Final Year End Male Beauty

Looking at George Bush's America

As my last political comment post of 2007, I want to call attention to this New York Times editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) because it does a great job in call attention to what this nation has become under the Chimperator's regime. It is not a pretty picture and one that I wish more U.s. citizens would focus upon. This president has usurped for himself powers akin to some dictator in a banana republic when it comes to the rights of individual citizens. Without a sea change after the 2008 elections, American democracy as it once was will be a thing of the past. Bush has made it nearly impossible for a thinking person with a conscience to be proud to be a citizen of this nation. Here are some highlights:

There are too many moments these days when we cannot recognize our country. Sunday was one of them, as we read the account in The Times of how men in some of the most trusted posts in the nation plotted to cover up the torture of prisoners by Central Intelligence Agency interrogators by destroying videotapes of their sickening behavior. It was impossible to see the founding principles of the greatest democracy in the contempt these men and their bosses showed for the Constitution, the rule of law and human decency.

It was not the first time in recent years we’ve felt this horror, this sorrowful sense of estrangement, not nearly. This sort of lawless behavior has become standard practice since Sept. 11, 2001. . . . there is no excuse for how President Bush and his advisers panicked — how they forgot that it is their responsibility to protect American lives and American ideals, that there really is no safety for Americans or their country when those ideals are sacrificed.

Out of panic and ideology, President Bush squandered America’s position of moral and political leadership, swept aside international institutions and treaties, sullied America’s global image, and trampled on the constitutional pillars that have supported our democracy through the most terrifying and challenging times. These policies have fed the world’s anger and alienation and have not made any of us safer.

In the years since 9/11, we have seen American soldiers abuse, sexually humiliate, torment and murder prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq. A few have been punished, but their leaders have never been called to account. We have seen mercenaries gun down Iraqi civilians with no fear of prosecution. We have seen the president, sworn to defend the Constitution, turn his powers on his own citizens, authorizing the intelligence agencies to spy on Americans, wiretapping phones and intercepting international e-mail messages without a warrant.

The White House used the fear of terrorism and the sense of national unity to ram laws through Congress that gave law-enforcement agencies far more power than they truly needed to respond to the threat — and at the same time fulfilled the imperial fantasies of Vice President Dick Cheney and others determined to use the tragedy of 9/11 to arrogate as much power as they could.

There is much more — so much that the next president will have a full agenda simply discovering all the wrongs that have been done and then righting them. We can only hope that this time, unlike 2004, American voters will have the wisdom to grant the awesome powers of the presidency to someone who has the integrity, principle and decency to use them honorably. Then when we look in the mirror as a nation, we will see, once again, the reflection of the United States of America.

Movie Premier Party Photo

As I described previously, before the screening of "One Crazy Night the Sequel" at the Naro Theater in Norfolk, the cast, production staff, and friends gathered at No Frills Grill for food, adult beverages, and general merriment. Numerous photos were taken that night by sometime intoxicated photographers. Posted above are (1) a photo of the movie box office window with the movie listed for the 29th, and (2) a photo of some friends at far left and Josh, who plays the cub paparazzi news reporter who I have to reprimand in the movie due to his harassment of my client, London Hilton, a make believe cousin of Paris. Yours truly is at far right.

More Year End Male Beauty

Author of California SB 777 Answers Lies of Conservative "Christians"

This op-ed article (http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/12/31/perspective/8_26_3112_29_07.txt) from the newspaper serving San Diego and Riverside Counties, California, is a rebuttal of the disingenuous claims (i.e., lies) being put out by the opponents of recently passed SB 777 that was signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger. The author of the article, Sheila Kuehl, is a Democratic state senator from Santa Monica who authored SB 777, which was signed into law and is set to take effect next month. I recommend reading the entire op-ed piece because it illustrates how the Christianist intentionally distort the truth and seek to frighten the ignorant and uninformed. As I have said countless times, I do not understand how these self-professed Christians can justify their dishonesty and lies when the faith they claim to embrace forbids lying and bearing false witness. It is crucial that we know the tactics of our enemies and seek to expose them as liars as often as possible. Here are some highlights:

When society tells a young person ---- in subtle or, often, not so subtle, ways ---- that they are less valuable, perhaps because of the color of their skin, their religious practices or the gender of the person they want to take to the prom, the whole society suffers.

When we mandate that every young person must go to school, we must also provide the safety and dignity of an education free from harassment, discrimination and violence. That is why, over the last several years, I have authored several laws that strengthen civil rights protections for students and improve school safety. This year, as a simple cleanup measure, I authored SB 777 to include civil rights protections that have already been required for the last eight years by law to be more clearly spelled out in California's Education Code.

Seeing an opportunity to confuse their supporters by pretending the bill added protections to the code, the opposition has invented a number of inflammatory and false claims about the operation of SB 777. A bit of clarity, not to say truth-telling is in order.

First bit of balderdash: SB 777 certainly would not ban reference to "mom" and "dad" in the curriculum. Because nothing in SB 777 changes law that has been in place for eight years, you might have heard if such a ban had been put in place. In addition, if you did try to ban all reference to "mom" and "dad," it would be promoting a bias against heterosexuality, which is prohibited under current law, which means SB 777, as well. Ironically, SB 777 actually makes it clearer that this type of discrimination is prohibited by spelling out the legal definition of sexual orientation (heterosexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality) in the section of the Education Code that prohibits discrimination in school programs and activities.

Second bit of balderdash: SB 777 does not create a radical new definition of gender that will allow boys and girls to shower together and force schools to have unisex bathrooms and locker rooms. California has prohibited gender discrimination in schools using the exact same definition of gender found in SB 777 since the year 2000. Interestingly, precisely the same allegations were attempted 35 years ago by opponents of Title IX, which banned gender discrimination in schools under federal law. Those rather amusing predictions did not come true under Title IX and they have not come true under the law concerning schools that has been in effect in California since 2000, a law that is simply repeated in SB 777.

Third bit of balderdash: SB 777 does not change the content requirements for textbooks and other instructional materials. Although the opposition makes a valiant attempt to create confusion about the scope of current law, discrimination based upon a student's actual or perceived disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or association with a person who has any of these characteristics has been prohibited in all publicly funded school programs and activities (including textbooks and classroom instruction) since 2000.

A repeal of SB 777 cannot strip away the existing protections for students against discrimination that have been in the law since 2000, the only effect of a repeal of SB 777 would be to confuse the public as to the scope of the existing civil rights protections for students. Perhaps, after all, that is the goal of the opposition. If you don't know your rights, you can't use them.

New Year's Eve Plans

Since a number of people have been asking, I figured I would disclose my New Year's Eve plans which involve going over to parties being given by clients some gay, some straight, but all live wires. Most years I have no plans at all yet this year I have three party invitations for locations in Virginia Beach, Chesapeake and Norfolk. I plan on starting at the most distant site first and working my way back towards Norfolk, finishing up at the home of my wild Canadian client and her husband. Given that the police will be out in force looking for drivers who have been drinking, I want to take no chances.

I will be doing a year end post looking back on 2007 and events in my life (it may get posted tomorrow) and my thoughts as we head into a new year. I wish each and every one of you a wonderful New Year and look forward to deepening friendships I have made via this blog in the coming year.

In honor of my Aussie blogger friends, Euphoric and Michelle, I have posted a photo of Sydney's New Year's fireworks.

Year End Male Beauty

Number of unsold homes in region at highest this decade

The crash of the residential real estate market is making itself felt locally as described in an article in today's Virginian Pilot (http://hamptonroads.com/2007/12/number-unsold-homes-region-highest-decade). While the figures are very bad locally, they are even worse in many markets around the country. If this situation continues, many real estate related businesses will either shrink considerably or go out of business. Here are some story highlights:

More than five times as many homes are for sale in Hampton Roads now as were on the market during the heady days of the real estate boom in 2004, and the excess inventory is showing no sign of shrinking anytime soon.

As 2007 winds down, an estimated 23,500 existing single-family, detached homes are unsold in greater Hampton Roads, from the Peninsula to northeast North Carolina, according to the Real Estate Information Network Inc. and the Old Dominion University Economic Forecasting Project. In 2000, the inventory of unsold homes was 8,475. It dropped steadily to a low of 3,480 in 2003 but has been growing rapidly ever since.

Though the prevalence of so-called "subprime" mortgages in Hampton Roads is not believed to be as big a problem as in other parts of the country, there has been a ripple effect locally as national lenders have tightened their standards considerably. With credit harder to obtain, more houses are staying on the market longer - especially the more expensive ones.

Analysis: Huckabee wants to take America "back to Christ"

John Aravosis and I do not always see eye to eye on every issue, but in this editorial comment he is dead on the money in his analysis of Mike Huckabee and what he represents(http://www.americablog.com/2007/12/huckabee-wants-to-take-america-back-to.html). Why conservative Christians who are not Southern Baptists act like lemmings and jump onto the Huckabee bus without doing some homework and realizing exactly what they are buying into is dismaying. Ignorant is perhaps not the right adjective, but the phenomenon does illustrate how uninformed today's US citizenry has become. Here are John's thoughts on Mr. Huckabee:

Funny, I don't recall America ever being in, on, around, or about Christ. There are lots of us Christians here in America. But taking America "back to Christ"? What does that mean? And where does that leave America's Jews, Muslims, and other non-Christians? I suppose they're welcome to stay like guest-workers, or maybe we should call them "guest Christians." Huckabee is a creep. The man thinks that AIDS may be caused by casual contact - you know, like toilet seats and doorknobs and handshakes and sneezing, I suppose. We do know one way AIDS can be spread - through rape. But Huckabee doesn't have as much of a problem with rapists as he does Jews and gays and others whose only crime is to be different from Mike Huckabee, America's number one Christian.

You'll recall that Huckabee recently told America that God wanted him to be number one in the polls. Then Huckabee used Jesus in a TV commercial. The man isn't running for president, he's running for preacher. And lest any Christians out there there be fooled by Huckabee's "aw shucks" Christianity, the man is a Southern Baptist. Southern Baptists think Catholics worship Satan - they quite literally think the Pope is an agent of Satan. Southern Baptists don't think Catholics are Christians. If Catholics, or any other non-Baptists out there, think Huckabee is a good Christian, I've got news for you. Huckabee's religion thinks you're not a good Christian - hell Huckabee's religion says you're not a Christian at all. So if you think he's going to be in favor of policies that push your Christian world view, you're in for a big surprise. The only world view he's pushing is one that doesn't include you.

Not to mention, has Huckabee been asked about this "Catholics worshipping a Satanic counterfeit" issue? I mean, the man keeps invoking Christ. I think we have a right to know just what his religious beliefs are.

More Sunday Male Beauty

Patti Davis to Candidates: Stop Invoking Reagan

It is interesting to see Patti Davis telling the GOP candidates to stop comparing themselves to her father, not that I blame her for doing so. While I am not going to go off on a discussion of Ronald Reagan, I will note that even when he took conservative positions, he never had the level of meanness and nastiness that has come to embody today's GOP where the party's base is dominated by the Christianists and hates and despises anyone not like themselves, be they black, Hispanic, gay or non-Christian. But I digress. Here are some highlights from Patti Davis's column (http://www.newsweek.com/id/82384):

On Friday's “Today Show”, Mitt Romney again brandished my father's name, and claimed that, just as Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, Romney can effectively govern and manage foreign policy in this horribly troubled world. This, of course, was preceded by Romney's televised speech about his religion and his personal faith—something my father would never have dreamed of doing because his faith was, well, personal.

To prove his virility, Huckabee has been photographed in those ridiculous hunting clothes holding a large rifle and several dead pheasants. Lest we forget about God, Huckabee's campaign offered up a special Christmas advertisement—complete with the now famous “floating cross” behind him—something Huckabee has said was simply a bookcase. Yes, with the books removed and lit with a golden glow that looked like the Star of Bethlehem had been summoned for duty in a political ad.

So, apparently, we are being told that a competent, trustworthy president is someone who brandishes his religion like a neon sign, loads a gun and goes out hunting for beautiful winged creatures, and tries to imitate a past president (who, by the way, never shot a bird or felt the need to imitate anybody.) I don't think I'm alone in my reaction to all of this when I say, "Do you think we're stupid?" If we want religious evangelism, we can turn on one of those cable channels. If we want leadership, we don't ask, "Now who has killed the most birds?" And most importantly, when we are thinking about trust and confidence, we don't look for someone who is trying to mimic anyone else.

Can't we just leave the ducks, the rabbits, the deer alone, and focus on a world that is aching with strife, that is weighed down by wars and conflicts, not to mention disease and hunger in vast stretches of Africa? Can't we go back to respecting the privacy of religious faith and stop using God as a campaign tool? And can't we please, please, please admit that imitation is not the sincerest form of flattery; it's just an indication that the imitator is going through a serious identity crisis.

Christianists Seek to Block California Anti-Bias Bill

I have previously done posts on California's recent passage of legislation that would bar discrimination in educational instruction in California public schools bias against groups of people identified in the state's hate crime statute. These protections would extend to the LGBT students. As is all too typical, the Christianists are acting as if the law is requiring they put their mothers to work as prostitutes or something similar given the hysterical manner in which they are reacting. Now, as the New York Times is reporting (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/us/30calif.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=us&adxnnlx=1199042173-VEy7DymxQrebaS2mtR+iow), the Christianist Groups are seeking to subvert the duly enacted law. God forbid that gay students not be subject to abuse and discrimination due to their sexual orientation.

These people disgust me. Note in the highlights below how one of the leading groups hypocritically has the word "freedom" in its name. Its website also promotes the "Christian Nation" myth that I have debunked in prior posts. Their idea of freedom is that they can do whatever they want to whoever they want regardless of how harmful it may be and everyone else has no rights whatsoever. Obviously, they want a free hand to demonize gays and see how many teens they can drive to suicide. So very Christian - NOT. Karen England, one of the Christianist ring leaders is posted above left. Here are some story highlights:

LOS ANGELES — Conservative groups in California are gathering signatures to try to block an anti-discrimination bill because it includes language that would extend protection to public-school students based on their sexual orientation and gender identity. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, signed the bill in October, but it does not become law until Jan. 1. Opponents have until Jan. 10 to gather 500,000 signatures to put a referendum on the next ballot.

Lawyers for two groups, the Alliance Defense Fund and Advocates for Faith and Freedom, sued the state in a federal court in San Diego soon after the bill was signed to oppose the definition of “gender” and the inclusion of “sexual orientation” in the education code. California defines gender — along with other protected classes like race, nationality, disability and religion — as “actual or perceived.” The groups opposing the bill say that definition could lead to false accusations of discrimination. “This lawsuit argues that the redefinition of gender should be declared unconstitutional because it is too vague,” said Jennifer Monk, a lawyer for Advocates for Faith and Freedom.

“The same concocted concerns could theoretically apply to any of the categories,” said Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, who filed the motion to intervene on behalf of the two groups. “A student could identify as African-American or Muslim or Jewish, even if others do not perceive that student as such.” Mr. Minter said the complaint by the conservative groups sought to erase protections for only lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youths. “They are simply attacking L.G.B.T. students in California,” he said.

Until now, the definitions of categories like race, nationality, gender and sexual orientation existed only in the hate-crimes statute of the penal code. Educators had to consult education statutes and then cross-reference them with the penal code to navigate anti-discrimination laws. “What this bill did was clean up the code,” Mr. Minter said. “It was not a substantive change to the law.” California legislators amended the hate crimes statute in 1994 to define each of the protected classes as actual or perceived characteristics of identity.

Sunday Male Beauty

Pope Continues Demonization of Gays While Failing to Clean Church's Own House

The Nazi Pope continues his drive to depict gays as a threat to traditional families and the Church sponsored rallies in Rome and Madrid to fan homophobia. While the Church would no doubt describe its actions differently, the net effect is to promote anti-gay attitudes and prejudice. It is increasingly difficult to find adequate words for how despicable the Catholic Church's anti-gay crusade has become. Here are some highlights from 365gay.com (http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/12/123007pope.htm):

(Vatican City) Tens of thousands gathered in Madrid and Vatican City for Catholic rallies promoting traditional families on Sunday. Pope Benedict XVI addressed the crowd in St Peter's Square in his last Angelus prayer of 2007 which was broadcast on a giant TV screen for throngs who had come to Madrid's Plaza de Colon to hear him. Many of the faithful at the Madrid rally were bussed to the capital from cities throughout Spain. Police declined to give a crowd estimate but there were so many people they spilled out into streets feeding into the square.

The pope spoke from the window of his apartment overlooking St Peter's Square which was packed. Benedict spoke in both Italian and Spanish admonishing the faithful to protect traditional marriage. Spain legalized same-sex marriage in 2005, Italy has been mulling civil partnership legislation. In Spanish the Pope said that the family is "based on the unbreakable union of man and woman and represents the privileged environment where human life is welcomed and protected from the beginning to its natural end."

My Movie Debut

The movie premier last night was a lot of fun. I guess the movie could be described as “Another Gay Movie” meets “Absolutely Fabulous” ala John Waters. Thankfully, my part in the film came off well and I seemed fairly naturally and not too stilted in speaking my lines nor did I look like a dork (an important consideration since the movie is being sold on Amazon.com and a couple of other sites). I was VERY relieved to say the least. None of us had seen the entire movie until last night since most of the filming had been done in segments with only the characters in a specific scene being present. It was definitely a novelty to see oneself up on the large movie screen.

Prior to the late night premier, most of the cast and a number of friends went to No Frills Grill and had adult beverages to prepare us for watching the movie (I had two margaritas). I suspect there were at least 40-50 of us and there will be photos from the pre-screening party uploaded to the movie site later today. I will perhaps post some of them in a later post depending on how crazy we look.

Final Saturday Male Beauty

Dedicated to anti-gay bigot U. S. District Court Judge Michael W. Mosman

Bush Judicial Appointee Who Placed an Injunction on Oregon Civil Unions Law Has Anti-Gay Past

I was aware that the federal judge who signed the order enjoining the effective date of Oregon's new Civil Unions law was an appointee of the Chimperator. But until coming across this 2003 story from the Oregonian, I did not realize that he had a documented anti-gay history. People truly do not seem to grasp the importance of having only unbiased individuals placed on the federal bench. Obviously, giving Mosman the benefit of the doubt in 2003 was a mistake. Here is the 2003 news article via Sodomy Laws ( http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/usnews128.htm):

The Oregonian, April 21, 2003
1320 SW Broadway
Portland, OR 97201
Fax: 503-294-4193
Email: Letters@news.oregonian.com
By Jim Barnett

WASHINGTON—What once seemed like a slam-dunk nomination for the federal judiciary in Oregon could turn into a test of political wills for Oregon’s two senators, Republican Gordon Smith and Democrat Ron Wyden. Michael Mosman, the U.S. attorney in Portland, is Smith’s choice for a vacant district judgeship and is still regarded as a favorite of the Bush White House. But recent revelations of Mosman’s views on gay rights, first expressed in 1986, have delayed his selection and what otherwise would likely be easy Senate confirmation.

Now, gay-rights groups are demanding explanations from Mosman, putting Smith’s carefully crafted reputation as a friend to the homosexual community on the line. Wyden, meanwhile, could be the only defense against a filibuster by the Senate’s increasingly restive Democratic minority if he chooses to support Mosman’s nomination.

The senators have cooperated in filling the vacancy created when U.S. District Judge Robert E. Jones took senior status in 2000. But they could face rough going if national gay-rights groups actively oppose Mosman’s nomination. “If the gay-rights community makes this nomination a litmus test, then quite frankly, they’re in the middle of it and they’re going to have to take sides,” said Jim Moore, an independent political analyst in Portland.

It’s unclear whether that will happen. But gay-rights activists say they’re still waiting for answers from Mosman. “What I want him to show is that he has come to understand that relationships need to be judged on their quality, not whether they are gay or straight,” said Roey Thorpe, executive director of Basic Rights Oregon, an advocacy group in Portland.

Mosman, 46, emerged as the top candidate in January after Ray Baum, a lawyer for Smith’s family business, withdrew. But controversy erupted in March, when Basic Rights disclosed Mosman’s role in a pivotal 1986 case, Bowers V. Hardwick.

The group uncovered and presented to Smith two “bench memos” that Mosman had written as a clerk to Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. Mosman urged Powell to uphold Georgia’s anti-sodomy law against a claim that police invaded a man’s privacy by arresting him in his home.

Memos to court’s tie-breaker

Mosman prepared the memos in March and June 1986, as it became clear Powell would be the court’s tie-breaking vote. He wrote that striking down the Georgia law would lead to an unwarranted expansion of privacy rights under due process. Such a ruling would leave “no limiting principle” against prosecution of other sex crimes such as prostitution, Mosman wrote. It also would jeopardize rights that society previously had reserved to heterosexuals.

“Without belaboring the point, I am convinced that the right of privacy as it relates to this case has been limited thus far to marriage and other family relationships,” Mosman wrote to Powell. “So limited, the right of privacy does not extend to protect ‘sexual freedom’ in the absence of fundamental values of family and procreation.” Mosman has declined requests by The Oregonian to discuss the memos. But in a recent book about gay rights and the Supreme Court, Mosman is quoted as saying that his feelings about homosexuality were secondary to his concerns about the law.

“The battle was really about . . . what direction the court was taking on due process,” Mosman said in “Courting Justice: Gay Men and Lesbians v. the Supreme Court. Mosman added: “The (sodomy) issue could have come to the court as an equal protection case and would have had a better hearing. I would have been more receptive to it.”

It’s unclear exactly what impact the memos had on Powell’s decision. Powell joined a 5-4 majority in upholding the Georgia law, but later expressed regret. Gay-rights groups still regard the case as a devastating defeat for their cause.

Nevertheless, Thorpe and other advocates said they are willing to give Mosman an opportunity to update his views. In the years since the Hardwick case, they note, society has become more accepting of homosexuals: Most states have repealed anti-sodomy laws, gay marriages and adoptions have become more widely accepted, and the court is debating a Texas case that could reverse its opinion in the Hardwick decision.

“He needs to clarify what his views are,” said Winnie Stachelberg, political director for Human Rights Campaign, an advocacy group in Washington. “These are issues he will face not in the 1986 context but in the context of 2003 and beyond.” Added Thorpe: “We believe in change here. It wouldn’t be right to not leave room for people to change.” Much is at stake for both Smith and Wyden, and both want Mosman to succeed.

Test on Smith’s rights stand

For Smith, the nomination could become a test of his credibility as an advocate for gay rights within the Republican Party. Smith won an important endorsement from Human Rights Campaign after supporting hate-crimes legislation, helping his re-election last year. In a recent interview, Smith downplayed the significance of the Powell memos and suggested that given the opportunity, Mosman could explain himself to the satisfaction of critics.

“This is a decision that was rendered in 1986,” Smith said. “Isn’t it possible that Mike Mosman could also have an evolving view on these issues? I think Mosman is an outstanding legal scholar and an extraordinary U.S. attorney for Oregon.” The stakes could be higher for Wyden. Although his party controls neither the White House nor the Senate, Democrats are regarded as the chief defenders of gay rights. If Wyden endorses Mosman, his decision could be second-guessed by colleagues, including a handful of Democratic senators running for president in 2004.
Democrats have threatened to filibuster high-profile nominees, and they might be emboldened to take on others if they succeed, said Moore, the analyst. In that case, Mosman’s nomination also could be held hostage to political concerns.

“It depends on what happens with the other filibusters going on,” he said. Wyden hopes to avoid a national controversy over the nomination, said Josh Kardon, his chief of staff. But first, the senator plans to meet with Mosman to discuss the concerns raised by Basic Rights and decide whether to support him.

“Mike Mosman is someone Senator Wyden has supported in the past and someone he would like to support for the federal bench,” Kardon said. “But legitimate questions have been raised that require thorough consideration.” Tom Detzel of The Oregonian contributed to this report. Jim Barnett: jim.barnett@newhouse.com; 503-294-7604.

More Saturday Male Beauty

Judge halts Oregon Civil-Unions Law

Sadly, a federal judge [an appointee of Chimperator Bush, I might add] has placed an injunction on the new Oregon law granting civil union rights to unmarried couples that was to be effective January 1, 2008. The judge's ruling comes out of a federal court case where opponents to gay rights - namely the Defense of Marriage Coalition, founded by one of Daddy Dobson's state affiliates in Oregon - are challenging a finding that they did not have sufficient signatures on a petition to put the issue to a state wide referendum. These Christianist will go to nearly any lengths to deprive gays of legal rights. With all the problems in the world today, it strikes me as sick and twisted to spend so much time, money and energy just to keep some individuals second class citizens under the civil laws. These individuals truly must have empty, shallow lives if this is how they spend their time and resources. Here are highlights from the Oregonian's story (http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1198902321260710.xml&coll=7):

A federal judge Friday blocked Oregon's domestic partnership law for gays and lesbians from taking effect next week, saying opponents should have a chance to make their case for a statewide election on civil unions. The surprise ruling comes four days before gay couples would be eligible for most of the same legal benefits of marriage. Couples across Oregon had planned to show up at county offices Wednesday to register as partners.

Mosman set a Feb. 1 hearing to hear a lawsuit by gay-rights opponents challenging the state's methods for verifying voter signatures. Opponents gathered signatures last summer to try to overturn civil unions on the November 2008 ballot but were rejected by state officials. Elections officials determined that they fell 96 signatures short of the 55,179 needed for a referendum on a law passed by the Legislature. Mosman said attorneys for opponents showed that the rights of voters may have been violated if their signatures were wrongly rejected.

The lawsuit was filed Dec. 3, asking the court to require the state to review the signatures, reinstate signatures found to be improperly excluded and certify the referendum. In court Friday, opponents argued that people whose signatures on referendum and initiative petitions are thrown out should be allowed to challenge the decision, as they can in elections. Attorneys for the state said that procedures verifying signatures are applied equally to everyone. The state uses a random statistical sampling method to determine whether enough valid signatures are collected.

Who Was Really Responsible for Bhutto's Murder?

For the life of me, I do not even to presume to know at this point. However, the true answer will have huge ramifications as to where events in Pakistan and the Middle East may head. The Chimperator and Musharraf are quite naturally pointing to Islamic extremists, which is of course a distinct possibility, but also plays right in with the other motives of both of them. Bush needs to maintain the terror bogeyman to continue his unlawful actions and Musharraf wants to keep the US money spigot turned to a full on position. My worry is that if we get this answer wrong or go forward based on bad or false intelligence (gee, I cannot imagine what would make me worry about that), the outcome could be disastrous for the entire world.

As David Ignatius said in a column yesterday, his former classmate was indeed NOT someone the Islamic fundamentalists liked for obvious reasons (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/27/AR2007122701479.html):

Bhutto was fearless, from her college years in America to her cruel assassination yesterday. She had an unshakable belief that Pakistan should embrace the modern world with the same confidence and courage that she had. She believed in democracy, freedom and openness -- not as slogans but as a way of life. She wasn't perfect; the corruption charges that enveloped her second term as prime minister were all too real. But she remained the most potent Pakistani voice for liberalism, tolerance and change.

Yet Islamic fundamentalists were not her only opponents. In fact others are speculating that others might have had more to gain from her death than the Islamic Fundamentalists, including Musharraf (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/12/bin_laden_killed_bhutto_how_bl.html#more):

The shorthand being bandied about in the news that al-Qaeda is responsible for the assassination of Benazir Bhutto is so sloppy, so lacking in nuance or understanding of the dynamics of Pakistan, and so self-centered in its reference to America's enemy as to be almost laughable. Several U.S. defense and intelligence experts are quoted today dismissing even the possibility that President Pervez Musharraf, Pakistani government forces, or other domestic elements could be involved, a conclusion that flies in the face of the country's history and ignores the obvious beneficiaries.

To say that "al-Qaeda" is responsible for Bhutto's assassination -- suggesting Osama bin Laden and an external force -- is to ignore all those political and religious factions inside the country that had the motives and resources to kill the former prime minister. Some of those factions in the government, the military or the intelligence services were likely privy to Bhutto's movements, and they could have actively schemed, if not played a direct role, in getting the suicide attacker to the right place at the right time.

Given Pakistan's history, it is unlikely that the true perpetrators will ever be brought to justice. For the United States though, the al-Qaeda bogey-man has the negative effect of affirming support for Musharraf and his martial law, while ignoring the various extremists who represent the true existential threat to the country. We should not let our al-Qaeda fixation blind us, just as the Soviet threat did in Iran in the 1970s, to the realities that Pakistan could implode of its own accord.

And as the Washington Post is reporting (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122802622.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2007122801300), the US seems all too ready to run down the path that the Taliban and/or al-Qaeda bear responsibility before anyone knows for certain who was really responsible for Bhutto's murder. Equally scary is the fact that the intelligence officer quoted in the story is still maintaining the false myth that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons. If the Chimperator and company cannot even get known facts correct, I have no confidence that they will not blindly run down the path that they want rather than make sure it is indeed the correct path. If that happens, we all need to be very afraid. The Iraq debacle has shown what happens when the Chimperator and Cheney act based on delusions/desires instead of real facts. Here are some Post story highlights:

"The Taliban . . . are indeed a growing element of the domestic political stew" in Pakistan, said John Blackton, who served as a U.S. official in Afghanistan in the 1970s and again 20 years later. He noted that Pakistani military intelligence created the Taliban in Afghanistan. How the United States responds will hinge largely on the actions of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, in whom U.S. officials have mixed confidence. If there is indeed a new challenge by Islamic militants emerging in Pakistan, then the United States will have to do whatever it can to support Musharraf, the U.S. Army officer in Afghanistan said.

"Pakistan must take drastic action against the Taliban in its midst or we will face the prospect of a nuclear weapon falling into the hands of al-Qaeda -- a threat far more dangerous and real than Hussein's arsenal ever was," he said, referring to the deposed Saddam Hussein.

This rush to blame al-Qaeda is particularly suspect when Bhutto's own organization is disputing the involvement of al-Qaeda and accusing the Musharraf regime of a cover up (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PAKISTAN?SITE=VANOV&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT):

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) -- An Islamic militant group said Saturday it had no link to Benazir Bhutto's killing and the opposition leader's aides accused the government of a cover-up, disputing the official account of her death. The government stood firmly by its account of Thursday's assassination and insisted it needed no foreign help in any investigation. "This is not an ordinary criminal matter in which we require assistance of the international community. I think we are capable of handling it," said Interior Ministry spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema.

Bhutto's aides said they doubted militant commander Baitullah Mehsud was behind the attack on the opposition leader and said the government's claim that she died when she hit her head on the sunroof of her vehicle was "dangerous nonsense."

Saturday Male Beauty

Is it Possible? Evangelicals gather to Brainstorm

This Boston Globe article (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/12/29/evangelicals_gather_to_brainstorm/) caught my attention since it uses the term "evangelical intelligentsia." From my experience with evangelicals and certainly when the anti-science position of the creationist Christianists is reviewed, the term "evangelical" and "intelligentsia" seems mutually exclusive. How much influence the group described in this article will come to possess remains to be seen. It would certainly be nice to have some level of intelligence come into sway since so far the trend seems to be in the opposite direction. By most standards, evangelicals seem to be seeking to dumb down education and science through their demands that "intelligent design" or some other form of creationism be taught in the public schools and their refusals to accept advances in medical and mental health research that indicate that sexual orientation is not a choice. Here are some story highlights:

Peter Berger concedes that the term "evangelical intelligentsia" will sound oxymoronic to many. And since the esteemed Boston University sociologist is a self-described "theologically very liberal Lutheran," you would be within your rights to expect that he dismisses all evangelicals as yahoos. You would also be wrong.

Spurred by scattered contacts with evangelical scholars, he has launched a two-year research project on the "Emerging Evangelical Intelligentsia," recruiting Timothy Shah, a Washington foreign policy maven and evangelical, as principal researcher. The second weekend in December, evangelicals from across the country and various academic disciplines - law, history, philosophy - flocked to BU's law school for a conference kicking off the project.

While fundamentalist theology was first constructed by Princeton Theological Seminary professors - "They were not ditch-diggers," noted Berger - today, biblical literalism is disdained by evangelical intellectuals, he said, because "no person with any degree of education can believe that." The rise of fundamentalism as a rejection of evolution and other modern ideas at the turn of the 20th century sent evangelicals careering away from intellectualism, according to Shah. The exemplar in his view was the wildly popular preacher Billy Sunday, "notorious for his hostility to learning and scholarship."

If fundamentalism is not part of the new intellectuals' theology, what is? The BU researchers spot several essential beliefs: the Bible as God's word and the sole authority for Christian belief; Jesus' redemptive death on the cross and the need for a personal relationship with him; public witnessing to one's faith; and a generally conservative moral code. In other areas, Shah sees a diversity in the intellectuals' thinking similar to other Americans. They differ, for example, over whether non-Christians can make it to heaven. "What unifies the class is their intellectual seriousness, not the content of their theology," he said by phone.

Gay Suicide

I have mentioned at times in passing my own bouts with depression and suicidal thoughts – which I fully put into action once and which very nearly succeeded. The gay media and to a lesser extent the MSM will mention the problem of gay teen suicide. Admittedly it is a huge problem that needs to be addressed. A less discussed or even acknowledged problem is that of older closeted gay suicides. Having seen several therapist along the path of my journey, as well as two different psychiatrists (mostly for anti-depression medication while working with my therapists), all indicated that a significant percentage – perhaps as many as 50% - of older men trying to deal with being in the closet and/or come out as I did end up taking their own lives. Many go unknown to the gay community much less their families since these individuals never come out and merely take their own lives via single vehicle accidents and other methods that look accidental or are explained as such. Yes, the vehicle went out of control, but was it deliberate?

I am sure that some readers are thinking “what in the world would get individuals to such a point?” Depression is a very real condition and one surely does not think straight when in its depths. Everything is gloomy and there seems to be no light on the horizon. Combined with this outlook is a very real sense of utter and total exhaustion. Just trying to go through the motions of life is such a labor that you just want it all to stop. In desperation and due to unclear thinking, there seems only one way to maker it all stop. When I took the bottle of pills (which would have finished me off but for the ex b/f forcing me to go to the hospital) after an all day hearing in the divorce case where opposing counsel happily badgered, gay bashed and worked to humiliated me, my only thoughts were that I just could not do it all any more and that I had to make the pain stop. I would do ANYTHING just to make the pain stop. I truly was not thinking beyond that.

To make my point that I was not an isolated instance, here are some quotes from various entries on a fellow blogger’s blog who is in the coming out process and feeling at times that his entire world is crashing and he becomes disheartened and depressed. I will not identify him, but I consider him a friend and we have talked a number of times on the phone about the difficulties of making the journey to self-acceptance and a new life as a gay man:

“last couple of days have been thinking a lot and contemplating a lot of things, like what if one morning I just didn't wake up........”

“its becoming more of an effort just to do what I used to enjoy and that is singing, singing means happiness and while I go through the motions its hard to stand in front of a congregation of about 900 people and sing all about the praises and how wonderful our God is..............I have broken down in tears several times at work this past week...........think I am loosing my mind.”

“sat the other night with a bottle of Jack [Daniels] and sleeping pills for about 2 hours contemplating,”

I can identify completely. Before I came out to my wife, I seriously thought of possible outwardly “accidental” means of ending it all. I would be driving down the Interstate and contemplate undoing my seat belt and wrecking the car. I know that the only thing that stopped me was the fear that I might not succeed and would end up paralyzed or worse. A more attractive method I thought about was a “surfing accident” where I merely went surfing and appeared to drown. Winter surfing where hypothermia would take care of what drowning might not succeed in doing seemed the best bet of all. A “broken” leash and lost board would set the process into play easily. I in fact did paddle out a couple times thinking it would be the end, but each time somehow found the strength or clear headed thinking not to follow through.

What is the answer? I am not sure. A society where one’s sexual orientation is a non-issue would obviously do wonders in reducing the problem I would think. Until that day arrives, however, reducing homophobia and the internalized self-hate it fuels is one part of the solution. Churches that do not constantly condemn gays or do little more than give lip service to being welcoming and supportive of gay members would help as well. Another part of the solution may be simply increasing awareness of the problem and helping closeted gays and lesbians to know that (1) they are not alone and (2) it is possible to survive the coming out process even though it may be a difficult path. Certainly the Internet has made this far more possible than in decades past. Yet another part of the answer is perhaps fostering an atmosphere where individuals will at least be truthful with their doctors and seek professional help. Among men, there still seems to be a significant stigma that seeking the help of a therapist or psychiatrist is not “macho” or “manly” - just one more aspect of the f**ked up nature of American society.

I would like to hear the thoughts and/or experiences of others on this issue.

Friday Evening Thoughts

Another work week is over, albeit a short one. Thank God! The last three days have been CRAZY at the office. I have somewhat shaken off the pre-Christmas depression – my trip to Charlottesville was very nice and some much needed cash came into the firm. Also, this weekend should afford some fun – taste testing tomorrow for the next “hrbortini” for the January 4th HRBOR happy hour at Mixers, followed by the movie premier tomorrow insanity.

Meanwhile, I have been thinking about a comment that was posted on one of my posts that laid out some of my random thoughts about my desire for a committed relationship:

“I just hope you don't overlook him, whoever he is, by creating too many "must have" qualities. Every man has his baggage and his faults. It's not about having everything perfect, but rather finding that one truly special someone for whom you don't mind making a few exceptions and overlooking a thing or two.”

While it is true that I am not willing to settle for just anyone – I doubt any of us would willingly – I do not think I have unrealistic requirements for “Mr. Right.” Besides the obvious requirement that he desire true commitment and have a decent level of intelligence (I would never be able to survive with a mindless “boy toy” type), one "must have" quality is the ability to trust. Another is sufficient self-confidence that he does not always needlessly feel insecure and worry about me "finding someone better" or looking for “someone better.” The two are inter-related, but without these two qualities, a relationship is doomed. The lack of these qualities certainly doomed my last relationship. Other than these qualities, I am open to whoever might come along where the attraction and overall chemistry works.

Given the right guy, I can see myself settling into a relationship for the rest of my life. I think my history demonstrates that I am not one to readily leave my partner at the first glimpse of someone new or the first sign of difficulties. It also shows that I have the ability to make a few exceptions and “overlooking a thing or two” to make a relationship work. I stayed married for 24 years before I could not play the role any longer and finally came out. It is true that part of it was due to fear. But most of it was due to my enjoying a committed relationship (despite the sexual orientation issue) with common goals, caring about the ex-wife, and valuing the trusting relationship we had together. Similarly, I stayed with my ex b/f even after it was obvious that it was not working for us. Why? For many of the same reasons: I am the committed type by nature and also because I loved him. Still do in many ways.

When and where prince charming will appear from to sweep me off my feet remains to be seen. This area is not exactly teeming with eligible guys who are looking for a guy my age. Most of the “good ones” seem settled in relationships. If I was in a different line of work or could figure out a career change that made sense, I’d move in a heart beat to a more progressive area with a larger gay population. Time will tell, I suppose.

Final Friday Male Beauty

Pastors Urged To Caucus By Huckabee Supporters

Meanwhile, we have Mike "Let Lock Up Gays" Huckabee using the same tactics used by the late Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson in Virginia to get out the Christianist vote - i.e., Have the churches act as virtual arms of the GOP (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/pastors_urged_to_caucus_by_huc.php). I have seen it time and time again and often wonder how/why the IRS does not step in. The pastors do everything short of giving an endorsement speech for the pulpit and including candidate campaign materials in the church bulletins. As for Mike Farris, he is from Virginia and a certifiable religious lunatic. Here are a couple relevant highlights:

Here's an explicit example of how Mike Huckabee is relying on an outsourced Get-Out-The-Caucusers effort and on the implied support of pastors -- under the radar. Pastor Rick Scarborough is hosting a conference call with Iowa pastors to discuss the caucus... joining him are Dr. Tim "Left Behind" LaHaye and Dr. Michael "Home School" Farris.

All three are committed supporters of Mike Huckabee. An e-mail sent to Iowa pastors advertising the call doesn't mention Huckabee -- that wouldn't be legal -- but does say that pastors "have a duty" to keep their congregants "informed" and to lead them to "participate" in the caucuses. Farris has been a senior unpaid adviser to Huckabee from day one and was key in helping to organize the families of home schoolers to attend the Republican straw poll in Ames last summer.

This is all, again, legal, provided the pastors stay within certain guidelines. But it's very easy to see that a mobilization of pastors and their congregants helps a single candidate. And given how successfully evangelicals have knocked and dragged their voters in the past, their might -- even uncoordinated -- could overwhelm the most established of Iowa organizations on caucus night.

Obama vs. Hillary

It is a bit frightening to find myself agreeing with an editorial in the Washington Times, but this opinion piece (http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071226/EDITORIAL/295816016) does a good job at explaining what I fear if Hillary is the Democrat nominee based on my former years in the GOP. Rational or not, she ignites huge negative reactions and will motivate some to vote who might otherwise stay home. The piece also comments on some of Hillary's dirty trick tactics that I believe only come back to hurt her. Who the Hell is advising her on this? If the Democrats do not understand the opportunity before them, then the party is hopeless. Here are some. highlights:

What part of "anyone but Hillary" Clinton do Democrats not understand? The surest and best path for Democrats to defeat conservatives in 2008 is to elect Sen. Barack Obama as their nominee. Mr. Obama is leading in Iowa, and the race is now a dead heat in New Hampshire and South Carolina. In response, the Clinton camp has insisted that Mr. Obama is not electable by the general population. They maintain that his opinions are too liberal, that Republicans will use the issue of his past drug use against him and that he has insufficient experience. Yet this negative approach has thus far failed to resonate with Democratic voters.

Moreover, it is Mrs. Clinton, not Mr. Obama, who cannot be elected. In last week's Fox 5-The Washington Times-Rasmussen Reports poll, 40 percent of Americans state they will vote to prevent Mrs. Clinton from becoming president. She gets the largest "anti-vote" of any candidate in both parties: 64 percent of Republicans, 42 percent of third-party or independent voters, and 17 percent of Democrats insist they will vote against her. Hence, the Clinton camp's recent attempt to malign Mr. Obama as unelectable is pure farce. It is like telling Democrats to be afraid of a toy pistol while ignoring a bazooka which is being aimed at them. In a general campaign, Republicans will go nuclear against Mrs. Clinton.

Barring the nomination of Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic Party is poised to capture the White House in 2008. This is mostly because there is no Republican candidate on the horizon who can unite the right. Thus, any Democrat but Mrs. Clinton, can peel away enough conservative, Republican and independent voters to win the next election.

Once Mr. Obama secures the Democratic nomination, he will enter the general election with the liberal base highly mobilized. With a running mate who has good foreign-policy credentials, he can convince moderates that he will be effective in international affairs. Also, Democrats generally attract 88 percent of the black vote: Mr. Obama may make even greater inroads as these voters embrace the prospect of electing America's first black president. Finally, he will capture the two vital swing-voter groups: women and Hispanics.

The secret among conservatives is that many are rooting for Mr. Obama — and many will even vote for him in a general election no matter how liberal he is. Why? He will be heroic for defeating Hillary; he is authentic, and he is likeable even in disagreement. In essence, all the stars are aligned in favor of a remarkable American story: Barack Obama's historic march from Iowa straight into the White House in Washington, D.C. If only Democrats had enough sense to get Hillary Clinton out of his way.

More Friday Male Beauty

The 50 Most Loathsome People in America, 2007

This list was too good to pass up (http://www.buffalobeast.com/122/50mostloathsome2007.html). I figured I would highlight a few of the folks I have taken to task during the last eight months of serious blogging. I hope you enjoy it.

1. George W. Bush

Charges: Is it a civil rights milestone to have a retarded president? Maybe it would be, if he were ever legitimately elected. You can practically hear the whole nation holding its breath, hoping this guy will just fucking leave come January '09 and not declare martial law. Only supporters left are the ones who would worship a fucking turnip if it promised to kill foreigners. Is so clearly not in charge of his own White House that his feeble attempts to define himself as "decider" or "commander guy" are the equivalent of a five-year-old kid sitting on his dad's Harley and saying "vroom vroom!" Has lost so many disgusted staffers that all he's left with are the kids from Jesus Camp. The first president who is so visibly stupid he can say "I didn't know what was in the National Intelligence Estimate until last week" and sound plausible. Inarguably a major criminal and a much greater threat to the future of America than any Muslim terrorist.

Exhibit A: "And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it."

Sentence: Dismembered, limbs donated to injured veterans.

7. Erik Prince

Charges: Priming Baghdad's streets for American imperialism by making them pristinely wog-free. Prince's Iraq is one massive free-fire zone for his bullet-sweating mercenaries, a Hogan's Alley in which everyone dusky is blithely expendable, rape is a mischievous dalliance, and accountability an inside joke. Remarkably, enabling the US occupation and simultaneously fomenting destabilizing enmity. Bringing the privatization of warfare to full fruition -- next time, Exxon can just invade a country directly.

Exhibit A: Blackwater Vice Chairman Cofer Black is Mitt Romney's campaign counterterrorism policy adviser. The company's website also hawks infant onesies.

Sentence: Tanned and tethered outside Baghdad's Green Zone after curfew. Whatever happens, happens.

20. Larry Craig

Charges: This year's eminent toe-tappin' conservative queen of hypocrisy. Thought the Defense of Marriage Act was FABULOUS! -- because he personally needs legislation to keep him straight. Didn't work. Brought unwanted knowledge of the intricate culture of anonymous gay public restroom sex into America's living rooms. Embodies both the cause and result of faith-based sexual repression. Insists on dragging out the least plausible public denial of buggery since Liberace's, presumably for the benefit of his frozen-smiled, slowly maddening wife.

Exhibit A: "I am not gay. I never have been gay."

Sentence: Stoned to death.

21. David Vitter
Charges: And yet another family values Republican and Clinton-basher gets his glass house blown in. A staunch marriage defender and abstinence promoter who paid $300 an hour for his favorite hooker? The only surprise there is that he's still hanging around the Senate, but then again, he did say he was sorry. Denies evolution, yet was still compelled by his primate DNA to spread his seed far and wide.
Exhibit A: According to some, Vitter was nicknamed "the shitter" by Canal Street whores for his predilection for diaper play. Wholesome!
Sentence: Wife follows through on that Lorena Bobbitt comment she made during the Lewinski scandal.

47. Mike Huckabee

Charges: What's worse, a calculating politician pretending to be a devout Christian, or a genuine heartland preacher who didn't come from no monkey? Huckabee is both -- a Southern Baptist who rejects Darwin, wants to give everyone a gun and thinks people with AIDS should be quarantined, and a seedy, corrupt politician who's never seen a payoff so low he won't stoop to pick it up. Democrats see Huckabee as easily defeated in a general election, but they shouldn't be so sure -- Smooth talking preachers tend to do well in this country. Huckabee is well-spoken, kind-faced, and the opposite of wordly -- he's Obama for hicks.
Exhibit A: "I got into politics because I knew government didn't have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives... I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ."
Sentence: Just as he's about to win the GOP nomination, a freak gust of wind catches Huckabee's excess skin and carries him out over the Atlantic, where he drifts for hours before God appears to him, tells him He's a Unitarian, and sends him to hell.