There are many angles to take with the arrest of Sen. Craig and [to date] his continued protestations of innocence and exclusive heterosexuality from the issues surrounding sex in public places to those around what makes a closeted conservatives work against other gays. But one would need a chiropractor if he were to try to twist him or herself into taking your rubbery hyperbole and reductio ad absurdum seriously.

"We won't hear that Craig was part of a "organized, underground subculture" of white men who have sex with men."

Actually, that's exactly what we're already starting to hear about. Read his arrest report. The cute WHITE cop who busted the WHITE married man was intentionally there trying to entrap men looking for sex. Of course, he would probably have arrested a man of any race, but he did not let this WHITE guy go. Didn't he get your memo on the policy regarding CWB [Cruising While Black]? "Throw the white fish back. You are allowed to keep only the Black fish."

It is interesting to learn from you that Terry McMillan and Oprah have apparently joined the organized, above ground conspiracy to falsely accuse their entire people; traitors to their race. And don't get me started on J.L. King! Oops, he's Black, too. Nevermind.

But, really, WHAT was going on when Oprah had WHITE Jim McGreevey on and the screen kept cutting to grainy, dark B reel footage of the kind of truck stops and other sleazy places he admitted to frequenting? Did she not have her contacts in that day? Did no one tell her he's WHITE? Or that his estranged wife, who's been telling the whole world that he exposed her to AIDS is.....wait for it.....WHITE, TOO', before Oprah had her on? Or those other everyday WHITE women she's had on who found out their WHITE husbands were secretly gay?

Bilerico where every day is "Poor Shat Upon Black Man's Day."

I think I picked up on your subtext Michael.

But I'm with Alex on this one.

Why are you not talking about the double standard in catching, arresting, and prosecuting people for having public sex? If Larry Craig solicited a female he would NOT have been caught. PERIOD. This was a set up. A reporter has been staking out the bathrooms at the airport for months in an effort to catch Craig. I'm sure that reporter told the police of his mission. The police have a pervasive anti-gay attitude. It shows in how anything involved with gay people are handled. By the way, there was NO overt suggestion of sex that Larry Craig made. It was all inuendo that the cop believed that Craig wanted sex, go read the report. Or go over to Citizen Crain to hear his perspective.

Leland~ Do you see a discussion of racism and it just fills you with so much rage that you just can't understand what's being written? I was talking about media coverage, not the event itself. And no, Oprah didn't make a big stink of HIV with Dina and, no, she didn't push James over and over again to admit that he was on the DL. And no one in the media is going to start a long, hard race-specific discussion of homophobia in the white community because of this. Being able to have your race go unnoticed and your experiences considered universal is white privilege. If you find any of the thing I've listed actually discussed in the MSM, I'll post about it.

Nick~ Subtext? I'd call it supertext when he's going on in all caps. Unless there's something completely different that I missed - that might be true.

Matt~ I talked about that in the post previous to this one. And Chris Crain is really bending the facts, generally, to prove his point. And made the Clinton comparison like a true red conservative. *eye roll*

Alex, serious question. Do you see no possible reason for anyone disagreeing with you but racism? "Rage"? Well, you're warm but you have an overly-generous concept of what constitutes "discussion. I am angry when I repeatedly see, wherever they appear, the complex issues perpetuating racism made worse by their reduction to simplistic claims and assertions like so many cheap, peeling plastic decorations Scotch-taped to a Christmas tree.

One man's "sticking up for [an] oppressed minority" is another's impression of someone hastily stringing together a bunch of issues like so many bubble lights and when anyone dares say that some of the bulbs are burned out he's convicted without a trial of being anti Christmas itself.

Not content with character assassination, the package is wrapped in absurd exaggeration: “he's going on in all caps.” There are 323 words in my entry above. Exactly 10 of them are in all-caps. 12 if one counts two acronyms. What percentage is that please? I'm not allowed a calculator in my cell.

One appreciates your providing links to what was behind some of your original broadsides. Unfortunately, some only confuse us more regarding what and who is racist. For those not pursuing the links, the reference to a dramatic film about down low men and the suggestion that 70% of African-American women are being infected by them comes from an article by Keith Boykin. Since Boykin wrote about that inflammatory error in 2005, the film has been retitled "Cover" and will allegedly finally be released next month. It looks even more sensationalistic than those misleading statistics suggested, a cameo by Miss Patti herself notwithstanding: "When Ryan Chambers is murdered on New Year's Eve, the prime suspect is Valerie Maas, a church-going home-maker whose life unravels when she discovers that her husband of 15 years has been leading a double life. Her strength of character and faith keeps the family alive as a deadly disease threatens to destroy all that they have known." What is one to say about the fact that it was made by Black actor/director Bill Duke?

Boykin’s own claim that only 2% of African-American women are being infected by down low/bisexual men is no more inarguably accurate than Duke's. After 25 years of HIV/AIDS, reports are numerous and nuanced. If he’s referring to the CDC’s “HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, Volume 17, Revised Edition, June 2007,” Tables 21 & 22 do say that only 2% of transmission for “Black, not Hispanic” women in 2005 was specifically identified as from “sex with bisexual male.” But another 33-37% reported “sex with HIV-infected person, risk factor not specified.” And the risk factor[s] for another 39-53% were not reported at all! A summary chart says that 74% of Black women’s infections were from some kind of “high risk heterosexual contact.”

Sorry, I still am apparently too dense to understand whether you think Oprah is a part of the solution or a part of the problem. Over time I have concluded the latter. On the notorious show in which she made a celebrity of J.L. King, she only gave gay AIDS activist Phill Wilson a couple of minutes to attempt to refute King’s 50+ minutes of purposely outrageous nonsense. You don't have to hold your breath waiting for her to feature "the newest part of the DL phenomenon."

After that April King show three years ago, days before the 2004 election—you know, the one in which gays of all races had been hoisted by the GOP as “red meat”—the woman many gays worship as an ally chose to broadcast a parade of wronged white women on, “My Husband Is Gay.” Samples: “David is a gay man who says he is propositioned on the Internet all the time by married men who are prowling for men right from their own living room.” “Little did she know her husband was having affairs with hundreds and hundreds of men.” And, in case you missed it, she reran her interview with Dina McGreevey just last week. “What other secrets did Dina discover after his announcement? And why did they share the same bed for three months? ‘If it can happen to me, it can happen to anyone’.”

If Oprah’s not MSM enough for you, here are few print articles all related in some way to the nexus of race, sexual orientation, and HIV/AIDS.

“Rift Over Gay Unions Reflects Battle New to Black Churches,” “The Washington Post,” August 19, 2007 [Rod McCullom called it an “extraordinary piece of enterprise reporting” with a “breathtaking photo gallery.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/18/AR2007081801167.html

“Being A Black Man” series, “The Washington Post,” October, 2006

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/interactives/blackmen/blackmen.html

"Out of Control: AIDS in Black America," ABC News one-hour special, August 24, 2006

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=2346857

“Cutting Through Aids Myths,” “Columbus Dispatch,” July 11, 2006
http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/contentbe/dispatch/2006/07/11/20060711-A1-03.html

----

As for the "perspective" of "Citizen" Chris Crain (God, how I hate the arrogance of that title!), it's one I'm far from interested in. He's little more than Andrew Sullivan without a British accent and a fat ass. One thing they do have in common, in addition to, as Alex, notes, no inhibition about bending fact, is that they are both fag neo cons.

While editor of the Washington Blade he played coy "I can neither confirm nor deny" games about the sexuality of the head of the GOP then whom he at least casually knew even after that publicly closeted cocksucker was helping the Republicans and the Bush Reich exploit homophobia for votes.

Now he's crying curious tears over the alleged unfair treatment of yet another certified antigay GOP homo by Minneapolis police and "the gay and leftie blogosphere," as he dishonestly throws every shit excuse against the wall hoping it will stick to the police and not to Craig.

Read MY lips. I'll leave it to the ACLU to be concerned about whether the hose that flushes people like Craig out of power is filled with holy water. Contrary to what Crain claims, the exposure of homo hypocrites like Ted Haggard and Craig DOES help us in the long run.