Showing posts with label gay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gay. Show all posts

08 October 2009

Hate Crimes Bill...

from Pam's House Blend

House Passes Federal Hate Crimes Legislation

The House of Representatives today passed the Defense Authorization Act of 2010 (H.R. 2467), which includes the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act -- the federal hate crimes legislation.

From what I've been reading, it looks likely the bill will be passed by the Senate next week.

Autumn Sandeen


this has been a long struggle and maybe for the first time the end is in sight.

Autumn points out that the Senate is expected to pass the bill next week. it would be monumental if they were to do it on Monday, October 12th - the 11th anniversary of the death of Matthew Shepard, for whom the bill is named.

the first question that came to me is, "Will I feel any safer?"

i really don't know how to answer that. the bill makes harming anyone through hate a crime an illegal act punishable by lay. what it doesn't do is make people understand that doing such a thing is wrong, and it is wrong according to the religion(s) to which the majority of them belong.

of course, we will also be facing years of court case after court case that the christianists will pursue...

sorry, the cynic in me is always lurking. i am happy that this bill is moving forward to enactment and maybe, just maybe, it will save a Matthew Shepard's or Gwen Araujo's life in the future.

we can only hope...

09 April 2009

ummmm...

i just can't be serious all of the time. it doesn't make me evil... just normal.


How Long Could You Last On A Gay Pirate Ship?



i was amazed i'd last that long.
how long did you last?

of course, the doctor does keep telling me i'm getting older. i saw him Wednesday and he didn't say it. probably because i've told him i'd slap him the next time he did.

calm down, he's married and has kids...
{minds in the gutter...}


ummmmmm... i suppose after the previous three serious posts, if NOM or any of the other wingers comes here, they are probably saying,

"See, see. We told you so!"

i guess i'd have to respond to them with,

"Lighten up! It's only a banana in my pocket."

i told you i can't be good all the time - it's boring!

10 February 2009

just havin' some fun...

and needing a silly break...

yesterday was the 100th anniversary of Carmen Miranda's birthday. this is my favorite song for some obvious, and some not so obvious, reasons. enjoy...


Happy Birthday, Carmen Miranda.

she would have been 100 today. she's a hoot and always will be. this is my favorite of all the extant footage of her. yes... it's so gay!



The Lady In The Tutti Frutti Hat


Sung by Carmen Miranda
Written for: The Gang's All Here (1943)

Lyric: Leo Robin

Music: Harry Warren






I wonder why does ev'rybody look at me

And then begin to talk about a Christmas tree?

I hope that means that ev'ryone is glad to see

The lady in the tutti-frutti hat.

The gentlemen, they want to make me say, "Si, si,
"
But I don't tell them that, I tell them,
"Yes, sir-ee!"
And maybe that is why they come for dates to me,

The lady in the tutti-frutti hat.

Some people say I dress too gay,

But ev'ry day, I feel so gay;

And when I'm gay, I dress that way,

Is something wrong with that?

Americanos tell me that my hat is high,

Because I will not take it off to kiss a guy;

But if I ever start to take it off, ay, ay!

I do that once for Johnny Smith

And he is very happy with

The lady in the tutti-frutti hat.





You hear a lot of people shouting, "There she goes!
"
You see a seƱorita dressed in flashy clothes,

In Rio de Janeiro, ev'rybody knows

The lady in the tutti-frutti hat.

When she begins to sing a song in Portuguese,

The temp'rature goes up a hundred more degrees;

Although they're freezing prices, they would never freeze

The lady in the tutti-frutti hat.

It isn't any wonder that
She likes her native habitat,

'Cause when she has to pick a hat,

She picks it off the trees.

She always has a half a dozen Romeos,

And when they come to sing a serenade, she throws

A lemon or banana like you throw a rose,

But Casanovas still prefer
That hep and happy character,

The lady in the tutti-frutti hat.



they were really dirty lyrics back then...
not to mention the bananas...
i wonder what they were really thinking???

silly me...


Some people say I dress too gay,

But ev'ry day, I feel so gay;

And when I'm gay, I dress that way,

Is something wrong with that?

19 February 2008

you'll never see this on ABC, NBC, CBS...

maybe not even on Logo or here!...



only the British are prudish enough and accepting enough and open enough to allow this shameless display of real life.

a gay off?


i sigh...

10 December 2007

new meaning to "fruit" flies...

Headline in today's Chicago Sun-Times - Gene makes fruit flies bisexual: study.

Well, now. This leads to some very interesting possibilities.

Researchers have discovered a gene involved in homosexual behavior in the tiny flies. They also found a way to turn homosexuality on and off with drugs.

sorta like a light switch?
UIC researchers were using fruit flies to study muscular dystrophy when they discovered a gene they call "gender blind," or GB.

Flies with a mutated form of the GB gene are bisexual. It appears they're unable to distinguish chemical smells, called pheromones, that tell whether other flies are male or female.

"The GB mutant males treated other males exactly the same way normal male flies would treat a female," Featherstone said. "They even attempted copulation."

copulation? how clinical...

It seems that it all boils down to the size of the males' synapses and the way they smell. [doesn't it always boil down to size?]
Researchers tested this idea by adding a drug to the flies' apple juice. The drug weakened the synapses. So within a few hours, flies with the GB mutation stopped engaging in homosexual behavior.

Conversely, researchers gave heterosexual male flies a drug that strengthened their synapses. Sure enough, these male flies soon were courting males as well as females.

I thought that we already had this drug? Isn't it called vodka or gin?

I was soooooo drunk last night...

Seriously, though. It raises a number of questions. The researchers were really surprised.
"It was amazing," Featherstone said. "I never thought we'd be able to do that sort of thing, because sexual orientation is supposed to be hard-wired. This fundamentally changes how we think about this behavior."


What was that old advertising line from Dupont? oh, yeah...

Better living through chemistry...


Actually, though tongue in cheek on my part, this is important research. It can potentially put holes into all the wingnut arguments attacking gays. Namely, that it's a lifestyle choice rather than something that is based on nature.

You can hear an interesting interview with Dr. David Featherstone
about his research

Dr David Featherstone.jpeg


by clicking here.

05 December 2007

five rules for gay men to follow for a happy life...

1. It's important to have a man, who helps at home who cooks from time to time, cleans up and has a job.

2. It's important to have a man who can make you laugh.

3. It's important to have a man who you can trust and who doesn't lie to you.

4. It's important to have a man who is good in bed and who likes to be with you .

5. It's very, very, very important that these four men do not know each other.


i don't think these rules are just for gay men... right ladies?



WARNING: gratuitous photo below -











housework.jpg

hmmmm..... i don't believe i've ever posted a photo like this before....  
and he does windows!

28 November 2007

fallout from ENDA...

As a result of the exclusion of transgender from the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), there has been a couple of major resignations over at the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) from its pullout in the organization's previous support for an all-inclusive bill.

Donna Rose and Jamison Green have resigned as the only transgender members of the HRC Business Council. Donna had previously resigned from the HRC Board of Directors over its pullout. I believe this now severs all relationships between the organization and her.

Normally, I am not in favor of resignation as a form of protest. Divorcing oneself from a situation prevents working from the inside to make change happen. Also, there is always someone out there waiting to replace you, and usually supporting what management wants.

This time, I think their resignations are the best call for action. There are four sentences in their resignation letter that glare and shout at me:
On November 8, the day after the ENDA vote in the House of Representatives, we requested an opportunity to meet personally with HRC President Joe Solmonese to share our concerns and to discuss HRC's strategy for addressing recent legislative shortcomings before making a decision to stay or go. As the only transgender representatives on the Business Council our community expects us to have some influence, or at least to receive the courtesy of a consultation. Almost 3 weeks have passed since that request and we have heard nothing in response. This lack of response speaks volumes, so we feel compelled to take this stand today.

Speaks volumes is a bit of an understatement. When management has a bunker mentality, it is almost impossible to help change happen. Sometimes it takes a shock treatment or a complete lobotomy to try to force revision and rethinking of an organization's stance. Unfortunately, we take a calculated risk by taking actions like these. We can never be certain it will have an effect until much later.

In this case, I certainly hope it does. It's making a stir at Pam's House Blend and PageONeQ. Two sites that make a difference.

HRC has not been one of my favorite groups for a long time. Personally, I think that they focused too much on the divisive same-sex marriage issue at the expense of broader issues such as ENDA.

I understand that the marriage issue can be considered part of the broader sense of equality, but it has its own aura of emotionality for the wingnuts and others. ENDA is less so, if we are to believe the polls. People seem more willing to accept equality in job and living while not attacking their solemn, most sacred rite of marriage. [If you would like to know my personal view on the marriage issue, check out the NYT OpEd by Stephanie Coontz in this past Monday's issue. People should do whatever they like, and historically marriage in its present form is a fairly new conception.]

As far as meeting the needs of the far wider community, the marriage issue has been a distraction. Now we have further distraction with this latest move on ENDA.

I understand full well that passing a bill in any form was and should be a priority, but a loud and long commitment should have been made by HRC to take steps to make it totally inclusive - with not exceptions, even if it meant in the future.

Silence to the request by Donna and Jamison for a meeting doesn't send a supportive message. It speaks loud words of possible other issues and reflects the dissension that LGB's - at least as HRC - want to keep quiet from the population as a whole. The truth is much more powerful than any agenda.




as a sidebar - couldn't find anything about the resignations on the HRC website. I don't know if that means anything. It's just curious.

13 November 2007

book report: "Gay Artists in Modern American Culture: An Imagined Conspiracy" by Michael S. Sherry

I finished reading Michael S. Sherry’s book Gay Artists in Modern American Culture: An Imagined Conspiracy, and I highly recommend it to all, especially for its perspective on tracing the way our world reacts and treats gays from back in the 20th century forward. It’s fascinating.

Sherry, an expert on the history of mid-twentieth century America, focuses on the 1920’s, 30’s, 40’s, 50’s, & 60’s, the time before and the direction after World War II, as being pivotal in the outlook of and on gay artists. (Sherry uses the word “queer” and it makes perfect sense.) The country’s changing perspectives were tremendous on homosexuality, artists, and people in general as developed by the main stream media of the time, politicians such as Joe McCarthy and critics/reviewers like Patrick Dennis*. It was a time of cultural growth that America had long desired and a quest for acceptance of a purely 'American' culture that the country had long coveted from the rest of the world, specifically “old” Europe.

Sherry points out that there was no “definable” American culture before WWII as far as most “modern” anthropologists and historians were concerned. He uses the idea that a country has a “culture” when it is seen to be exportable, and they were convinced the Europeans looked down on America because they believed the only true art that came from America was jazz and it wasn’t considered serious art.

He traces the works of Copland, Bernstein, Barber, Menotti, Williams, Albee, Johns and other influential artists of the time - all queer - and how they were instrumental in the creation of an “American” culture that was finally accepted by the Europeans in earnest. Though the country was grateful, the media, straight cultural “doyens” and politicians were also in horror that it was all done by queers. World War II ended the xenophobia that existed from WWI; it gave the country a sense of power that was not felt before; it created an influence that the U.S. never had before this time; and it also sought an awareness of “masculinity” that was perceived to be paramount in the new world view. In addition, people couldn’t get passed personal petty prejudices and jealousies in which the works of queer artists played the major role in creating the long sought “American” culture.

If you couple this with the ensuing Cold War, a lot of frames of reference fall into place in the struggle that has been on-going between the queer and straight communities. The fear that ran through the arts specifically and the country in general, exacerbated by Senator McCarthy’s commie witch-hunt, brought about the change from an open-secret of queers existing in the population to the creation of the “closet.”

Interestingly, Sherry suggests the term “closet” might be traced to an article in Time magazine. Gays lived in a “closed” subgroup much like African-Americans, Latinos and other ethnicities who band together for a reliance on “self-sameness” both as a means of protection and just plain old having things in common. The “d” was turned into a “t” and the rest, as they say, is history.

McCarthy subpoenaed Aaron Copland to testify before HUAC because he not only thought Copland to be a “commie” but also one of them. Of course, it didn’t help that the Soviets liked Copland’s music and actually premiered a number of his works. President Eisenhower realized how important Copland’s work was for the country and intervened telling the senator to back off; McCarthy only called Copland to a private session. Quite ironic considering both McCarthy and his aide, Roy Cohn, were, you know, queer.

T The chapter on Samuel Barber is extremely heartbreaking. Sherry traces Barber’s success and naivete from his patrician beginnings in West Chester, Pennsylvania through the fiasco of the building and opening of Lincoln Center, the new home of the Metropolitan Opera. With the prior success of his opera Vanessa, Barber was the logical choice to create a purely “American” work for the opening. Lincoln Center was to be the new centerpiece of the recently established “American” culture, a destination to which lovers of the arts would flock from around the world. The center was a mess from its inception to its opening, even with some best intentions behind it, by bickering, politics, and egos.

When Barber’s opera Antony and Cleopatra bombed, as far as the critics were concerned, the failure of the opening was squarely put on his shoulders, but it was the impossible situation that he was put into by others. The extended argument for masculinity in the arts, the premise that everything had to reflect the new “culture”, and the American perception that “bigger is always better” may have caused the true failures of the opera. Subsequent productions have proven worthy.

T The straight MSM had a love/hate relationship with the queers and aghast as well as fascinated, or maybe titillated, by their successes and influences. Critics of the era were especially venomous and harsh, bringing forth theories that queers hated women designing clothes to make them look ugly, that there was a pathological problem with queers, or that playrights such as Albee and Williams actually were writing their plays with “homosexual” undertones and only covering it up to hide what they really were trying to spread. What has become known as the “homosexual agenda”, perhaps?

The subtitle of the book - "An Imagined Conspiracy" - demonstrates this idea. While it appeared to many of the time, as it does today, that a conspiracy was being orchestrated to make the arts in America “queer,” in effect, the conspiracy was against the queers. The MSM, the politicians, the critics, the psychologists and many other groups were so hellbent on the rest of the world seeing the culture of America as masculine and making it live up to the new American “empire” created by WWII, they used any and all means of repression, mostly innuendos, insinuations and aspersions, to destroy the emergence of a conjured up queer conspiracy .

America has always tried to hide away what she considered “dirty little secrets”. Nothing should tarnish the new empire. Everyone should fit into a mold, imagined or real. Better to oppress rather than to express.

Gay Artists in Modern America: an imagined conspiracy is more than a history of the time it takes place. It actually is a work that identifies the groundwork that was set and that distinguishes the influences on what is happening in America. The lives and works of the artists are fascinating, but they couldn’t imagine how they advocated a much broader impact that resonates in the fight for such things as ENDA, the Matthew Shepard Act, and marriage today. I highly recommend this book to any and all who have an interest in recent queer history and the influence it had and has. Michael Sherry must be commended for producing a book that parallels his other works on World War II and the ways it changed America.


*yes, that Patrick Dennis, author and nephew of the real Auntie Mame

i'm calling this a book report for two of reasons.1. i'm not a reviewer; so i don't feel it would be right for me to say it is a review. 2. i taught and worked in education for so many years; i assigned and graded hundreds of book reports. i think it's only fair that i do what i had my kids do...

07 November 2007

busy week(s)...

Posting is kind of limited for me the past and current week. I'm working a couple of days. [I love working only 4-5 days a month!] There are also a lot of social type engagements planned.

Last Friday I went to what probably is the second best opera performance/production I've ever seen - Handel's Giulio Cesare. Great, great, great! You can read the reviews here, here and here.

On Sunday I went to a discussion with David Daniels, the star of the opera and spoke briefly with him at the reception after. Fascinating. The #1 countertenor in the world, highly sought after by all the big opera houses, considered one of the biggest opera stars of the day, and totally out as a proud gay man.

Last night, friends took me to see "Jersey Boys". Great music. I didn't know much about the history of the group. If what they presented is true, it wasn't very pretty. The second act was heartbreaking.

Thursday I'm going to the opening night gala and screening of the movie "Shelter" at

reelogo.png


The Chicago Gay and Lesbian International Film Festival is in its 26th year. I've read a lot about Shelter and can't wait to see it. It sounds great. Actor Brad Rowe from the movie is going to be there.

The week ends with dinner at friends' home on Saturday that is always a great meal.




i gotta tell ya. i highly recommend this retirement thing to everyone. i'm glad i didn't wait until i would be too old and feeble to enjoy it and took early retirement. anyone who worries about not knowing what they'll do if they retire has nothing to worry about. i'm always busy, even if i'm not doing anything! that sounds weird, but it's true!


one thing i know for sure - i'll need next week to recuperate. fat chance! next week there's another opera, more films at the festival, and on and on and on...

here's a video of the Tony Awards show with a medley from the Broadway cast of Jersey Boys. enjoy...


27 October 2007

Chicago Sun-Times OpEd: Gay rights don't trump faith...

This lady pushed my buttons while I was eating breakfast at my favorite restaurant after visiting the gym on Saturdays. I think I may have reacted out loudly by saying something like "bullshit" or worse. I had the headphones on with the soundtrack from Across the Universe playing. I got a few looks whatever I said. It's a very straight suburban restaurant to say the least. Oh well.

Title, again, was Gay rights don't trump faith. Deborah Douglas is on the editorial board of the Chicago Sun-Times. She wrote this piece in response to the controversy Barack Obama has created for himself by using Donny "Homosexuality is a Curse" McClurkin at this concerts this weekend to drum up African-American and religiously conservative support in South Carolina and the South in toto.

Though I reacted to most of what she was saying, even the apologetics she presented, the line that got me was,
"To force a change in its theology to fit a contemporary social agenda is anathema to the foundational purposes of the church."
You can read my response to her in an email below. Though, when you read the letter, I was logical, consistent and polite, what I really wanted to say was...

Bullshit.


with a capitol B....

In a recent conversation, a very close friend brought up to me that I have a reaction to idiocy that is far from quiet and calm. She was concerned about some work we are doing together and how I might react when I heard some of the things that I was going to hear. I admit that she is 100% correct in her observation. I do have a very difficult time with idiocy. However, I assured her that when I'm working, and being paid, I don't act that way, only with friends when I need to dump. What I am doing in this job is "facilitating" collaboration. I certainly need to be very focused in doing this sort of thing and I know that I am cautious with how I handle things, otherwise there is no collaboration, only dictatorship. [When I worked in a restaurant we had this saying - You don't s*** where you eat. It's very true.]

Anyway, back to my reaction to the OpEd. You can read my response below. I am not calling the lady an idiot. I do not know her personally nor do I know if she is ignorant of the facts I present that I believe make her conclusions wrong, in my opinion. I hope she rethinks some of the things she wrote and, I assume, believes. Even one shred of inequality to anyone is bane of existence to me.

you can be your own judge...



Ms. Douglas:

Three words in response to your op ed in today's Sun-Times:

You are wrong.

You make the point that, "To force a change in its theology to fit a contemporary social agenda is anathema to the foundational purposes of the church."

It is exactly what Paul of Tarsus and his rabble did to the religious beliefs of others 2,000 years ago. It is what they fought against with Nero, Caligula, et alia to stop the insipid persecution of Christians. They forced a change to fit contemporary social agenda. Abolitionists and suffragettes did the exact same thing. Luther shook the Roman church to its core for a contemporary agenda. Every major shift in thinking came from the same thing.

Christians have used this over the passed 2,000 years to not only make change but to justify things like slavery, opposition to women's rights, and persecution of other religions. [Some Christian religions still use these arguments today to disenfranchise individuals and groups.] It is directly in contradiction to all the teachings of Jesus that are easily discerned in the gospels, even if one considers them not to be divine. These teachings are, at the least, human and a model guide to living every day.

Nothing should stop equality for all mankind, least of all the words of Jesus who exemplified, by the church's own admission, bringing everyone into acceptance whether it be the leper, the prostitute, the gentile, or the Greek into the same promise. Christians, themselves, have stopped equality at the front door of their sanctuaries just as the Romans did in persecuting the early church. At the very least the Romans were more equal. They equally tortured, persecuted, or killed everyone who was not a Roman, and they had very strict laws about who was or was not a Roman. 

Christians have done what every other religion, faith, belief has done for thousands of years: used the writings of the past to justify their beliefs even if the face of those writings was inherently wrong by its own teachings. Case in point, the Book of Leviticus. Leviticus (18:22) is used over and over again to defend the stance against LGBT. Yet, what is too often forgotten is that 26 lines later (Ch 19:18) the words written are ...but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

And who, allegedly, made this the message surrounding all of his other teachings? And, what exactly was his idea? To start a new religion? 

Look at the documented church history. It was Saul and Peter who fought this battle. Jesus was a Jew and, to borrow a recent phrase from Ann Coulter, wanted to "perfect" Judaism. [not in the same way, of course] As a reference, read Matthew 5:18 "...not one yodh or little horn shall pass away from the law...." The "law" of which he speaks is the only law he knew as a rabbi - Hebrew law. All else is pastiche. His goal was to bring not only the Pharisees and the Sadducees back to the basics of Judaism but all other Jews and to include other groups as well. Talk about your fundamentalist. 

To finish, if it is not the churches who take the stand and open their doors to all, who then will it be? The government? Jesus more than once said that government had to stay out of this area short of insuring that all have the same opportunities. To stretch even this point to a logical consequence of his teachings, what is the government doing legislating laws and amendments to bar equality to everyone? ENDA? Same-sex marriage? Remember, miscegenation? Christian leaders used the Curse of Ham and the story of Phinehas from the Bible in argument for banning inter-racial marriage until the laws were finally found unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 1967. 1967! Ironically, the largest group around today that embraces everyone in every way no matter what they believe are atheists. 

You may think that I am preaching to the choir, and I am often accused of it. However, I have a problem when the choir not only is not singing the same song but is also off-pitch. I have the ability to hear perfect pitch. Fingernails on a chalkboard have a better sound to me. That is why I believe that you are wrong, no matter what. You are not eschewing obfuscation.

To use a quote from Mark Twain, - "If Christ were here now there is one thing he would not be -- a Christian."


Thank you for your time,

J Michael Ireland

there, i feel better now. all my buttons are all back in their right places...

24 October 2007

Shakespeare Outs Hamlet...

In a rare public appearance William Shakespeare told curious questioners that Hamlet was gay for the entire play. Actually, for his entire life. He thought that it would have been obvious to anyone observing Hamlet's rejection of Ophelia and his oedipal fixation on his mother, Gertrude.

duh...

I have always found that, just as in human relationships, literary relationships with the characters have a lot of information missing. It's up to the reader to interpret and interpolate what is being read. It is not up to the author to give out every piece of information right then and there. Many authors have explained their writings in forums, discussions, interviews, etc after the fact. They may do it for clarification that they fell is necessary or that they need to clear up something that they have found readers may have a misunderstanding.

What' the big deal with J.K. Rowling answering a reader in a presentation at Carnegie Hall that Albus Dumbledore, the headmaster of Hogwarts, is gay?

The Chicago Sun-Times, on their main editorial page decided that it was worthy of an editorial comment. They accuse Rowling of using this revelation as literary misconduct. DON'T CHANGE THE STORY AFTER THE FINAL CHAPTER screams the editorial banner.
So, the beloved Dumbledore happens to be gay. And now that the story has ended, and being gay or not had no impact on his character or upon the dramatic arc of the Potter saga, what's the point of revealing his orientation now? Rowling should curtail her agenda writing and stick to fiction.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Sun-Times Editorial Board: ALL writers have an agenda when they write! Read your own paper, if you doubt that there is no agenda to anyone who writes for you.

again, duh...

They use the argument that
She hijacked parents' ability to set their own timelines for talking about tolerance and sexual orientation by grafting the contentious issue onto the wildly popular phenomenon that is Harry Potter.

third, duh...

This is exactly how parents deal with these types of issues. NOT when they've placed it on the timeline that they decided when the child was born. "Oh, at age two I'm going to tell my son how to wipe his ass. At age four I'm going to tell her about wearing colors that compliment each other. At age five I'm going to explain to him why killing is wrong. At age 17 I'm going to explain sex to him."

It doesn't work that way. As soon as a child is able to string a bunch of words together, s/he begins to question everything going on in her/his life, in the world, on the television, etc.

No parent ever decides when the right time is to bring up a discussion about something. The child decides. When a three year old asks, "Where do babies come from?" it's the right time to answer the question as truthfully as a three year old can understand it. Telling them, "The stork brings them." may account for unwanted adolescent pregnancies because they were initially given inaccurate information. At the least, it's teaching a child that it's all right to lie.

So Ms. Rowling answered a question at an open forum that, I assume, people paid to be and is now being accused of having an agenda? Now, the kids who have read the book are going to ask questions of their parents and the adult will have to answer the question. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, it's the right time now since the child asked? There are bigger questions that parents need to ask themselves. How? With great specificity? In general terms? With the truth? With a lie? Again, the answer(s) they give has to be in terms that are age and circumstance appropriate. That's the only thing the parent has control over. They know their own children.

here's a fourth duh: Parents need to understand that if they don't give their kids an answer, the kids will find an answer on their own. How accurate do they think that answer is going to be? They'll ask friends, who may be equally ignorant, or go on the internet, where there is too much information that has to be filtered to determine fact from nonsense, or find someone who has things other than the child's welfare in mind.

I propose that the emphasis here is not on the child's readiness to know about something. I propose that it's really the parents' personal discomfort in dealing with issues with which they themselves have a problem.

Here is a perfect example of what I'm speaking.



i love Dan Abrams' little smirk when he thinks someone is being a total idiot.

11 October 2007

National Coming Out Day...

Today is the 20th anniversary of the Gay and Lesbian March on Washington. To some it may not be important to come out, but it is important to be who you are. When the door is closed not only don't people know who you are but they can't see you...

09 October 2007

fun with Larry Craig...

the media is having a ball with Sen. Craig's failure at getting his guilty plea reversed and then declaring that he is going to stay in the Senate to clear his name. Here's one example below. [You can click on the headline to read the story connected.]

Craig flushes plan to quit Senate, Chicago Sun-Times

and now this spoof of, well watch it. You'll see...



Even Keith Olbermann showed this on Countdown tonight.

sometimes, i think that Keith should have a subtitle to his show. something like Meltdown...

what d'ya think?

05 June 2007

why...?

Boy, 15, lay down in front of train after gay taunts
A boy of 15 lay down in front of a train to commit suicide after being teased at school about his sexuality, an inquest was told yesterday.

Moments before he died, Jonathan Reynolds sent harrowing text messages to his family telling that them they were not to blame for what was about to happen. A passer-by saw him holding the mobile as he lay down on the tracks in front of a train travelling at 85mph (136km/h) through Pencoed railway station near Bridgend, South Wales.

In his last text message sent to his father, Mark, and his 14-year-old sister, Samantha, the teenager wrote: “Tell everyone that this is for anybody who eva said anything bad about me, see I do have feelings too. Blame the people who were horrible and injust 2 me. This is because of them, I am human just like them.

“I hope they rot in hell 4 what they made me do. They know who they are.”

He added: “None of you blame urself mum, dad, Sam and the rest of my family. This is not because of you.”
The TimesOnline.

15 years old!

why?

The right-wing-nuts would undoubtedly say it was his choice. A fifteen year-old does not have the full story or capacity to make a choice like this. A fifteen year-old only knows what is going on in a super-hormonal cloud. She/he hasn't a long term thought about anything. They are coming to terms with what/who they are. They are facing one immediate crisis after another. To a fifteen year-old girl, what shade of lipstick to wear is a world crisis that is equal to anything that the United Nations debates. To a fifteen year-old boy, one scuff mark on his white gym shoes is a reason to start World War III.

As far as a fifteen year-old facing her/his sexuality, they know that there is something different about them, but they don't usually have anyone who can quide and support them through what being different is. They are all alone.

How do they know they're different? Everything they hear and see around them. Boys holding girls hands; school dances with boys and girls going together; the pastor talking about hell; a parent using a sexual slur. What a maze to go through just being a fifteen year-old. The maze for a teen questioning her/his sexuality has more turns, more dead ends, and much higher walls with what seems like no light shining through.

How does a 15-year old come to the decision that the only way through the maze is to get out? Totally, and not out of the closet - out of life! You can't get much more permanent than that.

I know how difficult it is to grow up. Not just because I did it myself, but I worked with kids for almost 40 years. Their thinking, their fears, their worries... were a part of my daily life. It was never far away.

I know how difficult it is to come to terms with sexuality also. I didn't come out formally until I was 31. While it seems that sexuality is paramount in the majority of American's minds, it's not to me. It's one of the last things I think about. The goodness in a person is much more important. You can be purple and asexual as far as I care.

Maybe, that's the reason I ask why. Just one life wasted, especially one that is so brief, is so far beyond my comprehension. This didn't have to happen. Jonathon didn't have to die. Matthew Shepard didn't have to die. Ryan Skipper didn't have to die.

to die because of who you are, whether you chose it or not, is not a very good reason; and to have people who want to see you crushed, put down, unequal, cursed, beaten, and dead for this is, is, is, [i'll say it!] unchristian...

07 May 2007

legal discrimination...

Here is an example of why ENDA needs to be the law of the land or taken away from everyone so no one has special treatment and all are treated equal:
Yesterday at work a strange thing happened. In the morning I was called into the office by the person running this company. It seems that I had blogged about this company a week or so ago, all very positive about this company and my new position there. They had done a search and found this blog. Although he was nice about it, mentioning that I had alot of very personal things on my site, he left it at that and said it made him realize that they have to establish a policy for all employees in this company, when anyone chooses to use their name in blogs and a memo had just gone out to everyone with these new policy procedures.

Later that day, they fired my ass. Hummm....guess they couldn't handle having their name being associated in any way with a gay oriented website.
"Wierd Coincidence...or what," The Adventures of Ken
ENDA has to be expanded to include ALL groups and individuals. It is the only way that "freedom and the pursuit" of happiness can be achieved from the struggles for US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and The Rights of Man.

who could have thought that after all these centuries anyone would be fighting for equality around the world and in this country? just asking...

02 April 2007

what's going on here (part XXI)...

can someone explain...

1. New Generation of Qaeda Chiefs Is Seen on Rise
As Al Qaeda rebuilds in Pakistan’s tribal areas, a new generation of leaders has emerged under Osama bin Laden to cement control over the network’s operations, according to American intelligence and counterterrorism officials....

Top American officials said that, despite the damage to the structure of Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11 attacks, concern is still high that the group is determined to attack globally.
There is an Aesop fable that immediately comes to mind. This is the end:
"We'll help you look for the lost sheep in the morning," he said, putting his arm around the youth, "Nobody believes a liar...even when he is telling the truth!"
Sad, isn't it, that we have become a country who operates at two extremes: fear for the worst and doubtful of a possibe reality? My father always told me to never tell a lie - no one believes the truth anyway...


2. Supreme Court Denies Guantanamo Appeal
he Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday from Guantanamo detainees who want challenge their five-year-long confinement in court, a victory for the Bush administration's legal strategy in its fight against terrorism.
This is not as bad as it seems.
The victory may be only temporary, however. The high court twice previously has extended legal protections to prisoners at the U.S. naval base in Cuba....

At issue is whether prisoners held at Guantanamo have a right to habeas corpus review, a basic tenet of the Constitution that protects people from unlawful imprisonment....

But the administration said that because of changes in the law since 2004 there was no need for the justices to hurry. Congress has authorized military hearings to assess whether the prisoners are being properly detained as enemy combatants. Those decisions can be appealed in a limited fashion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the same court that ruled in the administration's favor in February.
In other words, because of a change in the law after earlier court cases, the procedure is in place. So...
''There is no need for this court to assess the adequacy of the...review before it has taken place,'' Solicitor General Paul Clement, the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, wrote.
The revisions in the re-worked law haven't been tested yet. SCOTUS is saying that they would be jumping the gun, if they ruled right now. The article ends by saying the court will have to hear the cases eventually. Though the bushies are claiming this as a victory, it is not. They will still have to go through the process and the court, in those cases having followed the process, have basically sided with habeaus corpus and the detainees. This shows that the court system is functioning, even though it does not like the knots the administration has put it into. It is going to take years for the U.S. to get out of the messes that King George W and Crown Prince Cheney have gotten us into.

3. Justices: EPA Can Control Car Emissions
The Supreme Court ordered the federal government on Monday to take a fresh look at regulating carbon dioxide emissions from cars, a rebuke to Bush administration policy on global warming.

In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars....
The Bush EPA has refused to determine if greenhouse gases are a threat to the environment. Massachusetts, eleven other states and thirteen groups brought suit against the EPS.

The dissention, written by Chief Justice Roberts, didn't focus on the issue of global warming. Rather, he put his attention the the right of states and groups to file suit:
In his dissent, Roberts focused on the issue of standing, whether a party has the right to file a lawsuit.

The court should simply recognize that redress of the kind of grievances spelled out by the state of Massachusetts is the function of Congress and the chief executive, not the federal courts, Roberts said.
That's it. Don't face the issue - work harder to give the imperial presidency more power to expand its empire and wealth...


4. Briton tells of his four-year ‘nightmare’ at Guantanamo just some highlights from the timesonline -
A former Guantanamo Bay detainee spoke yesterday of the sense of hopelessness he felt during his 4½year incarceration at the internment camp.... Mr al-Rawi was detained in The Gambia in 2002 while on a business trip and flown to Afghanistan and then Guantanamo by the CIA.

“The hopelessness you feel can hardly be described. You are asked the same questions hundreds of times. Allegations are made against you that are laughably untrue but you have no chance to prove them wrong.

“There is no trial, no fair legal process. I was alleged to have participated in terrorist training in Bosnia and Afghanistan. I’ve never been to Bosnia and the only time I visited Afghanistan was thanks to the hospitality of the CIA in an underground prison – the Dark Prison – outside Kabul.”

“Bisher has been through almost unimaginable difficulties . . . kept in an underground prison, beaten, subjected to temperature extremes and to extended isolation.”
We are quite a democratically civilized country. aren't we?


5. "Don't ask, don't tell" is a strictly Christian policy.
Holy Orders
And, if we want to incorporate the entire Judeo-Christian tradition into current policy, it is true that the Old Testament does say harsh things about sodomy. So, just as--following Biblical tradition--they don't mix milk and meat, observant Jews, for instance, should be pretty tough on gay people. But why do Christians pay the Old Testament's commandments any mind? After all they stopped keeping Kosher centuries ago, when Jesus wiped the rulebook clean except for the ethical code--e.g., the Ten Commandments. And the Judeo-Christian ethics don't say anything about sodomy. The whole apparatus of condemnation rests on three letters from Paul, decades later, in which he called homosexuality "against nature." Homosexuality thus presents the purest instance of whether a democratic republic should enforce a purely theological (rather than ethical) prohibition--one with not the slightest secular defense. It's as if Pace had said the Army would not take people who eat bacon.
Paul = closet case? think about it. who else is so vehement against gays? ted haggart et alia, anyone? just asking...


Sources: New York Times, New York Times, Huffington Post Wires, The Times Online, The New Republic Online

23 March 2007

hhhmmm...

an even bigger problem...
[I just realized that is a pun. keep reading.]

The USC Annenberg Online Journalism Review is reporting on how Eyetracking points the way to effective news article design. In brief, it talks about how news design can influence where readers will cast their eyes on a page.

Eye tracking as a part of science has been around since the 1800's.
Eye tracking is a general term for research using techniques for measuring either the point of gaze ("where we are looking") or the motion of the eye itself relative to the head. There exist a number of different methods for measuring the movements of the eyes
To summarize the article and research used:
Coyne (who we interviewed for this column) stresses that crucial to understanding the testing results is an awareness of the user’s motivation or goal behind each task. Some of the testing scenarios included asking the user to "read the news" or "read/learn", making a number these results particularly helpful to journalists. She said eyetracking is valuable in these cases because it indicates not only where our users look, but where key usability problems exist.

"[With eyetracking] we can see that a user may navigate the page of an interface that houses the info she wants," she said, "but if the text is poorly presented, or the navigation is cluttered, or there are too many superfluous images so she cannot easily find what she needs. This is a lost opportunity."
All this seems innocuous enough. However, there were three parts to the research used and the third one can cause a problem for some people.
Conyne recommends designers avoid the generic pictures that are often used just for the sake of having a picture.

"For example," she said, "if an article is about a signature meal at a restaurant, say a tuna dish, display a scrumptious-looking picture of the plate of food. Don't show a generic picture of a spoon and fork, as many sites do."

When photos do contain people related to the task at hand, or the content users are exploring, they do get fixations. However, gender makes a distinct difference on what parts of the photo are stared at the longest. Take a look at the hotspot below.

Although both men and women look at the image of George Brett when directed to find out information about his sport and position, men tend to focus on private anatomy as well as the face. For the women, the face is the only place they viewed.

Eye tracking hot spots

This image of George Brett was part of a larger page with his biographical information. All users tested looked at the image, but there was a distinct difference in focus between men and women.

Coyne adds that this difference doesn’t just occur with images of people. Men tend to fixate more on areas of private anatomy on animals as well, as evidenced when users were directed to browse the American Kennel Club site.
what is the title of that book...? Oh, yeah - Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus

but wait, wait... men look at crotches and women don't? okay, that makes sense for the women. but, but... what does that mean for the straight male?

hhhmmm...

just asking...

20 March 2007

what's going on here (part XX)...

can someone explain...

1. Why do straights hate gays?
I think your hate is evil.

What do we do to you that is so awful? Why do you feel compelled to come after us with such frightful energy? Does this somehow make you feel safer and legitimate? What possible harm comes to you if we marry, or are taxed just like you, or are protected from assault by laws that say it is morally wrong to assault people out of hatred? The reasons always offered are religious ones, but certainly they are not based on the love all religions proclaim.

And even if your objections to gays are religious, why do you have to legislate them so hatefully? Make no mistake: Forbidding gay people to love or marry is based on hate, pure and simple.

You may say you don't hate us, but the people you vote for do, so what's the difference? Our own country's democratic process declares us to be unequal. Which means, in a democracy, that our enemy is you. You treat us like crumbs. You hate us. And sadly, we let you.
Larry Kramer op-ed in the LA Times
Hatred is indeed a vile thing. In the 60's & 70's, hippies fomenting the Age of Aquarius placed flowers in the rifle barrels of soldiers and riot police trying to prevent their free speech against the Vietnam War. In mid-20th century Europe, Germans blamed Jews as the root of all evil and exterminated 6 million of them. For centuries, black people have faced enslavement and bigotry solely because of the color of their skin. The words of the christianists model, Jesus, order them to dispel hatred:
Matthew 22:37-40 -- Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
oh, wait... Jesus didn't say it first:
Leviticus 19:18 -- Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
...and isn't Leviticus what the christianists quote against gays? you can't have it both ways. can you? just asking...

2. Senate limits Gonzales' hiring authority
The Senate voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to end the Bush administration's ability to unilaterally fill U.S. attorney vacancies as a backlash to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' firing of eight federal prosecutors...

...the Senate by a 94-2 vote passed a bill that would cancel the attorney general's power to appoint U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation.
94 - 2!
Essentially, the Senate returned the law regarding the appointments of U.S. attorneys to where it was before Congress passed the Patriot Act, including the unilateral appointment authority the administration had sought in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks.
are we starting to see the beginning of some return to constitutional normalcy? just asking...

3. Fitzgerald Ranked During Leak Case
U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald was ranked among prosecutors who had "not distinguished themselves" on a Justice Department chart sent to the White House in March 2005, when he was in the midst of leading the CIA leak investigation that resulted in the perjury conviction of a vice presidential aide, administration officials said yesterday.

The ranking placed Fitzgerald below "strong U.S. Attorneys . . . who exhibited loyalty" to the administration but above "weak U.S. Attorneys who . . . chafed against Administration initiatives, etc.," according to Justice documents.

The chart was the first step in an effort to identify U.S. attorneys who should be removed. Two prosecutors who received the same ranking as Fitzgerald were later fired, documents show.
So, what do you suppose kept him off of the list? While the other USA's were allegedly investigating local corruption, Fitzgerald was hunting at the top. How would it have looked, if they had fired him? If the episode has taken this long to get into the MSM and public eye, [Remember, Sen. Diane Feinstein first brought it to the fore weeks ago.] should they have taken action against USA Fitzgerald all hell would have broken loose much louder and sooner. Do you think that Cheney, Rove, et. al. see Mr. Fitzgerald as their Danton? just asking...

4. President Bush: “I will resist all attempts to subpoena WH officials”
With the heat coming down on the White House and Attorney General, President Bush addressed the media today and went on the defensive against Democrats, accusing them of trying to "score political points" rather than seeking the truth. He promised to resist all WH subpoenas and insisted that his deal to let Rove and Miers "meet" with members of Congress is more than generous. President Bush kept making the point over and over that allowing his staff members (i.e. Karl Rove) to testify under oath would hamper his ablility to "get quality advice..."
(Some quality!) There really is flimsy precedent for this stand. Former presidents, including Clinton, allowed WH officials to testify in Congress. The White House and Republicans are using Clinton as an argument in their actions since he removed all of the USA's at the very beginning of his term. It's a bit different. He didn't pick and choose. He removed all of them right as he entered the White House not during his presidency and not people that he had put in the positions. Oh, wait, I forgot about Nixon. He had quality advice also. So, what, possibly, could George W have to hide? just asking...

[3.22.07 Update: George W's father did the exact same thing as Clinton on his taking over the presidency - he fired all the USA's.]


Sources: latimes.com, news.yahoo.com, Washington Post, Crooks & Liars

19 March 2007

a true conservative...

The true conservative of the Republican Party has to be Bary Goldwater. He personified all of the tenets of conservativism, especially those of economics and states' rights. He also kept things in perspective when it came to personal freedoms and duty.

For example, on the banning of gays in the military:
"Well, that's just stupid."

General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on the other hand has a different opinion:
In the newspaper interview, Pace said that while he supports the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy allowing gays to serve in the military, he believes that “homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts.”

“I do not believe that the armed forces of the United States are well served by saying through our policies that it’s OK to be immoral in any way,” he said.

What about the immorality of the conflagration in Iraq? The discharge of men and women who are the sorely needed translators of Arabic because they are LGBT? The lies that got the US into the mess it is in right now?

If you are going to talk about immorality, General, talk about hypocrisy as well. Or to repeat the words of Barry Goldwater one more time:
"Well, that's just stupid."

got that right...