Dedicating a portion of 1 Day to 365 Gay
As part of their site relaunch, the folks at 365Gay have asked various figures from the LGBT (and S) world to answer the question: "Aside from the presidency, to what government leadership position would you most like to see an openly LGBT person elected or appointed and why?"
HRC's Joe Solmonese and GLAAD's Neil Giuliano answered the call. So did Rue McLanahan and Danny Roberts. There are also bloggers like Queerty's Andrew Belonsky and Mombian's Dana Rudolph on the list. Oh, and in my typical fashion of straddling the line between silliness and seriousness, yours truly contributed this idea:
Check them all out over at the new 365Gay:
**Oh, and in other 365Gay news: They also announced today that Emmy Award-winning anchor Ross Palombo will serve as the anchor of Logo's new "365Gay News" (airing on Logo’s digital cable channel on Thursdays at 7:00PM ET/PT with segments posting around-the-clock online)
Here's comment I left there... will leave it here too and ANYWHERE at all anyone will listen!
That’s our guy! And he should hold the seat first, he has had 4 (?) long years of trying to translate Reich Wing and Wing Nut and Repug fundie slurs into the REAL meaning of and behind and in front of all that mumbo-jumbo. An absolute expert at rebuttal rhetoric… and golly he does it all without a weekly radio show! Imagine.
Posted by: LOrion | Aug 21, 2008 7:29:35 PM
"Implement programs encouraging the American people to stop the spin"
One suggestion that I throw in the box for your "Secretary of BullShit Cutting" is to offer legislation that would provide tax breaks to news organizations that actually offer unbiased and comprehensive reporting of the news. Set up a board with an equal number of (possibly elected) conservatives and progressives, and if a super-majority of them can't agree that the news organization was in-fact unbiased and sufficiently comprehensive, then the tax incentive evaporates for the some period of time.
News organizations were highly respected in the early years of television news. The biggest reason for that is that broadcasters who were using public airwaves were mandated to offer news coverage as a public service. That meant that if enough of the public complained about the news coverage, they could threaten the broadcasters ability to broadcast.
I believe it was during the Reagan years when all of those FCC regulations were gutted, and what we have now is info-tainment, which generally turns out to be neither informative nor entertaining, and usually is the functional equivalent of a heaping mound of bullshit.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Aug 21, 2008 10:01:52 PMcomments powered by Disqus