Why many people do not watch talk TV shows...

Having watched over three hours of TV talk shows, almost all on politics, almost all with the same guests and issues, I think it is logical that more and more people no longer watch them. I include the ones I watched, Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN.

There are three problems that frustrate me, not just the constant repetition/ the content but the “presentation” and one claim by a journalist today about journalists in the past that is simply not true.

First, can anyone explain to me why MSNBC especially, has incestuous  talkers?  There are three or four talkers with hour shows.  Yet I often see one talker have as “guests” other MSNBC talkers who then go to their own hour show and just repeat their views. Another frustration is the fact that most talkers ask a question and answer it before the guest can.  The host talks over the guests.  To complete the frustration, they waste time thanking the guest and repeating the identity and then wait for what seems forever for the guest to say, thank you or whatever.

And as was shown by the Rice issue: every show has the same guests. Do they think a guest will actually say something different on each show? And are the three or four usual guests the only people in the country who can speak on an issue? I could go a year without hearing again from certain “guests” such as ones from Huffington Report and The Nation.

Finally, I can tell the talkers of today and their “journalist/historian” guests that they are wrong when they say that there were better journalists/papers/shows in “the good ole days.” Ask any one who has worked in a cause, or better yet, read Gay Press, Gay Power (edited by Tracy Baim) and see proof that in those days the “journalists,” including those at major newspapers, magazines, etc., were ignorant, bigoted, and refused to allow any input on the issue of homosexuality from anyone in the movement.  Same was true of college professors, and other “professionals.”

The cover of the June issue of OutSmart Magazine

While most media and people are waiting and worrying about what the Supreme Court is going to say about same-sex/equal marriage, intelligent (if that is not an oxymoron?) bigots should be afraid of the real world that is already here-they can see that in the faces of young glbt Americans such as are pictured in many of our community publications—such as on the COVER of (Houston’s) OutSmart Magazine’s June Pride issue.

And they can read about the people working for the cause, such as three Pride marshals, reported on inside the issue, as well as the many listings of ride events in Houston alone.

And for me, the many great ads for gay-friendly businesses proves that early movement co-founder and editor/journalist Don Slater was right: if we do our job right, we will force the government to give us our rights, but probably private enterprise/true conservatives will be the first segments of society to deal honestly with issues the right to privacy (see the Ninth Amendment) including our sexuality and understanding that our having civil rights benefits everyone. 

ENDA...

Paul Cain asks (referring to a comment in my last post):

“This the first time I’ve heard anyone say they DON'T want ENDA. Can you clarify?”

My reply:

Don Slater was doubtful of the very issues most movement people were working for: affirmative action, ENDA, etc.  He said that in the end the results would do more harm than good. Just passing a law does not change minds.  As we saw with Board of Education and Roe, in fact it might have delayed the results we wanted. Many black people said that due to affirmative action they were treated as if they didn’t really deserve the degree, or job, even though they could have been successful without affirmative action.  I am not sure the negative (you didn’t deserve getting into this college, you just got here because of your skin color, etc/) out did the positive (truly bigoted college bureaucrats could not let their bigotry keep deserving minorities out).

As I was told, LSU had refused black students—partly because Southern people had feared it would destroy it (the oldest and largest state black college in America, I think) but mainly because of bigoted state legislators.  Every white student graduate (I think) could go to LSU or a state university.  No black student could, no matter how qualified.  Didn’t some states actually pay for black students to go to colleges out-of-state?

Justice O’Conner said years ago that she voted to keep affirmative action, but it should not be needed 25 years after.  Colorado had affirmative action for businesses, which the Supreme Court ended. (We were in Dolores at the time of the decision, and Don said it was right—I think the company was nearby.)  In some cases where female or minority businesses were to get a certain amount of jobs, the companies would make a woman president, etc.  I think even in some cases companies that made a higher bid got the contract because they were able to do the job, and competitors were fake and could not.

As to ENDA, there is something to be said for making companies or any taxpayer-supported institution be truly equal.  But, as the court said in the Boy Scout case, a private entity should be allowed to decide for itself what it wanted to do. As we know, that was wrong in the case since many government agencies were supporting the scouts. (What ever happened to the San Diego case where they had use of a building?)

But forcing a bigot to hire someone or not fire them would not work, as they would simply fake a reason, as they now do in the case of the law supposedly protecting older workers. Now they refuse to hire anyone who might get older on the job as they could not then fire them if they had a valid reason for fear of being falsely accused of discrimination. And insurance companies, which businesses need, refuse to cover older workers, or charge them higher premiums, so that companies can’t afford to have older workers.

How laws help women (or not) I am not sure about. And it has always been a part of the anti-marriage special rights argument about benefits that married people, especially those with children, get benefits single workers do not.

It seems to me that businesses have been glbt supporters without laws. And if we can expose and hold anti-gay businesses accountable for bigotry, that will make them change more than a law.  We can’t seem to get  to Exxon, but that is what we need to do.

It could be that today Don Slater would not have the same concerns. But I am not sure, and we certainly should have this discussion in the community.

Stephen F. Austin, the Father of Texas, and Saint Anthony of Padua, San Antonio's patron saint (A Note from Gene Elder)

From guest blogger Gene Elder:

It is time to just go ahead and say it. Why hasn't it been done sooner? St. Anthony was gay, and so was the Father of Texas, Stephen F. Austin.      Now, this is a tricky subject because (as far as we know, here in Texas) there is no recorded account if St. Anthony de Padua had a male lover. But lets just get our gaydar going. Looking at his life and his sermons he certainly was in step with a gay male community. We have to ask what gay men were really like at that time. There are plenty of gay men who do not have sex. We will give St. Anthony due respect. He believed in his mission as a servant of God and he lived his life as best as he knew how. BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN HE WASN'T GAY, as we gay men and women know. Having a sexual relationship with the same sex is not what REALLY makes us gay. We want to bond with someone of the same sex more than the opposite sex. And, as fate would have it, his feast day is June 13. So just make plans to celebrate our gay patron saint during GayBLT Pride Month this year and from now on. Stephen F. Austin, The Father of Texas, never married, never had children and there does not seem to be a female interest in his life. It is known that he had a close attachment to a gentleman who paid for him to go through law school and while he was busy helping settlers come to Texas he maintained a correspondence with a close male friend in New Orleans. There may still be letters that have not been published in the Austin family archives and in the Texas Archives in Austin. I have not had time to go to Austin and do the necessary research. And as you can imagine this would not have been the aspect of his life that Texas would be promoting. I have just maintained a healthy curiosity about him over the years and I think his life fits the gay profile. The question still has to be asked: What was a gay man like during the 1830s in Texas? Well for one thing these people rarely took baths so I wonder about their sex life. What I do know is this: If Stephen F. Austin and Saint Anthony were alive today, they would be a part of the gay community and would be in support of gay marriage and part of the regular crowd at the Bonham Exchange, the popular gay disco next to the Alamo.

A great use of texting, mixed blessings of going to reunions, Liberty Press is not just for Kansas

Reading your article in the current issue of Liberty Press: In all the discussion of the positives and negatives of texting, I had never heard how much good it does for people like your Jack.  As you say, it is a good way to communicate with kids with autism.

And I suspect many of us, gay and non-gay have had less than pleasurable experiences in going to reunions, but perhaps a few of those who ask us personal questions are really trying to understand.  Maybe they should see a copy of Liberty Press—but I must admit I am not sure of the “meaning” of the wild cover of the June issue.  I think it means that pride is both a heart-felt thing and a whole body thing.

I think Stephanie Mott’s experience with the young boy fits that thought too: when he asked her if she is a boy or girl, she wisely asked him what he thought—because she had already asked herself that question at the start of her long journey, and she’d not had reason to ask that question much since that first time.

Bob Minor asks—as have many others—what do we mean about our Pride events?  Apparently when we act normally—have a picture of our spouse or even friend, many heterosexuals still can’t see that this is what THEY do and don’t think it is “pushing” their sexuality.  It is a “double standard,” as many black Americans, or women also face. Again, I think he is right, when we celebrate ourselves, we “free” non-gay people from having to worry about their own sexuality, just as when members of other minorities are equal, we all feel freer. While not many white people actually were afraid of being thought black—although a few (such as Dinah Shore) were, most were just accused of being n...lovers, I do think some gay-friendly people worry that they might be accused of being gay (as if the only reason to support our civil rights is if someone IS gay).

Time will answer Danny Cooper’s (and lots of others’) questions about how the Supreme Court will rule on the marriage cases. I think we all know that just changing a law does not end the problem-“Board of Education” sure took decades to get results and “Roe” has not done much good to change people’s minds.  It seems that the end of sodomy laws (“Lawrence”) has not had any bad results, and the same seems true of the end of DADT. So the odds are in our favor, and history will show the bigots, even those on the Supreme Court, are losers and the ignorant ones.

(I just watched a movie on Charlie Chaplin and it seems relevant to point out that the court refused to honor a paternity test proving Chaplin was NOT the father of a child, strange considering how easy such a test is to get today,and courts honor it today—so things can and do change, mostly for the better.)

San Francisco Pride board and Bradley Manning

Regarding Members of the San Francisco Pride board of directors and Bradley Manning:

Why aren’t they “honoring” the GetEqual woman who harassed Michele Obama? Does this woman think she is the first one to be concerned with the issue? And: many of us do not necessarily want ENDA. It has caused more harm than good for older people seeking work.

Connecting discussion on articles in the current Gay & Lesbian Review to events/issue in our community today

Dear Richard Schneider:

It may not be what editors seek, but I usually find articles in publications not just interesting on their own, but relevant to issues in the real world now.  But first I admit I thought, as I read the articles on homosexuality in other nations  in your publication, of reading such articles in the 1950s in ONE magazine.

I do wonder if anyone else will think of the issue of Manning and the San Francisco Pride fiasco when they read the article on Spain, as it connects Lorca (Federico Garcia) with the war; fascist and communist, and where he fit, etc.

The same theme is in the coverage of Cuba and Jamaica, and how politics affected/affects life of homosexual citizens.  By the way, I gather our government did finally let the Cuban come to the Equality Forum event.

I had mixed thoughts on John Lauritsen's interview with the Cuban visiting the U. S.  It is strange to hear that trans people are thought of as leading the effort to change things sexually in Cuba. I personally did not find drag queens here ahead of the middle class people like those in ONE and Mattachine and DOB. They were “out” in a sense but did not work for their civil rights in a way that would change society. In the 1950s transsexuals were non-existent and transvestites were protesting they were not homosexual and were not out enough to be working for change. AND while I do not say he was claiming it, I do not believe that the visitor could have any valid view of this nation based on his first, short, visit. I am not sure who he visited with, and what places he went to, but it would take a lot of contact, and perhaps reading a lot of our publications and study of our history to really know how good life is for us today.  Perhaps if he judged us by seeing a Pride parade, that might be a clue, but like in Cuba, there is still harassment of bars and people are still being attacked on the street.  There is less government persecution, but how would he know that?

The whole issue of life for women in India is current, because they are not men and  because they are lesbian and thus it is they who suffer when they are raped, not the men, no matter which religion dominates

Religion is our worst enemy, and for women and it seems still for blacks. There is, for example,  a church, in Texas, that preaches (from the Bible) that there should be separation of races, by law. So it is not surprising that such churches send missionaries to Africa and we have the organization representing “Christian” churches telling the government of Malawi to keep anti-gay laws. It is referred to by MCC, which is strange, considering our MCC. Apparently ignorant people can not see the hypocrisy in the use of the Bible here to justify slavery and separation of race—thus making black citizens second-class citizens, and then black preachers using that same Bible to preach hatred for homosexual citizens.

I am not sure that as we have to worry about Islam, and the attempt to impose sharia law on everyone, we can ignore what is covered in the article on Israel. I had not known of the hypocrisy there shown by the marriage issue. Living in LA )(the state), I am well aware of hypocrisy, both religiously and politically—shown by the fact that we have a law against gambling, but by using the term “gaming,” we now have six riverboat casinos in my area. (A “double” case of hypocrisy because those in the northern part of the state—WASPs—always spoke badly of those in the south—mainly French Catholics—for their gambling, drinking, all-night dancing, Mardi Gras. and today we have more of it than they do.) But I had not known that, again, sort of like Islam, the ONLY marriage there is religious, and so only Orthodox can marry, and yet they let other citizens go to another country and marry and then that marriage will be recognized.  Religion makes us hypocrites.

And I sure was surprised to learn that Plato thought the same way as rightwingers on marriage—that it was only for having baby.

Finally there is the question not of how Beye thought of himself but how we should. He used the word gay he said as it was the word society used. But if I understand him, he denied he was bisexual (in theory) yet had been married (heterosexually) twice and had four children. He tells us most had no problem with his living with men, and this is truly what many in our community say is the way to change society—just to BE.  Let your children and others learn to deal with you. I did not understand how he dealt with himself—if he had thought about homosexuality, had been active in helping himself and others understand it and work for civil rights.

Like those who work for our cause today, the book on letters we got at ONE magazine were what made us happy to go to work each day, knowing that we were helping people who had not known there were resources to help them and that there were people working for change: to make the nation gay-friendly (or as Don and Dorr preferred, homosexual-friendly).  I of course believe that the world is better today not just because some celebrity recently came out, but because since 1950 there have been homosexual men and women who devoted their lives, at great cost in some cases, to educating people about homosexuality, using classrooms, courts, and even the streets.