After three months of silence on her web site, Streisand is back to posting messages!
Frankly, I don't understand why she is posting so little these days, especially when she clearly has lots of political points to make.
Doesn't she know her audiences, I mean, those who adore her work as an actress and chanteuse, and the people who admire her Democratic-leaning politics, want her to make statements like this more ofter?
I really must rent the "Meet the Fockers" DVD after the SF international film festival ends and enjoy Streisand's comedic talents on the little screen.
^^^
http://barbrastreisand.com/statements.html#acountrycontrolledbyfear
A Country Controlled by Fear By Barbra Streisand
Posted on April 28, 2005
America was profoundly changed after the September 11 attacks. We went from a country motivated by hope to a country controlled by fear. For the last several years, feeling neither safe nor secure, Americans have lived in extreme anxiety of another impending terrorist attack. I think that as a result, most Americans sought out their faith and reaffirmed their conviction in God.
[snip]
Reports, proud muckraking, photos, videos and musings from the veteran LGBT and AIDS human rights advocate Michael Petrelis. Based in San Francisco since 1995. Contact: MPetrelis_at_AOL_dot_com. Vote Petrelis for BART Board District 9 in November!
Pages
▼
Saturday, April 30, 2005
Thursday, April 28, 2005
As gay groups and activists debate how best to punish Microsoft for its recent withdrawal of support for Washington State's gay rights bill that was defeated, I've been looking at the political money trail for the corporate giant's executives and the Microsoft PAC.
The Open Secrets web site has a superb detailed breakdown of Microsoft PAC donations to Presidential, Senatorial and House candidates in the 2004 election cycle. The watchdog site says their list is based on "data released by the FEC on Monday, March 28, 2005. Figures in parentheses denote negative numbers, and may indicate returned contributions or bounced checks."
Here's what most interested me.
In the race for the White House, the Microsoft PAC gave $5,000 to George W. Bush and nothing to John F. Kerry.
Some gay members of the House received money from the PAC, including David Drier, R-CA, $2,500; Mark Foley, R-FL, $2,000; Barney Frank, D-MA, $1,000; Jim Kolbe, R-AZ, $6,000; and Jim McCrery, R-LA, $2,000. Our one lesbian House member, Tammy Baldwin, R-WI, got nothing from the PAC, while beleaguered Tom DeLay, R-TX, accepted $10,000 from the committee.
For all of the races at all three levels, the Microsoft PAC gave more to Republican candidates than Democratic ones.
Total donations to GOP White House candidates equaled $5,000 and zero for Democrats. In the Senate, GOP contenders took in $111,500, versus $99,500 for Democrats, and in the House, the PAC gave Republicans $423,000 and just $363,700 to their opponents. (Source: http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.asp?strID=C00227546&Cycle=2004 )
If you're curious about following the Microsoft political money trail, you've must read Scott Bekker's long and fabulous article in the October 2004 issue of Redmondmag.com, which declares itself the independent voice of the Microsoft IT community at http://redmondmag.com/features/article.asp?EditorialsID=440#emp .
Please do want you can to make others aware of the Open Secrets information and the magazine article.
The Open Secrets web site has a superb detailed breakdown of Microsoft PAC donations to Presidential, Senatorial and House candidates in the 2004 election cycle. The watchdog site says their list is based on "data released by the FEC on Monday, March 28, 2005. Figures in parentheses denote negative numbers, and may indicate returned contributions or bounced checks."
Here's what most interested me.
In the race for the White House, the Microsoft PAC gave $5,000 to George W. Bush and nothing to John F. Kerry.
Some gay members of the House received money from the PAC, including David Drier, R-CA, $2,500; Mark Foley, R-FL, $2,000; Barney Frank, D-MA, $1,000; Jim Kolbe, R-AZ, $6,000; and Jim McCrery, R-LA, $2,000. Our one lesbian House member, Tammy Baldwin, R-WI, got nothing from the PAC, while beleaguered Tom DeLay, R-TX, accepted $10,000 from the committee.
For all of the races at all three levels, the Microsoft PAC gave more to Republican candidates than Democratic ones.
Total donations to GOP White House candidates equaled $5,000 and zero for Democrats. In the Senate, GOP contenders took in $111,500, versus $99,500 for Democrats, and in the House, the PAC gave Republicans $423,000 and just $363,700 to their opponents. (Source: http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.asp?strID=C00227546&Cycle=2004 )
If you're curious about following the Microsoft political money trail, you've must read Scott Bekker's long and fabulous article in the October 2004 issue of Redmondmag.com, which declares itself the independent voice of the Microsoft IT community at http://redmondmag.com/features/article.asp?EditorialsID=440#emp .
Please do want you can to make others aware of the Open Secrets information and the magazine article.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
April 26, 2005
Dear Friends:
In early July 2004 I filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the agency's files on President George W. Bush and I expected two things to happen.
One, someone would step forward and tell me that another activist had already filed such a request for the FBI's file on Bush.
Or two, a friend would point out a mainstream news story about a reporter's request to obtain the file.
Neither thing happened, which surprised me because I thought surely during Bush's presidency up until that point, an effort would have been made to pressure the FBI into releasing whatever documents they could, without compromising Bush's privacy or national security.
It was easy enough to locate news accounts, blog entries and assorted other information on the web about the thousands of pages from Sen. John Kerry's FBI files, both as an individual against the Vietnam war and as a leader in the Vietnam Veterans Against the War protest group, but Googling for Bush's FBI dossier produced nothing of substance.
How it could it be that during the most important election of the past half century, the supposed liberal media could devote resources, ink and airtime to the FBI files of only one of the two major contenders for the White House, and totally ignore what the agency may have on the other candidate?
To their shame, no mainstream news outlet, liberal or conservative, bothered to investigate what the FBI has in its archives on Bush or efforts to obtain his file.
Only a handful of alternative outlets wrote about my FOIA request for the Bush file. Two gay newspapers, the San Francisco Bay Times and the Dallas Voice, along with RawStory.com and Annoy.com, ran stories about his file. That's been it so far in terms of news coverage and I thought the FBI, if it ever saw fit to release any of its files on Bush to me, would do so only after he was out of the Oval Office.
I am pleased to write I was wrong.
The FBI in mid April sent me a letter explaining that it had reviewed twenty pages on Bush and they were being released to me.
In the twenty pages is information about an email threat against the president, threatening packages sent to him, letters from the U.S. Secret Service to the FBI forensic laboratory request DNA analyses and the lab's replies.
That's it, nothing more, claims the FBI. There's nothing in their correspondence to me indicating any additional pages or documents were withheld.
Does the FBI really expect me to believe that it has only twenty pages in its files on Bush? How could it be, I wonder, given his four years as president and six years as governor of Texas, not to mention the clearances he would have needed from the FBI to walk into the White House when his father was first vice president and then president, that the agency would have less than two dozen pages to release in response to a FOIA request?
There has to be more, much more, in the FBI archives on Bush, which is why I have filed an appeal to the FBI to again search its files for records on Bush, including the archives of all FBI offices in Texas.
While I wait for the FBI to process and respond to my appeal, I hope the liberal media will look into this matter and report on the incredibly slim number of pages the FBI has released from Bush's file.
In order to help reporters with this story, I've put the twenty pages from the FBI into a PDF, which is available at http://rawstory.rawprint.com/0405/bush_fbi_1 and also at http://annoy.com/editorials/doc.html?DocumentID=100707 .
I can't fathom how anyone, much less any serious reporter looking for a good story, could read those twenty pages and say the FBI has released all it has on Bush and the agency has fully complied with my FOIA request.
If I, as a single blogger activist, can force the FBI to release anything from its vaults on Bush through FOIA, imagine what an intrepid reporter, with lawyers and other resources at his or her disposal, could pry loose from the FBI.
It's time for the press to investigate and report on Bush's FBI file.
Regards,
Michael Petrelis
- -
[This letter was snail mailed to DC.]
April 25, 2005
Director
Office of Information and Privacy
U.S. Department of Justice
Flag Building, Suite 570
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Freedom of Information Appeal, FOIPA No. 1001866-00
Dear Sir or Madam:
I have received the twenty pages of documents on President George W. Bush sent to me earlier this month from the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
However, I am appealing your decision to release only twenty pages of the FBI's dossier on President Bush because I believe the Department of Justice has not been fully responsive to my Freedom of Information Act request for all of his FBI file.
Frankly, I can't accept that the FBI has only twenty pages of files on President Bush.
In my original FOIA request of July 3, 2004, I ask for the FBI's entire file on President Bush and it is my belief that the agency has more than twenty pages on him in the archives.
I don't think the FBI has adequately searched its voluminous records at headquarters in Washington, DC, and all of the field offices in Texas, especially for the years when George W. Bush was governor of the state.
Therefore, I formally request that the FBI again search all of its archives, including records held at all FBI offices in Texas, for more documents on George W. Bush and that all of the documents and files located be released to me under the provisions of FOIA.
I am requesting the President Bush FBI files for personal use and the documents will not be used for commercial purposes.
A prompt reply is requested.
Sincerely,
Michael Petrelis
132 Clinton Park, #1
San Francisco, CA 94103
Dear Friends:
In early July 2004 I filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the agency's files on President George W. Bush and I expected two things to happen.
One, someone would step forward and tell me that another activist had already filed such a request for the FBI's file on Bush.
Or two, a friend would point out a mainstream news story about a reporter's request to obtain the file.
Neither thing happened, which surprised me because I thought surely during Bush's presidency up until that point, an effort would have been made to pressure the FBI into releasing whatever documents they could, without compromising Bush's privacy or national security.
It was easy enough to locate news accounts, blog entries and assorted other information on the web about the thousands of pages from Sen. John Kerry's FBI files, both as an individual against the Vietnam war and as a leader in the Vietnam Veterans Against the War protest group, but Googling for Bush's FBI dossier produced nothing of substance.
How it could it be that during the most important election of the past half century, the supposed liberal media could devote resources, ink and airtime to the FBI files of only one of the two major contenders for the White House, and totally ignore what the agency may have on the other candidate?
To their shame, no mainstream news outlet, liberal or conservative, bothered to investigate what the FBI has in its archives on Bush or efforts to obtain his file.
Only a handful of alternative outlets wrote about my FOIA request for the Bush file. Two gay newspapers, the San Francisco Bay Times and the Dallas Voice, along with RawStory.com and Annoy.com, ran stories about his file. That's been it so far in terms of news coverage and I thought the FBI, if it ever saw fit to release any of its files on Bush to me, would do so only after he was out of the Oval Office.
I am pleased to write I was wrong.
The FBI in mid April sent me a letter explaining that it had reviewed twenty pages on Bush and they were being released to me.
In the twenty pages is information about an email threat against the president, threatening packages sent to him, letters from the U.S. Secret Service to the FBI forensic laboratory request DNA analyses and the lab's replies.
That's it, nothing more, claims the FBI. There's nothing in their correspondence to me indicating any additional pages or documents were withheld.
Does the FBI really expect me to believe that it has only twenty pages in its files on Bush? How could it be, I wonder, given his four years as president and six years as governor of Texas, not to mention the clearances he would have needed from the FBI to walk into the White House when his father was first vice president and then president, that the agency would have less than two dozen pages to release in response to a FOIA request?
There has to be more, much more, in the FBI archives on Bush, which is why I have filed an appeal to the FBI to again search its files for records on Bush, including the archives of all FBI offices in Texas.
While I wait for the FBI to process and respond to my appeal, I hope the liberal media will look into this matter and report on the incredibly slim number of pages the FBI has released from Bush's file.
In order to help reporters with this story, I've put the twenty pages from the FBI into a PDF, which is available at http://rawstory.rawprint.com/0405/bush_fbi_1 and also at http://annoy.com/editorials/doc.html?DocumentID=100707 .
I can't fathom how anyone, much less any serious reporter looking for a good story, could read those twenty pages and say the FBI has released all it has on Bush and the agency has fully complied with my FOIA request.
If I, as a single blogger activist, can force the FBI to release anything from its vaults on Bush through FOIA, imagine what an intrepid reporter, with lawyers and other resources at his or her disposal, could pry loose from the FBI.
It's time for the press to investigate and report on Bush's FBI file.
Regards,
Michael Petrelis
- -
[This letter was snail mailed to DC.]
April 25, 2005
Director
Office of Information and Privacy
U.S. Department of Justice
Flag Building, Suite 570
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Freedom of Information Appeal, FOIPA No. 1001866-00
Dear Sir or Madam:
I have received the twenty pages of documents on President George W. Bush sent to me earlier this month from the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
However, I am appealing your decision to release only twenty pages of the FBI's dossier on President Bush because I believe the Department of Justice has not been fully responsive to my Freedom of Information Act request for all of his FBI file.
Frankly, I can't accept that the FBI has only twenty pages of files on President Bush.
In my original FOIA request of July 3, 2004, I ask for the FBI's entire file on President Bush and it is my belief that the agency has more than twenty pages on him in the archives.
I don't think the FBI has adequately searched its voluminous records at headquarters in Washington, DC, and all of the field offices in Texas, especially for the years when George W. Bush was governor of the state.
Therefore, I formally request that the FBI again search all of its archives, including records held at all FBI offices in Texas, for more documents on George W. Bush and that all of the documents and files located be released to me under the provisions of FOIA.
I am requesting the President Bush FBI files for personal use and the documents will not be used for commercial purposes.
A prompt reply is requested.
Sincerely,
Michael Petrelis
132 Clinton Park, #1
San Francisco, CA 94103
Monday, April 25, 2005
Sunday, April 24, 2005
Dear Friends:
Here is the list of donations in the six-figures made by Bill Gates in Washington State. I have not included his other state donations simply because there were so many of them it would have made for an endless post.
The Washington State data on Gates' donations came from http://www.pdc.wa.gov/searchdatabase/.
After the state donations, I've listed Gates most recent contributions to federal candidates, as made available by www.tray.com.
So what are the gays going to do in response Microsoft's crappy (in)action against us and the defeat of the pro-gay measure in the Evergreen State?
^^^
Candidate/Committee Date Amount P Contributor City State Zip Employer Occupation
APPROVE REFERENDUM 55
10/08/2004
$400,000.00
GATES WILLIAM H III REDMOND WA 98052 MICROSOFT CORPORATION CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
APPROVE REFERENDUM 55
09/09/2004
$300,000.00
GATES WILLIAM H III REDMOND WA 98052 MICROSOFT CORPORATION CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
APPROVE REFERENDUM 55
09/29/2004
$300,000.00
GATES WILLIAM H III REDMOND WA 98052 MICROSOFT CORPORATION CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
CIT FOR THE EDUCATION TRUST FUND
06/04/2004
$150,000.00
GATES WILLIAM H III REDMOND WA 98052 MICROSOFT EXECUTIVE
TAXPAYERS FOR R 51
06/13/2002
$100,000.00
GATES WILLIAM H III REDMOND WA 98502 MICROSOFT CHAIRMAN
CIT FOR THE EDUCATION TRUST FUND
04/12/2004
$50,000.00
GATES WILLIAM H SEATTLE WA 98105 BILL & MELINDA GATES FDN. DIRECTOR
NO ON I 747 COMM
10/15/2001
$20,000.00
GATES WILLIAM H III REDMOND WA 98502 MICORSOFT CEO
YES FOR HOMES
08/20/2002
$10,000.00
GATES WILLIAM H III REDMOND
- -
The data below comes from www.tray.com.
GATES, WILLIAM
3/19/2004 $850.00
SEATTLE, WA 98105
GATES FOUNDATION -[Contribution]
PEOPLE FOR PATTY MURRAY U S SENATE CAMPAIGN
GATES, WILLIAM
7/19/2002 $1,000.00
SEATTLE, WA 98105
BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUND -[Contribution]
TIM JOHNSON FOR SOUTH DAKOTA INC
Gates, William
7/11/2003 $1,000.00
Seattle, WA 98105
Gates Foundation/Co-Chair -[Contribution]
FRIENDS FOR JIM MCDERMOTT
GATES, WILLIAM
11/14/2003 $1,000.00
SEATTLE, WA 98105
GATES FOUNDATION -[Contribution]
PEOPLE FOR PATTY MURRAY U S SENATE CAMPAIGN
GATES, WILLIAM
11/24/2003 $1,000.00
SEATTLE, WA 98105
GATES FOUNDATION -[Contribution]
PEOPLE FOR PATTY MURRAY U S SENATE CAMPAIGN
GATES, WILLIAM
7/7/2004 -$850.00
SEATTLE, WA 98105
-[contribution refunded to individual]
PEOPLE FOR PATTY MURRAY U S SENATE CAMPAIGN
Gates, William
3/20/2002 $500.00
Seattle, WA 98105
Gates Foundation/CEO -[Contribution]
FRIENDS FOR JIM MCDERMOTT
GATES, WILLIAM
3/16/2004 $850.00
SEATTLE, WA 98105
GATES FOUNDATION -[Contribution]
PEOPLE FOR PATTY MURRAY U S SENATE CAMPAIGN
Gates, William
2/9/2001 $500.00
Seattle, WA 98105
Preston Gates & Ellis -[Contribution]
FRIENDS FOR JIM MCDERMOTT
GATES, WILLIAM
3/19/2004 -$850.00
SEATTLE, WA 98105
GATES FOUNDATION -[Contribution]
PEOPLE FOR PATTY MURRAY U S SENATE CAMPAIGN
GATES, WILLIAM
6/17/2004 $1,000.00
SEATTLE, WA 98105
GATES FOUNDATION -[Contribution]
PEOPLE FOR PATTY MURRAY U S SENATE CAMPAIGN
Gates, William
6/23/2003 $500.00
Seattle, WA 98105
Gates Foundation/Founder -[Contribution]
INSLEE FOR CONGRESS
Gates, William
2/17/2004 $500.00
Seattle, WA 98105
Bill/Mecinda Gates Foundation/CEO & -[Contribution]
FRIENDS OF CAROLYN MCCARTHY
Gates, William
12/8/2003 $1,000.00
Seattle, WA 98105
Bill/Mecinda Gates Foundation/CEO & -[Contribution]
FRIENDS OF CAROLYN MCCARTHY
GATES, WILLIAM
11/24/2003 -$1,000.00
SEATTLE, WA 98105
GATES FOUNDATION -[Contribution]
PEOPLE FOR PATTY MURRAY U S SENATE CAMPAIGN
Gates, William
1/31/2002 $750.00
Seattle, WA 98105
Bill/Mecinda Gates Foundation/CEO & -[Contribution]
FRIENDS OF CAROLYN MCCARTHY
GATES, WILLIAM
6/28/2004 $1,000.00
REDMOND, WA 98052
MICROSOFT -[Contribution]
LEAHY FOR U.S. SENATOR COMMITTEE
GATES, WILLIAM
2/22/2003 $1,000.00
SEATTLE, WA 98105
GATES FOUNDATION -[Contribution]
PEOPLE FOR PATTY MURRAY U S SENATE CAMPAIGN
Gates, William
4/7/2002 $500.00
Seattle, WA 98105
Gates Foundation/Founder -[Contribution]
INSLEE FOR CONGRESS
Gates, William
5/11/2001 $500.00
Seattle, WA 98105
Gates Foundation/Founder -[Contribution]
INSLEE FOR CONGRESS
Gates, William
3/20/2002 -$500.00
Seattle, WA 98105
Gates Foundation/CEO -[Contribution]
FRIENDS FOR JIM MCDERMOTT
Gates, William
1/31/2002 $250.00
Seattle, WA 98105
Bill/Mecinda Gates Foundation/CEO & -[Contribution]
FRIENDS OF CAROLYN MCCARTHY
Gates, William
5/14/2001 $250.00
Seattle, WA 98105
Bill/Mecinda Gates Foundation/Manag -[Contribution]
FRIENDS OF CAROLYN MCCARTHY
GATES, WILLIAM
9/22/2003 $2,000.00
REDMOND, WA 98052
MICROSOFT -[Contribution]
PEOPLE FOR PATTY MURRAY U S SENATE CAMPAIGN
GATES, WILLIAM
2/13/2002 $1,000.00
SEATTLE, WA 98105
GATES FOUNDATION -[Contribution]
PEOPLE FOR PATTY MURRAY U S SENATE CAMPAIGN
Gates, William
4/7/2002 -$500.00
Seattle, WA 98105
Gates Foundation/Founder -[Contribution]
INSLEE FOR CONGRESS
Gates, William
2/26/2002 $1,000.00
Seattle, WA 98105
Gates Foundation/CEO -[Contribution]
FRIENDS FOR JIM MCDERMOTT
Here is the list of donations in the six-figures made by Bill Gates in Washington State. I have not included his other state donations simply because there were so many of them it would have made for an endless post.
The Washington State data on Gates' donations came from http://www.pdc.wa.gov/searchdatabase/.
After the state donations, I've listed Gates most recent contributions to federal candidates, as made available by www.tray.com.
So what are the gays going to do in response Microsoft's crappy (in)action against us and the defeat of the pro-gay measure in the Evergreen State?
^^^
Candidate/Committee Date Amount P Contributor City State Zip Employer Occupation
APPROVE REFERENDUM 55
10/08/2004
$400,000.00
GATES WILLIAM H III REDMOND WA 98052 MICROSOFT CORPORATION CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
APPROVE REFERENDUM 55
09/09/2004
$300,000.00
GATES WILLIAM H III REDMOND WA 98052 MICROSOFT CORPORATION CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
APPROVE REFERENDUM 55
09/29/2004
$300,000.00
GATES WILLIAM H III REDMOND WA 98052 MICROSOFT CORPORATION CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
CIT FOR THE EDUCATION TRUST FUND
06/04/2004
$150,000.00
GATES WILLIAM H III REDMOND WA 98052 MICROSOFT EXECUTIVE
TAXPAYERS FOR R 51
06/13/2002
$100,000.00
GATES WILLIAM H III REDMOND WA 98502 MICROSOFT CHAIRMAN
CIT FOR THE EDUCATION TRUST FUND
04/12/2004
$50,000.00
GATES WILLIAM H SEATTLE WA 98105 BILL & MELINDA GATES FDN. DIRECTOR
NO ON I 747 COMM
10/15/2001
$20,000.00
GATES WILLIAM H III REDMOND WA 98502 MICORSOFT CEO
YES FOR HOMES
08/20/2002
$10,000.00
GATES WILLIAM H III REDMOND
- -
The data below comes from www.tray.com.
GATES, WILLIAM
3/19/2004 $850.00
SEATTLE, WA 98105
GATES FOUNDATION -[Contribution]
PEOPLE FOR PATTY MURRAY U S SENATE CAMPAIGN
GATES, WILLIAM
7/19/2002 $1,000.00
SEATTLE, WA 98105
BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUND -[Contribution]
TIM JOHNSON FOR SOUTH DAKOTA INC
Gates, William
7/11/2003 $1,000.00
Seattle, WA 98105
Gates Foundation/Co-Chair -[Contribution]
FRIENDS FOR JIM MCDERMOTT
GATES, WILLIAM
11/14/2003 $1,000.00
SEATTLE, WA 98105
GATES FOUNDATION -[Contribution]
PEOPLE FOR PATTY MURRAY U S SENATE CAMPAIGN
GATES, WILLIAM
11/24/2003 $1,000.00
SEATTLE, WA 98105
GATES FOUNDATION -[Contribution]
PEOPLE FOR PATTY MURRAY U S SENATE CAMPAIGN
GATES, WILLIAM
7/7/2004 -$850.00
SEATTLE, WA 98105
-[contribution refunded to individual]
PEOPLE FOR PATTY MURRAY U S SENATE CAMPAIGN
Gates, William
3/20/2002 $500.00
Seattle, WA 98105
Gates Foundation/CEO -[Contribution]
FRIENDS FOR JIM MCDERMOTT
GATES, WILLIAM
3/16/2004 $850.00
SEATTLE, WA 98105
GATES FOUNDATION -[Contribution]
PEOPLE FOR PATTY MURRAY U S SENATE CAMPAIGN
Gates, William
2/9/2001 $500.00
Seattle, WA 98105
Preston Gates & Ellis -[Contribution]
FRIENDS FOR JIM MCDERMOTT
GATES, WILLIAM
3/19/2004 -$850.00
SEATTLE, WA 98105
GATES FOUNDATION -[Contribution]
PEOPLE FOR PATTY MURRAY U S SENATE CAMPAIGN
GATES, WILLIAM
6/17/2004 $1,000.00
SEATTLE, WA 98105
GATES FOUNDATION -[Contribution]
PEOPLE FOR PATTY MURRAY U S SENATE CAMPAIGN
Gates, William
6/23/2003 $500.00
Seattle, WA 98105
Gates Foundation/Founder -[Contribution]
INSLEE FOR CONGRESS
Gates, William
2/17/2004 $500.00
Seattle, WA 98105
Bill/Mecinda Gates Foundation/CEO & -[Contribution]
FRIENDS OF CAROLYN MCCARTHY
Gates, William
12/8/2003 $1,000.00
Seattle, WA 98105
Bill/Mecinda Gates Foundation/CEO & -[Contribution]
FRIENDS OF CAROLYN MCCARTHY
GATES, WILLIAM
11/24/2003 -$1,000.00
SEATTLE, WA 98105
GATES FOUNDATION -[Contribution]
PEOPLE FOR PATTY MURRAY U S SENATE CAMPAIGN
Gates, William
1/31/2002 $750.00
Seattle, WA 98105
Bill/Mecinda Gates Foundation/CEO & -[Contribution]
FRIENDS OF CAROLYN MCCARTHY
GATES, WILLIAM
6/28/2004 $1,000.00
REDMOND, WA 98052
MICROSOFT -[Contribution]
LEAHY FOR U.S. SENATOR COMMITTEE
GATES, WILLIAM
2/22/2003 $1,000.00
SEATTLE, WA 98105
GATES FOUNDATION -[Contribution]
PEOPLE FOR PATTY MURRAY U S SENATE CAMPAIGN
Gates, William
4/7/2002 $500.00
Seattle, WA 98105
Gates Foundation/Founder -[Contribution]
INSLEE FOR CONGRESS
Gates, William
5/11/2001 $500.00
Seattle, WA 98105
Gates Foundation/Founder -[Contribution]
INSLEE FOR CONGRESS
Gates, William
3/20/2002 -$500.00
Seattle, WA 98105
Gates Foundation/CEO -[Contribution]
FRIENDS FOR JIM MCDERMOTT
Gates, William
1/31/2002 $250.00
Seattle, WA 98105
Bill/Mecinda Gates Foundation/CEO & -[Contribution]
FRIENDS OF CAROLYN MCCARTHY
Gates, William
5/14/2001 $250.00
Seattle, WA 98105
Bill/Mecinda Gates Foundation/Manag -[Contribution]
FRIENDS OF CAROLYN MCCARTHY
GATES, WILLIAM
9/22/2003 $2,000.00
REDMOND, WA 98052
MICROSOFT -[Contribution]
PEOPLE FOR PATTY MURRAY U S SENATE CAMPAIGN
GATES, WILLIAM
2/13/2002 $1,000.00
SEATTLE, WA 98105
GATES FOUNDATION -[Contribution]
PEOPLE FOR PATTY MURRAY U S SENATE CAMPAIGN
Gates, William
4/7/2002 -$500.00
Seattle, WA 98105
Gates Foundation/Founder -[Contribution]
INSLEE FOR CONGRESS
Gates, William
2/26/2002 $1,000.00
Seattle, WA 98105
Gates Foundation/CEO -[Contribution]
FRIENDS FOR JIM MCDERMOTT
These donations from the CEO of Microsoft and his wife come from the Washington State elections office web site at http://www.pdc.wa.gov/servlet/ContribServlet.
Candidate/Committee Date Amount P Contributor City State Zip Employer Occupation
TAXPAYERS FOR R 51
10/14/2002
$50,000.00
BALLMER STEVE & CONNIE BELLEVUE WA 98004 S-MICROSOFT C-COMM'Y VOLUNTEER S-CEO
CIT FOR THE EDUCATION TRUST FUND
10/04/2004
$25,000.00
BALLMER STEVE AND CONNIE BELLEVUE WA 98004 S-MICROSOFT C-HOMEMAKER S-CEO
HUNTER ROSS A
08/09/2004
$1,350.00 P
BALLMER STEVEN & CONNIE BELLEVUE WA 98004 MICROSOFT EXECUTIVE
HUNTER ROSS A
09/23/2002
$600.00 P
BALLMER CONNIE BELLEVUE WA 98004 SELF HOMEMAKER
HUNTER ROSS A
09/23/2002
$600.00 P BALLMER STEVE BELLEVUE WA 98004 MICROSOFT PRESIDENT
Total Named Cash Contributions for this report: $77,550.00
Candidate/Committee Date Amount P Contributor City State Zip Employer Occupation
TAXPAYERS FOR R 51
10/14/2002
$50,000.00
BALLMER STEVE & CONNIE BELLEVUE WA 98004 S-MICROSOFT C-COMM'Y VOLUNTEER S-CEO
CIT FOR THE EDUCATION TRUST FUND
10/04/2004
$25,000.00
BALLMER STEVE AND CONNIE BELLEVUE WA 98004 S-MICROSOFT C-HOMEMAKER S-CEO
HUNTER ROSS A
08/09/2004
$1,350.00 P
BALLMER STEVEN & CONNIE BELLEVUE WA 98004 MICROSOFT EXECUTIVE
HUNTER ROSS A
09/23/2002
$600.00 P
BALLMER CONNIE BELLEVUE WA 98004 SELF HOMEMAKER
HUNTER ROSS A
09/23/2002
$600.00 P BALLMER STEVE BELLEVUE WA 98004 MICROSOFT PRESIDENT
Total Named Cash Contributions for this report: $77,550.00
Dear Friends:
This past week we learned of Microsoft's abandonment of equality for gays in Washington State, where Microsoft didn't support an anti-discrimination measure, and actions against the company are in development at many gay organizations and web sites.
To help create as full a portrait of the corporate giant's executives and their politics as possible, I did a search of Federal Election Commission files on the CEO, Steven A. Ballmer, and his family.
As you can see from the attached list, he and his wife donated money to the reelection of Bush and Cheney.
These records come from www.tray.com.
Michael Petrelis
^^^
Ballmer, Connie E
9/21/2001 $5,000.00
Redmond, WA 98052
Homemaker -[Contribution]
MICROSOFT CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
Ballmer, Connie E
7/15/2004 $5,000.00
Redmond, WA 98052
Homemaker -[Contribution]
MICROSOFT CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
BALLMER, CONNIE E MRS.
9/3/2003 $2,000.00
BELLEVUE, WA 98004
HOMEMAKER -[Contribution]
BUSH-CHENEY '04 (PRIMARY) INC
Ballmer, Deborah
9/25/2003 $1,000.00
Bellevue, WA 98004
None/None -[Contribution]
INSLEE FOR CONGRESS
BALLMER, STEVEN
9/16/2004 -$2,000.00
REDMOND, WA 98052
MICROSOFT CORP -[Contribution]
PEOPLE FOR PATTY MURRAY U S SENATE CAMPAIGN
BALLMER, STEVEN
9/22/2003 $2,000.00
REDMOND, WA 98052
MICROSOFT CORP -[Contribution]
PEOPLE FOR PATTY MURRAY U S SENATE CAMPAIGN
BALLMER, STEVEN
6/29/2004 $2,000.00
BELLEVUE, WA 98004
MICROSOFT CORPORATION -[Contribution]
FRIENDS OF SESSIONS SENATE COMMITTEE INC
Ballmer, Steven
10/6/2004 $1,000.00
Bellevue, WA 98004
Microsoft/CEO -[Contribution]
NORM DICKS FOR CONGRESS
Ballmer, Steven
10/8/2001 $1,000.00
Bellevue, WA 98004
Microsoft/CEO -[Contribution]
WISCONSIN LEADERSHIP PAC
BALLMER, STEVEN
9/16/2004 $2,000.00
REDMOND, WA 98052
MICROSOFT CORP -[Contribution]
PEOPLE FOR PATTY MURRAY U S SENATE CAMPAIGN
Ballmer, Steven
9/25/2003 $1,000.00
Hunts Point, WA 98004
Microsoft/Ceo -[Contribution]
ADAM SMITH FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE
BALLMER, STEVEN
9/10/2004 $2,000.00
REDMOND, WA 98052
MICROSOFT CORP -[Contribution]
PEOPLE FOR PATTY MURRAY U S SENATE CAMPAIGN
BALLMER, STEVEN
11/19/2001 $1,000.00
BELLEVUE, WA 98004
MICROSOFT -[Contribution]
STEVENS FOR SENATE COMMITTEE
Ballmer, Steven
7/6/2004 $2,000.00
Bellevue, WA 98004
Microsoft Corporation/CEO -[Contribution]
VOLUNTEER PAC
Ballmer, Steven
12/5/2003 $1,000.00
Bellevue, WA 98004
Microsoft/CEO -[Contribution]
IMPACT AMERICA
Ballmer, Steven
6/29/2004 $2,000.00
Bellevue, WA 98004
Microsoft Corporation/CEO -[Contribution]
PETE SESSIONS FOR CONGRESS 2004
Ballmer, Steven A
9/21/2001 $5,000.00
Redmond, WA 98052
Microsoft/Chief Executive Officer -[Contribution]
MICROSOFT CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
Ballmer, Steven A
12/31/2002 $5,000.00
Redmond, WA 98052
Microsoft/Chief Executive Officer -[Contribution]
MICROSOFT CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
BALLMER, STEVEN A
6/30/2004 $2,000.00
BELLEVUE, WA 98004
MICROSOFT -[Contribution]
LEAHY FOR U.S. SENATOR COMMITTEE
BALLMER, STEVEN A
9/26/2003 $2,000.00
BELLEVUE, WA 98004
MICROSOFT -[Contribution]
FRIENDS OF BYRON DORGAN
BALLMER, STEVEN A
9/30/2004 $2,000.00
BELLEVUE, WA 98004
MICROSOFT CORP -[Contribution]
FRIENDS FOR HARRY REID
Ballmer, Steven A
7/15/2004 $5,000.00
Redmond, WA 98052
Microsoft/CEO -[Contribution]
MICROSOFT CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
BALLMER, STEVEN A
9/30/2003 $2,000.00
HUNTS POINT, WA 98004
MICROSOFT -[Contribution]
FRIENDS OF JOHN MCCAIN
Ballmer, Steven A
10/1/2003 $5,000.00
Redmond, WA 98052
Microsoft/Chief Executive Officer -[Contribution]
MICROSOFT CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
BALLMER, STEVEN A MR.
8/6/2004 $25,000.00
BELLEVUE, WA 98004
MICROSOFT/C.E.O. -[Contribution]
2004 JOINT STATE VICTORY COMMITTEE
Ballmer, Steven A Mr.
7/30/2004 $5,000.00
Hunts Point, WA 98004
Microsoft/C E O -[Contribution]
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
BALLMER, STEVEN A MR.
9/3/2003 $2,000.00
BELLEVUE, WA 98004
MICROSOFT/CEO -[Contribution]
BUSH-CHENEY '04 (PRIMARY) INC
Ballmer, Steven A.
10/6/2003 $2,000.00
Bellevue, WA 98004
Microsoft/CEO -[Contribution]
KEEP OUR MAJORITY PAC
Ballmer, Steven A.
8/25/2004 $892.00
Bellevue, WA 98004
Microsoft -[Contribution]
ARKANSAS LEADERSHIP COMMITTEE 2004 FCRC
Ballmer, Steven A.
9/16/2003 $2,000.00
Hunts Point, WA 98004
Microsoft Inc./CEO -[Contribution]
AMERICANS FOR A REPUBLICAN MAJORITY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
This past week we learned of Microsoft's abandonment of equality for gays in Washington State, where Microsoft didn't support an anti-discrimination measure, and actions against the company are in development at many gay organizations and web sites.
To help create as full a portrait of the corporate giant's executives and their politics as possible, I did a search of Federal Election Commission files on the CEO, Steven A. Ballmer, and his family.
As you can see from the attached list, he and his wife donated money to the reelection of Bush and Cheney.
These records come from www.tray.com.
Michael Petrelis
^^^
Ballmer, Connie E
9/21/2001 $5,000.00
Redmond, WA 98052
Homemaker -[Contribution]
MICROSOFT CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
Ballmer, Connie E
7/15/2004 $5,000.00
Redmond, WA 98052
Homemaker -[Contribution]
MICROSOFT CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
BALLMER, CONNIE E MRS.
9/3/2003 $2,000.00
BELLEVUE, WA 98004
HOMEMAKER -[Contribution]
BUSH-CHENEY '04 (PRIMARY) INC
Ballmer, Deborah
9/25/2003 $1,000.00
Bellevue, WA 98004
None/None -[Contribution]
INSLEE FOR CONGRESS
BALLMER, STEVEN
9/16/2004 -$2,000.00
REDMOND, WA 98052
MICROSOFT CORP -[Contribution]
PEOPLE FOR PATTY MURRAY U S SENATE CAMPAIGN
BALLMER, STEVEN
9/22/2003 $2,000.00
REDMOND, WA 98052
MICROSOFT CORP -[Contribution]
PEOPLE FOR PATTY MURRAY U S SENATE CAMPAIGN
BALLMER, STEVEN
6/29/2004 $2,000.00
BELLEVUE, WA 98004
MICROSOFT CORPORATION -[Contribution]
FRIENDS OF SESSIONS SENATE COMMITTEE INC
Ballmer, Steven
10/6/2004 $1,000.00
Bellevue, WA 98004
Microsoft/CEO -[Contribution]
NORM DICKS FOR CONGRESS
Ballmer, Steven
10/8/2001 $1,000.00
Bellevue, WA 98004
Microsoft/CEO -[Contribution]
WISCONSIN LEADERSHIP PAC
BALLMER, STEVEN
9/16/2004 $2,000.00
REDMOND, WA 98052
MICROSOFT CORP -[Contribution]
PEOPLE FOR PATTY MURRAY U S SENATE CAMPAIGN
Ballmer, Steven
9/25/2003 $1,000.00
Hunts Point, WA 98004
Microsoft/Ceo -[Contribution]
ADAM SMITH FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE
BALLMER, STEVEN
9/10/2004 $2,000.00
REDMOND, WA 98052
MICROSOFT CORP -[Contribution]
PEOPLE FOR PATTY MURRAY U S SENATE CAMPAIGN
BALLMER, STEVEN
11/19/2001 $1,000.00
BELLEVUE, WA 98004
MICROSOFT -[Contribution]
STEVENS FOR SENATE COMMITTEE
Ballmer, Steven
7/6/2004 $2,000.00
Bellevue, WA 98004
Microsoft Corporation/CEO -[Contribution]
VOLUNTEER PAC
Ballmer, Steven
12/5/2003 $1,000.00
Bellevue, WA 98004
Microsoft/CEO -[Contribution]
IMPACT AMERICA
Ballmer, Steven
6/29/2004 $2,000.00
Bellevue, WA 98004
Microsoft Corporation/CEO -[Contribution]
PETE SESSIONS FOR CONGRESS 2004
Ballmer, Steven A
9/21/2001 $5,000.00
Redmond, WA 98052
Microsoft/Chief Executive Officer -[Contribution]
MICROSOFT CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
Ballmer, Steven A
12/31/2002 $5,000.00
Redmond, WA 98052
Microsoft/Chief Executive Officer -[Contribution]
MICROSOFT CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
BALLMER, STEVEN A
6/30/2004 $2,000.00
BELLEVUE, WA 98004
MICROSOFT -[Contribution]
LEAHY FOR U.S. SENATOR COMMITTEE
BALLMER, STEVEN A
9/26/2003 $2,000.00
BELLEVUE, WA 98004
MICROSOFT -[Contribution]
FRIENDS OF BYRON DORGAN
BALLMER, STEVEN A
9/30/2004 $2,000.00
BELLEVUE, WA 98004
MICROSOFT CORP -[Contribution]
FRIENDS FOR HARRY REID
Ballmer, Steven A
7/15/2004 $5,000.00
Redmond, WA 98052
Microsoft/CEO -[Contribution]
MICROSOFT CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
BALLMER, STEVEN A
9/30/2003 $2,000.00
HUNTS POINT, WA 98004
MICROSOFT -[Contribution]
FRIENDS OF JOHN MCCAIN
Ballmer, Steven A
10/1/2003 $5,000.00
Redmond, WA 98052
Microsoft/Chief Executive Officer -[Contribution]
MICROSOFT CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
BALLMER, STEVEN A MR.
8/6/2004 $25,000.00
BELLEVUE, WA 98004
MICROSOFT/C.E.O. -[Contribution]
2004 JOINT STATE VICTORY COMMITTEE
Ballmer, Steven A Mr.
7/30/2004 $5,000.00
Hunts Point, WA 98004
Microsoft/C E O -[Contribution]
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
BALLMER, STEVEN A MR.
9/3/2003 $2,000.00
BELLEVUE, WA 98004
MICROSOFT/CEO -[Contribution]
BUSH-CHENEY '04 (PRIMARY) INC
Ballmer, Steven A.
10/6/2003 $2,000.00
Bellevue, WA 98004
Microsoft/CEO -[Contribution]
KEEP OUR MAJORITY PAC
Ballmer, Steven A.
8/25/2004 $892.00
Bellevue, WA 98004
Microsoft -[Contribution]
ARKANSAS LEADERSHIP COMMITTEE 2004 FCRC
Ballmer, Steven A.
9/16/2003 $2,000.00
Hunts Point, WA 98004
Microsoft Inc./CEO -[Contribution]
AMERICANS FOR A REPUBLICAN MAJORITY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
Saturday, April 23, 2005
April 23, 2005
John Cloud
Time
New York, NY
Dear Mr. Cloud:
In my earlier letter to you I erred when I said there was no evidence the documentary on Ann Coulter, which you alleged has " won some favorable notices," had not been screened publicly this year.
The direct-to-video film was shown earlier this month in Massachusetts by the College Republicans at Brandies University as part of a political conference, according the release that follows.
The conference was not a film festival.
Regards,
Michael Petrelis
San Francisco, CA
^^^
http://namct.com/news/index.php?blog=12&title=brandeis_republicans_to_challenge_libera&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
Brandeis Republicans to Challenge Liberal Campus Establishment
WALTHAM, MASSACHUSETTS, (NAMC) – Brandeis University’s College Republicans will host a week of events aimed at helping “closeted” conservatives openly admit their political beliefs. Many Brandeis conservatives hide their politics for fear of the university’s overwhelming liberal establishment. The student organizers say Brandeis embraces diversity of people, but often shuns diversity of thought.
·Monday-Friday: Brandeis Republicans will be tabling in the Usdan Student Center from 11:30 AM to 1:30 PM and 5:30 PM to 7:30 PM.·Monday (Apr 4): Kickoff speech by Cathy Young of the Boston Globe and Reason magazine. 6:30 PM in the Shapiro Campus Center Art Gallery.
·Tuesday (Apr 5): Brainwashing 101 documentary on academic bias followed by open discussion on liberal bias at Brandeis. 7:00 PM in Olin-Sang 116.
·Wednesday (Apr 6): Campaign Management Seminar led by a Brandeis Republican who managed a 2004 state house campaign. 7:00 PM in Lown Auditorium.
·Thursday (Apr 7): “Is it True What They Say about Ann?” documentary about popular conservative pundit Ann Coulter. 8:30 PM in Lown Auditorium.
Brandeis Republicans is the Republican student organization at Brandeis University and is affiliated with the College Republican National Committee. For more information, contact Jacob Baime at (813) 240-8588.
John Cloud
Time
New York, NY
Dear Mr. Cloud:
In my earlier letter to you I erred when I said there was no evidence the documentary on Ann Coulter, which you alleged has " won some favorable notices," had not been screened publicly this year.
The direct-to-video film was shown earlier this month in Massachusetts by the College Republicans at Brandies University as part of a political conference, according the release that follows.
The conference was not a film festival.
Regards,
Michael Petrelis
San Francisco, CA
^^^
http://namct.com/news/index.php?blog=12&title=brandeis_republicans_to_challenge_libera&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
Brandeis Republicans to Challenge Liberal Campus Establishment
WALTHAM, MASSACHUSETTS, (NAMC) – Brandeis University’s College Republicans will host a week of events aimed at helping “closeted” conservatives openly admit their political beliefs. Many Brandeis conservatives hide their politics for fear of the university’s overwhelming liberal establishment. The student organizers say Brandeis embraces diversity of people, but often shuns diversity of thought.
·Monday-Friday: Brandeis Republicans will be tabling in the Usdan Student Center from 11:30 AM to 1:30 PM and 5:30 PM to 7:30 PM.·Monday (Apr 4): Kickoff speech by Cathy Young of the Boston Globe and Reason magazine. 6:30 PM in the Shapiro Campus Center Art Gallery.
·Tuesday (Apr 5): Brainwashing 101 documentary on academic bias followed by open discussion on liberal bias at Brandeis. 7:00 PM in Olin-Sang 116.
·Wednesday (Apr 6): Campaign Management Seminar led by a Brandeis Republican who managed a 2004 state house campaign. 7:00 PM in Lown Auditorium.
·Thursday (Apr 7): “Is it True What They Say about Ann?” documentary about popular conservative pundit Ann Coulter. 8:30 PM in Lown Auditorium.
Brandeis Republicans is the Republican student organization at Brandeis University and is affiliated with the College Republican National Committee. For more information, contact Jacob Baime at (813) 240-8588.
John Cloud
Time
New York, NY
Dear Mr. Cloud:
In your recent cover story on the fact-challenged and truth-bending contrastive writer Ann Coulter, you called attention to a film about her.
"A recent documentary, Is It True What They Say About Ann?—co-directed by a friend of Coulter’s, journalist Elinor Burkett—has played at film festivals and won some favorable notices," you wrote. (Source: http://www.timecanada.com/story.adp?storyid=001 .)
Since I never heard of the film and fancy myself a movie-lover, I used Google to fact-check your claims about this documentary on Coulter.
First of all, the makers of the film have a web site to promote and sell it, http://www.anncoulterdoc.com/ . The site links to what appears to be all of the film festivals, three total, that screened the work in 2004. I couldn't find any evidence that the film has been shown this year.
Regarding two of the three festivals, the Liberty and the Renaissance film festivals, they are put on by conservative organizations, proud of their right-wing political bent. The third one was the Maryland Film Festival. Not exactly Cannes or Telluride, or mainstream film venues for the latest documentaries focusing on American politics and pundits. (Sources: http://www.libertyfilmfestival.com/ , http://www.afrfilmfestival.com/ , http://www.mdfilmfest.com/ .)
Second, where are the supposed favorable notices you claim exist for the documentary? The links to news clippings about the film aren't reviews, but articles about the filmmakers, their controversial subject or the conservative film festivals showing the film. (Sources: http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/index.cfm?page=article&article_id=287 .)
Does this excerpt from an essay by Bryan Curtis for Slate qualify as a rave in your opinion?
"Stranger still was Is It True What They Say About Ann?, a short film about the conservative provocateur Ann Coulter, who said of Muslim terrorists after 9/11 that we should 'invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.' The director, Patrick Wright, never attempts to answer the title question, preferring to let the camera gaze lovingly at Ann as she hawks her books and invades university campuses.
"After a protester disrupts one of her speeches, she quips, 'You really develop your analytical skills here at Johns Hopkins. At Harvard, they had questions.' When an olive-skinned girl asks her to sign a book later, Coulter asks, 'Are you a Sikh?' No, I'm Hindu, the woman replies. 'Oh, I've got a lot of Sikh friends for some reason,' Coulter says. 'You're my first Hindu.'
"And that's the way the festival unfolded. The films were pleasantly amateurish and the sermons were, too." (Source: http://www.slate.com/id/2106624 .)
If that's a favorable notice, what were the unfavorable ones like?
The closest thumbs-up review I could find, none too surprisingly, appeared in Human Events in December 2004. As you know, Coulter is the legal correspondent for this publication, but nevertheless, you can read her colleague's review of the movie at http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=5972 .
The only other review of the film, again using Google, to come up was an outright slam, written by a film buff living in Maryland.
This is about the kindest thing he had to say. "Unfortunately, the film has no real ambition other than to rehash old clips, interview segments, and dull-as-dishwater book tours in order to present a side of Ann that actually harms her image, despite the fact that this is alleged to be a puff piece. Having been screened during at least one conservative film festival this past year, Is It True What They Say About Ann? is the Right's answer to Al Franken and Michael Moore, only without the entertainment value, humor, or insight. And my loathing of Coulter is beside the point: this is simply poor filmmaking, as it randomly cuts and pans without direction or purpose." ( Source: http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/movies/i/isittruewhattheysayaboutann.html .)
Since you omitted any adjectives when describing the film festivals, readers may have been left with the false impression the venues were politically neutral or of high cinematic caliber.
Then again, there are much larger issues overall in your profile on Coulter for Time, and you've been taken to task for what many media critics see as sloppy reporting. To your credit, you answered some of the criticism leveled against you in an interview with the Columbia Journalism Review's daily blog.
As you admitted to the review, your "job in this story was not to be a fact-checker." (Source: http://www.cjrdaily.org/archives/001458.asp .)
Truer words could not have been spoken by you.
Sincerely,
Michael Petrelis
San Francisco, CA
Time
New York, NY
Dear Mr. Cloud:
In your recent cover story on the fact-challenged and truth-bending contrastive writer Ann Coulter, you called attention to a film about her.
"A recent documentary, Is It True What They Say About Ann?—co-directed by a friend of Coulter’s, journalist Elinor Burkett—has played at film festivals and won some favorable notices," you wrote. (Source: http://www.timecanada.com/story.adp?storyid=001 .)
Since I never heard of the film and fancy myself a movie-lover, I used Google to fact-check your claims about this documentary on Coulter.
First of all, the makers of the film have a web site to promote and sell it, http://www.anncoulterdoc.com/ . The site links to what appears to be all of the film festivals, three total, that screened the work in 2004. I couldn't find any evidence that the film has been shown this year.
Regarding two of the three festivals, the Liberty and the Renaissance film festivals, they are put on by conservative organizations, proud of their right-wing political bent. The third one was the Maryland Film Festival. Not exactly Cannes or Telluride, or mainstream film venues for the latest documentaries focusing on American politics and pundits. (Sources: http://www.libertyfilmfestival.com/ , http://www.afrfilmfestival.com/ , http://www.mdfilmfest.com/ .)
Second, where are the supposed favorable notices you claim exist for the documentary? The links to news clippings about the film aren't reviews, but articles about the filmmakers, their controversial subject or the conservative film festivals showing the film. (Sources: http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/index.cfm?page=article&article_id=287 .)
Does this excerpt from an essay by Bryan Curtis for Slate qualify as a rave in your opinion?
"Stranger still was Is It True What They Say About Ann?, a short film about the conservative provocateur Ann Coulter, who said of Muslim terrorists after 9/11 that we should 'invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.' The director, Patrick Wright, never attempts to answer the title question, preferring to let the camera gaze lovingly at Ann as she hawks her books and invades university campuses.
"After a protester disrupts one of her speeches, she quips, 'You really develop your analytical skills here at Johns Hopkins. At Harvard, they had questions.' When an olive-skinned girl asks her to sign a book later, Coulter asks, 'Are you a Sikh?' No, I'm Hindu, the woman replies. 'Oh, I've got a lot of Sikh friends for some reason,' Coulter says. 'You're my first Hindu.'
"And that's the way the festival unfolded. The films were pleasantly amateurish and the sermons were, too." (Source: http://www.slate.com/id/2106624 .)
If that's a favorable notice, what were the unfavorable ones like?
The closest thumbs-up review I could find, none too surprisingly, appeared in Human Events in December 2004. As you know, Coulter is the legal correspondent for this publication, but nevertheless, you can read her colleague's review of the movie at http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=5972 .
The only other review of the film, again using Google, to come up was an outright slam, written by a film buff living in Maryland.
This is about the kindest thing he had to say. "Unfortunately, the film has no real ambition other than to rehash old clips, interview segments, and dull-as-dishwater book tours in order to present a side of Ann that actually harms her image, despite the fact that this is alleged to be a puff piece. Having been screened during at least one conservative film festival this past year, Is It True What They Say About Ann? is the Right's answer to Al Franken and Michael Moore, only without the entertainment value, humor, or insight. And my loathing of Coulter is beside the point: this is simply poor filmmaking, as it randomly cuts and pans without direction or purpose." ( Source: http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/movies/i/isittruewhattheysayaboutann.html .)
Since you omitted any adjectives when describing the film festivals, readers may have been left with the false impression the venues were politically neutral or of high cinematic caliber.
Then again, there are much larger issues overall in your profile on Coulter for Time, and you've been taken to task for what many media critics see as sloppy reporting. To your credit, you answered some of the criticism leveled against you in an interview with the Columbia Journalism Review's daily blog.
As you admitted to the review, your "job in this story was not to be a fact-checker." (Source: http://www.cjrdaily.org/archives/001458.asp .)
Truer words could not have been spoken by you.
Sincerely,
Michael Petrelis
San Francisco, CA
Thursday, April 21, 2005
April 21, 2005
Daniel Okrent
Public Editor
The New York Times
Email: public@nytimes.com
Dear Mr. Okrent:
In today's article about Rep. Tom DeLay's charity for children, the Times reported the following: "Among the other members of Congress with charities are the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee, whose World of Hope works on AIDS problems." (Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/21/politics/21delay.html?pagewanted=2)
I checked the web site for the World of Hope charity and the site features this paragraph on the opening page.
"There has been some confusion in the identity of our ministry and Senator Frist's charitable organization named World Hope International, Inc. We are World of Hope Foundation, Inc., incorporated in 1990 and presently headquartered in Louisiana, with entities in California, Pennsylvania and Tennessee. We are not the same organization even though we both minister to those in need," claims the World of Hope web site. (Source: http://www.worldofhope.org/index.html)
But the World Hope International web site doesn't list Sen. Frist as being an advisor or anyway connected to their group. (Source: http://www.worldhope.org/worldhope/staff.htm)
Also, the director of operations for this charity, Jenny Baker, in a voice mail message to me this morning, said they're not affiliated with Sen. Frist.
Now, maybe Sen. Frist's charity's name is a slight variation on World of Hope, but I don't think so after reading this bit of information from him on his senate web site about a visit he made in January 2005 to Sri Lanka.
"Earlier this afternoon in a small village in Sri Lanka I hand-delivered $25,000 from the World of Hope Foundation directly to Dr. A. T. Ariyaratne and his wife, founders of the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement, which is now one of the most highly regarded indigenous nongovernmental organization in Sri Lanka," wrote Sen. Frist. (Source: http://frist.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Speeches.Detail&Speech_id=135)
I have no idea why he would cite this foundation's name when that charity's web site explains it is not linked to him.
My question for the Times about all of this is, did the paper today report the correct name for Sen. Frist's charity?
I sure would like to know the correct name of his charity, in order to locate and read the IRS 990 tax filings for the group, which should be available on the guidestar.org web site.
A prompt reply is requested and appreciated.
Sincerely,
Michael Petrelis
Daniel Okrent
Public Editor
The New York Times
Email: public@nytimes.com
Dear Mr. Okrent:
In today's article about Rep. Tom DeLay's charity for children, the Times reported the following: "Among the other members of Congress with charities are the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee, whose World of Hope works on AIDS problems." (Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/21/politics/21delay.html?pagewanted=2)
I checked the web site for the World of Hope charity and the site features this paragraph on the opening page.
"There has been some confusion in the identity of our ministry and Senator Frist's charitable organization named World Hope International, Inc. We are World of Hope Foundation, Inc., incorporated in 1990 and presently headquartered in Louisiana, with entities in California, Pennsylvania and Tennessee. We are not the same organization even though we both minister to those in need," claims the World of Hope web site. (Source: http://www.worldofhope.org/index.html)
But the World Hope International web site doesn't list Sen. Frist as being an advisor or anyway connected to their group. (Source: http://www.worldhope.org/worldhope/staff.htm)
Also, the director of operations for this charity, Jenny Baker, in a voice mail message to me this morning, said they're not affiliated with Sen. Frist.
Now, maybe Sen. Frist's charity's name is a slight variation on World of Hope, but I don't think so after reading this bit of information from him on his senate web site about a visit he made in January 2005 to Sri Lanka.
"Earlier this afternoon in a small village in Sri Lanka I hand-delivered $25,000 from the World of Hope Foundation directly to Dr. A. T. Ariyaratne and his wife, founders of the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement, which is now one of the most highly regarded indigenous nongovernmental organization in Sri Lanka," wrote Sen. Frist. (Source: http://frist.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Speeches.Detail&Speech_id=135)
I have no idea why he would cite this foundation's name when that charity's web site explains it is not linked to him.
My question for the Times about all of this is, did the paper today report the correct name for Sen. Frist's charity?
I sure would like to know the correct name of his charity, in order to locate and read the IRS 990 tax filings for the group, which should be available on the guidestar.org web site.
A prompt reply is requested and appreciated.
Sincerely,
Michael Petrelis
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Forwarded Message:
Subj: Re: Target practice = HIV prevention for gay men?
Date: 4/19/2005 11:38:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: rmcmullin@stopaids.org
To: MPetrelis@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Mr. Petrelis,
Thank you for your inquiry, and believe it or not, I don't completely disagree with your conclusions about the appropriateness of activities like this. In the best of all possible worlds, all of our activities, whether they are educational or merely social or philanthropic serve us best when they inform people about what Stop AIDS does and what it stands for. Sadly, we don't live in the best of possible worlds, and it isn't always that easy to come up with engaging themes for social events or fundraisers that also relate directly to our programs.
The "Shoot Out" that you reference is primarily just an outing for folks in our community who are HIV positive and for whatever reasons feel isolated and alone. While you and I may not find going to a firing range interesting, my guess is that others must or we wouldn't have arranged this activity. While it may not stop AIDS in any direct quantifiable way, it may help some HIV positive guys feel better about their lives for awhile, and it might even result in their giving more thought to how and where they engage in sexual activity.
It is my belief that people do not lapse into unsafe sexual practices because of apathy or boredom, but because of personal issues that have made them lose hope and perhaps compassion: things like depression,isolation, or substance abuse. If any of our social programs for HIV positive men helps just a few of these guys feel connected and alive again, then I feel we have indeed fulfilled our mission.
While you and I have never met, I am very familiar with your name and your activity in our community. As I am sure you know, many people think you are just a crank who gets some pleasure from being disagreeable about everything. I, however, have long thought that while I find much of what you write to be very provocative and circular in its logic, I am also very conscious of the fact that you always speak from a position of passion and concern for our community and for whether those of us who graze at the community trough are fulfilling our calling to serve with integrity or not. You are like the lonely prophet that we all have read about, warning of doom and destruction if we did not pay attention to the signs of peril. Keep up the good work, Michael. I speak honestly when I say that people like you remind me to think every day about what we are doing and whether we are doing it the right way.
Bob
Subj: Re: Target practice = HIV prevention for gay men?
Date: 4/19/2005 11:38:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: rmcmullin@stopaids.org
To: MPetrelis@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Mr. Petrelis,
Thank you for your inquiry, and believe it or not, I don't completely disagree with your conclusions about the appropriateness of activities like this. In the best of all possible worlds, all of our activities, whether they are educational or merely social or philanthropic serve us best when they inform people about what Stop AIDS does and what it stands for. Sadly, we don't live in the best of possible worlds, and it isn't always that easy to come up with engaging themes for social events or fundraisers that also relate directly to our programs.
The "Shoot Out" that you reference is primarily just an outing for folks in our community who are HIV positive and for whatever reasons feel isolated and alone. While you and I may not find going to a firing range interesting, my guess is that others must or we wouldn't have arranged this activity. While it may not stop AIDS in any direct quantifiable way, it may help some HIV positive guys feel better about their lives for awhile, and it might even result in their giving more thought to how and where they engage in sexual activity.
It is my belief that people do not lapse into unsafe sexual practices because of apathy or boredom, but because of personal issues that have made them lose hope and perhaps compassion: things like depression,isolation, or substance abuse. If any of our social programs for HIV positive men helps just a few of these guys feel connected and alive again, then I feel we have indeed fulfilled our mission.
While you and I have never met, I am very familiar with your name and your activity in our community. As I am sure you know, many people think you are just a crank who gets some pleasure from being disagreeable about everything. I, however, have long thought that while I find much of what you write to be very provocative and circular in its logic, I am also very conscious of the fact that you always speak from a position of passion and concern for our community and for whether those of us who graze at the community trough are fulfilling our calling to serve with integrity or not. You are like the lonely prophet that we all have read about, warning of doom and destruction if we did not pay attention to the signs of peril. Keep up the good work, Michael. I speak honestly when I say that people like you remind me to think every day about what we are doing and whether we are doing it the right way.
Bob
April 20, 2005
Robert McMullin
Executive Director
The Stop AIDS Project
San Francisco, CA
Dear Mr. McMullin,
I see on your organization's web site that will be a "Shoot Out With The Pink Pistols" on April 21 as part of your Positive Force program, which is devoted to the needs of HIV positive gay men and encourages them to practice safe sex.
Your listing for the shoot out reads: "Ready to exercise your right to arm bears? How 'bout rolling up your sleeves and bearing [sic] your arms? Positive Force and the Pink Pistols will purposely penetrate the Jackson Arms Shooting Range for a positively powerful evening of pistol packin' pink pansies! The cost is free, so come on, get your trigger finger primed for this unique outing of the poz community." (Source: http://stopaids.org/programs/events/index.html)
Until now I wasn't aware that target practice is an effective means of controlling HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. After extensive searches of mainstream medical literature, not one study or research paper turned up showing how priming one's "trigger finger" qualifies as HIV prevention.
I have a few questions regarding this event that I hope you can answer today.
1.
Exactly how does exercising one's right to bear arms qualify as stopping AIDS?
2.
Are there any scientific studies that demonstrate shooting pistols plays a role in controlling HIV infections among gay men?
3.
How many gay gun owners with AIDS have signed up for this event?
A prompt reply is requested and appreciated.
Regards,
Michael Petrelis
Ph: 415-621-6267
Robert McMullin
Executive Director
The Stop AIDS Project
San Francisco, CA
Dear Mr. McMullin,
I see on your organization's web site that will be a "Shoot Out With The Pink Pistols" on April 21 as part of your Positive Force program, which is devoted to the needs of HIV positive gay men and encourages them to practice safe sex.
Your listing for the shoot out reads: "Ready to exercise your right to arm bears? How 'bout rolling up your sleeves and bearing [sic] your arms? Positive Force and the Pink Pistols will purposely penetrate the Jackson Arms Shooting Range for a positively powerful evening of pistol packin' pink pansies! The cost is free, so come on, get your trigger finger primed for this unique outing of the poz community." (Source: http://stopaids.org/programs/events/index.html)
Until now I wasn't aware that target practice is an effective means of controlling HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. After extensive searches of mainstream medical literature, not one study or research paper turned up showing how priming one's "trigger finger" qualifies as HIV prevention.
I have a few questions regarding this event that I hope you can answer today.
1.
Exactly how does exercising one's right to bear arms qualify as stopping AIDS?
2.
Are there any scientific studies that demonstrate shooting pistols plays a role in controlling HIV infections among gay men?
3.
How many gay gun owners with AIDS have signed up for this event?
A prompt reply is requested and appreciated.
Regards,
Michael Petrelis
Ph: 415-621-6267
Monday, April 18, 2005
Dear Friends:
As many of you know, last year I became a shareholder in the New York Times when I purchased a single share in the company. I did this so I would have another way of making my voice heard inside the newsroom on W. 43rd Street.
I attended last year's annual shareholders meeting, with a list of suggestions regarding AIDS and HIV stories in the Times, including a request that the paper donate its vast archive of AIDS coverage to Sister Mary Elizabeth and her free web site, www.aegis.org. Well, after some lobbying at the top levels of the Times, the paper of record recently provided its AIDS archive to Sister and her fantastic site, where the stories are available to all for free.
This year's Times shareholders meeting is on April 26 and I would dearly love to be there to thank Arthur Sulzberger Jr., for sharing the Times' AIDS archive and to press my current concerns about the paper's reporting on AIDS research and epidemiology.
Funds are needed to travel from San Francisco to New York, and if you're supportive of my advocacy work with the Times and want to make a donation, I'd be most appreciative of your generosity.
Donations can be made through the PayPal link at my blog, http://meptrelis.blogspot.com, or by sending a check to me at 132 Clinton Park, Apt. # 1, San Francisco, CA 94103.
Full disclosure: I received thirty-two cents in dividends from my one share in the New York Times in 2004.
Help send this activist to the Times' annual meeting!
Thanks.
Best,
Michael Petrelis
Ph: 415-621-6267
As many of you know, last year I became a shareholder in the New York Times when I purchased a single share in the company. I did this so I would have another way of making my voice heard inside the newsroom on W. 43rd Street.
I attended last year's annual shareholders meeting, with a list of suggestions regarding AIDS and HIV stories in the Times, including a request that the paper donate its vast archive of AIDS coverage to Sister Mary Elizabeth and her free web site, www.aegis.org. Well, after some lobbying at the top levels of the Times, the paper of record recently provided its AIDS archive to Sister and her fantastic site, where the stories are available to all for free.
This year's Times shareholders meeting is on April 26 and I would dearly love to be there to thank Arthur Sulzberger Jr., for sharing the Times' AIDS archive and to press my current concerns about the paper's reporting on AIDS research and epidemiology.
Funds are needed to travel from San Francisco to New York, and if you're supportive of my advocacy work with the Times and want to make a donation, I'd be most appreciative of your generosity.
Donations can be made through the PayPal link at my blog, http://meptrelis.blogspot.com, or by sending a check to me at 132 Clinton Park, Apt. # 1, San Francisco, CA 94103.
Full disclosure: I received thirty-two cents in dividends from my one share in the New York Times in 2004.
Help send this activist to the Times' annual meeting!
Thanks.
Best,
Michael Petrelis
Ph: 415-621-6267
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Subject: David Ho lecture
Date: 4/12/2005 12:24:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: kkelly@mail.rockefeller.edu
Dear Mr. Petrelis,
I spoke with Dr. Ho's secretary, and while he is giving a lecture at
Rockefeller on the 5th of May, it is part of a program that is for
Rockefeller University donors only. However, depending on how long you
will be in town, he is also giving a lecture at the New York Academy of
Sciences on the 11th of May. Their website is www.nyas.org. Sorry I
wasn't able to help you more, good luck and have a great time while you
are here!
Best,
Kristine
Kristine A. Kelly, Ph.D.
Science Writer / Media Relations
Communications and Public Affairs
The Rockefeller University
1230 York Avenue
New York, NY 10021
(212)327-7146
Fax: (212)327-7876
Date: 4/12/2005 12:24:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: kkelly@mail.rockefeller.edu
Dear Mr. Petrelis,
I spoke with Dr. Ho's secretary, and while he is giving a lecture at
Rockefeller on the 5th of May, it is part of a program that is for
Rockefeller University donors only. However, depending on how long you
will be in town, he is also giving a lecture at the New York Academy of
Sciences on the 11th of May. Their website is www.nyas.org. Sorry I
wasn't able to help you more, good luck and have a great time while you
are here!
Best,
Kristine
Kristine A. Kelly, Ph.D.
Science Writer / Media Relations
Communications and Public Affairs
The Rockefeller University
1230 York Avenue
New York, NY 10021
(212)327-7146
Fax: (212)327-7876
Sunday, April 10, 2005
Forwarded Message:
Subj: HIV stats
Date: 4/10/2005 3:23:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: public@nytimes.com
To: MPetrelis@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Dear Mr. Petrelis,
Thank you for your message. The editors are currently addressing
the confusing and at times contradictory statistics, and I believe the
product of this examination will appear in the paper shortly.
Yours sincerely,
Daniel Okrent
Public Editor
N.B. Any opinions expressed here, unless otherwise attributed, are solely
my own
Subj: HIV stats
Date: 4/10/2005 3:23:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: public@nytimes.com
To: MPetrelis@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Dear Mr. Petrelis,
Thank you for your message. The editors are currently addressing
the confusing and at times contradictory statistics, and I believe the
product of this examination will appear in the paper shortly.
Yours sincerely,
Daniel Okrent
Public Editor
N.B. Any opinions expressed here, unless otherwise attributed, are solely
my own
Saturday, April 09, 2005
Dear Friends:
I've been kvetching to Jack Shafer since 1990, when I moved to Washington, DC, to start an ACT UP chapter and he was editor and media critic for the alt-weekly City Paper.
If he wrote anything about my latest complaint against mainstream and gay media or closeted politicians, he considered my facts, I think with all the balance and fairness he could muster, then proceeded to slam me.
Shafer now includes my role as a blogger activist journalist in his current Slate column, with a small degree of respect for my use of Federal Election Committee files and Freedom of Information Act requests, which is appreciated.
You should know that I contacted Shafer recently with my criticism of a recent New York Times story on the mutant HIV strain in New York City that heavily relied on unnamed "health officials," which is not addressed in his new column, and I harbor hope he will in the future look at what is wrong with much of the AIDS coverage in the Grey Lady.
Please follow the link below and read Shafer's full text.
Best,
Michael Petrelis
^^^
http://slate.msn.com/id/2116498/
Slate
April 8, 2005
What Can Bloggers Do That Reporters Can't?
By Jack Shafer
[snip]
Professional journalists have it all over bloggers when it comes to reporting. The first generation of bloggers tends to resist taking off their PJs and donning hip-waders to report the news from the swamp. Reporting is a learned skill and experience counts for something. Also, professional news organizations pay for airplane tickets, hotel accommodations, car rentals, libel insurance, editing, and other resources to make reporting happen. How many unpaid bloggers will cover a war from the shrapneled front? A handful. Maybe.
Yet the pros don't have a complete lock on reporting. Energetic bloggers, such as activist Michael Petrelis, have learned to work the FOIA machinery and the FEC database as well as the best professionals. Captain Ed at Captain's Quarters kicked up an international incident just this week by publishing banned-in-Canada material about the Canadian Liberal Party. Russ Kick of the Memory Hole does heroic work in retrieving banned information and uncovering government secrets. If they wanted to, bloggers could poach the local news beat away from the professional media by covering city council and school board activity that goes undocumented by the mainstream. Greensboro 101, in Greensboro, N.C., has those sorts of ambitions. Likewise, Mark Potts' "hyperlocal" backfence.com hopes to take "reporting" down to the pixel level of neighborhood T-ball games, PTA meetings, and development issues.
As many critics have remarked, blogs will never replace the mainstream media because without the mainstream media to feed on they can't exist. Blogs are parasites, they say. Oddly, when the mainstreamers sup from the trough set out for them by the National Security Archive, the Center for Public Integrity, the GAO, and other institutions, nobody calls them parasites.
Writer for writer, mainstream journalists possess more talent than bloggers, and talent matters when you're competing for an audience. It's no accident the several of the best bloggers, Mickey Kaus, Andrew Sullivan, James Wolcott, and Joshua Marshall, honed their interpretive, narrative, and reportorial skills in mainstream media. It sounds flip, but one thing mainstream journalists could teach bloggers is that there is more to the craft of writing than typing "Atrios nails it!" and linking to Eschaton.
[snip]
I've been kvetching to Jack Shafer since 1990, when I moved to Washington, DC, to start an ACT UP chapter and he was editor and media critic for the alt-weekly City Paper.
If he wrote anything about my latest complaint against mainstream and gay media or closeted politicians, he considered my facts, I think with all the balance and fairness he could muster, then proceeded to slam me.
Shafer now includes my role as a blogger activist journalist in his current Slate column, with a small degree of respect for my use of Federal Election Committee files and Freedom of Information Act requests, which is appreciated.
You should know that I contacted Shafer recently with my criticism of a recent New York Times story on the mutant HIV strain in New York City that heavily relied on unnamed "health officials," which is not addressed in his new column, and I harbor hope he will in the future look at what is wrong with much of the AIDS coverage in the Grey Lady.
Please follow the link below and read Shafer's full text.
Best,
Michael Petrelis
^^^
http://slate.msn.com/id/2116498/
Slate
April 8, 2005
What Can Bloggers Do That Reporters Can't?
By Jack Shafer
[snip]
Professional journalists have it all over bloggers when it comes to reporting. The first generation of bloggers tends to resist taking off their PJs and donning hip-waders to report the news from the swamp. Reporting is a learned skill and experience counts for something. Also, professional news organizations pay for airplane tickets, hotel accommodations, car rentals, libel insurance, editing, and other resources to make reporting happen. How many unpaid bloggers will cover a war from the shrapneled front? A handful. Maybe.
Yet the pros don't have a complete lock on reporting. Energetic bloggers, such as activist Michael Petrelis, have learned to work the FOIA machinery and the FEC database as well as the best professionals. Captain Ed at Captain's Quarters kicked up an international incident just this week by publishing banned-in-Canada material about the Canadian Liberal Party. Russ Kick of the Memory Hole does heroic work in retrieving banned information and uncovering government secrets. If they wanted to, bloggers could poach the local news beat away from the professional media by covering city council and school board activity that goes undocumented by the mainstream. Greensboro 101, in Greensboro, N.C., has those sorts of ambitions. Likewise, Mark Potts' "hyperlocal" backfence.com hopes to take "reporting" down to the pixel level of neighborhood T-ball games, PTA meetings, and development issues.
As many critics have remarked, blogs will never replace the mainstream media because without the mainstream media to feed on they can't exist. Blogs are parasites, they say. Oddly, when the mainstreamers sup from the trough set out for them by the National Security Archive, the Center for Public Integrity, the GAO, and other institutions, nobody calls them parasites.
Writer for writer, mainstream journalists possess more talent than bloggers, and talent matters when you're competing for an audience. It's no accident the several of the best bloggers, Mickey Kaus, Andrew Sullivan, James Wolcott, and Joshua Marshall, honed their interpretive, narrative, and reportorial skills in mainstream media. It sounds flip, but one thing mainstream journalists could teach bloggers is that there is more to the craft of writing than typing "Atrios nails it!" and linking to Eschaton.
[snip]
Monday, April 04, 2005
Dear Friends:
With the help of my queer brother across the pond, Peter Tatchell of OutRage!, we've persuaded the UK doctor responsible for the content and listing in the General Practitioner's Notebook, to not only delete the term "gay bowel syndrome," but also to apologize to us, and all queers, for previously including it in their materials.
You may recall that we first sent letters to the GP Notebook editors back in December, which means it took them almost four months to expunge "gay bowel syndrome." Microsoft and Bloomsbury did its deleting in less time, but at least two deletions of this noxious phrase have come to pass, and for that, I'm grateful.
You'll also pardon the expression, but let's make sure this "gay bowel syndrome" sh-t never again appears in medical text or dictionaries as a legit disease, without a vigorous challenge.
It's fantastic to read the three listings below for the alleged gay syndrome using the GP Notebook's search engine, because they have nothing to do with the syndrome.
Best,
Michael
^^^
Forwarded Message:
Subj: THANKS - Bloomsbury, Microsoft delete "gay bowel syndrome" from Encarta
Date: 4/4/2005 1:19:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: peter@tatchell.freeserve.co.uk
To: MPetrelis@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hi Michael,
Congratulations! You have won! Thanks for all your efforts.
I presume you received the email below from GP Notebook.
Best wishes, Peter
>Dear Michael and Peter
>Thanks to the advice from the both of you, we have deleted “Gay Bowel Syndrome” >from the GPnotebook website. We had not appreciated the offence that was caused by >this term and would like to apologise for this oversight. From a clinical >viewpoint the term has truly become obsolete with no English language medical >articles on the subject since 1997
>(Pubmed search, April 2005).
>Thank you again for your input and support for our medical database that has been >compiled over 12 years as a voluntary effort by a team of UK medics. We make our >work available free of charge to over 500,000 clients per month around the globe.
>Best wishes,
>Dr Damian Crowther
- - -
http://www.gpnotebook.co.uk/homepage.cfm
Pages with both "bowel" and "syndrome" in the title are:
irritable bowel syndrome
bacterial gastroenteritis and irritable bowel syndrome
gastroenteritis and irritable bowel syndrome
Total number of pages found: 3
With the help of my queer brother across the pond, Peter Tatchell of OutRage!, we've persuaded the UK doctor responsible for the content and listing in the General Practitioner's Notebook, to not only delete the term "gay bowel syndrome," but also to apologize to us, and all queers, for previously including it in their materials.
You may recall that we first sent letters to the GP Notebook editors back in December, which means it took them almost four months to expunge "gay bowel syndrome." Microsoft and Bloomsbury did its deleting in less time, but at least two deletions of this noxious phrase have come to pass, and for that, I'm grateful.
You'll also pardon the expression, but let's make sure this "gay bowel syndrome" sh-t never again appears in medical text or dictionaries as a legit disease, without a vigorous challenge.
It's fantastic to read the three listings below for the alleged gay syndrome using the GP Notebook's search engine, because they have nothing to do with the syndrome.
Best,
Michael
^^^
Forwarded Message:
Subj: THANKS - Bloomsbury, Microsoft delete "gay bowel syndrome" from Encarta
Date: 4/4/2005 1:19:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: peter@tatchell.freeserve.co.uk
To: MPetrelis@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Hi Michael,
Congratulations! You have won! Thanks for all your efforts.
I presume you received the email below from GP Notebook.
Best wishes, Peter
>Dear Michael and Peter
>Thanks to the advice from the both of you, we have deleted “Gay Bowel Syndrome” >from the GPnotebook website. We had not appreciated the offence that was caused by >this term and would like to apologise for this oversight. From a clinical >viewpoint the term has truly become obsolete with no English language medical >articles on the subject since 1997
>(Pubmed search, April 2005).
>Thank you again for your input and support for our medical database that has been >compiled over 12 years as a voluntary effort by a team of UK medics. We make our >work available free of charge to over 500,000 clients per month around the globe.
>Best wishes,
>Dr Damian Crowther
- - -
http://www.gpnotebook.co.uk/homepage.cfm
Pages with both "bowel" and "syndrome" in the title are:
irritable bowel syndrome
bacterial gastroenteritis and irritable bowel syndrome
gastroenteritis and irritable bowel syndrome
Total number of pages found: 3
April 4, 2005
Dear Friends:
It gives me great pleasure to inform you that MSN Encarta has apparently deleted "gay bowel syndrome" from their online dictionary.
Follow the link below and see what pops up on your screen when using the Encarta dictionary for a definition of "gay bowel syndrome."
By the way, I have not heard back from anyone at Microsoft, MSN or Bloomsbury about my letter to them.
Best,
Michael
^^^
March 31, 2005
Marian Brown
BloomsburyUSA
New York, NY
Hi Marion:
I searched the MSN Encarta online dictionary this morning for "gay bowel syndrome" and this listing is what came up:
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/gay%2520bowel%2520syndrome.html
>No results found for "gay bowel syndrome"
>Multiple Words
>The words "gay bowel syndrome" do not appear together, but you can try a search on the individual words.
Is it safe for me to assume this nonexistent medical condition has actually be deleted from the MSN Encarta dictionary?
Please advise. Thanks.
Best,
Michael Petrelis
San Francisco, CA
Ph: 415-621-6267
Dear Friends:
It gives me great pleasure to inform you that MSN Encarta has apparently deleted "gay bowel syndrome" from their online dictionary.
Follow the link below and see what pops up on your screen when using the Encarta dictionary for a definition of "gay bowel syndrome."
By the way, I have not heard back from anyone at Microsoft, MSN or Bloomsbury about my letter to them.
Best,
Michael
^^^
March 31, 2005
Marian Brown
BloomsburyUSA
New York, NY
Hi Marion:
I searched the MSN Encarta online dictionary this morning for "gay bowel syndrome" and this listing is what came up:
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/gay%2520bowel%2520syndrome.html
>No results found for "gay bowel syndrome"
>Multiple Words
>The words "gay bowel syndrome" do not appear together, but you can try a search on the individual words.
Is it safe for me to assume this nonexistent medical condition has actually be deleted from the MSN Encarta dictionary?
Please advise. Thanks.
Best,
Michael Petrelis
San Francisco, CA
Ph: 415-621-6267
Sunday, April 03, 2005
April 3, 2005
Daniel Okrent
Public Editor
The New York Times
Dear Mr. Okrent:
The Times seems to be engaging in risky reporting today about HIV stats in New York City, in a story written by the paper's gay HIV beat correspondent, Andrew Jacobs; AIDS Fighters Face a Resistant Form of Apathy.
While the Times is free to have Jacobs write (and rewrite) essentially the same gay gloom and doom HIV story several times, I am concerned about several claims he made in today's article.
Jacobs wrote: "Locally, at least, the statistics paint a mixed picture. The number of new H.I.V. infections among men who have sex with men declined slightly from 2001 to 2003, according to the most recent figures available, although in much of the country that number has been rising."
First, what is mixed about an overall 35% decline of HIV infections? I'm not sure how there could be a downside to such a drop.
My second concern is that the Times omitted the fact that overall HIV infections for the city are down, and by 35%? Why is a 35% drop of HIV excluded from the story?
Third, why is the Times characterizing an almost 20% drop of new HIV infections for gay and bisexual men in New York City as slight? Surely, if that number were instead climbing by 20%, the Times wouldn't report that jump as slight.
Fourth question: In Jacobs' metro section story on February 15; Gays Debate Radical Steps to Curb Unsafe Sex, he reported on "a growing number of gay men" who are contracting HIV. Please explain to me how we've gone from an expanding number to a decline among gays in New York City in little more than a month, in reporting from the Times.
My fifth and final question concerns what Jacobs wrote in his Beast in the Bathhouse piece on January 12, 2005: "Health officials say a sharp increase in the number of syphilis cases in the city indicates an increase in unsafe sex, which they fear may lead to a resurgence in H.I.V. transmission."
Putting aside for the time being the annoying Times habit of continually referring to unnamed New York City officials simply as "health officials," it would appear that what Jacobs has written today about gay HIV stats declining, proves the dire predictions of the "health officials" last year has not been borne out.
So the question here is, does the Times owe reader an explanation for seeming contradictions in its reporting on the HIV fears of unnamed "health officials?"
A prompt reply to my questions and concerns is respectfully requested.
Regards,
Michael Petrelis
San Francisco, CA
cc: Andrew Jacobs, jacobsa@nytimes.com
Sources:
1.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/03/health/03aids.html?
2.
query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30E16FA395E0C768DDDAB0894DD404482
3.
homepage.mac.com/theatretech/iblog/B1435315922/C1096533194/E1717802805/
-
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/
March 25, 2005
AN "APPARENT UPSURGE": You will recall how Richard Cohen of the Washington Post wrote recently of an "apparent upsurge" of HIV infections among gay men. He was seconded in this by one Charles Kaiser who cited his own anecdotal evidence of rising numbers of gay men contracting HIV in New York City. As it happens, we do have some hard data on this now because since 2002, New York City has required all new HIV diagnoses to be reported. Michael Petrelis lays out the latest data on his blog today. It's quite striking. New diagnoses of HIV have declined each year.
The most comprehensive data is for first quarters of each year (they haven't gotten past reporting the first quarter of 2004 yet). So look at this: in the first quarter of 2002, we have 1403 new diagnoses; in Q1 2003, we have 1288; in Q1 2004, we have 908. So we have a 35 percent decrease in HIV diagnoses in New York City in three years. That's not AIDS diagnoses (although they're down too). This is HIV infection data.
When the infections are broken down into subcategories, the numbers in the first quarters of 2002, 2003 and 2004 of HIV infections among men who have sex with men declines from 327 in 2002 to 344 in 2003 to 277 in 2004: an annual decline from 2003 to 2004 of almost 20 percent. Maybe the "apparent upsurge" has taken place since the beginning of 2004. But I see no reason why this big decline would suddenly reverse itself.
More importantly, Cohen has no and had no evidence to write what he did, and using it to, in his words, "condemn" gay men in New York City whom he holds responsible for a new epidemic. Cohen needs to write a correction and an apology for non-existent reporting.
Petrelis also sends an email to the NYT suggesting they run a story on this great news - especially since their science writer, Lawrence Altman has been writing scare stories for five years. If the NYT can run five consecutive scare stories on a not-new strain of HIV, they can surely run some actual facts about the subject.
Daniel Okrent
Public Editor
The New York Times
Dear Mr. Okrent:
The Times seems to be engaging in risky reporting today about HIV stats in New York City, in a story written by the paper's gay HIV beat correspondent, Andrew Jacobs; AIDS Fighters Face a Resistant Form of Apathy.
While the Times is free to have Jacobs write (and rewrite) essentially the same gay gloom and doom HIV story several times, I am concerned about several claims he made in today's article.
Jacobs wrote: "Locally, at least, the statistics paint a mixed picture. The number of new H.I.V. infections among men who have sex with men declined slightly from 2001 to 2003, according to the most recent figures available, although in much of the country that number has been rising."
First, what is mixed about an overall 35% decline of HIV infections? I'm not sure how there could be a downside to such a drop.
My second concern is that the Times omitted the fact that overall HIV infections for the city are down, and by 35%? Why is a 35% drop of HIV excluded from the story?
Third, why is the Times characterizing an almost 20% drop of new HIV infections for gay and bisexual men in New York City as slight? Surely, if that number were instead climbing by 20%, the Times wouldn't report that jump as slight.
Fourth question: In Jacobs' metro section story on February 15; Gays Debate Radical Steps to Curb Unsafe Sex, he reported on "a growing number of gay men" who are contracting HIV. Please explain to me how we've gone from an expanding number to a decline among gays in New York City in little more than a month, in reporting from the Times.
My fifth and final question concerns what Jacobs wrote in his Beast in the Bathhouse piece on January 12, 2005: "Health officials say a sharp increase in the number of syphilis cases in the city indicates an increase in unsafe sex, which they fear may lead to a resurgence in H.I.V. transmission."
Putting aside for the time being the annoying Times habit of continually referring to unnamed New York City officials simply as "health officials," it would appear that what Jacobs has written today about gay HIV stats declining, proves the dire predictions of the "health officials" last year has not been borne out.
So the question here is, does the Times owe reader an explanation for seeming contradictions in its reporting on the HIV fears of unnamed "health officials?"
A prompt reply to my questions and concerns is respectfully requested.
Regards,
Michael Petrelis
San Francisco, CA
cc: Andrew Jacobs, jacobsa@nytimes.com
Sources:
1.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/03/health/03aids.html?
2.
query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30E16FA395E0C768DDDAB0894DD404482
3.
homepage.mac.com/theatretech/iblog/B1435315922/C1096533194/E1717802805/
-
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/
March 25, 2005
AN "APPARENT UPSURGE": You will recall how Richard Cohen of the Washington Post wrote recently of an "apparent upsurge" of HIV infections among gay men. He was seconded in this by one Charles Kaiser who cited his own anecdotal evidence of rising numbers of gay men contracting HIV in New York City. As it happens, we do have some hard data on this now because since 2002, New York City has required all new HIV diagnoses to be reported. Michael Petrelis lays out the latest data on his blog today. It's quite striking. New diagnoses of HIV have declined each year.
The most comprehensive data is for first quarters of each year (they haven't gotten past reporting the first quarter of 2004 yet). So look at this: in the first quarter of 2002, we have 1403 new diagnoses; in Q1 2003, we have 1288; in Q1 2004, we have 908. So we have a 35 percent decrease in HIV diagnoses in New York City in three years. That's not AIDS diagnoses (although they're down too). This is HIV infection data.
When the infections are broken down into subcategories, the numbers in the first quarters of 2002, 2003 and 2004 of HIV infections among men who have sex with men declines from 327 in 2002 to 344 in 2003 to 277 in 2004: an annual decline from 2003 to 2004 of almost 20 percent. Maybe the "apparent upsurge" has taken place since the beginning of 2004. But I see no reason why this big decline would suddenly reverse itself.
More importantly, Cohen has no and had no evidence to write what he did, and using it to, in his words, "condemn" gay men in New York City whom he holds responsible for a new epidemic. Cohen needs to write a correction and an apology for non-existent reporting.
Petrelis also sends an email to the NYT suggesting they run a story on this great news - especially since their science writer, Lawrence Altman has been writing scare stories for five years. If the NYT can run five consecutive scare stories on a not-new strain of HIV, they can surely run some actual facts about the subject.
Saturday, April 02, 2005
http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com
Charles Kaiser
New York, NY
Hi Charlie:
I can't attend the April 3 panel in New York on the mutant HIV strain, so I'm sending you these written questions, hoping you'll address them during the Q&A time. [1]
1.
Nine quarterly HIV/AIDS surveillance reports for New York City HIV stats are declining, including the stats for gay male HIV infections. [2]
Why are these numbers falling? Is it because of effective HIV prevention programs? Are more gay men and sexually individuals are engaging in safer sex? Could the drop have anything to do with AIDS cocktails reducing HIV viral loads?
2.
Considering that only one New York media outlet, the online Gotham Gazette, has reported on the latest HIV stats in NYC, and that they are falling, do you think other news sources, especially the mainstream media, should report on the stats? [3]
Looking forward to your answers.
Best,
Michael Petrelis
San Francisco, CA
^^^
Sources:
1.
http://nlgjany.com/calendar.php
Sunday, April 3, 2005
Superbug and the Press: A Panel Discussion
With revelations that a new, particularly virulent strain of HIV may have surfaced in New York, what role should the media play? How can journalists appropriately cover a story where the science is complex? Do headlines like the New York Post's "Super Bug" unnecessarily alarm readers? How do journalists balance detailed information about transmission with squeamishness about gay sex? And is the role of crystal meth and other drugs getting appropriate play?
These questions and others will be the focus of "Superbug and the Press," a provocative panel by the New York Chapter of the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association, co-sponsored by Gay City News.
Confirmed speakers include:
Duncan Osborne, Associate Editor, Gay City News
Charles Kaiser, author & activist
Benjamin Ryan, freelance writer specializing in AIDS/HIV
Dennis deLeon, Executive Director, Latino Commission on Aids
Dr. Scott Kellerman, Assistant Commissioner for HIV/AIDS Services, New York City Department of Health
Moderated by Ray Smith, editor, Body Positive
This is event is FREE and open to the public and media.
Sunday, April 3, 2005 - The Center, 208 W. 13th St., Room 301 7 - 9 P.M.
2.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/pdf/dires/qtr1-2003.pdf ,
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/pdf/dires/dires-2004-report-qtr1.pdf , http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/pdf/dires/dires-2005-report-qtr1.pdf , http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/pdf/dires/qtr2-2003.pdf ,
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/pdf/dires/dires-2004-report-qtr2.pdf , http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/pdf/dires/qtr3-2003.pdf ,
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/pdf/dires/dires-2004-report-qtr3.pdf , http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/pdf/dires/qtr4-2003.pdf ,
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/pdf/dires/dires-2004-report-qtr4.pdf
3.
http://www.gothamgazette.com/corrections/
Charles Kaiser
New York, NY
Hi Charlie:
I can't attend the April 3 panel in New York on the mutant HIV strain, so I'm sending you these written questions, hoping you'll address them during the Q&A time. [1]
1.
Nine quarterly HIV/AIDS surveillance reports for New York City HIV stats are declining, including the stats for gay male HIV infections. [2]
Why are these numbers falling? Is it because of effective HIV prevention programs? Are more gay men and sexually individuals are engaging in safer sex? Could the drop have anything to do with AIDS cocktails reducing HIV viral loads?
2.
Considering that only one New York media outlet, the online Gotham Gazette, has reported on the latest HIV stats in NYC, and that they are falling, do you think other news sources, especially the mainstream media, should report on the stats? [3]
Looking forward to your answers.
Best,
Michael Petrelis
San Francisco, CA
^^^
Sources:
1.
http://nlgjany.com/calendar.php
Sunday, April 3, 2005
Superbug and the Press: A Panel Discussion
With revelations that a new, particularly virulent strain of HIV may have surfaced in New York, what role should the media play? How can journalists appropriately cover a story where the science is complex? Do headlines like the New York Post's "Super Bug" unnecessarily alarm readers? How do journalists balance detailed information about transmission with squeamishness about gay sex? And is the role of crystal meth and other drugs getting appropriate play?
These questions and others will be the focus of "Superbug and the Press," a provocative panel by the New York Chapter of the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association, co-sponsored by Gay City News.
Confirmed speakers include:
Duncan Osborne, Associate Editor, Gay City News
Charles Kaiser, author & activist
Benjamin Ryan, freelance writer specializing in AIDS/HIV
Dennis deLeon, Executive Director, Latino Commission on Aids
Dr. Scott Kellerman, Assistant Commissioner for HIV/AIDS Services, New York City Department of Health
Moderated by Ray Smith, editor, Body Positive
This is event is FREE and open to the public and media.
Sunday, April 3, 2005 - The Center, 208 W. 13th St., Room 301 7 - 9 P.M.
2.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/pdf/dires/qtr1-2003.pdf ,
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/pdf/dires/dires-2004-report-qtr1.pdf , http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/pdf/dires/dires-2005-report-qtr1.pdf , http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/pdf/dires/qtr2-2003.pdf ,
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/pdf/dires/dires-2004-report-qtr2.pdf , http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/pdf/dires/qtr3-2003.pdf ,
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/pdf/dires/dires-2004-report-qtr3.pdf , http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/pdf/dires/qtr4-2003.pdf ,
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/pdf/dires/dires-2004-report-qtr4.pdf
3.
http://www.gothamgazette.com/corrections/
Friday, April 01, 2005
April 2, 2005
David Corcoran
Science Desk
The New York Times
Dear Mr. Corcoran:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is carrying out a multiyear program to clean up duplicate HIV and AIDS cases in all US states, territories and possessions, in order to create better epidemiology and surveillance of AIDS in America.
Since late January 2005, a few states, in their annual HIV/AIDS surveillance reports, have shared information about their participation in the CDC's Interstate Duplication Evaluation Project.
Of particular interest to me are the reports from New York and Colorado. You'll see below I've excerpted key passages that detail how the project is reducing both HIV and AIDS stats in those two states, and at the national level.
I think the sharp reductions of what were previously accepted HIV and AIDS stats from many states and the CDC portends complex changes in federal funding for AIDS research, care and treatment of people with AIDS and HIV prevention programs.
This might be of interest to your readers. Please look over the excerpts below, along with the full reports from which they came, and see if any of it would make a story for the Times.
Regards,
Michael Petrelis
San Francisco, CA
^^^
New York State HIV/AIDS Surveillance Semiannual Report
Issued 02/01/05
In 2000 the Center [sic] for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) completed the Interstate Duplication Evaluation Project (IDEP) in which all states were required to participate.
The purpose of the project was to identify duplicate cases of HIV/AIDS that have been reported to he National HIV/AIDS Surveillance System by one or more states and assure that the cases are only counted once.
If a case was reported by two or more states, the earliest date of diagnosis was used to determine which state the cases assigned to.
CDC estimates that 30,000 of the AIDS cases in the national surveillance system were duplicates, representing less than 5% of the almost 1 million cases that have been reported to CDC over the history of the epidemic through 2002.
It is anticipated that this process will be conducted on an ongoing basis.
The percent of AIDS cases that were lost in NYS [New York State] due to this process was approximately 3%.
Please note that this loss of AIDS cases will most likely not effect New York's Ryan White funding or other funding based on the AIDS case count because New York's estimated 3% loss in AIDS cases compares favorably with the average loss of cases for the nation which was a little less than 5%.
The data presented in the December 2003 Semiannual Report reflects this change in the AIDS case count for NYS.
The December 2002 and 2001 reports will be updated to reflect this change by March 1, 2005.
(Source: www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/aids/semiannual/2003/surveillance_semiannual_report_2003.pdf , page 2.)
-
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Jan. 27, 2005
Dear Colleague letter:
[snip]
All states lost cases due IDEP. CDC estimated that the overall duplication rate nationwide was approximately 5 percent.
Colorado lost 5.4 percent of HIV/AIDS morbidity. Of these, 7.9% of Colorado's HIV cases and 3.1% of AIDS cases as of June 30, 2004, were reclassified.
This relatively higher rate of reassigned HIV cases is partially accounted for by Colorado's long history of HIV reporting and it's active case finding.
[snip]
(Source: http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/dc/HIV_STDSurv/MonitortheEpi.pdf , page 2.)
David Corcoran
Science Desk
The New York Times
Dear Mr. Corcoran:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is carrying out a multiyear program to clean up duplicate HIV and AIDS cases in all US states, territories and possessions, in order to create better epidemiology and surveillance of AIDS in America.
Since late January 2005, a few states, in their annual HIV/AIDS surveillance reports, have shared information about their participation in the CDC's Interstate Duplication Evaluation Project.
Of particular interest to me are the reports from New York and Colorado. You'll see below I've excerpted key passages that detail how the project is reducing both HIV and AIDS stats in those two states, and at the national level.
I think the sharp reductions of what were previously accepted HIV and AIDS stats from many states and the CDC portends complex changes in federal funding for AIDS research, care and treatment of people with AIDS and HIV prevention programs.
This might be of interest to your readers. Please look over the excerpts below, along with the full reports from which they came, and see if any of it would make a story for the Times.
Regards,
Michael Petrelis
San Francisco, CA
^^^
New York State HIV/AIDS Surveillance Semiannual Report
Issued 02/01/05
In 2000 the Center [sic] for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) completed the Interstate Duplication Evaluation Project (IDEP) in which all states were required to participate.
The purpose of the project was to identify duplicate cases of HIV/AIDS that have been reported to he National HIV/AIDS Surveillance System by one or more states and assure that the cases are only counted once.
If a case was reported by two or more states, the earliest date of diagnosis was used to determine which state the cases assigned to.
CDC estimates that 30,000 of the AIDS cases in the national surveillance system were duplicates, representing less than 5% of the almost 1 million cases that have been reported to CDC over the history of the epidemic through 2002.
It is anticipated that this process will be conducted on an ongoing basis.
The percent of AIDS cases that were lost in NYS [New York State] due to this process was approximately 3%.
Please note that this loss of AIDS cases will most likely not effect New York's Ryan White funding or other funding based on the AIDS case count because New York's estimated 3% loss in AIDS cases compares favorably with the average loss of cases for the nation which was a little less than 5%.
The data presented in the December 2003 Semiannual Report reflects this change in the AIDS case count for NYS.
The December 2002 and 2001 reports will be updated to reflect this change by March 1, 2005.
(Source: www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/aids/semiannual/2003/surveillance_semiannual_report_2003.pdf , page 2.)
-
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Jan. 27, 2005
Dear Colleague letter:
[snip]
All states lost cases due IDEP. CDC estimated that the overall duplication rate nationwide was approximately 5 percent.
Colorado lost 5.4 percent of HIV/AIDS morbidity. Of these, 7.9% of Colorado's HIV cases and 3.1% of AIDS cases as of June 30, 2004, were reclassified.
This relatively higher rate of reassigned HIV cases is partially accounted for by Colorado's long history of HIV reporting and it's active case finding.
[snip]
(Source: http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/dc/HIV_STDSurv/MonitortheEpi.pdf , page 2.)
April Fool's!
New York City has two gay newspapers, Gay City News and the NY Blade, but neither one has yet to report on the decline in HIV stats from the NYC health department.
I suspect the gay papers have one thing in common with the New York Times on the issue of HIV stats: If the health department isn't handing the stats to the press on a silver platter, the papers won't report on the quarterly HIV surveillance reports.
So far only a single New York media outlet, the Gotham Gazette, in a correction from the editor, has seen fit to inform people that the HIV numbers for the city are decreasing. And just two blogs, Andrew Sullivan's and mine, have called attention to the NYC HIV stats.
Maybe the problem for the Times, Gay City News and the NY Blade is they just don't know how to cover good news about HIV when it occurs. I would think New York newspapers would jump at the chance to write about HIV declines, maybe get quotes from HIV prevention groups claiming their programs and messages are effective and working, but that is not the case.
I find it ironic that Gay City News every week prints the latest stats about dead and wounded American soldiers in Iraq, but the paper and its reporters seems apathetic about HIV stats in their own backyard. (Source: http://gaycitynews.com/gcn_413/confirmeddead.html )
In case the New York rags want to get over their silence about the current falling HIV stats in NYC, the reporters and editors don't have to leave their offices to locate the stats, because they're available with the click of the mouse at: http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/dires/hivepi.html .
I hope these three important publications quickly get around to reporting on the falling NYC HIV stats.
New York City has two gay newspapers, Gay City News and the NY Blade, but neither one has yet to report on the decline in HIV stats from the NYC health department.
I suspect the gay papers have one thing in common with the New York Times on the issue of HIV stats: If the health department isn't handing the stats to the press on a silver platter, the papers won't report on the quarterly HIV surveillance reports.
So far only a single New York media outlet, the Gotham Gazette, in a correction from the editor, has seen fit to inform people that the HIV numbers for the city are decreasing. And just two blogs, Andrew Sullivan's and mine, have called attention to the NYC HIV stats.
Maybe the problem for the Times, Gay City News and the NY Blade is they just don't know how to cover good news about HIV when it occurs. I would think New York newspapers would jump at the chance to write about HIV declines, maybe get quotes from HIV prevention groups claiming their programs and messages are effective and working, but that is not the case.
I find it ironic that Gay City News every week prints the latest stats about dead and wounded American soldiers in Iraq, but the paper and its reporters seems apathetic about HIV stats in their own backyard. (Source: http://gaycitynews.com/gcn_413/confirmeddead.html )
In case the New York rags want to get over their silence about the current falling HIV stats in NYC, the reporters and editors don't have to leave their offices to locate the stats, because they're available with the click of the mouse at: http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/dires/hivepi.html .
I hope these three important publications quickly get around to reporting on the falling NYC HIV stats.