Third Estate Sunday Review: Stan reviews a book about Lucille Ball

From Stan's website:

THE SAD AND TRAGIC ENDING OF LUCILLE BALL: VOLUME TWO (1961-1989) OF A TWO-PART BIOGRAPHY

I'm reviewing a book by Darwin Porter and Danforth Prince entitled THE SAD AND TRAGIC ENDING OF LUCILLE BALL: VOLUME TWO (1961-1989) OF A TWO-PART BIOGRAPHY. Later tonight or tomorrow, I plan to do a film review.

I love Lucy. And I love that show and HERE'S LUCY. I like THE LUCY SHOW. Only like it. Not fond of the kids and think Gale Gordon's Mr. Mooney is too perversely mean to Lucy to really be funny -- unless maybe you've never worked for a living. He's not a lot nicer in HERE'S LUCY as Harry but he's family (Uncle Harry) so it softens the meanness. He's also fond of Craig and Kim -- Lucy Carmichael's two children.

Lucille Ball is a comedic legend. She's also a film star -- my favorite of all her films is THE FULLERBRUSH GIRL, she's hilarious in that. But I also enjoy THE LONG, LONG TRAILER, STAGE DOOR and DUBERRY WAS A LADY a lot. She moved to television in the 1950s with her husband Desi Arnaz and they played Lucy and Ricky Riccardo on I LOVE LUCY. It was a huge hit and she and Desi perfected the sitcom. All these years later, it is still consistently funny. They grew tired of the weekly half-hour and came back with an hour long show THE LUCY-DESI COMEDY HOUR that aired monthly.

Then they broke up due to his affairs, among other things.

is about Lucy after this point. There's a book before that covers the earlier part of her career and life but that's what everyone covers so I was more interested in reading this book.

If you don't know the authors, they write their bios based upon conversations they've had with various entertainers over the years. C.I. was asked about it one of the roundtables for the gina & krista round-robin. She has met Darwin Porter and finds him to be a pleasant person. She notes that if anyone says, "They lied in ____" whatever book, no, they didn't. If it's wrong, it's because the industry gossip was wrong. The books repeat what entertainers said at lunches and on vacations and visits.

I liked the book.

I don't need Lucille Ball to be a saint and she isn't in this book. If you need her to be a saint, find another book.

She's tired. She's angry. She's protective.

First off, there is Desi Arnaz Jr. and Lucie Arnaz. Those are her two children with Desi. She will bring them on as her co-stars on HERE'S LUCY.

It couldn't have been easy for them.

No, they weren't beaten and both parents appear to have let them know that they were loved. But Desi wasn't often absent and they might have wished Lucille had been a little absent. She was very focused on them. She did not like most of the women Desi Jr. dated. For good reason, very often. She did not like him doing drugs. (And she would fight with Desi over that telling him he needed to go talk to his son.) She worried constantly that he would end up a drug casualty. With Lucie, she worried about the men Lucie dated. (Including when Lucie dated a female impersonator but less so when Lucie dated Burt Reynolds.) Lucie didn't do drugs and didn't move out before she was 18 and that might have been why Lucille didn't worry as much. It's also true that Lucie Arnaz has always come off as a competent and highly smart person. As a result, she probably needed the same amount of love as her brother but less 'minding' and oversight.

Let's stay with Lucie for a moment. On HERE'S LUCY, Desi Arnaz Jr. is good and I like the episodes with Craig. He leaves the cast before the show's over. Lucie stays until the show ends. And Lucie isn't good, she's really great. Kim, her character, is one of the reasons I really love HERE'S LUCY. Kim delivers more than any character in a Lucy show not portrayed by Vivian Vance. That is high praise, I know, but she really is that great in the role.

I've always wondered why she didn't pursue sitcoms? I knew that she had a backdoor pilot on HERE'S LUCY that did not succeed. As she notes in the book, they made her roommate, the supporting character, the colorful one, gave her all the funny bits, so it's no surprise CBS passed on it. In the mid to late 80s she'd try a sitcom again. But I think if she'd tried sooner, it would have been a hit because she really is talented. So, reading the book, I learned that she branched off by taking dramatic roles in TV films. And she was very successful in them.

My belief now is that she avoided sitcoms because she'd found an area she was very good in that was different from what her mother and father did. Everyone wants to be their own person. So she stayed with that. And, again, she was very successful in those roles. Lucille thought too successful -- not in a mean or competitive manner but she would have preferred not seeing her daughter playing a murder victim, for example, especially when Lucie was so convincing in the role.

Desi dated a lot and kept getting what were supposed to be his big breaks but they never amounted to that. He didn't fail in his roles that he played, the timing and luck just didn't spark the way it needs to turn someone into a star.

With THE LUCY SHOW, CBS was already ready to get rid of her. This was her follow up to I LOVE LUCY. She and Vivian Vance (Ethel on Lucy) starred. And it got great ratings. The top of CBS wanted Lucille back each season but there were rumblings down below.

HERE'S LUCY saw the rumblings grow louder. It ran for six seasons and the first five were hits, no matter what anyone says. It was only -- or 'only' -- the top 15th highest rated show in season six. That was the first time it wasn't in the top ten. This was seen as not a hit. I'd argue but CBS wanted to get rid of Lucille and even at the end of THE LUCY SHOW, CBS brass was insisting she was too old to do physical comedy.

Lucille ended HERE'S LUCY and after that did some TV movies -- best in STONE PILLOW -- and, sadly, returned briefly for LIFE WITH LUCY which only aired 8 episodes and was then cancelled. I did watch that show, it was Lucy, after all. I went on YOUTUBE to rewatch it while reading the book. Lucy was not the problem, physical comedy was not the problem. A very weak supporting cast and a failure to come up with funny dialogue would be the show's biggest problems.

That really was it for Lucille and she rightly felt like people were out to get her.

She felt that way often in her life and, judging by the way CBS talked about her behind her back, she was correct in feeling that way. Over the years, she was repeatedly lied to. When Charles Bluhdorn of PARAMOUNT bought RKO from her, she quickly learned that all of his verbal promises were lies so she moved her show and studio to UNIVERSAL.

Before that?

Lucille Ball was a mogul.

I hope you read Ava and C.I.'s piece awhile back about how Amy Poehler's 'documentary' on Lucille Ball was basically little more than lies. They were correct. Desi and Lucille break up. Desi is a drunk and into gambling (and women) and Lucille is the one who has to run RKO. She then ends up buying him out. By the time DESILU is doing MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, STAR TREK and MANNIX, Desi has been gone for years. People who credit him with those three successful shows are uninformed. Lucille was the one running DESILU and running it all by herself before any of those shows were developed. She saw STAR TREK as an odyssey similar to WAGON TRAIN and found it fascinating. She believed in MISSION IMPOSSIBLE strongly enough not to just to order its production but, after it only did so-so in the ratings during the first season, argue with CBS about it to get it a second season.

She was combative and I wouldn't have liked to have worked for her but you can see that, in addition to Desi destroying her with his lies and cheating, many men in business lied to her and thought they could put one over on her. She was tough because she had to be.

I came away more impressed with her after finishing the book.

Going out with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Thursday, June 22, 2023. Today we focus on a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing where a hate merchant emerges from what appears to be a lavender marriage to preach hate and lies.

A hearing took place yesterday in the Senate. I'm not interested in closet cases so if it's a hearing about LGBTQ+ people and you're lifelong closet case? You're over fifty and can't come out of the closet we should just take that to mean you're a damn liar. There's no other word for it. You're an elected member of Congress and you're too scared to come out of the closet? Yeah, we're not going to waste my time on your pitiful ass or waste my time indulging your own self-loathing. I usually try to be fair in covering these hearings but in this case, no, I'm not worried about FAIRNESS FOR A CLOSET CASE. There's a lot to cover from the hearing, we'll probably have to do it today and tomorrow and I'm not wasting my time on a closet case.

Today, we'll mainly focus on two lying witnesses. It was the Senate Judiciary Committee which is chaired by Senator Dick Durbin.

Chair: Dick Durbin: This weekend, cities, including Chicago, across the globe, will host their annual pride parades to celebrate LTBGQ families, friends and neighbors. In just a short time, relative short time, a few decades, our nation has made remarkable progress in protecting the rights of LGBTQ Americans. Eight years ago this month, for instance, eight years, OBERGEFELL V HODGES which made marriage equality the law of the land. And last year, on a bipartisan basis, Congress codified these protections into law with THE RESPECT FOR MARRIAGE ACT. While Pride Month is an opportunity to celebrate these milestones, today we also remember that Pride began with an act of resistance. Back in 1970, the first ever pride parade was organized to mark the one year anniversary of The Stonewall Uprising. It was a protest led by gay, transgender and gender non-confirming Americans who refused to accept an unjust system of laws and united together to change not just America, but to change the world. Today, we draw from that spirit to unite together in acknowledging and defending the rights of LGBTQ Americans because right now extremist politicians across America are targeting LGBTQ youth along with the medical professionals who care for them and the parents who love them. I want to turn to a video that shows the story of one of those parents and his plea for the leaders in his home state of Missouri to stop these attacks.

At this point, a video was played for the Senate. I'm going with the ACLU version which is slightly different from the one he played by two sentences. HRC and others have their videos up and, again, with one or two sentences difference in terms of how it was edited.

And here's the father speaking in the video:

Brandon Boulware: I'm a lifelong Missourian, I'm a lawyer, I'm a Christian, I'm the son of a Methodist minister, I'm a husband. I'm the father of four kids -- two boys, two girls -- including a wonderful and beautiful transgender daughter. Today happens to be her birthday and I chose to be here. She doesn't know that. She thinks I'm at work. I came here today as a parent to share my story. One thing I hear when transgender is discussed is, "I don't get it. I don't understand." And I would expect some of you to have said that and to feel the same way. I didn't get it either. For years, I didn't get it. For years, I would not let my daughter wear girl clothes. I did not let her play with girl toys. I forced my daughter to wear boy clothes and get short haircuts and play on boys' sports teams. Why did I do this? To protect my child. I did not want my daughter or her siblings to get teased. And truth be told, I did it to protect myself as well. I wanted to avoid those inevitable questions as to why my child did not look and act like a boy. My child was miserable. I cannot overstate that. She was absolutely miserable. Especially at school. No confidence. No friends. No laughter. I -- I can honestly say this, I had a child who did not smile. We did that for years. We did that against the advice of teachers, therapists and other experts. I remember the day everything changed for me. I'd gotten home from work and my daughter and her brother were on the front lawn. And she had, my daughter had sneaked on one of her older sister's play dresses and they wanted to go across the street and play with the neighbors' kids. When it was time for dinner, I said, "Come in." She asked can she go across the street? I said "no." She asked me if she went inside and put on boy clothes could she then go across the street and play? And it's then that it hit me. My daughter was equating being good with being someone else. I was teaching her to deny who she is. As a parent, the one thing we cannot do, the one thing, is silence our child's spirit. My child was miserable. I cannot overstate that. She was absolutely miserable. And so on that day, my wife and I stopped silencing our child's spirit. The moment we allowed our daughter to be who she is, to grow her hair, to wear the clothes she wanted to wear, she was a different child. It was immediate. It was a total transformation. I now have a confident, a smiling, a happy daughter. She plays on girls' volleyball teams, she has friendships, she's a kid. I came here today as a parent to share my story. I need you to understand that this language, if it becomes law, will have real effects on real people. It will effect my daughter. It will mean that she cannot play on the girls' volleyball team or dance squad or tennis team. I ask you please don't take that away from my daughter or the countless others like her who are out there. Let them have their childhoods, let them be who they are. I ask you to vote against this legislation.

These are serious issues and Senator Durbin noted that:

Already this year, our nation has seen a wave of anti-LGBTQ bills. More than 525 have been introduced in 41 states -- many of them specifically targeting our transgender youth. Some bills seek to ban gender affirming care while others are set to dictate what sports kids can play and what bathrooms they can use. But all of them are part of the same concerted effort: Exercising the power of government to target children. At the same time, leaders of the far right are promoting anti-LGBTQ rhetoric. During this year's Conservative Political Action Conference, one speaker was applauded when he declared, and I quote, "Transgenderism must be eradicated." We must reject this divisive and hateful rhetoric. And at this point, I'd like to remind our colleagues: Our children are listening and they are in danger. In fact, today transgender youth are at the most risk of homelessness, depression and death by suicide. So when these young people who are already struggling hear politicians amplify hateful rhetoric that denies their very existence, what message does it send? We have a responsibility to support all of our children no matter how they identify. This morning across America, families are meeting with doctors and being told that they must make critical decisions, life and death decisions, about surgery and medical treatment for their children. These are personal and family moments which the parents will never forget. I know, I've been there. But increasingly, state legislatures have decided that the decisions will be subject to regulations and criminal punishment by the government. You saw the video of the Missouri father. Does he sound like a radical who's trying to experiment with his child's future? Not to me. He sounds like a father who resisted acknowledging the real condition of his child until he realized he was wrong. I'm sure it was a painful labored process

Immediately after a mincing person felt the need to talk about our children.

Our children? Have some. Then come talk about our children. Until then, you don't anything about children. It is amazing the level of control and hatred being imposed by childless hate merchants who have never parented. You people need to just shut up, that's all there is too it. Just shut up.

You're not put in the position by your own choice since you've chosen not to raise children. So stop pretending you know how to parent because you don't. You're happy to tell others how to parent but, again, you don't know a damn thing because you've never done it. If you had, you'd be far less hateful and a little more understanding of what children are and that children include all kinds -- yes, trans children are children. No, despite what Marjorie Taylor Greene says in one hearing after another, all children are not straight and White.

Let's start with a liar. Matt Sharp is with the Alliance Defending Freedom -- a right-wing hate group that spews lies automatically. Let's note one of his lies.

Now the hearing was entitled Protecting Pride: Defending the Civil Rights of LGBTQ Americans. Grasp it? Matt didn't. I guess if you're stupid, your career options are severely limited and you go with hate merchant.

In his submitted written statement, Liar Matty wrote, "The harms go on: Lorie Smith, owner of website-design company 303 Creative, is awaiting a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court over whether Colorado’s SOGI law can compel Lorie and her fellow Coloradans to speak messages they don’t believe. Lori, who is awaiting a decision right now from the Supreme Court is hoping the Court will uphold the freedom of all Americans[.]"

No, she's not. Let's stop pretending. Lori is trying to pursue the avenue that Jonathan Turley has promoted pro bono. Fortunately for America, Turley is not as smart as he thinks he is. If we had a functioning Supreme Court, the case would not have reached them.

Liar Matt Sharp: For example, Colorado officials are misusing a state law to censor Lori Smith owner of website design company [we're not promoting her company] and require her to create designs that violate her sincere beliefs about marriage. Lori, who's awaiting a decision right now from the US Supreme Court is hoping the Court will uphold the freedom of all Americans to speak what they believe without fear of government punishment.

No law's been misused. That's a lie. Lori doesn't create website designs for marriages. That's a lie as well.

And that lie is why her case shouldn't even be heard. There has been no action against her, she does not do what she's suing for. She has no standing -- no legal standing. And we have maintained that for over a year. If you missed it recently, the Court just sent a case bye-bye noting the plaintiff did not have standing. That's what it should legally do with Lori as well.

We're not talking about Matt's misguided and harmful opinion. We're talking about facts. Matt's lying before Congress and should be punished. He knew not to put it in writing because someone would have checked it and corrected him when the hearing was held.

My opinion is that Lori's hate is not excused by religion and that if she offers a public service, she has to offer to all and not discriminate. My opinion.

My telling you the facts that she has no standing and has suffered no legal harm at present so she has no case? Again, facts. Matt's a liar and can't get through his opening statement without lying.

Let me also be clear on another issue. I thought we'd all know this by the time we were adults because we start out as children. Apparently, we don't all learn basics or we just want to lie and pretend we don't. Matty wanted you to know that freedom of speech was violated. T-shirt wise.

You all know, I'm sure of the 27th amendment where, in 1976, young Bradley Smith was sent home for wearing a Farrah Fawcett t-shirt, the one of her with the red one-piece bathing suit. The school felt that it violated their dress code. His parents pursued the matter all the way up to the Supreme Court where, in a five-to-seven verdict, the majority opinion written by Rehnquist, it was decided, "The nipple shall be liberated" and there was great rejoicing across the land as Farrah's clothed but visible nipples could be displayed on every campus.

If you didn't get it, that's all made up. We didn't have 12 members on the court.

Now students were sent home -- and always have been and probably always will be -- when it's decided that their clothing is inappropriate for their campus.

There is no real freedom of speech on campus. That's true even of college. The strongest rights students have in terms of free speech have traditionally revolved around the issue of journalism -- such as the yearbook or a paper. With regards to clothing? An item of clothing only has to be determined by school officials to be "disruptive." Doesn't matter if it's Farrah's lovely and athletic body (Farrah and Cheryl Tiegs should get credit for transforming Americans notions on how women could look) or if it's a statement -- true or false -- printed on a t-shirt. It only has to be determined that the clothing could cause disruption on the campus. That is what the courts have always held when it comes to student clothing.

Matty doesn't know this because he's understanding of the law is severely limited by his apparent addiction to lying.

In most hearings, he would stand out for his lying. In this one, he was rolled over by a liar surpeme.

There's an ugly girl born every minute. Or in Hate Merchant Riley Gaines case, born again.

She's the loser that came in sixth in a swim meet and they tried to be kind and pretend she came in fifth but you can't be kind to hate merchants. Beating Riley at fifth place was Lia Thomas. Lia is trans. Four other women also beat Riley. They are not trans.

Riley is a loser and, as Ruth noted last night, appears to be married to a gay man. Oh, Riley, it's just not your decade, hon.

(As Ruth notes, Marcia has repeatedly covered Riley. If you're new to that Hate Merchant, check out Marcia's coverage.)

Yesterday, Riley took her ugly lie face to the US Senate Judiciary Committee and lied. No surprise. She's been lying ever since she lost to five women. That's what liars do, they lie. Riley lying comes as easy to her as looking ugly and flat chested.

I have neither the time nor the desire to note and debunk everyone of Riley's lies.

Let's establish what a hateful little liar she is. Wearing more makeup than any actress playing a whore would dare, she declared before the Committee, "I don't believe trans athletes should be banned from sports" and that she "just want[s] everyone to compete where it's fair and where it's safe. I don't understand why that's overly controversial."

It is controversial. Period. Forget overly and the liar Riley is among the ones that makes it so.

She wants everyone to be able to compete, she lies. She wants everyone to be treated with respect, she lies.

"Lia Thomas is not a brave, courageous woman who EARNED a national title. He is an arrogant, cheat who STOLE a national title from a hardworking, deserving woman."

That's her Tweet. She's got it pinned to the top of her Twitter feed.

First, that's her sentence and her poor grammar -- no comma is needed between "arrogant" and "cheat." Cheat is a noun and arrogant is the adjective. Don't they teach English in KKK Hicksville?

Second, Lia is a woman. Don't pretend you respect and love and care when you are a hateful little _____ [use every word of choice there -- myself, I'm going with Cher's favorite curse word].

You don't love anyone but yourself. Your a failure and a liar and you misgendered Lia.

They let you get away with that at your MAGA rallies and the places where you endorse Doo-Doo Ron Ron DeSantis. But, no, you don't get away with it in the real world.

Nor do you get away with lying about feminism.

Lia, she wanted to insist to a possible closet case on the Committee, was 'mansplaining.' And feminism, she insisted is not "a fluid term."

Yes, feminism in the 70s had some struggling with transgender issues. Sometimes it was the very issue of transgender and sometimes it was someone begging to be made fun of. Such as the woman who felt the need to play daintier than thou and got mocked by Nora Ephron for claiming she knew nothing about cars anymore after her surgery. She seemed to feel that, because she was born male, now being a woman she really had to overdue it.

In fairness to her, she grew up in a different time and probably didn't see as many butch women as there are today. If she were alive today, she could see Riley and grasp that dainty and feminine don't define a woman. Thanks, Riley, for demonstrating that so well.

Life is about growing up -- all of us. So while some feminists did have some issues adjusting, they long ago grew up. Germaine Greer? Slut feminism isn't feminism to must of us. Germaine was an awful woman long before the world realized she was a TERF. Lillian Roxon was an actual feminist. Lillian tried to be friends with Germaine, even found her lodging when she visited the US. Nothing was ever good enough for Germaine. And, buy a clue, feminists aren't rushing to publish in magazines with titles like SCREW.

The feminist movement -- even Gloria Steinem -- long ago came to terms with reality and grasped that trans women are women.

Those of us who are actually feminists don't need lies from Riley or to be told how things should be by a greedy little ---- who never did a thing for anyone else and seeks to pursue her own self-actualization and self-focus and self-everything. Me me me me, says Riley, and, no, she's not practicing her musical scales.

Riley wants to pretend she's a feminist but she belongs to ("I am an advisor for") the historically anti-feminist Independent Women's Forum.

Sidebar: They're transphobes and hate merchants who are part of the attacks on the LGBTQ+ community. I believe it was two weeks ago that I announced sadly that I would no longer be noting Bonnie Erbe's TO THE CONTRARY. It's a great show that focuses on women's issues. It features a wide range of women's voices. That I was okay with. I stated two weeks ago that I had learned more and I was not going to platform the show anymore. Bonnie was not the problem. But her guests from Independent Women's Forum. They lie and they deceive. They use Bonnie's show to portray themselves as normal. While behind the scene, they're plotting and focused on destroying LGBTQ+ rights. This is a cabal far bigger than the one that tried to take down Bill Clinton. They have various people fronting as something other than hate merchants who are under orders not to speak of LGBTQ+ issues but instead appear reasonable and reasoned to get media access. They have attorneys who present as left -- even though Lawrence Tribe, for example, can't stand them -- but they've cultivated long standing relationships with the extreme right-wing Federalist Society. This is kept hidden from the American people. So much is kept hidden because like most crooks, they work in darkness. Lawrence Tribe is right to especially hate one of them. This did not just suddenly happen. It was plotted in secret and planned for years.

That's why I'm being very clear that I am not platforming people if they're not defending LGBTQ+. I don't know who to trust. See "" for that discussion. Sam Seder grates on my nerves. I'm not trying to insult him right now. But I posted him Tuesday. And will post him again. He's defending LGBTQ+. If you're not, you're probably not going up here. Probably? One YOUTUBER e-mailed that he's gay. I actually already knew. I am confused as to why a grown man on the left can't say the words -- "Why can't I say the word?" as Ellen DeGeneres' character asked in "The Puppy" on ELLEN -- but he's still young. It's not like he's a certain elderly Texan who still can't come out. 80 years and counting and never married but we're never supposed to point that out or, as Molly Ivins like to point out, there's not an LGBTQ+ bookstore in Texas that doesn't have autographed books by him despite the fact that he's not doing book events at those stores because he's that deep in the closet.

I trust BLACK POWER MEDIA, THE KAREN HUNTER SHOW, even THE VANGUARD, for example because they've already gone on record by what they address on their programs. But if you're being silent -- after all these attacks this year alone -- then I'm not going out on a limb for you or telling others to trust you. You better represent or you better get used to people concluding that you're an enemy to LGBTQ+ people.

Back to liar Riley. She didn't tie with Lia. She lost to Lia. I don't care about her qualifier of "one hundredth of a second." You were after her. You lost to her. You're a loser. I can't imagine that concept is new to you -- you grew up with a mirror, right?

Taking time out from what appears to be a lavender marriage, Riley wanted to insist to the Committee, "Having only one trophy, the NCAA handed it to Thomas and told me I would go home empty-handed because Thomas needed to hold the trophy for photo purposes. I was shocked. I felt betrayed and belittled, reduced to a photo-op. But my feelings did not matter. What mattered to the NCAA were the feelings of a biological male."

Oh, the horror.

Riley, are you lying now or were you lying then -- you know, when you first spoke to the press and before you became a hag for right-wing media? Because your story keeps changing.

And I checked with NCAA friends. That's not what you were told. Lia beat you. They were being kind because you were a big baby. They told that they only had five trophies and they were kind enough to say they'd send you one. You told them that was "perfectly fine." Remember that, Riley? Because they do.

You render that and everything else that took place with a skewed meaning because you do love to play the victim.

I guess that makes sense. You can't play the winner and you can't play the beauty so I guess the only role left for you is victim.

No, your feelings don't matter. You came in sixth. That's reality. They shouldn't have babied you. They should have just said, "Riley, you know how you're ugly and hoped you could make up for it by focusing on sports? Well maybe you can find another interest to focus on?"

She further testified that it was awful for her to share a locker room with Lia due to Lia's male genitalia. I'm so glad, Riley, that you appear to have married a man who is not going to show you his genitalia. Should keep you sane. Or what passes for sane when it comes to you.

She did not give consent!!!! She did not give consent!!!! And it was not a safe space for her!!!!

As she herself admits, "you're undressing quickly in front of one another." Exactly, so look the other way or, better yet, don't be sneaking peaks at one of your competitor's genitals. What kind of perv are you, Riley? Everyone else was there to swim but you're apparently slack jawed, open mouthed gawking at the bodies of people around you. That must have made them very uncomfortable.

Riley wants you to know there were tears from unnamed "from finishers who missed being named an All-American by one place."

Huh?

By one place?

Don't you mean you? Why are you referring to yourself in the plural?

She wanted the Committee to know she hears agreement from "gay, lesbian, and trans-identifying Americans." Oh, Riley. Is Caitlyn Jenner trying to groom you? That might happen. Self-loathing Republican and all.

But most healthy gay, lesbian and trans Americans -- not 'identify,' just trans -- are not agreeing with you. In fact, you saw what the LGBTQ+ community thinks of you when you showed up in San Francisco to preach your hate, remember?

And where is that lawsuit because you never filed it. I know why. You weren't physically assaulted. Campus police told me that.

But again, you suck at sports and you're butt-ugly so victim really is the only role left for you.

She wants to talk about "the science." Don't you love it when a jock on a scholarship wants to lecture others. So we're talking science. Where do you stand on COVID? I know where your buddies at TPUSA stand. How much are they paying you, Riley? Or are they just covering the cost of travel and housing for your Hate Tour? Be honest when it's time to file with the IRS.

And for those who don't know TPUSA:

In December 2017, The New Yorker published an article by Jane Mayer showcasing interviews with former minority members of TPUSA. Former staff members said they witnessed widespread discrimination against minorities in the group, and stated "the organization was a difficult workplace and rife with tension, some of it racial."^[26]^[133] One former employee, an African-American woman, said she was the only person of color working for the organization at the time she was hired in 2014; she then said that she was fired on Martin Luther King Jr. Day. The article also revealed text messages sent by Crystal Clanton – who was a leading figure in the organization and served as the group's national field director for five years – to another Turning Point employee saying "i hate black people. Like fuck them all ... I hate blacks. End of story." Kirk responded to the revelations by saying that "Turning Point assessed the situation and took decisive action within 72 hours of being made aware of the issue."^[26] The article also noted that Kirk had explicitly praised Clanton in his book Time for a Turning Point, saying that she had been "the best hire we ever could have made", and that "Turning Point needs more Crystals; so does America."^[26]

In an April 2018 article titled "Turning Point USA Keeps Accidentally Hiring Racists", HuffPost reported that the woman hired to replace Crystal Clanton had a history of using racial slurs, particularly against African-Americans, on Twitter before deleting her account. In response to the reports, Kirk referred to the individual in question as "a former employee" in his official statement (without clarifying when she had been fired), and Turning Point issued an internal memo announcing that all current and new staff would face social media background checks.^[134]

In the Hillsdale College Collegian, opinions editor Kaylee McGhee wrote an article titled "Charlie Kirk and TPUSA aren't conservative, as real conservatives already knew". In the article, McGhee referred to TPUSA as a "reactionary cancer" rather than a group supporting real conservatism that is "supposed to preserve the timeless principles of liberty and equality for all".^[135] In June 2018, conservative radio talk show host Joe Walsh resigned from the TPUSA board because Kirk was too closely tied to Donald Trump. Walsh said: "It's so important to not be beholden to politicians, but to be beholden to the issues ... When Charlie went to work for Trump, that crossed that line. You can't advance Trump and advance these issues."^[136]

During October and November 2019, Kirk launched the Culture War college tour of speaking events with appearances from many conservatives such as Donald Trump Jr., Lara Trump and Kimberly Guilfoyle. These events were frequently targeted by homophobic and antisemitic members of the alt-right and far-right who consider TPUSA to be too mainstream and not sufficiently conservative. Concerted efforts were made by this group to ask leading questions during the Q&A sections on controversial topics such as Israel and LGBTQ issues in order to challenge the extent of the speakers' views.^[137]

In November 2019, the Dartmouth Review called TPUSA an organization that promoted Charlie Kirk and Donald Trump first, rather than conservative values. The article added "True conservatives must eventually outgrow TPUSA and devote their efforts elsewhere. We must challenge ourselves by pursuing an environment of rigorous inquiry, instead of being coddled by the intellectually devoid echo chamber of TPUSA, compromising our values for recognition."

^[138]

^{[. . .]}

Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center[edit]

In 2019, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has called TPUSA an alt-lite organization.^[143] Both the ADL and the Southern Poverty Law Center have criticized TPUSA for affiliating with activists from the alt-right and the far-right.^[144] The ADL has also reported that the group's leadership and activists "have made multiple racist or bigoted comments" and have links to extremism.^[5]

In 2018, the Southern Poverty Law Center's Hatewatch documented TPUSA's links to white supremacists.^[145]^[146]

Let's note Martina Navratilova quickly. She's a TERF. She's an idiot. Riley testified repeatedly about the 'threat' that a trans woman presents to her in the dressing room. Many of you may remember when these hate merchants tried to say that of lesbians. Now they go for the trans women and idiots like Martina rush to help them out. Again, the same argument was once used against lesbians.

We'll pick up on the hearing tomorrow. Today, we'll wind down with this from Senator Tammy Baldwin's office:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) today joined Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Corey Booker (D-NJ) in introducing the Equality Act – historic, comprehensive legislation to ban discrimination against LGBTQ+ Americans, just as religious, racial, and ethnic discrimination are illegal everywhere in the United States.

“If we want to live up to our nation’s ideal of true equality, we must address the fact that we have been coming up short. It is wrong that in a majority of states, LGBTQ+ people can be denied an apartment, cut from a job, thrown out of a store, or face other forms of discrimination just because of who they are or who they love,” said Senator Baldwin. “And that’s why I am proud to join my colleagues in introducing the Equality Act to protect LGBTQ+ Americans against discrimination and live up to our nation’s ideals of freedom and equality.”

The Equality Act would amend the landmark federal anti-discrimination laws to explicitly add sexual orientation and gender identity to longstanding bans on discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, jury service, access to credit, federal funding, and more. It would also add protections against sex discrimination in parts of anti-discrimination laws where these protections had not been included previously, such as public accommodations and federal funding.

“Generations of Americans have marched, voted, organized, and raised their voices to move us closer toward a more perfect union with freedom, equality, and opportunity for all,” said Senator Merkley. “We all go to work and school, go home, and go shopping, and none of us should have to keep our families hidden or pretend to be someone we’re not to do those things. Yet in some states, Americans can still be evicted, be thrown out of a restaurant, or be denied a loan because of who they are or whom they love. To realize the vision of America as a land of freedom and equality, we must be willing to take the steps to bring that vision closer to reality, and that’s exactly what the Equality Act does.”

“The flood of legislation in state after state seeking to undermine the rights of LGBTQ+ Americans is antithetical to our nation’s fundamental ideals and only serves to foster more hate, division, and prejudice,” said Senator Booker. “Congress must act to ensure that no person is discriminated against based on their gender identity or who they love. That is why I am proud to join again with colleagues to reintroduce the Equality Act, landmark legislation that will guarantee that LGBTQ+ Americans are protected under federal law and move us one step closer to having a nation that truly lives up to our ideals of liberty, freedom, and justice for all.”

LGBTQ+ equality received a huge boost across the nation last year when President Biden signed Senator Baldwin’s bipartisan Respect for Marriage Act into law, enshrining federal protections for same-sex and interracial marriages. Further, in 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County that workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is prohibited as a form of sex discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. However, this court ruling has not yet been nationally applied to other areas of potential discrimination—including housing, public accommodations, jury service, access to credit, and more.

LGBTQ+ Americans around the country are facing an uptick in discrimination and dangerous state-sponsored legislation. State legislatures have introduced nearly 500 pieces of legislation that target LGBTQ+ rights. Despite Americans’ increasing support of LGBTQ+ rights and protections, the majority of states currently do not have fully-inclusive non-discrimination laws for members of the LGBTQ+ community.

U.S. Representative Mark Takano (D-CA-39) led the introduction of the Equality Act in the House.

The full text of the Equality Act can be found here as introduced in the Senate, and here as introduced in the House.

A summary of the bill can be found here.

The Senator's remarks can be downloaded here.

###

The following sites updated: