Queen Leading the Way

I saw Bohemian Rhapsody last night and really enjoyed it. Queen's biggest hits were a big part of the soundtrack of my teen years, so the movie, despite its inaccuracies, rocked.  As the movie directly addressed Freddie Mercury's sexuality, it got me thinking about music and sexuality and how my attitudes changed over time.

When I was a teenager, I was uncomfortable with homosexuality.  I thought that everyone had a right to lead their lives as they saw fit, but public displays of homosexuality made me uncomfortable.  I was one of those who thought that being called gay was the worst insult, and, yes, that disco was gay and therefore to be shunned.  So, yeah, I was very surprised last night to realize that Another One Bits the Dust was Queen's disco song.  Male fragility was a thing, I suppose, for me way back when.  

As an adult, I wondered if I disliked Duran Duran, Wham and Boy George because I was homophobic as a teen.  Then I realized that I liked Queen, David Bowie and Elton John.  So, it turns out that it was the music that was key--that Queen and Bowie and John are terrific and those others very much not.  I think that as my teens wore on, my attitudes shifted in part because I liked Queen and the others so much--that these flamboyant men* were incredibly talented and interesting and entertaining.  My attitudes also probably began to shift because of a research paper in my senior year in high school on the AIDS crisis just as it was becoming well-known.

* And yes, gay men, not lesbians, challenged my sense of sexuality.  

Of course, the real key was going to a college where there were lesbians, gays and bisexual people were out of the closet.  While I may have had gay friends before college, I didn't know it.  I did know it in college.  I was hit on once by a gay friend in college, which probably would have provoked a stronger reaction had it happened in high school.  I wasn't really that much more secure about anything at that point in time, but I guess I had started being a bit less homophobic.  Then I went on to grad school where I had more gay friends and professors and more since.

When I was playing poker online about ten years ago, I would be surprised that people would insult each other in the chat boxes by calling them gay.  My reaction was that I must be playing against 12 year olds--I was surprised that people continued to use gay as an epithet.  Some people don't mature, not realizing that there are LGBTQ+ people all around us or not caring if they are aware.  And, yes, I was and am aware of anti-LGBTQ+ violence.

Anyhow, I use the Semi-Spew to ruminate about a variety of things.  Last night got me thinking about growing up in the last 70s and early 80s, and how specific musicians made a big difference in how I see the world. That diversity is not just something to be tolerated but to be enjoyed. Freddie left us far too early, so I will be playing a heap of Queen (I really don't know any of his solo stuff) in the days ahead.  Starting with what I would want as my intro music:

Taking Back Real America

I used to take a great deal of pleasure in Sarah Palin's appeal to "Real America" since her definition--white, rural--would consign the Republicans to losing national elections.  But this election cycle, with Trump's appeals to a narrow slice of the country and with newspaper reports about polls criticizing Hillary Clinton for doing poorly among white males, I have to just say something:

Real America is not white males but those who tolerate and celebrate diversity--of races, of religions, of gender, of sexuality and sexual identity, of ethnicity, of where one was born, etc.  The America always celebrated in the history books, often glossing over real problems, is a heterogeneous America.  The founders, for all their sins, created a founding document that was not aimed at any one religious group, but at providing freedom for all to practice their religion (or not practice), to speak and assemble (protest), to publish (that free press thing seems to be mighty relevant these days), and on and on. 

Real America is about accepting the differences.  The folks who most energetically support Trump are not real America.  America First is actually a betrayal of what the US stands for now, and is tied to Nazi sympathizers of the past.  Trump's fans include white supremacists, and while racial discord is built into American history, white supremacy is not something that most American see as an American value.   Real Americans don't sell out allies to autocrats either.  Trump's Putin-love is really quite problematic for most Americans.  The far left and the far right might admire Putin for his America-hating, but that, of course, makes them lousy Americans.

I am not asking for a House Un-American Activities Committee.  My basic point is that Trump is Un-American, that the concern about Hillary Clinton's relative weakness with white males (especially those without a college degree) are missing the key point.  Trump is doing awfully among African-Americans, Latinos, Asian-Americans, I am guessing Native Americans (I have seen no polls), a big gender gap as women apparently are not fans of misogyny, and on and on. 

Whose poll weaknesses are more telling and more deserving of attention and scorn?  The United States is a diverse place, and if you cannot appeal beyond a single demographic, then you are the one who is not appealing to Real America.

So, yes, I am taking back Real America--it applies to the multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-national, multi-gender, multi-sexual identity, multi-sexuality constituency that finds one person and one party appealing and the other not at all. 

The Next Fights

My previous post was on focusing on the policy victory and not the games down the road.  But there are other fights to be had.  This map from the NYT illustrates the challenge:




It did not translate that well, but the idea here is where there are "laws protecting against sexual orientation- and gender-identity based discrimination" in public sector employment, private sector employment, housing and public accommodations  respectively.  The pattern is obvious--best to be in the Northeast or West or mid-midwest (Min, Wis, Iowa, Illinois).

Much room to perfect the union.... alas.

This Is What Progress Looks Like

Nice vox gif:

21st Century Rocks Sometimes

Sure, the waters may be rising as various ice caps melt, but hey, we have snark on the internet.

This is a great take on the Michael Sam non-controversy:


h/t to @texasinafrica for her tweet of this.

Experiments in Gif, Progress in Reality

I love this gif, but don't know if it will work right:

Double woot!  Heap of progress but still much to go. H/T to Mother Jones via Gawker.

Homophobia Humor

The ever delightfully brutal Brian McFadden brings it once again, this time on a "homophobia handbook."

I love the last two frames in particular.

Time to Thrive

Indeed.  Ellen Page's coming out was moving only partly because she came out.  Much of it was about a very moving speech that was more than just about her.  That she was so incredibly nervous only made it that much more moving.  Check it out:

Best Statement on Gays in Sports Today

A Dallas sportscaster says it better than most:


I hope that Michael Sams gets his shot at an NFL career. 

Natural Experiment Du Jour: the next NFL Draft

The Michael Sam story is interesting for a variety of reasons, but let me just be a social science geek for a minute.  We have a "natural experiment" now.  A player who is clearly good enough to get drafted by an NFL team  just came out and told the world he is gay (which was going to come out anyway, given his stance within his college team...).  What does that do to his career?  Well, his stock has already dropped.

The question I am most interested in is this: what team will be confident enough to manage the hoopla to draft him?  Or as a former NFL player and tweeter extraordinaire, Dont'e Stallworth put it:

In my experience, if your organization can't "handle media coverage", they will suck on the field anyway... but hey, there's always 2015...
— Donte' Stallworth (@DonteStallworth) February 10, 2014

 Which team will draft Sam?  He is an undersized defensive end, so it may be the case that he is not so desirable by many teams.  So, the experiment here is not perfect--teams evaluate talent differently.  Is it about his overall record or is it about controlling for a few outstanding games?

Still, teams with weak organizations will avoid Sam.  Teams that lack confidence in their coach or in their players will avoid Sam.  Teams that are run by homophobes will avoid Sam.

So, drafting Sam will signal that the team is confident and needs under-sized defensive ends (or has confidence in their ability to turn Sam into a linebacker).

We live in interesting times.  The good news about this is that as someone remarked last night, the tables have turned--the homophobes have to watch what they say.  Woot!

Gold Medal in Trolling

I know that lots of folks are frustrated with President Obama but you gotta love his finger in the eye approach to the Winter Olympics in Russia.  Given that the homophobic policies in Russia have become so prominent, it was a question of whether Obama would confront or dodge.  Well, he's not going but he is sending a delegation including two of the most prominent gay American athletes: Billie Jean King and Brian Boitano.  And the latter knows just what to do, at least according to this song:


I wonder who Obama would have sent to the 1980 games had he had the chance?  Hmmm.

Is Name-Calling History?

I still see folks call something gay in various online foras (mostly online poker games), and I find it so very strange.  I know my attitudes changed from when I was a teen, but alas not all folks mature (not that I am all that mature).

Still, I think this cartoon illustrates this dynamic quite well.  H/T to PT for pointing out the Oatmeal stuff du jour.

Poking Fun at Low Hanging Fruit

The Republican candidate for Governor of Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli, wants to make oral sex illegal.  Why would he want to pass such laws, especially since the Supreme Court has ruled them to be unconstitutional?

Well, the first thought is that this man's denial might be mighty deep so I tweeted the following:

.@texasinafrica I can't wait for Ken Cuccinelli to be caught sucking some dude's dick. It will happen. Vegas has set over/under on 3/14/2014
— Stephen Saideman (@smsaideman) July 19, 2013

I followed this up by saying that I would bet the under--that he will be outed before the random date I picked.  The GOP has had a plethora of anti-gay politicians turn out to be, well, pretty interested in having sex with folks of the same gender.  So, this could be more of the same although he claims that this is about preventing child molestation despite there being plenty of laws on the books to cover that and despite the clear background that he has of opposing oral sex among consenting adults.

Another possibility is that he does not like to, um, contribute to his wife's happiness, so he would prefer to have legal cover.  "It is not me, honey, but the law. Sorry."

It makes no electoral sense since he has already won the primary.  I can imagine a political base that is this uptight sexually, but given that somewhere around 80% of the population admit to engaging in oral sex at the very least, this seems like a poor strategy.  How does this win votes?  Or does Cuccinelli really not want to win?

The best part, of course, is that Cuccinelli's success would mean having to revise the Virginia slogan: "Virginia is for Conventional Lovers."  Or "Virginia is for (Missionary) Lovers Only."  Or "Virginia is for Vagina Lovers but No Mouths Please."

Instead of







We would have to go with something like:








h/t tohttp://www.slapupsidethehead.com/2010/03/virginia-forcing-colleges-to-end-gay-protections/

More Hope, Less Fear

This video from the other side of the world is nice solace--that not all legislators are fear-mongering idiots or cowards in the face of a powerful lobby:


Yep, gay people can now marry in New Zealand.  Rock on, Kiwis!

Coffee on the Right Side of History

The CEO of Starbucks basically told someone who was objecting to the stance of supporting marriage equality to invest elsewhere if he/she is so offended:

(h/T Gawker).

I will feel less guilty now for wasting $$ at Starbucks on the coffee frappucino bottles.
Woot! (Just wish Costco had the twelve pack last week).

I Finally Get Tea Party and Super-Conservative Anger

How would you like to be on the wrong side of history?  The folks who are against gay marriage and against gays in the military?  They are clearly on the wrong side of history.  Just as white racist types in the 1960s were mighty angry as the civil rights movement went through the streets, courts, and legislatures, with history slipping away from them.  I realized during dinner (a very conservative set of Sloppy Joes) that it would suck if one were on the wrong side of history.

To see that one's preferences going from mainstream and accepted to unpopular and then anathema must really suck.  I have been blogging often here about the demographic changes that are causing folks to be desperate, trying voter suppression nakedly to stave off the day that one has to appeal to minorities, but there is more to that.  It is probably the plummeting self-esteem of folks who have learned that their ideals are simply wrong, that the folks they find to be abhorrent are now accepted by not just Hollywood but by the majority of the Americans. 

There are other debates where the forces of history, the tide of public opinion is less clear.  Taxes, deficits, military spending, death penalty, and so on.  But on gay rights, the social conservatives have lost.  They have started to realize it, and it is not going to get any better for them.  They will have to find some other group to demonize to make themselves feel good.  I guess immigrants and Muslims in particular will work to a degree, but to lose on gay rights, that has got to hurt. 

Schadenfreude anyone?

Worshipping Chicken

I never really felt comfortable eating at Chik-fil-A.  I guess I was put off by the company's legitimate but still a bit in your face "we are closed on Sundays to worship our favorite God" stance.  So, not terribly surprised by the stance on gays (which may or may not be changing).

So, I enjoyed this instead:

Kroll Show: Chick Fil-A vs. Chikk Klub - watch more funny videos     

Selective Reading Illustrated

 I have blogged before about how selective people's readings are of the Bible and other other totemic text, like ... Clausewitz.  This picture does the best job of illustrating this.  Ye olde text says many things, so let's just pick the one thing that supports one's attitudes (homophobia) and ignore the rest (tattoos as taboo, legitimating slavery, yada, yada, yada). 

I will shall rely on a selective reading of a different text: equal protection (I tend not to consider gun ownership sacrosanct nor am I all that focused on quartering of soldiers these days).  I think that one pretty much trumps everything else that might suggest it would be ok to discriminate against people due to their sexuality.

But folks who want to use the Bible to justify being intolerant--go ahead.  I am sure that is consistent with the rest of one's beliefs.  And, yes, consistency is the hobgoblin!

Nice Dose of Perspective Sauce for Gay Marriage

NYT

People Evolve

Perhaps Obama's "evolve" line was an excuse to address the fact that he spent about a decade or so saying something that was wrong but politically necessary.  But there is something to it.  When I left to go to college, I was the typical boy of the mid 1980s--fearful of being thought of as gay and using the word gay as an insult--disco is gay, for instance.  I never assaulted a person I thought to be gay or threatened them with an unwanted haircut (indeed, I was threatened with "shave-rape" during my summer in London by an asshole who was also on the program who did not like my beard), but I was homophobic, no doubt about it.

Then I met gays and lesbians and lived in an environment where these folks were just as normal and accepted as everyone else.  I got hit on once by a guy.  It surprised me (I was apparently as clueless about the same sex as about the opposite sex), but I didn't get angry or upset.  I guess I had evolved in college.  Not that I was necessarily any more secure about anything, but I guess I developed some empathy for people who were different and who were living difficult lives as a result.

I never found any reason to support efforts to craft laws to give gays and lesbians less rights.  I do not know when I started buying into my favorite amendment, the 14th--it just seems natural, logical, reasonable, sensible, fair, and just:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 It should have gone without saying, and it would have been nice if it did not require a civil war, but this one aspect of the Constitution is very much worth fighting a war.  Equal protection.  I cannot think of another way to put it that would be more fair, more right, more (dare I say it?) American.

I grew up in a culture where gays and lesbians were supposed to hide, and I am glad to see that "it gets better."  That one's sexuality need not be hidden, not even in the armed forces.  It is clear that society is still evolving, as gay marriage is becoming increasingly accepted, just as inter-racial marriage was once rare in many places and illegal in others but now accepted.  My daughter developed her attitudes from Buffy, which was revolutionary in a variety of ways but particularly when it came to treating a lesbian as normal teenager and as a hero.  For that Joss Whedon earned all of the money that the Avengers has accumulated.

While Obama may have taken his new stance because of political calculations, it is quite clear that the politicians and the party seeking to stop the flow of history are very much in it for political gain as well.  I would rather be cynical and doing what is right than be cynical and do what is wrong.  What is the difference?  Equal protection.

My views evolved on this awhile ago.  If you need help evolving yours, check this out.