Greenlee Gazette

The Gay Thing: Living With Success and Setbacks

2013-05-24T01:53:00.000-04:00

Back when I started this blog (almost 6 years ago now), I did a series of Behind the Blogger posts to introduce myself to whatever scant readership was around in those early days. I titled those segments in a similar way, The Politics Thing, The Religion Thing, The Writing Thing, The Debt Thing and ultimately The Gay Thing. I started the blog as an outlet for my frustrations during the second George W. Bush administration, not as a gay rights blog, neither primarily or even secondarily.

As the blog has evolved, and as news has more often been about The Gay Thing, there have been days--hell, sometimes whole weeks--where it seemed like this was full-on gay rights news blog. For some reason, I feel compelled to apologize for that, and explain it away with humor. This isn't due to some sort of lingering shame or self-loathing, it's just not the mission I set out for the blog. But maybe it should be.

My turn was 1996. A lifetime ago!

Or rather, maybe I should just allow the subject to be more front-and-center. Oh, I doubt things will change too much around here. In fact the extent of the changes are thus: the banner above has been created, and will be used for most stories with this subject. And I'm not apologizing or explaining the reason for the posts anymore. They are just part of the blog. I started making banners for different subjects a few years ago, and continue to add them when I recognize that I'm continuing on a theme. It's time The Gay Thing was it's own thing here at Greenlee Gazette.

Being gay in America has always had its challenges. I became an adult in a very scary era for gay people, the birth of the AIDS crisis. It kept me fairly monk-like in my behavior through much of the 1980s, which I can credit for a very lonely early 20s, and with potentially saving my life. I also never experienced the mass death of a circle of friends, because I was not in or of the community. I was unplugged, and am in some ways removed from my own generation.

But I was always clued in to any scrap of news, so it's not like I didn't know what was going on. And by the time I came out to the world at large at age 30, America was an easier place to be gay than at any earlier time. Sure, we were still used as a wedge issue, a scare tactic. Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) had only been law--by Bill Clinton of all people--for a couple of years. But friends and family were immediately (or almost immediately) accepting and supportive. It was practically painless.

Married for almost 5 years now, legally, though not in NV.
One reason that it is frustrating to have the topic of gay
marriage treated as a hypothetical. We've been getting
married for almost a decade now.

There was a dark time not long after that, for gay people across the country. There were rumblings of activity in Hawaii, where it appeared that gay marriage might become legal. In a panic--or in a shrewd fundraising/electoral move--the right wing went into heavy demonizing mode. In states across the country, they started passing preemptive laws and constitutional amendments that barred gay marriage. Often times, the laws were redundant, where marriage was already defined as "one man, one woman." Didn't matter, it was time to make a stand. The biggest move--again, by Bill Clinton--was the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The most head-scratching was the constitutional amendment in Nevada, home of the quickie marriage and quickie divorce.

All through this, the right maintained that it wasn't an anti-gay movement, no, no. They were merely "protecting marriage." This focus-tested phrase came straight from groups with likewise focus-tested names, usually including the word "Family." But their motives have always been transparent. It doesn't take much effort to find a "traditional marriage" crusader's core motives, if you simply engage them in conversation. It's largely a fundamental inability for them to separate holy matrimony from civil marriage. And an inability to truly get them to acknowledge a separation of church and state.

A lot rests in SCOTUS's hands. Not scary at all. . .

But the tide has turned! The wave of anti-gay marriage measures seemed to not only recede, but race in the opposite direction. In April, we were up to 9 states plus the District of Columbia with full marriage equality. In this month alone, we've gained 3 more, with the possible inclusion of Illinois by month's end, plus very likely regaining California in June.

June is when the Supreme Court announces their rulings on DOMA and Proposition 8 (the referendum that rescinded same-sex marriage rights in California). Most SCOTUS followers believe we will get modest gains for marriage equality at the very least, with the possibility for a broader ruling. And this happens on my 5th wedding anniversary, which is very cool!

But any celebration is tempered by reality. In recent days, there have been reminders that gay people are not fully equal, or sometimes even safe in our own country. There's a teenaged girl whose girlfriend's parents conspired with police to arrest as soon as she turned 18, because the girl was dating their 15-year-old daughter, the motivation being that they didn't want their daughter to be gay. A Texas lesbian with a child by a previous marriage was ordered that she cannot reside with her partner and retain custody. There was a man shot in the head in New York City, killed just for being gay. There has been a rash of assaults in that city, all motivated by anti-gay animus.

A veritable anti-gay crime wave has hit NYC
Read about it here.

Gays are routinely viciously maligned on Twitter, Facebook, message boards, blogs, letters to the editor, and any other forum when a gay related issue is being discussed. "Good Christian" business owners are fighting for the right to refuse the sale of goods and services to gay people, because they "disagree with the lifestyle." Organizations like the "Family" ones mentioned above and the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) exist solely or primarily to actively fight gay civil rights. The Boy Scouts--who, to their credit just decided to allow gay scouts to be members--won't allow gay leaders. Arguments on that subject (and many others) falsely equate homosexuality with pedophilia. And finally, gays were used as a weapon again by the GOP, who held the immigration reform bill hostage, so long as it allowed gay married bi-national couples to be covered under it.

In short (I know, too late), there are still many mountains to climb for full civil equality. And while I haven't been silent by any stretch, I have been reserved, timid even, though less so lately. I'm going to stop shying away. This is my blog after all, and it isn't as if I have an enormous and dedicated following anyway. So, expect to see the subject covered without apology from now on. Thank you.

GOP Approval Rating in Dumper Amid "Scandal Week"

2013-05-24T00:42:00.000-04:00

What a boner. Image from source, Examiner.com

It's made the news in the last few days that several polls show President Obama's approval rating to be doing just fine, even amid the heavy focus on three or four (if you count the idiotic umbrella-gate) potential scandals. But did you know polls are now showing that the GOP's approval raging is going down? I didn't know they could go lower, but there you go. And good for America, you're making me proud.

[Excerpt]

New poll: GOP favorability hits record low following 'Obama scandal' week

After a week of scandals, the dreaded "three-headed monster" of Benghazi, the IRS/Tea Party and the AP/DOJ phone records were supposed to sink the president, harm Hilliary Clinton and catapult the Republican party into the 2014 mid-term elections. While the media focus has highlighted the "three-headed monster," the American people don't seem to be pointing the finger of blame at the president. . .

Read more at: Examiner.com

Gay Boy Scouts Now Allowed to be Honest (and Stay in Scouts)

2013-05-24T00:21:00.000-04:00

All right gays! Time to get cracking, and fix up that
uniform! Image from source, USAToday.

This story is good news for any Boy Scout who is a) gay and b) unable or unwilling to hide that fact. It is of less help to devoted scouts who happen to be gay, and were hoping to move from membership to leadership. Gay scout leaders are still verboten. Or rather, they can't be open, which means they have to lie, which pretty much wrecks the scout oath.

The funny part is, there have always been and will always be both gay scouts and leaders. I was a Cub Scout and a Webelo and though I may not quite have put a name to it, I was most certainly a gay kid. I first started trying to "cover" for that when I was maybe 4 or 5, though I identified it as "don't let them know you're a sissy." A lot of us seem to have that inborn. It might be why I was in scouts in the first place, to toughen up. Anyway, there was never any hanky panky, none involving me anyway. But we did have a raging alcoholic den leader who had to let his wife take over, so there's that.

[Excerpt]

Boy Scouts vote to allow gay members

The Boy Scouts of America voted Thursday to allow gay youth to participate in scouting. The historic vote, with 61% in favor, signals another shift in American public opinion about homosexuality but still leaves the organization with many future hurdles.. .

Read more at: USAToday

Bridge Falls into River in Washington State

2013-05-23T23:56:00.001-04:00

They're not supposed to do that. Image from source, MSN.

Okay, if I bring up the subject of infrastructure spending, would that be considered "too soon" and "playing politics?" Would I be told, "now is not the time" to bring up something so obvious? Harumph. Sounds like nobody died, and that is a very good thing. Of course, this is a developing story, so that could change. Hope not.

[Excerpt]

Interstate-5 bridge collapses into river north of Seattle

A bridge on Interstate 5 has collapsed into the Skagit River north of Seattle sending cars and people into the river, the Washington State Patrol reports. Both north and southbound lanes of the freeway collapsed, according to the Washington State Patrol. . .

Read more at: MSN

Right Wing World: Obama Responsible for Everything Bad, Nothing Good

2013-05-23T16:01:00.000-04:00

I realize that FreeRepublic.com isn't a place you go if you want internal consistency. But I have to share this quote from a FReeper named mardi59 today, during the President's speech on drones and Guantanamo Bay:

"He is trying to fight the scandals by now acting like he knows what he’s doing. He is a miserable failure. All he knows how to do is spike the football and take credit for what others have done. He’s a joke."

If you parse that, you'll see that President Obama is responsible for the State Department's decision making in Benghazi, the Justice Department's actions with the AP and the IRS's internal policymaking on the Tea Party affair. He should've been on top of all of these issues, and has instead been absent and/or bad at his job.

However, in the second part of that quote, Obama's not apparently supposed to take credit for what "others" have done that has turned out well. So, which is it? Is the President responsible for all the agencies and divisions of the government he oversees, or is he not?

Source of quote: FreeRepublic.com

K Mart's Funny Ad Campaign Continues: "Big Gas Savings"

2013-05-23T11:50:00.000-04:00

Hilarious.

Quote of the Day: The Rude Pundit on "Playing Politics"

2013-05-23T03:27:00.003-04:00

This probably doesn't belong under Quote of the Day, because it wasn't today, but it's worth pointing out anyway. Have you noticed that after there is a mass shooting, if anyone dares talk about what might be done to prevent a future occurrence, they're met with, "Now is not the time! Don't play politics with gun control after this awful tragedy!" After Sandy Hook happened, and it felt like there might actually be some meaningful change, parents of slain children who were working toward that change were criticized for "playing politics" and exploiting the deaths of their own children. Wow. Harsh, right? It happens all the time, on a variety of subjects.

Oddly though, the right wing is allowed to play their version of politics. If a mass shooting happens, they are instantly on the defensive, shooting down (heh) any whisper of talk about gun control. Isn't that playing politics? Anyway, that's The Rude Pundit's point, and I should just stop yammering and give it to you:

His royal rudeness, Lee Papa

". . .In the aftermath of the Newtown massacre, it was wrong, according to you, to talk about gun control. Now, in the wake of the nightmarish destruction of the Moore tornado, you tell us it's wrong to talk about climate change and it's wrong to say things that mock right-wing responses to other tragedies. We should wait, you say, wait until the bodies are recovered, the bodies are buried, the bodies are mourned. Of course, even when politicians and pundits wait, you then say that they are exploiting a tragedy for political gain. Like 9/11. Oh, wait. That was you, so it doesn't count, of course, sorry, forgot. . ." --The Rude Pundit

Please Stand By: Blogger is Overwhelmed!

2013-05-23T02:36:00.000-04:00

I'm on a collision course. I have my work-a-day job, which is really only a work-four-days-a-week job. I have my part-time job from home, which is really anywhere from zero hours in a given weekend, so several hours a day for days and days at a stretch! I also have this blog, I have its presence on Facebook and Twitter. I have my family obligations, and my time with The Other Half. And somewhere in the mix, I'm supposed to get energized about the news items of the day; the scandal, the outrage, the horrible and the exciting.

Sometimes, that gets difficult. Especially when the things the news tells you to be energized about leave you. . .disengaged? I mean, beyond the four deaths that happened which were awful, I don't give a damn about this nitpicky crap about Benghazi. Yes, fix whatever can be fixed. Ascertain if there are any failings that should be addressed. Stop using it as a political sledgehammer. It's obvious, and it's not at all engaging. IRS? Still not getting it guys, I don't see the scandal, at least not where you're
sniffing. And the Justice Department thing seems to be on a low simmer, doesn't it?

Of course, the tornadoes this week in Oklahoma and Texas were awful, but the news treats it as tragedy porn. There are nuggets in there that bring us together, some uplifting things, like the old lady who found her dog. But I tell you the truth, I find myself consuming more and more information, but simultaneously missing the things I feel I should be paying attention to. Nothing crucial, I just feel scattered. Stretched too thin? Burned out? Maybe just an angsty period. Maybe I need to score some Xanax for a week or two. Do we have pot dispensaries in Nevada? Heh.

Anyway, it's nothing serious, and probably transitory. I just wanted to pop a note up on the page explaining the seeming lack of focus and small amount of posts lately. This week, it's mostly the part-time job. On the up side, it's summer, it's light out later, and there are a number of holidays and events on the horizon! It gets better!

Gays Punted from Immigration Reform

2013-05-23T01:42:00.000-04:00

Now see, the guy on the left you can call anything you want. Mary. Miss
Scarlett. But the guys on the right? I'm disappointed, but I don't think
they're homophobes. Image from DailyKos.

I'm not sure where I come down on this one. What it boils down to is, leading Democrats fought for Senator Patrick Leahy's amendment that would allow legally married gay couples to petition for their spouses to get legal status, if they are foreign born. Republicans balked, and will kill the immigration reform bill if it doesn't include discrimination. Ain't that sweet? And the Democrats--as they are wont to do have pulled the amendment. This includes some pretty staunch liberals, including Charles Schumer and Al Franken (a personal fave).

Some gay activists--as they are wont to do--are going full-bore against those Democrats, and presumably the President. So, one of my favorite bloggers--John Aravosis of AmericaBlog.com--has the Senators emblazoned with "HOMOPHOBE" in red letters. Yikes. Me, I'm not quite so reactionary. And I don't believe Leahy and especially Franken in particular are homophobes. I think they're pragmatists, and they really want this legislation to pass. The Republicans are holding it hostage, because they insist upon enshrining their bigotry into law. To me, it is the Republicans who are the villains in this, the question is whether the hostage negotiators did a bad job.

And I get it, I do. It sucks, but I do. The Supreme Court's decision in June could render the question moot, if we get federal recognition for legally married couples. If that happens, I've gotta think it would be at most some changes to verbiage. This situation is ultimately a reminder that gays are still not completely equal in this country. We're still treated as though we're criminals or some alien "other." I mean, can you imagine if this fight was over married interfaith couples? Married mixed race couples? But even I will concede that though we've made amazing progress in civil rights, we have a ways to go. And we have a whole generation that might need to shuffle off before we get there. Unfortunately, I'm right behind them!

[Excerpt]

Immigration Reform Amendment For Gay Couples Withdrawn

Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) had to make what the New York senator called an "excruciating" decision on Tuesday to come out against including LGBT couple provisions in their immigration reform bill, citing the need to keep the fragile balance in the "gang of eight."
Sounding disappointed, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) withdrew the amendment after debate during a markup on the bill. . .

Read more at: Huffington Post

Captain Obvious: Dictionary.com Doesn't "Get" Atheism

2013-05-22T03:16:00.000-04:00

In my previous post, I acknowledged my difficulty with all of the talk of "prayer" and God whenever we have a natural disaster like the tornadoes of the last couple of days. I even got some fairly large readership out of it on Tuesday, for some reason. And a bit of back-and-forth with readers here on the blog, on Twitter and on The Huffington Post. It struck me--since religious people often do not take atheists' word for their lack of belief--that I ought to look up the dictionary definition of "atheism."

I was disappointed, to put it mildly. My understanding of the word is "without religon," or perhaps "without god(s)." The second version is problematic because there are religions that don't have gods, per se. To me, what my atheism means is: I don't have a religion. That's it. I don't have a doctrine, don't have holy books, a place of worship, a congregation, the belief in a higher power, "spirituality," or even a vague notion that there is an entity or entities with magic powers who oversee the universe and/or my sex life. I have no portion of my life devoted to any sort of religion, beyond whatever arguing I do about it in forums like this.

Fig. A - Dictionary.com's first set of definitions.

But, back to the dictionary. Dictionary.com is, of course, the easiest to remember site to go to online to look up the definition of a word, unless you just Google it. Maybe Google would have been the way to go though, because--as you can see in Fig. A--the definition offered up first by Dictionary.com is not good.

First, check out the two ads. Kind of goofy, at least from my perspective. Then, there is the first definition, "1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God." What's wrong with that? Well, there is no doctrine, for one. You can be an atheist without ever having heard of God, gods or even atheism itself, for that matter. And secondly, as I said before, it's a lack of belief in religion as well as any particular god, which covers more than "God." Second definition: "2. Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings." This one is closer, though it doesn't adequately cover all religions. I'd also substitute "lack of belief," rather than "disbelief," because the latter sounds a bit too active for me, as though it takes effort.

So, I scrolled down to see if somewhere in there was something that I recognized as atheism. Fig. B shows what I found next. The Word Origin and History's "1580s, from Fr. Atheisme (16c.), from Gk. atheos 'without god,'" may reflect how the word came to be, but it still is narrowly focused on apparently the Christian God (though it is not capitalized). Moving down to the World English Dictionary, it gets worse, "Rejection of belief in God or gods." This one is really bad, because "rejection" denotes a strong action, as though one is belligerently casting aside a known truth or something. See, this is something many staunchly religious people believe about atheists, that they are really believers who have rejected God/Jesus. Not true. We simply don't believe. And then, the Cultural Dictionary's "Denial that there is a God." is a mixture of all of the above, focusing on a solitary God, with a strong action of denial.

Fig. B - More not quite right stuff.

So, let me make simple what the dictionary can't seem to do. Atheists merely lack belief in religion in all its forms. That includes God, gods, angels, saints, all doctrines and edicts, spirituality, and anything supernatural. There are "strong" atheists who won't much mind the "rejection/denial" type language, and they'll vehemently state plainly: "THERE IS NO GOD!" There are agnostics and agnostic atheists who simply don't know and/or care if there are gods or true religions. And there are people like me who find all that I've heard on the subject to be preposterous and vanishingly unlikely. Nearly all of us simply lack religion in our lives. It's not there at all. And yet, people will still insist that we have a "religion." It can be frustrating. . .

I'll put a button on this by saying that we're all born atheists. Nobody has religion downloaded into their brains on day one, it has to be learned. And almost everybody is an atheist as it pertains to ALL other religions but their own.

CNN's Wolf Blitzer Embarrassed On Camera by Atheist

2013-05-21T21:40:00.000-04:00

Image from source, Raw Story

As an atheist, I can get tripped up on language, so I shouldn't be too hard on Wolf Blitzer. I had to train myself to say gesundheit when somebody sneezes, rather than "god bless you." But not all nearly automatic religious phrases are so easy to extract from the vocabulary. There are so many, most people probably don't even realize they come from the Bible. "Oh, god," and "Jesus Christ" are just the most obvious ones. But then, I'm not a high-paid journalist on CNN, I'm a hobbyist blogger.

What Blitzer does in this clip is make the assumption that if you are from Oklahoma, you must be a Christian. And while it is kind of the default there, and in much of America, it's not something you should assume. It's like assuming that the person you are talking to is heterosexual, it's not always the case, and could be embarrassing, depending upon the question. Anyway, part of Blitzer's mindset may have been that so many people when commenting upon a tragedy automatically resort to "prayer."

Whether it's a sincere belief that it will somehow do some good, or it's just a reflexive thing to say, "I'm sending my prayers" and similar phrases just filled Facebook and Twitter, not to mention the news channels*. Most people probably mean well, and surely some are in the same situation as I am, with a religion-saturated mental English phrase book. It has something to do with why I haven't blogged about the Oklahoma tornadoes until now. What can I add to this discussion?

Sure, I'm sorry, and it's heartbreaking to see and hear the details of what's going on. I can say "my heart goes out to the survivors," of course, which is exactly as helpful as prayer, which is to say, not much. So, I donated to the Red Cross. And I'm asking you to do it too. It's not even difficult.

Just get out your cell phone, start a new text to 90999 (where you'd ordinarily put a phone number), with the message: REDCROSS That will automatically donate $10 to the American Red Cross, and will be added to your phone bill. It literally couldn't be easier.

[Excerpt]

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer tells atheist tornado survivor: ‘You gotta thank the Lord’

With the number of atheists continuing to rise, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Tuesday afternoon learned the danger of assuming on live television that his interviewee is a Christian.

“I guess, you gotta thank the Lord, right?” he told the survivor of a deadly tornado that ripped through Oklahoma. “Do you thank the Lord?. . .”

Read more at: Raw Story

*As an aside, I've got to say that I find the notion of prayer in these situations to be hard to fathom. To me, prayer is basically wishing, hoping, begging to get what you want, with the intensity going up according to the direness of the wish. When something good comes to pass (survival, good health, good fortune), "God answered our prayers." When something bad happens, you have to get down on your knees and pray some more. And have people pray for you, even if who you're praying for is already dead, or missing. For the missing, prayer is really perplexing. It's almost like a Schrödinger's cat exercise. Since we don't know whether the missing person is alive or dead, offering up a prayer essentially makes them that cat in the box, and our prayer can decide its fate. When in reality, that person is either really alive or dead. The prayer isn't going to change that. And you're offering these prayers to a deity that is responsible for the natural disaster in the first place! Further, what are the implications of being saved by a prayer, when there is death and devastation all around you? They didn't pray (or have loved ones who prayed for them) hard enough? They weren't worthy?

So, now maybe you understand why I have such difficulty expressing myself and dealing with others' expressions after tragedies like this. When you are a person who puts "God" (as a concept and a being) on more or less equal footing with Superman and Yosemite Sam, it is difficult to hear this imaginary being invoked repeatedly as though it does any good. Besides making the person who expresses the sentiment feel better, of course.

Scandal: Does it Matter That Bush Targeted Enemies with Gov't Agencies?

2013-05-21T00:42:00.000-04:00

In politics, there are double-standards. For instance, if something pertaining to treatment of the president is perceived as racist, simply calling it that can be labelled "playing the race card," which is treated as an equal and opposite infraction. Similarly, if Party A is upset with something Party B has done--even though Party A has done precisely the same thing in the past that they're accusing B of--just pointing that out is seen as somehow out of bounds.

But this is my blog, and I really don't care about those dumb rules. The plain fact of the matter is, the various "scandal-ettes" as I'm calling them, the IRS/Tea Party one--the Justice Department/AP one and the Benghazi one--all have analogs to things in the Bush administration. And let's make this clear: all three of these controversies (umbrella-gate doesn't count) are merely alleged. There has been, as far as I know, no proven misbehavior by the President himself, or the executive branch on any of them.

Someone in this photo likely causes a visceral reaction in you, right?
Image from Alternet.

The same cannot be said of Bush and Co. Their politicization of every department of the government was legendary. They couldn't govern or conduct foreign policy for beans, but they played politics hardball well. Not good mind you, well. So, I think it's worth pointing out that even if each of these brouhahas, even if the go all the way to the top, has a precedent in the previous administration. And it's also worth pointing out that "impeachment was off the table." I always knew that Nancy Pelosi's diplomacy in that area was a bad idea that would never be repaid.

[Excerpt]

Bush Used the IRS, FBI, CIA and Secret Service to Go After Opponents -- Where Was the Fox and GOP Outrage?

As your kindergarten teacher probably told you, two wrongs do not make a right. But the discrepancy in reactions to wrongs does, indeed, show how Washington so often serves the interests of the political right. . .

Read more at: AlterNet

Meanwhile, on Facebook: Enough with the Umbrella-gate

2013-05-20T21:51:00.000-04:00

The moment I smelled the first whiff of "Umbrella-gate," I knew it was ridiculous. The more I saw about it, the more evident it was that this was nothing more than naked racism and/or full-blown Obama Derangement Syndrome. It's nothing short of ridiculous. Let this photo, currently floating around on Facebook, be the last word on it, all right? Okay then.

Scandal! Or, How to Over-hype a Scandal

2013-05-20T02:32:00.003-04:00

Ugh. I'm really hoping that the scandal-ettes peter out this week. And not because I'm some lock-step Obama-bot. Because they're unrelentingly boring and overblown. The Benghazi one should be over and done with, beyond ensuring that such a thing is prevented in the future. The "scandal" was so bad that it got down to quibbling about talking points, and then the email that was based on turned out to be phony. Enough. I couldn't believe it was even still a point of discussion on the Sunday shows. Oh wait, of course it was. Psst! While you're all worried about Susan Rice having mislead the American public on Meet the Press and the rest, every Republican hyping these "scandals" has been misleading the American public on Meet the Press and the rest!

Image from source, NewsCorpse

The Tea Party/IRS one is still failing to even register on my give-a-shit-o-meter. Why does this one matter at all? The Tea Party was singled out for extra scrutiny? As well it should have been! For multiple reasons! And--oh my god--they didn't even get denied! WTF is the scandal here? It ought to be that purely political organizations have been granted tax exempt status in the first place.

Ugh. Again. And I don't know about the AP/Justice Department one. If it turns out laws were broken, charge someone. If it was legal but oogey, change the laws. But just please shut up, I don't care. Sorry if I need a little flash or sex or skullduggery in my scandals, but I'm bored ovah heah! But you know who's not? FOX "News" watchers. Because all of the above have been cranked to eleven, irrespective of the facts! That's why every tea bagger you hear calling in to the radio, or writing on the internet seems to be coming out of ~~left~~ right field. They think President Obama popped some popcorn, stripped to his boxers, watched the whole Benghazi affair on an IMAX 3D screen, and gleefully watched people die. Then, he got on the horn to Eric Holder, and to the IRS and said "I wanna fuck with the Tea Baggers. Oh, and the press too. And where is my UMBRELLA???"

[Excerpt]

Roger Ailes’ Limp Dictum: Keep Flinging Scandals Until Something Sticks

Last week has been described by many in the press as the worst week yet for the Obama presidency. It was a week that saw purported scandals hyped furiously by Fox News and other right-wing media. They almost cheerfully segued from Benghazi to the IRS to the Associated Press, and then looped back for more of the same. . .

Read more at: NewsCorpse

Blast from the Past: HAPPY BIRTHDAY Cher!

2013-05-20T02:03:00.001-04:00

The following is a special edition (rerun) of a previous Blast from the Past, in addition to the usual weekly feature. Why? Because it's Cher's 67th birthday! I had to edit a little, because YouTube videos tend to cycle out. But I managed to put a number of favorites in to take the place of the expired tracks. Enjoy, and happy birthday Cherilyn Sarkisian Bono Allman JustCher!

ORIGINAL POST:

So, it's come to this. After having run posts on Madonna, Cyndi Lauper, Pat Benatar, Paula Abdul, and other divas of the 80s, 90s and beyond, I realized that I'd left out Cher. Cher's career began before I was born, and who knows, she'll probably outlast me. She was performing in Las Vegas long before I moved here in the 90s, and has made return engagements, both on tour and as a semi-permanent act. Her shows are so popular, she can't ever retire, despite having tried. In her mid-60s now, she's still making music, with an upcoming collaboration with Lady Gaga (who can only hope to have such a long-lived career).

For all the talk of the reinventions and comebacks of other stars, no one touches Cher. She was a hit with Sonny Bono in the 60s, as one half of Caesar and Cleo, which became Sonny & Cher. When their music started to stall, they won their own variety show on CBS. During the program, she launched a successful solo act. When the Bonos divorced, Cher had her own show, and then again partnered with Sonny on TV.

In the late 70s, Cher's music faltered, so she dabbled with disco, and Las Vegas. When that didn't go so well, she started seriously acting, and. . .was very, very good at it. Go ahead and watch her in Silkwood, The Witches of Eastwick, Suspect, Moonstruck, Mask: She's terrific in all of them. While establishing herself in Hollywood, she relaunched her singing career in the mid-80s, and struck gold again. A string of albums, each with a hit or two followed. Her risque videos flustered MTV, and Cher just kept going. She made a couple of odd detours, including a run as an infomercial queen, but she managed to make most of us forget that by making new music and movies.

Recently, Cher showcased her voice and acting skills in Burlesque with Christina Aguilera. While the movie didn't do particularly well at the box office, it isn't because of Cher. In fact, if you are inclined to watch this sort of picture (think Chicago or Moulin Rouge) you'll probably get a kick out of it. So, long story short (I know, too late) Cher deserves far more recognition than she gets. She shouldn't be a guilty pleasure at all, just a pleasure. And it shouldn't go unmentioned that Cher has had a number one song in each of the last six decades. Top that, Gaga.

Frivolity Break: Star Trekkin' Across the Universe!

2013-05-19T21:35:00.001-04:00

Thanks to my Facebook/high school friend Angela for this great song from the days of Doctor Demento. Enjoy!

Blast from the Past: Star Trekkin' (Original Crew)

2013-05-19T21:04:00.000-04:00

I saw Star Trek Into Darkness this weekend, as you can see in my review below, and I decided there is more than enough to the 47-year history of the franchise for a Blast from the Past edition, right? I decided the best angle would be to feature a promo for each iteration of the series, from its own time if I can find it. Some people lament the new version, but as you can see, it is an improvement in many areas, as much as I love each earlier attempt. The Original Series debuted the year I was born, and I started watching the reruns as soon as I was old enough to understand them. So I have always had an affinity for all things Trek. Below is a contemporaneous promo for each of the original crew productions, where I could find them. Next week, I'll get into the sequels.

1. Star Trek: The Original Series (1966) - No matter what it has become, this is where it started. All other Treks owe their existence to this cheesy, low-budget, ham-acted, fantastic, awesome show.

2. Star Trek: The Animated Series (1973) - They managed to get most of the voices, and a lot of the writers back for this series. As a 7-year-old, I loved it, but it was over other kids' heads, of course. . . (I had to use a newer Nickelodian promo)

3. Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) - Paramount Pictures couldn't be left out of the sci-fi craze after Star Wars came out, so they aborted a Star Trek: Phase II sequel series, and blew it up into a feature film. With. . .mixed results. But it was great to have them back.

4. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) -The original series got two pilot episodes, so it is fitting that the movie franchise got a second try to get it right. And boy, did they. This edition was the most beloved by almost all trekkers, and though it doesn't hold up as well as I'd like, **SPOILER ALERT** it did serve as the inspiration for a lot of the most recent movie.

5. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) - Picking up immediately after part two, this was a crucial film for fans, even if it doesn't rank with the "even numbered" editions, because after part two **SPOILER ALERT** Spock died. How would they bring him back? We can be glad they did though, since he features in much of Trek's future, right up to today.

6. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) - Again, following part three and forming an internal trilogy, this installment is nearly as beloved as part II. It's the one with the whales and the "nuclear wessels." Right after this one, The Next Generation series began filming, and would thereafter run concurrent to the movie series, eventually replacing it on the silver screen.

7. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1988) - After three straight successes, the powers that be were coasting, assuming anything would play, and be a successful sequel. This is the nadir of the original crew productions, though it isn't without some charms. Shatner directed, though I'm not sure that's the problem. It just isn't very good.

8. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991) - They got back on track with this, the final voyage for all of the original crew. It was written as a send-off, with retirement clearly in the wings. With The Next Generation itself soon to wrap up its television run, it was clear they were going to pass the baton to them after this one.

William Shatner, James Doohan and Walter Koenig would go on to appear in the first Next Generation movie in 1994, to modest success. Occasionally, a cast member from the original cast would show up on the various television sequels, including Doohan, Leonard Nimoy and DeForest Kelley. And the entire cast would star in a Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode, though it was in re-used footage from The Trouble with Tribbles.

Next week features the sequel series and the movies since the original cast. In the meantime, live long and prosper, and have a great week. Happy Monday!

SNL: One More Really!?! With Seth & Amy

2013-05-19T13:15:00.000-04:00

Seth Meyers is leaving Saturday Night Live to take over Late Night (whose star, Jimmy Fallon, is taking over The Tonight Show with Jay Leno), and this weekend's show was his last. I would argue that this is a good thing, since he was head writer of Saturday Night Live. The show has frankly gotten a bit stale, and pretty much everybody thinks the writing is the biggest part of the problem. That's not to say that Meyers' tenure as host and writer of Weekend Update hasn't been great. It's usually the best part of the show.

Though Weekend Update has been the linchpin of SNL for most of its run, it has been since 2000 that it's had its most successful (and longest) stretch. It began with Tina Fey and Jimmy Fallon replacing the brusque Colin Quinn (who replaced the way too deadpan Norm Macdonald), totally rejuvenating the bit. When Fallon left, he handed off to Amy Poehler, who was arguably even more popular. When Fey left, Seth Meyers seamlessly filled in, and then finally flew solo. Meyers could sometimes seem adrift solo, but it was still a 13-year stretch with a lot of continuity.

Poehler came back for Meyers' swan song, for a reprise of their popular bit, Really!?! With Seth & Amy.

And Meyers put a button on a long-running bit with the Bill Hader (who is also leaving SNL) "Stefan" character. It was one of a series of gay-related skits in the Ben Affleck-hosted finale, a subject Meyers is often criticized for using gratuitously. These were mostly benign and funny though, I have to admit.

Over Time with Bill Maher, May 17, 2013

2013-05-19T03:48:00.002-04:00

Ep. 283 May 17, 2013 - Overtime

Right Wing World: The Latest Faux Outrage is "Umbrella-gate"

2013-05-19T01:16:00.000-04:00

At least with a trio of potential scandals, Right Wing World actually had something to squawk about last week. Sure, the big Benghazi memo turned out to be bogus. The IRS thing may end up causing the tea party more damage than if it were left alone. The AP thing. . .well, who knows. But a jump to a new scandal, one about a marine holding an umbrella for the President? Well, this one is just stupid, and smacks of racism.

Freeze frame from Washington Post video.

In fact, if one does a cursory Google image search, one will find several other images like this one. Images of past presidents--Republicans, notably--in nearly identical poses. Apparently, it is something of a traditional thing for the military to do for the president. The only difference I can see in this incident from those of George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan is. . .well. . .the color of the guy behind the podium. I know that alleging racism has become identical to racism in Right Wing World. But that is no more true than their commentary about this phony outrage. And this is not without precedent.

One that keeps coming around like a perennial flower is an image of President Barack Obama with his feet propped up on his desk. This was also a case where a simple image search would find examples of other presidents doing the same thing. But it doesn't matter. For some reason, it spreads like wildfire on the internet every few months, usually accompanied by right-wing commentary accusing the President of being arrogant, king-like, haughty, classless, anti-American, and everything right up to the line of "uppity." This is naked racism, nothing else.

And now for a blast from the past, the feet on the desk shots. . .

Star Trek Into Darkness, a Mini Movie Review

2013-05-18T02:40:00.000-04:00

Image from Wikipedia

On Friday, we did a rare thing. The Other Half and I not only went to a movie theater, we kept a prearranged "date" with a couple of friends to do so. This almost never happens. Particularly the cinema thing. As much as I love superhero, horror and sci-fi movies, I seem to always procrastinate until the Blu-ray comes out. I mean, even the entire phase one of Marvel Comics' massive movie blitz were all seen on our DLP TV, rather than at the movies. The "always wins" exception to that is any version of Superman, Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th (yes, really) and Star Trek.

I've labeled this as a "mini" review for a reason. I've just read the Zaki's Corner review of Star Trek Into Darkness, and his writing simply puts mine to shame. Though I disagree with his C+ grade, I can't deny that he's the superior blogger. So, as Bart Simpson says, "can't win, don't even try." So, I'll just give you a little more surfacy review, and give you Zaki's link at the end.

I'll start with an observation that the commercials and other miscellany that precedes a film these days are a crashing bore. I still love the movie previews, but I'm astonished that the theater chains actually brand these "pre-shows," and act as if they've done you a favor by making you sit through them. But once the Paramount logo whooshes on the screen, and the surprisingly already familiar Star Trek (2009) theme played, I felt a little sense of glee. Also a sense of why did we have to wait FOUR YEARS for a sequel? But I digress.

Into Darkness stars with a pre-credits sequence that puts you right into the action. It's removed from the main storyline, but sets it up well. Chris Pine really evokes William Shatner to me (though maybe not as much as Zachary Quinto's Spock captures Leonard Nimoy), and his ice blue eyes really pop on that big screen. We didn't go to the 3D version, partly due to cost, and partly due to the fact that I have great difficulty seeing 3D movies. But this movie is stunning, even in 2D. We saw it on a digital DLP screen, which maybe helps.

They certainly look the part. Image from USAToday.

I can't get into the storyline much without spoilers. Suffice it to say that there is more than one villain, and their motives are a matter of perspective. If you're a longtime Star Trek fan, you'll pick up on some clues early on, and you may deduce who the main villain "really" is. There are several allusions to past Treks, one in particular. Whether these nods tickle you--or irritate you--will depend upon how meta you like your pop culture. I appreciated it to a point, and then I actually said to my self, "No. Don't say it." And then the character did. Ugh.

But I found that to be one of the only moments I didn't like. The movie is relentless in its pacing, actually making me feel a bit exhausted. In a good way. I remember years ago, the first time I saw Rutger Hauer's The Hitcher. That movie wore me the hell out, and Into Darkness did that, but with a whole lot more whiz-bang. One thing I liked about this movie was its scale. Everything is big. The starship bays. The engineering section of the ship. The cityscape of San Francisco in the 23rd century, which features in a smashing ending. Where Star Trek: The Original Series could feel claustrophobic, and even its planet-scapes felt small, this movie just feels big.

There are several plot complications, and our heroes are in lethal situations many, many times. There are perhaps a few too many familiar tropes they could have left out (especially the trite "dangling by one hand" near-death experience). And though our heroes ultimately prevail--as you knew they would--this Trek has an unusually high body count. Then again, in the previous film, the entire planet of Vulcan was wiped out, so maybe not.

The ending of this film is interesting. I don't think I'm spoiling much to say that at the end, it feels like the crew of the Enterprise is about to actually start their careers, as though it ends at the beginning of a hypothetical new Star Trek series. But, at two movies in to the new adventures, it actually feels kind of weird. Particularly since that's kind of where the previous film left us. So, if you're like Zaki, and found this to be a middling installment, you can actually ignore it, and go into Star Trek III (actually XIII) as though it followed the 2009 film!


*I'm not sure if this qualifies as a spoiler alert* or not. . .**

Some people lament the J.J. Abrams era of Star Trek, decrying its action and flash (and lens flares!) at the expense of character development, and Roddenberry-esque themes. I don't. I still have my hundreds of hours of classic Trek. They didn't go anywhere. I find these new films to be a great addition to what came before, and they've surely breathed new life into a moribund franchise. Now, can they bring us another one before Quinto and Pine are in their forties?

My review: Highly Recommended (B+)

And here is Zaki's Corner's Review

Lawrence O'Donnell Points Out (Again) The REAL IRS Scandal

2013-05-17T03:14:00.002-04:00

I might be getting a little too repeaty with my Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell posts, but this subject bears repeating, and needs to be spread far and wide. The real IRS scandal is the fact that these Tea Party groups were accepted for their tax exempt status in the first place, not the fact that they were investigated (and should have been).

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Louie Gohmert is Apparently Insane

2013-05-17T02:40:00.000-04:00

If you put your ear to his mouth, you can hear
the ocean. Image from Business Insider.

Yeah, I know. What else is new, right? I swear, this guy is like Berkeley Breathed character.

[Excerpt]

The Most Bizarre Moment From Attorney General Eric Holder's Congressional Hearing

Attorney General Eric Holder's hearing before the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday grew heated, as members of Congress grilled him on everything from the Justice Department's obtaining of Associated Press phone records to President Barack Obama's Labor Secretary nominee, Thomas Perez. . .

Read more: Business Insider

Benghazi-gate Blows Back on Republicans

2013-05-16T21:56:00.002-04:00

I still can't figure out exactly what was conspired,
or what is being covered up. But this is the kind
of thing you find in right wing world. Image from
Greenewave.com

So, that ABC memo that thrust the "scandal" about Benghazi from the right-wing fringe to the mainstream turned out to be inaccurate, that part we knew yesterday. But now, CBS reporter--and formerly of FOX "News" I must point out--Major Garrett is blaming the inaccuracies on the GOP itself. I suppose we shouldn't be surprised. The question now, is will they own it? Or will they still be shrieking "Benghazi!!!" at every turn?

[Excerpt]

Wow, This is Pretty Epic

Generally, once partisan, tendentious sources leak information that turns out to be wrong, nothing’s ever done about it. That’s for many reasons, some good or somewhat understandable, mostly bad. But on CBS Evening News tonight, Major Garrett did something I don’t feel like I’ve seen in a really long time or maybe ever on a network news cast. He basically said straight out: Republicans told us these were the quotes, that wasn’t true. . .

Read more at: Talking Points Memo

Conspiracy Theorists Flummoxed in Face of Actual Scandals

2013-05-16T00:31:00.000-04:00

I can't improve upon the actual headline of the excerpted piece below, so I outright stole it. Though I think the actual scandals are more like scandal-ettes at this point. Benghazi isn't a scandal, it was an attack on our people that is being used for political purposes. The IRS thing I'm still convinced was appropriate, except they should have declassified the Tea Party groups' tax exempt status. And the AP one I'm still unsure about. But all three of these scandal-ettes are actual things, and though I'm sure the conspiracy nuts have added their own brand of crazy to them, it's interesting that they haven't quite figured out what to do with them yet.

Crazy Eyes & the Fat Boy would make a good name
for a TV show, don't you think? Image from Salon.

[Excerpt]

Conspiracy theorists flummoxed in face of actual scandals

If you spend every hour of your working life inventing new ways to attack Barack Obama or the government (or both), this is a very good week for you — or at least it should be. After trudging through the deserts of Benghazi and Fast and Furious for four years, trying to extract any tiny drop of scandal from stone, now suddenly comes manna from heaven, courtesy of the IRS and its misguided attempt to prevent political groups from taking advantage of the nonprofit tax code. Then, even before you could digest the first course, the Department of Justice snoops on reporters. Glory be to Ronald Reagan’s ghost! The Promised Land of Impeachment can’t be far off. . .

Read more at: Salon