That DaVinci Code Lawsuit

Several weeks ago, when I heard that the authors of the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail were filing a lawsuit against Dan Brown, author of The Da Vinci Code, the first think that popped into my head was that this was probably nothing but a publicity stunt. I was one of those people who, back in 1993, after reading The Da Vinci Code for the first time, ran back to the bookstore to pick up Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and a number of other books on the same subject. And I wasn’t the only one - while the Da Vinci Code was climbing the bestseller lists, so was Holy Blood, Holy Grail.

When the lawsuit started, I noticed that a lot of people were, once again, running to the bookstores to buy The Da Vinci Code, as well as Holy Blood, Holy Grail. Having read both books, I didn’t pay that much attention to the lawsuit, the news reports, or the blog posts about the suit.

The judge’s ruling came down, finding in favor of Dan Brown - finding he did not plagiarize the other book, even though his book was based, in part, on the same subject matter. (Anyone who has read both books can find numerous parallels between the two books.)

The history of The Da Vinci Code is actually a kind of interesting lesson in how to promote, advertize, and market a book. First, there’s The Controversy - or, the element in the book that has so many Christians and Catholics up in arms. When you do something like this, of course people are going to talk about it, debate it, debunk as much of it as they can, and chances are, people on both sides of the fence are likely to go out and pick up a copy.

Secondly, there is Dan Brown’s Website. One of the features of his sites utilizes code-breaking games - giving you the chance to solve puzzles just like Langdon does in the book. Of course, some of those puzzles are a lot easier if you actually have a copy of the book in your hands. (How else will you know what the first word of the first letter of the 49th chapter is?)

One of the website puzzles was taken from the inside of the jacket of the hardcover book. When reading the inside cover of the dust jacket, one would notice that several of the letters appeared in bold typeface. If one would make note of those letters, apply a certain code-breaking technique, a secret message could be decoded.

Pretty good marketing strategy, if you think about it. What better way to get readers to pick up your book than by revealing that you’ve hidden extra secrets within the book or even on the cover.

So, what does all this have to do with the Holy Blood v. Da Vinci Code lawsuit? Would it surprise you to read that the judge has hidden a secret message in his ruling, a la Dan Brown’s website challenges?

Mr. Justice Peter Smith’s complete judgment can be found here. However, in order to find the secret message, one must view the PDF file version of his ruling. One will notice that certain letters in the document are printed in a bold typeface. (Sound familiar?)

Mr. Justice Peter Smith, as far as I have heard, refuses to give any information about the secret message, although he says he would "probably" confirm it if anyone was ever able to crack his code.

The Immigration Debate Issues… (Part One)

There’s been a lot of talk in the news (not to mention the blogs) about immigration. I haven’t posted on it yet for a few reasons. In part, because everything I would have wanted to say had already been said. Also, there are so many different issues - it’s easy to get lost. It’s clear from watching the news, and definitely reading people’s blogs, that the issue isn’t just what we should do about the "undocumented immigrants" living here.

For example, as a friend of mine pointed out on his blog, there is the issue of the Pilgrims and the Native Americans. I’ve heard a number of other people making similar comments. While I can see a few minor parallels, I think this is an entirely different issue. I’m just not sure how I stand on the issue.

The problem I have is this: People are pointing out that the early Americans started to settle here, we forced the Native Americans to follow our laws, we forced them to live on reservations. The early Americans moved onto their land and forced them out. I don’t know a single person who thinks this was the right thing to do. Now, immigrants are crossing the American borders and in a way doing the same thing to us. I still don’t see how this is right.

When you look at the entire picture, though - these are two totally different issues. Granted, they share some similarities - but beyond that we’re talking apples and oranges.

Part of the reason I find this issue so confusing is that it is like we’re speaking different languages. When we say things like "raids on immigrants" this is prejudicial and misleading - we’re not rounding up all immigrants, just the ones that not here legally. Or, we may call these people "undocumented" like they were people who were just caught without their IDs on them.

The fact is that these are people who are in this country illegally. When I say this, I mean that they have not gone through the proper procedures that legal immigrants have gone through. They do not have to pay taxes, yet in many cases they do have access to programs funded by tax dollars.  How is this fair to taxpayers?

So, to maybe help a little bit with all this confusion, here are a few definitions:

Alien - someone who is not a US National or US Citizen.

US National - One who is a legal resident of one of the US Possessions (such as the Northern Mariana Islands or American Samoa, and owes allegiance to the United States.

US Citizen - A US Citizen is one who was:

• Born in the United States, Puerto Rico, Guam, or the US Virgin Islands
• A former Alien who has been naturalized as a US Citizen
• Someone whose parent (biological or adopted) was a US Citizen

Immigrant - (Also known as Lawful Permanent Resident or LPR) One who has been granted the right by the USCIS (the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) to live and work without restriction in the US. Immigrants are issued a green card (USCIS Form I-551) to prove their immigrant status. Before getting their green card, they can get a I-551 stamp on their foreign passport.

Nonimmigrant - One who has obtained a legal visa to enter the US (such as a work visa or student visa). Lots of more information is available on the USCIS website.

Illegal Alien or Undocumented Alien - an alien who has entered this country illegally, or one who has remained in this country beyond the terms of their particular visa, and in either case they are deportable if apprehended.

A Return To “Traditional Marriage” Values?

You may think this is a post about gay marriage. In a way, maybe it is. Or, maybe it isn’t…

I guess the problem I have with this is that it is starting to sound like the only thing that makes a marriage value traditional is that only a man can get married to a woman and vice versa. And that’s a pretty limited view on traditional marriage, if you ask me. So, what else is there?

For starts, marriage is a permanent arrangement. There is no such thing as divorce. Phrases such as "for better or worse" or "until death do us part" were taken very seriously. There would be no such thing as Britney Spears getting married one day in Vegas, and then immediately filing for divorce. Liz Taylor’s marriage list would have stopped with Nicky Hilton. Liza would have stopped at Peter Allen. And Woody Allen would have never been able to marry Soon-Yi.

Another, much larger part of traditional marriage is that a man’s wife becomes his property, his chattel. Her role is to completely submit to her husband. She has no ability to make decisions. There will be no disagreements with her husband because his word is law her word is pretty much useless. A married woman isn’t supposed to work or support herself because everything she needs (not necessarily wants) is provided for her by her husband. Her job is pretty much to stay home, cook, clean, sort the mail, do the laundry, bear her husband as many children as she can push out the birth canal.

If we were really talking about Traditional Marriage, we’d be talking about a lot more than only letting those of opposite genders get married. Yet, I have yet heard (and I doubt I ever will hear) a single thing about lowering the extremely high divorce rate. Isn’t divorce a huge threat against marriage?

So, if this isn’t about traditional marriage, let’s call it what it is - pure and simple.

Homophobia.

Those Unspoken Of Gay Characters…

With all the recent talk about movies like Brokeback Mountain (movies where the main characters, and much of the plot-line involve homosexuality) it's easy to overlook all those movies and tv shows where the gay characters are in the background or in supporting roles.

It wasn't all that long ago that if a movie came out that had a gay character in it (even if that character only had a few lines) it seemed like it was a big deal. It wasn't that long ago that you just didn't see this sort of thing at all. It wasn't that long ago that gay themes had to be presented in some pretty odd ways.

I remember one episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation called The Outcast from Season 5 where the Enterprise encountered a planet where everyone was androgynous, except for a small percent of the population who identified as either Male or Female. Riker starts to develop feelings for one of the ones who consider herself female, and tries to save her when her planet's leaders discover this about her and force her to go through a procedure to make her androgynous, rather than female.

Cheers was another show that occasionally covered the topic of homosexuality. In fact, they won a Media Award from GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) over an episode from the first season called The Boys In The Bar, where an old teammate of Sam's comes out as gay, and Cheers nearly becomes a gay bar in the process. In another episode, Norm tells some people he's gay in order to get a job. When his employers try to set him up on a date with a friend of theirs, he tells them he's straight and nearly loses his job.

On the show Three's Company, the main character, Jack wouldn't have been allowed to live with two women, so they told the landlords he was gay - although there was no doubt in anyone else's mind he was straight. In later episodes of Cagney and Lacey, Lacey discovers her new neighbor is gay. In The Golden Girls, Blanche's brother is gay, although he only appeared as a minor character twice. There was another episode where Dorothy finds out one of her friends is a lesbian (and has the hots for Rose).

Even in some of the popular British shows (available on PBS in most areas) had to be very careful (yet very obvious) in depicting gay characters. Even though it is never stated one way or another, there is no doubt at all that Mr. Humphries from Are You Being Served? was gay. In Keeping Up Appearances, we never quite meet the Bucket's son Sheridan, although he's obviously gay and often seems to be calling for money. (Mrs. Bucket never realizes her son is gay, although everyone else seems to know.)

It's important to remember that many of these shows came out when the subject of homosexuality was considered very taboo. The gay plot-lines were often either used either as something happening on the sidelines, or on rare occasions part of the subplot.

It was very rare to see gay characters dealing with some very gay issues. One of the best examples of this comes from the original Tracy Ullman Show. The first season featured sketches involving Francesca, who lived with her father, and William (her father's lover). In one episode, Francesca had to write a paper on what her family was like, but her teacher didn't like what she turned in because she came from a different type of family. By the end of the skit, the teacher recanted, realizing Francesca had two parents, just like everyone else, and maybe a little diversity is a good thing.

We have come such a long way since then. A show such as Will and Grace just wouldn't be possible when all these shows mentioned above were made. And definitely not shows like Showtime's Queer as Folk, or The L Word either. Even re-occurring gay characters like Stanford Blanche on Sex And The City would probably have pushed the envelope too much.

While these shows might not have been major events in the history of gay characters on TV and in the movies, I think it is important to remember that they did, in fact, pave the road to where we are now.

How Not To Critique A Film… (The Chronicles Of Narnia)

Another one of those things that really gets to me is how they critique a film. Often, reading someone's reactions to a film makes me wonder if they've ever seen the damned thing in the first place. Either that or it's so obvious they have some sort of political agenda because of the way they distort every little thing. Sometimes, it's actually funny … well, until you realize that someone can, and often do, take such reviews seriously.

To prove my point: Here is my review of the film: The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe.

I watched this movie, expecting to see a good film with good Christian values. What I saw was nothing of the sort. Instead, I was confronted with themes such as magic, child endangerment, pedophilia, and even bestiality.

If you were one of those people who did not like the Harry Potter movies because you felt it promoted witchcraft and or paganism, this film is going to be no different. Once again we find ourselves facing a movie with the message that magic is good. One great example of this is the magic potion that features predominately in the film. The potion supposedly heals all physical wounds. When one of the major characters nearly dies on the battlefield, he is brought back to life by this magic potion. Do we really want our kids to start thinking that there are magical potions that could bring them or their friends back to life when they're knocking on death's door?

The movie starts innocently enough. Mother sends her children off to live with relatives during The War to keep them safe. But the youngest child, once she gets there, finds a magical wardrobe which transports her to a place called Narnia. Upon arriving in Narnia, she is greeted by someone who isn't wearing any pants, not even a shirt. In fact, all he wears at all is just a scarf. And what does he do when he meets the girl? He entices her back to his home. And he's got some pretty dastardly plans for her.

Now, I don't know about you - but if anybody thinks that there is anything good about a young girl running off with a man who never wears pants or shirts… that's not just wrong - that's SICK!

Oh, and I forgot to mention one thing - he's half animal, half man. Which brings us to the topic of bestiality. Considering he's half animal, half man we have to assume that one of his parents was human, the other animal - and once again, this is not the type of values I want a child thinking about.

In case you're thinking this is one of the bad guys - he isn't. In fact, he's one of the good guys. As we watch this film, we're led to pity him, and think he's one of our friends. Sick sick sick!

Throughout the film, we're introduced to many strange animals, in fact. Talking lions, beavers, wolves… again, promoting bestiality. The way bestiality is promoted by making these animals seem human, giving them human qualities.

These are just a few examples of why The Chronicles of Narnia can be considered one of the most disturbing movies ever made. And if all of this can happen in a PG Rated movie (not PG-13, not R, not NC-17) then I shudder to think of what's in store in the future.

(please note: While I did write this review, I did so only to prove a point - and not because I agree with any of the subject matter. In fact, I don't really agree with any part of the movie review.) 

Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone - Unless The Bastard’s A Faggot?

Forgive me if I am wrong here, but wasn't part of Jesus' teachings about loving your neighbor and setting good examples? Did I miss the part where Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. No, wait - the bastard's a faggot. Never-mind. It's ok. Hey! Let me get in on this. Someone hand me a big rock."

I don't want to put words into her mouth, but it sounds to me like this is what Ruth Malhotra of Atlanta, Georgia is saying. She's suing her school, Georgia Tech, because she thinks their anti-discrimination policy (which says it's not ok to verbally bash gays) infringes on her ability to practice Christianity. Apparently in order to be a Christian, you have to harass gay people, wear anti-gay tee shirts, and do a bunch of stuff that I'm pretty sure would cause Jesus to roll over in his grave if he had one.

A simple google search on Ruth Malhotra can give you a little insight into this gal. I think she's paranoid, thinking everyone is out to get her because of her religious beliefs. Yes, this isn't the first time she's taken someone (or her School) to court because she felt they weren't allowing her to be a good Christian. She accused her school of giving her bad grades only because she was a Christian - she filed a greviance because her teachers didn't share her religious beliefs or political views - There are so many google search results about her, I'm starting to wonder if she'll sue anybody and everybody she doesn't agree with? Or, who doesn't agree with her.

Personally, I don't see how anybody's sexual orientation is as threatening as so many want us to believe.

And, it isn't that we don't like Christians - that would have nothing to do with it anyway. Yes, you are entitled to your religious beliefs - that's part of what this Great Nation was based on. Nobody is saying you can't practice your religion. What we're saying is that you can't cram it down the throats of every homosexual you want to persecute.

That's right - it isn't your religious values we're against, it's the persecution. And yes, there is a VERY BIG difference.

So, is your message really that persecution is wrong if it's about religous values, but perfectly acceptable if it's based on moral values? That hardly seems fair.

The law in America protects you because of your religous values - and that's a good law. That same law, pretty much, protects homosexuals from the exact same thing - and that's a bad law? Either it's good or its bad - which one is it? 

HIV & The California Courts

There's an interesting wind blowing in California. The case is John B. vs. Superior Court, S128248 and it is asking if HIV+ People should be required by law to tell their partners or playmates about their HIV Status. There are so many things wrong with this that I don't even know where to start.

This lawsuit is pretty much bringing up two issues: the first is about how much your partner (or spouse) is entitled to know about your past sexual history as it relates to spreading infection. The other issue is if one should be held accountable for passing on HIV even they are unaware of their HIV Status.

One of the issues here I have a BIG problem with is that (as reported by law.com) Bridget claims her husband's sexual history is important because he had homosexual sex in the past which increased her chances of getting HIV - an idea that sounds good in theory but is rather lacking in the long run. See, the thing is that it makes it sound like all homosexual sex and only homosexual sex leads to HIV infection.

What if the husband had a history of heterosexual sex rather than homosexual sex? Or, what if he had tried injecting cocaine at a party once? What if he liked to have fun with the occasional hooker? Oh - what if he got a little too frisky with the stripper at his bachelor party? All of these are excellent ways of putting yourself at risk for getting HIV - but we don't hear about any lawsuits because some girl might have gotten HIV after her husband boinked some stripper - only if the poor guy had gay sex.

Let's face one reality here. HIV doesn't care who you are, what gender you are, if you're Gay, Straight, Bi, or Anne Heche… it doesn't matter if you're Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, Klingon - the basic reality here is that if you have unprotected sex with anyone - PERIOD - you're putting yourself at risk for HIV.

Another reality here to face - it takes two to tango. Hopefully by now you know that HIV is spreading in all demographic groups. (And, it's not just HIV anymore - syphilis cases are on the rise, as well as numerous other STDs.) If you agree to have unprotected sex with someone, or if you agree to inject drugs with someone, or if you agree to do anything which puts you at risk for getting HIV - both parties are just as guilty. There isn't any of this "if I would have known he had HIV I wouldn't have screwed him."

The only people who really know their HIV status are either (1) Virgins; or (2) the HIV Positive. I don't know how many people have told me that they just got an HIV Test back and that it was safe - as if this little sheet of paper proves anything. All it proves, to me, is that as of six months ago, you most likely didn't have HIV. Whoever it was you screwed around with last night or last weekend or three months ago might have given it to you and it's possible it didn't show up on that test…

Sorry - I am getting away from myself here. Back to the topic at hand. The law.com article states:

"Is it that burdensome of an obligation to warn a partner?" Justice Marvin Baxter asked attorneys arguing the case. "That partner would then have a choice of taking that risk or not taking that risk."

At least three of the seven justices seemed to agree.

And a little farther down:

At one point, George seemed frustrated by Multhaup's responses that disclosure wouldn't accomplish much.

"But what's the burden?" George asked. "Here we're just talking about exchanging a few words."

I'm sorry to say this, Your Honor, with all due respect, but if you think we're only talking about exchanging a few words, it's time to pull your head out of your ass so you can better see the world around you.

Let me put it to you this way: you just found out your date had appeared in a movie called Naughty Nymphos from Neptune - Do you think "Oh, she's a porn star, she might have AIDS." Or, do you think "Where can I get my hands on that movie?" Or, do you think, "Gee, was that you in that scene where they started doing it on the captain's chair, then did it on the floor, then in the elevator, the holodeck…"

It's not just a few words - it's a VERY LOADED QUESTION. A question that leads to any number of other questions. And in case we didn't learn anything from Bill and Hillary - men aren't always totally honest about where they stick their penis. And honestly, speaking as a guy - we're not always sure where we stick the damned thing either. When we follow some cutie home from the bar for a one-night-stand, it isn't as if we ask to see their ID (You mean your name isn't really Aileen Overmann?), union card, social security number, or what numbers they played in last weeks lotto.

The final thing I want to comment on here is about the notion that some people aren't being tested because they don't want to be legally responsible for passing on the virus - just where do you come up with such utter Bullshit Caca Du Torro?

Since 1995 I have lived and worked around HIV+ people. I have given discussions in High School health classes and on college campuses about HIV prevention. I have counseled people while giving them HIV tests. I have run HIV support groups. I have answered phones at the AIDS Hotline. I have stood up and been counted as an HIV Advocate. And I have NEVER, even once, ran across anyone who didn't want to be tested because they were afraid of being sued. I have never ran across anyone who didn't want to get tested in order to avoid homicide or manslaughter charges. That notion is really quite laughable, really.

The biggest reasons I've seen for people not wanting to be tested is because HIV is a horrible disease that is hard for some people to accept they have it … because once you have HIV, you're almost labeled an outcast and there's a fairly good chance your friends or family aren't going to talk to you anymore … because society looks down on you if you have HIV … because Pat Robertson wants you to think you have AIDS because you turned your back on GOD … you get the idea here…

And yes, if you are a politician or are otherwise in a position to help set public policy and you have no idea what it's like to have HIV - chances are you're just going to make things worse - and you will continue to make things worse until you at least learn the basics of what life is like for those of us living with this disease.

Those Gay Cowboy Films…

Today, Brokeback Mountain came out on DVD, (yes, I already bought my copy, thanks for asking) and just like I expected, the Blogsphere has been filling up with Brokeback Posts. (I also got The Chronicles of Narnia at the same time, and I am wondering if that is sacrilegious.)

Most of the comments I've been reading on people's blogs (other than the posts where some straight dude is debating if he should rent Brokeback Mountain or not) are starting to sound like there has never been a cowboy movie with gay people in it. So, to compliment my most recent post, I thought I would share with you a brief list of cowboy movies for gay people…

Blazing saddles (1974) - Mel Brooks' takes on the Old West isn't exactly a gay themed movie, but what the heck. It's hysterical. It really isn't your typical cowboy movie, although all the cowboy stereotypes are picked on. And if you can't picture some drag queen doing Madeline Kahn's "I'm Tired" number, you weren't paying attention. Or, maybe, like me, you had to run to change your pants because you laughed so hard you peed…

Wagons East (1994) - While the main attraction to this movie just may be John Candy's next-to-last film (unless you're a Star Trek: Voyager fan) - John C. McGinley's flamboyantly gay character can't be forgotten. Yes, that's the same guy who plays Dr. Cox on Scrubs - so trust me, it's worth it. He's … um … FABULOUS!

Midnight Cowboy (1969) - This seems to be another one of those movies everyone forgot about. When it first came out, because of the homosexual situations and homoerotic themes, the film was given an X-rating. In fact, it's gone down in history as being the only X-rated film to ever have received an Academy Award. Fortunately, the ratings people eventually relaxed a bit and the film was later allowed to have an R-rating. However, considering when the film was made - it is definitely worth a look and a mention here.

Ok, I know - that's only three. Unfortunately, I'm running out of time, for now. Happy Watching!