The Dish

Not everything in the media is Anna Nicole Smith. As cable shows continue to slide in ratings, quality journalism is enjoying a bit of a resurgence. But online audiences may be tapering off.

A reader warns:

Be careful when HRC answers you on their membership. They cannot claim as members people who give them tax deductible contributions. When a person gives a charitable (501 c3) contribution, they cannot receive anything of value in return (like a membership). If HRC admits these people are getting membership for a tax deductible contribution, they are in big trouble with the IRS.

Hmmm. Then this:

A year or so ago I purchased a card at the HRC store in Washington DC. They asked for some information, I asked them if this was going to put me on a mailing list, they said no, that they were just keeping a record of who came to the store from certain areas.

Well, I’ll spare you the number of mailing lists I was put on, but I will tell you that I started getting letters from them with instructions on "RENEWING MY MEMBERSHIP". I had never joined, paid dues, etc… but because I purchased something in their store, they had added me to their membership rolls.

Update: a reader clarifies:

I don’t think your reader is 100 percent correct. 501c3 givers can indeed be called members, but anything of value they receive as a member must be deducted from their tax-deductible donation amount. At any rate, most people give to the Human Rights Campaign, which is not a 501c3. The Human Rights Campaign Foundation IS a 501c3, and the home of HRC’s nonpolitical work.

Still waiting for the HRC email …

His self-defense against conservative critics can be read here.

He was a fan, apparently. So is this blogger.

Another classic venue bites the dust. I had some great nights/mornings there. But I dont remember a great deal about them, I’m afraid. The last time I went, however, a couple of years back, it was clearly dying. One treasured memory: two guys who looked like extras from "300", grinding their near-naked bodies together, both with bio-hazard tattoos on their shoulders. I was mesmerized by the sheer energy between two beautiful men with HIV, living fully while they could.

A heart-breakingly poignant account of a sole book-seller, a decent guy, blown to pieces in the chaos of post-invasion Iraq.

Bob Kagan already pronounces the surge strategy in Iraq a success. Glenn Greenwald has a summary of Kagan’s previous declarations of success in Iraq, i.e. from March 2004:

We may have turned a corner in terms of security. What’s more, there are hopeful signs that Iraqis of differing religious, ethnic, and political persuasions can work together. This is a far cry from the predictions made before the war by many, both here and in Europe, that a liberated Iraq would fracture into feuding clans and unleash a bloodbath.

But, hey, just because Kagan has been completely wrong about the "successes" so far doesn’t mean that he cannot strike lucky this time. And there are some tiny flickers of hope in the surge, proof to me, at least, that if we’d had a sane defense secretary four years ago, we might have had a chance to win. But it seems to me that the Washington Post should have disclosed that the plan Kagan is assessing was authored by by his brother and sister-in-law, Fred and Kimberly Kagan. If that isn’t a conflict of interest that requires disclosure, what is?

From the Washington Post, June 29, 2005 – buried on page A19:

The Bush administration disclosed yesterday that it had vastly underestimated the number of service personnel returning from Iraq and Afghanistan seeking medical treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs, and warned that the health care programs will be short at least $2.6 billion next year unless Congress approves additional funds.

Veterans Affairs budget documents projected that 23,553 veterans would return this year from Iraq and Afghanistan and seek medical treatment. However, Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson told a Senate committee that the number has been revised upward to 103,000 for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30. He said the original estimates were based on outdated assumptions from 2002.

"To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle."

Could I get $5,000? You’ve been giving to lots of journalists lately, and this blog is getting set to celebrate its seventh anniversary. You’ve got a pile of money, so this little donation shouldn’t hurt you any. I have a list of other bloggers who’d be equally delighted to be paid off encouraged to continue our fearlessly independent journalism. I’m a supporter of gay equality as you are were, I’m opposed to abortion morally but am prepared to keep it legal in the first trimester as you do did, I thought your speech at CPAC was great, and I’ve been a big defender of keeping religion out of politics as you are were. I understand you have been giving money to other bloggers. I may not be as resolutely unimpeachable and non-partisan as Kathryn-Jean Lopez or National Review, but I hope you’ll consider a small donation as a token of moral support. I will, of course, disclose it somewhere or other.

HRC pledges to actually pass legislation in this session of Congress. If they do, I’ll be chocolates and roses. If they don’t, I’ll want to know why. Some readers seem to believe that it is the job of gay bloggers to support all gay groups. That’s not how I see it. We’re here to keep such groups honest, transparent, effective and efficient. I’m gathering five serious questions for HRC from various sources, including many bloggers, and hope to post them soon. Meantime, I’m still waiting for them to give me an accurate number of the members who have actually donated $35 or more in the past twelve months.