May 13, 2008
'Anatomy' does 'Don't Ask Don't Tell'
Posted by: Chris
"Grey's Anatomy" has become one of my iTunes "season pass" picks, after I just couldn't wait the 6 to 8 months for the show to show up with subtitles down here in Brazil. I've been a fan since the show's premiere, just for the range of characters and heart-tugging storylines.
A recent episode featuring a gay soldier and his platoon boyfriend was no exception. Enjoy the clip from YouTube while it lasts:
Hat tip: My pal Steve in D.C.; also David Mixner.
April 05, 2008
Leno unapologizes to Ryan Phillippe
Posted by: Chris
Jay Leno is trying his best to have it both ways in the flap over whether he was gay-baiting actor Ryan Phillippe during a "Tonight Show" interview.
Leno had noted Phillippe's conservative Baptist upbringing and his first role, playing a gay teen on the soap "One Life to Live." Then Leno tried to be funny -- always a risky move on his part, if you ask me -- and said, "Give us your gayest look." Phillippe responded, "That is so something I don't want to do. Are you just going to embarrass me tonight, or ... ?"
Here's the clip:
That led to a handslap from the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation for Leno's "misguided use of adolescent humor" and kudos for Phillippe from GLAAD director Neil Giuliano for refusing to take the bait.
Leno dutifully apologized by press release, insisting, "In talking about Ryan's first role, I realize that what I said came out wrong. I certainly didn't mean any malice. I agree it was a dumb thing to say, and I apologize."
Came out wrong? Hard to see how he was misunderstood and within days, Leno was unfiltered and unapologizing (listen here), whining about "political correctness" and the rigors of being a comic today. After all, he claims to have gay guests all the time and he never makes fun of their relationships. (I'll bet "some of his best friends are gay," too, and he invites them over for dinner and everything.)
Woe is Jay.
December 16, 2007
GNW 5: Gay teens on TV and streets
Posted by: Chris
"Navy chaplain's sodomy confictions raise gay rights concerns": QUICK LOOK:
The case of a HIV-positive Navy chaplain who pleaded guilty last week
in military court to seven violations of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice, including forcible... (MORE)
"Are MCCs dying or thriving since Perry's retirement?": QUICK LOOK:
The Metropolitan Community Church has served as a sanctuary for
countless GLBT Christians who either felt uncomfortable in their "home"
denomination or who were no longer... (MORE)
"Pyfrom talks about gay teenager role on 'Housewives': QUICK LOOK:
Shawn Pyfrom is amazingly astute and mature for a man of his age. At
only 21, he already has some fine ideas and ideals. Starpulse talked to him recently about his past... (MORE)
"NYT: For gay teens, there is growing hope in numbers": QUICK LOOK:
Michael Moreno, a 15-year-old 10th grader from Brewster, N.Y., could
not believe what he was seeing as he walked into the big hall at the
Westchester County Center, and... (MORE)
"Has Ark. moved from ex-gov. Huckabee's AIDS views?" QUICK LOOK:
Mike Huckabee didn't quite disavow his stance 15 years ago that AIDS
patients should be isolated from the general public and homosexuals
could pose a public health risk... (MORE)
EDITOR'S PICK
"Gay soldier says military lax on discharges during war": QUICK LOOK:
A gay soldier says he disclosed his sexual orientation to his
superiors, even offering graphic proof, and was neither discharged nor
reprimanded, despite the military's... (MORE)
Tonight on "60 Minutes," Army Sgt. Darren Manzella will tell the story about how he came out to his commander in Iraq after receiving anonymous emails threatening to out him. He was investigated pursuant to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and even provided photos of himself kissing his boyfriend to authorities. But rather than being discharged, Manzella was told there was insufficient evidence of homosexuality, and he was retained by the Army.
His story may seem shocking, but actually it's par for the course because military leadership knows the ban on service by out gays is an anachronism, since gays are generally accepted without incident by fellow soldiers and sailors, just as they are in the armed services of the U.K., Australia, Israel and many other countries.
Manzella highlights several of the most outrageous aspects of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," among them being government policy that allows gays to serve but requires that they lie in deference to the (presumed) personal prejudices of other service members.
Just as disturbingly, the policy allows a loophole for straight service members to avoid war in Iraq or Afghanistan by claiming they are gay -- think of a modern-day version of Klinger in "M*A*S*H." There's no question that some significant percentage of those higher discharges since Bill Clinton agreed to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" are heterosexuals escaping their military obligation.
Finally, it's clear that the U.S. military, strapped by two wars and extended international commitments, has little interest in discharging gay service members with good records doing good for their country. Discharges have dropped from 2,000 a year in 2001 to half that amount in the last several. To be fair, it's not up to the military to change the policy, since it's now the law of the land, but the Pentagon could be more blunt with Congress and the White House that the time has come to end the ban.
December 07, 2007
'Boston Legal' defends Larry Craig
Posted by: Chris
The Larry Craig toilet tapping has just about run its course as a social phenomenon, working its way through mainstream culture in an episode of ABC's "Boston Legal." Conservative lawyer Denny Crane (William Shatner) is the Craig stand-in here, busted for tapping his foot in a bathroom stall at the courthouse as he tried to hum his way through mild constipation.
Alan Shore (James Spader) defends Crane on the solicitation charge and in his closing argument takes on not just the facts of the case but the bigger social and political issues -- even the David Vitter comparison -- pretty much hitting the nail on its proverbial head. The jury finds Crane not guilty, as they would have Craig.
In case you missed it, George Clooney and Brad Pitt pulled off their own Larry Craig send-up in a Julia Roberts film tribute, of all places. For that video, just follow the jump.
July 03, 2007
Isaiah gets the last word (hopefully)
Posted by: Chris
For someone who claims to be censored, Isaiah Washington sure does talk a lot. By my count he's given a half-dozen well-publicized interviews since being canned from "Grey's Anatomy," but there he was again last night on "Larry King Live," saying no one had heard his side of the story on the "F-word" flare-up that cost him his job.
Washington has been a moving target all along, taking responsibility without actually taking responsibility — apologizing to castmate T.R. Knight, who came out as a result of the October incident, even while repeatedly denying he used the word in reference to Knight in the first place.
Of course not much light was shed by Larry King, who in his inimitable kid-glove style walked Washington through his October clash with castmate Patrick Dempsey.
Readers' digest: Washington claims Knight had complained to him during a long plane flight about abusive treatment by Dempsey, and Washington encouraged Knight to raise the issue with "Grey's" producers. In October, after several unrelated incidents in which Dempsey was late on set, the two actors got into a heated exchange.
KING: So why does that lead to this word?
WASHINGTON: [Dempsey] got un -- became unhinged, face-to-face, spittle to spittle, in my face -- first. I did not start it. And I'm asking him why is he screaming at me, why are we doing this? Get out of my face. Several times. Several times. And he just becomes irate. But I'm not understanding why am I being berated to this point in front of our crew, particularly after what we experienced in Seattle [when Dempsey was several hours late]. You know, I mean, I think you owe me on apology and I'm being berated.
And by that time I pushed him out of my face and it just took off from there and I began to say a lot of -- a lot of things that I'm not really proud of -- but all referring to myself and how I felt I was being treated.
KING: But how did the bad word come out of that?
WASHINGTON: Well, I said several bad words, as well as he did.
KING: To him?
WASHINGTON: To him about how I was feeling. I said there's no way you're going to treat me like a "B" word or a "P" word or the "F" word. You can't treat me this way in front of our crew.
KING: So you weren't referring to him as being an F person?
WASHINGTON: Never. Never.
KING: Or anybody else being one?
WASHINGTON: Never, Larry. Never, never, never, never.
King (of course) accepted the explanation at face value, but later in the show, in retelling the story, Washington's account changed significantly, in a way that explains the connection with the in-flight conversation Washington previously had with Knight, and in a way that explains why pretty much everyone but Washington took his "F-word" reference as a shot at Knight.
WASHINGTON: I said, "I don't -- I don't want to bring anymore attention to this than I already have. I don't want to throw anybody under the bus, but I've got to clear my name. I -- this is misinterpreted. I did not say" -- I said yes, you're not going to "B" me, "P" me, "F" me, because I'm not T.R. I never said you are T.R.
Going back to me thinking that I could be the big brother, to defend my family and T.R. which is not my place to do, against so- called bullying.
So Knight had complained to Washington about Dempsey's abusive behavior, and when Dempsey became abusive toward Washington, he wanted to be clear with Dempsey that he was no faggot, like T.R.
Even accepting Washington's account, he was referring to himself but by way of contrast with Knight. "You can treat T.R. like a bitch or a faggot. But you won't get away with it with me." "I'm a man," in other words, "unlike that faggot Knight." With defenders like Washington, who needs bullies?
Can anyone imagine Washington accepting a similarly half-baked explanation if the roles were reversed? What if Dempsey had an on-set blow-up with a castmate and said, "I'm not your [N-word]. I'm not Isaiah." Would Washington have agreed the "N-word" wasn't used in reference to him? Methinks not.
I do agree with Washington that the situation was blown completely out of proportion, though Washington contributed more than his share by repeating the "F-word" at the Golden Globes, ruining the celebratory mood after the cast won several trophies. And his failure — to this day — to accept responsibility for the fact he did use the word in reference to Knight, only made matters worse.
Even still, I don't believe Washington should have been canned from the cast. And as a big fan of the show since its first episode, I'll miss Dr. Preston Burke and his quirky relationship with Cristina Yang (played by Sandra Oh).
But I am happy to see the "F-word" move closer and closer to the off-limits territory occupied by the "N-word," where it's no longer acceptable to use in any context, no matter how innocuous. A few semi-guilty folks like Washington may get overblown treatment, but it's a small price to pay for the societal good that will result -- in playgrounds and workplaces and TV sets everywhere.
Click here for a complete news summary of the Isaiah Washington brouhaha, compiled by Gay News Watch.
May 01, 2007
Love thy neighbor…unless he's gay
Posted by: Chris
Who wouldn’t want a homosexual for a neighbor?
Our interior and exterior decorating skills are legendary. We keep a tidy lawn and a colorful garden. And in city after city, we renovate and update, raising property values for ourselves and those around us.
To top it off, we’re avid neighborhood activists, throwing ourselves into better policing, stricter zoning and removal of “unsavory elements.”
Who wouldn’t want a homosexual for a neighbor? Plenty of people, as it turns out.
Asked who they would not want as neighbors, one in five residents of Western Europe, the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand said “no” to the gay next door. That’s fully double the number who said they wouldn’t want Jews or someone of a different race for a neighbor.
The papers may be full of stories about resentment toward immigrants and foreign workers, but gays are less welcome to the neighborhood by more than 50 percent. Even Muslims, with all their bad press, are 25 percent more accepted.
The somewhat surprising findings are from work done by researchers at universities in Northern Ireland and New Zealand. Since few among us would admit outright to being a bigot, these academics found that the best way of measuring bigotry is a more indirect inquiry into what types of people you wouldn’t want to live nearby.
If you believe, as many of us do, that homophobia is the last acceptable prejudice, you’ll find support in the study. In two-thirds of the countries surveyed, gays were rated the least desirable neighbors, including in the U.S., Canada and Australia, where the numbers who disapproved of gay neighbors were more than double that of Muslims, the next group down the list.
Only in a few countries in Scandinavia and northern Europe were we welcomed by almost everyone. A special thanks to Sweden, Holland, Iceland and Denmark — the only places where fewer than one in 10 respondents were homophobic.
As bad as that looks for the gays, it’s clear that bigotry loves company. In every country at least one in four residents didn’t like the idea of at least one minority group in their neighborhood, and in strife-torn Northern Ireland and Greece, almost half were bigoted against at least someone.
Still, we homosexuals are the most despised group among bigots generally. In most major Western countries, including the U.S., Canada and Great Britain, more than three-quarters of those who object to at least one minority group include gays on their list of phobias. That gem led the researchers to conclude that, “Homophobia is, by far, the main source of bigotry in most Western countries.”
What, in turn, is the source of that homophobia? Not a person’s level of education or income, as it turns out. Age and gender were much better indicators. A New York Times poll released last week backs that up, showing only 25 percent of Americans under the age of 30 opposed to any form of legal recognition for same-sex couples, while opposition among those over 30 ranges between 35 and 45 percent.
It’s impossible to say whether the 23 percent of Americans who don’t want gay neighbors form the bulk of the 35 percent of Americans overall who don’t want our relationships to receive legal recognition — but it’s a pretty safe bet.
I’ve always resisted the idea that opponents of gay rights are bigots. It has struck me as a cheap shot that polarizes the debate, rather than attempting to reason and address concerns. There’s not much point in reasoning with prejudice, of course; the whole idea is that’s animus without any logic to it.
Religion can be as impenetrable to reason as prejudice, and gay rights opponents have long cited their moral beliefs as justification for our inequality. Sill, since I come from a loving, religious family that is steadfastly opposed to my equal rights as a gay man, I’ve always taken the anti-gay Christians at their word when they swear it’s the sin they hate and not the sinner.
So how do they explain the “good neighbor” study’s most surprising finding? That being deeply religious made Christians less prejudiced against Muslims and immigrants, and much more prejudiced against gays? Being deeply religious was the single most significant factor in predicting whether someone would reject the idea of having a gay neighbor.
Do these churchgoers simply ignore Jesus’ central commandment to “love thy neighbor”? Or are they figuring if they do have to love their neighbor, they hope for Christ’s sake their neighbor isn’t queer?
As more lesbians and gay men live their lives openly, there’s hope the number of anti-gay bigots will someday soon drop down to the same levels we see for race and religion. The short-lived ABC reality show "Welcome to the Neighborhood" effectively tested out the findings of the “good neighbor” study, allowing a group of mildly bigoted Texas neighbors to award a house on their block to either a black family, a Korean family, hippies, Wiccans or a gay couple. The series was yanked because it touched on too many racial hot-buttons, but the gay couple won over their skeptical neighbors and won the house, too.
One objection to the show was from "fair housing" advocates, who pointed out federal law prohibits discriminating on the basis of race, religion, and national origin in the housing market. Of course that law doesn't include sexual orientation as a protected category, and absolutely no one is talking about amending it anytime soon.
But as the gay couple on "Welcome to the Neighborhood" proved, although no one got to see it, the answer to this level of bigotry may not be in changing laws, but in changing hearts and minds. We have always been our own best ambassadors, and perhaps if we keep extending our welcome mat, one day more "deeply religious" folks will do the same.
March 26, 2007
sandbagged! by here!
Posted by: Chris
The New York Times reports today on the GLAAD Media Awards controversy, and a few additional points of interest emerge.
First off, the more we learn, the less sympathetic here! TV is sounding. The GLAAD policy of limiting its awards to non-niche media is long-standing, yet here! waited until the eve of the ceremonies this year to go public with its complaint. That seems timed not only to benefit here! but to hurt GLAAD — not something that should give gay cable TV consumers much of a warm fuzzy.
Stephen Macias, the somewhat shrill here! TV exec who penned the nasty public letter to GLAAD, told the Times he was "flabbergasted" by the policy, which is a bit surprising since it's not new and certainly defensible, if not unassailable.
The Times also asked a couple of other gay media outlets if they agreed with here! Networks. Cable competitor Logo did, as did the Advocate's editor in chief:
Anne Stockwell, the executive editor of the Advocate, said her magazine’s staff members have been bewildered that GLAAD has chosen not to honor their work at the awards.
“Everybody feels it would be great to see GLAAD take a forward-looking position and be assertive in coming to some kind of a sensible way to recognize all of us,” Stockwell said. “I do think it can feel frustrating to do all the reporting that we do, and break all the stories that we break, and not feel that there is a path to recognition.”
It's surprising to me the Times didn't go on to ask Stockwell why it wouldn't create a conflict of interest for the Advocate to cover GLAAD while also seeking its recognition. After all, the Times won't let its own editors and reporters accept awards from GLAAD or any other advocacy group because it creates the appearance of a conflict and the potential for bias.
I was at the Human Rights Campaign black-tie dinner in New York a few years ago when Stockwell's predecessor, longtime Advocate editor Judy Wieder , received a special award. In her acceptance, Wieder spoke proudly of how in her first days at the magazine's helm she adopted a policy that gay rights organizations were not to be criticized in the magazine's coverage.
Now that's the kind of "journalism" that HRC particularly likes, and the temptation at GLAAD would be similar. Would award-caliber journalism get the same consideration if it comes from a gay media outlet that has asked tough questions of GLAAD and other gay rights groups?
(It's also worth noting, as an aside, that GLAAD does hand out the Barbara Gittings Award, named after the recently deceased, groundbreaking lesbian activist and publication editor, to an individual, group or publication that made a pioneering contribution to the gay media. The Advocate received the award in 2002.)
Finally, the Times also talked with gay advertising agency head Howard Buford, who served on the GLAAD board in the late '90s, about the changing definition of "gay media":
“Is it gay ownership? Is it predominantly gay content? Is it a gay target audience? It’s not as easy a definition as it was at the beginning.”
Buford is right about that, especially in the TV industry, where Logo is owned by media giants MTV and Viacom. But still, I think "gay media" can be fairly reliably defined by the content and the target audience. Adding "gay media" categories to the GLAAD awards in the entertainment realm would recognize that changing landscape while not presenting a conflict of interest the same way handing out journalism awards would.
(Top photo: "Dante's Cove" — pioneering programming at here! TV ineligible for GLAAD Award recognition)
March 25, 2007
Exactly…
Posted by: Chris
In a blistering blog post (is there any other kind?) over at HuffPo, gay jouralist and author Gabriel Rotello weighed in against the long-standing policy of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation not to consider work by gay TV and media for the organization's Media Awards.
Rotello, whose work I have always respected, offers up what he suspects it the "real reason" for the exclusion:
GLAAD and its awards focus on "those whose attitudes about our right to fairness, dignity and equality we must work to transform."
In other words, GLAAD sees its awards as a way of cajoling mainstream media types into treating gays better. If you're a straight producer who has accepted a gay award in front of hundreds of cheering queers, the idea goes, you will be less likely to dump on those same people in your next broadcast.
By that reasoning, GLAAD doesn't think it needs to cajole the gay media into doing the right thing. The gay media do the right thing by dint of their very existence. So why waste awards on them?
Exactly. Couldn't have said it better. So why isn't that enough? Again, Rotello:
GLAAD was founded to advance gay visibility and fairness in the media, and to reward excellence in the coverage of lesbian and gay issues. Excellence is excellence, even if it springs from outlets run by and for gays. You'd think a gay group would not just know that, they would celebrate it.
For a gay media group to reinforce outdated divisions, and shove into the shadows those who do the most to advance visibility, is archaic, absurd and insulting to its own community.
As someone with a decade of experience in the gay media, I have to disagree. Gay media should have its own, built-in incentives for portraying gay lives in a fair and inclusive way. And it's a clear and dangerous conflict of interest to set up a system whereby a gay rights group covered by the gay press also decides when their work is worthy of commendation.
The biggest challenge facing the the quality of journalism in gay press today is the pressure to accede to the A-crowd within each gay community, abdicating our watchdog role so as not to anger potential advertisers and win plaudits at black-tie dinners. As pointed out before, GLAAD is not the gay TV and motion picture academy or the queer Pulitzer Prize committee. The National Lesbian & Gay Journalist Association, for one, already hands out awards from peers to reporters and editors in the gay press and general circulation media.
The point of the GLAAD awards is to incentivize the mainstream media and raise money for the organization. That should be enough.
What do you think? Be sure to vote in my Vizu Poll (to the right) on the topic. As always, voting does not transport you off the site or subject you to annoying pop-ups.
January 31, 2007
Is the 'F word' the new 'N word'?
Posted by: Chris
Does actor Isaiah Washington deserve the serious heat he's getting for calling "Grey's Anatomy" cast-mate T.R. Knight a "faggot" on set, or even for using the same word later in a Golden Globes press conference?
After all, since the initial flap Washington has issued two written apologies, admitted himself into counseling, and even met with leading gay activists with a promise to make things right. Yet still the fallout continues, as rumors swirl that he'll be yanked from the popular program.
Neil Giuliano, president of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, chose rather dramatic language to condemn Washington, particularly considering the actor used the "F-word" the second time only in denying that he'd used it the first.
"When Isaiah Washington uses this kind of anti-gay slur," Giuliano said, "whether on set or in front of the press, it does more than create a hostile environment for his cast-mates and the crew of 'Grey's Anatomy.' It also feeds a climate of hatred and intolerance that contributes to putting our community in harm's way."
GLAAD ratcheted down the rhetoric once Washington took a meeting/self-flagellation session with Giuliano and with Kevin Jennings of the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network, but the issue has dominated GLAAD's public activity for weeks. Does it deserve the attention?
At first blush, the whole thing struck me as more political correctness than protecting "our community." It's not as if Washington launched into the kind of expletive-laden racist tirade as Michael Richards (a.k.a. Kramer from "Seinfeld"), much less the anti-Semitic diatribe that exposed Mel Gibson (again) as a bigot we knew him to be. And that's even assuming (and I do) that Washington actually used the "F-bomb" against Knight, who came out as a result of the original on-set flap back in October.
To make matters more prickly, Washington is a prominent African-American with a history of taking on challenging roles, including gay and even drag queen characters, with an uncharacteristic sensitivity. (Will Smith, are you listening?)
Washington Post columnist Jabari Asim even uncovered an Essence magazine essay by the actor from a decade ago, in which a thoughtful Washington writes about his first amateur acting gig, playing a "flaming drag queen" named Sweetie Pie, which offered him "a firsthand look at gay-bashing."
"I was the target of angry expletives, jeers and nervous laughter and was even spat upon by a junior-high-school student who took my performance just a little too seriously," Washington wrote back then. Not exactly the kind of thing you'd expect to hear from a heartless homophobe.
In fact, Jasmyne Cannick, a respected black lesbian activist and columnist, has leapt to Washington's defense, accusing "white gay America" of hypocrisy and the "gay mafia" of "smelling meat, dark meat."
Cannick's beef isn't just that the gay press and activists overreacted. To her, "the whole thing reeks of white privilege" and hypocrisy because, she claims, white gay America hasn't protested a peep against Charles Knipp, the white gay drag performer (somewhat) better known as Shirley Q. Liquor, a self-described "inarticulate black woman on welfare with 19 kids."
Of course, even mentioning a huge star like Washington in the same breath as a two-bit drag act like Knipp is a bit like comparing apples and watermelons; their respective cultural influences aren't in the same time zone. And to suggest white gay activists relished frying up "dark meat" is nonsensical to anyone remotely familiar with the racial politics of the gay rights movement.
What's more, Cannick is flat-out wrong on the facts, since I know for a fact that many gay publications (including those I've edited) have covered Knipp and the protests that follow his performances in many cities. When he was invited to appear at a gay benefit in Atlanta two years ago, negative publicity from articles in Southern Voice resulted in his being uninvited. And while I agree completely that Knipp goes way way over the line, he has been defended by legendary black drag queens like Washington, D.C.'s Ella Fitzgerald and RuPaul herself.
More importantly, Cannick misses the same point I did in chalking up the whole mess as P.C. run amuck. It isn't about Isaiah Washington or his race or his TV show. It's actually about taking a page out of the playbook used so effectively by African American activists. Nothing focuses the public on an issue like celebrity, and Washington's temper tantrum offers a unique opportunity to consign the "F-word" (in its short and long form) to the same dustbin of history as the "N-word."
Efforts to combat anti-gay bullying will only go so far so long as anti-gay slurs — not to mention the use of "gay" itself to mean "lame" or "stupid" — remain playground de rigueur. Like it or not, Washington's abject apologies, like those of Richards and Gibson (and Jesse Jackson's "hymietown") before him, jump-start social change, getting through to teachers and parents and even the kids in ways that years of earnest press releases couldn't hope for.
So spare me the sympathy for Washington, who'll no doubt redeem himself and be jumping on Oprah's sofa in no time. I'll keep my eyes on the prize.
November 30, 2006
Top 10 Gay TV Shows
Posted by: Chris
Some say Key West has gone ex-gay, what with the overwhelming number of straight cruise ships that now dock at the quirky island. But come Jan. 1, residents and tourists there will nonetheless be treated to the first-ever broadcast gay TV channel. David Letterman was quick to pounce on the news, and suggest some programming options:
10. "How I Met Your Brother"
9. "Gary's Anatomy"
8. "Desperate Poolboys"
7. "Everybody Loves Raymond...Especially Steve"
6. "The King Of Queens"
5. "Not-So-Smallville"
4. "I Dream Of Gene"
3. "Gays Of Our Lives"
2. "My Name Is Earl And I Like Construction Workers"
1. "His Deal Or No Deal"
The marketing folks at WGAY-TV (yes, those are the call letters), were no doubt thrilled.
November 25, 2006
In the news…
Posted by: Chris
The National Hockey League and one of its teams, the Toronto Maple Leafs, have approved the use of their logos in an upcoming movie called "Breakfast with Scot," a "thoughtful comedy" about the relationship between a former player and the his partner, the team's lawyer, whose lives are turned upside down when they become guardians for "a budding queen of an 11-year-old boy." Tom Cavanagh ("Ed," "Scrubs") and Ben Shenkman ("Just Like Heaven," "Angels in America") star in the production, which begins filming in Toronto next month.- Atlanta is among the cities leading the way in attracting 25 to 34 year-olds, a demographic that will be especially key as the Baby Boomers retire, removing two people from the workforce for every new young entrant. Among the key factors in Atlanta's success, along with plentiful jobs, is a diverse and open culture, including large international and gay communities. Of course the biggest losers — New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington and Philadelphia — also have large gay communities.
Latino heartthrob Gael Garcia Bernal signed an open letter in support of Mexico City's civil unions law. Among the other 50 signatories was Diego Luna, Bernal's co-star in "Y Tu Mama También." "The vote for the civil-unions law was a vote in favor of liberty, social equality and the strength of civil society," the artists wrote.- Don't expect much from the new Congress as far as putting the reins on pork. The Democrats set to control spending decisions are every bit as committed to the status quo of "earmarks" as their GOP predecessors. Two of the worst offenders, Sens. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) and Ted Stevens (R-Ala.) have promised to continue scratching each other's backs to ensure a disproportionate share of federal funds. “I had a chat with Senator Stevens before the election,” Mr. Inouye said. "We pledged to each other that no matter what happens, we will continue with our tested system of bipartisanship," Inouye told his hometown paper, "We've been doing this for the past 25 years, and it’s worked."
