Black Box Report

The AIDS crisis in America - and make no mistake, despite a nation's lack of interest it is STILL a crisis - got as bad as it did because people who were in a position to do something about it (those who weren't inherantly homophobic to begin with, anyway) were either in denial over the severity of the problem, or lacked the courage to do what was necessary. With that in mind, given that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed legislation in California that would provide its inmates with condoms from non-profit health agencies - and the state of California wouldn't have to pay a dime - it's not "unreasonable" to think some denial might be involved:

What part of free-condoms-to-inmates didn't Schwarzenegger understand?...Maybe it's like the abstinence people who fight against condoms in high school - despite evidence to the contrary, they think giving kids condoms will encourage them to have sex.

But Schwarzenegger at least acknowledges that sex - consensual and non - happens in prison, whether it's legal or not, calling the distribution of condoms "not an unreasonable public policy." Which makes his veto all the more confounding. By vetoing the bill, he admits he's being unreasonable. People will pay a price for his lack of courage, and not just the prisoners:

These inmates, once released are practically ticking time bombs. Once they return to society, even if they straighten up their life or not, will continue to engage in sexual activity, being human and all. This makes those inmates further potential threats to society because of the disease they are carrying inside.

Perhaps sensing the illogic of his inaction, Schwarzenegger will run a test program at a single California prison to determine the program's effectiveness. Hooray! Another Blue Ribbon Panel to tell us what we already knew:

The pilot distribution program will confirm what we already know as well as what people have been saying for a long time, "Handing out condoms to their inmates is essential to protect their lives and health of California’s inmates, and of the communities to which they return". Thus, I think that vetoing the bill is a waste of taxpayers money, time and investment as well as has endangered the health of his fellow Californians ; Governor Schwarzenegger should carefully rethink what the impacts will have on his fellow Californians if necessary action is not taken quickly.

They say evil prevails when good men fail to act. Thanks for nothing, Arnold.

Speaking of which...On the campaign trail, a different kind of political cowardice.

Obama Campaign Has Yet To Distance Itself From Antigay Singer At Obama Event

When Obama's campaign said he would defy conventional wisdom and be a consensus builder, I don't think anyone thought this is what he was talking about:

Obama has hitched his string to McClurkin's high flying gay bash kite in part out of religious belief (he purports to be somewhat of an evangelical), in bigger part because he's falling further and further behind Hillary Clinton with the black vote in South Carolina and everywhere else, and in the biggest part of all because he hopes that what worked for Bush's reelection will work for him.

As famous for his ridiculous claims to be able to pray the gay away as he is for his gospel singing, Donnie McClurkin was last seen in the political world helping George W. Bush pander to the anti-gay crowd at the 2004 Republican Convention. Obama says he disagrees with McClurkin's views, but abhorrent views or not, he's barnstorming throught South Carolina with him anyway. Not surprisingly, John Aravosis calls that a huge mistake:

You strongly disagree with the bigot who thinks I need to be cured, and who has declared "war" on me and my people, but you're going to put the guy on stage with you anyway in order to make a few bucks. Nice. I wonder what Obama would say if Hillary invited David Duke to speak at an event but then said, not to worry, she really loves black people - kisses!

If you're afraid to lead, Senator, then maybe you're not the leader we thought you were.

I acknowledge that any political newcomer is going to have to pull out all the stops to make headway against the Clinton machine, but this is one stop that could have stayed in. Couldn't Obama find another popular black gospel singer who wasn't...y'know...crazy? I understand that appealing to religious voters is not a bad thing, and that some religious voters are quietly - and many not-so-quietly - anti-gay. But what about avoiding this easily forseeable bump in the road? Or, forget about avoiding it, what about taking the opportunity to make the most of it and denounce McClurkin's nuttiness? Granted, it's a tall order, and perhaps the political dividends are not worth pissing off South Carolinian religious types. But as Pam Spaulding points out, if not Obama, who?

For Obama to have to take on the entire mantle of addressing the anti-gay rhetoric promoted by the likes of McClurkin and his supporters is a lot to ask, but there are going to be precious few voices in the black community who are going to be willing to call out McClurkin on his bigotry and ex-gay misinformation and do something about it.

Finally, some of Obamas defenders think this is all much ado about nothing:

As far as I know, no one has suggested that Obama has compromised any of his own beliefs in order to get McClurkin to appear at his rally. Instead, he's being tarnished by guilt-by-association. This is the exact thing that people accused Clinton of doing when she suggested it was "naive" of Obama to suggest he'd meet with leaders hostile to the United States.

Fair enough, except I'd point out the difference between meeting Kim Jong Il as an acknowledged adversary and singing a duet with him at your own fundraiser.