"If you're gay, lesbian, or bisexual, would you sacrifice for your trans neighbors and siblings? If you're trans, would you sacrifice for your gay, lesbian, or bisexual neighbors and siblings? It's something worth knowing about yourself and those around you." --Autumn Sandeen, 4/19/2010, the night before GetEQUAL's DADT repeal protest at the White House
Public Calendar
Press/media, organizations, and individuals send your time-based event info to: calendar@phblend.net
The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend: "a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."
He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior."
(CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)
Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).
"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:
A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist." (Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)
"A nutty lesbian blogger." (MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)
Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush
who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
Dr. Laura Schlessinger announced tonight she is ending her radio show, a week after she broadcast a five-minute-long rant in which she used the N-word 11 times.
The radio doctor used racial epithet eleven times in five minutes. Schlessinger said on "Larry King Live" tonight that she has decided "not to do radio anymore" so she can say the things she wants to say.
"The reason is, I want to regain my First Amendment rights," she said. "I want to be able to say what's on my mind and in my heart and what I think is helpful and useful without somebody getting angry, some special interest group deciding this is the time to silence a voice of dissent and attack affiliates, attack sponsors. I'm sort of done with that."
Kudos to Rachel! News legend Walter Cronkite, who passed away at 92 in July 2009, would be proud of this recipient of the award in his name. Rachel Maddow joins the company of Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, Larry King, and Bill and Judith Moyers.
The Interfaith Alliance announced Monday that it would award its 2010 Walter Cronkite Faith & Freedom award to the MSNBC anchor in honor of her work covering religion and politics. Maddow will receive the award alongside Chautaqua Institution Department of Religion Director Rev. Dr. Joan Brown Campbell.
The award, which will be presented at a gala dinner in New York in October, "recognizes individuals who courageously promote democratic values, defend religious freedom and reinvigorate informed civic participation," according to the announcement.
Interfaith Alliance President Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy: "Rachel's passionate coverage of the intersection of religion and politics exhibits a strong personal intellect coupled with constitutional sensitivity to the proper boundaries between religion and government."
***
I was always a big fan of Walter Cronkite. I would ask my mom if we could have Walter Cronkite over for dinner because I wanted to ask him about the news. She said that was the only person on TV that I ever asked that about. That never came to pass, of course, but I watched him cover the news of the day with rapt attention.
And there's probably some little girl out there watching Rachel Maddow each night, dreaming the same dream about having her over to dinner to discuss politics.
So, you have a problem. You set up a poll and then it got freeped.
Now, it seems rather than supporting your position, it's thorough repudiation of your position. So what do you do? Maybe rethink your position, consider there are other perspectives? That you might be wrong?
Not if you're the whacko religious right. If you're one of them, you just rewrite the questions afterward to support the conclusion you hoped you'd get. (And doubtless declare "the people have spoken!")
Looks like it worked. Because at Monday at 6 pm, the poll looked like this:
What do you think about Judge Walker's decision to overturn Prop. 8 banning same-sex "marriage" in California?
I support the decision.
84.5%
It is an irrational decision denying the nature and purpose of marriage.
9.2%
It was a slap in the face of California voters.
4.3%
It did not surprise me.
1.4%
Democracy does not apply in these cases.
0.5%
Undecided.
0%
Big fail for them to solicit data to support their talking points, 84.5% of voters supported Judge Walker's finding that denying same-sex couples the right to marry was unconstitutional.
But wait, by Monday at 7 pm, the poll looked like this:
What do you think about Judge Walker's decision to overturn Prop. 8 banning same-sex "marriage" in California?
It is an irrational decision denying the nature and purpose of marriage.
84.5%
Undecided.
8.8%
It was a slap in the face of California voters.
4.2%
It did not surprise me.
1.6%
Democracy does not apply in these cases.
0.9%
Suddenly, 84.5% of voters consider his decision "irrational!"
The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP) is an organization of lay Catholic Americans concerned about the moral crisis shaking the remnants of Christian civilization. Its origins date back to January 1971, when the first TFP members started to group around the publication Crusade for a Christian Civilization. Today, with over 120,000 active members, volunteers and donors, the TFP is on the front lines of the Culture War, peacefully defending the values of tradition, family and private ownership.
If you want to looking into "moral crisis," in America, you might look into yourselves, TFP.
I'm always curious how these Godly organizations justify, in their own minds, the ends runs they're always making around the Ninth Commandment.
My momma may have raised a homo, but she raised me right. I don't cheat and lie.
Now, it appears they've had a change of heart, and the poll has reverted to a more gay-friendly version. I wouldn't expect to see them touting these stats anytime soon.
We're pleased to bring former West Point Cadet Katherine Miller to the Blend for a liveblog. Miller resigned last week, stating that she was unwilling to 'compromise her Integrity' under the discriminatory policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Fortunately, I haven't seen Pat Buchanan on the air talking about Prop 8 recently, but this article gives every bit of the insight of this man's view that civil rights should be up for a vote and Judge Walker is part of the judicial tyranny destroying American society.
Walker declared Proposition 8, by which 5.5 million Californians voted to prohibit state recognition of gay marriage, null and void. What the people of California voted for is irrelevant, said Walker; you cannot vote to take away constitutional rights.
If the Walker decision is upheld by the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court, homosexual marriage will be imposed on a nation where, in 31 out of 31 state referenda, the people have rejected it as an absurdity.
This is not just judicial activism. This is judicial tyranny.
This is a perversion of what the authors of the Constitution wrote and what the states approved. Through such anti-democratic means, the left has imposed a social and moral revolution on America with only the feeblest of protests from the people or their elected leaders.
...Walker says the only motivations behind Proposition 8 had been "biases" and "moral disapproval," and "moral disapproval ... has never been a rational basis for legislation."
But what else is the basis for laws against polygamy and incest? What else was the basis for the Mann Act, which prevented a man from taking his girlfriend across the state line to a motel?
What is the basis for prohibiting prostitution, a free exchange of money for sexual favors, if not "moral disapproval"?
What the judge is saying with this opinion is that the majority cannot define morality, and, even if it does, it cannot impose it. We are defenseless against what we believe to be moral decadence.
But not even a judge can change the meaning of words. In every language known to man, marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman. Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.
Walker may call such pairings marriages, but that does not make it so. As Lincoln said, "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."
Oh god, it goes on and on...special bonus points for referencing the Declaration of Independence and what Thomas Jefferson thought about homosexuality. Is this a prescription, Pat?
The author of that declaration, Thomas Jefferson, equated homosexual acts with rape and wrote that male homosexuals (they used the term sodomites in that time) should be castrated and lesbians should have a hole cut into their noses.
UPDATE: This hubbub was picked up by Mediaite: "The White House Takes Aim at Gay Bloggers For Complaining Too Much." Geez, please can you use one of my new photos at least (http://ow.ly/2r1v5)? Michael Triplett's piece does get a fact wrong - Aravosis was not invited to the WH press briefing (he's that reviled by the WH). His co-blogger Joe Sudbay represented Americablog.
Seriously, at the end of the piece Triplett gets to my bottom line point - the WH either needs to declare LGBT bloggers relevant or not - if we're mere gnats on the political landscape then what me worry, why waste your time on us. But don't expect us to be quiet for doing as the President asked - "hold me accountable."
From Americablog, word that a closed-door meeting with the President, Brian Bond, the Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement and state equality organization leaders generated some interesting comments:
Bond asserted, "There is still a lot of work to do" before DOMA will be repealed. "Look at the trouble we're having with ENDA." he added. But Bond conceded that there are inconsistencies in President Obama's positions. In response, Morgan Meneses-Sheets, executive director of Equality Maryland, stated, "Respectfully, we need President Obama to push for full inclusion of the LGBT community on ENDA, on marriage- we need the full get, not the lesser get. The highest office in the land sets the tone for the whole country." Bond agreed, but expressed frustration at the often intense criticism levied, particularly by bloggers, against an administration that is "99 percent supportive of your issues." [emphasis added]
I'm kind of nonplussed; does that include your blogmistress, or do lesbian bloggers not rate in the same category of frustration for Brian Bond? I'm the only "gay blogger" he's had a sit-down interview with, so I'd love it if he gave a shout-out by name. I was quite generous to him in my interview.
I think perhaps they only mean John Aravosis, no? But Brian used the plural, so the White House must have a LIST. I'll have to ask John (and maybe even Joe Sudbay) what it feels like to be on a White House hit list.
Anyway, I know the WH, at least Shin Inouye (director of specialty media), reads the Blend and pings me from time to time, but who are these other peeps in power who are hand-wringing over the people on THE LIST of angry, frustration-inducing, Cheetos-stained P.J.-wearing bloggers...
John said this in response to Bond's comments:
It's great that you're "supportive." But it's the same argument gay Republicans used to describe George Bush. He was secretively supportive of us, they'd say, even if he didn't help us a whole lot legislatively. I'm not saying you're George Bush, but the empathy thing is wearing thin. We don't want your support in words, we want you to keep your promises. And you're not.
I don't think you have to be a rocket scientist to see the point of view many of us hold - that promises were made, quite publicly to the community to both garner votes and generate cashflow, and now the bill has come due and we are seeing all sorts of shenanigans by those in charge. The delays and slow-go on DADT repeal that ends in a poor compromise and a freepable, embrarrassing "study"; inaction on ENDA, tossing the hot potato between the WH and Congress as to whose responsibility it is to take the lead; Gibbs having amnesia and feeble follow up skills at the podium. Come on. If you're 99% supportive, that is a helluva 1% left over.
I can't quite figure out what the people in the White House really think about new media/citizen journalists/bloggers. The equality orgs got to meet with the President, but Barack Obama has not given an interview to any LGBT media since he took office. That has to be purposeful. He certainly didn't do a drop in when a few reporters and citizen journalists were invited to meet with Melody Barnes, who is an ally, but still gave little information and would not discuss political matters at all, nor did the WH offer anyone on the political side to attend that meeting. And, you might recall, Brian Bond was in that room, was referenced by name, yet he said not one word during the 58-minute meeting. I did get a bear hug from him, though. Perhaps I'm still not on the SH*T LIST...we have to read between the lines.
We're not the enemy, the "gay bloggers" have just been treated in a bizarre fashion (and sadly, at times the traditional LGBT media's apparently placed in the doghouse with us by association), it's not like we sit around thinking how to screw over the WH. On the other hand, we're not an extension of the WH PR machine. We just represent many voices, and many outside the Beltway, of course, that haven't been heard or dealt with before. Does that make it challenging to navigate these relationships? Yes, and that's on both sides.
The bottom line is that I want my civil rights, and I see time and effort frittered away as it is treated like a political football -- we're Charlie Brown and Jim Messina et. al. are Lucy. It sure doesn't feel like 99% supportive if it's all theoretical, as we saw in that hilarious DNC video of Tim Kaine yesterday, chock full of win like:
"I promise you, we're going to do everything in our power to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act."
I think that's absurd. Who wrote that? What a position of weakness that sounds like. One commenter, Lev Raphael, was quite spot on:
"steps to promote"
"beginning to address"
These are weaselly constructions. What's happened isn't insignificant, but why should, for instance, Federal workers have it better off than the rest of us? Why such baby steps? And the steps aren't what we were promised.
His prologue also did not acknowledge the anger. It's not frustration. I'm frustrated if I have to reboot my computer. I'm frustrated if my dogs won't stop barking. I'm frustrated if I have a bad workout at the gym. I'm frustrated if I screwed up my DVR and didn't record the show I intended to.
I'm not frustrated about the lack of hard progress, I'm angry, disappointed, and disgusted. I think Obama is turning into Clinton. Promise, surface dazzle (at times), but no follow-through, and weak at the core.
The very choice of the word "frustrated" by Kaine (or his writers), the way it's balanced with "some of you/some of you" as if we're split down the middle, all show they don't get it.
My earlier post on ABC's experiment about discrimination against Muslims went live a bit ago, but then I found this horrific video from last night's AC360 (Dr. Sanjay Gupta hosting), with homobigot and Islamophobe Bryan Fischer of American Family Radio Talk Network (one of the arms of Don and Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association), who really pares it down to the basics -- "No More Mosques, Period." You have to see it to believe it. Remember, this is the same man endlessly spouts homophobic crap. But he's versatile -- there's always someone else on the list for these people to persecute.
We're joined now via Skype by Bryan Fischer; he's the host of Focal Point on the American Family Radio Talk Network. . We should point out that he's also issues director for the American Family Association. While he says his views are his own, not the association's, the American Family Radio Network is, in fact, listed as a division of the AFA, just to get that all clear. Thanks for joining us, Mr. Fischer.
BRYAN FISCHER, HOST, "FOCAL POINT" AMERICAN FAMILY RADIO TALK NETWORK: You're welcome, Dr. Gupta, good to be with you.
GUPTA: Thank you. I want to be clear on your viewpoint here because you've made quite a bit of waves lately. You don't want any mosques built in the United States, is that correct? You want a moratorium?
FISCHER: I think the reality Dr. Gupta is, that when we look at Islam, we're looking at a totalitarian ideology that is anti-Christian, anti-Semitic. The values that are at the core of Islam are contrary to every single solitary western and American value. I think communities ought to have the liberty to reject building permits.
Each one of these mosques is either a potential or actual recruitment center for Jihadism or training center for Jihadism.
GUPTA: You said quite a bit there already. Let me just start with one thing, freedom of religion. You've been asked this question before; it's one of this country's founding principles.
The First Amendment says, Congress shall make no law respecting (ph) an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
How can you say that that potentially applies to all religions except Islam?
FISCHER: Well, the reality, Dr. Gupta, is that no one could claim First Amendment religious protections if their ideology and their activities are subversive.
All you've got do is ask the Christian militia, the Hutaree how much First Amendment protections they had when they set out to attack federal officers. They have Bible verses plastered all over their Web site. Everything they did, they did in the name of Jesus Christ. They are right now pondering the limits of the First Amendment from the inside of a jail cell, which is where they should be.
Though this ABC Primteime experiment is from 2008, the political outrage over the Islamic Community Center planned to be opened near Ground Zero has raised the ugly head of discrimination and bigotry that is boldly displayed against those of Muslim faith. It's always bubbling beneath the surface (as in the case of race and homophobia), and explodes when enough people start bleating what they said only behind closed doors. Take a look at this video and see how rank people can be to one another because of ignorance and fear. Bonus points for the bigot in the video who questions reporter John Quinones' heritage as an American.
ABC's production crew outfitted The Czech Stop, a bustling roadside bakery north of Waco, Texas, with hidden cameras and two actors. One played a female customer wearing a traditional Muslim head scarf, or hijab. The other acted as a sales clerk who refused to serve her and spouted common anti-Muslim and anti-Arab slurs.
The polarity of reactions was shocking, from support to seething disapproval. Never did we expect customers to be so passionate or candid.
Our actor, Sabina, walked into the bakery in search of apple strudel. When she reached the counter, an actor posing as a sales clerk was quick to greet her with hateful anti-Muslim language.
"Get back on the camel and go back to wherever you came from," he said. "You got that towel on your head. I don't know what's underneath your dress. Just please take your business and go elsewhere with it."
"Sir, I am an American, I was born and raised here," she said.
The other customers seemed to hear the exchange but they barely looked toward our actors. When no one came to her defense, Sabina made a direct appeal to one customer.
"Sir, would you mind ordering me an apple strudel? That's why I am here," Sabina said.
Though visibly shaken by the hateful words, the man gave Sabina the cold shoulder, completed his purchase, and walked out of the bakery. "I really think that a person who owns his own business should be able to say who they sell to," he said after we told him about the experiment.
...A little while later, Sabina again entered the bakery, and again our sales clerk refused to serve her. This time, one man spoke up, but not on behalf of the Muslim woman. He was adamant that our sales clerk did the right thing. "She wasn't dressed right," he said. "If I was running the place I'd do the same thing."
...Even though people seemed to have strong opinions on either side, more than half of the bystanders did or said absolutely nothing. This is a familiar reaction for many Muslims such as Javed. "I was shocked because when these things happen to me in real life ... I never see what happens after I walk out of that store," she said. "I would try to justify ... that they probably didn't hear it ... when I watched it, I realized, no, they hear it and they see it and they're okay with it."
Sometimes it's hard not to recognize that the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) community, as well as our friends, family, and allies, don't seem as good at organizing as those on the religious right -- as least with regards to phone and letter campaigns.
California's Capitol Resource Institute (CRI) sent out an email blast yesterday, entitled "Defend Prop. 8!" It's a call to their conservative, religious base to call the Gov. Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown to get on their phones and start calling. How CRI framed the issue in their e-blast:
Jerry Brown is not appealing. Put another way, Jerry Brown has refused to file the appeal of the recent federal trial court decision declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional. Yes, it is his responsibility as the Attorney General (AG) to defend voter-approved measures, but he does not agree with Proposition 8.
And his failure to do his duty may end this battle right here.
As John Eastman points out in the Flashreport, unless the official government defendants file a notice of appeal the issue may end with the decision of one judge in San Francisco. The proponents of the measure may not have standing to file the appeal.
But, as Eastman also points out, the Governor can file this appeal. While the Governor also opposes Proposition 8, we hope that he is fair minded enough to realize that the people of California deserve a full hearing in the courts on this important measure.
Governor Schwarzenegger, under Government Code (GC) Section 12013 has the authority to direct AG Jerry Brown to appear on behalf of the State. If the Attorney General refuses, then the Governor has the right to and should file the notice of appeal. He may also employ additional counsel, as he deems expedient. The lawsuit against Proposition 8, Perry v Schwarzenegger, even includes the Governor's name because the lawsuit is against the State. GC Section 12013 further reads that the Governor has the right to demand the AG's appearance and supply additional counsel when suit or legal proceeding is pending against the State.
We join John Eastman and the 7 million Californians who voted in favor of marriage in 2008 in strongly urging the Governor to file the notice of appeal and allow committed counsel to continue to defend Proposition 8.
Their call to action:
we need your help to pressure Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Brown to do their jobs; We have created a website asking them to defend Prop. 8.
Please sign our online petition, call and fax the Governor and Attorney General, and join our Facebook page. And forward this e-mail alert to family and friends and ask them to do the same.
We need to flood the phones/faxes all day long.
It is time we stand up and tell those who represent us to do their job and defend Prop 8
Call the Governor!
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-558-3160
Talking Points When You Call the Governor:
• You were elected by the same people who amended our State Constitution to define and recognize marriage between one man and one woman. Please represent us by defending Proposition 8.
• If you are not going to enthusiastically defend Proposition 8 in the courtroom then file the appeal so the supporters of Proposition 8 can do so.
• Even though you don't agree with Proposition 8, it is only fair that you give the 7 million Californians who voted for this measure an opportunity to defend marriage in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Call the Attorney General
Phone: 916-324-5437
Fax: 916-445-6749
Talking Points When You Call the Attorney General:
• It is your Constitutional duty to defend Proposition 8. Please do you job as California's top law enforcer.
• If you choose not defend the Constitutionality of Proposition 8, then at least file an appeal and move out of the way.
• You are running for governor. How can voters expect you to do your job as governor if you do not even do your job as attorney general?
In all the calls and faxes that went to California's Governor and Attorney General's offices yesterday, I know I asked myself "How many calls went to these offices in support of California's stand not to appeal Prop 8?"
Well, I was in communication with a staffer from Equality California yesterday. That staffer informed me that when someone from their organization asked the Governor's office that question regarding calls there, the answer to how many who called the Governor's office California's Governor and Attorney General's position on not challenging the Prop 8 ruling made by Judge Walker, the answer was one...one phone call.
Yee-ouch. Maybe we all need to make some calls too.
One thing that has been deliciously excellent about the National Organization for Marriages' failed marriage tour is it showed NOM supporters in their true homophobic light.
Yesterday, we saw the "state-sanctioned sodomy" guy. Today, its another NOM supporter in Harrisburg.
Watch the entire thing, especially his comparison of gay marriage to pedophilia. But keep a special eye out on his nasty words about gay families and single mother families.
And from Politicususa.com, a good summary of Keith's remarks (no transcript yet). A snippet:
Olbermann described the Right's campaign as, "Yet in a country dedicated to freedom, forces have gathered to blow out of all proportion the construction of a minor community center to transform it into a training ground for terrorists, and an insult to the victims of 9/11, and a tribute to the Medieval Muslim subjugation of the West. There is in fact no Ground Zero Mosque. It isn't a mosque. A mosque technically is a Muslim holy place where only worship can be conducted. What is planned for 45 Park Place New York City is a community center. It's supposed to include a basketball court and a culinary school. It is to be thirteen stories tall, and the top two stories will be a Muslim prayer space. What a cauldron to terrorism that will be, terrorist chefs and terrorist point guards."
Olbermann pointed out that since 9/11 Muslims have been at greater risk of being victims of US terrorism than non-Muslims. After he debunked Newt Gingrich's fear mongering over the name Cordoba House, which he called a figment of Gingrich's imagination, and the MSNBC host pointed out that the community center will be open to all New Yorkers.
He also knocked down the falsehood that the community center is located on Ground Zero, "This place Park 51 is not even at Ground Zero, not even right across the street. Even the description of it being two blocks away is generous. It is two blocks away from the northeast corner of the World Trade Center site, from the planned location of the 9/11 Memorial, it is more like four or five blocks even." Olbermann showed that there is no view of the World Trade Center visible from the community center.
***
On a related note, Kerry Eleveld's latest column in The Advocate points out that "Obama's mixed messaging on the mosque proposed near Ground Zero leads one to wonder why the White House is so unwilling to touch other hot-button issues."
Like "The Homosexual Agenda"?
Well, he sure likes taking our money, huh? Just doesn't like to step on that third rail (other than to send David Axelrod out to bleat out incoherent messaging about equality and marriage).
Obama's position - that he defends the right to build without supporting the project - mirrors national polling numbers. While one poll found that about 64% of voters believe proponents should be able to build, another poll found that 68% oppose the plan itself.
The situation brings several questions to the fore.
First, what exactly is the administration's communications team doing? They either miscalculated the national mood or they misjudged how the president's words would be received on Friday. But they unquestionably should have seen flashes of the firestorm to come from Sarah Palin and her cronies eons before they sent the president out to carry the torch for democracy.
Or is it possible that the president and his advisers understood exactly where this was headed but just couldn't take the heat once they stepped into the pit? No matter what the answer, the White House squandered the president's most precious commodity: his word - his compact of trust with the American people.
And here's another stumper. The same CNN poll showing that more than 2/3 of Americans opposed the project was also the very first poll in history to find that a majority of Americans (52% to 46%) believe gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry.
Now marriage polls do see-saw even as they continue to trend toward equality and a Public Policy Poll late last week found that 57% of voters still think same-sex marriage should be illegal. But the fact remains that both of those polls show less opposition to marriage equality than to the Mosque project, and I can't help but puzzle at the White House's willingness to broach one subject while they continue to run away from the other as if it's too hot touch.
UPDATE FROM PAM: The event raised $1M for the DCCC. How many anti-equality candidates do you think will benefit from that? For a description of the event and who attended go below the fold.
"If it weren't for you, we would not be in the White House."
-- President Obama on May 27, 2009, at a DNC Hollywood fundraiser where 250 studio executives, directors and stars doled out $15,200 a person.
Well, well -- what a difference a year makes...or not. Tonight the President has his hat out in hand in oh-so-gay Hollywood, this time for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. In a piece in The Hollywood Reporter, it's noted that unlike Bill Clinton, Barack Obama doesn't care for hobnobbing with the L.A. movie stars, he just wants their dough -- and they are still willing to give it to him, even though he's failed to deliver anything of significance, particularly to the LGBT community.
This evening's fundraiser featuring Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi takes place at the Hancock Park home of "ER" and "The West Wing" executive producer John Wells and benefits the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The usual gang of Hollywood A-listers will be in attendance: the host committee includes J.J. Abrams and wife Katie McGrath, Alan and Cindy Horn, Barbra Streisand, the Katzenbergs, and Kate Capshaw and Steven Spielberg (though the S and K of DreamWorks SKG aren't expected to show).
You have to read between the lines of Obama toady, Newsweek's Jonathan Alter, who won't risk losing his access to the WH (and he happens to be pimping a book on the President, btw) to actually hold him accountable.
During his Los Angeles book party for "The Promise: President Obama. Year One," Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter spoke with Hollywood's glitterati and literati at the Westside home of Sony Pictures Entertainment CEO Michael Lynton (who also happens to be his brother-in-law). Director Jay Roach, "House" executive producer Paul Attanasio, "Little Miss Sunshine" producer Ron Yerxa and more than 100 others gathered to grill Alter with questions about the president.
"I didn't detect any anger, (but) on one level they are disappointed," Alter said about the Hollywood community. "On another level, there's residual admiration for him and an understanding they don't know about the details of his job."
On many issues about which the guests cared -- the environment and gay rights, among them -- Alter said the matters simply are out of Obama's hands. "Climate change went through the House but failed in the Senate," he said. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell requires an act of Congress, and Obama needs (Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman) Adm. (Mike) Mullen to lead the way."
In other words, they don't know how the sausage is made; they just throw him the check and buy the nicely packaged and marketed sausage when it comes out of the factory.
Our problem is our sausage never makes it out of the factory. They keep grinding the innards over and over...
The only player quoted in the piece has feet grounded in reality about the complete PR mess coming out of the WH on marriage equality and even then, Bruce Cohen has no grasp pf common sense regarding the political time squandered by administration's foot-dragging.
The area in which Hollywood expresses its dissatisfaction most clearly is over Obama's track record on gay rights. Activist Bruce Cohen, the "Milk" and "American Beauty" producer now working on next year's Oscars telecast, insists that "it's not time to grade him yet -- we haven't even gotten to the midterm exams" but still feels some administration stands are conflicted.
"We've not had presidential support on gay marriage itself, though Obama said that (California's) Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, which we appreciated," he said. Still, "we're hoping one of the things the case does is make people realize you can't be against Prop. 8 and be against gay marriage."
If only these Hollywood deep pockets would join "Don't Ask, Don't Give" instead of enabling this party and President, the admin and Congress would sit up and take notice.
Perhaps it's time to have protests at these tony private fundraisers as well; stopping the cash flow is apparently the only way to make them see the need to get our sausage packaged and out of the factory.
Filed order (EDWARD LEAVY, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and SIDNEY R. THOMAS) Appellants' motion for a stay of the district court's order of August 4, 2010 pending appeal is GRANTED. The court sua sponte orders that this appeal be expedited pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 2. The provisions of Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(a) (pertaining to grants of time extensions) shall not apply to this appeal. This appeal shall be calendared during the week of December 6, 2010, at The James R. Browning Courthouse in San Francisco, California. The previously established briefing schedule is vacated. The opening brief is now due September 17, 2010. The answering brief is due October 18, 2010. The reply brief is due November 1, 2010. In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. See Arizonans For Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66 (1997). IT IS SO ORDERED. [7441574] (JS)
First, and drastically most importantly, the Court granted the stay. Consequently the thousands of couples who were waiting for the day of equality will have to wait at least a few more months until December. It's interesting that the panel does not at all discuss the reasons for their decision on the motion to stay. That's because if they went through the factors, there's no way they could rationalize the stay. They themselves raise the issue of standing and express an inclination that the case should be dismissed on that basis. How, then, could they possibly determine that the Appellants have a "high likelihood of success on the merits"? And how can they show that the Appellants will suffer any harm if loving couples in California are allowed to marry each other?
Second, the Court wants this case to be resolved quickly. Appellants' opening brief is due in just a month and the hearing will happen on December 6th. This is lightning quick for a Federal Court of Appeals, and it's a very good sign. The Court understands that this case is important, and it doesn't want it to linger.
Third, the Court specifically orders the Prop 8 proponents to show why this case should not be dismissed for lack of standing.Here's a discussion of the standing issue. This is very good news for us. It shows that the Court has serious doubts about whether the Appellants have standing.
Even better, the Court is expressing an opinion that its inclination is that the case should be dismissed. That being said, the panel that issued this Order (the motions panel) is not the same panel that will hear that case on the merits. The merits panel will be selected shortly before December 6th and we don't know the three judges who will be on the merits panel. But this is a very good sign that the appeal could be dismissed on the ground of standing alone.
U.S. Dept. of Justice, U.S. Air Force Reach Federal Court Agreement with Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach
Highly decorated combat Air Force Aviator filed injunction in Federal Court to block “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” discharge
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) and Morrison & Foerster LLP, representing their client, Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, reached an agreement today with the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Air Force, on the pending request for a temporary restraining order. The agreement prevents the Air Force from discharging Lt. Col. Fehrenbach under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT), the discriminatory law barring gay and lesbian service members from serving openly and honestly, until the Court can schedule a hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction. Attorneys for Lt. Col. Fehrenbach filed a motion in U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho last Wednesday seeking a court order preventing the Air Force from discharging Lt. Col. Fehrenbach, arguing that the government cannot establish that his continued service on active duty hinders “morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion.”
Statement by Morrison & Foerster’s M. Andrew Woodmansee:
"This is exactly what we asked the Court to do in our motion on Wednesday, and we are pleased that the Air Force has agreed to preserve the status quo until we can have a full hearing. Of course, we continue to hope that the Air Force will do the right thing and let this war hero continue to serve this country."
Statement by Servicemembers Legal Defense Network Executive Director and Army Veteran Aubrey Sarvis:
“The agreement recognizes the immediate harm to Lt. Col. Fehrenbach and insures that he will eventually get to make his case at a full blown hearing without losing his job. This agreement is a victory for Lt. Col. Fehrenbach and our nation. The Air Force can still do the right thing and retain Lt. Col. Fehrenbach under the Pentagon’s own revised regulations on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ The Senate needs to act next month to get rid of this antiquated law that dishonors some of our finest and most talented service members.”
To read the agreement as filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho visit: http://bit.ly/doM7Q9
This agreement was reached based on the following circumstances presented by Fehrenbach's counsel:
On March 25, 2010, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and JCS Admiral Michael Mullen issued new Instructions with the goal of making the implementation of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” more “humane.” The Air Force followed by updating its own instructions, including AFI 36-3208, Administrative Discharge Procedures For Commissioned Officers, on April 2, 2010. An Guidance Memorandum states, “[t]he changes set forth in this Guidance Memorandum are effective immediately and shall apply to all fact-finding inquiries and separation proceedings open on or initiated on or after 25 March 2010.” Because Lt. Col. Fehrenbach’s separation proceedings are still open, the new instructions apply to the facts of his case. In revising their “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Instructions the Department of Defense and the Air Force raised the bar on so-called third party outings, by strengthening the “credible information from a reliable source” standard of proof necessary to start an investigation. The revised Instructions now define a “reliable person” as “someone who would be expected, under the circumstances, to provide accurate information.” The revised Instructions go on to state that an example of an unreliable person is “[a] person with a prior history of untruthfulness or unreliability.” And they also now say the commanders must examine “the source of the information, and the circumstances under which the information was obtained….” Lt. Col. Fehrenbach’s accuser was known to have a prior history of untruthfulness and unreliability. Given the source of the information and the circumstances under which it was obtained, Lt. Col. Fehrenbach should be retained.
The investigation of Lt. Col. Fehrenbach was also improper and in violation of Air Force instructions in effect at the time the Air Force launched its “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” investigation, because it was never based on credible information from a reliable source. Pursuant to then-current AFI 36-3206, Administrative Discharge Procedures For Commissioned Officers, § A2. 1.1, “[a] commander may initiate a fact-finding inquiry only when he or she has received credible information that there is basis for discharge.” Under § A2.3.4, credible information was defined as when a “reliable person” came forward with evidence that a service member had violated “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Lt. Col. Fehrenbach’s accuser was viewed by authorities as “unreliable,” having “a history of false reporting,” and “not a credible witness.” Even under this weaker standard, the false allegation made by an unreliable witness could never be considered “credible,” and the investigation of Lt. Col. Fehrenbach should have been terminated.
·Witt v. Department of the Air Force, 527 F.3d 806 (9th Cir. 2008) requires that prior to discharging Lt. Col. Fehrenach under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the government must put forth evidence showing that as-applied to Lt. Col. Fehrenbach: 1) the government advances an important governmental interest, 2) that the intrusion into his private life significantly furthers that interest, and 3) that there are no less intrusive means to substantially achieve the government’s interest. The Witt decision is currently binding case law in the 9th Circuit, home of Mountain Home Air Force Base, where Lt. Col. Fehrenbach is stationed.
Are these bigots sh*tting serious - talk about craptacular appeals?! Please, please kick this case up to SCOTUS. Via Joe.My.God:
Protect Marriage's final motion claims that the state's job of promoting "responsible procreation" would be irrevocably harmed by gay marriage. Because in California, there has been ABSOLUTELY no irresponsible procreation so far.
Fortunately, I haven't seen Pat Buchanan on the air talking about Prop 8 recently, but 
From 
Anyway, I know the WH, at least Shin Inouye (director of specialty media), reads the Blend and pings me from time to time, but who are these other peeps in power who are hand-wringing over the people on THE LIST of angry, frustration-inducing, Cheetos-stained P.J.-wearing bloggers...
In other words, they don't know how the sausage is made; they just throw him the check and buy the nicely packaged and marketed sausage when it comes out of the factory.
