Monday Male Beauty

Clarence B. Jone: It's Time For A Primary Challenge of Obama

Clarence B. Jones is scholar in residence at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute at Stanford University. On top of that, he's black and a progressive. And he is now admitting that its time that progressives start the process of finding a primary challenger to take on Obama in the lead up to 2012. As readers know, I lost all confidence in Obama - who I now typically refer to as the Liar-in-Chief - over numerous issues, and not just LGBT equality issues. It began when he surrendered toe public option in health care reform before the measure was even out of the box and it's been downhill from there. The DADT debacle and the failure to see even the remotest movement on the passage of ENDA and/or the repeal of DOMA have been icing on the cake. Obama has basically abandoned those who elected him and seems to somehow believe that by kissing the GOP's ass he's helping his re-election efforts. Or maybe he believes that with a far right GOP opponent such as - God help us - Sarah Palin, progressives will vote for him in 2012 no matter how much he betrays his campaign promises. Worse yet, I suspect that after January, 2011, we will see only more and more give aways to the far right. Here are highlights from Jones' column at Huffington Post:
*
Can't tell you how it happened. All I know, it just happened. Been thinking and reading a lot about President Barack Obama. Lots of news commentaries about his alleged lack of leadership on this or that issue. About his disappointing the Gay and Lesbian and Transgender Community on his election pledge to end the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in the armed services. And his disappointment by the anti-war coalition, who supported him because of his opposition to the war in Iraq, only to find that he has escalated the US's involvement in Afghanistan. Now, after the midterm election victories of the Republicans, he seems willing to compromise on his pledge to end tax breaks for the rich.
*
In previous blogs, I have tried to contribute to a constructive analysis and dialogue about Obama's presidential leadership. Several readers accused me of being an "apologist" for Obama.
*
[C]heck out the video clips of the panorama of faces that assembled in Grant Park in Chicago after the election results confirmed his victory. Check out the million + people who came to Washington to witness his Inauguration. It is not easy to consider challenging the first African-American to be elected as President of the United States. But, regrettably, I believe that the time has come to do this.
*
It is time for Progressives to stop "whining" and arguing among themselves about whether President Obama will or will not do this or that. Obama is no different than any other President, nominated by his national party. He was elected with the hard work and 24/7 commitment of persons who believed and enlisted in his campaign for "Hope" and "Change."
*
You don't have to be a rocket scientist nor have a PhD in political science and sociology to see clearly that Obama has abandoned much of the base that elected him. He has done this because he no longer respects, fears or believes those persons who elected him have any alternative, but to accept what he does, whether they like it or not.
*
It is time for those persons who constituted the "Movement" that enabled Senator Barack Obama to be elected to "break their silence"; to indicate that they no longer will sit on their hands, and only let off verbal steam and ineffective sound and fury, and "hope" for the best.
*
The pursuit of the war in Afghanistan in support of a certifiably corrupt Afghan government and the apparent willingness to retreat from his campaign commitment of no further tax cuts for the rich, his equivocal and foot dragging leadership to end DADT, his TARP for Wall Street, but, equivocal insufficient attention to the unemployment and housing foreclosures of Main Street, suggest that the template of the 1968 challenge to the reelection of President Lyndon Johnson now must be thoughtfully considered for Obama in 2012.

GOP Congressman: Whites Will Lose Freedom if DREAM Act Passes

It is amazing how outright racist some within the GOP have become. It's to the point where they don't even speak in code words anymore. A case in point is Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-California) who seems to be inviting a race war with some of his inflammatory statements. Rohrabacher sees Hispanics as an evil threat and wants conservative media to "Please alert the people, if Americans aren’t alerted to this, we’re going to lose our freedom and we know it’s in jeopardy." So besides hating gays, non-Christians, and blacks, the GOP base seems to want an open season on Hispanics as well. It's yet another example of the "family values" party becoming something horrid indeed. Think Progress has coverage of Rohrabacher's racist insanity. Here are highlights:
*
In their efforts to bring down the DREAM Act, which would give children of undocumented immigrants who complete college or volunteer for the military a path to citizenship, conservatives have been smearing the bill as “backdoor amnesty” for undocumented immigrants and claiming it creates a loophole for terrorists. Unfortunately, many of their attacks have also taken on racial undertones.
*
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) . . . . took to the House floor Wednesday to warn that voting for “the Affirmative Action Amnesty Act,” as he dubbed DREAM, will “relegate the position of non-minority American citizens to behind those who are now in this country illegally.”
*
Appearing on Radio America with Greg Corombus yesterday, Rohrabacher expanded on the dangers to white people of DREAM, explaining that the “real zinger” is that it puts minorities “ahead of every American child who’s not a minority.”
*
Of course, the DREAM Act is not amnesty, nor is it affirmative action, and it is certainly not a measure to oppress white people. The bill extends conditional legal status for five years to young people who are upstanding citizens and in this country illegally by not fault of their own. It will also help enforce immigration laws, reduce the deficit, and strengthen the military, but that doesn’t seem to matter to Rohrabacher.
*
What truly takes the cake on this bigotry is the fact that, if Rohrabacher is typical of the GOP members of Congress, he probably pats himself on the back for being a "Godly Christian" - even as he preaches hate and discord.

More Sunday Male Beauty

Catholic Church in Steep Decline in Poland

The 12th Century minded Pope Benedict XVI has said that one of the goals of his papacy was/is to revive Christianity - Catholicism in particular - in Europe. Increasingly, however, it seems that instead he is overseeing the Church's wake on that continent instead. And deservedly so in light of the Church's worldwide sex abuse scandal and the ever increasing evidence that secrecy, cover ups, and an utter disregard for the welfare of children and youths was and remains the norm for the Church hierarchy. Yes, there are crocodile tears shed when the truth of the abuse comes out in the news media, but most responsible in the hierarchy have gone totally unpunished. Added to this phenomenon is the Church's refusal to accept modern medical, scientific and mental health knowledge - a refusal that is all the more evident given the free flow of information via the Internet. Catholic Spain - once reliable from the Vatican perspective - now has gay marriage and abortion. And now, according to a New York Times story, the Church finds itself in free fall in Poland, yet another once reliable bastion of Catholicism. To my view, the Church leadership has brought most of this on itself and it looks increasingly that those who claim to want to "save the Church" are the ones killing it. The irony is just too delicious. Here are some highlights from the Times story:
*
Poland is still an overwhelmingly Roman Catholic nation, still conservative and still religious, especially when compared with its European neighbors. But supporters and critics of the Roman Catholic Church all acknowledge that the society is changing. They agree that church representatives in Poland have lost authority and credibility, and that much of the population is moving toward a more secular view of life, one with a greater separation between church and state, and a rejection of church mandates on individual morality.
*
Poles cite a wide variety of reasons for the church’s declining influence. They say the dynamic gained momentum after the death in 2005 of the hugely popular Pope John Paul II, whose leadership is credited with helping bring down the Iron Curtain.
*
Church critics and supporters said that the trend was partly an expression of disgust with the clergy for taking sides in recent political battles, and partly the influence of thousands of Poles who had returned home after working and studying in the more secular societies in the West.
*
But they also said there was a strong anticlerical movement in Poland, one that was unique to this nation and not tied to the sex scandals that have rocked the Roman Catholic Church elsewhere. It is more closely linked to an almost genetic predisposition to rebel against authority, many people here said, as much as the church’s often heavy-handed intervention in national politics and debates over social issues, particularly in vitro fertilization.
*
The list of grievances against the church tends to be Polish specific: that it managed to recover its property after Communism, but that average people often could not; that it appeared to take sides in politics . . .
*
Antichurch sentiment has run so hot that one of the most popular politicians in the country, Janusz Palikot, started a political party based largely on an anticlerical platform. He said that the national divide tended to be generational, with older citizens more closely aligned with the church, but that it was impossible to discern distinct boundaries.

*

The Church truly seems headed towards a day where its sole center of influence will be limited to backward countries with uneducated populations, primarily in Africa. And Rome will have accelerated the trend by insanely clinging to 12th century dogma and "natural law" arguments now refuted by modern knowledge.

Brazil Grants Pension Benefits to Gay Couples

Parts of what was once seen as the developing world are leaving the USA in the dust in terms of granting equality to their LGBT citizens. Earlier in the year, Argentina granted full civil marriage rights to same sex couples and now Brazil is granting the equivalent to social security survivor benefits to same sex couples - something the USA refuses to do because of the religious based prejudice inspired Defense of Marriage Act. You know, that Act that the Liar-in-Chief claimed to want modified or repealed but about which he has done nothing. As I have stated before, foreign nations are increasingly showing the USA to be an utter fraud when it comes to equal protection under the civil laws and freedom of religion. Here are highlights from Bloomberg.com on the developments in Brazil:
*
The Brazilian government says gay couples in a stable relationship are entitled to the same social security pension benefits enjoyed by heterosexual couples.
*
The Social Security Ministry says in a Friday statement that the gay spouse of a retiree who dies will now be able to receive the pension payments once received by his or her companion. The policy covers formally registered workers who pay monthly social security fees.
*
Same-sex marriages are not recognized in Brazil, but 10 years ago a court in the state of Rio Grande do Sul granted same-sex couples inheritance rights and allowed them to add their partners to health insurance and retirement plans.
*

What's amazing about changes in a number of South America nations is the fact that - unlike in the USA - the Catholic Church has been increasingly unable to stop the advances in LGBT rights.

Gay Bashing at the Smithsonian

I have not commented on the censorship dispute that erupted at the Smithsonian controlled National Portrait Gallery in Washington where a survey of same-sex themes in American portraiture titled “Hide/Seek” is showing. Not surprisingly, fanning the flames of censorship and anti-gay bigotry was the ever opportunistic and professional victim of self-fabricated anti-Catholicism, William Donohue, president of the Catholic League - which seems to have only one member: Donohue. What triggered Donohue's latest batshitery was a video titled “A Fire in My Belly” which features a scene of a crucifix besieged by ants that some art critics say evokes frantic souls scurrying in panic as a seemingly impassive God looked on. Once again, special privileges for the sensibilities of hate mongering Christians won the day and the video was edited to delete the scene. It's amazing how Catholics like Donohue continue to claim to be victims of anti-Catholicism even as the Church spends millions to deprive LGBT citizens of equal civil rights and the Pope continues to describe gays as "inherently disordered" and inclined to "moral evil." Frank Rich has a piece in today's New York Times that takes on the censorship and gay bashing. Here are highlights:
*
“Fire in My Belly” was removed from the exhibit by the National Portrait Gallery some 10 days ago with the full approval, if not instigation, of its parent institution, the Smithsonian. (The censored version of “Hide/Seek” is still scheduled to run through Feb. 13.) The incident is chilling because it suggests that even in a time of huge progress in gay civil rights, homophobia remains among the last permissible bigotries in America. “Think anti-gay bullying is just for kids? Ask the Smithsonian,” wrote The Los Angeles Times’s art critic, Christopher Knight, last week. One might add: Think anti-gay bullying is just for small-town America? Look at the nation’s capital.
*
The Smithsonian’s behavior and the ensuing silence in official Washington are jarring echoes of those days when American political leaders stood by idly as the [AIDS] epidemic raged on. The incident is also a throwback to the culture wars we thought we were getting past now — most eerily the mother of them all, the cancellation of a Mapplethorpe exhibit (after he died of AIDS) at another Washington museum, the Corcoran, in 1989.
*
Like many of its antecedents, the war over Wojnarowicz is a completely manufactured piece of theater. What triggered the abrupt uproar was an incendiary Nov. 29 post on a conservative Web site. The post was immediately and opportunistically seized upon by William Donohue, of the so-called Catholic League, a right-wing publicity mill. . .
*
Like many of its antecedents, the war over Wojnarowicz is a completely manufactured piece of theater. What triggered the abrupt uproar was an incendiary Nov. 29 post on a conservative Web site. The post was immediately and opportunistically seized upon by William Donohue, of the so-called Catholic League, a right-wing publicity mill with no official or financial connection to the Catholic Church.
*
Donohue is best known for defending Mel Gibson’s anti-Semitism by declaring that “Hollywood is controlled by Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.” A perennial critic of all news media except Fox, he has also accused The Times of anti-Catholicism because it investigated the church pedophilia scandal.
*
But of course Donohue was just using his “religious” objections as a perfunctory cover for the homophobia actually driving his complaint. The truth popped out of the closet as Donohue expanded his indictment to “pornographic images of gay men.” His Republican Congressional allies got into the act. Eric Cantor called for the entire exhibit to be shut down and threatened to maim the Smithsonian’s taxpayer funding come January. (The exhibit was entirely funded by private donors, but such facts don’t matter in culture wars.)
*
The Post’s Gopnik has been heroically relentless in calling out the Smithsonian and the National Portrait Gallery for their capitulation. But few in Washington’s power circles have joined him, including the Smithsonian’s Board of Regents — a gilded assembly of bipartisan cowardice . . .
*
Has it gotten better since AIDS decimated a generation of gay men? In San Francisco, certainly. But when America’s signature cultural institution can be so easily bullied by bigots, it’s another indicator that the angels Keith Haring saw on his death bed have not landed in Washington just yet.

Sunday Male Beauty

Gays in Africa Face Growing Persecution

Religion continues to show its face as a perverse evil in Africa where gays and lesbians are under increased persecution which is fueled by fundamentalist Christians - often with the assistance and bankrolling of American based religious extremists. And just as in the USA, politicians prove themselves to more or less be shameless whores only too ready to pander to the Christian hate merchants. And right be hind the Christianists peddling hatred are Islamic gay haters. It's a phenomenon that makes be once again believe that a world without religion would be a marked improvement from the present situation. If nothing else, the situation underscores what religion needs to remain utterly separate from the civil laws and that more needs to be done to expose the work of American based groups who are exporting religious based discrimination abroad. With all of the economic, social and health problems in Africa, gays are sadly being cynically scapegoated. Here are highlights from the Washington Post:
*
KAMPALA, UGANDA - Persecution of gays is intensifying across Africa, fueled by fundamentalist preachers, intolerant governments and homophobic politicians. Gay people have been denied access to health care, detained, tortured and even killed, human rights activists and witnesses say.
*
The growing tide of homophobia comes at a time when gays in Africa are expressing themselves more openly, prompting greater media attention and debates about homosexuality. The rapid growth of Islam and evangelical forms of Christianity, both espousing conservative views on family values and marriage, have persuaded many Africans that homosexuality should not be tolerated in their societies.
*
Local newspapers are outing gays, potentially inciting the public to attack them, activists say. A day after a newspaper article said that gays should be hanged, Sheila Hope Mugisha became a target. As the prominent gay rights activist neared her home, she said, boys from the neighborhood threw stones at the gate and chanted, "You are a homo." Mugisha ran inside and locked the door. She didn't leave for several days.
*
"In Uganda, we look at homosexuality as an abomination. It is not normal," said Nsaba Butoro, Uganda's minister on ethics and integrity and a vocal supporter of the bill. "You are talking about a clash of cultures. The question is: Which culture is superior, the African one or the Western one?" More than two-thirds of African countries have laws criminalizing homosexuality.
*
One exception is South Africa, whose constitution was the first in the world to outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation and is among a few countries in the world that have legalized same-sex marriages. Still, even there, negative attitudes toward gays persist in many rural areas and townships.
*
In recent years, conservative American evangelical churches have had a profound influence on society in Uganda and other African nations. They send missions and help fund local churches that share their brand of Christianity. Sermons and seminars by American evangelist preachers are staples on local television and radio networks across the continent.
*
"The religious fundamentalists want to rule everyone. They want everyone to follow their religious agenda," said Pepe Julien Onziema, a gay rights activist here.
*
The article goes on with more sickening details. There are certainly ironies reported in the story: the fact that utterly corrupt Uganda purports to have a minister of ethics and integrity and that Africans have been duped into believing they are protecting African values when its American fundamentalist Christian beliefs that are fueling the anti-gay jihad. The situation again proves why an ignorant and uneducated population are so necessary for Christianist to be successful.

Too Gay For The USA?

The caption of this post is the headline of an article that looks at the slow launch and to date depressing revenues of the movie I Love You Phillip Morris, starring Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor. True to form - and probably supporting the article's premise - the movie is not showing anywhere locally. If it shows anywhere, it will likely be at The Naro Theater in Norfolk's Ghent neighborhood which is the region's closest thing to a gayborhood. Where the movie is doing well is in European markets where males in particular don't seem so afflicted with insecurity about their own sexuality. The article goes on to posit that the characters in Phillip Morris aren't agonizing about their sexuality and don't end up dead or outcasts also cuts against the norm of how Hollywood films treat gay protaganists in what few large release gay themed films we have seen in the past. It's unfortunate, but I believe the article is a damning testament to how f*cked American society remains when it comes to LGBT acceptance. Here are highlights from AskMen:
*
I Love You Phillip Morris, the new film starring Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor, has so far grossed over $18 million -- almost entirely in foreign markets. In fact, as of last week, its domestic ticket sales wouldn't pay the salary of a school superintendent. That's because, although the film has been finished for almost two years, it was just released in the United States last Friday and has so far been shown on a total of six screens.
*
Though the industry reaction wasn't overtly bigoted -- Hollywood is a town of making-nice and air-kissing after all -- there was a telling deafness to the project. "It was almost a lack of reaction. More a retreat," says Lazar.
Distributors may well have been thrown by a film as genre-bending and tonally-varied as Phillip Morris, which is at once a slapstick comedy, a con-man thriller, a prison-break drama and a love story, but the gay content seems to have been a major factor in their skittishness.
*
There have been big American movies starring gay characters in recent years, notably Brokeback Mountain and Milk, and one would think these Oscar-winning hits would have whetted the industry's appetite for gay subject matter, or at least settled its uneasy stomach. But in truth, when Hollywood embraces films with gay themes, it does so in fairly specific and predictable ways, and the offbeat, morally neutral Phillip Morris simply didn't fit the mold.
*
So what, in particular, does Hollywood not like about Philip Morris?... In each case, being gay creates personal or social problems for the characters and is the main font of dramatic tension in the film. It's hardly a coincidence that the protagonists of major gay-themed films generally wind up dead, slain either by disease or by bigoted assassins representing the status quo. . . . As such, their deaths make a broader social point and an easily digestible moral lesson for the viewing public. They're martyrs to time and place, figures both tragic and heroic.
*
Carrey's flamboyant fraudster is none of the above. Where Hollywood's gay favorites are noble or conflicted, Russell is selfish and exuberant. He's neither a political crusader nor a tortured soul, and I Love You Phillip Morris offers none of the easy balms of martyrdom or an Underdog-vs.-the-Machine narrative.
*
Andrew Lazar thinks it's precisely this lack of agonizing and self-flagellation that's made the film popular with GLAAD and other gay and lesbian groups. "Once he gets to his authentic self there's never any looking back," says Lazar. "It's: 'This is it. I'm gay and this is who I'm going to be.'" It sounds so simple, yet marketing departments were afraid of the movie, says Lazar, which he describes as "an unapologetic gay love story" with an audacious sense of humor.
*
More audacious than the humor is the fact that the film treats homosexuality as neither an obstacle nor a plight, resulting for once in a film with gay characters that's not about the personal or social travails of being gay. Like anyone, Steven and Phillip have their problems, but being gay isn't one of them.