"Africa" - A Capella by Perpetuum Jazzile - complete with storm

***





***

Memorable Quotes: Gay People

***

If homosexuality is a disease, let's all call in sick to work: "Hello. Can't work today, still queer."
~ Robin Tyler

I'd rather be black than gay because when you're black you don't have to tell your mother.
~ Charles Pierce

"Dear Abby," In response to a reader who complained that a gay couple was moving in across the street and wanted to know what he could do to improve the quality of the neighborhood. 'You could move.'
~ Abigail Van Buren.

The one bonus of not lifting the ban on gays in the military is that the next time the government mandates a draft, we can all declare we are homosexual instead of running off to Canada.
~ Lorne Bloch

Why can't they have gay people in the army? Personally, I think they are just afraid of a thousand guys with M16's going, "Who'd you call a faggot?"
~ Jon Stewart

My lesbianism is an act of Christian charity. All those women out there praying for a man, and I'm giving them my share.
~ Rita Mae Brown

Soldiers who are not afraid of guns, bombs, capture, torture or death say they are afraid of homosexuals. Clearly we should not be used as soldiers; we should be used as weapons.
~ Letter to the Editor, The Advocate

You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.
~ Barry Goldwater

Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?
~ Ernest Gaines

My own belief is that there is hardly anyone whose sexual life, if it were broadcast, would not fill the world at large with surprise and horror.
~ W. Somerset Maugham

Drag is when a man wears everything a lesbian won't.
~ Author Unknown

If male homosexuals are called "gay," then female homosexuals should be called "ecstatic."
~ Shelly Roberts

My mother took me to a psychiatrist when I was fifteen because she thought I was a latent homosexual. There was nothing latent about it.
~ Amanda Bearse

It always seemed to me a bit pointless to disapprove of homosexuality. It's like disapproving of rain....
~ Francis Maude

The only queer people are those who don't love anybody....
~ Rita Mae Brown

The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision.
~ Lynn Lavner

If Michelangelo had been straight, the Sistine Chapel would have been wallpapered.

~Robin Tyler

***

No Smoking While Fighting and Dying for America

***

[Being open with readers, I am a smoker.]

The United States military is considering a ban (over 5-10 years) on cigarette smoking in the Armed Forces – Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force. We’re not talking designated no-smoking or smoking areas already in place – a total ban. Grandfathering in existing smokers would defeat the ban, so those who smoke would be forced not to smoke or face disciplinary action. Is a potential recruit now disqualified by being a smoker? Would this apply to off-base R&R? Will MP’s now be looking for smokers? Impracticality if not impossibility of enforcement indicate no – smoking off-base has to be exempt.

Let each individual in the military as well as each individual American decide whether he or she wishes to smoke. The deadly information is out there for all to see, hear and read. Those who choose to smoke in light of well publicized, frightening, fittingly grotesque warnings not to smoke are entitled to be foolish. That’s America, folks. Will those who choose not to smoke be slowly worn down by fellow soldiers smoking? Maybe, but that can happen anywhere.

Are we to take away smoking from those who lay their lives down every day for all of us in America? I mean – how petty is that? Picture a soldier going through nicotine withdrawal (even with the help of a patch) while on patrol in Afghanistan. Oh yeah – he’s going to be stable! One in 3 servicemen smoke compare to one in 5 in the general population. Does the military brass really want to ban what has become a relaxing, necessary vice, thus producing at least tens of thousands of nicotine-withdrawing military personnel? Does this also apply to CIA and other intelligence agencies serving with the armed forces? Is it not ironic that the final arbiter on the ban will be President Obama who himself has not kicked the nicotine habit.

I’d rather have 10 smoking soldiers guarding me and mine than 10 nicotine-withdrawing soldiers. Bet withdrawal will add to camaraderie among servicemen from privates to generals. How quickly will a black market develop for cigarettes, as well as schemes for evading the ban? What about sneaking out to off-base locations for a smoke? Guys going into combat can’t be worrying about nicotine withdrawal. Our men in uniform, daily laying down their lives for us and the country, should at least be allowed the choice of smoking. Smoker or not, I defy anyone not to agree with that balancing test.

See: http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/12/military.smoking.ban/

***

In Search of Dignity

***

From The New York Times

July 7, 2009

Op-Ed Columnist

In Search of Dignity

By David Brooks

When George Washington was a young man, he copied out a list of 110 “Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation.” Some of the rules in his list dealt with the niceties of going to a dinner party or meeting somebody on the street.

“Lean not upon anyone,” was one of the rules. “Read no letter, books or papers in company,” was another. “If any one come to speak to you while you are sitting, stand up,” was a third.

But, as the biographer Richard Brookhiser has noted, these rules, which Washington derived from a 16th-century guidebook, were not just etiquette tips. They were designed to improve inner morals by shaping the outward man. Washington took them very seriously. He worked hard to follow them. Throughout his life, he remained acutely conscious of his own rectitude.

In so doing, he turned himself into a new kind of hero. He wasn’t primarily a military hero or a political hero. As the historian Gordon Wood has written, “Washington became a great man and was acclaimed as a classical hero because of the way he conducted himself during times of temptation. It was his moral character that set him off from other men.”

Washington absorbed, and later came to personify what you might call the dignity code. The code was based on the same premise as the nation’s Constitution — that human beings are flawed creatures who live in constant peril of falling into disasters caused by their own passions. Artificial systems have to be created to balance and restrain their desires.

The dignity code commanded its followers to be disinterested — to endeavor to put national interests above personal interests. It commanded its followers to be reticent — to never degrade intimate emotions by parading them in public. It also commanded its followers to be dispassionate — to distrust rashness, zealotry, fury and political enthusiasm.

Remnants of the dignity code lasted for decades. For most of American history, politicians did not publicly campaign for president. It was thought that the act of publicly promoting oneself was ruinously corrupting. For most of American history, memoirists passed over the intimacies of private life. Even in the 19th century, people were appalled that journalists might pollute a wedding by covering it in the press.

Today, Americans still lavishly admire people who are naturally dignified, whether they are in sports (Joe DiMaggio and Tom Landry), entertainment (Lauren Bacall and Tom Hanks) or politics (Ronald Reagan and Martin Luther King Jr.).

But the dignity code itself has been completely obliterated. The rules that guided Washington and generations of people after him are simply gone.

We can all list the causes of its demise. First, there is capitalism. We are all encouraged to become managers of our own brand, to do self-promoting end zone dances to broadcast our own talents. Second, there is the cult of naturalism. We are all encouraged to discard artifice and repression and to instead liberate our own feelings. Third, there is charismatic evangelism with its penchant for public confession. Fourth, there is radical egalitarianism and its hostility to aristocratic manners.

The old dignity code has not survived modern life. The costs of its demise are there for all to see. Every week there are new scandals featuring people who simply do not know how to act. For example, during the first few weeks of summer, three stories have dominated public conversation, and each one exemplifies another branch of indignity.

First, there was Mark Sanford’s press conference. Here was a guy utterly lacking in any sense of reticence, who was given to rambling self-exposure even in his moment of disgrace. Then there was the death of Michael Jackson and the discussion of his life. Here was a guy who was apparently untouched by any pressure to live according to the rules and restraints of adulthood. Then there was Sarah Palin’s press conference. Here was a woman who aspires to a high public role but is unfamiliar with the traits of equipoise and constancy, which are the sources of authority and trust.

In each of these events, one sees people who simply have no social norms to guide them as they try to navigate the currents of their own passions.

Americans still admire dignity. But the word has become unmoored from any larger set of rules or ethical system.

But it’s not right to end on a note of cultural pessimism because there is the fact of President Obama. Whatever policy differences people may have with him, we can all agree that he exemplifies reticence, dispassion and the other traits associated with dignity. The cultural effects of his presidency are not yet clear, but they may surpass his policy impact. He may revitalize the concept of dignity for a new generation and embody a new set of rules for self-mastery.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/opinion/07brooks.html

***

Marx Bros. – Stateroom Scene – “Night at the Opera”

***

From the Marx Brothers 1935 film classic “Night at the Opera”, the famous stateroom scene.

***

Stonewall to Gay Marriage – A 40 Year Journey

***

One wonders why gay marriage has become less explosive of an issue. Since Stonewall the gay rights movement has made huge strides towards equal treatment under the law. Gays have been in the news regularly, especially since Rock Hudson came out of the closet and disclosed that he had AIDS. That single act by an American icon did more for AIDS research and gay rights than any other since the June 1969 Stonewall riots in New York City.

As gay culture has been semi-blended with mainstream culture in this country, more gay people are coming out to friends and relatives. It is also easier to come out of the closet and into a far gay-friendlier society than 40 years ago. It’s like families are suddenly discovering their gay members. I heard someone say the other day that there’s hardly a family anymore without a gay member. Add to that those who have gay friends or otherwise know someone who is gay. The more gay people are known as just regular people the less of an issue gay marriage becomes. “Hey, they’re two people in love. Why shouldn’t they get married?!” is the reason most cited by straights who simply don’t care any more. No big deal. Bet they have a gay, lesbian or transgendered family member or friend.

The right wing has even moved on. Proposition 8 in California was its last hurrah. With Governor Schwarzenegger talking about legalizing pot I see gay marriage reinstated in California in relatively short order.

So it was the gay rights movement begun at Stonewall that directly contributed to the state by state, almost ho-hum legalization of gay marriage. Gay marriage need not be sanctioned on a federal level. The states will decide as they wish and, as in many cases of personal rights, will take a broader view than that of the federal government and Constitution.

[A legal aside: Each state has its own constitution which may grant broader rights but cannot grant fewer rights than the federal Constitution. The court of last resort for questions of interpretation of a state law is that state’s highest court, constrained only by the federal and the state’s constitutions.]

While mostly a sop to his gay voting bloc, President Obama did extend some limited rights to the gay partners of federal employees. While opponents of gay marriage can no longer muster support for a Constitutional amendment, the Obama administration must take more deliberate strides to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. The Obama Justice Department’s recent defense of the DOMA in federal court was at least as much overkill as that presented by the Bush’s Justice Department – graphic, gratuitous overkill.

If “Don’t Ask / Don’t Tell” ever made sense, the sense fell by the wayside shortly after its enactment by a spineless Bill Clinton in the first major decision of his presidency. As noted by a cable news commentator, those doing the fear-the-fag mongering are the older members of our armed forces – the very same colonels and generals who influence the fate of DADT. The younger generation in our military couldn’t care less about a fellow soldier’s sexual orientation. What a soldier does care about is trusting another soldier with his life. President Obama needs to do away with DADT. It is a non-issue in the ranks and deprives our military of dedicated soldiers.

From an underground culture, to a riot at Christopher Street’s Stonewall Inn, to dedicated efforts pushing for equal treatment, to AIDS, to gay public figures’ coming out, to far greater acceptance of gays by mainstream society, to state sanctioned marriage.

I attended the early Gay Pride Day marches in New York City – those commemorating the Stonewall Riots. I attended those during the beginning of the AIDS epidemic. I attended the most memorable march in 1994. Now the march is a parade, the largest in NYC.

We’ve come a long way in 40 years.

The 1994 Pride march:

http://aboutnothing-doug.blogspot.com/2008/07/gay-pride-day-1994-new-york-city.html

***

The Sounds of Resistance - Tehran at Night

***





***