GAY = SIN from Matthew Brown on Vimeo.
Matthew Brown has made a video which he shares on Vimeo, looking at how some people are so thoroughly opposed to the ‘gay lifestyle’ – which I interpret simply as opposition to the fact that gay people exist – that they feel compelled to share their distain for others in a as public a forum as is possible. He overlays critical audio over images captured of friends sharing special times together. The sounds so awfully contrast with the clement, benign and thoroughly gregarious nature of the images portrayed – pictures that could not be further from the audio that accompanies them. The result is artistic and thought provoking, as well as not just a little bit beautiful.
Check out the video link for an High Definition version which, through its clarity, renders the images yet more poignant and meaningfull.

Why greater censure; because Israel has higher relative wealth than Russia and in other contexts acts in an intelligent and rational way. How can we explain away Israel’s bad behaviour as though it doesn’t have other options? Melanie Phillips in The Spectator writes today of the west’s ‘pathological obsession’ with Israel, ‘Selective Moral Outrage‘. The thing is, when we discussing a state that is financially propped up by the US, one should hold them to a higher standard. It’s delusional and insulting to claim that all opposition to the actions Israel takes militarily is anti-semitic, as Bret Stephens implies: ‘As for the Chechens, too bad for their cause that no Jew will ever likely become president of Russia’.  Russia is no Israel and visa versa. This but what about argument just doesn’t hold water. As Johann Hari recently wrote in his article in The Independent – ‘How to spot a lame, lame argument‘: There is one particular type of bad argument that has always existed, but it has now spread like tar over the world-wide web, and is seeping into the pubs, coffee shops and opinion columns everywhere. It is known as ‘what-aboutery’ – and there was a particularly ripe example of it in response to one of my articles last week.

As a rhetorical trick, it is simple. Anyone can do it, and we are all tempted sometimes. When you have lost an argument – when you can’t justify your case, and it is crumbling in your hands – you snap back: “But what about x?” You then raise a totally different subject, and try to get everybody to focus on it – hoping it will distract attention from your own deflated case.

Can we back away from the distraction of comparing Israel/Palestine to everywhere else in the world and concentrate on fixing what is clearly going wrong with that conflict itself. Middle-Eastern peace won’t come because one day everyone realises what Russia does in Chechnya is worse, but rather when all sides are honest about they can, could and should do to end conflict and bring about a harmonious life for all. I still think this is possible, though the mindset and honesty from all parties required is some ways off.

Plus, basing an article on numbers of hits from a Google search is elementary-school level journalism.

Bret Stephens in The Wall Street Journal – Our Selective Moral Outrage – Why does Israel face more opprobrium than Russia?

We have too many friends who are silent about the discrimination we face daily, and we have too many friends for whom ‘gay’ is a term for ‘weird’. We must campaign for our rights and ensure that our visibility on campuses across the country is a force for improvement. We must continually compel Student Union Officers to represent STUDENT ISSUES BEFORE ALL ELSE, not political concerns thousands of miles away.

It is easy to be distracted by irrelevant agendas. We weaken our cause by directionless rants about issues not within our mandate. The NUS system takes some work to understand but can be made to work in our favour. I will aid our delegates in casting INFORMED votes and help them understand how to make the system support our positions.

* I strongly oppose and am continually offended by the ban on gay male blood donors.
* I prefer ‘marriage’ to ‘civil partnership’. How can it be acceptable that LGBT citizens are denied the same institutional unions as everybody else?
* FIGHT to encourage the acknowledgement of LGBT issues by the student body. We can and must be more ambitious than we are. When LGBT allies and non-activist friends show their support we CAN BE A FORCE OF STRENGTH AND PROGRESS.

VOTE Patrick for LGBT Conference!

National gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender civil rights organizations should support this proposal because it helps gay, lesbian, and bisexual workers and is a step toward transgender employment rights.

(as opposed to, for example, opposing it because it doesn’t specifically protect transgender rights.)

On Towleroad these results produced much debate because the issue of trans rights is often, by some, viewed in partnership with that of gay rights. I say gay rights because I think gay rights should be and can be used as an umbrella term for gay male, lesbian and bisexuals. It’s a term for ‘alternative’ sexual orientations. Trans is an issue that is similar, but not the same:

I support individual freedoms short of cause pain, suffering, and damage to others. I support whole heartedly bisexuals and transgendered people – but I’m sick and tired of gay and lesbian issues being diluted, blurred, and marginalized because they’re intertwined with issues of gender identity and… whatever. ]]> http://www.sortroom.net/2007/11/hrc-poll-shows-gayslesbians-dont-think-lack-of-trans-protection-should-halt-enda-support/feed/ 0 http://www.sortroom.net/2007/10/youth-obsessed/ http://www.sortroom.net/2007/10/youth-obsessed/#comments Wed, 17 Oct 2007 23:41:29 +0000 Patrick http://www.sortroom.net/index.php/archives/2007/10/18/youth-obsessed/ Continue reading →]]> It’s funny how you read, so often, about the gay culture of youth. We’re, apparently, consumed with the concept of staying young forever with cremes and pills and gyms and every single type of tonic you could ever hope for. The image, I presume, comes from all those pumped up bodies you see in gay magazines. I bought one today, they’re there. There is a culture of youth. Some people clearly believe it. But it’s ironic for me to point to that link because it’s a gay guy saying how gays are youth obsessed.

I come to this topic through a rather roundabout route. Gayclic, a wonderful french gay-themed ‘news’ video blog linked to GLAAD’s media campaign titled ‘Be an Ally & a Friend‘. It was promoting the idea of being an ally to people coming out on National Coming Out Day (October 11th). Be supportive by being respectful. That’s all. On their website there are a couple other video links which I decided to check out, one of which led to David Mixner, an LGBT activist, speaking at the Empire State Pride Agenda 2007 annual dinner. It’s a New York gay-rights charity.

He recounts, tragically, how as a result of the AIDS epidemic sweeping through his community, killing all his friends, he gave 90 eulogies

“We thought that freedom was very close at hand… and then came AIDS… But you gotta remember what it was like. I lost 296 friends. I gave 90 eulogies in two years. And I lost the man that I loved most in my life, for 12 years. We were not treated by dentists, nurses wouldn’t touch us, homecare workers wouldn’t come to our homes, doctors wouldn’t treat us, insurance companies told us we had brought this upon ourselves.”

It makes me stop and think. Perhaps, yes, gay culture is youth-obsessed. But perhaps that’s really only because almost all of the older generation were killed off by AIDS. Those who are still alive, those who lived through 1982 and onwards as out gay men and women are the lucky ones. The fact that they survived is enormously lucky, and in the same breath perhaps terrifying in how many of their nearest friends and loved ones died around them. So we are like a culture culled of all its patrimoine. How can you ever have an awareness of heritage without any elders. What other society has ever so publicly lost so much of a generation? Wars kill men but often leave their wives and lovers back home. This destruction, the destruction of an gay AIDS pandemic took homes and ruined neighbourhoods just like a war. It’s a certain way to create a ghost town, to tell people that by behaving as they had been behaving will lead to almost certain death. Nobody’s going to go to that bar. It takes homes because, as David Mixner says, sufferers had to sell them for their health care treatments, because it was fundamentally their own fault. But then also, there are no lovers or wives left behind because those lovers were the victims buried in the last funeral you attended or the last hospital visit you went on.

But today, this is interesting because Mixner spoke at a dinner that made me think that perhaps as a culture we’re not so gratuitous in our obsession with youth. We know nothing better. It’s those in their early 40s now who might be the first not to know the AIDS epidemic. They are the bearer of a culture’s heritage because there is nobody else to do it.

Part one of his speech is above. Youtube has the rest.

]]> http://www.sortroom.net/2007/10/youth-obsessed/feed/ 0 http://www.sortroom.net/2007/05/indiana-teacher-suspended-transferred-for-gay-tolerant-school-publication/ http://www.sortroom.net/2007/05/indiana-teacher-suspended-transferred-for-gay-tolerant-school-publication/#comments Mon, 07 May 2007 23:52:27 +0000 Patrick http://www.sortroom.net/index.php/archives/2007/05/08/indiana-teacher-suspended-transferred-for-gay-tolerant-school-publication/ Continue reading →]]>

[Indiana teacher] Amy Sorrell was put on paid leave in March following the publication of a pro-gay tolerance essay by sophomore Megan Chase in the Woodlan Junior-Senior High School Tomahawk (which Sorrell supervises). Following a warning for “insubordination” by the school’s principal Edwin Yoder, Sorrell was suspended from teaching and put under “investigation” Yoder also said all future issues of the school newspaper would require his approval before going to press.

The results of the school’s “investigation,” according to the Indianapolis Star? Sorrell will be “transferred to another school and barred from teaching journalism for three years.”
Towleroad.com: Indiana Teacher Transferred, Barred from Teaching Journalism for Allowing Pro-Gay Tolerance Essay

So out of this interest in Apple, and an interest in investments and stocks, I end up reading quite a lot of financial news. One of the companies that is best known in the analyst sector is IDC, a data analysis firm that offers guidance to investors on market trends in much the same was as others such as Gartner. They collect data or carry out their own research operations and form opinions on their findings. In looking at their jobs on offer today I found what I think has to be one of the most comprehensive lists of things they absolutely don’t care about in their employees.

I get the impression that they actually just want the best employees and don’t really care about anything else. This is the kind of company I could work for.

IDC is an Equal Opportunity Employer. IDC does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, ancestry, sexual orientation, disability, handicap, veteran status, marital status, pregnancy-related conditions, or political beliefs.

At around 10:30 last night I was randomly channel surfing and came across a promo for the news of TF3 (Télévision France 3). Because I was in that exhausted phase that I get for a while after a really good but hard run, I decided to wait around for this news program. While waiting for it, rather unexpectedly, I was presented with 15 minutes or so of political ads for the various Presidential candidates. I read the newspapers here a lot so actually catching these things was fascinating; even more so because I’ve been taking a class on Political Communication in which the professeur would each week give us a summary of the campaign and often show clips of the high profile interviews of each (main) candidate. A couple things that I thought of on seeing these ads:

• At times the fringe parties do themselves no favors. They use their allotted time to show themselves chatting with ‘representative’ citizens on the street. This doesn’t work because combined with people talking in odd accents and too fast, fast cutting of the film, the subtitles (show for all candidates) and the possibility of picture-in-picture to make room for someone signing the broadcast, there’s too much going on. It looks disorganised. Viewers don’t care about having to watch other ‘ordinary’ people question a politician: they’re not very good at it. We know this because we have professional interviewers who find it hard enough with training. ‘Everyday people’ doing their job just makes the citizenry stupid.
• The far left liberals don’t need to put everything they display on a red background. It’s already clear they’re the communist party. They did, however, have by far the best presentation, with ‘live’ text on the screen and short snippet-like responses: the kind of thing needed to keep a viewer interested. How many people will really wait for 15 minutes to see all of the broadcasts? I’m guessing, not that many.
• Ségolène Royal had active and lively graphics but instead of showing a lot of what she had done, most of the time, as when they had dozens of clips of her in bubbles flying toward the viewer, it made the production look amateur. She was also the only candidate who didn’t face the camera head on. She looked like she really meant to talk to somebody else on the other side of the room rather than the camera.
• There was no mention of the Iraq war in any of the broadcasts. The top topics were unemployment (‘le chômage est beaucoup trop haut’), tax on business , immigration (‘nous avons toujours la peur dans notre pays’) and nationalism (‘being a citizen should be an honour not a right!’), the environment, economic protectionism (I’ll tell Bruxelles to…’) and a need for a renewal of social values. Many of the broadcasts seemed to say absolutely nothing at all, or at least ten seconds after their end I’d already forgotten the content.
• Neither Bayrou, Le Pen nor Sarkozy were on tonight. Perhaps that’s a special treat for tomorrow.

In the news, the thing that really struck me (call me strange), is that the ads on political billboards put up in every town (normally outside schools and other public buildings) are put up by ClearChannel. ClearChannel, an American multinational that controls billboards all over the world, hundreds of radio stations in the US and a large number of concert venues and promotion vehicles. I just think it’s ironic that a company that stands for so much that France is actively against is the one actually promoting their political process.

‘Phelps’, taken by Ron’s Log.

Wayne Besen, on his blog, discusses the the idea of a Southern Baptist leader Rev Albert Mohler Jr that one day, were a genetic propensity to homosexuality ever discovered, he would condone the use of anti-gay treatments to correct these traits. The idea is interesting because it comes from a man who is clearly in a position of power in his community. He’s riding high and there are few natural predators. There’s no need to watch your back, right? But what if he did have to? What if he were to consider his stated view but from the position of a Christian who is unpopular. You go to Turkey, go to China, go to Indonesia and perhaps the idea that eradicating gays might not be quite as powerful. Why? Not that these men and women who criticise everyone else’s lifestyles would have had a change of had, not that their hatred would have diminished, but in the light of threats to their own eradication and extermination perhaps they would have less haste in persecuting others. Besen says:

Before you dismiss this question as hypothetical or academic, consider that research into the origins of spirituality is a robust field of inquiry. There are currently about a dozen studies that show shared personality traits among religious people, suggesting a genetic or biological basis. …In Mohler’s world, conservative Christians are a majority and considered a paragon of virtue. However, the late singer John Lennon is not the only person who has “imagined” a world without religion and its Inquisitions and suicide bombers. Indeed, there are prominent scholars and writers who consider religion to be little more than a psychological defect – much like the Southern Baptists now consider homosexuality.

While the right in America is strong they think of their worldview as omnipotent and supreme. But their lack of humility and their absolute faith, which often equals a disregard of and lack of respect for the views of others could be a threat to themselves. Who is to say that in some future time, our increasingly laïque and secular societies will not view religion as a greater threat to humanity than ‘alternative’ sexualities? Gays don’t start wars because other people aren’t gay, we just want to be left alone. But those crazy christians are just bringing fire onto themselves. By pushing to continually persecute gays, legislating against us, protesting against us, hating against us, praying against us, shooting, stabbing and killing us, they will eventually undermine their own position of what is for now strength. Love thy neighbor flys out the window when those neighbors are both guys. Maybe they should rethink that?

Wayne Besen: Mohler’s Slippery Slope

formerly.. Just how gay is the right?

I’m not an activist at the moment, because I don’t know yet what exactly I care enough about to campaign for. I don’t know where my efforts would best be focused. When I find out though, when I come to some epiphanic conclusion, you can be sure I’ll be out there fighting, just don’t assume that’s the only thing I care about. What I care about is as varied as the people on the street, the books in the library and the autumn leaves blowing across my feet. Activism is only fun when you’ve got others to share the experience with, to laugh at the highs and mellow in the lows. If you care about as many things as I do, if you care at all, think about who you’d like to campaign for; we all should have a cause.

I have no regrets about my experiences, but I’m eager to find new leaders who can learn from their own experience. In recent years, I’ve spoken to LGBT high school students, recruited talented college activists to join the board of the National Black Justice Coalition and opened my Web site to new expressions from young columnists. But the more I did, the harder it was to get others involved.

Unwittingly, I had become an obstacle to my own recruitment plans. The more visible I became, the more difficult it was for others to become visible. Whenever I suggested that others should speak, I continued to be called on to speak instead. So last month, I decided to take a stand. I shut up. After the Millions More March, I got calls from CBS News, Essence Magazine, the Boston Globe, The Advocate, National Public Radio, Air America Radio and numerous other media outlets looking for a comment, and I told them all the same thing: Talk to someone else, please. I don’t want to be pigeonholed solely as black and gay. I’m proud of who I am, but I’m more than the sum of my identities.

Gay.com: Developing the next Rosa Parks

This reminds me of an article I read earlier in the year, from the Seattle PI, where one of their columnists bemoans the lack of representation and public concern for gay rights legislation in Washington State. In a State that’s perceived as one of the most liberal, West-Coast hippy places in the country, the Democrat led legislature and executive can’t put through any legislation protection citizens from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Why? Because people in the state don’t think it’s an issue to get worked up about. People are so apathetic or so accepting that they don’t think of gay rights as something that needs fighting for; it’s already there. But because there’s a lack of profile for the issue and pressure on the politicians, elected officials are able to shirk off their responsibilities to their constituents.
This is why we need activists: someone needs to shepherd every cause along. Issues don’t come to prominence by themselves, there needs to be push, profile building and argument to get those who don’t care to at least understand.

The Democrats rule the House. Democrats control the Senate by a slim margin. They have even got their candidate, Christine Gregoire, in the governor’s mansion.

Yet despite this, two conservative Democrats in the Senate joined Republicans last week to derail a civil rights bill that would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. …There’s [a] disturbing wrinkle arising from last week’s vote: apathy from the mainstream. People did voice anger on Capitol Hill, but that’s to be expected from a Seattle neighborhood that is the heart of the region’s gay community.

Just as bad is the deafening silence about the bill’s fate from quarters that should know better. Civil rights groups such as the ACLU, the NAACP and Equal Rights Washington are familiar with the pain of injustice. These organizations have mewled instead of roared — if they have said anything at all.
The quiet is unnerving.

Seattle PI: Robert L. Jamieson Jr: Who will stand up for gay rights? Anyone?