The Gays Are Looking Pretty Honorable These Days

Read the last paragraph of this report from Newsday.

How come the organizations that exclude gay people -- such as the Boy Scouts of America and the Catholic Church -- are the most notable and significant outposts of pedophilia and sexual exploitation of children?

Scout Official Pleads Guilty in Porn Case

FORT WORTH, Texas -- A former high-ranking Boy Scouts of America official who ran a task force that worked to protect children from sexual abuse pleaded guilty Wednesday to a child pornography charge.

Douglas Sovereign Smith Jr., 61, faces five to 20 years in prison.

Authorities found 520 images of child pornography, including video clips, on Smith's home computer, Assistant U.S. Attorney Bret Helmer said. The images included children engaging in sex acts.

Smith entered his plea to a federal charge of possession and distribution of child pornography without making a deal with prosecutors.

During a hearing, he answered the judge's questions with "yes, sir" or "no, sir" but did not speak otherwise.

...The Boy Scouts have had other problems with their personnel, including volunteers. A California court case in the early 1990s revealed about 2,000 cases of sexual abuse of scouts and other boys that Boy Scouts officials in Irving had documented privately for two decades without telling law enforcement officials. -- The Associated Press

Read the entire article here --> http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usporn0331,0,1380006.story?coll=ny-leadnationalnews-headlines

It's a Gay Thing -- You Really Wouldn't Understand

I don't know whether Candace Murphy gets paid for her writing for "Inside Bay Area." But, if she does, her editors should demand their money back for her current column, parts of which I've excerpted below. Murphy has a stick up her ass about Gay.com's new advertising campaign -- and bases her criticism on a flawed, hetero-centric analysis that, basically, is a poorly pondered load of crap.

As indicated below, Murphy thinks the campaign is ineffective and questionable because it doesn't make gay people as a subgroup appear to be upstanding citizens and it "extols [casual] homosexual sex."

I have no idea whether Murphy has any experience in advertising, but one would like to think if she's going to devote a column dissecting it, she should -- no? Advertising 101 says an effective campaign should identify a target audience -- an identifiable group the advertiser would like to motivate to act -- and shape the message to that group.

It's elementary to conclude that Gay.com has identified their target audience to be gay people -- gay men in particular. Although it would be intriguing to think they could motivate heterosexual people to join the site, more than likely that's not going to happen. There aren't enough toaster ovens in America for that. In any case, the Gay.com people understand an effective target audience is an appropriately segmented, quantifiable and reachable.

Murphy seems to think the point of the Gay.com ads are to influence straight people at large to be more open-minded about gay marriage. In her world, everything that gay people say and create must be a political commentary on equal marriage rights. It would be interesting to know her take on "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," Elton John's latest CD or gay porn.

In her defense, Murphy reveals she's heterosexual -- which is probably unnecessary because her clouded bias comes through loud and clear. I give her credit for being on the gay marriage bandwagon (she seems to be a proponent), but -- unfortunately -- she seems to think equal marriage rights should only be extended if the potential gay marriages fit a clean, palatable, "Stepford Wives" model.

Screw that. If straight people can marry at will even though they are prone to divorce and adultery and seem to be only interested in sex (Murphy cites this stereotype about gay men, not acknowledging that TV shows, popular movies and music videos paint straight people with the same stroke) then gay people should be allowed the same prerogative.

Supposedly, by Murphy's standard, all advertisements make a larger commentary about some political or social issue. So, those blonde women who flash their cleavage in beer commercials -- or those shirtless guys in that commercial in which the wife daydreams her husband was more of a stud -- what do they say about heterosexual marriage?

Maybe it's not covered the first day, but somewhere along the line, also in Advertising 101, someone will assert "sex sells." To be responsible, I'll even add the qualifier "for better or worse." It might indeed be a very sad comment to make about advertising as a construct -- but it's realistic -- and it holds for people whether they are gay or straight.

Murphy has the luxury of not coming to such a conclusion because she's a straight woman, so she can sit back and drone on about the manner in which gay people should aspire to present themselves. That's fine. As a rule, I personally think straight women should generally not come across as such constipated, puritanical bitches.

You see, I am a gay man. I find the Gay.com ad with the two men in bed sexy and intriguing. Furthermore, I find the added symbolism of the American flag fitting and appropriately "in your face." Being a full person with a complete palette of issues beyond the gay cause du jour, I don't see any commentary at all about gay marriage in the ad. But that's just me.

Murphy opines the Gay.com ad misses the mark. But, who do you think they were hoping to reach -- her or me?

Gay.com's Latest Advertising Campaign Misses the Mark

The most provocative image in the campaign is of a gay couple ("an actual couple, by the way," says Gay.com's media relations) lying in bed beneath [an American] flag, post- or pre- something quite obvious, with a tagline reading "Come Together -- Gay.com." According to Gay.com, the campaign is supposed to illustrate how the concepts of freedom and patriotism and the freedom to be intimate with whomever they choose are not mutually exclusive.

Whichever world I'm in, the campaign doesn't seem like a good idea. Not because I don't want to see anyone in bed, straight or gay (which I don't), [nor] anyone under a flag, whether it's American, Polish or one of those suburban holiday-themed ones (which I really don't).

It has nothing to do with gay vs. straight, patriot vs. traitor, shocking vs. coddling. Instead, it's because the ad campaign is completely off-point.

As I understand it, the issue that's been on the table of late, for both gay proponents and opponents, is about marriage, not about intimacy. And the issue is with the word "marriage." One side has imbued the word with God, church and biblical connotations. The other side just knows it's the only word to use that represents what they need to have to have equal rights. Same sex unions simply don't have the same rights that marriages do. Hence, the inequity; hence, the conundrum.

In my admittedly straight opinion, it's a shame the Gay.com ad alludes to none of this. Because quite likely, it will alienate the very community from whom they're seeking empathy by reaffirming that tired stereotype that a segment of society subscribes to: that gay men are only interested in sex.

The billboard ad doesn't get across the message that the two men are a loving, committed couple in real life.

...For years, my less-sensitive acquaintances, perhaps stuck in traffic in San Francisco during the Pride Parade, have in non-politically correct moments mumbled that they don't have a parade extolling heterosexual sex: No floats of male and female private parts simulating any graphic acts, no fist-pumping cheers of "We're here, we're NOT queer, get used to it!"

Of course, while sexuality is intertwined with the gay community's identity, in a way, that's not the point of the Pride Parade and that's not the point of the gay community's modern agenda either. And for years, those more attuned to the needs of the gay community have said as much.

But Gay.com's advertising campaign says the opposite.


Find the entire column, and see the Gay.com ad, here --> http://www.insidebayarea.com/bayarealiving/ci_2625495

It's a Gay Thing -- You Really Wouldn't Understand

I don't know whether Candace Murphy gets paid for her writing for "Inside Bay Area." But, if she does, her editors should demand their money back for her current column, parts of which I've excerpted below. Murphy has a stick up her ass about Gay.com's new advertising campaign -- and bases her criticism on a flawed, hetero-centric analysis that, basically, is a poorly pondered load of crap.

As indicated below, Murphy thinks the campaign is ineffective and questionable because it doesn't make gay people as a subgroup appear to be upstanding citizens and it "extols [casual] homosexual sex."

I have no idea whether Murphy has any experience in advertising, but one would like to think if she's going to devote a column dissecting it, she should -- no? Advertising 101 says an effective campaign should identify a target audience -- an identifiable group the advertiser would like to motivate to act -- and shape the message to that group.

It's elementary to conclude that Gay.com has identified their target audience to be gay people -- gay men in particular. Although it would be intriguing to think they could motivate heterosexual people to join the site, more than likely that's not going to happen. There aren't enough toaster ovens in America for that. In any case, the Gay.com people understand an effective target audience is an appropriately segmented, quantifiable and reachable.

Murphy seems to think the point of the Gay.com ads are to influence straight people at large to be more open-minded about gay marriage. In her world, everything that gay people say and create must be a political commentary on equal marriage rights. It would be interesting to know her take on "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," Elton John's latest CD or gay porn.

In her defense, Murphy reveals she's heterosexual -- which is probably unnecessary because her clouded bias comes through loud and clear. I give her credit for being on the gay marriage bandwagon (she seems to be a proponent), but -- unfortunately -- she seems to think equal marriage rights should only be extended if the potential gay marriages fit a clean, palatable, "Stepford Wives" model.

Screw that. If straight people can marry at will even though they are prone to divorce and adultery and seem to be only interested in sex (Murphy cites this stereotype about gay men, not acknowledging that TV shows, popular movies and music videos paint straight people with the same stroke) then gay people should be allowed the same prerogative.

Supposedly, by Murphy's standard, all advertisements make a larger commentary about some political or social issue. So, those blonde women who flash their cleavage in beer commercials -- or those shirtless guys in that commercial in which the wife daydreams her husband was more of a stud -- what do they say about heterosexual marriage?

Maybe it's not covered the first day, but somewhere along the line, also in Advertising 101, someone will assert "sex sells." To be responsible, I'll even add the qualifier "for better or worse." It might indeed be a very sad comment to make about advertising as a construct -- but it's realistic -- and it holds for people whether they are gay or straight.

Murphy has the luxury of not coming to such a conclusion because she's a straight woman, so she can sit back and drone on about the manner in which gay people should aspire to present themselves. That's fine. As a rule, I personally think straight women should generally not come across as such constipated, puritanical bitches.

You see, I am a gay man. I find the Gay.com ad with the two men in bed sexy and intriguing. Furthermore, I find the added symbolism of the American flag fitting and appropriately "in your face." Being a full person with a complete palette of issues beyond the gay cause du jour, I don't see any commentary at all about gay marriage in the ad. But that's just me.

Murphy opines the Gay.com ad misses the mark. But, who do you think they were hoping to reach -- her or me?


Gay.com's Latest Advertising Campaign Misses the Mark

The most provocative image in the campaign is of a gay couple ("an actual couple, by the way," says Gay.com's media relations) lying in bed beneath [an American] flag, post- or pre- something quite obvious, with a tagline reading "Come Together -- Gay.com." According to Gay.com, the campaign is supposed to illustrate how the concepts of freedom and patriotism and the freedom to be intimate with whomever they choose are not mutually exclusive.

Whichever world I'm in, the campaign doesn't seem like a good idea. Not because I don't want to see anyone in bed, straight or gay (which I don't), [nor] anyone under a flag, whether it's American, Polish or one of those suburban holiday-themed ones (which I really don't).

It has nothing to do with gay vs. straight, patriot vs. traitor, shocking vs. coddling. Instead, it's because the ad campaign is completely off-point.

As I understand it, the issue that's been on the table of late, for both gay proponents and opponents, is about marriage, not about intimacy. And the issue is with the word "marriage." One side has imbued the word with God, church and biblical connotations. The other side just knows it's the only word to use that represents what they need to have to have equal rights. Same sex unions simply don't have the same rights that marriages do. Hence, the inequity; hence, the conundrum.

In my admittedly straight opinion, it's a shame the Gay.com ad alludes to none of this. Because quite likely, it will alienate the very community from whom they're seeking empathy by reaffirming that tired stereotype that a segment of society subscribes to: that gay men are only interested in sex.

The billboard ad doesn't get across the message that the two men are a loving, committed couple in real life.

...For years, my less-sensitive acquaintances, perhaps stuck in traffic in San Francisco during the Pride Parade, have in non-politically correct moments mumbled that they don't have a parade extolling heterosexual sex: No floats of male and female private parts simulating any graphic acts, no fist-pumping cheers of "We're here, we're NOT queer, get used to it!"

Of course, while sexuality is intertwined with the gay community's identity, in a way, that's not the point of the Pride Parade and that's not the point of the gay community's modern agenda either. And for years, those more attuned to the needs of the gay community have said as much.

But Gay.com's advertising campaign says the opposite.


Find the entire column, and see the Gay.com ad, here --> http://www.insidebayarea.com/bayarealiving/ci_2625495

Welcome to My World

On the Sunday morning political shows this week, the conservative pundits
were tripping over themselves to remedy the plight of their party's stand on
the Schiavo situation. I was watching with my Republican buddy who
eventually said, "They're all lying and misrepresenting the facts to try to
appear 'right.' They're making assumptions about things they don't know
anything about and predictions about what they think might happen and
claiming they are facts!"

My immediate response: "Where have you been the last five years?"

In an ironic moment, when these same pundits were shown polls that show
President Bush's "approval" rating dipping lower than his IQ, they all
chalked it up to Americans being concerned about gas and energy prices.
True, that's a factor, but let's be clear -- this last week Bush tried to
play a hero but ended up revealing his inherent cronyism and hypocrisy. My
buddy and I both agreed on that analysis.

So, even though there is little to take solace in with regard to this tragic
situation -- and how Congress and President Bush made it worse -- perhaps
Terri Schiavo's legacy will be to expose this administration's corruptness
as well as the conservative faction's radical urges and the dangers they
present to our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. This situation
certainly sheds light -- revealing much about the type of control-freak,
killjoy fascists this faction and administration truly are.

Happy Easter

I don't always agree with Scott Sherman, the Howler Monkey. But in his current column about gay people embracing religion instead of categorically shunning it because of the examples set by a few bad apples (e.g., the Christian radical right), he's right on track. You should read the whole column here --> http://www.outinchicago.com/arts/conservativelyspeaking.asp

Working from Within

...I wrote this column this Holy Week not to point out the inherent problems in churches. Every church, no matter how big or small, is going to have issues. The question is do we overlook the issue and try to come to an understanding, or do we just stand around stabbing each other in the back? Over the Easter holiday, churches throughout America will preach hope, unity and love. Thousands of congregations will throw open their doors to gays and lesbians, support them, and even protest with them.

It¹s time for the gay movement to embrace these churches and utilize them as bases of power in the fight for marriage and other issues that seem to be issues of choice by the Christian right. Nothing will drive the fundies crazier than having another mainline church protest them protesting the gays.

God Hates Bigots

If a small group of people portends to be acting from religious beliefs (however misguided) but the official heads of that religion denounce them, they are nothing more than a cult, right? We have it all on record in this report. I expect from this point on the media will refer to Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist "Church" as the extreme cult it is.

Church Group Holds Anti-Gay Rally

Members of an anti-gay Baptist church protested at Palmer High School Friday morning because a student had attempted to form a school-sanctioned gay straight alliance. 

About a dozen representatives from Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka carried signs that read "God hates fags" and "Fags are worthy of Death." Phelps is known for his strong anti-gay statements. He has previously demonstrated in Trinidad against sex change operations and at Focus on the Family, after Focus had hired former gays and lesbians.

Phelps' grandson led the 30 minute protest Friday. Several hundred people from the community held a counter demonstration nearby. Colorado Springs Police reported no major problems. No arrests were made and classes continued inside the school as usual.

Some local clergymen have a problem with the image Phelps gives Christianity.

"He's not affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention and, as a matter of fact, we don't want him to be," says Circle Baptist Church Pastor Mike Routt.


Read the entire article here --> http://www.koaa.com/news/view.asp?ID=3318

Reputable? Admirable? -- Jeff Gannon Says "I Am Neither"

I had a quick look at White House Whore Jeff Gannon's web site today. Trust me, with all the right-wing diatribe and unenlightened, poorly-expressed thoughts masquerading as valuable comment there, a quick scan was all I could stomach.

I especially had to laugh at this statement:

NOTE TO [Editor & Publisher]: You should stop describing me as "disgraced." It is totally inaccurate. It implies that I am ashamed or discredited. I am neither.

Now, I guess I truly can't make a call on whether JimmyJeff feels shame in regard to his situation. All I can say is -- if I were a reporter in the White House press corps one day and then found myself reduced to being a blogger who no one will talk with anymore and from whom people rush to disinfect and cleanse themselves after they shake my hand -- well, I'm pretty sure I'd feel some level of shame.

Not to mention the fact that the people who JimmyJeff is trying to appeal to -- the conservative base -- expect him to feel and express shame for the things he has done in what he calls "his past." He posted nude photos of himself online in an attempt to prostitute himself. Apparently, though, he has no regrets.

This man really wants it both ways, doesn't he? (This is meant to be a reference to his shifting character -- not necessarily to his proclivities.)

And it's this chronic flaw in his character that proves him discredited, too. As well as the fact that his former employer removed all of his writing from his web site. And the fact that his former cronies don't want anything to do with him anymore. And the fact that when the stove got hot, he ran from the fire -- blaming his lack of gravitas and perseverance on concern for his family (who have more than likely disowned him, too). And the fact that he is the butt of jokes from Jay Leno to the Daily Show, fodder for Doonesbury and political cartoonists nationwide.

Disgraced, ashamed and discredited. They all seem mighty accurate to me.

You're the #$%&@ing President -- Learn to Speak

I know George W. Bush is not known for his verbal skills. But his statement today about the Terry Schiavo situation has to be right up there as one of the oddest things he has ever said:

"This is a complex case with serious issues, but in extraordinary circumstances like this, it is wise to always err on the side of life."

I suppose it makes sense to him, though. His folks certainly erred when they gave him life.

Bush Acts to Prolong the Suffering of Someone Else Who Is Brain-Dead

I had to laugh when I saw this very fitting headline this morning:

Bush Signs Controversial Bill to Keep Brain-Damaged Woman Alive

If anyone knows what it's like to be brain-damaged, it's George W. Bush.

Read more about how the government wants to run every aspect of your life -- and death -- here --> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050321/ts_afp/useuthanasiajusticepolitics_050321131022&e=2

Blood on His Hands

If anyone caught tonight's episode of "Boston Legal" it might have made you think about President Bush waiting in the wings to sacrifice the life of Terri Schiavo.

The program featured the story of a man whose intelligence was only slightly above the level considered competent. He received a hasty trial on a murder charge, represented by a defense attorney who later admitted  he was addicted to cocaine. The accused man himself was a drug abuser who said he couldn't remember whether he had committed the crime or not. In fact, he couldn't remember anything about the night in question. Somehow, in the face of murky evidence (DNA evidence suggested another person was at the scene, a lead the investigators failed to pursue) -- and bucking the presumption of innocence unless guilt is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt -- the Texas justice system doomed him to death and denied every appeal and request for a mistrial.

In doing a quick Internet search, I learned the fictional case on the program closely resembled one during the time when George Bush was the governor of Texas. In tonight's show, a last minute pardon from the governor would have saved the man's life. It never came. The show closed with a brutal scene of the man being administered a lethal injection to kill him.

Ironic, isn't it? The man who, while he was governor of Texas, turned a blind eye while the state actively made it easier to sentence people to death, now feels the arbitrary impulse to protect Terry Shiavo's life. Bush is commonly referred to as the "chief executive officer of the Texas death industry" because he has signed more death warrants than any other elected official alive today in America.

The web site commondreams.com reports:

"The Chicago Tribune published a compelling report on an investigation of all 131 death cases in Governor Bush's time. It made chilling reading.

"In one-third of those cases, the report showed, the lawyer who represented the death penalty defendant at trial or on appeal had been or was later disbarred or otherwise sanctioned. In 40 cases the lawyers presented no evidence at all or only one witness at the sentencing phase of the trial.

"In 29 cases, the prosecution used testimony from a psychiatrist who -- based on a hypothetical question about the defendant's past -- predicted he would commit future violence. Most of those psychiatrists testified without having examined the defendant: a practice condemned professionally as unethical (ed: and grounds for a mistrial in other, more rational states).

"Other witnesses included one who was temporarily released from a psychiatric ward to testify, a pathologist who had admitted faking autopsies and a judge who had been reprimanded for lying about his credentials."

Despite these damning facts, Bush has maintained: "Every person that has been put to death in Texas under my watch has been guilty of the crime charged, and has had full access to the courts."

Just this weekend, U.S. Catholic bishops announced they will launch a campaign to denounce the death penalty. One wonders exactly what is going to give way when the Republican's zeal for killing meets the desire of their base for mercy.

The cause and effect here should put to rest any question about Bush's real motive in getting involved with the Schiavo issue. The man doesn't value life. He doesn't extend compassion or mercy. It's not in his toolbox. It's not even in his vocabulary.

Rather, if someone's life is going to be taken, he wants to be the one to swagger in, Texas-style, and pull the switch himself. Because there's nothing to be gained here for his friends who are in the executing business, why let this one die? Bush is now -- for one day, at least -- a proponent of life.


George W. Bush: The Death Penalty Governor --> http://www.commondreams.org/views/020900-105.htm

Texas Executions: GW Bush Has Defined Himself, Unforgettably, As Shallow And Callous --> http://www.commondreams.org/views/061700-102.htm

U.S. Catholic Bishops to Launch Campaign Denouncing Death Penalty --> http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/11188063.htm

Republicans Move Slowly to Tackle Our Most Pressing Issues, But Haul Ass To Pander to Their Base

It's interesting how many hurdles Republican politicians can overcome -- and how fast they can act -- when something is in their self-interest. We must all remember this when they claim their hands are tied and they can't make something happen that will serve the nation -- but not necessarily their chances at reelection or their urges to award their cronies.

I think, considering the precedent they're displaying regarding the Terri Schiavo case, we should all demand equally quick and decisive action to solve the nation's health care crisis, improve public schools and quell the record prices we're now paying for gas.


Senate Passes Legislation on Schiavo Case

WASHINGTON -- The Senate passed a bill that could prolong Terri Schiavo's life while House Republicans, stalled by Democrats, scrambled to bring enough lawmakers back to the Capitol for an emergency vote early Monday.

President Bush rushed back from his Texas ranch for a chance to sign the measure that Republicans view as an opportunity to strengthen their support among religious conservatives ahead of next year's congressional elections.

Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., said Sunday that Schiavo and members of her family have "become political pawns to larger political issues."

GOP leaders planned a House vote just past midnight, hours after the Senate approved the bill by voice vote.

The White House said the president would act as soon as the measure reaches him.

A Senate bill passed by the House is returned to the Senate enrollment clerk's office where it is printed on parchment and, when speed is important, driven immediately to the White House by Senate personnel. There, the White House clerk takes custody of the legislation and prepares it for the president to sign into law. The procedure is routine when quick action is important, such as on overdue budget bills, and can be handled in minutes as opposed to hours.

The White House made arrangements for Bush to sign the measure at any hour, although without fanfare.

Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., said members scattered across the globe were being summoned back to Washington by aides to House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo.

Blunt's office sent a notice to members on their handheld computers Friday to be prepared to return to Washington on Sunday, said spokeswoman Burson Taylor.

In emergencies, when that does not work, the whip's office activates a phone tree, where one member is charged with calling the next. "We do anticipate a quorum," she said.

..."I hope we're not ... making this human tragedy a political issue," Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., told ABC's "This Week." "We've got plenty of other issues that are political in nature for us to fight about." -- Jim Abrams, Associated Press Writer

Read the entire article here --> http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050321/ap_on_go_co/schiavo_congress

Michael Schiavo Stands Up to Republican Fascists

I have to admit, I've been torn about the Terri Schiavo case. But it certainly scares me that Repugs are feeling "called" to weigh in -- ad naseum -- about what should be a very personal decision. Putting that aside, I've heard lots of arguments this week from many perspectives, but nothing struck me more than what Michael Schiavo, said today in issuing a challenge and confrontation to the politicians who are determined to stage a pissing contest about the whole matter. If anyone should be listened to, I'm now convinced, it's Terri's husband.


Schiavo: 'Come Down, President Bush'

20 March -- Angered by the latest political developments in Washington, Michael Schiavo said Saturday that it isn't just the Florida governor who should visit his wife to learn about the case.

Jeb Bush's brother, President Bush, should visit Terri Schiavo, too, he said.

"Come down, President Bush," Schiavo said in a telephone interview. "Come talk to me. Meet my wife. Talk to my wife and see if you get an answer. Ask her to lift her arm to shake your hand. She won't do it."

She won't, Schiavo said, because she can't.

He made a similar offer to the governor last week, saying lawmakers interferring in his wife's life know nothing about the case. So far, Gov. Bush hasn't responded to the offer.

President Bush has indicated he will sign any federal legislation to keep Terri Schiavo alive.

Weary after an emotional visit with his wife, Schiavo said he is astonished that politicians want to interfere in such a private matter.

"Instead of worrying about my wife, who was granted her wishes by the state courts the past seven years, they should worry about the pedophiles killing young girls," Schiavo said, referring to a local case. "Why doesn't Congress worry about people not having health insurance? Or the budget? Let's talk about all the children who don't have homes."

He said U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who is leading a charge to extend Terri Schiavo's life, is a "little slithering snake" pandering for votes.

"To make comments that Terri would want to live, how do they know?" Schiavo said of the members of Congress who want to keep his wife alive.

"Have they ever met her?" Schiavo said. "What color are her eyes? What's her middle name? What's her favorite color? They don't have any clue who Terri is. They should all be ashamed of themselves."

Schiavo said he was going to stay at his wife's side through the entire ordeal and said he wouldn't back down in his fight to have her wishes carried out.

"Terri died 15 years ago," Schiavo said, referring to the collapse and cardiac arrest that doctors say virtually destroyed her brain. "It's time for her to be with the Lord like she wanted to be." -- William R. Levesque, St. Petersburg Times Staff Writer


Read the entire article here --> http://www.sptimes.com/2005/03/20/Tampabay/Schiavo___Come_down__.shtml

Only Pity for Alan Keyes

Alan Keyes continues to focus on his family. He says homosexuals, including the daughter he raised, are destroying America.

When he's on his deathbed, do you think he'll be proud for all the anti-gay rhetoric he has spewed? Or will he exit this world wishing he had been more understanding, wishing he hadn't alienated himself from so many people, wishing his daughter was at his side?

Pity him.


Keyes: 'Homosexuals Are Destroying America'

15 March -- The coming out of his own daughter has not softened former Ambassador Alan Keyes' position on gays and same-sex marriage.

The conservative broadcaster and failed senate candidate delivered a scathing attack gay marriage at a Christian rally in St Augustine, Fla.

"Marriage exists in order to respect, recognize and enforce obligations that arise from the fact of procreation," Keyes said in his keynote address at ProFamily Rally 2005.

He then declared that heterosexual couples who choose not to have children do not hurt the institution, but a gay union would annihilate it.

"It's like a wooden iron. It doesn't make any sense," he said.

To cheers and shouts of "Amen," Keyes attacked this week's ruling in San Francisco that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry. Keyes told the crowd of nearly 1000 that "one lonely judge comes along and says 'No. That's not how its going to be.'" 

He told the audience that allowing a judge to rule that same-sex couples can marry is a form of tyranny. 

Keyes also said he does not see that there is a separation of church and state in the U.S. Constitution, noting that laws incorporate biblical values.

A group of about a dozen LGBT demonstrators stood silently near the stage. One wore a shirt that read "Hatred is not a family value."

Keyes went down to a crushing defeat when he ran for the GOP against Barack Obama in Illinois last November.  

The former conservative talk show host who was parachuted into Illinois to run for the GOP became a thorn in the side of Republicans because of his extreme anti-gay statements.

But, his most incendiary remarks came at the Republican National Convention when 365Gay.com commentator Michelangelo Signorile interviewed him for his Sirius radio show.

Keyes said that homosexuality is "selfish hedonism." Signorile then asked Keyes, the GOP candidate for the US Senate in Illinois,  whether he considered Mary Cheney, the daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney, a "selfish hedonist."

"Of course she is," Keyes replied. "That goes by definition. Of course she is."

Following Tuesday's speech in St Augustine Keyes refused to discuss his relationship with his own daughter.

Keyes' daughter came out last month at a Valentines Day demonstration in support of gay marriage in Maryland.

It was Maya Marcel-Keyes first public appearance as a gay activist. Marcel-Keyes said her parents have thrown her out of the house, stopped speaking to her and refuse to pay for college because she is a lesbian. -- Fidel Ortega 365Gay.com Miami Bureau

Find the original article here --> http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/03/031605keyes.htm

Hypocrites

The leaders of the San Diego diocese that denied a gay man a funeral service in one of its churches issued a statement today listing the transgressions they perceived the man had committed. Among them: Porn stars were scheduled to make an appearance at one of his bars, a porn video was reportedly filmed at his other club (this claim has not been substantiated) and his advertising carried the slogans "Real Men, No Rules!" and "Tired of Playing with Boys, Come Play with Men!" I'm sorry, but these don't seem like major transgressions to me. Considering that last slogan, is it possible the church leaders were in a tiff over the veiled reference to them? I mean, who else do you know who are commonly caught playing with boys?

1 Corinthians says: "Love is kind and patient, never jealous, boastful, proud or rude. Love isn't selfish or quick-tempered. It doesn't keep a record of wrongs that people do."

So, I won't be offering any sort of list here. But I will be copying what John Aravois at AMERICAblog has uncovered about the diocese's bishop. It seems he won't be eligible for a funeral in any of his own diocese's churches, lest the appearance that the diocese condones


San Diego Bishop Who Refused Funeral for Gay Man Settled High-Priced Sex Suit

My oh my.

The Bishop settled a sexual abuse lawsuit for $100,000, while claiming that an investigation proved his innocence. Yet, rather than use that rock-solid evidence to prove his innocence and clear his good name, and the good names of other high-ranking clergy, he and the other clergy chose to pay off the young man who accused them of forcing him to have sex with them. Yes, "young man."

Now, we have no way of knowing if Bishop Brom did or didn't in essence commit date rape on this young man. You'll have to look at the facts and try to decide that for yourself. But it is interesting, in the context of him refusing a funeral for a gay man.

We report, you decide.

From the Dallas Morning News in 2002:

BISHOP ROBERT BROM
He is one of about a dozen U.S. bishops who have been accused of sexual misconduct in recent years. Catholic leaders in Minnesota, where Bishop Brom once headed the Diocese of Duluth, have paid a settlement to a former seminarian who alleged that he was coerced into sex.

A spokeswoman for the bishop recently told The Boston Globe that "minimal insurance" money was paid to the accuser, who agreed to retract his claim. Two archbishops who helped negotiate the deal in the mid-1990s said the man received roughly $100,000. The man alleged that in the 1980s, Bishop Brom and other high-ranking clergymen pressured him and other young men to have sex at a seminary in Winona, Minn. Bishop Brom has denied any sexual misconduct and has said that an investigation disproved what the former seminarian "thought he remembered."

In San Diego after Bishop Brom took over, questions arose about how his top aides handled the 1993 case of the Rev. Emmanuel Omemaga, who was accused of raping a 14-year-old girl after her grandfather's funeral, tying her to a bed and photographing her in bondage. The diocese has said it suspended the priest when it first learned of the accusation, then let him go home to the Philippines on vacation.

Police, meanwhile, began investigating and asked a priest who was one of the bishop's aides to alert them immediately upon Father Omemaga's return. "He agreed to do so" but instead waited five days, according to a police report. At that point, according to the report, the aide left a message saying that he had told the wanted man to call police and to consult an attorney. Father Omemaga vanished and remains the target of an arrest warrant. The aide has said he did everything he could do to bring his fellow priest to justice.

I did a little more digging on the good Bishop and found that whether or not he's a date rapist, he sure sounds like a liar.From the SD Union-Tribune, July 4, 2002 (via Lexis):

Less than three weeks after Bishop Robert Brom assured parishioners that no large settlements have been paid out in priest abuse cases since he took over 12 years ago, the Catholic diocese has acknowledged that a man who said he was molested as a boy received $250,000 in December.... Neither Brom nor Bernadeane Carr, the diocese's spokeswoman, would answer questions yesterday. "We don't have any further comments," Carr said.

Link --> http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/03/san-diego-bishop-who-refused-funeral.html

There's a Special Place in Hell for Catholic Leaders Who Advance Judgement and Hate

All people of good conscience should contact the San Diego diocese that
refused to provide a service to John McCusker, the gay business owner who
died March 13 (see post below). Tell them their hateful action smacks of
bigotry and misguided malice. Tell them they have tainted and undermined
their role as leaders in their community.

Remind them that compassion, mercy and love are the real Christian values.

Phone:
(858) 490-8200

E-Mail:
bcarr@diocese-sdiego.org
Conference@cacatholic.org
ckellett@diocese-sdiego.org

Learn more here -->
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/03/hateful-bigoted-catholic-leaders.htm
l

On Hiatus

As some of you know, I'm on "hiatus" from the Catholic Church. I sincerely can't wait to rejoin it, but I won't as long as its current cadre of leaders insist on taking the Church in a direction I believe God Himself would renounce.

To wit, last year a bishop in St. Louis decided to withhold communion from church members who voted for candidates who cast votes supporting abortion or other issues with which the Church disagrees. While I can understand the Church wanting to advance their point of view, withholding communion is a hurtful, vengeful act.

First of all, it ignores the fact that America is a representative democracy. If a public office holder has polled his constituents and they feel a certain way about a topic, he or she ought to -- as a responsive and responsible office holder -- cast a vote reflective of that -- even if it contradicts what his or her religion would tell him or her and even if it is something with which he or she, personally, would disagree.

Secondly, punishing people for the votes they cast is ridiculous and unnecessarily spiteful. It is a form of heavy-handed manipulation. If we begin punishing the electorate for the actions of their specific representatives -- I hazard to think how any us will lead lives free from blame. Furthermore, what if a representative votes in accord with Catholic dictates on one issue but contrary to them on another? Should we start splitting the communion wafer into fractions? What if I am not aware of how my representative has voted? Am I specially damned if I accept communion when I, in fact, have a "heathen" for a Congressperson -- but I wasn't aware? It's a can of worms that ends up being completely ludicrous.

Thirdly, if the idea of communion is to improve someone's soul -- to bring us into "communion" with God and the idea of His and His son's sacrifice for us -- isn't it contradictory for Church leaders to withhold it from people who they feel should be more inspired by those ideas? Wouldn't it be more fitting for the leaders to insist that the congregants about whom they are most concerned should receive double communion -- instead of none at all?

Communion was never intended to be a reward for "toeing the party line."

Don't get me started about how the Catholic church leaders continue to misogynistically undervalue women, actively sanction prejudice and turn a blind eye (and ironically even rush to defend) to the transgressions of their own who are embroiled in pedophilia scandals.

Today I learned about another fine example the Church leaders are displaying:

A member of the Greater San Diego Business Association and owner of two gay bars has been denied a funeral at the University of San Diego and in any Catholic church or chapel in the Diocese of San Diego. John McCusker, 31, owner of Club Montage and Re:Bar, two local gay nightspots, died early March 13. McCusker suffered an apparent heart attack while at the Mammoth Mountain Ski Resort on vacation.

A 1996 graduate of USD, McCusker's family wanted to have the funeral service there, but was denied after church officials received information about him and his businesses.

Joyce Marieb, executive director of the Greater San Diego Business Association, called McCusker, "a great leader and the kind of guy that people love to see because he gives back and is very generous to the community."

"We all know what this is about," Marieb said, who knew McCusker for the past five and a half years. "They [the Catholic Church] claim they've buried other gay people and that it's because of the bar aspect."
A statement released earlier Thursday by Rodrigo Valdivia, chancellor for the Diocese of San Diego, explains the church's actions.

"The facts regarding the business activity of John McCusker were not known by church officials when arrangements were requested for his funeral. When these facts became known the bishop of San Diego concluded that to avoid public scandal Mr. McCusker can't be granted a funeral in a Catholic church or chapel in the Diocese of San Diego."

So what about McCusker would cause a public scandal?

"His business is adult entertainment, which is inconsistent with Catholic teaching" Valdivia said. "People would be scandalized that the church granted a funeral to a person who had this type of business activity."

There are too many contradictions and inconsistencies inherent in the action by the San Diego leaders to address them all. Isn't the Church's position that we are born to eternal life when we die and that our sins are washed away? Why is this man being punished in this manner, then -- don't those leaders believe what they preach? What other types of businesses are now subject to this new accord? Will businesses that exploit poor people or extol war also be excluded? I thought the Church advanced the idea of "hating the sin but loving the sinner." How does this action display any sense of compassion? Will the priests who have been convicted of sex crimes against children be disallowed a proper burial, or is pedophilia consistent with Catholic teaching?

I'm reminded of a bumper sticker I saw a few years ago that said, "Jesus, Save Me From Your Followers." Indeed.

And I'm reminded of the words attributed to God in the Bible: "Vengeance is mine, I will repay. If your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

Again, this decision by Church leaders is a heavy-handed, arbitrary, manipulative action. My conscience tells me there are thieves in the den. I simply can't be a part of the Catholic Church until its leaders clean up their acts and start living lives inspired by God and by good -- and not by their own evil, misguided sense of morality and propriety.

Rescue the Colorado Students from Their Ignorant Leaders

The article below, about the leaders of a school district in Colorado who have arbitrarily decided to reject an educational video because of their fears the video says positive things about homosexuality, made me wonder about the quality of the education those leaders are fostering. So, I went to see how Colorado students fare on the ACT exam given to students who are interested in attending college after high school. I figured this was as good of barometer as any of how these students -- whose leaders "protect" them from topics according to their (bigoted) whims -- stack up against students from other states.

What I found is pretty damning.

In 2004, the national ACT test average for students across the nation was 20.9. Colorado students achieved scores well below that mark, averaging 20.3. Only eight states scored worse.

Maybe it's time for these leaders to stop shielding their students from topics they deem controversial, which is essentially an effort to force their ideas of morality down their pupils throats. It's ensuring that their students continue to be misinformed about reality, understanding issues in only a one-sided manner. In other words, it's contributing to them being ignorant and stupid when they leave high school.

Simply put: These leaders are failing their students.

I suspect this argument would fall on deaf ears there, though. Stupid people generally don't get very far from home. I wonder how many of these Colorado school leaders were educated in the districts they now head -- doomed to a vicious circle of blind ignorance and dumb intolerance their entire lives and careers.

Save a student from such a dull fate. Rescue them from Colorado!

School District Rejects Disputed Video

Academy School District 20 won¹t show students a children¹s music video that conservative groups have denounced for promoting acceptance of gay lifestyles. More on this topic

The videos are being distributed to schools nationwide and arrived at Pikes Peak-area school districts this week.

The four-minute video features about 100 popular cartoon characters and puppets -- including SpongeBob SquarePants, Kermit the Frog, Big Bird and Barney -- singing ³We Are Family.²

It sparked controversy this year when the American Family Association and Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family claimed one of the motives behind the singalong was to encourage children to accept homosexuality.
The creator, New Yorkbased We Are Family Foundation, says the video conveys a message of tolerance and diversity, not sexual orientation.

FedEx, a national sponsor of the video, distributed more than 60,000 sets of DVDs and teachers guides nationwide at no cost.

Academy School District 20, which is the district¹s second-largest district and includes the headquarters of Focus on the Family, does not plan to distribute the DVDs to its 16 elementary schools, district spokeswoman Nanette Anderson said.

Before the video arrived, a ³handful² of parents objected to it being shown in school, she said. ³We just feel we have character ed programs already in place that address the same goals of tolerance and diversity.²

Other districts in the Pikes Peak area have not decided what to do with the video.

Assistant Superintendent Barbara Day of Falcon School District 49 watched the video Monday after about 10 of the DVDs arrived. ³Maybe I¹m an idiot, but I don¹t get it,² she said. ³I saw absolutely nothing objectionable.²

The video, she said, will be shown to principals, who will decide whether the video would be useful, she said.

The video, which can be viewed online at www.wearefamilyfoundation.org, or the teachers guide, available at www.adl.org/waff/guide.pdf, do not specifically refer to sexual orientation.

Focus issued a statement saying earlier versions of the teachers guide reportedly contained several references to same-sex parents.

³We can only assume the We Are Family Foundation removed those references after realizing the majority of American parents do not want such material to be foisted on their children under the guise of Œtolerance and diversity,¹² the (group) said in its statement.

Beth Yohe, associate director of education for the Anti-Defamation League¹s Mountain States Regional Office, said the league and the producers are letting the video and guide speak for themselves. They hope school districts will not refuse to show the video without watching it.

³We certainly hope that each school district will wait to reserve judgment until they see the actual materials,² she said, ³which is also the message for the kids -- get to know someone before you make a decision about them.²  -- Brian Newsom, The Gazette (Colorado Springs)


Find the original article here --> http://www.gazette.com/display.php?id=1306409&secid=1

Find ACT data here --> http://www.midwestsites.com/stellent2/groups/public/documents/pub/mws_am_ed_000923.hcsp

And here --> http://www.act.org/news/data/04/states.html

In Praise of Activist Judges

Is everyone beginning to see that those judges who the Repugs and fundies like to call "activist" are simply the ones who don't toe the conservative line? Never mind that they read the Constitution strictly, literally and responsibly.... And never mind if they're one of them!

Oh, the whole thing is falling apart, isn't it?

Judge in Gay Marriage Case is a Catholic Republican Appointee

DAVID KRAVETS € Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO - Supporters of same-sex marriage found an ally in San Francisco Judge Richard Kramer -- a Catholic Republican appointed to the bench by a former GOP governor.

"We're certainly feeling the judge's decision is right," said San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, whose city's lawsuit prompted Kramer's ruling Monday that gays and lesbians have the right to marry in California, despite a law and a voter-approved measure declaring marriage to be the exclusive realm of heterosexuals.

Opponents of gay marriage immediately declared that 57-year-old Kramer is a judicial activist whose decision was "ludicrous" and "nonsense."

"We knew Judge Kramer was under tremendous political pressure to redefine marriage, but we were hopeful he would recognize the limited role of the judiciary," said Robert Tyler, an Alliance Defense Fund attorney trying to uphold California's traditional marriage laws. "We do not believe it is appropriate for judges in this setting to overturn the will of the people."

With a 27-page stroke of the pen, Kramer did just that. "The parade of horrible social ills envisioned by the opponents of same-sex marriage is not a necessary result from recognizing that there is a fundamental right to choose who one wants to marry," he wrote in the decision, which won't be enforced for 60 days, to give opponents time to appeal.

Lawyers who have practiced before Kramer said the 1972 graduate of the University of Southern California Law Center is among the top judges in San Francisco, and is unswayed by public opinion.

"I think he does what he thinks is right," said Robert Stumpf Jr., who settled a class-action for $6.7 million before Kramer last year while representing Wells Fargo.

The bank was accused of illegally selling customers' financial information. Stumpf said Kramer steered negotiations between the bank and plaintiffs attorneys for a year. "His proposal was legally sound and practical," he said.

Gov. Pete Wilson appointed Kramer in December 1996, when Kramer was specializing in bank litigation.

...Nancy Hersh, a San Francisco-based class-action lawyer, said Kramer "listens carefully to both sides. His reasoning is excellent and he has great attention to detail."

"He's not irrational or unreasonable," added Hersh....

Kramer declined to be interviewed for this story. But he gave a sense of how dedicated he is as a jurist in a 1999 interview with the San Francisco Daily Journal, a legal trade publication.

While he said he sought out a judgeship so that he could spend more time with his wife and daughter, he said he spent his first months as a criminal court judge reading the Penal Code cover to cover and driving through crime-ridden neighborhoods in San Francisco to get a sense of what was happening in the community.

"It's all fascinating to me," he told the Daily Journal. "What you have to do is figure out what the person did and what to do about it. And most of these cases require common sense and humanity."


Read the entire article here --> http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/11135567..htm

The Pot Calls the Kettle a Whore

I think the headline says it all, doesn't it? James Guckert, the White House Whore, continues to make himself look like the biggest ignorant ass this side of Jeff Gannon. As "Editor & Publisher" reports, Jimmy/Jeff/Whore wants the dirt uncovered on the blogger who was permitted to attend a White House briefing today. Here's the irony: There won't be any dirt because the man was thoroughly checked out before being allowed within 100 feet of the President -- which is the protocol to which Guckert would have been held had he not been someone's boy.

"Editor & Publisher" gets in the ultimate slam by pointing out that Guckert doesn't "differentiate 'sexual history' from 'selling sex'."

Man, if ignorance truly is bliss, this guy must have been fucked silly.

Pot, Meet Kettle: Gannon Comments on First Blogger at WH Briefing

NEW YORK -- On his Web site today, he slams Mark Jurkowitz of The Boston Globe and hints that he knows Sen. Joe Biden. But former reporter and escort James Guckert -- a.k.a. Jeff Gannon -- also highlights news that a blogger, after several attempts last week, had finally been cleared to attend a White House press briefing today. The new blogger on the block is Garrett M. Graff, who writes FishBowlDC.

Gannon writes: "The New York Times is hailing the first blogger to be issued a 'day pass' to a White House press briefing. It goes to great lengths to play up his genealogical background in journalism, but fails to mention that the Vermont native served as deputy national press secretary on Howard Dean's presidential campaign last year. Hmmm... no political ties there!

"According to the 'Gannon Standard,' I am expecting to see other bloggers' reports on his sexual and financial history as well as some conspiracy theories about who this guy is.

"Actually, I like the guy, we've talked on the phone several times. I wish him luck and am pleased that others will gain from what I pioneered. Now I'm looking for a conservative blogger to step up and get in there!"

Gannon fails to mention that, whatever his political background, Graff is not currently employed by a partisan political organization (as Gannon was during his two-year stint at the White House), nor does Gannon differentiate "sexual history" from "selling sex."

Rallying Around the Call Boys

It seems there are an awful lot (double meaning intended there) of Republicans and conservatives who are quick to defend the discredited White House press corps reporter, saying that liberal, gay-activist blogs invaded his privacy by revealing he's a call boy. John Aravosis at AMERICAblog offers this right-on extension of their new-found support of gay rights:

I mean, if gay prostitution is okay -- which, according to all these Republicans who are now accusing the left of homophobia, it is -- then gay marriage must be double-plus-good, right? Otherwise I just don't get the argument. How come, according to Republicans, it's fine for a gay man to sell himself for no-strings-attached sex with other men online, but it's not fine for two gay men to enter into a lifelong, loving marriage partnership?

Find AMERICAblog at --> http://www.americablog.blogspot.com

Education Secretary Margaret Spellings Gets an A+ in Blind Prejudice

I failed to weigh on this last month when it all went down. As I caught up, I found this commentary by AP writer Frazier Moore that really says it all. The only thing I'd add is that new U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings seems to have her whole head, neck and shoulders up her ass.

Commentary: 'Buster' and the Lesbians

NEW YORK (AP) -- If the tape from WGBH had come in a plain brown wrapper, I wouldn't have been surprised. The fuss over this episode of "Postcards From Buster" -- you know, with the lesbian mothers -- had me nervous it might be a junior version of "The L Word."

You must have heard. Last month U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings upbraided PBS for spending tax dollars to make the episode, titled "Sugartime!" Then PBS, while denying it was caving to her pressure, displayed all the signs of caving with the announcement that it wouldn't distribute "Sugartime!" to its 349 stations.

But thanks to series producer WGBH (which is providing the episode to any PBS stations that want to air it) I had scored a copy. I popped it in my VCR, pulled down the shades and took a peek.

Go figure! This episode is pretty typical of "Postcards from Buster," a gentle, informative series about a camcorder-toting cartoon bunny who explores different cultures and communities, then reports back to his friends at home (as well as to his 4-to-8-year-old audience) through live-action video "postcards" showing the people he meets.

For "Sugartime!" (which refers not to sex, gay or straight, but to maple sugaring), Buster went to Vermont. There he visited a group of cute kids who ride bikes, jump in the hay, make chocolate chip cookies, cozy up to a bonfire, and show him how syrup begins as sap from maple trees.

As usual, this episode, filmed last March, centers on youngsters. But glimpsed as well are the parents, two couples who seem altogether unremarkable. Except they're all women.

This detail scarcely escapes Buster's notice. When one little girl refers to her mother and stepmother, Buster remarks, "That's a lot of moms!"

Nothing more on the subject is said or done, however. And no one breathes the L Word.

But by daring to include two of the nation's 168,000 gay-parented households (joining Pentecostal Christians, Muslims, Mormons and Hmong among those represented on the series) "Buster" was busted.

"Congress' and the department's purpose in funding this programming certainly was not to introduce this kind of subject matter to children," Spellings wrote PBS head Pat Mitchell. (The Department of Education anteed up $5 million, two-thirds of the budget for the series' 40 episodes.) "Many parents would not want their young children exposed to the lifestyles portrayed in this episode."

Focus on the Family founder James Dobson agrees.

"At its heart, the issue before us is the 'sexual reorientation' and brainwashing of children by homosexual advocacy groups," Dobson wrote on his Web site.

'Sensitive in today's political climate'

Of course, no child watching this episode is any more likely to be brainwashed into becoming gay than into copying Buster and growing rabbit ears.

The danger, such as it is, lies elsewhere. The episode's two couples -- Karen and Gillian, and their friends Tracy and Gina -- come across as perilously likable people and loving parents. They're awfully hard to distinguish from acceptable folks. It might be tricky, then, to convince a child who's "exposed to the lifestyles portrayed in this episode" that these women should be demonized for being who they are. As usual, information is a threat to blind prejudice.

Granted, even Dobson draws the line on his character attacks. Recently he has emphatically denied ever calling SpongeBob SquarePants gay (you almost expect him to proclaim, "Some of my best friends are sponges").

But he hasn't backed down from his assertion that a kid-targeted video starring SpongeBob and dozens of other cartoon characters has a more sinister motive than simply preaching diversity. He warns that it's all part of a crusade "to promote homosexual ideas and purposes."

Donald Wildmon, head of the American Family Association, is sounding the same alarm. Writing on his Web site that "the homosexual community has long used PBS ... to promote their agenda," he hails Spellings "for her bold stand."

But what, to some, seems a bold stand is, to others, just pandering to a strident pressure group. Consider PBS' own excuse for yanking the episode: It was deemed "sensitive in today's political climate," a spokeswoman was quoted as saying.

One of the moms, Tracy Harris, sees herself as a longtime PBS viewer done wrong. "I had a lot of faith in them to do the right thing and to give a voice to people who I feel are underrepresented in the media," she says, adding, "As a teacher and as a parent and as a taxpayer, I feel betrayed by Secretary Spellings."

Says Gina D'Ambrosio, a social worker partnered with Harris for nine years, the busting of "Buster" has turned "a beautiful series about life in America into what feels like an issue of invalidation and fear and censorship."

Both women praise Boston's WGBH, which, in the wake of PBS' defection, is making "Sugartime!" available to PBS stations. So far, 42 have stepped up, with airings that began last week and will stretch into March.

These pockets of resistance have proved heartening to the kids in the episode. Understandably, they were crushed on learning that, among everyone visited by "Postcards from Buster," they were singled out by a federal official as unfit for the nation to see. What a cruel lesson from the country's education czar and those who support her: Out of sight, out of mind.

Born Again, My Ass

I swear I'm not a regular visitor of White House Whore Jeff Gannon's new blog, but, just like passing by a car accident in which someone has totally messed themselves up, you just can't help but look -- know what I mean?

It's no wonder no one wants to claim this guy anymore -- conservatives or liberals. In criticizing columnist Maureen Dowd in a post today, JimmyJeff says she "probably needs a bit of the old Jeff Gannon to relieve some of that pent up whatever [sic]."

Real smart, Jeff. In one snide remark, you've disqualified your claim to be "born again," virtually validated that you have, in fact, been a hooker even though you've been evasive about it thus far and turned off any conservative who might still be on your side by your blatant and boastful appeal to a seedy past.

Man, I know you're getting off being the center of attention, but -- seriously -- it would probably be much more wise for you to shut up!

From the Whore's Blog:

Tom Bevan has an great piece at Real Clear Politics, PLAYING HARDBALL WITH MAUREEN DOWD, in which he makes some good points about this gal who probably needs a bit of the old Jeff Gannon to relieve some of that pent up whatever. He also describes the media bubble that protected John Kerry from pesky questions like those about releasing his entire military record until after the election. This is the same bubble that keeps Sen. Hillary Clinton from having to reconcile her statements about the economy and Social Security that I so elegantly framed in "The Question."

Watch the man hang himself here --> http://www.jeffgannon.com

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid

John Aravosis at AMERICAblog is right to sound the alarm about the next encroachment on your rights masterminded by what he calls the "Christian Taliban." Christian pharmacists want to be able to turn away anyone they wish for any religious reason they might have.

What a bunch of moralistic bullshit! Next, will teachers be able to turn away anyone they don't take to? Will doctors in emergency rooms be able to do the same?

I am 100 percent certain there is a breach of the Hippocratic Oath intrinsic in this. If these zealots can't bear to deal with people who offend their religious sensibilities (and I use that term lightly), they need to find another line of work.

I have to admit -- I'm not as alarmed as Aravosis at this point. Even though I live in a small town, I get my scripts filled by a mail-order house in a larger city. The employees there are efficient, friendly and competent. I've never had any problem or concern with them. I'm fairly certain none of them will be quick to turn anyone away. They are true professionals -- in the field to help people -- unlike the fundies, who seemingly only want to preserve their politics. I like the idea that these Christian freaks will actively espouse their politics -- thereby offending a great proportion of their client base. The mail-order firm I deal with will pick up the new clients who believe their medical concerns ought to be free from political scrutiny. Then, market forces will ensure the Christian hypocrites will lose customers and eventually -- hopefully -- their practices. It's simply not good business to be a hypocritical bigot.

So, sure -- pass the laws! Let's expose these hypocrites for who they are -- so we can stop supporting their practices!

Beware, though.... Sooner or later the pendulum will swing. I'm going to be the first to suggest to my pharmacist friend that the fundies offend some moral sensitivity he has. Just wait 'til Rush Limbaugh tries to get his next fill of Oxycotin through him. "Sorry, Sir -- NEXT!"

Christian Bigots Want to Turn You Away from Your Pharmacy for Being a Sinner

Read this. It's going to be a big issue soon, mark my words. What the article doesn't tell you is that this part of a larger scam the religious right has been developing for a few years now. Passing state laws, and I'm sure going for a federal one as well, giving pharmacists (and ambulance workers in one state) the right to turn you away for any moral or religious reason they might have.

In other words, the Christian Taliban now say you're oppressing them by going to your local pharmacy and trying to buy birth control pills, condoms, AIDS drugs, Viagra, and anything else that their velvet-dogs-playing-poker sensibilities can't handle. Yes, if some Christian Taliban chooses to be a pharmacist, they want HIM to have the right to turn you away at the drug counter for being a sinner in his eyes.

Now here's a thought. What about a Christian Scientist or someone who doesn't believe in medicine working at a pharmacy? After all, isn't it an affront to God that you don't believe He can heal your cancer for you? How dare you try to get your cancer drug prescription filled at the only pharmacy you have in small town America? Obviously you hate God. Do you have an STD? I'm sorry, God gave you that because you're not married and having sex -- next in line. Propecia? Vanity is a sin -- next. AIDS drugs? Fag.

In other worlds, Janet Jacksons nipple now invades your pharmacy. These bigoted fundamentalist Taliban freaks want to take over every aspect of our country and every aspect of our lives. It's time for some big progressive group to dump some serious money on fighting back, and hard.

Find AMERICAblog here --> http://www.americablog.blogspot.com/
Find the article Aravosis refers to ("The Right Frame of Mind: Protecting Christian Health Care Workers") here --> http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/3/12005mc.asp