Friendster
Friendster is a leading global social network emphasizing genuine friendships and the discovery of new people through friends. Search for old friends and classmates, stay in better touch with friends, share photos and videos, and so much more.
www.friendster.com
Eastwood, 78, says: “I’ve always admired her talent.
She’s somewhat hampered sometimes by having this gorgeous face”
He’s won Oscars and ridden to the top of the box-office charts - so Clint Eastwood knows his movies. And his stars.
Continue reading »
Twenty-four years ago, California started a revolution that will culminate in this year’s statewide election on same-sex marriage. In 1984, same-sex couples lacked not only the ability to marry one another, but were denied virtually any government recognition of their relationships — anywhere in the world.
In the early 1980s, there was not even a vocabulary yet for talking about same-sex couples. At the time, homosexuals in many states could still be subject to arrest for violation of the criminal sodomy laws. Naturally, they had bigger problems than trying to vindicate their rights as couples.
California’s sodomy law was taken off the books by the Legislature in 1976, which made the courthouse look a little less formidable here. For whatever reason, though, Californians took the lead in actively challenging laws that ignored the existence of same-sex couples.
One of the first cases involved Earl Donovan. He had been living with his partner for 27 years. When his partner died, Donovan filed for death benefits. He ultimately prevailed — but not because the court recognized him as a partner. The statute said that benefits could be paid to a “dependent” who was a member of the employee’s “household,” and it was clear Donovan qualified.
In contrast, Boyce Hinman tried to enroll his partner of 12 years in his dental coverage as a spouse, but was denied because Hinman and his partner were not married. The Court noted that California law prohibited the men from getting married, but concluded this was not discrimination because they were treated no differently from other unmarried couples.
It was this prevailing public attitude — that same-sex couples were like any unmarried couples — that illustrated the void same-sex couples faced. Heterosexual couples could, of course, marry their partner if they chose. But if marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman, what option did the law leave for same-sex couples?
At the time the Donovan and Hinman suits were pending, Larry Brinkin, a member of the San Francisco Human Rights Commission, was the first person to formally use the term “domestic partner,” in a lawsuit he filed against his employer, the Southern Pacific Railway. Brinkin’s partner had died, and Southern Pacific would not let Brinkin take three days of bereavement leave because the partner was not a legally recognized member of Brinkin’s family. The common definition of “family” included only those who were related by blood, marriage or adoption. Brinkin’s partner was not related to him in any of those ways.
After Brinkin lost his challenge in 1982, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors took up the challenge of somehow acknowledging the relationships of same-sex couples. They passed what would have been the first city ordinance recognizing domestic partners. But then-mayor Dianne Feinstein vetoed the measure.
The following year, the City of Berkeley ordered a study of the issue, and in July of 1984, the city council voted on — and rejected — a domestic partnership proposal, based largely on a definition devised by attorney Matt Coles. However, in August, the Berkeley School Board took up the measure and adopted it for school employees, making them the first government entity in the world to enact legal rights for domestic partners.
The City of Berkeley followed suit later that year. And in 1985, the newly formed City of West Hollywood enacted its own domestic partnership ordinance, and added a new twist — a registry where couples could formally and publicly make it known that they were domestic partners.
At the time, the combined population of Berkeley and West Hollywood was less than 183,000. Los Angeles had a population of about 3.7 million. So L.A.’s interest in the issue helped move it into a more mainstream position.
by David Link
At the 1999 Academy Awards, Elia Kazan, the legendary director of On The Waterfront, A Streetcar Named Desire, East Of Eden, and many other timeless classics, received an honorary lifetime achievement Oscar. As the ninety-year-old took the stage, one-third of liberal Hollywood refused to stand or even applaud, refused to forgive Kazan the four decades-old “sin” of naming names during the blacklist era.
However, just three years later, no such protest was mounted when the Oscar for best director was awarded to Roman Polanski, a man who in 1977 pled guilty to drugging and sodomizing a thirteen-year-old girl. Of course, Polanski wasn’t there to receive his Oscar. He’s still a fugitive from the law for that crime.
Is this just another example of liberal Hollywood values? Hypocrisy? Unfortunately, it goes much deeper than that. There’s a new civil rights push in Hollywood: the right to have sex with your children. And this Friday, with Towelhead, Hollywood releases their next theatrical volley to normalize the very worst kind of sexual deviancy.
During the Q&A, after a sneak preview of Towelhead, writer/director Alan Ball (Six Feet Under) said of child rape, “Society wants us to believe that’s a soul destroying event, I don’t believe that.” The context of such a statement is important and can be found in his film, the story of a thirteen-year-old Arab girl, Jasira (Summer Bishil), who‘s raped by her Army Reservist neighbor (Aaron Eckhart), molested by her mother‘s boyfriend, and sexually manipulated by Thomas (Eugene Bradley), a young classmate. When it’s all over, not only is Jasira’s soul not destroyed but she suffers no emotional or psychological damage whatsoever. In fact, to quote Ball again, the “experience makes her stronger.” The film ends on a triumphant note, with the thirteen-year-old sexually empowered by the abuse and ready to have a relationship with the aforementioned Thomas.
Towelhead is the latest in a years-long Hollywood crusade to make the child molester sympathetic and the act of molestation just another step in the evolution of normal, healthy, youthful sexuality. Which isn’t to say that say that child molesters should only ever be presented as one-dimensional, mustache-twisting deviants.
In both Stanley Kubrick’s 1962 version and Adrian Lyne’s equally fine 1997 remake, Lolita’s Humbert Humbert is a pederast consumed with desire for the fourteen-year-old daughter of his landlady, whom he later marries just to stay close to the young girl. After the wife dies, he embarks on a road trip and sexual affair with his new step daughter. Humbert is no one-dimensional monster. At times he’s even pitiable. But inexorably we watch the affair strip him of all dignity until it so destroys him emotionally he proves capable of murder. Young Lolita doesn’t fare much better. She marries the first guy who asks and winds up pregnant and broke on a dirt farm before her eighteenth birthday.
In 1998, Todd Solondz wrote and directed the indie film Happiness, an explicit but thoughtful look at the sexual dysfunction of an extended family. At the center is Dylan Baker’s memorable performance as Bill Maplewood, a suburban father, husband, and child rapist. Though desperate to stop himself, upon hearing from his son that a classmate has been left home alone a few days, Maplewood rapes the boy and is eventually exposed to both his family and community.
by John Nolte