There’s never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family
means and survived.
PHILADELPHIA, Dec. 4 — For three years the Philadelphia council of the Boy Scouts of America held its ground. It resisted the city’s request to change its discriminatory policy toward gay people despite threats that if it did not do so, the city would evict the group from a municipal building where the Scouts have resided practically rent free since 1928.
For instance, same-sex partners -- or unmarried heterosexual partners -- are refused anti-terrorism security training or foreign-language training and are not evacuated when eligible family members are ordered to depart. Unlike spouses, they do not receive diplomatic passports, visas or even use of the State Department mail system. They also must pay their own way overseas, get their own medical care and are left to fend for themselves if a partner is sent to a dangerous post such as Iraq
VA DMV called this morning to back down. I had sent their generic plates back last week directly to the head of the DMV with a very strong letter regarding First Amendment rights. The new manager for Special Plates called to acknowledge receipt of the substitute plates and to orally declare the issue closed. As I told my office mate, don't fuck with a queen over 40 -- you will not win.
No word on whether Sen. Craig has also sent his congrats.
We are writing to state the inherent contradiction between your treatment of illegations of ethical misconduct by Senator Larry Craig and Senator David Vitter and to insist that you open an investigation into Sen. Vitter’s conduct. There is no explanation for the diametrically opposed responses to these two situations, other than hypocrisy tinged by homophobia. There are only two ways to resolve this: drop the investigation into Sen. Craig or investigate the allegations surrounding Sen. Vitter.
The first openly gay man to serve on the president's AIDS advisory council died (Associated Press)The newly elected and openly gay mayor of Ferndale said being gay is no longer
an issue in city politics. His sexual orientation had little to do with his
campaign, said Craig Covey, 50, elected Tuesday with 54% of the vote.
Mr. Speaker, we say here that we don’t take things personally, and usually that’s true. Members, Mr. Speaker, will have to forgive me — I take it personally. 35 years ago, I filed a bill that tried to get rid of discrimination based on sexual orientation. As we sit here today, there are millions of Americans in states where this is not the law. By the way, 19 states have such a law. In no case has it led to that decision. The Massachusetts law passed in 1989, that did not lead to the decision in 2004, unrelated. But here’s the deal: I used to be someone subject to this prejudice. And through luck, circumstance, I got to be a big shot. I’m now above that prejudice. But I feel an obligation, to 15-year-olds dreading to go to school because of the torments, to people they’ll lose their job in a gas station if someone finds out who they love. I feel an obligation to use the status I have been lucky enough to get, to help them.
The ENDA drama never ends; HRC pushes transgenders in front of political train (AP)
Michigan's dying auto industry inspires people to care about gay rights (Free Press)
Malaysian police hate sodomy, gays (International Herald Tribune)
As per the Phillips story, my only concern would be that leaving out that information would seem (and I stress seem) tantamount to ignoring a "gay story": i.e, would that same latitude have been givento someone involved in a heterosexual story. Would you have, forinstance, published an innocuous story about Jessica Cutler during the initial outbreak of that story without mentioning her involvement in a sex scandal. I realize that the two cases have striking differences, specifically the ones that you mentioned but it still raisesquestions. Also, other bloggers have raised the issue of whether the government's reaction to his license plate (which had to be initiated by aresident, as I understand) could have anything to do with his claimsagainst Sen. Craig. They would be wrong in assuming -- as some have --that the reaction could have been initiated by Craig or someone in his office, etc. I think they would be right, however, in questioning if a citizen who knew of Phillips' claims might have seeked retribution, albeit in a sort of arbitrary and meaningless way.
You raise good points. One of them is easy: The state's move against the"poofter" license plate well predated Phillips' decision to tell anyone about his encounter with Craig, so there is no issue of the state potentially taking retaliatory action against Phillips. Your other point is of course harder and is the core of the question. Cutler doesn't work as ananalogy for me because there was corroborating evidence to her claims from the very start of her case; indeed, her decision to out her partner byusing their mutual communications is what pushed that story into the public arena and certainly into the mainstream press. In this case, we have only Phillips' word, which I am personally inclined to believe, but which does not rise to the level of publishable evidence, which is why no reputable outlet has published that story. I don't think the particular sexuality of the characters involved plays any role here...
Thanks for your note. Yes, I spoke to Mr. Phillips at some length aboutthat and of course saw the various blogs that have been taking up his storyabout his encounter with Sen. Craig. I originally thought about includingthat as an aside to the license plate story, but decided against it becauseit's really pretty far afield from what I was writing about and would havetaken too much space to explain the background of the Craig situation. Inaddition, because Phillips' claim about Craig is obviously not somethingthat can be corroborated, and because it took place so long ago, theredidn't seem to be any value added for readers to insert that in adiscussion about the constitutionality and speech issues surrounding vanitylicense plates. In general, I try to err in the direction of fulldisclosure; in this instance, the Craig story was just too distinct anddifferent from the Poofter issue to be anything but a distraction.I'd be interested in hearing a good argument in the other direction. Thanksfor reading the column.
...at some point along the line, the concept of racial equality stopped being a point of view in this country and became a generally accepted truth instead.Here's the problem with following that logic to the next step (which, on its surface, seems entirely plausible): that journalists should not have to balance things that are not actually equal, that we should not have to arbitrarily designate two sides to complex and nuanced issues or continue to give space to those who are, essentially, hate mongers.
I can’t endorse the current system. I think it’s disingenuous and just plain wrong.I don't think anyone could say. But it would certainly be interesting.
What abandoning false balance would mean in the daily practice of journalism -- what kinds of ripple effects it might have -- are questions I don’t pretend to be able to answer.
You have no children. You do not have a wife, a girlfriend, an ailing mother/ father/ aunt/ grandmother. You don't even have sick pets. You don't have pets at all.Men.
Dresses.
Skirts.
Pumps.
Stilletos.
Angel wings.
Bouffant.
Princess Diana with security.
Princess Jasmine with Moulan.
Slightly uncomfortable heterosexuals trying to be progressive.
Amazing."You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it
to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you
to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement.”
"engaged in personally abusive language toward the President and Members of
the House, including the use of language that impugns their motives.Whereas, the Member from Califoria, Mr. Clark dishonors not only the Commander-in-Chief, but the thousands of courageous men and women of America’s armed forces who believe in their mission and are putting their lives on the line for our freedom and security."
This will leave so little time for Congress to debate Coke versus Pepsi. Oh well, another day.
Matt Cooper, the Washington editor of Portfolio and former (?) confidante of Karl "The Comedy Killer" Rove
David Korn, the Nation
Ana Marie Cox, former Wonketter and now at Time.com
Someone, maybe my grandmother, once told meI was thinking of this poem -- not because of the girl -- but because I've been trying, futilely, to decide what spending a summer in Erie meant to me in the grander scheme/ big picture/ "What did it all mean"/ crying in the rain and yelling at the heavens sort of way.
When life hands you lemons
You smile, kindly, and make lemonade
I think that's bullshit
I think if life hands you lemons
You storm up to the counter and demand apples or oranges
Unless you really like lemons
With Grandma, come a few rules.And, before you ask, it’s not the part about theft.
It’s the way some McDowell High School Students responded — T-shirts and Facebook groups, including “My high school principle (sic) is going to prison.”
Clever.
It reminds me of my attempt at a snarky rebuke toward another authority figure behaving badly. This time, it was the Ohio University football coach, who, in December 2005, was found passed out against the steering wheel of his car, pointing the wrong way on a one-way road. He was charged with an OVI, and, to add to the embarrassment, later claimed that he had been drugged while downing margaritas at a favorite OU nightspot.
A judge rejected that defense, as did most of the embarrassed Athenians watching the production unfold.
Dozens of Facebook groups popped up afterward, including one created by a friend called “OU Students for Buying Frank Solich a Bus Pass.” The sale of “Frank the Tank” T-shirts skyrocketed. The new OU mascot even earned the name “Rufus” during a student vote. “Rufus,” as in “roofie,” as in GHB. The drug that the still-employed football coach claimed fell into his one of many drinks that night.
Administrators spread the word that it was in honor of Rufus Putnam, one of the OU founders. Sorry, guys.
At the time, I thought it an appropriate way to express a collective disappointment with the former Cornhusker coach. That is, until discussions turned to my father’s accident 10 years ago, when a 62-year-old drunk woman roared out of a parking lot down the road from our house and smashed into the driver side of his teal Sundance, sending the rearview mirror into his face.
“Drunk driving,” as a friend said, “Isn’t funny.”
She was right. Instead of seeing the football coach situation for what it was — despicable, outrageous — we laughed it off as just another punch line, just one more clever Facebook group, sandwiched between those advocating for a new Mexican restaurant and those lamenting that, “When I was your age, Pluto was a planet.”
And, here, it’s happened again.
I mean, what did people really feel when they heard that a principal stole from a school? Rage? Frustration? Disillusionment?
I guess I can’t say what an “appropriate” response to the McDowell debacle would have been.
I’m just pretty sure it should not have been laughter.
From my column at the Erie Times-News
When another intern and I decided to see the newest Harry Potter film Wednesday, I could barely restrain my enthusiasm. I’d spent the last week editing stories about Potter mania and now, I had a chance to watch it for myself.
I arrived, late as usual, I sprinted in, found fellow intern (and self-described “huge nerd”) Andy Boyle and strode to get a seat in the theater, particularly after I learned that attendants had started sitting people more than an hour before.
We found two seats and then, fortunately, two better seats. But as the movie began, I heard a sound I am not accustomed to: a crying child. It started as a dull whine, with the sporadic spike of high-pitched whimpering.
It bothered me. A lot. I’ve spent the last few years in a college town, with an approximate age range of 18 to 23 with a few dozen 40- to 80-year-olds.
No children, just some college students who act like children.
Freshman year, I’d see curious toddlers walking hand-in-hand with parents at a grocery store, but when I could, I frequented the store long after the kids had gone to sleep.
Now, I knew children would be in the theater. I mean, the series “technically” targets adolescents and it was opening night at 8 p.m. Fine, but that does not excuse the piercing cries of an infant that someone brought to the show. I wanted to watch Harry and the gang clobber some bad-guys, not listen to the incoherent blubbering of babies.
As uncomfortable as children make any situation, I don’t oppose proud parents parading them around. I do, however, question the idea that a 1-year-old child would enjoy an unfamiliar place with dozens of strangers, no lights, loud noises and the regular cascade of cheers and jeers.
Come to think of it, I’m not even disappointed in the kids themselves. I think I would have cried even louder.
To be sure, I asked my mom if she ever brought me screaming into a theater. She said that she never did, pointing out that they’d have to purchase a ticket for someone who can’t understand what’s going on. Even when I could grasp the film, my parents took me to the drive-in theater down the street.
“In case you were out of control, we could leave,” she said.
Good advice, Mom.
I know a few twenty-something moviegoers I’d like to introduce you to.
