Saturday Male Beauty

More Census Bad News For the GOP and Tea Party

The GOP and the Tea Party/Christianist base of the GOP cannot be pleased with the results of a new detailed report released by the U.S. Census Bureau. First, the U.S. population is aging - not a good thing for a party that has declared war on seniors via it's proposal to kill Medicare. Second, the Hispanic population is booming and growing far more rapidly that the aging white population that makes up much of the GOP base. A brief reading of Tea Party and Christianist websites makes it clear that brown skinned and Hispanic individuals are not welcomed by either of these factions which now hold inordinate sway over the GOP. As I've noted before, by embracing these groups to the exclusion of others, the GOP seems bent on committing a slow form of suicide. Here are some highlights from Time on the new report:
*
A second U.S. Census report focused on the Hispanic population, which at 50.5 million has grown 43% over the past 10 years. That's four times faster than the general U.S. population and more than 40 times faster than non-Hispanic whites, who grew by a measly 1%. In certain areas of the country — namely the Northeast and the Midwest, where many states experienced stunted or nonexistent population expansion — the Hispanic population sometimes rose as much as 12 times faster than the state's population overall.
*
As the rest of the country continues to age, the expansion of the youthful Hispanic population will help offset the rest of the nation's demographic shift.
*
Some of the Census' findings shed light on what we already know: towns and cities near the U.S.-Mexican border have a significantly higher than average percentage of Hispanic residents for example, and in fact, half of the U.S. Hispanic population lives in just three states: California, Texas and Florida. (Overall, people of Mexican origin account for nearly three-fourths of the U.S. Hispanic population; most Floridan Hispanics, however, are Puerto Rican and Cuban.)
*
But Groves points out that these areas aren't the only parts of the country affected by this Hispanic population boom. There are small pockets of immigrants peppered all over the country, especially in rural areas. Even the suburbs are seeing an influx of minority and immigrant residents. "We're actually at the beginning of a transition," says Groves. "In the next ten years, we will go through an amazing, interesting, fascinating change of cultures rubbing up against each other."
*
No doubt the Tea Party/Christianist elements will become more shrill in their anti-Hispanic screed just as will happen with their jihad against LGBT citizens. The population is changing and only those who feel that they are losing special privileges seem to be concerned.

Family Sadness - The Loss of a Favorite Aunt

This weekend - which was supposed to be light and cheery - has taken on a somber aspect. I just received a call from my sister to advise me that my mother's oldest sister (pictured at far right in the family passport photo above - my mother is sitting in my grandfather's lap) died last night. As a child growing up, she was a favorite of mine as we summered at the family lake house on Brantingham Lake in the Adirondack Mountains. Like my mother, my aunt, Mary Alice Phelps Isachsen, but always known as "Mickie" within the family, had a long and adventurous life having been born in Panama, lived in Honduras, traveled on United Fruit Company's "Greet White Fleet" ships, and then went on to have a long career in the medical field.

*

I had not talked to her in a while and wish I'd had the chance to speak one last time. Among other things, I wanted to tell her about a cruise the boyfriend and I will be doing in the fall in the Mediterranean. She and her late husband cruised regularly (my cousins sometimes stayed with us so that my aunt and uncle could have an adult get away) and first stirred my interest in ships and the sea. One of the last treasured vacations my dad had before his illness confined him from traveling was with my aunt Mickie and her husband and my mom down at the quaint village of Ocracoke in the Outer Banks where they had a wonderful time.
*
I will miss her greatly and my heart goes out to my cousins in this time of grief and loss.

Bradley Manning "Should Never Have Been Sent to Iraq"

The caption of this post reads from a headline in The Guardian. The story that follows that headline says as much about Army incompetence as it does about Manning who has been accused of leaking military secrets. Indeed, the story suggest that almost anyone and everyone could have accessed the so-called secret information and opens a whole new perspective to the efforts to vigorously prosecute Manning - perhaps to cover up the Army's own ineptitude. Living in an area with a heavy military presence, it doesn't take much exposure to learn that the the higher ups always prefer to blame problems on underlings and then try to hang them out to dry. While one has to wonder how Manning remained in the military, the bigger questions are why was he sent to Iraq and why was he given access to sensitive information? Here are highlights from the first of two Guardian stories:
*
Bradley Manning, the 23-year-old army private from Oklahoma alleged to have been behind the biggest US government leak of all time, is now in Fort Leavenworth military jail, Kansas. He faces 34 charges, and if convicted could face a prison sentence of up to 52 years.
*
So why did the US army ignore warnings from officers that Manning was unstable? Why did it send him – a 5ft 2in gay man with a history of being bullied in the military – to one of the most isolated and desolate bases in Iraq? Why was security so lax on the base that passwords for secret military computers were posted on sticky notes nearby?
*
A year after his arrest, a Guardian investigation reveals a trail of ignored warnings, beatings and failed personal relationships that led to Manning's arrest on 29 May 2010.
*
Despite the concerns of his immediate superiors, Manning was "recycled" instead of being discharged. The war in Iraq was in its fourth year and the army was short of recruits. In August 2008, after training as an intelligence analyst, he was stationed at Fort Drum in upstate New York while he awaited deployment to Iraq. Here he was considered a "liability" by superior officers.
*
Manning was deployed to Forward Operating Base Hammer, one of the most isolated US posts in Iraq, in the desert close to the Iranian border. Veterans recalled a desolate place built mainly from freight containers. . . . . Hammer's overriding culture was one of boredom and casual bullying, where bored non-commissioned officers picked on juniors. "They had a saying, 'Shit rolls downhill,' " said Jimmy Rodriguez, 29, an infantry soldier who was stationed at the base with Manning.
*
For entertainment, soldiers would download porn to workstations or access footage from Apache attack helicopters showing civilians being shot at, often through SIPRNet, the classified intelligence network used by the state department and department of defense.
*
According to Sullivan, security was extremely lax. "If you saw a laptop with a red network wire going into it, you knew it was on SIPRNet. If you had the password you could access SIPRNet. Everybody would write their password on sticky notes and set it by their computer. There is no wonder something like this transpired."
*
According to Peter van Buren, a civilian reconstruction team leader on the base, there was a sense of a security free-for-all about SIPRNet. "Soldiers would call it 'war porn' or 'the war channel' or just 'war TV'.
*
A second Guardian story continues with more details. Here's a sampling:
*
The American soldier at the centre of the WikiLeaks revelations was so mentally fragile before his deployment to Iraq that he wet himself, threw chairs around, shouted at his commanding officers and was regularly brought in for psychiatric evaluations, according to an investigative film produced by the Guardian.
*
"I escorted Manning a couple of times to his 'psych' evaluations after his outbursts. They never should have trapped him in and recycled him in [to Iraq]. Never. Not that mess of a child I saw with my own two eyes. No one has mentioned the army's failure here – and the discharge unit who agreed to send him out there," said the officer, who asked not to be identified because of the hostility towards Manning in the military. "I live in an area where I would be persecuted if I said anything against the army or helped Manning," the officer said.
*
In Iraq, Manning retained his security clearance to work as an intelligence specialist. Two months after his arrival, the bolt was removed from his rifle because he was thought to be a danger, his lawyer, David Coombs, has confirmed. A Guardian investigation focusing on soldiers who worked with Manning in Iraq has also discovered there was virtually no computer and intelligence security at Manning's station in Iraq, Forward Operating Base Hammer.
*
"On the computers that I saw there was a [sticky label] either on the computer or next to the computer with the information to log on. I was never given permission to log on so I never used it but there were a lot of people who did."
*
Manning is facing multiple charges of downloading and passing on sensitive information. No one else at the base has been charged. Manning denies all the charges. If convicted he could face up to 55 years in jail.
*
Even if one assumes Manning leaked the documents, the bigger story that the Army is seeking to sweep under the rug is that of WTF was going on at that military location? More on this issue needs to come out so that Manning isn't sent up the river as a scape goat for the sins of derelict superiors.

The Hubris Of LGBT Rights Organizations

I have complained before about the mindset of the Democrats who want the LGBT community to fork over money and votes yet never have the audacity to ask questions or demand something back in return for their cash and votes. Sadly, many of our LGBT organizations are not a whole lot better and when they aren't treating their rank and file supporters with thinly disguised condescension, they are giving away the store to fair weather politicians without holding their feet to the fire. One sees it at the state level - e.g., Equality Virginia in my home state - and at the national level typically in the form of the Human Rights Campaign that likes to think that it speaks for the LGBT community when in fact it often does not. An example? HRC has come out and endorsed Obama for the 2012 presidential contest. Never mind that HRC doesn't even know who the GOP standard bearer will be. Talk about flushing any semblance of being a non-partisan organization down the toilet. In addition, the clear signal to Obama and company is that nothing more need be done to lock up the LGBT vote. Pam Spaulding correctly takes issue with HRC's hubris in a blog post entitled "HRC endorses Obama for re-election; message: open the gAyTM and get with the program." Here are some highlights:
*
Again, this illustrates that if HRC is on board, the assumption is that entire LGBT community is stepping in line by default. Is it "Groundhog Day", a case of waking up and starting the same day over and over with these folks? HRC no more controls the community than blogs do, as we've seen before, it's just that the institutions seek credibility through our Beltway orgs.
*
Also, what is the point of doing this now? I don't recall HRC endorsing in the primaries when it was Hillary vs. Obama, for instance. And how about Republican presidential candidate Fred Karger, is he a non-starter? It just seems odd for an allegedly non partisan org.
*
John Aravosis also rightly is peeved with HRC's hubris and believes it sends Obama a strong message that nothing need be done to solidify LGBT allegiance. He equates it to "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" He's 100% correct and it ticks me off that our self-anointed "leaders" feel they can speak for us without any consultation or consensus. Here are highlights from John's comments:
*
Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free?
*
The Human Rights Campaign, which likes to tout itself as the nation's largest gay rights organization, today endorsed Barack Obama for president in 2012. Which pretty much leaves the President no reason to do anything that he perceives as controversial for us at least until 2013, if he gets re-elected. The news that HRC is endorsing him comes on the heel of a rumor flying around town that a very senior HRC official is being talked about for a senior position in the White House (because White House relations with the community weren't on thin enough ice).
*
While an eventual endorsement of Obama by HRC is inevitable, expected, and fine, there's a dance that's expected where both sides get something. And the expectation should be for gay rights advancements, not appearing at your dinner or giving you a job. (HRC may be the only folks in town worse at negotiating than the White House itself. )
*
HRC clearly hasn't learned the lessons of the first two years of the Obama presidency. You don't get anything for being nice to the man (well, anything of substance - I'm sure that HRC dinner invite is now locked in). If anything, he looks down on people who are nice to him. The only thing this President respects are people who stand up to him. The President didn't finally start moving on DADT, and finally stop defending DOMA, because HRC was nice to him. He did it because this blog, GetEqual, Dan Choi, the larger Gay Netroots, and a very few organizations like Servicemembers United and SLDN stood up to the man.
*
Sadly, there are few organization on the left who do stand up to President Obama, and that's why so many of the President's promises to the left have been broken or unfulfilled.

Christianst Organization Seeks Ban on Military Gay Weddings

The Christofascists at the Alliance Defense Fund are acting as if someone peed in their Cheerios over the possibility that military chaplains might be allowed to participate in same marriages in states are legal. For such self-congratulatory Christians - using the term Christian loosely, of course, since hate seems to be the principal characteristic of their dogma - freedom of religion applies to no one but themselves. Not surprisingly, political whores in the GOP are leaping to assist the haters in trying to enact legislation which would trample on the religious freedom rights of LGBT servicemembers and religious denominations which allow gay marriage. It's unfortunately, more of the growing trend of Christianists demanding special rights that trump the rights of all others. The Washington Post looks at the situation. Frankly, I think a better solution is simply to disband the chaplain corps completely and allow servicemembers who are so inclined to find religious providers off base. The military needs to get out of the business of religion completely. Here are some highlights from the Post story:
*
Conservative legal activists and Christian leaders said Thursday that they will sue on behalf of military chaplains if the Senate does not pass a Republican version of the annual Pentagon policy bill that includes language barring Defense Department employees from participating in same-sex marriage ceremonies.
*
Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.) introduced the provision this month in response to guidance issued in April to Navy chaplains that said they would be permitted to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies at military chapels in states that recognize gay marriage once the ban on gays in the military officially ends.
*
But Pentagon policies regarding service members’ individual expression and the free exercise of religion already exist, Defense Department spokeswoman Eileen Lainez said. “There will be no changes,” Lainez said in an e-mail. “In today’s military, people of different moral and religious values work, live and fight together; this is possible because they treat each other with dignity and respect.”
*
Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said “chaplains and service members are secure and protected,” adding that any effort to further protect chaplains is “another desperate end run” by social conservatives.
*
Austin Nimocks, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, said his conservative legal organization would sue all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary to ensure that federal law — instead of the Pentagon personnel policy — represents the group’s position.
*
“If the Senate does not follow the House and protect chaplains and service members, we have no doubt that legal action will be required,” Nimocks said Thursday at a news conference on Capitol Hill.
*
Bishop John Neal, a retired U.S. Army colonel who leads the International Communion of Evangelical Churches, warned that allowing military participation in gay weddings could compel socially conservative chaplains and troops to leave the military.
*
My advice? Let the Christofascists leave the military. The military is supposed to support and defend the U. S. Constitution first and foremost. If these religious extremists cannot put aside their extremism, then they need to get out of the military. Maybe court martialing some of them would not be amiss either.

More Friday Male Beauty

Washington, D.C. Weekend

The boyfriend and I are Washington, D.C. through Sunday morning for a wedding of a Hampton friend's daughter. We took Amtrak up to avoid holiday traffic along with a half dozen other friends coming up for the wedding tomorrow (the boyfriend's parents are house sitting and baby sitting our dogs). We spent the afternoon walking around D.C. and had an early dinner in the DuPont Circle area. It reminded me once again that the Hampton Roads area is a veritable backwater and so terribly behind the times in so many ways. After a bridal related party this evening, we will likely go out and enjoy some of the city's nightspots.
*
Once again, I find myself wanting to leave Virginia and its ever present bigotry and small minded thinking ever so much. However, until my youngest daughter (who currently works for me as a paralegal) goes back to school and the boyfriend's parents pass on, we are stuck where we are. Our life's far from terrible, but not living in a state where LGBT individuals are still tread as fourth class citizens does take a subconscious toll. For the weekend, we will enjoy spending our time in a much more LGBT friendly locale.

Bishop Eddie Long Settle's Se Abuse Lawsuits

Remember how Atlanta's Bishop Eddie Long of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church, said how he'd fight the sex abuse suits filed some time ago by four young men who alleged that Long took advantage of them sexually? Well, Long is now reported to have settled the lawsuits in order to avoid having to go on the record and either tell the truth or, if he lied, face possible perjury charges. I suspect that Long realized that if the trial proceeded, much damaging testimony would likely come out and effectively kill his extremely lucrative pastor gig. CBS News has coverage as does its affiliate WGCL-TV. Here are some highlights:
*
Last September, Bishop Eddie Long stood before his congregation at New Birth Missionary Baptist Church a week after gay sex allegations surfaced between him and four teenage boys, and he told members he was going to fight the allegations.
*
But Long chose not to fight in court. Instead he reached a settlement and paid off the four young men who accused the mega-church preacher of using his power to influence them into sexual relationships with him.
*
"You can interpret that any way you want, but usually people do not settle cases unless there is some reason to do so," said former DeKalb County Prosecutor J. Tom Morgan. Morgan said he is familiar with cases like Long's. "They had to reach a settlement if they did not want any statement by the Bishop on record," said Morgan.
*
Because Long settled out of court, some DeKalb County residents question his innocence. "It says that he's hiding the truth," said Robyn Senior.
*
And just how much did Long pay to settle the case? "Nobody knows what the numbers are. I would be sure it's in the millions," said Morgan. Morgan estimated Long paid millions because that's what he said a Catholic church paid victims in a similar case that he prosecuted.

U.S. Adults Think 25 Percent of Americans are Gay

Obviously, the Christianists are losing the battle to depict LGBT citizens as a tiny insignificant portion of the population. In fact, the U.S. public thinks we are far more numerous than we are. A new Gallup poll - the chart above shows the results - found the following results:
*
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. adults, on average, estimate that 25% of Americans are gay or lesbian. More specifically, over half of Americans (52%) estimate that at least one in five Americans are gay or lesbian, including 35% who estimate that more than one in four are. Thirty percent put the figure at less than 15%.
*
Americans with lower incomes and less education give the highest estimates, on average, of the U.S. gay and lesbian population, and far higher estimates than those with higher incomes and more education. Americans aged 18 to 29 give a higher average estimate than older Americans, and women give a far higher average estimate than men.
*
Democrats, liberals, and those who say they are socially liberal are also more likely to give higher estimates than those at the other end of the spectrum. However, the differences by political or ideological leanings are in most cases not as wide as those seen by demographic group.

Friday Male Beauty

Huntsman-Bachmann in 2012?

Ed Rogers, a former White House staffer to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and chairman of BGR Group, a Washington lobbying firm, has a column in the Washington Post that makes the preposterous proposal of a Huntsman-Bachmann ticket for 2012. I get the Huntsman part, but Bachmann - or "Crazy Eyes" as blogger Joe Jervis calls her? I can't figure out whether Rogers is serious, writing tongue in cheek or fell in the shower and suffered head trauma. He's right that Huntsman would likely make a good candidate but cannot get the nomination given who the patients have taken over the insane asylum now known as the GOP. But, to try to describe Bachmann as any less crazy than Sarah Palin strains credulity. I think the woman is nothing short of a certifiable loon and the thought of her as VP sends shivers down my back - and an urge to emigrate quickly. No one "on the left" needs to Palinize Bachmann - she's up to that task all by herself. Here are some column highlights:
*
Former governor and ambassador Jon Huntsman is an articulate, attractive, cerebral, urbane internationalist. He’s a proven conservative with a reassuring, moderate tone and a model family. His vast experience in state and federal government, including service as a diplomat, clearly makes him qualified to be president. In other words, he is “toast” in today’s Republican Party, and he has very little chance to be the 2012 nominee.
*
The GOP, with its traditional approach to the nominating process, will never give former Utah governor Huntsman room to explain his participation in the Obama administration and nuanced issues, such as his position on immigration. He will never satisfy the most angry members of our party. And if he somehow managed to win the nomination, a third-party candidate could attack him from the right and almost guarantee Obama’s reelection.
*
Meanwhile, Rep. Michele Bachmann is a GOP leader to watch. She is a star in the party and bulletproof with our right wing. . . . But she also has many glib, shallow positions; for instance, we will not balance the budget next year. That and her lack of experience produce a negative stereotype that the mainstream media are eager to help her develop. The left will be vicious and eager to Palinize Bachmann before she builds any momentum.
*
Huntsman and Bachmann should have a meeting of the minds and offer themselves as a Huntsman-led ticket before the Iowa caucuses next year. Think about it. Unless there is a new dynamic to the 2012 campaign, Huntsman probably can’t win the nomination and Bachmann probably shouldn’t. But beating Obama will require a fresh approach.
*
Republicans need to do something radical. If we go through the drudgery of the primaries with a weak field, produce a weak nominee, and face an impoverished spring and early summer of 2012, followed by a tiresome, cliched August convention, we will give Obama a huge advantage.
*
We can’t just count on a bad economy to defeat Obama for us. If the routine process is left intact, I am sure we will produce a nominee who will have some good moments in the fall going head to head with Obama. But we must assume that the president will still have a lot of personal goodwill, that he will still give good speeches and that the Democrats will have an advantage in money and organization.
*
Let’s try something different. Take the best team the party can offer and get it started early. Let’s give ourselves a chance. We can’t compete with the Obama team on its terms or on its preferred calendar.
*
That Bachmann can be considered part of the "best team" for anything is scary and speaks volumes about what has become of a once respectable political party.

More Thursday Male Beauty

Priest Sex-Abuse Case Hits Pope's Adviser

If it were not for the fact that countless young innocent lives have been damaged, it would almost be humorous to watch the continuing sex abuse landmines exploding all around the Catholic Church hierarchy. Especially in the wake of the latest report that exonerated gays (abuse levels decreased as gay priests increased in numbers) and left the hierarchy clinging to a "the hippies made us do it" excuse for the worldwide rape and abuse of children and youths. The truth is that the Church is systemically rotten and nothing short of a near complete house cleaning of the hierarchy - including the current occupant of the throne of St. Peter - will rid the institution of the moral bankruptcy that is part and parcel with the ranks of predator priests. The latest landmine to go off is the arrest of a priest in the diocese of Genoa Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco, who is the head of the Italian Bishops Conference, and who has allegedly been working with God's Rottweiler establish a supposedly tough policy to stamp out sexual abuse by priests. Time Magazine is reporting on this new embarrassment. Here are highlights:
*
The latest sex-abuse case to rock the Catholic Church is unfolding in the archdiocese of an influential Italian Cardinal who has been working with Pope Benedict XVI on reforms to respond to prior scandals of pedophile priests.
*
Father Riccardo Seppia, a 51-year-old parish priest in the village of Sastri Ponente, near Genoa, was arrested last Friday, May 13, on pedophilia and drug charges. Investigators say that in tapped mobile-phone conversations, Seppia asked a Moroccan drug dealer to arrange sexual encounters with young and vulnerable boys. "I do not want 16-year-old boys but younger. Fourteen-year-olds are O.K. Look for needy boys who have family issues," he allegedly said.
*
According to investigators, Seppia told a friend — a former seminarian and barman who is currently under investigation — that the town's malls were the best places to entice minors. In tapped phone conversations the two cursed and swore against God. The priest is charged with having attempted to kiss and touch an underage altar boy and of having exchanged cocaine for sexual intercourse with boys over 18.
*
Questioned by the investigators, the altar boy reportedly confirmed the attempted kiss. Another male minor who, according to the investigators, was stalked with messages and pressing invitations, will be questioned soon. Psychologists are helping Carabinieri police officers obtain testimony from the alleged victims. "The boys are ashamed to talk and to admit what happened," says one of the investigators. The evidence amounts to at least 50 messages and phone calls. In the tapped phone conversations, the drug dealer contacted the boys and gave their phone numbers to the priest, who paid them with cocaine or 50 euros each time for sexual intercourse.
*
Obviously, the good Cardinal should have been minding his own backyard far more thoroughly if he plans on telling others how to control sexual predators within the priestly ranks.

Let Me Tell You a Story

Some have questioned as to why I wrote the post yesterday on this blog and a similar story on The Bilerico Project about Equality Virginia’s promotion of a law firm with what I consider to be a confirmed anti-gay history. One EV board member even chastised me for "tearing others apart" “over personal agenda items” and complained that I refused to remain quiet when I “don’t like the resolution.” The best way to respond to these questions and criticisms is to tell a simple story. It’s a story of what this EV promoted law firm did to me. Here it is:
*
It was 2004 and for many months my Norfolk based law firm, Payne, Gates, Farthing & Radd, had been in merger discussions with Virginia Beach based Wolcott Rivers. While the transaction was described as a merger, a takeover of my firm by Wolcott Rivers was a more true explanation of what was happening. The consolidation of the firms was to be effective December 1, 2004.
*
I had finally come out at work during 2003 – partly because some of the staff had inadvertently discovered my secret and partly because I could not take the stress of being in the closet at work. For the most part, the firm did not treat it as any big deal. Before events that would later take place in November, 2004, the only time it was an issue was in the spring of 2004 after I had written a letter to the editor opposing the statute then pending in the Virginia General Assembly that was the precursor to the Marshall-Newman anti-gay amendment to Virginia’s Constitution. It seems the folks at Wolcott Rivers did not like my letter and I received a reprimand. But for that, things seemed to progress uneventfully toward the so-called merger.
*
Then, on or about November 3, 2004, I was called into a meeting and summarily told that the decision had been made that I was not to be included in the new combined firm. Apparently, the powers that be at Wolcott Rivers thought that having an openly gay attorney in the firm would “offend the sensibilities” of conservative firm clients. In moments I was unemployed in my 50’s. Never mind that I had two children I was still supporting and not insignificant support payments I had to make each month to my former wife. I was devastated and distraught. But only the “sensibilities” of unnamed homophobic clients mattered to the folks at Wolcott Rivers.
*
I briefly took the only position I could find with a law firm of much lesser quality which in short order blew apart and I again found myself with no firm and no income. Surviving on IRA withdrawals I started my own firm – no Hampton Roads law firms to date to date have hired any openly gay attorneys, so I had no alternative – and I have struggled to build a practice in a very much down economy. Along the way, I had to file personal bankruptcy and engaged in two suicide attempts because of depression largely brought on by my financial meltdown. My level of income has never recovered and possibly never will. All thanks to the powers that be at Wolcott Rivers.

Yes, in some ways this might be called a “personal agenda” item since my career was largely destroyed to protect the sensibilities of bigots both within and outside of Wolcott Rivers. But looking at the larger picture, I find it unconscionable that EV can in any way hold a firm such as Wolcott Rivers out as a resource to the LGBT community.

Thursday Male Beauty

Coming Out - The New York Times' Interactive Page

I'm a bit behind the curve on mentioning this new feature at the New York Times: an interactive page where LGBT youth can tell their stories. Many of the stories so far sound all too familiar to LGBT readers. My hope is that some - assuming they will take the time to read these stories - may have their minds opened and realize that we are just as human as anyone else and stop to think about the damage homophobia and toxic forms of Christianity inflict daily on so many. For those who haven't done so, I urge you to read some of the submissions. Sadly, those who hate us and most need to read the stories of these young lives are among the least likely to read the stories. I suspect that don't want to know the misery they cause - usually in the name of God. One story struck a chord with me in that it describes much of my youth (except I never tried to talk to anyone because I was too afraid to do so):
*
I grew up in Columbus, Ohio and thought I was the only gay boy in the world. I tried to talk with a lady at church but she would never let me finish a sentence, probably knowing what I wanted to say. I felt alienated and alone and this lasted for many years until I got to Los Angeles when I was in my late 20s.
*
I look at the many avenues for young people these days and wish we had some of those avenues back then, but I feel good about myself now. After a number of years of active alcoholism, partly because I felt so bad about myself that I had to get "high" to relax, I found a way out of that life of self condemnation into self acceptance. I came out to my parents when I was in my 30s and we had a good relationship until they passed away.
*
My advice for teens and those older than teens, to hang in there and find where you are wanted and loved and go there. To anyone thinking about suicide, I ask you to try to make contact with someone about how you feel. No matter how difficult that might be, compare it to suicide and you will find it something you can do. And God be with you; God really does love us you know. If He didn't why did he make us so cute?
*
So, okay. Maybe I didn't get the cute part as much as some. But to my many closeted readers, I cannot stress too much the difference coming to self-acceptance makes in one's life. I wasted so many years hating myself and sometimes making life less good for those around me. As I've said before, if your church condemns you, find another one. Don't buy into the hate and vitriol that define today's Christianity.

The World Through the Delusional Eyes of the GOP

In a column in the Washington Post that hits at points I've tried to make concerning the reality denying and untethered mindset of today's GOP, E.J. Dionne looks at the Republican Party of today in the post New York 26th election world. Given that the GOP used to pride itself on being the party of educated reality, the transformation of the party into a quasi sectarian party where ignorance is embraced has been truly amazing. The first step towards today's delusional mindset was the leaderships cynical acceptance of reality denying Christianist. The rest of the party's decline decline in recent decades traces from that cynical, short sighted decision. I have no sympathy whatsoever for today's GOP which continues to subvert the Constitution it claims to revere. Here are some column highlights:
*
When Richard Nixon won his 49-state landslide over George McGovern in 1972, Pauline Kael, the legendary New Yorker film critic, was moved to observe: “I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon.” All of us can have our vision distorted by the special worlds we live in, and what was a problem for Kael in 1972 is now an enormous obstacle for conservative Republicans.
*
Both the leaders and rank-and-file of the Republican Party devoutly believe “the people” gave them a mandate last November to slash government, including that big-government health-care program known as Medicare.
*
More than that: They see their mandate as including an obligation to oppose any tax increases, period, even if more revenue is essential to balancing the federal budget in the long run.
*
Then came Tuesday’s thunder out of western New York. Democrat Kathy Hochul won her surprisingly comfortable special-election victory in the very Republican 26th Congressional District, largely because of the early endorsement her Republican opponent, Jane Corwin, gave to Ryan’s budget and its Medicare proposals.
*
You wonder: Will Republicans realize that this is their Pauline Kael moment? Will they understand that the anti-government cries they think they hear from “the people” are the voices of no more than 20 to 25 percent of the electorate who constitute the diehard conservative core?
*
And by the way: Hochul’s victory wasn’t just about Medicare. Her most effective ad argued that Ryan was cutting Medicare while promoting tax cuts for the wealthy. . . . Kathy Hochul says cut the deficit but do it the right way: Protect Medicare and no more tax breaks for multimillionaires.”
*
Note to timid Senate moderates who race from the battlefield even before they smell gunpowder: Hochul ran against tax cuts for the rich and won — in a district John McCain carried in 2008 by six points. Republicans might also notice that the voters’ retreat from their party is not confined to the 26th. As Washington Monthly’s always- instructive blogger Steve Benen noted, Democrats picked up formerly Republican state legislative seats in special elections this month in both Wisconsin and New Hampshire.
*
Let’s see: Voters don’t seem to like cuts to Medicare, cuts to education, or tax cuts for the rich. So what are “the people” trying to say? From the beginning, too many Republicans (and too many in the media) saw the Tea Party as a broadly based movement whose extreme anti-government views reflected the popular will.
*
This was never true. The Tea Party consisted of citizens on the right end of politics who were always there but got angrier and better organized after Obama was elected.
*
[M]iddle-of-the-roaders never bargained for what Paul Ryan — or Govs. Rick Scott, John Kasich of Ohio or Scott Walker of Wisconsin — had in mind for them. Now they’re talking back. They’re not as loud as the Tea Party. But as Hochul’s victory showed, they’re starting to be heard.

Support for Legal Gay Relations Hits New High

Yet another new poll - this time by Gallup - underscores the fact that the Christianists are loosing the culture wars no matter what Jim Daly tries to claim to the contrary as he tries to appease the Christianist extremists. Gallup reveals that 56% of Americans deem gay relationships morally acceptable:
*
Americans are somewhat less likely to consider gay or lesbian relations to be morally acceptable than to say they should be legal. However, the 56% who consider gay or lesbian relations morally acceptable is the highest Gallup has measured since this question was first asked in 2001.
*
On the less positive side, the public continues to fall for the bullshit ex-gay myth disseminated by the professional Christian set and the registered "family values" hate groups:
*
Though public acceptance of gay and lesbian relations has increased, Americans remain divided as to the origins of same-sex orientation. Forty-two percent say being gay or lesbian is "due to factors such as upbringing and environment," while 40% believe it is "something a person is born with." Prior to 2001, Americans were more inclined to think being gay or lesbian was a product of one's environment.

More Wednesday Male Beauty

Senate Democrats Force Vote on Ryan Budget - Five Republicans Defect

The Senate Democrats lost no time in applying fire to the feet of Senate Republicans in the wake of the disastrous loss of the New York 26th Congressional district special election where the heavily GOP district elected a Democrat. As I've noted before, the GOP's delusions of having a "mandate" when they clearly do not is not a new phenomenon. It's post 1994 all over again. The New York Times looks at the Senate Vote this evening. Here are highlights:

*
Less than 24 hours after their surprising victory in the race for a vacant House seat, Democrats forced Senate Republicans on Wednesday to vote yes or no on a bill that would reshape Medicare, signaling their intent to use the issue as a blunt instrument against Republicans through the 2012 election.
*
Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, brought the legislation to the floor so that Senate Republicans would either have to vote for it, exposing them to attacks from Democrats and their allies, or against it, exploiting growing Republican divisions on the issue.
*
Five of 47 Senate Republicans voted against it — four because they said it went too far, one on the ground that the budget measure that contained it did not go far enough fast enough to address the budget deficit.
*
The House Republican Medicare plan would convert it into a subsidized program for the private insurance market. When they proposed it last month as the centerpiece of their budget plan, Republicans were confident that the wind of budget politics was at their backs. . . . . With polls and angry town hall meetings suggesting that many voters were wary of a Medicare overhaul if not opposed, party unity and optimism have given way to a bit of a Republican-on-Republican rumpus.
*
[A]fter a 2010 election that seemed to signal not only a Republican resurgence but also a rejection of big government and a need for bold, Tea Party-type steps to slash spending, the politics now look much more complicated. Both parties are being reminded anew that voters like the idea of budget cuts, but that they often recoil when those cuts threaten the programs that touch their lives.
*
Three of the Republicans senators who voted against the House plan on Wednesday are moderates from Northeastern states: Scott P. Brown of Massachusetts and Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine. A fourth, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, won re-election in November as a write-in candidate after being defeated in the Republican primary.
*
It will be interesting to see where the GOP moves on the budget issues and whether they can find the backbone to defy the lunatics of thr Christian Taliban and the Tea Party - twin Frankenstein monsters created by the GOP leadership who put short term expedience ahead of any long therm plan.

FOTF's Jim Daly Backpeddling Furiously

Last week I noted that during an interview with World Magazine Jim Daly (pictured at right) - titular head of Daddy Dobson's anti-gay Focus on the Family - admitted that the Christianists have largely lost the battle to "protect marriage" as they would describe it. Stigmatizing and demonizing LGBT citizens is how I would describe it. Apparently, for speaking the truth (especially about the loss of the younger generations who by wide margins reject the Christianist anti-gay hate) Daly got ripped a new one by the Kool-Aid drinking extremist who refuse to recognize the reality of where the acceptance of same sex marriage is trending with the larger society. As Right Wing Watch reports, Daly is back peddling furiously and trying to say that he never made the statements that he did in fact make about the inevitable triumph of equality. Here are highlights from Right Wing Watch:
*
As we noted yesterday, Focus on the Family's Jim Daly seems to be in damage-control mode after a recent interview in which he that his side had "probably lost" the fight over marriage equality.
*
Yesterday he wrote an op-ed for Fox News saying that gay marriage would spell the end of religious liberty for Christians and today he has another piece in the Washington Post saying that "engaging in a little wishful thinking" if they think that he and his organization are going to give up the fight:
*
I acknowledged that recent data suggests this very important and key group is polling behind the rest of the country on marriage. To me, it was a simple statement of demographic and statistical fact, but to those who advocate for same-sex marriage, it is being presented as a concession speech regarding our efforts to protect one-man, one-woman marriage.
*
So, let me be clear: I am not waving a white flag. I’m not even contemplating picking one up.
*

A refusal to accept object fact and reality is a hallmark of the Christian Taliban. Daly can duck and weave all he wants, but I suspect in not too many years form now Daly will be view akin to George Wallace standing in the school house door blocking the passage of black children.

Wednesday Male Beauty

As Housing Goes, So Goes the Economy

I have been saying since the summer of 2007 that unless and until something is done to stop the decline of the residential housing market, do not expect any significant improvement in the nation's economy. So what have we seen take place since then? Banks and mortgage companies bailed out yet no corresponding actions by the bailed out lenders to pass along anything to distressed homeowners. Instead, we've seen an unwillingness to modify loans to stem foreclosures and wave after wave of foreclosures that are driving home values ever lower and creating more homeowners who are upside down on their loans and headed towards foreclosure or bankruptcy. I truly do not understand why of political leaders cannot come up with something to stop the continued debacle. The New York Times today echos what Ive been saying. Here are some editorial highlights:
*
The Great Recession began with the bursting of the housing bubble. Today, nearly two years after the recession officially ended, the housing market is still in trouble.
*
[O]ver all, sales and construction have been flat for two years, while prices, driven down by foreclosures, are plumbing new depths. Even a recent drop in foreclosure filings isn’t a reason for optimism. . . . . the decline appears to be largely the result of banks slowing the foreclosure process in order to keep properties off the market until prices recover. The catch is that prices are unlikely to recover as long as millions of foreclosures are imminent.
*
This isn’t just bad news for homeowners. Selling and building of houses are one of the economy’s most powerful engines. Until the market recovers, the entire recovery is imperiled. Falling home equity dents consumer confidence, making things even worse.
*
Since the problems in housing are not self-curing, a government fix is in order. But the Obama administration’s main antiforeclosure effort has fallen far short of its goal to modify three million to four million troubled loans.
*
Its basic flaw is that participation by the banks is voluntary. Most have joined the program but face no real pressure to meet its goals. Another big problem is that banks often do not own the troubled loans; rather, they service the loans for investors who own them. . . . Not surprisingly, defaults proceed and modifications lag. Banks win. Homeowners and investors lose. The economy suffers.
*
That does not have to be the end of the story. In a recent hearing in a Senate banking subcommittee, witnesses proposed new laws and regulations to change loan-servicing standards in ways that would prevent banks from putting their interests above those of everyone else.
*
For starters, various government guidelines on loan servicing would be replaced with tough national standards. Among the new rules, homeowners would be evaluated for loan modifications before any foreclosure — or foreclosure-related fee — is initiated. The bank analysis used to approve or reject modifications would be standardized and public, and failure by the bank to offer a modification when the analysis indicates one is warranted would be grounds for blocking any attempt to foreclose.
*
In the Senate, Democrats Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Sherrod Brown of Ohio have introduced bills to establish standards. The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau can also impose servicing rules. The Obama administration should champion national standards, and Congress and regulators should act — soon.

More Tuesday Male Beauty

Kathllen Hochul Beats GOP in New York 26th

OMG! Kathleen C. Hochul (pictured at right) - initially the Democrat underdog in the special election for New York State's 26th Congressional district - has beat the GOP candidate by a 6% margin of victory. The shock waves throughout the GOP will be delicious to watch. The usual talking heads will no doubt be in overdrive as well. Hubris and fantasies of having a mandate are the GOP's undoing time after time. As a native of Central New York - about 150 miles from Buffalo - Upstate New Yorkers tend to be often much more conservative than those down state, but they are typically not freaking crazy. What plays well in the Bible Belt will not necessarily play well in upstate New York. Here are highlights from the Buffalo News:
*
Kathleen Courtney Hochul, the Erie County clerk and longtime Democratic figure who defied political experts who had given her little chance of success, ground out a stunning and surprisingly comfortable victory Tuesday in the special election for the House seat in the predominantly Republican 26th Congressional District.
*
Hochul was leading Republican Jane L. Corwin, a Clarence assemblywoman, 48 to 42 percent, with 87 percent of election districts reporting, while the Tea Party's Jack Davis mustered only 9 percent in his fourth try for the seat. Ian L. Murphy of the Green Party recorded 1 percent. In the 10 p.m. hour, Corwin conceded the race in a speech to supporters.
*
[T]he race seemed to always boil down to two factors -- the strong Davis candidacy and a brouhaha over the "Ryan budget" and its Medicare implications.
*
The New York Times also has coverage. Here are some highlights and a bit more analysis:
*
Democrats scored an upset in one of New York’s most conservative Congressional districts on Tuesday, dealing a blow to the national Republican Party in a race that largely turned on the party’s plan to overhaul Medicare.
*
The results set off elation among Democrats and soul-searching among Republicans, who questioned whether the party should rethink its commitment to the Medicare plan, which appears to have become a liability as 2012 elections loom. Two months ago, the Democrat, Kathy Hochul, was considered an all-but-certain loser in the race.
*
Voters, who turned out in strikingly large numbers for a special election, said they trusted Ms. Hochul, the county clerk of Erie County, to protect Medicare. “I have almost always voted the party line,” said Gloria Bolender, a Republican from Clarence who is caring for her 80-year-old mother. “This is the second time in my life I’ve voted against my party.” Pat Gillick, a Republican from East Amherst, who also cast a ballot for Ms. Hochul, said, “The privatization of Medicare scares me.”
*
The district, which stretches from Buffalo to Rochester, has been in Republican hands for four decades . . . Top Republicans, including House Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio and the majority leader, Eric Cantor of Virginia, traveled to the district to provide support to Ms. Corwin. At the same time, the national party and its allies, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a group tied to the Republican strategist Karl Rove, jumped in, spending at least $1.1 million on radio and television ads supporting Ms. Corwin.
*
One Buffalo News reader seems to have summed up the race:
*

It appears that the Republican plan to rob the poor, the elderly, and the middle-class of hope is imploding the GOP. Republicans held this seat almost exclusively since 1857 until now... Congratulations Kathy Hochul.

The GOP After Daniels and After 2012

Michael Grunwald has a piece in Time Magazine that looks at the state of the GOP in the wake of Mitch Daniels' announcement that he will not seek the GOP nomination for the 2012 election. Grunwald goes on to speculate as to where the GOP will be post 2012 - particularly if the GOP candidate loses to Obama. As a former Republican, I can speak personally to being driven away by the party's growing extremism - something that Grunwald believes will intensify if Obama wins re-election. Personally, I believe that the best long term solution for the GOP is to have the party go down to crushing defeat enough times for the rational few in the party (admittedly an ever declining number) to stage a coup and retake the party from the Christian Taliban and Tea Party. The question is how many elections cycles will be required to reach that point. Here are highlights from the Time column:
*
The most important political story of the Obama era has been the Republican Party’s growing defiance of reality —its denial of climate science, its denunciations of Medicare cuts while proposing Medicare cuts, its denunciations of debt while proposing debt-exploding tax cuts, its resistance to financial regulation in the wake of a financial meltdown, and so on. Now the GOP’s most promising reality-based presidential candidate, Mitch Daniels, has passed up the race.
*
Obviously, this has big implications for 2012. Michael Scherer thinks it means Mitt Romney is a practically inevitable nominee. I’m not so sure. But I am sure that reality’s fate in the primary will have big implications beyond 2012.
*
There are still at least two reality-based Republicans in the race: former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, who has the inconvenient distinction of serving as Obama’s ambassador to China, and former Massachusetts governor Romney, who has the even less convenient distinction of authoring the blueprint for Obama’s health care reforms.
*
If Huntsman or Romney wins the nomination, and then Obama wins the election, the GOP will quickly shift from “loosely tethered to reality” to “out of its freaking mind.” Remember, after its crushing defeat in 2008, the party faithful concluded that John McCain lost the election because he wasn’t conservative enough—and that George W. Bush lost his popularity because of his big spending. So the party moved even farther toward its right-wing base, casting away moderates
*
On the other hand, if Huntsman or Romney wins the nomination and then beats Obama, the Republican Party might rediscover big-tent reality-based policies.
*
And if a reality-denying extremist actually beats Obama, well, then we’re in trouble, because reality-denial isn’t going to fix the double-dip recession we must have had to make a reality-denier electable.
*
There is one other possibility, and that’s Tim Pawlenty. He seems like he might have been reality-based when he was governor of Minnesota, but he’s doing an effective job of denying reality as he pursues the nomination.
*
Maybe he’s the Fred Thompson of 2012—logical on paper but a dud on the trail. And as Scherer says, it’s definitely Romney’s turn. But I’m not so sure Romney will get his turn. He’s not so plausible when he pretends to be delusional.