Reflections on 2008

Dear Friends,

As 2008 draws to a close, America is preparing for the change of our lifetime. Like many LGBT Americans, I have dreamed of and worked for this day to come. In 2009, an ally will occupy the White House. Divisive, anti-gay politics are leaving our executive branch. Our Congress will have more allies than ever. And our next Supreme Court justices will respect our fundamental rights. Through our work, our belief, our unyielding commitment to a better future for ourselves and our families, LGBT people helped to make this happen. All of you who attended Camp Equality training, who volunteered in phone banks, who donated your hard-earned money to a pro-equality candidate, and, most importantly, told your friends and family why our rights matter and how their votes can harm or protect them, to all of you I say thank you. 2008 was OUR year to win. On the same day that America elected a fair-minded president who is a longstanding ally of civil rights and a professor of constitutional law, voters in California, Arizona, and Florida wrote discrimination into their constitutions. In California, Proposition 8 stripped citizens of the rights that the state's highest court had finally recognized last May. On November 5, as our nation celebrated a historic election, our community's grief turned into anger, and anger turned to action. LGBT people and allies took to the streets and to the airwaves... we were everywhere. Showing the neighbors who had slighted us who we really are—not just families and friends and coworkers worthy of equal rights, but strong, resilient people who will fight for those rights.

My question to you is, will we? It's the end of 2008, and the opportunities before us are vast. We can finally pass hate crimes legislation covering our entire community and a fully-inclusive ENDA; we can roll back eight years of bad Bush Administration policy on HIV, workplace protections for federal employees, and benefits for families. In winning the elections, we did not pass these bills or secure these policies. Rather, we earned a fighting chance to pass them. The election opened a door that had long been locked. But what lies beyond the door is not a room full of treasures; no, what's beyond that door, what we're seeing now, is a steep, spiral staircase.

And we have a duty to stand up in this fight, and win it, because passing hate crimes legislation ten years after Matthew Shepard's death is a step toward marriage and every other community goal. And like a spiral staircase, each step upward is a step in full circle: back to facing our enemies, back to the same set of falsehoods that every campaign against us uses, back to the same slanders, the same tired old bigoted players. But I do believe that we are climbing upward, even though we have not yet achieved so many of our goals. More Americans support marriage than ever before, and even in California, Prop 8 succeeded by far less than another anti-marriage initiative just eight years ago. Young people, LGBT or not, overwhelmingly believe in our rights, and are increasingly fighting for them. Employers are treating our families equally; faith communities are embracing us. Although we find ourselves facing the same people again and again, I truly believe that with each year that passes, we do so from higher ground. But we cannot reach the top if we do not keep the heat on the other side, calling them to task. We cannot reach the top if we do not invest the same energy, time, and even anger into federal laws and policies that we have invested in fighting Proposition 8. I know that especially after losing California, it is difficult to imagine how working on hate crimes, or an inclusive ENDA, or family benefits, or fair federal workplace policies, is going to move the ball forward for marriage. But it's clear to me that this is our path—upward and around, steadily and surely. It's clear to the right wing, which is why they try to block every measure that would help our community at all. Martin Luther King once said that faith is taking the first step when you don't see the whole staircase. Many of you took that first step in speaking out against Proposition 8, or volunteering for Barack Obama, or coming out. Our equality—in our families, in our workplaces, and in our communities—is that staircase. It is linked together, and one measure follows from the next. In this holiday season, we too, the LGBT community, are linked together with one future, one path, and one monumental task: to fight hate with truth. That is the next step that we will take together.

Happy holidays, and a happy new year.

Warmly,

Joe Solmonese
President, HRC

QueerGam to United Auto Workers: Sell your golf club!

Unbelievable! Below is UAW's luxurious and world-class golf club! Sell it, you SOB!
While carmakers soak up $17 billion in taxpayer bailout funds and demand more for their ailing industry, United Auto Workers bosses have wasted tens of millions of their workers’ dues on gold-plated resorts and rotten investments. The labor organization’s money-losing golf compound is just the tip of the iceberg.

Earlier this month Michelle Malkin wrote:
I noted that the UAW owns and operates Black Lake Golf Course — a “championship caliber” course opened in 2000 that’s part of a larger “family education center” and retreat nestled in 1,000 acres of property in Onaway, Michigan. Spearheaded by former UAW president Steve Yokich, the resort also includes “a beautiful gym with two full-sized basketball courts, an Olympic-size indoor pool, and exercise and weight room, table-tennis and pool tables, a sauna, beaches, walking and bike trails, softball and soccer fields and a boat launch ramp.” Like everything else we’re subsidizing these days, the UAW’s playground is a money pit. The Detroit Free Press reported earlier this year that the golf course (valued at $6 million) and education center (valued at $27 million) have together lost $23 million over the past five years. While membership in the union has plummeted, the UAW retains assets worth $1.2 billion.

Curious about how the UAW will be spending my money and yours, I sifted through the union’s most recent annual report filed with the U.S. Department of Labor (which you can find at unionreports.gov). Who knew hitting the links was so central to the business of making cars?

QueerGam to NASA: Will an Asteroid hit us in 2009?

Possible. Very possible. A computer video circulating the internet has rekindled fears that an asteroid will hit Earth and send mankind the way of the brontosaurus. Based on your (NASA) projections, there is indeed a chance of this.

QueerGam: Yes We Can to Gay Marriage and to Politics In 2009

"Yes we can" -- three little words whose iconic status will take up a well-deserved spot for posterity alongside "I have a dream." Yep, 2008 was a big year -- but what can we expect in 2009?
Gay Marriage to pass in California and Prop 8 overturned. And Obama lives up to all his campaign promises.

QueerGam to Obama -- Hillary didn't "just had tea" with foreign leaders overseas. She did her thing. Otherwise, why would you pick her as your Secretary of State? Fine, you said you didn't mean what you said about our precious Hill...what else didn't you mean during the primary and the general election? How about Rick Warren? Would you have picked him before the general election?

QueerGam to Israel: Stop! Just Fucking Stop!

Killing lots of people on the other side is not only ineffective, it is counterproductive. It hurts your cause. It gets more of your own people killed in the long run. Israel, you are so better than this.

Hamas gave Israel the provocation it needed to deliver a savage blow to the Palestinian enclave in Gaza

Saturday was the bloodiest day in the history of the Palestinian people since being driven from their homes in the War of 1948. One thousand were killed or wounded, as the Israeli Air Force conducted over a hundred strikes -- on graduation ceremonies for Hamas fighters, police stations and storage sites for rockets. About Israel's right and duty to defend its border towns, there is no dispute. When Hamas permits Gaza to be used as a launch pad for rockets, it must expect retaliation. Nor can Hamas claim some right to dictate the limits of that retaliation. Yet the wisdom of so savage a retribution for rockets that killed not one Israeli is open to question. And crass Israeli politics seems to be behind this premeditated and planned blitz.

America's most notable and admired grandma, Sarah Palin.

Hey grandma! Sarah Palin waving at cha!

Below, they are so happy together...he is Alaska's most talked-about teenager/hockey-player/hearthrob and she is the beautiful teenage daughter of a very popular and courageous governor of Alaska.Levi Johnston and Bristol Palin sharing a lovely moment at the RNC this year.
It is also reported that the Bristol and Levi may receive up to $300,000 for the first pictures of their son Tripp. The price didn't soar immediately, according to the sources, because Sarah Palin stories just didn't sell all that well for the weeklies on newsstands. The drug-related arrest of Johnston's mother, however, caused the price tag for the photos to go up.

Their son,Tripp Easton Mitchel Johnston (one day old son) is a better piece of news this week than Blago's Roland Burris -- a choice tainted by scandal that led others to say that they have lynched the appointment. But they are democrats so...

Mormons Gone Wild

From Advocate.com
After one man undresses missionaries for his calendar, LDS Church–owned Brigham Young University strips him of his degree.

Mormons Exposed, Brian Dalthorp Photography When they weren’t busy promoting the passage of California’s Proposition 8 in recent months, Mormon leaders tried their best to make Chad Hardy’s life hell. Riled by his “Men on a Mission” calendar of shirtless returned missionaries, elders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints excommunicated Hardy -- a lifelong Mormon -- in July. Then in September, officials from the Provo, Utah–based Brigham Young University informed the 32-year-old entrepreneur, who had participated in the school’s graduation ceremony a month earlier, that his diploma would be denied. BYU says Hardy’s expulsion from the church placed him outside of the “good honor-code standing” necessary to award him his degree, which has been placed on nonacademic hold; Hardy contends that since he completed his coursework prior to excommunication, the rule should not apply. Meanwhile the 2008 skin-baring calendar has sold more than 10,000 copies, and Hardy -- who eschews sexual labels himself -- says the just-released (and “a little bit sexier”) 2009 incarnation is already “flying off the shelves.”

Will you sue BYU to get your degree?
Yes, but I haven’t been able to file yet because of the expense involved. My attorney has assured me that the church, with its financial resources, will likely attempt to bury me under legal pleadings in order to encourage me to give up. One attorney estimates my costs could exceed $30,000.

Have any of the guys featured in the calendar faced LDS discipline?
Not that I am aware of. Several of them were called in to meet with their local church leaders about the same time I was originally contacted [about disciplinary proceedings], three weeks after Thomas S. Monson became the president of the church. The models were not disciplined, nor did their local leaders have a problem with the calendar. I was singled out.

Do you still consider yourself Mormon at this point?
I feel that I’m a Mormon culturally, but not religiously. Mormonism is much like Judaism in that one may stop observing the practices of the religion, but culturally still identify with it. Mormonism has been a part of my family for six generations. I was raised in the faith, served a mission, and attended two LDS colleges. I was the model Mormon, no pun intended.

Proposition 8 Proponents to File Supplemental Briefing Challenging Attorney General's Argument that Prop 8 is Invalid

The official proponents of Proposition 8 and their campaign committee, ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, today announced that they will file a supplemental briefing requested by the California Supreme Court in response to a novel argument lodged by Attorney General Jerry Brown that Proposition 8 is invalid because it allegedly violates Article 1 of the state constitution by denying the inalienable rights of same-sex couples to liberty.


Ron Prentice, chairman of the executive committee of ProtectMarriage.com and the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund noted that, "Thankfully the Court granted us intervener status to defend Prop 8. We also appreciate the Court's request to reply to the Attorney General's brief. We look forward to presenting the Court with a penetrating discussion of this novel legal theory."

QueerGam to Blago: You are shortchanging your state

In his act of defiance, is he (Blagojevich) doing more harm and good to himself and his state? Congress Rush insisted there should be more African-Americans in the Senate. Does Rush has a point? Is Burris a viable candidate? How many African-American needed in the Senate (for the love of God)?

So far, no country favors taking Israel's side, including the US, where 71 percent favor taking neither side.

A new WorldPublicOpinion.org poll of 18 countries finds that in 14 of them people mostly say their government should not take sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Just three countries favor taking the Palestinian side (Egypt, Iran, and Turkey) and one is divided (India).

QueerGam: When will US stop Israel from bombing millions of Palestinian people in the GAZA who are within Israel's rocket range?

According to CNN's Rick Sanchez today, there are more than 1.5 million Palestinian people living in Gaza (living in fear and living within Israel's rocket range). This is an attack on the Palestinian people - children and their mothers...And Israel armies have been bombing them aggressively in the last four days, terrorizing the people of that very little, hopeless country. Should US help to stop Israel today? Should US stop Israel today from bombing GAZA?

Barack Obama should feel very relieved he is not the commander-in-chief today. But he will have no choice (after Jan 20) but to live up to your great expectations (he promised you he would do better than Bush and Rice) to stop the atrocities in that part of the world. Will he (and can he) do better than Bush and Rice?

The White House on Monday also took Israel’s side in the fighting, demanding that Hamas halt its rocket fire into Israel and agree to a last ceasefire

Not that there is anything gay about this story but, earlier this week, Nancy Pelosi issued an identical statement, and yesterday Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer did the same. There sure is a lot of agreeing going on -- one might describe it as "absolute." The degree of mandated orthodoxy on the Israel question among America's political elites is so great that if one took the statements on Gaza from George Bush, Pelosi, Hoyer, Berman, Ros-Lehtinen, and randomly chosen Bill Kristol-acolytes and redacted their names, it would be impossible to know which statements came from whom. They're all identical: what Israel does is absolutely right. The U.S. must fully and unconditionally support Israel. Israel does not merit an iota of criticism for what it is doing. It bears none of the blame for this conflict. No questioning even of the wisdom of its decisions -- let alone the justifiability -- is uttered. No deviation from that script takes place.

By itself, the degree of full-fledged, absolute agreement -- down to the syllable -- among America's political leaders is striking, even when one acknowledges the constant convergence between the leadership of both parties. But it becomes even more striking in light of the bizarre fact that the consensus view -- that America must unquestioningly stand on Israel's side and support it, not just in this conflict but in all of Israel's various wars -- is a view which 7 out of 10 Americans reject. Conversely, the view which 70% of Americans embrace -- that the U.S. should be neutral and even-handed in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict generally -- is one that no mainstream politician would dare express. In a democracy, one could expect that politicians would be afraid to express a view that 70% of the citizens oppose. Yet here we have the exact opposite situation: no mainstream politician would dare express the view that 70% of Americans support; instead, the universal piety is the one that only a small minority accept. Isn't that fairly compelling evidence of the complete disconnect between our political elites and the people they purportedly represent? There is, of course, other evidence for that proposition: the fact that overwhelming majorities of Americans have long wanted to withdraw from Iraq was completely dismissed and ignored by our bipartisan political class, which continued to fund the war indefinitely and with no conditions. But at least there, Democratic leaders paid lip service to the idea that they agreed with that position and some Democrats went beyond rhetoric and actually tried to stop or at least limit the war. But in the case of Israel, not even that symbolic nod to American public opinion occurs among the political leadership. The other striking aspect of this lockstep American consensus is that the Gaza situation is very complex, and a wide range of opinions fall within the realm of what is reasonable. Even many who believe that Israel's attack is morally and legally justifiable as a response to Hamas rockets and who generally side with Israel -- such as J Street -- nonetheless oppose this attack on strictly pragmatic grounds: that it won't achieve anything positive, that it will exacerbate the problem, that it makes less likely a diplomatic resolution, that there is no military solution to the rocket attacks. Others condemn Hamas rocket attacks but also condemn the devastating Israeli blockade and expanding settlements. Others still who may be supportive of Israel's right to attack at least express horror over the level of Palestinian suffering and urge greater restraint.

Anyone minimally objective and well-intentioned finds Hamas rocket attacks on random Israeli civilians to be highly objectionable and wrong, but even among those who do, one finds a wide range of views regarding the Israeli offensive. But not among America's political leadership. There, one finds total, lockstep uniformity almost more unyielding than what one finds among Israeli leaders themselves -- as though Israel's wars are, by definition, America's wars; its enemies are our enemies; its disputes and conflicts and interests are, inherently, ours; and America's only duty when Israel fights is to support it uncritically.

The year in American "political journalism"

Glenn Greenwald wrote on Politico.com:
Politico's media reporter, Michael Calderone, does an unintentionally superb job of conveying the vapid, wretched soul of the American political media, with his list of what he calls -- without any irony at all -- "The Top Ten Political Scoops of 2008":

(1) Katie Couric's interview of Sarah Palin (CBS)
(2) McCain can't say how many homes he owns (Politico)
(3) Obama's "bitter" comment (Huffington Post)
(4) Sarah Palin's shopping spree (Politico)
(5) Turmoil in the Clinton camp (Washington Post and Atlantic -- "The behind-the-scenes tension was captured by the reporters in one memorable exchange: '[Expletive] you!' Ickes shouted. '[Expletive] you!' Penn replied. '[Expletive] you!' Ickes shouted again.")
(6) Jeremiah Wright tapes (ABC News)
(7) The Pentagon's military analyst program (NY Times)
(8) Bickering in the McCain camp (NY Times Magazine)
(9) John Edwards' affair (National Enquirer)
(10) Powell endorses Obama (Meet the Press)

It's genuinely disappointing that the intense controversy over Barack Obama's anemic bowling score and lapel pin, the riveting analysis of Hillary Clinton's laugh and her cleavage displays, and Brian Ross' groundbreaking work in analyzing Hillary's White House schedules in order to determine where exactly she was at the moment when Bill was with Monica Lewinsky, failed to at least merit an Honorable Mention by Politico. Most notably, the only story on Politico's list that actually mattered in any meaningful way and to which one can apply the term "scoop" with a straight face -- namely: David Barstow's superb exposé on the Pentagon's domestic propaganda program -- was the only story of the 10 that didn't receive endless attention from our nation's television journalists. To the contrary, it was blackballed entirely. There's the central axiom driving coverage by our American media: the more significant a matter it is, the less attention it receives (if one wants to be generous, one could also include the Couric-Palin interview as a marginally meaningful story). Having assembled this soap-opera-worthy list of "journalistic scoops," Calderone can barely suppress his giddy excitement over the last twelve months and, more perversely still, can barely contain how impressed he is with the probing diligence of his journalistic colleagues: As the curtain comes down on 2008, it’s hard to let go.

Political junkies couldn’t have asked for a better year — even news veteran David Broder dubbed the 2008 election the best he ever covered. Indeed. For a politically engaged person, it is truly difficult to conceive of how any year could ever be more satisfying than one marked by riveting scandals over shopping sprees, bickering among campaign operatives, and an extramarital affair of someone who, at the time of disclosure, held no political office and was running for absolutely nothing. Anyone surveying this mountain-high pile of Pulitzer-worthy investigations can do nothing more than echo the observation of Newsweek's legendary

Senior White House Correspondent, Richard Wolffe wrote:
The press here does a fantastic job of adhering to journalistic standards and covering politics in general.

Who could review Calderone's glorious list of the year's top "scoops" and disagree with that? In fairness to Calderone and his comrades in the political press, our media currently covers a country that has very few substantial problems and an administration that is renowned around the world for being competent, honest, conventional and quite uncontroversial. In general, countries which enjoy great tranquility, prosperity, and stability -- such as the U.S. today -- can afford the luxury of fixating on the types of fun and trivial stories which comprise the list of top "scoops" heralded by Politico. I made a similar point in defense of our political media last April, when I criticized those tiresome, humorless scolds who -- at the time -- were complaining and complaining that three straight weeks of unbroken coverage of Jeremiah Wright videos might be a bit excessive given their relative importance:

I think the most important thing to note about the Jeremiah Wright Story is that we're a Nation plagued by exceedingly few significant problems; blessed with a quite healthy political culture and very trusted political and media institutions; composed of a citizenry that is peacefully content with its Government and secure and confident about their future; endowed with a supremely sturdy economic foundation free of debt and other grave economic afflictions; vested with the ability to command great respect and admiration from the other nations of the world; emancipated from the burdens of war and intractable conflicts which have toppled and destroyed so many other great nations of the past; and, most of all, we're becoming freer and more prosperous by the minute. Not only that, but we have an extremely impressive, serious and honor-bound ruling imperial class devoted to the preservation of all of these blessings. So it isn't as though we really have anything else to talk about besides Jeremiah Wright. There are some countries in the world -- probably most -- which have so many big problems that they could ill-afford to devote much time and energy to a matter of this sort. Thankfully, the United States isn't one of them. And that was before the little global financial collapse, the virtual disappearance of $700 billion transferred to those responsible, and, quite relatedly, wealth-destroying fraud on a previously unimaginable scale. So things have improved and stabilized even further since the national media fixation on the Jeremiah Wright videos, thus further freeing our intrepid political press to delve fearlessly and tirelessly into the epic Penn-Ickes battles, Sarah Palin's shopping bills, and the whereabouts of Rielle Hunter.

The signature defect of modern political journalism is that it has shredded the ideal of proportionality.
By contrast, a country that was plagued by actual political problems might focus on such dreary, boring revelations as the choerographing and approving of torture techniques at White House Principals Meetings; or the creation of a massive, likely illegal domestic surveillance system of sprawling data bases built and maintained with no Congressional approval or oversight by the NSA; or the issuance of a memo by the Bush DOJ endlessly expanding the definition of "torture" and declaring the Fourth Amendment inoperative to "domestic military operations" inside the U.S.; or the massive contributions received from the telecom industry by Sen. Jay Rockefeller immediately before he became the key advocate of immunity for that lawbreaking industry; or the flagrant abuse of unchecked NSA eavesdropping powers for purely prurient and invasive ends; or the patently false denials by the U.S. military -- bolstered by an ostensibly first-hand report from Oliver North on Brit Hume's "news" broadcast -- of massive civilian deaths in Afghanistan; or the endless holes in the attempts by the FBI to blame the anthrax attacks on a dead scientist; or so many other similar boring disclosures. But not our media. As Politico's own Editor-in-Chief John Harris put it earlier this year in one of his signature mea culpas that changes absolutely nothing about his publication's quite typical obsession with trivialities: The signature defect of modern political journalism is that it has shredded the ideal of proportionality.

Important stories:
Important stories, ometimes the product of months of serious reporting, that in an earlier era would have captured the attention of the entire political-media community and even redirected the course of a presidential campaign, these days can disappear with barely a whisper.

Trivial stories
The kind that are tailor-made for forwarding to your brother-in-law or college roommate with a wisecracking note at the top — can dominate the campaign narrative for days.

It's hard to know what's worse:
Journalists like Harris who know full well that their work is a frivolous and inane distraction yet continue to do it anyway, or ones like Wolffe who -- even in the face of all of this -- actually believe, or at least claim to believe, in the enduring, guffaw-provoking myth of the intrepid, adversarial journalist. Ultimately, both types are the same, as -- regardless of motive or awareness -- they both spew the type of political coverage that generates a Top 10 "scoops" list of the kind Politico celebrates today.

QueerGam to the Pope: Stop belittling the LGBT community. It is sinful in the name of the Lord!

Gay and lesbian activists say a speech by Pope Benedict XVI comparing homosexuality to global warming was irresponsible and encouraged homophobia. Pope Benedict, addressing the Curia, the Vatican’s central administration, Monday in an end-of-year address, said humanity needs to listen to the “language of creation” to understand God’s intent in the roles of man and woman, adding that homosexual relations are a “destruction of God’s work,” The Times of London reported. We wonder where did The Pope heard God say things like that! Did he go to heaven and ask God himself?

Pope Benedict said:
The tropical forests do deserve our protection. But man, as a creature, does not deserve any less.

Rev. Sharon Ferguson
Chief executive of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, told The Times of London:
It is more the case that we need to be saved from (Benedict’s) comments. It is totally irresponsible and unacceptable in any shape or form. It is comments like that that justify homophobic bullying that goes on in schools and it is comments like that that justify gay-bashing.

What would Obama say about Obama for picking Rick Warren?

The question is right there in my title, but I'm going to ask this: What would Obama do if Obama was mad at Obama about Rick Warren? Warren is the anti-gay-marriage pastor who Obama picked to lead a prayer at the presidential inauguration. People are pissed. People we know. People we respect. People we love. So recently I've spent a lot of time arguing -- mostly with myself -- about what tactics and strategies make the most sense for the people who feel they've been slapped in the face by the Warren pick. There are sensible people who look at Warren and see a man who belittled their marriages, lied about the perils California faced if it didn't pass Proposition 8, and -- in helping get gay marriage repealed -- thwarted their deepest aspirations for equality. Imagine that there was someone who'd belittled Obama, lied about him, and tried to thwart his most high-stakes aspirations. Would Obama invite that person to lead a prayer at the inauguration? The answer is no. Absolutely not. Because the Secretary of State doesn't lead inaugural prayers. Which brings us to Lesson One of what Obama would do if Obama was mad at Obama about Rick Warren. He'd move on. He'd refuse to be distracted. He'd brush the dirt off his shoulder and immediately return his focus to winning. Winning, lest we forget, has nothing to do with dictating when and where Rick Warren gets to lead prayers.

Blogger David Quigg wrote:
Winning is about achieving durable equality for gay and lesbian couples who want the law to recognize that their bonds are every bit as legitimate as my bond with my wife. Victory -- durable, lasting victory -- is the most powerful answer to Warren. Victory is the most powerful answer to a slap in the face from the president-elect. Meanwhile, if Obama was mad at Obama about Rick Warren, he would be pouring huge energy into trying to solve a mystery: What in the world does the president-elect see in Rick Warren? Obama would buy a copy of The Audacity of Hope and read the long, ruthlessly introspective chapter our next president wrote about faith. In doing so, he'd come to a sentence on page 216: "Megachurch pastors like Rick Warren and T.D. Jakes are wielding their enormous influence to confront AIDS, Third World debt relief, and the genocide in Darfur."

Rick Warren! Right there. In the book. Out in the open. At bookstores all over America. For years. Not hiding. Not tucked away in some footnote. After picking The Audacity of Hope -- and his own jaw -- off the ground, Obama would flip to the front of the book and confirm the copyright date. 2006. Long before the first presidential primaries. Obama would remind himself that this book was a best-seller, that lots of people bought it, that some of those buyers presumably read the book, that some of the people who read it were gays, lesbians, and straight supporters of gay rights. He'd wonder how he and all those other people managed to miss the fact that the President-Elect sees some real good in Rick Warren. He'd demand more of himself next time. He'd vow to do his homework from here on out.

Reading on in The Audacity of Hope, Obama would find these words:

"... no matter how much Christians who oppose homosexuality may claim that they hate the sin but love the sinner, such a judgment inflicts pain on good people -- people who are made in the image of God, and who are often truer to Christ's message than those who condemn them. And I was reminded that it is my obligation, not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided, just as I cannot claim infallibility in my support of abortion rights. I must admit that I may have been infected with society's prejudices and predilections and attributed them to God; that Jesus' call to love one another might demand a different conclusion; and that in the years hence I may be seen as someone who was on the wrong side of history."

Obama would read those words. He'd read those words again and think about them. Obama might conclude that those words are damning evidence that our next president is "a very tolerant, very rational-sounding sort of bigot," as recently alleged in a Time column. If so, Obama might savage the president-elect with all the tactics he picked up during his time as a community organizer. He'd refer to his old copy of Rules For Radicals by Saul Alinsky. He might heed the book's call to polarize and personalize, racheting up the rhetoric, ridiculing the president-elect, and attempting to make him and his inauguration the face of anti-gay bigotry in America. Or instead, Obama might re-read those words in The Audacity of Hope, might think about that phrase "remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided," and might ask himself a shrewd, pragmatic question: Could a president capable of expressing such doubt and self-scrutiny end up being more useful to the marriage-equality movement than a president who reflexively scolds the American people for being a bunch of homophobic jerks? In answering that question, Obama would need to assess whether acceptance of marriage equality is more likely to come when average Americans get yelled at enough or whether equality is more likely to come as more and more average Americans are calmly made to realize that some of their relatives, their neighbors, their business contacts, their kids' teachers, their sports heroes are gays and lesbians. Obama would suddenly think of a passage in his old copy of Rules For Radicals, a war story told by Alinsky himself:

Saul Alinsky wrote:
I have always believed that birth control and abortion are personal rights to be exercised by the individual. If, in my early days when I organized the Back of the Yards neighborhood in Chicago, which was 95 percent Roman Catholic, I had tried to communicate this, even through the experience of the residents, whose economic plight was aggravated by large families, that would have been the end of my relationship with the community. That instant I would have been stamped as an enemy of the church and all communication would have ceased. Some years later, after establishing solid relationships, I was free to talk about anything, including birth control. I remember discussing it with the then Catholic Chancellor. ... I remember seeing five priests in the waiting room who wanted to see the chancellor, and knowing his contempt for each one of them, I ... opened the door saying, 'Take a look out there. Can you look at them and tell me you oppose birth control?' He cracked up and said, 'That's an unfair argument and you know it,' but the subject and nature of the discussion would have been unthinkable without that solid relationship.

Obama might find himself hoping that our next president is trying to cultivate just that sort of solid relationship with Rick Warren. Still, he'd also consider Frank Rich's caution this morning that our new president "may not only overestimate his ability to bridge some of our fundamental differences but also underestimate how persistent some of those differences are." But Obama would question whether such naivete is really plausible, given another fact detailed in the same Rich column: "There is comparable anger and fear on the right. David Brody, a political correspondent with the Christian Broadcasting Network, was flooded with e-mails from religious conservatives chastising Warren for accepting the invitation to the inaugural. They vilified (the president-elect) as 'pro-death' and worse because of his support for abortion rights." Obama would welcome the information in Rich's column, remembering another pillar of Rules For Radicals: "The basic requirement for the understanding of the politics of change is to recognize the world as it is. We must work with it on its terms if we are to change it to the kind of world we would like it to be." Obama wouldn't -- and couldn't -- know immediately what to make of Warren's willingness to stand with our "pro-death" president-elect. He'd puzzle over whether Warren and his congregants show a relative reasonableness that might eventually be cultivated into acceptance of marriage equality or whether Warren is merely the polite, presentable face of intractable bigotry.

There's no answer. Not yet. And maybe not for years.

So Obama wouldn't hope. He'd organize. He'd lead. He might use his side's most potent advantage -- sheer numbers -- by urging gays and lesbians to come out to everyone they know, so that more and more Americans would know the face of a person marginalized by gay-marriage bans. He'd innovate. He'd learn from the ingenuity of the president-elect's winning campaign. He'd re-read Rules For Radicals in its entirety. Because how can you even consider skimming a primer on activism that includes a thorough consideration of the merits of feeding baked beans to a group of oppressed people and sending them to the symphony to inflict the stank and cacophony of their baked-bean flatulence on the affluent concert-goers? Obama, meanwhile, would stay mindful of a central idea in Rules For Radicals: "Compromise is another word that carries shades of weakness, vacillation, betrayal of ideals, surrender of moral principles. ... But to the organizer, compromise is a key and beautiful word. ... If you start with nothing, demand 100 percent, then compromise for 30 percent, you're 30 percent ahead."

Those of us whose sense of justice cries out for marriage equality may need to compromise to achieve it. But we won't need to settle for 30 percent. Nowhere close. The tide is with us. Unless we get distracted. We've seen what that's like. Rick Warren's inaugural prayer is the central front in the struggle for marriage equality in the same way that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was the central front in the War on Terror.

Bam to live up to his campaign promises to include LGBT people in his vision of change...

Obama now has even more pressure to live up to his campaign promises to include LGBT people in his vision of change and hope that propelled him to our nation's highest office. He can start by taking quick and decisive action on the priorities outlined in HRC's Blueprint for Positive Change. The LGBT community has worked and waited a long time to have a president who truly takes our concerns seriously - and acts on them. His poor choice of Rick Warren certainly stung - but hopefully the loud backlash will press upon Obama the need for him to expend some of that political capital we helped him accrue on our behalf as well. We need real policies put in place that will make LGBT lives better. It's been a long eight years. And that's real change that can't come soon enough.

Bam should know better...

The Obama camp has attempted to justify the selection of Rick Warren as a way to shine a light on the “wide range of viewpoints” in a “diverse and noisy and opinionated” America.

Frank Rich, NYT Columnist wrote:
Obama should know better, saying the president-elect “knows full well that a ‘viewpoint’ defaming any minority group by linking it to sexual crimes like pedophilia is unacceptable. By the historical standards of presidential hubris, Obama’s disingenuous defense of his tone-deaf invitation to Warren is nonetheless a relatively tiny infraction. It’s no Bay of Pigs. But it does add an asterisk to the joyous inaugural of our first black president. It’s bizarre that Obama, of all people, would allow himself to be on the wrong side of this history.

It is true. Liberal writers have been up in arms about Warren’s selection since the announcement was made. So too have evangelical voices, who claim Warren should have rejected the invitation because of Obama’s pro-choice (“pro-death” in their words) beliefs.
But this is perhaps the most visible column yet to come out of the opinion pages that really calls into question Obama’s rationale in choosing Warren, the Saddleback Church pastor who campaigned heavily for the passing of Prop. 8 in California.

In the column, Rich reasons that despite calls from liberal activists to remove Warren from the inauguration, Obama now has to follow through with his decision -- civil-rights icon Reverend Joseph Lowery, an outspoken supporter of gay rights, was selected to deliver the Benediction, though that announcement was rather overshadowed by the selection of Warren.

Singapore Airlines -- a class beyond first

Bam = 3rd term of Clinton and 3rd term of Iraq

Obama has confounded those who voted for “real change we can believe in” by putting together a crafty combination of a third Clinton term on most things, and a third Bush term on issues relating to the war in Iraq. Same old, same old..the more things change in Washington, the more they stay the same.

Rick Warren is Biblicist, not Christian

The recent furor over President-Elect Barack Obama’s selection of California mega-church pastor Rick Warren to pray at the January 20th inauguration yields a few clues about what evangelicals can expect during the next four years. On the surface, playing the Warren card appears to be a masterstroke by Obama – one that further demonstrates impressive political skills. A day or so after the election, many of us thought he would demonstrate significant savvy by – at least for the time being – ignoring the clamorous pleas from core constituencies, the kind of people who will support and vote for him no matter what. Msny of you have suggested he would reach out to those who view him with fear – or at least mild suspicion. That’s pretty much what number 44 has done (by the way "44" in Chinese means double death -- a very very bad numbers for a man). Obama has confounded those who voted for “real change we can believe in” by putting together a crafty combination of a third Clinton term on most things, and a third Bush term on issues relating to the war in Iraq. This brings us back to Rick Warren’s upcoming supplication in Washington. Evangelicals – especially younger ones – played a key role in Obama’s ability to counter clear problems with his own church and pastor. They also, in many cases, overtly campaigned for him, his decidedly non-evangelical views on abortion and other traditional values issues notwithstanding. Obama is viewed by many evangelicals as a new kind of politician - someone who can bridge the gap, or reach out, or maybe begin a dialogue.

David R Stokes wrote:
Just pick your mantra. But before any kind of modern-day Great Awakening is declared, some should take a serious look at how Rev. Warren’s selection to offer a simple prayer has become such a controversial matter.
Evangelicals, those who take the Bible and their faith seriously, need to realize that when it comes to issues like gay marriage – even abortion – there is not really any middle ground with those on the left, even the so-called Christian left. Rick Warren has spent a great deal of time and money, investing his ministry in initiatives that are outside of the normal evangelical box. He has worked tirelessly in Africa and elsewhere on the issue of AIDS – and has cultivated a compassionate and understanding persona when it comes to dealing with issues and ministry challenges stemming from same-sex attraction. What Warren has not done, nor will he ever do, is to reach the point where he declares that homosexual behavior is not sinful. He will not do this because he is a Biblicist.

A Pork-Barrel Stimulus Package

It’s no secret that when President Obama gets sworn into office, among his top priorities will be to guide Congress through an $850 billion economic stimulus package. As a result, this astronomical number has created a tsunami of activity from special interest groups looking for their piece of the pie. $850 billion is simply an astonishing figure - not only exceeding the hefty $700 billion price tag of the financial sector, but also dwarfing the annual budget for the Pentagon. What does Obama intend to do with all of your hard-earned money? According to today's Washington Post, the 850 billion "would include at least $100 billion for cash-strapped state governments and more than $350 billion for investments in infrastructure, alternative energy and other priorities..."

You've got to wonder if the infrastructure investments that Obama is going to include in his package might come from the list of 11,391 projects that the U.S. Conference of Mayors recently submitted to Congress. The list includes things like a $4.8 million polar bear exhibit at the Providence, RI zoo and a $1.5 million water ride in Miami, FL. According to a recent CNN article, other abuses of taxpayer dollars found within the report include: "a proposed $20 million minor league baseball museum in Durham, North Carolina; $6.1 million for corporate jet hangars at the Fayetteville, Arkansas, airport; $20 million for renovations at the Philadelphia Zoo; and a $1.5 million program to reduce prostitution in Dayton, Ohio."

If nothing else, the next four years look to be a spending bonanza and a pork barrel free-for-all. Hold on to your wallets!

Prop. 8 sponsors seek to nullify 18K gay marriages. Opponents of gay marriage will fight in court to undo unions

The sponsors of Proposition 8 asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to nullify the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters approved the ballot initiative that outlawed gay unions. The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief arguing that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions. The document reveals for the first time that opponents of same-sex marriage will fight in court to undo those unions that already exist.

"Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions," reads the brief co-written by Kenneth Starr, dean of Pepperdine University's law school and the former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton. The campaign submitted the document in response to three lawsuits seeking to invalidate Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment adopted last month that overruled the court's decision in May that had legalized gay marriage in the nation's most populous state. Both Attorney General Jerry Brown, whose office is scheduled to submit its own brief to the court Friday, and gay rights groups maintain that the gay marriage ban may not be applied retroactively. The Supreme Court could hear arguments in the litigation as soon as March. The measure's backers announced Friday that Starr, a former federal judge and U.S. solicitor general, had signed on as their lead counsel and would argue the cases. Proposition 8's supporters assert that the Supreme Court lacks the authority or historical precedent to throw out the amendment.
"For this court to rule otherwise would be to tear asunder a lavish body of jurisprudence," the court papers state. "That body of decisional law commands judges — as servants of the people — to bow to the will of those whom they serve — even if the substantive result of what people have wrought in constitution-amending is deemed unenlightened." The cases are Strauss v. Horton, S168047; City and County of San Francisco v. Horton, S168078; and Tyler v. State of California, S168066.

The worst of 2008! Two-year olds encouraged to brawl by dad!

An American dad organized a baby cockfight and videotaped it. It just cannot get any sicker than that. Child Protective Services and Military Police are investigating. The image you are about to see here is very very disturbing. Watch.


Also, a girl being beaten by jealous cheerleaders in Florida...the video was taken off Youtube because it was just as disturbing. The five girls who beat their own friend, were charged but pled not guilty.

QueerGam to Obama: If we must have an officiating priest, surely we can do better than this vulgar huckster.

It is theoretically possible to make an apparently bigoted remark that is also factually true and morally sound. Thus, when the Rev. Bailey Smith, one of the deputies of the late Jerry Falwell, claimed that "God almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew," I agree with him. This is because I do not believe that there is any supernatural supervisor who lends an ear to any prayer. In the same way, if someone publicly charges that "Mormonism is a cult," it is impossible to say that the claim by itself is mistaken or untrue. However, if the speaker says that heaven is a real place but that you will not get there if you are Jewish, or that Mormonism is a cult and a false religion but that other churches and faiths are the genuine article, then you know that the bigot has spoken. That's all in a day's work for the wonderful world of the American evangelical community, and one wishes them all the best of luck in their energetic fundraising and their happy-clappy Sunday "Churchianity" mega-feel-good fiestas. However, do we want these weirdos and creeps officiating in any capacity at the inauguration of the next president of the United States?

Christopher Hitchens wrote:
It is a fact that Rick Warren, pastor of the Saddleback Church in Orange County, Calif., was present at a meeting of the Aspen Institute not long ago and was asked by Lynda Resnick—she of the pomegranate-juice dynasty—if a Jew like herself could expect to be admitted to paradise. Warren publicly told her no. What choice did he have? His own theology says that only those who accept Jesus can hope to be saved. I have just missed the chance to debate on CBS with one of Warren's leading allies and defenders, the Dallas preacherman who calls himself Dr. Robert Jeffress. In the opinion of this learned fellow, even though Mitt Romney "talks about Jesus as his lord and savior, he is not a Christian. Mormonism is not Christianity."

Caroline Kennedy vs. Sarah Palin, Media Double Standard?

Abso-f%#@*king-lutely yes!

Yes - 98% (5046 votes)
No - 1% (67 votes)
Unsure - 0% (no votes)

Caroline Kennedy is an idiot, thinking she is still the Kennedy that we all once knew. The Kennedy is long gone. And Caroline has absolutely zero experience! Unbelievable. Maybe Ann Coulter is right about one thing -- that democrats would be republicans if they had some brains!

Bromance is in ...go get yourself some men to connect with, do things together with and then some...

Bromance? It is a special bond/friendship between men...and as far as queers are concerned Bromance means men and men having some kind of sexual relationship...common! We are not born yesterday to know what Bromance is...

QueerGam to Washignton Post: Bam's body is not all that...so move on already!

The president-elect has better things to do then to listen to your endless rambling about his body.
Meanwhile...Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin made the top of the list of most admired woman living today.

Who would Obama pick as CIA Director?

We are waiting...hopefully he would pick the right guy as his current spy choice (nominee) is not the right guy and is being condemned by bloggers. We are expecting someone from the operation side of the CIA who has no association with the last eight years.

Liberal Democrats and LGBT community feel betrayed by Obama's choice of a pastor to deliver the invocation at his inauguration

Yep, Barack Obama’s choice of a prominent evangelical minister to deliver the invocation continues to draw fierce challenges from a gay rights movement that — in the wake of a gay marriage ban in California — is looking for a fight. Rick Warren, the senior pastor of Saddleback Church in Southern California, opposes abortion rights but has taken more liberal stances on the government's role in fighting poverty, and backed away from other evangelicals’ staunch support for economic conservatism. But it’s his support for the California constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage that drew the most heated criticism from Democrats Wednesday.

Joe Solomonese, President of HRC:
Your invitation to Reverend Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at your inauguration is a genuine blow to LGBT Americans. We feel a deep level of disrespect when one of architects and promoters of an anti-gay agenda is given the prominence and the pulpit of your historic nomination.

Retail sales...very bad

Facing a disastrous holiday shopping season, the retail industry on Tuesday urged President-elect Barack Obama to incorporate three national tax-free shopping holidays in 2009. The group wants the measure to be included in Obama’s stimulus efforts.

National Retail Federation (NRF)wrote a letter to Obama:
The situation is critical. In October, consumer confidence was at its lowest level in the 41 years. We urge you to act quickly on legislation to help stimulate consumer spending as one of the first priorities of your new administration.

The worst is yet to come...and thousands of retail employees will be out of job soon.

CNN: Califnornia in deep trouble

According to CNN today, the golden state has about two months before it goes bankrupt! The tax refund next year would be delayed. Unemployment is now hitting 8.4% ...that is about 8.4 million people without jobs.

Now what?

Ambrose Aban
Now that Christmas is over...and now that the Fed has given virtually all of its margin on the fed funds rate, what happens next? When things continue to get worse, where will the government go to try to stimulate the economy again? I keep hearing people say there are more “tools in the bag,” but other than printing money and giving it away freely...

Phil Spencer
I don’t know what they possibly could have left. While my partner and I will enjoy seeing our equity line rate drop some more (just in time for our necessary bathroom remodel no less), I’m left wondering how the country will ever pay for these steps when the economy starts to turn around. What burden will your children face when the bailout bills come due, the interest rates start to return to sane levels, and budget deficit balloon pops?

For the love of God, do not bail out the New York Times

Ambrose Aban
Since the “paper of record” long ago ceased to be anything but a shill for Democrats and leftist ideology, I will greet their demise with happiness. I’d like to see the Sulzberger family have to invest all their savings in it trying to keep it from failing, only to see it go down along with their assets. Then, they can find out what it’s like to *be* in the class of citizen that they always “claim” to be fighting for, while enjoying their life of privilege and wealth. That would be true schadenfreude. How can you justify bailing out a newspaper? They don’t employ that many people. I feel sorry for the printers and the delivery people, but the reporters and the editors can all drop dead...

Phil Spencer
Yes the reporters can all drop dead...They have not been fair and nice lately, especially during the primary process and the general election. It is one-sided and it continues to be biased against the GOP (and Sarah Palin). Like Katie Couric, it had the chance to be fair and balanced. It blew it. It failed to be a good American.

Ambrose Aban
More people now get their news from the Net than from print, but the galaxy of competitors online means ad revenue’s necessarily going to be thinner, especially in a recession. Gulp.
Current share price of the Times: $5.99.

Jefferey Johnson
We should start a pool to pick the date when their stock will cost less than a copy of the paper. Exit question: Deep pockets, influence with nonprofits — did the New Yorker just come up with a fallback career for Princess if this whole Senate thing doesn’t work out?

Ambrose Aban
We heard ad revenue at the publisher’s New York Times Media Group, which includes the Times newspaper, fell 21.2 percent from a year earlier because of a drop in real estate and jobs classified advertising. The Times is considering selling some of its properties, but has not yet said which ones.Internet ad revenue, long a source of hope among newspaper publishers battered by falling print ad sales and circulation, dropped 4 percent in the news media group. That reflects a decline in online jobs and real estate ads.

George Tyler
The peculiar fact about the current crisis is that even as big papers have become less profitable they’ve arguably become more popular. The blogosphere, much of which piggybacks on traditional journalism’s content, has magnified the reach of newspapers, and although papers now face far more scrutiny, this is a kind of backhanded compliment to their continued relevance. Usually, when an industry runs into the kind of trouble that Levitt was talking about, it’s because people are abandoning its products. But people don’t use the Times less than they did a decade ago. They use it more....

Phil Spencer
Well the difference is that today they don’t have to pay for it. The real problem for newspapers, in other words, isn’t the Internet; it’s us. We want access to everything, we want it now, and we want it for free. That’s a consumer’s dream, but eventually it’s going to collide with reality: if newspapers’ profits vanish, so will their product.Does that mean newspapers are doomed?

Ambrose Aban
Not necessarily. There are many possible futures one can imagine for them, from becoming foundation-run nonprofits to relying on reader donations to that old standby the deep-pocketed patron.

Key looks for 2009: See-through and sheer fabrics lead the way, set the style

Queers, are you ready for 2009?
In Spring and Summer fashion tends to get crazy; 2009 (through good bad times) will get a little lesser and sheer. Less crazy we've heard so far. Nothing to do with the heat...designed more for the economy? Well...trend setters alike (who think they know better than Miranda Priestly) blame it on the heat, and one's desire to show off. So in 2009, they are saying, turn to the sheer/see-through trend to keep you cool yet sexy. 2009's sheer pieces are a mixture of the soft and feminine, to the opposite extremes of the hardcore sex-kitten. I am thinking modern and sleek, silken femininity, or showgirl burlesque, fringed dresses in particular should be on every girls to-buy list this summer. From single-shouldered dresses to tops and bikinis, asymmetric shoulder-lines have made a huge return in 2009 (based on all the mags we've read). Showing off one-shoulder in a dress will be the thing to do next year -- they say it is very sexy and interesting on the eye, and the possibilities for how to wear it are numerous. Also, don't be surprised to find out that Roman-esque and Grecian inspired clothing are a key fashion trend in 2009. It's both a logical flow on from the one-shoulder trend, and a natural progression from the flapper trend. Both as maxi-dresses and short little numbers, the Grecian dress is one of the key looks that any woman can indulge in. We read that feminine, ethereal and a symbol of renewal. The butterfly takes over from the star as the motif du jour in 2009. Don't fall into the trap of glitzy blingy kitch though - the butterfly this summer is all about elegance. It's also not the first time bejewelled pieces have been a hit over the past few years. But in 2009 they return brighter, bolder, and more elegant. This time around pieces are not just embellished but often completely encrusted by jewels; the feeling is luxurious, exotic, and yet the glamour remains somewhat understated. Please consider this the one 2009 fashion trend I am truly scared of, not because I don't like the intention (supermodels' stomachs? Perfect!) but because the implementation has the potential to go completely awry. If you thought muffin top was horrible, imagine how bad an exposed midriff trend can go? Ladies, hit the gym. It's not the most practical of trends when it comes to every-day wear; but the romantic fairy-tale princess dress certainly had it's place on the runway for Spring/Summer 2009. Romantic details and classic fairytale silhouettes will make their mark on red carpets and down church isles: but don't be dismayed, there are practical applications for Romantic elements as well. Click here to read more on the fairy-tale romance trend.

In 2009, jewelry is all about making a statement, be it a necklace, a bangle or a cocktail ring. From ethnic beading, to exotic stones, to avant garde pieces, the one thing is constant: it must be big and bold.

Just when you thought they would never return... ripped jeans are back. Starting in 2008 with a horde of sexed-up editorial shoots and celebrity sightings, those torn denim shorts and shredded jeans are hitting the streets. Ripped denim in 2009 is certainly sexy and revealing - possibly more than ever. Boyfriend jeans are the one 2009 fashion trend that we really scared about because, as Katie Holmes has proved, it has the potential to go terribly wrong. But that's not to say you shouldn't be trying it. Take a risk and prove your fashionising credentials by grabbing a pair of men's jeans, cuffing them, and hitting the streets in 2009's boyfriend jeans trend! For every fashion trend in 2009 there's a colour palette which has influenced it. Pantone and TFL have analysed current consumer trends and released their views on 2009 colour trends for the Spring-Summer seasons.

This is journalism almost at its best...

Rachel Maddow busts Laura Tyson of Morgan Stanley...watch

Last night, Rachel Maddow did something very special for journalism: In the name of transparency, she went back and clarified that a bailout-justifying guest of hers actually had a blatant conflict of interest. On Monday, Maddow had on Berkeley professor Laura Tyson to talk about the bailout. Tyson defended the firms that have received bailout money, saying they are not at fault in either how they are using the money, or in how they are refusing to answer questions about their use of the money. She also insisted that companies that get bailout money should be able to keep paying dividends to their shareholders. Yet, Tyson didn't tell viewers that she sits on the board of directors of Morgan Stanley, a bank that has received $10 billion in bailout money. That's right - according to Morgan Stanley's SEC filings, Tyson makes about $350,000 a year from Morgan Stanley in total compensation from that position, and she now owns about 79,000 shares of the company. In other words, she has a direct financial interest in defending the bailout, absolving bailout recipients of wrongdoing, and justifying the use of bailout money for shareholder dividends. Obviously, it's really unethical to appear on a show billing yourself as an objective disinterested professor at the same time you aren't telling people you are on the board of directors of the company you are effectively defending. Who knew this greedy professor can be the most stupid person in the world!

Brad and Cate at their best...in Benjamin Button

Love love love this movie...here's the trailer, watch.

Unemployment raises, consumers cut back on spending

New claims for unemployment benefits rose more than expected last week, the government said Wednesday, while consumers cut back on their spending for the fifth straight month amid a deepening recession.

The Labor Department reported that initial requests for jobless benefits rose to a seasonally adjusted 586,000 in the week ending Dec. 20, from an upwardly revised figure of 556,000 the previous week. That's much more than the 560,000 economists had expected.

Getting home for the holidays seem like a mission impossible

Serious delays...some spending 36 hrs in the airports. The lines are long. People are still missing flights especially in Seattle and Portland. Airlines have 3,000 fewer flights this Christmas (compared with last year) due to the economy. Meanwhile, skiing fans have good reasons to be excited. Lots of snow in the Sierra Lake Tahoe areas. Skiing is officially on!

QueerGam to TIME: Enough on Bam already...support the animal shelters

People ditching their pets during hard times...A growing number of American gays are giving up their best friends to animal shelters as rising economic anxieties make it increasingly difficult for some pet owners to justify spending $1,000 a year or more on expensive pet food and medical bills.
Time Magazine loves Barack Obama. Apparently having him on the cover something like 7,000 times wasn’t enough, they had to do it once more, naming the President-Elect Person of the Year. Proving that Barack Obama can change one thing… magazine sales. I don’t actually have a problem with President-Elect Obama being named Time’s Person of the Year. The idea that it could have been anyone else would be the only surprise. I just wonder if the love affair will continue once Mr. Obama actually has time to accomplish something.

How To Prosecute a Shoe-Thrower. Would someone in America go to jail for tossing footwear at a foreign president?

Muntadar al-Zaida, the Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at George W. Bush, will stand trial Dec. 31, the BBC reported Monday. He's being charged with "aggression against a foreign head of state," which carries a prison term of between five and 15 years. If a reporter here in the United States flung his footwear at, say, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, would he do time?

Quite possibly. Title 18, Section 112 of the U.S. Code offers special protection for "foreign officials, official guests, and internationally protected persons." Whoever "assaults, strikes, wounds, imprisons, or offers violence" against one of these people can be fined, imprisoned for up to three years, or both. "Assault" under common law covers not only the attempt to inflict harm but also placing someone under the reasonable apprehension of harm, so shoe-throwing might count. If a lenient jury decided that throwing a shoe (and missing) didn't quite rise to the level of assault, they might find the perpetrator guilty of coercing or harassing a foreign official or obstructing the official in the performance of his duties. These lesser offenses carry a sentence of not more than six months in prison or a fine.

Tossing Nikes or Bruno Maglis or Model 271s at the U.S. president, vice president, or president-elect on American soil is an even riskier proposition. If a jury were to treat the action as an assault, the perp could get up to 10 years. If the attack were deemed a mere "threat," then he'd face up to five years.

LGBT community in Racine, Wisconsin has reason to be happy

A proposed community center for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender residents drew a sizable crowd by City Council standards to Tuesday’s meeting. The issue riled up at least a few people to the point where police had to be called to City Hall. The council approved a permit for the center despite wide criticism from concerned residents at the meeting. Both supporters and opponents turned out Tuesday to voice their opinions about the center. The council vote approving the conditional-use permit allows Bruce Joffe to use the building, 1456 Junction Ave., for the LGBT Center of SE Wisconsin.
“This is something Racine doesn’t need. We need to show love to these people through Christ,” Renee Muller, one of the attendees said. “We do not need a center like this.”

At the meeting, people stood up to say they opposed the center because they believe it will promote gay activity, while others voiced their belief in the importance of the center. That was good news for both Shannon Jones, 28, and Ryan Thill, 21. They are both gay and said the center (1,725-sq-ft building) will help bring people together so that they do not feel isolated. Joffe said the center will include films, speakers, reading groups, STD and HIV testing and counseling, art shows and domestic violence workshops. He plans to open the center in April.

GetToKnowMeFirst.org, plans five 30-second TVC for Inauguration Week

A group of gay and lesbian Californians announced today they will be taking to the airwaves to demonstrate why the right to marry is so important for their families.
The group, GetToKnowMeFirst.org, is planning a campaign of five 30-second commercials to run throughout Inauguration Week in January. The spots will run in both urban and rural markets. Its important that our fellow Californians see the faces of the real families that are directly affected by the passage of Proposition 8, said John Ireland, the groups organizer. One of the spots in the GetToKnowMeFirst.org campaign will feature Sonia and Gina, a couple who are raising a son and daughter, ages 6 and 3. Don’t take my family’s rights away. Get to know me first, Sonia says in the ad. Our families may look different from yours, but were not. We need the same things… like marriage… so we can protect and provide for our kids. Another spot will feature Robin Tyler and Diane Olson, the original plaintiffs in the marriage lawsuit that eventually led the California Supreme Court to legalize marriage for same-sex couples in May 2008. That ruling was overturned by the passage of Proposition 8 in November. Two of the ads will also be in Spanish. One profiles a Latina couple and the other profiles a family with triplets, headed by two men. All of the spots are available online at GetToKnowMeFirst.org

QueerGam to Rick Warren: This is love!

Andrew Sullivan
It's shrewd politics, but if anyone is under any illusion that Obama is interested in advancing gay equality, they should probably sober up now.

Joe Solmonese, president, HRC
I feel a deep level of disrespect over Warren’s selection. By inviting Rick Warren to your (Obama) inauguration, you have tarnished the view that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have a place at your table.

Warren’s support of California’s Proposition 8, a measure that bans same sex marriage in the state, drew the ire of many gay rights proponents during the election.

But Kathryn Kolbert, president of the the conservative People for the American Way, told CNN she, too, was “deeply disappointed” with the choice of Warren, adding that the highly visible invocation at inauguration should instead have been given to someone with “consistent mainstream American values.”

QueerGam: Warren is purposely driven to divide the nation, purposely driven by greed and profits

Time's illustrator: I am disappointed with Obama's appointment of Rick Warren

[from obeygiant]

Shepard Fairey showing the cover of Time's "Person of the Year".


Time's cover illustrator Shepard Fairey has just posted a statement on his site, obeygiant.com, calling the moment "bittersweet".

Sherpard Fairey
I’m very disappointed by Obama’s appointment of Rick Warren. Warren is against gay marriage and reproductive rights, and he does not believe in evolution (maybe he offers himself as proof of lack of evolution). I understand that Obama is trying to appeal to conservatives and evangelicals, but this move is symbolically a slap in the face to many people. Warren is not a uniter, but a divider… he is intolerant in many of his views. I still think Obama is the best choice for president, but I can’t condone Warren’s involvement in Obama’s inauguration, no matter how insignificant it is.

Breaking News: Calif AG changes position on state's new same-sex marriage ban, urges state Supreme Court to void Prop 8

In a dramatic reversal, Attorney General Jerry Brown filed a legal brief saying the measure that amended the California Constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman is itself unconstitutional because it deprives a minority group of a fundamental right. Earlier, Brown had said he would defend the ballot measure against legal challenges from gay marriage supporters.

But Brown said he reached a different conclusion "upon further reflection and a deeper probing into all the aspects of our Constitution.

"It became evident that the Article 1 provision guaranteeing basic liberty, which includes the right to marry, took precedence over the initiative," he said in an interview Friday night. "Based on my duty to defend the law and the entire Constitution, I concluded the court should protect the right to marry even in the face of the 52 percent vote."

The fact that US has refused to sign worldwide declaration to decriminalize homosexuality is unthinkable...

This is beyond us. This is unthinkable and cannot be explained. The US has a long history of fighting for human rights...Isn't it ironic? US, together with the muslim nations, refused to sign the worldwide declaration, presented by the UN yesterday, to decriminalize homosexuality. Why?

What kind of town Chicago is?

Blagojevich:
I will fight this thing every step of the way. I will fight. I will fight. I will fight until I take my last breath. I have done nothing wrong.

Blagojevich hired the best of the best legal eagles in Chicago and having the best criminal lawyers on his side to clear his name.
In an unwavering statement of innocence, Gov. Rod Blagojevich said Friday he will be vindicated of federal corruption charges and has no intention of letting what he called a "political lynch mob" force him from his job. Blagojevich says he will not resign but will fight “pay to play” allegations against him. Blagojevich: “I’m here to tell you right off the bat that I am not guilty of any criminal wrongdoing, that I intend to stay on the job and fight this thing every step of the way.”

US says NO for worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Alone among major Western nations, the United States refused to sign a declaration presented Thursday at the United Nations calling for worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality. In all, 66 of the UN's 192 member countries signed the nonbinding declaration — which backers called a historic step to push the General Assembly to deal more forthrightly with any-gay discrimination. More than 70 UN members outlaw homosexuality, and in several of them homosexual acts can be punished by execution. Co-sponsored by France and the Netherlands, the declaration was signed by all 27 European Union members, as well as Japan, Australia, Mexico and three dozen other countries. There was broad opposition from Muslim nations, and the United States refused to sign, indicating that some parts of the declaration raised legal questions that needed further review.

"It's disappointing," said Rama Yade, France's human rights minister, of the US position — which she described as in contradiction with America's long tradition as a defender of human rights.

According to some of the declaration's backers, US officials expressed concern in private talks that some parts of the declaration might be problematic in committing the federal government on matters that fall under state jurisdiction. In numerous states, landlords and private employers are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; on the federal level, gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military.

Carolyn Vadino, a spokeswoman for the US mission to the UN, stressed that the United States — despite its unwillingness to sign — condemned any human rights violations related to sexual orientation.

Gay rights activists nonetheless were angered by the US position.

"It's an appalling stance — to not join with other countries that are standing up and calling for decriminalization of homosexuality," said Paula Ettelbrick, executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. She expressed hope that the US position might change after President-elect Barack Obama takes office in January. More than 50 countries opposed to the declaration, including members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, issued a joint statement Thursday criticizing the initiative as an unwarranted attempt to give special prominence to gays and lesbians. The statement suggested that protecting sexual orientation could lead to "the social normalization and possibly the legalization of deplorable acts" such as pedophilia and incest. The declaration also has been opposed by the Vatican, a stance which prompted a protest in Rome earlier this month. A Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said the Roman Catholic Church opposed the death penalty and other harsh repression of gays and lesbians, but he expressed concern that the declaration would be used as pressure against those who believe marriage rights should not be extended to gays. A new Vatican statement, issued Thursday, endorsed the call to end criminal penalties against gays, but said that overall the declaration "gives rise to uncertainty in the law and challenges existing human norms." The European nations backing the declaration waged their campaign in conjunction with the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Dutch foreign affairs minister, Maxime Verhagen, said countries which endorsed that 1948 document had no right to carve out exceptions based on religion or culture that allowed discrimination against gays.

"Human rights apply to all people in all places at all times," he said. "I will not accept any excuse."

He acknowledged that the new declaration had only symbolic import, but said it marked the first time such a large number of nations had raised the cause of gay rights in the context of General Assembly proceedings.

"This statement aims to make debate commonplace," he said. "It is not meant to be a source of division, but to eliminate the taboo that surrounds the issue."

Although the declaration's backers were pleased that nations on six continents had signed it, there were only two from Asia and four from Africa. - AP

Orderly Bankruptcy! Or a bailout...

Of course! Sure, why not? We'll get back to that...unbelievable.

It's snowing in Malibu Beach, California and Las Vegas!

San Francisco had some hail last night and more to come (and it is freezing cold)...can you believe it? What is happening to this planet?

Why Warren, Bam? Queen-of-Mean, Leona Helmsley, not available?

Ambrose Aban
Chief Blogger, QueerGam
Bam, I almost can't bear to tell you the heavy heart and disappointment me, my friends and their partners and their children bear that you have chosen Rick Warren to participate in the inauguration ceremonies. Gay people made calls for you, knocked on doors, gave more money than they had and spoke to friends and neighbors to help elect you and vote No on Prop 8. The least you can do is to invite other pastors. Meantime, queers continue to endure unequal status for their families that are condoned and encouraged by Warren. We understand that you wish to bring together many sides of America and we have enjoyed reading your past speeches regarding faith issues. However, we believe you have made a mistake in this instance that will further divide rather than encourage coming together. There are so many faith leaders that preach the dignity and worth of every child of God and encourage all to have a place at the table. Rick Warren is not one of them. Why Warren, Bam? We had been looking forward to watching your inauguration with a joyous heart. Now our hearts are heavy...our faith, weary. It's not you. It's not even about gay marriage...this is about a man, a gay hater, who continues to give the most offensive and demeaning speeches. Queen-of-Mean and gay's #1 hater, Leona Helmsley, who is very dead, must be laughing tonight. Bam, we know you would NEVER have picked Rick Warren BEFORE the general election. But now that you've won and that you are the president-to-be, it doesn't matter...We don't blame those who are now, tonight, feeling that they have been betrayed by you.
My own issue with Warren giving the invocation at the innaugural is his stance on torture. Warren stated that he did not bring up the issue of torture at a meeting with Bush because it wasn't important. I have to wonder what convoluded sense of Prophetic ministry Warren engages in when he, on one hand, opposes allowing a discriminated-against minority it's civil rights to marry (freedom of association in the Constitution), but on the other is incapable of speaking the truth to power that torture is morally wrong even if you lead the most powerful nation on earth and believe (mistakenly) that torture can enhance intelligence gathering. "Rev." Warren, by allowing this dichotomy in his real-world theology, abandons any pretense to morals & makes a sham of his ministry. When will these facts be brought to the "dialogue" that Obama so values?

Obama is in some way legitimizing the unsophisticated theology of Rick Warren which at times enters into bigotry.

George Tyler
Guest Blogger, QueerGam
We sould do our best to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and remember that what he is trying to do here is say that we can agree on some issues (fighting poverty) and disagree on others (abortion, same-sex marriage) and still work together and reach compromises. I don't think it's a good idea to abandon Obama and the movement he has built over this one choice. He cannot make all of us happy all of the time and every constituent is bound to suffer some disillusionment from a guy who promised everything to everyone. In my opinion, we need to stick it out for the long haul before we reach any conclusions. I don't see much gain in abandoning President-Elect Obama before he is even inaugurated. However, my family and I are personally devastated by this decision -- Rick Warren is a gay hater. And we must not let one ***hole to ruin it for us.

Totally insensitive and disappointing

Chris Goodridge
Guest Blogger, Queergam
I really thought the age of government interacting "mega-churches" would go with the Bush Administration. It's not a problem that faith plays a role in the inauguration. But, the fact is, there are plenty of very deep and sophisticated thinkers from the faith community that could have been given this platform. Rick Warren is not one of them. It is hurtful and I will switch to Food Network when Warren comes on stage. We gay people should only support those who support us! Very bad choice. Very insensitive. A big blow to the LGBT community.

It is not about gay marriage...it is about the man -- a gay hater

Jefferey Johnson
Guest Blogger,Queergam
The problem is not one of policy or disagreement as Hillary Rosen told Anderson Cooper on CNN tonight. The problem is that by this gesture of respect, Obama is in some way legitimizing the unsophisticated theology of Rick Warren which at times enters into bigotry.

Warren speeches are demeaning and offensive...

Phil Spencer
Guest Blogger, QueerGam
Rick Warren had also used The Pope to create fear in this country. Do you think it is an issue of proportion -- being inclusive? But there are so many other pastors who are gay-friendly out there to pick...this is clearly a spit at the LGBT community.

How about the Blackwater contract? And all that millions for a library?

Should America renew its contract with Blackwater?
President Bill Clinton exposed his Foundation's donors yesterday -- Qatar, Kuwait, Oman and Brunei among others as wife, (our favorite American girl) Hillary, prepares to accept the SecState job. The Blackwater -- a company that protect American VIPs in Saudi Arabia has also donated a lot of money to the William J. Clinton Foundation. Conflict of interest it will be. Although there is almost nothing that the Clintons cannot do, they cannot afford to create chaos especially in China, India and Pakistan. After years, Clinton has finally coughed up his donor list. The contributors’ list was published today on the Clinton Foundation site.

Michelle Malkin wrote:
We already knew the Saudis were funding Billy Boy’s presidential library and that other foreign interests had forked over tens of millions. There’s much more where all that came from The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia gave $10 million to $25 million to the William J. Clinton Foundation, a nonprofit created by the former president to finance his library in Little Rock, Ark., and charitable efforts to reduce poverty and treat AIDS. Other foreign government givers include Norway, Kuwait, Qatar, Brunei, Oman, Italy and Jamaica. The foundation disclosed the names of its 205,000 donors on a Web site Thursday, ending a decade of resistance to identifying the sources of its money.

Other foreign governments also contributed heavily to the foundation. AUSAID, the Australian government’s overseas aid program, and COPRESIDA-Secretariado Tecnico, a Dominican Republic government agency formed to fight AIDS, each gave $10 million to $25 million. Norway gave $5 million to $10 million. Kuwait, Qatar, Brunei and Oman gave $1 million to $5 million each. The Government of Jamaica and Italy’s Ministry for Environment and Territory gave $50,000 to $100,000 each.

The biggest donations — more than $25 million each — came from two donors. They are the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, a London-based philanthropic organization founded by hedge fund manager Chris Hohn and his wife Jamie Cooper-Hohn and dedicated to helping children, primarily in Africa and India; and UNITAID, an international drug purchase organization formed by Brazil, France, Chile, Norway and Britain to help provide care for HIV-AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis patients in countries with high disease rates.

The foundation’s donor list is heavy with overseas business interests.

Saudi businessman Nasser Al-Rashid gave $1 million to $5 million. Friends of Saudi Arabia and the Dubai Foundation each gave $1 million to $5 million, as did the Taiwan Economic and Cultural Office. The Confederation of Indian Industry and the Swedish Postcode Lottery gave $500,000 to $1 million each. China Overseas Real Estate Development and the U.S. Islamic World Conference gave $250,000 to $500,000 apiece.

The No. 4 person on the Forbes billionaire list, Lakshmi Mittal, the chief executive of international steel company ArcelorMittal, gave $1 million to $5 million. Mittal is a member of the Foreign Investment Council in Kazakhstan, Goldman Sachs’ board of directors and the World Economic Forum’s International Business Council, according to the biography on his corporate Web site.

Among other $1 million to $5 million donors:

Harold Snyder, director for Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, the largest drug company in Israel. His son, Jay T. Snyder, serves on the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, which oversees State Department activities, and served as a senior U.S. adviser to the United Nations, where he worked on international trade and poverty.

No. 97 on the Forbes billionaire list, Ethiopian-Saudi business tycoon Sheikh Mohammed H. Al-Amoudi.
Issam Fares, a former deputy prime minister of Lebanon.

Mala Gaonkar Haarman, a partner and managing director at the private investment partnership Lone Pine Capital.

Lukas Lundin, chairman of oil, gas and mining businesses including Tanganyika Oil Company Ltd., an international oil and gas exploration and production company with interests in Syria, and Vostok Nafta Investment Ltd., an investment company that focuses on Russia and other former Soviet republics.

Victor Pinchuk, son-in-law of the former president of Ukraine. Clinton spoke in 2007 at an annual meeting of Yalta European Strategy, a group Pinchuk founded to promote Ukraine joining the European Union.

An Egyptian man offers daughter to marry shoe thrower...

Do you think the 20-year-old daughter of that Egyptian man has a choice? No! If the shoe thrower, Muntdhar al-Zaidi, accepted the man's offer, the man's daughter will have no choice but to marry his father's hero -- whether or not she loves him. The man told the Gulf Daily News "this is something that would honor me." Yesterday we heard that Muntadhar al-Zaidi asked for a pardon for his "ugly act" for insulting a foreign leader.

The Scotsman wrote:
There's a repressed glee in the many demonstrations across the Middle East in support of him, a sense of pride that an ordinary Arab furiously expressed the disdain and anger that many feel toward the U.S. President for his calamitous legacy in the Middle East. And that al-Zaidi did so using his shoes - an insult of choice in the Arab world - makes it even more delicious for many.

27yo beer-drinking, Hillary-friendly speechwriter, Jon Favreau, prepares speech of the century.

He is 27yo, gorgeous and very naughty we heard! Last month he apologized to Hillary Clinton (scroll down to find out why). Immensely talented, this boyish beer-drinking, (and manhunting?)a gay-Dupont Circle-resident, Jon Favreau , is working very hard these days to make sure Obama sounds good and looks good on his inauguration day in Washington DC. Still more daunting is the list of things Favreau can't think about as he writes the inaugural. He went for a run to the Lincoln Memorial last month and stopped in his tracks when he imagined the mall packed with 3 million people listening to some of his words. A few weeks later, Favs winced when Obama spokesman Bill Burton reminded him: "Dude, what you're writing is going to be hung up in people's living rooms!"

"If you start thinking about what's at stake, it can get paralyzing," Favs said.
He is the youngest person ever to be named chief White House speechwriter. (see Obama's victory speech below)Favs, as he is affectionately known in Washington these days, looks every bit his age, with a baby face and closely shorn stubble. And he leads a team of two other young speechwriters: 26-year-old Adam Frankel, who worked with John F. Kennedy’s adviser and speechwriter Theodore C. Sorensen on his memoirs, and Ben Rhodes, who, at 30, calls himself the “elder statesman” of the group and who helped write the Iraq Study Group report as an assistant to Lee H. Hamilton. Favs is working on the inaugural address. The job requires him to work unnoticed, even in plain view, so Favs settles into a wooden chair at a busy Starbucks in the center of Penn Quarter. Deadline looms, and he needs to write at least half a page by the end of the day. As the espresso machines whir, Favs opens his laptop, calls up a document titled "rough draft of inaugural" and goes to work on the most anticipated speech of Barack Obama's life.

To read Obama's victory speech written by Favs, google it with keywords "obama's victory speech"