At this point I don't really care what the answers to these questions are. GLAAD needs to die, and Jarrett Barrios needs to disappear forever. Maybe a new GLAAD can be reconstituted that means something to someone, but I doubt it. At this point they're just occupying some expensive real estate for no reason. The fact that they even have an opinion on net neutrality or the AT&T merger is enough to damn them, even if it wasn't a transparently criminal one.

This kills me, I remember Barrios on the front lines of the Massachusetts marriage equality fight and he made a huge difference. I had great hopes when he went to GLAAD that he could inject some grass roots into their astroturfed organization. Apparently not.

Dan, you just don't understand big institutional non-profits. It's very important that the Director and Board Members be invited to the right parties and have their fundraisers at the right hotels. Who wants to sit around in the Ballroom of the midtown Crowne Plaza, when you can have your big party in The Biergarten at The Standard? So what if it's more expensive? You can't be shown up by HRC.

For that sort of "synergy" you need corporate cache, and what - other than a top shelf liquor sponsorship - could be more classy than AT&T?

Besides, everyone knows that gays love iPhones, and AT&T does iPhones, right? Duh.

Sadly, while some non-profits may support very righteous (I have the hardest time spelling that word, there's gotta be a reason) causes, the directors of these huge institutions rarely differ in character from any other business. Often, they're worse.

So many of these charities should just disband (seriously, March of Dimes, you won like 80 years ago) after either accomplishing their initial goals or hitting their logical—and most likely permanent—plateau, but they so rarely do. Often, they simply continue to exist to provide cushy lifestyles for a few (and shitwork for many) and suck those limited donation dollars and resources away from more worthwhile causes.

There's a reason nonprofits (501(c)3's at any rate) are generally prohibited from lobbying on political matters (dunno that the ATT thing really qualifies), but honestly -- a nonprofit needs to keep its head down and focus EXACTLY on what it was formed to do in the first place!

What I don't get is why GLAAD keeps "weighing in" on this at all. Shouldn't they be advocating for causes that are, oh, say, in some way, shape or form related to gay issues?

Watch out, next they'll start writing letters about that tunnel controversy in Seattle--after all gays and lesbians regularly use streets!

@6: What tunnel controversy? What'd I miss? There's a controversy?

@7 Y'know, I live nowhere near Seattle, and I don't usually even read all of Slog, just "Savage Blog," and still I have not been able to miss the fact that there's something about a tunnel, and it's controversial. However, a tunnel (or lack thereof) far from where I am honestly didn't interest me enough to remember the details... Dan is against it, though... I think...

Actually, I think you could make a valid argument that civil rights groups, and charities in general, should back net neutrality. I mean, it is the poor and disadvantaged who will likely be most negatively effected by pay-for-play bandwidth. So will small non-profits with limited budgets who try to use the internet to spread their message.

So again, by whoring for AT&T and coming out against net neutrality, they appear to be acting against the best interests of their own organization and the people they claim to represent and advocate for.

What the fuck, GLAAD?