BrainStream: Keyes Lockdown

[bkdelong]

Things were quiet today - hence the lack of updates regarding the Maya Keyes situation. So what's happened? It looks like the candidate is scrubbing all the pictures on his Web site that may contain Maya in rainbow gear. How sad he's seek to wipe his daughter from his public life like that.

Apparently the Chicago Tribune has finally woken up to the story. Maya's friend Gerald Farinas has put a post on his Xanga page requesting they stop contacting him and his circle of friends:

Do you know what I don't appreciate? I don't appreciate the intrusion of reporters into my life and the lives of my friends. Is it acceptable for reporters from the Chicago Tribune to hound teenagers to try to leach intimate details on the lives of their friends? All of those in my inner circle, as well as those in the inner circles of others have been sent notes that read, "Call me at 312-222-4381 or my cell phone at 312-259-4538. John Chase, Tribune staff reporter." Bad idea giving away your cell phone number, Mr. Chase. Are Mr. Chase's methods of collecting information for a potential story — hounding teenagers to give-up intimate details about their friends — acceptable methods? Tell him what you think. In the meantime, my friends would like their privacy back.

Truth be told, Gerald is involved in the Keyes campaign himself as he states at the bottom of his bio and through several "Keyes for Senate" banners on his sites. In my opinion, he is fair game to be contacted by the press as he is a member of the Keyes campaign AND a friend of Maya - also working for the Keyes campaign.

Maya's alleged Significant Other, Bria Grace(?), is another story. I posted the following to Chillinis regarding my thoughts on whether she should be involved.

There's no reason for reporters to be hounding Bria and her circle of friends - regardless of what intimate relationship she may have had with Maya Keyes. And, frankly, Mr. Chase was being incredibly lazy when he could have picked up the phone and figured out where she lived just based on her name.

Often an email is all reporters do today with regard to due diligence and if they don't get a response to their aimless spamming...it's "Ms. X couldn't be reached for comment."

But I digress - there's no reason to drag Maya's SigOths and friends into this bit of craziness unless they are part of the Keyes campaign themselves - and I'm pretty sure they're not.

Ms. Keyes herself wouldn't or shouldn't be under such scrutiny if she wasn't campaigning alongside her father - there's ethics to take into account.

But Bria has made it perfectly clear she wishes no contact from the press. If she feels Maya is being wrongly disparaged, she can contact reporters themselves to tell her side of the story.

Note that I erroneously thought that Bria was contacted by the Chicago Tribune reporter John Chase, not Gerald, when I made that comment. Aside from being in the pictures with Maya, Bria should be entitled to her privacy. She is not actively working for the Keyes campaign as Gerald & Maya are. That goes for any other folks on Xanga associated with Maya, Gerald, or Bria - if they're not with the campaign, please have a little more respect and perhaps leave them alone entirely. They are not public figures as they have chosen not to involve themselves in their friend's father's campaign.

A sidenote editorial of sorts regarding Maya and possibly Gerald. I do not know if Gerald is gay - one cannot make assumptions based pn a single link to the Human Rights Campaign. However the notion of Log Cabin Republicans is beyond me.

I understand being gay and conservative but in this day and age with the Republican party platform being in full support of a Constitutional amendment BANNING gay marriage - i.e. being the first amendment in the Constitution to take away a right.....how can you support that? Be an independent voter - you're welcome to be Pro Life or for more religious involvement in politics. I would take note that the LCRs are not endorsing Bush for President this time around and wonder what Gerald and Maya are doing supporting a candidate more radically conservative on gay rights than our President. Is it because Maya is supporting her father? Is Gerald simply supporting her best friend's father?

Gerald, BTW, doesn't think too highly of Mr. Keyes and his criticism of Mary Cheney either. Note his thoughts as well as the comment from Bria. The date on that was 09/02/2004.

The news media has been letting this flounder Since yesterday, the only other outlet on Google news that has picked up the story appears to be The Advocate. Perhaps the Tribune is working on a more indepth piece.

I have noticed that a Google search for "Maya Keyes" now produces 537 results whereas when news first came out, it listed one. Strangely enough, I'm #4 on the list even though I've gotten no comments on these posts and don't think anyone is even linking to me. Go Figure.

I think that's it for now.

Update: 8:55pm ET - Maya is once again posting to her blog. Nothing substantial but it sounds like she's doing OK. I hope she'll let us know whether or not her parents will continue paying for her education next year because I for one don't believe anyone should be denied the education they desire based on their life choices - and I'll put my money where my mouth is.

[BrainStream]
(Permanent link to this entry)

Comments

[ivy]

I linked to you, but from a friends-only LJ entry. [grin] I haven't commented before because I didn't really have anything to say, and generally try not to do the "uh, me too" or "cool" AOL-style comment.

ObDisclaimer: I'm bisexual, and I do support gay marriage.

I understand being gay and conservative but in this day and age with the Republican party platform being in full support of a Constitutional amendment BANNING gay marriage - i.e. being the first amendment in the Constitution to take away a right.....how can you support that?

Not all queer folk do support gay marriage. I know at least one lesbian that's against it. (I find it pretty mind boggling, but she has a reasoned argument for it, even if I strongly disagree with her. She thinks it is ultimately destabilizing to society, and that the good of society has to take precedence over the happiness of the individuals.)

[granting.livejournal.com]

Actually, you're linked to much more than you probably realize.

However.

It would not be the first amendment to take away a right. Prohibition was. Yes, it was overturned, but it is still an Amendment.