Why gay marriage will (eventually) pass in all US states (even Mississippi)

The decision of California's Supreme Court to reject the challenge to the ban on gay marriage – Proposition 8 – voted on by the people in November 2008, seems to have excited much 'woe is us' comment (as well as rallies in 104 American cities and towns last night).

Alistair Campbell even blogged that:

It left millions across the state and across America in despair wondering when they will get the opportunity to be treated equally in the eyes of the law and of society.

Yesterday’s decision cancelled out much of what San Francisco gay rights campaigner Harvey Milk, the subject of a brilliant recent film – and many others – worked for. It may be years until gay Californians again have the rights already enjoyed by the people of Iowa, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont.

Actually, I suspect Milk would have had more of a sense of proportion and definitely more of a sense of history.

Prop 8 - gay marriage remember, not civil partnerships (that weird 'seperate-but-equal' status which gave Tony Blair a nice liberal shiver) - came within a couple of points of being defeated.

Already activists have vowed to try again ASAP. And they'll get what they want - something Milk probably didn't even dream of - real equality.

It's inevitable because the culture is only going in one direction - pro-equality.

The stats whiz Nate Silver, THE 'go-to' guy when it comes to reading poll results (and other predictive factors), who best predicted the 2008 Presidential race (and who I referenced a lot in my posts about that) says so.

Following the passage of gay marriage in Iowa he built a predictive model whose outcome is that gay marriage will come in every US state by 2024, with half getting there by 2012. He discovered that you can build it on only three variables.

1. The year in which the amendment was voted upon;
2. The percentage of adults in 2008 Gallup tracking surveys who said that religion was an important part of their daily lives;
3. The percentage of white evangelicals in the state.

Its accuracy is such that:

The model predicts, for example, that a marriage ban in California in 2008 would have passed with 52.1 percent of the vote, almost exactly the fraction actually received by Proposition 8.

Because of changes in US society:

Marriage bans are losing ground at a rate of slightly less than 2 points per year.

Below are the dates when the model predicts that each of the 50 states would vote against a marriage ban. Asterisks indicate states which had previously passed amendments to ban gay marriage.

2009 (now)
Vermont
New Hampshire
Massachusetts
Maine
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Nevada*
Washington
Alaska*
New York
Oregon*

2010
California*
Hawaii
Montana*
New Jersey
Colorado*

2011
Wyoming
Delaware
Idaho*
Arizona*

2012
Wisconsin*
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Illinois

2013
Michigan*
Minnesota
Iowa
Ohio*
Utah*
Florida*

2014
New Mexico
North Dakota*
Nebraska*
South Dakota*

2015
Indiana
Virginia*
West Virginia
Kansas*

2016
Missouri*

2018
Texas*

2019
North Carolina
Louisiana*
Georgia*

2020
Kentucky*

2021
South Carolina*
Oklahoma*

2022
Tennessee*
Arkansas*

2023
Alabama*

2024
Mississippi*

So don't worry, be happy! :]

Postscript: The ruling, as with the original vote, has stirred up a massive grass-roots movement for LGBT civil rights in the United States. Protests happened in 104 American cities the night of the decision and are notable for the engagement of a new generation many thought too interested in partying.

Last night protesters came out in force when Obama came to LA for a Democratic Party fundraiser - led by Lt. Dan Choi, the West Point graduate and Arabic linguist fired for being gay. They see Obama putting off repealing 'don't ask, don't tell'.

One of the things which Obama repeatedly said during the campaign was that in order for him to help make change happen he needed to see a grass-roots movement piling on the pressure.

Anybody who’s been at an LGBT event with me can testify that my message is very explicit -- I don’t think that the gay and lesbian community, the LGBT community, should take its cues from me or some political leader in terms of what they think is right for them. It’s not my place to tell the LGBT community, "Wait your turn." I’m very mindful of Dr. King’s “Letter From Birmingham Jail,” where he says to the white clergy, "Don’t tell me to wait for my freedom."

Well, it's happening.

• Another Prop 8 postscript

It's not the grunts, it's the generals who need prosecuting

As the sirens close in on those who designed the torture regime in the Bush administration, this is a quite astonishing interview with one of its key actors.

Janis Karpinski ran Abu Gharib prison in Baghdad, source of those awful photos as well as jail sentences for some of the grunts who worked in it. Karpinski ended up getting demoted.

As the paper trail gets longer she unleashes on those who wouldn't defend those grunts at the time: Rumsfeld's cabal. Those who spoke of 'bad apples'

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Here's Karpinski on the Daily Show.

I feel pretty much the same about the police officers who assaulted people at the G20 demos.

Those grunts were allowed to do what they did by both their superiors and by politicians (not just Jacqui Smith but Boris and Ken before him). All in an atmosphere, like that created by Bush and Cheney for US troops and contractors, of free reign for the police created by Blair.

Anyone who exercises the sorts of powers - lethal powers - that soldiers and police officers have needs to be well-managed as it should be obvious from human psychology and several thousand years of experience that they will abuse them if they are not managed. They are ultimately responsible for their actions but, like with a manslaughter charge, their superiors are equally culpable.

Tony Blair said in 2004:

"We asked the police what powers they wanted, and gave them to them."

Not what they 'needed', what they 'wanted'. Very important distinction.

In some ways you could say that Ian Tomlinson was a victim of Tony Blair.

Gawd help me, I'm going to quote a Tory, former home secretary Willie Whitelaw from the 1980s.

He boasted how after any security lapse, the police would come to beg for new and draconian powers. He laughed and sent them packing, saying only a bunch of softies would erode British liberty to give themselves an easier job. He said they laughed in return and remarked that "it was worth a try".

This is entirely the right approach - and I just love the reference to 'softies'.

Ollie Stone lampoons Bush

As you may have read, noted comedy director Oliver Stone is making a film about George Bush - W - which is scheduled for release before November. Josh Brolin is playing Bush and amongst the rest of the cast are Ioan Gruffudd playing Tony Blair and Thandie Newton as Condi.

Stone is one of my least favorite directors having made one of the very few movies I've ever walked out of, Natural Born Killers. But this one sounds, on paper, like great fun.

The NY Daily News managed to get their hands on a highly embargoed script and found these highlights:

Here's Karl Rove making W. memorize answers, telling him, "Before you speak, come to me first. I'll tell you what to say." W. chiding late-arriving "Balloonfoot" Powell, saying military men should know about being on time. Rumsfeld, who's hard of hearing. W. happy when Cheney laughs at his cowboy-delivered twang. Cheney stepping in cow poop at Crawford. W. eating his favorite White House bologna sandwich lunch.

In all presidential erudition, telling Gen. Tommy Franks to be sure what he's doing: "I don't want to fire no $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the a - -." Then: "Americans don't like to see dead boys on their television sets." Telling education reformers: "Rarely is the question asked, 'Is our children learning?' "

Page 10 on Bill Clinton: "My mother waddles faster than that larda - -." Page 11: "We'll move these terr'ists to Guantanemera." Cheney: "Guantanamo." Bush: "Right." Then Bush to Cheney: "Vice, when we're in meetings I want you to keep a lid on it. Keep your ego in check. Remember, I'm the president."

Flashbacks have college-boy W. boozing, slacking off from work, in jail, calling his then-congressman father "Poppy." Sr. praising Jeb, castigating Jr., asking if he's "knocked up" a girl named Susie, complaining, "You never kept your word once . . . you're only good for partying, chasing tail, driving drunk . . . You deeply disappoint me." Repeat father and son arguments. Father: "I've had enough of your crap." Son: "I've had enough of you for a lifetime." Mama Barbara breaking up the near fisticuffs with announcing Jr. just made Harvard and Sr. responding, "But who do you think pulled the strings?"

Then, W.: "Saddam's been d - - - ing us around for 11 years. I told my father to get rid of the sucker" long back. War-thumping Cheney: "Saddam's smoking gun might become a mushroom cloud." W.: "We need the WMDs. We still need that 52nd card." Someone says: "You mean the 53rd card, sir."

Bushisms such as "A kick-ass war . . . Hittin' it off like grease to a skillet" . . . nu-cu-lar" . . . calling people "a-holes . . . son-of-a-b - - - - es . . . " saying it's "bulls - - -" . . . saying about one, "I'm going to kick his motherf - - - ing ass." About another, his "ba - - s have been put through the wringer." About himself, "One of the biggest talkers." It shows him wanting broader powers. It shows him saying about the press: "Like I owe them an explanation!?"

Page 42. Checking a map, being told it passed "Humint," whereupon the President of the United States asks, "What's 'Humint' again?" and being told "It's Human Intelligence." A scene in which, auditing an Iraqi intercept, W. asks, "Wolfowitz, got any Maalox on you? . . . and while you're at it, trim your ear hairs." And Cheney checking his heart pills.

There's Rove saying, "The polls have shot up to 80 percent behind the president. The American people want blood. They demand it." And Colin Powell: "This about politics or policy? I'm really confused. What're you doing in this room?"

In line with what Stone personally says about W.: "Limited ability except to promote himself," in one cocky flashback he guarantees he can fly a plane and then has trouble landing it. Page 50, asked if he loves his parents, he answers: "Most of the time. My father and I have a tough go . . . My mother says I'm as good as her at holding a grudge." After his father becomes president: "I'll never get out of Poppy's shadow. I wish he'd lost." After W. becomes president, his father saying, "I'm worried about him. Really worried. But you can't talk to him." And Barbara replying, "Well, he's not going to listen to me. He takes criticism worse than I do." And after Jr. knocks his father and shouts, "This is my war, not his," Condoleezza says: "We'll let him know that from here on out, he's persona non grata. No briefings, no nothings."

A crack in the UK Asylum edifice

Comment piece for PinkNews

It's very hard for most British gay men and lesbians to imagine what it's like to grow up in a country like Iran. To fear what you are and to have to act with care 24 hours a day, lest your family finds out and possibly kills you in a so-called 'honour killing' or the state discovers you and tortures you.

So trying to understand the sheer torture of your boyfriend being discovered and executed, seeking safety from what you know is your certain, similar fate, in what you'd always thought was the 'civilised' West - and being disbelieved and rejected - is beyond most of us. Imagine how much harder this would be when you are still a teenager, most of us couldn't begin to.

But this has been the life experience of Mehdi Kazemi, still only 19 years old.

We all know the story - PinkNews has been one of the few news outlets which has been keeping us informed of the case's twists and turns. But there are many other 'cases' who have already been kicked out of Britain to unknown fates, who have committed suicide rather than be sent 'home' or shiver in fear today because this 'civilised' country leaves them 'hanging' for years before they learn their final fate.

In Holland their policy is to automatically grant 'leave to remain' to LGBT asylum seekers. If they commit no crimes, after five years they can claim Dutch nationality. Sweden has something similar — many other countries, including the United States, treat LGBT asylum seekers better than the UK. For the UK, 'leave to remain' - what Mehdi has - doesn't necessarily mean that people can stay permanently.

As Peter Tatchell told CNN, "at the end of five years [Mehdi] will have to go through the whole appeal process again."

The Dutch Liberal MP Boris van der Ham, who led parliamentary efforts to secure asylum in that country for Mehdi, made a point of finding out just how many gay people are 'flooding' into Holland under their policy. He did this because the debate there, echoing what some say in the UK, had included that familiar right-wing claim: 'we'll be flooded'.

It's 6 LGBT asylum seekers expected over the next year and 38-40 in total since 2006.

In the UK the ukgayasylum group has about 25 people currently on its books.

These are tiny numbers and both the Dutch and Swedish experience proves that adopting a civilised policy doesn't result in so-called 'flooding'.

But it is clear from my information through back channels that the Home Office has dug in its heels, remains extremely keen to 'not set a precedent' and is influenced by such reactionary ideas.

In a statement issued to CNN the Home Office said:

"We keep cases under review where circumstances have changed and it has been decided that Mr. Kazemi should be granted leave to remain in the UK based on the particular facts of this case."

The truth is that the only circumstance which has changed is the publicity and that cannot be the actual reason otherwise many others, like the gay Syrian JoJo Yakob, who The Scotsman is backing, cannot be kicked out.

The normal sort of statement is such cases is one like this from another gay Iranian's case about 'living discretely'(my emphasis):

"On the evidence we find the appellant can reasonably be expected to tolerate the position on any return ... For the reasons given the appellant’s appeal remains dismissed."

This reflects the attitude shamelessly outlined by Home Office Minister Lord Spithead in the Lords at the height of the interest in Mehdi's case:

“We are not aware of any individual who has been executed in Iran in recent years solely on the grounds of homosexuality, and we do not consider that there is systematic persecution of gay men in Iran.”

As the Mehdi campaign dragged on, as the Independent gave it a front page, as numerous Labour and other members of parliament lobbied, as the European Parliament passed a resolution, as US networks carried it on their evening news, the fear that he would indeed be deported regardless was very real. They have done it before.

As gayasylumuk's Omar Kuddas explains:

"He was almost deported at Xmas. They came for him at precisely the time when they thought it would be hardest to get lawyers and others out to defend him. This is how the Home Office behaves."

There have been others before Mehdi. Last year the Italian Prime Minister contacted Gordon Brown to argue the case for Iranian lesbian Pegah Emambakash - all to no avail as she slipped from news coverage and is now on her last legal legs to save herself from deportation back to Tehran. JoJo Yakob in Scotland has just suffered through the blatant homophobia of the Home Office on display at a Tribunal and will only be safe if a judge is sympathetic and rejects that homophobic policy and practice for which Jacqui Smith and, ultimately, Gordon Brown are responsible.

Kuddas is one of the many unsung heroes - gay and straight and from many countries - who have helped save Mehdi. As you read the many claims of responsibility for 'Jacqui's u-turn' from politicians and some showboating organisations over the next few days bear that in mind.

The only reason that the government shifted in Mehdi's case was because it was all getting just too embarrassing for Gordon Brown. Him, not Smith. And they hope that by granting leave to remain just to Mehdi, and by twisting their 'rules' in order to do it, that we'll all shut up.

They don't want a policy change and there is no doubt in my mind that the real reason is because they fear the Daily Mail and other agenda-setters and their 'hardline' against asylum seekers more than they fear a backlash from us, the LGBT community. Tony Blair and David Blunkett set the 'quotas to fill' ball rolling and Jacqui Smith is the latest to be carrying it through and damn the consequences.

They present one face to us citizens and another face - 'discretion' and blatant homophobia - to persecuted foreign LGBT who dare to claim asylum. Worse, another Department - the Foreign Office - is out there preaching to other countries about Human Rights, including LGBT rights. The hypocrisy couldn't smell any stronger.

What I think has been their major political miscalculation is precisely their perception of the attitude of Middle England. When publicity about Mehdi was at it's height you had to search for hardline opinion saying 'throw him out anyway' and even those saying this had a guilty tinge to their tone.

Comments left with the Daily Mail and - yes - even those of The Sun's readers recognised this country's historic attitude to accepting genuinely persecuted people as refugees - it goes back centuries, it's part of who we are. It was clear from reading those comments, and many of those on the 7,000 strong petition, that ordinary British people well understood this and accepted that this meant accepting persecuted gays and lesbians from countries like Iran. It was also clear from the horrified overseas media coverage - 'this is Britain!?'

But this political miscalculation only seriously holds true if, now he has 'asylum', Mehdi's case isn't seen as a one-off and, particularly, if gays and lesbians hold Labour to account for their unchanged homophobic policies towards these members of our community. I fear we won't. So prove me wrong.

For us, I think the government's attitude to the pitifully few LGBT asylum seekers we have in Britain shows them up as hypocrites over LGBT rights. I honestly think that they think these people are so powerless, that their cases so rarely provoke protest and news coverage, they can safely ignore protest; that they will not face any consequences.

They just don't expect a voter backlash.

For us, I think we need to be collectively saying 'enough is enough' to Labour on LGBT asylum seekers and behave as one community. I, for one, could not be happier for Mehdi but I am not 'grateful' to Jacqui Smith or her boss for this crack in the asylum edifice.

It will take a lot to get me voting Labour again (after a lifetime of support) precisely because of how I have seen how they treat these weakest members of our community. I hope you feel the same and I hope you tell Labour why you feel it. Until they change their shameful policy on LGBT asylum seekers they don't deserve anyone's vote.

John Oliver on the Primaries

Still on Daily Show spin-offs, UK comedian John Oliver - late of the News Quiz - has been a huge hit with his reports to Jon Stewart. They cheer him like Oprah disciples.

Channel Four News decided to interview him in a little cross promotion (the Daily Show's on More4) and you can see the unedited version on their crappy website (the one with MS Word downloads), which you have to go to to view - no embedding, of course, not even a 'share by email' link on the video, just 'send this article to a friend' at the bottom of the page where no-one will look. I'm watching! Not reading the intro blurb! FCS! How many adviews do they lose by not enabling Daily Show fanatics to share even this (they would)!

The humourless journalist tries to compare US vs. UK and assumes we're plain boring. Oliver: "Doesn't Cameron thinks he's quite entertaining? I wouldn't be surprised to see him do something as despicable as that Tony Blair/Catherine Tate collaboration. Which really made me want to tear my own eyes out". About Hillary's appearance on the show (the journalist asks why she wasn't putting her policies forward): "It's like a dating video".

On Cameron, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Oliver is right. The hilarity - albeit unintentional - is on view in this Observer Food Monthly article where he talks ("I like food. I'm very greedy") about his neglected vegetable patch, amongst other 'eco' things.

'Oops!' says Cameron, closing the front door behind us, and swooping up the three empty wine bottles that are languishing on a kitchen surface. 'Thought I'd recycled the last of those, ha ha!'

The shame of gay asylum in the UK

Peter Tatchell wrote the following in 1996 in CIF about the UK's attitude to gay asylum seekers.

He has long experience of personally helping many, so he knows of what he speaks:

The failure to give refuge to the victims of genuine homophobic persecution is the single greatest blot on the gay rights record of Tony Blair's administration.

Too right. Jacqui Smith is complicit, as were her predecessors and let's not forget the gay and lesbian people in power who've stood by.

From my day-to-day work with asylum seekers, I hear first hand shocking stories about homophobic abuse and inhumane conditions inside the UK's asylum detention centres, including allegations of homophobic insults, beatings and sexual assaults. Frightened refugees, who have narrowly escaped death and seen their partners murdered, are treated like common criminals..

Asylum adjudicators nearly always turn down gay refugee claims, even when the person has presented evidence of imprisonment, rape and torture. Adjudicators often acknowledge their brutal maltreatment but advise claimants that they will not be at risk of repeat persecution if they go back home, change their identity, stop acting effeminately, never have sex and move to a remote part of the country where no one knows them. That way, says the Home Office, nobody will realise the person is gay and therefore they will not suffer persecution..

This is the reality of how some gay people are dealt with by this government. I, for one, don't want these fellow gay people ignored — I can't ignore them, I can imagine myself in their shoes and I know full well how lucky I am to have been born here.

As Peter explains:

The Home Office does not explicitly accept persecution on the grounds of sexual orientation as a legitimate basis for gaining asylum.

Unlike Amnesty International, who will fight for persecuted gay people, and some other European and other governments.

Our government, which preaches human rights via the Foreign Office, has done much to advance gay and lesbian rights. Two years after this article it is time that someone in government did something about this stain - of blood - on that record.

• Mehdi Kazemi updates - including the new front page support of the Independent
• Peter Tatchell told the Independent:
  "It is just the latest example of the Government putting the aims of cutting asylum numbers before the merits of individual cases. The whole world knows that Iran hangs young, gay men and uses a particularly barbaric method of slow strangulation. In a bid to fulfil its target to cut asylum numbers the Government is prepared to send this young man to his possible death. It is a heartless, cruel mercenary anti-refugee policy."
  
• Find out how to contact your MP/MEP via writetothem.com
• Please help, even a quick email will help. We can change this by shining some light into this dark and shameful corner — we have done it before.

• Excellent Canadian Broadcasting Company documentary about gay life in Iran
  "We have to sacrifice everything to move forward"
  
  
• In a rare BBC story about this issue from last year, one Iranian gay man who was deported in 2003 describes how the ill treatment began as soon as he touched down in Tehran. Here's another story about a man who shot himself between the eyes with an airgun rather than be deported.
  

30th Sydney Mardi Gras? I must be old

It was the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras on Saturday night. For those who've never heard of it (must be a few), around 700,000 watch the parade for a mile and a bit up one of Sydney's main drags, ending at the Showgrounds where the party's held. Several thousand participate and there are over 100 floats and marching groups.

The parade assembles in the city centre then turns into the main drag, Oxford Street — 'Dykes on bikes' lead, doing teaser runs up and down, warming people up— that moment when you hit the drag is like hitting a wall of ecstasy. The next two hours is a continuous rush.

Lots and lots of straight people both participate and watch — it's truly an event for all Sydney. The party had to introduce 'prove you're gay' measures one year because the party was so popular.

I was in a dozen parades, so have a few memories :]

There was the 'indigenous' year, when local Aboriginal elders led the parade in a very fancy old sports car. We made thousands of 'healing hands' and the reception was astonishing. Some of the national Aboriginal leaders participated, very butch blokes, but they had a wail of a time alongside Aboriginal drag queens. People always do. Politicians often come and I suspect it's for the good time rather than the votes. Seeing how they dress for the occasion is often fun. Even the evangelicals who pitch up with their banners have smiles on their faces.

There was the year we did a 'live' broadcast, which amounted to using phone boxes along the way (this was pre-mobiles!). At the party, where we took the DJ feed, around 4am I had a break and one nutty volunteer came on and ranted about the organisation - a Sydney tradition. I didn't find out until a pugnacious Board member complained :[

There was the year I pushed a very heavy robot all the way (not recommended). One year I watched from a prime spot and that year it poured down. Rain doesn't stop it because it's so warm and the spirit so high.

There was the year Julian Clary MC'd and spoilt things by being a bitch (maybe he was jetlagged). Rural groups always participate and they weren't quite as polished: doesn't matter, Clary totally missed the spirit of the thing. You rarely see these mobs in the pictures which go around the world, but they're the heart of it in many ways. It's wonderful to see 'community' in action: Muscle Marys alongside fat old queens alongside elder lesbians alongside asian drag queens: all encouraging each other.

What else? Imelda Marcos' shoes was a classic which everyone who saw it remembers. One hundred shoes on poles chased by a giant papier-mâché head of Imelda. That was the genius of David McDiamid and Peter Tully, gay artists lost to AIDS. David was inspired by the Mexican 'day of the dead' and did a very edgy but successful entry in the height of the crisis with "Dance of Death" puppets.

Then there was their giant Fred's Head on a giant platter — this was the local evangelical state senator, with a perchant for leather from his biker days, who protested every year. David and Peter's genius inspired a later float which spiked Pauline Hanson's monoculturalism. 'Fred's Head' actually survived and was brought out for the 20th Parade.

Individuals could make just as much of an impact. 'Miss New Zealand' achieved this with a floral print dress, flowery hat and a 'New Zealand' sign. Very Antipodean 1950s. My friend Brenton Heath-Kerr did this at the party with the most astonishing, inventive costumes I have ever seen such as his famous Tom Of Finland, the classic butch cartoon fantasy figure. He 'wore' the cartoon and was completely covered. He looked exactly like a cartoon. He also did Imelda. And Liza. And 'Wood Woman', a bizarre woodland creature, completely ... wood.

The party's is 20,000 or so past dawn. The Showgrounds ("where the country comes to town") is now sound stages for film but in the 80s you could wander into the pig stalls and the rest. Much shenanigans (or so I've heard ;] ) The party goes on until Monday. There's a tradition of the morning after gathering behind a pub which I don't know still goes on but the 'after parties' are legendary.

After 2000 there was a year when it was thought under threat. A giant Arts Festival had grown up around February, with massive corporate sponsorship. This ended up collapsing and possibly taking the parade with it. Mass 'no! ways!' stopped that. The show will go on.

I did a London Pride parade when I came back in 2000. Depressing. Very little music, the fun stuff was spotty and subdued. I did a version of Fred's head on a platter with friends. We made a papier-mache Tony Blair and posters of Blair as Pinocchio - this was before he'd got around to gay law reform. But it was all a bit sad after Sydney.

• Postscript: The 2008 party featured Olivia Newton-John finally taking to the Mardi Gras stage to perform Xanadu. Cyndi Lauper closed the party with Girls Just Wanna Have Fun. Other legends tickling my memories were Kings Cross drag queen Carlotta and DJing from Paul Goodyear. Out of 700,000 parade watchers there were 25 arrests made. One arrest was for a man who attempted to set fire to the tail of a police horse. Parade hits included the marching together of Jewish and Arab groups who were met with a huge cheer, as were the 100 Reverends, a group of church members apologising for the past treatment of gay and lesbian Christians. A school also organised a parade entry.
  
  
• Surviving webpage about the 1998 Aboriginal float and parade entry
  

Paxman's involuntary elitism

The Guardian comments today about Jeremy Paxman's MacTaggart Memorial Lecture at the Edinburgh Television Festival:

Listened to live, his speech - Never Mind the Scandals: What's it All For? - had a far greater impact than any reported version could convey. This is because it was really a condensation of three separate lectures rolled into one, a passionate and deeply personal cri de coeur about the current state of television, from a master practitioner.

Yet The Guardian is the one making only two clips of the speech available on it's YouTube channel, the second of which makes Paxman sound like he's having a go at the Net (funny, that choice for this channel).

This was from shortly before the clip:

I feel uncomfortable saying this, because I know that some colleagues may take it as an attack upon them. So let me say that I think the young people entering television now are more technically able, more visually creative than at any time in the short history of the medium. I admire them, not least because I have no idea how they do half the things they do. My point about the vaccuousness of much news reporting is not to lay into them, but to plead for them to be given the time and the space to do a better job and for all of to stand back and ask what we’re using this medium for.

More in context, Paxman did not comes across as a luddite; that's one tiny bit of the speech. He barely referred to the Net. On it's website, The Guardian makes no reference to the video, instead referring you to the text.

The other clip is about faking it:



Their partners at Edinburgh, the BBC, told us, after discussing Paxman's speech, on Friday's Newsnight that:

"You can see the whole of Jeremy's speech on the Newsnight website"

'Read' isn't the same as ' see' in my book. Here's the old fashioned text. When the video is available, this stuff is elitist behavior. I'm not impressed and neither should you be.

The Guardian's 'highlights' selection, the lack of the speech in it's entirety online when the live context is important. The industry was there applauding - at what? - and silent - at what? Maybe I'd like to know how they reacted when Paxman drew attention to Tony Blair calling journalists "feral beasts" that tear people and reputations to shreds?

I found the media’s response – and particularly the response of the television industry - to the Blair challenge pretty depressing. Hardly anyone engaged with the substance of the criticisms – of our triviality, our short-sightedness, our preoccupation with conflict. The immediate and almost universal reaction was not to examine the charge sheet, but to utter a blanket plea of ‘not guilty’, usually followed by well, you misled us about WMD, as if that somehow entitles us to say whatever we like. Well, it won’t do.

The industry were there because the event was important. Who wasn't there? Us.

I would have liked to have seen the clip of Paxman saying this:

Just look at almost any regional news programme, with its tawdry catalogue of misfortune, recited in deadbeat vocabulary. You’d think that every child in the city was being sexually abused, every journey every day disrupted, resulting in ‘pure misery’, every teenager a drug-crazed psychopath. Does it alarm? Sure. Does it help us understand? You must be joking.

Or this:

Take, for example, the outbreak of bird flu in Suffolk this spring. The thing was contained and dealt with effectively. There was no panic, except in so far as it was generated by television news coverage. An expensively coiffed presenter is driven up to Suffolk to stand in a field in the vague vicinity. A helicopter is put up so a reporter can speak of the incident as if it was the scene of a major tank battle.

For me the nadir was an interview with a woman who owned a chicken coop. The reporter knew what was wanted. ‘We have a dead chicken over there,’ the woman wailed. ‘Whether that chicken was knocked down by a car, we don’t know.’

And that was it. There was a dead chicken in Suffolk. Cause of death unknown. What, precisely was this chicken’s owner interviewed for?

There are plenty of definitions of news. But whether you subscribe to the view that it is something out of the ordinary, or – my own favourite – that it is something someone doesn’t want you to know - the fact that a chicken has died in Suffolk, possibly after colliding with a car, doesn’t cut it.

PM 2.0

Downing Street syndicates content to YouTube. In it's latest, Taking a break during a typically busy day inside 10 Downing Street, Tony Blair confides that "nothing prepares you for the difficulty of being Prime Minister".

Here's another one showing him meeting the Queen, narrated by an Aussie for some reason (possibly tourism-related). John Major says: "you can be frank, even indiscrete .. nothing is bared, everything is open season".

The Downing Street YouTube Channel appears to be a relative hit.

City: London
Hometown: Westminster
Country: United Kingdom

#23 - Most Subscribed (This Month) #9 - Most Subscribed (This Month) - Directors #61 - Most Viewed (Today) (more) #23 - Most Subscribed (This Month) #9 - Most Subscribed (This Month) - Directors #61 - Most Viewed (Today) #22 - Most Viewed (Today) - Directors #11 - Most Viewed (Today) - Partners #85 - Most Viewed (This Week) #28 - Most Viewed (This Week) - Directors #14 - Most Viewed (This Week) - Partners #66 - Most Viewed (This Month) - Partners

And some content is getting significant audiences.

Prime Minister Tony Blair departs Downing Street
03:35

Added: 3 days ago
Views: 56,850

Though probably not the one today (Gordon visits kids) which opens solemnly then proceeds into inappropriate disco music (there is such a thing).

Thus far in Downing Street's Web excursions, it's Tony Blair saying 'Am I bovvered?" which gets the most views - something above 300,000 in its various incarnations:





The website itself is getting more and more Web 2.0 like:



They even have a youth version, motto 'more than just a door'.

This encourages them to:



However:

You may not get a reply to your email.

If the content of your message is private or personal, or you would like to be sure of a reply, you should post a letter to Gordon Brown at 10 Downing Street, London SW1 2AA.

'Country' isn't a required field.

Bytes · Apple isn't Green - Craigslist’s gay profits - GodTube

• Apple Inc. has the worst environmental policies among major electronics companies, according to Greenpeace.

• First placed Lenovo, who are Chinese, "offers takeback and recycling in all the countries where its products are sold," Greenpeace said. Lenovo also says how much e-waste it recycles as a percentage of sales.
  Greenpeace environmental scores

  1. Lenovo: 8
  2. Nokia: 7.3
  3. Sony/Ericsson: 7
  Dell: 7
  5. Samsung: 6.3
  Motorola: 6.3
  7. Fujitsu/Siemens: 6

  
  

  8. Hewlett-Packard: 5.6
  9, Acer: 5.3
  10. Toshiba: 4.3
  11. Sony: 4
  12. LG Electronics: 3.6
  Panasonic: 3.6
  14. Apple: 2.7
  
  
  · More about Apple's environmental record at Green My Apple.
  
  
• Microsoft has released a new mobile browser called Deepfish. Users are able to zoom in on the part of the page they want to read or click on.
  
  
• Fab Google Gadget (and general widget) World Sunlight Map by die.net, who also do one showing moon phases.
  
  
• Woolworths is the latest company to add user-generated content to it's website. They're using Reevoo to collect and publish reviews of many of the retailer's products including music, video and mobile phones. They say:
  

  We aim to publish all reviews – good and bad. However, we have to reject reviews with bad language, confusing or offensive content. So what they say, is what you see.

• Telegraph.co.uk have dropped Google Maps citing fears that they'll ad ads and start charging brands. Instead, they signed up to Rocket Map.
  
  
• Tagging has seen explosive growth as a locator for Web content according to Technorati report The State of the Live Web, April 2007.
  
  Blogging continues to grow exponentially. Japanese grew as the dominant language for posts — Farsi moved into the top 10 languages.
  
  
• Google released MyMaps, a point-and-click add-on for Google Maps, aimed at a mass market. The product mimics Platial, who responded thus on their blog:

  "While no entrepreneur is excited about potentially competing with Google, it had to happen… There are a number of friend/foe relationships that spring up when you have alliances and markets with rapidly evolving needs. Our business will be disrupted too in some ways but it was time."

  MyMaps doesn't match Platial functionality though - you can't use it to embed maps in your site for example.
  
  
• In another new move there's Google Voice Local Search, which offers a free '411' (local information) phone service.
  
  
• Stephen Bagg exposes Craiglist's 'Dirty Little Secret' on his blog.
  
  Turns out that by far the most popular categories are men-seeking-women etc. with some interesting breakdowns by category by city.

  "But that’s not the entire story. A deeper look into the metrics reveals a real power group behind Craigslist’s impressive numbers: men seeking men. Even though they only enjoy Top 5 status in two cities by visitor volume, each month these Craigslist constituents view over 50% more pages and 20 more minutes on average searching these posts than any others – from apartment rentals to items for baby."

  
  
• Tony Blair has launched a YouTube channel.
  
  
• ReleMed is a new search engine for PubMed, the largest database of medical literature, which assigns relevance to results in addition to just looking for keywords.
  
  
• After the Evangelical Christian version of Wikipedia comes their version of YouTube. GodTube, however, The Times reports, has been attracting the most viewers for the unintentionally hilarious videos.

  In one of the website’s most-watched videos, Ray Comfort, a New Zealand-born evangelist who lives in California, employs a banana to demonstrate the genius of God’s creation.
  
  “Notice how gracefully it fits in the human hand,” declares Comfort. “The maker of the banana, almighty God, has made it with a nonslip surface.”
  
  Comfort goes on for several minutes, seemingly unaware of the dangers of double-entendre in his reverent handling of the banana.

More apologies needed

Watching some of the excellent programs marking the anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade.

Moira Stewart and Miss Dynamite both did excellent shows and the show tracing the history of racism broke new ground (on TV at least).

Many Black people have rightfully called for an apology for the slave trade: given all the previous ones, it's amusing to hear the twisted explanations about why this one isn't needed as well.

Amongst the ones previously made was one to the Maoris.

If you want to apologise to anyone, Tony, apologise to Australian Aboriginal people. I can understand why this may not have come to your attention — these people are not even memorialised in Australia.

Here we're talking

• genocide and massacres,
  
• forced removals,
  
• concentration camps,
  
• systematic destruction of culture,
  
• families split up,
• stolen wages and
  
• a legacy of a population with third world health.

'Stolen generation' kids, as seen in Rabbit-Proof Fence: this still continues.

Photo shows The Cootamundra Aboriginal Girls’ Training Home.
This was one of the government institutions in New South Wales where Aboriginal children were forcibly taken to from their families from 1912 to 1969 by the Aboriginal Protection Board, later renamed the Aboriginal Welfare Board.

Aboriginal people were not recognised as human beings by the Australian state until 1967. Previously their lives were run under the Protector and the Flora and Fauna Act.

All initiated and subsequently looked over by the British state.

Not just Australia of course, but the Blair government has continued working against Indigenous people. In fact it has been an international prime mover against the efforts of indigenous people to better themselves.

This is the position of the Labour Government

"The use of the term 'indigenous peoples'... cannot be construed as having any implications to rights under international law".

‘The UK's human rights policies concerning indigenous peoples are abhorrent and shameful.'
Dalee Sambo Dorough, Inuit spokeswoman.

Azelene, Kaingang Indian woman, Brazil .... Audio: Espanol

'I remember my first meeting at the UN.
We were defending our collective rights. A UK diplomat surprised me with the coldness with which he referred to indigenous peoples.
He looked at me and said, ‘I can’t recognise the collective rights of you people. I don’t see any difference in you – we are all the same.’
So I spoke to him in Kaingang, the language of my people.
There was no translation, and I asked him if he’d understood what I’d said and he replied, ‘No’.
Then I looked at him again and said, ‘That’s why I’m different; because only my people speak this language.’

The global issues website has more detail about the situation, which is about recognising 'collective rights'. Survival International neatly sums up why this is so important:

Full collective rights over land and resources are essential for the survival of tribal peoples. The Yanomami of Amazonia, for example, live in large communal houses called yanos. The concept of ‘individual ownership’ of such a building is nonsensical. A tribe’s right to decide, for example, whether a mining company should be allowed to operate on its land, also only makes sense as a collective right. The UK claims, however, that these vital collective rights should be individual rights ‘exercised collectively.’ In the USA, the infamous Dawes Act of 1887 demonstrated the danger of this approach. The Act turned communally-held Indian lands into individual plots; 90 million acres of Indian land were removed at a stroke, and the reservations were broken up.

— UK Government blocks historic UN Declaration, Survival International, February 1, 2005

>> They Work For You <<

This country that we now call Australia always was and always will be Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land.

I remember that this country, home to many diverse Indigenous Nations since the beginning of time, was colonized in 1788 and I remember all those Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples who have lost their lives since.

I remember all those that have gone before, defending Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander lands, waterways and cultures.

I remember all those who were taken away from their families and from their ancestral homelands.

I remember, with sorrow, the lost languages, the lost tribal laws and the desecrated sacred sites.

Senator Aden Ridgeway

Launching and signing the Poverty Pole

Matthew Taylor is an ignoramus

Clicking through some backlinks I came across a post by Matthew Taylor about the conference where George Osborne spoke about the wonders of Open Source (and subsequent lovely savings).

Matthew Taylor has his own Wikipedia entry. Pictured right, you've possibly seen him on Newsnight. He was Tony Blair's policy guru. Now he runs the Royal Society of Architects. He's an important ignoramus.

The whole post is here, following is the especially ignorant bit.

Why is it that the web which has been so transformative in so many parts of our lives has done so little to strengthen democracy and civic society?
For some this is inherent in the technology. Generating content and browsing the internet is the individualistic act of one person sitting at one computer. Why would we expect it to be suited to the collective tasks of deliberation and community action? But in fact while there has been an explosion of sites like MySpace which allow people to celebrate their individuality, there have also been innovations like the 'wiki' and complex virtual worlds which only work because people collaborate on a shared system and outcome.
For others the fault lies in the political system which has simply failed to understand or respond to potential of the web. From this perspective things like the Downing Street website and e-petitions or David Cameron’s weblog are superficial and tokenistic; politics must be willing to go through the kind of re-engineering that has been experienced by the entertainment or travel industries.
I am dismayed by the passive aggressive tone of most political blogs, and wonder why the web seems so much better as a tool to mobilise protest rather than action. But I suspect the answer lies not in wishing people were different but in innovation which can tap into people’s latent desire to shape their own collective futures. While Web 1.0 may have simply reinforced 'us and them' political discourse, Web 2.0 offers huge scope for new forms of ‘us and us’ engagement. The wiki has huge potential as a policy deliberation tool but we need good applications (the RSA is working to develop one for our Fellows).
So, on Thursday, as well as discussing where we are now, I hope we give time to think about how the next wave of web innovation could help us work together to make our world a better place.

This post is completely ignorant of recent web history and positively star struck (like Shadow Chancellor Osborne) by 'Web 2.0'.

Taylor misunderstands that Web 2.0 is utterly new. It isn't. Everything which constitutes it has existed for some time, the key difference is BROADBAND.

Sites just like MySpace and YouTube have existed for years. In the former case the web is BUILT on collaboration and communities which do exactly what MySpace does. That's how it started FFS!
The thing which really got my goat was his claim that all the web has been good for previously is protest — This completely ignores the liberation which the internet has provided for many minorities, for diasporas, for political organising, to change the world.

• There are innumerate small communities who either wouldn't exist or in a much less organised way just because the Internet exists.
  
• There are huge communities of interest which have built up over the past nearly two decades which have subsequently changed the world.
  

A very good example is the landmines campaign, which largely evolved because of the Internet.

In 1991, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines was a group of three people wanting to do something about anti-personnel devices. Six years later, it is network of 1,000 organizations which has managed to sell more than 120 countries on a worldwide ban.
Credit for the formidable task goes in large part to Jody Williams [right], coordinator for ICBL, which shared with her the Nobel peace prize. But credit also goes to cyberspace, where Williams and her staff did most of their coalition building.
Rising some mornings as early as 3:30, Williams spent much of the last year e-mailing pleas and dispatches from her Vermont farmhouse, trying to convince yet another country to join her campaign.

I remember this period very well.

The use which the Internet could be put to was like lightbulbs going off throughout the world amongst minority interests.
I used it - for example - to help build, alongside thousands of like-minded others, enormous community interest and participation in Australia in reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples and to help with Indigenous self-organisation.

You could trace this 90s Internet organising activity directly to events like the 2000 Bridge Walks, which literally drew millions onto the streets.

This activity solidified cross-communities solidarity, changed the political agenda and changed government rhetoric and action. Somehow these enormous political developments, all over the world, passed the likes of Matthew Taylor by.
This statement: "so transformative in so many parts of our lives", gave it away for me. In the context he's meaning, this suggests his 'engagement' with the Web is all about Travel sites and Tesco? Maybe that explains the sweeping ignorance of "has done so little to strengthen democracy and civic society"?

So what, really, is the key difference right now causing Very Important People like Taylor to spout off?

I think it's mass-media coverage, generating buzz, which eventually reaches the likes of Taylor (and similar policy-setters), largely via consultants who have an interest in maintaining this as buzz.

This lands on fertile ground because - as you can read above - they love 'new!' and they love 'wave of innovation': honey, this has been going on for years.

They also live in a disconnected bubble.
As with Osborne: get a grip.

That the likes of Taylor have finally woken up is quite nice but, given the evident ignorance about the web, I'd suggest lots of pottering around and basic learning before launching into any patronising pronouncements based on yet more ignorance.

US Prez election: Web Video Reviews Are Mixed

Interesting article from the Washington Post about how the US Presidential election is panning out on the web - since the article, MySpace has announced it's to launch an "Impact" Political Channel focused on the election now a mere 20 months away!

As elsewhere, article's about how video will dominate this election - only not the sorts of video which candidates have (had?) been producing, instead it's the 'Macacca'-type balls-ups, comedy-skits and other viral-types. [and maybe direct responses to voter's questions]

Article bigs up WebCameron, which I don't think has exactly set the YouTube generation alight ... what has - and by accident I think - is Tony blair's appearance on ComicRelief.

If you haven't seen it, don't miss - absolutely hysterical. Hate him, love him, it's just plain funny — this is the take of YouTubers from the masses of positive comments. [They also seem to love mash-ups, which are the stock-in-trade of shows like the BBC's Dont Watch That Watch This.]

So Blair and Catherine Tate's skit precisely hits the button for what works with users video-wise on the web. Damn.

Candidates Try Web Video, And the Reviews Are Mixed

By Jose Antonio Vargas
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 17, 2007; A01

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) posts regular "HillCasts" to talk about her positions on equal pay, health care and Iraq. Rudolph W. Giuliani treats YouTube as if it were C-SPAN -- a place for his 58-minute speech to the Churchill Club. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) put up a casual backstage interview before his appearance on "The Daily Show." And though Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was the last of the presidential front-runners to jump on the online video bandwagon, he now has more than 25 videos circulating on the Web.

One after another, presidential campaigns are adding videos to their Web sites as well as to video-sharing sites such as YouTube, MySpace and Veoh. The reviews, however, are mixed. Production values are uneven -- a few videos look grainy; many are professionally produced; most seem downright misplaced. And so far, judging by the number of views on YouTube -- and the overall buzz on the blogosphere -- it's the candidate videos that the campaigns didn't make that get attention.

Not one of the videos made by John Edwards's campaign, for example, matches the popularity of the one showing the former senator combing his hair before an interview to the tune of "I Feel Pretty." That video has been viewed more than 135,000 times since it was posted on YouTube in November. Edwards's most popular official video, of his announcement in December that he's running for president, has been viewed about 116,000 times.

Similarly, Clinton's most watched HillCast, titled " Roadmap Out of Iraq," comes nowhere close in popularity to the video showing her singing " The Star-Spangled Banner" off-key at a rally in Iowa. The HillCast has been viewed more than 15,000 times since it was posted on Feb. 17, the out-of-tune moment nearly 1.1 million times since its posting on Jan. 27.

As fans of Web video know, YouTube is a place of irreverence, spontaneity, humor. And for the most part, candidates are giving their online audience the opposite of what it wants. Just ask James Kotecki.

Several times a week, Kotecki, a self-described "political geek" turned YouTube celebrity, advises presidential candidates on their campaign videos -- from his dorm room at Georgetown University. Equipped with a three-year-old laptop, a $60 Web camera and a $30 microphone -- and a small, dusty desk lamp as a light source -- the 21-year-old dishes out free, unsolicited suggestions (and the occasional compliment) to the candidates.

For Giuliani: "All of your videos so far are just recordings of your speeches. And two of them are marathons, clocking in at 45 minutes and 58 minutes."

For Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio): "The ivy background, I'm-outside-but-I'm-really-inside thing, doesn't strike me as overly presidential. I'd also encourage you to make your videos a bit more intimate by bringing the camera closer in to you."

For McCain: "Maybe it's time to post a funny video."

Kotecki has one recurring message to the candidates and their expensive media advisers: "The Web isn't TV." As in, Web viewers don't expect to be spoken to, they expect to be spoken with. It's a passive experience vs. an interactive one.

Other students of the genre have similar advice.

"Look at how the candidates are talking in their videos. With a few exceptions, they're mostly looking sideways, not talking directly to the camera," said Jeff Jarvis, who heads the interactive journalism program at the City University of New York's Graduate School of Journalism and started PrezVid.com, a blog dedicated to watching the campaign through YouTube. "The important thing about this medium is it's very human and intimate. A voter comes across and clicks on you. You should talk to that voter and look at him in the eye."

Micah Sifry, co-founder of TechPresident.com, another blog that looks at how the candidates are campaigning on the Web, also makes a distinction between video online and ads on television. "There's something fundamentally different about video online," he said. "Viewers are looking for that rare, unscripted, revealing moment, to get a little sense of who these candidates really are."

For campaigns, Web videos are an instant way to reach voters, whether on the candidates' sites or on YouTube, which this month created You Choose '08, a channel specifically for candidate videos. They are a way to present Clinton sitting on a couch, sans microphone. A way to hear McCain talk uninterrupted about "honor," "courage" and "faith" (each one is a video clip). They are giving candidates a face, a voice and, most important, a personality -- at least if done right.

So far, none of the official campaign videos have been used to attack a rival candidate. And while the videos tend to be similar, there are differences in approach.

Some candidates are employing a "less is more" mantra. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, for example, currently has three videos on YouTube. For others, such as Mitt Romney, more is more. "We're doing as many different kinds of videos as possible -- videos of him giving speeches, testimonials from families, et cetera," said Stephen Smith, director of online communications for the former Massachusetts governor.

All of the campaigns, however, are still experimenting, watching each others' moves.

Christian Ferry, McCain's Web manager, says bluntly: "We're only at the very beginning here, and our videos are still evolving."

As an early model, Jarvis and Sifry both point to British politics and David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative Party. Last fall, Cameron launched WebCameron, which includes a series of short videos starring the 40-year-old father of three. His first video showed him washing the dishes at home, his baby screaming in the background.

Looking directly at the camera, standing in front of his sink, he says, "Watch out BBC and ITV, we're coming after you."

That was an off-the-cuff, unscripted moment -- or at least it appeared that way. To Sifry and Jarvis, it seemed "authentic," and therefore effective.

Yet as in vogue as online videos are, no one is sure of the impact they will really have. Or whether, in this Web-based, heavily fragmented mediasphere -- in which everybody is competing for shorter attention spans -- they will eventually replace TV spots, the bread and butter of campaign advertising.

"These videos are a giant step forward from saying, just three years ago, 'Here's our latest blog entry,' " said Jim Margolis, a veteran Democratic media strategist. "But are people going to get sick of them? You'll get 23 videos on your inbox and you'll delete them all? Who knows? I don't. This is all new."

In the meantime, Kotecki is a new critic for a new medium. He has recorded 42 videos in his dorm room since Jan. 27 -- often late at night, sometimes in the afternoon between his quantum physics and Introduction to Logic classes.

His YouTube channel has more than 400 subscribers, and his videos have been viewed more than 71,000 times. He makes up awards and bestows them on candidates; Romney earned one half of a "YouTube Savvy Award." He also makes sound effects -- "Ding!" -- and, on occasion, sings and raps.

James Kotochi
James' interests include 'Being quoted in the New York Times'

Some of the campaigns, including Edwards's, have contacted Kotecki via YouTube, and Smith, Romney's Web man, said with a laugh: "We appreciate the half of the award. We'll earn the other half. It's early."

Yesterday afternoon, Kotecki received his biggest reaction yet -- a video response from Kucinich himself, who called Kotecki "my adviser."

"I think you have some good suggestions," Kucinich told Kotecki, "and we're already taking them into account."

The video, only 50 seconds long, is a close-up shot.

Candidate links

Biden: Blog

Biden: Official Site

Biden: Video

Biden: YouTube

Brownback: Official Site

Clinton: Blog

Clinton: Official Site

Clinton: Video

Clinton: YouTube

Dodd: Blog

Dodd: MySpace

Dodd: Official Site

Dodd: YouTube

Edwards: Blog

Edwards: MySpace

Edwards: Official Site

Edwards: YouTube

Giuliani: Official Site

Giuliani: YouTube

Gravel: Blog

Gravel: Official Site

Gravel: Video

Huckabee: Official Site

Hunter: Official Site

Kucinich: MySpace

Kucinich: Official Site

Kucinich: Video

Kucinich: YouTube

McCain: Blog

McCain: Official Site

McCain: YouTube

Obama: Blog

Obama: Official Site

Obama: Video

Obama: YouTube

Paul: Official Site

Richardson: Blog

Richardson: MySpace

Richardson: Official Site

Richardson: YouTube

Romney: Official Site

Romney: Video

Romney: YouTube

Tancredo: Official Site

Thompson: Official Site

YouTube: You Choose '08