Got Milk?

Sean Penn used to be one of those people that … well, I’d cringe whenever I’d hear his name. There were all those “bad boys” movies in the 1980s and that whole Madonna thing and … I remember a few times over the years that someone would start talking about him … and to tell the truth, I just sort of stopped listening. Then, several years after the movie came out, I finally convinced myself to watch Dead Man Walking, a movie that totally took me by surprise, although it wasn’t until he’d done I am sam and Mystic River that I started to think that maybe he wasn’t going to be so bad after all.

Now, granted – I haven’t seen the movie yet, but from what I am hearing – one of his next movies may just prove me wrong again. I’m talking about a movie, currently set to release in November called Milk.

Milk is the latest movie from Director Gus Van Sant (the same guy who brought us Good Will Hunting, Even Cowgirls Get The Blues, and My Own Private Idaho, just to name a few) and tells the story of San Francisco’s first openly gay elected official, Harvey Milk.

If you don’t know about Harvey Milk, go rent the excellent documentary, The Times of Harvey Milk.

On November 27, 1978, then city supervisor of San Francisco, California, Harvey Milk was assassinated by the recently resigned city supervisor, Dan White. White was convicted of his crime, but only received a seven year sentence because his legal defense team claimed junk food made him temporarily incompetent. Yes, this was the original “Twinkie Defense”. San Francisco erupted in riots over this – and the Milk assassination became one of the crucial turning points in the fight for gay civil rights.

Even this early in the game, Sean Penn is already starting to receive adoration from the way he is portraying Harvey Milk, leaving some to start to wonder if a second Oscar Award is coming soon. (His first was for Mystic River.)

Me? I just wonder what Barbra Streisand is thinking right now?

Her Son-In-Law, Josh Brolin, who recently finished filming Milk – where he plays Milk’s assassinator Dan White, has just started filming Oliver Stone’s W. where he plays George W. Bush – Two totally opposite (yet strangely similar) real-life characters I’m sure The Funny Girl has some pretty strong feelings about…

And from the recent cover of Entertainment Weekly – he appears to have a pretty good likeness…

…although this is now starting to lead into a topic for another, later, blog post!

What Am I Missing Here?

In all honesty, it didn’t surprise me that much when I heard the story on the nightly news – basketball player Tim Hardaway doesn’t like gay people:

Well, you know — you know, I hate gay people. So, you know, I let it be known. I don’t like gay people. I don’t like to be around gay people. I don’t — you know, I’m homophobic.

What surprises me is how much talk there is about Hardaway. He’s been on the news and in the newspapers … so many blog posts, I don’t know where to begin … it’s starting to seem like every time I turn around – whoops – there’s Tim Hardaway again.

You can see Tim Hardaway naked on YouTube, with not one, not two, not three, but four separate videos (and probably more than that, too)…

The openly gay mayor of North Miami, Kevin Burns, has openly reached out to Hardaway, inviting him to spend some time with his family…

Charles Berkley has said some public words to Hardaway…

There are people who think that Hardaway is up for the Asshole-Of-The-Year Award – and there are those too who are proud of Hardaway’s homophobia.

But, I get the feeling we’re missing something here. Let’s see … how did all this start? Oh, yeah – some basketball player said he was gay, and Hardaway said he hates gay people. And then … Oh. Wait. That’s it! Someone came out of the closet. Who was that? Why can’t we hear half as much about him as we have from Hardaway? (Oh, yeah…)

John Amaechi is that gay basketball player. He’s been blogged about and had a few news reports about him. (Just not all that many.) And, it seems that most of what I’ve seen (so far) has been more about Amaechi’s response to Hardaway than his original comment. Amaechi was reported to have said:

”His words pollute the atmosphere,” Amaechi said. ”It creates an atmosphere that allows young gays and lesbians to be harassed in school, creates an atmosphere where in 33 states you can lose your job, and where anti-gay and lesbian issues are used for political gain. It’s an atmosphere that hurts all of us, not just gay people.”

Please don’t get me wrong here. I think his response was great and well-said.

I just think we need to support John Amaechi a little more!

Film Ratings…

As an avid DVD collector and movie buff - I have always been just a little intrigued about the whole movie rating thing. It’s … just … confusing!

Like most people I know - film ratings don’t mean all that much to me. I can see how they can be useful to some people - especially those with children - but when it comes to movies I either rent or buy for myself … those ratings have little (if anything) to do with what I walk away with.

Personally, I usually find that the “unrated” or “NC-17″ version of movies are better than the R-rated versions, although I don’t see this as much of a “ratings” issue as it is a “director’s cut” issue. For example - Fatal Attraction’s Theatrical Release is ok… but, the director’s cut is so much better. The only big difference is the ending… that whole ‘He kills her, then she comes back to life so his wife can kill her too’ … what the heck was THAT about? The original ending was, believe me, much better!

Now - this isn’t always true… Alexander is one of those movies where I enjoyed the Theatrical Version more than I did the Director’s Cut. (Due to political pressure from right wing groups, some of the gay-related themes were taken out of the movie.)

But, lately a bunch of movies have come up with both the Theatrical Version as well as an Unrated (NC-17) Version. Usually, the Unrated Version is just a bit more graphic (either nudity/sex or violence). It’s not that rare to compare the movie run times and see that only a minute or two of added footage has been added. I think this is more about censorship than anything else. (And, censorship is a completely different issue all together.) The Unrated version of American Psycho is merely five seconds longer.

I know that not all Unrated movies would have recieved an NC-17 rating… sometimes the films would have recieved an R Rating while the Theatrical Release was rated PG-13. Charlie’s Angles: Full Throttle is a good example of this.

Comparing Rated and Unrated versions of films can be kind of fun and interesting. Sometimes, it is just silly. (Dare I mention Team America: World Police? The only difference is some pretty absurd sexual acts between two puppets…)

Sometimes, though - it doesn’t make any sense.

One of the R-rated scenes removed from Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle (but put back into the Unrated Version) was cut because it showed Dylan (Drew Barrymore) being hit in the face and spraying blood from the force of the impact. And yet, there are other movies where that happens frequently, yet still manages to keep a PG rating. (Not PG-13 … PG!) Rocky, for instance. So, why does one scene get an R-Rating, while the other gets away with PG?

When it comes to nudity or sex, however - the confusion runs more rampant. According to the MMPA, all movies are based on the same criteria, regardless of gender, race, or even sexual orientation of the characters involved. Yet gay themed movies are held to a different standard than heterosexual themed movies. A gay movie could not have two naked men wrestling each other - but a straight movie could. (Women In Love)

Last year, I wrote a blog post “Outrage Over Film Rating???” about a group of Evangelicals who were outraged that a movie they produced received a PG rating rather than a G rating (even though the movie deals with some pretty adult things like teen sex and pregnancy). Had the movie dealt with teenage homosexuality, I wonder what the movie would have been rated? I also wonder if the right-wing pundits who lobbied for a change in legislation regarding film ratings made any difference at all? I wonder what that means for me…

I started writing this blog post a few days ago, but last night I watched the movie This Film Is Not Yet Rated, that amazingly dealt with many of the topics I covered in this film, plus a lot of others. If any of this has made any sense to you - you ought to check this movie out too. Although, personally I would have liked to see the faces of those on the ratings board when this movie was submitted for rating…(wink)

“Believe In A Kind, Loving God - Or We’ll Kill You”

That’s the message in a new Christian-themed video game. “Believe in a kind, loving God, or we’ll kill you.”

In the game Left Behind: Eternal Forces, your mission is to battle the anti-christ, and in order to do this you must build an army by converting others to Christianity, and killing the ones who either refuse to convert or get in your way. And because they’re trying to give you the message that killing human beings is wrong, you have to have your character pray or else you’re going to lose some game-points.

I have so many problems with this - I don’t know where to start.

For example - what message is this game sending to those who play it? (Like, it’s ok to kill humans in the name of Christ - all ya gotta do, man, is just say a little prayer and your murders are forgiven.) As a non-Christian, it scares me when I hear a message that promotes a “do anything it takes” to convert people to Christianity, especially if that includes murder.

Jeffrey S. Frichner, the president of Left Behind Games, claimed, “The game itself is just a great game. People of other faiths could play it and not know it’s Christian.” I just don’t see how this is possible when your main antagonist is the anti-christ and your mission is to convert people to Christianity. The game is chalk full of biblical references and vignettes, and can lead you to Christian message-boards. He, himself, even admits this is a lie by saying the game was designed to evangelize, “in a way which is very respectful, not Bible-thumping.” (Really? Respectful?)

There are many of us with problems with this game. In fact, some Christian groups have been trying to petition Wal-Mart, trying to get them to pull the game off their shelves, saying that the message of the game (either convert or kill non-Christians) gives totally the wrong message, especially on Christmas.

Especially on Christmas? (As opposed to any other day of the year?)

But … here’s my question. What if this game was designed by Muslims? Or, what if this game was designed by Atheists? Convert people to Muslim, and kill the ones you can’t convert. What would Christians think of the game then? (What would the Department of Homeland Security think of the game then?)

I don’t know - either way - doesn’t sound like a good idea.

Hate Crimes…

Today, I received the following comment from my blog post: 2005 Hate Crime Statistics -

I still dont get the hate crime thing. If you take away the violence/crime part you end up with thought crime. do we really want to go there? a crime is a crime.did someone intend to kill you.. that is a crime..
WHY they wanted to? who cares.. if they DO kill you.. you are dead… and all murdered people should be avenged EQUALLY. gays do not get MORE rights. I rarely hear about gay on gay crime but from what i have read its even MORE heinous crime than straight on gay. why is that?have a nice day go straights! Comment by kent j — December 11, 2006 @ 9:49 am

Hate crimes are about more than just someone beating someone else up, or someone killing another person. Hate Crimes, by their very nature, effect more than just the victims - they effect entire groups of people. The physical and emotional damage caused by hate crimes impacts entire communities, races, genders, or ethnic groups (or whatever group to which the victim(s) belong. Hate crimes are about more than just interpersonal violence - they are about intimidation - they’re about power - and they’re about disrupting communities and violating civility.

As to the notion of “thought crimes” … yes, I do want to go there. If you take the violence and crime away from a thought - you’re left with just a thought. (Not a thought crime.) Nobody is talking about getting arrested because they thought something. That’s just downright silly.

The reasoning (or, the motives) behind crimes has always been an important factor to consider:

Suppose Person A has just killed Person B - Person A is guilty of first degree murder, right? Well … no. In order to figure out the answer to that question, other factors need to be taken into consideration. What if Person B was trying to kill Person A and was killed in self-defense? That’s not even a crime. What if Person A killed Person B accidentally? That might be a manslaughter charge, or in some cases, a crime-less accidental death.

The degree of violence has so little to do with it - it is barely worth mentioning. Does a person who stabs someone five times get a lesser sentence than someone who stabs someone ten times, under the same circumstances? Nope. It doesn’t work that way.

What none of this, so far, has taken into consideration is the impact hate crimes have on society in general or the group to which the victim(s) belonged. If someone’s actions terrorizes a group of people, why should that not be taken into consideration? More social resources (provided by politicians, law enforcement agencies, social service agencies, etc) are needed to deal with the aftermath and implications of hate crimes - why should these issues not be taken into consideration either?

Another silly notion if you really think about it is the comment about how gays shouldn’t have any more rights than anyone else. First off, homosexuals aren’t the only victims of hate crimes. Hate Crimes also effect people of various nationalities, genders, races, and religions. I have a feeling people would look at you funny if you said, “No special rights for blacks!” hunh? Or, “Jewish people don’t deserve more legal protection than gentiles.” So, why does it make it ok to say that about homosexuals?

Secondly - nobody is saying that anyone has any more rights than anyone else. It’s about saying what’s right or wrong in the eyes of the law - and victimizing someone solely because of certain factors (such as sexual orientation) is wrong. Trust me, it’s just as much of a hate crime if a heterosexual was assaulted because he was straight than a homosexual who was beaten up because he was gay. They’re both the same.  Nobody has any more or less rights than anyone else.

Anyway, kent - I hope you have a great day too. Not sure what to make of that “go straights!” comment, but … that’s ok. I don’t have to know where you want to go, but if you need help setting up a car-pool, just let me know - ok?

Only In America

At first I thought they were kind of funny. Then I thought some film student just had too much time on their hands. But, then I thought … Maybe, just maybe … It’s a good example of social commentary. No. I am not talking about paparazzi videos of Britney Spears Crotch.

I’m talking about a few movie trailers on YouTube.

The “Scary Mary” trailer of Mary Poppins is one example. Take a few clips from the film, throw in some scary music - and the trailer makes the movie look more like The Exorcist or The Omen than The Sound of Music.

And then there’s the Harry Potter and the Closet of Secrets trailer … that makes Harry Potter look like good movie competition for Brokeback Mountain.

Or, how about the new Shining trailer … the one that makes Stanley Kubrick’s movie of Stephen King’s The Shining look like a heartwarming story of a boy in search of a father figure.

Yes - these kinds of things are kind of fun to watch. We all probably know that Mary Poppins isn’t a horror flick, Harry Potter is not a gay love story, and the Shining … well, that movie scared the crap out of me when I was a kid.

But, what if we had never even heard of those movies before? Would we want to see those movies after watching the (fake) trailers?

It just got me thinking about all the stuff we see on the evening news. There’s a myth or urban legend floating around that says the evening news is supposed to be unbiased and fair to both sides of a news story. Maybe when Barbara Walters was a budding journalist - that was the case, but that notion seemed to fly out the window a long time ago.

In fact, lately it seems like the evening news is nothing but opinion.

Case in point. Gwyneth Paltrow recently made a statement to some Portuguese newspaper - and before long, it was all over the American press how Gwyneth was Anti-American … how Gwyneth went on an America-Bashing spree. Whatever she said must have been real bad, to cause this much fury … right?

Finally I watch the news to learn that all Mrs. Paltrow said was that she preferred living overseas because the Brits tended to be a little smarter and more cultured. But, all the promos were promising me information on why Gwyneth hates America … why Gwyneth thinks Americans are stupid … why she dislikes the American culture so bad. But, she actually said nothing of the sort. Not at all.

I felt bad … mostly because I thought she had a good, valid point. America - the country that made Borat the Number One movie for how long now … the same country that gave us such memorable films as Talladega Nights or Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle … the same country that unleashed Beavis & Butthead into the world … and yes, the same country that went ballistic when the President got caught getting a blog job … that made such a big deal over Janet Jackson’s left tit and Britney Spears naked shaved crotch getting out of a limo … and …

So what if someone thinks America is dumb. I’m sorry - I love America - I love being an American - but we’ve done some pretty stupid things over the years, and American Culture … oh, don’t even let me go there.

Gwyneth, my friend (can I call you that?) … I totally understand and can relate with what you said. I’d live in Brittan too if I could … (and not just because I’m a sucker for a guy with an accent, either…)

All this just makes me wonder … why I even watch TV? I don’t believe the news is telling us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth … so … how the heck do we really know what’s going on in the world.

Un-American Arrogance In Biblical Porportions

On November 28, 2006, the American Family Association released an Action Alert urging the public to show their outrage that an elected official wants to take his oath of office on the Holy Book of his religion. Gasp! The Shock! The Horror!

The AFA quotes Dennis Prager:

Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison’s favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath. 

This is not, nor has it ever been, about anybody’s “favorite book”. If I were elected to congress and wanted to hold my hand over a Harry Potter book or Eragon - I would understand if people started to look at me funny and start to complain. The placing of the hand over the Bible, or any other Holy Book is one thing - Harry Potter, quite another.

Belief in, or acceptance of, the Bible has never been a requirement to hold public office. If it were, Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the Founding Fathers would probably start to roll over in their graves. It’s un-American.

America was built on the concept of freedom - and one of those freedoms is the freedom of religion. I, as an American Citizen, am free to choose whatever religious beliefs I wish to follow. If I want to pick up a bible and head to church - I am free to do that. Or not - it’s ok. If I want to pick up the Koran and become Muslim - I have that right. If I want to become a zen Buddhist, or practice Judy-ism (the gospel according to Judy Tenuta)  … it’s all good.

But, if I want to force my religious beliefs on anyone, force them to use materials from my religion in their activities - that is Un-American!

America is not only interested in one book. We are interested in a lot of things. The Bible is ok. But Harry Potter is a better seller. I hear Stephen King has been selling a lot of books lately too. And just think how well a book of Britney Spears crotch shots would sell - it’d put Madonna’s Sex book to shame!

But, I’m getting away from myself here.

This reminds me of something quite similar. It’s the image of someone swearing on a Bible in a courtroom that the testimony they’re about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Sounds familiar, right?

When a Muslim is to testify, and they place their hands on a Koran - it’s apparently no big deal. When a child, who is too young to know what the Bible is or what it represents is to testify, he doesn’t put his hand on anything - the judge usually just asks them if they know the difference between the truth and a lie and then ask them to promise to tell the truth, and it isn’t a big deal. When an atheist testifies in court and dosen’t put his hand on a bible, it’s still no big deal.

How, exactly, is this any different than what’s going on here?

And how, exactly, is forcing elected officials to place their hands on the Bible (and not the Koran) not in direct violation of the Establishment Clause?

Censorship

Maybe this is old news - I don’t know. It was new to me. Over Thanksgiving, a friend showed this to me … so I thought I would pass it on to you.

I’ve never been a fan of censorship … especially in this day and age … so if you’re like me - maybe you’ll enjoy this.

This Shouldn’t Have Happened Here!!!

What if I told you there was a horrible disease that a large number of people had. What if I told you that there was no cure for this disease - but there are ways to treat it. There are several medications available that will not cure this disease - but they will allow those taking it to live longer, healthier, more productive lives.

What if I told you that many people can not afford these life-saving medications because they can’t afford insurance, are too sick to work, or just don’t make enough money. These medications are not cheap.

What if I told you that there was a system the government set up to help low income, disabled, non-insured, or under-insured people and help them afford medical treatments? But, not everyone who needs it is getting it.

What if I told you people were dying, waiting for the drugs that will treat their condition. Why? Because they’re on a waiting list. And, what if I told you that the government just couldn’t afford to get those medications to everyone who needs it. Or, maybe they just don’t want to…

You might think that those kinds of things just don’t happen here in the good old USA. We take care of our citizens who are in need … there are welfare programs … Medicare and Medicaid … Social Security … Disability … so that couldn’t happen here … right?

Wrong.

The disease is AIDS - and this is happening in the United States. South Carolina, to be exact. Six other states too.
The AIDS Drugs Assistance Program (ADAP) was set up to help those who did not qualify for Medicare or Medicaid and had no other way of affording their HIV or AIDS Medications.

Unfortunately - recently the number of people needing assistance has grown quickly - and many people living with AIDS are either going without treatment or getting inadequate care. The system set up to help them is failing them. And, there is nothing they can do - they’re on the waiting list.

Three people on one of those waiting list just died in South Carolina.

They held a vigil in South Carolina yesterday (November 20th) calling attention to the fact that this situation needs to be taken care of - and SOON!

You can support the Campaign to End AIDS (C2EA) … and also find out more information about this on their website.

Evangelicals v. Rev. Ted Haggard

At first, I wasn’t wanting to post on the Reverend Ted Haggard thing … what more is there to say? Rev. Ted Haggard went to see a gay male prostitute for a “massage”. He bought some methamphetamine while he was there. He got caught … oops. So now, he admits to buying drugs but he didn’t have sex with that guy.

Why does this ALMOST sound familiar? Oh, yeah … almost sounds like Bill Clinton. Smoked dope but didn’t inhale and oh, yeah, he didn’t have sex with that woman. Yep. Sounds close. But, no cigar.

What could I possibly add to this?

But, then this morning, I was watching the Sunday Morning News and they featured a major story on this guy. The news segment this morning told the story of how the Evangelical Minister had been forced to resign and lose his position at his Church. But then they continued to show the reaction of several members of his congregation who wanted to stand behind him (no puns, please) and support him through all this.

One gentleman even started talking about how a Church is more than just a building - it’s a “family” and “families” stick together in times of crisis.

My inner child really wanted to start throwing a temper tantrum. Throughout my entire life, I’ve heard (from Evangelicals, and to be fair, others too) about how doing drugs will mess up your life and make you go to Hell. But, at least through a lifetime membership in a 12-Step Program, you can be saved as long as you admit you’re powerless over drugs and make a decision to turn your life back over to God. But, if you’re gay … forget it. All bets are off. You’re a bad person. You will always be a bad person.

Heck - look at how Pat Robertson likes to blame the gays and lesbians for everything from 9/11 to Hurricane Katrina. Yeah, I know … a lot of evangelicals don’t support those views, and yet they keep supporting him. Go figure…

And you wonder why I don’t give my inner child his own blog?

After working hard to shut my inner child up - my inner adult wanted to throw his own two cents in.

Seeing those people rally behind Reverend Ted really got me thinking. Here’s a guy they all trusted. Here’s a guy they all turned to for advise on moral and ethical issues. Here’s a guy they accepted and welcomed with everything they had…

He goes out and buys Meth during a “massage” from a “gay escort” …

He says he didn’t engage in sexual relations, but I think that’s a bit hard to believe. If you want a legitimate massage, you go to a licenced and-or certified masseur … someone who has had training in massage. If you want to get your rocks off while you get touched, you call an escort. Normally, I would think everyone would know this, but…

Maybe those standing behind Haggard are starting to realize that homosexuality isn’t necessairily as evil as they previously thought, and maybe the evangelical paradigm is starting to shift … just a little.

Or, maybe not. We’ll see.

Religious Objections…

After a Minneapolis Bus Driver complained about a gay-themed advertisement on a bus she was driving, she asked to be allowed to drive another bus because the ad offended her religious values. The transit authorities considered this to be a reasonable accommodation to her religious beliefs.

I read about this story shortly after I read about the Minneapolis Cab Drivers who, because of their Muslim beliefs, were refusing to pick up passengers carrying alcohol.

And these aren’t the only examples of people who are supposed to deal with the public in general but refuse to do something because of their religious beliefs. From time to time we hear about others too: pharmacists who refuse to fill certain prescriptions because of religious objections (such as the birth control pill) … or, how about doctors who refuse medical treatments because of religious objections?

I just wonder if things are being pushed too far?

When it comes to the Minneapolis bus driver - according to the Amalgamated Transit Unit Local 1005 - bus drivers have never been excused from driving buses with ads that they object to for religious reasons, including political based messages and endorsements of political candidates.

So, then why start precedent with gay-themed ads?

Legally speaking, most businesses must accommodate its employees religious beliefs unless it brings undue business hardship. However, once you start drawing lines between what diverse groups of people find appropriate or inappropriate, someone is surely guaranteed to feel left uncomfortable or worse. By letting drivers refuse to drive buses with pro-gay ads on them, homosexual employees are left feeling uncomfortable and rejected. And yet, both religion and sexual orientation are supposedly protected by the company’s policies.

The bottom line, in my opinion, is that if you deal with the public, you may just have to interact with people you normally wouldn’t associate with or look at things you’d rather not see. If you do not like to deal with people who are different than you - then maybe getting a job in the public sector isn’t such a bright idea.  “The Public” is made up of a wide mixture of people from various political lines of thoughts to religions to sexual orientation to national origins to skin color … and if you would rather not deal with the public - it should be up to you to find a career or job more suited to you.

While this may be a minor blip on the radar - it concerns me because I wonder what could happen next?

When it comes to medical care, doctors take the Hippocratic Oath which states, amongst other things, that they heal their patients to the best of their ability and not deliberately cause anyone harm. When it comes to times of war, battlefield doctors (remember that old show, MASH?) tend to overlook who’se side of the conflict someone was fighting for - and they’re labelled heroes because they healed the sick, even if they were the enemy. But, when it comes to treating someone who has a disease like AIDS, can a doctor refuse treatment because he has a religious objection to the type of person she or he is healing?

I must have forgotten about that part of the Hippocratic Oath where it states it’s ok to refuse medical treatment to someone who needed it just because you disagree with his lifestyle, political views, or sexual orientation.

And in those cases of rape or incest where a woman may want to choose to terminate pregnancy? Or, in times when pregnancy endangers the life of the mother - how do you legislate the idea that one person’s life is worth more than anyone else’s? And why wouldn’t that be unethical?

Or, what if I turned it all around.

What if I refused you when you needed it because I had religious objections to your religious views?

Need A Little Voting Help…?

It’s almost time to go vote again. I probably don’t have to say that - considering the amount of coverage political issues have gotten on the evening news … not to mention all those multiple campaign ads that are showing up on just about every commercial break that’re starting to make me nauseous because they aren’t about how good their candidates are, but rather about how bad their opponents are. Why is it that nobody wants to talk about where they stand on the issues, but rather how their opponents have been wrong in the past? And why is it that nobody is even remotely willing to tell the full story?

And it’s not just the TV Campaign Ads either - it’s blogs … tv news casts … newspaper articles …

So, it’s rare when something comes along that actually helps you to understand the issues … when something comes along and tells you where to vote and about the issues you’re really voting about … and occasionally, those things comes from some unexpected places.

Google Earth is one of those places. In case you didn’t know - Google Earth is a program very similar to the Google Local or Google Maps website - although it contains many more features. One feature of Google Earth are various layers that can appear or disappear. You can put a layer up with street names … you can put a layer up to tell you where parks are, or hotels, or restaurants, or libraries, amongst a number of other things.

And then there’s the Congressional Districts layer. It helps map out the various congressional districts - and even contains links to more information about who is running in each of the congressional districts and more information about what’s going on.

Methinks it’s definitely worth checking out…

Homosexuality and Pedophilia (And Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla)

It figures on the very day I post about Homosexuality and Pedophilia, A friend of mine alerts me to a news article about Mark Foley.

There are so many issues here, I don’t know where to start.

In the past 24 hours, there have been many news articles written about the Republican Congressman (Florida) Mark Foley. Many of those articles called Mark Foley a pedophile. He is not. But, I suppose to answer that question, one must look at the definition of Pedophilia.

Pedophilia has been defined by Law Enforcement as well as the Medical and Psychological field as a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. There is no cut off age for pedophilia interest, as puberty can hit different children at different ages. Having an attraction to young, post-pubescent children is what is called Ephebophilia. Pederasty is an ephebophiliac attraction to young males, while attraction to postpubscent females is referred to as the “Lolita Syndrome” - a reference to the 1962 Stanley Kubrick film Lolita based on the novel by Vladimir Nabokov.

Legally, psychologically, and mentally, there are more differences between pedophilia and ephebophilia than there are similarities. However, there are many people and groups out there trying to blur the lines between the two, usually stating something along the lines of “sexual attraction to children is sexual attraction to children and it is bad, no matter what you call it.”

Sexual orientation has nothing to do with either pedophilia or ephebophilia. So, then why is it that we are more outraged when Congressman Mark Foley sends inappropriate text messages to a sixteen year old boy than we were when Mary Kay Laterno gets pregnant by her teenage lover and student? What about Sandra “Beth” Geisel? In fact, there have been quite a few female teachers getting caught in inappropriate relationships with their male students since Laterno. In fact, it almost seems like the world loves Laterno - we can’t stop talking about her, and did you see that movie they did on Lifetime? Or, did you see the episode of Law and Order: SVU that was ripped out of the Laterno Headlines?

So, why does Laterno get celebrity status while Mark Foley gets labeled a dangerous pedophile?

Another issue that was raised in several of the articles I read about Mark Foley was on the Republican response to learning about Foley’s indiscretions. The

One of my biggest questions is this: What if Mark Foley was a Democrat and not a Republican? Would they have sat on their asses for awhile doing nothing until the story finally went public, or would they have been there starting another round of the war they raise with the Democrats? And dare I mention anything like “Family Values”?

Homosexuality and Pedophilia (and Child Predators)

One topic I am actually surprised I haven’t focused on (on this blog) yet is that of child predators. When NBC’s Dateline started doing it’s To Catch A Predator series, I started watching. Part of me was afraid that homosexuals were about to get a bad rap. I knew that all that was needed would be for one gay person to appear on the show and change the focus of everything. Before long, homosexuality and pedophilia would be, once again, linked. So far, thank Goodness, that hasn’t happened.

In fact, Dateline: To Catch A Predator has almost had the opposite effect. Through this show, we have seen how just about any kind of person can be a child predator. Those featured on the show have included military men, the average Joe next door, and even church leaders and other highly religious people.

One of the myths that have stuck around (even long after it has been debunked) is how homosexuals are pedophiles or child predators. Sure, such things do happen occasionally - however it is far from the norm. In fact, by far the greatest number of pedophiles are heterosexuals - or, at least people living in heterosexual relationships or at least reflecting the heterosexual lifestyle.

And yet, someone always manages to twist the facts to suit their own wants and needs. One recent example of this is from a group calling themselves Americans For Truth. They recently wrote an article about a recent episode of the Oprah Show that focused on pedophilia and child predators. The article starts out by saying:

One of the questions I have regarding any linkage between homosexuality and pedophilia is why such a disproportionate number of child molestation victims are boys—if (openly) homosexual men comprise such a small percentage of society? We doubt that Oprah Winfrey, who is very pro-”gay,” will pursue the answer to that question, but at least she is exposing the notorious group NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association), which once marched in homosexual “pride” parades in the early days of American “gay liberation.”

While Oprah may not pursue the answer to that question - let me address it now. There is no link between homosexuality and pedophilia. None. What-so-ever.

The writer of this highly prejudicial and misleading article fails to take a number of facts into consideration. For example, most of the convicted pedophiles and child predators are heterosexuals. Most are married, living the heterosexual lifestyle. Sure, occasionally one identifies himself as homosexual, but this is far from the norm.

Another way in which this article tries to mislead you is by throwing up the notorious group NAMBLA, and pointing out one aspect of gay history that we’re not very proud about. Because the article cannot say (and be truthful) that NAMBLA is a group of gay men (because supposedly most of its members are blatantly straight) they point out that in the early days of the gay rights movements, they were allowed to march in the Gay Pride Parades. What the article doesn’t say is that the gay community, in general, can’t stand NAMBLA or what they represent either. We’re just as repulsed by them as Americans For Truth is.

(And, since when does marching in a gay pride parade mean you’re a homosexual? Tell that to the countless politicians who march every year in local gay pride parades. Tell that to the members of PFLAG, a wonderful organizations for the Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. Tell that to … ok, you get the idea.)

The Americans For Truth article contains very little truth, and whatever truth it does contain is both prejudicial and misleading, like the Nambla statement. Even the headline isn’t true. “Oprah Exposes NAMBLA:Homosexual Pedophiles Online”… Oprah did no such thing. In fact, Oprah never even focused on homosexual pedophiles at all. The article also names Todd Calvin, NAMBLA member and convicted pedophile. It is presented in a way that makes you think the guy is gay - even though, on Oprah, we heard from his ex-wife, and the only suggestion of homosexuality is the fact that he was convicted of molesting a young boy.

I also think it is highly suspect in the way they single groups, such as NAMBLA, while ignoring other groups entirely. Why was there no mention in this article about all those Catholic Priests who molested young boys? (And why were those Catholic Priests not labeled homosexual and kicked from the Church, but rather often promoted or moved to different areas?) While it’s true that most “pedophilia groups” are not organized the way NAMBLA was, that doesn’t mean they do not exist. Many such groups do exist, nameless, recruiting through friends of friends - getting together to share ideas about how to seduce the innocent and not get caught.

The Oprah Show did expose a lot of topics that need a lot of focus and attention. Or, maybe what we need is another slight paradigm shift? The Internet has been, and is still, used for illegal purposes - and that does include child porn, that does include groups of pedophiles, and countless other illegal activities. I am not blaming the Internet, far from it. But, when we get onto the Internet, we need to be aware that such things do happen around here. More importantly, law enforcement needs to be aware of it.  (And, more and more every day, they are.)

My Thoughts on Freedom of Religion

There has been a lot of blog talk lately about Freedom of Religion. The general consensus is that “Freedom of Religion” means that anyone can practice their religion any time and any place they choose. Unfortunately, I think the general consensus is … well, a little misguided.

Recently, I posted the antics of Tyler Harper. He’s a high school student who believes that his religious freedom was being infringed upon when he wore t-shirts with a blatant message slamming and condemning his fellow students. When school administration sat down with him to inform him that his t-shirts were inappropriate, and tried to counsel him into demonstrating in a more productive, less threatening way – Tyler Harper started screaming that his religious freedom was being violated.

In another, similar story – this week, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the claims of a cosmetology teacher who said her religious freedoms were being violated. Martha Piggee brought the suit when the school she had been working at failed to re-hire her. The main incident that led to the school’s decision involved a gay student named Jason Ruel. Piggee had placed several comic-book style religious pamphlets denouncing homosexuality into the student’s lab coat, urging him to talk with her about his sexuality and her belief in God. After Ruel complained to the school administration, they investigated, finding that Piggee’s actions violated the school’s policy for sexual harassment. The decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals said that they could “see no reason why a college or university cannot direct its instructors to keep personal discussions about sexual orientation or religion out of a cosmetology class or clinic.”

So, does this mean that “freedom of religion” can be used as an excuse for inappropriate schoolhouse bullying or sexual harassment?

The First Amendment to the US Constitution says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The first part of the First Amendment is what’s known as the Establishment Clause. It keeps the government from establishing a National religion. The second part is known as The Free Exercise Clause, and states that government can’t infringe on our rights to participate in whatever religion we choose to. While the Establishment Clause is absolute, the Free Exercise Clause often faces state restrictions.

Over the years, the courts have faced the issues of what happens when local laws come into conflict with religious beliefs or practices. Examples have included Native American religious rituals involving the use of Peyote (a controlled substance) … Bigamy in the Mormon Church … even Jehovah’s Witnesses have been the focus many times. The result has been limitations placed upon the Free Exercise Clause.

For me, the issue is as much a moral one as a legal one. If one person’s religious beliefs infringe upon the rights of another individual (or group of individuals) something is wrong.

Would we get a better perspective if we, temporarily, took religion out of the picture for a minute. Let’s say that someone was sexually harassing another person. Is there any reason that would be considered ok? Then, why should we believe, as Mrs. Piggee does, that it’s ok if done in the name of religion.

Or, let’s say that someone is bullying someone. Is there any reasons that would be ok? Then, why should we believe, as Mr. Harper does, that it’s ok if done in the name of religion.

Is it ok to kill another human being? What if that was being done in the name of religion? Most religions have a long history of doing just that. Even Christianity.