In 1891, William L. Sachtleben and Thomas G. Allen Jr. graduated from Washington University and set off to travel around the world
. But their adventure was unusual for that time, in that they would travel on bicycle, following in the tire tracks of the Englishman Thomas Stevens
. The two young lads returned safely to the US after three years, after traveling some 15,044 miles on wheel. Sachtleben was then asked to find another young traveling bicyclist (and photographer), Frank G. Lenz, whose goal was to surpass Stevens' journey "in both distance and daring."
Lenz had disappeared in Turkey, where Sachtleben learned of Frank Lenz's untimely demise
. [more inside]
Late last month, after vocally anti-gay evangelical author and blogger Jonathan Merritt
's essay defending Chick-Fil-A
appeared in The Atlantic, Azariah Southworth outed Merritt on his blog.
with Merritt about his sexual orientation. Follow-up column from Southworth: Why I outed a Christian star
. [more inside]
The dirty underbelly
-- I'm sick and tired of these hypocritical Hoosier legislators who think that my sex life or relationship status is any of their business. Do I intrude on who they're sleeping with? I didn't, but I'm going to start now. ...Consider this a call to
arms gossip. ...
-- Bilerico, a GLBT blog in Indiana, fighting their proposed state Constitutional Amendment to ban marriage and all other rights for gay and lesbian couples and families.
Columbine's Most Wanted
Sure are a lot of people getting outed on the web these days.
Fake "reporter" flees before bloggers.
How did a man with no known journalism experience get repeated White House press room access, where he denounced Democratic leaders at press conferences and loudly supported President Bush? It's a question asked here before.
But now, in an example of citizen journalism,
bloggers have apparently exposed "Jeff Gannon," whose other activities may lend a new definition to the label "Republican tool."
Is this Andrew Sullivan's ass?
This morning, Jim Romenesko
made a questionable publishing decision. He ran a link to an article in last Friday's edition of the newspaper LGNY
, in which Michelangelo Signorile
makes a very serious allegation: That Andrew Sullivan
has been advertising for "bareback" sex online
(anal sex w/o condoms). Such actions on Sullivan's part would be seen by many as exceedingly hypocritical given his voluminous writings of a moral conservative bent and his "arrogance toward the ghettoized gay scene" (as Signorile puts it), if not downright dangerous given his HIV+ status.
If true, this brings up plenty of ideological and moral issues, which I'm sure will be discussed in this thread. But that's not why I'm bringing it up here. I'm posting because of the vaguely Kayceeish nature of the whole thing. If you look at Signorile's article, you'll see that all the evidence is circumstantial. Several people who Signorile really really trust say they answered the ads and Sullivan was the guy that showed up when they met. The photos in the ads look like what most people expect Sullivan's body to look like (minus his head, of course). Also, Sullivan hasn't responded to anyone's questions about this, and after all, if the accusations were false wouldn't Sullivan be loudly denying them (wink wink)?
Complicating the whole mess is Signorile's own journalistic history - he made his name during the late '80s-early '90s running gossipy columns outing famous people against their will - and that Romenesko decided to publicize this article in the first place, thus ensuring that every single person in the national media is fully aware of the allegations, true or not. Is this actual proof that Sullivan is guilty of barebacking, or is he being Borked (Kayceed?)? Should it have been publicized like this in the first place, since a mention in Romenesko is the best way to start up a classic pack journalism action short of running a front-page story in The New York Times? Will other media outlets jump on this now and sully Sullivan's reputation, whether the allegations are true or not?