It's almost silly to bash Bill O'Reilly for his bullying distortions. The man, like Rush Limbaugh, is a propagandist. If you're smart, you understand that. If you're stupid, you don't -- and nothing will convince you otherwise.
Often, like any clever liar, O'Reilly sprinkles in just enough rational statements to make him appear momentarily objective. Of course, he isn't. His mind -- picture a black-and-white TV -- lacks nuance to an astonishing extent. He responds to the Iraq mess by asking this question: Do you want us to win? It's a simpleton query designed to elicit a simpleton response. He responds to criticism of the president by asking this question: Do you think George Bush is evil? Again, a simpleton query designed to elicit a simpleton response. Unless you immediately answer "yes" to the first question and "no" to the second, you're an un-American lunatic.
Worse, maybe, is the way O'Reilly twists words. During an interview with retired U.S. Army Col. Ann Wright last month on his FOX-News show, O'Reilly slandered the 29-year veteran, accusing her of being anti-American because she criticized some of the Bush administration's practices in Iraq and in the "war on terror." Nothing, of course, could be more patriotic than speaking out against abuses within your own country. O'Reilly appears unwilling to accept that fact, either because he's too dumb or because he knows the value of his shtick to TV ratings. Watch the segment. It's a case study in how to bully and distort (fortunately, Col. Wright stood her ground admirably):
Which brings us to O'Reilly's newest target: Bill Moyers' brilliant documentary on the American media's complicity in making the Bush administration's case to invade Iraq, a case that appeared false to many of us at the time and a case that has since been proven to be either wrong or a lie.
In "Buying The War," Moyers shows how the major establishment media outlets -- including the New York Times and Washington Post -- played along with the administration in the buildup to the invasion. To demonstrate the mood, Moyers included two snippets of O'Reilly making statements that suggest anyone who criticizes the war effort will have to bear the consequences. From a transcript at truthout.com:
Bill O'Reilly (Fox 2/26/03): "Anyone who hurts this country in a time like this. Well let's just say you will be spotlighted."
Bill O'Reilly (2/27/03): "I will call those who publicly criticize their country in a time of military crisis, which this is, bad Americans."
On his show this week, O'Reilly acknowledged those quotes looked bad. But, he said, they were taken out of context. He then played the full quotes. To me, there was no significant difference. Moyers carved out the essence of O'Reilly's comments, leaving the excess verbiage behind. Nothing wrong with that.
In a typical fit of arrogance and pique, O'Reilly sent one of his people to do an ambush interview with Moyer. Because O'Reilly is a propagandist, I have no idea if the information presented in the interview was accurate. In it, Moyers appears to have said things in a Rolling Stone interview -- things that have nothing to do with the integrity of the documentary -- that he denies saying. Essentially, he said, on tape, that the O'Reillys of the world are slimey. Maybe because he was generalizing, he didn't think his words should apply directly to O'Reilly. Maybe he thought the interviewer was referring to his documentary, not the Rolling Stone interview. I don't know. I do know it was irrelevant. O'Reilly -- did I mention his arrogant spite? -- condescendingly suggested Moyers' age (72) might have something to do with his apparent forgetfulness during the interview.
The bottom line, of course, is that Moyers is right: O'Reilly was -- and is -- part of the machine that produced the disaster in Iraq. Quibbling about quotes won't change that.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Getting Uppity
I wrote this is February 2005, but I think it's still relevant:
Now that gays are America's new whipping boy -- and the first culture to truly incite the nation's rural Christians since blacks freed themselves in the 1960s -- perhaps it's time to alter our tactics.
Time, maybe, to get retro and replace the oh-so-lofty Human Rights Campaign with the in-your-face Queer Nation, time to stop watching "Will and Grace" and move en mass to the hump-a-minute "Queer As Folk," time to pick up our guns -- figuratively speaking -- and take aim at Red Amerika.
Time, in other words, to fight back.
George Bush declared war on the gay community in 2004 by using gay marriage as a hateful wedge issue designed to inflame his benighted base. It worked. The Christian right helped return Bush to office and swatted down gay initiatives in state after state.
The message was simple: You disgust us.
We disgust them for many reasons, I assume, but foremost because of the way we have sex. I use the term "have sex" carefully, by the way, because I think that's the way straight people view our carnal activities. They make love; we have sex. By thinking of gays as perpetually sex-starved creatures who prey on boys in bathrooms, it demonizes us. Just as it did blacks in the 1950s, when it wasn't wise for a "colored" kid to look too long at a ruling-class white girl.
Not that the black-gay analogy should be overdone. Blacks were legally enslaved for 250 years and effectively enslaved for another century. The gay man's experience -- except for those 100,000 poor souls who wore pink triangles in the Holocaust -- has been infinitely easier. As long as you kept quiet.
If you kept quiet, you climbed up the corporate ladder, the social ladder, the church ladder quite briskly. It was the genesis, really, of Bill Clinton's don't ask/don't tell policy for the military. Clinton was a great president because he was a small-g governor. He sought consensus on every issue -- prompting critics to say he lacked a moral compass -- knowing that in a nation as diverse and polarized as the United States, compromise was essential to keep the glue from melting. Nevertheless, don't ask/don't tell was cowardly. Clinton, already suspect because of his anti-war draft-dodging youth, didn't want to alienate his generals. So he declined to order his troops to start regarding gay soldiers as human beings worthy of respect.
Instead, he told gay airmen, sailors, marines and soldiers to shut up. Have sex, if you must, but do it in private and don't tell anyone. Don't put a picture of your boyfriend next to your bunk. Don't bring him to the NCO club for lunch. Don't tell any of the guys -- your brothers in war -- that you like boys.
At the same time, however, Clinton fostered a climate of tolerance for gays. Note the word "tolerance," another indication of our status in America. If straights decide to be benevolent, they'll let us be. But, never forget, it's up to them. We're like dogs in the city. If we don't poop in the park, we're acceptable.
So, sanitized gays popped up everywhere in the '90s. "Will and Grace" was a mainstream television hit. Gays became ubiquitous on MTV, where a reality series without a queer would be like a loaf of Wonder Bread at Dean and Deluca -- decidedly un-hip. Actors and actresses, and even a few athletes, came out. It seemed like every politician had a gay child, sibling or lover. And, of course, everyone thought the boys on "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" were the personification of edgy, urban fun.
Then, we got uppity.
Out of nowhere, it seemed, gay couples were demanding the right to marry or at least the right to be recognized as a civil union. Some simply wanted the same legal benefits as straight families; for them a civil union would do just fine. Others, though, wanted more. They wanted the binding moral authority of a wedding ceremony, a ceremony where they would profess their love in front of friends and family, perhaps in a church and definitely with the blessing of the state.
Churches clearly have the right to embrace or condemn gay marriage. Governments do not. Governments represent the people, all the people. They exist at the pleasure of the people and, in the United States, they exist to protect the rights of minorities, whether that minority is black, Jewish or gay.
Regardless, it seems so obvious that gay marriage is a pro-family initiative. How many straight people would have walked out on their husbands or wives if they weren't legally married, if they hadn't committed their hearts and wallets to their spouses? I assume it would work the same way with gays, turning them -- for better or worse -- into homebodies.
Gay marriage is only the most obvious issue being fought by Red Amerika. In Virginia, a state legislator's bill to eliminate a gay club at Harrisonburg High School sailed through the House of Delegates 92-0, in part because its stated purpose was to outlaw student groups that promote sexual activity. The sponsor, however, has admitted he was motivated by the local gay kids' club. What a stupid assumption: that because gays want to socialize, it promotes sex more so than any other teenagers' club. Another bill in Virginia -- a state that tried to marginalize blacks by yanking whites out of public schools rather than integrate after Brown vs. Board of Education, and a state that banned interracial marriage until the Supreme Court told it to get real in 1967 -- singles out gays for background checks if they want to adopt children. Other states also are goose-stepping backward.
So what's a gay to do? Is it really better to fight back than to quietly try to get along? Nobody wants to be snickered at or sneered at or yelled at. Isn't it OK to just live our two-tier lives, one in the gay ghetto and bedroom, one everywhere else? After all, gays aren't being lynched, they aren't being kept out of universities, they don't have to drink out of separate water fountains. What's the big deal?
The big deal is human dignity. You can't live proudly and live a lie. It's taken some of us half a century to realize that. Fortunately, today's gay kids learn that lesson much earlier. They hold their boyfriend's hand on the street. They kiss him goodbye at the bus stop. They walk without shame, without fear.
That's why it's a big deal. And that's why, somehow, someway, we have to fight back. Just like black Americans fought back 40 years ago to achieve their dream, their rightful place in society, their dignity.
Now that gays are America's new whipping boy -- and the first culture to truly incite the nation's rural Christians since blacks freed themselves in the 1960s -- perhaps it's time to alter our tactics.
Time, maybe, to get retro and replace the oh-so-lofty Human Rights Campaign with the in-your-face Queer Nation, time to stop watching "Will and Grace" and move en mass to the hump-a-minute "Queer As Folk," time to pick up our guns -- figuratively speaking -- and take aim at Red Amerika.
Time, in other words, to fight back.
George Bush declared war on the gay community in 2004 by using gay marriage as a hateful wedge issue designed to inflame his benighted base. It worked. The Christian right helped return Bush to office and swatted down gay initiatives in state after state.
The message was simple: You disgust us.
We disgust them for many reasons, I assume, but foremost because of the way we have sex. I use the term "have sex" carefully, by the way, because I think that's the way straight people view our carnal activities. They make love; we have sex. By thinking of gays as perpetually sex-starved creatures who prey on boys in bathrooms, it demonizes us. Just as it did blacks in the 1950s, when it wasn't wise for a "colored" kid to look too long at a ruling-class white girl.
Not that the black-gay analogy should be overdone. Blacks were legally enslaved for 250 years and effectively enslaved for another century. The gay man's experience -- except for those 100,000 poor souls who wore pink triangles in the Holocaust -- has been infinitely easier. As long as you kept quiet.
If you kept quiet, you climbed up the corporate ladder, the social ladder, the church ladder quite briskly. It was the genesis, really, of Bill Clinton's don't ask/don't tell policy for the military. Clinton was a great president because he was a small-g governor. He sought consensus on every issue -- prompting critics to say he lacked a moral compass -- knowing that in a nation as diverse and polarized as the United States, compromise was essential to keep the glue from melting. Nevertheless, don't ask/don't tell was cowardly. Clinton, already suspect because of his anti-war draft-dodging youth, didn't want to alienate his generals. So he declined to order his troops to start regarding gay soldiers as human beings worthy of respect.
Instead, he told gay airmen, sailors, marines and soldiers to shut up. Have sex, if you must, but do it in private and don't tell anyone. Don't put a picture of your boyfriend next to your bunk. Don't bring him to the NCO club for lunch. Don't tell any of the guys -- your brothers in war -- that you like boys.
At the same time, however, Clinton fostered a climate of tolerance for gays. Note the word "tolerance," another indication of our status in America. If straights decide to be benevolent, they'll let us be. But, never forget, it's up to them. We're like dogs in the city. If we don't poop in the park, we're acceptable.
So, sanitized gays popped up everywhere in the '90s. "Will and Grace" was a mainstream television hit. Gays became ubiquitous on MTV, where a reality series without a queer would be like a loaf of Wonder Bread at Dean and Deluca -- decidedly un-hip. Actors and actresses, and even a few athletes, came out. It seemed like every politician had a gay child, sibling or lover. And, of course, everyone thought the boys on "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" were the personification of edgy, urban fun.
Then, we got uppity.
Out of nowhere, it seemed, gay couples were demanding the right to marry or at least the right to be recognized as a civil union. Some simply wanted the same legal benefits as straight families; for them a civil union would do just fine. Others, though, wanted more. They wanted the binding moral authority of a wedding ceremony, a ceremony where they would profess their love in front of friends and family, perhaps in a church and definitely with the blessing of the state.
Churches clearly have the right to embrace or condemn gay marriage. Governments do not. Governments represent the people, all the people. They exist at the pleasure of the people and, in the United States, they exist to protect the rights of minorities, whether that minority is black, Jewish or gay.
Regardless, it seems so obvious that gay marriage is a pro-family initiative. How many straight people would have walked out on their husbands or wives if they weren't legally married, if they hadn't committed their hearts and wallets to their spouses? I assume it would work the same way with gays, turning them -- for better or worse -- into homebodies.
Gay marriage is only the most obvious issue being fought by Red Amerika. In Virginia, a state legislator's bill to eliminate a gay club at Harrisonburg High School sailed through the House of Delegates 92-0, in part because its stated purpose was to outlaw student groups that promote sexual activity. The sponsor, however, has admitted he was motivated by the local gay kids' club. What a stupid assumption: that because gays want to socialize, it promotes sex more so than any other teenagers' club. Another bill in Virginia -- a state that tried to marginalize blacks by yanking whites out of public schools rather than integrate after Brown vs. Board of Education, and a state that banned interracial marriage until the Supreme Court told it to get real in 1967 -- singles out gays for background checks if they want to adopt children. Other states also are goose-stepping backward.
So what's a gay to do? Is it really better to fight back than to quietly try to get along? Nobody wants to be snickered at or sneered at or yelled at. Isn't it OK to just live our two-tier lives, one in the gay ghetto and bedroom, one everywhere else? After all, gays aren't being lynched, they aren't being kept out of universities, they don't have to drink out of separate water fountains. What's the big deal?
The big deal is human dignity. You can't live proudly and live a lie. It's taken some of us half a century to realize that. Fortunately, today's gay kids learn that lesson much earlier. They hold their boyfriend's hand on the street. They kiss him goodbye at the bus stop. They walk without shame, without fear.
That's why it's a big deal. And that's why, somehow, someway, we have to fight back. Just like black Americans fought back 40 years ago to achieve their dream, their rightful place in society, their dignity.
Shit! Another Gay Guy!
So, one of my ex-writers sent me an email about his apartment search in metro New York. To paraphrase it: "The thing I hate about Craigslist is every time I find a great apartment, it always ends with the potential roommate describing himself as a '29-year-old gay guy.'"
My ex-writer is a very cool dude. I nicknamed him World Boy because he's been everywhere from Beijing to Cairo to Rio. Plus, he's the New American Blend: a 24-year-old Latino who was raised in a high-brow Pittsburgh neighborhood (Squirrel Hill) by a Colombian mother and a half-Colombian/half-American father. The family is just as diverse religiously. World Boy describes himself as half Jewish and half Catholic, but he also has Mormon ties. Money? Lots of it. His mom is now president of a mortgage bank in Miami. The kid also is not shy sexually. Have dick, will travel.
In other words, he's Mentos. (You remember -- the hip Euro ads for the Freshmaker.) Yet, he's also homophobic. We never discussed my sexuality, although I always assumed he knew I was gay by some of his comments when we went out to dinner. Now, obviously, I'm not so sure.
But substitute the "gay guy" in his email with "black" or "Muslim" or "Jewish" or "Asian." Is there a difference in the prejudice somebody would exhibit toward a race or religion and the prejudice somebody would exhibit toward sexual orientation? I suppose you could make an argument that there is. If you lived with an Asian or Muslim, you might find the food or music or books or philosophies alien, but you wouldn't have to worry that your roommate might want to hit on you or that he might get turned on when he saw you shirtless.
Of course, in reality, the gay guy probably would have no romantic interest in the straight guy -- meaning there'd be no sexual tension at all. And if the straight guy was free of sexual hang-ups, he wouldn't care if his roommate found him attractive. Some of the coolest relationships, I think, are between gay and straight guys who become friends and can tease each other about their preferences. I often tell one of my straight friends how freaking sexy he looked in this or that outfit.
Anyway, I was a little hurt by the email. But I wasn't deeply wounded, as I would have been if I'd been black or Asian and World Boy had taken a jab at my race. The reason, I guess, is because it's socially acceptable to express distaste for gays. Sad as that might be.
My ex-writer is a very cool dude. I nicknamed him World Boy because he's been everywhere from Beijing to Cairo to Rio. Plus, he's the New American Blend: a 24-year-old Latino who was raised in a high-brow Pittsburgh neighborhood (Squirrel Hill) by a Colombian mother and a half-Colombian/half-American father. The family is just as diverse religiously. World Boy describes himself as half Jewish and half Catholic, but he also has Mormon ties. Money? Lots of it. His mom is now president of a mortgage bank in Miami. The kid also is not shy sexually. Have dick, will travel.
In other words, he's Mentos. (You remember -- the hip Euro ads for the Freshmaker.) Yet, he's also homophobic. We never discussed my sexuality, although I always assumed he knew I was gay by some of his comments when we went out to dinner. Now, obviously, I'm not so sure.
But substitute the "gay guy" in his email with "black" or "Muslim" or "Jewish" or "Asian." Is there a difference in the prejudice somebody would exhibit toward a race or religion and the prejudice somebody would exhibit toward sexual orientation? I suppose you could make an argument that there is. If you lived with an Asian or Muslim, you might find the food or music or books or philosophies alien, but you wouldn't have to worry that your roommate might want to hit on you or that he might get turned on when he saw you shirtless.
Of course, in reality, the gay guy probably would have no romantic interest in the straight guy -- meaning there'd be no sexual tension at all. And if the straight guy was free of sexual hang-ups, he wouldn't care if his roommate found him attractive. Some of the coolest relationships, I think, are between gay and straight guys who become friends and can tease each other about their preferences. I often tell one of my straight friends how freaking sexy he looked in this or that outfit.
Anyway, I was a little hurt by the email. But I wasn't deeply wounded, as I would have been if I'd been black or Asian and World Boy had taken a jab at my race. The reason, I guess, is because it's socially acceptable to express distaste for gays. Sad as that might be.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Gay Flicks, Part 1
I hate Hollywood movies, yet my favorite gay flick is a light romantic comedy. Go figure. Anyway, here's my little guide to gay-themed films. (Nos. 1 and 2 top my list; the third one onward simply represent a numbering system. I think.)
1. Trick
1999
MY TAKE: Sure, it's a little fluffly, but "Trick's" popularity is no mystery. It speaks to every human being's deepest desire: to find somebody and fall head over heels in love with him. Doesn't matter if you're gay or straight, male or female. Of course, it doesn't hurt that Gabe, the budding screenwriter, is boy-next-door cute and Mark, the go-go dancer and former CUNY journalism student, is slinkily sexy. It also doesn't hurt that the film is set in Lower Manhattan, the epicenter of Gay America, where guys holding hands is as normal as licking an ice-cream cone on a summer evening.
PLOT: Two boys meet and spend the evening looking for a place to hook up. It turns into a cool and highly entertaining romantic comedy.
FAVE SCENES: 1) Mark (upper left on the subway) takes an uncomfortable Gabe to a gay club. Needless to say, Mark immediately strips off his shirt and starts dancing. Gabe demurs until -- with transvestite Miss Coco belting out "I Am Woman" -- he too catches the fever. The expressions on Mark's face are priceless. 2) The boys, who had noticed each other during Mark's performance at another go-go club, end up in the same subway car that evening, make eye contact and begin their hook-up. 3) In a tiny scene at a late-night diner, Mark confides to Gabe that he lives with his mom in Brooklyn. It goes by in a flash, but it's one of the most endearing moments of the flick.
SEX QUOTIENT: It's sexy, but nothing's explicit. Straight people could watch the movie without blanching.
TRIVIA: Queens native J.P. Pitoc (aka John Paul Pitoc), who turns 33 on Monday and has done lots of TV since making "Trick," is half Colombian (which accounts for his amazing looks) and studied drama at NYU (brains, too!).
MORE: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/trick/
2. Angels In America 2004
MY TAKE: Obviously, this is one of the greatest theatrical achievements in American history -- Tony Kushner won a Pulitzer in 1993 for his efforts. The movie ain't bad, either. An HBO miniseries, it ran for 352 riveting minutes, sucking the viewer into a vortex of overpowering drama and breath-catching comedy. In a word, it's massive. The performances of Al Pacino as an AIDS-ravaged Roy Cohn, the brilliant but despicable anti-communist who helped fry the Rosenbergs, and Meryl Streep as Ethel Rosenberg and a Mormon mom (among others) are astonishing. So is the poignancy of the relationships between straights and gays, HIV-negative and HIV-positive lovers, out gays and closeted gays, and on and on. The subtext, of course, is profoundly political.
PLOT: Wow. In short, a little-know disease -- AIDS -- is ravaging the gay community. Relationships are affected.
FAVE SCENES: Again wow. 1) Prior Walter, fighting AIDS, is visited in, shall we say, dramatic fashion by a sex-crazed angel. 2) Prior meets Louis, who ditched him because of the disease, in a reunion of sorts in Washington Square Park. 3) A black gay nurse interacts with a dying Cohn.
SEX QUOTIENT: Zero.
TRIVIA: The charismatic Jeffrey Wright, who played the gay nurse, also excelled as the lead role in a film about Jean-Michel Basquiat.
MORE: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/angels_in_america/
The angel visits Prior.
3. Latter Days 2003
MY TAKE: You've gotta love a flick that takes on religion, in this case -- obviously -- the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, aka the Mormons. There's lots of comedy here and some all-too-obvious moments, but the underlying messages are strong: 1) You are what you are, and 2) intolerance is fueled more than anything by religion. Again, this isn't original, but it's highly watchable.
PLOT: Slutty gay boy in L.A. meets cute-but-closeted Mormon missionary and falls in love.
FAVE SCENES: 1) Christian, the West Hollywood party boy, thinks Aaron, the Mormon, is dead, so he tearfully visits the latter's family home in Idaho to return a family heirloom. It's then that Aaron's mother -- who had been piously anti-gay -- understands how wrong she's been. 2) At the end of the movie, Aaron shows up at a restaurant where, coincidentally, Christian works. In a tear-jerker, they're reunited.
SEX QUOTIENT: Moderately explicit, but if I can watch sex scenes in straight movies, I assume enlightened straights could watch the scenes in "Latter Days" without being too grossed out.
TRIVIA: Written by a gay Mormon, the movie was filmed in 24 days, according to IMDb.
MORE: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/latter_days/
m/m/latter_days/
Steve Sandvoss (left)
and Wes Ramsey
1. Trick
1999 MY TAKE: Sure, it's a little fluffly, but "Trick's" popularity is no mystery. It speaks to every human being's deepest desire: to find somebody and fall head over heels in love with him. Doesn't matter if you're gay or straight, male or female. Of course, it doesn't hurt that Gabe, the budding screenwriter, is boy-next-door cute and Mark, the go-go dancer and former CUNY journalism student, is slinkily sexy. It also doesn't hurt that the film is set in Lower Manhattan, the epicenter of Gay America, where guys holding hands is as normal as licking an ice-cream cone on a summer evening.
PLOT: Two boys meet and spend the evening looking for a place to hook up. It turns into a cool and highly entertaining romantic comedy.
FAVE SCENES: 1) Mark (upper left on the subway) takes an uncomfortable Gabe to a gay club. Needless to say, Mark immediately strips off his shirt and starts dancing. Gabe demurs until -- with transvestite Miss Coco belting out "I Am Woman" -- he too catches the fever. The expressions on Mark's face are priceless. 2) The boys, who had noticed each other during Mark's performance at another go-go club, end up in the same subway car that evening, make eye contact and begin their hook-up. 3) In a tiny scene at a late-night diner, Mark confides to Gabe that he lives with his mom in Brooklyn. It goes by in a flash, but it's one of the most endearing moments of the flick.
SEX QUOTIENT: It's sexy, but nothing's explicit. Straight people could watch the movie without blanching.
TRIVIA: Queens native J.P. Pitoc (aka John Paul Pitoc), who turns 33 on Monday and has done lots of TV since making "Trick," is half Colombian (which accounts for his amazing looks) and studied drama at NYU (brains, too!).
MORE: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/trick/
2. Angels In America 2004
MY TAKE: Obviously, this is one of the greatest theatrical achievements in American history -- Tony Kushner won a Pulitzer in 1993 for his efforts. The movie ain't bad, either. An HBO miniseries, it ran for 352 riveting minutes, sucking the viewer into a vortex of overpowering drama and breath-catching comedy. In a word, it's massive. The performances of Al Pacino as an AIDS-ravaged Roy Cohn, the brilliant but despicable anti-communist who helped fry the Rosenbergs, and Meryl Streep as Ethel Rosenberg and a Mormon mom (among others) are astonishing. So is the poignancy of the relationships between straights and gays, HIV-negative and HIV-positive lovers, out gays and closeted gays, and on and on. The subtext, of course, is profoundly political.
PLOT: Wow. In short, a little-know disease -- AIDS -- is ravaging the gay community. Relationships are affected.
FAVE SCENES: Again wow. 1) Prior Walter, fighting AIDS, is visited in, shall we say, dramatic fashion by a sex-crazed angel. 2) Prior meets Louis, who ditched him because of the disease, in a reunion of sorts in Washington Square Park. 3) A black gay nurse interacts with a dying Cohn.
SEX QUOTIENT: Zero.
TRIVIA: The charismatic Jeffrey Wright, who played the gay nurse, also excelled as the lead role in a film about Jean-Michel Basquiat.
MORE: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/angels_in_america/
The angel visits Prior.
3. Latter Days 2003
MY TAKE: You've gotta love a flick that takes on religion, in this case -- obviously -- the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, aka the Mormons. There's lots of comedy here and some all-too-obvious moments, but the underlying messages are strong: 1) You are what you are, and 2) intolerance is fueled more than anything by religion. Again, this isn't original, but it's highly watchable.
PLOT: Slutty gay boy in L.A. meets cute-but-closeted Mormon missionary and falls in love.
FAVE SCENES: 1) Christian, the West Hollywood party boy, thinks Aaron, the Mormon, is dead, so he tearfully visits the latter's family home in Idaho to return a family heirloom. It's then that Aaron's mother -- who had been piously anti-gay -- understands how wrong she's been. 2) At the end of the movie, Aaron shows up at a restaurant where, coincidentally, Christian works. In a tear-jerker, they're reunited.
SEX QUOTIENT: Moderately explicit, but if I can watch sex scenes in straight movies, I assume enlightened straights could watch the scenes in "Latter Days" without being too grossed out.
TRIVIA: Written by a gay Mormon, the movie was filmed in 24 days, according to IMDb.
MORE: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/latter_days/
m/m/latter_days/Steve Sandvoss (left)
and Wes Ramsey
The Goode, The Bad, The Ugly -- Oh, They're All The Same
Being in Virginia, I rarely expect my politicians to make me proud.
There's George Allen and his racist remarks during the 2006 campaign. There's Virgil Goode, the redneck congressman from southwestern Virginia who criticized a recently elected Minnesota representative for choosing to take his oath of office on the Koran. There's the old fool in the state legislature who said blacks should "get over" slavery. There's the homophobe state legislator who tried to shut down gay clubs in public high schools. There's the dummy, also in our august assembly, who tried to ban extremely baggy pants that expose underwear.
Wow. (All but the baggy-pants guy were Republicans, by the way.)
On the other hand, Allen lost his re-election campaign last fall, in large part because of the "Macaca" comment. Goode was condemned for his religious intolerance. Virginia, not long after the "get over it" comment, became the first state in the nation to formally express regret for its role in slavery. The state senate told the house to get real and quickly killed the anti-gay club measure. And the baggy-pants proposal also was DOA in the senate.
So, while we have an uncommon number of dumb politicians, their ideas usually are shot down.
One politician who has always had my respect, however, is John Warner. I've rarely agreed with him on the issues, but he has always seemed reasonable and gentlemanly. In recent weeks, though, the 80-year-old Republican -- and former husband of Elizabeth Taylor -- has stunned me. First, he and Chuck Nagel of Nebraska became the leading GOP senators to oppose Bush's escalation in Iraq. Then, a few weeks ago, Warner weighed in on Gen. Peter Pace's bigoted comments about gays. The day before, Pace -- chairman of the joint chiefs of staff -- told the Chicago Tribune that homosexual acts were "immoral." Warner told him he was full of shit.
"I respectfully, but strongly, disagree with the chairman's view that homosexuality is immoral," Warner said in a written statement. Now, that goes above and beyond the call of duty. Warner, as a Republican in a still fairly conservative state, could have kept silent on the issue. Instead, he joined the voices that are helping tip the nation toward acceptance of gay lifestyles.
For a change, I'm proud. Well, until I see shit like this -- from Mr. Goode again, this time spewing his racism on the U.S. House floor:
There's George Allen and his racist remarks during the 2006 campaign. There's Virgil Goode, the redneck congressman from southwestern Virginia who criticized a recently elected Minnesota representative for choosing to take his oath of office on the Koran. There's the old fool in the state legislature who said blacks should "get over" slavery. There's the homophobe state legislator who tried to shut down gay clubs in public high schools. There's the dummy, also in our august assembly, who tried to ban extremely baggy pants that expose underwear.
Wow. (All but the baggy-pants guy were Republicans, by the way.)
On the other hand, Allen lost his re-election campaign last fall, in large part because of the "Macaca" comment. Goode was condemned for his religious intolerance. Virginia, not long after the "get over it" comment, became the first state in the nation to formally express regret for its role in slavery. The state senate told the house to get real and quickly killed the anti-gay club measure. And the baggy-pants proposal also was DOA in the senate.
So, while we have an uncommon number of dumb politicians, their ideas usually are shot down.
One politician who has always had my respect, however, is John Warner. I've rarely agreed with him on the issues, but he has always seemed reasonable and gentlemanly. In recent weeks, though, the 80-year-old Republican -- and former husband of Elizabeth Taylor -- has stunned me. First, he and Chuck Nagel of Nebraska became the leading GOP senators to oppose Bush's escalation in Iraq. Then, a few weeks ago, Warner weighed in on Gen. Peter Pace's bigoted comments about gays. The day before, Pace -- chairman of the joint chiefs of staff -- told the Chicago Tribune that homosexual acts were "immoral." Warner told him he was full of shit.
"I respectfully, but strongly, disagree with the chairman's view that homosexuality is immoral," Warner said in a written statement. Now, that goes above and beyond the call of duty. Warner, as a Republican in a still fairly conservative state, could have kept silent on the issue. Instead, he joined the voices that are helping tip the nation toward acceptance of gay lifestyles.
For a change, I'm proud. Well, until I see shit like this -- from Mr. Goode again, this time spewing his racism on the U.S. House floor:
Sunday, April 22, 2007
When? Now.
Whenever I ask people if they think America should withdraw from Iraq, they say yes. When I ask them how quickly, they almost always talk about a phased withdrawal. Their rationale: that if the Americans got out too quickly, Iraq would dissolve into ... into what, I ask, into chaos? Into civil war? Into carnage?I don't know how much worse Iraq can get. If you believe a Johns Hopkins University study, more than 600,000 Iraqis have died because of the American invasion. More than 3,300 U.S. soldiers have been killed and another 25,000 wounded. This month alone, 72 coalition soldiers (almost all American) have died, most of them in their 20s, at least three in their teens.
It seems almost crass to talk about money, but the United States is spending $2 billion a week -- a week -- to perpetuate its immoral policies in Iraq.
On a human level, again how much worse can it get? Iraq already is engaged in a sectarian civil war. America's presence will only prolong the killing. And once the U.S. leaves, Iraq almost certainly will ally itself with its fellow Shias in Iran. So what will America get for its thousands of dead? In all likelihood, an Islamic government with strong ties to another Islamic government, this one fundamentalist and repressive. (Yea democracy.) Won't that be wonderful? Iran and Iraq, flush with oil and weapons, strutting around the Middle East.
And all because of an evil or stupid -- take your pick -- American president.
It's too late to put the genie back in the bottle. It isn't too late to get out.
Although I value their lives as much as I do those of our soldiers, I can do nothing to prevent an Iraqi kid from killing another Iraqi kid. I can do something, if only by voting and speaking out among friends, to prevent more Americans from dying.
During Vietnam, of course, John Kerry asked a haunting question after returning home and becoming an anti-war leader burnished by medals for bravery: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"
How do you ask Michael Rivera's mother in Brooklyn to accept that her 22-year-old son died in a roadside bombing this month in Iraq, just six months after the birth of his daughter?
How do you ask Barry Mayo's family in Ecru, Miss., to accept that their 21-year-old son -- a kid who joined the Army at 17 -- was killed this month during his second tour in Iraq? How do you tell Kory Koster's mom and dad in The Woodlands, Texas, that their 19-year-old boy (pictured at the beginning of this entry) died this month in Iraq, died at a time when he would have been home on leave had he not given up his slot to another solider whose wife was expecting a baby?
Three young guys out of 3,319 who have perished in a morally bankrupt war. Three young guys who were betrayed by their government. I think it's important to look at their faces, to read their stories. Then ask yourself, when should the United States get out of Iraq?
Twink Cars?
I'm thinking this is a BIT of a reach. The New York Times did a story on "gay" cars. Of course, as I'm reading it, it's dawning on me that gay has nothing to do with it. It's a metrosexual thing. Period. End of story.Believe me, living in the Shenandoah Valley, I KNOW there are plenty of style-impaired gays. Redneck queers? We got 'em, baby. And I'm thinking they're driving pickups and picking the soup out of their beards rather than hopping into cute Mini Coopers. So this is a STYLE thing, not a sexual-orientation thing, I dink.The first few paragraphs of the New York Times article (everything in bold is part of the Times story):
Ron Geren, an actor in Los Angeles, commutes to auditions and jobs throughout Southern California in a sleek black Mazda MX-5 Miata convertible. But for a recent date with a woman, he rented a Cadillac Escalade because he was so used to friends saying his Miata is “gay.”
“Guys say, ‘Hey, that’s cute,’ ” Mr. Geren, 40, said, adding that the comments come from gay as well as straight men. “You have to fend off that perception.”
A few years ago, Meghan Daum, an op-ed contributor to The Los Angeles Times, wrote about a promising first date with a man that never led to a second one because, she later learned, the guy saw that she drove a Subaru Outback station wagon and concluded she must be a lesbian.
And when Joe LaMuraglia, the founder of gaywheels.com an informational site modeled on the likes of autoweb.com, told his partner he wanted to buy a Mini Cooper convertible, the boyfriend joked that he would not be seen in it because the couple “would look like such a gay cliché,” Mr. LaMuraglia said.
Cars are no more straight or gay than cellphones, office chairs or weed whackers. But in recent years that truism has not stopped a perception among some motorists that certain cars can, in the right context, be statements about a driver’s sexual orientation.
People actually appear to believe this. But, as the writer noted at the end of the story ...
On Gaywheels.com, one indicator of actual gay buying trends is the list of vehicles most frequently researched. As of last October, the Toyota Yaris, a $12,000 economy car, led that list, followed by the Toyota Camry, which was the No. 3-selling car in America last year.
The Mini Cooper. Gay? Well, it IS too cute to be straight, but ... no.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
