This isn’t the first time they’ve attempted such legislation, either. Senator Stanley and Rep. John Deberry were the same people who filed a more strictly anti-gay adoption bill last year, which failed. They also had a similar bill which would prevent unmarried opposite-sex couples from adopting. It foundered as well. This new bill is a combination of both of the previous bills.

Apparently, not only do bad ideas come from the same legislators, but the same bad ideas come from the same legislators. If it doesn’t pass the first time, then try, try, again. One doesn’t have to stretch the imagination too far to observe the visceral and sensitive nature of same-sex relationships and homosexuality in general. Just what do they hope to accomplish?

They have failed to establish — at any level — whether or not such bills are even needed. Those on both sides of the issue will come down with passionate and strong opinions. Sometimes the right questions aren’t asked. Facts, however, are often left in the sidelines.

One such example of sidelining facts for the sake of opinions was seen this past week when Tara Greene, a Democrat from Sumner County, was to join a scheduled appointment with her state senator, Diane Black (R-Gallatin). She was to meet with Senator Black on Advancing Equality Day on the Hill, sponsored by the Tennessee Equality Project. The day was set aside for members of TEP and affected constituents to visit with state legislators and discuss issues important to the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community.

Greene was informed the night before their appointment that Senator Black had abruptly canceled the meeting. When asked, Black confirmed that she did indeed cancel the meeting which was to include discussion about Sen. Stanley’s adoption bill. In an email, Black wrote:

“This is a question of what is best for the child who is in the state’s custody and I will not be moved from my position that a child has a better chance of growing up healthy in a traditional home with a mother and a father. Those who have already had a tough break in life, like those children in state custody, should have every opportunity possible to be placed in an optimal family setting. The traditional nuclear family is still that setting.”

She said she did meet with the group briefly despite the cancellation, and that they “agreed to disagree.”

The account was told a little differently by Greene, who explained that she and her group arrived at Black’s office at the scheduled time despite Black’s cancellation, and that Black met with them for five minutes. Black allegedly insisted that they “agree to disagree” before relenting to the brief meeting.

Unfortunately, many Tennesseans (and it seems, some legislators) are unaware of not only the process that adoptive parents must go through, but they’re equally unaware of the the highly-trained professionals who work with each of our children in state’s custody to help them be placed into safe, loving homes. Equally distressing is the fact that few activists on either side even bother to talk with people who are actually in the field.

When looking for specific numbers of adoption-ready children in the state of Tennessee, it was time to go straight to the source. Calista Doll, a Communications official with the state’s Department of Children’s Services, said that as of January 1, 2009, there are currently 7,683 children in the state’s custody. “Of those,” she said, “914 are in full guardianship…[with] 330 who do not have a permanent family identified.”

When asked if those numbers are similar to a month-by-month analysis, she indicated that the numbers do fluctuate but it’s “pretty consistent.” Doll also explained that “full guardianship” means that the birth parents no longer have any legal claim to the child.

Hard fact number one: there’s already a shortage of single adults and couples who are willing to adopt children. As of January 1st, there are over three hundred children who are still waiting just to be considered by a prospective parent or parents to be adopted. Senators Black and Stanley, along with Rep. DeBerry want to actually reduce the numbers of parents who are considered to adopt children. Good luck with explaining that to the kids who are left to bouncing around group homes and foster care.

First and foremost, it’s the children that would be affected by a potential law that would prevent them from being adopted by those who are in cohabiting relationships (same- or opposite-sex). To hear it told by those who advocate for such asinine laws, one would think that children are dispensed to parents like a hamburger through a drive through window with diapers in tow. In fact, quite the opposite is true.

Hard fact number two: Tennessee already has a very restrictive adoption policy in place. To be even considered as an adoptive parent, a single adult or couple must go through an arduous and time-consuming process.

They must first complete a parent preparation class called “PATH” — Parents as Tender Healers. PATH, according to the DCS website, is a 30-hour education and self-assessment process:

“It explores communications styles. It helps families understand the feelings of grief and the loss that children can experience. It helps identify family strengths. The process also helps adults identify the child they feel that they can most successfully parent.”

Sandy Bradley, a social worker in Clarksville, explained that PATH is a one night per week class that really helps singles and couples be properly prepared to bring foster children into their homes.

Bradley said that the next step is to have a home study, which involves looking into their financial status, every room of the home, living conditions, and interviewing character witnesses and family members.

Along with the home study, a thorough background check is conducted, which was described by Doll, and confirmed by Bradley, as a “full FBI investigation.” The background check goes through credit, criminal, and past associations. In most cases, even a misdemeanor can prevent a couple or individual from fostering. A drug test is also conducted. All adults over 18 who live in the household must undergo similar background checks.

Finally, the family must have served as a foster parent for six months before adoption can be considered. “The social worker has the most weight on how a child is placed in a home,” Bradley said. She explained that each child is matched with the home that is best for that child. “There’s a local same-sex couple that has two beautiful biracial babies, and they’re thriving.”

Hard fact number three: the authors and supporters of this bill clearly believe that the state is better equipped to care for children than loving, nurturing parents who happen to be unmarried or gay.

I’ll never imagine what Senator Stanley and Rep. DeBerry hope to accomplish, especially knowing that these trained professionals do all they can to ensure that children are placed in the best homes. When asked if there was a shortage of parents to adopt, Bradley answered emphatically. “Absolutely. Especially for older children.”

Why do some members of our state’s legislature want to add to an already difficult adoption process, and keep more children in state custody? Clearly, they ignore the very clear reality that our DCS and social workers are already tasked with this thankless task, and it’s completely absurd to make it even more difficult.

State Senator Tim Barnes and District 67 Representative Joe Pitts have already confirmed that they will not support this bill. The bill, HB 0605/*SB 0078, should be completely and soundly rejected.

Republicans have been in power in the Tennessee State Legislature for mere weeks, and already they’ve set their crosshairs on the gay and lesbian community once again. Two years ago, Tennessee was the battleground for “marriage protection amendment” to the state’s constitution which prevents gay and lesbian couples from marrying.

That amendment passed in 2006 by more than 80 per cent of the vote. This time, it’s adoption rights.

A new bill, SB 0078, filed by State Senator Paul Stanley (R-Memphis) would dictate: “a minor may not be adopted if the individual seeking to adopt is cohabiting outside of a marriage that is valid under the constitution and laws of this state.”

Similar legislation failed in 2006, but unlike that bill, the new bill isn’t an exclusively anti-gay legislation. To be fair, Stanley decided he should stick it to unmarried straight couples as well. According to the official summary:

This bill prohibits certain individuals from adopting a minor child. Under this bill, any individual who is living with another person and is involved in a sexual relationship with that person (”cohabiting”) outside of a marriage that is valid under the constitution would not be allowed to adopt a minor child. This bill states that it would apply to cohabiting opposite-sex and same-sex individuals.

The bill would not affect single adults who live alone.

The Urban Institute, a non-partisan think tank in Washington, D.C. compiled a comprehensive study in March of 2007 regarding adoption by families with gay and lesbian couples. It includes state-by-state data that offers some startling numbers.

In Tennessee, there are 30,980 adopted children, with 384 of those children having been adopted by same-sex couples, making it 28th out of 51 in the number of children in gay adoptions. The study reveals that Same-sex couples are more likely to adopt children with physical differences, and are more likely to adopt minority children.

Nationwide, more than two million gay and lesbian couples are interested in adopting. At present, an estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.

The Urban study also researched fostering, which is also relevant to the discussion. More than 14,000 children in foster care are estimated to be living with gay and lesbian parents nationwide. Of foster children with non-kin families, 44% are living with couples who aren’t married heterosexuals. In fact, 30% of the children are with single heterosexuals, and 8% are with unmarried heterosexual couples.

But how would that relate to Tennessee, should Senator Stanley decide to go after foster parenting too? Right now, there are between 198 to 297 children in Tennessee which are in foster care under gay parents. If those gay parents were to be taken off the foster parenting list, nearly 300 children would be put back into state custody, which would cost the state between $1.5 Million to $2.3 Million each year. Put simply, the notion of denying gay or unmarried couples the ability to adopt is an expensive one.

Several arguments have been presented in an attempt to submit legitimate reasons to deny adoption by same-sex couples, many of which are anecdotal at best:

• “Children are better off with one father and one mother.” Whether or not this is true, it is entirely irrelevant to issues of adoption. Every state allows adoption by single adults. Denying adoption by same-sex or cohabiting couples is ridiculous, especially when a single adult would seemingly – and likely – eventually form a relationship that may every well result in cohabiting.
• “Gay children shouldn’t be allowed to adopt because the statistics show that they’re likely to be child molesters.” This is a popular, if not mean-spirited myth. However, it IS a myth. In fact, a 1998 study Journal of the American Medical Association, only about 2% of the convicted child molesters say they are gay (that’s lower than the total national average of gay men, by the way). What gets a bit dodgy in its application is the fact that adult men are more likely to molest male children. This is due to the fact that they’re more likely to have unsupervised access to male children. Nearly all child molesters identify as straight, and many are married and in roles that allow direct access to their victims. Quite simply, there is simply no established connection between pedophilia and adult male homosexual orientation.
• “Children raised by gay parents will turn gay.” Just like children raised by straight parents always turn out straight?
• “It’s morally wrong to cohabit.” Yes, many people believe this due to religious conviction, but religion does not dictate public policy in the United States. Sorry.

The reality is that there is an entire network of highly-trained professionals who are specifically suited to help decide what is best for each individual child. In January 2002, the Child Welfare League of America made a similar observation:

The CWLA’s Standards of Excellence for Adoption Services state, “Applicants should be assessed on the basis of their abilities to successfully parent a child needing family membership and not on their race, ethnicity or culture, income, age, marital status, religion, appearance, differing lifestyles, or sexual orientation.” Further, applicants for adoption should be accepted “on the basis of an individual assessment of their capacity to understand and meet the needs of a particular available child at the point of adoption and in the future.”

The task handed to social workers, state agencies, and judges is to determine what is a suitable home for a child in the public child welfare system. But, as (Joan Heifetz) Hollinger points out, “there are no tests of suitability. Where is the standard? Where is the evidence that certain parents do better?”

In other words, each adoption is handled on a case-by-case basis. Removing hundreds of couples from even being considered is a disservice to not only those couples, but the children they would have otherwise been able to adopt.

In April 2001, the American Sociological Review published an article by Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz of the University of Southern California. The article, which reported the findings of an examination of 21 studies on gay parenting found that the studies shared a common theme: gay parents do just fine. More specifically:

Stacey and Biblarz also found that the children of homosexual parents show no difference in levels of self-esteem, anxiety, depression, behavior problems, or social performance, but do show a higher level of affection, responsiveness, and concern for younger children and “seem to exhibit impressive psychological strength.”

Gay parents were found to be more likely to equally share child care and household duties, and the children of gay partners reported closer relationships to the parent who was not their primary caregiver than did the children of heterosexual couples. “These findings imply that lesbian coparents may enjoy greater parental compatibility and achieve particularly high quality parenting skills, which may help explain the striking findings on parent-child relationships.”

But the Child Welfare League of America isn’t the only organization which supports adoption by gay couples. They are joined by:

• The National Association of Social Workers
• The American Psychiatric Association
• The American Academy of Pediatrics

When we consider all of these facts, it becomes clear that denying same-sex couples and unmarried opposite-sex couples the right to even be considered from adopting, the only people who are truly hurt are the children. I’m astonished that Sen. Stanley and other conservatives would rather attack his skewed vision of “morality” instead of letting the our Department of Children’s Services do their job.

Who do our legislators think they are, that they believe that they are more qualified than the thousands of social workers, judges, and other professionals who work to ensure the best possible home for our children? Senator Stanley should be utterly ashamed that he filed this bill, and it should be soundly and completely rejected by all of his peers.

Our state — and our children — deserve far better.

For the rest of us, though, this film represents everything that’s not only wrong with modern disaster films, but with American culture itself. DTESS clearly has a lofty series of goals it hopes to accomplish, yet achieves nothing more than one abject failure after another. It’s so bad that I found myself pulling my hair out, wondering why the hell I even bothered.

Surprisingly, very little of the blame can be squared against Keanu Reeves, who plays essentially the same character he’s done for the last dozen or so films. Distant and aloof? Check. Emotionless? Check. Superhero powers? Check. Acting ability? None needed. Perfect! He seems to be drawn to roles that have a not-so-subtle messianic nature to them – to the point that I’m beginning to wonder if he has a certain ego issue. Look for that oh-so-obvious walking on water. Yeah. He’s here to save the earth, but not the people on it. Hallelujah.

In this film, Klaatu (Reeves) comes to earth to warn humanity of its evil and destructive ways, and only Helen Benson (Jennifer Connelly) and her stepson (Jaden Smith) stand in the way of Klaatu and his plan to wipe out humanity. Before he can say anything, he’s shot, comes back to life, and then subjected to interrogation under the watchful and suspicious eyes of Defense Secretary Regina Jackson (Kathy Bates).

Since the comparisons to the far-superior original are all-too obvious, it’s important that we understand just how seriously this film missed a classic opportunity of speaking out against some of the greatest political evils in our day. In 1951, the original DTESS was birthed during the height of the McCarthy era, and the darkest days of the cold war. Americans were conditioned to fear anything remotely communist, and the late director Robert Wise crafted a story that spoke in volumes against not only the threat of nuclear annihilation, but against the reigning communist hysteria of the day.

Not so with the 2008 DTESS. The US is at the precipice of a potential slide toward a similar xenophobic mania (where instead of communism, we have a fear of anything that isn’t “normal:” Hispanics, Homosexuals, Muslims, Democrats, Liberals, you name it). Many of us are on edge after a series of horrifying terrorist attacks over the last few years, and are told we have to be vigilant against an enemy whose face we many never really know.

As this year’s election has shown, we are a country that is more divided than we’ve been in the last sixty years. Even with a near limitless canvas of emotional and political fodder available, none of these facts ever even come to the mind of scriptwriter David Scarpa. Instead of being our own worst enemy, we’re put at the brink of extinction because we’re slowly killing the environment.

Yeah, you read that right. This film is little more than a collective orgasmic fantasy for the entire environmentalist movement.  Here, we have an alien force that’s about to wipe out humanity – to save the earth from humanity. It’s so separated from any semblance of reality that there’s no possibility of reprieve – from the script or from the story.

It’s as if Scott Derrickson, the film’s director, saw this incredibly inept script as a great way to update the “big bad robot” from the original. There was clearly no coherent thought of whether or not there should be any MESSAGE to this film, but after all, who wants to be taught anything these days?

If there’s anything at all to praise in the film, the visuals are what we’ve come to expect in today’s blockbusters, and there’s a certain glee we all have when we see major cities leveled as only CGI can deliver. However, there’s just something about how our world comes to the brink of destruction. Possibly the only person who’s really worth watching is Jaden Smith, who clearly got his acting chops from both of his parents (Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith). Quite simply, he’s brilliant, and is a breath of fresh air in an otherwise hopeless film.

Speaking of fresh air, when the giant robot (yeah, here’s an uncharacteristic-for-me spoiler because it’s just THAT bad) turns into a series of microscopic robotic baddies, it forms a destructive cloud that wipes away everything in its path. I don’t know if this would be called “Big Bad Robot Flatulence,” but it sure seems like cinematic flatulence to me. After all, it literally begins by slowly peeling away layers of glass. It’s as if the great big film deity in the sky said to its audience, “Come here and pull my finger.” Like the bored audience we are, we pull that imaginary finger, only to be be bombarded with a film that should never have been made, let alone released.

When I say that this film completely ignores the grit of the original, and that it misses the point entirely, I can think of no finer example than that of the character of Professor Barnhardt (John Cleese). Cleese’s character is little more than a throwaway scene that only sets up another chase scene. It’s worth pointing out that his predecessor in the original film was Sam Jaffe, whose scene nearly ended up on the cutting room floor.

The cause for this potential omission? Jaffe was blacklisted, and accused of being a communist. The producers reluctantly decided to leave the scene and the actor in the film because he and his character were so essential to the story.  Because he was labeled a possible communist, Jaffe wouldn’t be in another film again until the late 1950s.

How tragically ironic that the new Barnhardt scene could have easily been discarded. Hell, the whole movie could have been discarded, and we would have been saved the temptation to pull the big bad robot’s finger. But then, there are those among us who have to pull just to see what happens. For everyone else: you have been warned.

For those who aren’t familiar with the story, Harvey Milk was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1977, and led the gay rights movement in that city. He was a business owner, running a small camera store in the Castro district, which is still a major American gay mecca. He served in his post for eleven months before being gunned down by a fellow former Supervisor who had just killed San Francisco Mayor George Moscone moments earlier.

The film succeeds on many levels, most notably with Penn’s performance. He is so absorbed by the character, that it’s easy to forget that we’re watching an actor, not the real man. What’s more, the supporting actors were all at their best, each one taking on a special role in the film.

As the opening credits rolled, the audience is reminded — or introduced — to the modern history of the gay rights struggles in the 20th century. Not too long before the gay pride parades and festivals was a time when the only place gay men could gather was in bars or clubs, and were always at risk of being invaded by police. “Offenders” would be dragged off in paddy wagons en masse. Later, it would be Anita Bryant and her “Save the Children” group that would be the face of the enemy of the gay rights movement, who spread her vitriol with a smile and a song.

After this onslaught montage of the images of the tyrannical majority, we’re introduced to Milk and his new boyfriend Scott Smith (Spider-Man’s James Franco) as they make the decision to move to San Francisco. Penn clearly provides the shape and face of the film, but it’s Franco who provides the heart and soul. In the two men, you see a genuine relationship, one that’s rarely — if ever — shown on screen. They cook, they clean, and they had their struggles. Even after they parted, they remained friends. As bizarre (or disturbing) as some readers might find it, the chemistry between the two men is genuine.

Scott Smith (James Franco)j and Harvey Milk (Sean Penn) share a moment

The key points of the film, as would be expected, revolve around the many campaigns and political events in which Milk participated. His first race was in 1973, and met with a political cold shoulder, even from the gay community. It was then that Milk and Smith were both long-haired hippy types, but Milk’s leadership was becoming evident. Later, he learned to build alliances, including with the Teamsters union.

His decision to become a serious candidate in 1975 involved a number of major changes, including a haircut, suits, and a more clean-cut image overall. He quickly earned the respect and support of those around him, as well as those in organized labor. It’s during this time that the film shows his rise to leadership in the community.

Milk’s supporting cast is a diverse blend of rising stars and seasoned pros. Speed Racer’s Emile Hirsch fills the oversized glasses of Milk’s protégé and longtime gay activist Cleve Jones (Jones later conceived the AIDS Memorial Quilt), and Lucas Grabeel of High School Musical fame takes on the role of photographer Danny Nicoletta. Victor Garber (Titanic fans remember him as Thomas Andrews) portrays Milk’s greatest ally, Mayor Moscone. Finally, Josh Brolin (W.) fills the proud-yet-disturbed shoes of Dan White.

Harvey Milk after an impromptu gay rights march on June 7, 1977. Photo by J.M. Pritikin/Chicago

One key scene which showcases Milk’s leadership is an impromptu gay rights march after a critical election. The film places the march after a 1978 vote to repeal gay rights in Wichita, Kansas. The actual event, as photographed by J.M. Pritikin, actually took place earlier in June of 1977, after the election in Miami-Dade County. That vote struck down a gay rights ordinance in that city and was the result of the fever-pitch campaign by singer Anita Bryant.

While the film’s success is in its cast, script, and overall historical accuracy, the one drawback is its direction and composition. Director Gus Van Sant has put together a capable film, yet his own composition choices border on the jarringly irritating. A few scenes scenes are out of place, and some points of history, including the march after the Dade County election are casually changed for the sake of dramatic flow. This is the flaw of a great many biopics, and Milk is no exception.

Despite its flaws, Milk is clearly a film worth viewing; not only for the stellar performances of the cast, but for its bird’s-eye view of 1970’s gay rights history. It’s a pity that it was released after this year’s election, since it retells the struggle of another California voter initiative – proposition 6 – which would have called for the state to bar gays and lesbians from being teachers. Unlike this year’s proposition 8, a ban on gay marriage, that proposition failed dramatically.

Cleve Jones (Emile Hirsch) begins his long activist career

While this film is unquestionably about gay men, Van Sant wisely focused the story on the lives of the people and their work. Here, we see gay men portrayed as normal as we’ve yet to see on film. It’s a story about struggle, passion, frustration, and ultimately about tragedy. Clearly, it’s a film that reaches out to all audiences. Sadly, many in this area will pass it by, assuming it’s only for the gay community. It’s a film that tells the story of courage in the face of great opposition, something to which everyone can relate.

Just as Harvey Milk worked hard for all of the people in his city, Milk is reaching out to the rest of us. No matter what side of the closet you’re in, or even if you care about closets, it’s a story that’s worth telling. Its message of hope, genuine honesty, and integrity is what drove Harvey Milk, and is a driving force for those who still struggle for equality today.

Milk is currently playing in Nashville at the Regal Cinemas Green Hills 16 theatre.

Twilight

Since I haven’t read the book and I’m not a teen girl, I guess I’ll have to confess that I’m squarely in the third category of the intended target of the film. It’s a pity I didn’t like the film nearly as much as my partner, but I guess it’s more his kind of movie. Yes, plenty of girls and young women will drag their dates and boyfriends into the movie, but this is unquestionably a vampire-boy-chick-flick. Think Interview with the Vampire without Tom Cruise’s Lestat and throw in the “I’m not afraid to be close to a bloodthirsty predator” emo girl, and you’ve got Twilight.

What makes the film work is that it, like Troy, recognizes its target audience, and knows what they want: love story that has the sap oozing through each frame of the film, all-too-beautiful male stars who stir the hearts, plenty of unrequited passion, and enough tension to keep their interest. Throw in a few shirtless men and a good fight scene where one baddy vamp fights the good-guy vamp over the girl, and you have a fan-pleasing masterpiece. It’s too bad the rest of the audience isn’t all that interested.

Twilight is unapologetic in catering to its fans, and mixes in plenty of intrigue to set up for the damn-near inevitable sequel. In the film, we’re introduced to Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart), who moves to Forks, Washington to live with her dad after her mom remarries. Just as she’s settling into her new school and meeting new friends, she takes notice of the overly-broody (there’s that word again – notice a pattern here?) Cullen family, including bed-hair heartthrob Edward (Robert Pattinson from the fourth Harry Potter film).

Eventually, Edward reveals himself to be a vampire who only goes after animal blood instead of humans (think of it as tofu for vamps), so she falls for him. Plenty of dialogue of “but I’m a monster!” and “No, you’re not!” ensues, which gives way to some of the most frustrating bedroom scenes ever put to celluloid. “I can’t!” “Yes, you can!”

It’s a classic exploration of teen frustration and sexual desperation, leaving both characters and audience wanting the two lovers to just get it on and get it over with.

While Twilight is nowhere near the territory of a great film, it certainly isn’t a bad one. I was pleasantly surprised that minor characters weren’t disposed of as vampire food, and Michael Welch (Stargate SG-1 fans will remember him as the younger version of Richard Dean Anderson from one episode) steals every scene he’s in as Mike Newton, the silly jock who has the hots for Kristen.

Catherine Hardwicke, whose last major film was another pretty-boy gathering, Lords of Dogtown (2005), has clearly respected the source material and given Meyer’s novel a fair screen presentation. Twilight is a film that’s destined to rake in the cash, but leaves out almost half of the filmgoing audience from the first scene.

While Edward has been seventeen “for a while,” it’s obvious that nearly anyone who’s much older than seventeen may well be left behind in the film’s moody perpetual adolescence. But for those among us who still have a taste for the dramatic and a hope that we too will meet a powerful, bloodthirsty monster who can’t bear to lose control yet swoops in to save the day (and pull the dent out of the truck), then this is definitely the film to see.

Walt Disney’s Bolt fills the need for a fun family film over the Thanksgiving holiday perfectly, and manages to provide solid entertainment for young and old. Imagine a film that’s a mix of The Truman Show (1998), Underdog (2007), and a little bit of Cats & Dogs (2001), and you pretty much have the plot for this new pound of pixelated puppy pleasure.

Bolt, directed by the dual team of Byron Howard and Chris Williams, tells the story of the title pooch who lives in a world where he actually believes that he is a super-powered dog with a constantly endangered master named Penny (Miley Cyrus), a girl whose father is kidnapped by the deliciously evil Dr. Calico (love those evil kitty references, especially when they’re voiced by Malcolm McDowell).

In true Disney style, all of the animals can talk when they’re not around humans, so Bolt ( voiced by John Travolta) is able to share verbal jabs with his feline nemeses (who are in on the act — they love to taunt their co-star, even though it’s all a TV show).

Penny longs to share her real world with Bolt, but her agent (Diedrich Bader) won’t have any of it. He insists that Bolt lives in his imaginary world where he really has those wicked cool superpowers. No one, it seems, is willing to risk their hit show on the chance that Bolt will figure out that he is really just a regular ol’ dog.

When Penny is “kidnapped” on the show, leaving Bolt barking in frustration, the story begins a by-the-numbers, but effective journey where Bolt must discover not only the world around him, but the reality of his “powers” as well. He manages to have himself shipped to the corner of Broadway and 42nd street in New York City, which is a world as foreign as it is staggering to the naive star.

Along the way, he meets a few pigeons (a few of the brightest points of the film), who then lead him to their own nemesis, a lanky kitty terror named Mittens (Susie Essman). Bolt, convinced that she is in the evil gang run by Dr. Calico, strong-arms her into a U-Haul truck to begin the long trek across the states. Eventually, they’re joined by a big-mouthed, and even bigger-bellied hamster named Rhino (Mark Walton).

Bolt’s journey is not only to find his master, but also to find that he doesn’t really need superpowers to be a hero, culminating in a fiery climax where the danger is as real as his love for his favorite human.

While the story itself is a little simplistic and formulaic, Williams and co-writer Dan Fogelman have crafted a film that does reaches its target audience without talking down to them, and manages to keep adults entertained at the same time. Yes, it’s a good film, and even borders on “great,” just not quite.

One of the film’s strengths is that the 3D projection is stellar, and doesn’t treat the 3D as a gimmick, but allows it to enhance the storytelling. It’s one of the few times in recent years where the story does not rely on the 3D. If you have a chance to see the film in 3D, then don’t miss the opportunity.

Bolt does answer one telling question, though: What happens when Disney makes a film without Pixar? Well, here it is. Like Meet the Robinsons (2007), Bolt falls short of even Pixar’s worst films (but for the life of me, I can’t think of any of their movies that could be called average, let alone bad. It’s a little like saying that a round diamond is less glamorous than a faceted one). Suffice to say that it’s certainly no Pixar film, and lacks that magic touch that’s so often seen in films like Toy Story, Ratatouille, Wall-E and Monsters, Inc.

Suffice to say that Bolt is much better than Madagascar 2, and certainly provides a great time at the movies. Kids everywhere will enjoy it, and will rightfully find its place on DVD shelves all across the country in a few months. Until then, it’ll be a perfect excuse to make another trip to the megaplex this holiday season.

After discussing the what Dr. Rocheleau calls “the idea of human rights,” he will discuss some of the implications of a serious commitment to human rights for issues regarding the treatment of prisoners of war, and obligations to assist those in humanitarian crises. He will also address US immigration policy.

Dr. Rocheleau will also take questions on the topic.

During his 8-year tenure at Austin Peay, Dr. Rocheleau has taught specifically on continental philosophy, ethics, and political philosophy. He is currently teaching a graduate level course in the military history program on the ethics of war. He is the co-author of Rights and Wrongs in the College Classroom: Ethical Issues in Postsecondary Teaching. He lives in Clarksville with his wife and son.

The Clarksville Human Relations Commission is a volunteer group of men and women from all walks of life that are appointed by the Mayor. The commission’s primary task is to promote understanding and relations between major religious, racial, ethnic, and social groups within the City of Clarksville.

The public is invited to attend this free and informative meeting. For more information, please contact CHRC member Dr. Hassan Said at or David W. Shelton at .

When news of a violent disruption by a militant gay activist group at a former Assemblies of God church in Lansing first emerged, I was skeptical to accept it at face value. Like any volatile situation, it’s necessary to ask whether or not such an event is worth mentioning, and even more, if it’s at all relevant to those of us in Tennessee. Lastly, I have to face some pretty nasty realities, especially the reality that some activist groups just aren’t doing anyone any good.

According to a press release from Mount Hope Church in Lansing, MI, it all started last Sunday morning during the 11:30 AM services. During which, “…the people of Mount Hope Church were  shocked by an unwelcome violent demonstration by a homosexual/transgender anarchist group  based in Chicago, IL. The group threw fliers at churchgoers and shouted sentiments such as, “It’s  okay to be gay” and “Jesus was a homo” during a Sunday morning service. The Eaton County  Sheriff’s office was called and the illegal demonstration ceased.”

The church’s website provides a direct link to their press release, which goes on to say that “Mount Hope churchgoers were unclear as to what the purpose of the demonstration was. One churchgoer commented on the “lack of civility” in the demonstration and said, “There must be a better way for this group to advance their perceived cause.”

Well, add me to that list of people who are as bewildered as we are angered that this incident took place in my country. I don’t know what this group thinks they’re accomplishing… other than making themselves look like anti-Christian bigoted, excrement-minded fools who just want to shock people into a fearful daze.

Quite simply, this is little more than a bunch of punks who are making a name for themselves for no reason other than to behave like immature, hateful masked freaks with way too much time on their hands. I don’t give a rat’s hairy little paw if they claim to be a “gay” organization. In fact, they claim to be a gay and trans(gender) group.

If readers aren’t already aware of this little fact, I’m writing this from the perspective of a gay Christian (I know, that’s another conversation). Since I see the world through both sets of lenses, I’m doubly offended, and quite frankly, anyone in their right mind would be outraged that any group would exploit the frustration that gays currently feel over the gay marriage debate… for their own little publicity stunt.

The press release from Mount Hope accurately describes the “Bash Back!” group as an anarchist group. This alone should reveal their ultimate goal: complete chaos in government. They’re not even protesting anything in particular. They just want to make as big of a mess as they can.

Seriously, can humanity stoop much lower than this group of thugs? Sure, there are plenty of hate groups out there. There’s the Neo Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, the Westboro “Baptist” freaks, and God knows who else out there. At least those organizations have a level of consistency and know that there’s no place for them in society other than to be labeled as hate groups.

It appears that the “Bash Back!” group hasn’t figured out what their role in life is yet, so they just strike out with any manner of hate that they can – against anyone in sight.

Sure, it’s well-known that many evangelical churches (including the Assemblies of God – and yes, they’re evangelical at their core, even though their style of worship is more akin with Pentecostals), are adamant in their belief that gay relationships are sinful. Frankly, that’s their First Amendment right. While I might disagree with them and their theology, they have a right to believe and preach as they wish!

And for anyone who thinks for a second that “Bash Back!” or other militant anarchist nutjobs have a “constitutional right” to crash into a worship service and torment a service just for the hell of it, well, there’s such a thing as trespassing, vandalism, and the issue of a felony when one of the “protesters” pulled the fire alarm. That’s not free speech. That’s not even “assembly” as described in the Constitution.

So no, they don’t have a right. Frankly, the leadership at Mount Hope Church is right to consider having a plan in place to prosecute the next bunch of overgrown grade-school bullies that comes along. They certainly don’t have a right to vandalize church buildings (as they’re doing in other cities).

It’s just a way to terrorize citizens and give fodder to anti-gay groups who are doing all they can to remove what rights we DO have as gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people.

This act of brutality was wrong, and I deplore and condemn it as the stupidity that it is. These freaks do not represent me. They certainly don’t represent the millions of GLBT people across the country who have worked to educate, inform, and challenge those around us to come to a slightly different understanding.

They certainly don’t represent American ideals… and who am I kidding? That’s their point. It’s clear that we have a lot of growing up to do as Americans, and even more evident that there must be a discussion, even an awkward one, to begin to find common ground. After all, if we are nurturing psychopathic groups like this in this country, what’s next?

We should respond soberly, and but even more than that, we need to find those areas in our vast disagreements between gay rights and anti-gay groups where there might be some common ground. Maybe this is the kind of incident we need to begin those conversations. Hate has no place in them, but maybe it’s enough of a jarring incident for us to realize that hate breeds hate, and if we keep going down this spiral, things might get a lot worse before they get better…

…for anyone.

Clearly, Craig’s performance as the womanizing sexist bastard who happens to be the world’s ultimate assassin is turning heads, with some critics even daring to commit the ultimate blasphemy by suggesting that Craig’s bond even outshines Connery’s.

This is not to say that Solace is a great film. In fact, even though it’s nearly non-stop action from start to finish, there’s very little time for the audience to breathe. Solace begins mere minutes after the events of Casino Royale, so if you haven’t refreshed your memory by watching Royale lately, you’re likely to be both confused and bewildered by the opening sequence of the film, if not the film itself.

In this, Quantum of Solace’s primary glaring flaw is darn-near unforgivable: it assumes that the audience has seen its predecessor. I don’t ask a lot of good action films, but at least tell me what the hell is going on. Every good film should stand alone on its merits. The moment your audience is forced to scratch their collective heads, they’re too busy playing catch-up to truly enjoy the film.

This is a far different kind of confusion than is presented by great storytelling, by keeping the audience guessing as to what will happen next. Quite simply, this is shoddy storytelling that keeps them guessing as to what just happened! Solace has joined a myriad of other films in a fad that keeps the camera so tight into the action that much of what’s on screen is little more than a barely discernible blur, something that Transformers (2007) suffered from as well. It seems as though director Mark Forster has picked up a few of his action cues from Transformers‘ Michael Bay. Believe me, this is not a good thing.

In a nutshell, Solace begins with a rapidfire car chase in the streets of Siena, Italy, who’s busy trying to escape the very well-armed henchmen of Mr. White, who happens to be in the trunk of his Aston-Martin. Once he delivers his bounty to interrogation, Bond and M are caught in the middle of traitorous deception, which sends both Bond and the audience around the world to Bolivia, where he must infiltrate another organization with an environmentalist front, also as an assassin, all in the attempt to find out who killed his girlfriend from the first film. Along the way, he meets Camille (Olga Kurylenko), who has a grudge of her own to carry.

Together, they’re hot on the trail to shut down the seemingly ubiquitous Quantum, an organization that’s hell-bent on some kind of world domination thing (is there any other kind of evil organization in Bond films). Quantum is run by the rather unimpressive Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), who for the moment, has his eyes on a piece of desert property in Bolivia.

Dame Judi Dench returns as M, who always manages to be a bright spot in any film she appears in; even though she spends much of Solace scowling at Bond or her other MI6 underlings.

Of course, there’s plenty of technology and gadgets to keep our favorite MI6 double-0 agent happy, and yes, he manages to find time to bed a couple of babes.

Quantum of Solace disappoints on a number of levels, most notably that it retreads on the tired old vengeance story line, which almost never makes for a good film. The last time we saw vengeance as a key plot point in a bond film was back in 1989 in the Timothy Dalton-era Licence to Kill, which was arguably a low point in the series.

Thankfully, Solace doesn’t dip to that kind of lowbrow filmmaking, but it never manages to rise above mediocrity, and is riddled with almost as many wasted opportunities as with bullet holes. Neither good nor bad, Quantum of Solace presents the best Bond actor since Connery in a story that’s nowhere near the calibre of its star. Perhaps we could have stood to wait a year or two for a better script.

This year’s election was indeed a bittersweet moment for those of us who supported President-Elect Obama and also gay marriage. While Obama was elected to be the 44th president of the United States, all three of the proposed constitutional amendments in Florida, Arizona, and California passed, even with slim margins.

I am keenly aware of what these election results actually mean. For me, there are two things: First, that voters were willing to write discrimination into their states’ constitution. Second, that gay marriage supporters spent a lot of money and time in trying to reach the wrong people.

One of the most frustrating consistencies in the gay marriage debate is in just how little discussion really occurs. No one really talks about their views on same-sex nuptials, unless they know they’re in safe territory to voice their opinion. Pastors tell their flock that gay marriage will lead to the downfall of society, and nearly everyone in their congregation will nod their heads and “amen” without ever once questioning whether such an absurd statement is actually true. On the flip side, pro-gay activists and politicians will opine on their positive views on gay marriage to their own crowds, whether they’re in campaign rallies or poetry readings.

As a result, the topic echoes through the empty halls filled with nodding heads at every turn. Very few minds are changed, and even fewer people are actually presented with both sides of this very complex discussion.

Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that California voters supported by a slim margin to write discrimination in to that state’s constitution, should never have passed. I, too, mistakenly thought that it wouldn’t get the needed votes. Like most people on the pro-gay marriage side of the coin, I never took into consideration the fact that the same group that helped to elect Barack Obama as our 44th president would also vote against gay marriage overwhelmingly.

While it was the Mormon church that put forth a huge chunk of the cash to sell the amendment to California voters (stop for a minute and ponder the hypocrisy of this fact alone), it was the African-American community vote that handed down this crushing defeat. This fact wasn’t lost on the gay community in California, either. Protests have been both vitriolic and angry toward the Mormon church, but the most hateful rhetoric has been hurled at blacks.

Rod 2.0 reported on some of the outrageous scapegoating by some gay protesters:

Geoffrey, a student at UCLA and regular Rod 2.0 reader, joined the massive protest outside the Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Westwood. Geoffrey was called the n-word at least twice.

It was like being at a klan rally except the klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks. YOU NIGGER, one man shouted at men. If your people want to call me a FAGGOT, I will call you a nigger. Someone else said same thing to me on the next block near the temple…me and my friend were walking, he is also gay but Korean, and a young WeHo clone said after last night the niggers better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was BEST for them.

The article also tells of how black gay men (who were carrying NO ON PROP 8 signs were also accosted and subjected to racial abuse.

I suppose I should be shocked at such abject hate and bigotry, but then again, I’m not. I absolutely condemn this act of scapegoating the black community. Never before has there been such a clear opportunity for us to make some inroads for our cause, and never before has that opportunity been completely destroyed by the stupidity of some idiotic gay protesters and bigoted attacks against blacks. They had a chance to overcome, instead they chose to sink to the sewer of hate.

They’re rightfully angry. This was the first time where gay marriage was actually revoked. Conservatives say it’s a “moral” issue. But what the hell is moral about stripping rights from people? What the hell is so amoral about two consenting adults who make a lifetime commitment to each other?

But, I digress.

Wayne Besen of Truth Wins Out pointed out that this isn’t matter of race as some would like it to be. Education, Besen says, is the primary factor that drives a person’s vote on gay marriage:

Think of it this way. 57 percent of white people with a college education voted No on Prop. 8. Yet, 58 percent of white people with no college voted yes on 8. In other words, uneducated urban black people vote very much like uneducated rural white people.

Uneducated people – black, white and Hispanic – often derive their power from physical strength. They perceive being gay as weak and antithetical to real manhood. By voicing support for gay rights, they lose status and often fear rivals may perceive them as gay. The easiest way to gain status is dissing faggots. I see this attitude all the time in Brooklyn – in the gym and on the basketball court, where I often play. (Not the best sample, I realize this)

Meanwhile, educated people of all races gain power by outsmarting opponents – not beating them up. This creates a safe space to support gay rights and not lose social status. (Unfortunately, the fact that the conservative black church is a central organizing point for politics makes even educated blacks less likely to vote for gay rights. But, this is secondary to education levels.)

There comes a point in every election where fingers are pointed to lay the blame for failure. The GOP has been attempting to point their collective fingers at Governor Sarah Palin for their loss this year. And like the Republican party, many of us in the GLBT community are blind to the reality of our own failures – on so many levels.

Just as the Republicans are blinded to the reality that they are completely out of touch with society, those of us who are pro-gay marriage are often blinded to the reality that we are out of touch with the reality that it’s still okay to hate gay people. In many circles (including some of Besen’s examples of uneducated groups), the use of the word “faggot” is perfectly acceptable.

We have been out of touch with the reality that churches have the most influence on a huge segment of our population, and the anti-gay venom that’s spewed across pulpits all across the country has not diminished. Parishioners everywhere will nod their heads as they’re told that God destroyed Sodom because of homosexuality, and never once read for themselves what really happened.

They’ll say “amen” when they’re told that Romans chapter 1 is an outright condemnation of gay relationships, and never stop to look at the context of that chapter, which is actually discussing the evils of idolatry.

But this isn’t a debate over Christianity and gay rights. At some point, there has to be a conversation over simple fairness. The notion that “majority rules” has brought out the very clear reality that there is indeed a “tyranny of the majority,” and we should be mindful of the dangers of such oppression.

In his piece, Besen gives four major suggestions in how we should continue this discussion. One is particularly important:

We must also have substantive discussion with the African American community – as many of you have suggested. But, until we raise education levels, there is only so much we can do to win support of urban blacks – or rural whites. In other words, scholarships for urban blacks and rural whites are as effective as spending money on education specifically about gay rights. Keep this in mind.

Education is indeed an effective way to reach those who are opposed to gay marriage. However, it’s a little too nebulous a concept without a little down-to-earth common sense, which comes in the form of a commentary by Keith Olbermann, the MSNBC anchor that conservatives love to hate. His latest piece is on gay marriage. His most powerful point is the fact that the US has “re-defined marriage” quite regularly, and that it is a good thing:

I keep hearing this term “re-defining” marriage. If this country hadn’t re-defined marriage, black people still couldn’t marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal in 1967. 1967.

The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn’t have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it’s worse than that. If this country had not “re-defined” marriage, some black people still couldn’t marry black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not “Until Death, Do You Part,” but “Until Death or Distance, Do You Part.” Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.

You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are gay.

And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing, centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children, all because we said a man couldn’t marry another man, or a woman couldn’t marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage.

How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the “sanctity” of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?

Olbermann’s commentary is thankfully not a voice in the wilderness, and more Americans are coming to realize that marriage between two consenting adults is never a bad thing.

No matter how we reach out, the most critical solution is for us to reach out and to have solid, genuine discussions on the merits of same-sex marriage. We’ve learned how dangerous it is to assume anything, now we must learn how to scale a mountain of ignorance.

We can’t avoid it any longer.

Below is the full commentary by Keith Olbermann. It’s worth a look:

This race isn’t really between Obama and McCain, though. More than any other time in recent history, this election is a referendum on ideas. It’s an election between worldviews and beliefs. While it’s true that all major elections have a certain flavor of mudslinging and catchphrases that run the gamut, one party’s campaign strategy actually attempted to imply the other as un-American and associated with terrorism. Finally, it’s an election between marketing strategies.

This election of ideas can best be summed down into a battle — not between good and evil — but between hope and fear. Unfortunately, as we’ve seen with bitter emails and sanctified drivel from far-right groups, it’s obvious that some would like to have the “good versus evil” image stick to this year’s election. Thankfully, many American voters have seen through the schtick and looked at the issues to make their choice.

After sitting through both conventions, dozens of speeches and interviews, advertising ad nauseum, and commentators galore, the most simplistic way to describe each campaign is a single word. Obama’s message is one of hope. The McCain campaign is driven by fear.

If there’s any doubt to the fear label for the GOP message, then look no further than the infamous robocalls. These calls were so bad that even fellow Republicans cried foul. This little bit from ABC News is an example:

Embattled Republican Sen. Susan Collins is calling on Sen. John McCain to stop paying for automated phone calls which describe Sen. Barack Obama as having “worked closely” with “domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.”

“These kind of tactics have no place in Maine politics,” said Collins spokesperson Kevin Kelley. “Sen. Collins urges the McCain campaign to stop these calls immediately.”

The robocalls also claimed that Ayers’ group “killed Americans.” This statement is so far distorted from the truth that it’s barely recognizable. The only “Americans” that were killed were three members of the group who died during an accident while building a bomb. Those “Americans” essentially died from their own stupidity, not because of Ayers who was never even implicated in the incident. In a word, the calls were about fear.

But that’s not all. Even in her first speech as the Vice Presidential nominee, Governor Sarah Palin evoked terrorism. Earlier in October, her speeches were laced with the word “terrorist” or “terrorism” in almost every paragraph. All of this was in the name of fear.

When Focus on the Family released its “Letter from 2012 in Obama’s America” last week, it was a clear exercise in fear. This is the same message from evangelicals and conservatives from all across the country:

“Be afraid. Be very afraid.”

Some of us remember this as the words uttered by Geena Davis in the 1986 film “The Fly.” This is exactly the message that has been shouted from the rooftops all across the country regarding Barack Obama’s message of ‘Change we can believe in.” We should fear change, especially the kind of change that they believe Obama would (or could) bring. It’s a relentless, drumbeat of fear that’s intended to be driven to the hearts of voters everywhere.

Obama, on the other hand, has been equally consistent on his campaign of “change” and, more importantly, “hope.” It’s been a message that’s so consistent and so powerful that the McCain campaign is actually building their campaign in response to Obama’s.

One McCain ad was very transparent in its intent: “Don’t hope for a stronger America, vote for one.” It’s too little, too late. Sorry, Senator McCain, your entire campaign was built on fear. You can’t spread hope like a thin icing on a bitter cake of fear and lies.

I make no apologies for voting for Obama. In fact, I’m proud to have cast a vote for whom I believe will be the first African-American president in our country’s history. When it comes to a message of hope versus fear, I’ll take hope any day.

Obama’s message and campaign have been so effective, that the Republican message has been converted into a strategy that has lost every time it was attempted. “I’m not (the other guy).” In this case, it’s “I’m not Obama.”

But gosh darn it if they’re letting Obama set the tone for the entire campaign. The Illinois senator jumped out the gate with what this writer (who happens to be a graphic designer) believes is one of the most beautiful and effective campaign websites ever. McCain’s was mediocre by comparison. In fact, back in June, you’ll notice that the Republican’s website is just as slick and clean as the Obama site. Coincidence? Of course not. But then, some people called it a ripoff.

In fact, every time McCain opens his mouth, he has said “I’m not Obama” in so many ways that it’s pretty darn creative by this point. Even Obama’s “Hope” poster has been converted by republicans into a “Nope” poster. Sure, it’s creative, but it breaks one of the most important rule in marketing: Don’t advertise your competition.

This, in my opinion, is why the McCain campaign is losing, and why I believe that John McCain would not be a true leader – he’s too busy responding to what the opponent does. Just look at the McCain website. Once you get past the gorgeous opening page, you’re welcomed to the main page (with more Obama-like graphics). Once you get beyond the graphics, you realize that the content is pointing fingers as well.

One paragraph says “Instead of spreading wealth around, John McCain and Sarah Palin will spread opportunity.” Another paragraph says they don’t talk about change, they deliver. The reader actually has to scroll down to read their platform – which is, again, a comparison to the Obama plan.

On Obama’s site – it also has a splash page for donations, and then the next page is for the goods. Guess who’s name isn’t mentioned or even implied once? Yeah. That other one. In fact, you’ve got to dig around the site to find McCain’s name at all – and it’s on a page with more detailed issues.

From a marketing and advertising standpoint, the Obama camp has been solid and consistent from day one.

The McCain camp has even criticized the “slick marketing” from Obama and his supporters. As much as I hate to say it, that’s what will decide the election this year. In fact, it’s always been what decided presidential elections in the past. Who can forget “I Like Ike” fro 1952? Let’s explore the campaign strategies from 1980 on:

1980:

• Ronald Reagan: “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?”
• Carter, 1980: According to C-Span, there was no memorable slogan.
• Result: Reagan cracked the peanut.

1984:

• Ronald Reagan: “It’s morning again in America” and “Reaganomics”
• Walter Mondale: “America needs a change” (I’m not Reagan)
• Result: Miraculously, Mondale carried Minnesota. Reagan won the other 49 states.

1988:

• George H.W. Bush: “Read my lips, no new taxes.”
• Michael Dukakis: “Don’t I look great in this tank?”
• Result: We read Bush’s lips all the way to the White House.

1992:

• George H.W. Bush: “Oh, those new taxes. But he’s a draft-dodger!” (I’m not Clinton!)
• William Clinton: “It’s the economy, stupid.” The saxophone helped.
• Ross Perot: “I’m a pain in both yer asses.”
• Result: Clinton dodged a tycoon and beat an incumbent president to win.

1996:

• William Clinton: “Building a bridge to the 21st century” and, “Monica who?”
• Bob Dole: “The better man for a better America” (I’m not Clinton.)
• Ross Perot: “It’s me again!”
• Result: Clinton scrapes by, cigar and all.

2000:

• George W. Bush: “Compassionate conservatism”
• Al Gore Jr.: “Prosperity and progress,” and “I’m not Clinton.”
• Result: Gore wins the popular vote, and Bush takes Florida after a month of recounts and court battles. The United States Supreme Court puts an end to the lawsuits, thus clearing the way for Bush to be inaugurated.

2004:

• George W. Bush: “Yes America can!” and the unofficial, “Stay the course.”
• John F. Kerry: “I have a plan” and, “Let America be America again” (I’m not Bush)
• Result: Bush wins by a landslide since no one knew what the hell Kerry’s plan really was.

2008:

• John McCain: “Country First” and “A leader we can believe in” (I’m not Obama)
• Barack Obama: “Change we can believe in” and “Yes we can”
• Result: we’ll find out on November 4th.

So which will it be? Hope versus fear? Change or more of the same? In the last 30 years, no campaign that has resorted to “I’m not the other guy” has ever won. It’ll be crazy night next Tuesday, but something tells me to bet on blue on this round.

None of the emails were particularly impressive. Some were even from attorneys. However, not a single letter was able to boil down a very simple reality in this whole mess: Obama has run in and won several elections, including at least one (two if he wins next week) at the federal level. Throughout all of these elections, isn’t it possible that someone asked for a copy of the valid birth certificate or proof of citizenship?

Here’s one letter in particular:

Hello,
I’ve only read the short version of the Berg law suit. I’m not a lawyer but the impression I got was that there wasn’t any evidence to support the claims presented by Berg except for this: At one time Obama had dual citizenship but they occurred when he was a child. So then the question is does that prevent him from holding the office of President?

It’s pretty obvious that the Constitution doesn’t allow anyone to hold the office of President if he or she has dual citizenship because they would have divided loyalties. That’s implied in the Constitution. Otherwise why does the President have to be a natural born citizen? But Obama does not have dual citizenship now nor is there any evidence that he had it at any time when we was an adult.  Hope this clears things up.

One other issue seems to be what happened to his citizenship when his step father took him to Indonesia and had him registered as an Indonesian citizen? He was adopted. But he didn’t lose his U. S. citizenship. That would only happen if his mother and step father renounced his citizenship. But there’s no evidence of that.

True his name was legally changed. And there’s no evidence that it was ever changed back. So there does seem to be a technical problem there. But when his mother and his step father divorced his name reverted back to his birth name automatically? It might be in the divorce papers?

In a word, no. Dual citizenship at one point in a person’s life does not disqualify someone from being President. Here’s the qualifications straight from the horse’s mouth (of the US Constitution):

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

To hear this letter writer say it, it would disqualify someone who would have been born on a German military base to a US soldier and their German spouse. Such a person would have solid dual citizenship their entire life. They were born on American soil (the military base) and have both German and American citizenship.

So, no. Dual citizenship would not disqualify a candidate.

Here’s what really needs to happen if anyone wants to be serious about this whole mess. They need to contact the McCain campaign and give them every bit of their bullsh…er… information so that John McCain can add it to his overwhelming effort to have Obama removed from the ballot on the basis of questioned citizenship.

I shall now plant my tongue firmly in my cheek:

What, you mean McCain hasn’t said or done anything in this issue? Well, then! It’s a CONSPIRACY! John McCain KNOWS that Obama is not a citizen, and he’s been running a lackluster campaign on PURPOSE so that he can HELP a NON-CITIZEN get ELECTED! He even picked a terrible, laughingstock vice-presidential nominee intentionally! Anything to help Obama!

Not only THAT… but Hillary Clinton is in on it too! She had 18 MILLION votes behind her, and she just let Obama win that primary…

What’s more… both candidates put out a combined quarter of a BILLION dollars to fight their campaigns, when all they would have had to do is file one well-placed lawsuit (since they have legal standing here) to demand a birth certificate they KNOW doesn’t exist!

Great. Now that you understand how ridiculous the whole thing is, can you just shut the hell up about it?

Thanks.

With the new “Letter from 2012 in Obama’s America” that has been released by Focus on the Family Action, an activist wing of Dr. James Dobson’s rightwing organization, we’re reminded of just how hateful such groups are when faced with the prospect of losing an election. I’ve often said that this election is literally between hope and fear, and I’ve never been more convinced of that than I am right now. With just over a week to go, the “fear” camp is pulling out all the stops.

Since it was released to the public last Wednesday, the now-infamous letter has stroked the breast of fear like no other document in recent months. The letter’s writer is unidentified (after all, who’d want to actually put their name to such garbage?). It is nothing more than one “horrible” example of “liberal policies gone wrong” after another.

It shouldn’t be any surprise to anyone that the first three paragraphs of the actual “results” of an Obama presidency point to the very core of Reich-wing fear: national gay marriage and gay men serving as scoutmasters. The very possibility of these two things is so frightening that they must be the first to rattle the cage. First on the list of possible liberal-stacked supreme court rulings would be the legalization of gay marriage:

President Obama repeated his declaration that he personally was against same-sex “marriage”, but he told the nation there was nothing he could do.  The Supreme Court had ruled, and it was now the law of the land. The president asked the nation to support the decision.

The most far-reaching transformation of American society came from the Supreme Court’s stunning affirmation, in early 2010, that homosexual “marriage” was a “constitutional” right that had to be respected by all 50 states because laws barring same-sex “marriage” violated the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Suddenly, homosexual “marriage” was the law of the land in all 50 states, and no state legislature, no state Supreme Court, no state Constitutional amendment, not even Congress, had any power to change it. The Supreme Court had ruled, and the discussion was over….

…After that decision, many other policies changed, and several previous Supreme Court
cases were reversed rather quickly — raising the question, “Is America still the land of the free?”

(1) Boy Scouts: “The land of the free”? The Boy Scouts no longer exist as an organization. They chose to disband rather than be forced to obey the Supreme Court decision that they would have to hire homosexual scoutmasters and allow them to sleep in tents with young boys.

I rolled my eyes at the gay marriage “prophecy,” but they damn near popped out of my sockets when I saw the Boy Scout scoutmaster bit. Once I managed to keep myself from vomiting, I had to consider just what the hell it was suggesting. Of course, this ignores the reality that every major medical and psychiatric organization understands that gay men are not interested in boys. But hey, it makes for great fear-inducing politics.

Then there comes the simple reality that according to Boy Scout policy, even heterosexual men are not allowed to sleep in the same tents with boys that aren’t their own children. But no, we can’t be interjecting fact into this little romp of hate now, can we? The fact of the matter is that with just this one major glaring falsehood, it throws the entire document into question, and reveals its true, purely evil intent (isn’t it interesting that these people are the only ones who obsess about that kind of thing?).

Once I got through the next two-and-a-half pages of pure anti-gay venom (Gays in the military! Gay adoption! Gay weddings! Preachers can’t speak out against homosexuality!), it then launched into a classic tactic of telling readers that they might not be able to meet with their churches on school campuses, and horror of horrors, schoolkids won’t be able to have a “See You at the Pole” event.

Does this letter writer seriously think that the First Amendment would be tossed aside that easily? It even paints the tale that church ministries would no longer be allowed on college campuses. As if! This is Chicken Little at her best, really.

Then on to abortion. Nurses wouldn’t be able to refuse to give abortions anymore. No more conscientious objection. Out the door with you! Oh, and of course the “Partial Birth Abortion” ban would be overturned! Babies would be mutilated on sight! Once more, the taste of vomit entered my mouth. It’s this kind of hyperbole that would make anyone ill. Well, maybe that’s the point.

Pornography would go onto store shelves everywhere in plain sight! Guns are finally banned! Home schooling is severely restricted! The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling!

But wait, theeeeeeeeere’s more!

Now onto the really scary parts. The writer tells of how three cities in the US were bombed. “The entire country is fearful,” they say. And the seemingly-benign Obama might vow that he would in each  “pursue and arrest and prosecute those responsible,” with no results. All of this would be after the American pullout (that even President Bush now supports), which would result in Al Qaeda declaring our “defeat.” Blah, blah, blah.

Russia invades Georgia, Poland, and nearly retakes all of their other former USSR territory! US trades with Cuba and Venezuela! Cuban cigars for everyone!

Then finally, the real bombshell:

Israel: “The home of the brave”? In mid-2010, Iran launched a nuclear bomb that exploded in the middle of Tel Aviv, destroying much of that city. They then demanded that Israel cede huge amounts of territory to the Palestinians, and after an anguished all-night Cabinet meeting, Israel’s prime minister agreed.  Israel is reduced to a much smaller country, hardly able to defend itself, and its future remains uncertain. President Obama said he abhorred what Iran had done and he hoped the U.N. would unanimously condemn this crime against humanity. He also declared that the U.S. would be part of any international peacekeeping force if authorized by the U.N., but the Muslim nations in the U.N. have so far prevented any action.

Make no mistake about this one. This is what evangelicals and fundamentalists fear more than anything, because it would signal events of apocalyptic proportions. Never mind the fact that Israel would kick the living Shiite out of any invading country — nuclear or not. They’ve done it before, and they’ll do it again when provoked.

This isn’t even remotely close to Obama’s or even US policy. But then, we can’t tell the truth now, can we? We must spread fear! But on this note, wouldn’t people who actually believe this tripe -  want the world to end? I’m still scratching my head on this one. Even that’s not the end of this letter…

Union thugs will rule the workplace! Taxes wipe out businesses! Democrats celebrate $7/gallon gasoline prices! Power shortage! Talk Radio goes bland! Conservative talk show hosts get kicked off the air! Christian bookstores forced to remove all anti-gay books!

Bush officials are fired, bankrupt, and prosecuted! (Wow, really? Good!)

Among its final paragraphs was one last ditch effort to chastise Christians:

“Christians didn’t take time to find out who Barack Obama was when they voted for him. Why did they risk our nation’s future on him? It was a mistake that changed the course of history.

The message here is simple: Change is bad. Change is scary. Be afraid of change. Change will make you poor. Don’t change. Jesus hates change. He likes dollars.

Seriously, this entire letter is one psychotic fear-based rant after another, and is intended to do nothing but drive fear. Yet Jesus Himself said clearly, “Fear not!”

Dobson should be ashamed of himself for even allowing this letter to see the light of day. It’s not Christian, it’s not family-oriented, and it’s certainly not an accurate picture of what would happen if Obama becomes President.

It’s this kind of poison that will strike a chord of desperation in order to keep their well-fleeced flock properly submissive. After all, isn’t that just what any good propaganda does?

A final point: while the apparent need for tin-foil hats would surely drive Reynolds Wrap profits into the stratosphere, it’s interesting to see what this letter is all about. Terrorism gets a mere two paragraphs. Homosexuals get nearly three full pages.

Now we know what really makes Dobson and his ilk stay awake at night. And it’s not terrorism.

Here’s the actual letter – but don’t read it on a full stomach.

Conservative pundits have hailed the lawsuit in the past, with even popular radio show host Rush Limbaugh having opined on how Obama’s visit to his dying grandmother is related to the now-defunct lawsuit. More commonly asked is “why doesn’t Obama just show his original birth certificate? Then this will all go away.”

It will all go away? Really? If anyone really believes that, then I’ll sell you a bridge in Brooklyn for a thousand dollars. It’s cheap. At least it makes for good entertainment.

The Phildelphia Daily News reported on the dismissal today:

U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick had denied Berg’s request for a temporary restraining order on Aug. 22 but had not ruled on the merits of the suit until yesterday. Obama and the Democratic National Committee had asked Surrick to dismiss Berg’s complaint in a court filing on Sept. 24.

They said that Berg’s claims were “ridiculous” and “patently false,” that Berg had “no standing” to challenge the qualifications of a candidate for president because he had not shown the requisite harm to himself.

Surrick agreed.

In a 34-page memorandum and opinion, the judge said Berg’s allegations of harm were “too vague and too attenuated” to confer standing on him or any other voters. Surrick ruled that Berg’s attempts to use certain laws to gain standing to pursue his claim that Obama was not a natural-born citizen were “frivolous and not worthy of discussion.”

When the judge writes that a lawsuit is “frivolous and not worthy of discussion,” I think it’s time to move on. But, of course, they won’t.

My favorite claim by conservative bloggers and pundits was that the birth certificate was “photoshopped.” Well, I am happy to say that while I might not be an expert on very many things in this world, Adobe Photoshop happens to be one of them. I’ve even got the credentials to prove it. And I’ll put myself on the line by saying, “horse hockey.” The certificate number on the certificate shown on Obama’s website was redacted. That’s it.

The most popular claim is that the image is not quite perfect, and has some signs of a “halo” around some of the copy. “But there are artifacts shown around the letters. That proves it was Photoshopped!” No. It proves that it was saved as a JPEG format, which is a lossy compression — that creates artifacts around sharp edges (like around type) when saved in a medium-to-low quality compression.

Look, I don’t care if you think the scan of Obama’s birth certificate was edited, but for crying out loud, don’t try to kid me with the notion that you know what a photoshopped image looks like. You’ll only embarrass yourself. If that particular document was edited on June 12th, then great. It’s called “crop.” A standard feature in Photoshop. Nice try.

Now, if this image from Obama’s website was the only image on the Web, I’d be concerned. As luck would have it, it’s not. Newsweek’s website posted photos that were taken for the factcheck.org site, which presents the document in various angles, and show the embossed seal (which is required on all official documents). Oh, by the way — they’re not “photoshopped” either.

Berg himself had been traveling the circuit, and declared to right-wingnut Michael Savage that Obama’s failing to file response to his ridiculous (as presiding Judge Surrick called it) was an admission of guilt. No, Mr. Berg. Your assertions were ludicrous, and the Obama lawyers knew it.

Berg has said he would appeal the decision, but really – when even the right-wing WorldNet Daily website has determined that the certificate is genuine, isn’t it time to move on? Apparently Berg and fellow nutjob Jerome Corsi don’t think so. Corsi is best known for his anti-Kerry attack book, Unfit for Command and the equally-discredited The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality, which met with a stinging, 40-page rebuttal from Senator Obama’s website.

Conservatives should be extremely leery of Corsi and his extremist rants. He’s even brought his verbal cannons against King George himself, claiming that President Bush is working to create a “North American Union,” which would eventually eliminate the sovereignty of the United States.

President Bush intends to abrogate U.S. sovereignty to the North American Union, a new economic and political entity which the President is quietly forming, much as the European Union has formed.

Corsi is clearly not satisfied with blasting away at Democrats and liberals, so he goes after every single witch hunt imaginable. Not only are his conclusions highly questionable, his facts are often just dead wrong. I don’t think I’m going out on a stretch by saying “he’s a nut.” Apparently conservative writer John Hawkins said the same thing. Well, his word was “kooky.” If we add “creepy,” we’d have the first stanza of the Addams Family theme song. I’ll bring the snaps.

And this is one of the leading voices in the “Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud” nonsense. Maybe we’ll get a grip and realize just how silly all of this has been. The birth certificate/citizenship brouhaha has been little more than a mad-dash attempt to discredit Obama since they have little else to run on. Well, that and unlicensed plumbers.

The fact is that Obama’s birth certificate is genuine, and he is a natural-born citizen of the United States of America.

UPDATE: It seems that this particluar issue is getting sillier by the minute. Read more here.

I remember the first time I heard about Milk; it was during a meeting of the gay-straight alliance at Austin Peay State University. The advisor was long-time gay activist and art professor, Dr. Bruce Childs (who’s now enjoying a very well-deserved retirement). Childs mentioned Harvey Milk in passing during a conversation, which inspired me to learn more about this keystone piece of American gay history.

Back in 1977, when Milk first came to light in San Francisco politics, the country’s gay community was beginning to enjoy some much-needed exposure and was well on its way to achieving a few minor protections and gay-rights laws. (Some, like the anti-discrimination law passed in Dade County, Florida, were later repealed through the work of “religious right” leaders). Bryant later received her thanks: a pie in the face.

Bryant also led the push for Florida’s ban on gay adoption (still the only one in the country, thank goodness). It was men and women like Harvey Milk and other leaders who would work to provide a strong, positive face for the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender community. To say that tempers were flared during that time (especially with Bryant’s asinine declaration that she would help “get rid” of all the homosexuals in the country) was a bit of an understatement.

Milk, in stark contrast to the hateful rants of those using religion to excuse their vitriol, devoted much of his life to speaking out against the humanitarian crises of the day. After moving with his then-partner Scott Smith to San Francisco’s, they opened a camera shop on Castro Street — which was quickly becoming that city’s gay neighborhood.

Milk’s popularity grew quickly, thanks to his humor and a certain charm, eventually being called “the mayor of Castro Street,” Ironically, he lost his first election, coming in tenth out of thirty-two candidates in the race for a seat on the Board of Supervisors (city council) of San Francisco. He ran (and lost) again in 1975, and finally won the seat in 1977, thus becoming the first openly-gay elected official in the country.

The brief Biography shown on notablebiographies.com details his very brief time on the supervisory board:

As city supervisor, Milk was the driving force behind the passage of a gay-rights law that prohibited discrimination, or unequal treatment, in housing and employment based on sexual orientation. At his urging, the city announced a drive to hire more gay and lesbian police officers. He also started programs that benefited minorities, workers, and the elderly. Milk then gained national attention for his role in defeating a state senate proposal that would have prohibited gays and lesbians from teaching in public schools in California.

Harvey Milk once said, “If a bullet should go through my head let that bullet go through every closet door.” That’s exactly what happened on November 27, 1978, when former city supervisor Dan White shot Milk and Mayor George Moscone. Both men were killed.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Milk, a new film by Gus Van Sant, will be released to theatres all across the country. It will be premiered this week in California, sent to limited release on November 26th, and then will go to a wide USA release on December 5th. The movie stars Sean Penn as Harvey Milk, Emile Hirsch as Cleve Jones, and Josh Brolin as Dan White. James Franco plays Scott Smith. It’s my sincere hope that it will come to Clarksville.

Milk himself was the topic of an earlier Academy Award-winning documentary, The Times of Harvey Milk, released in 1984. The documentary is already known throughout the gay community as the definitive story of Harvey Milk, and the new film stands to reintroduce the entire nation to the story of one man who made a difference in both life and death.

I want to give a special thanks to Dr. Bruce Childs for his work and his tireless passion that he held for his entire tenure at Austin Peay. And I especially thank him for introducing me to the story of a man who’s passion — and life — changed everything.

Thanks, Bruce.