THE SHOT — I know fashion magazines Photoshop models to within centimeters of their lives, but Tom Ford on the cover of Vogue Korea, with model Karen Elson, hasn't looked this young since he … looked this young.
FHM is that magazine that no longer exists in America, right? But it's still around in the U.K.? And Australia? Anyone? Well I guess it's been business as usual with that lad rag, with editors pasting hot chicks on the cover in the unscrupulous attempt to get straight men to purchase the magazine because, somewhere in their frontal lobes, they believe these women will have sex with their overdeveloped stomachs and underdeveloped manhood. And then along comes Ruby Rose, the 24-year-old lesbian Australian MTV VJ (they still have those?) and model and DJ and pretty nightlife fixture, who promised herself she'd never apear on such a magazine, popping up on the first FHM Australia cover that features an out lesbian. "I've said no to every men's mag to do any shoot because it didn't feel right at the time and I didn't really want to do it," says Rose. "But then I shot with photographer Carlotta [Moye] and both times the pics have been extraordinary and I thought it would be fun." So did the readers.
So furious was the Afghanistan Interior Ministry with a brewing U.S. media story about an American contractor hiring "dancing boys, its chief tried getting the American embassy (and thus the State Department) to crush the story. As if the U.S. government has the power to silence the media. Oh dear!
The Seattle Lesbian & Gay Film Festival has graciously bestowed a press pass upon yours truly. I am so excited, but also a little overwhelmed. I mean just look at this schedule (pdf). Between October 15th and 24th over 150 films and shorts will be screening in concurrent sessions at two different theaters. I think this is what is called an embarrassment of riches.
So Blend readers, I need your help! Look over the schedule, check out the film descriptions then drop your vote in the comments as to which films you think I shouldn’t miss. And let me know which category your recommendation falls into:
A. Seen it, it’s a slice of heaven and you simply must not miss the chance.
B. Haven’t seen it but it looks so compelling that I’m checking out round-trip fares to Seattle.
C. The audience will be as much a part of the experience as the film.
Karen Ocamb has done consistently excellent work covering the Log Cabin Republican’s lawsuit against DADT. She reminds us that, per the Judge’s instructions, the lawyers for LCR will be submitting their proposed injunction language today:
Meanwhile, in the other major development on the DADT front – District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips, who ruled on Sept. 9 that the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy is unconstitutional, gave both sides a deadline of between Thursday and next Thursday, Sept. 23 to submit briefs on the permanent injunction against enforcing DADT.
Dan Woods, (pictured) the straight Republican the lawyer in the Log Cabin case, told me:
“As per the judge’s order, we plan to submit tomorrow (early afternoon) a proposed permanent injunction that would prevent any further application of DADT. The government then has a week to object to our proposal. The judge would then be expected to sign either our proposed injunction or a modified version of what we submit.
Our proposed injunction would cover all military installations, wherever located. We expect the government to object to this and try to limit it to California but feel we are on solid ground.
Once the judge signs the injunction, the government is free to appeal. I have no idea whether it will. If it does, it will also move for an order staying the injunction pending the appeal. We will vigorously oppose any such motion.”
Mike Signorile interviewed Woods on his show last week. He posted the audio. From Mike:
[Woods'] comments and observations are very important and under why the Obama administration must not appeal the case if the president truly believes the ban should end. And we should not accept the Department of Justice appealing the case. There simply is no reason to do so. This ruling would effectively end the ban across the country if it is allowed to stand. The judge ruled DADT unconstitutional and granted a request for an injunction to halt the discharges nationwide. Woods has until the end of the week to draw up the language of the injunction, and then the administration has seven days to respond. But, as Woods describes it, the only Department of Justice response that will change anything regarding her ruling would be an appeal. The judge is set to halt the discharges unless she is stopped by an appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:
Michaele and Tareq Salahi insist their private premiere party at a gay bar for The Real Housewives of D.C. was a fundraiser for "the troops," but they weren't in charge of running it, they were just VIP guests, so don't expect them to know where all the money went from charging admittance, OK? [P6]