An Adam Bink Golden Oldie
From Feb 25, 2010. Original HERE.
Over the weekend at Rootscamp and generally over the past few weeks, I've been participating in a series of conversations concerning the relationship between traditional "legacy" LGBT organizations- such as the Human Rights Campaign and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD)- and online communities. Discussions have centered around how there has been a lot of "infighting" over the past few months. Two prominent examples are the blogswarm last week aimed at the Human Rights Campaign around its strategy on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, along with Bil Browning's criticism of GLAAD around The Cleveland Show episode, but criticisms in general- including in my writing, as you may have noticed- have been growing louder across the LGBT blogosphere for some time now.
What is interesting to me is where healthy dialogue turns into "infighting", and why it is deemed critical that progressive movement actors- such as President Obama and Democratic Congressional leaders- need a "left flank", but the same does not seem to apply to LGBT organizations.
More on this, along with an interview w/HRC President Joe Solmonese, in the extended entry.
Over the weekend at Rootscamp and generally over the past few weeks, I've been participating in a series of conversations concerning the relationship between traditional "legacy" LGBT organizations- such as the Human Rights Campaign and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD)- and online communities. Discussions have centered around how there has been a lot of "infighting" over the past few months. Two prominent examples are the blogswarm last week aimed at the Human Rights Campaign around its strategy on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, along with Bil Browning's criticism of GLAAD around The Cleveland Show episode, but criticisms in general- including in my writing, as you may have noticed- have been growing louder across the LGBT blogosphere for some time now.
What is interesting to me is where healthy dialogue turns into "infighting", and why it is deemed critical that progressive movement actors- such as President Obama and Democratic Congressional leaders- need a "left flank", but the same does not seem to apply to LGBT organizations.
More on this, along with an interview w/HRC President Joe Solmonese, in the extended entry.
I'm in Dallas this weekend for NGLTF's Creating Change conference, a gathering of LGBT activists- online and offline that's one of the largest around. I've never been to Texas, and given that my flight back home is on Super Bowl Sunday, my biggest fear is that this card-carrying Bills fan will encounter a flight delay and be forced to watch the Super Bowl in- gulp- a Dallas airport bar. Ew. I would love some restaurant recs with good vegetarian options, though.
Anyway, if you're around, I'm speaking at 4:45 PM on Friday the 8th on a panel titled "Reaching Out to the Blogosphere" with Mike Rogers of the film Outrage and PageOneQ, Bil Browning of The Bilerico Project (where I sometimes cross-post), and Miriam Perez of Feministing. I'll be talking about some best and worst cases of internet outreach, and ideas on strengthening bonds between traditional LGBT organizations and online activists. Hope to see you there. More info about the conference and registration here.
(I wrote this post exactly one year ago, and am promoting it today unchanged because so far, with the exception of not being able to turn one's Twitter status red this year (darn), I see no difference in publicity or calls to action on World AIDS Day today. If there is, I will update this piece. In the meantime, vaccines do not make themselves, but finding one remains the best hope for a cure. Prevention must one day become eradication.
Please consider volunteering for an HIV vaccine trial. And if you are not eligible, consider asking a friend, family member, or colleague to do so. We have made great strides over the last year and it must continue. More details below, or you can go to hopetakesaction.org for more. - promoted by Adam Bink)
I've been sitting at my computer all morning, reading through the advocacy discussion on World AIDS Day. Usually on these kinds of commemoration days there is an overemphasis on quick internet activism- a Facebook status update is all I expect out of lots of friends, both gay and straight- and an underemphasis on offline action.
Today is no exception, but it's especially disappointing because of the lack of emphasis on vaccine trials. Allow me to get a little personal on you.
I come from a background of volunteering. My mom was a team leader for the United Way Day of Caring, so I participated each summer. Before I became sexually active, I donated blood at the Red Cross every chance I became eligible again- literally gallons' worth. My grandpa spent the last few years of his life needing blood transfusions, so I became aware of important it is and how many shortages there are.
In that spirit, and because of how HIV/AIDS affects my community and friends, two years ago I participated in an HIV vaccine trial through the National Institutes of Health. The trials were no secret- NIH advertised in Metro Weekly, a local LGBT magazine, calling for volunteers. It wasn't difficult- when I had a visit (I had a total of about a dozen, I got up a little earlier so I wouldn't miss work and hopped on the DC Metro a couple of stops to the NIH campus. I did a few visits of background medical counseling and routine blood tests- the same you would get at a yearly check-up with your physician. The vaccine was given in separate doses- all with careful monitoring of symptoms. The extremely courteous, friendly, professional medical staff called regularly to check up and make sure I was okay. I was given a chart to monitor any reaction I had- which was none. The follow-up visits consisted of simple blood tests and inquiries on any symptoms. It was not, by any stretch, a harrowing experience, and I was generously compensated for my time. And I've been tested multiple times since then and am still HIV-negative.
I didn't tell many people about my participation at the time, and those I did tell, I was shocked at the concerned reaction- even by physicians I know, even by people I know who lost family to breast cancer, another disease with no cure, and have lamented to me how there is no vaccine. But the trial vaccine cannot cause HIV infection. From the NIH website set up for volunteer intake (emphasis theirs):
Q: Can a study vaccine cause HIV infection?
It is impossible to get HIV infection or develop AIDS from experimental vaccines. They are not made from live HIV, killed HIV, weakened HIV, or HIV-infected cells. The investigational vaccines in this trial cannot cause HIV infection.
You could even be receiving a placebo. More to the point, though, I was left wondering at the public approach to HIV/AIDS and other diseases. How are we ever going to get past prevention and onto eradication if we don't get past the perception that these vaccines just make themselves, and volunteering isn't critical?
You see the same approach today. On Twitter, you can turn your update status red by tweeting #RED. But as of 10:45 AM EST, the sponsor, @joinred, which is run by Nike and has over 850,000 followers, makes no mention of volunteering to find a vaccine or even getting tested. The Obama administration's new website, AIDS.gov, has an entire section devoted to using new media, but no mention of the government's own NIH vaccine trials- which, as I discuss below, are still calling for volunteers. I can't find it in the HIV/AIDS Programs, National HIV/AIDS Strategy, HIV/AIDS 101, or Prevention sections of the website. President Obama's proclamation this morning doesn't call for volunteers. And this is the federal government's own program we're talking about! In the LGBT world, I don't see it on the Human Rights Campaign's blog post titled "Marking World AIDS Day". NGLTF, in a statement, mentions the need for treatment access, comprehensive sex ed, combating discrimination, syringe exchange programs, but nothing about vaccine trials.
Now, I'll be the first to say I'm no expert on epidemics, and I know items like getting tested, combating stigma in the African-American community, and syringe exchange programs are important. I also know HIV/AIDS vaccine trials have had limited success- although no more so than lots of other diseases. But it simply doesn't make any sense to talk about prevention of diseases through pap smears and mammograms and HIV tests, and not ask people to volunteer to try and end these diseases permanently.
We've just achieved a cervical cancer vaccine. Every winter, everyone flocks to get a flu vaccine to the degree that there's always a shortage. Every child gets an MMR vaccine. Hepatitis B. Polio. On and on and on. Americans know how critical vaccines are. What seems to be be unknown is that these vaccines do not come out of thin air. They come from people bravely volunteering to help develop them so that the rest of our country, and the world, can live longer. People bravely volunteer to fight overseas in the name of saving lives. Why don't the rest of us bravely volunteer to save lives here at home? It's time to start volunteering, and for our leaders to start calling for volunteers.
If you are a man who has sex with men, HIV negative and between 18-45 years old, please consider volunteering (there are a few other requirements you can read about on the website). There are trial clinics all over the country (and the compensation is really good too). We will never get eradicate these diseases if we don't and step up individually. Mark World AIDS Day by taking a giant step forward towards a cure.
This is part two of an interview with Rea Carey, the Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Part one focused on the No On 1 campaign in Maine, the push to repeal Prop 8 in 2010 in California, and the marriage equality movement in general. This part focuses on the state of LGBT rights at the federal level, the Obama administration, and Congress.
Among the highlights:
Rea refusing to accept any half-measure on the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Although criticizing the Obama administration in many respects, Rea declining to call on the Obama administration for an apology over numerous slights towards the LGBT community
Rea commenting on the AMERICABlog donor boycott
The one comment I have is that I disagree on the refusal to call on the administration for an apology over what we all agreed were horrendous mistakes, with the rationale of "I don't know that the administration sees those as mistakes" (see the transcript for more). Glenn Beck called the President a racist, and he should apologize, regardless of whether he saw it as a mistake. LGBT advocates should call for the same from the Administration if serious mistakes were made.
Overall, though, NGLTF is taking a pretty strong stance in terms of language regarding the slow pace of LGBT issues in Congress, on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and with the Democratic Party in general, which is great.
Full transcript below the fold.
Q: Turning to the Administration and Capitol Hill, recently John Aravosis and Joe Sudbay launched a donor boycott of the DNC. Is NGLTF going to endorse the boycott?
I've been writing a lot on what happened in Maine (most recently this piece yesterday in a Los Angeles LGBT magazine), and where our movement should go from here. NGLTF had run much of the field program in Maine, as well as within the No On 8 campaign in California, so I sat down yesterday to do an interview with Rea Carey, the Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, to address some criticisms and her thoughts on the marriage equality movement. We were joined by Dan Hawes, Director of Organizing and Training, who heads up NGLTF's national field operations and ran the field program in Cumberland County, the most populous in the state.
This is part one related to the No On 1 campaign in Maine and the marriage equality movement in general. I'll be posting the second part, related to LGBT rights at the federal level and the performance of the Obama administration.
Among the highlights:
Dan commenting that the campaign "could have had a more direct message", "more lengthy conversations at the door with voters", and done more persuasion rather than "just trying to GOTV our supporters"
Rea commenting on marriage equality at the ballot box "we simply don't have enough people to win at the ballot box yet"
Rea and Dan declining to say whether re-run campaigns in California and Maine could have won, or definitively whether marriage equality is winnable in the short-term
Dan defending against criticisms made with respect to the field program in Maine, and praising various aspects of the campaign
Rea and Dan arguing that provided there is a plan and the time is right, despite the movement's recent losses and overall record at the ballot box, donors will "step up" to contribute the tens of millions necessary to win a Prop 8 repeal effort in California
Full transcript below the fold.
Q: What did you both think of the No On 1 campaign, the result, and where we go from here?
Dan: I think generally it was a well-run campaign with a disappointing result, where we were unable to build a solid majority who supported marriage equality. Our various polling within the campaign and outside the campaign showed we never started with 50% or more of Mainers who were on our side, but I felt like we could probably look piece-by-piece at the campaign, and there's always things we could do differently. But I felt like folks gave their best effort generally to work to win across the board.
Q: What could be done differently?
Dan: It's clear that we haven't yet built a majority of support for marriage, which is part of the problem- we go into these campaigns trying to build a majority rather than defend a majority at the ballot box which is very different. We need to figure out what message will be effective at moving voters to stand with us on marriage quality, which is a venture across the board on all these campaigns, which stands true in Maine as well.
Rea: I would just add to that, one of the things that's so striking having been in California and Maine and having many years under our belts with these things is this challenge in creating a majority vs. defending it. I was so struck, I went canvassing [Election Day] morning, and spoke with a number of voters including some Yes voters, and a gentleman who told me he had voted Yes, he was very nice, very kind about it, but he had voted Yes, and explained why and it was interesting because he said you know I have gay friends, he was a father of three, I have gay friends who were married in Massachusetts and I just feel I want them to have the protections, but I'm not there yet on voting for marriage.
I think there are unfortunately what we've seen in a number of states with trying different messaging and different tactics- and I agree with Dan that every campaign has some different and something that can be learned from and improved upon- we simply don't have enough people to win at the ballot box yet. I absolutely think we're going to get there. I think if you look at the trajectory over the last twenty years, even in a state like California where we used to be behind by twenty points, now we're behind by about four, the trajectory is moving in the right direction, we're just not there yet.
Q: You both have said that we don't have the number of votes, we're short, which is certainly an important point with regard to the electorate. My question originally, though, was what could be done differently? Or was it a flawless campaign, was it near-flawless?
STATE BLOGS
