Orthodox Jewish Film Writer Explains How People Are Being Brainwashed By Hollywood

Hosted by Kiwi6 file hosting. Download mp3 - Free Music Hosting.

Robert Avrech 
interviewed by Savitsky Talks  is a weekly 20 minute audio program with interviews and discussions that probe and explore contemporary Jewish life. Stephen Savitsky’s unusually direct and objective approach make this program a refreshing take on the Jewish community’s often challenging role in the world.


Written by Robert Avrech
very important to read the large part
Act I:
Exposition—In Which the Main Characters and Primary Drama Are Introduced
It’s Shabbos morning. I’m in shul, davening with the hashkamah minyan, where an undertone of chatter is definitely not the norm. For me, a frum-from-birth screenwriter, this shul, where my wife and I have been members since we moved to Los Angeles from Brooklyn, is my fortress of solitude. It’s where my Hollywood identity is securely tucked away and I can revert to my true self, which is: husband, father and grandfather, shomer Shabbos Jew, Religious Zionist and a man who tries to live a Torah life as best as he can.
In the midst of davening, a friend whispers: “I just saw that movie you made a few years ago. Very exciting story. ”
“Um, thanks so much.”
I figure the conversation is over and go back to davening.
“The thing I was wondering is,” continues my friend, “what’s she really like?” She being the famous and glamorous star of the movie my friend has recently seen on Netflix.

 

Several possible answers pop up in my head, as if on a TV game show board:
1. She’s very nice.
2. She’s crazy as a loon.
3. Why on earth were you watching that movie?
I go for number one.
My friend nods his head as if I’ve just explained a difficult Tosafos, puts a gentle hand on my shoulder and says, “We’ll talk more later.”
The purpose of this scene is not to denigrate my friend, who is a wonderful and charitable person, nor is it an attempt to bolster my credentials as a pious man. I confess: I’ve been known to talk in shul on occasion.
This anecdote illustrates the mesmerizing allure Hollywood exerts over, well . . . everyone! Hollywood movies are the most powerful tools of social and political propaganda the world has ever known. Think about it: America wins wars only when Hollywood believes in them and puts itself squarely behind America’s war effort. During World War II, every studio in Hollywood backed the Allied effort against the Axis. Hollywood stars raised money for war bonds, and studios produced films that went all out for freedom and liberty against the tyranny of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Hollywood played a huge role in America’s victory.
Contrast Vietnam. Hollywood, which was overwhelmingly antiwar, produced a series of movies that undermined the American effort against the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia. America lost Vietnam. Hollywood knew that with a few clever, glossy films (such as Coming Home, starring Jane Fonda) and carefully manufactured imagery, it could undermine American foreign policy and turn heroic GIs into psychotic baby killers.
More recently, Hollywood has made about a dozen movies that condemn America’s military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not one of them was profitable, but the damage was done: America withdrew from both fronts. Islamic tyrannies will fill the vacuum—and Hollywood will never take notice or assume any responsibility.
Even women’s fashion is a reflection of what they see on the screen. Ever since Manolo Blahnik stilettos featured prominently on HBO’s hit show Sex and the City over a decade ago, middle-class women have been willing to walk through fire and water for a pair of Manolos—at something like $900 a pop!
Act II:
Conflict—In Which Our Little Drama Is Developed Into a Narrative Arc

Let’s be clear: Hollywood influences practically every aspect of life in the United States. As an award-winning screenwriter and producer who has been working in Hollywood for over twenty-five years, I can claim an authentic knowledge of Tinseltown and the people who make it work.

And I am here to tell you that whether your head is inside a Borsalino or under a kippah serugah, Hollywood is inside your head. And there, slowly but surely, it is executing a brilliant, insidious stealth attack on the core values that make up not only the bedrock of Torah Judaism, but also the foundation of American culture.

Here’s one example from my life as a screenwriter. A few years ago, a big studio hired me to write a drama about the dangers posed by Islamic terrorists. The studio executives wanted me to write the script because they knew it would be not just entertaining but also a cautionary tale for modern times. Still, one studio executive took me aside and whispered a warning: “Just don’t, y’know, malign all Muslims.”

My script was a beauty. Lots of action, a romance between a rugged American CIA agent (think a young George Clooney) and a beautiful Mossad agent (imagine Charlize Theron as a brunette), a few killer car chases, an evil Muslim terrorist and a decent Muslim kid who gets blackmailed into becoming a suicide bomber. A few weeks after I handed in my first draft, a studio executive called me and said that the studio was not going to go ahead with the project as currently written.

“We feel it’s too controversial. It might be seen as anti-Muslim. Now maybe if you turned the Muslim terrorists into Christian terrorists, we might reconsider.”
“Christian terrorists? Like whom?” I asked.
The studio exec said, “Oh, y’know, you can just make it up.”
“Christian terrorist organizations do not exist. I have done the research.”
“Yeah, well, there’s another problem: the stuff about Israel, your Mossad character. What about the Palestinians? You really have to present their side of the story.”
“The character of the Mossad agent is there for romance and to emphasize the global nature of Islamic terrorism,” I said. “It is, after all, Palestinians who invented modern jihadist terror.”
The studio exec sighed. “Robert, what can I tell you? You’re a great writer, but this script—well, unless you turn it inside out, it’s dead.”

TV is also the place where . . . children are either preternaturally wise or sadly jaded—sometimes both—but they never turn to their parents for advice or guidance.

A few days later, an inside source at the studio told me that someone had slipped a copy of my script to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an American group that presents itself as a civil rights organization but is actually a front for the Muslim Brotherhood. CAIR read my script and put pressure on the studio to drop the project or suffer some unnamed consequences.
My script was dead, killed off by a new set of values that have colonized Hollywood the way cancer cells multiply and devour healthy tissue. If you go to the movies, Islamic terror barely appears. And when it does appear, it is so tentative and mild that you would think that Muslim terrorists were an aberration on the world stage.
Hollywood sells glamour and sizzle. The women are beautiful, the men are handsome and the plot lines are, one hopes, clever and compelling.

But Hollywood also sells a set of core values.

Turn on the TV and you will see happy gay couples on almost every show. Since most of Hollywood believes that gay "marriage" is a human right, writers, producers and stars inject gay characters and couples into their storylines in order to convince viewers that gay couples are just like straight ones. Look at the ABC hit sitcom Modern Family. It’s clever and touching, and who in his right mind is going to object to the lovable gay couple who are featured players on the show?

TV is also the place where Dad is a clueless, lovable buffoon while elegant, long-suffering Mom puts up patiently with his childlike behavior. The children are either preternaturally wise or sadly jaded—sometimes both—but they never turn to their parents for advice or guidance. Watch a few hours of TV and you will come away believing that the nuclear family does not really function, if it exists at all.

Here are a few more messages that Hollywood endlessly projects:
1. No one goes to church or synagogue. Any character who worships is the butt of jokes. Exceptions are made for Buddhism, ill-defined spiritualism and, natch, Islam.

2. The greatest threats to our planet are overpopulation and so-called global freezing/global warming/climate change. Mankind is doomed because selfish people—that’s you and me, not the Hollywood elite—do not separate their trash with proper devotion.

3. Republicans are stupid, nasty bigots, usually with very bad skin.

4. Democrats are glamorous, brilliant, tolerant and the saviors of mankind. (Try telling that to Detroit, which has been ruled by Democrats for more than forty years.)

5. A woman’s place is in the workplace. Motherhood is sooooo Leave It to Beaver.

6. There are no Torah Jews in the greater Hollywood imagination. If we do show up, we are usually there for stupid bris milah jokes.

7. Zionism is invisible. When it does appear, it is usually treated like the plague.
Hollywood glamorizes and sells its values. These values make their way into your home—if you have TV, if you go to the movies, if you watch online—in such a way that you do not even realize that your gray matter is gradually being shaped into the fashionable conformity that animates Hollywood.

From where does Hollywood get its values?

Almost every Hollywood executive, director, producer and writer I’ve ever met has attended an Ivy League university where secular, leftist thinking dominates, and where genuine education—the search for knowledge—has been replaced by a not-so-subtle intellectual brainwashing.

A few months ago, a frum high school girl and aspiring screenwriter came to me for advice. She mentioned that she loved Modern Family and would “love to write stuff like that.” This girl is from a solid Torah family. She’s active in Bnei Akiva and volunteers with Bikur Cholim—an admirable young woman in every way. I asked her what she thought about gay "marriage". She knew exactly what I was getting at. Smiling self-consciously, she said that she knew it was wrong, but she really loved the gay characters on the show and would feel as if she were betraying them if she came out against gay "marriage".

“They’re not real,” I chided gently.

“They’re real to me,” she said.


The gay characters on a fictional TV sitcom have become real to this fine young woman and to millions of viewers around the world. The fantasy world of television and movies that emanate from a giant screen, TV panel, computer, tablet and smartphone have become a simulacrum of the real world—a parallel world that worms its way into our consciousness, replacing traditional morality with alien values disguised as the new normal.

None of this happens by chance. We who write movies and television shows weigh each word and image with excruciating care. I have managed to inject my values into several films and get away with it, even winning an Emmy Award for The Devil’s Arithmetic, a time-travel Holocaust drama. But I and a few like-minded friends are in the minority, outgunned and outnumbered.

Act III:
Resolution—In Which a Satisfying Closure Is Achieved
At the shul’s kiddush, my friend comes over to continue our discussion. Mostly, he wants to hear about the star. He’s delighted that I know her, that I know and have worked with dozens of stars. He thinks it’s just great that a guy from shul hangs with Hollywood royalty.
“What are they really like?” he asks.
I decide to tell the truth. “Not one of them is anything like they seem on screen. Mostly they are self-absorbed narcissists who can barely make their way from their limos to the sidewalk without powerful pharmaceuticals. If you spend ten minutes with any one of them, you would be shocked at how shallow, ignorant and one-dimensional they are. What they do well is act. They are actors. Without a role, without someone like me to write their dialogue, they practically cease to exist.”
My friend is shocked and baffled. Am I joking?
“Don’t make the mistake of confusing reality with a carefully-tailored image. That blurring can warp the mind.”
That’s when he asks the sixty-four-thousand-dollar question.
“Then why do you do it?”
“Because I love movies—and I know the difference between reality and fiction.”
He smiles, nods and heads off to Daf Yomi.
I walk home. In my head, I’m already plotting my next script.

(Jewish Action)

Why The Anti Bris Milah Movement Is Growing! And How It Copied The Homosexual Movement

How Circumcision Broke the Internet

A fringe group is drowning out any discussion of facts.

By Mark Joseph Stern (yellow is our additions) 

 

 

 

The anti-circumcision voice is a disproportionately loud one.

There are facts about circumcision—but you won’t find them easily on the Internet. Parents looking for straightforward evidence about benefits and risks are less likely to stumble across the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention than Intact America, which confronts viewers with a screaming, bloodied infant and demands that hospitals “stop experimenting on baby boys.” Just a quick Google search away lies the Circumcision Complex, a website that speculates that circumcision leads to Oedipus and castration complexes, to say nothing of the practice’s alleged brutal physiological harms. If you do locate the rare rational and informed circumcision article, you’ll be assaulted by a vitriolic mob of commenters accusing the author of encouraging “genital mutilation.”

An example of the types of comments

How did it come to this? For years, circumcision was a private decision, encouraged by many doctors, practiced by most families (in America, at least), but little discussed in the public sphere. Yet in the past two decades, a fringe group of self-proclaimed “intactivists” which is what homosexual activists were even into the 70s has hijacked the conversation, dismissing science similar to the homosexual movement denying the health risks of homosexual behavior, slamming reason, and tossing splenetic accusations homophobe anyone? at anyone who dares question their conspiracy theory. For doctors, circumcision remains a complex, delicate issue; for researchers, it’s an effective tool in the fight for global public health. But to intactivists, none of that matters. The Internet is supposed to be a marketplace of ideas, where human reason leads the best ideas to triumph. There are plenty of other loud fringe groups that flood the Internet with false information, but none of them has been as successful as the intactivists at drowning out reasoned discourse. In the case of circumcision, the marketplace of ideas has been manipulated—and thanks to intactivists, the worst ideas have won out.

Like most fringe groups, the anti-circumcision faction is almost comically bizarre, peddling fabricated facts, self-pity, and paranoia. The intactivists also obsess about sex mostly of the homosexual type to an alarming degree. Still, some of their tactics are shrewd. The first rule of anti-circumcision activism, for instance, is to never, ever say circumcision: The movement prefers propaganda-style terms like male genital cutting and genital mutilation, the latter meant to invoke the odious practice of female genital mutilation. (Intactivists like to claim the two are equivalent, an utter falsity that is demeaning to victims of FGM.)

Advertisement

Anti-circumcision activists then deploy a two-pronged attack on some of humanity’s most persistent weaknesses: sexual insecurity and resentment of one’s parents. Your parents, you are told by the intactivists, mutilated you when you were a defenseless child, violating your human rights and your bodily integrity. Without your consent, they destroyed the most vital component of your penis, seriously reducing your sexual pleasure and permanently hobbling you with a maimed member. Anti-circumcision activists craft an almost cultic devotion to the mythical powers of the foreskin, claiming it is responsible for the majority of pleasure derived from any sexual encounter. Your foreskin, intactivists suggest, could have provided you with a life of satisfaction and joy. Without it, you are consigned to a pleasureless, colorless, possibly sexless existence.

Intactivists gain validity and a measure of mainstream acceptance through their sheer tenacity. Their most successful strategy is pure ubiquity, causing a casual observer to assume their strange fixations are widely accepted. Just check the comment section of any article pertaining to circumcision. When Slate’s Troy Patterson wrote a piece thoughtfully weighing circumcision’s pros and cons, he was attacked for supporting a “barbaric practice” of “mutilation” that “ought to be illegal.” A lighthearted Dear Prudence column suffered the same fate. Intactivists pummeled the Amazon rankings of a book about the history of AIDS that mentioned circumcision as a proven preventive measure. Check any Internet message board this is also true of homosexual activits and you’ll find the same ideas peddled as unimpeachable fact: Circumcision is amputation, a brutally cruel and despicable form of abuse. It damages penises and violates human rights. And it irrevocably, undeniably ruins male sexuality for life.

The problem with these arguments is that they’re either entirely made up or thoroughly disproven. None of intactivists’ cornerstone beliefs are based in reality or science; rather, they’re founded in lore, devilishly clever sophistry dressed up as logic. The facts about circumcision may be hard to find on an Internet cluttered with casuistry—but they are there. And they prove that even as intactivists dominate the Internet, the real-world, fact-based consensus on circumcision is tipping in the opposite direction.

Take, for example, the key rallying cry of intactivists: That circumcision seriously reduces penis sensitivity and thus sexual pleasure. Study after study after study has proven this notion untrue. Some men circumcised as adults actually report an increase in sensitivity, while many report no appreciable difference; virtually none noted any notable decrease. Men circumcised as adults also almost universally report no adverse effect in overall sexual satisfaction following the procedure. (That fits with what my colleague Emily Bazelon found when she asked readers for their circumcision stories a few years ago.) And genital sensitivity in response to erotic stimulation is identical in circumcised and uncircumcised men. Don’t trust individual studies? A systematic review of all available data on circumcision came to the same conclusion. Intactivists, then, aren’t disputing a few flimsy studies: They’re contradicting an entire field of research.

So much for circumcision’s supposedly crippling effect on sexual pleasure. But what about its effect on health? Intactivists like to call circumcision “medically unnecessary.” In reality, however, circumcision is an extremely effective preventive measure against global disease. Circumcision lowers the risk of HIV acquisition in heterosexual men by about 60 to 70 percent. And circumcision reduces HIV risk over a man’s lifetime, unlike condoms, which must be used during each sexual encounter. It’s no wonder that the World Health Organization has pushed circumcision as a key tool in the fight against HIV.

But that’s not circumcision’s only benefit. The procedure also protects men against a variety of other STDs, significantly reducing their odds of contracting herpes and syphilis. Moreover, circumcision is highly effective in preventing transmission of HPV in men, which in turn reduces their risk of penile cancer. And circumcised men are far less likely to contract genital warts or develop urinary tract infections. Fewer circumcisions mean more STDs and infections—and billions more in health care spending.

As both a personal and public health matter, circumcision is clearly in men’s best interest. But intactivists, predictably, aren’t having any of it. Like anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists, anti-circumcision activists reject all science that doesn’t fit their angry, victimized orthodoxy. Does circumcision truly prevent HIV? Probably not, they say—but even if it did, it would ultimately increase risk of HIV by lulling men and women into a false sense of complacency. (Never mind that this is emphatically false.) Plus, they claim, circumcision has such high rates of complication that its benefits couldn’t possibly outweigh its drawbacks. (Again: simply incorrect.) Anyway, to intactivists, mutilation is mutilation; what does it matter if it’s for the greater good?

Thus far, intactivists’ ideological warfare has remained largely—though not entirely—toothless. Municipal ballot measures in America to ban circumcision have collapsed under the weight of their own weirdness; a German court’s anti-circumcision ruling was reversed by the legislature.  However they keep on getting farther along in the process, On the Internet, though, it’s a different story. A generation of future doctors, scientists, and parents has now been exposed to a constant stream of acrimonious and unscientific lies about circumcision. remember it took 2 generations for the homosexual "community to get "marriage" Men across the world have been told their parents mutilated their genitals and ruined their sex lives. (Some even try to reverse the “damage”—for a price.) Conventional wisdom is starting to hold that even if circumcision is medically helpful, it’s also sexually harmful. Intactivists, in short, are winning the online battle. Is it only a matter of time until they win the greater war?

remember homosexual "marriage" is much more of a historical anomaly then banning bris milah is!
(Slate)

Things that are not mentioned ?purposely? in the original article
1. The gay "communities" support of banning Milah


2. That this movement is run very similarly to the toevah movement, (which was changed by television)

3. They ignore the political side for the most part, and how their "losses" were really gains.

Today is Harvey Milk Day For Public School Kids In Alameda County, Gay Propoganda In Action

This is from the official Alameda County Public School web page

Educational Resources and Activities to Support Harvey Milk Day

To honor the life and work of Harvey Milk, students in 5th -12th grades participated in the 2013 Alameda Harvey Milk Day Student Poster and Poetry Contest. Read the creative and inspirational poetry our two category winners submitted. 

Our winners for the 2013 Harvey Milk Day poster competition are.....

Alex S., 11th Grader at Encinal High School | Molly C., 5th Grader at Edison Elementary School
Attention Teachers: Please take a moment to download the Classroom Discussion Guide for 2013

1.  CA Safe Schools Coalition has Harvey Milk Day curricula pieces and background information on Harvey Milk. www.safeschoolscoalition.org/harveymilkday/

2. The Gay-Straight Alliance Network has resources to support GSAs efforts to celebrate Harvey Milk Day at their school site. www.gsanetwork.org/hmd

3. The Milk Foundation has biographical information on Harvey Milk and suggestions on how to use The Harvey Milk Story in schools. www.milkfoundation.org

4. The Alameda Harvey Milk Day facebook page provides information on the Alameda Harvey Milk Day celebration on May 20th at Encinal High School. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Alameda-Harvey-Milk-Day/168627603195633

Classroom Discussion Guide for 2013 (also a official government page)

Harvey Milk Day Poster/Poetry Contest
“Be it proclaimed that the Alameda Unified School District Board of Education hereby recognizes May 22nd
as Harvey milk Day and encourages all public schools and educational institutions to observe this day and to
conduct suitable commemorative exercises that remember the life of Harvey Milk, recognize his
accomplishments, and familiarize pupils with the contributions he made to this state.” AUSD 2013 Harvey
Milk Day Proclamation

RESOURCES AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
• Learn more about Harvey Milk’s life at www.milkfoundation.org
• Visit AUSD LGBTQ Roundtable Harvey Milk Day page for additional resources classroom
activities www.alameda.k12.ca.us/HarveyMilkDayResources
• “Like” the Alameda Harvey Milk Day page on facebook to stay informed about future
Alameda Harvey Milk Day contests and educational opportunities.

DISCUSSION / ACTIVITY GUIDE
Poster Discussion Questions
1. What visual symbols did the artist use in the poster? Why were these particular symbols used?
What additional symbols could have been used?
2. The poster included a Harvey Milk quote. Why do you think this particular quote was used in
the poster?
3. What feelings surface when you see this poster?
Poem Discussion Questions
1. What images come to mind when you read/hear this poem?
2. What was the message the poet was trying to capture in this poem?
3. What feelings surface when you hear/read this poem?

General Discussion/Activities
• Have students write a letter to the poster/poetry artist describing what they liked about their
art, asking questions or thanking them for participating in the contest.
• Create visuals that illustrate a “Hope for a Better Tomorrow” to post around the classroom or
school.
• Write a letter to Harvey Milk. What would you tell him about the world today?
• As a class, read Harvey Milk’s Speech on Hope (or watch the video “Got Hope for Harvey
Milk” on youtube.) In what ways is his message of hope still applicable to world events
today? What are your hopes for the future?
• How do the issues of equality Harvey Milk was advocating for compare to issues of equality
that are being sought now. How are the issues the same or different?
• Harvey Milk states, “There is hope for a better world. There’s hope for a better tomorrow. I
know you can not live on hope alone, but without hope life is not worth living.” Do you agree
that without hope life is not worth living? Why or why not? _________________________________________________________________________________


2 nights ago the gays also held an event for Harvey Milk Day and of course used it to brainwash kids, which was sponsored by many groups including the public school system.

pictures of kids being used to promote gay "rights

Flyer from that event shows that this event was sponsored by the public schools

past years flyers show they propagandized to kids then also

as does 2 years ago

first flyer least abrasive

ACLU pushes For Gay "Wedding" On TV Show To Brainwash Kids

NEW YORK – ACLU Action, a new initiative of the American Civil Liberties Union, launched a campaign today urging "Modern Family's" producers to script a wedding episode for popular gay characters Mitchell Pritchett and Cameron Tucker. The campaign comes as Americans await the Supreme Court's decisions on two important marriage equality cases, the DOMA and Prop 8 cases – the ACLU is direct counsel in the DOMA case, United States v. Windsor – and as a stream of states pass marriage equality measures. The campaign can be found at ModernFamilyWedding.com.

"The freedom to marry is being advanced in American living rooms as much as in court rooms," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "As we wait for the Supreme Court to rule, we want to keep this issue on the minds and screens of Americans everywhere."

ACLU Action aims to activate the ACLU's 750,000 online supporters to have a political impact through social media and new grassroots organizing tools, and to reach out to new audiences, with its message of equal rights for all. By calling on Americans to "RSVP" that they will watch Cam and Mitch get married, the campaign will let the "Modern Family" producers know that a wedding episode would be a ratings hit. The campaign will put marriage equality before new and younger audiences through social media channels.

ACLU Action plans to deliver the "guest list" created by this RSVP to the producers of "Modern Family," Steven Levitan and Christopher Lloyd. The delivery will be timed to capitalize on the energy arising out of the landmark Supreme Court cases to be decided this summer, as the writers and producers are scripting the next season of "Modern Family."

Twelve states and the District of Columbia already have marriage equality, with Rhode Island, Delaware and Minnesota passing legislation within the past two weeks. Illinois is widely expected to follow shortly. A March ABC News/Washington Post poll showed that 58 percent of the nation supports marriage equality with only 36 percent opposed. The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the two marriage equality cases in June.

"The ACLU has been working since 1936 to guarantee the rights of lesbian and gay people, and we see sending Cam and Mitch down the aisle before 13 million American viewers as the perfect next step," added Romero.
(ACLU press release)

DC Comics Makes A Gay Transgendered Character In Order To Brainwash Children

DC Comics Using Comics to promote Homosexuality

DC Comics has introduced a new lesbian, gay, transgender and bisexual (LGBT) friendly character: Alysia Yeoh, the transgender roommate of Batgirl.

Comic fans were introduced to Alysia in "Batgirl" #19, which hit shelves on Wednesday, according to Wired. She is the first transgender character in mainstream comics, and she reveals that she is trans during a conversation with Barbara Gordon (Batgirl) in the pages of the new issue. The character is also bisexual.

Writer Gail Simone told Wired she was inspired by the fans to develop a character like Alysia. "Why was this so impossible?" she asked herself at the time. "Why in the world can we not do a better job of representation of not just humanity, but also our own loyal audience?”

Simone explained to Wired that breaking down barriers in the comic book world is a process. "[A]lmost all the tentpoles we build our industry upon were created over a half century ago… at a time where the characters were almost without exception white, cis-gendered, straight, on and on," she said. "It’s fine — it’s great that people love those characters. But if we only build around them, then we look like an episode of 'The Andy Griffith Show' for all eternity.”

After the big reveal, some questioned if Alysia is in fact the first openly transgender character in comics.
Comic blog Bleeding Cool notes that there have been multiple transgender characters in the past -- like Masquerade from 1993's "Blood Syndicate" or Marisa Rahm from "Death Wish" -- but many of these were either not outwardly identified as transgender or the issues themselves were labeled mature content/alternative, as opposed to mainstream.

DC's inclusion of LGBT characters has been moving ahead at full steam recently.  In February, Batwoman proposed to her girlfriend, Captain Maggie Sawyer, in the first-ever lesbian "marriage" proposal in comic history. 

All of this comes on the heels of controversy surrounding DC tapping anti-gay writer Orson Scott Card to co-author the "Adventures of Superman" #1 digital short. A petition to get Card booted from the project has since gathered over 17,000 signatures. However, DC stood by the Ender's Game author, and the issue is set to be released on May 29.

(Huffington Post)

Poll Show TV Has Brainwashed People In Favor Of Same Gender "Marriage"

Methodology:
These are findings from an Ipsos poll conducted from Monday, April 1 – Sunday, April 7, 2013 using Ipsos MediaCT’s TV Dailies survey among a nationwide sample of 1,096 persons aged 13-64 who watch primetime TV at least two nights a week.

“Based on this data, I think we can conclude that TV has, at least in part, moved the needle of public opinion to see same-sex "marriage" in a "positive" way,” says Ben Spergel, Senior Vice President and Head of TV Insights at Ipsos MediaCT. “With everything from higher profile portrayals of gay characters, to celebrity support of gay "marriage", to last year’s groundbreaking endorsement by President Obama, we are seeing a shift in our culture that is being influenced by popular culture.”

from the press release

Gays Trying Using Professional Hockey To Promote Their Agenda

Right now gays are very actively searching for a "gay sports player" from one of the major sports in America

The union that represents players for the National Hockey League have officially partnered up with the You Can Play Project, which encourages acceptance and understanding of all players regardless of their sexual orientation.

Several college and professional players have participated with the campaign, which was launched by Patrick Burke, son of Toronto Maple Leafs GM Brian Burke and a scout for the Philadelphia Flyers, whose brother Brendan came out months before dying in a car accident in 2010.

"Our motto is 'Hockey Is For Everyone,' and our partnership with You Can Play certifies that position in a clear and unequivocal way," NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman said according to Outsports. "While we believe that our actions in the past have shown our support for the LGBT community, we are delighted to reaffirm through this joint venture with the NHL Players’ Association that the official policy of the NHL is one of inclusion on the ice, in our locker rooms and in the stands."

You Can Play will also run seminars for players to help them understand LGBT issues better. The organization will also offer confidential counseling for players on sexual orientation.

The NHL is one of the major four that may soon have an openly gay player competing on the field, ice, or court. The NFL has also been working with LGBT groups to charter a plan for whenever the first gay male athlete comes out, and the NBA recently sent a memo to teams reminding them that interviews to draft players should not include questions about religion, race, or sexual orientation, the New York Times reports.

“This has been our policy for years, and we strongly support the N.H.L.’s approach to it, and it’s our fervent hope that this draws less attention, not more, when a player eventually comes out,” NBA Commissioner David Stern said according to the Times.
(the homo advocate)

Nike Trying To "Find" a Gay Sports Player, To Brainwash Kids

Don't Buy From Nike

By the time former Phoenix Suns executive Rick Welts's I-am-gay announcement appeared on the front page of the May 15, 2011, New York Times, he already had revealed his secret to friends, co-workers and business associates.

Among those told before the article was published were NBA commissioner David Stern and senior executives at Nike Inc., the world's largest sporting-goods company, whose roster of team- sport athlete endorsers includes Kobe Bryant of the Los Angeles Lakers, Robinson Cano of the New York Yankees and Joe Flacco of the Super Bowl-champion Baltimore Ravens. Nike asked Welts to deliver a message to anyone thinking about becoming the first openly gay athlete in major U.S. team sports — the company wants him as an endorser.

"They made it clear to me Nike would embrace it," Welts, 60, now president of the National Basketball Association's Golden State Warriors, said in a telephone interview. "The player who does it, they're going to be amazed at the additional opportunities that are put on the table, not the ones that are taken off."

According to Bob Witeck, 61, a gay-marketing strategist and corporate consultant, the first openly gay team-sport athlete — provided he's a recognizable name — would earn millions in endorsements and speaking engagements from companies seeking to capture more of a U.S. lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender adult population whose annual buying power he pegs at almost $800 billion.

"We've passed the tipping point to where national advertisers are no longer afraid of the gay market," said Mark Elderkin, chief executive officer of the Fort Lauderdale, Fla.-based Gay Ad Network.

The National Hockey League isn't backing away from the issue. Thursday, the league aligned itself with a gay-rights organization in a partnership aimed at fighting homophobia in sports.

American Airlines, Macy's, Ikea and Amazon.com are among the companies that have used gay- themed advertising. American, which has employed Witeck as a consultant for 20 years, in the mid-1990s created a gay-targeted sales group called the Rainbow Team. In 2010, American ran billboards in New York showing two men on a beach with the slogan: "Here's to his-and-his beach towels. Proud to support the community that supports us."
Witeck says a gay athlete endorser makes most sense for a company in the beverage, automotive, financial or technology fields. "There's higher reward than risk right now," he said. "The first time you do something you get most of the benefit."

Billionaire Mark Cuban, owner of the NBA's Dallas Mavericks, sees it that way, too. That's why he wants gay basketball players to know that his team values inclusion.

American Airlines pays the Mavericks to put its name on their arena. Cuban says he'd be honored to have a gay player on his roster, noting that athletes today are too enlightened for it to create a problem in the locker room.

"And," he wrote in an email, "it would be a marketing goldmine for all involved."

Cuban's hypothesis may soon be tested.

Former Baltimore Ravens player Brendon Ayanbadejo, a gay- rights advocate, attended a meeting last week at National Football League headquarters during which three organizations with ties to sports and the gay community brainstormed how the league could prepare for an openly gay player.

Ayanbadejo, 36, said in a telephone interview that in his discussions with football players who are contemplating coming out, the subject of a joint announcement has been discussed.

"It's not concrete that it'll happen," said Ayanbadejo, who was released by the Ravens on April 3 and is pursuing a Master of Business Administration degree at George Washington University in Washington. "My cause is to be an ally and make the environment ready so that if it does there's a safe haven."

Ayanbadejo said "there's a lot of work to do" in the NFL. The league last month was told by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (who we should never have voted for) that it must take steps to ensure teams don't discriminate against players based on sexual orientation. The directive came after three players who attended the scouting combine said they were asked questions on whether they had girlfriends or were married. The NFL investigated and said it found no specific violations.

Ayanbadejo and Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe on April 4 received the Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians and Gays Straight for Equality in Sports Award.

Drew Tagliabue, executive director of PFLAG's New York City chapter, said in a telephone interview that businesses like Nike are wise to seek diversity advertising.

"The companies are marketing to America," said Tagliabue, whose father, Paul, is a former commissioner of the NFL. "It's a dollars issue."

Today's athletes have opportunities that weren't available to openly gay tennis players Billie Jean King and Martina Navratilova, 56, a fitness ambassador for the American Association of Retired Persons who has said being out cost her about $10 million in endorsements. Navratilova couldn't be reached to comment through her marketing representative.

Nike Chairman Phil Knight said the sponsorship of a gay athlete would not be an issue.

"If it was the right athlete at the right time," Knight said in an interview while walking with Tiger Woods' mother along the 17th fairway of Augusta National Golf Club during the first round of the Masters Tournament. "That's what the game has always been about for us. It doesn't matter if the athlete is gay or not."

Make no mistake, said former NBA player John Amaechi, who retired in 2003 and four years later announced he was gay, teams and leagues are embracing diversity because it's good for business.

"Teams are not interested in diversity as a warm and fuzzy concept," he said. "It's about winning. The business angle is the important angle."

High school, college and professional sports, from the locker room to the field of play to the owner's suite, historically haven't embraced diversity, said the 42-year-old Amaechi, who works as a consultant and whose clients include investment banks and universities.

Former NBA player Tim Hardaway responded to Amaechi's coming out by telling a radio host he hated gay people and didn't want one as a teammate. Hardaway apologized. (after being forced to do so by gay terrorists)

The day after Welts told Stern about his sexual orientation, the Lakers' Bryant used a gay slur while lambasting a referee during a nationally televised game. He was fined $100,000. A month later, Joakim Noah of the Chicago Bulls directed a gay slur at a fan. He was fined $50,000. Bryant and Noah apologized, and NBA players then appeared in anti-homophobia public service announcements. Bryant earlier this year scolded one of his Twitter followers for using a gay slur.

Amaechi said he didn't come out while playing "because I would have lost my job."

Rutgers University basketball coach Mike Rice did lose his job after ESPN aired a video that showed him physically and verbally attacking players at practices while using gay slurs. Rice's initial punishment was a suspension and $50,000 fine levied by Athletic Director Tim Pernetti, who has since resigned. (Notice how gays are "for" freedom of speech)

"Sports are a rough-and-tumble space," said Witeck, the marketing strategist. "Boys on fields and courts will do and say a lot of things. But that window is shutting quickly."

There won't be any shortage of opportunities for the gay athlete that wants to cash in by coming out, said Bob Dorfman, executive director at San Francisco-based Baker Street Advertising.

"The first openly gay athlete could do quite well," Dorfman wrote in an email. "I can't see a company putting their whole endorsement budget into one gay athlete, but as part of a stable of athlete endorsers, the first openly gay one would be a welcome and profitable addition."

Ayanbadejo, like Welts, the gay sports executive, has heard from companies seeking to align themselves with the first openly gay player. People have pitched books, documentaries and movie scripts, he said.

"There's going to be a monetary gain by a lot of people," he said. "Hopefully it's the players who come out."

(Bloomberg News) (with my comments in parentheses)

Superman comic's anti-gay writer faces backlash from major media

The controversy over anti gay-marriage campaigner Orson Scott Card's deal to write the next Superman chapter has spilled over to major media companies who are due to work with the sci-fi author in 2013.

Orson Scott Card's very public personal beliefs came under renewed firewhen DC Comics announced on 6 February that he was signed on to write a story in the digital-first Adventures of Superman anthology. That ire is now threatening promotions of the filmed adaptation of Card's sci-fi novel Ender's Game, which hits theaters in November.

One studio executive told the Hollywood Reporter that the film's production company Summit should "keep him out of the limelight as much as possible."

"I don't think you take him to any fanboy event," said another. "This will definitely take away from their creative and their property."

Card's collection of anti-gay sentiments include saying that legalizing gay marriage: "Is about giving the left the power to force anti-religious values on our children," and that being gay is a "a reproductive dysfunction".

And as public opinion on gay marriage has shifted favorably, Card's opinions have increasingly alienated his audience.

An online petition requesting that DC Comics drop Card is less than 500 signatures short of its 15,000 signature goal. Comic-book store owners have said they won't sell his Superman comic. Freelance writer Glen Weldon wrote on NPR that the Card-penned comic would be the first bit of Superman pop culture he would avoid after 45 years of fandom.

Weldon said there are plenty of writers whose opinions he disagrees with, but Card is different because he is in activist who serves on the National Organization for Marriage, a group dedicated to preventing the legalization of same-sex marriage. 

"DC Comics has handed the keys to the 'champion of the oppressed' to a guy who has dedicated himself to oppress me, and my partner, and millions of people like us," Weldon said. "It represents a fundamental misread of who the character is, and what he means."

DC's inclusion of Card seems to backpedal on the increasingappearance of gay characters and marriage into mainstream books. Archie Comics and Marvel Comics featured gay weddings in their comics last year and DC reintroduced the Green Lantern as gay shortly after.

Archie Comics said in October that they received thousands of new subscribers and lost only seven after introducing gay character Kevin Keller. Marvel Comics writer Daniel Ketchum, who is gay, said he was prepared for a backlash before announcing that superhero Northstar would be marrying his partner, but was instead flooded with comments supporting the marriage.

DC Comics co-publisher Dan Didio told the Guardian in October that fan reception of gay characters was "extraordinarily positive."

This week, DC Comics released its newest issue of Batwoman, where the superhero proposes to her girlfriend, a plotline unlikely to curry favor with Card.

The company told the Advocate in early February: "As content creators we steadfastly support freedom of expression, however the personal views of individuals associated with DC Comics are just that – personal views – and not those of the company itself."