After both the NFL and the NHL had a banner year for supporting openly gay athletes, the NBA is finally catching up like . . . aw fuck, I just remembered I know nothing about sports and I can't make an analogy. Goddammit.

Well, whatever. NBA star Kenneth Faried, who plays for the Denver Nuggets, recently made a video in support of his two mothers, as well as equality for all LGBT families. When you consider the fact that thus far, the NBA still hasn't really ever addressed the queer community or acknowledged those of us who are either fans or players -- to my knowledge, the only out NBA players are those who have long since retired -- seeing someone finally come out against homophobia is a pretty big step for the league.

He's baaaaaaaaaack.

What's that? You thought that Rob Ford's tacit admission that he has no idea what his job entails or the fact that he quite clearly violated conflict-of-interest laws and used ignorance as an excuse would be enough to have him ousted from office? Well the answer is no. He's still our mayor. And no matter how you frame it, that's not good for us.

In the decision, which was released Friday morning, a panel of three judges write that Hackland was wrong: “we conclude that the application judge erred in finding that Mr. Ford contravened the MCIA [Municipal Conflict of Interest Act],” says the judgement.

The judgement found that council didn’t have the authority to make Ford pay back the $3,150 that he has supposedly solicited with the aid of city resources, and which was the topic of debate during the February 2012 meeting. Instead, the judges wrote, council could have considered ”reprimand or a suspension of remuneration.” 

No matter how you try to frame this -- whether you actually like him, think his ousting would have rallied his support base, or just think the guy is good joke fodder -- this isn't good for Toronto's image.

Let's examine the facts, shall we? Already, Gawker's devoted a post to the dumbest things he's ever said. The guy's an internet punchline to the point where he has his own (NSFW) Encyclopedia Dramatica page. Right now, the internet thinks that we're being led by their vaguely bigoted drunk uncle who thinks everything is the government's fault but has no idea how to actually fix it. It's like we elected a Bobby Moynihan character, except it's real.

And even worse, now we look like a bunch of spineless jag-offs because we let it slide out of convenience. Thankfully, next week will see the result of an audit of his campaign finances, so I'm sure that'll be enchanting to watch, but fact of the matter is, we're enabling him by letting him do a job he has no understanding of, and it's tarnishing Toronto's global image.

Good news, everyone! Science has made another tiny, gradual step toward one day finding a functional cure for HIV. Thanks to an incredibly complex procedure that involves molecular scissors (sidenote: BADASS), scientists at Stanford University have developed T-cells that are resistant to HIV. 

According to a Stanford press release, the procedure uses molecular scissors to cut into T-cells, and then insert a series of HIV-resistant genes. The virus was therefore blocked from entering the cells, which is typically how it invades and then destroys the immune system. 

Scientists also anticipated the ever-mutating forms of HIV by engineering the cell on multiple fronts to become resistant to the virus. Matthew Porteus MD, an associate professor at Stanford explained that by also inactivating the receptors that the virus typically uses to enter cells, the cell becomes even further protected.

"We can use this strategy to make cells that are resistant to both major types of HIV," he said. This tailored gene therapy could reduce or replace an HIVer's daily drug regimen, but clinical trials would still have to take place before the approach can be administered on humans. [SOURCE]

So let's break down what this means: for someone who's HIV-positive, being given HIV-resistant T-cells would probably be a preferable method of treating HIV to taking a daily regimen of pills.

As it stands, this would really only serve as a method of treating HIV rather than curing it, although theoretically speaking, if it was possible to make all of a person's T-cells HIV-resistant -- which would be incredibly difficult -- then we would be able to make them immune to HIV. Once again, science isn't at the point where it can convert all of a person's T-cells like that, but still, it is a pretty remarkable step forward. 

For every crazy asshole preacher claiming that gays are responsible for hurricanes and tsunamis, there are hundreds of loving, rational religious people who love their neighbours and treat others as they wish to be treated. Unfortunately, the law of publicity is that the louder, dumber and more shameless you are, the more attention you get.

And that's why there are, like, five different Kardashian shows on TV right now.

Back on topic: Wes Breedwell, a Christian-rock fan and an employee of seven months at a Christian music venue, is one of those good Christians who loves Jesus and treats people with respect and dignity. But when he wore a T-shirt that proclaimed his support for same-sex marriage, he was promptly fired from his job. Once again: he wore a T-shirt supporting gay marriage. That's all he did. Nice.

Wes Breedwall immediately made his firing, and the reason why, public by posting a photo of himself in the T-Shirt on Instagram stating in part: 'Here is a picture to show my support for equality and free speech including social media. Cheers to my friends for having my back through all of this.'

The T-Shirt is from the Connecticut-based punk band Hostage Calm which spoke out this week (21 January) in defense of their fired fan.

'We called this brave man to hear his story, demonstrate our support, and figure out how we can help,' the band wrote on their website. [SOURCE]

First off: Breedwell is badass as fuck. I just want that on the record. Wes Breedwell kicks all the ass.

Second, it's really, really quite sad when a major component of your religion is intolerance haphazardly disguised as misguided moralization. Honestly, there are tons and tons of compassionate people of various religious affiliations out there, and when they stand up and say, "Hey, I don't think two dudes getting married causes tornadoes," we're taking a step in the right direction.

Earlier this month, The Observer ran a column by Julie Burchill on its website called "Transsexuals should cut it out." The column was, for lack of a better term, one long, insane screed against trans people, in particular trans women, whom Burchill does not think count as "real women."

Only it turns out, when you publish a column that tells an entire group of people to jump up their own asses, people tend to call you out on it. After the paper was flooded with criticism for publishing Burchill's piece, The Observer's editors quickly pulled it and released a statement on the matter, explaining why they decided to take down the post.

Many correspondents pointed out that our own editorial code states "... we should not casually use words that are likely to offend" and cited clause 12 of the national Editors' Code: "The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability." But note, this is a safeguard for individuals; it offers no protection for groups or "communities".

The problem for the editor, and the reason why he took the decision to take the piece off guardian.co.uk, is that he did not feel he could defend it in that form. It also breached the standards that the paper expects others to uphold when they submit comments to the website. They state: "We will not tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia or other forms of hate-speech or contributions that could be interpreted as such. We recognise the difference between criticising a particular government, organisation, community or belief and attacking people on the basis of their race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability or age."

The editor told me: "This clearly fell outside what we might consider reasonable. The piece should not have been published in that form. I don't want the Observer to be conducting debates on those terms or with that language. It was offensive, needlessly. We made a misjudgment and we apologise for that."

So basically, they have editorial codes in place to ensure that pieces like Burchill's never get published, but they only remembered them after everyone pointed them out. 

To give credit where credit is due, they realized that they were in the wrong and admitted to it and are currently in the process of rectifying their mistake, but the simple fact is, they knew what they were publishing was vitriolic and offensive -- seriously, did you read the title? -- and they posted it anyway. I understand posting opinions that are unpopular or contrarian, but there's a difference between giving a voice to differing viewpoints and encouraging stupid, crazy people to be stupid and crazy.

If you have an opinion and you have facts and science and reality to book it up? By all means, speak your mind. But publishing something that's just stubbornly wrong and then trying to write it off as "opening up a debate" is disingenuous at best. Some things just aren't really a debate: trans women/men are women/men, the moon landing happened, vaccines don't give kids autism . . . Without reality or common sense, debates are just two sides screaming at each other until one manages to shame the other into adopting their opinion.