#2003 New York gay marriage isn’t legal yet

[seagull-scribbles]

'Best man' can’t even tie a bow tie 💒

#tmnt 2003 #casey jones #raphael splinterson #back to the sewers #rasey #listen #I can hear you now being all like how is Casey marrying April a rasey scenario #and I’m telling you I’m right #look me in the eyes #I’m right #the whole build up of best man was so cute even platonically you can pry it from my cold dead hands #sucks last ronin ralh didn’t even get to hear about the engagement I know he was robbed (of life) BUT THIS LISTEN #2003 New York gay marriage isn’t legal yet #April is like aro in that show and I don’t care what you think #but you know what is the same then as now HOW BAT SHIT EXPENSIVE NEW YORK IS #also 2003 back to the sewers wanted to try link the 2003 series with the 2007 movie #Raph is a mutant turtle who lives in the sewers no one can know he exists (except everyone who was invited to the wedding) #so I raise you Casey and April getting married but as friends for the benefits of housing and financial support #the good stuff that comes easier to being a married couple #but they’re really just glorified room mates #taadaaa #weather you ship Casey or April with a turtle or not that makes sense to me shush

[new-poets-society]

Which America?

Which United States of America is it that you love so much? Because slavery was abolished in 1865, after war And segregation was stopped by the civil rights act in 1964 After Brown v. Board in 1954 Almost 100 years later, after all the bloodshed, We still didn’t end segregation almost a century And yet today, we still carry on The Drug War, Where all races seem to do and sell drugs at similar rates And yet we still prosecute more racial minorities than the majority This battle isn’t over, is it even a priority? A priority to our youth, or the authority? We should be able to stand together, solidarity We’re all human, we’ve got that similarity So, which America is it that you love so much? Our are you just out of touch? Do you not understand these issues and such? Let’s go onto another, Do we remember when gay bars got closed in 1969 New York Stonewall Riots happened And then the flood gates opened Groups of people awakened And the LGBT+ movement’s roots were formed Because even though the stonewall riots weren’t the first, People thought being gay was the worst, It wasn’t until 2003 and three until Lawrence v. Texas Forced 14 states to decriminalize being gay, In the year 2015, 12 years after Lawrence v. Texas, Gay marriage was legalized in The United States To this day we don’t have trans equality, We still see discrimination That is the real immorality Throughout the nation Let’s not forget intersex issues, Forced surgery at birth to conform to a gender, No telling how that person will feel about that once they’re developed Which United States of America is it that you want? A patriot fights for their nation to become the greatest it can be, So tell me, Which United States of America is it that you’ll create? The bottom 90% of Americans only make an average of about $33,000 or about 15 dollars an hour, Now keep in mind that a lot of people don’t even make that much, And depending on which state or city you live in, that isn’t enough to make ends meet Meanwhile, the top 10% of earners get about 295,000 dollars a year, The top 5% earn about 448,000 dollars per year The top 1% earns about 1,200,000 dollars per year The top .1% earns 6,000,000 dollars a year Meanwhile the 90% isn’t always able to feed themselves The middle class shrinks, The minimum wage has become almost worthless depending on where you live, because of inflation since it was implemented Before 1980, Before the election of Reagan, Who implemented supply side economics and massive tax cuts for the rich, Before Reagan, The middle and lower class, the majority of people, held a far larger percentage of wealth than they do today After Reagan, We began a massive shift of wealth from the bottom to the top, Causing the economy to hurt and people to be impoverished Why is it such a radical idea that we pay workers enough to survive? And if we can’t do that, then we need welfare, so that people can surviveBut instead, our politicians fight against both ideas For most often, they are a part of the rich The thing is, we’re all in this together Freedom for racial minorities is freedom for everyone Freedom for the LGBT+ community is freedom for everyone Freedom for the lower and middle class is freedom for everyone, For if the lower and middle class has enough money to spend and put into the economy, Then that helps everyone Listen, Listen, listen, Look, Alright Which America do you love, The one where the poor and the rich can both thrive? The one where we had the new deal, the real deal, do you feel? Or the one where we put Japanese into internment camps? Or the one where we enslaved people? Or the one where we outlawed gay marriage? Or the one where we oppressed nonwhite people? We recovered from the great depression from the new deal, The real deal, you feel? It’s the same America It’s just that at one point we were together, and at other points we were divided Or take a look at Denmark, Canada, Germany, and Sweeden Look at history for the answers Figure out what works there and what worked then So we can figure out Which America?

Source: http://bit.ly/1T7QTpa

#poets on tumblr #poetry #new poets society #new poets on tumblr #new poets corner #submission

[stephenmccull]

Newsom Likes To ‘Go Big’ But Doesn’t Always Deliver

Gavin Newsom knew it was a political gamble when, as the newly elected mayor of San Francisco, he promised to eradicate chronic homelessness.

“I recognize that I’m setting myself up. I’m not naive to that,” he told his hometown newspaper in 2003 as he embarked on a campaign to sell his controversial plan. It hinged on slashing welfare payments for homeless people and redirecting those funds to acquire single-room occupancy hotels, converting them into long-term housing with health and social services.

“I don’t want to over-promise, but I also don’t want to under-deliver,” he said.

Over-promise he did, and the venture ultimately failed. But that pledge by Newsom — who at the time was a young, politically connected wine shop owner relatively new to public office — previewed a brand of political leadership on full display today as the first-term governor confronts an unprecedented public health emergency that has decimated the state’s economy and killed more than 4,280 Californians.

The COVID-19 pandemic has catapulted the 52-year-old Democrat into greater national prominence, winning him praise and voter support for taking decisive action to control the spread of infection in the absence of strong federal leadership.

But it has also exposed his penchant for making ambitious, showy announcements — often broadcast to a national audience — that aren’t necessarily ready for prime time. His plans regularly lack detail and, in some cases, follow-through.

“This governor wants to get a lot done even if all the details aren’t quite there yet. It’s uniquely his approach,” said Democratic strategist Dana Williamson, longtime adviser to former Gov. Jerry Brown. “He isn’t afraid to go big. The upside is establishing yourself as a real leader and, in the case of COVID, saving lives. But the downside is it doesn’t always work out quite perfectly.”

Newsom has a long history of pushing big ideas before they become popular, including legalizing gay marriage and recreational marijuana use, halting death penalty executions and expanding free health care for undocumented immigrants. Since his entry into public life, he has cultivated the image of a political risk-taker willing to buck the Democratic Party establishment. And although he has demurred, there is widespread speculation that Newsom has presidential ambitions.

Email Sign-Up

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

Sign Up

Please confirm your email address below:

Sign Up

Since the start of the pandemic, Newsom has been praised by public health experts and Democratic strategists for making politically courageous decisions such as enacting the nation’s first statewide stay-at-home order, preventing widespread sickness and death. He has dramatically expanded hospital capacity while seeking to attack major problems as they erupt, from dire shortages of protective gear for hospital workers to inadequate testing in rural towns and poor, inner-city neighborhoods.

But as the crisis wears on, the list of Newsom’s unfulfilled promises is growing:

On April 7, he told MSNBC host Rachel Maddow that he had inked a deal securing “upwards” of 200 million protective masks per month, enough to “supply the needs of the state of California — potentially the needs of other Western states.” But nearly two months later, just 61 million surgical masks have arrived in California, while no higher-caliber N95 masks have been delivered, according to Brian Ferguson, spokesperson for the state Office of Emergency Services — despite Newsom’s promise that the deal included at least 150 million N95s. The $1 billion effort has been riddled with flaws, and the state so far has taken back nearly $250 million from the Chinese contractor, BYD Ltd. Co.

Later that month, Newsom announced a deal with Motel 6 that would provide thousands of rooms for homeless people in need of shelter. At least 5,025 Motel 6 rooms at 47 sites would open their doors to homeless people, “effective immediately,” should counties opt in, he said. But to date, just 628 Motel 6 rooms are open to homeless people at six sites.

Newsom also said in April that California must dramatically expand COVID-19 testing before it reopens to at least 60,000 — ideally 80,000 — tests per day. But the state still has not consistently reached 60,000 tests per day, even as it has allowed most counties to ease their stay-at-home restrictions.

In other cases, the governor has artfully avoided making specific promises. For instance, he has called the safety of nursing home patients and staff members a “top priority” without detailing plans, allowing him to dodge criticism even as more than half the deaths in California have occurred in long-term care facilities, according to state data.

Yet so far Newsom is showing strong support from Californians. Nearly 70% of likely voters say he’s doing a good job of handling the pandemic, according to a new poll released Wednesday by the Public Policy Institute of California. His overall approval rating has climbed by double digits since February, rising from 52% to 64%.

But his support could erode if the public begins to notice that his promises — and lofty rhetoric — do not match reality, said Mark Baldassare, president and CEO of the institute.

“People can be forgiving and give the governor the benefit of the doubt, but that can turn from positive to negative very quickly,” Baldassare said. “The risk is public opinion can shift very quickly if people get a sense that it’s not going well or according to expectations.”

Although Newsom himself has acknowledged criticism that the state is falling short on some fronts, his chief spokesperson Nathan Click defended the governor’s approach.

“When it’s your life or livelihood on the line, wouldn’t you want leaders who are moving aggressively to help people on every possible front?” Click said in a statement. “He’s not afraid to swing for the fences — especially in a time of massive need.”

Daniel Zingale, Newsom’s former chief adviser, who retired earlier this year, argued that the governor’s handling of the pandemic has saved countless lives while bolstering the social safety net for those at greatest risk of contracting the coronavirus.

“When you have a crisis like this that is unprecedented, there is no real playbook,” Zingale said. “I think Gavin Newsom was made for this moment. This is a situation where you want a governor who is high-energy, deeply earnest and prone to action rather than inaction.”

***

Newsom’s political career dates back to the late 1990s, when he was appointed to San Francisco’s parking and traffic commission by its then-mayor, Willie Brown. Soon thereafter, Brown tapped Newsom to fill an open seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Running as the incumbent in 1998, Newsom was elected that year to his first full term on the board.

During his early years in public life, he honed his approach to politics — aggressively seeking national media attention for first-in-the-country social and economic policies. In 2004, the year he took office as mayor, Newsom granted same-sex couples marriage licenses before it was legal, and in 2006 he signed into law the nation’s first universal health care program, which covered all city residents regardless of their immigration status or ability to pay.

Newsom, in his 2013 book “Citizenville,” described his leadership approach as “Ready, fire, aim.”

“I’m as proud of some of my failures in business and politics as I am of my successes,” he wrote. “Failure isn’t something to be embarrassed about; it’s just proof that you’re pushing your limits, trying new things, daring to innovate.”

Newsom believes strongly in setting “audacious goals,” even if he risks over-promising or alienating supporters, said Peter Ragone, who was press secretary for part of Newsom’s mayoral tenure.

“Gavin has always believed that if you show people you’re thinking big and trying hard, they will take that over timidity, even if you might fail,” said Ragone, who remains a close, informal adviser to Newsom and also advises New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio. “He wasn’t able to completely eradicate homelessness, but the voters were OK with that because they saw he was trying. Success doesn’t have to be an absolute policy triumph.”

***

Now Newsom is facing the biggest challenge of his political career, with several high-profile crises slamming California at once: A global public health emergency. Widespread civil unrest sparked by the killing of an African American man in Minnesota, George Floyd, at the hands of a white police officer, Derek Chauvin. Rising unemployment that could reach 30%. And another potentially devastating wildfire season.

The coronavirus pandemic, in particular, could have long-lasting consequences for Newsom’s future, said Dr. Leonard Marcus, co-director of the National Preparedness Leadership Initiative, a joint program of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and the Harvard Kennedy School of Government.

“The politics of crisis leadership are high-consequence,” Marcus said. “For every political leader, a crisis like this is going to make or break their career.”

George Chin, 80, lived in a nursing home in Woodland, California, until April 22, when he died of COVID-19, according to his family. Chin died six days after he first complained of shortness of breath and spiked a high fever. (Courtesy of Simon Chin)

Davis resident Simon Chin has grown disillusioned with Newsom since the start of the crisis.

Chin’s father, 80-year-old George Chin, lived in Stollwood Convalescent Hospital in nearby Woodland. Chin regularly tuned into Newsom’s public briefings on the crisis to hear the governor say he was committed to preventing infections in nursing homes and protecting staff members and residents.

But infections in senior care homes continued to rise. And although Newsom has called for universal testing of residents and staffers, the state hasn’t provided the resources to make that happen, said Jason Belden, emergency preparedness director for the California Association of Health Facilities, which represents California’s roughly 1,200 state-regulated nursing homes.

State Health and Human Services Secretary Mark Ghaly said it’s the responsibility of nursing homes, not the state, to test.

“It’s not what we’re doing, and it’s, in our view, not feasible,” Ghaly said in an interview, noting that across the state, there are about 119,000 nursing home beds and about 90,000 staff members.

Newsom’s rhetoric at times has given the public a false sense of hope, said Dr. Michael Wasserman, president of the California Association of Long Term Care Medicine.

“When it comes to vulnerable older adults in California, all this governor has been doing is saying he’s going to act, he’s going to help them, but he hasn’t actually taken action,” Wasserman said. “People are dying because of it.”

Newsom’s reassuring statements during his public briefings made Chin feel like the state was doing more to prevent widespread infections, he said.

But Chin’s father died of COVID-19 on April 22. State records show 15 residents — roughly half of the nursing home’s capacity — died of the disease.

“We had no idea that there were such big problems in skilled nursing facilities based on what the governor was saying,” Chin said. “By the time we found out, it was too late.”

This KHN story first published on California Healthline, a service of the California Health Care Foundation.

Newsom Likes To ‘Go Big’ But Doesn’t Always Deliver published first on https://smartdrinkingweb.weebly.com/

[gordonwilliamsweb]

Newsom Likes To ‘Go Big’ But Doesn’t Always Deliver

Gavin Newsom knew it was a political gamble when, as the newly elected mayor of San Francisco, he promised to eradicate chronic homelessness.

“I recognize that I’m setting myself up. I’m not naive to that,” he told his hometown newspaper in 2003 as he embarked on a campaign to sell his controversial plan. It hinged on slashing welfare payments for homeless people and redirecting those funds to acquire single-room occupancy hotels, converting them into long-term housing with health and social services.

“I don’t want to over-promise, but I also don’t want to under-deliver,” he said.

Over-promise he did, and the venture ultimately failed. But that pledge by Newsom — who at the time was a young, politically connected wine shop owner relatively new to public office — previewed a brand of political leadership on full display today as the first-term governor confronts an unprecedented public health emergency that has decimated the state’s economy and killed more than 4,280 Californians.

The COVID-19 pandemic has catapulted the 52-year-old Democrat into greater national prominence, winning him praise and voter support for taking decisive action to control the spread of infection in the absence of strong federal leadership.

But it has also exposed his penchant for making ambitious, showy announcements — often broadcast to a national audience — that aren’t necessarily ready for prime time. His plans regularly lack detail and, in some cases, follow-through.

“This governor wants to get a lot done even if all the details aren’t quite there yet. It’s uniquely his approach,” said Democratic strategist Dana Williamson, longtime adviser to former Gov. Jerry Brown. “He isn’t afraid to go big. The upside is establishing yourself as a real leader and, in the case of COVID, saving lives. But the downside is it doesn’t always work out quite perfectly.”

Newsom has a long history of pushing big ideas before they become popular, including legalizing gay marriage and recreational marijuana use, halting death penalty executions and expanding free health care for undocumented immigrants. Since his entry into public life, he has cultivated the image of a political risk-taker willing to buck the Democratic Party establishment. And although he has demurred, there is widespread speculation that Newsom has presidential ambitions.

Email Sign-Up

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

Sign Up

Please confirm your email address below:

Sign Up

Since the start of the pandemic, Newsom has been praised by public health experts and Democratic strategists for making politically courageous decisions such as enacting the nation’s first statewide stay-at-home order, preventing widespread sickness and death. He has dramatically expanded hospital capacity while seeking to attack major problems as they erupt, from dire shortages of protective gear for hospital workers to inadequate testing in rural towns and poor, inner-city neighborhoods.

But as the crisis wears on, the list of Newsom’s unfulfilled promises is growing:

On April 7, he told MSNBC host Rachel Maddow that he had inked a deal securing “upwards” of 200 million protective masks per month, enough to “supply the needs of the state of California — potentially the needs of other Western states.” But nearly two months later, just 61 million surgical masks have arrived in California, while no higher-caliber N95 masks have been delivered, according to Brian Ferguson, spokesperson for the state Office of Emergency Services — despite Newsom’s promise that the deal included at least 150 million N95s. The $1 billion effort has been riddled with flaws, and the state so far has taken back nearly $250 million from the Chinese contractor, BYD Ltd. Co.

Later that month, Newsom announced a deal with Motel 6 that would provide thousands of rooms for homeless people in need of shelter. At least 5,025 Motel 6 rooms at 47 sites would open their doors to homeless people, “effective immediately,” should counties opt in, he said. But to date, just 628 Motel 6 rooms are open to homeless people at six sites.

Newsom also said in April that California must dramatically expand COVID-19 testing before it reopens to at least 60,000 — ideally 80,000 — tests per day. But the state still has not consistently reached 60,000 tests per day, even as it has allowed most counties to ease their stay-at-home restrictions.

In other cases, the governor has artfully avoided making specific promises. For instance, he has called the safety of nursing home patients and staff members a “top priority” without detailing plans, allowing him to dodge criticism even as more than half the deaths in California have occurred in long-term care facilities, according to state data.

Yet so far Newsom is showing strong support from Californians. Nearly 70% of likely voters say he’s doing a good job of handling the pandemic, according to a new poll released Wednesday by the Public Policy Institute of California. His overall approval rating has climbed by double digits since February, rising from 52% to 64%.

But his support could erode if the public begins to notice that his promises — and lofty rhetoric — do not match reality, said Mark Baldassare, president and CEO of the institute.

“People can be forgiving and give the governor the benefit of the doubt, but that can turn from positive to negative very quickly,” Baldassare said. “The risk is public opinion can shift very quickly if people get a sense that it’s not going well or according to expectations.”

Although Newsom himself has acknowledged criticism that the state is falling short on some fronts, his chief spokesperson Nathan Click defended the governor’s approach.

“When it’s your life or livelihood on the line, wouldn’t you want leaders who are moving aggressively to help people on every possible front?” Click said in a statement. “He’s not afraid to swing for the fences — especially in a time of massive need.”

Daniel Zingale, Newsom’s former chief adviser, who retired earlier this year, argued that the governor’s handling of the pandemic has saved countless lives while bolstering the social safety net for those at greatest risk of contracting the coronavirus.

“When you have a crisis like this that is unprecedented, there is no real playbook,” Zingale said. “I think Gavin Newsom was made for this moment. This is a situation where you want a governor who is high-energy, deeply earnest and prone to action rather than inaction.”

***

Newsom’s political career dates back to the late 1990s, when he was appointed to San Francisco’s parking and traffic commission by its then-mayor, Willie Brown. Soon thereafter, Brown tapped Newsom to fill an open seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Running as the incumbent in 1998, Newsom was elected that year to his first full term on the board.

During his early years in public life, he honed his approach to politics — aggressively seeking national media attention for first-in-the-country social and economic policies. In 2004, the year he took office as mayor, Newsom granted same-sex couples marriage licenses before it was legal, and in 2006 he signed into law the nation’s first universal health care program, which covered all city residents regardless of their immigration status or ability to pay.

Newsom, in his 2013 book “Citizenville,” described his leadership approach as “Ready, fire, aim.”

“I’m as proud of some of my failures in business and politics as I am of my successes,” he wrote. “Failure isn’t something to be embarrassed about; it’s just proof that you’re pushing your limits, trying new things, daring to innovate.”

Newsom believes strongly in setting “audacious goals,” even if he risks over-promising or alienating supporters, said Peter Ragone, who was press secretary for part of Newsom’s mayoral tenure.

“Gavin has always believed that if you show people you’re thinking big and trying hard, they will take that over timidity, even if you might fail,” said Ragone, who remains a close, informal adviser to Newsom and also advises New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio. “He wasn’t able to completely eradicate homelessness, but the voters were OK with that because they saw he was trying. Success doesn’t have to be an absolute policy triumph.”

***

Now Newsom is facing the biggest challenge of his political career, with several high-profile crises slamming California at once: A global public health emergency. Widespread civil unrest sparked by the killing of an African American man in Minnesota, George Floyd, at the hands of a white police officer, Derek Chauvin. Rising unemployment that could reach 30%. And another potentially devastating wildfire season.

The coronavirus pandemic, in particular, could have long-lasting consequences for Newsom’s future, said Dr. Leonard Marcus, co-director of the National Preparedness Leadership Initiative, a joint program of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and the Harvard Kennedy School of Government.

“The politics of crisis leadership are high-consequence,” Marcus said. “For every political leader, a crisis like this is going to make or break their career.”

George Chin, 80, lived in a nursing home in Woodland, California, until April 22, when he died of COVID-19, according to his family. Chin died six days after he first complained of shortness of breath and spiked a high fever. (Courtesy of Simon Chin)

Davis resident Simon Chin has grown disillusioned with Newsom since the start of the crisis.

Chin’s father, 80-year-old George Chin, lived in Stollwood Convalescent Hospital in nearby Woodland. Chin regularly tuned into Newsom’s public briefings on the crisis to hear the governor say he was committed to preventing infections in nursing homes and protecting staff members and residents.

But infections in senior care homes continued to rise. And although Newsom has called for universal testing of residents and staffers, the state hasn’t provided the resources to make that happen, said Jason Belden, emergency preparedness director for the California Association of Health Facilities, which represents California’s roughly 1,200 state-regulated nursing homes.

State Health and Human Services Secretary Mark Ghaly said it’s the responsibility of nursing homes, not the state, to test.

“It’s not what we’re doing, and it’s, in our view, not feasible,” Ghaly said in an interview, noting that across the state, there are about 119,000 nursing home beds and about 90,000 staff members.

Newsom’s rhetoric at times has given the public a false sense of hope, said Dr. Michael Wasserman, president of the California Association of Long Term Care Medicine.

“When it comes to vulnerable older adults in California, all this governor has been doing is saying he’s going to act, he’s going to help them, but he hasn’t actually taken action,” Wasserman said. “People are dying because of it.”

Newsom’s reassuring statements during his public briefings made Chin feel like the state was doing more to prevent widespread infections, he said.

But Chin’s father died of COVID-19 on April 22. State records show 15 residents — roughly half of the nursing home’s capacity — died of the disease.

“We had no idea that there were such big problems in skilled nursing facilities based on what the governor was saying,” Chin said. “By the time we found out, it was too late.”

This KHN story first published on California Healthline, a service of the California Health Care Foundation.

Newsom Likes To ‘Go Big’ But Doesn’t Always Deliver published first on https://nootropicspowdersupplier.tumblr.com/

[dinafbrownil]

Newsom Likes To ‘Go Big’ But Doesn’t Always Deliver

Gavin Newsom knew it was a political gamble when, as the newly elected mayor of San Francisco, he promised to eradicate chronic homelessness.

“I recognize that I’m setting myself up. I’m not naive to that,” he told his hometown newspaper in 2003 as he embarked on a campaign to sell his controversial plan. It hinged on slashing welfare payments for homeless people and redirecting those funds to acquire single-room occupancy hotels, converting them into long-term housing with health and social services.

“I don’t want to over-promise, but I also don’t want to under-deliver,” he said.

Over-promise he did, and the venture ultimately failed. But that pledge by Newsom — who at the time was a young, politically connected wine shop owner relatively new to public office — previewed a brand of political leadership on full display today as the first-term governor confronts an unprecedented public health emergency that has decimated the state’s economy and killed more than 4,280 Californians.

The COVID-19 pandemic has catapulted the 52-year-old Democrat into greater national prominence, winning him praise and voter support for taking decisive action to control the spread of infection in the absence of strong federal leadership.

But it has also exposed his penchant for making ambitious, showy announcements — often broadcast to a national audience — that aren’t necessarily ready for prime time. His plans regularly lack detail and, in some cases, follow-through.

“This governor wants to get a lot done even if all the details aren’t quite there yet. It’s uniquely his approach,” said Democratic strategist Dana Williamson, longtime adviser to former Gov. Jerry Brown. “He isn’t afraid to go big. The upside is establishing yourself as a real leader and, in the case of COVID, saving lives. But the downside is it doesn’t always work out quite perfectly.”

Newsom has a long history of pushing big ideas before they become popular, including legalizing gay marriage and recreational marijuana use, halting death penalty executions and expanding free health care for undocumented immigrants. Since his entry into public life, he has cultivated the image of a political risk-taker willing to buck the Democratic Party establishment. And although he has demurred, there is widespread speculation that Newsom has presidential ambitions.

Email Sign-Up

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

Sign Up

Please confirm your email address below:

Sign Up

Since the start of the pandemic, Newsom has been praised by public health experts and Democratic strategists for making politically courageous decisions such as enacting the nation’s first statewide stay-at-home order, preventing widespread sickness and death. He has dramatically expanded hospital capacity while seeking to attack major problems as they erupt, from dire shortages of protective gear for hospital workers to inadequate testing in rural towns and poor, inner-city neighborhoods.

But as the crisis wears on, the list of Newsom’s unfulfilled promises is growing:

On April 7, he told MSNBC host Rachel Maddow that he had inked a deal securing “upwards” of 200 million protective masks per month, enough to “supply the needs of the state of California — potentially the needs of other Western states.” But nearly two months later, just 61 million surgical masks have arrived in California, while no higher-caliber N95 masks have been delivered, according to Brian Ferguson, spokesperson for the state Office of Emergency Services — despite Newsom’s promise that the deal included at least 150 million N95s. The $1 billion effort has been riddled with flaws, and the state so far has taken back nearly $250 million from the Chinese contractor, BYD Ltd. Co.

Later that month, Newsom announced a deal with Motel 6 that would provide thousands of rooms for homeless people in need of shelter. At least 5,025 Motel 6 rooms at 47 sites would open their doors to homeless people, “effective immediately,” should counties opt in, he said. But to date, just 628 Motel 6 rooms are open to homeless people at six sites.

Newsom also said in April that California must dramatically expand COVID-19 testing before it reopens to at least 60,000 — ideally 80,000 — tests per day. But the state still has not consistently reached 60,000 tests per day, even as it has allowed most counties to ease their stay-at-home restrictions.

In other cases, the governor has artfully avoided making specific promises. For instance, he has called the safety of nursing home patients and staff members a “top priority” without detailing plans, allowing him to dodge criticism even as more than half the deaths in California have occurred in long-term care facilities, according to state data.

Yet so far Newsom is showing strong support from Californians. Nearly 70% of likely voters say he’s doing a good job of handling the pandemic, according to a new poll released Wednesday by the Public Policy Institute of California. His overall approval rating has climbed by double digits since February, rising from 52% to 64%.

But his support could erode if the public begins to notice that his promises — and lofty rhetoric — do not match reality, said Mark Baldassare, president and CEO of the institute.

“People can be forgiving and give the governor the benefit of the doubt, but that can turn from positive to negative very quickly,” Baldassare said. “The risk is public opinion can shift very quickly if people get a sense that it’s not going well or according to expectations.”

Although Newsom himself has acknowledged criticism that the state is falling short on some fronts, his chief spokesperson Nathan Click defended the governor’s approach.

“When it’s your life or livelihood on the line, wouldn’t you want leaders who are moving aggressively to help people on every possible front?” Click said in a statement. “He’s not afraid to swing for the fences — especially in a time of massive need.”

Daniel Zingale, Newsom’s former chief adviser, who retired earlier this year, argued that the governor’s handling of the pandemic has saved countless lives while bolstering the social safety net for those at greatest risk of contracting the coronavirus.

“When you have a crisis like this that is unprecedented, there is no real playbook,” Zingale said. “I think Gavin Newsom was made for this moment. This is a situation where you want a governor who is high-energy, deeply earnest and prone to action rather than inaction.”

***

Newsom’s political career dates back to the late 1990s, when he was appointed to San Francisco’s parking and traffic commission by its then-mayor, Willie Brown. Soon thereafter, Brown tapped Newsom to fill an open seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Running as the incumbent in 1998, Newsom was elected that year to his first full term on the board.

During his early years in public life, he honed his approach to politics — aggressively seeking national media attention for first-in-the-country social and economic policies. In 2004, the year he took office as mayor, Newsom granted same-sex couples marriage licenses before it was legal, and in 2006 he signed into law the nation’s first universal health care program, which covered all city residents regardless of their immigration status or ability to pay.

Newsom, in his 2013 book “Citizenville,” described his leadership approach as “Ready, fire, aim.”

“I’m as proud of some of my failures in business and politics as I am of my successes,” he wrote. “Failure isn’t something to be embarrassed about; it’s just proof that you’re pushing your limits, trying new things, daring to innovate.”

Newsom believes strongly in setting “audacious goals,” even if he risks over-promising or alienating supporters, said Peter Ragone, who was press secretary for part of Newsom’s mayoral tenure.

“Gavin has always believed that if you show people you’re thinking big and trying hard, they will take that over timidity, even if you might fail,” said Ragone, who remains a close, informal adviser to Newsom and also advises New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio. “He wasn’t able to completely eradicate homelessness, but the voters were OK with that because they saw he was trying. Success doesn’t have to be an absolute policy triumph.”

***

Now Newsom is facing the biggest challenge of his political career, with several high-profile crises slamming California at once: A global public health emergency. Widespread civil unrest sparked by the killing of an African American man in Minnesota, George Floyd, at the hands of a white police officer, Derek Chauvin. Rising unemployment that could reach 30%. And another potentially devastating wildfire season.

The coronavirus pandemic, in particular, could have long-lasting consequences for Newsom’s future, said Dr. Leonard Marcus, co-director of the National Preparedness Leadership Initiative, a joint program of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and the Harvard Kennedy School of Government.

“The politics of crisis leadership are high-consequence,” Marcus said. “For every political leader, a crisis like this is going to make or break their career.”

George Chin, 80, lived in a nursing home in Woodland, California, until April 22, when he died of COVID-19, according to his family. Chin died six days after he first complained of shortness of breath and spiked a high fever. (Courtesy of Simon Chin)

Davis resident Simon Chin has grown disillusioned with Newsom since the start of the crisis.

Chin’s father, 80-year-old George Chin, lived in Stollwood Convalescent Hospital in nearby Woodland. Chin regularly tuned into Newsom’s public briefings on the crisis to hear the governor say he was committed to preventing infections in nursing homes and protecting staff members and residents.

But infections in senior care homes continued to rise. And although Newsom has called for universal testing of residents and staffers, the state hasn’t provided the resources to make that happen, said Jason Belden, emergency preparedness director for the California Association of Health Facilities, which represents California’s roughly 1,200 state-regulated nursing homes.

State Health and Human Services Secretary Mark Ghaly said it’s the responsibility of nursing homes, not the state, to test.

“It’s not what we’re doing, and it’s, in our view, not feasible,” Ghaly said in an interview, noting that across the state, there are about 119,000 nursing home beds and about 90,000 staff members.

Newsom’s rhetoric at times has given the public a false sense of hope, said Dr. Michael Wasserman, president of the California Association of Long Term Care Medicine.

“When it comes to vulnerable older adults in California, all this governor has been doing is saying he’s going to act, he’s going to help them, but he hasn’t actually taken action,” Wasserman said. “People are dying because of it.”

Newsom’s reassuring statements during his public briefings made Chin feel like the state was doing more to prevent widespread infections, he said.

But Chin’s father died of COVID-19 on April 22. State records show 15 residents — roughly half of the nursing home’s capacity — died of the disease.

“We had no idea that there were such big problems in skilled nursing facilities based on what the governor was saying,” Chin said. “By the time we found out, it was too late.”

This KHN story first published on California Healthline, a service of the California Health Care Foundation.

from Updates By Dina https://khn.org/news/newsom-likes-to-go-big-but-doesnt-always-deliver/

[lodelss]

ACLU: Raising our Voices for Equality at Stonewall and the Supreme Court

Raising our Voices for Equality at Stonewall and the Supreme Court 50 years after the riots at Stonewall, we are telling the Supreme Court not to roll back protections for LGBTQ people.

It’s been half a century since the Stonewall uprising began on June 28, 1969, the reason we celebrate Pride each June. But there’s another fitting date to commemorate this month, and it falls just two days before the 50th anniversary of Stonewall.

June 26 marks the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in 2003 striking down state laws that criminalized same-sex intimacy. The court’s opinion in Lawrence v. Texas did much more than decriminalize being LGBTQ; it was the first step toward recognizing the equal dignity of same-sex relationships under law.

What’s more, June 26 isn’t the anniversary of just one blockbuster Supreme Court opinion advancing LGBTQ rights. It’s also the anniversary of two others. Ten years to the day after its decision in Lawrence, the court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, which consigned the marriages of same-sex couples to second-class status. Exactly two years later, the court held that same-sex couples have the freedom to marry.

While it’s fitting that the anniversaries of these court decisions fall during Pride month, it isn’t a coincidence. The Supreme Court’s yearly term ends in June, and decisions in the most high-profile cases typically aren’t announced until the final month, giving the justices until the very last minute to put the finishing touches on their opinions. The landmark 1994 case Farmer v. Brennan, in which the court concluded that prison officials could not allow a transgender woman to be raped in prison, was also decided in June, though not on June 26. Still, that three key decisions were announced on the exact same day in June feels significant.

This June 26, however, brings not the end, but the opening salvo in the next major LGBTQ rights issue before the court. Today, LGBTQ employees filed their opening briefs in three cases that will determine whether we are protected from discrimination on the job.

The cases involve three workers who were fired because of who they are. Aimee Stephens, a funeral director in Michigan represented by the ACLU, was fired for being transgender. Donald Zarda, a skydiving instructor in New York represented by the ACLU as co-counsel with NY lawyer Greg Antollino and the Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, was fired for being gay, as was Gerald Bostock, a child welfare services coordinator in Georgia.

That’s illegal under prevailing interpretations of federal law, but the court could reverse decades of progress and announce that it is perfectly legal to fire someone for being LGBTQ. That would be shocking to most people in this country. Yet the fact that the court agreed to hear the cases raises that alarming possibility, particularly now that Justice Kennedy, long seen as the court’s champion of LGBTQ rights, has been replaced by Justice Kavanaugh.

There are reasons for LGBTQ people to stay optimistic, however.

For starters, there’s the text of the statute itself. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits job discrimination “because of sex.” Firing someone for being a man who dates other men, or for being a woman who was assigned the sex male at birth, is literally discrimination “because of sex.”

Then there’s the Supreme Court’s robust history of interpreting Title VII to protect workers from sex discrimination in myriad forms. The court’s very first Title VII case involved Ida Phillips, who was disqualified from applying for a job because she was a mother with young children. The problem was not that Phillips was a woman; the employer hired women in droves. It was the kind of woman she was: one who, the employer assumed, would be too busy with her preschoolers to do the job.

That is precisely the kind of group-based assumption that Title VII was intended to stamp out. Just as Ida Phillips was entitled to the opportunity to prove that she could do the job, so too LGBTQ people must be free to compete based on their own merit, not assumptions about gender roles.

Finally, there’s the fact that the current crop of cases, unlike the June 26 trio of years past, involves not constitutional rights, but the words of a statute. That means the justices don’t have to agree that the marriage question was rightly decided—or that they are bound to follow it—to rule in favor of the LGBTQ employees here. That will be key to the path to victory, because the workers will need the vote of at least one justice who opposed marriage equality in 2015 or who has since been appointed by President Trump.

We won’t find out whether the court will affirm workplace protections for LGBTQ people this Pride month, however. For that, we’ll have to wait until next year—perhaps until June 26.

In the meantime, employers don’t need to wait to do the right thing. And all of us should call on the Senate to pass the Equality Act—which will provide express protection against discrimination because a person is lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender—right now. This Pride month, it’s never been more important to make our voices heard.

Published June 26, 2019 at 09:15PM via ACLU https://ift.tt/2ZKTlNx from Blogger https://ift.tt/2ZOF3eE via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Blogger

[nancydhooper]

Raising our Voices for Equality at Stonewall and the Supreme Court

50 years after the riots at Stonewall, we are telling the Supreme Court not to roll back protections for LGBTQ people.

It’s been half a century since the Stonewall uprising began on June 28, 1969, the reason we celebrate Pride each June. But there’s another fitting date to commemorate this month, and it falls just two days before the 50th anniversary of Stonewall.

June 26 marks the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in 2003 striking down state laws that criminalized same-sex intimacy. The court’s opinion in Lawrence v. Texas did much more than decriminalize being LGBTQ; it was the first step toward recognizing the equal dignity of same-sex relationships under law.

What’s more, June 26 isn’t the anniversary of just one blockbuster Supreme Court opinion advancing LGBTQ rights. It’s also the anniversary of two others. Ten years to the day after its decision in Lawrence, the court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, which consigned the marriages of same-sex couples to second-class status. Exactly two years later, the court held that same-sex couples have the freedom to marry.

While it’s fitting that the anniversaries of these court decisions fall during Pride month, it isn’t a coincidence. The Supreme Court’s yearly term ends in June, and decisions in the most high-profile cases typically aren’t announced until the final month, giving the justices until the very last minute to put the finishing touches on their opinions. The landmark 1994 case Farmer v. Brennan, in which the court concluded that prison officials could not allow a transgender woman to be raped in prison, was also decided in June, though not on June 26. Still, that three key decisions were announced on the exact same day in June feels significant.

This June 26, however, brings not the end, but the opening salvo in the next major LGBTQ rights issue before the court. Today, LGBTQ employees filed their opening briefs in three cases that will determine whether we are protected from discrimination on the job.

The cases involve three workers who were fired because of who they are. Aimee Stephens, a funeral director in Michigan represented by the ACLU, was fired for being transgender. Donald Zarda, a skydiving instructor in New York represented by the ACLU as co-counsel with NY lawyer Greg Antollino and the Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, was fired for being gay, as was Gerald Bostock, a child welfare services coordinator in Georgia.

That’s illegal under prevailing interpretations of federal law, but the court could reverse decades of progress and announce that it is perfectly legal to fire someone for being LGBTQ. That would be shocking to most people in this country. Yet the fact that the court agreed to hear the cases raises that alarming possibility, particularly now that Justice Kennedy, long seen as the court’s champion of LGBTQ rights, has been replaced by Justice Kavanaugh.

There are reasons for LGBTQ people to stay optimistic, however.

For starters, there’s the text of the statute itself. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits job discrimination “because of sex.” Firing someone for being a man who dates other men, or for being a woman who was assigned the sex male at birth, is literally discrimination “because of sex.”

Then there’s the Supreme Court’s robust history of interpreting Title VII to protect workers from sex discrimination in myriad forms. The court’s very first Title VII case involved Ida Phillips, who was disqualified from applying for a job because she was a mother with young children. The problem was not that Phillips was a woman; the employer hired women in droves. It was the kind of woman she was: one who, the employer assumed, would be too busy with her preschoolers to do the job.

That is precisely the kind of group-based assumption that Title VII was intended to stamp out. Just as Ida Phillips was entitled to the opportunity to prove that she could do the job, so too LGBTQ people must be free to compete based on their own merit, not assumptions about gender roles.

Finally, there’s the fact that the current crop of cases, unlike the June 26 trio of years past, involves not constitutional rights, but the words of a statute. That means the justices don’t have to agree that the marriage question was rightly decided—or that they are bound to follow it—to rule in favor of the LGBTQ employees here. That will be key to the path to victory, because the workers will need the vote of at least one justice who opposed marriage equality in 2015 or who has since been appointed by President Trump.

We won’t find out whether the court will affirm workplace protections for LGBTQ people this Pride month, however. For that, we’ll have to wait until next year—perhaps until June 26.

In the meantime, employers don’t need to wait to do the right thing. And all of us should call on the Senate to pass the Equality Act—which will provide express protection against discrimination because a person is lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender—right now. This Pride month, it’s never been more important to make our voices heard.

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8247012 https://www.aclu.org/blog/lgbt-rights/raising-our-voices-equality-stonewall-and-supreme-court via http://www.rssmix.com/

[newssplashy]

Cities and towns across the US are celebrating Pride throughout the month of June. Nearly every city has some sort of big event. Here is a handy FAQ that explains what Pride Month is all about.

June is Pride Month, when cities across the US show support for LGBT+ rights, culture, and communities.

It's a tradition that goes back to the early 1970s, when cities began hosting events to commemorate the Stonewall Riots and highlight issues that LGBT+ Americans still face.

Here's what Pride Month is all about.

What is Pride Month, and how are cities celebrating it?

Pride is a monthlong LGBT+ celebration, protest, and act of political activism in the US. Nearly every city has some sort of big event — usually a large parade with plenty of rainbow iconography, glitter, and floats driven by local companies and organizations.

Several cities have already kicked off the month with Pride parades and LGBT-centered events, ranging from protests and dance parties to poetry readings and drag shows.

Why do Americans celebrate Pride, and when did it all start?

The history of Pride — as well as the larger LGBT rights movement — dates back to the late 1960s at the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in Manhattan. The venue was known as the rare spot where same-sex patrons could dance with each other without the fear of harassment.

At the time, it was fairly common for police to raid gay bars and nightclubs, especially in big cities like New York City and Los Angeles. Sometimes these raids would result in violence on behalf of the officers.

In the early morning hours of June 28, 1969, the police raided Stonewall, but this time, the patrons fought back. Marsha P. Johnson, a black trans woman celebrating her 25th birthday at the time, is credited with starting the uprising.

The Stonewall Riots, consisting of thousands of people, lasted for the next six days.

Does Stonewall still exist today?

The Stonewall Inn — a two-story establishment on Manhattan's West Side — still operates today as a gay bar and entertainment revenue. Throughout the week, it hosts dance parties and drag shows.

In 2015, the City of New York designated Stonewall as a historic landmark. A year later, President Obama named it a national monument.

"The Stonewall Inn is a rarity — a tipping point in history where we know, with absolute clarity, that everything changed," Manhattan Borough President Gale A. Brewer said in a statement to BuzzFeed in 2015.

What's the difference between the Pride Parade, the Dyke March, and the Trans Day of Action?

These three events, usually held on separate days in June, focus on different LGBT+ communities. The Pride Parade is more or less for everyone, while the Dyke March is a protest march for the rights of queer women and nonbinary people, and the Trans Day of Action (or Visibility) is a rally for trans and gender non-conforming folks.

Pride Parades, Dyke Marches, and Trans Days of Action are held in most major US cities, including New York, Seattle, Atlanta, Boston, and San Diego.

An official straight-pride month does not exist, because straight identities are considered normative in the US.

How did the rainbow flag come to represent LGBT+ pride?

The LGBT pride flag was invented in 1978 by Gilbert Baker, a gay rights activist, army veteran, artist, and self-declared "gay Betsy Ross."

He created the flag for the 1978 Gay Freedom Pride Parade in San Francisco, at the request of Harvey Milk, a gay local politician who was assassinated later that year.

The original flag had eight colors, each carrying a specific meaning. In 1979, the palette was condensed to six colors (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and violet).

In recent years, the flag has been adapted to include black and brown, for racial inclusivity and HIV/AIDS awareness.

As Forrest Wickman wrote in Slate, closeted queer people have historically used bright colors to signal their homosexuality to each other.

"We needed something beautiful, something from us. The rainbow is so perfect because it really fits our diversity in terms of race, gender, ages, all of those things," Baker told MOMA two years before his death in 2017.

Is the US the only country that celebrates Pride?

Although LGBT+ Americans face issues specific to living in the US, the country is not the only one to have Pride.

Cities across the world — from Tokyo to Sydney to Rio de Janeiro — recognize their own Pride Months that fall at various times throughout the year.

What progress has the US made on LGBT+ rights since the Stonewall Riots?

At the time of the Stonewall Riots, many states still criminalized same-sex relationships. The last states to decriminalize same-sex sexual intercourse were Texas, Idaho, Utah, Kansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, the Carolinas, Virginia, and Michigan, in 2003.

Over the past five decades, LGBT+ rights have significantly improved. In 1975, the US introduced the first federal gay-rights bill to address discrimination based on sexual orientation. Under the Clinton administration, federal funding for HIV/AIDS research, prevention, and treatment more than doubled. In 2009, Congress passed the Matthew Shepard Act, which expanded the definition of hate crimes to include gender, sexual orientation, gender-identity, and disability.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the ban on gay and lesbian people from serving openly in the military, was repealed in 2011. A year later, the US issued a regulation that prohibits LGBT+ discrimination in federally-assisted housing programs.

In 2015, the US Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in every state. In 2017, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that workplace discrimination against LGBT+ employees was unconstitutional, and Washington, DC residents became able to choose a gender-neutral option on their driver's licenses.

Isn't the fight over since same-sex marriage is now legal? What rights are LGBT+ people still working toward?

Same-sex marriage is just one step toward full equality for LGBT+ people, who are still fighting political battles in 2018.

These include police brutality and profiling, anti-trans "bathroom bills," limits on transgender members of the military, non-LGBT-friendly healthcare policies, the decision to erase LGBT+ Americans from the Census, discrimination at retail stores and in the workplace, and more.

Even before the shooting rampage at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, in 2016, LGBT+ people were already the most likely targets of hate crimes in the US, according to FBI data. At the 2018 Utah Pride Festival in Salt Lake City on June 3, a mob of white men yelled slurs and physically attacked gay attendees.

What are the important terms I should understand?

Some terms you might hear this month include:

Asexual — A word that describes people who do not feel sexual desire toward any group of people. Asexuality is not the same as celibacy (i.e. the choice to abstain from marriage and sexual relations).

Biphobia — An irrational aversion toward bixsexual people, often due to negative bisexual stereotypes.

Cisgender — A term that describes people who identify as the sex they were assigned at birth.

Intersectional Pride —A phrase that acknowledges LGBT+ people have a variety of identities — including race and income level — that give them varying levels of privilege in society. The philosophy here is that the LGBT+ movement should fight for everyone in the community, especially those who have less privilege.

LGBTQ+ — This is an acronym for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, plus other non-heterosexual identities. Sometimes, "I" for intersex and "A" for asexual or agender are tacked on the end, but not all intersex people identify under the umbrella of LGBT+.

Nonbinary — A term that refers to people who do not fit within the male-female gender binary. Many nonbinary people use the pronouns "they/them."

Pansexual — A word used to describe people who feel attracted to others of any gender, which can be on a spectrum.

Queer — The meaning of "queer" is debated within LGBT circles, but most often it's used as an umbrella term for non-heterosexual attraction.

I've heard that some people are upset about the growing presence of corporate sponsors and/or police at Pride Parades. Why is this?

Some members of the LGBT+ community, particularly people of color, have a contentious relationship with police, due to a long history of raids and discrimination — which prompted the Stonewall Riots in 1969. In 2017, several Canadian cities chose to ban uniformed police officers from marching in Pride parades, according to the BBC.

A number of LGBT+ groups have also expressed disdain toward the growing corporatization of Pride in major cities like San Francisco and New York. They argue that, in recent years, Pride has become too commercial and has strayed from its history of resistance and revolution.

As Vice noted in 2017, at Washington, DC's 2017 Pride Parade, protesters from "No Justice, No Pride" formed a human chain around Lockheed Martin's float, bringing it to a halt.

I'm a straight person. Should I go to Pride?

Everyone can partake in Pride Month. However, LGBT+ people should remain at the center of the celebrations and marches.

If you are straight and choose to attend a Pride Parade, it's important to remain respectful as an ally. Support an LGBT+ friend, or better yet, donate your time by volunteering at your local Pride Parade or other Pride events throughout June.

Most cities have sites that list ways to get involved.

Several LGBT+ organizations, like GLAAD, the Audre Lorde Project, and the Anti-Defamation League, have posted resources on these topics as more. You can also find out about your local Pride events here.

via NewsSplashy - Latest Nigerian News Online

#IFTTT #NewsSplashy - Latest Nigerian News Online

[njawaidofficial]

Here’s What The Original Cast Of “Queer Eye” Thinks Of The Netflix Reboot

https://styleveryday.com/2018/03/24/heres-what-the-original-cast-of-queer-eye-thinks-of-the-netflix-reboot/

Here’s What The Original Cast Of “Queer Eye” Thinks Of The Netflix Reboot

Jai Rodriguez, Thom Filicia, Carson Kressley, Ted Allen, and Kyan Douglas at the 2003 premiere of Queer Eye.

Scott Gries / Getty Images

When Jai Rodriguez sat down recently to watch the Netflix reboot of Queer Eye, he was somehow able to totally disconnect from his role as the culture guru of the original Fab Five and just enjoy himself as a fan. “And I fangirled out — hard,” he told BuzzFeed News. “I loved it.”

For Rodriguez, watching the show also underscored just how much time has passed since the original Queer Eye for the Straight Guy first debuted. “Being out in 2003 was political. You being out was saying something,” he said. “Whereas now it’s not really as big of a deal.”

“We were talking to the guys of the new cast and they were like, ‘Were any of you married on the show?’ And we were like, ‘Are you kidding? We weren’t legally allowed!’ Such a different time,” he said.

When Queer Eye first premiered on Bravo in 2003, it was a bold new reality show featuring a cast of five cosmopolitan, openly gay men who were plucked from total obscurity and transformed into international stars. The showed arrived in a United States where 59% of people opposed marriage equality and “don’t ask, don’t tell” was still the law of the land. The most prominent gay characters on television were in Will & Grace.

And, yet, Queer Eye was a phenomenon.

The show’s premise was simple: Five gay men with different skill sets — ranging from cooking, to fashion, to home improvement — were tasked with sprucing up an unsuspecting and usually unkempt straight guy, taking him from drab to fab.

But Rodriguez and his fellow hosts Carson Kressley (fashion), Kyan Douglas (grooming), Thom Filicia (decor), and Ted Allen (cooking) soon became household names, helping to make over what the country understood about gay people and masculinity.

While the show irked some in the LGBT community for its reliance on the stereotype of gay men being experts in fashion and decor, it was an immediate hit for Bravo, earning the cable channel its highest ever ratings. NBC, Bravo’s parent company, soon took took notice and aired the show after Will & Grace to millions more viewers.

“Queer Eye may be the talk of the water coolers in America’s big cities,” the Chicago Tribune soon declared, while Canada’s Globe and Mail newspaper said it was “the most talked-about new program of the new TV season.” The New York Times credited the show with helping give rise to a “metrosexual moment,” while noting it was prominent among the gay-themed shows finding a wider audience.

Soon, the Fab Five were everywhere: They were interviewed on The Tonight Show, making over then-host Jay Leno; they attended the 2003 VMAS, watching Madonna and Britney Spears kiss on stage; Liza Minnelli presented them with the “Biggest Gay Heroes” honor at VH1’s “Big in 03″ ceremony; and they were even parodied on South Park. The show was soon airing in 170 countries, picking up an Emmy in the process.

Rodriguez, Allen, Filicia, Douglas, and Kressley in 2004.

Andrew Kent / Getty Images

But when word leaked in January 2017 that Netflix was planning on rebooting the reality show almost 10 years after the original ended, many were initially reluctant to embrace it, fearful that too many years had passed and too much LGBT progress had been made to return to an outdated show.

“Netflix is reviving another small-screen relic — and, we fear, all the problematic stereotypes that come along with it,” wrote TV Line, asking whether the reboot would set gay rights back a decade. (Fittingly, just months earlier, the same fears were raised when it was announced NBC planned to reboot Will & Grace.)

Yet the Netflix reboot, which premiered last month, has proved immensely popular with fans both old and new — in part because of the changes producers made from the original. “The original show was fighting for tolerance,” says fashion expert Tan France in the reboot’s opening episode. “Our fight is for acceptance.”

youtube.com

With its emphasis on self-care, body positivity, and joy, Queer Eye (“For the Straight Guy,” was cut from the title of the reboot, which features an episode with the Fab Five making over a gay man) has been popular with critics and on social media. “Queer Eye manages to combine all the brain-dead fun of the original … with an underlying and rather profound examination of masculinity,” wrote Eleanor Margolis for the New Statesman. “On top of that, it has a trait that, in these certifiably Dark Times, we can only appreciate: pure, uncut positivity.”

Members of the original cast are also fans of the changes Netflix has made to the series, including its more racially diverse cast (France is a British-Pakistani Muslim, Karamo Brown was the first openly gay black cast member on MTV’s The Real World). “I love that the cast is more diverse. I love that the people that they’re making over are more diverse,” said Douglas, the original grooming expert. “I love them. I think it’s a great show.”

They also applauded the reboot’s attempts to deal with complex subjects such as religion, race relations with police, internalized homophobia, and heteronormative views of LGBT relationships. With excitement, Rodriguez said the Queer Eye reboot is “allowed to tackle issues we were not really allowed to delve into.”

The reboot also shifts most of the action from New York to Georgia, the same state where an Augusta station manager once refused to air the original Queer Eye until 2:30 in the morning due to scenes he believed “crossed the line of decency with blunt sexual innuendo.”

The new Queer Eye cast (from left: Karamo Brown (culture), Jonathan Van Ness (grooming), Tan France (fashion), Antoni Porowski (food and wine), and Bobby Berk (interior design).

Carin Baer / Carin Baer/Netflix

Rodriguez said the new show works because it’s more accessible and allows the new Fab Five to be vulnerable, rather than comic book heroes answering a clarion call as depicted in the original’s credit sequence.

“We were superheroes who were meant to be perfect. They never showed us flawed; they never showed us making mistakes,” Rodriguez said. “This new version isn’t like that. Sometimes they’re in tank tops and shorts. They’re just relatable, they’re easy breezy; they’re not the gays that are better than you — they’re the gays who just want to help.”

“Our show, if you remember, everything was designer, high-end,” he said. “I had to wear a blazer in every episode.”

youtube.com

Both Douglas and Filicia, the original grooming and decor experts, believe the new Queer Eye has been embraced because it’s arrived at just the right time.

“It’s been a little bleak,” Filicia said. “I think there is a strong reaction to the show because it has a great lineage, a great history, and I think that people are ready to feel good about things again.”

Douglas described the reboot as an antidote to the “strange, difficult time” the country is going through.

“The underbelly of racism is so clear for anybody who decides to see it and homophobia and transphobia,” he said. “This new Queer Eye is the antidote to all that in some ways — it’s like, thank god there’s still some queer people in your living room.”

Allen, the original food expert, said both his version and the reboot help viewers see gay men as real people instead of caricatures.

“I think that when a conservative family sees this group of five happy, successful, accomplished people devoting themselves to helping somebody who’s a bit of a mess, it humanizes us,” Allen said.

He and Kressley, the original fashion expert, believe that although society has evolved, and important LGBT progress has been made, the new version is just as necessary as ever.

“Even though we have made great strides in our community with marriage equality and many more advances in trans rights, at the end of the day, there is still a lot of homophobia and a lot of people that have not been exposed to gay people,” Kressley said.

“It doesn’t matter what era we live in — visibility is so important because … little queer kids need to see flamey people like me and Jonathan [Van Ness],” Kressley said. “It’s okay to be any kind of person you want to be; it’s okay to be who you are. I think that’s why it’s important that it’s back.”

Douglas, Kressley, Filicia, and Rodriguez at last month’s West Hollywood premiere of the Netflix reboot.

Emma Mcintyre / Getty Images

[everyonespoetry]

Which America?

Which United States of America is it that you love so much? Because slavery was abolished in 1865, after war And segregation was stopped by the civil rights act in 1964 After Brown v. Board in 1954 Almost 100 years later, after all the bloodshed,  We still didn’t end segregation almost a century And yet today, we still carry on The Drug War, Where all races seem to do and sell drugs at similar rates And yet we still prosecute more racial minorities than the majority This battle isn’t over, is it even a priority? A priority to our youth, or the authority? We should be able to stand together, solidarity We’re all human, we’ve got that similarity So, which America is it that you love so much? Our are you just out of touch? Do you not understand these issues and such? Let’s go onto another,  Do we remember when gay bars got closed in 1969 New York Stonewall Riots happened And then the flood gates opened Groups of people awakened And the LGBT+ movement’s roots were formed Because even though the stonewall riots weren’t the first, People thought being gay was the worst, It wasn’t until 2003 and three until Lawrence v. Texas Forced 14 states to decriminalize being gay, In the year 2015, 12 years after Lawrence v. Texas, Gay marriage was legalized in The United States To this day we don’t have trans equality, We still see discrimination  That is the real immorality Throughout the nation Let’s not forget intersex issues, Forced surgery at birth to conform to a gender, No telling how that person will feel about that once they’re developed Which United States of America is it that you want? A patriot fights for their nation to become the greatest it can be, So tell me, Which United States of America is it that you’ll create? The bottom 90% of Americans only make an average of about $33,000 or about 15 dollars an hour, Now keep in mind that a lot of people don’t even make that much, And depending on which state or city you live in, that isn’t enough to make ends meet Meanwhile, the top 10% of earners get about 295,000 dollars a year, The top 5% earn about 448,000 dollars per year The top 1% earns about 1,200,000 dollars per year The top .1% earns 6,000,000 dollars a year Meanwhile the 90% isn’t always able to feed themselves The middle class shrinks, The minimum wage has become almost worthless depending on where you live, because of inflation since it was implemented Before 1980, Before the election of Reagan, Who implemented supply side economics and massive tax cuts for the rich, Before Reagan, The middle and lower class, the majority of people, held a far larger percentage of wealth than they do today After Reagan, We began a massive shift of wealth from the bottom to the top, Causing the economy to hurt and people to be impoverished Why is it such a radical idea that we pay workers enough to survive? And if we can’t do that, then we need welfare, so that people can surviveBut instead, our politicians fight against both ideas For most often, they are a part of the rich The thing is, we’re all in this together Freedom for racial minorities is freedom for everyone Freedom for the LGBT+ community is freedom for everyone Freedom for the lower and middle class is freedom for everyone, For if the lower and middle class has enough money to spend and put into the economy, Then that helps everyone Listen, Listen, listen, Look, Alright Which America do you love, The one where the poor and the rich can both thrive? The one where we had the new deal, the real deal, do you feel? Or the one where we put Japanese into internment camps? Or the one where we enslaved people? Or the one where we outlawed gay marriage? Or the one where we oppressed nonwhite people? We recovered from the great depression from the new deal, The real deal, you feel? It’s the same America It’s just that at one point we were together, and at other points we were divided  Or take a look at Denmark, Canada, Germany, and Sweeden Look at history for the answers Figure out what works there and what worked then So we can figure out Which America?

An original poem submitted by  skyelilium

#skyelilium #teenpoetrysubmissions #submission

[lodelss]

ACLU: Raising our Voices for Equality at Stonewall and the Supreme Court

Raising our Voices for Equality at Stonewall and the Supreme Court 50 years after the riots at Stonewall, we are telling the Supreme Court not to roll back protections for LGBTQ people.

It’s been half a century since the Stonewall uprising began on June 28, 1969, the reason we celebrate Pride each June. But there’s another fitting date to commemorate this month, and it falls just two days before the 50th anniversary of Stonewall.

June 26 marks the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in 2003 striking down state laws that criminalized same-sex intimacy. The court’s opinion in Lawrence v. Texas did much more than decriminalize being LGBTQ; it was the first step toward recognizing the equal dignity of same-sex relationships under law.

What’s more, June 26 isn’t the anniversary of just one blockbuster Supreme Court opinion advancing LGBTQ rights. It’s also the anniversary of two others. Ten years to the day after its decision in Lawrence, the court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, which consigned the marriages of same-sex couples to second-class status. Exactly two years later, the court held that same-sex couples have the freedom to marry.

While it’s fitting that the anniversaries of these court decisions fall during Pride month, it isn’t a coincidence. The Supreme Court’s yearly term ends in June, and decisions in the most high-profile cases typically aren’t announced until the final month, giving the justices until the very last minute to put the finishing touches on their opinions. The landmark 1994 case Farmer v. Brennan, in which the court concluded that prison officials could not allow a transgender woman to be raped in prison, was also decided in June, though not on June 26. Still, that three key decisions were announced on the exact same day in June feels significant.

This June 26, however, brings not the end, but the opening salvo in the next major LGBTQ rights issue before the court. Today, LGBTQ employees filed their opening briefs in three cases that will determine whether we are protected from discrimination on the job.

The cases involve three workers who were fired because of who they are. Aimee Stephens, a funeral director in Michigan represented by the ACLU, was fired for being transgender. Donald Zarda, a skydiving instructor in New York represented by the ACLU as co-counsel with NY lawyer Greg Antollino and the Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, was fired for being gay, as was Gerald Bostock, a child welfare services coordinator in Georgia.

That’s illegal under prevailing interpretations of federal law, but the court could reverse decades of progress and announce that it is perfectly legal to fire someone for being LGBTQ. That would be shocking to most people in this country. Yet the fact that the court agreed to hear the cases raises that alarming possibility, particularly now that Justice Kennedy, long seen as the court’s champion of LGBTQ rights, has been replaced by Justice Kavanaugh.

There are reasons for LGBTQ people to stay optimistic, however.

For starters, there’s the text of the statute itself. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits job discrimination “because of sex.” Firing someone for being a man who dates other men, or for being a woman who was assigned the sex male at birth, is literally discrimination “because of sex.”

Then there’s the Supreme Court’s robust history of interpreting Title VII to protect workers from sex discrimination in myriad forms. The court’s very first Title VII case involved Ida Phillips, who was disqualified from applying for a job because she was a mother with young children. The problem was not that Phillips was a woman; the employer hired women in droves. It was the kind of woman she was: one who, the employer assumed, would be too busy with her preschoolers to do the job.

That is precisely the kind of group-based assumption that Title VII was intended to stamp out. Just as Ida Phillips was entitled to the opportunity to prove that she could do the job, so too LGBTQ people must be free to compete based on their own merit, not assumptions about gender roles.

Finally, there’s the fact that the current crop of cases, unlike the June 26 trio of years past, involves not constitutional rights, but the words of a statute. That means the justices don’t have to agree that the marriage question was rightly decided—or that they are bound to follow it—to rule in favor of the LGBTQ employees here. That will be key to the path to victory, because the workers will need the vote of at least one justice who opposed marriage equality in 2015 or who has since been appointed by President Trump.

We won’t find out whether the court will affirm workplace protections for LGBTQ people this Pride month, however. For that, we’ll have to wait until next year—perhaps until June 26.

In the meantime, employers don’t need to wait to do the right thing. And all of us should call on the Senate to pass the Equality Act—which will provide express protection against discrimination because a person is lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender—right now. This Pride month, it’s never been more important to make our voices heard.

Published June 26, 2019 at 04:45PM via ACLU https://ift.tt/2ZKTlNx from Blogger https://ift.tt/2FzhXBc via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Blogger