HRC: $10K to Dem Congressional
Cmte in 2009 - Why?

The executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, Joe Solmonese, in recent days issued a year-end letter to his board that has not been posted to HRC's site, in which he assesses the progress for gay Americans in 2009. The letter is available over at Pam Spaulding's blog, and I wish she and others would ask why HRC can't post the letter on their own site, but is instead dependent on bloggers to disseminate it, but I digress.

One group that isn't mentioned in HRC's assessment is the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. I thought that was very odd, considering the DCCC is the largest recipient of HRC PAC money so far this year, and if our biggest gay org is giving our dollars to such a group, we should have substantive things to show for it. Right?

According to HRC PAC records at OpenSecrets.org for the 2010 election cycle, they made two donations of $5,000 to the DCCC in June and September this year. And what did the gays get in exchange for that $10,000? The answer is not provided in HRC's year-end letter.

The progressive OpenLeft.com site in early November explained some of the problems with the DCCC, who gets a lot of money from it, and how a few of the recipients vote on liberal matters:

Last night, 23 Democrats voted against providing 36 million Americans with health insurance while reducing the deficit, but in favor of the Stupak amendment to restrict reproductive rights for low-income women. [...]

In 2008, more than $1 out of every $12 the DCCC spent on electing Democratic House members went to electing one of these Democrats. [...]

These Democratic members of Congress are a net drag on progressive efforts. Not only do they vote to pass regressive legislation, and not only to they vote against any meaningful progressive legislation, but they vacuum up Democratic money in the process. [...]

If you donate to the DCCC, then your money is being spent to restrict reproductive rights for low-income women, and against health care reform.

Also angry at the DCCC, and refraining from giving the org any money, is AmericaBlog contributing writer Timothy Beauchamp:

Well, it finally happened. The DCCC called asking for money and were shocked...SHOCKED I wouldn't give.

The founders of AmericaBlog, John Aravosis and Joe Sudbay, launched a boycott against the Democratic National Committee over the party's refusal to move pro-gay legislation forward this year, but they excluded the DCCC, however, they're not troubled at all by their colleague's action:

We didn't specifically include the DSCC and the DCCC, but we're certainly not going to stop anyone from sending a loud and clear message to those party organizations as well.

I'd love to know exactly what it was the DCCC promised to do for HRC this year that warranted contributions totaling $10,000. Further, if HRC plans any future giving to the DCCC, how about demanding Solmonese get a few items of substance first from Congressional Democrats, such as expedited movement on passing ENDA and repealing DOMA and DADT?

Assassinated Gay Honduran Leader
Trochez Buried With Rainbow Flag

(The rainbow flag, an international symbol of gay diversity and solidarity, drapes the coffin of Walter Trochez, who was buried with the flag on December 15. Photo credit: AP/Estaban Felix.)

Earlier this week veteran gay journalist Doug Ireland broke the tragic story of the death of a young gay democracy fighter in Central America:

Walter Trochez, 25 years old, a well-known LGBT activist in Honduras who was an active member of the National Resistance Front against the coup d'etat there, was assassinated on the evening of December 13, shot dead by drive-by killers. Trochez, who had already been arrested and beaten for his sexual orientation after participating in a march against the coup, had been very active recently in documenting and publicizing homophobic killings and crimes committed by the forces behind the coup, which is believed to have been the motive for his murder. He had been trailed for weeks before his murder by thugs believed to be members of the state security forces. [...]

The assassination of Trochez has garnered much attention around the globe from gays and human rights advocates. So far, no reports have surfaced of any arrests made by the local police for his death. Several non-governmental organizations are calling for a full and impartial investigation into Trochez's murder.

(Walter Trochez)

Amnesty International quickly issued a statement about Trochez's assassination and the org's talk with him before he was murdered:

According to sources, Walter Trochez was shot in the chest by a drive-by gunman and taken to hospital where he later died. Amnesty International said it fears that he may have been targeted because of his human rights work.

Walter Trochez told Amnesty International on Friday that he had escaped a kidnapping attempt on 4 December after suffering several hours of beatings and threats by masked men. They had interrogated Walter Trochez about individuals opposed to the de facto authorities who seized power following the 28 June coup d'état.

May Walter Trochez rest in peace and his killer be brought to justice, and democracy restored to his country of Honduras.

ME's Gay Marriage Prop:
Follow the Money

James Oaksun is a gay Mainer libertarian with an MBA, and earlier this month he published a piece on what he thought went wrong with the gay marriage proposition that lost in November. He laid out, from a local gay's perspective, what he saw on the ground, and it wasn't a pretty picture.

James has now written a follow up article, examining how the money was spent during the campaign. Click here for source data behind this analysis.

He's allowing me to share his thoughts, which are very provocative, and should give us all pause about how we keep racking up the ballot prop losses for gay marriage, and in this sad case, with much more moolah than our opponents.

Generally, I agree with a tremendous amount of his criticism, and I appreciate very much how he looked at the filings of both sides to come up with comparable expenditures and allocations. However, I disagree with him about creating an "Equality Inc" corps that travels around the country fighting these props.

We already have a cumbersome loose alliance of the same orgs - NGLTF, Freedom to Marry, Haas Jr Fund, HRC, Gill Foundation - sending some of the same staffers, such as Marty Rouse, Dan Hawes, Sarah Reece, Thalia Zepatos, to carry the same tasks. I'm not sure institutionalizing this network is the answer to turning the tide, but it's an idea we could debate with Gay Inc, if they ever held public community meetings.

Here's James' piece:

Maine Question 1: Where Did the Money Go?

The 2009 ballot question on gay marriage in Maine was the most expensive initiative campaign in Maine history, and the third most expensive statewide political campaign in the state’s history. More than $7 million was spent on both sides. Only the U.S. Senate races of 2002 and 2008 were more costly.

This report will examine where the money got spent, on both the “Yes” (anti-equality) and “No” (pro-equality) sides. There were some significant differences in how the funds were allocated among different sources. Brief synopses will be provided on the major vendors on both sides. Finally, some suggestions for future equality campaigns will be offered.

Step One: Get the Issue On the Ballot

Before there could even be a campaign, the “People’s Veto” needed to get the requisite number of signatures to qualify it for the state ballot. In Maine, that requires collecting roughly 55,000 signatures. Stand for Marriage Maine (the Yes on 1 campaign) spent more than $300,000 to gather the signatures. A Michigan-based firm, National Petition Management, was contracted to perform this task. They succeeded. Still, this meant that Yes on 1 needed to raise $300,000 before there could even be a campaign. In my analysis I consider this to be pre-campaign expenditures and do not include it in my ratio calculations.

Step Two: Make a Budget

When planning a major project, you need a budget. Decisions get made, dollars allocated, vendors selected. Here we know exactly who got what. We also know that one side won, and one side lost. Were there differences in how the allocations were made? It turns out there were some very significant differences that might suggest a different approach for equality forces in future campaigns.

No on 1 (the pro equality side) spent nearly $5 million on the campaign. Yes on 1 (the anti-gay marriage side) had substantially fewer resources – about $2.5 million. The two sides allocated their funds as follows:

Yes No
TV/Radio 1,637 2,551
Signs/Literature/Mailing 307 810
People -- Employees and Consultants 270 343
Internet 113 343
Polling 176 160
Phones 1 267
All Other 64 130

(all amounts $000)

In Percent of Total:

Yes No
TV/Radio 64% 55%
Signs/Literature/Mailing 12% 18%
People -- Employees and Consultants 11% 7%
Internet 4% 7%
Polling 7% 3%
Phones 0% 6%
All Other 2% 3%

A series of observations are apparent:

1. Yes on 1 overweighted traditional media, and as a result was relatively competitive with the equality forces on the airwaves.

2. Yes on 1 spent absolutely more dollars in opinion polling than No on 1, and more than twice as much on a relative basis.

3. No on 1 spent a huge amount on direct mail.

4. No on 1 also spent a large amount on phone banking. Yes on 1 shows
practically no expenses for this.

5. No on 1 spent nearly $350,000 on Internet activity – web site design and management, and advertising. More on this later.

6. Though much was made of hiring Frank Schubert to manage the Yes on 1 effort, No on 1 still spent $63,000 more on staff and consultants than did the anti-equality forces (including Schubert’s fee). (Incidentally, Schubert’s fee was $110,000. In addition, he billed the campaign roughly $26,000 in travel and additional expenses. The recent New York Times article citing Schubert’s costs at well over $300,000 was incorrect.)

Now to consider who exactly got the money. First, the pro-equality No on 1 expenses:

1. McMahon Squier -- $2.6 Million

Long active in Democratic politics, this Alexandria, Virginia-based organization has a decent track record. The vast majority of this amount was for purchased TV and radio time. Typically commissions on ad buys range from 10 to 15 percent. I assume they also did the creative work on the ads – the scripts and such. Presumably, therefore, some of their commission is analogous to Frank Schubert’s base payment from Yes on 1, as Schubert claims to do substantially all the creative for the anti-equality campaigns. (Incidentally, McMahon Squier is the chief media consultant for Maine’s Democratic Governor, John Baldacci.)

2. Mission Control -- $779,000

This is a Connecticut-based direct mail operation. According to their website, they produce “the only junk mail you’ll ever read twice.” They work exclusively with Democratic candidates and progressive causes.

3. Mundy Katowitz -- $319,000

This firm, based in Washington, DC, is something of a mystery. Their website is “under construction.” Five principal members are named. The firm apparently does new media/Internet work for Democrats.

4. Winding Creek -- $200,000

This is a telemarketing firm, based in Washington, DC, that does phone work for Democrats.

5. Greenberg Quinlan Rosner -- $160,000

This is a longtime Washington, DC-based polling firm. While they do corporate work as well, their principal focus is work with Democrats and progressive causes. Stan Greenberg came onto the national scene in the 1992 campaign for his work with Bill Clinton.


The anti-equality/Yes on 1 vendors have their own degree of mystery.

1. Mar/Com Associates -- $1.6 million

This was the Yes on 1 media shop. Analogous to McMahon Squier, they produce advertisements and book the air time, holding back a 10-15 percent commission. Mar/Com appears to be a shell company under the aegis of a man named Bill Criswell, of Criswell Associates in San Francisco. Very little information is available about this firm; their website is “under construction.”

2. National Petition Management -- $308,000

This Michigan based firm has a long track record in successfully gathering signatures for conservative causes.

3. Aaron, Thomas and Associates -- $189,000

This is a direct mail operation, based in California, and hired by Frank Schubert. Very little information is available about them.

4. Public Policy Strategies -- $147,000

This was Yes on 1’s pollster. According to Frank Schubert, this is actually an East Coast polling firm that is operating under an alias (and with a Nevada mail drop). Schubert claims vendors do this because LGBT activists harass and target firms that work on anti-equality campaigns. As it is currently unclear who this polling firm is, we cannot say anything further about them.

In addition to Public Policy Strategies, Yes on 1 utilized Lawrence Research of Santa Ana, California, to do some polling.

5. Schubert Flint -- $136,000

This is the Sacramento, California-based firm that provided general campaign management and strategy for Yes on 1, as it had done (successfully) for California Proposition 8 in 2008.

A Strategy Going Forward

In my previous report on the California, Maine and Washington campaigns, I suggested some strategic changes. Here I go further. If they are to start prevailing, the marriage equality forces also need a strategic redesign of their campaign organizational and operational structure. They should take a page from the winners. Success is success. They may disagree with their opponents’ motives and actions, but their opponents are winning at the ballot box and there may be something to learn from them.

Here is how the anti-equality forces set up their campaigns:

a. National Organization for Marriage, the Catholic Church and various conservative/Christian denominations (such as the Mormons) are the funders. They raise the money through a variety of mechanisms.

b. A professional campaign manager, with a record of success, is hired and is then rehired in subsequent campaigns. The wheel is not reinvented with each spin of the electoral process.

c. Scientific polling is overweighted in the budget. Push polling may or may not be used.

d. A small number of senior local operatives are hired as consultants.

In contrast, here is how the equality efforts are run:

a. A new campaign manager, with unclear experience and record especially against nationally renowned opposition, is hired for each campaign.

b. Not only does this inexperienced management team have to run a campaign, they also have to run a fundraising operation, with phone banking and the like.

c. Scientific polling is underweighted.

d. Overweighting is done to vendors with longstanding ties to the Democratic Party, utilizing mechanisms of questionable or obsolete effectiveness.

What I am suggesting here is a totally functional organizational model. Call it “Equality Inc” or something. It is a matrixed organization; there is no overall head per se. There are well defined functions that do their appointed tasks and do them with rigorous effectiveness.

The $5 million spent by No on 1 amounts to about $20 per vote. On a per capita basis, this was three times as much as was spent by the California No on 8 campaign (which also lost). Throwing more money at this issue, without serious reconsideration of strategy and organization, will be money wasted.

Prop 8 Hearing: Defendants' Lawyer
Refuses Media Interviews

Today's three-hour hearing on the federal lawsuit challenging Prop 8 dealt with procedural matters, lacking any excitement except for legal eagles, that not many ordinary observers showed up.

Unlike previously packed hearings, this one had plenty of empty seats for the public. The legal stuff got so tedious for me, at certain points, I felt I was bearing witness on behalf of many activists, wise to stay away from such a dull hearing. Why did I take notes and listen to the entire proceeding? Because it's homo-history in the making in my backyard and I wouldn't miss this extraordinary opportunity.

For an excellent and comprehensive look at the details of the matters before Judge Vaughn Walker today, check out Karen Ocamb's report at her blog. Tune in to Doug Sovern's good recap of today's actions at KCBS NewsRadio here. Be sure to check out Chris Geidner's terrific LawDork.net blog for more info on other pre-trial moves.

A few random observations:

- Of the two same-sex plaintiff couples, only the lesbians, Kristin Perry and Sandra Steir, were present. The gay male couple, Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo, couldn't attend today.

- No sign of Gay Inc orgs or anyone from their staffs. Same goes for the missing anti-gay forces.

- Not only was Imperial County, which voted heavily for Prop 8, late to petition the court to join the defendants side, doing so yesterday, but the lawyer for the Southern California county was late for court this morning.

- On several occasions, Walker, who I think could be a fab host at a piano in a swank cafe, would make a funny comment or joke from the bench, bringing forth many laughs and alleviating my boredom.

- Even though no one in the court said it, this lawsuit is our Plan B, the alternative plan leaders of Maine's recent losing gay marriage proposition and Freedom to Marry's executive director lack. Nice to see Plan B moving ahead so swiftly.

- Charles Cooper, the lead attorney for the supporters of Prop 8, refused to enter the media room and make himself available for questioning by the press and a blogger. When spotted outside the courthouse, local TV and radio reporters tried to get him to go on the record for a few comments, but he refused the interview requests.

Here are a few pics from the news conference and outside the federal building on Turk Street:

Ted Olson and David Boies, attorneys for the plaintiffs, stand with Chad Griffin, head of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the backer of the lawsuit, talk to the media.

Boies and Griffin break into smiles.

Member of the media, and a few lawyers in ties, listen to Olson and Boies state they're ready for the start of trial on January 11, 2010.

Charles Cooper telling a local TV crew he won't speak with them on the record.

Cooper heading to the street to hail a taxi.

Milk Club: 100 Pot Heads at SF
Meeting Plan Legalization

(The crowd at a meeting last week in SF for pot legalization.)

The cannabis caucus of the Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club a combination networking session and awards ceremony on December 10 at the Women's Building and a solid 100 people, and a few canines, were there over the 90-minutes I spent at the meeting.

I went to listen to plans for eventual legalization of marijuana in California, along with the anticipated partial alleviation of the state's budget shortfalls when pot is legal, and I was not disappointed.

Awards were presented to several folks, including gay Latino Supervisor David Campos, who spoke about his City Hall push to create a 13-member panel to map out better city policies regarding pot clubs and patients' needs.

Representing gay Italiano Assemblyman Tom Ammiano's office was Quentin Mecke, and he addressed the current need for uniformity among local law enforcement agencies and officials about cultivation, distribution and use of medical marijuana.

There were information tables from assorted pot advocacy orgs, the crowd skewed toward older folks, with a healthy sprinkling of under-30s, gays and straights and in-betweens, and it was racially mixed.

Free marijuana was not distributed. This crowd was there to continue the work started in the 1970s by Harvey Milk and others, that led to passage of Prop 215 in 1996, and has given us affordable, good quality medical pot, and to finish the job with full and unapologetic legalization.

Fast forward to yesterday, and the good news about we're getting closer to the ballot in 2010 with the legalization attempt by voter-approval. From the Bay Guardian:

Californians may vote next year on whether to legalize marijuana. Proponents for the initiative that is primarily being bankrolled by Oaksterdam University founder Richard Lee today reportedly confirmed that they have more than enough signatures to qualify for the November 2010 ballot.

If approved by voters and not blocked by the courts or federal government, the measure would allow California cities and counties to adopt their own laws for regulating and taxing marijuana, even for purely recreational use. Polls have consistently shown that a majority of Californians support legalizing weed.

"It was so easy to get them," Lee told the Los Angeles Times, referring to the 680,000 signatures that he says they have collected, clearing the 434,000 threshold needed to qualify. "People were so eager to sign." [...]

Keep your fingers crossed enough valid signatures were turned in and that we go back to the voters in 2010 and win our dream -- legalization of marijuana. Check out more of my pics:

He received an award for Medi-Cann, an org that provides low-cost consultations to poor patients.

A few mature hippies at one of the info tables.

This woman was honored for her work with Compassion Behind Bars. I was shocked to learned her org miraculously provides ten non-violent offenders incarcerated in state prison, who are are all persons with HIV/AIDS, with medical cannabis. I cried when she cried, thanking the crowd.

David Campos talks to a local TV news crew.

Yeah, dude. What would, um, a pot meeting be, without the munchies' table?

Bilerico's Tranny Victim
Offends People With AIDS

[Correction: Blaze is not a tranny. I made a mistake identifying him as such. My apologies.]

On top of staying well and alive as long as possible, people with AIDS have also had to challenge the medical establishment and society's view of people with HIV infection as victims. Two of the brave PWAs who risked much to create the empowerment movement were Michael Callen and Dan Turner, both deceased, and you can read their words about fighting the victim label and mentality here.

Someone who clearly is ignorant about preferred language to describe people with AIDS is tranny victim Alex Blaze over the Bilerico.com site. He writes today about free speech issues and cites some of the obnoxious behavior of the Phelps' clan:

But, ever since they started protesting soldiers' funerals instead of AIDS victims', states have been cracking down on their actions.

Blaze is totally within his constitutionally-protected rights to defame the memory and fight of PWAs like Callen and Turner, just as I am protected in labeling Blaze a tranny victim. Care to wager that Blaze would not take kindly, along with a lot of other transgender people, to be called tranny victims, so maybe using that phrase will drive home a necessary point to the editors at Bilerico.com.

And the point is, people with AIDS are fighting every day for our lives and we don't need the added stigma of gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender bloggers saying we're victims.

Today's use of the AIDS victim label is not the first time Blaze has chosen to use it. Here he used it in January 2008:

And where was Dan Abrams's disgust when the WBC was protesting the funerals' of AIDS victims back in the early 90's? Back when they were only going after us gays, they couldn't get all that much attention.

Another time was in May 2009:

Before that, there was limited coverage of his protests of AIDS victims' funerals in the queer and alternative press.

Bear in mind, Blaze is not the only one at his site to use this offensive term. Commentators do too, as did one back in June 2006:

I wouldnt want you to hit me with your purse so I will make like an AIDS victim and GO.

Check out another commentator's cavalier use of the term in April 2008:

Unless it was about Aids fund raising and "Gift For Life" which was a wonderful program the industry I worked in for so many years began for AIDS victim benefit my public life [...]

It's ironic that Bilerico.com is expending great energy to correct the storm of anger because of a controversial transphobic essay it ran, and removed, last week. Editors of the site are implementing even stronger than-existing language controls related to transgender people and topics, but I doubt they would even consider asking contributors to use the preferred language of people with AIDS over AIDS victim.

By the way, noted longtime openly gay HIV positive Hispanic civil right leader Dennie DeLeon passed away today in New York City, and I wish to mark his passing. I also wish to point out that the NY Times's obit doesn't use the word victim once. Neither did the AP obit. Same goes for NBC4 in New York City and their obit for DeLeon.

Let's the record show that in 2009 a supposedly progressive LGBT web site with political correct credentials to spare, is using a phrase offensive to PWAs, while at least three corporate media outlets display much more sensitivity and education than the Bilerico.com editors.

GLAAD Doesn't Work Weekends?

At about 9:30 pm on Saturday night, the Miami Herald broke the news that homo-hating Jamaican singer Buju Banton was in federal custody on drug conspiracy charges. I estimate that was the time the paper posted its story to the web, based on the first comment about the story, which was at 9:32 pm.

It didn't take long for me and lots of other bloggers and mainstream media to cover the arrest, and offer up comment on the new legal troubles for the singer.

The detaining of Buju by the Drug Enforcement Administration, coming so quickly after he was nominated for Grammy award, I would think might be something of keen interest to a gay media watchdog org. A chance to use the org's influence at the start of a major crime story related to gays and the entertainment industry, to make a few points on behalf of the community it purports to represent.

But the $7 million org known as GLAAD apparently doesn't pay its staff enough money to work on the weekend. GLAAD hasn't said a peep in the nearly 24-hours, a week in terms of web-time, not only about the Buju arrest but has also been silent on the election of an openly lesbian candidate to be mayor of Houston.

Didn't GLAAD just make some baby activist steps and start a useless online petition about Buju and the Grammys? Does this political org really have absolutely nothing to say about Annise Parker's historic achievement in Texas and how the media has covered her triumph?

In an ideal world, I would expect our bloated gay media watchdog org to have one or two persons, out of a staff of 45 persons, ready on weekends to issue statements or advisories, especially on a slow news weekend when a serious lesbian political contender could get elected in a runoff in a conservative state.

But the world is far from fair and equal, and I must learn to accept that a $7 million budget and 45 staffers is not enough to deliver honest and full-time advocacy from GLAAD. For GLAAD, the movement stops at 5 pm on Fridays and doesn't' start again until Monday at 9 am.

If GLAAD manages to get out a statement on Monday about the Buju and Parker stories from over the weekend, I sure as heck hope gay press and bloggers ask what took them so long.

Did Gay Obama Appointee Buy His
Job With Political Donations?

Much has been written from the left and right about Kevin Jennings, a controversial Democrat who happens to be gay and is director of the Office of Safe & Drug Free Schools for the Department of Education.

He was appointed to that job in early May, and while the right has used him as punching bag for homo-hatred, the left, including Gay Inc orgs, has come to his defense but his supporters have failed to disseminate facts about what he's accomplished in six months on the job.

What measurable goals has he met that are helping students, both gay and straight? Do we know if he's done anything on the matter of drugs and students, regardless of sexual orientation?

Before taking a job with the Barack Obama administration, Jennings was the longtime executive director of GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, and worked hard to make the org what it is today: an org with a $12.7 million budget in 2008. It maintains an office in New York and DC, and has a staff of forty persons.

As with GLAAD, GLSEN reports significant six-figure grants from some of the same gay foundations, according to their annual statement for 2008 on page 18. The list includes Arcus Foundation, Estate of Ric Weiland, the Haas Jr Fund, and the Gill Foundation. Smaller grants came from the David Bohnett Foundation and the Terry K. Watanabe Charitable Trust.

In his last year at GLSEN, Jennings earned a whopping $273,574 salary. During 2007, his pay was $255,448, and for 2006 he was compensated $175,000. Over those years, his total compensation came to $704,022.

That kind of salary allowed him to donate $26,300 to Democratic Party candidates and committees since 1998, according to FEC records. Included in that amount is the $6,500 he's given to Obama.

At the state level, in California he's donated $1,425 to Democrats, and $2,050 to No on Prop 8, for a total of $3,475 given in the Golden State. Back in Massachusetts, Jennings in 2002 gave $50 to GLAAD's new ED, Jarrett Barrios, in his bid for a state Senate seat. Add up the federal donations with the known state giving, and Jennings' contributions equal $29,825.

The Department of Education's bio page for Jennings says he has partner, who apparently lacks a last name, just like the couple's canines:

He and his partner, Jeff, are the proud "parents" of a golden retriever, Amber, and a Bernese mountain dog, Ben, and also have a "granddog" in Ben's son, Jackson, born in March 2009.

Why can't the department list the partner's full name? Jeffrey Davis, like his companion, gave money to Obama's presidential campaign. Davis donated $2,300 to the candidate. The Democrats must truly appreciate a gay male couple where both partners are raking in good bucks, and writing big checks to Democratic politicians.

Back to my main concern: What the hell has Jennings achieved in his federal job?

Buju Arrested by DEA Agents
on Drug Charges in Miami

The news a short while ago from the Miami Herald is not good for homo-hating Jamaica singer Buju Banton. I wonder if when us gay activists in San Francisco met with him and his management team in early October, if we were under the surveillance of the feds.

Nice to know that after we met with him, countless stories and blog posts appeared in the Jamaican press and on music web sites, saying the gays wouldn't forgive him and his hatred. Many of his concerts were canceled or clubs had to pay extra for security due to gay demonstrations. He and his management team still refuse to be interviewed about the SF gay meeting he had.

And now, he sits in a federal prison, awaiting arraignment. From the Miami Herald:

Buju Banton, the Jamaican reggae star whose anti-gay lyrics have drawn international criticism, is in a federal lockup in Miami, facing drug conspiracy charges.

Drug Enforcement Administration agents say Banton, real name Mark Anthony Myrie, has been in custody since Thursday and will soon be transferred to Tampa, where the U.S. Attorney is charging him with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than five kilos of cocaine.

Banton has homes both in Jamaica and Tamarac.

While legions of dancehall reggae enthusiasts view Banton as one of the most prolific voices of Jamaica's poor masses, critics say he's a gay basher whose lyrics incite violence by calling for attacking and torturing homosexuals. His song Boom Bye Bye, a dance-hall hit released in the 1990s, advocates shooting gays in the head and setting them on fire. [...]

Who Owns GLAAD?;
20% of Budget for Moneymaking

Can anyone be shocked that the largest donors to GLAAD are the usual names of Gay Inc foundations? It doesn't take much sniffing around to find out who really owns gay community advocacy orgs, and it's not ordinary gays. The folks with the big bucks at charitable foundations, and one deceased multi-millionaire, are the actual bosses at the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

Check out this list from GLAAD's 2008 annual report, page 20:

The Visionary Circle recognizes individuals [sic] whole [sic] generous support and cumulative giving to GLAAD exceeds $1 million.

The Arcus Foundation
The David Bohnett Foundation
The Gill Foundation
The Michael Palm Foundation
Terry K. Watanabe Charitable Trust
Ric Weiland

At minimum, those funding sources are responsible for endowing GLAAD with $6 million in recent years, quite a tidy sum. If GLAAD practiced full transparency, it would provide specific numbers for each foundation and their donation, instead of a terse statement about contributions exceeding $1 million. But there are ways of getting more numbers, even if they're not readily accessible in a yearly GLAAD report to the community.

GLAAD did issue a release last year when the charitable Pride Foundation, established by the late Ric Weiland, an early employee at Microsoft, heralding receiving a $7.9 million grant spread out over eight years.

And a search of the Gill Foundation's grants for 2008 shows that it gave GLAAD $650,000 during that year.

Honestly, what the hell does GLAAD do that warrants such big donations? The foundations that own GLAAD must be easily satisfied with minimal and mediocre results, because the org sure as hell doesn't have much to tout as full-fledged accomplishments in many years.

Speaking of problems with this org, be sure to check out a September 2001 analysis by longtime gay thinker Michael Bronksi, that appeared in the Boston Phoenix. It was titled "Hollywood Squares: GLAAD Has Lost Its Way," and much of what Bronski pointed out was wrong is still valid, starting with this observation:

[A] growing number of critics have taken the group to task, questioning many of its decisions and wondering whether its judgment might be clouded by its hand-in-glove relationship with Hollywood [...]

That cozy relationship was deplored eight years ago, and hasn't changed much, while still clouding the media lapdog's agenda.

GLAAD has a $7 million annual budget, and it seems an awful high amount for a jobs program for professional Gay Inc types. My mind takes flight, thinking of how such an amount could be better used by investigative bloggers and street activists to advance a gay rights agenda.

Over at Charity Navigator, GLAAD gets an overall rating of 49.19, out of a possible 100, and an efficiency ranking of 24.75. Not very high in that department for sure. Oh, and GLAAD spends a bit more than 20% of its budget for moneymaking.

Make no mistake: The primary purpose of GLAAD and other Gay Inc orgs is to keep themselves in business and top executives receiving lavish six-figure salaries.

With GLAAD's major accomplishments, few as they are, pieces of the past, why does it continue to receive millions of dollars in foundation grants?