And in other news... Water is Wet, and Bears Sh*t in the Woods...

It seems that the Sochi Winter Games are a massive boondoggle of corruption and environmental damage. The Economist looks into the state of the Sochi Games.

------------------------------------

WITH seven months to go before the 2014 winter Olympics, Sochi is a gigantic construction site. Lorries run up and down dusty roads, excavators turn earth inside out, and 70,000 workers from every corner of the old Soviet Union dig, lift, pull and churn day and night. Imagining the finished venue is hard. “This is where bird lakes are supposed to be,” says Svetlana, a local activist, pointing to a pile of dirt.

In many ways Sochi is an odd choice for the winter games. It has a subtropical climate and is one of the very few places in Russia where snow is scarce. The opening and closing ceremonies will be held close to the Black Sea on swampy ground, once infested by malarial mosquitoes. Temperatures there rarely fall below zero. The lower slopes of the Caucasus Mountains are not guaranteed snow, so the organisers have stored last winter’s.

Yet President Vladimir Putin sees Sochi 2014 as his own pet project: a sign of his power over people and nature, and of his international legitimacy. That Mr Putin spends a lot of time in Sochi adds a personal touch. Yet, as Boris Nemtsov, a former deputy prime minister and opposition leader who has written several reports on Sochi, argues, far from being a model of fair play, Sochi has emerged as a model of crony capitalism, lawlessness, inefficiency and disregard for nature and people. “The Sochi Olympics are an unprecedented thieves’ caper in which representatives of Putin’s government are mixed up along with the oligarchs close to the government,” Mr Nemtsov writes.

Show of hands please...  anyone who is at all surprised by this?

Didn't think so....

When History Repeats...

There once was a country that was due to host  the next  Winter Olympic Games.  This nation had worked very hard  to secure the games.    This  nation's leader saw it a  matter of both national and personal pride.  His nation  was emerging from  period of  economic  and political upheaval  stemming from  the collapse of it's former imperial system and the resulting loss in prestige.

Less than a year  out  from those upcoming games,  this nation passed a host of new laws which specifically targeted  one minority group, painting a picture of this group as a threat to children, the nation, and society at large.   the new laws  stated:

• Marriages for members of this minority were forbidden. 
• Sexual relations for members of this minority group were either restricted or forbidden. 
• Members of this minority group could be fired from jobs for no reason other than for who they were. 
• Members of this minority group were officially branded a security risk to the state.

As a result of these new laws being passed, groups of young thugs were reportedly emboldened into seeking out members of this minority group and harassing, beating and in some cases, torturing and even killing them.

The response from the International Olympic Committee (IOC) at the time ..... Silence.   Not one word of protest was heard, and a year later in 1936, just a few months after the passage of the 1935 Nuremberg Laws, targeting Germany's Jewish population; The Winter Olympics were held in Garmisch-Partenkirchen Germany, under the watchful gaze of Germany's aggressive, charismatic leader, Adolf Hitler.

Funny how history often repeats itself ... Fast forward 78 years to 2013. We are less than a year out from the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia. An Olympic Games viewed by many as Russia's re-emergence on to the world cultural stage since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and clearly a point of personal pride for Russia's "macho-man" President, Vladimir Putin.

With only months go to before the opening ceremony of these games, Russia has seen fit to pass new laws which ..... specifically targets one minority group for discrimination and even criminal prosecution,  for no reason other than for who they are.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
(From the Guardian.)

Russia's parliament has unanimously passed a federal law banning gay "propaganda" amid a Kremlin push to enshrine deeply conservative values that critics say has already led to a sharp increase in anti-gay violence.

The law passed 436-0 on Tuesday, with just one deputy abstaining from voting on the bill, which bans the spreading of "propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations" among minors. The law in effect makes it illegal to equate straight and gay relationships, as well as the distribution of material on gay rights. It introduces fines for individuals and media groups found guilty of breaking the law, as well as special fines for foreigners.

Minutes after passing the anti-gay legislation, the Duma also approved a new law allowing jail sentences of up to three years for "offending religious feelings", an initiative launched in the wake of the trial against the anti-Kremlin punk band Pussy Riot. The two laws were widely criticised by Russia's marginalised liberal and human rights communities and come amid a wider crackdown against independent civil activity in the country.

------------------------------------------------------------

Right on cue,  we get this report   from  Eastern European Human Rights watch dog group  Spectrum Human Rights Alliance.: 

President Putin's crusade against LGBT community in Russia took a new turn.

Infamous Russian ultra nationalist and former skin head, Maxim Martsinkevich, known under the nickname "Cleaver" (or "Tesak" in Russian) spearheaded a country wide campaign against LGBT teens using a popular social network VK.com to lure unsuspected victims through personal ads.

  Oddly enough their idea of fighting pedophiles targets exclusively male teenagers who respond to the same-sex personal ads and show up for a date. Captured victims are bullied and often tortured while being recorded on video.  These self-proclaimed "crime fighters" perform their actions under the broad day light, often outside and clearly visible to general public that indifferently passes by or even commend them. 

Video recordings of bullying and tortures are freely distributed on the Internet in order to out LGBT teens to their respective schools, parents and friends. Many victims were driven to suicides, the rest are deeply traumatized.    So far Russian police took no action against these "movements" even though Russian criminal code was clearly violated and despite numerous complaints from parents, victims and LGBT activists.  

-----------------------------------------------------------

Imagine for one moment if Russia's new laws were targeting Blacks, or Asians, or Women, or even Christians. Imagine groups of thugs using social media to lure any of those aforementioned groups into traps where they were beaten and tortured The global outcry would be deafening. 

The list of nations  boycotting the games in Sochi, would be so long that the IOC would have moved so fast to pull the games out of Russia,  as to make President Putin's head spin.  Yet just like with the Jews in 1935, to target Gays and Lesbians in 2013 garners barely a shrug from the International Olympic " family". Instead we get this:

The International Olympic Committee said Friday that athletes and visitors attending the 2014 Sochi Games in Russia will not be affected by anti-gay legislation passed last month.

"The IOC has received assurances from the highest level of government in Russia that the legislation will not affect those attending or taking part in the Games," according to the statement emailed to USA TODAY Sports.

The IOC also said: "The International Olympic Committee is clear that sport is a human right and should be available to all regardless of race, sex or sexual orientation. The Games themselves should be open to all, free of discrimination, and that applies to spectators, officials, media and of course athletes. We would oppose in the strongest terms any move that would jeopardise this principle."

Did you catch that? The response from the IOC is not that the laws in question are horrific
and wrong, but rather; "Oh don't worry... Putin has promised that he probably won't enforce these laws against people coming to Russia for the Olympics." Not that the brutal targeting and torture of LGBT youth in Russia must stop, but rather all those Gay Olympians and fans from outside Russia needn't worry about their own safety.

Now I hear many of you saying; "C'mon Dave! You are not really equating Russia in 2013 to Nazi Germany in 1935 are you ?"  Yes I am.   Am I equating Vladimir Putin with Adolf Hitler? Yes I am.   Am I saying the skinhead thugs who are attacking LGBT teens in Russia are the same as the Nazi supporters in the 1930's who attacked Jewish homes, shops and synagogues? Yes I am.

When you use the power of the state to scapegoat one minority for no other reasons than bigotry, and political expedience; When you allow a minority group to be terrorized, brutalized and marginalized for no other reason than they cant fight back; When you brand a minority group as less than human, and therefore deserving of inhuman treatment;   When you do these things, you are no different than the Nazi Brownshirts of Krystalnacht and the regime of Adolf Hitler that urged them on.

The IOC owes it to history, it owes it to the memory of those who could have possibly been helped, in 1935 when the Olympic Family was in a position to say this is wrong. The IOC owes it the LGBT citizens of not only Russia, but everywhere, to this time, do what is right, to live up to the words of the Olympic motto and take a stand for human rights.

The 2014 Winter Olympic Games must be moved out of Russia, and these modern day Anti Gay "Nuremberg Laws", must be loudly and unequivocally condemned.

Anything less, is just history repeating.

Authors Note - Special thanks to the incredible Stephen Fry for his support in getting this message out...

News Round Up- Weddings, and Questions in a Post-DOMA World.

Well,  it's been  nearly  3 weeks  since I've posted here, and as is usually the case  with blogging pauses, there has been  quite a bit of news in the interval.   It's hard to know where to begin....

Eric and I took a brief vacation  back to the US over the July 4th Holiday and through the following week.   We went back to  San Francisco  to visit my family.  My parents  flew out to CA from Wisconsin and we were all gathered together to celebrate my Dad's  75th Birthday.    But  as usually happens  with us,  events  took some exciting  and unexpected turns.

After the recent  United States Supreme Court rulings  striking down both Prop 8 in California and Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA),  we knew  that  we wanted at some point this year to  get married in the U.S. so we could start  the process for Eric to  get a Green Card.   Some initial investigation  of this  revealed that  getting married in the State of California is two-step process.   First, you need an appointment to go   to the County Clerk's office and apply for a Marriage Licence.  Once you have that,  you have 90 days to get married before the license  expires.  You can either do a church wedding , as many do,  or do a civil marriage at SF City Hall,  for which you need to also book an appointment ahead of time.

Getting an appointment on July 9th  to get a marriage license was no problem,  but there were no open time slots for civil marriage ceremonies  at SF City Hall until October.  (As you might imagine, the change in the law has resulted in something of an increase in weddings in San Francisco!)    So  we figured we would get our license, then  in 2nd week of October, when I would be coming back to CA  anyway for  work,  we would actually get married.  Giving both us, and our friends and family a bit more time to plan the whole thing.   Good plan, right?

Then things got complicated,   Turns out  our Best Man,  our incredible and amazing friend  Rudy Guerrero, was not  available in October due to family commitments back in Hawaii,  also there were no civil ceremony appointment slots open until the end of October  not the beginning.   Time when I was committed  to  business trips to Berlin and Dubai.    

So we  started thinking  of Plan B's  like  getting married  in Oakland at the Alameda County Court House which took walk-in weddings.  If  all else failed my Mother, a Lutheran Pastor could marry us in my Sister's living room if need be.    So  on the morning of July 9th we arrived at San Francisco City Hall, to get our marriage license.

As We filled out the paper work, the  County official behind the counter  casually mentioned that there had been a last minute  wedding  cancellation  for that day at  1:30 pm,  and did we want it that time slot,  and also that we needed to decide right then as there were  hundreds of  couples calling every day to ask if any civil ceremony  slots  were available ....   I looked at Eric, he looked at me,  we both looked at our Best Man,  Rudy who indicated that time worked great for him.    We turned to back and said "We'll take it!".   A frantic phone call back to my Sister's house  then alerted my mostly still sleeping family that they had exactly three hours to get ready for our wedding.

It turned out to be a wonderful celebration with family and  friends that ended up with Eric and I  legally married in the State of California.   In addition to the incredible honor of having Rudy as our Best Man,  our  amazing friends  Julian, Josh and Joan responded to a last minute posting on Facebook, dropped  everything they were doing and dashed over to City Hall to attend.   It was an incredible day.    Yet, we soon learned,  it was a day that would prompt a question we would be asked  repeatedly for the rest of our visit to the US, and  again  upon our return to London the past week...

"So.. When are you guys moving to the U.S?"

That is a difficult question,  for a lot of reasons.  Not the least of which is purely logistic.   The lengthy, and complicated process  of my move  from San Francisco to London two years ago was physically, emotionally and financially  exhausting.  So the prospect of packing up our lives all over again to move  half way  across the world is a bit daunting.   Yet the question  keeps being asked,  don't I want to come home?

Home....  That's a tricky concept.    Yes I am an American  (and always very proud to be one...).  Yet  my life is  here.   My  spouse,  our jobs, our home many of our friends, and some of Eric's family  are all here  in London.   Yet,  my family,  and the vast majority of my friends  are  back in the States.   It is  in many ways  like being  caught between  two  different  lives, trying to live with one foot in each.    So the question of whether or not to move back to America  is hardly  a yes or no proposition.  

Of course I miss the United States, but I also love our life  here, I love  our friends and family  that we have here .   So  in truth  the only answer  I  can give is,  we  have no  plans to move back the United States right now.  But we are  incredibly happy to now have the option to move  back.  Options we didn't have prior to the recent Supreme Court rulings.   Options that  we may well  decide to pursue down the road.  

In the meantime  we say  to all our friends  in both North and South America,  Continental Europe, Australia and Asia,  our guest room here in London awaits you !    You are thought of often and  always missed.

Okay, I admit it...

I am generally a very empathetic and  caring person,  so  I am  not given to bouts of  Schadenfreude.  (For those of you  whose German is a tad rusty...)

But you know what...?   Fine, I admit it,  I am  really really  enjoying the  epic meltdown that is  currently happening over on the Wing-nutty anti-gay political and religious Right  in the United States, in the wake of last week's historic  Supreme Court Rulings, striking down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, and  California's Proposition 8.

It's been more than fun,  frankly it's been a joy to watch.   Last Sunday on Meet the Press, American Taliban  spokesnuts Jim DeMint   and Ralph Reed, were  foolish enough to to think they could come on television and spew their   "think of the Children!!" nonsense.   Unfortunately for little Jimmy and Ralphie  there were grown ups on the panel ...  Cue Rachel with the epic smackdown.

Two interesting sound bytes there.  the first  being  DeMint's  flogging of the talking point that  giving LGBT Americans  equal rights is  somehow "demeaning" to bigots like him, who are angry they are no longer  allowed to  discriminate against Gays and Lesbians.   Oooh... Poor Baby!  

The second  interesting tid-bit  came right at the end of that clip where  Ralph Reed said  he couldn't "just let that go".  Which is one of the few truly honest things Reed has ever said on television.    He, and others like him have made their  considerable personal fortunes stoking fear and hatred of LGBT Americans and then turning that  homophobia in to cash.   Reed, and  his assorted ilk, are now  facing a new reality where  they are staring both unemployment and irrelevance in the face, and boy....  they are NOT happy about it.

You know what...?    GOOD!

The social-political Right Wing in the United States has spend decades demeaning,  demonizing  and attacking  Gays and Lesbians, driving  LGBT youth to suicide and then reveling in those deaths.  They have used the religious pulpit and the political podium to wage a war against an entire group of  Americans,  Men, Women and Children,  all for financial and political gain,  perverting the very religions they claim to profess in the process.

So  yeah,  I  am happy,  actually very happy that these merchants of bigotry and death are now facing  the end of their gravy train of hate.  I am overjoyed that  they feel  that  America has left them behind,  because in fact, it has.   Their day is over.

To be honest,  I am thoroughly  enjoying their pain. In fact,  I  so happy about it ... that I feel a song coming on....

Signs , Symbols and Prideful Assumptions....

Well now... It's been a pretty exciting  couple days.

The two recent United States Supreme Court rulings on the issue of Marriage Equality have prompted intense reaction  from all parts of the  political and social spectrum.    For proponents of equal rights, Wednesday's court victories  marked a historic  turning point in the LGBT civil rights struggle.   The two rulings which  stuck down Section 3 of the so-called  "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA), and upheld a lower court ruling in California , striking down CA Proposition 8 were greeted with joy and celebration in many quarters.  The reaction in my old stomping grounds of San Francisco was jubilant.



Over on the  far right wing  of American social-politics,  there was considerably less joy.... The favorite talking point over the past  24 hours has been how granting equal rights to  Gay and Lesbian Americans is going somehow cause Straight "Christians" to be  "bashed" or taken to court for their beliefs.     Our favorite American Taliban spokesnut, and dementia patient,  Pat Robertson  drives the  Waaaambulance full speed to crazy town...

We will set  aside  for a moment,  the  ridiculous notion at  any straight person has ever been bashed by gay people  for their sexual orientation or beliefs. The death toll  of  LGBT Americans who have been killed in the name of Robertson's  twisted and sick  abuse of religion could fill hundreds of blog entries.   Rather it is  the  idea  that  people who opposed  marriage equality are  now somehow victims of some sort of "judicial attack" that I find interesting,

In response to this, a popular  graphic/meme has sprung up on the internet  making the point that opponents of equality were never able to prove how ending  discrimination against Gays and Lesbians hurts them.

One side aspect of this whole recent  Supreme Court saga has been how various sides have expressed themselves through social media platforms, most notably on Facebook and Twitter.  The Human Rights Campaign started an online trend where their familiar Blue and Yellow  equal sign logo was turned red and white (red for valentines/love and white for marriage)  and urged people to adopt the modified logo as their social media profile picture.   Hundreds of thousands of people, including Eric and I,  did.

While scrolling through facebook today  I  happened upon the profile of an old friend of mine.  He is the younger brother of an old of friend of mine, with whom I am no longer in touch.  The elder of the two, lives and  works in a fairly conservative world and promptly ended our more than twenty-five year  friendship when he found out I was Gay.   As many others  who have gone through the coming out process can attest,  there are friends who you lose as a result of being honest,  I don't fault them,  it's just part of life.

His younger brother, however  while fairly conservative  on some issues,  like the  2nd Amendment and Gun Rights,  had always seemed  more progressive  on  other social issues.  So I was somewhat surprised to see this graphic on his Facebook Profile, with the caption; "I'll see your red equality sign & raise you a blue one.  :) "

The argument being that  where showing support for LGBT rights is okay, to express the same sentiment about heterosexuals  is considered to be bigotry.   Sigh...  Every June, during  LGBT Pride Month, at some point this ridiculous argument  always pops up, and I always amazed to see it put forward by otherwise  rational  people.

It is the idea that  an overwhelming majority point of view is somehow under attack if any other point of view is given any credence.   It is the insane notion that  somehow my marriage  is an attack on his.   That by my having  equal rights,  his rights are diminished.    I have news for my friend.   EVERY month is  "Straight Pride Month".   My friend has never  been  discriminated against because of his sexuality,  he has never been denied any of the rights  and privileges of being an American because he is Straight,   His Marriage ( not his first I would add..)  has never been subjected to public vote.    He  has never faced  having to leave the United States simply to be with person he is married to.     No one has ever said  he should be ashamed of being straight,  or  that  God hates him for loving who he loves.

Yet my friend, and others who have posted the aforementioned graphic,  somehow can't see, how given the reality  of their lives, how the idea of "Straight Pride"  seems as redundant, as ridiculous and as offensive  as  "White Pride" does to many people of color.  

I have blinding flash of the obvious for my friend;  When the entire world is geared to affirm who and what you are, when most every movie, book,  TV Show,  song on the radio and cultural "norm" supports  your sexual orientation;  saying that others who are different from  you are okay too,  is NOT a viscous attack on you.  You are not being discriminated against,  you are not being attacked   you are not  a victim of "reverse bigotry".  

To claim that you are,  just makes you look remarkably stupid.

So we will go to  London's LGBT Pride celebration this weekend.  Because in a world where a straight kid  growing up doesn't need  to be told  that it's okay to like yourself for who you are,  a logo, or rainbow flag  carried in a parade celebrating  these historic court rulings, can send the  simple  message to LGBT people of all ages,  that  you are just fine the way  you are.   

Happy Pride Everyone...

DOMA IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!

FROM
SCOTUSBLOG

UPDATE!   Ruling holding PROP 8  in CA unconstitutional is UPHELD!

Here is the Plaintiff's victory press conference

Here we go AGAIN - Playing the SCOTUS Waiting Game

As usual , The Onion nails it...

WASHINGTON—Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in an ongoing affirmative action lawsuit Monday, the impatient American public reportedly demanded that the nation’s highest court stop jerking around with all these other cases and just get to the gay stuff already. “Screw all these other cases, man, we’re ready for the real stuff—you know...the gay stuff,” said Indianapolis resident Eric Newcomb, 36, just one of millions of restless Americans who claimed they are sick of waiting for the Supreme Court to pull the trigger on a gay rights decision, noting that the judicial body has already had “a solid three months” to consider the constitutional issues associated with homosexual marriage and same-sex partner benefits. “Seriously, stop wasting time with all these boring appeals nobody cares about and bring on the gays. I mean, do they honestly think anyone gives a shit about any other case?” At press time, the nation had thrown up its hands in frustration upon learning that the Supreme Court was currently preparing a 46-page opinion addressing the jurisdictional conflicts raised by Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's hard not to think they are just attention seeking drama queens on the court, where SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States),  is going to have their moment in the spotlight no matter what. And I actually can understand that if it is the case, After all the President and Congress seem to get all the limelight, I really can't blame the Justices if they use this process as a not so subtle reminder that there IS a third branch of government., and by God... attention WILL be paid!!     That being said, it still seems needlessly overdrawn and even somewhat childish how they do it.

Allow me to also deliver a  small reality check for anybody who was annoyed that there weren't any "Death to DOMA" drink specials at the Big Apple Ranch, Sidetracks, Badlands or the Abbey last night, take a moment to put yourself in the shoes of bi-national same sex couples living oversees in DOMA Exile, for whom this decision literally will determine if we can ever return to  the United States, or those living in the U.S. who are facing the very real prospect of having to leave the country just to be with their spouse.

For folks like us, this whole waiting game just seems cruel....

The Daily Show tackles the myth of "anti-Christian bullying"

Brilliant....

The segment features right wing nutcase, Boise, Idaho, pastor and radio host Matt Slick attempting to make the case that Christians are becoming victims.

Defining Patriotism and Privacy in a Digital Age...

Press reports on both sides of the Atlantic have  been full of  stories about the revelations of American National Security "whistle blower"  Edward Snowden .

Snowden, a former U.S. Intelligence analyst,  spilled  the beans to the UK newspaper The Guardian, on  how  the US National Security Agency monitors electronic communications  all over the world in its efforts to thwart terrorism.    In a recent interview,  Snowden explained his motives.

Over here  in London,  the government has been quick to  say to anyone with a microphone that  civil liberties  of people living int he UK  were not violated, and "appropriate safeguards"  were in place at all times.   Uh... okay.   They of course can't say what those safeguards actaully are,  because  that's...  you know...  secret n' stuff.   

Meanwhile  back in the  United States, the same folks who were all for spying on pretty much everyone in the name of  "homeland security" back during the Bush Administration  are now,  ( wait for it....) "shocked and deeply concerned" over  what the government has been doing!

I'll be honest,  I have always just assumed  that in a post 9-11 world, the government was monitoring  everybody,  and  using PRISM, or  whatever the system is called to  search for keywords,  I.P. addresses and  suspicious activity  between people with known or  possible links to terror groups.  And I realize I am going to horrify my libertarian friends when I say...  I am pretty much okay with that...   I know  many of you  right now are screaming the  Ben Franklin quote about  liberty and safety  at  your computer screens  and  wondering why  I am not more worried about  this intrusion on our right to privacy.

Let's be clear,  I never said I wasn't worried about it,  I never said I liked it.   I am saying I have accepted it as a necessary evil.  And yes, there needs to be clear and full congressional oversight of these programs to ensure the needed safeguards for  civil liberties.  I would remind folks that  it was  the Bush Administration's lack of interest in  intercepted "chatter"  that was at least partly responsible for America being caught unaware and unprepared for the attacks of September 2001.    

Which is why, even though  I may not be joining the call to storm the NSA with pitchforks and torches.  Yet at the same time,   I also am not ready to agree with those  who say  Edward Snowden, and the American Journalist Genn Greenwald,  (who broke his story),  are traitors.  Clearly  Snowden, (rightly or wrongly)  felt  that there were not adequate safeguards or  oversight structures in place  at the NSA  to protect the civil  liberties of  all the people who's emails, phone calls, and  web usage is being monitored.  

It is very easy to side with the argument that  "if you have nothing to hide,  this shouldn't bother you..."  and there is a certain logic to that,  yet   the flip side of that  argument is the issue of privacy.   Don't we all have the right NOT to have our lives examined by total strangers?   I'll  say  what bothers me the  most  in that interview with Snowden,  is the revelation that wasn't the Government  was possibly reading my email, but rather  Booz Allen Hamilton, a private corporation that  was doing all this, as a Government contractor.    

Am I saying I trust  the  Government more than I trust a private company?  Yeah, pretty much.    The Tea Party may think government is the problem,  but the sheer lack of accountability Snowden describes is pretty unsettling.   

So  what about the question of Patriotism here?  Are Snowden and Greenwald  traitors?   Well, motives aside,  Snowden is a criminal.   He broke the law. And Glenn Greenwald, aided and abetted that criminal activity  We can, and many will,  argue the nobility of  their  reasons, and  even argue over the right or wrong nature of the laws they  broke,  but  the fact remains,  they did break the law.     The real question is;  have they  put the country, or  any person, other than themselves  in danger because of  their actions?   If you listen to voices on the poltical right in the  United States,  you would certainly think so.

Fox News  certainly  has it's own ideological  tint on all this,  but  it raises the question,  are Snowden and Greenwald  heroes who have struck a blow for  all of our civil liberties,  or are they traitors who have but the lives of Americans and  National Security at risk.   You can  make a very convincing case for both.  Yet it is worth noting,  Fox News had no problem with  the outing of CIA Agent  Valerie Plame Wilson, by the Bush Administration,  and never once asked if  Scooter Libby and his boss,  Vice President Dick Cheney should be charged with Treason. 

An interesting  side story to all this,  is  the background of the Journalist who broke the story.   Glenn Greenwald .  He is a columnist on civil liberties and US national security issues for the Guardian Newspaper . A former constitutional lawyer, he was until 2012 a contributing writer at Salon. He is the author two recent books, highly critical of the use of executive power and the Patriot Act,  by the Bush Administration.  

Another interesting fact about  Greenwald, who is Gay,  is he also is living in DOMA  (Defense of Marriage Act)  Exile.   He was forced to move to Brazil because his relationship with his Brazilian partner is not recognized by the U.S. Federal Government for immigration purposes.   Greenwald and his partner were recently profiled by  OUT Magazine where they told their story..

"Brazil recognizes our relationship for immigration purposes, while the government of my supposedly 'free,' liberty-loving country enacted a law explicitly barring such recognition," says Greenwald, referring to the Defense of Marriage Act with the disdain he typically shows for policies he believes are eroding Americans' freedoms. Greenwald's attacks on the powerful make him a tempting target for reprisals. So it's no surprise that, soon after he started blogging, critics sometimes tried to out him in a game of "gotcha." But what upset Greenwald was the implication that he had been closeted in the first place. "There was nothing to out," he says. "I've been as out as I can be since I was 20."

CNN's Christiane Amanpour also featured Greenwald on her program

A Canadian friend of mine here in London  asked me an interesting question yesterday;  Did I think that  having to live as a DOMA Exile  may have colored Greenwald's  attitudes towards the U.S. Government,  in  a way where he maybe didn't  look as critically at the impact of breaking this story, as he might have otherwise?   In other words  did I think Greenwald might have taken some personal satisfaction  in punishing the Government that currently is treating him as  2nd class citizen, and his partner as non-existent?    I  don't have access to Greenwald's though process so I can't answer that.  However,   I will be honest enough to say it's possible.

Like most Americans,  I want the U.S. Government to do what is necessary to keep people safe and to thwart  potential threats.  These recent revelations  give  the American People a chance to examine and perhaps more clearly define  what  "doing what is necessary" actually entails.    In the meantime,  both Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald  may well be thinking of another famous quote from Benjamin Franklin...

You know it's the Tony Awards when...

The opening number STOPS THE SHOW.....

From the Huffington Post...

Neil Patrick Harris was host at 67th annual Tony Awards on Sunday night, marking the fourth time Harris has acted as ringmaster for the prestigious celebration of Broadway. That veteran status wasn't lost on him: "Stick with me, your emcee's a seasoned pro," Harris sang during the 2013 Tony Awards opening number, a raucous performance that included everything from jokes about Shia LaBeouf, Alec Baldwin and Tom Hooper's "Les Miserables" close-ups to a pretty serious magic trick to even Mike Tyson. (The former champ was the star of a one-man show on Broadway last fall.) In short, Harris owned all.

When Words Lose Their Meaning...

It's June,  and that means LGBT Pride month.  To mark this  the White House released  the President's 2013  pride month proclamation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

For more than two centuries, our Nation has struggled to transform the ideals of liberty and equality from founding promise into lasting reality. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Americans and their allies have been hard at work on the next great chapter of that history -- from the patrons of The Stonewall Inn who sparked a movement to service members who can finally be honest about who they love to brave young people who come out and speak out every day.

This year, we celebrate LGBT Pride Month at a moment of great hope and progress, recognizing that more needs to be done. Support for LGBT equality is growing, led by a generation which understands that, in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." In the past year, for the first time, voters in multiple States affirmed marriage equality for same-sex couples. State and local governments have taken important steps to provide much-needed protections for transgender Americans.

My Administration is a proud partner in the journey toward LGBT equality. We extended hate crimes protections to include attacks based on sexual orientation or gender identity and repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." We lifted the HIV entry ban and ensured hospital visitation rights for LGBT patients. Together, we have investigated and addressed pervasive bullying faced by LGBT students, prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in Federal housing, and extended benefits for same-sex domestic partners. Earlier this year, I signed a reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in the implementation of any VAWA-funded program. And because LGBT rights are human rights, my Administration is implementing the first-ever Federal strategy to advance equality for LGBT people around the world.

We have witnessed real and lasting change, but our work is not complete. I continue to support a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act, as well as the Respect for Marriage Act. My Administration continues to implement the Affordable Care Act, which beginning in 2014, prohibits insurers from denying coverage to consumers based on their sexual orientation or gender identity, as well as the National HIV/AIDS Strategy, which addresses the disparate impact of the HIV epidemic among certain LGBT sub-communities. We have a long way to go, but if we continue on this path together, I am confident too that one day soon, from coast to coast, all of our young people will look to the future with the same sense of promise and possibility. I am confident because I have seen the talent, passion, and commitment of LGBT advocates and their allies, and I know that when voices are joined in common purpose, they cannot be stopped.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2013 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to eliminate prejudice everywhere it exists, and to celebrate the great diversity of the American people.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirty-first day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand thirteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-seventh.

BARACK OBAMA

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's lengthy, it's elegantly worded and as in years past,  a powerful testament to how far we have co.....zzzzzzzzzzzzz....    Oh sorry, I seem to have nodded off  the middle of this blog post.   Mostly because we have heard  all these wonderful words before.    

Yes they are truly, wonderful, powerful and  inspiring words.    There is the problem.   On the key issues  facing the LGBT community that is  pretty much all we have had lately.   Just words.   The most recent example of this being the  Comprehensive  Immigration Reform bill (CIR) currently  working it's way through the  United States Senate.  On the issue of inclusion of  same sex couples into this key piece of legislation,  the President  has been full of  the right words.  

At a recent press conference while on a state visit to Mexico, the subject of immigration  was front and center,  the President was clear and eloquent (again)  with his wonderfully supportive words.  

It is also worth noting, that all these clear  statements of support are invariably followed up with the caveat , of how  not everyone "is going to get everything they want .."  type language.   It's hard not to become cynical when hearing  that.     It usually means that when  the President later fails to put the weight of the  executive branch behind those wonderful words, he can take cover  behind  the banner of  "bi-partisanship".  When in fact,  the truth is,  both the President and  Congressional Democrats  simply gave in to  GOP demands.    

Which is exactly what happened  in the US Senate when faced with the choice to live up to their wonderful words.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The President  could have  used the weight of the  White House to  pressure  the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee to  hold their ground  on  the Leahy Amendments.   Now, I understand the  process that led  up to the massively disappointing  decision by Democrats to abandon  the provisions of  Same Sex couples that Senator Leahy has sough to include in the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill.   Yet  the facts are  it was an abandonment,   done  in the hopes of appeasing  Republicans who had threatened  to kill the bill  in the name of their own bigotry.

The Facts are,  the Democrats caved.  What's more, they caved  when they  had no good reason to do so.   The Republican Party is  a national  non-starter for  Latino voters.  The GOP desperately needs  CIR  to pass,  so they can  try to  convince  this crucial electoral demographic  that they really don't  hate them.    

Senators  Feinstein, Durbin, Schumer and Franken should have held their ground and called the Republican's  bluff.   It would have forced the GOP to vote on their own homophobia,  essentially forcing  the Republicans in the Senate,  (and  eventually the  House of Representatives as well,)  to  make a very public choice.   The choice between their long term electoral viability as a National Party, and their obsession with  hating  Gays and Lesbians.  

If the  GOP really is so stupid as to kill the bill  on this issue,  it  would have set the racism and homophobic bigotry of  the Republicans as the central issue for  for the  2014 midterms, a debate Democrats would have easily won.   Instead,  the Democrats, with the tacit approval of the White House, have  turned the clock back to  2009  and sent a very clear message to GOP that  all they have to do to effectively block  the President's legislative agenda is simply threaten to say No.

Like many,  I am always happy to hear wonderful words,    Yet there comes a point when words are not enough.   I am deeply disappointed with the Democrats choice to capitulate  to Republican fear-mongering  as quickly and as easily as they  did.

The BSA takes it's first step into the 21rst Century....

Click to enlarge

This is a first step,  (Okay,  it's an imperfect, legally problematic and contextually offensive first step that basically says;  a 17 years, and 364 day old gay person is just fine, but  24 hours later that same person is now a threat to kids..?! )   

But it IS a step FORWARD none the less. Because of the decision made today the policy on banning gay adult Scouters will very likely collapse under the weight of its own stupidity in next few years. I heard from a number of people who were "in the room" during the vote, and the fact that it passed with 61% is telling where attitudes of the BSA Membership is heading.

 I know advocates for equality would rather have had  a full victory rather than a partial one here, but the BSA was at a true crossroads yesterday, and despite hiking at a slow pace, they overwhelmingly chose the path that goes forward. No small thing, that.

Bernard Waber Beloved Author Of ' Lyle the Crocodile' Dies At 91

I was saddened to read of  Waber's passing.  Lyle the Loveable Crocodile was one my favorite bedtime stories when I was a child.  

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(via the Associated Press)

NEW YORK — Bernard Waber, the author of such children's favorites as "The House on East 88th Street" and "Lyle, Lyle Crocodile," has died.

Waber died May 16 at his Long Island home after a long illness, publisher Houghton Mifflin Harcourt announced Monday. He was 91.

Waber's "warmth, energy, artfulness, elegance, and abiding respect for children were epitomized in his books," Houghton's senior vice president and publisher of books for young readers, Betsy Groban, said in a statement. His 33 books have sold 1.75 million copies, the publishing company said.

Waber debuted as an author in 1962 with "The House on East 88th Street," which introduced readers to the loveable Lyle, first spotted in a bathtub in an Upper East Side brownstone. Lyle's story continued in "Lyle Finds His Mother," "Lyle and the Birthday Party" and other works. Waber also wrote many non-Lyle books, such as "Ira Sleeps Over," in which a boy fears he'll be teased for bringing a favorite stuffed teddy bear to a friend's house.

Waber was a native of Philadelphia and a graduate of what was then known as the Philadelphia College of Art.

He is survived by his brother, three children and four grandchildren. His final book, "Lyle Walks the Dog," was a 2010 collaboration with his daughter, Paulis.

Funny Odd Film Review - Star Trek Into Darkness

In 2009  director JJ Abrams confidently  strolled into a cultural  lions den, by re-imagining  one of the most iconic  franchises  in not just science fiction,  but  in popular culture as a whole, with his "reboot" of Star Trek.

The film worked,  and it worked  really really well.  Yes,  hard core fans (of which it can be said, I am one...)   had our  nit-picky issues  with  the film, but  overall most  "trekkers"  accepted  that  this was something  NEW,  and  as such would be  very different  from  everything that came before.   And it worked,  it showed us characters and  concepts we thought we  knew by heart,  in a brand new context and gave Star Trek, a totally new  story arc.

 It also gave  Abrams and his team the  ultimate come back to  the criticisms of  uber-nerds  who  were horrified  at the changes. "It's a whole new timeline,  everything you are complaining about never happened in this universe, so get over it!" 

Like most Star Trek fans, I embraced it, and was eager to see where JJ Abrams would take us next. SPOILER WARNING- The following review will contain key plot points from the new movie, so if you haven't seen it and don't want to know what happens, don't read any further. Otherwise read on....

Star Trek Into Darkness,  is a  really  good  sci-fi action movie.   It is (mostly) well acted,  well directed and  visually  stunning.    I know you are  hearing  the  "but...."  that  is about to come, so before  we go there,  let me tell you  what  I really liked about this movie.

The Cast.  Most of  the  core cast  have  grown  into their characters  and  turn in strong and  believable performances.   Chris Pine's  Jim Kirk is   heroic,  human and  believable.   Likewise  Zac Quinto's Spock wonderfully takes  the elements we know and love from Leonard Nimoy's Spock, and combines that with the journey this "new" Spock  has taken  since the  destruction of  his home and family in the last movie.    Zoe Saldona kicks ass,  in a major way   giving  Uhura  the gravitas  and  depth  that  must  be  making  Nichelle Nichols  very  proud.  

Simon Pegg turns in a much stronger  and less cliche'd performance  as Scotty this time out,   and takes great strides in making the character his own.   I know that for many fans,   plot element of having Scotty  resign and leave the Enterprise , (over the potential risks posed by the new  "photon torpedoes")   is  unbelievable,  and something "Scotty would never do",  but  that's the point.   It is something  Jimmy Doohan's  Scotty would never do.   This Montgomery Scott,  hasn't  lived  that life, or  at least  not yet.   So  Pegg's  reboot of Scotty  works better this time around.


Bruce Greenwood brings a fatherly  presence as  Admiral  Christopher Pike and as the bad guy, "John Harrison"   Benedict Cumberbatch delivers the right balance of fire, ice  and mayhem.   Where you never really  believed   Eric Bana's  Romulan villain in the last movie  was  a serious threat to Kirk & Co.  "Harrison" (yes I know.. I keep putting his name quotes,  we'll get to that in a minute...)  is at the outset, a believable baddie.

So again,  Star Trek Into Darkness is a fun, entertaining, well made  Science Fiction Action movie.  But...   and here comes  the  "but".   This movie  simply does not work as a Star Trek film, even as a JJ Abrams "universe"  Star Trek film .    Abrams himself  said  he didn't make a movie for Star Trek fans, but rather for movie fans, and in that goal he has been very successful, but  as a Star Trek story,  the movie falls flat.  The most generous praise I can muster in this regard is, Into Darkness is to Stark Trek what "Quantum of Solace" was to James Bond.  A well made action movie that when taken in the context of its own cannon, makes absolutely no sense.

The script suffers from  a number of flaws,   John Cho,  Anton Yelchin, and Karl Uban  as  Sulu, Checkov and "Bones" McCoy,  all  try to make the best of what they are given.  Yet they can't seem to  make it work in this film.    Urban particularly  struggles to make his McCoy more than just crotchety,  but never quite gets there.

Then there are the  "Easter eggs".  A Hollywood phrase meaning small plot points or references hidden in the film  to be discovered along the way.  Inside Jokes if you will,  planted there for  Star Trek fans to find, that the average non-trekker  wouldn't  get.   These, while  amusing  for the most part,   come across as more post-it notes stuck on the movie that say "Look!  See!  It's a Star Trek reference! "     The biggest egg of course,  is the fact that  "John Harrison" is in fact  Khan.  Yes, as in "Star Trek II,  The Wrath of Khan ". The problem with this,  (well,  one of the problems, there are several...)  is while Cumberbatch is entirely believable as an ex-star fleet  special ops type hell-bent on revenge, he just is not convincing as Khan.

Which brings us to the  core problem  with this movie.  If you are going to reboot something  like Star Trek,   you have two choices. You either do a complete  re-imagining ,  as was done  with  Battlestar Galactica where  all the characters and their context is completely  changed, while putting them in basic key elements of the original cannon.

 Or,  you do as was done with Doctor Who,  you  totally redesign the look,  the feel, the sound,  but  stay  completely true  to everything that came before.   The problem with Star Trek Into Darkness,  is JJ Abrams is trying to  have it both ways.

The Easter eggs don't work. They come across as a forced rehash of Star Trek II. You can't have all the key characters be entirely recognizable as their original namesakes, and then pull out a villain we all know very very well, and completely re-image him.

 You can't redo the story from the best of the original cast films and expect it to work for Trek fans in this new context.  It feels fake, like the production team sat down and tried to think of things they could  just throw in  that would keep the Trekkers happy, while making a big budget  sci-fi action movie that  would appeal to the average movie-goer. 

Reversing the plot point of having  Kirk "die" from radiation in the engine room instead of Spock was powerfully acted and an emotional moment in the movie.   But  in the context of the story, it  was rendered  silly  when it turns out  all they need to do bring Kirk back from the dead is inject some of Khan's blood into him.  In his cameo as "Spock Prime", (another easter egg that felt forced)  Leonard Nimoy's Spock  tells  his  younger self  that  defeating  Kahn  for him and his shipmates  came at  great  cost. But in this film, while a visual roller coaster,  it all felt  just  too... easy.   

The musical score for the film by Michael Giacchino, continues the themes from the previous movie and works very well and at the end, incorporates the famous  opening bars of  Alexander Courage's  original theme.   The costumes look great, aside from the  ridiculous  dress gray starfleet uniforms with the silly over-sized caps. The Enterprise still looks like the Enterprise,  and we get to see the Klingons in this movie, forehead ridges and all.

So what's my verdict?  I really enjoyed  the movie.  It's a fun scifi roller coaster ride and  certainly  worth  going to see in the theatre and in 3D.   Yet  what is clear  from  this movie, is  JJ Abrams  needs to make a choice on which direction  he wants to take  Star Trek, because trying to go both forwards and backwards at the same time  just leaves you stuck.

Star Wars fans should take note.  JJ Abrams is set to take on that reboot next.