I might add. But as you and everybody else knows Dan got kicked off the guest list some time ago.
Now we turn our attention to Americablog and their racists rants. All the of the above bloggers are intimately familiar with John Aravosis and what he says. Both Pam and Rod often reposts his rants.
Look my friend. If you check out any of my past posts you'll see I don't spend an inordinate amount of time accusing other folks as racists. I do however encourage African American LGBTs to stay on top of their game. And that can look like me calling out non-black entities, individuals and orgs if I see the necessity in that.
So bottom line, am I missing something in terms of those black bloggers turning a deaf ear and eye to the racism of bloggers like Aravosis and Mixner? If I am, I wanna know. Although you may not believe this I'm hardly interested in being critical of anyone if they have legitimate cause for what they're up to.
But if I don't see that I won't stop. Now what's up with all that I just shared about and these black bloggers?
By Chitown Kev, July 20, 2010 @ 1:21 pm
Well, it's easy to get sidetracked on the President in this case because a lot of the racial hostility coming from white bloggers like Aravosis is directed at the President.
Perhaps it's using the President as a proxy for black people for all of the Prop 8 drama; I do know that to an extent I can get why Aravosis is angry because Aravosis supported Obama all the way back to the primary.
But then again, so did Andrew Sullivan and Sullivan, from what I've observed, remains pretty supportive of the President.
And…yes, Aravosis turned mighty white awfully fast (not so with Sudbay and the other posters at both Americablogs).
But getting to the other bloggers…
By Chitown Kev, July 20, 2010 @ 1:41 pm
About Alvin I will say this…only because he's actually written it.
Alvin is extremely…suspicious:
"Speaking for myself, I get a very low opinion of both communities when this tug of war of position takes place. I don't feel like a person to the black or gay community. I feel like a commodity, a frozen asset. Both communities seem to be so busy with trying to use what tie I have to them for their own purpose that neither want to look at me as a person whose African-American heritage and lgbt sensibility mingle together to create something rich and unique which would be an asset to both communities.
I am useful to the LGBT community because I am gay. I am useful to the African-American community because I am a black man. But I don't seem to be useful to either community as a gay black man.
There are some of us who cannot separate being black and being gay into two separate camps because we encompass both identities.
But the problem is that neither community seems to get that point.'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alvin-mcewen/black-…
By derrick9, July 20, 2010 @ 4:17 pm
As far as choosing between blackness and gayness I've never heard such ridiculousness in my life. There is no choice. We're both. And I would think instead considering either an obligation one would be proud and honored to be an authentic being of diversity embodied. Such an identity demands more than one perspective—it truly broadens one's range and experiential scope.
Bottom line: it's how you look at something that actually shapes one's experience. Not the other way around. I'm grateful to God that I'm created as I'm created. Like Mya Angelou says, I "wouldn't take nothing for my journey now."
As far as Alvin is concerned I cannot relate to what he speaks of. My identity is never separated. I speak to what I speak to when there's something that calls for me to speak to it. He sounds very disempowered. That's just not my experience.
By Chitown Kev, July 21, 2010 @ 2:48 pm
derrick, I think that Alvin agrees with you (as I do) as far as the "Identity MVP" game that gets played.
That doesn't mean that the game doesn't get played; as I could very amply document.
By Chitown Kev, July 20, 2010 @ 2:11 pm
Now again, I could ask why is it that David Kaufman never speaks out against the black homophobic hordes that seem to infest his posts at huffington (though you do in the posts of yours that I've seen there).
I won't speak about Pam or Rod; that seems as if you're trying to start some shit that I don't want to be in the middle of…
By derrick9, July 20, 2010 @ 11:00 pm
Well, you got that wrong. Please don't accuse me of something that isn't true. I asked why they support directly or indirectly John Aravosis and his blog. And yes, I'm very critical of that. Now if you can't or won't answer the question that's fine. But please don't attack me for speaking out against their doings if you can't or won't speak out on what they're doing is right.
By Chitown Kev, July 21, 2010 @ 3:49 pm
Let me ask you a question.
Have you ever agreed with someone who you would otherwise not agree with…say, because they're racist or sexist or just an general asshole?
Even myself, I said that I agreed with Aravosis in terms of the substance of his argument but not the style in which he presented it; IIRC, Pam Spaulding did also.
And I've detailed how I've been able to do that with Mixner (again, I won't presume to speak for or on account of Pam or Rod other than what they've actually documented).
So, if someone has a "racist moment"…or 2 or 3 or 15, that renders you incapablew of using any type of discernment vis-a-vis what's being argued at a given moment?
By derrick9, July 21, 2010 @ 3:39 pm
Um, if Mel Gibson has a racist moment, no I'm not incapable of looking past that. I can't look past Don Imus and "nappy headed" hoes. I can't look past Michael Richards racist rant.
In other words it depends on the context and content. No, I cannot look past Aravosis's racism because as he knows and everybody else knows, blacks have been a big occupation by gay whites since Prop 8. There's a responsibility there that needs to recognized and met—–I don't care how mad you are at Obama—for whatever silly reason.
You're blithely skipping over "entitlement issues" that seem to plague many LGBT bloggers out there. Meaning they feel the President should hand over equal rights like it was a fast food order.
Being both gay and black—once again a blessing—-I know of the struggles that a group of Americans had to overcome and what they did to overcome them. I'm not ignorant to the ways and realities of a people who have been oppressed.
So when Aravosis's launches CAMPAIGNS against the President, it's not so much about the attacks I have a problem with as it is the place from which Aravosis comes from—–sittin' on his ass spewing lies and not standing up or encouraging his readers to stand up, step out of their comfort zones and fight for their rights. That's not happening.
It if was, I probably would turn a deaf ear at some of the stuff he spews. But Aravosis and all the rest are not trying to empower anyone. That's not what they want. They all discovered the secret recipe of tons of readership on the daily.
And that is make the theme of your blog one of complaint. A place where gay people can come and be supported in their victimhood. I know what I'm talking about because I've worked in the internet realm for a minute now long before I started blogging.
The most trafficked sites on the Internet are consumer complaint sites; Consumerist, Ripoff Report, My3cents, etc. These sites are genius in that they provide a forum to satisfy and feed the perverse need for human nature to enjoy victimhood and be heard.
Aravosis and Spaulding in particular excel at this. Have you ever seen either of them actually encourage an action? No you haven't and you won't. Both were staunchly against the National Equality March in the beginning until they realized they were outnumbered and the LGBT response was so favorably overwhelming. It was after that that suddenly Spaulding and Aravosis changed their tune.
In other words these people do not care—-not in the authentic sense—about the well-being of LGBTs. What they care about is keeping as many LGBTs as possible locked in a space of resentment because that holds them in victimhood and of course INACTION. Victimhood is a very seductive place for people. "You did me wrong" sells big time.
Spaulding and Aravosis know this. They capitalize off of the LGBT public—-particularly gay white men who are feeling very disempowered right now because of the symbolism involved in all of it. Here you have a black man enjoying privileges that I cannot——another thing that Aravosis preys on.
This is why his focus is almost exclusively on Obama. Oh he knows what he's doing. So to answer your question—no. When it gets that manipulative, self-serving and evil, when I know he'll use race and anything else to keep gay white men in a place of victimhood and not action—no I'm not able to see a thing but his injustices to the entire community. My beef with Aravosis is not just limited to black gays. It's about the entire movement and how people like him are keeping the community distracted, ineffective and unenlightened. Aravosis and Spaulding are hurting EVERYONE.
It's not just a black or white deal. And in truth, it's obviously not just about racism.
By Chitown Kev, July 22, 2010 @ 2:32 pm
Detailed response here…I'm going to have to chop this up…
"I can't look past Don Imus and "nappy headed" hoes."- I MIGHT have been able to get over that if it weren't for the previous comments made on Imus about Venus and Serena Williams.
You're blithely skipping over "entitlement issues" that seem to plague many LGBT bloggers out there."- No, now you're accusing me of something that I don't do (or I try not to do to the best of my ability).
Hell, the President can't dole out equal rights like that, for one. .
Overall, I think that President Obama is using FDR as the model of gradually introducing the concept of GLBT equality to the public and for more or less the same reasons (there was no way that FDR was going to get a lot of black civil rights stuff through the Dixiecrats…and FDR had a lot of other things going on, moreso than Obama).
By Chitown Kev, July 22, 2010 @ 2:39 pm
"Both were staunchly against the National Equality March in the beginning until they realized they were outnumbered and the LGBT response was so favorably overwhelming. It was after that that suddenly Spaulding and Aravosis changed their tune. "- Most of the gay blogosphere was against the NEM (i.e. Bil Browning, the PUMA gay site Queerty was also bitching about it)…as i was, because I thought that the timing was off and that we needed to fight important battles elsewhere (i.e. Washington and Maine…I chose to go to Maine on the day of the NEM-we actually have mutual acquaintances, derrick, that I met in Maine volunteering for the No On 1 campaign).
By Chitown Kev, July 20, 2010 @ 2:11 pm
As far as Mixner is concerned, sometimes I agree with him and sometimes I don't; sometimes he says some really racist shit but I try to remain open minded.
I thought, for example, that Mixner did make a useful analogy between GLBT leadership of today and the transformation of black civil rights leadership in the 1950's (although I felt that he really needed to go back to the leadership in the 1940's to make his point).
I slammed him when he did a preemptive strike on all 1% (if that much) of the black community in Maine on election day there the No On 1.
I slammed him over at Pam's for going on prattling about how he isn't a "free man" (that comment from Mixner elicited a big time eyeroll from me…among other things.
But I defended Mixner against Kaufman's charge that he was a "nasty bigot" simply becuase he didn't support Harold Ford (there was nothing racist about Mixner's opposition and it was the commenters at Rod 2.0 that slammed Ford the most).
By wondermann, July 22, 2010 @ 9:56 pm
this is a great conversation