Analyzing and refuting the inaccuracies lodged against the lgbt community by religious conservative organizations. Lies in the name of God are still lies.
For those interested, here is the link to the speech President Obama will be giving to our nation's children.
Oh yeah, real evil stuff there with all that talk about reaching for the stars, never giving up even if you fail, and always keeping your focus on your goals.
Expect the anti-Obama spin to remain on the optional lesson plans (which I don't see the problem with suggesting that students write out ways to help THEIR president improve education) or the lie about how "Obama was forced to revise his speech."
I would have loved to hear such words of encouragement coming from the President or anyone. And I was lucky to get those words of encouragement from my mother, teachers, and friends.
Those words were a better experience of encouragement than the one I had when I was four-years-old.
At the time, I lived in Pennsylvania. My brother and I was invited with a group of inner city youth by a predominantly white church group to have lunch at a theatre and see movies.
The first movie was some oldie about the Harlem Globetrotters with Dorothy Dandridge.
The second movie was a lovely gem of the macabre (shown here in preview form) called The Burning Hell:
I have since seen this documentary at two other stages in my life.
As a 38-year-old looking at it on youtube, it amazes me how people thought that showing children this movie could do anything positive for their well-being.
As a nine-year-old seeing it at another church's revival meeting, I wondered what in the world was all the fuss about.
However, as a four-year-old (at the time I first saw the movie), it scared the hell out of me. Ugly memory that was. And totally exacerbated by the fact that many of us children were too scared to leave. I wonder what those lovely Christian people would have done if we tried.
And by the way, we did get lunch. A nasty peanut butter sandwich, an orange, and a carton of warm milk that they gave us when we boarded the bus for home. And that was after the prayer of "accepting Jesus and hoping that if we died that day, we didn't end up in hell."
Wasn't that lovely? It gave me something to think about between such childhood functions as reading comic books and watching Schoolhouse Rock.
The entire experience served me well, though. It put a kernel of doubt in my head about man's interpretation of God's word. This kernel blossomed and ended up being a saving grace when I had to deal with my gay sexual orientation.
Now I ask you all in light of how I was a victim of "proper encouragement" by members of the Christian community, is President Obama's speech to children really a bad thing?
Editor's note - By the way, you can see the entire "The Burning Hell" video here on youtube.
UPDATE - This is funny. At the conservative blog, Hot Air (how aptly named), they are of course either panning the speech or trying to push the "it's not the speech but the instructional materials" lie. But every now and then comes a moment of truth. One person said the following:
I can’t help wondering if the fact that he’s black and you’re all white doesn’t have a teeny-tiny bit to do with that deep deep reservoir of resentment.
(name withheld) on September 7, 2009 at 3:10 PM
The response:
How the hell do you know we’re all white, a$$wipe?
Screw you and the bloody donkey you rode in on, you scum sucking bastard.
(name withheld) on September 7, 2009 at 6:17 PM
To the conservatives complaining over the President's speech - if some of you feel like dummies because of your response to the speech, then guess what?
To the rest of the American people, you look even worse.
Three year ago today, I began my blog, Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters. Initially it was to serve as publicity about my book (of the same name). However, the blog has taken a life of it's own. What I wrote three years ago is as relevant today as it was then:
There are a bunch of organizations in this country who thrive on ignorance, fear, and a sense of entitlement.
They refer to themselves as "pro family" and even members of the gay community regard them as the religious right
With all due respect, I don't see them as that. They are an anti-gay industry who seeks to gain political power by building on the religious beliefs and ignorance of people of faith. And they have been pretty successful.
Central to this success are their so-called studies on the gay community. In order to prove that gays and lesbians should not have any protection of laws, they have created a written and oral pattern of deception that is not only blatant in its attempts but shameful in its audacity. In their zeal to prove the worst about the gay community, the anti-gay industry runs roughshod over science and truth. They have created a houses of pseudo-scientific studies based on distortions, lies, headless monsters, and legitimate studies taken out of context , which are then pushed by fake experts, Ph.D.s, conservative columnists and bloggers, and ignorant people of faith all willing to sacrifice their integrity on the altar of an alleged higher calling.
We know the claims these studies make:
gays have a short life span gays molest children at a higher level than heterosexuals lesbians abuse their partners at a high level gays are more violent and are prone to crimes gays are promiscuous and cannot handle the concept of marriage.
For two years, I have studied the methodologies of so-called "pro family" groups (i.e. Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, the Traditional Values Coalition, etc) and am glad to say that their claims are rooted in lies, outright deceptions, and legitimate studies with portions cherry picked out.
In 2007, I will publish my book, Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters, detailing just what how the anti-gay industry propagandizes about the gay community. Through this blog, I will publish some of my findings and update everyone as to the progress of my book. I will update this blog on a weekly basis.
Now I must emphasis that I am not attacking anyone's religion. I respect a Christian's right to believe that homosexuality is an abomination. I also respect the right of the Boys Scouts of America to prohibit gays from serving as members. Of course I also believe that if the organization had any integrity at all, it should refuse any form of public monies because some of this money is derived from gay sources via taxes. And isn't accepting money from those who you feel will not conform to your moral code just as bad as allowing them in your group.
But I digress.
What I am saying through my book and my blog is that distortions and lies in the name of God are still distortions and lies. And anyone who knowingly uses them and can still refer to themselves as a person of faith needs to examine themselves.
If anyone wants to read past postings, check out the Best of Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters to the right of this blog.
Aesop once wrote a fable about a hungry wolf who saw a lamb by a river bank. The wolf wanted "justification" to eat the lamb. He threw all sorts of charges of impropriety at the innocent creature but the lamb refuted them all.
Finally the wolf says, "You claim to be innocent, but I know you are lying so to hell with it." And then proceeded to devour the lamb, proving that when people want to do evil, they will use any excuse to justify their behavior.
In the case of President's Obama's speech to children on Sept. 8, it seems that the excuse is to "protect the children."
This recent controversy over President Obama's speech is nonsense. We all know it and we should say it loudly and often.
And not only that, it demonstrates just how some on the right, especially the religious right, operate.
Those who are making all of this noise about the President's speech claim that they have no arguments with it per se but with the "lesson plans" that accompany it, especially the part about advising children to write on how they can help the President.
The whine about the lesson plan is a big con. And it's an old one.
We all have seen this "I don't mind the big idea but the little details scare me" con before.
Remember when certain areas of the country (i.e. counties in Maine, Florida, etc.) were trying to pass transgender-inclusive gay rights bills?
The people opposing the bills claimed that they didn't have a problem with the "spirit of the bills," but that they left a huge opening for "sexual predators" to invade women's bathrooms and locker rooms.
That, of course was an evasive tactic.
What someone on their side of the argument did was look through the bills until they found a loophole that they could exploit. And they did this because they were too cowardly to publicly say that they didn't want transgender-inclusive gay rights bills to pass because they don't like homosexuality.
To say this would have left them open for the charge of bigotry.
But saying that they didn't support transgender-inclusive gay rights bills (or as they termed them - "bathroom bills,") because they would cause harm to children was a more advantageous tallking point.
So now in the case of President Obama's speech to children, we are seeing a foul case of deja vu.
These folks (Michelle Malkin, the conservative radio show hosts and bloggers, the religious right, elected officials in Florida) who started the nonsense about Obama's speech to children don't like the President, period. No matter what he does or says, he will remain on the very top of their crap list and they are going to do their best to undermine his efforts at all turns.
If he were Moses and parted the Red Sea for them to cross, they would be complaining about how the soles of their feet got wet.
But they don't want to openly say "we don't want the President to give this speech because we just don't like Obama."
Therefore we are saddled with this "I'm scared that President Obama will be indoctrinating children because the 'lesson plans' of his speech give me pause" talking point that will be repeated continuously without a good challenge by the liars on Fox News and other television programs with anchors too cowardly to challenge it for fear of looking "liberally biased."
Just like the case of the alleged "bathroom bills," someone looked through the plans of the President speech and found a loophole in which they can hang their lies on.
Evasive loopholes will continue to exist until someone has the courage to plug them up.
Before I begin with this week's Know your lgbt history segment, I would like to point something out that caught my attention. If you want to skip it, then pan down to the Know Your LGBT History segment on Windows - the worst off-kilter lesbian movie I have ever seen.
At the National HIV Conference this week, the Centers for Disease Control said the following:
Gay and bisexual men account for half of new HIV infections in the U.S. and have AIDS at a rate more than 50 times greater than other groups. . .
. . . Gay and bisexual men account for half of new HIV infections in the U.S. and have AIDS at a rate more than 50 times greater than other groups, according to Centers for Disease Control & Prevention data presented at the National HIV Prevention Conference this week in Atlanta.
This is bad news to almost everyone except for our friend Peter LaBarbera, who naturally used this news for his own benefit:
The issue in this ongoing “culture war” is not the cause of homosexual “orientation” — or merely the legality of “same-sex marriage.” It’s homosexual behavior itself — and whether government should promote it or discourage it, or be neutral. I say discourage it, since the evidence keeps pouring in that conduct which has been proscribed as immoral down through centuries of Judeo-Christian tradition is also highly dangerous. Now if the CDC will only stop blabbering on about “homophobia” and start telling the truth — that the rectum is not a sexual organ, after all, and that we must take tough measures against “gay” promiscuity — America will become a healthier place.
Never mind that he shows his ignorance by taking in part of the CDC's statement and ignoring the part that doesn't suit his agenda.
The "blabbering about homophobia" that LaBarbera alludes to is this part of the article that he conveniently omitted in his attack on lgbts:
Many conference speakers, including ranking officials with the CDC, said getting rid of stigma, including homophobia, against those with HIV/AIDS is also a crucial part in reducing incident rates.
LaBarbera also omitted this part of the article:
( U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen) Sebelius also noted that gay and bisexual men, as well as African Americans and Latinos, continue to be hardest hit by the disease in the U.S. Steps are being taken by the Obama administration to target these populations specifically, she said.
“We’re targeting our efforts at high-risk groups like African Americans. Today, African Amer-icans make up just a tenth of the population. But they account for nearly half of new HIV infections. One in 30 African-American women will be diagnosed in her lifetime. One in 16 African-American men will be diagnosed with HIV. In 2005, the CDC reported that in five major cities, almost half of all African-American gay men were HIV positive. The situation is also dire for Latinos,” she said.
“Think about that. Imagine if it were half the straight white women in Atlanta. Wouldn’t we be calling this a national emergency? Shouldn’t we be?” she said to a cheering crowd.
I know LaBarbera wouldn't dare denigrate the Latino and African-American community for their unfortunate rate of HIV infections in the same manner that he denigrates the lgbt community. Not to worry, though. I'm sure enterprising racists will talk about the supposed "inferiority" of blacks and Latinos.
After all, you just can't keep hogs away from the trough, whether they be racists or homophobes.
Sorry about that for those expecting a Know your lgbt history segment. Now onto it . . .
Know your lgbt history - Windows
It has been said that Windows (1980) is such a bad movie that it will never make it to DVD. Hell, it's hard to find it on VHS.
And those who say these things are absolutely correct. I never thought it was possible to see a movie that simultaneously disgusted and bored me.
The repulsiveness starts off before you even have time to get acquainted with the characters.
Talia Shire plays a woman who is attacked when she is entering her apartment. The intruder makes her partly disrobe and, while holding a knife to her neck and mouth, makes her say "sounds" in a tape recorder.
The scene is disgusting. Why the intruder does this to her is even worse. He was paid by Shire's friend, played by Elizabeth Ashley, to make Shire do these things. She paid the man to commit the crime so that Shire would run to her for support. When this doesn't work, Ashley just listens to the tape of Shire's violation to the point where she can repeat the entire sequence by memory (and you just know that she will).
As you can guess, Ashley is secretly in love with Shire. When Shire moves to another apartment, Ashley commences to spy on her from telescope in a loft across the way. As Shire slowly begins a romance with a detective investigating the case, Ashley begins to go insane, using a knife to "express herself" on Shire's cat, neighbor, and the psychiatrist who is starting to recognize her insane behavior.
First of all, what's with off-kilter women in movies? Why can't they just use a gun? Do they always have to attack people with knives. And not just any knife, but one of the long, slender knives that you just know was not made to cut meat.
Anyway, Windows was highly controversial. That and the fact that it was just a hideously made movie sunk its chances at the box office.
There is so much to dislike about this movie. For one thing, it just didn't make any sense. Ashley's character was rich, vivacious, and even has a sexy breezy way of talking.
Shire's character was meek, mousy, plain, and jumped at her own shadows. To make matters worse, Shire resurrected a bunch of those ugly berets she wore in Rocky.
Shouldn't it have been the other way around with Shire chasing after Ashley?
Secondly, the plotlines are dumb. The intruder who forces Shire to make all of those ugly sounds is caught because he is a cab driver and Shire just happens to be his fare later in the movie and recognizes his voice.
Thirdly, and maybe this isn't a bad thing, for a violent movie about a crazed lesbian who likes to get knife happy, we see almost no violence.
We know that Ashley is attacking people with her trusty knife because of reaction shots (although I saw the movie on youtube and maybe the poster excised the violent scenes).
At the very least, you would think to expect a knockdown, drag out fight between Shire and Ashley. It doesn't happen. All Ashley does is verbally repeat the sounds of Shire's violation until the police come. Meanwhile Shire just looks at her and wonders no doubt how in the hell did she get saddled in such a nasty movie.
The following are clips from Windows:
Now if you want to see the entire movie, you can go to the youtube file here.
The Labor Day weekend holiday is upon us and wouldn't you know it? Peter LaBarbera does something nutsy.
The WWE has Wrestlemania.
The NFL has the Superbowl.
And Peter LaBarbera has Folsom Street Fair.
You can set your watch by it. Every time the San Francisco street fair rolls around, LaBarbera provides his version of publicity for the event by "condemning it." Then he goes to event, making sure to take pictures of alleged gross acts and providing "loving commentary" even sometimes informing us on the exact length of time those "freakie deakies" in said picture took to do the deed.
This year, LaBarbera takes the following quote from conservative radio so-and-so Michael Savage to make a ridiculous point:
“San Francisco is a microcosm of the illness called liberalism. It’s the least tolerant city in the country. It’s the meanest city in the country.”
I don't know about that. A city which hosts an alleged butt-naked festival doesn't necessarily strike me as intolerant.
But Michael Savage is the same person who lost his television show on MSNBC after telling a caller that he should catch AIDS and die.
So I guess if anyone knows about intolerance, it's him.
The Folsom Street Fair isn't exactly my cup of tea but apparently a lot of people (gay and straight - funny how LaBarbera always tries to omit the "heterosexual perversions" at Folsom) seem to enjoy it.
And in all honesty, LaBarbera seems to enjoy it too.
One of these days, somebody is going to take a picture of him attending these fairs. I wonder what he wears while in attendance, that is if he is dressed at all.
Editor's note - Never mind about that last sentence. Just writing it made me ill.
The folks in Maine are learning the lessons from the Proposition 8 mess in California very well. The above ad makes it two for two when it comes to hitting the message on why marriage equality is important.
And on a personal note, thank you everyone who sent me kind words of encouragement during my fit of depression. And thank you if you didn't send me any emails and such because I know you were praying for me.
A friend of mine nailed down the basic reason for my bad mood:
omg, Alvin. From what I can see you need to stop reading the racist rhetoric on that ignorant website! It can't be good for the psyche.
She was talking about my post of the satirical site Christwire but girlfriend had a point. For three years, I have blogged nonstop about religious right distortions. This year as an effort to remain relevant, I started posting three times a day rather than one and at least once on Saturdays and Sundays.
My constant taking in of religious right dogma has been slowly killing my spirit and driving me nuts.
Apparently the mess involving Harry Jackson and his efforts to stop marriage equality in D.C. was the straw that broke this lovely camel's back.
If my depression kept up, I envisioned myself ending up like a character in one of Roman Polanski's early movies, laying catatonic in a messy room somewhere surrounded by corpses and rotting rabbits.
Don't get me wrong (finally I get to the good stuff), I am going to continue Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters but I've also decided to devote the upcoming Labor Day weekend to spending a considerable amount of time in bed with something with aloe vera and shea butter smeared across my face while I indulge in a huge quart of butter almond ice cream while watching some awful z-rated 80s horror movies involving nubile white women being chased by a weirdo wearing a paper bag.
I will rise from my throne on a few occassions to either corrupt the innocence of a young man or play Lolita with an older, desperate man (with me being Lolita).
Come Tuesday, I should have my fire and firm back.
One thing to remember, though. If listening to and reading religious right dogma can warp the mind of an proud, intelligent, self-confident (and very attractive) gay man to the point of depression, just imagine what it can do to the minds of young folks who have not come into their own as adults.
