New online conversations allege the suspected WikiLeaks source was mocked and physically attacked New online conversations between a gay activist and Bradley Manning, the US soldier suspected of passing secret diplomatic cables to WikiLeaks, allege Manning was being bullied in the military over his sexuality. The 2009 weblogs, sent from Fort Drum, the upstate New York barracks where Manning was preparing to be sent to Iraq as an intelligence analyst, give new insight into his state of mind around the time he is alleged to have contacted WikiLeaks. Using the online pseudonym Bradass87, Manning used AOL’s instant messager for several exchanges with a 19-year-old man called Zachary Antolak, who lived near Chicago. Antolak adopted a female persona on the internet, ZJ Antolak. In the weblogs, never before made public, Manning tells ZJ of bullying he endured as a gay man serving in the army under “don’t ask, don’t tell”, the discriminatory policy towards gay soldiers. Though he tried to hide his sexuality, it was soon discovered by others in his platoon. “It took them a while, but they started figuring me out, making fun of me, mocking me, harassing me, heating up with one or two physical attacks,” Manning wrote to ZJ. The logs were uncovered by Steve Fishman, a journalist at New York magazine who wrote a profile of Manning for the latest issue. The new material adds to the understanding of Manning, who has spent more than a year in military prison awaiting a court martial on charges that he sent hundreds of thousands of confidential documents and videos to WikiLeaks. Manning has become a cause celebre in the US, where protests are regularly held outside Fort Leavenworth in Kansas, where he is in custody. In the cyber conversations with ZJ Manning also says he was shocked by life in the army when first recruited. “The army took me, a web dev, threw me into a rigid schedule, removed me from my digital self,” posted Manning. “The army … threw me in the forests of Missouri for 10 weeks with an old M-16, Reagan-era load-bearing equipment and 50 twanging people hailing from places like Texas, Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi … joy. What the hell did I put myself through?” In October 2009 Manning was deployed to Forward Operating Base Hammer, 40 miles from Baghdad. There his feeling of isolation grew more intense. “It’s awfully stressful, lonely,” he wrote. As part of the profile piece, Fishman interviews a counsellor who saw Manning in November 2009. At the sessions they discussed a previously unknown incident in which Manning appears to have felt responsible for a US military operation in Iraq that led to the death of a civilian. Manning told the counsellor he was trying to find out why two groups of Iraqis were in a particular area. A US army unit was dispatched and Manning later learned that a man connected to them was killed. Manning, the counsellor said, “was very, very distressed”. He also claimed Manning discussed wanting to have a sex change. In previously disclosed weblogs he expressed anger at the apparent lack of concern shown by his superior officers in Iraq about the treatment of civilians. Bradley Manning WikiLeaks United States Ed Pilkington guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Click here to view this media (h/t Heather at VideoCafe ) Did you know that not listening to George Will makes you a more informed viewer? It’s true . It’s quite a cushy job for someone: show up on TV week after week to offer forth your part of the national dialog and never, EVER be accountable for being wrong. Ah…the privilege of being George Will. So with the heavy baggage of repercussions for not being accurate or correct kindly lifted off him, Will can wax ahistorically to his partisan heart’s content. In a roundtable discussion of the Constitution and how it has evolved over the last two hundred plus years, George Will sees an opportunity to get yet another partisan slam in on that Other currently occupying the White House. Because, you see, George Will thinks that all this discussion about the Constitution is Barack Obama’s fault. Not because he makes all those privileged white tea partiers uncomfortable about their latent racism, but because he has made an unprecedented (UNPRECEDENTED, I tell you!) overreach of presidential powers, as evidenced by the mandate in the Affordable Care Act. Except… We’ve just had yet another federal court uphold the mandate as constitutional; The Congress wrote the ACA bill with the mandate, not the President. If anything, Obama was far too hands off in the bill process because he had perhaps over-internalized the errors made by the Clinton White House of having Hillary shepherd the process away from Congress , causing the Congress to torpedo the bill in an effort to put the Executive Branch in its place. The concept of the mandate was actually one first put out by Republicans. Specifically, Bob Dole suggested an individual mandate in his counter-proposal to Hillarycare , Mitt Romney had it as part of Romneycare in Massachusetts and during the ACA debates in 2009 , no less than John McCain, Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Bob Bennett, Tommy Thompson, Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Scott Brown, and Judd Gregg supported mandates before they were against them. And please, as Time Magazine’s Rick Stengel so rightfully puts Will’s ahistorical revisionism in its place, Barack Obama is guilty of overreach? Dude, six words for you: George Bush, Dick Cheney, Unitary Executive. There is no other president who better exemplifies presidential overreach than the co-presidency of George W. Bush/Dick Cheney . Ironically, like Stengel argues, there are absolutely areas in which we can hold Obama responsible for pushing the boundaries of his presidential authority (Libya, anyone?), but in this particular case, it’s just another example of George Will being wrong. Again.
Continue reading …Click here to view this media On this week’s Fox News Sunday , the Washington Examiner’s Chris Stirewalt apparently thinks negotiating entails one side getting everything they want and then stomping off before giving even one iota of the concessions they agreed to when talks started. In my world, that’s called bargaining in bad faith, or hostage taking, not negotiating. BREAM: Chris, you had sort of a visceral reaction when Bill said they won’t reach a deal. STIREWALT: Well, look, the problem for the president in all of this is that he can have a deal anytime he wants. He’s driving the bus and he can stop at any moment. He feels tremendous pressure from markets, tremendous pressure from the largest question that looms over his reelection, which is the condition of the economy. He needs a deal quickly. Now, he can stop today. They already have a deal in principle for $1.4 trillion, $1.5 trillion in cuts, with the cap extension to match. That takes them maybe not to the 2012 election, but very close. It’s a year’s worth of borrowing, probably. And he can stop this buggy any time he wants and they can have a deal. But he’s afraid to do that because of two things. One, he wants to make sure that they get it past the election so that he doesn’t have to go through this next summer. And the other problem is, as Nina pointed out, he took a lot of blowback for extending the Bush tax rates. That was a big deal. Supporters did not like it, Democratic members of Congress felt that he sold them out. So he feels political pressure to push this to the end. But every day longer he goes, the less the markets like it and the more damage to the economy it does. It’s a real sweet spot.
Continue reading …Maybe we ought to nickname him Rip Van Geier. In his coverage of this weekend's We The People Convention in Columbus, Ohio early Saturday morning, Columbus Dispatch reporter Ben Geier found it “surprising” that many attendees would “go after the Republican Party and House Speaker John Boehner” in expressing their opinions relating to developments in Washington. It's as if he's totally unaware of what the movement's leading members and its grass roots activists have been saying (and proving) since the first anti-stimulus rallies in early 2009, since Utah Tea Partiers unceremoniously ousted supposedly entrenched incumbent Bob Bennett in May 2010, and since Ohio Tea Partiers ran serious but largely unsuccessful opposition candidates for State Auditor, Secretary of State, and the State Republican Party's Central Committee slots that spring. Since Rip Van Geier missed it, here's the message: The Tea Party movement isn't about propping up a party; it's about electing sensible, Constitution-following conservatives to political office regardless of party, revising state and federal laws to reflect constitutional principles, and of course educating the general populace about those principles and their importance. I attended the We The People Convention, attended almost a dozen breakout sessions during its two days, participated in one of Saturday's panels with fellow Ohio bloggers Matt Hurley and Maggie Thurber , and spoke with a number of people who have attended other activist conferences. Thus, I can confidently attest that Geier's description of the We The People breakout program as “a number of small sessions” is totally inadequate. Here are excerpts from “Rip's” report (bolds and numbered tags are mine): It's no surprise to hear members of the tea party movement railing against liberals, progressives and especially President Barack Obama. But to hear them go after the Republican Party and House Speaker John Boehner is a bit more surprising. That's exactly what people at the We the People Convention got from tea party founder Jenny Beth Martin [1] during her lunchtime address yesterday at the Greater Columbus Convention Center. “Just because they have an 'R' next to their name doesn't give them a free ride,” Martin said to loud applause. … Ohio's first We the People Convention concludes tonight after a speech at noon by Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund and an evening address by GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain. … Martin spoke particularly harshly about Boehner, calling him out for not cutting the $100 billion from the budget that he and other Republicans pledged, and for not standing up to Democrats on the budget. … (Ohio Republican Party spokesman Chris) Maloney said that the Ohio GOP was proud to have worked with the local tea party groups during the 2010 election [2], and he thought they would continue to work together [3] during the 2012 cycle to “retire Barack Obama and Sherrod Brown.” … In addition to Martin's speech, the convention featured a number of small sessions [4] with speakers from such groups as the Heritage Foundation and School Choice Ohio … Notes: [1] — Martin is “co-founder and national coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots from Atlanta.” She is not the “tea party founder.” Geier could have gone to the We The People program , which describes her as “Tea Party Patriots National Coordinator. I guess clicking is a hard thing to do. [2] — The Ohio Republican Party, which I prefer to call ORPINO (The Ohio Republican Party In Name Only) had a pretty significant staff exodus earlier this year, and I'm tempted to give Chris Maloney the benefit of the doubt for this howler if he's among the newbies. But he needs to know his history, and it's certainly not as he describes it. If ORPINO “worked with the local tea party groups during the 2010 election” (as framed, Maloney's statement carries a heavy implication of “most” or “all”), it's one of the Buckeye State's best-kept secrets. The fact is that ORPINO, as documented here , here , and here (for starters), was bound and determined to clear field in last year's State Attorney General race for all-time RINO and recently soundly defeated former U.S. Senator Mike DeWine. To do so, ORPINO Chairman Kevin DeWine convinced a much better primary opponent to run for Auditor instead. Largely as a result of that backroom deal, Tea Party-supported candidates ran against ORPINO's chosen and endorsed candidates for Auditor and Secretary of State, and fielded a nearly complete slate of candidates for the state Central Committee. ORPINO was so nervous about the possibility that their candidates and committee members might go down to primary defeats that, in an unprecedented move, it spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on colorful mailers, customized to each Central Committeeperson's represented area, extolling their slates' (cough, cough) “Tea Party Values.” Additionally and also unprecedented, on Primary Election Day ORPINO placed several representatives handing out similar literature at polling places throughout the state. These “successful” moves obviously took significant money away from ORPINO's general election efforts. While the party can obviously point to the statewide sweep achieved by the GOP slate in November as proof of success, yours truly and other observers strongly believe that the its underfunded situation in the fall caused by its paranoid opposition to arguably stronger primary candidates in the spring nearly allowed incumbent Democratic Governor Ted Strickland to overtake Republican challenger John Kasich in the election's final weeks after trailing badly until October. This weakened Kasich's opening mandate, making it much more difficult than it should have been to pass SB5, a collective-bargaining bill similar in many ways to Wisconsin's related and better-known measure. Sparse on-hand cash may have also contributed to the fact that ORPINO did little to counteract the Wisconsin-like demonstrations and attacks by leftist organizations and unions as SB5 moved through the legislature. [3] — To “continue working together,” one has to have worked together previously. Chris Maloney and ORPINO can pretend all they want, but that has yet to ever happen to any meaningful degree. [4] — Geier “somehow” never got around to telling readers that well over 1,000 people attended We The People. What he described as a “number of small sessions,” as shown here , really consisted of 90 sessions on roughly 50 topics presented by subject matter experts in the areas of campaign organization, management, and strategy; statewide issues; national/international issues; historical perspectives; and online activism and advocacy. Ohio residents made well over half of the presentations. Several people who have attended other similar events told me they were especially impressed by the how-to focus of so many of the modules. Attendance at the sessions I attended was hardly “small,” ranging from about 50 to about 120. Like the Tea Party movement itself, We The People was built from the ground up. This year's event came about because of a recognition that as important as the achievements in last year's congressional and U.S. Senate races were, it will take ongoing activism at the local, county and state levels to effect genuine long-term change, an organizational and philosophical bench, and an ultimate return to this country's constitutional core values. Ben Geier's Dispatch effort comes off as a bit petty and designed to minimize the significance of an effort which could wind up being seen as the prototype for a successful activist education, training, and networking even in the coming years. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .
Continue reading …Click here to view this media When Rand Paul makes Marco Rubio sound sane, you know it’s bad. Candy Crowley’s theme of the day was the American Dream, and Rand’s idea of it is, well…Randian. Actually, it’s pretty dystopian. Here’s the transcript, via CNN: CROWLEY: We leave you with a last set of thoughts on the fundamentals of the American dream. Capitol Hill, we found out, remains full of dreamers. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) REP. BARNEY FRANK (D), MASSACHUSETTS: For me the American dream is the ability of people, no matter what their ethnicity, their religion, their background, their sexual orientation, to live up to their full potential. SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R), FLORIDA: The American dream is more than just about people that made millions of dollars or own a jet airplane or yacht. It’s about the hard-working people that service our lunch at restaurants or clean our offices at night who are working hard so that one day their kids can do all the things they themselves could not. SEN. MARK WARNER (D), VIRGINIA: We can’t guarantee everyone in America that they’re going to be successful, but we sure as heck ought to be able to guarantee that everybody gets a fair shot. SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: It’s not that we will have equal outcome. In fact, the American dream is that those who work harder and those who merit it will have unequal outcomes, that they will gain more of whatever the American dream is. SEN. CLAIRE MCCASKILL (D), MISSOURI: The American dream means to me that a young girl who grew up going to public schools in a very modest household and who worked her way through college and law school someday has the incredible opportunity to be a United States senator. In the overall spectrum of remarks clipped in this segment, Rand Paul’s stand out like a big black thumbprint on an otherwise gradient landscape. “Those who work harder and those who merit it…” What exactly does that mean? Is there some formula for preordination for some in this country to ‘merit it’? Is it a dogwhistle or just simple-minded meanness? What I heard in this segment was a United States Senator arguing for inequality, which squares exactly with his political philosophy of returning us to pre-Civil War era times. As for Marco Rubio, what did he say, exactly? Not a whole lot, but most of it contradicts his actions. He voted for the Ryan plan, won’t vote to raise the debt limit, and supports draconian cuts to services and assistance that would help those hard workers out there who want life to be better for their kids. So thanks Marco for the platitudes but next time back up your pretty words with some action, okay?
Continue reading …Click here to view this media (h/t Heather at VideoCafe ) It’s an insidious thing, framing the debate. And too often, people watch the Sunday news shows without doing the meta-analysis necessary to evaluate the truthfulness or accuracy of the information being presented to them. They don’t look at the partisan or ideological bents of the invited guests; they don’t consider the assumptions made the framing of questions. It never occurs to them that the media is trying to lead them to a specific point of view, even if it’s not necessarily the one you actually hold. I noticed this little bit of framing in the intro for This Week’s roundtable discussion of the Constitution. It’s just a small part of a larger intro, but it’s very telling in the way that ABC News views the abortion debate. Go to 1:47 of the intro. Here’s the other way we’ve long tended to treat the Constitution — as wrapping paper, as in wrap yourself in it to make your case sound even better type of wrapping paper, to put a nice bow on it. Which is really nothing new. Every case that ever gets to the Supreme Court gets there because both sides argue they have the Constitution on their side. Richard Nixon, refusing to give up his tapes, said the Constitution protected him. He lost. Folks that want to burn the American flag say the Constitution protects them. They generally win. People who argue the Constitution protects the unborn have yet to win their battle. Hold on…what was that? “Have YET to win their battle”??? Um, no. They lost that battle. It was called Roe v. Wade and the Supreme Court decided that an actual born woman’s right to privacy and determine medical procedures on her body superseded any potential (and nonviable) life forms. That is the law of the land, Republican attempts to thwart it notwithstanding. But so kind of ABC News and John Donvan to frame it as an still existing battle on behalf of the anti-choicers.
Continue reading …BBC Trust chairman hints at reducing number of managers earning above £150,000 and adoption of Hutton pay proposals Lord Patten, the BBC Trust chairman, has signalled that the corporation would address what he called a “toxic” public relations problem by cutting the pay of some of its most senior executives. In an interview on BBC1′s Andrew Marr Show, Patten hinted that the number of managers earning more than £150,000 would be reduced as part of a series of announcements designed to show the BBC was responding to the need to cut public spending. He said he would be taking up some of the proposals in the recent report by the Work Foundation’s Will Hutton into pay in the public sector. Patten spoke as it emerged that the BBC pays 19 presenters, actors and journalists more than £500,000 a year. The figures will be published in the corporation’s forthcoming annual report. Patten focused on executive pay rather than the salaries paid to onscreen stars. He said this was the biggest issue for the BBC because “what’s happened does seem to fly in the face of public service ethos”. The forthcoming announcement would cover four issues, Patten said. “First of all there’s the pay level at the very top; secondly there’s the number of people who get more than £150,000; thirdly there’s the number of people who are deemed to be senior managers; and fourthly there’s the whole issue of fairness across the board, with senior managers getting some deals which don’t apply to others. “We can deal with all that and if we do so, we will deal with one of the most toxic reasons for the public’s lack of sympathy with the BBC as an institution, even though they like enormously what it does.” Patten said he was particularly interested in the “very good ideas” in Hutton’s report on public sector pay, which rejected a suggestion that top pay in public sector bodies should be capped at 20 times median pay in the organisation. But Hutton said pay multiples should be published, any increase in the figure should be explained publicly and executives should receive some of their salary as “earn back” pay that would only be handed over if certain targets were met. Patten indicated he would adopt some of these recommendations. “I would like the BBC to be the first organisation in the public sector which actually gets into implementing some of Will Hutton’s ideas,” he said. Patten said the BBC was “a fantastic organisation”, but it should “take out a lot of costs” and learn to live within its £3.5bn budget. “Everybody is having to pull in their belts and I hope we can pull in ours while producing high-quality programmes still,” he said. The corporation’s annual report will publish the most detailed analysis of stars’ pay in the corporation’s history. It will not reveal the salaries paid to presenters, nor will it identify individuals, but the annual accounts, which will be unveiled next Tuesday, will show the number of performers who fall within a series of pay brackets. The corporation will confirm that since the departure of Jonathan Ross, who was reputed to earn £6m a year, it pays no performer more than £5m. Salary information for what the BBC terms its “top tier” of talent – those paid more than £1m a year – will be revealed. Attempts to force top presenters to take salary cuts, as well as the defection of Adrian Chiles to ITV, are understood to have brought the total paid to seven-figure stars down by £2.3m to £14.5m. The highest paid is thought to be Graham Norton, who banked a talent fee of £1.5m from his production outfit So Television, according the company’s latest accounts. He was also paid a dividend of £500,000 from the company’s profits, which include non-BBC activities. But the BBC will not reveal how many stars it pays more than £1m, citing data protection legislation. “We have had to aggregate the numbers from £500,000 upwards to prevent the individuals being identified,” a BBC source said. “This is based on strong legal advice. Our lawyers believe that if we break that number down any further there will be jigsaw identification and we will be in breach of our confidentiality obligations.” The total spent on presenters and performers has fallen for the second year running, dropping to £213m from £222m in 2009-10, according to figures seen by the Guardian. When performers who earn less than £100,000 are excluded from the equation, the numbers are also down, from £68m to £65m. Mark Thompson, the BBC director general, will use the figures to claim the corporation is making progress in its pledge to drive down talent costs. He is expected to point to the new hosts of The One Show, Matt Baker and Alex Jones, as examples of how the BBC is developing new presenters, but will nevertheless pledge that the corporation will still invest large amounts to draw in the best performers. BBC Lord Patten BBC Trust Executive pay and bonuses Television industry Television Andrew Sparrow guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …The Puerto Rican singer talks about his struggle with his sexuality, his happiness at having finally come out and the ‘very erotic’ show he is bringing to London Ricky Martin would like to make one thing completely clear. The show he is bringing to London this month is “erotic”, he says, leaning towards me. “Very erotic,” he lowers his voice meaningfully. There’ll be fetish play, whips, chains, nudity (on film), he tells me, and an onstage orgy involving him and his eight dancers. He predicts the 18,000-strong audience will want to join in. And it’s this that worries me. When I go to his Madrid show the next day, the temperature outside is 33C. Inside, in a stadium heaving with heavily perfumed women and heavily muscled men, the temperature is anyone’s guess. When the fiftysomething woman beside me stands up, howling, at Martin’s first appearance, a slug of her sweat hits me, and I suck my teeth nervously. It’s a bacterial breeding ground, I think. When this orgy gets under way, veruccas will be spreading like wildfire. But I needn’t worry. The show is less erotic, more exuberant. Martin bounds around the stage like a huge, horny chipmunk, thrusting, hopping and swaying through the daffy charms of Shake Your Bon-Bon and She Bangs . There is a sweetness about him, a yearning for approval, that recalls his boyband childhood, and his enormous success in the late 1990s; when he sings the lyric “I wanna be your lover” and mimes holding a massive phallus, eyes astonished, then beseeching, it calls to mind nothing so much as a child proffering a large frog. The crowd screams when he opens his shirt, they punch the air to his 1998 football anthem La Copa de la Vida , and lose it when he sings his recent Spanish language release Más . As the gig ends, Martin gazes out at the audience, sweaty with joy. These are ecstatic times for him. Last year, after more than a decade of rumours and sniping about his sexuality, Martin announced online that he was “a fortunate homosexual man” ; he followed this statement with his autobiography, Me, in which he described his sheer pride and relief at coming out. For this, his first UK newspaper interview since the announcement, we meet in a hotel suite in Madrid, and he is warm and open, all hugs, as are his entourage of family and lifelong friends. When I ask whether he still feels as euphoric as he did while writing the book, he sprawls on the couch, and starts running his hands wildly over his chest. He is the most physically expansive person I’ve ever interviewed. “I feel liberated ,” he laughs. “I feel in touch with myself.” Then he sits up, suddenly serious. “I feel protected. I don’t feel alone. Because sometimes when you’re quiet about yourself, you feel all alone. And all of a sudden you come out and you have this amazing community, the LGBT community, and LGBT-friendly people, who are giving you nothing but love. And if I focus on this, I get tears in my eyes, because, oh my God, I wish everyone that was struggling right now could feel what I’m feeling as I’m talking to you. It’s just love coming from every fucking direction!” This is particularly poignant for Martin because of the years spent dodging questions and insinuations. The most notable incident was when Barbara Walters, the veteran US journalist, interviewed him for an Oscars special in 2000, and badgered him to address the rumours . (She has since said those questions were “inappropriate”, the one regret in her three decades of Oscar interviews.) He replied that “sexuality and homosexuality should not be a problem for anybody” and refused to say much more; back then, he was terrified of what would happen if he came out, the possible rejection. “I hated it when people tried to force me out when I wasn’t ready,” he says. “It was very painful, and it actually pushed me away from doing so.” The salacious tone of the coverage only made him more convinced that people would react badly when he did. At 39, it’s clear he’s spent much of his life trying to understand and control his sexuality. “If I had spent a quarter of the time that I spent manipulating my sexuality in front of a piano instead, I would be the most gifted piano player of my lifetime,” he says. “What people were expecting from me was not who I was, and I forced myself to believe that what they wanted could be my truth, my reality, and I went after it hardcore. What I’m trying to say is this: I don’t think I was lying . . . I would have my flings [with men], and I would think, OK, maybe I’m bisexual, but then, no – because I can be with a girl, and it feels amazing.” In his book, Me, he seems genuinely smitten when he writes about his female lovers. He writes of one that “she hated her breasts, but they made me crazy. I loved looking at her body; it was like a painting that I could describe to the last detail. Her legs and the little toes on her feet lit me up. I wanted to devour them – and I always did.” And so these feelings made him think, “I’m not gay,” he says. “And you would watch TV, and you would see this caricature of someone who’s in the LGBT community and you’d say, ‘Well, I’m definitely not that.’ And then you start convincing yourself, or trying to prove to yourself, that you’re not gay. If you add to that the amount of success I was having,” he pounds his fist against his palm, “I’m singing La Vida Loca and enjoying it and being successful and accepted , and I thought, let’s keep pushing towards this, because who’s not seduced by acceptance?” Martin’s early life, particularly his years in the boy band Menudo , would probably have confused any gay child. He grew up in Puerto Rico, the only child of psychologist Enrique Martin and accountant Nereida Morales; his parents split up when he was two, and both had children with other partners, but doted on him. At just three or four, he realised he had an attraction “to my friends, to the same sex – I felt something really magnetic about boys. And then I thought, no, I’m not supposed to be feeling this.’ But it was very powerful.” He was Catholic, believed in the church’s teachings, and loved being an altar boy. “I thought, I’m supposed to like girls, because that’s what the church says, and that’s what my priest told me . . . Unfortunately, according to my faith, what I was feeling was evil, and I struggled.” He always wanted to be in the spotlight, and at nine he started appearing in TV commercials; by 10, in the early 80s, he wanted nothing more than to join Menudo. The band had released their first album in 1977, and had a distinctive structure – when members hit their 16th birthday they would be replaced by someone new. At his first couple of auditions he was too short. But when he was 12, he was accepted, and early the next morning was on his way to the band’s base in Orlando, Florida, to start a new life. His job, from now on, was to be appealing to girls. In his autobiography, Martin says Menudo cost him his childhood, but he equivocates slightly now. “A child is a child, no matter what,” he says. “But I became a rock’n’roll star slash sex symbol at a very young age. I was thinking: what do I have to do to get the attention of the girls? It was my job to move my hips, because then they scream, and that meant I was successful, like the rest of the guys. Was I ready for that? I don’t know. But that’s what I was supposed to go through, according to my karma.” (Martin no longer follows a specific religion – he has a T-shirt that reads “God is too big to fit in one religion” – but he refers to his spiritual beliefs passionately and often. His autobiography begins with a quote from Gandhi, and is sprinkled liberally with references to yoga and swamis, which can be hard to take seriously. At one point in our interview he says: “Buddhism has a very beautiful teaching that says the worst thing you can do to your soul is to tell someone their faith is wrong.” His eyes widen with awe. “And when I heard that I was like: ‘Oooh! That’s a tweet!’”) He says he was 13 “when this obsession with being accepted kicked in. You needed to say yes, because if you said yes, the girls liked you, the girls screamed, and the media would talk about you. I was travelling all over the world, and I had girls following me, private jets, private suites. You would look out of the window and you would have thousands of people . . .” He throws his arms in the air, mimes screaming wildly. The media called it Menuditis. Sounds painful, I say. “Like meningitis!” he laughs. Martin was in the band for five years, and then went to live in New York, where he spent a lot of time sitting on park benches, exhausted and reflective. But he was soon appearing in a musical in Mexico, then a soap opera, and at 18 he signed a contract with Sony Music and began making Spanish language albums. He played a singing bartender on the US soap General Hospital, and by the late 1990s he had an enormous hit with World Cup anthem La Copa de la Vida (The Cup of Life). It reached No1 in more than 60 countries. This led to a star-making performance at the 1999 Grammy Awards, a duet with Madonna, and the release of his first English-language album, Ricky Martin. The standout track, Livin’ La Vida Loca, dominated the summer of 1999 – it was an ear-worm of a song about a wild, superstitious young woman who encourages people to take their clothes off and go dancing in the rain. He was everywhere. The album sold almost 17m copies worldwide, his personal appearances brought Oxford Circus to a halt, it was rumoured his trousers had to be triple-stitched to keep his pelvis-thrusting performances in check and he was the subject of countless drooling interviews about his sex symbol status. He seemed unstoppable, but the pressure of work, and the media attention surrounding his sexuality, started to feel oppressive. So in the early 2000s, he cancelled a concert in Buenos Aires, and went home. “I didn’t like who I was,” he writes in Me. “I moped around my house and had very little sense of humour.” He describes a friend telling him he was screwed up. He responded by throwing a glass against the wall. Was he depressed? “A doctor never told me that,” he says, “so it was not diagnosed. But a lot of people around me were like: ‘Oh my God, we lost him . . .’ But rather than depression, I think it was a touch of rebellion, you know? It was the first time in 10 years that I was relaxing in my house, waking up when I wanted, watching movies until the sun came out, going to a club if I wanted to. It was the first time in my life I was not dealing with a schedule.” Martin continued to record – Spanish-language albums, and the English-language album, Life, which came out in 2005. But his thoughts were turning to family. He wanted children. And so he said: “OK, what are my options? Am I going to adopt? I just sat in front of the computer, doing research, until I found surrogacy, and I was like: ‘Woah! This looks really interesting.’ I interviewed so many people that were part of this beautiful world, and I decided this was going to be my way.” When he told his mother, “she was like ‘surr-o-ga-what? This is like a movie of the future, Rick.’ And I replied, ‘Well, Mom, we’re part of the future.’” He found an egg donor, and another woman to carry the baby, but it was a closed surrogacy – neither woman knew then, or now, that Martin was the father. In August 2008 his twin boys, Matteo and Valentino, were born. He was determined to look after them without help, until his mother said: “‘You’re like a zombie.’ And I’m like, ‘No, I’m noooooooot’” – he pretends to fall asleep, mid-speech – “because I wanted to do it all.” He makes a loud snoring noise, and drops his head again. “And that’s when I said, ‘OK.’” I ask whether he wants more kids, and he says he’d like “a daddy’s girl”. He’s going to be living in New York next year, playing Che Guevara in Evita on Broadway, and he plans to start the whole process again. “I’ll be steady in New York, and then, after I do the play, the baby [will be] born, and I’m going to be able to spend time with her.” It was having his kids that gave Martin the final push to come out; he told Oprah Winfrey last year that he didn’t want his family “to be based on lies”. Still, when it came to announcing the news, he was seriously nervous. “When I pressed send, I was really scared,” he says. “I went to my room, and I was holding my pillow, and three minutes later I called a very good friend and said: ‘Tell me what they’re saying.’ And she’s on the other line, crying: ‘You don’t understand the amount of love you’re receiving.’” He’s been in a relationship for almost four years now, and says that he can’t believe it. “That was not in my plans – not part of the schedule! His name is Carlos, and he’s an amazing human being. He works with the other side of the brain, because he’s a financial adviser, a stockbroker.” Does he think they’ll get married? “It’s funny because, you know, we never talked about it, but now the question is coming up [in interviews] all the time. The other day we were reading a magazine and,” he mimes them looking at each other, “we were like: ‘You’re cool with this, right? No pressure?’ And I’m like: ‘I’m cool, everything is cool.’ Not yet. Whenever it’s time. I would love the option to marry in my land, my island [Puerto Rico], but unfortunately it’s not an option for us yet, which I think is ridiculous. But it’s part of a very beautiful process that’s happening around the world little by little. Hopefully I will see it, and my kids will see it.” Martin’s career will probably never return to its late-90s peak, but it is healthy: he is about to release a new greatest hits collection in the UK, is on a tour that will last until the end of the year and he has 3 million followers on Twitter. Until now, much of his success seems to have been driven by the need to avoid asking himself difficult questions, to keep moving and pushing ahead. Is he still as hungry as ever? “My priorities are different,” he says quietly. “My priorities are: I need to be good; I need to be well within for my children to be well within; and then the creative process flows, organically and smoothly. I’m not looking to experience what I went through in the Livin’ La Vida Loca days again. Now I just get really turned on by the audience.” He pauses significantly. “Really turned on.” Ricky Martin’s Greatest Hits is out now. He plays the HMV Apollo Hammersmith on 12 July. Ricky Martin Gay rights Kira Cochrane guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …