Cancel Your Subscription to the Washington Post

Seriously:The Washington Post yesterday printed a magazine ad supplement, bought by religious right groups, that is one of the most bigoted homophobic things I have ever read. I am astonished the Post would print this filth.

In it you learn things like the fact that sexual orientation isn't genetic. Why? Because if it were genetic it would have to be passed by gay parents who don't have kids! Putting aside a number of holes in that theory, there's the more general scientific point about recessive genes. My point is that this filth isn't even scientifically correct, and the Post is publishing it. I didn't realize the Post had no problems publishing junk science targeting minority groups. Huh.

What's more, the entire publication is based on race-baiting. It is CLEARLY written for the black community in an effort to piss them off against the gays. Funny, but you'd think the Post would have a problem with a scientifically invalid publication whose sole intent was to enrage one minority community against another. But no.

Oh, and it gets better. The publication informs you that gays die at the age of 41. Yep, all of us. What they don't tell you is that this little "study" was conducted by Dr. Paul Cameron, an anti-gay nutjob who has even been disowned by the religious right (let alone he was thrown out of various medical associations). But does the Post have a problem publishing junk science that suggests that certain minority groups are inferior to others? Not at all!

Oh, it goes on and on. Then concludes by invoking Martin Luther King's memory to attack us. Which is again an outright lie since Coretta Scott King has already said that the gay rights movement is part of the larger civil rights movement her husband embraced.

Where the hell is the Washington Post on all of this? Pay them the right price and they'll publish any crap, no matter how outrageous, no matter how wrong, no matter how hateful and obviously race-baiting (note that the fags in the publication are all white).

This is utterly unacceptable. Bye-bye post.

Tags: Activism (all tags)



Washington Post
I wish I could cancel, but I've never subscribed.

by news 2004-11-20 11:26AM | 0 recs
Connection to marriage amendment
Does anyone doubt that is connected to the woman in NE DC who wants to get a gay marriage ban on the ballot in DC?  There have been stories in the last two issues of The Washington Blade ( Apparently she has temporarily given up with her project -- something not filed correctly. Besides it would be at least 2006 before it would go on the ballot, as I understand it. Her "reasoning" is the same old stuff -- gay marriage is bad for African-Americans, threatens African-Americans families, etc.

It is obvious that there is an attempt here in D.C. to peel off a section of African-American voters from the Democratic Party. We saw this coming months ago.  Former D.C. Delegate to Congress, The Rev. Walter Fauntroy, signed on months ago to the no-gay-marriage-movement. (Can't remember if he endorsed Bush or not.)

I am waiting for these bigots to also throw in the "all gays are white and rich and you should hate them for buying up your homes and in D.C." Gays will be blamed for gentrification in D.C.

I hope the Powers-That-Be in DC are paying attention to this -- both gays and non-gays alike. This could get nasty very quickly. This is not some abstract battle between "blue state values" and "red state values." This is real, every-day stuff -- African-Americans and gays of all colors live together in D.C.'s neighborhoods. We are neighbors.

Here's hoping this is nipped in the bud -- if it can be.

To repeat what has been said a million times: The right-wing Republicans and the right-wing Christian groups have no shame. They are the devil incarnate.

by Matty 2004-11-20 11:27AM | 0 recs
The District of Columbia...
...may be the only jurisdiction in the United States where a gay marriage ban would fail in a popular referendum.

Trust me.  D.C. voters don't have any tolerance for the right wing trying to shove stuff down their throat via referendum.

Write the Washington Post ombudsman to tell them how you feel about this.

by DC Pol Sci 2004-11-20 12:01PM | 0 recs
From The Washington Blade
Connection to the paid ad in The Washington Post with this group menitoned in article below? This is from The Washington Blade online news.

D.C. gay marriage ban petition withdrawn

A woman who filed papers last month with the D.C. Board of Elections & Ethics calling for a voter initiative to ban same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia withdrew her initiative proposal Tuesday, saying a city attorney told her it was not properly drafted.

Lisa L. Greene, a resident of Northeast D.C., said she withdrew the proposal after an attorney with the elections board informed her that she used the wrong "legislative format" and she failed to submit a required campaign finance statement.

"I will submit it again," she said. "I will contact them beforehand and make sure I have it correct."

Greene said she created a group called D.C. Citizens for Marriage to promote the initiative. But she made no public announcement about measure. The press and local gay activists didn't learn about the initiative until the election board published an announcement about a board hearing on the matter in the D.C. Register two weeks ago.

"It's my belief that marriage is an institution between a man and a woman only," she told the Blade last week.

"I don't have a problem if someone is a lesbian or a homosexual," she said. "But I feel their personal preferences should be kept private."

She added that her aim, among other things, was to protect families in a city with a high rate of out-of-marriage births.

"As an African American, I feel it's important to preserve the family," she said. "Statistics show that African Americans have the nation's highest rate of out-of-marriage births." Greene did not elaborate on how this is related to same-sex marriages.

The elections board had placed Greene's proposed initiative on the agenda for its regularly scheduled public hearing on Nov. 18. Elections board spokesperson Bill O'Field said the board removed the issue from the agenda following Greene's decision to withdraw the measure.

The text of Greene's proposed initiative, which she called the District of Columbia Marriage Protection Act, states, "The Citizens of the District of Columbia and the District Council defines and preserves marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman only."

Had the election board approved the format and wording of the initiative, Green and her supporters would have to collect more than 19,000 signatures in 180 days to bring the measure before city voters, according to O'Field. The total number of signatures needed is 5 percent of the registered voters in the city.

Initiatives such as the one proposed by Greene must be placed on the ballot in the next regularly scheduled citywide election following the board's approval and verification of the signatures, O'Field said. The next citywide election will be held in September 2006. O'Field said it would take an act passed by the D.C. Council to schedule an election sooner than that date, a development that political observers say is highly unlikely.

Green said an attorney with the elections board told her she did not use the proper "legislative format" in the text of her initiative. She said the attorney also informed her she failed to submit a finance statement with the D.C. Office of Campaign Finance, which is required for placing initiatives on the ballot.

"I told them we have no finances because we haven't raised any money," Green told the Blade. "She told me that doesn't matter, that we still have to file a finance statement."

Green said she did not recall the name of the elections board attorney who spoke with her. O'Field, the elections board spokesperson, could not be reached to determine why the format of Green's proposal was deemed incorrect.

Posted by Lou Chibbaro Jr. , Washington Blade Staff Writer| Nov. 16 at 7:30 PM |

by Matty 2004-11-20 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: From The Washington Blade
No, this appears to have no connection to that group.  It says it's sponsored by an organization that calls itself Grace Christian Church, and the pastor of said church is the author of the lead article.  Grace is, curiously enough, a church that meets in a public high school, so I've got no idea how they afforded this insert.

Here are some links.  Wash your brain out with soap after perusing. - the magazine's own Website - the Website of the church that sponsored it - the personal Website of the pastor of that church, who is also the author of the lead article.

by DC Pol Sci 2004-11-20 12:54PM | 0 recs
Way to go DC Pol Sci
The Post is on our side.

Biting our allies' heads off when they make mistakes -- even "unacceptable mistakes" -- is not a strategy for success.

It is a strategy for ending up with... no allies.

I have learned this the hard way.

Writing the Post's Ombudsman....Publisher... Editor... everyone is the way to go.


by tonymoco 2004-11-20 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Way to go DC Pol Sci
Thanks.  I didn't cancel my subscription.  I live in the D.C. area; I need to get my local news from somewhere; and I'm sure as hell not going to buy the mooniepaper.

However, buying a share of Post stock and showing up at the next shareholders' meeting to raise hell is an idea I've toyed with.  I've reported the proceedings of these meetings before -- there is an opportunity for shareholders to speak and voice their opinions on the policies of the paper.

by DC Pol Sci 2004-11-20 12:56PM | 0 recs
Censoring Ads?
It's an advertisement, not an editorial or a news item. Newspapers sell all kinds of ads that all kinds of people disagree with. I don't see that as a reason to boycott a newspaper that one would otherwise read.

Much better to counter an idea than to try to suppress it.

by SLinVA 2004-11-20 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Censoring Ads?
Publications still have a duty to refuse to publish advertisements that are misleading or which incite violence or hatred.  This magazine is both.  

It is called "Both Sides Magazine," and it presents only one side, that side being the extreme right wing's.  Its subtitle says:  "Impacting the culture with faith and reason," and its only impact is to spread right-wing propaganda based on kneejerk reactions to homosexuality from the wingnuts.  It purports to offer "both sides" based on "reason," and it has pseudoscientific article titles like "Same Sexuality and Race" and "Behavioral Civil Rights," two of which are authored by people with "Dr." in front of their names.  The lead article ("Same Sexuality and Race") is, for instance, authored by "Dr. Derek Grier."  It doesn't state it in the magazine itself, and I had to go to the Web to figure it out, but Dr. Derek Grier is a doctor only of the MINISTRY.  The other "doctor" is Dr. James Dobson, whose doctorate is a bit more legitimate, in child development, but who only tangientially mentions child development in his article, and only to state that gay marriage is inherently harmful to child development.  Both are, therefore, speaking in areas out of their expertise.

Based on your line of reasoning, I fully expect to open my Post in a month or so and have fall out in my lap a magazine with an article entitled "What you can tell about people by the shape of their noses," by Dr. Josef Mengele.  It will still be an advertisement, not an editorial or a news item.

by DC Pol Sci 2004-11-20 03:12PM | 0 recs
Here's my letter
The ad the Post ran yesterday suggesting that homosexuality could not be genetic is first stupid and ignorant, and also completely intolerant.  After the pathetic way the Post pandered the religious right throughout the election, this is the last straw.  I am cancelling my subscription and I will in the future do my best to discourage anyone I know from reading your paper also.  This is the most repulsive thing I have ever heard from a mainstream newspaper.  I don't care how much money those intolerant asses paid you, this sort of slander against people who have not hurt anyone and are simply trying to find happiness in life is utterly unacceptable.
by descrates 2004-11-20 01:44PM | 0 recs
Not just recessive genes, but...
...kin selection.  In short, you share many of your genes with close relatives, so you end up passing them on just by helping close relatives out, even if you don't have children yourself.

Wikipedia article

Of course, genetics isn't really the issue behind this WP ad, but it's one more point for people to note.

by ColoRambler 2004-11-20 03:06PM | 0 recs
Adam and Eve is a phony myth

In it you learn things like the fact that sexual orientation isn't genetic. Why? Because if it were genetic it would have to be passed by gay parents who don't have kids!

So Adam and Eve couldn't have produced the numerous "races", the numerous hair colors found in humans, the numerous hair types found in humans, etc, etc, etc.

Nothing so pathetic as anti-science Bible literalists trying to use science to prove a point.

I recall when one of the Christian web sites was trying to debunk evolution and the ancient-earth theory by pointing out that a fossil whale was found in a near-vertical orientation. According to the site, this required scientists to admit either that there methods of dating fossils were useless or that one end of the whale was buried millions of years before the other end.

I couldn't make this stuff up.

Of course, the fossil whale was in a single stratum that had tilted over the course of millions of years.

by Ottnott 2004-11-20 04:49PM | 0 recs
unsubscribed over 4 years ago
The post has been going downhill and to the right for years, at least dating back into the early ninties (if not before, cant say because I didnt read it prior to 1990).  I couldn't take it anymore, just over 4 years ago.  As far as I am concerned, it does not report news, it reports opinions slanted to the right and goes more and more right every day.  It once had a reputation (I presume earned of being a hard hitting objective paper).  The post is no longer about reporting, but about making money.  Corporations start out with ideals and principles, and eventually succumb to money at the expense of their ideals and principles.  If only they would return to the original ideals and principles, the money and ratings would follow.  However they dont and we get the crap that they put into these days.

They should rename the paper, The Washington Analysis and then add a separate section publishing the separate actual quotes and transcripts without the analysis.  That way, people that don't want to think for themselves can read the front page, and those that do would read the quotes and transcripts.

by emitetsaw 2004-11-20 05:28PM | 0 recs
cancel subscription
if i did that my only alternative would be the washington times!newspapers take advertising to make money,they may not have even been aware of the content,I WON`T READ THE WASHINGTON TIMES, the paper is a total joke.they may as well call it
the republican can do no wrong times.
by JOEL1954 2004-11-21 02:34AM | 0 recs
Re: cancel subscription
Agree with this comment and the one below.  Write letters and buy a share of stock in the WaPo, so you can show up at their shareholders' meetings and register your complaints there.

The only alternative is the mooniepaper, and that's no alternative whatsoever.  The Post is generally centrist or perhaps even a tad to the left of center (the editorial page is self-professed Lieberman Democrats, so it's only a tad, but they paper DID endorse Kerry).  We've got to keep faith with the Post but whack them over the head with a 2x4 whenever they do something like this.  Write the ombudsman and tell him how pissed off you are.

by DC Pol Sci 2004-11-21 07:53AM | 0 recs
Both sides
Firstly, I don't see any use in canceling any subscriptions to the Post-but a letter writing campaign protesting the message is certainly appropriate.

As has been pointed out, the "science" that that magazine propounds is bizarre. But the trick is (as usual) to assert that "proponents" of same sex marriage take a position (that sexual preference is equivalent to race) and then go on to attack that straw man using bad science.

I cannot think of any advocate of sociobiology that would take such a simplistic, monocausal explanation of behavior (genes for = determined behavior). In fact, all the literature (at least most of the good literature) emphasizes the complexity of genetic development (epistatic reactions) and the interaction with the environment along with the influence of culture on behavior. My point is not that I am necessarily advocating sociobiology, but that I cannot think of any people doing serious research who would argue that "genes for" same sex preference automatically = exclusively gay or lesbian.

I should also point out that sociobiology is immensely controversial and that an awful lot of people who advocate for gay and lesbian marriage are extremely suspicious of arguments about genetic determination of behavior and tend to be immensely suspicious (at best) of sociobiology.

I think the reality is that there is an immense amount of complexity involved in how one's sexual preferences develop. Unfortunately, this complexity tends to get dropped in a public debate that has been shaped by religious extremists.

As a proud member of the reality based community I'm interested in promoting good science. How can we turn this debate around and get away from "genetically determined" or "choice"-which is just simply put, to my way of thinking, the wrong way to frame the debate at all.

Regardless of what "causes" same sex (or opposite sex) attraction, I still think that people have the right to marry whom they choose. Whatever happened to personal freedom?

by cspoirot 2004-11-21 06:33AM | 0 recs
A better attack?
Wow, what a foul piece of tripe.  Pure bigoted, prejudice homophobia, and definitely nasty a racial undertone.

I'd like to take a different approach then canceling subscriptions to the Post, though, as I think we do need the few allies we have in the press.  Instead, lets get to the heart of this.  Anyone out there with a few extra cell phone minutes to burn?  Got some numbers for ya.  Here is the "partner" list of magazine that printed that article.  

"BothSides Magazine"
Ph: (703) 738-4216

Partner page ...

I'm going to spend sometime calling the places on that list today and telling shame on them for spending their time and money on such a hateful mission, persecuting people who only want the things that any married couple would feel outraged if they were disallowed.  Things like the ability to pass on their estate to the people they love, things like familial visitation and estate rights, beneficiary rights and joint return tax rights.  I'd also like to tell them that the way that other people define love has no bearing on the way they want to define it and that the church should remember that god should be about love and not hate.

Let's take this fight to the people who we are fighting with, rather then attacking the post, ya know?

by Spartacus 2004-11-21 07:47AM | 0 recs
Grace Christian Church

Grace Christian Church meets in a high school gym (or other such public facility) for a very specific reason. It's not a question of what they can afford.  It's because of the lessons they learned from the Baptists and the Catholic Church sex scandals of the past 20 years.

If they are not affiliated with any religious organization (Baptist, Assemblies of God, etc.) and own no property, there is nothing that can be taken from them in case of a sexual harrassment lawsuit. The Catholics have had to declare bankruptcy in several cases, and have lost buildings and property in settlements.  The Baptists have lost properties, including at least one of the Bible Camps in the Midwest.

Which is why you always have to ask the Pastor if the church is affiliated with any other churches. A fair number of new "Baptist" churches are incorporated these days with no mention of the word "Baptist" in their name.

So, what are they hiding?

by KidRanger 2004-11-22 04:08AM | 0 recs
Cancel subscription to the Washington Post
Yet another blatant maneuver by the Right. It is reprehensible to preach intolerance of a given segment of society (homosexuals)in an open society, but to do so by targeting another segment of society(Afro-Americans) who, historically, have been the subject of intolerance and prejudice, takes it to another level of malevolency. It speaks to the the morally bankrpt efforts of the "moral" Right.  This is a classic Orwellian move, using an issue with an underlying theme (in this case civil rights)which is typically identified with one group (Dems) to undermine it's constituency in another group (Afro-Americans).        
by languagedoc 2004-11-22 06:09AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads