Saturday, March 30, 2013

I Ain't One To Gossip, But ....

First off, I need to say I loathe Gwyneth Paltrow. Even though Harvey Weinstein ‘bought’ her an Oscar a few years back, she really is the worst hacktress out there; aside from Lohan of course. But what I loathe most about Paltrow is how she loves to give her advice on how one should live one’s life, and, of course, live it like Paltrow. She’s even created her own website, Goop—which I think is a play on words and really means sh*t—to tell the minions of the world how to be more Paltrow.
In her latest Goop-letter which focuses on her ‘Spring Edit’, Paltrow gives you a list of ‘must haves’ for a new season. But, not only does Paltrow name-drop a list of fancy designer clothes that world’s unwashed and un-Oscared™ must own, but she actually models the looks on her site.
Whatever. Here’s the kicker: if you want to dress like Gwyneth—just for this one season, mind you—you’ll need to spend $458,000. See, she recommends things like “a $425 white leather crop-top from Theyksens’ Theory, shiny orange Maiyet shorts for $475, a $925 leopard print Charlotte Olympia clutch, Jimmy Choo heels for $575, a $795 Swarovski crystal necklace and a $1,590 bangle bracelet from Saint Laurent.”
This leads me to realize that ‘Paltrow’ is Polish for ‘out of touch actress who has a far too high and mighty view of herself.’
We all know that Rihanna has terrible taste in men. I mean, what else can you say about the gal that goes back to the douche that punched her in the face for looking at his phone?
But now, it seems, at least according to the National Enquirer—don’t judge….they broke the John Edwards story—Rihanna has a way of getting back at Chris for punching her and then hooking back up with her and then cheating on her. She is ALLEGEDLY doing the nasty with Dane Cook.
It seems the singer and the, for lack of a better word, comic, have been friends for years, until Rihanna decided friends with benefits would be a nice way to show Chris Brown what a special girl she is. A source—and you know it’s Lohan lying on the floor under a bar in a pool of her own vomit, texting TMZ—says, “They hang out in Dane’s dressing room and sometimes he goes back to her Pacific Palisades home to party. Rihanna’s friends all think they’re carrying on a romance, but she’s very secretive about it. She wants to keep everyone guessing, especially Chris.”
Until he finds out and the fists come out. Again.
With lockdown looming, Lohan has been quiet this week, probably just getting drunk’n’high in her hotel room. But a new story has come out about her relationship with her doofus lawyer, Mark Heller, and his family. Apparently Mark isn’t the only Heller she’s involved with … legally. It seems Heller’s son Mike is in charge of something called Lohan’s ‘branding’, which, sadly, doesn’t involve taking a hot piece of bent iron and tagging her saggy ass.
Lohan has been a longtime friend/concubine/drug mule, ALLEGEDLY, for Michael Heller, a club promoter turned entrepreneur. He stages celebrity photo ops—and probably personally picked that hooker outfit Lohan wore to court last week—and brand-related party appearances, so it seems like he is providing the cracktress with some much needed income since her film career is basically over.
“Mike books gigs for Lindsay and they’ve known each other for a long time,” a Lohan insider named Dina, accepting payment in tequila, said.  “She’s not likely to part ways with his father anytime soon, because of her strong ties to his son. Without brand promotion, Lindsay would be in a lot deeper financial trouble.”
In fact, Boy Heller was the one who whisked Lindsay from NYC to LA, aboard the private Mr. Pink jet, when her commercial flight was delayed. It’s nice when the pimps help their girls get to court, isn’t it?
And, what’s a girl to do while waiting for her lockdown-rehab to begin? Well, if you’re Lindsay Lohan, you’ll spend a few days with Charlie Sheen, guest-starring on his FX show, and possibly getting high in a hotel room together,. Then it’s off to Brazil. 
Perhaps someone should check on our extradition treaty with Brazil.
Oh, why? Better to let her stay there and become Brazil’s problem.
Wow, I knew he had a big head, literally, but Will Smith has a really big head.
See, Smith was rumored to be Quentin Tarantino’s first pick for the role of Django in Django Unchained but, after begging to be the star, turned it down because he didn’t get to kill the bad guy and he wasn’t the star.
Will Smith: “Django wasn’t the lead, so it was like, I need to be the lead. The other character [Christoph Waltz’ character] was the lead! I was like, ‘No, Quentin, please, I need to kill the bad guy!’”
Funny, Waltz was considered a supporting actor in the film, and won the Oscar as such, while Jamie Foxx, who played Django, was promoted as the star. I imagine Smith was more concerned about playing opposite a real actor in Waltz and that was the reason he bowed out.
Will Smith. Big star. Bigger ego.
Meanwhile, back at Rihanna.
She seems to have a taken a page out of Little Miss Justin Bieber’s playbook. A few weeks ago, Bieber kept tens of his prepubescent fans waiting because he was two hours late for his show; many, in fact, left early because they have to be in bed by 8PM.
Now, it seems, Rihanna has decided that being tardy is the new publicity stunt.
See, RiRi was scheduled to give a show at a Chicago high school a week ago; the students won the free show because of the video they created showcasing their philanthropic work that was set to Rihanna auto-tunes. These kids, who were on spring break but came back to school for the show, waited four hours for her Assholiness to appear.
Her official excuse? Chicago traffic is bad; and Rihanna Instagrammed a picture to prove it … except the picture was taken when she was already three hours late. And then, to pile on the I don’t have time for this shiz, I’m Rihanna nonsense, once she finally arrived she, um, sang [?] for fifteen minutes and then left.
One student, who helped with the philanthropic video—which showed the student’s efforts in helping out tornado victims—called it “The Surviving Rihanna Event.”
But then, she probably had to get back to schtupping Dane Cook and dodging Chris Brown’s punches.
I love when smarmy smartass James Franco gets served, and it’s especially good when he gets served by David Letterman.
See, Franco was on Letterman this past week and asked Dave to finally reveal why his friend and film-maker, Harmony Korine, whose appearances on past shows have been d-i-sastrous, had been asked to never come back. Franco tells the story that Korine says he was banned from the show because he ALLEGEDLY pushed Meryl Streep backstage.
Well, for that he should have been shot, but that wasn’t true.
So Letterman revealed the true story for the first time. “I went upstairs to greet Meryl Streep and welcome her to the show, and I knock on the door … and she was not in there. And I looked around, and she was not in there, and I found Harmony going through her purse. True story. And so I said: ‘That’s it, put her things back in her bag and then get out.’”
The best part isn’t the image of Letterman going all Keystone Kops on Korine, but the look on Franco’s face when he realizes it was shoving a living legend that got his friend banned, it’s that his friend was a petty thief.
Letterman said he would now be happy to have the director, who completed rehab more than a decade ago. That might be all right, but do we need to keep having Franco on?
I got nothing on Justin Bieber this week. I mean, we could talk about him being two hours late for a concert; we could talk about him going all Gibson on a papparazzo; we could talk about him being accused of assault and battery on his neighbor. Or, we could just look at this photo and laugh at Lil Justine being carried out of a car by her bodyguard.
Precious.
Oops. I guess I spoke too soon about Lindsay Lohan being a good girl this week.
After her first day on the set of fellow cracktor Charlie Sheen’s ‘Anger Management’ people were raving about how great she was:
“Lindsay knew her lines cold and her timing was perfect. She was really funny.” 
Lindsay was incredibly nice.”
“Lindsay proved she has talent. You watch her and you know why she became a star.” 
Yeah, that was Day One; Day Two was a whore of a different color.
A source from the Anger Management set—did Dina get a day job?—says that, by the time Lohan was done shooting her guest spot on Sheen’s FX comedy, the cast, included Charlie himself, and crew were thinking that hiring her wasn’t worth the aggravation.
“She was a colossal pain in the ass,” one source says. “It’s a shame, because when she actually gets on camera she is good and has comedic timing. But she comes with so much luggage it’s not worth it…The first day was fine, she showed up early and did her job.”
But, the source adds, “from the moment she arrived yesterday she did nothing but hold up the production. She would sit in her trailer and stall and she delayed until she up and left for her boyfriend’s concert…She held everyone hostage. They almost called police to escort her off the set.”
Lindsay, ever delusional, Tweeted: “I just had such a wonderful day on set of #angermanagement with @charliesheen & @LIGHTAARON @SaveTheSociety @jazejazz7 and the entire crew!”
An insider from Lohan’s camp naturally refutes the accusations, and denies that Lohan deliberately held up the production. But, um, Lindsay was set to tape on Monday and then finish on Tuesday, but she had to go back Wednesday and finish up because of her delaying tactics.
But, here’s the deal with Sheen and his show: Shaddup. You hired her, you know who she is and what she does; seriously, someone must have read about her time on the craptastic Liz & Dick, and her d-i-sastrous porn debut in The Canyons, and yet you still hired her.
You get what you pay for, and when you pay for a drug and alcohol addicted narcissist, well, then, like I said….
Shaddup.




Friday, March 29, 2013

PR 11 Ep 10: Wherefore Art Thou?

You can tell we’re getting near the end because the designtestants are tried and cranky and more than a little bit sullen. When Heidi Klum greets them from the runway, she asks, "Why are you not smiling?" Um, because they don’t like their teams, they’re tired. Daniel’s mustache; Layana’s accent; Richard. All good reasons to be in a mood.

But, Heidi begs them to soldier on and then sends them off to meet Tim Gunn at the Guggenheim Museum where he gives them the news teams—Stanley and Michelle, Chic and Quirky; Daniel and Layana, Old School and New School; Richard and Patrica, Hack and Artist. Then comes the challenge:  create a piece of wearable “over the top, grand, big” art along with a companion, ready-to-wear, piece. Plus, they’ll be able to create their own textile to use in their designs, and they get a bonus: the winning designer gets $10,000 and a new HP Envy X2. Then Tim lets them loose in the Guggenheim to study the art and become inspired. This bodes well for everyone but Richard ….

Back in the workroom to create their textiles, Tim also offers up some unique choices for their creations: bubble wrap, chicken wire, crayons [at least I think I saw crayons] Popsicle sticks and, of course, glue guns galore! Plus, they get a trip to Mood to get supplementals.

Let’s rip ….

 STANLEY and MICHELLE
These two make a great pair because their each have their very own clear aesthetic, but they also know how to, um, listen, and play off one another.

Michelle—who takes over at the computer to create the textile, while Stanley [is he not a computer geek?] takes a back seat—creates a dark, eerie woman’s face, and then tilts it in every degree. I’m getting sick, seriously, because I think it’s too literal and too much.  

I.Was.Wrong. When the fabric arrives, it’s very cool; you can easily read that it’s a face, but it’s not so crazy-wack-a-doo.

Michelle decides to create an artsy-fartsy overcoat, and then handpaint the six-foot train. Stanley sees her wack-a-doo and raises her a bubble-wrap, but using the plastic to make a very voluminous dress for under the coat. 

Michelle creates a corkscrew head-piece for the art look, which works fine, but when she designs a little top hat with Crazy Woman Faces coming out of it, Stanley wisely nips that in the bud; Michelle ends up wearing the hat herself on the runway.

Stanley takes Michelle’s textile and makes a very chic, very full dress. While I couldn’t see it as ready-to-wear—it looked giant—it moved well and the fabric looked amazing. Almost as amazing as Stanley’s ass in the yellow green; I had to mention that.

It was obvious when those two looks came down the runway that this team would win. While Michelle brought the quirky, Stanley brought the chic, and the two pieces—as Stanley said—looked like part of the same show. 
Michelle's art coat was so edgy and cool and modern, while Stanley’s dark lady screaming baby doll dress was lovely.

Guest judge, designer Tracy Reese, loved that the two looks seemed compatible, while Heidi loved Michelle’s print, and the dark colors. Rachel Roy—subbing for The Adorable Zac Posen™ again…damn—called the fabric quirky and crazy; she loved the print, and loved Stanley’s dress. Nina also loved Stanley’s dress, in Michelle’s print, but wondered if the Baby Doll Crazy Lady might not be so commercial. Heidi loved that Stanley went bubble-wrap, and loved that Michelle created art by painting the back of the coat. But, in the end, Stanley gets the win, for bubble-wrap and baby doll. I thought it might go to Michelle, and would have been just as happy, but I liked Stanley’s exuberance at winning.

Plus, without The Adorable Zac Posen™ I needed a little cute.

DANIEL and LAYANA
This was rough because, well, Layana’s a bitch who thinks that because she’s the youngest designer, fresh from design school, that she’s the best thing ever. She instantly tells us that she’ll be in charge and running the show this week. And, I imagine, that had Daniel not been so ready to be dominated, she might have had her meltdown earlier. Layana is that girl who, if she doesn’t get her way—by batting her eyelashes and smiling—she gets angry and the weepy.

She controls everything: "I’m going to make sure [Daniel] makes something sexy..."

Now, tis true that Daniel needs to stop with the matronly dresses, he doesn’t need this pipsqueak to act like she knows everything. Especially when she opts to make a dress that looks exactly like the Guggenheim's circling ramps; oh, how literal. I get it! Art!

She also creates the textile—which I loathed—and then, I’m guessing, because she created it, thinks she gets to use it all. Daniel literally had to grab a pair of scissors and hold the fabric hostage before she gave him a yard and he gave her a finger.

Layana then trashes her Guggen-horror dress because, well, it’s ugly, and tries something new. When Tim comes by, he calls her look flat and uninspired, and she cries. And cries. And cries. And tells us how much she needs the money. Honey, we could all use 10K so your waterworks don’t work.

But Tim’s critique does because Layana comes back inspired and begins hot-gluing netting and rosettes and more netting and bows and, well, anything that wasn’t nailed down—seriously, I think I saw Richard’s bracelet on the dress…more on that later—all over the dress. Daniel, in the meantime, works best by himself, and does another jacket with the Daniel Shoulder™ that he does every week, though I will say that this version is less 1980 and more 2013.

His look was sleek and sexy and modern, while Layana’s final piece was Trashy Victorian, or Turn Of The Last Century Whore. Heidi loved Daniel’s look—she gave it the new buzz phrase: “I would wear that!”—and said it was a killer jacket. Nina loved that Daniel was ‘back’; back from making old lady dresses and jackets to making young lady dresses and jackets, and called Layana a good muse. Rachel Roy loved the Daniel Shoulder™ and Reese thought his look was from today, while Layana’s look from yesteryear….Eliza Doolittle…..Scarlett O’Hara Barbie. Take your pick, they’re all good. Nina thought it looked as though Layana threw in "everything and the kitchen sink." Rachel Roy said Layana should have asked herself if she’d wear that dress—the answer would have to have been ‘No’—and then maybe she’d have trashed it further….into the trash.

When asked who should win, Daniel quite rightly said that since they all loved his dress he should win. This causes the Second Layana Meltdown in the back room as she wailed about how she created the look with him and how it wasn’t just his dress and how she feels so betrayed. I don’t think they showed it, but I think came in and gave her a Cher Moonstruck Slap™. Or that was just wishful thinking on my part.

I.Don’t.Like.Her. But she’s safe.

RICHARD and PATRICIA
Team Don’t See Eye To Eye About Anything.
Other than agreeing almost at once that Richard should create the commercial look and Patricia, the artist, should create the art piece, this match didn’t work at all.

There was no talking, except for Richard saying he wanted to wait and see what Patricia did before he picked up a needle and thread. Well, except for spending hours creating a bracelet and then having the walnuts to utter, “Fashion was born this morning.”

Patricia works—and, to be fair, she doesn’t explain herself very well—while Richard doodles and dawdles and hot glues leather and beads to a cuff for Layana to try on. 

When Tim comes in and sees Patricia’s art project and Richard’s half-finished dress, he accuses Richard of trying to pawn off responsibility for their designs on Patricia should things go wrong.  And then, in the confessional, Richard says, “What?” but there’s a gleam in his eye that says, Damn! Had Tim not said that I totally would have done it.

Patricia keeps calling Richard "Daniel" and Richard keeps calling his team “Oil and water.” I believe he’ll be calling it Auf’d by the end of the day.

I felt bad for Patricia, who’s a little crazy and a little stubborn and little hard t understand, because this was her challenge to win, and then being paired with Richard automatically sinks her. He has no creativity, unless it’s a jersey colorblocked dress, and cannot fathom how to create a companion piece until he sees Patricia’s look completely finished.

But I loved when Patricia said, “My piece scares you? GOOD! If I instill fear in you, at least you FELT something!" I loved that because Richard mostly feels ready to go home.

Now, that said, I found her piece, while artistic, kind of scary—hmmm, she instilled fear in me, too—and strait-jacket-esque. That said, Richard’s travesty was a hot ugly mess. The top didn’t seem to go with the bottom, and the bottom looked like a chef’s hat.

Nina hated Patricia’s veil, while Heidi loved it, and Nina also called the print—which Patricia called a play on an eagle’s feather …. Huh?—kind of circus tent. She did, however, love the layering of fabric on the art piece. She politely said that it was clear Richard struggled with the skirt; it looked tortured. Heidi gave a heavy sigh, said she hated it and called it bad.

And Auf’d.

MY TAKE
Again, here we are nearing the end, and still the designers don’t get that, even if you create a masterpiece, if your partner sucks, you will not win. Now, I’m not saying Patricia should have won, but out of all the art designs, hers was the most artistic. But Richard’s sad aesthetic, and inability to sew a zipper correctly, brought the whole team down.

I’m over Layana. If she shows at The Tents I’ll Elvis my flatscreen.

Funny bit: when Michelle called out Richard for his one-note aesthetic, and said if he showed at The tents he’s parade twelve jersey-colorblocked numbers down the runway. A quick Google search, and you see that Richard did show at The Tents—as a decoy collection—and he did show twelve jersey-colorblocked messes.

Next week: no teams, although some Aufee’s come back to, um, ‘help’ or sabotage. Plus, the return of The Adorable Zac Posen™.

What did YOU think?

I Didn't Say It ....

Evan Wolfson, of Freedom To Marry, to Tony Perkins on Face The Nation:
"Marriage is not defined by who is denied it. When gay people share in the freedom to marry, it doesn't change your marriage, it doesn't change Tony Perkins' marriage. My marriage is my marriage. And it means that I'm able to share in the same aspirations of commitment and love and support and dedication and connectedness, and that my parents are able to dance at our wedding. And our family and friends are able to support and celebrate and hold us accountable for the commitment we've made to one another. That takes nothing away from anyone else... The gay people are not going to use up all the marriage licenses when we enter marriage. And this is not just somebody saying it. We now have nine states including the District of Columbia, fourteen countries on four continents in which gay people share in the freedom to marry and the result is families are helped and no one is hurt."

Like Wolfson, I’m still waiting for some heterosexual couple to make their appearance, state, and prove, their case that same-sex marriage ruined their marriage.
Yeah, won’t happen.

Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, AKA Joe The dumber, er, Plumber, having a sadz because he can’t call queers queer:
"30 years ago we use to play a game called “smear the queer;” a game where whoever had the football got gang tackled. It was a normal. If you had the ball, you were the queer, because no one else had the ball, and having the ball made you odd or “queer” in that respect. Of course, you could throw the ball to another player and the pack would quickly turn to smear that queer, without regard to his or her sexuality, I might add. Queer, gay, homo, fag meant nothing having to do with what you were attracted to and no one committed suicide, got beat up or even called names in that regard. That was my experience. Then, about ten years later, the media and the ever-tolerant Hollywood (not), began portraying homosexual (men) on television and film as the “Funny” one or the one you felt sorry for – just to get us used to the idea. C’mon – who didn’t laugh at Paul Lynde or Charles Nelson Reilly? And not until Ellen demanded her character come out of the closet (which she was summarily fired for) did gay characters litter the big and small screen alike, whether it was important or not. (Just to go a little further with this point, Hollywood will put “gay” characters in TV show/movies that are not relevant to the plot. They try to portray this as “Normal” America. I can tell you right now, when I’m tossing the football with my son in front of the house, I have never seen 2 men hand in hand prancing down the street. You?"

Out of the mouths of morons ...
Joe, you’re an idiot, Gay people, fags, homos and queers, have been name-called, beaten, and murdered for years, even as far back as your tiny mind can fathom … 30 years ago. Times change. The use of words change.
And I imagine two men wouldn’t be caught dead holding hands in front of your house because you might try to smear the queer.
Grow up, Joe, your fifteen minutes is up. You were irrelevant in 2008 and you’re irrelevant today. Get a job.

Matthew Lannon, a sixth-grader, testifying at Rhode island's marriage equality hearing:
"If there's one thing you don't mess with in life, it's love. My parents and all the other gay and lesbian people here want to be happy, just like you. All they want is to be treated fairly. But unlike most of you, they have to come again here year after year and explain over and over why their love is equal to yours. This year, you have the opportunity to change that. I say, choose love.”

Out of the mouths of babes …..

Salvatore Cordileone, San Francisco's 'drunk driving' Archbishop, on marriage equality:
"To legalize marriage between two people of the same sex would enshrine in the law the principle that mothers and fathers are interchangeable or irrelevant, and that marriage is essentially an institution about adults, not children; marriage would mean nothing more than giving adults recognition and benefits in their most significant relationship. How can we do this to our children? No matter what the Supreme Court rules, this debate is not over. Marriage is too important and the issues raised by treating same-gender unions as marriages are too fundamental to just go away. Just as Roe v. Wade did not end the conversation about abortion, so a ruling that tries to import same-sex marriage into our Constitution is not going to end the marriage debate, but intensify it. We will have a bitterly polarized country divided on the marriage issue for years if not generations to come." 

Howsabout, rather than thinking of a child having a mother and a father, Howsabout wishing children had a loving parents, or parents, of either gender. Howsabout, Archbishop, shutting your pie-hole about what’s best for children when you belong to a group that has been raping children for decades.

Ronnie Musgrave, former Mississippi governor, now regretting signing a law to ban adoptions for gay couples:
"After thinking about this for some time, I realized that if you're fortunate, age and knowledge breed compassion. The more I read the (U.S.) Constitution, the clearer it became that you just can't deny rights to a specific class of people just because some are uncomfortable with what they do not understand. Too many elected officials take positions without thinking about the real impact on people and families. I am glad Sen. Portman had the same evolution I did, but I wish all of us had the compassion for other people to think about the impact of political positions before making them policy."

Nicely put; people can change their minds, but many times, if they just thought first, they might have made the equal choice in the first place.

Mike Huckabee, on whether the GOP will pivot to support marriage equality:
“They might. And if they do, they’re going to lose a large part of their base because evangelicals will take a walk. And it’s not because there’s an anti-homosexual mood, and nobody’s homophobic that I know of, but many of us, and I consider myself included, base our standards not on the latest Washington Post poll, but on an objective standard, not a subjective standard. I have great sympathy and extraordinary admiration for Sen. Portman. I consider him a friend and I value his work in the Senate and think he’s a great person. The mistake is that we sometimes base our public policy decisions on how we feel, how we think, maybe even some personal experiences, and we don’t regard a lot of these issues from the standpoint of an objective standard."

I love how he says denying equality to one class of people, based on his own religious indoctrination does not make him a homophobe.
Yes, it does Mike. Equal is equal, plain and simple, and until the GOP gets that, they’ll forever be on the outside wondering how to get back in.

Scott Fujita, NFL linebacker Scott Fujita, in a piece he wrote for the NYT about marriage equality:
"I support marriage equality for so many reasons: my father’s experience in an internment camp and the racial intolerance his family experienced during and after the war, the gay friends I have who are really not all that different from me, and also because of a story I read a few years back about a woman who was denied the right to visit her partner of 15 years when she was stuck in a hospital bed ... My belief is rooted in a childhood nurtured by a Christian message of love, compassion and acceptance. It’s grounded in the fact that I was adopted and know there are thousands of children institutionalized in various foster programs, in desperate need of permanent, safe and loving homes, but living in states that refuse to allow unmarried couples, including gays and lesbians, to adopt because they consider them not fit to be parents ... In articulating all my feelings about marriage equality, I almost don’t know where to begin. And perhaps that’s part of the problem. Why do we have to explain ourselves when it comes to issues of fairness and equality? Why is common sense not enough?"

Word.

"Bishop" Harry Jackson, on how much better straight marriages are for everyone involved:
"When a man and a woman are in the house, poverty is lessened. When a man and a woman are in the house, kids don’t go to prison. When a man and a woman are in the house, there’s less domestic violence. When a man and a woman are in the house, sexual abuse does not happen."

No poor straight couples?
No kids from straight marriages in prisons?
No domestic violence among straight married couples?
No such thing as spousal rape?
Apparently Bishop Jackson doesn't read a newspaper, for if her did he could find out in one sitting how unbelievably stupid a man he truly is.

Thursday, March 28, 2013

Random Musings

Two days, six more for equality:
Claire McCaskill, the Democratic senator from Missouri:
"I have come to the conclusion that our government should not limit the right to marry based on who you love. While churches should never be required to conduct marriages outside of their religious beliefs, neither should the government tell people who they have a right to marry. My views on this subject have changed over time, but as many of my gay and lesbian friends, colleagues and staff embrace long term committed relationships, I find myself unable to look them in the eye without honestly confronting this uncomfortable inequality. Supporting marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples is simply the right thing to do for our country, a country founded on the principals of liberty and equality. Good people disagree with me. On the other hand, my children have a hard time understanding why this is even controversial. I think history will agree with my children."
Mark Warner, the Democratic senator from Virginia:
“I support marriage equality because it is the fair and right thing to do. Like many Virginians and Americans, my views on gay marriage have evolved, and this is the inevitable extension of my efforts to promote equality and opportunity for everyone. I was proud to be the first Virginia governor to extend anti-discrimination protections to LGBT state workers. In 2010, I supported an end to the military’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy, and earlier this month I signed an amicus brief urging the repeal of DOMA. I believe we should continue working to expand equal rights and opportunities for all Americans."
Mark Begich, the Democratic senator from Alaska:
"Gay and lesbian couples should not be denied the ability to pledge their love and commitment through the civil institution of marriage. I believe that two committed adults of the same sex should be able to receive a government-issued marriage license, while religious institutions retain their right to determine which marriages they will perform."
Jay Rockefeller, the Democratic senator from West Virginia:
 “Like so many of my generation, my views on allowing gay couples to marry have been challenged in recent years by a new, more open generation. Churches and ministers should never have to perform marriages that violate their religious beliefs, but the government shouldn’t discriminate against people who want to marry just because of their gender. Younger people in West Virginia and even my own children have grown up in a much more equal society and they rightly push us to question old assumptions – to think deeply about what it means for all Americans to be created equal. This has been a process for me, but at this point I think it’s clear that DOMA is discriminatory. I’m against discrimination in all its forms, and I think we can move forward in our progress toward true equality by repealing DOMA.”
Jon Tester, the Democratic senator from Montana:
“Montanans believe in the right to make a good life for their families. How they define a family should be their business and their business alone. I’m proud to support marriage equality because no one should be able to tell a Montanan or any American who they can love and who they can marry.”
Kay Hagan, the Democratic senator from North Carolina:
 “I know there are strong feelings on both sides, and I have a great deal of respect for their opinions, but after much thought and prayer on my part this is where I am today. I know all our families do not look alike. We all want the same thing for our families. We want happiness, we want health, prosperity, a bright future for our children and grandchildren. After conversations I’ve had with family members, with people I go to church with and with North Carolinians from all walks of life, I’ve come to my own personal conclusion that we should not tell people who they can love, or who they can marry. It’s time to move forward with this issue.”
It’s going to happen people.
David Beckham.
We all know the man looks mighty, um, well-packaged in a [air of briefs, but who knew he could rock the ass in a pair of trousers.
Seriously, gimme a quarter to bounce off that thing.
Just sayin’.
It seems like at least one person in Kentucky has the good sense that god—or whoever—gave a goat.
And that would be Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear, who vetoed House Bill 279 , by which a "religious individual could claim an exemption from any law or policy that prohibits discrimination" meaning people could discriminate against The Gays, The Women, or The Minorities, and get away with it because they believe it’s God’s will to be a Hater.
Here’s the deal, Kentucky, no one is saying you can’t hate The Gays, The Women, or The Minorities, because, well, like Speech, Hate is actually free. But, really, using god—or whomever—to justify hate?
How effing Christ-like. But then …..
The asshats won when both chambers of the Kentucky legislature voted overwhelmingly to override Beshear's veto.
So, Hate is back on in Kentucky, I mean, all you gotta do is say Gold told you so.
Just because… Chris Pine. I could get totally lost in those baby blues.
I could use a coffee, so I think I’ll get in my car and drive to the nearest Starbucks …. twenty miles away. But, it’ll be worth the drive because, just this week, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz shot down a shareholder who grilled him about the company's support for marriage equality at the annual shareholders meeting.
It seems that shareholder Tom Strobhar suggested that the boycott by anti-equality bigots had cost him money: “In the first full quarter after this boycott was announced, our sales and our earrings — shall we say politely — were a bit disappointing.”
Howard Schultz reiterated to Strobhar that the decision to back marriage equality was not about the bottom line, but about respecting diversity. He added that Starbucks had delivered a healthy return last year, boycott or no, and then said:
“If you feel, respectfully, that you can get a higher return than the 38 percent you got last year, it’s a free country. You can sell your shares of Starbucks and buy shares in another company. Thank you very much.”
Suh-nap.
Thank you, Mr. Schultz. Can I get biscotti with my Latte?
Well, well, well ....
The Today Show's weekend anchor Jenna Wolfe came out of the closet this week when she announced that she and her partner, NBC News correspondent Stephanie Gosk, are having a baby:
“This is the most exciting thing that has ever happened to us. But I don’t want to bring my daughter into a world where I’m not comfortable telling everyone who I am and who her mother is.”
Wolfe and Gosk have been a couple for three years; they are planning to marry, but are really most excited about the baby.
Congrats to you both.
Welcome out.
Naturally, Homo HQ will be sending you a copy of The Gay Agenda, and, in lieu of the Coming Out Toaster Oven, perhaps we'll send a Coming Out Diaper Bag.
Welcome out.
So, it seems that New Pope Frankie has decided not to sit upon the Golden throne like Old Pope Benny did, which begs the question, or questions....
Is the Golden Throne now in Pope Benny's Official castle so his manservant can bring him coffee there each morning?
... and ...
Is the Catholic Church going to sell the Golden Throne and give the money to the poor, or sell the throne and use the money to defend itself in the endless and ongoing pedophile scandal?
I think we all know the answer to that one ....
Anderson Cooper and Kathy Griffin filmed a new television pilot at CNN. The details are sketchy, but it’s supposedly a funny show filmed before a live audience.
New boss at CNN, Jeff Zucker, was on the show, and it may be part of Zucker’s attempts to broaden the CNN audience by adding more mainstream entertainment fare.
At any rate, my BFF and my Husband-In-My-Head together on regular basis? I’m in.
And THE TWEET OF THE WEEK:

Another One: Lucy Meadows, Transgender Teacher, Kills Herself After Columnist Richard Littlejohn Denounces Her In Paper


“I'd now ask for my privacy to be respected so that I can continue with my job," Lucy Meadows said, after a week of having her face appear in every national newspaper in England for over a week.

Why? Well, Lucy Meadows was a teacher, but she was also transgender; born male, she transitioned to female during the last year and, afterwards, was welcomed back to her teaching position at Accrington St. Mary Magdalen's Primary School.

And that was a story the press in England, and one journalist in particular, Richard Littlejohn of the Daily Mail, couldn’t let go: a transgender teacher. Littlejohn began publicly denouncing Lucy Meadows—whose birth name is being withheld out of respect—in terms usually reserved for child abusers. After enduring the onslaught of public humiliation, Lucy Meadows killed herself.

And, while the Daily Mail took Littlejohn’s article down after Meadows' death, this is an excerpt:
What are you staring at, Johnny? Move along, nothing to see here. Get on with your spelling test. Today’s word is ‘transitioning’.
Mr. _____/Miss Meadows may well be comfortable with his/her decision to seek a sex-change and return to work as if nothing has happened. The school might be extremely proud of its ‘commitment to equality and diversity’.
But has anyone stopped for a moment to think of the devastating effect all this is having on those who really matter? Children as young as seven aren’t equipped to compute this kind of information. ...
It should be protecting pupils from some of the more, er, challenging realities of adult life, not forcing them down their throats.
These are primary school children, for heaven’s sake. Most them still believe in Father Christmas. Let them enjoy their childhood. They will lose their innocence soon enough. ... Nathan Upton is entitled to his gender reassignment surgery, but he isn’t entitled to project his personal problems on to impressionable young children.
Littlejohn condemned the school for not "protecting pupils" from the "challenging realities of adult life," and personally attacked Meadows for "putting his [sic] own selfish needs ahead of the well-being of the children" in an article he entitled, "He's [sic] not only in the wrong body ... he's [sic] in the wrong job."

I guess what Littlejohn never stopped to think about is that children don’t know hate; children know hopscotch and coloring, kickball. They learn hate from their parents who learned it from their parents and feed on it when they see it in print.

But children see hate; they see hate, aimed at one of their favorite teachers, who was in class one day, and dead the next because some, and I use the term loosely, journalist, thought she didn’t have the right to be a teacher and decided to ridicule her in print; and sat back, no doubt laughing, as other so-called media outlets followed suit in the bullying, and subsequent suicide, of Lucy Meadows.

Here’s the deal: was she a good teacher? Did she do all the things that were required of her as a teacher? Did the students and parents—those who aren’t bigoted and transphobic—like her?

Then shouldn’t that been all that mattered? How can we expect our children to grow up safe and sane and open and nurturing and tolerant and accepting when many of us don’t know the meaning of those words ourselves?

A petition on SumOfUs.com calling for the firing of Littlejohn has received over 139,000 signatures; please stop by and add your name. It references his "long history of using his perch at the Daily Mail to mock and harass others" and expresses disgust at the Daily Mail's statement after Meadows' death, which read, in part, "it is regrettable that this tragic death should now be the subject of an orchestrated [attack on us], fanned by individuals ... with agendas to pursue."

The Daily Mail seems to feel victimized, when, under their masthead, Littlejohn victimized Lucy Meadows right to her death.

Lucy Meadows deserves an apology.

An entire community deserves an apology.