The petty queer establishment responds

Like I’m not going to have the last word. Actually, I’ll let Duane (still searching for those “mean things” I said about you … and here I thought calling someone you don’t know a “self-hater” was “mean”) fall on his own sword –

Similar, but not too similar, to my thoughts on pride, a fellow atlblogger decided to say some pretty mean things about me after I said that he was self-hating because of his constant negative critique of anything and everything gay, and I know that there are at least a few of you that are interested in my response. Well, my response is that it makes me wonder about someone that continually portrays themselves as dissatisfied and unhappy with practically anything related to being gay, or gay culture (in that it may represent our culture outwardly to the overall society in ways that other people may or may not approve of), that doesn’t feel that his critique at least gives the illusion of self-hatred or denial; based on his affliation with said group. Wanting something to be “better” or “more representative” doesn’t come across through constant critique and judgement. Many of us don’t see the portrayal of, or expression of, “stereotypical” or “negative” representations of gay culture as necessarily weakening our “political movement” or “our cause”. To me, and the reason I made the statement to him, pride weekend is about a celebration of who we are, warts and all, not a political forum for furthering the “gay agenda”. If it represents us as anything, in my opinion it shows that we are just as diverse as “mainstream” society, and that while some may see us as deviant, we celebrate our uniqueness in the way that we know how; after all, something that differentiates us from the “mainstream” based on sex (the act of, not biological) carries certain sexual expressions and representations, to expect otherwise is a recipe for disappointment. I am also a believer that practically any representation of us in the media (albeit, positive, not negative) is a good thing, because it normalizes us even more, and that only the ignorant will truly believe that all gays are limp wristed nellies. If my call about him was off-kilter, it was simply a response to the many negative critiques that serve as the evidence I have seen on his blog thus far. Furthermore, I will end this by saying that I now realize that my first mistake was giving a rats ass about anything he had to say, and that I will not be making this mistake in the future. Obviously, I, along with many others, tend to get confused when people constantly critique and talk down about something they are a part of, while what they actually mean, is that they support and want to improve it.

I know this is getting tiresome, but, again, I believe it’s instructive. The above clearly — well, somewhat clearly — represents the gay party line I speak of; God help those who dissent.

By the way, Duane, the blog you’re reading is called ATL malcontent. The mission is simple — to provoke rational debate. Check back when you’re ready to engage. I’ll be here, hating myself as always.

Courtesy of the red, white and blue

Has there ever been a piece of legislation more cynically crafted than the (anti)-flag burning bill, due for a Senate vote by the end of the week?

Are red state voters really so easily manipulated? My heart says no, but my brain tells me otherwise.

Not only is the bill unnecessary, but it’s wrong.

**STANDARD DISCLAIMER: I DON’T ENDORSE BURNING THE AMERICAN FLAG. IT’S UGLY SPEECH, BUT PROTECTED, JUST LIKE TORCHING A CROSS.

“The House and Senate floor is about substantive work for the nation, and I think campaigns ought to be kept in the streets where they belong,” said former House Republican Leader Dick Armey of Texas. “(Senate Majority Leader) Frist seems to be going about 80 percent politics and 20 percent policy, though I would be hard-pressed to find what that 20 percent is.”

Although flag burning amendments have been defeated in the past, this one is but a single vote shy of passage.

Support for the amendment is bipartisan, with 14 Senate Democrats, including Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, favoring it. But there are important opponents as well, including Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the second-ranking Republican leader in the Senate.

I never thought I’d say this, but McConnell, the consummate insider, deserves credit for taking a principled stand:

“I think the First Amendment has served us well for over 200 years. I don’t think it needs to be altered.”

Maybe after they tackle this latest hot-button issue Congress can return to more pressing matters of state … wonder how that anti-goat fucking legislation is coming along?   

Keep on fiddlin’, Nero.

**Check back later in the day, as your not-so-humble correspondent plans to watch the debate unfold on C-SPAN 2 (rhetorical abominations sure to follow). Since my head’s already spinning, it shouldn’t be too difficult to digest.

Is Satan a Democrat?

Some stories require no comment —

As if beating a five-term congressman wasn’t hard enough, John Jacob said he has another foe working against him: the devil.

"There’s another force that wants to keep us from going to Washington, D.C.," Jacob said. "It’s the devil is what it is. I don’t want you to print that, but it feels like that’s what it is."

Jacob said Thursday that since he decided to run for Congress against Rep. Chris Cannon, Satan has bollixed his business deals, preventing him from putting as much money into the race as he had hoped. …

Asked if he actually believed that "something else" was indeed Satan, Jacob said: "I don’t know who else it would be if it wasn’t him. Now when that gets out in the paper, I’m going to be one of the screw-loose people."

Jacob initially said the devil was working against him during a Wednesday immigration event, then reiterated his belief Thursday in a meeting with The Salt Lake Tribune editorial board.

"There’s a lot of adversity. There’s no question I’ve had experiences that I think there’s an outside force," he said.

Gary Busey hates America

Who’da thunk a movie starring Gary Busey — recently heard on Howard Stern’s radio show trying to lead the Jewish shock jock to Jesus Christ — would cause such controversy?

I’m usually reluctant to bash flicks I haven’t seen (unless they star Adam Sandler or Jim Carrey), but I’ll make an exception with “Valley of the Wolves.” The casting alone indicates it’s shite, featuring “Titanic” has-been Billy Zane alongside Busey. Shouldn’t they be appearing in an “Emmanuelle” sequel about now — “Emmanuelle in Ankara,” perhaps? 

The Turkish-produced film centers around a July 4, 2003 incident during the Iraq war when U.S. forces captured 11 Turkish soldiers who were actually members of coalition forces.

It is unapologetically anti-American.

Last February, one woman, emerging from a theater showing the film in Istanbul, told a BBC reporter: “If I see an American when I get out of here I feel like taking a hood and putting it over their head.”

Busey plays the villain, a doctor who removes organs from Iraqi prisoners and sells them to hospitals abroad.

The movie makes its American premiere in — drumroll, please — San Francisco, at a Muslim film festival. A little on the nose, don’t you think?

Noted and quoted

"If I wanted to go that route I’d just walk around the mall and think about Jesus."

–Hank Hill, re: megachurches

“I saw something nasty in the woodshed”

Movies worth seeing, Kate Beckinsale edition: 

Please, Kate, get a new agent. You held such promise once, but your recent career choices bring to mind Geena Davis, circa 1990s. And now you’re playing Adam Sandler’s wife in "Click"!?! Please tell me you don’t kiss that cretin (fortunately, I’ll never know).

I retain hope that you’ll come to your senses and return to more watchable fare, such as "Cold Comfort Farm" — an overlooked gem from legendary director John Schlesinger — and Whit Stillman’s "The Last Days of Disco," in which you more than held your own against Malcontent fave Chloe Sevigny.

Do you really want to tell your grandchildren you played second fiddle eye candy to Sandler? Please, that’s Drew Barrymore territory. Is the cover of FHM really worth it?

You’re better than that, at least you were. Next time you’re offered another of those throwaway roles, consider this: What would fellow Brit Charlotte Rampling do?

I assure you — she would’ve never swapped spit with Jerry Lewis.

My vertigo diary

DAY SIX

Returned to the doctor today — still no resolution. Actually, I feel good, save for persistent blurred vision.

So how am I managing to post? With one eye closed. I’m about to amble up to CVS to try to find an eye patch … might as well be fashionably discombobulated. Otherwise, I’m trying not to think about tomorrow’s brain MRI. I guess I should be thankful for a constitution that frets over the little things but handles (potential) crisis with aplomb.

Even pessimists can be optimists, in the right situation.

The petty queer establishment responds

Like I’m not going to have the last word. Actually, I’ll let Duane (still searching for those "mean things" I said about you … and here I thought calling someone you don’t know a "self-hater" was "mean") fall on his own sword –

Similar, but not too similar, to my thoughts on pride, a fellow atlblogger decided to say some pretty mean things about me after I said that he was self-hating because of his constant negative critique of anything and everything gay, and I know that there are at least a few of you that are interested in my response. Well, my response is that it makes me wonder about someone that continually portrays themselves as dissatisfied and unhappy with practically anything related to being gay, or gay culture (in that it may represent our culture outwardly to the overall society in ways that other people may or may not approve of), that doesn’t feel that his critique at least gives the illusion of self-hatred or denial; based on his affliation with said group. Wanting something to be "better" or "more representative" doesn’t come across through constant critique and judgement. Many of us don’t see the portrayal of, or expression of, "stereotypical" or "negative" representations of gay culture as necessarily weakening our "political movement" or "our cause". To me, and the reason I made the statement to him, pride weekend is about a celebration of who we are, warts and all, not a political forum for furthering the "gay agenda". If it represents us as anything, in my opinion it shows that we are just as diverse as "mainstream" society, and that while some may see us as deviant, we celebrate our uniqueness in the way that we know how; after all, something that differentiates us from the "mainstream" based on sex (the act of, not biological) carries certain sexual expressions and representations, to expect otherwise is a recipe for disappointment. I am also a believer that practically any representation of us in the media (albeit, positive, not negative) is a good thing, because it normalizes us even more, and that only the ignorant will truly believe that all gays are limp wristed nellies. If my call about him was off-kilter, it was simply a response to the many negative critiques that serve as the evidence I have seen on his blog thus far. Furthermore, I will end this by saying that I now realize that my first mistake was giving a rats ass about anything he had to say, and that I will not be making this mistake in the future. Obviously, I, along with many others, tend to get confused when people constantly critique and talk down about something they are a part of, while what they actually mean, is that they support and want to improve it.

I know this is getting tiresome, but, again, I believe it’s instructive. The above clearly — well, somewhat clearly — represents the gay party line I speak of; God help those who dissent.

By the way, Duane, the blog you’re reading is called ATL malcontent. The mission is simple — to provoke rational debate. Check back when you’re ready to engage. I’ll be here, hating myself as always.

Courtesy of the red, white and blue

Has there ever been a piece of legislation more cynically crafted than the (anti)-flag burning bill, due for a Senate vote by the end of the week?

Are red state voters really so easily manipulated? My heart says no, but my brain tells me otherwise.

Not only is the bill unnecessary, but it’s wrong.

**STANDARD DISCLAIMER: I DON’T ENDORSE BURNING THE AMERICAN FLAG. IT’S UGLY SPEECH, BUT PROTECTED, JUST LIKE TORCHING A CROSS.

"The House and Senate floor is about substantive work for the nation, and I think campaigns ought to be kept in the streets where they belong," said former House Republican Leader Dick Armey of Texas. "(Senate Majority Leader) Frist seems to be going about 80 percent politics and 20 percent policy, though I would be hard-pressed to find what that 20 percent is."

Although flag burning amendments have been defeated in the past, this one is but a single vote shy of passage.

Support for the amendment is bipartisan, with 14 Senate Democrats, including Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, favoring it. But there are important opponents as well, including Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the second-ranking Republican leader in the Senate.

I never thought I’d say this, but McConnell, the consummate insider, deserves credit for taking a principled stand:

"I think the First Amendment has served us well for over 200 years. I don’t think it needs to be altered."

Maybe after they tackle this latest hot-button issue Congress can return to more pressing matters of state … wonder how that anti-goat fucking legislation is coming along?   

Keep on fiddlin’, Nero.

**Check back later in the day, as your not-so-humble correspondent plans to watch the debate unfold on C-SPAN 2 (rhetorical abominations sure to follow). Since my head’s already spinning, it shouldn’t be too difficult to digest.

Gary Busey hates America

Who’da thunk a movie starring Gary Busey — recently heard on Howard Stern’s radio show trying to lead the Jewish shock jock to Jesus Christ — would cause such controversy?

I’m usually reluctant to bash flicks I haven’t seen (unless they star Adam Sandler or Jim Carrey), but I’ll make an exception with "Valley of the Wolves." The casting alone indicates it’s shite, featuring "Titanic" has-been Billy Zane alongside Busey. Shouldn’t they be appearing in an "Emmanuelle" sequel about now — "Emmanuelle in Ankara," perhaps? 

The Turkish-produced film centers around a July 4, 2003 incident during the Iraq war when U.S. forces captured 11 Turkish soldiers who were actually members of coalition forces.

It is unapologetically anti-American.

Last February, one woman, emerging from a theater showing the film in Istanbul, told a BBC reporter: "If I see an American when I get out of here I feel like taking a hood and putting it over their head."

Busey plays the villain, a doctor who removes organs from Iraqi prisoners and sells them to hospitals abroad.

The movie makes its American premiere in — drumroll, please — San Francisco, at a Muslim film festival. A little on the nose, don’t you think?

My vertigo diary

DAY SIX

Returned to the doctor today — still no resolution. Actually, I feel good, save for persistent blurred vision.

So how am I managing to post? With one eye closed. I’m about to amble up to CVS to try to find an eye patch … might as well be fashionably discombobulated. Otherwise, I’m trying not to think about tomorrow’s brain MRI. I guess I should be thankful for a constitution that frets over the little things but handles (potential) crisis with aplomb.

Even pessimists can be optimists, in the right situation.

Character counts

My hometown used to have plenty of it, from the original incarnation of Underground Atlanta to the Pershing Point Hotel, home to “drag queens, hippies, painters, sculptors, you name it.”

Atlanta’s Midtown (the area between Piedmont Avenue and Peachtree and 10th streets) served as ground zero for the city’s counterculture scenesters — drugstores, soda fountains and shoe stores were slowly being replaced by clothing shops stocked with clogs, headbands and Earth Shoes. Head shops, carrying a vast array of “smoking” accessories, along with bottles of eight-track tape player head cleaner, sprouted up in the neighborhood.

I wish the AJC would do more stories like this, revisting an Atlanta that bore no resemblance to Phoenix … or Houston … or Charlotte …

(One question: Does the local organ have actor Leslie Jordan on retainer? He’s quoted more often than the governor.)

Now I’m proud

Something positive has come out of the recent dust-up between Duane (I relent on the linkage, though I typically prefer not to give pub to those who take the ad hominem route) and yours truly.

The Malcontent received more comments on these posts than any previous, which tells me people are ready to engage in a conversation that’s long overdue. Some, such as Neon Poisoning, have addressed the discussion on their blogs. 

Rational, thoughtful debate is always welcome, and for the most part that’s what we’ve seen.

Now, fully aware that I can be a bit arch at times, let me sum up:

I have no significant problem with pride marches — in fact, minus the vertigo, I would’ve likely spent a decent chunk of this weekend at Piedmont Park — or the more flamboyant members of the LGBT souffle. However, I’m wary of group identification, particularly when it precludes individuality. All I want is a healthier movement, one that expands beyond stereotype to capture a more representative — and inclusive — portrait of the gay community. 

In other words, I yearn for the day when “gay” isn’t automatically associated with the likes of Carson from “Queer Eye.”

We’re here, we’re queer and we’re not all caricatures.