|
UPDATE: Pam's House Blend is miraculously back online, but we don't know for how long. Here is her full explanation of what she knows so far.
I got one of my web-savvy friends to explain how the astalavista group could be involved, and he said that astalavista is a newsgroup that deals with Internet security, and that most of its users aren't hackers, but IT security professionals. The group doesn't condone hacking in a damaging sense, but a security sense, he said.
He explained that a hacker could've used chat rooms, or channels, within astalavista to discuss projects, theories and aspirations. But how astalavista could be involved is unclear at this point. There are no postings about the hack on astalavista's blog or forum.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Blog hosting site SoapBlox was hacked in the past 24 hours, and one of the gay blogosphere's most beloved sites, Pam's House Blend, was affected.
"These hackers messing with our stuff, and we here at SoapBlox have
no clue what to do. We don't have enough knowledge, time, money, or
care to fix it," the SoapBlox farewell post says.
Pam says she's waiting to see what, if any, of her years of content can be salvaged. Someone claiming to be from hacking group Asta La Vista is claiming responsibility. Here's hoping that the amount of work Pam has done can be saved.
 Posted by Rebecca Armendariz,
Online Editor| Jan. 7 at
1:03 PM | RArmendariz@washblade.com
Really? I usually refrain from posting any news relating to the funeral-protesting Westboro Baptist Church. I don't want to give them any relevancy. Maybe if we ignore them, they'll just go away, I figure.
But now the National Park Service has granted Fred Phelps and co. a protest permit for the inauguration. The church "will have 15 people at the northeast corner of John Marshal Park
protesting military funerals and gays until the parade clears," the park
service said.
Why is anyone, especially the government, giving this group any legitimacy? I've learned to refrain, and so should everyone else.
Do any of you readers know of any gay groups that applied for a protest permit (possibly to picket Rick Warren's presence at the inauguration) and didn't get it? If so, email me at rarmendariz@washblade.com.
Posted by Rebecca Armendariz,
Online Editor| Jan. 7 at
11:57 AM | RArmendariz@washblade.com
Remember when I told you that Ken Blackwell was in the running to head the RNC? Right Wing Watch informs us that he's a major candidate with tons of fundie support now.
Family Research Council president Tony Perkins has now endorsed his candidacy, which is no surprise, considering Blackwell is a senior fellow at the anti-gay organization.
Said Perkins: "Ken Blackwell is a true advocate for the fiscal and social values that best uphold and strengthen families. Last summer, Ken served as vice chairman of the 2008 Platform Committee which adopted one of the strongest pro-life, pro-family platforms in history. His extensive campaign experience and commitment to conservative principles will serve the RNC well. Ken is the clear choice in this race and why I am proud to support him for RNC chairman."
Blackwell, who in 2006 was the Republican nominee for governor of Ohio, consistently spouts anti-gay rhetoric. When he was running for governor, he compared gays to arsonists and kleptomaniacs who can be "changed." In 2004, he compared gays to farm animals: "I don't know how many of you have a farming background but I can tell
you right now that notion even defies barnyard logic ... the barnyard
knows better," said Blackwell referring to the idea of same-sex
marriage.
Posted by Rebecca Armendariz,
Online Editor| Jan. 6 at
1:43 PM | RArmendariz@washblade.com
The Washington Post reports that Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine is going to be appointed the next chair of the Democratic National Committee, replacing Howard Dean.
In 2005, when Kaine was running for governor, he was the only candidate to respond to questions from the Blade regarding gay rights. Though he has said he opposes gay marriage and civil unions, he doesn't believe the federal government should regulate marriage.
The Marshall-Newman Amendment, which defines marriage as solely between one man and one woman, passed in Virginia in 2006. Kaine voiced his opposition to the amendment prior to its passage and voted against it, and signed the bill once it passed, but out of a requirement as governor and not his own personal feelings, according to the National Stonewall Democrats. His overall record on gay rights can be described as "mixed." He did sign a medical rights bill earlier this year.
Posted by Rebecca Armendariz,
Online Editor| Jan. 5 at
10:04 AM | RArmendariz@washblade.com
An op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by John R. Lott, Jr., and Bradley Smith, calls for a change in donor disclosure laws in the wake of Prop 8's passage. They point out some people and businesses who are now facing boycotts due to the fact that their donation to the measure to ban gay marriage in California is public information.
"The larger point of this spectacle is its implications for the future:
to intimidate people who donate to controversial campaigns," they write. They wonder whether someone's financial support should be protected as private just as their vote is.
"In the aftermath of Prop. 8 we can glimpse a very ugly future. As
anyone who has had their political yard signs torn down can imagine,
with today's easy access to donor information on the Internet, any
crank or unhinged individual can obtain information on his political
opponents, including work and home addresses, all but instantaneously.
When even donations as small as $100 trigger demonstrations, it is hard
to know how one will feel safe in supporting causes one believes in," they conclude.
Maybe a higher limit could be set for public disclosure of donations. Say, anything under $200 can be listed anonymously. But if you're willing to contribute -- even just a small amount -- to a controversial cause, shouldn't you be willing to publicly defend that contribution to the public? And gays, with their spending power, have a right to know where NOT to spend their hard-earned money. Why line the pockets of a business when its owner is going to use that money to donates to take away your rights?
Joe.My.God. and Pam Spaulding both point out that Yes on 8 would have probably received more money from high-profile donors without these current laws.
Pam says: "This isn't about killing free speech, mind you; it's a matter of owning
your political positions -- you're free to support whatever you wish --
it's just that no one has to approve of them or sit back and expect a
cookie for working to revoke a civil right."
Posted by Rebecca Armendariz,
Online Editor| Dec. 30 at
10:37 AM | RArmendariz@washblade.com
|
