Why I Love (puke) Ann Coulter…

I’ve debated (a little bit) about whether or not to post about Ann Coulter. So far, I’ve decided against it - considering there’s way too much written about her in the blogsphere already. What could I add that nobody’s already said … and to be honest, David Letterman or Jay Leno are in a better position than I am to shine some humor on her than I am.

Every once in awhile, her name pops up - usually because of something she’s said … and chances are, it’s something so off the wall - it makes me wonder how Anybody can take this girl seriously. The latest is a perfect example:

Ann Coulter said (on MSNBC) that former President Bill Clinton was a “latent homosexual”. Why does she say this? Well, it’s because Clinton is promiscuous with women. Don’t worry - I heard her say this too and sat around for awhile with that blank look on my face while I scratched my head too. Does that silly girl even know what homosexual means? How can a guy be gay because he likes having sex with women?

Does she know what anything means?

One of my favorite Ann Coulter quotes comes from the Feb 26, 2001 Politically Correct:

“I think [women] should be armed but should not vote…women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it…it’s always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care.”

And yet, I bet you anything she voted in the last election… (and for Bush, I might add.)

How about when, on June 20, 2001 on Hannity and Colmes, she said:

“God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ‘Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.’”

Ok? So … ??? Rape is a good, god sanctioned thing? Nice to know.

Or, how about the time when she said in a New York Observer article:

“My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building.”

So, the federal agents who died … not to mention the children … mean nothing to her? Sigh… On the rightwingnews.com website, she did offer further comment:

“Of course I regret it. I should have added ‘after everyone had left the building except the editors and the reporters.’”

Now you see why I Love (puke) Ann Cunter? I could go on quote-bashing Ann, but why waste the energy?

Lately, I’ve come to realize that my biggest Coulter-problem isn’t with Ann, but rather with the rest of us Americans who love our country, but remain silent when she spews her Caca De Torro.

Whenever anybody who isn’t a right-wing republican Christian says … well, just about anything … Ann Coulter (or someone like her) drags them across the carpet and holds them responsible for even the smallest things they even remotely imply.

So … we say something bad, and we’re shot down and dragged around. They say something and Jay Leno just makes a joke? This can’t go on much longer … we need to hold them to the same standards they hold the rest of us.

Right?

Lance Takes His Bass Out Of The Closet… And???

Yeppers … I read it on CNN so it must be true- according to People Magazine, Lance Bass comes out.

In case you’re one of those people who really doesn’t know who Lance Bass is, he used to be one of the boys from that boy-band N’Sync. To be honest, I haven’t really seen much of him (or any of the other N’Sync guys either for that matter) except for that brief appearance recently on that Celebrity Game$how Marathon.

Now, there is a part of me that thinks its great whenever a celebrity comes out of the closet. We don’t have nearly enough role models (still) who are openly gay - so when another one comes out, I think it’s kinda cool.

Usually, though … I’m kind of disappointed. Usually, when a celebrity comes out of the closet, there’s all the talk on the evening news, or on the tabloid shows … Jay Leno or John Stewart make some joke about it … and that’s pretty much it.

Every once in awhile, someone like Rosie or Ellen comes along - they come out of the closet and actually do something! Anything. I mean … after Ellen’s show got canceled by the network after she (and her character) came out, she kept her cool, and before long she’s hosting the first post Sept. 11 Academy Awards and joking about “What would bug a guy from the Taliban more than seeing a gay woman in a suit surrounded by Jews?“

I have been getting increasingly tired of seeing the Gay Hollywood Game. I see it more and more lately … and let’s face it - it’s getting quite ridiculous. Paris Hilton says she wants a gay boyfriend. Or, how about all the talk about this celebrity (Tom Cruise?) or that celebrity (Colin Ferrell) should be gay … OK! ENOUGH ALREADY!

Sorry, Paris … I’m not impressed by your ability to accessorize a gay boyfriend into your wardrobe. Why the heck would you want a gay boyfriend in the first place? Because you want to date a guy who only wants to get into your pants so he can wear them? I don’t care if Tom Cruise is gay (I don’t think he is) … and I can’t see why anybody would want to think he is. Sure, he was cute, once. (I think it was on a Tuesday.)

And, I hate to say this, but Lance Bass coming out is starting to sound like just another round of The Gay Hollywood Game. Why do I think this? Well … lots of reasons.

First of all is because it’s Lance Bass. Ok, that’s not enough all by itself, but … had it been a celebrity who has done more than appear on a game show within the past few years…

Second was his statement that he didn’t come out before now because he felt it would hurt his band, N’Sync. (Which, I think they should have thought about before doing that movie, On The Line…) Sorry, Lance … I think not coming out with an album in over five years would hurt your band more than coming out.

Finally - Lance says he, and fellow N’Sync band member Joey Fatone are currently pitching a new sitcom, kinda like the Odd Couple, but his character’s going to be gay. (Please, just don’t call it “Will and Gracon”!)

I am sure Lance Bass is never going to read my blog … but if he does, I wish I could offer some advise. When a celebrity comes out, a bunch of people are going to look up to them because … well, it’s easy. So, don’t let us down. Do something. Anything. You don’t have to be another Ellen … but, please! Don’t let us down.

ACLU & The Westbourough Baptist Church

When I first heard that the Westbourough Baptist Church was showing up at the funerals of American Soldiers who were killed in Iraq and claiming that their death was God’s Punishment for the recent advances in gay rights in America - I thought, “You’ve got to be kidding.” But, then I remembered what the Westbourough Baptist Church was all about, and just rolled my eyes and went back to what I was doing.

Please … the last thing I want to do right now is get started on how wrong that is. These are soldiers who lost their lives fighting for what they thought was a great nation and made the ultimate sacrifice - only to return home and have a small group of Evangelical Assholes Christians using them for their own political agendas, that have absolutely nothing to do with the war or why they lost their lives. Something just isn’t right here.

In case you missed it, because of the Westbourough folks, Missouri passed a law that forbid groups like them (or any sort, of group for that matter) from demonstrating “in front of or about” these funerals. Now, the Westbourough folks and the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) are bringing about a lawsuit, claiming this infringes on their constitutional right of freedom of assembly.

For some reason … this reminds me of something that happened many many moons ago. I used to do quite a bit of volunteer work with one of the PBS stations in Denver. One day, during one of the semi-annual telethons, we were showing a movie called Longtime Companion, and I got what I thought, at first, was a crank call. (We tended to get a lot of them when gay-themed programs were aired.)

The gentleman who called started off talking about how disgusting homosexuality was, and informing me of his belief that homosexuals were an abomination to God. After several (long) minutes of this, he starts talking about what a great nation America is, how the Founding Fathers had the right ideas when they adopted the bill of rights granting us the ability to protest anything we like, the freedom to bear arms … and by this point, my finger is resting on the phone right next to the little red button (aka, PANIC BUTTON), hoping this guy isn’t about to tell me he’s waiting outside in his truck with his shotgun, waiting for us to step outside on our next smoke break.

But, then he moves on to the topic of PBS and how great they are and how they reflect the American system. He tells me that even a group of people as disgusting as these faggots can have their airtime, just like everyone else - and that’s something that he respects. He told me he was going to pledge a certain amount, as long as we didn’t send him any of the gay junk we were giving away as an incentive to get people to donate. (Turns out, he sent in more money than I had expected, and a lot more than he told me he was going to.)

Back then, I got to thinking he had a point. Here we are living in America, a place that has such a wide range of people with diverse backgrounds, interests, philosophies … and everyone’s able to try and live out the American Dream. (Well, kinda.)

So when I heard about this ACLU Lawsuit - it got me thinking about those Westbourough people and … well, and the fact that they have the same rights that the rest of us do … freedom to assemble … freedom of speech … I just can’t help thinking that … maybe they have a point as well.

There has to be some solution to everything here … and I am wondering if that solution doesn’t in fact lie in letting them have their say … at least for now. Maybe it will be like the Conservative groups in Colorado, back in the early 1990s, when they tried to ass Amendment Two (which nearly legalized discrimination against gays and lesbians, had the supreme court not found it unconstitutional). Most of the active conservative groups were blaring their homophobic message whenever they could. Every time you heard from most of these people it was about how bad gay people were - how gay people were to blame for this crime or that - how gay people were destroying families - how gay people were … you pretty much name it, they said it. They pointed to a lot of research by scientists who were disbarred from organizations, kicked out of the American Psychiatric Association … and eventually, people started to get sick and tired of hearing from them … including the conservative groups that promoted their messages.

I like to think that the people of Colorado finally saw these people for what they were - homophobic morons who instead of teaching a Christian message of tolerance and loving your neighbor (even if they be different than you) … but either way, the state (in general) seemed to lose interest. Once they lost interest, and nobody wanted to hear their messages … they didn’t exactly go away, but you could turn on your TV and chances are you wouldn’t see a commercial … or, you could walk past a gay bar and not see one of their vans (with the message posters on the windows) …

Sorry Phelps … maybe this is what’s in store for your Westbourough group if you keep doing what you’re doing…???

Gay Games Comes To Chicago

When I first heard that the Gay Games were going to be in Chicago this year, my first thought was: “Run! Hide! The city is gonna become a zoo!”

In All honesty, I had no idea what to expect. Chicago is no stranger to really big gay events, considering it’s hosted the International Mr. Leather (IML) Competition since it began in 1979. While neither our Pride Fest nor our North Halsted Merchants Association’s Market Days match the scope of either the Gay Games or IML, they’re both local achievements the local gay community is actually pretty proud of.

I first learned about the Gay Games in 1994, when several people I knew went to New York to compete. None of them won any of the events they competed in - but they all came back saying that that didn’t matter - what mattered was that they were there, they competed, made new friends, had a lot of fun, and they’re likely to remember those experiences for the rest of their lives.

Now that the Games have arrived, I have mixed feelings. After watching the Opening Ceremonies last night at Soldier Field, I was reminded about the spirit of the games. Hearing several of the presenters talking about how Dr. Tom Waddell started the Games in the 80s, his vision to bring together gay people from around the world. But, there were also constant reminders of politics.

Other than brief references to the current state of gay politics (such as the gay marriage issue) there was also some talk about the politics of the games themselves. For example, Dr. Tom Waddell first called the event The Gay Olympics, however in 1982, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) filed a lawsuit which forced them to change the name to the Gay Games. The United States Olympic Committee (USOC) has, since the Amateur Sports Act of 1978, exclusive rights to the word “Olympics.”

Many people believe this decision was homophobic in nature - considering that when the lawsuit was filed, the USOC didn’t seem to have a big problem with either the Nebraska Rat Olympics or the Police Olympics. Then, there’s also the Special Olympics where people with disabilities are encouraged to compete.

This year’s Gay Games are not without their controversey as well. The Games were originally slated to occur in Montreal (Canada) but after some disagreements between the city of Montreal and the Federation of Gay Games (FGG) their sanctions were pulled and the Games were moved here to Chicago.

Montreal was rather upset by this decision, and decided to play hardball. If they weren’t going to be allowed to host the Gay Games, they’d do their own thing that weekend, screw the FGG, the more people in Montreal, the less numbers will be in Chicago, and …

Thankfully before long, people began to realize that the only people who were going to suffer because of this was likely to be the athletes, and that’s not the true meaning of sportsmanship - so they formed the Outgames to be held later this year.

Some of this talk about politics is going to be expected, however I strongly feel that the more talk about politics, the less emphasis is going to be placed on what the Gay Games are all about -

Does This Feel Like Discrimination To You?

They’re building a new shopping center in Oak Park, Illinois (near the intersection of Lake and Harlem.) So far, the process has gone on without any major complications. Some of the folks in nearby stores and office spaces have commented on the noise, but that’s nothing beyond what’s expected when you’re piling large metal beams into the earth…

Lately, they’ve been trying to get retailers interested in renting space in the new building. That, too, has been pretty much what anyone would expect … until now, that is.

The Village of Oak Park is trying to “expand the market of people who are going to come downtown” says Village President David Pope in a Chicago Sun-Times article. It kinda sounds like they’re trying to diversify the Chicago suburb that was named last year as one of the nation’s “sexiest” suburbs.

However, when Lane Bryant - a store that caters to plus sized women - applied to rent space in the new shopping center, the Village of Oak Park denied their request saying Lane Bryant didn’t fit the “kind and quality” of the shops they were trying to attract.

And just what “kind and quality” of customer is that?

Lane Bryant is screaming “Discrimination” by filing a lawsuit against the Village of Oak Park, asking to be allowed to open their store at that location (1116 Lake Street) and to award the developer 2.4 million for its losses on the deal.

What Is Destroying The Sanctity of Marriage (Part 2)

When I posted the first What Is Destroying The Sanctity of Marriage post, I got a little off focus. I tend to do that from time to time. The point I thought I was making was how I am sick and tired of hearing how gay people are taking the blame for destroying the sanctity of marriage because they want the same privileges as heterosexuals.

In fact, I am sick and tired of hearing people blame homosexuals for nearly everything. I’m sorry, Rev. Phelps - gay people aren’t to blame for the war in Iraq or the solders who lost their lives fighting for such a great country. I’m sorry, Rev. Robertson - gay people aren’t to blame for horrible disasters like Hurricane Katrina and the flooding of New Orleans.

Let’s face it - we live in a country where traditional values, such as taking the responsibility for our own actions has flown so far out the window we can’t even see it anymore. What would Edna Garrett, June Cleaver, or even Clair Huxtable have to say about the world we live in today? Do we, as a society, even remember who these three Fabulous women were? ‘Cause you know all three of them would be able to find a lesson for us to learn through all of this!

I did not mean to make it sound like I was blaming Divorce for being the biggest thing destroying the sanctity of marriage, although I do (as Pete, who commented on my first post, said) believe it is one of the largest symptoms of the true problem.

I was trying to use divorce to point out, as Pete did (and did a better job of it than I did) was that the actions, attitudes, and lack of responsibility of those who get divorced do a much better job of destroying the sanctity of marriage than some gay dude who wants to be able to put his life-partner on his health insurance.

Ultimately, I think there are a number of factors that have lead to the paradigm shift of what we now think of as traditional marriage values. It’s not just the Divorce rate … it’s also that we refuse to take responsibility for our actions … commitment just doesn’t mean anything anymore … people are getting married not because they’re in love, but because society tells them anyone unmarried by age 30 must have something wrong with them or Mommy’s begging for grandchildren or (I could go on and on with this) … or even because in this day and age, marriage is a legislative process - we’ve passed so many laws and policies (tax breaks, partner benefits, etc.) that marriage - in and of itself - itsn’t what it used to be.

And homosexuals don’t even register on that map. How could they?

Outrage Over Film’s Rating???

Every time I start to think I’ve seen it all - something new comes along that just blows that notion out of the water. This time, it involves movie ratings. The film, called Meeting The Giants, appears to be a project from the Sherwood Baptist Church of Albany, Georgia - a movie shot with one camera, and many of the movie’s extras were members of the church. The movie is said to carry a largely Christian message, and the church believes it is a movie everyone should be able to see.

So, what’s the problem? Well, apparently a lot of people are outraged because the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) decided to give the film a PG rating.

Um … Ok … Um, what’s the problem? Are you as lost as I am?

According to the MPAA, a film will receive a PG rating because it may contain some content that some parents might find unsuitable for their children, and it leaves the responsibility of determining if children should see the film to their parents. PG rated films may contain themes that some parents find questionable, brief nudity, profanity, or violence - but not on an intensity level that parents should be strongly cautioned or worried.

It appears that the MPAA gave the film a PG rating because of “thematic elements” - namely its proselytizing message, fearing that people from other religions or cultures may find certain elements in the film or the message of the film questionable. That sounds very reasonable to me.

So why are these people outraged?

I don’t know - but I do know why I am outraged:

One theme I have seen in several blog posts already (as well as in a few public message boards) is that some parents will not allow their children to see any PG rated movie, and yet they would like their children to be able to see this film when it gets released later this year. This sounds like more of a family dispute than a national crisis to me. While I loathe to say this - it also sounds almost like bad parenting.

Part of good parenting (in my opinion) is taking the responsibility to make decisions for or regarding your children. And part of that means deciding for yourself which movies are appropriate for them to watch. Refusing to make those decisions (and putting those decisions into other people’s hands, such as the MPAA) is definitely not within my idea of good parenting skills.

There are others who are using this movie’s MPAA rating to further their political-religious agenda - namely that Christians are still being persecuted because of their faith - such as one blog post called Rated R For Religion (I’m sorry - but there is a big difference between a movie getting a PG rating and an R rating) which claims the film was rated the way it was because the MPAA is persecuting Christianity.

(Personally, don’t you think that if the MPAA were really persecuting Christians, they’d slap the film with an NC-17 rating in which children are not allowed to legally enter the theater at all - rather than a PG rating which they can enter without a parent accompanying them? Or, at least an R-rating which would only allow a child into the theater if he were accompanied by a parent?)

Now, let me ask you one final question. Is it even appropriate for congress to intervene on this issue, and try to force the MPAA to give this film a G rating? Because if you think that’s absurd and over the top - then you would have the same reaction I did when I read this Washington Times article about how congress was considering doing just that.

The article does, however, raise one interesting point when it talks about how movies will receive a PG rating if they discuss mature subjects, such as issues with pregnancy, as this film does.

Still… I just don’t get it. I’ve yet to hear anyone saying the film is bad. I’ve yet to hear a single person say the message in the film is wrong. What I do see are a few Christians who couldn’t get their way - so they had to take the issue all the way up to Congress, because fault couldn’t lie within their thinking, but within the rest of the world.

I kinda wonder what some of these people thought when Mel Gibson’s The Passion came out. What I heard several times over was that even though the movie was so graphically violent (the movie was Rated R) many Christian parents wanted their children to see the film because they felt it was more important for their children to know what Jesus went through than to spent time complaining that one of the most violent films in recent history was given an R rating (because it contained Christian themes?).