We all know that many Hollywood insiders live inside a magical bubble where there are no consequences for anything. Serial affairs, alcohol, drugs — everything is forgiven as long as you can make money for the machine (but they are against capitalism, natch), except that most heinous of crime of all: being a conservative.  And we all know that many of them place themselves on a higher plane than those of us little people down here in the theater and stadium seats and in front of our television sets, without whom, of course, Tinseltown would be nothing but a very large (and broke) collection of overinflated egos.

Proof of this “holier than thou” attitude comes right out of the mouth of one of the biggest bigwigs himself: Harvey Weinstein of Miramax pictures:

In an interview, Weinstein said that people generally misunderstand what happened to Polanski at sentencing. He’s not convinced public opinion is running against the filmmaker and dismisses the categorization of Hollywood as amoral. “Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion,” Weinstein said. “We were the people who did the fundraising telethon for the victims of 9/11. We were there for the victims of Katrina and any world catastrophe.”

Let’s repeat that, shall we? “Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion. We were the people who did the fundraising for the victims of 9/11. We were there for the victims of Katrina and any world catastrophe.”

Well, thank goodness for Hollywood. Without them, nothing would get done. Yet, where were we, Harvey? Where exactly were “the little people” during these tragic times?

Let’s see: 403 firefighters, police officers and paramedics died on 9/11 while trying to save the lives of thousands of others, not to mention the respiratory problems of some 300 firefighters afterward and the 422,000 New Yorkers who suffered from post traumatic stress syndrome. An estimated $1.4 billion was donated by regular Americans to 9/11 charities. Let’s not forget those who stepped forward to volunteer to help in whatever capacity they could. (This is not to be confused with the “National Day of Service” that is supposed to take the place of a proper day of remembrance.)

Mentions of 9/11 at the next Academy Awards? 26.

Nearly $4 billion was raised by private, non-profit organizations for relief after Hurricane Katrina. (Sadly, much of it was misspent, but that’s not the fault of those who donated.) More than 1 million volunteers made their way to the storm-ravaged area, giving up weekends and vacation plans to help.

Yes, Hollywood held a telethon — to which average Americans donated money — where Kanye West declared, “George W. Bush doesn’t like black people.” I love those touching Kumbaya, bring-the-nation-together moments.  Don’t you?

And who could forget Sean Penn’s valiant effort to save helpless victims as he went down, shotgun in hand, and boarded a boat loaded down by his entourage that included a photographer, and ended up bailing out his sinking boat with a red plastic cup. Mission accomplished!

Last, but certainly not least, when it comes to disasters at home and around the world, we cannot forget our fabulous military. When deployed, they always act efficiently and with compassion. And our government is usually quick to donate millions to disaster-ravaged areas too, like pledging $350 million to help in the aftermath of the tsunami in Indonesia back in 2004.

By the way, when’s that telethon to help the victims of the tsunami in American Samoa scheduled?

Don’t misunderstand: if Hollywood wants to hold telethons and concerts and whatever else to raise funds for a good cause, no one’s going to complain. But let’s keep it in perspective. To quote Eugene Robinson (a Washington Post lib, no less):

The Los Angeles Times quoted Weinstein as saying in an interview that he doesn’t believe public opinion is running against Polanski — or that Hollywood is out of step. “Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion,” Weinstein said, according to the newspaper. “We were the people who did the fundraising telethon for the victims of 9/11. We were there for the victims of Katrina and any world catastrophe.”

Hollywood was there, all right, whenever the tragedy was distant, the victims were anonymous and the “compassionate” concert or telethon had acceptable production values that made all the stars look their best. How heroically they rearranged their busy schedules!

Indeed. It brings a tear even to my jaundiced eye — the red carpet, the fabulous gowns, fawning celeb mag fotogs, the goodie bags worth thousands of dollars, the after-hours VIP parties in exclusive clubs…

Back in 2007, Americans gave just under $300 billion to charity, with individuals giving a combined 75.6 percent of the total, donating almost twice as much as the next most charitable nation, the UK . And those in the poorest income brackets donate more per capita than their wealthier counterparts. Was there a star-studded telethon that year (aside from the usual Jerry Lewis gig)? I can’t recall. But how strange that many celebs are reluctant to publicly declare how much cold cash they personally donate to a cause.

So, Harvey, please, take your “moral compass” and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine. I think Americans are doing just fine without your overrated “guiding light.”

I’d like to say that I’m really happy for him…. but isn’t that what this is all about? Being happy for “him?”

Wasn’t that what the Olympics were about? Rooting for “him?”

Wasn’t that what the last presidential election was about? Electing “him?”

It’s never about us. Or the U.S.

Because if it was, no Nobel committee would have ever given him that prize. The fact is, you only win that prize if a particular transaction is made -that is, a weakening of America in exchange for worldly acceptance by madmen, maniacs and mass murderers.

But that’s not all.

The prize is not meant to award achievement, but to insult folks the committee finds distasteful – meaning those who refuse to share their assumptions about a deeply flawed – oh let’s face it, evil – America.

Meaning, you and me. And like I always say, when it happens three times, it’s officially a trend. The 2002 prize to Jimmy Carter was meant to humiliate President Bush for the Iraq War build-up. They even admitted that. Then in 2007, they handed the political prop to Al Gore – a message meant to slap Bush for winning the 2000 election, and also America for not embracing global warming ideology.

And that’s what this prize is all about now. It’s not just another slap at Bush (well, it is), but a prop to help beat back the simmering dissent Obama’s progressive agenda has caused, here.

The Nobel committee wants him to succeed, for they’re smitten with this “citizen of the world,” a man who puts the globe before his country.

Forget human rights activism: this is how you win an award, people.

It won’t help us, but It’ll look great on his mantle. Next to the Grammy.

Kimberly Guilfoyle, Doug Giles, Sandra Smith, Mary Katherine Hamm, and Dick Valentine from the Electric Six! ]]> http://www.newmediablog.com/2009/10/daily-gut-it%e2%80%99s-all-about-him-not-us/feed/ 0 http://www.newmediablog.com/2009/10/membership-has-its-privileges/ http://www.newmediablog.com/2009/10/membership-has-its-privileges/#comments Fri, 09 Oct 2009 18:19:14 +0000 Iowahawk http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/?p=244190 [ed. note: republished and amended from a 2007 post]

Dear   BARACK OBAMA  :

Congratulations! On behalf of the selection committee, I am pleased to announce that you have been named a 2009 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, in recognition of your tireless efforts to   STRENGTHEN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMACY AND COOPERATION    .

I am also pleased to tell you that as a winner, you have been pre-approved for membership in the Nobel Peace Player’s Club, offering exclusive money-saving benefits available only to laureates like you. Please take a few minutes to look over the enclosed enrollment materials. At only $299.95 per year, I’m sure you’ll agree that membership is a bargain at twice the price! Here are just some of the benefits you’ll receive:

• A handsome 14-karat gold membership crest badge to display proudly on the grille of your limousine or official state aircraft
• A framed, hand-calligraphed certificate (add $19.95 for gold leaf)
• Special discount shopping bargains for for you and your family
• Great travel packages to the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro
• Listing in “Who’s Who of Global Salvation” ($49.95 per copy)
• Great coupons for Olive Garden, P.F. Chang’s, Six Flags Theme Parks, and more!

Plus, you’ll receive the exclusive Nobel Peace Player’s Club GoldCard entitling you to discount air travel and 5-star hotel accommodations from Kyoto to Darfur. But don’t take our word for it! Listen to these testimonials from some of our current members:

“My career as an international peace activist means lots of air travel — and dealing with pushy Zionists and rude natives. With my Nobel Peace Player’s Club GoldCard, I finally get the respect I deserve – and it makes getting through Gaza airport security a snap!”
– Jimmy Carter, 2002 Laureate

“Whether we’re patrolling the Congo, Sudan, or Bosnia, one thing’s for sure — chicks can’t resist a Nobel Peace Prize Player!”
– United Nations Peacekeeping Forces, 1988 Winners

“My Players Club GoldCard lets me treat my friends and family to great perks.”
– Kofi Annan, 2001 Laureate

“I’m a take-action kind of guy. Whenever I fly to Tehran or Pyongyang, the first thing I pack is my Players GoldCard.”
– Mohamed ElBaradei (2005)

“I have to write a lot of honorary doctorate acceptance speeches, and writer’s block can be a problem. With the Player’s GoldCard I got great discounts at TermPapersLab.com!”
– Rigoberta Menchu (1992)

“The Player’s Club GoldCard is recognized everywhere — even in hell! I redeemed my Players GoldPoints at Club Satan for an exciting eternity of getting pounded up the ass. Thanks, NobelCo!”
– Yasser Arafat (1994)

“Don’t miss the boat like I did, comrade! I forgot to enroll, and now I’m spending eternity pounding Yasser Arafat up the ass.”
– Le Duc Tho (1973)

So what are you waiting for,    BARACK OBAMA  ? Enroll today and start enjoying the privileges of membership. Enroll today, and we’ll throw in a deluxe leather bound CIA intelligence report worth $1000!

Sincerely,

Ůmläut Ťïldëqvist, Chairman
The Nobel Peace Player’s Club Selection Committee

ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis and Former Enron CEO Ken Lay

Substitute Bertha Lewis for Ken Lay and ACORN for Enron, in this hypothetical situation, and you’ll have a pretty good idea of what was asked of us at Lewis’ tour-de-force theatrical performance at the National Press Club earlier this week. She alternated between attacking her critics, expressing disgust with the actions of her employees caught on tape by James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles and vowing to pursue a lawsuit against the filmmakers for capturing on film her employees’ misdeeds. Oh, and by the way, she really, really—she means it this time—intends to “clean house” at ACORN.

Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank captured the surreal tableau best:

But Lewis, in playing the victim, is her own worst enemy. Forget the film of the pimp and prostitute: Watching a film of Lewis’s performance yesterday would probably be enough to cause lawmakers to cut off ACORN’s federal funding.

Which raises a question: Why does Bertha Lewis get to “clean house” at ACORN? Even today, actions have consequences. The fact that the employee behavior exposed by O’Keefe and Giles happened on her watch—and she has been less than forthcoming about it, by the way—would alone be enough to get most CEO’s booted. Worse, though, is the implication that Lewis has been complicit in ACORN’s missteps for a long time. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, “Bertha Lewis isn’t the solution to ACORN’s problems. Bertha Lewis is the problem.”

Bertha Lewis has been a long-time leader of ACORN. She became CEO—“Chief Organizer” in the ACORN vernacular—in June, 2008. Around that time, an attorney hired by ACORN, Elizabeth Kingsley, delivered a detailed, 15-page memo to ACORN’s board, highlighting actual and potential problems with ACORN’s operations. Kingsley made a series of very specific recommendations to “clean house” within ACORN. In the 15 months since the memo was delivered, I’m not aware of any efforts ACORN has made to implement these reforms.

Also in 2008, ACORN’s board appointed a special committee to investigate a long-covered up embezzlement scandal. (Ms. Lewis was part of the cover-up.) The embezzlement had been recently revealed by the New York Times. This special committee, and other ACORN leaders, pressed for a full forensic audit of the organization. For this transgression, under the leadership of Bertha Lewis, they were booted out of ACORN. No audit of ACORN has ever been released to the public.

Last week, Wade Rathke, founder of ACORN and victim of Lewis’ 2008 palace coup, made a rare appearance in DC to promote his recent book. Big Government contributor Maura Flynn attended, filmed his talk and asked questions. The interview is interesting. Rathke said they decided to cover-up the embezzlement because ACORN leadership feared its enemies would “weaponize” the scandal against them. He also conjectured that, based on the recent scandal engulfing ACORN, that decision looks to have been the right one.

Which raises several questions for Lewis, since she was a co-conspirator in the embezzlement cover-up: Are you going to truly “clean house” in ACORN or only in those areas that have been publically revealed? Are you focused on rooting out actual corruption or only the corruption the public knows about? Do you see your employees’ transgressions as potential “weapons” your opponents will use against you or actual misdeeds that need to be expunged from ACORN? Can I remind you that several of your offices believed they were assisting an underage sex-trafficking ring? And, they were happy to do so.

Lewis makes a nod to public sentiment in acknowledging the potential criminal activity, yet continues to devote a considerable amount of her time to attacking O’Keefe and Giles and some vast conspiracy against ACORN. (The most devastating take-downs of ACORN have been produced by Jon Stewart and Jay Leno, both absent from my vast right-wing conspiracy membership database.) Worse than this, though; she hasn’t been entirely forthcoming about the videos we have all seen. She continues to claim the videos are doctored, but it has been almost a month since we released the first video. I haven’t seen any evidence from you that these were doctored. Surely, roughly thirty days is enough time to build that case. We released the full audio recordings and transcripts of the interviews.

Second, we initially released videos from Baltimore and Washington, DC. Lewis said then that the filmmakers were thrown out of ACORN offices in “San Diego, Los Angeles, Miami, New York and Philadelphia.” We have so far released videos from two of those cities. Was she lying? Or, simply misled by her staff?

The most troubling reservation, however, has to do with the “independent” panel Lewis appointed to guide ACORN through its current troubles. All are long-time ideological allies of ACORN. It asks too much of us to consider them independent. John Podesta is a long-time ally of ACORN. He was instrumental in the creation of Media Matters (for Bulgaria), who is currently exhausting any credibility it ever had spinning for ACORN. Andy Stern, as head of SEIU, has shoveled millions of dollars to ACORN over the years. His own organization has publically stated that they have “cut ties to ACORN,” yet there Stern remains deep in ACORN’s inner circle. Former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger, the newly appointed “ACORN Czar,” is a kindred fellow-traveler. His thirst for political power may even exceed Lewis’, as he seems to have been willing to put an innocent man behind bars for two decades to further his own political career. Much more about all of these individuals will be revealed soon. (No, we haven’t begun to release all the information we have.)

So, is Bertha serious about wanting to “clean house?” Has she had a genuine “road to Damascus” moment and is now committed to reform. Color me skeptical, but here are three quick things she could do to begin to restore the public’s trust:

Disclose all of ACORN’s affiliates. Publically reveal the names of every entity that is part of the ACORN ‘family.” I’ve heard there are 100, 200 and even 400 different organizations. Please give the public the full list.

Order full audits of every ACORN affiliate. ACORN has been entrusted with millions of dollars of local, state and federal funds. Reassure the public that these funds haven’t been misspent. If they have been misspent, admit it and discipline the offenders. Release the audits to the public, with proprietary or personal information redacted.

Appoint a real independent panel. A review panel made up of your political allies is not independent. It is akin to appointing the foxes to review the henhouse. It has become accepted in recent years that boards of directors need a lot of “outside” directors to oversee operations. No institution would benefit as much from this as ACORN.

 Three simple steps, but, giant leaps to restoring any integrity ACORN may have once enjoyed. Lewis, you can pick the high road or the low road. If she continues on her current path–the low road–then she’s gotta go.

As soon as I turned 18, I moved in with him.  (Note: he was not my first target; I had a terrible crush on my American History teacher in high school – another gay man – but he was partnered and I scared him off.)  Needless to say, we did not live happily ever after.

Married life brought out my true immaturity.  He was set in his ways, I had no discipline.  He liked dinner parties and lectures, I liked wearing silver lame’ pants to discos.  He had plenty of friends, gay and straight, some of whom he’d known since I was an infant.  They were very nice to me – but I was jealous of them all.  I threw tantrums.  “You love them more than you love me!” 

Finally, he made me move back home.  It was the most humiliating day of my young life.

The relationship dragged on for a couple of years after that.  Then I started to take an interest in people my own age.  He went on to marry someone his own age.  He was not a pedophile; he was a vulnerable man I happened to zero in on (at the peak of my adolescent invincibility) at the right time.  Of course, looking back, he should have known better.  What did he think he was getting involved with?  It was a very foolish – and potentially self-destructive – choice for a grown-up to make.

Then again, when writer Christopher Isherwood fell for the youthful Don Bachardy, they ended up staying together for thirty years.  But that seems to be the exception rather than the rule.  I’m not saying pedophiles don’t exist – they certainly do (and most of them are straight).  But these things happen.  At least I didn’t meet “Teach” in a rest stop.

Which brings me to the fracas over Obama czar number five hundred and… well, who’s counting.  The conservative blogosphere has been in an uproar because Kevin Jennings – the (deep breath) Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools at the U.S. Department of Education, or “Safe School Czar” - failed, in 1988, while still a mere teacher, to advise a 15-year-old boy (according to some reports, he might have been older) to stop having sex with adult men (in particular one man the teenager had met in a public restroom).  Instead, Jennings reminded the boy to “play safe,” and use condoms.

To be honest, I don’t see what the big deal is.  Based on his own experience, Jennings probably figured it was no use trying to convince the boy to stop seeing the man – take it from me, that would have had the exact opposite effect – so the more practical tack was to urge the kid to at least protect himself, ASAP, as Jennings did.  Let’s not forget the high suicide rate among gay youth; twenty years ago, that teenager surely needed somebody to talk to.

Don’t get me wrong: I am no fan of NAMBLA, and I don’t care if the ancient Greeks thought it was a-okay to sleep with young boys.  If I had been that kid’s father, I probably would have grabbed the nearest shotgun and gone after the offending adult myself.  That’s a natural reaction - for a parent.  Not for a teacher.  A teacher has to walk a fine line between entering into his students’ world in order to gain their trust – something most parents fail at, miserably (and kids don’t want) - while at the same time watching them like a hawk (no pun intended).

My question is: where were this boy’s parents while he was picking up men in bus station lavatories?  If Jennings should have alerted anyone, it was the teen’s family.  But, of course, then ”Lolito” would have felt deeply betrayed by the “role model” he had confided in.  So it’s a lose-lose situation.

Of more concern to me is Jennings’ s CV (as posted on KevinJennings.com).  Talk about an over-achiever: Jennings graduated magna cum laude from Harvard, won a Klingenstein Fellowship at Columbia University, holds an MBA from NYU, founded the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), was the LGBT Finance Co-Chair for Obama for America – and to top it all off, he’s published five books!

Not bad for a guy from a North Carolina trailer park.  Clearly, Jennings is no slouch – he’s Super Gay!  So where’s the red flag?

Call me cynical, but I’ve noticed too often that homosexuals who find monetary and social success in activism – “career gays” - often start to manifest the same intolerance towards others that motivated them to fight homophobia in the first place.  In other words, they become so invested in battling bigotry that they begin to view almost anyone who isn’t gay as a potential enemy, losing sight of what (one hopes) was their original intent: to bridge gaps, promote understanding between disparate groups, and enhance Americans’ freedom to enjoy love relationships with whomever they want without suffering any unfair or negative repercussions.

You know, the same thing Dick Cheney wants.

Jonathan Crutchley

But, as evidenced in the outings, threats, and blacklisting of California’s Proposition 8 supporters last fall, there’s a tendency in the LGBT community to go overboard, and confuse “approval” with “diversity,” and ”equality” with “freedom.”  As one grown man I know rejoiced when openly gay McCain supporter Jonathan Crutchley was forced to resign as chairman of the gay pickup site Manhunt – because of his politics –  ”It’s democracy in action!”

No, it’s not – it’s McCarthyism, plain and simple (and ugly).  But in the gay ghetto, it’s easy to forget that your fellow countrymen exist – so get used to it!  (To their credit, gay groups in California have since toned down the rhetoric and seem to have realized that a new approach is needed re: gay marriage.)  Meanwhile, blind adoration 0f a President who adamantly opposes same-sex marriage and bows and cow-tows to the worst anti-gay despots on earth has also become a litmus test of one’s gayness.  But hey, he’s got a “D” after his name – so who am I to ask questions?

That said, Jennings’s now-famous anti-Christian rant, part of a speech he gave at (of all places) Manhattan’s Marble Collegiate Church, nine years ago – “We have to quit being afraid of the religious right… I’m trying not to say, ‘[F-] ‘em!’ which is what I want to say, because I don’t care what they think! [audience laughter]  Drop dead!” – well, it doesn’t surprise me.  It’s typical gay knee-jerk stuff.  Tired, and uninspired.

You can bet money Mr. Jennings would never dare make the same statement in a mosque.

Christians, like Mormons, continue to be easy punching bags – they don’t go in for strap-on explosives – and putting them down gives everyone a cheap and easy thrill.  But Christians and Mormons don’t have a dangerously homophobic, 57-state voting bloc in that international club of creeps called the UN that our fearless leader has been quivering to be a part of.

I wonder when Jennings and his ilk will realize that “Christianophobia” is, well, just so forever ago.

Much has also been made of the fact that Jennings contributed to a book of essays entitled Queering Elementary Education: Advancing the Dialogue about Sexualities and Schooling (Curriculum, Cultures, and (Homo)Sexualities).  Far more dangerous than a possible dialogue about homosexuality – in an era when any eight-year-old can turn on a re-run of Will and Grace - is the tricky, academic gobbledeegook that presumes to pass as English in the “product description” on Amazon:

Queer elementary classrooms are those where parents and educators care enough about their children to trust the human capacity for understanding and their educative abilities to foster insight into the human condition… Queer teachers are those who develop curriculum and pedagogy that afford every child dignity rooted in self-worth and esteem for others.  In short, queering education happens when we look at schooling upside down and view childhood from the inside out… explore taken-for-granted assumptions about diversity, identities, childhood, and prejudice.

Gee, whatever happened to milk and cookies?  Do politically-correct, post-modern nuggets of Romper Room moral relativism prevent childhood obesity?  The use of the word “queer” is certainly troublesome here.  Would black activists use the “N-word” in such classrooms?  Why does elementary education need to be “queered” anyway?  Grade school isn’t supposed to be some sort of experimental, off-Broadway art project.  Would the gay community please just call itself “gay” and be done with it already?

But I digress.

Which brings us to the infamous “Fistgate” scandal of 2000 (not Jennings’s best year).  At a conference called “Teach-Out,” sponsored by the Massachusetts Department of Education and Jennings’s GLSEN, students were invited to participate in “dialogues” (don’t you just love that word) about some usually unspoken (at least in polite society) aspects of homosexuality.  One workshop, “What They Didn’t Tell You About Queer Sex & Sexuality in Health Class: A Workshop for Youth Only, Ages 14-21,” encouraged students to ask questions about gay sex.

Not gay history, or literature, or art.  Gay sex.

So when a curious female student asked what “fisting” was, Margot Abels, Coordinator of the HIV/AIDS Program for the Massachusetts Department of Education, replied that the practice, well-known in S&M clubs – and to anyone who saw the movie Cruising - was simply “an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with.”  Then, when a 16-year-old stated the unthinkable – that “fisting” didn’t sound too appealing – Abels quickly pointed out that it “often gets a really bad rap” and that it usually wasn’t about pain, “not that we’re putting that down.”  (Seinfeld, eat your heart out.)

Maybe it’s just me, but whatever happened to love?

Most young people realize they’re gay because of crushes, romantic feelings that crop up for another person of the same sex - not because of kinky fetishes.  (Those come later.)  Kids aren’t born little Roman Polanskis.  Why not focus on the similarities we all share rather than the differences?  Wouldn’t that be the best defense for gay marriage (now passed by legislative vote, as opposed to judicial decree, in at least three states)?

Harry Hay

But back to the Safe School Czar.  Much has also been made of his glowing praise for gay rights pioneer Harry Hay.  The right-wing blogosphere has its panties in a wad because Hay was a supporter of NAMBLA.  Hay was also a Communist – as a gay man, he really should have known better – and a militant hippie who founded the “Radical Faerie” movement, a group that rejected Western sex roles in favor of pseudo-Native American spirituality and paganism, with a little cross-dressing thrown in (that would have gone over real well in Mao’s China, Soviet Russia, or Cuba).

The gay couple on Desperate Housewives these guys ain’t.  No sports jerseys, football games, or suburban barbecues for them – that would be just too bourgeois.

To be blunt, the Radical Faeries were a bunch of back-to-nature, communal, moonbat kooks for whom everyday was Halloween.  So it’s not surprising that Harry Hay lent his name to NAMBLA – anything to challenge the status quo, and mock traditional sex roles (even for gay men!).  None of that who’s-the-husband /who’s-the-wife / let’s adopt a baby stuff for him.  He would have supported the San Francisco Transgendered (and Questioning) Higher Primates-Gerbil Brotherhood (SFTQHPGB) if there’d been one.

But Hay also founded the first American gay rights organization – in 1950 – way ahead of his time.  That took cojones.  Hence, he remains a hero to today’s LGBT community, a figure gays and lesbians are tacitly expected to admire.  The fact is most of us had no clue he had anything to do with NAMBLA – until now.

I had the pleasure of meeting Hay once at a party.  Getting on in years, he was polite, soft-spoken, and rather sweet – a harmless old man who had stirred up enough trouble in his day.  That said, I think Kevin Jennings would be wise to clarify which of Hay’s accomplishments he admires, and to denounce NAMBLA outright.  After all, Jennings may be a radical flack, but a Radical Faerie he definitely is not.  (In fact, he wouldn’t look so out of place on Wysteria Lane.)  Radical Faeries don’t bother working the system. 

After everything he’s accomplished in his 46 years – all the power and prestige - Kevin Jennings should be done rebelling against his Southern Baptist upbringing.  Yet I fear that he, like legions of emotionally-stunted Bush bashers, may be just another gay man who can’t let go of his anger at mommy and daddy – and God - yet can’t stop stubbornly yearning for their absolute approval.

Newsflash: 100% of the world is never going to love you.  Isn’t it enough that some people do – and that the entire mainstream media’s got your back?  Sooner or later, you have to fess up to the fact that Utopian notions of ”equality” don’t mesh with actual human capability.  Nor do they bring happiness.  Rather, it’s our differences that make us interesting - and our ability to accept them that make us strong. 

In four fast decades, gay and lesbian Americans have gone from being shadow people afraid to speak out to the absolute monarchs of the popular culture.  If you don’t believe me, just look at Rachel Maddow.  (And we wonder why the rest of the world still hates us.)  What worked for the gay vanguard of the 1970s doesn’t work anymore, not in colorful, mixed-up, religious/progressive America - where most companies now offer same-sex benefits and law enforcement workers must undergo extensive, mandatory sensitivity training. 

Did we learn nothing from Queer Eye for the Straight Guy? 

It’s high time that gays changed their strategy and started thinking of themselves not as some kind of LGBT Special Victims Unit, but first and foremost as Americans.  We’ve been given so much, the ball’s in our court to reach across the proverbial aisle (as The One is so fond of saying), and not just demand our worth – but prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

It’s called give and take (as opposed to just take).

Yes, there are still old-time anti-sodomy laws on the books in many states - making America, in theory, the bigoted backwater of intolerance that the grievance-mongers (D) love (because it keeps them in power).  But in day-to-day reality, gay life in the USA is full of possibility, and palpable hope.

With our failing dollar, our PC-handicapped President – and a globe full of ruthless, homophobic, homicidal totalitarian enemies - now more than ever, we who live in this massive melting pot of honest-to-God diversity need to stick together.  As the Democrats like to say, do it “for the children” – so that future generations of Lolitas and Lolitos can live, freely, without having to look for love in bus station toilets.

Oh, one last thing: why do we need a “Safe School Czar” again?

By seeking to enlist the private sector in lobbying for the President’s agenda, the alleged conduct may have violated the Anti-Lobbying Act (18 U.S.C. §1913), which as Ben Shapiro pointed out in a previous piece, explicitly provides:

No part of the money appropriated by any enactment of Congress shall, in the absence of express authorization by Congress, be used directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service, advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed or written matter, or other device, intended or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress, a jurisdiction, or an official of any government, to favor, adopt, or oppose by vote or otherwise, any legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriation, whether before or after the introduction of any bill, measure or resolution proposing such legislation, law, ratification, policy or appropriation.

The Anti-Lobbying Act, according to government handbooks, prevents government employees from engaging in “substantial ‘grass roots’ lobbying campaigns … expressly urging individuals to contact government officials in support of or opposition to legislation …. Provid[ing] administrative support for lobbing activities of private organizations”

It is important to note that 18 U.S.C. §1913 only applies to federal officers or employees and not to the private recipients of federal grants, contracts or other federal disbursements.  Thus, while the artists who responded to the NEA’s request for political help may not have violated this particular provision of federal law, Yosi Sergant, who was apparently the main person behind the NEA phone call, and other members of the White House staff who were involved in the May 12 meeting at the White House, may very well have violated §1913.  Those staffers included “people very close to the President” according to Mike Strautmanis, Chief of Staff for the Office of Public Engagement.  Punishment for such a violation can be severe – a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each violation.

The behavior of these administration officials may have also violated 18 U.S.C. § 607, which prohibits anyone from promising “any employment, position, contract, or other benefit derived in whole or in part from an Act of Congress, as consideration, favor, or reward for past or future political activity.”   Ben Shapiro’s article relates that Mario Garcia Durham, the Director of Presenting for the NEA, told the gathered artists at the White House meeting that the “government and its policies should be shaped by participants’ voices in connection with the NEA,” a pretty direct statement that the NEA considers its mission to be ensuring the president’s policies are being supported by its constituency – which are the artists who get its grants.

Whether or not the conduct of NEA and White House officials violates the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. §7324) hinges on how broadly the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), which has jurisdiction over Hatch Act violations, construes “political activity” and who specifically was involved in these calls and meetings.   In general terms, the Hatch Act prohibits all federal employees (except for the President and the Vice President) from engaging in “political activity” in the workplace.  While certain federal officials, such as some assistants to the President and some in Senate confirmable positions, are bound by the Hatch Act, they are exempt from the prohibition on engaging in political activity.  So who was involved in the alleged conduct is the first question.  

The second question goes to the underlying conduct.  “Political activity” is defined as activities that are “directed toward the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group.”   That phrase has historically meant activities that were oriented towards campaigns or elections as opposed to simply political in the legislative sense, and the underlying intent is important.  As an example, the Bush Administration came under OSC scrutiny regarding briefings that were held in federal buildings that analyzed the political landscape in the run up to the 2004 and 2006 election cycles.  In this case, the alleged conduct appears to be even more forward looking – not rooted in an upcoming election cycle per se, but leveraging past campaign resources to promote a legislative agenda that may have an electoral benefit down the road.  It would be a much easier analysis if comments were made about the 2010 cycle or about the need to help out in vulnerable member districts.

 In the era of the permanent campaign – and the references to past support by the artists that apparently occurred on both the phone call and at the White House meeting – it remains to be seen if such conduct could be attributed to future and potential campaigns. On the other hand, the Hatch Act also prohibits soliciting or discouraging political activity by anyone with business before a federal agency – and there is no question that the artists the NEA was talking to had business (grants) before the NEA.  The issue again is whether the NEA was soliciting political activity.

Another interesting side point is that historically – and in some cases problematically – so called “political activity” by the White House has been within the purview of the White House Office of Political Affairs.  That office has not been without controversy.  Senator John McCain pledged to eliminate it during the 2008 campaign and Congressman Henry Waxman has also called for its abolishment.  But shortly after the election, President-Elect Obama announced that he would keep that  office although it has been relatively quiet over the last eight months.  The political conduct with the arts community seemed to come out of the White House Office of Public Engagement.  So it would seem that the desire to push a political agenda has drifted into other White House offices. 

But the ultimate question is whether the White House Counsel, the Office of Special Counsel or the Justice Department determines there is  enough evidence from the NEA telephone call and the meeting at the White House to form the basis of an investigation into the actions of White House and NEA staff.  That will serve as the ultimate indication as to whether this administration represents the promised new era of accountability or simply more politics as usual.

Over the past few years, throughout this country I have heard the same thing from audiences over and over, “Why doesn’t Hollywood make the kind of movies that we want to see? Why don’t movies represent our values?” 

This is an outstanding opportunity for lessons learned. To everyone outside of this community, I implore you to take a long and hard look at the people who are standing up for Roman Polanski. The stars. The studio heads. Many of these people are the powers that be who green-light projects. These are the people that we pitch to. These are the people who decide whether or not our films get distribution. These are the people who decide what product should be available to you and your children.

Hollywood is the voice of popular American culture. Control Hollywood and you can steer the direction of the country. 

Roman Polanski is a talented director. He has many friends who do not want to see him go to prison. He has many friends that do not want the eye of judgment to be turned on them. 

Let’s put the workplace, friendship, history and the passage of time away for just a moment and look at the facts: 

At age 43, Roman Polanski drugged a 13 year old girl. He plied her with alcohol and then he sodomized her. She was 13. She was a child. He was an adult, a powerful Hollywood player. She was in grade school. After confessing his crime, he ran away. 

She was 13! 

If you cannot look at this and say that this is wrong, if you cannot recognize an act of rape and pedophilia when you see one, then I submit that you have not lost your moral compass, you never had one. 

I believe the rule of law needs to apply to all Americans equally. I do not support vigilante activity. But if Mr. Polanski had done that to my daughter, and had I found him first, I do not know that I could have guaranteed his safety. I do not know a father among my friends and family that does not feel the same. 

Yes, I am probably shooting my career in the foot, again, by writing this article, but if we say nothing, then we are complicit in the perversion.

Edmund Burke wrote, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

How about it Hollywood? Do we still have a few good men? Are there any other fathers out there?  Has this town completely forgotten who we are? 

We are Americans? We are supposed to stand for something. We are supposed to lead by example. How can we face the threat of Sharia and say that abusing women, killing gay people and marrying prepubescent girls is wrong, if we do not protect our own children. 

Where are we headed as a nation, as a culture, if we do not make a stand?

More than two years before an ersatz pimp and prostitute raised troubling questions about Acorn Housing Corp.’s financial advice, Louisiana officials criticized the organization’s bookkeeping as it denied the group tens of thousands of dollars from a potential $1.5 million state contract.

The office overseeing the contract recommended against rehiring Acorn Housing in part because it couldn’t document its work.  The contract was designed to inform low-income residents about the Road Home program and help them apply for post-hurricane benefits.

A much smaller $53,000 contract that Acorn Community Land Association had with the state attorney general’s office also was criticized for thin financial justification, though the group got its full payment and was recommended for future work. The contract was to tell hurricane victims of non-discriminatory housing policies as they sought temporary rentals.

In both contracts, the state files contain promotional materials extolling the virtues of paying for an ACORN membership – a solicitation expressly forbidden under the contracts.

“If you are not rich, you need to join your ACORN community group and work on the problems affecting you,” reads one flier in the attorney general’s file.

Several governors, including Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal, have frozen payments to ACORN or its hundreds of affiliated groups. The state has no current contracts, but records revealed the two expired contracts that paid the organizations more than $700,000.

ACORN officials did not respond to requests for comment for this story.

In the larger of the two state contracts, Acorn Housing was paid $671,000. However, it asked for much more: $801,000.

In the final evaluation of the contract, the state said Acorn Housing achieved the goal of reaching some of the targeted potential Road Home applicants, but it recommended that the state not rehire Acorn Housing.

That’s mainly because Acorn Housing kept lousy records, said Belinda Kennedy, who monitored the contract for the state’s Office of Community Development.

In the end, she rated Acorn Housing as being in “marginal compliance” with the state contract.

“There were items they were billing that we couldn’t account for,” she said in an interview this week.

Overall, the state said the invoices on file in the Acorn Housing office didn’t always match what was submitted to the state, some travel expenses couldn’t be confirmed or justified, and that the hours worked by employees weren’t always properly billed.

The final review of the contract said that Acorn Housing worked face-to-face with 629 households and another 159 over the phone in the 10 months between December 2006 and September 2007. Its subcontractor, working in rural western Louisiana parishes more affected by Hurricane Rita, reached more people, for a total of 2,099 households served by the contract.

Kennedy worked with Acorn Housing officials to try to clear up the bookkeeping problems, visiting the New Orleans office four months after the contract ended. She said she encouraged agency officials to work to justify some of the questionable billing.

 “We never heard back from them,” Kennedy said.

More background on this story can be found here.

Last year Miramax released “Doubt,” a high-profile piece of Oscar-bait starring Academy Award winners’ Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffman. Streep plays a puritanical nun on a moral crusade to expose a Priest (Hoffman) who she believes is sexually abusing a 12 year-old boy. Both characters are portrayed as unsympathetic (especially Streep’s) but in just a couple scenes the boy’s working-class mother (Mrs. Miller, played by Viola Davis) is established as the moral center of the film – the only one truly interested in the welfare of her child. When Mrs. Miller’s informed that her son’s being molested, the Moral Center Of The Film responds that her 12 year-old boy is gay, a social outcast, and beaten regularly by his homophobic father … so maybe the best option for him is a sexual relationship with a forty-something child predator.

Starring Aaron Eckhart, Maria Bello, and written and directed by Oscar-winner Alan Ball, last year’s “Towelhead” is a film Roman Polanski might have seen many, many times while wearing a rain coat. The protagonist is 13 year-old Jasira (played by the then barely eighteen Summer Bishil) and the story surrounds her sexual abuse at the hands of a number of men, including Eckhart’s Gulf War Vet. Rather than the repeated abuse damaging the young girl, the filmmaker portrays the rapes and molestations as a healthy and sexually liberating experience. More than once the audience is “treated” to lingering shots of Jasira’s bare legs as she discovers the joys of the orgasm while masturbating to photographs of naked women.

Kate Winslet won last year’s Best Actress Oscar for her role in “The Reader,” in which she plays a “sympathetic” Nazi guilty of mass murder who seduces and then engages in a steamy sexual affair with a 15 year-old boy. The sex scenes between this mature woman and a child lean heavily on the erotic, as opposed to the creepy. (The “sympathetic Nazi” issue we’ll save for another post.)

Yes, in just one year, Hollywood released three films that in one way or another portrayed sex with children as potentially healthy or their molester as sympathetic. And these aren’t fringe, indie films either. All three involve name stars and Oscar winners.

Unfortunately, this is not a conspiracy. Hollywood deviants never gathered together to plan for a slate of films aimed at a drip-drip campaign designed to dull our moral outrage towards the most heinous crime imaginable. It’s worse than that. We’re up against a culture; the same culture that can’t quite grasp why a child rapist should have to serve prison time for a crime he’s confessed to.

And this is how cinematic propaganda works. Whether the filmmaker’s motivations are good or evil, the idea is to get decent and thoughtful people to start second guessing themselves as they’re enveloped in the dark and held captive by the powerful sound and fury of the moving picture. First we’re led to identify and sympathize with a particular character, then that character does something designed to challenge our belief structure. This can range from, “If John Wayne opposes racism, maybe I should,” to, “Well, if a loving mother is okay with it, maybe I need to get a little more nuanced and tolerant about this whole child-rape thing.”

On its face, that may sound laughable, and maybe it is, but that doesn’t mean our eyes are lying to us. Last year merely topped off a campaign targeted at our children that began some time ago.

In 2006’s “Notes on a Scandal,” Academy Award winner Cate Blanchett plays a school teacher engaged in a steamy sexual affair with one of her students. Like “The Reader,” the sex scenes between a mature woman and her student strive for the erotic and never once does the story stop to examine how such a destructive affair might psychologically affect a teen-aged boy. That same year, in “Little Children,” Jackie Earle Haley was Oscar-nominated for his support work as a molester just released from prison who’s the victim of that favorite Hollywood whipping boy, suburban hypocrisy. Just two years earlier, Kevin Bacon’s heroic molester in “The Woodsman” not only saves the day and wins the pretty girl, but in his valiant struggle to “reform” he’s presented as a kind of “civil rights” metaphor as policemen and “intolerant” co-workers torment him.

The award for Most Unsettling, however, must go to 2004’s “Birth,” where Academy Award winner Nicole Kidman stars as a widow convinced her dead husband has returned in the form of a 10 year-old boy. If watching a near-forty year-old woman exchange longing looks with a little kid isn’t creepy enough, wait till they end up naked in a bathtub together.

Whether it’s true or not that seventy-five years ago Clark Gable nearly bankrupted the t-shirt industry by not wearing one in “It Happened One Night,” what is true is that billions of dollars are spent annually by advertisers convinced sound and images can alter behavior. You’d have to be a fool to make an argument against the persuasive powers of moving images, but those fools do exist. Most of them are liars.

The Hollywood Left is many things but they’re not fools and they fully understand the power of the medium under their control. Certainly, damning everyone who works in the entertainment world would be unfair, but this is also a culture where only a handful of “names” were willing to speak out against the pro-Polanski movement – including many Leftists who have never been shy about speaking out in the past.

The film industry has a history to be proud of when it comes to opposing racism, homophobia and anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, the most vocal from this current crop seem all too ready to tarnish that legacy as they target our children for profit and worse.

Is it too much to ask of the Hollywood Left that they show as much intolerance towards the sexualization of young children as they do towards conservatives and Christians?

That question has already been answered.

Last year Miramax released “Doubt,” a high-profile piece of Oscar-bait starring Academy Award winners’ Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffman. Streep plays a puritanical nun on a moral crusade to expose a Priest (Hoffman) who she believes is sexually abusing a 12 year-old boy. Both characters are portrayed as unsympathetic (especially Streep’s) but in just a couple scenes the boy’s working-class mother (Mrs. Miller, played by Viola Davis) is established as the moral center of the film – the only one truly interested in the welfare of her child. When Mrs. Miller’s informed that her son’s being molested, the Moral Center Of The Film responds that her 12 year-old boy is gay, a social outcast, and beaten regularly by his homophobic father … so maybe the best option for him is a sexual relationship with a forty-something child predator.

Starring Aaron Eckhart, Maria Bello, and written and directed by Oscar-winner Alan Ball, last year’s “Towelhead” is a film Roman Polanski might have seen many, many times while wearing a rain coat. The protagonist is 13 year-old Jasira (played by the then barely eighteen Summer Bishil) and the story surrounds her sexual abuse at the hands of a number of men, including Eckhart’s Gulf War Vet. Rather than the repeated abuse damaging the young girl, the filmmaker portrays the rapes and molestations as a healthy and sexually liberating experience. More than once the audience is “treated” to lingering shots of Jasira’s bare legs as she discovers the joys of the orgasm while masturbating to photographs of naked women.

Kate Winslet won last year’s Best Actress Oscar for her role in “The Reader,” in which she plays a “sympathetic” Nazi guilty of mass murder who seduces and then engages in a steamy sexual affair with a 15 year-old boy. The sex scenes between this mature woman and a child lean heavily on the erotic, as opposed to the creepy. (The “sympathetic Nazi” issue we’ll save for another post.)

Yes, in just one year, Hollywood released three films that in one way or another portrayed sex with children as potentially healthy or their molester as sympathetic. And these aren’t fringe, indie films either. All three involve name stars and Oscar winners.

Unfortunately, this is not a conspiracy. Hollywood deviants never gathered together to plan for a slate of films aimed at a drip-drip campaign designed to dull our moral outrage towards the most heinous crime imaginable. It’s worse than that. We’re up against a culture; the same culture that can’t quite grasp why a child rapist should have to serve prison time for a crime he’s confessed to.

And this is how cinematic propaganda works. Whether the filmmaker’s motivations are good or evil, the idea is to get decent and thoughtful people to start second guessing themselves as they’re enveloped in the dark and held captive by the powerful sound and fury of the moving picture. First we’re led to identify and sympathize with a particular character, then that character does something designed to challenge our belief structure. This can range from, “If John Wayne opposes racism, maybe I should,” to, “Well, if a loving mother is okay with it, maybe I need to get a little more nuanced and tolerant about this whole child-rape thing.”

On its face, that may sound laughable, and maybe it is, but that doesn’t mean our eyes are lying to us. Last year merely topped off a campaign targeted at our children that began some time ago.

In 2006’s “Notes on a Scandal,” Academy Award winner Cate Blanchett plays a school teacher engaged in a steamy sexual affair with one of her students. Like “The Reader,” the sex scenes between a mature woman and her student strive for the erotic and never once does the story stop to examine how such a destructive affair might psychologically affect a teen-aged boy. That same year, in “Little Children,” Jackie Earle Haley was Oscar-nominated for his support work as a molester just released from prison who’s the victim of that favorite Hollywood whipping boy, suburban hypocrisy. Just two years earlier, Kevin Bacon’s heroic molester in “The Woodsman” not only saves the day and wins the pretty girl, but in his valiant struggle to “reform” he’s presented as a kind of “civil rights” metaphor as policemen and “intolerant” co-workers torment him.

The award for Most Unsettling, however, must go to 2004’s “Birth,” where Academy Award winner Nicole Kidman stars as a widow convinced her dead husband has returned in the form of a 10 year-old boy. If watching a near-forty year-old woman exchange longing looks with a little kid isn’t creepy enough, wait till they end up naked in a bathtub together.

Whether it’s true or not that seventy-five years ago Clark Gable nearly bankrupted the t-shirt industry by not wearing one in “It Happened One Night,” what is true is that billions of dollars are spent annually by advertisers convinced sound and images can alter behavior. You’d have to be a fool to make an argument against the persuasive powers of moving images, but those fools do exist. Most of them are liars.

The Hollywood Left is many things but they’re not fools and they fully understand the power of the medium under their control. Certainly, damning everyone who works in the entertainment world would be unfair, but this is also a culture where only a handful of “names” were willing to speak out against the pro-Polanski movement – including many Leftists who have never been shy about speaking out in the past.

The film industry has a history to be proud of when it comes to opposing racism, homophobia and anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, the most vocal from this current crop seem all too ready to tarnish that legacy as they target our children for profit and worse.

Is it too much to ask of the Hollywood Left that they show as much intolerance towards the sexualization of young children as they do towards conservatives and Christians?

That question has already been answered.