I'm Back!

This has been a wild ride, and I apologize to my readers for being tardy so long.

I have been suffering from an annoying (and painful!) pancreatic condition, costing me 5 stays in the hospital over the past year, the final one resulting in surgery. I'm just now feeling bitchy enough to get back to business.

So, stick around kids, there's more to come, starting this coming week! (Oh, and uh, I haven't been able to work in some time as a result of my health crisis - so take note of the new "Donate" button toward the top of this page [hint-hint]. Even a dollar helps, so don't be shy).

'Till then ...

Ta' ta!

Is it over yet?

Lately, I've noticed that the History Channel has become less about history and more about the future. Specifically, about the end of the world. They have all sorts of fun predictions involving the obliteration of all life on Earth. Lovely.

I've heard these kinds of doomsday predictions since I could understand what they were saying on TV. Well, I still don't always understand what they're saying on TV, especially if it's on FOX, but suffice it to say that I became aware of these doomsday predictions sometime in the late 1960's. For some reason, though, since they've drug out the Mayan calendar and shown these astrological alignments and some business about the Earth's wobble on its axis, it seems totally plausible that the Earth will end in 2012. Why not?

When I was younger, I easily dismissed these kind of pseudo-documentaries on the future. Of course, youth breeds contempt, and I certainly felt a certain immortality at that age. I loved to fly, splash around in the ocean, and water ski. Now, the minute I step on a plane, all I can think of is how we're all going to die, until, of course, we don't and I find myself safely on the ground again. As for splashing around in the ocean, I saw Jaws a few too many times, and forget water skiing while you're at it - I just know I'd slam into the bank and break my neck as I went tumbling over the shoreline at 60 mph. I don't know how I ever made it to this age. Whew!

On the bright side, the History Channel isn't notorious for getting the facts straight on historical events so why should I listen to their forecast of the future? On the other hand, 2012 is another presidential election year. Who knows? Maybe the macabre right will get their way at last, and Rush Limbaugh will be elected to president. Now that would be the end of the world.

Thanks for sharing

I admit it. Though I've been characterized as a slut at times (obviously by jealous on lookers who know nothing about me), I've managed to remain monogamous in the few, short relationships I've had. Even if I don't play with them as often as I used to, I still don't like to share my "toys", dammit.

I support others' rights to have any manner of relationships with other consenting adults they wish; for myself, though, I'm not into the open relationship or swinger scene. I'm still neither old nor decrepit enough to make those kinds of compromises, although I'm disturbed to notice that I find my eyes wandering toward 30 year old men these days - I feel so lecherous. Anyway, I'd rather be single and celibate (or better yet, single and a slut), than to be partnered and miserable.

Men, in particular, seem obsessed with the idea of having our cake and eating it too, and it doesn't help that the History Channel and similar pseudo-educational channels periodically present evidence that men are genetically predisposed to cheat. Something about spreading our seed. Hmmm. That leaves me and thousands of other gay men out. It's not exactly as though we're moving from village to village impregnating every woman in sight. Yick.

No, kids. just try and remember this the next time that hot dude at the bar is liquoring you up and whispering sweet sex positions in your ear: it's far better to be a single slut, than a sad old queen with no self esteem. Either get the divorce or find a new hobby for you and your man - one that doesn't involve dinner for three.

I've fallen and...Oh Hell, who cares?

At 87, former First Lady, Nancy Reagan, fell and fractured her pelvis over the weekend but waited until Monday to seek medical attention. What the hell? Now, that's apathy.

It's alarming how many things society has come to take for granted. We've forgotten how to nurture those things we fought so hard for. In my lifetime alone, the first civil rights bill was passed to stop racial discrimination (1964), the voting age was reduced from 21 to 18 (1970), and the first states to pass gay marriages began to emerge, with Mass. bringing in the first laws to legalize same sex marriage in 2004. The vote really does count.

In spite of the mess in Florida that led to George W.'s first term, I felt only more strongly that voter apathy was overtaking us and that then, more than ever, we needed to get more people to the polls. I'm not certain how it plays out in the GLBT community at large, but I do know that groups such as African Americans and of-age adolescents are some of the most apathetic voters in the nation. Both of these groups have been targeted hard for the war effort in Iraq; if anyone should be pounding down the doors at the polls, it should be these groups.

Generally, when people start raggin' on the economy, national health care, etc., all I have to say is "And you voted for who?". That's because the biggest whiners seem to be the same ones that whine about their vote not counting. Of course, there's no way to know if their votes count, because they never bother trying. 

I had to bite my lip, recently, when one of my dear friends confessed that this is the first year he's been involved in the election and voting. He's in his 50's. After I swallowed my Adam's Apple, I nodded knowingly (even though I have no clue why his work on a corrupt campaign decades ago would have kept him from voting all these years), and decided not to critique him (although I did inadvertantly gasp). After all, he is voting this year. Maybe, this will encourage him to vote in subsequent elections (especially since he voted for the winning team, Obama-Biden).

As for me, I remain certain from year to year that congress, the president, or some idiot installed in office by one of them, will continue to piss me off. As long as I'm voting, at least I maintain my bitching rights. What about you?

And on the 8th day, God said ...

God always seems to be unceremoniously tossed into debates where common sense can't possibly prevail. Take the current marriage initiative in Arizona. Once again, we have some hateful people who, rather than admit they're homophobic bigots, stand behind God and some twisted interpretation of the bible to legitimize a proposition to amend the state constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, blah, blah, blah.

Am I for gay marriage? No. I've already expressed my views on this, so I'm not going to keep reiterating them. On the other hand, I do believe in a fundamental right for gay people to marry. It's all about discrimination and the idea of separation of church and state. Take the case of the Lovings, for example. Back in 1958, a white man and an African American woman married in Washington DC, then returned to Virginia to set up house as a married couple. Woops.

The couple was charged with violating the state's ban on interracial marriages. On a plea agreement, the Lovings were sentenced to 1 year in jail, which the trial judge suspended for 25 years on the condition that the couple leave the state and not return as a couple for 25 years. The trial judge went on to cite:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

 Well there you have it. God never intended people of mixed races to marry, and it took a bible thumping judge in Virginia to set us straight. I wonder if that judge moved to Arizona. I'm sure if he had anything to do with the current initiative, it would read:

"The union of one pure-white, christian male and one pure-white, virgin, christian female, being of the same generation and political parties, and having been brought up by families of similar financial means and mannerisms."

Well, except for the extremist, polygamous, Mormon cults, the members of which might wish that to be further amended to "The union of one white, Mormon male and a an unspecified number of white, virgin, Mormon females ..."

It seems strange that we have all these laws protecting us from so-called "hate crimes" when we have so many people legally cranking out new legislation plagued with hateful messages. That's the real hate crime.

It's time for these people to quit telling everybody what God wants and to stand up and say what they really mean to: "We barely tolerate gays and have no intention of sharing any more rights with them than we have to." In other words, "If you want to entertain us with your show tunes and the occasional episode of Will & Grace, fine. Just don't ask to engage in something serious like serve along side our real men in the military or get married to each other; the last thing we want is for you to embarrass us by doing a good job at things we're still trying to figure out."

A message to all those worried straights out there: If marriage or war had any kind of appeal to us, believe me, we would have held on to them when we had them. Our ancestors, the Greeks and Romans, not only had gays in the military, but, between  the isle of Lesbos and the society of Spartans, long, meaningful unions as well. Been there, done that. 

Today's gay has much more important issues than bombing other countries and planning wedding parties. We're too busy excelling in our careers in science, show business, politics, religion, stock brokerages, etc. Sure, a few gay radicals are determined to exchange rings and play soldier, but the rest of us are far too busy planning your future to be straddled with this old-fashioned behavior. No, in fact, that's why we keep you straights around; somebody has to run interference with all these trivial little issues while we quietly take over everything else. Thanks, and keep up the good work!

Humanitarian aid is never a crime

I should re-title this post: "Humanitarian aid is never a crime - unless it's for our own citizens". Living near the Mexican border, I've seen such a renewed sharing of hate from so many Americans - it brings back memories of WWII - not my memories, but those that history has bestowed upon us. Antisemitism and racism were a daily part of American life in the 1940's and even beyond with the help of people like Joe McCarthy. Rather refreshing to know we've managed to hold on to such core values, isn't it?

Around a decade ago, before the border battle became so ingrained in all of our minds, merchants in Tucson, AZ got sick and tired of all the young panhandlers hanging around their businesses, particularly in an area of town near the University of Arizona. It had long been a very liberal, artsy area where gays and hippies (and sometimes, gay hippies) lived harmoniously amongst each other. So, it somehow seemed a natural part of the tapestry to see these young, sometimes heroin-addicted, bell-bottom wearing, panhandlers. Well, more often sitting around. I'm told it's hard work panhandling.

The merchants demanded an ordinance to prohibit loitering in the area - absurd, since people of all walks of life came down there to "hang out" on any given day. Further, the merchants demanded that the police enforce the new ordinances feverishly, which they all too enthusiastically did. It's always a good idea to give the police a new weapon to target some disenfranchised group with.

Fast forward to the past few years when all the craziness over the border started to erupt, and people from every state in the union decided to descend upon us, uninvited, guns cocked and ridiculous camouflage wear donned. Unlike these gun ho loons from other parts of the country, many Arizonan's have witnessed the horror of illegal immigrants crossing the desert with inadequate supplies of water or protection from marauding looters, rapists, and trigger happy ranchers.

Even those people who had somehow missed the reality of what crossing the desert meant for this group of people could no longer ignore it. For years, local church and humanitarian groups had been setting up points throughout the desert with water and other supplies to keep these people - men, women and children - from dying of thirst. Now, more than ever, people from around Tucson were getting involved - some in support of the humanitarian effort - some not.

Predictably, those around the University district were very vocal about providing some form of humanitarian relief, and many local merchants began proudly displaying signs boasting "Humanitarian aid is never a crime". I couldn't help but see the flaw in this. Not that I disagree with providing aid; illegal or not, I don't believe people deserve to die for trying to improve the quality of their lives, particularly not the horrible kind of death that's inherent in crossing the Sonoran Desert. No, where I saw the flaw was in the hypocrisy of these local merchants: a compassionate attitude toward illegal immigrants while ignoring the conditions at home that created the problem of homelessness and panhandling, particularly among our youth.

I suppose these merchants have collectively decided that it's a good thing to provide aid to people wandering around the desert, but totally another matter when people land on their doorsteps looking for help. On a positive note, I'm happy to say that I think the merchants have slowly subsided the fight. I've seen a return of the panhandlers to the area without any concentrated opposition from the shop keepers there. Still, it seems contradictory that this is, at best, an act of tolerance when these merchants should be asking themselves, "What can I do to change the conditions that created the environment for these people to emerge to begin with?"

I firmly believe that if you're going to choose to live and do business in a bohemian neighborhood, there comes a social obligation to maintain those ideals and help those less fortunate than ourselves in any way we can. If all else fails, MOVE, and let the rest of us enjoy the colorful environment we've created.

Karma, who?

Why I continue to believe in things like Karma and Hell is beyond me. I suppose because I want to know that the assholes who make my life less than enjoyable will somehow pay for their indiscretions. And, perhaps because Karma always seems to apply to me, but not to the guys who really deserve it - at least not in a timely manner.

For instance, how long was Rush Limbaugh popping pills while railing on and on against everything not Ozzie & Harriet? And how long before he was back on the air spewing his hateful mesages to a seemingly insatiable audience? What kind of karma is that? Perhaps, we'll just have to wait until the Universe drops the big one on him all at once. Or maybe he's just so evil, he'll have to wait until he gets to Hell to deal with it all. At least, that's what I'd like to believe.

Then there was Ronald Reagan, President, and in the end, babbling idiot (not that anyone could necessarily tell the difference at times). How many times did he falsely state "I don't recall" while being questioned about the Iran Contra affair? It took way too long, but in the end, he finally was dealt the ultimate reward from karma: he really didn't recall anything anymore.

Now, what about W.? (George W., that is). How long will it take before he or his evil sidekick, Cheney, experience any of their karmic rewards from the blatant terrorizing of their own nation? Not soon enough, I'm afraid. I think the people who voted him into a second term should go down with him, too - if and when the time comes. I suppose they'll all have to wait for Hell, too.

Perhaps I should take it as a good sign that, in my own life, karma seems to bite me in the ass pretty quickly. I mean, as soon as I start down some negative road, BLAM! It bites me. At least I get it over with, and just maybe it means I'm not going to Hell, after all (unfortunately, there's still room for Purgatory).

Which, of course, means that spending my evening wishing all this ill will on people probably isn't the best use of  my time, not to mention that I'm bound to pay for it, and no doubt quickly - it's karma. If you'll excuse me now, I'm going to go hide under my covers...