The Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus, and Other Revelations from Conservapedia

Did you know that octopuses live in trees?



Or that the theory of gravity is still up for debate among scientists?

Conservapedia knows. Having been linked by Sullivan, the site is now so slow that it will probably take you a while to enter its parallel universe. While you wait, something to ponder:

If a tree octopus falls in the forest, and gravity is only a theory, does God hear the splat?

On the Radio

I'll be on KUOW's "Weekday" this morning starting at 10 a.m., talking about this week's newsy happenings.

And Who Was That "Seattle Alt Weekly Reporter"? Ahem.

Over at DailyKos, the big Kos himself has returned to the topic of his once having called Maureen Dowd a "catty, insecure bitch."

I got in trouble during last year's YearlyKos when, exhausted and with my guard down, I told a Seattle alt weekly reporter that Maureen Dowd was a "catty, insecure bitch". I shouldn't have called her a "bitch", but she was catty and insecure while interviewing me...

That alt-weekly reporter would be me. And, for the record, even though Maureen Dowd and Kos apparently exchanged emails after that comment, I appear to have been frozen out — frozen out! — of Kos's email in-box.

Example: Back in October, long after the event that prompted his "catty bitch" comment, I tried to land an interview with Kos for a story I was writing about one of his favorite Democrats, Jon Tester. No response.

Maybe he was busy, or maybe I got no response because I'm just a Seattle alt-weekly reporter. But if it was because I blogged his quote about Dowd — Then listen, Kos, your big beef with Maureen Dowd is that you feel she misrepresents events and doesn't quote people accurately. And yet you still email her! And I quote you accurately and you don't return my emails?

I mean, I know I'm no Maureen Dowd, but come on. Return my email! I'll even let you call me a name or two off the record if it'll make you feel better.

Only Five Times a Day?

Maybe I need to go on this media diet...

On the Radio

I'll be on KUOW's Weekday this morning starting at 10 a.m., talking about the news of the week with three other journalists. (Yes, this program usually happens on Fridays, but it's been bumped to Thursday this week because of Friday's planned Iraq war debate in the House.)

A Comment Thread Worth Watching

Because really, any thread that features the phrases "crank and traitor," "politically-correct faux-sex-positive," "stress the pleasures of sucking cock," and "HIV denialist," along with a possible admission from famous Washington gay marriage defendant Paul Barwick that he hasn't had sex since 1989, is worth a read, in my humble opinion.

Start here.

Ha!

I so called this one. I randomly ended up watching the Westminster Dog Show last night, but as soon as I saw this creature I predicted he would win his round. And I have witnesses to attest to the fact that when I made this (very accurate) prediction of said creature's triumph, I did not know he was (even better) a Dandie nicknamed Harry and known officially as Ch. Hobergays Fineus Fogg. (Or that he is owned, in party, by... Bill Cosby!?!)



Confidential to Annie Wagner: What does the Ch. mean? Champion?

Confidential to the world: Mr. Hobergays is going to win Best in Show. I mean, look at the competition:

By night’s end, Harry knew who three of his rivals for Best in Show would be: an Akita (Ch. Redwitch Reason to Believe), a toy poodle (Ch. Smash Jp Win a Victory) and a standard poodle (Ch. Brighton Minimoto).

"Reason to Believe"? "Win a Victory"? "Minimoto"? Please.

Where is the Love?

Michael Petrelis, a well-known AIDS activist in San Francisco, has a few things to say on his blog about my feature on Seattle's new drug-resistant HIV strain, including this:

Finally, the words fear or fears appear seven times in Sanders' story, and the word love is totally absent. Make of that observation what you will.

Michael, love, read this.

On the Radio

I'll be on David Goldstein's radio show at 7 p.m. tonight, talking about the wild court-martial of Lt. Ehren Watada.

This Is What Pisses Me Off.

In the comments of my most recent Stranger post on King County's new drug-resistant strain of HIV, commenter "BD" makes some good points about the need for personal responsibility, but then writes:

Here's the problem...

We go on witch hunts in the gay community...looking for "patient zero".

When we hear about a new "upward trend" or "superstrain", we respond with hysteria, and create a hollow "Manifesto"...whose purpose is to only shame and punish a community that's been shamed and punished for decades.

I'm sorry, but this confused line of thinking needs to be knocked down. And it needs to be knocked down forcefully, "BD," because it's extremely harmful (never mind that it's also a great example of what you describe in your comment as gay men being "their own worst enemies").

Not all shame is the same, "BD," and not all shame is worth rejecting out of hand. Here's how I dealt with your (all too common) brand of confusion in the piece that I'm working on now:

For a long time gay men have fought, correctly, to be free from shame for who we are sexually. But some gay men have gone further, conflating their morally-neutral identity with certain morally unjustifiable actions, and incorrectly asserting that they have some right to be free from shame no matter what sexual decisions they make as gay men, and no matter how adversely some of those decisions affect their own health or the health of their community. Woe to the writer who suggests that some gay men—particularly some "core group" members—should have a little more shame about their actions (not their identity), or at least be a little more ashamed about the unhealthiness their actions are perpetuating.

And here's how I dealt with the same type of shame confusion back in 2003:

Joseph Sonnabend, a doctor treating people with AIDS at the beginning of the AIDS crisis, had this to say in 1982 about the gay men's health leadership: "A desire to appear non-judgmental, a desire to remain untinged by moralism, fear of provoking ire, have all fostered a conspiracy of silence. For years no clear message about the danger of promiscuity has emanated from those in whom gay men have entrusted their well-being."

Then, as now, the roots of the gay leadership's reflexive refusal to be judgmental, or moralistic, or directive, are fairly obvious. Gay men have been persecuted by moralists, judged unfairly, blamed improperly, shamed unnecessarily, told the behaviors that define us are unnatural. It has harmed us tremendously, and continues to harm us. It keeps us in closets, it destroys our self-worth. But in response, many of us--including many gay men's health leaders--seem to have completely rejected all morality, all forms of judgment, all blame, all shame, all suggestions of proper behavior. These people seem to think it is possible to build a healthy community without such things, though much of human history--not to mention the current state of the gay community--argues against this proposition. Theirs is an understandable, but unsophisticated, response to persecution. And it is also dangerous. It ends up giving license to the immoral minority; the people in our community who are harming themselves and others by doing things that are undeniably wrong, irresponsible, and shamelessly reckless.

Take your pick, "BD," but I wish you would listen.

Oh, the Joys of Writing About HIV/AIDS

I was more than happy not to be writing about gay men's health anymore. I'll explain why in a feature I'm working on for this week's Stranger about... gay men's health.

But here's a hint. On Thursday, I posted about the new drug-resistant HIV strain that's been reported in King County and the crystal meth users who had come down with it. I also suggested that gay men not use crystal meth in the first place, that they not have unprotected sex with meth-heads, and that they tell their friends there's now one more compelling reason (as if one more compelling reason was needed) not to bareback with people whose HIV status they don't know.

Pretty obvious stuff. From the Stranger comments:

Eli Sanders has an agenda and I don't believe any of the stories he posts.

(And now, some good news.)

On Lt. Ehren Watada

My report on the likely outcome of the Lt. Watada court-martial is up this morning on TIME.com.

And here's a longer piece about the Watada case that I wrote for The Stranger back in August. (That piece was later re-published in the Boston Phoenix.)