Blogcritics Author: Richard Rothstein

Announcement: Short-content feeds

Phillip Winn — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT

Sunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding.

The Pot and The Kettle: Which One's Iran?

Richard Rothstein — Thu, 8 Feb 2007 16:21:12 EST

This morning's headline is clear: Iran Threatens the U.S. if Attacked. The Associated Press reports: "If the United States were to attack Iran, the country would respond by striking U.S. interests all over the world, Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Thursday."Imagine that. What a horrible man and a horrible country. How dare they suggest that they have the right to retaliate if a foreign power challenges their sovereignty, security, and territory!Yes, I know, they are horrible people. They have no tolerance for foreign troops amassed at their borders. They react with hostility to neighboring governments dancing to alternative political or religious views. The president of that nation and many of his supporters openly and officially condemn and marginalize certain minorities. They kill people in the name of their god. He and his followers also routinely condemn those who do not believe in their version of god to eternal damnation. They surreptitiously plant operatives in other nations hoping to influence the politics and economics of those nations in their favor. They posture on the world stage with arrogance and self-assurance that they hold the higher moral ground.Actually, I'm confused. Who are we talking about? Them or us?

A native New Yorker with decades of experience in journalism and public. Born the same year as modern Israel and still with as many issues. We're both working on it.

Please Move On

Richard Rothstein — Sun, 21 Jan 2007 04:30:46 EST

Like many of you, I have a hobby. It's not an unusual avocation. I take photographs. I was born on Manhattan island and have lived my entire life in this astonishing feast of visual diversity and eccentricity. And as a native of this town rather than a tourist, I enjoy the luxury of time allowing me to see far beyond the skyline, the great buildings and the rich tapestry of glamorous tourist attractions. Since childhood I've carried a camera. I've always been fascinated with the minutia of this city, those details that few notice: shapes, colors, light, broken windows, architectural and design quirks and the strange visual synergy of so many cultures on one tiny river island.It has been my habit for many decades to occasionally spend a very private and spiritual Saturday roaming some corner of Manhattan, using my camera to capture a reflection in a puddle, the intense juxtaposition of colors and architectural styles on a street corner or sometimes a funny moment in someone's life. The experience has always been very private and a very special few hours allowing personal reflection and a very special kind of connection with my hometown.I rushed out this morning, Saturday, January 20 simply because it was the coldest morning of the winter, a winter that has been bizarrely and constantly warm, warm enough to keep my seasonal hay fever active far beyond November. A crystal clear frigid Saturday morning would surely deliver funny coats and hats and wonderful games of light and color. Between taxis and my feet, I covered parts of the Financial District, Chinatown, Little Italy, Soho, Noho and Union Square. But for the first time in my life there were many parts of these neighborhoods that I could no longer cover and where my camera and I were no longer welcome. I was tempted to post my photograph so that you could determine for yourself just how much I resemble a threat to democracy and freedom -- but that's probably not wise. Suffice it to say that I'm a 58-year-old very white, bald, Jewish, Gay New Yorker with a very neatly trimmed silver beard. I was wearing a $1,500 Italian dark green leather and fleece coat, a black cashmere scarf and a matching black pull on cashmere cap. I looked like your typical over-paid and perfectly stylish self-indulgent New Yorker on his way to or from a chic brunch. Today's weapon of choice was my Canon Digital Elph with optical zoom.However, to members of the New York City Police Department, several doormen and a couple of security guards, I looked like none of the above. I looked like a terrorist threat. Clearly, a lone man photographing details of buildings from various angles and wanting to enter lobbies of city landmarks to photograph cherubs, statuary and mosaics is now assumed to be a threat to the safety and security of our fair city. I'm a photographer. I'm an artist. But such explanations no longer fly. I was denied entry to the lobby of the landmark and fantabulous Woolworth Building. I was asked for photo ID in front of a Soho luxury condo. Two of New York's finest approached me in front of a Prince Street church and asked me to please "move on." I explained who I was and what I was doing. The response was a second "please move on." Two security guards asked me why I was photographing crowds shopping the stalls on Canal Street. Why is it any of their business, I asked? "Please move on."Perhaps on my next outing I'll rent a wife and a child to walk with me so that everyone just leaves me the hell alone. But the terrorists are probably already employing that ruse, so I might get shot.The sad truth is in the details. How have 9/11, Homeland Security and George W. Bush changed our lives? Ask a guy who just likes to take pretty pictures for his own pleasure. Ask a guy who has lost the freedom to spend a Saturday by himself in the peace and beauty of his own world, a world that is now ridiculously interrupted by officious men in uniforms and requests for photo ID.Photographing the details of Manhattan used to be a very enriching hobby, now it's an awkward negotiation through a maze of uniforms. I know. It seems to be a small price to pay for our freedom. But this morning I found myself asking, "What freedom?"

A native New Yorker with decades of experience in journalism and public. Born the same year as modern Israel and still with as many issues. We're both working on it.

Baa Baa Black Sheep and an Angry Navratilova

Richard Rothstein — Mon, 8 Jan 2007 09:09:58 EST

By now you've likely heard of the controversy surrounding Oregon's gay sheep experiments. As scientists at Oregon State University endeavor to determine the biological origins of "male-oriented" rams -- rams who love rams -- a hue and cry has been raised by many gay activists and leaders around the world. Of course, many evangelical leaders and neo-conservatives have heralded a major step in the search for a "cure."Are the researchers seeking a genetic cure for homosexuality? Are they actually learning how to bio-engineer more gay rams? Or are they attempting to identify the gay gene so that they can test and weed, thereby improving the breeding stock? The fact is that eight percent of rams will only mate with other rams and eight percent of ewes will not allow rams to engage them in coitus - a statistic that is closely reflected in the human population. This translates into 16 percent of the flock that is good for nothing but dairy products, wool and chops.The Pat Robertsons and James Dobsons of the world tremble with excitement at the possibility of a medical cure for the growing plague of homosexuality. The Rosie O'Donnells and the Martina Navratilovas of the world are screaming Nazi medical experiments.Personally, I see peace an earth. War, persecution, genocide, bigotry and hate crimes are born of difference and diversity. Sameness is the obvious path to world peace. International borders will fall. The conflicts and confusions born of colors and difference will be replaced by the unity of gray. The burden and crushing responsibilities of individuality will give way to the safety and soft comforting cushion of absolute predictability.What better use of genetics and bioengineering than to at long last put an end to human diversity. Imagine an ocean of beige people all reflections of one another. Peace on earth. We can bioengineer diversity into oblivion. Thanks to the Gap, the invention of the ubiquitous T-shirt and running shoes we are well on our way to global uniforms. Isn't the next step an obvious one? The Gap principle of genetics?Nature and God hath wrought a terrible thing: the curse of Babel and the discordance of biodiversity and creativity. What could be a nobler goal and use of science than to wash away diversity? And if a hormonal injection into the fetal brain can bring us all together as one, then genetic engineering promises a brave new world. And as for those among us who fear the implications of the Oregon research? All we're doing is improving the breeding stock of sheep and the ability of management to better control and profit from the flock.

A native New Yorker with decades of experience in journalism and public. Born the same year as modern Israel and still with as many issues. We're both working on it.

An Exhausted Gay American

Richard Rothstein — Sat, 6 Jan 2007 00:26:20 EST

Some mornings I feel exhaustion for no reason other than the fact that I'm a gay American. I wonder if my fellow citizens who spend their days campaigning and crusading to limit my civil rights -- the civil rights that they themselves take for granted -- ever consider the inhumanity and irrationality of what they do? And I wonder if the millions of Americans who stand by apathetically and allow this travesty to play out with each passing day ever consider the emotional anguish they are deliberately or carelessly causing to millions of children, teenagers and adults?I wonder if they wonder what it's like to live with the fear and reality that in most parts of this nation you can be legally fired from your job, denied housing, refused a room in a hotel or barred from public facilities simply because of your sexual orientation. I wonder if they wonder how a gay child feels when he or she is called an abomination, prevented from attending a prom with his or her high school sweetheart, or beaten up in the schoolyard while homophobic teachers look on with contempt.If one assumes -- and I do -- that given the right information most people will do the right thing, it is very difficult to understand the degree of homophobia and outright hatred that manifests itself in this great nation. Why are we, as Americans, so out of synch with other Western democracies? Why are civil rights more widely protected and honored in the EU, in South African and in Canada then in the land of Jefferson, Madison and Lincoln? Most of us don't kick puppies or set out in the morning to cause emotional or physical harm to other people, and yet most of us are doing just that even if it just through apathy.Who is harmed by two adults of the same sex falling in love, making a commitment to each other and wanting to raise a family? In a nation where most children are being raised by single mothers and where thousands of children are abandoned, orphaned and homeless, do we really believe that such children would be worse off in a loving home with same-sex parents? Who benefits from preventing a gay man from sitting at the hospital bedside of his critically ill longtime companion? Who is harmed by adding sexual orientation to federal laws that prohibit discrimination in the workplace, housing, education and services? Do a majority of Americans believe that homosexuals are stealing the jobs of qualified heterosexuals? Does working next to a homosexual jeopardize the fate of your eternal soul or weaken your heterosexual desires? Perhaps it does. Perhaps heterosexuality is little more than a fragile veneer that needs to be carefully guarded. I wouldn't know. I'm a homosexual. It's who I am. And I in no way fear that my sexual orientation will be shaken by close proximity to my heterosexual friends. Although I must admit that sometimes I wish they would go find a room. But more importantly, how is it compatible with the legacy of 1776 and Constitutional law that the civil rights of any minority in this nation should be subject to the whims or religious beliefs of the majority? When did we come to believe that the civil rights of Americans should be granted or denied according to the notion of "community standards?" Didn't we recognize the wrongness of that when we eliminated segregation?I deny no one their religious beliefs but when those religious beliefs are allowed to prevail over constitutional law, then have we not lost our democracy and replaced it with a burgeoning theocracy? And is that where we really want to go? Do we really want to betray 400 years of immigrants who fled to these shores to escape persecution and oppression at the hands of monarchs and despots who believed themselves ordained by God to rule.One might also consider the broader peril of this irrational course. The supposed condemnation of homosexuality in Leviticus stands beside many other "words of God." And we have long since accepted that many of these "words of God" are immoral, barbaric or downright silly. We no longer condone the enslavement of nations and races that are different from ourselves or the stoning to death of adulterers, children who disobey their parents and weavers who blend cotton and wool. And we've long ago abandoned the Biblical edict that women are absolutely subservient to men. If you literally accept the demands of Leviticus then you must believe that in signing the Emancipation Proclamation, Abraham Lincoln was doomed to eternal damnation and that Nancy Pelosi should be stoned to death.If we set the precedent that religious belief trumps constitutional law, where do the zealots go next? They base their homophobic crusade on the belief that the Bible is the literal word of God. Why does this nation assume that they will be satisfied with cherry picking? You may not care if I'm exhausted by living my life at the forbearance of heterosexuals, but you might consider that it's worth caring that if the religious fundamentalists and neo-conservatives prevail in denying full civil rights to American citizens of any minority, the future for all is likely bleak.On its recent cover, The National Review inappropriately asks if a Mormon should be allowed in the White House. I find that offensive. At one time, we were convinced that a Catholic in the White House would ruin us all. JFK disproved that silly idea. But The National Review might rightly examine the perils of allowing a bigot and theocrat in the White House, a theocrat who openly crusades to limit the civil rights of American citizens based on irrational religious texts. A theocrat who has made it clear that his oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States will only go as far as his religious beliefs will allow.It is exhausting and profoundly disappointing to know that my civil rights are not, as I had grown up to believe, protected by the Constitution of the United States. Rather they are something I need to fight for on a daily basis because many Americans and their leaders have come to the belief that a thousands-year-old text should stand above the work of such men as Madison, Hamilton, Jay, Jefferson and Franklin. That's a very different America from the one in which I was raised.No one is harmed by protecting the civil rights of gay Americans, but everyone is harmed if the civil rights of gay Americans continue to be restricted and dictated by something other than the Constitution.

A native New Yorker with decades of experience in journalism and public. Born the same year as modern Israel and still with as many issues. We're both working on it.

I Probably Hate You

Richard Rothstein — Tue, 2 Jan 2007 16:53:34 EST

Americans relish condemnations of Middle Easters and Arabic culture as one of "hate". Google "culture of hate" and you'll find a bounty of essays, blogs and journal articles describing and dissecting the Arab world.But the real culture of hate, an entire society that celebrates, elevates and has even built an industry around hate, is much closer to us than the lands of Sunnis and Shiites. In fact, compared to the American culture of hate, the Arabs are neophytes at best.In America, hate is even chic and trendy. It can be mass market but it can also be elitist. There are blogs that celebrate hate as an emblem of superiority, that encourage and fuel it. Millions of Americans slavishly follow gossip mongers in all media, lusting for the latest blood feud as if little is more satisfying than celebrity role models and icons going after each other's throats. At the Grammys we award rappers who have turned hate into an entire entertainment industry.Our politics have degenerated from productive debates on critical issues to vicious and often racist name-calling and outright personal slander.In recent years we have been faced with a health care system in crisis, governmental corruption, poverty, illiteracy and global threats. During this time, too many political campaigns have been dominated by attacks on gay Americans, despite the complete and utter lack of any rational or legal grounds for them. Many even argue in the name of some rather perverse version of "Jesus" that it is morally correct to hate, oppress and discriminate.A nation built on immigrants fleeing oppression and poverty in pursuit of better lives for themselves and their families now hates and demonizes immigrants fleeing oppression and poverty in an attempt to build better lives for themselves and their families.A number of well-known journalists, authors and publishers such as Bill O'Reilly, Rupert Murdoch and Ann Coulter have built highly profitable careers on negative judgments and outright hate mongering.Evangelical Christianity, the most vocal and politically influential religion in this nation, proudly espouses the notion that everyone else in America and the world is going to burn in hell for all eternity. Imagine how that sounds to Muslims, especially when they are being accused of fostering a culture of hate.The supposed Arab culture of hate is - for better or worse - founded and nurtured by a struggle against old and new cultural, political and social manifestations of Western colonialism. What's America's excuse for its own culture of hate?The myth has been that America is a land of tolerance, diversity and freedom. The reality is that we are a very angry and intolerant people; a nation that has elevated hate to a sophisticated art form. In fact, the Arabs have a lot to learn from us.

A native New Yorker with decades of experience in journalism and public. Born the same year as modern Israel and still with as many issues. We're both working on it.

Omerta vs Constitutional Law

Richard Rothstein — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:54:22 EST

As the year crawls to a bloody and brutal end, I remain flummoxed as to why so many of my fellow Americans and our Congressional leadership look askance at impeachment for Bush and Cheney.Some say, including Pelosi, that it is a time to heal rather than seek "political" revenge. Some look upon the impeachment process as destabilizing and threatening to our democracy. I am flummoxed by these views. In fact our timidity and reluctance to appropriately execute the remedy to presidential malfeasance provided by Article II, Section IV of the United States Constitution does great harm to the vibrancy and endurance of freedom and democracy.We dread that important bit of constitutional wisdom as if we're convinced that our system of governance is extremely fragile and unable to endure any litmus test of any sort. In fact the impeachment process was featured in the very beginning of our Constitution by founders who understood that it would be a vital and critical tool in the preservation of democracy and freedom. Impeachment provides an essential process that tests and renews our democracy. It allows us to measure and censor corruption at the highest level of government, rather than resort to revolutions, coups or rot. Alternatively, we rot. Alternatively, we embolden and empower the corrupt and the power hungry; the message to them is that we truly lack the will to responsibly implement the constitutional check on corruption and misdeeds. The result is a president who comes to believe that if he can weather some bad press and a ill-informed electorate, he can expand the powers of his office unchecked and beyond what is reasonable and healthy for democracy and freedom.Nancy Pelosi tells us that impeachment is "a waste of time" and "is off the table."One of the victims of this nation's nasty bi-partisanship appears to be justice, morality and constitutional law. Pelosi denies this democracy the curative and restorative process of impeachment because she "fears" it will appear to be nothing more than an act of bi-partisanship and political revenge.As a result of this bizarre perception, lawlessness at the highest levels of power takes a giant step forward. And freedom and democracy tremble on the sidelines. Because a Republican Congress abused it's power and impeached a Democratic President for attempting to cover-up an adulterous act of sexual impropriety from his family we jeopardize the vitality of our democracy and rule of law. Forgive the cliche, but have we stupidly thrown out the baby with the bathwater?Despite the failure of the American press to campaign for justice until Congress and the Justice system do their jobs--as it did during the Nixon years--the crimes stand. A quiet and obedient press does not make them go away.The President and the Vice President lied under oath of office to engage the nation in an illegal war against a nonbelligerent country. They conspired to violate international treaties and the Geneva Conventions to torture prisoners and violate the human and internationally-recognized civil rights of POWs. They have conspired to illegally spy on millions of American citizens, also authorizing warantless acts of search and seizure. They have engaged in illegal profiteering on a massive scale via the likes of Halliburton. Billions of taxpayer dollars have simply gone "Enron" in the war effort, Katrina relief and the global AIDS program. And this administration has funneled millions upon millions of dollars in public funds to support evangelical institutions in exchange for votes. Pick your poison.Some conservatives say that while the White House may be guilty of some "bad decisions" no laws have been broken, no oaths have been violated. I believe the mafia has a similar code of honor, Omerta. We saw Omerta in action during the Foley scandal. Murderers, embezzlers and thugs depend on it. Perhaps Congress needs an Eliot Ness rather than a Nancy Pelosi.

A native New Yorker with decades of experience in journalism and public. Born the same year as modern Israel and still with as many issues. We're both working on it.

The Real Ford Legacy: Queens of Denial

Richard Rothstein — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:51:26 EST

As America rewrites history and whitewashes the very brief administration of Gerald Ford, those of you who weren't alive or adult during the Ford months may be unaware of the fact that this accidental president's legacy was not at all -- as the media and pundits are now suggesting -- a return to normalcy and civility.That is unless you believe that hosing the blood off the streets of Baghdad is also a return to normalcy and civility rather than an act of consummate denial.The current President lauds Ford as a truly moral and decent man who "healed" a nation that had been torn apart by Watergate. Bush admiring Ford is like a dog licking the hand that feeds him.The real Ford legacy -- which no mainstream reporter, politician or pundit has the honesty or courage to publicly admit -- was that he was Richard Nixon's GET OUT OF JAIL FREE card. Gerald Ford set an onerous legal and constitutional precedent, placing presidents above criminal law -- something from which George W. Bush has benefited greatly. Nixon's resignation and Ford's subsequent ascension provided the one and only way out, a presidential pardon, allowing Nixon to avoid trial and prison.The Nixon pardon did enduring and serious damage to our nation of laws. In the name of "stability" Ford struck a blow to the stability of our democracy, the sanctity of our constitution and the principle of freedom. He did not heal this nation as many now say; rather he enabled and elevated denial and avoidance. Rather than go through the necessary and responsible process of expunging our demons, Ford allowed us to bury our collective head in the sand. Of course Bush applauds Ford. Ford's legacy provides a precedent for Bush's own GET OUT OF JAIL FREE card. And Nancy Pelosi, behaving as a true Washington politician rather than a responsible elected representative who has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, turns her back on the impeachment process -- because the Ford legacy allows her to pretend that it's the right thing to do. In the meantime, justice was not served in 1974, the year of the Nixon pardon, nor is it being served now in 2006. Nixon was placed above the law and now the same is happening with Bush. And in both cases the American people, the Constitution, and our democracy are denied the rightful and healthy remedy to crimes committed by a President, leaving us weakened, broken, and much less of a nation than our founding fathers imagined we would be.Again, the Ford legacy is not healing, stability, and civility; the Ford legacy is institutionalized denial and a constitutional democracy that is much less than it was before the Nixon years."Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Mid-18th century America, often attributed to Ben Franklin but provenance uncertain.

A native New Yorker with decades of experience in journalism and public. Born the same year as modern Israel and still with as many issues. We're both working on it.

Baghdad Streets: Kidnapped American Style

Richard Rothstein — Mon, 25 Dec 2006 13:49:11 EST

By White House standards, it's hard to be a "patriot" these days. I know that dissent is as American as apple pie but during "wartime" dissent can be a dicey business. And it is extremely challenging to proudly stand behind the red, white and blue -- no matter how much one might want to do so -- when our government and military behave in ways that defy logic and common sense. To some extent, I envy evangelicals and neo-conservatives. They have it easy. They believe. They don't question. They don't even feel the need to question. Their brains float like lovely water lilies in a placid pond of opaque water. This Sunday's Mad Hatter's Tea Party news out of Iraq is that American forces have ambushed and arrested several Iranian diplomats off the streets of Baghdad. Some of these diplomats are invited guests of the legally-elected Iraqi president who we claim to support and honor.In one ambush American forces stopped an official Iranian Embassy car carrying two Iranian diplomats, one or two Iranian guards and an Iraqi driver. Iraqi officials said that the diplomats had been praying at the Buratha mosque and that when it was stopped, the car was in the Allawi neighborhood, a few minutes from the Iranian Embassy.All in the car were detained by the Americans. The mosque’s Imam, Sheik Jalal al-deen al-Sageir, a member of Parliament from Mr. Hakim’s party, said one of the Iranians had come to pray during the last day of mourning for his mother, who recently died. He said that after the Iranians left, the Iranian Embassy phoned to say that they had not arrived as expected. “We were afraid they were kidnapped,” Sheik Sageir said.Of course they were kidnapped by Americans operating outside Iraqi and international law, but no one dare make that accusation when the kidnappers are wearing American uniforms.Are the seized Iranians masterminds behind Iraqi violence? Perhaps. But does that possibility really matter as much as American disregard for due process, Iraqi sovereignty and international law regarding the immunity of members of the diplomatic core? Are we at war with Iran? Is Iraq at war with Iran?All of the Iranian diplomats seized by American forces this past Sunday are guests of the supposedly legal and American-recognized government of Iraq. If the United States had proof of criminal activity wouldn't the legal course have been to provide this evidence to Iraqi authorities, especially considering that some of the diplomats are personally invited guest of the Iraqi president himself?Rather our military seizes these people off the streets switching democracy and law on and off at whim, shining a blinding and unflattering light on the fact that the democratically elected Iraqi government and President are nothing but a sham.Once again, the United States in its blind arrogance has put it's huge military boot in it's toothless mouth, stumbling though the current crisis like a clumsy bully trampling on law, common sense and any semblance of intelligent diplomatic strategy.This series of arrests may provide some evidence that some Iranians are in communication with Iraqi Shiites who are fighting against the American occupation; but these arrests have more importantly dealt another huge blow to American credibility and the legitimacy and credibility of the Iraqi government.We cannot be in the business of invading sovereign nations based on imaginary threats and obvious lies. And now, some years later, we cannot be in the business of treating international law, diplomatic protocols and a so-called democratically elected Iraqi government and president as ephemera subject to American moods.

A native New Yorker with decades of experience in journalism and public. Born the same year as modern Israel and still with as many issues. We're both working on it.

Ellen vs. Rosie

Richard Rothstein — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 16:48:16 EST

Speaking as a presumably liberal, progressive, and open-minded gay man, I risk sounding conservative and judgmental when I plainly declare that I really don't like Rosie O'Donnell. Furthermore, while the presence of her very big mouth on The View says a lot about how far gay Americans have progressed in the fight for acceptance, I believe that Rosie not only fails in her self-declared mission of advancing gay rights, she actually has a negative impact.Rosie is a lesbian clown -- a three-ring circus act. Rosie is a lesbian train wreck and we cannot avert our eyes.She conducts herself as if she's the ambassador of gay to the mainstream and proper world of Barbara Walters' Land o' Straight. Gossip flies out of her cavernous loudspeaker with the self-imagined authority of "I'm gay and you're not." I imagine that in a desperate attempt to remain relevant, Barbara lassoed Rosie because notorious faux-celebrity gossip blogger Mario Lavandeira was too busy battling lawsuits. Ms. Walters, like most American journalists, has betrayed her professional integrity for ratings and advertising, pandering to the lowest common denominator.A diet of facts and relevance requires critical thinking from Americans whereas the gossip and scandal as coughed up by the Lavandeiras, O'Donnells, and now Walters of our time is pure crack -- cheap and fatally addictive. Never mind that the former is vital to the future of democracy and freedom while the latter is quickly eroding the very foundation of our culture and society.Okay, you get the picture, I don't like Rosie. I think she's profoundly dysfunctional. But she sure does make an entertaining pet lesbo for HRH Barbara. And speaking of Barbara, I recently watched the two-hour TV special hosted by Barbara as a tribute to Barbara. Entitled "The Barbara Walters Special: 30 Mistakes in 30 Years", the point of the special was to confirm that Barbara is in fact perfect and while she can sometimes be slightly inappropriately adorable, she never really makes any mistakes. She ended the special with a sly and knowing grin as if to say, "Okay, I tried to do a special on my greatest flubs and outtakes, but, well, there just weren't any to be found." The special pretty much focused on the mistakes and fumbles made by her vulnerable guests. Barbara and Rosie make a lovely couple, separated only by tone and grace.And then there's Ellen. While Rosie is America's most notorious professional lesbian, Ellen is a witty, charming comic and host who is openly gay. Ellen has advanced the cause of gay rights and acceptance with style, intelligence, and endurance. Her varied guest are straight, gay, and who knows what, but that's not an issue -- the focus is on their talents and their contributions which have little to nothing to do with their sex lives. Ellen makes sexual orientation incidental, normal, and natural.Her references to her personal life and her significant other, Portia, are infrequent but appropriately integrated into her talk show as would be the case with any straight host. There's plenty of "we" did this and "we" did that, and occasionally Ellen will show photographs of aspects of her life and there's Portia at her side. Ellen will be the first openly gay celebrity to host the Oscars, not because she's gay but because she's talented -- and the fact that she's gay is almost incidental.I'm all for taking to the streets and manning the barricades when appropriate, but in the gay ambassador to Land o' Straight competition, Ellen takes Rosie with nothing more than a sideways glance.I also dislike The Donald, but loved him to death these past few days as he openly and honestly turned Rosie into his own personal roll of bathroom tissue (that's Barbara Walters Upper East Side English for "toilet paper".)

A native New Yorker with decades of experience in journalism and public. Born the same year as modern Israel and still with as many issues. We're both working on it.

New Jersey Civil Unions: Separate But Equal

Richard Rothstein — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 00:02:22 EST

Was the wording of the New Jersey Supreme Court decision on gay marriage a deliberate attempt to create an industry of litigation, guaranteeing a steady stream of income--mostly in taxpayer dollars--for lawyers and state and federal courts over the next few years? It's an interesting, albeit conspiracy theory-ish question. The mandate from Jersey's highest court was clear: call it what you will, but provide the same rights for same sex couples that are provided to married opposite sex couples. But the "call it what you will" notion, as simple as it seemed is clearly going to drive dozens if not hundreds of court cases in the months and years to come.Language is a thorny matter and not as simple as we often pretend. Consider the recent media circus over Michael Richards. Even though the meaning is clear and it's obvious what's being said, in our minds there is clearly a vast world of difference in power and impact between "the N word" and "what it stands for and we're not supposed to say." Paula Zahn can say "the N word" on CNN until her roots turn black, but she wouldn't dare says "the N word."Now that we're faced with the result and reality of the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision: a civil union law; the difference between calling it "marriage" and calling it a "civil union" is not less meaningful, no less impactful and even more complicated than the difference between using "the N word" and the actual word that we're not allowed to say.At one end of the spectrum, gay men and women are demeaned and insulted by "civil union." Furthermore, American history teaches us the specious notion of "separate but equal" is simply ridiculous.At the the other end of the spectrum "civil union" is neither morally, ethically or legally equal to marriage. "What you call it" matters greatly. Will federal and out-of-state employers, insurance companies and other institutions that automatically provide benefits and protections for married couples provide equal respect and recognition to civil unions? Maybe, maybe not. In social and business situations, will couples united in a civil union be afforded the same respect and accommodations afforded married couples? Who can tell? Of course, they can lie and claim to be married; but how sad is that? It hearkens back to the days when gay men and women would travel as best friends, check into hotels separately and then sneak into each other's rooms under cover of darkness.We can argue semantics and play word games until we're lavender in the face, but the reality is that a simple word diminishes same-sex couples to second class citizens and all that entails.While New Jersey's spanking new civil union law may seem like a major advance in the cause of American civil rights, it is actually nothing more than a sad and tired replay of the the old Jim Crow laws.Every American should be embarrassed by this and none of us should be celebratory. Well, except for the lawyers. They'll profit mightily from this as gay couples begin to face the reality of this discriminatory and unconstitutional law.And for those of you who think this is a "step in the right direction." No, it is not. It's a diversionary tactic and no more a step in the right direction than the institution of racial segregation.

A native New Yorker with decades of experience in journalism and public. Born the same year as modern Israel and still with as many issues. We're both working on it.