Desperation Is the Mother of Stupid Arguments

Just in case you were worried that people were running out of ludicrous justifications for gay marriage, here's the latest one, courtesy of Lambda Legal: so that ill-gotten assets of gay couples can be confiscated.

Alphonso David, a staff attorney for the gay legal advocacy group Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund, said that if Kopper and Dodson were married, the Enron funds that now belong to Dodson would be considered jointly owned by the two men under the marriage laws of most states.

“It’s ironic that some of the same people who are opposed to legal recognition of marriage between same-sex couples are upset that this couple gets to keep about $9 million in stolen funds,” David said. “This highlights the point that people don’t always think about the obligations as well as the rights that go with marriage.”

David said that if Kopper and Dodson were married, the Enron funds that now belong to Dodson would be considered jointly owned by the two men under the marriage laws of most states.

What this makes obvious is that Lambda lawyers are chosen more for their devotion to leftist causes than they are for their legal knowledge or assessment capabilities.

It is technically correct that, had the two men been married, the government would have a viable claim to some of their assets that were held jointly. However, it is also true that the government would not necessarily have had claim to those that were in Dodson's name only -- and worse, both Kopper and Dodson could have invoked spousal privilege to avoid testifying against (and thus implicating) each other.

However, as any good investigator can tell you, it is not uncommon for criminals to attempt to hide ill-gotten gains by putting them in the name of a girlfriend, lover, or other unrelated third party. This can be quite often difficult to discover, but when it is, the response is swift and painful -- both by the IRS and by any creditors, including those filing lawsuits, both of whom can call on various legal strictures to freeze and capture assets, especially in regards to criminal activity.

Thus, the logic: if it had chosen to prosecute Dodson on criminal charges, the Federal government would have run up against a considerable wall, since it would have had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Dodson's likely claim of being an innocent bystander was incorrect, and that he was in fact well-aware of both the maneuvers of Enron that were enriching him and was actively participating in them -- very difficult to prove of a non-employee.

Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, filing charges against Dodson would have effectively blocked (thanks to double jeopardy) any possibility of the IRS filing tax evasion charges. Given that the Feds have, in addition to Dodson's own 1040s, Kopper's sworn testimony in court as to where the money came from, where it went, and who got it, the word "slam dunk" is not adequate to describe how easily that can be accomplished.

To wrap things up, consider the gazillion civil lawsuits that have likely already been filed -- and which, like the OJ case, will demonstrate that, while there may not be enough evidence to send you to prison, there is more than enough to drain you dry financially.

Thus, despite them not being married, Dodson and Kopper aren't retiring to the Caymans any time soon on that $9 mil -- and the chance is good that, not only will Dodson eventually end up in prison, but that a significant portion of the cash they stole will be returned to the people who lost it.

In short, we don't need gay marriage to punish gay criminals. But we do need organizations like Lambda who deliberately or ignorantly spread misinformation of this sort to shut the h*ll up.

Licence to (shovel) Swill

Many of the Net's more prominent authors and publishers are cheering Monday's decision by the California Supreme Court saying that Federal protections on free speech shield Internet providers from liability for libelous messages posted on their sites.

I'm not so sure it's a good idea -- mainly because of the particulars of the case.

The Alameda County plaintiffs, physicians Stephen Barrett and Terry Polevoy, claimed they were libeled by hundreds of messages that Ilena Rosenthal, an alternative health care advocate, got from other sources and posted in online news groups from 1999 to 2001.

The general thrust of the plaintiffs' argument was that similar standards as used for print and conventional electronic media should be applied to the Internets; that is, these entities can be sued for publishing libelous statements. The court correctly, in my opinion, recognized the obvious difference between these media forms -- the relative amount of control that exists over author and content prior to publication.

However, they made one more judgment whose implications are much more problematic (emphasis mine).

One message accused Polevoy of stalking a radio producer. The physician said he had told Rosenthal the accusation was false before she posted it. But the court said she was immune from being sued because she had merely passed along messages she hadn't written, just as an Internet provider displays messages from others.

My issue: their doing so extended the protections of conventional media to those who are not bound or compelled to follow the practices of conventional media.

The problem is that, in 1996, when the law was written, mass publication and content generation were much more intimately connected. Back then, getting anything published beyond telephone-pole flyers or Podunk Register levels meant going through one of the media companies that could afford a global communications infrastructure. What it also did was ensure that, through a battery of reporters, editors, content committees, and lawyers, nothing that couldn't be fact-checked six ways from Sunday or was too hateful made it through -- partially out of ethical concerns, but primarily because anything that turned people off to watching or advertising with them turned millions of dollars in printing presses and transmitters from revenue-generating into revenue-sucking. In addition, the sheer cost of producing the media made it certain that only the most newsworthy (read, "what will sell ads or garner viewers") stories ever reached precious newsprint or radio waves.

Now, however, there's no such linkage. I can literally write whatever I want, check it as I see fit, and push a button -- and in seconds, it is accessible to literally ANYONE with a Web connection from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe at little or no cost to either of us. And, thanks to the California Supreme Court, I'm immune from lawsuits, even if I publish something that I KNOW is defamatory -- a privilege that not even the most venerable of old-media enjoys.

Fellow California blogger Boi From Troy makes, with some validity, the point that the speed at which Internets content can be updated should play into this -- presumably under the argument that, as in Rathergate, information that is false can be (and quite often is) immediately detected and countered publicly -- thus, theoretically, lessening its impact.

However, I would argue, in regards to individual bloggers, "So what?"

Somehow, the threat of being delinked or denounced just doesn't quite have the same force as being censured for violation of professional ethics, fired from my job, completely destroying the credibility of a news outlet, and costing a company millions of dollars in legal fees, lost advertising revenue, and bad publicity -- such as would happen (and has happened) to a journalist or media group who knowingly or even inadvertently published false information or failed to verify its sources. Plus, as people like Mike Rogers at Blogactive has shown, no matter how dubious your information or your past record with handling it, if you play a tune to which they wish to dance, people will continue to shovel you cash and advertisements.

In my opinion, this could be handled very simply by an adoption of a Federal law with three rules:

1. Providers (Internet, print, or otherwise) are not liable for what is posted by individuals who are not their employees, contractors, or vendors.

2. All libel and slander cases filed will proceed to trial and be ineligible for summary dismissal unless all sources cited by the defense as justification for making the statement in question are made public information.

3. The standard for libel and slander will include not only malicious intent to harm, but failure to verify information, either willfully or through negligence.

In short, you are perfectly able to make whatever anonymous accusations you like; however, if a libel suit is filed, you are going to trial unless you make your sources public -- and you will ultimately have to convince a jury as to why you didn't do your fact-checking or ignored the facts that came up.

A Picture is Worth a Thousand...Um.....

With a hat tip to one of the Talented, Sexy, and Beautiful Straight Women Who Blog, Army of Mom, we bring you the latest in our Inanimate Object series.



Look at it.....I mean, just LOOK at it.

I am so sending this to V the K.

UPDATE: Pam (thanks for the hat tip) has made matters even more interesting by providing us with an actual promo for the thing:

Talk to her!
Laugh and play together!
Share your secrets with her!
Give her love!
Discover her songs and dances!

She also plays and interacts with the Boots too!
Have an adventure with Dora the Explorer, your interactive friend!

Wow......just, wow.

Deprivation Can Do Strange Things

November in San Francisco is not exactly a month that lends itself to torrid sexual expression, so imagine my surprise to see this potboiler prose in today's Chronicle.

It's amazing how shabby your living room suddenly looks after you take the latest PlayStation console out of the box. The PlayStation 3 is all sleek lines and chrome accents, like a Sub-Zero refrigerator and a Porsche 911 had a wild weekend of sex -- ending up with an 11-pound, 20-gigabyte love child.

Um....all right. Things like that happen when you spend 48 hours in line to get something and a week playing it. Understandable.

But things get better (or worse) on the next page:

I have right here in my hot little hands that actually aren't all that little and are only slightly warm at the moment a brand new lick-ready smooth-as-love Apple MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo Super Orgasm Deluxe Ultrahard Modern Computing Device Designed by God Herself Somewhere in the Deep Moist Vulva of Cupertino Yes Yes Don't Stop Oh My God Yes.

HOO-kay.....back away slowly....don't make eye contact.....and for God's sake don't drop the soap....

Stupid Criminal Trick #576,948,098,003

Evidently running out of material about Britney and Fed-Ex, CNN and the New York Times chose today to air former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's remarks from last week about a failed plot to kill all nine of the Supreme Court justices.

"Every member of the Supreme Court received a wonderful package of home-baked cookies, and I don't know why, (but) the staff decided to analyze them," the Fort Worth Star-Telegram quoted O'Connor as saying at the legal conference November 10 in the Dallas area. "Each one contained enough poison to kill the entire membership of the court."

Of course, the reason why is revealed in the Department of Justice's laconic summary:

Each envelope contained a one-page typewritten letter stating, either "I am" or "We are," followed by "going to kill you. This is poisoned."

This reminds me of a classic Calvin and Hobbes story, in which Calvin, on a whim, kidnaps neighborhood girl Susie Derkins's Binky Betsy doll and holds it for ransom, sending the following sinister note cleverly written in letters cut and pasted from magazines to disguise his handwriting and identity:

Susie:

If you want to see your doll again, leave $100 in the envelope by the tree out front. Do not call the police. You cannot trace us. You cannot find us.

Sincerely,

Calvin

Congrats on Ditching Your Loser Landlords

"Let's put this is perspective: this is sports guys, this is not life.....It's a sport, it's a game, it's entertainment. I think we take it a little too literally. It doesn't define who we are, it's what we enjoy. At the end of the day, life is so much bigger than a game."

At least, that's what San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom used to say -- right up to last Wednesday night's announcement by the San Francisco 49ers that the team is planning to ditch its rickety and cold stadium on blighted, inaccessible, infrastructure-less Candlestick Point for a brand-new one in the middle of warm, booming, transit-proximate, developed Santa Clara.

THEN the tune changed.

Now, we have the following gale blowing up in the City by the Bay. Hold on to your toothbrushes.

-- City Attorney Herrera, at Newsom's prodding, is threatening to file a lawsuit preventing the team from using "San Francisco" or "49ers" in their name -- an action which, according to most experts, has a probability level somewhere between "nonexistent" and "impossible".

-- Newsom himself is threatening to refuse to change bus routes and -- get this -- to withhold essential services like game-day police protection -- apparently believing that voters will blame the 49ers for the resulting smashed car windows, muggings, beatings, and shootings when he orders San Francisco's finest to stay away from a stadium and parking lot full of cars located in the highest-crime area in the City.

-- State Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, and Senator Carol Migden, D-San Francisco, are authoring state legislation to ban the team from using either "San Francisco" or "49ers" in their name if they move, plus other laws to prevent municipalities or jurisdictions from raising taxes to pay for infrastructure improvements to attract teams from another locale.

-- Not to be outdone, Representative and Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi, D - San Francisco, and Senator Dianne Feinstein, D - CA, threatened to introduce, Federal legislation to do the same, with DiFi going so far as to put pressure on the NFL through Senate hearings to bring the 49ers to heel.

Why all the hubbub, you ask?

Because the 49ers's move essentially torpedoed local leaders' potential monument to themselves -- San Francisco's bid for the 2016 Olympics.

"Wait," you say......"Couldn't the City just build a stadium itself for the Olympics and redevelop the Bayview-Hunter's Point area with affordable housing? Why do they need the 49ers?"

Because, dear reader, that goes completely against the fundamental principle of San Francisco liberalism; never do yourself what you can use the power of government to force successful private industry to do for you.

Just as in this past year's debate, in which the City, instead of digging into its own pockets and tax revenues to fund health insurance for all its residents, enacted an ordinance of questionable legality to make businesses do it, the point here was to force a private entity with money -- the 49ers -- to redevelop a place they don't own for purposes that have nothing to do with them in a way inconsistent with what they need and on a timetable which leaves them essentially hanging for the next eight or so years.

Can you blame the 49ers for saying, "See ya"?

Honestly, if the San Francisco Politburo could have gotten this worked up over fixing the, oh, decades of complaints that stadium had already garnered, keeping the 49ers wouldn't be a problem. Heck, if they'd managed even half this level of energy, they could have gotten a venue built and the "affordable housing" into which they were going to turn the proposed Olympic Village (on a toxic waste site, no less) regardless of whether the 49ers were there or not.

But that would have required them to spend their own money, thus leaving less for lucrative contracts for their cronies, grants for their corrupt neighborhood associations, and concessions to the unions whose perks-for-votes trading have already put the City about $3 billion in the hole; therefore, we have the current fireworks and screeching show.

So, to the 49ers, I say.....more power to you, and best of luck in Santa Clara.

To everyone else, I just turn the iPod up a little louder.

No, Mr. Bond; I Expect You to Strip!

Despite my usual disdain for modern cinema, lately I've been finding myself more drawn to the new James Bond movie Casino Royale.

It could be due to a curiosity over how this particular film will interpret the "prequel" formula, in which you take a movie franchise that has become ridiculously over-the-top (a la Batman and Superman), strip out the gazillions worth of CGI and talent contracts, keep at least one older and recognized actor (preferably British and raised to the peerage) for stability, and add in an array of young art-film talent to build a story centered on how the protagonists became so screwed up in the first place.

Or it could be that I'm dying to see Daniel Craig take his clothes off.

Update: You knew Chad would find a way to top me. :)

Whither Adulthood

Paul Varnell, writing on the Independent Gay Forum, asks an interesting question: where are the gay adults?

His theory:

There are actually gay adults around in considerable numbers. They run gay businesses, the gay cultural institutions, the gay bars and clubs, the community health and social service organizations. But perhaps they are inconspicuous to young people focused on the bar, party and hook-up scene.

Still, there are millions of gay adult besides those. And indeed, where are they? Perhaps they withdraw from the gay community because they view being gay as largely about drinking, drugs, and fast-food sex. That is a sad misunderstanding. More than anything, gay is about Civic Life. The gay community is an affinity group. It is about interpersonal empathy, friendships, social and political progress and cultural creativity.

Well, if my partner and I are any example, there's a more prosaic reason; we're busy with other things instead. Between work, our respective professional groups, various organizations to which we belong, and attending other events, there are only so many hours left in the day. All the fundraising commitments I've made for this year have been out of personal time, and we've been strained and harried more often than not trying to balance the needs of work and our relationship with community events.

What that points out, though, is the root of the issue; namely, that gays are no longer limited to the gay-only world. As has happened with other groups which were kept together by popular disdain, the increasing acceptance of gays and lesbians outside the traditional borders has, while providing many more opportunities, significantly changed the character of the community left behind. An apt analogy is the "middle class creep" that is quite often identified as a major cause of the problems in the black community; namely, when those who can take advantage of new opportunities elsewhere do so en masse, what remains is like brine -- highly concentrated, less diverse, and progressively more unpalatable.

To an enormous degree, I think it is important that gays continue to push the envelope in terms of public involvement and life outside the gay community. We SHOULD strive to be more involved in our work, our cities, our neighborhoods, our schools, and in other places where our presence among straight people does much to dispel the popular stereotypes of gays as sex-crazed, drug-shooting, leather-wearing circuit boys and undercuts the argument of social extremists who keep trying to portray our lives as threats to Mom, America, and apple pie.

At the same time, however, it is imperative that we bring back this widened perspective to our brethren and proactively work to keep our historic and social communities from collapsing into suspicious, paranoid enclaves. Like the black and ethnic ghettoes, we cannot afford to have the gay community develop mores, culture, and attitudes that actively resist what they see as "outside influence", reject change, and perpetuate destructive behaviors, all out of ignorance or fear. The last thing the universe needs is the homosexual analogue to hip-hop music.

No one in our community should feel constrained by their sexual orientation; you should feel free to live, do, vote, and be what you like, regardless of it. However, we should always keep in mind that those of us who can and do operate outside of the day-to-day gay must share that perspective with those who can't.

The Whited Sepulchre

I find it more than interesting that one of the principals in the Foley matter -- and the newspaper with whom he was working -- have now come out with a pair of stories that.....ahem....take liberties with some key elements of the timeline involved in their actions.

Here's how the Los Angeles Times, who was a media source with which the StopSexPredators blogger, Lane Hudson, was working, characterizes the release of information concerning the Foley emails:

Just after 11 a.m. Sunday, Sept. 24, Hudson put up the Foley e-mails.

"This is absolutely amazing … ," he wrote that morning. "There must be even more out there. E-mail me … and let me know what we should do!!!!"

By that Wednesday, Wonkette, a popular Washington gossip site, had linked to Hudson's blog. On Thursday, ABC News posted an article on its website.

However, as the Radar Online blog has previously pointed out, a link to the StopSexPredators blog was already posted on DailyKos -- twelve minutes after Hudson put up the emails.

Furthermore, as Radar Online also points out, the same online ID who posted the Foley link opened a diary with it on DailyKos six minutes later....but not only that, had written a suggestive post concerning Foley over two weeks earlier.

One wonders why they are so quick to ignore -- or whitewash, depending on how you look at it -- how quickly and repeatedly this information was posted, in what looks like a deliberate fashion, on a blog on which it would generate an inordinate amount of attention -- and which has a history of being a publicity mouthpiece for the Democratic Party.

Furthermore, what I find interesting is that both Hudson and his media sources are ignoring the fact of the other posts he made accusing Congresspersons and making other unreferenced statements, all of which makes him look much less like a concerned citizen and much more like a partisan demagogue. One wonders if their concern is really for the facts....or for spinning their involvement with actions which appear to be less concerned with sex predators and more with flinging mud.

The fact that an HRC staffer was doing this, again, is no great surprise. And, as the Blade article implies, I'm quite sure that the only reason Hudson is no longer employed by HRC had more to do with the negative publicity of keeping him than it did on their actually disagreeing with what he did or the practice of outing for political advantage.

HRC needs to once and for all come clean about this entire issue. Either they support outing, or they don't. If they do, they should publicly admit it, instead of saying one thing to the media and encouraging it behind closed doors. If they don't, let's see some action on their part to stop it.

Research? Who Needs Research?

If you write for a newspaper, it only stands to reason that you would read it, right?

Not necessarily, as Kevin Neff, editor of the Washington Blade, shows us in his gush over the spectacularly-partisan Bill Maher jumping on the outing wagon:

No word on which officials Maher has in mind, but Maher said the stories about the closeted Republicans had already appeared in print. I hope he gives the Blade some credit if he’s been reading our coverage (past and present) of “openly closeted” officials like Mark Foley, Kirk Fordham, Mehlman, Charlie Crist, David Dreier and others.

The term “openly closeted” refers to those who refuse to answer “the question,” as Mehlman has in the past. How many straight people refuse to cop to their sexual orientation?

Interestingly enough, though, Mehlman has -- and in a place where you would expect Neff would see it.

A mere oversight on Neff's part -- or, more likely, an example of not seeing what you don't want to see?

The Republicans Lost......

and amazingly enough, the sun is still shining.

Am I pleased with the results of Tuesday's election here in the US? No.

But am I ready to move on and forward? Yes.

In the final wrapup, it really boils down to this; voters wanted change, and enough Democrats were able to convince them that they represented one. Not too big of a one, but a change nonetheless.

My questions for the crystal ball:

Will Democrats be able to actually carry out the bipartisanship they're claiming -- or will the moonbats once again grab hold of the steering wheel?

Will Republicans realize that this election was not a repudiation of conservativism, but of what happens when conservatives swallow too much Washington water -- or make the mistake of the Dems in 2002 by moving even farther to the extreme?

I guess we'll find out.

Haggard Redux

I think I know now how most public defenders feel. (grin)

To whit, Ted Haggard seems to have cut the knees out from under my argument by supposedly confessing to "sexual immorality" -- which most everyone is interpreting as "sex with men".

Thus, do I think he's guilty? Yup.

Do I think, as I posited before, that the Democrats and the gay left are behind it? Yup.

Do I still think what happened was wrong? Emphatically yes.

Why?

Well, one of the things that's been most entertaining to watch is the feigned "compassion" for Haggard's family and Haggard himself coming from the people who were the first to throw every juicy bit of gossip onto the airwaves and blogwaves -- and justified what looks like an action of vengeance and hate worthy of Haggard himself by saying that he "attacked our families".

To me, that's sort of like a paparazzi photographer coming up to Princes William and Harry, saying "Sorry 'bout your mum"; it also confirms my suspicion that removing Huckleberry Finn from school reading lists was a bad idea.

The thing to keep in mind through all of this is that hypocrisy and misbehavior can be confronted without ever going anywhere near a microphone. It would have been a simple matter for Mike Jones to call and confront Haggard directly; that failing, he could easily have contacted Haggard's wife or Haggard's congregation. Ironically, in doing so, he would have most likely accomplished what he claims to care about -- ending Haggard's destructive behavior towards himself, his family, and his congregation -- with a minimum of harm to all parties involved.

But he didn't.

And why he did it is best explained, I think, by the estimable Mistress Mink, as published in Frontiers, whose column this week sums up the issue at hand:

Scumbags aside, Mink thinks people have the right to come out—or not—in their own time. Forcing their hand doesn’t foster any sense of community. Mink herself knows of a few unofficially gay actors whom her friends have dated, and she’s not about to put that into print. Not her business to. Because people have the right to live their lives as they wish—they even have a right to lie about their relationships. In L.A. the right to be inauthentic seems to be wildly flaunted anyhow.

Mostly Mink wonders why people are so interested in the private lives of strangers. What an enormous distraction this all is from our own lives, and the health and well-being of our community. Every time she sees a photo in the tabloids, Mink wonders what kind of nefarious stalkery was behind it. There are theories Mink entertains about this—we mere serfs use the media and paparazzi to leverage our class hatred of the rich and famous. And especially at the ones who most resemble ourselves.

Truer words are rarely spoken.

Why Gays Will Continue To Be Politically Impotent

On the one hand:

Too often in recent years, the monolithic gay voting bloc herds into the voting booth to cast a ballot for the Democrat. Once in power, most of those Democrats quickly turn their backs on one of the most reliable constituencies that put them in office in the first place.

But on the other:

Unfortunately, a gay vote for the current Republican Party, which has been hijacked by fundamentalist Christians hell-bent on stripping gay citizens of equality, is unconscionable.

Or, in other words, "We care less about your record of screwing us over than we do our stereotypical and prejudicial beliefs about the other party."

Hence, Republicans won't get gay votes regardless of what they do, and Democrats will get gay votes regardless of what they do.

Paccione May Have Done It; The Ted Haggard Case

Bold statement, I know.

But, based on my interpretation of the evidence, that's what I think happened.

First, the overall story, for those of you who missed it; Mike Jones, a male prostitute in Denver, Colorado, accused Reverend Ted Haggard, pastor of New Life Church in Colorado Springs and president of the National Association of Evangelicals, of having a three-year affair with him and purchasing/using methamphetamines from him. Haggard, while admitting that he did purchase methamphetamines from Jones, insists that he did not use them and that he only contacted Jones for a massage.

Towards my postulate, here's the evidence in order.

Item 1: the male prostitute in question flunked the lie detector test which he insisted on having.

Item 2: the male prostitute in question is in significant financial trouble and, despite insisting that he has given up both selling drugs and himself, was advertising his wares in a November 1 magazine issue.

Those two items establish both that the source is, at best, questionable, and that there is significant financial and legal incentive for him to cooperate with any proffered golden keys or incentives.

Item 3: the political situation. Allegations against Haggard would primarily affect the evangelical vote, especially in Colorado. That could affect two major points -- one, the amendments to ban gay marriage and enact a domestic partner registry that are on the ballot, and the hotly-contested race between Marilyn Musgrave and Democratic challenger Angie Paccione.

As it turns out, this race is a cause celebre for the gay leftist community, mainly because of Musgrave's sponsorship and authorship of the Federal Marriage Amendment and Marriage Protection Act. Blogs such as John Aravosis's Americablog (look under the "banned" on the sidebar blogrolls) have not only taken it upon themselves to raise thousands of dollars for Paccione, but have offered their political support and assistance of the gay community to her.

Interestingly enough, Americablog has strong ties to the blog Blogactive and its proprietor, Mike Rogers, who is expert in the practice of making false accusations and bringing forth "anonymous" sources about peoples' sexual orientation, and who regularly solicits information in order to blackmail and harm conservative and religious (not Democrat) individuals. Indeed, John Aravosis has regularly praised Rogers and supported his efforts, including his recent attempts to claim (via "anonymous sources") that Senator Larry Craig is a criminal who has sex with men in public restrooms.

Given the links to both the Paccione campaign and Rogers, one need only put two and two together. While I have no direct evidence that Paccione was involved, the connections between her and these bloggers, as well as the similarity of the tactics used to those previously employed by Rogers and Aravosis, is quite a compelling argument that she may have been.

Perhaps Paccione should clarify her relationship with these bloggers, issue a public statement that she would not engage in such tactics, and, as a show of her good faith, return any donations that said sites have collected and repudiate their actions in supporting outing and vicious mischaracterizations of her opponent.

After all, it's what she would demand Musgrave do.

Requiem for Halloween

In case you haven't heard, at last night's Halloween festivities in the Castro -- San Francisco's world-famous gay neighborhood -- the worst happened.

Note I said "worst"......not "unthinkable".

Ever since 2002, when four people were stabbed and the police responding were bombarded with bottles, anyone with half a brain cell in their head could have seen this coming (and several did). While the city has laudably stepped up enforcement and taken measures to prevent violence, over six hundred law enforcement officers, searches, confiscation of even costume parts that could be used as a weapon, and denying drunks entry didn't keep ten people from getting shot.

So what's the problem?

Well, for the first, take a look at this photo of the event; particularly, count the number of people you see in costume.

Not many. And that's the issue -- more people are coming for reasons other than to show off their costumes and enjoy Halloween. It's not necessarily a bad thing when it's just a few straight and other people who come out to enjoy the costumes and share in the spirit; however, what is becoming obvious is that it's rapidly become an excuse for a lot of people to get together, get drunk, and with their inhibitions lowered, start gangbanging. Worse, it's rapidly spilling over into the Saturday night informal celebrations that most gays have started frequenting instead -- as was made abundantly clear when about eight street toughs taunted my husband and I with calls of "faggot, faggot", said they would "kick our ass", and followed us for a block, flinging epithets.

Thirty-two years in the buckles of the Bible Belt, and I had to come to San Francisco to get gaybashed.

The second issue, though, is the fruitcake ideology that so many in the City push which makes its way into our governance system -- and, while it ostensibly seeks to reduce crime, actually encourages it.

For instance, the Halloween celebration has become a major, if not the main issue, in the race for the office of city supervisor, District 8, which represents the Castro. Current Supervisor Bevan Dufty has repeatedly pushed for heightened security, tightened venues, increased police presence, and measures taken to limit the amount of time people spend out in the street; he has also recommended that the event be moved out of the Castro, which is a mixed residential and light retail district, to Union Square or the Embarcadero, both of which are primarily commercial and used for large events.

His primary competitor, Alix Rosenthal, whose platform consists primarily of accusing Dufty of being too conservative, had this to say:

Tuesday's event will mark the one-week countdown to election day, and the issue of Halloween in the Castro has become a central issue in Dufty's re-election campaign. His main challenger, Alix Rosenthal, has said Dufty is slowly draining the fun out of the neighborhood.........

She said shutting the event down at 10:30 p.m. -- the time many partyers are arriving at the event -- will only anger people and encourage them to hang out in surrounding areas and perhaps cause trouble. Having just one entertainment stage will further compound the problem, she said.

"When people get bored is when they start gay bashing or committing acts of property damage," she said, noting that a parade or some other form of entertainment would keep people happily distracted.

With all due respect, distraction is something you do to toddlers. It stretches the bounds of credibility to believe that the reason teenagers and adults are committing acts of violence at these events are because they're not being entertained every second -- especially given San Francisco's history of assaults and homicides at events, parks, and community centers. Furthermore, San Francisco is a veritable embarras de richesse of nightlife, bars, clubs, theaters, porn shops, arcades, and options for people with nothing to do; why should taxpayers be required to shell out for more in order to prevent flying bullets or arson?

But that's the "progressive" mentality; it's not the fault of the perpetrators of violence, nor should they be punished. It wasn't the fault of those kids that they were gaybashing and threatening my husband and me; they were bored. It wasn't the fault of the thief that kicked down the door and broke into my husband's nephew's apartment last night and stole his wife's heirloom necklace; it was their fault for having nice things in a not-so-nice neighborhood. Everything will be peachy-keen if we just keep pumping more money into the supervisors' re-election slush funds community grant programs and put more restrictions on the police and things like security cameras to foster "good relationships" and "protect privacy".

And they wonder why more and more San Franciscans are starting to ironically refer to the City, channeling the late Herb Caen, as "Baghdad by the Bay".

But one thing's for certain; "Baghdad's" Halloween celebration is no longer welcome in our neighborhood.

Not All Publicity Is Good Publicity

I just received a phone call that was, to say the least, a bit flummoxing.

For those of you who are familiar with San Francisco, one of our most notable (or notorious) icons is The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. Over the twenty-five-plus years they've been in existence, the Sisters have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars and distributed it to a veritable galaxy of organizations both inside and outside the gay community. They have been one of the stalwarts of the Castro, always ready to step forward in time of need; this week, for example, they're hosting a children's Halloween celebration, a community fundraising event, and several self-defense classes and seminars in response to a recent upswing in crimes in the Castro.

But, all that considered, though, they're men. In drag. In nun drag. And to say that the Sisters are bawdy is a bit like saying Antarctica is cold and barren.

Recently, the Sisters have revived one of their most famous fundraisers -- Sister Bingo. Unfortunately, some people caught wind of the fact that they were holding it in the fellowship hall of Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church -- and notified the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, which has a long history in regards to the Sisters. As a result, it seems, the Archdiocese of San Francisco has has put the kibosh on using the church hall, just in time for the November 2nd event.

Losing the venue is bad enough. However, according to my phone call, the likelihood is high that the event will be canceled -- not just because of the loss of venue, but because the event is apparently being used for negative pre-election publicity.

I'll update with further details as I receive them.

For now, I'm annoyed that a charity event -- especially one raising money for gay organizations that really need it -- is being yanked because people are exploiting (or afraid of it being exploited) that which is done at a private, admission-only gathering, where people under the age of 18 are not allowed, for political purposes.

However, what will be even more annoying is when the gay leftists who are so eager to drag everyone else's dirty laundry through the streets start screaming about how "unfair" it is for the public to know what's going on at these gatherings.

Shame is something that has never been associated with the Sisters before. Here's hoping that political maneuvering doesn't make this the first time.

UPDATE, 9:00 PM PST: Apparently the Sisters have formally canceled the event. I don't have an official copy yet, but this comment on the Catholic-oriented blog that first publicized the connection purports to have both the initial and final statements from the Sisters.

Furthermore, according to other sources, Father Steve Meriwether, Most Holy Redeemer's pastor, has been placed on leave from his duties.

1 NOVEMBER, 9:00 AM PST: It's official.

Here's more pungent commentary. I'm sure the Archdiocese didn't know what hit them.

A Call to Pink

There are certain things that warrant a flag of truce, and this is one of them.

Because of the efforts of such groups as the Komen Foundation, awareness of breast cancer -- as well as the amount of resources directed towards preventing and fighting it -- has skyrocketed in recent years. While breast cancer still ends the life of far too many women, early detection and better treatments have significantly increased the number of survivors.

Unfortunately, for the glbt community, the problem extends beyond our moms, sisters, daughters, and other relatives. Because of various risk factors, lesbians are twice to three times more likely to develop breast cancer than straight women -- and less likely to have it detected quickly.

Fortunately, several resources have sprouted, such as the Breast Cancer Emergency Fund here in San Francisco, who, with support from organizations like the Komen Foundation, work to educate lesbians on risks and self-examinations, as well as to provide support and assistance for those battling the disease.

Most students of gay history will tell you that one of the pillars that kept our community from collapsing during the AIDS epidemic was the support and help of our lesbian sisters. They worked tirelessly to care for the sick, raise money for treatments, and speak eloquently in the public square -- all despite the fact that they were one of the groups least affected. Their actions gave us hope and help when we needed it the most.

Now it's our chance to show our gratitude.

Please consider donating to the Komen Foundation, the Breast Cancer Emergency Fund, or your local organization.

And if one doesn't exist.....make one. Both the BCEF and the Komen Foundation will be happy to lend you expertise and a helping hand.

Tell Them Lies, Tell Them Sweet Little Lies

It makes you want to absolutely beat your head against a wall.

The latest example of inanity from the gay left, in regards to last night's debate over pending legislation in Colorado:

Focus on the Family policy analyst Jim Pfaff and Lawyer Pat Steadman squared off in a debate over the two measures Monday night.

Focus on the Family is the main supporter of the proposed amendment. Steadman, a longtime gay advocate, helped write the civil unions proposal, known as Proposition I

Pfaff said that if voters approve civil unions it would open the door to gay marriage. "The lawsuits are not going to stop," he said, adding that since 1990 lawsuits brought by same-sex couples have produced eight "substantive changes" to marriage law.

But Steadman disagreed saying that if New Jersey had something Prop I the marriage issue likely would never have gone to the high court.

"Because of that, the court ordered the legislature to create something like Referendum I or legalize gay marriage in New Jersey," Steadman said.

"We're solving that problem without going to court in Colorado by voting yes on Referendum I. We're going to create that opportunity for couples to have the same legal protection under state law, so there's nothing to complain about in a court of law."

Oh really?

The New Jersey Senate passed a statewide domestic partner bill on Thursday "without a word of opposition," the Associated Press reported, on a 23-9 vote.

A bill, which one should add, looked very much like Proposition I.

And we all know what happened next, right?

Indeed, looking at the states that have passed domestic partnership registries or civil unions, the one thing that they all have in common is that their doing so has produced a steady stream of lawsuits -- by gay leftists seeking to have the laws overturned and marriage imposed, regardless of the benefits granted.

In short, Pat Steadman is lying. Worse, he's lying in a manner that is patently obvious with a fifteen-second Google search. I mean, really; do you think these people don't know that the gay community's two biggest addictions are tobacco and filing lawsuits?

Both Chris Crain and Andrew Sullivan are positing today that the issue crippling those fighting against antigay amendments and legislation is "self-censorship". Their argument is that we "cannot run" from the marriage fight and must instead focus directly and honestly communicating with the voters on the issue at hand, instead of sidestepping.

Of course, it would help if we showed that we could be honest with voters in the first place.

The Spectacularity of Noncaringism

With the recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision concerning gay marriage, the usual set of howler monkeys are out in full force -- the lunatic left screeching saying that "over our dead bodies" will they accept less than 100% "equality", the nutball right yelling about supporting "perversion", spitting and shrieking at each other like tomcats.

My kingdom for a fifty-thousand-gallon bucket of cold water.

Let us face facts; the only direction in which the "100% marriage" crowd has consistently moved is backwards. If the Federal Marriage Amendment were predicated solely on the number of states that have already banned gay marriage by legislation or constitutional amendment, it would have passed in a landslide. No state has voter-approved gay marriage, and in the one where it exists by court order, gays have used every desperate maneuver in the book, including publishing names and addresses of voters who have signed petitions requesting a vote on the topic, to disenfranchise the electorate and stop gay marriage from even coming CLOSE to a vote.

At the same time, the "perverts don't deserve ANY rights" crowd is consistently losing ground. Attempts to remove nondiscrimination ordinances, impose adoption bans, remove gay teachers, and the like have backfired badly; indeed, some of the most vehement gay rights opposition have even endorsed bills that benefit gay couples in an attempt to hold on to greater relevancy.

Thus, what appears to be happening is that voters, while not willing to throw biology, psychology, and common sense out the window and claim gay couples are the same as straight couples, are also disinclined to view them as completely dissimilar. It would seem that the majority middle sees marriage as what it truly is -- not some Gollum-esque "Precious" whose possession validates your ideology and destroys your enemies, but a boring, nonpartisan, binding contract whose boilerplate works well for some, poorly for others, and only moderately for most.

The reluctance of people to fully endorse gay marriage, in my opinion, has less to do with antigay animus than it does a gut instinct that one should not add a second story to a house with severe foundation cracking. And unfortunately, right now, all they're getting are crooked contractors pushing unrealistic fixes -- the right wing wanting to cement in the basement and the left wanting to put the house on Jell-o.

With that in mind, in the next few weeks, the voters and their representatives will decide, in New Jersey and Colorado, how exactly they wish to handle this issue. The signs, portents, and entrail-readers are all pointing in the direction of limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, but providing some form of legal recognition and benefit for homosexual ones.

And honestly, I think they're right. At least for now.

Does It Matter?

Ever since the big reveal of HRC's involvement in the Foley situation, there have been numerous people trying to explain away or minimize the behavior of the blogger in question and what it means for HRC to be associated with it.

An excellent example is this comment posted to Stop October Surprises, which did the gumshoe work that showed the blogger behind Stop Sex Predators was an HRC employee:

I don't understand your blog. Are you saying that the author of the
other blog should've covered for Foley? Having the information that he had,
didn't he have an ethical obligation to come forward? Why is HRC firing an
employee who blew the whistle on a child predator.

The question is not whether or not the individual should have "covered" for Foley; indeed, I agree wholeheartedly that, if this individual thought it was important, they had an ethical obligation to come forward and make this information public.

When they received it in the first place.

We know, for example, that paid Democratic Party operatives had the information in their hands months ago, and were even dropping hints about it. Given the frothing and flailing of the Pelosi Brigade now that any delay in publicly revealing Mark Foley's predilections was akin to leaving Jack the Ripper loose with a Swiss Army knife, why did these operatives and bloggers wait so long to say anything about it?

Because, in my opinion, they were ordered not to for political advantage.

We should all know by now that Democrats are not above homo-baiting if they think it will help them win an election -- or that organizations like HRC will aid and abet their doing it.

In this case, the plan was simple; suppress voter turnout among likely voters by attacking Foley and play up the idea that he had been protected by a "velvet mafia" of gay Republicans and a leadership that was -- gasp! -- not treating him like the danger he was, what with him being a gay person among those young, innocent boys and girls. Play on their homophobia, make it clear that Democrats will protect their cherubs from those raping and pillaging queers, and on Election Day, they'll be in church praying hellfire and damnation on the GOP -- not in the voting booth.

It probably sounded pretty good in the rarefied halls of 430 South Capital SE and the associated broom closet at 1640 Rhode Island. But, like with decisions made in oxygen-deprived surroundings, there were several hallucinations involved.

Anyone who thinks that the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, etc. were completely unaware that the Republicans they championed on the Hill have a surprising number of 'mo staffers, or that some of them are light in the loafers themselves, is, to put it mildly, an idiot. Of course they know. They've known that for years. And they still contribute enormous sums of money, volunteers, and blessings.

Why?

Because they prioritize other things as being more important.

The single biggest reason that the Dems continue to be the party in the minority is because they are the party of the minority. An astounding number of Americans are religious, with an overwhelming number of them being Christian; with that logical fact in mind, Democrats pander to the militant atheist vote. Well over half of Americans think we have too many abortions in this country, would like to put restrictions on it, and definitely support parental notifications; Democrats talk about how evil and repressive all of those are.

In short, the choice for evangelical and other voters is still the same; a) holding their nose and voting for a party that nominally respects and includes their beliefs, albeit imperfectly and with several lavender-scented offices, or b) not voting and allowing into power a party that is against everything for which they stand, which will impose everything they hate, AND is stuffed to the gills with fruits.

Which do you think they'd choose?

Oh sure, they're going to wring hands, make pious pronouncements, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera; that's what keeps the collections boxes full and the doghouses air-conditioned. But when push comes to shove, thinking you can drive away evangelical voters by revealing that there are gay Republicans, or even that one of them likes teenage boys, is an act of optimism on the order of drilling for oil in your cubicle.

Putting out the information on Foley when HRC received it would have been perfectly defensible and ethical on their part. But instead, they chose to play along with a Democratic plan to stoke homophobia and decrease voter turnout based on completely-flawed assumptions, and have now sacrificed what few shards of credibility and bipartisanship that they had in the first place -- all for what looks like for naught, and with a lovely consolation prize of homophobic rhetoric everywhere.

Not that we don't expect HRC to shoot themselves in the foot regularly; it's just starting to get very tiring when we get nailed as well.