Saturday Male Beauty

Limited Posting - Travel Weekend

The postings today and over the weekend will likely be reduced as the boyfriend and I travel first to Ft. Lauderdale today to visit friends/clients - we are actually en route via Southwest Airways as these pre-scheduled post are publishing - and then traveling to Key West after the weekend. I have never driven the oversea highway to the Keys and it should be a beautiful experience. I hope everyone has a great Memorial Day weekend and I will post when I get an opportunity. As always, the time off will be a working vacation with constant communication with the law firm. Plus, I am going to be trying out a virtual log-in program that allows me to remotely access my computer at the law firm's offices.

Wingnuts Hyperventilate Over DADT Vote

From monitoring various "pro-family" and "Christian" organizations for more than a decade, one common theme with these groups is that the truth has nothing to do with the deliberately false and denigrating information they disseminate. Be it non-Christians, immigrants - or the favorite target of all, gays - there truly is no limit to the lies and viciousness of these self-congratulatory bigots. Standing amongst the most homophobic of these blowhards is Robert Knight who has bounced from one Christianist organization to another, generally holding some title that helps maintain his faux expert image. Indeed, from my personal interactions and exchanges with Knight, I will not be the least surprised when he gets exposed as the next George "Rentboy" Rekers. No one is THAT hysterical about TEH GAYS unless they've got some truly serious issues going on in terms of their own sexuality. Needless to say, the recent DADT repeal vote in the House of Representatives and the Senate Armed Services Committee has Knight in hysteria overdrive. Here are some highlights from Knight's rant at OneNewsNow:
*
Barney Frank and his friends are rolling their tanks through Congress while everyone is talking about something else. As we reel from one crisis to the next, homosexual activists and their allies are muscling through their agenda, with nary a peep from the nation's conservative talking heads.
*
This week, their target is the military. Soon, it will be passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would criminalize traditional morality in every workplace with 15 or more employees. After that, they will try to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. Finally, they aim to pass an "anti-bullying" law that will threaten schools with losing federal funds if they refuse to force kids to read Heather Has Two Mommies and Gloria Goes to Gay Pride. The agenda is breathtakingly ambitious, and would be unimaginable to previous generations.
*
These radical laws would be a watershed moment for socialists, who are at war with family and religion as impediments to a growing state. The pansexual Left senses triumph now for two reasons:
*
First, the Obama-manufactured crisis-a-day has people terrified about where the economy is headed. The sheer magnitude of government takeovers and spending is dominating the Tea Party movement, and in fact, everybody.
*
Second, homosexual activists and their media enablers have "jammed" the public debate. Hollywood, educators and the media continually deny the truth about homosexuality – that while all people are made in God's image and are entitled to basic human rights – homosexuality is not in-born, is changeable, and is dangerous to the health and well being of individuals, families and communities. The militant advancement of gay activism poses the greatest threat to the freedoms of religion, assembly and speech within our borders.
*
The gravity of allowing open homosexuality in the military cannot be overstated. It has the potential of destroying the all-volunteer force by discouraging recruitment and retention and shattering unit morale. Chaplains would find themselves muzzled on basic questions of morality and many would leave the services. Recruits would undergo pro-homosexual "sensitivity" training. The already troubling problem of sexual misconduct would increase.
*
From misreporting junk science about non-existent "gay genes," to bashing people who believe that some behavior is simply wrong and unhealthy, the media are a fully owned subsidiary of the gay activist movement.
*
Note how Knight projects the Christianist agenda onto the LGBT community. If any group using "junk science" and is a threat to the freedoms of religion, assembly and speech it's Knight and his fellow Bible beating brethren. My advice to Knight - which I have shared with him before: rent and escort, have some hot gay sex that you want so badly, and get over it.

Unsavory Company

In banning gays from serving in the military, the USA places itself among some pretty unsavory company. Do John McCain and other Christianist ass kissing Republicans truly want the USA in the same company as China, Iran and Saudi Arabia? Or is McCain willing to do anything to beat back Hayworth's challenge at any cost? Once upon a time, McCain had some principles - those days are obviously gone.

Stories from the Frontlines: Letters to President Barack Obama - A WWII Soldier

For the last month SLND and a group of nearly 50 blogs have been publishing letters from service members - both current and past - who either suffered under DADT or who found the policy abhorrent and in need of repeal. This last post of the campaign is of a letter from a World War II soldier stationed in Africa to his lover who sadly never made it home to the USA. Our enemies strive to depict LGBT individuals as diseased and/or sexual predators. This letter - which was discovered in the Library of Congress was published in September 1961 by ONE Magazine – an early gay magazine based out of Los Angeles. The letter clearly reveals the depth of love and emotion found in same sex relationships - love and affection JUST AS LEGITIMATE as that between heterosexual couples, including the President and his wife. A photo of the letter is set out above (click the image to enlarge it) and the text is as follows:
*
Dear Dave,
*
This is in memory of an anniversary – the anniversary of October 27th, 1943, when I first heard you singing in North Africa. That song brings memories of the happiest times I’ve ever known. Memories of a GI show troop – curtains made from barrage balloons – spotlights made from cocoa cans – rehearsals that ran late into the evenings – and a handsome boy with a wonderful tenor voice. Opening night at a theatre in Canastel – perhaps a bit too much muscatel, and someone who understood. Exciting days playing in the beautiful and stately Municipal Opera House in Oran – a misunderstanding – an understanding in the wings just before opening chorus.
*
Drinks at “Coq d’or” – dinner at the “Auberge” – a ring and promise given. The show 1st Armoured – muscatel, scotch, wine – someone who had to be carried from the truck and put to bed in his tent. A night of pouring rain and two very soaked GIs beneath a solitary tree on an African plain. A borrowed French convertible – a warm sulphur spring, the cool Mediterranean, and a picnic of “rations” and hot cokes. Two lieutenants who were smart enough to know the score, but not smart enough to realize that we wanted to be alone. A screwball piano player – competition – miserable days and lonely nights.
*
The cold, windy night we crawled through the window of a GI theatre and fell asleep on a cot backstage, locked in each other’s arms – the shock when we awoke and realized that miraculously we hadn’t been discovered. A fast drive to a cliff above the sea – pictures taken, and a stop amid the purple grapes and cool leaves of a vineyard.
*
The happiness when told we were going home – and the misery when we learned that we would not be going together. Fond goodbyes on a secluded beach beneath the star-studded velvet of an African night, and the tears that would not be stopped as I stood atop the sea-wall and watched your convoy disappear over the horizon.
*
We vowed we’d be together again “back home,” but fate knew better – you never got there. And so, Dave, I hope that where ever you are these memories are as precious to you as they are to me.

Goodnight, sleep well my love.

Brian Keith

Friday Male Beauty

The Catholic Church's Attack on American Nuns

The hypocrisy of the Roman Catholic Church knows no limits. Fortunately, Newsweek has a pretty hard hitting story that looks at the Vatican's witch hunt against American nuns - even as the Vatican has coddled and covered up for priests for sexually molest children and youths. The moral disconnect at the Vatican is indeed mind numbing. As is the anti-woman mindset that has persisted for centuries. And in my view, both issues are affront to both common decency not to mention intellectual consistency. Sadly, the Church leadership continues to show little inclination to reform itself and the "good old boy system" that helped sexual abuse thrive world wide. Unless and until the media ruthlessly exposes the moral rot in Rome, I see little chance for the Church to change. With enough bad and/or salacious press, just maybe things will be forced to change. The other irony is that the Vatican is claiming that it has no control over Church operations in the USA in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court, yet this inquisition argues otherwise. Here are some story highlights:
*
Earlier this month, in something of a surprise, a nun at a Catholic hospital in Phoenix was excommunicated for approving a first-trimester abortion last year at that hospital to save the life of a critically ill patient. “An unborn child is not a disease,” said Bishop Thomas Olmsted of the Phoenix diocese. “While medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother’s life, the means by which they do it can never be by directly killing her unborn child.” The irony here is thick: it has taken years, sometimes decades, to bring sex-abusing priests to justice, but this observant sister, Margaret McBride, was excommunicated in a matter of months for making a compassionate and impossible decision for one of her parishioners.
*
This decisive action against one nun in one ethically murky case comes as an “apostolic visitation,” or investigation, of all of America’s 60,000 religious sisters is underway. . . . Anxious observers and commentators worry that, as a result of the inquiry, nuns will be forced to take steps backward—into the head coverings and habits, for example, that were made optional after the Second Vatican Council in 1965. They worry further that sisters who have worked more or less independently for decades will have their independence curtailed: the church has been known to remove teachers from their posts, for example, for teaching an insufficiently orthodox theology. With dioceses still hurting for cash due to settlements from the sex-abuse crisis, they worry that with the number of sisters dwindling in the West, real estate that has belonged to a religious community for generations will be sold or reappropriated by the diocese.
*
Between now and Christmas, 100 communities of American nuns will receive on-site visits from Vatican envoys; most of the 420 communities of American women have already filled out comprehensive questionnaires about their membership, their living arrangements, their mission, and their finances.

*
Not two days after the publication in this magazine of “A Woman’s Place is in the Church,” which argued that the hierarchy in Rome needs to embrace modernity and include women at all levels of church management and decision making, I received an e-mail from a nun. “I just had to make this addition even though speaking up during this time of Visitation has its risks,” she wrote. The apostolic visit, “punitive by definition, demonstrates…that male church leaders are seeking to keep modernity at bay, keep women in a secondary place…It is so true that if women had any influence at all in our Church, the Church would be so much more whole and healthy.”
*
[I]n our world, blind submission to authority is not a virtue but a vice. Just as modernity doesn’t want to accommodate insular groups of men who live behind guarded walls and make decisions that affect the domestic lives of half a billion people, it will also eventually reject what amounts to a kind of patriarchal apartheid, in which female clerics are given no voice in the power structure and yet are expected to submit to it.
*
For more than a thousand years, becoming a nun was the best—and often the only—way for a young woman to get an education and to earn a modicum of independence. In the modern West, though, women have other options. In the United States, the number of religious sisters has shrunk by two thirds since 1965, to 59,600. (Worldwide, the collapse is not as dramatic: the number of sisters has dwindled by just one third over the same period, to 750,000.) And while sisters still outnumber priests across the globe, women’s desire to become nuns is plummeting. . . . It’s no wonder, really. When men have all the power, and they “investigate” women who seem to disrespect their authority, why not become a doctor, or a lawyer, or a stay-at-home mom, and submit to God without the authoritarian meddling?

House Votes to Allow Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

The House of Representatives voted last night to pass the conditional "repeal" bill that hopefully begins the process for the ultimate death of this discriminatory policy. The vote was 234 to 194, with 229 Democrats and 5 Republicans in favor, and 168 Republicans and 26 Democrats against the measure. It is disturbing that 25 Democrats voted with the party of Pat Robertson and in apparent agreement with hate filled theocrats at Family Research Council who would not be able to tell the truth if their lives depended upon it. Fortunately, my Congressman, Glenn Nye of Virginia's 2nd District came through and voted in favor of the measure. Unlike apparently closet theocrat Jim Webb who voted the same way as local Congressman Randy Forbes, a former law school classmate, who has become a total Kool-Aid drinker. The New York Times has an interactive map here so that readers can verify how their member of Congress voted on the bill. Here are highlights from the Times story:
*
WASHINGTON — The House voted Thursday to let the Defense Department repeal the ban on gay and bisexual people from serving openly in the military, a major step toward dismantling the 1993 law widely known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
*
The House vote was 234 to 194, with 229 Democrats and 5 Republicans in favor, after an emotionally charged debate. Opposed were 168 Republicans and 26 Democrats.
Supporters of the repeal hailed it as a matter of basic fairness and civil rights, while opponents charged that Democrats and President Obama were destabilizing the military to advance a liberal social agenda.
*
Like the House amendment, the Senate measure would allow Pentagon leaders to revoke the ban 60 days after the military study group completes its report and President Obama, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, certify that it would not hamper military readiness and effectiveness or “unit cohesion.” Mr. Obama and Mr. Gates favor repealing the ban, as does Admiral Mullen, who, in testimony before the Armed Services Committee in February, called for a repeal.
*
"Bottom line,” Mr. Lieberman, added, “thousands of service members have been pushed out of the U.S. military not because they were inadequate or bad soldiers, sailors, Marines or airmen but because of their sexual orientation. And that’s not what America is all about.”
*
Democrats who backed the repeal compared the vote to the racial integration of the military and hailed the action as allowing all Americans who wanted to serve to do so.
*
“In the land of the free and the home of the brave, it is long past time for Congress to end this un-American policy,” said Representative Tammy Baldwin, a Wisconsin Democrat who is openly gay.

More Thursday Male Beauty

University of Virginia Files Suit Against Ken Kookinelli

I am proud that my Alma Mater, the University of Virginia, has decided to fight back against Virginia AG Ken "Kookinelli" Cuccinelli's efforts to intimidate legitimate research that goes against his knuckle dragging religious beliefs. The fact that Kookinelli is Virginia's AG is embarrassment enough without him trying to destroy the prowess of the state's top colleges and universities. Even faculty at UVA's arch rival Virginia Tech are outraged at Kookinelli's heavy handed attempt to kill academic freedom. Both Blue Virgina and the Richmond Times Dispatch are carrying coverage of UVA's decision to fight back. Given the fact that UVA has some of the best placed and most influential alumni in Virginia, attempting to trash the university still strikes me as idiocy. But then Kookinelli isn't playing with a full deck of cards in my estimation. Here are highlights from Blue Virginia:
*
Academic freedom is essential to the mission of our Nation's institutions of higher learning and a core First Amendment concern. As Thomas Jefferson intended, the University of Virginia has a long and proud tradition of embracing the 'illimitable freedom of the human mind' by fully endorsing and supporting faculty research and scholarly pursuits. Our Nation also has a long and proud tradition of limited government framed by enumerated powers which Jefferson ardently believed was necessary for a civil society to endure."
This is the preliminary statement of a petition filed today by the University of Virginia to "set aside" the Civil Investigative Demands (CIDs) issued to the University by Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II on April 23, 2010.
*
In announcing today's filing, University President John T. Casteen III said the University intends to protect academic freedom. Casteen said that issuance of the CIDs "has sent a chill through the Commonwealth's colleges and universities - a chill that has reached across the country and attracted the attention of all of higher education."
*
Rector John O. Wynne said that the University is prepared to fight for the right of its research faculty to engage in debate and free expression without fear of reprisal. "We are fighting for preservation of the basic principles on which our country was founded," he said.
*
The University's petition, which was filed in Albemarle County Circuit Court this afternoon, is the first step in a legal process to set aside the CIDs. In addition to challenging the CIDs on academic freedom grounds, the petition also argues that the attorney general exceeded his authority under the state's Fraud Against Taxpayers Act.
*
Ann Hamric, chair of the Faculty Senate and a professor in the School of Nursing, said she was deeply grateful to University leaders for mounting a vigorous defense of academic freedom. "I join with my faculty colleagues in applauding this action from our president and Board of Visitors," she said. "Academic freedom is crucial to the academic life of our (and any) university."
*
Kookinelli is a fool in my opinion, but a very dangerous fool. The sooner he can be outed as a closet case or otherwise driven from office, the better for both Virginia and the nation.

Republican Senators Threaten Filibuster to Block DADT Repeal Amendment

This afternoon the Senate Armed Forces Committee - with no help from Jim Webb, one of my Senators - passed the amendment adding conditional repeal of DADT to the Defense Authorization Bill and this evening it is anticipated that the amendment will pass the full House of Representatives. With a majority of Americans now viewing same sex relationships as morally acceptable and 78% of the public supporting repeal of DADT, what are Senate Republicans going to do? Filibuster and try to block repeal of course? Why you ask? Because the GOP has become a de facto religious party focused first and foremost on furthering the agenda of extreme Christian fanatics. Working in parallel with Senate Republicans are the haters at Family Research Council and allied organizations who are disseminating filth and lies claiming that disease infested gays will rape straight service members if DADT is repealed. Indeed, as practiced by these far right elements, Christianity has become a religion of lies and hatred. Sadly, it's just a short step to realization that the GOP has become the part of lies and hatred as well. Washington Monthly has details on the GOP's threatened filibuster. Here are some highlights"
*
Just so we're clear, consider exactly what Senate Republicans are saying here. The GOP is prepared to refuse an up-or-down vote in the Senate on a bill that funds the troops during two wars because Americans will eventually be able to serve in the Armed Forces, regardless of their sexual orientation. That the policy has been endorsed by the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs -- both Republican appointees -- is irrelevant.
*
What's more, as Dante Atkins added, "The funny part about this whole ordeal? The compromise that the Republicans are threatening to filibuster allows the Pentagon to have the final say in the issue, which is precisely why it is not receiving the broadest support in activist circles. And yet, despite the fact that the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs get to be the ultimate arbiters of whether the policy is repealed, that's not good enough for today's homophobic Republican Party. Today's Republicans don't want gay people to be able to serve in the military -- even if the Pentagon says it's okay."
*
I seem to recall Republicans screaming that those who oppose funding the troops during two wars are necessarily unpatriotic terrorist sympathizers, aiding and abetting the enemy. Now these same Republicans are boasting about their intention to prevent the Senate from even voting on troop funding. It's funny how GOP standards change, isn't it?
*
Hypocrisy and lies are indeed the hallmarks of the GOP and its unhinged haters among the Christian Right. Likewise, today's vote says nothing good about Jim Webb.

Stories from the Frontlines: Letters to President Barack Obama - Major General Vance Coleman

Today's letter is from a retired major general. Although not gay, he knows the pain and difficulty experienced when laws and policies enforce bigotry and inequity. Major General Vance Coleman, United States Army (Ret.), is black and enlisted in the U.S. Army years before Harry Truman demonstrated the leadership that Barack Obama lacks and desegregated the U.S. military. Would that we still had such bold leadership today. As we approach the critical vote in Congress on DADT, the question boils down to whether or not the USA will actual practice the freedom and equality it preaches to other nations, or will it align itself with bigoted regimes like those in Iran, China, and other nations? The GOP and the Christianists want religious based discrimination continued as a national policy. What happens on DADT repeal - and ENDA - will reflect the real soul of American and demonstrate whether or not the nation is little more than a fraud. Here is Major General Coleman's letter:
*
May 27, 2010
*
President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20500
*
Dear Mr. President,
*
I served my country for over thirty years. I enlisted in the army as a private and retired as a Major General. During that time, I saw a great deal of change in the Armed Forces. Racial segregation was ended in the ranks, women were recognized as equals and we moved to an all volunteer force.
*
My father was a laborer, my mother a domestic worker. I knew that there was no way I was headed for college. As a young Black Man I enlisted in the army long before President Truman desegregated the armed forces.
*
I served in segregated units (all Black) before being selected for Officers Candidate School. I then attended an integrated Leadership Academy and then Officers Candidate School which was also integrated. After graduation from OCS I was assigned to a combat arms unit for which I had been trained. I was reassigned to a service unit (Graves Registration) that was all Black.
*
The message was clear: It did not matter that I was qualified to serve in a combat arms unit that happen to be all white. It only mattered that I was Black.
*
Mr. President, I know what it is like to be thought of as second-class, and I know what it is like to have your hard work dismissed because of who you are or what you look like. I also know what a difference it made to me and others when President Truman eliminated segregation in the Armed Forces and placed qualification ahead of discrimination.
*
As a retired Army Commander, I also know how disruptive it is to remove a trained skilled member from a unit. In Korea, I had a Sergeant First Class in my unit who was gay. it was no secret. He was in charge of the unit’s communication. He was essential to our performance and our survival and he was dam good at his job. If I had to remove him, our unit’s effectiveness, as well as morale, most certainly would have been harmed.
*
Military leadership is about being able to constantly adapt to change, and I have seen the Army implement significant change and react to new directives since I enlisted. Perhaps the greatest military change is that we are now an all volunteer force. I cannot believe that we could have made that transition successfully if the services were still segregated or if the roles of women in the ranks had not been greatly expanded.
*
The services have, for the most part, kept pace with changes in American society as to matters of race and gender. Likewise, they must now keep pace with the changed attitude among the American people, especially younger generations, concerning sexual orientation. If they do not, military service will become a less viable option for more and more young people, and the quality of our forces will suffer. I suggest that the warriors of tomorrow will not want to become a part of an institution that does not respect their peers.
*
The men and women who volunteer to serve, especially in dangerous times, are the most important resource of our armed services. This includes the lesbian and gay troops who have served – and – are serving honorably. Just like their heterosexual service members, they risk their lives to defend our country. Our country owes it to them, and to all our troops to treat all who serve with respect and gratitude.
*
Our armed services believe in, and promote, the idea that one person can make a real difference. To commanders on the ground in Iraq, an Arabic linguist can make a difference. To a parent, whose son is bleeding on the battlefield, one lesbian nurse can make a difference.
*
You, too, Mr. President, can and will make a real difference here. You can make a difference in whether “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is repealed this year, and whether implementation comes shortly thereafter.
*
As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.” Mr. President, do all you can; stand with us and work with us to end this denigration of our American values.
*
Respectfully,
*
Major General Vance Coleman, United States Army (Ret.)

Thursday Male Beauty

The Economist Ridicules Homophobes in Congress

The Economist is among the most respected publications in the world, so it's pretty bad news when that publication mocks you and basically says you are behaving in an ass backwards manner. But that's The Economist assessment of members of Congress who are not supporting the repeal of DADT. It's interesting that foreign publication often have a better perspective on what's happening in the USA than American news outlets are willing to report. DADT is all about religious based discrimination and pandering to Christianists who have an agenda of keeping LGBT Americans inferior under the laws so that they can then cite such legal inferiority as proof that their prejudice is justified. Let's call a spade a spade. And that's what The Economist is correctly doing. Here are highlights:

*
[T]he onus should be on Mr Brown [Sen. Brown of Massachusetts] and others like him to explain how DADT's repeal might "jeopardise the mission of the military" (an all too common excuse for not taking up repeal). Many gay men and women are currently serving at home and abroad, and their presence has yet to degrade the capabilities of America's armed forces. (Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for DADT.) When these soldiers are allowed to serve openly, should we expect a breakdown in unit cohesion? If so, why?
*
Opponents of DADT's repeal will often claim that the military is a unique institution not suited for this kind of mixing. But many of the attributes that make the military unique—its professionalism, group dynamics, and chain of command . . . would make the transition away from DADT that much smoother. Unfortunately, proponents of the status quo assume the military is unique in less admirable ways. They believe bigotry is so enmeshed in the bureaucracy as to make DADT's repeal impractical. Few congressmen or pundits put it so bluntly, but their projected homophobia is obvious in their vague warnings about the detrimental effects of repeal. There is no evidence to support casting such broad aspersions on America's soldiers. In fact, it seems likely that many soldiers are already aware of their gay colleagues—they must know they exist—and still manage to carry on with their tasks.

Obama Administration Supports Vatican Immunity in Child Rape Cases

In yet another disappointment from the Obama administration - why do the disappointments seem to out number the positives? - has filed a brief before the U. S. Supreme Court supporting the Vatican's disingenuous claim that priests and bishops in the United States do not work for and are not under the control of the Pope. Obviously, this argument is specious on its face - especially since only the Pope can appoint and remove bishops and only the Vatican can defrock priests. On its face, what the Roman Catholic Church has done in the cover up and negligent transfer of predatory priests falls directly within the scope of the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act of 1976. That law includes several situations where a foreign power is NOT entitled to immunity. Specifically, 28 USC § 1605, reads in relevant part as follows:
*
(a) A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case—
*
(5) not otherwise encompassed in paragraph (2) above,in which money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury or death, or damage to or loss of property, occurring in the United States and caused by the tortious act or omission of that foreign state or of any official or employee of that foreign state while acting within the scope of his office or employment
*
Seems pretty clear cut under any application of normal English, but not so according to Obama's solicitor general. The folks at Yahoo News are reporting as follows concerning the Obama administration's backing of the Vatican's preposterous argument that the Pope has not control over U.S. Catholic clergy:

*
The unnamed plaintiff, who cited the Holy See and several other parties as defendants, argued the Vatican should be held responsible for transferring the priest to Oregon and letting him serve there despite previous accusations he had abused children in Chicago and in Ireland.
*
The solicitor general's office, which defends the position of President Barack Obama's administration before the Supreme Court, said the Ninth Circuit improperly found the case to be an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, a 1976 federal law that sets limits on when other countries can face lawsuits in US courts.
*
[T]he Vatican plans to argue that Catholic dioceses are run as separate entities from the Holy See, and that the only authority that the pontiff has over bishops around the world is a religious one, according to Jeffrey Lena, the Vatican's US attorney.
*
Anyone want some Pacific coast property in Arizona? It's about as credible a claim as that put out by the Vatican.

More Wednesday Male Beauty

U.S Military Allies: DADT Hurts United States

The psychos over at FRC and similar professional Christian organizations are hysterically bleating that a repeal of DADT will hurt the U.S. military's readiness and ability to meet engagements overseas. Naturally, none of these organizations have anyone who has legitimate expertise in this area, but then facts and truthfulness are never important to these folks. In contrast, military leaders from military units of U.S. allies sate on the record that DADT is hurting U.S. military readiness and creating situations where U.S. allies refuse to participate in peace keeping and other missions along side U.S. troops. Why? Because foreign troops don't want to work with religious bigots and homophobes - the pillars behind the DADT policy. In a Politico op-ed piece Maj. Peter Kees Hamstra of the Royal Dutch Army, Leif Ohlson of the Swedish Armed Forces, and Lt. Com. Craig Jones, British Royal Navy [Ret.] (pictured above) spell out this phenomenon. Somehow, I suspect these men have far more legitimate military expertise than Elaine Donnelly (who has never been in the military) and Peter Sprigg of FRC (who likewise has never seen military service). Here are some column highlights:
*
As openly gay officers with decades of combined service experience in the British, Dutch and Swedish armed forces, we are closely watching U.S. developments around the repeal of "Don't ask, don't tell." We were just in Washington at a Brookings Institution/Palm Center conference, where representatives from the world's militaries discussed this matter.
*
Though we maintain a respect for the American people, their military and their political process, we share a sense of puzzlement — and a sort of shock — at the rhetoric we heard surrounding "Don't ask, don't tell."
*
[I]t is also true that U.S. military power depends, in most cases, on an international coalition of partners. Members of Congress don't always seem to appreciate that America's allies are put off in serious ways by the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. For example, units of our own or other armed forces have refused to deploy in some joint operations with U.S. forces because gay service members would not work with the Americans — for fear of hostile reactions. In addition to protecting our men and women from enemy combatants, we must also protect them from anti-gay and anti-lesbian discrimination.
*
Moral opposition to homosexuality, while real, is just not allowed to undercut our militaries' missions. Nor do we think it will have any impact on yours after you repeal "Don't ask, don't tell."
*
This is an important point because many Americans seem to believe that ending anti-gay discrimination in European and Israeli militaries faced no resistance because our cultures are more tolerant. In fact, our polls, rhetoric and even threats of mass resignations were quite similar to the continuing resistance in America. Yet none of the doomsday scenarios came true.
*
According to research and assessments of our transitions, the new policies had no negative impact on military readiness. Another dimension missing from the congressional debate is how the closet harms gay troops. We know this from personal experience. Unit cohesion is paramount, and that's why the public debate about "Don't ask, don't tell" has focused on this topic. But the impact of discrimination on gay troops matters as well — and we have not heard members of Congress discuss this.
*
We are also puzzled about repeated claims we heard in Washington about the need for more research on "Don't ask, don't tell." There is more than enough on-the-ground experience, as well as serious social science research, showing what will happen when the U.S. military allow gays and lesbians to utter the words "I am gay" without getting fired.
*
We are confident that, despite the unique nature of each culture and military, you will have a similar experience to ours — which is that ending discrimination against gay troops was a giant nothing.
*
Washington must project force like no other nation. But the military is also about projecting values — and the discriminatory "Don't ask, don't tell" policy undercuts America's commitment to the democratic values of fairness and equality under the law. The policy puts you in the company of Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China and Yemen. Is that the kind of company you want to keep?

Stories from the Frontlines: Letters to President Barack Obama - Former Corporal Juan C. Perezortiz

Today's installment of "Stories from the Frontlines: Letters to President Barack Obama" is written by Former Corporal Juan C. Perezortiz, United States Marine Corps (pictured at right). As I have noted before, the victims of DADT include both men and women and individuals of every race and ethnic group. The sole trait they have in common - other than being loyal and patriotic Americans - is that they are LGBT and do not live their lives to the satisfaction of Christo-fascists both within and without the U. S. military. DADT is legalized religious based discrimination that goes against the promise of freedom of religion in the United States Constitution. As long as DADT remains, the USA id a fraud that does not live up to the principles it claims to uphold. Here is Corporal Perezortiz's letter:
*
May 26, 2010
*
President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20500
*
Dear Mr. President,
*
As an 18-year-old, first generation immigrant from Mexico and a newly sworn in American citizen, military service seemed the best way to repay my fellow citizens for giving my family and me a shot at a better life.
*
I enlisted in the Marine Corps as an Aircraft Ordnance Man. USMC Boot Camp was physically and mentally challenging, but it didn’t compare to the persecution I would encounter later in the Marines.
*
As a new PFC in an Aircraft Ordnance (AO) Shop in California, I developed a reputation for being a hard worker, always looking for extra duties and opportunities to expand my skills. As a result, my work ethic and excellent evaluations, I was promoted to an E3, a lance corporal. These were my best days in the military. Unfortunately, they were short numbered. With the arrival of a new gunnery sergeant, my career in the Marines soon became a struggle to survive.
*
The gunnery sergeant enjoyed socializing with the junior Marines in the shop, frequently taking them out drinking and to the strip clubs. I was expected to participate. I tried to be a team player so I would not be singled out. The shop soon became the squadron’s “frat pad.” Most conversation revolved around girls and hookups, often described by my comrades as “bitches and hoes.”
*
This behavior, beyond being tolerated, was often sponsored and enjoyed by my superiors. “Gunny” usually joined in, bragging about cheating on his wife. This environment was repulsive and contradictory to the core values of the Marine Corps: honor, courage, commitment — values I tried to live by. I was miserable, but felt powerless to do anything about it.
*
I still went out drinking with the guys, but tried to avoid going to strip bars or swapping stories about sexual experiences. But then Gunny became suspicious. He told me he suspected I was a “faggot” and that we should see what the rest of the guys thought about it.
*
Everything changed that day. My evaluation scores began to drop dramatically — from the 4.9 out of 5 average I had for three years to a 1.0. After obtaining copies of my evaluations, I learned that my direct supervisors’ scores had been crossed out and lowered by the gunnery sergeant. I had never failed at anything in life before and I was not going to let anyone tell me I was not a good Marine.
*
My only way out, I believed, was to transfer out of my unit. At first my requests were repeatedly denied. Eventually though, after numerous letters of recommendations from other military officers, I was transferred.
*
I was promoted and, when I left my new unit, I had numerous letters of recommendation. The detachment’s commanding officer wrote accolades such as, “You are a Marine with exceptional core values… a great asset to the Armed Services” and “You are a Marine of great caliber and will go far in your military career.”
*
Unfortunately, I was required to return to my former training squadron just months before my six year contract was up. I was back under Gunny’s command. Those last few months were a living nightmare. I constantly dreaded going to work and was afraid for my physical safety.
*
With the support of friends, I managed to serve eight years. I love the Marines and, under different command circumstances, I would have continued my service. In three weeks, I’ll graduate from the University of California, San Diego with a degree in structural engineering. With the your help and with open service in place at the Pentagon, I’d signup and serve my country again.
*
Mr. President, thank you for supporting repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” I hope that, with your leadership, no other service member will have to go through the persecution I endured in order to serve our country.
*
Respectfully,
*
Former Corporal Juan C. Perezortiz
United States Marine Corps

GOP Cat Fight in Virginia Second District

I recently wrote about Jessica Sandlin, a gay friendly candidate running for the GOP nomination in Virginia's second congressional district. While Jessica is viewed as a long shot in the six way race for the nomination by many, the struggle between the GOP establishment's anointed nominee, Scott Rigell, (at left) and the Tea Party candidate, Ben Loyola (at far left) , could open the door for a third candidate to win the nomination. Given Virginia's open primaries, this means that Democrats could go and vote and for a candidate that is not a Kool-Aid drinker and/ot Tea Party whack job. Today's Virginian Pilot looks at the Rigell v. Loyola contest. Frankly, I find BOTH Rigell and Loyola to be scary. I urge residents of the 2nd District to vote on June 8, 2010 and support Jessica or one other the other more sane GOP candidates. Here are some story highlights:
*
Virginia’s top elected Republicans have made clear who they want to win the party’s nomination in the 2nd Congressional District. On Wednesday, leaders of two conservative anti-tax groups announced their choice. It is not the same person.
*
The Hampton Roads Tea Party’s seven-member board and Robert Dean, head of the Virginia Beach Taxpayers Alliance, said they are backing Ben Loyola in large part because of his vow to support across-the-board tax cuts and a smaller federal government. The groups’ leaders said they couldn’t support candidate Scott Rigell, who is backed by several GOP leaders including Gov. Bob McDonnell and Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling.
*
Voters in the district, which includes Virginia Beach, the Eastern Shore and parts of Norfolk and Hampton, will go to the polls June 8 to select a nominee from among the six candidates. The winner will take on U.S. Rep. Glenn Nye, a one-term Democrat, and independent candidate Kenny Golden in November. Loyola, owner of an engineering firm, said he expects the new endorsements
*
Should Loyola, the Tea Party candidate, win, it obviously increases Nye's chances of re-election. Meanwhile, it would be nice to back Sandlin to show that there are still some normal, rational Republicans left.

Price of Single-Family Homes Drop for Sixth Straight Month

With all the media coverage of the BP oil spill, Afghanistan, DADT faux Repeal, and other things, a continued time bomb is ticking in the U.S. economy - the continued problems in the residential real estate market where prices have dropped six months in a row. As prices fall, more and more families find themselves "underwater" and unable to refinance high interest loans or even sell their homes if transferred for their jobs.

*

As for the alleged programs to assist homeowners in trouble avoid foreclosure via a loan modification, etc., they are little more than a joke. From working with clients I can personally attest that the level of incompetence and total disorganization at mortgage companies defies belief. With some lenders, like Bank of America from my experience, the right hand has no clue what the left hand is doing and homes go to foreclosure sale even when loan modifications have supposedly been successfully negotiated. It is a circus. Wall Street got billons of dollars in bailouts, but rank and file Americans get tossed on the trash heap. And as more homes go to foreclosure, the downward pressure on prices continues and digs the hole even deeper. Here are some highlights from a Washington Post story:
*
The Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller home price index showed that prices of single-family homes were down 0.5 percent between February and March, the sixth consecutive month-over-month decline. On a seasonally adjusted basis, prices were flat, according to the index.
*
Prices in 13 of the 20 cities tracked by the index fell in March, including the Washington region, where prices were down 0.7 percent. Detroit and Minneapolis saw the largest price declines, 4.1 percent and 2.7 percent, respectively.
*
The recent weakness in prices is disappointing given record-low mortgage rates and a home buyer tax credit that helped boost sales through the first few months of this year, analysts said. The tax credit expired last month, and home sales are expected to decline in its absence.
*
There is still an oversupply of homes on the market, particularly foreclosures, said Patrick Newport, U.S. economist for IHS Global Insight. Foreclosed properties typically sell at a discount, bringing down neighboring home values.
*
The "housing glut and foreclosures" will drive the Case-Shiller index down another 6 to 8 percent before reaching bottom in 2011, Newport said. "Prices appeared to stabilize late last year, and they are now starting to edge down again," he said. "With the tax credit gone, sales are going to drop, and we're going to see that trend continue."
*
Overall, home prices are likely to gradually fall an additional 5 percent through the end of 2011, said Paul Dales, an economist at Capital Economics. "I don't think we're going to get anything like the crash [in prices] we had before," he said. "It won't be a disaster, but it will undermine the wider economic recovery."

Wednesday Male Beauty

Kip Williams Arrested at Obama Appearance Fund Raiser; Dan Choi Slams DADT "Compromise"

Life can be a bitch for a politician when people start actually demanding that they deliver on their promises. A case in point is the peevish Barack Obama who doesn't like it when people try to "hold him Accountable" - something he's claimed to want in the past. Obviously, Obama didn't mean it - just as he apparently hasn't meant anything he said about ending DADT this year. Even in his State of the Union Address. All Kip Williams did was demand to Obama's face that he keep his promises. In an e-mail from Williams that I received this morning he stated in part:
*
"I was arrested, cited and released. Disturbing the peace. ... It was the first time I've done something like that by myself. ... I was close enough to see Obama's face. I worked so hard on his campaign and I still believe in him and I support him, and I wish I didn't have to have that exchange with him, and I saw the anger on his face when I started speaking. But I'm angry too, and I can't be silent."
*

For the record, I didn't "heckle" my President tonight. I simply asked him to do the right thing - what he already promised he would do.

*
Unlike Williams, I cannot say that I believe in or support Obama any more. Lie to me enough times and I'm sorry, but I am over it and will only be convinced by REAL action. Not some sort of abortion like compromise that leaves our LGBT service members subject to discrimination and witch hunts. I'm not the ony one over Obama's lies and disingenuous political games. Dan Choi (who I was lucky enough to speak with last fall) is likewise fed up and stated in part as follows in a message I received last night:
*
While we're glad that there is movement on DADT, it is not enough for the servicemembers who have been discharged under the legislation -- some of whom stood with us as we handcuffed ourselves to the White House gate on April 20. For the two of us -- and many more who have been working for the repeal of this legislation for months and years -- this effort is simply a way for Congress, the White House, and the Pentagon to shift responsibility to one another indefinitely.
*
[H]old the President, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and our LGBT organizations accountable to enact repeal this year and, in the meantime, to issue an Executive Order to end military discharges immediately. Our Commander-in-Chief made a promise this year in the State of the Union address to repeal DADT this year.
*
Obama claimed he was a different kind of politician - now it's time for him to deliver. Plain and simple.

Progressives Assail Jim Webb on DADT Betrayal

With a new poll disclosing that 78% of Americans support the end of DADT, I keep wondering what Barack "I'm a Liar" Obama and Jim "Chicken Shit" Webb are so afraid of. They act as if the Pentagon has some - compromising pictures of them or something useful for blackmail. I truly do not get it. Neither do others in Virginia including straight progressive bloggers who are beginning to call Webb out on his decision to vote "No" on DADT repeal. 78% of voters support repeal of DADT and yet our faux "fierce advocate" and Webb shake in their shoes afraid to offend the likes of Elaine Donnelly and other professional homophobes. Something simply doesn't add up. Here are highlights from Blue Virginia's take on Webb's cowardice with the headline"Sen. Webb: No More Study, Its Time to End DADT:"
*
Now, here's my response to Sen. Webb.
*
First, this policy has been an abject failure almost any way you want to look at it. In a military that's overstretched as it is, the concept that we would discharge highly-trained (at high cost to taxpayers), highly-qualified people, such as experts in the Arabic language, makes absolutely no sense.
*
Second, most other countries in the western world already allow gays to serve openly in the military, and they seem to be doing just fine. That includes the Israeli armed forces, not exactly known as a pushover as a military force.
*
Third, we don't need any more "study" about whether to end DADT; we already know it makes no sense and serves no useful purpose. The only question is exactly how to end it, which the military should figure out in the next few months. Other than that, there's zero reason to keep DADT on the books for another minute.
*
Fourth, not that we should base public policy on opinion polls, but according to a new CNN poll, the American people overwhelmingly (nearly 8 in 10) support ending DADT.
*
Finally, DADT should be repealed because it is deeply unjust and fundamentally unfair. Just as you opened more operational billets to women than any other Navy Secretary, today it's time for you to support opening the military to gays and lesbians who want to serve their country.
*
If straight Democrats are unhappy with Webb, he'd better think what could happen come November's mid-terms to those in the Party who will have to face unhappy progressive and gay voters.

The Christianist Anti-Gay Message is Failing

Click image to enlarge

The trend is definitely in our favor. Thus, expect the shrillness and hysteria of our enemies to increase as they rightly slide toward the trash heap of history. It's unfortunate that our politicians lag behind the public at large.

More Tuesday Male Beauty

Stories from the Frontlines: Letters to President Barack Obama - Former Capt. Beth Schissel

Given the fact that, in my view, SLDN has protituted itself in accepting the faux DADT "repeal" bill now being half-heartedly backed by our lying, non-fierce advocate, Barack Obama, I seriously consider dropping from participation in the "Stories from the Frontlines: Letters to President Barack Obama" campaign. However, I decided not to do so because - unlike their commander-in-chief - I honor and respect the service and honor of our LGBT service members who have been punished by the religious bigotry inspired DADT policy. These amazing former service members demonstrate the personal integrity that so many of our political leaders lack. Sadly, I've lost all similar respect for President Obama. Here is today's letter from Former Capt. Beth Schissel, United States Air Force:
*
May 25, 2010
*
President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20500
*
Dear Mr. President,
*
On the morning of Tuesday, September 11th, 2001, I was monitoring the events unfolding in New York City while tending to patients in the Emergency Department at Duke University Medical Center. The leadership of the department was activating our disaster plan to accept as many patients as possible from the New York area. All too quickly, it became evident that there would be no need for our hospital to activate.
*
I knew that brutal attack would not go unanswered. I knew my leadership and medical skills soon would be needed to care for those who would be sent into harm’s way. Naively, I thought that mission needs would trump my being a lesbian, but a few weeks later, I received a notice in the mail. It was signed on September 10th, 2001 by the Secretary of the Air Force. I was discharged.
*
My military career was over.
*
I was a proud member of the tenth class of women to graduate from the United States Air Force Academy. I graduated in the top 15 percent of my class and was named Academic All-American/All-American in women’s golf. I entered active duty service as an acquisition officer and just three years later, was selected to the commanding general’s staff while only a first lieutenant.
*
With the encouragement of my mentor, the future Air Force Surgeon General, I applied and was accepted to medical school on a military scholarship. Before I left for medical school, I was honored by two retired women general officers – each gave me one of their stars and told me they planned to be there to provide the match to the pair.
*
While in medical school, I fell in love with my best friend. While most people are thrilled to have found their true love, their soul mate, I agonized over it. That’s because my friend, my love, and my soul mate was a woman.
*
It was the fall semester of my final year of medical school. I was forced to make a life-altering decision. For nearly two years, I had been stalked. My home had been broken into and I had received credible threats to be outed by a civilian with no attachment to the military. I had to take control of the situation for my safety, for my sanity, and to protect my honorable service record.
*
The hardest call I ever had to make was to my mentor. I was ashamed to have let him down and to have wasted his efforts in molding my career. I felt like I had to apologize for breathing the same air as the rest of the world. I was devastated that I couldn’t continue to be part of the air force family who’d raised me and counted on me.
*
My mentor was gracious and kind. He didn’t care that I was a lesbian and considered it a mistake to let me go. He assured me that I would only disappoint him if I didn’t use all I’d been given to make a difference in this world.
*
I have done my best. I have supported two of my step children as they made their way from West Point to Iraq. I have cared for the sick and injured children of my community as they arrive in the emergency department.
*
But it will never be the same as the best I could have given in uniform. Every day my country is at war, I think about my military family; I am not there for them. Every day, I am reminded that, simply because of who I love, my country has said I’m not good enough to help save the lives of our women and men in uniform.

Mr. President, thank you for helping us end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this year.
*
Respectfully,
*
Former Capt. Beth Schissel
United States Air Force

Jim Webb Betrays LGBT Virginians - Will Vote No and Blames Obama and Gates

Virginia Senator Jim Webb has made his decision on DADT repeal - he plans to vote "No" just as I am now committed to vote against whoever runs against Webb next time out. The same goes for Congressman Glenn Nye and every other Democrat who votes against DADT repeal and/or ENDA. Likewise, if DADT is not repealed and/or ENDA is not enacted THIS YEAR, my support for Democrats is over. I'm sorry, but this issue is non-negotiable with me. What is even more galling is that Webb is claiming he's voting no because that's the message that he received from Barack "I'm a Liar" Obama and Robert Gates. John Aravosis rightfully lays into Obama and Gates at America Blog Gay. John is spot on in his analysis - particularly in his acknowledgment that Gates would not have acted to scuttle DADT repeal without Obama's connivance. I think it's time to start electing some gay friendly Republicans who are straight talkers. Here are some highlights from John's post:
*
Webb has interpreted the White House and Pentagon statements in support of the DADT compromise as actually being statements OPPOSED to the compromise. Of course, one can't totally blame Webb, as the statements from both the White House and the Pentagon both sure sound like they want members of Congress to vote NO.
*
Here is Webb's statement:
*
"Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen have laid out a specific and responsible plan to examine the current 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy in a manner that includes a comprehensive survey of those wearing the uniform. The White House and Secretary Gates both said today that, ideally, the Defense Department should complete this review before legislative action is taken. There is no question that a review of the policy is necessary and important. I see no reason for the political process to pre-empt it."
*
So has the President called Webb to let him know that isn't what the White House meant? Has the Secretary of Defense called Webb to explain? What was the White House thinking when they issued a statement of support for the legislation that started by expressing the wish that nothing be voted on this year? Did they really think no members of Congress would get the hint?
*
The White House permitted Gates to, yet again, roll the President of the United States of America, while the President tried, yet again, to stake out a position, but then not really own, defend, or promote the position. And, as always the result is one big disaster. Not a terribly inspiring message for gay and lesbian voters as we roll into November.

U.S. Catholic Bishops Embrace Workplace Discrimination

One has to wonder why anyone would listen to the U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference when it's likely that a majority of its members ought to be criminally prosecuted as accessories to the sexual abuse of minors. But the pompous hypocrites of the Bishops Conference has nonetheless have launched themselves into the debate over the Employment Non-Discrimination Act ("ENDA"), proving that some blow hards have literally no shame. Rather than focus much needed efforts on cleaning their own filthy house, the Bishops seek to keep LGBT citizens second class Americans subject to firing based on the religious bigotry of their employers. With these men, covering up the sexual abuse of children and youths is just fine, by protecting gays from being fired from the jobs is not. Obviously, the hypocrisy of it all makes me sick. Here are some highlights from Change.org:
*
Survey after survey shows that most Americans don't want to see LGBT people fired from their jobs, solely on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. We don't want to see hotel workers fired because they're gay . . .
*
Indeed, polling on this shows overwhelming majorities of Americans believe that it's wrong to fire employees based on their sexual orientation or gender identity (upwards of at least 89 percent agree with that). So who believes that it is OK to fire LGBT employees?
*
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, that's who. They're out with a letter today, sent to Congress, urging legislators to vote down the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA). And as is the case with almost any piece of LGBT-related legislation, from hate crimes to immigration equality to health care, they're citing the fear that passage of ENDA will eventually lead to America becoming a cornucopia of same-sex marriage. The leap of logic needed to say that preventing workplace discrimination will lead to the enactment of same-sex marriage is mammoth in size.
*
[W]hat's particularly sad about the U.S. Bishops' letter to Congress is that it's rife with doublespeak about discrimination. . . . Out of one side of their mouths, the Bishops are saying "Catholic teaching states that all people are created in the image and likeness of God and thus possess an innate human dignity that must be acknowledged and respected." Yet outside the other end of their mouths, the Bishops are saying that LGBT shouldn't be protected against unjust workplace firings because it might lead to same-sex marriage.
*
Right now, LGBT people can be fired in 29 states solely because of their sexual orientation. Worse yet, in 38 states employees can be fired on the basis of their gender identity. But for the U.S. Bishops, the fact that LGBT people can be given pink slips at a moment's notice without any recourse is the price that society has to pay in order to keep same-sex couples from polluting the world.
*
[I]f you want to push your legislator(s) to get behind ENDA, and help end workplace discrimination once and for all, you can do so by signing this petition here. Don't let a group of Bishops out of touch with mainstream opinion on the subject of workplace discrimination have the last word.

Tuesday Male Beauty

Frustration with Obama's Non-leadership on Gulf Spill Grows

In a parallel example of Barack Obama's form of no leadership "leadership," residents on the Gulf Coast are pretty much over the Obama administration's "leave it all to BP" approach to the growing disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. They rightfully feel that British Petroleum created the disaster and seems none to concerned that people's livelihoods and the regions environment is being destroyed. This disaster needs to be treated as a national emergency, yet no sense of urgency seems to have gripped the White House and BP is still being allowed to call the shots. It's all more than just a little ass backwards. Here are some highlights from the Washington Post which echo coverage on last nights news shows on MSNBC, including Rachel Maddow's show:
*
The tenuous alliance among the Obama administration, the oil firm BP and Gulf Coast officials was visibly fraying on Monday, with exasperation on all sides mounting as oil from a deep-water gusher began lapping at the region's environmentally fragile shoreline.
*
On the coast, local officials complained that Washington has been too slow in helping them hold back the oil. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) said that the administration has not provided enough equipment -- including booms, skimmers, vacuums and barges -- and that it has stood in the way of his proposal to erect artificial barrier islands. Federal officials say that latter plan needs more study.
*
"BP is the responsible party, but we need the federal government to make sure that they are held accountable and that they are indeed responsible. Our way of life depends on it," Jindal said at a news conference in Galliano, La., with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.
*
Even in one of the few areas where the government has publicly tried to overrule BP -- over its choice of chemical dispersants -- it has not gotten its way. Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency told BP that it had 24 hours to find a less toxic alternative to the chemical it had been using to break up the oil. The company, however, replied that no alternatives are available in large enough quantities to deal with the spill.
*
[N]o matter how culpable BP is found to be, there will be questions about the government's responsibility as well. It is now apparent that BP did not have an effective plan for dealing with a large spill, despite its assertion in a March 2009 exploration plan submitted to the Minerals Management Service that it could handle a "worst-case scenario" blowout that produced 300,000 gallons a day.
*
That the blowout came only weeks after Obama announced a plan to expand offshore drilling is an accident of timing that is inconvenient politically, but also a point on which the president has expressed dismay internally. In announcing and defending his drilling decision, he repeatedly stressed that the technology the oil industry uses is safe. But from the beginning of the crisis, the administration has run into a different reality when it comes to the risks of deep-water drilling.