I have a couple of posts I've written on other sites that I wanted to share.
Today, I wrote my first guest post at PhilanTopic, the Foundation Center's blog , yesterday, after the Ca Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage, I wrote a post for the agency blog.
Lazy blogger tactics.
Shoot me.
Not So Gay - Lauren Moore titled her post "What's the gayest site on the Web?," which is slightly misleading, since she's really just letting us know which sites that target the LGBT audience have the best reach and engagement metrics. I don't know what I was looking for. (Something like this?) But Moore gets ten points for a good post title.
Hey, Ladies - Now, this is gay. AfterEllen.com's list of the Top 100 hotties. They describe it as the anti-Maxim Hot 100 list (although Carmen Electra still manages to make it on the list). Leisha Hailey from The L Word is the number one hottie, which compels me to share that I had the pleasure of meeting Ms. Hailey in 2000 when she and Heather Grody (aka The Murmurs) played a Rock the Vote event for us in New York. She also agreed to be featured in Rock the Vote's first (and only) gay youth targeted campaign, Take Pride Take Action. I'm a fan.
From Talking Points, via Andrew Sullivan, the paper boy tells it like it is.
Dump Coulter, Siskiyou Daily News.
Social Networks
I came across Mashable yesterday and life is a little bit better than it was before. It's a blog dedicated to covering social networks, which are fascinating to me as they seem to grow more and more vertical. It's like porn. With social networks, you can get VERY VERY specific about the things that get you off. They have the potential to be huge assets in reaching niche audiences, but so many marketers have already crashed and burned trying to do it right.
Pete Cashmore at Mashable wrote about four social networks for the LGBT crowd -- two of which have not yet launched (Social Butter and Olivia.com). GLEE.com is a social and professional network from the folks behind MiGente and Black Planet. But the really cool one is Our Chart, which was started by three of the actresses from The L Word. Our Chart will prove once and for all that, yes, all lesbians know each other.
I mentioned Takkle yesterday, but there are a few other social networks vying for the love of sports fans. Mashable reports that Sports Illustrated/Time — which also owns Takkle — just bought Fan Nation for about $20 million, despite the fact that the site barely has any members (according to Mashable). There's also Sportsmates and iSporty, among others. It feels like 1997, folks.
I was excited to find MyDesignIn -- a social network for home remodelers -- but disappointed because, as it's in Beta, it's tough to know what it's really going to be able to do.
Research
Pew Center for the People and the Press released a report earlier this month, a "portrait" of "Generation Next," -- Americans between the ages of 18 and 25. More than the generation that preceded them, they identify as Democrats and have socially liberal views on interracial marriage (how 1975), homosexuality and immigration. On that last point, it's encouraging to know -- that in an era of Lou Dobbs and Minutemen Project -- more young people than ever before think that the growing number of immigrants is a positive for the country. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that many of them, or their parents, are immigrants themselves.
Pew Internet & American Life Project conducted a survey in December to assess how pervasive tagging had become among Internet users: 28 percent have and 7 percent do so on a daily basis.
Here are some additional details:
The Washington Post isn't letting this Mitt Romney identity crisis thing go. There's a front page article today that asks, "Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up (please stand up)?"
Despite the fact that Romney positioned himself as a moderate in his 1994 Massachusetts Senatorial campaign (in which he ran against Edward Kennedy), he has more recently "evolved" into a social conservative, changing his views on gay and lesbian rights as well as abortion rights.
Dan Balz and Shailagh Murray at the Post suggest that Romney's change of heart has a great deal to do with the fact that neither Rudy Giuliani or John McCain -- who are topping polls for the 2008 Republican nomination -- have friends in the social and cultural conservative movement, who have been key to George W. Bush's success over the past two elections.
But, if this is true, this may not be a smart tactic. Paul M. Weyrich, head of the conservative Free Congress Foundation, points out in the article that someone who can flip in one direction, can flop back the other way once he's in office.
Did you hear about the Massachusetts politician with a propensity for flip-flopping on the issues?
Republicans can wipe the smug looks off their faces. It's not John Kerry this time around.
Nope. Apparently former Massachusetts Governor and soon to be presidential candidate Mitt Romney tried to out-liberal the king of all liberals, Senator Edward Kennedy, 12 years ago when Romney made a fruitless attempt to boot Kennedy from his Senate seat.
In a letter to the Log Cabin Republicans, Romney wrote,
"For some voters, it might be enough to simply match my opponent's record in this area. But I believe we can and must do better. If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and I will."
A cut and paste job by an overzealous staffer? (Take out "equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern" and insert "a quality education available for all children," for example.)
Who cares. The man with the ski sweaters is going down . . . (please).
ABCNews.com covers a study recently published in The Journal of Political Economy about why it pays to be a whore. If you want to read the study itself, it can be downloaded here. One theory as to why prostitutes, compared to other "unskilled" women (those broads have some skills, don't get me wrong), make a pretty penny, is that they have given up the likelihood that they are ever going to get married (sullied goods) and must be compensated.
Andrew Sullivan writes in The Sunday Times about Bush/Cheney's "personal tolerance" for gay couples and immigrants -- "legal and illegal". Sullivan manages to make the duo seem less like monsters but asks, "Does their personal tolerance make their policies less or more distasteful?" Sullivan answers his own question and I have to agree: " . . . more distasteful, since they know better." (Comes via Sullivan's blog.)
If you want to help Lee Sevilla out and you have a photo you'd like to see turned into a print/postcards, read this article about Sevilla in The Los Angeles Times, a 71-year-old woman who lives in her Dodge Neon with her dog, Sandy.
Read this week's Newsweek cover story about "AIDS at 25". Yeah, it's been 25 years since the first case of AIDS was reported in the media and things have changed: "AIDS itself changed, from a disease that killed gay men and drug addicts to a global scourge that has decimated the African continent, cut a large swath through black America and infected almost as many women as men worldwide." But the article argues that so much more has changed . . .
The Washington Post is feeling pretty good this morning after winning four Pulitzer Prizes yesterday -- one more than The New York Times (which means, I guess, that I can stop acting so damn apologetic that I actually LIKE my hometown paper).
The Post should also feel good about the front page feature on women who have lost their limbs in the war in Iraq. In addition to addressing the impact that being an amputee has on women in a society that puts such great value in physical appearance, the article confronts the lack of public discourse about the issue of the female casualties of this war (370 wounded, 34 killed). Liberals, says the article, are keeping their mouths shut because they don't want to "jeopardize support for women serving in combat roles" and conservatives simply don't want to bring attention to anything that reminds people that soldiers are being wounded and killed. Read it if you have the time.
You should always make time for Dana Milbank, who covers former Senator Mike Gravel's announcement yesterday that he is seeking the Democratic nomination for President. Gravel isn't shy about the fact that he knows he will not win, but that he's thrown his hat in the ring in order to draw attention to his two pet issues: national ballot initiatives (boo) and a federal sales tax (boo). According to Milbank,
"It's surprisingly cheap to exploit the media's presidential obsession: Gravel spent about $1,500 to rent a room and microphone at the National Press Club and to get U.S. Newswire to send out his press release. His grandkids drew up some campaign posters. And he had a glamour photo done with the requisite pose of the open-collared candidate viewing a distant horizon (although in this case the studio lights are reflected in the candidate's eyes)."
I admire the conviction, but his pet issues bite, so I'm moving on.
I'm pretty bummed to hear the news that former Illinois Governor George Ryan has been convicted in his corruption case (fraud, racketeering, tax violations, generally unethical behavior). I know close to nothing about the case and I'm not suggesting that he isn't truly guilty. Instead, the issue is that I'm a fan of Ryan's for his decision in 2003 to commute the death sentences of all of his state's death row prisoners. (There was a great documentary about the decision called Deadline. Just checked -- it's available on Netflix.) I had the chance to see Ryan speak about his decision soon after leaving office and, conviction or not, I think he is a great man.
There's an article about efforts by Zacarias Moussaoui's defense team to save his life and generate some sympathy from the jury by portraying him as a troubled young man. Forget troubled, it appears as if he is schizophrenic (as are numerous members of his immediate family). I have enough problems with the idea of someone being put to death for something he was PLANNING to do, but I'm particularly uncomfortable with the dismissiveness with which we as a society respond to mental illness. While Moussaoui is a unique situation (the scapegoat for a national tragedy), how can we so bluntly discuss putting someone to death for being mentally ill? The crimes that they commit are no less heinous and they should, particularly if they are a danger to society, be secured, but why isn't more time spent trying to address the illness that has led them to the point where they can do the things that they do? The guy in Oklahoma who killed his 10-year-old neighbor and who had plans to eat her? HELLO, it doesn't take a medical degree to pick up on the fact that this guy was sick, but he actually made it clear that he IS mentally ill through posts to his blog about the things that his mind was telling him to do. And now prosecutors in that case are already discussing the death penalty. While we're busy acting righteous about ridding the world of evil, we're allowing these people to commit their crimes every time we allow them to go untreated.
Thank G-d for conservatives who enable me to avoid leaving you on a low note. How's this for a chuckle? At yesterday's White House Easter Egg Roll, parents had to make their way past protestors who warned them that their kids were going to get a cold as punishment for mixing and mingling with the gay and lesbian parents -- and their children -- who had also come to the event. Considering the fact that it was raining yesterday and kids are little germ buckets, that's pretty much like saying, "If you attend this event, the sun is going to come up tomorrow."
Time to take a shower.
The front page of the Metro section in today's Post has an article about the gay and lesbian parents who have come to town to participate in the annual Easter Egg Roll at the White House. They have been planning their participation in the event since at least as far back as January.
The message that these parent are trying to send is something along the lines of "We're just like you." They have kids, whom they love and who like to eat chocolate bunnies. Those who have expressed concern that the gay parents were "politicizing" the event have come across as the same folks who say things like, "I wish they wouldn't flaunt their sexuality," when they see two men walking down the street holding hands. Really. It seemed like the perfect plan: bring your kids to an All-American (I won't go into the church and state issue here) event, let them have fun, be a good parent, go home. It's very middle of the road HRC assimilationist politics.
So, I have to say I'm a little disappointed with the organizers' decision to have the gay parents wear rainbow colored leis to enable others to identify them. It's not that I think they should hide. It's more that I think it diminishes the message. "We're just like you except we wear Hawaiian neck garlands at an Easter Egg Roll in Washington DC." And it gives those who say stupid things about politicizing the event ammunition for the poorly-formed argument (everything is political, folks).
How can you tell which parent is the gay parent at the Easter Egg Roll? How can you tell which kid at the Easter Egg Roll has a gay parent? Maybe the answer (beyond the obvious sight of two women or two men walking in with the kids) should be, "You can't, because they're just like everyone else."
I am away from home visiting my father and his wife for the weekend. Dad has wi-fi, so life is pretty good (I am so sad). Jake's away in India right now, but I can't wait to tell him about visiting Dad's place of business when he returns.
Catching up on my blog reading before dinner. Andrew Sullivan has a post today about the new Hamilton College/Zogby poll of high school seniors and it looks like the trend continues. Turns out, if we can hold out a few years, the poofter-hating religious right will be able to kiss our collective asses. Yep, the kiddies think they're making way too big of a deal about boy on boy or girl on girl love.
The New York Times tells its readers, "Yes, there are real gay cowboys and they're not the guys wearing chaps and walking down 5th Avenue every June."
It has become a little too much fun, watching Bush get kicked to the curb over and over again. My elation yesterday, when I heard that the Senate had managed to block renewal of the Patriot Act, had less to do with my strong commitment to civil liberties than with my pleasure in seeing Bush squirm. Of course, Republicans are hoping that it will be the Dems who are squirming when the midterm elections roll around next year. Their strategy? Paint Dems as being more invested in politics than national security. Nothing new.
And this nonsense about Bush making the decision to back McCain's anti-torture legislation? Yeah, well, he didn't really have a choice, did he? It was veto proof. The man had been effectively castrated and it causes me to smile with glee.
Update: Ford has reversed its decision to pull advertising for Jaguar and Land Rover from gay publications in response to boycott threats from right wing conservatives. Looks like a little shareholder activism may have been the "culprit". I don't care if it's money or a desire to do the right thing in the end. The results are the same.
And Virginia governor Mark Warner moves up a couple more notches in my book by signing an executive order banning state agencies from employment discrimination based on sexuality.
Passengers on the same flight are saying that Rigoberto Alpizar never said that he had a bomb and many are wondering why the air marshals felt the need to shoot and kill Alpizar.
Back in June I told you to head out and buy a Jaguar or a Land Rover -- or to at least say something nice to the Ford Motor Company -- because Ford had stood up to the American Family Association's efforts to organize a boycott in protest of their fundraising for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Defamation (GLAAD) and their receipt of high praise from the Human Rights Campaign, a gay and lesbian political organization. Well, the odd thing with that boycott was that it went away relatively quickly. Six months later, however, Ford has announced that it is pulling its Jaguar and Land Rover ads from gay and lesbian publications in response to new threats of a boycott from, yes, the American Family Association. Have they been negotiating all this time?
Finally, Matt has made an honest woman of Luciana.
Andrew Sullivan wrote recently in The New Republic about "the end of gay culture," with a mixture of nostalgia and excitement for the possibilities that the future holds. This theme is carried on in a recent post to his blog about the new Jake Gyllenhal (sigh) and Heath Ledger film, Brokeback Mountain. The two actors, whom Sullivan describes as "handsome beyond measure," play cowboys who fall in love.
Worth reading.
Arrested Development. R.I.P.
In graduate school, when applying for financial aid, we needed to prove that were financially independent from our parents for something like five or seven years. It seemed pretty arbitrary and, well, unfair. Most of my friends, if only because of their age and the help they had received from their parents in paying for college, could not meet this standard and received little to no aid. The tool for demonstrating economic independence was our parents' 1040 tax forms. If we weren't claimed for five (or seven, I really can't remember) all was good.
Well, if there's a similar form for sexual activity, all is well for gay men looking to enter the priesthood. According to ABC News, the Vatican states that, if they can prove they haven't partaked in a little boy on boy for three years, they can enter the priesthood.
For folks who were up in arms about the Vatican denying gay men from entering the priesthood, regardless of whether or not they were celibate, this is a victory. But it's a qualified victory, yes? How do you prove a negative? And what if it's been two years and seven months?
What's the point?
.jpg)
