The photo made me shiver. The boy in the picture could have been a survivor of Auschwitz. Pale, skeletal and his life slipping away, Raymond Buys, 15, was clinging to life while hooked up to feeding tubes and medical devices, but they were not enough. Buys died, his body having suffered burns, broken bones and malnourishment finally succumbed, and all because he was gay.
Yes the nightmare scenario of “camps” for gay men is no nightmare, it is real in South Africa. There a “general” was convincing parents to send their gay or effeminate young teems to his Echo Wild Game Rangers training course to turn them into “men”. Instead he turned several into corpses.
Now, “general” Alex De Koker and his assistant Michael Erasmus will stand trial for murder, child abuse and neglect. Sadly since 2006 De Koker has been bilking parents out of thousands of dollars in his twisted ex-gay therapy. Even worse he has injured or killed several boys after chaining them to their beds and torturing them.
To be sure there will be more murder charges and South African justice will prevail by putting these two monsters away forever. The saddest part of the story is that parents would subject their children to torture and starvation to try to change who they are.
Since every form of “reparative therapy” for gay men has been shown to be ineffective and downright fraudulent, it is sad that these parents didn’t get the message. To try to lay blame for this is difficult, but I would suspect that these misguided parents had been listening to some hate filled rhetoric, and I would not be surprised if it wasn’t coming from right-wing evangelicals.
The same folks who spread the hate filled message against LGBT people here in the United States have taken their “Bad News” overseas to more receptive audiences. Africa has been exceptionally fertile for their efforts though most notably in Uganda with its institutionalized homophobia. To find this madness in South Africa, a nation with one of the most progressive attitudes toward LGBT people, is alarming. The idea of “camps” for gay teens conjures up images of the kind of solutions proposed by the right-wing in our country when the AIDS crisis first hit. That horrific idea did not go away though, instead it has been resurrected by people like North Carolina pastor Charles Worley who actually called for putting “all the lesbians and queers” in concentration camps.
These kinds of messages do not happen in a vacuum. In the age of YouTube this hatred gets spewed worldwide and reinforces the fear some parents have that their children will turn out gay. It is a second front in the culture wars for the fundamentalists. They have long been active in Africa and now they are characterizing the progress made by LGBT people in the US as a new imperialist threat to “African family values”. People like mega-church pastor, Rick Warren and holocaust revisionist, Scott Lively are pumping their propaganda into Africa with renewed intensity and now it seems to have made it all the way south.
As Afrikaans buy into this misguided message it is not surprising that cases like this might pop up, but it is a sad commentary on the extent of the collateral damage from the culture war in the US that the right-wing is so fiercely waging. Their battle in the US is a losing one, but there is still fallout overseas.
The real “good news” is that these monsters are being brought to justice.
Friday, May 03, 2013
Friday, March 29, 2013
"Re-targeting" and the Creepy Side of Marketing Online
As a marketing guy, I am familiar with a slew of techniques that are used by companies to get their message to potential customers. It's one of the basic goals of marketing and it's the bedrock of doing business with consumers.
I have no problem with it because I see it as a service. I make my company's products and services visible to potential customers in appealing ways that entice them to do business with us. It's honest and straightforward.
Online things should be the same way, but recently internet marketers have moved into the grey area of "re-targeting" and "interactive marketing". I see this as grey because it potentially violates the implied privacy of individuals online. Here is an example.
I am an out gay man, no surprise there. I recently looked for a gay-friendly guest house for one of my trips out of town. Google efficiently found it for me and I booked a room for a weekend away.
Suddenly, on Facebook, I am getting ads for gay guest houses and the male version of Victoria's Secret underwear and even more NSFW stuff. Saw what? If I were in the closet at work, anyone who saw that screen would figure I was gay, effectively outing me electronically.
My search on Google was tracked and compared to my Facebook profile as well as the profiles of all of my friends and at the speed of light, a BIG DATA computer crunched that I am gay and therefore would like seeing ads for skimpy men's underwear and suggestive ads.
Kinda creepy, huh? Now the fallacy of this kind of mindless targeting is that first of all, I don't wear that kind of underwear, if I did I would look like the Hindenburg in a g-string. Additionally, I do not make a habit of staying in guest houses. I prefer hotels with all their amenities. Two strikes for the "re-targeting" algorithm. What's more is the fact that since I have such a variety of "friends" on Facebook, the assumptions the interactive marketing made are myriad.
The overall impression is that marketers are eavesdropping on everything I do, and they are. Privacy on the internet is an illusion, every click is tracked and analyzed by someone looking to sell you their product. This is the big difference in interactive marketing and real-time marketing.
At a mall, I may browse a lot of stores, but the clerks don't follow me around and whisper their message in my ear whenever I stop at a competition's window. They don't track me down and try to persuade me to by that shirt I passed up at their shop, if they did I'd most likely call the cops or just slug them.
Online, the rules apparently change. Just a word to the wise. If you want to have some fun, browse through sites with products and services you would never use in a million years. Watch the marketing bots try to sell you stuff you don't want. They aren't going away any time soon, so you might as well screw with them and enjoy it!
I have no problem with it because I see it as a service. I make my company's products and services visible to potential customers in appealing ways that entice them to do business with us. It's honest and straightforward.
Online things should be the same way, but recently internet marketers have moved into the grey area of "re-targeting" and "interactive marketing". I see this as grey because it potentially violates the implied privacy of individuals online. Here is an example.
I am an out gay man, no surprise there. I recently looked for a gay-friendly guest house for one of my trips out of town. Google efficiently found it for me and I booked a room for a weekend away.
Suddenly, on Facebook, I am getting ads for gay guest houses and the male version of Victoria's Secret underwear and even more NSFW stuff. Saw what? If I were in the closet at work, anyone who saw that screen would figure I was gay, effectively outing me electronically.
My search on Google was tracked and compared to my Facebook profile as well as the profiles of all of my friends and at the speed of light, a BIG DATA computer crunched that I am gay and therefore would like seeing ads for skimpy men's underwear and suggestive ads.
Kinda creepy, huh? Now the fallacy of this kind of mindless targeting is that first of all, I don't wear that kind of underwear, if I did I would look like the Hindenburg in a g-string. Additionally, I do not make a habit of staying in guest houses. I prefer hotels with all their amenities. Two strikes for the "re-targeting" algorithm. What's more is the fact that since I have such a variety of "friends" on Facebook, the assumptions the interactive marketing made are myriad.
The overall impression is that marketers are eavesdropping on everything I do, and they are. Privacy on the internet is an illusion, every click is tracked and analyzed by someone looking to sell you their product. This is the big difference in interactive marketing and real-time marketing.
At a mall, I may browse a lot of stores, but the clerks don't follow me around and whisper their message in my ear whenever I stop at a competition's window. They don't track me down and try to persuade me to by that shirt I passed up at their shop, if they did I'd most likely call the cops or just slug them.
Online, the rules apparently change. Just a word to the wise. If you want to have some fun, browse through sites with products and services you would never use in a million years. Watch the marketing bots try to sell you stuff you don't want. They aren't going away any time soon, so you might as well screw with them and enjoy it!
Friday, January 25, 2013
Footprints
In 1979, I left my footprints on the National Mall during the first March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights and listened to speakers from Troy Perry to Allen Ginsberg make the case our civil rights. It gave me hope. How could the President and Congress ignore the hundred thousand plus men and women who marched to the capitol to demand equality?
But President Carter did ignore us, and so did Congress. In fact we have been pretty much ignored in the oval office until now. In his second inaugural speech, President Obama not only acknowledged our struggle, he linked it to the great civil rights struggles of the past. In one sentence he cut through the years of neglect and put our fight in perspective.
“We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths —- that all of us are created equal —- is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth.”
In case the listener was not a student of history and didn’t recognize those three watershed events in the struggle for equality President Obama reiterated the point.
“Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law — for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.”
Finally, a president “gets it”! The women’s suffrage, the civil rights movement and LGBT rights are part of the same struggle. It is acknowledgement that we as LGBT Americans are no longer set apart, we do not seek “ special rights” any more than every other American.
His nod to same-sex marriage will no doubt have weight in the upcoming Supreme Court cases that contest the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. The court will no doubt take into account the growing acceptance of same-sex marriage and the endorsement of the President. They do not act in a vacuum.
Apparently the President does not act in a vacuum either. I know that like many folks in the LGBT community, I had been disappointed that President Obama had not pushed harder for LGBT rights. I gave him the benefit of the doubt, but still was impatient for more action. Most people recall the kerfuffle of having homophobic preacher, Rick Warren at the first inauguration. Many will also recall that candidate Obama openly affirmed that marriage was “between a man and a woman” and he was against “gay marriage”.
Things change. In May of last year he stat4ed in an interview on ABC, “…over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or Marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married."
And now, in the inaugural address, he makes it abundantly clear that equality will be a big part of his second term in office.
It is heartening to see that those footsteps of LGBT people who marched on the National Mall in 1979, 1987, 2000 and in 2009 have not been blown away by the political winds that scour Washington . President Obama, by acknowledging those “footprints along this great Mall” not only gives a nod to LGBT rights, he gives me hope that I will live to see those rights become the law of the land.
But President Carter did ignore us, and so did Congress. In fact we have been pretty much ignored in the oval office until now. In his second inaugural speech, President Obama not only acknowledged our struggle, he linked it to the great civil rights struggles of the past. In one sentence he cut through the years of neglect and put our fight in perspective.
“We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths —- that all of us are created equal —- is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth.”
In case the listener was not a student of history and didn’t recognize those three watershed events in the struggle for equality President Obama reiterated the point.
“Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law — for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.”
Finally, a president “gets it”! The women’s suffrage, the civil rights movement and LGBT rights are part of the same struggle. It is acknowledgement that we as LGBT Americans are no longer set apart, we do not seek “ special rights” any more than every other American.
His nod to same-sex marriage will no doubt have weight in the upcoming Supreme Court cases that contest the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. The court will no doubt take into account the growing acceptance of same-sex marriage and the endorsement of the President. They do not act in a vacuum.
Apparently the President does not act in a vacuum either. I know that like many folks in the LGBT community, I had been disappointed that President Obama had not pushed harder for LGBT rights. I gave him the benefit of the doubt, but still was impatient for more action. Most people recall the kerfuffle of having homophobic preacher, Rick Warren at the first inauguration. Many will also recall that candidate Obama openly affirmed that marriage was “between a man and a woman” and he was against “gay marriage”.
Things change. In May of last year he stat4ed in an interview on ABC, “…over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or Marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married."
And now, in the inaugural address, he makes it abundantly clear that equality will be a big part of his second term in office.
It is heartening to see that those footsteps of LGBT people who marched on the National Mall in 1979, 1987, 2000 and in 2009 have not been blown away by the political winds that scour Washington . President Obama, by acknowledging those “footprints along this great Mall” not only gives a nod to LGBT rights, he gives me hope that I will live to see those rights become the law of the land.
Monday, January 07, 2013
The Great Gun Hard-On
I usually don't get blatantly sexual with my posts, but today is different.
Let's get honest for a minute. If you listen closely to the rhetoric around the idea of an assault weapon ban, you hear a lot of hyperbole and just plain silly arguments on both sides. But to be honest, the underlying love affair with assault weapons comes down to sex and more specifically "machismo".
I have been to a few gun shows in my time and when I see people, specifically men, handling weapons like the AR-15 I see their whole body language change. For me their stance gets wider, they stand taller and display a noticeable swagger.
Their speech is also a give-away. You never hear a guy describe an assault rifle as "well balanced", "precision" or even "well designed". The first words are usually "awesome", "bitchin" or "day-um". They speak of these guns with emotional terms and that tells a lot. The assault rifles are not guns to them as much as they are big, deadly extensions of their manhood. I have even heard the phrase, "who's the man?" when someone handles these guns.
America's love affair with semi-automatic weapons is driven by marketing, popular media and the gun lobby who equate powerful weaponry with manhood. They might as well say, "it takes a big dick to handle this gun!" America has a hard-on for deadly weapons.
This mental erection has no basis in statistics. The facts are that since semi-automatic weapons were legalized, the country has become less safe. Gun deaths continue to climb and no one seems willing to state the obvious except Bill Moyers when he stated that America seeks no, "redemption from its fetish with guns, its romance with the free market of violence."
The whole argument about assault weapons and the 2nd Amendment are a diversion. Americans want these guns so they can feel potent and "manly". It is just a manifestation of the whole machismo thing and the price is the deaths of thousands of people a year. It's time for this to stop.
It's high time we got honest and found another way to bolster our national case of penis envy. A country that cannot talk in an adult and mature way about sex, finds other outlets. We have chosen guns, lots and lots of guns. My suspicion is that if we had a healthier attitude toward sex, and could honestly talk about it with each other, then showing off our big guns would have less meaning.
If you don't believe me, go to a gun show and watch for a while. You will soon understand and be as appalled as I am.
Let's get honest for a minute. If you listen closely to the rhetoric around the idea of an assault weapon ban, you hear a lot of hyperbole and just plain silly arguments on both sides. But to be honest, the underlying love affair with assault weapons comes down to sex and more specifically "machismo".
I have been to a few gun shows in my time and when I see people, specifically men, handling weapons like the AR-15 I see their whole body language change. For me their stance gets wider, they stand taller and display a noticeable swagger.
Their speech is also a give-away. You never hear a guy describe an assault rifle as "well balanced", "precision" or even "well designed". The first words are usually "awesome", "bitchin" or "day-um". They speak of these guns with emotional terms and that tells a lot. The assault rifles are not guns to them as much as they are big, deadly extensions of their manhood. I have even heard the phrase, "who's the man?" when someone handles these guns.
America's love affair with semi-automatic weapons is driven by marketing, popular media and the gun lobby who equate powerful weaponry with manhood. They might as well say, "it takes a big dick to handle this gun!" America has a hard-on for deadly weapons.
This mental erection has no basis in statistics. The facts are that since semi-automatic weapons were legalized, the country has become less safe. Gun deaths continue to climb and no one seems willing to state the obvious except Bill Moyers when he stated that America seeks no, "redemption from its fetish with guns, its romance with the free market of violence."
The whole argument about assault weapons and the 2nd Amendment are a diversion. Americans want these guns so they can feel potent and "manly". It is just a manifestation of the whole machismo thing and the price is the deaths of thousands of people a year. It's time for this to stop.
It's high time we got honest and found another way to bolster our national case of penis envy. A country that cannot talk in an adult and mature way about sex, finds other outlets. We have chosen guns, lots and lots of guns. My suspicion is that if we had a healthier attitude toward sex, and could honestly talk about it with each other, then showing off our big guns would have less meaning.
If you don't believe me, go to a gun show and watch for a while. You will soon understand and be as appalled as I am.
Friday, December 28, 2012
Reality, Meet the GOP
Reality and the Republican Party are not close friends. That was evident on election night when Karl Rove blubbered and fought with his pocket calculator trying to dispute the election results his own network, Fox News was reporting.
Now, perhaps, there is a watershed event. Former House Speaker and failed presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was quoted in the Huffington Post as saying, “I don't think these guys have a clue.” He was speaking about the Republican National Committee and its internal review of what went wrong during the election .
Part of that interview was most relevant for LGBT Americans, when Gingrich breached the subject of Gay Marriage. He felt that the GOP needed to open their eyes and see that the majority of Americans no longer have a problem with same-sex marriage. Wow!
Specifically he made the distinction between “"marriage in a church from a legal document issued by the state". He went on to say, “It is in every family. It is in every community. The momentum is clearly now in the direction in finding some way to ... accommodate and deal with reality. And the reality is going to be that in a number of American states -- and it will be more after 2014 -- gay relationships will be legal, period."
The phrase “accommodate and deal with reality” is what struck me most. After all, this is the man who actually thought he had a shot at the Presidency. A man who was divorced twice and has a spotty history of infidelity, as well as being reprimanded by the House Ethics Committee, seriously thought he could stand up to the scrutiny of a Presidential run? It would seem that reality and Newt were not well acquainted.
Newt was even a signatory to the National Organization for Marriage pledge regarding a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. What happened?
Well, Newt and the GOP are not immune to public opinion, and though they seem to be fighting it every step of the way, he and others on the right have seen that the age of bashing LGBT people to rally the base, no longer works. Time is marching on and leaving that sad chapter in American political history in the dust.
"I didn't think that was inevitable 10 or 15 years ago, when we passed the Defense of Marriage Act," he said. "It didn't seem at the time to be anything like as big a wave of change as we are now seeing."
This may bode well for the upcoming decision by the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. Perhaps even the conservative voices on the bench will see the tide turning and clear the way for federal recognition of same-sex unions. We can hope for that, but one stumbling block still stands in the way, and that’s Justice Antonin Scalia. His recent comparison of the ban on sodomy to a ban on murder might give us a clue to his thinking. Though he claims to be a “textualist” when it comes to the Constitution, he is more of an absurdist, reducing his arguments to absurd comparisons.
In the end, his absurdity may not matter. My hope is that Scalia will be writing the minority dissenting opinion on DOMA and that his words will look every bit as silly as Karl Rove on election night. The tide has turned and Scalia doesn’t notice, and when you can’t see something that is so evident that Newt Gingrich can see it, then you might end up looking as absurd as your argument.
Now, perhaps, there is a watershed event. Former House Speaker and failed presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was quoted in the Huffington Post as saying, “I don't think these guys have a clue.” He was speaking about the Republican National Committee and its internal review of what went wrong during the election .
Part of that interview was most relevant for LGBT Americans, when Gingrich breached the subject of Gay Marriage. He felt that the GOP needed to open their eyes and see that the majority of Americans no longer have a problem with same-sex marriage. Wow!
Specifically he made the distinction between “"marriage in a church from a legal document issued by the state". He went on to say, “It is in every family. It is in every community. The momentum is clearly now in the direction in finding some way to ... accommodate and deal with reality. And the reality is going to be that in a number of American states -- and it will be more after 2014 -- gay relationships will be legal, period."
The phrase “accommodate and deal with reality” is what struck me most. After all, this is the man who actually thought he had a shot at the Presidency. A man who was divorced twice and has a spotty history of infidelity, as well as being reprimanded by the House Ethics Committee, seriously thought he could stand up to the scrutiny of a Presidential run? It would seem that reality and Newt were not well acquainted.
Newt was even a signatory to the National Organization for Marriage pledge regarding a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. What happened?
Well, Newt and the GOP are not immune to public opinion, and though they seem to be fighting it every step of the way, he and others on the right have seen that the age of bashing LGBT people to rally the base, no longer works. Time is marching on and leaving that sad chapter in American political history in the dust.
"I didn't think that was inevitable 10 or 15 years ago, when we passed the Defense of Marriage Act," he said. "It didn't seem at the time to be anything like as big a wave of change as we are now seeing."
This may bode well for the upcoming decision by the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. Perhaps even the conservative voices on the bench will see the tide turning and clear the way for federal recognition of same-sex unions. We can hope for that, but one stumbling block still stands in the way, and that’s Justice Antonin Scalia. His recent comparison of the ban on sodomy to a ban on murder might give us a clue to his thinking. Though he claims to be a “textualist” when it comes to the Constitution, he is more of an absurdist, reducing his arguments to absurd comparisons.
In the end, his absurdity may not matter. My hope is that Scalia will be writing the minority dissenting opinion on DOMA and that his words will look every bit as silly as Karl Rove on election night. The tide has turned and Scalia doesn’t notice, and when you can’t see something that is so evident that Newt Gingrich can see it, then you might end up looking as absurd as your argument.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Heading Off The Cliff
You can't turn on a news report without hearing references to the "fiscal cliff". Terrifying? Not so much, but still a real issue.
Quite frankly I don't think the Republicans have any intention of negotiating and a re perfectly willing to do a Thelma & Louise on January 1. Why? Because they can let the automatic lifting of the Bush tax cuts happen, the spending cuts and all, then they can pass a bill that cuts taxes for the middle class and still say they didn't raise taxes. They cut them!
Pretzel logic for sure, but the GOP excels at that. They can pass legislation to restore the military spending and claim they were defending the nation. More pretzel logic.
When this happens, and I do believe it is a "when" not an "if", the Democrats in Congress need to make it abundantly clear that it is the GOP 's fault. They need to control the narrative and not let the Republicans play their semantic game.
I suspect President Obama is already working on a speech that will lay out the facts for the American people in a way that makes it abundantly clear who is at fault for this mess.
In the long run it wont hurt us much, unless the stock market gets neurotic and starts kicking in some automatic selling programs. Oh and then there is the debt ceiling.... The Chinese curse is coming true, "may you live in interesting times."
Quite frankly I don't think the Republicans have any intention of negotiating and a re perfectly willing to do a Thelma & Louise on January 1. Why? Because they can let the automatic lifting of the Bush tax cuts happen, the spending cuts and all, then they can pass a bill that cuts taxes for the middle class and still say they didn't raise taxes. They cut them!
Pretzel logic for sure, but the GOP excels at that. They can pass legislation to restore the military spending and claim they were defending the nation. More pretzel logic.
When this happens, and I do believe it is a "when" not an "if", the Democrats in Congress need to make it abundantly clear that it is the GOP 's fault. They need to control the narrative and not let the Republicans play their semantic game.
I suspect President Obama is already working on a speech that will lay out the facts for the American people in a way that makes it abundantly clear who is at fault for this mess.
In the long run it wont hurt us much, unless the stock market gets neurotic and starts kicking in some automatic selling programs. Oh and then there is the debt ceiling.... The Chinese curse is coming true, "may you live in interesting times."
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Emanuel
Emanuel is translated as "God with us". That was the biggest message of Jesus and of the birth narrative. The story in my opinion was meant to give a graphic example of what Jesus taught in later life He took the idea of God being only in the Temple and moved the focus to individuals. God was and is with us, not hidden behind the veil of the Temple.
Jesus was a reformer. His path was meant to bring us closer to the divine and to free us from the rules and structures of the Pharisees. His path broke free from the rigid rules and relied on the simple commandment to love one another.
As I celebrate this season and reread the birth narratives I know that indeed a new light did come into the world. May the light of this season brighten your days.
Note: Sometimes I get off on a theological bent and I have to reassert that what I write is just my opinion. Take what you like and leave the rest.
Jesus was a reformer. His path was meant to bring us closer to the divine and to free us from the rules and structures of the Pharisees. His path broke free from the rigid rules and relied on the simple commandment to love one another.
As I celebrate this season and reread the birth narratives I know that indeed a new light did come into the world. May the light of this season brighten your days.
Note: Sometimes I get off on a theological bent and I have to reassert that what I write is just my opinion. Take what you like and leave the rest.
Friday, December 21, 2012
The Christmas Story
"And an angel came to the woman and told her she would bear a child."
That's not a direct Biblical quote, but it is paraphrased. If you think I am referring to Mary being visited by an angel, I am not, I am referring to Abraham's wife Sarah. She was told by one of the three angels that visited them she would have a child. She laughed!
The same story happens again the the opening of the new testament when Elisabeth and Zechariah are visited by Gabriel and told they will have a child, John.
The same story happens again in Luke when another angel tells Mary she will have a son, Jesus.
So what gives? Three identical stories with the names and times changed, yet essentially they are all the same.
Well, I am not a Biblical scholar, and never attended Divinity School, but here's my take on it:
Each of these births was seen as an important milestone. Their story is told through a familiar lens of an older well-known story. This is not to shroud history, but to reveal the truths behind the tale. They are great myths that pass along knowledge and wisdom through generations. They are not historically accurate.
Just like the slaughter of the innocents in the New Testament, there is a matching story in the Old Testament. Moses is hidden in the bull rushes to avoid being slaughtered by Pharaoh in Egypt. Likewise, Joseph and Mary flee to Egypt to avoid having Jesus killed by Herod.
Why? Because it was important to show that Jesus was of the same caliber and even greater than Moses, who "came out of Egypt". That story was very familiar to all Jews who heard it and they would no doubt have gotten the comparison.
Did it happen? There is no historical evidence for Herod slaughtering children, but that wasn't the point of the story. It was a literary device to get Jesus into Egypt, so he could later emerge with the importance needed to convey who he was.
Wise men? They most likely never existed, but their presence in the story shows once again, and this time to Roman citizens how important Jesus was. His birth narrative is not historical fact, but another literary device to infer his importance. It is filled with truth, but very few facts.
Does this mean I am not a Christian? Absolutely not. As a follower of Jesus, I find these stories meaningful and worth retelling again and again, but without understanding the "why" of these tales, they easily become just a bunch of fictional stories.
As Bishop John Shelby Spong noted in his book, "Liberating the Gospels" these tales are best viewed as "midrash". It is a Jewish tradition of retelling a story with new characters to show their real importance and to connect with a new audience.
So take some time and really read the Christmas stories again and don't look for facts, but instead seek the truth they convey.
Merry Christmas.
That's not a direct Biblical quote, but it is paraphrased. If you think I am referring to Mary being visited by an angel, I am not, I am referring to Abraham's wife Sarah. She was told by one of the three angels that visited them she would have a child. She laughed!
The same story happens again the the opening of the new testament when Elisabeth and Zechariah are visited by Gabriel and told they will have a child, John.
The same story happens again in Luke when another angel tells Mary she will have a son, Jesus.
So what gives? Three identical stories with the names and times changed, yet essentially they are all the same.
Well, I am not a Biblical scholar, and never attended Divinity School, but here's my take on it:
Each of these births was seen as an important milestone. Their story is told through a familiar lens of an older well-known story. This is not to shroud history, but to reveal the truths behind the tale. They are great myths that pass along knowledge and wisdom through generations. They are not historically accurate.
Just like the slaughter of the innocents in the New Testament, there is a matching story in the Old Testament. Moses is hidden in the bull rushes to avoid being slaughtered by Pharaoh in Egypt. Likewise, Joseph and Mary flee to Egypt to avoid having Jesus killed by Herod.
Why? Because it was important to show that Jesus was of the same caliber and even greater than Moses, who "came out of Egypt". That story was very familiar to all Jews who heard it and they would no doubt have gotten the comparison.
Did it happen? There is no historical evidence for Herod slaughtering children, but that wasn't the point of the story. It was a literary device to get Jesus into Egypt, so he could later emerge with the importance needed to convey who he was.
Wise men? They most likely never existed, but their presence in the story shows once again, and this time to Roman citizens how important Jesus was. His birth narrative is not historical fact, but another literary device to infer his importance. It is filled with truth, but very few facts.
Does this mean I am not a Christian? Absolutely not. As a follower of Jesus, I find these stories meaningful and worth retelling again and again, but without understanding the "why" of these tales, they easily become just a bunch of fictional stories.
As Bishop John Shelby Spong noted in his book, "Liberating the Gospels" these tales are best viewed as "midrash". It is a Jewish tradition of retelling a story with new characters to show their real importance and to connect with a new audience.
So take some time and really read the Christmas stories again and don't look for facts, but instead seek the truth they convey.
Merry Christmas.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Human Rights - Family Rights
In case you missed it, December 10 was UN Human Rights Day. It is something we as LGBT Americans should
take to heart.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a wonderful
document. It is intended to assure freedom
and justice and a voice for all people. The United States along with 48 other
countries signed the declaration in 1948 and it has become the standard by
which human rights are judged.
One of the key provisions in this historic document is the
provision that the family is a “natural and fundamental group unit of society
and is entitled to protection by society and the State.” Interestingly enough,
the UN declined to give a definition of the term “family”. They did this because they saw as early as
1948 that families were defined in different ways by different cultures. They went on to specify that, ““in giving
full effect to the recognition of family in the context of (International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) article 23, it is important to accept
the concept of the various forms of family…”
In other words, our families are ours to define. For LGBT Americans that is really
important. Now that the Supreme Court is
taking up DOMA and the California Proposition 8 case, it means more than
ever.
The reality of same-sex marriage is this, until there is a
federal law that assures recognition of marriages from all states, same-sex or
not, a marriage license is pretty much just a nice piece of paper. The union and its rights will be good only in
the state where it was signed. In other words
your family may be OK is Washington State, but in Texas you are just a couple
of friends.
For family arrangements beyond the hetero-normative model,
it gets even more difficult. In the leather
community for example, there are lots of families consisting of 2-3 or more
individuals who are in a relationship with each other that they consider a
family. It is not unusual for a leather “Daddy” to
have a couple of “boys” in his or her household. (For the uninitiated the title of “Daddy” has nothing to do with
parenting. It is a role as well as an
honorific and it can apply to a man or woman.
Likewise, the idea of “boys” or “bois” or “girls” has nothing to do with
minors, these are roles assumed by leatherfolk and are terms of affection and
position within the leather family structure.)
These leather families are often as tight knit and valid as any blood-related
family and in many cases more so.
If the UN Declaration is to be believed, even these very
non-traditional families have a right to exist and be recognized, because the
reality of families in the US is this, only 20% of households consist of
married husbands and wives with children. The Norman Rockwall family unit is a myth, and
it is time we began understanding just how varied families in our country are.
Same-sex marriage will be a step toward this recognition,
but it will still leave millions of American’s out.
It will take a lot of work and a lot of education to fulfill
the goals of the UN Declaration in the 21st Century. It will take families of all types making
their case for recognition. It will be
uncomfortable for some people but if we are to take human rights seriously we
have to understand that all families, deserve respect and rights.
So next time you hear of the problems of human rights, don’t
automatically assume it is a third-world issue.
As LGBT Americans we still live as second class citizens who are denied
the right to form legally recognized families of our own.
The War On Christmas has been over for more than 100 years!
I am so tired of the fake War on Christmas that Fox News continues to foist on the uneducated viewers of it's alleged news.
If we want to celebrate a "traditional American Christmas" like our founding fathers, then we should go to work on Christmas Day just like any other day. In fact when the pilgrims came to America, they did not celebrate Christmas, it was considered too decadent. The holiday was actually outlawed in Boston until 1681 and was punishable by a fine. After the Revolution, congress was even in session in 1789 on Christmas day.
It remained a little noticed holiday until it was made a federal holiday in 1870.
So to the Fox idiots, Merry Christmas, the War on Christmas was won on June 26, 1870 when Congress passed the law making it a federal holiday. Now go out and SHOP!
If we want to celebrate a "traditional American Christmas" like our founding fathers, then we should go to work on Christmas Day just like any other day. In fact when the pilgrims came to America, they did not celebrate Christmas, it was considered too decadent. The holiday was actually outlawed in Boston until 1681 and was punishable by a fine. After the Revolution, congress was even in session in 1789 on Christmas day.
It remained a little noticed holiday until it was made a federal holiday in 1870.
So to the Fox idiots, Merry Christmas, the War on Christmas was won on June 26, 1870 when Congress passed the law making it a federal holiday. Now go out and SHOP!
Friday, December 14, 2012
More Holiday Gun Violence
As if the mall shooting wasn't enough, now a gunman entered an elementary school in Newton, Connecticut and opened fire. Details are sketchy, but there are victims and the shooter is dead.
Happy friggin Holidays!
There isn't a war on Christmas, but apparently there is a Christmas War. Time for serious gun control in this crazy country!
Happy friggin Holidays!
There isn't a war on Christmas, but apparently there is a Christmas War. Time for serious gun control in this crazy country!
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Happy Holidays! Another Shooting!
A lone gunman walked into a busy mall near Portland, Oregon and opened fire. He was carrying a high-powered assault rifle and began shooting people at random, creating chaos which ended with two victims dead as well as the shooter himself who took his own life.
Merry Fucking Christmas!
Now, isn't it about time we had that discussion of gun control in our country or are we just keep going to let crazy people have guns? Additionally, are we going to admit that being armed does not equal being safe. There is a right to carry concealed arms in Oregon, yet no one "defended" him or herself against the shooter.
Even police called to the scene did not shoot back, fearing accidentally killing more innocent bystanders. That is why having a gun is not "protection". even a skilled marksman would have a high probability of causing unintended deaths or injuries trying to defend against a wacko shooter like this.
Why do we continue to bow down to the National Rifle Association and the gun lobby whenever the idea of actually trying to control the number and availability of guns in this country? Because politicians are cowards. They are afraid of actually having to argue in favor of a civilized policy regarding handguns and assault rifles. They are afraid of having to tell the truth, guns do kill people.
Do I sound angry? Oh hell yes. Year after year assault rifles and handguns spread death and destruction across our country and yet we refuse to even discuss it. It's time to stop pretending that this is an issue of right to protection and self defense and call it what it is, a well orchestrated effort on behalf of gun manufacturers to keep selling armaments intended for the military to civilians. It's not about the Second Amendment, it's about cash. So let's stop the charade and get down to brass tacks. Time for a comprehensive gun policy in the US that is sane and sensible.
Merry Fucking Christmas!
Now, isn't it about time we had that discussion of gun control in our country or are we just keep going to let crazy people have guns? Additionally, are we going to admit that being armed does not equal being safe. There is a right to carry concealed arms in Oregon, yet no one "defended" him or herself against the shooter.
Even police called to the scene did not shoot back, fearing accidentally killing more innocent bystanders. That is why having a gun is not "protection". even a skilled marksman would have a high probability of causing unintended deaths or injuries trying to defend against a wacko shooter like this.
Why do we continue to bow down to the National Rifle Association and the gun lobby whenever the idea of actually trying to control the number and availability of guns in this country? Because politicians are cowards. They are afraid of actually having to argue in favor of a civilized policy regarding handguns and assault rifles. They are afraid of having to tell the truth, guns do kill people.
Do I sound angry? Oh hell yes. Year after year assault rifles and handguns spread death and destruction across our country and yet we refuse to even discuss it. It's time to stop pretending that this is an issue of right to protection and self defense and call it what it is, a well orchestrated effort on behalf of gun manufacturers to keep selling armaments intended for the military to civilians. It's not about the Second Amendment, it's about cash. So let's stop the charade and get down to brass tacks. Time for a comprehensive gun policy in the US that is sane and sensible.
Friday, December 07, 2012
December 7 - Still Lives in Infamy
Seventy one years ago on a lovely December morning, Japanese bombers launched from aircraft carriers made a devastating attack on Pearl Harbor. That attack has often been credited with awakening the American public to the state of chaos in the world and ushering us into World War II.
That historical point will be debated for another 71 years most likely, but the impact of the attack has never been in question. America suddenly realized we couldn't sit by while the world waged war, isolationism was no longer an option.
9/11 is often likened to Pearl Harbor and with some good reasons. On that day, America realized we were not immune from terrorists and isolationism was not an option. The big difference was the enemy. In WWII the Axis powers were sovereign countries, bent on taking territory and expanding their power. On 9/11 a handful of very dedicated fanatics got the attention of the world with a couple of box cutters and a well executed plan.
Both these tragedies shook our country from it's complacency. In the case of Pearl Harbor it threw us into one of the worst wars in human history, and in the case of 9/11 it threw us into the longest war in US history.
It is a good day to remember the men and women who lost their lives that day in December 1941 and the generation whose valor and sacrifice defeated a tyranny the world has not seen since.
Few who were at Pearl Harbor are still alive, but their story will never be forgotten.
Take a moment to remember.
That historical point will be debated for another 71 years most likely, but the impact of the attack has never been in question. America suddenly realized we couldn't sit by while the world waged war, isolationism was no longer an option.
9/11 is often likened to Pearl Harbor and with some good reasons. On that day, America realized we were not immune from terrorists and isolationism was not an option. The big difference was the enemy. In WWII the Axis powers were sovereign countries, bent on taking territory and expanding their power. On 9/11 a handful of very dedicated fanatics got the attention of the world with a couple of box cutters and a well executed plan.
Both these tragedies shook our country from it's complacency. In the case of Pearl Harbor it threw us into one of the worst wars in human history, and in the case of 9/11 it threw us into the longest war in US history.
It is a good day to remember the men and women who lost their lives that day in December 1941 and the generation whose valor and sacrifice defeated a tyranny the world has not seen since.
Few who were at Pearl Harbor are still alive, but their story will never be forgotten.
Take a moment to remember.
Monday, November 26, 2012
The Next Bush
Just when you thought it was safe to go back to worrying about everyday problems, a new and very ugly one sprouts up. It's another Bush! George Prescott Bush to be exact.
He is a Republican dream candidate too. A vet, a conservative and with brown skin! Son of Jeb Bush and his wife Columba Garnica Bush George P. Bush has registered as a political candidate in Texas for 2014.
Once again the GOP is grooming a candidate for the White House. Bush with his non-artificial skin color and Mexican-American heritage is just what the GOP is looking for. He is targeting the office of Land Commissioner first, a good place to make connections with wealthy and at 36 years of age, he has a long career ahead of him.
The biggest problem is his past. Back in 1994 he broke into his former girlfriends home, had a confrontation with her father and tore up their front lawn by spinning his car in circles on it. As The Smoking Gun says, he is the "creepy" Bush. Naturally, the family did not press charges but the police report gives details.
Now, your job, as a thinking adult with at least some leanings toward the left, is to make sure this creep never gets elected. Your vote and your work will be needed to nip this Bush in the bud at the ballot box in 2014!
He is a Republican dream candidate too. A vet, a conservative and with brown skin! Son of Jeb Bush and his wife Columba Garnica Bush George P. Bush has registered as a political candidate in Texas for 2014.
Once again the GOP is grooming a candidate for the White House. Bush with his non-artificial skin color and Mexican-American heritage is just what the GOP is looking for. He is targeting the office of Land Commissioner first, a good place to make connections with wealthy and at 36 years of age, he has a long career ahead of him.
The biggest problem is his past. Back in 1994 he broke into his former girlfriends home, had a confrontation with her father and tore up their front lawn by spinning his car in circles on it. As The Smoking Gun says, he is the "creepy" Bush. Naturally, the family did not press charges but the police report gives details.
Now, your job, as a thinking adult with at least some leanings toward the left, is to make sure this creep never gets elected. Your vote and your work will be needed to nip this Bush in the bud at the ballot box in 2014!
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Transgender Day of Remembrance
Back in the dark ages when I was a child, the only person I ever knew of who was transgender was Christine Jorgensen an American GI who underwent what was then called "sex-change" surgery in 1952. Christine was a media sensation in the 1950's and was often the brunt of off-color jokes in the press and on TV.
Later in my "disco days" I met several drag queens who were actually transgender. At the time that term was unknown and the unfortunate "she-male" was the monicker used. It didn't take long before I was friends with several male-to female transgender folk. By that time the word was starting to gain traction and "transexual" and "transgender" entered my vocabulary.
I didn't know any female to male trans folk, or at least I thought I didn't. I did know quite a few very butch dykes, and several who preferred to be addressed as "sir". The leather community at that time was still developing some of the traditions we hold today, so few people were called "Sir" unless they were from the Renaissance Fair.
Later I met a good friend who was a cute butch dyke. She always gave off a masculine vibe, even to the point that when she was at the local leather bar, she got hit on my guys who didn't know her true sex. I soon learned that she had decided to transition, and my education into gender really began.
Now, I know dozens of transgender people both transmen and transwomen and each has a different story to tell about their transition. All have fascinating stories to tell of their journey and how they finally made peace with their gender identity.
I urge you to not be afraid to ask your friends who are transgender to tell you their story. You will learn a great deal about the resilience of the human spirit and how it affected their lives. If they are like many of my trans friends, there will be both heartache and happiness in their tale. It is a struggle much like the one gay and lesbian people go through when we realize our sexuality is different from many of our peers. It is a story you need to hear.
So on this day when we remember the hundreds of transgender people who are killed every year as a result of prejudice, hatred and misunderstanding, hearing the stories of your friends struggles will give you a better perspective.
Later in my "disco days" I met several drag queens who were actually transgender. At the time that term was unknown and the unfortunate "she-male" was the monicker used. It didn't take long before I was friends with several male-to female transgender folk. By that time the word was starting to gain traction and "transexual" and "transgender" entered my vocabulary.
I didn't know any female to male trans folk, or at least I thought I didn't. I did know quite a few very butch dykes, and several who preferred to be addressed as "sir". The leather community at that time was still developing some of the traditions we hold today, so few people were called "Sir" unless they were from the Renaissance Fair.
Later I met a good friend who was a cute butch dyke. She always gave off a masculine vibe, even to the point that when she was at the local leather bar, she got hit on my guys who didn't know her true sex. I soon learned that she had decided to transition, and my education into gender really began.
Now, I know dozens of transgender people both transmen and transwomen and each has a different story to tell about their transition. All have fascinating stories to tell of their journey and how they finally made peace with their gender identity.
I urge you to not be afraid to ask your friends who are transgender to tell you their story. You will learn a great deal about the resilience of the human spirit and how it affected their lives. If they are like many of my trans friends, there will be both heartache and happiness in their tale. It is a struggle much like the one gay and lesbian people go through when we realize our sexuality is different from many of our peers. It is a story you need to hear.
So on this day when we remember the hundreds of transgender people who are killed every year as a result of prejudice, hatred and misunderstanding, hearing the stories of your friends struggles will give you a better perspective.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Bill O'Reilly Explains It All for You - The End of America
Hyperbole is the stock and trade of most of the right-wing talking heads. Whatever they dislike is always catastrophic and disastrous. For example, "same-sex marriage will end traditional marriage as an institution". Let's look at that closer. Right now 9 states have same-sex marriage. Add to that the District of Columbia and you have 10 and yet in all those states opposite sex people continue to marry and divorce. Their families are unaffected by the gay and lesbian couples who have chosen to marry and life goes on.
So given the penchant for exaggeration it's no surprise that Bill O'Reilly has pronounced "traditional America" dead, or at least on life support. His reasoning is that the "secular progressives" are bent on destroying the American way of life.
First off, he doesn't clearly define what this mythical traditional America is. He does go on to indict "secular progressives' as libertines who will gleefully abort fetuses and pass out drugs, but as to the traditions, he is silent.
My suspicion is the term "secular progressive" is a trial balloon. He and the other pundits are coordinating their efforts to find another boogieman to scare their viewers with. Apparently "the gays" are no longer effective enough. The fact that he calls Obama a "poster boy for secular progressives" gives me a clue to the new talking points for the right-wing.
What he fails to say by not giving examples of "traditional America" is that he really means 'white America". He blames the loss of the election on voters who want "free stuff" (that is code terms for welfare queens) and not on the GOP's inability to connect with the majority of the country.
Again, he is deferring the blame when it lies directly with him and his ilk. The far-right has alienated everyone but the most staunchly conservative, especially on social issues. It is a party of white men and the wives who slavishly follow their husbands political beliefs. It is a party of rich businessmen who manipulate politicians to their will. It is a party of people who watch too much Fox News and there is the root of the problem. It is a part out of touch with reality.
O'Reilly's vision of "traditional" America is a country that existed only for a few years in the 1950's. The "nuclear family" living in the suburbs. A time when white America prospered and everyone else was a second class citizen. Guess what? Not that way any more. It's time to adjust and embrace the diversity of our wonderful country or be left in the dust bin of history. I suspect O'Reilly will be quite at home there, amid the wreckage of the GOP he helped to destroy.
So given the penchant for exaggeration it's no surprise that Bill O'Reilly has pronounced "traditional America" dead, or at least on life support. His reasoning is that the "secular progressives" are bent on destroying the American way of life.
First off, he doesn't clearly define what this mythical traditional America is. He does go on to indict "secular progressives' as libertines who will gleefully abort fetuses and pass out drugs, but as to the traditions, he is silent.
My suspicion is the term "secular progressive" is a trial balloon. He and the other pundits are coordinating their efforts to find another boogieman to scare their viewers with. Apparently "the gays" are no longer effective enough. The fact that he calls Obama a "poster boy for secular progressives" gives me a clue to the new talking points for the right-wing.
What he fails to say by not giving examples of "traditional America" is that he really means 'white America". He blames the loss of the election on voters who want "free stuff" (that is code terms for welfare queens) and not on the GOP's inability to connect with the majority of the country.
Again, he is deferring the blame when it lies directly with him and his ilk. The far-right has alienated everyone but the most staunchly conservative, especially on social issues. It is a party of white men and the wives who slavishly follow their husbands political beliefs. It is a party of rich businessmen who manipulate politicians to their will. It is a party of people who watch too much Fox News and there is the root of the problem. It is a part out of touch with reality.
O'Reilly's vision of "traditional" America is a country that existed only for a few years in the 1950's. The "nuclear family" living in the suburbs. A time when white America prospered and everyone else was a second class citizen. Guess what? Not that way any more. It's time to adjust and embrace the diversity of our wonderful country or be left in the dust bin of history. I suspect O'Reilly will be quite at home there, amid the wreckage of the GOP he helped to destroy.
Monday, November 12, 2012
Why Mitt Romney Lost the Election?
Today the Wall Street Journal, now a News Corp/Fox News clone bemoaned Romney's loss and explained it this way:
"...lack of money earlier this year stalled his campaign."
This is one of the most self-serving excuses I have ever heard. Romney was awash in money from day one. His personal wealth could assure that he never ran low on funds, and for a media outlet to come up with this excuse sounds like a plea for more ad dollars. "Yes, just spend more, and much of it on advertising in our paper, and you will win next time."
What a bunch of malarkey!
Romney lost because he was not in touch with the changing American demographic. He lost despite millions and millions of dollars spent on unrelenting TV and newspaper ads. He lost because he is so unlike most American's the common man just couldn't connect with him.
The country is no longer a bunch of middle-aged white guys, it is a rainbow of races and sexes, and the GOP message doesn't work any more.
Mitt tried to get empathetic but ended up looking just plain pathetic. When he was at the Daytona 500, he tried to appeal to NASCAR fans by proclaiming that he had friends who owned NASCAR teams. Here's the truth Mitt, that resonates with the 0.1% and not the rest of us poor suckers out here.
I could go on with gaff after gaff, but why bother. Mitt Romney will soon be back working with his dressage horses and his political career will be forgotten. Good riddance.
"...lack of money earlier this year stalled his campaign."
This is one of the most self-serving excuses I have ever heard. Romney was awash in money from day one. His personal wealth could assure that he never ran low on funds, and for a media outlet to come up with this excuse sounds like a plea for more ad dollars. "Yes, just spend more, and much of it on advertising in our paper, and you will win next time."
What a bunch of malarkey!
Romney lost because he was not in touch with the changing American demographic. He lost despite millions and millions of dollars spent on unrelenting TV and newspaper ads. He lost because he is so unlike most American's the common man just couldn't connect with him.
The country is no longer a bunch of middle-aged white guys, it is a rainbow of races and sexes, and the GOP message doesn't work any more.
Mitt tried to get empathetic but ended up looking just plain pathetic. When he was at the Daytona 500, he tried to appeal to NASCAR fans by proclaiming that he had friends who owned NASCAR teams. Here's the truth Mitt, that resonates with the 0.1% and not the rest of us poor suckers out here.
I could go on with gaff after gaff, but why bother. Mitt Romney will soon be back working with his dressage horses and his political career will be forgotten. Good riddance.
Wednesday, November 07, 2012
United States of Tokers?
Colorado and Washington State both passed initiatives to legalize marijuana. This is pretty historic stuff since in other states the battle still rages over medicinal uses of the drug. Additionally, the federal government still considers pot a controlled substance and it's verboten in all 50 states, even for medical use, but some states chose to ignore that.
What I think is happening is that people are realizing that marijuana is no more dangerous than America's drug-of-choice, alcohol. In fact, it might be less dangerous since few if any deaths have occurred from pot-overdose unless you count the ensuing obesity from eating too many brownies.
The main barrier against pot becoming legal is the private sector. Private prisons, a growing phenomena, are filled to the rafters with people arrested for using or dealing marijuana, and without the criminalization of that drug they will lose money. I suspect law enforcement folks would welcome the decriminalization since it would free them up to do other things, and the gangs who deal the drug would suddenly become obsolete.
I am a tea-bottler and haven't used any mind altering substance, save caffeine since 1986, but I have lots of friends who do and as far as I can tell, few of them have become hardened criminals. I think the old saw about Marijuana being a gateway drug only holds true as long as users are forced underground. It may be time we reexamined our attitudes toward cannabis and found some middle ground. Meanwhile, if you live in Colorado or Washington, don't break out the bongs yet.
What I think is happening is that people are realizing that marijuana is no more dangerous than America's drug-of-choice, alcohol. In fact, it might be less dangerous since few if any deaths have occurred from pot-overdose unless you count the ensuing obesity from eating too many brownies.
The main barrier against pot becoming legal is the private sector. Private prisons, a growing phenomena, are filled to the rafters with people arrested for using or dealing marijuana, and without the criminalization of that drug they will lose money. I suspect law enforcement folks would welcome the decriminalization since it would free them up to do other things, and the gangs who deal the drug would suddenly become obsolete.
I am a tea-bottler and haven't used any mind altering substance, save caffeine since 1986, but I have lots of friends who do and as far as I can tell, few of them have become hardened criminals. I think the old saw about Marijuana being a gateway drug only holds true as long as users are forced underground. It may be time we reexamined our attitudes toward cannabis and found some middle ground. Meanwhile, if you live in Colorado or Washington, don't break out the bongs yet.
The Cross in the Closet - Worth a Read
The closet is a dangerous place.
For LGBT folk who have kept their sexual orientation a secret, the effects are myriad, and most people who come out remember the process vividly. It can be a time of turmoil, liberation and sometimes alienation, but it is a rite of passage that is essential to many LGBT people’s life stories. That is why the title “The Cross in the Closet” intrigued me and more importantly, the subtitle “One Man’s Abominable Quest to find Jesus in the Margins.”
Provocative stuff? Yes, but not as provocative as the premise of the book. The author, a straight man, lived for a year as a gay man, coming out to his family, friends and colleagues. He wanted to see what it was like to be identified as gay. That got my attention.
When I found the author, Timothy Kurek, was a student at Liberty University, the notorious hard-line fundamentalist college founded by Jerry Falwell, I was more intrigued. Kurek realized that his characterizations of LGBT people were troubling and he wanted to know the truth.
The story might seem familiar to those of us who grew up during the Civil Rights struggle. White journalist John Howard Griffin sought a greater understanding of the realities of being black in America, so he underwent treatments to turn his skin dark and he immersed himself in the African American community. His landmark book, Black Like Me is still in circulation and is a unique window into the times.
Kurek in his own way immerses himself in the LGBT community, starting in his home town of Nashville, Tennessee, where he comes out to his family and friends with predictable results. Fireworks.
His life is turned upside down as he finds out the reality of living as a self-identified gay man. Only a close friend and a gay man he befriended while hanging out at a Karaoke Bar know his secret. The gay friend agrees to act as his boyfriend to both tutor him in “how to be gay” and to act as a foil for any unwanted sexual advances.
Now for the reader who is looking for dirt, you won’t find any in this book. What you will find is a very interesting perspective of a man who is a “closet straight” for a year. What you will also find is a touching and deeply personal story of how a fundamentalist Christian deals with a crisis of faith.
Kurek finds that the demonized image of the LGBT community was as much a myth as the idea that all Christians are closed-minded and judgmental. He makes his way into the LGBT community in Nashville and finds that there are a good number of LGBT Christians there, something he never expected to find.
Not surprising is the abundance of “church speak” Kurek uses. Remember he comes from a deep background of Bible quoting education, so there are lots of references to Biblical passages and principals, but don’t let that put you off. During his year Kurek gains insights into not just the LGBT community, but to his own faith and what it means to follow Jesus.
By the end of the book, he has not only had a change of heart regarding what it means to be gay, but he finds a deeper understanding of what it means to be straight as well.
Overall, this is destined to be a book that will be quoted for years to come. Kurek’s journey of discovery resonates in ways that are unexpected and profound. It is an epic tale as he meets some amazing and wonderful characters including Christian activist Dr. Mel White and the far-right firebrand, Shirley Phelps, (yes that Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church).
Kurek eventually comes back out of his self-imposed closet, and again the results are profound, but this time in ways he never imagined. The Cross in the Closet changed how I looked at fundamentalist Christians perhaps as much as they way Kurek might have once looked at gay men.
For LGBT folk who have kept their sexual orientation a secret, the effects are myriad, and most people who come out remember the process vividly. It can be a time of turmoil, liberation and sometimes alienation, but it is a rite of passage that is essential to many LGBT people’s life stories. That is why the title “The Cross in the Closet” intrigued me and more importantly, the subtitle “One Man’s Abominable Quest to find Jesus in the Margins.”
Provocative stuff? Yes, but not as provocative as the premise of the book. The author, a straight man, lived for a year as a gay man, coming out to his family, friends and colleagues. He wanted to see what it was like to be identified as gay. That got my attention.
When I found the author, Timothy Kurek, was a student at Liberty University, the notorious hard-line fundamentalist college founded by Jerry Falwell, I was more intrigued. Kurek realized that his characterizations of LGBT people were troubling and he wanted to know the truth.
The story might seem familiar to those of us who grew up during the Civil Rights struggle. White journalist John Howard Griffin sought a greater understanding of the realities of being black in America, so he underwent treatments to turn his skin dark and he immersed himself in the African American community. His landmark book, Black Like Me is still in circulation and is a unique window into the times.
Kurek in his own way immerses himself in the LGBT community, starting in his home town of Nashville, Tennessee, where he comes out to his family and friends with predictable results. Fireworks.
His life is turned upside down as he finds out the reality of living as a self-identified gay man. Only a close friend and a gay man he befriended while hanging out at a Karaoke Bar know his secret. The gay friend agrees to act as his boyfriend to both tutor him in “how to be gay” and to act as a foil for any unwanted sexual advances.
Now for the reader who is looking for dirt, you won’t find any in this book. What you will find is a very interesting perspective of a man who is a “closet straight” for a year. What you will also find is a touching and deeply personal story of how a fundamentalist Christian deals with a crisis of faith.
Kurek finds that the demonized image of the LGBT community was as much a myth as the idea that all Christians are closed-minded and judgmental. He makes his way into the LGBT community in Nashville and finds that there are a good number of LGBT Christians there, something he never expected to find.
Not surprising is the abundance of “church speak” Kurek uses. Remember he comes from a deep background of Bible quoting education, so there are lots of references to Biblical passages and principals, but don’t let that put you off. During his year Kurek gains insights into not just the LGBT community, but to his own faith and what it means to follow Jesus.
By the end of the book, he has not only had a change of heart regarding what it means to be gay, but he finds a deeper understanding of what it means to be straight as well.
Overall, this is destined to be a book that will be quoted for years to come. Kurek’s journey of discovery resonates in ways that are unexpected and profound. It is an epic tale as he meets some amazing and wonderful characters including Christian activist Dr. Mel White and the far-right firebrand, Shirley Phelps, (yes that Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church).
Kurek eventually comes back out of his self-imposed closet, and again the results are profound, but this time in ways he never imagined. The Cross in the Closet changed how I looked at fundamentalist Christians perhaps as much as they way Kurek might have once looked at gay men.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Romney- Liar with no Shame
I used to think Mitt Romney was lying because his handlers and advisers gave him trumped up talking points, but now I believe it is a pathology. His latest whopper was his assertion that Chrysler was closing all the Jeep plants in the US and shipping them to China.
It's a lie.
A big lie.
So big that Chrysler PR people jumped on it as fast as the press did. They are not closing plants in the US, they are expanding into China so they can sell more Jeeps there! It's a success story that Romney has twisted and tried to turn into a failure. It is another example of how he apparently cannot or will not tell the truth, when it doesn't serve his purposes. He is even putting it in a TV ad even though the press, Chrysler and the United Auto Workers say it's not in any way true.
This is a symptom of the desperate campaign Romney is running. It is also a good example of the kind of president he would make. We don't need a pathological liar as president, we had that once with George W. Bush and nobody wants to go through that again.
It's a lie.
A big lie.
So big that Chrysler PR people jumped on it as fast as the press did. They are not closing plants in the US, they are expanding into China so they can sell more Jeeps there! It's a success story that Romney has twisted and tried to turn into a failure. It is another example of how he apparently cannot or will not tell the truth, when it doesn't serve his purposes. He is even putting it in a TV ad even though the press, Chrysler and the United Auto Workers say it's not in any way true.
This is a symptom of the desperate campaign Romney is running. It is also a good example of the kind of president he would make. We don't need a pathological liar as president, we had that once with George W. Bush and nobody wants to go through that again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
