The new, improved HRC.

Wonderful news.

Following Saturday's HRC board meeting the organization, the largest gay civil rights group in the US, released a statement saying it "will only support ENDA if it is inclusive of sexual orientation and gender identity and expression."

Defection and disaffection: vote for your favorite story

These MoveOn ads are terrific. The ones who say they're still Republicans are very critical (most of them are men, too). But my absolute favorite is the Louisiana woman who concludes her testimony by saying, "I'm still a Baptist, but I'm no longer a Republican."

This blog now comes with a BUMPER STICKER!

That's right. Here at Security Risk we've developed a bumper sticker and lots of other yummy products with our clever and persuasive message. Stock up today!

"There is not one among them that any of us should not be proud...to sit with at small desks on back-to-school night"

Below are my key excerpts from King County Superior Court Judge William L. Downing's opinion in Andersen v. Sims (thanks Jeremy for pointing me to the text). I feel as though some of these passages should be put in newspaper ads and on billboards around the country:

There was no deeply rooted tradition of interracial marriage at the time of the U.S. Supreme Court's consideration of anti-miscegenation statutes in Loving v. Virginia, supra; yet, the Court analyzed the issue of their constitutionality in terms of the broad right to marry and found that right to have been infringed. There was no deeply rooted tradition of marriage while delinquent in child support payments at the time of the U.S. Supreme Court's consideration of statutes prohibiting this in Zablocki v. Redhail...(1978); yet, the Court analyzed the issue of their constitutionality in terms of the broad right to marry and found that right to have been infringed. There was no deeply rooted tradition of inmate marriage at the time of the U.S. Supreme Court's consideration of statutes restricting this in Turner v. Safley...(1987); yet, the Court analyzed the issue of their constitutionality in terms of the broad right to marry and found that right to have been infringed....

It is true that marriage has long been defined as the union of one man and one woman. It is equally true that the shape of marriage has drastically changed over the years. It took a very long time for the courts (with legislative bodies sometimes understandably following just a little behind) to break down the traditional stereotypes that relegated women to second class status in society and in the marital relationship....Serving tradition, for the sake of tradition alone, is not a compelling state interest....

Some declaim that the institutions of marriage and family are weak these days and, in fact, stand threatened. Any trial court judge who regularly hears divorce, child abuse and domestic violence cases deeply shares this concern. It is not difficult, however, to identify both the causes of the present situation and the primary future threat. They come from inside the institution, not outside of it. Not to be too harsh, but they are a shortage of commitment and an excess of selfishness. Before the Court stand eight couples who credibly represent that they are ready and willing to make the right kind of commitment to partner and family for the right kinds of reasons. All they ask is for the state to make them able....

Of course the laws never have placed a requirement on marriage that the parties procreate nor do they prohibit from marriage those who are unable or disinclined to procreate....

The legal question is not whether heterosexual marriage is good for the replenishment of the species through procreation. It is. The precise question is whether barring committed same-sex couples from the benefits of the civil marriage laws somehow serves the interest of encouraging procreation. There is no logical way in which it does so....It rationally serves no state interest to harm certain...children by devaluing the immediate families that they have joined....

It is good for children to be raised in stable families with a father and a mother. There is not the slightest question about this. It is a situation to be encouraged by the state. But, can it be said that fewer children will have this stability because couples consisting of two men or two women are allowed to have a relationship that is state-sanctioned? There is no reasonable explanation for why this would be so. There is no reasonable expectation that, should such a legal result come to pass, married fathers and mothers will abdicate their parental responsibilities or young would-be parents will defect from the ranks of heterosexuals....

On the other hand, when one peers into the future, one circumstance is far more certain to occur. Many, many children are going to be raised in the homes of gay and lesbian partners....One, then, must try to envision two categories of future children. The first category consists of those whose heterosexual parents will either neglect them or never conceive them because same-sex marriage has been legalized. The second category is those children who will be raised in a home with same-sex adult partners and who would enjoy enhanced fmaily stability and social adjustment if these adults were granted the benefits of civil marriage. The only reasonable conclusion is that the very real second category greatly outnumbers the first theoretical one. Therefore, the goal of nurturing and providing for the emotional wellbeing of children would be rationally served by allowing same-sex couples to marry; that same goal is impaired by prohibiting such marriages....

Unlike the documented impact of children's exposure to domestic violence and substance abuse in the homes of lawfully married heterosexual couples, as to children raised by intact same-sex couples there is no science, only questionable assumptions based on stereotypes. The Court concludes that the exclusion of same-sex partners from civil marriage and the privileges attendant thereto is not rationally related to any legitimate or compelling state interest and is certainly not narrowly tailored toward such an interest.

If there is indeed any outside threat to the institution of marriage, it could well lie in legislative tinkering with the creation of alternative species of quasi-marriage....Better, perhaps (in terms of simplicity, fairness and social policy) to allow all who are up to taking on the heavy responsibilities of marriage, with its exclusivity and its "till death do us part" commitment, to do so - not lightly, but advisedly....

The privilege of civil marriage and the various privileges legally conferred by that status are not being made equally available to all citizens....[In addition, the] denial to the plaintiffs of the right to marry constitutes a denial of substantive due process.

[T]hese plaintiffs...include exemplary parents, adoptive parents, foster parents and grandparents. They well know what it means to make a commitment and to honor it. There is not one among them that any of us should not be proud to call a friend or neighbor or to sit with at small desks on back-to-school night. There is no worthwhile institution that they would dishonor, much less destroy....The characteristics embodied by these plaintiffs are ones that our society and the institution of marriage need more of, not less.

News flash: "Cost-related medication restriction" is bad for you

Shocking news from the knowledge factory:

"After adjusting for differences in sociodemographic characteristics, health status, smoking, alcohol consumption, body mass index (BMI), and comorbid chronic conditions, we determined the risk of a significant decline in overall health among respondents in good to excellent health at baseline and of developing new disease-related adverse outcomes among respondents with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, arthritis, and depression....Respondents with cardiovascular disease who restricted medications reported higher rates of angina...and experienced higher rates of nonfatal heart attacks or strokes....Cost-related medication restriction among middle-aged and elderly Americans is associated with an increased risk of a subsequent decline in their self-reported health status, and among those with preexisting cardiovascular disease with higher rates of angina and nonfatal heart attacks or strokes. Such cost-related medication restriction could be a mechanism for worse health outcomes among low-income and other vulnerable populations who lack adequate insurance coverage." Source: Heisler M, Langa KM, Eby EL, Fendrick AM, Kabeto MU, and Piette JD, "The health effects of restricting prescription medication use because of cost," MEDICAL CARE 42 (7): 626-634 JUL 2004

Meanwhile, a news flash from the annals of America's growing war on club drugs. You may have seen pictures showing PET scans of people taking MDMA or "ecstasy" on big-city billboards and postcards, suggesting that it fries your brain. Now, it turns out those changes disappear once you stop taking ecstasy. Funny how we didn't bother to find this out until after the government started cracking down. (Previous studies were "limited by small sample size, lack of tracer selectivity, unreliable assessment of MDMA doses, insufficiently matched comparison groups, or region-of-interest analysis.") Source: Buchert R, Thomasius R, Wilke F, Petersen K, Nebeling B, Obrocki J, Schulze O, Schmidt U, and Clausen M, "A voxel-based PET investigation of the long-term effects of "Ecstasy" consumption on brain serotonin transporters," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY 161 (7): 1181-1189 JUL 2004

"I would have told those kids the president has something that he needs to attend to"

John Kerry is learning that he's going to face a disgusting, dishonest right-wing smear campaign. And it also seems he's concluding - rightly, I think - that the best way to meet this challenge, in a political world in which negative ads are proven to be highly effective, is with aggressive, harsh, but honest and delicately worded criticism:

At a morning appearance before minority journalists in Washington, Kerry faulted Bush for spending seven minutes reading to Florida schoolchildren after learning the World Trade Center had been attacked. "Had I been reading to children and had my top aide whispered in my ear that America is under attack, I would have told those kids very nicely and politely that the president of the United States has something that he needs to attend to," Kerry said.

Can we afford a flip-flopper in the war on terror?

Today's NYT:

And a foreign policy adviser to Mr. Kerry, James P. Rubin, said, "Why did President Bush flip-flop" on the national intelligence director's post, using a term the Bush-Cheney campaign has tried to affix to Mr. Kerry.

"First he was against it; now he's for it," Mr. Rubin said. "Does that sound familiar?"

I think the Kerry should push this theme as hard as he possibly can. It's like a brilliant judo move, drawing attention to Bush's literally years of gyrations on the 9/11 commission: he's for it and he's against it, he will testify and he won't testify, Condi will only testify privately and Condi will testify publicly after all, he needs time to think it over and he's got a counterproposal in 11 days, he's against a Director of Central Intelligence and he's for it.

And then there's greatest flip-flop of all....

Bush in the first 2000 debate: "The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders....I believe we're overextended in too many places....[I]f we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that.

Bush in the second 2000 debate: "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building....I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation building core from America? Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops."

On "flip-flopping" as in other matters, let he who is without sin....

In case of unwanted presidency

Some creative poetry on view recently at Magnet, a new gay men's health center in the Castro

The desperate tone of the new Bush/Cheney ads

Bush's latest attack ads, titled "Family Priorities" and "Priorities," are, respectively, possibly the smarmiest and the most frivolous campaign commercials I have ever seen. They are both utter pieces of shit. Watch them. The first one pushes the abortion issue; I can't possibly imagine this working too well on the soccer-mom crowd, though, or really on anyone but the core religious-right constituency. It just reinforces Kerry's point in his convention speech: that Bush's concept of "family values" kind of leaves out the task of valuing families (in favor of abolishing the separation of church and state).

The second ad, "Priorities," is about how Kerry has missed Senate votes while campaigning. This comes across as utterly baseless. I think Americans will likely understand it as a clear sign that Bush is unable to confront Kerry/Edwards on the issues.

And the newest Bush ad of all, a dose of feel-good bullshit about "Moving America Forward" that features a white suburban child boarding a school bus in front of his heterosexual parents' house, just demonstrates that Bush is grasping to emulate Kerry's really quite brilliant attempt to claim the high ground, draw on public perceptions of John Edwards, and proclaim that "We're the Optimists." It's great stuff when a challenger to the incumbent can claim that.

This is sooooo not an ordinary election. I heard somewhere that 2/3 of young voters say they're paying attention to the campaign, up from half in 2000. And needless to say it's incredibly polarized and aggressive earlier than ever.

I'm a bit afraid of a Bush-Cheney smear campaign, or - worse - of Bush dropping Cheney in favor of Colin Powell. Everyone says Powell and Bush don't get along, but Bush clearly will do anything to get reelected, and Powell, whatever his supposedly lofty convictions and decency, so far seems to have proven incapable of ever standing up to his boss.

While I've got your attention, I'd just like to say these people MAJORLY suck.

Fuck Bush and other fashion statements

Here's the t-shirt that Brad and I bought in LA. I wore it to a party that he took me to, where I knew absolutely no one, and it sort of made a nearly instant bond between me and a few other people at the party - people for whom that degree of rage over the war and the election feel natural and comfortable.

So many people I know think about the election almost all the time. I'm definitely one. One has to work hard, actually, to keep its place in one's life under control.

In so many ways, this presidential campaign is following a highly unusual and unprecedented course, and the electorate is perhaps more polarized three months before election day than it has been in decades.

Meanwhile, on Castro Street in San Francisco, "Just Married" t-shirts are on the Super Sale rack out front, going for $10 (see my photo below), and greeting cards tailored to married queer couples are also deeply discounted. Merchants cannot sell these shirts in large numbers, in other words, while San Francisco's case against the California Supreme Court is being litigated and City Hall is under court order not to license any more same-sex couples.

Anti-gay constitutional amendments are on the ballot in 13 states, including my home state of Michigan, and we are generally expected to lose in 12 out of the 13. The last state is Oregon, and I'll be traveling there in November with a bunch of volunteers from NGLTF.

Running against Hollywood

Bush has turned up the attack against that industry that America's radical right most loves to hate. "They somehow believe the heart and soul of America can be found in Hollywood," he's telling Heartland voters.

The question of the day: Why can't Bush steer clear of the ugliest themes in American political history?

Turning the corner

Bush: "We are turning the corner, and we're not turning back" What exactly does he mean?

Kerry: "Let me tell you something, folks: The last time we had a president who talked about turning a corner, and ran on the slogan of turning the corner, was Herbert Hoover, and he ran on the prospect that 'prosperity is just around the corner.'"

Meanwhile, in America:

In an echo of the savings and loan industry collapse of the 1980's, the federal agency that insures company pensions is facing a possible cascade of bankruptcies and pension defaults in the airline industry that some experts fear could lead to another multibillion-dollar taxpayer bailout.

Attacks against American troops in Afghanistan and Afghan security forces and civilians have increased steadily in the past several months, posing new hurdles for reconstruction and political stability efforts, American commanders and Afghan officials say.

Bush, never one to be distracted by domestic or foreign policy matters, is keeping his campaign-trail message focused like a laser on today's critical global issues. "We stand for the 2nd Amendment, which gives every American the individual right to bear arms....I've got a record on that issue. It stands in stark contrast to my opponent."

Kerry's daughter supports family values

From 365gay.com:

Sitting with her sister Alexandra in a question and answer session with reporters to the Democratic National Convention from across the country, Vanessa Kerry was asked if there were any issues on which she was at odds with her father.

"Gay marriage," she declared, as some party aides winced.

"To be fair - I've been on the record about it - I personally believe in gay marriage," the 27 year old Harvard med student added.

Also in Boston, Al Sharpton told the crowd: "The issue of government is not to determine who may sleep together in the bedroom, it's to help those that might not be eating in the kitchen."

Experts fear that racial profiling may not work

This breathtaking article brings us the terrible news that racial profiling may not be effective anymore. Apparently we are no longer upholding even the fiction that racial profiling is a bad thing?

The Courtaillers are part of a growing group of people who found a home in Islam and then veered into extremism, raising concerns among antiterrorism officials on both sides of the Atlantic that the new recruits could provide foreign-born Islamic militants with invisibility and cover, by escaping the scrutiny often reserved for young men of Arab descent. (NYT)

Gender as the core of the marriage debate?

From the National Transgender Advocacy Coalition:

"The good news from a Florida Appeals Court July 23rd decision is that Michael Kantaras retains custody of his children, at least for now. The bad news is that his marriage has been declared null and void because “the trial court erred by declaring that Michael is male for the purpose of the [Florida] marriage statutes. … The question of "whether [a] postoperative transsexual is authorized to marry a member of their birth sex is a matter for the Florida legislature and not the Florida courts to decide."

Also, this morning I went to a training by a staff member at the LA Gay and Lesbian Center about campaigning for marriage equality, in which someone asked whether gay marriage would "apply" to transgender people. The question revealed (1) the inadequacy of the phrasing "gay marriage," (2) the way in which the marriage debate turns fundamentally on notions of sex difference, and (3) the unpreparedness of the trainer, who confessed, with a knowing laugh, that the transgender "aspect" of this issue was the part he found the most confusing, and that it would have to be addressed on a state-by-state basis [which neither answered the question nor differentiated this "aspect" from other marital matters].

Less books and more votes

Mother Jones said farmers ought to raise less corn and more hell. But just what kind of hell should we be raising?

In an independent bookstore today on the boardwalk at Venice, I saw an entire table with towering piles of books of all shapes and sizes that detail the many crimes of the Bush administration and the urgency of defeating him on November 2. Several times now, in various bookstores, I've found myself impressed with the array of books that Bush-haters have written - and yet slightly concerned.

An Amazon search will even turn up a list or two, and there are even an oversupply of anti-Bush t-shirts (I myself just bought one that says "Fuck Bush"). Many have noted in the media that political books are hotter than ever this year, but I have serious doubts that many swing voters will be reading The I Hate George W. Bush Reader. Why is so much energy being devoted to mastering the genre of the anti-Bush manifesto? Why is there not more marching in the streets? Why aren't we all going down to bus stops every weekend with fliers to chat up random strangers about what Bush means to us?

Somewhat more promising are such interventions as Fahrenheit 9/11 and more recently Outfoxed, both of which have been much more widely distributed than expected and may actually reach a few of those mysterious people in Ohio, Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania who have not yet been polarized, and yet somehow might bother to go to the polls on November 2.

More promising still, though, are the numerous grass-roots efforts to protect the right to vote all across America. In an unprecedentedly polarized race, turning out one's base is going to make the difference, period. So we should all give our time to the Advancement Project, Right to Vote, and the Election Reform Information Project, as well as revitalized efforts by more established groups. And it's very very critical that John Kerry continue, as he has begun to do, to tell the public that he and his legal team will insure that every vote will be counted. (And he better mean it, too.) This message must be heard above all by African Americans, who were so egregiously disenfranchised in Florida four years ago and at so many other times in this country's history, but also by all Americans who've lost faith in the electoral process.

Thugz R Us

Thanks to Ian for this: Allawi shot prisoners in cold blood: witnesses

Iyad Allawi, the new Prime Minister of Iraq, pulled a pistol and executed as many as six suspected insurgents at a Baghdad police station, just days before Washington handed control of the country to his interim government, according to two people who allege they witnessed the killings.

They say the prisoners - handcuffed and blindfolded - were lined up against a wall in a courtyard adjacent to the maximum-security cell block in which they were held at the Al-Amariyah security centre, in the city's south-western suburbs.

They say Dr Allawi told onlookers the victims had each killed as many as 50 Iraqis and they "deserved worse than death."

Breaking News: Elections R Us! Upcoming Afghan election to feature Disreputable Warlord vs. The Unocal Guy

Does John Kerry have what it takes to TERMINATE Osama bin Laden?

In today's LA Times and NY Times:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (news - web sites) mocked his opponents in the California Legislature on Saturday as "girlie men," and called upon voters to "terminate" them at the polls in November if they don't pass his $103-billion budget.

This is not happening. I must have read this in The Onion. Or maybe this was a skit on Saturday Night Live.

The governor used the "girlie men" reference twice in a 16-minute speech aimed at pressuring the Legislature to pass his budget, now 17 days late. The remarks were apparently references to an old "Saturday Night Live" skit parodying Schwarzenegger. Comedians Dana Carvey and Kevin Nealon played "pumped-up" bodybuilders with Austrian accents who dismissed anyone without a muscled torso as a "girlie man."

Wait a second. This really IS a skit from Saturday Night Live. An actor is playing the Governor of California. AGAIN.

The governor's pugnacious turn raised objections Saturday, with the "girlie man" reference becoming the focus. "It's really painful to hear the governor resort to such blatant homophobia," said Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica), chairwoman of the Senate's Natural Resources and Wildlife Committee. "It's an old-fashioned way of talking about gay men as to indicate they're not as strong. So that part is really painful. And I have to say it's really surprising. It's like he can't get his way so he resorts to some kind of name-calling." Kuehl, along with Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), belongs to the Legislature's five-member Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Caucus. "This type of third-grade insult only clarifies that the governor has lost his balance and is seemingly unable to stay focused on the issues of the budget to date," Leno said. "By playing to certain voters' discomfort with gender and sexuality, the governor has exposed himself to be a divider, not a uniter." In reply, Rob Stutzman, the governor's communications director, said, "We're not going to respond to anyone looking to get their name in the paper."

What a good point! Those silly gay rights organization executive directors - they just want to get their names in the PAPER! You can see why the Governor of California, a former bodybuilder and movie star and known sexual harasser who insightfully responded to multiple sexual harassment allegations by saying that he regretted things he had said on "rowdy" movie sets and declaring that he now wanted (perhaps in penance?) to "win it for the women," would DEFEND the fact that he made fun of gay men in public!

Rob Stutzman, Mr. Schwarzenegger's spokesman, said the phrase was not intended to question the virility or sexual orientation of Democratic legislative leaders, who include some women. The governor was expressing his frustration with his opponents' refusal to pass his version of the budget, Mr. Stutzman said. "It's his way of saying they're wimps, they're giving in to the special interests," he said.

It's really nice to know the Governor doesn't question the virility of the legislators. Not even the women legislators (?). And he certain doesn't question their sexual orientation; it would have been TERRIBLE for him to cast aspersions on their sexual orientation! That's not what he meant at all!

Though the four leaders in the Senate and Assembly are men, women head some of the Legislature's most influential committees, ranging from Appropriations to Energy. The California Legislative Women's Caucus website lists 33 members — more than one-fourth of the Legislature.

Oh, so Arnold just had his facts wrong here! He called the legislator girlie men without even remembering that a fourth of them are WOMEN! You can't call somebody a girlie man if they're a WOMAN! They're not girlie men! BROADS, Arnold, BROADS! Haven't you learned English by now?

Democratic lawmakers, gay and lesbian advocates and feminist groups bristled over the governor's comments, which were greeted with sustained applause by hundreds of people who were invited to the rally through automated phone calls put out by Schwarzenegger's camp.

That crowd sure knew a good political leader when they saw it. That's why they thought to themselves, "The Arnold we know and love is back!" Or, "Now THIS is why we elected a bodybuilder movie star as our Governor!" Or, "I'm so glad Arnold's running the state instead of that sissy Gray Davis!" Or, "It sure is wonderful to have a Governor who has the balls to call his opponents girlie men!

Lawmakers and others called upon the governor to apologize. Senate President Pro Tem John Burton (D-San Francisco) said he was "nonplused" by Schwarzenegger's comment. "I don't know what the definition of 'girlie man' is. As opposed to his being a he-man?" Burton asked. "I can't think of a way to have the he-man and the girlie men join hands around the Capitol and sing 'Kum Ba Ya.' " Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles) said, "Those are the kinds of statements that ought not to come out of the mouth" of the governor. "He says he's going to 'terminate' members in November? I really don't know what he means by that. That's not funny any more," Nuñez said.

Why didn't I think of that? Sheesh, I'm so relieved the Democratic spin machine is sophisticated enough to come up with something this clever. His joke wasn't funny! It was confusing and unclear! It's shocking that he would make such a confusing, unclear, unfunny joke! Maybe this is an opportunity for John Kerry to define his message and help the American people get to know him. "The Governor of California may be a bodybuilder, but I'm a Vietnam veteran. Not only that, I'm being introduced at my party's convention by my Navy shipmates. And by a decorated Vietnam veteran who's also a quadriplegic! I have the tough resolve that's needed to serve as President. I like to go hunting, y'know. And I play hockey! I even wear all that macho hockey gear! Just look at my TV ads!"

Fabian Nuñez, the Democratic speaker of the Assembly, said that when he first heard of the governor's comment, he was incredulous. "The truth is I don't feel bullied by this guy," Mr. Nuñez said. "I don't have any insecurities about myself. I don't take that stuff personally."

Phew. Way to fire back there. It's great to know the Democratic leadership isn't at ALL insecure! Even though Arnold demeaned their manhood, they know in their heart of hearts that they're still just as MANLY as he is!

Legislators, he said at a rally in the food court of the Ontario Mills shopping center, are "part of a bureaucracy that is out of shape, that is out of date, that is out of touch and that is definitely out of control in Sacramento." Schwarzenegger added, "They cannot have the guts to come out there in front of you and say, 'I don't want to represent you. I want to represent those special interests: the unions, the trial lawyers'…. I call them girlie men. They should get back to the table, and they should finish the budget."

It's just appalling that the Democrats represent those evil trial lawyers, who bog down the American economy by suing corporations, and those corrupt union leaders who take money out of the pockets of hardworking Americans. We certainly wouldn't want a trial lawyer running things! Trial lawyers are, after all, rather fresh-faced! They're smooth talkers with the ladies! Their hair might even be blow-dried! No, no. Much better to elect a guy who finds public policy just as boring as most of us do. Maybe a businessman who ran every business he ever touched into the ground. Maybe someone who used his family connections to attain an almost entirely ceremonial elected office. Someone who can make the tough choices, who's shown the tough resolve again and again to not grant clemency to death row prisoners so that the state will go ahead and execute them. You can really see why the Democrats feel so uneasy that their candidate has thirty years of foreign policy experience, or that their VP candidate has practiced law. Try having someone with that resume create jobs, solve the health care crisis, and decide which countries we should attack and occupy!

"He should apologize and he should think twice before he speaks, and I would hope that his wife, Maria, would remind him of that," said Assemblywoman Sarah Reyes (D-Fresno).

Another sharp-tongued response from the Democrats. Somebody forgot to run the speech by his wife, Maria! After all, she's a woman! Hopefully he'll be more careful in the future to run things by his wife.

Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority, a national women's rights organization with an office in Beverly Hills, said, "Come on. Women are strong. And to denigrate half the human race is pretty sick. But that's what he's doing. He's trying to denigrate the males by denigrating females. But I would say it's an out-of-date comment and it should be, because it's so sexist."

It's nice to know see the president of Feminist Majority sticking to her message and focusing like a laser beam on the one issue that her organization cares about! After all, it's really up to the gay organizations to point out that this, like other antigay slurs, is associated with hate crimes against gay men! They represent gays, we represent women. That way EVERYONE has a political lobby standing up for them!

Having used his charisma and celebrity to build relationships with lawmakers over the last eight months, the governor is adopting a combative new tone. Schwarzenegger said he would strive to oust Democratic lawmakers who vote against his budget. "I want each and every one of you to go the polls on Nov. 2," he said Saturday. "That will be judgment day. I want you to go to the polls…. You are the terminators, yes!" Mr. Schwarzenegger has compared lawmakers to kindergartners who need a timeout and threatened to seek a constitutional amendment making the Legislature a part-time body. He is also appearing in the districts of vulnerable Democrats and promising to "terminate" those who stand in his way.

Wow, Arnold really knows how to articulate a vision of what California needs. Maybe he could be the prosecutor in Saddam Hussein's trial. Then he could say, "Hasta la vista, baby!" Or, if, let's say, his effort to capture Osama bin Laden by invading a sovereign nation and overthrowing its government had failed, he could tell Osama on TV, "I'll be back!" Maybe Bush should drop Dick Cheney and have this guy as his running mate. Yeah, that's it. He'll really connect with the American people if he dumps that guy that Americans perceive as a profane, rich, corrupt war profiteer in favor of Arnold Schwarzenegger. After all, the political segments on Fox News will be much more fun if they're peppered with references to 1980s action movies! I mean, we're familiar with those movies! Much better than all this talk about some country where everybody has some crazy name we can't pronounce!

On par with "why no socialism in America?"...

is the question, "Why no H&M in San Francisco?"  Is it because H&M is a Swedish company and San Fran is Pacific Rim?  Or is it because Chicago really is, in addition to being America's #2 restaurant city after New York, a better place to shop than San Francisco?  Inquiring minds want to know.  Comments are invited on this question.
 
In other news: "It's so funny that you're studying the Castro.  It's like my least favorite neighborhood in San Francisco." --Brandon

Toward online democracy

Jesse has alerted me to an important electoral contest: Mr. Gay.com 2004.  Sigh.  Puke.   So boring.   So much gender conformity.  
 
I hope I never, ever date anyone who claims to have a "great personality," or who is inspired by Madonna because "she once loved fame" and later "found it was fake."  or who says the development of a gay cable network is the most exciting and significant change of the last year.   
 
I only voted for two candidates, who i gave all-5 ratings: tennisguy2, who calls himself "way-left" and "feminine/femme" and looks skinny, directs plays, speaks four languages, and picked Elaine from Seinfield as the TV character the most identifies with; and chineseDstudent, who, though he is a dental student and "sports nut," gets points for writing at length about how important the Supreme Court's affirmative action ruling last year is to him.    
 
Still: where are the genderqueers?