Here's to your health...oh, wait, you can't afford that

I may not fit the best definition of a socialist, but I often feel like one in context to how many people feel that "good ole" capitalism is just the bees' knees. Unrestrained capitalism brings about things like this.

I do believe in national health care. There is no reason in the world that any American citizen should not have access to medical care that doesn't bankrupt them. My mother, who relies heavily on my father's corporate health care to pay for her very necessary and continuous expensive medical care, has argued with me that national health care would lessen the quality of care that she could receive. They are able to afford very competent and attentive health care and I would never want that to be taken from her or from any other individual.

I believe that a national heatlh care system should allow people to still select to remain on company paid insurance plans if they have them available and can afford them. I personally would probably choose to remain on my employer's health plan, as expensive as it is. Prior to the current plan options, employees had only one option: it was completely free but had a huge deductible and woe unto you should you need any considerable hospital care. I'm much more secure in knowing that the health care I have, while FAR from perfect, will not ruin me should I get run over by a truck tomorrow.

Yet so many citizens can't afford or don't have access to health care. People working hard but living paycheck to paycheck who must forgo preventive and reactive health care for themselves and/or their children because it's so damn expensive. That's a reason I salute corporations like Starbucks, which for all its faults, does provide health care benefits to part-time employees on up. But clearly, as this story shows, you can't rely on corporations to do the right thing and American health care is nothing but another mega-corporation.

About...candidates

Just in case you were wondering...

Where Presidential Candidates Stand on GLBT issues

The lesbians have spoken!

A Review of IN THE LIFE

I was given the opportunity to preview the January IN THE LIFE episode. I was familiar with the name, but had never watched the show.

I enjoyed the wide range of topics covered in the episode, even though I wasn't particularly interested in all of the segments. The segment least appealing to me, a story about gay and lesbian hip hop artists, still contained some interesting moments. I greatly enjoyed several of the topics.

I was very glad to see the coverage of religious topics: the continuing schism in the Anglican /Episcopalian community and look at the documentary For The Bible Tells Me So (reviewed elsewhere in this blog and available for pre-order at Amazon - check it out in my store). I was choked up over the director of FTBTMS relating that after he had done a story on gays and lesbians reclaiming the truth of the Bible (on a previous episdoe of ITL), a 15 year old boy wrote in to say "I bought the gun last week. I wrote the note to my mom yesterday. After seeing your show, I threw the gun in the river." This, people is the REAL price of the religious right - of hatred disguised as Biblical truth - human life.

I only wish more time had been devoted to these segments; they are worth even exploration.

I certainly appreciated the approach to the uncovered angle on the Larry Craig story: the entrapment and harrassment of gay men by police. Crag's story is not just a warning of what a closeted life can do to you, but that government sanctioned persecution of homosexuals is, unfortunately, still just as alive and well since the 50's. The segment very briefly touches on the idea of how the media perpetuates stereotypes of gay men as predatory sex-fiends in the way they cover such stories, ignoring both that heterosexuals also conduct such public sex acts, just as the police also do because the real issue is not curtailing public sex, but thinly veiled homophobia. I would love ITL to follow up on these threads in future shows.

My only real criticism of the show is that the segments were just too short. They gave a quick touch or overview of the story, but didn't have enough length to go into any depth. The entrapment piece I thought was the most fleshed out piece and still more could have been done with that. I appreciate the variety in the show, but personally would love to see episodes with fewer segments that go into more detail and examination of their subject. The upside to the format is that there is bound to be something for almost everyone in a given episode.

I thought the mix of serious topics with lighter, but still serious examinations of facets of pop culture was a nice touch. For instance, the coverage of photographer Gerald Mocarsky was entertaining for the look at his evokative photography of men dancing with men that also touched on issues of internalized homophobia and societal perceptions of men.

I would defnitely recommend watching IN THE LIFE, it's well worth your time. The press release for the January show and the link to their website so that you can catch episodes can be found below.

***************************************************************

IN THE LIFE Kicks-off the New Year with Margaret Cho

NEW YORK, December 14, 2007 – IN THE LIFE – the three-time Emmy-nominated series documenting the people and issues shaping the gay experience – kicks off the New Year with a brand new January episode featuring controversial comic, Margaret Cho, going head-to-head with lesbian comic Kate Clinton on everything from ice-truckers to the Senator Larry Craig scandal. “It’s the year of the sorry-old-queen,” says Cho, “a queen who has no piano bar to go to.”


This month’s IN THE LIFE will explore “entrapment” through the lens of the Senator Craig media wildfire, as well as delve into stories on gay rappers, a photo-essay on men who dance with men, update the October’s season premiere story, “A Church Divided,” and look at past IN THE LIFE producer Dan Karslake’s documentary, "For the Bible Tells Me So."


In “A Church Divided,” IN THE LIFE examined the growing schism within the Anglican Communion over homosexuality and traditional biblical interpretation. As an update, IN THE LIFE continues to track the battle between conservative and progressive churches. Keeping in that theme, this month’s IN THE LIFE “Real to Reel” looks at the question, what does the bible say about homosexuality? In Dan Karslake’s documentary, "For the Bible Tells Me So" he takes on that question.


Gerald Mocarsky is a photographer, who – even as a gay man – felt uncomfortable with looking at "Men Who Dance With Men." Through that photo-essay, Mocarsky not only tells the story of coming to terms with himself, but how he came to see that capturing the beauty, story and language between these men was a step forward toward social acceptance.Rap is often criticized for promoting violence, objectifying women and being homophobic. It might surprise many to know there's an emerging generation of gay rappers, like Shorty Roc and Kin, who are countering that image head-on, and demonstrating that “one love” includes everyone.


Our final story, “Wide Stance,” examines the Senator Craig scandal and public sex. There exists a world-on-the-margin, where gay and closeted men – some of them married – meet in public spaces for sexual encounters. There's been widespread condemnation for Senator Craig's actions, from both gay and mainstream media. But there's an angle of this story that's been largely glossed-over. IN THE LIFE takes an unflinching historical look at public sex through the lens of Craig's defense: entrapment.


Viewers can watch IN THE LIFE, of see when it airs in their area by going to: http://www.inthelifetv.org/

Duuuude

1. Working with college students for a little over 12 years now, this is, albeit hysterical (and mostly hysterical because I don't have to deal with him), sadly not that shocking, surprising, or unusual.

2. Does Melbourne news really have nothing better to report on than that it can spend several minutes with this guy?

3. Despite running a little on the long side, the end is priceless.

Found via Wayne Besen's Blog

File Under: "No Duh"

Study finds that Clowns are Scary (Yahoo News)

Why The Recent Spat of Post on Ex-Gays?

Although the December posts by Peterson Toscano caused me to pause on the subject and that it's never to far from the back of my head when the topic of the religious right comes up, the subject of ex-gay ministries is a particular topic of interest to me because of the amount of harm I believe they cause. They are also at the heart of the religious right political movement; the existence of these programs helps justify the legal and civic discrimination religious righters seek to and have been successful in perpetuating on gays and lesbians. If they can demonstrate (and I use the term very loosely) that sexual orientation is a choice, and worse, is something wrong that needs to be changed, they can more easily justify their bigotry.

I fortunately never had any experience with ex-gay ministries except for very, very briefly considering one. I had never really heard of them until I came out and stumbled upon a television minister proclaiming that my homosexuality could be changed. I wrote down the toll-free number, kept it for a few days, and discarded it. I decided I didn't need to change; I was who I was supposed to be.

Although I grew up in a fundamentalist Southern Baptist Church, I cannot ever recall the subject of homosexuality being discussed in church. Our church, while conservative and literalist, was much more of a community interested in being together and doing the right things. Our ministers were about serving the congregation and were very people-focused. No real hellfire and brimestone sermons except for the occasional visiting minister maybe, but that was very atypical. So, I was blessed or lucky or both, depending on your perspective.

My family, both immediate and extended, have done nothing but demonstrate support and love for me and I have some very fundamentalist family members. I think that my family members are true Christians and understand that love is at the heart of the faith, regardless of where we stand of a theological standpoint of sexual orientation. Frankly, I've discussed the dogmatic side of homosexuality very rarely with any family member. It hasn't been important; all of their first reactions have been to demonstrate love.

So, how then, can I come to an understanding of what other families, parents, spouses, siblings, and alleged friends put their gay and lesbian children, spouses, brothers and sisters through? I can't. I still am amazed at the amount of harm that has been and continues to be perpetuated by ex-gay programs and churches trying to convert their gay/lesbian members. It's a true horror story and one that I am committed to help in my own small way stamp out by spreading truth.

The truth that science has demonstrated that sexual orientation is largely if not entirely inherent: genetic or hormonal possibly. Regardless of how it is formed, it's not changeable. People can change their behavior, yes, but the impulses and desires will remain. Further, there is no reason the people need to change even their behavior; to do so is more likely to cause harm than not. There is no Biblical basis for needing to change; being homosexual or committing homosexual acts is no sin.

Right Wing Watch: "I-35 0, Homosexuality 1" - this story reports the follow-up to an individual featured on a recent broadcast of the 700 Club (that's Pat Robertson's show) who claimed that evangelicals rescued him from homosexuality during a night of carousing at gay bars. (He was carousing, not the evangelicals. Well, okay, I don't know that. The evangelicals may have been carousing as well, I don't know.) This story is just one, current example of how ex-gay therapy does not work.

Former Ex-Gay Minister Speaks Out

Beyond Ex-Gay

"Anything But Straight": Ex-Gay Movement History

APA Help Center on Sexual Orientation

UC Davis Article on Reparative Therapy

The Wonder Year

What's wrong with this picture? (Not Safe For Work)

Much is being said about the fetishization of Wonder Woman here in Playboy, and there is some worthwhile discussion on this topic that I'd encourage you to read up on if you're so inclined.

Former Wonder Woman scribe Greg Rucka offers a brief opinion. And another.

One feminist's (Ragnell) perspective on this: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

Another feminist perspective (Rachel)

Related: A look at the creation of Wonder Woman

I'm very interested in Rucka's implication that this issue was timed for release in a way to undermine feminine power and authority. With Hillary Clinton a strong contender for the presidential nomination, Playboy releasing this issue where perhaps THE modern iconic pop-culture representation of female power is literally laid bare, made an object for the enjoyment of men does seem tantilizingly subversive. Of course, calling Playboy subversive is probably far too much credit due them, but even discounting any intent here, the timing is curious.

Wonder Woman is a very well-known pop culture figure; likely a vast majority of Americans know her as the female equivalent of Superman. To strip her literally and figuratively of her symbolic power in the most widely-distributed and well-known porn magazine at the same time a woman is running for the highest office does reinforce societal misogynistic messages, particularly: even the most powerful of women are only valuable relative to the sexual pleasure they bring to men.

A related argument going around the comic blogosphere is that Wonder Woman was created as a fetishistic character. Her early stories frequently revolved around themes of bondage, domination, and similar kink. Some are arguing that given her origins and the fact that in comics she is already hyper-sexualized, and that since that's what she's primarily known for (her toned body and skimpy outfit), any outrage over this Playboy spread is manufactured.

I'm not outraged; I think it's a very poor use of the Wonder Woman character and hypocritical of Warner/DC to sanction this since the DC publisher has previously stated that mainstream DC characters (Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, etc.) need to be kid-friendly and accessible and have gone after an artist depicting a sexualized and homosexual Batman and Robin. I'm sure other porn magazines have used WW-like model shoots previously, but likely none of them were DC-sanctioned. Personally, I'm waiting on my Batman PlayGirl spread any day now (and please let it be Christian Bale...woof!). Of course that's not going to happen because there is a clear double standard in place here and that's part of the problem also. To some degree any comic superhero is hyper-sexualized, at least to the point that they have exaggerated anatomy, although I'd point out that most male superheroes seem not to carry that exaggeration between their legs, although female heroes certainly do on their chests. So, the double standard is a problem. Perhaps the biggest problem is that here in Playboy, the character of Wonder Woman, which is does carry with it certain important symbols and significances, is subsumed to the object. Wonder Woman, already sexy, doesn't become more sexy, she becomes sex.

Further, I'd argue that even with her hyper-sexualization in comics and somewhat in TV, that festishism associated with her origins or sexuality does not translate to younger fans. What translate is the symbol, the empowerment, the goodness. While I'm sure young female viewers and readers looked up to the character, I personally know many gay men, including myself, who did. We looked to Wonder Woman as the empowered female and we saw something in her that made us feel good about our own power and possibilities. I frequently use the quote, "homophobia is a room in the greater house of misogyny." I think even as young queers, we subconciously and instinctively understand this. If a woman can have this power and defeat evil men, then us sissies can do it too.

To see an icon of power and hope prostituted in this manner is sad for many of us. Who wants to see their hero put up on display. Although the model has never been associated with the character, the distinctive costume carries the symbol as easily as if it had been Linda Carter doing the shoot. It's not about sex being involved either; sex is fun, positive, and healthy. It's about subversion of the symbol.

It's analogous to the villian finally winning: Wonder Woman is finally stripped of her power and independence, she's just a plaything for men. Her abilities are valueless unless she can arouse a man. The reaction here is related, I think, to the outcry over her recent characterization in Infinite Crisis, where she felt cornered into killing a man. Readers reacted because the symbol that is Wonder Woman was not upheld; it was distorted for what people perceived as a cheap trick to build sales; the main difference here is, it's a cheap thrill rather than a cheap trick.

This Sums Up My Day Nicely

From where else...

The Impact of Televangelists

Dan (DFV) left an interesting comment on my post on televangelists that I'd like to take a moment to address. I started leaving this in the comment section, but it got too long! Before, I get to it, however, Dan, congratulations on your award. What you are doing for the kids in your building is awesome!

Again, thanks, Dan, for writing and I suppose I could have summed it all up with "I agree!" Nobody takes the very real threat of the religious right more serious than I do, but sometimes you just gotta laugh or you're gonna cry!

Although most televangelists hold very little political power, unlike the real fiends like Dobson and formely Haggart who hold (held) tremendous power in the Republican Party, I think they do very real damage on multiple levels. I think their decidedly for-profit rhetoric perpetuates an out-moded way of thinking and reinforces an "in group" mentality - Christians vs. everyone else." But I probably feel worse for the greater damage they do to the pocketbooks of individuals who would be much better off keeping their money. I'm convinced that televangelists pray off the poor working class first and foremost, with the elderly close behind. These are people often desperate for a miracle and promises of instant health and wealth lure them in, not unlike how lotteries negatively impact the poor.

As for proof of their miraculous healing, you are, of course, spot-on. Where's the proof? Where's the documentation? Don't you think such great news would hit CNN? There's no documentation because there's no proof! As a person of faith, I believe God could instantly heal people and sometimes does...through the intervention of modern medicine! The fakery and trickery of faith healers should be well documented at this point, yet people continue to believe in their abilities. But as you can see from the clip below, even well-debunked charlatain Peter Popoff (who is very stereotype you can imagine about televangelists) continues to do well.



I recommend James Randi's book The Faith Healers for more reading on that particular subject.

And several televangelists have been investigated over the years and even this past year for fraud, tax evasion, and various financial abuses, including Hinn, Richard Roberts, Creflo Dollar, Kenneth Copeland (note that him and Dollar are seen together in that post's clip), Joyce Meyer, Paula White, Robert Tilton, and others, but not nearly enough. Other ministers, like portly and hellfire-thriving (and really scary zionist political mover) John Hagee, are not your typical televangelist, but still like to sell every book, CD, DVD, and trinket they throughout their telecasts. And, I may catch flack for saying this, but even mostly beneign ministers like Robert Schuller, who probably does a lot of good, endlessly shills his wares.

I'm not arguing that these individuals should necessarily give their products away, but many of them have congregations in the thousands and certainly could offer their products for less than they do. I remember Jerry Falwell's endless appeals to grandparents, which constantly drove me mad. Most grandparents I know are on fixed incomes and certainly have better ways to spend their money.

So, all this to say is that there are some VERY dangerous people in the religious right movement that we should keep an eye on, but I think the major damage caused by televangelists are on the pocketbooks of the people who can least afford it.

Blue about Red-ily Blackballing Candidates

My friend and colleague Anne has recently and rightly been complaining about all the political pundits declaring candidates out of the race, washed up and through after only a few state caucuses. Seemingly not having learned their lesson after New Hampshire, reporters and pundits continue to talk about the fate of candidates with little information to go on.

Pundits and predictors rationalize the NH error: people strategically voting for McCain to upset Romney even though they support Obama. Women voting for Hillary because of her show of emotion or to give the middle finger to the news elite who seem to fondly bash on Hill and Bill. Or perhaps it was undercover racism: people said they were going to vote for the black man so they wouldn't look bad, but behind the curtain they put on their pillow cases. Probably the most reasonable explanation I've heard is that people didn't actually pay attention to the numbers. Looking long term, all the polls showed Clinton as the clear victor except for a small, recent blip. I've heard but haven't had time to verify that even the caucus day polls actually showed Clinton as the victor, but they weren't interpreted correctly.

The most interesting thought I've heard on this is from a reporter on NPR who discussed why he felt imbedding reporters in campains was a bad idea. He discussed how easy it is to loose perspective and how the current news structure is set up to cause failure of pundits. He said that after following a candidate around, he needed about four hours to research and process information to give him context. Events and receptions can appear drastically disproportionate to the larger picture, but immersed in that candidate's world for days, the reporter fails to see that.

Of course in this 24-hour news cycle that type of time is a luxury. And, really, the news outlets don't seem too interested in balanced, contextualized reporting. This reporter supported assigning staff to issues; as he correctly points out, the Clinton reporter's expertise in environmental issues doesn't come close to the expert who was hired to formulate the Clinton position on the environment, or on the economy, middle-east relations, etc. You need time to talk to a bevy of experts and the compare multiple candidate's positions against what your source experts tell you. This seems like a reasonable argument to me, but one not likely to happen in journalism that seems to favor the soundbite more than the reasoned argument.

I think there's a real hunger for solid information out there, but I don't know by how much of the population. Unfortunately our society seems heavily favored by people who only want to know where candidates stand on just one or two hot-button issues. I personally don't get enough information that I find easily accessible on the history candidates have on an issue. Candidates are naturally going to show their most favorable side on a public issue and it can be difficult to discern where they stand unless they are Mitt Romney, the John Kerry of the Republican Party. For instance, Obama I think does underplay where he has supported the Iraqi War, acting as if his stance has somehow been different from Hillary, when it's pretty much the same. Bill took him to task on this, but prior to that it hasn't received much press attention. This may not make you (or me) not vote for him, but it can make selecting the person to be your best candidate difficult.

To help simplify this process, there are a few resources available:

Mother Jones offers a comprehensive chart of candidates on a variety of topics
(thanks, Anne, for that referral)

A less reliable, but possibly more fun candidate selection tool
This piece of software takes it information, right and wrong, from here.

Now, it's still FUN (if you're a geek) to make predicitions; although I don't claim any level of expertise in this area, I still do it. And some of my predicitions probably aren't rocket science. For instance, I think Huckabee will win the South and McCain will show very well, either second or first possibly in some states. Romney will fall behind in the South but do better in other states. That's probably a safe answer, but it's fun to speculate. On the Dem side, Obama takes the South pretty easy with Edwards possibly doing better than Clinton, but not by much. I'll go out on a little bit of limb and say Romney will not do as well as he hopes in Michigan, possibly taking first, but with a close McCain second, and possibly falling to second himself. Guilliani's gamble in Florida will not be as profitiable as he hopes; I'm putting him second there.

Who is the final nominee? It's impossible to predict at this point. Although it's a bit of interesting psychology to note that most people vote for the most hopeful candidate in an election. I've been trying to gauge who sounds the most positive and hopeful of the future in speeches (it's fakable short-term, but difficult in the long run) and perhaps more importantly in their "regular" interactions, which are possibly more telling to make a prediction based on this little bit of research.

It's hard to tell: my guess at this point for the Dems would be Obama. I think he's capitalizing well off of the hope and change factor. That could well carry him past the well-oiled, funded, and supported machine of Clinton, but the instrument behind her is so strong it will be tough to overcome.

For the Republicans, I hope it's McCain at this point. Huckabee is a huge step backwards, but I think he has a real chance. Romney I think is a no-go. He doesn't seem the least bit positive and hopeful to me. He's aloof and unlikeable. While that might not get him disqualified as the Republican candidate, I think it would as president. Still, despite his wealth, I think another candidate will win the nomination here.

We'll see how it falls out and how close these well-hedged predictions comes. Of course, don't listen to me, I didn't even look at polls when I made these guesses!

Why State Sanctioned Religion is the LAST Thing We Need

First, a distressing yet humorous look at modern televangelists. The very end segment cracks me up. I call this "Separation from Church and Money"


Did we or did we not first invade this country in search of religious freedom? Were not our leaders, some Christian, some not, overwhelmingly dedicated to the idea that all citizens should be able to practice whatever faith they chose?

Washington Post: "Congress's Bullying Pulpit"

PBS: First Amendment and the Founding Fathers

Wikipedia entry on the Founding Fathers

The Government is Secular

Founding Father's Debate

Not far from those sex ed films we watched in school

I'm too sick to post right now, so you get this...

Teeth

New Year, New Movies

Here is my list of the Top 10 major studio release that I want to make sure to see this year, in the order in which I want to see them (from most to least). I'll address some of the other major films coming out in 2008 very soon. Clicking on the title will take you to a site where you can view a larger or higher resolution version of the trailer or, if no trailer is available, to a site with information about that film.

1. Wall-E (6/27)
The last of the original Pixar concepts to be brought to life, the trailer looks fantastic. Story and character are always at the heart of Pixar films and this one seems to have a double-dose of both. Innovations like very little traditional dialogue and some live mix-in effects (although Lasseter says "not like Happy Feet") should make this especially interesting. I expect this to be in the top three best movies of the year, if not the best.



2. The Dark Knight (6/18)
Batman Begins was perhaps the perfect super-hero film and the trailer suggests that this one continues to hit all the right buttons. Ledger is genuinely creepy as the Joker in the previews, convey the proper air of psychopathic terror that the Joker should. This will be the best action film of the year.



3. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (5/22)
Although I don't have high expectations for this (although Karen Allen returns as Marion from the first film), there is no way I would miss it.

4. Bond 22 (11/7)
Daineil Craig! I don't need to know more. Casino Royale was the BEST Bond movie ever!!

5. Prince Caspian (5/16)
The second Narnia film boasts even more impressive visuals; the brief look at Aslan in the trailers is staggeringly real looking. The first Chronicle was overall done quite well; I hope the same holds true for the sequel.




6. Star Trek (12/25)
This remake should be interesting. I'm no Trekkie, but I'm interested to see what comes of this. Plus, the dreamiest Captain Kirk ever!

7. Cloverfield (1/18)
Giant monster destroys New York as told through the video cameras of the guys and gals on the street. Sold!



8. Iron Man (5/2)
The Batman and Spider-Man films have been the best of the modern lot of super-flicks (Superman Returns had some great moments but also some real problems), and the rest have fallen short at best. This one looks fairly promising, however. Downey as Tony Stark is brilliant casting.



9. Speed Racer (5/9)
Go Speed Racer! Go Speed Racer! Go Speed Racer Gooooo! This looks like fuuuunnn!



10. Persepolis
This is a cheat since it was released this past December, but I would love to see this film adaptation of the graphic novels, which depict a woman struggling with fitting in based on her cultural and personal identity.

Posh and Dave Wish You a Happy New Year

Here's some fireworks for your New Year's celebration.

Missionary Position

This should in no way be construed as an endorsement of presidential candidate Mitt Romney, but I gotta say Mormons are HOT! Peter's annual calendar gift to me ranks as one of the best all time calendars I've received and one of my favorite gifts this year! Everything about these men on a mission are golden, not just their plates.

This is not the first time Mormons have proved to be suprisingly and steamingly hot; the move Latter Days proved that.

Of course this all calls for this (non-Mormon-specific) classic.

My Holiday Gift To You

Your present? Janice Dickinson's Twelve Days of Christmas.

See, I told you I loved you.

The Gay Holidays

Peterson Toscano is, among other things, an ex-gay survivor and shares his experience as well as posts about similar items on his blog.

This video is Peter recounting a very funny tale from his ex-gay days that he titles "A Homo No Mo Christmas."




I hope everyone has a very refreshing and Homo-Friendly Holiday!

Other holiday links you may enjoy:

Best Hot Cocoa Mixes

The Real Story of Rudolph

Wikipedia entry on "Santa Claus"

It Looks Good, No Joke

The trailer for the new Batman movie The Dark Knight is now online. Go check it out.

Batman Begins was, I'd argue, about as good of a superhero movie as you can get. It got the tone of the movie right, pin-point characterization, good costuming, and it all didn't seem too silly at all. The only other movies that really come close to me as very well done super-hero films are Spider-Man 2 and the 1977 Superman movie.

The Dark Knight looks very well like it may be a very worthwhile sequel. I admit that Heath Ledger as the Joker initially seemed off to me, but Nolan did such a good job with the first movie, particularly with casting (well, I could have done without stepford-Cruise Katie Holmes, but she wasn't terrible), so I was willing to see how it worked out. Judging by the trailer, I'd say he's quite the impressive Joker, actually. What we can see shows a pretty scary Joker; he's calm until he has a fit of rage and seems genuinely homocidal. Jack Nicolson's much lauded Joker portrayal from Burton's Batman never sat well with me; he was far too campy (although, admittably, the performance fit the tone of the movie, which was a bit too campy for me as a whole) and over-the-top. Ledger's seemingly cool, brooding Joker is infinitely more frightening.

Warner has done a ton of viral marketing for this film. Take this interesting site for instance: The Gotham Times. Check out the "tear" on the front page and lots of interesting tidbits scattered among the other pages. Then compare it to: The Ha Ha Ha Times. I find it effectively creepy and morbidly humorous. A whole listing of the websites can be find here: Yahoo results. (Thanks to Mike Sterling for pointing this out.)

I'm looking forward to this movie

The 12 Gays of Christmas

Twelve abs you could drum on

Eleven models posing

Ten...lord my heart is leapin'

Nine lads a dancin' (and singing, naked, of course)

Eight maids a biking

Seven swains in swimwear

Six guys a-playin' (if I were bad, this would have been TOTALLY different)

FIIIIVVEE OOOOLLLDDDD QUEEEENS!
(And don't think I didn't have a naughty alternative to this one)

Four cut boys

Three wet friends

Two total dears

And a portrait of a bare tree (I guess)...

What's in your advent calendar?

Have a Mary Christmas!!

The Religious Right is Oh So Wrong

The public image of the leaders of the religious right I met with so many times also contrasted with who they really were. In public, they maintained an image that was usually quite smooth. In private, they ranged from unreconstructed bigot reactionaries like Jerry Falwell, to Dr. Dobson, the most power-hungry and ambitious person I have ever met, to Billy Graham, a very weird man indeed who lived an oddly sheltered life in a celebrity/ministry cocoon, to Pat Robertson, who would have had a hard time finding work in any job where hearing voices is not a requirement.

—Frank Schaeffer, Crazy for God (selection quoted in "oldspeak," an online journal)


Frank Schaeffer is the son of evangelical minister Francis Schaeffer. Together they had a significant impact on American Evangelical Christianity, essentially forming the modern Religious Right movement. Frank's life journey, which has led him to be a filmmaker and prolific author, as well as the father of a marine who served in Iraq, has brought him to the writing of a memoir called Crazy for God that focuses not just on his life, but the lives of his parents, many Evangelical leaders and the Religious Right movement.

Below are select quotes of his during various interviews. These interviews are either printed in their entirety at or linked through his website. Please go visit FrankSchaeffer.com for more of his insights as well as to learn about him and his works.

I became aware of Schaeffer through the Bob Edwards Sunday (12/9/07) broadcast, where Schaeffer gave a fascinating interview. Unfortunately the Edwards broadcast requires purchasing a copy, but fortunately many of Schaeffer's points and insights are captured in other interviews, exerpts of which appear below.

I was profoundly impacted by his thoughts on how modern Christianity is a cult of personality; that all one has to do is say the right things at the right time to the right people to make millions virtually overnight. He describes modern Evangelicals as hungry for the next big person, forgetting those who become tainted or imbroiled in scandal; the focus has gone off of Christ and onto people. In a similar vein, in another radio interview (link below), he discusses the Disney-fication of American Christianity.

Schaeffer was particularly insightful about the Religious Right being anti-American. Members of the Religious Right are striving, hoping for, and amplyifying the signs for their apocyliptic vision of the world. He discusses how they revel in bad fortune and outcomes because it enforces their view that, as Jerry Falwell once put it, God has removed his hand of protection from America because of its sins.

Slightly less fascinating, but strangely comforting was his insight into the nasty character of figures like Dobson and Falwell. Both he and his father thought that Pat Robertson was just plain insane, a sad confirmation of what most people suspect. He certainly does not spare George W. Bush, pointing out that he believes Bush to be a sincere Evangelical, which makes him all the more dangerous as president since he believes in the rightness of his actions, sincerely believes that he is in league with God and so fails to properly contemplate and consider the situation fully and to look for points of compromise, so sure is he of his actions.

I had hoped to bring you some direct quotes from the interview; my personal summation is lacking; Schaeffer spoke far more eloquently. Hopefully, these other interviews will provide you with a good idea of his eloquence and pointed and unique insights. What follows are his words.


Interview with John W. Whitehead

A lot of people in the evangelical and fundamentalist communities speak theoretically about homosexuality being no worse than adultery or divorce. However, in practice, they are not undertaking national campaigns to single out evangelical people who were married to somebody else at one time and got divorced. So actually there is a tremendous moral hypocrisy there because the whole gay issue has been singled out for special treatment.

In other words, the Religious Right was as negative and anti-American as anybody I ever talked to on the Left. I personally came to believe that a lot of the issues that were being latched onto by the Christian Right, whether it was the gay issue or abortion or other things, were actually being used for negative political purposes. They were used to structure a power base for people who then threw their weight around.

[The Religious Right's] idea was that without fundamentalist Christian beliefs being absolutely imperative for everybody in the country, the country would go to hell in a handcart and that would be the end of everything. So negative things were always accentuated. ... By the time they tell you over and over about all the bad things happening, such as statistics on crime, teen pregnancy and so on, I begin to get the feeling that they don’t want things to get better. This is their shtick. This is the way they raise their money. This is how they maintain their central power base.

[George W. Bush] is arguably the worst president in the history of the United States. He is unfit for the office of president of the United States. He has trouble speaking the English language and articulating a point of view....It is ironic that someone who proclaims he is a Christian president has single-handedly started a war that has undone the last Christian minority in the Middle East.


Schaeffer to the Dallas Morning News

"Unless you know who you are and have a life outside of your ministry, you will be corrupted by the control you have over other people's lives. You can begin with the best intentions, but the success itself will take you farther away from God than any failure ever will.
Big-time American Christianity is incompatible with the Gospel. It is part of the entertainment business. No matter what you think you are doing, you are really just another celebrity in a celebrity-obsessed culture. If you want to serve God, get out of the evangelical machine while you still can and save yourself. "

No matter how good a cause, when you think you are on a mission from God you eventually get crazy. I wasn't exempt. The problem is that the evangelical world is really a series of personality cults. And for a while there I was a personality.

But this brings up another point: Evangelicals just don't "get" what writing – or art for that matter – is.
The problem with the evangelical slant on writing (and all art) is that in itself it isn't worthwhile, it must serve some "higher purpose." In the evangelical's case, that's "bringing people to Christ."
This reduces human expression to propaganda. It also means that no artistic conversation is honest. There is always an ulterior motive. Religious fundamentalists always look for what is not there.

Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back

Interfaith Radio Interview with Frank Schaeffer (about 20 mins)

FrankSchaeffer.com

Oldspeak

New Revised Fundamentalist Bible Translation

From the Really New Testament:
1.And. lo, Jesus said, "Go forth and spit upon the homosexual. Curse him in public; defile his name to all. From him take from his property, job, family, and hope. Hit him upon the cheek; if he turns it, smite him yet again. Smite him with seven upon seven blows. Show no mercy; turn all against him. Once thou hast cast down the sodomite, feel free to indulge thy lust watching women who lie with women.

2. "Sit upon high in thy mega-church casting judgment upon all who art not members. Render unto the politicians what e'er may gain their favor to further my work. Impose my will upon all creation."

Well, it seems like this is what they are reading...

Russian Evangelicals responsible for Sacramento gay man's death.

100 Movies, 100 Quotes, 100 Numbers

This is a lot of fun.

And I thought Dubya was backwards

Huckabee wanted to isolate AIDS patients (via Yahoo! News)

Who is more of a threat to progress: Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney? Discuss.

Compare and Contrast

Charlotte Rae with Liz Taylor. Show your work.

Missus Garrett is a Potty Mouth!

I'm so disillusioned!

You, Sissy?

I recently entered into a discussion about the appropriateness ofhumor about homosexuality in popular media. First, humor is subjective; I have on more than one occassion strongly disagreed with how gay organizations (GLAAD most notably) have reacted to gay depicitions. Still, I understand where the sentiment originates and why people are very sensitive about it.

I think that sensitivity comes from years of unbalanced representation. Most of the earliest American popular media depictions of homosexuals made us into predators or silly nancy-boys, worse than even women, perhaps even negroes. And, of course, very real societal /religious persecution doesn't help exposed nerves and raw sensitivities much.

I do sometimes think that over-reactions or getting up in arms about what I perceive as the wrong things hurt "the cause", as it were; after all, we don't want to show ourselves as the sissies they think we are, do we? There's nothing worse than being a sissy; nothing worse than not being able to take that "playful" punch on the shoulder; nothing worse than crying when the bully beats you up. Real men don't cry.

There is a concern among some of the brethren that we gays are pushing for legislated acceptance. While some may be trying to accomplish that, I don't personally need to legislate acceptance of my gaiety. I do think that a gurantee of my rights needs to be legislated; otherwise, hey, this is America and you are free to hate me as long as you like as long as you grant me my rights.

But really, in this quest for civil rights, do we have to be so uptight that we can't take a joke? We gays are pretty funny, right? The straights will like us better if they can make those hairdresser and interior decorator jokes about us, won't they? (See "not being a sissy" above.) For me, sure, we can joke all around all day if I know that you're in my corner or that you're at least an equal opportunity abuser (and also that I can joke about your secret desire for the lawn boy to blow you).

Recently I was watching a documentary on Don Rickles, a man who has been insulting everybody for the past 40 years or more. Many comedians noted that Rickles can "get away with it" because he applies the insults equally. I'm pretty okay with the fag jokes from him, because, hey, he's throwing it about every other minority (and majority) group. Does Kathy Griffin or Margaret Cho want to crack some gay jokes? Go ahead, they've shown their friend. Dave Chapelle? He takes a crack at just about everyone and does it intelligently (which often is another qualifying element about whether it is funny or tasteful, for me at least), so okay. South Park? Well, that show has offended me on a lot of stuff, so why not add homosexuality to the list.

Speaking of Chapelle, he once commented on the Actor's Studio that he received a lot of flack from his relatives about a lot of his skits and particularly his use of the "N" word. Although it didn't/doesn't stop him, he essentially said he understood their concerns, since sometimes he wants to punch out white guys using the word because they think it's okay since they saw it on TV (and they found it funny). I have a similar reaction; I'll be the first one to make a joke about us gays but damn it, straight boy, you better not say a word.

I've heard the accusation frequently: why can't we take a joke? Why are us gays drowning in a gloomy and unfriendly quagmire of PCiety? But we seem to be one of the few populations that the accusation sticks to (well, us, and women. Broads can be so uptight you know.) Don Imus was thrown off the air for (a very poor) "joke" about black women, and that's one example. Yes, some people thought it was an overreaction, but overall it didn't stick. These kind of "jokes" are not tolerated by society, and generally it is accepted that this is not a being overly sensitive, unless you're talking about the gays, who are, for some reason, perhaps because they're so feminine.

I think the questioning of gays' sensitivity by other gays is actually rooted in the need for acceptance. We may say we don't care if we are accepted, but if so, then why care if somebody lodges a complain we find baseless or unnecessary? Why label it with "whining" or as hyper-sensitive or PC? We do so because we're afraid we'll be seen as different, as a sissy, as not mainstream, as not being able to play well with others, and all of that leads to non-acceptance. If we truly didn't care about what people thought, we'd just ignore what we thought were baseless complaints instead of labeling it as "humorless" or "whining." We so badly don't want to be seen as a sissy.

If Pat Roberson is on it, it's the highway to hell

Certain fundamentalist Christians believe that Interstate 35 is related to prophecies in Isaiah 35 (Isaiah 35:8 refers to a "highway...of holiness") and so have set up ministries along its route.

Wayne Besen has the video (from Right Wing Watch).

These people think that an American interstate is mentioned in the Bible? That's just, well, arrogant, not to mention stupid.

I also found absurb the "converted" homosexual in the clip. He mentions that he was going from gay club to gay club prior to being on his way to see his fiance when he encountered the evangelists. He says he felt like he was "on acid" when the evangelists told him "fire" and touched him. A couple of things: gay men refer to their significant others several ways - partner, husband, boyfriend, etc., but I've never heard one refer to another many as "fiance." So, perhaps this allegedly converted homosexual was on his way to meet his female wife-to-be? I know that when I was about to become engaged that I very much thought that my feelings about men would go away; had an evangelist approached me during this time with the offer to "take away" my homosexuality, I would have been eager to take him up on the offer (and then act like it had been successful). And second, perhaps you were on acid if you were traveling between gay bars.

One of the other alleged converts was "a back slidden youth pastor." Think this guy might be feeling a little guilty? Think he might also be eager to think and act like he has been changed? Maybe a little.

And from a pure theological perspective, I'm tired of the claims of faith healing (prove it, guys, seems like it would be a huge news item) and the non-Biblical use of tongues and the Holy Spirit. Of course these people aren't interested in sound theology, just using Christianity as their modus operandi to impose their world vision and oppress people different from them.

More Woes For Larry Craig

According to the Associated Press, the newspaper the Idaho Statesmen reports that eight men have said that Senator Larry Craig made sexual advances toward them, with two actually having sex with him. One of these eight is now famed male prostitute Mike Jones, known for bringing down the Reverend Ted Haggard. Craig, of course, denies the accusations (yet again).

Do I believe at least that some of the accusations are true ? Yes.
Do I believe Mike Jones? Not really.
Does it matter? Not really.

I think it's been pretty well established that Craig is a major self-loathing homosexual, trapped in a closet made out of two-way glass. (We can see in, he can't see out). It would be easy to feel sorry for him except that he has used his political power to bash other gay people.

This development really is of minimal interest except to see how Craig continues to twist in the wind, with no supporters (except his in-denial wife), and works to save...what, I'm not sure. His political career is in shambles now, his public persona is completely discredited, so the only thing left that I can think of left to save is his personal self-image. If he can continue to shake off the accusations, he can convince himself somehow that he hasn't been after dick all this time, he's just been misunderstood.

Denial is a powerful force and leads to the dark side, Luke. I'm sure when Senator Craig takes a copy of Men's Health into the bathroom, he's just wanting the latest workout tips.

Not Weight Loss, but Self Gain

Most of us have seen countless weight loss stories on TV; in some respects, this is no different but I was moved by this woman's perspective on her situation after losing 500 pounds without surgery.

Interview with Diane Sawyer (Yahoo / ABC)

Interesting PSA

A glaad PSA was aired on the Sci-Fi channel after the season premiere of Battlestar Galactica, which (apparently, I don't watch it) had a lesbian relationship. Check the link (which I found via Comic Gays) out to see the PSA (which include Eric Mabus of recent Ugly Betty fame):

Gay Sci-Fi PSA

Modern Millstones

Luke 17 : 1-2
Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offenses will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!

It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

Matthew 18: 6
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea

I believe that many modern leaders of the religious right / Christian evangelical movement would be better off, for their own sake, with millstones around their neck. Although Jesus is referring to children in these versus, I believe it is easy enough to extrapolate that he probably also meant anyone who is a child of God. So many modern Christian leaders have led from their pulpits such an unrivaled persecution of gays and lesbians, driving them from the church and the love of God that they will be judged harshly for their crimes.

What is hard for me to understand is how they rationalize their hatred and seeming hold on the truth. The Bible offers much advice, some of it seemingly contradictory. How so then can these people be so sure that it is their interpretation that is the right one? Of course this kind of irrationality is nothing new; it is as old as time.

However, Biblical literalism is fairly new. The literal interpretation of the Bible is a 20th century invention and obviously creates many problems. As "Steve Falkenberg, Ph. D, professor of religious psychology at Eastern Kentucky University, says, 'I've never met anyone who actually believes the Bible is literally true. I know a bunch of people who say they believe the Bible is literally true but nobody is actually a literalist.' 'Taken literally, the Bible says the earth is flat and setting on pillars and cannot move (1 Chr 16:30, Ps 93:1, Ps 96:10, 1 Sam 2:8, Job 9:6). It says that great sea monsters are set to guard the edge of the sea (Job 41, Ps 104:26)...'" (from Wikipedia entry on "Biblical literalism")

Ultimately, I am arguing for what Professor Ehrmen, Biblical scholar and author, calls for in his radio interview (below), a tolerance for diversity and difference in interpretation. And furthermore, a rational and studied understanding of what the text actually says in opposition to the anti-intellectual approach of literal misunderstanding. Literalism has done nothing but hurt the church and hurt so many others, most recently and particularly gays and lesbians.

For the Bible Tells Me So movie website - an excellent documentary dealing with Christianity and homosexuality (and what the Bible really says about it), including "ex-gay" therapies and following the stories of several families

Diane Rehm interviews Bart Ehrmen, author of Misquoting Jesus (audio)
This interview is an excellent discussion of how the Bible was constructed and even touches on briefly scriptual meaning relative to women in the church and passages on homosexuality.

On the Heresy of Literalism (article)

An evangelical minister discusses the hypocricy of modern evangelicals (Christianity Today, 2005)

Friends of God HBO documentary on the modern evangelical movement

Encyclopedia Britannica entry on modern Christian fundamentalism

Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? Revised and Updated: A Positive Christian Response

What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality

Linkblogging Beyond the Veil

Self-styled "psychics" remain immensely popular in modern times, claiming to impart "wisdom" (said wisdom almost never consists of any useful information). In our more enlightened times you may think belief in such stuff would be on the decline, particularly given the particularly awful representatives that seem to enjoy so much press time these days: John Edwards, Sylvia Browne, James Van Praagh and their ilk. Still unsteady times cause people to cling to irrational and comforting belief systems.

However, rather than displaying proven psychic ability, these individuals, Praagh and Edwards particularly, demonstrate no level of connection with the dead beyond that which closely resembles a technique that is centuries old called "cold reading." (Browne uses cold reading also, but also stakes out psychic predictions unlike Praagh and Edwards, although these wild pronouncements rarely have their veracityascertained.)

Cold reading boiled down to the most simple (and not its best) definition is eseentially using some basic psychology, making sweeping generalizations and guesses, and imploying some statistical likelihoods on individuals eager and willing to make and give importance to whatever strands of connection they can make out of these guesses to their deceased loved ones. This gives the appearance that the psychic has knowledge about facts, people, and situations that the psychic would not otherwise know or be able to know unless s/he was actually in touch with the dead.

Why do I care? Well, many of these people are making money off of the hurt and pain of individuals who have lost loved ones; others make wild claims that give false hope or hurt to people (like Browne's latest(and one of her most egregious) incorrect "prediction" of the death of Shawn Hornbeck, who later turned up alive); and they're just liars and I hate liars. If they claimed to just be entertainers with no real ability, I wouldn't care, but they claim true powers and abilities (all the guise of helping people) that they can't prove in controlled situations. They can't even prove them in self-controlled situations, with numerous incorrect guesses that don't rise above anything you or I could do.

I also believe that understanding how our own minds can deceive us and how our desire to want to believe certain things can color the way we take in and process information is vitally important to us in this day and age where our government keeps inching towards the newspeak and controlling eyes of Orwell's distopia and where we cannot rely on our media outlets any longer to bring us objective, well researched, factual and/or relevant news any longer. So understanding how this small sector of our society works informs us about greater and larger issues and how we should, could, and probably are approaching them.

In short, don't believe anything you hear, read, or see without knowing the facts behind it (and beware of whose "facts" they are).

A better definition of "cold reading" (along with other important associated concepts from The Skeptic's Dictionary)

Cold Reading Bingo (the most common techniques used in cold reading)

Professional Magician analysis of John Edward (humourous but serious analysis and some excellent thoughts on skepticism and beliefs in psychics by Ian Rowland)

John Edward reading analysis ("lay person" analysis - a little long)

Video presentation of James Van Praagh cold reading techniques (two parts - watch both)

Stop Sylvia Browne website

Klaas Kid Foundation article on the predatory nature of "psychic" detective work

New Yorker article comparing criminal profiling to cold reading (by Tipping Point author Malcolm Gladwell)

Related: Book review of Carl Sagan's The Demon Haunted World

Other resource: The James Randi Educational Foundation

Tenacity

I will always associated my grandfather with a bulldog. Like a bulldog, he was at times pugnacious, and always tenacious and unafraid. He held on to almost anything he wanted to and wouldn't let go. He was big and broad like a bulldog and although a very handsome man in his youth, could look somewhat like a bulldog himself.

He owned a bulldog. He, for a part of his career, drove Mack trucks, whose symbol is a bulldog. The image you see is the exact image I tend to associate with my grandfather (whom at one time may have actually owned this exact ashtray). My father (his son) and I attended a university whose mascot is the bulldog and one of my favorite gifts from my grandfather is a set of cross pens with a bulldog emblem on them that were once his.

Two years ago the doctors told my family that my grandfather couldn't last but a few months. True to form, my grandfather outlasted that prediction. Nobody could tell him he couldn't do something.

"Paw Paw," as he was affectionately known by all the grandchildren, grew up with a rough life on a small very rural Mississippi farm. He tenaciously survived the horrors of the World War II Pacific rim fighting. He worked road construction on many of the highways in Mississippi and Southeastern Louisiana. If you travel on the interstate in that region, my grandfather likely helped build it. If you know anything about the hot summers in the South and what road construction entails, you'll know that it's a grueling, sweltering, nasty, difficult job.

Strong-willed to the end, in his last days, he admitted to what we always suspected he thought: "I have never made a mistake," he told his oldest daughter. Pausing a moment then grinning he continued, "And if I did, I would never admit it."

This past Sunday I had the honor of escorting my Paw Paw, Jesse "Josh" Leslie Denton Sr., a veteran of our great nation, to his final resting place. He held on firmly till the end. We love you.

Haggard Reborn

While many gays and lesbians take years to try and successfully supress their true identity through so-called "reparative" therapy , Ted Haggard has successfully accomplished fully and completely in just three months. It's a mircale, virgin born-again heterosexuality. Not that I'm wishing for it to happen, but I'm wagering money that just about as soon as they move out of Colorado, the Haggard marriage will fall apart.

From The Advocate.com: Haggard convinced he's now ''completely heterosexual''

Of course Haggard originally stated when the Mike Jones scandal broke that he had "never had a gay relationship with anybody." So, I'm not sure I trust his judgment.

It's interesting to note that Haggard had no advanced degree; he's now pursuing a Master's in psychology (good choice, Ted. Physician, heal thyself.) I'm used to my clergy having a Master's of Divinity. I'm somewhat snobbish in believing that my ministers should have formal, in-depth training on scripture, theology, and somewhat important matters such as history, Jewish culture, Hebrew, Greek, things like that.

Wikipedia also documents that "Haggard developed ministry efforts towards homosexuals early in his Colorado Springs ministry. He frequented gay bars and invited men to his congregation." Sounds like a certain infamous ex-gay leader.

Also noted is that the editor of a Colorado GLBT newspaper is corroborated by anti-gay leader Lou Sheldon (and friend to Haggard) that Haggard's homosexual activities were pretty well known prior to the Jones incident.

Lastly, and somewhat surprisingly (or perhaps not now), Haggard may have actually supported civil unions for gays. I don't think this undoes his strong anti-gay messages, but it does demonstrate that he is a more complex man than the simple cypher he is or has become.

HRCFields and Mikecoys UPDATE

Since my minor fracas (see my previous post) with HRC on 1/20/07 there has been NO response from the HRC of any kind other than an automatically generated email acknowledging they received my email.

What a surprise.

Why It Matters to Be Out: Michael Anthony Castro

From ESPN (click to read the entire article; thanks, Peter):

You see Michael Anthony Castro, the three-sport star athlete and most popular kid in school, was openly gay. Came out when he was a sophomore.

"He caught a lot of crap over the first six to nine months after coming out," says Phil Takacs, a Banning High counselor. "Sometimes he would come to my office and ask if he could just spend the rest of the day there. He would say that he couldn't take being called 'faggot' any more today and just needed a break. He even thought about quitting sports. But over time, Anthony just got tired of the other kids making him feel bad for who he was.

"One day he was in practice and one of the other wrestlers was giving him a bunch of crap about being gay. Anthony looked at the kid and said 'You have a problem with me; why don't we take this to the mat?' This guy wrestled in the heaviest division, but Anthony pinned him in less than 30 seconds. That guy never said anything else again."

Takacs became Anthony's guardian after Anthony's mother showed him the door shortly after he came out at 16. His father is in prison. Takacs, who is also gay, said initially he was concerned about having Anthony stay with him for fear of disparaging rumors, but he didn't want to see Anthony out in the cold either.

"We're a redneck little town out here," Takacs said. "My partner and I were always scared living here because we always thought our asses would get kicked. But Anthony taught me a lot. He taught us all a lot. He made it OK to be gay."

Psychotic Congresswomen and the Walls that Love Them

Can we introduce a bill to ban Marilyn?

Musgrave gives up on federal marriage ban

A proposed federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage nationwide has been shelved in light of the congressional takeover by the Democratic Party, The Pueblo [ Colo. ] Chieftain newspaper reports.

The proposal's sponsors, Sen. Wayne Allard and Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, said last week they have no plans to reintroduce their antigay legislation in the new Congress. "At this time I haven't discussed it with anyone," Allard told the newspaper on Thursday. "If we thought there was a decent chance to bring it to the floor for debate, I would, but with the new Congress, I'm not sure we will ever have that opportunity."

A Musgrave spokesman confirmed that the congresswoman would not introduce the legislation this year.

To amend the U.S. Constitution, the proposal would have to win approval by two thirds of each house of Congress and be ratified by three fourths of the states. The proposal, which has been strongly supported by President Bush, has passed in the House a couple of times in recent years but has consistently stalled in the Senate. (The Advocate)

AVENGING UNICORN!!!

Expect to see a lot of this thing...

The HRCfields and the Mikecoys

HRC seems to be more and more devoted to ass kissing. That way lies disaster. We've got to teach them: You don't suck up. There's a great deal of feeling that all they do is pay to go to parties in Washington, to be on the circuit, to be seen, as if that amounts to much.

I never saw an organization exist so long, raise so much money, and do so little.

--Larry Kramer to the Village Voice, December15-21, 2004

Friday night a Human Rights Campaign representative called our house asking to speak with either Peter or me. I have, for quite some time now, not been a fan of the HRC. (I'm sure there's some archived post with me ranting about the HRC.)

To avoid talking to the individual, but to stay polite, I asked if we could call a number back. When I was told no that it was a phone campaign and that they would just call back, I asked if there was a website we could visit.

The person explained that they were running a membership renewal drive. I explained nicely that we would not be renewing our membership. The person asked me if it was because of the elections. You mean the one where not nearly enough Replublicans were unseated and where even more states passed anti-gay legislation? No, the election has nothing to do with it I replied.

Well, "why?"

Because, I explained in somewhat peturbed tones, I believe that the HRC does not spend its money effectively and caters mostly to the wealthy in the gay community and not enough to the average gay American.

Case in point: the ticket price for the 2007 HRC Carolinas Gala (a not uncommon event held by the HRC) is a not uncommon $175, jumping to $195 after February 1st. Or you can purchase a premium location table for ten at the low, low price of $2500. The guest speaker is comedian/actor Leslie Jordan, who I greatly enjoy but whose theatrical productions I can buy for much cheaper or just watch him on Will and Grace for free.

I neglected to add to the phone rep that I agree with Larry Kramer on the fact that the HRC frequently takes credit for things that it really had nothing whatsoever to do with (like the failure of the federal Constitutional amendment not being passed). I also didn't add that, based on my informal observations and conversations with a trusted friend who would know, that our local HRC chapter is exceptionally exclusive and cliquish.

Doing nothing to change my perceptions about the HRC, the solicitor responded in an indignant and snobbish "Sir, that's not true." I explained that, from my point of view, indeed, it was and hung up.

One might reasonably expect that any random individual treat one with respect and courtesy; one might even more reasonably expect that an individual asking for one's money would be exceptionally courteous, not to summarily dismiss my opinion.

I understand I just dumped on his organization. But he asked and one should not ask for what one is not prepared to hear. Might I suggest that a proper response would have been a sincere "I'm sorry you feel that way." Might I suggest that a great follow up after that would have been: "is there anything we can do to change your mind?"

Perhaps even a "F--k you, we don't need your stinking money 'cause we throw fancy dinners you can't afford" would have been preferrable to the intellectual equivalent of the familiar childhood refrain "am not."

I would hope that somebody representing an organization whose mission is to spread acceptance, understanding, equality, and to make the voice of gay Americans heard would actually demonstrate those qualities and listen to a fellow member of the gay community even if we disagree.

I have written to the HRC - I'll let you know if and how they respond.

Promoting Old Stereotypes

Never let it be said that a showtune queen failed to give you a discount on theatre tickets.

Today I received a link that offers a "buy one /get one free" ticket offer for the Charlotte, North Carolina tour production of Edward Scissorhands. Click here to see more scissors for less. (Can we get that discount for a Scissor Sisters concert?)

Edward opened Thursday, January 4th at the Blumenthal Center and runs until January 10th.

Now, never said I never gave you anything.

What Do You Mean Obsessed?

A Brief Look Back at the Year that Was

Just a few highlights and not nearly all of the highlights from 2006 (and in no particular order)

Comics - I love me some comics. 2006 was a particularly good year for them. Thank you Grant Morrison for some of the best stuff out this year. Ed Brubaker, Warren Ellis, Kurt Busiek, Darwyn Cooke, Matt Wagner - youse guys ain't too shabby either. In related news, comic anthologies made a nice splash.

Democrats take both the Senate and House. Wow two whole years to do nothinng, continue to put forth no coherent agenda, and allow Republicans to win the presidency again in 2008. Hillary, I believe you would make a great president, but no, sweetie. Stop now. Pelosi, pull it together, girlfriend.

Assassination Vacation by Sarah Vowell. Morbid, quirky history made fun. The paperback came out this year, so shut up.

Heroes - it's imperfect and doesn't treat women particularly well and may have retconned a supporting character's sexuality, but it's comics on TV and frankly the only show that's held my attention since Buffy left the air (24 comes close, but some weeks it is far too talky). Ugly Betty, I love you too ( a special kiss on the check to Eric Mabius).

Anti-gay Homo-hypocriscy revealed- Ted Haggard and Mark Foley, to name just two. In related news, Mary Cheney gets preggers - remember all those "Where's Mary?" campaigns? Apparently Mary retreats to sperm banks. Ewww.

Legal documents - signing them - making a commitment. A lot of fun in DC and a little in Orlando.

Leadershape - becoming part of an awesome organization and having the time of my life.

The cult of Gallup - the strengths approach to life, work and play made a tremendous impact on me this year. I think it made one on my students too.

Aikido - I've got a trio of committed guys working with me and it's just wonderful. It's great teaching again with yet another set of great people. Thanks, David, Barry, and Bobby. I love all three of you. I missed the reunion but there's next year.

There is certainly stuff from earlier in the year that I can't recall right now because I forget things in the new year. But there is one thing that ended my year that I'm real happy about!!

Here's a slight clue: