"Oh, and about gays in the miltary..."

Today there's talk that Barack Obama will make ending the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy regarding homosexuals in the services a distinct priority at the beginning of his first term. While there is much to be said about the high-mindedness of such a move, I believe it's a mistake. Bill Clinton made the same miscalculation at the beginning of his presidency, and he was pilloried for it. The former Arkansan governor could have chosen few more effective ways to mobilize his opposition on the Christian Right. He also didn't curry much favor among the brass of the armed forces. I think it would be in the President-Elect's best interest to consider moving away from this initiative before he stirs up a hornet's nest and accelerates the "Culture War".

Listen... I want to make it quite clear that I support gay rights. I can't think of a single reason why men or women that are attracted to members of the same sex should be discriminated against by the government. People need to spend more time attending to the conditions of their own houses before they start trying to impose their prejudices on others. There's nothing more bothersome than another highly flawed human being getting uppity. What people do with (or to) their partners is their business, as long as it is consensual and the terms are defined upfront among the principals. I'm not concerned about what folks choose to do in their own beds. I have plenty of things to mull over without getting into that.

But I also believe that drugs should be completely decriminalized, and for many of the same reasons. What you do unto yourself is your own problem or escape, and not for me to judge. However I wouldn't recommend that Barack Obama make that an important priority on his domestic agenda either. Not only are there plenty of more pressing issues of importance to the future of the nation, but drug policy is another issue that would generate a surplus of resistance that would be distracting. This is a pivotal moment in American history, and Obama is going to need to make significant compromises to enact the type of platform capable of addressing the difficulties we face. He's going to have to pick his battles carefully.

Since Clinton capitulated and allowed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" to take effect, over 12,000 gay individuals have been ushered out of the military. In the meantime Britain and Israel have seen fit to allow soldiers who are openly gay to serve. I haven't taken the time to read any exhaustive studies of how these men and women have integrated into their organizations, and I can't say whether or not they have had a significant impact on the operations of their respective forces. I have a hard time believing that they are living in a culture wherein they'd feel comfortable coming on strongly to their heterosexual colleagues. I wouldn't expect to find that lustful urges have overwhelmed their collective ability to concentrate on the mission.

It's certainly true that the American military is in dire need of an injection of new blood. Perhaps allowing gays to join would swell the numbers. I'm not sure why anyone would be anxious to enlist in these trying times, but I guess the motivations of homosexuals are the same as anyone else in this regard. For some, this path is among the very few opportunities they have in a troubling economic climate. Ultimately it appears that Obama is committed on the issue. He's actually considering appointing an openly-gay man to the position of Secretary of the Navy (which, if you think about it, is reinforcing a long-held stereotypical perception of that branch). Whatever happens, I wish the new President well.

James Ellroy, "Destination: Morgue!" (2004).

Once again I've returned to the work of the hard boiled L.A.-scribe, James Ellroy. Previously I've read and blogged about The Black Dahlia and My Dark Places. Although there were things about those books that bothered me, I decided that there was enough in the author's work to continue my explorations. Thus I picked up Destination: Morgue! (2004) during a recent spending spree at Half Priced Books. I didn't know whether this title was supposed to be fiction or non-fiction, and after reading it I'm still not sure. That in itself would be no reason to discount the quality of the writing. Ellroy consistently dwells in a netherworld that seems to merge reality and fantasy. Just so, he probably shouldn't be using those kinds of labels.

Destination: Morgue! is broken up into two parts. The first is given the heading "Crime Culture/Memoir", implying that it fits under the True Crime category. If these tales are accurately classified, there are some troublesome associations for the author. I already knew that Ellroy had a tough upbringing, what with the unsolved murder of his mother, and the untidy and untimely death of his Dad. And I knew that the young Ellroy fell into some maladaptive behavioral trends... but I had no idea about the extent of his perversions. It's one thing to be drawn to the seedy and violent side of life if you can contain yourself to voyeurism. It's quite another to get directly involved.

By his own account, Ellroy was (at the very least) a bit of a miscreant. He started off with garden variety shoplifting, and worked his way up to eating Benzadrine inhaler cotton wads, peeping, breaking-and-entering, and stealing panties. Considering his literary (?) obsessions with "hot prowls" and rape/torture/murder, I wouldn't be surprised if the guy didn't flirt with more serious crimes. Even if he was able to hold himself in check, he certainly succumbed to a life of dissolution. After spending time in various forms of incarceration, and ending up close to death from sustained alcohol poisoning, Ellroy "went straight" and got a job as a caddy at an L.A. country club. It was during that period that he was first successfully published.

While Ellroy has a certain facility for describing crimes scenes and investigations in great detail, he appears to have a lot of difficulty keeping his internal and external lives separate. He often conflates his own deeds and drives with those of historical figures, as well as his own creations. What makes this tendency particularly irksome is how self-righteously judgmental Ellroy gets. Despite his own flaws he fails to see the humanity in others (a major disability for a writer). Just one example of his hypocrisy is a completely irrelevant condemnation of Bill Clinton that he tacked on to the end of his own litany of perversion and crime. It's as if he feels justified to label others "good" or "evil" based upon political affiliations (or race, gender, sexual preference, etc.).

Indeed, Ellroy's proclivities are reinforced in Part 2 of Destination: Morgue! Here he presents a trilogy of novellas about a far right wing vigilante cop who enforces justice without regard for civil rights. And he can't restrain himself from peppering his narrative with a string of offensive ethnic slurs of all types (EX: "color coonordinated Tommy Hipnigger"). As if this weren't enough, the author continues what becomes an almost interminable habit of throwing arbitrary alliteration into every single paragraph. Dig the square loner trying to come on hip- "Local louts loitered. Porch punks paraded. They hopped house to house and shared Schlitz malt liquor." You think that's cute? Try 389 pages of that unrelenting crap.

Why I Had to Watch "Blades of Glory", and Will Look Upon My Friends' Recommendations as Forever Suspect From Now On.

So my birthday was last week, and I met up with a couple of friends* a few days later. They are well aware of my disdain for Hollywood comedies, and they continue to insist that I'm missing out by not giving in to the charms of their favorites. I meanwhile remain steadfastly committed to avoid wasting my time. But my pals are insidious and manipulative. Knowing that I'd be obligated to watch if they slipped it in with the original art they blessed me with, they included a copy of Blades of Glory in my gift bag. I was honestly crestfallen and immediately resigned to viewing this dreck. And I promised that I'd review the thing on my blog. Well, here it is folks. I can only hope that by giving in I have finally earned the right not to be subjected to this crap in the future.

There was trouble right off the bat, as soon as I popped the DVD in. The previews were all CGI, explosions, and kiddie films. Nothing I'd ever be tempted to see. I understood immediately that the intended demographic was the group of regressed adults who would be excited by a live action version of Transformers, presented through the filters of Michael Bay. I'm talking about the type of audience that considers Shrek a multi-layered viewing experience. There was even a promo for a Will Ferrell mega-pack, the consumption of which looked akin to being subjected to waterboarding. Trailers are supposed to contain the funniest bits of the movies they promote, right? You'd think after making six (or so) flicks that Ferrell could cobble together three minutes of diverting highlights. But you'd be wrong.

The next red flag was the revelation that Blades of Glory was released under the MTV Films imprint. Uh-oh. And produced by Ben Stiller. It figures. Then within the first six minutes the viewer is assaulted with totally arbitrary product placements for Bud Lite and Skittles. There's the clichéd setup to launch the story- we get to see one half of the stellar comic duo (played by Jon Heder) as the golden haired effeminate orphan (named Jimmie MacElroy) being targeted for future stardom. That's the character development- a series of mildly amusing set pieces delivered in a few brief minutes. The filmmakers don't want to lose the audience with any depth. Then flash-forward to MacElroy's present success, and introduce the ridiculous black-and-white "conflict". We meet the hypermasculine Yang to Jimmnie's Ying- Chazz Michael Michaels, who's portrayed by Will Ferrell in his inimitably wry style. Oh yeah... and there's a Capri Sun ad at 14 minutes, just as we are bludgeoned with foreshadowing indicating that Heder and Farrell will eventually become a (gasp!) same-sex figure skating pair.

You might think that all of the crass marketing is merely incidental. After all, folks do consume the products that appear on screen. Maybe it's just a coincidence that the paid sponsors all have their products featured with their labels clearly centered and inescapable. When Ferrell breaks that bottle of Captain Morgan, it might be just a lucky break for the corporate powers that the glass shatters immediately above the clearly identifiable sticker. Yet later there's a scene with Jimmie working in a sporting goods store, and throughout the run of it not a single brand name is shown. Not one. Apparently those companies didn't pay to play. When was the last time you were at a sporting goods store? In case it's been awhile, I'll remind you that the manufacturers' logos are EVERYWHERE. Same goes when our heroes eat out at a fast food joint. I've never been at a single one that didn't have every wall plastered with ads. Maybe they have no sense of humor either.

Anyway, I'm not going to get into the merits of the story or the writing. I've already offended fans of this movie. There's everything I expected- juvenile surface humor and inane physical gags. I had a hard time seeing it through. But I have to say that I am more troubled than I expected to be after watching it. Perhaps there's nothing particularly devious about the encouragement of rampant consumerism. Still, movie-watchers are paying to see these feature length commercials. Make no mistake- in between the sophomoric jokes and the homoeroticism, Blades of Glory is pushing product.

While the easily amused are yucking it up, these messages enter their subconscious. Obviously they want you to buy their shit, just as the film's producers believe you will buy into their canned jokes. The state of laughter makes the viewer particularly open to suggestion. Nationwide, Trojan, XBox, Dunkin Donuts, Crest White Strips, Subway, Orbitz... these are paraded before our eyes throughout the movie, with no pretext of naturalism and very little appropriate relationship to the story. I guess I should just be thankful that I didn't laugh.


*Please note that I have chosen to protect the identities of those involved.

Independence Day Brings a Special Treat; The Death of Jesse Helms.

While it's always great to have the day off from work and the opportunity to see friends, the idea of the holiday itself left me a bit cold yesterday. As far as I'm concerned this isn't an era for nationalism. It seems that the urge to identify with the country is decreasing, just as the compulsion to go to church every week is disappearing for many people. In my opinion, it can't happen fast enough. Our problems truly are global nowadays and the entire border-state mentality seems to have been rendered largely ineffective. So what does that leave me with every Fourth of July? Should I search for some elusive kinship with the citizenry? No thanks- I'm not even that interested in mingling with the majority of inhabitants of the city I live in.

Truth be told I nearly despaired of finding anything to celebrate. Fortunately the fates conspired to provide me with a single shining ray of light. I turned on the radio to discover that Jesse Helms died earlier in the morning. It occurred to me that maybe it wasn't appropriate to let the death of a fellow human being put an extra little jaunt in my step. But that reservation only lasted about a second-and-a-half, and then I found myself beaming again. I do believe philosophically that the removal of certain individuals from the Earth would benefit not only mankind, but all living creatures. I would never seek to affect such a change personally (I'm not willing to pay that price), yet I'm not above the happiness such an event brings.

Maybe if I though the human species was sacred, I'd have a different viewpoint. But like I say quite often- we are no better than animals... and I eat animals. Helms death is simply addition by subtraction. It's a shame it didn't happen in 1972, the year he was elected into the US Senate, or even well before then. The man's single greatest enduring legacy will be his unwavering commitment to racial bigotry. In at least one way his succession to federal government was a milestone- he was the very first Republican Senator from North Carolina since before Reconstruction. But he was also a petty tyrant who sought to impose his extremely hateful views on the rest of the country.

His entry into politics was as an aide to the 1950 Senatorial candidate Willis Smith. During that campaign, Helms was credited with the creation of a series of attack ads in which he attacked Smith's opponent with the following copy- "White people, wake up before it is too late. Do you want Negroes working beside you, your wife and your daughters, in your mills and factories? Frank Graham favors mingling of the races." In the 1960's he notoriously attacked Black civil rights leaders (like Martin Luther King, Jr.), calling them "Communists and Sex Perverts". He hinted at his strategy for resolving race conflicts by saying, "The Negro cannot count forever on the kind of restraint that's thus far left him free to clog the streets, disrupt traffic, and interfere with other men's rights."

Helms was a singular asshole, and his vitriol extended to homosexuals as well. He fought against government funding for AIDS research and punctuated his position by stating "There is not one single case of AIDS in this country that cannot be traced in origin to sodomy." He also notoriously opposed legislation extending voting rights, supporting the United Nations, funding the arts, and creating the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. His flaws were numerous and distinct, but (arguably) his greatest crime against humanity was helping to clear Ronald Reagan's way to the White House. In 1976 he was influential in making sure that North Carolina voted for "The Gipper" in the primary election, and that victory helped give Reagan a platform at the national convention. Good Riddance, Jesse Helms... many rejoice at your passing.

Gay Marriage and Non-Profit Status.

For some odd reason, I've found myself thinking a lot about non-profit organizations recently. I suppose that it's been indirectly caused by the California Supreme Court Case regarding same-sex marriage. If you're not familiar with the ruling, that government body decided that a ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional. Obviously this has been the source of a lot of celebration in some quarters. The decision made California only the second state in the union to provide this benefit to a much maligned subgroup of the population. But for as much happiness as this caused, it's arguably been responsible for nearly equal provocation. The Christian Right was mortified by this action, and its leaders have intensified their complaints about "activist judges".

I've written on this particular subject at some length, and have made no secret that I unreservedly support the rights of homosexuals to commemorate their unions in any way offered to heterosexuals. Those who insist that the parameters of marriage are solely defined by the Christian bible are either naive or willfully obtuse. Regardless of fundamentalist claims to the contrary, Christians have not proved themselves more successful at marriage than any other segment of the population. The "institution" is circumscribed by law, and thus the status of those united in such a ceremony is by definition legalistic. Any spiritual component to such a union is the private business of the individuals involved.

So what does this have to do with non-profit organizations? It's a fact that religious bodies have been vested by the state with the power of performing marriage ceremonies. It's also well-known that churches are granted non-profit status. In my view, as long as these circumstances remain, people should not be making distinctions that are (at their very heart) unconstitutional. Ultimately the status of marriage is recognized by the federal and state governments. The conditions of matrimony include tax breaks, as well as other civilly-defined privileges. These benefits should not be withheld on the basis of religious discrimination. If they are, the offending organization should be stripped of their non-profit classification.

I want to be clear that I am specifically talking only about non-profits. Private businesses also discriminate based on sexual orientation. In many cases they are sued by those they refuse to serve. This past week I heard about a lesbian couple who contacted wedding photographers, and was told that the business did not document same-sex marriages. The dissatisfied parties ended up in civil court, arguing the merits of their respective positions. I'd like to see such lawsuits eliminated as well. Private contractors should have a right to pick-and-choose their clients based upon self-selecting criteria. Whether or not their biases are absurd is not the point. If they aren't getting breaks from the government they should be free to pursue their enterprise in any manner that they see fit.

Don't get me wrong... I realize that this proposal will be unpopular among progressives. There is indeed something inherently troublesome about limiting your commerce to those that agree with you and your values. But I think that this option should be protected by the Constitution. Business owners should be allowed to reserve the right to set the terms of their services. Government shouldn't be in the practice of dictating the activities of citizens who are merely exercising their right to choose their own associates. However, such entities should be refused any public subsidies, including tax exemption. Such rewards should be democratically administered and in agreement with the spirit of the Constitution.

A Truly Mixed Message.

There was some interesting news coming out of England over this past weekend- the World Health Organization has concluded that the threat of an AIDS pandemic among heterosexuals is over. In fact its experts now predict that there won't even be an epidemic affecting straight individuals in any continent other than Africa. I'd expect this to be comforting to some people. In 2006, it was declared that Russia was on the brink of an AIDS catastrophe. Researchers also feared that China, with its massive overpopulation, was also at risk of being overcome by the disease. But apparently everyone was wrong, and folks (hetero guys) need not be quite as paranoid when engaging a new sexual partner. It's natural to wonder what kind of effect this will have in the developing world.

Still wild celebration might be a bit presumptuous. AIDS kills more adults than all wars and conflicts combined. In 2007, there were 33 million recorded cases of people living with HIV. There were 2.4 million who became newly infected. And 2.1 million died from the disease. These aren't the kind of numbers that should inspire the confidence to take the condoms off and screw with abandon. While some people are no doubt going to interpret this latest message as an admission that AIDS will simply go away, it is still a prominent global challenge to public health. If you are a gay man, or an IV drug user, or you frequently patronize sex workers- then it is still just as dangerous as it was last week. And if you are a straight woman, you need to be just as careful as ever.

Meanwhile researchers are still puzzled as to why AIDS is transmitted at such an increased rate in Sub-Saharan Africa. Low rates of circumcision are one key to the problem, as the procedure reduces the risk of infection by 60%. Donated blood is not screened the way it is elsewhere. Additionally, high rates of ulcerative STD's such as herpes aggravate the chances that blood can be exchanged during 'regular' heterosexual sexual intercourse. Add in the effect of a generally younger and more promiscuous population, and a vague picture of the situation begins to coalesce. In a country like Swaziland, such factors have resulted in an infection rate of 40% nationally. Compounding the issue is the fact that many of those who have AIDS on the African continent are living without any treatment.

I remember when I first learned that someone I knew had HIV. It was the early 90's, and it was still considered a death sentence in America. I was dating a woman who had a lot of gay friends, and I was informed that a couple of them had the disease. This was a devastating realization, as these men were so young. Fortunately they also benefited from their youth. They were in relatively good physical health, and they were already monitoring their cell counts. Their positive attitudes, along with the rapidly improving drug cocktails, kept them from feeling inescapably doomed. While many who contracted HIV in the 80's slid quickly into full-blown AIDS that swiftly brought a nasty and painful death, those afflicted in the 90's eventually came to see the virus as something that could be lived with for decades.

Now I know several folks who have had HIV for many years, and you would never know about their conditions unless they chose to share that information. They live outwardly normal lives, and are only encumbered by a huge number of prescription medications. I am sure that they are heartened by the WHO's proclamation, as they certainly wouldn't wish their fate on anyone (other than a few particularly abhorrent politicians). But at the same time they would be justly offended at some of the gloating I have noticed floating through the World Wide Web. Sadly, the latest news will be used as validation for the ignorant beliefs of intolerant hate-mongers. This will surely encourage them in their mission to label HIV "God's curse on homos".

Political Myth Busters.

There are some things that I hear repeated time and again that frustrate me to almost ridiculous lengths. I realize that I am setting myself up for this by choosing to listen to partisan hacks, but I think it's important to expose myself to perspectives and views that I find objectionable. The reality is that many people form their political beliefs by listening to pundits who consider themselves expert analysts. Generally the strategy is to utilize repetition until certain core assertions are accepted as fact regardless of how ludicrous they really are. We have certainly gotten our fill of this approach over the last seven plus years with the Bush administration. Their talking points have been well distributed and utilized.

So anyway, I've decided to mention a few of the more egregious ones. These are examples of claims that really get under my skin and annoy me to no end. They cause me to yell at the radio when there is no one else in the car with me. Sometimes they give me short bursts of energy that get me through an especially sluggish day.

1. The media is controlled by the Left.

Is there anyone who sincerely believes this chestnut nowadays? Simply put, the media is a corporate-run industry. The vast majority of media outlets are owned by huge multinationals who will ultimately manipulate the news to serve themselves. Naturally different sources skew their coverage to relative degrees. But I don't understand why anyone would still insist that the US has a "liberal media"- especially in an age when more people watch FOX News than the other networks, and when it's impossible to find a progressive voice on the radio. Our mainstream choices range from "moderate" to reactionary conservative.

2. The Democrats want to take away guns from lawfully-acting citizens.

This claim is particularly insidious in Western Pennsylvania, due to the high proportion of its inhabitants that are members of the National Rifle Association. Believe me when I tell you that there are a lot of people around here that will consistently vote Republican merely based on the false premise that the GOP will protect their rights to arm themselves with whatever weapons that they so desire. I don't remember the last national Democratic leader that seriously suggested that we curtail gun rights. Yes... once in awhile they will devise some proposal aimed at a half-hearted measure of regulation (usually having to do with assault rifles), but this is almost always lip service, and meant to appeal to an urban population that is legitimately worried about gang violence.

3. Republicans hate homosexuals and have deep convictions regarding social issues that are based in religious faith and family values.

If the conservative leadership truly wanted to outlaw gays and abortion it would have already happened. The GOP put together tremendous consolidated power in the wake of 9-11. They controlled all three branches of the federal government and the majority of the states. The Constitution has never before stopped them from doing things that curtail our civil rights. We are living in a time when our liberties are slowly being eroded. Faith-based conservatism is a sham. Abortion and gay marriage are only national issues because they can be used to manipulate the masses. They are used to muster voter turnout and increase divisiveness. If these issues were resolved, they would no longer be useful for the Republican leadership.

4. The Democrats are causing our reliance on foreign energy by blocking drilling in ANWAR.

This is another cynical smokescreen. Believe me- if we had significant oil resources left in America, we would have already tapped them. Anyone with any true power- the oil industry, energy companies, national politicians, foreign policy experts- knows that ANWAR would (at best) take care of our fuel needs for 3-6 months. It's not worth the investment. This is simply used as a distraction from the real problem- a dependence on fossil fuels, and the effect it has on our foreign policy. The discussion needs to go far beyond domestic expansion of drilling... we need to confront our government's destructive resistance to embracing a new energy paradigm. The only way to do this is to elect leaders that have little or no connection to the oil industry. Good luck with that.

5. George Bush's War in Iraq has been a failure.

This all depends upon your personal perspective. If you mean that the five plus years of occupation and invasion are an immense drain on the public resources, and a distraction from the truly pressing and urgent issues of our times- then you are entirely correct. But if you look at it from the point-of-view of Dubya and his cronies... well, it's worked out exactly as they have planned. The NeoCons have achieved their goal of having a radically-increased military presence in the Middle East for an indefinite period. The energy companies and military-industrial complex are reaping insane profits off of subsidies and no-bid contracts, and all of that money has been taxpayer dollars redistributed from social programs that the Far Right has been trying to eliminate for years. How is that not an unqualified success? Dubya has served his only true constituency in an exemplary fashion.

Gay Marriage.

It seems almost unthinkable that in the nearly two years I've been keeping this blog, I've never devoted a post solely to gay marriage. Yet with that kind of sustained omission, it's understandable why people would wonder why I'm finally addressing the issue now. There's no better reason than the fact that the California Supreme Court is now revisiting the issue to decide whether or not the state should uphold its ban on same sex marriage. The main question to be decided is whether such a prohibition contradicts the civil rights of gay men and women. At the same time justices on the court have to determine whether or not it is their role to overrule a voter referendum and an appeals court that have already passed judgment on the issue.

Personally I'm conflicted on the value of marriage in the first place. Before M. and I got married, I was convinced that the institution amounted to little more than a legal contract. I felt that no piece of paper could change the nature of commitment within a relationship. If you are determined to be with your partner forever, than what does it matter whether or not you have the state's approval? Of course I've always conceded that it is a matter of perception. If you believe that it makes a difference, then it does- for you and your partner. Still it's patently clear that there exists no social consensus about what it all means. Hell, it's commonly stated that a full 50% of marriages result in divorce. If that's not a sure indicator of conflicted definition, then I have no idea what would be. Anyone who claims to have a handle on marriage is most likely just talking out of their ass.

At the same time, it makes sense from a legal standpoint. There are lots of indispensable benefits that accrue to the lawfully wed. In fact I have read that there are an estimated 1000 federal and an average 400 state benefits that apply to married couples. Some of the more notable ones include joint adoption, next-of-kin status for medical purposes, joint insurance policies, divorce protections (like child support), automatic inheritance, qualification for spousal benefits (annuities, social security, pension plans, and Medicare), property tax exemptions, joint filing of tax returns, bereavement or sick leave to care for spouse and/or child, evidentiary immunity (if spouse is on trial), and domestic violence protection orders. That's certainly a lot to give up on principle. And it's a lot to withhold merely because you don't approve of some stranger's betrothal.

Personally I don't find any of the arguments against gay marriage compelling. The most commonly heard objection is that allowing homosexuals to get married will destroy the institution itself. This contention lacks any hint of logic or reason. Exactly how will this destruction occur? Whatever damage could be done to the tradition has already been done by straying heterosexuals. Others claim that opening up the restrictions on marriage will lead to more children being born out of wedlock. If you give a mere thirty seconds of consideration to that proposition, it becomes unfailingly obvious why it's beyond ridiculous. Some assert that legalizing same sex marriages will launch society down a slippery slope that will inevitably lead to the sanctioning of legal unions between man and animal, man and child, and man and several wives. Whenever I hear this argument, I wonder about the fantasy lives of its proponents.

Finally many opponents of same sex marriage appeal to the authority of the Bible. In their view "God" doesn't sanction gay behavior- so why should government? According to this two thousand year-old text, marriage was intended to be used for procreation above anything else. But I never hear these same Christians attacking heterosexual couples who have decided not to have kids. They also have never proposed forbidding infertile people from getting married. What kind of double standard is that? While they might protest that this is an invalid extension of their beliefs, they are immune to the argument that homosexuality has nothing to do with bestiality. Naturally the inconsistency of their holy book finds its mirror in their own opinions. That's inevitable among fundamentalists of all types.

Anyway, I see no reason to govern a modern society according to ancient belief systems and superstitions that would have been more appropriately left to medieval peasants. That's the reason why the founding fathers included a protection from religion in the 1st Amendment. If we're going to use Leviticus to decide this issue, then let's be consistent and outlaw "usury". That's right- according to the Old Testament, charging interest on a loan is a sin. Let's really shakedown a powerful institution!

Little Boy Blue...

It's probably natural that I choose to surround myself with people who have vaguely similar values and political beliefs. I would hazard a guess that this applies to most people in our increasingly self-aware and stratified society. Often this means that discussion among friends lacks the enlivening spark of conflict. It's way too easy to talk with the simple purpose of seeking reinforcement. I am too mischievous and provocative to feel contented with "preaching to the choir". As a result I often find myself taking the proverbial "devil's advocate" position. I'll actively seek out the differences in belief among my friends. Some people accept this social manner more easily than others, and it is to those folks who I ultimately feel most drawn.

The downside of these particular habits is that my friends sometimes assume that I am arguing for argument's sake when I am being completely sincere and revealing. This is an understandable reaction, and because I have contributed to that perception I have to make an effort to accept it when it happens. Still it occasionally makes it difficult to convince people that I mean what I say. Additionally I have to combat the ever-present risk that my companions are are merely adapting my conversational style and turning it back on me. Nevertheless I enjoy the resulting talk more often than not.

This past weekend I found myself speculating about parental strategies with a group of friends. Among them there is an approximately even balance of the procreative and childless. Interestingly some of the individuals without children seemed to be the most outspoken in their beliefs. For much of my life I've preferred not to speculate too much about events that have not yet happened to me. I recognize that changes in my life are going to bring new consequences and responsibilities, but I'd rather not dwell on them excessively. I'm going to have to assess all the variables as they present themselves, so why should I form some concrete and/or articulate plan now? That doesn't mean that I won't ever prepare for the future- I like to arrange my life so I have the greatest variety of options as my life progresses. But I won't likely have a straight answer for you if asked how I'll act five years from now. I'll probably just shrug and say, "We'll see."

Given this self-characterization, you may find it surprising to discover that I was actually frustrated while trying to explain my ideas about dressing my future child. I drew a sustained level of criticism for suggesting that I plan to pick out gender appropriate clothing for my son. Somehow my friends got the impression that this had to do with my views on homosexuality. I'll not repeat them in this post because I've already described them in detail previously- but I will point out that I believe that gender identity and sexual behavior are distinct components, while related in some complex way. Specifically, I said I will dress my boy in boy's clothes and then let him choose for himself what he wears only when he reaches the age of thirteen. I'll discourage him from wearing dresses, skirts or pink clothing. Even if he begs me to, I won't buy those things for my kid.

I haven't made this decision because I can't accept gay people. If my son turns out to be queer, then I'll do whatever I can to accept him and help him accept himself. But I see no reason why I should assist in introducing the type of identity problems that wearing girlish clothes will inevitably expose an American boy to. If I can help him avoid being berated as a "sissy" or "fag" before he even gets to high school, then I will do so. And as a father, I believe I have the right to choose what clothing he wears. If my kid wants to wear something I don't approve of, then let him buy it for himself. Why indulge what amounts to a mere preference if it's only going to bring him suffering, confusion, and/or exclusion? This is not to say that I'm going to make him into something he's not... but I don't believe that a permissive fashion sense is worth making your child vulnerable to cruelty and intolerance. Sure, it's perhaps unfortunate that a man somehow will be thought of as less than a man for wearing a skirt... but that's the reality.

I was surprised to discover that many of my friends disagree strongly with my stated position. They seemed to infer that I am a closet bigot. Furthermore they said that I won't be able to control what my child wears. They wanted to know- "Why not let a little boy wear girl clothes if he wants to?" My answers seemed to them to be unduly repressive. Somehow they think that if I restrict my children in what they wear, I will be denying their inborn identity. But I think that is an oversimplification of the situation. The truth is that every parent makes certain concessions based upon social expectations. For instance, they don't send their kids to school naked. Why not? Maybe deep down their kids were just born to be nudists?

No, that's obviously silly. I think my friends were conflating issues. Their support and acceptance of homosexuals (which I share) seems to be confused with external appearances- as if every man who ever wore a dress was gay, or every gay man must wear a dress. In something as superficial as clothing, I'm willing to make a few concessions for the sake of social acceptance. The clothes don't make (or unmake) a man... not really. So why allow your kids to subject themselves to that type of derision just because others "should be beyond" this kind of superficial judgment and intolerance? Why don't you at least let them wait until maturity before allowing them to make decisions that may saddle them with a (perhaps) unnecessary label for the rest of their lives? Otherwise it's ultimately making them suffer for your own idealism. Is that more fair than making an informed choice for them?

Gender Identity and Sexual Preference.

It should be obvious that talking about gender identity and sexual preference is one of the trickiest and most controversial conversations an American can have. So one might think that I would just steer clear of writing about these subjects on a public forum. But I consider it a priority not to shy away from commenting on difficult subjects. For better or for worse, I feel compelled to describe my thoughts about these things. Maybe next week I can talk about religion, and the day after I can examine race. That should be an effective way to alienate whatever small reader base I've been able to accumulate.

I want to make it absolutely clear that I support the rights of homosexuals. I believe that any interactions between two consenting adults that avoid hurting a third party should be left unregulated by the government. Likewise, absolutely no individual that adheres to consent should have to face governmental discrimination because of his/her sexual preference or gender identity. Furthermore, I have gay friends and I enjoy spending time with them. I don't judge their activities any more than I would my "heterosexual" friends. Nobody has ever made me feel threatened by their preference for homosexuality. And as a group I value their contributions much as I would any other identity-defined segment of society.

Having established my position, I'd like to continue by pointing out my belief that our society needlessly conflates gender identity and sexual preference. Just because someone identifies more with the opposite gender... that fact doesn't necessarily mean that they are "gay". Sexuality is much more nuanced than that. Having a gender identity that is incongruous with one's physical characteristics may lead to expectations of homosexual behavior, both on the part of the individual and others. Some may view this as an unfortunate reality, but it's one we have to contend with nonetheless. But when it comes right down to it, I don't believe there is any single factor that determines who we are attracted to or what sexual activities we engage in.

This is why I take exception to the assumption that homosexuality is genetically determined. I don't believe that there is a "gay" gene. If there were, it seems to me that this gene would not be selected for by evolution. The average number of offspring born with the gene would be less than those without it, and the difference would increase with each generation. Therefore there would be an ever decreasing proportion of homosexuals in society. Yet we have no reason to believe that this is the case. This argument seems (to me) like common sense. I do believe that there are clusters of genes that work together to create certain general dispositions, but sexual behavior is way too complex for me to accept the idea that it is preordained at birth. Furthermore, it's my understanding that the components of DNA information allow animals to exist along a spectrum within any specific dimension of identity. One may be born with a predisposition to grow taller than the average human being, but environmental factors will affect individual development. If you were born with the "potential" of being 6'5", but didn't have proper nutrition (or had your feet cut off)- then you would not reach that height. Whether this was a positive or negative outcome would depend on individual perspective. Regardless this example deals with a trait that is both extremely obvious and concretely measured. Applying the same logic to personality and identity characteristics should further reinforce my point.

I AM NOT saying that people choose their sexual preference or gender identity. That's just as simplistic as believing in "fate". The potential manifestations of a specific human genome are virtually limitless. For things as vague and nebulous as identity or sexual preference, I don't think one can predict the final outcome on the basis of DNA. There is definitely a blueprint for a future individual at every conception. But it's akin to an architect's rough sketch for a building- it doesn't accurately predict what the final product is going to be. One's environment is the ultimate determinant. The events and forces that act on people, especially at early stages of development, have crucial ramifications in every aspect of an individual life. How the individual responds to these changes adds another level of complexity to development. Ultimately there is no single explanation for what people become, so why do people seem to require one?

Kevin Miller of KDKA 1020.

Occasionally I find myself at a loss when I try to come up with something to write about here at Serendipity. I suppose that's a natural expectation considering I make every effort to post daily. I sometimes forget how close the solution hovers on the periphery of my life. All I have to do under such circumstances is to get into my car and make a short trip anywhere. This strategy works only if I tune into KDKA AM 1020. Invariably there will be some blow-hard exhausting his wind on some untenable or ridiculous position. Kevin Miller is my new whipping boy at the station. He excretes a vile load of shit every afternoon (12:15-3PM).

It occurs to me to wonder where the hell they come up with guys like this. Miller, originally from "northeastern Ohio", is a recent transplant from Dixie radio. But he got his start in New Hampshire interviewing presidential hopefuls prior to the state's 1996 primary. He styles himself "The Round Mound of Sound"- an appropriate moniker for this "fat tub of goo" (my apologies to Terry Forster). Building on his reputation as the NH Pat Buchanan, he ambulance-chased his way to Ground Zero, and parlayed the tragic event into limited national personal prominence. Later he became known for his commentary on the Duke Lacrosse rape case and for disputing Valerie Plame's status as a CIA operative (a contention he still pushes on a gullible listening audience today).

Given the general tenor of the mass media in the modern age, it is not surprising that he has won several AP awards. Conservative wingnuts like Miller are the darlings of the press corps. Since he's come to our fair city, he seems to have directed a lot of his attention toward religious commentary. Recently a group of women were ordained as Catholic priests on a riverboat, and Miller was apoplectic about it. An averred papist, the talk-show host ranted for several hours straight (at least) about how this event ran counter to religious doctrine. Instead of presenting anything resembling a logical argument for his position, he simply called upon the infallibility of the Pope. Whenever a caller checked in to express a differing viewpoint, he/she was answered with a curt dismissal. He kept stressing that "there are rules!" Yet there is some reason to believe that Jesus meant women to have an active role in spreading his word... and evidence for this appears in what should be Miller's ultimately accepted source of authority- the Bible itself.

Indeed it says in the scriptures that Jesus' first post-resurrection appearance was witnessed by Mary outside of his tomb. Surely the Lord God himself was expressing his wish for Mary to extend "the Word" to all who would follow Him. Or does Kevin Miller believe this was random chance? Because I'm certainly no biblical scholar, and he seems to be declaring himself an authority... or at least a mouthpiece for Rome- the officially-sanctioned "one true Church". I don't know anything about the infallibility of the Vatican, but I do believe that if Miller did any degree of independent study he could find evidence of spiritual misguidance. Perhaps he could check into Roman Catholic collusion with the Nazis.

But given a more recent topic Miller has engaged, I'm not so sure that he doesn't feel an element of kinship with the Third Reich. Not only is he railing against the participation of homosexuals in the Catholic faith, but he is now extending his particular brand of "activism" to the Lutheran synod. He evidently wants to play some role in steering every Christian sect away from allowing homosexuals to serve as spiritual advisors. While he is careful to try to maintain the illusion of diplomacy with off-the-cuff assessments like "to each their own", he is abundantly clear in saying that he would never accept a gay in the role of church leader. If he is not trying to influence the greater dialogue, then I have no idea why he is challenging this specific practice. The problem with guys like Miller is that they are never content to assume an air of superiority- they also want to dictate how everyone else thinks and lives. But apparently that sells on AM radio.