Pawlenty: Gays Shouldn’t Have The Power To Decide What To Do With The Body Of A Deceased Partner

From ThinkProgress.org: "If you’re straight and your husband or wife dies, you have the power to decide what to do with your loved one’s body and how to carry out their wishes. However, if you are a gay man or woman in Minnesota — a state that doesn’t recognize marriage equality — you won’t have that option, thanks to Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R). Explaining his veto of the bill, Pawlenty simply said there “is no actual need” to give same-sex couples equal end-of-life rights. From his official statement on Saturday:

The bill addresses the categories of individuals who under the law shall be given priority for purposes of determining the disposition of the remains of a deceased person. Currently a person can, by executing a will, designate who shall be empowered to control final disposition of his or her remains. The bill therefore addresses a nonexistent problem.

Marriage — defined as between a man and a woman — should remain elevated in our society a special level, as it traditionally has been. I oppose efforts to treat domestic relationships as the equivalent of traditional marriage. Accordingly, I am opposed to this bill.

Ann Kaner-Roth, executive director of LGBT advocacy group Project 515, responded that Pawlenty’s “comment that the proposed legislation is unnecessary shows he is out of step with the experiences of real Minnesotans. … The language in this bill reflects closely language already used by Minnesota’s leading businesses.” Additionally, a person in a heterosexual marriage is not required to have a living will in order for his or her spouse to carry out end-of-life wishes, so it’s unclear why one should be necessary for same-sex partners. The bill would also have given “surviving partners the right to sue those responsible should their partner be killed.”

As a new Center for American Progress report on the needs of LGBT elders finds, Minnesota is considered a “legal stranger” state, where “same-sex partners (or members of families of choice) in these states effectively have no chance to be designated as surrogate medical decision makers for their incapacitated partners/loved ones.” LGBT elders therefore generally need an advanced health care directive (AHD), which includes a living will and a health care power of attorney:

In practice, to protect themselves, LGBT elders must remember to carry their AHDs with them at all times — if an individual is rushed to the hospital without these documents, a loved one can still legally be denied access (see sidebar on page 40). Finally, problems may arise when an elder travels out of state, as one state may not always recognize the health care directive of another state.

Additionally, obtaining an AHD can be difficult, since many elders are unaware or do not have the means to secure one, and “medical providers and long-term care facilities often ignore or challenge the AHDs of LGBT people.” (HT: Joe Sudbay at AMERICAblog)

Update In Rhode Island last year, Gov. Donald Carcieri (R) vetoed a similar bill."

DOD Gates: Don't Repeal DADT This Year

From ThinkProgress.org: "As part of the Obama administration’s plan to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT), the Pentagon has convened a “Working Group” that is meeting with servicemembers, chaplains, and others individuals about how to repeal the ban on gay men and women serving openly in the military. The process is going to take until at least Dec. 1, 2010, and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has said that the President is committed to letting the group complete its work before moving forward. Some members of Congress have raised the possibility of passing DADT repeal legislation this year — before the review process is complete — and delaying implementation until next year.

However, today Defense Secretary Robert Gates sent House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) a letter (in response to an inquiry from Skelton) telling him that he doesn’t want Congress to take any action at all on DADT this year. From the letter obtained by ThinkProgress:

I believe in the strongest possible terms that the Department must, prior to any legislative action, be allowed the opportunity to conduct a thorough, objective, and systematic assessment of the impact of such a policy change; develop an attentive comprehensive implementation plan, and provide the President and the Congress with the results of this effort in order to ensure that this step is taken in the most informed and effective matter. [...]

Therefore, I strongly oppose any legislation that seeks to change this policy prior to the completion of this vital assessment process.

Gates’ moratorium on any DADT action this year is troubling. Thirteen Senate Democrats have introduced a bill to replace DADT with a new nondiscrimination policy that “prohibits discrimination against service members on the basis of their sexual orientation.” The Senate bill mirrors Rep. Patrick Murphy’s (D-PA) repeal bill in the House but goes several steps further, laying out a timeline for repeal and setting benchmarks for the Pentagon’s ongoing review of the policy.

Gates’ stance makes it significantly harder for Congress to help fulfill Obama’s pledge to repeal DADT and has some supporters of repeal questioning the Pentagon’s dedication to moving forward. Democrats in Congress will have a tougher time attracting moderate and Republican co-sponsors in light of this letter, and if Congress waits until next year — after the Pentagon review is completed — to move forward on legislation, the make-up of the legislature will be different and could again delay repeal.

Update Statement from Servicemembers United Executive Director Alexander Nicholson, who is a former U.S. Army interrogator discharged under DADT:
If the White House and the Department of Defense had been more engaged with us and had communicated with us better about the alternatives available, Secretary Gates would surely not feel that legislative action this year would disrespect the opinions of the troops or negatively impact them and their families. This is partly a failure of the Administration to substantively engage the gay military community in a timely manner, and it remains unacceptable. The Commander-in-Chief should strongly and immediately speak out about the need to move swiftly and decisively on this issue for the sake of military readiness. It is, after all, as the President said, "the right thing to do."
Update DADT repeal advocate Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) is pushing back on Gates' recommendation, saying, “There is no reason why Congress shouldn’t pass legislation this year that would time the repeal to follow the conclusion of the study."
Update Response from the White House: "The President’s commitment to repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is unequivocal. This is not a question of if, but how. That’s why we’ve said that the implementation of any congressional repeal will be delayed until the DOD study of how best to implement that repeal is completed. The President is committed to getting this done both soon and right."

Iconic Chicago Dance Club Closes

From ChicagoPride.com: "Chicago, IL — Crobar Chicago, 1543 N Kingsbury St, will officially be closing it's doors after "The Last Dance" celebration on April 17.

Crobar Chicago is the original in a chain which started the success of nationally acclaimed Crobar in New York City, Miami and Buenos Aires. The nightclub originally opened in 1992 in the industrial corridor of Chicago and reopened again in 2003 after a nearly one year renovation and reconstruction. Crobar locations in New York and Miami have also recently closed.

The popular nightclub was made famous by celebrity clientele such as Dennis Rodman and Bill Corgan. Rodman will help close the club when he hosts a party on Saturday.

"The music was dirty, deep, louder than hell, full of bass and progressive while the massive LGBT crowds filled every sweaty corner and partied along side the likes of Dennis Rodman, Jeremy Piven and Carmen Electra," recalled promoter Matthew Harvat who launched Circuit MOM at the nightclub in 1997. "Often, it was so packed and hot, the ceiling would drip rusty condensation, but no one complained, instead wore the rust stains as a badge of honor."

From the beginning, Crobar Chicago catered to the gay community with well-attended special events such as SuperStar Sundays on Market Days and Pride, Fireball, IML, Labor Day and Halloween; however, the nightclub was probably best known for G.L.E.E. Club which became a Sunday night institution and the longest running gay-themed weekly party in Chicago.

After it's remodel 2003, Crobar Chicago hosted the gay-themed Anthem Sundays which was produced by G.L.E.E. creator Paolo Pincente and Harvat.

Crobar Chicago's gay-themed events featured world-renowned DJs, including Timo Maas, Tony Moran, Joe Gauthreaux, Ralphi Rosario, Lydia Prim, Tracy Young, Manny Lehman, Frankie Knuckles and Victor Calderone.

"Many amazingly talented people shared their passion for club culture and music with the world audience that came to revel in the Crobar mayhem. Never one to follow, Crobar will always stand alone as an iconic treasure to the clubland creatures it crafted," Harvat told ChicagoPride.com.

"New York had Twilo, Tunnel, Paradise Garage and even a Crobar hybrid, but the original Crobar in Chicago, the one that gave me my start will forever remain the deep and dirty phantasmagorical vessel of music, muscle and memories which will never, ever be replaced in my heart".

The 6000 square foot space is reportedly to become a new club, The Vibe, which has yet to announce an opening date. "

Sometimes you just need to see some naked guys

Gay Prom

Great new gay anthem - Betty White Lines

Suit Charges Elderly Gay Partners Were Forced Apart

From NyTimes.com: By GERRY SHIH
"Clay M. Greene’s story, as recounted in his recent lawsuit against Sonoma County, is a tale of loss, doubled and redoubled. For gay men and lesbians, the series of events outlined in the complaint hits very close to home.

Mr. Greene, a 78-year-old gay man from Sebastopol, has filed a lawsuit against Sonoma County after saying he sustained a spate of indignities at the hands of officials during a bizarre estate battle that took place when his partner, who was 88, fell and became hospitalized in 2008.
News of Mr. Greene’s complaint came as President Obama was making headlines for his order extending hospital visitation rights and decision-making authority to same-sex partners.
The detailed complaint was filed on March 22, but news of it began ricocheting around the Internet, beginning on gay and lesbian sites Sunday and reaching venues like Daily Kos by Monday.
Mr. Greene’s troubles began when Harold Scull, his partner for more than 20 years, fell down the steps of their home in April 2008. At the time, the complaint said, Mr. Scull was showing signs of mental impairment.
County officials successfully petitioned the court to gain some powers of conservatorship. Then they “sold, kept, converted to their own use, and otherwise disposed of” almost $500,000 worth of belongings from the home shared by the two men — including furniture, art objects, memorabilia from the years Mr. Scull spent working in Hollywood, as well as a truck and two cats, the lawsuit alleges.

Mr. Greene said that he and Mr. Scull had previously specified each other as executors in case either became incapacitated, but the county ignored the legal documents and the history of their relationship, and at one point referred to Mr. Greene as Mr. Scull’s “roommate.”
Citing the state of Mr. Greene’s mental health, county officials then moved him against his will into a nursing home and sold the rest of his belongings, the suit charged. He was not allowed to visit Mr. Scull, who died several months later, in August 2008.
The nursing home, Agua Caliente Villa of Sonoma, is named as a defendant in the case. So is the auction company that sold the couple’s belongings.
The National Center for Lesbian Rights has joined the lawsuit, calling the situation an example of why “same-sex couples need full equality.”
Gay and lesbian elderly individuals, in particular, are vulnerable because “they are often estranged from their family and don’t have a legally recognized relative,” said Shannon P. Minter, the legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “Even here, where they had filled out legal documents, because their relationship is so thoroughly invisible and disrespected, it didn’t protect them.”
Mr. Minter said Mr. Greene’s situation was far less likely to happen to the surviving spouse of a heterosexual marriage.
Messages left at the office of Sonoma County’s legal counsel seeking comment were not returned. A message seeking comment left at the office of Anne Dennis, Mr. Greene’s lawyer, was not returned. Mr. Minter said Mr. Greene was unavailable for comment because he was in a “fragile” psychological state.

Embedded in the legalese of the complaint were stark anecdotal nuggets. At one point, as county officials moved through the couple’s home, the complaint alleged, they commented on the “quality” and “desirability” of the furnishings. They also mocked Mr. Greene, he said, calling him a “crazy old man,” said he had “dementia” and was a lost cause, laughed at him, and told him to “shut up and go to your room.”

On another instance, Mr. Greene claimed that employees acting as the county’s Deputy Public Guardians rolled their eyes and said in his presence, “you know how those gay boys are” and later expressed “displeasure at dealing with expressions of grief by a gay man who had lost his longtime partner.”
The case will go to trial on July 16, Mr. Minter said."

Girls accused of killing gay man in attack like Clockwork Orange

From TimesOnline.co.uk:
Adam Fresco, Crime Correspondent

Ruby Thomas and Rachel Burke, both 18, stamped on Ian Baynham’s chest and kicked him in the head after their friend Joel Alexander, 19, had punched him to the ground, knocking him unconscious, the Old Bailey was told.

As Mr Baynham lay bleeding the teenagers continued to assault him, it was said, causing him to suffer a fit from brain damage after his skull had been fractured.

When Mr Baynham’s friend stepped in to try to save him, Ms Burke attacked him too, punching him in the face, the jury was told.

The three alleged killers fled from the scene and Mr Baynham was taken to hospital in East London, but he never regained consciousness and died 18 days after the attack in September last year.

Brian Altman, QC, for the prosecution, told jurors that Mr Baynham and Philip Brown were walking through Trafalgar Square, in Central London, “minding their own business”.

He said: “The scene is Trafalgar Square at the very heart of London, one of this city’s most famous open spaces, home to the National Gallery, Nelson’s Column, the famous plinths and late that evening, a scene of despicable violence.

“One onlooker likened the level of violence to a scene from the film A Clockwork Orange. What happened was an all too familiar and depressing tale of drunken, loutish behaviour. But what they did went far beyond mere antisocial conduct.

“Remarkably, two of these defendants are teenage girls. Fuelled by copious amounts of alcohol, all three jointly participated in a violent attack on a defenceless man in public.”

Mr Altman continued: “Mr Baynham was openly homosexual and what led to his death began with Thomas hurling homophobic abuse at him and his friend Mr Brown. She called them ‘f***ing faggots’. Mr Baynham grabbed and slapped her.

“Alexander intervened and lunged at him, punching him in the face. He fell to the ground. It is certain that the force of the punch was such as to render him unconscious. His head hit the pavement and there was nothing to break his fall. The impact was so heavy that he suffered severe brain damage from which ultimately he was to die.

“However, that did not suffice. There’s evidence that the females then began putting the boot into Mr Baynham as he lay unconscious on his back. He was deeply in distress from the blow. Shocked onlookers saw repeated stamping on his chest and forceful kicks to the head. He began making snoring noises, evidence of unconsciousness, and fitting on the pavement, signs of primary brain damage.”

Mr Alexander, from Thornton Heath, Surrey, Ms Burke, from East Sussex, and Ms Thomas, from Litchfield, Staffordshire, all deny manslaughter and violent disorder. Ms Burke also denies causing Mr Brown actual bodily harm.

The trial continues.

Elderly Gay Couple Forcibly Separated, Abused, Robbed By County Officials in California

From TheStranger.com:
Posted by Dan Savage on Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 11:09 AM
This is shocking and outrageous:
Clay and his partner of 20 years, Harold, lived in California. Clay and Harold made diligent efforts to protect their legal rights, and had their legal paperwork in place—wills, powers of attorney, and medical directives, all naming each other. Harold was 88 years old and in frail medical condition, but still living at home with Clay, 77, who was in good health.
One evening, Harold fell down the front steps of their home and was taken to the hospital. Based on their medical directives alone, Clay should have been consulted in Harold’s care from the first moment. Tragically, county and health care workers instead refused to allow Clay to see Harold in the hospital. The county then ultimately went one step further by isolating the couple from each other, placing the men in separate nursing homes. Ignoring Clay’s significant role in Harold’s life, the county continued to treat Harold like he had no family and went to court seeking the power to make financial decisions on his behalf. Outrageously, the county represented to the judge that Clay was merely Harold’s “roommate.” The court denied their efforts, but did grant the county limited access to one of Harold’s bank accounts to pay for his care.What happened next is even more chilling: without authority, without determining the value of Clay and Harold’s possessions accumulated over the course of their 20 years together or making any effort to determine which items belonged to whom, the county took everything Harold and Clay owned and auctioned off all of their belongings. Adding further insult to grave injury, the county removed Clay from his home and confined him to a nursing home against his will. The county workers then terminated Clay and Harold's lease and surrendered the home they had shared for many years to the landlord.
Three months after he was hospitalized, Harold died in the nursing home. Because of the county’s actions, Clay missed the final months he should have had with his partner of 20 years. Compounding this tragedy, Clay has literally nothing left of the home he had shared with Harold or the life he was living up until the day that Harold fell, because he has been unable to recover any of his property.

Clay is now suing the county, the auction company, and the nursing home. This story should get as much attention as Constance McMillen's story. More attention. There should be protests outside the hospital and county administration buildings. And I think another phone call from the president is called for.

.

Court orders father of slain soldier to pay anti-gay protesters legal fees

From RawStory.com and AP: The father of a Marine killed in Iraq and whose funeral was picketed by anti-gay protesters was ordered to pay the protesters' appeal costs, his lawyers said Monday.
On Friday, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ordered Snyder to pay $16,510 to Fred Phelps, leader of the Westboro Baptist Church, despite the fact that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case as to whether the protesters are entitled to free speech at the funeral. Phelps conducted protests at Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder's funeral in 2006.

The two-page decision supplied by attorneys for Albert Snyder of York, Pa., offered no details on how the court came to its decision.

Attorneys also said Snyder is struggling to come up with fees associated with filing a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court.

The decision adds "insult to injury," said Sean Summers, one of Snyder's lawyers.

The high court agreed to consider whether the protesters' message is protected by the First Amendment or limited by the competing privacy and religious rights of the mourners.

Phelps and his congregation regularly demonstrate at military funerals, carrying inflammatory signs to draw attention to their anti-gay message.

The religious group protest at the funerals of soldiers, regardless of the sexuality of the deceased military personnel, and use the events to bring publicity to their campaign.

The preacher and six relatives arrived at Snyder's funeral carrying signs that read "America is doomed," "Matt in hell" and "Semper Fi fags," in reference to the Marine motto "Semper Fi."

After the funeral was over, Phelps continued to deride and criticize Snyder on his website, prompting the dead Marine's family to sue the preacher before a Maryland court.

Snyder's father Albert claimed Phelps had intruded on a private event and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the bereaved family and won an initial award of five million dollars.

But the award was overturned on appeal, where a court ruled that Westburo protesters were simply exercising their First Amendment right to free speech.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DavidMixner.com: The Right: Constantly On The Wrong Side Of History

DavidMixner.com: The Right: Constantly On The Wrong Side Of History

Posted using ShareThis

Insurer targeted HIV patients to drop coverage

(Reuters) - In May, 2002, Jerome Mitchell, a 17-year old college freshman from rural South Carolina, learned he had contracted HIV. The news, of course, was devastating, but Mitchell believed that he had one thing going for him: On his own initiative, in anticipation of his first year in college, he had purchased his own health insurance.

U.S. | Health | Healthcare Reform

Shortly after his diagnosis, however, his insurance company, Fortis, revoked his policy. Mitchell was told that without further treatment his HIV would become full-blown AIDS within a year or two and he would most likely die within two years after that.

So he hired an attorney -- not because he wanted to sue anyone; on the contrary, the shy African-American teenager expected his insurance was canceled by mistake and would be reinstated once he set the company straight.

But Fortis, now known as Assurant Health, ignored his attorney's letters, as they had earlier inquiries from a case worker at a local clinic who was helping him. So Mitchell sued.

In 2004, a jury in Florence County, South Carolina, ordered Assurant Health, part of Assurant Inc, to pay Mitchell $15 million for wrongly revoking his heath insurance policy.

In September 2009, the South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the lower court's verdict, although the court reduced the amount to be paid him to $10 million.

By winning the verdict against Fortis, Mitchell not only obtained a measure of justice for himself; he also helped expose wrongdoing on the part of Fortis that could have repercussions for the entire health insurance industry.

Previously undisclosed records from Mitchell's case reveal that Fortis had a company policy of targeting policyholders with HIV. A computer program and algorithm targeted every policyholder recently diagnosed with HIV for an automatic fraud investigation, as the company searched for any pretext to revoke their policy. As was the case with Mitchell, their insurance policies often were canceled on erroneous information, the flimsiest of evidence, or for no good reason at all, according to the court documents and interviews with state and federal investigators.

The revelations come at a time when President Barack Obama, in his frantic push to rescue the administration's health care plan, has stepped up his criticism of insurers. The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote later this week on an overhaul of the health system, which Obama has said is essential to do away with controversial and unpopular industry practices.

Insurance companies have long engaged in the practice of "rescission," whereby they investigate policyholders shortly after they've been diagnosed with life-threatening illnesses. But government regulators and investigators who have overseen the actions of Assurant and other health insurance companies say it is unprecedented for a company to single out people with HIV.

In his previously undisclosed court ruling, the judge in the Mitchell case also criticized what he said were the company's efforts to cover its tracks.

Assurant Health said that as a matter of policy it did not comment on individual customer claims.

"We disagree with certain of the court's characterizations of Assurant Health's policies and procedures in the Mitchell case," it said in a statement provided by spokesman Peter Duckler, adding: "The case continues to progress through the appellate process."

"REPREHENSIBLE" CONDUCT

Much of the trial record of the Mitchell case is bound by a confidentiality order and not available to the public. But two orders written by the presiding judge, Michael G. Nettles, a state circuit judge for the 12th Judicial District of South Carolina, of Florence County, describe the case in detail. Judge Nettles wrote the orders in response to motions by Assurant that the jury's verdict be set aside or reduced.

In the motions, Nettles not only strongly denied Fortis' claims but condemned the corporation's conduct.

"There was evidence that Fortis' general counsel insisted years ago that members of the rescission committee not record the identity of the persons present and involved in the process of making a decision to rescind a Fortis health insurance policy," Nettles wrote.

Elsewhere in his order, Nettles noted that there were no "minutes of actions, votes, or any business conducted during the rescission committee's meeting."

The South Carolina Supreme Court, in upholding the jury's verdict in the case in a unanimous 5-0 opinion, said that it agreed with the lower court's finding that Fortis destroyed records to hide the corporation's misconduct. Supreme Court Chief Justice Jean Hoefer Toal wrote: "The lack of written rescission policies, the lack of information available regarding appealing rights or procedures, the separate policies for rescission documents" as well as the "omission" of other records regarding the decision to revoke Mitchell's insurance, constituted "evidence that Fortis tried to conceal the actions it took in rescinding his policy."

In affirming the trial verdict and Nettles' order, Toal was as harsh in her criticism of the company as Judge Nettles had been. "We find ample support in the record that Fortis' conduct was reprehensible," she wrote. "Fortis demonstrated an indifference to Mitchell's life and a reckless disregard to his health and safety."

Fortis canceled Mitchell's health insurance based on a single erroneous note from a nurse in his medical records that indicated that he might have been diagnosed prior to his obtaining his insurance policy. When the company's investigators discovered the note, they ceased further review of Mitchell's records for evidence to the contrary, including the records containing the doctor's diagnosis.

Nettles also suggested that Fortis should have realized the date in the note was incorrect: "Not only did Fortis choose to rely on one false and unreliable snippet of information containing an erroneous date to the exclusion of other information which would have revealed that date to be erroneous, Fortis refused to conduct any further investigation even after it was on notice the evidence which aroused its suspicion to be false," the judge noted.

Fortis "gambled" with Mitchell's life, Nettles wrote.

Their motive, according to the judge, was obvious: "The court finds that Fortis wrongfully elevated its concerns for maximizing profits over the rights and interest of its customer." In upholding Nettles' verdict, the South Carolina Supreme Court similarly ruled that "Fortis was motivated to avoid the losses it would undoubtedly incur in supporting Mitchell's costly medical condition."

While declining to comment on specific cases, Assurant said in the statement: "All insurance companies have processes to review claims to ensure their accuracy, completeness and compliance with policy provisions and we evaluate all claims on an individual basis."

CEO DEFENDED RESCISSION

On June 16, 2009, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, held a hearing on the practice of rescission by health insurance companies, and among the industry executives who testified was Don Hamm, the CEO and President of Assurant Health.

Hamm insisted before the committee that rescission was a necessary tool for Assurant and other health insurance companies to hold the cost of premiums down for other policyholders. Hamm asserted that rescission was "one of many protections supporting the affordability and viability of individual health insurance in the United States under our present system."

He also suggested that those who had their policies rescinded by Assurant had attempted to intentionally mislead his company: "Unfortunately, there are times when we discover that an applicant did not provide complete or accurate medical information when we underwrote the risk," Hamm said.

But state regulators, federal and congressional investigators, and consumer advocates say that in only a tiny percentage of cases of people who have had their health insurance canceled was there a legitimate reason.

A 2007 investigation by a California state regulatory agency, the California Department of Managed Health Care, bore this out. The DMHC randomly selected 90 instances in which Anthem Blue Cross of California, one of WellPoint's largest subsidiaries, canceled the insurance of policy holders after diagnoses with costly or life-threatening illnesses to determine how many were legally justified.

The result: The agency concluded that Anthem Blue Cross lacked legal grounds for canceling policies in every single instance.

"In all 90 files, there was no evidence (that Blue Cross), before rescinding coverage, investigated or established that the applicant's omission/misrepresentation was willful," the DMHC report said.

WRONG DATE

The Fortis underwriter who recommended Mitchell's policy be rescinded had her own doubts that it was correct to do so, according to records the company did produce at trial.

In a reference to the nurse's note with the wrong date, the underwriter wrote to her superiors: "Technically, we do not have the results of the HIV test. This is the only entry in the medical records regarding HIV status. Is this sufficient?"

Relying on the note was dubious, Judge Nettles wrote, because it was included in records from 2002, when Mitchell was in fact diagnosed with HIV, and not in 2001, when he purchased his policy. "The chronological sequence of those records raises an inference that the date on the handwritten note may be erroneous," he wrote.

Moreover, Nettles said, if Mitchell's HIV diagnosis had been a year earlier, as the erroneous note said, Mitchell's medical records would have shown other references to that diagnosis and treatment and he would have sought reimbursement for expenses related to them.

Sallie Phelan, an attorney who represented Mitchell, says her client was bewildered as to why his insurance was canceled -- at first not even contemplating the possibility that there was anything improper going on: "We began representing Jerome when he was still just a boy, really," she said. "He was just this sweet kid with all these drives and ambitions."

Then Mitchell felt betrayed, Phelan says. "He had done everything he was supposed to. He went out and got insurance on his own, at 17. He was a trusting person, perhaps too trustful. And as they kept slamming doors in his face, he thought at first there was some misunderstanding. He couldn't understand what was going on, because he is such an honest person himself. And when they accused him of lying, that was the most harmful to him. He didn't understand why they were accusing them. He didn't understand why people weren't listening to him."

Like other major health insurance companies, Fortis has a "rescission committee" that reviews recommendations to cancel a policyholder's insurance. But in the case of Fortis, Nettles wrote, the committee rarely did more than "rubber stamp" already flawed recommendations.

"There were no rules, no minutes, no notes, and, in accordance with instructions from general counsel not even a record of who was present," the judge wrote about the committee.

During the meeting in which Mitchell's insurance was rescinded, "there were more than 40 other customers, whose cases appeared before the rescission committee for review in no more than one and one half to two hours, representing an average of three minutes or less per customer," he wrote.

According to Nettles, Fortis concealed information through its document retention practice. The company's "stated policy for the last nine years has been to microfilm and destroy all documents," the judge said. "There was also evidence that documents and/or records regarding (Mitchell's) policy were deleted; and that telephone logs and recordings contained key omissions." Fortis also "shredded" documents, he said.

Regarding another piece of key evidence, the judge concluded that "a jury could easily infer that Fortis destroyed and/or concealed" crucial evidence.

Overall, Nettles asserted, a "pattern of secrecy and concealment by Fortis in this case ... supports a high award of punitive damages."

After his insurance was canceled, a case worker with a social agency who works with HIV patients named Mary Wiggins worked tirelessly for Mitchell to find him medical care and to have Fortis reinstate his insurance. Despite deluging Fortis with records and information that should have led to a reversal of the decision, the insurance company simply ignored her. Wiggins found a local clinic that agreed to provide care for Mitchell, in the process very likely saving his life.

Eventually, Mitchell retained legal counsel to have his health insurance reinstated, but Fortis ignored them as well. It was only after the insurance company was sued -- some 22 months after his HIV diagnosis -- that Mitchell's insurance was reinstated.

COST CONTAINMENT

In his order, Nettles said Mitchell's treatment was typical of how Fortis treated patients recently diagnosed with HIV and other life-threatening diseases.

"In addition to these acts toward (Mitchell) there was evidence that Fortis has for some time been making recommendations for rescission, and acting on those recommendations, without good-faith investigation conducted fairly and objectively ... Fortis pre-programed its computer to recognize the billing codes for expensive health conditions, which triggers an automatic fraud investigation by its "Cost Containment" division whenever such a code is recognized."

A federal investigator who has reviewed Assurant's remaining records says that they showed that once a person with HIV was targeted with a fraud investigation, the company made a greater effort than usual to cancel the person's insurance. Policies and medical records were scrutinized to a greater extent than others being scrutinized, he said.

The investigator, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that the motive for focusing on people with HIV was simply the high cost of treating the illness: "We are talking a lifetime of therapy, a lifetime of care ... a lot of bills. Nowadays someone with HIV can live a normal life for decades. This was about money."

No evidence has emerged that any other major American company purged policyholders simply because they had HIV. But an investigation last summer by the House Energy and Commerce Committee as well as earlier ones by state regulators in California, New York and Connecticut, found that thousands of vulnerable and seriously ill policyholders have had their coverage canceled by many of the nation's largest insurance companies without any legal basis. The congressional committee found that three insurance companies alone saved at least $300 million over five years from rescission. One of those three companies was Assurant.

The committee estimated that Assurant alone profited by more than $150 million between 2003 and 2007 from rescission.

During his appearance on June 16 before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Hamm, the CEO and President of Assurant, urged Congress to pass the new health care legislation, in part, to prevent such practices.

"We can achieve the goal we share -- providing health care coverage for all Americans," Hamm said. "If a system can be created where coverage is available to everyone and all Americans are required to participate, the process we are addressing today, rescission, becomes unnecessary."

(Additional reporting by Lewis Krauskopf, editing by Jim Impoco and Claudia Parsons)

Time to boycott Virginia: attorney general to colleges: End gay protections

From WashingtonPost.com:
By Rosalind S. Helderman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 6, 2010; A01
RICHMOND -- Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II has urged the state's public colleges and universities to rescind policies that ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, arguing in a letter sent to each school that their boards of visitors had no legal authority to adopt such statements.

In his most aggressive initiative on conservative social issues since taking office in January, Cuccinelli (R) wrote in the letter sent Thursday that only the General Assembly can extend legal protections to gay state employees, students and others -- a move the legislature has repeatedly declined to take as recently as this week.

The letter demonstrates an increasing split in the region's policies on issues related to sexual orientation. It comes in the same week that the District began issuing marriage licenses for gay couples and a week after Maryland's attorney general announced that his state will recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Cuccinelli's move has dismayed students and faculty members. It suggests that Cuccinelli intends to take a harder line with the state's university system, where liberal academics have long coexisted uneasily with state leaders in Richmond.

"It is my advice that the law and public policy of the Commonwealth of Virginia prohibit a college or university from including 'sexual orientation,' 'gender identity,' 'gender expression,' or like classification as a protected class within its non-discrimination policy absent specific authorization from the General Assembly," he wrote in the letter.

Colleges that have included such language in policies that govern university hiring and admissions -- which include all of Virginia's largest schools -- have done so "without proper authority" and should "take appropriate actions to bring their policies in conformance with the law and public policy of Virginia," Cuccinelli wrote.

Official representatives of several universities, including the University of Virginia, Virginia Tech, the College of William and Mary and George Mason University, reacted cautiously to the letter, declining to comment and indicating that their governing boards would examine the issue.

But some individual college board members and others said Cuccinelli's action would be highly controversial on campuses, where many argue that such policies are necessary to attract top students and faculty.

"What he's saying is reprehensible," said Vincent F. Callahan Jr., a former Republican member of the House of Delegates who serves on George Mason's board of visitors. "I don't know what he's doing, opening up this can of worms."

It is not entirely clear what recourse Cuccinelli would have if the universities do not follow his advice. Claire Guthrie Gastañaga, general counsel to the gay rights group Equality Virginia and a former deputy attorney general, urged boards to seek a second opinion. "They call it advice for a reason," she said.

Former attorney general Jerry Kilgore (R) agreed it would be difficult for Cuccinelli to enforce his opinion without pursuing court action. But he said college visitors swear an oath to abide by state statute.

"Board members are required to follow the law," Kilgore said. "And he's telling them what the law is."

Cuccinelli's predecessor, Robert F. McDonnell (R), who became governor in January, also held that only the General Assembly could name new classes for legal protections. But he never specifically targeted university policies that seemingly contradicted his position. And in a 2006 letter to Longwood University, his office declined to conclusively tell the Farmville school that it could not include sexual orientation in its policy.

Still, a McDonnell spokesman said Friday that the governor thinks Cuccinelli's stand is consistent with past practice. He said, however, that McDonnell would not discriminate at universities or elsewhere.

"The legal analysis contained in the letter concerning the General Assembly's sole responsibility for setting state employment policy is consistent with all prior opinions from the Office of the Attorney General over the last 25 years on the subject," McDonnell spokesman Tucker Martin said in a statement. "The Governor expects that no Virginia college or university, or any other state agency, will engage in discrimination of any kind."

In the letter, Cuccinelli wrote that he was issuing the opinion to dispel any confusion about his office's position. He said local governments have received similar advice from past attorneys general. Allowing universities to write policies without permission from the General Assembly would invite litigation, he wrote.

According to the letter, the General Assembly has rejected bills to add the words "sexual orientation" to nondiscrimination statutes 25 times since 1997.

Cuccinelli declined to comment on the letter, which was obtained by The Washington Post.

The former Fairfax County senator has signaled that he will be an activist attorney general. This month, he sued the federal Environmental Protection Agency, challenging its ruling that greenhouse gases pose a public health risk by contributing to global warming.

He also advised McDonnell to halt a process begun by former governor Timothy M. Kaine (D) in December that could have resulted in Virginia allowing health benefits for the partners of gay state employees, including at colleges and universities.

"I don't think it's going to surprise anyone that Attorney General Cuccinelli is not going to be a quiet attorney general," said Christopher Freund, a spokesman for the Family Foundation, which has long contended that legal protections based on sexual orientation are unnecessary.

Freund applauded Cuccinelli for the consistency of his advice.

"I find it hard to believe that this would be the final straw in whether or not someone's going to come to Virginia's universities," he said. "They are some of the best universities in the country. I think they can stand on their own without this policy."

But others criticized the move, including students and Democratic lawmakers. "It's going to be a mess -- there's no doubt about that," said Carl Pucci, 21, president of Old Dominion University's student body. "I think you're going to see the whole gamut, from angry letters to protests."

U.S. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said in a statement that Cuccinelli's advice would "damage the Commonwealth's reputation for academic excellence and diversity."

Missouri Should Be So Proud....State Sen. Nodler Says DADT Repeal Will "Offend the Terrorists"

From ThinkProgress.org: "Missouri State Sen. Gary Nodler (R), who is running for Congress, recently argued that repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) “would offend the terrorists” and be a “cultuaral [sic] affront to the Muslims in who’s [sic] country we are operating.” When blogger Eli Yokley asked Nodler to clarify his comments, noting that many U.S. allies do not discriminate, Nodler suggested that the UK has a higher causality rate than other allies because it allows gay men and women to serve openly:

NODLER: The fact is, in Iraq, and for a period of time in Afghanistan, that happens to be the force that had the highest casualty rate. I can’t say with any certainty that I have any proof that that’s because there’s less comfort from the Iraqis and Afghanis in dealing with those forces, but it might be. And so, I believe the highest casualty rate in any of the allied forces has in fact been Great Britain.
As the Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky noted, Nodler is advocating a policy that allows foreign nations and cultures to “guide U.S. military policy.” Nodler has also expressed concern with women serving, saying that the policy might not be “advancing the goals of the U.S. military.” Moreover, every NATO member except the U.S. and Turkey allow gay men and women to serve openly. A recent report from the Palm Center found that “preliminary findings that open gays do not disrupt military effectiveness hold over time, including in Britain, whose policy of non-discrimination marked its ten-year anniversary last month.”

Former Florida Headliner Drag Queen Fired from Nursing Job Forty Years Later

From SouthFloridaGayNews.com: "You may know or remember Ray Fetcho as ‘Tiny Tina.’ He is a proud gay 61 year old man who has been a licensed practical nurse for the past forty years; four decades of service to people who are ill.

Unfortunately, in 1976, while hosting a ‘Wet Jockey Shorts Night’ at the Copa, he was busted for promoting a lewd act. Today, that incident has come back to haunt him. The state has told him he can no longer be a nurse because of the conviction.

For the past 15 years, Fetcho has been an acclaimed and honored employee at Victoria Villa, an assisted living facility in Davie, recognized for his “compassionate service to the elderly.”

On March 31, 1976, Fetcho, performing as ‘Tiny Tina’ at the Copa in Dania Beach, was charged and convicted of promoting ‘lewd and lascivious’ behavior by throwing small buckets of water on boys’ briefs while hosting the irreverent ‘Wet Jockey Shorts’ contest.

Last month, that dated conviction from his past became a nightmare. Last week, Ray Fetcho was summarily fired from the job he has loved and cherished. A state licensing agency, the Agency for Health Care Administration, doing a routine screening inspection of nursing home employees, told him he would be ineligible to remain on the job at his facility “because of the lewd act conviction” from thirty plus years ago.

During the 1970’s and 80’s, the Copa was the most renowned and preeminent gay bar in South Florida. It was an international destination for tourists and a ‘coming out’ venue for anyone local, gay, and seeking an all night dance club.

30 years ago, John Castelli, and his partner, the late Bill Bastiansen, were the owners of the Copa, which hosted renowned drag queens like Tiny Tina, Nikki Adams, and the late Dana Manchester.

Today, Castelli is a respected broker of Castelli and Associates in Wilton Manors. After being told of Fetcho’s plight Saturday morning, Castelli commented: “Oh my God! What century are we living in? It was such an innocent situation. The boys always wore briefs. No one was exposed. That was during the Anita Bryant era, a lifetime ago.” Castelli even remembered the incident, noting he and his partner had to bond Fetcho out of jail.

Unfortunately, those acts then have impacted Fetcho’s life today. Unless he petitions and receives an exemption for his past misconduct, the Department of Health can stop him from working anywhere in the state as an LPN, a job which has paid him close to $40,000 a year.

Lucie Eichler, his now former employer from the Villa thought the decision was equally incredible, “Fetcho has been a valuable addition to our company. He is so well-liked that he still maintains relationships with the families of residents who have since passed.”

Eichler attests to Fetcho’s, “reliability and strong ethical character,” and says that she is “sorry to see him leave.”

Ann Garfinkel, the daughter of a Victoria Villa resident, was in disbelief when informed of Fetcho’s firing. “His termination is a great loss to the residents of Victoria Villa and the nursing profession in general.” She continues, “I believe the State of Florida is making a big mistake.”

Added Linda Greenfield, “Ray took care of my mother while she was suffering from dementia at the Villa. He is the most caring and considerate nurse you can imagine; he brings patience and love and humor to his work.”

Ironically, Fetcho has a new job waiting for him in a new Coconut Creek assisted living facility. Kelley Madigan, the administrator at Dayscape, a senior activity center told SFGN, “I was Fetcho’s supervisor at the Villas for six years. He is dedicated and pleasant, dependable and compassionate. I am prepared to employ him the moment he clears this hurdle.”

Fetcho has retained long time Fort Lau­derdale constitutional rights attorney, Norm Kent, who is the publisher of SFGN. Stated Kent, who is taking the case on a pro bono basis, “I promise you that this injustice will be cured and that Ray Fetcho will get an exemption- and be restored to his tenure as an LPN.” He addresses the issue in today’s SFGN editorial.

Kent has to petition the Department of Health and make a case to its administrators. He explained the legal process that Fetcho must initiate: “Employees seeking an exemption have the burden of setting forth sufficient evidence of rehabilitation, including the circumstances surrounding the criminal incident for which an exemption is sought, and the time period that has elapsed since the incident, and the history of the employee since the incident,” Kent said.

For his part, Fetcho is upset and concerned about his future. “I love being a nurse and I love my job and I can’t believe this is coming back to haunt me 30 years later. It was stupid then. It is ridiculous now.”

Added Fetcho, “I should be working up to my retirement in five years, not looking back at something from the past. I never mixed my two careers together. One was show business, one was real. I had the best of both possible worlds but if I have to fight today to help some other nurse tomorrow, they are going to have to fight ‘The Queen’ in her court.”

Chicago's last girl bar closed in January 2010

From Pageoneq.com: "Star Gaze, what many called the last full-time lesbian bar in Chicago, closed earlier in January after 14 years. The loss leaves a hole in Chicago’s lesbian community.“I opened the bar knowing there was a need for it,” Mamie Lake, the owner, told the Chicago Tribune. “It went big time. We had people moving into the neighborhood because of the bar. It was like a gay Although Lake said the economy was a factor in her decision to close, she also noticed a change in the way lesbians socialize. Once the staple of lesbian meeting places, the bar scene is no longer the only option for meeting other women.

“There are lesbian book groups and other kinds of social spaces now where people can find each other,” Jennifer Brier told the paper. She is an associate professor of history and gender and women’s studies at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

But not everyone is convinced. “For a young queer woman coming out or just arriving here, someone looking for community where they feel comfortable, I don’t know where that place is going to be anymore or where that one bar is,” Lesbian Community Care Project manager Christina Santiago told the Tribune.

Daniel James Rick Accused to Raping Man and Infecting Slew of Others with HIV

from Queerty.com:
"It's a week of disgusting men who infect other people with HIV, isn't it? First that Tony Perkins fella and those hundred women, and now Minneapolis' Daniel James Rick stands accused of having sex with at least two other men — one during a date rape — without telling them he's HIV-positive.
Investigators say Rick used Facebook and other sites, as well as local bars, to meet guys to have sex with without ever telling them of his status. Which is illegal, yo.

In an encounter earlier this month that has Rick facing rape charges, a man says Rick raped him while he was intoxicated.

Now a second man has come forward, saying he and his boyfriend (yes) met Rick online. Robert O'Riley says just weeks after their sexual encounter, he came down with flu-like symptoms, and after testing positive for HIV his doctor told him he likely contracted it in the past few weeks. But it took a television report, with Rick's photo on screen, for O'Riley to learn his alleged infector's true identity. (Meanwhile, there are separate charges involving Rick and a 15-year-old boy whom snuck out of his house to have sex with Rick.)

And police say they suspect there are more unknowing victims out there. Rick, meanwhile, faces criminal charges of knowingly transmitting HIV/AIDS to someone without informing them. And being a complete and utter asshole."

Great Music Video - We're #37

‘Marriage’ benefits costly for gay couples

From Chicago Tribune on January 18 2010: "If Howard Wax and Robert Pooley Jr. were a heterosexual couple, they could’ve gone to their nearest Cook County clerk’s office, paid $40 for a marriage license and been wed.

That would have provided them an array of legal protections – the right to make medical decisions for one another, the ability for one to inherit the other’s property.

Instead, the couple paid $10,000 for an attorney to help them roughly simulate – using wills, trusts and powers of attorney – the protections that marriage affords. It was a price the men, parents of 3-year-old twins, were willing to pay for peace of mind, though they admit it’s far from perfect.

“I feel at least like we’re secure now,” said Wax, who has been with Pooley for nine years. “It’s not perfect, but we’re OK.”

Across the country, there has been a surge in gay and lesbian couples making such arrangements to protect themselves in states like Illinois that do not recognize same-sex marriage or civil unions. As the nation continues to fiercely debate gay marriage, some proponents cite the added financial burden in casting it as not just a civil rights issue but an issue of economic fairness.

“Gay couples have to go to an attorney, have a will drawn up, get durable powers of attorney. Not only is it a financial expense, but many of those things can be challenged by people’s biological families,” said Rick Garcia, political director for the gay and lesbian rights group Equality Illinois. “A heterosexual couple that barely knows each other can walk into the county clerk’s office, get a license, get married by an administrative law judge, and all their rights and all their protections are there.”

It can be a difficult reality for same-sex couples to face.

Melissa Walker and Erin Ferguson had a wedding ceremony in Chicago in 2008. A couple of friends who are attorneys offered their services as a gift, helping the couple prepare powers of attorney and wills.

Now Walker is eight months pregnant and said it will cost about $2,000 for Ferguson to adopt the child, along with additional legal costs to make sure their parental rights are protected.

“Erin and I are spending thousands of dollars out of our savings account,” Walker said. “How does it benefit anyone when our child is going to come into this world with a less economically sound family?”

Most estate attorneys advise straight couples to have safeguards like wills and powers of attorney, but they aren’t absolutely necessary.

“There are protections under the law that would help a heterosexual couple if they didn’t have those protections in place,” said Christopher Clark, senior staff attorney in the Midwest Regional Office of Lambda Legal, a national gay and lesbian civil rights organization. “A same-sex couple, without these steps, has no legal protection.”

Even with carefully laid-out legal plans, Clark said same-sex couples still have cause for concern: “We’ve had horrible situations where someone winds up in the emergency room in critical condition or even dying, and the person’s partner is not allowed access to them, regardless of the documents.”And there are other rights that come with marriage that same-sex couples have no way of accessing. They miss out on all manner of federal tax benefits, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act – signed into law by President Bill Clinton – makes it impossible for a surviving partner to receive any of their deceased partner’s monthly Social Security payout. That money simply goes back to the federal government.

In Illinois, if one person in a same-sex relationship is covered by his or her partner’s work health insurance, the premium that company pays is treated as taxable income for the partner who works there. Married heterosexuals don’t face such a tax.

“You can never create – using private contracts – all the same benefits and protections people have by being married,” said Ray Koenig III, a Chicago attorney. “You can try hard, and you can spend a lot of money. But you’ll never get there.”

A recent Pew Research Center poll found that a majority of the country continues to oppose gay marriage, 53 percent, while nearly 60 percent of Americans favor letting gay and lesbian couples enter into civil unions. Garcia, of Equality Illinois, said a civil unions bill that would give same-sex couples every benefit the state conveys to married couples will again be considered this year by the Illinois legislature.

Couples like Stephen Lev and Chad Feltrin, however, aren’t waiting around for a bill to pass. Feltrin proposed to Lev, on bended knee in their Andersonville apartment, in April, but they decided they won’t have a marriage ceremony unless same-sex marriage is legalized in Illinois.

“I guess it’s our way of protesting,” Lev said. “I think it’s unfair we’re forced to jump through hoops others don’t have to jump through just to get the same rights.”

Those hoops for Lev and Feltrin included four powers of attorney (two each), two privacy waivers allowing access to the other’s medical records, two wills and a trust for the property they own together.

Wax and Pooley had their children with a surrogate mother in 2006, and it was around that time they realized the importance of estate planning. Kenneth Bloom, their attorney, set the couple up with two revocable trusts to ensure each man’s assets can transfer to the surviving partner and their children, two powers of attorney for each, a will for each and a separate trust for Pooley’s life insurance plan.

“It’s fascinating to do this work for same-sex couples, because there are always very unique circumstances that have to be planned for,” Bloom said. “Same-sex couples are becoming smarter about these legal matters and it’s becoming more common for them to say, ‘OK, we have no legal rights and we’d better do some estate planning.’ ”

Wax said he’s not bitter about the steps he and Pooley have had to take. He thinks great strides have been made in gay civil rights and believes marriage rights for same-sex couples will come eventually, whether in the form of fully legalized marriage or civil unions.

“I don’t care if they call it a tostada,” Pooley said. “I just want the legal issues to be settled out. I don’t like feeling like we’re missing out or being treated differently.”

Great New Dance Hit: Party Around the World (#27 on Billboard Chart)

New GOP Virginia Gov, Takes Away Gay Rights

From TalkingPointsMemo.com on February 17, 2010:
"Gay and lesbian state workers in Virginia are no longer specifically protected against discrimination, thanks to a little-noticed change made by new Gov. Bob McDonnell.

McDonnell (R) on Feb. 5 signed an executive order that prohibits discrimination "on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, religion, age, political affiliation, or against otherwise qualified persons with disabilities," as well as veterans.

It rescinds the order that Gov. Tim Kaine signed Jan. 14, 2006 as one of his first actions. After promising a "fair and inclusive" administration in his inaugural address, Kaine (D) added veterans to the non-discrimination policy - and sexual orientation.

McDonnell's office sent along this memo from his chief of staff that they have suggested to reporters prevents any and all discrimination. It reads, in part:

It shall be the policy of the office of the Governor to ensure equal opportunity in the workplace, encourage excellence by rewarding achievement based on merit, and prohibit discrimination for any reason. Hiring, promotion, discipline and termination of employees shall be based on qualifications, performance and results.But the LGBT trade press sees it as a "sad" development that strips state workers of protections that they had under the last administration.

Kaine declined to comment through spokesman Hari Sevugan, who said McDonnell should be "ashamed" for the new policy.
Sevugan said:
It says a lot about the Republican party that they would anoint as their 'rising star' someone who in 2010 is actually stripping away from Americans legal protections against discrimination. Bob McDonnell is proving his critics right. He said he'd focus on creating jobs, not social issues. But, one of his first acts as Governor was to make it easier for a fellow citizen to be denied a job and he did so as an adherent to a right-wing ideology that allows for such discriminatory behavior. McDonnell's decision is just plain wrong in any context, but especially so in this economic climate.In another development, the Washington Post reported that a measure passed the Democratic-controlled state Senate that would protect state workers from discrimination due to sexual orientation and gender identity or expression. The bill is all-but-certain to fail in the Republican-controlled House of Delegates.

Bryan Safi on Don't Ask Don't Tell

Cute guys in Speedos

Alleged Closet Gay Florida Gov. Crist Opposes DADT Repeal

From Towleroad.com: "Florida Governor Charlie Crist, who was outed in the Kirby Dick documentary Outrage, supports keeping the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy:
The St. Petersburg Times reports: "Gov. Charlie Crist, a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, does not support abolishing the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy affecting gays and lesbians in the military. The 1993 policy was intended to be a political compromise that let gay men and women serve so long as they stayed silent about their sexuality. But President Obama and military brass say it is time to end the discrimination all together. Crist disagrees. 'We are a nation at war. The governor believes the current policy has worked, and there is no need to make changes,' campaign spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg said."
Or, Crist just leads by example."

McCain: He'll listen to military leaders advice on DADT but not their "individual opinions"

From ThinkProgress.org:
"In October 2006, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said that “the day that the leadership of the military comes to” and says the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy “ought to change,” he would “seriously” consider changing it. In an interview with the Washington Blade in 2008, he said he would “defer to our military commanders” on the issue.
But in a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday, McCain bristled when the Pentagon’s top military and civilian leaders, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, announced they were in favor of overturning the policy. “I’m happy to say we still have a Congress of the United States that would have to pass a law to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’, despite your efforts to repeal it in many respects by fiat,” said McCain.
In an interview on Bill Bennett’s radio show today, McCain claimed “the policy is working” and repeated his opposition to repealing, but claimed that he would “be glad to listen to the views of military leaders”:
MCCAIN: Look, the policy is working. I talk to military all the time. I have a lot of contact with them. The policy is working and the president made a commitment in his campaign that he would reverse it and the president then made the announcement that wants it reversed. And it is a law. It has to be changed. So Admiral Mullen said, speaking for himself only, he thought it ought to be reversed and of course Secretary Gates said that. I do not. I do not know what the other military leadership wants. I know that I have a letter signed by over a thousand retired admirals and generals that said they don’t want it reversed. And so, I will be glad to listen to the views of military leaders. I always have. But I’m not changing my position in support of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell unless there is the significant support for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. And I would remind you that we’re in two wars. You know that and our listeners know that. And do we need, don’t we need a serious assessment of the effect on morale or battle and combat effectiveness before we go forward with a reversal in a campaigning, carrying out an Obama campaign.
On Fox News last night, McCain also said that he was hoping “to get the opinion from our military leadership,’ saying that “If they can show me the evidence that it needs to be changed, obviously, then I would give that serious consideration.” McCain says that he has “respect” for Mullen’s view, but he dismisses it as simply an “individual opinion.”
But McCain has previously said that the “individual opinion” of military leaders for whom he has “respect” influenced his views on military policy. In June 2009, he told Ana Marie Cox that he originally supported the policy because General Colin Powell had “strongly recommended” it and he hadn’t “heard General Powell or any of the other military leaders reverse their position.” Powell released a statement yesterday saying he now opposes the continuation of DADT because “attitudes and circumstances have changed.”
So basically, McCain is willing to “listen” to military leaders on DADT — he’s just not going to let their expert opinions get in the way of what he already thinks."

Canadian Restaurant Encourages Customers to Have Sex in Restroom

From HuffingtonPost.com:
"Visitors to Mildred's Temple Kitchen, a restaurant in Toronto, Canada, are invited to spice up their love life this Valentine's Day with a trip to the bathroom.

"Have you given any thought to moving beyond the bedroom?" patrons were asked in a not-too-subtle promotional e-mail.

The individual bathrooms will be open for sexual escapades from the 12-15th February. According to the manager, Rory Gallagher, a french maid will be working the toilets, making sure everything is "going smoothly and kept clean."

"We've always had little trysts in our bathrooms," co-owner Donna Dooher told The Toronto Star. "We're taking it to the next level on Valentine's weekend." She added that customers are expected to bring their own condoms.

Perhaps surprisingly, Toronto's Public Health food safety program manager said the restaurant wasn't breaking any laws as long as there's no intercourse in the kitchen and the bathrooms are kept clean.

"As far as bodily fluids, it's pretty much similar to the other human functions going on in there," said Chan, slightly undercutting the erotic value of the venture."

Obama & Sec. Clinton Publicly Condemn Uganda’s Anti-Gay Legislation

From ThinkProgress.org on February 4 2010:
"Uganda’s parliament is currently considering an anti-homosexuality bill that would impose the death penalty or life imprisonment for some homosexual acts, require people to report every LGBT individual they know, and criminalize renting property to gay men and women.

The measure has been widely condemned around the world, from UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown to federal lawmakers of both parties in the United States. The Obama administration has issued statements condemning the legislation and was working privately with Ugandan officials, but the President himself has not yet commented. In December, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referenced the Ugandan legislation, saying, “We have to stand against any efforts to marginalize and criminalize and penalize members of the LGBT community worldwide.” She has also personally spoken to Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni about the bill.

Today at the National Prayer Breakfast, both Clinton and Obama condemned the Ugandan legislation:

– CLINTON: And I recently called President Museveni, whom I have known through the Prayer Breakfast, and expressed the strongest concerns about a law being considered in the parliament of Uganda.

– OBAMA: We may disagree about gay marriage, but surely we can agree that it is unconscionable to target gays and lesbians for who they are, whether it’s here in the United States or as Hillary mentioned, more extremely in odious laws that are being proposed most recently in Uganda.
Making these pronouncements today was significant because the Prayer Breakfast is sponsored by the Fellowship Foundation, the controversial group also known as “The Family.” As author Jeff Sharlet has detailed, The Family has ties to the Ugandan anti-homosexuality legislation. The author of the bill is Ugandan Parliamentarian David Bahati, who organizes the Ugandan National Prayer Breakfast and has been embraced by the far right in the United States. Watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington called on C-SPAN and government officials to turn their backs on today’s event.

Yesterday, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA) introduced a resolution condemning Uganda’s anti-gay bill. “The proposed Ugandan bill not only threatens human rights, it also reverses so many of the gains that Uganda has made in the fight against HIV/AIDS,” said Berman. The bill has 38 co-sponsors, but only one — Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL) — is a Republican."

From the Vault: Strip-Off Jan 2005

From the Vault: New Year's Day 2006 Strip-Off

From the Vault: NYE 2004 Petrina Marie & Video Star Owen Hawk

Thea Austin - Mardi Gras 2005 at Faces

From the Vault: Valentine's Day 2005 18+ Dance Party

Some Illinois Bars Violate Smoking Ban with Customers Help

From Chicago Tribune
By Angie Leventis Lourgos and Jackie Bange
November 25, 2009

"The air was hazy and the ashtrays were full on a recent night at the Crowbar Inc. tavern on the Southeast Side, despite Illinois’ nearly 2-year-old indoor smoking ban.

Patrons say they like it that way. They’re even willing to pay a little extra to light up.

Owner Pat Carroll said his customers – smokers and nonsmokers alike – contribute to a “smoking fund” canister that often sits on the bar, to subsidize the fines he’s incurred for flouting the law.

Carroll said he’s been ticketed twice and paid at least $680. He fears that if he forbids smoking, his cigar-and-cigarette crowd would switch to bars that permit smoking just a few blocks away in Indiana.

“So guess what, everybody can smoke in here,” he said, fingering a lit cigarette balanced on an ashtray. “I’m not losing my customers.”

The Tribune and WGN-TV found patrons smoking at several Chicagoland bars, defying the Smoke-free Illinois Act that has prohibited smoking inside public places since Jan. 1, 2008.

Bar patrons and owners seen smoking indoors had varying explanations for ignoring the law. At Boem Restaurant in Albany Park, where one visit found the room filled with smoke, the bar’s owner said the place was booked for a private party, which exempted it from the law. But it doesn’t, officials say.

The public can lodge complaints against establishments that skirt the law, triggering a site inspection. Violators face fines that can grow steeper with each infraction, starting at $250 for a business and $100 for an individual smoker.

“We think it would become very expensive to continue to rack up fines,” said Kelly Jakubek, spokeswoman for the Illinois Department of Public Health. “That would become very burdensome.”

Health officials say smoking-ban scofflaws are the exception and that indoor smoking in public has drastically decreased over the last two years. Jakubek added that she hopes Indiana and other states that allow indoor smoking in public places pass a ban similar to the one in Illinois, evening the field for competitive business owners such as Carroll.

“There are always some bad apples out there who will try to get around the law,” said Tim Hadac, spokesman for the Chicago Department of Public Health. “If you look at the big picture, compliance is widespread.”

For example, in Chicago, which has its own smoking ban similar to the state law, an accused violator gets several warning letters, then an inspection. Last year, there were 603 complaints and 24 inspections, which led to nine tickets. So far this year, those numbers were down to 286 complaints and 18 inspections, resulting in four tickets, Hadac said.

He said data showed warning letters generally spurred compliance.

Soon “it will be as socially unacceptable and even unthinkable to smoke in a bar or restaurant as it currently is in a movie theater,” he said in an e-mail.

Katie Lorenz of the American Lung Association in Greater Chicago said she was disappointed that some bars weren’t complying; she added that the secondhand smoke harms employees and non-smoking patrons. “This is a health issue, and it affects every single person who happens to be in the bar,” she said. “What’s in the best interest of everyone is to not inhale those toxic fumes.”

Sabrina Lockett, a veteran restaurant worker with asthma, said she lost a friend to cancer, and he didn’t smoke. She said she regretted that all bars don’t follow the law. “I wished it was passed sooner,” she said, saying the law may have saved her friend’s life.

But some smokers say they’ll support any tavern that gives them sanctuary. Laura Pugh said she contributes $5 a month to Crowbar’s smoking fund, considering it akin to membership fees at a private club. If she couldn’t smoke there, Pugh said she’d probably go to a bar in Indiana.

“I respect Illinois law,” she said. “However, I feel that if an Illinois bar wants to allow smoking, there should never be a problem if it’s willing to abide by the fine.”

Angie Leventis Lourgos is a Tribune reporter; Jackie Bange is a reporter for WGN-TV. eleventis@tribune.com

Family Research Council Spokesman on Hardball: Gay behavior should be outlawed

From The Advocate:
Appearing on Hardball With Chris Matthews Tuesday to discuss the "don't ask, don't tell" debate, Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council said that gay behavior should be outlawed.


By Julie Bolcer

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council said on Hardball With Chris Matthews Tuesday that the Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court decision that struck down antisodomy laws was wrong and that gay behavior should be outlawed.

Sprigg, a senior fellow for policy studies at the antigay FRC, appeared on the program to debate the repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy with Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

As Sprigg mounted an increasingly illogical defense of the policy based on discrimination, Matthews pressed him on the question: "Do you think we should outlaw gay behavior?"

"I think that the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas which overturned the sodomy laws in this country was wrongly decided," said Sprigg. "I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior."

"So we should outlaw gay behavior?" asked Matthews again.

Yes,” said Sprigg.

McCain Flip-Flops on Repeal of DADT: He's pissed that no one asked his permission

From the Washington Post By Michael D. Shear:
Wednesday, February 3, 2010; A09
"Three years ago, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was pretty clear about his stand on the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

A former war hero, McCain said he would support ending the ban once the military's top brass told him that they agreed with the change.

"The day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, 'Senator, we ought to change the policy,' then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it," McCain said in October 2006 to an audience of Iowa State University students.

That day arrived Tuesday, with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen testifying to senators after President Obama's announcement that he would seek a congressional repeal of the 15-year-old policy.

Mullen called repealing the policy, which bans openly gay men and lesbians from serving, "the right thing to do" and said he was personally troubled by effectively forcing service members to "lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens."

Gates told the Armed Services Committee, "I fully support the president's decision."

In response, McCain declared himself "disappointed" in the testimony. "At this moment of immense hardship for our armed services, we should not be seeking to overturn the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy," he said bluntly, before describing it as "imperfect but effective."

Since losing to Obama in the 2008 election, McCain has become a consistent critic of the president. He also has, for the first time in years, a serious primary fight on his hands.

McCain spokeswoman Brooke Buchanan said her boss has not shifted his position.

She noted that Mullen said repeatedly that he was speaking for himself and not for the military, and she dismissed Gates's testimony because he was expressing the Obama administration's line.

"There has to be a determination from our military leaders that they think it is a good idea to change the policy; then, of course, Senator McCain will listen to them."

Colin Powell: Repeal DADT

From The Caucus in the NYT By PETER BAKER:
"Gen. Colin L. Powell, who as the nation’s top military officer in the 1990s opposed allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military, switched gears today and threw his support behind efforts to end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law he helped shepherd in.

Gen. Colin L. Powell in December.“In the almost 17 years since the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ legislation was passed, attitudes and circumstances have changed,” General Powell said in a statement issued by his office. He added: “I fully support the new approach presented to the Senate Armed Services Committee this week by Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen.”

Robert M. Gates, the defense secretary, and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told lawmakers on Tuesday that they supported President Obama’s proposal to repeal the 1993 law forbidding gay men and lesbians to be open about their sexuality while serving in uniform.

Admiral Mullen was the first Joint Chiefs chairman ever to take that position, signaling the evolution in attitudes both inside the military and in the broader society since the debate under President Bill Clinton.

When Mr. Clinton tried to end the ban on gay soldiers, General Powell was the Joint Chiefs chairman and opposed the move on the grounds that it would undermine discipline and order in the military but he supported the “don’t ask” compromise. In his statement on Wednesday, General Powell said “the principal issue has always been the effectiveness of the Armed Forces and order and discipline in the ranks.”

He noted that he had said for the past two years that it was “time for the law to be reviewed,” but his new statement of unequivocal support for the effort by Mr. Gates and Admiral Mullen could be an important factor as the debate moves forward this year.

After retiring from the military, General Powell went on to become an active Republican and joined the cabinet of President George W. Bush as secretary of state. But he bolted from the party and endorsed Mr. Obama in 2008."

Chairman of Joint Chiefs & Sec. of Defense Say Repeal DADT

From Washington Post By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, February 3, 2010; A02:
"Mike Mullen's 42 years in the military earned him a chest full of ribbons, but never did he do something braver than what he did on Capitol Hill on Tuesday.

In a packed committee room, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff looked hostile Republican senators in the eye and told them unwelcome news: He thinks gays should be allowed to serve openly in the armed forces he commands.

"Speaking for myself and myself only, it is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do," the nation's top military officer told the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "No matter how I look at this issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me personally, it comes down to integrity -- theirs as individuals and ours as an institution."

People in the audience looked at one another. At the press tables, computer keys started clicking. Reporters consulted the time on their digital recorders.

If opponents prevail in their effort to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which bars gays from serving openly in the military, they will doubtless point to those strong words -- until now heresy for a top military officer -- as a turning point. Supporters of the policy evidently grasped that, too, for they turned against the admiral with caustic words.

On the dais, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the Republican Party's 2008 presidential standard-bearer, accused Mullen and the other witness, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, of trying to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" law "by fiat." Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) accused the admiral of obeying "directives" from President Obama. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) accused Mullen of "undue command influence."

As the challenges to his integrity continued, Mullen pursed his lips, then put his forearms on the table, displaying the admiral stripes on his sleeves. After Sessions's provocation, the Joint Chiefs chairman glared at the diminutive Alabamian. "This is not about command influence," Mullen said. "This is about leadership, and I take that very seriously."

It made little sense to accuse Mullen of currying favor with the president. Nominated for a first term by George W. Bush, Mullen was renominated by Obama and began his second two-year term in October. Joint Chiefs chairmen traditionally serve only two terms, so the lame-duck Mullen is freer than ever to speak his mind.

That made the admiral's words all the more striking. Just three years ago, Mullen's predecessor as chairman, Gen. Peter Pace, gave a very different view on gays in the military, saying, "We should not condone immoral acts." Challenging that view, held by many top brass, couldn't have been easy. "Admiral Mullen, I want to salute you for the courage of what you said," offered Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), a former Navy secretary and a classmate of Mullen's at the U.S. Naval Academy.

McCain, who once said he would support repeal of the law if top military brass did, instead challenged the candor of Mullen and Gates before they spoke. He held up a letter from retired officers who favor the current law and said they "can speak more frankly" than those still serving. McCain then protested when the committee chairman, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), announced that senators would have three minutes each to ask questions.

"We need more than three minutes," McCain growled. He turned to Sessions and gave a derisive laugh.

"This schedule was shared with everybody here," Levin pointed out.

"Not with me," McCain retorted.

"It was indeed," Levin maintained.

"You're the chairman," McCain said bitterly.

In the end, three minutes proved more than sufficient. McCain and four Republican colleagues left before the hearing ended, and the other six GOP members of the panel didn't show up at all.

After McCain's performance, Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) reminded him, and the rest of the room, about the different view on the topic held by McCain's late political mentor from Arizona. "Barry Goldwater once said, 'You don't have to be straight to shoot straight.' "

The next three Republicans were all Southern white men, and all opposed to Mullen's view. After Sessions and Wicker took their shots at the admiral, it was time for Sen. Saxby Chambliss (Ga.). "In my opinion, the presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would very likely create an unacceptable risk," he said, putting homosexuality in a category with "adultery, fraternization and body art."

Mullen did not bend. He said he knew of no studies indicating that repealing the law would undermine morale. He said he knew of no harm to the British and Canadian militaries from the decision to allow openly gay troops to serve.

"Sort of a fundamental principle with me . . . is everybody counts," he told the senators. "Putting individuals in a position that every single day they wonder whether today's going to be the day" -- that they are kicked out for being gay -- "and devaluing them in that regard is inconsistent with us as an institution."

If they awarded decorations for congressional testimony, Mullen would have himself a Medal of Honor."

Americans drank more in 2009 but drank cheaper liquor

From the State Journal-Register:
"By EMILY FREDRIX
The Associated Press
Posted Feb 02, 2010 @ 11:30 PM
Last update Feb 03, 2010 @ 12:41 AM
Americans’ love affair with top-shelf booze cooled last year as the recession took a toll on high-priced tipples.

A new report by an industry group shows people drank more but turned to cheaper brands. They also drank more at home and less in pricier bars and restaurants.

Industry growth slowed in 2009, with the amount of liquor sold by suppliers up 1.4 percent. That’s the smallest increase since 2001 and below the 10-year average of 2.6 percent.

Last year, the lowest-priced segment, with brands such as Popov vodka that can go for less than $10 for a fifth, grew the fastest, with volume rising 5.5 percent, after edging up 0.6 percent in 2008. Meanwhile, the most expensive price range, roughly $30 or more for a 750 ml bottle (think Grey Goose, owned by Bacardi), fell the most, tumbling 5.1 percent.

Daniel Clausner, executive director of the Illinois Licensed Beverage Association in Springfield, said he’s been getting the same kind of feedback from his membership.

The Distilled Spirits Council of the United States said in its report Tuesday that liquor suppliers reported flat total revenue of $18.7 billion last year.

Kenneth Jolly of Milwaukee has been swapping his favorite, pricier liquors such Patron tequila, for cheaper brands such as Jose Cuervo to stay on top of his budget. For him, it’s simple math.

“If you consume a lot on a regular basis and you have people come to your house, you have to adjust,” said Jolly, a 27-year-old network technician in Milwaukee who buys liquor every other week. “If your body can take it, you might as well buy the cheaper liquor.”



Vodka still No. 1

“Absolutely, they’re trading down,” said a corporate spokesman for the five Friar Tuck beverage stores in central Illinois and suburban St. Louis. He also cited the economy as the likely reason.

Sales in stores — which make up three-quarters of liquor sales — rose about 2.1 percent, while sales in restaurants fell 3 percent.

“People still want to entertain themselves, they still want to get together with family and friends, so a lot of people will move from a restaurant to their living room,” council president Peter Cressy said.

Clausner also links the economy with what’s selling and what’s not.

“With the current state of the economy, folks have less disposable income, therefore the popular-priced brands are seeing more activity,” he said.

The Illinois Licensed Beverage Association represents more than 2,500 retail businesses — mainly independents — selling or serving beverage alcohol. Members include taverns, nightclubs, restaurants, bowling centers, fraternal organizations, hotel and motel lounges, gas stations, convenience stores and package liquor stores.

Clausner thinks top-shelf brands will come back in tandem with improvement in the economy.

“With any upturn in the economy, people tend to treat themselves to some of the nicer things, whether that’s an upgrade on a vehicle, on clothing or to premium brands,” he said.

Vodka remained Americans’ favorite liquor, accounting for almost a third of all spirits sold and sales of $4.56 billion.

Sales volume for the cheapest versions of tequila rose 21 percent, the fastest of any type of spirit. That’s most likely because entertainers are using pre-made margarita mixes to serve at home, said David Ozgo, the council’s chief economist. Plus you can mix it before guests arrive, so they don’t know what brand you use, said Joan Holleran, director of research at research firm Mintel.



‘You want to go out’

Cressy said the fact that people were still drinking more spirits bodes well for the industry, still recovering from a long decline from the 1980s through the mid-’90s, when liquor sales fell by a third as drinkers turned to beer. Since then, an ever-increasing array of expensive liquors have fueled rapid growth.

The industry’s goal is to keep people drinking spirits — no matter the price — and it can then get them to pay for higher-priced drinks when the economy recovers. Most major liquor manufacturers make brands in a variety of price ranges. For example, industry giant Diageo plc, based in London, makes vodka brands ranging from cheap Popov to midpriced Smirnoff to expensive Ketel One and Ciroc.

Mintel’s Holleran expects people to start going out more this year, as they get bored staying home and want to treat themselves to little luxuries — like a night out. “You want to go out and have someone do all the work for you,” Holleran said.

Of course, switching brands isn’t the only way to economize.

Matt McCluskey, a 28-year-old researcher in Santa Monica, Calif., started buying most of his alcohol at Costco, trying to save money by buying bigger bottles. Now he spends $36 for 1.75 liters of Maker’s Mark bourbon, rather than $25 for less than half that at his local liquor store.

“It’s a lot harder to pour. That’s the only drawback,” he said.



Staff writer Chris Dettro contributed to this report.:

A Personal Note & An Apology

Our closure in 2007 left many of our friends in shock. Up until the day we closed, we were struggling to try to keep the doors open. It all happened so fast that we never had the opportunity to thank all of our friends or to say goodbye. After we closed, we continued our efforts to raise cash and develop a plan to reopen while feeling the shame and embarassment that goes with coming to terms with our failures. Being the man who closed Faces was not a burden I would wish on anyone. While we continued to recieve emails of encouragement, the hate mail made more of a lasting impression. I don't think anyone can really understand how hard it is to lose a business until you have actually experienced it yourself. We weren't the first gay bar to close and many more famous clubs have followed us but we never thought it would happen to Faces.
Many of our friends and loyal customers attempted to contact us to offer their support. Whether because of humiliation or despair, we didn't keep in touch with those friends and loyal customers and for that, we would like to apologize. We let you down and it was hard to face you again.
Again, to those of you that I let down, I apologize. To those who have been supportive, I want to say thank you.