03/28/2006
Do scientists have an AIDS prevention pill? Thomas Folks, head of the HIV research lab at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: "This is the first thing I've seen at this point that I think really could have a prevention impact. If it works, it could be distributed quickly and could blunt the epidemic."
Sean Penn has an Ann Coulter torture doll: "We violate her. There are cigarette burns in some funny places. She's a pure snake-oil salesman. She doesn't believe a word she says."
In the biggest non-upset of the year, Brokeback Mountain takes top honors at the GLAAD awards. The Malcontent has Rufus Wainwright's new video "The Maker Makes" off the BBM soundtrack, with commentary from RW.
And some news about the Jack Twist truck for sale on eBay. The seller is a high school student, Matthew Kennedy, who bought the truck at a sale of vehicles from the movie and plans to use the proceeds to pay for college.
Reports from the Santino Rice yard sale: "Couldn't have been a nicer guy. Totally warm and approachable and absolutely nothing like he was portrayed on Project Runway. And the Tim Gunn impression is even better in person."
A preview of The Down-Low Exposed which airs tonight on BET: "Supposedly, this is 'a probing look into the world of men with wives or girlfriends who also secretly engage in sex with other men.' We're not sure that this will be adequately addressed. Instead, some reviews, like today's Hollywood Reporter, have noticed the hype: 'If there are any official statistics or research on the phenomenon, you won't find it in this.'"
Ethan Hawke's Hottest State office gets really, really hot.
Posted 9:38 AM EST by Andy Towle in Elsewhere | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
So Sean Penn who makes a living pretending to be other people claims Coulter "doesn't believe a word she says"?
Keep bailing, asshat.
Posted by: Tom | Mar 28, 2006 10:59:56 AM
BBM/I noticed a lot of comments (here/press/video/a.s.o about J.Gyllenhall and almost nothing about H.Ledger.Just wonder why.
Posted by: Pierre (from Paris.France) | Mar 28, 2006 11:22:12 AM
Tom, you'd have first-hand knowledge of pretending to be someone else, now, wouldn't you? Or are you out and proud to be gay?
Didn't think so.
Posted by: Tread | Mar 28, 2006 1:05:36 PM
Oh please, Tread not the "self-loathing card" again! Anything but that!
Posted by: Tom | Mar 28, 2006 1:40:55 PM
Oh, Tom, not the self-loathing life again. Anything but that.
As for the WOCP [Whore Organization in Coors' Pocket] Awards, it's ironic that Michael Douglas was one of the presenters. I ran across an old article about BBM's predecessor "Making Love," which said that Douglas was one of the actors who turned it down, as was Harrison Ford.
Lee's comment about a gay award symbolizing "coming home" to him was perfect and touching. For all the bum raps [no pun intended] he and other straight members of the production team have gotten, the fact remains that a straight director—not a gay director—created the best gay-themed film to date, and it, I repeat has done more for our progress in four months than WOCP/GLAAD, HRC, and NGLTF combined have done for us in a decade or more.
Posted by: Leland | Mar 28, 2006 2:06:24 PM
My how the Gay Mullahs love the sound of their own voices!
Posted by: Tom | Mar 28, 2006 2:48:07 PM
Tom, tell us what the real American mullahs -- the self-righteous, gay-hating Christian right say when you post on their blogs, and ask for forgiveness...that must sound good to you...
And Leland, you obviously have no idea what NGLTF, HRC and GLAAD have been doing over the last THIRTY years inside of the community you hold in such contempt, like when Alzheimer Reagan and the first gay-hating Bush refused to even say the word AIDS and let tens of thousands die of neglect. So don't show your ass off here. Just because you don't know, doesn't mean they didn't make it happen.
What a stupid thing to say, one movie did in two months what 30 years of activism didn't. How stupid, right on the face of it. How breathtakingly stupid. Next you'll be saying the TV show "Julia" had everything to do with the Voting Rights Act.
Posted by: Brian NYC | Mar 28, 2006 2:59:39 PM
"So Sean Penn who makes a living pretending to be other people claims Coulter "doesn't believe a word she says"?"
He's an actor, that's his job. At least he's not pretending to be president or gay.
Speaking of Coulter, she said she didn't believe that Pat Tillman was a democrat and that he didn't support the war. She accused his parents of lying about that. Talk about a lack of credibility.
Posted by: Chad Hanging | Mar 28, 2006 8:35:14 PM
Brokeback Mountain 1950 GMC Half-ton
Current bid: US $15,600.00
End time: Mar-30-06 20:06:05 PST Sells to: Canada, United States
Item location: Pincher Creek, AB, Canada
History: 11 bids
High bidder: robfreeman22924 ( 8 )
Posted by: Jay Croce | Mar 28, 2006 9:26:01 PM
First, Brian, mon cher, I’m sure I’m stupid in many ways, but, technically, only NGLTF chronologically fits in your diatribe, as, having begun in 1973, it is the only one of the three groups that has been around “30 years.”
And, yes, I feel a bit qualified to comment on their recent accomplishments, or lack of same, given that I knew and stayed in the home of NGLTF founder Bruce Voeller before they added the L; knew and housed on a trip GLAAD cofounder [1985] Vito Russo [that reminds me, where IS that audio tape he gave me of Bette singing at the Continental Baths? Do you have it, Brian?]; and worked with HRC[F] founder [1980] Steve Endean during the Anita Bryant campaign in Miami [for la record, 1977] and in DC pre-HRCF. None were close friends, but with such personal knowledge of their aspirations and accomplishments, I’m confidant they are spinning in their graves over what their heirs have done to their creations.
In fact, I’m surprised Vito, Arnie Kantrowitz, Arthur Bell, and Darrel Yates Rist didn’t climb out of theirs and set fire to Joan Garry’s bull dagger suits when [1998] she first sold GLAAD’s soul to Coors for $110,000—the company whose profits, despite its current hard won gay-friendly employee policies, went/and go to funding the gay movement’s most rabid and powerful enemies. They smile fuck you while paying you to make their beer, then stab you in the back with the money made from peddling it. [Google “Castle Rock Foundation” (which they claim to no longer fund) and “Heritage Foundation.”] Her Republican [huh?] successor has only increased the size and number of places Coors is stamped on GLAAD’s ass.
The irony, of course, is that an organization with GLAAD’s mission would be far less needed if the Coors Reich [save for gay Dallas Coors who helped found HRCF] had not helped create the antigay industry. For nearly 10 years, GLAAD has been feeding the hand that bites us [sic], and there is no evidence that there “education” campaign with Coors has succeeded in nearly 10 years of pimping for them. [Google Pete Coors’ 2004 Senate campaign; see buyblue.org for campaign contributions.]
And, the Coors issue aside, how well has the group that once intimidated the entertainment industry succeeded the last several years? They have perfected straight celebrity rim jobs, but arrived quelle late to the Dr. Laura boycott; ABC would not even let them preview the “20/20” smear of Matthew Shepard, and ignored their subsequent protestations; and there was no notice before on their site nor has there been any since on “60 Minutes” recent valentine to the dubious research and intentions of Michael Bailey on “gender nonconformity.” And they repeatedly [but unintentionally] write their own failing report cards in the form of publishing numbers on the paucity of positive LGBT characters in film and TV. If your stock broker came back cycle after cycle reporting net loss, would you keep giving him money?
But raising money is what they do best—simply for their own perpetuation, a culture that drove Shepard friend Romaine Patterson to resign. But they are amateurs compared to HRC, who confuse raising buckets of money with raising consciousness of voters and legislators—their charter as I recall. Take just one issue, gay marriage. Nineteen states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage; forty-three states have statutes defining marriage to two persons of the opposite-sex; and some states ban any legal recognition of any kind [e.g., domestic partners] of same-sex unions. Gays and lesbians sent millions of dollars to HRC and all they got is a T-shirt—or watch or picture frame or mug or jewelry or sweat shirt or CD or bumper sticker or hat or Radko ornament or any of the dozens of other things HRC sells. Perhaps they should concentrate more on selling the idea of our equality to the American people or replaced their yellow equal sign with a purple dollar sign. And, oh yes, there’s that little thing about their latest leader having worked for the election of someone who opposed gay rights because she supported the mission of his then employers, women’s right to choose.
NGLTF, after several bumpy years with patently incompetent leadership is, of the three, the organization that I have the most hope for. Matt Foreman has a serious GAY activist background, and seems to understand that raising money is a means to an end not an end in itself.
Now, as for my statement about the much greater contribution by “Brokeback Mountain,” test it for yourself. Pick 20 gays at random and ask how many even know what those three acronyms stand for. Then ask them if they’ve ever heard of “Brokeback Mountain.” More importantly, do the same with 20 straights, or just 10 members of your family or people you work with. In four months, the movie has succeeded in getting millions of Americans talking about gay rights that were never even grazed by a gay group, many in “open” ways they never have before. The three groups have spent most of their time REACTING to positions posited publicly by the extremists, and, as evidenced by the state of legal recognition of gay relationship alone, have, so far, lost the debate.
Google Hits:
“National Gay and Lesbian Task Force”—377,000
GLAAD—1,230,000
“Human Rights Campaign”—1,570,000
“Brokeback Mountain”—38,2000,000
Finally, one could hardly imagine “Julia” assisting in the 1965 passage of the Voting Rights Act, given that its first episode was in 1968.
Posted by: Leland | Mar 28, 2006 10:55:45 PM
leland - I'd like to understand your viewpoint, but really - I only have a limited amount of time for blog reading. It's evident that this blog means a great deal to you but are you writing to reach others or just to see yourself in print?
btw - do you have your own blog? not a cut or criticism here, just sincerely curious -
Posted by: resurrect | Mar 28, 2006 11:30:03 PM
Leland, because your original post was such an oversimplification of history, I thought it was another troll post from a wingnut trying to say it would be better to join the Republican Party than any gay group, be it NGLTF or ACT-UP or whatever. The trolls have been posting like that, and your post read like that.
But it's still a gross misstatement to say that a movie did more than the three specific organizations you named, and only them. You're arguing another point in your second post...that there was never a leadership with integrity, or smarts, or the magic bullet that would have turned back the exploitation of homosexual panic that the right-wing used so effectively. I could tell that was true in 1973, and it never did change.
I'm saying that the context for people to come out, to form families, to demand not to be stereotyped, did more for the quality of life for gay people in this country than "Brokeback Mountain" did. There would be no context to interpret what's in the movie if it weren't for people coming out in the last thirty years, and I do date that from the Task Force's establishment, because it operated from a mainstream political and civil rights model, made for a whole diverse community of people to come out, whereas Mattachine was made for people who might not ever come out, and Gay Activists Alliance was a radical student group. I was at the Task Force offices too, when it was just Bruce, Tom, Nath, Ron, and Evan gophering and running the Gestetner machine.
Whether the Saviour is born yet is also the question the black community asks. That's another issue. But whether there was ever even one gay person who lead a gay organization the right way and won over a country that still believes, by and large, the ugliest stereotypes about every minority...the gay "movement" caused people to come out, and that happened since the 1970s, not since the release of "Brokeback Mountain." In six or eight months, what will be the impact of "Brokeback Mountain?" I'm guessing the same as "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner." In just the same way, I don't think "Syriana" or "Good Night and Good luck" or even "Fahrenheit 9/11" changed the mind of America as the polls about Bush and the war indicate.
Again, it was hard to tell your post from the trolls that post here in order to sow hopelessness and confusion about the truth. So I had to flame you back. Sorry. I see you were calling out specifically three groups now that you've posted again.
Posted by: Brian NYC | Mar 29, 2006 6:34:42 AM
>>I think really could have a prevention impact. If it works, it could be distributed quickly and could blunt the epidemic."
Some AIDS researchers are afraid that an AIDS prevention pill could encourage promiscuous behaviour, and cause the number of STD cases to skyrocket. Of course, since an effective dose of the pill is projected to cost more than $1000.00 per month, not many people will be using the pill anyway.
If this pill gets approved for sale, and it's as expensive as they expect, I predict a staggering rise in new HIV infections, caused by people who bought BOGUS pills, and then went out and screwed everything in sight.
Every silver lining has a bit of tarnish.
Posted by: Jay Croce | Mar 29, 2006 8:50:34 PM
Hey Andy,
Can you please take the time to learn more about HIV and AIDS? Contrary to popular believe, the two terms are not synonymous with each other. By interchanging them so easily, you (and the rest of the media) keep perpetuating the stereotype that follow people who have HIV (and NOT AIDS).
The pill combination in question is an attempt at blocking the contraction of HIV.
HIV is Human Immunodeficiency Virus. AIDS is Acquired ImmunoDeficiency Syndrome. AIDS is simply a syndrome, not a virus or a disease. It's defined by the CDC as one who has suffered several opportunistic infections and has certain values of the T-cells and Viral Load.
I thought you would know better. You look extremely uneducated when you use AIDS in place of HIV.
Thanks.
Posted by: AIDS IS NOT HIV | Mar 30, 2006 2:55:53 AM
Andy, the two posts above by Jay and AINH -- sorry, I can't even bring myself to type it out because it spits in the face of all our lost loved ones -- are more deceptive and destructive than the much more popular Busta Rhymes thread.
We have one deluded person, AINH, and one wingnut who takes the unhinged Christian right position that any drug advance in battling AIDS, or curbing HPV, the virus that causes cervical cancer, and even any kind of contraception is to be rejected because it will result in more sex.
That kind of twisted thinking is more perverse and hateful than any dropping of the N-bomb.
Posted by: Brian NYC | Mar 30, 2006 6:46:20 AM
So here you go..."Some AIDS researchers" turns out to be the Family Research Council! Agititating against any advance against deadly sexually transmitted diseases to control sex.
This from the Nation Magazine.
Virginity or Death!
[from the May 30, 2005 issue]
Imagine a vaccine that would protect women from a serious gynecological cancer. Wouldn't that be great? Well, both Merck and GlaxoSmithKline recently announced that they have conducted successful trials of vaccines that protect against the human papilloma virus. HPV is not only an incredibly widespread sexually transmitted infection but is responsible for at least 70 percent of cases of cervical cancer, which is diagnosed in 10,000 American women a year and kills 4,000. Wonderful, you are probably thinking, all we need to do is vaccinate girls (and boys too for good measure) before they become sexually active, around puberty, and HPV--and, in thirty or forty years, seven in ten cases of cervical cancer--goes poof. Not so fast: We're living in God's country now. The Christian right doesn't like the sound of this vaccine at all. "Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful," Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council told the British magazine New Scientist, "because they may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex." Raise your hand if you think that what is keeping girls virgins now is the threat of getting cervical cancer when they are 60 from a disease they've probably never heard of.
I remember when people rolled their eyeballs if you suggested that opposition to abortion was less about "life" than about sex, especially sex for women. You have to admit that thesis is looking pretty solid these days. No matter what the consequences of sex--pregnancy, disease, death--abstinence for singles is the only answer. Just as it's better for gays to get AIDS than use condoms, it's better for a woman to get cancer than have sex before marriage. It's honor killing on the installment plan.
Christian conservatives have a special reason to be less than thrilled about the HPV vaccine. Although not as famous as chlamydia or herpes, HPV has the distinction of not being preventable by condoms. It's Exhibit A in those gory high school slide shows that try to scare kids away from sex, and it is also useful for undermining the case for rubbers generally--why bother when you could get HPV anyway? In 2000, Congressman (now Senator) Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who used to give gruesome lectures on HPV for young Congressional aides, even used HPV to propose warning labels on condoms. With HPV potentially eliminated, the antisex brigade will lose a card it has regarded as a trump unless it can persuade parents that vaccinating their daughters will turn them into tramps, and that sex today is worse than cancer tomorrow. According to New Scientist, 80 percent of parents want the vaccine for their daughters--but their priests and pastors haven't worked them over yet.
Posted by: brian nyc | Mar 30, 2006 7:09:20 AM
Hey Brian,
News flash. I'm HIV-positive. I've had an undetectable viral load and a very healthy amount of t-cells for over five years now.
And another news flash: My comment is reality. Talk to any scientist, researcher, physician, etc. The first thing you learn in this life is that there IS a difference. And it's not a semantic difference as you want it to be, it's a VERY BIG difference.
My point in asking Andy to learn the difference is not because I want to downplay HIV and protection. Everyone knows scare tactics don't work any better than education: see Iraq, terrorism. (I know, far leap, please indulge me.)
Just because HIV can be successfully maintained/held at bay with medication (sometimes only one or two pills a day -- I'm on 3 a day), it doesn't mean we should lower our guard in the fight to stop the epidemic.
I just want people to be educated. People should realize that HIV isn't a death sentence. And people should realize there is more to HIV than a "cocktail" (30 pills?) and AIDS.
There is something to be said about giving out CORRECT information, that's all. Perpetuating false information is bad, very bad.
Posted by: AIDS IS NOT HIV | Mar 30, 2006 8:41:33 AM