DNS Malware: Is Your Computer Infected? } Instructions Here

Learn about DNSChanger malware and how it can affect your computer Check your computer’s DNS settings Register as a victim of the DNSChanger malware Update on March 12, 2012: To assist victims affected by the DNSChanger malicious software, the FBI obtained a court order authorizing the Internet Systems Consortium (ISC) to deploy and maintain temporary clean DNS servers. This solution is temporary, providing additional time for victims to clean affected computers and restore their normal DNS settings. The clean DNS servers will be turned off on July 9, 2012, and computers still impacted by DNSChanger may lose Internet connectivity at that time.

Ukraine’s Gag Rule } Gays Don’t Gag Honey!

We never liked the sound of the Ukraine's proposed "Gay Gag Rule." First of all, gays don't gag, honey. We shouldn't have to explain further. Second, banning citizens from speaking favorably of their LGBT neighbors, family and friends was just bullshit.  Thank Gaga the proposal was shelved.  More details after the jump! A press release from All Out shares the good news: In a last minute move, the Ukrainian parliament cancelled today's scheduled vote on legislation that would ban any Ukrainian citizen from speaking out favorably about gays or lesbians.  Human rights defenders and many European officials condemned the proposed law for its potentially chilling effect on freedom of speech and expression for millions of Ukrainians - gay and straight.  The move to shelve the bill today is seen as a critical victory for its opponents, leaving only a short window in September for it to be reconsidered before the dissolution of the sitting Parliament.  "More than 120,000 All Out members spoke out against this horrendous legislation and pushed it to the top of Europe’s diplomatic agenda.  The message of our growing global movement is simple - everyone should be able to live openly and love who they choose. That call has been echoed by the European diplomatic community who played a critical role in blocking the progress of the gay gag law,” said Andre Banks, co-founder and executive director of AllOut.org. “Above all, this is a victory for our partners in Ukraine. Together we are sending a strong message to the other governments of Eastern Europe.  Support for anti-gay laws embolden extremists at the expense of lucrative European ambitions." Similar to St. Petersburg "anti-propaganda" law, the shelved proposal would've made it a crime to "spread homosexuality" by "holding meetings, parades, actions, demonstrations and mass events aiming at intentional distribution of any positive information about homosexuality." If the law had passed, violators would've been subject to prison time. instinctmagazine.com/

ChuckE.Cheese A Dirty Rat!

Chuck E. Cheese, the iconic mascot of the world's most famous kid's birthday party destination, is getting a makeover. In an effort to boost lagging sales, the famous pizza chain/corporate baby sitter is ditching Chuck's current look, which could best be described as "Who the hell knows? A mouse in a hat or some shit?" in favor of a more modern getup. In this case, "modern" of course means "The video game version of Kurt Cobain."

Obligatory Courtney Love lawsuit to follow.

Apparently, early '90s nostalgia is huge with the grade school set. Either that, or some dipshit "marketing professional" graduated from college in 1992, settled into an entry level job at Chuck E. Cheese's, promptly stopped giving a shit about what people care about (even though it's an essential function of a marketing job) and has been climbing the corporate ladder through sheer corporate politics and seniority ever since. In turn, Chuck E. Cheese's has been coasting by on this person's blatant lack of talent for all these years and as a result now finds itself pulling this desperate bullshit to get kids interested in its pizza rat again.

The saddest part of it all is that this mysterious marketing slacker who we've invented for the purpose of this argument is about to fuck Chuck all over again. Why, you ask? Because this sad attempt at a return to relevance is aimed squarely at the wrong target.

The Chuck E. Cheese problem isn't one of not resonating with children. They'll take any singing rodent you put in front of their indiscriminate faces. But the kids who first fell in love with Chuck E. Cheese are adults with kids of their own now. If you want to give sales a shot in the arm, you get those people interested again. And there's no more surefire way to do that than with a gritty reboot. Hollywood figured that out a long time ago. If you want to get adults in the mood to revisit something from their childhood, make that shit look dangerous. With that in mind, have a look at this ...

ShowbizPizza

That picture was taken at the very first Chuck E. Cheese's restaurant in San Jose, California, back in 1979, but it could just as easily be a shot of a couple of tired rockers backstage in that sad moment between when people stop cheering and when the groupies and drugs finally show up. Specifically, it would be a Lynyrd Skynyrd show, considering the abundance of Confederate flags proudly displayed on the walls.

The sleazy vibe of that picture is no accident, either. Chuck E. Cheese wasn't always the smiling, pandering buffoon that he is now. This is what Chuck looked like when he was first introduced to the world ...

ShowbizPizza

Back then, he was a cigar-smoking smartass who looked more like a pool hustler than a pizza salesman. And that was just in comic books. In the store, he was infinitely more terrifying, while at the same time being not at all terrifying compared to the maniacs he dragged around with him.

ShowbizPizza

Every single one of those things looks like what would happen if the Quiznos Spongmonkeys got Lady Elaine Fairchilde from Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood pregnant, and that's awesome.

With a vault full of nightmarish puppets at their disposal just waiting to be used in ironically terrifying viral ads, they have all the material they need to remake Chuck E. Cheese into some kind of sleazy back-alley pizza slinger who also promises a bit of fun for parents on the side. From there, it's just a matter of adding a little more adult fare to the menu and hiring a team of writers to infuse Chuck's in-store banter with little bits of innuendo that will fly over children's heads but will make the adults who are forced to be there at least chuckle a little bit. Just like that, Chuck E. Cheese is back on top.

Going dark worked for Batman, there's no reason it can't work for a rat who sells pizza, too.

 

by   Adam Tod Brown 
Sourced

Project Arco Iris } Kissing in Cuba

Isbel Diaz Torres: Pinar del Rio and Havana are my cities. I was born in one on March 1, 1976, and I’ve always lived in the other. I am a biologist and poet, though at times I’ve also been a musician, translator, teacher, computer geek, designer, photographer and editor. I’m very non-conformist and a defender of differences – perhaps due to always having been an ever-repressed “model child.” Nothing enthralls me more than the unknown, nature and art; these serve as my sources of mystery and development. A surprising activism has been born in me over the recent period. Though I’m not very sure how to channel it, I feel that it’s a worthy and legitimate energy. Let’s hope I have the discernment to manage it.

 

Isbel Diaz Torres

HAVANA TIMES — On June 28 (Gay Pride Day internationally), we the young LGBT men and women of “Proyecto Arcoiris” (the Project Rainbow) decided to kiss in a public setting and to invite whomever wanted to accompany us to join in that adventure. We wanted to demonstrate the affection that we feel towards each other and to recall the events of Stonewall.

And so we did, this time only with the least amount of pressure exerted by the authorities. I assume this “permissiveness” was because they see the act of kissing as being legitimate, innocent, and beautiful.

Notwithstanding, there were two terms that just popped into my mind: “apolitical” and “legal,” but I had to instantly dismiss them both because I don’t feel they accurately describe that gesture of love to which I’m referring.

When two males or two females kiss each other on the lips here in Cuba, it’s unclear whether it’s legal or not. I remember 15 years ago, when I kissed my partner — a male like me — while on a virtually deserted public beach, a policeman gave us a 60-peso fine.

The officer accused us of “public exhibitionism,” a term so meaninglessness that it made the situation almost ridiculous. Still, I didn’t lose my composure; I wrote down the badge number of the police officer, asked where I could go to file a complaint, and that was it.

At the police station, under the disapproving gaze of the officer who attended me, I expressed my right to kiss whomever I wanted, wherever I wanted. She didn’t accept my arguments, but given my youth (I must have been just over 20) she agreed to drop the fine – but not before warning me not to let that happen again.

So if these laws haven’t changed, any police officer can still accuse me of “shameless exhibitionism” (that’s the legal term) for something so beautiful and essential as a kiss.

That’s why the “kiss in” in which I participated had a profound political character, demanding a right denied to Cubans whose sexual orientation or gender identity is different from the majority.

This also served to test the right to free association that the Granma newspaper and the United Nations recently defended, going so far as to highlight Cuba as an example – though I imagine that the readers of that officialist newspaper didn’t even understand the meaning of that unbelievable piece of news.

For my part, I’ll continue working to bring attention to this sensitive and very real sector of human beings who live and work side by side with others, unashamed of who we are or of the ways we express our love.

Forty-three years ago at the Stonewall Inn bar — after a violent attack by the New York City police — gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people of that country decided to remain silent no more. Nor will we remain silent in Cuba today.

A Sophomore Notre Dame } Gay Rights A Priority for Young Voters

Alex Coccia

At the beginning of the New Year, I argued that President Obama needed to promote his track record on supporting gay rights and make it a clear and prominent component of his presidential campaign. I also argued that such a commitment to gay rights would move the United States on the path to practicing acceptance over mere tolerance.

Hillary Clinton promised such a commitment in a speech to the United Nations, claiming that gay rights and human rights are one and the same. With the amount of hate being spewed from various conservative pockets towards gays, which creates a profound impact on gay youth especially, gay rights are most certainly due. But why should gay rights be a prominent election issue, especially one which the youth, who are voting for only the first or second time, should focus on? I will briefly mention four reasons.

In order to appreciate the importance of gay rights as a primary election issue, we must parse “gay rights” to ask what the fulfillment of gay rights means for the country, and, conversely, how suppression of such rights impacts the country.

Gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights. When articulated by Secretary Clinton, this was not some off-the-cuff remark. Nor was it a phrasing only meant to inhabit sound-bites. It was a firm and monumental commitment in front of the world’s leaders, explicating what gay rights advocates have been proclaiming for many years. A country’s commitment to gay rights reflects its commitment to human rights – its commitment to denizens over dogma.

Therefore, in the presidential race, the candidates’ commitments to gay rights reflect their commitments to human rights. With homosexual activity still illegal in many countries and punishable by death in some, the United States has the responsibility, as an influential world power, to display its commitment to gay rights in the effort of furthering human rights world-wide.

Secretary Clinton has also noted that the promotion and protection of human rights has been and will continue to be a component of U.S. foreign policy. Additionally, the issue of human rights is the thread that connects all other election issues. Certainly some election issues may be matters of convenience, others matters of necessity, but, without a fundamental respect for human dignity and the protection of this dignity in the form of legalized rights, neither matters of convenience nor necessity should have any legitimate standing in the eyes of the American public.

The suppression of the rights of gay people contributes to other discriminatory practices that are likewise becoming extremely unacceptable for today’s youth. This is an extension of the previous point. Repression of gay rights, which undoubtedly is rooted in a form of homophobia, whether suppressed or voiced, can also have detrimental effects on strides in other social issues this country faces. As I argued in January, societies whose policies hypocritically endorse homophobia, overtly practice discrimination towards gays, or even reserve the right to discriminate against gays are also very likely to have an increase in other social ills such as misogyny. Oftentimes, homophobia and misogyny are linked. In the broader perspective, full recognition of gay rights is a step forward for full gender equality.

Gay-rights is a highly personal issue. The issue of gay rights does not just affect 5-10% of the country’s population. The fact that President Obama’s stance on marriage equality has changed through an evolution of the issue in the context of his faith demonstrates how personal it is. Obama’s conversion is not the first, and it will certainly not be the last. Gay people are no longer considered (and rightly so!) as the “others” – a group whose personal lives we do not know, making it easier to condemn them. No, gay people are family members, friends, coworkers, politicians, even conservative Republicans. Most importantly, however, gay people are human beings – who have the capacity to love, and whose dignity must be protected.

More and more Americans, when thinking critically about gay rights, are no longer asking themselves seemingly hypothetical questions. They are placing themselves in their uncle’s shoes, or their neighbor’s situation, and, like President Obama, coming to the conclusion exemplified by the Golden Rule.

All of this boils down to the view that many youth espouse: that gay rights simply should not be an issue. What is there to debate? To discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong. Reserving the right to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong. For all of the rhetoric that is tossed around regarding gay rights and the moral decline of the nation, there is a realization, especially by young voters, that such hurtful monologues are a distraction from the real issues. Instead, they have become part of a set of distractions in a cultural war that is divided more along generational lines than partisan lines.

Reuters reports that even Young Republicans are questioning the legitimacy of Mitt Romney as a presidential candidate because of his opposition (perhaps less fierce than his fellow Republican candidate counterparts) to same-sex marriage and his generally staunch social conservatism. In this case, it is no wonder that despite dropping some of the youth support he had for the 2008 election, President Obama continually has higher youth support than support from the overall population. For many youth, there is a cognitive dissonance between them and those who claim that equal rights for gays contributes to the moral decline of the country.

Instead, youth rightfully say that the moral decline of the country is found in policies that are discriminatory. Poverty, foreclosures, attacks on healthcare, poor education, and a sentiment that no longer are we our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers – these are the issues that should be at the forefront of the election. But the fact remains that this is not the world in which we live. Gay rights is still an issue, and we should continue to treat it as such. One form of inequality and discrimination translates to another. Until the largest hurdles in the path for equal rights are overcome, there can be no equality in other areas of the political arena.

This fall, gay rights should be a priority as young voters enter the ballot booth. In word and action, support for and protection of gay rights has been and will continue to be the position of President Obama. But the youth vote cannot simply be an endorsement. It must also be pressure to do more, for there is much more to be done.

Alex CocciaAlex Coccia is a sophomore at the University of Notre Dame and is majoring in Africana Studies and Peace Studies.

 http://nextgenjournal.com/

Court: NY Marriage STANDS!

A state appeals court rejected a challenge to New York's year-old same-sex marriage law Friday, ruling closed-door negotiations among senators and gay marriage supporters, including Gov. Andrew Cuomo, did not violate any laws.

The Appellate Division of state Supreme Court in Rochester ruled against gay marriage opponents who argued that Republican state senators violated New York's open meeting rules ahead of the law's passage last year.

The marriage law was given final legislative approval by the state Senate after weeks of intensive lobbying and swiftly signed by Cuomo, making New York the largest state to legalize same-sex weddings. Same-sex couples began marrying by the hundreds on July 24, 2011, the day the law became official.

"The court's decision affirms that in our state, there is marriage equality for all, and with this decision New York continues to stand as a progressive leader for the nation," Cuomo said after the court's ruling.

Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, whose office argued for the state, called the decision "a great victory for marriage equality."

New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms said Cuomo and another gay marriage supporter, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, met behind closed doors with the Senate's Republican majority in violation of the open meeting law.

The appeals court heard the case after acting state Supreme Court Judge Robert Wiggins in Livingston County ruled in November that he didn't have enough facts to rule on whether the open meetings law was violated. Wiggins dismissed other grounds for the legal challenge brought by the group.

New York's open meeting law requires public access to the deliberations of legislative bodies, but Schneiderman argued that the Republican caucus with invited guests was exempt, even if the guests aren't in the same party. In a 5-0 ruling, the court agreed.

"In the event that we were to adopt plaintiffs' limited definition of `guests,' it would be impossible for a Democratic member of a governor's office, such as a budget director, to speak to a majority Republican caucus," according to the decision.

Rev. Jason McGuire, who heads New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, said the group would weigh its legal options. Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, which represented the New York group, said he expected to appeal the ruling.

"It's a disappointment, because this gives a green light to the politicians to (use) strong arm tactics behind closed doors and shut out the people from the process," Staver said.

Partying to Death and Gimme a Chick-Fil-A

•  
  Let me First say that Partying is ok and I believe in the legalization of pot…having said that:
  
  
  I understand that most of us go through phases in life; Particularly when you are young. I had my times in which I thought may be I was not going to grow old and I wanted to do and I see as much as I could. But there was also a time to both look for my niche financially but also my social responsibility.  I was much aware of changes taking place, but those changes came by gay guys and girls paying the social price. Doing grass roots as its called. Talking, marching and  try to help out trying to be a grain of sand that with many others will make a beach keep the water in place. 
  
  
  A month ago  in FaceBook there was what appeared to be a young individual who posted he had gone to the gym and “now he was going to chick-fil-a for a chicken sandwich.” He even pasted the logo.  I send him a mess. asking if he was aware of all the money (Chick) were giving to people that thought they could make us straight? He answered he didn’t cared and after that he was going to Target for the hell of it right after that.
  ( I guess he was not aware of Target’s apology and subsequent donations to our groups, thanks to Lady Gaga), but he was trying to tell me that he dind’t care having anybody telle’m what to do.  That is fine, but just because you want to do something, what ever it is,  no one is going to stop you, but there are always consequences.  Most of the gay community is hungry to know who gives what to whom and want to know where their money is going.
  But..there is also ignorance on how we can help others that are out there with signs and their voices trying to make things happen for all of us. They do enjoy the freedoms that we have now, but those freedoms were not always here.  Im not saying that is easy to come out now, but 10, 20 , 30 years ago it took a guy or girls with big balls to say "Im gay.” I guess what I’m saying is may be your cup of tea is not to be out there in meetings and writing campaigns; but there are many ways to get there from here.  Being Financially responsible when we have a choice of how we spend out money should be the least we are willing to do..Im just saying…..
  In the guardian.co.uk, Oliver Laughland wrote an interesting article about this subject with a Uk outlook yesterday.
  Adam for adamfoxie*
  
  
  
  
• 
  

Julie Bindel and Peter Tatchell debate whether Pride has lost its radical roots. Photograph: Graham Turner for the Guardian

This weekend will see the 40th anniversary of the Pride march, but has it lost its radical roots? As the chairman of the London event resigns after last-minute cutbacks, human rights campaigner and organiser of the first Pride, Peter Tatchell, talks to disillusioned marcher Julie Bindel. Oliver Laughland listens in.

Peter Tatchell: My most memorable Pride was Britain's first one, in July 1972. I helped organise it and we had no idea what to expect. We were surprised to have 700 people turn up, but not surprised to be subject to heavy-handed policing. The reactions of the public were an eye-opener: about a third were overtly hostile – we got pelted with beer cans and coins, but the majority of onlookers seemed just confused and bewildered to see so many openly gay people declaring their sexualityand marching for freedom.

Julie Bindel: I attended my first when I was 16, in 1978. I was brought by a friend who was quite a bit older than me. I was overwhelmed to see people displaying their joy with other lesbians and gay men together in a way that, even when onlookers were shouting with rage, we felt completely safe. It was the first sense of how good it was to not have a label of "normal" attached to you. I didn't understand at the time how political it was. That the people on that march weren't just saying: "We can't help it, we were born this way – feel sorry for us."

PT: Some of the slogans we shouted were particularly memorable: "2, 4, 6, 8! Gay is just as good as straight! 3, 5, 7, 9! Lesbians are mighty fine!" These were revolutions in consciousness, which went against the grain of virtually all of human history that designated queers as bad, sad and mad.

JB: I remember a brilliant slogan carried by a lesbian that said: "Don't shout at me fella, your wife's in here!" – so irreverent and unapologetic. It wasn't: "Please accept us" – it was radical and it was in your face.

PT: One belligerent man shouted: "Aren't you ashamed?" To which everyone shouted back in chorus: "No!" and half of us just blew him a kiss. He was gobsmacked.

Oliver Laughland: Is there a particular moment, Julie, that made you lose interest?

JB: Until the early 1980s I had always been delighted to be there. But many lesbians grew rightly critical of some of the lifestyle choices and political views of gay men. We felt that it didn't represent our own oppression. It became about sexual hedonism, and we wanted to march around liberation, rather than just saying "this is just one great party all about sexual access to as many other men we can secure". We felt that issues some gay men were supporting under the rainbow alliance were in opposition to us. We started to march separately. It wasn't a march any more, it was a parade, and it was taken over by the rollerskating nuns and the men with their backsides hanging out. All great street-party stuff, but it had stopped being a political event. But you still go on it every year don't you, Peter?

PT: I've been on every single Pride London for the past 40 years. Nowadays there are only a handful of people carrying political banners. I think overall there has been a dumbing down of the LGBT agenda. That first pride march was organised by the Gay Liberation Front, which had an agenda for social transformation and sexual freedom for everyone, including straight people. We had a critique of mainstream society and culture – it wasn't queers who had to change, but society. Homophobia was the problem, not homosexuality.

JB: I know exactly what you mean. Especially when gay relations are illegal in over 30 countries.

PT: Nearly 80 actually. And more than half are members of the Commonwealth.

OL: You share the same criticism, but you've taken different paths. What is it that still draws you there, Peter?

PT: It's important to maintain the political presence and voice at Pride. I always go with a political message. Last year I carried a placard mocking Nick Griffin …

JB: But Peter, do you think if we didn't have Pride this year, would it really affect our movement, our struggle? Would it make a difference to what we're trying to achieve? I don't think it would. I think we need to replace it with something that goes back to our roots. It's now rotten to the core.

PT: To some extent I think you're right, but even despite the trend towards depoliticisation and commercialisation, the organisers have striven to give it a human rights dimension. There have always been human rights speakers at the rally in Trafalgar Square.

JB: But do people listen? Do they want to hear stories that are painful for any of us to digest when they have just been sinking six Bacardi Breezers and dancing to Madonna on a float? I agree we all have to have fun, parties are fabulous, I've had the best fun as a feminist and a lesbian at similar events, but to me it's a total clash of culture – the politics and the hedonism.

PT: I think some people appreciate these human rights messages. In recent years most of the human rights speakers have had thunderous applause.

JB: The last Pride I was on it looked like I was on a building site. Some gay culture has geared towards the cult of machismo like nothing else. That makes a lot of women very uncomfortable on gay Pride. It's only dressing up, but it's the insignia of our oppression.

OL: Do you see Pride as a fundamentally conservative and mainstream event now, Julie? This is the criticism levelled at the movement for gaymarriage, too.

JB: David Cameron said: 'I don't support gay marriage in spite of being a conservative, I support it because I'm a conservative' – never a truer word has been said. It is the most conservative struggle we could adopt. But while I'm critical of us wasting time on it – hasn't it brought the nasty, bigoted homophobes out of the woodwork, too? I think Pride has become both wildly hedonistic and a deeply conservative movement, with its message of "please tolerate us". I don't want tolerance, I want liberation.

PT: I absolutely share your feminist critique of marriage. I would never personally want to get married. I think it's a deeply heterosexist institution. But as a democrat, I defend the right of people to make the misguided choice to get married, if that is what they wish. I want the right to get married, precisely so I can have the freedom to reject it. The campaign for same-sex marriage is fundamentally conservative at one level, while being profoundly radical at another. So I say, join the fray, expose and challenge and defeat these people who would, if they had half a chance, keep us down for ever and a day!

JB: I want people to look at the Pride procession and feel uncomfortable and be challenged by it. I want them to be faced with something every year that stops the traffic and inconveniences them, because they might stop to think about why we march through the streets. Then I would definitely start going on Pride again.