More On The Warren Controversy - Why Invite A Pastor At All?

The kerfuffle over Rick Warren has a new twist. Pundits and observers are postulating whether or not Warren will close his prayer in the traditional Christian way, "in Jesus name". If I had to guess I would say yes, but in reality, who cares? First and foremost having an invocation at a state event seems to go directly against the Constitution, but I understand it is tradition.

As most of you know, I am a Christian, so you might expect I would be OK with Pastor Warren's prayer. Well I am not. I was raised as a Jew, and being Jewish in Dallas, Texas was an interesting experience, especially at my elementary school. Back then, sometime before the dinosaurs died off, we still had each day begin with a prayer. Yup, prayer in public schools, conducted by the principal no less!

I was a nerd, and being skilled in technical things ended up running the school's PA system. Each morning a different student would be selected to give the opening prayer. Most of them closed it with that same phrase, "in Jesus name".

For me it was a slap in my face. I didn't pray "in Jesus name" then and it made me feel like an outcast. The one or two days a year when a Jewish kid would give the prayer were the only times when I felt I could join in and really pray. Kids are pretty literal you know.

I was taught the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag without the words "under God" because that is the way my parents learned it. Those words were added in the mid 1950's to show the world we weren't godless Communists. Thanks Congress! So when I stood up and led the pledge at my Scout meeting I got some really odd stares when I went right past the newly added religious reference.

The point is this. A Pastor, Imam, Rabbi, Priest or Shaman has no place at a governmental event. Whether you know it or not, we are not a Christian nation, we are a secular nation and thank God for that! Otherwise, we would be arguing over the appropriateness of baptism by sprinkling or immersion. And don't get me started on whether you should take communion each week or just once a year!

I sincerely hope someone will actually question the propriety of any religious officials on the dais for the inauguration instead of which one is invited!

A Holiday Blog - Dual Faith Households

I was raised in a dual faith household. My father was Jewish and my mother was a Christian who converted to Judaism. It made for interesting holidays when both my parents families would get together.

On the up side, my dad loved the trappings of Christmas and so we always had a Christmas tree as well as Chanukah lights. Not only did I get Chanukah gifts but Christmas gifts as well! Pretty sweet for a kid I’ll tell you. The down side was having to explain Chanukah to all my gentile friends and having to explain the Christmas tree to my Jewish ones. IN the end most just looked at the double presents bonus and said how lucky I was.

The other up side was getting a real taste of both religions. As I have grown older Religion is a bigger part of my life than it was as a child. Though I had my Bar Mitzvah and attended our temple on a regular basis, as an adult I ended up converting to Christianity. It’s a long story, but the basics are pretty simple. I found a church that really believes its message and tries to follow Jesus teachings. That means a church whose members actually try to live out their faith. Generous, inclusive and unafraid to do what is right and just. My kind of people!

At this time of year I always like to look back on how I got where I am today. I am proud of my dual faith traditions. It makes me even more informed on the roots of Christianity and I am often asked to share that with my friends.

This Christmas I will be attending the late Christmas Eve service at our church, a United Church of Christ. It will be filled with song and music and pageantry and lots of friends. I will ring in another Christmas with memories of my menorah and Christmas tree and my family who took enough time to explain their faith journey to me. For that I am truly grateful at this special time of year.
Happy holidays and blessings to your all.

A Day Without Gays? Not This Time.

I scanned the news this morning looking for the huge reaction to all the LGBT people calling in sick for the "Day Without a Gay" protest. I found one article on Yahoo news (AP) that said what I figured would happen. Most people had no idea it was even taking place.

Big civil disobedience actions or work stoppages, boycotts, etc. can be effective, but when they are thrown together without enough planning and especially without enough PUBLICITY, they go unnoticed. So it was wi th the “Day Without a Gay”.

A group from San Francisco and elsewhere, tied together by the web and a Facebook page organized the action. According to their material online, they had 144,000 confirmed participants nationwide. Though this sounds like a formidable number, in the grand scheme of things it is a statistical “de minimis”, in other words, nada. That’s the problem. To really get notoriety, any such action would have to get at least a statistically significant number. If Kinsey is to be believed we represent around 10% of the population as a whole. (Though this number is widely disputed) Even given a number like 5% of the US population being LGBT, it would take a big percentage of them calling in sick to get attention.

Given enough time and a whole lot of promotion, the news media would have picked up on the narrative and the story would have a chance to take off. This idea, a good one, was doomed because it was not given enough time to work. Perhaps 6 months from now it could. Maybe sometime around Gay Pride Day it could work given enough media buzz and viral push, but without that it will be a talking point for our opponents. They can now say, "look at what a small impact the LGBT community has on everyday society". And they will seem to be proven right.

Of course the biggest obstacle to this action is the closet. Unless a person is sufficiently “out” not showing up for work would be a dead giveaway that they might be gay or lesbian. Given sufficient publicity, any absentee might be suspect. That fact might cause a greater number of straight people to show up even if they were legitimately sick. It’s humorous but highlights the problem.

Kitchen table activism is my kind of stuff, the AIDS Memorial Quilt started that way and it has done wonders in raising the consciousness of America to the HIV/AIDS crisis. Going off half-cocked with a good idea but poor execution and planning does the opposite. It makes us look weak and disorganized as a movement.

My suggestion to the organizers is, fall back, plan better and get some media allies to start telling the story. The narrative is a good one, "LGBT citizens are vital parts of American life and without them the whole country would be affected". That is the real story, and that is the truth.

A Thought on World AIDS Day

Twenty years ago at a summit of health ministers from around the world, they decided to raise awareness of HIV/AIDS by declaring December 1 as World AIDS Day. Since that time much progress has been made on AIDS treatment but so far no cure has been found.

That is an important thing to remember. Especially in light of a recent report. The report, released just ahead of World AIDS Day on Monday, found while Massachusetts has had success battling the spread of the disease among injection drug users and heterosexual men and women, it has had less success among gay and bisexual men. More than 50% of new HIV infections between 2004 and 2006 were among gay and bisexual men.

This is amazing to me. The gay and bisexual communities have been living with the problems of AIDS for longer than anyone else. We know how to prevent the disease and yet we are still getting infected at a higher rate. What is going wrong?

Well as I have been reading an interesting book on "The Science of Fear" in which the author notes that people make decisions based on either their "gut" or their "head". Our "head" or intellect knows how to protect ourselves, but our "gut" emotions tell us "unprotected sex feels good". Irrationally, we conclude if it feels good it can't be bad and we shut off our brains.

How can we change this? Well it will not be easy, but it worked when the epidemic first started and it can work now. We need to hammer the message home that unprotected sex is not only wrong, but not as much fun. Because our fear of AIDS used to be stronger, unprotected sex felt risky and not as good. Today, with the insane barrage of "bareback" videos and websites, we are being convinced that unprotected sex is "better". We need to de-eroticise it and start eroticizing safer-sex before we fall victim to another wave of AIDS deaths.

Am I a killjoy? Hell no, just someone who wants his friends to be around for a long time so we can grow old together.

Here's my suggestion, start eroticising safer-sex. Next time you choose a video, make sure it's safe sex only. Next time you masturbate, wear a condom. If you do it often enough, you will come to associate the condom with sexual pleasure and half the battle will be won.

Detroit Shows Up For A Hand OUt

So Detroit showed up in Washington today with their hands out and their private jets waiting on the runways. OK, so that is a slightly unfair thing to say, but it was a bad image to give for their poor-house story.

Detroit is suffering from lots of problems, most of which are a lack of imagination and poor management. Granted there are expenses for wages, pensions and health care, but the biggest problem is that they don’t make cars people want. The big 3 have continued to make big gas guzzlers when America wants small efficient cars like the Toyota Prius. Detroit makes small cars, but in general they suck. They feel cheap and drive crummy and look worse.

There is a lot of hope and fortune tied up in the Chevy Volt, but if it premiers at $40,000 it won’t go anywhere. A luxury price for an electric car is silly. For the rich who want an electric car, there already is the Tesla. For the common man, a reasonably priced electric is the answer. Why Detroit can’t figure out how to do that is a mystery. Fewer moving parts, less assembly, what’s the problem?

Well, electric cars have been around for a while. The EV1 was a hit with consumers but failed for the company since dealers hated it. Not enough service money. Besides it was done at gunpoint for California only. Why couldn’t they just roll out a larger production version? It could be on the market right now!

My hope is the automakers return to Washington with a real plan to save the industry. I feel sure the Senate and House will support them if they come with more than their hands out.

Why Protest Prop 8?

It would seem ironic and slightly pointless to hold a protest this Saturday to the passage of Proposition 8 in California here in Dallas, but it’s happening anyway. Why should it matter? After all Texas has already passed a discriminatory “Protection of Marriage” bill so what happens in California should be of little interest to us.

Well first off, let me get this out of the way, in my opinion the fight for gay marriage is the wrong fight. We would have a much easier time fighting for “equal rights” than the right to marry. If we actually had equal rights, marriage would be a given. So why is there so much resistance to “gay marriage”? A lot of straight people would agree with the LGBT community when it comes to having equal rights under the law. Most Americans have a sense of fairness that says everyone should be treated equally. When you throw the word “marriage” in the mix a couple of things happen.

First “marriage” is really a religious sacrament and therefore having the state involved in it crosses a clear line in the constitution separating church and state. If any thing the state should perform “civil unions” for everyone. Let people get a “marriage” in their church and leave the state out of it. The real sanctity of marriage is far more a moral and religious pledge than a legal one. For the purposes of the law, a civil union would assure couples the rights needed to conduct business under the law as a couple, including visitation rights, etc. The marriage would be a solemn church ceremony dedicating the union to God or however else people saw fit.

Secondly, when you mention “marriage” to most people it carries a secondary implication and that is sex. After a marriage comes the honeymoon and that means bedroom activities. For a lot of non-LGBT people that is the “ick” factor. Marriage equals sex and imagining gay or lesbian or any kind of sex but whatever they practice gives them the creeps. Quite frankly that is where a lot of the resistance comes from.

The whole canard about gay marriage destroying the sanctity of marriage is bogus. What it may destroy is the image of married sex in some people’s minds, but my having the right to marry my partner does nothing to your marriage except in a quasi-religious context. Again, another reason the government should be out of the marrying business.

Now aside from the marriage problem, the Prop 8 problem highlights a real deficit in the LGBT rights movement. We have not done enough to educate the public about discrimination against LGBT people and how that discrimination damages the fabric of society. That education will take more than marches and protests, it will take time and the building of alliances.

Politically the LGBT movement has done a lot to campaign for candidates on the national and local level who are friendly to our cause. What we have often ignored is the growing number of minority candidates are sympathetic and could be assets in our struggle. We can bring them on-board by showing our power and willingness to help their cause. As we do more to advance the cause of other minorities, we will be seen as partners in the overall struggle against discrimination.

Prop 8 was passed in California for several reasons. One was that most LGBT activists were busy trying to elect a president who would be more sympathetic to our cause. We assumed that people who voted for Obama would naturally vote against Prop 8. We were wrong. Also, the massive influx of money from outside the state, and particularly form the Mormon Church and its members in Utah was a big factor. Their funds changed the narrative of the battle from equal rights and marriage to “education”. Those last minute commercials featuring kids coming home and telling their parents that they learned in school it was “OK for princes to marry other princes”, made the issue seem like it was about kids and school. It was not, but again the lie worked. It scared enough people to vote against Prop 8 to save the children. Does anyone remember Anita Bryant?

Now we must pick up the pieces and forge ahead and that is why protesting here in Texas makes sense. Just as during the Civil Rights movement the public began to take the fight for the rights of African Americans seriously when they were awakened by the growing numbers of protestors in the streets, it is once again time to wake up America. Part of that awakening will be for our community as well. For too long many in the LGBT movement have become inactive or worse have worked actively to support candidates and causes that would deny our rights. I am talking to you, Log Cabin Republicans.

We need to take to the streets and let the country know that we are still here and we are still demanding full rights as citizens of the United States. We need to peacefully protest to assert ourselves and to let not only the people of Texas but of the whole country know that there is still a group of citizens who are actively being denied equal rights. The fight against Prop 8 needs to become a fight for full inclusion in our society.

Now as to the sanctity of marriage, how about we really protect that and outlaw divorce? Push for that and watch how fast the government gets out of the marriage business!

Where Are the Queer Think Tanks?

A few months ago I was reading the a diatribe from the Family Research Council I realized that even though this group, founded by James Dobson, is blatantly fundamentalist and far right, they continue to get lots of press both in print and broadcast. Early on in the primary season, on MSNBC, arguably not the most liberal news source, I listened to a discussion between Family Research Council's Tony Perkins, political analyst Lawrence O'Donnell and former MSNBC host Dan Abrams. They were discussing Mike Huckabee’s stump speech and specifically the part where he says, “But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do, is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other, and how we treat their families."

The political analyst and host were cautious with this claim. Tony Perkins, however, barged in with a ringing endorsement backed up by the old lie, “America…a Judeo-Christian nation, ought to bring its founding document in line with what he says is God's word, particularly on matters of a woman's right to choose and a couple's right to marry.”

I won’t belabor the rest of the conversation, but anyone who knows Dobson, Perkins and their organization knows where it was going. They dominated the conversation guiding the discussion toward their favorite topics, gay marriage and abortion. It’s not surprising, as that is their whole reason for existence. The Family Research Council, with its scientific sounding name is nothing more than a far right think tank, and as such its job is to disseminate information supporting its causes.

My question is this, why was there no one from a GLBT think tank on that panel? More specifically, as we faced defeat in the Prop 8 vote in California, why are there so few GLBT think tanks?

The answer I suspect lies in the same thinking that dominates most liberal and progressive thinking. That is, money spent on policy groups, think tanks and infrastructure could better be spent on good works, good causes and political support. That thinking is the Achilles heel of the liberal and progressive movement and the GLBT movement as well. Yes, there are a few groups like the Center for American Progress and Brookings Institution who regularly provide talking points and research papers for use by liberal and progressive policymakers, but they pale in light of their many right-wing counterparts.

Yes, there is the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, but they are not represented in every discussion of marriage and GLBT rights in the media. One organization cannot do it alone. We need a number of very aggressive and quite frankly stealthy groups like the Heritage Foundation and the Institute for Policy Analysis to carry our cause forward. We need our own version of the Family Research Council to provide lawmakers and the press with research and well-crafted policy statements that can affect the lawmaking process.

Now before I am accused of using the same dirty tricks that the right-wing nuts use, let me clarify a little. My point is about a subject near and dear to my heart and that is framing. As George Lakhoff makes abundantly clear in his book, Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate, the real secret of changing public perception is to change the way the issue is discussed. Allowing the right to frame the debate immediately puts us liberals on the defensive. Even our name, “liberal” has been so successfully demonized by the right, that many call themselves “progressives” instead.

Having a few GLBT issue think tanks that can successfully frame the issues without sounding like GLBT activists could really make a difference in our cause. If you don’t believe framing makes a difference, look at the issue of “gay marriage”. Had we pushed the issue of equal rights under law, rather than the right to marry, we might already have it. When we use the term “marriage” it is charged with a lot of issues, and for many heterosexuals it implies sex. Face it, a lot of people are homophobic, they do not like to think about what we do in the bedroom, and pushing the issue of marriage makes the bedroom front and center.

Those same people might very well be swayed with an issue of human rights, and the right to marry would follow as a natural legal embodiment of those rights, but they would not have to think about it. After all Human Rights is the real issue. Marriage is just a legal construct that reflects the inequality just as serving n the military. Framing the issues as a human rights issues avoids the “ick” factor for many people and is much harder to argue against. Consider if the civil rights movement had made interracial marriage their key issue? We would still be drinking from separate water fountains, at least in the South.

Now who is going to step forward and come up with the funding to create some of these think tanks? Well I suspect there are not a lot of GLBT billionaires that would come forward, but you never know. It will probably take the work and funds of a whole lot of people to make that idea a reality, still why not give it a try?

Why McCain Lost and Why I Care

Now that the votes are counted and I am positive Barack Obama is President Elect, I can relax. I was expecting last minute dirty tricks from the Republicans who ran one of the dirtiest and most vile campaigns in my memory.

Want proof? Look no further than the dozens of anonymous fliers and campaign material that appeared in the last days of the campaign. Fake dollar bills with Obama and watermelon on it, fake notices that the election had been moved to Wednesday for Democratic voters to avoid the long lines and many more.

Worse still were the openly racist and race baiting comments made by the McCain campaign themselves. And yet worse was the rabble rousing campaign speeches made by Sarah Palin where the crowds shouted death threats against the Democratic nominee while Palin smiled and ignored them.

Obama was accused of being a terrorist, a Marxist, a socialist, an analog to Hitler! The lies and accusations of the McCain campaign knew no limits and it reflected badly on them and their party.

I believe that kind of attack was one of the big reasons McCain lost. His "throw everything including the kitchen sink at Obama" tactics didn't play well at all with anyone but the most right-wing extremists. Most Americans were not amused or swayed by his outrageous arguments.

McCain went from a Senator who once looked like a straight shooter when it came to political realities and the real issues facing America to a Bush-Cheney sycophant and Americans saw it and understood it. He left his "maverick" credentials at home a long time ago and no matter how many times he repeated it, he still looked like the Bush lap-dog he had become.

And then there was Sarah Palin! She was another of McCain's famous "Hail Mary" moves and instead of scoring, it earned him a penalty. Voters, especially Hillary Clinton voters were not fooled by Palin. McCain insulted them by putting someone as profoundly unqualified as Palin up as VP. McCain calculated that she would win Hillary voters because she was a woman. He forgot that Hillary was a uniquely qualified woman with lots of experience and brains. Palin on the other hand is a pretty face in an empty Neiman-Marcus suit.

Lastly there was the whole McCain "narrative" problem. The GOP has embraced the concept of giving their candidates a good narrative that voters and the press can pick up on. McCain kept changing his narrative. For example, he ran on "experience" until he picked Palin who has no relevant experience. He ran as a "maverick" until he began agreeing with Bush on everything. He ran as a "straight-talker" until he began lying and twisting the truth about his opponent and snubbing the press. A good narrative should be string and consistent and that is McCain's weak point. He likes to be a :game-changer" far too often.

Lastly, McCain lost because Obama is a candidate who resonated with the American public, old and young, white and black, He embodied the hopes and dreams of what America really stands for and people realized that. Thank God they did!

Time to Talk About the "T" in LGBT

A recent brouhaha where a transgender patron was banned from a local Dallas gay bar called the Crews Inn and the controversy caused by organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign to exclude transgendered people from the Employment Non Discrimination Act highlight a real problem in our community. It’s not so much a problem of sexual identity, but a problem of memory. It is easy to forget that not so long ago, the straight world saw us in a different light. The stereotypes of gays and lesbians were always entangled with gender identity issues.

As little as 20 years ago, most straight people had the impression that at least one member of a gay couple played the part of “the woman” and the same was true in their images of lesbians. For straight people, any sexual coupling that didn’t involve masculine and feminine was unthinkable. I believe this is because of two issues. The first is what has been called the “tyranny of the norm”. That is the prevailing belief, albeit usually subconscious, that everyone is the same as you. In other words, when a straight man walks into a room of men, he assumes they are all straight. The second is because of the inability to understand that being the receptive partner in a sexual coupling does not equate to a loss of masculinity.

Beyond the mechanics of sexual coupling there is a prejudice in the lesbian and gay community as well. For some, transgender people are just odd. Like our straight brothers and sisters, we expect everyone to be the same as us. If you don’t believe me, next time you are out with gay friends, point to any attractive man and ask them if he is straight or gay. I guarantee at least one of your friends will say, “Oh puleeze! My gaydar went off the minute he entered the room.”

Transgender people are a problem if you cling to gender stereotypes. I have talked to many women who have real problems wrapping their head around the idea of a biological female who seeks to live life as a male, and lots of men just are not comfortable with males who transition to female. Surprisingly, these same people have no problem with a “butch” dyke or a drag queen. I suspect that is because even though these individuals may resemble the opposite sex, they maintain relationships that fit the gay and lesbian stereotype.

There is more than a little irony in the fact that a people who have faced discrimination because of their sexual identities should have a problem with gender identity, but it is there none the less. I remember clearly an incident when a friend of mine was with me at a leather event. A very cute and hunky guy caught his eye and he was doggedly pursuing him for most of the evening. About the time he got up the nerve to approach him I told my friend that the cute hunk he was after was a transman friend of mine. Since he was interested primarily in finding just how well endowed the guy was, the revelation came as a real shock. I introduced them anyway and they struck up a friendly conversation, though nothing sexual would happen between them.

The point of this story is that transpeople don’t fit our preconceived ideas and unless we are willing to get to know the person and not just the gender we will always be part of the continuing discrimination they face.

Personally, I have a lot of transgender friends and for me, they represent just another delightful color in the rainbow of human sexuality. Their sexuality and gender identity is as much an inherent part of who they are as being gay is to me. It is not a choice, but a driving force in their lives and if we fail to honor this, we fall into the same trap as the unenlightened straight world who considers being gay or lesbian a “choice”.

It took me a while to come around to this view, but it was worth the effort. If we are truly to live in a world without prejudice toward LGBT people, we need to start living without that prejudice ourselves.

Playing the Rage Card

While watching a Sarah Palin rally on television I was struck by the anger and rage she managed to whip up in her crowd. Knowing the Republican machine, I understand that people who attend GOP rallies are often hand-picked and already loyal supporters. The rage I have seen at these latest rallies is shocking even for the true believers.

People in the audience shouting out “traitor” and even “kill him” when Senator Obama’s name is brought up goes way beyond just politics. The McCain/Palin campaign seems to have a new tactic as the polls drop, one that plays to the mob mentality rather than the intellect of the voters. This may actually be a natural extension of the Karl Rove and Frank Luntz school of campaigning.

For those unfamiliar with it here is a brief overview.

The basic thinking goes that people do not make rational decisions when it comes to politics, they make emotional ones. That is most likely a true assumption considering how the brain actually works, and so they play to the emotions rather than the intellect.

The best method they have found is by use of a “narrative” about the candidate. It’s just a story that supports the cause and engages the target audience. For example, during Regan’s rise to power, he repeated the story of the “welfare queen” who drove a Cadillac, had numerous children and collected massive amounts of government money by manipulating the welfare system. It was a compelling narrative and it worked. The fact is, it was not true. It was manufactured from whole cloth and intended as an allegorical lesson in how bad big government was. The problem with that story is that Regan repeated it so many times even he believed it was true and so did America.

The narrative being used in this campaign is about John McCain and more recently Sarah Palin. They are “mavericks” and “reformers” who will ride into Washington and fix everything. Like the welfare queen story it’s also not true. Palin is hardly a reformer and has little experience that would qualify her to govern, but she fits the narrative well. “Hockey mom”, “Pitbull in Lipstick” and “Moose Hunter” are all part of her narrative that you have no doubt heard repeated by the campaign and the press over and over. Why? Because it’s a good story and easy to talk about. McCain has a similar one and it comes complete with the tag “POW” which, though true, is certainly no qualifier for public office. But it makes a good story.

So how do we get from these narratives to the raging mobs that are now showing up at McCain/Palin rallies? Well, they have turned to another old tried and true narrative, the one that uses a scapegoat. When you have to explain a difficult and painful reality, like the economy right now, it’s easier to just find someone to blame rather than a solution to the problem. That is what the McCain/Palin campaign is doing.

By continually trying to associate Barack Obama with “terrorists” they play into that narrative and their audience without realizing it conjures up images of “arab terrorists” and “9-11”. I would bet that most of them have never seen a picture of the 1960’s radical, Bill Ayers (a white middle class professor in Chicago) but if you asked them they would assume he is black. And by emphasizing Obama’s middle name they strengthen the narrative with images of dark skinned fanatics from the Middle East. The scapegoats for all our problems are “terrorists” .

Now, you and I know that the current financial crisis has nothing to do with race or terrorists, but still the people at these rallies lose their reason and become driven by their deepest emotions, and that is where the narratives play best. What you end up with are crowds driven by anger and fear, two sides of the same coin. They are loud and vocal and they tend to respond in ever increasing volume just like fans at a football game. They get caught up in the frenzy and energy of the crowd and the narrative of “blame the scapegoat” keeps them going.

What does this have to do with us? Well, in the past minorities have been the victims of this kind of frenzy. Look at Germany in the 1930’s or Mississippi in the 1960’s. Fear and anger make a potent cocktail and a mob, once drunk on it, becomes unmanageable. McCain and Palin are playing with fire and if they are not careful, lots of people might get burned.

Bush White House Endorsed Waterboarding In Secret Memos

Talking about the Bush administration seems so 20 minutes ago, but some things are worth discussing. Take the memo sent to the CIA from President Bush that explicitly endorsed waterboarding and other torture techniques against Al Qaeda suspects.

After all the times Bush appeared on TV and specifically said "the US doesn't torture" we find he was lying like a rug! The CIA also requested the memos to cover their ass yet some people in the intelligence community worried that these memos could cause a significant scandal and backlash if they became public. Guess what: They would have! They should still except for the fact that this info is being dumped when the press and the public are focused on the presidential race.

Obviously the CIA realized they were on shaky ground and they repeatedly requested such memos to give them a paper trail should all this come back to bite them. A Lawyer for the CIA, A. John Radsan, was even quoted in the Washington Post as saying, “The question was whether we had enough 'top cover’” in regard to the memos. Top cover?

So these guys were willing to break international law as long as they had a memo from the White House? Amazing, and yet the public will probably not hear or care about this outrage.

Unfortunately we Americans have an attention deficit and cannot concentrate on two issues at a time. You can see this reflected in the press as they move from one shiny object to another. If a story takes more than a few seconds to grasp, we have no interest in it.

That said, here's the story: Bush endorsed torture while lying to the American public and the world!

That in itself would have gotten a Democratic president impeached in a heartbeat. Why has nothing been done about the criminal we have in office? Well have you seen him lately? He understands that we are all afflicted with ADD and he is staying out of sight. Bush has become the Invisible President, emerging from the White House only to make banal statements and wave to photographers.

When was the last time you saw Dick Cheney? Same thing, hide and they will forget you, besides he has far too many documents to shred to be bothered with public appearances.

And so the crime, and it is a crime of international importance, will probably go unpunished and in fact unnoticed. So I stand here shouting for nobody to hear, and besides what's that sparkling over there? Oohh, it's so shiny!

Sexual Cleansing in Iraq

Toward the end of the Vietnam War, a lot of American’s either actively ignored the news from the front or had become numbed to it and become passively blind to it. I know because I was among them. Even though I was an active protester against the war, I had become so weary of the endless stories of death and destruction that I stopped watching the evening news.

Today, there are many stories that vie for our attention, and with the presidential race becoming such a circus, it is hard to find any news outlet that is still reporting on the War in Iraq. Still it rages, whether we watch or not. The “surge” may have quieted the activity for a while, but the warring militias still roam the streets.

One of the most under-reported stories from Iraq is the plight of the country’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered populations. The American press has little interest in them and the Iraq press actively suppresses information on a group of people it sees as degenerate. The saddest part of the story is that under Saddam Hussein, sodomy was not a crime, and even after he was pressured to criminalize it in 2001 by religious leaders, prosecutions were rare.

Today, according to Ali Hili, the coordinator of the group Iraqi LGBT, “supporters of the fundamentalist Sadr and Badr militias boast that they are cleansing Iraq of what they call ‘sexual perverts’. They are
open about terrorizing gay Iraqis to make them flee the country and murdering those who fail to leave. Their goal is a queer-free, pro-homophobic Iraq.”

Worse news came last week as the coordinator of Iraqi LGBT in Baghdad was assassinated. The 27 year old known as Bashar was killed by gunmen in a barber shop. Bashar had helped organize “safe houses” for LGBT Iraqis and was credited with saving dozens of lives.

The upswing in violence against LGBT Iraqis can be attributed to a fatwa issued by Shiite Muslim cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in 2005 which encouraged killing gays and lesbians in the “worst , most severe way possible”.

The sexual cleansing of Iraq should send a shiver down the spines of American LGBT people. The events half a world away are the direct result of an out of control fundamentalist religion that has seeped into the country’s government. Though Iraq is officially a secular country, the increasing influence of the religious militias and their cleric leader’s is palpable.

In the new democracy of Iraq, loving a person of the same sex is a death sentence. LGBT people have been forced into an underground existence. Meanwhile, according to a story in the UK Guardian, leaders of the Mahdi Army are proudly proclaiming they have eliminated "perverts and sodomites" in many of the major cities. What’s worse is they have no protection from the Iraqi Police who are heavily infiltrated by militia members.

I don’t expect that the US press will put much effort into exposing this human rights tragedy. There are too many shiny objects to go after here. McCain careens from one political stunt to another. Lindsay Lohan bounces in and out of rehab. Clay Aiken cuddles his new “gaybie” while the latest fashions parade down the catwalks of New York and Paris.

There are so many other stories that have so much more visual appeal, and flash and ratings potential. Why should America care about a few LGBT Iraqis being “roughed up” in Iraq. Where is the “local angle” in that?

As LGBT people, we need to pay close attention to Iraq. Their sad condition is indirectly a result of American policy and in this political season we need to remember that. The policy overseas could very well become a domestic policy. It wouldn’t take more than a few fundamentalists in positions of power to change our courts and laws. If we believe it can’t happen here, we should think again.

It’s time to shake off our numbness to Iraq and start paying attention. Our brothers and sisters are being tortured and killed, and we ignore them at our own peril.

Whisper Campaigns - "Is McCain A Secret Irishman?"

OK, I got another email with the same crap about Obama allegedly being Muslim. No I don't have a problem with Muslims, we have a large Muslim community here in Dallas and I know several who are really decent people. The problem is that a lot of American's who listen to too much talk radio and to them, "Muslim" = "Terrorist".

Well that may seem silly but it's true. Now the problem is first, Muslim does not equal terrorist. Secondly, Obama is Christian. To drive home their point they harp on his middle name, Hussein, a family name on his father's side. So to many Americans, "funny name" = "terrorist".

Sad state our country is in, but that's the way it is. To combat this crap I propose a whisper campaign of our own. John McCain's middle name is "Sidney". How the hell can you trust a guy named Sidney? And worse, he is Irish! He hides this fact well, but we all know how dangerous the Irish are. They cam over here in the 1800's stealing American's jobs and polluting our cities with their music and drinking. Their gangs ruled New York for a while and how can you trust a guy whose native land drinks warm beer?

See how silly that sounds? Back in the1800's it would sound pretty scary, but it was silly then too.

Now, if you want to start a real whisper campaign, what about McCain's early onset dementia, losing his way onstage, forgetting Obama's name in the debates and calling an audience "my fellow prisoners"?

A Platform of Ideas

The early reports from people in the LGBT media hinted that the Democratic Platform had left gays and lesbians out of the document entirely.

There was much hand wringing and gnashing of teeth for a few days until the final document was released.

Now all that seems a bit silly, and I have to wonder if it wasn’t a red herring being foisted on the gay media by someone on the right.

The Democratic Platform that has emerged will look about as LGBT-friendly as any in history. Though the words “gay” and “lesbian” are absent, the legal terminology that would be used in any law protecting LGBT rights is present in abundance.

The document talks about specifics like a national HIV/AIDS strategy, comprehensive employment non-discrimination legislation and repealing the “Don’t ask don’t tell” policy in the military.

Additionally, same-sex couples are specifically included in a passage on protections and equality for all families, and there is a groundbreaking addition of a pledge to fight discrimination based on “gender identity.”

When you add this to the strong language opposing the Defense of Marriage Act, the platform looks pretty good from a LGBT perspective.

LGBT leaders across the country who were involved in the process or who have been privy to the discussions leading up to the Platform Committee meetings agree that though the words, “gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender” don’t appear in the platform their equivalents make it very strongly on the side of LGBT rights.

Personally, I think using more general terms like “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” make the platform stronger. These terms really have a much broader scope than LGBT, and would even include the emerging new group we often call “questioning.”

Additionally, it leaves fewer hot buttons for the religious right to jump on.

Remember: Most fundamentalist extremists have a problem grasping big ideas. They bury themselves in minutia. By nature they look for specific language in everything.

One only has to look at the online news site of that most fundamentalist of organizations — the American Family Association — OneNewsNow, where they began substituting the word “homosexual” for “gay.” That became a pretty embarrassing policy when Olympic sprinter Tyson Gay’s name was changed in a news blurb to “Mr. Tyson Homosexual.”

It’s just as well we don’t fall into the semantic traps that these kinds of groups set to snare any mention of gays or lesbians. Sadly, it’s a trap we often set for ourselves.

When we start trying to analyze a policy or document by the number of times key words are used, we become little more than “bean counters,” and we lose perspective.

I applaud the Democratic Party for diligently working to create a document that looks a lot more like a mission statement than one of the platforms of the past with lots of details but few big ideas.

This change I believe reflects the influence of Barack Obama’s campaign on the party.

Far too often, Democrats have been a party of policy points and not a party of ideas. In the past we have become lost in the minutia and failed to see the big picture.

The details of policy are things that will come from legislation. To become bogged down in them at this stage will only serve to make any kind of coalition building more difficult.

It will also give the Republicans easier targets for their negative sniping. They will do enough of that anyway without any help.

It will be refreshing to see a Democratic Platform that is intended to inspire the party to do great things rather than a laundry list of details that make even lawmakers’ eyes glaze over.

I haven’t seen the final platform yet, but an earlier draft of the platform, including the revisions that have been noted, gives a clearer view of what that vision will look like:

“Democrats will fight to end discrimination based on race, sex, ethnicity, national origin, language, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, age and disability in every corner of our country, because that’s the America we believe in.”

That’s the America I believe in as well.


This article appeared in the Dallas Voice print edition August 15, 2008.


© Copyright by DallasVoice.com

Sarah Palin - Post Turtle

While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75-year old Texas rancher whose hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man.

Eventually the topic got around to Sarah Palin and her bid to be a heartbeat away from being President.

The old rancher said, 'Well, ya know, Sarah Palin is a post turtle.'

Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a post turtle was.

The old rancher said, 'When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle.'

The old rancher saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued to explain. 'You know she didn't get up there by herself, she doesn't belong up there, she doesn't know what to do while she is up there, and you just wonder what kind of dumb ass put her up there to begin with.'

Where Are the Queer Think Tanks?

A few months ago I was reading the a diatribe from the Family Research Council I realized that even though this group, founded by James Dobson, is blatantly fundamentalist and far right, they continue to get lots of press both in print and broadcast. Early on in the primary season, on MSNBC, arguably not the most liberal news source, I listened to a discussion between Family Research Council's Tony Perkins, political analyst Lawrence O'Donnell and MSNBC host Dan Abrams. They were discussing Mike Huckabee’s stump speech and specifically the part where he says, “But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do, is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other, and how we treat their families."


The political analyst and host were cautious with this claim. Tony Perkins, however, barged in with a ringing endorsement backed up by the old lie, “America…a Judeo-Christian nation, ought to bring its founding document in line with what he says is God's word, particularly on matters of a woman's right to choose and a couple's right to marry.”

I won’t belabor the rest of the conversation, but anyone who knows Dobson, Perkins and their organization knows where it was going. They dominated the conversation guiding the discussion toward their favorite topics, gay marriage and abortion. It’s not surprising, as that is their whole reason for existence. The Family Research Council, with its scientific sounding name is nothing more than a far right think tank, and as such its job is to disseminate information supporting its causes.

My question is this, why was there no one from a GLBT think tank on that panel? More specifically, as we head into the general election, why are there so few GLBT think tanks?

The answer I suspect lies in the same thinking that dominates most liberal and progressive thinking. That is, money spent on policy groups, think tanks and infrastructure could better be spent on good works, good causes and political support. That thinking is the Achilles heel of the liberal and progressive movement and the GLBT movement as well. Yes, there are a few groups like the Center for American Progress and Brookings Institution who regularly provide talking points and research papers for use by liberal and progressive policymakers, but they pale in light of their many right-wing counterparts.

Yes, there is the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, but they are not represented in every discussion of marriage and GLBT rights in the media. One organization cannot do it alone. We need a number of very aggressive and quite frankly stealthy groups like the Heritage Foundation and the Institute for Policy Analysis to carry our cause forward. We need our own version of the Family Research Council to provide lawmakers and the press with research and well-crafted policy statements that can affect the lawmaking process.


Now before I am accused of using the same dirty tricks that the right-wingnuts use, let me clarify a little. My point is about a subject near and dear to my heart and that is framing. As George Lakhoff makes abundantly clear in his book, Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate, the real secret of changing public perception is to change the way the issue is discussed. Allowing the right to frame the debate immediately puts us liberals on the defensive. Even our name, “liberal” has been so successfully demonized by the right, that many call themselves “progressives” instead.

Having a few GLBT issue think tanks that can successfully frame the issues without sounding like GLBT activists could really make a difference in our cause. If you don’t believe framing makes a difference, look at the issue of “gay marriage”. Had we pushed the issue of equal rights under law, rather than the right to marry, we might already have it. When we use the term “marriage” it is charged with a lot of issues, and for many heterosexuals it implies sex. Face it, a lot of people are homophobic, they do not like to think about what we do in the bedroom, and pushing the issue of marriage makes the bedroom front and center.

Those same people might very well be swayed with an issue of human rights, and the right to marry would follow as a natural legal embodiment of those rights, but they would not have to think about it. After all Human Rights is the real issue. Marriage is just a legal construct that reflects the inequality just as serving n the military. Framing the issues as a human rights issues avoids the “ick” factor for many people and is much harder to argue against. Consider if the civil rights movement had made interracial marriage their key issue? We would still be drinking from separate water fountains, at least in the South.

Now who is going to step forward and come up with the funding to create some of these think tanks? Well I suspect there are not a lot of GLBT billionaires that would come forward, but you never know. It will probably take the work and funds of a whole lot of people to make that idea a reality, still why not give it a try?

The Age Thing

I have never dyed my hair. That in itself is quite a bold statement from a gay man, but it’s true. I can add it to the list of other things to disguise the aging process that I have never done, like moisturizers, collagens, Botox and cosmetic surgery. Though it may be just cause for demanding that I turn in my Gay Card, I figure growing older is inevitable and trying to cover it up is really an undignified thing to do.

I remember a friend of mine telling me years before I got into the leather community, that I should start wearing leather because, “it looks good on you as you age.” That was good advice.

In a culture that values youth and beauty over almost anything else, the real anomaly is the image of the leather “daddy”. He is a person who is valued for not only his look, but his experience and wisdom. At least that is the story I keep telling myself.

So far on my life journey the only drawback from aging, other than the continual battle with gravity is a discrimination I find in the job market. In the field of communications and advertising, having grey hair is akin to having smallpox. For some reason marketers and agencies feel that only someone who is fresh out of college can connect with the mind of the youth market. It is as though advertisers feel that the youth of today are from another planet and only “their kind” can reach them, much less understand them.

The truth is that young people today are pretty much the same as they were in my generation. Oh they have new technology and different style clothes, but they are still motivated by the same thing I was at their age. In the business of advertising that boils down to two key ingredients, sex and acceptance. If those weren’t the key motivating factors ads wouldn’t feature claims that using (insert product here) would get you laid or get you friends.

So why the bias against anyone who is older? I don’t know, unless it’s because a more experienced and seasoned professional can see through the smokescreen of jargon and bull being spewed by management and that is threatening. For some, especially in marketing and advertising jargon is power. Like the fields of Medicine and Law, if you put things in everyday terms instead of using Latin, your clients and patients wouldn’t feel your services were worth so much money.

Would you be more willing to pay your doctor in order to get a prescription for “microdose acetylsalicylic acid administered prophylacticaly” that you would for a “half a baby aspirin taken each night”? The same holds true in advertising.

Which would you find more trustworthy, a report that details the “differentiated marketing to counteract intense segment rivalry” or one that states simple “there are already a glut of similar products being sold, so we need to get specific as to which groups we try to sell to.” Confusion is power and as I age I find I just don’t have time to veil my knowledge in jargon.

So, I guess my next marketing position will be to, “personalize the retail experience through initialized direct contact communication”. Of course this job, unlike any other I have had will take a specialized wardrobe. Something in a blue vest should do. Now, I just need to review the marketing narrative, just to make sure I can optimize my interface with target markets…”Hello, and welcome to Wal-Mart”.

The ABC’s of Sexual Orientations!

Sometimes I think we could drown in the alphabet soup in which we live. First there was GL, or LG for Lesbian-Gay. Then it was expanded to LGBT, a term I often have to explain is not a sandwich, but means Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender. Then comes the whole world of leather & fetish to which I belong as well and you have BDSM, or SMBD as some folks prefer either way it stands for Bondage-Dominance-Sadomasochism, or as some prefer, Bondage Discipline, Dominance and Submission, Sadomasochism and Master-slave. It’s all very confusing and for an old fossil like me I just like to abbreviate it to kinky.

Now I understand that it’s not everyone’s cup of tea, and you can take that however you wish, but it raises an important question. What is and what is not “sexual orientation”?

For me, I believe my kink is a big part of my sexuality and as such it’s part of who I am. In fact most of the books I have written dwell at length on that issue since it is the one that always prompts the most questions when I am speaking to various groups. Now it seems that the courts in Canada are taking that question seriously and have agreed to hear a case that involved discrimination against someone because of his BDSM involvement.

Vancouver resident Peter Hayes was recently denied a chauffeur’s permit when he applied at the local courthouse. He was told that the denial stemmed from a complaint that “the department had a record of a woman in 2003 who suggested he was involved in a cult.”

Hayes, a self proclaimed pagan told the official that the complaint was filed by a former lover and that the “cult” was nothing more than the “title of a science fiction book: Tarnsman of Gor by John Norman.” Furthermore, Hayes was never contacted about the complaint.

The official went on to say the he was concerned about the “paganism, Wiccan magic as well as role-playing, master-slave sexual practices” and said he would pose a threat to passengers both from his possible attempts to recruit them into his “cult” and by his dangerous activities.

Hayes has filed for protection under a law that prevents discrimination based on sexual orientation and that’s where the controversy gets interesting. Being Canada, there is a distinctly more enlightened attitude toward sexual orientation. There are long standing rulings that “consensual bondage or sado-masochism is part of normal and acceptable adult sexual behaviour that does not offend community standards.” The big question is now if the law that was originally enacted to protect the LGBT community should extend to BDSM?

So far the courts have said they will hear the case, denying a motion by police to block the hearing “because the laws designed to protect the sexual orientation of gays and lesbians did not extend to protecting types of sexual practices.”

The whole incident raises a good question for the LGBT community to consider, especially when we are deep in the argument over including gender identity in the Employment Non Discrimination Act. It undoubtedly will bring up some soul searching as to exactly what sexual orientation really is and that’s a good thing.

The LGBT community has long argued that “sexual orientation” is a more accurate description of who we are that the old term “sexual preference” which implies a choice. The problem is it opens a potential gate to other areas that might not be so politically correct.

Some people will use this discussion to demonize the acts of people with different orientations as perverse and sick. That kind of rhetoric is what we hear from the religious fundamentalists on a daily basis. The real discussion should be something much deeper and thoughtful and is long overdue.

What I and my fellow leathermen and leatherwomen do in our BDSM life is something that happens between consenting adults and in most states is legal. It has been recognized by the scientific community as just another expression of one’s sexuality so long as it has no detrimental effects on one’s life or the lives of one’s partners.

As a member of the kink community, I detest the term “BDSM Lifestyle”. It implies that my sexual orientation is more of a fad than something to be taken seriously. The whole “style” thing is the problem. For me my BDSM is as much a part of me as my being gay. It is my life, not my lifestyle.