News: Whoopi Goldberg, NYC Cabs, Rupert Murdoch, Sean Hayes
Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. wins bid for Dow Jones, publisher of The Wall Street Journal: "Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. sealed a $5 billion agreement to purchase the publisher of The Wall Street Journal after three months of drama in the controlling family and public debate about journalistic values. One of the oldest and best-known franchises in the newspaper industry, beset in recent years by business pressures, now enters a new era as part of a world-wide media conglomerate. The 76-year-old Mr. Murdoch, whose properties range from the Fox television network to the Times of London, negotiated hard to win the paper he long coveted. He has promised to invest more in Dow Jones journalism."
Sean Hayes to play Bill Gates in "Nerds" musical? "From the writers of the Off-Broadway smash hit The Bomb-itty of Errors and the hot animated TV series 'Robot Chicken' comes a funny and irreverent musical take on the parallel stories of computer pioneers Bill Gates and Steve Jobs as they blaze a path from garage inventors to warring titans of the computer revolution. With its rollicking tunes and brilliantly off-beat humor, Nerds://A Musical Software Satire celebrates the inner nerd within us all!"
Whoopi Goldberg confirmed as new co-host on The View.
Cheney still unwilling to answer which branch of the government he works for.
Some of New York City's cabs of the future are here today...
Gay Pride festival launched by Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness in Derry, Northern Ireland: "No-one should be discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation in the same way that it should not happen because of their age, race or indeed any other characteristic of their being."
Hamptons toga bash brings out Reichen, Ryan, and baby.
Hillary Clinton position on federal funding for needle exchange programs is illustrative of how she, as a candidate, is "informed and bound by her husband's administration."
Man who murdered wife with sledgehammer in 1986 after she threatened to tell his mother he was gay and received 16 years to life in prison for second-degree murder, may be released from prison next month.
Gawker: Why do straight men think they're gay men?
Rocks thrown through window of Colorado Springs Gay and Lesbian Fund building: It was a targeted crime. It was a hateful crime."
Montreal gay couple receives $10,000 after harassment by youths in their neighborhood: "Theo Wouters and Roger Thibault said four youths targeted them because of their sexual orientation. The Quebec Human Rights and Youth Rights Commission says the parents of one of the youths must pay the two men $10,000. Three other adolescents who were mentioned in the case now live in Calgary and are not targeted by the ruling of the human rights group. Wouters and Thibault have lived together for more than 30 years and got married a few years ago."
Looks like Reichen's toga is covering up the C-section scar, but it's nice to see that his getting fucked all these years finally paid off [in other ways than money, that is]. What's the baby's name? "Son of God"?
And could every picture of him with what's his name scream any louder, "See Lance, I found someone else really, really fast after you kicked my ass to the curb."?
Posted by: Leland | Aug 1, 2007 1:28:49 PM
Damn, Ryan Berry is hot as hell. I saw The Bomb-itty of Errors a few years back, pretty good show.
Posted by: Davey | Aug 1, 2007 1:45:29 PM
Enjoy Berry while you can. "Personal trainers" don't make that much and Lemkuhl is all about the money. Guess he couldn't find any lawyer to handle a Lance palimony suit.
Posted by: Charlie | Aug 1, 2007 1:57:02 PM
Murdoch has had years and years to create something, anything on par with the WSJ, particularly with business news, but hasn't come close. This suggests that he doesn't know how to do it and that probably spells the end of the center column as we know it. Next up: Walmart buys the NY Times.
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Aug 1, 2007 2:00:38 PM
Did anyone read that Gawker article? Am I the only one who thinks it is way out of line that he think a straight guy talking about anxiety of getting AIDS is him trying to act/be gay!?
I get the article is trying to be funny w/ some parts...but the overall message... wow
Posted by: gabriel | Aug 1, 2007 2:16:07 PM
I am cancelling my WSJ subscription. I will never pay a single dime for any of Murdoch's prodcuts and services if I can help it.
Posted by: Landis | Aug 1, 2007 2:18:10 PM
Gabriel - I agree - the Gawker thing SUCKED! Plus, they in the text they make it sound like the pitch totally bombs, when in reality the editor merely says that it would be better in a more local venue like Time Out. Terrible and BORING article and video.
And along the lines of "sucking", so does Hillary. Dear god, I can't stand her. Such typical political bs.
Posted by: Gregg | Aug 1, 2007 2:20:17 PM
That Politico post on Hillary and needle exchange perfectly captures her biggest drawback as a candidate and politician. She refuses to lead on anything that's the slightest bit controversial, whether it's needle exchange or withdrawal from Iraq--ESPECIALLY if it involves policy made during Bill's presidency.
If she really wants to be seen as a leader, it would be a small but essential first step for her to very publicly oppose some of her husband's most cynical and calculated policies (DADT, needle exchange, DOMA).
Study after study has shown not only that needle exchange programs dramatically reduce the spread of HIV and HCV but that they do not increase drug use. They also bring users into contact with support services, including rehab. The science is conclusive.
If Hillary's willing to make policy based on politics, partisanship, and ideology instead of science, we might as well amend the Constitution so Bush-Cheney can stay on a few more years.
Bravo to Charles King and Housing Works for calling her on this.
Posted by: 24play | Aug 1, 2007 2:21:16 PM
Geez, Reichen and Ryan, could it get any cuter. I hope it's love, but the way they love the camera, I have a feeling it's more love of self than each other. Or am I just being a bitchy fag?
Posted by: Bill | Aug 1, 2007 2:58:43 PM
I can't stand Reichen, but Ryan is GORGEOUS. Obviously Ryan can't see that Reichen will dump him once he's bored with him (that bitch).
Was Whoopi really a surprise to anyone? And she isn't nearly as outspoken or brash as Rosie anyday. She's Barbara's lapdog much more than Rosie would ever have been. I was SO hoping for Kathy Griffin. She would have kicked ass and taken names, and her fights with Elizabeth the Nazi would have been legendary. Oh well, at least the other spot hasn't been announced yet, but we all know who that will be.
And why GOD hasn't Cheney had that FINAL heart-attack yet???? I for one am just SO sick of hearing about that bastard!
Posted by: Jordan | Aug 1, 2007 3:09:55 PM
Anybody up for a challenge? Find a pic of Reichen, taken within the past six months, where he doesn't look completely strung out. Oh, and photoshop jobs don't count.
At least the boytoy's cute...
Posted by: SeattleDan | Aug 1, 2007 3:16:03 PM
"bound by her husband's administration"? What naked partisan horseshit! Which candidate does the source actually support.
I agree she, and all candidates, should support needle exchange, but, with all due respect, 24, your assertions about her positions on DADT and DOMA are out-of-date, and the source should know better.
From "The Advocate," June 20th, 2007:
"Tracking Hillary's stance on DOMA, distance from Bill on LGBT issues ...
“Senator Clinton believes that each state should make its own decisions regarding marriage or civil unions, but once a state legalizes such relationships, these relationships should receive full federal recognition and benefits,” Ethan Geto, senior national adviser to Senator Clinton on LGBT Issues, explained in an e-mail to The Advocate. “As several states have legalized gay marriage or civil unions, Senator Clinton has come to believe that the restrictions imposed by DOMA on federal government recognition of same-sex relationships are unfair.” ...
...Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, has credited Senator Clinton as a strategic force in defeating the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006.
Prior to the vote, Senator Clinton called Solmonese unsolicited and suggested HRC conduct polling about the issue, which ultimately showed that while support for marriage equality had risen, voters were “enraged” that Congress would spend time debating the FMA rather than the Iraq War. Based on that data, HRC advised Democratic congressional leaders to argue during the floor debates that the GOP was ignoring the most pressing issues facing the nation.
... she now stands opposed to the two most damning pieces of legislation that are the legacy of her husband’s presidency.
“It is instructive to know that Hillary Clinton publicly called for repeal of 'don’t ask, don’t tell' in 1999, while President Clinton was still in office, effectively breaking with him over this policy,” Geto wrote in his e-mail. “This is a further manifestation of her personal commitment to equality and fairness as her guiding principles.” END QUOTE.
Posted by: Leland | Aug 1, 2007 3:23:43 PM
$10,000 because your kids are being stupid kids? And the other kids get off because they moved? I'm SURE that's going to make them stop being homophobic.
Posted by: Ryan | Aug 1, 2007 3:32:00 PM
Leland, I was unaware that Hillary had come out for DADT’s repeal in 1999. Forgive me.
As for DOMA, you know as well as I do that Hillary has offered up only half a loaf there. In June, via her responses to HRC’s candidate questionnaire, for the first time she came out against DOMA—or at least half of it. She now opposes the part of the law that prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages. She does not oppose the other provision of the law, which grants states autonomy on marriage. So she’s not only okay with any state banning same-sex marriage, she is also okay with same-sex couples legally married in Massachusetts not having their marriages recognized in other states.
http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2007/06/19/1
Getos' statement masterfully pirouettes around this fact. I guess Hil needs to have a sit-down with Mildred Loving before she realizes marriage is a right too essential to be left up to the states.
Look, I don’t expect Hil (or any of the Dems) to come out in favor of marriage equality. I do appreciate her movement on the issue. But come on, you can’t possibly believe Hillary’s public position on the subject matches her personal beliefs. And that just highlights her usual negatives.
But getting back to needle exchange, since that’s what both my comment and the original post were about. It’s a prime example of an issue Hillary could show leadership on. It would win her a lot of gay and liberal points without costing her much of anything with moderates. It’s not that controversial anymore. Now that New Jersey has gotten with the program, every state in the union has some sort of legalized needle exchange.
And just as an aside, love, I find it amazing you were actually able to type
“Prior to the vote, Senator Clinton called Solmonese unsolicited and suggested HRC conduct polling about the issue…”
without spontaneously combusting. HRC called Joe “unsolicited” and suggested polling?! That’s like a punchline looking for a joke. Love of Hill certainly makes for strange bedfellows.
As I’ve said before, I’ll gladly support Hillary if she’s the nominee. But this is the kind of opportunity to lead that she really can’t afford to pass up. Especially when she’s being unfairly—but effectively!—targeted as “Bush-Cheney lite.”
Posted by: 24play | Aug 1, 2007 4:08:17 PM
Leland, none of the statements show that Hillary has any backbone. She is now against DOMA and DADT because the majority of Americans now think they are bad laws. It doesn't show leadership to turn against laws once they become unpopular.
Posted by: DB | Aug 1, 2007 4:58:57 PM
I like you Leland. I used to think your posts were annoying, but now I see your just spunky.
Posted by: Steve | Aug 1, 2007 5:41:11 PM
Backbone smackbone. Unlike DB, I don't believe I can read minds [tho I have advanced degrees in "reading beads" and "reading to filth"] so, unlike he/she I won't pontificate on Hillary's motivations. Nor do I give a flying fuck WHY any candidate supports an issue I do. When the Repugs oppose DOMA and DADT, too, give me a call and Hillary a break. In the meantime, both grow and shut the fuck up.
As for Hillary and "states rights," 1. Are Edwards' and Obama's positions any different; and, 2., isn't that because, in the absence of FEDERAL legislation to implement it nationwide, WHAT would a PRESIDENT have to do with it?
To say, "States should not bar gay marriage," is to endorse gay marriage which they cannot practically do. Which brings us back to square one re the only three Dem candidates with the chance of getting the nomination.
And Joey HRC? As we've said before, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Posted by: Leland | Aug 1, 2007 6:39:53 PM
Has the Gawker author guy considered the fact that Joel's girlfriend(s) could have slept with guys other than Joel? And that those other guys could have possibly slept with men, themselves (and not told Joel's GF about it)? That's why HIV/AIDS should be taken so seriously by *everyone*. It is impossible for anyone to know the sexual history of all of their partners and their partners' partners.
Posted by: SC | Aug 1, 2007 7:13:43 PM
Some of my most cherished memories of childhood were when my gay fathers took me to Circuit parties. Seeing my both of dad’s nearly naked bumping genitals with strangers in the warm sunshine. I can almost feel the tickle of the meth and special K that floated freely in the air. Too bad my dads didn’t believe in sun block and they both died from skin cancer. They are dead and I hardly knew them but hey they looked good that’s what matters.
Posted by: ggreen | Aug 1, 2007 7:29:40 PM
24Play: your statement that marriage is so fundamental is shouldn't be left to the states is a bit bizarre. We are a nation of laws, and marriage is a three party contract between the betrothed and the state, granted in full under the law, and covers many contentious issues, particularly if there are children or a divorce. Your statement implies that states primarily enact laws to ban certain types of marriage, but actually, they are granting the privilege of marriage in lew of private contracts. By your logic, the state is barring you from marrying your favorite goat or something, but actually, goats have no legal standing to enter into contracts. States may also "bar" marriages involving incest or the underaged, but this is simply a matter of not granting the privilege in the first place. Put another way, how would you word a Federal Amendment to bar states from placing too many restrictions on marriage? Not as easy as it sounds.
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Aug 1, 2007 10:48:02 PM
@leland
"It is instructive to know that Hillary Clinton publicly called for repeal of 'don’t ask, don’t tell'" blah blah blah
Really? I don't consider the Advocate a remotely trustworthy source - so where did she publicly call for a repeal of DADT? I would really like to know. Was it a note under the table? Was it a "phone call to a friend"? Or was it an event which was recorded or reported in a news outlet?
Posted by: yoshi | Aug 2, 2007 12:33:22 AM
God, Lance is hideous.
Posted by: fangirlhater | Aug 2, 2007 12:50:07 AM
Yoshi—do I look like your fucking librarian? Look it up yourself, Bitch!
Fangirlhater = Reichen.
Posted by: Leland | Aug 2, 2007 3:09:00 AM
you are looking exactly like a Bill Gates.
=========
brook
prince edward island drug rehab
Posted by: brook | Nov 12, 2008 1:53:25 PM