Search This Blog


Saturday, January 14, 2017

Anti-gay theocrat worships Trump and promotes sex book on his Christian TV show

Pat Robertson interviews Dr. Keven Dr. Kevin Leman 700 club Jan. 11, 2017

PHOTO: The anti-gay theocrat Rev. Pat Robertson (right) is seen hosting his Jan. 11, 1017 TV program The 700 Club on his Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN). Robertson first worships the new Republican U.S. president-elect Donald Trump and later interviews a Christian book author (left) while showing the cover jacket (lower right inset) for the book by Dr. Kevin Leman, "Have a New Sex Life by Friday: Because Your Marriage Can't Wait until Monday," Revell (January 17, 2017). The electronic program guide and "TV Guide" description provided by CBN for this program says, "After a decade of feeling like outsiders, many on the religious right expect a resurgence in political influence" -- thanks to Donald Trump and his hand-picked U.S. Vice President-elect Mike Pence, because Pence is a favorite of evangelicals according to Robertson. This pitiful political message of "we Christians are victims" has become a favorite one of the religious right as a political slogan to push for the "religious freedom" or "religious liberty" constitutional amendments and laws that would give them the right to discriminate against others based on religious beliefs, such as the right of a public baker to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage.

Amusingly, Robertson expresses his shock that the book's author Leman is the first ever guest on his show to wear shorts (how gay is the implication) and Robertson then, without any censorship, graphically discusses sexual orgasms and geriatric sex issues personally experienced by Robertson and the solutions given in the book.

Ironically, Rev. Pat Robertson is a lifelong member of the Southern Baptist church that for at least the last Century has supported the traditional blue laws in many states that have historically prohibited public displays of affection, outlawed gay sex acts, and censored sex publications, such as "Playboy" magazine.

Robertson started CBN in the early days of free over-the-air broadcast TV and today the "700 Club" is still being aired locally on Eugene's KMTR-TV Channel 16 at 10:00 AM and KLSR-TV Channel 34 at 11:00 AM. The "700 Club" program can also be seen through the most commonly subscribed to bundle of Corvallis Comcast on the cable TV channel Freeform at 10:00 AM weekdays. Freeform is a descendant of a cable TV channel Robertson started in the early days of cable TV before he became a billionaire by selling it to Walt Disney Company in 2001, who renamed it as ABC Family channel, and then later it became the cable TV channel Freeform.

It is significant that the cable TV channel and both of the Eugene TV stations airing the "700 Club" now precede the program with a notice saying the following is paid program that does not necessarily reflect the views of the station's management. In fact, it was just a few decades ago when at least one of these TV stations was owned by a devout Christian who was an early supporter of Robertson's TV ministry and evangelism, which I have personally witnessed to be truly helpful to many down-and-out people in need, but I have also witnessed Robertson harming gay people from his support of laws against their equal rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. Robertson previously ran for U.S. President on a theocratic platform that is still supported today by Trump's hand-picked evangelical V.P. Pence, who condemns gay people and wants to reverse much of the progress made by President Obama.

The queer blogger Michelangelo Signorile has written much on the threats to LGBT equality from the new Vice President Mike Pence: Michelangelo Signorile, "The Mike Pence (Donald Trump) Assault On LGBTQ Equality Is Already Underway," posted Jan. 1, 2017. Also see previous post Why Trump is queer and loved by many men and women (12/23/16) where I discuss and link to another excellent essay by Michelangelo Signorile, "Why We Can't Be 'Friends' Any Longer After You Voted For Donald Trump," posted Dec. 13, 2016 that describes how divisive the new President is to many people.

Friday, January 13, 2017

Calculation of Medicare premiums for Social Security beneficiaries revealed

I sent the below letter to the editor shortly after my first letter was published and I noticed that the Medicare information had been updated online with the new means testing rules, which were created by Congress to "save" Medicare and they are now required by law. In theory, if you make enough money, you will be paying the full cost of the Medicare premium with no subsidy from taxpayers -- it is phased in over a range of income levels. (See my original letter: Thomas Kraemer, "Letter: Why my check will be less," Gazette-Times, Jan. 10, 2017, p.A6, posted Jan. 5, 2017 and also see previous post Medicare premium rises faster than inflation despite 'single payer' method (1/1/17)

The HTML web page now has a detailed explanation of how Medicare health insurance premiums for 2017 were calculated for each individual Social Security beneficiary; however, the printed brochure and online PDF file still contain old information.

The Medicare Part A medical insurance can cost up to $413 per month, but nothing if you worked and paid the taxes for it.

The optional Medicare Part B medical insurance typically costs $134 per month, if you enrolled for the first time in 2017, but much less for most people who were previously covered because their increase was limited by the small cost of living increase this year.

However, Part B can cost much as $428.60 per month, based on your 2015 federal tax return income, and infinitely more if you owe a penalty for signing up late.

The optional Medicare Part D drug plan costs are determined by the private providers, but many plans cost less than $40 per month.

It is still unclear who is paying the subsidy for the actual health care costs for each Medicare beneficiary of approximately $11,000 per year.

(Quoted from Thomas Kraemer, "Here's more on Medicare costs," Gazette-Times, Jan. 13, 2017, p. A6 print edition and first posted online Mon. Jan. 9. 2017 1:00 PM)

This discussion traces back to a previous letter writer's question asking why many Social Security beneficiaries this year did not see any increase in their monthly check, and the short answer is it is because the Medicare health insurance premium went up more than the cost-of-living increase for many people, and Congress legislated that nobody would get an increase bigger than their individual COLA.

Listed below are links to the sources of information summarized in my letter above:

The reason for so much confusion is because the annual letter sent to beneficiaries by Social Security did not explain how the Medicare premium was calculated and I could not find any more information online, at least initially, until right after my first letter was published. Two other letter writers also speculated that the reason for seeing no increase in Social Security checks, despite a 0.3 percent cost-pf-living adjustment was due to it being limited by the rules:

Also, see the new letter by Mike Huntington, M.D.," Letter: Congress could gut health care," posted Jan. 9, 2017 that expresses concern over the repeal of Obamacare, which President Trump says he won't repeal until thye have a replacement in a few years -- a topic for another post.

Saturday, January 7, 2017

Medicare premium rises faster than inflation despite 'single payer' method

Below is my reply to two letters to the editor of my local newspaper: one by Robert Hatela, "So, where's the increase?" Gazette-Times, Dec. 30, 2016, p. A6 and the other by Mike Huntington, M.D., "Why Single payer makes sense," Gazette-Times, Dec. 30, 2016, p. A6

Every Social Security beneficiary should have received a long letter in December from the Social Security Administration detailing the calculation of their monthly benefit check, which should answer Robert Hatela's Dec. 30 letter, "So, Where's the Increase?"

In my specific case, my monthly check in 2017 will actually be 40 cents less per month, despite the 0.3 percent cost-of-living-adjustment, because the "Original Medicare" health insurance premium went up 7 percent from $104.90 per month to $112, plus the 40 cents per month increase in a private Medicare Part D drug plan that is also automatically deducted.

Last year, this was not a problem because legislation supported by Democrats stopped any increases in Medicare premiums because the Consumer Price Index showed zero inflation and therefore no cost-of-living adjustment was added to Social Security checks.

Ironically, Hatela's letter was printed on the same page as a letter by Dr. Mike Huntington, M.D. that advocates a "single payer" solution to lower health insurance costs.

However, Medicare is a "single payer" system and it is experiencing premium increases that are many times the overall rate of inflation, primarily due to inelastic demand for heroic end-of-life medical care that is costing more than a million dollars per person according to a "Bloomberg BusinessWeek" article.

"Single payer" is a politically correct and polite euphemism for "rationing," which is the only fair economic solution to the inelastic demand for healthcare.

(Quoted from Thomas Kraemer, "Letter: Why my check will be less," Gazette-Times, Jan. 10, 2017, p.A6, posted Jan. 5, 2017)

Also, see the previous letter by Mike Huntington, M.D.,"Letter: Health care system is flawed," posted Sep. 9, 2016 who is a local doctor that has written a series of opinion pieces supporting a "single payer" system as a solution to health care costs.

Health Savings Accounts are another proposal by some Republicans, probably because HSAs help those who can save money in a tax-deferred account. (See previous post Oregon Obamacare final rates and Republican's Health Savings Accounts proposal is not insurance (12/19/16))

When I wrote the letter above, I debated whether to mention the legislation supported by Democrats that prevents the Medicare premium increase being greater than the Social Security cost of living increase, but I am glad I said it because a notoriously anti-Democrat letter writer blamed this situation on "what happens when you elect Democrats. The Government giveth, the Government taketh away. Blessed be the name of the Government." The letter writer also refers to the 0.3 percent Social Security cost of living increase and says, ". . . the government is raising your Part B premium by that entire amount. In your case, that's about $4.00 per month, in mine, roughly $6.00. . ." (Quoted from John Brenan, "Letter: Where the increase went," posted Jan. 5, 2017)

My increase in the Medicare Part D premium was 40 cents and the Medicare monthly premium was $7.10, instead of the $6.00 and $4.00 per month increases mentioned in the other two letters to the editor. This made me curious and I have been unable to find out directly from the Social Security Administration what is the theoretical maximum amount that the Medicare premiums and Part D premiums could be raised this year and if any of these annual increases will accumulate to be later deducted in future years, assuming there is a large enough increase in a person's check due to the cost-of-living adjustment. Clearly, the calculation of what had been a simple number has become very complicated and I bet it could lead to some unexpected corner cases.

When I wrote the letter, I knew that the calculation of deductions from the monthly cost-of-living adjustment included multiple lines, including voluntary withholding deductions, but I had not yet calculated that the cost of living adjustment stated in the letter as being 0.3 percent was actually 0.3097866 (as calculated to 7 digits of precision on an HP-12C calculator) and if the Social security Administration's computer programs used the typical floating-point arithmetic software, then I believe it would be unlikely the numbers were calculated to more than 7 digits of accuracy, which given the small increases, it could mean that the rounding algorithm they used could be significant and if these errors accumulate as deferred increases, then I wonder how SSA will calculate it in the future so that there are no unintended consequences.

Also, it was never my intention to brag about the size of my Social Security check, which the original amount was determined by a complicated formula incorporating how much I actually paid in Social Security taxes over decades -- generally, the more you make the more you pay and therefore the more you will get in Social Security payments, but this is true only up to a certain capped level -- and then the Social Security check amount is increased each year by the cost-of-living adjustment determined by the Consumer Price Index. Given all of these variables, I was not worried that anyone would be able to back calculate my monthly benefit amount, which I think is still true given rounding errors and the many optional deductions one can make from the check. However, after I wrote the letter, it occurred to me that my Medicare premium increase of $7.10 can be back calculated from figures in my letter, and this is an indication that my cost-of-living adjustment was greater than the other two letter writers who therefore must have a smaller check. After realizing this possibility, I was relieved to still be unable to back calculate the actual amount, even when using 12 digits of precision, due to the dynamic range of the numbers involved and other deduction factors that couldn't be deduced from my letter.

What I find more interesting is that these letters confirm that many Social Security recipients are now having a different amount being deducted for the Original Medicare premiums, which wasn't the case just a few years ago -- the premium amount was a fixed dollar amount and easily available because it was printed in the book mailed to recipients annually and it was also posted online. This change must have really complicated the Social Security's computer programs, which is probably what is limiting how much they can easily say in a letter or explain to people over the phone. Republicans are clearly exploiting this situation by blaming Democrats, who have failed to symmetrically use it as agitprop against Republicans who are using it to agitate people so that they will be willing to cut Social Security benefits as Republicans want to do.

Some links of interest:

My local newspaper ran another article on health care costs by Tony Pugh, McClatchy Washington Bureua (TNS), "Helath care spending up 5.8% to $10K per person," Albany Democrat Herald / Corvallis Gazette-Times, Sun. Dec. 4, 2016, p. B11 online as "Obama's health care law is behind 2nd straight year of faster rise in medical spending," posted Dec. 2, 2106, which says, "Public and private spending for U.S. health care increased to $3.2 trillion in 2015 or nearly $10,000 per person, according to a government report released Friday. . . The 5.8 percent spending increase last year is up from a 5.3-percent hike in 2014. Both increases followed five straight years of historically slower growth from 2009 to 2013. . ."

After reading this article nearly a month ago, I noted that during 2015 I paid monthly Medicare premiums of $104.90 for Part B and $30 for an optional Part D drug plan, and nothing for Part A, as do most retirees entitled to the premium-free "Original Medicare Plan."

However, the actual cost of Medicare is much more because the total Medicare spending was $11,900 per recipient during 2015 (as calculated from information in the above Dec. 4 G-T article, "Health care spending up 5.8% to $10K per person." -- Medicare spending for 2015 of $646.2 billion divided by 54.3 million enrolled in Medicare.)

Prior to Obamacare the actual cost of Medicare, for people who must pay the full premium amount, was disclosed in the annual notice mailed to Medicare recipients, but I couldn't find more recent numbers with any online search. If I recall correctly, ten years ago it was at least $400 per month, and I am sure it is much more than that now.

For comparison purposes, I showed these annual health care costs, of at least $10K per person, to my 60-years-old spouse who faces an annual health insurance premium of at least $6,204 next year because the insurance provider left the Oregon market and my retirement income is too much to receive any Obamacare subsidy on our joint tax return.

No matter which way you cut it, health care costs are rapidly reaching the point where most people will be unwilling or unable to pay for it. This is the "death spiral of Obamacare" that Republicans say is going to happen, and Democrats say won't happen because the Affordable Care Act has a carrot (government subsidies will keep most people's costs low) and a stick (uninsured will be forced pay for healthcare of others). In fact, the way the ACA is written, when the cost of health insurance is more than 8.13 percent of your income, you will be exempt from this "Shared Responsibility Payment." Neither Party may be right in how this hakes out!

Gay bar culture replaced by smart phone apps and social media

Cover of 'The Gay Insider USA' by John Francis Hunter

A gay guide book The Gay Insider USA was sold in bookstores across America in 1972. It included a national listing of gay bars and State laws against homosexual behavior, such as a Eugene gay bar and the law against sodomy in Oregon. Consistent with societal homophobia at that time, the author's name listed on the cover, John Francis Hunter, was a pseudonym and it isn't until page 60 that the author revealed his real name, John Paul Hudson, perhaps to be more true to the 1970's gay liberationist's goal of being out of the closet. (See previous post The Gay Insider USA 1972 (9/15/06))

The Gay Insider USA pages 546-547 listing gay bars, etc. in 1972 Eugene, Portland, and Salem, Oregon

PHOTO: (click photo to enlarge) Oregon State University, located in the small college town of Corvallis, Oregon has never been large enough to support a dedicated gay bar, but the slightly larger college town south of it, Eugene, Oregon, home of the University of Oregon, had a gay bar early as 1972 that was named the Riviera Room at 39 W. 10th, which was listed on pages 546-547 of a popular guide book by by John Francis Hunter, "The Gay Insider USA," Stonehill 1972. (See previous posts The Gay Insider USA 1972 (9/15/06) and New gay bar mentioned on Eugene TV news station (7/20/15)

A New York City gay newspaper story covered the closing of a NYC gay bar and one writer commented:

" A spate of articles has appeared lately on the subject of gay bars shutting down, and strangely, they all conclude that it's A Good Thing. In the last two weeks, the Chicago Tribune, The Economist, and the website The Good Men Project have all published articles that examine the trend . . .

It takes a few paragraphs to get there, but the Trib finally gets to the fundamental reason that gay bars are disappearing: "'It all changed with smartphones,' LaFary said, referring to the widely held theory that mobile dating apps like Grindr, by facilitating meetups online, helped render bars unnecessary. . ."

(Quoted from Ed Sikov, "A Gay Walks into a Bar -- Ow!" posted January 5, 2017)

I vividly recall going to my first gay bar in Downtown Minneapolis shortly after reading about the 1969 Stonewall riot in the NYC Village Voice newspaper my mother subscribed to, which taught me that gay bars were where gay people met to socialize and hookup. I was directed to a bar named "Suttons" by a friendly dormitory Resident Assistant who offered to take me there. The RA patiently explained to me the social customs and I remember being terrified by all of the drunken "old men" lecherously leering at me, who I later learned viewed me as being a young "twink" or "chicken" who was probably a virgin and not of the legal age required to be in a bar.

Personally, I was never turned on by the gay bar scene, even though I admit to being curious when I lived in San Francisco, and so when I moved to Corvallis, Oregon State University, and learned that the nearest gay bars were more than an hour drive away, I was glad to become part of creating an alternative place to meet other gay people on campus in the OSU Women's Center, which had been created in 1972. Likewise, I soon learned how Corvallis was like many small towns where all types of people, loggers, farmers, college professors, etc., intermixed in all of the local social gathering spots, something that is apparently happening everywhere today according to Gay City News. For example, the Corvallis bar named "Squirrels" that was open in the 1970's and it is still in business today, was popular with both straight and gay students.

Also, I was never into cruising public parks or tearooms to hook up for sex. See my previous posts Student paper features 'cruising spot' at Oregon State University (4/20/12) and OSU gay lifestyles 1984 (7/232/06) that quotes an OSU student in 1984 saying that one particular gay guide, in years past, listed only two places where gay people could meet other gays in Corvallis, and those, Eddie says, were "two of the bathrooms on campus." [Note: Besides the bushes along the then overgrown riverfront, the sixth floor library bathroom and two MU bathrooms (MU Ballroom and 3rd floor) were both frequented by "gay cruisers." These toilet rooms were known as "tearooms" (or t-rooms) and they were documented by the sociologist Laud Humphreys in his scholarly book titled, "Tearoom Trade" (1970).

Gay bars, tearooms and public parks might not be used as much to hookup by gay men today, except for gay men who have a fetish for these types of places or who don't own a smartphone, and this might be a "good thing" or a "sign of progress" for gay men, but it raises some new sociological questions for a young researcher at OSU: What are the gay social customs in smartphone apps and on social media? Are their gay ghettos online today that have similar social issues that gay bars and tearooms had in the past, or have gay apps and social media created some new social issues for gay men? These questions are just off the top of my mind and I will leave it to a young OSU student to research it and formulate a better set of questions and answers.

Saturday, December 24, 2016

Year 2016 in review - 11 years of blogging - Am I too blind to blog?

Selfie taken taken by Thomas Kraemer on Christmas Eve in 2016

PHOTO: Selfie taken taken by Thomas Kraemer on Christmas Eve in 2016. Please excuse me if my selfie is poorly lit and composed, but I have been slowly going low vision blind over the last few years and I can no longer recognize faces, even of people I have known for years, due to my brain's neurological disorder, called prosopagnosia (i.e. face blindness), related to an ischemic stroke in the posterior cerebral artery area of of brain that has caused a diffuse area of brain death typical of an impact injury and not due to the more typical reason of fat cells breaking off the walls of the arteries. I was barely able to take this picture and upload it to Google Blogger and Photos thanks to the accessibility features built-in to Microsoft's operating system and Internet Explorer Browser for people with various disabilities. Of course, it has been much easier to adapt to using these accessibility features given my previous familiarity with the software commands needed, but as my symptoms worsen over time, I have been forced to adapt more and more, with a tradeoff of not being able to read or do as many things fast as I did them before. For example, if I lose the ability of using a graphical window and mouse interface and I am forced to use a text and command line interface like what was the only computer interface available when I first used a computer in 1964, then even using a modern accessibility feature of a voice and speech interface will not be quick and easy to use as the decades old computer command line interface.

As I said last year, I don't know how long I will be able to continue blogging given my worsening low vision blindness and muscle paralysis, but I am grateful to still have the ability required for posting my favorite links and posts from last year 2016:

Also, my previous post HP 3-D printers praised by Jim Cramer CNBC Wall Street reporter (7/24/16) preceded two related newspaper articles of interest by Staff, "Future of 3-D printing is topic of forum," Gazette-Times, Nov. 1, 2016, p. A2 and a follow-up article by Anthony Rimel, "HP Plans 3-D printers for manufacturing," Gazette-Times, Nov. 3, 2016, p. A2, online as, "HP exec says company's 3-D printers will lead to new industrial revolution," posted Nov. 3, 2016 that mentions Tim Weber, global head of 3-D materials and advanced applications for HP Inc. talking about. Clearly, he has adopted the HP founder's strategy that avoided dependence on the retail market, like inkjet printers ended up in, by focusing on 3-D printers and materials for manufacturers. Tim's PhD in Mechanical Engineering makes this a perfect cap to his career.

. . . the company's new Multi Jet Fusion 3-D printers at a Chamber lunch, saying that while the printers were designed in Spain, they use printhead technology that was developed in Corvallis. . . . Weber said typically 3-D printers make things by extruding material from a single point, which he likened to a hot glue gun. According to Weber though, HP's 3-D printers use printheads based on their ink printers to spray a reacting agent from multiple points onto a nylon based powder and cause the two to fuse into a solid piece by using ultraviolet light to power the reaction.

Weber said this process is faster and allows for manufacturers to customize the material they work with and make parts that are comparable to what could be made through injection molding. Manufacturers interested in customizing the material used in their printer could work with HP in Corvallis to develop a powder that meets their needs. . . .

He said the machines will run from around $100,000 to $250,000, and are not intended as a consumer product. "Right now we're really going after manufacturing," he said. According to Weber, for runs of parts up to about 55,000 units, their 3-D printers would be cheaper than injection molding, which require expensive molds be cast.

(Quoted from Anthony Rimel, "HP Plans 3-D printers for manufacturing," Gazette-Times, Nov. 3, 2016, p. A2, online as, "HP exec says company's 3-D printers will lead to new industrial revolution," posted Nov. 3, 2016)

See my previous ten annual reviews of my blog posts:

Friday, December 23, 2016

Why Trump is queer and loved by many men and women

VIDEO: (no longer available for free) U.S. President-elect Donald Trump is interviewed by Fox News Sunday," on Dec. 11, where he shows his true nature, in response to a question about his opinion on the quality of election night TV coverage, by bragging, "I know the folks at ESPN were saying that's one of the great things they've ever watched. You know, they watch all the great games and the fights and all of the things and they said, one of them said it's the single greatest event they've ever seen." (See text transcript of "Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace," Sunday, Dec. 11, 2016 at approx. 59 min into show over the air and Fox News Channel at 2PM ET and 10PM ET)

After watching the above interview of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump on Fox news Sunday, I noticed that Trump has queer gender behavior, which is what prompted me to write the following letter to the editor of my local newspaper:

President-elect Donald Trump's popularity with many voters, including both men and women, appears to be based on his sexist facade, which includes the queer mixture of him acting like a masculine and tyrannical football coach intermixed with him also acting like a feminine and temperamental theatre arts director who has never come out of the closet to publically acknowledge his true nature.

Trump showed his true nature when Fox News Sunday" on Dec. 11 asked him about the election night TV coverage and he bragged, "I know the folks at ESPN were saying that's one of the great things they've ever watched. You know, they watch all the great games and the fights and all of the things and they said, one of them said it's the single greatest event they've ever seen."

Like a coach or a director, Trump will remain popular only long as he has a winning team or produces shows that voters want to watch.

I will confess to enjoying Trump's showmanship, but worry that Trump's lack of integrity and conservative principles will lead America to another Great Depression and world war.

(Quoted from Thomas Kraemer, "Letter: Musings about Trump's true nature," Gazette-Times, Dec. 23, p. A8)

Despite Republicans wining control of both Congress and the U.S. Presidency, instead of Trump's supporters acting and talking like winners, Trump supporters still whine about being victims of the "liberal media" or the so-called "political correctness" imposed by that "evil Democrat Party." I guess the rightwing media has been inciting the Republican base with the propaganda that "Republicans are victims of liberal Democrat Party politicians" for so long that the base doesn't know how to act like winners in the majority.

Yes, perhaps these were real issues for Republicans decades ago, but in my experience Republicans won't become good leaders if all they can do is blame everyone else for America's problems, instead of Republicans taking ownership for their own part. Yes, Republicans' stereotypical complaints have helped Fox News succeed over the last two decades, but Republicans are now clearly in charge and will stay popular long as they keep a winning team and produce shows that people want to watch.

In contrast to most Republicans acting like they are still victims, Trump's egotism and vanity has let him act like a winner, despite the fact he failed to win the popular vote, much less get a majority of American's to support him. Perhaps his supporters have less of an ego and that is why they are so defensive about his win because they can see Trump doesn't really have support from a majority of Americans.

I have also been surprised by how Trump has caused a realignment of the definitions of a Republican away from being an anti-gay Christian Theocrat, backward toward one of Repubilcans supporting the capitalist's ethics of every man for himself and let the weak die out naturally. I believe that Trump's queer politics has caused a realignment of traditional political groupings in a divisive way that has also led to the breakup of friendships, including some of mine. For example, see the excellent essay by the famous queer author, Michelangelo Signorile, "Why We Can't Be 'Friends' Any Longer After You Voted For Donald Trump," posted Dec. 13, 2016. Signorile also points how Trump supporters are still claiming to be victims and he says, "I get that. But we are in a grave situation, with little time to spare. At this current moment, since you don't see that we're in a national emergency (to which you contributed), you may only be jarred if your comfortable life is affected -- such as by losing one or more friends and being forced to reflect on the magnitude of what you've done."

Wednesday, December 21, 2016

PBS Minnesota LGBT history, Oregon Lt. Col. Pam Mindt donor to U of Minnesota Tretter Collection

Headline 'Tretter Collection makes purchase of Magnus Hirschfeld Li family estate' Jan. 2007 p. 1 cover

PHOTO: cover of newsletter story by Jean-Nickolaus Tretter, "Tretter Collection Makes Purchase of Magnus Hirschfeld Li Family Estate," Tretter Letter, Jan. 2007, p. 1,3 (PDF). See the home page of The Jean-Nickolaus Tretter Collection in Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Studies at the University of Minnesota Elmer L. Andersen Library. Also see The Magnus Hirschfeld Gesellschaft, Berlin, Germany and the Schwules Museum, Germany. Also see previous post Magnus Hirschfeld, Jack Baker, University of Minnesota and Oregon State University gay connection (1/21/12)

"The "Tretter Letter," Newsletter for Friends of the Tretter Collection," University of Minnesota Library Archives is published two times a year by The Jean-Nickolaus Tretter Collection in Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Studies at the University of Minnesota Elmer L. Andersen Library. The latest issue includes several interesting stories. (See "The Tretter Letter," Jan. 2017, p. 4-5 (PDF) about a new PBS documentary being made about Minesota's LGBT history, including Jack Baker's gay marriage, p. 5-6, 8, plus donation of retired Colonel, Pam Mindt Papers, p. 7, and a list of archive donors including Pam Mindt and Thomas Kraemer.

See my previous posts and other links of interest: