Drive-By Blogging

Miserable old troll Mike Rogers, the Abu Musab al-Zarqawi of the gay blogosphere, is up to his old tricks.  I'm not sure what to call it anymore, because it isn't really even an "outing" campaign: His latest victim was never "in."  (And no, Mike, it isn't "reporting."  Your partisan hackery is a brown santorum stain on real journalists everywhere.)

The case for the prosecution this time seems to be that his target works for a guy who doesn't want the international community to be associated with a group that has had past ties to pedophiles, and he's also supposedly a bit brusque – according to a hard-left New York publication, that is.  Rogers apparently hasn't worked with many PR folks before.

Mike Rogers eats up to three square meals a day.  Meanwhile, 842 million innocent people are starving around the globe.

There truly is no justice in this world.

Comments

[GayCowboyBob]

Well especially when blogs like GayPatriot are outraged at the executions of gay men in Iran for their sexuality, I think it would be even more important for groups that were excluded to have been given observer status.

From what I understand, the ILGA severed its ties with NAMBLA in 1997 and the US had initially been in favor of including the group in 2002, no? Are there other reasons these groups should have been excluded except for an association with a group that they severed ties with almost 10 years ago?

[Robbie]

It's my understanding the ILGA will not divulge its membership organizations, so there's no way to verify ties to groups that promote or apologize for pedophilia have been completely expunged.

[Malcontent]

I know I was the one who broached the topic, but debating the merits of IGLA is so far off the point. What is more important is that Rogers is a fire-breathing partisan masquerading as a "reporter" (sometimes literally "masquerading.") He effectively gives Democrats a pass for supposed "offenses" worse than the Republicans he persecutes.

He began with politicians and staff who supported the FMA, but focued only on Republicans. And now "outable" offenses are apparently whatever he defines them to be.

It is a special brand of irony for him to talk about "self-loathing gays" and so forth when his entire schtick is built on trying to embarrass people about something that is not supposed to be a source of shame: sexual orientation. If you're "outing" someone who is already "out," then it is just perseuction. It implies that being closeted is not the issue, but that it is the orientation itself that must be held up for ridiculue and scorn.

I think any rational person would question where all of this is going -- what the "end game" is. Because while he grasps at straws to expose others' dirty laundry – Jeff Berkowitz's "offense" was registering Republican voters?? – Rogers has a pretty unsavory past of his own. He needs to give this "mutual assured destruction" thing a rest, because eventually he himself might fall victim to it.

Then again, I'm surprised that a lot of this stuff about him hasn't come out yet. I suppose it just means that the rest of us are more decent as human beings than he and his toadies are. Admittedly, that isn't a hard hurdle to clear.

[Dan]

Not that I'm agreeing with Mike's tactics, Mal, but I think you're a little off base in describing his motivations. I don't think he means to imply there's any shame at all in being gay. That's why he talks freely about it. The purpose of outing closeted/pseudo-closeted individuals is two-fold. One - to show those people that active oppose the 'gay agenda' that we really are everywhere... even on their side of the fence. Two - to reveal the hypocrisy of somebody who makes a living by endangering the well-being of his own community.

Again, I'm not saying I support his tactics. This all seems a bit tabloidy/trashy to me. But I don't think it makes sense for you to say that this is representative of any kind of internalized self-hated on Mike's part.

[Robbie]

Apparently it is hypocrisy (and against the gay agenda) for a gay man to oppose allowing an organization with past and potential links to pedophilia into the UN.

Uhm. Can I stop being a gay man now? Can I call myself something else? I don't want to be "with" these people anymore.

[GayCowboyBob]

Robbie, NAMBLA was voted out of ILGA in 1994 by a vote of 214-30. They've had no further connections that I know of. Do you know of further connections? They have a long standing resolution since their dissolution with NAMBLA that the worldwide age of consent is 18. This past association with NAMBLA is pretext for exclusion.

Many congressional leaders have some unsavory history. Or how about, as an example, someone was a former drunk and cocaine user. Does that exclude them from, oh I don't know, becoming President if they've cleaned up their act? If we all had to exclude ourselves from past associations that we no realize may not have been the right thing, I think we'd have a lot of people unable to do anything in this country.

And seeing how countries like Iran are treating gay men and women we should have a tougher standard, not a softer one. GayPatriot ascribes the current persecution of gay men and women in Iran to the policies of Jimmy Carter. But if President Bush's administration does nothing to foster better policies and in fact makes ties with countries to further weaken human rights intervention, why do people who work for the administration get treated with kid gloves? If they happened to live in Iran, they would be dead, not publicly outed.

[Robbie]

GCB - It's about their current membership, which is apparently a mystery, because they ain't telling.

They're basically asking the UN to take their membership on faith. They don't get to do that given their past ties.

[Malcontent]

Dan: Who the fuck is Mike Rogers to decide who is or isn't a hypocrite and what is or isn't "endangering the well-being of his own community," as you ham-fistedly put it?

The common thread running through all of Mike's "reporting" for the last several months has been that if you are gay, and you are Republican, he is going to print your email address and/or phone numebr and encourage people to harass you. Period. It has nothing to do with how out you are. It has nothing to do with what you do to or for "the community."

I'm with Robbie: I want no part of the "community," as it is defined by Mike Rogers. He is free to go and create his own misanthropic minority-within-a-minority, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be exposed along his dark, twisted path for the menace he is.

[Malcontent]

NAMBLA was voted out of ILGA in 1994 by a vote of 214-30.

There are 30 people in the voting body of IGLA who support NAMBLA?! That the vote was even that close shows that there is a big problem within that organization. Unless their next vote was to turn around and vote those 30 people out of the group.

[GayCowboyBob]

Robbie, so how is they aren't telling about their current membership? I guess I'm trying to get to the heart of what you're saying. Where is this coming from? Who is saying that this is so? Do other organizations have to go through the same vetting process to ensure that their membership has no unsavory characters lurking about? If they have an official dissolution between the organizations, nearly 10 years running, with official policy that the general worldwide age of consent is 18, what more is it that they're supposed to offer as proof? Would giving out their private membership roles be enough or would a new level of confirmation be required?

The Republican party must have members who are white supremacists, bigots, mysogynists, hookers, drug users and dealers, pedophiles etc. So must the Democrats. Every organization has members that don't quite fit the model. But do we require these organizations to make official policies divesting those practices and actively requiring these organizations to seek out and remove such members as official policy before they're vetted to be involved in national politics?

Why is it different for a gay organization?

[GayCowboyBob]

Also, why is it that countries like China etc. who have some of the worst CURRENT human rights records in the world are allowed to serve on these committees and a gay organization that divested itself of the association that so many took issue with nearly 10 years ago is still on trial for its principles? How many more young men in Iran and other countries have to die before groups that want to help are actually allowed to have a say?

So many conservative say how against the "Islamofascism" that we're supposed to be out in the world dealing with. This is a central cause in the practices though, routing out and killing off gay men and women. It's obvious that the UN commission that is supposed to be doing something about it is actually controlled by the countries that want the world to ignore the issue. What should be done then?

[GayCowboyBob]

And why is ILGA a consulting member to the European Union commission but denied that same access in the UN to a commission run by countries that are worse offenders?

[Malcontent]

Also, why is it that countries like China etc. who have some of the worst CURRENT human rights records in the world are allowed to serve on these committees and a gay organization that divested itself of the association that so many took issue with nearly 10 years ago is still on trial for its principles?

GCB, you're mixing apples and oranges. The NGO Committee has NGOs as members, not countries.

[Robbie]

GCB - The thrust of the argument, as far as my understanding goes, is that the ILGA will not proffer a list of member organizations to the U.N. They have their reasons, and voting entities have said, "Fine. Don't tell us, don't expect acceptance." The ILGA wants to be taken at their word. Given their past associations, they do not have that luxury.

And then there's Mal's point. Who the hell were the 30 members voting to keep NAMBLA? Are they still in the ILGA? Also, how awful was it that they needed to be told that having NAMBLA as a member was not a good thing?

I agree that having an NGO devoted to gay rights, especially against forms of murderous oppression around the world, would be a very good thing. Does it have to be the ILGA? Can't we get anyone else? Can't we do way better than these people?

[GayCowboyBob]

Should have made that clearer.

The question stands two-fold then: why do you side with ECOSOC countries with current, significant negative human rights abuses over the reapplication of ILGA to the NGO group and why are you defending this committee, comprised of countries with current, significant negative human rights abuses, about this denial of application over associations that were divested over 10 years ago?

Does the committee know of associations they suppose inherent with ILGA, or is it simply a red herring to continue denying their reapplication? If they show their contributing associations, what's to say the ECOSOC committtee won't insist on an additional level of vetting process? Also, do other organizations have to divulge associations with other groups in a similar way? And in the end, what are the countries on the ECOSOC committee doing to curb the execution of gay men and women within their very own jurisdicition, and if it's nothing, why are we giving them ANY kind of due consideration for their denial? When they do not make a commitment to stem the execution in their own countries why do they not immediately lose good-faith jurisdiction over the application process altogether?

[Malcontent]

I'm not about to explain the UN, but I think it is far off topic, the topic being that Mike Rogers is a nasty, miserable prick who deserves a taste of his own bitter medicine.

[GayCowboyBob]

Robbie, I'm sorry but it all sounds a sorry excuse to continue denying reapplication of the organization. I don't buy this "guilty until proven innocent" business especially when countries denying the application are some of the worst human rights offenders.

There is a process that must occur for an organization to even be considered. Why must they then jump through more hoops than any other organization? Why is it that they're not even given a hearing but summarily dismissed outright at the behest of the Egyptian delegation and Organization of Islamic Conferences? Countries voting for this summary dismissal include Cameroon, China, Cuba, Iran, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Senegal, Sudan, United States of America and Zimbabwe, and as we know some of these countries have horrible human right records and the worst gay human rights on record. The fox is not only in the henhouse, he holds the keys as well.

[GayCowboyBob]

We have the US delegation, led by Mr. Bolten, that, along with other delegations, is summarily denying application of a gay rights advocacy group to the ECOSOC, siding with countries like Iran who regularly execute gay men for homosexual practice over a possible red herring issue.

Granted we don't know what Mr. Bolten's assistant, a gay man, we do not know his private perspective on this matter. But he continues to receive a nice cushy salary, hasn't made any public statements against the policy of his employer and continues to do his daily responsibilities before and after this hearing occured. Using the basis for the denial of ILGA to the NGO group, he's kind of guilty by association, no? Why then are you criticizing the person who is pointing this out? Why are you calling Mike Rogers a horrible person for calling out someone who by all rights supports a horrible policy? The double standard is glaring.

[Scott]

Has anyone stopped to think that maybe the ILGA isn't releasing all of its international members because in some countries the members would be persecuted for being gay and a part of the ILGA?

[Robbie]

GCB - Your entire defense seems to be, "There are other bad people at the UN, too!" I will not deny that at all. There are a lot of awful governments attached the organization, and instances where countries like the Sudan end up on human rights panel would be hilarious parody if it weren't such an offensive violation of common sense and simple human dignity.

But, "They're bad, too," is never a defense against close examination of an organization that once had issues with pedophilia, and to this day will not be 100% open.

You want it to be A. or B. "You're with the gay group or you're with countries like Iran." I'm for option C. I loathe Iran, and I think we need someone better than the ILGA to represent our interests.

Scott - Yes, that is some of their rationale, and I do sympathize with that aspect of it. But that is not all of it, and they need to be far more open than they are given their past.

[Jamie]

But he continues to receive a nice cushy salary, hasn't made any public statements against the policy of his employer and continues to do his daily responsibilities before and after this hearing occured.

That's because Federal Employees keep their opinions at home if they want to keep their jobs. Not exactly fair to hold that against the man. Sometimes we have to swallow our pride, no?

Has anyone stopped to think that maybe the ILGA isn't releasing all of its international members because in some countries the members would be persecuted for being gay and a part of the ILGA?

Very good point.

[Dan]

The whole IGLA/pedo thing is clearly a red herring. A vast majority of UN representatives felt IGLA had the right to membership, and I'm willing to bet they've investigated this little issue more thoroughly than we have.

Moving onto Mal's central point - all mike rogers did was say the guy was gay. That's it. No big deal. I fail to see why this is such a heinous crime. To a certain degree I can sympathize with your point of view. He should have the right to keep his personal life private. Who he dates should be none of the public's business. And I too would have an issue if this article got into the nitty-gritty of who he was dating, which leather bars he frequented, etc etc. That's getting far too personal. But all Mike said was: "he's gay." That's it. It should be no different than if I pointed to my boss and said "you're straight." No big deal. Technically it delves into a very personal aspect of her life, but so long as the conversation stops there most people wouldn't have a problem with it. The same should apply if I pointed to you and said "you're gay." By getting so uppity about the actions of people like Mike Rogers, you're implying there's an issue here. There isn't. It's just some hack blogger making a minor stink. Whoopdefuckingdoo.

[Tommy]

If ILGA, disbanded and reformed without NAMBLA and NAMBLA sympathizers, would that matter?

I am sure not to the people who will only ever associate homosexuality with pedophilia (either because they beleive it or because it is politically useful).

Also, I seem to remember the PLO being an NGO for years, dispite being having a history as a terrorist organization.

[Robbie]

I dunno about you, but I wouldn't want any organization with even a smidgeon of a taint of pedophilia representing me anywhere. We've enough trouble with that issue as it is without giving opponents that kind of ammunition.

Simply put, if we're going to have an NGO representing us, we should find one worthier and completely clear of that kind of controversy.

Just because they're a gay organization shouldn't mean they're deserving of automatic defense. The ILGA stuff is a very "Us vs Them" reaction, when the likelier common sensical reaction would be "To hell with them both." Defending bad tactics and bad organizations when we could do a hell of a lot better is a major problem with gay rights supporters.

[GayCowboyBob]

But, "They're bad, too," is never a defense against close examination of an organization that once had issues with pedophilia, and to this day will not be 100% open.

ILGA specifically divested themselves of NAMBLA over 10 years ago and adopted an organizational policy of 18 years old as the world-wide age of consent. But if you survey countries around the world, you'll see countries with regional laws allowing age of consent as young as 13 and 14 including some states like Missouri and South Carolina. ILGA did the right thing in 1994 but they're still being persecuted to this day for it. Do you have reason to believe they are hiding pro-pedophilia groups within their ranks? Or as Scott prompted above, could there be other extenuating and important reasons to keep these associations privy?

And when the issue comes down to gay men and women running the risk of execution due to delegations of countries allowing the executions but denying application of advocacy groups for these gay men and women, who do you think has more of a credibility gap to contend with? The point comes down to taking a stand with one side or the other's credibility. Do you trust Iran and China to protect the rights and, more importantly, the lives of gay men and women or do you trust ILGA?

That's because Federal Employees keep their opinions at home if they want to keep their jobs. Not exactly fair to hold that against the man. Sometimes we have to swallow our pride, no?

Someone of his level I'm sure could make as much or more in the corporate world with a company that has company policy issues he could be proud of. Someone of his level could also shift to another area of government where they do important work that agrees with their value system. But he stays on staff with Bolten? Why? And why are we according such privacy to someone part of the UN delegation and reversing that standard for groups applying for NGO status? Why is the confidentiality of his sexuality to be protected and the sexual advocacy of ILGA part of public scrutiny if they are both acting on behalf of the public? If this Richard Grenell lived in Iran for example, it is part of the culture that his sexuality could be ferreted out and he would be executed. Why isn't that being acted on instead of allowing some of the worst human rights abusers delegations to the UN to summarily deny the application of gay rights advocacy groups?