There may be a light at the end of the tunnel. I've been wondering to myself for a while now how long before we cycle to a more liberal era in America. More specificially, I've postulated to myself that once Gen X'er's kids starting growing up and entering college and Gen X'ers begin to age and take the positions of power and authority held by the Boomers currently (whom I largely blame for the conservative morass we've been living in) we'd see some type of switch in values, and probably one is more liberal. (As a side bar - I think that the Millenials - the current college generation - the mini-van generation - whose annoying tendency toward self-centeredness and reliance on helicopter Mom and Pop who jump to the rescue of their 25 year old baby - will be replaced by a generation of kids who parents tell them to go out and do it on their own).
Looks like my prediction may not be so far off according to FuturesWatch (thanks Petey for the link):
"To gain an understanding of the shifts occurring in American society, it is necessary to look at political and social trends reaching as far back as the American Revolution. An analysis of these trends reveals a consistent pattern of shifts between conservative and liberal values in the United States . The cyclic shifts (or swing of the pendulum, if you prefer) occur over a period of roughly 25 to 30 years.
If this two-century old pattern holds true, the United States is in the midst of a major transition from conservative to liberal social and political values, with 2004 being dead center in the transition period.
An analysis to American trends and events across religion, morality, philosophy, and human rights reveals a series of "conservative" and "liberal" periods over the life of the nation. The most recent "conservative" period began in the late-1970s and reached its peak between 1994 and 1998. Conservative dominance of the American social and political landscape, though still potent (as the 2004 elections demonstrated), has begun to ebb.
As the pendulum begins to swing back towards the liberal end of the political spectrum, the nature of American politics and policies will change. But because of the lag time between the beginning of social change and its appearance in the public (and therefore political) eye, it may well be another five to 10 years before the United States begins to show significant evidence of this change"
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
Sunday, January 02, 2005
A Leauge of Their Own
An interesting point, if a bit ranty and not overly original, made by Robert Jones Jr. at Gay League, a site devoted to a gay comic collectors, mostly because the point is made during a review of a recent major comic published by DC (Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, etc.):
For the whole review, click here.
"Whole societies are founded on the misguided assumption that since women are, for the most part, not as physically powerful as men, they are naturally inferior. They are the "weaker sex." In order to come to such a conclusion, it is necessary to build a system that both values physical prowess and devalues those other human attributes, such as intelligence, creativity and spirituality (as separate from man-made religion), where the physically dominant may be rivaled or exceeded. I believe that this is why the average person can tell you how many home runs Sammy Sosa has hit, but cannot have a meaningful conversation about the physics behind it, nor can they discuss the socio-political or historical circumstances that may have guided Sosa, and others like him, towards the sport in the first place.
We exist in a place where it still seems perfectly legal, where it is considered logical and acceptable that women, on average, are paid 72% of what men are paid to do the exact same work; a place that only recently thought of women as citizens eligible to exercise their civic duty to vote or have a voice in government (in some places); a place where women are expected to cover their bodies, turn control of their biological and reproductive choices over to men, to serve Kings and to serve a male god who insists that Eve was created from the womb of Adam (even if that is a biological impossibility). We have the benefit of living in the most progressive and advanced society on Earth and yet, in the year 2004, we still have not chosen a woman to lead this nation and most studies say that if a female candidate were to run today, she would be overwhelmingly defeated on the sole basis of her gender. Women are not only expected to be the receptacles for man's collective and delusional bull$#!+, but they are also required to be so with fearful, Aunt Jemima-style grins etched into their faces. It is my belief that this negative view of all things feminine also explains, at least in part, society's particular, peculiar and overpowering hatred for male homosexuality, in which the male is perceived to take on those qualities thought of as female. "
For the whole review, click here.
"Whole societies are founded on the misguided assumption that since women are, for the most part, not as physically powerful as men, they are naturally inferior. They are the "weaker sex." In order to come to such a conclusion, it is necessary to build a system that both values physical prowess and devalues those other human attributes, such as intelligence, creativity and spirituality (as separate from man-made religion), where the physically dominant may be rivaled or exceeded. I believe that this is why the average person can tell you how many home runs Sammy Sosa has hit, but cannot have a meaningful conversation about the physics behind it, nor can they discuss the socio-political or historical circumstances that may have guided Sosa, and others like him, towards the sport in the first place.
We exist in a place where it still seems perfectly legal, where it is considered logical and acceptable that women, on average, are paid 72% of what men are paid to do the exact same work; a place that only recently thought of women as citizens eligible to exercise their civic duty to vote or have a voice in government (in some places); a place where women are expected to cover their bodies, turn control of their biological and reproductive choices over to men, to serve Kings and to serve a male god who insists that Eve was created from the womb of Adam (even if that is a biological impossibility). We have the benefit of living in the most progressive and advanced society on Earth and yet, in the year 2004, we still have not chosen a woman to lead this nation and most studies say that if a female candidate were to run today, she would be overwhelmingly defeated on the sole basis of her gender. Women are not only expected to be the receptacles for man's collective and delusional bull$#!+, but they are also required to be so with fearful, Aunt Jemima-style grins etched into their faces. It is my belief that this negative view of all things feminine also explains, at least in part, society's particular, peculiar and overpowering hatred for male homosexuality, in which the male is perceived to take on those qualities thought of as female. "
Saturday, January 01, 2005
Old Anxiety
Or Old Ang's Eye, whoever Ang is...of course I used to think that my mother's soap opera started out with "This is my danged carrot...and thes are the 'Days of Our Lives'" - it was McDonald Carrey, if you're curious - the announcer).
Lately there have been a few tidbits of gay news to rant on, but I've been unable to muster anything of interest to say about them. I will briefly mention that I'm most recently ticked off by South Carolina state Senator John Graham Altman, who helped set up South Carolina Public Television (to help educate all areas of the state) is threatening to withdraw funding because it aired a documentary of gays of the South and is therefore promoting a pro-gay agenda with state money. Of course no state money was used to air that documentary, only private donations, but that has not stopped the threat of cutting their funding (so much for caring about education). Altman, who seems fixated on gays, said that "we have to draw a line somewhere when it comes to the definition of education" and, obviously, promoting gays as being ok is too far.
Yes, let's sell only one product in the marketplace of ideas, shall we? Here's an online copy of the story.
In related news, Jesse Helm's granddaughter is reportedly lesbian and partnered, though not out (for fear her grandfather would have nothing to do with her) and a North Carolina Republican district court judge (in a state where the Republican party platform unequivocably states that "homosexuality is not normal"). Hello Mary Cheney redux. Perhaps the former senator might change his views on gays if he found out that his granddaughter was in fact, not the spawn of Satan (the grandspawn of Satan, yes).
But enough with this - it's time for my annual resolutions. For other people. It's more fun and a lot less taxing on me.
Be it resolved that:
#1. The American public and media not fixate on crimes, though sensational, would not have garnered half the attention had it not involved photogenic white middle-class people.
#2. Nobody should give any more attention to Paris Hilton or Brittany Spears. I mean really, people - enough with the slutting of America. Neither is talented and Brittany is only marginally cute. Here is the true moral decline of America - sick Michael Powell on Paris.
#3. George W Bush reinstate Tecumseh's Curse (ok, not really, just a very potent case of Montezuma's Revenge).
#4. Everyone drop the whole red/blue state thing, particularly those people who are obnoxiously smug and self-congratulatory for living in a blue state. I've lived in the South my entire life and frankly I love the South, regardless of its problems and modern proclivity toward hate-spewing Republicans. Furthermore, somebody has to live in the red states and do something to help change the status quo while you sit comfortably numb bitching in your blue womb. Lastly, the past three cities of residence went blue, so whooptie-freaking-do.
#5. Jesus appears on national television to let the religious right know how bad they're fucking this whole Christianity thing up. And to get "Touched by an Angel" off the air forever.
#6. Speaking of which, Jerry Faldwell has really plumped up. Get some lipo, Jerry. You're so fat you make Baby Jesus cry.
#7. You will discover that there is a comic book for you ("graphic novel" is the modern term). You will shed the Pow!Biff! stereotype to realize that whatever your interest: gay life, biography, history, romance, murder mystery, crime fiction, science fiction, westerns, etc. you can find a comic you will enjoy.
#8. The FMA becomes the "Full Marriage Amendment" making it impossible to discriminate against same-sex couple civil marriage.
#9. George W Bush sees the Wizard for a brain.
#10. Americans just get over their hang-ups with queers. Y'all ain't that hot.
Lately there have been a few tidbits of gay news to rant on, but I've been unable to muster anything of interest to say about them. I will briefly mention that I'm most recently ticked off by South Carolina state Senator John Graham Altman, who helped set up South Carolina Public Television (to help educate all areas of the state) is threatening to withdraw funding because it aired a documentary of gays of the South and is therefore promoting a pro-gay agenda with state money. Of course no state money was used to air that documentary, only private donations, but that has not stopped the threat of cutting their funding (so much for caring about education). Altman, who seems fixated on gays, said that "we have to draw a line somewhere when it comes to the definition of education" and, obviously, promoting gays as being ok is too far.
Yes, let's sell only one product in the marketplace of ideas, shall we? Here's an online copy of the story.
In related news, Jesse Helm's granddaughter is reportedly lesbian and partnered, though not out (for fear her grandfather would have nothing to do with her) and a North Carolina Republican district court judge (in a state where the Republican party platform unequivocably states that "homosexuality is not normal"). Hello Mary Cheney redux. Perhaps the former senator might change his views on gays if he found out that his granddaughter was in fact, not the spawn of Satan (the grandspawn of Satan, yes).
But enough with this - it's time for my annual resolutions. For other people. It's more fun and a lot less taxing on me.
Be it resolved that:
#1. The American public and media not fixate on crimes, though sensational, would not have garnered half the attention had it not involved photogenic white middle-class people.
#2. Nobody should give any more attention to Paris Hilton or Brittany Spears. I mean really, people - enough with the slutting of America. Neither is talented and Brittany is only marginally cute. Here is the true moral decline of America - sick Michael Powell on Paris.
#3. George W Bush reinstate Tecumseh's Curse (ok, not really, just a very potent case of Montezuma's Revenge).
#4. Everyone drop the whole red/blue state thing, particularly those people who are obnoxiously smug and self-congratulatory for living in a blue state. I've lived in the South my entire life and frankly I love the South, regardless of its problems and modern proclivity toward hate-spewing Republicans. Furthermore, somebody has to live in the red states and do something to help change the status quo while you sit comfortably numb bitching in your blue womb. Lastly, the past three cities of residence went blue, so whooptie-freaking-do.
#5. Jesus appears on national television to let the religious right know how bad they're fucking this whole Christianity thing up. And to get "Touched by an Angel" off the air forever.
#6. Speaking of which, Jerry Faldwell has really plumped up. Get some lipo, Jerry. You're so fat you make Baby Jesus cry.
#7. You will discover that there is a comic book for you ("graphic novel" is the modern term). You will shed the Pow!Biff! stereotype to realize that whatever your interest: gay life, biography, history, romance, murder mystery, crime fiction, science fiction, westerns, etc. you can find a comic you will enjoy.
#8. The FMA becomes the "Full Marriage Amendment" making it impossible to discriminate against same-sex couple civil marriage.
#9. George W Bush sees the Wizard for a brain.
#10. Americans just get over their hang-ups with queers. Y'all ain't that hot.
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
Don We Now (you know where I'm going with this)
With Christmas coming up, I want to give myself the gift of rambling.
First, I still believe in the spirit of our highly-commercialized and pagan-festival-orientated holiday. Puritans outlawed it for having nothing to do with the birth of Christ, but we don't have any great indication of when that happened exactly, so why not now? Why not celebrate during the winter solstice, when the world (or at least our hemisphere of it) is at its darkest, acknowledge and hold up light, goodness, and love. Christ was and is about reconciling people to God - and, yes, Virginia, I do believe in God, and showing them how much they are loved. Not condemned, not hated, not excluded, not marginalized.
And I believe in the transformative power of God's love (along with action on our part) to change the hearts and minds of those who want to practice (and legalize) their bigotry, ignorance, and intolerance. I'm tempted to fully elaborate my "darkest before the dawn / light in darkness" allegory to the currrent state of all things gay in America, but I won't, as my holiday gift to you.
Christmas carols - I love them, but rarely the ones I love the most. They're all great except Jingle Bell Rock which must be pre-programmed to play just as I turn on the radio. But my very, very favorites are rarely heard.
Good King Wenceslas
Do You Hear What I Hear
We Three Kings
God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen
I just realized my top three carols all involve kings - queen envy perhaps?
And what tops my Christmas list this year, he says in full-commercialized, pagan-holiday reborn mode?
Planet Simpson
The Culture of Fear: Why Americans Are Afraid of the Wrong Things
The Ultimate Matrix Collection
The Art of the Incredibles
Looney Tunes Vol 2 DVD
Persepolis
The Complete Far Side
The True History of Chocolate
Spellbound
All of that just for a peek inside my twisted little mind, not so that you'll go to Amazon and look up my wish list and order me something. No really. Aww, you shouldn't have.
First, I still believe in the spirit of our highly-commercialized and pagan-festival-orientated holiday. Puritans outlawed it for having nothing to do with the birth of Christ, but we don't have any great indication of when that happened exactly, so why not now? Why not celebrate during the winter solstice, when the world (or at least our hemisphere of it) is at its darkest, acknowledge and hold up light, goodness, and love. Christ was and is about reconciling people to God - and, yes, Virginia, I do believe in God, and showing them how much they are loved. Not condemned, not hated, not excluded, not marginalized.
And I believe in the transformative power of God's love (along with action on our part) to change the hearts and minds of those who want to practice (and legalize) their bigotry, ignorance, and intolerance. I'm tempted to fully elaborate my "darkest before the dawn / light in darkness" allegory to the currrent state of all things gay in America, but I won't, as my holiday gift to you.
Christmas carols - I love them, but rarely the ones I love the most. They're all great except Jingle Bell Rock which must be pre-programmed to play just as I turn on the radio. But my very, very favorites are rarely heard.
Good King Wenceslas
Do You Hear What I Hear
We Three Kings
God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen
I just realized my top three carols all involve kings - queen envy perhaps?
And what tops my Christmas list this year, he says in full-commercialized, pagan-holiday reborn mode?
Planet Simpson
The Culture of Fear: Why Americans Are Afraid of the Wrong Things
The Ultimate Matrix Collection
The Art of the Incredibles
Looney Tunes Vol 2 DVD
Persepolis
The Complete Far Side
The True History of Chocolate
Spellbound
All of that just for a peek inside my twisted little mind, not so that you'll go to Amazon and look up my wish list and order me something. No really. Aww, you shouldn't have.
Sunday, December 12, 2004
Heaven Help Us
The following news item (found on 365gay.com) fills me with complete dread:
(Atlanta, Georgia) Thousands of African Americans marched Saturday to denounce same-sex marriage, invoking the name of slain civil rights leader martin Luther King to the anger of many gays and lesbians.
The march was organized by Bishop Eddie Long whose New Birth Missionary Baptist Church is one of the biggest black churches in the country.
The unofficial parade count was set at 15,000.
The church's website called the march a rally for traditional marriage and proclaims marriage between one man and one woman must be protected. Long has called for a national ban on same-sex marriage.
Standing with him at the King Center was Bernice King, one of King's daughters who is an elder in Long's church. Bernice King lit a torch at her father's grave and passed it on to Long, who carried it through the march. "I believe this day will go down in the history books as the greatest showing of Christ and His kingdom in this century," she said, calling Long and her father prophets.
Her participation in the rally and march illustrated the deep divisions both within the black community and the King over same-sex marriage. Dr. King's widow, Coretta Scott King, has said on a number of occasions that her husband would have supported gay marriage.
"A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing, and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages," she said during a speech last March at the Richard Stockton College of New Jersey.
Today's march also angered gay civil rights leaders who accused Long of hijacking Dr King's memory.
The National Black Justice Coalition, the country's only national gay black organization, issued a statement prior to the march calling it "a slap in the face to the legacy of Dr. King." (story)
"Dr. King said injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, but Bishop Long seems to think that injustice against gays and lesbians is perfectly fine," said NBJC Board president Keith Boykin.
Boykin also noted that one of King's closest advisers, Bayard Rustin, was an openly gay man.
I am deeply thankful of the stance that Mrs. Coretta Scott has taken in regards to gay marriage. I am embarrassed for Dr. and Mrs. King that their daughter does not share her parents' view of equality for all Americans.
Although I loathe the intolerance and hatred of all Christians regarding gays, I am especially troubled by this perspective by black Christians. It is both ignorant and hypocritical. Any black person coming out against gay rights is effectively announcing that we are not entitled to the same rights he/she acquired. It's a selfish attitude: I have mine and I won't share. It belittles the huge contribution of Bayard Rustin to black civil rights. Mr. Rustin was a close advisor to Dr. King. He would willingly hide in a car if he was riding with Dr. King because others felt uncomfortable with him being a known homosexual. He sacrificed his own self-worth and identity so a movement would prosper. Black civil rights could not have happened without white/majority allies, yet these men and women will not be allies for those in a different minority. These are small, selfish, deeply bigoted people.
It is a monumental display of ignorance. Black Christians who would use the Bible against homosexuals should remember that the Bible was used to justify slavery and prohibitions against black civil rights and interracial marriage. Fearful and hateful white people twisted the Bible to use it as a weapon against you and now you take this rifle, passed on to you from other bigots, and hold it to the temple of gay civil rights.
This is ignorance of what the Bible truly says about gays and gay marriage. It is ignorance of the revelations God continues to give us about His Word and how to use it for modern times. Women may now speak in church, slavery is not acceptible, and the only law we are bound to is the Law of Love.
It is fantastically ignorant of the fact that your rights are untouchable. Black people had to fight hard to gain them, but they are hardly secure. There are those in power who would happily rob you of them right from under your nose. It will start with gays, but it will creep into the black community through limiting the rights of black muslims and continue through other "dissident" groups. All Americans' rights have already been infringed upon by the Patriot Act; a minority group's rights are even more unstable and unsure.
It is this shameful ignornace that recalls another minister, whose words are often repeated, but cannot be heard enough:
"When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church -- and there was nobody left to be concerned. "
Pastor Martin Niemoller , survivor of the Nazi Holocaust.
(Atlanta, Georgia) Thousands of African Americans marched Saturday to denounce same-sex marriage, invoking the name of slain civil rights leader martin Luther King to the anger of many gays and lesbians.
The march was organized by Bishop Eddie Long whose New Birth Missionary Baptist Church is one of the biggest black churches in the country.
The unofficial parade count was set at 15,000.
The church's website called the march a rally for traditional marriage and proclaims marriage between one man and one woman must be protected. Long has called for a national ban on same-sex marriage.
Standing with him at the King Center was Bernice King, one of King's daughters who is an elder in Long's church. Bernice King lit a torch at her father's grave and passed it on to Long, who carried it through the march. "I believe this day will go down in the history books as the greatest showing of Christ and His kingdom in this century," she said, calling Long and her father prophets.
Her participation in the rally and march illustrated the deep divisions both within the black community and the King over same-sex marriage. Dr. King's widow, Coretta Scott King, has said on a number of occasions that her husband would have supported gay marriage.
"A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing, and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages," she said during a speech last March at the Richard Stockton College of New Jersey.
Today's march also angered gay civil rights leaders who accused Long of hijacking Dr King's memory.
The National Black Justice Coalition, the country's only national gay black organization, issued a statement prior to the march calling it "a slap in the face to the legacy of Dr. King." (story)
"Dr. King said injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, but Bishop Long seems to think that injustice against gays and lesbians is perfectly fine," said NBJC Board president Keith Boykin.
Boykin also noted that one of King's closest advisers, Bayard Rustin, was an openly gay man.
I am deeply thankful of the stance that Mrs. Coretta Scott has taken in regards to gay marriage. I am embarrassed for Dr. and Mrs. King that their daughter does not share her parents' view of equality for all Americans.
Although I loathe the intolerance and hatred of all Christians regarding gays, I am especially troubled by this perspective by black Christians. It is both ignorant and hypocritical. Any black person coming out against gay rights is effectively announcing that we are not entitled to the same rights he/she acquired. It's a selfish attitude: I have mine and I won't share. It belittles the huge contribution of Bayard Rustin to black civil rights. Mr. Rustin was a close advisor to Dr. King. He would willingly hide in a car if he was riding with Dr. King because others felt uncomfortable with him being a known homosexual. He sacrificed his own self-worth and identity so a movement would prosper. Black civil rights could not have happened without white/majority allies, yet these men and women will not be allies for those in a different minority. These are small, selfish, deeply bigoted people.
It is a monumental display of ignorance. Black Christians who would use the Bible against homosexuals should remember that the Bible was used to justify slavery and prohibitions against black civil rights and interracial marriage. Fearful and hateful white people twisted the Bible to use it as a weapon against you and now you take this rifle, passed on to you from other bigots, and hold it to the temple of gay civil rights.
This is ignorance of what the Bible truly says about gays and gay marriage. It is ignorance of the revelations God continues to give us about His Word and how to use it for modern times. Women may now speak in church, slavery is not acceptible, and the only law we are bound to is the Law of Love.
It is fantastically ignorant of the fact that your rights are untouchable. Black people had to fight hard to gain them, but they are hardly secure. There are those in power who would happily rob you of them right from under your nose. It will start with gays, but it will creep into the black community through limiting the rights of black muslims and continue through other "dissident" groups. All Americans' rights have already been infringed upon by the Patriot Act; a minority group's rights are even more unstable and unsure.
It is this shameful ignornace that recalls another minister, whose words are often repeated, but cannot be heard enough:
"When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church -- and there was nobody left to be concerned. "
Pastor Martin Niemoller , survivor of the Nazi Holocaust.
Thursday, December 09, 2004
Ape Nation
Warren Ellis, a writer of some of the best comic books you can read today (and if you're not reading comic books, you should be - get over the Bam! Pow! Whap! stereotype - some of the best art can be found in comics today) sent this today over his mailing list "Bad Signal" (Warren is a Brit, btw):
I think it was after [the second Presidential debate] that some BushPR handler went off at a journalist, claiming that people out in the great Heartland of America were going for Bush because, quote, "they like the way he walks, they like the way he talks, they like the way he points to things." That weird alpha-monkey gait of his, with the palms facing backwards and the squared shoulders, is actually an ape-community tell denoting the leader.
Seriously.Clear Channel, the monolithic radio entity over there, has just bought in Fox as their news provider. Fox, of which I've had only the briefest of tastes, seems to me to be basically a right-wing den of liars. It's no wonder Air America are hysterical -- the right wing have sold the idea that the media is liberal and that their voice is the underdog. Meanwhile, you need to sacrifice a goat and pray for a strong north wind to be able to receive Air America in much ofthe country. And when left-wing thought does break wide, as in the works of Michael Moore -- well, that just proves the media is liberal, right?
Can the American right wing really be damned for learning how to play the game better than the left? When the Liberal Voice is making it this easy for them? Ann Coulter may be Crazy and Evil, but she's funny.People are currently up in arms over her comments about Canada, but, you know, she's on TV. She's paid to be a dancing monkey. You want people to pay less attention to her? Dance better.
I think it was after [the second Presidential debate] that some BushPR handler went off at a journalist, claiming that people out in the great Heartland of America were going for Bush because, quote, "they like the way he walks, they like the way he talks, they like the way he points to things." That weird alpha-monkey gait of his, with the palms facing backwards and the squared shoulders, is actually an ape-community tell denoting the leader.
Seriously.Clear Channel, the monolithic radio entity over there, has just bought in Fox as their news provider. Fox, of which I've had only the briefest of tastes, seems to me to be basically a right-wing den of liars. It's no wonder Air America are hysterical -- the right wing have sold the idea that the media is liberal and that their voice is the underdog. Meanwhile, you need to sacrifice a goat and pray for a strong north wind to be able to receive Air America in much ofthe country. And when left-wing thought does break wide, as in the works of Michael Moore -- well, that just proves the media is liberal, right?
Can the American right wing really be damned for learning how to play the game better than the left? When the Liberal Voice is making it this easy for them? Ann Coulter may be Crazy and Evil, but she's funny.People are currently up in arms over her comments about Canada, but, you know, she's on TV. She's paid to be a dancing monkey. You want people to pay less attention to her? Dance better.
Tuesday, December 07, 2004
Common Cents
There's still hope even in the wilderness...
From 365gay.com
Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco has signed an Executive Order prohibiting employment discrimination against gay and lesbian state government employees. The Order also requires any business contracting with the state to have a non-discrimination policy covering their lesbian and gay workers.
The order is almost identical to the one signed by Governor Edwin Edwards at the beginning of his last term, but also includes harassment.
The order bans harassment and discrimination on the part of supervisors in their dealings with state workers. It also applies to state employees in their dealings with residents seeking benefits or services from the state.
"Because her order includes state service contracts, it reaches into the private sector, thereby protecting even more minority citizens from employment discrimination," said Christopher Daigle, a spokesperson for Equality Louisiana.
From 365gay.com
Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco has signed an Executive Order prohibiting employment discrimination against gay and lesbian state government employees. The Order also requires any business contracting with the state to have a non-discrimination policy covering their lesbian and gay workers.
The order is almost identical to the one signed by Governor Edwin Edwards at the beginning of his last term, but also includes harassment.
The order bans harassment and discrimination on the part of supervisors in their dealings with state workers. It also applies to state employees in their dealings with residents seeking benefits or services from the state.
"Because her order includes state service contracts, it reaches into the private sector, thereby protecting even more minority citizens from employment discrimination," said Christopher Daigle, a spokesperson for Equality Louisiana.
Must Not-See TV
And following ABC's unnecessary and insulting piece on Matthew Shepard's murder, follows CBS and NBC with their own particular pandering to the Religious Right.
These bozos are refusing to run an add by the United Church of Christ (not to be confused with the fundamentalist protestant denomination Church of Christ) that shows gays, a black woman, a hispanic man and other minority groups being turned away by two bouncers at church doors while a white traditional family is let through. The add then continues "Jesus didn't turn away people. Neither do we." You can view the video here.
NBC refuses to air based on no airing controversial ads. Suggesting that some churches don't include some populations is apparently a dangerous and radical message.
CBS allegedly told the UCC that "[b]ecause this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples...and the fact that the executive branch has recently proposed a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast." CBS now refuses to comment on whether they actual said this or not, although they confirm the ad banned. Perhaps that is for the best given that the ad says nothing even remotely related to same-sex marriage. Clearly CBS has picked up on the message the the FMA (or now the Marriage Protection Amendment) isn't truly about protecting marriage, but further marginalizing gays and lesbians as something other than an American citizen and certainly not as a person of worth.
I like what Rev. John Thomas, UCC general minister and president, has to say about all of this: "It is ironic that after a political season awash in commercials based on fear and deception by both parties seen on all major networks, an ad with a message of welcome and inclusion would be deemed too controversial. We find it disturbing that the networks in question seem to have no problem exploiting gay persons through mindless comedies or titillating dramas, but when it comes to the church's loving welcome of committed gay couples, that's where they draw the line."
Other stations airing it include AMC, BET, Discovery, Fox, Hallmark, History, Nick@Nite, TBS, TNT, Travel and TV Land. Of particular interest is that ABC Family will air it (and did - I saw it while watching old Rankin Bass animation Christmas specials).
Looks like I'm going to have to quit watching all the mainstream channels...and I was so enjoying the Apprentice this season. Survivor has been fun too and decidedly lestastic (although it seems like some creative editing omitted a kiss between one couple during a surprise visit to the island).
Sooner or later I'm going to get around to posting my recant of the role that moral values (specificially religious fundamentalist values) played in this election. Although seemingly significant, further analysis suggests that the Relgious Right, while still dangerous, and obviously with a firm grip on the testicles of CBS and NBC, didn't play quite as significant a role as perhaps they (and we) think they did.
It's a travesity that for all the crap and dreck these networks spend money to push the receding intellect of America even further that they can't be bothered to accept revenue from somebody with a positive, affirming message. However, the problem isn't that UCC is too controversial or advocating any stance. The problem is they are challenging the status quo. They dared to send a message that might cause Mr. or Mrs. America to think they aren't as tolerant, broad-minded, or fair as they care to think they are. UCC had the audacity to confront the modern-day pharisees and tell them that they are not practicing the love and inclusion that Christ lived and taught. It's not a feel-good namby pamby "boy I could have figured that out for myself if I had half a brain" The More You Know segment. It hits people where it matters. For some that feels good, for others it hurts. And when you tackle the bully, the bully tries to shut you down.
Info from 356gay.com and beliefnet for resources on this story
These bozos are refusing to run an add by the United Church of Christ (not to be confused with the fundamentalist protestant denomination Church of Christ) that shows gays, a black woman, a hispanic man and other minority groups being turned away by two bouncers at church doors while a white traditional family is let through. The add then continues "Jesus didn't turn away people. Neither do we." You can view the video here.
NBC refuses to air based on no airing controversial ads. Suggesting that some churches don't include some populations is apparently a dangerous and radical message.
CBS allegedly told the UCC that "[b]ecause this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples...and the fact that the executive branch has recently proposed a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast." CBS now refuses to comment on whether they actual said this or not, although they confirm the ad banned. Perhaps that is for the best given that the ad says nothing even remotely related to same-sex marriage. Clearly CBS has picked up on the message the the FMA (or now the Marriage Protection Amendment) isn't truly about protecting marriage, but further marginalizing gays and lesbians as something other than an American citizen and certainly not as a person of worth.
I like what Rev. John Thomas, UCC general minister and president, has to say about all of this: "It is ironic that after a political season awash in commercials based on fear and deception by both parties seen on all major networks, an ad with a message of welcome and inclusion would be deemed too controversial. We find it disturbing that the networks in question seem to have no problem exploiting gay persons through mindless comedies or titillating dramas, but when it comes to the church's loving welcome of committed gay couples, that's where they draw the line."
Other stations airing it include AMC, BET, Discovery, Fox, Hallmark, History, Nick@Nite, TBS, TNT, Travel and TV Land. Of particular interest is that ABC Family will air it (and did - I saw it while watching old Rankin Bass animation Christmas specials).
Looks like I'm going to have to quit watching all the mainstream channels...and I was so enjoying the Apprentice this season. Survivor has been fun too and decidedly lestastic (although it seems like some creative editing omitted a kiss between one couple during a surprise visit to the island).
Sooner or later I'm going to get around to posting my recant of the role that moral values (specificially religious fundamentalist values) played in this election. Although seemingly significant, further analysis suggests that the Relgious Right, while still dangerous, and obviously with a firm grip on the testicles of CBS and NBC, didn't play quite as significant a role as perhaps they (and we) think they did.
It's a travesity that for all the crap and dreck these networks spend money to push the receding intellect of America even further that they can't be bothered to accept revenue from somebody with a positive, affirming message. However, the problem isn't that UCC is too controversial or advocating any stance. The problem is they are challenging the status quo. They dared to send a message that might cause Mr. or Mrs. America to think they aren't as tolerant, broad-minded, or fair as they care to think they are. UCC had the audacity to confront the modern-day pharisees and tell them that they are not practicing the love and inclusion that Christ lived and taught. It's not a feel-good namby pamby "boy I could have figured that out for myself if I had half a brain" The More You Know segment. It hits people where it matters. For some that feels good, for others it hurts. And when you tackle the bully, the bully tries to shut you down.
Info from 356gay.com and beliefnet for resources on this story
Monday, December 06, 2004
The Art and Science of Biblical Interpretation
One of my best friends, John, who is a medical doctor, married, father of two, agnostic, lives in a small eastern Tennessee town, and all around swell guy sent the following email to me:
My bible reading project has not started yet. Sodom and Gamora is the most often quoted argument I hear around hear, and usually just the fact that I bring up an alternative view of why Sodom and Gamora are destroyed they start backpeddeling which tells me that most people use the Bible to argue position having never read the source. They are simply taking someone elses interpretation.
In medicine (which is more art than science every day that I practice) I used to take as fact things that were taught to me by respected professors.
Now that I have read some of the source material myself I have found many things in medicine are done on tradition and there is no good evidence for some practices. So I can imagine if I have come across so many instances of misinterpretation in medicine that Biblical lore is probably worse.
John explained in his initial email to me that people around him constantly bring up Sodom and Gomorrah when explaining the sins of gay marriage or homosexuality in general. But, as I explained to John, that's one of the worst passages they could use to justify their righteous indignation.
If you start thinking about it, it's hard to see a story involving gang rape as an indictment against consentual homosexual relationships. It's gets a little more difficult when you realize that Lot offers his daughters to appease the violent crowd. I don't think female virgins would placate a mob of rabid queers.When the the prophet Ezekiel discusses this incident later, he states the sin specifically: "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy." (Ezekiel 16:49 -KJV)
So, please pick a more artful argument next time.
But John makes an excellent point about the art of Biblical interpretation. While John continues to erode the little trust I had in modern medicine with his revelations of how so much of it is a guessing game, he properly illuminates a problem with modern theology, particularly within the evangelical/fundamentalist community.
Most followers don't take the time to check out the source material. They believe what they are fed by popular pundits, local pastors, tradition or even fictional literature. (The Left Behind series is an immensely popular book series based on a particular interpretation of the Book of Revelations, a theological bent that the authors insist is The Truth.) Modern church-goers might know their Bible verses forward and backwards and follow along when prompted during sermons, but few take time to truly read the Bible contextually. And this type of reading is no easy task.
Reading any book is more work than people typically consider. There is a whole field of study on the reading process and how we make meaning of what we read. Even casting the process of reading aside, when reading the Bible, one must read it with the appropriate surrounding text to understand the full context. To single any one verse out, as many ministers seem to base their sermons on, actually robs that verse of its full meaning. Nobody would dream of reading any other book or poem this way, yet modern Christians regularly use the Bible verse by out-of-context verse.
Understanding the Bible is further complicated by the need to understand some the words' original meanings in Hebrew or Greek. You have to understand ancient culture. You have to understand that some words were used differently than they are now and a direct translation of the word does not necessarily convey the author's intended meaning or frame of reference. All of these components, and more, is fundamental to truly understanding what is being said. How many evangelicals even know that the gospels were handed down orally and were not transcribed until decades after those events happened? How many understand the concept of the synoptic gospels? I certainly never learned these things in church, and I doubt many people do.
Given all the work it takes to understand the words that have been passed down to us, it's not surprising that most people don't undertake it (many probably are not aware that this much work is necessary). Instead, interpretation is left up to ministers, who while certainly qualified, are trained in certain traditions and schools of theology, bringing their own biases, prejudices, preconceptions, and, yes, agendas into the interpretive mix. I often wonder how many ministers get to seminary, come to different conclusions that what they are being taught based on their own work, yet still go along with the denominational line because that is an easier path to tread.
Karl Marx said that relgion is the opium of the masses. And, for those churches that do not teach their parishioners about how to read the Bible for themsleves, he's right. I certainly believe that fundamentalism, a characteristic of the Religious Right, is an anti-intellectual movement. It ignores or belittles a historical-critical analysis of the Bible. Fundamentalism insists that you turn off your brain not just at the church door, but at the Bible cover.
My bible reading project has not started yet. Sodom and Gamora is the most often quoted argument I hear around hear, and usually just the fact that I bring up an alternative view of why Sodom and Gamora are destroyed they start backpeddeling which tells me that most people use the Bible to argue position having never read the source. They are simply taking someone elses interpretation.
In medicine (which is more art than science every day that I practice) I used to take as fact things that were taught to me by respected professors.
Now that I have read some of the source material myself I have found many things in medicine are done on tradition and there is no good evidence for some practices. So I can imagine if I have come across so many instances of misinterpretation in medicine that Biblical lore is probably worse.
John explained in his initial email to me that people around him constantly bring up Sodom and Gomorrah when explaining the sins of gay marriage or homosexuality in general. But, as I explained to John, that's one of the worst passages they could use to justify their righteous indignation.
If you start thinking about it, it's hard to see a story involving gang rape as an indictment against consentual homosexual relationships. It's gets a little more difficult when you realize that Lot offers his daughters to appease the violent crowd. I don't think female virgins would placate a mob of rabid queers.When the the prophet Ezekiel discusses this incident later, he states the sin specifically: "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy." (Ezekiel 16:49 -KJV)
So, please pick a more artful argument next time.
But John makes an excellent point about the art of Biblical interpretation. While John continues to erode the little trust I had in modern medicine with his revelations of how so much of it is a guessing game, he properly illuminates a problem with modern theology, particularly within the evangelical/fundamentalist community.
Most followers don't take the time to check out the source material. They believe what they are fed by popular pundits, local pastors, tradition or even fictional literature. (The Left Behind series is an immensely popular book series based on a particular interpretation of the Book of Revelations, a theological bent that the authors insist is The Truth.) Modern church-goers might know their Bible verses forward and backwards and follow along when prompted during sermons, but few take time to truly read the Bible contextually. And this type of reading is no easy task.
Reading any book is more work than people typically consider. There is a whole field of study on the reading process and how we make meaning of what we read. Even casting the process of reading aside, when reading the Bible, one must read it with the appropriate surrounding text to understand the full context. To single any one verse out, as many ministers seem to base their sermons on, actually robs that verse of its full meaning. Nobody would dream of reading any other book or poem this way, yet modern Christians regularly use the Bible verse by out-of-context verse.
Understanding the Bible is further complicated by the need to understand some the words' original meanings in Hebrew or Greek. You have to understand ancient culture. You have to understand that some words were used differently than they are now and a direct translation of the word does not necessarily convey the author's intended meaning or frame of reference. All of these components, and more, is fundamental to truly understanding what is being said. How many evangelicals even know that the gospels were handed down orally and were not transcribed until decades after those events happened? How many understand the concept of the synoptic gospels? I certainly never learned these things in church, and I doubt many people do.
Given all the work it takes to understand the words that have been passed down to us, it's not surprising that most people don't undertake it (many probably are not aware that this much work is necessary). Instead, interpretation is left up to ministers, who while certainly qualified, are trained in certain traditions and schools of theology, bringing their own biases, prejudices, preconceptions, and, yes, agendas into the interpretive mix. I often wonder how many ministers get to seminary, come to different conclusions that what they are being taught based on their own work, yet still go along with the denominational line because that is an easier path to tread.
Karl Marx said that relgion is the opium of the masses. And, for those churches that do not teach their parishioners about how to read the Bible for themsleves, he's right. I certainly believe that fundamentalism, a characteristic of the Religious Right, is an anti-intellectual movement. It ignores or belittles a historical-critical analysis of the Bible. Fundamentalism insists that you turn off your brain not just at the church door, but at the Bible cover.
Thursday, December 02, 2004
Common Cents
And interrupting my blogging flow for a quick news check will be my new semi-regular featurette (semi-regular meaning whenever I feel like mentioning something without adding much commentary to it) Common Cents.
Common Cents will be quick news snippets that show some positive event or progress for gay people, particularly here in the States.
To inaugurate this new feature, we have from the November 30th edition of The Chronicle of Higher Education:
"Colleges that bar military recruiters from their campuses because the armed forces discriminate against gay men and lesbians cannot be penalized with the loss of federal funds, a three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Philadelphia ruled on Monday.
In the 2-1 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit said the Constitution's guarantee of free speech prohibits the government from requiring colleges to endorse a message they disagree with. The decision halts enforcement of a decade-old law, known as the Solomon Amendment, that allows the government to withhold Department of Defense money from colleges that do not provide access to military recruiters.
Last month, Congress expanded the law to apply to colleges that do not provide the recruiters with access "equal in quality and scope" to that offered to nonmilitary recruiters. Such institutions are now barred from receiving funds from the Defense Department and defense-related funds from other federal agencies as well.
In the past, some law schools have limited military recruiters' access to their campuses because the Defense Department's policy of excluding openly gay men and women from the military services ran afoul of the schools' antidiscrimination policies. Warrington S. Parker III, a lawyer for a coalition of law schools and others challenging the Solomon Amendment, said Monday's decision means that colleges can again "follow their nondiscrimination policies."
...
Daniel Mach, a lawyer who represented the American Association of Law Schools, said that nondiscrimination policies send an "important message of diversity and tolerance" that is "vitally important to law schools' mission."
The court, in an opinion written by Judge Thomas L. Ambro, found that the Solomon Amendment violated colleges' First Amendment rights by compelling them to "propagate, accommodate and subsidize the military's message." The ruling cited a U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing the Boy Scouts of America to exclude a gay assistant scoutmaster because "homosexual conduct is inconsistent with ... the Scout oath."
"Just as the Boy Scouts believed that 'homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the Scout Oath,' ... the law schools believe that employment discrimination is inconsistent with their commitment to justice and fairness," the opinion states.
"The Solomon Amendment requires law schools to express a message that is incompatible with their educational objectives, and no compelling governmental interest has been shown to deny this ruling," the opinion concludes. "
Common Cents will be quick news snippets that show some positive event or progress for gay people, particularly here in the States.
To inaugurate this new feature, we have from the November 30th edition of The Chronicle of Higher Education:
"Colleges that bar military recruiters from their campuses because the armed forces discriminate against gay men and lesbians cannot be penalized with the loss of federal funds, a three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Philadelphia ruled on Monday.
In the 2-1 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit said the Constitution's guarantee of free speech prohibits the government from requiring colleges to endorse a message they disagree with. The decision halts enforcement of a decade-old law, known as the Solomon Amendment, that allows the government to withhold Department of Defense money from colleges that do not provide access to military recruiters.
Last month, Congress expanded the law to apply to colleges that do not provide the recruiters with access "equal in quality and scope" to that offered to nonmilitary recruiters. Such institutions are now barred from receiving funds from the Defense Department and defense-related funds from other federal agencies as well.
In the past, some law schools have limited military recruiters' access to their campuses because the Defense Department's policy of excluding openly gay men and women from the military services ran afoul of the schools' antidiscrimination policies. Warrington S. Parker III, a lawyer for a coalition of law schools and others challenging the Solomon Amendment, said Monday's decision means that colleges can again "follow their nondiscrimination policies."
...
Daniel Mach, a lawyer who represented the American Association of Law Schools, said that nondiscrimination policies send an "important message of diversity and tolerance" that is "vitally important to law schools' mission."
The court, in an opinion written by Judge Thomas L. Ambro, found that the Solomon Amendment violated colleges' First Amendment rights by compelling them to "propagate, accommodate and subsidize the military's message." The ruling cited a U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing the Boy Scouts of America to exclude a gay assistant scoutmaster because "homosexual conduct is inconsistent with ... the Scout oath."
"Just as the Boy Scouts believed that 'homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the Scout Oath,' ... the law schools believe that employment discrimination is inconsistent with their commitment to justice and fairness," the opinion states.
"The Solomon Amendment requires law schools to express a message that is incompatible with their educational objectives, and no compelling governmental interest has been shown to deny this ruling," the opinion concludes. "
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
Crucified Again
Although I agree with some that Matthew Shepard, as a very disturbed and troubled young man, has become far too mythic in proportion, the heinousness of the crime perpetrated upon him cannot be overstated. The immensely cruel and brutal evil that befell poor Matthew is unthinkable and cannot be forgotten. And while we cannot live in fear of the same happening to us, we must never think we are immune from such inexplicable violence.
And, yet, somehow ABC decided to run a story that would suggest that the men who tortured and killed Matthew did so out essentially because of a drug deal gone bad, rather than because he was gay.
And my first response is, "does it matter why they killed him?" And not just killed him, but tortured and crucified the boy. It reeks of someone trying to make excuses. It reeks of a media outlet trying to pander to a perception that many viewers are anti-gay.
In any event, this sort of investigation provides no redeeming feature or merit. It advances no cause, except perhaps the one that would see Matthew as the creator and ultimate reaper of his own circumstances. The insinuation appears to be that had Matthew not been a drug-adled queer looking for sinful man-sex, he would still be alive.
I normally would not weigh in on a program I had not personally viewed. I was, and still am, so offended at the basic premise of the show, however, I could not bring myself to watch it. Even if the show managed to convince me that it wasn't a gay-bashing to the nth degree (and that would take a lot of convincing) , it wouldn't change the fact that the man in question is a killer and his vicitm, regardless of his faults, didn't deserve death, particularly a slow, inhumane, degrading death.
I would boycott ABC, but they don't have anything of quality on to watch in the first place. For responses to the "news" story aired on 20/20, you can start by visiting
GLAAD's analysis of the story
the response of the Matthew Shepard Foundation
Also echoing many of my statements, along with some additional insights, are John Rowe's observations here.
And, yet, somehow ABC decided to run a story that would suggest that the men who tortured and killed Matthew did so out essentially because of a drug deal gone bad, rather than because he was gay.
And my first response is, "does it matter why they killed him?" And not just killed him, but tortured and crucified the boy. It reeks of someone trying to make excuses. It reeks of a media outlet trying to pander to a perception that many viewers are anti-gay.
In any event, this sort of investigation provides no redeeming feature or merit. It advances no cause, except perhaps the one that would see Matthew as the creator and ultimate reaper of his own circumstances. The insinuation appears to be that had Matthew not been a drug-adled queer looking for sinful man-sex, he would still be alive.
I normally would not weigh in on a program I had not personally viewed. I was, and still am, so offended at the basic premise of the show, however, I could not bring myself to watch it. Even if the show managed to convince me that it wasn't a gay-bashing to the nth degree (and that would take a lot of convincing) , it wouldn't change the fact that the man in question is a killer and his vicitm, regardless of his faults, didn't deserve death, particularly a slow, inhumane, degrading death.
I would boycott ABC, but they don't have anything of quality on to watch in the first place. For responses to the "news" story aired on 20/20, you can start by visiting
GLAAD's analysis of the story
the response of the Matthew Shepard Foundation
Also echoing many of my statements, along with some additional insights, are John Rowe's observations here.
On Golden Porn
I've been out of town for both work and vacation the past two weeks, and during that time so much happened that I hardly know where to start. Topics cover the spectrum of the rainbow to frivolous to the deadly serious.
Let's start with some levity before we dive into deeper waters.
From VH1's Best Week Ever segment "What You're Celebrating This Year":
If you bought The Golden Girls Season 1, you're celebrating cosmopolitans, tiny dogs, and hot sweaty man on man sex.
I presume they're not referring to any nude scenes with Bea Arthur.
Let's start with some levity before we dive into deeper waters.
From VH1's Best Week Ever segment "What You're Celebrating This Year":
If you bought The Golden Girls Season 1, you're celebrating cosmopolitans, tiny dogs, and hot sweaty man on man sex.
I presume they're not referring to any nude scenes with Bea Arthur.
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
Tryptophan Theatre
No blogger worth his or her salt passes up the obligatory "I'm thankful for..." blog at this time of year. Or perhaps the blogger possessing no original ideas passes it up. Regardless, I'm throwing my buckled hat into the ring.
Despite my trepidation (or is that tryptodation) about the next four years, I'm still proud and thankful to be an American. In spite of my worries about a continued suppression of civil rights and free speech for all Americans, I am thankful for the ability to fight for what I think is right and I'm still able to say and be who I am regardless. And, hey, there are at least a few other people who share similar value structures and ideas about how our great nation should be lead that I do.
I am both proud and humbled by the immense about of privilege I do have. Although I am deeply hurt by politicians and others seeking to legislate against me, simply because of who I am, with no thought to the totality of who I am, I, and many other gays and lesbians, have uncalculable amounts of privlege that others both in our country and out of it, do not.
I am (and presumably anybody reading this is) literate. I am, and likely you are, educated and have access to technology. You can probably afford some level of technology, if you don't own a computer. You likely have a job (as do I) where you have a computer and other technology, or access to one. My (and probably your) level of education is college or higher.
I am(and probably you are) not concerned about where our next meal will come from nor if we are going to have a place to sleep and stay dry tomorrow night. Most likely you will be eating an enormous amount of food with friends or family in the next few days. And, concerning the mode of transport to the houses of our loved ones, the ability to travel within a city, and between state to state is not only possible, but convenient.
We, despite what Republicans will tell you, are largely free from violence and terror. Some Americans do live in areas of our cities that are violent or are victims of heinous crimes or abuses. I have been fortunate to be largely free of that. And although I am convinced we will see another attack upon our great country, the vast majority of us are safe from this threat.
Finally, I, for some unknown reason or perhaps for no reason whatsoever, have had an immense blessing of grace bestowed upon me in terms of my sexuality. I have a loving partner and a supportive family. I have good friends and a fantastic work environment. I realized my sexuality at a point in my life where I could emotionally and spiritually cope with it.
Thanks for taking the time to allow me to share my thoughts with you.
Despite my trepidation (or is that tryptodation) about the next four years, I'm still proud and thankful to be an American. In spite of my worries about a continued suppression of civil rights and free speech for all Americans, I am thankful for the ability to fight for what I think is right and I'm still able to say and be who I am regardless. And, hey, there are at least a few other people who share similar value structures and ideas about how our great nation should be lead that I do.
I am both proud and humbled by the immense about of privilege I do have. Although I am deeply hurt by politicians and others seeking to legislate against me, simply because of who I am, with no thought to the totality of who I am, I, and many other gays and lesbians, have uncalculable amounts of privlege that others both in our country and out of it, do not.
I am (and presumably anybody reading this is) literate. I am, and likely you are, educated and have access to technology. You can probably afford some level of technology, if you don't own a computer. You likely have a job (as do I) where you have a computer and other technology, or access to one. My (and probably your) level of education is college or higher.
I am(and probably you are) not concerned about where our next meal will come from nor if we are going to have a place to sleep and stay dry tomorrow night. Most likely you will be eating an enormous amount of food with friends or family in the next few days. And, concerning the mode of transport to the houses of our loved ones, the ability to travel within a city, and between state to state is not only possible, but convenient.
We, despite what Republicans will tell you, are largely free from violence and terror. Some Americans do live in areas of our cities that are violent or are victims of heinous crimes or abuses. I have been fortunate to be largely free of that. And although I am convinced we will see another attack upon our great country, the vast majority of us are safe from this threat.
Finally, I, for some unknown reason or perhaps for no reason whatsoever, have had an immense blessing of grace bestowed upon me in terms of my sexuality. I have a loving partner and a supportive family. I have good friends and a fantastic work environment. I realized my sexuality at a point in my life where I could emotionally and spiritually cope with it.
Thanks for taking the time to allow me to share my thoughts with you.
Friday, November 05, 2004
Too Much Reality TV?
Do you think people have watched too much reality TV and thought their vote Tuesday was to throw someone out of the United States?
Thursday, November 04, 2004
What We Need Now
Twenty-four percent of respondants to a CNN/Gallup poll expressed they were afraid of the next four years under Bush. Eighteen percent were merely pessimistic. This means that 42% had a negative expectation of this presidency. How did this man get elected when so many view him so negatively. Although Republicans triumph a three million vote popular vote lead, this is only 51% of the country, decisive but hardly a mandate and hardly historic.
Three things clearly stand out as to why George Bush got re-elected and Republicans picked up a slight gain in the Senate.
There was no reason to vote for John Kerry. The vast majority of people (79%) voting for Kerry did it because they were anti-Bush, not pro-Kerry. Only 30% of people voted for Kerry because they were for the man, compared to Bush's 59% allegiance of voters. And hate or dislike is not a strong enough reason to motivate people tovote. Being anti-candidate (Bush or Kerry) only caused 25% of the voters to turn out. The overwhelming number of voters (69%) turned out because they were voting FOR their guy.
Kerry never made a sufficient case for himself; it's not enough to be different. Although Bush is so bad, being "not Bush" nearly was enough in this election(and that, to me, is a horrible indictment of the President's leadership), Kerry should have and future politicians absolutely must make a case for themselves.
The second major reason is that voters cared most (22%) about moral values. Undoubtably, in this case "moral issues" translates to stances on gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, and Supreme Court judge nominations (and all of these are strongly linked to the third cause). Democrats ran on policy; Bush ran on morality. Democrats, who during the 60's were strong activists and the moral voice for civil rights have lost that voice.
The smartest comment I have heard on this was NPR commentator Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor under Clinton and Professor of Social and Economic Policy at Brandeis University, on "Marketplace" who suggested that the Democrats must not touch religion - it's far too personal. But, they must find a moral voice. The commentator suggested they should talk about the morality of robbing from the poor to give to the rich (not surprisingly the majority of Bush voters made $50,000 or more). I'd suggest talking about the morality of legislating religious beliefs for a country based on freedom of religion.
Which leads me to the third reason: an unusual presence of Evangelical Christians, the Religious Right. Karl Rove managed to help turn out thousands of fundamentalists that did not vote in 2000. These were especially prominent in states with the gay marriage amendments on the ballots as well as the I-4 corridor in Florida. And now these people, Gary Bauer, Ralph Reed, and others are asking for payback for getting the faithful to vote. The Religous Right continues to be a growing power that is not being taken seriously. People wanting to avoid policies and lawmaking heavily influenced by ultra-conservative and religous values "far right of the mainstream" need to mobilize moderate and liberal people of faith. Those of us who are Christian must be as political as our fundamentalist brethern and talk about what Jesus REALLY would do and how our friends and family are lied to and manipulated by the true wolves, wolves posing as sheep. People of no faith or other faiths must also act and mobilize to counter this small but influential political voice within the Republican party and our nation.
My sense of self-preservation makes me seriously contemplate relocating to Canada and I've joked about it like many of my friends and other Democrats (apparently this joke is so pervasive, CNN ran an article online about the issues involved in immigrating to Canada: "Canada No Safehaven for Democrats"). However, my bully reflex has kicked in. Although I might move to a more tolerant area of the country, I will not abandon this country, which I love, and leave it in the hands of people who are either stupid, hateful, ignorant or intolerant. Our nation is better than this and I can help make it better. We all can. The next four years will be difficult, but what we need now is love for ourselves and our country.
Three things clearly stand out as to why George Bush got re-elected and Republicans picked up a slight gain in the Senate.
There was no reason to vote for John Kerry. The vast majority of people (79%) voting for Kerry did it because they were anti-Bush, not pro-Kerry. Only 30% of people voted for Kerry because they were for the man, compared to Bush's 59% allegiance of voters. And hate or dislike is not a strong enough reason to motivate people tovote. Being anti-candidate (Bush or Kerry) only caused 25% of the voters to turn out. The overwhelming number of voters (69%) turned out because they were voting FOR their guy.
Kerry never made a sufficient case for himself; it's not enough to be different. Although Bush is so bad, being "not Bush" nearly was enough in this election(and that, to me, is a horrible indictment of the President's leadership), Kerry should have and future politicians absolutely must make a case for themselves.
The second major reason is that voters cared most (22%) about moral values. Undoubtably, in this case "moral issues" translates to stances on gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, and Supreme Court judge nominations (and all of these are strongly linked to the third cause). Democrats ran on policy; Bush ran on morality. Democrats, who during the 60's were strong activists and the moral voice for civil rights have lost that voice.
The smartest comment I have heard on this was NPR commentator Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor under Clinton and Professor of Social and Economic Policy at Brandeis University, on "Marketplace" who suggested that the Democrats must not touch religion - it's far too personal. But, they must find a moral voice. The commentator suggested they should talk about the morality of robbing from the poor to give to the rich (not surprisingly the majority of Bush voters made $50,000 or more). I'd suggest talking about the morality of legislating religious beliefs for a country based on freedom of religion.
Which leads me to the third reason: an unusual presence of Evangelical Christians, the Religious Right. Karl Rove managed to help turn out thousands of fundamentalists that did not vote in 2000. These were especially prominent in states with the gay marriage amendments on the ballots as well as the I-4 corridor in Florida. And now these people, Gary Bauer, Ralph Reed, and others are asking for payback for getting the faithful to vote. The Religous Right continues to be a growing power that is not being taken seriously. People wanting to avoid policies and lawmaking heavily influenced by ultra-conservative and religous values "far right of the mainstream" need to mobilize moderate and liberal people of faith. Those of us who are Christian must be as political as our fundamentalist brethern and talk about what Jesus REALLY would do and how our friends and family are lied to and manipulated by the true wolves, wolves posing as sheep. People of no faith or other faiths must also act and mobilize to counter this small but influential political voice within the Republican party and our nation.
My sense of self-preservation makes me seriously contemplate relocating to Canada and I've joked about it like many of my friends and other Democrats (apparently this joke is so pervasive, CNN ran an article online about the issues involved in immigrating to Canada: "Canada No Safehaven for Democrats"). However, my bully reflex has kicked in. Although I might move to a more tolerant area of the country, I will not abandon this country, which I love, and leave it in the hands of people who are either stupid, hateful, ignorant or intolerant. Our nation is better than this and I can help make it better. We all can. The next four years will be difficult, but what we need now is love for ourselves and our country.
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Internalized Homostupidity
According to CNN, 23% of gays and lesbians voted for George Bush. To paraphrase Jon Stewart, that's nearly a quarter of our people who were wearing tin foil hats and chanting in their underwear before voting at the polls.
I know we are supposed to like it up the butt, but we aren't supposed to like Bush. I guess some of us just decided to shove a big Dick (Cheney) up there instead.
Were these people in a K-hole when they voted? Did they miss that the Log Cabin Republicans refused to endorse Bush? Republicans hoped to use gay marriage to garner votes from the highly religious black community and failed there - how did they succeed with our own people?
How do you support someone who has used the restriction of your civil rights as a tactic for maintaining their power? Bush owes the religious right now, who made special efforts, particularly in Florida and the eleven states where anti-gay amendments were on the ballots to bring in big numbers of voters. And they're already demanding their due - which will be the Federal Marriage Amendment. They won't be satisfied with the FMA either; we could possibly look forward to other restrictions of our civil rights. Bush will certainly appoint anti-gay judges to the Supreme Court.
Is this internalized hate run amok? We have enough closeted politicians pushing anti-gay legislation without our own people turning us in to the lapdog of fundamentalists. To these gay Bush supporters, I say you've earned the president you've elected. Can you all please pack up and go to Egypt or some place where you can be more fully oppressed?
I know we are supposed to like it up the butt, but we aren't supposed to like Bush. I guess some of us just decided to shove a big Dick (Cheney) up there instead.
Were these people in a K-hole when they voted? Did they miss that the Log Cabin Republicans refused to endorse Bush? Republicans hoped to use gay marriage to garner votes from the highly religious black community and failed there - how did they succeed with our own people?
How do you support someone who has used the restriction of your civil rights as a tactic for maintaining their power? Bush owes the religious right now, who made special efforts, particularly in Florida and the eleven states where anti-gay amendments were on the ballots to bring in big numbers of voters. And they're already demanding their due - which will be the Federal Marriage Amendment. They won't be satisfied with the FMA either; we could possibly look forward to other restrictions of our civil rights. Bush will certainly appoint anti-gay judges to the Supreme Court.
Is this internalized hate run amok? We have enough closeted politicians pushing anti-gay legislation without our own people turning us in to the lapdog of fundamentalists. To these gay Bush supporters, I say you've earned the president you've elected. Can you all please pack up and go to Egypt or some place where you can be more fully oppressed?
My Favorite Quote of the Election
From a caller on a radio talk show..."I'm voting for Kerry because 'Yee-Haw' is not a foreign policy."
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Slash and Burning Passion
Comic professional Steven Grant wrote about a subgenre of superhero comics that I was completely unaware of in his most recent column Permanent Damage at Comicbook Resources. Steven details this small comic niche:
"Obviously, there's still ground to be covered with the superhero, and the post-superhero. There are different things yet to do with them. There are even weird, unexpected subcultures out there built around superheroes: a friend yesterday told me about "slash," which has apparently been an open secret for a long time but somehow I just missed it, basically self-generated fiction by and for educated, mostly straight, often married middle-class women, featuring homoerotic (male-male) revisions of popular characters of TV, screen and comics, like the old Kirk-Spock fantasies once prevalent among an offshoot of STAR TREK fans. (Female "slash" fans are reportedly a hefty chunk of the fans of DC's TEEN TITANS and OUTSIDERS comics.) Which ties in beautifully with the Apollo-Midnighter romance in THE AUTHORITY and shonen ai manga like GRAVITATION. Slash fans have their own conventions, websites and everything. " (Note: THE AUTHORITY features two openly gay men, essentially a Superman and Batman riff in a relationship.)
This ties in with the apparent love that some straight women have for the show Queer as Folk which features soft-core gay sex. This is an interesting flipside of the straight man's stereotypical fascination with lesbian sex. I'm honestly a bit baffled about this, other than to say that if you're attracted to good looking people of one sex, then you're likely to be attracted to a whole gaggle of them making out?? And although I doubt that this "slash" population is of any significant size, with straight America's continued fascination with same-sex sex, why can't they move from objectifying us to seeing us as people deserving of equal rights?
"Obviously, there's still ground to be covered with the superhero, and the post-superhero. There are different things yet to do with them. There are even weird, unexpected subcultures out there built around superheroes: a friend yesterday told me about "slash," which has apparently been an open secret for a long time but somehow I just missed it, basically self-generated fiction by and for educated, mostly straight, often married middle-class women, featuring homoerotic (male-male) revisions of popular characters of TV, screen and comics, like the old Kirk-Spock fantasies once prevalent among an offshoot of STAR TREK fans. (Female "slash" fans are reportedly a hefty chunk of the fans of DC's TEEN TITANS and OUTSIDERS comics.) Which ties in beautifully with the Apollo-Midnighter romance in THE AUTHORITY and shonen ai manga like GRAVITATION. Slash fans have their own conventions, websites and everything. " (Note: THE AUTHORITY features two openly gay men, essentially a Superman and Batman riff in a relationship.)
This ties in with the apparent love that some straight women have for the show Queer as Folk which features soft-core gay sex. This is an interesting flipside of the straight man's stereotypical fascination with lesbian sex. I'm honestly a bit baffled about this, other than to say that if you're attracted to good looking people of one sex, then you're likely to be attracted to a whole gaggle of them making out?? And although I doubt that this "slash" population is of any significant size, with straight America's continued fascination with same-sex sex, why can't they move from objectifying us to seeing us as people deserving of equal rights?
I'm Proud to Say I'm a Pawn American
Hey Hey
Ho Ho
Bush and Cheney have got to go!
Hey Hey
Ho Ho!
Did you do your part to get rid of one of the worst presidents in modern history?
I've been told on other blogs that I'm just a pawn of the media. I've fallen for the liberal rhetoric that Bush caters to the Religious Right and that he's intolerant. I've fallen for the propoganda that paints him as someone who doesn't think he's made a mistake. I've been misled by the vast left-wing consipracy that Bush is a stupid man. I've fallen for the Democratic talking point that he lied and misled the country for invading Iraq.
Only...he's culpable for all those things.
He's actively backed the Federal Marriage Amendment. He's stated that he would not have supported civil unions as governor of Texas. He, from the on-set, distanced himself from the Log Cabin Republicans. He advocates for "family values," the only opposite of which I can infer is apparently "gay values." He identified Christ as the philosopher he most identifies with (isn't that scary?) and talks regularly about how Christianity changed his life. His faith-based initiatives have strongly blurred the relationship between state and church. His stance on stem cell research and abortion are direct influences from the religious right.
He's been asked twice that I've seen about what mistakes he thinks he has made or what he has learned from his Presidency and has twice failed to come up with an answer.
Bush supposedly has a high IQ. However, the man refuses to read; he insists on aides summarizing reports to him. And his communication skills are pathetic. He constantly makes up words, uses malapropisms, forgets the simplest sayings, and doesn't listen to his own speeches. When he loses his place, he can't recover because he doesn't really know what he's saying. The man had the best education money could buy and squandered it making C's (and he's proud of that work).
And he constantly lied about why we should invade Iraq. He knew the information for justifying the war was tenuous at best, but Rummy, Cheney and company were looking for an excuse to go in since Day One. And Cheney still refuses to admit that their claims were bogus. They dropped the ball with persuing Osama Bin Laden and that is the biggest failure of all.
I don't agree with Kerry on "wrong war, wrong time." I never supported invading Iraq. It was clearly a diversion - something accomplishable because they probably knew capturing Bin Laden was too difficult. Bush even tried to write Bin Laden off as "not a threat" when he failed to capture him and now Osama has reared his head again.
I haven't even talked about the deregulation of industry and freedoms he has allowed major corporations. I haven't mentioned the damage to the environment he's allowing. I haven't brought up his tax cuts for the very rich. I haven't talked about the conflict of interests with Haliburton in Iraq. This man's career, and his presidency is no different, has been spent looking out for himself and his corporate buddies.
He needs to go and go quickly.
Ho Ho
Bush and Cheney have got to go!
Hey Hey
Ho Ho!
Did you do your part to get rid of one of the worst presidents in modern history?
I've been told on other blogs that I'm just a pawn of the media. I've fallen for the liberal rhetoric that Bush caters to the Religious Right and that he's intolerant. I've fallen for the propoganda that paints him as someone who doesn't think he's made a mistake. I've been misled by the vast left-wing consipracy that Bush is a stupid man. I've fallen for the Democratic talking point that he lied and misled the country for invading Iraq.
Only...he's culpable for all those things.
He's actively backed the Federal Marriage Amendment. He's stated that he would not have supported civil unions as governor of Texas. He, from the on-set, distanced himself from the Log Cabin Republicans. He advocates for "family values," the only opposite of which I can infer is apparently "gay values." He identified Christ as the philosopher he most identifies with (isn't that scary?) and talks regularly about how Christianity changed his life. His faith-based initiatives have strongly blurred the relationship between state and church. His stance on stem cell research and abortion are direct influences from the religious right.
He's been asked twice that I've seen about what mistakes he thinks he has made or what he has learned from his Presidency and has twice failed to come up with an answer.
Bush supposedly has a high IQ. However, the man refuses to read; he insists on aides summarizing reports to him. And his communication skills are pathetic. He constantly makes up words, uses malapropisms, forgets the simplest sayings, and doesn't listen to his own speeches. When he loses his place, he can't recover because he doesn't really know what he's saying. The man had the best education money could buy and squandered it making C's (and he's proud of that work).
And he constantly lied about why we should invade Iraq. He knew the information for justifying the war was tenuous at best, but Rummy, Cheney and company were looking for an excuse to go in since Day One. And Cheney still refuses to admit that their claims were bogus. They dropped the ball with persuing Osama Bin Laden and that is the biggest failure of all.
I don't agree with Kerry on "wrong war, wrong time." I never supported invading Iraq. It was clearly a diversion - something accomplishable because they probably knew capturing Bin Laden was too difficult. Bush even tried to write Bin Laden off as "not a threat" when he failed to capture him and now Osama has reared his head again.
I haven't even talked about the deregulation of industry and freedoms he has allowed major corporations. I haven't mentioned the damage to the environment he's allowing. I haven't brought up his tax cuts for the very rich. I haven't talked about the conflict of interests with Haliburton in Iraq. This man's career, and his presidency is no different, has been spent looking out for himself and his corporate buddies.
He needs to go and go quickly.
Monday, November 01, 2004
My Susan B. Anthony Dollar's Worth
In 1873, Susan B. Anthony delivered a compelling speech about women's right to vote after her arrest in 1872 for casting an "illegal" vote in the presidential election. I have co-opted a part of this speech on this presidential election eve. (For the original speech, go here).
It was we, the people, not we, the white heterosexual citizens; nor yet we, the heterosexual citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union. And we formed it, not to give the blessings of liberty, but to secure them; not to a portion of ourselves and a percentage of our posterity, but to the whole people - homosexuals as well as heterosexuals. And it is a downright mockery to talk to gay men and women of their enjoyment of the blessings of liberty while we are denied the means of enjoying all the same rights and priviledges of our heterosexual brothers and sisters.
For any state to legislate what a successful and ordained union of two people is that then results in the disfranchisement of up to 10% of the people is a violation of the very principles set forth in our Constitution and the defeat of miscegenation laws. To amend the Constitution against its own citizenry withholds the blessings of liberty the Constitution should protect.
This government is not a democracy. It is not a republic. It is an odious aristocracy; a hateful oligarchy of sexual orientation; the most hateful aristocracy ever established on the face of the globe. This oligarchy makes every straight person the ruler and sovereign over every gay person and carries dissention, discord, and rebellion into thousands of homes across the nation.
Are all gay Americans not citizens as our straight brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers? And, if being citizens (and I hardly believe any of our opponents will have the fortitude to say we are not) every discrimination against homosexuals in the constitutions and laws of any state or our great nation is today null and void, precisely as is every one against our transgendered friends.
It was we, the people, not we, the white heterosexual citizens; nor yet we, the heterosexual citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union. And we formed it, not to give the blessings of liberty, but to secure them; not to a portion of ourselves and a percentage of our posterity, but to the whole people - homosexuals as well as heterosexuals. And it is a downright mockery to talk to gay men and women of their enjoyment of the blessings of liberty while we are denied the means of enjoying all the same rights and priviledges of our heterosexual brothers and sisters.
For any state to legislate what a successful and ordained union of two people is that then results in the disfranchisement of up to 10% of the people is a violation of the very principles set forth in our Constitution and the defeat of miscegenation laws. To amend the Constitution against its own citizenry withholds the blessings of liberty the Constitution should protect.
This government is not a democracy. It is not a republic. It is an odious aristocracy; a hateful oligarchy of sexual orientation; the most hateful aristocracy ever established on the face of the globe. This oligarchy makes every straight person the ruler and sovereign over every gay person and carries dissention, discord, and rebellion into thousands of homes across the nation.
Are all gay Americans not citizens as our straight brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers? And, if being citizens (and I hardly believe any of our opponents will have the fortitude to say we are not) every discrimination against homosexuals in the constitutions and laws of any state or our great nation is today null and void, precisely as is every one against our transgendered friends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)