Aravosis Calls Out the Human Rights Campaign, Because Someone’s Got To Liberate the Veal Pen….

[t0dd]

Source: Firedoglake

John Aravosis:

What did President Obama say new tonight? Absolutely nothing. What did the Human Rights Campaign get in exchange for once again giving our president cover for all of his broken promises to our community? Absolutely nothing.

I like HRC, I know a lot of people who work there, I’ve defended them when others in the community have been highly critical of them. But it is criminal that any gay rights organization would invite an embattled president to their dinner, giving him political cover for repeated broken promises and slaps in the face to our community (like the DOMA incest brief), and then get absolutely nothing in return. HRC’s actions only feed the suspicions of critics who say that the organization is more interested in fundraisers than in advancing our rights.

...

All in all, the evening was a disappointment, but not unexpected. President Obama doesn't do controversy, and we, my friends, are controversy. So, the bad blood between this administration and the gay community will remain, and continue to worsen. It's unfortunate, but at some point you have to have enough dignity to say enough is enough. The Obama administration doesn't respect our community, and doesn't respect the seriousness of our cause. It's our job to hold them accountable. And we will.

http://www.americablog.com/2009/10/wheres-beef.html

The President depends on his celebrity power (and its attendant fundraising ability) to get liberal validators like the HRC to shield him from liberal critique and protect his ability to say one thing and do another. It’s good for an organization that serves to fundraise and perpetuate itself, but bad for the cause they purport to further.

The one issue that has plagued the administration more than any other, for which it has no liberal shield, is that of torture and civil rights. And that’s because the ACLU refuses to be part of the veal pen. They were originally a part of Unity 09 but eventually withdrew. They never fit comfortably into the role of providing the White House with liberal cover for actions that were in opposition to what they stand for.

More here: http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/10/11/because-someones-got-to-liberate-the-veal-pen/

[struggle4progress]

1. Is this the same John Aravosis who used to work for Ted Stevens, the former wingnut Alaskan senator

who wanted a federal constitutional amendment against gay marriage?

[IRemember]

2. Nice job digging up the past

instead of actually addressing or considering the substance of his message.

[Chulanowa]

5. Yes, let's all consider that Obama hates gay people

Surely this is a reasoned position that merits our full consideration, and has nothing to do with the author's own biases. Let's just pretend these words, this grand revalatory message, came from the clouds one day

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheWraith]

22. I want to give you a great big hug right now.

:rofl:

[Chulanowa]

23. Deep down inside, past the nougat filling, I'm really very sad

It's why I act out :cry:

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[struggle4progress]

8. Is this the same John Aravosis who had a campaign of outing other gays, on some theory

that it was his personal prerogative to decide whose personal life stayed personal and whose became private?

[t0dd]

9. Yeah, and it's the same John Aravosis that skullfucks kittens.

You're missing the point. The HRC continues to allow the President to substitute pretty speeches for actual progress and action. I'm tired of words.

[struggle4progress]

11. Is this the same John Aravosis who in 07 supported stripping transgender protections from ENDA,

on the grounds that he supported "practical politics" and because "half a loaf is better than none"?

[struggle4progress]

16. I'll give you a link on outing people, and then you can give me a link on skullfucking, if you think

it appropriate

Outed Hill staffer condemns campaign
Mikulski and Foley become newest congressional targets as FMA vote nears
Jul 09, 2004 | By: ADRIAN BRUNE
... Tolman, a senior aide for the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, chaired by conservative Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, was about to become the first Capitol Hill staffer publicly outed through a campaign led by two activists ... “The senator knows I’m gay and it’s not changing his position and he’s not firing me. So my question to them is: Are you going to let it drop?” Not likely, say Mike Rogers and John Aravosis, the two men loosely heading an ongoing outing campaign on the Hill ... In addition to Tolman, Rogers and Aravosis, working in tandem but not together, claimed in the last week to have outed via the Web Democratic Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland ... Mikulski’s office refused to comment on speculation she is a lesbian, something Aravosis implied last week on his site ... http://www.washblade.com/2004/7-9/news/localnews/outed.cfm

[dsc]

39. The hypocrisy of both Inhofe and that staffer are relevent

what if he were an adulterer instead of gay and Inhofe spent much of his career calling adulterers immoral threats to the country, as he has with gays. No one, not a single solitary person, would say that wasn't fair game. What is the difference here?

[struggle4progress]

41. ... Defending a movement that has exalted privacy, it destroys personal privacy. Combating

homophobia, it relies on homophobia for its power. On its best days, outing is a nasty business. Nevertheless, outing is justifiable as an ethical and journalistic matter when two criteria are met. First, the outed person's homosexuality must be directly relevant to some matter of public policy ... For the most part, the members of Congress outed by Rogers and Aravosis meet this first standard. But others, including the congressional staff members outed in some gay newspapers, do not meet the relevance requirement ... Unlike officeholders, staffers do not vote on public policy. They frequently have no influence on what position their boss takes on gay issues. Many work on matters .. that have nothing to do with gay issues ... Second, there must be credible evidence made available to the public that establishes the person is probably homosexual ... Few of the recent outings claimed by Rogers and Aravosis, and reported by some gay newspapers, meet this second requirement ... That isn't journalism; it's gossip ...
How to Assess Outing
by Dale Carpenter
First published September 30, 2004, in the Bay Area Reporter.
http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/26679.html

I should think one really wants the most humane politics possible. Hypocritical sanctimonious blowhards, of course, deserve to be judged by the standards they promote. But in general, this tactic is essentially unprincipled and self-contradictory: "it relies on homophobia for its power," and it stinks of blackmail when used as a tactic for forcing votes. Surely people are usually entitled to keep their private lives private (whether or not we like their politics), if their private lives do not have direct policy implications

[dsc]

42. One of the strongest guards against tyranny is holding the people who pass laws

accountable to the laws they pass. That staffer knows exactly and precisely what Inhofe's position on gay issues is. He could work for literally dozens of Senators who don't have that man's position but chooses not to. He permits Inhofe to pass laws that damage gays but is immune from the effects of those laws himself.

[struggle4progress]

45. We can either have a national discourse, involving factual discussion of important issues, or

we can have a national discourse based on emotional knee-jerking that has nothing whatsoever to do with issues. I have absolutely no respect for Inhofe, and if Tolman was a Republican staffer for the Environment & Public Works committee while Inhofe was chair, then I might have rather little sympathy for Tolman's views, either. But civil rights issues don't (and didn't) go through that particular committee -- so trying to focus political attention, on Tolman's sexual orientation, cannot have contributed meaningfully to policy discussions of either civil rights or Environment & Public Works issues

Nor do such tactics seem to me decisive blows against tyranny. Instead, they are little wedges driven. But wedge-driving is not a long-term strategy for political success. Political fights are won by crafting winning coalitions -- and one doesn't always know in advance who might be one's side, when the hand is called. Aravosis himself claims that, while still employed by Ted Stevens, he spent his evenings with other Capitol Hill staff trying to advance gay civil rights issues -- but if that's true, one wonders: why would he later prefer to spread fear and loathing among gay Republican Hill staff, when he could have regarded them as potential allies in the fight? And the answer is -- because he's a wedge-driver: immediately after Prop 8 passed, for example, his website helped push the idiotic claim that blacks were to blame

[dsc]

47. How is this different from going after adulterers in this regard

It is nothing other than total hypocrisy. Inhofe has made it abundantly clear that gays are too immoral to be trusted. Now he is trusting a gay man on his staff. He can't have it both ways.

[Chulanowa]

3. So... I just want to know.

Last night the president
- Advocated same-sex marriage
- Made a promise to repeal DADT
- Vowed to work to make sure insurers can't drop you over HIV
- Pledged his signature to the Matthew Shepard bill
- Promised an end to workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation

So... I'm just curious about what, exactly, you and John Aravosis expect out of his HRC speech?

As for torture... You know congress has to give him the funding needed to close these places down, handle the paperwork, return the prisoners to their homes, and of course, pay the legal costs, right? He can't just "make it so" because he's the president, not an emperor.

But of course, if there's one thing I've learned on DU, it's that President Obama hates him some gays and loves him some torture.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IRemember]

13. See, no matter how much you say, the flaw of your argument remains

I do not hate Obama, and I do not think he is homophobic. I know it's easy for you to think that because I've criticized him, so you need to immediately categorize me as a rightwing nutjob. It's what you apologists are good at. Thanks for the temper tantrum though, I'm sure it'll be a good laugh for everyone here. And I'm sure it'll only help to remove the blinders that a majority in our community have already taken off.

[Chulanowa]

15. Oh, okay. You don't think he's homophobic

You just think he's habitually lying to the entire gay community while actively working against them.

Totally different from thinking he's homophobic, I gotcha.

My bad :)

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Chulanowa]

32. Yes, that's exactly why.

Feel better now?

Now for the real reason, the OP posted the article of an idiot making an idiot claim. This post then wound up on the greatest page (rather undeservedly, IMO) whereupon I followed the link, found it laughable, and have since engaged in making my points - and have even stood corrected on one of them. Truly, it's an amazing world.

[ruggerson]

33. two of them

so far.

[Neecy]

35. interesting.

So, from your worldview it's an "idiot claim", yet to many of us there's credibility to this article.

You come into our forum, insult and offend us, and insist that your worldview is more credible than ours? Really? I mean, really????

Jesus Christ. The straight privilege around here is starting to fucking reek.

[Chulanowa]

36. Perhaps "inane" works better than "idiot"

There is some credibility - As I've mentioned downthread. I, too think the president should use his power over the military to end DADT discharges, even as I understand why he doesn't.

Bear with me for a second, this is going to look like a subject change, but it does have a point. Do you know who Russell Means is? if not, he's one of the founding members of AIM, who recently made news by declaring Lakota territory to be independent of the United States government. Funny thing is... He detests Obama, for much the same basic reasons that Mr. Aravosis does. Look up Means on Youtube, he has a number of videos up denouncing obama as "more of the same", "not doing enough", "ignoring our community" and so forth. He doesn't vary much from this basic package of dissatisfaction. Now, I'm an indian myself, and I think Russell Means has done good work. However, he's an obnoxious prick who demands immediate results, that those results be 100% what he wants, and that anyone who disagrees with him on any level is either a racist imperialist, or a "stay-at-the-fort-indian."

Sounding familiar?

There are credible points. The trouble is, they get flooded out in a sea of generic angry-activist talking points, that always say the same damn thing, no matter the cause at hand. Health care? It's more of the same, he's not doing enough, he's ignoring the needs of the uninsured. GLBT issues? It's more of the same, he's not doing enough, he's ignoring the needs of the community. Iraq war? It's more of the same, he's not doing enough, he's ignoring the desire of the people. Indian issues? It's more of the same, he's not doing enough, he's ignoring the needs of our community. Economics? It's more of the same, he's not doing enough, he's ignoring the needs of our industry.

Let me ask you. The general complaint of this article is that Obama was "speaking" rather than "doing." The problem with that that I see, in context, is that Obama had been asked to speak. Can you tell me what your reaction would have been had he chosen to turn down the invitation? Instead of having an article attacking Obama for delivering a speech, would we have a different from from Mr. Aravosis decrying the disrespect the president would have been showing to the GLBT community had he opted out of speaking last night?

You feel the article is credible. I think it has its points, but they get lost in the flood of "Never Gonna Be Good Enough" attitude that reduces the article to idiocy... Perhaps "inanity" would be a better choice of words.

I'm no more a "homophobe" than I am a "stay-at-the-fort indian," neecy. I simply happen to disagree with gay people that think the president is a complete bastard no matter what. I have the same argument with straight people. Even argued it once with a fellow who admits to having fucked a pumpkin. It may be a bewildering thought to you, but that's how it is.

[Neecy]

37. Go. Away.

[t0dd]

6. I don't know.. maybe action instead of more words...?

But I get it. Mid-terms are coming up, and they need our money. I totally get it.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ruggerson]

30. As far as the DOJ brief on the Smelt case

Obama himself admitted the language was fucked up and the DOJ issued a REVISED brief that argued the case in a better way legally that can't be used as harmfully to damage futher anti-DOMA cases working their way up the system.

The gay community and the gay bloggers were correct and those defending the original brief as "business as usual" were not.

A number of posts, including one from me, commended Obama for listening and then ordering the brief to be revised.

[ruggerson]

12. He did not advocate "same sex marriage"

He is specifically AGAINST marriage equality.

His "religion" tells him that marriage is between a man and a woman.

[Bluenorthwest]

24. Obama did NOT advocate marriage equality

last night or any night. That is just out of bounds in terms of spin, to make things up out of the clear blue sky. It is one thing to redefine and spin until yes means no as you do all over this thread, but to claim that a man who opposes marriage equality advocated for it last night is just beyond the pale. And criticize means hate, and all the other bullshit you feel you must pile on. Cheap. Tawdry. Petty, especially in the context of such a large and important issue. Play word games with your own damn family's rights.

[Chulanowa]

25. So I take it you haven't read a single one of my posts in this thread

"redefine and spin until yes means no as you do all over this thread,"

Actually I haven't.

"And criticize means hate, and all the other bullshit you feel you must pile on."

I haven't said anyone hates Obama.

And it sounded to me like he was advocating it. Now I could be wrong, sure. I mean he didn't have a neon sign flashing over his head and he didn't swear on a stack of MAD magazines or anything while spelling each individual word, so, sure, I could have heard wrong. I hear that he has eerie mind control powers, after all.

Now about the rest of those points, though...

[Bluenorthwest]

26. I read all your venom and spin and name calling

And your deep confusion about many issues. And your use of a particular slur I'd rather not see. All for what, exactly?
It is, again, disrespectful to address the issue of my family's equality with the venom and ego with which you come at it. Neon signs and Mad magazine? What the hell. Obama openly opposes marriage for gay couples. If you don't know that much, you don't know enough to be on this thread at all. Your content is often incorrect, and your form is simply rude and dismissive.

[Chulanowa]

31. And it's one I'd rather not use

However, it does seem to be a word that many here would love to put into the president's mouth, so I used it as a part of a faux-quote meant to point out just how idiotic that particular fantasy is. I'm not going to apologize for using it in such a fashion, but do rest assued I find it just as offensive as you. Well... you likely take MORE offense, but you understand what I mean, yes?

Looking back and reading the transcript, he was pushing the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act - different from marriage. When I was watching the speech, it sure as hell sounded like he speaking in support of same-sex marriage. My apologies for being mistaken.

Now. As for addressing the issue of your family's equality with "venom and ego"... Really? I've addressed IRemember's dickish behavior and assertions that not agreeing with him equals worshiping the president with venom - primarily due to him deciding to start an insult contest. I don't think that IRemember being an asshole is what your family's equality hinges on.

[dsc]

40. You wouldn't dare use the n word that way

and you have no business using faggot that way.

[Bluenorthwest]

43. Raving about neon and mad magazine

And your endless snark and yes, venom. You are the one typing slurs here. Claiming you'd rather not, as if your fingers were not controlled by your mind. You would not dare use counterpart slurs for other groups in the way you did that one. And you know it.
You made an outrageously false claim. Foisted a lie. More than once. Your intent can be read in the words you felt compelled to type as you made your 'point'.

[Chulanowa]

48. Raving? Snark I'll grant, but raving?

And I have used counterpart slurs to address the exact same sort of points. However, I would not address a person using any of these terms. I would rather not use it, but I found it appropriate as an illustrative point - According to the OP article, IRemember, and many others on this thread, the phrase I used is apparently exactly what you think the president is saying. I could have stuck with it saying "Fuck y'all" but that simply doesn't address the big heap of homophobia he's constantly credited with.

Yes, I did make a false claim. I have since stood corrected, and apologized for it. In two threads, no less. I wasn't trying to lie, I misunderstood what I was hearing during the speech. Chalk it up to wishful thinking, or if it makes you feel better, me being an idiot. Whatever the cause, I was wrong, and I'm sorry for pushing it. Not much I can do past that.

[QC]

18. Haven't you heard? The Central Committee has declared Aravosis an enemy of the people!

Please do not post anything about him again, Comrade, or you might be sent to the re-education facility.

For your own good, of course.

[Chulanowa]

21. Nah, we just think he's a douche

Enemies get fed to tigers.

John Aravosis would probably give the poor kitties a severe case of cacafuego, anyway.

[ruggerson]

28. Well at least he is informed about Obama's positions

and doesn't write "obama is for same sex marriage" in a GLBT forum of all places.

[Chulanowa]

34. I've been corrected by Bluenorthwest

I was under the impression that Obama had changed his position, and I was wrong.

Aravosis remains a douche, however.

[Bluenorthwest]

44. I'd like to point out that you held basic misunderstandings

of what the President said, and yet you took it upon your uncomprehending self to lecture others about your confused positions in great snark and with full hyperbole. Also with a slur for good measure. All of this while not even knowing what was said. Not even knowing the President's often stated position. Also, when you were informed of your errors, you continued to flail about with insults.

[struggle4progress]

27. "Redbaiting™ -- Be sure to try it when you've got nothing else!"

Redbaiting™ is an outdated and unsafe product, and I'm always surprised to see it still in use. Decades ago, when I was coming up, it was widely applied, even in elementary school. One standard application back then had the form: You support integration?!? Are you a Communist?

Redbaiting™ is only one of a family of similar cheap products, among which I might mention Queerbaiting™. Lots of us former longhair hippie learned a lot about Queerbaiting™, too, back in the day

[sui generis]

46. I'm afraid I agree with most of this. We got played.

HRC has lost power and revenue both since Elizabeth stepped down and solmonese stepped in. Solmonese advised the endorsement of Lieberman four years ago when it was perfectly acceptable to NOT endorse either candidate.

Oh and the shit storm on DU for that one :eyes:

I do agree that for the most part Obama views us as the fringe. He knows he doesn't need us to stay elected because it's a given we won't vote for the alternative, and his cult followers will browbeat the rest into voting for him or chase those pesky gays out altogether.

I have about 2000 posts of experience from the last campaign to back up that statement - RIGHT HERE ON DU.

It is time to demand a timeline. Let's take it one day at a time after that; there will be plenty of time for acrid recrimination and vitriole if one is not forthcoming or if no further effort than the lip service we've come to expect happens.