“Head Figure Head” more about journalism than about Gov. Rick Perry’s sex life

Head Figure Head, the new e-book from Glen Maxey, details the author’s arduous and frustrating six-month effort to investigate rumors of Gov. Rick Perry’s gay sex life. Maxey served as executive director of the Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas (now Equality Texas) during Perry’s tenure as a state representative, later serving for 12 years as a state representative, spanning Perry’s time as agricultural commissioner, lieutenant governor and governor. Of all the people who’ve attempted to look into the rumors of Perry’s trysts with men, Maxey is perhaps best positioned to get to the truth, and takes great pains to ensure we are aware of that fact.

The book is the narrative of Maxey’s research, assisted by a journalist from a national media outlet. Like almost every character in the book other than Maxey and Perry himself, “the Journalist” is referred to only as a pseudonym. Maxey and the Journalist begin their search for proof in June 2011 as rumors of Perry’s impending presidential bid are widely circulating. Immediately the pair find that almost every gay man in Austin has a friend who has a friend who claims to have slept with Perry. For the next three months they track those leads and come excruciatingly close to breaking the story.

—  admin

ADF in app form: For when Angry Birds fails to adequately frustrate

New to the iTunes app store:



Tips on how to effectively write off people’s lives and loves as “problems]s] that can still be remedied”? Yup, there’s an app for that!

Good As You

—  admin

How many logic fails can you find in Tea Party candidate Elizabeth Scott’s video?

Elizabeth Scott is a tea party candidate challenging openly-gay, pro-equality Washington state Rep. Marko Liias (D-Edmonds).  Marko was the prime sponsor of the safe schools law which was passed unanimously by the legislature last year – a spectacular accomplishment.  

A political newcomer, Scott quickly earned a reputation for engaging in slimy politics.  Despite this, she represents a serious threat to Rep. Liias’s reelection because the national economic meltdown has put voters in a sour, anti-incumbent mood.

At a recent candidate forum, the moderator asked the candidates their opinions of U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling that California’s Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.  Elizabeth Scott has posted a video with her answer to the question, which she restates as “Question: Where do you stand on homosexual marriage?“.  How many kinds of crazy can you find in her brief reply?  Sorry, can’t get the video to embed.

I also believe in one man, one woman marriage, but I don’t believe the government should come into your bedroom.  So, I would leave it at that.  Marriage is where I draw the line – using the term marriage.

I want to point out that some endorsements on my website of a lesbian couple here in the district.  They’re in our neighborhood, and who are thrilled I’m running because frankly I’m surprised this is the first question that comes up. We have one out of seven people out of work or more.  The reason the lesbian couple have endorsed me is that they’re very concerned about their jobs being sent out of state by our high taxes and the concerns about overspending.

Here in the Herald recently a gay man wrote in that he was upset by his tax dollars not being spent wisely on education.  We all want our money’s worth,and I’m not getting it.  I believe in equal rights and opportunities, but I do not believe in special rights.

Only a minute long, yet she manages to pack in a lot of crazy:

  • Government should stay out of your bedroom…unless you’re gay and want to marry.

  • Two Uncle Tom lesbians endorse her and she’s heard of a gay man who is concerned about school funding.  The implication she’s reeeeally stretching for is that she’s not an incoherent homophobe.

  • Equality for straights is equality, while equality for gays is “special rights”.

    Let’s not let this kind of crazy replace the smart and sane Rep. Marko Liias in the legislature!  If you’re in Marko’s district or, like me, in a nearby safe district, please consider volunteering with Marko’s campaign.  To learn more about Marko Liias and his opponent, come to the first general election debate Wednesday night, September 22nd, at Edmonds Community College. More details here: Civic Engagement: 21st LD and 1st LD Candidate Forum.


    * Sour grapes ferment into MarkoMadness
    Pam’s House Blend – Front Page

    —  John Wright

  • DADT Cloture Vote Fails In Senate 56-43

    The cloture vote on DADT has failed 56-43 with zero Republicans voting “yes.” I’ll have the complete roll call in this post shortly. Knowing that cloture would fail, Sen. Harry Reid voted “no” too, so he’ll have the chance to reintroduce the bill. That bit of maneuvering was lost on GOProud.

    Joe. My. God.

    —  John Wright

    DNC drops Obama’s promise to repeal DOMA, fails to mention marriage, then gets all weasel-y on DADT repeal

    The DNC has a new Web site up. Included is a page devoted to “civil rights.” Here are the gay civil rights promises the party is now making us:

    – Enacting the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which includes measures prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity;
    – Ensuring full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples;
    – Repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security

    First off, what happened to repealing DOMA? I do believe our fierce advocate mentioned it repeatedly during the campaign. Why is it gone now? Are there no gay people advising the DNC, or did they just throw out one of the President’s top three promises to our community?

    Second, “civli unions”? How very 1999 of you.

    Third, there’s that ending DADT in a “sensible way” language again. What the hell does that mean? You either end it or you don’t. And were the Democrats ever thinking of ending it in a non-sensible way? It sounds like a weasel word, and it’s one the White House got caught using a year ago. Why do the party leaders keep using this language that implies something short of an outright and full repeal of DADT?

    AMERICAblog Gay

    —  John Wright

    NOM Fails in Lawsuit to Hide Maine Election Activities

    Yesterday, a federal judge in Portland, Maine ruled against NOM by upholding laws requiring organizations engaged in Maine elections to register as political action committees, disclose their independent expenditures and provide disclaimers on campaign advertisements. The court found two lesser legal provisions defective but noted that they could likely be cured by new legislation. 

    In rejecting most of NOM’s lawsuit, Judge D. Brock Hornby ruled that “Maine… has a compelling reason for compiling information about PACs – the goal of providing information to Maine voters about the interest groups that spend money referring to candidates in an election – and indeed Maine has polling data demonstrating the public’s interest in such information.” The judge found that “NOM’s desire to limit campaign finance disclosures … would yield perverse results, totally at odds with the interest in ‘transparency’ recognized in Citizens United,” the recent Supreme Court decision that allowed for unlimited corporate spending in elections but accepted the government’s compelling interest in requiring public disclosure.

    NOM’s lawsuit is part of escalating tensions between the group and ethics officials in Maine. NOM remains under investigation by the Maine Ethics Commission for failing to register with the state as a ballot question committee and disclose the donors to its campaign to overturn Maine’s marriage equality law in 2009. NOM provided more than .9 million of the million spent by opponents of marriage equality to pass Question 1 – but it failed to disclose where the money came from. The organization has stonewalled the ethics investigation over its Question 1 involvement, which is the subject of a separate ongoing lawsuit. 

    Today’s decision follows similar defeats in Washington state, where NOM’s lawyers fought the state’s public records law all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court – and lost. A federal court in California similarly rejected NOM’s efforts to hide its donors in the wake of Proposition 8.

    HRC called on the National Organization for Marriage to stop its radical national strategy of hiding its election activities and eviscerating public disclosure laws.  HRC Vice President of Communication & Marketing Fred Sainz said:

    “Time and again NOM has tried to evade or eviscerate popular disclosure laws that provide the public with critical information about who spends money on campaigns, and as usual they’ve come up short. It begs the questions: what does NOM want to hide about their efforts to strip millions of Americans of their basic civil rights, and why are they fighting so hard to hide it?

    “NOM’s agenda of hiding their political activities from legitimate scrutiny and accountability has gone on long enough. The public has a right to know who is behind their efforts to take away the fundamental rights of people living in Maine, California, Washington and elsewhere across the country. It’s time for NOM to own up and play by rules that serve the public interest.”

    Human Rights Campaign | HRC Back Story

    —  John Wright