Straight Party Line

Please note the central presence of the Bible. As someone who was once sworn into State Department service, I can attest that the Bible is not always used as a prop.

Who’s vimpirella off to the left again?

“Hasn’t realized the oddness of her presence?” Jesus, Morticia looks more other-worldly and soulless than ever.
The glassy eyes, the blank, amazingly wide stare, the incredibly pale skin. Medicated? We can only hope.
Bush is a dumb, sloppy sadist who craves approval, but the wife? A straight up zombie freaksow.
Let’s just say I’m glad she doesn’t get behind the wheel anymore.

In the light of this posting, the photo of the event that was selected for posting on the White House website is interesting.(See
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/images/20061010-8_p101006sc-0161-1-515h.html) The caption describes the event as taking place in the presence of Mark Dybul’s “family”. Is that Jason Claire conveniently hidden behind Secretary of State Rice? In any event, it is very clumsy composition, with two members of the “family” hidden behind an awkwardly hovering Rice. The White House also forgets to mention what Dybul is Ambassador of. (U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator?)

I see a white woman, a gay couple, and a black woman posing for shoddily-handled Republican spin.
What a lousy bunch of sell-outs.

Condi’s posture in this photograph seems awkward to me. She isn’t standing up straight, she’s kind of leaned forward. Her elbows are very tight to her body. Her head seems cocked to one side.
The photograph is ever so slightly off of vertical, too. Adding to the amateur-hour feel of it.

Are they ashamed of their Global AIDS Coordinator? He (along with Laura) is the disappearing man in this photo. His partner, with Bible, is the focus, if this odd effort can be said to have a focus.
Since I assume he is fronting for imbecilic abstinence-only non-preventative AIDS policies, I hope he wants to be hidden from view. For shame!

“What’s interesting, in a technical sense, is how low the quality of the photo is; usually White House pictures are pretty slick.”
Maybe because it’s not a White House photo? Check out the caption:
State Department photo by Michael Gross

I love the shadows. There’s a shadow Condi Rice hiding behind the real one, a shadow Jason Claire. It seems fitting that so many shadows are haunting this event since AIDS and homosexuality have been shadows in this WH and to this Republican party.
And say what you will about Laura Bush–that woman is going to be sixty in just a couple weeks. For a woman of sixty, her complexion is amazing.

No, for a woman of sixty, her complexion is a complete fake. Hence the paleness – too much heavy makeup.

The photography is as diabolical as the HIV policy:
“The fight to eradicate AIDS is really one of the great moral callings of our time” – remark at the swearing-in ceremony by Condoleezza Rice.
If this is a moral issue then the implementation is definitely immoral, courtesy of the Born Agains and other misguided Religious Zealots and those in this pic specifically tasked to implement the US policy.
Toronto—In a press conference at the XVI International AIDS Conference, Stephen Lewis, UN Special Envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa and U.S. Congresswoman Barbara Lee called for changes in *U.S. global AIDS prevention policies that are UNDERMINING HIV prevention among women and girls*. The two leaders joined human rights and public health advocates to call for effective, evidence-based HIV prevention strategies in the global response to HIV prevention. August 14, 2006 US News Wire

Keir, commenting above, sees a gay couple and a black woman.
Does someone else see two white men and a lesbian?

Ah, yes, the warm, full tones are evident in the WH ‘official’ photos. What is also evident is that the new ambassador has no lover. Note that he is deftly ‘blocked’ by cropping or by Condi jumping in to hover. Very clever. Or am I wrong, is it just a coincidence that the only visible ‘family’ in the WH photo are his parents? I think not!
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/images/
20061010-8_p101006sc-0127-1-515h.html

I see two gay couples.

What strikes me is this: everyone present knew who everyone else was. The rank hypocrisy of this entire charade is stunning.
Two people who represent an administration who throw gays (like the guy they are swearing in adnd his partner) to the sharks of the religious right. And find no contradiction in swearing them in.
Then there is the guy they are swearing in and his partner agreeing to represent this human stink hole of an administration.
Is there no end to the insanity of this bunch? Please surf away NOW – my brain is gonna explode.

I assume the reactions to my comment are meant humorously. But that’s not the way I meant my comment. Is someone above trying to denigrate Rice (or Bush) by questioning their sexuality? That’s not cool. I simply meant that a women, homosexuals, and blacks — and really all non-white, non-male, non-rich non-Christians — ought to see themselves under attack by the US government, rather than shill for it.

“Is someone above trying to denigrate Rice (or Bush) by questioning their sexuality?”
Wow.
I don’t know how — given the subject matter of this post — I completely forgot that homosexuality is considered “denigration” to some people.
I also forgot that people are often considered heterosexual despite evidence to the contrary. Many in the gay community believe Condoleeza Rice is a lesbian. So to gays, “questioning her sexuality” would be to insist she is a straight woman in the face of rumors.
I don’t care what Condi’s sexual orientation is, but I have noticed she is vocally sympathetic to gay issues that have nothing to do with her position in government. Because she is not required to make *any* statement whatsoever on those occasions, I have found this fact lends credibility to the gay theory.
Assuming therefore that Condi is a *lesbian,* my own comment arose because of noticing the way Laura Bush appears to be enraptured with Condi in this photo. It was simply an observation, not a snarky judgment. I personally think it would do Laura a world of good to hop into bed with Condi, so in fact, my comment was uncharacteristically sympathetic to Laura Bush.
If that makes any sense.

If the ladies get it on, I hope they use *effective, evidence-based HIV prevention strategies* just in case.

Thanks for the restorative comic relief, jt. ; )

rtbag: over the top and below the belt at the same time. I think you’ve misunderstood me, but it’s fair enough because I think I misunderstood you too. To be clear, because I feel like you imply otherwise, I don’t consider homosexuality “denigration”. The only people whose sexuality I made any assumptions about are the gay male couple hired by the Republican party to handle what is probably called in party meetings “the AIDS thing”.
It wasn’t immediately obvious to me why you made the comment about Bush and Rice as a gay couple, so I assumed you were having a laugh. I guess Bush does look like she’s “enraptured with Condi”; personally I thought she looks more like she’s just downed a bottle and a half of anti-depressants. That or she’s about to set Rice on fire with laser beams coming from her eyes.

I think we have been seeing more of Condi lately because Bushco has put her out there to be seen more. She has been seen more, on her own, out there “working”. I am thinking that is because Condi enjoy’s the higher poll numbers of anyone in Bushco. I am not sure where her numbers are, in the forty’s maybe. Laura’s numbers are up there too, in the fifty’s probably, maybe even sisty’s, so Bushco has to put it’s best faces forward.

KansasKowboy, Condi’s popularity, numbers, perhaps maybe, well okay, but visualizing George in this gathering even drunk or pretend skit time at The State Dept is more difficult for me than imagining, corralling or counting pin head angels.

Keir, I *was* having something of a laugh in my original comment, but not because I was getting my jollies by denigrating anyone. After looking at the image, I made a few (unarticulated) leaps of the imagination. Over the top, perhaps, but not really if you look again.
Although I too used to think Condi was straight, I don’t anymore after some of her comments about gays (I’m not suggesting she’s in any way an activist, mind you), and that informs my take on her. I sometimes forget I even need to mention this view I have of her, and this time I forgot because Bob referred to her as a lesbian.
The way you phrased your question — and your use of the words “denigrate” and “questioning” — was a little tricky for me to respond to. My “Wow” has to do with how tricky language can be even on a progressive blog and how many layers of perspective we all bring to each issue, myself included. Your challenge made me think about the comfort level I have in expressing myself on this site and after living in New York for a decade. My response was intentionally exploratory but not intentionally below the belt. I didn’t suppose *you* regarded homosexuality as denigrating, and I think you are probably right to make certain if I was trying to denigrate Laura and Condi. In fact I wish them every imaginable happiness. : )
Regarding this photo and the absence of the president, I’ve been meaning to point out that this is the Cavalcade of Minorities — women, gays, blacks — so they wouldn’t be entitled to the White King’s attention or his photographer.

rtbag: “…Your challenge made me think about the comfort level I have in expressing myself on this site and after living in New York for a decade. …”
Is that a good thing or……….?

Clearly, everyone in the pic looks painfully stiff and awkward and uncomfortable — all except for Pickles, who looks like she was Photoshopped into the frame at the last minute. Either that, or she was beamed down from Neptune for the occasion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Is that a good thing or……….?”
Cactus, I meant it as a good thing. But I see it’s a rather ambiguous statement, so if you want me to clarify, I will.

if it starts with a ‘Pink Purge’ in the GOP the danger is that from this precedent, whom few will oppose, purging Jewish intellectuals for “getting us into and/or losing the War,” an American Dolchstosslegende : will result in similar, “secret lists of “neocons” = all jews (how would you tell the difference?) in the government, at the universities, etc.” being circulated (as there are, apparently secret lists of “gays” now being circulated). So this has the potential not only for internecine conflict within the Republican Party ~ but also a rather ugly morphing of Christian “moral values” into an un-American activities = Christian Nationalism agenda.
i never thought i’d see a day when newswire headlines were talking about “secret lists… being circulated” and “discretionary torture… being legalized” in the United States.
i mean, sure ~ you read about these things happening in the past ~ and as soon as you begin to travel in the world and you look back at where you came from you realize that the whole cowboy thing myth is make-believe, that they were actually guys quite literally wading through rivers of shit behind thousands of cows in the middle of nowhere. But then shit like this happens again and you just want to cry out, “To hell with you!” and if you just gotta hurt somebody well then shit, SHOOT ME NEXT.

MonsieurGonzo: Once again: WOW!
rtbag: Then I take your comment to mean that living in NYC has toughened you up to where you are able to withstand some exposure on this site. For which I am glad, since I always enjoy your well-informed comments.

M Gonzo: If you think you’re freaked, imagine how the GAY Jewish intellectuals feel! :- /
(a little Gonz homage)
Thanks, Cactus, I always enjoy your comments as well. (Yours too, Gonz.) I’m probably no tougher, but I may be even more liberal than when I moved to NY, and I’m certainly more outspoken. The city and this site have helped foster both of those formerly latent personality traits. That’s what I was thinking about.

rtbag: Good on you!