What would rightwing politicians and religious people would have said and done if either Al Gore or Sen. Kerry had been running the "show" for the last 8 years? Karl Rove would have been a piker compared to the vicious attacks and accusations made against Democrats, and probably the result would be that no Democrat could get elected for at least 50 years.
So the question is, how many "real" Republicans are aware of why Democrats are saying that "W" has done a bad job? The present administration has turned the ideas of what is "conservative" and "liberal" completely upside down.
And the arrogant "religious" people who have attacked Democrats for being "liberal" on sex are queerly silent when their vice presidential candidate has a daughter who is pregnant outside of marriage. It seems that is ok since she (Palin) did not abort a child that would be handicapped. Would they be that lenient with Democrats trying to use such "justification" and thinking? Not to go into the fact, as I understand it, that everyone one of the Palin children is a high school dropout. How can any objective person not see that family, a "conservative" family and compare it to a "liberal" family like the Obama family and see the hypocrisy?
So it could be that Obama, with all of his qualifications, might not have won if Gore and Kerry had not lost. As the saying goes, "the Lord works in mysterious ways."
Monday, December 29, 2008
Gays Shut Out of Obama's Cabinet - An Advocate Exclusive
I am showing my age and my background under ONE, Inc. people, who as the record shows did not get involved in politics (we could have as, until ISHR we were not tax-exempt) because we knew that no matter who was elected, they would only be there for a few years and when they left we would have to start educating the next people to get elected. Some of the communityneed to work in this field. Others work in the legal field, winning lawsuits and trying to change the laws, which are permanent.
Now, who are these "gays" we wanted to be apponted, as token gays? Who that has been appointed is less qualified than what gay? Do we need affirmative action? The courts are stopping such laws. I don't know who all these poeple are and while I recognize that I can't know everyone or every website or read every book, etc, I know of NO ONE in our community that I would want to have in the cabinet. Do we want Obama to appoint the leaders who lost on Prop 8? I sure want Barney Frank and the other few elected people from our community wherethey are-not many people are more powerful than he is.
Today Americans, a slight majority, have shown that they will vote for a woman, a inter-racial person—even make him president, and in a few cases a openly homosexual person. I see no reason to tell anyone else they can't be appointed because the cabinet or whatever has to have a token gay.
And what poll says he was elected by a gay vote, or even a black vote. Obama won because he got a few more votes than McCain from every ethnic and age and poliical group. He owes no one group any control over his decisions. AND, we don't want any special favors. We want him to make our nation better, for everyone. And that would mean appointing the best qualified people he knows of. And i sure didn't appoint HRC or the Task Force or any "gay" group or person tospeak for me. We can't even get our community to work together on issues, since some oppose others-rodeo fans against PETA fans, atheists against religious people, old against young, female against male, transvestites against transsexuals, etc.
I go against Don Slater's warning and close with a seemingly unrelated thought. I doubt Dr.King would have been any more influential if he had been elected to some office. And I propose that each day Al Gore and Kerry and all Democrats thank their god that they lost. Can you honstly deny that had they been the ones who created this total mess, war, economy, civil liberties problems, etc, that Democrats would have been attacked so viciously by the right-wingers, we would have been out of power for 50 years. The question of their integrity is why they have not attacked the Bush/Republicans.
Now, who are these "gays" we wanted to be apponted, as token gays? Who that has been appointed is less qualified than what gay? Do we need affirmative action? The courts are stopping such laws. I don't know who all these poeple are and while I recognize that I can't know everyone or every website or read every book, etc, I know of NO ONE in our community that I would want to have in the cabinet. Do we want Obama to appoint the leaders who lost on Prop 8? I sure want Barney Frank and the other few elected people from our community wherethey are-not many people are more powerful than he is.
Today Americans, a slight majority, have shown that they will vote for a woman, a inter-racial person—even make him president, and in a few cases a openly homosexual person. I see no reason to tell anyone else they can't be appointed because the cabinet or whatever has to have a token gay.
And what poll says he was elected by a gay vote, or even a black vote. Obama won because he got a few more votes than McCain from every ethnic and age and poliical group. He owes no one group any control over his decisions. AND, we don't want any special favors. We want him to make our nation better, for everyone. And that would mean appointing the best qualified people he knows of. And i sure didn't appoint HRC or the Task Force or any "gay" group or person tospeak for me. We can't even get our community to work together on issues, since some oppose others-rodeo fans against PETA fans, atheists against religious people, old against young, female against male, transvestites against transsexuals, etc.
I go against Don Slater's warning and close with a seemingly unrelated thought. I doubt Dr.King would have been any more influential if he had been elected to some office. And I propose that each day Al Gore and Kerry and all Democrats thank their god that they lost. Can you honstly deny that had they been the ones who created this total mess, war, economy, civil liberties problems, etc, that Democrats would have been attacked so viciously by the right-wingers, we would have been out of power for 50 years. The question of their integrity is why they have not attacked the Bush/Republicans.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Some negative thoughts on George Chauncey's book: Gay New York
In a sense I am asking what others thought about the book Chauncey did on Gay New York, and with only a small thought on Gay L.A. and anticipating criticism of Todd White's coming book, Pre-Gay L.A.
It seems strange to be reading it and thinking about it in this season, but I came across it and glanced at it and wanted to share my thoughts and wonderwhat others thought.
In the first place, like too many critics, I am upset that he didn't write the book I expected. After rereadng the phrase on the cover, sayhing that it is in part about urban culture I guess that excuses him for writing a book on historical New York and using gay men as a catalyst, rather than vice versa.
So what I got is a history of New york mainly on prohibition, black cultureand Harlem, and how drag queens were mixed in all of this, such as at gay ballas, but also in straight nigh clubs, etc.
And it sure seems to me that what he says in the intro is the opposite of what we get in the text. Which is good since I disagree with his ascertion that ays werfe out in those days. His text proves otherwise, except for drag queens of course.
It is a good guide to the businesses of New York, the cafes, cafeterias, night clubs, housing, and drag queens hung around these places, with and without acceptance.
What he says and shows is what we have said all of our existence as a resource on homosexual issues at ONE/HIC. It was nonsense for some closet types to come into our offices and say, oh life was (usually only on a holiday or living unlike the locals) wonderful in Mexico, Holland, or some other place. What we got from visitors who LIVED in those places was, of course, oh, life is so good here in America.
And as to the terms, such as closet, he is not very accurate. The list of who he talked to includes Dorr Legg and Harry Hay—I always question the "professionalism" of a researcher who comes to the main source of early gay history—Southern California, and only talks to a few people who MADE that history andignores what might have been a diffeent view from others, such as obviously Don Slater. But we sure did use the term closet in the early ’60s.
And it is strange that he uses up the first 25 or so pages talking about the terms gay, etc, and yet ignores the history from the founders of early Mattachine and ONE Inc. Of course these were not in New York. And what he has to say about drag queens in New York is probably exactly the same "history" as in Los Angeles.
And after reading all these pages about bar raids, organizations urging the law to attack places homosexuals-meaning drag queens hang out at- how can he say that there was a gay world in New York in these years?
Why are we then, or now, to accept drag queens as THE gay world? What per cent of homosexuals in New York, or L.A., were "out" in those years? Where are their institutions? Drag Balls, which seem to have been well known and attended by non-gays?
It is interesting that he does in a sense point out that the reason why it was the lower class whites who "accepted" queers—which term was first used, then opposed and today is back in use—was because they were not worried about their "standing" or masculinity when the ones they were dealing with were pseudo women.
What is more troubling, then and now, is what I see as the black community NOT liking homosexuals, who were the only whites who would interact with blacks. Blacks wanted "normal" whites to interact, that would have made them feel equal. They had no need to feel equal to drag queens who were certainly not liked by 'average" white.
It confirms what a Jew said in the civil rights era. I think it was in a small publication called a Minority of One (Mississippi) when the editor said Jews did not feel very helped by having having such minorities as Unitarians come to a meeting. They would have actual progress only when good ole Southern Baptists showed up, That would indicate that real society was accepting them and wanted to work with them. Drag queens were not an are not "real" society, even real gay society.
The book I wanted could have been doen well in about a thired he length of this book. There are too many "examples" given to make a point, over and over. How many names of bars do I need to get the point? I do find speculation that prohibition caused gay bars to come interesting—but I had that from many books talking about how prohibition was a total failure and caused more harm than good-again, unintended consequences of the rightwing religious people-no matter how good their intentions. But that is not a gay world.
And I don't accept the "research" on how different ethnic groups(?)— how many Italians or Irish dealt with drag queens— accepted or didn't accept drag queens—again they did not deal with the normal homosexuals then.
I have no dog in this fight. I just have been in an office (and publication) open daily for anyone seeking information on homosexuality, from the ’60s to the ’90s, and find any book or claim that goes against our 30 or 40 years of experience must meet a high standard to be believed. This book does not come close. Did he have an agenda to start with?
It seems strange to be reading it and thinking about it in this season, but I came across it and glanced at it and wanted to share my thoughts and wonderwhat others thought.
In the first place, like too many critics, I am upset that he didn't write the book I expected. After rereadng the phrase on the cover, sayhing that it is in part about urban culture I guess that excuses him for writing a book on historical New York and using gay men as a catalyst, rather than vice versa.
So what I got is a history of New york mainly on prohibition, black cultureand Harlem, and how drag queens were mixed in all of this, such as at gay ballas, but also in straight nigh clubs, etc.
And it sure seems to me that what he says in the intro is the opposite of what we get in the text. Which is good since I disagree with his ascertion that ays werfe out in those days. His text proves otherwise, except for drag queens of course.
It is a good guide to the businesses of New York, the cafes, cafeterias, night clubs, housing, and drag queens hung around these places, with and without acceptance.
What he says and shows is what we have said all of our existence as a resource on homosexual issues at ONE/HIC. It was nonsense for some closet types to come into our offices and say, oh life was (usually only on a holiday or living unlike the locals) wonderful in Mexico, Holland, or some other place. What we got from visitors who LIVED in those places was, of course, oh, life is so good here in America.
And as to the terms, such as closet, he is not very accurate. The list of who he talked to includes Dorr Legg and Harry Hay—I always question the "professionalism" of a researcher who comes to the main source of early gay history—Southern California, and only talks to a few people who MADE that history andignores what might have been a diffeent view from others, such as obviously Don Slater. But we sure did use the term closet in the early ’60s.
And it is strange that he uses up the first 25 or so pages talking about the terms gay, etc, and yet ignores the history from the founders of early Mattachine and ONE Inc. Of course these were not in New York. And what he has to say about drag queens in New York is probably exactly the same "history" as in Los Angeles.
And after reading all these pages about bar raids, organizations urging the law to attack places homosexuals-meaning drag queens hang out at- how can he say that there was a gay world in New York in these years?
Why are we then, or now, to accept drag queens as THE gay world? What per cent of homosexuals in New York, or L.A., were "out" in those years? Where are their institutions? Drag Balls, which seem to have been well known and attended by non-gays?
It is interesting that he does in a sense point out that the reason why it was the lower class whites who "accepted" queers—which term was first used, then opposed and today is back in use—was because they were not worried about their "standing" or masculinity when the ones they were dealing with were pseudo women.
What is more troubling, then and now, is what I see as the black community NOT liking homosexuals, who were the only whites who would interact with blacks. Blacks wanted "normal" whites to interact, that would have made them feel equal. They had no need to feel equal to drag queens who were certainly not liked by 'average" white.
It confirms what a Jew said in the civil rights era. I think it was in a small publication called a Minority of One (Mississippi) when the editor said Jews did not feel very helped by having having such minorities as Unitarians come to a meeting. They would have actual progress only when good ole Southern Baptists showed up, That would indicate that real society was accepting them and wanted to work with them. Drag queens were not an are not "real" society, even real gay society.
The book I wanted could have been doen well in about a thired he length of this book. There are too many "examples" given to make a point, over and over. How many names of bars do I need to get the point? I do find speculation that prohibition caused gay bars to come interesting—but I had that from many books talking about how prohibition was a total failure and caused more harm than good-again, unintended consequences of the rightwing religious people-no matter how good their intentions. But that is not a gay world.
And I don't accept the "research" on how different ethnic groups(?)— how many Italians or Irish dealt with drag queens— accepted or didn't accept drag queens—again they did not deal with the normal homosexuals then.
I have no dog in this fight. I just have been in an office (and publication) open daily for anyone seeking information on homosexuality, from the ’60s to the ’90s, and find any book or claim that goes against our 30 or 40 years of experience must meet a high standard to be believed. This book does not come close. Did he have an agenda to start with?
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
The future of religion in America may depend on the future of homosexuals in America
I think for me at least, the few words of Wayne Besen in his article in the Seattle Gay News of December 12th say all that we need to think about what homosexual Americans must believe and understand about our future civil rights and the affect on them by religious people and groups.
In the middle of the good article he says, "We must still work to enlighten the flock where we can, but fundamentalist leaders will only transform their anit-gayviews when popular opinion decidedly turns against them-as it did with race relations in the 1960s and 1970s."
That is how we must understand our work. And as a obscure thought on the views of the religious right on the sanctity of marriagve, I would refer them to two mentions on the subject of how marriage was used in the early days by one church group against another. The mentions are in an old book, published in 1940, which not only discussed the important issues such as how the Baptists were such strong supporters of the separation of church and state, but how the southern churches so easily left the main church to use the Bible to promote slavery, etc, and the authors were from (and the book is was published by) the University of Chicago.
In the book A Short History of Christianity, in discussing the early church in France, on page 179, it says, about the attempt to overcome Catholic opposition to Protestant churches, with the "church in the Desert," "Its services were celebrated in secret, and its members were without civil rights. Because marriages at which its ministers officiated were deemed void, Protestants were all legally illegitimate." And on page 234, talking abot religion in England, it says,"...but all other protestant bodies were shut out and their ministers were not permitted to perform marriage ceremonies."
I wonder how the religious right fundamentalists answers such clear evidence of how the church has abused the words of the Bible and theology in the past and is doing so today. Is it too much to say that it is not the homosexuals who are on trial, and it may be that the ones who have to change to survive are the religious right.
In the middle of the good article he says, "We must still work to enlighten the flock where we can, but fundamentalist leaders will only transform their anit-gayviews when popular opinion decidedly turns against them-as it did with race relations in the 1960s and 1970s."
That is how we must understand our work. And as a obscure thought on the views of the religious right on the sanctity of marriagve, I would refer them to two mentions on the subject of how marriage was used in the early days by one church group against another. The mentions are in an old book, published in 1940, which not only discussed the important issues such as how the Baptists were such strong supporters of the separation of church and state, but how the southern churches so easily left the main church to use the Bible to promote slavery, etc, and the authors were from (and the book is was published by) the University of Chicago.
In the book A Short History of Christianity, in discussing the early church in France, on page 179, it says, about the attempt to overcome Catholic opposition to Protestant churches, with the "church in the Desert," "Its services were celebrated in secret, and its members were without civil rights. Because marriages at which its ministers officiated were deemed void, Protestants were all legally illegitimate." And on page 234, talking abot religion in England, it says,"...but all other protestant bodies were shut out and their ministers were not permitted to perform marriage ceremonies."
I wonder how the religious right fundamentalists answers such clear evidence of how the church has abused the words of the Bible and theology in the past and is doing so today. Is it too much to say that it is not the homosexuals who are on trial, and it may be that the ones who have to change to survive are the religious right.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
What Obama could say to young Christians and/or homosexuals: We live in the real world
There seems to be a loss of reality on the part of many Americans, no matter what their religious, political or sexual beliefs are. There seems to be no intellectual understandng of the connection between the passage of Proposition 8 in the bluest state in the nation and the hollering about a preacher who is going to give a prayer at the Inauguration of Obama.
There needs to be a reminder of the words used against Obama during the election. Specifically these words are STILL hurting his attempt to change America. The evidence can be found, among other places in the real world, on the front page of The (Shreveport LA) Times of yesterday, reporting on the conflict in Claiborne Parish over not only the mistreatment of a black student who was overly eager after Obama's election, but more important, the fact that during the election a teacher circulated literature claiming Obama was the anti-Christ.
Now think about how to combat this continuing attack on Obama from the radical nutty-usually "religious"-right that will undercut his ability to make any good changes, and then add an attack on his coming administration from those on the left and some homosexuals over his invitation of a preacher (Warren) to lead a prayer at the inauguration.
Hopefully the youth of America will know enough history to understand how much better America is today for all minorities than it was even a decade ago, much less how life for blacks and homosexuals was in the civil rights days of the 1950s and 60s when their parents were marching for the right to even vote, and get an education in schols not divided by race.
That is what Obama needs to remind us, and ask for a little help from all of us, no matter who we voted for or how much hope we have for his administration.
There needs to be a reminder of the words used against Obama during the election. Specifically these words are STILL hurting his attempt to change America. The evidence can be found, among other places in the real world, on the front page of The (Shreveport LA) Times of yesterday, reporting on the conflict in Claiborne Parish over not only the mistreatment of a black student who was overly eager after Obama's election, but more important, the fact that during the election a teacher circulated literature claiming Obama was the anti-Christ.
Now think about how to combat this continuing attack on Obama from the radical nutty-usually "religious"-right that will undercut his ability to make any good changes, and then add an attack on his coming administration from those on the left and some homosexuals over his invitation of a preacher (Warren) to lead a prayer at the inauguration.
Hopefully the youth of America will know enough history to understand how much better America is today for all minorities than it was even a decade ago, much less how life for blacks and homosexuals was in the civil rights days of the 1950s and 60s when their parents were marching for the right to even vote, and get an education in schols not divided by race.
That is what Obama needs to remind us, and ask for a little help from all of us, no matter who we voted for or how much hope we have for his administration.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
"Winter reading" articles/books in Dec/Jan 08 issue of The Gay & Lesbian Review
It is good to have good reading and lists of resources during the cold weather. It seems we didn't get a time of "rest" from the 24 hour news "talkers" since the moment the election was settled we had the coverage of the passage of Proposition 8 in California.
Both events got many people to seriously thinking about what the future holds and who gets credit and blame for what happens. I would hope the "leaders' of the community/movement would take time to think about our issues, some of which are covered by the articles-mostly based on books, plus book reviews, in this issue of The Gay & Lesbian Review.
Sometimes we can be so busy being busy and just marching in the streets that we don't have time to read a book or sit down and have a discussion of the issues and how best to deal with them. A good resource would be some of the articles, such as the two on sodomy laws—"Sodomy in the land of the Magna Carta" and "The fate of sodomy laws in the U. S." Homosexual pioneer and my former co-worker Don Slater would sure like the phrase in the latter article..."Another factor was a libertarian conviction that the private sphere be protected from state intrusion."
But as to beng active, the article on the work against Dr. Laura is good.
I do wonder about the statistics on how many books are published each year-2,000 and G&LR gets 400 for review, since I keep hearing that books aren't selling, and newspapers are folding.But perhaps they should be putting pictures of cowboys on the covers-as in your article "Cowboys on the cover of a magazine." (Think even earlier than Brokeback Mountain.)
Some of the books in ads sound interesting-but most of us will never be able to see them as few libraries will know of them, even those from university presses. Two examples are Gay Rights and Moral Panic, by Fred Fejes (Palgrave Macmillan), and Respectably Queer, by Jane Ward (Vanderbilt University Press).
I think it is good to have a sort of bulletin board telling of research being done on aspects of homosexuality, as G&LR has in the back pages.
Both events got many people to seriously thinking about what the future holds and who gets credit and blame for what happens. I would hope the "leaders' of the community/movement would take time to think about our issues, some of which are covered by the articles-mostly based on books, plus book reviews, in this issue of The Gay & Lesbian Review.
Sometimes we can be so busy being busy and just marching in the streets that we don't have time to read a book or sit down and have a discussion of the issues and how best to deal with them. A good resource would be some of the articles, such as the two on sodomy laws—"Sodomy in the land of the Magna Carta" and "The fate of sodomy laws in the U. S." Homosexual pioneer and my former co-worker Don Slater would sure like the phrase in the latter article..."Another factor was a libertarian conviction that the private sphere be protected from state intrusion."
But as to beng active, the article on the work against Dr. Laura is good.
I do wonder about the statistics on how many books are published each year-2,000 and G&LR gets 400 for review, since I keep hearing that books aren't selling, and newspapers are folding.But perhaps they should be putting pictures of cowboys on the covers-as in your article "Cowboys on the cover of a magazine." (Think even earlier than Brokeback Mountain.)
Some of the books in ads sound interesting-but most of us will never be able to see them as few libraries will know of them, even those from university presses. Two examples are Gay Rights and Moral Panic, by Fred Fejes (Palgrave Macmillan), and Respectably Queer, by Jane Ward (Vanderbilt University Press).
I think it is good to have a sort of bulletin board telling of research being done on aspects of homosexuality, as G&LR has in the back pages.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
News from Houston in the December issue of OutSmart Magazine
The December issue of OutSmart is good, starting with the good cover, all the good people at a protest against the passage of CA's Prop 8, and then the good article inside. I feel the bigots actually lost, as it got people involved in the cause that would not have been active if it had been defeated, in which case most people would have just thought things were so good they could relax and get apathetic.
I do hope Lt. Mark Timnmers (on November's cover) finds a good new job. And good to "hear" Ray Hill and his suggestion about the grand marshall.
I especially liked Nancy Ford's "letter to Harvey Milk." I also have wanted to let the pioneers of our civil right smovement know what has happned in the short time since they left us-most in the 90s. Ss she says, honestly, oh, the things you have missed.
I personally would not have given much publicity to the book by Thomas Beatie, who is a lousy pr person for homosexual and transgender issues. He/she is exactly guilty of what our enemies say about us. He wants it both ways. I know there is disagreement in our community/movement over what objectives we are seeking-Don Slater and the people at ONE Magazine sought civil rights, but also the right to privacy, a basic right. This person violates that goal by seeking publicity. It is wrong to be ashamed of being gay. we should not care what others think of us. It is another to either seek "approval" of our sexuality, or exploiting it, as is done in this case.
I do hope Lt. Mark Timnmers (on November's cover) finds a good new job. And good to "hear" Ray Hill and his suggestion about the grand marshall.
I especially liked Nancy Ford's "letter to Harvey Milk." I also have wanted to let the pioneers of our civil right smovement know what has happned in the short time since they left us-most in the 90s. Ss she says, honestly, oh, the things you have missed.
I personally would not have given much publicity to the book by Thomas Beatie, who is a lousy pr person for homosexual and transgender issues. He/she is exactly guilty of what our enemies say about us. He wants it both ways. I know there is disagreement in our community/movement over what objectives we are seeking-Don Slater and the people at ONE Magazine sought civil rights, but also the right to privacy, a basic right. This person violates that goal by seeking publicity. It is wrong to be ashamed of being gay. we should not care what others think of us. It is another to either seek "approval" of our sexuality, or exploiting it, as is done in this case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
