While peeps in San Fran worry about being shot on the streets, New Yorkers with HIV are worried about living on the streets. Why? Because out-going Governor George Pataki (pictured) and his goons are pushing for rent-hikes in for AIDS patients living in government-subsidized housing.

The Washington Blade reports:

The increases would vary depending on tenants' finances, but some tenants Tuesday said they could have to put 60 percent or more of their small incomes toward rent. Some rents would more than double, according to legal papers filed Monday by the advocacy group Housing Works.
...
The state and city play roles in administering the subsidies. City lawyers say the state is insisting on raising the tenants' contributions, which have been capped at 30 percent of their incomes. State officials say the city's cap conflicts with a longtime benefits policy that applies everywhere else in New York state.

Um, NYC ranks as one of the most expensive cities in the world. (Trust us, we know.) Can't people give less-wealthy people in poor health break? Sheesh.

Well, actually, a federal court on Monday gave them a bit of a break by stalling the proposed increase for at least 45 days, approximately 200 protesters took to the streets to pressure the pols into discarding the issue all together.

And, of course, the activists made sure to swing by Eliot Spitzer and John Faso's respective campaign offices to woo the prospective governors.

We came across this article over at ABCnew.com - you know, the folks who pulled the article by J. Jennings Moss on Foley - and we find it more than appropriate for a few reasons. First, it's a fairly interesting piece on where gay conservatives fit in the grand governmental scheme of things. Second, it helps us answer a question we've been asked more than a few times over the past few days: why we're covering this story so aggressively.

A British reader writes:

Why is the Foley scandal getting so much coverage on queerty.com. Is it a gay issue? Admittedly coverage of some of the more homophobic and ignorant media outlets is appropriate, but most of your coverage is sensationalised and seems to me to reek of the same associations made between paedophilia and homosexuality that these other reports rely on.

Of course, those of you who know us must realize that such we've never intended such a reading. And, yes, we've considered the fact that covering the scandal would somehow implicate homosexuality in Foley's kiddie-loving ways, but we feel the story needs to be addressed, not because we want to link homosexuality with pedophilia, but because it points to glaring flaws and debates in the American political system.

The Republican party has long upheld homophobic beliefs and, in fact, touted them as one of their greatest strengths. Now, as the Foley stink grows even more pungent, Republicans are questioning whether or not they should include gays at all. ABC reports:

Conservative activists are beginning to discuss the Mark Foley scandal as indicative of a GOP that has become too tolerant of gays in their midst. Regardless of the party's efforts against gay marriage, the argument goes, the fact that Republican officials accept gay congressmen, such as Foley, and staffers will mean the party will have problems.

While we can't wait to hear what the Log Cabin Republicans have to say about all of this, President of the Family Research Council, Tony Perkins has this morsel of homo-hatery to share:

As a society we've made diversity and tolerance the guidepost of public life...Maybe we shouldn't be surprised that we have Congressmen chasing after sixteen year old boys.

We all know - well, we hope you all know - that Foley's interest in young men nothing to do with him being gay, but stems from larger psychological issues. Conservative homo-journo, Andrew Sullivan, boils the issue down to the continued immutability of the closet, particularly in Washington:

The closet is so psychologically destructive it often produces pathological behavior. When you compartmentalize your life, you sometimes act out in one compartment in ways that you would never condone in another one. Think Clinton-Lewinsky, in a heterosexual context. But closeted gay men are particularly vulnerable to this kind of thing. Your psyche is so split by decades of lies and deceptions and euphemisms that integrity and mental health suffer. No one should excuse Foley's creepy interactions; they are inexcusable, as is the alleged cover-up …But there's a reason gay men in homophobic institutions behave in self-destructive ways.

While we agree the closet's one of the most dangerous societal constructions, we're hestitant to chalk Foley's behaviour up as simply the "self-destructive" result of closeted life. We do feel, however, that this whole mess raises pertinent questions about the role of gays not only in American politics, but American society in general.

The political anxiety regarding homos in America's nothing new, as ABC reports:

The debate over the role of gays in civic life has been a part of the American story at least as far back as March 11, 1778, when General George Washington approved the court martial of Lt. Gotthold Frederick Enslin for homosexuality.

Even since then, Americans have been obsessed with politico-homos.

So, to answer our reader's question: we're covering the Foley scandal as both as way to shine some light on the hypocrisy of American politics, to highlight the traumas caused by the closet, and to examine the failures of our government to acknowledge both homosexuality in its midst, as well as to monitor its own actions. Plus, it's a great way to poke fun at Republicans. What could be better?

In an effort to provide as much care to HIV positive peeps as possible, the House has passed the controversial bill that will allocate more money to the rural South. For years, people assumed that AIDS lurked in urban areas (you know, where all the homos, hookers, and heroin addicts chill), but more and more cases are being documented in the South.

Politicians from larger cities, including New York, which stands to lose about $100 million in funding, have been bitching ever since the changes came up, insisting that they need the money more. Thus, Senators have threatened to stall passage unless revisions are made.

While we personally would like to see more money spent fighting AIDS rather than feckless wars, these politicians need to pull their heads out of their asses and work with what they have, rather than arguing over which citizens deserve more care. These are people's lives, not some pissing contest. One can't help but think that if the big city pols had their way, this would be an AIDS version of Katrina.

Republican Congressman Mark Foley (pictured) may or may not have a crush on a 16-year old former congressional page. ABC News has obtained a string of emails in which Foley asks the former summer staffer what he wants for his birthday, what he likes to do, and requesting a picture.

Foley's office insists there was no ill intent and that the photo request (sent from Foley's personal email, no less) was meant to jog Foley's memory before writing a recommendation. ABC News reports:

Foley's office says it is their policy to keep pictures of former interns and anyone who may ask for a recommendation on file so they can remember them.

The page, however, didn't work in Foley's office, which insists this is just an ugly smear campaign.

Sure, it could be a smear campaign, but seems a bit queer to us. Though Foley may want to put this young boy thing behind him, his Democratic challenger is pushing for a probe. A deep, deep probe.

By now you or someone you know has experienced the ire-inducing injunction of liquids on planes. While it may seem like The Transportation Security Administration is out to get us - no chapstick, really? - an astute reader sent us this link explaining the TSA's guidelines.

Among the permitted items: baby formula [yes, babies have to eat on planes], insulin [no seizures, thanks], and "Up to 4 oz. of essential non-prescription liquid medications including saline solution, eye care products, and KY jelly." We're not sure how much 4 oz. of KY amounts to, nor are we sure what it's technical "medicinal" purposes may be, but we're glad even during these times of terror in the sky the TSA allows a wank and a snog. The site doesn't mention KY's new heat-up lube, so it's best to check with your local security officials.

TSA Seeks Very Friendly Skys [TSA]

Now there will be an openly gay, ambassador-level person in government, and he'll be handling something more important than Romania or Luxembourg. President Bush appointed Physician Mark Dybul to be the United States Global AIDS Coordinator, and he will be replacing pharmaceutical industry executive Randall Tobias. The program focues on fighting AIDS in developing countries, especially Africa, and it's probably good news that the pharmaceutical industry itself isn't running the program anymore. We aren't sure of Dr. Dybul's connections to the industry, but we can say one thing with certainty: he is sort of cute.

Bush nominates gay man to lead global AIDS office [NY Blade]

After being denied for a Foreign Service officer position inside the State Department in 2001, Lorenzo Taylor will finally get his day in court — to argue Condoleezza Rice & Co. denied him the position because of his HIV-positive status, violating federal law. The case has been dragging on since 2002, when the Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund took up Taylor's case and claimed the State Department violated the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits the government from discriminating based on disabilities, including HIV.

State Department officials have acknowledged that Taylor, an Arlington, Va., resident, was highly qualified for a Foreign Service post at the time he applied for a job in 2001. But personnel officials informed him that his HIV-positive status disqualified him for the job under a State Department policy that says people with HIV are ineligible for deployment overseas.

The policy says Foreign Service officers must be capable of serving in certain "hardship" posts in developing countries, where they most likely could not obtain adequate medical care. The policy applies whether or not the individual's actual assignment is to a "hardship post."

Which would make these positions off-limits to anyone in a wheelchair, anyone with vision and hearing loss, and anyone with cancer.

Trial ordered in HIV discrimination suit against Rice [NY Blade]