the quantum of solace
Here is your single's love horoscope
for Thursday, November 20:
Fantasizing about your crush is fun but now is the time to take action. Quit procrastinating and instead make your move. You'll never know what might happen unless you try. Just do it!
so, how does it feel to blow through four thousand dollars? not as good as one might think. of course, uncle sam took far more than i'd like, i purchased far less than i'd hoped, and i find myself far more broke than i thought. fortunately, i'm going to vegas which should stand as the true headline in my life, but that's not quite the end: last friday night, i saw the new james bond film and found myself locking my horns with the criticisms of the latest installment because it managed to frame one of the most key features in the modern action film and a hallmark of the james bond series, namely, the silence that comes after the intense action sequence: one of the challenges of any mainstay in our collective imagination remains how to keep that mainstay relevant and accessible to the changing mores of the new generation and one of the things that james bond has successfully done so much that it should become a subject of study has asserted its relevance despite its clear susceptibility otherwise: the producers managed to update bond in such a way -- inserting the enigmatic daniel craig for the straightforward pierce brosnan, substituting tom ford for savile row, insane relentless action for campy reality-stretching plot lines -- that it not only kept my attention from the moments it started, but it made me keenly aware of when the action stopped. where casino royale stood as the perfect first date, the quantum of solace film stood as that perfect second date where you go home at night and call to say what a good time you had. i mean, from the car chase to the alicia keys song -- talk about a song that typifies the type of experience coming afterward -- to the crazy ending to the fashion.
what it reminded me of in my life is the moment that we're in right now where we must decide as a nation and as a community how we will confront the challenges that continue to face us. one of those uniquely sublime moments of peace and smallness came at the investiture ceremony of kevin beckner onto the hillsborough county commission. not only did the tuesday ceremony command a crowd of over four hundred attendees -- mostly for kevin -- but it stood as one of those unique moments in my life where the three strands of my daily obsessive existence -- politics, fashion, and the social life -- all coalesced in this crazy reception where not only we watched kevin beckner accept his new seat as county commissioner, but listened to his first speech as such which spoke about uniting the disparate parts of hillsborough county and serving the community and while i do believe in this particular instance that the nomination, candidacy, and subsequent election of barack obama actually helped lift kevin beckner to victory, the larger effect of kevin beckner's candidacy came when he stood on the stage with the judge swearing him in and with his partner. i wondered to myself watching the ceremony whether all or most of the voters knew this about his life and i wondered if it made a difference either way. or if it would have. as i saw the two others get sweared in before him, i then wondered, did everyone who voted for them know their entire life situations or did they vote blindly on the issues as well. it felt wierd because i felt an element of conservative thought bubbling up from my core. in the face of so many setbacks with marriage equality (and the fact that i truly think the battle will never ever end as long as a certain generation consitutes a voting majority), it's clear that one of the truly exceptional things about america remains that people currently and formerly oppressed have the ability to ascend to political power and effect change not through the power of the democratic process, but through the power afforded to the minority in the constabulary of the legislatures and the executive branches. the funny thing about the investiture ceremony came that young children, old pastors, and folks from every political background had to TOLERATE each other. no one could rail against anyone because everyone stood strong in the room. it's what will inspire interest in the barack obama adminstration certainly. those in the minority really do have an effortless way of creating diversity and including everyone. when a white man's elected, it's easy for him to find a coterie of white men to surround him, but when a minority exists in a leadership role, it's easy to create diversity because who on earth would afford credibility to someone who chose only heterosexual white men as advisors when that leader does not fit that mold. barack obama won my vote because of colin powell and colin powell's statements about the truth of the republican party that has left so many behind with this crazy social stuff and inane corruption. barack obama has won my respect by not only the appointment of the future secretary of state, hillary clinton, but the way that he and his wife have already conducted themselves in front of the world.
let's see what else has happened in my life since i last posted (and what's with me only posting every ten days or so with these crazily long posts?): last friday, after the movie, i went out to this new "first class fridays" event at the martini bar at baywalk and then stumbled from there to ceviche to cafe alma and then to vintage and then back to the martini bar and then home. fun night speckled with too many cosmopolitans, but hey. saturday night i went to a party hosted by my pier one coworker and that was fun because i got to stretch my conversationalist wings and caught the glimmer in the eye of someone who i believe had a glimmer in their eye and not just an idle light reflection. really cute, but kind of out of my normal strata because i've never really been with someone THAT thin. or that liberal. or that went to one of those community churches. what else? work. work. and more work. shopped a bit. my "bedroom" portion of the show room living room is complete. i didn't invest in any major art except for a cezanne reproduction. i'm still looking for that blue tiffany michelle painting. i went a little nuts in burberry with their sale. what else? oh, a $600 vegas ticket. paying alex. rent for two months. paying my mother. paying my car payment. tilt. i didn't even go out drinking or get a new year's outfit. but i get paid at pier one next week so no worries. oh yeah, went to so you think you can dance with my formerly favorite coworker who i believe had an abortion yesterday. my performance review's coming up. i might help the hot latin sales assistant a real job which would afford me some gratitude and possibly a true new friend. i'm obsessed with what daniel craig may do in james bond next. the stockbroker may come over tonight. it's the going away party for the closeted venezuelan and i'm not sure i can miss it and still find myself in good stead with my boss if i miss it. the exsomeone and i hooked up the week before last and i learned that the exosmone's in one of those hookup with everyone phases. i've been watching lots of gossip girl lately. alright. gotta get ready for pier one.
Here is your single's love horoscope
for Sunday, November 23:
There's always room for improvement when it comes to understanding the ways of the heart. Learn from your past relationship mistakes and move forward without carrying excess emotional baggage. Give a new love a fresh start.
Main Entry: quan·tum
Pronunciation: \ˈkwän-təm\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural quan·ta \ˈkwän-tə\
Etymology: Latin, neuter of quantus how much
Date: 1567
1 a: quantity , amount b: portion , part c: gross quantity : bulk
2 a: any of the very small increments or parcels into which many forms of energy are subdivided b: any of the small subdivisions of a quantized physical magnitude (as magnetic moment)
###
Main Entry: solace
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English solas, from Anglo-French, from Latin solacium, from solari to console
Date: 14th century
1 : alleviation of grief or anxiety
2 : a source of relief or consolation
###
Cabinet post for Clinton roils Obamaland
By: Ben Smith
November 18, 2008 09:34 AM EST
Barack Obama's serious flirtation with his one-time rival, Hillary Clinton, over the post of secretary of State has been welcomed by everyone from Henry Kissinger to Bill Clinton as an effective, grand gesture by the president-elect.
It's not playing quite as well, however, in some precincts of Obamaland. From his supporters on the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, to campaign aides of the soon-to-be commander-in-chief, there's a sense of ambivalence about giving a top political plum to a woman they spent 18 months hammering as the compromised standard-bearer of an era that deserves to be forgotten.
"These are people who believe in this stuff more than Barack himself does," said a Democrat close to Obama's campaign. "These guys didn't put together a campaign in order to turn the government over to the Clintons."
An overlooked theme in Obama's primary victory was his belief that the Clinton legacy was not, as the Clintons imagined, a pure political positive. The Obama campaign had no compunctions about poking holes in that legacy and even sent out mailings stressing the downside of the last "8 years of the Clintons" – enraging the former president in particular.
And the clearest opposition to the Clinton appointment comes from Obama's backers on the left of his own party, whose initial support for him was motivated in part by a distaste for the Clinton dynasty, and who now view her reemergence with some dismay.
"There's always a risk of a Cabinet member freelancing and that risk is enhanced by the fact that Hillary has her own public and her own celebrity and that she comes attached to Bill," said Robert Kuttner, a Clinton critic and co-editor of the American Prospect whose new book, Obama's Challenge, implores the president-elect to adopt an expansive liberal agenda. "The other question is the old rule – never hire somebody you can't fire. What happens if her views and his views don't mesh?"
"The silver lining, for those of us who are skeptical, is that it drastically limits the number of other Clinton administration alums that he can appoint, and that's a blessing," Kuttner said.
Kuttner hastened to add that Clinton is "very smart" and capable, and that her appointment would be "greeted very well worldwide. And other Democratic foreign policy thinkers who are eager to work in, or with, the Obama administration declined to comment on the record, though they noted that foreign policy was an area that marked some of the deepest disagreements between Clinton and Obama.
Some key Obama-Clinton differences: Whether to meet face-to-face with leaders of hostile regimes (he was more open to the idea than she was) and her vote to authorize the war in Iraq.
"The specific policy area at issue seems to be one in which the two of them aren't all that well-aligned," wrote the liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias.
On Capitol Hill, however, even some of the left’s most normally unshrinking violets publicly backed a plan that appears to be almost a fait accompli.
"Sen. Clinton is one of the brightest people in Congress and she would be an excellent choice," Vermont's independent senator, Bernie Sanders, told Politico through a spokesman.
Inside the campaign, a prominent Democrat said, Obama's decision was also greeted with ambivalence – though his aides have, as usual, moved into a united front in public on the topic.
During the primary, top aides like David Plouffe and Robert Gibbs developed a particular distaste for all things Clinton, one that filtered down through the campaign. So the transition from viewing Hillary Clinton
as a relic of a drama-filled Democratic past to the top choice to run the foreign policy of an Obama administration has been difficult for some campaign veterans, to say the least.
The wisdom of an Obama/Clinton team of rivals seems to be viewed with even more skepticism by the campaign’s rank and file. One Obama insider said that while Obama's senior staff has come around to acknowledging the power of a Clinton choice, supporters have not.
"During the campaign there was a lot of agreement and correspondence about how the grassroots felt about the Clintons and how the Obama leadership felt," he said. "There's a bit of a divergence now. They're confused that the guy they elected . . . because we need to go in a different direction on the world stage" might choose a secretary of state with whom he had some of his sharpest foreign policy disagreements during the primary campaign.
Obama's blog network on My.BarackObama.com has been buzzing with both sides of the argument since hints emerged last week of a surprise Clinton choice. A representative heading: "no hillary for secretary of state why???"
More common inside Obama's circle is a grasp of the effective politics, and a sense that she'd be good at the job – though that somewhat grudging acknowledgment doesn't extend to a particularly warm
embrace of the defeated primary candidate.
"I can't stand her – but I think she's a great choice," said another Obama insider.
Clinton seems poised to take the job, as both sides have steadily shared with reporters the details of an unusually – for Obama – public process. Democrats on both sides said that the remaining obstacle is
working out the details of an arrangement that would allow the former president to maintain a public role while ending his dealings with foreign governments and his foundation's financial transactions with
public and private foreign policy players.
Members of Clinton's circle say they've felt little resistance from Obama's aides as the two sides work out the details of what could one of the great political deals of the century, if something short of a
love affair.
"They are being very matter of fact about removing the obstacles," said a Democrat close to Clinton. "The attitude is, 'Our boss wants us to work this out, so lets work it out.'" A former Clinton aide said Clinton appears likely to accept the job if the details of her husband's future can be resolved, and that the discussions of how exactly to restructure Bill Clinton's charitable ventures doesn't appear to pose a substantial obstacle, though another Democrat said she's said Clinton is personally "conflicted."
One person who apparently has shown no ambivalence: Obama. "It's not like he hedged his bets in conversation with her," said a person involved in the process. While both sides say the situation
remains fluid, this person said Obama was quite direct: "He offered her the job."
© 2008 Capitol News Company, LLC
###
Swearing In Of Gay Commissioner Draws Crowd In Tampa
Tribune photo by JULIE BUSCH
Newly elected Hillsborough County Commissioner Kevin Beckner was sworn in Tuesday at the County Center.
By MIKE SALINERO | The Tampa Tribune
Published: November 18, 2008
TAMPA - It wasn't exactly Obama at Grant Park, but observers agreed Tuesday's swearing in of Kevin Beckner as Hillsborough County's first openly gay county commissioner was historic and precedent-setting.
"It's a new day," said county circuit court Clerk Pat Frank, a former commissioner who attended the morning ceremony with hundreds of others.
"It's people opening their minds," Frank said. "They're welcoming change, so it is Obama-like."
Beckner, 37, took the oath of office alongside his partner, Gil Sainz, a sergeant and 23-year veteran of the county sheriff's office. Circuit Judge Caroline Tesche administered the oath to Beckner.
Also taking the oath were Commissioners Ken Hagan and Al Higginbotham, who were re-elected Nov. 4. It was Hagan's third investiture ceremony; Higginbotham's second.
Observers said it was the largest crowd they'd ever seen for a commission investiture ceremony and most attributed it to the excitement over Beckner, a Democrat who defeated Republican incumbent Brian Blair. The commission chamber was standing-room only, and other attendees filled seats in the County Center lobby and a television-equipped overflow room on the 26th floor.
"It's going to be standing-room only in all those places," said Lori Hudson, the county's director of communications.
After the ceremony, each of the seven commissioners gave a short speech. Beckner spent most of his time thanking campaign supporters, including 96-year-old Gertrude Johanson, who collected 400 petition signatures to help get Beckner on the ballot.
"I think his mission was to bring us all together," Johanson said, "and his courage and determination made this a very special election."
Beckner echoed remarks made by Commissioner Rose Ferlita, urging commissioners to "set aside our political partisanship."
"It's a sincere privilege to sit next to you all and I look forward to working with each and every one of you," he said.
Reporter Mike Salinero can be reached at (813) 259-8303.
Find this article at:
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/nov/18/swearing-gay-commissioner-draws-crowd
###
Commissioners sworn in, with a first
By Bill Varian, Times staff writer
Published Tuesday, November 18, 2008 11:52 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TAMPA — Hillsborough County's first openly gay commissioner was sworn in Tuesday, with his partner at his side.
Democrat Kevin Beckner took the oath of office before a standing-room-only crowd that spilled into the first floor at County Center.
Like the two other commissioners sworn in, Beckner thanked his parents and supporters. He singled out a 96-year-old activist who collected 400 signatures to get his name on the ballot and another woman who campaigned for him while battling cancer.
As he joined a commission that three years ago voted to ban gay pride displays on county property, he also recognized his partner of 10 years.
Beckner disclosed his sexual orientation on the campaign trail, but did not identify his partner other than saying he worked in law enforcement. On Tuesday, he thanked Gil Sainz, a sergeant and 23-year veteran of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office who works in recruitment and screening.
Beckner, 37, is a financial planner and former police officer in Indiana. He defeated Republican Brian Blair, a one-term incumbent, by a 10-point margin Nov. 4.
In addition to Beckner, returning Commissioners Ken Hagan and Al Higginbotham were sworn in for new terms after easily winning re-election. Commissioners unanimously selected Hagan to serve another year as the board's chairman, Mark Sharpe to return as vice chairman and Higginbotham to serve as their chaplain.
Commissioners also settled on assignments to related boards, a process that has been contentious in the past, but was handled cordially Tuesday with most of the incumbents returning to positions they held last year.
Jim Norman returns to the Tampa Sports Authority. Rose Ferlita takes over a slot on the Tampa Port Authority she lost to Blair last year. Higginbotham returns as chairman of the Environmental Protection Commission, with Beckner as vice chairman.
Commissioners offered a few words — highlighting goals and welcoming the newbie — with Sharpe getting the big laugh.
"Enjoy this crowd," he said. "The next time you see a crowd this large, they're not going to be smiling."
Bill Varian can be reached at varian@sptimes.com or (813) 226-3387.
© 2008 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111
###
California's same-sex marriage case affects all of us
By Kermit Roosevelt Kermit Roosevelt
Fri Nov 14, 3:00 am ET
Philadelphia – What now for California? In May, its Supreme Court announced a right to same-sex marriage. Gays and lesbians rushed to take advantage of the opportunity; by early November, 18,000 such marriages had been performed. But on Nov. 5, they stopped. By a 52-47 percent margin, California voters approved Proposition 8, an amendment to the state constitution prohibiting same-sex marriage.
Immediately, gay rights supporters filed lawsuits asking to overturn the ruling. Critics are calling Proposition 8 an illegal constitutional "revision," fundamentally altering the guarantee of equality – not a more limited "amendment."
This suit raises a serious question: When should a majority have the power to take away a constitutional right granted by a court?
It's a question that forces us to think about why we have constitutional rights in the first place, and why they are enforced by judges. But it is not simply a theoretical puzzle. All of us enjoy constitutional rights, and most of us are at some point in a minority. All of us could be affected.
American constitutional practice has generally been to expand rights over time, both by amendment and by judicial decision. Amendments to the federal Constitution, for example, gave women and minorities the right to vote. Judicial decisions have expanded the constitutional guarantee of equality to protect more and more groups. Some of these decisions remain intensely controversial, but none have been overruled by a federal amendment.
Of course, amending the federal Constitution is difficult. It requires approval by "supermajorities": two-thirds in the House and the Senate and three-quarters of state legislatures. Federal rights cannot be taken away by a simple majority vote.
Because of this requirement, judicial decisions enforcing the federal Constitution's equality guarantee have followed a relatively consistent pattern. At one point in time, a particular practice – say, the racial segregation of public schools or the exclusion of women from the practice of law – is so widely accepted that it seems beyond challenge. Judges are not likely to strike the practice down, and if they did, the backlash might well be strong enough to create a constitutional amendment.
Some time later, the practice becomes controversial. It still enjoys majority support – otherwise it would likely be undone through ordinary lawmaking – but it no longer has the allegiance of a supermajority. It is at this time that judges tend to act in order to protect the freedoms of the minority, striking down the practice as unjustified discrimination. The decision may be intensely controversial. It may even be the target of majority disapproval. But because there is no longer a supermajority, the decision is safe.
As attitudes evolve, the practice comes to seem outrageous. Almost no one, nowadays, would argue for racial segregation of schools or a ban on female lawyers. At this point, the judicial decision is no longer controversial.
If a majority could overrule a judicial decision, the process would frequently be stopped by that majority vote. Judicial interventions against discrimination would just not succeed.
Regardless of where you stand on same-sex marriage, what's troubling for US citizens in the California case is the idea that an equality guarantee could not be effectively enforced against the will of a majority. The point of such a guarantee is precisely to protect minorities from discrimination at the hands of a majority.
It would be somewhat surprising, then, if California allowed judicial decisions enforcing the state equality guarantee to be overruled by a simple majority vote. In fact, as the gay-rights supporters' suit indicates, it is not clear that it does. Under the California constitution, "amendments" can be approved by a simple majority vote.
But "revisions," which make substantial changes, require approval by a supermajority – two-thirds of both houses of the legislature – before being submitted to voters. Supporters framed the same-sex marriage ban as an amendment, when really it has the makings of a revision.
It makes sense to require supermajority support to overrule a judicial decision that grants rights to a minority. It shows that the judges were so out of step with society that they were probably wrong. But a simple majority does not show that, and the constitution would not afford meaningful protection if it could be overruled at the will of the majority.
As the opposition to same-sex marriage in California has shrunk, simple majorities should not be able to reverse decisions made in the name of equality.
This is not an argument that the California court was correct. The battle for public opinion goes on. But letting the court's decision stand against the disapproval of a simple majority is not only sensible, it protects the minority rights of future generations.
Unpopular decisions are the price of constitutional rights.
• Kermit Roosevelt teaches law at the University of Pennsylvania's law school.
Copyright © 2008 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved
###
5 years later, views shift subtly on gay marriage
By David Filipov, Globe Staff | November 17, 2008
When the Supreme Judicial Court handed down its landmark decision five years ago tomorrow allowing same-sex couples to wed in Massachusetts, opponents warned that traditional marriage would be endangered, while supporters envisioned an equality movement that would spread across the nation.
Over 11,000 same-sex marriages later, neither has happened.
Massachusetts has yet to become, as former governor Mitt Romney predicted, the "Las Vegas of same-sex marriage." Gay marriage rates leveled off at about 1,500 a year - about 4 percent of all state marriages - in 2006 and 2007. The divorce rate in Massachusetts has remained the same - and the lowest in the country.
And only one other state now allows same-sex marriage; 30 states have a ban against it.
What's really changed is more subtle than cosmic, more about the everyday lives of gay couples in Massachusetts than about a national transformation. Gay and lesbian couples here said they are attracting fewer startled looks when they rent cars, less consternation when they hold hands, fewer awkward questions when they visit spouses in hospital rooms.
"When we're out together as a couple, it really doesn't come up; we're never challenged anymore," said David Wilson, one of the plaintiffs in the 2003 SJC case and the current chairman of MassEquality, a gay-rights advocacy group. "It's now considered normal."
Maureen Brodoff and Ellen Wade, who were among the first gay and lesbian couples to wed here, have noticed the decrease in embarrassed double takes when they introduce themselves as wife and wife.
"The sky didn't fall," Brodoff said Wednesday, as she and Wade sat with their English setters Diana and Joey in the living room of their tidy Colonial in Newton Centre. "The newness of it has eased. It's just another marriage."
Brodoff and Wade, also plaintiffs in the 2003 case, have lived together since 1980 and have a 19-year-old daughter, Kate, a sophomore at Bates College. Since they were wed on May 17, 2004 - the first day same-sex couples could marry - the fanfare and euphoria have given way to the routine familiar to most American families.
Their rights, however, remain limited to Massachusetts: The federal government doesn't recognize their marriage, and therefore does not extend to them the rights it accords heterosexual families for taxes, inheritance, and survivor benefits, among other things.
"We are, sadly, a long way from nationwide same-sex marriage rights," said Wade.
The comfort levels of same-sex couples in Massachusetts have hardly been contagious. Outside the Northeast, opponents of gay marriage have been on something of a winning streak, including this Election Day, when they won popular votes to ban gay marriage in Arizona and Florida, as well as California, which had seen more than 18,000 same-sex marriages after a May 15 court ruling allowed them.
"We're very pleased, of course," said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, a nonprofit public policy group that has pushed for an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage. "Most people believe that marriage is about the creation and nurturing of children. Two fathers, two mothers, don't make up for a mother and a father."
Groups that oppose gay marriage say the state is trying to force people to accept behavior they believe is unnatural and unacceptable. But there are signs that the number of people opposed to same-sex marriage is waning in Massachusetts. In February 2004, a survey of 400 voters found that 42 percent were in favor of same-sex marriage and 44 percent opposed it. In a similar survey completed this August, approval sprang to 59 percent and opposition sank to 37 percent, said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center, which conducted the polls.
State Representative Brian P. Wallace, a Democrat from South Boston, has felt that mood in his district. Wallace, who in January 2007 voted in favor of a ban on same-sex marriage, was one of several lawmakers who changed their minds in June 2007, when the Legislature defeated a measure to put the question of marriage on the ballot.
"My constituency is changing," he explained. Although "there's still people who haven't spoken to me after the vote," most of his constituents, he said, no longer worry about same-sex marriage.
"Nobody is hurt by it," Wallace said. "There are other issues."
Representative Paul J. Kujawski, a Democrat who represents a district in southern Worcester County, also changed his vote. "I looked at it from a standpoint of my personal life and my family and it didn't affect me at all," he said. "It really became an issue where we would be taking happiness away from people's lives."
Gay marriage opponents had vowed to elect a Legislature that supported their agenda. On Election Day, the opposite took place. Out of its 200 members, the Legislature now has 158 lawmakers who Marc Solomon, executive director of MassEquality, believes support his cause, an increase of three legislators.
The attitudes of people interviewed Saturday in Boston suggested that same-sex marriage is not the main issue for voters. Bob Barnes of Boston reflected a common view: For him, marriage meant a wife, but he doesn't think he or anyone else has the right to tell other people how to live.
"Let people do what they please," Barnes said, adding: "They don't bother me."
"I wasn't raised that way," said Edward Pina of Boston, as he watched demonstrators head to City Hall Plaza for a rally in favor of gay marriage. "I'm not going to support it, but I'm not uncomfortable with it."
The Legislature's July 31 decision to repeal a 1913 law banning out-of-state couples from tying the knot here appears to have resulted in an increase of weddings among couples from Rhode Island and New York, which recognize same-sex marriages officiated in other states. Betsy Wall, executive director of the Massachusetts Office of Travel and Tourism, said that in Provincetown, the number of marriage licenses for same-sex couples increased from an average of 30 per month in May through July to an average of 100 per month in August through October; Barnstable County has seen a 12.7 increase in hotel revenue between August 2007 and August 2008.
Despite the wave of defeats nationally, gay-rights advocates here hailed the beginning of same-sex marriages in Connecticut last week, and said they would try to advance the idea that the rest of the country has nothing to fear from same-sex marriage.
Ten states, plus the District of Columbia, offer "significant legal protection for same-sex couples," according to Mary Bonauto, a lawyer at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders. She was the lead counsel in the 2003 Massachusetts SJC case.
"Everyone knows, no matter which side of the issue they're on, that marriage is inevitable for same-sex couples," she said. "I'm not saying it's going to be a short road in some of the states."
Even in Massachusetts, gays and lesbians have yet to achieve complete equality. On a sports radio talk show on WEEI-AM (850) last Wednesday, callers reacted to the news that Boston had been named a finalist to host the 2014 Gay Games with a stream of homophobic jokes and slights, as the show's hosts cackled with glee and added their own antigay wisecracks.
"People can still get away with homophobic slurs in a way that you couldn't, talking about Jews or Italians," Solomon said.
Brian Camenker of the group MassResistance, which opposes gay marriage, said he believes that most people cannot accept the idea of gays and lesbians as a group whose rights need special protection.
"The concept is so ridiculous and absurd," he said.
Camenker contends that gay marriage will never take root in the United States, where, he said, "in most people's minds, the concept of gay marriage doesn't exist and never will exist."
Same-sex marriage is opposed by many religious denominations, including Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, and Orthodox Judaism. Some liberal denominations have accepted gay marriage; others are struggling with the issue. In the Episcopal Church, for example, clergy in Massachusetts are barred from officiating at same-sex marriage ceremonies but permitted to bless same-sex couples.
Lori Herman of Needham, who married her longtime partner, Sara Orozco, in May 2004, has experienced both kinds of attitudes toward gay marriage in Massachusetts. People who see her all the time accept her. People who don't know her well are occasionally "taken aback" when they learn she married a woman.
Herman and Orozco divorced a couple of years ago. They now share the upbringing of their 9-year-old twins.
"Some marriages work out and some don't. It's nothing to do with gay or straight," she said. "It shows you we're exactly like you."
David Filipov can be reached at dfilipov@globe.com. Michael Paulson of the Globe staff and Globe correspondent Sarah Gantz contributed to this report.
© Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
###
courant.com/news/politics/hc-2conquest.artnov05,0,779871.story
By CHRISTOPHER KEATING
The Hartford Courant
November 5, 2008
Voters on Tuesday rejected the state's first constitutional convention in more than 40 years — after a short, fierce battle of television ads by both sides.
As soon as the polls closed, the trend against the convention began. A series of small towns, including Andover, Colebrook, Columbia, Canterbury, Warren, Willington and Woodstock, all voted against the convention by huge margins. Voters in West Hartford were also rejecting the idea by more than a 2-1 ratio, according to unofficial results.
Statewide, the "no" campaign was leading by 60 percent to 40 percent as of 10:30 p.m.
The highly controversial issue generated about $1 million in spending by the "yes" and "no" campaigns that said the convention would either be an important step toward direct democracy or a potential disaster with mob rule.
"This election came down to basics: Most people do not want to use the state constitution to take away people's rights," said Peggy Shorey, campaign manager for Vote No.
A coalition of public school teachers' unions contributed most of the money for the "no" campaign. But the "yes" campaign said the General Assembly has clearly not done its job on issues like gay marriage, eminent domain and reining in state spending.
The "no" campaign was far outspending the "yes" campaign last month before the Connecticut Catholic Conference paid for a television commercial that showed a woman standing outside the state Capitol and urging voters to say "yes" on Election Day.
"The Church has been like the cavalry coming over the hill with guns blazing," said Peter Wolfgang, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, which supported the convention. "The other side was outspending us 83 to 1. The only thing that leveled it out is the Catholic Church."
In another referendum question, voters approved allowing 17-year-olds to vote in primaries if they will reach their 18th birthday by the time of the general election, according to unofficial results.
Copyright © 2008, The Hartford Courant
###
007 association gives MI6 recruitment headache
Reuters
Monday, November 26, 2007; 2:32 AM
LONDON (Reuters) - The success of the James Bond movies has given the British Secret Intelligence Service a recruitment headache -- too many cranks want to join MI6.
"I think it gives people a false impression of what working for the organization is actually like," the head of MI6 recruitment -- named only as "Mark" -- told BBC Radio One's Newsbeat program on Monday.
"So it does tend to turn up quite a lot of thrill seekers and fantasists and we're really not interested in them."
As well as dismissing the notion that spying was a never-ending life of fast cars, fast women and shaken not stirred Martini cocktails, "Mark" was keen to demolish another myth surrounding MI6.
"We don't have a license to kill -- we don't carry Berettas -- that's simply not true."
© 2007 Reuters
###
MI5 out of closet with gay recruits
Jonathan Oliver, London | August 18, 2008
BRITISH intelligence service MI5 has teamed up with Britain's leading gay lobby group to recruit more homosexuals and to encourage spies to be open about their sexuality.
MI5, which targets homegrown terrorists and foreign spies, has hired British gay justice organisation Stonewall to advise on how it can attract a broader range of applicants.
Until the early 1990s, gays were barred from sensitive government jobs because of fears they would be vulnerable to blackmail. The ban followed revelations about a Soviet spy ring made up of Cambridge graduates who worked in the intelligence service.
The group, including double agents Guy Burgess and Anthony Blunt, who were both gay, delivered allied secrets to Russia before and during the Cold War.
This year, MI5 will appear in Stonewall's graduate recruitment guide, which lists gay-friendly employers.
Since the London Underground bombings on July 7, 2005, MI5 has been expanding rapidly. Staff numbers are expected to hit 3500 by the end of the year, up from 1500 in 2001.
The drive to recruit British Muslims and speakers of Asian languages has been well reported, but MI5's targeting of the gay community will come as a surprise.
Stonewall director Ben Summerskill said: "I am optimistic that in 10 to 15 years their (MI5's) employment profile will look very much like modern Britain. There is no reason why there shouldn't be a lesbian or gay director-general."
Explaining why MI5 might wish to recruit from the gay community, he added: "People from all minority communities do have experience of getting on with people who are different, and of fitting in.
"They are also good at doing these things in a way that is not conspicuous."
A Whitehall source confirmed that MI5 was working closely with Stonewall, saying: "The service seeks to reflect the broad range of UK society which it serves."
One of Stonewall's first achievements has been to set up a gay and lesbian "network" at MI5 to work with spy chiefs on policy. Stonewall, which was paid for its work, has also been advising on how to create a working environment where gay officers can feel comfortable about "coming out".
In the past, homosexual staff were nervous about revealing their sexual orientation to colleagues because it might lead to claims they had lied to recruiters when they joined.
The plan to bring Stonewall into MI5's normally insular London headquarters was approved by Jonathan Evans, who became director-general last year. By coincidence, Mr Evans and Mr Summerskill attended the same public school, Sevenoaks in Kent.
Separately, MI5, through the British Home Office, has rated Britain's risk of terror attack as severe under a new ratings system. The rating means the agencies consider an attack "highly likely".
The Sunday Times
###
U.K. spy service seeks gay recruits
MI5 tries to shake off clubby image, extend recruitment to different areas
The Associated Press
updated 11:37 a.m. ET, Mon., Aug. 18, 2008
LONDON - Britain's domestic spy agency wants gay recruits to know: It's time to come out of the closet.
After shunning them for decades over worries of blackmail, MI5 is now asking gay and lesbian people to consider a career as a spy, promising the chance to fight terrorists, protect their country — and earn a decent salary, plus benefits.
As part of an ongoing recruitment drive, MI5 is already wooing women, minorities and people with language skills. The fact that they're now reaching out to Britain's gay community is long overdue, said Peter Tatchell, a London-based gay rights activist.
"Until a decade ago, gay people were seen as a security threat, and as recently as two decades ago, they were being witch hunted and sacked from the security services," he said Monday.
"It was part of the Cold War mentality that saw security threats, traitors, and spies everywhere," he said. "Gay people were regarded as vulnerable to blackmail, even if they were open and out about their sexuality."
‘They're not John le Carre’
The spy agency is shaking off its clubby image and becoming more representative of the community it serves, said Ben Summerskill, chief executive officer the gay rights group Stonewall, which publishes a job hunting guide that includes the spy agency as a prospective employer.
"My recent experience of them is that they're not John le Carre, Graham Greene — it's not that sort of tableau anymore," Summerskill said Monday.
Stonewall also is working with MI5 to create a workplace environment that is supportive of gay people.
Currently, MI5 has about 3,500 staff, twice what it had in 2001. The new drive comes two years after MI5 began publicly targeting women for recruitment, placing posters in gyms and advertisements in sports magazines that featured a black woman.
MI6, which collects Britain's foreign intelligence, also is looking for new hires, and in particular is encouraging applications from women and minorities.
According to MI5's Web site, intelligence officers earn a starting salary of about $45,000 plus benefits. Applicants have to be British citizens, and must pass a lengthy vetting process.
"As an intelligence officer at MI5, you'll be faced with some of the most challenging issues affecting national security today," the site says. "The decisions you make will play a major part in our efforts to counterterrorism, espionage, the spread of weapons of mass destruction and in protecting the U.K.'s critical national infrastructure."
Inclusion and image
Garry Hindle, the head of security and counterintelligence at the Royal United Services Institute for Defense and Security Studies, said MI5's inclusion in the gay and lesbian job guide is about inclusion, but it's also about image.
"They're trying to portray themselves as an open, inclusive organization that's working for the good of the community," Hindle said. But "it does need diverse members of society to be able to access the diverse members of society that they may have interest in."
The agency would say only that "the service seeks to reflect the broad range of U.K. society which it serves."
Available jobs include translators, computer specialists and surveillance officers.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26266738/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSN Privacy . Legal
© 2008 MSNBC.com
###
The Movie Review: 'Quantum of Solace'
The direct sequel to 'Casino Royale' doesn't hold a candle to its predecessor--but Daniel Craig steals the show again.
Christopher Orr, The New Republic Published: Friday, November 14, 2008
When the 16th James Bond film, Licence to Kill, was released in 1989, it was widely reported that its working title, Licence Revoked, had been altered thanks to a survey revealing that fewer than 50 percent of Americans knew the meaning of the word "revoked." How far we have come since then. Bond's last outing, Casino Royale, was not only his best in over three decades, it was also his smartest, and its franchise-record grosses evidently persuaded 007's custodians that we Yanks aren't quite such a load of morons after all. How else to explain Quantum of Solace, the year's most obscurely titled release not directed by Charlie Kaufman?
Like Licence to Kill, Quantum is a tale of vengeance; unlike it, the new film is also a sequel, in which the lethal debt to be paid off is held over from a previous picture. Specifically, Bond (Daniel Craig) goes off the grid to track down the shadowy villains responsible for the death of his Casino Royale lover, Vesper, who was in life a mouthwatering accountant and remains in death a mouthwatering martini. (Denied the consolations of the former in Quantum, Bond permits himself those of the latter.)
The film opens with a breakneck car chase along the rocky Mediterranean coast in which British Aston outduels Italian Alfa, enabling 007 to arrive in Siena minus one car door but with the prisoner in his trunk--Mr. White (Jesper Christensen), whom we saw him shoot in the leg at the conclusion of Casino Royale--intact. Following an interrogation by M (Judi Dench), Mr. White ultimately leads Bond to one Mr. Slate, who in turn leads him to a Mr. Greene (Matthieu Amalric). That's right: The global conspiracy this time around isn't SPECTRE, but some rogue wing of the United Colors of Benetton.
Greene, it turns out, is an environmental activist whose company makes covert deals with corrupt governments and then strips their nations of natural resources. In this case, his group promises to return a deposed Bolivian strongman (Joaquin Cosio) to power ("We've already begun destabilizing the government," Greene informs him, as casually as he might report third-quarter earnings) in exchange for control of a remote desert which may contain oil or perhaps a still more precious resource. (It's not hard to guess which.) As Bond untangles Greene's plot, he crosses paths with Camille (Olga Kurylenko), a comely Bolivian pursuing her own parallel, but unrelated, mission of vengeance. (If his narrative is loosely borrowed from Licence to Kill, hers comes from For Your Eyes Only.) Jeffrey Wright and Giancarlo Giannini reprise their roles from Casino Royale as Bond allies legit and not-so, and Gemma Arterton makes a brief appearance as the Officious MI6 Handler Whom 007 Will Quickly Cajole Into Bed.
Quantum's plot is strictly second-rate, the kind of generic evil-tycoon-hatching-a-diabolical-plan story that the franchise rolled out with such depressing regularity in the 1970s, '80s, and '90s. Kurylenko is a distinctly subpar heroine, her performance flat and her storyline shoehorned in awkwardly. (Spray-on tan notwithstanding, she also has about as much Bolivian blood in her as I do.) And Amalric, who demonstrated his gifts in last year's The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, disappointingly makes a less memorable impression as a Franco-corporatist monster than Michael Lonsdale did in Moonraker.
Moreover, there is evidence of backsliding toward a few of the more tired franchise tropes that Casino Royale had so sharply repudiated. Where that film made fun of the sex-pun sobriquets doled out to female characters (Bond teased Vesper that her cover identity was "Miss Stephanie Broadchest"), this one saddles Arterton's agent--herself a bit of a throwback to the 007-as-incorrigible-gigolo years--with the name Strawberry Fields. Even the title sequence brings back a hint of the PG prurience that was so pleasantly absent from Casino Royale's stylish opener.
Yet despite such disappointments, there is solace in Quantum, and its name is Daniel Craig. Ever since Sean Connery first brought Bond to life onscreen, his successors had been imitators. Yes, Roger Moore was a little softer, Timothy Dalton a little harder, and Pierce Brosnan a little more dapper. But despite the variation, Bond had remained pretty much the same character, periodically changing faces. Craig is the first inheritor who has worn the role rather than let it wear him.
To a greater degree even than in Casino Royale, Craig's Bond is shorn of the frilly vanities and amusements that long dominated the character. His job is not to charm people, it is to kill people, and he does this not because he takes pleasure in it but because he knows he's better at it than anyone else. Creator Ian Fleming once described Bond in Reader's Digest as "an anonymous, blunt instrument wielded by a government department," and Craig's portrayal in Quantum is just that, minus the government control. This is probably the cruelest Bond of the series, and certainly the most murderous, shedding more blood during an average twenty-minute stretch than Roger Moore seemed to over the course of seven films. When, at one point, M chides him, "Bond, if you could avoid killing every possible lead, it would be deeply appreciated," she is not speaking metaphorically.
Under other circumstances, I wouldn't applaud the surfeit of brutality--which still doesn't approach what you can find elsewhere at the multiplex most nights--but, as in Casino Royale, it is a useful corrective to the flabby excesses of the franchise, which so often portrayed 007 as ass-chaser first and assassin second. Moreover, Craig is so very good as the hitman with a heart of lead that it's hard to begrudge him his lethal mandate. His blue eyes are colder than even Fleming could've imagined, and his spare but fearsome frame seems, unlike most Hollywood physiques, built more for performance than for show. (Most of the women I know will be disappointed--and most of their husbands relieved--to hear that Craig takes his shirt off a good deal less than he did in Casino Royale.)
Apart from Craig, the chief pleasure of the film is Dame Judi Dench. In her earlier collaborations with Brosnan, I could never shake the sense that she was holding back a bit, lest the quiet domination of which she (and sometimes it seems only she) is capable might overwhelm her leading man and throw their scenes together out of kilter. Craig, by contrast, can and does withstand the full-on Dench, and their scenes together crackle with amiable ferocity. Who needs Bond Girls when this Bond Woman is so much more compelling?
The film's direction, by arthouse refugee Marc Foster (Finding Neverland, The Kite Runner), will provoke strong reactions--positive, negative, and in some cases both at once. Following the temper of the time, Foster presents the movie's many action sequences in a wash of choppy, hyperedited shots, but he pushes the tendency to such extremes that he makes the Bourne films (on which Quantum is clearly modeled) look like Rope. The result is a near-total lack of spatial continuity--I have fifty dollars for anyone who can put salt shakers on a table and show me what took place in a particular boat chase--but an unmistakable visceral intensity. If, as it appears, this is where action filmmaking is headed, concession stands of the future will make a killing in Ritalin sales.
Quantum of Solace is not nearly as strong a film as Casino Royale, and the filmmakers seem well aware of this. It is, after all, set up as a kind of coda to its predecessor, an effort to extend its success rather than genuinely replicate it. (It's telling that Casino Royale was the longest of all 22 Bond films at 144 minutes, and Quantum is the shortest at 106. You'd think the filmmakers would understand that there's a happy medium to be found here.) Yet, thanks to Craig's ruthless performance, Quantum is still better than all but a few of the Bond offerings of the last 30 years. As Kurylenko tells 007 late in the film, "There's something horribly efficient about you." Amen.
Christopher Orr is a senior editor at The New Republic.
Copyright © 2007 The New Republic. All rights reserved.
###
Ford, Tom Ford.
Daniel Craig suits up for new James Bond flick
3/17/2008 6:30:00 PM
(NEW YORK) Tom Ford's highly-anticipated leap onto the big screen may very well come in the form of Daniel Craig. The dashing actor, who's set to play James Bond in November's Quantum of Solace, will be entirely clad in a Ford-designed wardrobe. Craig has reportedly already ruined forty bespoke suits during filming, confessing to the British press, "It's really a crime; it makes me weep every time." Brioni outfitted Craig in Casino Royale, and the Italian company's wares were featured exclusively on Pierce Brosnan in his three Bond films. It appears that whatever Ford's doing, he's doing right. Last year, Craig arrived on set at a GQ photo shoot in a new bespoke suit designed by Ford. "Our fashion department showed up with an entire rack of beautiful ones for him to try," said the magazine's style editor Adam Rapoport. "But ultimately, he felt none of them fit as nicely as his TF. So he said, 'Thank you very much, but I'll stick with my suit.'"
© 2002-2007 Fashion Week Daily
###
FASHION BITES
BOND ENVY: JOHN LEWIS has reported a 40 per cent increase on men's swimwear sales this year – possibly due to the "Daniel Craig" effect, credited to the actor's iconic emergence from the sea in tight trunks for last year's hit James Bond epic, Casino Royale.
(July 6 2007, AM)
###
http://www.latimes.com/features/lifestyle/la-ig-bond16-2008nov16,0,4098995.story
From the Los Angeles Times
SCREEN STYLE
James Bond takes a 'Quantum' leap in luxury
Tom Ford creates perfectly tailored suits that match the super spy's mystique. Forget gadgets, this time around it's the look that kills.
By Adam Tschorn
November 16, 2008
Forty-six years ago, when Sean Connery played his first hand of chemin de fer clad in a shawl-collar tuxedo as James Bond in "Dr. No," the world was a much different place. Dressing up for dinner was de rigueur, and high-tech meant a shortwave radio hidden in a bookcase. But that first film established the Bond mystique: Women wanted him, and men wanted to be like him. He played by his own rules, always with the best toys, and he wielded his license to kill in Savile Row suits.
So how do you push that Bond mystique into the 21st century when Savile Row bespoke is a mouse click away and GPS-enabled iPhones make Q's arsenal of gadgetry seem quaint by comparison? For "Quantum of Solace," the 22nd movie in the series and the first in 13 years with a new costume designer, part of the answer lies in the wardrobe -- which includes a collection of razor-sharp, made-to-measure suits by Tom Ford that turn out to be the perfect workaday uniform for Daniel Craig's dapper but deadly take on the Bond character.
Thus, one of Bond's coolest secret weapons this time around is a small button tab inside the cuff of each trouser leg that never has a second of screen time, and whose sole purpose is to keep 007's pant legs precisely where they should be. Another is the suit jacket sleeves with functioning buttonholes (another hardly noticeable detail that conveys a sense of sartorial high status). And then there are the suit fabrics themselves, which have a soft drape and almost imperceptible iridescence that took six months of fine-tuning to get just right.
These are the kinds of extravagant details anyone would be hard-pressed to notice standing face to face, much less through the hour-and-45-minute globe-trotting bar brawl of "Quantum." But menswear is all about the details, and in an era when books and websites routinely dispense tips on how to dress like Bond, and luxury has been democratized to the point that designers such as Alexander McQueen and Karl Lagerfeld turn up in the aisles of Target or H&M, they are of ever-increasing importance.
Taken together, the tailored pieces subtly push the familiar spy into the realm of the unattainable -- a bow-tied, cuff-linked enigma wrapped in luxurious perfection.
"We wanted to make James Bond seem a bit less accessible," said Louise Frogley, the film's costume designer. "With the original James Bond, you always got the impression you'd never be able to buy his clothes, and it's all slightly mysterious where he gets his money."
Heightening that perception is crucial in "Quantum," which gives us a Bond character far less dependent on Sharper Image-style gadgetry than his predecessors. The Bond who took shape in Ian Fleming's novel "Casino Royale" in 1953 declared his distinctiveness by name-dropping luxury goods, clothes, food, cigarettes and cars. "All the things that most people didn't have and couldn't get in post-World War Britain," Frogley noted. "As these things become more accessible over time, Bond has to change, otherwise he becomes anachronistic."
Costume changes
Men's style has fluctuated wildly since the 1960s, and Bond's wardrobe right alongside it -- from Roger Moore's wide lapels and safari jackets in the '70s to Timothy Dalton's boxier fits and casual Friday moments in the '80s (see sidebar).
Even though "Quantum" breathlessly picks up where "Casino Royale" left off, Bond's look has morphed again; the most memorable image is not of the tuxedo-clad Craig (here he steals one to infiltrate the opera) but rather the sight of him tooling around Haiti on a motorcycle in white Levi's jeans and a black (similarly borrowed) zip-front jacket, looking like Steve McQueen channeling Jason Bourne.
But villains best beware when Bond does suit up, walking into a room in full suit and tie, catching the light just so. It's the equivalent of millionaire industrialist Tony Stark stepping into his Iron Man armor: an announcement that it's limb-snapping, vengeance-seeking time. And notably, that's the way we first see Bond and the way we leave him at movie's end.
From 1995's "GoldenEye" through 2006's "Casino Royale," Bond's tailored silhouette had been defined by Italian luxury label Brioni: soft lines, lightweight suits with two- and three-button jackets cut a bit longer and looser. By choosing Ford, Frogley took the opposite approach -- a more fitted, English-looking cut of suit, albeit handmade in Italy and designed by an American.
In addition to the suits and a tuxedo (inspired, Frogley says, by Italian industrialist playboy Lapo Elkann), Ford helped round out the Bond wardrobe with sunglasses, overcoats, sweaters, polo shirts and neckties for Craig's sophomore outing as 007.
Bond's trousers taper ever so slightly and sit higher on the waist than we're accustomed to seeing. The jackets are single-breasted, with two buttons and relatively narrow lapels and shoulders. The jackets also nip in at the waist and flare out a bit near the hips. The dress shirts have crisp collars that manage to stand tall even sans necktie.
"I think of what I do as an 'International' style of design," Ford said in an e-mail exchange. "James Bond is also for me an 'International' character at this point . . . . One of the things that make Daniel's James Bond fresh and relevant is that he does not play up the clichés or mannerisms of 'English' style. He is absolutely modern."
In other words, the Bond of "Quantum" -- in character as well as wardrobe -- is a polyglot. Neither distinctly British nor Italian nor even European, he's a sartorial chameleon who blends in everywhere in the world while simultaneously standing out as the sharpest-looking man in the room.
Top-secret details
In all, Ford created 11 looks for Craig, and despite needing multiples of each garment (some 420 pieces in all) for stunt doubles and assorted stages of wear, tear and bloodstaining, he and Frogley insisted on an amazing level of detail. Frogley, originally from the U.K., desperately wanted to source a very specific, very expensive suiting fabric known as "mohair tonic," a wool-cashmere blend with a subtle sheen not unlike that of a subdued sharkskin suit. "It was extremely popular in the '60s; all the Mods and all the wannabe Bonds wore it," she said. "I'm sure Sean Connery would have worn it at least once." According to a Ford rep, when a sufficient quantity could not be found, the Tom Ford team developed the proprietary fabric to specification in its Italian mills (and cloaked in Bond-worthy industrial secrecy, she declined to identify the specific mill).
Additional flourishes include shirt collars scaled to precisely match the size and shape of Craig's face. The primacy of such details has been a constant of the Bond franchise, according to John Cork, coauthor of several books on Bond (including the "James Bond Encyclopedia"). "When they did 'Dr. No,' there was a big meeting where [the filmmakers] sat down and went through every last detail of Bond's wardrobe," Cork said. "Would he wear cuff links or would he have buttons? What kind of watch would he wear? Does he wear a tie clip or an ID bracelet?"
Cork says these details are central to building the character because Bond is supposed to be all facade. "And the clothes help create that facade -- they are his armor -- and slipping on the sports coat or dinner jacket that he does is one of the things that keeps him apart from the rest of us."
"Quantum of Solace" may signal the franchise has dispatched with jet packs, laser-beam Rolex watches and radioactive pocket lint as a way of telegraphing Bond's inaccessible wealth and unattainable je ne sais quoi, but don't think for an instant the well-suited super spy has come down to Earth. One of the made-to-measure Tom Ford suits in that exclusive mohair tonic will set you back something in the neighborhood of $14,800.
Which might just make Bond's checkbook the most powerful weapon of all.
Tschorn is a Times staff writer.
adam.tschorn@latimes.com
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1030502/Double-oh-Daniel-Craigs-steamy-kiss-new-Bond-girl-Gemma-Arterton.html
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
mikeijames) wrote,
contemplative
